2006 06 20 RDAe4 4 4 Q%waj
Redevelopment Agency Agendas are
Available on the City's Web Page
@a www.la-quinta.org
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Regular Meeting
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006 - 2:00 PM
Beginning Resolution No. RA 2006-07
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call:
Agency Board Members: Adolph, Henderson, Kirk, Sniff, and Chairman Osborne
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, MICHAEL
O'CONNOR, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
CONCERNING POTENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR
DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
MILES AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET. PROPERTY OWNER/NEGOTIATOR:
CP DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA, LLC.
s jL
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 1 JUNE 20, 2006
2. CONFERENCE WITH AGENCY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, THOMAS P.
GENOVESE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
CONCERNING POTENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR
DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET. PROPERTY OWNER/NEGOTIATOR:
THEODORE LENNON, DDC DESERT DEVELOPMENT, INC.
3. CONFERENCE WITH AGENCY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR DOUGLAS R.
EVANS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 CONCERNING
POTENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF
REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS: APN 649-030-016, -017 AND -040. PROPERTY
OWNER/NEGOTIATOR: ANNE J. MAZZELLA.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
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 JUNE 6, 2006
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 JUNE 20, 2006.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT DATED APRIL 30, 2006.
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 2 JUNE 20, 2006
3. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES REPORT DATED APRIL 30,
2006.
4. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN DDC DESERT DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND THE LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPABLE PARCELS WITHIN
SILVERROCK RESORT.
5. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE INVESTMENT POLICY OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. CONSIDERATION OF NATIVE AREA ENHANCEMENTS AT THE ARNOLD PALMER
CLASSIC COURSE AT SILVERROCK RESORT.
A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION
STUDY SESSION
1 . DISCUSSION OF PERIMETER ENHANCEMENTS AT SILVERROCK RESORT.
CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS' ITEMS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY TO CONSIDER AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SCHDC) TO CONVEY CERTAIN PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 78-990 MILES AVENUE AND SCHDC'S SUBSEQUENT OWNERSHIP
AND OPERATION OF AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF 80 DWELLING UNITS RESTRICTED FOR RENTAL TO AND
OCCUPANCY BY, VERY LOW-INCOME FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS AT A RENT
AFFORDABLE TO SUCH HOUSEHOLDS.
A. ACTION: To be continued to July 18, 2006.
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 3 JUNE 20, 2006
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a special meeting to be held at 6:00 p.m. on June 21, 2006 for consideration
of the 2006/2007 budget, 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 June 20, 2006, was posted
on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico and on the bulletin
boards at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas and 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on June 16, 2006.
DATED: JUNE 16, 2006
8�5" .,&.J
JUNE S. GREEK, MMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
Redevelopment Agency Agenda 4 JUNE 20, 2006
AGENDA CATEGORY:
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 /
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM TITLE:
Demand Register Dated June 20, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Redevelopment Agency Board:
STUDY SESSION
PUBLIC HEARING
Receive and File the Demand Register Dated June 20, 2006 of which $5,563,106.89
represents Redevelopment Agency Expenditures.
PLEASE SEE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NUMBER 1 ON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
r, r. r
k.1 ,
10
c��t OF TKti9
AGENDA CATEGORY:
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Receive and File Transmittal of CONSENT CALENDAR:
Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2006
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Redevelopment Agency Board:
Receive and file.
PLEASE SEE RELATED BUSINESS SESSION ITEM ON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
10 4
4p
QUMAJ
AGENDA CATEGORY:
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Receive and File Transmittal of Revenue CONSENT CALENDAR: 3
and Expenditure Report for April 30, 2006
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Receive and File Transmittal of the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for April 30,
2006 for the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency.
Respectfully submitted,
ohn M. Falconer, Finance Director
Approved for submission by:
-); ��
Thomas P. Genovese, Executive Director
Attachment: 1. Revenue and Expenditures for April 30, 2006
Attachment 1
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REVENUE SUMMARY
PROJECT AREA NO.1:
LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND:
Allocated Interest
Home Sale Proceeds
Non Allocated Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
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 LOW/MOD TAX
REMAINING
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8,567,604.00
4,838,920.10
3,728,683.90
360, 000.00
183, 320.73
176, 679.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
276,000.00
231,652.50
44,347.50
480,000.00
510,901.10
(30,901.10)
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,000.00
58,397.04
(8,397.04)
30,000.00
33,420.71
(3,420.71)
1,000,000.00
1,054,455.07
(54,455.07)
0.00
0.00
0.00
10,763,604.00
6,911,067.25
3,852,536.75
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
Tax Increment
34,270,416.00
19,244,180.08
15,026,235.92
Allocated Interest
300,000.00
472,576.35
(172,576.35)
Non Allocated Interest
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Interst - County Loan
0.00
0.00
0.00
Interest Advance Proceeds
0.00
0.00
Transfers In
3,945,802.00
3,465,227.35
480,574.65
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
38,516,218.00
23,181,983.78
15,334,234.22
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND - NON-TAXABLE
Pooled Cash Allocated Interest
150,000.00
122,459.56
27,540.44
Non Allocated Interest
1,000,000.00
748,115.12
251,884.88
Litigation Settlement Revenue
0.00
0.00
0.00
Loan Proceeds
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rental Income
Transfers In
0.00
913,378.00
0.00
276,867.94
0.00
636,510.06
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
2,063,378.00
1,147,442.62
915,935.38
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND - TAXABLE
0.00
Pooled Cash Allocated Interest
0.00
0.00
Non Allocated Interest
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Litigation Settlement Revenue
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bond proceeds
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rental Income
Transfers In
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
PROJECT AREA NO. 1:
LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND
PERSONNEL
SERVICES
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
HOUSING PROJECTS
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
07/01/2005 - 04/30/06 REMAINING
BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LOW/MODERATE TAX FUND:
4,900.00
4,988.33
0.00
(88.33)
PERSONNEL
SERVICES
265,405.00
181,257.92
0.00
84,147.08
BUILDING HORIZONS
125,000.00
332,000.00
112,500.00
240,771.52
0.00
0.00
12
91,228.48
2252.00
LQ RENTAL PROGRAM
LQ HOUSING PROGRAM
320,000.00
748.00
0.00
319 , .0
LOWMOD VILLAGE APARTMENTS
400,000.00
400,000.00
40,000.00
0.00
0.00
34
3,258340.00
,
2nd TRUST DEED PROGRAM
3,298,340.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LQRP - REHABILITATION
136,000.00
140,838.89
0.00
(4,838.89)
APT REHABILITATION
150,000.00
0.00
0.00
150,000.00
FORECLOSURE
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
679,574.00
566,311.70
0.00
113,262.30
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL LOW/MOD TAX
3,945,802.00
9,65 ,021.00
3,465,227.35
5,152, 43.71
0.00
0.00
480,574.65
4,504,377.29
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
537,800.00
297,050.58
0.00
240,749.42
SERVICES
BOND PRINCIPAL
2,500,000.00
2,500,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(255,000.26)
BOND INTEREST
7,805,905.00
1,124,738.00
8,060,905.26
869,738.18
0.00
254,999.82
INTEREST CITY ADVANCE
PASS THROUGH PAYMENTS
16,610,336.00
9,352,710.40
0,00
7,257,625.60
ERAS SHIFT
2,903,657.00
4,374,737.00
2,903,657.00
3,738,227.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
636,509.65
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
35,857,173.00
27,722,288.77
0.00
8,134784.23
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
4,900.00
4,988.33
0.00
(88.33)
PERSONNEL
SERVICES
313,862.00
191,141.32
0.00
122,720.68
LAND ACQUISITION
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ADVERTISING -ECONOMIC DEV
48,500.00
2.12
2,25.0.00
0.00
46,247 8
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
0.00
0.0000
0
0.00
0.00
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CAPITAL -BUILDING
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
319,515.00
266,262.49
0.00
53,252.51
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
23,578,108.00
5,486,465.76
0.00
18,091,642.24
24 264 885.00
5,951,110.02
0.00
18,313, 74.98
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDITAXABLE BOND
0.00
0.00
0.00
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
.00
(4,594.00)
0.00
0.00
(4,594.94.00)
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
(4,594.00)
0.00
0.00
(4,594.00)
m
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REVENUE SUMMARY
PROJECT AREA NO.2:
LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND:
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Bond proceeds (net)
Transfer In
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
LOW/MODERATE 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 LOW/MOD TAX
2004 LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND:
Allocated Interest
Home Sale Proceeds
Non Allocated Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
Tax Increment
Allocated Interest
Non Allocated Interest
Interest Advance Proceeds
Transfer In
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
REMAINING
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,707,594.00
2,692,397.69
2,015,196.31
275, 300.00
202,188.73
73,111.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15,000.00
15,320.18
(320.18)
112,500.00
301,131.48
(188,631.48)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5110,394.00
3,211,038.08
1,899,355.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,418,400.00
1,805,827.56
(387,427.56)
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,418,400.00
1,805,827.56
(387,427.56)
18,830,375.00
10,695,317.80
8,135,057.20
275,000.00
349,266.24
(74,266.24)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7,998,654.00
7,998,653.78
0.22
27,104,029.00
19,043,237.82
8,060,791.18
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
Allocated Interest
80,000.00
70,600.07
9,399.93
Non Allocated Interest
0.00
0.00
0.00
Developer Agreement
7,824,584.00
7,824,583.57
0.43
Transfers In
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
0.00
0.00
0.00
7,904,584.00
71895,183.64
9,400.36
4
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
PROJECT AREA NO.2:
LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND
2nd TRUST DEEDS
LAND
BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
07/01/2005 - 04/30/06 REMAINING
BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LOW/MODERATE TAX FUND:
2,900.00
3,018.71
0.00
(118.71)
PERSONNEL
280,628.00
193,923.47
0.00
86,704.53
SERVICES
2ND TRUST DEEDS
852,693.00
0.00
0.00
852,693.00
2ND TRUST DEEDS FROM CENTERPOINTE
2,520,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
,422,493.00
1
48TH AND ADAMS - FROM CENTERPOINTE
1,423,203.00
710.00
0.00
,2,93.00
0.00
WASH/MILES PROJECT
VISTA DUNES MOBILE HOME PARK
0.00
147,307.00
0.00
111,935.91
0.00
35,371.09
LOW MOD HOUSING PROJECT
105,015.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
105,015.00
776,239.00
47TH/ADAMS PROJECT
776,239.00
150,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
150,000.00
FORECLOSURE ACQUISITION
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
350,708.00
292,256.61
0.00
58,451.39
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL LOW/MOD TAX
1,846,754.00
1,706,753.78
0.00
140,000.22
8,455,447.00
2,308,598.48
0.00
6,146,848.52
2004 LOW/MODERATE BOND FUND
14,150,000.00
48.00
0.00 14,149,952.00
HOUSING PROGRAMS
3,000,000.00
0.00
0.00 3,000,000.00
LAND
TRANSFERS OUT
50,387,287.00
1,190,068.18
1,190,116.18
0.00 49,197,218.82
0.00 66,347,170.82
TOTAL LOW/MOD BOND
67,537,287.00
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
SERVICES
195,970.00
152,363.88
0.00
43,606.12
BOND PRINCIPAL
200,000.00
319,168.00
100,000.00
569,167.50
0.00
0.00
100,000.00
(249,999.50)
BOND INTEREST
INTEREST CITY ADVANCE
1,205,104.00
955,104.19
0.00
249,999.81
PASS THROUGH PAYMENTS
16,020,307.00
8,802,077.76
0.00
7,218,229.24
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
1,706,754.00
1,706,753.78
0.00
0.22
19 647,303.00
12,265,467.11
0.00
7,361,835.89
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
2,900.00
3,017.13
0.00
(117.13)
PERSONNEL
SERVICES
195,162.00
59,324.63
0.00
135,837.37
ADVERTISING -ECONOMIC DEV
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
0.00
23,903.00
19,919.20
0.00
3,983.80
REIMBURSEMENT TO GEN FUND
6,776,933.00
6,593,695.90
0.00
183,237.10
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
6,998,898.00
6,675,956.86
0.00
322,941.14
r 4, Iv
i. .L A-
/ rr
OAt, �•tp •
-
OF Tom'
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Approval of an Amendment to the CONSENT CALENDAR:
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement by and between DDC
Desert Development, Inc. and the La Quinta STUDY SESSION:
Redevelopment Agency for Certain Developable Parcels PUBLIC HEARING:
within SilverRock Resort
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the La
Quinta Redevelopment Agency and DDC Desert Development, Inc. for the design
and development of certain resort and retail sites located at SilverRock Resort, and
authorize the Agency Chair to execute the required documents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
On April 4, 2005, the Agency and DDC Desert Development (DDC) entered into an
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) that established a 180-day period wherein
both entities would exclusively work to define the resort and related uses for the
SilverRock Resort properties, and negotiate a Disposition and Development
Agreement that outlines property disposition and development responsibilities. The
ENA was amended via Amendment No. 1 on March 15, 2006 to extend the
exclusive negotiation period until June 30, 2006.
Negotiations continue with DDC and will not be concluded by June 30, 2006.
Thus, staff is recommending that the exclusive negotiation period be extended until
November 30, 2006. This will allow sufficient time to conclude negotiations, and
draft and schedule a Disposition and Development Agreement for Agency Board
consideration.
The attached Amendment No. 2 to the ENA both extends the exclusive negotiation
period and modifies the scope of the SilverRock property that is subject to the
ENA. The exclusive negotiation period would be extended to November 30, 2006.
The property that would now be covered by the ENA entails the boutique and
resort hotel sites, the resort casita site that adjoins the resort hotel, and the resort
retail village. These properties are the subject of the DDC negotiations.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between
the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency and DDC Desert Development, Inc. for
the design and development of certain resort and retail sites located at
SilverRock Resort, and authorize the Agency Chair to execute the required
documents; or
2. Do not approve Amendment No. 2 to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
between the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency and DDC Desert
Development, Inc. for the design and development of certain resort and retail
sites located at SilverRock Resort, and do not authorize the Agency Chair to
execute the required documents; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
,-� a �,
Michael O'Connor
Assistant Executive Director
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese
Executive Director
Attachment: 1 . Amendment No. 2
ATTACHMENT 1
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
("Amendment No. 2") is made and entered into as of June _, 2006 by and between the
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic
("Agency"), and DDC DESERT DEVELOPMENT, INC., a California corporation
("Developer").
RECITALS:
A. On or about April 4, 2005, the Agency and Developer entered into that
certain Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (the "ENA"), pursuant to which Agency and
Developer agreed to initiate exclusive negotiations for up to one hundred eighty (180)
days concerning the possible sale by Agency to Developer of certain real property owned
in fee by the Agency for the Developer's subsequent development thereon of a
commercial project, all as more fully described in the ENA.
B. On or about March 1, 2006, the Agency and Developer entered into that
certain Amendment No. 1 to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, pursuant to which
Agency and Developer extended the "Second Due Diligence Period" (as that term is
defined in the ENA) until June 30, 2006, to provide the Developer with additional time to
complete the tasks required to be completed as part of the Second Due Diligence Period.
C. Agency and Developer now wish to further extend the Second Due
Diligence Period, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, to enable the parties
additional time to conclude negotiations on the proposed development and to negotiate,
draft, and schedule for Agency Board consideration a disposition and development
agreement.
AGREEMENT:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are
incorporated herein by this reference, and for valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The ENA is hereby amended to extend the Second Due Diligence Period until
November 30, 2006.
2. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Amendment No. 2, all of the terms
and conditions of the ENA shall remain in full force and effect.
3. In the event of any action between Agency and Developer seeking enforcement of
any of the terms and conditions to this Amendment No. 2, the prevailing party in such
action shall be awarded, in addition to damages, injunctive or other relief, its reasonable
costs and expenses, including without limitation its expert witness fees and reasonable
attorney's fees.
4. This Amendment No. 2 shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if
prepared by both parties hereto.
5. This Amendment No. 2 shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of
California and any question arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according
to such law without regard to conflicts of law. The Superior Courts of the State of
California in and for the County of Riverside, or such other appropriate court in such
county, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any litigation between the parties concerning
this Amendment No. 2. Service of process on Agency shall be made in accordance with
California law. Service of process on Developer shall be made in any manner permitted
by California law and shall be effective whether served inside or outside California.
6. Time is of the essence of this Amendment No. 2 and of each and every term and
provision hereof.
7. This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when
this Amendment No. 2 has been signed by all the parties hereto, shall be deemed an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[End — Signature Page Follows]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Agency and Developer each hereby represents that it
has read this Amendment No. 2, understands it, and hereby executes this Amendment No.
2 to be effective as of the day and year first written above.
Date: 92006
"Developer"
DDC DESERT DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
a California corporation
M
Its:
"Agency"
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
a public body, corporate and politic
Date: , 2006 By:
ATTEST:
June Greek, Agency Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
0
M. Katherine Jenson, Agency Counsel
Agency Chair
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 AGENDA CATEGORY:
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the BUSINESS SESSION:
Investment Policy of the Redevelopment Agency CONSENT CALENDAR:
for Fiscal Year 2006/2007
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency approving the Investment Policy of the
City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
SEE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
RESOLUTION NO. RA 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA APPROVING AND
ADOPTING THE AMENDED INVESTMENT POLICY FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007
WHEREAS, the general purpose of the Investment Policy is to provide the rules and
standards users must follow in investing funds of the City of La Quinta; and
WHEREAS, the primary objectives, in order of priority, of the City of La Quinta's
investment activity shall be:
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments
of the City of La Quinta shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the
preservation of capital in the overall portfolio.
The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating
requirements that may be reasonably anticipated.
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market
rate of return or yield throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into
account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs.
WHEREAS, authority to manage the City of La Quinta's investment portfolio is
derived from the City Ordinance. Management responsibility for the investment program is
delegated to the City Treasurer, who shall establish and implement written procedures for
the operation of the City's investment program consistent with the Investment Policy; and
WHEREAS, the Investment Policy will be adopted before the end of June of each
year and amended as considered necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of La Quinta to adopt the 2006/2007 Fiscal Year Investment Policy (Exhibit A).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a
Redevelopment Agency, held on this
2005 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHY JENSON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
regular meeting of the La Quinta
day of
TERRY HENDERSON, Chair
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
-WW! t,
IffWF
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: ,tune 20, 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR:
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Native Area Enhancements STUDY SESSION:
at the SilverRock Resort Arnold Palmer Classic Golf PUBLIC HEARING:
Course
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the native area and bunker enhancements at the SilverRock Resort, Arnold
Palmer Classic Course as recommended by the Golf Course architect at a cost of
$172,312.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Funding for the enhancements will be from The Redevelopment Agency's
SilverRock Construction Account #401-1723-551 .45-01 . With the addition of
these enhancements, there will be no further costs for maintenance operations.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The original concept design of the golf course at SilverRock Resort by the Palmer
Course Design Company included decomposed granite (DG) in the native areas
throughout the golf course. Due to the cost of the DG being $270,000 and the
bids for the project being at budget without the DG, the decomposed granite was
not included in the final bid. The Golf Course architect, Erik Larson, from the
Palmer Course Design Company concurred with the removal of the DG from the bid
because of the expense.
Since the opening of the Arnold Palmer Classic Course on February 14, 2005, daily
play of the golf course has identified native areas that are continually in play.
These areas have become difficult to play due to the hard native surface area.
Representatives of the PGA and the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic have also expressed
concerns regarding these areas. Furthermore, they have additional concerns the
areas becoming wet and the feasibility of being able to play under those conditions.
The Golf Course Architect recommends (see Attachment #1) adding decomposed
granite to the 16 acres of native area which is continually in play.
If approved, the decomposed granite would be placed at the base of native areas in
play (see Attachment #2). Additionally, the slopes of the native areas will be
chemically stabilized. The stabilization will harden the slopes so golf balls will roll
down to the playable DG. The stabilization will also provide dust control for up to
two years. The cost for the 16 acres of decomposed granite and chemical
stabilization is $1 10,952.
In January 2005, representatives from the PGA and Bob Hope Chrysler Classic
visited the Arnold Palmer Classic Course at the SilverRock Resort. From that site
visit, they provided detailed comments on items that would need to be completed
in order to host the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic Tournament. Most of the items
have been completed over the past year with the native area drainage
improvements project, the Mountain Drainage Project, and the installation of the
Avenue 52 storm drain (see Attachment #3). The remaining items to be completed
include the addition of sod to six sand bunkers and remodeling sand bunkers on
hole #17 and hole #18. The bunker enhancements were not completed because
the changes have no effect on the daily golfer and regular play. The enhancements
are only necessary for meeting the requirements of hosting the Bob Hope Chrysler
Classic Tournament. The cost for these bunker enhancements is $61,360.
This week the City staff met with representatives of the Bob Hope Classic. The
Hope classic representatives have indicated that, if the City moves forward with
the improvements contained within the PGA Tour's Site Visit Report dated April
25, 2006, they see no reason why the Arnold Palmer Classic Course would not be
part of the 2008 rotation. Moreover, approval and installation of these site visit
improvements would allow the Hope's request to be met.
Landmark Golf Management and City Staff both agree these improvements will not
only be beneficial for professional golf events, but are also necessary to serve the
daily golfer.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Approve the native area and bunker enhancements at the SilverRock Resort,
Arnold Palmer Classic Course as recommended by the Golf Course architect
at a cost of $172,312; or
1.,
i
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\06-20-06\B4 Native Area Enhancements at SilverRock.doc i.i-
PALMER COURSE DESIGN Fax:9042852119
er Course Design
Pal
your (FF E BOX 183e 572 PONTE VEORA HOIAEVARO
PONM VEDRA H, FLORIDA 32004 PONTE Vi:DFiA BEACH, FLORIOA 32082
ARNOLD D. PALM
Chairman of the Boars
ED *AY, Pmeldent
ERIK LARSEN, Emutive
Vice President
tdARRMN MINOK I.W,
Y*Q I'MidOM
VICTORIA.MART7, Vice
President
DE130RAH THODE,
ce President
Mr. Thor
as Genovese
La Quint
a Redevelopment Agency
78-495
alle Tampico
La Quin
, CA, 92253
Dear T
ATTACHMENT 1
Company
TELEPHONE 804-R8 -WW
TH.EFAX 10
April 20, 2006
This lette is to give our direction for solving the issue of the native areas at the
SilverRo k Resort.
Some hi Cory: since irrigated turf area is at the maximum allowed by permit, non -
irrigated evegetated native areas were proposed. The revegetated areas left native dirt
areas exl iosed. The original intention was to see if the exposed native dirt would work
as a play ng surface saving the cost to cover it with decomposed granite. Simply, the
native dirl does not perform well as a golf course playing surface when it gets wet.
Drainage)
these area
helps kee
dirt needs
when rain
plant type
We propo
granite.
marigold
the nozzle
Pinnacle C
grassed sl
success.
P.O. Box 52 e
vas added around all the native areas so water does not surface drain into
is, This dramatically reduces the amount of moisture in the native areas and
them from being muddy and eroding. However, in areas of play, the native
to be covered with a material that will not get muddy and will drain properly
:d on. Slopes and out of play areas should have vegetative cover with a
where you can easily find and play a golf ball.
w covering the dirt playing areas only of these native areas with decomposed
on -play areas should be hydro -seeded with a mix or Schismis grass, desert
,nd verbena and irrigated from the existing irrigation system by manipulating
s. All irrigation emitters should water a plant selected by Doug Enroth of
Ilesign who has been retained by the city. Exposed slopes that are not
could be stabilized. We. propose doing a 1-2 acre test plot for verification of
• email; kftmaWn®palrnerdeeign.Com
Pannayivanla 15686 6 724M7-7751
>>S};ff'Cl iJli>>f
r � Y
�4A
III
9000 Bay Hill
I WO East 8th Street,
* Odanda, Florida 32818.4071876-3944
100 • Ctevelar4 0 i* 44114 •21"22.1200
Respectfully submitted,
C �Xmmunity
Edie A. Hylton, Services Director
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager
Attachments: 1. April 26, 2006 Letter from the Palmer Design Company
2. List of PGA and Bob Hope Chrysler Classic Tournament
recommendations from February 9, 2005 with responses from
Johnny Pott of Landmark Golf Management
3. Map of proposed locations of decomposed granite and
stabilization
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\B4 Native Area Enhancements at SilverRock.doc
PALMER COURSE DESIGN Fax:9042852119 Apr 20 2006 15:55 P.02
i
Mr. Thorr as Genovese
April 20, 006
Page Two
PCDC w uld like to assure you and the City of La Quinta that your SilverRock Resort
golf courE a will look and play great after this work is done. We will work hard so all
interestec parties approve of the results. Please notify me as soon as possible with
your response so we can go to work. We.look forward to hearing from you and the City
of La Qui to soon.
Sin ly,
Erik Larsen
EUem
cc: Arnold Palmer
Jo inny Pott
Jo n Foster
St ve Wenzloff
!0-5
Palmer Course Design Company
ATTACHMENT 2
List below from Steve Wendoff, PGA Tour Design Services, Inc. to Michael Milthorpe,
Bob Hope Chrysler Classic Tournament Director, dated February 9, 2000.
Subject: Site Visit on January 27, 2005
Detailed Comments:
#1. Native area front left of green define area as formal bunker. Add turf to the back of
the bunker right side of the landing area and the back right of the green.
J. Pott The area front and left of green has been made into a formal bunker. The turf
has not been added to the two bunkers at this time.
Estimated cost:
$ 500 Sod
$1, 440 Labor 96 hours @$15 per hour
$1, 000 Irrigation Materials
$2, 940
#2. Move fairway line down from right side and rework fairway line left side.
JP Now that the mountain drainage project is complete on hole #2 the fairway lines
are being re-established as recommended by the PGA Tour.
#3. Native area front of green needs area defined as formal bunker.
JP This bunker work is complete.
#4. Off -site drainage has inundated this hole with flooding and silt deposition. The civil
engineering of this area needs to be evaluated to mitigate the impacts of the flooding.
Left fairway bunker and right greenside bunker backsides need turf to fully define hazard.
JP Completion of the Avenue 52 storm drainage project will resolve the flooding and
silt problem. The turf required at the bunkers has not been converted at this time.
Estimated Costs:
$1,500 Sod
$2, 880 Labor 92 hours @$15 per hour
$2, 000 Irrigation Materials
$6, 380
#5. Screen tee from 4 green with landscaping.
JP Twelve additional String Acacia trees were located by Erik Larsen and planted this
past summer.
#7. Add turf to back of fairway bunker to fully define hazard.
JP The turf requested at the back of bunker has not been installed at this time.
Estimated Costs:
$ 500 Sod
$1,440 Labor 96 hours @$15 per hour
$1, 000 Irrigation Materials
$2, 940
#9. Along the left side and black and blue tees plant trees to block players from playing
into #1 fairway or Rules staff will have to stake "inside OB" which is not desirable. Fill
in 2 lobes of bunker between 9 tees and 1 green to help accommodate planting trees.
Create formal bunker area within right greenside native area.
JP Two large olive trees were planted in the fill area by #9 tee as requested. The
formal bunker has been completed.
# 11. Add formal bunker within front right and front left greenside native areas.
JP These formal bunkers have been completed.
# 12. Add turf to fully define back left greenside bunker.
JP This turf has not been installed.
Estimated Costs:
$ 500 Sod
$1, 440 Labor 96 hours @$1 S per hour
$1, 000 Irrigation Materials
$2, 940
#13. Add turf to back and nose of right greenside bunker to fully define hazard and also
remove native plants.
JP This turf has not been installed.
Estimated Costs:
$1, 000 Sod
$1, 440 Labor 96 hours @$1 S per hour
$1,500 Irrigation Materials
$3, 940
#15. 523 yd Par "4" — Move marker forward 30 yards play as 490 yds. The native area
right of the landing zone is blind off the tee. Create 30 yd wide fairway. Grow rough left
of left greenside bunker adjacent to cart path to stop ball from rolling into drainage way.
JP Moving the marker will be done by the tournament date. Trees have been planted
to define the landing zone. A cart trail has been added to left of the green and grass has
been planted to slow golf balls from rolling into the drainage way.
# 16. Create formal bunker within native area along right side of approach.
JP Formal bunker has been installed as requested.
# 17. Fill part of the back of the left side greenside bunker and install turf to improve
opportunities for spectator viewing.
JP This request has not been done. This work would be done by an outside contractor,
will require shaping, irrigation and sod and could be completed in a week.
Estimated Costs:
$20, 000.
# 18. Install min 54inch wide turf area along waters edge of "beach" bunkers front and .
left of green. Behind green fill 4 — 5 yards of bunker to create additional chipping area as
fairway cut: the back of the bunker could be expanded, if desired, to preserve the scale of
the bunker. The bunker will have grandstands or corporate hospitality built over it for the
tournament.
JP The 54 inch wide turf has not been installed.
Estimated Costs:
$ 500 Sod
$ 720 Labor 48 hours @$15 per hour
500 Irrigation Materials
$2, 220
The remodeling of the back bunker has not been done. This work would be done by an
outside contractor and could be completed in a week.
Estimated Costs:
$20, 000.
This cost will be lower if holes #17 and #18 are modified as requested at the same time.
Estimated Total $61,360
(128
� r5�
'� kt
c&hjx 4�Q�rw
"tY�l v. n.rxum�
C�
OFT9
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006
ITEM TITLE: Discussion of Perimeter Enhancements at
SilverRock Resort
RECOMMENDATION:
As deemed appropriate by the Agency Board.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Perimeter Improvements
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
In December 2003, the Agency approved the conceptual perimeter and entry concept
plans for SilverRock Resort prepared by GMA International (GMA). In February 2004,
the Agency approved a Professional Services Agreement with Pinnacle Design
Company (Pinnacle) to prepare construction plans, specifications, cost estimates for
perimeter entry road, temporary clubhouse, and maintenance facility landscape
improvements in conformance with the GMA concept plan.
On May 4, 2004, the Agency approved Pinnacle's preliminary design. Pinnacle
presented preliminary designs for the exterior berms, the multi -purpose trail location,
the entry sign locations, and the proposed plant palette for the Avenue 52 entry,
Avenue 52, Jefferson Street, and Avenue 54. Pinnacle, as the landscape architect,
was also the sub -consultant to Palmer Course Design Company and as such,
attempted to create a seamless transition from the golf course to the external
landscape improvements. The minutes from the Agency's meeting on May 4, 2004
are included as Attachment 1 .
On August 3, 2004, the Agency approved the plant specifications and engineer's
estimate and authorized staff to advertise for bids to the SilverRock Resort perimeter
landscaping.
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\06-20-06\S1 SRR Perimeter Enhancements.doc
On September 7, 2004, the Agency awarded a contract for the SilverRock Resort
perimeter landscaping to Parkwest Landscape in the amount of $3,435,000 for the
Base Bid and $469,560 for Additive Alternate No. 1 for the project. Additive
Alternate No. 1 included constructing the perimeter wall pilasters with a stone veneer
finish instead of a slump stone finish. Additive Alternate No. 3 for this project
included constructing a ranch fence between the sidewalk and multi -purpose trail out
of masonry pilasters with a stone veneer and painted tube rails. Parkwest Landscape
bid this additive alternate at $1,093,805. Parkwest's bid to construct the ranch gates
and fencing in a colored plastic was $201,420 (Additive Alternate No. 4). The Agency
opted to not construct either fence, and to instead follow-up with a project for
constructing the fence under a separate construction contract. The minutes from the
September 7, 2004 meeting are included as Attachment 2. At the time, the Agency
requested staff review the potential use of recycled material for the ranch fence.
As construction is nearly complete on the perimeter improvements, there has been
concern that further enhancements to the projects perimeter might improve SilverRock
Resort's overall appearance.
The following items could be considered by the Agency to complete the perimeter and
enhance the entrance to SilverRock Resort:
Landscape Enhancements — In past meetings, Agency members voiced a desire to
enhance the existing perimeter landscape at SilverRock Resort. Rob Parker, Pinnacle
Design Company, will present several options for landscape enhancements that meet
the water master plan requirements for the site.
Ranch Fence — Rob Parker, Pinnacle Design Company, will present the Agency with
various fence options. Some time has passed since the Agency has last discussed
ranch fence options. Staff and Mr. Parker are here to provide the Agency with some
updated information regarding ranch fence options and prices.
Option A - Recycled Plastic Fence
Concerns surrounding the use of recycled plastic materials included the ability of the
material to stand up to the extreme desert temperatures without warping or
discoloration. Staff recently requested and received additional information from Eagle
One Products for the recycled plastic, fiberglass reinforced fence material which
included a recommendation that the post spacing be a maximum or six (6) feet apart or
less in order to address this concern. If the Agency selects recycled plastic material,
there may be grant dollars available to help offset the cost of the fencing. Staff has
color samples of the recycled plastic material and photos of installations performed by
Eagle One for review by the Agency.
2
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\06-20-06\S1 SRR Perimeter Enhancements.doc
Option B — Vinyl Fence
At past meetings, the Agency had concerns about the limited colors available for the
vinyl fencing material. Mr. Parker has spoken with manufacturers and suppliers again
to re -affirm which colors of vinyl are available and will report his findings at the
meeting.
Option C — Aluminum Fence
Aluminum fencing was not considered in the past by the Agency. Mr. Parker will
provide information regarding the aluminum fence material at the meeting.
Monument Signs
On October 5, 2004, the Agency approved a $20,000 contract amendment to GMA
International to design monument signs for SilverRock Resort. A preliminary design for
the monument signs was approved on November 16, 2004.
On February 15, 2005, staff presented additional signage and lighting for the entrance
to the SilverRock Resort. GMA prepared a Set of plans and specifications for the entry
signage at Avenue 52 and Cetrino, and Avenue 52 and Jefferson, which consisted of
masonry block construction with lettering detailing consistent with their November
2004 preliminary design.
On March 3, 2005, the Agency approved a $5,000 contract amendment for structural
design of the monument signs for GMA's structural engineer sub -consultant.
On July 19, 2005, the Agency approved the plans, specifications, and engineer's
estimate for the SilverRock Resort monument signs and authorized staff to advertise
the project for bids.
On August 30, 2005, the Agency received two bids, which were both rejected on
September 6, 2005 as the bids were determined to be non -responsive or did not meet
the Agency's graphics standards for the SilverRock Resort. At that time, GMA
attempted to modify the design of the signs to conform to the graphic standards, but
was unable to do so within the structural requirements of the signs contained in the
bid documents. As such, all bids were rejected and staff was authorized to
renegotiate a new design contract with GMA to prepare a new monument design
consistent with the graphic standards. On an interim basis, Landmark Golf proposed a
temporary sign that is currently located at the entrance to SilverRock Resort at Avenue
52 and SilverRock Way (see Attachment 3). The SilverRock Resort graphic standards
are included as Attachment 4.
Chris Hentzen, GMA International, will present his design plans for the SilverRock
Resort monument signs to include enhancements to both the entry sign at Avenue 52
and SilverRock Way as well as the corner monument sign at Avenue 52 and Jefferson
Street, which are consistent with SilverRock Resort's graphic standards.
3
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\06-20-06\S1 SRR Perimeter Enhancements.doc
Respectfully submitted,
1
)7t�y R'.T� nass6k P.E.
Public Words Director/City Engineer
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, Executive Director
Attachments: 1. May 4, 2004 Agency Meeting Minutes
2. September 7, 2004 Agency Meeting Minutes
3. Photo of temporary monument sign
4. SilverRock Resort graphic standards
0
S:\CityMgr\STAFF REPORTS ONLY\06-20-06\S1 SRR Perimeter Enhancements. doc
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 2 Mj$-4T&Qi M ENT 1
MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Adolph to approve
the Consent Calendar as recommended. Motion carried unanimously.
BUSINESS SESSION
2. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN FOR THE VISTA DUNES
AFFORDABLE FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT.
Consultant Frank Spevacek presented the staff report.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Community Development
Director Herman explained the Agency redevelopment housing
requirements are separate from the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) housing requirements. Mr. Spevacek noted the
Agency's redevelopment housing efforts can be used to meet the
RHNA housing requirements but not in reverse except for 45- or
55-year covenants.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 2004-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING A
REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE SECTION 33413.5 PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED
VISTA DUNES AFFORDABLE FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT.
It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Adolph to adopt Resolution No.
RA 2004-007 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
1. CONSIDERATION OF PERIMETER, TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE, AND
MAINTENANCE . FACILITY LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR SILVERROCK
RESORT.
Assistant Executive Director Weiss presented the staff report, and Rob
Parker, of Pinnacle Design, reviewed the conceptual landscape plans
for the temporary clubhouse, maintenance facility, Avenue 52 entry,
and project perimeter.
Mr. Parker responded to questions by the Agency Members as
follows: the bag drop-off at the temporary clubhouse will be near the
sculpture area; the maintenance facility will have a six -foot -high
..� .: 5
.01
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 3
May 4, 2004
perimeter wall; the number ,of benches around the maintenance facility
r— can be reduced and tables included for workers if so directed;
sufficient well sizes for the trees will be provided; proposing to use
Live Oak trees around the maintenance facility; California Fan Palms
will be used in clusters near the water features; a two -rail ranch fence
will separate the sidewalk from the 'multi -use trail and there have been
discussions about adding another ranch fence between the multi -use
trail and the water; boulders will be used around the water features
and can be added in the open spaces on each side of the entry if the
budget is increased. He indicated he has requested modification of
the lake edge to move it further from the multi -use trail, which would
then allow for boulder groupings at the lake edge.
In response to Board Member Adolph, Mr. Weiss indicated he will
check with Landmark regarding parking for outside golf carts, such as
PGA West.
Development 'Coordinator Roy Stephenson confirmed for Board
Member Adolph that the guard gates in the conceptual plan have been
eliminated, and that there will be a restroom just west of the entrance
between the #4 green and #5 tee: He further noted the entry water
features with rock outcroppings is part of the golf course contract,
which has already been approved, and not part of the landscape
design contract.
Board' Member Perkins voiced concern about not having a fence
between the lake and multi -use trail. City Attorney Jenson stated it
will be important to make sure, from an engineering perspective, that
it is okay.
Board Member Adolph stated he understood the berms were not to
exceed three to four feet, and voiced concern about blocking the
mountain views.
Mr. Parker indicated the maximum berm height is nine feet at the
corner near the roundabout. The total parkway distance at that corner
is 162 feet, and the nine -foot high berm is approximately two-thirds of
-the way back from the street.
Board Member Osborne suggested more shade trees versus palm trees
along the multi -use trail. Mr. Parker noted the intent is to create an
accent at that corner.
C1 3 G
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 4 May 4, 2004
Chairperson Henderson noted the -mountain views will be visible before
entering and after leaving the roundabout. She supported lowering the
seven -foot high berms around other areas of the perimeter to five feet.
Board Member Adolph stated he feels five feet is too high, and voiced
concern about not having some type of fencing to keep pedestrians,
horses, and golf carts from entering the golf course.
Mr. Weiss noted the City Code requires a rail fence between the
sidewalk and the multi -use, trail but agreed it doesn't provide a level of
security for access to the golf course.
Mr. Parker noted an additional ranch fence on the inside of the multi-
use trail would provide a barrier to keep golf carts and horses off the
golf course. He also commented on the possibility of a six-foot high
fence at the base of the ,mound for security purposes. He noted the
narrow width of the parkway along Avenue 52 doesn't allow for
berms, and suggested a fence to obscure the view of golfers ,or pulling
the golf tees away from the street. He then reviewed options for a
perimeter wall with pilasters and tubular steel, which Mr. Stephenson
estimated would cost $50,000 for 1,000 linear feet. Mr. Parker noted
the fencing would allow views into the golf course.
Chairperson Henderson suggested using the same fencing along other
areas of the parkway. Mr. Stephenson noted reducing the berm
height will help to offset the cost of utilizing the fence concept in
other parts of the perimeter.
Mr. Parker suggested using a combination of stone pilasters and
tubular steel for the multi -use trail fencing to be more compatible with
the wall fencing. He recommended pilasters every 80 feet with a
steel pole every 40 feet.
Board Member Osborne voiced concern about the fence looking too
much like a ranch style.
Board Member Perkins indicated support for the bottom right fence
option.
Mr. Parker suggested the possibility of getting a .factory anodized
finish, and noted aluminum would be more expensive.
Chairperson Henderson stated she likes the center or bottom right
fence options
37
7
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 5 May 4, 2004
r-- Board Member Adolph agreed with the center option with independent
columns of boulders.
Board Member Osborne indicated he feels the center option. looks too
rustic, and suggested -using a more formal pilaster.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Stephenson confirmed Mr.
Gallagher is proposing to use synthetic rocks in the project that tie in
with the mountains.
Board Member Sniff voiced support for the bottom right fence option,
and suggested 12-foot-wide open spaces between solid masonry
panels.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Parker confirmed the
bottom right fence option consists of 12-inch squares made from 1 %Z
inch tubular steel. He stated the bottom right option is the most
expensive because of the additional rock base. He added he feels
12-foot-wide sections are not adequate to provide an open view and
suggested 18 feet.
Chairperson Henderson stated she supports the bottom right fence
option using a more natural -looking rock. She agreed 12-foot-wide
sections are too small and suggested 16-18 feet.
Mr. Parker noted a combination of berms and fencing may need to be
used, and stated he would like to bring back a revised berm and fence
plan for a clearer understanding.
Mr. Stephenson requested clarification on the maximum berm height,
inner fence design concept, vinyl or wood material for the multi -use
trail fencing, and if double fencing is wanted for security.
Board Member Osborne stated he supports a rock pilaster fence, three
to four -foot -high berms except at the roundabout corner, and using a
wall for security and not a second rail fence.
Board Member Sniff stated he feels 12-foot-wide "peeks" in the
fencing will encourage people to participate in the resort. He supports
using pilasters and rails that are not too shiny for the multi -use trail
fence but feels a distance of 80 feet between pilasters is too much.
Redevelopment Agendy Minutes 6 May 4, 2004
Board Member Perkins spoke in,., support of the bottom right fence
option with 16 to 18-foot-wide open view spaces, three to four -foot -
high berms except at the roundabout corner, and pilasters and brushed
silver rails for the. rail fencing between the sidewalk and multi -use trail.
Mr. Weiss asked if the consensus is to provide security with a
combination of either berms and/or a wall, and requested clarification
on the berm heights.
Chairperson Henderson confirmed the wall would be in lieu of a
second split -rail fencing to provide security.
Board Member Adolph stated he would support perimeter berms of
one to six feet with an average of three to four feet. He agreed with
giving the landscape architect some flexibility in the berm height at the
corner as long as the view is not blocked.
Mr. Parker noted reducing the berm height at the corner will pull it
closer to the street and provide more space inside the site.
Board Member Adolph stated he . feels 15 to 16-foot-wide open view
spaces between solid panels is adequate. He also feels the pilasters
on the multi -use trail fencing should be closer than 80 feet, and
supports using rock and anodized steel if possible.
Board Member, Perkins noted the solid panels should not be the same
length as the open spaces.
Mr. Stephenson advised the final design will come back when the bid
documents are brought back for authorization to bid.
Board Member Adolph commented on the importance of seeing how
the pump and canal tie together with the fencing, and having some
type of security between the lakes and the multi -use trail.
MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Adolph to approve
the conceptual landscape plans as discussed for the SilverRock Resort
temporary clubhouse, maintenance facility, and project perimeter.
Motion carried unanimously.
STUDY SESSION — None
Redevelopment Agency- Minutes 4 SeptembAt TT2WAH M ENT 2
Assistant Executive Director Weiss presented the staff report.
MOTION ' It 'was moved by Board Members Sniff/Osborne to
authorize staff to approve 'a change order(s) in a cumulative amount
not to exceed .$200,000 for the addition of a commercial cooking
kitchen at the SilverRock Resort temporary clubhouse.
Board Member Adolph suggested the water heater be relocated to
provide a larger entry between the kitchen and eating area. He also
voiced concern about women having to enter the ladies restroom from
a dark, area, and suggested opening up the covered entry wall that
faces the eating area.
Chairperson Henderson and Board Member Perkins concurred.
Mr. Weiss noted those changes will require modification to the
contract for rehabilitating the building. He suggested an alternative for
the restrooms might be to lower the wall to five feet.
Chairperson Henderson suggested 'Board Member Adolph work with
staff and the architect to find a solution.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Agency recessed to and until 7:00 p.m.
7:00 P. M.
BUSINESS SESSION ............ continued
2. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SilverRock
RESORT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, PROJECT NO. 2002-07G.
Public Works Director Jonasson presented the staff report. In
reviewing the add alternates, he stated Park West has requested to
change their bid for Add Alternate #3 to $1,689,575 due to an error
made by the subcontractor in not including the stone pilasters. He
referenced a letter requesting a change to Add Alternate #4, and
stated he is not comfortable recommending that item. He feels it
makes more sense to look at the base bid and maybe Add Alternate
10
Redevelopment Agency Minutes 5
September 7, 2004
# 1. He suggested the possibility of considering a separate bid for the
ranch fence and looking at alternate fencing materials.
In response to Board Member Adolph, Mr. Jonasson started the wall
setback along Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street varies between 60 and
120 feet.
Board Member Adolph suggested eliminating the stone base between
the pilasters and extending the wrought iron to the ground to reduce
costs. He noted the stone base will not be seen from the street.
Mr. Jonasson noted under Add Alternate #2, slump stone would be
used instead of stone for a savings of approximately $167,000. He
didn't know what the cost savings would be if the wrought iron is
1 extended to the ground.
Board Member Perkins agreed with extending the wrought iron to the
ground.
In response to Board Member Perkins, Mr. Jonasson stated the
perimeter along Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street is approximately
15,000 feet.
Board Member Sniff stated he prefers staying with the stone base,
and suggested some of the work be deferred to save costs at this
time.
Mr. Jonasson noted one of the alternatives is to reduce the
construction contract 25 % by delaying the work on Avenue 54 for a
cost savings of approximately $619,000.
Board Member Perkins pointed out the wall will be hidden by
shrubbery.
Board Member Sniff stated he doesn't feel the shrubbery should
obscure the wall.
Chairperson Henderson noted the perimeter will not be heavily
landscaped because of CVWD's landscaping restrictions.
Mr. Jonasson advised the maximum the contract can be, reduced is
25 % without having to renegotiate the prices and/or re -bidding the
project. He stated the construction will be completed in early March
2005.
�,�Al
11
Redevelopment Agency. Minutes 6 September 7, 2004
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Jonasson confirmed the
base bid can be reduced 25% by delaying the Avenue 54
improvements, and the ranch fence (Add Alternate #3 or #4) can be
bid at a later date.
Board Member Adolph noted it will be less expensive to do all of the
improvements' at one time because of cost increases. He agrees the
wall will look better with the stone base but believes the undulation
and shrubs will result in ,the lower wall not being visible from the
street in some locations.
In response to' Board Member Osborne, Mr. Jonasson stated the wall
will be located between the berms.
In response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Jonasson explained the wider
setback - areas occur near the roundabout for aesthetic purposes.
Board Member Sniff suggested reducing the setback to 80 feet.
Assistant Executive Director Weiss pointed out the bid is based on the
design previously approved by the Agency. Staff's recommendation is
to proceed with the base bid and one or two Add Alternates as
desired and to deal with the ranch fence as a separate project in the
future. He noted if the Agency desires to change the setback or
redesign the fence, that component of the project will need to be
redesigned.
Board Member Sniff suggested going with the base bid and Add
Alternate # 1.
Chairperson Henderson concurred.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Agency Counsel Jenson
advised the contractor's request to change the bid is not the type of
bidding mistake where relief would be granted. Therefore, if the Add
Alternate is included in the contract, it would be on the basis of the
bid amount contained in., the bid document. She stated there are
limited circumstances wherein a bid is allowed to be changed but it's
not applicable here.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Jonasson explained the
ranch fencing was not included in the base bid because it's more
expensive than the split -rail fencing initially discussed. He confirmed
12
11 Redevelopment Agency Minutes 7
September 7, 2004
there will be a. shortage of $2,079,400 in the Phase I contingency
' fund if Add Alternates #1 and #2 are included in the contract.
t
Chairperson Henderson stated she feels Board Member Adolph has
made a good argument about the cost of the lower stone wall but
noted it would require re -bidding the project. She suggested doing the
base bid with Add Alternate #1, and negotiating a 25% reduction in
the contract for the Avenue 54 improvements.
Mr. Jonasson referenced security concerns at the west end of Avenue
54 near the golf course and the .lakes if the Avenue 54 improvements
are delayed.
In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Weiss confirmed the
availability of $688,000 in unallocated bond proceeds and $4.1 million
in Project Area 1 economic development reserves.
Chairperson Henderson asked about the economic development
reserves amount for Project Area 2, and Mr. Weiss stated he didn't
know that amount at this time.
r._._ Board Member Adolph referenced differential monies between what
was budgeted and what was received that he hopes will keep the City
from having to use the General Fund.
Mr. Weiss noted funding is still available for Phase II improvements,
such as $8 million for the permanent clubhouse.
In response to Chairperson Henderson, Mr. Weiss confirmed the
Project Area 1 economic development reserves are for specific
projects that have been previously authorized, such as the Embassy
Suites project.
In response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Weiss confirmed the
possibility of using AB 939 recycling funds for the ranch fencing if
recycling material is used.
MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Perkins to award the
contract for the SilverRock Resort Perimeter Landscaping, Project No.
2002-07G, to Park West Landscape Inc. in the amount of $3,435,000
with Add Alternate #1 in the amount of $469,560.
13
Redevelopment Agency, Minutes 8 September 7, 2004
Board Member, Osborne suggested including an add alternate for the
ranch fencing if funding is available without going into the Phase II
funding because the costs will be higher later on.
In response to Board Member Perkins, Mr. Jonasson stated due to the
current high cost of steel, there could be a cost savings if the ranch
fence is delayed. He noted the ranch fence will go between the
sidewalk and ' multi -use trail, which isn't heavily landscaped, and a
stipulation could .be added to that contract requiring the contractor to
replace anything that is damaged.
Chairperson Henderson noted after the parkway improvements are
constructed, it, may be determined that a ranch fence is not needed.
She questioned the need to have two sophisticated fences together,
and feels split -rail fencing looks good when used in conjunction with
other sophisticated material.
City Manager Genovese noted the ranch fencing may be required by
City Code, and indicated staff will research alternative methods of
funding. "
Board Member Osborne agreed two sophisticated fences together may
be redundant, and asked about the durability of plastic fencing.
Mr. Jonasson stated he is not sure about the life expectancy of the
PVC material but the recycled material is guaranteed for 50 years.
Board Member Osborne suggested including Add Alternate #4 and
using AB 939 recycling funds.
Mr. Jonasson stated the recycled material costs is approximately
twice the amount of the plastic fencing included in Add Alternate #4.
Chairperson Henderson pointed out the ranch fencing will have to be
re -bid since it did not include the use of recycled materials.
In response to Board Member Adolph, Mr. Jonasson confirmed Add
Alternate # 1 includes a stone base wall below the wrought iron.
Board Member Adolph stated he agrees the stone base wall will look
good aesthetically and will support the motion but feels it's a waste of
money.
Motion carried unanimously.
14
D
^D
`TJ
1
m
z
�_�
ATTACHMENT 4
The following graphic standards must be strictly adhered to by all
those using the SilverRock and/or SilverRock Resort logo, including
but not limited to SilverRock Resort staff, golf operator, consultants,
vendors, advertising agents, printers, retailer/tenants, and hoteliers.
Acceptable formats of the SilverRock' &
SilverRock' Resort logo.
SILVE RROC KTM
The logos must never be crowded by another graphic or typographic
[Stacked Logo]
element or used as a background graphic. The area surrounding
the logo should be equal to or more than 1/3 x , where x is equal
to the total height of the logo. These clear zones for the logos are
illustrated here in the margin. The area surrounding the logo may
be reduced to 1/4 x for web applications. It must always be placed
S I LVE KROC KTM completely within a document's borders, and should never bleed
R E S 0 R T off the edges. The logo must also be placed on a solid background
[Stacked Logo with Resort] —never on top of a photograph or graphic. It should not be
placed close to a distracting element and should not become
part of a larger pattern or design element. No other type or
graphic element can be combined with the logo. The logo should
S1 LV E R RO C KTM not be reproduced smaller than 3/4 inches wide. To maintain a
high standard of reproduction in printed materials, it is strongly
suggested that only the vector EPS of the logo type be used.
[Landscape Logo] All those needing assistance to maintain quality reproduction
in their materials should seek the assistance of the City of La
Quinta's Economic Development Division at 760-777-7035.
S I LVE R ROC KTM Samples or mock-ups of these materials should be submitted to the
R E S O R T
Economic Development Division for approval prior to production and
[Landscape Logo with Resort] distribution. To better establish and define its identity, the SilverRock
and SilverRock Resort logo must not deviate from these standards.
z -4 �'`
17
t. , .
SIHINC PROC'K
(3
S I LVC PROCK-
Acceptable colors of the SilverRock &
SilverRock Resort logo.
SI LVE P,,PC)CK:-
1 LVE KROCK
[Logo in PMS 877 Metallic]
(3
S I LVE PPOCK-
R E S 0 R T
S I LVE P, ROC K-
[Logo in Black]
K RO(I-I K
S I LVE P, ROC K-
R E 5 0 R T
We]
Acceptable colors of the SilverRock &
SilverRock Resort logo.
[Logo in PMS 4291
[Logo as 4/C art] 19
Font Usage for the SilverRock &
SilverRock Resort logo.
The "SR" monogram cannot be recreated with a font.
If it is necessary to recreate the "SilverRock" name using
editable type, please use the font Herculanum. The word resort can
be recreated with the font Lucida Grande.
The use of any other font for this purpose is unacceptable.
SILVERROCK`" HE(ZCULANUM
9
SILVERROCKTM HEKCULANUM
R E S O R Tom_
LUCIDA GRANDE r.
all
Trademark Usage for the SilverRock &
SilverRock Resort logo.
The SilverRock and SilverRock Resort logos must always include a
TM (trademark) after the k in any of the formations, as shown at left.
When the SilverRock and SilverRock Resort names appear in text,
the TM must be present after the k in the first mention of the name.
Other occurances of the name thereafter do not require a TM.
TheTM is not necessary when logo is printed on so-called "wearables"
including, but not limited to shirts, caps, golf gloves, golf bags, golf
club covers, towels, etc.
SI LVERROCKT
TM (trademark) appears after the k in SilverRock.
The TM should NOT appear after the "SR" mark,
nor after RESORT.
SILVCRROCKTM
R E S O R T
Last updated: June, 2004
21
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006
AGENDA CATEGORY:
ITEM TITLE: Joint Public Hearing Between the City BUSINESS SESSION:
Council and Redevelopment Agency to Consider an
Affordable Housing Agreement Between the CONSENT CALENDAR:
Redevelopment Agency and Southern California Housing STUDY SESSION:
Development Corporation (SCHDC) to Convey Certain
Property Located at 78-990 Miles Avenue and SCHDC's PUBLIC HEARING:
Subsequent Ownership and Operation of an Affordable
Rental Housing Development Consisting of 80 Dwelling
Units Restricted for Rental to and Occupancy by Very
Low -Income Family Households at a Rent Affordable to
Such Households
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue the public hearing to July 18, 2006.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
1
The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency purchased and vacated the Vista Dunes Mobile
Home Park. Acquisition occurred in December 2003, and site relocation activities
were completed by January 2006.
In March 2006, the Agency Board approved a request for proposals seeking non-profit
operators for the Vista Dunes Courtyard Homes. Five firms were contacted and only
one firm, Southern California Housing Development Corporation (SCHDC), responded.
The other firms were contacted to ascertain why they did not submit proposals; their
responses were that they are too busy handling other affordable housing developments
to take on this project. Since SCHDC was a qualified non-profit housing
owner/operator, and since they have other local affordable housing complexes in
Cathedral City and Indian Wells that are well run and maintained, staff recommended
that the Agency proceed to structure an Affordable Housing Agreement with SCHDC
for the sale and operation of the Vista Dunes Courtyard Homes.
SCHDC proposes to use 4 or 9 percent tax credit financing to purchase the completed
80 unit courtyard home complex from the Agency. In order to gain the greatest
number of application opportunities, SCHDC recommended that the Agency work to
approve an affordable housing agreement by July 1, 2006 so that they may participate
in the July 2006 tax credit application process. If awarded tax credit financing in the
July round, then the development must be ready for occupancy by December 2007.
The Agency is in the process of bidding the site and building improvements. The
bidding process indicates that the construction contract negotiations and the
construction process may not be achieved by December 31, 2007. If SCHDC was
awarded tax credit financing in the July 2006 round and could not achieve site
occupancy by December 2007, they will lose the tax credit financing and would need
to apply for financing during the 2008 rounds. However, if they wait and apply for
tax credit financing during the 2007 rounds, then the units would need to be ready for
occupancy by December 31, 2008. This would allow sufficient time to complete
construction activities.
Since the possibility of using tax credit financing awarded during the July 2006 round
is limited, staff is recommending that the joint public hearing be delayed until July 18,
2006.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Agency Board include:
1 . Continue the public hearing to July 18, 2006; or
2. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully ,/ubmitted,
OouglasVR. Evans
Community Development Director
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, Executive Director