2003 12 02 RDARedevelopment Agency Agendas are
Available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 2:00 P.M.
Beginning Resolution No. RA 2003-20
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call:
Agency Board Members: Adolph, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, and Chairperson Henderson
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on any
matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium.
CLOSED SESSION
NOTE: Time permitting, the Redevelopment Agency Board may conduct Closed Session
discussions during the dinner recess. In addition, persons identified as negotiating parties
are not invited into the Closed Session meeting when the Agency is considering acquisition
of real property.
1. CONFERENCE WITH THE AGENCY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, JERRY
HERMAN, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 CONCERNING
POTENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND
DUNE' PALMS ROAD (APN 649-030-034). PROPERTY OWNER/NEGOTIATOR:
SHIRLEY HAMMER.
Redevelopment Agency Agenda
December 2, 2003
2. CONFERENCE WITH AGENCY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, DODIE HORVITZ,
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 CONCERNING POTENTIAL
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF CALLE TAMPICO AND APPROXIMATELY 400
FEET EAST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE (APNs 770-123-065 AND 066). PROPERTY
OWNER/NEGOTIATOR ARLENE TURI AND GEORGE FENADY.
RECONVENE AT 3:00 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time members of the public may address the Agency Board on items that appear
within the Consent Calendar or matters that are not listed on the agenda. Please complete
a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. When you are called
to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. Please watch the
timing device on the podium.
For all Agency Business Session matters or Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed
"request to speak" form should be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Agency beginning
consideration of that item.
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine in nature and will be approved
by one motion.
1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED DECEMBER 2, 2003.
2. APPROVAL OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR
SILVERROCK RANCH TREE RELOCATION PROJECT NO. 2002-07A.
3. APPROVAL OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR
SILVERROCK RANCH MASS GRADING PROJECT NO. 2001-07B.
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 2 December 2, 2003 02
BUSINESS SESSION
1. CONSIDERATION OF ENTRY CONCEPT PLANS AND CONCEPTUAL PERIMETER
LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR SILVERROCK RANCH.
A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION
2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) TO PRE -QUALIFY
GOLF COURSE CONTRACTORS FOR SILVERROCK RANCH AND APPOINTMENT OF
THE CONTRACTOR SELECTION COMMITTEE.
A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION
3. CONSIDERATION OF COLLECTION OF MARINE SHELLS FROM THE SILVERROCK
RANCH SITE.
A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION
4. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN CONCEPT FOR GOLF CART BRIDGES FOR
SILVERROCK RANCH.
A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION
5. CONSIDERATION OF: 1) A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-489; 2) AGREEMENT FOR
PURCHASE AND SALE BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SHEILA
WELDON, TRUSTEE AND HER SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON
TRUST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 78-990 MILES AVENUE; 3) A CONTRACT
FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND OVERLAND
PACIFIC AND CUTLER, INC., FOR RELOCATION SERVICES; AND 4)
APPROPRIATION OF THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH BOTH.
A. RESOLUTION ACTION(S)
B. MINUTE ORDER ACTION
6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY REFERRING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT TO
AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT.
A. RESOLUTION ACTION
03
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 3 December 2, 2003
STUDY SESSION — NONE
CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS' ITEMS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY -APPROVED
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
CENTER POINT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, OF AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE IN LA QUINTA
PROJECT AREA NO. 2.
A. RESOLUTION ACTION
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Redevelopment Agency to be held on
December 16, 2003 commencing with closed session at 2:00 p.m. and open session at
3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Phyllis Manley, Assistant Agency Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare
that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency meeting of Tuesday,
December 2, 2003, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle
Tampico and on the bulletin board at the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce and at Stater
Bros. 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Wednesday, November 26, 2003.
DATED: November 26, 2003
PHYLLIS MANLEY, Assistant Agency Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
IF
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 4 December 2, 2003
T 6
4bf 4�Q�rw
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2003
ITEM TITLE:
Demand Register Dated December 2, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Redevelopment Agency Board:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION
CONSENT CALENDAR
STUDY SESSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Receive and File the Demand Register Dated December 2, 2003 of which $449,966.67
represents Redevelopment Agency Expenditures.
PLEASE SEE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NUMBER 1 ON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
05
/ T
F , Iry
U _ _
OF
AGENDA CATEGORY:
COUNCHJRDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003
ITEM TrrLE: Approval of the Plans, Specifications,
and Engineer's Estimate for the SilverRock Ranch
Tree Relocation Program, Project No. 2002-07A
RECOMMENDATION:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) and authorize staff
to advertise the bid of the SilverRock Ranch Tree Relocation Program, Project No.
2002-07A.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The SilverRock Ranch improvements are included within the Fiscal Year 2003/2004
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). On April 1, 2003, the Agency reviewed the
proposed budget from Chapman Golf for the first golf course, which included $1.5
million for landscaping the golf course.
Based upon the Engineer's estimate of probable construction costs in the amount
of $228,000.00, the following represents the anticipated project budget:
Activity Budget
Construction $228,000
Inspection/Testing/Survey $5,000
City Administration $5,000
Contingency $34,200
TOTAL: $272,200
As illustrated, the proposed budget is consistent with the landscape construction
estimate for the first golf course.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
06
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\RDA C 8.doc
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 CIP on May 20, 2003. This
year's CIP includes the construction of the first phase of the SilverRock Ranch
Municipal Golf Course.
This step of the project consists of removal, relocation and/or disposal of 236 trees
located within the SilverRock Ranch project site, located south of Avenue 54, west of
Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 52. Approximately 100 trees were found to be
either poor candidates for relocation by the arborist or of no value to the landscape
architect for the golf course. These trees will be disposed of during mass grading of
the site. The . relocated trees will either be replanted or boxed as specified within the
project specifications. The relocated trees will be placed within a temporary on -site
nursery. The on -site nursery will be graded and temporary irrigation for the relocated
plant material will be installed. The trees identified for disposal shall be removed from
the project site and disposed of in an appropriate manner.
The PS&E are now complete and are available for review within the City Public Works
Department.
Contingent upon Agency Board approval of the PS&E on December 2, 2003, the
following represents how the anticipated project is scheduled to proceed:
City Council Approval of PS&E December 2, 2003
Bid Period December 3, 2003 thru December 19, 2003
City Council Construction Award January 2004
Construction Period (60 days) January through March 2004
Project Acceptance April 2004
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate and authorize staff
to advertise the bid of the SilverRock Ranch Tree Relocation Program, Project
No. 2002-07A; or
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\RDA C 8.doc 07
2. Do not approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate and do not
authorize staff to advertise the bid of the SilverRock Ranch Tree Relocation
Program, Project No. 2002-07A; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
imothy R. Hass , P. E.
Public Work Direc or/City Engineer
Approved for submission by:
. V\A- J,, - C ---
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
2
08
T41y,,e 4 41%fP
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2 0 0 3
ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Plans, Specifications,
and Engineer's Estimate for the SilverRock Ranch
Mass Grading Project, Project No. 2002-07B
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR: 3
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) and authorize staff
to advertise the bid of the SilverRock Ranch Mass Grading Project, Project No. 2002-
07 B; and
Increase the City Manager's Contract Change Order authority, for this contract, to
$100,000.00, not to exceed a total of $200,000 without Agency authorization.
The SilverRock Ranch Improvements are included within the Fiscal Year 2003/2004
Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
On October 7, 2003 staff presented the Agency a $10.373 million budget for
constructing the first golf course, which included $2,245,000 for earthmoving,
clearing/site preparation, erosion control, mobilization, layout, staking, and bonding.
Additionally, the October budget included $500,000 for project contingencies.
Based upon the Engineer's estimate of probable construction costs in the amount of
$2,185,000.00, the following represents the anticipated project budget:
Activity Budget
Construction $2,185,000.00
City Administration $43,700.00
Contingency $327,750.00
TOTAL: $2,556,450.00
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\12-2-03\RDA C 9.doc
09
As illustrated, this budget is consistent with the construction estimate for the first golf
course. It should be noted that the cost for construction administration is included in
the contract for Heinbuch Golf. Additionally, staff requests that the City Manager's
contract change order authority for this contract be increased to $100,000 to insure
timely City response to changes in scope that may occur once this work is started.
This change order authority is equal to that granted previously by the City Council for
the Jefferson Street Improvement Project.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
Because this project is funded entirely with RDA funds, the contractor will be required
to pay prevailing wages.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 CIP on May 20, 2003. This
year's CIP includes the construction of the first phase of the SilverRock Ranch
Municipal Golf Course.
This step of development consists of mass grading the first golf course, driving range,
lakes, maintenance area, and hotel pad to within one-half foot of the final design
elevation based on Palmer Golf Course Design's grading plan for the first golf course and
GMA International's design for the hotel pad. The contractor will move approximately
1 . 1 million cubic yards of earth, creating the golf course features and the hotel site. As
part of the project, the contractor will be required to fence the entire property perimeter
with wind screening, stabilize all disturbed areas and provide a full-time dust control
monitor in accordance with the City's PM 10 Ordinance.
Contingent upon Agency Board approval of the PS&E on December 2, 2003, the
following represents how the project is expected to proceed:
City Council Approval of PS&E December 2, 2003
Bid Period
City Council Construction Award
Construction Period (90 days)
Project Acceptance
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\12-2-03\RDA C 9.doc
December 16, 2003 thru January 12,
2004
January 20, 2004
February through May 2004
June 2004
10 2
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate and authorize staff
to advertise the bid of the SilverRock Ranch Mass Grading Project, Project No.
2002-07B; and increase the City Manager's Contract Change Order authority,
for this contract, to $100,000.00, not to exceed a total of $200,000 without
Agency authorization; or
2. Do not approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate and do not
authorize staff to advertise the SilverRock Ranch Mass Grading Project, Project
No. 2002-07B; and do not increase the City Manager's Contract Change Order
authority, for this contract, to $100,000.00, not to exceed a total of $200,000
without Agency authorization; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
mothy R. ass , P.E.
Public Works Direc or/City Engineer
Approved for submission by:
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\12-2-03\RDA C 9.doc
11 3
a,
rou
of .rt9
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Entry Concept Plans and
Conceptual Perimeter Landscape Plans for SilverRock CONSENT CALENDAR:
Ranch
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the detailed Avenue 52 entry concept plan, the Jefferson Street and Avenue
54 entry concept plans, and conceptual perimeter landscape plans for SilverRock
Ranch.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None for this action. PACE has generated a cost estimate (Attachment 1) for the
Avenue 52 entry feature, which totals $756,000. Because the entry feature also
impacts the tournament and resort courses, PACE analyzed the dollar amounts that
can be allocated to each. Of the total cost, $254,415.05 can be allocated to .the
tournament course, $288,003.96 to the resort course, and the remaining
$213,580.99 is allocated strictly for the entry feature. Funds have not been
specifically allocated to entry features within the project budget allocation as of this
writing. Project contingencies total approximately $5.6 million.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
On June 17, 2003, the Agency Board approved a contract with GMA International for
master plan coordination services. The scope of work includes the preparation of a
water management plan (via a subcontract with PACE Engineering); a conceptual
grading and drainage plan; a detailed conceptual project entry plan for Avenue 52;
structural concept plans for Jefferson Street and Avenue 54; conceptual perimeter
landscape plans; review and analysis of the golf course design; and project website
maintenance.
12
At the November 4, 2003, RDA meeting, GMA presented detailed renderings of the
Avenue 52 entry. The meeting minutes are included as Attachment 2. Based on
Agency Board comments, GMA has further refined the Avenue 52 entry plan
(Attachment 3). The plan is being presented for Agency Board approval, which will
allow Agency consultants to finalize the mass grading plans.
GMA also introduced concepts for the Jefferson Street entry at the November 4, RDA
meeting. Three options were presented, of which alternative 3 was preferred
(Attachment 4). In addition, one concept for the Avenue 54 entry was also presented
(Attachment 5), which consisted of a simple design, as this is the proposed service
entrance to the project. Staff is requesting that the Agency review and, if found
acceptable, approve the Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 entry concepts. It should be
noted that GMA's scope of work under this contract includes the Jefferson Street and
Avenue 54 entry concepts only, as these elements are part of a future project phase.
For the conceptual perimeter landscaping (outside the golf course envelope), GMA has
further developed the plan (Attachment 6) based on Agency Board comments of
November 4. GMA will be presenting the conceptual perimeter landscape plan for
Agency Board consideration today. Upon approval, these plans will be the foundation
from which the Agency will solicit proposals for landscape architectural services.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Approve the detailed Avenue 52 entry concept plan, the Jefferson Street and
Avenue 54 entry concept plans, and conceptual perimeter landscape plans for
SilverRock Ranch; or
2. Approve one or more of the above -listed project components; or
3. Do not approve the detailed Avenue 52 entry concept plan, the Jefferson Street
and Avenue 54 entry concept plans, and conceptual perimeter landscape plans
for SilverRock Ranch; or
4. Provide staff with alternative direction.
1:3
2
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
Attachments: 1. PACE Cost Estimate for Avenue 52 Entry
2. Minutes of November 4, 2003 RDA Meeting
3. Detailed Avenue 52 Entry Concept Plan
4. Jefferson Street Entry Concept
5. Avenue 54 Entry Concept
6. Conceptual Perimeter Landscape Plans
14
3
ATTACHMENT 1
SILVERROCK RANCH
COST ESTIMATE
P.A.C.E.
7645E
November 26, 2003
November 20, 2003 (Revised)
Cost Estimate based on GMA's 30 scale colored exhibit.
Entry Feature:
1. Rough Grading
2. 30 mil PVC liner, includes subgrade prep. 132,600 sf @
0
4.
A
I
7.
a
10.
30 mil PVC liner, with 2" of concrete
veneer, includes subgrade prep.
Waterfall and pond excavation and
shaping
Lake shoreline, includes subgrade prep.,
liner, a 2' tall eroded near vertical, an 8" x
8" keyway and a 6' wide shelf.
Pond shoreline, includes subgrade prep,
liner and an 18" tall eroded near vertical.
Rock, grouted in place in waterfalls and in
shoreline. .
$.52/sf = $68,952
31,560 sf @ $2.00/sf = $63,120
L.S. = $20,000
3,360 If. @ $25.00/If = $84,000
1,770 If. @ $15.00/lf. . = $26, 550
900 to @$175.00/tn = $157, 500
Precast pump vault with pumping
equipment to recirculate approximately
10,000 GPM including valves and controls. Lump Sum
Pipe, includes all suction, discharge and
equalizer pipe and fittings. We have
assumed a 48" equalizer under entry road. Lump Sum =
Aeration, includes compressors, diffusers,
pipe, valves and fittings. Lump Sum =
Total Entry Feature: _
$49,878
50 000
$600,000
17)
Entry Fountain: (Semi Round Feature in Median Island)
1. Rough Grading
.X
2.
Waterfall excavation and shaping
L.S. = $5,000
3.
30 mil PVC liner, with 2" of concrete
veneer, includes subgrade prep.
6,900 sf @ $2.00/sf = $13,800
4.
Pond shoreline, includes subgrade prep,
liner and an 18" tall eroded near vertical.
360 If. @ $15.00/lf. = $5,400
5.
Rock, grouted in place in waterfalls and in
shoreline. Includes rock, for actual feature
only, no rock in adjacent landscape areas
or GFRC formations are included. This
work can be priced at a later date with
more information.
240 to @$175.00/tn = $42,000
6.
Precast pump vault with pumping
equipment to recirculate approximately
5,500 GPM including valves and controls.
Lump Sum = $60,000
9. Pipe, includes all suction and discharge
equalizer pipe and fittings. Lump Sum $29,800
Total Entry Fountain: _ $1569000
Total Water Feature at Avenue 52 per GMA Plan (11/17/03):
This estimate does not include:
1. Rough grading.
2. Electrical power to the pump station.
3. Dewatering and/or blasting, should this be necessary.
4. The cost of permits, fees, bonds, etc.
5. Vehicular bridge or footings required for access to special use area.
6. Pedestrian foot bridges over water features.
7. Adjacent landscaping, sidewalk, structures, etc.
8. We specifically exclude the small formal pool at entry median.
Comment & Recommendations:
1. Proposed plan is expansive & will be a spectacular entry.
2. To reduce cost primary considerations would be:
a. Reduce lineal footage of waterfalls
b. Reduce square footage of water area
c. Eliminate or reduce entry fountain
$756,000
165
Water Feature Cost Breakdown:
Entry Feature $213,580.99
Tournament Course $254,415.05
Resort Course $288,003.96
Total $756,000.00
ATTACHMENT 2
Redevelopment Agency Minutes
November 4, 2003
end result being a detailed landscape irrigation plan, which wil
submitted to CVWD for approval.
In response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Krebs confir the master
plan deals with the entire project. He stated the "co
r delivered from
CVWD will be 100% canal water with a 100% kup of well water.
The canal water will run through thZ11lakesyls m, which has aeration
and filtration mechanisms that alland reduction of the
nutrient loading. He indicated the of the canal water is
approximately 450-550 parts per mi
Board Member Sniff stated he inks it is closer to 900-1,000 parts
per million. He commented n the importance of water to the project
and a need for strong as rance that the water will be there.
MOTIZProf
moved by Board Members Perkins/Osborne to
approal Services Agreement with PACE, Inc. to provide
Watesign Services for the SilverRock Ranch project,and aecutive Director to execute the contract. Motion
carriewith Board Member Adolph ABSENT.
The gency Board concurred to take up Study Session Item No. 2 at this
tip6e.
STUDY SESSION ............ continued
2. DISCUSSION OF ENTRY CONCEPT PLANS AND CONCEPTUAL
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR SILVERROCK RANCH.
Acting Executive Director Weiss presented the staff report.
Board Member Osborne asked what is planned for the northeast corner
of the project.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Gil Martinez, of GMA
International, stated they believe the northeast corner may be a good
place to use boulders and monumentation for the project.
Chairperson Henderson noted use of the 40 acres at that corner has
not been determined except for some discussion about using it for
parking.
Redevelopment Agency Minutes
November 4, 2003
Steve Garcia, of GMA International reviewed the revised entry concept
for Avenue 52, three options for the Jefferson Street entry, and an
entry concept for Avenue 54 He confirmed option #3 for Jefferson
Street, which is their preferred option, would have the greatest impact
on the second golf course. He referenced the zone water allocations,
and stated zone #1 has been reserved for the perimeter to provide the
most latitude for development of the landscape concepts. He stated
the plant palette for the perimeter landscaping is consistent with
plants to be used on the tournament course.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Martinez confirmed the
perimeter elevation levels will vary.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Garcia confirmed there
would be an additional cost to using colored concrete in the
walkways.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Martinez stated a
combination of wrought -iron fencing and berms will be used along the
perimeter.
Board Member Osborne spoke in support of the Avenue 52 entry as
presented.
Board Member Perkins concurred.
Board Member Sniff voiced concern about the amount of water in the
entry concept and the lack of a basic combination of water -and -desert
look. He feels it looks a lot like the northwest instead of a desert
area.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Weiss stated the plant
palette for the golf course was presented under Business Item No. 1
but can be brought back if the Agency wishes.
In response to Board Member Perkins, Mr. Weiss confirmed the
perimeter landscaping can be separate from the golf course but noted
GMA has suggested that the two landscaping areas be consistent.
Mr. Martinez noted the Sonoran Desert look is more difficult to
maintain.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Weiss confirmed bringing
the golf course plant palette back could delay the project and
19
G
Redevelopment Agency Minutes
November 4, 2003
suggested transmitting any changes to Palmer Course Design as soon
as possible.
Chairperson Henderson suggested discussing the plant palette and
• have staff relay that discussion to Palmer Course Design. In reference
to the perimeter concept presented this evening, she questioned the
need for all of the rest and viewing areas. She likes the entry
statement but suggested additional thought be given to placing
boulders in the entries. She noted the water, in the entry is part of the
overall water plan, including the current retention basin.
Board Member Perkins stated he likes the Avenue 52 entry and agrees
with adding some boulders.
Chairperson Henderson suggested mellowing out on the edges of the
entry landscaping with some desert look.
Mr. Martinez stated they support the more desert look and have
discussed the plant palette with Palmer Course Design and Pinnacle
Design Group, especially where the perimeter landscaping is
contiguous with the tournament course. He noted the landscape
design process is somewhat evolving. In referencing the perimeter
landscaping of surrounding developments, he stated they are trying to
create SilverRock Ranch as its own identity.
Chairperson Henderson suggested not being too elaborate with the
pedestrian areas along the perimeter.
Mr. Martinez stated the rest areas are not intended to be an attraction
but rather a natural -looking place for joggers to sit, maybe on
boulders, and be able to view the golf course. He stated they will be
careful not to include too many rest areas. He then asked for the
Agency's input on the three Jefferson Street entry alternatives. He
indicated they do not have acreages for the three alternatives at this
time.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Martinez confirmed the
acreage was reduced in Phase I, which provides more acreage for the
second course.
Board Member Perkins stated he supports alternative #3.
Chairperson Henderson agreed with working with alternative #3
without getting out of control on the design.
20
Redevelopment Agency Minutes
November 4, 2003
Mr. Martinez stated it's his understanding that the Agency prefers
going with the Sonoran Desert feel as opposed to an ornamental feel.
In summary, Mr. Weiss stated the entry will be designed with more
boulders along with some desert feel, fewer rest areas will be along
the perimeter, and alternative #3 will be used to design the Jefferson
Street entry concept.
In reference to the golf course plant palette, Board Member Osborne
stated he would like to see more shade trees and less palm trees.
Mr. Weiss stated staff has discussed shade trees around the tee boxes
with Palmer Course Design and will make sure that is related to
Pinnacle Design Group. In reference to Business Item No. 1, he noted
there was some discussion about lengthening the 14t' hole but it's his
understanding that there was not a consensus to change the design of
that hole.
Board Member Osborne stated he is comfortable with whatever design
Palmer Course Design is comfortable with.
Chairperson Henderson stated she is hard pressed to believe Palmer
Course Design doesn't know what they are doing in designing this
course. She suggested asking Palmer Course Design if there is an
option for putting in another tee box just for pros.
Board Member Perkins stated he is comfortable going with the design
outlined by Palmer Course Design.
Board Member Sniff stated he feels there is a reasonable opportunity
to have some pepper trees, palo verde trees, and a few strategically
located shade structures where golfers can sit for a few minutes.
Chairperson Henderson noted each golfing group will be on a very
tight schedule and questioned wanting them to sit. She likes acacia
trees but noted some beautiful -looking trees may not be appropriate,
maintenance,wise, for a golf course.
Board Member Perkins noted the water use for each type of tree has
to be taken into consideration.
Board Member Sniff noted not everyone on the golf course will be
golfers, and he feels maybe four shade structures along the walking
trails would be good.
Redevelopment Agency Minutes
November 4, 2003
Mr. Weiss stated there will be a trail along the road system leading to
the hotel and hopefully one adjacent to the mountains but not within
the golf course play area. He suggested the possibility of
incorporating shade structures in the pedestrian and trail systems.
BUSINESS SESSION .......... continued
4. CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AN SALE
BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SHEILA ELDON,
TRUSTEE AND HER SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER T WELDON
TRUST, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 78-990 MI S AVENUE
SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF E IRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTATION AS REQUIRED BY T CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
Consultant Frank Spevacek presented the staff/report.
In response to Board Member Perkins, My Spevacek stated the cost
averages out to approximately $140,000/fper unit.
Board Member Sniff suggested the
something other than modular
affordable units.
Asibility of using the property for
its to increase the number of
Community DevelopmYJrector Herman stated changing the
property from low-densidential would require a general plan
amendment and zone, which the neighboring single family
residential properties wobably not support.
Chairperson Hender n agreed it would be nice to have more units but
noted the City w is the end product to be superior with more open
space than what urrently exists.
Board Memb,P& Sniff noted two-story apartments would provide more
open space
Chairper on Henderson stated she doesn't feel a single family
residerAial area is a good place to put two-story apartments.
OTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Osborne to approve
e form of the Agreement for Purchase and Sale subject to successful
11
ATTACHMENT 3
a
Ct
LO
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTAC H M"E N T 6
m
N
cew C.
Joe ser
4 V QUMAU
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of a Request for
Qualification (RFQ) to Pre -Qualify Golf Course
Contractors for SilverRock Ranch and Appointment of
the Contractor Selection Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Authorize the distribution of Requests for Qualification (RFQ) for General Engineering
Contractors for SilverRock Ranch and appoint the Contractor Selection Committee.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City's Capital Improvement Program includes the SilverRock Ranch project and has
$1 1,373,750 budgeted for Phase I of the golf course and village lake construction, to
be bid on by the pre -qualified contractors.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The Redevelopment Agency acquired 525 acres of property, commonly referred to as
"The Ranch," in June of 2002. The Agency adopted a conceptual land use plan and
renamed the project "SilverRock Ranch" in May 2003. The Agency selected Palmer
Course Design Company (PCDC) to provide golf course architectural services and Roy
Stephenson, P.E., of Berryman & Henigar, to serve as Development Coordinator for
Phase I of the project. In addition, the balance of the design and management team is
essentially in place to design the support infrastructure and manage construction and
golf course grow -in.
The mass grading of the site is programmed to start in January 2004, followed closely
by construction of the golf course, planned to start in March 2004, with grassing
installed by August 2004 to allow proper grow -in through opening of the golf course in
January 2005.
The design of the golf course is underway and scheduled for completion by January
2004. The other design services, including Civil Engineering, Water Management
r 31
Engineering, Building Architecture, and Landscape Architecture are scheduled for
completion by July 2004, allowing the separate contracts for non -golf course
infrastructure to be advertised for bids, awarded, and constructed by January 2005.
The construction of a premier golf course warrants pre -qualification of contractors,
with extensive experience in projects like SilverRock Ranch, to bid on the construction
contract for the first golf course. The Request for Qualifications is included as
Attachment 1.
General Qualification RFQ
The RDA seeks contractors with experience in construction of high quality golf
courses, particularly in a desert environment. The work includes, but is not limited to,
shaping, construction of fairways, greens, tees, lakes, bunkers, irrigation systems, cart
paths, water features, drainage systems, and pump stations.
Contractors shall submit statements of qualifications, and will be evaluated, based on
their experience with projects of similar size, scope, and complexity. Prospective
contractors must demonstrate general and specific experience, claim and surety
history, ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, and skills in general
management and coordination. Resumes of key personnel who will manage and
supervise the construction shall be provided in the RFQ response.
Contractors must hold a valid Class "A" license at the time of award and must provide
ability to obtain corporate surety bonds and insurance in order to be eligible for the pre -
qualification (RFQ) evaluation.
Since the site may be used to host PGA (Professional Golf Association) events, the
quality of the work will be of the utmost importance. Construction standards will be
extremely high as the RDA's expectations as to the quality of the final product are
extremely high. Finished work must conform to and/or exceed the quality standards
established by the PGA Tour.
Contractor Selection Committee
Staff proposes the Contractor Selection Committee include the following members:
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
Tim Jonasson, Public Works Director
Roy Stephenson, Development Coordinator
Gary Heinbuch, Construction Manager
32
2
The RFQ is set up so that the Contractor Selection Committee reviews the responses
for completeness in accuracy, administration experience and management capability,
specific golf course experience, and overall organization and presentation of the
submittal.
The Contractor Selection Committee will recommend to the Agency Board all qualified
contractors for consideration of approval to bid on the golf course project.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Authorize the distribution of RFQ's for General Engineering Contractors and
appoint the Contractor Selection Committee; or
2. Do not authorize the distribution of RFQ's for General Engineering Contractors
and do not appoint the Contractor Selection Committee; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
Attachments: 1. General Engineering Contractor RFQ
3
33
ATTACHMENT?
Request For Qualifications
The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is soliciting responses
to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from General Engineering
Contractors interested in bidding on the contract for the SilverRock
Ranch 18 hole Championship Golf Course . Project located in La
Quinta, California.
The RDA seeks contractors with experience in construction of high
quality golf courses, particularly in a desert environment. The work
includes but is not limited to, shaping, construction of fairways,
greens, tees, lakes, bunkers, irrigation systems, cart paths, water
features, drainage systems, and pump stations.
The golf course is scheduled for mass grading to a tolerance of ± 6
inches by a separate contract to be awarded in January 2004 and
completed by March 2004.
The golf course is currently under design by Palmer Course Design
and the bid documents will be completed by January 2004. The RDA
has budgeted $11,000,000 to construct the golf course. The RDA
anticipates selecting contractors, through this pre -qualification
process, as qualified to submit a bid on the project, prior to
completion of the bid documents.
Contractors shall submit qualifications and will be evaluated based on
their experience on projects of similar size, scope and complexity.
Prospective contractors must demonstrate general and specific
experience, claim and surety history, ability to meet schedule and
budget requirements, and skills in general management and
coordination. Resumes of key personnel who will manage and
supervise the construction shall be provided in the RFQ response. -
Contractors must hold a valid Class "A" license at the time of award
and must demonstrate ability to obtain corporate surety bonds and
insurance in order to be eligible for the pre -qualification (RFQ)
evaluation.
4
34
An orientation conference and site walk-through will be held at 9:00
a.m. on December 18, 2003, at the site. Attendance at the
conference is strongly recommended for all interested contractors to
enable them to prepare an acceptable response to the RFQ.
NOTE: Since the site may be used to host PGA (Professional
Golf Association) Events, the quality of the work will. be
the utmost importance. Construction standards will be
extremely high as the RDA's expectations as to the
quality of the final product are extremely high. Finished
work must conform to and/or exceed the quality
standards established by the PGA Tour.
The support infrastructure outside the golf course envelope is not
included in this RFQ, but will be bid separately.
5 35
Ranch Vision
The SilverRock Ranch's canvas spans 525 acres adjacent to the
base of the Coral Reef Mountains in the City of La Quinta. The
RDA's goal is to develop premiere hospitality and golf venues that
become must -see destinations in the Coachella Valley. The final
development will be crafted as if it had evolved over time by melding
the rich hues of the desert and strong architectural elements inspired
by the site with rusticated materials.
The Agency has discussed the proposed buildings architectural style
as one that captures a sense of lightness and beauty that's found in
styles similar to a California Colonial or other southwest Spanish look
or theme, keeping with the charm and character of the City of La
Quinta.
Environmental approvals have been secured to develop the following
uses on SilverRock Ranch: a 250-room hotel with a 10,000 square
foot conference center; 300 condo hotel or fractional units with up to
500 keys; two 18-hole public golf courses with a driving range and a
25,000 square foot clubhouse; one 9-hole public golf course; and
25,000 square feet of ancillary tourist commercial uses. Additional
approved uses entail passive park space, trails, and view corridors.
The RDA approved a Master Plan for the project in May 2003. The
Master Plan sets forth a preferred site development program and plan
that will guide the precise planning processes. GMA International
has been managing this activity and prepared the master plan and
associated documents. Their work will be available to the selected
organization. The RDA has secured funding to facilitate the
development of one golf course and associated improvements.
Additional information may be found at the project website:
www.silverrockranch.com
6 36
Regional Location
37
Ranch Location
0
I. PREQUALIFICATION AND BIDDING PROCESS
Prequalification Process:
1. Prequalification of contractors will be based on prior
construction experience on projects of similar complexity, staffs
professional capabilities and ability to meet insurance and
bonding requirements. For more details, see Section II,
Response Requirements. The minimum requirements have
been established to determine which contractors are qualified
for the successful and timely performance of the type of work
required by this project.
2. After the deadline for receipt of the responses to the RFQ, the
RDA will review of all RFQ responses received. All Contractors
who have submitted a package will be notified in writing as to
whether or not they have been pre -qualified.
3. The RDA reserves the right to reject any or all responses and to
waive any irregularities in any responses received.
4. If the RDA staff determines a respondent to this RFQ to be not
qualified, then the respondent may appeal the decision to the
Agency Board.
5. It is critical that a contractor provide accurate, complete and
truthful information to the best of his/her knowledge.
Ambiguities or incomplete information may lead to RFQ
responses being deemed non -responsive and the contractor
will be disqualified.
6. If a respondent objects on any ground to any bid specification
or legal requirement imposed by this RFQ, the bidder shall, not
more than ten calendar days after the RFQ is issued, provide
written notice to the RDA setting forth with specificity the
grounds for the objection. The failure of a bidder to object in
the manner set forth in this paragraph shall constitute a
complete and irrevocable waiver of any such objection.
9
B. Bidding Process:
1. Plans and specifications will be provided upon request to
all pre -qualified contractors. '
2. The construction contract, if awarded, will be awarded to
the pre -qualified responsible contractor submitting the
lowest responsive bid. The RDA reserves the right to
change the project criteria at any time prior to bidding.
3. A contractor wishing to be pre -qualified should be aware
that if he/she is the successful low bidder, he/she must
comply with all bid conditions including, but not limited to:
a. Furnishing satisfactory corporate surety bonds, refer
to Section III.
b. Maintaining required insurance, refer to .Section 111.
10 i
II. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS: (SEE ALSO APPENDIX A)
A. Response Content Requirements:
Responses shall be submitted in ten (10) bound copies on 81/2" x 11"
format. Each copy shall include, in order, the following:
A letter of Interest and company organizational chart. Provide
the following in the letter:
1. A statement as to whether the contractor is an individual,
partnership, corporation or joint venture.
2. State of California Contractor's License No. and
designation.
3. Name of person(s) authorized to make representation on
behalf of the contractor, including his/her address and
telephone number.
4. Five references to include owners, construction managers
and professional designers, and a brief outline of
significant accomplishments which demonstrate that the
contractor is qualified to provide the required services
based on the description of the project provided.
5. Capacity to perform general construction contracting
services by providing information on past projects, which
were high profile, complex, time and budget sensitive.
6. Management capabilities, including scheduling
techniques, cost control procedures, and communication
and coordination procedures. The firm's organizational
chart should be included as an attachment to the letter.
B. Management Plan:
1. Provide an organizational chart and personnel directory
for a project similar in scope and size to this project.
2. Provide complete qualification information for a minimum
of two Project Managers and two Superintendents, one of
11 41.
whom will be assigned to this project: see Appendix A,
Prequalification Questionnaire, Item 5, Management
Personnel Data.
3. Define chain of command and delegation of
responsibilities (roles/responsibilities matrix) that includes
levels of authority of personnel to act on behalf of the firm
for decisions such as stoppages of work, agreement for
changes in cost or time, etc. Provide decision -making
flow chart.
4. Describe the plan to manage, schedule, control and
integrate subcontractors and suppliers. Include methods
for controlling and reviewing submittals, proposals and
the flow of communications with chart.
5. List trades normally performed by the contractor's own
forces.
C. Cost/Change Control Procedures:
1. Outline the approach, policies and procedures for the
management and control of changes in the work including
procedures for processing/managing Requests for
Information (RFI's), Contractor Requested Changes
(CRC's), Owner Requested Changes (ORC's) and
changes for differing site conditions.
2. Describe how schedule impacts are assessed and what
means are employed to mitigate impact.
3. Describe policies and procedures for screening
subcontractor proposals, and claims, and actions on
behalf of subcontractors during negotiations.
4. Describe Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP)
procedures and processes used and organizational
structure.
D. Schedule Controls Procedures:
12 4
1. Provide evidence of knowledge and capability to prepare
and utilize schedules as a means of Project control.
2. Provide history of effectiveness of scheduling on other
projects of similar size and complexity together with
references.
3. Identify staff member responsible for preparing,
monitoring and managing project schedule.
4. Describe scheduling methods and procedure to be used
for managing daily activities including those of
subcontractors.
E. Quality Assurance/Quality Control: (QA/QC)
1. Describe the firm's QA/QC history and approach.
2. Describe the methods and approach to implement and
achieve a successful Contractor initiated QA/QC Program
on this project.
3. Describe specific QC procedures for ensuring the quality
of:
• Constructabil ity/coord i nation reviews and the
generation of requests for information/clarifications.
• Shop drawing and materials submittals.
• Materials, equipment, assemblies and subassemblies
supplied for incorporation in the work.
• Workmanship by the respective trades.
• Coordination of the trades.
Testing and start-up procedures.
• Operations and maintenance manuals, procedures,
and training supplied to the owner.
13
43
• Remedial work/punch-list corrections.
4. Identify staff member(s) responsible for implementing the
QA/QC Program and indicate the company structure and
reporting scheme.
F. Safety Program:
1. Describe the proposed safety program and how it will be
implemented on this project. Identify the staff member
who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining
the safety program, and indicate to whom he/she reports.
2. Provide history of effectiveness of safety programs on
other projects, and outline any areas of improvement that
may be implemented .on this project.
G. Prequalification Questionnaire:
Complete the Prequalification Questionnaire found in Appendix A.
Indicate "Repeat clients" on the forms if applicable.
14 44
III. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Complete Response: All responses shall be complete, including all
required information and attachments in order to be responsive and
eligible for prequalification.
B. Orientation Conference: For the dissemination of information and
clarification of the intent of this RFQ, an orientation conference will be
held at 9:00 a.m. December 18, 2003 at the site. The conference will
include a job site tour. The RDA's Project Manager and prime
designers will be present at the orientation conference to answer
questions. Attendance at this conference and job site tour is highly
recommended for understanding the project and for the preparation
of an RFQ response.
C. Insurance Requirements: The contractor shall maintain in full force
and effect, for the period covered by the contract, the following
insurance:
1. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with limits not less
than $5,000,000 per each occurrence combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage, including coverages for
contractual liability, personal injury, independent contractors,
explosion, collapse and underground (XCU), broadform
property damage, products liability, and completed operations.
2. Comprehensive or Business Automobile Liability insurance with
limits not less than $1,000,000 per each occurrence combined
single limit for bodily injury and property damage, including
coverages for owned, non -owned, and hired automobiles, as
applicable.
3. Workers' Compensation in statutory limits and Employers'
Liability Insurance, with limits not less than $1,000,000 per
accident.
4. Builders Coverage (Risk) Insurance with limits not less than the
full amount of the contract. A floater may be accepted, but
must include proper coverage for excavation, grading,
drainage, sudden/accidental excavation pollution, utility failure,
and utility connections.
15
45
All insurance shall be placed with an insurance carrier(s)
satisfactory to the City and licensed through the Department of
Insurance to conduct insurance business in California.
Final limits and conditions of insurance will be determined at
the time of contract bidding by the City.
D. Bonding Requirements: At the time of execution of contract, the
contractor shall file with the City the following bonds:
1. A corporate surety bond, in a sum not less than 100 percent of
the amount of the contract, to guarantee the faithful
performance of the Contract.
2. A corporate surety bond, in a sum not less than 100 percent of
the amount of the contract, to guarantee the payment of wages
for services engaged and of bills contracted for materials,
supplies, and equipment used in the performance of the
contract.
Corporate sureties on these bonds and on bonds
accompanying bids shall be legally authorized and licensed
through the California Department of Insurance to engage in
the business of furnishing surety bonds in the State of
California. All sureties shall have an "A 10" rating in Bests
Rating Guide and be satisfactory to the RDA.
16 46
IV. QUALIFICATIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
Contractors who meet the following minimum requirements will have their
responses evaluated for prequalification. Contractors who do not meet
these minimum requirements will automatically be deemed not
prequalified.
• Possession of Class A license.
• Have not had a surety finish work on any contract in the past five (5
years) or can demonstrate their current financial security and
responsibility to the satisfaction of the RDA.
The Materials submitted in response to , this RFQ must establish the
qualifications of the proposer to perform the scope of work. Contractors
whose responses are complete and who meet the minimum requirements
will have their responses evaluated by the criteria described below.
Responses must include all required attachments and submittals. The
RDA reserves the right to reject any proposal if the contractor fails to
include all required information.
A. General Experience and, Management Capability: Evaluation will
include: capability to perform general contracting services on a high
profile, complex, time and budget sensitive project, firm's scheduling
techniques to demonstrate the capacity and flexibility to meet project
schedules, including unexpected work; cost control, communication
and coordination procedures; and organization of the firm to
understand the overall management capability of the contractor.
B. Specific Experience: Experience in golf course construction
projects including shaping, fairway greens, tees and bunkers,
irrigation systems, lakes, water features, cart paths, and pump
stations.
Contractors shall have completed projects which involved a
combination of the above criteria on projects of a similar or greater
scope in order to be pre -qualified for bidding. Although not a
requirement, having completed similar work under similar time
constraints, for projects that will subsequently host major PGA TOUR,
or USGA events will be strongly considered.
17
47
C. Qualifications of Team: Professional background of firms, caliber
and experience of all personnel and staffing capabilities for the
project should be addressed (i.e. specific individuals, their roles and
their commitments to this project). General Contractor shall have
experience in major golf course construction projects.
Superintendent coordinating work shall have minimum 10 years
experience in similar work. Describe the experience and availability
of subcontractors for systems such as irrigation, grading, etc (if not
performed by the General Contractor).
D. Responsibility: Evaluation will be based on ability to complete
projects in a timely manner, to produce and maintain required CPM
schedules, to adhere to budgetary constraints, to refrain from filing
and indulging in frivolous and excessive claims and litigious actions.
E. Overall Evaluation: Evaluation will include presentation,
organization and completeness of submittal, project approach,
responsiveness to program requirements and awareness of
construction processes required for this type of project.
If, at the sole discretion of the RDA an evaluation is not reasonably
practicable due to insufficient information in the Letter of Intent,
Prequalification Questionnaire or requested supporting materials, an
evaluation will not be undertaken by the RDA and the Contractor will
not be pre -qualified.
18 48
V. RDA's RIGHTS AND OTIONS
The RDA reserves the right to postpone selection for its own
convenience, to withdraw this Request for Qualifications at any time,
and to reject any and all submittals without indicating any reason for
such rejection. As a function of the RFQ process, the RDA reserves
the right to remedy technical errors in response to the RFQ and to
modify the published scope of services. The RDA will reserve the
right to request that specific personnel with specific expertise be
added to the team, if the RDA determines that specific expertise is
lacking in the project team. Statements and other materials
submitted will not be returned.
The RDA reserves the right to abandon this RFQ process and/or
change its procurement process for the contract at any time if it is
determined that abandonment and/or change would be in the RDA's
best interest. In the event of an abandonment or change, the RDA
will not be liable to any contractor for any costs or damages arising
out of its response to the RFQ.
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Ten (10) copies, of 8 Y2" x 11" format of responses with supporting
material are due by 4:00 p.m., January 9, 2004, and should be mailed
or delivered to :
Mr. Mark Weiss
Acting Executive Director/Project Manager
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
PO Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
All questions regarding SilverRock Ranch and this Request for
Qualifications should be directed to Mark Weiss via email at
mweisse-la-guinta.orq.
19 49
B. Responses should include the following items as described in Section
II Response Requirements and Appendix A, Prequalification
Questionnaire:
1. Letter of interest and corporate organizational chart
2. Management Plan
3. Cost/Change Order Procedures
4. Schedule Control Procedures
5. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
6. Safety Program
7. Prequalification Questionnaire: Appendix A
Project Experience
• Safety Experience
Organization Date
Financial Information including letter regarding bonding
capacity from surety company
• Management Personnel Data
General Comments
Additional Data
20 1
Selection Process
A Contractor Selection Committee will review the Statements of
Qualifications. The Committee will select the qualified contractors for
consideration by the Agency Board based upon the materials
submitted in the response to the RFQ.
The tentative schedule is as follows:
Issue Request for Qualifications
Orientation conference
Responses Due
Selection Committee Review
Agency Board consideration
December 3, 2003
December 18, 2003
January 9, 2003
January 14, 2003
January 20, 2003
This solicitation does not commit the La Quinta Redevelopment
Agency to award a contract, to pay any cost incurred with the
preparation of a SOQ, or to procure or contract for services or
supplies. The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency reserves the right to
accept or reject any or all SOQ received in response to this request.
21 ,1
APPENDIX A
PREQUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The following statements are to be submitted with the RFQ response. The contractor
guarantees the truthfulness and accuracy of the information.
1. Project Experience:
List the following types of projects completed within the past ten (10) years:
A. A minimum of four (4) projects, each with total construction costs in the
ranges of $3412 million;
B. A minimum of two (2) golf course construction projects with a similar
scope where the total project was in excess of $8 million;
For each project listed, provide the following:
D. Project description:
Location:
Start Date:
Planned Completion Date: Actual Completion Date:
Bid Price: Final Cost:
Liquidated Damages assessed: Yes No Amount: $
General Contractor:
Sub -Contractor:
If General Contractor, number of subcontractors employed:
Owner Representative: Name/Title:
Address: Tel: ( )
Landscape Architect/Engineer:
Name/Title:
Address:
Construction Manager: Name/Title:
Address:
Tel: ( )
Tel: ( )
22 52
E. A statement as to:
1. (a) Whether the project was completed within the original
contract duration specified in the contract specification.
(b) If not completed within the original contract duration, state the
original contract duration, the actual duration required to
complete the project and the detailed reason(s) for the delay.
2. (a) Whether the project specification required the
contractor to furnish a CPM schedule and update CPM
schedules.
(b) If the answer to the foregoing is yes, state whether or
not the contractor furnished updated CPM schedules in
conformance and within the time schedules specified in the
contract specifications.
(c) If the answer to the foregoing is no, explain why the contractor
was unable or did not furnish them as required.
3. (a) Whether the project was completed within the original
contract bid price.
(b) If not, state the original contract amount and the final
modified contract amount.
4. (a) Whether any claims/lawsuits arising from the
construction of the project were filed against the owner.
(b) If yes, describe in detail the reasons why the claim or lawsuit
was filed. State the amount of the claim/lawsuit.
(c) If settled, state the amount of the settlement. If tried, state the
result and the amount of the judgment/verdict.
(d) For each lawsuit filed, state the case name and number, date
and court where filed.
2. Safety Experience:
The following statement as to the safety experience of the contractor is submitted
with the response to the RFQ, as part thereof, and the contractor guarantees the
truthfulness and accuracy of information.
A. Use your last year's CAL/OSHA 200 log to fill in the following number of
injuries and illnesses:
1. Number of lost workday cases
23 53
2. Number of medical treatment cases
3. Number of fatalities
B. List any contracts on which the contractor (any member of the contractor's
organization) received an unsatisfactory performance rating, was cited for
OSHA violations or failed to complete work.
Explain. Show for whom work was performed.
D. State the name of your firm's safety engineer/manager:
3. Organization Data:
A. The contractor's organization has been in business as a contractor under
its present business name for years, from
B. The contractor's organization has had experience in work comparable with
that required under the proposed contract, as a general contractor,
years; as a subcontractor years.
C. The contractor's License Number, State CA Class
4. Financial Information
A. The contractor refers to the following bank(s) as to financial responsibility
of the contractor:
NAME OF BANK ADDRESS
B. The contractor refers to the following surety company or companies as to
the financial responsibility and general reliability of the contractor:
Name of Surety Company:
Address:
Name of Surety Company:
Address:
C. Provide a letter from a surety company indicating that the required
bonding capacity for this project if the Notice to Proceed were to be issued
on March 1, 2004.
5. Management Personnel Data:
Furnish the following information regarding the qualification of two (2) Project
Managers and two (2) Project Superintendents, one of whom will be assigned to
this project. Failure to provide and furnish complete information may cause the
response to the RFQ to be rejected. RESUMES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN
LIEU OF THIS REQUIREMENT.
Provide the following for each Project Manager and each Project Superintendent
listed:
1. Project Position:
2. Name of Proposed Person:
Address:
Telephone:
Name, Address, and Telephone Number of Contractor/Subcontractor
Employer:
3. License Number:
4. Percentage of time to be spent on site:
Expiration Date:
5. Project Experience: Provide the following information for a minimum of
five (5) projects on which this individual has held the position noted in item
(a) Project Name:
Start Date and Completion Date:
Contract Price:
Name, Address and Telephone Number of Owner's
Representative:
Name, Address and Telephone Number of Architect/Engineer:
25 5
Name, Address and Telephone Number of Construction Manager:
Project Description:
26 1,96
6. General Comments:
Based on your experience with projects of similar scale and complexity and on
the information provided to you on this project, discuss five issues which you feel
are critical of the successful completion of this project.
27 57
7. Additional Data:
Material and data not specifically requested for evaluation, but which the
contractor feels is essential, must not appear in the proposal section, but may
appear only in this section. If there is no additional data the contractor wishes to
present, this section should consist of the statement, "There is no additional data
we wish to present."
Information submitted must be arranged in the proposal in the same order in
which it is requested in the RFQ submittal checklist. Please provide at least one
project example when responding to each item. When indicating a reference,
please provide the name and phone number of a contact who was/is involved in
the daily operations of the project described. When describing methods,
techniques or procedures for performing a particular operation, indicate the
persons responsible for ensuring completing and success of that operation.
Provide at least one reference. where procedures have been successfully
employed.
28 58
. Sep CU
4 QumrA
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: November 4, 2003
ITEM TITLE:
Consideration of Collection of Marine Shells from the
SilverRock Ranch Site
RECOMMENDATION:
As deemed appropriate by the Redevelopment Agency.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION: v
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Dependent upon the direction of the Agency Board, the costs associated with the
collection of marine shells from the SiliverRock Ranch project are estimated at $4,100.
Funds from the construction account for the SilverRock Ranch (#401-723-609-553)
can be used for this project.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
At the November 4, 2003 Redevelopment Agency Board meeting, the Agency Board
commented on the need to collect and preserve the small sea shells on the SilverRock
Ranch property (Attachment 1).
Three different marine shells have been found on the surface of the SliverRock Ranch
property. Two of the specimens were found along the dyke of the All American Canal
and the third specimen was found north of the golf school in the soft soil.
With the assistance of biologists, the three types of shells found on the SilverRock
Ranch property were identified, and are shown on Attachment 2. The two specimens
found along the canal are Bivalvia Cardin/a and Bivalvia Gryphaea (white clam shells),
199
which are freshwater invertebrate and were most likely deposited along the canal dyke
as a byproduct of the dredging of the canal.
The Opisthobrancia Acteonina (conch) shells found north of the golf school in the soft
soil are salt water invertebrate and could have lived in the area when the Sea of Cortez
filled this area several centuries ago. According to Dr. Paul Beatty, it is not uncommon
to find these shells throughout the Coachella Valley.
The conch shells could be collected from the surface of the SilverRock Ranch property.
Due to the size of the shells and the scattered locations, the collection of shells would
require hand Labor. The collection of shells could become a community event by
inviting non-profit organizations associated with the four schools located in the City to
apply for an opportunity to collect shells as a fund raising event hosted by the
Community Services Department.
A possible program for the event could include the following components:
Notifying the non-profit organizations associated with Adams School, Truman
School, La Quinta Middle School and La Quinta High School of the opportunity
to participate;
The number of organizations collecting shells could be limited to 10
organizations with 20 members each;
If many organizations apply, a lottery system could be used to determine the
groups that are selected to participate in the shell collection event;
Each organization would be asked to collect a pre -determined amount of shells,
either by weight or volume;
For each organization that collects the agreed upon amount of shells, the
agency could donate a specific amount to that organization.
Once the shells have been collected, the material could be stored at the City yard until
a specific need has been identified.
The estimated costs associated with the collection of marine shells are as follows:
Collection and storage containers $ 200
Refreshments $ 500
Contributions to Organizations $2,500
(10 organizations X $250 per organization)
�o
Staff overtime
Miscellaneous costs
Estimated Total
$ 600
$ 300
$ 4,100
If the Redevelopment Agency authorizes this event, staff could begin organizing the
event with a collection date tentatively set for January 3, 2004. It is not anticipated
that this date would interfere with the initial grading activities at the SilverRock Ranch
site.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Authorize the collection of marine shells from the SilverRock Ranch property,
authorize the Community Services Department to coordinate the event with the
non-profit organizations from the La Quinta schools, and authorize the donation of
$250 per organization for collection of a specified amount of marine shells; or
2. Do not authorize the collection of marine shells from the SilverRock Ranch
property, and/or do not authorize the Community Services Department to
coordinate the event with the non-profit organizations from the La Quinta schools,
and/or do not authorize the donation of $250 per organization for collection of a
specified amount of marine shells; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Resp ctfully ubmitted,
r1 a.I
Dodie Horvitz, Coihmunity Services Director
Approved for submission by:
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
Attachments 1: Minutes of the November 4, 2003 Redevelopment Agency
Board meeting
2: Examples of Shells
64
ATTACHMENT 1
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 3 November
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING STATUS REPORT ON SILVERROCK
RANCH.
Acting Executive Director Weiss noted the estimated budget amount
in the staff report should read $90.4 million.
Consultant Roy Stephenson reviewed highlights of the SilverRock
Ranch Master Schedule.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Stephenson stated the
schedule is somewhat behind as it relates to the hiring of a landscape
architect.
Council Member Perkins commented on the need to collect and
am preserve the small sea shells on the property.
Mr. Stephenson stated flora on the site will also be looked at to see
what is worth saving. If the Agency wishes to save the sea shells,
something will need to be done quickly before grading begins.
Chairperson Henderson stated she generally agrees with trying to
preserve the sea shells as long as it's not a monumental project. She
suggested it might be a good community services project to do with
students.
Board Member Sniff commented on the need for careful grading of the
site because there may be other historical items below ' the surface.
He asked about the location, size, and depth of wells on the site.
Mr. Stephenson responded there are three potential locations near
Jefferson Street for well sites.
In response to Board Member Sniff, Mark Krebs, of Pace Engineering,
stated a dozen older wells exist within a one -mile radius of the site
that are 800-900 feet deep, and all indications are that there is water
available within the site. He added the more -recent wells at PGA
West and The Citrus are 700-900 feet deep. He stated they expect to
get 2,000-2,500 gallons of water per minute from each well, and he
indicated several of the PGA West wells produce 3,000 + gallons per
minute. A six-inch wide pilot hole will be drilled prior to putting in an
18-24 inch wide well. The wells currently on the site are not
functional because the ground water level is lower than the wells.
ATTACHMENT 2
Bivalvia Gryphaea
Conch Shells
Opisthobrancia Acteonina (conch)
Actual conch shells collected from the SilvemOCK Ranch
635
`eit!t 4 aW'Qul�c1u.
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Design Concept for Golf
Cart Bridges for SilverRock Ranch
RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION: Al
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve Bridge Alternative #1, pre -fabricated weathering steel bridge, for the three
golf cart bridges for the SilverRock Ranch bridge crossings of the Coachella Valley
Water District (CVWD) canal for the first golf course.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
T.Y. Lin International, the bridge sub consultant to The Keith Companies, has provided
three alternatives for the golf cart bridge crossings at SilverRock Ranch.
Bridge Alternative # 1 is a prefabricated weathering steel type bridge that can have
either a concrete or wood plank decking for the riding surface. The approximate cost,
including the bridge kit, foundations, and installation, is estimated at $53,000 per
bridge (Attachment 1).
Bridge Alternative #2 is a glulam, timber deck and railing bridge. The approximate
cost, including foundations, is $60,000 per bridge (Attachment 2).
Bridge Alternative #3 is a pre -cast concrete bridge with concrete railings and a
concrete deck. The approximate cost for this bridge is $63,000 per bridge
(Attachment 3).
The current budget for the SilverRock Ranch Golf Cart Bridge Improvements includes
three bridges for a total cost of $180,000. Staff requests direction at this time for the
bridge type only. A budget request will be made at the time of advertisement of the
first golf course, if necessary, to cover the additional cost of these bridges.
64
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS 11.doc
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
On March 20, 2003, City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). This year's CIP includes the construction of the first
phase of the SilverRock Ranch Municipal Golf Course. Within the first golf course,
Palmer Design has called for three crossings of the CVWD canal to facilitate play at
the golf course.
T.Y. Lin, the bridge sub consultant to The Keith Companies, has prepared three
alternative golf cart bridge types for the canal crossings Palmer Golf Course Design
has proposed for the first golf course. All three bridges are based on the design of 14'
wide (two golf carts would be able to pass one another at this width) by 50' long in
order to span the canal. T.Y. Lin has proposed three bridge alternatives for these
crossings as follows:
Bridge Alternative #1 is a pre -fabricated weathering steel type bridge that would be
shipped to the site and erected by the contractor. The foundation would be designed
by T.Y. Lin to support this bridge. There are other finishes and different truss
configurations that could be considered with this alternative. Because of the flexibility
in design and finishes, as well as the lower cost, staff recommends this option using a
wooden deck riding surface.
Bridge Alternative #2 is a glulam, timber deck and railing bridge. The entire bridge
would be designed by T.Y. Lin, including the foundations. Because it is made from
wood the engineer expects it to have higher maintenance costs for treating the timbers
as opposed to the other bridge types.
Bridge Alternative #3 is a pre -cast concrete bridge made entirely from concrete. The
entire bridge would be designed by T.Y. Lin including the foundations. This bridge
would probably have the longest design life and lowest maintenance cost, but may not
"fit in" aesthetically without considerable enhancements to the concrete surfaces.
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS 11.doc 265
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Approve Bridge Alternative #1, pre -fabricated weathering steel bridge with
wood decking, for the three golf cart bridges for the SilverRock Ranch bridge
crossings; or
2. Approve Bridge Alternative #2, timber glulam bridge, for the three golf cart
bridges for the SilverRock Ranch bridge crossings; or
3. Approve Bridge Alternative #3, pre -cast concrete bridge with concrete railings
and a concrete deck, for the three golf cart bridges for the SilverRock Ranch
bridge crossings; or
4. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
imothy ona n
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Approved for submission by:
y vvr.'�L
Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager
Attachments: 1. Bridge Alternative # 1
2. Bridge Alternative #2
3. Bridge Alternative #3
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS 1 1.doc 3
h.L
'"'"'. y
�nvw
f �` ; �__
�.�..r..yiwmw .v ro��anne...^naw ,w.ne*'+. ,avo..•....m,c:
` �'- [� ��
��t`'
A
r-
t,.
t
00,
0�
40
°T41 4fGv
' ' Y
c� OF T9
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution of CONSENT CALENDAR:
the Redevelopment Agency Certifying Environmental
Assessment 2003-489; an Agreement for Purchase STUDY SESSION:
and Sale Between the Redevelopment Agency and PUBLIC HEARING:
Sheila Weldon, Trustee and her successors in Trust
Under the Weldon Trust, for Property Located at 78-
990 Miles Avenue; a Contract for Services Between
the Redevelopment Agency and Overland Pacific and
Cutler, Inc. for Relocation Services; and Appropriation
of the Funds Necessary to Accomplish Both
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency certifying a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-489;
Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency approving an Agreement for
Purchase and Sale between the Redevelopment Agency and Sheila Weldon, Trustee
and Her Successors in Trust under the Weldon Trust, for property located at 78-
990 Miles Avenue;
Authorize, staff to negotiate a contract for services between the Redevelopment
Agency and Overland Pacific and Cutler, Inc. for relocation services related thereto;
and
Approve the appropriation of $3,700,000 as follows: $74,623 from the Project No.
1 Housing Bond Fund (Account 244-000-300-290), $50,000 from the Project No.
2 Housing Bond Fund (Account 247-000-300-290) and $3,575,377 from the
Project No. 2 Housing Fund (Account 246-000-300-290), to fund site acquisition,
and design, engineering, relocation consultant and project management costs.
Tenant relocation and site redevelopment costs will be funded through a Housing
Bond the Agency will consider in early 2004.
Ni
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS 7-Weldol .doc t ,
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Purchasing and redeveloping the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park with new modular
single-family homes affordable to very low- and low-income family households will
result in the expenditure of up to $18,979,000 in Housing Fund monies. However,
the subsequent sale of the redeveloped residential community will generate from
$3.0 to $5.0 million in sale proceeds that would result in a net Agency investment
of $13.979 to $15.979 million.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
In March of this year the Agency Board received a presentation regarding the status
of the Agency's efforts to secure affordable dwellings with long-term covenants.
The California Redevelopment Law provides that the Agency must ensure that 15%
of all units developed or substantially rehabilitated in both Redevelopment Project
Areas are affordable to very low-, low- and moderate -income households. Of
these, 40% must be affordable to very low-income households. The affordable
dwellings must have covenants that insure that they remain affordable for 45 years
for single-family homes and 55 years for multi -family homes.
Based upon existing and projected residential development in both Project Areas,
the Agency must secure 1,927 affordable dwellings by 2040, of which 771 must
be affordable to very low-income households. Further, the law provides that the
Agency must ensure that 1,672 affordable dwellings are in place by 2004, of
which 669 must be affordable to very -low income households. To date, the
Agency has secured 894 affordable dwellings, 194 affordable to very low-income
households and 700 affordable to low- and moderate -income households.
At the conclusion of the March discussion the Agency Board authorized staff to
contact the owners of both mobile home parks in north La Quinta and ascertain
their interest in selling their parks. The rationale was to purchase these parks,
redevelop the parks with new modular single-family dwellings and rent the
dwellings to very -low income households. Both park owners were contacted. One
owner, Ms. Shelia Weldon, who owns the 93-space park located at 78990 Miles
Avenue, expressed interest in selling her park. This was reviewed with the Agency
Board who subsequently authorized staff to commission an appraisal. The appraisal
indicated a value $2,550,000. The Agency Board authorized staff to submit a
purchase offer for this amount that was subsequently accepted by Ms. Weldon.
The Agency Board first reviewed and tentatively approved the attached Purchase
and Sale Agreement on November 4, 2003. The approval was subject to
successfully completing the required environmental review process pursuant to the
02
71
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental Assessment 2003-
489 has been completed. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and
circulated for this transaction. To date, no comments have been received. Staff is
recommending the Agency Board certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-489.
Purchase and Sale Agreement
The Purchase and Sale Agreement (Attachment 1) provides that the Agency will
purchase the park for $2,550,000 plus appropriate closing costs. If approved by
the Agency, escrow will be opened, the final due diligence activities (as listed in the
Agreement) will be performed, and provided that the final due diligence activities
are successfully completed, escrow will close by mid -February 2004. During the
escrow period, RSG will be working with the existing park managers to finalize the
details for their continued management of the park until all tenants are relocated.
The existing managers have agreed to remain in place during this period. The
relocation consultant will also be working during this time, to define the relocation
needs of each tenant and to prepare a relocation plan. If the Agency Board
approves the Agreement, staff will schedule a tenant meeting for 6:00 p.m. on
December 15" to discuss the Agency's plans for the park, and the activity timeline.
Schedules provided by the relocation consultant, and modular home manufactures
and installers, indicate that relocation and site redevelopment activities will span an
18-month period (starting January 2004). Tenant relocation will not be required
until June 2004, though tenants will be free to relocate prior to this date if they so
desire. A 90-day time period starting June 2004, will be provided to accommodate
tenant -moving needs. Prior to June 2004, the relocation consultant will be working
with all the tenants to identify and secure locations that meet their relocation
needs. Coach removal and site preparation activities will entail approximately 90
days and should be completed by December 2004. Constructing the site
improvements, and the manufacture, delivery and installation of new modular
homes will take approximately seven months, and the redeveloped residential
community should be ready for occupancy by July 2005. Since this will be a
family community, this time frame corresponds to settling families with children
back into this location for the start of the new school year.
Attachment 2 represents a proposal from Overland Pacific and Cutler, Inc. (OPC) to
provide relocation consulting services using their Palm . Desert office. OPC is
currently working with the City of La Quinta to facilitate residential owner occupant
and residential tenant relocation needs for the Jefferson Street widening project. In
addition to this current experience, OPC recently completed relocation activities for
a 180-space mobile home park involving the Cathedral City Redevelopment Agency,
and a 19-space mobile home park involving the Ranch Mirage Redevelopment
Agency. Further, both RSG and Rutan and Tucker have worked with OPC on other
�i 3 �
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS 7-Weldol.doc
land assembly redevelopment projects that included residential tenant relocation,
and their combined experience indicates that this firm is best qualified to undertake
this activity. The total fee for their servile is $287,500. This includes preparing
the relocation budget, the relocation plan, and undertaking tenant specific
relocation activities. This project would be serviced from their Palm Desert office.
Project Budget/Appropriations
RSG had been working to refine the budget for all acquisition and site
redevelopment activities. The initial budget was projected to be $18.5 million, with
$3.0 to $5.0 million being generated by the sale of the redeveloped park to the
non-profit organization. The redeveloped park will be owned by a non-profit
organization which will manage and maintain the park, with the new homes being
rented to very low-income households. Using 2003 affordable housing cost data,
the units would rent from $510.00 per month for a one -bedroom dwelling to
$638.00 per month for a three -bedroom unit. These rents could support a
permanent mortgage ranging from $3.0 to $5.0 million, depending on final utility,
operations and reserve for replacement costs. These costs will be identified as the
park and unit design is finalized.
The following table represents the anticipated budget for this activity. The refined
budget has increased by 2.56% to $18.975 million. This increase is primarily due
to increased labor and lumber costs.
04
73
site acquisition 2,600,000
relocation 3,300,000
coach disposaVdemolition 400,000
Dosi(jn Heloc�iion'Project Management
architect/land planning
100,000
landscape architect
75,000
engineering
130,000
electrical consultant
50,000
utility consultant
25,000
soils/geotechnical
20,000
coach appraiser
50,000
relocation consultant
287,000
coach acquisition consultant
90,000
project/development management.
250,000
permits/fees
1,234,633
grading
251,918
erosion control
30,000
streets
520,000
utilities
720,000
perimeter walls
297,000
landscape and common facility
780,000
off -sites
Buildm(j lmprovcments
modular home construction/installation
ConUrJency
contingency @ 8.50%
$ 6,300,000
$ 2,311,633
$ 2,598,918
$ 6,250,000
$ 1,514,449
TOTAL $18,975,000
The recommended appropriation would fund acquisition, design, relocation
consultant and project management activities. The remaining costs would be
funded through a tax allocation bond issue that would be supported by the Project
No. 1 and Project No. 2 Housing Funds. As previously discussed with the Agency,
staff is recommending that the Agency pursue this bond issue once the Project
No.2 Redevelopment Plan Amendment is completed.
05
I 174
7-W
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS a do.d0c
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency certifying a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment
2003-489; and
Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency approving an Agreement
for Purchase and Sale between the Redevelopment Agency and Sheila
Weldon, Trustee and Her Successors in Trust under the Weldon Trust, for
property located at 78-990 Miles Avenue; and
Authorize staff to negotiate a contract for services between the
Redevelopment Agency and Overland Pacific and Cutler, Inc. for relocation
services related thereto; and
Approve the appropriation of $3,700,000 as follows: $74,623 from the
Project No. 1 Housing Bond Fund (244-000-300-290), $50,000 from the
Project No. 2 Housing Bond Fund (247-000-300-290), and $3,575,377 from
the Project No. 2 Housing Fund (246-000-300-290), to fund site acquisition,
and design, engineering, relocation consultant and project management
costs. Tenant relocation and site redevelopment costs will be funded
through a Housing Bond the Agency will consider in early 2004; or
2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency certifying
Environmental Assessment 2003-489; do not approve the Agreement for
Purchase and Sale; do not authorize the contract for services; and do not
approve the appropriation of funds; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerr He man
Co munity Development Director
75
Approved for submission by:
Gam. Qom,
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Agreement for Purchase and Sale
2. Contract for services
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS 7 -Weldon.doc
RESOLUTION RA 2003 —
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR THE PURCHASE
OF THE VISTA DUNES MOBILE HOME PARK
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-489
PROJECT SPONSOR: LA QUNTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 2nd day of December, 2003 hold a duly noticed public meeting
to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-489 to allow the purchase by the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency of an existing mobile home park approximately nine
acres in size located at 78-990 Miles Avenue, more particularly described as
follows:
APN 604-032-022
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "the Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970; as amended (Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA
2003-489) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant
effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of
the Assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for the project, and
therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed;
and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Redevelopment Agency
did make the following findings to justify certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-
489.
2. The proposed project will not have a potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Weldon Reso.doc
Resolution RA 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-489
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: December 2, 2003
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the project site has been previously
graded and has been developed as a mobile home park for many years.
3. There is no evidence before the Agency that the proposed project will have
the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on
which the wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not
identify any wildlife resources on the site.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effect on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited
or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area
will not be significantly affected by the proposed project in that no change to
existing land uses is involved.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effect that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which
would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The Redevelopment Agency has considered Environmental Assessment
2003-489 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the
Agency.
9. The Agency has,. on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations
753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the Redevelopment Agency records relating to
this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495
Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92553.
789
Resolution RA 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-489
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: December 2, 2003
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency,
of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, for this Environmental
Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-489 for the
reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department
and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-489 reflects the independent
judgment of the Agency.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency held this 2"d day of December, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TERRY HENDERSON, Agency Chair
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, Agency Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
710
Resolution RA 2003-
Environmental Assessment 2003-489
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: December 2, 2003
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, Agency Counsel
City of La Quinta, California
RQ
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: EAP 2003-489 Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park Purchase
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman, Director
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
4. Project Location: 78990 Miles Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential -
Residential (LDR)
(RL)
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Purchase an existing mobile home park located at 78990 Miles Avenue by the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency. The site (APN 604-032-022) consists of approximately nine acres
on the north side of Miles Avenue, slightly west of Adams Street. Access to the site is from
Miles Avenue. The property is rectangular in shape, with a narrow frontage along Miles
Avenue. There are 93 mobile homes on site at this time with a variety of accessory structures
on many of the lots. The ages of the mobile homes vary, but most are many years old.
Until such time as the site is redeveloped, there will be no discernible changes to existing
conditions. However, purchase of the site is made with the general expectation that the
property will be redeveloped as an affordable housing project at some future date. Decisions
related to future development (via approval of a use permit) will be made at a future time and
will be subject to appropriate CEQA clearance.
The property is designated LDR — Low Density Residential on the Land Use Element. The
zoning designation is RL — Low Density Residential. As such, the existing mobile home park
is a legal non -conforming use.
Exhibit 1 is the Assessor Parcel Map of the project. Parcel 22.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
81
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -1- 12
North: Low density residential/retention basin/park (Adams Park)
South: Miles Avenue, bordered by low density residential
West: Retention basin /low density residential
East: Church and fire station (under construction)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None for purchase of property itself.
82
13
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -2-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
X Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imp sed upon the osed project, nothing further is required.
,..-_, � — ftoam-- - Z/— —3
Date
8.3
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -3-
14
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
21
15
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -4-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Project
Description Materials)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
X
its surroundings? (Project Description
Materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
X
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Project Description Materials)
I. a), b), c) Miles Avenue is designated as a Secondary Image Corridor on the La Quinta General
Plan (Exhibit 3.6). Purchase of the property, in and of itself, will not impact this corridor.
d) The purchase, in and of itself, will have no impact as a source of light or glare.
85
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -5-
is
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-
22 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
x
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan EIR p. III-22 ff.)
H. a)-c) The proposed project site has been fully urbanized for many years. There are no
Williamson Act contracts that affect the project site. The proposed project will have no
impact on agricultural resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
X
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
X
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
8f
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -6-
17
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
X
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (Project
X
Description Materials)
III a) —e) The proposed purchase of the property will not, in and of itself, generate
emissions, expose sensitive receptors, create objectionable odors or lead to the creation of dust in
excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria
pollutants and therefore will not obstruct implementation of applicable air quality management
plans.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the projea.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
X
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
X
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -7-
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
X
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
X
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
X
policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p.
73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
X
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The project site has been previously graded and has been urbanized for many years. It is
surrounded by urban development. It does not have potential as habitat for species of
concern. No impacts to biological resources are expected to occur as a result of the
purchase of the property.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
the ro'ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
X
as defined in Government Code
Sec 15064.5 (General Plan MEA, p. 123 ff.)
19
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -8-
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
X
resource pursuant to Sec 15064.5?
(General Plan MEA, p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
X
cemeteries?
V. a) - d) The project site has been previously graded and has been occupied by a mobile home park
for many years. No impacts to cultural or paleontologic resources are expected to occur as
a result of the proposed purchase of the property.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
X
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction? (General Plan
X
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
89
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -9-
v� 20
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss Of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil
that unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
X
potentially result in on- or off -site
landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.3)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
X
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
X
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a) i)-iv) The proposed project site lies approximately 4 miles from the San Andreas Fault, in a
Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to
significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Purchase of the
property, in and of itself, will have no impact. The risk of liquefaction on the site is
considered low.
b) The site is located in a very severe wind erosion area, and will therefore be subject to
significant soil erosion from wind.
c)-e) The soils on the subject property have a low expansion probability, as defined in the
Uniform Building Code. The purchase of the property will, in and of itself, have no
impact.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
S' ' scant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
X
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
99
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -10- 21
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
X
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Project Description Materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
X
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (DTSC List)
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
X
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
X
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
X
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
ate) Purchase of the site will, in and of itself, have no impact.
91
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -11-
22
d) The site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste
and Substances Site List (Cortese List)
e)—h) The site is not located in proximity to any airport or airstrip. It is surrounded by
urbanized uses, with access to Miles Avenue, a primary arterial roadway. Its location
does not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Lastly, due to its
location the site is not susceptible to wildland fires.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan MEA, p. 92ff)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
X
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
MEA, p. 92ff))
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
X
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
X
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
92
23
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -12-
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
X
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
X
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
X
redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a)- e) The purchase of the property will, in and of itself, have no impact. There will be no
discernible change to existing conditions as a result of the purchase.
f) - g) The project site is not located in a 100 year flood plain.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Project Description Materials)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
93
24
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -13-
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
X
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) As noted above, at present the site is fully developed for residential uses (mobile home
park). The site is located between residential uses to the west and north and institutional
uses to the east (fire station and church). As such residential development will not divide
an established community; rather it serves as an extension of the residential neighborhood
to the west. The purchase of the site will not interfere with any Habitat Conservation
Plan, although the project site is located within the fee area (but not a reserve) for the
Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
X
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (General Plan MEA, p. 72 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource
X
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
useplan? (General Plan MEA, p. 72 ff.)
X. a) - b) The purchase of the site will, in and of itself, have no impacts on mineral resources. The
project site is located in the MRZ —1 Zone, and is not expected to contain mineral
resources.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA,
P. 111 ff.)
i J
LEIMPA
25
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -14-
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
X
groundborne noise levels? (Project
Description Materials)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
X
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project Description Materials)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
X
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
X
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
X
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-d) Purchase of the property, in and of itself, will not have noise related impacts. There will be no
discernible change to existing conditions due to the purchase.
e) & f) The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING n
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
X
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.)
95
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -15- 26
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., Project
Description Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
X
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., Project Description Materials)
XH. a)-c) Purchase of the property in and of itself will not cause any changes in the City's housing
stock or of residential patterns. However, the reason for the purchase is to facilitate
redevelopment of the site. This action will lead to the displacement, at least temporarily,
of current residents and the loss of the existing housing units. For these reasons, and
pursuant to Redevelopment Law, any such development must be preceded by a
Replacement Housing Plan as well as a Relocation Program for current residents. These
programs will ensure that existing residents are afforded appropriate assistance in finding
new homes and that any net loss in housing units is accounted for.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures are recommended to avoid potential impacts to Population and Housing:
1. Prior to the demolition of the first existing residential unit on the project site, the Executive
Director, La Quinta Redevelopment Agency shall certify that a replacement housing plan
meeting all requirements of the adopted Redevelopment Plan of the La Quinta
Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 and applicable State Law has been adopted.
2. Prior to the demolition of the first existing residential unit on the project site, the Executive
Director, La Quinta Redevelopment Agency shall certify that a Relocation Plan has been
adopted pursuant to Section 513 of the Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment
Project Area No. 2.
9G
L - 27
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
X
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a)Purchase of the property, in and of itself, will not have Public Service impacts.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Project Description Materials)
9'7
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -17- 8
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
X
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Project Description
Materials
XIV. a) b) The purchase of the site in and of itself will have no impacts.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
X
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan MEA, P. 27ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
X
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan MEA, p. 27 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
X
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
Description Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project Description Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project Description Materials)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -18-
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project Description Materials)
XV. a)-g) The purchase of the site will, in and of itself, have no impact. Miles Avenue even at
General Plan Buildout, is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. It is
fully developed along the site frontage and meets arterial roadway standards.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTII.ITIES AND SERVICE
X
SYSTEMS B Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
X
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
X
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
99
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -19- _ 30
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
X
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
X
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) Purchase of the site, in and of itself, will have no impacts on Utilities and Service
Systems.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
X
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or. animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
100
31
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -20-
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
X
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
X
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The project site has been developed for many years and does not contain potential habitat
for fish or wildlife. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of habitat in the
area. Nor will the project have any impact on cultural resources.
XVII. b) The project is consistent with the long term goals of the General Plan, and is currently
designated for Low Density Residential development. There is no potential for the project
to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals.
XVII. c) The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable. The project is
consistent with that analysed in the General Plan EIR. The mitigation measures imposed
on this project, will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. d) The project has identified impacts associated with Population & Housing, which affect
human beings. However, a number of mitigation measures are proposed which reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
None
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
.101
3?
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -21-
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
Sources of Information:
City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan, adopted March 20, 2002
City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, adopted March 20, 2002.
City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan Draft EIR, July 2001
Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Project Area No. 2
102
33
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\WeldonVDMHP EA.DOC -22-
�
M
N
N
O
N
O
�
�
8
Z
o
A
�
F
za
a
OaV
�
via
a
�aa
�
o �
x °
�
�
°
o
0
>
a�
M
S
A >
C13 • f
�
No
cli
•�
'p
Cd
pop
M
G
z
aU
H
�
a
N
A
z
a�
�U
OU
U
�..i
T '� O
> .p >
0a8
O O
zo
.moo
H
o� o
a a
.gib
i-d
O
F
b
•a
cd
x
a
b
• A
�"� e'
A
O
�
�
� a
� o
103
34
RESOLUTION NO. RA 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE
AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN THE
AGENCY AND SHEILA WELDON, TRUSTEE AND HER
SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON TRUST
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 78-990 MILES AVENUE
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is a
public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California
Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) (the
"CRL"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CRL, the City Council of the City of La Quinta
(the "City" or "City Council," as applicable) approved and adopted the Redevelopment
Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for Project Area No. 2 (the "Project Area"), on May
16, 1989, by Ordinance No. 139; and
WHEREAS, the Agency staff has negotiated an Agreement for Purchase
and Sale and Escrow Instructions ("Agreement") with Sheila Weldon ("Seller"),
pursuant to which the Agency has agreed to purchase from the Seller certain real
property located within the Project Area, at 78-990 Miles Avenue (the "Property"), for
Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), which Property the
Agency desires, at a subsequent date, to rehabilitate for purposes of affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement is in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan
and is of benefit to the Project Area and the City of La Quinta; and
WHEREAS, the Agency hereby determines that the Agency's purchase of
the Property pursuant to the Agreement is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
Redevelopment Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the Agreement effectuates the purposes of the CRL and of the
Redevelopment Plan and is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of La
Quinta.
3. The Agreement, a copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary, is hereby
approved. The Agency Executive Director and Agency Counsel are hereby
authorized and directed to make final modifications to the Agreement that are
35
104
G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\WeldonVDMHP Pur-SaleAgrmt.wpd.doc
Resolution No. RA 2003-
Agreement for Purchase and Sale
Sheila Weldon - Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: November 4, 2003
consistent with the substantive terms of the Agreement approved hereby, and
the Agency Executive Director is authorized to thereafter sign the Agreement on
behalf of the Agency.
4. The Agency Executive Director is authorized and directed, on behalf of the
Agency, to (i) sign such other and further documents, including, but not limited
to escrow instructions that require the Agency's signature, and (ii) take such
other and further actions, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the
terms of the Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency held this 4th day of November, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TERRY HENDERSON, Agency Chair
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, Agency Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, Agency Counsel
City of La Quinta, California
105
36
G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\WeldonVDMHP Pur-SaleAgrmt.wpd.doc
Resolution No. RA 2003-_
Agreement for Purchase and Sale
Sheila Weldon - Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
Adopted: November 4, 2003
106
37
G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\WeldonVDMHP Pur-SaleAgrmt.wpd.doc
ATTACHMENT NI
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE
AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
BY AND BETWEEN
SHEILA WELDON, TRUSTEE AND HER SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON
TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 2091987, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO
("SELLER")
"Ails o
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
("BUYER")
IGo7
38
882/015610-0047
441578.05 a11/24/03
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. PURCHASE PRICE..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Amount...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Payment of Purchase Price.........................................................................................1
2. DUE DILIGENCE................................................................................................................1
2.1 Due Diligence..........................................................................................................1
3. ESCROW............................................................................................................................4
3.1 Opening of Escrow...................................................................................................4
3.2 Escrow Instructions...................................................................................................4
4. CLOSE OF ESCROW...........................................................................................................4
4.1 Close of Escrow; Closing Date...................................................................................4
4.2 Recordation; Release of Funds and Documents ................................................... 5
5. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FROM BUYER AND SELLER ............. 5
5.1 Buyer's Obligations.................................................................................................. 5
5.2 Seller's Obligations...................................................................................................5
6. TITLE INSURANCE POLICY............................................................................................... 5
6.1 Title Policy.............................................................................................................. 5
6.2 Payment for Title Policy............................................................................................ 6
7. REAL PROPERTY TAXES...................................................................................................6
8. SPACE RENT/SECURITY DEPOSITS/PERMIT TO OPERATE . .............................6
9. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING...........................................................................6
9.1 Conditions Precedent to Buyer's Obligations.......................................................6
9.2 Conditions Precedent to Seller's Obligations.......................................................7
10. POSSESSION.....................................................................................................................7
11. ALLOCATION OF COSTS................................................................................................... 7
11.1 Buyer's Costs........................................................................................................... 7
11.2 Seller's Costs........................................................................................................... 7
12. INDEMNIFICATION........................................................................................................... 8
13. CONDEMNATION.............................................................................................................. 8
14. RIGHT TO EXCHANGE..................................................................................................... 8
15. MISCELLANEOUS.............................................................................................................9
15.1 Assignment.............................................................................................................. 9
15.2 Attorney's Fees........................................................................................................ 9 108
88M15610-W47
,"1578.05 al V2"3 -i- 39
Page
15.3 Notices.................................................................................................................... 9
15.4 Fair Meaning ...........................:.......::...:...: s.............................................................. 9
15.5 Headings................................................................................................................. 9
15.6 Choice of Laws; Litigation Matters...*........................................................................10
15.7 Nonliability of Buyer Officials.................................................................................10
15.8 Gender; Number.....................................................................................................10
15.9 Survival.................................................................................................................10
15.10 Time of Essence.....................................................................................................10
15.11 Waiver or Modification...........................................................................................10
15.12 Broker's Fees.........................................................................................................10
15.13 Duplicate Originals.................................................................................................10
15.14 Severability............................................................................................................10
15.15 Exhibits.................................................................................................................10
15.16 Covenants of Seller.................................................................................................11
15.17 Corporate Authority................................................................................................11
15.18 Covenant Against Discrimination..............................................................................11
15.19 Entire Agreement; Amendment................................................................................11
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit B Form of Grant Deed
Exhibit C Form of Affidavit of Non -Foreign Entity
1 �,
882MI5610-0%7 4
441578.05 al1/2"3 -11-
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE
AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
("Agreement") is made and entered into as of , 2003 ("Effective Date") by and between
SHEILA WELDON, TRUSTEE AND HER SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON TRUST
DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1987, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO ("Seller"), and the LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic ("Buyer"). As hereinafter used in this
Agreement, the term "Buyer" shall mean Buyer and/or Buyer's nominee.
RECITALS:
A. Seller is the owner of that certain improved real property located at 78990 Miles Avenue in
the City of La Quinta ("City"), County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described in the
legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ("Property").
B. Buyer has the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire real property in
the La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. In the event Seller had determined not to sell the Property
to Buyer, Buyer's staff would have recommended to the Board of Directors of Buyer that Buyer, after
providing notice to Seller and holding a hearing as required by applicable law, consider adopting a resolution
of necessity and thereafter commencing proceedings to acquire the Property by the exercise of its power of
eminent domain.
C. Buyer desires to purchase the Property from Seller and Seller desires to sell the Property to
Buyer, on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
AGREEMENT:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and mutual covenants herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. PURCHASE PRICE.
1.1 Amount. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Buyer hereby agrees to purchase the
Property from Seller and Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, for the purchase price of Two Million Five
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00) ("Purchase Price").
1.2 Payment of Purchase Price. On or before 5:00 p.m. on the business day preceding the
"Closing Date" (as that term is defined in Section 4.1) or such earlier time as required by "Escrow Holder" in
order to close "Escrow" (as those terms are defined in Section 3.1) on the Closing Date, Buyer shall deposit
with Escrow Holder in Good Funds (as used in this Agreement, the term "Good Funds" shall mean a
confirmed wire transfer of immediately available funds, cashier's or certified check drawn on or issued by the
office of a financial institution located in Riverside County, or cash) the Purchase Price, and such additional
funds as may be required to meet Buyer's portion of the closing costs as hereinafter provided.
2. DUE DILIGENCE.
2.1 Due Diligence. As used herein, the term "Due Diligence Period" shall refer to a period of
time to expire upon the date that is sixty (60) days after the Effective Date. Buyer's obligation to consummate
the transactions contemplated by this Agreement is subject to and conditioned upon Buyer's approval, deemed
8821015610-0047 _1 _ 110
441578.05 at1/24/03 41.
approval or waiver of the right to approve of the following contingencies set forth in this Section 2.1
(collectively, the "Contingencies"):
2.1.1 Title/Survey. Seller shall deliver to Buyer, within five (5) days after the Effective
Date of this Agreement, a preliminary title report prepared by Fidelity National Title Company ("Title
Company") dated nor more than thirty (30) days earlier than the Effective Date describing the state of title of
the Property together with copies of all underlying documents (collectively the "Preliminary Title Report").
Buyer may, at its sole cost and expense, obtain a current survey of the Property (the "Survey").
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Seller shall be obligated to remove all monetary
encumbrances against the Property excluding non -delinquent real property taxes and assessments. Buyer shall
notify Seller in writing of any objections Buyer may have to title exceptions contained in the Preliminary Title
Report or matters shown on the Survey no later than the date which is thirty (30) days after the later of (i)
Buyer's receipt of the Preliminary Title Report or (ii) Buyer's receipt of the Survey within the time period set
forth above ("Buyer's Objection Notice"). Buyer's approval or disapproval of the matters set forth in the
Preliminary Title Report and the Survey may be granted or withheld in Buyer's sole and absolute discretion.
Buyer's failure to provide Seller with a Buyer's Objection Notice within said period shall constitute Buyer's
approval of all exceptions to title shown on the Preliminary Title Report and all matters shown on the Survey.
Seller shall have a period of fifteen (15) days after receipt of Buyer's Objection Notice in which to deliver
written notice to Buyer ("Seller's Notice") of Seller's election to either (i) agree to remove the objectionable
items on the Preliminary Title Report or Survey prior to the "Close of Escrow" (as that term is defined in
Section 4.1), or (ii) decline to remove any such title exceptions or Survey matters and terminate the Escrow
and the obligations of Buyer and Seller to purchase and sell the Property under this Agreement. Seller's failure
to provide Buyer with Seller's Notice within said period shall constitute Seller's election not to remove the
objectionable items on the Preliminary Title Report or the Survey. If Seller is deemed to have elected not to
remove the objectionable items on the Preliminary Title Report or Survey, or if Seller notifies Buyer of its
election to terminate rather than remove the objectionable items on the Preliminary Title Report or Survey,
Buyer shall have the right, by written notice delivered to Seller within five (5) days after (i) Buyer's receipt of
Seller's Notice, or (ii) the date Seller is deemed to have elected not to remove the objectionable items on the
Preliminary Title Report or Survey, as applicable, to agree to accept the Property subject to the objectionable
items, in which event Seller's election, or Seller's deemed election, to terminate shall be of no effect, and
Buyer shall take title at the Close of Escrow subject to such objectionable items without any adjustment to or
credit against the Purchase Price. All exceptions to title shown on the Preliminary Title Report, other than
those which Seller may agree to remove pursuant to this Section 2.1.1, shall be deemed to have been approved
by Buyer unless Seller is notified otherwise in writing.
Upon the issuance of any amendment or supplement to the Preliminary Title Report which
adds additional exceptions, including any survey exceptions, the foregoing right of review and approval shall
also apply to said amendment or supplement; provided, however, that Buyer's initial period of review and
approval or disapproval of any such additional exceptions shall be limited to fifteen (15) days following receipt
of notice of such additional exceptions. The process set forth above for Buyer's review and Seller's response
shall apply to any review and response with respect to any amendment or supplement to the Preliminary Title
Report, and the Closing shall be extended for such period as is necessary to allow for that review and response
process to be completed.
2.1.2 Environmental Condition. Buyer shall have access to the Property, as described in
this Section 2.1.2, in order to permit Buyer or its directors, engineers, analysts, officers, employees, agents,
contractors, representatives, attorneys or advisors (collectively, the "Buyer Representatives") to investigate
the Property.
(a) During the Due Diligence Period, Seller shall permit Buyer and Buyer
Representatives, at the sole cost and expense of Buyer, to conduct physical inspections of the Property,
including the site work, soil, subsurface soils, drainage, seismic and other geological and topographical
matters, location of asbestos, toxic substances, hazardous materials or wastes, if any, and any other
8SM15610-0047
"1578.05 al1/7"3 -2- 42
investigations as Buyer deems prudent with respect to the physical condition of the Property in order to
determine the Property's suitability for Buyer's intended development. In no event shall Buyer conduct any
intrusive testing procedures on the Property without the prior written consent of Seller, which consent shall not
be unreasonably withheld. Such investigations may be made by Buyer and/or Buyer Representatives during
any normal business hours. Buyer shall also have the right to investigate all matters relating to the zoning, use
and compliance with other applicable laws, codes, and ordinances which relate to the use and occupancy of the
Property. Seller shall cooperate to assist Buyer in completing such inspections and special investigations at no
cost or expense to Seller. Such inspections and investigations shall be conducted only upon no less than
twenty-four (24) hours' notice to Seller and shall be conducted at such times and in such a manner as to
minimize any disruption to the Property. Seller shall have the right, but not the obligation, to accompany
Buyer during such investigations and/or inspections.
(b) As a condition to any such entry, Buyer shall (i) conduct all work or studies in a
diligent, expeditious and safe manner and not allow any dangerous or hazardous conditions to occur on the
Property during or after such investigation; (ii) comply with all applicable laws and governmental regulations;
(iii) keep the Property free and clear of all materialmen's liens, lis pendens and other liens arising out of the
entry and work performed under this paragraph; (iv) maintain or assure maintenance of workers' compensation
insurance (or state approved self-insurance) on all persons entering the property in the amounts required by the
State of California; (v) provide to Seller prior to initial entry a certificate of insurance evidencing that Buyer
and/or the persons entering the Property have procured and has in effect an all-risk public liability insurance
policy meeting the following requirements: (1) the insurance shall be written on a per occurrence and not
claims -made basis; (2) the amount of insurance shall be a combined single limit of not less than Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000.00) with a deductible or self -insured retention amount of not more than One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000); (3) the policy shall name or be endorsed to Seller and Seller's officers,
employees, agents, and representatives (collectively, "Seller & Seller Personnel") as additional insureds; (4)
the insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to Seller & Seller
Personnel; (5) the policy shall not be canceled by the insurer or Buyer unless there is a minimum of thirty (30)
days prior written notice to Seller; (6) the insurer shall waive subrogation rights against the Seller & Seller
Personnel; and (7) the insurance shall be primary insurance and not contributory with any insurance any of
Seller & Seller Personnel may have; and (8) the insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom
a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability; and (vi) following
Buyer's entry, repair any and all damage to the Property caused by such inspections or investigations in a
timely manner.
(c) Buyer shall promptly pay and discharge all demands for payment relating to Buyer's
entry on and investigation of the Property and take all other steps to avoid the assertion of claims of lien
against the Property. In the event a claim of lien is recorded by reason of Buyer's entry on the Property,
Buyer, within twenty (20) days of such recordation, shall either (i) record or deliver a surety bond sufficient to
release such claim or lien in accordance with applicable law; or (ii) provide Seller with such other assurance as
Seller may require for the payment of the claim or lien. Seller may elect to record and post notices of non -
responsibility from time to time on and about the Property.
(d) Prior to expiration of the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall notify Seller in writing
(`Buyer's Property Objection Notice") of any objections Buyer may have to any physical or environmental
conditions of the Property (the "Disapproved Property Matters"). Buyer's approval or disapproval of the
physical and environmental conditions of the Property may be granted or withheld in Buyer's sole and absolute
discretion. Buyer's failure to provide Seller with a Buyer's Property Objection Notice shall constitute Buyer's
approval of the condition of the Property. Seller shall have a period of fifteen (15) days after receipt of
Buyer's Property Objection Notice in which to deliver written notice to Buyer ("Seller's Response") of
Seller's election to either (i) agree to remove the Disapproved Property Matters prior to the Close of Escrow,
or (ii) decline to remove the Disapproved Property Matters and terminate Escrow and the obligations of Buyer
and Seller to purchase and sell the Property under this Agreement. Seller's failure to provide Buyer with
Seller's Response within said period shall constitute Seller's election not to remove the Disapproved Property
882/015610-0047
441578.05 all/24103
Matters prior to the Close of Escrow. If Seller is deemed to have elected not to remove the Disapproved
Property Matters, or if Seller notifies Buyer of its election to terminate rather than remove the Disapproved
Property Matters, Buyer shall have the right, by written notice delivered to Seller within five (5) days after (i)
Buyer's receipt of Seller's Response, or (ii) the date Seller is deemed to have elected not to remove the
Disapproved Property Matters, as applicable, to agree to accept the Property subject to the Disapproved
Property Matters, in which event Seller's election, or deemed election, to terminate shall be of no effect, and
Buyer shall take title at the Close of Escrow subject to such Disapproved Property Matters without any
adjustment to or credit against the Purchase Price. Buyer's inspections and investigations of the Property shall
be conducted upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
In the event Buyer's inspections and investigations reveal the presence of "Hazardous Materials" (as
that term is defined in Section 11 herein) that require remediation, Seller shall have the right but not the
obligation to hire its own independent soils consultants to confirm the presence of such Hazardous Materials
and the necessity of such remediation. The retention of, and confirmation by, such soils consultants shall
occur, if at all, within thirty (30) days after the date on which Buyer has notified Seller of the presence of
Hazardous Materials on the Property. If remediation is necessary the following shall apply: If the estimate of
Buyer (or Buyer's consultants), as may be confirmed by Seller pursuant to its right, but not its obligation, to
hire its own independent soils consultants, of the cost of remediation is not more than Twenty -Five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000) ("Maximum Amount"), Seller, at no expense to Buyer, shall cause the remediation work to
be performed and completed subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If the estimated cost for the
remediation is greater than the Maximum Amount, Seller shall have the option to cause the remediation work
to be performed and completed, subject to all applicable laws and regulations, or to terminate this Agreement.
Any remediation work performed hereunder shall be completed prior to the Close of Escrow.
3. ESCROW.
3.1 Opening of Escrow. Closing of the sale of the Property shall take place through an escrow
("Escrow") to be established within three (3) business days after the Effective Date with Foresite Escrow
("Escrow Holder") at its office located at 41995 Boardwalk #G-2, Palm Desert, CA 92260. The opening of
the Escrow (the "Opening of Escrow") shall be deemed to be the date that a fully executed copy of this
Agreement is delivered to the Escrow Holder. Escrow Holder is instructed to notify Buyer and Seller in
writing of the date of the Opening of Escrow.
3.2 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement, once deposited in Escrow, shall constitute the joint
escrow instructions of Buyer and Seller to Escrow Holder. Additionally, if Escrow Holder so requires, Buyer
and Seller agree to execute the form of escrow instructions that Escrow Holder customarily requires in real
property escrows administered by it. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between Escrow Holder's
standard instructions and the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall supersede
and be controlling.
4. CLOSE OF ESCROW.
4.1 Close of Escrow, Closing. Provided that all of the conditions of this Agreement
precedent to the "Close of Escrow" (as hereinafter defined) have been satisfied (or waived by the appropriate
party) prior to or on the Closing Date, the Closing of this transaction for the sale and purchase of the Property
shall take place on the date which is five (5) days after the date on which all of "Buyer's Conditions to
Closing" and all of "Seller's Conditions to Closing" (as those terms are defined in Section 8) have been
satisfied (or waived by the appropriate party); provided, however, in no event shall the Closing occur, if at all,
later than the date which is ten (10) days after the expiration of the Due Diligence Period ("Closing Date").
The terms "Close of Escrow" and the "Closing" are used herein to mean the time Seller's grant deed
conveying fee title to the Property to Buyer is recorded in the Official Records of the Office of the County
Recorder of Riverside ("Official Records"). If Escrow is not in a condition to close by the Closing Date,
either party not then in default hereunder may, upon five (5) days advance written notice to the other party and
88=5610-W 4 4
aa1578.05 a11/2"3 -4-
Escrow Holder, elect to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow. No such termination shall release either
party then in default from liability for such default. If neither party so elects to terminate this Agreement and
the Escrow, Escrow Holder shall close the Escrow as soon as possible.
4.2 Recordation; Release of Funds and Documents.
4.2.1 Escrow Holder is directed, on the Closing Date, to record in the Official Records, the
following documents in the order listed: (i) the grant deed in the form of the attached Exhibit "B" transferring
title to the Property to Buyer ("Grant Deed"); and (ii) such other and further documents as may be directed
jointly by Buyer and Seller.
4.2.2 Upon the Closing, Escrow Holder shall deliver (i) the Purchase Price, less any of
Seller's closing costs, to Seller, and (ii) conformed copies of all recorded documents to both Buyer and Seller.
5. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FROM BUYER AND SELLER.
5.1 Buyer's Obligations. Buyer agrees that on or before 5:00 p.m. of the last business day
immediately preceding the Closing Date, Buyer shall deposit or cause to be deposited with Escrow Holder the
following:
(a) the Purchase Price; and
(b) any and all additional funds, instruments or other documents required from Buyer
(executed and acknowledged where appropriate) as may be reasonably necessary in order for the Escrow
Holder to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
5.2 Seller's Obligations. Seller agrees that on or before 5:00 p.m. of the last business day
immediately preceding the Closing Date, Seller shall deposit or cause to be deposited with Escrow Holder each
of the following:
(a) the executed and acknowledged Grant Deed;
(b) a Certificate of Non -Foreign Status (the "Non -Foreign Affidavit") executed and
acknowledged by Seller in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C"; and
(c) all other funds, items, and instruments required from Seller (executed and
acknowledged where appropriate) as may be reasonably necessary in order for Escrow Holder to comply with
the provisions of this Agreement.
6. T= INSURANCE POLICY.
6.1 Title Policy. At the Closing Date, the Title Company, as insurer, shall issue an ALTA
owner's standard coverage policy of title insurance ("Title Policy"), in favor of Buyer, as insured, with
liability in the amount of the Purchase Price, subject to the following:
(a) non -delinquent real property taxes and assessments;
(b) title exceptions approved or deemed approved by Buyer pursuant to Section 2.1.1
above;
114
882M15610-ON7
"1578.05 a11/2"3 -5- A
i 4
(c) title exceptions, if any, resulting from Buyer's entry onto the Property pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2.1.2 above;
(d) any other exceptions approved by Buyer; and
(e) the standard printed conditions and exceptions contained in the ALTA standard
owner's policy of title insurance regularly issued by the Title Company.
6.2 Payment for Title Policy. Seller shall be responsible for the charges for the Title Policy with
coverage up to the amount of the Purchase Price. Buyer shall pay any additional coverage or endorsements it
requests. Buyer may, at its election, request an ALTA extended policy of title insurance. Buyer shall pay the
difference for the charges between the premium for the extended coverage title policy and the premium for the
standard coverage title policy that Seller is responsible for hereunder. Buyer shall also pay for the ALTA
survey, if applicable.
7. REAL PROPERTY TAXES. Upon Buyer's acquisition of fee title to the Property, the Property will
be exempt from the payment of property taxes and assessments due to Seller's status as a public agency. Seller
shall be responsible for paying for all property taxes or assessments assessed against the Property after the
Closing for any period prior to the Closing.
8. SPACE RENT/SECURITY DEPOSITS/PERMIT TO OPERATE. Prior to the Closing, the Seller and
the Buyer shall prorate, to the Closing Date, the monthly rents the mobilehome tenants currently residing at the
Property (the "Tenants") have paid for space rentals at the Property, such that any amounts received or owed
for periods of occupancy prior to the Closing Date shall be the property of Seller, and any amounts received or
owed for periods of occupancy after the Closing Date shall be the property of Buyer. Further, the Seller shall
execute a document that assigns to the Buyer all deposits the Tenants have paid to the Seller prior to the
Closing. Finally, the Buyer agrees to reimburse the Seller for payment of the fees related to the Annual Permit
to Operate, required by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for
calendar year 2004. Payment of this fee shall occur through escrow and shall not exceed $752.00.
9. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING.
9.1 Conditions Precedent to Buyer's Obligations. The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement
to purchase the Property and close the Escrow shall be subject to the satisfaction or signed written waiver by
Buyer of each and all of the following conditions precedent (collectively "Buyer's Conditions to Closing"):
(a) on the Closing Date, the Title Company shall be irrevocably committed to issue the
Title Policy pursuant to Section 6 above insuring fee title to the Property as being vested in Buyer;
(b) Escrow Holder holds all instruments and funds required for the Closing and will
deliver to Buyer the instruments and funds, if any, accruing to Buyer pursuant to this Agreement;
(c) except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement, all representations and warranties
by the Seller in this Agreement shall be true on and as of the Closing Date as though made at that time and all
covenants of Seller pursuant to this Agreement shall have been fulfilled by the Closing Date;
(d) Seller is not in material default of any term or condition of this Agreement.
In the event that any of Buyer's Conditions to Closing are not satisfied, deemed satisfied, or waived in
a writing signed by Buyer prior to the expiration of the applicable period for satisfaction or waiver, Buyer may
terminate this Agreement.
1.�
882M15610497
U1578.05er1/2"3 -6- 46
9.2 Conditions Precedent to Seller's Obligations. The obligations of Seller under this. Agreement
shall be subject to the satisfaction or signed written waiver by Seller of each and all of the following conditions
Precedent ("Seller's Conditions to Closing"):
(a) Escrow Holder holds the Purchase Price and all other instruments and funds required
for the Closing and will deliver to Seller the instruments and funds, including but not limited to the Purchase
Price (less Seller's closing costs) accruing to Seller pursuant to this Agreement;
(b) except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement, all representations and warranties
by the Buyer in this Agreement shall be true on and as of the Closing Date as though made at that time and all
covenants of Buyer pursuant to this Agreement shall have been fulfilled by the Closing Date;
(c) Buyer is not in material default of any term or condition of this Agreement.
In the event that any of Seller's Conditions to Closing are not satisfied, deemed satisfied, or waived in
a writing signed by Seller prior to the expiration of the applicable period for satisfaction or waiver, Seller may
terminate this Agreement.
10. POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered by Seller to Buyer on the Closing Date.
11. ALLOCATION OF COSTS.
11.1 Buyer's Costs. Buyer shall pay the following costs:
(a) fifty percent (50%) of Escrow Holder's escrow fee;
(b) Buyer's own attorney's fees incurred in connection with this Agreement and the
transactions contemplated hereby;
(c) fifty percent (50%) of all the charges for recording the Grant Deed, if any;
(d) the premium difference between the ALTA extended policy of title insurance and the
ALTA standard coverage policy of title insurance if Buyer requests an extended policy; and
(e) any additional title insurance coverages Seller is not required to pay for plus any title
endorsements requested by Buyer.
11.2 Seller's Costs. Seller shall pay:
(a) fifty percent (50%) of the Escrow Holder's escrow fee;
(b) Seller's own attomey's fees in connection with this Agreement and the transactions
contemplated hereby;
(c) Any documentary transfer taxes associated with the conveyance;
(d) fifty percent (50%) of all the charges for recording the Grant Deed, if any; and
(e) the premium for the Title Policy that Seller is required to pay pursuant to this
Agreement.
11,6
882M15610-0047
441578.05 a11/2"3 -7- 47
12. INDEMNIFICATION. Seller agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless from and against
any claim, action, suit, proceeding, loss, cost, damage, liability, deficiency, fine, penalty, punitive damage, or
expense (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees), resulting from, arising out of, or based upon (i) the
presence, release, use, generation, discharge, storage or disposal of any "Hazardous Materials" (as that term is
defined below) on, under, in or about, or the transportation of any such Hazardous Materials to or from, the
Property which occurred prior to the Closing, or (ii) the violation, or alleged violation, of any statute,
ordinance, order, rule, regulation, permit, judgment or license relating to the use, generation, release,
discharge, storage, disposal or transportation of Hazardous Materials on, under, in or about to or from, the
Property which occurred prior to the Closing. This indemnity shall include, without limitation, any damage,
liability, fine, penalty, cost or expense arising from or out of any claim, action, suit or proceeding for personal
injury (including sickness, disease or death), tangible or intangible property damage, compensation for lost
wages, business income, profits or other economic loss, damage to the natural resource or the environment,
nuisance, contamination, leak, spill, release or other adverse effect on the environment (any of the above, a
"Claim") to the extent resulting from, arising out of, or based upon any matter set forth in subclauses (i) and
(ii) hereinabove. At the request of the Seller, the Buyer shall cooperate with and assist the Seller in its defense
of any such claim, action, suit, proceeding, loss, cost, damage, liability, deficiency, fine, penalty, punitive
damage, or expense; provided that the Buyer shall not be obligated to incur any expense in connection with
such cooperation or assistance. Seller's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless under this
Section 11 shall not apply to any Claim resulting from, arising out of or based upon any inspection or
investigation of the Property by Buyer Representatives pursuant to Section 2.1.2 hereof, and Buyer agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold Seller harmless from any such Claim in the same manner and to the same extent
that Seller is required to indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless under the provisions of this Section 11.
For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Hazardous Materials" means any substance, material, or
waste which is, or becomes, regulated by any local governmental authority, the State of California, or the
United States Government, including, but not limited to, any material or substance which is (i) defined as a
"hazardous waste," "extremely hazardous waste," or "restricted hazardous waste" under Section 25115, 25117
or 25122.7, or listed pursuant to Section 25140 of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter
6.5 (Hazardous Waste Control Law)), (ii) defined as a "hazardous substance" under Section 25316 of the
California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8 (Carpenter -Presley -Tanner Hazardous Substance
Account Act), (iii) defined as a "hazardous material," "hazardous substance," or "hazardous waste" under
Section 25501 of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95 (Hazardous Materials
Release Response Plans and Inventory), (iv) defined as a "hazardous substance" under Section 25281 of the
California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7 (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances),
(v) petroleum, (vi) friable asbestos, (vii) polychlorinated byphenyls, (viii) methyl tertiary butyl ether, (ix) listed
under Article 9 or defined as "hazardous" or "extremely hazardous" pursuant to Article 11 of Title 22 of the
California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 20, (x) designated as "hazardous substances" pursuant to
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1317), (xi) defined as a "hazardous waste" pursuant to Section
1004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.(42 U.S.C. §6903) or (xii)
defined as "hazardous substances" pursuant to Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.
13. CONDEMNATION. In the event that, prior to the Close of Escrow, any governmental entity shall
commence any proceedings of or leading to eminent domain or similar type proceedings to take all or any
portion of the Property, Buyer or Seller shall promptly meet and confer in good faith to evaluate the effect of
such action on the purposes of this Agreement and following such meeting either Buyer or Seller may
terminate this Agreement.
14. RIGHT TO EXCHANGE. Seller may desire to complete this transaction as a part of a tax -deferred
exchange within the meaning of Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Buyer
agrees in each such event to cooperate with Seller in order to effectuate such an exchange or exchanges.
Buyer's agreement to cooperate to effect any such exchange or exchanges shall not require Buyer to incur any
cost, expense or liability or acquire title to any property as a consequence of such cooperation. In no event _11.7
882M15610-ON7 48
Q
0
aa1578.05 a1112"3 -8
shall any such exchange transaction delay the Close of Escrow as contemplated in this Agreement. In so
cooperating in any exchange transaction arranged hereunder, Buyer shall in no event be responsible for, or in
any way warrant, the tax consequences of the exchange transaction.
15. MISCELLANEOUS.
15.1 Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Buyer
and Seller and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Neither party to this
Agreement may assign this Agreement or any interest or right hereunder or under the Escrow without the prior
written consent and approval of the other party, which consent and approval may be withheld in the sole and
absolute discretion of either party; provided, however, that Buyer may assign this Agreement to the City of La
Quinta without Seller's consent. No provision of this Agreement is intended nor shall in any way be construed
to benefit any party not a signatory hereto or to create a third party beneficiary relationship; provided,
however, that notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall be an express third party beneficiary with respect to
the indemnities and other matters set forth in this Agreement which specifically and expressly run to the City's
benefit.
15.2 Attorney's Fees. In the event of any action between Buyer and Seller seeking enforcement of
any of the terms and conditions to this Agreement or the Escrow or otherwise in connection with the Property,
the prevailing party in such action shall be awarded, in addition to damages, injunctive or other relief, its
reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation its expert witness fees and reasonable attorney's
fees.
15.3 Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery, via
facsimile so long as the sender receives confirmation of successful transmission from the sending machine, or
three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail, registered, certified, postage fully prepaid and
addressed to the respective parties as set forth below or as to such other address as the parties may from time to
time designate in writing:
To Seller: Sheila Weldon
2636 Ontario Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89128
To Buyer: La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Executive Director
Facsimile No.: (760)
Copy to: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, California 92628-1950
Attn: M. Katherine Jenson, Esq.
Facsimile No.: (714) 546-9035
15.4 Fair Meaning. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if
prepared by both parties hereto.
15.5 Headings. The headings at the beginning of each numbered Section of this Agreement are
solely for the convenience of the parties hereto and are not a part of this Agreement.
88MI5610-0047
441578.05 al 1n4ro3 -9-
15.6 Choice of Laws; Litigation Matters. This Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws
of the State of California and any question arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to
such law. The Municipal and Superior Courts of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, or
such other appropriate court in such county, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any litigation between the
parties concerning this Agreement. Service of process on Buyer shall be made in accordance with California
law. Service of process on Seller shall be made in any manner permitted by California law and shall be
effective whether served inside or outside California.
15.7 Nonliability of Buyer Officials. No officer, official, member, employee, agent, or
representatives of Buyer shall be liable for any amounts due hereunder, and no judgment or execution thereon
entered in any action hereon shall be personally enforced against any such officer, official, member, employee,
agent, or representative.
15.8 Gender; Number. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine, and neuter gender and the
singular or plural number shall be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates.
15.9 Survival. This Agreement and all covenants to be performed after the Closing, and, except as
otherwise set forth herein, all representations and warranties contained herein, shall survive the Closing Date
and shall remain a binding contract between the parties hereto.
15.10 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and
provision hereof, it being understood that the parties hereto have specifically negotiated the dates for the
completion of each obligation herein.
15.11 Waiver or Modification. A waiver of a provision hereof, or modification of any provision
herein contained, shall be effective only if said waiver or modification is in writing, and signed by both Buyer
and Seller. No waiver of any breach or default by any party hereto shall be considered to be a waiver of any
breach or default unless expressly provided herein or in the waiver.
15.12 Broker's Fees. Seller and Buyer represent and warrant to the other that neither Buyer nor
Seller has employed any broker and/or finder to represent its interest in this transaction. Each party agrees to
indemnify and hold the other free and harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, cost, or expense
(including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees) in any manner connected with a claim asserted by any
individual or entity for any commission or finder's fee in connection with the conveyance of the Property
arising out of agreements by the indemnifying party to pay any commission or finder's fee.
15.13 Duplicate Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of duplicate originals,
all of which shall be of equal legal force and effect.
15.14 Severability. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement or the application thereof
to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant, or condition to persons, entities, or circumstances other
than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant
or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
15.15 Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference:
Exhibit "A" Legal Description of Property
Exhibit "B" Grant Deed
Exhibit "C" Non -Foreign Affidavit
88M15610-0047 � "
441578.05 al MUM -10- 5
15.16 Covenants of Seller. Seller agrees that during the period between the Effective Date of this
Agreement and the Closing Date:
(a) Seller shall maintain the Property in not less than the state of repair as that existing
on the Effective Date (excepting ordinary wear and tear);
(b) Seller shall not convey, grant, lease, assign, mortgage, hypothecate, encumber, or
otherwise transfer (on or off record) the Property or any interest therein;
(c) Seller shall not alter the physical condition of the Property or introduce or release, or
permit the introduction or release, of any Hazardous Material in, from, under, or on the Property;
(d) Prior to Closing, Seller shall maintain Seller's existing insurance on the Property.
15.17 Corporate Authority. The person(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of each of the parties
hereto represent and warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement such party is
formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate
any provision of any other agreement to which such party is bound.
15.18 Covenant Aizainst Discrimination. Seller covenants that in its performance of this Agreement
it shall not discriminate against any person or group of persons on account of any impermissible classification
including but not limited to race, color, creed, gender, religion, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
15.19 Entire Agreement, Amendment. Except as set forth above, this Agreement and the exhibits
incorporated herein contain the entire agreement of Buyer and Seller with respect to the matters contained
herein, and no prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any
purpose. No provisions of this Agreement may be amended or modified in any manner whatsoever except by
an agreement in writing signed by duly authorized officers or representatives of each of the parties hereto.
882/015610-0047`�.
441578.05 a11/24/03
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Buyer and Seller each hereby represents that it has read this Agreement,
understands it, and hereby executes this Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first written above.
"Seller"
SHEILA WELDON, TRUSTEE AND HER
SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON
TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1987, AND ANY
AMENDMENTS THERETO
Date: 92003 By:
ATTEST:
June Greek, Agency Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
By:
M. Katherine Jenson, Agency Counsel
Date: 92003
"Buyer"
Sheila Weldon
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a
public body, corporate and politic
Ln-
Agency Chair
Foresite Escrow agrees to act as Escrow Holder in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
882ro15610-0047
441578.05 al 1n41103
FORESITE ESCROW
By: _
Name:
Its:
-12-
5A
121
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The land situated in the City of La Quinta, in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as
follows:
That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 6 South, Range 7 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of said Section 19; Thence South 89° 33' 05"
West, on the Southerly line of the Northeast quarter of said Section, 330 feet, to the true point of beginning;
thence South 89" 33' 05" West, on said Southerly line of the Northeast quarter, 330 feet; Thence North 0° 13'
40" West, 1,324.57 feet, to the Northerly line of the Southeast quarter of Northeast quarter of said Section 19;
thence North 89° 34' 05" East, on said Northerly line, 330 feet; thence South 0° 13' 40" East, 1,324.47 feet to
the true point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom the Southerly 50 feet conveyed to the County of Riverside by Deeds recorded August 30,
1933 in Book 133, Page(s) 292 and Book 134, Page(s) 298 respectively, of Official Records, Riverside County
Records.
Also excepting therefrom that portion of described in the deeds to the City of La Quinta, recorded 02-17-1999,
as Instrument No. 62425 and 62426, Official Records. Excepting therefrom the mobile home located thereon.
882ro15610-0047 53
441578.05 al1a4ro3
122
EXHIBIT 'B"
FORM .OF GRANT DEED
[SEE FOLLOWING PAGES]
882r015610-0047
"1578.05 &112"3 54
123
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WIEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Executive Director
GRANT DEED
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
(Exempt from Recordation Fee per Gov. Code § 6103)
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, SHEILA
WEI-DON, TRUSTEE AND HER SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON TRUST DATED
NOVEMBER 20, 1987, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO (the "Grantor"), hereby grants to the LA
QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under
the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) ("Grantee"),
that certain real property ("Property") located in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of
California, described in the legal description attached hereto as Attachment No. 1 and incorporated herein by
this reference, subject to all matters of record, and further subject to the following:
A. Conveyance in Accordance With Redevelopment Plan. The Property is conveyed in
accordance with and subject to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area Number 2 "Redevelopment Plan"), a
copy of which is on file with the City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California. All uses on the Property shall
conform to the uses permitted by the Redevelopment Plan. The foregoing shall remain in effect until the
expiration of the Redevelopment Plan.
[end — signature page follows]
55
881V15610-0047
441578.05 ail/l"3 -1- 124
24
"Grantor"
SHEILA WELDON, TRUSTEE AND HER
SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON
TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1987, AND ANY
AMENDMENTS THERETO
Dated: 92003 By:
ATTEST:
June Greek, Agency Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
By:
M. Katherine Jenson, Agency Counsel
Dated: 92003
882/015610-0047
441578.05 al1/24/03
-2-
"Grantee"
Sheila Weldon
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a
public body, corporate and politic
By:
Agency Chair
56
125
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
names) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On , before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
[SEAL]
Notary Public
88MI5610-0047
441578.05 al InA103 -3-
57
126
ATTACF[MENT NO. 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The land situated in the City of La Quinta, in the County of Riverside, State of California, described as
follows:
That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 6 South, Range 7 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of said Section 19; Thence South 89' 33' 05"
West, on the Southerly line of the Northeast quarter of said Section, 330 feet, to the true point of beginning;
thence South 89' 33' 05" West, on said Southerly line of the Northeast quarter, 330 feet; Thence North 0° 13'
40" West, 1,324.57 feet, to the Northerly line of the Southeast quarter of Northeast quarter of said Section 19;
thence North 89' 34' 05" East, on said Northerly line, 330 feet; thence South 0° 13' 40" East, 1,324.47 feet to
the true point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom the Southerly 50 feet conveyed to the County of Riverside by Deeds recorded August 30,
1933 in Book 133, Page(s) 292 and Book 134, Page(s) 298 respectively, of Official Records, Riverside County
Records.
Also excepting therefrom that portion of described in the deeds to the City of La Quinta, recorded 02-17-1999,
as Instrument No. 62425 and 62426, Official Records. Excepting therefrom the mobile home located thereon.
882t015610-0047
441578.05 a1124A3 Attachment 1 to Grant Deed 58
127
10,14:111.13VOIN
AFFIDAVIT OF .NON -FOREIGN ENTITY
TO: LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("Buyer")
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 ("Code") (26 U.S.C. Sections 1445, 7701) provides that a transferee of a
U.S. real property interest must withhold tax if the transferor is a foreign person. To inform the transferee that
withholding of tax is not required upon transfer of that certain U.S. real property interest described in
Exhibit "A" to the Agreement for Purchase and Sale and Escrow Instructions dated , 2003,
and incorporated herein by reference ("Property"), that the undersigned ("Seller") hereby certifies the
following:
1. Seller is not a foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust or foreign estate (as those terms
are defined in the Internal Revenue Code and Income Tax Regulations); and
2. The U.S. taxpayer identification number for Seller is ; and
3. The address for mailing purposes of Seller is: ; and
4. Seller understands that this certification may be disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service by Buyer
and that any false statement contained herein could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this Certification and to the best of my knowledge
and belief, it is true, correct, and complete, and I further declare that I have authority to sign this document on
behalf of Seller.
SHEILA WELDON, TRUSTEE AND HER
SUCCESSORS IN TRUST UNDER THE WELDON
TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1987, AND ANY
AMENDMENTS THERETO
Dated: , 2003 By:
882/015610-0047
441578.05 a11/24/03
Sheila Weldon
53128
ATTACHMENT #2
November 18, 2003
Frank J. Spavacek
Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc.
217 North Main Street, Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4822
Subject: Request for Proposal to Provide Relocation Consulting Services
Dear Mr. Spevacek:
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. ("OPC') is pleased to submit this proposal to provide
relocation and related consulting services for the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency") for its proposed acquisition of the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park and the
subsequent relocation of the occupants (the "Project"). OPC has a complete understanding of
the proposed scope of work, past experience with similar mobile home park assemblages, and
the qualified personnel to meet the needs of the Project. Please find below our project
understanding, brief company qualifications, proposed scope of work for completing the
necessary work, and proposed fee.
Project Understanding
Our understanding of the Project is based on reviewing information provided by Agency staff
and our own field investigations. It is our understanding that the Agency is proposing the
rehabilitation of the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park, generally located at 78990 Miles Avenue in
La Quinta.
The rehabilitation of the mobile home park will require the acquisition of property and mobile
homes, which will cause the displacement of residential occupants. As a result, relocation
consulting services will be necessary, which will include the preparation of a Relocation Plan,
relocation assistance services for all displaced persons in accordance with State relocation
guidelines, and project management services. In addition, if the Agency finds it necessary,
OPC can provide interim property management services.
Based on our review of the documents provided and our field investigations, we estimate of that
there may be ninety-three (93) residential occupants requiring relocation assistance services.
All services provided to the Agency will be conducted from OPC's office located in Palm Desert.
60
.1,2 3
November 25, 2003
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
Companv Qualifications
OPC is a leader in providing relocation assistance and related services throughout California.
Since its inception in 1980, OPC has provided similar services to more than 300 local, state and
federal agencies, private sector and non-profit organization clients, completing over 700
projects, and relocating over 30,000 residential households and businesses. These projects
have taken place in every conceivable setting and have involved people from across the broad
spectrum of ethnic, cultural, and financial diversity found in our State.
As an organization, we pride ourselves on our responsiveness to both our clients and families
and businesses we displace. Along with considerable senior management experience, our
company has over 120 professional acquisition agents, relocation specialists, property
management personnel, and administrative personnel. A strong project management team with
years of relocation experience provides the "hands-on" daily management of each relocation
program. Each Project Manager has the support of Relocation Specialists that provide the
specific experience necessary to effectively deal with the complexities of each relocation
project. An in-house, state-of-the-art computer system enhances the Project Managers' and
Relocation Specialists' ability to track cases and provide effective report options for
management and client review.
Relevant Experience
The following are a few of the mobile home parks undertaken in Coachella Valley for which
OPC has provided similar services as required for the Agency's Project:
Cathedral City Redevelopment Agency
OPC has administered and implemented the acquisition, relocation and interim property
management program for Suntown Mobile Home Park in Cathedral City. These services
included acquisition and relocation activities for over one hundred and eighty (180) mobile home
owners.
Rancho Mirage Redevelopment Agency
OPC completed the relocation activities for the Blue Heaven Trailer Park in Rancho Mirage.
The project involved the relocation of nineteen (19) mobile home owners for a rehabilitation
project similar in nature to the Agency's project.
In addition, OPC has completed the relocation of 60 or 70 mobile home parks throughout
California. References for other parks can be provided upon request.
6]
130
November 25, 2003
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
La Quints Redevelopment Agency
Page 3
Scope of Work
The following is a summary of tasks proposed to be performed in completing the necessary
relocation services in accordance with State guidelines:
A. Prepare a Relocation Plan
1. Conduct on -site interviews to gather data from all residential and business
occupants and deliver approved Relocation Assistance Information Brochure.
2. Conduct a survey and analysis of available replacement residential locations.
3. Coordinate with District to review relocation policies and procedures, sources of
funding, time requirements and other pertinent information necessary for
inclusion into the Plan.
4. Correlate and analyze data.
5. Prepare a draft report of the findings and analysis and submit to the Agency for
review and comment.
6. Finalize Plan and deliver to Agency for approval.
B. Relocation Assistance Services
Residential Occupants
1. Conduct personal, on -site interviews of prospective displacees to ascertain
relocation housing needs and special requirements.
2. Inform displaced persons of available relocation assistance services and benefits
and explain relocation process.
3. Provide displacees with on -going advisory assistance to minimize their hardship,
including referrals to and coordination with community service resources, public
housing and other public services, as necessary.
4. Prepare and distribute Informational Statements, Notices of Displacement, 90-Day
Notices to Vacate, and other notices, as may be required.
5. Provide written referrals for replacement housing and physically assist displacees in
locating replacement housing including transporting individuals to view replacement
sites if necessary.
6. Prepare replacement housing/down payment assistance entitlement reports for
displaced households.
7. Determine eligibility for and proposed amount of relocation benefits including moving
payments, rental/down payment assistance and replacement housing payments.
8. Inspect replacement dwellings to determine if they meet "decent, safe and sanitary"
requirements.
9. Prepare all applicable benefit claim forms, secure claimant's signatures on claim
forms and submit claim forms to Agency for processing and payment.
10. Monitor the move to replacement site as necessary.
11. Deliver benefit checks and other appropriate payments to claimants.
12. Maintain necessary case documentation and provide Agency with periodic standard
status reports.
62
131
November 25, 2003
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Page 4
B. Project Management and Other Related Services
1. Provide overall management of relocation program for compliance with Agency's
relocation requirements, overall project planning, scheduling, and coordination with
Agency staff, attorneys, and consultants.
2. Representing the Agency in meetings, hearings, and presentations.
3. Other tasks related to the appraisal, acquisition or relocation programs as may be
assigned by the Agency.
FEE PROPOSAL
Our proposed fee to complete the proposed services is based on the requested services, our
project understanding and proposed scope of services. You have requested a fee for a
preliminary assessment of the relocation costs and a separate cost for the relocation planning
and implementation. Please find below our proposed fee for the project.
OPC may elect to be compensated monthly for the services rendered based on the hourly rate
schedule below, however, in no event will the total hourly compensation exceed the proposed
fees without prior written authorization. Our fees are inclusive of all travel time and expenses
associated with the provision of the required services. Additional cases identified during the
implementation of the assignment and /or substantial changes in the required scope or length of
the project may cause the revision of the project maximum.
Project Management services will be billed at the hourly rates. The amount of time spent for
this category will be controlled and directed by the Agency.
Corporate Officer/Regional Manager
$125.00 per hour
Sr. Project Manager
$110.00 per hour
Project Manager
$100.00 per hour
Senior Acquisition/Relocation Consultant
$90.00 per hour
Acquisition/Relocation Consultant/Analyst
$80.00 per hour
Real Estate Technician/Escrow Officer/Project Support
$60.00 per hour
Secretarial/Clerical
$40.00 per hour
63
132
November 25, 2003
Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Page 5
Any consulting services or advice necessary for an appeal, to support litigation, such as
depositions, pre-trial research, or court testimony, is not part of the above fees and shall be
billed hourly at 200% of the above rates.
OPC appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide the requested services. We
look forward to assisting the Agency in completing any or all of the proposed projects. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Overland, Pacific &Cutler, Inc.
Barry R. McDaniel
Chief Executive Officer
611
133
H
5
OF;
9ti
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003
ITEM TITLE:
Consideration of Adopting a Resolution of the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency Referring the Proposed
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for La Quinta
Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 to the Planning
Commission, Approving the Preliminary Report, and
Transmitting the Preliminary Plan to Affected Taxing
Agencies on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency that refers the proposed
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area
No. 2 to the Planning Commission, approves the Preliminary Report for said
Amendment, authorizes the Acting Executive Director to transmit the Preliminary
Report to each affected taxing agency, and authorizes the Acting Executive Director to
make available for public inspection the text of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment
and the Preliminary Report.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Processing the Redevelopment Plan amendment will cost up to $50,000 in combined
redevelopment expenses for the consultant, legal counsel, environmental consultant
and public hearing notice advertising. The Agency Board appropriated funds for these
activities on July 22, 2003.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
In 1989, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency adopted La Quinta Redevelopment
Project Area No. 2, which generally encompasses properties between Washington
Street and Jefferson Street, from Avenue 50 to the north City limits. The purpose for
this redevelopment project was to stimulate economic development through primarily
funding street and drainage improvements, and to assist the City of La Quinta with
achieving its housing mandates through funding affordable housing projects and
134
programs. When Project Area No. 2 was established, the California Community
Redevelopment Law required that a limit be included on the total amount of tax
increment revenue the Agency may receive from Project Area No. 2. Financial
projections were prepared that assumed average annual property value growth of 5 %
during the 50-year term of the Redevelopment Plan. Based upon these projections, a
$400,000,000 tax increment revenue limit was established.
During the initial years, annual property value growth In Project Area No. 2 was at or
below 5%. During the latter half of the 1990s and through this fiscal year, annual
growth has exceeded 10%, with some years' annual growth being in excess of 26%.
This has accelerated the amount of tax increment revenue the Agency has received
from Project Area No. 2, and conservative forecasts (3% annual property value growth
increases) indicate that the existing $400,000,000 tax increment limit will be achieved
by fiscal year 2020-21, or earlier, if annual growth exceeds 3%.
Reaching the tax increment limit impacts Project Area No. 2 in the following ways:
• The term of the Redevelopment Plan runs to May 2039. If the tax increment
limit is reached before then, the Agency must cease all non -housing
redevelopment activities in Project Area No. 2, including repaying outstanding
General Fund loans.
• Project Area No. 2 has two outstanding bond debt obligations: the 1995
Housing Bonds, of which it is scheduled to fund 21.3% of annual debt service
payments until fiscal year 2025-26, and the 1998 non -housing bonds, of which
it is scheduled to fund 100% of annual debt service payments until 2033.
These bonds must be repaid and if the tax increment limit is not increased, then
the Agency must establish a sinking fund starting in 2014 to retire these bonds.
All non -housing revenue would be encumbered for this purpose leaving no funds
to repay City General Fund loan obligations.
• The Agency cannot issue new housing bonds that pledge Project Area No. 2
housing fund revenue. This would severely impair the Agency's ability to meet
its affordable housing obligations. Project Area No. 2 has the projected
capacity to support an additional $57.0 million of housing bonds during the
remaining term of the Redevelopment Plan.
The California Community Redevelopment Law classifies increasing the tax increment
limit as a major redevelopment plan amendment. This requires that the Planning
Commission review and comment on the proposed text amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2, and that the Agency circulate a Preliminary
Report to affected taxing agencies.
The proposed text amendment deals with modifying the language contained in Section
(702) Tax Increments of the Redevelopment Plan as follows:
135
2
The number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to the
Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the Redevelopment Law shall not
exceed $1,500,000,000, except by amendment of
this Plan.
...
The strikethrough text above would be deleted and a new cumulative limit of
$1,500,000,000 would be established. No other modifications to the Redevelopment
Plan are being proposed by the amendment.
The Preliminary Report (Attachment B to the Resolution) summarizes the scope of the
amendment and presents the rationale for the amendment. If approved by the Agency
Board, the Preliminary Report will then be circulated to the taxing agencies that receive
property tax revenue from La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. Discussions
will be held with them to review the scope of the amendment and any impacts it may
generate. However, since they receive 71 % of the tax increment revenue, there will
be minimal impact on these agencies.
If the Agency Board approves the Resolution, staff will schedule a joint public hearing
involving the Agency Board and the City Council for January 20, 2004. To establish
this date for the joint public hearing, Resolutions setting the time and date for the joint
public hearing will be scheduled for Agency Board and City Council consideration at
the December 16, 2003 meeting.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1 . Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency that refers the proposed
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for La Quinta Redevelopment Project
Area No. 2 to the Planning Commission, approves the Preliminary Report for
said Amendment, authorizes the Acting Executive Director to transmit the
3
1,36
Preliminary Report to each affected taxing agency, and authorizes the Acting
Executive Director to make available for public inspection the text of the
Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the Preliminary Report; or
2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency that refers the
proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for La Quinta Redevelopment
Project Area No. 2 to the Planning Commission, approves the Preliminary Report
for said Amendment, authorizes the Acting Executive Director to transmit the
Preliminary Report to each affected taxing agency, and authorizes the Acting
Executive Director to make available for public inspection the text of the
Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the Preliminary Report; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
Jdf y D. Herman
mmunity Development Director
Attachments: 1. Preliminary Report
Approved for submission by:
t i
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
4
137
RESOLUTION NO. RA
A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY REFERRING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT, AND
TRANSMITTING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT TO
AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES ON THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"), is a
redevelopment agency (a public body, corporate and politic) duly created,
established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers, all under
and pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 of Division 24
,commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code of the State of
California); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for La Quinta Redevelopment
Project Area No. 2 ("Redevelopment Plan") was adopted on May 16, 1989 by
Ordinance No. 139 of the City of La Quinta ("City"), which established a
redevelopment project known and designated as La Quinta Redevelopment Project
Area No. 2 ("Project Area No. 2"); and
WHEREAS, the Agency desires to consider an amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan that increases the limitation on the number of dollars to be
allocated to the Agency from Project Area No. 2, said amendment would not
modify the boundaries of Project Area No. 2; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33346 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, before a proposed redevelopment plan amendment is
submitted to the legislative body the redevelopment agency shall submit the
proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for its report and
recommendation; and'
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, the Agency has prepared a preliminary report (the
"Preliminary Report") on the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
Project Area No. 2 for transmittal to each affected taxing entity as defined in
Section 33353.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law.
051?8
Resolution No. RA
Preliminary Report
Adopted: December 2, 2003
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LA QU1NTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE
AS FOLLOWS:
1. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and this Board so finds
and determines.
2. The proposed text amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, in the form
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is hereby referred to the
Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta for its report and recommendation.
3. The Agency hereby approves and adopts the Preliminary Report in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
4. The Acting Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit the Preliminary Report to each affected taxing entity.
5. The Acting Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to
make available for public inspection the proposed text amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan, and the Preliminary Report.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 2003,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Terry Henderson, Chair
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
fit*t11F
JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, Agency Secretary
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
66
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS8 Reso.doc 139
Resolution No. RA
Preliminary Report
Adopted: December 2, 2003
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, Agency Counsel
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
07
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS8 Reso.doc 140
Resolution No. RA
Preliminary Report
Adopted: December 2, 2003
Page 4
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Section (702) Tax Increments of the Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta
Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 shall be amended as follows:
The number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to the Agency
pursuant to Section 33670 of the Redevelopment Law shall not exceed $2530
1,500,000,000, except by amendment of this Plan.
,..
l� 1 1 \•�•1� l �•J� t i•` 7 � �•� � ��. �-1 � �•� t-L � l� 11 �•1�\•��1•J• � ����� � �.... ►•I ■
Note: The stiikethrough text would be deleted.
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\BS8 Reso.doc
08.
14t
ATTACHMENT #1
La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2
. in
November 21, 2003
La Quinta Redevelop-nent Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quir. Calffomia A_ 1001c"
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
217 North Main Street, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92701-4822
Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E-Mail: RSGIncCA@aol.com
09
142
Introduction.........:............................................................................... i
AmendmentProcess............................................................................................... i
Reasons for the Amendment............................................................ A-1
Background.........................................................................................................A-1
Reasons for the Amendment..............................................................................A-1
Agency Tax Increment Receipts/Affordable Housing........................................A-2
A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in
the Project Area................................................................................ B-1
Remaining Blighting Conditions in the Project Area ........................................... B-1
Affordable Housing Needs..................................................................................B-2
Proposed Method of Financing the Redevelopment of the Project
Area................................................................................................... C-1
Taxing Agency Agreements...............................................................................C-1
A Description of the Projects Proposed by the Agency and How They
Will Improve or Alleviate Physical and Economic Conditions of Blight
.......................................................................................................... D4
10
GABSAWYERMPDOCSOOCUMENTSMA PRELIMREPTIMC 143
IIII I ! 0 7; 1
1 •
This document is the Preliminary Report ("Report") that presents the rational for a
proposed amendment to the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2. The La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency') is processing an amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2
("Redevelopment Plan") to increase the cumulative tax increment limit from
$400,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 ("Amendment). The Agency is pursuing the
Amendment to insure that there is sufficient financial capacity to:
• Continue implementing projects and programs that eliminate blight;
• Create new affordable housing opportunities; and
• Accommodate repayment of existing bond and other debt obligations.
No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan or to the boundaries of the La
Quinta Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 ("Project Area No. 2'9 are being
proposed by this Amendment.
This Report has been prepared in accordance with the California Community
Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seg. ("Lave') and
presents the following information:
SECTION A Reasons for the Amendment
SECTION B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions
Existing in the Project Area
SECTION C Proposed Method of Financing the Redevelopment of the
Project Area
SECTION D A Description of the Projects Proposed by the Agency and
How They Will Improve or Alleviate Physical and Economic
Conditions of Blight
The Law permits redevelopment agencies to amend redevelopment plans to
modify limitations, expand boundaries, add public facility and infrastructure
projects, and merge redevelopment project areas to facilitate the elimination of
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOVEMBER 21, 2W3 - I - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 1
PRELIMINARY REPORT
114
persistent blighting conditions. The Law prescribes a specific process involving
preparation of various documents, including this Report, consultation with affected
taxing agencies, and participation and input from affected residents, business
owners, property owners and other stakeholders.
This Report will facilitate Agency consultations with the community and affected
taxing entities regarding the scope and impacts of the proposed Amendment.
The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta will also be requested to
review the Amendment as it relates to impacts on the City's General Plan.
Following these consultations, the Agency will incorporate comments into a
Report to the City Council. The Agency contemplates holding a joint public
hearing with the La Quinta City Council on January 20, 2004 to receive further
input on the Amendment. All property owners, business owners, residential
owner -occupants and residential tenants within the Project Area No. 2, and
governmental agencies that collect property tax revenue from Project Area No. 2,
will receive a mailed notice of this public hearing.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - II - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Section
i) The Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1989 and subsequently amended
in 1994 to incorporate modifications required by AB 1290. The purpose for
this redevelopment project was to stimulate economic development through
primarily funding street and drainage improvements, and to assist the City of
La Quinta with achieving its housing mandates through 'funding affordable
housing projects and programs.
Project Area No. 2 entails 3,116 acres of property that is developed with
commercial, residential, and institutional uses. Encompassing the northern area
of the City, Project Area No. 2 is bounded by Avenue 50 to the south, Fred
Waring Drive (Avenue 44) to the north, Washington Street to the west, and
Jefferson Street to the east. Property west of Washington Street, north of the
prolongation of the future alignment of Avenue 48; property surrounding Point
Happy, north of Highway 111 and west of Washington Street; and property
easterly of Jefferson Street and north of Highway 111 is also included in Project
Area No. 2.
When the Redevelopment Plan was adopted the California Community
Redevelopment Law required that a limit be established on the total amount of tax
increment revenue the Agency may receive from Project Area No. 2. Financial
projections were prepared that assumed average annual property value growth of
5% during the 50-year term of the Redevelopment Plan. Based upon these
projections, a $400,000,000 tax increment revenue limit was established.
During the initial years annual property value growth in Project Area No. 2 was at
or below 5%. During the latter half of the 1990s and through this fiscal year,
annual growth has exceeded 10%, with some year's annual growth being in
excess of 26%. This has accelerated the amount of tax increment revenue the
Agency has received from Project Area No. 2 and conservative forecasts (3%
annual property value growth increases) indicate that the existing $400,000,000
tax increment limit will be achieved by fiscal 2020-21, or earlier if annual growth
exceeds 3%.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 -A-1 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 j
PRELIMINARY REPORT
116
Reaching the tax increment revenue limit impacts the Agency's redevelopment
efforts in the following ways:
• The term of the Redevelopment Plan runs to May 2039. If the tax increment
limit is reached before then, the Agency must cease all non -housing
redevelopment activities in Project Area No. 2, including repaying outstanding
General Fund loans.
• Project Area No. 2 has two outstanding bond debt obligations: the 1995
Housing Bonds of which 21.3% of annual debt service payments are funded
by Project Area No. 2 Housing Fund revenue until fiscal year 2025-26, and
the 1998 non -housing bonds of which 100% of annual debt service payments
are funded by non -Housing Fund revenue until 2033. These bonds must be
repaid and if the tax increment limit is not increased, then the Agency must
establish a sinking fund starting in 2014 to retire these bonds. All non -
housing revenue would be encumbered to retire the 1998 Bonds, leaving no
funds to repay outstanding General Fund loan obligations due to the City of
La Quinta.
• The Agency's Bond Counsel and Underwriter have determined that new
housing bonds that pledge Project Area No. 2 housing fund revenue cannot
be issued, given that the Agency would achieve the existing tax increment
revenue limit at least 20 years prior to the term of the Redevelopment Plan.
This severely impacts the Agency's ability to achieve its affordable housing
obligations. Project Area No. 2 has the projected capacity to support an
additional $57.0 million of housing bonds during the remaining term of the
Redevelopment Plan.
When the Redevelopment Plan was adopted, the Agency negotiated taxing
agency agreements will all of the taxing agencies that receive tax increment
revenue from Project Area No. 2. Through these agreements, the taxing
agencies received 71 % of all tax increment revenue generated in Project Area
No. 2, with the Agency receiving the remaining 29%. Of this amount, 20% is
deposited into the Agency's Housing Fund, and 9% is pledged towards non -
housing redevelopment projects. Thus, a majority of the tax increment revenue
the Agency receives from Project Area No. 2 is pledged towards increasing and
improving the supply of affordable housing.
Property in Project Area No. 2 is primarily designated for residential uses
generating an acute need to secure affordable housing with long-term covenants.
Pursuant to the Agency's Second Amended Housing Affordability Compliance
Plan, the Agency must secure 636 affordable dwellings by 2039, of which 254
must be affordable to very low-income households. This is based upon the Law's
requirement that at least 15 percent of all privately developed or substantially
rehabilitated units in Project Area No. 2 must be affordable to very low, low and
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - A-2 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2
PRELIMINARY REPORT ►„
moderate -income households, and at least 40 percent of this amount must be
affordable to very low-income households. To date, the Agency has secured 420
units of affordable housing in Project Area No. 2, of which 75 are affordable to
very low-income households. Since a majority of the tax increment revenue the
Agency receives from Project Area No. 2 is pledged towards funding programs
and projects that produce affordable dwellings, the constraints imposed by the
existing tax increment revenue limit on the issuance of additional housing bonds
will impair the Agency's ability to secure these units and achieve its housing
mandates.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - A-3 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2
PRELIMINARY REPORT
148
Section
1 �„ •1 1 LGA,P'-,
- ✓ • •�• •
When Project Area No. 2 was established the Law provided that pervasive
physical and economic blight, and public infrastructure and facility deficiencies,
must be present to support establishing a redevelopment project. In conjunction
with documenting blight and infrastructure/facility deficiencies, a redevelopment
agency had to also demonstrate that both the private sector and the community
acting alone did not have the legal or financial capacity to adequately address
these conditions.
The Law also requires redevelopment agencies to insure that at least 15% of all
privately developed or substantially rehabilitated housing units are affordable to
very low, low and moderate -income households. Of these, 40% must be
affordable to very low-income households. In securing affordable housing, a
redevelopment agency must gain covenants to insure that the dwellings remain
affordable to the target households for 45 years, for single-family dwellings, and
55 years, for multi -family dwellings.
Since Project Area No. 2 was established in 1989, the Agency has embarked on
a multifaceted program to address blight, correct infrastructure deficiencies, and
produce affordable housing.
The following narrative summarizes the blighting conditions present in Project
Area No. 2 when it was established, and those conditions that still exist today.
This data was compiled from the February 1989 Report to Council for the
Proposed La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 2, interviews with City staff and
field surveys conducted by RSG staff in September 2003.
The primary purpose for establishing Project Area No. 2 was to assist with
funding infrastructure improvements that stimulated private sector investment in
commercial, resort and residential development. Both flood control and
circulation system deficiencies, and the costs associated with correcting these
deficiencies, were cited as major impediments to private sector investment. The
City of La Quinta could not adequately fund the required flood control and
circulation system improvements since it was a low property tax city (the City
receives $0.07 of every $1.00 of property tax revenue paid by Project Area No. 2
property owners), and did not have retail or resort uses that generated sufficient
sales and transient occupancy tax revenue. In addition to infrastructure
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - B-1 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 6
PRELIMINARY REPORT 149
deficiencies, economic development activities in Project Area No. 2 were
impacted by parcels subdivided in a manner that limited their development in
accordance with the City's General Plan due to either their unusual configuration
(to accommodate natural land forms or features) or their small size.
The Redevelopment Plan included $69.8 million of projects to address these
deficiencies; $63.4 million in flood control and street system improvement projects
and $6.5 million of community development programs (to. address irregularly
shaped properties). Since 1989, the Agency has funded major infrastructure
improvement projects either in conjunction with private developers and land
owners, or with the City of La Quinta. To date, approximately 70 percent of these
improvements have been implemented, which has improved the economic vitality
of Project Area No. 2. This leaves approximately $20.9 million of non -housing
improvements that should be addressed to eliminate the remaining infrastructure
deficiencies and property configuration impediments. The existing tax increment
limit impacts the Agency's ability to fund these improvements.
The Law provides that the Agency must insure that 15 percent of all privately
developed or substantially rehabilitated units in Project Area No. 2 must be
affordable to very low, low and moderate -income households. This mandate
must be achieved during the life of the Redevelopment Plan or by 2039. Based
upon the projections contained in the Agency's Second Amended Housing
Affordability Compliance Plan, the Agency must secure 636 affordable units of
which 254 must be affordable to very low-income households. To date, the
Agency has secured 420 affordable units in Project Area No. 2, of which 75 are
affordable to very low-income households. This leaves the need to secure an
additional 37 units affordable to low and moderate -income households, and 179
units affordable to very low-income households. The average Agency per unit
investment to secure low and moderate -income units is $106,000, and the
average per unit investment to secure very low-income units is $175,000. Using
the remaining number of units the Agency must secure and the average per unit
cost to obtain each unit by income category, the Agency must invest a total of
$35.2 million in today's dollars to secure the required number of affordable units
to achieve its affordable housing mandates. The existing tax increment limit
impacts the ability to timely achieve these units because it prohibits the Agency
from, issuing additional housing bonds in order to underwrite affordable housing
development.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 17
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - B-2 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2
PRELIMINARY REPORT 150
5Q
Section
�• - • • •E•
Redevelopment of the Project Area has been and will continue to be financed as
follows:
■ Property tax increment;
■ Agency bonds;
■ Financial assistance from the City, State of California and/or Federal
Government; and
■ Any other available and appropriate source.
Since 1989, the primary means of financing redevelopment and housing activities
has been property tax increment revenue, Agency bonds, and City loans. To
date, the Agency has received $68.0 million in total tax increment revenue, of
which $53.0 million has been paid to taxing agencies and $15.0 million to the
Agency. Per the Redevelopment Plan, the revenue the Agency receives and
pays to the taxing agencies is included in the cumulative $400.0 million tax
increment revenue limit. The Agency has secured $11.2 million in tax allocation
bonds ($6.7 million of non -housing bonds and $4.5 million of housing bonds) and
approximately $9.57 million of City General Fund loans.
The Amendment only modifies the $400,000,000 tax increment limit by increasing
this limit to $1,500,000,000. No other provisions of the Redevelopment Plan are
being modified. The proposed $1,500,000,000 tax increment limit was derived by
preparing revenue projections for the remaining 36 years of the Redevelopment
Plan that use a 3 percent per annum growth rate.
The Agency currently has agreements with all of the taxing agencies that levy
property taxes in Project Area No. 2. All of these payments are based upon gross
tax increment revenue; the Agency must fund each taxing agencies share of the
Housing Fund deposits (20% of gross tax increment revenue) from other retained
tax increment revenue. The pertinent provisions of these agreements are
summarized below:
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - C-1 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 1
PRELIMINARY REPORT
County of RlVerside
The Agency's Cooperation Agreement with the County of Riverside provides for
full payment of the tax increment revenue generated by the County General Fund
(25.53%), Library District (2.800/6), and Fire District (6.02%) property tax levies.
Additionally, the Agency is paying the County $2,050,000 over the next 11 years
to reimburse the County for tax increment revenue generated by the County's
General Fund property tax levy the Agency retained during the initial years of the
Redevelopment Plan.
Coachella Valley Convnunity College District
This agreement provides that the College District shall receive 50% of the tax
increment revenue generated by the College District's 7.72% property tax levy.
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
This agreement provides that the Superintendent of Schools shall receive 50% of
the tax increment revenue generated by the Superintendent of Schools' 4.18%
property tax levy.
Coachella Valley Water District
The agreement provides that the Water District shall receive 100% of the tax
increment revenue generated by the Water District's 7.67% property tax levy.
Coachella Valley Recreation and Paris Dhddct
The agreement provides that the Agency shall retain 100% of the tax increment
revenue generated by the Park District's 2.13% property tax levy. This revenue,
however, must be expended on identified park -related capital improvements.
Due to the Agency's expenditure to acquire land acquisition and make park
improvements in Project Area No. 2, the Agency is entitled to retain the Park
District's tax increment revenue until fiscal year 2003-04. After 2003-04, the
Agency anticipates that it will continue to fund park -related projects with the Park
District's share of annual tax increment revenue.
Desert sands Urdffled school District
The agreement provides that the Agency shall retain 50% of the tax increment
revenue generated by the School District's 37.16% property tax levy. The
remaining 50% is paid to the School District.
Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement District
The agreement provides that the Mosquito Abatement District shall receive 100%
the tax increment revenue generated by its 1.41 % property tax levy.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - C-2 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 A
PRELIMINARY REPORT lY�
Section
' �� •. •I re •
' • • •
• . •I L
The Amendment does not entail adding projects or programs to the
Redevelopment Plan. Instead, the Amendment would increase the Agency's
financial capacity to implement the remaining projects listed in the
Redevelopment Plan and to meet its affordable housing mandates. The existing
projects listed in the Redevelopment Plan are designed to alleviate physical and
economic blight. The Agency's affordable housing initiatives are designed to
increase and improve the supply of affordable housing in Project Area No. 2.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2 O
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 - D-1 - LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2
PRELIMINARY REPORT 153
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003
ITEM TITLE:
Joint Public Hearing for Consideration of Revisions to
a Previously Approved Disposition and Development
Agreement by and Between the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency and Center Point
Development, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company (the "Original Developer"), of Agency
Property Located Southeast of the Intersection of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue in La Quinta
Project Area No. 2
RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
L
Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency approving the Disposition and
Development Agreement by and between the City of La Quinta and CP
Development La Quinta, LLC ("Proposed Developer").
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Per the revised Disposition and Development Agreement (the "Revised DDA"), the
Proposed Developer will pay the Agency $7,109,634 to purchase the 42.47 acre
site. The Agency will then expend $2,520,000 (account numbers to be established
upon receipt of the land sale) in housing funds to secure 40 single-family units that
will be affordable to moderate -income family households. To date, the Agency has
spent $3,949,203 to purchase and improve the site; $3,678,305 of 1995
Housing Bond funds and $270,898 of Project Area No. 2. Low- and Moderate -
Income Housing funds. Per Federal and State law, $3,949,203 of the land sale
proceeds will be dedicated to this and a second affordable housing development
(the Avenue 48 affordable housing development). The remaining $3,160,431 in
sale proceeds will be deposited into the Project Area No. 2 Debt Service fund.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
On June 3, 2003 the Agency Board approved a Disposition and Development
Agreement for the Center Point project located on a 46.6-acre property, situated at
the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street.
154
The project included the development of a hotel, casitas, medical office building,
restaurants, boutique hotel, park, and residential uses. Staff is not proposing any
changes to these uses with these revisions.
The revisions pertain to the Revised DDA only and provide for a change to the
development entity from the Original Developer to the Proposed Developer,
allowing flexibility for cost reallocation relating to the perimeter landscaping
improvement, and revising the insurance requirements for the development. All
other provisions of the Disposition and Development Agreement, as originally
approved, remain the same.
Public Noticing
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun on November 18t' and 25th,
2003. As of this writing no correspondence has been received regarding this
project.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency approving the Disposition
and Development Agreement by and between the City of La Quinta and CP
Development La Quinta, LLC; or
2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency approving the
Disposition and Development Agreement; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
actor
Approved for submission:
Mark Weiss, Acting Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Summary Report
2. Disposition and Development Agreement
155
02
RESOLUTION NO. RA 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY APPROVING A REVISED DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND
CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is a public
body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) ("CRL"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CRL, the City Council of the City of La Quinta
("City" or "City Council", as applicable) approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan
("Redevelopment Plan") for Project Area No. 2 ("Project Area"), on November 29,
1983, by Ordinance No. 43, and amended the Redevelopment Plan on December 20,
1994, by Ordinance No. 258; and
WHEREAS, the Agency staff previously negotiated a Disposition and
Development Agreement (" Original Agreement") with Center Point Development, LLC,
a California limited liability company ("Original Developer"), pursuant to which the
Agency would convey to the Developer, either all at once ("Option A"), or in phases
("Option B"), certain real property located within the Project Area (the "Property") for
Seven Million Fifty -Four Thousand Seventy -Four Dollars ($7,054,074) for the Original
Developer's subsequent development thereon of a commercial project containing a
medical office/clinic, a boutique hotel, a mid -price suites hotel, a resort -style
condom imium/casistas development, two sit-down restaurants, and two single-family
residential developments, with forty of the single-family homes restricted for sale to
moderate -income buyers at an affordable housing cost, all as more particularly
described in the Original Agreement (collectively, the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement provided that Agency could reacquire
any undeveloped portion of the Property then -owned by the Original Developer in the
event the Original Developer failed to commence construction of any particular phase
of the Project within certain specified time frames, interrupted construction of a
particular phase of the Project for a specified period of time, or transferred a particular
phase of the Project in violation of the Original Agreement, all as more particularly
described in the Original Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33433
the Agency prepared a Summary Report to consider the Agency's proposed sale of the
Property as set forth in the Original Agreement, the Agency Board and the City
Council, on June 3, 2003, conducted a noticed joint public hearing with respect to the
Original Agreement, and the Agency Board and the City Council, in connection with
their respective approvals of the Original Agreement, made certain findings and
determinations as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 2003-36 and La Quinta
1 s
Redevelopment Agency RA 2003-09; and
03
Resolution No. RA 2003-
Disposition and Development Agreement
CP Development La Quinta, LLC
Adopted: December 2, 2003
WHEREAS, prior to execution of the Original Agreement, the Original
Developer requested certain changes thereto, including (i) changing the developer
entity from the Original Developer to CP Development La Quinta, LLC, a California
limited liability company ("Proposed Developer"), (ii) revising the landscaping
obligations of the Proposed Developer to account for the possibility that the City does
not obtain certain landscaping grants, (iii) revising the Site Plan attached to the Original
Agreement and the individual parcel prices set forth therein to reflect the landscaping
changes and certain other changes necessitated by the proposed installation of a well -
site for the Project, which changes resulted in an increase in the purchase price of
Fifty -Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Dollars ($55,560), and (iv) revising the
insurance requirements for the Proposed Developer; and
WHEREAS, a revised Summary Report for the revised Disposition and
Development Agreement (the "Revised Agreement") has been prepared and the joint
public hearing has been duly noticed and conducted in accordance with applicable
requirements of law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have
considered all the information and evidence set forth in the revised Summary Report
presented by the City/Agency staff and presented by persons wishing to appear and be
heard concerning the impact of the Revised Agreement on the Project Area and the
City as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Agreement is in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan and is of benefit to the Project Area and the City of La Quinta;
and
WHEREAS, the Agency hereby determines that the Agency's sale of the
Property pursuant to the Revised Agreement is necessary to effectuate the purposes of
the Redevelopment Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency hereby resolves as follows:
A. The Revised Agreement effectuates the purposes of the Community
Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and
of the Redevelopment Plan and is in the best interests of the citizens of
the City of La Quinta.
-11 1'
04
Resolution No. RA 2003-
Disposition and Development Agreement
CP Development La Quinta, LLC
Adopted: December 2, 2003
B. The Agency's sale of the Property will eliminate blight and is consistent
with the Agency's Five -Year Implementation Plan, based on the facts and
conclusions of the revised Summary Report, which is incorporated herein
by this reference.
C. The Agency's sale of the Property will eliminate blight in that it will
facilitate the development of affordable housing.
D. The consideration the Proposed Developer will pay for the Property is not
less than the fair market value of the Property at its highest and best use
in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, based on the facts and
conclusions of the revised Summary Report.
3. The Revised Agreement, a copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary,
is hereby approved. The Agency Executive Director and Agency Counsel are
hereby authorized and directed to make final modifications to the Revised
Agreement that are consistent with the substantive terms of the Revised
Agreement approved hereby, and the Agency Executive Director is authorized to
thereafter sign the Revised Agreement on behalf of the Agency.
4. The Agency Executive Director is authorized and directed, on behalf of the
Agency, to (i) sign such other and further documents, including but not limited
to subordination agreements and escrow instructions that require the Agency's
signature, and (ii) take such other and further actions, as may be necessary and
proper to carry out the terms of the Revised Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency held this 2nd day of December, 2003, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TERRY HENDERSON, Agency Chair
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. RA 2003-
Disposition and Development Agreement
CP Development La Quinta, LLC
Adopted: December 2, 2003
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, Agency Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, Agency Counsel
City of La Quinta, California
iss
06
ATTACHMENTp1
SUMMARY REPORT
FOR THE
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND
CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC
November 26, 2003
INTRODUCTION
This document is the Summary Report ("Report") for the Disposition and Development
Agreement ("Revised Agreement") by and between the La Quinta Redevelopment
Agency ("Agency") and CP Development La Quinta, LLC, a California limited liability
company ("Proposed Developer"). The Revised Agreement facilitates the sale of
approximately 42.47-acre Agency -owned parcel ("Property") to the Proposed Developer
who will construct:
• Approximately 134 room Homewood Suites by Hilton hotel ("Hotel")
• Approximately 136 one and two story casitas hotel condominium units to be
rented as vacation rental units ("Casitas")
• A sanctuary villas development with approximately 26 1,200 square foot villas
and a spa ("Boutique. Hotel")
• A 120,000 square foot medical and surgical center comprised of three 40,000
square foot buildings ("MOB")
• Two sit-down restaurants ("Restaurants")
• 13 courtyard cluster villa homes that will be sold at market sales prices ("Villas")
• 54 One-story Single Family and Courtyard Homes of which 40 will be sold at
prices affordable to moderate income households ("Affordable Single Family and
Courtyard Homes"), with the remaining 14 sold at market sales prices ("Market
Single -Family Homes")
• A 2.68-acre park ("Park").
The aforementioned improvements constitute the "Development".
This Report has been prepared pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Health and
Safety Code (the California Community Redevelopment Law or "Law") and addresses
the following:
• A summary of the proposed Development.
• The cost of the Revised Agreement to the Agency.
• The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed, determined at the highest and
best uses permitted by the Agency's Redevelopment Plan.
• The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed determined at the use with the
conditions, covenants, and development costs required by the Revised Agreement.
1130
GAWPDOCS\SumRptCP CtrPt Rev.DOC 1 n
• An explanation of why the sale of property pursuant to the Revised Agreement will
assist in the elimination of blight.
• Conformance with the Agency's Five Year Implementation Plan.
THE DEVELOPMENT
The Agency purchased the Property in 1995 in order to reserve land for affordable
housing development. Subsequently, the Agency focused its attention on facilitating
affordable housing development opportunities on other Agency owned properties
located on Avenue 48. In December 1999, the Agency circulated a Request for
Proposals that sought a mix of hotel, restaurant, and affordable housing development
on the Property. The desire to seek hotel and restaurant uses was generated by the
opening of the Indian Wells tennis Gardens, located northwest of the Property.
Proposals were received and the Agency entered into two separate exclusive
negotiation agreements. The first, in March 2000, encompassed a 10.8-acre segment
of the Property and entailed a proposal to develop a Hilton Gardens Inn hotel. The
developer and Agency concluded negotiations without reaching agreement because site
access issues could not be resolved. The Agency entered into a second exclusive
negotiation agreement in February 2001 for the entire Property. This agreement was
also terminated after the development entity failed to structure an economically viable
project. The Agency then moved forward to secure environmental clearances and
entitle the Property with the approval, by the City of La Quinta ("City"), of a specific plan
in February 2002.
Center Point Development, LLC (the "Original Developer') first contacted the Agency in
June 2002 regarding their interest in developing hotel, restaurant, medical office, and
affordable and market rate housing on the Property. In August 2002, the Agency
entered into an exclusive negotiation agreement with the Original Developer that
initiated a 120 day period during which the Original Developer would structure a
development program, secure tenants, secure financing commitments, and process
amendments to the February 2002 specific plan. Further, the Agency and Original
Developer together would negotiate property purchase terms, and if agreement was
reached, draft a disposition and development agreement. The negotiations generated
purchase terms that were accepted by both the Agency and Original Developer, and a
disposition and development (the "Original DDA) was subsequently drafted.
Per the Original DDA the Original Developer would purchase the property for
$7,054,074. The Original Developer would then mass grade the Property and construct
Seeley Drive, utility, and drainage improvements. The first phase development would
comprise the Hotel and 40 Casitas units, and if the Original Developer could
demonstrate that they had secured financing and/or tenant commitments, the remaining
Casitas units, the Boutique Hotel and the Restaurants. Once the City approved the
foundation for the Hotel, the Original Developer could then commence construction of
20 Affordable Single Family and Courtyard Homes, the Park and the first of the three
MOB buildings. When the exterior walls of the Hotel were framed, then the Original
Developer could start construction of the second MOB. Finally, when the Hotel was
GAWPDOCS\SumRptCP CtrPt Rev.DOC 2
161
75% complete (defined as having the exterior wall stucco and the roofs installed), the
Original Developer could then commence development of the third MOB.
The Original Agreement provided two Property purchase options. The first, Option A,
allowed the Original Developer to purchase the entire Property at one time. This Option
was developed because the lender or equity investor who funds the land purchase and
site improvement activities may require that a lien be recorded against the entire
Property to secure this financing. The second purchase option, Option B, allowed the
Original Developer to purchase parcels as each development phase (as described in
the preceding paragraph) is constructed. This option would be instituted if the Original
Developer secured financing that did not require that a lien be recorded against the
entire Property to secure funds. In order to improve the Property as economically as
possible, the Original Developer desired to mass grade the Property, stabilize the soil,
and construct Seeley Drive, and required drainage and utility system improvements.
The Original Agreement included provisions that gave the Agency the option to
repurchase portions or all of the Property (in the event the Original Developer
defaulted, by failing to perform per the terms of the Original Agreement) at the
price the Property was sold to the Original Developer plus 33% of the cost of the
site improvements, and their associated design and soft costs, or, if the Original
Developer had not started construction at the time of the default, the Agency could
purchase the land back at the purchase price less 10%. Per the Original
Agreement, the Agency must review and approve the user commitments,
financing, improvements and construction budget for each development phase.
The Original Agreement provided that the Agency would sell the land to the Original
Developer at fair market value. The only financial assistance the Agency would provide
is $63,000 per unit or $2,520,000 to secure the Affordable One-story Single Family and
Courtyard Homes. These funds were to be slated for the Affordable One-story Single
Family and Courtyard Homes' pro-rata share of land, site and building plan,
engineering, municipal permit and fee, and site improvement costs. The Agency would
reimburse the Original Developer for these costs per a schedule included in the Original
Agreement; the source of funds will be a portion of the proceeds generated from sale of
the other parcels that comprise the Property. When the Affordable One-story Single
Family and Courtyard Homes were purchased the Agency assistance would be
converted in homebuyer silent second trust deed loans.
The second trust deed loans would also feature covenants that require the dwellings to
remain affordable to moderate -income family households for 45 years. Further, unlike
past Agency second trust deed loans, the covenants would not afford the homeowner
the option to sell their dwelling at prevailing market values and release the unit from the
affordability covenant. Instead, the homeowner must sell their dwelling to either another
qualified buyer or if a qualified household cannot be found, as a last resort to the
Agency.
162
G:\WPDOCS\SumRptCP CtrPt Rev.DOC 3 n 9
THE REVISED AGREEMENT
On June 3, 2003, the Agency Board and City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the Original Agreement. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by each entity, the
Original Agreement was approved. Subsequent to June 3, 2003, the Original Developer
requested certain changes to the Original Agreement, including (i) changing the
developer entity from the Original Developer to CP Development La Quinta, LLC, a
California limited liability company ("Proposed Developer'), (ii) revising the landscaping
obligations of the Proposed Developer to account for the possibility that the City does
not obtain certain landscaping grants, (iii) revising the Site Plan attached to the Original
Agreement and the individual parcel prices set forth therein to reflect the landscaping
changes and certain other changes necessitated by the proposed installation of a well -
site for the Project, which changes resulted in an increase in the purchase price of Fifty -
Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Dollars ($55,560), and (iv) revising the insurance
requirements for the Proposed Developer. All of the other terms and provisions
contained in the Original Agreement remain the same. The Original Agreement, as
revised pursuant to the above, is hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Agreement."
THE COST OF THE REVISED AGREEMENT TO THE AGENCY
To date, the Agency has invested $5,714,789 in the Property; these expenditures are
comprised of the initial land purchase cost, the cost to improve Miles Avenue and
Washington Street, the costs associated with preparing environmental and planning
studies, and the interest expense on the bonds used to purchase the property and fund
the other costs. The Proposed Developer will pay $7,109,634 for the Property which
will reimburse the 1995 Housing Bond fund for $3,678,305 of non -interest expenses.
The Agency will pledge $2,520,000 of this amount to fund the silent second trust deed
assistance to the Affordable One-story Single Family and Courtyard Homes, and the
remaining $1,158,305 will be pledged to fund some of the costs associated with the
Avenue 48 and Adams Street affordable housing development. The specific
expenditures were as follows:
• Property Purchase Cost - $1,977,500
• Washington Street/Miles Avenue Improvements - $1,700,805
• Specific Plan and Environment Studies - $175,000
• Adjoining Property Utility System Reimbursement - $95,898
• Interest Expense on the 1995 Housing Bonds - $1,765,586
• Homebuyer Second Trust Deed Mortgages — $2,520,000
GAWPDOCS\SumRptCP CtrPt Rev.DOC 4
-� �3
In order sell the Affordable One-story Single Family and Courtyard Homes at costs
affordable to moderate -income family households, the Revised Agreement provides that
the Agency will fund 40-second trust deed mortgages. The mortgages will cover each
dwelling's pro rate share of land ($35,175), architecture and engineering ($7,175),
entitlement/municipal fee costs ($11,300), and site improvement costs ($9,350). The
Revised Agreement provides that a second trust deed of $40,000 to $63,000 per unit, or
an average second trust deed mortgage of $51,500, will be provided to 40 units to
permit family households who earn from 81 to 120 percent of the Riverside County
median income to purchase these homes. The exact mortgage amount will be
determined by the purchase price of each unit. The home prices will range from
$216,000 to $2511000. The Agency second trust deeds combined with the homebuyer
down payments of 3% will reduce the first trust deed mortgage to $142,000 to
$175,000, a level affordable to moderate income family households.
The Agency's Redevelopment Consultant has reviewed and verified the costs
associated with the Affordable One-story Single Family and Courtyard Homes. The
total development cost is projected to be $8,129,700, with sales income projected to be
$9,722,000.
ESTIMATED VALUE OF INTEREST TO BE CONVEYED
The Agency's Redevelopment Consultant reviewed comparable land sales for property
designated for commercial, hotel, condominium hotel and single-family uses that was
not entitled or improved. This review identified per acre land values ranging from
$60,000 to $283,140 per acre depending on size and location. Smaller parcels located
in high traffic locations commanded a greater land value. The Revised Agreement
provides that the Agency will sell the Hotel, Casitas, Boutique Hotel, MOB and
Restaurant parcels to the Proposed Developer for $217,800 per acre; the residential
land will be sold for a fair market value of $60,000 per acre.
ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE INTEREST TO BE CONVEYED, DETERMINED AT THE
USE AND WITH THE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
REQUIRED BY THE REVISED AGREEMENT
The Revised Agreement imposes conditions on the property as required by the City's
entitlement and environmental processes (imposed through a development agreement
involving the City and the Proposed Developer), and the requirement that the Proposed
Developer construct the various uses within the specified time frames presented in the
Schedule of Performance. The Revised Agreement also requires the Proposed
Developer to construct 40 dwellings that must be sold at affordable housing costs to
moderate -income family households and the construction of Seeley Drive and the Park
improvements. The Agency's second trust deed mortgage assistance will fund the
difference between the sales prices required to fund the cost of developing these units
and housing costs that would be affordable to moderate income family households.
G:\WPDOCS\SumRptCP Ct�Pt Rev.DOC 5
EXPLANATION OF WHY THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE
REVISED AGREEMENT WILL ASSIST IN THE ELIMINATION OF BLIGHT
The Property conveyance, and construction of the Development, addresses economic
blight within Project Area No. 2 by facilitating development of uses that generate
economic demand and additional patrons that will frequent Project Area businesses.
Further, the conveyance will facilitate the development of dwellings that will increase
and improve the supply of affordable housing within La Quinta Redevelopment Project
No. 2. Per the Second Five Year Implementation Plan, the Agency has an obligation to
facilitate the production of over 1,500 affordable units by 2004. In order to accomplish
this task the Agency must provide incentives to private developers and non-profit
organizations to construct units that will be affordable to households within the
respective income levels. The Property conveyance and the Development will further
the Agency's efforts to promote affordable housing development within Project No 2.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE AGENCY'S FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Second Five Year Implementation Plan and the Second Amended Housing
Affordability Plan identifies a combination of market rate and affordable housing
development for the Property. Further, the Implementation Plan identifies the potential
for resort and hospitality uses for the Property. The conveyance of the Property and the
subsequent development will conform to the provisions of these Plans.
A copy of the proposed Revised Agreement is attached to this Report or is available for
review at the Community Development Department located at the La Quinta City Hall.
The proposed Revised Agreement will be the subject of a joint public hearing and the
Agency and City Council on December 2, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers are located at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California.
G:\WPDOCS\SumRptCP CtrPt Rev.DOC 6
Try
mmff Em am a w -mww w NEWIMP
Y
,t,- --2) If
1.
w