The URL can be used to link to this page

2013 02 05 CC"A T4tv144Q9iKr0 City Council agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page. wwwda-guinta.olq CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 at 4:00 P.M. Beginning Resolution No. 2013-005 Ordinance No. 507 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Osborne, Mayor Adolph PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CLOSED SESSION - NONE 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 54954.21b1. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION BY QUEEN SCHEHERAZADE AND HER COURT ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAIR AND NATIONAL DATE FESTIVAL 2. PRESENTATION OF THE INDIAN WELLS TENNIS GARDEN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PLANS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 February 5, 201�/3�f R APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2013 CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion. 1. DEMAND REGISTER DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2013 2. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 506, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 3 (REVENUE AND FINANCE) AND TITLE 9 (ZONING) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SIGN PROVISIONS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS. CASE NO: ZOA 2012-111 3. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PREPARE THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES FOR THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 2012-07 4. JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A COMMUNITY SCHOOL GARDEN 5. RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING, MAINTAINING, AND OPERATING A DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 6. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM 7. DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY MIRIAM A. JOHNSON; DATE OF LOSS — DECEMBER 17, 2012 8. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE, AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BID THE CALLE SINALOA AND AVENUE 52 SIDEWALK INFILL IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 2012-08 BUSINESS SESSION 1. CIVIC CENTER APPLICATIONS CAMPUS ARTISTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AREA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 February 5; 2013 002 2. APPOINTMENT OF TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE CIVIC CENTER ART PURCHASE COMMITTEE 3. FORMATION AND APPOINTMENT OF TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GRANT REQUESTS STUDY SESSION - NONE REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION (FRANKLIN) 2. CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (FRANKLIN) 3. CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFO EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (EVANS) 5. CVAG CONSERVATION COMMISSION (EVANS) 6. CVAG ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (EVANS) 7. CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (ADOLPH) 8. CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) 9. CVAG TRAILS MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (SMITH) 10. CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) 11. CVAG VALLEY -WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE (OSBORNE) 12. COACHELLA VALLEY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (FRANKLIN) 13. COACHELLA VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (cox) 14. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (FRANKLIN) 15. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE (ADOLPH) 16. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (EVANS) 17. IID ENERGY CONSUMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OSBORNE & BLUM) 18. JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (FRANKLIN) 19. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DELEGATE (HENDERSON) 20. PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION (TEAL) 21. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (HENDERSON) 22. SO. CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS DELEGATE (ADOLPH) 23. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY (ADOLPH) 24. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 10, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER TO CITY OF INDIO FOR MUSIC FESTIVAL PLAN PROJECT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT B. REPORT ON JANUARY 28, 2013 MEETING WITH TRILOGY RESIDENTS REGARDING CALIFORNIA BIO-MASS MAYOR'S AND COUNCIL MEMBER'S ITEMS - NONE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Ci February 5, 2013 003 RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE DISSOLVED LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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). 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 that 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 projectls►. 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. 1. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 2. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.33, TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on February 19, 2013, 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. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 February 5, 2013 " . 004 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, 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 near the entrance to the Council Chambers at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on February 1, 2013. DATED: January 31, 2013 SUSAN MAYSELS, Ay 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 presentations 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. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 5 February 5, 2013 « 005 LaQuinta City Council Presentation February 5, 2013 Good Afternoon. I'm Stephanie Duncan, 5404o Avenida Herrera, LaQuinta. We purchased our home here in 2009 for the purpose of winter training for rowing on Lake Cahuilla. I'm here representing a small group of rowers and Boy Scout Troop #50. Lake Cahuilla has been a venue for the rowers, Boy Scout Troop 50, with their canoes, and other non -motorized boats, since the Park's inception. In January 2012 the CVWD closed Lake Cahuilla to non -motorized boats for fear of a quagga mussel infestation. In March 2012 the Lake was reopened after a meeting with Supervisor Benoit, Steve Robbins, GM at that time, other County officials and Corky Larson CVWD Board member, and me. At that meeting, protocols were established and put into effect to prevent quagga mussel infestation from our rowing shells. Those protocols went into effect 2 days later and we were back training on the Lake. However, on April 17th, CVWD closed Lake Cahuilla again for the same concerns. The rowers have no other lake in the Coachella Valley to use as a suitable venue. Lake Cahuilla is perfect for our sport since there are no power boats, the water is calm, and is in close proximity to Valley residents. Our rowing group is fully supportive of keeping Lake Cahuilla free of quagga mussels and is willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the lake. We fully understand the Water District's concerns, since the lake is used to irrigate the Valley's agricultural areas. The goal should be to manage the quagga mussel issue and KOM not to prohibit non -motorized boats. All other lakes in California are managing the quagga mussel issue; so why not Lake Cahuilla? Steve Robbins, GM for the CVWD, stated in a February 2012 letter to me, that the CVWD Board is fully committed to supporting recreational activities at Lake Cahuilla. Jim Barrett, the Acting General Manager is also in agreement to providing recreational activities at Lake Cahuilla. In August 2012, Mr. Barrett signed a resolution allowing "Limited Boating Activities" provided the enhanced protocols as developed by his staff, were followed and implemented. Unfortunately, this resolution was voted down 2 - 3 by the District's Board at their scheduled Board meeting on August 14, 2012. I am here today to ask for your support through letters and/or phone calls to the CVWD board members to reopen Lake Cahuilla to our rowing group here in LaQuinta. I believe Supervisor Benoit is fully supportive of the County managing the boating facility at Lake Cahuilla. For your convenience, I am providing you with the names and email addresses for the CVWD Board members. Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any questions. Stephanie Duncan 54040 Avenida Herrera LaQuinta, CA 92253 Email: stephanie.abby@comcast.net CVWD Board Members February 2013 John Powell, President johnp(&peterrabbitfarms.com Franz DeKlotz, Vice President fdeklotz (& mrgrape. com Peter Nelson, Immediate Past President fiveyacPme.com Debi Livesay, Board Member dlivesay(&torresmartinez.org Ed Pack, Newly elected board member Send email to him via the Board Secretary, Julia Fernandez at: j fernandez (& cvwd. org Jim Barrett, Acting General Manager jbarrettPcvwd.org iM T4hf 4 4 a" CIT / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Demand Register Dated February 5, 2013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Demand Register Dated February 5, 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: None. FISCAL IMPACT: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: _ CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Demand of Cash City $1,804,195.58 Demand of Cash -Successor Agency of RDA $6,797.00 Demand of Cash — HA $0.00 Demand of Cash — HA Comm $0.00 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: 98328 - 98361} $83,647.07 98362 - 98382} $34,128.60 Voids} $0.00 Wire Transfers} $465,336.11 P/R 36766 — 36812} $569,836.81 P/R Tax Transfers} $242,894.99 '.• 04 009 Payable Warrants Cont'd: 98383 - 98496) $415,149.00 1.810.992.5 In addition, listed below are the most significant expenditures being paid on the regular demand register. Significant Expenditures: Vendor: Account #: Amount: Purpose: Lee & Stires 401-1841-551-45.01 $45,963.48 Washington St. Improvements FG Creative 101-1003-413-55.07 $27,200.51 Advertisement KASA Construction 401-1870-551-45.01 $96,092.50 Fred Waring Median La Quinta Chamber 101-1003-413-33.02 $31,875.00 Qtrly Contract Pymt Studio E Architects 401-1813-551-35.07 $74,106.80 Washington St. Apt. Design ALTERNATIVES: None. Respectfully submitted, Robbey Bird, Finance Director &,a ~ 010 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK TRANSACTIONS 1/08/13 - 1/22/13 1/08/13 WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK $136.354.64 1/08/13 WIRE TRANSFER - TASC $1,115.34 1/14/13 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS $56,983.44 1/16/13 WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK $151,440.61 1/18/13 WIRE TRANSFER - ICMA $62,074.85 1/18/13 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS $57,003.23 1/18/13 WIRE TRANSFER - LQCEA $364.00 TOTAL WIRE TRANSFER OUT $465,336.11 PREPAREDOI/11/2013, 9:27:25 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 43 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98328 133 CALPERS LONG-TERM CARE PR 001155 01/11/2013 101-0000-209.49-00 106.00 106.00 ■ 106.00 98329 2298 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICES 001137 01/11/2013 101-5055-422.41-30 424.27 001138 01/11/2013 101-3004-451.41-30 265.58 689.85 * 689.85 98330 4115 CHECKMATE TELEPHONE EXCHA 001139 01/11/2013 101-5006-426.51-07 180.85 180.85 ■ 180.85 98331 5674 CIGNA HEALTH CARE 001136 01/11/2013 101-0000-209.43-00 7,959.90 7,959.90 * 7,959.90 98332 268 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI 001139 01/11/2013 101-7006-431.32-15 711.50 001139 01/11/2013 101-3005-451.40-07 241.90 ' 001139 01/11/2013 101-3006-451.41-16 109.35 1,062.75 * 1,062.75 98333 3148 COFIELD, MICHAEL 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.56-02 375.00 375.00 x 375.00 98334 3044 COMMAND ONE SECURITY 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.30-30 66.00 66.00 x 66.00 98335 136 GAS COMPANY, THE 001139 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.41-13 565.55 001139 01/11/2013 101-5055-422.41-13 41.44 001139 01/11/2013 101-5055-422.41-13 133.05 ' 749.04 a 740.04 98336 627 HENDERSON, TERRY 001147 01/11/2013 101-1001-411.51-01 481.44 481.44 x 481.44 98337 36 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 27.98 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-37 70.69 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 48.97 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 39.66 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-58 153.97 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 129.46 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-37 204.08 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 20.80 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 21.52 001156 01/11/2013 101-5054-421.36-50 289.72 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 94.80 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 124.46 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 17.04 001156 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 75.39 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 17.11 i 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 6.97 ;s 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 12.83- 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-49 44.77 O Fj N. PREPARED01/11/2013, 9:27:25 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 2 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 43 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ----------------- CHECK VENDOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98337 36 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 001156 01/11/2013 101-3005-451.43-59 44.49 001156 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 82.08 001157 01/11/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 66.69 001157 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 54.25 1,622.07 * 1,622.07 98338 269 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 001139 01/11/2013 101-5055-422.41-01 487.64 001139 01/11/2013 101-5055-422.41-01 309.03 001139 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.41-01 6,755.89 001139 01/11/2013 101-5055-422.41-01 73.82 7,626.38 * 7,626.38 98339 4503 LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMM 001148 01/11/2013 101-1001-411.51-01 105.00 001149 01/11/2013 101-1003-413.51-01 35.00 - 001150 01/11/2013 101-1002-413.51-01 70.00 210.00 * 210.00 98340 6431 LEAF 001139 01/11/2013 101-4002-415.56-29 263.99 263.99 * 263.99 98341 5848 LEE & STIRES INC 001151 01/11/2013 401-1841-551.45-01 45,963.48 45,963.48 * 45,963.48 98342 37 LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT W 001155 01/11/2013 101-3003-451.51-33 8.60 001155 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 18.05 001155 01/11/2013 101-3005-451.43-59 48.42 001155 01/11/2013 101-7006-431.56-02 16.23 001156 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.92-11 18.39 001156 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 6.72 001156 01/11/2013 101-7006-431.56-02 27.44 001156 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.56-02 10.72 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-49 923.03- 001156 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.56-02 4.28 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-49 935.86 001156 01/11/2013 101-7003-431.56-49 827.99 001158 01/11/2013 101-3002-451.43-01 6.12 1,005.79 * 1,005.79 98343 4077 MALDONADO, DENESE 001151 01/11/2013 101-5054-421.36-34 196.63 196.63 * 196.63 98344 40 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS. 001139 01/11/2013 101-4002-415.41-25 659.07 659.07 * 659.07 98345 2954 NEXTEL GANG TASK FORCE 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.41-22 146.37 146.37 * 146.37 98346 4249 SILVERROCK RESORT 001152 01/11/2013 101-3001-451.80-12 187.00 = 001153 01/11/2013 101-3003-451.56-02 14.00 001154 01/11/2013 101-0000-203.04-00 37.00 O N W PREPARED01/11/2013, 9:27:25 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 3 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 43 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98346 4249 SILVERROCK RESORT 238.00 * 238.00 98347 150 SPARKLETTS 001139 01/11/2013 101-5054-421.41-16 78.42 78.42 * 78.42 98348 6568 SPARKLETTS GANG TASK FORC 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.56-02 27.00 27.00 a 27.00 98349 909 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPAN 001134 01/11/2013 101-0000-209.47-00 644.58 001135 01/11/2013 101-0000-209.55-00 5,230.49 5,875.07 * 5,875.07 98350 6006 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPAN 001136 01/11/2013 101-0000-209.48-00 595.80 595.80 > 595.80 98351 2938 STAPLES GANG TASK FORCE 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.56-01 100.74 001139 01/11/2015 218-0000-421.56-01 338.09 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.56-01 433.09 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.56-01 281.41 , 1,153.33 * 1,153.33 98352 6913 TEDDY'S 001133 01/11/2013 101-1001-411.51-01 146.85 146.85 * 146.85 98353 2816 TIME WARNER -GANG TASK FOR 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.42-16 63.07 63.07 * 63.07 98354 4621 TOWER ENERGY GROUP 001139 01/11/2013 501-0000-511.43-34 1,692.39 1,692.39 . 1,692.39 98355 63 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT 001136 01/11/2013 101-0000-209.81-00 45.00 45.00 m 45.00 98356 5228 VERIZON BUSINESS 001132 01/11/2013 101-5054-421.41-22 224.05 224.05 * 224.05 9BS57 2956 VERIZON CA - GANG TASK FO 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.41-22 463.64 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.41-22 437.47 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.41-22 278.61 1,179.72 * 1,179.72 98358 2290 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 001139 01/11/2013 101-5054-421.41-22 280.04 001139 01/11/2013 101-3005-451.40-16 37.56 317.60 ■ 317.60 98359 274 WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 001140 01/11/2013 101-1001-411.51-01 167.04 001141 01/11/2013 101-1002-413.51-01 167.53 001142 01/11/2013 101-1003-413.51-01 90.00 8 001143 01/11/2013 101-1004-413.51-01 86.20 001144 01/11/2013 101-2001-411.56-02 17.00 O F-+ A PREPARED0I/11/2013, 9:27:25 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 4 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 43 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF'DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98359 274 WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 001145 01/11/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 425.77 001146 01/11/2013 241-9101-705.51-01 951.39 1,904.93 * 11904.93 98360 3769 WHITE, TIMOTHY 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.56-02 326.23 001139 01/11/2013 218-0000-421.56-02 200.00 526.23 * 526.23 98361 753 WIRELESS WATCHDOGS 001139 01/11/2013 101-4002-415.41-25 224.00 224.00 * 224.00 BANK/CHECK TOTAL 83,647.07 83,647.07 ALL BANKS/CHECKS TOTAL 83,647.07 83,647.07 PREPARED01/17/2013, 11:48:02 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 44 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98362 6855 B W SIMMONS INC 001198 01/18/2013 401-1877-551.45-01 8,600.43 8,600.43 * 8,600.43 98363 6911 BUFFET DU JOUR 001198 01/18/2013 101-3002-451.56-02 685.00 685.00 * 685.00 98364 4404 BURRTEC WASTE & RECYCLING 001198 01/18/2013 218-0000-421.42-17 85.61 _ 85.61 * 85.61 98365 133 CALPERS LONG-TERM CARE PR PR0118 01/18/2015 101-0000-209.49-00 106.00 106.00 * 106.00 98366 4115 CHECKMATE TELEPHONE EXCHA 001198 01/18/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 120.07 001198 01/18/2013 101-5006-426.51-07 180.11 300.18 * 300.18 98367 268 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI 001180 01/18/2013 101-1003-413.32-22 7.00 001181 01/18/2013 101-1003-413.32-22 62.24 001182 01/18/2013 101-3005-451.40-04 64.85 001182 01/18/2013 101-3005-451.40-09 21.24 001183 01/18/2013 101-3005-451.40-12 644.30 001184 01/18/2013 101-5055-422.41-16 70.37 001185 01/18/2013 101-7006-431.32-15 1,855.51 001186 01/18/2013 101-5055-422.41-16 490.93 001187 01/18/2013 101-7004-431.41-19 14,172.39 001188 01/18/2013 101-3005-451.40-03 166.28 001189 01/18/2013 101-3005-451.40-04 694.20 001190 01/18/2015 101-3005-451.40-05 53.72 001191 01/18/2013 101-3005-451.40-14 1,215.74 001192 01/18/2013 101-3002-451.41-16 248.82 001193 01/18/2013 101-5055-422.41-16 248.62 001194 01/18/2013 101-5008-419.41-16 115.66 20,131.87 * 20,131.87 98368 1521 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHIC 001198 01/18/2013 501-0000-511.43-40 19.00 19.00 * 19.00 98369 6506 DESERT BUSINESS MACHINES 001198 01/18/2013 218-0000-421.43-88 77.50 77.50 * 77.50 98370 5011 DISH NETWORK 001198 01/18/2013 101-5056-425.33-43 49.71 49.71 * 49.71 98371 940 FUELMAN 001198 01/18/2013 501-0000-511.43-34 1,587.63 - 1,587.63 * 1,587.63 98372 269 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 001195 01/18/2013 101-3005-451.40-54 550.79 001196 01/18/2013 101-7004-431.41-04 514.16 A 001197 01/18/2013 101-7004-431.41-07 261.51 1,326.46 * 1,326.46 PREPARED0I/17/2013, 11:48:02 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 2 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 44 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------------- CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ---------------- VOUCHER ------------------------------------ P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO --------------------------- NO NAME -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98373 2958 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION -GANG 001198 01/18/2013 218-0000-421.40-15 210.84 210.84 * 210.84 98374 6431 LEAF 001198 01/18/2013 101-4002-415.56-29 52.93 52.93 * 52.93 98375 6509 PARA, LETICIA 001198 01/18/2013 218-0000-421.30-15 160.00 160.00 * 160.00 98376 647 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY M 001198 01/18/2013 101-5008-419.34-04 5.45 5.45 * 5.45 98377 150 SPARKLETTS 001198 01/18/2013 101-7003-431.56-02 91.20 91.20 * 91.20 98378 56 TIME WARNER CABLE 001198 01/18/2013 101-5056-425.33-43 58.32 58.32 * 58.32 98379 63 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT PRO118 01/18/2013 101-0000-209.81-00 16.32 16.32 * 16.32 98380 2290 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 001198 01/18/2013 101-7004-431.41-04 53.27 001198 01/18/2013 101-4002-415.41-22 152.35 001198 01/18/2013 101-7004-431.41-07 41.42 247.04 * 247.04 98381 3769 WHITE, TIMOTHY 001198 01/18/2013 218-0000-421.56-02 65.56 - 001198 01/18/2013 218-0000-421.56-02 7.55 001198 01/18/2013 218-0000-421.56-02 100.00 173.11 * 173.11 98382 753 WIRELESS WATCHDOGS 001198 01/18/2013 101-4002-415.41-25 144.00 144.00 * 144.00 BANK/CHECK TOTAL 34,128.60 34,128.60 ALL BANKS/CHECKS TOTAL 34,128.60 34,128.60 PREPARED01/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98058* 5359 LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL CUL 000939 12/11/2012 101-3002-451.56-02 170.00- 170.00- * VOIDED 98091* 2299 SENIOR INSPIRATION AWARDS 000939 12/11/2012 101-3002-451.34-04 2,500.00- 2,500.00- * VOIDED 98100* 6879 SWINGLE, JASON 000956 12/11/2012 101-0000-228.30-00 100.00- 100.00- * VOIDED 98268* 133 CALPERS LONG-TERM CARE PR PR0104 01/04/2013 101-0000-209.49-00 306.00- 106.00- * VOIDED 98277* 63 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT PR0104 01/04/2013 101-0000-209.81-00 73.68- 73.68- * VOIDED 98379* 63 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT PRO118 01/18/2013 101-0000-209.81-00 16.32- 16.32- * VOIDED 98383 2 ACE HARDWARE 001167 01/22/2015 101-5008-419.43-88 4.07 001167 01/22/2013 270-0000-451.43-55 5.38 001167 01/22/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 2.56 001167 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.56-28 13.99 001200 01/22/2013 101-3005-451.43-59 21.53 001201 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 1,152.15 1,199.68 * 1,199.68 98384 6934 ALL AMERICAN WALLPAPERING 001234 01/22/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 225.00 225.00 * 225.00 98385 5170 ALSCO INC 001178 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.44-07 94.42 001178 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.44-07 94.42 001178 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.44-07 94.42 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.44-07 94.42 377.68 * 377.68 98386 6857 ALTUM GROUP, THE 001202 01/22/2013 401-1813-551.35-07 13,540.96 13,540.96 * 13,540.96 98387 5016 ALVAREZ, MARIA ISABEL 001207 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.33-43 711.90 711.90 * 711.90 - 98388 16 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERVIC 001202 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.42-15 60.10 60.10 * 60.10 98389 6856 AUTOZONE 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 32.76 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 51.22 83.98 * 83.98 i i 98390 3726 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 001173 01/22/2013 101-4001-415.31-13 11500.00 ' 1,500.00 * 11500.00 PREPARED01/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 2 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ----------------------------- CHECK VENDOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME - NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98391 3274 BODDEN, RENATE 001207 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.33-43 207.20 207.20 * 207.20 98392 1165 BUNDLE BANDS INDUSTRIES I 001214 01/22/2013 101-5001-424.56-01 188.10 188.10 * 188.10 98393 6914 CADENCE COMMUNICATIONS IN 001222 01/22/2013 101-4001-415.30-01 50.00 001222 01/22/2013 101-4001-415.30-01 125.00 175.00 * 175.00 98394 1154 CALIFORNIA ASSOC OF CODE 001222 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.53-03 75.00 001222 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.53-03 75.00 001222 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.53-03 75.00 001234 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.53-03 75.00 300.00 * 300.00 98395 5885 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COM 001201 01/22/2013 101-1004-413.53-04 233.13 233.13 * 233.13 98396 1378 CALIFORNIA PARKS & RECREA 001201 01/22/2013 101-3001-451.53-03 170.00 170.00 * 170.00 98397 4675 CALPORTLAND 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 294.16 294.16 * 294.16 98398 22 COW GOVERNMENT INC 001172 01/22/2013 502-0000-512.56-22 299.91 001173 01/22/2913 502-0000-512.43-13 4,236.00 4,535.91 * 4,535.91 98399 6926 CITY CLERK ASSOCIATION OF 001223 01/22/2013 101-1004-413.55-01 200.00 200.00 * 200.00 98400 355 CLEAN STREET 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.44-10 7,167.67 7,167.67 * 7,167.67 98401 5621 COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEER 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 175.00 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 70.58 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 660.43 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 48.76 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 559.50 - 1,514.27 * 1,514.27 98402 6920 CORNING, JOANNE 001222 01/22/2015 101-3000-342.70-00 70.00 70.00 * 70.00 98403 3033 DATA TICKET, INC. 001207 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.31-19 430.00 001214 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.31-19 361.77 791.77 * 791.77 i 98404 4208 DDL TRAFFIC INC. 001207 01/22/2013 101-7006-431.56-02 3,628.80 PREPARED01/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 3 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98404 4208 DDL TRAFFIC INC. 3,628.80 3,628.80 98405 6771 DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERV 001222 01/22/2013 101-5006-426.51-07 8,378.22 8,378.22 r - 8,378.22 98406 26 DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 001171 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 114.34 001202 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 127.45 001202 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 146.97 388.76 388.76 98407 6917 DESERT RESORT MANAGEMENT 001222 01/22/2013 101-0000-228.30-00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98408 211 DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CO 001237 01/22/2013 101-6091-463.55-01 400.58 400.58 400.58 98409 2585 DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION 001237 01/22/2013 101-5055-422.43-61 163.16 163.16 163.16 98410 6915 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGEN 001222 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.33-16 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 98411 1474 ESGIL CORPORATION 001201 01/22/2013 101-5002-424.33-28 1,557.15 1,557.15 * 1,557.15 98412 119 FEDEX 001237 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.51-31 38.21 38.21 * 38.21 98413 4899 FG CREATIVE INC 001170 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 4,500.00 001170 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 500.00 001171 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 1,261.00 001171 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 4,000.00 001173 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 1,120.00 001173 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 1,067.00 001201 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 7,500.00 001201 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 7,252.51 ' 27,200.51 • 27,200.51 98414 5698 FRENCH, ANDREA 001223 01/22/2013 101-3000-342.10-00 30.00 30.00 * 30.00 98415 6918 GALLAGHER, JULIE 001222 01/22/2015 101-3000-342.10-00 70.00 70.00 r 70.00 98416 239 GARZA TURF & POWER EQUIPM 001207 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 180.96 180.96 r 180.96 98417 5606 GOLDNER, ELISE 001207 01/22/2013 101-3003-451.33-43 617.40 617.40 * 617.40 tzD N C PREPAREDOI/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 4 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK --7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98418 6921 GRANT, ABBY 001223 01/22/2013 101-3000-342.74-00 2.00 2.00 * 2.00 98419 6935 HEALTHNET - ACCOUNTS PAYA 001234 01/22/2013 y101-0000-228.30-00 100.00 100.00 * 100.00 98420 5028 HERMANN DESIGN GROUP INC 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 500.00 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 2,007.73 001207 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 1,549.24 4,056.97 * 4,056.97 98421 6823 HERRIS, NICOL 001207 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.33-43 35.00 35.00 * 35.00 98422 454 HIGH TECH IRRIGATION INC 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 190.51 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 134.69 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 41.89 367.09 * 367.09 98423 709 HIGH TECH MAILING SERVICE 001202 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07_ 2,871.73 2,871.73 * 2,871.75 98424 6927 JONATHAN, SABBY & WENDY 001222 01/22/2013 101-0000-228.15-00 200.00 - 200.00 * 200.00 98425 6928 JONI UPHOLSTERY 001223 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-40 150.00 150.00 * 150.00 98426 6919 KANYR, STEPHEN DAN 001222 01/22/2013 101-3000-342.10-00 55.00 55.00 * 55.00 98427 6883 KASA CONTRUCTION 001207 01/22/2013 401-1870-551.45-01 96,092.50 96,092.50 * 96,092.50 98428 865 KRIBBS CONSTRUCTION, BRUC 001178 01/22/2013 101-3005-451.56-52 175.00 001178 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 200.00 001178 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 500.00 001178 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 800.00 001178 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 300.00 001178 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-52 800.00 2,775.00 * 2,775.00 98429 315 LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMM 001202 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-08 495.00 001214 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.33-02 31,875.00 32,370.00 * 32,370.00 98430 5714 LA QUINTA FARMS LLC 001207 01/22/2013 101-7006-431.32-15 21,894.49 21,894.49 * 21,894.49 i 98431 3656 LANCE, SOLL, & LUNGHARD L 001208 01/22/2013 101-4001-415.32-13 3,563.00 O N PREPARED01/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 5 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98431 3656 LANCE, SOLL, & LUNGHARD L 001209 01/22/2015 237-9001-702.32-13 1,047.00 001210 01/22/2013 310-9501-411.32-13 152.00 4,762.00 * 4,762.00 98432 1905 LANDMARK GOLF MANAGEMENT 001207 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 5,287.00 5,287.00 * 5,287.00 98433 1763 LASALLE LIGHTING SERVICES 001207 01/22/2013 601-0000-451.43-65 585.00 001207 01/22/2013 101-7904-431.32-07 6,930.00 7,515.00 * 7,515.00 98434 217 LESLIE, JANELLE 001207 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.33-43 63.00 63.00 * 63.00 98435 1239 LIGHT SOURCE 001202 01/22/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 438.93 438.93 * 438.93 98436 80 LOCK SHOP INC, THE 001168 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-40 7.76 001169 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.43-01 7.11 14.87 * 14.87 98437 6931 LOPEZ, MIGUEL 001223 01/22/2013 101-5000-322.20-00 20.00 20.00 * 20.00 98438 6215 MAILFINANCE 001214 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.43-16 1,102.21 1,102.21 * 1,102.21 98439 4425 MARTIN, PANDARA 001207 01/22/2013 101-3003-451.33-43 231.00 231.00 * 231.00 98440 4201 MAXWELL SECURITY SERVICES 001214 01/22/2013 101-5008-419.41-30 150.00 150.00 * 150.00 98441 221 MCDOWELL AWARDS 001207 01/22/2013 101-3001-451.33-62 149.04 149.04 * 149.04 98442 547 NEEDS, WAYNE 001207 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.33-43 160.00 160.00 * 160.00 98443 4701 MOUNTAIN VIEW TIRE 001207 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-40 31.59 31.59 * 31.59 98444 6930 NEIRA, SANDRA 001223 01/22/2013 101-5000-322.20-00 20.00 20.00 * 20.00 98445 1065 NIETO, RUBEN 001207 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-43 505.00 001207 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-43 601.00 ~. 1,106.00 * 1,106.00 98446 6571 NORITSU AMERICA CORPORATI 001178 01/22/7013 101-5008-419.43-88 140.00 a] PREPAREDOI/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 6 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------- CHECK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98446 6571 NORITSU AMERICA CORPORATI 001178 01/22/2013 101-5055-422.34-04 115.00 001178 01/22/2013 101-5055-422.34-04 115.00 001178 01/22/2013 101-5055-422.34-04 125.00 495.00 ■ 495.00 98447 41 OFFICE DEPOT 001163 01/22/2013 101-4001-415.56-01 10.67 001164 01/22/2013 101-4001-415.56-01 69.11 001165 01/22/2013 502-0000-512.56-22 83.78 001166 01/22/2013 101-1004-413.56-01 27.44 001173 01/22/2013 101-2001-411.56-01 105.63 001173 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.56-07 1,228.37 1,525.00 * 1,525.00 98448 130 ON-TRAC 001237 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.51-31 43.27 43.27 * 43.27 98449 6680 PACIFIC WEST INDUSTRIES 001214 01/22/2013 101-5008-419.43-88 663.00 663.00 * 663.00 98450 5550 PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESOR 001222 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 1,500.00 1,500.00 * 1,500.00 98451 6932 PAPWORTH, MICHAEL 001224 01/22/2013 270-0000-365.05-00 839.88 001225 01/22/2013 254-0000-365.00-00 74.00 001226 01/22/2013 252-0000-365.00-00 480.00 001227 01/22/2013 257-0000-365.00-00 140.00 001228 01/22/2013 253-0000-365.00-00 355.00 001229 01/22/2013 256-0000-365.00-00 22.00 001230 01/22/2013 251-0000-365.00-00 892.00 001231 01/22/2013 255-0000-365.00-00 53.59 001232 01/22/2013 250-0000-365.00-00 64.00 001233 01/22/2013 101-0000-203.08-00 1,666.00 4,586.47 * 4,586.47 98452 1246 PITNEY HOWES INC 001214 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.43-16 785.00 785.00 * 785.00 98453 5663 PLANIT REPROGRAPHICS SYST 001178 01/22/2013 101-7001-431.32-07 150.64 150.64 * 150.64 98454 5127 PLUG 8 PAY TECHNOLOGIES I 001201 01/22/2013 101-3003-451.33-45 20.00 20.00 * 20.00 98455 3021 POLAR BARR AIR CONDITIONI 001207 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.43-52 504.00 504.00 * 504.00 98456 802 POWERS AWARDS INC 001207 01/22/2013 101-3001-451.33-62 37.84 37.84 * 37.84 a 98457 5614 PRESTIGE CHEMICALS INC 001207 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 332.50 O N GJ PREPARED0I/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 7 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98457 5614 PRESTIGE CHEMICALS INC 332.50 r 332.50 98458 43 PRINTING PLACE, THE 001178 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.53-01 624.95 001178 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.53-01 866.84 1,491.79 * 1,491.79 98459 6714 PRO SALES GROUP 001207 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-46 84.64 84.64 * 84.64 98460 6816 RAMOS, DON D 001206 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.33-43 254.80 254.80 x 254.80 98461 254 RASA/ERIC NELSON 001207 01/22/2013 101-7002-431.33-34 380.00 380.00 .■ 380.00 98462 6274 RBI TRAFFIC 001207 01/22/2013 401-1846-551.35-07 9,629.75 9,629.75 * 9,629.75 . 98463 1516 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAIR & N 001202 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.55-07 2,500.00 2,500.00 * 2,500.00 98464 6916 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOUNDATI 001222 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.34-04 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 98465 4086 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INFORMAT 001214 01/22/2013 101-5056-425.41-25 20.77 20.77 r 20.77 98466 846 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDER 001202 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.34-04 78.00 78.00 78.00 98467 4837 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDER 001202 01/22/2013 101-5004-424.34-04 39.00 39.00 > 39.00 98468 6246 ROJAS TKD 001207 01/22/2013 101-3003-451.33-43 2,299.50 2,299.50 2,299.50 98469 4174 RSVP 001234 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.32-10 4,300.00 4,300.00 * 41300.00 98470 6729 SANTA FE BUILDING MAINTEN 001215 01/22/2013 101-5008-419.42-15 2,825.00 001216 01/22/2013 101-5054-421.42-15 320.00 001217 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.42-15 406.00 001218 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.42-15 1,605.00 001219 01/22/2013 101-3005-451.42-15 1,241.00 001220 01/22/2013 101-3004-451.42-15 2,516.00 001221 01/22/2013 101-3006-451.42-15 737.00 9,650.00 ■ 9,650.00 i 98471 6924 SEALS, LEDA 001223 01/72/2013 101-3000-342.10-00 60.00 60.00 ■ 60.00 O N A PREPARED0I/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 8 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98472 5798 SHARK POOLS INC 001203 01/22/2013 101-3001-451.33-13 488.75 001203 01/22/2013 101-3006-451.41-16 89.25 001204 01/22/2013 101-3005-451.43-59 169.15 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 125.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 275.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 225.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 225.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 225.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 125.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 175.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 150.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 125.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 275.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 175.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 125.00 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.34-04 150.00 3,122.15 * 3,122.15 98473 463 SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY CO 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 88.03 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 81.76 001204 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 65.82 235.61 * 235.61 98474 4791 SOUZA, DEBRA A FEDOR 001207 01/22/2013 101-3002-451.33-45 89.60 _ 89.60 * 89.60 98475 48 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 001161 01/22/2013 101-4001-415.56-01 12.82- 001162 01/22/2013 101-3001-451.56-01 65.35 001173 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.56-07 42.55 001173 01/22/2013 101-1003-413.56-01 87.25 001201 01/22/2013 101-3001-451.56-01 54.84 001201 01/22/2013 101-5001-424.56-01 175.46 001201 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.56-27 48.42 001234 01/22/2013 101-3003-451.56-02 18.78 479.83 * 479.83 98476 5409 STONE'S, CAM AUTOMOTIVE I 001207 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-40 175.02 175.02 * 175.02 98477 6820 STUDIO E ARCHITECTS 001202 01/22/2013 401-1813-551.35-07 74,106.80 74,106.80 * 74,106.80 98478 53 SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 001235 01/22/2013 101-4000-341.30-00 158.00- 001236 01/22/2013 101-0000-203.05-00 1,933.00 1,775.00 * 1,775.00 98479 6923 THOMAS, NORMA 001223 01/22/2013 101-3000-342.10-00 85.00 85.00 * 85.00 i„ i 98480 57 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 001171 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-46 48.60 O N C-T1 PREPAREDOI/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ----------- CHECK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98480 57 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 001201 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-46 78.52 001201 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-46 91.48 001201 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-46 39.06 257.66 a 257.66 98481 6228 TOTALFUNDS BY HASLER 001213 01/22/2013 101-4002-415.51-31 4,000.00 4,000.00 m 41000.00 98482 62 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.43-73 54.00 54.00 * 54.00 98483 6133 US AIR CONDITIONING DISTR 001207 01/22/2013 501-0000-511.43-46 1,072.96 1,072.96 ■ 1,072.96 98484 334 US BANK 001173 01/22/2013 735-0000-234.10-00 825.00 825.00 * 825.00 98485 6757 VACATION RENTAL COMPLIANC 001211 01/22/2013 101-6001-463.32-10 2,179.99 2,179.99 ■ 2,179.99 98486 1777 VALLEY ANIMAL MEDICAL CEN 001214 01/22/2013 101-5006-426.33-25 70.00 001214 01/22/2013 101-5006-426.33-25 131.00 001214 01/22/2013 101-5006-426.33-25 70.00 271.00 * 271.00 98487 335 VALLEY PLUMBING - 001203 01/22/2013 101-3005-451.43-59 231.83 231.83 ■ 231.83 98488 6925 VIERRA, DUANNE 001222 01/22/2013 101-0000-228.30-00 50.00 50.00 * 50.00 98489 2431 VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 001167 01/22/2013 101-3005-451.56-52 277.90 001167 01/22/2013 101-3005-451.56-52 600.00 877.90 * 877.90 98490 6929 WALL, DOUG CONSTRUCTION I 001223 01/22/2013 101-5054-421.36-34 5,557.00 5,557.00 * 5,557.00 98491 6548 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRI 001207 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.56-52 115.10 001207 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.41-04 282.18 397.28 * 397.28 98492 256 WARD, LARRY W - ASSESSOR 001178 01/22/2013 101-5002-424.53-01 7.50 001178 01/22/2013 101-6002-463.53-01 7.50 15.00 * 15.00 98493 4401 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICE 001174 01/22/2013 740-0000-234.10-00 686.84 001175 01/22/2013 735-0000-234.10-00 126.55 001176 01/22/2013 310-9501-411.31-13 1,750.00 001177 01/22/2015 237-9001-702.32-07 5,750.00 O N PREPARED01/23/2013, 12:27:32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER BY BANK NUMBER PAGE 10 PROGRAM: GM346L ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2013/07 CITY OF LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA REPORT NUMBER 45 BANK 00 WELLS FARGO BANK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 98493 4401 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICE 001202 01/22/2013 101-7004-431.31-13 3,610.14 11,923.53 11,923.53 98494 3350 WINNER, ED 001222 01/22/2013 101-7002-431.51-01 20.00 20.00 ■ 20.00 98495 201 YOUNG ENGINEERING SVC 001201 01/22/2013 101-5002-424.33-28 2,100.00 2,100.00 * 2,100.00 98496 853 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-46 293.74 001207 01/22/2013 101-7003-431.56-46 201.45 495.19 * 495.19 BANK/CHECK TOTAL 412,183.00 415,149.00 ALL BANKS/CHECKS TOTAL 412,185.00 415,149.00 O N v ITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 506 Amending Certain Sections of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) and Title 9 (Zoning) of the La Quinta Municipal Code Relating to Permanent and Temporary Sign Provisions and Their Definitions Case No. ZOA 2012-111 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ordinance No. 506 on second reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: _ CONSENT CALENDAR: Z STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: The proposed amendments to Chapter 9.160, and certain other related sections of the Zoning Code, are intended to: • Incorporate the current interim A -board and outdoor display provisions into the Municipal Code as permanent sign allowances; • Allow additional business signing opportunities, to include commercial business banners and seasonal/temporary business event signs; • Address inconsistencies, such as garage sale sign provisions; and, • Clarify definitions related to banners and off premises signs. FISCAL IMPACT: None. -44 ` 028 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On January 15, 2013, the City Council moved to take up and introduce Ordinance No. 506 on first reading. Both motions were unanimously approved. COMMISSIONS/BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: At their regular meeting of November 27, 2012, the Planning Commission did, on a 4-0 vote (Chairwoman Barrows absent), adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-030, recommending to the City Council adoption of the proposed amendments (Attachment 1). There was no testimony during the public hearing, and the Commission had no substantive comments on the original amendment language other than incorporating language allowing on -premise signage for short- term rentals. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Community Development 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. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions 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. Respectfully submitted, Susan Maysels City Clerk .is " 029 ORDINANCE NO. 506 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 3 (REVENUE AND FINANCE) AND TITLE 9 (ZONING) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, SPECIFICALLY: CHAPTER 3.25, SECTION 3.25.070.J, RELATING TO SIGNS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS; CHAPTER 9.100, SECTION 9.100.120.E, RELATING TO OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY; AND, CHAPTER 9.160, SECTIONS 9.160.030.G; 9.160.050 (TABLE 9-19); 9.160.060.G, J AND K; 9.160.100.B. AND 9.160.130 - RELATING TO PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SIGN PROVISIONS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS CASE NO: ZOA 2012-111 WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of establishing and maintaining sign regulations to support the provision of a broader range of goods and services to the City's residents; 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 27" day of November, 2012, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish supplemental sign regulations by revisions to Sections 3.25.070.J, 9.100.120, 9.160.130.G, 9.160.050 (Table 9- 19), 9.160.060.G, J, and K, 9.160.100.13, and 9.160.130; and, after hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012-030, 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 15`" day of January, 2013, 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. . 030 Ordinance No. 506 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 Adopted February 5, 2013 Page 2 of 6 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 1 of the Commercial Goals, Policies and Programs, in that implementation of the proposed amendments will support provision of a broader range of goods and services to the City's residents. 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 accommodate establishment of new signs in accordance with 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(B)(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 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption. SECTION 6. 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. +.'i 031 Ordinance No. 506 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 Adopted February 5, 2013 Page 3 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15tb day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Osborne, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta California ATTEST: SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California .* " 032 Ordinance No. 506 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 Adopted February 5, 2013 Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT A — ORDINANCE NO. 506 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2012-111 FINAL RECOMMENDED SIGN CODE AND RELATED AMENDMENTS Amend 3.25.070.J, Operational requirements and standard conditions, as follows: J. 4Signs), shall be posted on the ffemises to adveFtise the availabwky of the i '+ Off site PliFPAtiAnal ohibiled Signs may be posted on the premises to advertise the availability of the short-term vacation rental unit as provided for in Chapter 9.160 (Signs)• Amend 9.100.120, Outdoor storage and display, adding 9.100.120.E, as follows: E. Minor Outdoor Merchandise Display. A maximum of 10 square feet shall be allowed for outdoor display of merchandise A permit shall be established prior to any outdoor merchandise display occurring The outdoor display of merchandise shall be located immediately adjacent to the business and at no time further than 10 feet from said business, shall not interfere with pedestrian access and ADA compliance and shall only be in place during business hours. Amend 9.160.030.G.2, General sign standards, as follows: G. Sign Placement. 2. No Off -Premises Signs. All signs shall be located on the same premises as the land use, business and/or activity identified by the sign, unless specifically permitted to be off -premises under the provisions of this chapter, or incorporated and approved as part of a Temporary Use Permit application. Amend 9.160.050, Table 9-19 Permanent signs in nonresidential districts, as follows: "" 633 Ordinance No. 506 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 Adopted February 5, 2013 Page 5 of 8 Table 9-19 Permanent Signs Permitted in Nonresidential Districts With a Sign Permit Note: Freestanding signs shall not be located within 5 feet of a street right-of-way nor within a corner cutoff area identified in Section 9.100.030. Note: "ID" means identification sign. Note: Signs required by law shall be allowed at the minimum size specified by such law. Sign Type and Maximum Number Maximum Area Maximum Height Illumination Additional Requirements Placement Business A -board type Signs 1 per business 10 sq. ft. per side n/a Indirect only Signs shall be located no further than 20 feet from the main store entrance, shall not interfere with pedestrian access/ADA compliance, and shall only be placed during business hours Amend 9.160.060.G and J, Permitted temporary signs, as follows: G. Sign Permit Required. Any person, business, campaign organization, or other entity who proposes to post �� one or more temporary signs on public property and/or four or more temporary signs on private or-p+-rblie property shall make application to the planning department for a sign permit. To insure sign removal upon expiration of the permitted posting time, a deposit as established by city council resolution shall be paid in conjunction with the issuance of the sign permit. Upon the successful removal of all temporary signs, up to one hundred percent of the deposit shall be refunded to the applicant. However, violations of the temporary sign provisions may result in up to fifty percent of said deposit being retained by the city. '." " 034 Ordinance No, 506 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 Adopted February 5, 2013 Page 6 of 8 SHE FFIS-Fith'S of the business opening with_a_,si9P,.pefn4#-. Commercial business banners advertising grand openings sales and seasonal and/or temporary events are allowed up to four times per calendar year, with a maximum time period of 14 consecutive days and a minimum of 30 consecutive days between each placement period The banners shall be located within non- residential zoning districts with a maximum of one banner per street frontage and one per parking lot frontage and a maximum of two banners per business A sign permit shall be required for each placement period. The si" banner(s) shall consist of light -weight fabric or similar material attached to the building wall below the eave line . The sign banner(s) shall be non -illuminated and its size shall not exceed thirty-two square feet. Add 9.160.060.K, Permitted temporary signs, as follows: K. Garage, Patio Yard Sale Advertising Two (2) signs (provided by the City) are _d. _ site and a at the nearest intersection. The onsite sign permitted; uiic Giw --- shall be located on the property where the sale is being conducted. Signs are not permitted in rights -of -way or on any utility poles street signs, or traffic control posts. Amend 9.160.100.8, Prohibited signs, as follows: 8. Off premises signs as defined in Section 9.160.130, unless specifically permitted iR to be off -premises under the provisions of this chapter, or incorporated and approved as part of a Temporary Use Permit application_ Amend 9.160.130 Sign definitions, as follows: "Banner"Sign" means a temporary sign made of light -weight fabric, plastic or similar material hung either with or without frames , "Off -premises sign" means a sign that incorporates a business name and/or advertises products or services that are located sold, produced, or otherwise furnished elsewhere than on the premises on which the sign is located. s4fuG- 0' 035 Ordinance No. 506 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 Adopted February 5, 2013 Page 7 of 8 -036 ordinance No. 506 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 Adopted February 5, 2013 Page 8 of 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF LA QUINTA ) I, SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 506 that was introduced at a regular meeting on the 15' day of January, 2013, and was adopted at a regular meeting held on the 5" day of February, 2013, not being less than 5 days after the date of introduction thereof. I further certify that the foregoing Ordinance was posted in three places within the City of La Quinta as specified in City Council Resolution 2006-1 15. SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California DECLARATION OF POSTING I, SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was posted on February 7, 2013, pursuant to City Council Resolution. SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California M" 037 ceitit 4 4 a" AGENDA CATEGORY: CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Request for Proposal to Obtain ? Professional Engineering Services to Prepare the CONSENT CALENDAR: J Plans, Specifications, and Estimates for the Pavement STUDY SESSION: Management Plan Street Improvements, Project No. 201 2-07 PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve a request for proposal to obtain professional engineering services to prepare the plans, specifications and engineer's estimate for the Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements, Project No. 2012-07. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • As part of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP), staff has identified the following street segments for further analysis for remediation: o Calle Tampico between Eisenhower Drive and Washington Street o Calle Tampico between Washington Street and Park Avenue o Park Avenue between Calle Tampico and Avenue 50 o Washington Street between Calle Tampico and Avenue 52 o Avenue 52 between Washington Street and Cetrino o Avenida Bermudas between Avenue 52/Calle Sinaloa and Calle Nogales • Staff recommends approval of the attached request for proposal (RFP) (Attachment 1) in order to hire an engineering consultant to perform the following tasks: 1. Preparation of an Engineering Pavement Analysis Report, which will identify street improvement priority as well as recommendations for the most cost effective pavement rehabilitation approach for each segment. ,.*.' ` 038 2. Preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the segments as identified in the Engineering Pavement Analysis Report consistent with the City's budget. FISCAL IMPACT: None for this action. The PMP is programmed to receive $1,453,651 from the City's General Fund this Fiscal Year. Once an engineering consultant is identified, staff will prepare a Professional Services Agreement for design services at an estimated cost of $40,000. The PMP is included within the 2012/2013 Capital Improvement Plan. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A Pavement Management Update Report, dated August 2012, was prepared by the City's engineering consultant, OMNIS, in order to provide an inventory of City roadways including current conditions, roadway preservation needs, and a roadway improvement funding schedule. As part of this report, OMNIS conducted a visual survey of the City's streets and assigned the street segments a Pavement Condition Index, which then was used to categorize/prioritize the streets. The findings of this report show that for the plan years 2012-2016, the suggested improvements cost exceeds the 2012/2013 Capital Improvement Plan budget. The City is therefore requesting a more in-depth pavement condition report for the identified street segments in this RFP with recommendations on the most cost efficient pavement rehabilitation methods and associated construction costs. In order to prepare this report, specialized testing equipment and dedicated engineering staff with expertise in pavement repair will be required to produce the report in the most cost effective and timely manner. Staff therefore recommends a qualified engineering consultant be retained for this work. The City will then use this report to determine which street segments should be designed for this fiscal year. The City Manager intends to appoint a Consultant Selection Committee consisting of the following members: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer, Bryan McKinney, Principal Engineer, and Nick Nickerson, Project Manager. If the City Council wishes to appoint a different committee, the committee would be subject to the Brown Act unless the committee consists solely of two Council Members. Contingent upon City Council authorization to distribute the RFP, the following represents the project schedule: .*. ` 039 Proposal Due Date Recommendations to City Council Project Design (6 months) ALTERNATIVES: Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, dothy R. o asso .E. Public Works irect City Engineer Attachment: 1. RFP March 6, 2013 April 2, 2013 April 2013 to November 2013 -w-J 040 ATTACHMENT1 04 0 4 F Lo Egj OF'L1�F' REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 2012-07 The City of La Quinta ("City") requests proposals from qualified professional engineering consultants to prepare an Engineering Pavement Analysis Report and to prepare plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements, Project No. 2012-07. The Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements Project has been identified in the Approved City Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2012/2013. The project limits have been established by the City's Final Report for Pavement Management Update, August 2012. The proposed improvements are located on the following streets: Segment Street Name Segment Limits No. of Lanes T.I. Index No 1 Calle Tampico Eisilolia Washington 4 6 e/s S_treet w/ds Calle Tampico Washington Park Avenue e/s 2 6 2 Street e/s 3 Park Avenue C►_alle Tlampieo n/s Calle Tampico n/s Auenue 5_0 Avenue 52 s/s 2 4 6 7.5 Washington 4 Street 5 Avenue 52 _ Washingto Stre_et w/s C►etrino e/s 4 7.5 Calle Nogales n/s 4 6 Avenida Avenue 52/ 6 Bermudas Calle Sinaloa s/s Refer to the project limits and scoping exhibit provided as Exhibit A. In general, the proposed project will include: 1. Engineering Pavement Analysis Report This report will include a geotechnical investigation of the named streets to identify street improvement priority. This report will also provide recommendations for the most cost effective pavement rehabilitation approach with associated estimated costs per segment. The purpose of this .�' 041 ,^ 4 City of La Quinta Public Works Department Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements Proiect 2012-07 report is to provide the City a tool to use to identify which street segments to approve for PS&E. 2. At the direction of the City, the preparation of a PS&E for the pavement rehabilitation as recommended and approved in the Engineering Pavement Analysis Report. Services Requested Services and products to be rendered in performing all work associated with project development may include, but may not be limited to: • Prepare an Engineering Pavement Analysis Report with Geotechnical Investigation to investigate and provide: o Recommendations on the most cost efficient pavement rehabilitation methods for the identified streets. Methods to be included in the report are: pavement reconstruction, cold mill and overlay, and slurry seal. The City anticipates that a geotechnical engineer will need to perform roadway cores in order to accurately provide recommendations for pavement rehabilitation; o Recommendations for street improvement priority, i.e. recommend which streets should be rehabilitated first; o Cost estimates for each roadway segment based on proposed pavement rehabilitation method; • Perform appropriate engineering related field survey, and prepare the base map. The base map will include all above ground and below ground utilities potential obstructions; • Perform utility coordination, identify utility adjustments, and obtain clearances; • Prepare project plans, specifications, and engineer's estimates of probable construction costs; • Plans will likely include title sheet, street improvement plan, signing and striping plan, traffic loop replacement plan, and necessary construction notes and details; • Project specifications and bid documents will likely include the detailed project description, preparation of bid schedule, special provisions, technical specifications, and any referenced standard plans or details; • Project estimate should include backup documents for bid item quantities and associated unit costs. 042 Page 2 of 5 .�'' (�� City of La Quinta " T.- � Public Works Department Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements Proiect 2012-07 Project Development Process 1. Pre -Design Meeting - Initial meeting between the consultant, and City staff to clarify project design objectives and requirements. 2. Agency Approval A. Consultant will submit the Engineering Pavement Analysis Report with geotechnical investigation, along with all backup figures, calculations, estimate, recommendations, and/or other necessary information required to obtain approval. At a minimum, the consultant should plan for the following report check submittals: (1) 1 st Review - 100% Check (complete Report) - 3 bond copies (2) 2nd Review - Preliminary Final (screen check) - 3 bond copies B. Per City instruction consultant will submit the plans, specifications, and estimates, and/or other necessary documents required to obtain approval. At a minimum, the consultant should plan for the following plan check submittals: (1) Vt Review - 85-90% Check Plans, Specs, and draft Estimate - 3 bond copies (2) 2"d Review - 100% Check (complete PS&E) - 3 bond copies (3) 3rd Review - Preliminary Final (screen check) - 1 Mylar set C. Approved PS&E will be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to advertisement. D. All approved plans will be provided to the City on compact disk in both PDF and AutoCAD 2010 format, as well as on "Arch D" size Mylar. Specification and/or bid documents will be provided on digital medium in both PDF and Microsoft Word for Windows format. The Engineer's estimate will be provided in both PDF and Excel for Windows format. 3. Bidding Phase The consultant will be expected to attend the pre -bid meeting and will respond to contractor requests for plan clarification during the bid process. 4. Construction Phase The consultant will be required to respond to requests for information (RFI►, provide clarification of questions relating to its plans during the construction phase, and perform shop drawing reviews. a.. 043 Page 3 of 5 City of La Quinta Pavement Management Plan (`�� 7 Public Works Department Street Improvements Project 2012-07 Proposal Format Proposals (work proposal and cost proposal) are to be submitted in separate envelopes clearly marked with the consultant's name, address and phone number. Only one proposal per consultant will be considered. Proposal packages are to be submitted to the City on/or before close of business on March 6, 2013. Proposals received after the stated deadline shall not be accepted. Proposal packages are to be delivered to: Bryan McKinney, Principal Engineer City of La Quinta Public Works Department 78-495 Calle Tampico P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 Consultants are encouraged to keep their proposals brief and relevant to the specific work required. Proposals shall include the following items: 1. Work Proposal (envelope 1) - submit 4 copies A. Cover Letter (1) The name, address, and phone number of the consultant's contact person for the remainder of the selection process. (2) Any qualifying statements or comments regarding the consultant's proposal, the information provided in the RFP or the proposed contract. (3) Identification of sub -consultants and their responsibilities. B. Statement of Qualifications (1) A listing of proposed project personnel, including personal experiences and individual resumes for prime and sub - consultants. (2) Consultant's and sub -consultant experience with similar work, including names and current phone numbers of reference for listed projects. C. Project Understanding and Approach - A description of your project understanding, and how you will approach the project. D. Scope of Work Program - A description of the tasks, sub -tasks, and deliverables that will be provided. IA.. 044 Page 4 of 5 City of La Quinta Pavement Management Plan Public Works Department Street Improvements Proiect 2012-07 E. Project Schedule - Time is of the essence. A comprehensive design schedule is to be submitted describing the nature and scheduling of proposed tasks and reflecting April 1, 2013 as the start date. 2. Cost Proposal (envelope 2) - submit 2 copies The consultant is to submit a detailed cost proposal for all services and materials anticipated in completing the project. Man-hours and extended billing rates per classification of personnel will be indicated for each task and/or sub -task defined. Selection Process Work Proposals will be reviewed by a Consultant Selection Committee. The Committee will rank the consultants for contract negotiations based upon the materials submitted within the Work Proposal. The Committee may or may not choose to interview two or more closely -rated firms, but will not expect or schedule time for elaborate presentations. Cost proposals will be opened only after the ranking process is complete. The City will open contract negotiations with the top -ranked firm. The successful consultant will be expected to enter into the City's Professional Services Agreement presented as Exhibit B. ..1. ' - 045 Page 5 of 5 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 2012-07 � i a5 AVENUE W y r 1 a T M t '*..F n r .r-W 4 .4 , ALtE7AMPN:O � _' bib+ o e x o� f �(} ;��` '. • v` � Ci •q � •I r,. 1) '7 Ew� �Edh+nNoo y 3 a.. LEGEND i «"LL ..ilk ry —•)t'?" ^ r - ... f O PROJECT LIMITS . !y!1 ENS)ENPM' V O SEGMENT W. PER RFP - g44p�' I �s rf'�� YY FS r,{" �• T°�"i � ii L 4 PROJECT LIMITS AND SCOPING EXHIBIT NOT TO SCALE m W i EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, ("City"), a California municipal corporation, and ("Consultant"). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.0 SERVICES OF CONSULTANT 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide those services related to , Project No. , as specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services" or "work"). Consultant warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services. 1.2 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of the City of La Quinta and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.3 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Except as otherwise specified herein, Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 1.4 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site of the work and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by City, Consultant shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof). Last revised 7-3-12 1 j� �w. .. �J 1.5 Care of Work and Standard of Work. a. Care of Work. Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work performed by Consultant, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. The performance of services by Consultant shall not relieve Consultant from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective work at no further cost to City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Consultant. b. Standard of Work. Consultant acknowledges and understands that the services and work contracted for under this Agreement require specialized skills and abilities and that, consistent with this understanding, Consultant's services and work will be held to a heightened standard of quality and workmanship. Consistent with Section 1.4 hereinabove, Consultant represents to City that it holds the necessary skills and abilities to satisfy the heightened standard of work as set forth in this Agreement. 1.6 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services ("Additional Services") when directed to do so by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall not perform any Additional Services until receiving prior written authorization from the Contract Officer. It is specifically understood and agreed that oral requests and/or approvals of Additional Services shall be barred and are unenforeceable. Failure of Consultant to secure the Contract Manager's written authorization for Additional Services shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment of the Contract Sum or time due, whether by way of compensation, restitution, quantum meruit, etc. for Additional Services provided without the appropriate authorization from the Contract Manager. Compensation for properly authorized Additional Services shall be made in accordance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement. 1.7 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in Exhibit "D" (the "Special Requirements"). In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Special Requirements and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of the Special Requirements shall govern. 2.0 COMPENSATION 2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with Exhibit "B" (the "Schedule of Last revised 7-3-12 2 -8 048 Compensation") in a total amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ) (the "Contract Sum"), except as provided in Section 1.6. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon Consultant's rate schedule, but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. Regardless of the method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation, Consultant's overall compensation shall not exceed the Contract Sum, except as provided in Section 1.6 of this Agreement, "Additional Services." 2.2 Compensation for Additional Services. Additional services approved in advance by the Contract Manager pursuant to Section 1.6 of this Agreement, "Additional Services," shall be paid for in an amount agreed to in writing by both City and Consultant in advance of the Additional Services being rendered by Consultant. Any compensation for Additional Services amounting to five percent (5%) or less of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater amount of compensation for additional services must be approved by the La Quinta City Council. Under no circumstances shall Consultant receive compensation for any Additional Services unless prior written approval for the Additional Services is obtained from the Contract Officer pursuant to Section 1.6 of this Agreement. 2.3 Method of Billing. Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive payment, Consultant shall submit to City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by City's Finance Director, an invoice for services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the services provided, including time and materials, and (2) specify each staff member who has provided services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City will pay Consultant for all expenses stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than thirty (30) days after invoices are received by the City's Finance Department. 3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. Last revised 7-3-12 3 �.» ' 049 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in Exhibit C (the "Schedule of Performance"). Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his or her judgment such delay is justified, and the Contract Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. Extensions to the Schedule of Performance which are determined by the Contract Officer to be justified pursuant to this Section shall not entitle the Consultant to additional compensation in excess of the Contract Sum. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Sections 8.7 or 8.8 of this Agreement, the term of this agreement shall commence on 20 and terminate on 20 (initial term). This agreement may be extended for additional year(s) upon mutual agreement by both parties (extended term). 4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representative of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: a. b. C. It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Last revised 7-3-12 4 'A... 1 050 The foregoing principals may not be changed by Consultant and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the service required hereunder without the express written approval of City. 4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager of City. It shall be Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and Consultant shall refer any decisions, which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Except as set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. 4.5 City Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records or other data or information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to Consultant only from or through action by City. 5.0 INSURANCE 5.1 Insurance. Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work performed under this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, Commercial General Liability insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Consultant's acts or omissions rising out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for Last revised 7-3-12 5 losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming City and its officers. and employees as additional insured (on the Commercial General Liability policy only) shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. The following policies shall be maintained and kept in full force and effect providing insurance with minimum limits as indicated below and issued by insurers with A.M. Best ratings of no less than A -:VI: Commercial General Liability (at least as broad as ISO CG 0001) $1,000,000 (per occurrence) $2,000,000 (general aggregate) Commercial Auto Liability (at least as broad as ISO CA 0001) $1,000,000 (per accident) Errors and Omissions Liability $1,000,000 (per claim and aggregate) Workers' Compensation (per statutory requirements) Consultant shall carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by Consultant, its officers, any person directly or indirectly employed by Consultant, any subcontractor or agent, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. If Consultant or Consultant's employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. The term "automobile" includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on behalf of" the insured and must include a Last revised 7-3-12 6 _t.., 052 provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement. Consultant shall carry Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with State Worker's Compensation laws with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or disease. All insurance required by this Section shall be kept in effect during the term of this Agreement and shall not be cancelable without written notice to City of proposed cancellation. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant's obligation to indemnify City, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or agents. 5.2 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. C. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies City may have. The above remedies are not the exclusive remedies for Consultant's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Consultant's or its subcontractors' performance of work under this Agreement. 5.3 General Conditions pertaining to provisions of insurance coverage by Consultant. Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Consultant: 1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials, employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do likewise. Last revised 7-3-12 7 .» 053 2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise. 3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor. 6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent. 7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due Consultant, at City option. 8. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply first and on a primary, non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self insurance available to City. 9. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project that is brought onto or involved in the project by Last revised 7-3-12 8 �.... 054 Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. 10. Consultant agrees not to self -insure or to use any self -insured retentions or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein (with the exception of professional liability coverage, if required) and further agrees that it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this agreement to self -insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing coverage includes a deductible or self -insured retention, the deductible or self -insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self -insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions. 11. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increased benefit to City. 12. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement. 13. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard. 14. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect. 15. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage Last revised 7-3-12 9 '-"».i.. 055 has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Consultant's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five (5) days of the expiration of coverages. 16. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and agents. 17. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive. 18. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such. 19. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Section. 20. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto. 21. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City. 6.0 INDEMNIFICATION. 6.1 General Indemnification Provision. Last revised 7-3-12 10 °.•�... 056 a. Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Consultant's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities of every kind, nature and description, damages, injury (including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee of Consultant or subconsultants), costs and expenses of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this agreement. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. b. Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses) incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or subconsultants of Consultant. 6.2 Standard Indemnification Provisions. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth herein this section from each and every subconsultant or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set Last revised 7-3-12 11 forth herein is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section. a. Indemnity Provisions for Contracts Related to Construction. Without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, Consultant shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City's active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Consultant will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City. b. Indemnification Provision for Design Professionals. 1. Applicability of Section 6.2(b). Notwithstanding Section 6.2(a) hereinabove, the following indemnification provision shall apply to Consultants who constitute "design professionals" as the term is defined in paragraph 3 below. 2. Scope of Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's agents, officers, officials, employees, representatives, and departments ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities of every kind, nature and description, damages, injury (including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee of Consultant or subconsultants), costs and expenses of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, any subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone that they control. 3. Design Professional Defined. As used in this Section 6.2(b), the term "design professional" shall be limited to licensed architects, registered professional engineers, licensed professional land surveyors and landscape architects, all as defined under current law, and as may be amended from time to time by Civil Code § 2782.8. Last revised 7-3-12 12 05$ 7.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS. 7.1 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. 7.2 Records. Consultant shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make records and transcripts from such records. 7.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. Consultant shall cause all subcontractors to assign to City any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages suffered thereby. In the event City or any person, firm or corporation authorized by City reuses said documents and materials without written verification or adaptation by Consultant for the specific purpose intended and causes to be made or makes any changes or alterations in said documents and materials, City hereby releases, discharges, and exonerates Consultant from liability resulting from said change. The provisions of this clause shall survive the completion of this Contract and shall thereafter remain in full force and effect. 7.4 Release of Documents. The drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials prepared by Consultant in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Consultant shall not disclose to any other entity or person any information regarding the activities of City, except as required by law or as authorized by City. Last revised 7-3-12 B 059 8.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT. 8.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 8.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, City may take such immediate action as City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City's right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 8.7. 8.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to Consultant sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Consultant in the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 8.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City's consent or approval of any act by Consultant requiring City's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Consultant. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 8.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or Last revised 7-3-12 14 I different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 8.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 8.7 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term. This section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section 8.8 for termination for cause. City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 8.3. 8.8 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 8.2, take over work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed City as previously stated in Section 8.3. 8.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party. 9.0 CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NONDISCRIMINATION. 9.1 Non -liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event or any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. Last revised 7-3-12 15 061 9.2 Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which she or he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or general consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 9.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry. 10.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section. To City: To Consultant: CITY OF LA QUINTA Attention: Frank Spevacek, City Manager 78-495 Calle Tampico P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92247-1504 10.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understanding, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement. 10.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. 10.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be Last revised 7-3-12 16 062 declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 10.5 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below. CITY OF LA QUINTA a California municipal corporation Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager ATTEST: Susan Maysels, Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney Last revised 7-3-12 17 Date 063 CONSULTANT: By: Name: Title: Date: Last revised 7-3-12 18 Hal Exhibit A Scope of Services Last revised 7-3-12 19 065 Exhibit B Schedule of Compensation With the exception of compensation for Additional Services, provided for in Section 2.2 of this Agreement, the maximum total compensation to be paid to Consultant under this Agreement is ($ ) ("Contract Sum"). The Contract Sum shall be paid to Consultant in installment payments made on a monthly basis and in an amount identified in Consultants Schedule of Compensation attached hereto for the work tasks performed and properly invoiced by Consultant in conformance with Section 2.2 of the Agreement. Last revised 7-3-12 20 no 0 Exhibit C Schedule of Performance Consultant shall complete all services identified in the Scope of Services, Exhibit "A" of this Agreement in accordance with the attached Project Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Last revised 7-3-12 21 'r 067 Exhibit D Special Requirements 14A-A� Last revised 7-3-12 22 1 1 .068 cew!t 4 XP Qumra� CITY/SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Joint Use Agreement with Desert Sands Unified School District for a Community School Garden RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: _ CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve a Joint Use Agreement with Desert Sands Unified School District for a Community School Garden at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School and approve using up to $2,000 of Quimby funds to pay for the garden containers and irrigation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City and Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) will initiate a Community School Garden Program at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School through a Joint Use Agreement (Attachment 1). FISCAL IMPACT: Quimby funding could be used to purchaseplanting containers and install irrigation connections for watering. The anticipated cost to the City is approximately $2,000. Burrtec will supply the compost at no charge. The plants will be maintained by the students, teachers, and community members. The students will solicit contributions from parents, community members, and local businesses (especially hardware stores) to provide needed materials such as plants and hand tools. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: La Quinta resident Linda Gunnett contacted the City with a request for a Community Garden Program for Cove residents that would involve local youth. The cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Indio currently have community garden programs for their residents. Staff met Linda Gunnett and Jeff Smith (also a Cove resident) regarding the creation of a Community Garden. While staff supports this concept we did not want to pursue a program that would require the City to fund ongoing operating costs. While researching potential sites, Benjamin Franklin Elementary School teacher Patrice Healy expressed interest in developing this or a gardening program at the school. Staff met with Ms. Healy and Kelly May (Principal) to discuss ways the City and DSUSD could work together to develop a program that was mutually beneficial. To develop the community school garden at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School, the City would invest up to $2,000 to purchase individual garden containers and necessary irrigation improvements to supply water to the containers. In return, DSUSD would be responsible for the water costs, plants, and all other materials including maintenance costs that are not provided by volunteers, as part of the continuing operation. The gardens will be open during the school's hours of operation. Any resident interested in working with the children and gardening during school hours will need to have a background check per DSUSD policy. The Joint Use Agreement was approved on January 15, 2013 by DSUSD Board of Directors. ALTERNATIVES: Do not fund the Community School Garden project. COMMISSIONS/BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: On December 10, 2012, the Community Services Commission recommended a Community School Garden at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, *EdieHyl Community Services Director Attachment: 1. Joint Use Agreement 070 ATTACHMENT 1 JOINT USE OF FACILITY AGREEMENT This Joint Use of Facility Agreement (the "Agreement") is hereby entered into by and between the DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the "District"), and THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation (the "City"), as of this I5-a day ofafw,n-4 a� 2013. RECITALS WHEREAS, the District and the City desire to provide for expanded joint utilization of their respective facility at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School (the "Site") for the purpose of promoting a community school garden for the area residents and students; and WHEREAS, the City desires to assist the District in providing materials for a community school garden at Franklin Elementary School; and WHEREAS, in exchange, the District desires to assist the City's provision of providing community school garden opportunities for residents; and WHEREAS, the District and the City find that the proposed joint use of the Site provides a public benefit to the students of Benjamin Franklin Elementary School and the citizens of the City. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals set forth above, the covenants and agreements set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the District and the City agree as follows: 1.0 Use of Site Use of Site. The City agrees to provide individual garden containers, soil, and necessary irrigation improvements free of charge, at the Benjamin Franklin Elementary School. The garden containers will be used by students as well as local residents. The District will be responsible for the irrigation and maintenance costs (non- volunteer) as part of the continuing operation of the site. In the event that the community school garden is discontinued, the City will retain the garden containers for future community use. 1.2 Schedule for Facility Use. The facility will only be open during hours of operation for the school. Any resident wishing to work with the children or garden during school hours will need to provide a background check as per District policy. 1.2.2 Background Check. The volunteers will need to fill out a volunteer application to be obtained at the school site. Additionally, they will need to read the District Volunteer Handbook and indicate their acceptance on the volunteer form. A copy of the volunteers driver's license must be provided along with the submission of the form. Forms are submitted to the district office for background checks and board approval. The process for the check Page 1 of 5 -" 1 071 and board approval takes approximately one month to complete and must be done on an annual basis. 1.2.3 Assist in Student Activity. Volunteers will work with classroom teachers in a variety of ways. Activities will include discussions on gardening pertaining to the curriculum, maintaining the garden, harvesting the garden, and discussing healthy eating options. 1.2.4 Violations of Facility Use. Volunteers must follow the guidelines of the District Volunteer Handbook. 1.2.4.2 Alcohol, Drugs, or Tobacco. The District does not allow alcohol, illegal drugs, or tobacco to be sold, used or consumed in, on, or about the facility. 2.0 Mutual Indemnity and Release. City and the District hereby agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other party and its officers, employees, agents and independent contractors (collectively, "Indemnitees") from and against any and all claims, causes of action, obligations, losses, liabilities, judgments, or damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of litigation (collectively "Claims") arising out of and/or in any way relating to the indemnifying party's activities in the performance of this Agreement, or to the indemnifying party's acts and/or omissions in providing or administering the same, excepting only those claims, actions, obligations, losses, liabilities, judgments, or damages arising out of the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. 3.0 Insurance. The Parties agree to provide insurance in accordance with the provisions of this Section. 3.1 City's Insurance Obligation. Without limiting the indemnification provisions provided herein, the City, at its sole expense, shall obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement and any extensions thereof, a policy or policies of general liability insurance covering all injuries to persons and damage to property occurring in, upon or about the Site resulting from any actions or omissions of the City or any use of the Site by the City or its invitees in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The policy or policies evidencing such insurance shall name the District and its officials, officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds, shall provide that same may not be cancelled or amended without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the District, and shall provide for a combined single limit coverage of bodily injury and property damage in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). Such policy or policies shall be issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of California and be rated A-/VIII or better by ambest.com, Prior to the Commencement Date of this Agreement, and upon renewal of such policies, the City shall submit to the District certificates of insurance and any applicable endorsements evidencing that the foregoing policy or policies are in effect. At the City's option, CITY shall be allowed to self -insure the insurance coverages as required above. 3.2 District's Insurance Obligation. Without limiting the indemnification provisions provided herein, the District, at its sole expense, shall obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement and any extensions thereof, a policy or Page 2 of 5 072 policies of general liability insurance covering all injuries to persons and damage to property occurring in, upon or about the Site resulting from any actions or omissions of the District or any use of the Site by the District or its invitees. The policy or policies evidencing such insurance shall name the City and its officials, officers, employees, and agents, as additional insureds, shall provide that same may not be cancelled or amended without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City, and shall provide for a combined single limit coverage of bodily injury and property damage in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). Such policy or policies shall be issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of California and be rated A-/VIII or better by ambest.com. Prior to the Commencement Date of this Agreement, and upon renewal of such policies, the District shall submit to the City certificates of insurance and any applicable endorsements evidencing that the foregoing policy or policies are in effect. At the District's option, District shall be allowed to self -insure the insurance coverages as required above. 4.0 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a term of five (5) years, unless earlier terminated as provided hereafter. Either party may terminate this Agreement providing the other with three (3) months prior written notice of the termination date. 5.0 Default. Failure or delay by either party to perform any covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement within the time provided herein constitutes a default under this Agreement. The injured party shall give written notice of default to the party in default, clearly detailing the default to be cured. The defaulting party shall immediately commence to cure such default and shall diligently complete such cure within thirty (30) days from the date of the notice or such longer period if the nature of the default is such that more than thirty (30) days is required to cure such default. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the injured party shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party in the event of a default which is not cured within the time set forth in this section. 6.0 Attorneys' Fees. In the event any declaratory or other legal or equitable action is instituted between the District and City in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party all of its costs and expenses, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and all fees, costs and expenses incurred on any appeal or in collection of any judgment. 7.0 Notices. Any notice, request, demand, consent, approval or other communication required or permitted hereunder or by law shall be validly given or made only if in writing and delivered in person to an officer or duly authorized representative of the other party, or deposited in the United States mail, duly certified or registered (return receipt requested), postage prepaid, or delivered through another commercially reasonable method, including facsimile transmission and addressed to the party for whom intended, as follows: If to City: City of La Quinta Attn: City Manager 78-495 Calle Tampico P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 Fax: (760) 777-7101 Page 3 of 5 '0 1 073 If to District: Desert Sands Unified School District Attn: Superintendent 47-950 Dune Palms Road La Quinta, CA 92263 Fax: (760) 771.8522 Any party may from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address which shall be substituted for that specified above. If any notice or other document is sent by mail as aforesaid, the same shall be deemed fully delivered and received forty-eight (48) hours after mailing as provided above. If any notice or document is sent by facsimile transmission, the same shall be deemed fully delivered and received upon the transmission to the sender of a facsimile confirmation sheet. 8.0 Gender and Number. In this Agreement (unless the context requires otherwise), the masculine, feminine and neuter genders and the singular and the plural shall be deemed to include one another, as appropriate. 9.0 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its exhibits, each of which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and the final, complete and exclusive expression of the terms and conditions thereof. All prior agreements, representations, negotiations and understanding of the parties hereto, oral or written, express or implied, are hereby superseded and merged herein. 10.0 Captions. The captions used herein are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms and provisions hereof. 11.0 Governing Law. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto have been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. 12.0 Invalidity of Provision. If any provision of this Agreement as applied to any party or to any circumstance shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable for any reason, the same shall in no way affect (to the maximum extent permissible by law) any other provision of this Agreement, the application of any such provision under circumstances different from those adjudicated by the court, or the validity or enforceability of this Lease as a whole. 13.0 Amendments. No addition to or modification of any provision contained in this Lease shall be effective unless fully set forth in writing by the District and City. 14.0 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 15.0 Binding Upon Successors. The terms and conditions, covenants, and agreements set forth herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors of the parties hereof. Page 4 of 5 4 074 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year set forth herein above. Date ATTEST: Susan Maysels, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. Katherine Jenson City Attorney DISTRICT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of California BylAkALMA Barbara Sasser, ARM- , RM Risk Manager "CITY" CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager Page 5 of 5 1P 075 Tihf 4 4 a" CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: _ ITEM TITLE: Right of Way Use and License Agreement CONSENT CALENDAR: with NewPath Networks, LLC for the Purpose of Installing, Maintaining, and Operating a Distributed STUDY SESSION: Antenna System at Multiple Locations Within the City PUBLIC HEARING: of La Quinta RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Right of Way Use and License Agreement between NewPath Networks, LLC and the City of La Quinta. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: New Path Networks (aka Crown Castle) is proposing to install three distributed antenna systems (DAS) in the City. Two of the DAS would be located in the public right of way and one at Eisenhower Park. All three DAS sites were previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and granted conditional use permits. The Right of Way Use and License Agreement (Agreement) is specific to the installation, maintenance and operation of the DAS within the City's right-of-way and on City property. The Agreement provides for a one-time payment to the City of $13,000 for each DAS location for a term of 10 years. The option of two successive 5-year periods also exists, in which payment of $1,000 per year, per DAS would be required. FISCAL IMPACT: NewPath Networks, LLC will pay a one-time payment of $13,000 for each DAS location installed on City's right of way and City -owned property for the term of the Agreement. Additional revenue of up to $6,000 per carrier may be received should additional carriers be added to the DAS. 076 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: With the increasing demand for wireless data, DAS represent a technology that allows for improved coverage and increased capacity. The DAS or "nodes" are part of a larger network of antennas that fill in smaller coverage gaps. DAS equipment is smaller, requires less energy, and improves telecommunication coverage over smaller areas than non-DAS or "macro" towers. DAS are connected to a "HUB" site via fiber-optic cables. The three DAS locations proposed in La Quinta are at the Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street roundabout, Avenue 50 and Park Street, and Eisenhower Park. The Avenue 52 and Jefferson location will incorporate the antenna into an existing street light near the southeast corner of the intersection. An antenna will be attached to the existing street signal pole at the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and Park Street. The DAS at Eisenhower Park will replace the existing light standard with a 30' tall pole that will include lighting for the park. Research of similar DAS installations with other municipalities and correspondence with the City's legal counsel have concluded that the terms of the proposed Agreement are consistent with other recent similar agreements. The Agreement also includes "most favored municipality" status, which provides opportunity for the fee to increase should a more favorable term occur in another neighboring jurisdiction in the future. As proposed, each DAS is intended to facilitate one carrier but can accommodate up to three. The Agreement allows for the City to receive additional revenue of up to $6,000 per carrier should additional carriers be added to each DAS during the life of the agreement. ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to not have the City Manager execute the Agreement. This would prevent installation of the antenna at Eisenhower Park and the other two identified antenna locations due to their reliance upon existing City infrastructure. In addition, State law provides the ability for NewPath to locate their DAS in public right-of-way similar to other utilities, subject to the City's wireless communication provisions. , ly Johns n, Community Development Director Attachment: 1 . Right -of -Way Use and License Agreement 'k 077 ATTACHMENT # 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC This Right -of -Way Use and License Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of January 2013 ("Effective Date") by and between the City of La Quints, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and NewPath Networks, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company ("NewPath"). RECITALS A. NewPath represents that it owns, maintains, operates and controls, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission CTUC" ), telecommunications networks serving NewPath's wireless carrier customers through fiber -fed distributed antenna system facilities in public rights -of -way ("ROW"), and on private property, in the State of California. B. NewPath represents that it is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") that holds a valid full -facilities -based certificate of public convenience and necessity ("CPCN') issued by the PUC on April 13, 2006 (Decision 06-04-030). C. For purposes of installing, maintaining, and operating a distributed antenna system (the "Network"), NewPath seeks to (i) enter the City's ROW for purposes of, among other things accessing City -owned light poles, and (ii) enter upon City -owned property located in Eisenhower Park for purposes of, among other things, accessing a City -owned light pole. The Network will be used to provide wireless telecommunications and data services to the residents and visitors of the City ("Services'). The Network will be designed to accommodate MetroPCS as a carrier providing the Services. The Network may also allow up to two additional carriers, besides MetroPCS, to provide the Services from the Network ("Additional Carriers'). D. Some features of the Network include, without limitation, antenna nodes, fiber repeaters and related equipment in a configuration substantially similar to the construction drawings and elevations depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and to be located on _ streetlights at certain locations described and diagrammed in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("DAS Facilities"). E. NewPath and the City each contend that they have certain rights with regard to the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure in the public rights of way, which rights are derived from, but not limited to California Public Utilities Code sections 1001, 7901, 7901.1, and California Government Code section 50030. In consideration of the Recitals set forth above, the terms and conditions of this Agreement and other valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: y %,t1a3ttn03 - 4- .i 0 78 ARTICLE I INSTALLATION OF THE NETWORK 1.1 Permitted Installation. Provided it complies with this Agreement and all applicable City processes, procedures and requirements, including, without limitation, those requirements set forth in City's Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter 9.170 ("Telecommunications Ordinance"), NewPath may at NewPath's sole cost and expense and during the term of this Agreement, locate, place, attach, install, operate, use, control, repair, upgrade, enhance and maintain the Network at the locations depicted on Exhibit B; provided, however, that the volume, location and physical configuration of the Network locations depicted on Exhibit B shall not be altered without the City's prior written consen, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. NewPath shall undertake and perform any work authorized by this Agreement in a skillful and workmanlike manner. 1.2 Expansion of the Network. During the term of this Agreement, NewPath may, pursuant to the prior written approval and/or any and all permits required by the City, expand the Network by using other locations within the City's ROW not described in Exhibit B. In such an event, the parties may, in their respective sole and absolute discretion, enter into an amendment to this Agreement that modifies Exhibit B to reflect the additional locations in the City's ROW that NewPath desires to use. Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, any expansion of the Network pursuant to this Section 1.2 shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1.3 Permits. NewPath shall obtain any and all permits relating to the installation of the Network, including without limitation, those permits listed below (the "Permits"). 1.4.1 Encroachment Permits. NewPath shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the City for the installation of the Network and for any other work necessary to install the Network if required by the City's Municipal Code ("Code"). 1.4.2 Building Permits. NewPath shall obtain any necessary building permits from the City for the installation of the Network and for any other work necessary to install the Network, if required by the Code. 1.4.3 Conditional Use Permits. NewPath shall obtain any and all necessary conditional use permits, as required by the Code. 1.4.3 Compliance with Permits. All work within the City's ROW shall be performed in strict compliance with the applicable Permits and all applicable regulatory requirements. 1.4 Coordination of Excavation with Other Permittees. At least thirty (30) days prior to commencing excavation work in the City's ROW pursuant to this Agreement, NewPath shall notify in writing, on a form approved by the City, other existing or potential users ("User") of the City's ROW which are (a) shown on the list of users maintained by the City; and (b) are likely to be affected by such excavation work. The notice shall describe the work to be performed, the specific ROW of the City that will be used, and the time when such work will be performed. Each User receiving such notice shall have thirty (30) days from the date thereof to inform in writing NcwPath and the City that such User desires to perform work jointly with NewPath. To 3flAM0010310103 -2- 4.) 079 the extent reasonably feasible, and subject to NewPath and User entering into a written agreement for such work and/or use, NewPath shall coordinate its work with any User who timely informs NewPath that it desires to performwork jointly in the City's ROW, provided that such User obtains any required ROW agreement and permits from the City as required by the Code before such User performs any work in the City's ROW, including the installation of any facilities, or uses any facilities installed by NewPath on their behalf. 1.5 NewPath's Streetlights. It is understood that NewPath will replace the streetlight poles required for the DAS Facilities, the locations of which are shown in Exhibit B, with new streetlight poles capable of supporting the DAS Facilities ("Replacement Poles"). NewPath shall, at no cost to City, own, maintain, repair, and operate the Replacement Poles and all of the equipment thereon and/or related thereto. NewPath agrees to deliver to City (within a 25-mfIe radius of Replacement Pole site) the current poles that will be replaced. 1.6 Antenna Attachment to Traffic Signal Pole. The City has agreed to allow NewPath to attach antennas and associated equipment to a single City -owned Traffic Signals Pole at the location depicted on Exhibit B. NewPath shall pay to the City fees for the Traffic Signal Pole as though the Traffic Signal Pole were Replacement Pole; provided, however, that NewPath shall have and obtain no ownership interest in the Traffic Signal Pole. City will maintain full operational responsibility over all traffic signal devices associated with the Traffic Signal Pole. NewPath will provide 48 hours prior notice before accessing the Traffic Signal Pole for purposes of attaching, installing, maintaining, repairing, or altering the telecommunications equipment installed by NewPath on the Traffic Signal Pole. In each instance where NewPath accesses the Traffic Signal Pole, it shall take no action that interferes with the normal operation of the traffic signal or any of its associated equipment. In no event shall any of the telecommunications equipment installed by NewPath (or its agents or designees) interfere with the operation of the Traffic Signal Pole. If and to the extent any activity taken by NewPath and/or operation of telecommunication equipment on the Traffic Signal Pole inteferes or impedes the proper operation of the traffic signal and/or its associated equipment, City shall have the right to immediately take such corrective action as it deems necessary to resolve any such interference or impedence. L7 Fee. NewPath is solely responsible for the payment of all lawful fees in connection with NewPath's performance under this Agreement, which lawful fees',includes, without limitation, those set forth below. (a) Fee. To compensate the City for any costs incurred as a result ofNewPatb's entry upon and deployment from the locations listed on Exhibit B, NewPath shall pay to the City a one time fee ("Pole Fee") that consists of Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000.00) for each Replacement Pole (including the one Eisenhower Park Pole) upon which NewPath's Equipment has been installed pursuant to this Agreement. In addition, the Pole Fee shall be augmented, for each additional telecommunications carrier up to a maximum total of three carriers on a pole, by an amount equal to Six Thousand Dollars multiplied by the percentage of months remaining in the Term at the time each additional carrier's services commence provision from said pole(s).. The parties agree that the Pole Fee is no greater than the costs incurred by the City in connection with granting the access rights 3fol 0011210103 -3- "10 % provided hereunder; and to that end waive and relinquish any argument that the Pole Fee exceeds such cost. The Pole Fee shall be prorated as appropriate and shall be multiplied by the number of Replacement Poles. The Pole Fee shall be due and payable not later than forty five (45) days after the Installation Date, and any augmentation to the pole fee shall be due not later than forty five (45) days after the date an additional carrier's services commence on the pole giving rise to the fee augmentation. For each pole, the "Installation Date" means the date that is 45 days after the City's final inspection and approval of such pole. (b) Accounting Matters. NewPath shall maintain accurate books of account at its principal office or another location of its choosing, for the purpose of determining the amounts due to City under this Section 1.7. City, or a consultant acting on behalf of City, may inspect NewPath's books of account relative to the City at a location mutually selected by the City and NewPath, but in no event more than 50 miles from the City, at any time during regular business hours on ten (10) business days prior written notice and may audit the looks from time to time, but in each case only to the extent necessary to confirm the accuracy of payments due under this Section 1.7. To the extent permitted by law, the City agrees to hold in confidence any non-public information it obtains from NewPath to the maximum extent permitted by law. (c) "Most -Favored -Municipality" Status. The parties anticipate that, following the Effective Date of this Agreement, NewPath will enter into similar use agreements with other municipalities or government agencies. If NewPath enters into a similar agreement with another municipality in Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, or San Bernardino County then the parties will modify this Agreement if the following conditions are met: (1) The agreement confers financial benefits upon the municipality that, taken as a whole and balanced with other terms of that agreement, are deemed by the City to be substantially superior to the financial benefits provided for in this Agreement; and . (2) City notifies NewPath of its desire to modify this Agreement to substitute the same or substantially similar financial benefits, and related terms and conditions, of that right-of-way use agreement in order to achieve parity. To the extent practicable, such modification will be retroactive to the Effective Date of the similar agreement with the comparable municipality or government agency. (3) To the extent a modification to the amount of the Pole Fee is required by this Section 1.7(c), the cumulative amount of the modified fee over the remaining Term shall be due and payable as a lump sum payment within forty-five (45) days following the completion of a modification pursuant to this Section 1.7(c). 3W#j0Dk 1a310103 -4- 00 1 081 (4) Upon request from the City, NewPath will provide to the City a list of cities in Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, or San Bernardino County, that within the preceding 12 month period, have executed agreements with NewPath for the use of city -owned facilities. ARTICLE 2 TERM AND TERMINATION 2.1 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall be for ten (10) years beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and shall continue for a maximum of two successive five (5) year periods, if the parties mutually consent to such extension(s) within one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the scheduled termination. The term of any license granted pursuant to•this Agreement shall be coextensive with the Term of this Agreement. 2.2 Termination of Use. Notwithstanding Section 2.1 above, NewPath may terminate its use of any or all of the Network by providing the City with sixty (60) days prior written notice. Upon such termination, NewPath shall pay, as a termination fee, an amount equal to one year of Pole Fees for each pole subject to such termination. ARTICLE 3 REMOVAL AND RELOCATION 3.1 Removal Due to Public Project. Except to the extent not permitted by Law, upon receipt of a written demand from the City pursuant to this Article 3, NewPath, at its sole cost and expense, shall remove and relocate any part of the Network, constructed, installed, used and/or maintained by NewPath under this Agreement, whenever the City reasonably determines that the removal and/or relocation of any part of the Network is needed for any of the following purposes: (a) due to any work proposed to be done by or on behalf of the City or any other governmental agency, including but not limited to, any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewalk or other public facility, installation of curbs, gutters or landscaping and installation, construction, maintenance or operation of any underground or aboveground facilities such as sewers, water mains, drains, storm drains, pipes, gas mains, poles, power lines, telephone lines, cable television lines and tracks. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a City -imposed condition of approval associated with a permit issued to private developer requires the relocation of the DAS Facility, the City shall make a reasonable attempt to recover a reasonable proportion of the costs to relocate said DAS Facility (b) because any part of the Network is interfering with or adversely affecting the proper operation of City -owned light poles, traffic signals, or other City facilities; or (c) to protect or preserve the public health and safety. The City shall, at no cost to the City, cooperate with NewPath in, to the extent reasonably feasible, relocating any portion of the Network removed pursuant to this Section 3.1 in a manner that allows NewPath to continue providing service to its customers, including, but not limited to, expediting, to the extent reasonably feasible, approval of any necessary permits required for the relocation of that portion of the Network relocated under this Section 3.1. 3.2 Removal Due to Termination. No later than ninety (40) days after termination of this Agreement (whether by expiration of the Term, breach, or otherwise), NewPath shall, at its sole 3Wj�01la310103 082 cost and expense, remove the Replacement Poles and construct light poles of a similar type and quality as currently exist at the locations depicted on Exhibit B, remove the Network and, if restoration of light poles or Network removal disturbs the City's ROW, restore the City's ROW to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and further excepting landscaping and related irrigation equipment, or other aesthetic improvements made by NewPath to the City's ROW. Alternatively, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, require that NewPath abandon the Network, the Replacement Poles, or any part thereof, in place and convey it to the City. 3.3 Abandonment. If NewPath ceases to repair and maintain the Network, or any part thereof, for a period of ninety (90) days, NewPath shall be deemed to abandoned the Network (or portion thereof). In the event of such abandonment NewPath shall, at its sole cost and expense and within thirty (30) days, vacate and remove the Network, or the abandoned part thereof (and any associated Replacement Pole). If such removal results in the removal of a Replacement Pole, NewPath shall, at its sole cost and expense, construct light pole(s) of a similar type and quality as currently exist at the locations depicted on Exhibit B, which pole(s) shall be placed at the location of the removed Replacement Pole or such other location as the City may direct. If such removal disturbs the City's ROW, NewPath shall also, at its sole cost and expense, restore the City's ROW to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and further excepting landscaping and related irrigation equipment, or other aesthetic improvements made by NewPath to the City's ROW. Alternatively, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, require that NewPath abandon the Network, or the abandoned part thereof, in place and convey it to the City. ARTICLE 4 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 4.1 Electricity Use. NewPath shall pay for the electricity it consumes, including the electricity consumed in connection with street lighting provided from the Replacement Poles, in its operations at the rate charged by the servicing utility company. 4.2 Street Lighting. NewPath shall be responsible for providing street lighting from the Replacement Poles. Such street lighting services shall be consistent with other streetlights located in the City's ROW, including the timing for street lighting set by the City, which is currently from dusk to dawn. NewPath shall install automatic light detection sensors on each Replacement Pole and set the detectors to conform to such timing for street Lighting. Within thirty (30) days of a written request by the City, NewPath shall adjust the automatic light detection sensors on the Replacement Poles to comply with the hours to those specified by the City. All costs related to such street lighting shall be at NewPath's sole cost and expense. 4.3 Maintenance and Repair. NewPath shall, at NewPath's sole cost and expense, perform all maintenance and repairs reasonably needed to maintain the Network and the Replacement Poles (including the street lights) in good condition and appearance, and in compliance with all applicable Laws. In the event any part of the Network requires replacement because such part cannot be repaired, NewPath shall, at NewPath's sole cost and expense, replace the irreparable part of the Network and any associated street lighting or other equipment that requires replacement as a result of the Network replacement/repair activity. If any of the streetlights on Replacement Roles, or lighting element of the Eisenhower Park location Replacement Pole 3139 MII010103 -6- 083 become nonoperational during this agreement and subsequent renewals, if any, Newpath will respond and commence repair within twenty-four (24) hours upon NewPath's detection of nonoperational status. 4.4 Repair of ROW. NewPath shall be responsible for any damage, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to street pavement, existing facilities and utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, and all other public or private facilities to the extent caused by NewPath's construction, installation, maintenance, access, use, repair, replacement, relocation, or removal of the Network and/or Replacement Poles in the City's ROW ("NewPath's Activities"). NewPath shall promptly repair such damage and return the City's ROW and any affected adjacent property to a safe and satisfactory condition to the City in accordance with the City's applicable street restoration standards or to the property owner if not the City. NewPath's obligations under this Section 4.4 shall survive for one (1) year past the completion of such reparation and restoration work and return of the affected part of the City's ROW by NewPath to the City. 4.5 Bond. NewPath shall provide a bond in an amount determined by the City to represent the estimated cost of NewPath's obligations under Sections 3 and 4 of this Agreement, which the City may require NewPath to increase from time to time (but no more frequently than every five years during the Tenn) to reflect the reasonable estimated cost of performing such obligations, to secure performance of NewPath's obligations under Sections 3 and 4. 4.6 Eisenhower Park Site. NewPath shall be deemed to hold a license to access the _ square foot Network site located in Eisenhower Park, as depicted on Exhibit B, subject to the following terms, conditions and requirements. (a) NewPath's obligations with regard to the ownership, maintenance, repair, abandonment, conveyance on termination, bonding, removal, payment for electricity costs, accounting matters, coordination with other permittees, network expansion, and compliance with laws and permits and payment of the Pole Fee shall be the same as exists for those portions of the Network within the ROW. (b) Absent emergency circumstances, NewPath may access the Eisenhower Park site for maintenance and repair purposes only between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. In the event of an emergency circumstances, NewPath shall make a reasonable effort to advise the City of its intent to access the Eisenhower Park site, and shall make every reasonable attempt to avoid disrupting people in close proximity to the park. ARTICLE 5 TAXES 5.1 Taxes. NewPath agrees that it will be solely responsible for the payment of any and all lawful taxes, fees and assessments levied on its use and maintenance of the Network. Pursuant to Section 107.6 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, the City hereby advises, and NewPath recognizes and understands, that NewPath's use of the City's ROW may create a 39M ppy 0310103 -7- �;3, 084 possessory interest subject to real property taxation and that NewPath may be subject to the payment of real property taxes levied on such interest. NewPath will cooperate with the Riverside County Assessor in providing any information necessary for the Assessor to make a property tax determination. NewPath reserves the right to challenge any such assessment, and the City agrees to cooperate with NewPath in connection with any such challenge. ARTICLE 6 INDEMNIFICATION 6.1 Indemnity. NewPath shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its councilmembers, officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against liability, claims, demands, losses, damages, fines, charges, penalties, administrative and judicial proceedings and orders, judgments, and the costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense, to the extent directly or proximately resulting from NewPath's activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent arising from or caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its councilmembers, officers, employees, agents, or contractors. The City shall promptly notify NewPath of any claim, action or proceeding covered by this Section 6.1. 6.1.1 Limitation of Liability. NewPath acknowledges that under no circumstance, including but not limited to condemnation or breach of this agreement, shall City be liable to NewPath for any incidental, consequential, or punitive damages, including but not limited to any loss of income, business or profits, arising out of NewPaths use of City's ROW or City -owned property or City's performance or non-performance under this agreement, even if City has been advised of the possibility of such damages. City acknowledges that, in the event NewPath breaches this agreement, its liability for breach of contract shall not include incidental, consequential, or punitive damages other than rent, including but not limited to any loss of income, business or profits, arising out of NewPath's use of City's ROW or City -owned property or City's performance or non-performance under this Agreement, even if NewPath has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Nothing in the foregoing sentence limits either (i) NewPath's indemnity obligations under this Agreement, or (ii) NewPath's tort liablity, if any, to the City. 6.2 Waiver of Claims. NewPath waives all claims, demands, causes of action, and rights it may assert against the City on account of any loss, damage, or injury to any portion of the Network, or any loss or degradation of the services provided by the Network resulting from any event or occurrence that is beyond the City's reasonable control. ARTICLE 7 INSURANCE 7.1 Minimum Insurance Requirements. NcwPatb shall obtain and maintain at its sole cost and expense for the duration of this Agreement insurance pursuant to the terms and conditions " described in this Article. (a) Minimum Insurance. NewPath shall at all times during the term of this Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, insurance as follows: SflAiB®D� ia310103 -8- "' 085 (i) General Liability: A policy or policies of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, death, loss and property damage resulting from wrongful or negligent acts by NewPath. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (ii) Automobile Liability: A policy or policies of Comprehensive Vehicle Liability Insurance covering personal injury and property damage, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage covering any vehicle utilized by NewPath in performing the work covered by this Agreement. (iii) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' compensation limits as required by the Labor Code, and Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. (b) Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions shall not exceed $25,000; provided, however, if NewPath's insurance policy expressly provides (i) that the insurer is required to pay covered claims with no deduction for all or any part of the NewPath's deductible, and (ii) insurer's obligation to pay covered claims is triggered irrespective of whether or not the insured pays the deductible, then NewPath's deductible shall not exceed $100,000 for Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, $100,000 for Comprehensive Vehicle Liability Insurance and $250,000 for Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability coverage. (c) Other Insurance Provisions. The policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (i) General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverage. (1) The City, and its elected and appointed council members, board members, commissioners, officers and officials (the "Insureds") shall be named as additional insureds on all required insurance policies, except for Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability policies. (2) NewPath's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Insureds with respect to the matters covered by this Agreement. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Insureds shall be in excess of NewPath's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure of NewPath to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the Insureds. (4) NewPath's insurance shall apply separately to each of the Insureds against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. Each of the Insureds is subject to all policy terms and conditions and has an obligation, as an Insured, to report claims made against them to the insurance carrier. 3ID8tAV01 W10103 -9- -'. - 086 (ii) Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Insureds for losses arising from work performed by NewPath in the City's ROW. (iii) All Coverages. Except for non-payment of premium, each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to the City. If for any reason insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits, NewPath shall, within two (2) business days of notice from the insurer, notify the City by phone or fax of the changes to or cancellation of the policy and shall confirm such notice via certified mail, return receipt requested. If NewPath does not procure additional and / or substitute coverage to replace the cancelled coverage within five (5) business days of receipt of the prior insurer of cancellation for non-payment of premium and fifteen (15) business days for any other reason, then City may procure such insurance and charge the costs of such procurement to NewPath which costs NewPath shall remit to the City within ten (10) business days after receipt of an invoice from the City. (d) Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with an A.M. Best rating of no less than A-:VII. (c) Verification of Coverage. NewPath shall fiuvish the City with certificates of insurance required by this Article 8. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person, either manually or electronically, authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf All certificates are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. 7.2 Secondary Parties. In the event NewPath hires any subcontractors, independent contractors or agents ("Secondary Parties") to locate, place, attach, install, operate, use, control, replace, repair or maintain the Network, NewPath shall require the Secondary Parties to obtain and maintain the insurance similar in form to that required by Section 7.1 of this Agreement and it shall be NewPath's responsibility to ensure compliance with this Section 7.2. ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 8.1 Future Changes In The Law. The parties agree that if any future change in the law or binding determination of a court renders all or any portion of this Agreement void or unenforceable, the NewPath shall not attempt, and waives and relinquishes any right, to recover the Pole Fee, or any other benefit afforded to the City under this Agreement, from the City. 8.2 Nonexclusive Use. NewPath acknowledges that this Agreement does not provide NewPath with exclusive use of the City's ROW or any municipal facility and that City retains the right to permit other providers of communications services to install equipment or devices in the City's ROW and on municipal facilities. NewPath acknowledges that the City may make information available to other providers of communications services concerning the presence or planned deployment of the Network in the City's ROW. 8.3 Notices. All notices which shall or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and personally served or transmitted through first class United States mail, or by private 3"10011010103 .10- A..! , 087 delivery systems, postage prepaid, to the following address or such other address of which a parry may give written notice: City: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calie Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: City Manager With a copy to: Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Blvd., 14`h Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attention: Jeff Melching NewPath: NewPath Networks, LLC c% Crown Castle USA Inc. E. Blake Hawk, General Counsel, 2000 Corporate Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317.8564 Attn: Legal Department — DAS With a copy to: NewPath Networks, LLC 890 Tasman Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 Attn: Contracts Management Any notice required or provided for under this Agreement shall be deemed served at the time of personal service. Mailed notices will be deemed served as of the day of receipt. 8.4 Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by either party because of a breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs; provided, however, that the "reasonableness" of the hourly rate charged by either Party's attorney shall in no event be greater than the hourly rate charged to the City for its counsel. 8.5 Transfers. NewPath shall request the City's approval of any proposed transfer of Network to a third party. The City shall promptly evaluate such request, and may request such additional information as is reasonable and appropriate to its evaluation of such request. City shall not unreasonably withhold, condition, or deny such transfer request; provided, however, that the City may impose commercially reasonable conditions as necessary to ensure performance hereunder by any proposed transferee. If City does not act on a transfer request within thirty (30) days of receipt of such request, the request shall be deemed approved. An assignment shall not be effective until the proposed transferee agrees in writing to comply with and be subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Code. Without limiting any provision in this Agreement to the contrary, NewPath may in the ordinary course of its business and without the prior written consent of or notice to the City: (a) lease the Network, or 3Wg]Qpp1a31O103 -11- ,_,F,Z 088 any portion thereof, to another person or entity, (b) grant an indefeasible right of user interest in the Network or any portion thereof to another person or entity, (c) offer or provide capacity or bandwidth from the Network to another person, (d) assign any contract to any entity which controls, is controlled by or which is under common control with NewPath or to any entity acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of NewPath; provided that whether NewPath does any of the three things listed in subsections (a) — (c) above, it must at all times retain exclusive control over the Network and remain responsible for locating, servicing, repairing, maintaining, replacing, relocating, or removing the Network pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 8.6 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, assigns and transferees. 8.7 Entire Agreement; Modification; Waiver. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations, negotiations, and understandings of the parties, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof, are merged into and superseded by this Agreement. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall be of no force and effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar. No waiver or consent shall constitute a continuing waiver or consent or commit either party to provide a waiver in the future except to the extent specifically set forth in writing. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 8.8 Severability, if any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, such provision or provisions shall, to the extent permitted by California law, be deemed separable from the remaining provisions of this Agreement and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. 8.9 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced according to, and the parties rights and obligations governed by, the domestic law of the State of California, without regard to its laws regarding choice of applicable law. Any proceeding or action to enforce this Agreement shall occur in the federal court with jurisdiction over Riverside County and the state courts located in Riverside County, California. 8.10 Survival of Terms. All of the terms and conditions in this Agreement related to payment, removal due to termination, indemnification, limits of City's liability, attorneys' fees and waiver shall survive termination of this Agreement. 8.11 Captions and Paragraph Headings. Captions and paragraph headings used herein are for convenience only. They are not a part of this Agreement and shall not be used in construing this Agreement. 8.12 Exhibits. All Exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated as though set forth in full herein. 8.13 Drafting. The parties agree that this Agreement is the project of joint draftsmanship and that should any of the terms be determined by a court, or in any type of quasi- 3D9ie01010103 -12- M" 089 judicial or other proceeding, to be vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible, that the same sentences, phrases, clauses or other wording or language of any kind shall not be construed against the drafting party in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1654, and that each party to this Agreement waives the effect of such statute. 8.14 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more identical counterparts and all such counterparts together shall constitute a single instrument for the purpose of the effectiveness of this Agreement. 8.15 Authority to Execute This Agreement. Each person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of a party, warrants and represents that he or she has the full right, power, legal capacity and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of such party and has the authority to bind such party to the performance of its obligations under this Agreement without the approval or consent of any other person or entity. [Signatures Begin on Following Page] 3WI Cot W10103 -13- " �' 090 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the date stated in the introductory clause. City of _, a municipal corporation NewPath Networks, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company City Manager BLAVW �� Name: Robert L. Delsman Title: VP DAS Network Real Estate Pge-: JanuM 2$, 2013 ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 3MQ03fa310103 -14- 1 Y 09 EXHIBIT A Construction Drawings of the DAS Facilities -15- EXHIBIT B INSTALLATION LOCATIONS Attached behind this page are descriptions and diagrams indicating the location at which the DAS Facilities covered by this Agreement will be installed. 3261119.2 -16- k 093 CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Extending the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: 47 STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution extending the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority has provided disbursements of nearly $23 million to participating agencies to help defray local costs of abandoned vehicle abatement over the past 19 years. The authorizing legislation for the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program (Program) is scheduled to expire in May 2014. New legislation allows the local service authorities to extend the Program every 10 years with the approval of the County and a majority of the cities comprising a majority of the population of the incorporated areas. The City has participated in this Program since 1994. The Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority requests that the participating cities adopt a supporting resolution prior to February 20, 2013. FISCAL IMPACT: This Program would qualify the City to receive future disbursements based upon the City's population and number of vehicles abated. Since the Program's inception in 1994, the City has received more than $524,348 in disbursements to help fund the cost of abating more than 4,725 vehicles. 094 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In 1990, the California State Legislature enacted legislation allowing for the creation of county -based vehicle service authorities. In June 1994, the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority was formed and imposed a one -dollar annual vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered in Riverside County. Vehicle registration fees are collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority. Fees are then allocated to 24 participating entities based upon their geographical area and population in relation to the total size and population of Riverside County, and on the basis of the percentage of vehicles abated by each entity in relation to the total vehicles abated by the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority as a whole. The current 24 entities are the County of Riverside, Canyon Lake, Cathedral City, Coachella, Corona, Desert Hot Springs, Hemet, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto and Temecula. Since the inception of the program, the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority has received approximately $22,952,216, which has allowed the abatement of approximately 456,561 abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperable vehicles. ALTERNATIVES: The City may decline to adopt the supporting resolution. That action could disqualify the City from eligibility to collect future disbursements from the Program. Furthermore, because the extension of the Program is contingent upon the approval of jurisdictions comprising a majority of the area and population of the County, lack of support by a sufficient number of jurisdictions could jeopardize the extension of the entire program. Respectfulll i spbmitted, Jo , Community Development Director 095 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE SERVICE FEE COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT SERVICE AUTHORITY UNTIL MAY 2024 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority was formed on or about June 1, 1994, pursuant to the provisions of California Vehicle Code§ 9250.7 and 22710 enacted by the Legislature in 1990 which authorized the establishment of a service authority and imposition of a service fee on all registered motor vehicles located within a county; WHEREAS, beginning in June 1994 and continuing to the present, the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority has been the recipient of service fees collected on its behalf by the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and WHEREAS, the service fees received by the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority are used to reimburse local governmental agencies for a portion of their costs incurred as a result of the abatement, removal and disposal as public nuisances of any abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof; and WHEREAS, THE Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority apportions and distributes service fee proceeds to each member agency according to the formula set forth in California Vehicle Code § 22710; and WHEREAS, since the establishment of the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement program in June 1994 it has disbursed $22,952,216 in service fee proceeds to member agencies and caused the abatement of approximately 146,561 abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles located in various cities and the unincorporated area of Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the service fee collected as part of the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement program is set to expire in May 2014; and WHEREAS, the Legislature recently amended California Vehicle Code § 9250.7 to allow for an extension of the service fee collected as part of the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement program in increments of up to 10 years each if the board of supervisors of the county, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the .� 096 cities comprising a majority of the population of the incorporated areas within the county adopt resolutions providing for the extension of the service fee; and WHEREAS, it is desirable to the City of La Quinta to have the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement program continue beyond its current termination date of May 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the City of La Quinta approves the extension of the service fee collected on behalf of the Riverside County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority until May 31, 2024. Effective Date: This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on the 5th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California '�.`} 097 ATTEST: SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California "" 098 Tw�p 4 4 a" CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Deny Claim for Damages Filed by: Miriam A. Johnson; Date of Loss — December 17, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION:_) CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Deny the claim for damages of Miriam A. Johnson in its entirety. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A claim was filed by Miriam A. Johnson with a reported date of loss of December 17, 2012. It was forwarded to Carl Warren & Company, the City's claims administrator. Carl Warren reviewed this claim and recommends denial. FISCAL IMPACT: The amount of the claim is unspecified. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS: The claim is for repairs to the claimant's septic tank, which claimant states was improperly built and should not have passed inspection. The dwelling was constructed under Riverside County jurisdiction in 1979-1980. In addition, the City has no record of any permits to repair/modify/replace this septic system. Therefore, the City is not liable for damages. Respectfully submitted, Terry eeringer Human Resources/General Services Manager 0 99" Twy� 4 4 a" CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate, and Authorization to Advertise for Bid the Calle Sinaloa and Avenue 52 Sidewalk Infill Improvements, Project No. 2012-08 RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: _ CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve the plans, specifications and engineer's estimate, and authorize staff to advertise for bid the Calle Sinaloa and Avenue 52 Sidewalk Infill Improvements, Project No. 2012-08. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Staff recommends constructing sidewalk and curb ramps on Calle Sinaloa/Avenue 52, between Eisenhower Drive and Desert Club Drive, and include the construction of Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant sidewalk, curb ramps and driveway approaches on the north and south sides of Calle Sinaloa/Avenue 52. • This project is being financed with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and is subject to Prevailing Wage Requirements. • This action will result in the Calle Sinaloa and Avenue 52 Sidewalk Infill Improvements Project to be advertised for construction bids. Award recommendations will be presented in March 2013. FISCAL IMPACT: The project is included within the 2012/2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approved by the City Council on July 3, 2012. The project is programmed to receive $255,722 of CDBG Funding during Fiscal Year 2012/2013. The engineer's estimate of the construction cost is $177,578. The following is the adopted project budget: Construction: Design: Inspection/Testing/Survey: Administration: Contingency: Total Anticipated Budget: $177,578 $25,500 $25,000 $12, 800 $14, 844 $255,722 Adequate funding is available from the City's CDBG fund to initiate the bid solicitation phase of the project. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The proposed improvements include construction of curb adjacent sidewalk, new ADA compliant curb ramps, upgrade of existing curb ramps to current ADA standards, and driveway approaches along Calle Sinaloa and Avenue 52. Other incidental items are also included such as removal and relocation of landscape improvements, and relocation of existing traffic control and directional signage necessary to complete the sidewalk in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Calle Sinaloa and Avenue 52 Sidewalk Infill Improvements Project is identified in the City's CIP approved for FY 2012/2013. All improvements will be made within the City's existing right of way. The project specifications and bid documents are now complete and available for review in the City's Public Works Department. Contingent upon City Council's approval and authorization to advertise for bid on February 5, 2013, the following is the project schedule: City Council Authorization to Advertise for Bid Project Advertisement Project Award Sign Contract/Mobilize Construction (30 working days) Accept Improvements February 5, 2013 February 6, 2013 — March 7,2013 March 19, 2013 March 20, 2013 — April 15, 2013 April 2013 to May 2013 June 2013 ALTERNATIVES: Since these funds may only be used for capital improvements within a very small area of the La Quinta Village, staff does not recommend any alternatives to this action. Respectfully submitted, imothy on s on, P.E. Public Wor s D ctor/City Engineer Attachment: 1 . Calle Sinaloa Improvements Exhibit -4 Q w L'' Of o N � ¢ p m CD x pN 2 4 4 Y 4 J '4� Y $ < z Y Y Y u Z m o rc m o¢ rc orc ¢ << o o of W N W N m W 6 6 ✓1 a Wi VI m W 0W N N Ld w �¢60 10 _ b 6 �O 6 U IO 6 f0 1p O n M nLL 0 < 2 < 6 Qj < < 2 p m W W U Y m m m m m pW QW W U 7 W U CALLE SINALOA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS N.i.S EISENROwER DRIVE TO DESERT CLUB DRIVE CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Tww 4 XPQ,mrw CITY/SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: CIVIC Center Campus Artists Acknowledgement Area Applications RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: J_ CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve the names of artists to be included on the Civic Center Campus artist's acknowledgment area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Every two years resident artists submit applications to participate in the Distinguished Artists event. These applications are reviewed by staff to assure program requirements are met and then submitted to City Council for approval. Once approved, the name and craft for each artist are etched into bronze panels located on the artist's acknowledgement area sculpture. As a part of the event, the City Council recognizes each artist with a certificate of appreciation and adds the names to the artwork. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of adding the names to the bronze plates will be approximately $200. There is sufficient funding in the Art in Public Places Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Budget. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On September 18, 2001, the City Council approved the criteria for the acknowledgment area monuments for veterans, artists and sports figures to be located on the Civic Center Campus. The criteria for the artist's area are listed below: 1. Three-year resident of La Quinta (past or present); and 4 104 2. National, state or local recognition and contributed to the City of La Quinta's image. Recognition for artists includes the following categories: painting, sculpture, tile work, the performing arts, architecture, and landscape architecture. As of this report, the following three applications for artists have been submitted for consideration: Artist Craft Sergio Naduville Sculpture Mike Costley Performing Arts Andy Williams Performing Arts Applications and supporting materials are on file with the Community Services Department. Staff is planning the "Distinguished Artists of La Quinta" event for February 21, 2013, at which time all those listed in the acknowledgment area will be recognized and given certificates of achievement. ALTERNATIVES: Approve any or all of the applications. Respectfully submitted, Edie Hylton Community Services Director 105 T-itT 4 4& Qu!Arcv CITY/SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Appointment of Two City Council Members to Serve on the Civic Center Art Purchase Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Appoint two City Council Members to serve on the Civic Center Art Purchase Committee to select art during the La Quinta Arts Festival. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Civic Center Art Purchase Committee selects art work from the La Quinta Arts Festival ("Festival"). The availability of original artwork provides an opportunity to purchase unique pieces for the City's Art in Public Places collection. Staff recommends the appointment of two City Council Members to select and purchase art at the Festival. FISCAL IMPACT: An amount of $10,000 has been budgeted in the Civic Center Art Purchase Account. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The 2013 Festival will be held from March 7 to March 10 at the Civic Center Campus. Since 1989, with the exception of 2004 and 2005, the City has been selecting artwork from the Festival to be displayed at various City facilities. Two City Council Members, with assistance from two Community Services Commission Members, view the artwork at the Festival for consideration of an art purchase. Council Members Henderson and Osborne participated on the Civic Center Art Purchase Committee in 2012. Should the City Council decide to participate in purchasing artwork this year, then the Community Services Commission will be contacted and asked to assist. 106 ALTERNATIVES: Do not participate in selection of artwork or elect to not purchase art this year. Respectfully submitted, Edie Hyl on Community ervices Director 107 ` oF.f&Q"Arw AGENDA CATEGORY: CITY/SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 BUSINESS SESSION: 3 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Formation and Appointment of Two City Council Members to an Ad Hoc Committee to STUDY SESSION: Review Grant Requests PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Establish an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the second round of grant requests_ and appoint two City Council Members to serve. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Grant Program was established to provide community services support, marketing support and sponsorships. Per the City grant guidelines, priority for community services funding is granted to organizations that directly benefit La Quinta residents. Marketing and sponsorship grants go to organizations that would benefit the City in a marketing capacity. If the City Council would like to continue to have the second round of grant applications reviewed prior to being presented at the City Council Meeting, staff recommends the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of two City Council members. FISCAL IMPACT: Grant funding is available in the Community Services Administration budget under Special Projects. As part of the 2012/2013 Fiscal Year Budget, the City Council allocated $37,500 to this account to fund community services grants. There is an $18,350 balance in the budget for this program. 1 108 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City Council previously established a procedure to review submitted community services grants. Completed grant applications are submitted twice a year and initially reviewed by a designated Ad Hoc Committee consisting of two Council Members. The Ad Hoc Committee then recommends consideration of grants to the City Council. For marketing requests above $5,000, an in-depth review of applications is first conducted by the La Quinta Marketing Committee. Council Members Franklin and Evans were appointed to the first round Ad Hoc Committee. The second round Ad Hoc Committee will review and recommend the grants presented to City Council on March 5, 2013. ALTERNATIVES: There are no alternatives to the recommended action. Respectfully submitted, Edie Hylton Community Services Director 109 REPORTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Community Services Commission was called to order at 5:32 p.m. by Chairperson Fitzpatrick. PRESENT: Commissioners Blakeley, Engel, Fitzpatrick, Lawrence, and Leidner. STAFF PRESENT: Community Services Director Edie Hylton, Golf & Parks Manager Steve Howlett, and Senior Secretary Angela Guereque. Commissioner Leidner led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT - None. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Motion - It was moved by Commissioners Leidner/Blakeley to confirm the agenda as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion - A motion was made by Commissioners Lawrence/Engel to approve the November 5, 2012 Community Services Commission Minutes as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Consideration of a Community Garden at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School. Manager Howlett presented the staff report. Leidner asked who would own the produce. Director Hylton stated that this pilot program would start with six to eight containers for the school children. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2012 110 Commissioner Engle asked why the City is getting involved with spending money on a school program. Director Hylton stated this is another way of creating healthy projects without running them. Chairperson Fitzpatrick suggested not calling it a Community Garden, maybe Community School Garden. Motion - A motion was made by Commissioners Leidner/Blakeley to recommend a Community School Garden at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School to the City Council. Motion passed unanimously. REPORTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS 1. October 2012 Department Report 2. Joint Meeting for January 22, 2013 3. Report from Commissioners Regarding Meetings Attended 4. Calendar of Monthly Events ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Leidner/Lawrence to adjourn the meeting at 6:07 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. ill COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2012 Department Report: I A " `y OF'f4t<'' TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Les Johnson, Community Development Director DATE: February 5, 2013 SUBJECT: Draft Response Letter to City of Indio for Music Festival Plan Project — Draft Environmental Impact Report On January 3, 2013, the Community Development Department received the City of Indio's Music Festival Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Staff has reviewed the DEIR and is preparing a response letter to the Indio Planning Department. The following represents a project description as proposed in the DEIR followed by a brief summary of the primary issues identified in the attached draft response letter prepared by City staff. Following receipt of feedback received by Council, staff will proceed with submitting the comment letter to Indio prior to the comment period conclusion date of February 11, 2013. Project Description This Project consists of requests for approval of the following actions by the City of Indio: (1) an amendment to the City's Municipal Code to adopt an ordinance pertaining to Major Music Festival Event Permits; (2) a Major Music Festival Event Permit; and (3) a Development Agreement. The characteristics of each of these actions are described in detail in Attachment 1 and the proposed Event Permit is summarized below. The proposed Event Permit will approve five weekend (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) concert events, three events in spring and two events in fall. Three of these events will have an authorized all-inclusive (patrons, staff, vendors and artists) daily attendance limit of 99,000 persons and the other two events will have a 75,000 person limit. As proposed, both the high and low attendance events could occur in either spring or fall. Each event will be authorized to include onsite overnight camping and multiple outdoor music performances between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 1 :00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and from 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Sundays, with the exception that the two low attendance events must conclude the performances by 12:00 a.m. each day. As proposed, the Event Permit will be valid from 2014 through 2030. i112 Summary of DEIR Comments Public Service Section: o Relationship and coordination with City of Indio and GoldenVoice has been exceptional past two concert seasons. City wishes to continue in same fashion and ensure that GoldenVoice continues to reimburse City for additional expenses associated directly with events. o GoldenVoice has historically provided assistance to Homeowners' Associations in close proximity to event site for added security. City wishes to see this effort continued going forward. Project Description Section: o Have provided comments on multiple miscellaneous items identified in this section including cumulative impact analysis for all events at site, further information regarding proposed Major Music Festival Event Permit Ordinance, and better understanding as to when the fall events would be held. Air Quality Section: o Requested clarification of proposed mitigation measure involving use of heavy equipment and generators. o Additional measures are needed to reduce dust during peak pedestrian and vehicular traffic periods. • Noise Section: o Noise levels identified in DEIR exceed La Quinta's noise standards and impact residents in close proximity to event site. o DEIR identifies "short-term music performance noise impacts will remain significant and unavoidable." Have questioned why reduction in sound volume is infeasible. o Suggested reducing event hours as part of solution to reduce impacts upon neighboring residential uses. Traffic Section: o DEIR covers 20-year span for events but does not acknowledge importance of build out of several key streets in area, such as Avenue 50, Madison Street, Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. o Review of the DEIR traffic study has prompted multiple comments with regard to fair share contribution to multiple La Quinta intersections, signal timing, and ensuring that full extent of event impact has been considered. Alternatives Section: o Noise alternative does not consider possible change in orientation of stages to face north and east as opposed to current south and west configuration; 113 • Effects Not Found to be Significant: • DEIR does not address impact from temporary security lighting that has or can impact neighboring residences. Attachment: Draft letter to City of Indio 1 114 February 5, 2013 City of Indio Planning Department 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 Attn: Joseph Lim, Planning Manager RE: Music Festivals Plan, City of Indio — #2012081085) ` Dear Mr. Lim, Thank you for providing the City o comment on the Draft Program Enviro Festivals Plan (the "Projec " or "projec needs additional infor order applicable impacts ciate th the the DEIR are orovi a ollo 2. Env ATTACHMENT 1 (SCH to ("La a") the opportunity to ct R ort ("DEIR") for the Music ,in). Uinta believes that the DEIR Ily u erstand and clearly assess all t. Comments according to sections of • It iNdoese od th or attain a level of non -significance for police serCity of o w Id contract with other public agencies to utilize offofficer ith costs to be reimbursed by the Festival Operator. Theiden es the relationship and coordination with City of Indio Pols a reference to the City of La Quinta. Although the City of as n included in operations the past two concert seasons, this has b en the case. Due to adjacency of the event site to the City of La Quinta, there is a need to ensure that the City will continue to be a part of the coordinated effort in the future, including reimbursement for expense of additional services necessary during the festivals. • On a case by case basis, the Festival Operator has historically provided additional private security for residential communities adjacent to or within close proximity to the event grounds. What mechanisms are in place (i.e. inclusion into the Project Description, Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures, 115 contracts/agreements etc.) to ensure that these necessary services will continue to be provided in the future? 3.0 Project Description • The City of La Quinta noted in its Sept 28, 2012 letter on the NOP (copy attached) that the DEIR should address the holding of other special events on the site and their cumulative impacts. Mitigation should include consideration of the cumulative impacts associated with all annual events held or contemplated for the entire 600 acre site. It appears that the pro' description does not include an inventory of other major events, though er year-round events are referred to in the Land Use section of the DEIR. T of La Quinta questions whether the baseline analysis considers other o oing ial events as part of cumulative impact analysis. • No statements in the Project Objective ress y other evkk e t could be held on the Festival Site. The propose jo;ate sic Festiv vent Permit Ordinance (Ordinance) is assumed to also other events meeting its criteria. However, it appears a Ordinance tailored specifically to the thresholds of the project itsel , applicabilit the Ordinance to other potential festivals is unclear. The i aft of th dinance provided in the DEIR, and the City of La Quinta re sts C1 of Indio respond with the a> a no;Tf . . . . c.7 114? A • Approximate should be inc LEW have not been identified and in vat o%or na n are identified in Section 3.0, beginning on It shounot at these plans will be provided to the City of well aaff cted agencies beyond the City of Indio. • While not a t C A issue, it is requested that the City of La Quinta be consulted on to the Development Agreement that may impact neighboring La Quinta residen and property owners. 4.1 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 requires interim Tier 4 level heavy equipment and generators, and is the only proposed mitigation measure. However, this Section identifies several Festival Plan Features to be incorporated into the Operations Plans discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description. It is stated that these features were "taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts", but are not actually in place, as they are yet to be incorporated into the operational Page 2 116 plans. Please clarify if these plan features are to be considered as mitigation measures. • Dust is potentially significant during peak vehicle and pedestrian flows, especially at the end of shows. In addition to FPF AQ-1 listed on Page S-6, consideration needs to be made to pave or apply a dust control or soil stabilization agent designed for heavy traffic flow on all main driveways and pathways. This effort should also include measures to address track -out from unpaved roads and parking areas onto paved roadways. 4.4 Nnica The Draft EIR correctly cites the La Quinta 6noiseinan' terior dBA levels as 55 dBA from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and 450: to 7:00 AM, for noise consisting of music or speech. Based nute ge noise period durations cited in the document (pp. 4.►, the a noise level standards of the La Quinta Municipal Codeted on a tinuing basis during these events. ed to "p t xcessive sound levels are and y or which are contrary t o this, of particular concern cy n levels at Madison/52 and inta Ioc ted west of Madison and south ly impacted by noise associated with en from the event music particularly orning hours, which are most sensitive A SoNnot nt ram P) is proposed as a noise mitigation measure (MM DE stat s that implementation of "the sound system manapts lis will provide a substantial reduction in offsite noise levelsw fr ency sound." However, the level of significance after mitigcompliance with La Quinta noise standards. The DEIR also rt-term music performance noise impacts will remain significant and unavoidable." The conclusion that noise impacts are significant and unavoidable needs to include supporting evidence that a reduction in sound volumes is infeasible, based on reasonable rationale. If the SMP is implemented and allows sound engineers to monitor noise level measurements, it appears feasible for sound levels to be adjusted as necessary in order to achieve nominal limits. The Festival Plan identifies concert end times of 1:00 AM on Saturday and Sunday, 12:00 AM on Sunday for higher attendance festivals. Lower attendance festivals are to end at 12:00 AM every evening. In addition, entertainment in camping areas Page 3 4 117 is prohibited after 1:30 AM. What consideration was given to adjusting these times? For example, establishing earlier concert and camping entertainment end times combined with aforementioned SMP could make a substantial difference to the health, welfare and safety for those residing in close proximity to the event site. The City of La Quinta strongly emphasizes that greater efforts to reduce music performance noise levels, combined with earlier event ending times, would provide realistic mitigation and relief for the residential uses surrounding the event grounds. 4.6 Traffic & Transportation Festival Plan efforts over the past few years impact upon traffic congestion associated with and improvements to the Jefferson StremrN examples of this. Coordination with the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR, intersections identified in MM TR2-1 either beir Indio. The document needs to addr the impor maNsi ficant positive e tivauttle operation ue 5tion are both 3 uiive for the with sev al roads and ithin La Quinta or shared with f such coordination. Traffic mitigation appears focused porary acts of the project. In reality, the impacts are considered Ion ter osed permit life under the proposed Ordinance is ears. Whi pacts n be characterized as short duration, it is not ap ria consider ern as emporary. It can be argued that the 'buildout' for oject uld be 2 e rs from the permit inception. Based on the life of the per it of consid d appropriate to address the traffic impacts of th ect o ociated mitigation based on the 2014 analysis y re, City La Quinta has concerns related to improve is assoc i wit rr. ors (street segments) not built to ultimate design as Avenue Mad Street, Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. The following specific to the Traffic Study in the Appendix: A. Page 1-4: The ke a periods were studied on Friday, Saturday and Monday. However, there i heavy inbound flow on the Thursday prior to these events that creates impacts to critical intersections. This time should also be studied. B. Figures II- 5a to 5e from the Mobility Group are dated October 2012 which does not include seasonal traffic. If the counts in these figures are from October 2012, they should be revised to include season traffic which peaks in March of each year. Page 4 i L8 C. Tables VI-1 and VI-3: The mitigation measures in these tables rely on cones and traffic control personnel. The study should address how these mitigation measures will be enforced and ensure that they will always implement these measures during peak festival traffic conditions. There will be significant impacts to several intersections and street segments in the City of La Quinta for a minimum of 20 days a year. The intersections of Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 as well as Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 operate at Level of Service F with event traffic. Temporary traffic control changes are offered as mitigation measures. However, the residents of La Quinta have already expressed strong concerns about the traffic congestion caused by thes es of festival events and unavoidable delays experienced accessing thei side ces during festival events. The study should consider a fair share ution to the following improvements: • Providing traffic signals or a two I Avenue 54 • Constructing a permanent additional w Street and Avenue 50 which can also be during festival events • Constructing a three lane roun • Constructing a traffic signal at intersection was luded in use this inters ion h previo Cities of L a an ndio a making left -turn t so bout at J64REson Street and through latTe at Jefferson as a second right -turn lane efferson eet and Avenue 52 s t and Dunbar Drive. This analys However, the residents who expressed strong concerns to both the ing subjected to long delays when et during normal traffic conditions. i during festival traffic conditions. D. PagNinterse ere i dis n about mitigation measures for the heavy outic flow at h e been observed on Jefferson Street on Monday mothe ev is over and there is a mass exodus of event traffic norrds t 1-10 freeway. One potential mitigation measure would be 1 second cycle coordination plan that would give at least 60 ds green time to Jefferson Street. This would have to be done for se ions on Jefferson Street from Avenue 49 to Indio Boulevard. E. Page VI-7: The study identifies the need to widen Avenue 52 from Monroe Street to Clinton Street. The study should consider extending the widening of Avenue 52 to the west to Madison Street. The study should also consider widening Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street to four lanes for its entire length to provide better access for the events as well as for La Quinta and Indio residents during festival event traffic conditions. Page 5 `10 119 F. Various tables in the traffic study report use font sizes that are too small to read. They should be reformatted to improve legibility. 5.0 Alternatives The Alternatives section mentions a Noise Reduction Alternative, which considers changes to the design and operation of the sound system used for the main stage to determine if these changes would reduce the noise impacts of the Project to a less than significant level. Has a reconfiguration of the event grounds been analyzed in terms of noise impact? For instance, what wo a the noise impact if the main stage were located nearer to the southwest ner of the primary event area, with sound system pointed towards the northe 6.0 Effects Not Found To Be Significant From the City of La Quinta's persp lighting impacts which should be add • The DEIR does not specifically men lighting located along the even surrounding street right-of-ways. to be considered and measures ide • A photometric p^ev te ligh direct light withiround tof La Quinta fot of the Again, thank be mad the Final Sincerely, regard to or a e temporary offsite security )erimet ntrances/exits, and within 61pon adja residential areas needs miz pact. esign and located so as to confine aries, should be submitted to the City ir,Music Festival Permit. the rtt ment on the Music Festivals Plan Draft por a:request that these clarifications and corrections Sho have any questions, please do not hesitate to Les Johnson Community Development Director Attachment cc: Mayor and City Council Frank Spevacek, City Manager Tim Johnasson, Public Works Director Paie 6 120 Department Report: t 6 r�jr4l //v�j w / L Y i+ OF TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Coun 'I FROM: Les Johnson, Community Development Direct DATE: February 5, 2013 SUBJECT: Report on January 28, 2013 Meeting with Trilogy Residents Regarding California Bio-Mass On January 28, 2013, City Manager Frank Spevacek, City Attorney Kathy Jenson and I attended a meeting at the Trilogy Clubhouse. The meeting was scheduled at the request of City staff to provide opportunity to update Trilogy residents on the status of California Bio-Mass as well as field questions. Approximately 75 residents attended the hour long meeting. Several in attendance have previously sat in or spoke at City Council meetings relating to California Bio-Mass. Staff provided a brief 15-minute review of events that have occurred to date as well as covered legal options available to the City and the time frame anticipated resolution if one of these options was pursued. The remainder of the meeting was spent fielding questions. Resident questions/concerns centered on the following: • Low confidence in the County and their willingness to address resident concerns. • A growing concern that the odors could represent toxic fumes that are or will be resulting in health problems. • Frustration that the City cannot take legal actions to cause immediate cessation of operations. An acute desire to mobilize more Trilogy residents and the residents of the adjoining communities to petition the County and the City to take action to shut down operations. Desire to have the City pursue nuisance litigation against California Bio-Mass. 121 `ter 4 laQ" MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Fra nk J. Spevacek, City Man oqj� FROM: R. Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: IFebruary 5, 2013 SUBJECT: Madison Club Landscaping Improvements for Avenue 53 and Madison Street, Tract Map No. 33076-1- Update On August 7, 2012, City Council extended Madison Club's time to complete their off -site improvements to September 9, 2013 provided that the following two intermediate milestones are met: 1. Developer submit revised plans for the parkway and median landscaping for Avenue 53 and Madison Street for review prior to October 12, 2012, and 2. Developer to commence construction for the parkway and median landscaping improvements for Avenue 53 and Madison Street by February 1, 2013. The developer met the first intermediate milestone. The second intermediate milestone was not met because the revised landscaping plans are currently still under the second plan check by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The developer is anticipating that CVWD will approve the plans by Thursday, February 7, 2013. Once the landscaping plans are approved by CVWD, the developer will submit the landscape plans to the City on Friday, February 8, 2013 and an encroachment permit will be issued to commerce the work. Please contact me if you have any questions. 122 1fdf 4 4 a" AGENDA CATEGORY: CITY/SA/HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Development Impact Fees CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council amending Resolution No. 2008-061 relative to the Development Impact Fee Policy pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Study, dated February 5, 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The City Council discussed the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study Update during a Study Session on November 20, 2012. Comments received from the City Council and the development community have been addressed and incorporated within the DIF Study. • The 2013 update is the fifth update to the DIF and the first to assume that the City will become a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) collecting member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). • Staff recommends adopting the updated DIF program because the fees were calculated in accordance with governing law, are appropriate even when considering the combined effects of potentially joining the CVAG TUMF Program and are reflective of all of the comments that were received by all of the various stakeholders. 123 The following table compares the existing fees to theproposed fees: Land Use Type Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase/Decrease Percent Change Res (SFD) $6,894 $7,713 ($818) -10.61 % Res (SFA) $6,681 $6,296 $384 6.11 % Res (MFO) $5,030 $4,889 $142 2.9% Office/Hos . $5,379 $7,451 ($2,072) -27.80% General Com $6,456 $6,899 ($443) -6.42% Tourist Corn $2,185 $2,204 ($19) -0.87% Golf Course $958 $945 $13 1.34% Below, for City Council's review, is a table comparing the City's revised DIF fees including TUMF to other DIF/TUMF collecting agencies. It is also included as Appendix 4 of the DIF Study Update, dated February 5, 2013 (Attachment 1). DESERT CONSTRUCTION LA QUINTA RANCHO HOT TYPE PROPOSED FEE INDIO MIRAGE COACHELLA SPRINGS 1,300 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 1,700 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 2,200 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 3,000 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10.940.44 4,000 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 500,000 SF General Commercial - 50 Acres $5038,280.00 $2.687,094.25 $2,925,780.00 $4,188,445.00 $6,383,780.00 20,000 SF Office - 1 Acre $211,328.00 $131,657.25 $259,308.00 $228,216.20 $295,548.00 200 Acre Golf Course, 10.000 SF BLDG, 10Acres $340,784.00 $321,748.25 $149,184.00 $149,184.00 $149,184.00 100 Room Hotel; 45,000 SF 10 Acres $327,996.00 $314,145.25 $157,951.00 $107,596.00 $474,328.00 20 Unit Townhouse; 1,200 SF $90k/Unit $152,916.00 $46,377.00 $146,036.00 $275,739.40 $225,763.00 20 Unit Apartment Building 1,000 SF $2M $123,316.00 $49,986.00 $146,036.00 $275,739.40 $225,763.00 Note: Fees presented above include the Coachella Valley TUMF. 124 FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended DIF schedule will generate approximately $68,964,957 assuming that all development occurs as anticipated in the City General Plan. The following table presents the projected revenue by facility type: PROJECTED IMPACT FEE REVENUE FACILITY TYPE PROJECTED REVENUE Transportation $34,734,680 Parks $16,498,347 Civic Center $8,343,957 Fire Station $3,837,355 Libraries $2,773,534 Community Centers $1,037,702 Street and Park Maintenance $1,739,383 TOTAL $68,964,958 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 then need to be identified in order to fund future DIF improvements in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). All costs used in this report are in current dollars. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Development impact fees 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. The City must update the DIF periodically in order to comply with state law. In 1989, a California statute took effect, which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to 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 "AB1600" requirements after the 1987 assembly bill in which they originated. The 2013 Update of the City of La Quinta DIF Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of "AB1600" and to support findings necessary to satisfy both ,statutory and constitutional standards for the establishment and imposition of development impact fees. 125 California law does not limit the type of capital improvement 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. Consequently, the fees recommended on this report are based on capital costs only. The following adjustments have been made to the DIF Study in response to the comments received during the November 20, 2012 Study Session: 1. The Avenue 58 Extension, between Avenue 58 and the north boundary of Coral Canyon, was added to the list of DIF eligible improvements. This addition increased the amount the Transportation DIF will collect by $1,730,953. 2. The Madison Street Improvements between Avenue 60 and Dike No. 4 was added to the list of DIF eligible improvements. This addition increased the amount the Transportation DIF will collect by $1,888,038. 3. The 1-10/Jefferson Street Interchange was added to the list of DIF eligible improvements. This addition increased the amount the Transportation DIF will collect by $1,720,421. CVAG's most recent proportionate share calculation for La Quinta for this project is $5,315,125 which might be lowered if CVAG is successful in getting State Transportation Improvement Program funding or if construction bids come in lower than the current engineer's estimate. At this time the only alternate funding sources for the remainder of the City's share that staff has been able to identify include General Fund Reserves or Measure "A" funds. 4. The Avenue 50 Bridge spanning the All American Canal was added to the list of DIF eligible improvements. This addition increased the amount the Transportation DIF will collect by $300,000. This project was inadvertently left out of the prior draft. 5. The proposed traffic signal on Calle Tampico at Civic Center Way (City Hall Driveway) was removed from the DIF. The removal of this improvement reduced the amount the Transportation DIF will collect by ($430,000). No adjustments were made to the remaining sections of the DIF. Public notice requirements were met for this public hearing. It was published in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 23 and January 30, 2013. City staff provided the updated DIF Report to the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) and the Building Industry Association on January 16, 2013, for review. A written comment was received from the DVBA dated January 25, 2013 (Attachment 126 2). Any additional comments received will be distributed to the City Council during the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: In order for the City to implement the TUMF, the DIF must be updated to remove the regional component covered under the TUMF fee to avoid overcharging developers for future regional improvements. This update to the DIF does just that while also removing completed projects and adding new regional projects as appropriate. Therefore, as long as it is desired to implement the TUMF, staff does not recommend any alternative to this action. Respectfully submitted, R imothy . Jo as on, P.E. Public Works ctor/City Engineer Attachments: 1. February 5, 2013 Final — Development Impact Fee Program 2. Letter from the DVBA dated January 25, 2013 127 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-061, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982; and WHEREAS, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues to experience significant development activity in the form of applications and proposals for new residential and commercial land development within the City; and WHEREAS, there is a lack of public improvements and facilities, including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the present and future citizens of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, the City's existing circulation system is inadequate to handle current and future traffic patterns and it is essential to widen City streets, which have inadequate width, improve the circulation system to accommodate an anticipated increase in traffic, and improve and develop bridges and traffic signals suitable for traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City, with the consequent increase in population and demand for the use of public facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities, including but not limited to fire stations, park and recreation facilities, major thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety facilities and other public buildings directly from new development and the need cannot be met and financed from ordinary City revenues; and WHEREAS, the most practicable and equitable method of paying for such needed facilities is to impose a fee upon new development within the City and the payment of such a fee enables the City to fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as they are required and demanded; that when a development pays the Development Impact Fee established by this policy, the City Council will be able to find that all necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the need and, in the event such finding cannot be made, the City Council will be required to disapprove the development as being inconsistent with the General Plan; and 128 Resolution No. 2013- Development Fees Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 2 WHEREAS, in 1989 the California Statute took effect, which governs the establishment, increase, and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project"; and WHEREAS, public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public improvements, public services, and community amenities"; and WHEREAS, these requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB1600" requirements after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of a fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and type of development on which the fee is imposed; c. The amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides authority to the City to regulate all municipal affairs under Article 1 Section 100; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this fee program and procedures as set out in this resolution is found to be a matter of local concern to implement in a timely manner public infrastructures; and WHEREAS, the City in 1999 conducted studies relative to future community infrastructure needs; the funds necessary to meet said capital improvement needs; and the relationship between those needs and future development; and based upon said studies and reports, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-80; and WHEREAS, the 1999 Development Impact Fee Study report was previously updated in a report titled "2002 Development Impact Fee Study;" and ,4 129 Resolution No. 2013- Development Fees Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 3 WHEREAS, the 2002 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled "2005 Development Impact Fee Study;" and WHEREAS, the 2005 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled "2006 Development Impact Fee Study;" and WHEREAS, the 2006 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled "2008 Development Impact Fee Study;" and WHEREAS, the 2008 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled "2013 Development Impact Fee Study;" and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City Council further finds that: a. The report entitled "Development Impact Fee Study," dated February 5, 2013 (the "Fee Study"), accurately states the City's need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities and services to serve new development. The Fee Study sets forth a necessary and reasonable method of funding said buildings and facilities. The Fee Study shows that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the projected types of development; the need for the various public facilities by the projected types of development pursuant to the City's General Plan; and the amount of the fee and the proportionate facility cost related to the development. The Fee Study is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. b. The categories of community infrastructure and the percent of said infrastructure fee attributed to each category of infrastructure in the Fee Study are as follows: Transportation 50.37% Parks 23.92% Civic Center 12.10% Library 4.02% Community Centers 1.50% Street/Park Maintenance 2.52% Fire Protection Facilities 5.56% It 130 Resolution No. 2013- Development Fees Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 4 C. As set forth in detail in the Fee Study, in order to allow residential and commercial land development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring that all new development is consistent with the General Plan, including the Public Building and Facilities Element, it is necessary and appropriate to approve the following Development Impact Fee to be imposed upon new development. Said fee will assist the City in funding a construction program to provide such needed public buildings and facilities as they are required and needed. 2. Development Impact Fee Policy Amount. Prior to approval of any zoning, re zoning, subdivision, or development proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Development Impact Fee in the following amount for the following type development: a. Residential Single Family Detached - $6,894 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) b. Residential Single Family Attached - $6,681 per EDU C. Residential Multi Family Other - $5,030 per EDU d. Office/Hospital - $5,379 per 1,000 square feet of floor area (KSF) e. General Commercial - $6,456 per KSF f. Tourist Commercial - $2,185 per room g. Golf Courses - $958 per acre The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. 3. Use of Funds Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Policy shall be paid into special capital outlay funds to be established by the City. Said fund or funds shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property and public improvements and facilities described as community infrastructure in this Resolution, as the City Council may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures of funds available from the special capital outlay fund(s) shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual operating and capital improvements budget or at such other time as the City Council may direct. 131 Resolution No. 2013- Development Fees Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 5 4. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluding from the fees imposed by policy, the following: a. Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States or the State of California. b. The construction of any facility by the City of La Quinta, the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. 5. Credits. Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Development Impact Fee shall be in addition to and not in lieu of other valid exactions imposed upon new development through the subdivision or other approval processes. Provided; however, that payment of the Development Impact Fee shall be in lieu of payment of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signalization funds pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code, 3.17.020. Provided further that in the event developer is required to directly provide infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee structure, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against the "Development Impact Fee." The City hereby determines that the development impact fee is not intended to be the exclusive method of installation of needed public buildings and facilities and the City will consider alternative proposals to provide needed infrastructure to particular development and, to the extent such alternative proposal is discretionary approved by the City Council, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against payment of the Development Impact Fee. Any developer seeking alternative methods of installation shall submit such proposal to the City at the time of submittal of an application for development. 6. Validity. Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. .y 132 Resolution No. 2013- Development Fees Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 6 In determining the amount of Development Impact Fee, the City Council has been guided by the Fee Study mentioned in paragraph one hereof. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other category. The City Council further finds, declares and determines that the Development Impact Fee on all remaining valid fee categories shall be increased by the amounts of the fee categories declared invalid. Provided; however, that the amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so increased over and above the amount recommended by said report for each category. 7. Administration and Enforcement. Effective Date. Repealer. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this policy. The Public Works Director's decision may be appealed to the, City Council whose decision shall be final. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute necessary agreements for the administration of this policy. This Resolution shall become effective February 5, 2013. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall go into effect 60 days following the effective date of this Resolution. 133 Resolution No. 2013- Development Fees Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 51" Day of February 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Don Adolph, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: Susan Maysels, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 134 ATTACHMENT 1 i 2 e 1 35'r1 a4 hi t �an rOM' �y�9.. It}I. r i d � �' � • ;?u- tr kPt ' to a it is t E F r r i + LA Q T NTA, w4 r IFO� Ilk DEVELOPMEITIMPACT „ ;SEE STUDY f f �'r t t 2 ' f r f FE$RiTY 5, 2013F Ai. �° rY • r*"l j ._„ `' „ � M %t. 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 Spcvacek 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 1A TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary I A. organization of the Report B. Facilities Addressed in this Report I C. Development Projections I D. Impact Fee Analysis 1 E. Recovery of Study Cost 3 F. Summary of Impact Fees 3 G. Projected Revenue 4 H. Implementation 4 Section 1- Introduction 1-1 A. Legal background B. Purpose of the Fees 1-3 C. Use of Fees 1-3 D. Reasonable Relationship Requirement 1-3 E. Impact Fee Methodology 1-4 F. Facilities to be Addressed 1-6 G. Relationship to the General Plan 1-6 Section 2- Land Use, Demographics and Development Potential A. Background and Setting 2-1 B. Study Area and Time Frame 2-1 C. Residential Development and Population 2-1 D. Non -Residential Development 2-3 E. Measure of Demand 2-3 F. Existing and Forecasted Development 2-4 Section 3- Transportation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 3-1 B. Level of Service 3-1 C. Demand Variable 3-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 3-2 E. Impact Fees 3-6 Section 4- Parks and Recreation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 4-1 B. Level of Service 4-1 C. Demand Variable 4-2 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 4-3 E. Impact Fees 4-3 ii ro 1 Z 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 5- Civic Center Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame B. Level of Service C. Demand Variable D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation E. Impact Fees Section 6- Library Impact Fees A Service Area and Time Frame B. Level of Service C. Demand Variables D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation E. Impact Fees Section 7 — Community Center Impact Fees A Service Area and Time Frame B. Level of Service C. Demand Variable D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation E. Impact Fees Section 8 — Maintenance Facility Impact Fees A Service Area and Time Frame B. Level of Service C. Demand Variables D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation E. Impact Fees Section 9 — Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees A Service Area and Time Frame B. Level of Service C. Demand Variable D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation E. Impact Fees Section 10 — Implementation A. Adoption B. Administration C. Training and Public Information Appendix 1- Detailed Cost Estimated for Street Improvements Appendix 2- Basis for Number of Trips Generated Appendix 3- County Road Conversion to Urban Arterial Appendix 4- Development Impact Fee Comparison iii 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-4 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-2 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-2 9-3 10-1 10-1 10-5 :, 138 City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is the fifth update of the May 1999 Development Impact Fee report completed for the City by DMG-Maximus, Inc. It is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000 et seq.) which is commonly known as "AB1600" and to support findings necessary to satisfy both statutory and constitutional standards for the establishment and impositions of development impact fees. A. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Section I 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 Improvements (Section 3) Parks and Recreation Facilities (Section 4) Civic Center (Section 5) Library (Section 6) Community Center (Section 7) Maintenance Facility (Section 8) Fire Protection Facilities (Section 9) C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development expected to occur in La 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 139 February 5, 2013 - Final Page 1 City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study not include any ongoing costs for maintenance or operations. The following paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in the analysis of each type of facility. Transportation Improvements. The recommended impact fees for street system improvements are based on the cost of improvements to major, primary, and secondary arterial streets, bridges and interchanges, traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls required to serve future development in La Quinta. Those fees assume that developers will continue to be directly responsible for internal streets and for certain arterial street improvements in cases where a project fronts on an arterial. Specific improvements to be funded by the impact fee are listed in the report. The relationship between development and the need for additional street capacity is defined in the study as a function of additional peak hour trip -miles generated by development (See Section 2 for a discussion on peak hour trip -miles). Park and Recreation Improvements. The recommended impact fee for park and recreation improvements is based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of service, defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The impact fee analysis addresses neighborhood and community parks only. The proposed impact fees do not include the cost of land acquisition, and are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee -in -lieu requirements under the Quimby Act. Since the need for park acreage is defined in terns 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 con m mity 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 140 February 5, 2013 - Final Page 2 City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study maintenance facilities are allocated on the same basis as the cost of street improvements, using peak hour trip -miles to represent demand. Costs for park maintenance facilities are allocated on the same basis as the cost of park improvements, using population to represent demand. As a result, impact fees for street maintenance facilities apply to all types of development while impact fees for park maintenance facilities apply only to residential development. Fire Protection Facilities. The impact fees for fire protection facilities were based on the need to repay loans to the DIF for the new fire station and the expansion of one existing fire station to serve future development in La Quinta. Impact fees were calculated by dividing the future fire stations needs by the total developed acreage of future development. E. RECOVERY OF STUDY COST As with other types of analysis needed to obtain funding for capital facilities, the cost of preparing this study may be recovered through impact fees, The fee summary shown in Table S-1 is based on the fees calculated in Sections 3 through 9, but the fees have been adjusted to incorporate the cost of a future study. That adjustment assumes it will be necessary to update the study in five years, and that the City will collect an average of $2 million per year in impact fees. Thus, the $53,000 cost of the study is divided by $10 million (the projected five year total of all impact fees to be collected by the City) to determine the percentage increase needed to recover the cost of the study. That percentage is 0.53%, so the fees have been increased by just over one half percentage points to account for the cost of the study. To make that adjustment, fees calculated in subsequent sections of the report have been multiplied by 1.053 to arrive at the fees shown in table S-1. F. SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES Table S-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. Residential- Single Family Detached Z Dwelling Unit 3 Residential- Single Family Attached 4 Residential —Multi family and other 5 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Building Area 141 February 5, 2013 - Final Page 3 City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study G. PROJECTED REVENUE Table S-2 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now to build out, assuming that the fees 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 Proiected Impact Fee Revenue t Transportation $34,734,680 Parks $16,498,347 Civic Center $8,343,957 Fire Station $3,837,355 Libraries $2,773,534 Community Centers $1,037,702 Street and Park Maintenance $1.739,383 TOTAL $68,964,957 H. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues. Section 10 of this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding requirements updating of fees, and staff training. From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made regarding the share of facility costs to be funded by impact fees, and other sources of funding to be used for those facilities not funded by the fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report are intended to represent the maximum impact fee amount justified by the analysis. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. hi 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 cunt dollm February 5, 2013 - Final Page 4 City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 1 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. 143 February S, 2013 - Final 1-1 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study To be constitutionally valid, development regulations must advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the provision of adequate public facilities so that development does not cause deterioration in the quality of essential public services. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exaction on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such an exaction and the government's legitimate interest. (See Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan vs. City of Tigard, 1994), the Court made clear that an agency also must show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. It should be noted that Dolan is less significant for impact fees than for other types of exactions (e.g., mandatory dedication of land) because proportionality is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees, and legal scholars are debating the application of Dolan to fee payments. California Law. In 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities, related to the development project..." Public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB1600" requirements, after the 1987 Assembly Bill which they originated. The statute establishes procedures for adopting and justifying impact fees. It also includes restrictions on the collection and expenditure of fees, and a provision requiring the refunding of fees under certain conditions. Annual reporting of activity in impact fee accounts is also required, as is a more complete reconciliation every five years. Reporting requirements were revised by Legislature in 1996 as part of AB 1693, and are discussed in more detail in the Implementation Section of this report. To satisfy the requirements of Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees must make findings that: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: 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 proj ect. Those requirements are discussed in detail below. February 5, 2013 - Final q-2 144 City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study 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 fulfill that requirement. Specific facilities used to calculate impact fees in this study are identified in subsequent sections of the report. D. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT As discussed above, Government Code Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its 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. hi our opinion, "reasonable relationship" as defined by these requirements is identical to "nexus" as a practical manner. We will use the nexus terminology in this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy either formulation. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. 145 February 5, 2013 - Final 1-3 Citp ofLa Oainta — Development Impact Fee Study Impact Relationship. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government if the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality of public services for the entire community deteriorate. The improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in La Quinta are identified in subsequent sections of this report; the need for those improvements is analyzed in 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 governing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues, and the requirements for refunding of fees not expended in a timely fashion, are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Proportionality Relationship. A reasonable proportionality relationship must be established through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. As a practical matter, compliance with both statute and case law requires an agency to show that impact fees will be used to pay for capital facilities needed to serve new development, and that the amount charged to different types of development is fairly related to the demands imposed on public facilities. It is well -established that impact fees may not be used to mitigate pre-existing deficiencies in public facilities, to subsidize level of service improvements for the existing community or to solve problems not created by the development paying the fee. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exaction, including impact fees, may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. Methods of allocating facility costs and calculating fees to meet the proportionality requirements are addressed below. E. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY In general, any one of several approaches may be used in calculating impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends on the service characteristics of the facility being addressed and the availability of information on facility plans and future development. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable. Reduced to its simplest elements, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of improvements needed to serve development and allocating those costs equitable to various types of development. However, in practice, the calculation of impact fees is complicated by complex relationships between development and facility needs, and by limited information about future conditions. Below we discuss three approaches to calculating impact fees, and their applicability to certain situations. February S, 2013 - Final 1-4 146 City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Plan -based Impact Fees. This method is used in this study to calculate impact fees for streets and certain community facilities. It is most appropriate where estimated costs for a specified set of improvements (facility plans) are being allocated to all development represented by a specified land use plan. Costs are allocated in proportion to the relative intensity of demand represented be each type of development. This method assumes that the entire service capacity of the planned facilities will be absorbed by projected development, or that excess capacity is necessarily related to serving future development. For example, it may be necessary to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but some capacity may remain unused after that development occurs. The plan -based method is often the most workable approach where it is difficult to measure the actual service consumed by development, for example, with respect to administrative and law enforcement facilities. It is also useful for facilities such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. Capacity -based Impact Fees. The capacity -based method was not applied in this study and is discussed here to only provide additional background. It is most appropriate where the costs and capacity of a facility or system are known, and the amount of capacity used by a particular quantity of development can be measured or estimated. The total amount of development to be served need not be known to calculate the fees, so this method is not dependent on a specific land use plan or a specific set of development projections. Tbis type of fee is established as a rate, or cost per unit of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development, provided that adequate capacity remains uncommitted in the facilities on which the fee is based. Capacity -based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems. To calculate a capacity -based impact fee rate per unit of demand, facility costs is divided by facility capacity. To apply the rate to a development project, or to produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of capacity needed to serve a particular quantity and type of development. Standard -based Impact Fees. The standard -based method was used in this study to calculate impact fees for parks, libraries, community center, and maintenance facility. The standard based method is related to the capacity -based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit of demand. With the standard -based approach, costs are initially determined on a generic unit -cost basis, and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the amount of capacity to be made available per unit of development. This approach differs from the capacity - based approach which typically determines unit cost by dividing the cost of a planned or actual facility by its capacity. 147 February 5, 2013 - Final 1 5 City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study The standard based method is useful where facility needs is defined in terms of service standard, and where unit cost can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description. It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. Also, the cost per acre for a certain type of park can usually be estimated without knowing the location of a particular park or the total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for buildings such as libraries or administrative offices, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot, before a building is actually designed. One advantage of this approach is that a fee can be established without committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can be adjusted based on the amount of development that actually occurs, avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that this method may not be well -suited to specialized recreation facilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements. F. FACILITIES TO BE ADDRESSED Public facilities, equipment and infrastructure improvements relating to the following functions are addressed in this study: • Transportation Improvements • Parks and Recreation Facilities • Civic Center • Fire Protection Facilities • Libraries • Community Centers • Maintenance Facilities 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. February 5, 2013 - Final 3.43 City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 2 LAND USE, DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Land use, demographics and development potential, both existing and projected, must be analyzed in preparing the City's impact fee program. This section of the report organizes and correlates information on existing land use, population and employment, as well as projected development, to form a basis for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent sections of this report. The information in this section provides a framework for defining levels of service, for projecting public facility needs, and for allocating the cost of new capital facilities between existing and future development, and among various types of new development. Information on land use and demographics for this study was prepared by the La Quinta Planning Department. Sources of data include the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update, the 2010 U.S. Census, and the California Department of Finance population estimates. Data on existing land use, and demographics and development used in this report have been updated through June 2012. A. BACKGROUND AND SETTING La Quinta is located in the desert resort area of the Coachella Valley in south-central Riverside County. The City is located along State Route 111, between the City of Indian Wells and City of Indio. In places, La Quints is contiguous with both of these communities. Existing development in the City is primarily residential,and includes both conventional residential development and gated residential and resort communities, some of which contain one or more golf courses. While a vast majority of the land in La Quinta is designated for residential use, major regional commercial development is occurring along Highway 111, and more is planned. A significant portion of the City's total land area lies on the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef mountains, and much of that land is reserved as open space. B. STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME The analysis in this study addresses all development expected from the present time to build out of the area encompassed by the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update. The impact fee analysis in this report does not depend on the rate or timing of development, so development projections in this section do not make assumptions about when build out will occur. C. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION In this study, residential development is classified in one of three categories: Single Family Detached, Single Family Attached, which include condominiums and townhouses, and Multi- Family/Other which includes apartments and mobile homes. That breakdown is consistent with existing and anticipated patterns of residential development in La Quinta, Dwelling units are used as the basic measure of the amount of residential development in each category. According to the 2012 California Department of Finance estimates, single family detached units accounted for about 79% of all residential units as of June 2012, with single family attached units making up about 10%. Thus together, the two categories make up approximately 89% of La Quinta's Existing residential units. Forecasts of future residential development indicate the percentage of single-family detached units at build out will remain at about 79% of all residential development, with single-family attached and multi-family/other unit accounting for 10% and 11% respectively. 1.r9 February 5, 2013 - Final 2-1 City o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Population. Estimates of existing population and projections of future population in La Quinta are used in this study. Those estimates and projections are based on existing and forecasted dwelling units, and the average number of persons per dwelling unit. Demographic data from the 2010 Census and Department of Finance population estimates have been used in developing population estimates and forecasts. Population in group quarters makes up an insignificant percentage of the existing population, and is not addressed in the population forecasts. La 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 1 of each year since 1994. It should be noted that the drop in population beginning in 2011 is based on the revised population estimates presented in the 2010 Census. Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is only partially useful as a measure of the demand for public services. Because of seasonal fluctuation in the population of La 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 commitments, this study uses "potential population" as the basis measure of demand for population related public services and the facilities that supports them. February 5, 2013 - Final y j 2 2 C G City oiLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study As used in this report, "potential population" means the number of people who would reside in the City if all dwelling units existing at a particular time were occupied. The potential population is estimated for each category of residential development by multiplying the number of dwelling units in that category (existing or future) by the average number of persons per occupied unit for that type of development. Potential population for the City as a whole is the sum of the potential population for all categories of residential development. This study employs 2010 Census data to establish the average number of persons per occupied dwelling unit for each category of residential development. Those factors are used in estimating potential population as of June 2012, and at build out. Henceforth, unless otherwise indicated, when the term "population" is used in this report it will mean "potential population." D. NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In this study, private, non-residential development will be classified in three categories: Office, General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial. The office and tourist commercial categories are equivalent to classifications used in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The General Commercial category used in this study encompasses all other types of commercial development addressed by the Land Use Element (Mixed/Regional, Community Neighborhood, Commercial Park and Village). La Quinta has no existing industrial development, and none is planned. For purposes of impact fee analysis, commercial development can be measured in a number of ways. In this report, the basic measure of development for office and general commercial uses is gross building area, in thousands of square feet (KSF). Tourist commercial development, which consists of hotels and associated uses, is measured in terms of guest rooms. Data on existing nonresidential development are taken from the land use analysis of the City's 2035 General Plan Update. Forecasts of future nonresidential development to build out were prepared by the City's Planning Department. E. MEASURE OF DEMAND Certain attributes of development, including acreage, population, trip generation, and trip length will be used in the impact fee analysis to represent demand for certain public services and to provide a yardstick for determining service levels for various types of facilities. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3, presented later in this section, provide estimates of existing development and forecasts of future development in La 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 Trip Generation (The 8`" edition was used as the primary source). February 5, 2013 - Final 2-3 City of La Quinta — 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 Traffic 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. In addition, they are intended to reflect travel on regional facilities, and do not include the portion of trips on local street networks. Consequently, the CVAG trip length information is not useful for purposes of the analysis. F. EXISTING AND FORECASTED DEVELOPMENT Summaries of existing and forecasted development in La Quinta, by land use type, are presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-3 as presented later in this section. The following charts illustrate graphically the relationship of existing development (from Table 2-1) to future development (from Table 2-3). Figure 2-B shows residential development in terms of dwelling units by type. As that chart illustrates quite clearly, the number of dwelling units anticipated in the future is greater than the number of units currently existing, for all types of residential development in La Quinta. 1 Lr w. -, February S, 2013 - Final City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Figure 2-C shows existing and future non-residential development in terms of square feet. Tourist Commercial is presented within Figure 2-D and is based on number of rooms. The following charts clearly illustrate the magnitude of anticipated future commercial development to the amount of existing development in the City. Consequently, the impact of future development on the demand for City services and public facilities will likely be proportionate. r Igurc L-� CommercialTourist 3000 2500 �1'H�r:. IPslq�r�q'Y°i},rry' CommercialsTourist 111 . lsxai t 3yr t � y5 ��S � tY •e� �ulizNl�fra eiY : Fj°irs z4.Commercial 11� Existing 1000 500 Rooms rigurc c-L February 5, 2013 - FinalS.! 1 City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-1 * 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. r 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/Other = 2.52. 4 Peak hour trip rates:SFD = 1.011DU; Multi/Other = 0.62/DU; Office = 1.49/KSF; Gen Commercial = 3.73/KF=SF; Tourist Commercial=0.59/Room; Public Facilities = 11.03/KSF; Schools = 1.3 Acre; Parks= 1.59/Acre; Golf= 0.30/Acre. 5 Peak hour trip miles = peak hour trips x average trip miles (from SANDAG Traffic Generation). Average trip length and peak hour trip miles; Residential SFD/SFA = 7.9 mi (7.98); Residential MFO = 7.9 (4.90); Office = 8.8 an (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) February 5, 2013 - Final t 154 2-6 City ofLa Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-2 * NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes. Table 2-3 Ultimate Development at Build Out (SF Detached) 6,118 DU 24,966 62,914 25,216 1SF Attached 702 DU 3,160 7,963 3,192 25,214 (Multi / Other) 435 DU 3,476 8,759 2,155 17,025 ludin) W 132 KSF 1,265 1,885 16,587 mmercial 527 KSFS,OSO 18,837 8Q,997 mercial 11 Rooms 2,490 1,503 11,421 Public Facilities 120 KSF1 444 1 1 4,897 1 29,384 Schools 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 13,753 MW 79,636 59,572 391,475 * NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes. Table 2-3 shows the forecasted ultimate development in La Quinta at build out, as contemplated in the City of La 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. February 5, 2013 - Final 2-7' 155 City of la Quinta — 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 Level of service on the components of circulation systems is evaluated by transportation planners in terms of traffic flow on streets and operational conditions at intersections. As stated in the Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan, level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic flow and driver satisfaction. Level of Service (LOS) is evaluated on a scale from "A" to "F". LOS A is characterized by free flowing traffic and no delay at intersections. LOS F represents over -saturated conditions resulting in serious congestion and significant intersection delays. The City's Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the minimum peak hour standard for streets in La 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 needed to serve anticipated development at the adopted minimum level of service standard. The Diagram is based on traffic modeling done in conjunction with preparation of the Circulation Element. The capital projects to be funded by traffic impact fees recommended in this section are consistent with the Policy Diagram, and do not include improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies in La Quinta's circulation systems. C. DEMAND VARIABLE The demand variables used to represent the impact of development on La Quinta's circulation system are peak hour -trip miles. That variable, which is discussed in Section 2 of this report, is the product of the number of peak hour trips per unit of development and average trip length by development type. The use of peak hour -trip miles as a demand variable is intended to reflect the need for additional street system capacity resulting from new development. ,M February 5, 2013 - Final 3-1 1DU City o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The development -related improvement costs to be funded by impact fees calculated in this study include street widening and. extension projects (including right-of-way acquisition), bridge construction, new traffic signals, sound attenuation walls and reimbursement to prior developers that installed certain street improvements over and above the conditioned offsite improvements. Collector and local streets needed to serve new development are assumed to be constructed by developers as project improvements. The list of street projects on which the impact fee analysis is based assumes that developers will be directly responsible for constructing the outside travel lane, plus curb, gutter, sidewalks on arterial streets fronting their projects. In residential areas this requirement will also include a parking lane. As a result, the impact fees for arterial streets will cover only the cost of additional travel lanes (e.g., the two inside lanes on a four -lane arterial), left 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 Street Systems 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 February 5, 2013 - Final 3-2.'i . 157 City ofLa Quinta —Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-2 Street Systems Improvement Costs — Primary/ Secondary Arterials Adams Street $720,469 $720,469 Dune Palms Road $1,929,370 $482,342 Miles Avenue $984,737 $668,919 Madison Street $15,665,761 $4,443,909 Monroe Street $4,042,159 $2,578,199 Avenue 50 $1,887,877 $939,618 Avenue 52 $290,540 $290,540 Avenue 58 Extension $3,728,519 $1,730,953 Avenue 62 $8,252,028 $5,952,644 TOTAL $37,491,460 $17,807,593 Table 3-3 shows the cost of bridges needed to serve future development. As noted in the table, costs for each of the four bridges listed are shared by CVAG and/or funding from the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) sponsored by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The resulting cost is applied to new development. Table 3-3 also includes the cost for the reconstruction of the Jefferson Street Interchange at Interstate 10. The cost of this regional improvement is estimated to be $60,578,200, with CVAG funding 75% of the costs. The County of Riverside, City of Indio and City of La Quinta will share in the cost of funding the remaining 25% local share. The City of La Quinta is responsible for 42% of the 25% local share. As indicated previously, the demand variable used in the allocation of circulation system costs is peak hour trips. Using the tabulated data from Section 2, future development accounts for 27.04% of total peak hour trips at build -out. Consequently, 27.04% of La Quinta's 42% share of the 25% local share will be assigned to future development. Table 3-3 Street System Improvements- Bridge Improvements The share assigned to new development assumes up to 75% of the costs are funded from CVAG's Regional Arterial Program and/or Caltmns Highway Bridge Program The 27.04% share of 42% of the 25% local share assigned to new development equals 2.84% of the estimated cost. February 5, 2013 - Final 3-f 153 City ofLa Ouinta - Development Impact Fee Study 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 and the Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 Roundabout Modifications, all of the remaining signals/roundabouts listed will be needed entirely as a result of future development. As indicated in the Table 34, 27.04% of the cost of the citywide central control system and Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 Roundabout Modifications is attributed to future development. Table 3-4 Street System Improvement - Traffic Signals/ Modern Roundabouts Traffic Signal $430,000 1 00%7$430,000Co Dune Palms Road & orate Center Dr. Washington Street & Via Traffic Signal $430,000 50%Sevilla Washington Street & Lake La Quinta Dr. Traffic Signal $430,000 100% , Caleo Bay & Avenue 47 Traffic Signal $430,000 100% $430,000 Eisenhower Drive & Montezuma Traffic Signal $430,000 100% $430,000 Eisenhower Drive & Sinaloa Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,000 Madison Street & Avenue 54 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,000 Madison Street & Avenue 58 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,000 Madison Street & Avenue 60 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,000 Monroe Street &Avenue 52 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 25% $21 I,500 Monroe Street & Avenue 54 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 50% $423,000 Monroe Street & Airport Boulevard Traffic Signal $430,000 50% $215,000 Monroe Street & Avenue 58 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 50% $423,000 Monroe Street & Avenue 60 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,000 Monroe Street & Avenue 61 Traffic Signal $430,000 75% $322,500 Monroe Street & Avenue 62 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 25% $211,500 Orchard & Avenue 50 Traffic Signal $430,000 25% $107,500 Jefferson Street & Dunbar Traffic Signal $430,000 25% $107,500 Jefferson Street & Avenue 52 Roundabout Three Lane $1,000,000 27.04% $270,400 Jefferson Street & Avenue 53 Traffic Signal $430,000 50% $215,000 Jefferson Street & Avenue 54 Traffic Signal $430,000 75% $322,500 Citywide Central Control $1,100,000 27.04% $297,440 TOTAL $14,444,000 $9,291,840 February 5, 2013 - Final 3-a 159 City of La Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-5 shows the cost of sound attenuation walls expected to be required as a result of future development. The cost of sound walls adjacent to developed property are included in the impact fee calculations because the City has determined that future development will increase traffic noise levels to a point where sound attenuation will be required. The cost of sound walls for undeveloped property will be handled case by case, as part of the development approval process. Table 3-5 Street System Improvement - Sound Attenuation Walls East Madison at Trilogy $192,115 TOTALS $192,115 Table 3-6 shows the developer completed improvements with City Council approved Developer Reimbursement Agreements (DRAB). In accordance with the approved agreements, reimbursement will be provided when Transportation DIF funding becomes available and when the project receives funding priority. Table 3-6 Strnnt Rvctnm imnrnvement—Develoner Reimbursement Atreements 30357 Avenue 50 Raised Landscape Median (1/2 $627,972 Mountain View CC Median) — Between Jefferson & Madison 14-Foot Wide Landscape Median Esplanade 29323-1 Improvements — Fred Waring Between Port $103,083 Maria Road to Jefferson Street Rancho La Quinta 29283 Avenue 50 Raised Landscape Median — Park $239,000 Avenue to Orchard Lane Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median (1/2 Madison Club 33076 Median) — Madison Street to '/2 Mile East of $669,920 Madison Street and One Lane (Inside Lane) Southside Street Im rovements Hideaway 29894-2 Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median — All $1,344,690 American Canal to Madison Street Avenue 52 Street Improvements North Side Mountain View CC 30357 Along Development's Southerly Boundary — $112,723 Between Jefferson/ All American Canal Clubhouse Apartments SDP 2002-730 Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median — All $463,894 American Canal to Madison Street Dune Palms Road — Landscaped Median Sam's Club Retail SDP 2005-824 Island (Highway 111 to South End of Parcel $228,697 3, 1126.7 Ft. North of Avenue 48 Madison Street — Two Lanes and Median Madison Club 33076 Between Avenue 52 and 54 (Median $1,394,665 Landscape on Future Separate Agreement) Avenue 54 — Paved Painted Median Lane Madison Club 33076 and One Inside Lane (Madison Street to $524,010 Monroe Street Total DIF Eligible Developer Reimbursement Agreements: $5,708,654 Cost of walls adjacent to developed property is included in the impact fee calculation. February S, 2013 - Final 3-� 160 City ofLa Ouinta —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 calculation. Table 3-7 Street System Improvements for Future Development - Summary by'1'ype Major Arterials $848,500 Primary/Secondary Arterials $17,807,593 Bridges $10,972,921 Traffic Signals $9,291,840 Sound Attenuation $192,115 Developer Reimbursement Agreements $5,708,654 TOTAL $44,821,623 E. IMPACT FEES Table 3-8 shows the calculation of the unit cost per peak hour 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 Street System Improvements - Costs per Peak Hour Trip -Mile $44,821,623 103,709 $337.10 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. 5 See Table 3-6 6 See Table 2-2 7 hnprovement cost per peak hour trip equals total eligible improvement cost divided by the added peak hour trip miles. The cost per peak hour trip has been adjusted down by 22%. February 5, 2013 - Final 4-16 161 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-9 Standardized Impact Fees- Street Improvements "ResidentialSFDDU 7.98 "$3!$2,690DU 7.98 2,690 Residential MFO I U 4.90 $337.10 $1,652 Office/ Hospital KSF 13.12 $337.10 $4,423 General Commercial KSF 16.04 $337.10 $5,407 Tourist Commercial ROOM 4.49 $337.10 $1,514 Public Facilities ACRE 66.18 $337.10 $22,310 Schools ACRE 7.54 $337.10 $2,542 Parks ACRE 8.59 $337.10 $2,896 Golf Courses ACRE 1.89 $337.10 $637 The standardized fees shown in Table 3-9 allocate a portion of the cost of future street improvements to future public facilities, schools, and parks, reflecting the fact that those land uses do generate traffic. However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, the traffic they generate is also attributable to future private development. To reflect that reality, the costs allocated to public facilities in Table 3-9 will be reallocated to private development. All of the costs attributed to schools and parks will be reallocated to residential development, because those facilities serve only residential development. Costs attributed to other public facilities will be reallocated to all development. The method used to redistribute the costs attributed to public facilities is as follows: Calculate the total cost allocated to each public facility category. Multiply the fee per unit of development from Table 3-9 by the number of units of development shown in Table 2-2. Divide that amount by the sum of all peak hour trip -miles generated by the receiving group of private land use category. The resulting cost per peak hour trip -mile is then added to the fees shown in table 3-9 for each of the receiving categories. Table 3-10 summarizes the adjustments to allocated cost per trip mile. 8 See Table 2-1, Notes 3,4 and 5 9 See Table 3-8 10 Fee per unit of development = peak hour trip -miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees munded to the nearest dollar. 3 February 5, 2013 - Final - 16 City ofLa Ouinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-10 Adiusted Cost Allocation Residential SFD DU $337.10 $16.95 $2.09 $356.14 Residential SFA DU $337.10 $16.95 $2.09 $356.14 Residential MFO DU $337.10 $16.95 $2.09 $356.14 Office/Hospital KSF $337.10 $16.95 $354.06 General Commercial KSF $337.10 $16.95 $354.06 Tourist Commercial ROOM $337.10 $16.95 $354.06 Public Facilities ACRE Reallocated Schools ACRE Reallocated PPM P$354.06 Parks ACRE Reallocated MM Golf Courses ACRE $337.10 $16.95 Finally, the adjusted cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-10 can be substituted for the initial cost per peak hour trip -mile in Table 3-9 to arrive at the final adjusted impact fee per unit of development. The adjusted fees are shown in Table 3-11 on the following page. The difference between the initial fees and the adjusted fees can be seen by comparing the impact fees, in Tables 3-9 and 3-10. 11 See 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 Peak 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 Peak 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 February 5, 2013 - Final 8 163 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-11 Adjusted Standardized Impact Fees- Street Improvements Residential SFD DU 7.98 $356.14 $2,842 Residential SFA DU 7.98 $356.14 $2,842 Residential MFO DU 4.90 $356.14 $1,745 Office/ Hospital KSF 13.12 $354.06 $4,645 General Commercial KSF 16.04 $354.06 $5,679 Tourist Commercial ROOM 4.49 $354.06 $1,590 Public Facilities ACRE 66.18 Schools ACRE 7.54 Parks ACRE 8.59 Golf Courses ACRE 1.89 $354.06 $669 Table 3-12 projects the impact fee revenue that would be realized from future development, if these fees were applied to all development projected in Table 2-2. Table 3-12 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development M= DU $2,842 6322 I=, $17,967,262 Residential SFD Residential SFA DU $2,842 773 $2,196,883 Residential MFO DU $1,745 960 $1,675,297 Office/ Hospital KSF $4,645 518 $2,406,219 General Commercial KSF $5,679 1,370 7,780,304 Tourist Commercial ROOM $1,590 1,360 $2,162,006 Public Facilities ACRE $0 $0 Schools ACRE $0 $0 Parks ACRE $0 $0 Golf Courses ACRE $669 817 $546,708 $34,734,680 16 See Table 2-1, Notes 3,4 and 5. 17 See Table 3-10. 18 Fee per unit of development equals the peak hour trip miles per unit of development times the cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees are 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 February 5, 2013 - Final 3� ' 164 City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Studv SECTION 4 PARKS & RECREA TION IMPA CT 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. Functionally, neighborhood parks are intended to serve a specific part of the City while community parks serve the entire City. However, some parks in La Quinta serve both functions. As a result, the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a combined level of service standard for neighborhood and community parks. Those fees will be calculated on a citywide basis, and applied to new development in all parts of the City. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate park impact fees does not depend on the timing of development or the total amount of development to be served. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE At present, parks and recreation facilities in La Quinta are provided both by the City, and by the Desert Recreation District (DRD). Because parks owned by both entities were funded by residents of La Quinta, all existing facilities will be considered in establishing the existing level of service. This study does not distinguish between neighborhood and community parks because only basic park improvements are covered by the impact fees. Table 4-1 lists La 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. February 5, 2013 - Final ?I f 165 City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-1 Existing Parks Adams Park Neighborhood Park 3.5 Civic Center Campus Community Park 17.5 Desert Pride Park Neighborhood Park 1 Eisenhower Park Mini Park 0.5 Fritz Bums Park Community Park 12 La Quints Park Community Park 18 La Quinta Community Park (Frances Hack) Community Park 6.5 Monticello Park Neighborhood Park 4 Pioneer Park Neighborhood Park 3.2 Paige Middle School Sports Fields Commumty Park 7 Saguaro Park Mini Park 0.75 Avenue 50 Sports Complex Community Park 16.75 Seasons Park Neighborhood Park 5 Velasco Park Mini Park 0.25 TOTAL 95.95 The existing level of service for parks in La Quinta will be defined in terms of acres of existing developed park land per 1,000 residents. Table 4-2 computes the existing level of service. Policy PR-1.2 in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan established a standard of 5.0 acres of improved neighborhood and community park acreage per thousand residents. However, the level of service calculated during the development of the Development Impact Fees, as shown in Table 4-2, will be used to calculate the impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. Table 4-2 Level of Service - Improved Park Acreage 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 existing dwelling units February 5, 2013 - Final City ofLa Quinta —Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION In this study, the need for park improvements is defined in terms of park acreage per capita as discussed above. The cost for required park facilities is established on a per capita basis, and park impact fees per dwelling unit are based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit for each category of residential development. No park impact fees will be charged to nonresidential development. Based upon a review of recent construction bids for Park construction in the region, an estimated cost of $500,000 per acre will be used to calculate the park development impact fee. The estimated cost used in this analysis covers park improvements such as landscape and irrigation, picnic facilities, playgrounds, and sports fields. It does not include the cost of facilities such as tennis courts or swimming pools, which would have to be funded from other sources. E. IMPACT FEES Table 4-3 shows the calculated of the cost per capita for park improvements described above, using the level of service standard previously described. Table 4-3 Park Improvements - Cost Per Capita Cost Estimate by City of La Quinta Community Services Department. See Table 4-2 See Table 2-2 February 5, 20I3 - Final 9 , a - 167 City o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-4 shows the conversion of the cost per capita from Table 4-3 into standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for the three categories of residential development. This conversion is provided for administrative convenience. However, for reasons explained in Section 10 (Implementation) we recommend that the impact fee be formally adopted in terms of the cost per capita shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Park Improvements �OIVI�M SFD Bu i vIke rw ! uResidential 1� � ® ■ its � t�i 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 4r .ktq 4A 6 k 'h t„a14ms a..x Residential ®®® Residential MFO • ' 1 6 See Table 2-1, Note 2 7 See Table 4-3 8 Fee per Unit of Development = Demand per Unit x Development x Cost per Unit of Demand. Fees rounded 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 February S, 2013 - Final 4 168 City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 5 CIVIC CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addressed impact fees for the La Quinta Civic Center. The existing Civic Center was originally constructed in 1993. As presented in Section 2, the City has experienced considerable growth since 1993, which resulted in the need for an additional 22,000 square foot expansion of the original facility. The Civic Center expansion was completed in April 2008. The expanded Civic Center should now be capable of serving the City's needs through build out. As with all impact fee funded public facilities, a long term collection period is needed to generate the necessary impact fee funding share. In this case, the impact fee funds will not be completely collected until "build -out" of the City. In order to meet the demands of existing and future development, it was necessary to either loan funding from the City's General Fund and/or issue long term revenue bonds to construct the Civic Center. The loans and revenue bonds will be paid back annually as new development occurs and fees are collected. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The Civic Center has a citywide service area, so the impact fees for that facility will be calculated on a citywide basis. The time frame for this analysis is from July 1, 2012 through build -out of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE For facilities of the type addressed in this section, level of service standards is generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build out required facilities without formally adopting a standard. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based on the recently expanded facilities and will be discussed in more detail later in this section. u.0l1 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. hi 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. February 5, 2013 - Final 5-1 , U . 169 City ofLa Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-1 Developed Acreage ( Excluding Public Facilities) t Residential SF Detached) 4,453 1,665 6,118 Residential SF Attached 530 172 702 Residential Multi / Other 315 120 435 Office Including Hospitals) 78 54 132 General Commercial 384 143 527 Tourist Commercial 207 138 345 Golf Courses 5%of total acreage) 216 41 257 TOTALS 6,183 2,333 8,516 % of Total 72.61 % 27.39% 100% Acreage is the most general measure of development, and is applicable to all types of development, and developed acreage will be used here as the demand variable in analyzing impact fees for the Civic Center. If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for Civic Center facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. In table 5-1, acreage devoted to those uses is excluded from the cost allocation in this section, because those public uses do not create a demand for the services supported by the Civic Center facilities. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted to the clubhouse and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of the total acreage. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The original La Quinta civic center, which was completed in 1993, contained 33,000 square feet of gross floor area. The City has experienced considerable growth since 1993. This new growth resulted in the need for the anticipated 22,000 square feet expansion of the original facility. The resulting 55,000 square foot building is now expected to serve -the City's needs well into the future. Although additional facilities may be needed prior to build out, this study makes the conservative assumption that the existing Civic Center and the recently completed expansion will serve the City's needs through build out. Because the Civic Center serves both the existing and future development, the costs of the entire facility will be allocated on the same basis to both existing and future development. Credit will be given in the analysis for non -impact fee contributions to the cost of the facility. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in the allocation of Civic Center costs is developed acreage. Table 5-1 tabulates developed acreage for existing and future development, using data from Section 2. As indicated in Table 5-1, future development accounts for 27.39% of total developed acreage at build out. Consequently, 27.39% of eligible Civic Center costs will be assigned to future development in this analysis. See Table 2-1 See Table 2-2 See Table 2-3 February 5, 2013 - Final 5-1 , IM.. 170 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-2 shows the total cost of the existing civic center, which is defined in this analysis as the sum of past and future cash outlays, plus the present value of future debt service payments on bonds used to finance construction. The present value calculation discounts all expenditures for inflation at an assumed 3.5% annual rate, resulting in an effective real interest rate of approximately 3% per year on outstanding debt. The share of Civic Center costs, including debt service, paid by the redevelopment agency (RDA 30%) and by future general fund contributions (40%) is not included in the future funds needs for impact fee calculations. The Civic Center 22,000 expansion is complete. The costs presented below are based on the actual project costs assigned to the impact fee. The future funds needed for the Civic Center debt service attributable to the Development Impact Fees (30%) have not been discounted because of the need to construct the Civic Center expansion before all Civic Center impact fees are collected. The Civic Center DIF collected would then be used to pay debt service on the existing bonds and repay the RDA for the expansion. No interest costs have been added to the DIF for this RDA advance. Table 5-2 Civic Center Costs Civic Center (Revenue Bonds) ° $11,382,746 $3,646,495 Civic Center (Infrastructure Fund cash outlays) $4,856,788 Civic Centergeneral 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 Fees Collected $5174 46 Future Development Shares 6 $8,299,967 $11,123,028 Table 5-2 summarizes Civic Center costs, and the portion of that cost to be funded in the future. The costs eligible to be recovered through impact fees are based on the percentage of total cost attributable to future development, based on the percentage of total demand created by that development. Based on present value of debt service payments for the 1991 and the subsequent 1996 Refunding Bond, discounted inflation at 3.5% per year. Based on the actual construction costs Based on the 27.39% share of total eligible cost, See Table 5-1 February 5, 2013 - Final 5 3, t�.. 171 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study 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 Civic Center Cost Allocation $8,299,967 1 2,333 1 $3,558 Table 5-4 shows the conversion of cost per developed acre from Table 5-3 into standardized impact fees per unit of development for various land uses categories. Table 5-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Civic Center zae n er r Residential SFD 1,665 $3,558 $5,923,846 6,322 DU $942 Residential SFA 172 $3,558 $611,953 773 DU $796 Residential WO 120 $3,558 $426,944 960 DU $447 Office/ Hospital 54 $3,558 $192,125 518 KSF $373 General Commercial1 143 1 $3,558 1 $508,775 1,370 1 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 6 See Table 5-1 9 See Table 2-2. For Golf Courses, developed acreage is assumed to = 5% of total acreage 10 See Table 5-3 11 Cost for Category = Future Development Acres x Cost per Developed Acre. This column 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) February 5, 2013 - Final S-4 City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-5 projects total revenue from the impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for Civic Center improvements. Table 5-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development 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 1s See Table 2-2 16 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development February 5, 2013 - Final 5-5 1� , 173 City o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 6 LIBRARYIMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future development in La 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 Quinta 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 Quinta 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. February 5, 2013 - Final 6-1; b - 174 City o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study 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. 20000 GSF Land Materials Table 6-1 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 Standardized Ira act Fees - Libraries 2.52 $135.92 $344 Residential7DU Residential SFADU 2.52 $135.92 $344 ResidentialMFODU 2.52 $135.92 $344 t The total cost presented has been adjusted to reflect the actual cost of design 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) February 5, 2013 - Final 6-2 1 75 City oiLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 6-3 projects total revenue from the library impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for library improvements through build out, at the recommended fee levels. Table 6-3 Proiected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development See Table 6-2 See Table 2-2 Impact Fee Revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development February S, 2013 - Final 63 " 1.16 City o(La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 7 COMMUNITY CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for the community center facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The City has three public facilities that function as existing community center facilities, the multipurpose room and classrooms at the La 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. hi 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 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 Im act Fees - Communi Center Facilities $425 00 1 0.12 1 $50.85 t Based on 5,300 sq ft multi-purpose/class rooms at La Quinta Senior Center, 1,000 sq ft multi -purpose room at La Quinta Museum; and 800 sq ft community mom at U Quint Boys and Girls Club 2 See Table 2-1 3 Cost provided by Department of Building and Safety 4 See Table 7-1 February 5, 2013 - Final 7'lf . 177 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study E. IMPACT FEES Table 7-3 converts the per capita costs in Table 7-2 to impact fees per unit of development. Because population is used as the demand variable in this case, impact fees apply only to residential development. Table 7-3 Standardized Im act Fees - Communi Center Facilities 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 5 See Table 2-1, Note 2 6 See Table 7-2 7 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) 8 See Table 7-3 9 See Table 2-2 to impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of Development x future units of development February S, 2013 - Final 2 2 n 1 1. 7 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 8 MAINTENANCE FACILITY IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for maintenance facilities required to serve future development in La 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 Quints 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. DEMAND 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, which supports park maintenance, will be allocated in the same manner as park facilities costs, using population as the demand variable. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The existing corporation yard facilities are not adequate to meet the City's current needs. The existing level of service, stated in terms of the City's investment in current facilities, is calculated in Table 8-1. N, 1_79 February 5, 2013 - Final 8 1 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-1 Estimated Value of Existing City Corporation Yard orint . r, r en stimate&G&ME 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 E. IMPACT FEES Tables 8-3 and 84 convert the cost per unit of demand from Table 8-2 into impact fees per unit of development for street and park maintenance facilities, respectively. Based on Public Works Department estimate that 80% of facilities are used for street maintenance and 20 % for park maintenance See Table 2-1, Demand for street improvements is stated in tetras 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. See Table 2-1, Demand for park maintenance is stated in terms of population. m February 5, 2013 - Final 81 City oiLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-3 Standardized Impact Nees - Street Maintenance r acwaes Residential SFD DU 7.98 $14.40 $116 Residential SFA DU 7.98 $14.40 $116 Residential MFO DU 4.90 $14.40 $71 Officefflos ital 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 3tnodardi7ed impact Fees — Park Maintenance Facilities TResidemiaISFDAO 2.52 $15.90 $40 DDUU $15.90 $2.52 $1.902.52 5 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 hour trip miles. See Table 2-1, Notes 4 and 5 5 See Table 8-2 6 Fee per unit of development = demand units per unit of development 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 Summary) 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 of development = demand units per unit of development x cost per unit of demand. 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) February 5, 2013 - Final V3 P City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Developments Residential SFD DU $156 6,322 ay69,Y61 Residential SFA DU $156 773 $120,434 Residential MFO DU $111 960 $106,768 Office/Hospital KSF $190 518 $98,374 General Commercial KSF $232 1,370 $318,085 Tourist Commercial Room $65 1,360 $88,390 Golf Courses Acre $27 817 $22,351 $1.739.383 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 units of development 8-4 182 February 5, 2013 - Final Cify o(La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study 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 funds that were advanced, or loaned to the DIF, from other funding sources. The newest of these stations is the recently constructed Village Cove Area Station which was constructed with County Fire Credit Funds. The Village/Cove Area Station did not receive loans from any other funding source and is no longer considered in the calculation of future Fire Protection Facility Impact Fees. A fourth City fire station is in the site selection process. The fourth station is intended to serve areas of the City that are currently underserved, as well as, new development in the southeastern parts of the City and the unincorporated County areas, specifically the Vista Santa Rosa community. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide fast 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 terns 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 detemvned 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 relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or correlate with, the February 5, 2013 — Final 9 1 r 183 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study need for facilities. As indicated in the level -of -service discussion, above, the most important factor in determining how many fire stations are required to serve an area, given a certain response time standard, is the size of the area served. For that reason, developed acreage will be used as the demand variable for allocating fire station costs. If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for fire station facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, their fire protection needs 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. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. See Table 9-1 for a breakdown of developed acreage used in this section. Table 9-1 Developed Acreage (Excluding Public Facilities) Residential SFD 4,453 1 1,665 6,118 Residential SFA 530 172 702 Residential MFO 315 120 435 Office (Includin 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. hi 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-I See Table 2-2 See Table 2-3 February S, 2013 — Final 9-2'o 184 City ofLa Ouinta — DeyelODMenl Impact Fee Study The City's goal is to locate the fourth fire station as near as possible to Monroe and Avenue 60. It is intended to have a primary service radius of 1.5 miles, however its service area, like most stations will end up being rectangular. It will enhance services by decreasing response times to all areas of the city located south of an east/west line drawn approximately one half mile north of Avenue 58. The service area for the fourth station is split between the City and the County at 50% each. The station planned at present would be approximately 7,000 square feet in size on approximately 1.5 acres. The project cost of the fourth station is estimated at $4,397,000. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating fire protection facility costs is developed acreage, excluding acreage devoted to schools, parks and other public facilities. This same methodology will be utilized for the future fire facilities. Table 9-1 tabulates developed acreage for future development, using data from Section 2. Table 9-2 estimates the cost of future fire protection facilities allocated to future development. Table 9-2 North Area Station 5 ict Fee Contribution Area Station E. IMPACT FEES u0sts As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in the allocation of fire facility costs is developed acreage. The resulting cost per developed acre is the basis for establishing impact fees for fire protection facilities. Table 9-3 converts the cost per acre into a fee per unit of development. See Table 2-2, Does not include Public Facilities, Schools, Parks, and 95% of Golf Course Acreage Reflects the actual cost for land, site development, design, construction, and the cost of a new engine. Costs in current dollars 7,000 SF 11.5 acres — costs split 50% with County of Riverside February 5, 2013 — Final 9-3" 185 1 i City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Table 9-3 Standardized Impact Fees - Fire Protection Facilities Residential SFD DU 0.26 $1,636.25 $433 Residential SFA DU 0.22 $1,636.25 $366 ResidentialMFO DU 0.13 $1,636.25 $206 Office (Including Hospital) KSF 0.10 $1,636.25 $171 General Commercial KSF 0.10 $1,636.25 $172 Tourist Commercial Room 0.10 $1,636.25 $167 Golf Courses (5% of total acreage) Acre 0.05 $1,636.25 $82 Total Table 94 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 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Develooment Residential SFD DU $433 6,322 $2,738,794 Residential SFA DU $366 773 $282,926 Residential MFO DU $206 960 $197,391 Office/ Hospital KSF $171 518 $88,826 General Commercial KSF $172 1,370 $235,224 Tourist Commercial Room $167 1,360 $226,999 Golf Courses Acre $82 817 $67,195 $3,837,355 See Table 2-2. Average acres per unit = total acres/total units for each land use type 8 See Table 9-1 9 Fee per Units of Development = Acres per unit of Development x Cost per Acres. Fees rounded to nearest 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 February 5, 2013 — Final 9114. 186 City ofl a Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study SECTION l0 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. February S, 2013 - Final 10- ej 187 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Studv Imposition of Fees. Under Section 66001, when the City imposes establishes, increases, or imposes a mitigation fee it must make findings relative to items 1-3b, below. When imposing such a fee on a specific project, the City must also make a finding relative to item 3c. Identify the purpose of the fee 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine that there is reasonable relationship between: 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 improvement. These restrictions do not apply to nonresidential development. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building/grading permits are issued, and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at that time. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, or upon issuance of grading permits for golf courses, Section 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that the contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. February 5, 2013 - Final 10-2 1 p p 4. 188 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged to that project, the impact fee imposed on that development project for that type of facility should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or improvements. If the credit should exceed amount of the fee imposed on the development for that type of facility, the City may choose to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the developer under which the excess credit would be repaid from future impact fees charged to other developers for the same type of facility. Credit for existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development. Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facility's account or fund in a manner to avoid any comrningbrig 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. Loans to the DIF Program. hi order to accelerate the construction of projects set forth in the Development Impact Fee Program it may be necessary to loan funds from other City funds to supplement anticipated DIF revenue shortfalls in the early years of the program. These loans will be paid back to the City as Development Impact Fees become available. Interest on these loans may be charged at a rate based upon the quarterly average interest rate, or the City's investment fund rate earned by the City's investment pool. Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues: The amount of the fee The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund The amount of fees collected and interest earned Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expanded and the amount of the expenditures of each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees February 5, 2013 - Final 10-3 189 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study 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 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f) That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statement is made public. Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of amendments contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees were required to expend or commit the fee revenue within five 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 uncommitted: • Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put • Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged • Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used. • Designate the appropriate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency must refund the moneys in the account or fund. Once the agency determined that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to the procedures specified in the statute. February 5, 2013 - Final 10-4 190 City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study 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 CIP, we recommend that this report serve as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. If that practice is followed, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to satisfy Section 66002. Annual Update of Impact Fees Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in current dollars, and the fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. The Engineering News Record Los Angeles Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation. C. TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We recommend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and be made responsible for training all staff who are involved in fee -related activities. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in the collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to give close attention to handouts which provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fees should be made clear. Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgeting and project management must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in this report are tied to specific project lists and related to cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. February S, 2013 - Final 10-5 191 APPENDIX 1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATED FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS Appendix-1 192 MAJOR ARTERIALS SUMMARY October-12 FRED WARING DRIVE Washington Street to Adams Street $848,500 TOTAL FRED WARING DRIVEI $848,500 TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS 1 $848,500 193 AppendLy l (I of23) February 5, 2013 - Final CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Major Arterial Project: Fred Waring Drive (Washington St. to Adams Street) Daccrintinn The proposed improvements include the installation of median island landscape, irrigation and low level lighting between Washington St. and Adams Street. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 LANDSCAPE SF 42000 $5.50 $231,000.00 5 IRRIGATION SF 42000 $4.35 $182,700.00 6 ELECTRICAL SF 42000 $5.50 $231,000.06 SUB TOTAL $684,700.00 1/15/2013 Estimated Soft Costs: Desi n: $71,000.00 Ins ection/Testin /Surve : $69,000.00 City Admin: $35,000.00 Professional: $51,000.00 Contin enc : $140,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATE: $1,050,700.00 Total DIF SHARE: $848,500.00 Develo er Bonds: $202,2UU.UUII .'I 194 February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix 1 (2 of23) PRIMARY/SECONDARY ARTERIALS SUMMARY FEBRUARY 2013 ADAMS STREET Highway 111 to So. Bridge Approach $720,469 TOTAL ADAMS STREETI $720,469 DUNE PALMS ROAD Whitewater River to Westward Ho Drive $482,342' TOTAL DUNE PALMS ROAD $482,342' MILES AVENUE Seeley to Dune Palms Road $668,919' TOTAL MILES AVENUEJ $668,919 MADISON STREET Avenue 52 to Avenue 54 $793,534 Avenue 50 to Avenue 52 $1,762,337 Avenue 60 to Avenue 62 $1,888,038 TOTAL MADISON STREET $4,443,909 MONROE STREET West Side South of Avenue 54 $689,751 West Side South of Avenue 56 $541,248 West Side South of Avenue 58 $492,000 East Side South of Avenue 60 $855,200 TOTAL MONROE STREET $2,578,199 AVENUE 50 Washington Street to Evac Channel 138,850 North Side West of Jefferson Street 123,804 North Side West of Madison Street 676,964 TOTAL AVENUE 50 $939,618 AVENUE 52 660LF W. of Madison St to 1,320LF W of Madison St. $290,540 TOTAL AVENUE 52 $290,540 AVENUE 58 Extension Avenue 58 south to the northem border of Coral Canyon $1,730,953 TOTAL AVENUE 52 $1,730,953 AVENUE 62 Monroe Street to Madison Street $5,952,644 TOTAL AVENUE 62 $5,952,644 F 1 MARY/SECONDARY ARTERIALS $17,gMi 3 (3 °t'j) 195 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) nnsrrintinn The proposed improvements include the installation of median island curb, landscape and irrigation between Highway 111 and the south Adams St. Bridge approach. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY 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 $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 $6,200.60 6 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 850 $30.00 $25,500.00 7 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB LF 2,670 $12.00 $32,040.00 8 CONSTRUCT 6' WIDE SIDEWALK SF 500 $5.50 $2,750.00 9 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER LF 370 $15.00 $5,550.00 10 CONSTRUCT 10" FULL DEPTH AC SF 2,670 $8.00 $21,360.00 11 2" GRIND AND OVERLAY 2' WIDE SF 5,340 $2.50 $13,350.00 12 CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH WITH ACCESS RAMPS EA 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 13 CONSTRUCT 4" AC / 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: 1/15/2013 Design: $50,220.00 Ins ection/Testin Surve : $48,964.50 City Admin: $25,110.00 Contin enc : $93,974.18 Total Estimate: $720,468.68 ' it February 5, 2013 - Final APPendic 1 (4 of 23) 19 6 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial Project: Dune Palms Road (Whitewater River to Westward Ho Drive) Description The proposed improvements include the reconstruction of the east half of the roadway including paved median, travel lanes, bike path and sidewalk. The improvements may require demolition or relocation of existing structures constructed within the City owned right of way. Undergrounding utilities will be required. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.06 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 $2,520.60 6 8" CURB & GUTTER LF 1260 $15.00 $18,900.60 7 4" AC OVER 6" AB SF 50400 $4.50 $226,800.00 8 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 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 14 RELOCATE POWER POLE WITH U EA 2 $45,000.00 $90,000.00 15 UN -ANTICIPATED COSTS LS 1 $450,000.00 $450,000.00 SUB TOTAL: $1,344,860.00 Estimated Soft Costs: 1/15/2013 De si n: $134,486.00 lnsEt2tionlTesting/Survey:ll $131,123.85 _gjy Admin: $67,243.00 Contin enc : $251,656.93 1 Total Estimated Cost: $1,929,369.78 Anticipated CVAG Contribution at 75%: $ 1,447,027.33 Total DIF Eli ible I=nts:ll $ 482,342.44 February 5, 2013 - Final Appenda 1 (5 of23} 197 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial Project: Miles (Seeley Avenue to Dune Palms Road) Descriotion The proposed improvements include the installation of median island, median island landscape, and irrigation. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 4 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 7000 $2.00 $14,000.00 5 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 3000 $30.00 $90,000.00 6 6" MEDIAN CURB LF 7000 $12.00 $84,000.00 7 4.5" AC OVER 6" AB SF 7000 $6.00 $35,000.00 8 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 2 1 $800.00 $1,600.00 9 ADJUST WATER VALVES EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 10 SIGNING AND STRIPING SF 14000 $0.25 $3.500.00 7 LANDSCAPE SF 40000 $6.50 $260,000.00 8 IRRIGATION SF 40000 $4.00 $160,000.00 SUB TOTAL $729,300.00 1/15/2013 Estimated Soft Costs: Desi n: $72,930.00 Ins ection/Testin /Surve : $56,520.75 Cit Admin: $36,465.00 Conti n enc : $89,521.58 Total Estimate: $984,737.33 Developer Bonds: $315,818.00 Development Impact Fee: $668,919.33 Total Fundin $984,737.33 February 5, 2013 -Final Appendix 1 (6 of 23) s 198 CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial Project: Madison Street (Avenue 52 to Avenue 54) Description The proposed improvements include the installation of median landscape and irrigation between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 on Madison Street. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 500 $ 30.00 $ 15,000.00 5 LANDSCAPE SF 71200 $ 6.50 $ 317,465.00 6 IRRIGATION SF 71200 $ 4.00 $ 120,675.00 SUB -TOTAL I $ 553,130.00 1/15/2013 Estimated Soft Costs: Desi m l 55,313.00 Ins ection/Testin /Surve : $ 53,930.18 City Admin: $ 27,656.50 Contin enc : Is 103,504.45 Total Estimate,11 $ 793.534.13 February ?, 2013 - Final Appendix 1 (7 of 2fi). 199 CRY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: PrimaryArterial Pralecb Madison Street (Avenue 50 to Avenue 52) Detonation The proposed improvements include the reconstruction of Madison Street to a Primary Arterial - A standard, including adjusting the centerline profile, new travel lanes, bike lanes, curb, guise, sidewalk, ralsed curb median island, median island landscape and Irrigation. The project is joinsty sponsored by the Cities of La Quints and Indio. The City of Indio is serving as 'Lead Agency^. The City of Ls Quints is responsible for 12.5%of the cost of the improvement. REM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST CVAG 75%ELIGIBLE LAQUINTA COSTSHARE INDIO COSTSHARE 1 Mobdizadon LS 1 $275,000.00 $275.000.00 $206250.00 $34,375.00 Sad 375.00 2 Traffic Control LS 1 $183,000.00 $183,000.00 $137 50.00 $22875.00 $22,875.DO 3 Dust Control LS 1 $37,000.00 $37,000.00 $277W.W $4625.00 $4625.00 4 Water Pulution Control LS 1 $37.000.00 $37,000.00 P7,750.00 $4625.00 S4625.00 5 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 13.060 $75.00 $979,500.00 $734,525.00 $122437.50 $122.437.50 5 Rubberized AC TON 4,240 $90.00 $381,600.00 S286,200.00 $47,700.00 ],700.00 6 8" Class ll AB CY 11,630 $30.00 $348.900.00 $261.675.00 $43622.SO $43,612.50 7 Curb and Gutter LF 12465 $12.00 $149,580.00 3112185.00 $18,697.50 $18697.50 8 Sidewalk SF 46,840 $4.00 $187360.W oo $93680.00 $93,680.00 9 Handicap Ramps EA 10 $2,500.00 $25.000.00 $12600.00 $12.5DO.00 10 AC Bens LF 1.340 $8.00 $10.720.00 $8.040.00 $1,340.00 $1,340.00 11 Driveway Approach EA 8 $2,500.00 $20,000.00 $15.000.00 S2.500.M $2500.W 12 Cross Gutter SF 2,760 $10.00 $27,600.00 $20.700.00 S3.450.00 $3450.00 13 4" Decomposed Granite SF 37,100 $1.00 $37,100.00 $27825.00 $4.637.91 $4637M 14 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 E375,000.00 62 500.00 50 $62,0.00 15 Roadway Excavation CY 24.400 $15.00 $366,000.00 $274,W0.00 45,750.00 $457W.W 16 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete SF 28.130 $1.00 $28,130.00 $21,097.50 $3516.25 $3516.25 17 EntryDnveyey EA 4 $5.000.00 $20,000.00 muW.00 $2500.00 $2,5W.W 18 Adjust SD Manhole to Grade EA 1 $500.00 $500.00 375.00 $62.50 Efi250 19 Remove/Reloode Fence LF 4,445 $1200 $53.340.00 $40005.00 $6,66].50 $8,667.50 20 Remove Essfing Wall LF 111 $50.0c) $5.550.00 $4,ifi2.W $69375 E693.75 21 Relocate Signs EA 19 $200.00 $3,800.00 2850.W $475.00 $475.W 22 Remove/Replace Drop Inlet EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 ]SO.W $125.00 E125.W 23 Remove Existing Sidewalk SF 648 $0.60 $388.80 $291.80 $4860 E48.W 24 Remove Existing Driverfary SF 1,777 $0.60 $1.06620 $799.85 $13128 E133.28 25 Remove Headwall LF 126 $50.01) $6,3W.00 125.00 $787.50 787.50 26 Relocate Mailbox EA 3 $250.00 $750.00 $562.50 $9375 E9375 27 Remove Existing Curb and Gutter LF 1,355 $5.00 $6,775.00 $578125 $846.88 848.B8 28 Remove Existing Cross Gutter SF 1,4D4 $0.60 $842.40 $631.80 105.30 $105.30 29 Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Madison and Avenue 50 LS 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $187500.00 $31250.00 31,250.W 30 Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Madison and Avenue 52 LS 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $1875W.00 $31250.00 $31250.00 31 Develop Water Supply LS 1 $36,617.00 $36,617.00 $27462.75 $4577G3 f4577.13 32 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,W0.00 $15000.00 $2500.00 $25W.W 33 U.S.B.R Facility (See Olson Eng. Estimate for Detail) LS 1 $583,000.00 $583.000.00 $437,250.00 $]2,8]5.00 $72,875.W 34 Adjust Water Valve 0 Grade EA 17 $20.00 $4,250.00 $3,115 U $531.25 $5312 35 Adjust Sewer Manhole to Grade EA 18 $1,000.00 $18,000.00 $13,500.00 $2,250.00 $2,250.W 36 Relocate Blow -Off EA 1 $5000.00 $5000.00 $3750.00 $625.00 $625.W 37 LANDSCAPE SF 48,000 $5.50 $2Skit) 00.00 A E132000.nor $132ruvnn It 38 IRRIGATION SF 48000 $3.50 $168000.00 tE0 $84000.W $84 W0.00 It 39 Canal Improvements LS 1 $1900000.00 $1900.000.00 d2 '0011:00 t... gm car $2375 n SUB TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $7,192,669.40 $4,911,232.05 $1.140.718,69 $1.140.718.69 Sofl Costs: ' n: 57 2 22.00 $609 099.00 S124 W 1.50 $124, W 1.50 ey. E557431.86 E418073.91 $fi9678.98 Efi9678.9Estimated in: 359.633.47 $289725.11 E44.954.18 44954.18 acn: Mht $1,494000.00 E112050000 $168.7W.W $18fi750.Wn1569152.511176864.38 $19614406 $196,144.06 ate: 12,030,169.21 E8.505,494.44 $1762,337A1 $1762337.41 1/15/2013 February S, 2013 - Final AppendiT 1 (8 of!3) 200 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial A Project: Madison Street - Avenue 60 to Avenue 62 Description The proposed improvements will extend Madison Street from Avenue 60 to Avenue 62. The roadway is identified within the City's General Plan Amendment 2008-12 as a Modified Secondary Arterial A. Ultimate improvements include crossing Bureau of Reclamation Dike No. 4, south of Avenue 60. New Development (Transportation DIF) is responsible for the portion of the improvement between Avenue 60 and the BOR Dike No. 4. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I QUANTITY UNIT COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 40000 $30.00 $1,200,000.00 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 200 $2.00 $400.00 6 6" CURB AND GUTTER LF 10400 $15.00 $156,000.00 7 6" MEDIAN CURB LF 10000 $12.00 $120,000.00 8 4" AC OVER 6" AB SF 208000 $4.50 $936,000.00 9 DRAINAGE AT DIKE CROSSING LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 10 SIGNING AND STRIPING SF 208000 $0.25 $52,000.00 11 SIDEWALK SF 68640 $5.50 $377,520.00 12 LANDSCAPE SF 45600 $6.50 $296,400.00 13 IRRIGATION SF 45600 $4.00 $182,400.00 SUBTOTAL: $3,495,720.00 Estimated Soft Costs: 1/15/2013 Desi n: $3491572.00 Ins ection/Testin /Surve : $270,918.30 Cit Admin: $174,786.00 Contingency7l $429,099.63 Total Estimate: $4,720,095.93 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 construct approximately 60% of the proposed improvements. '1 2 01 February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix 1 (9 of23) CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial - A Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 54) nasrrin}inn The proposed improvements include adjusting the centerline profile to meet urban drainage standards, constructing a second travel lane, curb and gutter, one-half median curb, sidewalk, landscape and irrigation from Avenue 54 south to the north property line of the Estates; and from the south property line of the Estates to PGA West - Greg Norman. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $35,000.00 $45,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $25,000.00 $40,000.00 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 4800 $30.00 $144,000.00 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 2000 $2.00 $4,000.00 6 8" CURB & GUTTER LF 2000 $15.00 $30,000.00 7 8" MEDIAN CURB LF 1800 $12.00 $21,600.00 8 4.5' AC OVER 6" AB SF 68000 $5.00 $340,000.00 9 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 4 $800.00 $3,200.00 10 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 11 SIGNING & STRIPING SF' 68000 $0.250 $17,000.00 12 SIDEWALK SF 12,000 $5.50 $66,000.00 13 LANDSCAPE SF 12,6001 $6.50 $81,900.00 14 IRRIGATION SF 12,6001 $4.00 $50,400.00 15 RELOCATE POWER POLE EA 10 $12,500.00 $125,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1, 109,300.00 Estimated Soft Costs: 1/15/2013 Design: 1 $100,930.00 Ins ectionlTestinglSurve : $98,406.75 City Admin: $50,465.00 Contingency: $188,865.26 Total Estimate: $1,447,967.01 Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the street and pedestrian improvements. Februmy .5, 2013 —Final Appendix l (10 ojr 3) 202 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial - A Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 56) Description The proposed improvements include construction of center median curb, landscape and irrigation in the west half of Monroe Street from Avenue 56 to the south property line of the Palms Country Club, approximately 2,640 linear feet. ITEM---F DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT 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 $16,000.00 $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 $33,600.60 7 4.5" AC OVER 6" AB SF 5500 $5.00 $27,500.00 8 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00 9 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 10 SIGNING & 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 1/15/2013 Estimated Soft Costs: Desi n: $37,727.50 Inspection/Testing/Survey: 1 36,784.31 CityAdminJJ $18,863.75 Contin enc : $70,597.58 Total DIF Eli ible Cost: $541,248.15 February i, 2013 - Final dPPendis l (11,1rf.23) 203 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial - A Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 58) Description The proposed improvements include adjusting the centerline profile to meet urban drainage standards, constructing to additional travel lanes, bike lane, and curb and gutter from Avenue 58 to Andalusia. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $30,060.00 $30,000.06 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 3400 $30.00 $102,000.00 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 1330 $2.00 $2,660.00 6 8" CURB & GUTTER LF 1330 $15.00 $19,950.00 7 8" MEDIAN CURB LF 1300 $12.00 $15,600.00 8 4.5" AC OVER 6" AB SF 44200 $5.00 $221,000.00 9 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00 10 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 11 SIGNING & STRIPING SF* 44200 $0.250 $11,050.00 12 SIDEWALK SF 8,000 $5.50 $44,000.00 13 LANDSCAPE SF 10,000 $6.50 $65,000.00 14 IRRIGATION SF 10,000 $4.00 $40,000.00 15 RELOCATE POWER POLES EA 6 $12,500.00 $75,000.00 SUB TOTAL: $689,060.00 Estimated Soft Costs: 1/15/2013 Desi n: $68,906.00 Ins ection/Testin /Surve : $67,183.35 City Admin: $34,453.00 Contingency: $128,940.35 Total Estimate: $988,542.70 Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the street and pedestrian improvements. February 5, 2013 - Finn! AppendLy 1 (/2 oj23) 204 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial - C Project: Monroe Street (East Side South of Avenue 60) Description The proposed improvements include constructing two northbound travel lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks, median curb, median island landscape and irrigation. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST I TOTAL COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 6000 $30.00 $180,000.00 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 2600 $2.00 $5,200.00 6 8" CURB & GUTTER LF 2600 $15.00 $39,000.00 7 8" MEDIAN CURB LF 3900 $12.00 $46,800.00 8 4" AC OVER 6" AB SF 67600 $4.50 $304,200.00 9 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00 10 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 11 SIGNING & STRIPING SF` 67600 $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 SF 22,800 $4.001 $91,200.00 SUB TOTAL: $1,088,050.00 Estimated Soft Costs: 1/15/2013 Design:Design711 $108,805.00 Ins ectionfrestin /Surve : $106,084.88 Cit Admin: $54,402.50 Contin enc : $203,601.36 Total Estimate: $1,560,943.73 Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the street and pedestrian improvements. e 205 February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix 1 U3 6j23j CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial - B Project: Avenue 50 (Washington Street to Evac Channel) Description The proposed improvements include the installation of two additional travel lanes, median curb, curb and gutter, sidewalk, median island landscape, irrigation and electrical, from Washington St. to the Evacuation Channel. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 6000 $30.00 $180,000.00 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 1350 $2.00 $2,700.00 6 8" CURB & GUTTER LF 1350 $15.00 $20,250.00 7 8" MEDIAN CURB LF 1200 $12.00 $14,400.00 8 4.5' AC OVER 6" AB SF 27000 $5.00 $135,000.00 9 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00 10 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 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 $6.50 $46,800.00 14 IRRIGATION SF 7,200 $4.00 $28,800.00 SUB TOTAL: $526,500.00 1/15/2013 Estimated Soft Costs: Des i n: $52,650.00 Inspection/Testin /Surve : $51,333.75 City Admin: $26,325.00 Contingency: $98,521.31 Total Estimate: $755,330.06 Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the street and pedestrian improvements. February S, 2013 - Find Append x 1 (14 0l"33) 206 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial - B Project: Avenue 50 (North Side, West of Jefferson St.) Description The proposed improvements include the installation of a second westbound travel lane, bike lane median curb, sidewalk median island landscape and irrigation, on the north side of Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street east to the property line of Renaissance La Quinta. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 1500 $30.00 $45,000.00 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 2800 $2.00 $5,600.00 6 8" CURB & GUTTER LF 900 $15.00 $13,500.00 7 8" MEDIAN CURB LF 1500 $12.00 $18,000.00 8 4.5" AC OVER 6" AB SF 19250 $5.00 $96,250.00 9 ADJUST MANHOLES EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00 10 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 11 SIGNING & 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 IRRIGATION SF 6,000. $4.00 $24,000.06 SUB TOTAL: $317,562.50 Estimated Soft Costs: 1/15/2013 Design:Design:ll $31,756.25 Inspection/Testin /Surve : $3Q962.34 City Admin: 1 $15,878.13 Contingency: $59,423.88 Total Estimate: $455,583.10 Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the street and pedestrian improvements. February 5. 2013 - Final Appendix 1 N 5 of 231 207 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial - B Project: Avenue 50 (North Side, West of Madison St.) 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 QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL 11 I COST COST February 5, 2013 - Finn! Appendix l (16 ofM3) 208 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Primary Arterial Project: Avenue 52 (660LF West of Madison St. to 1,320LF West of Madison St.) Description The proposed improvements include the an additional westbound travel lane, bike line, curb and gutter, and sidewalk adjacent to the south property line of the Polo Estates. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I QUANTITY 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 $18,000.05 4 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 1000 $30.00 $30,000.00 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT LF 660 $2.00 $1,320.00 6 6" CURB AND GUTTER LF 660 $15.00 $9,900.00 7 4.5" OVER 6" AB SF 14000 $5.00 $70, - - - 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 $202,520.00 1/15/2013 Estimated Soft Costs: Desi n: $20,252.00 Ins ection/Testin /Surve : $19,745.70 Cit Admin: $10,126.00 Contingency: $37,896.56 Total Estimate: $290,540.26 February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix I (17 o123) 209 CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial Project: Avenue 58 Extension improvements, previously known as the Jefferson Street extension, include construction of a new roadway from ue 58 south to the northern border of the proposed Coral Canyon development (Tract 33444). The roadway will be tructed to Modified Secondary Arterial B standards. The roadway cross section was approved as part of General Amendment 2008-112, The total estimated cost of the project is $3,728,519. These costs are shared by two ;ant developers (Quarry and PGA West) and the Transportation DIF. The cost shares are presented below. Note: 1. Detailed cost estimates were prepared by the Engineer (Bighorn Consultants) of the Coral Canyon Development. The detailed estimates are available for review within the City of La Quinta Public Works Department. 1/15/2013 February i, 2013 - Final Appendix I (I8 off 3) 210 CITY OF LA OUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL Project Type: Secondary Medal Project: Avenue 62 Descri tion The project proposes to varied and/or extend Avenue fit, from 2 to 4 lanes, between Monroe Street and Madison Street. The improvements include ,the crossing over the CVWD Dike. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST Total COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST i Mobilization LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 Traffic Control LS 1 $10.000.00 $10,000.00 3 Dust Control LS 1 $4.105.00 $4,105.00 4 Underground Existing Overhead Power Lines LF 2720 $75.00 $204,000.00 5 Pulverize E stlnq AC SF 65280 $0.60 $39 168.00 6 Prep SubGrade SF 174080 $0.25 $43,520.00 7 Compaction CY 13902 $2.00 $27.804.00 8 51/2'AC over 6' AS SF 119680 $3.25 $388960.00 9 8' Curb antl Gutter LF 22 $19.00 '2 12 10 8' Meatlerin Sidewalk SF 21760 $3.50 $76,160!0 11 Lantlsca a SF 1 27200 $3,501 $95,200.00 12 ISigning and Sniping LS 1 1 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 SUB TOTAL 957.497,00L$0.00 Phase II Improvements ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST Total COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST 1 Mobilization LS 1 $10.000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 Dust Control LS 1 $4.504.00 $4.504.00 $4,504.D0 3 Underground Existing Overhead Power Lines LF 900 $75.00 $67500.00 som 4 Pulvenze Ekedng AC SF 21600 $0.50 $10,800.00 $0.00 5 Retaining Wall SF 46273 $50.00 $2,263,650.00 $2,263,650.00 6 Metal Beam Guard Rail LF 1600 $45.00 $72000.00 $72,000.00 7 Rough Gradin CY 73641 $1.W $110,461.50 $110461.50 8 Import CY 73641 $10.00 $736,410.00 E736.410.00 9 Compaction CY 75140 $0.75 $56,355.00 $56,355.00 10 51/2'AC over 6' AS SF 61776 1 $3.25 $200.772.00 $200,772.00 11 8' Curb and Gutter LF 1600 $19.00 $30 400.00 $30,400.00 12 8' Meadenn Sidewalk SF 11200 53.50 $39,200.00 $0.00 10 Landscape SF 1 14000 $3.50 $49.000.00 $0.00 11 Signing and Striping I LS I i 1 $4,000.00 $4.000.00 $4,000.00 SUBTOTAL $3,655,052.50 $3.488,552.50 Phase III Innrovements ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST Total COST ELIGIBLE DIF COST 1 Mobiliution LS 1 $10.000.00 $10,000.00 $10.000.00 2 Dust Control LS 1 $4.462.00 $4.462.00 $4,462.00 3 Retaininti Wall SF 17898 $50.00 $894.900.00 $590.634.00 4 Metal Beam Guard Rail LF 960 $45.00 $43200.00 $43,200.00 5 Rough Grading CY 63750 $1.30 $82.875.00 $54 697.50 6 Import CY 63750 $10.00 $637,500.00 $420.750.00 7 Compaction CY 72250 $0.75 $54,187.50 $35.763.75 8 51/2'AC over 6"AB SF 50864 $3.25 $165.308.00 $109, 103.28 9 8" Curb and Gutter LF 960 $19.00 $18,240.00 $0.00 10 8' Mesdenn Sidewalk SF 9280 $3.50 $32,480.00 $0.00 11 Land2ca a 5F 11600 $3.50 $40,600.00 $0.00 12 Si nin and StripingLS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $40W.00 SUBTOTAL $1,987,752.50 $1272.610.53 1/15/2013 Estimated Soft Costs: Phesa I SubTotal: 00.$9097.00 0 Phase II Sub TWaI: 50$3455 Phase III Sub Totet: $1,987,752.50 $1 272,610.53 11 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION: $6,600,302.00 $4761,165.03 Desigril $660030.20 $476,116.30 Ins ection/Testin Surve : $511 523.41 5368.890.13 CityMorin: $330,015.10 E238,058.1 Contingency $150,156.87 $108,316A6 Total Estimate: $8,252,027.58 $5.952.644.08 February i, 2013 - Finn! Appendix I (19 of23) _ ., 211 BRIDGE/INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS FEBRUARY 2013 LOCATION TOTAL COST DIF SHARE DIF COST COMMENTS Ave. 50 Evacuation Channel $7,500,000 25.00% $1,875,000 Assumes CVAG Funding at 75% Dune Palms Whitewater River $17,510,000 25,00% $4,377,500 Assumes CVAG Funding at 75% Adams Street Whitewater River $13,500,000 11.50% $2,700,000 Assumes HBP Funds at 88.5% Ave. 50 All American Canal (Widening) $2,400,000 12.50% $3001000 Assumes CVAG Funding at 75% and Indio Funding at 12.5% Jefferson Street Interchange Improvements $60,578,200 2.84% $1,720,421 Assumes CVAG Funding at 75%; Indio Funding at 57% of25%; County Funding at 1% of25 % and [a Quinta DIF Share at 27.04 % of 42 % of25 TOTAL $10972,921 February 5, 2013 - Finn! Appendix 1 (20 of 23) 1 n p FUTURE TRAFIC SIGNALS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS FEBRUARV 2013 Dune Palms Rd & Corporate Center Dr. Traffic Signal $430,000 100%7$430,000 30,000 Washington St. & Via Sevilla Traffic Signal $430,000 50%15,000 Washington St. & Lake La Quinta Dr. Traffic Signal $430,000 100%30 0000 Caleo Bay & Avenue 47 Traffic Signal $430,000 100% Eisenhower Dr. & Montezuma Traffic Signal $430,000 100% $430,000 Eisenhower Dr. & Sinaloa Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,005 Madison St. & Ave. 54 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,000 Madison St. & Ave. 58 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 1000% $846,005 Madison St. & Ave. 60 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,050 Monroe St. & Ave. 52 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 25% $211,500 Monroe St. & Ave. 54 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 50% $423,000 Monroe St. & Airport blvd. Traffic Signal $430,000 50% $215,000 Monroe St. & Ave. 58 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 50% S423,000 Monroe St. & Ave. 60 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 100% $846,000 Monroe St. & Ave. 61 Traffic Signal $430,000 75% $322,550 Monroe St. & Ave. 62 Two Lane Roundabout $846,000 25% $211,500 Orchard & Ave50 Traffic Signal S430,000 25% $107,500 Jefferson & Dunbar Traffic Signal $430,000 25% $107,500 Jefferson & Ave 52 Three Lane Roundabout $1,000,000 27.04% $270,400 Jefferson & Ave. 53 Traffic Signal $430,000 50% $215,000 Jefferson & Ave. 54 Traffic Si a1 $430,000 75% $322,500 Citywide Central Control $1,100,000 27.04% TOTAL $297,440 $9 291 840 Estimated Cost of Traffic Signal Construction: $350,000.00 Engineering: $35,000.00 Construction Engineering: $27,000.00 Administration: $18,000.00 Total Estimated Cost: $430,000.00 Estimated Cost of 2-lane Roundabout Construction: $650,000.00 Engineering: $100,000.00 Construction Engineering: $63,500.00 February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix 1 (21 of 23) 213 13 FUTURE SOUND WALLS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS OCTOBER 2012 LOCATION DISTANCE F ESTIMATED COST East Madison at Trilogy 700 $192,115 Estimated cost of future sound wall in Developed Areas $192,115 Februa v 5, 2013 - Final Appencla 1 (2 2 oj23) 214 CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS OCTOBER 2012 PROJECT TRACT IMPROVEMENT DIF ELIGIBLE COST AVENUE 50 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN MOUNTAIN VIEW CC 30357 (1/2 MEDIAN) - BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND $627,972 MADISON 14-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN ESPLANADE 29323-1 IMPROVEMENTS-FRED WARING BETWEEN $103,083 PORT MARIA ROAD TO JEFFERSON STREET 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 $112,723 SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY -BETWEEN JEFFERSON/ALL AMERCIAN CANAL CLUBHOUSE AVENUE 52 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN - SDP 2002-730 ALL AMERICAN CANAL TO MADISON $463,894 APARTMENTS 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 3, 1126.7 FT NORTH OF AVE 48) MADISON STREET - TWO LANES AND MADISON CLUB 33076 MEDIAN BETWEEN AVE 52 AND 54 (MEDIAN $1,394,665 LANDSCAPE ON FUTURE SEPARATE AGREEMENT) AVENUE 54 - PAVED PAINTED MEDIAN MADISON CLUB 33076 LANE AND ONE INSIDE LANE (MADISON $524,010 STREET TO MONROE STREET TOTAL DIF ELIGIBLE DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS $5,708,654 February 5.2013 - Final Appendix 1 (23 of23) 215 APPENDIX-2 BASIS FOR NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED The trip generation rates used in this Study were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) 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 Quints's City map was prepared with one mile radius permeating out from the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 as the origin. The percent of development remaining was identified in each one mile radius circle radiating out from the origin. Trip lengths for each destination were then scaled. These include destinations of leaving town, food shopping, and trips to school, and across town trips. The estimate for the ratio in La Quints, was one mile for commercial for every 1.667 miles for residential (1:1.667). These numbers are closer to SANDAG calculations. Therefore, the published SANDAG numbers were utilized for average trip lengths. February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix -1 216 APPENDIX-3 COUNTY ROAD CONVERSION TO URBAN ARTERIAL Former county -owned roads, that were designed and constructed to a county road standard, are sufficient to continue functioning as designed if the land use served remains unchanged, but the existing roads typically lack key design attributes to accommodate simplistic conversion to an urban arterial street by just adding a new lane to the existing pavement and installing curbs to redirect drainage flow. Specifically, higher intensity land uses increase the number of trucks using the roadway (ie a higher Traffic Index). As a result, urban arterial streets must have a sturdier structural section than the existing structural section encountered on county roads serving low intensity land uses. Often, the structural section can be augmented and bolstered by simply overlaying the existing pavement with additional asphalt paving. The other key design attribute that must be addressed is the flowline gradient in the gutter. County road design procedure disregards the flowline gradient aspect because the county road standard does not include a curb that contains drainage flow in the street to convey it to a relocated discharge point. Instead, the county road standard simply has a centerline profile and a crowned pavement cross section that sheds storm water falling on the pavement to the side of the road. Thus when curbs and gutters are added to make the street function like an urban street, the flowline gradient becomes a critical design aspect that cannot be ignored. La Quinta has 0.5% as its standard minimum allowable flowline gradient in the gutter. The minimum standard applies to former county roads that are converted to urban arterial streets, as well as new onsite local roads, unless waived by the City Engineer in writing with substantive reason. In order to implement the required flowline gradient, the centerline profile must be revised. The latter aspect typically requires the roadway to be reconstructed wherever the existing centerline profile is less than 0.5%. February 5, 2013 - Final ApIPendix -L 17 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON OVERALL FEES PLUS CVAG TUMF FEBRUARY 2013 CONSTRUCTION LA QUINTA RANCHO DESERT HOT TYPE PROPOSED FEE INDIO MIRAGE COACHELLA SPRINGS 1,300 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 1,700 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 2,200 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 3,000 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 4,000 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 500,000 SF General Commercial - 50 Acres $5,038,280.00 $2,687,094.25 $2,925,780.00 $4,188,445.00 $6,383,780.00 20,000 SF Office - 1 Acre $211,328.00 $131,657.25 $259,308.00 $228,216.20 $295,548.00 200 Acre Golf Course, 10,000 SF BLDG, 10 Acres $340,784.00 $321,748.25 $149,184.00 $149,184.00 $149,184.00 100 Room Hotel; 45,000 SF 10 Acres I $327,996.OQI $314,145.25 $157,951.00 $107,596.00 $474,328.00 20 Unit Townhouse; 1,200 SF $90k/Unit $152,916.00 $46,377.00 $146,036.00 $275,739.40 $225,763.00 20 Unit Apartment Building 1,000 SF $2M $123,316.00 $49,986.00 $146,036.00 $275,739.40 $225,763.00 (Note: Fees presented above include the Coachella Valley TUMF. CONSTRUCTION TYPE CVAG TUMF 1,300 SF House $1,837.44 1,700 SF House $1,837.44 2,200 SF House $1,837.44 3,000 SF House $1,837.44 4,000 SF House $1,837.44 500,000 SF General Commercial - 50 Acres $1,588,780.00 20,000 SF Office - 1 Acre $103,748.00 200 Acre Golf Course, 10,000 SF BLDG, 10 Acres $149,184.00 100 Room Hotel; 45,000 SF 10 Acres $107,596.00 20 Unit Townhouse; 1,200 SF $90k/Unit $25,536.00 20 Unit Apartment Building 1,000 SF $2M $25,536.00 February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix - 4 218 ATTACHMENT 2 34-360 Gateway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 20114ju, iin OT Ql REC[ORS PRESI➢ENT Sark Benedetti IAMC5eloct Build t" VICE PRESIDENT January 25, 2013 Joe i-laws First IYank ILCRET4RYTt'RF-1SURLR City of La Quinta Hlucn FAc Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager Paciric Premier link P.O. Box 1504 VICE PRESIDENT _ FI OCt.4TtiS` La Quinta, CA 92247 Allan Levin - Allan Levin & Associates - Re: Development Impact Fee Study — 2012 PAST PRF 4/DEN7' Mario Gonzales - Dear Mr. Spevacek, GItA Companies CNI EF 73XHCUTI PE OFFICER_ Gretchen Guticnez 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 DIRECTORS Wesley Ah;g;cn Study. After our initial examinations we did have numerous questions and The Ltcmmindwa>_Group comments, which have subsequently nearly all been answered satisfactorily. Fred Bell Noble & Company, LU, Therefore, our remaining comments and questions are few, and these revolve tartan Bcs,edetti R A 11 Contracon around Section 3 of the study involving tratEc and signalization issues. Andy Hraktbill Coachella valley I>rinnin, We have not seen a traffic study that would include the current assessed LOS and 'Foos DuAusc future LOS projections for three intersections, which are required to establish need Devclopmcm Dcvgn & engineering pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act. Please provide the traffic c studies for: N7nr?are[t)ntrc N[argarct Drury Construction Tammy Foodke Eisenhower and Sinaloa (Round -a -bout) —project already under way Coachol3avalleywatcrDisrrio-, Eisenhower and Montezuma(Signal) l'odd tioo,s Orchard and Avenue 50 (Signal) Agua C)alicine Band aP Cad,ui Ila lndimn Dar Lipm:rt Lippert Cooammcti n, Inc It is also our understanding that the shared intersection signalization of weather Loul<enhizar Washington Street and Via Sevilla is supposed to be removed from the DIF, so the Pcnta Building Group inquiry here is if we going to see a change in future DIF drafts to reflect this Bruce Maize change? triticlih l;tlr htstirat,ce Tom Noble Noble& Compaim I.t,CAgain, the Desert Valleys Builders Association appreciates this opportunity to Dan blivicr review, comment and question the Development Impact Fee Study. �btu:.11adOlivier!`.i hitn,ker LAY Alan Pace El tt Ghilll:itl vi ttvin Vin l�< l� �lly, r-- tLL 1IS A l Ui'U16 le Inc <<Smith v-y-•r�lll • .� Smith-Kandal lnsurance.'Real Eisnne Gretchen G ierrez Phil Sn,hh hief Exec ve Officer Sunrise Cim,pan+; Paldck SwaNtimn ! Imperial hrigation Diwiel Jell iFatteabnr}ZCr Anticnbarger Construction 219. CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Ordinance to Amend the La. Quinta CONSENT CALENDAR: Municipal Code Chapter 3.33, Transportation Uniform MSTUDY SESSION: Mitigation Fee PUBLIC HEARING. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I - Move to take up Ordinance No. approving Chapter 3.33 of the La Quinta Municipal Code pertaining to the collection of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees, by title and number only and waive further reading; and move to introduce Ordinance No. adding Chapter 3.33 to the La Quinta Municipal Code as set forth in said ordinance, on first reading; Adopt Resolution No. 2013- , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, Setting the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Amount Pursuant to Ordinance No. ; and Approve an Agreement Between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the City of La Quinta for Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The City of La Quinta has not been part of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program ("TUMF"). In 2012, the City initiated the process to join TUMF in order to receive its local share of the Measure "A" one-half cent sales tax funds (Measure "A" Funds). 220 • The recommended actions will facilitate the City's entry into TUMF. The City will then receive Measure "A" Funds which will be pledged to annual street maintenance. • Per the CVAG/City Agreement (Attachment 1), the City and CVAG will allocate 50% of its local share of Measure "A" funds to the City for annual street maintenance and 50% to CVAG to repay CVAG to fund the TUMF fees that CVAG would have received if the City participated in the TUMF program since its inception. This amount is $5.5 million. Once the TUMF shortfall is repaid (projected to be in about 10 years), the City will receive 100% of its local share of Measure "A" funds. • As a member of TUMF, the City must annually prepare and submit a five year Capital Improvement Plan to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) detailing the expected uses of the sales tax funding, and annually certifying that its discretionary General Fund expenditures for transportation -related construction and maintenance activities meet or exceed the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year amount. • The City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) collected for transportation purposes has been updated and assumes the City will become a TUMF collecting member of CVAG in 2013. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive 50% of its local share ($1.2 million) until the TUMF shortfall, estimated at $5.5 million, is paid. The City must pay interest on the TUMF shortfall, which will accrue at the rate of the Local Agency Investment Fund as determined on July 1" of each year. If the City adopts the TUMF Ordinance and associated documents in February 2013, the TUMF will become effective on or about April 22, 2013 and the City would begin receiving sales tax funds by August 2013. Once in TUMF and until the conclusion of the program in 2039, the City will be required to spend $937,007 per year of its discretionary funds on road improvements or road maintenance in order to receive its Measure "A" funds. The Measure "A" funds will be available to fund transportation related expenditures above and beyond the base expenditures of $937,007 per year. Once the TUMF shortfall is repaid (anticipated to occur in 2023), the City will then receive 100% of the City's share of Measure "A" funds for 16 years. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: TUMF was established in 1988 to provide funding for regional transportation improvements in the Coachella Valley. These improvements are funded through a combination of development impact fees and Measure "A" sales tax revenue. In 221 the past, while the City was building its road system and retail sector, it received more money from transportation impact fees than it would have otherwise received by joining TUMF and collecting the Measure "A" funds. Additionally, the City's Transportation DIF program was implemented to fund both local and regional street improvement projects and accelerated regional programs, which directly benefitted the City that may not have otherwise been funded by CVAG due to those projects having a low priority in the regional program. Since TUMF was established, the City has not received $15,535,312 in Measure "A" funds. As part of the Fiscal Year 2011/12 budget process, staff evaluated the pros and cons of joining the TUMF program. Now that the City has a variety of strong sales tax producing enterprises, it makes financial sense for the City to join TUMF in order to receive Measure "A" funds for local transportation related improvements. By joining TUMF, the City will receive approximately $1.2 million per year in sales tax revenue. Not all of this revenue would be paid to the City. Fifty percent of this annual revenue would be retained by CVAG to reimburse CVAG for TUMF fees CVAG would have received from the City of La Quinta if the City would have joined TUMF when this program was established. The Measure "A" funds can be used for any transportation related construction and maintenance activities which are currently funded through State gas tax revenue. The City currently collects DIF's for a variety of public facilities, including: transportation improvements, parks and recreation facilities, civic center, library, community center, maintenance facilities, and fire facilities. However, several cities within the Coachella Valley collect local impact fees along with the regional TUMF. Attachment 2 is a table comparing the overall DIF's collected by each of these jurisdictions and compares them to what the City would collect, if the TUMF were implemented. 'On July 31, 2006, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the 2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus Study Report ("2006 Nexus Study") which established updated TUMF Levels and program revenue collections targets. This document accurately states the City's need to collect the TUMF fees along with the other participating jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley as requested by the CVAG General Assembly. It also establishes the reasonable relationship between the impacts of the future trips and the amount of the fee. The 2006 Nexus Study is available at the Public Works counter for review. The Measure "A" legislation directly links a local agency's receipt of the half cent of sales tax to that agency's participation in the TUMF. The Program requires that local agencies charge the fee to new development. If an agency chooses not to collect the regional TUMF on local development projects, the agency is not eligible 222 to receive its proportionate share of the half cent sales tax revenues set aside for local streets and roads under Measure "A." In order for the City to join TUMF, the City must take the following actions: 1. Adopt the TUMF Ordinance, to be effective on or about April 22, 2013. The TUMF Ordinance amends the City's Municipal Code to include a Chapter pertaining to the collection of the TUMF, and among other things, adopts the 2006 Nexus Study prepared by CVAG, establishes the purpose and need for the fee, and provides for an appeal process. 2. Adopt a resolution setting the TUMF amount pursuant to the TUMF Ordinance. The fee -setting resolution establishes the average daily trip fees that are applied to sales tax producing development, other, non-residential development, and residential development, and adopts the Coachella Valley TUMF Handbook, dated July 1, 2009, which provides the fee calculation for each land use type. The TUMF Handbook is also available at the Public Works public counter for review. The resolution also establishes the TUMF effective date and provides for future amendments by CVAG. 3. Enter into an agreement with CVAG which establishes the terms and conditions in which the City will be allowed to become a TUMF collecting participant and be eligible to receive its local share of the sales tax revenues. 4. The voter approved Measure "A" Ordinance requires compliance with the MOE certification requirements established by RCTC. This requires that local agencies continue to expend the same amount for construction and maintenance of local streets and roads as expended in the past, prior to the new sales tax. The MOE base year calculation is based on the discretionary General Fund expenditures for transportation related construction and maintenance activities that occurred during Fiscal Year 2009/2010. The City's MOE base year amount is $937,007. If the City fails to meet this discretionary General Fund base year expenditure, its local share of the Measure "A" funds can be held up or forfeited for the next year. If the City expends discretionary General Funds in excess of the MOE base year level, the City will be allowed to apply the excess funds in a future year to offset the amount the local agency may need to meet the MOE requirement. Finally, should the City Council implement the TUMF, staff recommends that Council also adopt an updated Transportation DIF to ensure that developers are not overpaying for improvements. The DIF and the TUMF proposals have been reviewed by the Desert Valley Builders Association and other stakeholders. All 223 stakeholder feedback has been satisfactorily addressed. Public notice requirements were met for this public hearing. It was published in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 23 and January 30, 2013. Any written comments received will be distributed to the City Council during the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: An alternative to the recommended action is to continue to not participate in TUMF. Doing so would not allow the City to receive Measure "A" funds and would reduce the funding available for transportation related improvements. While TUMF membership does increase the development impact fees, all of the adjoining cities and the County participate in TUMF. Staff does not believe that this additional fee cost would place the City at a disadvantage. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS If the City Council adopts the TUMF Program, the City will begin receiving its proportionate share of the Measure "A" one-half cent sales tax. Because the sales tax is collected county wide, it is considered regional in nature and projects funded through it are subject to prevailing wage requirements. Prevailing wages are required for other transportation infrastructure projects where local funds are mixed with other non -local funds. Respectfully submitted, d T othy R. o ass n P.E. Public Works Dire r/City Engineer Attachments: 1. CVAG/City Agreement 2. Comparison Table by Jurisdiction 224 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. ADOPTING CHAPTER 3.33 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE COLLECTION OF TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta ("City") is Member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"), a joint powers agency consisting of the County of Riverside ("County"), the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the City of Blythe, and the nine cities situated in the Coachella Valley (collectively, "Member Agencies"); and WHEREAS, acting in concert, the Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials within CVAG's jurisdiction (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") imposed on future residential, commercial and industrial development within the jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, as a Member of CVAG, the City participated in the preparation of the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study ("1987 Transportation Study") prepared pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000 et seq.); WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff to prepare an updated TUMF study entitled "2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus Study Report", and dated June 27, 2006 ("2006 Nexus Study") to establish updated TUMF levels and program revenue collection targets, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on July 31, 2006; and WHEREAS, the 2006 Nexus Study revealed the need to revise the provisions of the model TUMF ordinance to reflect changes in the Mitigation Fee Act, which governs the adoption and implementation of development impact fees and to reflect the findings of the 2006 Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Implementation Agreement relating to the TUMF, as a condition to the receipt of its share of the local portion of Measure "A" funds, each city was required to adopt and maintain a TUMF to be administered by CVAG under the terms of the Implementation Agreement; and 225 WHEREAS, the City had never adopted nor maintained a TUMF program, thereby forfeiting its share of the local portion of Measure "A"; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to establish the TUMF program within its jurisdiction so as to become eligible to receive its share of the local portion of Measure "A" funds; WHEREAS, by notice duly given and posted, on January 23, 2013 and on January 30, 2013, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider approval of the 2006 Nexus Study and this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered the data and information provided by CVAG, City staff and the public relative to the TUMF and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to accurately collect TUMF fees along with the other participating jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley as requested by the CVAG General Assembly. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ADOPT CHAPTER 3.33 "TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE" The La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter 3.33, "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee" is hereby added to read as follows: Chapter * Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 3.33.010 Purpose, use and findings. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. The City is a Member Agency of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"), a joint powers agency consisting of public agencies situated in the Coachella Valley (collectively, "Member Agencies"). B. Acting in concert, the Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials within CVAG's jurisdiction (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation 226 Fee ("TUMF") imposed on future residential, commercial and industrial development within the jurisdiction. C. That CVAG commissioned the preparation of various studies ("Fee Studies") which evaluate population and employment growth, future transportation needs and the availability of traditional transportation funding sources to establish updated TUMF levels and program revenue collection targets. D. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, make it possible to determine a reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional impacts of new land development projects in the Coachella Valley on the Regional System and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the TUMF program. E. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish the purposes of the TUMF, which may be summarized as a uniform development impact fee to help fund construction of the Regional System needed to accommodate growth in the Coachella Valley to the year 2030. F. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish that the TUMF proceeds will be used to help pay for the engineering, construction and acquisition of right of way for the Regional System improvements identified therein. Such improvements are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development projects on which the TUMF will be levied. G. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF proceeds and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed. H. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish the reasonable relationship between the impact of new development and the need for the TUMF. I. That the TUMF program revenues to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share of these costs. J. That the projects and methodology identified in the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, for the collection of fees is consistent with the goals, policies, objectives and implementation measures of the City's General Plan. K. That the TUMF program complies with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. 227 3.33.020 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them as follows: "Change of use" means any change in the use of an existing building that results in the increase of vehicular trips. "Development" means any activity which requires discretionary or ministerial action by the City resulting in the issuance of grading, building, plumbing, mechanical or electrical permits, or certificates of occupancy issued by the City to construct, or change the use of, a building or property. Where "development" applies to an enlargement of an existing building, or a change of use of an existing building that results in increased vehicle trips, the average weekday trips shall be only the additional trips in excess of those associated with the existing use. "Fee Study" means the studies prepared by CVAG and adopted by the City Council, which supports the fee established by this chapter, and includes all the underlying reports and documents referenced therein. "Impact Fee Schedule" means the schedule of development impact fees approved by resolution of the City Council. "Mitigation Fee Act" means the law set forth in the California Government Code (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) that establishes the criteria for establishing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project. "Regional System" means the regional system of roads, streets and highways identified by CVAG as needed to accommodate growth in the Coachella Valley to the year 2030. "Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund" means the fund established pursuant to this chapter. "TUMF" means the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee established by this chapter. 3.33.030 Fee Established A. There is established a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF"), which shall apply to new development yet to receive final discretionary approval and/or issuance of a building permit or other 228 development right and to any reconstruction or new use of existing buildings that results in change of use and generates additional vehicular trips. B. The facilities to be funded by the TUMF are detailed in the Fee Study, which is on file with the City's Public Works Department. C. The TUMF is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments. 3.33.040 Fund Established A. There is established a Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund ("Trust Fund") into which TUMF proceeds shall be deposited. B. TUMF proceeds shall be imposed and collected by the City and shall be transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the Trust Fund. All interest or other earnings of the Trust Fund shall be credited to the Trust Fund. C. CVAG shall administer the Trust Fund in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. 3.33.050 Calculation and Collection of the TUMF A. The method of calculating the TUMF shall be described in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Handbook, a copy of which is on file with the City's Public Works Department. B. The amount of the fees due shall be the amount set forth in the applicable Impact Fee Schedule in effect at the time each fee is due. The TUMF shall be collected pursuant to the City's established procedures for the collection of development impact fees. 3.33.060 Use Restrictions TUMF proceeds shall be solely used for the engineering, construction and acquisition of right of way for the Regional System improvements identified in the Fee Study and any other purpose consistent with this chapter. TUMF proceeds shall not be used for Regional System maintenance. "• 229 3.33.070 Exemptions and Credits A. The following developments are exempted from payment of the fee required by this chapter: 1. Low and lower -income residential housing, including single- family homes, apartments and mobile homes built for those whose income is no more than eighty percent of the median income in the San Bernardino - Riverside Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and as determined and approved by the City Council or its designee. The sales or rental price shall not exceed the affordability criteria as established under HUD Section 8 guidelines. 2. Public buildings, public schools and public facilities, unless primarily used for lease to private, for -profit enterprises. 3. Buildings used for religious purposes but excluding other commercial properties or businesses owned by a religious institution. 4. The reconstruction of any building so long as the reconstructed building both continues a use of the same category as the prior use, and generates the same or fewer trips as the original building and reconstruction commences within one year from destruction of the building. B. Credit against the TUMF shall be given where a developer improves streets included within the Regional System beyond the City's requirements established for on -site and off -site improvements imposed upon projects. To receive a credit, the developer shall obtain in advance an agreement with CVAG pursuant to CVAG's rules and regulations. That credit shall be an amount equal to the actual engineering and construction costs incurred at the time of the development to the extent that CVAG has included those costs in its estimated cost of constructing the Regional System, 3.33.070 Appeal Procedures A. Any developer, who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that application of the TUMF is unconstitutional or unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the development, may file a written appeal with the City within ninety days after imposition of the TUMF as a condition of approval or as otherwise provided by the Mitigation Fee Act. 230 B. The appeal shall be heard by the CVAG Executive Committee in accordance with CVAG's established policies and procedures for conducting such matters. The decision of the Executive Committee shall be final. 3.33.080 Administrative Fee A. The City may impose an administrative fee in amount computed to cover the average cost to the City of processing the TUMF. The City shall establish such fee in accordance with the City's procedures for establishing service -related fees. B. The administrative fee authorized by this section shall be in addition to the fee imposed under Section 3.33.030. The administrative fee, when collected, shall be retained by the City to recover its costs. Section 2. SEVERABILITY The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of . this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect sixty (60) days after its adoption. Section 4. 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, at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held this _day of , 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: r_l-1AITts ABSTAIN: 231 DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LA QUINTA ) I, SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of Ordinance No. which was introduced at a regular meeting on the day of 2013, and was adopted at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2013, not being less than 5 days after the date of introduction thereof. I further certify that the foregoing Ordinance was posted in three places within the City of La Quinta as specified in City Council Resolution No. 2006-1 15. SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California 232 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was posted on pursuant to Council Resolution. SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE AMOUNT PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the City Council, of the City of La Quinta, California by Ordinance No. established a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on certain findings including but not limited to the following: (1) Future development within the City of La Quinta and within the Coachella Valley to the year 2030 will result in traffic volumes in excess of capacity thereby adversely impacting the regional system of streets, arterials and highways now existing; (2) Failure to expand the capacity of the existing circulation system will cause unacceptable levels of congestion on the streets, arterials, and highways of the regional system; (3) Absent a uniform mitigation transportation fee imposing a fair -share traffic impact fee on new development, existing and future sources of revenue will be inadequate to fund substantial portions of the Regional Transportation System improvements needed to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion and related adverse impacts; (4) The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee will raise the additional revenues needed to construct the improvements to accommodate traffic that will be generated by development of land within the City and within the Coachella Valley; (5) The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee is a fair and equitable method for distributing the unfunded costs of transportation improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic volumes generated by new development; and WHEREAS, Section 3.33.050 of Ordinance No. requires that the amount of the mitigation fee (1) shall be based on the trip generation rate defined in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Handbook, a copy of which is on file in the City's Public Works Department, (2) shall be established by the City and (3) requires the City to adopt by resolution the fee as recommended by CVAG or a higher fee amount; and 234- Resolution No. 2013- TUMF Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council, in determining the amount of the mitigation fee, desires to ensure that the fee is calculated by a fair and equitable method to distribute the costs of the improvements necessary to accommodate traffic volumes generated by future growth. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City Council further finds that: a. The report entitled "2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus Study Report" dated June 27, 2006 ("2006 Nexus Study") to establish updated TUMF Levels and program revenue collections target, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on July 31, 2006, accurately states the City's need to collect the TUMF fees along with the other participating jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley as requested by the CVAG General Assembly. The 2006 Nexus Study is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. b. Based on the above findings, the La Quinta City Council adopts this resolution setting the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee amount and sets forth that amount as follows: $74.00 per average daily trip for sales tax producing commercial $148.00 per average daily trip for all other non-residential development $192.00 per average daily trip for all residential development c. The amount of the mitigation fee shall be based on the trip generation rate defined in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Handbook, a copy of which is on file in the City's Public Works Department. The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Handbook, effective July 1, 2009 is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective concurrent with Ordinance No. , on the day of , 2013. 3. Amendments. The Council shall, pursuant to Ordinance No. , annually review and if necessary, may amend the amount of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee to ensure that the fee continues to be a fair and equitable method to distribute the costs of the improvements necessary to accommodate traffic volumes generated by future growth. If CVAG amends the recommended amount of the fee pursuant to its annual review, the Council shall amend this resolution in accordance with CVAG's recommended amended fee amount. 235 Resolution No. 2013- TUMF Adopted: February 5, 2013 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: 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 236 ATTACHMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF TUMF PROGRAM This Agreement is made and entered into on , 20 between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") and the City of La Quinta ("City'). Each of the parties to this agreement is a governmental entity empowered to enter into an Agreement of this type. This Agreement is made in reference to the following facts and circumstances. RECITALS On or about June 26, 1989, the City, in conjunction with other jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley, entered into an Implementation Agreement, authorizing CVAG to manage and administer the Regional Transportation Program for the Coachella Valley; On or about February 2, 2010, the City, in conjunction with those same jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley, extended the Implementation Agreement authorizing CVAG to continue to manage and administer the Regional Transportation Program for the Coachella Valley through calendar year 2038; Pursuant to the terms of the Implementation Agreement and as a condition to the receipt of its share of the local portion of Measure "A" funds, each city was required to adopt and maintain a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") to be administered by CVAG under the terms of the Implementation Agreement; The City had never adopted nor maintained a TUMF program, thereby forfeiting its share of the local portion of Measure "A"; The City now desires to establish the TUMF program within its jurisdiction so as to become eligible to receive its share of the local portion of Measure "A" funds; follows: Now, therefore, in consideration of the following, the parties hereto do establish as 1 237 1.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF TUMF 1.1 City shall adopt the Model TUMF Ordinance, to be effective on or about April 22, 2013, or as soon thereafter as notice requirements may permit, and thereafter collect all TUMF provided therefor consistent with the Ordinance, Implementation Agreement and all applicable CVAG policies. 1.2 City and CVAG agree that the estimated TUMF, plus shortfalls, discrepancies and interest due to CVAG as calculated through June 30, 2012 is $5,528,997 (collectively the estimated "TUMF Shortfall"). City and CVAG agree the "TUMF Shortfall" will be recalculated as of the date the TUMF is in full effect at the City of La Quinta and payment of the recalculated "TUMF Shortfall" amount will be a condition of allowing City to become established in the TUMF Program. 1.3 Interest on the TUMF Shortfall shall accrue at the rate for the Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF"), as determined on July Vt of each year. Said interest shall accrue on the balance of the unpaid TUMF Shortfall until the entire amount due, including interest, is fully paid. 1.4 City agrees that CVAG shall apply fifty percent (50%) of City's share of local Measure "A" funds toward the TUMF Shortfall, including interest accruing thereon, until such time as all such sums have been paid in full. At the City's option, the City may choose at some point to pay the outstanding TUMF Shortfall in a lump sum and thereby avoid the requirement to pay interest on the outstanding amount. 1.5 Until such time as the TUMF Shortfall, including interest thereon, is repaid by the City to the TUMF program, CVAG shall retain 50% of the City's share of the local portion of Measure "A" funds, apply the retained monies toward the sums owing hereunder, and forward to the City only the remaining 50% of the City's share of local Measure "A" funds. 1.6 City agrees to collect and transmit to CVAG all TUMF assessed in accordance with the terms of the Implementation Agreement, the adopted Model TUMF ordinance, and applicable CVAG policy. 1.7 City agrees to allow an annual audit of its TUMF program as required in the case of all cities participating in the TUMF program. Upon successful and continued compliance with the terms of this Agreement, City shall be entitled to participate in the 2 238 TUMF program in accordance with the terms of the adopted TUMF Ordinance, the Implementation Agreement and all applicable CVAG policies. 1.8 CVAG shall provide City with a monthly accounting of local Measure "A" funds applied to the amount due CVAG from the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 2.0 PERIOD OF AGREEMENT 2.1 This Agreement shall continue in effect until such time as the City has repaid the entire TUMF Shortfall, together with interest accruing thereon, as set forth above. 3.0 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS 3.1 In the event that provisions of any exhibit conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the parties and the interpretation of the parties' understanding concerning the performance of the services. 4.0. AMENDMENT 4.1. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties shall execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 5.0. ATTORNEYS' FEES 5.1. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Ict 239 6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS 6.1 All of the obligations performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with and in full compliance of all applicable federal, state and local statutes, rules and regulations. 7.0 NOTIFICATION 7.1 All notices hereunder and communications with respect to this Agreement shall be effective upon the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and postage prepaid to the persons named below: If to CVAG: Tom Kirk, Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Ste. 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 If to La Quinta: Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 8.0 GOVERNING LAW 8.1 This Agreement shall be binding on and shall be for the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 9.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT 9.1 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the subject hereof. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, B! 240 representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective officers thereunto duly authorized on the day and year first mentioned above. COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 0 Joseph De Coninck CVAG Chairman Approved as to form: go Toni Eggebraaten CVAG General Counsel 5 CITY OF LA QUINTA By: Don Adolph Mayor Approved as to form: By: 241 ATTACHMENT 2 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON OVERALL FEES PLUS CVAG TUMF FEBRUARY2012 CONSTRUCTION LA QUINTA RANCHO DESERT HOT TYPE PROPOSED FEE INDIO MIRAGE COACHELLA SPRINGS 1,300 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 1,700 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 2,200 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 3,000 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 4,000 SF House $8,731.44 $19,925.44 $8,967.44 $18,044.31 $10,940.44 500,000 SF General Commercial - 50 Acres $5,038,280.00 $2,687, 994.25 $2,925,780.00 $4,188,445.00 $6,383,780.00 20,000 SF Office - 1 Acre $211,328.00 $131,657.25 $259,308.00 $228,216.20 $295,548.00 200 Acre Golf Course, 10,000 SF BLDG, 10 Acres $340.784.00 $321,748.25 $149,184.00 $149,184.00 $149,184.00 100 Room Hotel; 45,000 SF10Acres $327,996.00 $314,145.25 $157,951.00 $107,596.00 $474,328.00 20 Unit Townhouse; 1,200 SF $90k/Unit $152,916.00 $46,377.00 $146,036.00 $275,739.40 $225,763.00 20 Unit Apartment Building 1,000 SF $2M $123,316.00 $49,986.00 $146,036.00 $275,739.40 $225,763.00 jNoie: Fees presented aoove include the Goachella Valley TUMF. CONSTRUCTION TYPE CVAG TUMF 1,300 SF House $1,837.44 1,700 SF House $1,837.44 2,200 SF House $1,837.44 3,000 SF House $1,837.44 4,000 SF House $1,837.44 500,000 SF General Commercial - 50 Acres $1,588,780.00 20,000 SF Office - 1 Acre $103,748.00 200 Acre Golf Course, 10,000 SF BLDG, 10 Acres $149,184.00 100 Room Hotel; 45,000 SF 10 Acres $107,596.00 20 Unit Townhouse; 1,200 SF '90k/Unit $25,536.00 20 Unit Apartment Building 1,000 SF $2M $25.536.00 242