2004 07 20 RDAeaf 4449ha
Redevelopment 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, July 20, 2004 - 2:00 P.M.
Beginning Resolution No: RA 2004-12
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 AGENCY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, MARK WEISS,
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: JIM
MENTON.
f^
Jul 20, 2004
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 1 y 3
2. CONFERENCE WITH AGENCY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, MARK WEISS,
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 CONCERNING POTENTIAL
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE MILES AVENUE AND WASHINGTON
STREET INTERSECTION AND NORTH OF THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL (APNs 604-
040-012/013 AND 604-040-022/023). PROPERTY OWNER/NEGOTIATOR:
RICHARD OLIPHANT, CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC.
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
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2004
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 JULY 20, 2004.
2. TRANSMITTAL OF TREASURER'S REPORT DATED MAY 31, 2004.
3. TRANSMITTAL OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES REPORT DATED MAY 31,
2004, AND INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE
30, 2004.
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 2 July 20, 2004
BUSINESS SESSION
1 . CONSIDERATION OF: 1) A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR
2004/2005 LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET; AND 2) A
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES
TO BE FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005.
A. RESOLUTION ACTION(S)
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSSION OF SilverRock RESORT PROJECT STATUS.
CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS' ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Redevelopment Agency to be held on
August 3, 2004, 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, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing
agenda for the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency meeting of Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 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, July 16, 2004
DATED: JULY 16, 2004 -'>y- ..-
(6
JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 3
July 20, 2004
l•�'
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 2004
ITEM TITLE:
Demand Register Dated July 20, 2004
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 July 20, 2004 of which $6,086,937.74
represents Redevelopment Agency Expenditures.
PLEASE SEE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NUMBER I ON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: ,July 20, 2004
ITEM TITLE:
Transmittal of Treasurer's Report
dated May 31, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Receive and File the Treasurer's Report dated May 31, 2004.
PLEASE SEE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM ON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
0 J
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: July 20, 2004
Transmittal of Revenue and
Expenditure Reports dated
May 31, 2004 and Investment
Summary Report for the Quarter
Ending June 30, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Transmittal of the May 31, 2004 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency and Investment Summary Report for the Quarter Ending
June 30, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
Jgfin M. Falconer, Finance Director
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, Executive Director
Attachments 1: Revenue and Expenditures Report, May 31, 2004
2: Investment Summary for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2004
ATTACHMENT 1
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REVENUE SUMMARY
PROJECT AREA NO.1:
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
Tax Increment
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Interst - County Loan
Interest Advance Proceeds
Transfers In
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND - NON-TAXABLE
Pooled Cash Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Litigation Settlement Revenue
Loan Proceeds
Rental Income
Transfers In
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND - TAXABLE
Pooled Cash Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Litigation Settlement Revenue
Bond proceeds
Rental Income
Transfers In
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
LOW/MODERATE TAX FUND:
Tax Increment
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Miscellaneous revenue
Non Allocated Interest
LQRP-Rent Revenue
Home Sales Proceeds
Sale of Land
Sewer Subsidy Reimbursements
Rehabilitation Loan Repayments
2nd Trust Deed Repayment
Transfer In
TOTAL LOWIMOD TAX
REMAINING %
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED
23,134,787.00
23,485,965.06
(351,178.06)
101.520%
66,000.00
109,096.29
(43,096.29)
165.300%
0.00
784.49
(784.49)
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
967,182.00
0.00
967,182.00
0.000%
1,731,455.00
1,731,455.00
0.00
100.000%
25,899,424.00
25,327,300.84
572,123.16
97.790%
0.00
191,923.83
(191,923.83)
0.000%
437,100.00
277,263.72
159,836.28
63.430%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
4,530.00
6,794.40
(2,264.40)
149.990%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
441,630.00
475,981.95
(34,351.95)
107.780%
0.00
(262.86)
262.86
0.000%
0.00
63,876.44
(63,876.44)
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
26,400,000.00
26,400,000.00
0.00
100.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
26,400,000.00
26,463,613.58
(63,613.58)
100.240%
5,783,697.00
5,871,491.32
(87,794.32)
101.520%
4,400.00
5,967.74
(1,567.74)
135.630%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
341,000.00
337,735.48
3,264.52
99.040%
150,000.00
215,820.56
(65,820.56)
143.880%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
135,298.12
(135,298.12)
0.000%
0.00
4,315.36
(4,315.36)
0.000%
0.00
396,047.58
(396,047.58)
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
6,279,097.00
6,966,676.16
(687,579.16)
110.950%
LOWIMODERATE BOND FUND:
Allocated Interest
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Home Sale Proceeds
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Non Allocated Interest
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Transfer In
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
TOTAL LOWIMOD BOND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Co 7
2
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
0710112003.5/31104
REMAINING
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
ENCUMBERED
BUDGET
PROJECT AREA NO, 1•
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
SERVICES
394,585.00
367,939.61
0.00
26,645.39
BOND PRINCIPAL
2,208,831.00
2,208,831.00
0.00
0.00
BOND INTEREST
8,060,234.00
8,060,234.64
0.00
(0.64)
INTEREST CITY ADVANCE
967,182.00
886,583.50
0.00
80,598.50
PASS THROUGH PAYMENTS
11,011,803.00
10,679,745.46
0.00
332,057.64
ERAF SHIFT
1,467,995.00
1,467,995.00
0.00
0.00
TRANSFERS OUT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
24,110, .00
23,671,329.21
0.00
439,300.79
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
PERSONNEL
4,900.00
9,459.99
0.00
(4,559.99)
SERVICES
99,619.00
124,946.89
0.00
(25,327.89)
LAND ACQUISITION
307,300.00
292,410.55
0.00
14,889.45
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ADVERTISING -ECONOMIC DEV
16,700.00
31,108.05
0.00
(14,408.05)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
187,000.00
136,451.52
0.00
50,548.48
BOND ISSUMCE COSTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CAPITAL - BUILDING
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
1,225,208.00
1,123,105.50
0.00
102,102.50
TRANSFERS OUT
27,628,079.00
10,442,299.80
0.00
38,070,378.80
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
29, ,806.
4,81
38,1 3,6 .
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDITAXABLE BOND
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
955,822.00
949,968.12
0.00
5,853.88
TRANSFERS OUT
25,444,178.00
17,030,783.29
0.00
8,413,394.71
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
26,400,000.00
17, 0,7 1.41
0.00
8,419,2485
LOW/MODERATE TAX FUND:
PERSONNEL
4,900.00
9,459.99
0.00
(4,559.99)
SERVICES
250,497.00
226,003.74
0.00
24,493.26
BUILDING HORIZONS
210,000.00
0.00
0.00
210,000.00
LQ RENTAL PROGRAM
150,000.00
177,597.40
0.00
(27,597.40)
LQ HOUSING PROGRAM
1,759,196.00
1,140,956.00
0.00
618,240.00
LOWMOD VILLAGE APARTMENTS
2,350,000.00
0.00
0.00
2,350,000.00
LQRP - REHABILITATION
426,411.00
0.00
0.00
426,411.00
APT REHABILITATION
350,000.00
0.00
0.00
350,000.00
FORECLOSURE ACQUISITION
460,000.00
220,000.00
0.00
240,000.00
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
82,595.00
75,712.12
0.00
6,882.88
TRANSFERS OUT
3,898,079.00
3,898,080.00
0.00
(1.00)
TOTAL LOWIMOD TAX
- 9,941,678.00
5,74 , 09.2
0.00
4,193,868.75
LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND
PERSONNEL
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SERVICES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HOUSING PROJECTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TRANSFERS OUT
74,623.00
74,623.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
74,623.00
74,623.00
0.00
0.00
01 g
3
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REVENUE SUMMARY
PROJECT AREA NO.2:
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
Tax Increment
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Interest Advance Proceeds
Transfer In
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Developer Agreement
Transfers In
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
LOWIMODERATE TAX FUND:
Tax Increment
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Developer funding
Vista Dunes MHP Rental Rev
2nd Trust Deed Repayment
ERAF Shift - Interest
Sale of Land
Transfer In
TOTAL LOWIMOD TAX
LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND:
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Bond proceeds (net)
Transfer In
TOTAL LOWIMOD BOND
REMAINING %
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED
11,485,062.00
11,751,674.95
(266,612.95)
102.320%
0.00
39,790.25
(39,790.25)
0.000%
0.00
34.73
(34.73)
0.000%
863,674.00
0.00
863,674.00
0.000%
3,442,855.00
337,984.00
3,104,871.00
9.820%
15,791,591.00
12,129,483.93
3,662,107.07
76.810%
0.00
17,936.90
(17,936.90)
0.000%
0.00
18,457.33
(18,457.33)
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
36,394.23
(36,394.231
0.000%
2,871,265.00
2,937,918.74
(66,653.74)
102.320%
27,400.00
71,370.40
(43,970.40)
260.480%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
7,054,074.00
622,304.65
6,431,769.35
8.820%
0.00
22,604.98
(22,604.98)
0.000%
0.00
94,952.59
(94,952.59)
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
108,570.08
(108,570.08)
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
9,952,739,00
3,857,721.44
6,095,017.56
38.760%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
400,000.00
0.00
400,000.00
0.000%
39,150,000.00
0.00
39,150,000.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
39,550,000.00 0.00 39,550,000.00 0.000%
4
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
07/0112003 - 5131104
REMAINING
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
NO, 2:
BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
ENCUMBERED
BUDGET
PROJECT AREA
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
SERVICES
229,013.00
168,983.92
0.00
60,029.08
BOND PRINCIPAL
176,169.00
176,169.00
0.00
0.00
BOND INTEREST
578,895.00
578,894.14
0.00
0.86
INTEREST CITY ADVANCE
957,800.00
877,983.33
0.00
79,816.67
INTEREST - ERAF UMOD LOAN
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PASS THROUGH PAYMENTS
9,779,225.00
7,331,123.49
0.00
2,448,101.51
TRANSFERS OUT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
11,721,1 2.
9,133,1 .88
0.00
2,537,W.12
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
PERSONNEL
2,900.00
5,723.45
0.00
(2,823.45)
SERVICES
78,544.00
99,319.64
0.00
(20,775.64)
ADVERTISING -ECONOMIC DEV
0.00
10,921.63
0.00
(10,921.63)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
0.00
5,702.81
0.00
(5,702.81)
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
34,509.00
31,631.38
0.00
2,877.62
TRANSFERS OUT
(36,670.00)
(53,237.01)
0.00
16,567.01
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
79,233.00
100,061.90
0.00
(20,778.90)
LOWIMODERATE TAX FUND:
PERSONNEL
2,900.00
5,724.39
0.00
(2,824.39)
SERVICES
127,171.00
183,238.31
0.00
(56,067.31)
2ND TRUST DEEDS
400,000.00
(27,469.00)
0.00
427,469.00
2ND TRUST DEEDS FROM CENTERPOINTE
2,520,000.00
0.00
0.00
2,520,000.00
48TH AND ADAMS - FROM CENTERPOINTE
1,423,203.00
0.00
0.00
1,423,203.00
LOW MOD HOUSING PROJECT/47TH/ADAMS PROJ
533,943.00
0.00
0.00
533,943.00
48TH/ADAMS PLANNING
480,000.00
280,000.00
0.00
200,000.00
FORECLOSURE ACQUISITION
150,000.00
0.00
0.00
150,000.00
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
71,968.00
65,989.00
0.00
51999.00
TRANSFERS OUT
10,131,066.00
3,437,062.23
0.00
6,694,013.77
TOTAL LOWIMOD TAX
15,840, 71.
3,944,534-93
0.00
11, 95, .07
LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND
2nd TRUST DEEDS
7,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
7,000,000.00
LAND
31,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
31,000,000.00
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
1,500,000.00
0.00
0.00
1,500,000.00
TRANSFERS OUT
50,000.00
0.00
0.00
50,000.00
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
39,550, .00
0.00
0.00
39,550,000.00
`l l o
5
ATTACHMENT 2
V
0N McM
ti
co ti
co
N
�tir-V-MMO�N04v-
ti
O) L w
CG N
ti
mLq
N
co co ch
c0
m
Or M O� N N co O
w
ti~ M
V
o) ~ Lo ft
ti
ON
SG
7
0
co NpOpM
ti
cO N00
MmWN O
W
O to w
Cp
tiN ��
c690
�
o A >. >. >+ >► >. A
>% A m m m
c�N�3c3'c3'C�cS'cS'c3'c3'cS"c
2
aazzzzzzzzzz
c
m mmcococacvcococvcocow
c m m m m m m m m m m
c c c c c c c c c c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO
a) ZU 0 0 0 0
�n.a °'ac>�av>> 0 0coov>>
C E...e-a Xe-Qe-0cocoa0
N
� ao ��oaoaooaa
mNr.aNw-I Mixes
C
M0<0: co co
pp mMNONO 1 , O)O
OYM$ 1 N N COO)
Y SOON mY CCCYmmYY
CmNYm Im cc0 M M
coC6 ccOcnmcnm»mm
C6=i Cm::i0=iC6 C6
m co > > > > rC
C,il
OF
��
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: J u ly 2 0, 2 0 04
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of a (1) Resolution
Approving the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency Budget and a (2) Resolution
Determining the Planning and Administration Expenses
to be Funded in Fiscal Year 2004-05
RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Adopt a Resolution of the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency approving the Fiscal Year
2004-2005 City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Budget and determining the
planning and administration expenses to be funded in Fiscal Year 2004-05.
See City Council Staff Report
�' 12
RESOLUTION NO. RA 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
WHEREAS, each year the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency adopts a Budget
for Revenues and Expenditures for the upcoming Fiscal Year; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency desires. to make provisions
for a level of services commensurate with the needs of the City; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency has reviewed said budget
and has had several public meetings to receive public input; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency has, after due deliberation
and consideration, made such amendments in the proposed budget as it considers
desirable; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the La Quinta Redevelopment
Agency to adopt, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget which is on file with the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency Secretary, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Continuing Appropriations which remain unspent and were
authorized by Council in Fiscal Year 2003-04, are approved in the Fiscal Year
2004/2005 Budget in an amount not to exceed $66,075,550 (Attachment 1).
SECTION 3. Encumbrances for Fiscal Year 2003-04 for committed
appropriations are approved in the Fiscal Year 2004-05 budget in an amount not to
exceed $ 883, 943 (Attachment 1) .
SECTION 4. Budget adjustment procedures are approved as follows:
A. Additional appropriations and the transfer of cash or
unappropriated fund balance from one fund to another shall be
made only upon Redevelopment Agency approval.
B. Transfers of budgeted appropriations between divisions or
capital projects shall be made only upon Redevelopment Agency
approval.
013
2
Resolution No. RA 2004-
Budget - FY 2004/2005
Adopted: July 20, 2004
Page 2
C. Transfers of budgeted appropriations between accounts within
a division or capital project may be made with the approval of
the Executive Director or his designee.
D. Prior year budget continuing Appropriations and Encumbrances
for unexpended capital project appropriations remaining from
uncompleted prior year capital projects shall be made with
Executive Director approval. These carry-over appropriations
are for prior year Redevelopment Agency approved capital
projects and shall not exceed the approved project budget.
SECTION 5. The Executive Director shall render .a monthly report to the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency Board on the .status of Agency operations as it
relates to the approved budget and any amendments thereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the La Quinta Redevelopment
Agency at a regular meeting held on this 20th day of July, 2004, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TERRY HENDERSON, Chair
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, Agency Secretary
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
(Seal)
0l4
3
Resolution No. RA 2004-
Budget - FY 2004/2005
Adopted: July 20, 2004
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, Agency Counsel
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
. 015
4
ATTACHMENT 1
City of La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency
Fiscal Year 2003/04 Continuing Appropriations/Encumbrances -Note 1 15,iul-04
As Dresented in Budget Documents
Department
Account
Description
Continuing
Appropriation
Encumbrances
Total
Redevelopment Agency
245-9001-703-51.43
LQRP 2nd Trust Deed
518,240
518,240
245-9001-703-51.42
LQRP Rehabilitation
500,000
500,000
245.9001-703-51.46
Apartment Rehabiliation
350,000
350,000
245.9001-703-51.11
Low Mod Village Apartments
400,000
400,000
246-9002-703-51.62
47th Adams Project
533,943
533,943
246-9002-703-51.45
48th & Adams Centerpoint
1,429,203
1,429,203
246-9002-703-51.44
2nd Trust Deed Centerpoint
2,520,000
2,520,000
246-9001-703-95.10
Transfer to Debt Service PA 2 Centerpoint
3,104,871
3,104,871
248-9002-702-74.01
Low Mod Bond Fund proceeds
57,603,236
57,603,236
Subtotal - Redevelopment Aaency
66 075,550
1 883,943
166 959 493
Note 1 - The appropriations and encumbrances listed will be adjusted to reflect actual expenditures as of June 30, 2004
Note 2 - These appropriations (') will be funded contingent upon the receipt of $7,054,074 in developer funds.
C..i16
RESOLUTION NO. RA 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DETERMINING THAT THE
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES TO BE
FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 BY THE LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND ARE NECESSARY
FOR' THE PRODUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND/OR
PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE. HOUSING FOR LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta has heretofore
adopted the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area 1 on December 29, 1983 by
Ordinance No. 43; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta has heretofore
adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area 2 on May 16, 1989 by
Ordinance No. 139 and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33334.2(a) of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) not less
than 20% of all taxes which are allocated to the Agency shall be set aside by
the Agency in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund and used by the
Agency for the purpose of increasing, improving and preserving the
community's supply of low- and moderate income -housing available at
affordable housing costs to people and families of low -and moderate income;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33334.3 (d) of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) it is the
intent of the California State Legislature that the amount of money spent for
planning and general administration from the Low and Moderate Income Housing
Fund not be disproportionate to the amount actually spent for the cost of
production;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of La Quinta as follows:
1. The Agency hereby determines that it is necessary to allocate $1,001,544
of the estimated $9,150,088 2004-05 Affordable Housing Budget for the
planning and administrative expenses necessary for the production,
improvement, and or preservation of low -and moderate -income housing
during the 2004-05 fiscal year.
1'7
N.
Resolution No. RA 2004-
Planning & Administrative Expenses FY 2004/2005
Adopted: July 20, 2004
Page 2
2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency held on this 20"d day of July 2004, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TERRY HENDERSON, Chair
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, CMC, Authority Secretary
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
(Authority Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, Agency Counsel
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
!1$
7
t ;.,KnWMA
IOU
w
OF T9
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: July 20, 2004
ITEM TITLE: Discussion of SilverRock Resort Project
Status
RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
That the Redevelopment Agency review the progress and status of the SilverRock
Resort Project.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Redevelopment Agency has appropriated $90.4 million towards SilverRock Resort
including land acquisition, the golf course, temporary clubhouse, permanent clubhouse,
village lake, and other related on and off -site improvements. Additional expenses as of
yet not funded include development of the second golf course and park/civic uses site.
The Agency anticipates that the project will, once developed, generate ongoing annual
City revenue from golf play, sales and transient occupancy taxes. The Rosenow
Spevacek Group, in April of 2002, projected net annual income to the City of $3.2
million from two golf courses and 750 hotel rooms. Additional revenue from land
sales, retail sales taxes, and/or additional hotel rooms are anticipated in the future.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Landmark Golf Management ("Landmark") representatives Andy and Judy Vossler
appeared before the Redevelopment Agency on July 6, 2004 and voiced certain
dissatisfactions, concerns and frustrations in activities and processes associated with
development of the SilverRock Resort Golf Course. The Redevelopment Agency Board,
in response to Landmark's comments, asked that staff provide a status report on the
SilverRock Project. Additionally, Agency Members indicated an interest in being
advised of other issues raised by Landmark including comments specific to the
Ahmanson Ranch House as a temporary clubhouse. Accordingly, this report will
0 19
attempt to revisit the project's conception and evolution; touch upon the role of key
consultants and contractors in creating and implementing the plan; address Landmark's
activities specific to the temporary clubhouse issue; and offer some thoughts on future
project process.
I. History
Robert Charles Lesser & Co. (RCL) completed a market evaluation of future real estate
development opportunities in La Quinta in October of 1995 under the direction of the
Rosenow Spevacek Group (1995). This study, serving as the foundation for the City's
first Economic Development Plan adopted in 1996, concluded that there would be
demand for one new resort hotel and four new public golf courses in the Coachella
Valley in the next five to ten years. Additionally, the report concluded that La Quinta
was properly located and situated to compete for these new resort opportunities.
The City reviewed and updated its Economic Development Plan each year subsequent
to 1996. Periodically during that time, the market analysis was revisited and updated
(i.e., Sedway Group in 1999 and Design Workshop in 2003). These studies were
supplemented by a golf -specific market analysis completed by Economics Research
Associates in June 2002.
As a result of the aforementioned market studies and economic development interests,
the Redevelopment Agency considered and pursued various property options. In
January of 2002, Agency staff contacted KSL Recreation, Inc., regarding the
disposition of KSL's Ranch property. After much discussion, KSL offered to sell 525
acres to the Agency. Agency staff negotiated purchase terms on behalf of the
Agency, conducted appropriate environmental review of project alternatives, utilized
the aforementioned economic studies, secured financing, and worked with the Agency
to enter into an acquisition option agreement in April 2002, followed by actual
property acquisition in June 2002.
On July 2, 2002, the Agency authorized staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for land use planning services. Distribution of the actual RFP was granted on August 6
of that year and was the first step in formulating a specific project development team
for what was to become SilverRock Resort. Twenty-two planning firms responded
with proposals to assist the Agency in land planning efforts for the project. After
extensive interviews, GMA International was chosen by the Agency in October 2002
and embarked with the Agency upon a public land use planning process for the entire
525 acres. After numerous workshops, public meetings and public debate, the
Agency approved a Conceptual Master Plan for the project on May 6, 2003.
r�qo
2
Below, the Agency will find a summary of key consultants that have been retained
since that time to assist the Agency in Phase I project implementation. The quality of
the project site, the land plan, a sound fiscal plan and, staff believes, the perception of
a well -managed City, contributed to the buzz, excitement and consultant response
realized with each RFP.
Today, a little more than a year after plan approval, mass grading operations have
moved over 2,000,000 yards of dirt, the first golf course has been designed, and
shaping is nearing completion. Lakes are being filled, grass is being grown, and
support facilities are being built. Desert Classic Charities has endorsed the project
design by designating the Tournament Course as a home to the Bob Hope Chrysler
Classic. Numerous hotel and casitas developers have indicated support for the project
design and exhibited interest in being selected as project developers.
The project success exhibited to -date has not been without challenge. The process
and project has been subject to much public debate and scrutiny. The Agency has
considered, and reconsidered, the very organizational structure by which this project,
and indeed, the entire City are managed (see May 2003 Study Session Report,
Attachment 1). The Agency has, however, with the help of the project team outlined
below, created a venue that is destined to become the premiere resort destination in
the Coachella Valley. We are proud to re -introduce the following SilverRock Project
team:
II. Consultants and Contractors
Firm Role # Proposals Retained
Rosenow Spevacek Group Econ Development N/A 3/94
Frank Spevacek, Principal & Redevelopment
For nearly 25 years, RSG has provided community development, economic
development, redevelopment, and housing consultation to local governments
throughout California. Frank Spevacek is one of the founding partners of RSG.
Economics Research Associates Golf Market (Under RSG 4/02
Gene Krekorian, Sr. Vice President Analysis Contract)
ERA, founded in 1958, is an international consulting firm specializing in economic
analysis for the entertainment and leisure industry, real estate development, public
policy analysis, tourism, and economic development. ERA conducts 25-30 golf
consulting assignments annually, representing over 70 California public agencies.
ERA has completed 20 golf market, financial, and valuation assignments for Coachella
v21 3
Valley projects including Desert Willow, Landmark Golf Club, PGA West, The Reserve,
Ironwood, Monterey Country Club, and Mesquite. ERA recently worked with the City
of Indian Wells to develop a golf strategy for the City is resort courses. Gene Krekorian
has been with ERA for 30 years.
GMA International Land Use 22 11 /02
Gil Martinez, President Planning
GMA International, in business for 30 years, is a world-renowned land use planning
firm, having completed large-scale resort projects throughout the United States,
Mexico, French Polynesia, the Caribbean, Chile, South America, Asia, Europe, and
Africa. Their services include: Resort Master Planning, Golf Course Routing,
Landscape Architecture, Site Planning, Environmental & Entitlement Services, and
Architectural Design. GMA's local experience includes the Tradition Club and The
Hideaway (formerly Country Club of the. Desert) in La Quinta; the Ritz Carlton at Dana
Point; Dove Canyon Country Club in Orange County, CA; and numerous Arizona
resorts including Fountain Hills, Estrella Mountain, and Superstition Mountain -Gold
Canyon. Gil Martinez is one of the founders of GMA.
Palmer Course Design Company Golf Course 38 7/03
Erik Larsen, Vice President Architect
Palmer Course Design Company, established in 1979, has been involved in the
planning, design, and construction of more than 300 golf courses worldwide. Local
golf course designs include The Tradition, Indian Ridge Country Club, PGA West -
Palmer Private, and Mountain View Country Club. PCDC has designed both municipal
and resort courses, and many of their courses host PGA tour events. Erik Larsen has
been with PCDC since 1983, and has designed over 100 golf courses worldwide.
Berryman & Henigar Development 9 6/03
Roy Stephenson, P.E., Coordinator
Executive Vice President
Berryman & Henigar (B & H), founded in 1975, is a municipal professional services
consulting firm serving primarily 'the public sector. B & H provides engineering
consulting and management services. B & H, specifically Roy Stephenson, was
Program Manager during the property acquisition and development of the Blackgold
Golf Club in Yorba Linda, managed redesign and construction of several golf holes at
the Indian Wells Golf Resort in Indian Wells, and provided development services for the
Talega golf community in San Clemente, CA. Roy Stephenson, P.E., was one of the
original founders of the company, and has 40 years of program/project management
experience.
4
Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering Water N/A 1 1 /03
Mark Krebs, President Engineering
Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering (PACE) specializes in water resource solutions
(stormwater management, environmental water) and recreational water feature design
for a wide variety of projects, including golf courses. Established in 1987, PACE has
worked with both private and public sector clients across the country, including Trilogy
La Quinta, and Bighorn in Palm Desert. Mark Krebs, a registered professional engineer,
has 15 years experience in water resources engineering.
The Keith Companies Civil 5 9/03
Dan Ruiz, Director of Engineering
Engineering Services
The Keith Companies (TKC), established in 1983, provides planning, engineering, and
design services for private and public sector projects and has 16 divisions throughout
Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Utah. TKC has provided
engineering services for local golf projects such as The Tradition, The Quarry, Ritz -
Carlton Rancho Mirage, The Reserve, Travertine, Eldorado in Indian Wells, as.well as
numerous local public works projects. Dan Ruiz, P.E., has over 12 years of civil,
water, and roadway design engineering experience.
Dahlin Group
Jack Gallagher,
Senior Architect
Building
Architect
6 11/03
The Dahlin Group, founded over 25 years ago, provides a wide variety of architectural
services in the Western United States and China. The Dahlin Group has extensive golf
facilities experience, including clubhouses, pro shops, cart barns, and maintenance
buildings. Jack Gallagher has 15 years experience, including clubhouse design for
Desert Willow, Talega in San Clemente, and Balboa Golf in Balboa (San Diego).
RGA/Pinnacle Design Landscape 8 2/04
Rob Parker, Landscape Architect Architect
Founded in 1977, RGA/Pinnacle Design has extensive golf course landscape design
experience, as well as public sector, commercial, residential, and recreation landscape
design. Local golf -related projects include The Tradition and The Quarry; RGA has also
provided landscape design for Cal State San Bernardino's Palm Desert Campus, Palm
Springs Desert Museum, Indian Wells Tennis Garden, and the Westin Mission Hills.
Rob Parker is a Registered Landscape Architect.
Cj?3 5
Heinbuch Golf, LLC Construction 12 1 1 /03
Gary Heinbuch, President Management
John Przybyszewski,
Construction Manager
For over fifteen years, -Heinbuch Golf has managed over 100 golf course projects.
across the United States, including golf course construction and quality control,
clubhouses, cart storage facilities, and maintenance building and yard complexes.
Heinbuch Golf has managed both municipal and private projects. Gary Heinbuch has
over 30 years industry experience, and John P. has been involved in numerous golf
course construction projects throughout California.
McMurry, Inc. Pre -Opening Marketing 12 11 /03
Stephen Williams, and Public Relations
Sr. Vice President of
Business Development
Established in 1989 as a custom publishing company, McMurry has expanded to
become a full -service marketing communications company. Golf and resort -related
clients include the Ritz -Carlton (both corporate -level and the Phoenix hotel), Biltmore
Resort & Spa in Phoenix, Talking Stick Golf Course and The Golf Club in Scottsdale,
Wyndham Hotels, IMI Investment Properties (Jack Nicklaus Luxury Golf Communities),
and many more. Stephen Williams has been with McMurry for nearly two years, and
prior to that he has been in the publishing business, has consulted for Fortune 500
companies, and was President and COO of a publicly traded telecom company.
Landmark Golf Management Golf Course 12 4/04
Andy Vossler, Vice President Management
Johnny Pott, Sr. Vice President
Established in 1971 as Unique Golf Concepts by PGA pros Ernie Vossler and Joe
Walser, the company was purchased by Landmark Land Company in 1974, and re-
established as Landmark Golf Company in 1993. Over the years, Landmark Golf
Company has developed and managed renowned local golf developments including
PGA West, La Quinta Hotel, Mission Hills Country Club, as well as numerous golf
resorts across the country. Along with SilverRock Resort, Landmark is currently
managing the Landmark Golf Club and Shadow Hills Golf Club, both in Indio; The Golf
Club of California in Fallbrook; The Ranch at Silver Creek in San Jose; Landmark at
Hemet Golf Club in Hemet; and Paradise Ridge in Phoenix. Andy Vossler has been
with Landmark since 1978 and has developed several large-scale golf communities in
California. Johnny Pott, a former PGA tour champion, has been with Ernie Vossler and
Joe Walser since they started Unique Golf Concepts; Johnny has been involved with
the design and development of numerous golf courses and heads up Landmark's
Design and Construction Division.
III. Temporary Clubhouse and Landmark
�� 2 4 6
Staff has understood since property acquisition that the Agency wished tokeep and
y
restore the Ahmanson Ranch House. Evaluation of the Ranch House (i.e., refurbish
on -site structures or design and construct new structures to serve as the clubhouse
and maintenance facilities") was included as a task within the Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the Development Coordinator approved by the Agency on February 18, 2003.
Mr. Stephenson specifically identified evaluation of the Ahmanson Ranch House on a
"Master Schedule" of activities presented to the Agency July 1, 2003.
In August 2003 the Agency approved an RFP for Building Architectural Services that
specifically identified evaluation of the Ahmanson Ranch House's capacity for use as a
temporary clubhouse as a "desired service". The RFP indicated that the architect
would be asked to design the remodel of the house if such re -use as a temporary
clubhouse were feasible, or alternatively, if such re -use was not feasible, to prepare
plans, specifications and cost estimates for a temporary facility using modular
facilities. Dahlin was selected as the Architect and presented its findings regarding the
Ahmanson Ranch House on January 6, 2004 (Attachment 2). The Agency, on that
date, voted 4-0 in favor of remodeling the Ahmanson Ranch House as the temporary
clubhouse (see Minutes of January 6, Attachment 3).
On January 9, 2004, the Agency selected Landmark Golf Management Inc. as the
preferred operator. Staff subsequently initiated discussions with Landmark
representatives regarding the management contract structure. During these
discussions, Landmark advised staff that Landmark believed the Agency had made a
mistake in remodeling the Ahmanson Ranch House. Landmark further indicated that it
had chosen not to advise the Agency of the mistake before the decision was made for
fear of jeopardizing Landmark's selection as the operator. Landmark subsequently
submitted its list of clubhouse "positives/negatives" to staff (Attachment 4).
During follow-up meetings, staff advised Landmark that staff did not always agree
with Agency decisions but, once decisions are made, staff's policy was to implement
Agency decisions to the best of our ability. Landmark advised the Executive Director
and Assistant Executive Director that, while Landmark may not agree with the Agency
on this matter, they would honor the policy and work with staff to make the
Ahmanson Ranch House work. Accordingly, staff thought the matter was resolved.
On February 3, 2004, the Agency reviewed the floor plan and site plan for the
proposed temporary clubhouse. Staff, taking Landmark at their word, advised the
Agency in the February 3 report that, "The recommended site plan attempts to
maximize aesthetic and historical value of the Ahmanson ranch house's setting while
addressing operational challenges created by the building's location and size
0125 7
limitations. Landmark Golf, while not yet under contract, has contributed to these
efforts by itemizing operational challenges posed by re -use of the ranch... house and
assisting GMA, Dahlin, and staff with site planning efforts." (emphasis added). By the
preceding, staff attempted to advise the Agency of Landmark's concerns while noting
their pledge to work affirmatively to address those concerns consistent with the
Agency's direction.
At no time did staff advise Landmark that they were not allowed to discuss matters
with the Agency Board Members. Landmark representatives regularly interact with
Agency Members. Staff did ask that Landmark keep staff abreast of Agency contact.
And Landmark representatives discussed the advantages/disadvantages of the
temporary clubhouse directly with Agency Board Members during this time.
Additionally, staff discussed the matter with Agency Board Members in considerable
detail. Staff believed that Landmark's position specific to the temporary clubhouse
was known by the Agency Board.
Thus, the Ahmanson Ranch House was publicly discussed by the Agency on numerous
occasions. Landmark followed the project closely and discussed numerous issues with
Agency and staff members, but apparently chose to withhold substantive comment on
the temporary clubhouse during the public decision -making process for its own
reasons. Subsequently, after the decision was made, Landmark advised staff of their
disagreement with the decision but ultimately indicated that they would work to
implement the Agency's decision.
During discussions of the business plan, however, Landmark once again surfaced their
opposition to remodeling the Ahmanson Ranch house as a temporary clubhouse. Staff
offered to review Landmark's position regarding merits of a modular facility again at
that time, but asked that Landmark provide some cost/benefit information. Landmark
advised they would provide an analysis in exchange for additional compensation (and,
further, offered to supervise the installation of modular units for yet more
compensation). This was reported to the City Council via staff report on June 15,
2004.
Staff believes it is possible to address some of Landmark's issues within the
Ahmanson Ranch House alternative. For example, this might include renting or buying
a mobile kitchen placed adjacent to the Ranch House (i.e., to obtain the full kitchen
and liquor license). There is additional space adjacent to the house for patio or outdoor
accommodations and entertainment.
Unfortunately, the Agency received only one bid on July 14 for the remodel (for
$972,000 exceeding the Engineer's estimate of $650,000)--whether that be as a
result of public uncertainty about the project or simply a product of current market
Li
conditions and project size. As of this writing, staff has not had an opportunity to
fully analyze the responsiveness of that bid.
A modular alternative is still possible but would need to be analyzed in terms of cost,
design, and location. Landmark has hinted that modulars may be accomplished for
approximately $600,000, but it is not clear that this price includes architectural
features such as were contemplated with .the Ahmanson alternative. These costs
would likely not contribute to the permanent project (i.e., would be true lost costs).
IV. Process
As noted earlier in this report, the City of La Quinta has explored the concept of golf
course/resort development since at least 1996. The Redevelopment Agency, working
with Staff, RSG and Rutan and Tucker ("Agency Staff"), acquired the property now
referred to as SilverRock Resort in June of 2002. In May of 2003, the Agency
discussed in detail "implementation activities" associated with SilverRock and
formulated a process for developing the site. Since that time, the Agency and Agency
staff have selected the team, created the plan and embarked upon Phase I construction
of the project.
Staff has attempted to update the Agency today on the project's status. Agency staff
takes great pride in the progress made to -date. The Agency's success in giving
guidance, staying focused, and moving this very complex project forward in a publicly
inclusive environment with demonstrated quality and efficiency has been impressive.
Agency Board Members have tenure with this City ranging from 2 to 18 years. The
Executive Director has been with the City for 16 years; the Redevelopment Consultant
for 16 years; and the Assistant Executive Director/Project Manager for 8 years.
Specific to SilverRock, each of the selected project consultants and team members
have demonstrated experience and competence with other similar projects. This
experience has enabled the progress demonstrated to -date -with adopted plans and on -
site improvements. To this point, the project has generally proceeded on schedule and
within adopted budget parameters. The project has generated significant public
anticipation. And the project design has been praised by interested developers,
citizens and PGA Tournament officials alike (as evidenced by the project's selection as
a home' course to the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic). Staff believes the City stands to
benefit greatly from the positive publicity and buzz created by this new venue.
Staff believes it important that all SilverRock staff/consultants support Agency
decisions once they are made. And staff does not feel it appropriate or productive to
report each staff or consultant disagreement with Agency action. Such would
inevitably lead to project dissension, negative. publicity and, ultimately, project
paralysis.
C, 2'7
9
Landmark is the newest member of the SilverRock team having been retained in April
of this year. Landmark has raised numerous issues other than just the temporary
clubhouse specific to SilverRock in recent weeks and months (see Attachment 5).
Most of the issues raised by Landmark relate to decisions that were made prior to
Landmark's contractual involvement with the project, but still routinely surface in
staff's interactions with Landmark (one exception is the Avenue 52 Tunnel, a decision
which has not been formalized, but to which Landmark's representative has voiced
opposition). Staff brings them forward now in an effort to put the issues to rest.
Finally, one ongoing Landmark criticism relates to staff's efforts to formulate a
balanced golf budget. Early pro-formas suggested such was possible, but Landmark's
initial and preferred budget proposal would have had the City paying Landmark nearly
$4 million per year for course maintenance and operations (as opposed to the pro-
forma's $2.7 million expense estimate). This budget proposal would have had the City
subsidizing golf operations by approximately $800,000 in the first year (i.e., operating
at an annualized first year loss of $800,000). Landmark represented that their
experience in operating other projects that the first year would be the project's best
year. It should be noted that staff was assisted in review of the operating budget by
ERA, Berryman & Henigar, Tom Frost, and other industry professionals.
Given Landmark's criticisms, it is not clear why Landmark wanted to be associated
with this project, or at minimum, why they did not suggest that certain issues, if
deemed critical (i.e., project management, the clubhouse, Landmark's authority, etc.),
be addressed as a prior condition to their formal affiliation with the Agency.
The operator's role with any project is critical to its success. In this case, the operator
must not only grow the grass and maintain the premises, but must market the project
and serve as the day-to-day liaison with the public. The operator must be one of the
project's chief ambassadors. This may be very difficult if the operator believes the
project's basic design or premise is fundamentally flawed.
Landmark, in citing frustrations with the project, process and staff, stated that
"somebody probably does need to leave" at the July 6, 2004 RDA meeting. It is
unfortunate that Landmark has publicly reached that conclusion, but if that is
Landmark's conclusion, it may be better to part ways now rather than wait until
numerous legal agreements and entanglements make separation more difficult.
Agency staff looks forward to working with the Agency Board in bringing this project
to its successful conclusion.
028 10
VI. Moving Forward
The Agency asked to consider activities for the next 6-18 months. These activities
could include, but may not necessarily be limited to:
• Evaluate the Ahmanson Ranch bid submittal and revisit temporary
clubhouse alternatives;
• Complete construction of the 1st golf course and support facilities
including restrooms, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse;
• Consider and adopt the Annual Plan;
• Finalize the Brand Promise;
• Construct Jefferson Street, Ave. 52 and 54 street, perimeter and wall
improvements;
• Construct on -site backup wells;
• Consider and adopt operational policies, practices and fees;
• Schedule and host Grand Opening event;
• Evaluate costs/benefits of Permanent Clubhouse;
• Finalize collateral materials for marketing development sites for hotel,
casita, and retail development;
• Develop criteria and process for considering development proposals;
• Consider Avenue 52 tunnel proposal;.
• Consider Parking and Host requirements for the Bob Hope Chrysler
Classic;
• Establish resident and non-resident fees and access policies; and
• Evaluate merits of initiating 2"d golf course development (i.e., perhaps
updating ERA's June 2002 Market Analysis).
VI. City Manager's Comments
Indicated in this staff report, there are several issues raised that go beyond the issues
regarding the temporary clubhouse. I will address some of those in my comments.
Process for Implementation of SilverRock Development and Operation Activities
There have been various times during the development and implementation of the
SilverRock Resort project when we addressed the implementation process. The first
time staff addressed the implementation process to be utilized for this project was on
May 20, 2003. At that time, the Agency Board chose to utilize the same
organizational structure that is utilized for all other projects and has served the
City/Agency well throughout the years. This structure has been utilized in building a
fiscally sound, well planned, and progressive city. The staff report of May 20, 2003
has been provided as Attachment 1.
Other comments surrounding this project have included its "specialization and
magnitude." It is clear that this project is the single largest undertaking of the
City/Agency and is "specialized" in nature. It is, however, important to note that the
City Council/Agency Board has utilized this same implementation process for building
this entire City and specialized projects such as parks, City Halls, Cove Improvements
(streets, sewer, water), fire stations, etc. The City/Agency has also completed
complex bond financing, housing projects, negotiations with cable franchise and waste
haulers, just to name a few. With the City Council/Agency Board guidance, these
projects have been completed through staff and with the assistance of hiring
professionals with expertise in the particular fields needed for successful
implementation of the projects.
That same method of implementation for the completion of the projects referenced
above has been utilized for the SilverRock Resort project. To date, that
implementation has been successful and recognized. The project team consists of
some of the finest professionals in the field, led by highly competent professional staff
members. I believe without the process of implementation that has been utilized and
the team of professionals and staff selected, the project's success would not be at the
extraordinary level the Agency Board or the Executive Director expects it to be. We
have completed a great deal of the vision to date, but still have a ways to go.
Assembling of the Team
As the Agency Board is aware, the Board has undergone extensive processes in
assembling the great team of professionals we have for the SilverRock Resort project.
Equally, I believe we are pleased with the progress to date. The team assembled has,
for the most part, worked well together on various complex issues in bringing the
project to fruition.
However, at the last Agency Board meeting, substantial conflict arose during the
discussions of the temporary clubhouse feasibility/location. My concern, as Executive
Director, is not the specific issue of the discussion of the temporary clubhouse, but
rather the larger issue of project implementation. I too, have had discussions with Mr.
Andy Vossler regarding the SilverRock project. Some of the items of which Mr.
Vossler and I spoke are addressed in this report; some of which I do not feel
professionally appropriate to make part of this discussion.
One particular concern I have is Mr. Vossler's specific comment made at the last
Agency Board meeting, which had not been brought to my attention during Mr.
Vossler's discussion with me on June 29, 2004. That comment was, "We've been
hindered, harassed, badgered, agitated, to the point that it's very difficult for us to see
12
J30
how we do what we're here to do for you without our getting our image and
reputation tarnished a lot more than we want it to be."
This statement is untrue. Staff has treated Landmark professionally, and expects the
same in return. The making of untrue comments casts aspersion on the SilverRock
Resort project and is likely to hinder its implementation. The Agency Board guidance,
the project manager, and the project team have, to date, implemented this project very
successfully. Our goal is to see this project through to fruition.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Review the progress and status of the SilverRock Resort Project; or
2. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Weiss
Assistant Executive Director
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Staff Report and Minutes from May 20, 2003
2. Feasibility Study for Ahmanson Ranch House
3. RDA Meeting Minutes from January 6, 2004
4. List of Positives and Negatives from Landmark
5. Landmark Issues 7-12-04
tom' i
OF 9
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: May 20, 2003
ITEM TITLE:
Discussion of Silver Rock Ranch Implementation
Activities
RECOMMENDATION:
As deemed appropriate by the Redevelopment Agency.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
ATTACHMENT 1
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
None for this action. The FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program includes a project
entitled Municipal Golf Course — Phase 1, including $2.5 million for contractual services
related to planning, engineering and property management. Current construction
estimates for Phase I, including supporting infrastructure, total $21.5 million.
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 "Silver Rock Ranch" in May 2003. The Agency authorized
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for both "Development Coordinator" and "Golf
Architect" services. Architect interviews are scheduled for May 30, 2003. The
Development Coordinator position remains vacant pending •successful negotiation of
a contract for said services (e.g., Tom Frost, Inc., was not retained by the Agency,
and Chapman Golf subsequently withdrew their proposal (Attachment 1); staff will
initiate discussions with the third -ranked firm, Berryman and Henigar, unless directed
otherwise by the Agency).
Staff itemized selected tasks that are required for project implementation (Attachment
Staff then reviewed these tacks with GMA for completeness and to evaluate the
merit of consolidating certain tasks under the direction of specific consultants (i.e.,
perhaps including lakes, irrigation, landscape architecture with the golf course, etc.,
within{the scopeof the, -Golf Course Architect, for example) (Attachment 3).
Consistent with actions taken to -date, staff believes it appropriate to circulate RFP's
for selected services (i.e., such as the Development Coordinator, Golf Course
Architect, Construction Manager, Golf Course Operator, etc.). As the Agency moves
forward, however, numerous implementation issues surface that the Agency may wish
to address. Following are some of these issues. Generally, staff recommendations are
reflected in the first option for each item.
Organizational Structure
1. Retain the current organizational structure (i.e., as with all other City/Agency
projects, Agency provides policy direction and Executive Director implements
that policy — currently with centralized management out of the Director's
Office); or
2. Create an alternative structure specific to this project. Options might include
"Commission," "Citizen's Committee," or "Strong Mayor/Chair" formats
wherein certain administrative responsibilities are assumed by Agency Members,
a Committee, or the Agency Chairperson.
Contract Organization
1. Streamline project. management by grouping contracts under selected master
consultants (i.e., Golf Course Architect, Civil Engineer, Land Use Planner, etc.);
or
2. Separate disciplines and tasks, issue RFP's, or otherwise select
contractors/consultants for each, and coordinate activities internally; or
3. Solicit proposals from a master developer(s) to "turnkey" project development.
Plan Consistency
1. Negotiate a continued role with GMA International (see Attachment 4) in an
attempt to ensure a "seamless" plan implementation. Such activities might
include attention to project landscaping, grading and/or architectural themes; or
2. Issue a new RFP for additional specific planning services; or
3!
3. Utilize the golf architect and potential hotel/commercial developers to refine
specific components of the plan under staff oversight.
Development Coordinator
1. Negotiate with the third -ranked firm (Berryman and Henigar) for Development
Coordinator services; or
2. Reject all proposals and reformulate an RFP with fewer restrictions on contract
term and future project involvement; or
3. Reject all proposals and assign tasks to existing staff (i.e., probably resulting in
various Department Directors being assigned specific project components for
management and oversight under the general direction of the Manager's Office).
Project Name and Logo
1. SilverRock Ranch; or
2. Silver Rock Ranch (i.e., Silver Rock as one word or two, Attachment 5).
Staff is prepared to discuss perceived advantages/disadvantages of the concepts
outlined above. Certain concepts may require additional investigation, including legal
review (e.g., the "turnkey" concept, for example), should the Agency wish to seriously
pursue implementation.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Weiss, Assistant Executive Director
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, Executive Director
r.
U 0
16
Attachments: 1. Correspondence from David Chapman
2. Task list
3. Consolidation list
4. GMA correspondence
5: Logos
-� 17.
(� CHAPMAN
GOLF DEVELOPMENT
May 14, 2003
Mr. Mark Weiss
City of La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
• Dear Mark,
ATTACHMENT 1
It is with great regret that I withdraw my name from consideration for the Development
Coordinator position for Silver Rock Ranch Resort.
I have recently had numerous requests for my services in the private sector and since that
is where my comfort level lies I have to pursue those endeavors.
I appreciate verymuch your confidence in me and I would like to be involved somehow
with the project in the future.
I wish you ay1he best.
// 11,W J
David Chapman
J
::.. 78505 OId Avenue' S2 ='Lh Qtnta� CA'�253 �► T Officer 760-564-3355 18
ATTACHMENT 2
Silver Rock Ranch Project
Project Requirements
Disciplines
Scheduling*
Water Management Plan*
Master Grading Plan*
Drainage Plan* (Could be part of Civil Engineering)
Landscape Plan#
Cart Plan#
Agronomist#
Irrigation Plan for Golf Course#
General Irrigation Plan
Lakes Specialist*
Civil Engineer*
Off/onsite improvements
Dry Utilities (phone, cable, gas)
Water Backbone
Grading
Drainage
Bridge
Geotech/Soils
Topo Map
PM 10 Plan/Coordination
Marketing
Clubhouse Architect
Temporary Clubhouse*
Maintenance Facility
Signage
Superintendent/Operator *
Construction Manager*
Media Infrastructure
Restrooms
* = Need ASAP # = Could be part of Golf Course Architect's Scope of Work
['_nnctri intinn
Bid Specs for Contractors
RFP Process
Analyze RFP's
Prevailing Wage
19
-'May-13-03 03:010"GMA Newport Beach
1949E
ATTACHMENT 3
SILVERROCK RANCH PROJECT
Project Requirements
Golf Course Architect
• Irrigation plan
+ Agronomist
+ Cart plan
• Landscape plan within golf course envelop
+ Lakcs specialist
• Drainage plan within golf course cnvelop
• Grading plan within golf course cnvelop
Proiect Civil Engineer
• on/off site improvements
• Dry utilities
• Water backbone
• Wa . tewater back bone
+ Crrading final Plan/precise grading plan outside of the golf course envelop
• Drainage Plan (coordination with golf course Architect)
• Bridge(s)
• Geotech/soils
• Topo mapping
• Streets/road improvements
• Bid specs for contractors
Marketing
+ Media infrastructure
• Promotional strategy"/campaign
Club House Architect
• Temporary club house
+ Restroorns
• hnprovements plans and bid specs for contractors
• Interior design
Landscape Architect
• Signage
• Landscape plan outside the golf course envelop
• Precisc grading plan
C: { `
20
RECE I ViD" `FROM : 19496759552
May 13 -03 03:O1P': GMA kawpov-t Beach
19496759552.
Construction l�lanagemCnt
Scheduling
• Gonstruction mans,9cr
• Manage bidding pn) ;ess
Lezal Services
• Various liability/obligation agreements
• Reciprocal rights
+ Servicing agreements
Water Management Specialist
• Water management plan
• Wastewater management plan
Operations
• Superintendcnt/operator
+ Maintenance agrecments/manual.
Project Manap-er/Project Administrator
• Project over site
• Manage the public; process
• Manage the team members
• Manage budgct
• State and City compliance
• Manage preparation of proicct perfcrma
' c
Jro,9
-21 r.
RECEIVE 2 t 1�4'`:.+•. ` =D aF'tQM ';L9`4 6.7595:5 R •r R, 2
r rAe
Plannin andcaae Architecture • Entitlement • g ATTACHMENT 4
28th Street Marina 2700 New ort Blvd. Suite 19
p
Phone (949) 675-9559 • Fox (949) 675-9552 • El
DATE: April 28, 2003
TO: Mark Weiss
From: Gil Martinez/Carol Ackerman
RE: Ongoing Master Planning Services
As you know, we are nearing the completion of our current contract with the City for master
planning services. In the course of defining and designing the proposed golf, resort, retail and
recreational project, we have learned a great deal about the property, the participants and
Redevelopment Agency process and the evolving marketplace to which this project will be
responsive. In creating a world -class municipal golf course and additional amenities appropriate
to our Scope of Work, we have engaged in most segments of the planning process and have
responded to a number of assignments or tasks beyond our current contract. You have invested
in the GMA team and collectively, we understand a significant body of detail relative to the on-
going design and development needs of this remarkable site. Projects of this speed and
complexity benefit from 'institutional' memory, experience and talent -specific continuity, as you
are well aware.
In order to preserve the investment the City,and the process have in GMA and with the intention
of maximizing that investment into and through completion of the project, we propose that our
current contract be extended. In the on -going, forward planning role, GMA would respond to and
assist the City in further matters of site planning, (accurately interpreting and implementing the
overall master plan), provide coordination with the chosen golf course architect, especially as
issues of interpreting the costs and effects of the grading and drainage issues; well as support
the efforts of the development coordinator and other parties soon to be engaged. We anticipate
creating the necessary grading and drainage plan that will address the comprehensive
topography and construction needs of the site, which consider the lakes, waterways, golf
course(s), building pads and circulation program, including multi -modal trails; provide the design
plan for the treatment of the perimeter of the property, which would include the fencing plan so as
to take advantage of our previous elevation and view studies; thus ensuring a preservation of the
views of the watermark and mountain base; and seamlessly providing various additional services
to facilitate the on -going coordination of team input as the project accelerates and becomes
increasingly complex.
Mark, as you know, we have been in this role of master planner 'from concept to completion' on
whole new cities, villages, master planned communities and golf and resort projects around the
globe. We can assure you that our commitment is to the success of the overall project and will
keep the intent and vision of the master plan first and foremost in our minds. We look forward to
another discussion with your office in the coming days to refine this proposal to meet our mutual
goals and objectives and thank you, your fine staff and the Agency for a stimulating and engaging
opportunity with the City of La Quinta.
040 ,..�
22
ATTACHMENT 5
J Ile
If —
CI
i '
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 3
May 20, 2003
5. APPROVAL OF A REALLOCATION OF BUDGETED HOUSING FUNDS FROM
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA NO. 1 FOR THE LA QUINTA HOUSING PROGRAM SECOND TRUST DEED
LOAN PROGRAM.
MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Adolph/Sniff to approve the
Consent Calendar as recommended. Motion carried unanimously.
BUSINESS SESSION - None
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSSION OF SILVERROCK IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES.
Assistant Executive Director Weiss presented the staff report.
Roy Stephenson, 35-617 Rosemont, Palm Desert, representing Berryman &
Henigar, stated they would like to serve as the development coordinator for the
project.
The Agency then proceeded to discuss the implementation issues.
Organizational Structure
Board Member Osborne stated he supports retaining the current organizational
structure.
Board Member Sniff noted there ' has been some discussion about including
qualified and interested citizens in this process. He suggested giving serious
consideration to forming a citizen's committee of 10 members, with each
Agency Member submitting two names. He feels it would be a significant
advantage and help with getting the community to buy -into the project. He
stated he would view the committee as an advisory group.
Board Member Adolph stated several citizens have voiced interest in providing
input on the project, and a citizens committee may be a good idea. He feels it's
important to expedite the process, and is not sure how often the committee
should meet. Board Member Sniff suggested twice a month like the Planning
Commission.
Board Member Perkins disagreed with forming a citizens committee, noting the
Investment Advisory Board was just reduced to five members. He doesn't feel
it's necessary to engage staff in additional committee meetings, and has faith
0
26
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 4
May 20, 2003
that the Agency and staff can do what has to be done. He pointed out the
Agency Members have been elected to represent the people.
Board Member Adolph stated he has received calls from citizens who feel there
should be a citizen's committee.
Board Member Perkins stated he feels residents can communicate their ideas to
the Agency without direct involvement with the process.
Chairperson Henderson noted each meeting is open for public involvement, and
stated she isn't sure what participation a citizens group would have with
disciplines that are so technical in nature.
Board Member Adolph stated his idea was to have citizens on the committee
who are experts and can help with technical areas, and maybe see things on the
conceptual plan that were missed.
Board Member Osborne questioned there being a need for a committee that
wouldn't have any authority.
Board Member Adolph noted the committee could confirm what is being done is
correct. He stated experts in the field of golf have offered their expertise, and
he would be more comfortable having their input.
Chairperson Henderson stated the experts she has talked to are not interested in
serving on a committee.
Andy Vossler, of Landmark Golf Company, stated he feels it would be difficult
to design and construct the project with a committee. He noted this will be a
team effort, and suggested the City hire the best team possible.
Chairperson Henderson noted identification of who will accomplish the individual
disciplines will be done through an RFP process.
Mr. Vossler noted there are alternatives to the RFP process, but if an RFP is
done, he feels it would be important to get three of the disciplines on board as
soon as possible. He stated they can divide the list and determine who is
needed next. He questioned why the temporary clubhouse is a high -priority
item since it will take 10 months to get grass planted. He feels a committee for
public relations purposes is okay but recommended not getting them too
involved because some of the decisions will need to be made quickly and a
committee decision is time consuming. He believes the development
coordinator and construction manager should be one entity.
r, A
27
Redevelopment Agency. Minutes 5
May 20, 2003
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Weiss explained staff has not taken
the approach of the development coordinator and construction manager being
..a the same- entity because public tax dollars being -involved, and there being a
need for a series of "checks and balances." He stated the initial thought was to
hire a development coordinator who is familiar with the golf industry and the
public process, and who would be truly objective, having no future
compensated role in the project. He stated there are construction managers
who did not respond to the development coordinator RFP because of the
restriction for further compensated roles in the project. He noted some of the
development coordinator tasks have been done by staff, and at some point if
the development coordinator position has not been filled, there may be some
thought of preparing an RFP for a construction management firm that includes
the skills needed for the development coordinator position.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Weiss confirmed any contracts over
$25,000 are required to go through the consultant selection procedure. An
exception is allowed when the Agency has experience with another firm that
has the expertise the Agency is seeking.
City Manager Genovese stated, in this particular situation, the development
coordinator could turn into the construction manager.
Mr. Vossler noted when one member of the team is not doing his/her job, it
affects the other team members, and a dysfunctional situation will be apparent.
He believes the process and limitations the Agency has will make it difficult to
build a five-star golf course/hotel resort. He feels there may be a need to
reconsider what the project is going to be, unless the Agency is able to
assemble capable experts for a team and allow them latitude in building the
project.
Board Member Adolph asked how the Agency is supposed to know it is getting
the right team.
Mr. Vossler stated the City should start with one of the disciplines on the list,
such as a golf architect firm like the Palmer Group, and they will know how to
select a good team.
Board Member Adolph asked Mr. Vossler if he feels the first step should be to
hire a golf architect, and have him help find the development team.
Mr. Vossler stated he feels the development coordinator RFP is so restricted it
will be difficult for that position to do what it needs to do. He commented on
the need for a lead player, such as a golf architect, project director, or golf
director.
0A6
28
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 6 May 20, 2003
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Vossler stated he feels some golf
architects are team builders and some are not, and noted what one golf
architect firm will tell the City it needs for its team will be different from what
another golf architect firm will say it needs.
Board Member Perkins commented on situations he has been involved with
where someone had to be responsible for putting a team together for everything
to work right. He feels the project manager should be responsible for getting
the team members together to avoid delays in the project. He voiced concern
about the Agency trying to micro -manage the project, and stated he doesn't
believe that will work.
Chairperson Henderson noted about five of these disciplines should already be
working, and that the development coordinator was supposed to be on board to
be in charge.
Mr. Genovese stated staff will monitor the project as it goes forward but noted
the development coordinator was to be the first part of building a team to assist
staff in getting everything organized. He commented on the need for expertise
to do the project much like when City Hall was built, and stated although this
project is larger, the technique and system to put it together is the same.
Board Member Sniff stated he doesn't see a problem having a citizen's
committee that is informed about the project but understands the need to bring
a singular dimension into the project, with a project manager at the top of the
organizational chart. He believes that will provide structure and firm direction
and make the project happen with some level of dispatch and a significant
amount of expertise. He questioned there. being any direct comparison between
this project and the construction of City Hall. He believes the City needs
someone who knows how to plan and build a golf course, and factor in hotels
and other amenities. The City should then charge them with that responsibility
and monitor them.
Chairperson Henderson noted that is what GMA International does.
Board Member Sniff stated he feels there are many groups that can build golf
courses, including Landmark Golf Company.
Mr. Stephenson pointed out the City doesn't have the same latitude as the
private sector unless the project is done as a design/build concept. Otherwise,
the project has to be treated like any other public bid project. He stated his
proposal for the development coordinator position outlines many of the tasks
that will need to be done for this project, and added he built a 250-acre public
golf course in a 1,000-acre master plan development. He also commented on
the need to have someone who understands the public bidding process.
ci 4 i
29
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 7
May 20, 2003
Chairperson Henderson suggested accommodating the desire for a committee by
each Agency Member appointing two people. She further recommended the
committee meet once a month, and that the Agency meet with them to keep
them apprised of the status of the project.
Board Member Sniff questioned anyone wanting to participate on the committee
if they don't have a relevant role.
Chairperson Henderson noted the update may include a decision.
Board Member Sniff stated he believes the project should have an overall project
director with power and significant ability to move the project forward.
Chairperson Henderson stated she is satisfied with the current organizational
structure but would give consideration to a commission meeting once or twice
monthly for updates on the project, and opportunity to provide input.
Board Member Osborne concurred.
Board Member Perkins questioned the need for tying staff up in more meetings.
Board Member Adolph stated he feels community involvement precludes
negative comments, and he commented on the need to move forward with the
7 development coordinator position. He concurs with retaining the current
organizational structure, and considering an advisory committee..
Mr. Genovese stated the concept of an advisory committee can be brought back
at a future meeting.
Contract Organization
Chairperson Henderson stated she supports streamlining project management by
grouping contracts under selected master consultants.
The Agency concurred.
Plan Consistency
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Weiss stated many of the golf
architects assume the City will have a planner on board to help configure the
golf course into the overall plan. Some of the tasks, considered for GMA would
be refinement of the conceptual grading and drainage plan, as well as
coordinating with the golf architect, clubhouse architect, and water engineer to
ensure everything is considered from a land -use standpoint. GMA could also
assist in maintaining the web site, refining the logo, color palette, and
4
30
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 8
May 20, 2003
architectural style of the project. He noted GMA has a successful history in
resort development and planning and a good understanding of this project.
They also have familiarity with -key players in the golf industry, and can provide
assistance to supplement the development coordinator. Staff feels it is an
opportunity to keep a qualified planning firm on board in whatever capacity
deemed appropriate by the Agency.
In response to Board Member Adolph, Mr. Weiss stated the golf architects were
asked what discipline within the process would they feel comfortable including
within their realm and which ones would they not include. Many responded
they assumed they would be working with a land -use planner, and that GMA
was part of the package. He stated staff informed the golf architects that
GMA's contract was coming to a close and that further involvement had not
been determined. He stated a majority of the golf architects are comfortable
working in an environment in which they know the golf course is only one
element. He added a land -use planner ensures integration of all components
and makes sure one is not dominant over another. Staff feels GMA's familiarity
with the project is best suited in a timely way to bring the project forward, and
would encourage communication with any high -executive contacts GMA may
have but that may not be a part of a formal contract with them. He stated the
discussions with GMA have been very preliminary and staff has indicated any
contract with them should have a tangible product.
Consultant Frank Spevacek commented regarding the restrictions on using tax-
exempt financing, and advised such financing limits the profit a master
developer of the entire project or a master developer of specific hotel sites can
generate from their role in the project. He advised a staff report on this issue is
proposed to come back at the June 3`d meeting . for further discussion. He
stated there are ways to structure this by issuing the next bonds on a taxable
basis and using it to release the hotel, retail, casitas, and special use areas from
the tax-exempt restrictions. However, since the majority use of the golf
courses will be qualified under the tax-exempt basis, there are limits on the
contracts in terms of timeframes and extreme limits on the amount of profit an
entity can gain from that type of activity.
Board Member Perkins spoke in support of negotiating a continued role with
GMA.
Board Members Adolph and Osborne concurred.
Board Member Sniff stated he would prefer seeking another firm for these
services.
Chairperson Henderson asked if a negotiated contract would come back to the
Agency for approval.
31
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 9 May 20, 2003
Mr. Weiss responded, "Yes," and added it would be an extension of their
existing contract and would clearly explain their continued role.
Chairperson Henderson stated she would like to see their marketing participation
limited to the web site because she feels a much broader opportunity exists for
marketing the project.
Mr. Weiss advised staff will start negotiations with GMA and come back to the
Agency with a formal contract and specific tasks.
Development Coordinator
Board Member Perkins recommended rejecting all proposals and reformulating
an RFP with fewer restrictions on contract term and future project involvement.
Board Member Osborne stated he supports negotiating with the third -ranked
firm of Berryman & Henigar if staff is comfortable with that.
Board Member . Sniff stated he supports rejecting all proposals and going out
with a new RFP. He feels fewer restrictions could be a significant advantage.
In response to Board Member Adolph, Mr. Weiss stated Berryman & Henigar
were ranked third out of nine proposals and five interviews. Board Member
Adolph then spoke in support of negotiating a contract with Berryman & Henigar
and having the firm come back before the Agency for an interview.
Chairperson Henderson noted the Agency conducted a semi -interview with
Tom Frost but that was not the procedure that was ordered.
Board Member Adolph noted the Agency is not privy to the discussions staff
has had with the firms.
Chairperson Henderson pointed out the procedure used to hire someone for this
type of position has never provided the Agency to be privy to those discussions.
Board Member Adolph stated he would like to know if the firm is capable of
handling a project this size, and asked how long a new RFP process would take.
Mr. Weiss stated it will take approximately three months to revise the RFP, get
the Agency's approval o.n the revisions, advertise the RFP, conduct interviews,
negotiate a contract, and come back to the Agency with a recommendation.
Chairperson Henderson noted if the third -ranked firm is not approved, a new
RFP process will have to be,initiated.
32
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 10 May 20, 2003
Board Member Perkins suggested interviewing the remaining three firms.
Mr. Genovese advised the Agency has that discretion but it -doesn't follow the
resolution.
Chairperson Henderson and Board Members Adolph and Osborne stated. they
support negotiating with Berryman & Henigar.
Project Name and Logo
Board Member Osborne spoke in support of SilverRock as one word.
Board Member Sniff stated he opposed the name entirely, and questions
capitalizing the "R" in rock.
Board Member Adolph stated he doesn't really care for the name but
understands the decision has been made and supports SilverRock as one word.
Board Member Perkins stated he prefers Silver Rock as two words.
Chairperson Henderson stated she supports SilverRock as one word, and added
she has heard a lot of support for the name, SilverRock Ranch.
Board Member Perkins stated he would support SilverRock as one word.
After a brief discussion, the Agency concurred to delay selection of a logo until
a marketing firm is on board.
Mr. Vossler thanked the Agency for allowing him to participate. He also
suggested asking each consultant, architect, etc. that are considered for this
project what top 100 golf courses they have been involved with, and what five-
star resorts they have been involved with.
CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS' ITEMS - None
r
WI
rN
33
ATTACHMENT 2.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR REUSE OF THE EXISTING
AB ANSON RANCH HOUSE
SILVERROCK RANCH
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
34
La Ouinta Redevelopment Agency
Mayor Donald Adolph, Board Member
Terry Henderson, Board Member/Chairperson
Lee Osborne, Board Member
Ron Perkins, Board Member
Stanley Sniff, Board Member
Mark Weiss, Assistant Executive Director
78-495 Calle Tampico, P. O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253
Site Address, Ahmanson Ranch -House
79-999 Old Avenue 52, La Quinta, CA 92253
Proiect Coordinator
Roy Stephenson, P.E.
Berryman & Henigar
2001 East First Street, Santa Ana,- CA 92705-4020
Feasibility Consultants
ARCHITECT/AUTHOR OF STUDY
Andrew J. ("Jack") Gallagher, Senior Architect
Dahlin Group
539 South Cedros Avenue, Solana Beach, CA 92075
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Brian Gottlieb, P.E.
B.G. Structural Engineering
45-535 Via Corona, Indian Wells, CA 92210
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
Joe Nolan, P.E.
Dream Engineering, Inc.
72330 Canyon Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260
MECHANICAL/PLUMBING ENGINEER
Roy Simpson, P.E.
Building Systems Design Group
14443 Rivers Edge Road, Helendale, CA 92342
35'
CONTENTS
PURPOSE...................................................... . .....................................
BACKGROUND..........................: .........................................................
PROGRAM...................................................................................... .
FIELD REPORT, ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES
I. Means & Methods of Study............................................................
H. General Code Comments ................
III. Site Accessibility.......................................................................
IV. Architectural & Structural ...........................................................
V. Food Service ..............................................
VI.. Mechanical & Plumbing.............................................................
VII. Electrical..: .............................................................................
SUMMARY........................................................................................ .
CONCLUSION ..................... .
03�
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of adapting and reusing the
existing Ahmanson Ranch House as a temporary golf clubhouse for the proposed
SilverRock Ranch golf course until such time as a new, permanent golf clubhouse can be
constructed and occupied. This study also includes commentary related to the possible
use of this building as a future conference/special events facility after its use as a golf
clubhouse.
The feasibility of reuse depends on satisfying the requirements for life safety —as defined
by municipal codes and regulations, program compatibility as a golf clubhouse, budget
and schedule. ' For context and comparison, the alternative to reuse implied throughout
this study is a new; temporary golf clubhouse comprised of modular components in
another location.
0 5
37
BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for the City of La Quinta, California is developing a
premier golf -oriented resort community known as SilverRock Ranch. The 525-acre site is
the former Ahmanson Ranch at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52,
adjacent to the Coral Reef Mountains. The first phase of development will include a golf
course which is expected to open by January, 2005. A new, permanent golf clubhouse has -
not yet been designed and is not expected to be open until well after the first golf course
is operational. Therefore, a temporary golf clubhouse is required. Among the alternatives,
the RDA decided that one option stood out, but would require further study. It is the
possible reuse of the existing Ahmanson family ranch house as a temporary golf
clubhouse and/or future conference facility (see figure l & 2).^ The ranch. house has
significant architectural features, and is located in a beautiful setting of palm trees and
large rock outcroppings with a panoramic view of the mountains. Although unoccupied
and abandoned for some time, the ranch house appeared worthy of remodeling and reuse
if it was determined to be feasible to do so. For this reason, the RDA solicited a
feasibility study.
Figure 1.
Y
ssppy�
y
. ."c,•� �
AR
38
�i
i. .
z
t
> seZ
.• y
lir
s s
Z' J
1
PROGRAM
The following statements summarize key assumptions for this study, and represent
information or prior findings conveyed by the RDA or City staff.
1. The clubhouse should comply with applicable building codes and other
governmental regulations, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
2. The clubhouse should include (at a minimum): pro shop, snack bar and restrooms.
3. The kitchen/snack bar will be limited to 100% pre -packaged foods, as defined by
the County of Riverside Environmental Health Services. In other words, the food -
service menu will be limited. There will not be a full -service commercial kitchen.
4. The clubhouse should be operational concurrently with the opening of the first
golf course. The present target for this is January, 2005.
5. Although site accessibility observations and some alternatives are provided
herein, the primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the ranch house building,
not the site.. Site design services are to be provided by others. These may include
studies of soils and other geological conditions, entry roads, golf course and cart
path design, site utilities, landscaping, etc.
6. Since the golf course routing will be designed primarily to suit the permanent
clubhouse location (as opposed to the temporary clubhouse), it is understood that
the temporary clubhouse location may not be ideal with respect to the locations of
the 1" and 10* tees, and the 9t' and 18t' greens. The golf course operator is
expected to work around any deficiencies during the life of the temporary
clubhouse. Deficiencies may be mitigated by temporary re -numbering of the tees
and greens by the golf course architect as may be required to suit the clubhouse
location.
7. The. ranch house has been designated a Historical Building by action of the City's .
Historical Commission. Thus, the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) will
apply.
8. The City had the ranch house tested for hazardous materials as a prelude to this
study. No hazardous materials were detected. The existing facility was found to
be free of asbestos.
9. If feasible, the RDA desires to adapt the ranch house building in the future for
reuse as a small conference center or special events facility after its use as a
temporary golf clubhouse.
r+ r
40
FIELD REPORT. ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES
I. MEANS & METHODS of STUDY
• Multiple visits to the ranch house: (4) by Architect, (3) by Structural Engineer, (2)
each by Electrical & Mechanical Engineers. Visual inspections and digital photo
survey of building.
• Sketched and tape -measured the building (interior and exterior) in order to
provide as -built drawings of ranch house (no existing drawings could be located
by RDA or City Building Department).
• Prepared as -built CAD drawings of floor plan and elevations based on findings.
• Reviewed applicable codes and regulations (including California Building Code,
State Historical Building Code, City Ordinance Chapter 8:12 ("Earthquake
Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings"), County of Riverside Department of
Environmental Health (D.E.H.) regulations for food facilities, ADA regulations,
etc.).
• Multiple phone conversations with Mr. David Day, County D.E.H., regarding
minimum requirements for food facilities.
• Courtesy inspection of ranch house by Mr. Tom Hartung (head of City Building
Department) with each of the consultants. .
• Non-destructive testing (x-rays/sonogram) of ranch house structure by Earth
Systems, testing agency.
• Reviewed topographic drawings of the ranch house site provided by the Civil
Engineer (The Keith Companies).
II. GENERAL CODE COMMENTS
1. Initial observations revealed numerous conditions that do not meet regular
code requirements for new construction, with regard to both ADA and
structural design factors. While this is an existing building and there are
different requirements (often less stringent) for remodeling existing buildings
where the use remains unchanged, there would normally remain many
difficult issues to contend with since in this case there is a proposed change .in
use from residential to commercial. In many cases it is not permitted to
change the use of an existing building if it conflicts with regular code
requirements for new construction. However, since the ranch house is a
qualified Historical Building, a different set of rules apply. Namely, the State
Historical Building Code. The SHBC serves to encourage the adaptive reuse
of qualified historical 'structures, and facilitates this by adopting regulations
which are much more flexible than the regular code requirements. In essence,
many objective, narrowly defined regulations otherwise required by the
r .r.
-41
regular code become discretionary —subject to the decision of the local
building official. Life safety is not compromised, but reasonably equivalent
--alternatives to the regular code -may be accepted by the enforcing agencies:
The SHBC makes this clear several times in the code, and states, "These
regulations are not intended to preclude the use of any proposed alternative
or method of design or construction not specifically prescribed or otherwise
allowed by these regulations. " The good news is obvious: flexible solutions
and cost-effective preservation. However, the challenge is equally obvious:
decisions on many of the solutions become subjective and their eventual
acceptance by enforcing agencies may be difficult to predict in the early
stages of design —let alone during the course of a feasibility study. Close
cooperation with the City's Building Department, then, will remain essential
to the design process from start to finish.
2. The caveat to the exceptional nature of the SHBC is that there exists a City
code (Title 8) related to the structural. integrity of existing buildings which
supercedes some of the subjective aspects of the SHBC. Chapter 8.12,
"Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings", reinstates various
objective procedures and standards for ensuring the structural integrity of
certain buildings constructed prior to the adoption of earthquake design
requirements. Buildings which . are identified to have masonry bearing walls
with insufficient reinforcing must be strengthened to meet certain
requirements. If it is not feasible to do so, the structure cannot be occupied
and must be demolished, historical building or not.
The following statements summarize the more significant observations and findings made
in the field during the course of this study. Where feasibility issues arise, an analysis is
provided and alternatives are proposed.
M. SITE ACCESSIBILITY
Figure 3 4 5.
1. There is an existing entrance road and small parking lot to the east side of the
ranch house (see figure 3 & 4,). Since the RDA is developing all of the
surrounding property as part of SilverRock Ranch, it is assumed that enough land
will be made available to improve the road and expand the parking lot to suit
program and regulatory requirements for a golf clubhouse or small
42
2.
conference/special events facility. The site designers must coordinate driveway
designs to suit fire and emergency equipment access as required by the County
Fire Marshal. Due to the abundance of undeveloped land, it appears this would
not be problematical.
The topography of the existing entry road and parking lot is generally flat.
However, the ranch house . floor is approximately ten feet above the existing
parking lot (see figure 5). Present pedestrian access from the parking lot to the
ranch house is by way of stairways (see figure 6). There is no ramp or other
wheelchair access that complies with ADA requirements.- Rerouting a new entry
road and parking lot on the west side of the site would cause considerable
disturbance to the land and substantial cost. It would not be cost effective to
abandon the present entry road and east side access. Another option is to provide
an accessible route extending from the existing entry road and parking clockwise
around the rock outcroppings
(in a southerly direction
towards the mountain), then up
the more gentle slope back
towards the ranch house from
south to north. However, this
route would be in excess of 300
feet from the nearest possible
parking and is deemed
unsuitable from an ADA
standpoint.
Figure 6.
3. One solution to provide ADA-compliant accessibility from parking to the ranch
house is to design and construct various site improvements more or less at the
level of the ranch house immediately east of it, which would include a new
vehicular entry drive/turn-off from the main driveway which would ramp up to a
drop-off area, and handicapped parking spaces. This would require a substantial
area of fill, retaining walls, relocation of trees, sidewalks, etc. Although the
details of design must be worked out during schematic design, it is safe to say that
a feasible solution to site accessibility can be created in this area.
IV. ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL
1. Although no records have yet been found which conclusively date the age of the
ranch house, by visual inspection of its structure it is estimated to be in the range
of forty years old.
2. , The ranch house has been vacant for some time, and the evidence of abandonment
.is obvious (extensive cobwebs, dirt and dust; windows and sliding glass doors
i'6j1
43
difficult to open). But generally the building is in reasonably good condition
inside and out, with exceptions noted below.
3. The gross interior area of the ranch house is approximately 2,650 square feet.
Additionally, the exterior roof -covered porches and walkways total approximately
2,480 square feet.
4. The ranch house is one story, constructed of reinforced slumpstone masonry
bearing walls and piers (walls approximately 8" thick) (see figure 7), wood posts
and beams (figure 8), exposed wood roof rafters (3"x 9") 4-feet on center bearing
on a ridge beam and the slumpstone walls, and wood decking between the rafters
and roof tiles (figures 9 & 10). Most of the beams appear to be glu-lams wrapped
in Ix finish lumber. Two of the interior walls in the short direction (north to
south) are masonry shear walls which are required for lateral support and should
not be removed, while nearly all of the other interior walls appear to be . non -
bearing wood stud walls which could be removed for remodeling if required.
There is at least one large post below the . ridge beam near to the center of the
building.
Figure 7. 8.
9.
J`► Fj 4 44
5. The floor is carpet over 12" square saltillo tile bonded to a concrete slab on grade.
There is no basement.
6. Windows are single -pane in wood and
metal frames and sashes. Many of the
windows are difficult to open from age
and neglect (see figure 11). Since
insulated glass is highly desirable for
both energy conservation and to reduce
operating costs, replacement windows
should be considered after evaluating
costs. Window replacement with a high
quality stained wood window system
and dual -pane insulated glass may be in
the range of $25,000 to $35,000.
7. The roofing material is two-piece
"mission" style clay the with a mortar
boost (see figure 8 & 12). The condition
of the roofing tiles appears generally
good, with the exception of several areas
where tiles are missing or broken and
require replacement. Tiles should be
replaced in like kind, and, according to
Mr. Hartung, there is a possibility that
similar tiles may be salvaged from
another building on the ranch property.
There. is no evidence of water leakage
through the roof.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
8. In order to detect the extent of masonry wall reinforcing, a testing agency, Earth
Systems, was engaged to provide non-destructive testing. As a result, it was
confirmed that the vertical reinforcing in all masonry walls are within � code
requirements. The horizontal reinforcing in all masonry walls are within code
requirements, except as noted below. The jamb steel in walls are within code
requirements except as noted below. The southeast wall labeled W-5 is
overstressed by 10% but shows no distress and should be considered within
allowable tolerances. The following are areas of structural damage or distress that
must be addressed:
45
Figure 13.
a. The north -south masonry shear
wall between the Lounge and
Kitchen (see figure 13, (labeled s.
W4 on Earth Systems' plan)
should be removed and replaced
from the north end to the double
door at the south end (the pier
south of the door can remain). It
is required for structural integrity
yet it shows signs of distress.
Openings without lintels were
created in the masonry wall for ductwork --presumably during a previous
remodel —and these openings undermine the wall. Its horizontal
reinforcing is overstressed by 20%, and jamb steel is overstressed by 30%.
Stress cracks are evident, with possible failure at the door header/jamb.
The wall may eventually collapse if not rebuilt. This wall should be
removed and replaced and rebuilt on the existing footings if they exist.
b. The vertical reinforcing and
horizontal ties in the nine front
veranda and two entry pilasters
comply with structural code
requirements. However the pilaster at
the northwest corner has no
horizontal ties for the first 4'-0" of
height and is cracked and distressed
(see figure 14). This pilaster should
be removed and replaced and rebuilt
on the existing footings if they exist.
c. Exterior wood posts show
considerable rot from water damage
(likely from errant sprinkler spray)
and should be replaced --(see figure
15). Structural steel tubes and/or
reinforced masonry piers may be
required for replacement. If steel
tubes are required, they may be
boxed -out with wood to achieve the
original look.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
C,64
d. The exterior patio/walkway on the north side and some areas of the
interior floor are wavy —a sign of uneven settlement. This may be due .to
over -watering and saturation of the soil (which was evident in field).
Although this does not appear to be a major problem, over -watering
should be corrected, and damaged slab areas should be replaced.
9. Determining existing footings would have required destructive testing and was
not performed at this time. It would be illogical to assume footings are missing.
Footing sizes can be determined later, at which time a determination can be made
if size and reinforcing are sufficient. If deficient, it is feasible to increase and/or
reinforce footings as. may be required.
10. For some time after the Ahmanson family sold the ranch and just prior -to being
abandoned, the ranch house had been put to commercial use as a Dave Pelz Golf
School. Despite such commercial use, the ranch house was not remodeled to be
ADA compliant (see figures 16 & 17). With regard to the regular code (excluding
exceptions allowed by the SHBQ, there are numerous conditions that do not
comply with ADA requirements. These conditions include the doors (too narrow;
thresholds too high; non -compliant hardware), countertops (too high; no clearance
below for wheelchairs), and
Figure 16, 17.
11. Most significantly, none of the (4) existing restrooms are ADA compliant, nor
could any of them be retrofitted for regular ADA compliance without destruction
and replacement of walls and fixtures. Among many other requirements,
restrooms for the disabled must provide a five -feet diameter clear space for
maneuvering a wheelchair within each room. The space available is not even
close to five feet in any of the restrooms.
47
V. FOOD SERVICE
L Food service to the public is governed by the RiversideCounty Department of
Environmental Health (D.E.H.). Most of their regulations regarding matters of
public food service supersede local codes and historical building considerations.
The fact that the existing or prior use was not a licensed commercial food service
means that reuse must follow requirements for new construction. Only matters of
building and life safety (including restroom requirements) are left to local
authorities. .
2.
Figure .18.
Determining the minimum
requirements of D.E.H. starts with
their analysis of the desired menu.
Most all cooking on premises "
(including grilling a hamburger)
requires a full-blown commercial
kitchen. Such a kitchen has
minimum requirements for cooking =�
equipment (grease hood/exhaust),
dry -storage area, sinks, _ Finishes,
etc. etc. In summary, it is', safe to
say that for a new. building, it is
difficult to do a full-blown
commercial kitchen in leis than
1000 square feet, and 1 nearly
impossible for a remodel where
existing walls and other p meters
already limit design flexibi ity (see
figure 18). Without a substantial
addition to the ranch house
(approximately 500 square . feet
minimum?); and without adding an
exhaust hood and exhaust chimney, underground grease interceptor, and
substantial investment in other commercial -grade kitchen equipment, a full-blown
kitchen with cooking on promises is not feasible, especially because it would not
be required or regularly used in a future conference center. If the RDA is
interested in the possible use of the ranch house as a future restaurant, then the
option of a full-blown kitchen addition should be reconsidered.
Short of a full commercial kitchen, the D.E.H. will allow limited snack bar menu
items served to the public if the proper facilities are constructed. Regardless, a 3-
compartment sink is required, along with 100 square feet minimum of dry storage
area opening into the kitchen, janitor closet, specific finishes, commercial -type
kitchen equipment (NSF grade), and many other specific requirements.
48
4. Broadly speaking, for a snack bar kitchen, the menu will be limited to 100% pre-
packaged foods, tapped beer, hot dogs, bags of chips, and similar. It would not
include mixed drinks or other bar service.
5. Because of its historical nature, the building may be relieved of specific restroom
requirements (i.e. separate facilities for men and women) if the local building
official -so approves.
VI. MECHANICAL & PLUMBING
1. The ranch house is supplied with water from a well system serving other
properties in the area. The point of entry to the building is unclear. As part of the
site development, City water will be made available to the building in the near
future.
2. The existing building discharges its sewer to a septic system, location unknown.
As part of the site development, City sewer will be made available to the building
in the near future.
3. The plumbing system is problematical. Restrooms are not close to being ADA
compliant, and both hot and cold water lines appear to be buried in the slab. It will
probably be necessary to provide at least one ADA compliant bathroom for each
of the. sexes, which could be accomplished by remodeling the existing toilets, or
by creating new toilets. It will be necessary to locate water supply and sanitary
waste points' of entry to the. building to properly connect them to the proposed
new utilities. Figure 19.
4. The HVAC system consists of two
(2) 5-ton nominal capacity split -
system heat pumps, one serving the
Lounge and Kitchen at the west
end of the building, the other
serving the remainder of, the
building. Neither of the units has
an outside air connection, all fresh
air being introduced solely by
infiltration, which will be
considerable, in view of the type of
windows installed and general
construction. The windows are
single pane (not insulated). There
is very little roof insulation since
most of the ceilings are vaulted and
the structure is exposed (very little
attic or concealed spaces for
insulation). By their nature the
masonry walls do not provide
substantial insulation capability.
C� 6'7
49
. 5. Buildings covered by the SHBC are exempted from compliance with the State's
energy conservation standards (Title-24). Therefore, it appears the HVAC system
- - will be adequate for the intended use. However, each of the units will need some
modification, repair work, and control system replaceuient to make them fully.
functional.
6. Although energy conservation standards are not required, every effort should be
made to employ cost-effective means to improve energy conservation.
7. Should it be decided to make the building a permanent convention center, then
windows would have to be upgraded, additional roof and wall insulation would
need to be added, the HVAC system would need to be replaced, and the plumbing
system completely revamped.
VH. ELECTRICAL
1. Existing electrical distribution panel in proposed clubhouse building is in decent
condition and could be reused. Relocation is possible if deemed necessary due to
programmatic/design requirements.
2. Existing electrical service is 120/240V 3ph 4 wire with a high leg delta and
a 87.5KVA transformer bank. This service is fed by an overhead pole line coming
south off of the east -west electrical pole line parallel to Avenue 52, which is being
removed. - The proposed clubhouse will be fed off of the electrical service being
located at the site of the future permanent clubhouse.
3. Existing electrical distribution system appears to be mainly in conduit with some
Romex and AC Cable. It is recommended that all of the existing branch circuit
conductors be abandoned and pulled from existing conduit, and that the existing
conduit be reused and new electrical conductors pulled to proposed new lighting
and receptacle outlets.
4. The majority of the existing electrical outlets are 3-wire grounding type and could
be reused with new cover plates added.
5. Existing lighting, interior and exterior, would be replaced.
6. Feeder circuit to pool and rear building would either be abandoned, or new
underground trench with conduit and feeder conductors, pulled.
7. Communications outlets appear to be mostly pulled -in attic with vertical drops. to
wall outlets. This would all be abandoned and new cable pulled in existing
vertical conduit, in exterior walls and new vertical conduits pulled for
communications outlets in interior walls.
8. The Lounge in the west end of the building may require a trough cut in the slab to
run to floor outlets.
9.. It is recommended to provide one or two new electrical sub -panels.
r, 6
50
10. In summary, it appears that the existing electrical could be abandoned in place,
with the exception of the main distribution panel and conduits run in floor and
walls. There may be some limitations to outlet locations in existing exterior
walls, but could probably make up for this by placing new outlets in interior
walls. In terms of cost, the pulling of electrical conductors from existing conduit
and removing lighting might offset the cost savings of reusing existing electrical
conduit.
51
SUMMARY
1. There are four major issues with respect to the feasibility of reusing the ranch
house for commercial purposes. They are: providing ADA-compliant site access
to the ranch house, the need for structural upgrades to the building in order to
eliminate life -safety concerns, the need to provide ADA-compliant restroom
facilities —and the corresponding impact on the historical features of the existing
restrooms, and finally, meeting the minimum requirements for food facilities (as
determined by the County D.E.H.) in order to provide a suitable snack bar. There
are many other items which need to be addressed for any remodel, but these four
issues present the most significant challenges.
2. The existing site is not ADA-compliant with regard to accessibility for the
disabled, especially those in wheelchairs. However, it is feasible to design and
construct various site improvements which would provide ADA-compliant
accessibility.. One option is to provide a. new, raised vehicular entry drive and
drop-off area due east of the building, elevated closer to the level of the ranch
house, with accessibility to handicapped parking spaces in close proximity. This
would require raising the topography with a substantial area of fill, possible
construction of retaining walls, relocating trees, and creative solutions to the
design of the east elevation so as to become a primary approach to the ranch
house, since it is now a secondary and somewhat featureless side elevation.
3. There are several areas of structural distress in the ranch house which will require
rebuilding and/or retrofitting in order to eliminate life -safety concerns. They
include: the masonry shear wall between the Lounge and Kitchen, the masonry
pier in the northwest corner of the building, and the wood posts which are rotting
' from water damage. All of these must be removed and rebuilt in order to
reestablish structural integrity. Also, there is some slab settlement which appears
to have- occurred from over -watering. This must be corrected, and the affected
areas (north side exterior patio) should be rebuilt.
4. None of the (4) existing restrooms are close to being ADA-compliant, nor can
they be made compliant without substantial demolition (tearing out doors and
walls, removing and replacing water closets and lavatories, etc.). This will result
in the loss of extensive mosaic ceramic tile, which is an architectural and
historical feature of the building. New restrooms may be constructed to satisfy
ADA regulations and code requirements for a future conference center..
5. A full-blown commercial kitchen with an unlimited menu is not feasible without
an extensive addition, and substantial investment in commercial kitchen
equipment, including grease hood and exhaust chimney, grease interceptor, etc. A
limited menu snack bar is feasible, but will result in the removal of kitchen
cabinetry and countertops, some of which are finished with mosaic ceramic tile.
n70
52
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this study is that it is feasible to adapt and reuse the existing ranch
house as a temporary golf clubhouse and future conference facility or special events
facility thereafter. Although there are numerous site and building improvements which
will be required in order to make reuse possible, none of the deficiencies or difficulties
identified in this study are deemed to be "deal -breakers" in terms of adaptive reuse.
Programmatic objectives make it likely that some significant architectural features will be
lost in the adaptive reuse process— namely, existing restrooms, and their mosaic the
finishes.
(i 71
53
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 3 January 6, 2004
MOTION - It was moved by B embei
nominations and el and Member Perlo
Calendar Y 04. Motion carried unanimo
Per ' ABSENT. ATTACHMENT 3
----� 2. CONSIDERATION OF REUSE OF THE AHMANSON RANCH HOUSE AT
SILVERROCK RANCH.
Assistant Executive Director Weiss presented the staff report.
Jack Gallagher, of The Dahlin Group, reviewed the existing site plan,
floor plan, and elevations.
In response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Gallagher stated the
Ahmanson ranch house was built in 1961.
An unidentified member of the audience indicated the house was built
by a company named Langton & Wilson.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Gallagher stated the house
is approximately 2,650 square feet. He then proceeded to review
Options A, B, and C.
Board Member Adolph suggested eliminating Option A because it
doesn't have sufficient restroom area. Agency concurred.
Board Member Adolph questioned why the restrooms in the office area
were moved because that location is more accessible than having to
go through the utility room.
Mr. Gallagher indicated the facilities off of the utility room provide
restrooms for kitchen employees.
Board Member Adolph suggested abutting the new restrooms to the
existing building to reduce costs.
Mr. Gallagher pointed out separating the two buildings provides a
vestibule area, and that connecting the two buildings would not save
money because of the seismic issues involved.
Board Member Adolph noted eliminating the roof over a vestibule area
would save money, as would utilizing the existing plumbing.
072 54
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 4
January 6, 2004
Mr. Gallagher stated it's less expensive to bring in new utilities than it
would be to use the existing plumbing under the slab. He added it's
his understanding that the new restrooms would be permanent and
used for a future conference center. He indicated he will come back
with the rationale as to why a separate restroom building is more cost
effective.
Board Member Adolph voiced concern about the costs, and noted
future use of the ranch house has not been determined. He noted the
separate building would also block the view of surrounding elevations.
Mr. Gallagher stated handicap accessibility, was one of the main
concerns, and the restrooms inside the building would not be
sufficient to meet that need in a future conference center. He then
reviewed the handicap -accessible entry and parking area. He feels
access to the building is the most challenging aspect of the project,
and will have to be creative in directing people to the building.
Board Member Adolph noted the ranch house is isolated from the first
tee and the 18th hole, and asked where golf carts would be parked.
Mr. Weiss stated Palmer Design Group has suggested . different
possibilities for temporary routing changes until the permanent
clubhouse is built. Under the current routing, he estimated the
clubhouse is 400-500 yards from the first tee. He added that staff
feels the additional restrooms would provide more flexibility in both
the temporary and future uses of the building. By locating the
restrooms on the north side of the building, they would be accessible
not only to the clubhouse but also to golfers at the 8" hole. It would
also require less grading at the entrance for handicap access. Staff
has asked GMA to look at the entire layout for the temporary
clubhouse to include parking, as well as handicap issues. He indicated
the special.use areas are being considered for golf cart parking. The
golf carts can be parked close to the temporary clubhouse or in a
staging area that is less obtrusive aesthetically. He noted an
alternative to using the ranch house would be to utilize a modular
building at a lower cost.
Board Member Adolph voiced concern about how everything will be
tied together, and commented on the need to consider the overall
costs since this is only a temporary clubhouse.
In. response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Gallagher confirmed the
electricity in the ranch house will be brought up to Code.
`i 7 3
55
Redevelopment Agency Minutes
5-
January 6, 2004
Development Coordinato
will be extended from
connection options.
r
Roy Stephenson stated a natural gas line
Avenue 52, and he reviewed two sewer
Mr. Gallagher noted historical buildings are not required to be brought
up to current Code but it has been determined that one of the walls
needs replacing.
Board Member Sniff asked how long the building has been vacant, and
Chairperson Henderson noted it was recently used by the Pelz Golf
School.
Mr. Gallagher noted future use of the building should be considered
when looking at the costs.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Weiss stated the building
is expected to be used as a temporary clubhouse for three years,
depending on use of the golf course and how soon the second course
will be constructed. He indicated funding for a permanent clubhouse
has been identified in Phase 1 B, as well as rehabilitation of this
building. He stated the $1.2 million includes site preparation costs but
not costs to create a future conference center. He noted the City has
other funds that can be allocated toward a community center as part
of a permanent clubhouse.
• Board Member Osborne agreed $1.2 million is a lot of money for a
temporary clubhouse, and wants to make sure it's spent cautiously.
Mr. Weiss reviewed how the temporary clubhouse and potential golf
cart storage areas fit into the comprehensive site plan, and confirmed
the new restrooms would be permanent.
Board Member Adolph asked if a parking structure for the golf carts is
part of the-$1.2 million cost, to which Mr. Gallagher responded, "No."
In response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Gallagher stated a schematic
design will be developed once an option is selected.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Gallagher stated the ability
to use the kitchen for catering services will be taken into consideration
as the process moves forward.
Chairperson Henderson stated she feels the ranch house has historical
value and supports retaining it. She understands the concerns about
A
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 6 January 6, 2004
the costs and feels that should be anticipated as much as possible.
She spoke in support of Option C.
Board Member Sniff concurred.
In response to Board Member Adolph, Mr. Gallagher indicated there
may be some modifications as the process moves forward, such as
moving the restroom building toward the lounge.
Board Member Adolph stated the restrooms seem to be the right size
for the clubhouse uses but are larger than necessary for a halfway.
house.
MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Osborne to approve
the Ahmanson Ranch House as a temporary clubhouse and select
Option C as the preferred floor plan layout.
Board Member Osborne commented on the need to -keep the costs
down as much as possible.
Mr. Gallagher stated the rehabilitation costs for the ranch house will
be. approximately $400,000 to $650,000, and the remainder of the
$1.2 million is for the new restrooms and site improvements.
Board Member Adolph stated he supports using the ranch house but
feels the restroom building is too large.
Motion carried unanimously with Board Member Perkins ABSENT.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSSION OF A LOGO FOR SILVERR K RANCH.
Assistant Executive Director Wei presented the staff report.
Steven Williams, of Mc ry Inc., reviewed potential logos for the
SilverRock Ranch proje
Board Member "orne voiced concern that the mission style logo on
Page 21 may of be understood by people in other areas. He feels the
rock logo C
IgnPage 19 is somewhat plain but the similar logo presented
as a hol marker is too rough: 91
!' 75
57
ATTACHMENT 4
Ahmanson Ranch House
As Temporary Facility
Historical Value
Setting — Overall Beauty
La Quinta Residents Recognition
Ahmanson Ranch House
Jan 16, 2004 58
Rev. June 7, 2004
Modular Unit
SRR
Modular Unit
As Temporary Facility
Expandable Area For Hope Toumment
Publicity, from Permanad Clubhouse Constrac&n
677
Jan 16, 2004 59
Rev. June 7, 2004
9
Ahmanson Ranch House
As Temporary Facility
T "
Historical Value
Setting — Overall Beauty
Ahmanson Ranch House
sim
Weak Cart staging Area
Rotation of Golf Holes — Nines Don't Return to
Clubhouse
Additional Distance to Driving Range
Lack of Golf Visual Operational Control
Up -Hill to Building
Parking 7 Distance from Clubhouse & Additional Costs
Improvement Costs (Structure)
}
Utility Costs (Main Road to Site)
Money Spent on House, Accesses, Parking and Golf Cart
Access May be Lost Costs
Food & BeverageServiceLimited — Pre -made, Pre-
packaged & Beer and Wine Liquor License Only
c
L 9 F k fi FPS€:{a ,
Customers' Memory of Experience
F art i F +y 'f4
Limited Square Footage
Locker Rooms — None
��r r
Inadequate Facilities and Site for Marketing the Overall
Project
January 16, 2004
Modular Unit
SRR
Modular Unit
As Temporary Facility
Expandable Area For Hope Tournament
79
January 16, 2004 61
ATTACHMENT 5
Landmark Issues 7-12-04
Landmark has raised numerous issues over the past few months regarding
the SilverRock Golf Resort Project. Staff understands that Landmark
representatives have been critical of the following:
• Selection process for Land Use Planner (Ernie Vossler letter, 7-1 1-03);
• Policy for hiring Development Coordinator (Landmark opposed the
restriction placed on the Coordinator prohibiting another compensated
role in the project; Ernie Vossler, 7-1 1 -03));
• The Public Process (Ernie Vossler, 7-11-03; Johnny Pott, 5-20-03)
• Land Use Plan (Andy Vossler alleges "terrible land planning" in verbal
conversation with the Executive Director, 6-29-04; also, see Johnny
Pott, 10-14-03);
• Business Plan (Johnny Pott, 10-14-03);
• Course Design (Andy Vossler conversation with Executive Director, 6-
29-04 and numerous staff meetings with Johnny Pott) :
0 8`h hole location (too close to the rock outcropping)
o believes the City should have made more use of the mountains
by playing to and from elevated mountain areas ... i.e.,
suggesting that the City could have used its influence to attain
this advantage and questioning individual Board Member
motives for not encroaching into the mountains;
o Tamarisk trees (disagreed with the architect over saving a
limited number of mature tamarisk trees adjacent to the fifth
hole);
o Grass selection (supported a variety which was originally
accommodated by Palmer/City and then rejected by PGA
representatives);
o Playing over the canal (i.e., does not believe the design should
have included holes that play over the canal);
• Temporary Clubhouse (prefers going modular, Andy Vossler, Council
Meeting, 7-6-04 et. al.)
• ERA Pro Forma analysis (various budget meetings with Landmark)
• Operating Budget (various budget meetings and Andy Vossler, 7-6-04)
• Project Name/Logo (Ernie Vossler, 7-1 1-03 et. al.)
• Opposes tunnel under Avenue 52 (Johnny Pott, meeting with Hladek
et. al., 6-23-04)
• Electrical configuration (Andy Vossler, various staff meetings)
• Practice Facility Design (Johnny Pott, various staff meetings)
• Proceeding with Permanent Clubhouse (Andy Vossler, 7-6-04)
• Delaying construction of the 2"d golf course (Andy Vossler, 7-6-04)
C, 8 0
62
Landmark October 14, 2003
Tv1r. Mark Weiss, Assistant Executive Director
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mark.
I received your letter dated October 13, 2003, yesterday via fax. After reading your
response to my October 3, 2003, letter to you, I am surprised that you really missed the
point of my interest. I assumed after our visit on October P and after you read my letter,
you would have been aware of my intentions. Mark, you need someone who will
represent the City. You need someone who has been involved in development and golf
construction and has the City's interest at heart. I would have given you help and relief.
As time will tell, rookies and inexperience will be embarrassing for you and the City of
La Quinta.
The main reason for my persistence on being a part of your team is that I feel from my
observations attending the RDA sessions and listening to the presentations of your
consultants, that you are on the way to a financial disaster. The land use plan is
questionable; forty acres are planned for parking at approximately $80,000 per acre
($3,200,000); the budget has gotten out of hand; your business plan is questionable--
$70M invested before the first green fee is collected or the first property closed! You are
behind schedule on construction of the Palmer Course; anyone reviewing the Palmer
plans would reconsider their selection: the 8`h green is drawn on the Ranch House, a 90-
yard par 3. I am sure CVWD/IID issues are not resolved; you have taken away golf
strategy with the golf spectator bleachers along the 16`h and 17`h tournament holes, but
you plan to acquire additional property to play against the mountain on the 15`h. Where
are you going to put the gallery on the 10`h? You have minimized your development
acres with the alignment of the 41h hole; I'm referring to approximately two developable
acres that could have a market value of approximately $500,000 along with any recurring
income. You have added the cost of an additional bridge on the 151h. Before
construction begins, the above are just a few areas of concern a citizen might pick-up on
if they were to evaluate your progress in this most important project for the City of La
Quinta.
Sadly, I can only imagine the mass confusion and perplexity awaiting the project once
constriction begins. Professional developers might even consider putting the project on
hold until restrictions are eliminated or dismissed.
74-947 Highway ? 11 • Suire 200 Indian Wells, California 92210
Phone (760) 716-6688 • Fax (760) 776-0686
www.iandmarkgolf.com ri 8
63
I am sorry and disappointed that you and your team are unable to see the value of my
participation in this monumental project.
Sincerely,
Johnny Pott
cc: Chairperson Terry Henderson
Don Adolph
Lee Osborne
Ron Perkins
Stanley Sniff
Tom Genovese, Executive Director
r# g 2
64
Landmark
Johnny Pott
Senior Vice President
La Quinta City Council and Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 2003
Public Comment Statement:
Johnny Pott
Senior Vice President
Landmark Golf Company
RE: The Ranch Project
Good Afternoon
My name is Johnny Pott. My wife, Mary Rose, and I reside at 78-160 Calle Norte in Duna La
Quinta. We have been residents of La Quinta for 18 years.
My whole life has been in golf from my father being a golf professional to my collegiate golf years
then playing the PGA Tour. From 1957 to 1972, 1 concentrated full time on playing the PGA Tour
where I won 5 times and represented the United States on 3 consecutive Ryder Cup Teams. I
competed in the same years as Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Tom Weiskopf.
After playing the great golf courses of the world and retiring from the PGA Tour, I started my
second career with Ernie Vossler, Joe Walser and Landmark. I have had a major role in
designing, constructing and opening approximately 40 golf courses and associated club facilities
and master planned communities from California and Mexico to the East Coast.
I was deeply involved with the development and construction process with all 3 Pete Dye courses
at La Quinta Hotel and the first 5 courses at PGA West. In addition, I was equally involved with
another 7 courses in the Palm Springs area including Landmark Golf Club, Mission Hills, The
Hideaway and The Plantation. I am also the co -designer of record with Wade Cable for The Golf
Club of California in Fallbrook.
I have coordinated the golf course construction process with some of the best names in golf
architecture: Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Pete Dye, Tom Weiskopf and Lee Schmidt & Brian
Curley, who each gained approximately 10 years of their experiences while working for Landmark
and Ernie, Joe and me.
It is from my decades of experience and on behalf of Landmark Golf Company that I speak to you
today. After several months of observing the process for the development of the City of La
Quinta's golf project at The Ranch, I thank you for allowing me to make a few comments for the
record:
Developing a mixed use golf facility is no small task. There is vast experience and talent right
here in this desert to assist you.
I do not believe the Town Hall Meeting concept can make all of the decisions that must be made
to take this project from a conceptual land use plan to reality and success. Therefore I suggest
74-947 Highway 1 1 1 • Suite 200 Indian Wells, California 92210 8 3
Phone (760) 776-6688 • Fax (760) 776-6686
www.landmarkgolf.com
65
that you hire and use the most experienced talent available and hire that expertise now before
bringing the golf course architect on board.
The Development Coordinator and Construction Manager should not be two separate entities.
These two roles require continuity of vision and total concentration and focus on the outcome
from the complexities of water and irrigation lines, maintenance facilities and cart trail systems, to
the ball washers and signage schemes throughout the project.
I want to say publicly that we at Landmark Golf Company are available to you and would like to
be involved in making the City of La Quinta's development be the best it can be. I am glad to
answer whatever questions you may have.
ny Pott
66
July 11, 2003 Landmark
Mayor Don Adolph
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: SilverRock Ranch
Dear Mayor Adolph,
Landmark Golf Company ("LGC") has many deep roots in La Quinta. Five of its
principals live in the City of La Quinta ("City".) We are appreciative of the fact that when
we requested, Council Members and City Staff Members have met with us to discuss the
Redevelopment Agency, its progress and our desire to be involved. We also have been
allowed to speak at various meetings before the City Council and the Redevelopment
Agency Board Members. Our reputation, expertise and knowledge of golf course
communities development speak volumes, and we continually let it be known that we are
here locally and available to you as you proceed through the development of SilverRock
Ranch.
At this point, we feel we should state in writing that the City's process and direction with
the Redevelopment Agency ("RDA") and where/how things are progressing disturbs us.
A world -class price was paid for the land, the City wants to develop a world -class
destination resort; and, in our opinion, a world -class process is not being untaken.
SilverRock Ranch may well be the largest economic endeavor the City will ever
undertake other than the actual collection of two -to -four decades of La Quinta property
owners' Advalcrem Tax increments for the RDA.
It seems the City is intentionally working within a process that makes it difficult for those
who are truly interested to figure out what is actually transpiring. It appears issues are
being hidden in complicated procedures and wording; public agendas require analyzing
and comparing two agendas with closed sessions on each agenda; it is difficult, even
with telephone calls to the City, to determine what specific subjects are scheduled and at
what time they may occur during a day or night Council/RDA Meeting that could span as
many as 10 hours in the Council Chambers. Today, The Desert Sun reported on the
State of the City presentation by the Mayor, and not one mention was made of
SilverRock Ranch, Arnold Palmer Design or the RDA project. With land costs
($42,000,000) nearly two times the City's annual budget of $22 million for 2003-04, we
would have hoped to read that SilverRock Ranch is the primary focus of the City. Isn't
local government supposed to be for the people of the jurisdiction; therefore,
administered and reported so that the citizens can understand the business being
transacted on their behalf?
74-947 Highway 1 1 1 • Suite 200 Indian Wells, California 92210
Phone (760) 776-6688 Fax (760) 776-6686
vvww.landmarkgolf.com � � p 5
67
LGC is attempting to maintain a low profile and an open forthrightness in dealing with the
RDA, City Council and the RDA process, and we would expect the same in return. We
would like for this expensive and massive project to be the best that it can be. The City
has agendas, meetings, and procedures positioned so that most people cannot follow or
participate. It is not clear at times if the City representatives can follow its own process
as it is unfolding. Quite frankly, it is high time to treat the RDA project as the important
investment it is and to put this valuable Resort Project and its process completely out in
the open.
Reportedly, there are a few City Staffmembers who are responsible for and on top of this
massive project. Although they are fine people and highly qualified to manage city
government and related policies; let's face it, they are not experienced -in real estate
development. City Staff and City Consultants seem to be controlling the RDA process
whether the City Council knows of this control or not.
We were told directly by a City Consultant that in the RFP process for the Master Plan
he told "Staff and the Selection Committee not to select a local firm; if something goes
wrong, the reputation and image of a desert company could be damaged and local good
will would be injured." Thus, the six finalists who were reportedly interviewed were all
from outside the desert area. If the somewhat closed selection process had not
occurred and Landmark Golf Company's proposal had been opened, you would have
seen that LGC's proposal price was based on work and staff talent with the exception of
Joe Walser and myself. Joe's time and experience and mine would have been at no
charge as a contribution to the City we love and further proof of our commitment all the
way through this project.
City Staff and representatives have communicated to us that they must follow strict and
rigid guidelines in their procedures for the RFP process when hiring companies and
individuals. Accordingly, Staff made the decision to restrict the Development
Coordinator's ("DC") Request for Proposal to a narrowly defined scope of work and
further stated that the successful applicant will not perform any additional work or tasks
on this RDA project for compensation including the operating and service agreements.
As a result of that limitation, Landmark Golf Company declined in writing to submit a
proposal for the DC role.
To a degree, narrow and restrictive RFPs may cause some qualified applicants to back
way from the project. However, it seems that once the RFP is awarded, creativity is
allowed into the contract phase. For example, the first consulting agreements, as we
understand them, have all created unusual circumstances: 1) GMA's extension of time
and additional tasks after we were told by Staff that there would not be extensions and
expansions 2) Palmer Design's six months agreement when it is obvious it will take
longer and 3) Between the RFP and the signing of the Development Coordinator's
contract, the DC was awarded a contract that expanded the scope of work.
Consequently, it has already been discussed by Staff that it is most likely the six-month
contract term will be extended, through no fault of the DC, in order for the DC to carry
out the RFPs intended tasks. Needless to say, the changing parameters and
procedures are frustrating to us.
In early 1974, Joe Walser and I, through our private company Unique Golf Concepts,
Inc., made our first business dollar investment in La Quinta, an unincorporated area.
There was very little in this underdeveloped area to "brag" about. La Quinta at that time,
nearly 30 years ago, consisted of good-hearted progressive residents along with the little
Desert Club, 18 holes of private golf at La Quinta Country Club, the run-down 76-room
La Quinta Hotel that was closed for five months of the year, inconsistent residential
development, practically no commercial development and a lot of opportunity. After
Unique Golf Concepts merged with Landmark Land Company late in 1974, we set our
goal to build world-renowned golf resort communities in La Quinta. Today, do we need
to quote what the Robb Report says about La Quinta in "2003?"
You may wonder why I am writing this lengthy letter. I am writing to restate that we love
La Quinta and want to be involved with your development. You have many talents at
your disposal in La Quinta, and we encourage you, as the decision makers for the City,
to use these local experienced people. It is also worth restating that worldwide,
Landmark representatives have built over 780 golf holes, 4 hotels, 5 resorts and
planned/developed over 20,000 acres of mixed -use residential properties. In La Quinta
alone we owned, operated, controlled and planned 5,860 acres which are within the City
of La Quinta since the City's Incorporation and additional annexations. These properties
alone created the opportunity for 15 top quality golf courses, 11,500 residential units,
1650 hotel rooms and 195 acres of retail/commercial properties. It's baffling why, to
date, Landmark Golf Company has not received a single phone call originated by
a City Council Member, City Staffinember or Consultant to the RDA inquiring of
Landmark about anything to do with the future of golf in the City of La Quinta, golf
in general or the Redevelopment Agency which we helped establish and fund.
Vosslers, Walsers and Potts are today and have been actively involved in the economic
growth of La Quinta as we know it today: building critical and highly engineered flood
control works that were necessary to protect. the Cove and essential to future
development, arranging the federal funding and building the bridge on Eisenhower Drive
between 50`h Ave. and Tampico, building championship golf and tennis, recreating La
Quinta Hotel, supporting the City of La Quinta beginning with hosting the Incorporation
Party at La Quinta Hotel, forming the Redevelopment Agency, creating PGA West,
hosting nationally and internationally televised golf and tennis events, co-founding La
Quinta Arts Foundation, supporting St. Francis Catholic Church, sponsoring countless
community events at La Quinta Hotel, presidency of La Quinta Chamber of Commerce
and service on two City Commissions and multiple Boards of Directors including La
Quinta's Arts Foundation, Arts Festivals, Historical Society and Boys & Girls Club.
We have been asked numerous times by many business owners, our friends in the
media and local residents of La Quinta why Landmark Golf Company is not involved in
the City's proposed golf project in La Quinta? I am sure you can imagine how
impossible this is to explain. At the risk of further neglect, exclusion or criticism by the
City, we are putting our position before you in writing.
We will continue to attend public meetings and share our experiences in an effort to help
the project be the best it can be. A Redevelopment Agency may be the vehicle for
constructing buildings, roads, bridges and landscaping, but from what we have seen and
experienced to date in La Quinta, the RDA needs key experienced individuals and firms
to produce the quality project you say you desire. So far, it would be difficult for us to
say we are accepting of or impressed with the process, progress or accomplishments.
087
69
We still question the name SilverRock Ranch, and so do many others in the community
as we hear it. We have concerns for that name from a marketing and retail perspective.
Certainly, the project naming/acceptance process is one area where we can say "been
there, done that" and truly learned from it.
The irony of this situation is many developers from around the world continually seek us
out for our knowledge, experience, talent and ability to bring a project to fruition and
prominence. From far and wide, they hear about Landmark and research our
development successes in the City of La Quinta. And, here we sit in our your own
backyard, only to be uninvolved in the City's project to date. It makes one wonder...
Again, we are available to meet with you to discuss any and all aspects of SilverRock
Ranch.
We know your objective is to create a top-quality resort with at least one golf course that
equals or surpasses any in our wonderful Desert. We do not believe you can
accomplish this without highly experienced people on your team. Time marches on; and
as it does, your project gets further complicated, more difficult and expensive to make
adjustments.
We respectively request a written reply to this letter by the end of this month. Thank you
for your consideration of our comments, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
4 U041(
Ernie Vossler
President
cc: Council Members
City Manager
•
FIe
SilverRock Resort
Rya ss*�l
Temporary Clubhouse Modular
and
Cart Facility
Lease Modulars
Lease Cart Facility
Irrigation & Landscaping Lump Sum (LS) -75% permanent
Patio, Entry & Trails LS
Sewer LS
Water LS
Trailer set-up
Kitchen (hood & fire system)
Kitchen (stove,over, equipment)
Furniture
Cart Facility
Parking Lot 200 spaces @ 350 sq. ft. ea. X $4.00=
Part of this improvement is permanent parking lot.
$5,800.00 per month
$3,000.00 per month
$8,800.00 1 per month
$80,000.00
$40,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$30,000.00
$40,000.00
$10, 000.00
$40,000.00
$20,000.00
$275,000.00
1 $280, 000.00
07/14/2004