2012 11 20 CCCity Council agendas and staff reports
are now available on the City's web
page: wwwda-guinta.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta
REGULAR MEETING on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2012
CLOSED SESSION 3:30 P.M., OPEN SESSION 4:00 P.M.
Beginning Resolution No. 2012-064
Ordinance No. 505
CALL TO ORDER
1 ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers: Evans, Franklin, Henderson Osborne, Mayor Adolph
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed
on the abencla. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to
three minutes. The City Council values your comments; however in accordance with State
law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an
emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b).
CLOSED SESSION
NOTE: Time permitting the City Council may conduct Closed Session discussions during
the dinner recess. Persons identified as negotiating parties are not invited into the Closed
Session meeting when acquisition of real property is considered.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS, SKI HARRISON AND TERRY
DEERINGER, REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE LA QUINTA CITY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957.6 MEET AND CONFER PROCESS
RECESS To CLOSED SESSION.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 NOVEMBER 20, 2012
RECONVENE AT 4:00 P.'M.
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed
on the agenda. Please complete a "request to S'eeak" form and limit your comments to
three minutes. The City Council values your comments; however in accordance with State
law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an
emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b).
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
PRESENTATIONS
1 . UPDATE FROM THE COACHELLA VALLEY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion.
1 RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2012
2. RATIFY APPLICATION SUBMISSION TO AND ACCEPTANCE OF
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC AND SAFETY FOR THE SOBRIETY
CHECKPOINT GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013
3. ACCEPTANCE OF WASHINGTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT AVENUE 48,
PROJECT NO. 2010-06
4. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL
MAP 36241, JEFFERSON SQUARE, REGENCY MARINITA — LA QUINTA,
LLC
5. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2012
6. RECEIVE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 NOVEMBER 20, 201'2 002
1
7. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION
OF THE OFFSITE AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 29052,
LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT, BLP DESERT, LP
BUSINESS SESSION - NONE
STUDY SESSION
1 . DISCUSSION OF SILVERROCK RESORT DEVELOPMENT
2. DISCUSSION OF THE 2012 UPDATE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1 . ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION (FRANKLIN)
2. CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS
3. CVAG COMMITTEE REPORTS
4. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFO EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (OSBORNE)
5. C.V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION (EVANS)
6. C.V. MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (Cox)
7. C.V. MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (FRANKLIN)
8. C.V.W.D. JOINT WATER POLICY COMMITTEE (ADOLPH)
9. IID ENERGY CONSUMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OSBORNE & BLUM)
10. JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (FRANKLIN)
11. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (HENDERSON)
12. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (EVANS)
13. PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION (ROBERT TEAL)
14. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GUNN)
15. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (HENDERSON)
16. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY/SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP (ADOLPH)
17. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
18 , HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 21, 2012
19. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
20. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 2012
21. INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 17,
2012
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
1 . CITY MANAGER - UPDATE: SERVICE DELIVERY OPTION REVIEW
2. CITY CLERK - UPCOMING EVENTS AND CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
3. BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 2012
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 3 NOVEMBER 20, 2012 003
4. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 2012
5. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 2012
B. REPORT REGARDING BIO-MASS, INC.
6. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 2012
7. POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 2012
MAYOR'S AND COUNCIL MEMBER'S ITEMS — NONE
RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE DISSOLVED LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
FOLLOWED BY THE LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY
AND THE LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETINGS
RECONVENE AT 7:00 P.M
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed
on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to
three minutes. The City Council values your comments; however in accordance with State
law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an
emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b).
PRESENTATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed
with the City Clerk prior to consideration of the item.
A person may submit written comments to City Council before a public hearing or appear
in support or opposition to the approval of a project(s). If you challenge a project(s) in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO
AMEND THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 9.150, PARKING,
AND OTHER SECTIONS RELATED THERETO, ALLOWING FOR TANDEM
PARKING PROVISIONS. APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
A. TAKE UP ORDINANCE BY TITLE AND NUMBER ONLY AND WAIVE
FURTHER READING
B. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 505 ON FIRST READING
ADJOURNMENT
004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 NOVEMBER 20, 2012
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on December 4, 2012,
commencing with closed session at 3:00 p.m. and open session at 4:00 p.m. at
the City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
1, Susan Maysels, City Clerk, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the
foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting was posted on the
outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin
boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on November 16,
2012.
DATED: November 15, 2012
S�� "ejoo-,-
SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is
needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-
four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presenta ' tions to the City Council,
arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-
7123. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a City
Council meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc.,
must be supplied to the City Clerk for distribution. It is requested that this take place
prior to the beginning of the meeting. ,
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any
item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Planning
Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California,
92253, during normal business hours.
005
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 5 NOVEMBER 20, 2012
W
OF
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Frank Spevacek
FROM: Susan Maysels, City Clerk 5w-�'
DATE: November 20, 2012
SUBJECT: Conflict of Interest
The following conflicts of interest due to the proximity of residence or business
relationship, have been identified by staff on the November 20, 2012 City
Council agenda.
Council Member Evans Agenda Item: Consent Calendar 3
3. ACCEPTANCE OF WASHINGTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT AVENUE
48, PROJECT NO. 2012-06
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Department Directors
1� 006
OF
�SVHVFA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012
ITEM TITLE: Receive and File Revenues and
Expenditures Report dated September 30, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Monthly and year-to-date revenues and expenditures of the City of La Quinta dated
September 30, 2012.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Receive and File Transmittal of the September 30, 2012 Statements of Revenues and
Expenditures for the City of La Quinta.
ALTERNATIVES:
None.
Respectfully submitted:
PWAA4� —
Robbeyn 13ird, Finance Director
Attachment: 1. Revenues and Expenditures Report for September 30, 2012
007
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF LA QUINTA
REVENUES - ALL FUNDS 07101/2012 - 09130/2012
FUNDS
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
RECEIVED
REMAINING
BUDGET
%
RECEIVED
General
$33,084.065.00
$1,674.087.68
$31.409,967.32
5.10%
Library
2,049,957.00
746.98
2,049,210.02
0.00%
Gas Tax Revenue
994,900.00
114,723."
880.178.58
11.50%
Federal Assistance
300.350.00
0.00
300,350.00
0.00%
JAG Grant
1,403.00
1,318.09
94.91
93.90%
Sleof (Cops) Revenue
0.00
8.53
(11.53)
0.00%
Indian Gaming
105.8".00
0.00
105.8".00
0.00%
Lighfing & Landscaping
960,000.00
0.00
980,000m
0.00%
RCTC
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
Development Funding
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
Crime Violent Task Force
230,347.00
19,968.00
210,379.00
8.70%
Asset Forfeiture
0.00
4.25
(4.25)
0.00%
AS 939
4,300.00
429.20
3,870.80
10,00%
Quimby
20.000.00
3,902.52
16,097.48
19.50%
Infrastructure
100.00
120.07
(26,07)
126.10%
Proposition I B
287,307.00
10527
287,201.73
0.00%
South Coast Air Quality
417.100.00
11,757.68
405,342.32
2.80%
CMA04STEA
0�00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
Transportation
523,300.00
127,502.83
395.797.17
24.40%
Parks & R8CMatiDn
89,200.00
20,417.00
68,783.00
22.90%
Civic Center
127,800.00
23,470.00
104,130.00
18.40%
Library Development
35,500.00
4.781.00
30,719.00
13.50%
Community Center
13,400.00
1,871.03
11,528.97
14.00%
Street Fadfity,
20,000.00
5,895.25
14,104.75
29,50%
Park Facility
2,200.00
569.18
1.630.82
25.90%
Fire Protection Facility
29,800.00
11,130.110
18,670.00
37.30%
Arts In Public Plows
99.800.00
34.907.24
64.592.76
35.00%
interest Allocation
0.00
(33,142.88)
33,142S8
0.00%
Capital Improvement
102.326,650.00
25.822,865.23
76.503,784.77
25.20%
Equipment Replacement
592,124.00
147,192.30
4,14,931.70
24,90%
Information Technology
495.781.00
123.404.07
372.376.93
24,90%
Park Equipment & Facility
512.223.00
125,977.72
386,245.28
24.60%
SilverRock Goff
4,042.917.00
40e.223.58
3,638,693.44
10.00%
SliverRock Golf Ran"
09,215.00
205.13
69,009.87
0.30%
La Quints Public Safety Officer
2,100.00
2,013.71
86.29
95.90%
Supplemental Pension Savings Plan
900.00
82.48
817.54
9.20%
Measure 'A'
412,500.00
0.00
412,5G0.00
0.00%
La Quints Financing Authority
678.130.00
0.00
678.130.00
0.00%
Successor Agency
1,003,271.00
33,985.31
1.029.28&69
3.20%
Successor Agency to RDA Project Area No. 1
16,526,862.00
12,485.75
16,514,376.25
0.10%
Successor Agency to RDA Project Area No. 2
3,627.301.00
10,337.17
3,616.963.83
0.30%
uInta Housing Authority
11, _114f(lo
14118898
1,181.287.06
9390%
S, ;3,�2
116.39 0
". �666.94
008
CITY OF LA QUINTA
EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
FUNDS
BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
E UM RED
--RE-WX1-N-1Nd-
BUDGET
PERCENT
General
Library
$36,882,IDO.
$3.215,913.21
WIT,8-48-11-
7%
$32.455.W.W-
---rO-%
Gas Tax
1,917,877.00
5131.199.00
0.00
1.356,678.00
29.3%
Federal Assistance
994,900.00
274.985.00
248,724.00
1,348.64
O.DO
0.00
746,176.00
273,636.38
25.0%
0.5%
JAG Grant
Sles! (COPS) Revenue
1,402.130
0.00
1,318.Dg
0.00
83.91
94.D%
Indian Gaming
118.308.00
O.DO
0.00
0.00
0.01)
O.OD
118,308.00
0.0%
0.0%
Lighting & Landscaping
RCTC
geo.olto.00
240.D00.00
0.01)
7213,000.00
25.0%
Development Agreement
O.DD
0.00
13.01)
O.DO
O.DD
0.00
OM
0.0%
CV Violent Crime Task Force
68,490.00
17,611D.34
0.00
0.00
50,809.66
0.0%
25.8%
AB 939
Quimby
307,9119,M)
24,033.00
2,GDO.00
281,9M.00
7.8%
Infrastructure
9,198.032.00
242,D74.00
1,427.25
D.00
0.00
0.00
9,196.604.75
242,074.00
0.0%
0.0%
Proposition 1B
South Coast Air Quality
287,307.00
169,305.20
0.00
1 III.D01.80
58.9%
CMAO
415,700.DO
7,D30.82
0.00
408,669.18
1.7%
Transportation
0 - 00
2,7611,145,N)
0.00
209,080.85
0.00
0.1))
0.013
2,557.054.15
0.0%
7.8%
Parks & Recreation
Civic Center
6,000.00
1,236.86
O.DO
4.763.14
20.6%
Library Development
238,939.DD
9AD0.01)
58,125.12
1,943.68
0.00
0.00
178,813.88
7.45a.32
24.8%
20.7%
Community Center
0.00
0.00
0.D0
0.(X)
0.0%
Street Facility
Park Facility
10,DOO.00
2,110.64
0.00
7.8891
21.1%
Fire protection
2,200.00
4,700.00
569.25
954.58
0.00
0.00
1.630.75
3,745.42
25.9%
20.3%
Arts In Public Places
536.200.00
2.224.12
0.00
6a3.975.88
0.4%
Interest Allocation
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0%
CaPitill Improvement
102.326.650.00
25,822.855.23
0.00
76,503.784.77
25.2%
Equipment Replacement
582,217.00
52.649.29
0.00
529,567.71
9.0%
Information Technology
547.549.00
130.155.54
0.00
417,693.46
23.8%
Part Maintenancil, Facility
552,523.00
0.00
D.00
552,523.00
0.0%
SilverRock Golf
SilverRock Reserve,
3,886,038.OD
779,295.89
0.00
3,108.742.31
20.0%
LO Public Safety Officer
O.GO
2,DDO.00
0.00
0.00
O.Do
0.00
0.00
2,000.00
0.0%
0.0%
Supplemental Pendion Savings Plan
12,833.00
12.832.86
0.00
0.14
100.0%
Measure W
412,500.00
103,125,00
0.00
309.376.00
25.0%
Le Quinta Financing Authority
878,130.00
1,371.00
0.00
876,769.00
0.2%
La Dome Housing Authority
26,181,020.00
25.488,725.51
0.00
682,294.49
97.4%
ucc
S comasor Agency
8,317.066.00
160.882.00
0.00
6.188.773.00
2.4%
Successor Agency to Project Arm No. 1
55.937.288.00
15,059,708.51
0.00
40,877,519.49
28.9%
Successor Agency to Project Area No. 2
23,198,060.00
10,214,761.09
0.00
I
6.984,104.91
69.9%
I otal 1
�274.678.327.010
51111,590,635.27---T-Si
2,W.75 I
$18G,074,W.N 1
32.3%
009
0710112012 - 0913012012
GENERAL FUND REVENUES DETAIL
ADJUSTED
REMAINING
%
BUDGET
RECEIVED
BUDGET
RECEIVED
TAXES:
Property Tax
1.764,800.00
71,202.73
1,693,597.27
4.030%
No Lovv Property Tax Distribution
3,922,500.00
167.070.15
3.755,429.85
4.260%
Non -RDA Property tax
388.GOO.00
0.00
366.000.00
0.000%
Statutory Tax - LQ
190,OGO.00
0.00
190,000.00
0.000%
Statutory Tax . Riverside Cnty
80,000.00
0.00
80,0()0.00
0.000%
Sales Tax
5,987,250.00
413,820.87
5,573.429.13
6.910%
Sales Tax Reimbursement
1,995.750.00
0.00
1.995,750.00
0.000%
Document Transfer Tax
441,500.00
78,491.39
363,008.61
17.780%
Transient Occupancy Tax
4.800,000.00
220,240.59
4,679,759.41
4.590%
Transient Occupancy Tax - Mitigation Measures
251,000.00
3,336.53
247,663.47
1.330%
Franchise Tax
1,457,730.00
60,770.54
1,396,959.46
4.170%
TOTALTAXES
21,256,530.00
1,014,932.80
20,241,597.20
4.770%
LICENSE & PERMITS:
Business License
298,400.00
72,521�70
225,878.30
24.300%
Animal License
32,300.00
6,373.00
25,927.00
19,730%
Building Permits
188,300.00
52,136.30
136,163.70
27,690%
Plumbing permits
24,400.00
7,581.75
18,818.25
31.070%
Mechanical Permits
24,800.00
8,414.00
16,386.00
33.930%
Electical Permits
25.200.00
7,078.09
18,121.91
28.090%
Gerage Sale Permits
16.100.00
3,290.00
12,810.00
20.430%
Misc. Permits
39,900.00
10.227.55
29,672.45
25.630%
TOTAL LICENSES& PERMITS
649.400.00
167,622.39
481,777.61
25.810%
FEES:
Sale of Maps & Publications
1,885.00
126.80
1,755.20
6.730%
Community Services Fees
466,894.00
193,622.77
273,271.23
41.470%
Fmance
7,aoogo
150.00
7,650.00
1.920%
Bldg & Safety Fees
312,588.00
49,803.76
262.784.24
15.930%
Bldg & Safety Lease Revenue
73,100.00
19,096.20
54,003.80
26.120%
SMIP Administration Fees
250.00
0.00
250.00
0.000%
Planning Fees
69,522.00
14,709.00
74.813.00
16.430%
Public Works Fees
32D.956.00
86,494.00
234,461.00
26.950%
TOTAL FEES
1,272,994.00
364,002.53
908,991.47
2a.59o%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Motor Vehicle In -Lieu
3,315,000.00
22,771.13
3,292.228.87
0.690%
Motor Vehicle Code Fines
112,900.00
5,840.34
107,059.66
5,170%
Parking Violations
42,900.00
7.037.66
35,862.34
16.400%
Misc. Fines
152,900.00
16,345.97
136,554.03
10.890%
Federal Govt Grants
12,900.00
16,633.00
(3,733.00)
128.940%
County of Riverside Grant
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
State of California Grant
5,207.00
931.04
4.276.96
17.aaG%
Fire Services Credit - Capital (10150003375010)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Fire Services Credit. Oper (10150003375000)
5.248,914.00
0.00
5,248,914.00
0.000%
CVWD
le.800.00
0.00
18,1100.00
0.000%
CSAIWAssessment
253,000.00
0.00
253,000.00
0.000%
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL
9,160,521.00
69,559.14
9,090.961.86
0.760%
INTEREST
444,900.DU
49.659.30
395,240.70
11,160%
MISCELLANEOUS
Mlsoellaneous Revems
16,400.DO
5,580.53
10,819.47
34.030%
A8939
92,400.00
0.00
92,400.00
0.000%
Mitigation Measures
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Rental Income
25,000.00
0.00
25,000.00
0.000%
Advertising Coop
25,000.00
1,400.00
23,600.00
5.600%
Cash Overl(Short)
0.00
12.90
(12.90)
0.000%
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS
158,800.00
6,993.43
151,806.57
4.400%
TRANSFERIN
140.910.00
1,318.09
139,591.91
0.940%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
33,084,055.00
1,674,087.68
31,409,967.32
5.060%
010
12
CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
BY DEPARTMENT 0710112012 - 0913012012
ADJUSTED
09130112
REMAINING
BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
ENCUMBERED
BUDGET
PERCENTAGE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
LEGISLATIVE
745,759.00
143,803.29
0.00
601,895.71
19.29%
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
570,536.00
103,976.49
0.00
472,559.51
18.03%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1.149,565.00
337.637.81
0.00
811,927.19
29.37%
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
1 18527700
SH 14
0.00
820222 16
30.80%
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT
3:657:137 66
6 MJ 3
0.00
2.7000417
25.9959
CITY CLERK
591032 00
14:4111!771
0.00
498 545*21
15.99%
TOTAL CITY CLERK
691:032 w
0.00
496!
COMMUNITY SERVICES
PARKS & RECREATION ADMINIS
1,081,162.00
214,902.22
0.00
846,259.78
20,25%
SENIOR CENTER
414,504.00
81,224.25
0.00
333,339.75
19.59%
PARKS & RECREATION PROGRA
197,734.00
42,647.80
0.00
165,185.20
21.52%
LIBRARY
1,426,568.00
202,687.28
O.Do
1,223,890.72
14.21%
PARK MAINTENANCE
1,587,298.00
317.980.25
0.01)
1,269.317.75
20.03%
MUSEUM
27004000
22,73130.MIQ
ORR
24. 1�
10.88%
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
4.957 599 W
'E. _
r
�9.71
.1
- -
FINANCE:
FISCAL SERVICES
9118,281.00
300,W5.02
0.00
667,675.98
31.05%
CENTRAL SERVICES
300979 00
2�1:2164�11
11.28%
TOTAL FINANCE
56
5=11
&6050
91707 37
28.20%
BUILDING & SAFETY:
BUILDING & SAFETY - ADMIN
290.307.00
85,205.116
0.00
224,098.14
22.81%
BUILDING
5",612.00
147,858.85
0.00
396,753.15
27.16%
CODE COMPLIANCE
1.041,953.00
230,673.17
0.00
811,279.83
22.14%
ANIMAL CONTROL
454,210.00
98,099.21
0.00
358,110.79
21.16%
FIRE
4,986.OD4.00
31,755.28
0.00
4,955,14&72
0.64%
EMERGENCY SERVICES
217,422.01)
37,914.89
0.00
179.507.11
17.44%
CIVIC CENTER BUILDING -OPERA
1 23476400
117!M!Rl
I!rl
1:,12M
1.13%
TOTAL BUILDING & SAFETY
8:770:102 55
7T#
0
, %§
35
0.19%
POLICE:
POLICE SERVICES
12.743,025.00
05,868.02
0.00
12,677,156.38
0.52%
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY
12,743,025.00
65,08.62
0.00
12,677.166.38
0.52%
PLANNING:
PLANNING - ADMIN
832,287.00
183,740.95
0.00
648.50L05
22.08%
CURRENT PLANNING
66688400
..
9
11
21-11%
TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
i,4907f 50
!a"
0! W1
JS4 0!11
92
Z2.31 %
PUBLIC WORKS:
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIC
527,256.00
108,544.21
0.00
416,711.79
20.59%
DEVELOPMENT & TRAFFIC
027,580.00
127,1589.07
0.00
499,890.93
20.35%
MAINTIOPERATIONS . STRErTS
1,472.683.00
311,195.44
0.00
1,181,487.56
21.13%
MAINT/OPERATIONS - LTGf-AND
1,453.212.DD
3DO.056.01
0.00
1,153,165.99
20.65%
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
I 52D $95 00
214!;1!3125
1!:215
19.39%
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS
5:601162
I'Ta
j51:;t!77.31
4 ps!jN.43
TRANSFERS OUT
2.094,807.00
13,229.73
0.00
2,081,577.27
0.03%
GENERAL FUND REIMBURSEMENTS
AW9,476.00)
(1,362,307.35)
0.00
(4,157,168.65)
24.56%
NET GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
35,602,100.00
3.215,913.21
10,8".75
32,455,342.04
9.01%
11. 1, Oil
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL
LIBRARY:
County of Riverside
Contributions
Interest
TOTAL LIBRARY
GAS TAX REVENUE:
Section 2105
Section 2106
Section 2107
Section 2107.5
Section 2103
Traffic Congestion Relief
Interest
TOTAL GAS TAX
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE REVENUE:
CDBG Grant
Federal Stimulus
Interest
TOTAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
JAG GRANT
Grant Revenue
Interest
TOTAL JAG GRANT
SLESF(COPS)REVENUE:
SLESF (Cops) Funding
Interest
TOTAL SLESF (COPS)
INDIAN GAMING
Grant revenue
Interest
TOTAL INDIAN GAMING
LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING REVENUE:
Assessment
Developer
Interest
TOTAL LIGHTING A LANDSCAPING
RCTC
RCTC Funding
Transfer In
TOTALRGTIC
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FUND
Mitigation Measures
Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL DEV AGREEMENT
0710112012 - 0913012012
ADJUSTED REMAINING %
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED
2,043,357.00
0.00
2,043,357.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
6,600.00
746.98
5,853.02
11.320%
2,049.957.00
746.98
2,049,210.02
O�040%
205,200.00
16,258.16
1811
7.920%
128,600.00
11,102.34
117.497.66
8.630%
273,100.00
32,301.08
240,798.92
11.830%
6.000.00
0.00
6,000.00
0.000%
381.800.00
55,045.22
326.754.78
14.420%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
200.00
16.64
183.36
a.320%
994,900.00
114,723.44
880,176.56
11.530%
300,350.00
0.00
300,350.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
300,350.00
0.00
300.350.00
0.000%
1,403.00 1.318.09 84.91 93.950%
0.00 0.00 O.Go 0�000%
1,403.00 1,318.09 84.91 93.950%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 8.53 (8.53). 0.000%
0.00 8.53 (8.53) 0.000%
105,8".DD 0.00 105.8".00 0,000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
105,944.00 0.00 105,844.00 0.000%
960,000.00 0.00 960,000.00 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
960.000.00 0.00 960.000.00 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
Too -07M 0.00 U.1300%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 --0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
012
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL
CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE
Member Contributions - Carryover
Grant revenue - JASG
CLET Line
Interest
TOTAL CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE
ASSET FORFEITURE
Interest
State Adjudicated
Federal Adjudicated
TOTAL ASSET FORFEITURE
AS 939 REVENUE:
AS 939 Fees
Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL AS 939
QUIMBY REVENUE:
Quimby Fees
Donations
Interest
TOTAL QUIMBY
INFRASTRUCTURE REVENUE:
Utility refund
Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROPOSITION IS - SB1286
Prop 18 Grant
Interest
TOTAL PROP031TION 13
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY REVENUE:
S.C.A.Q. Contnbution
MSRC Funding
Street S�pjng Grant
Interest
TOTAL SCAQ
CMAQ/ISTEA
State Grants
Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION
Developer We
Interest
Donations
Transfer In
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION
PARKS 6, RECREATION
Developer fees
Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION
07/0112012 - 00130/2012
ADJUSTED REMAINING %
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED
29.952.00
19.968.00
9.984.00
66.670%
198,595.00
0.00
198,595.00
0.000%
1,700.00
0.00
1,700.00
0.01)0%
100.00
0.00
100.00
0.000%
230,347.00
19,968.00
210,379.00
8.670%
0.00 4.25 (4.25) 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 N' 00, 0.000%
0.00 4 5 r425) --------- avvew-
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
4,300.00 429.20 3,870.80 9.980%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
4.JUU.UU qzu.zu 3,510.30 9.90u%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0=0%
20,000.00 3,902.52 16,097.48 19.510%
20,000.DU 3,902.52 16,097.48 19.510%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
100.00
126.07
(26.07)
120.010%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
100.00
126.07
(26.071
125.070%
287,307.00 0.00 287,307,00 0,000%
0.00 101�27 01.T27) 0,000%
207.3uT.OU 105 7 20_
2 Z Jj O.U4U%
41.200.00
11,718.03
29,4131.97
28.440%
375.500=
0.00
375.500.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
400.00
39.65
360.35
9.910%
417,100.00
11,757.68
405.342.32
2.820%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0�00
0.00
0.00
0.0110%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
441.500.00
126,020.00
315,480.00
28.540%
1.800.00
1,482.83
317.17,
82.380%
80,000.00
0.00
80,000.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
523.300.00
127.502.83
396.797.17
24.370%
89,200.00
2D.417.00
68,783.00
22.890%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
89,200.00
20.417.00
68.703.00
22.890%
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL
CIVIC CENTER
Developer fees
Interest
Transfer in
TOTAL CIVIC CENTER
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT
Developer fees
Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY CENTER
Developer fees
Interest
TOTAL COMMUNITY CENTER
STREET FACILITY
Developer fees
Interest
Transfer In
TOTAL STREET FACILITY
PARK FACILITY
Developer fees
Interest
TOTAL PARK FACILITY
FIRE PROTECTION FACILITY
Developer fees
Interest
TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION FACILITY
ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES REVENUE:
Arts in Public Plows
Arts In Public Plows Credits Applied
insurance Recoveries
DonaUons
Interest
TOTAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES
INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND:
Pooled Cash AlocataidInterest
Transfer In
TOTAL INTEREST ALLOCATION
0710112012 - 09/3012012
ADJUSTED REMAINING %
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED
127.600.00
23,470.00
104,130.00
18.390%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0�000%
127,800.00
23,470.00
104.130.00
18.390%
35,500.00
4,781.00
30,719.00
13.470%
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.ODO%
0�00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
35,500.00
4.781.00
30,719.00
13.470%
7,400.00 1,306.00 6.094.00 IIA50%
6,000.00 565.03 5,434.97 9.420%
13.400.00 1.871.03 11.528.97 13.960%
17,800.00
5,326.00
12,474.00
29.920%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
2,200.00
66925
1,630.75
25.880%
20,000.00
5,895.26
14,104.75
29.480%
2,200.00 569.00 1,631.00 25.860%
0100 0.18 (0.18) 0.000%
2.200�00 569.18 1,630.82 25.870%
29,800.00 11,130.00 18,670.00 37.350%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
29.800.00 11.130.00 18,670.00 37350%
97,500.00
20,487.03
77,012.97
21.010%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
14,000.00
(14,000.00)
0,000%
2,300.00
420.2
1,879.79
18.270%
99,800.00
34,907.
64,892.76
34.980%
0.00 (33,142.88) 33,142.88 0.000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
0.00 (33.142.88) .33,142.88 0.000%
014
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
CVAG
CVWD
County of Riverside
Surfam Transportation Funding
City of Indio
DSUSD
III)
RCTC
Vista Dunes Housing LLP
SB821-Bicycle Path Grant
State of California
APP Contribution
Developer Agreement Funding
Litigation Settlements
Transfers In From Other Funds
TOTAL CIP REVENUE
07/0112012 - 09/30M12
ADJUSTED REMAINING %
BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED
2,801,665.00
0.00
2,801.665.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
17,913,052.00
90,660.71
17,822,391.29
0.510%
0.00
0.00
O.Go
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0=0%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0�000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0�000%
595,305.00
64,873.44
533,631.58
10.810%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
81,013,628.00
25,887,531.08
55,346.096.92
31.680%
102,32tl,550.00
25,822,865.23
76,503,784.77
43.000%
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND:
Equipment Charges
584,824.00
146.205.81
438,elS.19
26.000%
Capital Contribution
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Sale of Fixed Asset
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Insurance Recoveries
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Interest
7,300.00
986.49
6,313.51
13.510%
Transfers In
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
592.124.00
147.192.30
444,931,70
24.860%
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND:
Chargn for services
491,581.00
122.895.00
368,6843.00
25,000%
Capital Contribution
0.00
O.GO
0.00
0.000%
Sale of Fixed Asset
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
Intenest
4,200�00
609.07
3,690.93
12.120%
Transfers In
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
493,781.00
123,404.07
372,376.93
24.890%
PARK EQUIPMENT & FACILITY
Charges for services
Interest
Capital Contribution&
TOTAL PARK EQUIPMENT & FAC
SILVERROCK GOLF
Green fees
Range fan
Resident Card
Memhandlse
Food & Beverage
Allocated Interest Income
Insurance Recoveries
Transfers In
TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF
SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE
Interest
Transfers In
TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF
LQ PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER FUND
Transfer In
Interest
TOTAL LQ PUBLIC SAFETY
SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SAVINGS PLAN
Contributions
Interest
TOTAL SUPPLE PENSION SAVINGS PLAN
MEASURE"A"
Measure A Sales Tax
Interest
TOTAL MEASURE "A"
602,523.110
125,630.76
376,892.24
25.000%
9.700.00
346.96
9.353.04
3.580%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
512,223.00
125.977.72
386.245,28
24.590%
3,360.773.00
264,596.00
3,086,177.00
7.900%
159,973.00
9,320.00
150,653.00
5.830%
120,000.00
14.760.00
106,240.00
12.300%
311,048.00
28.424.61
282,623.39
9.140%
12,000.GO
0.32
11,999.68
0.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
89,123.00
89,122.63
0.37
100.000%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000%
4.042.917.00
408.223.56
3,636,693.44
10.050%
2,2DO.00 2D5.13 1,994.87 9.320%
67,015.00 0.00 87,015.00 0.000%
69.215.00 205.13 69,009.87 0.300%
2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 100.000%
100.00 13.71 86.29 11710%
2.100.00 2,013.71 86.29 95.890%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
900.00 82.48 817.54 9.180%
900.00 82.46 $17.54 9.160%
412,500.00 0.00 412,500.00 0,000%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000%
412,500.00 0.00 412,500.00 0.000%
015
CITY OF LA QUINTA
OTHER CITY FUNDS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
ADJUSTED 09130112 REMAINING
BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET PERCENTAGE
LIBRARY FUND
INTEREST ADVANCE
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
CAPITAL PURCHASES
om
0.00
0.00
0.00
0�00%
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND
1.696,598,00
561,199.00
0.00
1,135,399.00
33.08%
TRANSFER OUT
omo
21MI "M
TOTAL LIBRARY FUND
�5211�11
1.97 v,
77
R
5bl,19U 0
50
1.3 tg
GAS TAX
CONTRACT SERVICES
0.00
0.D0
0.00
O�Do
000%
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND
994,900.00
248,724.00
0.00
746,176oO
25,DO%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
on
OJO 0
000
0.00%
TOTAL GAS TAX FUND
248. 124
N
5 Z
kbb6l
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND:
146.119.00
TRANSFER OUT
274.98& 10
1,348,64
6
0.49%
TOTAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND
24,98*,00
1,348.64
227
H
73 39 9
5JW
JAG GRANT
TRANSFER OUT TOTAL JAG GRANT
1,402.00
1,318.09
0.00
83.91
94,01%
SLESF(COPS)
TRANSFER OUT TOTAL SLESF (COPS) FUND
non
0�00
O.GO%
INDIAN GAMING FUND
TRANSFER OUT
11830800
0.00
- OWI
0.00%
TOTAL INDIAN GAMING FUND
1I8!30T0T-
0.00
00
81 � 33 61 R8 � MI
0 aa�,
LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DIST:
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND
960.000.00
240,000.00
0.00
720,000Z0
25.00%
TRANSFER OUT
0�00
0.00
O.DO
0.00
0.00%
TOTAL ILTGRANDSCAPING FUND
RCTC
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0.00
0.00
ozo
0.00%
TOTAL RCTC
0.00
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FUND
CONSTRUCTION
0.00
O.GO
0.00
0,00
000%
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND
om
ODD
0,00
non
0.00%
TRANSFER OUT
0,00
0,00
0,00
of)o
0.00%
TOTAL DEV AGREEMENT FUND
CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE
OPERATING EXPENSES
68,490,00
17.680.34
0.00
50,809.66
25.81%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00%
TOTAL CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE
68,490.W-
I T,680.34
0.00
AB 939
OPERATING EXPENSES
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND
TRANSFER OUT
QUIMBY FUND:
REIMBURSE DEVELOPER FEES
TRANSFER OUT
INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
CONSTRUCTION
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND
TRANSFER OUT
5,625,00 2,000.00
18,408.00 0.00
TOTAL AB
200,000,00 0�00 ODD 200,000.00 0.00%
0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00%
i'ON,032.00 1,427.25 0.00 8,996,604.75 0,02%
TOTAL QUIMBY 9,198.032.00 1,427.25 0.00 9,196.604.75 0.02%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00%
242.074.00 0.00 0.00 242,074.00 0.00%
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 242,074,00 242,074,00 0,00%
016 10
CITY OF LA QUINTA
OTHER CITY FUNDS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
ADJUSTED 9/3012012 REMAINING
BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET PERCENTAGE
PROPOSITION IB - SB 1266
TRANSFER OUT TOTAL PROPOSITION I B FUND 287,307.00 169,30510 0�00 118,001SO 68,93%
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY FUND
PROJECT EXPENDITURES 40,200.00 7,030.82 0.00 33,169,18
TRANSFER OUT 175 �M An A An 17.49%
TOTAL SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 415,700
1.69%
CMAQ
PROJECT EXPENDITURES 0.00 0.00 O.Do 0.00 0.00%
TRANSFER OUT Ann - -- - ---.
TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM COSTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
INTEREST ON ADVANCE
19,500.00
8.798.55
0.00
10,701,45
45.12%
CONTRIBUTION
0,00
ODO
0.00
0,00
0.00%
TRANSFER OUT
2746645
200,26230
0,00
'G
T29%
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION
2J(304toml
209,060,85
7 7 T7
7�59i�
PARKS & RECREATION
INTEREST ON ADVANCE
6,000.00
1.236,86
0.00
4,763,14
20,61%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0�00
0�00
0.00
0.00%
TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION
6,000.
CIVIC CENTER
SERVICES
0.00
0.00
ODO
01fo
0.00%
INTEREST ON ADVANCE
35,000.00
7,641.12
0.00
27,358.88
21.83%
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND
201,939.00
50,484.00
0,00
151,455.00
25.00%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0.00
omo
03
000%
TOTAL CIVIC CENTER
Z3b,UJ9.9F-
58,1 W5.12
00
00
118ATS 9
24.93'�
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM COSTS
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
OD0%
INTEREST ON ADVANCE
9,400DO
1.943.68
ADA
7,456,32
20.68%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00%
TOTAL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT
9,400.0
COMMUNITY CENTER
PROGRAM COSTS
0�00
0.00
0.00
ODO
0.00%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
TOTAL COMMUNITY CENTER
0.00
STREET FACILITY
PROGRAM COSTS
ODO
0.00
ODD
000
0.00%
INTEREST ON ADVANCE
10,000,00
2,110.54
0�00
7.889.46
21,11%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00%
TOTAL STREET FACILITY
10,000.5u-
2,110,54
U.00
7,889.
PARK FACILITY
PROGRAM COSTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
om%
TRANSFER OUT
2,2DO.00
569.25
6"04
25.88%
TOTAL PARK FACILITY
2.200.
430 75
21.11T�
FIRE PROTECTION
INTEREST ON ADVANCE
4,700.00
954,58
0,00
3.745.42
20,31%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0,00
0,00
om
0�00%
TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION DIF
4,(00.00
3,745.4
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES-APP
20,000.00
2,207,96
0,00
17,792�04
11 �04%
OPERATING EXPENSES-APP
4,7DO.00
16A6
ODO
4.683,84
0,34%
ART PURCHASES
ill.W.D0
0,00
0.00
111,500.00
OD0%
TRANSFER OUT
400.000.00
0.00
0.00
400,010.00
0�00%
TOTAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
5W,200.00
--TMTT2-
005
05 g75 bb
U41%
Oil
CITY OF LA QUINTA
OTHER CITY FUNDS
ADJUSTED
913012012
REMAINING
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
ENCUMBERED
BUDGET
PERCENTAGE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
PROJECT EXPENDITURES
101,615,637 00
25,807.2i3,88
0.00
75,808,413.12
25.40%
PROJECT REIMBURSEMENTS TO GEN FUND
711,01100
15,60,35
0.00
695,371 �65
2.20%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0.00
0�00
0,00
0.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
1 U2.326.650�00
25,822,ato.23
W
M,503,MC(f
2S�z4%
410,51&00
52,649.29
0.00
357,866,71
12.83%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSES
171.701.00
0.00
0.00
171,701.00
0,00%
CAPITAL PURCHASES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00%
TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
582,217.00
u,�v Z9
0.00
529.567.71
9.D4%
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND
OPERATING EXPENSES
363263,00
127.254,23
000
236,008,77
35.03%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSES
78,586.00
0.00
0.00
78,586,00
0.00%
CAPITAL PURCHASES
106,000,00
2.901.31
0.00
103,09869
2,74%
TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
M1,849LO
130,155.M
0.130
417,693A6
2T7g-X--
PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY
OPERATING EXPENSES
50.000.00
0,00
0.00
50,000,D)
0,00%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSES
502.523.00
0.00
0.00
502.523.00
0�00%
CAPITAL PURCHASES
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0�00%
TRANSFER OUT
0.00
0�00
0�00
0.00
0.00%
TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE FAC
-32nD
0�00
0.00
552,523,00
0�w%
SILVERROCK GOLF
OPERATING EXPENSES 3,821,023.00 779,295.69 0,00 3,D41.727.31 20.39%
TRANSFER OUT 67,015.00 0�00 0.00 67.015.00 0.00%
TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF 779.290.159 0.00 J.IUd.14Z,Jl 20,04%
SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE
TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE 0.00 0.00 0�00 o.MF--TZDW-
LA QUINTA PUBLIC SAFETY
CONTRIBUTIONS TAL LA QUINTA PUBLIC SAFETY 2,000.00 0,00 0�00 2.000.00 0,00%
SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SAVINGS PLAN
CONTRACT SERVICE ENTAL PENSION SAVINGS PLAN 12,833.00 12,832S6 0�00 0.14 100�00%
MEASURE"A"
REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 412,500 OOSI: I 2251�UIO 1�0161 301!SI7151-01 21,00%
TOTAL MEASURE "A" ----Tf2-,5Wu00G �uv Z.
018
12
ceity� 4 4 a"
UHj)SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012
ITEM TITLE: Ratify Application Submission to and
Acceptance of California Office of Traffic and Safety for the
Sobriety Checkpoint Grant Program Funding for Fiscal
Year 2012/2013
RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR: 2-
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Ratify application submission to and acceptance of California Office of Traffic and Safety
(OTS) for the Sobriety Checkpoint Grant Program Funding for Fiscal Year 2012/2013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The University of California Berkley, Safe Transportation Research and Education Center,
serves as the grant administrator for the California Office of Traffic and Safety (OTS),
Sobriety Checkpoint Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2012-2013. The City has been
awarded $61,835 and will use this funding to conduct sobriety checkpoints in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This funding is not included in the Fiscal Year2012/2013 budget; OTS funding is continued
funding and is appropriated once the grant is awarded to the City. Expenses are tracked in
account number 101-5054-421.36-50.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The goal of the Sobriety Checkpoint Grant Program (Program) is to reduce the number of
victims killed and injured due to alcohol -involved crashes. The grant funds will underwrite
two sobriety checkpoint operations within the City; a Winter Holiday Mobilization Period
(December 14, 2012 to January 1, 2013) and the Labor Day Mobilization Period (August
16, 2013 to September 2, 2013). During these mobilizations periods the La Quinta Police
Department will conduct sobriety checkpoints in La Quinta.
OR
This is continued funding and Cpl. Olson applied for this funding on behalf of the City.
Since the grant application was submitted in advance of City Council approval, staff is now
seeking ratification of the application submission and acceptance of OTS funding at this
time.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are no alternatives to the recommended action.
Respectfully submitted,
Analyst
Attachment: 1. OTS Grant Award Letter
020
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
Attachment I
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR
0MCZ OF TRAMIC BAFEW
2W8 KAUSEN OWE, SVnE 300
ELK GROVE. CA 95766
www.ots.ca.gov
(910)6mm
j8W) M2M (TTnDD4WerW)
(916) 509,V55 (FAX)
October 26, 2012
Don Olson, Corporal
Riverside County Sheriffs Department
86-625 Airport Boulevard
Thermal, CA 92274
Dear Corporal Olson:
Due to limited funding, your Department*s application for overtime funding for DUI checkpoints
in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 was denied in a letter to you dated August 8, 2012. I'm pleased
to announce that additional federal funding for alcohol countermeasures has recently been made
available to the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). As a result, OTS has now tentatively approved
your earlier checkpoint funding request for the proposal titled "Sobriety Checkpoint Grant
Program— for the amount of $61,835.00. The approval is for 8 checkpoint operations during the
period from December 1, 2012, to September 30,2013. The maximum allowed cost per checkpoint
is $7,000.00. Hopefully, your agency is still interested in a checkpoint grant ror IFFY 2013.
The University of California Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center
(SafeTREC), who is administering the grant ftinds, for OTS, will e-mail a grant contract to the contact
listed on the application by October 31, 2012. Please have the Authorizing Official and any
additional individuals authorized to sign claims sign the contract. Send the contract to SafeTREC by
November 16, 2012. SafeTREC will issue you a copy of the signed, fully executed grant contract. If
approval from your City Council or Board of Supervisors is required, you should begin that process
now. Do not incur costs prior to the date of the signed. fully executed contract from SafeTREC.
Thank you for your patience and congratulations on the success of your proposal. If you have
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Shar Rauch at (510) 643-1774 or e-mail at
checkpoint@berkeley.edu.
Sincerely,
C�0, ^441
CHRISTOPHER J. MURPHY
Director
MOM
021
T4kf 4 4V a"
IE3/SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012 AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Acceptance of Washington Street CONSENT CALENDAR:
Improvements at Avenue 48, Project No. 2010-06
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept Washington Street Improvements at Avenue 48, Project No. 2010-06, as
100% complete; authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the
Office of the County Recorder; and authorize staff to release retention in the
amount of $ 45,963, thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion is
recorded.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This project included the following improvements to improve capacity and safety at
the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 48:
• Two left turns from south bound Washington Street to east bound Avenue
48
• Three left Turns and a right turn from west bound Avenue 48 to south bound
Washington Street.
The City Council must accept the improvements in order to complete the contract
and allow final payment to the contractor.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project was funded with Infrastructure and Proposition 1 B funds. The project
budget was $688,782 and the total costs were $678,777, leaving $10,005. This
money will be put back into the City's Infrastructure account.
0 . 0
i22
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
In order to increase the traffic capacity of the Washington Street/Avenue 48
intersection, additional turn lanes were installed on southbound Washington Street
and westbound Avenue 48 (Attachment 1). The improvements included widening
the southbound lanes of Washington Street to accommodate a dual left turn pocket
from southbound Washington Street onto eastbound Avenue 48; widening
Washington Street required new curb and gutter, a new meandering sidewalk and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant access ramps, utility relocation,
signal modification, and striping and signing. Other traffic capacity improvements
included relocating the pedestrian crosswalk from the south to the north side of the
intersection, and re -striping westbound Avenue 48 to include triple left turns onto
southbound Washington Street.
On August 2, 2012, a Notice to proceed was issued with a sixty (60) working day
contract completion time starting August 6, 2012, and ending on October 30,
2012. The project was deemed substantially complete on October 26, 2012. As
per project specifications, no liquidated damages or early completion incentives are
recommended.
The project's construction effort is now deemed to be 100% complete and is in
compliance with the plans and specifications. The project finished within the
allowed time and under budget.
Prior to filing the Notice of Completion, staff must receive authorization from the
City Council to approve this project as 100% complete and authorize the City Clerk
to file a Notice of Completion.
ALTERNATIVES:
Staff does not recommend any alternatives to the recommended action.
Respectfully submitted,
40thyI
4!!IM
m
R on, P.E
Public Works D ctorlCity Engineer
Attachment: 1 . Vicinity Map
023
ATTACHMENT I
PROJECT SITE—,A�s� I AVENUE 48 1
MY OF
LA QUINTA
AVENUE 50.
CALLE TAMPICO
VIMITY MAP
NTS
-N-
024
C&ty� 4 4 a"
AGENDA CATEGORY:
CED SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012 BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Adoption of a Resolution Granting Approval
of Final Parcel Map No. 36241, Jefferson Square, CONSENT CALENDAR:
Regency Marinita - La Quinta, LLC STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council granting approval of Final Parcel Map No.
36241, Jefferson Square, Regency Marinita - La Quinta, LLC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The developer of Jefferson Square located at the southwest corner of Jefferson
Street and Fred Waring Drive has requested the City Council's approval of the
Final Map.
Final Map approval is a ministerial approval based on the developer meeting all
requirements of the tentative map.
The Final Map is technically correct and staff has determined that all conditions
of approval of the tentative map have been satisfied.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Parcel Map No. 36241 is located southwest corner of the Fred Waring Drive and
Jefferson Street intersection (Attachment 1). This map consists of seven (7) parcels
comprising approximately 10.3 acres.
.325
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36241 was approved at a Director's Hearing on April 21,
2010 (Attachment 2).
The Final Map is suitable for recording by the County Recorder, with all required
signatures (except the City Engineer and City Clerk). After City Council's approval of
the Final Map, the City Engineer will sign the Final Map and the City Clerk will affix the
City seal to the Final Map and offer th ' e Final Map for recording by the County
Recorder. City staff has prepared the attached resolution which provides for approval
of the Final Map.
ALTERNATIVES:
Since this is a ministerial approval there are no alternatives to this action.
Respectfully submitted,
4ilmothy on s on, P.E.
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map
2. Parcel Map 36241
026
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING FINAL MAP
APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 36241, JEFFERSON
SQUARE, REGENCY MARINITA — LA QUINTA, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council conducts only two regular meetings per month
and the time interval between these meetings occasionally creates an undue
hardship for business enterprises and individuals seeking approval of subdivision
maps;and
WHEREAS, the City Council, as a matter of policy, allows a subdivider to
have City staff present the map for approval consideration when the requisite items
necessary for final map approval are nearly, but not completely, finished thus
yielding to the subdivider additional production time for preparation of those items;
and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has demonstrated to City staff and the City
Council that it has made sufficient progress with items required for final map
approval; and
WHEREAS, Section 66458(b) of the Subdivision Map Act grants the City
Council broad authority to authorize time extensions regarding final map approval,
or disapproval, upon receiving it for consideration; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council relies on professional City staff to review all
required items for conformance with relevant requirements, and it is therefore
appropriate for the City Council to approve the final map subject to review and
confirmation of the required items by professional City staff, within a reasonable
period of time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
Section 1. The Final Map for Parcel Map 36241 is technically correct.
Section 2. The City Council's approval of the final map shall not be
considered valid until the City Engineer has signed the map indicating that it
conforms to the tentative parcel map, the Subdivision Map Act and all ordinances
of the City.
027
Resolution No. 2012-
Parcel Map 36241, Jefferson Square
Adopted: November 20, 2012
Page 2
Section 3. -The City Engineer shall withhold his signature from the map until
the subdivider has completed all required items to finalize the Parcel Map to the
City Engineer's satisfaction.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall withhold affixing the City Seal to the map
title page, along with her attesting signature, until the City Engineer has signed the
map.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 20th day of November 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DON ADOLPH, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
028
PM 36241 JEFFERSON SQUARE
FRED WARING DRIVE
V)
V)
�21
A
��cj
I c I N
ATTACHMENT 1
Y MAP
NOT TO SCALE
10 029
ATTACH.AffiNT 2
SHOW
Igo 9 you,
IN m 9
gag ACT
1,
i PC is 511
lit
Pon,
Wh
lag A
I 1PINA
92
qw,
V
it
Bit,
I% RAI
mo z �ml W� E19% i
ow h5l gap
55 in
gig S
0 1 1. , >j.
4m 11 V - z -1 , 51-r
.41
1 got,
?jtj 64
Hy Rail A Q
ImIn
X 6
a 335
Hil A
QI 6 ,
� 4
cc: 10
ly
ME
phi bass
way all
IN
"R
4 JOIN Q
90
W
030
Fig I
z 00 M
K a NOW
:1
0 :E
".31 lob
j
96, 5 n
PE
iz�
1 too 921 5i to y2e go! a" wwg bp ggs Rgs wy; 6; K 1
.j j." , - v I !_ 59
51 na XOR - i
Q RQ ""I v 1 NO
wip Q,g MR W, -aw j; Ego 20 4 wa 04
01. 2d; "I, a "i
Egg 2, 03 Rig I ��,
A 141 got G2 1,E W
;we IN vil
181 at; wy
ng "R
jR
REV P. 211 HK 114
so C g s
ng fay qvi 02- A
JAM =IN
so& ".1 Un a 1-46
Up. W. sit
RO -
a, 1, Bit top n1i A 9.
�,6 �,_ I a
R 29
A obu P. A IS 'K A
� I R "is 05"! "PQ .1W A
pit S AA . ,,, � c ` "- 5 Z. _��s
SIQ 1 2 q 2w, SIT! , WE P
z I v m,, —
.*I kR zoo 60, B. cam, thv set
ify lot
A= WE 3-1
nl�
was
961 WA
0 dig
g is' sit
Alt WIN w6A
N "'R by'?
Z UR Q; A q-0 Ox,
0 Za.
via "If An
my
go ix Too
Lj
w
<
Z
uj 0111DIINOM
InNIAV
IU
M�
LT
smlvd �Nm
k N5 It n p 9,
If
10
W,
032
IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RiVERSIDE,
STAIE OF CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP NO. 36241
KING A UDWSION SE A PORTON OF �RE NORTHEAS' WARDER
OF rHE N�R�EAST OIJAMN OF SECTION 70. FOM5" 5 SSO�`
RANGE 7 �A`, SAN BERNARDNO MERIDIAN�
GREC�RY T SCHLARBAUM� PIS 6104
ORC ENGJNEERNG� NO,
OpTE CF St,RvEy: jANUARY, 2010
F R E D'
T—
W A R I N G D R I V E
1
V
Li,. ��S - � —v��
1
t
A
PARCEL 2
PARCEL
I g
7L
- -----
PARCEL 3
m F;
PARCEL 5
6w
PARCEL 4
A�EC
S
PARCEL
6
PARCEL 7
,F SHFFT 2 FOR EAS�EN— NOI�,
�,F 3 FOR T mMiMEF- OOTFS
SLE SHELF tjNF'IND Gjsp� PArA TABLr
F,
f , 033
IN THE CITY OF I A QUINTA. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP NO. 36241
DUNG A SLUDIMSION OV A pWn� OF IHE NOW'HEACI OU,UITE9
OF THE NORTHEAS Ir WAR �- OF SECOON 20, TO^SIjjP 5 S�TH,
RANGE 7 FAS-, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDAN
I
J,REGORY I SCHLARBAUM, PIS 6704
NOIE� RCCPRCC� ACCESS qIGHTS TO DR' ENGNEEIONG, �NC,
PU9UC R�HT Or NAY ON BEHALF OF EATE OF SUR�-Ay, JANUARY, 2010
EACH PARCEL IS KSERVED HEREON,
EASEMENT ESTABLISHMENT
p F D V A R I N G D R I V E
PARCEL 2 61.
OFF vm, q
M 11'.7,
PARCEL I
;If,- r
. ........ .
E 7,
PARCEL 3
�A
A
Nn 1
PARCEL 5
'n
PARCEL 4
-4b
PARCEL 6
ri.
Yv
1 4
17, 7i PARCEL 7
S
5 r SHEET 2 FUR &ASEMENH NO -Ts
SEE SHCET 4 FOR EASSMEN"l-9. EsTABUS,IMEN'
CE� IH,L- 6 rCR EASEWNT
PflAL A ION SKET 7 �OR FASLMENF;F�ESTAUIDIHMIN�
Sl� SLTA.� 8-2 ON SHvrT 7 �OR
SEE S1,EV / I -OR LNE AND CURE f)A7A ABLE
It , , 034
IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIOE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP NO. 36241
BE�NG A OUBDIAStON OF � PORTION OF THE NORITIEAST QU�RTER
NOR�LHFAS� �ARILR OF SECTON 20, TO^SH-P 5 SOU'H,
RANGE 7 EASI, SAN BERNARONO JER10W
OREGORY I ECHLARSAUM. PILE 6704
DEC ENOREERING, INC.
DATE OF SIJR�Y� jANUARY, 2010
EASEMENT ESTABLISHMENT
R E D W A R I N G D R I V E
5SIV
PARCEL 2
PARCEL I
PARCEL .3
sHio u cE 7 s�urs
C
PARCEL 4
E
PARCEL 7
S
ZEE SHEET 2 'OA EASEMENT qOT,-S
5� &I AND'f,' ESPkBUSHMEN
-- E CHU ' 4 101 f7ASEIIENr,,-
SEE OHE t y 5 FOR EASEM-N T,�,, (U�) 4N� � ESTABI
i�F DETAIL A ON SILET 7 D,� ASC.VWTAr�tQLISH-tNr
ZH DE -AIL P-2 ON �HFEI � 'OF EASFWCNI'1�151AEEO�MCN`
SF, ��HEET 7 �OR LINF AND C,IRVV DA�� TAME
035
S?4-,F,7 '! (S 7 �MEEIS
IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PARCEL MAP &Nao. 336241
aFJN,', A WEIDIVISION OF � PORTT� OF THE NNTIHCAST QDIARTEiT
Of MHE NOR�EAST QJAR—,lA U SEC'TION 20, TMsiNp 5 sw�l
RAN�r 7 FAS', SM RMNARfYINO MERVATA,
ORt,GORI T, SCT�tARBAILIM, PLS 6'04
CRC �40KERING, INC.
DATE OF !E�RVEYI� JANUARI. 2010
R N! C'
PARCEL 2
10
--S
PARCEL 3
DETAIL "8-1* jl�
WWT, O�k
i6w, -
I-E --I
SIT S,Ej 2 IOR LAST,VTNf NOTES
"n.
V
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3
DETAIL '8-2"
N,j. 71 '�,',A,
0 3 6
FirrN/ SA/HA/ FA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012
ITEM TITLE: Approval of Demand Register Dated
November 20, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve Demand Register Dated November 20, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Demand of Cash City $2,717,116.34
Demand of Cash -Successor Agency of RDA $1,435.00
Demand of Cash - HA $5,783.70
Demand of Cash - HA Comm $200.00
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Between City Council meetings, there is a need to pay some routine bills in order to avoid
late fees being charged to the City, as well as payroll and related payroll taxes. These
items are listed below:
Prepaid Warrants:
97617)
97618 - 97646)
97647 - 97660)
97661 - 97679)
Voids)
$655.78
$32,805.50
$32,962.22
$107,558.73
$0,031.90)
'0 0 3 7
Prepaid Warrants: cont'd
Wire Transfers) $487,222.36
P/R 36700 — 367121 $396,236.32
P/R Tax Transfers) $105,989.67
In addition, listed below are the most significant expenditures being paid on the regular
demand register.
Payable Warrants:
97680 - 978351 $1,562,136.36
$2,724,535.04
Significant Expenditures:
Vendor: Account #: Amount: Purpose:
B W Simmons Inc 401-1877-551.45-01 $82,608.20 Soil Stabilization
2011-12
Lee & Stires Inc. 401-1841-551.45-01 $280,023.12 Washington @ 48
Duo Left Turn
Riverside County Sheriff Various Accounts $871,687.95 Police Svc
Burrtec Waste 101-0000-203.07-00 $47,220.26 Trash Service
& Recycling
ALTERNATIVES: None
Respectfully submitted,
RA� P'��) -
RobbeyriBird, Finance Director
0 3 8
CITY OF LA QUINTA
BANK TRANSACTIONS 10124112-11/13/12
10/26/12 WIRE TRANSFER - ICMA
$9,381.16
10/26/12 WIRE TRANSFER - LQCEA
$142.50
10/29/12 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS
$57,299.52
10/30/12 WIRE TRANSFER - TASC
$1,332.60
11/02/12 WIRE TRANSFER - HEALTH PREMIUM
$108,073.31
11/02/12 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS
$2,607.91
11/06/12 WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK
$241,473.99
11/09/12 WIRE TRANSFER - ICMA
$8,673.16
11/09/12 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS
$57,86711
11/09/12 WIRE TRANSFER - LQCEA
$370.50
TOTAL WIRE TRANSFER OUT $487,222.36
if, G' 3 9
WNW U�.
v
0. x
OZ
ow
zm Z.l
z MW
<W
MO
u WU
UO
mm
m
X.,
mm
m
.40,
M)v
0
0
UP
N
0
(D
.0
z
Mo.
v
UZ.
u i = .
=
-9 10 1
c z -owl
= . pm ,
om . Z-4.
wz-wz-
..4 . >
-Im
u0i
N�z
Nvla� PO
NX WIZZ.
W043 W
wxwm
wo�z wo
mW..9 I mz
(L�um . u
040
a a a
0 a a
W w W W W
0 a v
WNW U�-
> > > > >
�-z
zw Z.
M.4
z xw.
.<W. am NN OQ VVN vv a= am 0=
a= wo on mm, mm ow a= M= ma wo =0
. .............. .. .. .
u Wu.
u =a NN� wo "m MQ �v mm
am oca wm �v %t-Z am N NN 'T� N
MM Now�w vv N
MW
z
0
..........
. . . . . . . . . . U! 19
IT
z I
Ul 0 vv a a Q
a
a a a MM=OM Cam ao a
0 a mo 0
0 Q =am===
W 0 a a am
m
Z.
z w 0 mLn
'UZ' N N am a a a a 0 0
a 0 a MQ a a 0 0 a
Q 0 a =a a a
>
W p
z x
> w
>
W
0
m
0 z
x
m z .0w. > z
w . Qx , . W W
�Z.wz- W 0 >
> z
0 W
01 W 4 W x IL % z W W
0 4 -C u u 0 0
N�z
Vw
Noo� loo m Ln
NX W.zz.
=043 W
Wmwo-
041
(LCLUM u I
Ln 0 0 0 0 N v
X(D
WNW N
am
oz
ww
Mo
JL
co W .�Z'
z W Z..
cw 00 0 M
�. 0 MM ow MM MN� M� Wo om Mw =0 wm�� NN
W U . . .. .. .. ... .. I. .. .. .. .... ..
Mo �=� == NN =0 NN�w MM wo NN vv
Mo M.� MM M�
MM MM MM
Ln
0 0 Q Ln o N (M
w Ln vc 0 0 �MM M
x MM
vvv
MM
MM=
Mwo
(D
om MMO
0.
v N mom M
z W vc M
W V�w
omo
MMM
00M
>
x
z
z
z
z
M z lowl U
W
-am: Z Z z
0 OM - Z4 4 W .5 L) W W z
. �z I Wz CL < W 94 % z
> x
W W 0
z a 0 W W
UM 4 Z X 0.
LO W
C.0
N"a� 00
�m W.zz.
=043 . W .
1>
wo�z.wo. 042
WW"4.=Z.
�O.Uolu I
M�� . I
M
Lf%
M U<
W� .
0
a
a
M,
LA
a Mo.
V
V
a
a
0
WNW U�-.
M
ED W
am
oz
WW
(DW �-z
zw Ix"
z xw.
xW
Ow
M�O
a
Vv
M��M
MO
V
u 'WU .
u luo,
. .
10
. . . . .
. .
. . .
. . . .
..
0
VV
ow�m�
N�N
VV
N N Ln
V �
N
IWW
x
I
a
NV�N
MM
NN
=a=
VV
w
m Ln
N"Mm
IT v c
vc
z
1.
a
V%TMV
�N
a
Man=
a
am
=a=
a
c
a
mama
a
=a
am=
a
0
MNMO
u
W
x
W
a
man=
a
no
==a
a
0
a
N
=no=
NNNN
0
am
NN
moo
NNN
a
N
VVVV
ww
VVV
V
NNNN
NN
NNN
N
a
Moo=
a
=a
=a=
a
MMM
M
MMMV
VV
VVw
w
Mo.
a
VVVV
VV
VVV
V
mono
Q
no
am=
a
W
nano
Q
no
man
a
:0
M
mono
a
no
Con
a
Wo
z
M
.0w.
'Inx,
u
�Zlwz.
z
z
-9
W
.<.> .
a
N
z
�Ml
W
I
c .
W
U0.
(D
z
W
W
W
�W.
>
>
>
4-C
a
N�z
a
00
W.zz.
wwwa
W.Com
-cm
[L(D>-U
wo�z.wo.
WW"< I =Z
��Uwlu
043
imo I 1 0 0 m
WNW
C;
OZ
W�
wu
Mo
ow
ZW Z".
z ZW.
OQNOONO� wm� �c Mo CID OWN vv III
N, 0=.�O�ow 1`.� NN Om M�� NN v
.... ...... ... .. .. ... .. .
'WU I .. ........ ... . I .
.00 1 1 1 NOV%Tc��N No � v �Lnv=� W�m Q 0 1
:Z"I �co Mo .�V�w Ln N 00 Om S.� Mo m
W NO ZIci� in Ln w
Mo
,Z
.W�,
.WWI
I Z.
I
I
wmwcw.mN N OQ 4D N
I
.-I Oomw Owvwvmvw,m
1111161 1. ......
-I m ... �0"w
W ww-zwwcw cc c c-sww wwcwww�qm wm w -2
W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C;
NNNNNNN N�Nl
NoNLn LnmmILn-NI- OID
-S v %r IT N NN N
U. Q MMLAMMMLn ON In MOON N�Mwmwmww N Om N
lId mominomm MO mmmo Qm=oQmLn== w =M
MQMOOOM On OMOO OOMW=OM=O 12 =0
mmo "omw�MMLAM Om c
I, MO 0 OM== =0 Om O= 0 m O=
MN N
OMOMMO2 Oo
NNNNNN NN N NN
-, N � -, N NN NNNNII�NN�
W N N"NN,NN
on m Q =0 OOMQOMMOO m MO
CM
C;o
9 1 ZI
-UZI MO(MOOMO =M=c ==MMCMMWO MID 40 Q
==OMM=c CID m MO== OQMOCMO== MO 0
O=QOmOO 04M m Mw== =Mw==M=OI5 MO m
cl Z Z Z
W 4
Z
W 0
W z 0. U U U
W
> W W W Z
U u
W
W z
-C -C Z
U W W 0
a U
W W Z 0
z Ow.
W I g4m I
0�1=41 W
wzlwz- m Z 4
W W Z W
U0.
Wl
N�z
ICI
wxwm- w Ln Ln
wo�_Z-Wol 044
��Uw-u I
Now
MN
WNW lu�l
N
w
v
0 W
CL X
0
gn
WW
ow
zw
..Cw,
mm
V.�
mm
N
N
1 N.
om
omm
vv
N
N
WU .
uw.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
..
. . .
��w
. .
N
N
Z..
Nm.,T�N�ITM
�m
mom
Ln in
-C 0
"Mm N N� N
Ln M
0
m
C�
NNN�C�NNNN
00
0
IT Ir
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
NMLn�MMM.N-
MN
a
oamoo�moommo
Lnm
mm
mo
0
be
u
O�M000m=omwo
mmomm=00=0=0
om
NN
0
N
NN
N
mm==O�=O=
c;o
..Z.
IL
w
z
u
z
z
>
W
z
W
W
4
�Zlwzl
u
39
z
.-C . >
0
�ml
4 1
0
>
N�z
NX W.ZZ.
W.Com
<W
. u
wo�-Zlwo.
um".x
��wm
,4 045
.Mo I I
w
w
m
m
WNW
N
om
ox
ww
ow .�Z.
zw Z".
z mw.
..Cw.
�O�w
0 1 ".
V��N
WO
ww
uI Wu I
u
. . . .
. .
q)v
. . . . . . . .
�.�MO�MN
. .
Mo
C� LA L� L� 0 �.C; W; W; r�
wow�ww-"
Mm
NM(=,= NOW
,.XC4.
M��N
IMMOM VNw mo"MN��
wo
0 �Nm
IN
..0.
In
Z
.ww.
Z
�M%T�Ccq
cc�
..................
...
mp"I"Mmm.
-iNN
MMI'll
N
M��MMNM
wmm
000
woo
m
4=I
=CQ
Mmc=M=Q
0
moo
In
m
0��I000m
G In In
Ln-,,
IN
IN
MMCI
NNNNN�NN
�NNN%INN
CL 1 0.
CPI
��Q,-,Nmq
In In In
Ln
u uz.
Qo=
c,00m=cm
CI
mmm
u In I
QMM
wom�=Om
m
MM=
LO
N
q z -ow:
-9
W I Pz
4
IN wz-wz-
u
UO,
W
(a I
N W.
N�z
NX W.zz.
.a.C3 - W I
I> I
wzwml
W-Coo
.4W
mm>-� I u
wo�-Z.Wo-
WW"4 1 =Z I
046
A.�Uw I u 1
v
C;
0
WNW
N
m
M W
om
oz
WW
Ow
zw
Mx
z xw,
MM
NN
Wo
wmw
.�w
NN
ww
0
I.Cm.
m . NI
�N
�=
wmv
�M�
vv
��MVN
.
. .
u Wu .
u uw.
. .
=0
. .
ww
. .
NN
. .
. . .
M-�
. . .
mmo
. .
Ow
. .
wo
. . . .
" W�
;.;
W*
=M
NN
NN
CIT
NVO
N��
MLA
V�
NN
0
m
:Z..
.xQ.
mm
NMM
�Nw
WW
z
M.Nw
MN
�M�c
mm
mmmm
WQ
Ow
mmmm
N
0
LO
u
W
IT z .0w:
W
W -ox
z
om - Z-C
W
W
3
x
z
0
0
0
W
W
N
N
W
x
W
W
W
W
4
W
W
-C
W
W
z
z
z
-C-C
NX WIZZ.
.043 W
Q..
w-too
wo�-Z.Wo-
wx.4.=Z.
��Uw.0 I
047
m
WNW
N
N
N
0
0 W
on
oz
WW
CL
(DW .�Z.
Z ZW.
.49MI
Q=
�mm�
cm
NN.m
vv
MCI
�v
MCI:)
MCI
knmm�
�m
mc,
NI
M�M.
Om
om
wo
..
...
...
CIC,
..
....
..
NN
..
U Wul
..
....
..
mm
....
..
NN
..
..
NN
C)OC
c:)0=
mm
N.V�
NN
wo
ww
M�M�
�mm
ww
COM
��VI
��N
NN
M��N
om
mm
CONN
NMM
vvv
W
mom
m
inm
c IT
0
m
W
III
N
m
x Z
N
0m,')
-I
m
Ln
N
vw
LAM
m
�mm
0
0
IT
C��
MI
m
mom
m
Om
3=0
0
N
NNN
N
NNN
N
N
N
N
AIN
NN
N
NNN
N
N
W
W
-I.�
m4-I,I
.
.
.
I
m,
-I�
.-I�
MMCI
m
ml:)c
0
Q=
QM
Q
woo
NNN
0
N
Ck
N
m
NNN
N
NNN
m
N
N
N
NN
NN
N
N
N
W
NN N
N
� %, N
N
N
N
N N
N"
III
m
0,`)m
0
om�
III
m
mo
<
...
.
.
'IN
-I
N
U o
N
N N
NNN
N
N
W
Ix
>-
0.
W
.0WI
1=01
Om
mc,
m
omw
4z,
m
UZI
mom
0
mm
m
M��
m
m
I = I
=
M=Q
42
M�
m
OM=
m
10 1
0
MWQ
>
u
W
>
W
w
W
m
0
Z
Ic
4
W
u
w
Z
Z
W
Z
z
W
W
0
x
W
w
W
CI Z .0w:
(D
-1
0
Z
W
Z
W
M wzlwz
W
W
W
U
u
0.
W
0
>
0
u
W
I -I
0
Z
It
W
-C
W
W
Z
W
>
W
W
-C
3
U0.
U
W
>
N�z
.Ma-lloo.
NX W-ZZ-
W
-I >
Q.-
CI
W.Coc,
01
.9=
w
wo�-Zlwo
m
WW"< I =Z I
��Uwlu I
He
0 in M a N
Ux
W�- I C� M a M C; C; 0
MO . M a w 0 a 0 a
WNW U�- w
MM
oz
ww
Ow
ZM
z zw
M ol cc MQ oom am 00 om oo am MM NN on �w Mo
a oQ am om Moo N=N MM cc om MM am NN
u
u uw. M� am OM OM mom om C� oo vv ML�
I :Z.. lcw� T� am =MV co am =Q am 00
.cm. MM, �Mm N� M�M MM vv
.x
.W�.
,Ww.
I zi
N M M Ln M M om Q N M M
a 0
IT 0
IT
Z N in c IMM M M Ln M M M M Ln
M 0, M IT %T in c
z 01 1 1 1 1. 1 1. 1
U. 0 o= N M= w 0
U. 0
z
a
a
W
w
w
u
w
a
-x
Z
u 'UZ' M M no M o M 0 o M M M
M
:0
u u z
0 > x w
z > z
IL W u w 0 >
w
W
w w u u
z
u -9 0 0 0 w 0 u w
z u 4 z 0
,ow u w W W < -C 0
u z W
W W W
:PM a a w z
Z<: w 0 W ft
wz.wz. u 0 w
0 z z
x w
0
Uo. w z
w w w x 0 0 <
0 a a a u
-C-C
N�z a M a
%,V.Wlw I M 17 a
�17M�.o
: �a� . no
Zz WIZZ.
W-900.
-CM
M 049
ww.<.Xz.
M�um.0 .
P:
WNW U�- in N
0, W
mo
mz
Ww
ow
zw :Z":
�MN NN mm V-QN�
== N"No-�
vv C�o %T NN omo mw
u Wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
u '00. MNN mm 1� vm� ow omm V� Mm =0 " wma�w ow NMN.�=
4 :Z", VV �om OM 00 �min vv NN -- MNQ�ON
mm om mm NN
wo
im
.ww.
om WWNNNN
mm om
mm mmmmmm
mmmmmm
x Z
m = � Ir 17 �T
z 0.
OMMQOM =�MCQM
Nd mo MQ mo Om=o
om om
Lnm��
mo mm�ocm
mm . .. . . ..
W
w
(D NN
W
om co =0
00
C;m
om om QMM=== mmm=cm
om OM=QOM ommoom
mm MM=Qm= mmomm=
>
w
W z
z
z z
z
x
> M
z z
z mw. z
Z
wu:nz: w W W
0 Z4 W W
m wz.wz: > w
> 0 0
w W
>
U0, 3 W >
U. -C W W W W
p
N�z N Ln
N N v N Q in N
oa� 00
z w zz.
.043 W
wz�m
W400.
-cw
�0>-U:u m 050
wo�z wol m
a.�Um
WNW
m
0 W
9L x
Om
oz
W
WW
ow
zw X":
z zw.
CC=
Im
mo
CNN
NN
MMCCM
00
mo
CC
0 ..Cw.
N.
v
V
mm
NN
MCC
m =
NN
omm
=MMCM
. . . . .
. .
. . . .
on
. .
lWu .
.
. .
NN
. . .
M��
. .
V�
. .
wo
. . .
. .
. .
mmmmm
mm
�V�N
Uwl
Z"
Lno
mm
we
=-N
00
�Mco�
NN
mo
ONM
"Mmm"
NN�
CC
WW-
X.
om
MCMM
NNN
ommm
w
w
0 Ln
N
mm
m
mmmm
mmm
c
mmm
z
It
m =1
c
It
z Ol
Ul
U
om
0
=OM=
M=O
0
z x
CC
0
0
00
0
0
Con=
M=O
m
m
om�
m
om�
UZI
CC
C=
m
.= .
0
=M
0
OU
W
0
W
CD
z
W
0
u
z
W
0
W
u
>
x
W
w
m
0
z
u
>
W
w
0
W
W
W
w
z
0
>
W
>
0
W
9L
0
W
W
u
u
0
m
N
>
W
z
0 Z .0w.
z
z
w
x
W�:Mml
=
0
W
0
z
0 Z4 .
0
0
W
u
N
4
m WZIWZ-
x
W
W
00,
0. 1
W
W
0
ftwl I
N�z
�V.O-m
no-
NX WIZZI
.0-431W
W-co=.
wo�-z Wo.
ww"4.xz.
�Mum.0 I
WNW
N
w
w
9L X
PM
am
W�
wu
Mo
W W
zu
z ImW.
.4w.
MM�N
N
.
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
..
WU .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
vv
MMV
MMNM
:Z.
4p.
ww
MW
z
NN
NNNNNNNN
ONO
N
e
NN
MMMMMOMM
Zino
M
elre
M
ou
C4
v
ec
CL
MM
M
=am
M
o
o
Mw
o=oM=oMM
M
Coo
o
M
M
M
o=
oomoommo
o
Moo
0
NN�,,�NNN
C;o
Z.
IL 'L
M
a
woe
e
��w
%Ir
W
wvv
1=01
Mo
om�
o
u uz.
Mo
oc�
o
u 1= i
oom
4 :a
0 x ow
W 'am
w
u
dc
z
0�.Z4
W
�Zlwz-
W
0
z
�Ml
w
Q
w
d4
uol
W
W
w
W
W
N�z
NE W-zz.
wm�o-
wdxo�
<W
:
0.,D>-�
wo�z.wo.
Mo.< i =Z I
u
52
4 m
WNW N
mm
oz
WW
ow
z ad :Z�:
..CW. Mom =QM
IN =on O� Mom oom,:)o �N owo oo no
WU . . ... .. ... ..... .. ..
mm= NN MM= �Mmmm mom mm �Om v
4,00'a ��m ��NNM wo mom "M =0 ow 00 N�N NN �MO
WN� mv .-1 NN M�m mv
�Ww
ow m
mm MOM= m m o o ow 0
V" v Om �WVN N mm
`4m m C%T
x 00 0 MIA mmmm CN m 0 mm m
44) c M. wo Q
M� mmmm IT'S mm m
om Wm no m
M=QM
Omm� Om
o0m= mm
C-4 N N N
.. . . . . .. . ..
'IN 'IN
""00
IL
0
z 00
41T 0
Imol
u lux. mo m cm moco m
u In cm m =M moo= 0 om 0 0 m mm 0 mm
o= 0 =0 =m0o 0 Q o m m mm M=
u
W 0 z u
z low- 0 0 0 Lb
W Qz: 0 z -9
om:z< z
�z WZI z W W W
> 0 z
I z W
( W
U0.
CD z z W W
W
.9-C
N�z
NZ WIZZ.
Is
In m
�(Lum.0
WNW 3u�l m w v
(D W
Oz
W�
ww
mo
zw Z",
zw.
149=1 V� on no no �VN non =M= no no on con V� O== non
0 Ow on no no ww� ==M �O� on on no Ono =0 vv Mon mo=
uWU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
u Um LA M = m no. non �WN = = Ln m p p m Ln m =om m m Ln
0 mm mm NN NON NNN
z[ 9-3 �m N. N. v. Ln mm 'N 'N N� L�A �m N on NMM �"v
MW
w Q �v 0 no N N �N �.w
vv m 0 0 m on.
N m m m v N N MON
om ov �wo
mmm
z
m . m IT mm IT -x N
z 0. 1 1 . I I
mm w Is m
mm 0 0 0
m 0 m 0 w 0 Now
z no
no mm mm
no no on n m m Om 0 no no=
mm
0 o m m no no on 0 m 0 on 0 m no ==O
NN
mo
L)
c;o
mmm
u 'UZ' m m m m no no no m m no m no non
u .= . 0 m 0 m no no no m m on m Om =M=
:0 o a 0 on no 0 m on m 0 on =M=
>
W
4b
W
L) IL u >
x z W
> u
W
W
W W
W
0 z -Ow z W
.4 z
W OM IL -1 m u 0
O�,Z.C- 0 W
z z
m wzlwz. m 0 w
..C.> . 0 N 0 -C z 0
�wl z W u z W W
.9 . -C 1 3
ww u W W x
U0.
LO . -C < -x -C u
W. S S x x x x x
N�z N N
:zz WIZZI
0<3-W
wx�c-
-Cm
wo�-Z.Wo.
Wx"< - =Z I
��Uwlu .
wm� I I
C;
WNW v
ME
ww
Q w Z
Zm
z mw
mmwwo om NN 0= =0 mo NN mm
mm ��mmm T� wo m= m� m� mm mm Ln
u wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NN 0= NN om "o mm C� 00 ww W; W; L� U; r�
�OMMMMNM O=N O� NN
�ON�No�� . V,4000 vv ww .. wo N
.CQ- NN.wv��m mmw wv "o NN
IWWI
Zi
M.wm..=
mNmmNNN vvo�
0"o . . .
x Z. mmmomm" Ln
mmmmmmc qTq�
z N
cm
z wommom= =OMM Q
Q=M=QMM mm
mm
N
om �Ocm 0 0 0
NNNNNNN INN N N NNNN N N N N N N N N N
0"��Oom 000"
owmv�w�
mmmmmmm W�
0
u
0
0 w w
x M u
0 z
u x
W co
Lo w z
z .0w.
W ME
0� Z<
wz-wzl z
.9 - > 1 0
(D
z
N�z
I'V.0 W
LA N
00
Ilw W.zz.
W<OQ.
ww.< o,55
WNW m v
Q W
(L z
om
w W
Ca W
z ZW
0 =Vwm�VNN� ow
u wo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
u uw. V. mm =M �= M=Vmmv�� �w m
< Z., 0�0 NN NN wo Im mo NNOM�.M� M� M
..to. M��VNM�v w
I �- I I � C� C�
vv N
MN�
=MNN�.. No
..........
mw�om�o
�NN�N
momoom�
M�M.Noc
luz.
:0
>
<
x 12
0 0
u
w
W
N
m wz Wz. z -C 0 z -C
.9 W W
> >
N�z
NV"Wlw 0
�M�:Oo:
NE W.zz.
-0-43-W
I..
Wxwo.
W-400,
.tw
mo>-�:Uo,
wo�-z W
M�Umlu 056
WNW 0 m 0
(.0 W
IL x
OZ
Ww
0 W
zm Z, . . . . .
z xw.
..Cm. o MMMMMM mm Q= wo
0 m QM �'T
I N. m m .. .. ..............
u
u ��Owmm mm Mo M� wo
ow NN �%T mm 00 ��MN
mm mm wo
x Zi mm.mo N N
x OU
U.
z W Lek
W
Mo.
uz.
= I
.0 =MOM= m m m w m
W
u
> z
0
z
Z Ow�
W , MZ . IL W -9
om:z<l 4 0 0
m wz W= 'm 0 IL W W 0
> z
W
z W x
. 4
N�z
.0<3.w
I..
Wzwo.
W-40w.
��Uw.0
N
WNW
CL X
N
oz
ox
WW
ow
z
.<W.
WN�N�w�
Mom
N�Vwm
om
Mo
0=
omm
mv��Mm.
NN
mmm==
. .
. .
Mo
. .
�MN��
. . . . .
=m
. .
. .
. . .
.
WU
. . . . . . .
. ...
. .
. .
. . . . .
�Nwm�
M�
mm
��N
m
u 'um:
��Owmwv
M..
NN
mm
CNV
N
in IT
Ln
�Ocoom
NM
m
wvv�vv
NN
m
Ln Mo
N
v
N
ommo
m
Z
mmom
m Ul
�O=m
-xi
0
W
W
%,N�N
W
NNNN��,
c;o
It
N�cm
IT
c
%T�
C�
�c
vv�v
N�NN
MO
�N�N
N�
N�
�Mm=
m
uz.
000==O
�Cmm
m
=M==M=
===Omm
> I
I
z
I 1
0
W
u
W
>
W
>
W
W
W
W
W
z
W
u
W
X
W
.0w
p
W
X
0
-E
ox
X
X-C
-C
W
x
W
m wz-wz
3
z
W
W
>
W
W
z
z
m
-X-C
N�x
I'm WIZ=,
�(D<3,w
Q.. I
WXwo,
W<om-
��Uw.0
NONE,
m
NO,
NEI
NO
4=,
C,
0
10
.010
4m,
m
w
IC
I=N IMP.
C'
IN
NO
WNW
v
an
ox
Ww
0 W z I
zw I z -N .
IN,
I MINX
IN
z lZWI
.-Cw:
OM=
OrO
M,O
==Mm
NN
0 1 �
m
QM
==m
om
..
On
..
NN
..
OQQM
....
om
..
00
..
mo
u IWU .
.
............
..
(=IC
...
mmo
%T�
�47I
MMN�
�v
MOM
vv
w
NO
10
-%
C,
wv,=NN��Nw �,,N
m m
Now
,r �
� Ln N
I-N
<Q.
v
"NO
vv
ONO
I -IN
t: P:
IN
IN
w
tA
on
vv
IN
IN
1010
14N
-N
NO
W
NO
4.4
-N
I-N
I -II -NI -I
z z
mm
m
m
m
"Ol"
0 m
0
0
z U I
m
MID
m
m
IN
m
NO
4=0=
m4a,o
=0
I-N
I-N
IN
I-N
W I I
m
z
I I
-x
IN
IN
IN
Im
I 1
00
0
NNIN
I I
IN
MIN
IN
IN
IN
N�l�
u W I
�11
N
0
NO
m
10010
-C
80
z
v
V�
c
wow
a
Iov,owv��
VIOIC
MMQ
0
u luz.
QQM=c=MO=M=
MMQ
0
u
wcQ==QM=Q=`=`
0454=,
:0
>
W
co
z
z
0
PEI
.9
0�1=41
W
Im
0
w
d1l
W
m �Z.Wzl
W
Q�
w
W
0
(D
W
W
W
0
4
W
W
W
z
W
z
UO.
z
It
IN
IN
NO
N
N-Jz I I
M
NO
NO
IN
No
IZI
NO
IN
W.zz.
.(D.Cm W I
>
0
IN
IN
IN
0
NO
10
0
0
0
IN
0
NO
0
w
wo�-Z.Wo.
171
f
ww"4 1 ME I
�Mum.0 .
059
in
z z
0 "
0-9
ww
ME
z
0 z
w w w N
Z�- I >
Z a
zz W�
WO W=
wo >
t
nw Ou
-CM
z In
z w w
>
cy
U. (A a- w
z 920.
1-0 0
ci u IL w
X .9
z
z
0 0.
0 LU) 0"
-X�-w
0 -%A -C ILW
> Q.
wag , 0
U0,
=L)UU 0
WNZZZI �W�.
N - mow
=�rzzx - 0.
IT
0 1 0
N w I w
CL I
)->. 40
-00 NZ
ln� Ln"
N� =�-QQQ- Z mi-
�10 wz�ww. -cz
Nwo
OW.C.9
ZXUWWC3 CL
ZUOWIL
wx -C=Um 1 0. Ow
W.c I Ow w
4w m MILM I ZU 0
ILO 0 M== I <0 z
wo S 000: rw
It* w w 0
(Wil COD, Q
0 %T
CL
00
060
a
Z X
0 'C
ri- I
Ln
Ow
w
9LE
z
QM
w
0
IL
w
w
w
a
z
0
wz
U-C
0
mix
a
0�-
In
>
0 z
Z�-
_j
m 0
%r
09 2r
02
a w
14
1
z m
gx�
ZF-
Ulu
.9a
Ix rh
>
z
06
Wbd
w
OU
w u
0
ew a
SA
z
Ln
z w
w
m
=
a a
a-K
LU
>.
t-
4c -C
.
IL
LL 14
LL,
01-
x
>. 0
Ge
OU
CL LU
m
F.-
w
w
0 U
Im
w
ZNM
oz�
UU
"0
O.W
>
mm.
cc=
00
MUUU
0
ONZZZ
bgwm I
a
�.-c I -C
MOW
:
a
x
C)
O=vrz
000
19 39
in
In
w
cu
>
w
CY
9L
93
cy
'In
z Mom -
1�
MfO
4
40�
in -
N �
Cie kmm Q in a -
z
N
"A
LLI M Ul w
-1Z
it -
tjwwQ
ZOOINIL
IL
w
0.
009
z
CLO.IL
�u
0
ILO
0 M==
06, ac 0
cew
w
'we Doe
ad w w
1- 0
w
9L L
a 60
a
dc
a
In
F: �-'
z z
m =
061
z z
CD w
z
CL
w
w
OZ
>
Z�-
x
z
Ix le
z m
W 0
>
a*
dic
Ic I O-C
ILW
of- =
�-O 0
MU Ix 0.
(JU IL w
4
iL
0
0
49
L)
w Zma
x = c.
00
-41-M
0 9LW
> MCI.
19 cc
.MMM . UO
WOUDU - 0
ON zz- uwu-
, " 444 - 14019 -
ac000 gx 3,
0 US
gn
u
cy
N:) M om,
in� I"--- --I- �.
wi-mom 3;
WZ.LLI�w gz
280� F-
mouaw
Z UNWAL IL .
w I am .
to, m 'LiLa. : lug :
gL CD 0 C=) 8 C=3 : 1 0 :
w 0 99 w
9 9ML 0 US: 1-0
a
z
z
0
Z
Ln
ON
am
we
CY
0 a
v
v
a
�a
cc
a
a
1%
a
Ln
IT
z
w
z
=Ln
0 N
X"
CY
ol
%T a
Ln
Ln
Ln
a
%T
a
a
Ln
a
a
a
N-9 1149
at-, at-
z . m
w ul
a w aim
Nw
u u
z z
(D
z z
0 =
00
Ux
c
ILM
m
z
CL
0
W
0
z
U
Ln
W
zz
-cW
z
WX
u
>
z
z
u
0 u
w 0
a W
W"
z x
Wo
q*
Ln
W W
om
Mu
M o
0
N o
in
z
v
W
>
00
W
0
0-1
N
00
0
iL W
IL
W
on
0
m L)
u
ZNM
u
ozn
uo
U"
<F-W
C.C.C.
�W-
>
"m .
.
mm.
00,
MOU0,
0 ,
QNZZZ
�Awbd
0
mow
0
0.
0=000
w 3.
*1
W
L)
W
NX
w
-C
z
WW
mz�ww.
dz
I'm
0 =
wo
a"
zow-c-c
=UWWM-
ZUIAW�.
a.
M�
C=L)=:
0"
ow
0.
wag
..x
m ILD.M -
zo 1
19
0 ===,
-90
0
w 000.
MW
(D Ww= -
�- Q
000-
1: 1:
z z
,-, c P)
zz
M"
0-9
z �
ED w .4w
co M
z
0 u
z 0
"a
w
w
z
0
wz
U-C
.,K
>
Im
W
IL
>. 0
ww VY
Zo. w
C.0 w
Z a 0 N
w
w m a
0 u
aw
Z x �A
Z�- w u c a
w 0 > CL
0
00 =in
Wbd mm
MU N
w Ln
U-C
a : w OZ oal
I CYQ
Z Ld LLI Q
> a
=0 Q
cr -9 w 0
-9 9 C-C
�IL .0
wo ILW 01
of-- = a
Ina- 0
1-0
"U IX W -
u IL W
I. -
IL cc
LU PO
0 0 U -
09 z -C - w
0 LL N
z
ZCYM %T
0 oz� %T
uo in
-U-w Ln
ILW
"a.
M� mix
�.Mm 00.
MCUU0 (A .
0 NZZZ- mwm- a
r�1�444 - Now, a
:WMEM. 0.
=000 19 M. 0
LU in
>
IN
od�-Qma z N
w -W
.z M=
�CD zom!;.t �-m
ZUWLUIM I-
&40 Z: ix
19
I cc = IL 9L 9L zu
ILS S = 0 -co w
0 Rs CKW LU
Wo IK 0
0, 1: (D a, W I
CL 0. Sco I
0 a,
�:g
zz
00
Uz
d9l
064
G�
OF
�SVHAXA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012
ITEM TITLE: Receive and File Transmittal of Treasurer's
Reports as of September 30, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR: (0
STUDY SESSION:
I au,34 lei W Mlljzlo
I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance
with California Government Code Section 53645 as amended 1/1/86; and is in
conformity with City Code 3.08.010 to 3.08.070 Investment of Money and Funds.
I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are
available to meet next month's estimated expenditures.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND/ANAYLSIS:
Receive and File Transmittal of Treasurer's Report dated September 30, 2012 for the
City of La Quinta.
I
ALTERNATIVES:
None. I
,E 0 6
Respectfully submitted:
L44CA I "
Robbeyn tird, Finance Director
Attachment: 1. Treasurer's Report, City of La Quinta
r
C! 6 2
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO La Quinta City Council
FROM: Robbeyn Bird, Finance Director/1reasuner
SUBJECT Treasurer's Report for September 30, 2012
DATE October 31, 2012
Attached is the Treasurer's Report for the month ending September 30, 2012. The report is submitted to
the City Council each month after a reconciliation of accounts is accomplished by the Finance Department.
The following table summad,e, the changes in investment types for the month:
L�ir
Interest bearing active bank deposit
' 7: 769 005
39 67
941:3
$ 9-500'000
14,370
$ (750,000)
0 $
26,519,005
Certificates of Deposit
480000
0
39,955,737
US Treasuries
US Gov't Sponsored Enterprises
70,986,318
8,999,709
10,800,000
1
(10.800,000)
1
(7)
480,000
70,986,311
Commercial Paper
1
4,999,025
(9,000,000)
291
0
Corporate Notes
696
4,999,721
Mutual Funds
1SA64 817'
iq Ila
- --- --- 1
0
I certify that this report accurately reflects all Pooled investments and is in compliance with the California
Government Code; and is in conformity with the City Investment Policy.
As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated
revenues are available to meet the Pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City of
La Quinta used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank Monthly Statement and the Bank of New York
Monthly Custodian Report to determine the fair market value of investments at month end.
FLEWRE
Robbeyn Bird
Finance DireCtor/Treasurer Date
Footnote
(1) The amount reported represents the net increase (decrease) of deposits and withdrawals from
the previous month.
(2) The amount reported in the other column represents the amortization of premium/discount for the
month on US Treasury, Commercial Paper and Agency investments.
(3) The cash account may reflect a negative balance. This negative balance will be offset with transfers from other investments
before warrants are presented for payment by the payee at the bank.
8,750,000
14,370
0
696
0
067
5 F
1
Treasurer's Commentary
For the Month of September 2012
Cash Balances - The portfolio size decreased by $13.60 million to end the month at $145.83
million. The major reason for the decrease was due to payments of $12.8 million for interest
and principal payments on the outstanding bonds of the Successor Agency of the former
Redevelopment Agency.
Investment Activity - The investment activity resulted in an average maturity increase of
three (3) days from the prior month to end the month of September at 34 days. The Treasurer
follows a buy and hold investment policy with no Commercial Paper investments maturing
during the month of September. Certificates of Deposit remained the same as the prior
month. The sweep account earned $17 in interest income for the month of September and
the bank fees for the month were $ 1,690 which resulted in a net decrease of $1,673 in real
savings.
Portfolio Performance - The overall portfolio performance increased four (4) basis points from
the prior month and ended at .33% for the month, with the pooled cash investments at
.43%. The portfolio yield should continue to stay at these levels for the near future. At this
time last year, the portfolio was yielding .38% which reflects the current interest rate
environment.
Looking Ahead
In the short term, the Treasurer will be investing in short term commercial paper or GSE paper
and rolling over bond proceeds and reserves in U.S. Treasury bills or notes.
6 8
E
E
A
z 4
CY
X
c
z
c
z
z
c
2
c
z
0
z
0
z
I
V
�5 6
t
E r E
E
gg�
CS
8,
a.
. .
UL
w
c
c q
LA.
owd
8R
6
E
Hae
E
8g 0 . . .
eo.
;R
.0
p
;R
qq
9
S.
6q
Ut
oc
ZM
E .10 r
3
0 Z-
w E
E i EE
2
E
E L (2
0
00
0
0
'b 16 16
E E E
W.w
069
�-j
MU- M
- M.
S3
2 E
2
9
gmm
.22H.S.
E �U
E
70
EEe
MEMO,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22
-H.-- .............
.......
......
E E M.-
<
------------------
.....
.... ..... ..
EMU,
I
tP 71
r�
E 4)
a
<
>
0
0 4)
— 0 E m E
U)
E
04 N
E14
w
0
w
CD 0
m
CL
C; 0
V
.5
00
c
oq 0
00
.r
N w
m
C;
0
E
175
0 0
0
0
k0
EL
co W
C� (n
'a
rh
cc
m
2
M
E
L.L LL
Fo ED
Q)
z
F-
=O)
C; cli
N m
Z
6
a. (0
M
E E U)
w ca
> 0
>
072
fill.
A
G
P.-B . 5 . --"
N
�S-J�§gn
—P
PC
E F i i
......
-------
.1.9 A
MWH3
�?Pflg R§",-
9
niiiiii
---
-------
g
G,--3.T§gA
P, Z
a
.�g .1
5
- ;99� - -ST m
um
.
99HIR
9URPHE
.......
.
.....
-��2R�kE
nr
P!�V
�
RAME
Em gtgEj
H�iMH
1 2 2
glvnnaH
RM
9"S
ift
mgg
gg M
m
�&ea
g.c
ft " 073
10
074
C,ty of La Gonna
Courpman,e Fhaes; Of Interest
September 30, 2012
Arm
fizM �ammj
Arage
/Note
Three
Year
Month
-'july
Pooled Cash
Fiscal Apart
O�rmaj
Malemy (cars
Month
-AIF Ra
Three Month
—
-
Six Month
On. Year
Two Yea(
FY N109
2008
2,99%
1�93%
277%
62
Non -Financial
170%
1,88%
—
2 29-k
D5%
August 200E
316%
192%
2.88%
51
69%
189%
2,14%
2,38%
2,18%
208%
279%
2,78%
Sept2008
281%
1,92%
26,1%
37
42%
1,79%
1 96%
200%
2A3%
2.77%
Oct 2008
266%
2.61%
261%
29
090%
140%
172%
1 50%
207%
271%
No� 2008
2.38%
236%
236%
64
015%
049%
1,04%
1,25%
145%
257%
Dec 2008
1�60%
0,18%
1.42%
116
005%
025%
0,59%
0.88%
O�97%
235%
Jan 2009
1,36%
0.18%
1,23%
82
OAS%
O,W%
0 43%
0,88%
031%
205%
Feb 2009
123%
0,18%
1,11%
75
030%
0,50%
0,61%
0,88%
048%
187%
Mar 2009
126%
018%
1A3%
69
0,20%
042%
0,70%
0.88%
037%
1,82%
A,pr2009
0,94%
0.18%
085%
5't
0,31%
033%
0,59%
ON%
028%
161%
May 2009
0,92%
018%
0,84%
80
018%
030%
053%
088%
023%
153%
FY 09/10
June 2009
July 2009
0,65%
0,69%
020%
0.80%
111
020%
0,36%
0,55%
1 13%
026%
138%
030%
065%
111
0.19%
028%
0.47%
1�00%
028%
104%
Augusl2001
O'�%
030%
0,61%
92
016%
026%
046%
10%
024%
093%
Sept2009
ON%
031%
053%
112
0,12%
019%
041%
100%
019%
075%
Oct 2009
052%
031%
0.60%
90
008%
019%
0,38%
1,00%
0 19%
065%
Nov 2009
0,56%
031%
053%
152
0,04%
0,14%
032%
0,76%
0,16%
0,61%
Dec 2009
0.56%
0.15%
051%
239
011%
020%
0,16%
100%
016%
0.57%
Jan 20 10
0.46%
OA5%
0.43%
179
006%
0,14%
O,U%
088%
0,13%
056%
Feb 2010
051%
016%
0,48%
162
0.13%
0 19%
0,32%
0,88%
0,15%
058%
Ma,2010
0,50%
0,16%
0.47%
172
0,15%
0.24%
038%
100%
020%
0,55%
Api-2010
0,62%
016%
048%
162
015%
024%
049%
1 �00%
023%
059%
May20lO
052%
016%
048%
116
0.17%
0,22%
037%
0.75%
0.28%
056%
FY 10111
June 2010
0,43%
009%
033%
1 U
0.16%
022%
032%
063%
0,32%
0,53%
July 2010
0.60%
0,15%
047%
119
016%
020%
030%
0�63%
028%
OS3%
August 201
0,49%
0.15%
0,46%
108
015%
019%
026%
038%
0.25%
051%
Sept 2010
055%
015%
0.61%
107
0,16%
0 19%
0.27%
0,38%
0.24%
050%
OcI2OIO
0,56%
015%
051%
88
0 13%
0,17%
0.23%
038%
0,23%
0.48%
bo�2010
0.63%
OAS%
0,49%
84
018%
0,21%
0.28%
050%
023%
0,45%
Dec20lO
0.57%
OA4%
0.62%
265
0,15%
019%
030%
0,63%
0,23%
046%
Jan 2011
051%
014%
0.43%
206
0.16%
0.18%
0,28%
0,63%
024%
O,U%
Feb 2011
0.56%
0.17%
041%
210
0.15%
017%
031%
063%
023%
0.61%
Mar2011
0.64%
0.17%
0,46%
218
005%
013%
026%
075%
0.23%
050%
Apr2011
0.59%
0,17%
048%
192
0,05%
0,10%
0.28%
0,63%
020%
0,59%
May2011
0,"%
0,17%
041%
1 %
0.06%
OA2%
020%
050%
016%
0.41%
June 2011
0.53%
0,00%
035%
126
0,03%
010%
0,20%
ON%
015%
045%
FY 11112
July 2011
053%
0�00%
0.35%
112
0,07%
0,12%
0,15%
0,20%
0.14%
0,38%
August2011
060%
0,00%
0,311%
102
002%
0,05%
0.10%
0.13%
016%
0,41%
Sept 2011
058%
003%
039%
124
002%
006%
009%
013%
014%
ON%
0020il
OL3%
003%
0,35%
117
001%
006%
0,12%
025%
0,15%
039%
No� 2011
052%
003%
037%
94
0,03%
0,07%
0.10%
025%
0.14%
040%
Dec 2011
0,48%
0.03%
0,35%
86
0,02%
0,06%
0,11%
0,13%
014%
0.39%
Jan 2012
045%
0,03%
034%
74
0,05%
0,08%
011%
025%
014%
039%
Feb2012
049%
US%
036%
72
0.12%
0.15%
0,17%
0,25%
0.17%
0,39%
Ma,2012
G,44%
005%
034%
74
008%
OA4%
019%
025%
OAB%
0,38%
Apr 2Ci2
O�"%
009%
0,35%
61
010%
015%
0 IQ%
025%
020%
037%
May 2012
O'�%
009%
OU%
62
0,09%
0,14%
019%
026%
019%
036%
June 2012
0,38%
008%
029%
47
0 10%
0,15%
0,21%
025%
021%
036%
FY 12/13
July 2012
0 41 -X
1
112
0,11%
015%
0,18%
0,22%
022%
0.36%
A�gust2012
0 41
1
0,11%
0,14%
020%
0,25%
020%
ON%
075 11
04
(4 4)
4) .0
m E
CD
CY U)
0 0
0
Oo
C4
Lo
CL ci
-0 -0 c
-.O� 80� � -.R 1.-0
to 0 U') 0 to C) 43) tr) C) U� C)
IT q9t m CV) cli C'4 2 T7 7 9 q
ci 6 c; ci ci 6 a) CD CD CD CD
CL
C-4
E
04
r,
a
0
E
C*4
0
C%j
z
. 0
<c
1 E
04
0
0
1 16
w
04
-C, 0
<
CL
12
076
Taf 4 4 aukra,
� SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012
ITEM TITLE: Adoption of a Resolution to Extend the Time
for Completion of the Off -Site and On -Site
Improvements for Parcel Map No. 29052, Lundin
Development, BILP Desert, LP
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR: -7
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Adopt a resolution to extend * the time for completion of the off -site and on -site
improvements as specified in the approved Subdivision Improvement Agreement to
November 20, 2013 with the exception of the improvements associated with the
widening of Avenue 50, and authorize the Public Works Director and/or the City
Attorney to take the steps necessary to compel completion of the improvements
relating to the widening of Avenue 50.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This proposed Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) extension is for the
northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 as
shown in Attachment 1.
Currently the road narrows to one westbound lane along the property frontage
which backs up traffic during peak hours of operation.
The developer has requested a time extension of the SIA to explore other
development concepts and has provided staff with no construction schedule
thus far.
It 0 7 7
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the developer were to construct the street improvements, the City would be required
,to augment the lighting and landscape district for any additional median landscape
maintenance, as well as for any additional street sweeping and road maintenance that
would be required for the additional pavement and curb line. These costs are
estimated to be $3,300 per year. Legal costs for pursuing the bonds in order to have
the street improvements completed for Avenue 50 could be as much as $20,000.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The City Council has previously granted an SIA extension from September 20, 2011 to
September 20, 2012.
In a letter dated August 29, 2012 (Attachment 2), the developer requested a time
extension. The developer wrote that the original project had been aborted and
requested time to explore alternative development concepts and complete the off -site
improvements sometime in the future. The required off -site street improvements
include the widening of Avenue 50 along the southern boundary of the site, installing a
six-foot sidewalk on the north side, installing storm drain, water, sewer, perimeter and
median landscaping, undergrounding the power lines and pole relocation, and
monumentation improvements.
Staff responded with a request for a construction schedule of the Avenue 50 street
widening and six-foot sidewalk improvements (Attachment 3). In his letter dated
October 24, 2012 (Attachment 4), the developer discussed preliminary development
concepts but did not provide a construction schedule of the Avenue 50 street widening
and six-foot sidewalk.
Due to increased traffic and pedestrian traffic on Avenue 50, the City Traffic Engineer
recommends widening Avenue 50 along this development's frontage for the following
reasons:
1) The single westbound through lane is nearing capacity at peak hours of
operation.
2) The heavy westbound to southbound right turn movement, which occupies the
same lane as the westbound through lane, reduces the capacity of the single
westbound through lane. This lane could be restriped into two lanes if there
were two westbound lanes on the west side of the intersection adjacent to this
development.
3) Widening the westbound lanes on Avenue 50 would allow dual left turns from
northbound Jefferson Street to match the dual left turns on southbound
1P 0 7 8
Jefferson Street resulting in greater signal efficiency.
4) Widening the street would allow better traffic signal synchronization on
Jefferson Street in general and much higher intersection capacity during special
events.
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve the requested SIA time extension to November 20, 2013 for all improvements
or provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
4 othyl son �PE
J
Pub Ic orks 4 rectoriCity Engineer
Attachments: 1 . Vicinity Map
2. Letter from Lundin Development dated August 29, 2012
3. Letter from Tim Jonasson dated October 18, 2012
4. Letter from Lundin Development dated October 24, 2012
t�. 079
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY GRANTING
AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE'COMPLETION OF THE
OFF -SITE AND ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS SPECIFIED
IN THE APPROVED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT TO NOVEMBER 20, 2013 FOR PARCEL
MAP NO. 29052, LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement (SIA) for Parcel Map No. 29052, Lundin Development, on August 24,
1999; and
WHEREAS, Section 6. Completion of Improvements, of the approved SIA
requires that the Subdivider begin construction of the improvements within ninety
days and complete the construction within twelve months after the approval of the
Agreement; and ,
WHEREAS, failure by the Subdivider to complete construction of the
improvements by September 20, 2012, shall constitute cause for the City, in its
sole discretion and when it deems necessary, to declare the Subdivider in default of
the approved agreement; and
WHEREAS, Section 8. Time Extension, of the approved SIA allows for, at the
City Council's sole and absolute discretion, an extension of time for completion of
the improvements with additions or revisions to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
Section 1. The time for the completion of the off -site and on -site
improvements as required by the approved SIA is extended to November 20, 2013
with the exception of the improvements associated with the widening of Avenue
50.
Section 2. The time extension for completing the improvements shall expire
when City offices close for regular business on November 20, 2013 with the
exception of the improvements associated with the widening of Avenue 50
including additional paving and striping, curb and gutter, and sidewalk
improvements. As to the improvements related to the widening of Avenue 50, the
�M
Resolution No. 2012-
Parcel Map No. 29052, Lundin Development
Adopted: November 20, 2012
Page 2
Public Works Director and City Attorney are directed to take all necessary actions
to compel completion of said improvements.
Section 3. The provided security amount as required in the approved SIA is
satisfactory. No additional securities are required.
Section 4. All other terms, responsibilities and conditions as listed in the
approved SIA shall remain in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 20th day of November 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
DON ADOLPH, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
.A 081
ATTACHMENT1
PARCEL MAP NO. 29052
PROJECT SITE
LUNDIN
DEVELOPMENT
VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
Lundin
�� Development Co.
August 29, 2012
Mr. Timothy R. Jonasson, P. E.
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of La Quinta
P. 0. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject Parcel Map No 2905?
Dear Mr. Jonasson:
On behalf of BILP Desert we request an extension of the time period for performance under the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement This project has been aborted, and the extension will provide us
time to explore afternative development concepts which respond to current market conditions.
Regards,
A�
//Hge� Lund nZ Greg paver
16400 Pacific coast Highway, Suite 207 - Huntington Beach. Calffomla 9260 - (662) 692-6020 - FAX (562) 592-6050
www.Luko.com
I ' 083
ATTACHMENT 3
P.O. Box 1504
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504
78-495 CALLE TAMPICO (760) 7 7 7 - 7 00 0
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7iol
October 18, 2012
Mssrs. Herb Lundin and Greg Bever
BLP Desert
16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 207
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Re: Parcel Map No. 29052
Dear Mssrs. Lundin and Bever:
Thank you for meeting with us as well as your letter dated August 28,
2012 which is attached for your convenience (Attachment 1) regarding
the construction of street improvements along with the development of
your project. As you are aware when your project was approved in 1909
traffic: volumes on Avenue 50 were relatively low which allowed you to
defer the street widening and sidewalk improvements. Due to increased
traffic and pedestrian levels on both Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, the
City can no longer delay the construction of the required off -site
improvements including the widening of Avenue 50 and construction of
a 6 ft. sidewalk on the north side of the street along your property
frontage. This obligation was imposed in the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement (SIA) pursuant to Condition No. 45a of the Conditions of
Approval for Parcel Map 29052.
On September 12, 2011, you received a one-year extension for delaying
construction of the on and off site improvements required under the SIA
which has now expired. In order for staff to recommend approval of
another one year extension we request a schedule for construction of the
street widening and 6 foot sidewalk. The remaining off -site and on -site
improvements may be deferred until your development is constructed.
Please submit the schedule by October 31, 2012 for the completion of
the required off -site improvements so that the extension request can be
scheduled with the City Council in November.
Page I of 2
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Ed Wimmer
at (760) 777-7088, or me at (760) 777-7042.
Sincerely,
i imothy 'Joprefison, P.E.
m
c
Publoic rk�s 6(rector/City Engineer
Attachment: (1) Letter from Lundin Development dated August 29, 2012
C: Ed Wimmer, Principal Engineer
Tract Map No. 29052 File
Page 2 of 2
085
Lundin
&F Development Co.
August 29, 2012
Mr. Timothy R. Jonasson, P. E.
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of La Quinta
P. 0. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject Parcel Map No 2905g
Dear Mr. Jonasson:
On behalf of BLP Desert we request an extension of the time period for performance under the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement This project has been aborted, and the extension will provide us
time to explore afternative development concepts which respond to current market conditions.
Regards,
Z Her(bLunIdnZ
��,
Grep paver
16400 Pacific Coast HIghway, Suits 207 - Huntington Beach, Calibinla 92849 - (562) 592-6020 - FAX (562) 592-6050
wwwluko.00m
if � 086
ATTACHMENT 4
,�-i',Iundln
RECELVED
Development Co. OCT 330 2011
October 24, 2012
Nft. Timothy R- Jonasson, P. E.
Public Works Director/city Engineer
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject: Parcel Map No. 29052
Dear Mr. Jonasson:
PUBLIC WORKS
In response to your October 18, 2012 letter, we appreciate current discussions with Planning and
Public Works of a phased development concept plan for parcels within Parcel Map 29052.
Feasibility of such plan will be determined based on tenant commitments and scope of
construction together with City requirements, including entitlements and phase development of
off -sites.
Thank YOU for your efforts to review preliminary concepts (including consultation with your
Iraffic engincer), assistance to determine off -site scope of work and phasing, and attending joint
pending meeting with CVWD on October 31, to review their considerations for development
plan including status of existing vaults within 5& right-of-way.
After fitirther input from these meeting and tenant Iming offorts, a projected schedule for design
and constructiott will be more attainable.
1640D Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 207 - Huntington Beach, Califamia 92649 - (562) 592-6020 - FAX (562)t 592-6050
www.LukD.00m
it 087
(95PSA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: November20,2012
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Discussion of SilverRock Resort CONSENT CALENDAR:
Development STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On October 16, 2012, the City Council heard four presentations from potential
SilverRock Resort development entities. The City Council directed staff to schedule
follow-up interviews with three of the developers ' Beverly Park Development
Group, Discovery Land Company, and Meriwether Management Company.
The development teams will not be making formal presentations. Today's study
session will provide the Council an opportunity to dialogue with and ask questions
o f each development team.
Staff is seeking Council direction following the study session; options include
directing staff to work with a particular development entity via an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement, issuing a request for qualifications, or engaging additional
developers for further discussion.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
This Study Session provides the Council an opportunity to dialog with the three
development teams. Staff reviewed the October 16, 2012 City Council minutes
and provided the developers a list of possible questions/issues the Council may
want to discuss, including:
)�- The viability of condo/hotel product.
�Wol
> How is the proposed development plan unique and distinguishable from
other desert resorts?
);- The development teams' financial capacity and financing plan.
> The proposed phasing plan and rationale.
> Current and future market for the proposed development plan.
)�- The potential for water constraints imposed by the local water district.
This list is by no means comprehensive. The Council may wish to ask questions if
deemed appropriate to learn more about the proposed developments and potential
development teams. Each development team will come forward, in the order listed
above, to have a dialogue with the Council.
Staff recently received email correspondence (Attachment 1) from Richard Rowland
of Plan B Resolution Advisors, who is working with a development group interested
in SilverRock Resort. The email was received after the October 16, 2012 Study
Session. The email references a brochure - because it's over 60 pages long, staff
attached information related to golf estates and villas. The full brochure is
available in the City Clerk's office. Staff is looking for direction with regards to
engaging this development group in discussions.
Staff is seeking Council direction following the Study Session - options include
directing staff to work with a particular development entity via an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement, issuing a request for qualifications, or engaging additional
developers for further discussion. Staff plans to agendize this topic for the
December 18, 2012 City Council meeting - the type of item (final developer
selection, Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, request for qualifications, or further
developer discussions) will depend upon Council's direction today.
Respectfully submitted,
Uebbie Powell
Economic Development/Housing Manager
Attachment: 1 . Email from Plan B Resolution Advisors
089
1 ATTACHMENT I
From: rjr@planbresolution.com
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Don Adolph
Cc: Deborah Powell; Frank Spevacek
Subject: SilverRock Resort Potential DevelopmentlDesert Star request for initial meeting
Attachments: ds-brochure.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I appreciate your taking the time to review this preliminary outline of a proposal for the completion of the
SilverRock Resort project.
Desert Star's seven star concept for SilverRock is very similar in design and quality as showcased in the
attached brochure developed for South Africa. The sites are very similar in character, both will have a
close tie in to the movie industry, and both projects will be similar in scope with the exception of the
movie sets. The Desert Star South project consists of a movie therned resort, an Ernie Els golf course,
boutique seven star resort hotel, and a 150 unit seven star fractional resort residential component. Please
review the attached Desert Star electronic brochure.
Plan B Resolution Advisors has been assisting Desert Star in its financing and development efforts in
SA/Namibia, Vail Colorado, and now potentially in La Quinta CA. Desert Star President Rudolph Markgraaff
and I had a very successful preliminary site tour of SilverRock, and have continued ongoing fruitful
discussions with an equity REIT for permanent joint venture financing of all three locations. Desert Star is
in the process of completing an IPO in first quarter 2013 and has allocated development monies and
authorized Plan B to proceed ahead with the initial design and feasibility phases for the SilverRock site
based on the results of a preliminary meeting.
A new SPV formed by the equity REIT and Plan B as its land development partner and
Desert Star would propose a Desert Star project at SilverRock Resort consisting of the
following components:
0 The construction of a new Ernie Els designed championship golf course for use in conjunction
with Desert Star and the City of La Quinta
0 7 star resort boutique hotel in conjunction with a European development fund in keeping with
the quality and theme of Desert Star.
0 18 golf estates per the attached brochure
0 150 resort villas also similar to the Desert Star South concept.
Resort lodge and central community amenities.
Development and infrastructure coordination of other phased project components, such as retail,
conference, and entertainment as commercially feasible.
Questions and initial issues needing response to Plan B and Desert Star to continue
evaluation of the proiect:
090
Entitlements, Land Development Agreement and structure, TOT generation, CVWD Canal
relocation and Infrastructure financing.
We are hoping to have the opportunity to meet in the near future and discuss options for this exciting
project at an informal confidential meeting in the near future.
Best Regards,
Richard Rowland
Principal
Capital Markets
Investment Real Estate
Plan B Resolution Advisors
760 217-5700 direct
rirOPlanBresolution.com
<f PLAN 0
Real Estate & Energy Advisors
The information contained in this message and its attachments is confidential or protected by law. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete this message and its attachments. Any unauthorized copying or distribution of the
information contained herein is prohibited. Real estate licensing via CB Commercial/NRT-CA-DRE#01312887. The information
contained herein has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however, Plan B Resolution Advisors/CBC has not
verified, and will not verify, any of the information herein nor has Plan B/CBC conducted any investigation regarding these matters
and makes no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. This is
not an offer to buy or sell securities.
U91
Desert Star Resort Properties
hilp://www.desert�tar.na/South/Properties/resortProperties-027.htnil
DESF--�-f STA-�
...... .... I ...... gums RESOF PROKIIIIES
Dirransia'..1h ft,ard., I Iturort ftleard.,
Available Private Orange River Properties At Desert Star
priatial
South Include:
1-1 Not.. SA.
woterrort Chula,
LUXURY NATURE SUITE
IlWadidd.,. Sin,le
Feel nature under your feet while
R�wad� lodit. .—ble
enjoyng the eticlusiv a pleasure of a
croose �,, Wild
Luxury Nature Sube, I
b.tal nor E0.1.
1 bad / I both
79 SuM / 850 SaFt
Par Danarktaft
Friv.t. Uu.,ry
Fu.kh.d
NIS....
is i8a,b)
Rv.,Viawr
Sea,. pff.ple
WATERFRONT CHALET
Enjoy the rugged beauty of the
Narribion desert from a rock pool on
the dd�k of your lfwerfoont Chalet.
2 bad I 2,51bath
759 SaM / 1 711 SqF
Fit LuXUr,
Fully Funtishifol
Lock -off Unit
five, V irw
slaa'�p ... af
RIVERSIDE LODGE (SINGLE STOREY)
Experience the ed�lu�ive ae��Unon of
an African getaway from your
Riverside Ledge. restleal Into the
dontoum of the Orange River.
3 bad 1 IS both
2l0SqM/2260Sqf
Sn'6 St.,
� IF I M
u Furnished
oclk�off Unit
Sae, 8 P—pe
RIVERSIDE LODGE (DOUBLE STOREY)
�paafdnce the exciu�fve seclusan of
an African getaway form yaw
Ruemide Lodge, restled Into the
contous of the Orange liver.
3 bed / 3.5 both
320 �. / 3,444 SdF
Douldif St.,
,, Furnished
Lo�k-dff Unit BE
W—Varw
Seeps 8 POOP6
092
I of 2 11/7/2012 12:28 PM
Desert Star Resort Properties
ORANGE RIVER VILLA �
http://www.desertstar.na/South/Properfies/resortProperties-027.htnil
Dwh an exclusive luxury villa or the
bania of the mai Orange River
5 bed / 5.5 both
M SqM 19,472 SqF
Prhat. Lu..,
Ful, F—shed
Exi3O,rve
Ful S,,ivic,
Top of the Range
ROYAL GOLF ESTATE
Savor the briahtaking grandeur of
the remote desert paradise and true
African elegance in a Royal Oblf
Estate of your own,
7 bed / &5 both
2. 100 SqM / MAW SqF
Priv.f. Luxury
Fuly Funnshed
Ex.lusive
Ful Service
Top of the Range
0 Toop
OTTO UIRE
_t�l C T
T -"I
A P IECE 0 F P I C A
"Z7
093
C29 - a
V� 4 44"
AGENDA CATEGORY:
rc-ITY11SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012 BUSINESS SESSION:
ITEM TITLE: Discussion of the 2012 Update of the City CONSENT CALENDAR:
of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
As deemed appropriate by the City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Development impact fees (DIF) are one-time charges imposed on
development projects to offset the cost for additional public facilities needed
to serve new residents, employees and customers brought to the area by
the development.
In the past these fees have been one of the major funding sources for the
City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
e The City must update the DIF periodically in order to comply with state law.
The 2012 update is the 5 th update to the DIF and the first to assume that
the City will become a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
collecting member of CVAG in 2013. �
094
The following table compares the existing fees to the proposed fees:
Land Use Type
Proposed Fees
Current Fees
Increase Amount
Percent Change
Res (SFD)
$6,582
$7,713
($1,131)
-14.66%
Res (SFA)
$6,369
$6,296
$72
1.15%
Res (MFO)
$4,839
$4,889
($50)
-1.03%
Office/Hosp.
$4,866
$7,451
($2,585)
-34.69%
General Com
$5,829
$6,899
($1,070)
-15.51%
Tourist Com
$2,009
$2,204
(195)
-8.84%
Golf Course
$884
$945
($61)
-6.48%
A table comparing the City's revised DIF fees including TUMF to other DIF/TUMF
collecting agencies is being updated and will be presented at the City Council
meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommended DIF schedule will generate approximately $83,566,539,
assuming that all development anticipated in the City General Plan occurs. The
following presents the projected revenue by facility type:
PROJECTED IMPACT FEE REVENUE
FACILITY TYPE
PROJECTED
REVENUE
Transportation
$49,336,261
Parks
$16,498,347
Civic Center
$8,343,957
Fire Station
$3,837,355
Libraries
$2,773,534
Communit Centers
$1,037,702
Street and Park Maintenance
$1,739,383
TOTAL
$83,566,539
The DIF represents the maximum Impact Fee amount justified by the analysis. The
City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended; however
alternative funding sources would eventually need to be identified in order to
complete these facilities. It should be emphasized that all costs used in this report
are in current dollars.
095
The following table presents the proposed fees by land use category:
Land Use
Type
Develop-
ment
Units
Transportation
Parks/
Rae
Civic
Center
Fire
Protection
Libraries
Community
Centers
Street
Maint.
Fee.
Park
Maint.
Fac.
Total
Fees
Res sFD)
DU2
$2,530
$2,048
$942
$433
$344
$129
$116
$40
$6,582
Res (SFA)
DU
$2,530
$2,048
$796
$366
$344
$129
$116
$40
$6,369
Res WFO )4
DU
$1,553
$2,048
$447
$206
$344
$129
$71
$40
$4,839
Office/Hosp.
KSF
$4,132
$373
$171
$190
$4,866
General Com
KSF
$5,051
—
$373
$172
$232
$5,829
Tourist Com
Room
$1,414
$363
$167
$65
2,009
Golf Courses
I Acre
$595
1 $179 1
$82
1
$27
$884
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
In 1989, a California statute took effect, which governs the establishment,
increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of
development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the
cost of public facilities related to this development project." Public facilities are
defined in this statute to include "public improvements, public services, and
community amenities." These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act
(Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "A131 600"
requirements after the 1987 assembly bill in which they originated.
The 2012 Update of the City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study is the
fifth update of the May 1999 Development Impact Fee. It is intended to satisfy the
requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000 et seq.)
which is commonly known as "A131600" and to support findings necessary to
satisfy both statutory and constitutional standards for the establishment and
impositions of development impact fees.
California law does not limit the type of capital improvements for which impact
fees can be charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the
use of impact fees for ongoing maintenance or operation costs (see Government
Code Section 65913.8). Consequently, the fees recommended on this report are
based on capital costs only.
I Residential- Single Family Detached
2 Dwelling Unit
3 Residential- Single Farnily Attached
4 Residential —Multi-farnily and other
5 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Building Area
'i . 096
City staff provided the updated DIF Report to Gretchen Gutierrez, Chief Executive
Officer, Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) on October 31, 2012. The
study is under review by the DVBA and any comments will be presented to the
City Council during its Study Session on November 20, 2012. After receiving
comments from the City Council staff anticipates bringing the final DIF Study
Update with the TUMF adoption ordinance for City Council's consideration in
December 2012 or January 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
Clothy Kjon s n , P. E.
Public Works Di ctor/City Engineer
Attachment: 1. November 2012 Draft — Development Impact Fee Program
C- 9 7
w
Uj
UL
LL
2
M
0 c a
C)
0
C�
0
0
X 0
.
ci
qq
0
It
C>
IT
0
a
CD
't
a
"t
OD
r"!
00
C6
CV
C-i
CD
C-i
(D
C�
qo�
C)i
cli
Cl)
7
m
t-
t-
uj
IL
o
o
.
0
0
CD
OD
Cl)
U)
0)
0)
6
C14
Ld
N
Lu
(d
04
04
cli
C)
C
C)
C"
0
V?
IT
tu
'q
6
ce)
V
C:)
0
tl%:
CO
OD
10
cd
jO;o
00
C14
(qn
CD
U)
N
10
I,
0
03,
C*4
61)
(14
61
Ox Lou
C�
C6:,
C�
C�
0
q
0
q
CD
9
.
.
.
co
IT
�R
ID
z
WN
w
No
LO
co
In
0�
C�
(1)
C�
ot
co
6
lo�
co
C�
00
40�
co
04
0)
1
c3i
IT
r�
U)
co
CD
6c>
V)
6%
vl�
6%
cli
I
61�
60
61�
tO
qT
C'4
to
to
Lf)
0
C'
0
L6
04
to
C'j
Lf)
C'i
U)
C'4
Lo
Cj
CY)
C)
LO
0
VD
to
w
C)
'q
0
'o
OD
C)
(31
C)
0)
(D
C
0
C)
0)
0)
0)
0)
00
co
m
C 4
ID
4;
cli
1
64
'1
Cl)
6%
tu
LU
LL
CD
co:i
0
9
0
9
0
9
C>
9
CD
q
z LU
cyi
"Gi
Gi
6
a;
00
C*4
co
g
co
0)
co
1
a 0
q:
.
.
.
.
0
1
tf)
t
Cd
0)
csi
m
cli
CL
0
00
CO
6%
CO
6%
OD
03�
OD
69
Lf)
0
C4
04
m
a
cq
W)
I
C14
I
Ix
6%
6%
6%
LU
CD
Ci
z
E2
0
0
6 �
ig U
c a
5
2
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
a C�
a
t: 5
U. ca
03.9
LL
LL
E
61�
ca o
LL
LL
W
LL
LL
(n
2!
00
0
0
F- LL
CC,
Z
C)
0
0
0
0 E
0
CD
0
Ol
r- C,
C-
o
C�
Cl)
0
r-
0
CN
0
0
C; E
0
.
.
a 0
cs
0 �
0 LL
o N
o
CIJ
M
00
C-4
(n
cm ,
CUM
Im
OLA-�� 0' VAt---� ll-JJ� Ac A/� >1-
------------
% IF
'%,6A
desert valleys builders association
34-360 Gateway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211
2012 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDEW
Mano G.mal.,
FDA Companies
lo VICE PRESIDENT
Mark Benedetti
BMC
I' VICE PRESIDENT
Joaepm Hay"
Firm Paris
SECkE FARYq MEASURER
ffilee. EAc
Pas.ifie Premier Bank
VICE PRESIDENT OF ASSOCIATES
A] l.h Usi.
Milan Lesm & Assoews,
PAST PRESIDEIoT
Phil Smith
Sirmin, Company
CHIEF E�CUTIVE OFFICER
G,ctch,. Goteene,
W�lq Milgren
The Hemmingway Group
Priam Beredeci
B A B Contracting
Andy Boakehill
Coachella Valley Printing
To. Oasis
Aure, Calmer, Hand ofCalmilla Indiana
To. DeBme
D�clopmom Design & Engineering
Mm,.,d D.,
MmRaod For, Contained..
T...v Fooslions
Coachella Valley Water District
Drive L.p,m.
Lippert Coarnmetion. Inc
Heather Loonzenhi,rc,
Perta Building Group
Bruce Maize
Fidelity Title Insurance
I. Noble
Noble & Cmepoity, TC
Dan Olmev
Mm,ilc,OI,vier1Wh.,mo,, LLP
Alan Pace
Petra Gcorw c,il
M.'i. Rms
MSA CommIting Inc
Gae, Sminh
Smith-Kandal lincranceReal Estate
Patrick S.0hind
Imperial firription Distoo
Jeff Wancan.,,c,
W.R.bcn,,, Cricarronam
November 19,2012
City of La Quinta
Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92247
Re: Development Impact Fee Study — 2012
Dear Mr. Spevacek:
Thank you for providing the Desert Valleys Builders Association the opportunity to examine and
comment on the 2012 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study. After our initial
examination we did have numerous questions and comments. We asked the City to respond and
clarify the study and correct the necessary calculations. Nearly, each response was to our
satisfaction. Those that weren't have nothing to do with the mechanics of the DIF study, but, the
inclusion of certain improvements as they relate to the Level of Service (LOS) (Service-
Facility/Nexus) and their cost per service.
Our note here is that the inclusion of a want in the General Plan does not create a Nexus to Need
determination- This includes a change in level of service (LOS) as to increasing capacity per unit
or the increase in cost per unit for future development without its proposed cost share to the
existing population.
Madison and Avenue 54 - 100% to New
Madison and Avenue 60 - 100% to New
Monroe and Avenue 54 - 50% to New
Monroe and Avenue 60 - 100% to New
Madison and Avenue 58 - 100% to New
Monroe and Avenue 52 - 25% to New
Monroe and Avenue 58 - 50% to New
Monroe and Avenue 62 - 25% to New
Each of these intersections has increased costs from $430,000 each to $846,000 each by
changing from proposed signalized intersection improvements to round -a -bouts. This increases
the facility costs by $2,080,000 or $125 per SFD/SFA. While there isn't an issue with the need
for intersection improvements, there is with the cost increase. Some could liken the increase to
Gold Pkdng signal posts.
Page 2
DVBA Comment Letter
DIIF Nexus Study
Next:
Eisenhower and Montezuma (Signal)
Eisenhower and Sinaloa (Round -a -bout)
Calle Tampico and Civic Center Way (Signal)
Orchard and Avenue 50
What are the factors determining a need for signalization or Round -a -bout? LOS? Number of
accidents?
The issue is whether or not this section should be included in the DIF study. There should be a
traffic study determination that shows the current level of service including: The number of trips;
the capacity; and, based on expected ftiture development whether or not the current
configuration needs adjustment.
These intersections do not meet the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act as the determination
of a basic Need has not been made or supported (Traffic Circulation Study).
Again, the Desert Valleys Builders Association appreciates this opportunity to review, comment
and question the Development Impact Fee Study. We look forward to the City's response and
will of course; continue to work with City staff and Council Members on these topics.
Respectfully,
Gretchen
Officer
Lol
OF
CITY OF
LA QUINTAq CALIFORNIA
DEVELOPMENTIMPACT
FEESTUDY
NOVEMBER 2012 - DR -AFT
0 9 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Don Adolph, Mayor
Terry Henderson, Mayor Pro Tern
Lee Osborne, Council Member
Linda Evans, Council Member
Kristy Franklin, Council Member
CITY MANAGER
Frank Spevacek
CITY STAFF
Building and Safety Department
Greg Butler, Building and Safety Director
City Attorney's Office
M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney
Planning Department
Les Johnson, Planning Director
Community Services Department
Edie Hylton, Community Service Director
Finance Department
Robbeyn Bird, Finance Director
Public Works Department
Tim Jonasson, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer
OTHER ASSISTANCE
NAI Consulting, Inc.
Nick Nickerson
i
100
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
A.
Organization of the Report
I
B.
Facilities Addressed in this Report
I
C.
Development Projections
I
D.
Impact Fee Analysis
I
E.
Recovery of Study Cost
3
F.
Summary of Impact Fees
3
G.
Projected Revenue
4
H.
Implementation
4
Section I- Introduction
A.
Legal background
1-1
B.
Purpose of the Fees
1-3
C.
Use of Fees
1-3
D.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement
1-3
E.
Impact Fee Methodology
1-4
F.
Facilities to be Addressed
1-6
G.
Relationship to the General Plan
1-6
Section 2- Land Use, Demographics and Development Potential
A.
Background and Setting
2-1
B.
Study Area and Time Frame
2-1
C.
Residential Development and Population
2-1
D.
Non -Residential Development
2-3
E.
Measure of Demand
2-3
F.
Existing and Forecasted Development
2-4
Section 3- Transportation Impact Fees
A.
Service Area and Time Frame
3-1
B.
Level of Service
3-1
C.
Demand Variable
3-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
3-2
E.
Impact Fees
3-5
Section 4- Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
A. Service Area and Time Frame 4-1
B. Level of Service 4-1
C. Demand Variable 4-2
D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 4-3
E. Impact Fees 4-3
ii 101
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 5- Civic Center Impact Fees
A. Service Area and Time Frame 5-1
B. Level of Service 5-1
C. Demand Variable 5-1
D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 5-2
E. Impact Fees 5-4
Section 6- Library Impact Fees
A Service Area and Time Frame 6-1
B. Level of Service 6-1
C. Demand Variables 6-1
D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 6-2
E. Impact Fees 6-2
Section 7 — Community Center Impact Fees
A Service Area and Time Frame 7-1
B. Level of Service 7-1
C. Demand Variable 7-1
D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 7-1
E. Impact Fees 7-2
Section 8 — Maintenance Facility Impact Fees
A
Service Area and Time Frame
8-1
B.
Level of Service
8-1
C.
Demand Variables
8-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
8-1
E.
Impact Fees
8-2
Section 9 — Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees
A Service Area and Time Frame 9-1
B. Level of Service 9-1
C. Demand Variable 9-1
D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 9-2
E. Impact Fees 9-3
Section 10 — Implementation
A. Adoption 10-1
B. Administration 10-1
C. Training and Public Information .10-5
Appendix I- Detailed Cost Estimated for Street Improvements
Appendix 2- Basis for Number of Trips Generated
Appendix 3- County Road Conversion to Urban Arterial
Appendix 4- Development Impact Fee Comparison
10 2
Cit1v ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studly
EX E C U TI VE S UMMA R Y
This report is thefifth update of the May 1999 Development Impact Fee report completed for the
City by DMG-Maximus, Inc. It is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act
(Government Code sections 66000 et seq.) which is commonly known as "AB1600" and to
support findings necessary to satisfy both statutory and constitutional standards for the
establishment and impositions of development impact fees.
A. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It sets forth legal requirements for
establishing and imposing such fees as well as methods used in this study to calculate the fees.
Section 2 contains information on existing and planned uses and development in La Quinta, and
organizes that data in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Sections 3 through 9
analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify
facilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of
facility. Section 10 discusses procedures and legal requirements for implementing an impact free
program under California law. It addresses adoption, administration, and training.
B. FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT
The types of public facilities covered by this report are listed below, along with the report
sections in which they are addressed
Transportation hirprovements
(Section 3)
Parks and Recreation Facilities
(Section 4)
Civic Center
(Section 5)
Library
(Section 6)
Community Center
(Section 7)
Maintenance Facility
(Section 8)
Fire Protection Facilities
(Section 9)
C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development
expected to occur in La Quinta from June 2012 to build -out of the City under the 2035 General
Plan Update. It is not necessary for purposes of this study to forecast the time at which build -out
will occur. Estimated development potential of the study area was evaluated by the La Quinta
Planning Department and is based on the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update. Other data on
development and demographics were taken from the 2010 U.S. Census, and Department of
Finance Population estimates.
D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Each type of facility addressed in the report was analyzed individually. In each case, the
relationship between development and the need for additional facilities was quantified in a way
that allows impact fees to be calculated for various categories of development. For each type of
facility, a specific, measurable attribute of development was used to represent the demand for
additional capital facilities. Recommended impact fees for all types of facilities are summarized
in Table S-1, page 3. The impact fees calculated in this report cover only capital costs. They do
November 2012 Draft Page I I ()
City qfLa Quinta — Development 1mpact Fee Study
not include any ongoing costs for maintenance or operations. The following paragraphs briefly
discuss factors considered in the analysis of each type of facility.
Transportation Improvements. The recommended impact fees for street system improvements
are based on the cost of improvements to major, primary, and secondary arterial streets, bridges
and interchanges, traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls required to serve future
development in La Quinta. Those fees assume that developers will continue to be directly
responsible for internal streets and for certain arterial street improvements in cases where a
project fronts on an arterial. Specific improvements to be funded by the impact fee are listed in
the report. The relationship between development and the need for additional street capacity is
defined in the study as a function of additional peak hour trip -miles generated by development
(See Section 2 for a discussion on peak hour trip -miles).
Park and Recreation Improvements. The recommended impact fee for park and recreation
improvements is based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of
service, defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The impact fee analysis addresses
neighborhood and community parks only. The proposed impact fees do not include the cost of
land acquisition, and are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee -in -lieu
requirements under the Quimby Act. Since the need for park acreage is defined in terms of
population, the impact fee for park improvements will apply only to residential development.
Civic Center. The impact fee analysis for the Civic Center assumes that the existing facility as
recently expanded will be adequate to serve existing and future development in La Quinta. Impact
fees were calculated by allocating total costs for the Civic Center facility on the same basis to all
existing and future development. That method allows Civic Center costs to be shared
proportionately by all users. The relationship between development and the need for additional
space in the Civic Center is complex and indirect. For reasons explained in the body of the report,
this study uses developed acreage to represent the demand for Civic Center facilities.
Libraries. The impact fee for libraries was based on the cost of facilities needed to serve new
development at a level of service somewhat lower than the standard specified in the La Quinta
General Plan. The adopted standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 2 volumes per
capita. The impact fee analysis is based on 0.22 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per
capita, and assumes that the City's 20,000 square foot library will be sufficient to serve both
existing and future development. Because of the deficiency in existing facilities relative to the
standard used in the study, the City contributed approximately $6 million from non -impact fee
sources to justify impact fees at the recommended level. Because library facility needs are
defined in term of population, impact fees for library facilities would apply only to residential
development.
Community Center Facilities. Impact fees for Community Center facilities are based on the cost
of maintaining the City's current level of service in terms of square feet per capita. The only
existing community center facilities identified in the study is the multi -purpose room at the Senior
Center, the Multipurpose Room at the La Quinta Museum, and the Community Room at the La
Quinta Boys and Girls Club. Because community center facility needs are defined in terms of
population, impact fees for those facilities would apply only to residential development.
Maintenance Facilities. Impact fees to fund capital cost for development -related street and park
maintenance facilities and equipment are based on the City's current level of investment relative
to existing development. Costs for street and park maintenance facilities are allocated separately,
in a manner that reflects differences in their relationship to development. Costs for street
November 2012 Draft Page 2 104
City ofLa Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study
maintenance facilities are allocated on the same basis as the cost of street improvements, using
peak hour trip -miles to represent demarid. Costs for park maintenance facilities are allocated on
the same basis as the cost of park improvements, using population to represent demand. As a
result, impact fees for street maintenance facilities apply to all types of development while impact
fees for park maintenance facilities apply only to residential development.
Fire Protection Facilities. The impact fees for fire protection facilities were based on the need to
repay loans to the DIF for the new fire station and the expansion of one existing fire station to
serve firture development in La Quinta. Impact fees were calculated by dividing the future fire
stations needs by the total developed acreage of future development.
E. RECOVERY OF STUDY COST
As with other types of analysis needed to obtain funding for capital facilities, the cost of
preparing this study may be recovered through impact fees, The fee summary shown in Table S-1
is based on the fees calculated in Sections 3 through 9, but the fees have been adjusted to
incorporate the cost of a future study. That adjustment assumes it will be necessary to update the
study in five years, and that the City will collect an average of $2 million per year in impact fees.
Thus, the $53,000 cost of the study is divided by $10 million (the projected five year total of all
impact fees to be collected by the City) to determine the percentage increase needed to recover
the cost of the study. That percentage is 0.53%, so the fees have been increased by just over one
half percentage points to account for the cost of the study. To make that adjustment, fees
calculated in subsequent sections of the report have been multiplied by 1.053 to arrive at the fees
shown in table S-1.
F. SUMMARY OF ]MPACT FEES
Table S-1 summarizes the recommended impact fees by development category and facility type.
The amounts shown in that table based on the analysis in subsequent sections of this report.
:
t�
t
M
iiu
gi;� �
:
51 i �hd
�rl' PF"'�n
a
Vl
�
Res (ZFD)
DU S2,530
$2,048 $942
$433
$344
$129
$116
$40
$6,582
Res (SFA) T
DU $2,530
S2�048 $796
S366
$344
$129
$116
$40
$6.369
Res (MFO) 4
DU $1,553
$2,048 $447
$206
S344
$129
$71
S40
S4.839
Office/Hosp.
KSF S4,132
$373
$171
$190
Gmend Com
KSF $5,051
$373
$172
S232
$5.829
S363
$167
1
$65
$2,009
Golf Cours�
A.. $595
$17
�9
$82
1
$27
$884
I Residential- Single Family Detached
2 Dwelling Unit
3 Residential- Single Family Attached
4 Rmclential —Mutti family and other
5 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Building Area
November 2012 Draft Pagge 3 105
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
G. PROJECTED REVENUE
Table S-2 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now to build out, assuming that
the fees are adopted as recommended and that all development anticipated in this report actually
occurs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars.
Table S-2
Prnipetpd Imnnet Fo.
4,`
Transportation
$49,336,261
Parks
$16,498,347
Civic Center
$8,343,957
Fire Station
$3,837,355
Libraries
$2,773,534
Community Centers
$1,037,702
Street and Park Maintenance
$1,739,383
TOTAL
$83,566,539
H. IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation'of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues. Section 10 of
this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the
City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government
Code with respect to impact fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection
of fees, accountability for fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding
requirements updating of fees, and staff training.
From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made regarding the
share of facility costs to be funded by impact fees, and other sources of funding to be used for
those facilities not fanded by the fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report are
intended to represent the maximum impact fee amount justified by the analysis. Of course, the
City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. In that event, it is
important that the City identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and
the share of total cost to be recovered through fees.
6 Project Revenue in cuffent dolla�
November 2012 Draft Page 0 106
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
In 1996, the City of La Quinta retained DMG-MAXIMUS, INC (formerly David M. Griffith &
Associates, Ltd.) to analyze the fiscal impacts of anticipated development on certain public
facilities, and to prepare a schedule of development impact fees based on that analysis. DMG-
MAXIMUS, INC. completed a study that was approved by the City Council in May 1999. This
document is the fifth update of that study and is intended to satisfy the legal requirements
governing such fees, including but not limited to those portions of the California Government
Code known as The Mitigation Fee Act (Section 66000 et seq.) which govern the establishment
and imposition of fees levied as a condition of development project approval.
Development impact fees are one-time charges imposed on development projects to recover
capital costs for public facilities needed to serve those new developments and the additional
residents, employees, and visitors they bring to the community. The use of impact fees has
become widespread in California in the last decade as a response to local government budget
strains brought on by tax limitations, reallocation of revenues, and a loss of federal and state
financial assistance. Many communities have increased their reliance on developers for funding
of development -related public facilities.
California law does not limit the type of capital improvements for which impact fees can be
charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the use of impact fees for
ongoing maintenance or operation costs (see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently,
the fees recommended on this report are based on capital costs only.
A. LEGAL BACKGROUND
The legal authority to impose fees on development may be specifically granted by statute, or it
may be found in general grants of authority to local governments under most state constitutions.
California's impact fee statutes do not contain specific enabling language, so cities and counties
in this state depend on their police power or home rule powers for the authority to levy such fees.
Constitutional Considerations. Like all exactions on development, impact fees are subject to
constitutional limitations. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of
development impact fees as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided they meet certain
standards. Those standards are intended to insure, among other things, that impact fees do not
violate Fifth Amendment limitation on the taking of private property.
November 2012 Draft
107
To be con, titutionally valid, development regulations must advance a legitimate governmental
interest. In � he case of impact fees, that interest is the provision of adequate public facilities so
that develop \ ment does not cause deterioration in the quality of essential public services.
However, th-, U.S. Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exaction on development
must emonstilite an "essential nexus". between such an exaction and the government's legitimate
interest. (See Aollan vs. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan vs.
City of Tigard, � 1994), the Court made clear that an agency also must show that an exaction is
"roughly propoiponal" to the burden created by development. It should be noted that Dolan is
less significant t�.lr impact fees than for other types of exactions (e.g., mandatory dedication of
land) because pr,,)portionality is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees, and legal
scholars are debati,ig the application of Dolan to fee payments.
California Law. h, 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment,
increase and irnposi�t \ ion of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project
approval "for the puq�ose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development project.\." Public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public
improvements, public !,,--rvices and community amenities." These requirements are found in the
Mitigation Fee Act (0overnment Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as
"AB1600" requireTnents,\,ifter the 1987 Assembly Bill which they originated.
The statute establishes pl \ ocedures for adopting and justifying impact fees. It also includes
restrictions on the collectio;i and expenditure of fees, and a provision requiring the refunding of
fees under certain condition� Annual reporting of activity in impact fee accounts is also required,
as is a more complete recon, :iliation every five years. Reporting requirements were revised by
Legislature in 1996 as part o� AB 1693, and are discussed in more detail in the Implementation
Section of this report.
To satisfy the requirements of�Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing
impact fees must make findings litiat:
I . Identify the purpose of tht fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee;,� \ and
3. Determine that there is a rezisonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee anti the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the faci' lity and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Those requirements are discussed in detail below.
November 2012 Draft 1-2
t 10 8
CiA, ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studl,
B. PURPOSE OF THE FEES
The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by
providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees recommended in this
study is to fund the construction of certain capital improvements which are identified in this
report. Those improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in La
Quinta and to prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional
development if impact fee revenues were not available to fund those improvements.
C. USE OF FEES
If a fee subject to Government Code section 66001 is used to finance public facilities, those
facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not
mandatory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public
documents. This report is intended to falfill that requirement. Specific facilities used to calculate
impact fees in this study are identified in subsequent sections of the report.
D. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT
As discussed above, Government Code Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its
provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:
The use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
The need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed;
and,
The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the
fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements closely resemble the "benefit ... .. impact," and
"proportionality" elements, respectively, of the nexus standard which has evolved in the courts to
test the validity of development exactions. In our opinion, "reasonable relationship" as defined by
these requirements is identical to "nexus" as a practical manner. We will use the nexus
terminology in this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methods used to
calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy either formulation. Individual elements
of the nexus standard are discussed ftirther in the following paragraphs.
November 2012 Draft 1-3 109
0
0
City ofLa Ouinta — Development ImpaeLFee Study
Impact Relationship. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some
or all public facilities provided by local government if the capacity of facilities is not increased to
satisfy that additional demand, the quality of public services for the entire community deteriorate.
The improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in La Quinta are identified
in subsequent sections of this report; the need for those improvements is analyzed in terms of
quantifiable relationships between development and the demand for various types of facilities,
based on applicable level of service standards.
Benefit Relationship. A reasonable benefit relationship requires that fee revenues are expended
to provide the facilities for which they are collected, and that those facilities are available to serve
the development on which the fees are imposed. Nothing in the law requires that facilities paid
for with the impact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees.
Procedurally, statutory provisions goverriing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues, and
the requirements for refunding of fees not expended in a timely fashion, are intended to ensure
that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay.
Proportionality Relationship. A reasoname proportionainy reiationsrup Must De estabilSueLl
through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various types of facilities and
categories of development. As a practical matter, compliance with both statute and case law
requires an agency to show that impact fees will be used to pay for capital facilities needed to
serve new development, and that the amount charged to different types of development is fairly
related to the demands imposed on public facilities.
It is well -established that impact fees may not be used to mitigate pre-existing deficiencies in
public facilities, to subsidize level of service improvements for the existing community or to
solve problems not created by the development paying the fee. The Nollan decision reinforced the
principle that development exaction, including impact fees, may be used only to mitigate
conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. Methods of allocating
facility costs and calculating fees to meet the proportionality requirements are addressed below.
E. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY
In general, any one of several approaches may be used in calculating impact fees. The choice of a
particular method depends on the service characteristics of the facility being addressed and the
availability of information on facility plans and future development. Each method has advantages
and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable.
Reduced to its simplest elements, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps:
determining the cost of improvements needed to serve development and allocating those costs
equitable to various types of development. However, in practice, the calculation of impact fees is
complicated by complex relationships between development and facility needs, and by limited
information about future conditions. Below we discuss three approaches to calculating impact
fees, and their applicability to certain situations.
November 2012 Draft 1-4
'k
lio
City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Plan -based Impact Fees. This method is used in this study to calculate impact fees for streets
and certain community facilities. It is most appropriate where estimated costs for a specified set
40
of improvements (facility plans) are being allocated to all development represented by a specified
land use plan. Costs are allocated in proportion to the relative intensity of demand represented be
40
each type of development. This method assumes that the entire service capacity of the planned
facilities will be absorbed by projected development, or that excess capacity is necessarily related
40
to serving future development. For example, it may be necessary to widen a street from two lanes
to four lanes to serve planned development, but some capacity may remain unused after that
development occurs. The plan -based method is often the most workable approach where it is
difficult to measure the actual service consumed by development, for example, with respect to
administrative and law enforcement facilities. It is also useful for facilities such as streets, where
capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand.
Capacity -based Impact Fees. The capacity -based method was not applied in this study and is
discussed here to only provide additional background. It is most appropriate where the costs and
capacity of a facility or system are known, and the amount of capacity used by a particular
quantity of development can be measured or estimated. The total amount of development to be
served need not be known to calculate the fees, so this method is not dependent on a specific land
use plan or a specific set of development projections. This type of fee is established as a rate, or
cost per unit of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development, provided that
adequate capacity remains unconunitted in the facilities on which the fee is based. Capacity -based
fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems.
To calculate a capacity -based impact fee rate per unit of demand, facility costs is divided by
facility capacity. To apply the rate to a development project, or to produce a schedule of impact
fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building
area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of capacity needed to serve a particular quantity and
type of development.
Standard -based Impact Fees. The standard -based method was used in this study to calculate
impact fees for parks, libraries, community center, and maintenance facility. The standard based
is
method related to the capacity -based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per
unit of demand. With the standard-bascd approach, costs are initially determined on a generic
0
unit -cost basis, and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the amount of
capacity to be made available per unit of development. This approach differs from the capacity-
0
based approach which typically determines unit cost by dividing the cost of a planned or actual
0
facility by its capacity.
0
le
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
November 2012 Draft 1-5
City of La Quinta — Development impact Fee Study
The standard based method is useful where facility needs is defined in terms of service standard,
and where unit cost can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility
or system. Parks fit that description. It is common for cities or counties to establish a service
standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. Also, the cost per acre for a certain
type of park can usually be estimated without knowing the location of a particular park or the
total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for buildings such as libraries or
administrative offices, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a
building is actually designed. One advantage of this approach is that a fee can be established
without committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can be adjusted based on the
amount of development that actually occurs, avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that this
method may not be well -suited to specialized recreation facilities such as swinumng pools,
gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements.
F. FACILITIES TO BE ADDRESSED
Public facilities, equipment and infrastructure improvements relating to the following furictions
are addressed in this study:
• Transportation Improvements
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Civic Center
• Fire Protection Facilities
• Libraries
• Community Centers
• Maintenance Facilities
G. RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN
Much of the analysis in this report is based on information contained in the City of La Quinta
2035 General Plan Update, with particular emphasis on the Land Use Element, the Circulation
Element, the Park and Recreation Element, and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element.
However, data on existing development has been updated to June 2012 by the La Quinta Planning
Department.
Projections of future development used in this study are intended to reflect the development
potential of all undeveloped land covered by the City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use
Element. Except for specific applications noted in subsequent sections, no growth rate or build -
out date is assumed.
November 2012 Draft 1-6
- _W'. 112
W
On, oLLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
SECTION2
LAND USE, DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVELOPMENTPOTENT7AL
Land use, demographics and development potential, both existing and projected, must be
analyzed in preparing the City's impact fee program. This section of the report organizes and
correlates information on existing land use, population and employment, as well as projected
development, to form a basis for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent sections of this
report. The information in this section provides a framework for defining levels of service, for
projecting public facility needs, and for allocating the cost of new capital facilities between
0 existing and future development, and among various types of new -development.
0 Information on land use and demographics for this study was prepared by the La Quinta Planning
0 Department. Sources of data include the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update, the 2010 U.S.
Census, and the California Department of Finance population estimates. Data on existing land
0 use, and demographics and development used in this report have been updated through June
0 2012.
0 A. BACKGROUND AND SETTING
0
0 La Quinta is located in the desert resort area of the Coachella Valley in south-central Riverside
County. The City is located along State Route I 11, between the City of Indian Wells and City of
0 Indio. In places, La Quinta is contiguous with both of these communities. Existing development
0 in the City is primarily residential, and includes both conventional residential development and
0 gated residential and resort communities, some of which contain one or more golf courses.
While a vast majority of the land in La Quinta is designated for residential use, major regional
commercial development is occurring along Highway I 11, and more is planned. A significant
portion of the City's total land area lies on the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef
mountains, and much of that land is reserved as open space.
0
0
0
0
0
0
B. STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME
The analysis in this study addresses all development expected from the present time to build out
of the area encompassed by the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update. The impact fee analysis in
this report does not depend on the rate or timing of development, so development projections in
this section do not make assumptions about when build out will occur.
C. RESIDENTLAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION
In this study, residential development is classified in one of three categories: Single Family
Detached, Single Farnily Attached, which include condominiums and townhouses, and Multi-
Fan-dly/Other which includes apartments and mobile homes. That breakdown is consistent with
existing and anticipated patterns of residential development in La Quinta, Dwelling units are used
as the basic measure of the amount of residential development in each category. According to the
2012 California Department of Finance estimates, single family detached Units accounted for
about 79% of all residential units as of June 2012, with single family attached units making up
about 10%. Thus together, the two categories make up approximately 89% of La Quinta's
Existing residential units. Forecasts of future residential development indicate the percentage of
single-family detached units at build out will remain at about 79% of all residential development,
with single-family attached and multi-family/other unit accounting for 10% and 11%
respectively.
November 2012 Draft
2-1
� 16.. 113
rin�nfrnOuirtn-- loyment Impact Fee Studv
Population. Estimates of existing population and projections of future population in La Quinta
are used in this study. Those estimates and projections are based on existing and forecasted
dwelling units, and the average number of persons per dwelling unit. Demographic data from the
2010 Census and Department of Finance population estimates have been used in developing
population estimates and forecasts. Population in group quarters makes up an insignificant
percentage of the existing population, and is not addressed in the population forecasts.
La Quinta's January 2012 population, as estimated by the State Department of Finance, was
38,075. That number represents permanent residents. However, as is the case for other desert
resort communities, La Quinta's population increases considerably during the winter months,
owing to an influx of seasonal residents. The 2010 Census showed that 36.9% of all residential
units in La Quinta were vacant, including 27.5% which were for "seasonal, occasional, or
recreational" use. The Planning Department estimates that the City's total population may exceed
the permanent population by approximately 16,000 residents during peak season.
Figure 2-A illustrates the growth of La Quinta's permanent population, which has more than
tripled since the City's incorporation. The population figures shown on Figure 2A are Department
Finance estimates for January I of each year since 1994. It should be noted that the drop in
population beginning in 2011 is based on the revised population estimates presented in the 2010
Census.
Permanent Population
50000
45000
-
40000
-
35000
30000
25000
M Permanent Population
20000
M OF
.10
15000
10000
If
U 0
Mo
0 9 011
5
1 0 0 MITI
MAI
N"NN ... MNNN " N
114
rigurc z-�
Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is only partially
useful as a measure of the demand for public services. Because of seasonal fluctuation in the
population of La Quinta, the number of permanent residents of the City seriously understates the
actual service demand represented by residential development in the City. Once a dwelling unit
has been approved and constructed, the City is committed to serve the demand created by that
unit. It has no control over whether, or when, such units are occupied. Thus, to better represent
the City's service conurtitments, this study uses "potential population7' as the basis measure of
demand for population related public services and the facilities that supports them.
November 2012 Draft
rigurc z-�
Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is only partially
useful as a measure of the demand for public services. Because of seasonal fluctuation in the
population of La Quinta, the number of permanent residents of the City seriously understates the
actual service demand represented by residential development in the City. Once a dwelling unit
has been approved and constructed, the City is committed to serve the demand created by that
unit. It has no control over whether, or when, such units are occupied. Thus, to better represent
the City's service conurtitments, this study uses "potential population7' as the basis measure of
demand for population related public services and the facilities that supports them.
November 2012 Draft
Ciry ofLa Quinta—D-1--W Impact Fe- 2-
As used in this report, "potential population" means the number of people who would reside in
the City if all dwelling units existing at a particular time were occupied. The potential population
is estimated for each category of residential development by multiplying the number of dwelling
units in that category (existing or future) by the average number of persons per occupied unit for
that type of development. Potential population for the City as a whole is the sum of the potential
population for all categories of residential development. This study employs 2010 Census data to
establish the average number of persons per occupied dwelling unit for each category of
residential development. Those factors are used in estimating potential population as of June
2012, and at build out. Henceforth, un�less otherwise indicated, when the term "population" is
-used in this report it will mean "potential population."
D. NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
In this study, private, non-residential development will be classified in three categories: Office,
General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial. The office and tourist commercial categories are
equivalent to classifications used in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The General
Commercial category used in this study encompasses all other types of commercial development
addressed by the Land Use Element (Mixed/Regional, Community Neighborhood, Commercial
Park and Village). La Quinta has no existing industrial development, and none is planned.
For purposes of impact fee analysis, commercial development can be measured in a number of
ways. In this report, the basic measure of development for office and general commercial uses is
gross building area, in thousands of square feet (KSF). Tourist commercial development, which
Data
consists of hotels and associated uses, is measured in ternis of guest rooms. on existing
nonresidential development are taken from the land use analysis of the City's 2035 General Plan
Update. Forecasts of future nonresidential development to build out were prepared by the City's
Planning Department.
E. MEASURE OF DEMAND
Certain attributes of development, including acreage, population, trip generation, and trip length
will be used in the impact fee analysis to represent demand for certain public services and to
provide a yardstick for determinmg service levels for various types of facilities. Tables 2-1, 2-2,
and 2-3, presented later in this section, provide estimates of existing development and forecasts of
future development in La Quinta, as measured by various relevant attributes. The numerical
values of those factors used to measure those attributes for various types of development are
shown in the footnotes to Table 2-1. Population and potential population were discussed above.
The following paragraphs discuss other measures of demand used in this report.
Acreage. Acreage is a basic attribute of all development. In this report, gross acreage is used as a
measure of demand for fire protection facilities and general government facilities.
Trip Generation. The number of trips generated by various types of development is commonly
used as a basis for allocating the cost of road improvements to various types of development. In
this study, we have used peak hour trips, rather than the average daily trips, in allocating
improvement costs. Peak hour trips relate more directly than 24-hour trip generation to the need
for additional street capacity. The number of peak hour trips related to a particular development is
estimated by applying standard trip generation factors to units of development, such as acres,
dwelling units, or square feet of building area. The trip generation rates used in this study are
taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual Dip Generation (The 8th
edition was used as the primary source).
2-3
November 2012 Draft
115
Citv oLLa Ouinta - Development Impact Fee Study
Trip Length and Peak Hour Trip -Miles. Both the number of trips generated by development and
the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour roadway capacity needed to serve
development. Peak hour trip -miles (the product of peak hour trips and average trip length, by
development type) will be used in this study as an index of demand for roadway capacity.
The best available information on the average trip lengths by land use type are published by the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication, Vehicular Trai ic
Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. Although the trip lengths presented in that
publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta, we believe they reasonably represent the
relative relationship of trip lengths for various types of development. Because the cost of street
improvements is allocated to development projects in proportion to their relative share of total
demand, it is the relative relationship, rather than actual trip length, that is important here.
It should be noted here that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has
developed trip length data for the Coachella Valley. However, those trip lengths are calculated by
trip purpose rather than by land use type. hi addition, they are intended to reflect travel on
regional facilities, and do not include the portion of trips on local street networks. Consequently,
the CVAG trip length information is not useful for purposes of the analysis.
F. EXISTING AND FORECASTED DEVELOPMENT
Summaries of existing and forecasted development in La Quinta, by land use type, are presented
in Tables 2-1 through 2-3 as presented later in this section. The following charts illustrate
graphically the relationship of existing development (from Table 2-1) to future development
(from Table 2-3).
Figure 2-B shows residential development in terms of dwelling units by type. As that chart
illustrates quite clearly, the number of dwelling units anticipated in the future is greater than the
number of units currently existing, for all types of residential development in La Quinta.
r igure z-ts
November 2012 Draft
2-4
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Figure 2-C shows existing and future non-residential development in terms of square feet. Tourist
Commercial is presented within Figure 2-D and is based on number of rooms. The following
charts clearly illustrate the magnitude of anticipated future commercial development to the
amount of existing development in the City. Consequently, the impact of future development on
the demand for City services and public facilities will likely be proportionate.
Non- Residential
6000
5000
-
MI
�E
4000
WK MNon ResidentialAdded
LL
3000
cNon ResidentialExisfing
,v
Cr
2000
VIM Mimi
(a
1000
0
Office Commercial
Tourist Commercial
Rooms
November 2012 Draft
t7igure z-u
GTounst Commercial
Added
MTounst Commercial
Existing
tigure 2-1)
.2r,�5. 117
Citi, o(La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 2-1
-A. f In.. 7fil I
k
46.983
18 830
Residential (SF Detached)
4.453
DU
18,644
Residential (SF Attached)
530
DU
2,387
Residential (Multi / Other)
315
TIT T
? �lr
Office ( Includin
78
KSF
747
1,113
5
795
�General Commercial
384
KSF
3,680
13,726-
59:0244
Tourist Commercial
207
Rooms
1,130
700
5 1 323
Public Facilities
88
KSF
360
3,971
23,825
Schools
115
Acres
115
150
867
Develo ed Parks
75
Acres
75
119
644
Golf Courses
4317
Acres
4,317
1,295
8,159
TOTALS
10:562
"W W",
59,338
43,87
* NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding.
Tables' 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 tabulate existing, future and ultimate build out development,
respectively. In those tables, residential development is shown in three categories: single family
detached, single family attached, and multi-family/other. Private non-residential development is
broken down into several categories: office, general commercial, and tourist commercial. Existing
and forecasted acreage of public facilities, schools, parks, and golf courses are also tabulated to
provide a more complete picture of traffic generation. This study assumes those land uses do not
impact City services addressed in this study, except for the street system.
I DU = Dwelling Units, KSF = 1,000 Square Foot Gross Area
2 Existing and Future Development estimated provided by the City of La Quinta Planning Department
3 Potential population figures assume 100% occupancy of dwelling units. Persons/DU factors provided by the City Planning
Department: SFD — 2.52; multi/Othff = 2.52.
4 Peak hour trip rates: SFD — 1.01/1)U� Multi/Otha = 0.62/DU; Office = 1.49/KSF; Gen Commercial = 3.73/KF=SF;
TouristCommervial =0.59/Room; Public Facilities = 11.03/KSF; Schools= 1.3 Acre; Parks= 1.59/Acm; Golf=
0.30/Acre.
5 Peak hour trip miles — peak hour trips x average trip miles (from SANDAG Tmffic Generation). Average trip length and
peak hour trip miles; Residential SFD/SFA = 7.9 on (7.98)� Residential MFO = 7.9 (4.90); Office � 8.8 mi (13.12);
General Commercial = 4.3 mi (16.04); Tourist Commercial � 7.6 mi (4.49); Public Facilities = 6.0 mi (66.18); Schools
= 5.8 Mi (7.54); Parks = 5.4 mi (8.59); Golf Courses = 6.3 mi (1.89)
November 2012 Draft
2-6
118
0
0
0
rih,nfr.q0tanta- T"t i
Table 2-2
k orecastea n
X,
ew mcv— ...
1665
6.385
50,443
Residential (SF Detached)
DU
f, 322
15,931
Residential (SF Attached)
172
TT)T
1,948
781
Residential (Multi / Other)
I AIG
';Q5
Office (Including)
-General Commercial -
143
Zl�
_lJ37-0
5,110
21,973
Tourist Commercial
138
Rooms
1�360
8
6,098
Public Facilities
32
KSF
84
9
5,559
Schools
0
Acres
0
0
Developed Parks
50
Acres
50
0
429
Golf Courses
817
Acres
817
2 5
TOTALS
* NOTE: some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes.
Table 2-3
UJUIRUM
199,204
62,914
25,216
Residential SF Attached)
7
7,963
3,192
25,214
Residential (Multi / Other)
43
? 14
Office ( lncludin�)
3�
1,265
0�
1
General Commercial
�I
7 KSF
5,050
1 8,�823
Tourist Commercial
345 Rooms
2,490
1,503
Public Facilities
120 KSF
444
4,89
-�c'hools
—115 Acres
115
150
867
Developed Parks
125 Acres
125
199
1,073
Golf Courses
5 134 Acres
5,134
1,540
9,703
TOTALS
3
79,6
59,572
391,475
* NOTE: some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes.
Table 2-3 shows the forecasted ultimate development in La Quinta at build out, as contemplated
in the City of La Quinta 2035 General Plan Update. It represents the sum of existing development
from Table 2-1 and forecasted future development from Table 2-2. Totals shown in Table 2-3
may differ slightly from the sum of figures in the other two tables due to effect of rounding.
November 2012 Draft
119
P9
L A
Ci , o La Writa — Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 3
TRANSpOR TA TION IMPA CT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for street system improvements needed to handle
traffic that will be generated by future development in La Quinta. The capital projects covered by
the recommended impact fees involve only the arterial street system, and include street
improvements, bridges, traffic signals, sound attenuation walls, and right-of-way purchases.
Improvements to collector and local streets are not included in the impact fee analysis.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
This study addresses only improvements to the arterial street system, which serves the entire City.
Consequently, the City will be treated as a single service area for purposes of calculating traffic
impact fees. The time frame covered by this analysis is not defined as a certain number of years,
but rather as the span of time required for build out of the undeveloped land designated for
development in La Quinta General Plan, as amended. That time frame depends on the rate at
which development occurs, and the timing of development fluctuates according to economic
conditions and other factors. Since the rate of development does not affect the calculation of
impact fees addressed in this section of the report, assumptions about that rate are unnecessary
here.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
0 Level of service on the components of circulation systems is evaluated by transportation planners
0 in terms of traffic flow on streets and operational conditions at intersections. As stated in the
Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan, level of service is a qualitative measure of
traffic flow and driver satisfaction. Level of Service (LOS) is evaluated on a scale from "A" to
cterized by free flowing traffic and no delay at intersections. LOS F
'T". LOS A is chara C ion and significant intersection
represents over -saturated conditions resulting in serious congest
delays.
0 The City's Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the minimum peak hour standard for streets
0 in La Quinta, and provides that, no development project shall be approved, without adequate
mitigation, if it will create conditions that violate the standard. The Circulation System Policy
Diagram, which is part of the Circulation Element, identifies the street improvements that will be
ry ar
0 needed to serve anticipated development at the adopted minimum level of se ice stand d. The
0 Diagram is based on traffic modeling done in conjunction with preparation of the Circulation
Element. The capital projects to be funded by traffic impact fees recommended in this section are
0 consistent with the Policy Diagram, and do not include improvements needed to correct existing
0 deficiencies in La Quinta's circulation systems.
0 C. DEMAND VARIABLE
The demand variables used to represent the impact of development on La Quinta's circulation
system are peak hour -trip miles. That variable, which is discussed in Section 2 of this report, is
the product of the number of peak hour trips per unit of development and average trip length by
development type. The use of peak hour -trip miles as a demand variable is intended to reflect the
need for additional street system capacity resulting from new development.
3-1
November 2072 Draft
120
City oUa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Stud
j,
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
The development -related improvement costs to be funded by impact fees calculated in this study
include street widening and extension projects (including right-of-way acquisition), bridge
construction, new traffic signals, sound attenuation walls and reimbursement to prior developers
that installed certain street improvements over and above the conditioned offisite improvements.
Collector and local streets needed to serve new development are assumed to be constructed by
developers as project improvements.
The list of street projects on which the impact fee analysis is based assumes that developers will
be directly responsible for constructing the outside travel lane, plus curb, gutter, sidewalks on
arterial streets fronting their projects. In residential areas this requirement will also include a
parking lane. As a result, the impact fees for arterial streets will cover only the cost of additional
travel lanes (e.g., the two inside lanes on a four -lane arterial), left turn lanes, as well as median
improvements, on those arterials where they do not already exist. Impact fees for street
improvements are intended to cover only the cost of improvements that do not currently exist and
will not be constructed by developers as a condition of project approval. Estimates of costs for
bridges, traffic signals and/or roundabouts to be covered by impact fees assume that a portion of
the cost of some improvements will be contributed by other agencies, such as City of Indio,
Riverside County, or the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG).
Tables 3-1 through 3-6 identify the street system capital improvements attributable to future
development. Total costs for development -related street -system improvements are shown in
Table 3-7. A detailed breakdown of cost estimates is included in Appendix A.
Table 3-1
P
itrpet qv.qtems Improvement Costs — Major Arterials
Fred Waring Drive
$1,050,700
$848,500
TOTAL
$1,050,700
$848,500
See Appendix I for detailed cost estimates
3-2
121
November 2012 Draft
Ci , o La yinta — Develonment Impact Fee Study
Table 3-2
rots — primarvi Secondary Arterials
Table 3-3 shows the cost of bridges needed to serve future development. As noted in the table,
costs for each of the three bridges listed are shared by CVAG and/or funding from the Highway
Bridge Program (HBP) sponsored by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The resulting cost is applied to new development.
Table 3-3
. ------.�-.-�--i--�.-....t,-RridoelMDrovements
Table 3-4 shows the cost of traffic signals and roundabouts needed to serve future development.
As noted in the table, costs for some of these improvements will be shared with other
jurisdictions. -
With the exception of the citywide central control system, all of the signals/roundabouts on the
list will be needed entirely as a result of future development. As indicated in the Table 3-4,
27.39% of the cost of the citywide central control system is attributed to future development,
based on the share of a total build out trip generation contributed by existing and future
development.
2 es up to 75% of the costs ar, funded from CVAG's Regional Arterial
The share assigned to new development Msuno
Program and/or Caltrans Highway Bridge Program
3 Neu, Bridge
3-301 122
November 2012 Draft
City of La Quinta — Developmeni Impact Fee Stud
y
Table 3-4
c; ... 1.1 M.rl�rn Rroindabouts
�j N� TIZO Eli
Traffic Signal
�[' 1-11
$430,000
&,
Done raim� V,vau
Cor orate Center Dr.
Washington Street & Via
Sevilla
Traffic Sign-1111
4 0.000
Washington Street & LaKe La
QuintaDr.
Caleb Bay & Avenue 47
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal
$430,000
$430,000
100%
Eisenhower Drive &
Montezurna
Traffic Signal
$430.000
100%
Eisenhower Drive & Sinaloa
Two Lane Roundabout
$846�000
Calle Tampico & Civic Center
Wa
Traffic Sig
Madison Street & Avenue 54
two Lane Roundabout
"iv -vv
Madison Street & Avenue 58
Two Lane Roundabout
$8Z�vOOO
100%
$846,000
M adison Street & Avenue 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 52
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
25%
$211,500
Monroe Street & Avenue 54
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
50%
$423,000
Monroe Street & Airport
Boulevard
Traffic Signal
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 58
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
50%
$423,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 61
Traffic Signal
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Monroe Street & Avenue 62
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
25%
$211,500
Orchard & Avenue 50
Traffic Signal
$430,000
25%
�Inl 4nn
Jefferson Street & Dunbar
Traffic Signal
$43U00
25%
$107,50U]
Jefferson Street & Avenue 52
Three Lane
Roundabout
$1,000,000
27.39%
$273,900
Jefferson Street & Avenue 53
Traffic Signal
$430,000
50%
$215,000
-
Jefferson Street & Avenue 54
Traffic Signal
$430.000
75%
$322,500
Citywide Central Control
sl,100,000
27 1()0/,
TOTAL $14,874,000
3-4
November 2012 Draft
123
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studi,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3-5 shows the cost of sound attenuation walls expected to be required as a result of future
development. The cost of sound walls adjacent to developed property are included in the impact
fee calculations because the City has determined that future development will increase traffic
noise levels to a point where sound attenuation will be required. The cost of sound walls for
undeveloped property will be handled case by case, as part of the development approval process.
Table 3-5
Street System Improvement - hound Attenuation wauh
" q NU SNAM,
Fast Madison at Trilogy $192,115
TOTALS $192,115
Table 3-6 shows the developer completed improvements with City Council approved Developer
Reimbursement Agreements (DRAs). In accordance with the approved agreements,
reimbursement will be provided when Transportation DIF funding becomes available and when
the project receives funding priority.
Table 3-6
�--1 ----
W
Avenue 50 Raised Landscape Median (1/2
$627,972
Mountain View CC
30357
Median) — Between Jefferson & Madison
14-Foot Wide Lan scape Median
Esplanade
29323-1
Improvements — Fred Waring Between Port
$103,083
Maria Road to Jefferson Street
Avenue 50 Raised Landscape Median — Park
$239,000
Rancho La Quinta
29283
-
Avenue to Orchard Lane
—
Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Mediawn (1/
Median) — Madison Street to 1/2 Mile East of
$669,920
Madison Club
33076
Madison Street and One Lane (Inside Lane)
Southside Street improvements
Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median — All
$1,344,690
Hideaway
29894-2
American Canal to Madison Street
Avenue 52 Street Improvements North Side
Mountain View CC
30357
Along Development's Southerly Boundary —
$112,723
Between Jefferson/ All American Canal
—
Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median — Ali
$463,894
Clubhouse Apartments
SDP 2002-730
American Canal to Madison Street
—
I
Dune Palms Road — Landscaped Median
Sam's Club Retail
SDP 2005-824
Island (Highway I I I to South End of Parcel
$228,697
3,1 126.7 Ft. North of Avenue 48)
—
Madison Street — Two Lanes and Median
Club
33076
Between Avenue 52 and 54 (Median
$1,394,665
Landscape on Future Separate Agreement)
EMadison
ECIub
11
Avenue 54 — Paved Painted Median Lane
Madison
33076
and One Inside Lane (Madison Street to
$524,010
Monroe Street
Total DIF Eligible Developer Reimbursement Agreements:
4 Cost of walls adjacentto developed property is included in the impact fee calculation.
November 2012 Draft 124
Cav of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-7 shows the total cost of development -related capital improvement from Tables 3-1
through 3-6. The overall total in that table will be used as the basis for the impact fee calrulation.
Table 3-7
hv Tvne
Street system ImProve"'c'M 'u-
-_ . . -_ % 11 t, i I
M.
$848,500
Maj . or Arterials
$14,188,602
Primary/Secondary Arterials
$8,952,500
Bridges
$9,729,190
Traffic Signals
$192,115
Sound Attenuation
$5,708,654
Developer Reimbursement Aereements
$39,619,561
TOTAL
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 3-8 shows the calculation of the unit cost per peak hour trip -mile. To establish that unit
cost, the total cost of development related improvements from Table 3-7 is divided by the
projected volume of peak hour trip -miles to . be added by new development, from Table 2-2,
Section 2.
Table 3-8
5 See Table 3-6
6 See Table 2-2
7 Improvement cost per peak hour uip equals total eligible improvement cost divided by the added peak hour trip miles.
November 2012 Draft 3-4 125
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Stud')
Table 3-9 shows the conversion of the cost per peak hour trip -mile from table 3-7 into
standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for each category of development. This conversion is
based on the essential number of peak hour trip -miles per unit of development for each land use
category. As discussed in Section 10, implementation, we recommend that the impact fees be
formally adopted in terms of the cost per trip, as shown in Table 3-8.
Table 3-9
v
Standardized Impact Fees- Street Improvements
DU
Residential SFD
$2,378
Residential SFA
DU
$2,378
Residential MFO
DU
4.90
$297.98
$1,460
Office/ Hospital
KSF
13.12
S297.98
$3,909
General Commercial
KSF
16.04
$297.98
$4,780
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
4.49
$297.98
$1,338
Public Facilities
ACRE
66.18
$297.98
$19.720
Schools
ACRE
7.54
$297.98
$1247
Parks
ACRE
8.59
$297.98
$2.560
Golf Courses
ACRE
1.89
$297.98
$563
The standardized fees shown in Table 3-9 allocate a portion of the cost of future street
improvements to future public facilities, schools, and parks, reflecting the fact that those land
uses do generate traffic. However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future
private development, the traffic they generate is also attributable to future private development.
To reflect that reality, the costs allocated to public facilities in Table 3-9 will be reallocated to
private development. All of the costs attributed, to schools and parks will be reallocated to
residential development, because those facilities serve only residential development. Costs
attributed to other public facilities will be reallocated to all development.
The method used to redistribute the costs attributed to public facilities is as follows:
Calculate the total cost allocated to each public facility category. Multiply the fee per
unit of development from Table 3-9 by the number of units of development shown in
Table 2-2. Divide that amount by the sum of all peak hour trip -miles generated by the
receiving group of private land use category. The resulting cost per peak hour trip -mile is
then added to the fees shown in table 3-9 for each of the receiving categories. Table 3-10
summarizes the adjustments to allocated cost per trip mile.
See Table 2-1, Notes 3,4 ad 5
See Table 3-8
Fee per unit of development = peak hour trip -miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile, Fees rounded to the nearest
dollar.
3-7
1,)6
November 2012 Draft
City o(La Quinto — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-10
AU U3t.0
fit
it
_7051,
0 AMR,
DU
$297.98
16.95
DU
S297.98
$16.95
Residential MFO
-DU
$297.98
$16.95
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$297.98
$16.95
$314.93
General Commercial
KSF
$297.98
S16.95
$314.93
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
$297.98
$16.95
$314.93
N
Public Facilities
Al_�
�Udll. E
Schools
ACRE
Realloc
1:11.1i
Parks
ACRE
$314.93
Golf Courses
ACRE
$16.9f
Finally, the adjusted cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-10 can be substituted for the initial
cost per peak hour trip -mile in Table 3-9 to arrive at the final adjusted impact fee per unit of
development. The adjusted fees are shown in Table 3-11 on the following page. The difference
between the initial fees and the adjusted fees can be seen by comparing the impact fees, in Tables
3-9 and 3-10.
I I See Table 3-7
12 Reallocated Public Facilities cost = 84 KSF of future public Facilities x 66.18 Peak Hour Trip Miles per KSF x Initial
Allocation of $297.98 per Peak Hour Trip Miles/97,921 Peal, Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving development
an increase of $16.95 per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development
13 Reallocated Schools cost = 0 Acres of Future Schools x 7.54 Peal, Hour Trip Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $297.98
per Peak Hour Trip Mile /61,313 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development
= an increase of $0.00 Per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development
14 Reallocated Parks cost-- 50 Acres of Future Parks x 8.59 Peak Hour Trip Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $297.98
per Peak Hour Trip Miles/61,313 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development = an
increase of $2.09 per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development
15 Adjusted cost per Peak Hour Trip Mile = the sum of initial cost per Peak Hour Trip Mile plus the reallocated public
facility, school and park costs for each land use category
3-�
November 2012 Drqft
121
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studil
Table 3-11
,, A ..... a unninvirt Fees- Street Improvements
DU
Ilp".1gym. w!g !;v
I I �, �� "I
Ir
7.98
!Iq
,,
$317.02
1 -1 V4cfF
$
Residential SFD
QV A
DIT
7.98
$317.02
-Residential-MFO -
L)U
Office/ Hospital
KSF
.12
113
General Commercial
KSF
.04
$314.93
$5,051
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
49
$3 14.93
$1,414
Public Facilities
ACRE
IT)
$314.93 $595
Schools
ACRE
7.54
Parks
ACRE
Golf Courses
ACRE
1 89
Table 3-12 projects the impact fee revenue that would be realized from future development, if
these fees were applied to all development projected in Table 2-2.
Table 3-12
Iliminnet Fee Revenue from Future Development
Residential SFD
Residential SFA
DU
DU
a 'fflaa
$2,530
$2,530
6385
781
$16,153,367
$1,975,095
Residential MFO
DU
$1,553
595
$924,577
ffice/ Hospital
KSF
$4,132
112.
'"'Joy'vio I
General Commercial
KSF
$5,051
5110
$25,813,629
Tourist Commercial
luo—om
$1,414
802
$1,134,626
Public Facilities
ACRE
$0
927
$0
Schools
ACRE
$0
0
$0
Parks
ACRE
so
80
so
Golf Co rses
ACRE
$595
245
$114,88
$49,336,261
16 See Table 2-1, Notes 3, 4 and 5.
17 See Table 3-10.
is Fee per unit of development equals the peak, hour trip miles per unit of development times the cost per peak- hour trip mile.
Fees we rounded to the nearest dollar. Note that the fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost
of the study. (See Executive Summary),
19 See Table 3-11
20 See Table 2-2 — Peak Hour Trips
21 impact Fee Revenue = adjusted fee per unit of development x future units of development
3-9�
November 2012 Draft
128
SECTION 4
PARKS & pECREA TION IMPACT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for parks required to serve future development in
La Quinta. Land (or fees in lieu of land) for future parks, will be acquired by the city from sub
dividers under the provisions of the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). Park impact fees
calculated in this section of the report are intended to cover only the cost of the park
improvements, and will be levied in addition to any land dedication or fee -in -lieu requirements
imposed pursuant to the Quimby Act.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
The facilities addressed in this section include both neighborhood and community parks.
City
Functionally, neighborhood parks are intended to serve a specific part of the while
community parks serve the entire City. However, some parks in La Quinta serve both functions.
As a result, the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a combined level of service
standard for neighborhood and community parks. Those fees will be calculated on a citywide
basis, and applied to new development in all parts of the City. No specific time firame is specified
in this analysis because the method used to calculate park impact fees does not depend on the
timing of development or the total amount of development to be served.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
At present, parks and recreation facilities in La Quinta are provided both by the City, and by the
Desert Recreation District (DRD). Because parks owned by both entities were ftinded by
residents of La Quinta, all existing facilities will be considered in establishing the existing level
of service. This study does not distinguish between neighborhood and community parks because
only basic park improvements are covered by the impact fees.
Table 4-1 lists La Quinta's existing parks. Not included is the 845-acre Lake Cahuilla Regional
Park, which is located in La Quinta, but owned by Riverside County. Regional parks are not
considered in the calculation park impact fees.
November 2012 Draft 4-1t 129
Citv o(La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Studv
0
0
0
0
0
Table 4-1
Mg
Adams Park
Nei hborhood Park
3.5
Civic Center C us
Community Park
17.5
Desert Pride Park
Neighborhood Park
I
Eisenhower Park
Mini Park
� I
Fritz Bums Park
Community Park
12
La Quinta Park
Community Park
18
Quinta Community Park (Frances Hack)
Communit Park
6.5
-La
Monticello Park
Nei hborhood Park
4
Pioneer Park
Neighborhood Park
3.2
Paige Middle School Sports Fields
Community Park
7
Saguaro Park
Mini Park
0.75
Avenue 50 Sports Complex
Community Park
16.75
Park
Neighborhood Park
5
-Seasons
Velasco Park
Mini Park
0.25
JOTAL
W; 95
The existing level of service for parks in La Quinta will be defined in ternas of acres of existing
developed park land per 1,000 residents. Table 4-2 computes the existing level of service. Policy
PR-1.2 in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan established a standard of 5.0
acres of improved neighborhood and community park acreage per thousand residents. However,
the level of service calculated during the development of the Development Impact Fees, as shown
in Table 4-2, will be used to calculate the impact fees for parks and recreation facilities.
Table 4-2
Level of Service -Improved Park Ac alye 4' 3:
H
`A
pppx
95.95 59,338 1.62
C. DEMAND VARIABLE
As indicated above, population is used here as the variable representing the need for parks in La
Quinta. Population is almost universally accepted as the proper basis for establishing level -of -
service standards for parks, and is used in the Quimby Act, in the City's General Plan, and by the
National Recreation and Parks Association. As used in this section, population is defined as the
potential population of the City, if all dwelling units were occupied. (See Section 2)
See Table 4-1
Population figures used in this study are based on 100% occupancy of all ensting dwelling units
November 2012 Draff
4-2
,P 130
I
Citv oLLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Stuth,
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
In this study, the need for park improvements is defined in terms of park acreage per capita as
discussed above. The cost for required park facilities is established on a per capita basis, and park
impact fees per dwelling unit are based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit for
each category of residential development. No park impact fees will be charged to nonresidential
development.
Based upon a review of recent construction bids for Park construction in the region, an estimated
cost of $500,000 per acre will be used to calculate the park development impact fee. The
estimated cost used in this analysis covers park improvements such as landscape and irrigation,
picnic facilities, playgrounds, and sports fields. It does not include the cost of facilities such as
tennis courts or swimming pools, which would have to be funded from other sources.
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 4-3 shows the calculated of the cost per capita for park improvements described above,
using the level of service standard previously described.
Table 4-3
Park Improvements - Cost Per Capita
N"
W�--n
- 4�
4-11
Rik T
A, -0 or!
i0600 VRMSIV; 5 'V,a EV
$500,000 1 62 $808.50 20,298 $16,411,011
3 Cost Estimate by City of La Quinta Community Semices DepaTtment.
4 See Table 4-2
5 See Table 2-2
November 2012 Draft 4-3 ` 131
Ciry ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
Table 4-4 shows the conversion of the cost per capita from Table 4-3 into standardized impact
fees per dwelling unit for the three categories of residential development. This conversion is
provided for administrative convenience. However, for reasons explained in Section 10
(Implementation) we recommend that the impact fee be formally adopted in terms of the cost per
capita shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-4
Standardized Impact Fees - Park Improvements
M,
R
y
L
0
'M
Residential SFD
DU
2.52
$808.50
$2,048
Residential SFA
DU
2.52
$808.50
$2,048
Residential MFO
DU
1 2.52
$808.50
$2,048
Table 4-5 projects total revenue from the park impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars,
that would be collected from the future development to pay for park improvements.
Table 4-5
Project Impacted Fee Revenue from Future Development
K
.81 P., U�
"M
�"BW- I
B, t� i i 1 1 Z-7
� �:
5c-�":- ,
R
!eaw
PIP
.20 Wr �5 M� A, Ng!);
"
'; .1
�' "', - h';
. .........
-K
5 , '-H %Nil
0197
Residential SFD
DU
$2,048
6,322
$12,948,931
Residential SFA
DU
$2,048
773
$1,583,217
Residential MFO
I DU
$2,048
960
$1,966,200
TOTAL
$16,498,3
6 See Table 2- 1, Note 2
7 See Table 4-3
9 Fee per Unit of Development � Demand per Unit x Development x Cost per Unit of Demand. Fees munded to nearest
dollar, Note that these fees have been increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive
Summary)
9 See Table 4-4
10 See Table 2-2
11 Impact fee revenue — impact fee per unit of development x future units of development
November 2012 Draft ', 4-4 132
Citv ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
SECTION 5
CII17C CENTER IMPACT FEES
This section of the report addressed impact fees for the La Quinta Civic Center. The existing
Civic Center was originally constructed in 1993. As presented in Section 2, the City has
experienced considerable growth since 1993, which resulted in the need for an additional 22,000
square foot expansion of the original facility. The Civic Center expansion was completed in
April 2008. The expanded Civic Center should now be capable of serving the City's needs
through build out.
As with all impact fee funded public facilities, a long term collection period is needed to generate
the necessary impact fee funding share. In this case, the impact fee funds will not be completely
collected until "build -out" of the City. In order to meet the demands of existing and future
development, it was necessary to either loan funding from the City's General Fund and/or issue
long term revenue bonds to construct the Civic Center. The loans and revenue bonds will be paid
back annually as new development occurs and fees are collected.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
The Civic Center has a citywide service area, so the impact fees for that facility will be calculated
on a citywide basis. The time frame for this analysis is from July 1, 2012 through build -out of all
development contemplated in the General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
For facilities of the type addressed in this section, level of service standards is generally implied
rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build out required facilities without
formally adopting a standard. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based
on the recently expanded facilities and will be discussed in more detail later in this section.
1411130 001AILTMIM111"
In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship
between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to
represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility.
Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or at least correlate
with, the need for additional capital improvements.
For facilities such as water and sewer systems, service usage can be physically measured and
attributed to specific types of development. However, the relationship between development and
the need for Civic Center facilities is complex and, in some cases, indirect.
It is self-evident that the need for administrative facilities in any city generally increases as the
city grows. Nevertheless, the relationship between specific types of development and the need for
administrative facilities is difficult to quantify. In La Quinta, the Civic Center houses staff from
all City departments. Given the multiplicity of services supported by the Civic Center, and the
indirect relationship between development and the demand for some of those services, no single
attribute of development neatly represents the effect of development on space needs in that
facility. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to use generalized measure of development to
approximate service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees.
November 2012 Draft 5-1
13 3
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Citv o[La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 5-1
Developed Acreage ( Excluding Public Facilities)
tot �gp�!�
M, W Kn H,
M"�r
Mm�T-E� j7
"', _`� ":M
.. .. ....
-URW�,p� ik; a
A�,
. . .
Residential (SF Detached)
4,453
1,665
6.118
Residential (SF Attached)
530
172
702
Residential (Multi / Other)
3t5
120
435
Office ( Including Hospitals)
78
54
132
General Commercial
384
143
527
Tourist Commercial
207
138
345
Golf Courses (5% of total aacage)
216
41
257
TOTALS
6,183
2,333
8,516
% of Total
72.61%
27.39%
100%
Acreage is the most general measure of development, and is applicable to all types of
development, and developed acreage will be used here as the demand variable in analyzing
impact fees for the Civic Center. If all future developed acreage were included in the cost
allocation formula, a portion of the cost for Civic Center facilities would be allocated to parks,
schools, and other public facilities. In table 5-1, acreage devoted to those uses is excluded from
the cost allocation in this section, because those public uses do not create a demand for the
services supported by the Civic Center facilities. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of
course acreage devoted to the clubhouse and related facilities will be considered developed for
purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of the total acreage.
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
The original La Quinta civic center, which was completed in 1993, contained 33,000 square feet
of gross floor area. The City has experienced considerable growth since 1993. This new growth
resulted in the need for the anticipated 22,000 square feet expansion of the original facility. The
resulting 55,000 square foot building is now expected to serve the City's needs well into the
future. Although additional facilities may be needed prior to build out, this study makes the
conservative assumption that the existing Civic Center and the recently completed expansion will
serve the City's needs through build out. Because the Civic Center serves both the existing and
future development, the costs of the entire facility will be allocated on the same basis to both
existing and future development. Credit will be given in the analysis for non -impact fee
contributions to the cost of the facility.
As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in the allocation of Civic Center costs is
developed acreage. Table 5-1 tabulates developed acreage for existing and future development,
using data from Section 2. As indicated in Table 5-1, future development accounts for 27.39% of
total developed acreage at build out. Consequently, 27.39% of eligible Civic Center costs will be
assigned to future development in tIns analysis.
See Table 2-1
See Table 2-2
See Table 2-3
November 2012 Draft
5-2
134
Ciry otLa Otanta — Development Impact Fee Studv
Table 5-2 shows the total cost ofthe existing civic center, which is defined in this analysis as the
sum of past and future cash outlays, plus the present value of future debt service payments on
bonds used to finance construction. The present value calculation discounts all expenditures for
inflation at an assumed 3.5% annual rate, resulting in an effective real interest rate of
approximately 3% per year on outstanding debt. The share of Civic Center costs, including debt
service, paid by the redevelopment agency (RDA 30%) and by future general fund contributions
(40%) is not included in the future funds needs for impact fee calculations. The Civic Center
22,000 expansion is complete. The costs presented below are based on the actual project costs
assigned to the impact fee. The future ftmds needed for the Civic Center debt service attributable
to the Development -Impact Fees (30%) have not been discounted because of the need to construct
the Civic Center expansion before all Civic Center impact fees are collected. The Civic Center
DIF collected would then be used to pay debt service on the existing bonds and repay the RDA
for the expansion. No interest costs have been added to the DIF for this RDA advance.
Table 5-2
Civic Center Costs
—v ; -
%
-j!i!;" Mr
TL 'T";�
Civic Center (Revenue Bonds) 4
$11,382,746
$3,646,495
Civic Center (Infrastructure Fund cash outlays)
$4,856,788
Civic Center general Fund cash outlays)
$1,407,182
Future Civic Center Expansion 5
$12,651,000
$12,651,000
Sub -Total
$30,297,716
$16,297,495
Less Developer Fe s Collected
($5,174,467)
Future Development Shares
6 $8,299,967
$11,123,028
Table 5-2 summarizes Civic Center costs, and the portion of that cost to be funded in the future.
The costs eligible to be recovered through impact fees are based on the percentage of total cost
attributable to future development, based on the percentage of total demand created by that
development.
4 Based on present value of debt service payments for the 1991 and the subsequent 1996 Rebinding Bond, discounted
inflation at 3.5% per year.
5 Based on the actual construction costs
6 Based on the 27.39% sham of total eligible cost. See Table 5-1
November 2012 Draft 5-3
135
Citv of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 5-3 shows the civic center future funding needs, from Table 5-2, divided by the developed
acreage of future development to establish the average cost per developed acre.
Table 5-3
C'ivi, C'Pntpr Cnet Allnr2tinn
XNAU
A
lllil IR
$8,299,967
2,333
1 $3,558
Table 54 shows the conversion of cost per developed acre from Table 5-3 into standardized
impact fees per unit of development for various land uses categories.
Table 5-4
Standardized InWact Fees - Civic Center
is
Vil ql'
-.0%,
'0100:4'
!i!ji"
-4y
iM
�"` I-W
t1ger
!J1,
R-
'Oe P'U
'WrM MPP
XWWMKMKI�
�
E
Residential SFD
1,665
$3,558
$5,923,846
"$426,944960
6,322
DU
$942
Residential SFA
172
$3 , 558
$611,953
773
DU
$796
Residential MFO
120
$3,558
DU
$447
Office/ Hospital
54
$3,558
$192,125
518
KSF
$373
General Commercial
143
$3,558
$508,775
1.370
KSF
$373
Tourist Commercial
138
$3,558
$490,985
1,360
Room
$363
Golf Courses
41
$3,558
$145,339
817
Acre
$179
7 See Table 5-2
8 See Table 5-1
9 See Table 2-2. For Golf Courses, developed acreage is assmed to � 5% of total acreage
10 See Table 5-3
11 Cost for Category = Future Development Acres x Cost per Developed Acre. This colurnn represents the total cost allocated
to each land use category
12 See Table 2-2
13 Fee per unit of Development — cost for category/future units of Development Fees rounded to the nearest dollar. Note that
these fees have been increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study. (See Executive Summary)
November 2012 Draft 5-4 '� U6
Cav ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
Table 5-5 projects total revenue from the impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that
would be collected from future development to pay for Civic Center improvements.
Table 5-5
0--+�A T--+ rna Dawan.va fvnm V,,t,.vp 11PvPinnmPnt
Q
f5l
Ak "h , ng
0
Residential SFD
DU
$942
6,322
$5,955,243
Residential SFA
DU
$796
773
$615,196
Residential MFO
DU
$447
960
$429,207
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$373
518
$193,143
General Commercial
KSF
$373
1,370
$511,471
Tourist Commercial
Room
$363
1,360
$493,588
Golf Courses
Acre
$179
817
$146,109
$8,343,957
14 See Table 54
15 See Table 2-2
16 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development
November 2012 Draft
5-5 - 1k
131
Citv ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
SECTION 6
LIBR,4RYIMPACT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future
development in La Quinta. Library services in the City are currently provided by the Riverside
City -County Library System. The City of La Quinta recently completed the construction of a
new 20,000 square foot library facility within the Civic Center Campus. The new library facility
was paid for with a loan from the City Redevelopment Agency. It is intended that fees collected
from new development will repay the loan and provide the revenue necessary to expand library
operations in the future. It is not -clear -at this time whether La Quints will ultimately -choose to
operate its own library, or continue its agreement with the Riverside City -County Library System
to operate the City owned library facility, but that decision does not affect the capital costs or the
impact fee calculations.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be
calculated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from July 1, 2012 through
the build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
The public facilities element of the La Quints General Plan includes the following planning
standard for libraries: 0.5 square feet of library space per capita and 2 volumes, per capita.
However, for purposes of establishing impact fees, the City has chosen to use a lower standard of
0.22 square feet of library space per capita, which equates to a 20,000 square foot library to serve
the population projected at build out. That standard will be used to establish an impact fee for
library buildings in La Quinta. The adopted standard of 1.2 volumes per capita will be used for
library materials.
C. DEMAND VARIABLES
In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship
between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to
represent the effect of various types of development and the need for a particular type of facility.
Population is the universally accepted basis for defining library facility needs, and will be used as
the demand variable in allocating the cost of those facilities.
November 2012 Draft 6-1 , A
V 13U
0
0
Citi, ofLa Ouinta Q--f-p—i 1-1 Fee Studv
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
Table 6-1 shows cost for library facilities needed to meet the planning standard defined above for
the projected City of La Quinta population build out.
Table 6-1
Llh�.�� Cnctc
Ni.
-H
ME' ii
H g:�9�0'
-�,iv m'pg
On, 'E.
4
H
hk Awn
V; ",
p'2
T
a
—a gir'� , I I
.... .
Utalm
x V—P
W2.,
Design/Construction
20000 GSF
$8,500,000 1
79,636
$106.74
Land
2.0 Acres
$261,360 2
79,636
$3.28
Materials
103,128 Volumes
$2,062,560 3
79,636
$25.90
Total
$10,823,920
1 $135.92 1
It is generally accepted that the City may not legally charge impact fees to new development to
support a level of service higher than the level of service provided the existing community.
Otherwise, fees charged to new development could result in subsidy to existing development.
Since the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a level of service standard higher
than the existing level of service, they can be justified only if the City were to eliminate the
existing deficiency relative to the proposed service standard. The cost of doing so would have to
be paid with funds other than impact fees.
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 6-2 converts the per capita costs in Table 6-1 to impact fees per unit of development.
Because population is used as the demand variable in this case, library impact fees apply only to
residential development.
Table 6-2
1.�.,t Foot - Lihrsirioq
4',N�— 1- -',. ;#�'
�W �10" - "p-,
I I - I 1 -111,111, "1 , -41-- - I , 11 " 11 1 '— "'i�
.14i�jj�t � Z ;V
Residential SFD
DU
2.52 $135.92 $344
Residential SFA
DU
2.52 $135.92 $344
Residential MFO
DU
2.52 $135.92 $344
I The total cost presented has been adjusted to reflect the actual cost of chisign and the awarded construction contract
2 Based on a cost of $3.00 per square foot
3 Based on average cost of $20.00 per volume
4 See Table 2- 1, Note 2
5 See Table 6-1
6 Fee per unit of development = population per unit of development x cost per capita. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note
that these fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Summary)
November 2012 Draft 6-2
_ l�
139
Citv o�La ()uinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 6-3 projects total revenue from the library impact fees. That is the amount, in current
dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for library improvements through
build out, at the recommended fee levels.
Table 6-3
Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
... .. .....
Ak
Rk
;M
u �p "Ov
Residential SFD DU $344 6,322 $2,176,842
Residential SFA DU $344 773 $266,154
Residential MFO DU $344 960 $330,537
1 1 1 $2,773.534
See Table 6-2
See Table 2-2
Impact Fee Revetme = impact fee pu unit of development x boom units of development
November 2012 Draft
r'VJ
it - 140
Citv oLLa Quinta — Development Imnact Fee Studv
SECTION 7
COMMUNITY CENTER IMPA CT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for the community center facilities required to
serve future development in La Quinta. The City has three public facilities that function as
existing community center facilities, the multipurpose room and classrooms at the La Quinta
Senior Center, the multipurpose room at the La Quinta Museum, and the community room at the
La Quinta Boys and Girls Club.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be
calculated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from July 1, 2012 through
build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City has adopted a level of service standard for the community center facilities. In this
analysis, the current ratio of community center building area to population will be used as the
level of service standard. In other words, the level of service used in computing impact fees for
future development will be identical to the current level of service for existing development. The
existing ratio of facilities to population is shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
s ng evel of Service - Com enter Facilities
NOR vq�ftl
7,100 59,338 0.12
C. DEMAND VARIABLE
Population is used here to define the relationship between development and facility needs, and
will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for community center facilities.
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
Table 7-2 shows cost per capita for community center facilities needed to meet the level of
service defined in Table 7-1. All amounts are in current dollars.
Table 7-2
Standardized Imnact Fees - Communitv Center Facilities
S
9, '0
'F'� �F'
$425.00
0.12
$50.85
I Based on 5,300 sq ft multi-purpose/ciass roams at La Quinta Senior Center; I X0 sq It multi -purpose mom at La Quinta
Museum; and 800 sq ft community room at Lz Quirna Boys and Girls Club
2 See Table 2-1
3 Cost provided by Department of Building and Safety
4 See Table 7-1
November 2012 Draft 7-1
141
Citv ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 7-3 converts the per capita costs in Table 7-2 to impact fees per unit of development.
Because population is used as the demand variable in this case, impact fees apply only to
residential development.
Table 7-3
Stand2rdized Imnaet Fpeq - Cnmmnnhtv Cpntpr Fneilitioc
_Rt
"h -i� -"42'
aH
�M
. .... . ....
Residential SFD Dwelling Unit
2.52
$50.85
$129
Residential SFA Dwelling Unit
2.52
$50.85
$129
Residential MFO Dwelling Unit
2.52
$50.85
$129
Table 7-4 projects the total revenue from the community center impact fees. That is the amount,
in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for community center
improvements.
Table 7-4
Proiected IMUSIVIt Fee Revenue frnm- Fiitiirp Y)PvPlnnmAnt
OL
M
DU
$129
6,321.
$814,453
-Residential SFA
DU
$129
773
$99,580
Residential MFO
DU
$129
960
$123,669
$1,037,702
5 See Table 2-1, Note 2
6 See Table 7-2
7 Fee per unitof development = population per unit of development x cost per capita. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note
that these fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Sunmnary)
8 See Table 7-3
9 See Table 2-2
10 [mpact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of Development x future units of development
November 2012 Draft 7-2
142
Citv ofLa Quinta - Development Impact Fee Studv
SECTION 8
MAINTENANCE FA CILITY IMPA CT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for maintenance facilities required to serve future
development in La Quinta. At present, the City's corporation yard is no longer meeting the
existing need caused by new development. The City's corporation yard requires expansion to
meet the demands of existing and future development.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so La Quinta will be
considered a single benefit area in assessing impact fees for those facilities. The time frame for
this analysis is from July 1, 2012 through build out of all development contemplated in the
General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
For the type of facilities addressed in this section, level of service standards is generally implied
rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build required facilities without
formally adopting a standard. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based
on the existing level of service, that is, the relationship between existing development and the
City's investment in current facilities, will be used as the basis for calculating impact fees for
maintenance facilities.
C. DENIAND VARIABLES
In calculating impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship
between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to
represent the effect of various types of development on the need for particular type of facility.
The City corporation yard includes facilities for parking and maintaining vehicles and equipment
employed in street and park maintenance operations. The Public Works Department estimates
that the street maintenance accounts for 80% of those facility needs. Facility costs related to street
maintenance will be allocated using the same variable applied to street improvements, that is,
peak hour trip -miles. The remaining 20% of facility costs, wh�ch supports park maintenance, will
be allocated in the same manner as park facilities costs, using population as the demand variable.
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
The existing corporation yard facilities are not adequate to meet the City's current needs. The
existing level of service, stated in terms of the City's investment in current facilities, is calculated
in Table 8-1.
November 2012 Draft 8-1 143
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
Citv o�La Ouinta — Develooment Impact Fee Studv
Table 8-1
Estimated Value of Existing, City Corporation Yard
is z,
s :i
TsfimatedCos.!'
Site — Land Value (126,700 sq ft @ $7.50)
$950,250
Existing Corporation Yard Facilities
$3,768,443
Total Estimated Cost of Existing City Corporation Yard:
$4,718,693
The City's current investment per unit of demand for street and park maintenance facilities will
be applied to future development to calculate impact fees for those facilities. That is, the cost
from Table 8-1 will be divided by the existing demand and the resulting unit cost will be used as
the basis for the impact fees. The current cost per unit of demand, for each facility type is
calculated in Table 8-2. All amounts are current dollars.
Table 8-2
Cost Per I Tnit of Demand - Street and Dark Maintenance Facilities
;0� Nil p,� MR 'M
is
—F
I's is I
Maintenance
262,174 2
$3,774,954
$14.40
-Street
Maintenance
59,3383
$943,739
$15.90
-Park
Totals
$4,718,693
E. EMPACT FEES
Tables 8-3 and 8-4 convert the cost per unit of demand from Table 8-2 into impact fees per unit
of development for street and park maintenance facilities, respectively.
I Based on Public Works Department estimate that 80% of facilities are used for street maintenance and 20% for park
maintenance
2 See Table 2- 1, Demand for street improvements is stated in terms of peak hour trip miles. Parks, schools, and other public
facilities are not included in this analysis because demand created by those users is ultimately attributable to the private
development served by those uses. 1
3 See Table 2- 1, Demand for park maintenance is stated in terms of population.
November 2012 Draft
8-2
. 144
Gtv oLLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
Table 8-3
Standardized Impact Fees - Street Maintenance Facilities
A,
01—
.... ...... . ... —""'
q,
0.;
Residential SFD
DU
7.98
$14.40
$116
Residential SFA
DU
7.98
$14.40
$116
Residential MFO
DU
4.90
$14.40
$71
Office/Hospital
KSF
13.12
$14.40
$190
General Commercial
KSF
16.04
$14.40
$232
Tourist Commercial
Room
4.49
$14.40
$65
Golf Courses
Acre
1.89
$14.40
$27
Table 8-4
Standardized Impact Fees — Park Maintenance Facilities
.
.. .... ....
U'A a WJ a, E
"1W
M""
W
M
X,K
Residential SFD
DU
2.52
$15.90
$40
Residential SFA
DU
2.52
$15.90
$40
Residential MFO
DU
2.52
$15.90
$40
Table 8-5 projects total revenue from the street and park maintenance impact fees. That is the
amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for
maintenance facilities.
4 Demand is measured by peak hourtrip miles. See Table 2-1, Notes 4 and 5
5 See Table 9-2
6 Fee per unit oidevelopment = demand units per unit oftlevelopment x cost per unit of demand. Fees rounded to nearest
dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive
Surrumury)
7 Demand is measured by population per unit of development. See Table 2- 1, Note 3
8 See Table 8-2
9 Fee per unit ofdevelopment — demand units per unit ofdevelopment x cost per unit ofdemand. Fees rounded to nearest
dollar. Note that these fees have been incretised by a factor ofO.0053 to incorporate the cost ofthis study. ( See Executive
Summary)
November 2012 Draft 8-3
. 0 145
Citv ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studi,
Table 8-5
Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Developments
.P.gfl
E� �ml,
T
!M ��N', ;k2'TLtINW9-q
�N g- N
It .;Q.t,�
"al
w
'N"
Residential SFD
DU
$156
6,322
$984,981
Residential SFA
DU
$156
773
$120,434
-Residential MFO
DU
$111
960
$106,768
Office/Hospital
KSF
$190
518
$98,374
General Commercial
KSF
$232
1,370
$318,085
Tourist Commercial
Room
$65
1,360
$88,390
Golf Courses
Acre
$27
817
$22,351
I S1,739,383
10 Combined fee per unit of development = sums of street and park maintenance fees per unit of development from Tables 8-3
and 8-4
11 See Table 2-2
12 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future arms of development
November 2012 Draft
8-4
14 6
Citv oLLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SECTION 9
FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
This section addresses impact fees for fire protection facilities required to serve future
development in La Quinta. Fire protection in La Quinta is the responsibility of the Riverside
County Fire Department, and is contracted to the California Department of Forestry. Three fire
stations exist in La Quinta at present. The City's North Area Station was constructed with furids
that were advanced, or loaned to the DIF, from other funding sources. The newest of these
stations is the recently constructed Village Cove Area Station which was constructed with County
Fire Credit Funds. The Village/Cove Area Station did not receive loans from any other funding
source and is no longer considered in the calculation Of future Fire Protection Facility Impact
Fees.
A fourth City fire station is in the site selection process. The fourth station is intended to serve
areas of the City that are currently underserved, as well as, new development in the southeastern
parts of the City and the unincorporated County areas, specifically the Vista Santa Rosa
community.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide
first response emergency calls, all fire protection facilities operate as part of an integrated
citywide system. The resources of the entire system are needed to provide adequate fire
protection in any part of the City. Thus, it makes sense to treat the entire City as a single service
area for purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees. That approach is further supported by
the fact that calculating separate impact fees for individual fire station service areas may well
impose significantly different charges on similar development projects in different parts of the
City for essentially the same level of service. This analysis will allocate costs for fire protection
facilities citywide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be
the same regardless of its location in the study area.
The time frame for this analysis is from July 1, 2012 through build out of all development
contemplated in the General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service for fire protection is typically defined in terms of maximum response times.
Response times, in turn, depend largely on the maximum distance that must be traveled in
responding to an emergency call, and that distance is determined by the size of the area covered
by a particular fire station. For purposes of this analysis, level of service must be translated to
facility needs. The number of fire stations needed to serve an area with acceptable response times
is typically determined by analysis of specific conditions within the area served. The number of
fire stations needed to serve La Quinta at build -out has been determined by the City, and will be
used as the basis for the impact fee analysis.
C. DEMAND VARIABLE
In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relations1iip
between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to
represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility.
Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or correlate with, the
November 2012 Draft 9-1 147
0
0
Cav of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
need for facilities. As indicated in the level -of -service discussion, above, the most important
factor in determining how many fire stations are required to serve an area, given a certain
response time standard, is the size of the area served. For that reason, developed acreage will be
used as the demand variable for allocating fire station costs.
If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost
for fire station facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. However,
since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, their fire
protection needs are also attributable, though indirectly, to future private development.
To reflect that reality, the future acreage devoted to those uses will not be included in the cost
allocation which means that none of the cost for added fire station facilities will be allocated to
those uses. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted to the
clubhouse and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. Ile
City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. See Table 9-1 for a breakdown of developed
acreage used in this section.
Table 9-1
Develoned Acreage (Excluding Public Facilities)
'W"N
I g
Residential SFD
4,453
1,665
6,118
Residential SFA
530
172
702
Residential MFO
315
120
435
Office (Including Hospital)
78
54
132
General Commercial
384
143
527
Tourist Commercial
207
138
345
Golf Courses (5% of total acreage)
216
41
257
Total
6,183
2,333
8,516
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
Three fire stations operate in the City of La Quinta, at present. One city -owned station was paid
for by a major developer. The second station, the Village/Cove Area Station was recently
replaced with County Fire Credit Funds. Based on running distances and projected response
times, a third station serving the northern portion of the City was constructed with funds that were
advanced, or loaned to the Fire Protection Facilities DIF, from other funding sources. In addition,
a fourth station is currently in the planning and site selection process and is intended to serve the
southeastern portion of the City and portions of the unincorporated County, specifically the Vista
Santa Rosa community.
See Table 2-1
See Table 2-2
See Table 2-3
November 2012 Draft
9-2 1 " 148
Cav o(La Ownta - Development Impact Fee Studv
The City's goal is to locate the fourth fire station as near as possible to Monroe and Avenue 60.
It is intended to have a primary service radius of 1.5 miles, however its service area, like most
stations will end up being rectangular. It will enhance services by decreasing response times to
all areas of the city located south of an east/west line drawn approximately one half mile north of
Avenue 58. The service area for the fourth station is split between the City and the County at
50% each. The station planned at present would be approximately 7,000 square feet in size on
approximately 1.5 acres. The project cost of the fourth station is estimated at $4,397,000.
As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating fire protection facility costs
is developed acreage, excluding acreage devoted to schools, parks and other public facilities. -This
same methodology will be utilized for the future fire facilities. Table 9-1 tabulates developed
acreage for future development, using data from Section 2. Table 9-2 estimates the cost of future
fire protection facilities allocated to future development.
Table 9-2
Friture Fire St2tion C.nsts;
ZE... .........
IN
_=4v M
SIB.
'Rh........ ...
YAffill'- _-7P'r�ll
North Area Station 5
$3,786,288
Prior Impact Fee Contribution
($2,167,664)
Area Station 6
$2,198,500
-Southeast
$3,817,124
2,333
$1,636.25
E. U%IPACT FEES
As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in the allocation of fire facility costs is
developed acreage. The resulting cost per developed acre is the basis for establishing impact fees
for fire protection facilities. Table 9-3 converts the cost per acre into a fee per unit of
development.
4 See Table 2-2. Does not include Public Facilities, Schools, Parks, and 95% of Golf Course Acreage
5 Reflects the actual cost for land, site development, design, construction, and the cost of a new engine. Costs in current
dollars
6 7,000 SF /1.5 acres - costs split 50% with County of Fiverside
November 2012 Draft 9-3 . it 149
Citv ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
Table 9-3
Standardized Intmact Fees - Fire larntection Facilities
"n
HII�T
�O �a
%
M
,P"'N
M
Residential SFD
DU
0.26
$1,636.25
$433
Residential SFA
DU
0.22
$1,636.25
$366
Residential NIF 0
DU
0.13
$1,636.25
$206
Office (Including Hospital)
KSF
0.10
S1,636.25
$171
General Commercial
KSF
0.10
$1,636.25
$172
Tourist Commercial
Room
0.10
$1,636.25
S167
Golf Courses (5% of total acreage)
Acre
0.05
$1,636.25
$82
Total
Table 9-4 projects total revenue from the fire impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars,
that would be collected from future development to pay for fire protection improvements.
Table 9-4
Prnipctpd Ihnnnart FPP RPvPnnP frnm FutnrP np,epl,vnnn�nt
�W�s' M
Mn
1p tiNv4MMITM.
IM,
gA" A4
Myr vK'N';
'U"�r�eW. V , TALI
'M
M.
Residential SFD
DU
$433
6,322
$2,738,794
-Residential SFA
DU
$366
773
$282,926
Residential WO
DU
$206
960
S197,391
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$171
518
$88,826
General Commercial
KSF
$172
1,370
$235,224
-Tourist Commercial
Room
$167
1360
$226,999
Courses
Acre
$82
817
$67,195
-Golf
$3,837,355
7 See Table 2-2. Average acres per unit � tout acres/total units for each land use type
8 See Table 9-1
9 Fee per Units of Development = Acres per unit of Development x Cost per Acres. Fees rounded to nmrest dollar. Note that
these fees have been increase by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study. (See Executive Summary)
10 See Table 9-3
11 See Table 2-2
12 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development
November 2012 Draft 9-4
150
1p
0
0
City o�La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
SECTIONIO
IMPLEMENTATION
This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of
development impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of
impact fees recommended herein.
A. ADOPTION
Adopt a resolution amending Resolution 2008-061 to implement the changes reflected in this
update. For reasons discussed below, each impact fee should be adopted as a charge per unit of
service, rather than as scheduled of fees per unit of development. Thus, an impact fee for street
improvements would be adopted as a charge per peak hour trip -mile, rather than as a flat fee per
dwelling unit or other unit of development. Additional discussion of this point is presented under
Administration, below.
B. ADMINISTRATION
Several requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) address
the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures,
refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to
the Government Code.
Application of Impact Fee Rates. In general, impact fees recommended in this report are
calculated initially in terms of a cost per unit of service, and then converted into fees per unit of
development. Service units are attributes of development, such as population and trip generation,
which are used to represent demand for various types of public facilities. To apply impact fees to
a development project, it is necessary to estimate how many units of service are required by that
project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and to facilitate cost estimating by
builders and developers, it is useful to convert impact fee rates into standardized fees for common
units of development, e.g., dwelling units for residential development, or building area for
commercial development. All impact fee rates calculated in this study have been converted to
standardized fees per unit of development for the land use categories defined in this study.
However, as indicated above, it is recommended that the adopted impact fees state the amount of
the fees in terms of service units (e.g., dollars per peak hour trip -mile) instead of, or in addition
to, adopting a schedule of fees per unit of development (e.g., dollars per Single Family Dwelling
Unit). Adopting fees in terms of service units provides a basis for adjusting fees in cases where a
development project has demand characteristics that vary significantly from the norms used to
characterize the land use categories in this report.
It should also be noted that some commercial and industrial buildings are not designed for a
specific type of tenant and their use can change over time. For such uses, we believe that the City
is justified in applying fees based on reasonable average demand characteristics for the
appropriate categories of development. The fact that the initial user of the building may have
below average demand for certain services does not ensure that future users will have similarly
low demand.
November 2012 Draft
10-11 'k 151
Citv o�La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studi,
Imposition of Fees. Under Section 66001, when the City imposes establishes, increases, or
imposes a mitigation fee it must make findings relative to items 1-3b, below. When imposing
such a fee on a specific project, the City must also make a finding relative to item 3c.
Identify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
Determine that there is reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed and;
C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Most of those findings would normally be based on the impact fee study, and this study is
intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use of the
fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public document.
This study is intended to be used as the public document to satisfy that requirement.
In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency, at the time it
imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project. "... Shall identify the
public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated in this
report, the specific improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified. Consequently,
this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for
residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected
upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one
dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon
final inspection, of the first dwelling unit completed.
An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to
reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or facilities for
which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule
or plan for the irnprovement. These restrictions do not apply to nonresidential development. ,
Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all
facilities at the time building/grading permits are issued, and builders often find it convenient to
pay the fees at that time. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building
permits, or upon issuance of grading permits for golf courses, Section 66007 provides that the
city may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that the
contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid.
November 2012 Draft
10-2
1 . . fl, � . 15 2
Citv o La tanta - T)"Plopment Impact Fee Study
Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a
condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have
been, or will be, charged to that project, the impact fee imposed on that development project for
that type of facility should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or
improvements. If the credit should exceed amount of the fee imposed on the development for that
type of facility, the City may choose to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the developer
under which the excess credit would be repaid from future impact fees charged to other
developers for the same type of facility.
Credit for existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or
intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the
portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities, as measured by
the demand variables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally estimated
on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically
would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the
structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for
the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development.
Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited with other fees
for the improvement in a separate capital facility's account or Jund in a manner to avoid any
commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary
investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.
Interest earned on fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same
purpose. We recommend that fees be deposited in accounts established for each type of facility
addressed in this report.
0
Loans to the DIF Program. In order to accelerate the construction of projects set forth in the
Development Impact Fee Program it may be necessary to loan funds from other City funds to
supplement anticipated DIF revenue shortfalls in the early years of the program.
These loans will be paid back to the City as Development Impact Fees become available. Interest
on these loans may be charged at a rate based upon the quarterly average interest rate, or the
City's investment fund rate earned by the City's investment pool.
Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year, witbin
180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the
following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
The amount of the fee
The beginiiing and ending balance of the account or fund
The amount of fees collected and interest earned
Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expanded and the amount
of the expenditures of each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the
public improvement that was funded with fees
November 2012 Draft
10-3
153
Citv ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected
to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement
A description of each inter fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including
interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the
transfer or loan will be expanded
The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 6600 1, paragraphs (e)
and (f)
That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public
meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statement is made public.
Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of amendments contained in SB 1693, a local
agency collecting impact fees were required to expend or commit the fee revenue within five
years, or make findings to justify a continued need for money. Otherwise, those funds had to be
refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact
fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five years thereafter,
the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains
unexpended, whether committed or uncorrinutted:
0 Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put
0 Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is
charged
0 Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of
incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used.
0 Designate the appropriate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of
those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such
findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency must refund the moneys in
the account or fund.
Once the agency deterniined that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incomplete
improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that
determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement
will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee
revenue in the account according to the procedures specified in the statute.
November 2012 Drafi
10-4
154
Cav ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv
Cost of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not
included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in
applying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing
required annual reports, updating fees, and preparing forms and public information handouts. We
recommend that those costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing
development applications.
Annual Update of Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local agency
adopts a capital improvement plan to -identify the use of impact fees that the plan must be adopted
and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The
alternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations
in this study include cost for future facilities not covered by the City's CrP, we recommend that
this report serve as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. If that
practice is followed, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to
satisfy Section 66001
Annual Update of Impact Fees Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in current
dollars, and the fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. The
Engineering News Record Los Angeles Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for
indexing the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution
establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation.
C. TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training.
It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them
to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We
recommend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and
be made responsible for training all staff who are involved in fee -related activities. Before fees
are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees
will be involved in the collecting or accounting for fees.
It is also useful to give close attention to handouts which provide information to the public
regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as
application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fees should be made clear.
Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgeting and project management must be fully
aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees
recommended in this report are tied to specific project lists and related to cost estimates. Fees
must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly
expended.
November 2012 Draft
10-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
a-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
APPENDIX I
DETAILED COST ESTIMATED
FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
156
Appendix -1
MAJOR ARTERIALS
SUMMARY
October-12
FRED WARING DRIVE
Washington Street to Adams Street
W8,500
T-
TOTAL FRED WARING DRIVEI
$848,500
ITOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS —T--$847i�,50�0
November 2012 Draft
Appendix I (I of 2V2
157
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Major Arterial
Project: Fred Waring Drive (Washington St. to Adams Street)
Inspection/Testing/Survey:
$69,000.00
Estimated Soft Costs:
Ci Admin:
$35,000.00
Professional:
$51,000.00
Contin enc .
$140,000.UU
10/29/2012
TOTAL ESTIMATE71
$1,050,700.00,
November 2012 Draft
Total DIF SHA JFV8-�Q—o 070;
uevelopLr Bonds:JLjLL20U-_UuJ
Appendix 1 (2 of 21)
PRIMARY/SECONDARY ARTERIALS
SUMMARY
OCTOBER 2012
fzi�l '77-7
-f; �,�'4v-
t
ADAMS STREET
Highway I I I to So.
Bridge Approac
0,469
TOTAL ADAMS STREET
$720.469
DUNE PALMS ROAD
Whitewater River to Westward Ho Drive $482,342
TOTAL DUNE PALMS 2,342
MILES AVENUE
Seeley to Dune Palms Road $6;-8,919
TOTAL MILES AV
MADISON STREET
I
Avenue 52 to Avenue 54
$793,534
Avenue 50 to Avenue 52
$1,762,337
TOTAL MADISON STREET
$2,555,871
MONROE STREET
West Side South of Avenue 54,
$689,751
West Side South of Avenue 56
$541,248
West Side South of Avenue 58
$492,000
East Side South of Avenue 60
$855,200
TOTAL MONROE STREET,
$2,578,199
AVENUE50
Washington Street to Evac Channel
138,850
North Side West of Jefferson Street
123,804
North Side West of Madison Street
676,964
TOTAL AVENUE 501
$939,618
AVENUE52
660LF W. of Madison St to 1,3 )20LF W of Madison St.
$2�0,540
TOTAL AVED
AVENUE62
Monroe Street to Madison Street $5,952,644
TOTAL AVENUE 621 $5,952,644
ITOTAL ALL PRIMARY/SECONDARY ARTERI S14,188,6021
November 2012 Draft
Appendix 1 (3 of2l)h, , 1519
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Secondary Arterial
Project: Adams Street Traffic Signal and Street Improvements (Highway 111 to Adams St. Bridge)
�'7' "�"
Th proposed improvements include the installation of median island curb. landscape and irrigation between
Highway 111 and the south Adams St. Bridge approach.
ITEM
I
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
I
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$15.000.00
$15,000.00
4
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
LS
1
$10,000.00
$10.000-00
5
SAWCUT
LF
3,100
$2.00
$6,200.00
6
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVAT10N
CY
850
$30.00
$25,500.00
7
CONSTRUCT 6" CURB
LF
2,670
$12.00
$32,040.00
8
CONSTRUCT &WIDE SIDEWALK
SF
500
$5.50
$2,750.00
9
CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
370
$15.00
$5,550.00
10
CONSTRUCT 10" FULL DEPTH AC
SF
2,670.
$8.00
$21 �360.00
11
2" GRIND AND OVERLAY (2'WIDE)
SF
5,340
$2.50
$13,350.00
12
CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL
DRIVEWAY APPROACH WITH
ACCESS RAMPS
EA
1 1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
13
ICONSTRUCT 4" AC / 6" AB
SF
3,900
$5.00
$19,500.00
14
SIGNING AND STRIPING
SF
97,800
$0.25
$24,450.00
15
INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EA
1
$180,000.00
$180,000.00
16
LANDSCAPE
SF
7,500
$5.50
$41,250.00
17
IRRIGATION
SF
7,500
$4.50
$33,750.00
18
STAMPED CONCRETE
SF
3,000
$5.50
$16,500.00
SUB TOTAL
$502,200.00
Estimated Soft Costs:
10129/2012
Desiqn:
50,220.001
Inspection/Testino/Survev:
1 4.501
Ci!y Adminj
$25,110.00
en2yj
- $93,974-18
I t720.468.68
November 2012 Draft
Appendix 1 (4, of 21) * 160
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial
Project: Dune Palms Road (Whitewater River to Westward Ho Drive)
The proposed improvements include the reconstruction of the east half of the roadway including paved median,
travel lanes, bike path and sidewalk. The improvements may require demolition or relocation of existing structures
constructed within the City owned right of way. Undergrounding utilities will be required.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
TOTAL
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
4800
$30.00
$144,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1260
$2.00
$2,520.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1260
$15.ob
$18,900.00
7
14" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
50400
$4.50
$226,800.00�
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
1 2
$800.00
$1,600.00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00
$1,200.00
10
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
50400
$0.250
$12,600.00
11
SIDEWALK
SF
7,680
$5.50
$42,240.00
12
GARDEN WALL
LF
1,000
$70.00
$70,000.00
13
RELOCATE POWER POLE (NO UG
EA
7
$25,000.00
$175,000.00
1115
RELOCATE POWER POLE WITH 0
EA
21
$45,000.00
$90,000.00
JUN-ANTICIPATED COS TS
LS
1
$450,00000
$450,000.001
SUB TOTAL:
344,850.0
$1,344,850.0
Estimated Soft Costs:
10/2912012
Design:
$134 ' 486.00
Inspection[Testing/Surve
$131,123.85
$67,243.00
Contin enc
$251,656.93
November 2012 Draft
Anticipated CVAG Contribution at 75Ko] D
ts7JJ$ 482,342.44 1
Appendix 1 (5 of 21 1 ) 161
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Miles (Seeley Avenue to Dune Palms Road)
UVbUF1FL1LH1
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island,
median island landscape, and irrigation.
ITE—M
DESCRIPTIf�U
NITS I
QUANTITY1
UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
.1
MOBILIZATION
$30,00o.001
$30,000.0
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$30,000.001
$30,000001
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
$20,000,001
$20,000-001
4
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF—
7500
$2.001
$14,000.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
3000
$30.001
$90,000-00
6
6" MEDIAN CURB
U-
7000
$11001
$84,000.00
7
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
7000
$5.001
$35,000.00
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600�00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVES
EA
$300.00
$1,200.00
10
SIGNING AND STRIPIN!G1
SF
-4
14000
$0.25
$3,500.00
7
LANDSCAPE
SF
40000
$6.50
$260,000.00
8�f�IGATION
SF
40000
1 $4.00
$160.000.00
10/29/2012
ISUB TOTAL
Estimated Soft Costs:
1
Design711
$729,300.00
$72,93000
Inspection/Testing/Su
$56,520.751
F-- City A�
$36,465 00
r Contingency .
11 $89.521.bd
IF— Total Estimate711
$984,737.33
November 2012 Draft
Developer Bonds:11 $315,818.00
IF —Development Impact Fee711 - $Ei 8'FJ1V.6JI
11 1 otal Fundinq711 $984 7F 331
Appendix 1 (6 of 2 1)'o 162
CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Madison Street (Avenue 52 to Avenue 54)
The proposed improvements include the installation of median landscape and irrigation between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 on
Madison Street.
ITEM IDESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
-UNIT - -
COST
-ELIGIBLE -
DIF COST
- I
—
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
$
40,000.00
$ 40,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
$
30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
$
30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
500
$
30.00
$ 15,000.00
5
LANDSCAPE
SF
71200
$
6.50
$ 317,455.00
6
IRRIGATION
SF
71200
$
4.00
$ 120,675.00
ISUB-TOTAL
$ 553,130.00
10/29/2012
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design:
$ 55,313.00
Inspection/Testing/ urvey:
53, 1
is 27,656.501
Contingency:
'04.45
F� �103 —1
Total Estimate:1
534.131
November 2012 Draft Appendix 1 (7 of 21) 163
CITY OF ILA QUINTA' DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIFJ COST DETAIL
Project Type: primary Amaral
Project: Madison Street (Avenue 50 to Avenue 52)
Dissertation
The proposed improvements indude the reconsalOction of Madison Street to a Pnmary Artenal - A standard, including adjusting the
dertaksme brofill neek tnivel lanes bike lanes durd, guner sidevinalk ralsed cum median island median band landscape and mil
The project is joi sponsored by the Case of La Quints and India Th. City at India is serving as Lead Agency', The City of La Quintet
is responsible for 12 5% of the cast 0 the improvement
ITEM
-DESCRIPTION
UNII S
QUANHnF7-U-Nf�iiiiiii�
�TOTAL
CVAG I QUINT
a OST
C(
75% ELIGIBLE Cos
L
$27500000
SART00,00
Vol $34 37
1
Mob,l.hon
1
lil JJQuV Uu
S1830000
137 250 00 5 875 DO
$2257500
2
Traffic Central
LS
1
5J, uuUuu
$3700000
91775000 $4 00
$4,62500
3
Dust Control
ILS
1
531 QUO UV
$37 QUO 00
$2775000 S 6 5,00
$4625,00
4
Water POlut,.O Control
TON
1.1 wo
$9795000
S73kIS25 00 $12 4 7,50
$12243750
5
TON
38 000
$286200,00 S4770000
$4770000
5
6
Rubberized AC
S" Class 11 AB
CY
11630
34; go. DO
S 1�2
126167500 $43,512.50
S4361250
LF
12465
$149580
112 185DO $ld.597 50 $1869750
7
SF
46840
S;;; 11187 360 00
1 $0.00 $93 680 Do ll 00
6
Sidervall,
EA
10
$2 buu
25 QUO Do
S12,600001 $12,500�00
9
Handicap Ramps
LF
1 340
$10�72000
22 !12 L
01 2 02
10
11
Dnv."v Approach
EA
5250000
S20,000 DO
"12!2
1110111 1! 1020 DO 51- 51
12
Gross Gutter
SF
2
slow
$2760000
S20.70D DOI $3 4bUUU I lu .�
13
4" Decoxneposed Granite
SF
37 00
$100
$37 1111
$27825,00 $4637 0 $4,53750
14
Drainage Improvements
Ls
1
$500 000DO
$50000000
$37500000 $62,500,00 $6250000
16
Roi Exceivallon
CY
24400
$15,00
366.000 00
$274,50000 S45 750,00 $4575000
16
Cold Plana Asphalt Concrete
SF
28130
$1 Do
28 13 ,
$21.09750 3,5162 S351625
17
En mialsory
EA
4
S5,00000
$2000000
S15,00000 $2,500 0 $250000
-
is
Adjust SO Mani to Grade
EA
1
$50000
$5
$37500 W2 50 $62,50
19
Remove(Relocefts Fence
LF
4, 5
$1200
S53,34000
S40,00 $666750 $666750
20
Remove Existing Wail
Lc
ill
$5000
$5,550 h
$4 162 50 $693,75 $693,75
21
Relocate Signs
E
19
$20000
$3,8000
$285000 - $47500 - $475DO
22
RemoveRexacts Drop inlet
EA
I
SI 000 DO
$1.000
$750 00 1 $12500 $12500
23
Remove Existing Sidl
2F
648
$060
S3888
$291,601 $4860 $4860
24
Remove Existing Devervary
SF
1777
Scoo
$1.0as 2
$719 6' S133,28 $1312B
25
Remove Heaceyeall
LF
126
$50.00
S6.300,
14.721,0141
26
Relocate Mailbox
EA
3
S250 DO
5562,501 S93751 s9i
27
Remove Eirspi Curb and Gulte
LF
1 355
S500
$6775B
$5081.251 $84682 '2 ,
141
28
Remove Exiefting Crass Goner
SF
1404
$060
$8424
$631,801 $105 31! IT
29
Traffic Signal at Me intersench of Madison and Avenue 50
LS
1
$250,000.00
$250,000.0
$187.500,04) $31,250001 $31,250.00
30
Traffic Signet at Me Intersection of Madison and Avenue di
-1
1
$250,000,00
$25G.000,00
S18750000 $31 2500011 $312500
31
Develop Water Supply
$36.61700
56b of I JU
$4577,131 $4577 1
32
and G ad ni
S20 GOODO
S2000000
$1500000 52 5000011 x2r-U`
33
U W F-aal 7ty�-(See 01 son En g.
$583 00000
$583,000 DO
$72.875001 $72875..
34
Adixort Water Vai W Grade
EA
17
S25G DO
$4 250DO
$531 �25 $5312
35
Adjust Sesker Manhole to Grade
EA
18
$100000
$18000,00
S13500.00 $225000 $2
36
Relocate Sidi
EA
1
$500000
$500000
$3,750,00 $625,0011 Sl
37
LANDSCAPE
SF
48000
$550
$26400000
1 92 SjL2 292 2
-777777iM
38
IRRIGATION
SF
48000
$350
$168,000,00
ilL2. FW2
. '1 .0,0,
39
Canal Improvements
LS
1
$1 900OOD DO
$1,90000
$1425.1301 $237 Sol U
3,6,3,15
SUB TOTAL CONSTRUC-fli COST:
$7,192 ME 40
$4,911.232 0
$1,140,718,69
$7,i is
Dest n rin 5124,09150 124091,
Ins echortUestin ZuNme 5 -7r431 88 $41807391 $6967898 S6967890
Estimated Soft Costs $359,63347 $44954 18 S" 95T 1
-Tl
Sl 494 MOOD $1 120,500 86 7-50 00' $186,750.00
Canon an $1,56 15 51 $1 1 , .3 $19614406 $196.144 a
9,13 i,_ $ 5 4 4 Sl 762 337 41 Si 762 337 41
10/29/2012 CVAG ronsiburid 75% of Ell lot. Costs -$B 501441
at pil,
.1 India I medi �12_�� a, argiola cases , s to,/, or nationals coses) I s, le, �11 . 111
Cii of La Quints Can'- . ... .. ........ ..... . .0111.1121.1. ... Is) .1 37 !1
If S 1g; 1J
November 2012 Draft
Appettl 1 (8 of 21)
164
Ah
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - A
Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 54)
Liescription
The proposed
improvements include adjusting
the centerline
profile to meet urban drainage standards,
constructing a second travel lane, curb and gutter,
one-half median
curb, sidewalk, landscape and irrigation from
Avenue 54 south to the north -property-line of the Estates. and from the south property -line of -the Estates to PGA
�West -Greg Norman.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TITY
UNIT
TOTAL
COST
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$35P000.00
$45,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$30,000-00
$40,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$25,000.00
$40T000'00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVA I IUN
CY
4800
$30.00
$144,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
2000
$2.00
$4,000.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
2000
$15.00
$30,000.0
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1800
12.00
$21,600.00
8
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
68000
$5.00
$340,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
4
$800.00
$3,200.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$3 --
^A
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
6800C
12
SIDEWALK
1z'uuul
-
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
12,600
$6.50
$81,900-00
14
IRRIGATION
SF
12,600
$4.00
$50,400.00
RELOCATE POWER POLE
EA
10
$12,500.ob
$125,000.00
SUB TOTAL
$1,009,300.00
Design:
$100,93000
Inseection
est n urve
$ 8,406.7
Estimated Soft Costs:
Citv Admin:
$50,465. 1
L;
1 , 65.26
I
:il
I
iniqwqn12
Less7riticipated AKdjacent Develoer Co�nditioned [Improvem�ents:
�Total L�HF�pronMtntsjl $689,7�1.�01
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future
conditions of approval for parcel development would obligate the developer to construction a
portion of the street and pedestrian improvements.
November 2012 Draft
.-it
Appendix 1 (9 of 21)
165
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - A
Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 56)
The proposed improvements include construction of center median curb, landscape and irrigation in the west half
of Monroe Street from Avenue 56 to the south property line of the Palms Country Club, approximately 2,640
linear feet.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT I
TOTAL
COST
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000-00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1550
$30.00
$46,500.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
5500
$2.00
$11,000-00
6
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
2800
$12.00
$33,600.00
7
14.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
5500
$5.00
$27,500.00
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$87.00
$1,600.00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00
$1,200.00
10
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
5500
$0.250
$1,375.00
11
LANDSCAPE
SF
19,000
$6.50
$123.500.00
12
IRRIGATION
SF
19,000
$4.00
$76,000.00
SUB TOTAL:
$377,275.00
10/29/2012
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design:
$37,727.50
ln��sting/Survey-
F_--$-36,-7-84-311
City Admin:
1 $1 863.751
Contingency:
Total DIF Eligible Cost:l��
November 2012 Draft
Appendix I (10 of 2 1 . ) 16 166
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - A
Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 58)
Descrintion
The proposed improvements include adjusting the centerline profile to meet urban drainage standards,
constructing to additional travel lanes, bike lane, and curb and gutter from Avenue 58 to Andalusia.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
I
UNITS
I
QUANTITY1
UNIT
COST
I TOTAL
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$35,000.00
$35,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
3400
$30.00
$102,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1330
$2.00
$2,660.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1330
$15.00
$19,950.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1300
$12.00
$15,600.00
8
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
44200
$5.00
$221,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600.05
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00
$1,200.00
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
44200
$0.250
$11,050.00
12
SIDEWALK
SF
8�000
$5.50
$44,000.00
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
10,000
$6.50
$65,000.00
14
IRRIGATION
SF
10,000
$4.00
$40,000.00
15
IRELOCATE POWER POLES
I EA
61--T1-2,500.001
$7LOOO.00J
I SUB TOTALI
$689,060.00
Estimated Soft Costs:
10/29/2012
Design:11
$68,906.00
inspection/Tes
F -$67,183 35
City Admin
Contingency:IF
-$128,940.35
Total �Estimate�F
-$988.542 70
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future
conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a
portion of the street and pedestrian improvements.
November 2012 Draft
'i
Appendix I (I I of 2 1) 67
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial - C
Project: Monroe Street (East Side South of Avenue 60)
Descriotion
The proposed improvements include constructing two northbound travel lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
median curb, median island landscape and irrigation.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
I
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
2 —
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$40,000.00
$40.000.00
3
ST CONTROL
LS
1
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
4 —
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
6000
$30.00
$180,000.00
5
CUTPAVEMENT
LF
2600
$2.00
$5,200.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
2600
$15.00
$39,000.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
3900
$12.00
$46,800.00
8
4" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
67600
$4.50
$304,200.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00
$1,2ooTo
I I
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
67 00
$0.250
$16,900.00
12
8'SIDEWALK
SF
22,500
$5.50
$123,750.00
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
22,800
$6.50
$148,200.00
14
IRRIGATION
SIF
22,800
$4.00
$91.200.00
SUBTOTAL:1$1,088.050.001
I
Estimated Soft Costs:
Notes. 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future
conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a
portion of the street and pedestrian improvements.
November 2012 Draft
Appendix 1 (12 of it)" 168
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - B
Project: Avenue 50 (Washington Street to Evac Channel)
Descriotion
The proposed improvements include the installation of two additional travel lanes, median curb, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, median island landscape, irrigation and electrical, from Washington St. to the Evacuation Channel.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
I
UNITS
QUANTITY1
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$30,000.05
�$30,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,00HO
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
6000
$30.00
$180,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1350
$2.00
$2,700.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1350
$15.00
$20.250.ob
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1200
$12.00
$14,400.00
8
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
27000
$5.00
$135,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00
$1,200.00
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
27000
$0.250
$6,750.00
12
SIDEWALK
SF
8,000
$5.50
$44,000.00
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
7,200
$6.501
$46,800.00
IRRIGATION
SIF
7,200
$4.001
$28,800.00
SUB TOTAL:
$526,500.001
10/29/2012
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design:
1 $
Inspection/-restinq/Surveyj
$51,333.75
C
Contingenc
Total Estimatp,11
$755,330.0611
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions
of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the
street and pedestrian improvements.
169
November 2012 Draft Appendix 1 (13 of2l)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - B
Project: Avenue 50 (North Side, West of Jefferson St.)
Descriotion
The proposed improvements include the installation of a second westbound travel lane, bike lane median curb,
sidewalk median island landscape and irrigation, on the north side of Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street east to the
property line of Renaissance La Quinta.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOT
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1500
$30.00
5
$45,000.00
!$5600.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
2800
$2.001
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
900
$15.00
$13,500.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1500
$12.00
$1 8, 00000
8
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
19250
1 $5.00
$96,250.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$30070
$1,200.00
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
19250
$0,250
$4,812.50
12
SIDEWALK
SF
5,200
$5.50
$28,600.00
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
6,000
$6.50
$39,000.00
14 1IRRIGATION
SF
6,000
$4.00
$24,000.00
SUBTOTALJ
$317,562.501
Estimated Soft Costs:
10/29/2012
Design:
Inspection/Testing/Surve
F— City AFmin
Contingency:
Total Estimate:l��
Notes:
1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions
of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the
street and pedestrian improvements.
November 2012 Draft
b 170
Appendix I (14 of 2 1)
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - 6
Project: Avenue 50 (North Side, West of Madison St.)
Descriotion
The proposed improvements include adjusting the centerline profile to meet urban drainage standards, constructing
a second westbound travel lane, curb and gutter, one-half center median curb, median island landscape and
irrigation, and sidewalk in the existing City owned right of way adjacent to the Polo Estates.
ITEM
—
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QU NTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
1
MOBIMATION
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000.06
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1800
$3070
$54,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1175
$2.00
$2,350.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1175
$15.00
$17,625.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1100
$127
$13,200.00
8
.4.5 AC OVER 6" AS
SF
40000
$5.00
$200,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600�00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00
$1,200.00
11—
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF*
40000
$0.250
$10,000.00
12
TIDEWALK
SF
7,200
$5.50
$39,60OZO
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
6,600
$6.50
$42,900.00
14
IRRIGATION
SF
6,600
—
$4.00
$26,400.00
T
SUB TOTAL:
$471,875.001
Estimated Soft Costs:
10/29/2012
Design:
$47,187.50
Inspection/Testing/Su
City Admin'll
$23,593.751
11
Total DIF Eli2ible C0st:1L_
$676,963.671
November 2012 Draft
171
Appendix 1 (15 of2l)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Avenue 52 (66OLF West of Madison St. to 1,320LF West of Madison St.)
Descrintion
The proposed improvements include --the an additional westbou nd -travel lane, bike line, curb and gutter, and
sidewalk adjacent to the south property line of the Polo Estates.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTYTY
UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1000
$30.00
$30,000.001
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
660
$2.00
$1,320.00
6
6" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
—660
$15.00
$9,900.00
7
14.5" OVER 6" AB
SF
14000
$5.00
$70,000.00
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600.00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVES
EA
4
$300.00
$1,200.00
10
SIGNING AND STRIPING
SF
14000
$0.25
$3,500.00
11
SIDEWALK
SF
4000
$5.50
$22,000.00
SUB TOTAL
$202,520.001
10/29/2012
Estimated,Soft Costs:
Desi n:
$20,252.00
lnspection/Testing/Survey�
$19,72F5-701
Ci Admin:
$10,126.001
Confin enc :
1 $37,896.561
Total Estim te
F_$_29_0,_54_026�,
't 172
November 2012 Draft Appendkc 1 (16 of2l)
CITY OF LA QUINTA; DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Secondary Arterial
Project: Avenue 62
It .... n—
The project procoses to wdeft and/or extend Avenue 62 from 2 to 4 lanes between Monroe Street and Mal Street The improvements include
the crossing over the CVWD Dike
Phlix. 1 111.0 vanninu,
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
Total
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
M.b,l,.t,.
LS
1 -
$1000000
$10 M0 00
2
Traffic Control
LS
1
$10 ow 00
$10,00005
3
Dust Control
LS
I
S`I 105 00
$4,10500
4
Underground Existing Overhead Power Lines
LIF
2720
$7500
$204.00000
5
Pulverize Existra AC
S F
65280
$0,60
$39168,00
6
Prep SubGrada
SF
174080
$0.25
$43,52000
7
Compaction
CY
13902
$200
$27,80400
1 C over S" AS
SF
119680
$3.25
$388 %0 W
9
S' Curb and Gut.,
LF
2821
1
153 580 W
10
8' Mastering Sidewalk
%19 ;02
'1
$76 160.Wl
11
Landl
SF
1 27200
1 $3501
$95200001
1 LS
I 1
1 $500
$5,000001
J SUB TOTALI
$957,497 001
$0001
Pha
a 11 Improvements
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
I
UNITS
QUANTITY
I
UNIT
COST
T.t.1
COST
ELIGIBLE
OF COST
1
Mobilizatch
LS
1
$1000000
$10 000,0l:)
$10 mo 05
2
Dust Control
LS
1
$450400
$4 504�00
$4,504,05
3
Underground Existing Overhead Power Lines
I
goo
$7500
S67 500�00
$000
4
Pulverize Existing AC
SF
21WO
3050
$10,80000
sow
5
Retani-Ing Wall
SF
45273
$50 W
$2,263,650 00
$2 263,650 00
6
Metal Beam Guard Rail
LF
1600
$4500
$72.00000
$72DOO 00
7
Rauch Grading
CY
73641
$1 50
$110461 60
$110461 50
8
Import
CY
73641
$10BO
$73641000
.410 001
9
Compaction
CY
75140
$075,
$5635500
$5635500
10
5 1/2" AC over 6 AS
SF
61776
$325
$200772,00
$20() 772.
__11
)8'C.M and Gutter
11
1600
$1900
$3040000
$3040000
" M Sidewralk
§P 1
71200
$350
$39200,00
$0,00
�2e.a.dj
to
�and
SF
14000
$3 50
$49000.00
$000
11
S,,h,n, and Strip g
LS
I
V Wo 001
$4000,00
S4 000,00
SUB TOTALI
655 052 50
$3 488 552.50
__L3
Phase
H impro
emens
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
Total
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$10,000.00
$1000000
$10,00000
2
Dust Control
LS
1
$446200
$4,462 X
$4.46200
3
Retaining Wall
SIP
17898
$5000
$894,9W 00
$590.6U 00
4
Metal Beam Guard Rail
LF
960
S4500
S,132W 00
V3 200 00
5
Rough Grading
CY
--- 63750
$1 30
$8287500
$54S97,55
6
Import
CY
63750
$10,00
$637500.00
$42075000
7
Compel
CY
72260
$075
$5,1 187.50
$3576375
8
5 1,r2" AC over 6'* AS
SF
50864
$325
$165 308,00
8,Md b and Gutter
1 ' 2'
'1�2
21.1
$000
a seen 9 Sidewalk
L�
§F 1
M
HSI) 1
i5 101
'
1 15
$K4S
�O 00
11�L
ft Rok
SF 1
11600
$3,WI
$40 600 00 1
$6,60
jil
LS 1
1 1
Ill W I
S4000,001
0
1
SUB TOTALI
$1 9B7 752,501
$1 272.610 53
1012912012
Estimated Soft Costs
Phase I Sub�L_1957
4.97 00
�
Phase 11 Sub Total
$365505250
$3488,552
22
0
Phase III Sub Total
$1 957
752,50
S' r272,6'C
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
16 600,302
00
$4 761,16,1,nq
$660,030 1
$476116301
�20
41
1
$330,015 10
$238.05815
$150 156 1
$10831646
2 , r .,,
., , 11.
T2!ILELE��
$5,952,64lit.011
Shea Homes Developer Agreement:
$2 050 (M0,00
2th., Developer Cohtr,bWI.,
$249,383,50
........
Total Cost
$8.252,027,5B
.6
173
November 2012 Lil
Appendb: I (17 of2l)
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
OCTOBER 2012
LOCATION
TOTAL COST
DIF
SHARE
DIF COST
COMMENTS
Ave. 50 Evacuation Channel
$7.500,000
25.00%
S 1.875.000
Assumes CVAG Funding at 75%
Dune Palms Whitewater River
$17.510.000
25.00%
$4.377.,5000
Assumes CVAG Funding at 75%
Adams Street Whitewater River
$13.500.000
20.00%
$2,700.,00WOU
Assumes HBP Funds
TOTAL
$8,952,500
November 2012 Draft
't. 174
Appendix 1 (18 of 21)
FUTURE TRAFIC SIGNALS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
OCTORPR M17
.. ....... ...... ..
yjie'of e
. ... . ....
11 � ".
ost
I
liDeve upimcht,
-Sfi are Q,
D . . .
gvejollif
C t
os
Dune Palms Rd & Corporate Center Dr.
Traffic Signal
$430.000
100%
$430.000
Washingunt St. & Via Sevilla
Traffic Signal
$430.000
50%
$215MO
Washington St. & Lake La Quinta Dr.
Traffic Signal
$430.000
100%
$430,000
Calco Bav & Avenue 47
Traffic Signal
$430.000
100%
$430,000
Eisenffower Dr. &Montezuma
Traffic Signal
$430.000
100%
1430:000
Eisenhower Dr. & Sinaloa
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846.000
Calle Tampico & Civic Center Wav
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100%
$430.000
Madison St. & Ave. 54
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
100%
$846,000
Madison St. & Ave. 58
Two Lane Roundabout
S846.000
100%
S846.000
Madison St. &, Ave. 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
100%
S846,000
Monroe St. & Ave. 52
Two Lane Roundabout
$846X00
25%
$211.500
Monroe St. & Ave. 54
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
50%
$423.000.
Monroe St. & Airport bivd.
---
Traffic Sumal
$430.000
50%
$215,000
Monroe St. & Ave. 58
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
50%
$423,000
Monroe St. & Ave. 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846.000
100%
$846,000
Monroe St. & Ave. 61
Traffic Sitmal
S430.000
75%
$322.500
Monroe St. & Ave. 62
Two Lane Poundabout
$846.000
25%
$211.500
Orchard & Ave 50
Traffic Signal
$430.000
25%
$107.500
Jefferson & Dunbar
Traffic Signal
$430,000
25%
S107.500
Jefferson & Ave 52
Three Lane Roundabout
$1,000,000
27.39%
$271900
Jefferson & Ave. 53
Traffic Signal
$430.000
50%
$215,000
Jefferson & Ave. 54
Traffic S , 1
$430.000
75%
$322,5()�02
Citvwide Central Control
$1,100,000
27.39%
0
$301,290
TOTAL
S9.729.190
0
November 2012 Draft
Estimated Cost of Traffic Signal
Construction: $350,000.00
Engineering: $35,000.00
Construction Engineering: S27,000.00
Administration: S18,000.00
Total Estimated Cost: $430.000.00
Estimated Cost of 2-lane Roundabou
Construction: $650,000.00
Engineering: $100,000.00
Construction Engineering: S63.500.00
� .0 175
Appendix I (19 of 2 1)
FUTURE SOUND WALLS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
OCTOBER 2012
LOCATION DISTANCE (LF) ESTIMATED COST
East Madison at Trilogy 700 $192,115
Estimated cost of future sound wall in Developed Areas $192,115
176
November 2012 Draft Appendix 1 (20 of 21)
CITY OF LA QUINTA
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS
OCTOBER 2012
PROJECT
TRACT
IMPROVEMENT
DIE ELIGIBLE
COST
AVENUE 50 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN
MOUNTAIN VIEW CC
�057
(1 /2 MEDIAN) - BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND
$627,972
MADISON
14-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN
ESPLANADE
29323-1
IMPROVEMENTS-FRED WARING BETWEEN
S10,083
PORT MARIA ROAD TO JEFFERSON STREET
RANCHO LA QUINTA
29283
AVENUE 50 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN -
$239,000
PARK AVE TO ORCHARD LANE
AVENUE 52 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN
(1/2 MEDIAN) - MADISON STREET TO 1/2
MADISON CLUB
33076
MILE EAST OF MADISON STREET AND ONE
$669,920
LANE(INSIDE LANE) SOUTHSIDE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
AVENUE 52 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN -
HIDEAWAY
29894-2
ALL AMERICAN CANAL TO MADISON
$ 1,344,690
STREET
AVENUE 52 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
MOUNTAIN VIEW CC
30357
NORTH SIDE ALONG DEVELOPMENT'S
S112,723
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY -BETWEEN
JEFFERSON/ALL AMERCIAN CANAL
CLUBHOUSE
AVENUE 52 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN -
APARTMENTS
SDP 2002-730
ALL AMERICAN CANAL TO MADISON
$463,894
STREET
DUNE PALMS ROAD - LANDSCAPED
SAM'S CLUB RETAIL
SDP 2005-824
MEDIAN ISLAND (HIGHWAY I I I TO SOUTH
$228,697
END OF PARCEL J, 1126.7 FT NORTH OF AVE
48)
MADISON STREET - TWO LANES AND
MADISON CLUB
33076
MEDIAN BETWEEN AVE 52 AND 54 (MEDIAN
SI,394,665
LANDSCAPE ON FUTURE SEPARATE
AGREEMENT)
AVENUE 54 - PAVED PAINTED MEDIAN
MADISON CLUB
33076
LANE AND ONE INSIDE LANE (MADISON
$5247010
STREET TO MONROE STREET
TOTAL DIE ELIGIBLE DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS1
177
November 2012 Draft Appendix 1 (21 of2l)
APPENDIX-2
BASIS FOR NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED
The trip generation rates used in this Study were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Manual "Trip Generation." The eighth edition was used as the primary. Peak hour trips are identifies in the
manual in a number of different modes. One mode is known as the average daily trip (ADT) in which each type
of land use generated an average daily amount of trips in a 24-hour period. Another mode is peak hour trips in
which analysis has been completed for the morning peak hours (P.M. Peak) hours (A.M. Peak) which are 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the evening peak hours (P.M. Peak) which are 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p. in. A complete analysis
indicated that the maximum load of traffic occurs during the P.M. peak hours. For this reason the trip generation
rates for the P.M. peak hour were utilized so a nexus could be established based on the time of the highest load
on the City's circulation system.
In order to provide a more accurate nexus, average trip lengths for each type of land use was utilized in the
calculation. The best available information on average trip lengths by land use types is published by the Sand
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication "Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the
San Diego Region" Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La
Quinta; it is believed they reasonably represent trip lengths for various types of development.
CVAG has completed trip lengths on the regional facilities; however, they indicate the trip lengths on the
regional facility equate to an approximate 1: 1 proportionality between residential use and commercial use.
Although this may be accurate for the traffic trip lengths on the regional system a City system with its local
street network reacts in a different way. The basis of City development usually includes separate core "village"
areas with different levels of commercial to support each separate village.
The study completed by SANDAG was established by surveying 1,700 commuters to determine their
destination and average trip length. This provided a proportional trip length of commercial to residential at
approximately one mile for commercial every 1.975 miles for residential (1: 1.975). The CVAG trip length study
indicated a one mile commercial to one mile residential ration (1: 1)
In order to estimate the ratio for trip lengths in the City of La Quinta's City map was prepared with one mile
radius permeating out from the intersection of Washington Street and Highway I I I as the origin. The percent of
development remaining was identified in each one mile radius circle radiating out from the origin. Trip lengths
for each destination were then scaled. These include destinations of leaving town, food shopping, and trips to
school, and across town trips., The estimate for the ratio in La Quinta was one mile for commercial for every
1.667 miles for residential (1: 1.667). These numbers are closer to SANDAG calculations. Therefore, the
published SANDAG numbers were utilized for average trip lengths.
!t . 178
Appendix -2
DRAFT - OCTOBER 30, 2012
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON
CONSTRUCTION
TYPE
LA QUINTA
EXISTING FEE
LA QUINTA
PROPOSEDIFEE
INDIO*
PALM
DESERT*
RANCHO
MIRAGE*
COACHELLA'
DESERT HOT
SPRINGS*
1,300 SF House
$7,713.00
$6,582.00
$18,088.00
$1,050.00
$7,130.00
$16,206.87
$9,103.00
1.700 SF House
$7,713.00
$6,582.00
$18,088.00
$1,050.00
$7,130.00
$16,20677
$9,103.00
2,200 SF House
$7,713.00
$6,582.00
$18,088.00
$1,050.00
$7,130.00
$1
$9,103.00
3,000 SF House
$7,713.00
$6,582.00
$18,088.00
— $1,050.00
$7,130.00
$16,206.87
$9,103.00
4,000 SF House
$7,713.00
$6,582.00
$18,088.00
$10050000
$7,130.00
$16,206.87
$9.103.00
500,000 SF General
Commercial - 50 Acres
$3.449,500.00
$2,914.500.00
$1,098,314.251
$450,000.00
$1,337.000.00
-$2,599,665.00
-$4,795,000.00
20,000 SF Office -
1 Acre
$149,020.00
$97,320.00
$27,909.25
$14,000.00
$155,560.00
$124,468.20
$191,800.00
200 Acre Golf Course,
10,000 SF BLDG, 10
Acres —
$189,000m
$176,800.00
NotAvailable
Not Available
NotAvailable
NotAvailable
Not Available
100 Room Hotel; 45,000
SF 10 Acres
$220,400.00
$200.900.00.
Not Availahle
Nnf A�.H.hi�
��n i�� nn
him
20 Unit Townhouse:
----- --
1,200 SF $90k/Unit
$125 ' 920.00
$127,380.001
$20,841.00
$1,050.00
$120,500.00
$250,203.40
$200,227.00
120 Unit Apartment
IBuilding 1,00 SF $2M
$97780.00
$96.780 On
�9A ARn nnj
$1�050.001
$120,500,001
$250,203.40
$200,297 nn
* Each of the Agencies listed collect also collect the Coachella Valley TUMF Fees which are not listed included above.
TRANSPORATION DIF -VS- CVAG TUMF
--0Fd—UFNTK—
CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED
COMBINED
TYPE
TRANSPOIRATION
CVAG TUMF
AMOUNT
DIF
1,300 SF House
$2,530.00
$1,837. 4
$4,367."
1,700 SF House
$2,530.02
$1,837.44—
$4,367.44
2,200 SF House
$2,530.00
$1T837.44
$4,367.44
3.000 SF House
$2,530.00
$1,837.44
$4,367.44
4,000 SF House
$2,530.00
$1,837.44
$4,367.44
500,000 SF eneral
Commercial - 50 Acres
$2,525,500.0
$1,588,780.
$4,114,280.00
20,000 SF Office -
1 Acre
$82,640.00
$103.748.00
$186,388.00
200 Acre Golf Course,
10,000 SF BLDG, 10
Acres
$119.000.00
$149,184.00
$268,184.00
100 Room Hotel; 45,000
SF 10 Acres
$141,400.00
$107,596.00
$248,996.00
20 Unit Townhouse;
1200 SF $90k/Unit
$50,600.00
$25.536.001
$76.136.001
26 Unit Apartment
Building 1,000 SF $2M
$31,060.00
$25,536.001
179
Appendix 4
Reports/ Informational Items:
Report to LaQuinta City Council
Palm Springs International Airport Commission Meeting
October 17, 2012
Budget: Budget performance continues to be better than plan. Cash is being
managed to have a year-end unrestricted balance of $6 million. $2.1 million have
already been transferred towards pre -payment of next year's capital projects.
Passenger Activity: September was the 12 th consecutive month of growth in
passenger activity. We are currently 16.5% ahead of last year-to-date.
Services Contract: The Commission members were introduced to the Project
Engineer from Parson Brinkerhoff Consulting Engineer, who will manage the current
airport improvement projects. He was employed by the FAA in the Los Angeles District
Office for 22 years, so will make a great liaison to the federal agencies.
Tower Status: The tower is complete, but is going through various testing and
certifications. It uses the very latest technologies, and is expected to become active in
the first quarter of 2013. Only a very few towers in the country will be as up to date as
this one.
Security: The TSA is beginning to enforce a rule regarding liquids; that has previously
been ignored. All fluids in carry -on luggage must be in bottles no larger than 3.4 oz.,
but now they must all be in a single plastic bag, and go through security separately,
outside the baggage. The issue is that this regulation is expected to slow the
passenger flow through the security area - at least until people become accustomed to
it.
Market Development: The Airport staff is negotiating with AMGEN to have the
California Tour race end at the Palm Springs International Airport. This 800-mile bike
race attracts thousands of participants and spectators. The schedule has not yet been
finalized, but it is planned for May 2013.
Virgin's direct flight from Palm Springs to New York has been a great success, leading
to plans for a non-stop flight to JFK starting in December. This will be a weekly flight,
using an Airbus A320, on Saturdays. Itwill depart JFK at 11am, and arrive at PSP at
2pm. The return flight departs PSP at 3pm, and arrives at JFK at 10:50pm. TheAirport
Staff requested approval for an incentive award of $50,000 for Virgin out of our
$1,000,000 market development fund. The Commission approved this award.
This is the le new flight that has resulted from the use of our incentive fund.
The next Commission meeting will be November 14, 2012.
180
Submitted:
Robert G. Teal, Commissioner
Palm Springs International Airport
181
REPORTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: _17
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 25, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
7:01 p.m.
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to
order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairwoman Barrows.
PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, Wright and
Chairwoman Barrows.
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Public Works
Director Tim Jonasson, Planning Manager David
Sawyer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, Senior Code
Compliance Officer Anthony Moreno, and
Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker.
11. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
Ill. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners
Wright/Wilkinson to approve the minutes of September 11, 2012, as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Development Agreement 2003-006 Amendment 4, Environmental
Assessment 2011-617, General Plan Amendment 2011-123, Zone
Change 2011-140, Specific Plan 2001-055 Amendment 3, Tentative
Parcel Map 36405, Site Development Permit 2011-921: a request by
Lenity Group, LLC to consider a recommendation to the City Council
182
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2012
for approval of the development plans for the La Quinta Retirement
Community to be located on Seeley Drive, east of Washington Street,
south of Miles Avenue, within Centre Pointe.
Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department. Staff noted a memo was
distributed to the Commissioners, at the meeting, recommending
changes to several conditions of approval for the Tentative Parcel Map
and the Site Development Permit. A copy of that memo is also on file
in the Planning Department.
Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff.
Discussion covered the neighborhood meetings, design styles and
compatibility, pad elevations and concern about the placement of the
trash enclosures.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked
if the applicant would like to speak.
Mr. Dan Roach, Lenity Architecture, 3150 Kettle Court SE, Salem, OR
93701, introduced himself and commented on the neighborhood
meetings, saying the neighbors were in favor of the development and
happy to see a good development go in. He added information on the
timing of the development phases, an explanation of the placement of
the trash enclosures, and discussions with the Fire Department as
appropriate.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked what the cost was on a project like
this.
Mr. Roach responded the total cost for buildings, land and all the
development costs was about twenty -plus million. The construction
costs could be $1004110 per square foot.
Discussion'covered the possibility of the inclusion of solar panels and
the applicant's comments on their cost; as well as the possible use of
LED bulbs, window shadings and alumnawood awnings.
Chairwoman Barrows said she would like to see all of the ALRC
recommendations incorporated into the conditions.
1831
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2012
Mr. Roach responded that was acceptable.
Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero, Smith & Associates, Inc., 34-200 Bob
Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage 92270 introduced himself and gave
further explanation on the memo that had been distributed, at the
dais, to the Planning Commission; as well as an explanation of the pad
heights.
There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed
the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for
Commission discussion.
Chairwoman Barrows said she would like to require a condition that all
windows either be recessed or have window coverings and re -opened
the public comment period to allow a response from the applicant and
his representative.
Mr. Roach explained they would be using Low E rated windows as
they were a Title 24 requirement.
Mr. Marvin Roos, explained the trash enclosure was side -loaded which
resulted in a quieter procedure than front -loading. He also commented
on the distance of the trash enclosures, from nearby residents, and
said they would work with staff on this matter.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed again.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Alderson fWil kinson to adopt Resolution
2012-019 recommending approval of Environmental Assessment
2011-617 as submitted. Unanimously approved.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-020 recommending approval of Development Agreement 2003-
006, Amendment 4, as submitted. Unanimously approved.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-021 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2011 -
123 as submitted. Unanimously approved.
3- IB4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2012
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-022 recommending approval of Zone Change 2011-140 as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-023 recommending approval of Specific Plan 2001-055,
Amendment 3, as submitted. Unanimously approved.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-024 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 36405 as
submitted, with Conditions 29, 54, and 44 amended as noted in the
memo distributed to the Commissioners, prior to the meeting.
Unanimously approved.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-025 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2011 -
921 as submitted, with Conditions 28, 46, and 37 amended as noted
in the memo distributed to the Commissioners 'prior to the meeting.
Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Notice of Public Nuisance Case No. 12-4196: a request by Scott Holmes,
President of 92253 Development Company, LLC to consider an appeal of
Public Nuisance Determination regarding the maintenance of Parcel 779-
152-012, property located at 78-030 Calle Cadiz.
Code Enforcement Officer Anthony Moreno presented the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning Department.
Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioners discussed the building code and security of abandoned
properties as well as the possibility of including an explanation, in the
Application for Appeal, helping residents understand the Planning
Commission's role in the appeal process.
't - 185
110
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2012
Code Enforcement Officer Moreno gave an explanation of how the. appeal
process was presented to clients and the City's desire, and preference, to
work with clients on corrective measures. He indicated the
Commissioner comments, on adding an explanation to the public, would
be taken into consideration.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows asked if
the applicant was present and would like to speak.
There being no applicant present, or any further public comment,
Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
There being no questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Wilkinson/Wright to adopt Minute Motion 2012-006
upholding the determination that a public nuisance exists at the
aforementioned parcel/address with reference to Case No. 12-4196.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Alderson reported on the City Council Meeting of
September 18, 2012.
B. Chairwoman Barrows is scheduled to report back on the October 2,
2012, City Council meeting.
C, Planning Director Johnson stated the Joint City Council/Commission
would be held on January 22, 2012; instead of the Fall of the year as
has been the practice in the past. He commented on possible changes
in the format of the meeting and said further details would be
forthcoming. I
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS:
A. Update of LO 2035 General Plan review by City Council.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 2012
B. Update on Planning Commission's 201.2/2013 Work Program.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners
Alderson/Wright to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission
to the next regular meeting to be held on October 9, 2012. This regular
meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. on September 25, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
(km�00&,
Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
6-
REPORTSANFORMATIONAL ITEM- I'dO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'
MINUTES
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission was called to
order at 3:01 p.m. by Chairperson Redmon.
Chairperson Redmon led the Commission into the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Commissioners Kevin Maevers, Maria Puente, Allan Wilbur, and
Chairperson Peggy Redmon
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew
Mogensen, and Secretary Monika Radeva
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion - A motion was made by Commissioners Puente/Wilbur to approve the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of March 15, 2012, as submitted.
Motion passed unanimously.
BUSINESS SESSION
Introduction of New Museum Director - Anne Phillips
Planning Manager David Sawyer introduced Anne Phillips, Museum Manager
of the La Quinta Museum.
Mrs. Phillips gave a brief overview of her previous professional experience,
education, and qualifications, including her most recent position held as
Education and Program Director at the Tolerance Education Center, a new
non-profit organization in the City of Rancho Mirage which opened
approximately three years ago. While there she facilitated meetings between
high school students and Holocaust survivors, as well as filming the
survivors' stories.
Mrs. Phillips talked about some of the new events and exhibits she was
currently working on.
2. Cultural Resources Element - a request submitted by the City of La Quinta
for the Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan Update 2010
completed by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., effective city-wide.
Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department.
Planning Manager Sawyer noted that the Cultural Resources Element report
was consistent with what had been included in the previous General Plan
Update with very minor changes which were intended to reflect the way the
City's resources were being looked at and preserved.
Chairperson Redmon gave staff a copy of the report that she had edited for
consideration.
Commissioner Maevers expressed an interest in obtaining an electronic copy
of the report for review. Staff replied that one would be e-mailed to him, but
all comments must be received back by 12:00 p.m. on June 22, 2012.
General discussion followed regarding the General Plan Update including
glossary of terms and deadlines for review and editing.
Motion - Minute Motion 2012-004 was made by Commissioners
Redmon/Maevers; approving the Cultural Resources Element as submitted.
Motion passed unanimously.
3. Historical Sites Tour Brochure - a request submitted by the City of La
Quinta; effective city-wide.
Planning Manager Sawyer passed out the Historical Sites Tour Brochure to
the Commission and gave an overview of what it included. He explained
that certain historical listings were not identified on the map located at the
back of the brochure because they required private property access.
CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None
2
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Allan Wilbur said this was his last meeting he would be
attending as he was not reapplying as a Commissioner. He thanked his
fellow Commissioners and said it was a pleasure to serve with them.
Staff and the Commission thanked Commissioner Wilbur for his service and
expressed their best wishes in his new endeavors.
Commissioner Puente asked if there would be any changes in training
opportunities in the upcoming year. Staff replied the State CPF Conference
would not be included in next year's budget, but that staff would continue to
notify the Commission of any local or on-line training opportunities the
Commission could take advantage of.
PLANNING STAFF ITEMS
Planning Manager Sawyer said that Mr. Willard (Skip) Morris would be joining
the Commission effective next meeting.
Planning Manager Sawyer said the digitization of the La Quinta Historic
Resources Survey was nearly complete and the web pages were expected to
be available on-line on the City's website within a couple of months.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Wilbur/Puente to
adjourn this meeting at 3:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully SUD .
ritted,
MONIKA RA VA, cretary
City of La Quinta, California
3
190
REPORTSANFORMATIONAL ITEM: tol
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 13,.2012 2:01 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review
Committee was called to order at 2:01 p.m. by Planning Manager
David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute.
B. Committee Members Present: Richard Gray, Kevin McCune, and
Ray Rooker
Committee Member Absent: None
C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager
David Sawyer, Assistant Planner Jay Wuu, and Secretary Monika
Radeva.
[I. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
Ill. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 4, 2012.
There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Rooker/Gray to approve the minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2011-921 has been submitted by Lenity
Group, LLC. for consideration of site, architectural, and landscaping
plans for the La Quinta Retirement Community; located on Seeley
Drive, east of Washington Street, south of Miles Avenue, within
Centre Pointe.
.0 191
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
September 13, 2012
Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
Department.
Planning Manager Sawyer asked the Committee if there were any
questions of staff.
There being no questions of staff, Planning Manager Sawyer said
the applicant was present and available to answer any questions
from the Committee.
Mr. Dan Roach, Principal, AIA, with Lenity Group, LLC., 471 High
Street SE, Suite #10, Salem, OR, introduced himself and gave a
brief overview of the proposed uses within the development —
retirement, assisted living, and memory care, and the location and
layout of the units.
General discussion followed regarding the putting green, rest/sitting
areas, proper shade for the rest/sitting areas, trash pickup
procedures, times and locations, architectural style of the trash
enclosures, recycling, etc.
Committee Member Rooker suggested that the applicant consider
installing the proposed window awnings to all of the windows
instead of half, due to the extremely hot desert summers.
I
Committee Member Rooker discussed incorporating the proposed
multicolor palette throughout the project, including the cottages.
He noted the proposed landscaping around the units was a bit
sparse in some areas.
Committee Member McCune asked if the applicant specialized in
building this type of facility. Mr. Roach replied the applicant had
been building facilities like this for over 30 years all over the United
States and general discussion followed regarding the increased
demand for such facilities and what would be considered a standard
unit size. I
General discussion followed regarding the placement of a variety of
block walls for the different types of facilities within the
development; turf areas, possibly placing a gazebo at the putting
2
192
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
September 13, 2012
green; and neighborhood outreach meetings identifying the basics
of the project which was favorably received.
Committee Member McCune suggested the proposed Cork Oak tree
from the plant palette be replaced with a Virginiana Oak tree, as the
first does not fare well in the desert area; the use of LED lighting for
the landscaping; and the use of more contemporary light fixtures to
illuminate the paths. He commended the applicant for a very well
done project.
Committee Member Rooker inquired about what methods would be
used to hide any mechanical equipment and Mr. Roach explained
how that would be achieved.
General discussion followed regarding the future Eisenhower facility
that would be located adjacent to the project, A/C unit types,
locations, noise levels, and enclosing walls. Further discussion
followed regarding the use of downspouts for roof drainage.
Planning Director Johnson noted that the site's main street and
drainage infrastructure was already in place and it would only be a
matter of connecting to the existing outfall into the channel. There
was additional discussion regarding the settling pond for nuisance
water, overflow protection methods, contracting out the
landscaping maintenance, etc.
General discussion followed regarding possible wall accents in
addition to the proposed stone veneer to the rear elevation of the
garage, located at the southern tip of the property, types and
materials of garage doors, trellises, and occupancy capacity for the
different types of care.
Committee Member Gray said he was pleased to see this project in
Le Quinta.
The Committee would like the applicant to consider the following
comments and suggestions:
• Install window awnings to all windows throughout the
project
• Incorporate the proposed multicolor palette throughout the
project, including the cottages
3
1 193
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
September 13, 2012
Replace the proposed Cork Oak tree with Virginiana Oak tree
and add landscaping to the areas discussed
There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members McCune/dray to adopt Minute Motion 2012-
004, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2011-
921, as submitted with staff's recommendations. Unanimously
approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None.
Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS:
A. Planning Commission Update
Planning Director Johnson said the General Plan Update had been
presented to the Planning Commission for review and consideration
during the regularly scheduled meeting on September 11, 2012. Some
public comments were received and the Commission recommended
approval of the project to the City Council. The project will be
presented to the City Council for review and consideration during the
regularly scheduled meeting on October 2, 2012. The project is
available for review on the City's website.
B. Discussion of Joint Meeting Items
Planning Manager Sawyer explained that the City Council usually
meets with the City's boards and commissions once a year to discuss
items of interest and hear suggestions. The meeting has been
historically held during the month of November; however, there is
current discussion for possibly changing the meeting date to be some
time in the spring. He encouraged the Committee Members to e-mail
staff with any items or questions they might like to discuss during the
joint meeting so staff could bring those up for consideration. Staff will
notify the Committee Members of the joint meeting date once it has
been identified.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members McCune/Gray to adjourn this meeting of the
4
194
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
September 13, 2012
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to
be held on October 7, 2012. This meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. on
September 13, 2012.
Respectfully s mitted,
M 10
ONIKA RADEVA
Secretary
5
195
REPORTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 2L 0
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 10, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Community Services Commission was called to order at
5:30 p.m. by Commissioner Fitzpatrick.
Commissioner Lawrence led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Comrnissioners Blakeley, Fitzpatrick, Lawrence, and Leidner
ABSENT: Commissioner Engel
STAFF PRESENT: Edie Hylton, Community Services Director; Steve Howlett, Golf
& Parks Manager; Tustin Larson, Recreation Supervisor; and
Angela Guereque, Senior Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENT — None.
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Motion - It was moved by Commissioners Leidner/Blakeley to confirm the agenda
as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
PRESENTATIONS — None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of July 9, 2012 Minutes
Motion — It was moved by Commissioners Leidner/Lawrence to approve the
minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None.
BUSINESS SESSION
1 . Consideration of Commission Meeting Dates.
Director Hylton presented the staff report.
196
Page 1 of 3
Motion -It was moved by Commissioners Blakeley/Lawrence to approve the
Community Services Commission meeting dates as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Consideration of the 2012/2013 Community Services Marketing Plan.
Supervisor Larson presented the staff report.
Commissioner Blakeley suggested that staff coordinate with the City of Indio on
the scheduling of W' of July events.
Motion -It was moved by Commissioners Blakeley/Leidner to approve the
2012/2013 Community Services Marketing Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
STUDY SESSION
1. Discussion of Potential Park and Recreation Collaboration between the City
and Desert Recreation District
Director Hylton presented the staff report.
Commissioner Lawrence asked if there is a downside to this collaboration. Director
Hylton will carefully craft what staff duties will be, how logistics are done, and
look at doing a one year trial.
Commissioner Blakeley asked what portion of funding will DRD contribute. Director
Hylton stated that the funding portion needs to be negotiated. Kevin Kalman,
General Manager, stated the DRD budgeted approximately $75,000 for the
Coordinator position.
Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked what will happen to the Indian Wells portion of the
Coordinator position. Mr. Kalman stated the needs for Indian wells are very small
and could be rolled into the Palm Desert coordinator position. I
Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked if the City would take over maintenance at Frances
Hack Lane Park as well. Director Hylton stated that DRD has hired a Parks
Manager to handle the maintenance issues.
Commissioner Blakeley suggested staff report back to the Commission on an
annual basis as to the collaboration.
Commissioners stated their support for the collaboration.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
197
Page 2 of 3
1 . July 2012 Department Report
Manager Howlett stated October is over -seeding month. Director Hylton stated
that the Civic Center Campus, La Quinta Park Rental Space, and Fritz Burns Park
will be the only areas over -seeded.
1 Report from Commissioners Regarding Meetings Attended.
2. Calendar of Monthly Events
PUBLIC HEARING - None.
OPEN DISCUSSION - None.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioners Leidner/Blakeley to adjourn the Community
Services Commission meeting at 6:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
NEXT MEETING INFORMATION:
A Regular Meeting of the Community Services Commission to be held on October
8, 2012 commencing at 5:30 p.m. in the City of La Quinta Study Session Room,
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
Submitted by:
LA
Angela Guereque
Community Services Senior Secretary
198
Page 3 of 3
KtrUKIII[MrUMIVIAIIVIMMLllr-IVI; �.6
INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the La Quinta Investment Advisory Board was called to order
at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Blum.
PRESENT: Board Members Donais, Mortenson, Blum and Park (4:03)
Spirtos
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Finance Director, Robbeyn Bird and Senior Secretary, Vianka
Orrantia
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA— Confirmed
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion — A motion was made by Board Members Spirtos/Mortenson to approve the
Minutes of September 12, 2012, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
Transmittal of Treasury Report for August 2012
Ms. Bird presented and reviewed the staff report for the month of August 2012.
In response to Board Member Spirtos, Ms. Bird clarified that the decrease in the
LAW fund balance was a result of a $25.3 million payment for the Coral Mountain
Apartments.
Board Member Mortenson suggested that the Board and staff consider extending
out investment maturities with an emphasis on the extension of CD maturities at
this time.
General discussion ensued amongst the Board and staff regarding the extension of
CD maturities.
INVESTMENT ADVISORY MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2P1-2 j9q
SPECIAL MEETING
Motion - A motion was made by Board Members Spirtos/Mortenson to review,
receive and file the Treasurer's Report for August 2012, as submitted. Motion
passed unanimously.
BUSINESS SESSION - None
CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
Month End Cash Report - September 2012
Ms. Bird presented and reviewed the Month End Cash Report for September 2012.
Noted and Filed
2. Pooled Money Investment Board Reports - August 2012
Ms. Bird presented and reviewed the Pooled Money Investment Board Report for
August 2012.
Noted and Filed
BOARD MEMBER ITEMS
Board Member Spirtos advised the Board that on Sunday, November 11, 2012 at
11:00 a.m. the City will host a Veteran's tribute.
In response to Board Member Blum, Ms. Bird advised the Board that at this time
staff has not implemented any changes within the current reporting of financial
information and has no recommended changes to the investment policy.
Ms. Orrantia advised the Board of the upcoming changes to the Board's agenda
packets.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no
Mortenson/Spirtos
unanimously.
further business
to adjourn this
City of La Quinta, California
it was moved by
meeting at 4:35 -p.m.
Board Members
Motion passed
INVESTMENT ADVISORY MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 17, 2012
SPECIAL MEETING . IV 200
Department Report: 1
OF
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Frank J. Spevacek, City Manag K?!�
DATE: November 20, 2012
SUBJECT: Project Status Report - November 2012 Activities for Service
Delivery Options - Phase 1
On August 7, 2012, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement
with Henson Consulting Group (HCG) to facilitate a municipal services delivery
option review. The purpose was to engage professionals from outside of the City
to work with the Executive Team to review all City services and operations, and to
generate service delivery options for City Council and community consideration.
One commitment of this engagement is to provide the City Council with monthly
project status reports. This transmittal provides a summary of phase one activities
for the month of October.
The Executive Team and HCG continued its focus on refining cost reduction
targets to achieve structural balance. On October 10, the Executive Team
convened and presented further refinements to the cost reduction options
generated by the Department Directors. Legal and procedural issues related
to realigning staff were also identified for further evaluation by the City
Attorney's office. Restructuring options include consolidating the
development related departments and restructuring the City Manager's
office.
In October, the City Manager requested that the Executive Team pursue three
initiatives in order to better position the organization to respond to future
challenges. These initiatives encompass assessing and revising the City's internal
and external communications strategy; assessing the technology needs/risks; and
increasing the organization's focus on strong customer service to the public,
businesses, and visitors - especially in the Planning, Building, and Public Works
20
realms. To accomplish these initiatives, the Executive Team embarked upon the
following:
On October 10, HCG and key staff met with the City's marketing consultant
to begin creative discussions on a new framework for a communications
strategy. The marketing consultants were refocused on assisting with
communicating the forthcoming changes resulting from the structural
realignment. HCG and the Executive Team also met to assess each
Department's current and future technology needs (e.g. e-gov. and on-line
services), physical needs (e.g. counters for enhanced customer service),
training/analytical needs, and the untapped talent within their organizations
that will be needed to maintain and/or enhance service to the public.
On October 15, Tim Jonasson, Les Johnson and Greg Butler met with the
City of Newport Beach's key Community Development Department and
Public Works staff to ascertain how the City reshaped its planning and
building services to focus on customer service, achieve rapid over the
counter service, and incorporate development permit processing innovations.
This information will be used to create new metrics and processes for the
City of La Quinta.
On October 22, Cindy Henson attended the All Hands staff meeting, led by
the City Manager, to present the status of this effort, to review the actual
versus projected revenues and expenditures to date, and to review current
activities related to the disposition of the former Redevelopment Agency's
assets.
HCG has prepared and the City has subsequently circulated a Request for
Proposals for an Information Technology assessment (RFP). The RFP seeks
experienced technology firms to provide a high level assessment of the
City's existing technology capabilities, limitations, risks, and training needs.
Emphasis was placed upon seeking local firms to respond.
On October 29 and 30, HCG met with individual City staff to discuss their
concerns regarding the upcoming organizational restructuring activities.
Many staff members have expressed concerns regarding the potential
impacts this effort will have on them individually and on other staff
members. Staff also offered their thoughts and observations regarding how
the City may reset the organization while providing the same or enhanced
customer service.
2 0 2
Next Steps
In November, HCG and the Executive Team will:
• Identify employee transition options;
• Assess the information technology system capacity, and identify and
prioritize future hardware and software needs;
• Develop materials to present the Service Delivery Options recommendations;
and
• Assist Department Directors in planning for the upcoming changes as it
affects their employees.
The service delivery options recommendations will be presented to the City Council
at the December 4, 2012 Council meeting.
2n3
DEPARTMENT REPORT: 2-
CITY COUNCIL'S'
UPCOMING EVENTS
NOVEMBER 20
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 21
OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING - CANCELLED
NOVEMBER 22 & 23
CITY HALL CLOSED -THANKSGIVING & DAY AFTER
NOVEMBER 28
SPECIAL OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER4
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 5
OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 7
CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING
DECEMBER 15
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DECEMBER 18
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 19
OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING -CANCELLED
DECEMBER 24
CITY HALL CLOSES AT NOON - CHRISTMAS
DECEMBER 25
CITY HALL CLOSED - CHRISTMAS
DECEMBER 31
CITY HALL CLOSES AT NOON - NEW YEARS EVE
JANUARY1
CITY HALL CLOSED - NEW YEARS DAY
JANUARY2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY2
OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING -CANCELLED
JANUARY15
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY16
OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING
2 0 4
November 2012
Monthly Planner
J 1 1111111 11, 111 " I III _=Elmz=��Mcmm=
2
3
October December
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1
7 8 9 �O 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 7 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
28 29 30 31 30 31
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10:00 AM Trami
3:00 PM City
2:00 PM Over-
9,W M Anfinal Corpus-
F.Wh
Handarsom
Council Meeting
sight Board
1101 CvCC-12vMS
6:01) PM 110 Emingy,
CInto-Frimidin
Meeting -
12:00 PNI EnargidEnvinsa.
CANCELLED
-EVANS
ELECUCHN
DAY
11
12 .13
14
15
16
17
10:00111111'ab.Sfity.
7:110 PM Planning
420 PM Investment
3:00 I'M Historic liveser-
900AMCV�Enns
fi
Henderson
Commission
Advisory Board
vation Commission
3:00 PM III
VETERANS DAY -
Camannorsafterfre"khe
CITY HALL
5 � Pis Community
Sew. commission
CLOSED
6.00 FIM League -
TOMORROW
Henderson
CITY HALL
CLOSED - VETER-
ANSDAY
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3:00 PM City
Council Meeting
10MMHome�m
Cint,C)SBORNE
2:00 pM 01
QA
w
0
sight Board
Meeting -
nanksgiving &
Thanksgiving &
CANCELLED
Day After (City
Day After (City
Hall CLOSED)
HalICLOSED)
25
26
27
28
29
30
4:30 PM Exec Cents..
7:00 IM phasing
12:00 PM Suffiew-Adolph
Adolph
Commission
2:00 PM Special
Oversight Board
Meetrag
Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 11/1412012
2 0-5
December 2012
Monthly Planner
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10:ODAMT=sp-
3:00 PM City
2:00 PM Over-
12 00 PM Mayors Lanett
6:00 PM CHIUST-
Hendierson
Council Meeting
sight Board
MAS TREE
6.W PM 11D EaaMy
Meeting
LIGHDNG
9
10,
11
12
13
14
15
10:00 AM Pub. Stly.
7:90 PM Plarating
4,00 PM [axessexant
11 Do AM CVCC-EVANS
Household Hazar-
Handarsoo
costaxissiort
A(Isisory Bond
12:00 PM EnowlErseco.
dous Waste
5:30 M community
So� Coovalasion
-EVANS
Collection
S'.00 PM Loagar.
Heeelersoo
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3:00 PM City
10 00 AM Horaeless"ass
GnYWOSBOME
3:00 PM Historic Proxes-
9:w M �XE"-
Council Meeting
2:00 PM Over-
warim Goorearssion
sight Board
Meeting -
CANCELLED
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
7:00 IM Plaorting
12-00 PM Surfice-Adollrh
coxxxxxissive
Christmas Eve - City
lwtv
Hall Closes at Neon
Chri� Day -
City Hall Cl�ed
30
31
November 12 Jartuary 13
420 PM Exec Costs,
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
Ad*h
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10 it 12
It 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30 31
New Yes� Eve - City
CLImes at Noo j
_21oo.
Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 11/14/2012
206
January 2013
Monthly Planner
2
3
5
DL�mber 12J
3:00 PM City
3:00 P.M. CITY
S M T W T F S
Council Meeting
COUNCIL
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CANCELLED
MEETING
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Oversight Board
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Meeting -
30 31
NEW YEARS DAY
CANCELLED
- CITY HALL
CLOSED
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
10,.UDAMTmsp-
710 PM Ploordol;
4.00 PM lememeent
930mmimalCompus-
Fra"M
Hendersom
6:00 PM UD Envr,y
corrovitsom
Advisory Bmrd
1100 M CV�EVANS
C�Fmnklhn
12:00 I'M EmMlEovirms.
-EVANS
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
10:00 AM Pub. Sfty-
3:00 PM City
10:00 AAA H��
Cvn�BORNE
3.00 pM Historic prove,
9:0D Ass CVXE..
Council Meeting
2:16 PM �rsgrft Board
Vatian C010171ISS1011
3:00 PM Mlos.
skewers
20
21,
22
23
24
25
26
12:00 PM Noon -
Sunline -Adolph
27
28
29
30
31
4.30 IM Exec Code,
Febmary 13
Ad*b
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28
Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 1111412012
207
DEPARTMENT REPORT: Z
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Greg Butler, Building & Safety Directo r�
DATE: November 20, 2012
RE: Department Report — October 2012
Attached please find the statistical summaries for building permits, Animal Control,
Code Compliance, and garage sale permits for the month of October. The
statistical summaries depict the following highlights:
0 Year-to-date building permit valuation is $51,177,231 which includes the
issuance of 183 building permits in October;
0 Animal Control handled 358 cases in October;
0 Code Compliance initiated 228 cases in October;
0 Code Compliance completed 302 cases in October;
0 Garage sale permits generated $1,820 revenue in October.
1 2 61 8
LU
z
Linn m m N 'n
c 'D al v V N 0 1 -e 0 at
C� ri -! I %k C� it! C4 m -e co v 0 N
In Go N �o Ln 0 ;p v Lf; C� (4
m M P% (4 1 ch CA N en 0 Ln N co
m w m 0 N P% (4) 0 cl cl N at
>M
WiNIM M'm C4 0 0
o ai �f CO N .4 '4 ;o N M %V
M
0
f4 �f fli rq m 0 m
0% N 0% m N ot Ln
Ln
M m cl N 0 0 �p
'o Ln
c
M
01 Ln 0 -e co 0 t4 P% N 'T
0 0 0 1 N -T 0 0 N 0 w rq
FA M
6 0
r% M Ch
c Ch 14 0 in N 0 Ln ;D M m
0 ;o i 0 N 00 m Ln P% %0 It N
CZ I �z (4 a Le; '6 C4 Ln- I%- M-
P, m M W) It 0 Ch N
M N M P% CO In �q
M 40 1 0 1
>m Lr; ri P: ke
Ln
N LM M 0
-1 0 m cs 0
to w 0 v f4 '4 %0 0% co -T
tn �l 14 N
E
r4 m Ln P% Ln C4 0 co w
In
c
2
m
C
40
E
v
c 1 6 0 SQ6 V
M CL 0 0 0
10
m U. 0
q 209
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ol0000�v000 ... woo.
ol oomloo.ow mo�
om 0.,N�OON. I�m
00
IN I�VI M�W Hw� 0
Ft
I
m . 0 C� I . 0 N . 0
M�'..MNWV 00 1
0�0..W�Nm 11
�mv mm�clmlol I I
lw� �ow,
mom IN
WW
W 0
0 0
4
4 z z
0 44
Z 't
z z
mw C-4 m uzl�c w 0
WQE. 0 WH
2: , Z Z m u
Xmw I Hw
OWQ w om
ZUOO< <> 1,w
ZXUU-UOO m 0
owl: 1 UZ4" �z
lwo-=W� lww.o. H<
4 .0 �,u Nxomon 00 �U,
4 � ou .600�%�Zgnu
n"3:xw�u� zxo�woomw
0 u
p nz,mz
UMEWN m 0 P,
. .4 . . 210
t
0
CL
0)
co
0
0
E
0
0
u
eq
x—
COD
N
�
m
'Ir
0
m
(D
0
C3
0
0
0
C)
0
C)
0
0
000
CD
00�00
z
00
N
N
0
0
co
CN
00
(D
00
C,
CN
N
m
w
U)
I
Noll
M(O
w
�0,00�
N
N
-q
0)
co
CO
00)
m
�-
Iq
0
0
C,
m
t-
c
co
co
(D
r-
001
to
0
I.-
e
le
V)
r-
1*
(D
v
CN
(o
m
't
CD
to
co
0
0
C"
0
0
0
N
N
w
cx
(D
CO
N
cm
In
rl.
C4
to
m
m
to
C"
w
N
w
w
(D
(0
w
co
co
0)
0
w
N
to
0
U-
(0
CN
C4
N
La
(o
1c,
M
f,
W
'o
CO
N
I N
N
r�
F
z
L)
U)
0
LU
LU
0.
(1)
0)
U)
Cl)
z
u
a
0
U)
z
z
LU
U)
z
U)
F-
Z
z
0
LU
0
U)
CL
LLI
o
co
LU
w
LU
z
>
U)
ui
CL
C
4)
t1i
LU
LU
w
2
z
uj
IL
LU
<
W
w
m
0
2
w
<
-0
a
0
CL
E
0
2
w
-1
CL
w
z
—
o
_j
U)
u
Z
-a
o
CY)
LU)
2
U)
U)
0,
(D
CX
(D
c
4
tf
LU
a)
E
K
-L-
E
W
v
E
w
L)
0
(D
z
tf
E
E
E
-1
w
B
m
z
m
0
LU
m
o
o
0
13
0
L)
Q)
0
0
in
U)
o
L)
0
0
U)
0
1
LL
j
U)
-i
0
en
IL
U)
0
N
Cn
L)
LU
-1
5
LU
LU
<
0
0
0
>
CO
to
0
0
x
z
A
0
cl
CID)
co
0
U
'Fa
E
04
0
0
r-
N
C-4
co
0)
m
t-
co
m
0)
n
Cl)
%r-N(OVN
0)
(D
oo
a)
n
o
0
0
coo
0000
000000000
0
0
1
0
a
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
>
0
Oo
ki
z
10
1
U
M
LO
0
(0-
0
CD
t-
m
0
Q
0
0
0
c
0)
0
v
00
co
o
CL
Q)
0
m
co
'D
co
W
MOO�-Oow
N
.0
CD
CD
co
N
IND
N
0,
N
N
0)
C"
10
co
'D
m
'D
(01
co
g I
<
m
'm'r
m
m
't
N
co
o
0
do
+11
w
co
t-
0)
N
0
m
to
N
10
c
ID
C,
N
cc
w
Vo
w
CO
0)
0
rlo
C.,
co
F.-
r�
V
M
CN
N
N
cq
cc)
co
(D
IN
eq
co
N
'n
F"
I
I
1
11
1,41,41
m
r-
a
co
o
I--
,
w
w
co
w
co
m
m
N
I-
CD
co
F1010110
N
C*
C,4
'o
C)
a
m
0
CIO
0
-q
M
N
CD
00
M
N
r.
(D
00
Go
co
T
U.
m
to
Flml
I
F1
I
I
I
I
>
0
0
0
0
LLI
-j
0
'-
'm-,
X,
u
c
U)
CL
E
(D
E
m
4)
"
.2
-
10
co
E
(D
-e
a
<
:2
U)
-R
,
,
a)
a)
(D
0
.2
v
Z
E
5
EL
>
M
>
M
:
-a-
co
a)
0
a)
0
(U
51�
_j
m
<
o
o
<
a
o
-�
Z�
0
o
0
0
Z
LU
W
m
E
0
0
LL
Z�
:2
w
0)
"
u
S2
E
c
-
a)
V)
Fo
E
<
2
U
T)
:5
0
N
'i
O�
0
0
0
0
Z
E
<
.2
-1
0
0
I'
0
z
<
I
I
I
I
I
I
.0 212
DEPARTMENT REPORT: 4—
E , M
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Edie Hylton, Community Services Director e�K
DATE: November 20, 2012
SUBJECT: Community Services Department Report for October 2012
Upcoming events of the Community Services Department for December 2012:
Computers *Computer Lab
Adobe Photoshop Elements, Senior Center
Exercise & Fitness *Morning Workout
*Mat Pilates
*Zumba Gold
*Yoga for Health
Pilates
Aerobic Dance
Meditation, Library
Yoga AM, Library
Yoga PM, Library
Zumba, Senior Center
Adult Walks - Nature inspired poetry, Winter Palette, Bear Creek Trail
Guided Cove Hikes led by Philip Ferranti - Cove to Lake Cahuilla
Free Programs *Quilters
*Woodcarvers
*Tai Chi Chuan
Special Events *Holiday Luncheon
Christmas Tree Lighting
Special Interest *AARP Safe Driver
*Creative Drawing
*Let's Make Jewelry
*13eginning Ukulele
Sports Disc Golf Holiday Tournament, La Quinta Cove Oasis
*Senior Center class or activity
213
Community Services Department
Attendance Report for October 2012
Summary Sheet
Variance Sessions Per Month
Program 2012 2011 2012 2011
Leisure Classes -1
135
2011
-66
601
80
Special Events -2
0
650
-650
0
3
Sports
293
238
55
24
24
Senior Center -3
1181
1356
-175
140
113
Total
1,609
2,445
-836
224
220
Senior Services
Senior Center
399
331
68
28
20
Total
399
3311
68
281
20
Sports User Groups
La Quinta Park
AYSO
1500
1500
0
23
22
Desert Boot Camp
50
50
0
10
12
Sports Complex
LQ Youth & Sports Assoc.
200
175
25
23
20
PDLQ Football
100
140
-40
14
6
Colonel Mitchell Paige
AYSO
250
250
0
10
8
C.V. Barcelona
20
20
0
6-
13
C.V. Revolution
20
20
0
9
8
Coachella F.C. United
20
20
0
3
9
L.Q. Blackhawk Rugby Club
40
30
10
9—
3
Facility/Park Rentals
Senior Center
(Private Party)
0
100
-100
0
1
(Sunday Church)_
300
375
-75
4
5
Museum
Meeting Room/ Courtyard
150
0
150
2
0
Library
Classroom
850
780
70
17
13
Civic Center Campus
(Private Party)
0
0
0
0
0
Park Rentals
La Quinta Park
100
100
0
2
2
Fritz Burns Park
50
100
-50
1
2
Total
3,650
3,660
-10
135
124
Total Programs
5,658
6,436
-778
364
Volunteer Hours
!S2 i r
1 1671
2211
-54
To't'a-0I'V—CI'u'n—n'teeer Hours
1 1671
2211
-54
-1 Classes cancelled due to low enrollment: Pre-Ballet/Jazz 3-5, Beg. Guitar, Beg. Elements;
Classes not offered due to instructor scheduling conflicts/relocations: Dance and Cheer,
Hawaiian Hula, Play with PowerPoint; Classes being offered in a different month: 2nd
Level Guitar; Jazzercise closed their La Quints franchise
-2 Moonlight Movie, Halloween Carnival, & Halloween Pet Parade were offered in 2011.
-3 No Wellness Connection (150 Participants last year); tennis attendance down from
last year; no Basic Drawing Skill class; No ACBL bridge group.
k 214
Community Services Department
Program Report for October 2012
2012 2011 2012 2611
Participants
Participants
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
Leisure Classes
Ballet/Tap 4-6
7
13
-6
3
3
Zumba
19
16
3
9
8
Yoga - Morning
6
4
2
5
4
Yoga - Evening
6
7
-1
4
4
Microsoft Word
3
0
31
5
0
Karate/Taekwondo 4 - 8 (Beg.)
13
29
-16
10
9
Karate/Taekwondo 4 - 8 (inter.)
41
38
3
10
9
Karate/Taekwondo 9 & up
35
27
8
10
9
Dance, Play & Pretend
5
7
-2
4
4
Totals
135
141
-6
60
50
2012 2011 2ni2 InIll
Participants
Participants
Variance
Meetings
I Meetings
Special Events
NONE -1
Totals
01
01
01
01
2012 2011 2012 2011
Participants
Participants
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
Sports
Open Gym Basketball
ill
63
48
14
12
Open Gym Volleyball
99
45
54
4
4
Nature Walk @ Bear Creek Trail
18
20
-2
1
1
Guided Cove Hike
30
0
30
1
0
,Y-Rookies (youth soccer program)
1 351
501
-151
41
5
ITotals
1 2931
1781
1151
241
221
lCommunity Services Totals 1 4281 3191 1091 841
2012 2011
I Registrations (Includes current and future program offerings)
jWeb
1 731
N/A
10ther (Walk-in & mailed in)
1 3181
N/A
*1 Moonlight Movie, Halloween Carnival, & Halloween Pet Parade were offered in 2011.
F 215
Community Services Department
Monthly Revenue Report for October 2012
Monthly Revenue - Facility Rentals 2012 2011 Variance
Library
$
50.00
$
150.00
$
(100.00)
Museum
$
200.00
$
-
$
200.00
Senior Center
$
900.00
$
1,325.00
$
(425.00)
Parks
$
195.00
$
150.00
$
45.00
Sports Fields
$
1,455.00
$
1,172.00
$
283.00
Monthly Facility Revenue
$
2,800.00
$
2,797.00
$
3.00
Monthiv Revenue
Senior Center
$
6,136.50
$
3,165.00
$
2,971.50
Community Services
$
6,538.00
$
6,576.00
$
(38.00)
La Quinta Resident Cards
$
11,850.00
$
5,590.00
$
6,260.00
Total Revenue
$
24,524.50
$
15,331.00
$
9,193.50
Revenue Year to Date
Facility Revenue
$
8,096.50
$
9,868.00
$
(1,771.50)
Senior Center
$
11,211.00
$
11,646.50
$
(435.50)
Community Services
$
22,758.00
$
22,888.50
$
(130.50)
La Quinta Resident Cards
$
26,130.00
$
14,760.00
$
11,370.00
Total Revenue to Date
$
68,195.50
$
59,163.00
$
9,032.50
216
Senior Center Attendance
Senior Center Program Report for October 2012
Participation
Participation
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
2012
2011
2012
2011
Senior Activities
AARP Safe,Driver
22
6
16
1
1
Annual Health Fair
160
150
10
1
1
Golden Tones
43
22
21
5
3
Monthly Birthday Party
40
50
-10
1
1
Movie Time
44
57
-13.
4
4
Putting Action & Wii Bowling
46
4
42
10
3
Quilters
37
42
-5
4
4
Tennis
38
121
-83
8
8
Ukulele Players
63
96
-33
8
9
Woodcarvers
37
39
-2
4
4
Senior Activity Total
530
587
-57
46
38
Senior Leisure Classes/Programs
Acrylic Landscape Painting
5
10
-5
4
3
Basic Computer
6
0
6
1
0
Beginning Bridge Refresher
10
11
-1
5
4
Bridge: Duplicate, Social & Party
331
313
18
19
19
Chair Yoga
19
10
9
4
3
Exercise
26
41
-15
14
13
Health Fair Vendors
25
0
25
1
0
Hooked on Loops
9
9
0
3
4
Jewelry Making
15
0
151
5
0
Mah Jongg
25
0
25
5
0
Mat Pilates
17
15
2
14
13
Monthly Luncheon (Celebration of Life -Family Hosr
116
89
27
1
1
Swing/Latin Fusion
15
5
10
5
3
Use a Digital Camera
2
8
-6
2
1
Yoga for Health
11
3
8
4
31
Zumba Gold
19
0
19
7
0
Senior Leisure Classes Total
651
514
137.
94
67
TOTAL SENIOR PROORAMS
1181
1101
so
140
105
Senior Social Services
Cool Center
13
33
-20
8
16
FIND
272
203
69
9
4
Lobby/Presentations
75
0
75
12
0
HICAP/Notary/Legal/Financial/Alzheimer's Group
15
34
-19
7
9
Volunteers
24
30
n/a
n/a
TOTAL SENIOR SERVICES
399
3001
14
28
13
1
1
SENIOR CENTER TOTAL
11580
14011
1991
168
118
*Senior Activities: No Wellness Connection (150 Participants last year); Tennis attendance is down from last year.
*Senior Leisure Classes/Proarams: No Basic Drawing Skill class; No ACBL bridge group.
*Senior Social Services: Reduction in Cool Center participation; No HICAP workshops, health screenings, decrease in volunteer
opportunities.
217
Parks Activities Updates
For October 2012
Plant identification signs were installed in the Fred Wolff Nature Preserve. La
Quinta resident, Nathan Van Buskirk, installed the signs as a service project
for his Eagle Scout Award, with the assistance of his fellow Scouts. The
plant identification signs provide information about plants that are native to
the Coachella Valley. The signs can be seen while walking along the Bear
Creek Trail as well as the natural trail along Avenida Montezuma within the
Nature Preserve. The plant sign project is a component of the Fred Wolff
Nature Preserve Master Plan.
Staff has met with La Quinta Cove residents, Linda Gunnett and Jeff Smith,
regarding the creation of a Community Gardens. The intent is to provide this
type of amenity to residents with little to no cost to the City. The cities of
Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Indio have similar programs. Staff has
researched other programs and is working with Cove Residents to develop a
plan that will be presented to the Community Services Commission as well
as the City Council.
Over -seeding was completed at Fritz Burns Park, the Civic Center Campus,
and the picnic area at La Quinta Park. The remaining parks were not over -
seeded as a cost savings measure. Eisenhower Park, Velasco Park, and
Pioneer Dog Park were over -seeded because of donations through the Adopt -
A -Park Program.
The Veterans, Sports, and Artist Acknowledgement art pieces at the Civic
Center Campus were painted and as part of the annual art maintenance. The
Veterans Acknowledgement needed to have new patina on the bronze due to
graffiti and graffiti remover.
A new grind rail has been installed at the Fritz Burns Skate Park. The original
rail had been vandalized and eventually stolen from the facility. The new rail
is set in poured concrete instead of being bolted to the surface. This will
make the new rail more difficult to remove or vandalize.
218
La Quints Community Fitness Center Counts for October 2012
Day
Memberships
Sold
Rubys Sold
Sapphires
Sold
Diamonds
Sold
Walk-ins
Sold
Daily Counts
Daily
Totals
1
10
4
196
210
2
4
1
172
177
3
5
3
164
172
4
7
141
148
5
18
3
3
142
166
6
3
53
56
7
0
8
9
1
1
171
182
9
14
2
178
194
10
10
163
173
11
140
140 1
12
7
133
140
13
7
1
63
71
14
0
15
10
196
206
16
5
176
181
17
4
3
165
172
is
5
2
171
178
19
5
4
132
141
20
4
1
1 3
50
58
21
0
22
11
1
4
181 1
197
23
20
2
5
187
214
24
9
1
4
174
188
25
9
1
4
158
172
26
13
4
154
171
27
1
56
57
28
0
29
13
3 1
202
1
30
10
2
1 1
1 83
3
1 L
31
9
1
15LO
1
160
— 0
L04
AVG
8.538461538,
1.4
C�_
0
3.125
149.5925926
]1 E-2
TTL
222
14
0
0 1
50 1
40�
4325
The Gems symbolize the Wellness System Fees
Ruby Level = $50.00
Self -Directed Program; One Year -Key Use
Sapphire Level = $175.00
All Ruby Level Benefits; Pre -Fitness Assessment Test; Custom Designed Program by Personal
Training Staff; Post -Fitness Assessment Test
Diamond Level = $295.00
All Ruby and Sapphire Level Benefits; Three Additional Personal Training Sessions
• Members Sold is the # of memberships sold that day.
• Walk-ins are people without membership cards that are paying a daily $5 fee.
• Daily counts are the # of Members coming into the center that have had their membership cards
scanned by us.
9 The totals at the end of each row is the total of all of the above transactions for the day.
% - 219
Department Report:
OF
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Directoeq
DATE: November 20, 2012
SUBJECT: Department Report for the Month of October 2012
Attached please find a copy of the Planning Department Report which outlines the
current cases processed by staff for the month of October 2012.
1 220
Z F-
LU M
0 C-4
CL ,
ir LU 0
< cc 04
IL F- cc
Lu Z UJ
LLI im
2 0
Z
— W L)
Z < 0
Z IL
LLJ
2
Cf)
LU
0
0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lu
0 0)
V
�
�
�
V
V
�
�
Z
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
u
x
E E
.—
:L�
:t
:t
.—
.—
&
&
.—
:t
&
t:
:t
.
.
.
:t
:t
0
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
0 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
m
.0
.0
M
m
M
.0
Lu
z
.0
:3
D
=
=
m
Z
a) 0
0
U)
U)
0
w
0
N
0
CO
CN
0
0
0
0
0
C-4
0
0
0
1"
CL
c,4
Z<
PV)
I'd
Lu
4)
a
0
CL
=
Lu
in
(D
E
U)
0
CL
C
>
U)
Z
E
E
U)
CL
E
E
0
E
.2
0
4)
4)
CL
:t
E
E
LU
0
0
0
o
ra
FL
CL
E
iL
tm
M
(D
U)
&
<
0
d-
"
0
cn
r
—(D
CL
E
(L
w
c
E
0
E
E
>
co
'5
0
I
0
E
0
IL
�
0
C
�
r-
m
w
0
a
"M
(00
"
00
.
0
a
C
U)
c
(D
a
0
0
>
w
.—
.—
0
-6
E
r
E
E
c
E
E
CL
cU
0)
Q?
L
w
w
f)
m
0
.0 0
0
C
cc
D
0
a)
4)
>
0
0
Lr-
Z
>
'r,
0
U
'a
0
o
_j
E
a-
a -
c
r
0
0
'a
=
C
C
0
E
2
r
>
Cl
C)
a)
>
r
C
a
-
(D
--
2
--
2
0
2
a"
(on
iuh)
U)
Q
U)
Cl)
Q)
4)
F-
W
>
14
041
0
(J) L)
L)
0
w
0
11
'j; 2-91
CN
z
0
0
0
0
z
E
z
4�
a.
04
0
C14
CV)
fr
uj
m
0
0
0
0
0
co
0
't
0
a)
04
z
0
F-
CL
U)
LLJ
4)
0)
Q)
a)
a)
W
a)
4)
ID
0
a)
0
(D
0
CD
CD
LU
�
�
&
�
�
&
�
&
�
&
�
to
V
�
&
�
&
�
&
�
&
�
:t
�
&
�
&
�
&
LU
>
E
E
:t
E
E
:t!
E
E
E
E
E
.-
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
>
0
0
.0
.0
M.0
m
m
-0
�o
m
m
.0
m
m
m
m
m
m
cc
cc
m
m
m
m
z
m
m
D
m
m
3
m
m
CL
CL
CL
OICN
lt
04
0
N
000
N
0
0
.
.
.
<
LU
U)
CD
D
0
-j
0
LL
LU
c
z
LU
0
E
uj
2
C
m
c
U)
cj
U)
ma)
0
C
E
E
Lu
cc:
-i
0
E
E
(D
(D
FL
'a
(D
a-
a)
CL
CL
<
LL
LU
tM
CD
CL
q)
m
c
a)
CL
<
m
m
U)
0
0
0
a)
(D
cm
<
<
E
>
jr
uj
LU
w
-,a
M
w
<
m
ED
0
cc
ow
cm
cc
>
m
--
a.
0
tm
-0
—
0
-6
E
CL
F
4)
r
=)
0
c
E
E
c
a-
'-
E
CL
m
o
o
m
0
z
0
%P
c
m
M
*OL
-0
d>)
z
>
o
U
t3)
-j
-j
.-
o
—
0
-j
1
CL
a)
.p
m
0
m
(D
>
—
m
a)
c
0
a)
(D
'E
<
a
<
0
L)
a)
a
C
w
G;
LL
0
0
0
2
'a
FE
U)
(n
CL
U)
(1)
0
0
F-
>
0
N
0
N
00
I
1�-Itj
it,
0
U)
E
E
0
0
z
2 2 2
CID
Department Report: 56
4 44"
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Direct
DATE: November 20, 2012
SUBJECT: Update Report Regarding California Bio-Mass, Inc.
This report is intended to provide you with an update on the status of California
Bio-Mass, Inc. (Cal Bio-Mass). At the November 6, 2012 meeting, City Council
received a written and verbal report from City Attorney Kathy Jenson regarding the
status of regulatory oversight of Cal Bio-Mass as well as options available to help
alleviate the outstanding odor issues. Council ultimately moved to direct the City
Attorney to prepare a letter for distribution to Riverside County Supervisor Benoit,
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District requesting immediate action to compel Cal Bio-Mass
to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
As a result of this action, Supervisor Benoit called for a meeting on November 14,
2012 to further discuss the status of Cal Bio-Mass. In addition to the Supervisor
and his staff, the meeting included representation from Riverside County
Environmental Health, Riverside County Planning, South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), Trilogy, Cal Bio-Mass, Mayor Adolph, Council
Member Franklin and City staff. The meeting provided opportunity for the Mayor
and Council Member Franklin to emphasize the City's concerns, other agencies
represented to provide a status update, and for Cal Bio-Mass to explain the current
status of their operations. Mr. Hardy from Cal Bio-Mass identified the following:
• As of September 30, 2012, Cal Bio-Mass is no longer receiving grease
waste.
• They are in the process of installing an odor neutralizing misting system
which will be installed and operational by no later than December 7, 2012.
The neutralizer will have a pine scent.
F, . 2 '"' 3
• They will be directly applying odor neutralizer to "legacy piles" previously
treated with grease waste.
• They will cease operations in legacy piles from November 17 to November
25, 2012, in order to minimize the potential for odor during the Thanksgiving
Holiday period.
The meeting also included discussion regarding possible revocation of the County
land use permits issued for Cal Bio-Mass. It was identified that during the
revocation process and, if the permit were revoked, the cleanup effort could take a
year or longer to complete.
Mr. Hardy reported he is currently in the process of selecting a new site for
relocation. He mentioned that the permitting process takes several months to
complete and that the remediation effort at the existing site will take approximately
seven months to complete. Mr. Hardy also pointed out that he receives more
green waste originating from properties in La Quinta than any other Coachella
Valley city.
Staff from the City, and Supervisor Benoit's Office, will conduct a site visit to
inspect and experience the odor neutralizing system after December 7, 2012, once
the system is fully operational.
I �, 224
DEPARTMEN REPORT:
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: 61 othy R. Jonasson, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: November 20, 2012
SUBJECT: Public Works Department Report for October 2012
1 . The City's new "GORequest" citizen relationship management system
will allow the City of La Quinta to use the latest technology to be as
responsive to citizens as possible. Citizens can download a free app
to their iPhone, iPad or Android phone and submit requests for city
services. The system allows citizens to track their requests and
receive status updates. In addition to handling requests for service
from the public, the GORequest system will be used by the Public
Works Department as a work order system that will eliminate
paperwork, and more accurately track costs associated with
completing work orders. Employees were trained on the new
GoRequest system November 7t' and 8` and will spend the next few
weeks learning and testing the system. It is anticipated that the
GoRequest system will go live to the public in early January 2013.
2. The Public Works Department continues its efforts to complete the
American Public Works Association (APWA) self -assessment process
that compares existing policies, procedures and practices with those
recommended practices contained in the APWA Public Works
Management Practices Manual that have been identified by nationally
recognized experts in the field of public works. The department is
expected to complete the over 546 APWA self -assessment tasks.
The APWA Southern California Chapter President has been invited to
make a presentation at the December 18" City Council meeting
225
acknowledging that the City's Public Works Department has
completed self -assessment.
3. In preparation for seasonal storms, City maintenance crews continued
cleaning out storm drains and dry wells. As part of the clean-up of the
recent storm, the Maintenance Division has scheduled replacement of
22 trees. All trees maintained by the city crews along the parkway
and in the medians have been trimmed. Jefferson Street has been re -
striped from Dunbar Drive to Avenue 50. City crews continue to
repair potholes, replace damaged signs and remove graffiti as needed.
4. During the month of October, crews responded to 38 requests for city
service through the City's on-line "request for City service" for graffiti
removals, pothole repairs, street signs maintenance, additional street
sweeping, debris removal, parks inspection and landscape lighting
repairs.
5. The contractor for the Adams Street Bridge Improvement Project is
making very good progress, the concrete for the bridge soffit and
stems Were poured on November 9'. Progress on the project is being
tracked at the Adams Street Bridge Project page on Facebook. The
new completion date for the bridge is August 13, 2013.
6. The City Council approved an Amendment to the cooperative
agreement for the Madison Street Improvements on September 18,
2012. The City of Indio advertised the Phase I project for bid on
October 16 1h.
7. The contractor for the Washington Street and Avenue 48 Intersection
Improvements has completed work and a final walk was held on
November 5 1h . The project is scheduled to go to City Council for
acceptance on November 20'.
8. The Fred Waring Median Landscape Improvement project had bids
opened on September 6, 2012. The low bidder was KASA
Construction. Staff has received bonds and insurance and is
scheduling a pre -construction meeting.
9. The contractor for the Stabilization of City Owned Properties project
has completed work and City staff is scheduling a final walk for the
2 2
project. The project is scheduled to go to City Council for acceptance
on December 4 th.
10. The project team for the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study
has completed the cost of service analysis, which identifies the City's
estimated costs of providing fee -related development services. The
project team is in the final stages of creating a proposed schedule of
fees that will be presented, along with the cost of service analysis, to
the City Council and community stakeholder groups. The study is
currently 85% complete. Outreach meetings with the Desert Valley
Builders Association and Building Industry Association are expected to
be held in November and December.
11. The NPDES Permit Annual Report was submitted to the County
on November 1. This extensive report details all of the activities that
the City undertook to comply with the storm water.quality permit. Our
report will be compiled with the reports from the other cities in the
Coachella Valley for submittal to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board later this year.
12. The department collected the following fees for the month of
October 2012:
Ortnhpr
Major Encroachment Permit
$7116
Transportation Permit
$30
PM Map Checking Fees/
$27,420
Parcel Merger/Lot Line Adjustment
$0
Grading Permits
$172.50
Driveway Permit
$30
Tentative Parcel Map
$0
Tentative Tract Map
$0
Tentative Tract Map Time Ext.
$0
Total
$34,768.50
.If 227
,all 4 I'm
ftlice
uepavtil
ent
monm
October2812
Table of Contents
9 Crime Statistics
* Special Enforcement Team Report
9 Business District Officer Report
9 Business District Community Service Officer Report
e School Resource Officer Report
9 Traffic Services Report
e Community Service Officer Report
e Monthly Volunteer Report
0 Significant Activity Report
if 229
2
Gwyor
±U�UT;u 777 LO,
September 2012
F'j
ki
1-7-779
230
m
u
03
w
E
c
0
CL
cc
m
c
.3
cr
m
.j
%I..
0
W
LM
rn
00
Ln
'*
W
"
-t
L'I
�
"n
f�
0
m
'*
w
co
N
rq
"I
uj
P�
o6
-1
nj
rl
w
cn
ID
en
"1
to
00
oo
Ln
m
cq
o
Fq
Ln
C't
i
r,,�
;6
Ln
N
N
Ln
to
N
m
Ln
m
oo
in
Ln
Ln
a
'm
w
w
m
rl
�
N
-cr
m
w
Nl,.,*,[Lnl
w
e
C-i
1*
cy;
k6
o6l
c�il
232
.j
La Quium Police
SIGN I FICANT ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 2012
La Quinta SET Officers served a property related search warrant in the 81300 block of Avenue
46, Indio. The warrant stemmed from a theft of mail, from mailboxes, in north La Quinta.
Through the theft of mail, the suspects obtained stolen credit cards and then used the cards to
commit fraud and commercial burglary at various retail stores in the city of La Quinta. During
the service of the search warrant, stolen items and other evidence were located; however, the
suspects were not.located. Charges of theft, burglary, and possession of stolen property were
filed with the District Attorney's Office.
La Quinta SET Officers assisted the Coachella Valley Violent Crime Task Force with a property
and gang related search warrant in the 80000 block of Avenue 48, Indio. The warrant was au-
thored by the Gang Task Force and stemmed from La Quinta SET's arrest of two armed gang
members last month. During the search of the location, additional gang indicia was located
which will assist with the prosecution of the two suspects.
La Quinta SET Officers conducted a pedestrian check, of a transient, sleeping in front of a busi-
ness near the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington St, La Quinta. The man was arrest-
ed for a felony embezzlement warrant and he was booked into the Indio Jail.
La Quinta SET Officers attempted to talk to a male riding a bicycle near the intersection of Aven-
ida Ramirez and Calle Sonora. The suspect ran from the officers and after a short foot pursuit,
was located and arrested. He was found to be in possession of prescription medication without
a prescription. Officers also located a loaded handgun that the suspect discarded during the
foot pursuit. The suspect was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, felon in pos-
session of a firearm and violation of parole. Officers conducted a search of the suspect's home
in the La Quinta Cove before booking him into the Indio Jail.
La Quinta SET Officers conducted follow-up of theft of golf clubs from a country club within the
city of La Quinta. During the investigation, it was learned that the suspect sold several stolen
clubs to a golf business located in the city of La Quinta. Officers worked with the business and
the country club to identify the suspect and additional stolen property. Officers contacted the
suspect at his home in Indio. The suspect provided SET Officers with additional stolen property.
The suspect confessed to the crime and was arrested for theft, burglary, and embezzlement. He
-was booked into the Indio Jail and all of the stolen property was recovered.
La Quinta SET Officers have contacted several subjects within the city of La Quinta which have
resulted in numerous arrests for narcotic violations, thefts, and outstanding warrants. La Quinta
SET will continue their pro -active and community oriented policing efforts throughout the city
which will result in more arrests of drug dealers, thieves, and career criminals. The goal of La
Quinta SET is to improve the quality of life for the residents of La Quinta by reducing crime.
2369
TYPE OF ACTIVITY, # of incidents TYPE OF ACTIVITY # of incl
7"In"
LA QUINTA POLICE
I TJ
A d"
VF�
RNA,
Page 2
Significant Actiiiiity for October 2012
During the month of October, Officers from the Business District Team have been working to build a better relation-
ship with the property managers, store managers, and loss prevention officers along the Highway Ill corridor. They have
conducted several business checks and contacted many of the store managers to ensure them that the Business District
Team is working to reduce the number of thefts from their businesses. During the contacts, information has been shared to
improve the communication between the La Quinta Police Department and surrounding businesses in their area. Future
meetings have been scheduled in preparation for the busy Holiday Theft Prevention Program during the months of Novem-
ber and December.
La Quinta Business District Officers worked in partnership with the La Quinta Special Enforcement Team in conduct-
ing a surveillance operation in the La Quinta Cove area. The operation targeted a particular residence that was suspected to
be involved in a series of vandalisms in the city of La Quinta, which includes the Business District corridor in Old Town and
Hwy Ill. Information was obtained cluringthe surveillance and further investigation will be conducted by the La Quinta Spe-
cial Enforcement Team and Thermal Investigations Unit.
La Quinta Business District Officers authored a search warrant regarding a commercial burglary at the La Quinta
Wal-Mart in an attempt to recover the stolen property. Unfortunately no property was recovered. The suspect in the burglary
has been identified and the case will be filed with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office.
La Quinta Business District Officers worked in cooperation with Beaumont Police Department and identified a group
of suspects in a theft from several Wal-Marts in the Coachella Valley and Inland Empire. With information provided by the
Business District Team to Beaumont's Wal-Mart and Beaumont Police Department, the suspects were identified during a
contact at the Beaumont Wal-Mart. A search warrant was later conducted at several residences and a large amount of sto-
len Wal-Mart property was recovered. La Quinta Business District Team are currently working with Beaumont PD to close the
La Quinta Theft cases.
La Quinta Business District Officers, in partnership with La Quinta Special Enforcement Team and Alcohol Beverage
Control (ABC) Agents of the Coachella Valley, conducted a decoy operation. The decoy operation involved a minor enter-
ing several ABC licensed establishments attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage from the location. All the businesses
were located along the Highway Ill corridor in the city of La Quinta. During the operation, a few of the ABC licensed estab-
lishments served the minor an alcoholic beverage. Citations were issued at each location for furnishing alcohol to a minor
and charges have been filed with the District Attorney's Office. ABC will be conducting an administration investigation re-
garding the violation of the ABC licensing agreement.
La Quinta Business District Officers responded to the Kohl's to conduct a routine business check. While inside the
location, Loss Prevention Officers noticed two suspicious subjects preparing to steal from the business. Officers exited the
store and prepared for the subjects to leave the store with the stolen merchandise. For unknown reasons the suspects be-
came nervous and left the store. Officers contacted the subjects outside the store and discovered they were both career
criminals and had previous theft contacts in La Quinta. Both subjects were released after their information was recorded.
Kohl's Loss prevention believes we prevented the theft before it occurred.
La Quinta Business District Officers have been working diligently in preparing for the many programs and operations
to come in the months of November and December. Many of these programs include the Blues and Brews, Wal-Mart Black
Friday event, GameStop Black-Ops game release, Toys for Tots, Shop with a Cop, and Holiday Theft Prevention Program.
Time and preparation are important in ensuring these events are conducted in a safe and efficient manner. In addition to
the time spent in preparing for these events, Officers have participated in further law enforcement classes to improved the
training and experience of the Officers assigned to the Business District Team.
La Quinta Business District Officers will continue their pro -active and community oriented policing efforts in the
business district of La Quinta. These efforts will result in more arrests of thieves and career criminals in order to improve the
quality of life for the shoppers and residents of La Quinta. This continued hard work by La Quinta Business District Team has
kept the crime rate low along the La Quinta business corridor for the month of October.
239 12
Significant Activity for October
During the month of October we had three
events:
-October 5th, Boys and Girls Club National Safety
Day for Kids. Pamphlets on Child Safety, Burglary,
Neighborhood Watch and Safety focused coloring
books were distributed . McGruff was there to take
photos and help promote "Take a Bite Out of
Crime".
Officer Philip Curia
Community Service Officer 11
Type of Activity
Number of Incidents
Reports
3
Online Reports
0
Calls for Service
4
Parking Citations
2
Towed Vehicles
I
Business Checks
10
Business Meetings
1
Community Events
2
CPTED Reviews
0
-October 18th, Health and Safety Fair at La Quinta Resort. Pamphlets on Home Safety, Identity
Theft, Neighborhood Watch and Safety Focused coloring books were given out to all employees.
Drunk Goggles showing over the limit drinking simulation was also demonstrated by employees.
-On October 25th, Business Meeting at Desert Sage Restaurant, business owners and property
management met to introduce the new business district team and the importance of working
with the police in reducing crime in our businesses.
-Continued proactive patrol of all the shopping centers and downtown businesses of La Quinta.
240
Community Programs
Business Meeting
Community Contacts
Officer Jessica Herrera
Community Service Officer
Significant Activity for October 2012
-Prepared the end of month report for the city, which includes crime distribution table for six
different beats, calls for service, average response times and a graph with year to date
crime comparison.
-Puerta Azul and La Quinta Del Oro requested a statistical report for their community.
Prepared the report and included calls for service for the year to date. Talked about calls in
their area and what they can do to prevent crime.
-Attencled the Employee Health & Safety Fair at the La Quinta Resort, provided
informational pamphlets to the employees and answered questions.
-Business meeting at Desert Sage, met with business owners of Old Town La Quinta and
talked about crime in their area and how we can assist them.
-Prepared a statistical report showing crimes and calls for service for Resort Communities
Security Association. This report included four different country clubs: The Hideaway,
Rancho De La Paz, Rancho La Quinta and Tradition.
-Prepared the GEM article for December on (Holiday Safety Tips).
-Created a Neighborhood Watch information packet to give to residents.
241
Lo Quinto Police
MONTHLYSCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER REPORT
SCHOOLS:
La Quinta High School
DEPUTY: REBECCA SMITH
Reports
24
County Citations
1
Arrests
24
Pedestrian Checks
27
Y.A.T Referral
19
Business Checks
2
D.A. Filings
4
Follow-up
12
Vehicle Checks
7
Public Assist
I I
City Park Checks
23
SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 2012
On October 13th, my partner and I were working the homecoming dance and we located an
open vehicle door. Upon examination of the vehicle we discovered a large half gallon bottle of opened
tequila. We located all of the occupants of the vehicle inside of the dance where most confessed to
consuming alcohol prior to coming to the dance. Seven of the students are now facing charges for mi-
nor consuming alcohol, possession of alcohol and possession of narcotics.
On October 16th, I contacted a student who was seen attempting to prop open the male locker
room doors. Upon searching the student, I found a makeshift weapon constructed of a sharpened drill
bit with a long marker cap and pencil cushion to create a handle for the weapon. The minor was
booked at juvenile hall and is pending charges. He was also put up for expulsion by the school.
On October 24th, I received information that a student who has an internship at a local pharma-
cy had stolen a bottle containing 100 pain killers. Investigation revealed that the intern had stolen the
bottle for her and her boyfriend and his younger brother to consume. The boyfriend also had planned
to sell the items. While investigating that incident I learned of another student who was selling
Percocet on campus as well. All students were arrested and are pending charges.
242 15
Lo Quinto Police
MONTULYSCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER REPORT
SCHOOLS:
Summit High School/ Col. Mitchell Paige Middle School/ Horizon Continuation School
DEPUTY: CHRISTOPHER TRUEBLOOD
Reports
Arrests
D.A. Filings
Traffic Citations
16 Business/Ped/A.Checks/T.Stops 15
11 Public Assists 3
I I Follow-up
4 Assist Other Agencies
Calls for Service 20
SIGNIRCANT ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 2012
On Friday October 5th, at approximately 0950 hours I arrested a 13 year -old male juvenile at
Colonel Mitchell Paige Middle School for 626. 10 PC � Possession of a knife on school grounds. The
juvenile was found in possession of two fixed blade knives. He also possessed a black rubber tube
that was approximately three feet in length with one end having a loop that could be constricted like a
noose or used as a restraint. There was a dirty white painters face mask and three black fabric gloves
also located in the juvenile's backpack. The juveniles residence was searched in accordance with the
Riverside County Kids with Guns Protocol and he was booked into the Indio Juvenile Hall for the
aforementioned charge.
On Tuesday October 30th, at approximately 0900 hours I investigated a report of two 14 year -
old female juveniles at Colonel Mitchell Paige Middle School who had ingested cake laced with ma-
rijuana. The evidence had already been consumed so I was unable to determine the validity of the
claim. The incident was documented and the juveniles were suspended from school. There have been
numerous reports of juveniles bringing food containing marijuana to school recently because it is eas-
ier to conceal.
On Wednesday October 3 1 th, at approximately 113 0 hours I arrested a 17 year old female at
Summit High School who was in possession of alcohol and also under the influence. She was trarts-
ported to the Indio Juvenile Hall and booked into custody for 25608 B&P — Minor in possession of
alcohol on school grounds.
During the month of October I made numerous arrests at Colonel Mitchell Paige Middle
School and Summit High School for juveniles in possession of marijuana.
16
Lo Quinta Police
MOMTHLYSCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER REPORT
SCHOOLS:
La Quinta Middle School, Harry Truman Elementary, Ben Franklin Elementary, and John Adams
Elementary
DEPUTY:kERRINARLAN
STATISTICS:
Reports 6 Pedestrian Checks 0
Arrests 0 City Citations 2
Y.A.T Referrals I Follow-up 10
D.A. Filings 0 Public Assist 4
SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 2012
On Oct 12th, I visited Adams Elementary at the request of the Principal to speak with a 4th
grader who has had problems with stealing since 0 grade. hi speaking with the student, I found out
she was being bullied by a 5th grader. When speaking to 5th grader, she admitted to picking on the 4h
grader. I do follow-up visits weekly with the 4th grader to help make sure she stays on the right
track.
On Oct 15th, I was informed by the La Quinta Middle School counselor he had a student in
his office that has expressed her suicidal thoughts to him. She was transported to Oasis Mental
Health.
On Oct 24th, the day custodian at La Quinta Middle School arrived on campus and heard a
repeated banging noise. She could see a subject kicking the vending machine. Beside him, she be-
lieved she saw a golf cart, however still dark. It was found that the golf cart was stolen from Truman
Elementary, which is across the parking lot from the Middle School. Two days later, the golf cart
was found by Sacramento Sheriffs Dept., but no suspect information was obtained.
On, Oct 26th, I conducted a check the welfare visit to the home of a 3rd grader at Truman El-
ementary. This student had missed 17 days of school, only attending 12. This day was 7 in a row,
with no excuse from the parents. I brought student to school that day, and she has only missed one
day, but had a Dr.'s note. Major progress with Torres' behavior and attendance. 17
244
Traffic Team Report
SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY REPORT
I;
LA QUINTA POUCE
Month of Sept.
Table of contents:
Significant Activity I
Monthly Collisions 2
The City of La Quinta received 49 calls for service for Traffic Collisions for the month of September. Of Traffic Collisions 3
those calls for service, 27 (49%) were documented in written reports. Of those documented collisions, Report
74% of reports have been entered into the Crossroads Collision Database and provide the following
information: Monthly Collisions 4
Stats
The city of La Quints saw a 10% decrease in the number of traffic collisions on public roadways for Primary Collision 5
September 2012 in comparison to August. Overall, collision activity for 2012 has decreased 1 in Factor
comparison 2011.
The number of collisions resuftjm� in inqury has increased by one (33%). in comparison to last month
but has decreased by 11% for the Yea in comparison to 2011.
One collision resulted in a fatal which is still under investigation and the cause remains undeter-
mined.
Hit and Run Collisions have decreased 43% for Septembe . Overall Hit and Run Collisions remain th
same as last Year, with 39. Overall Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions remain minimal.
Public roadway collision activity was hiPhest on Sunday with most collisions occurring between th
hours of 8:00prn and 11,59pm.
Unsafe Speed accounted for 20% of collisions. Unsafe Lane Changes accounted for 12%. and Traffic
Signals and Signs accounted for 8% of collisions for the City of La Quints. As a result, La Quinta Traffic
Services focus their attention toward education and enforcement of drivers who violate these traffic
laws and further focus enforcement toward high collision areas.
Officers in the City of La Quinta issued 319 citations for the month of September which provides a
Traffic Enforcement Index of 36 (cited hazardous violations in relation to injury collision).
Since it takes a significant period of time to compile data, the monthly Traffic Collision Statistics and
Data Report contain only those reports which have been completed. In keeping with all developing
trends, traffic services constantly shifts its focus to meet the leading causes of collisions within the
city.
Primary Collision 6
Factor
MOTOR TEAM:
• SGT. PICKOWITZ
• CPIL OLSON
• OFFICER SCOTT
• OFFICER MOORE
• OFFICER PALMER
241
City of La Quinta
La Quints Police Department
Monthly Traffic Collisions
Type - Hour - Day
I IM2
Month: Septembe Year 2012
Mim
Ell".1112-II!,31,
ZIU§Xi? �TM
w
"r
01-1
14
19
246
I IM2
City of La Quinta
La Quinta Police Deparbrient
Monthly Traffic Collisforlis Report
so 2012
Total TIC - Pubic Ffighvay
Fatal Collisions
NumberKilled
Injury Collisions
Number Injured
Property Damage
Type of Collision
Hit & Run
Private Property
Bicycie copisionis
Number Injured - Bicycle Collisions
VaNcle vs. Pedestrian
Alcohol Involved
Patrol
Target Team
Traft
DUTY UNKNOWN
1�
� .70,
TOTALREPORTS
Counter Reports
DUI Arrests
InvesduatIons AsMoned
Kd and Run
Unsafe Speed
Unsafe Lane Ctwige
Traft Signals; and Signs
Other Improper Driving
Other
Wrong Side of Road
Unsafe Starting or Bacldng
Current Month
N9wYTD
Last YTO
% Change
20
209
235
-1 1.08%
1
1
2
-50.00%
1
1
2
-M.00%
5
42
46
-8.70%
8
62
62
0.00%
14
166
187
-11.23%
4 39
39
0.00%
5 42
43
-2.33%
4
4
0.01)%
4
3
33,33%
0 3
3
0.00%
1 17
21
-19.05%
0
14
193
258
-25.19%
2
10
9
11.11%
6
35
16
118.75%
1
a
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
100.00%
25
251
278
-9.71%
Last YTD
This YTD
Closed
open
Num
5
% TOW
20.00%
3
12.00%
2
&00%
2
&00%
2
&00%
1
4.00%
1
4.00%
20
247
Unknown 4.00%
ODWlbanDrim 4.CD%
00m Ham%bA Movefflard 4.00%
AN Oftm 24.00%
248 21
City of La Quints
La Quints Police Department
Monthly Traffic Collision Statistics
Month: SepIlembe Year 2M2
Primary Collision Factor E=eselve Speed
Secondary Collision Factor Signe and Signals
Tertiary Collision Factor Fail= to Yield
Day of Week When Majority Occurs: Sunda
Time of Day When Majority Occurs: 20:00 to 23:sg
Rank
Location
Collisions
I
Fred Waring or I Washington St
3
2
Hwy I I I I Washington St
3
3
47900 Washington St, La Quints I Avenue 48
1
3
79225 Slackhawk Wy I Private Property
1
3
Adams St I Miss Av
1
3
Ave 481 Dune Palms Rd
1
3
Ave 50 1 Orchard Ln
1
3
Ave 60 1 Washington St
3
Ave 52 1 Jeflierson St
3
Avenida Bermudas I Cage Durango
3
Avenida Madam I Celle Potrero
3
Avenida Me & rc I Calle Sinaloa
3
Avenida Navano I Call& Colima
3
Avenue 48 1 Jeftmon St
3
Down Crest or I Dune Palms Rd
3.
Hwy I 111 La Quinis Or
3
Simon Or I Washington St
22
.,J 2 4 9
City of La Quinta
La Quinta Police Department
Primary Collision Factors vs. Citadons
Nionft Septembe Year: 2012
19
1" 2 50 23
aR
aR
ag
01
IL
c
0
0
E
CL
M M " � "
19 1 1 1
q C3, C2 a
ID Id ad
N cm tv
q
0
Ogg
I
I
g
I
i
s
40
Id
td
w
w
43,
0
a
c 0 a 0
c
z
C,
IL I
CO Im rL a
CD
c c
CL,
ic
E c
10 1 E
8 1.- (a o o
I -V
94
25 1 24
c;
C3,
0 C4 n C4 q q
90 c c 4
c
CIL
1 N 1
I r-
14"
M
to
25
25')
Community Sem*ce Officer
La Ouinta CSO
e Officer Melinda Lopez
9 Officer David Kruger
0 Officer Bridget Delaney
Summary of Activity for October 2012
Type of Activi
Number of Incidents
Burglary Reports
25
Grand/Petty Theft Reports
14
Vandalisrn/ Malicious Mischief Reports
7
Traffic Collision Response
27
Vehicle Code or Parking Citations
10
Abandoned Vehicle Tagged/Warning
7
Towed Vehicles
2
Lost or Found Property Reports
4
Custodial/Non-custodial Transports
I I
Miscellaneous Calls
39
11 0 26
.. .. .. 253
254
#�Iry or
I Deserto
A--w# a.,P--A e—q. &-*; N-,�
SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR OCTOBER 2012
Captain Andrew Shouse
Chief of Police
Monday, October 1. 2012
01: 10 AM: Officers responded a disturbance call on Hwy 111 and Washington Street, and
arrested Mark Lernmerman, (50 yrs of Palm Desert) for public intoxication. BEAT 41
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
No Significant activity to report.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
12:23 AM: Officers responded to a theft call at Kohl's Department Store, and arrested Mana
Rodarte (27 yrs of Indio) for commercial burglary. BEAT 41
Thursday, October 4,2012
No significant activity to report.
Friday, October 5,2012
2:10 PM: Officers responded to a shoplifting call at Kohl's Department Store, and arrested a
(16 yrs old malc juvenile of La Quinta) for commercial burglary. BEAT 41
11:10 PM: SET Officers conducted a pedestrian check at Washington Street and Fred Waring
Dr, and arrested Steven Manger (48 yrs of Palm Desert) for being under the influence of a
controlled substance and violation of probation. BEAT 40
Saturday, October 6,2012
2:20 AM: Officers conducted a traffic stop on Washington Street and Avenue 48, and arrested
Rebecca Lund (45 yrs of La Quinta) for driving under the influence. BEAT 42
4:50 AM: Officers conducted a traffic stop on Washington Street and Avenue 48, and Martin
Rodriguez (18 yrs of La Quinta) was arrested for driving under the influence. BEAT 42
2 5 5 28
5:53 PM: Officers responded to a theft call at Kohl's Department Store, and arrested Maria
Daniels (19 years of Indio) and Aneesa Romero (19 years of Indio) for commercial burglary,
BEAT 41
Sunday, October 7,2012
No significant activity to report.
Monday, October 8,2012
8:14 AM: Officers responded to a disturbance call on the 79000 block of Avenue 48, and
arrested Manuel Martinez (33 yrs of Indio) for a violation of domestic violence restraining
order. BEAT 42
Tuesday, October 9,2012
11:00 PM: Officers responded to a disturbance 47000 block of Dune Palm Road, and arrested
Patsy Gamez (35 yrs of La Quinta) for child endangerment and resistinglobstructing1delaying a
peace officer. BEAT 41
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
No significant activity
Thursday, October 11, 2012
9:23 PM: Business District Officers conducted a traffic stop on Washington Street s/o Via
Sevilla, and arrested Nancy Boyce (63 yrs of Colorado) for driving under the influence of
alcohol. BEAT 40
10: 10 PM: Officers conducted a traffic stop on Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive, and
arrested Doris Neuendorf (53 yrs of Indio) for.driving under influence of alcohol. BEAT 40
Friday, October 12,2012
7:34 PM: SET Officers conducted a pedestrian check at Eisenhower Drive and Calle Durango,
and arrested Eric Rodriguez (41 yrs of La Quinta) for possession of metharnphetamine and
violation of probation. BEAT 43
Saturday, October 13, 2012
12:29 AM: Officers responded to an assault with a deadly weapon call on the 5 1000 block of
Avenida Mendoza, and arrested Josie Navarro (38 yrs of La Quinta) for obstructing a peace
officer and booked. BEAT 43
2
2 5 6 29
3:29 AM: Officers responded to a theft call at Wal-Mart, and arrested Flerida Jimenez (42 yrs
of Mecca) and Maria Moajarrez (27 yrs of Mecca) for commercial burglary. BEAT 41
Sanday, October 14, 2012
10:29 AM: Officers responded to a vandalism call on the 51000 block of Calle Hueneme.
Investigation revealed unknown subject(s) spray painted swastikas and racial epithets graffiti
on the exterior north facing stucco wall. The residence is currently unoccupied. The
neighborhood was canvased and no other incidents of vandalism were located or reported. La
Quinta City Works responded and painted over the graffiti. BEAT 43
4:19 AM: Officers responded to a robbery call at the USA Gas Mini Market (79440 Hwy I 11).
The suspect entered the store and demanded money from the register. The clerk refused and the
suspect exited the store. The suspect was last seen westbound toward Hwy I 11. BEAT 41
3:55 PM: Officers responded to a theft call at Kohl's (78950 Hwy I 11), and arrested Jaime
Sterriker (25 yrs of Indio) for commercial burglary. BEAT 41
Monday, October 15,2012
No significant activity
Tuesday. October 16. 2012
3:30 PM: Officers responded to a domestic disturbance call on the 54000 block of Avenida
Alvarado, and arrested Tim Kearney (53 yrs of La Quinta) for domestic battery. BEAT 43
Wednesday, October 17,2012
No significant activity
Thursday, October 18, 2012
2:40 AM: Officers conducted a pedestrian check at Jefferson Street and Hwy 111, and arrested
Eduardo Gil (26 yrs of Indio) for 2 felony drug and theft arrest warrants. BEAT 41
6:30 PM: Business District 6fficers along with La Quinta Special Enforcement Team and
Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Agents conducted a Decoy Operation. Ile decoy operation
involved a minor entering ABC licensed establishments, along Highway I 11. The minor
attempted to purchase an alcoholic beverage from Lamppost Pizza & Backstreet Brewery, The
Beer Hunter, arid Tacos De Ojo Cantina. During the operation, the establishments served the
minor an alcoholic beverage without confirming the minor's proper identification and age.
Citations were issued for furnishing alcohol to a minor. BEAT 41
3
30
25�
Friday, October 19,2012
2:00 AM: Officers conducted a vehicle stop at Avenida Martinez and Calle Hildago, and
arrested Jose Alberto Lopez Ramirez (24 yrs of Indio) for felony drug wan -ant. BEAT 43
7:30 PM: Officers responded to a suspicious persons call at Walgreens (47900 Washington
St.), and arrested Richard Stroud (50 yrs. of Indio) for felony vandalism. BEAT 41
9:49 PM: Officers responded to a theft call at Target (7893 5 Hwy 111), and arrested Juan
Margarito Pena (24 yrs of Coachella) for commercial burglary. BEAT 41
Saturday, October 20, 2012
2:39 AM: Officers conducted a vehicle stop on Hwy I I I and Jefferson Street, and arrested
Andre Hancock (37 yrs of Menifee) for possession of methamphetarnine and drug
paraphernalia. BEAT 41
1:45 PM: Officers conducted an occupied vehicle check in front of the Stein Mart (78945 Hwy
I 11), and arrested Samantha Robertson (24 yrs of Klamath Falls Oregon), Bradley Brooks (3 5
yrs of Klamath Falls, Oregon) and Erik Pratt (28 yrs of Klamath Falls) for being under
influence of a controlled substance. Upon further investigation, 13.5 grams of tar heroin, 3.2
grams of methamphetamine, numerous syringes, pay owe sheets, scale and packaging for
located in the vehicle. Additionally, all three individuals were arrested for possession of a
controlled substance for sales, and possession of drug paraphernalia. BEAT 41
7:33 PM: Officers responded to a domestic disturbance on the 78000 Bayberry Ln, and
arrested Efrain Nunez (51 yrs of La Quinta) for criminal threats. BEAT 40
Sunday. October 21, 2012
1:25 AM: Officers conducted pedestrian check in the area Eisenhower Drive and Calle
Colima, and arrested Richard Abel Perez (21 yrs of Coachella) for public intoxication.
BEAT 43
Monday, October 22, 2012
No significant activity
Tuesday. October 23, 2012
2:50 PM: Officers responded to a theft call at Target (7893 5 Hwy I 11), and arrested David
Gonzales (32 yrs of Indio) for commercial burglary. BEAT 41
5: 10 PM: Officers responded to a public intoxication call on Hwy I I I and Adams Street, and
arrested Patricia Fay (50 yrs of Indio) for public intoxication. BEAT 41
4
tt 258 31
Wednesday, October 24. 2012
12:17 AM: Officers conducted a vehicle check on Avenida Ramirez and Calle Tecate, and
arrested Joseph Nathaniel Boyd (19 years of La Quinta) for a felony vandalism arrest warrant
possession of a deadly weapon inside of the jail. BEAT 43
1:10 PM: SET Officers conducted a pedestrian check at Miles Avenue and Jefferson Stree�
and arrested Fabian Ceja (28 yrs of Riverside) for a parolee at large warrant. BEAT 40
2:20 PM: La Quinta High School Resource Officer conducted a theft and drug investigation of
a 17-year old student working at the CVS Pharmacy (44100 Jefferson Street) where the student
stole 100 pills of Acetaminophen/Codeine. The student conspired to sell the pill on campus.
BEAT40
Thursday, October 25, 2012
No significant activity
Friday, October 26, 2012
8:19 PM: Officers responded to a disturbance call on the 80000 block of Avenue 52, and
arrested Jesse Ronquillo (34 yrs of La Quinta) for felony spousal abuse and criminal threats.
BEAT44
9:50 PM: La Quinta High School Resource Officer conducted a pedestrian check at the La
Quinta Park (79120 BIackhawk Way), and arrested Samuel Cathcart (21 yrs of San Jacinto) for
possession of LSD and unauthorized prescription medication. BEAT 40
Saturday, October 27,2012
5:36 PM: SET Officers conducted a pedestrian check at Hwy I I I and Washington Street, and
arrested Ronald Ernst (59 yrs of Oklahoma) for a felony embezzlement warrant. BEAT 41
7:22 PM: SET Officers conducted a pedestrian check at Avenida Martinez and Calle Sinaloa,
and arrested Eidth Valenzuela (21 yrs of La Quinta) for a felony assault with a deadly weapon
warrant. BEAT 43
9:33 PM: SET Officers responded to a domestic disturbance call on the 51000 block of
Avenida Obregon, and arrested Cecil Evans (42 yrs of La Quinta) for felony spousal abuse.
BEAT43
Sunday. October 28,2012
1:44 PM: Officers conducted a pedestrian check at Eisenhower drive and Calle Chillon, and
arrested Jesus Garcia (21 yrs of La Quinta) for possession. of methamphetamine, under the
influence and possession of paraphernalia. BEAT 43
259 32
1:30 PM: Officers conducted a follow-up investigation on the 80000 block of Avenue 52, and
arrested Jesus Ronquillo (34 of La Quinta) for possession of a stolen vehicle. BEAT 44
Monday. October 29,2012
6:57 PM: Officers responded to a theft call at Target (78935 Hwy I 11), and arrested Christina
Kitagawa Lopez (31 yrs of Indio) for commercial burglary. BEAT 41
9:47 PM Officers responded to fraud call at Target (78935 Hwy I 11), and arrested Vanessa
Patino (24 yrs of Indio) for check fraud, possession of stolen property and petty theft.
BEAT 41
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
6:53 AM: Officers responded to an armed robbery at the Desert Express Car Wash (43-632
Washington Street). Investigation revealed a male suspect entered the business, sprayed an
employee with pepper spray, and stole an undisclosed amount of cash. The suspect fled the
area on foot. The suspect was described as a male adult, unknown race, approximately 5'10"
tall with a medium build. He was wearing a blue hooded jacket with the hood pulled over his
head, black pants, and sunglasses or goggles. BEAT 40
11:00 AM: Officers responded to a theft call at the Hideaway Community on Jefferson Street.
Upon ftuther investigation, it was determined a Hideaway employee stole $1500.00 worth of
golf clubs and tried to return them to some local golf shops for cash. SET Officers conducted a
following -up investigation, and arrested Peter Rankin (29 yrs of Indio) for grand theft, burglary
and embezzlement. BEAT 44
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
No significant activity
6 260 33
1��/SA/HA /FA MEETING DATE: November 20, 2012
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an
Ordinance to Amend the La Quinta Municipal Code;
Section 9.150, Parking, and Other Sections Related
Thereto, Allowing for Tandem Parking Provisions.
Applicant: City of La Quinta .
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING: I
Move to take up Ordinance No. _ approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-
109, thereby amending the La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.150, Parking, and
other Sections related thereto, by title and number only and waive further reading;
and
Move to introduce Ordinance No. amending the La Quinta Municipal Code
9.150, Parking, and other Sections related thereto, on first reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are intended to clarify when and
where tandem parking is allowed. Exhibit A of the recommended Ordinance
represents changes to the Municipal Code relevant to tandem parking allowances.
These amendments namely consist of:
* Incorporation of a tandem parking definition;
o Allowance for tandem garage parking designs to satisfy minimum parking
requirements for the Cove, and as excess parking in all zoning districts; and,
* Clarification of residential garage dimensions for tandem parking design.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
1 261
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
In June of this year, the Planning Commission reviewed an appeal regarding a
proposed tandem garage for a new home in the La Quinta Cove. The Commission
did not uphold the Director's determination that a tandem garage parking
configuration was not permitted, and directed staff to revise the Code to more
definitively address tandem garage parking throughout the City.
The proposed changes, as listed below, are focused on clearly identifying where
and how tandem parking can be used in the City's residential districts. Beyond the
primary revisions affecting Section 9.150, minor language changes are also needed
in other Municipal Code sections related to the proposed amendment:
Sections 9.150.040.B.1, 9.150.060 (Table 9-11), 9.150.080.A.3, and
9.150.080.13.11 have been revised to specify when tandem parking is
permitted and the development standards applicable to such parking.
Generally, tandem garage parking, when proposed to meet minimum parking
requirements, would only be permitted only in the RC district. In all
residential districts, tandem parking may be employed when in excess of the
minimum requirements.
Section 9.50.090.A, relating to RC District development standards, has been
revised to specifically cite the parking standards contained in Section 9.150;
this is simply to clarify the governing Section.
Section 9.60.060.B.1, relating to Garage and Carport setbacks, now
includes a provision that a tandem garage may not be designed as a side -
entry garage when located along a street frontage.
Section 9.280.030, relating to Definition of Terms, has been amended to
add a tandem parking definition.
Cove Neighborhood Association Review - A draft of the proposed amendment was
provided to representatives of Cove Neighborhood Association for review and
comment. No written response has been received, but at a meeting with staff,
Association representatives commented in support of the proposed language.
Public Notice Requirements - This request was published in The Desert Sun
newspaper on November 9, 2012. To date, no letters have been received.
I
Comments were not requested from any public agencies or other City Departments,
due to the narrow scope of the amendment and the unlikelihood that these changes
will affect any other departments or agencies.
1.
262
FindipjLs - Findings for approval can be found in the attached Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative actions available to the City Council include denying the amendment
request, referring the proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration, or discussion and incorporation of any adjustments deemed
appropriate in order to approve the proposed amendment request.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At their regular meeting of October 23, 2012, the La Quinta Planning Commission
did, on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Wright absent), adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2012-028, recommending to the City Council adoption of the proposed
amendments. There was no testimony during the public hearing, and the
Commission had no substantive comments and made no revisions to the
amendment language.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that the proposed Amendment
is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental
Quality Act Statutes, and Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions of the
CEQA Guidelines.
submitted,
Planning Director
263
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 9 (ZONING) OF THE LA
QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, SPECIFICALLY: SECTION 9.50.090A
RELATING TO RC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; SECTION
9.60.060.B.1, RELATING TO GARAGE AND CARPORT SETBACKS;
SECTIONS 9.150.040.B.1, 9.150.060 (TABLE 9-11). 9.150.080.A.3,
AND 9.150.080.B.11, RELATING TO WHEN TANDEM PARKING IS
PERMITTED AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
SUCH PARKING
CASE NO: ZOA 2012-109
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of accommodating
changes in residential building and design practices; and
WHEREAS, the City has, from time to time, made amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance to address changes in circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 23 rd day of October, 2012, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing
for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment' to accommodate tandem parking
design by revisions to Sections 9.50.090, 9.60.060.B.1, 9.150.040.13.1,
9.150.060 (Table 9-11), 9.150.080.A.3, and 9.150.080,B.11; and, after hearing
and considering all testimony and arguments, did adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2012-028, recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
20' day of November, 2012, and considered the evidence, written and oral,
presented at the hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Title 9, the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code,
is amended as identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
SECTION 2. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. The City Council
hereby finds that this Ordinance is consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies of La Quinta General Plan, particularly Goal 2 of the Residential Goals,
Policies and Programs, in that allowing tandem parking will facilitate a broader
w 264
Ordinance No.
Zoning Ordinaric—e—Amendment 2012-109
November 20, 2012
Page 2 of 3
range of housing types, through greater flexibility in siting units on residential lots
and design options for individual homes. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment is also
consistent with the General Plan because it does not create any new or changed
conditions to the environment, and is intended to allow for the continued high
quality of development in the City. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, and will have no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare, as the
amendments do not incorporate any changes that affect the regulation and/or
provision of public services, utility systems, or other foreseeable health, safety and
welfare considerations.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL. The Planning Director has determined said
Zoning Ordinance Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to
Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended
(Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning Department has reviewed the
Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has determined that the
Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061 (13)(3), Review for Exemptions of
the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be
severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of
this Ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof,
but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph,
subdivision, section, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which
such judgment shall have been rendered.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take full force and
effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption.
. SECTION 7. POSTING. The City Clerk shall, within 15 days after passage of
this Ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three public places designated by
resolution of the City Council, shall certify to the adoption and posting of this
Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof
of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City of La Quinta.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of December, 2012, by
the following vote:
11
2 6 5
Ordinance No.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-109
November 20, 2012
Page 3 of 3
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
DON ADOLPH, Mayor
City of La Quinta California
ATTEST:
Susan Maysels, Interim City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
L 1 266
EXHIBIT A
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-109
FINAL RECOMMENDED TANDEM PARKING AMENDMENTS
AMEND 9.50.090.A, RC district development standards; Requirements, to add
9.50.090.A.19, as follows:
A. Requirements:
19. Parkina shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 9.150, Table 9-11
(Parking for Residential Land Uses).
AMEND 9.60.060.13.1, Garages and carports; Setbacks, as follows:
1. In the RVL district, the minimum garage or carport setback shall be thirty feet.
In all other residential districts, the minimum setback for front -entry type
garages or carports shall be twenty-five feet if a standard "pivot" type garage
door is used, twenty feet if a "roll -up" type garage door is used, and twenty
feet for a carport. For side -entry type garages, the minimum garage setback
shall be twenty feet in the RVL district and fifteen feet in all other residential
districts. A side -entry garage designed as tandem parking, when permitted
under this code, shall not be located along any street frontage.
AMEND 9.150.040.B.1, Parking location and accessibility; Accessibility, as
follows:
1 All required off-street parking spaces shall be designed, located, constructed
and maintained so as to be fully and independently usable and accessible at all
times.
AMEND 9.150.060 Spaces required by use, as follows:
Table 9-11 Parking for Residential Land Uses
Land Use
Minimum Off -Street Parking
Requirement
Additional Requirements
Single-family detached,
single-family attached and
duplexes
2 spaces per unit in a
garage, plus 0.5 guest
spaces per unit if no on-
street parking is available.
A bedFOOFA
Fneens any
habitable that
FOOM May
be f
used
tthan
PUFP0688 other aa
)0
In a garage, -tandem parking
bathFOOFA,
hallway, dinhng-4eeffj-,—�
may be used to meet the
Iffiving reem. MOF&RUM
above -stated minimum
dFiveway ieRgth shall
required Parking in the RC
GORfAFFA *s Sestmen
district only.
Irequired
9.60.060. For all sinale
family residential zones
except RC, parking in
excess of the minimum
may be tandgm
AMEND 9.150.080.A.3, Parking facility design standards; Parking Layout and
Circulation, as follows:
A. Parking Layout and Circulation.
3. Tandem parking shall be permitted en4y in mobile home parks/subdivisions,
as driveway guest parking and parking that exceeds the minimum required
for single-family detached, single-family attached and duplex residential
uses, and where valet parking is provided. In the RC residential district,
tandem parking may also be am loyed to meet minimum reauired oarkina
when located within a garage meeting the standards in Section
9.150.080.13.11.
AMEND 9.150.080.13. 11, Parking facility design standards; Parking Facility Design
and Dimensions, as follows:
B. Parking Facility Design and Dimensions.
11. Residential Garages. Minimum interior dimensions in residential garages
(wall-to-wall) shall be based on providing ten feet in width pef-oar-�_�nd
twenty feet in depth, per required vehicle parking space. (For example, a
This applies to design of all required garage parking spaces, whether in a
tandem parking or side -by -side configuration.
AMEND 9.280.030 Definition of terms, to add the following definitions:
Parking, tandem. "Tandem parking" means any off-street parking space(s), or
arrangement of such spaces, configured in such a manner such that one or more
spaces is not directly accessible to a street or other approved access without
traversing any portion of another space.
Tandem parking - see "Parking, tandem".
'V 268
r I
CVEP RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) STATEMENT
Mission
Coachella Valley JobslWorkforce Model: Help companies grow the year-roundjob base of the region
and develop a trained and educated workforce for thosejobs.
Reporting Period: July, 2011 — Present
• Company Client Cases Opened
278
• Companies Adding/Retaining Jobs
69
• Total — New Direct Jobs
1497
• Total - Retained Direct Jobs
652
• Total - Indirect Jobs
1365
• Total Jobs: Direct, Indirect, Retained
3514
• Regional Economic Impact
$522M+
• Career-Themed Program Participants
4200
• Career-Themed Business Partners
422
• Business Partner Hours Volunteered
7932
• Total College Scholarship Awarded
680
• Total College Scholarship Dollars
$3.39M
• Other Financial Aid Assistance Pool
$20M
Recent Highlights:
• Rabobank Regional Business Center has hosted over 6000 business visitors to date
• CV Innovation Hub expands into regional Accelerator Campus
• Three (3) CViHub clients selected to participate in international venture competition
• Over 800 attend 2012 Economic Summit — "Game Change"
• Regional Plan for College and Career Readiness adopted by all three school districts
CLIMATE FOR SUCCESS
3111 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY -PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 -PH: 760 340.1575 - FX: 760 548 0370 - WWWCVEPCOM
v 969
CVEP HIGHLIGHTS 2012 - CITY OF LA QUINTA
* Total business clients served - 17
* Business financings completed - 4
e jobs retained/created - 17
* Pending jobs retained/created - 57
* Opened East Valley office staffed three days per week with bi-lingual staff
Met with City Manager and staff on Healthy Living Strategy and have
discussed initiative with potential developers
Prepared and presented Economic Impact Analysis for Goldenvoice &
Development Management Group for festivals
Awarded $142,500 in college scholarships to 33 residents of La Quinta, for
2012
Working with LQ Rotary and Arts Foundation on becoming a matching
scholarship in CVEP Scholarship Program
* Supported LQHS Health Career Academy with 208 students in grades 9-12
Provided "job shadow" opportunities to 27 LQHS at Eisenhower Medical
Center
9 Provided paid internships to 2 LQHS students in health career summer
program
270