DIF Study 2008 - FINAL (CC - Oct 7, 2008)l
� r
+ifOF%lt
io4 4XP Qgmrory
CITY OF
LA QUINTAq CALIFORNIA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEE STUDY
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - FINAL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Don Adolph, Mayor
Stanley Sniff, Mayor Pro Tem
Lee Osborne, Council Member
Tom Kirk, Council Member
Terry Henderson, Council Member
CITY MANAGER
Thomas P. Genovese
CITY STAFF
Building and Safety Department
Thomas Hartung, Building and Safety Director
City Attorney's Office
M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney
City Manager's Office
Bret Plumlee, Assistant City Manager/Management Services
Doug Evans, Assistant City Manager/Development Services
Planning Department
Les Johnson, Planning Director
Community Services Department
Edie Hylton, Community Service Director
Finance Department
John Falconer, Finance Director
Public Works Department
Tim Jonasson, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer
OTHER ASSISTANCE
NAI Consulting
Nick Nickerson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
A.
Organization of the Report
1
B.
Facilities Addressed in this Report
1
C.
Development Projections
1
D.
Impact Fee Analysis
2
E.
Recovery of Study Cost
3
F.
Summary of Impact Fees
4
G.
Projected Revenue
4
H.
Implementation
5
Section 1- Introduction
A.
Legal background
1-1
B.
Purpose of the Fees
1-3
C.
Use of the Fees
1-3
D.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement
1-3
E.
Impact Fee Methodology
1-4
F.
Facilities to be Addressed
1-6
G.
Relationship to the General Plan
1-6
Section 2- Land Use, Demographics and Development Potential
A.
Background and Setting
2-1
B.
Study Area and Time Frame
2-1
C.
Residential Development and Population
2-1
D.
Non -Residential Development
2-3
E.
Measure of Demand
2-3
F.
Existing and Forecasted Development
2-4
Section 3- Transportation Impact Fees
A.
Service Area and Time Frame
3-1
B.
Level of Service
3-1
C.
Demand Variable
3-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
3-2
E.
Impact Fees
3-5
Section 4- Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
A.
Service Area and Time Frame
4-1
B.
Level of Service
4-1
C.
Demand Variable
4-2
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
4-3
E.
Impact Fees
4-3
T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 5- Civic Center Impact Fees
A.
Service Area and Time Frame
5-1
B.
Level of Service
5-1
C.
Demand Variable
5-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
5-2
E.
Impact Fees
5-4
Section 6- Library Impact Fees
A
Service Area and Time Frame
6-1
B.
Level of Service
6-1
C.
Demand Variables
6-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
6-2
E.
Impact Fees
6-2
Section 7 — Community Center Impact Fees
A
Service Area and Time Frame
7-1
B.
Level of Service
7-1
C.
Demand Variable
7"1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
7-1
E.
Impact Fees
7-2
Section 8 —
Maintenance Facility Impact Fees
A
Service Area and Time Frame
8-1
B.
Level of Service
8-1
C.
Demand Variables
8-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
8-1
E.
Impact Fees
8"3
Section 9 —
Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees
A
Service Area and Time Frame
9-1
B.
Level of Service
9-1
C.
Demand Variable
9-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
9-2
E.
Impact Fees
9-3
Section 10 — Implementation
A. Adoption 10-1
B. Administration 10-1
C. Training and Public Information 10-6
Appendix t- 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
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the fourth update of the May 1999 Development Impact Fee report completed for
the City by DMG-Maximus, Inc. It is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee
Act (Government Code sections 66000 et seq.) which is commonly known as "AB1600" and to
support findings necessary to satisfy both statutory and constitutional standards for the
establishment and impositions of development impact fees.
A. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It sets forth legal requirements for
establishing and imposing such fees as well as methods used in this study to calculate the fees.
Section 2 contains information on existing and planned uses and development in La Quinta, and
organizes that data in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Section 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)
Libraries (Section 6)
Community Centers (Section 7)
Maintenance Facilities (Section 8)
Fire (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 July 2007 to build -out of the City under the current General
Plan. 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 current La Quinta General Plan. Other data on
development and demographics were taken from the 2000 Census, Department of Finance
Population estimates, and the Residential and Commercial Development Status Reports prepared
periodically by the Planning Department.
September 16, 2008 Page 1
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
As shown in Section 2 of this report, La Quinta's population and development acreage at build-
out are expected to grow by approximately 50% from their current levels. The number of vehicle
trips generated in the City is also projected to increase by approximately 50%. The extent of that
growth potential has important implications for the future City facility needs.
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 4. The impact fees calculated in this report cover only capital costs. They do
not include any ongoing costs for maintenance or operations. The following paragraphs briefly
discuss factors considered in the analysis of each type of facility.
Transportation Improvements. The recommended impact fees for street system improvements
are based on the cost of improvements to major, primary, and secondary arterial streets, bridges
and interchanges, traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls required to serve future
development in La Quinta. Those fees assume that developers will continue to be directly
responsible for internal streets, and for certain arterial street improvements in cases where a
project fronts on an arterial. Specific improvements to be funded by the impact fee are listed in
the report. The relationship between development and the need for additional street capacity is
defined in the study as a function of additional peak hour trip -miles generated by development
(See Section 2 for a discussion on peak hour trip -miles).
Park and Recreation Improvements. The recommended impact fee for park and recreation
improvements is based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of
service, defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The impact fee analysis addresses
neighborhood and community parks only. The proposed impact fees do not include the cost of
land acquisition, and are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee -in -lieu
requirements under the Quimby Act. Since the need for park acreage is defined in terms of
population, the impact fee for park improvements will apply only to residential development.
Civic Center. The impact fee analysis for the Civic Center assumes that the existing facility as
recently expanded will be adequate to serve existing and future development in La Quinta. Impact
fees were calculated by allocating total costs for the Civic Center facility on the same basis to all
existing and future development. That method allows Civic Center costs to be shared
proportionately by all users. The relationship between development and the need for additional
space in the Civic Center is complex and indirect. For reasons explained in the body of the report,
this study uses developed acreage to represent the demand for Civic Center facilities.
September 16, 2008 Page 2
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
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 1.2 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 will have to contribute 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 facility identified in the study is the multi-purpose room at the Senior
Center. Because community center facility needs are defined in terms of population, impact fees
for those facilities would apply only to residential development.
Maintenance Facilities. Impact fees to fund capital cost for development -related street and park
maintenance facilities and equipment are based on the City's current level of investment relative
to existing development. Costs for street and park maintenance facilities are allocated separately,
in a manner that reflects differences in their relationship to development. Costs for street
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 acreage capable of for 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 -I
is based on the fees calculated in Sections 3-9, 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.
September 16, 2008 Page 3
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
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.
Land Use Type
Develop-
ment Units
Transportation
Parks/
Parks/
Civic
Center
Fire
Protection
Libraries
Community
Centers
Street
Maim
Fac.
Pads
Mac
Fac..
Total
Res (SFD)
D
$3,592
$1,773
$1,089
$612
$334
$104
$158
$51
$7,713
Res (SFA)
DU
$3,592
$1,773
$182
$102
$334
$104
$158
$51
$6,296
Res (MFO)
DU
$2,098
$1,773
$280
$157
$334
$104
$92
$51
$4,889
Office/Hosp.
KSF
$6,931
$135
$76
$309
$7,451
General Com
I KSF
$5.648
$639
$360
1
$252
$6,899
Tourist Com
Room
$1,826
$189
$107
$81
$2,204
Golf Courses
Acre
$668
$158
$89
$30
$945
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
Praiected Imnact Fee Revenue
Facility a
Projected Revenue 6
Transportation
$55,901,770
Pis
$19,001,102
Civic Center
$10,912,682
Fire Station
$6,136,641
:Libraries
$3,579,595
Communi Centers
$1,110,102
Street and Park Maintenance
$3,552,565
TOTAL
$100,194,457
1 Residential- Single Family Detached
2 Dwelling Unit
3 Residential- Single Family Attached
4 Residential —Multi family and other
5 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Building Area
6 Project Revenue in current dollars
September 16, 2008 Page 4
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
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. In that event, it is
important that the City identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and
the share of total cost to be recovered through fees.
September 16, 2008 Page 5
City of La Ouinta - Development Impad Fee SYudy
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
In 1996, the City of La Quinta retained DMG-MAXIMUS, INC (formerly David M. Griffith &
Associates, Ltd.) to analyze the fiscal impacts of anticipated development on certain public
facilities, and to prepare a schedule of development impact fees based on that analysis. DMG-
MAXIMUS, INC. completed a study that was approved by the City Council in May 1999. This
document is the fourth 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.
September 16, 2008 1-1
ON of La Ouinta - Development Ijwact Fee Shu*
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
project.
Those requirements are discussed in detail below.
September 16, 2008 1-2
Clip of La Oubda - Development Impad 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. In our opinion, "reasonable relationship" as defined by
these requirements is identical to "nexus" as a practical manner. We will use the nexus
terminology in this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methods used to
calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy either formulation. Individual elements
of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
September 16, 2008 1-3
City of La Quinta - Development Invad 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 earmarldng 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.
September 16, 2008 1-4
City of La Qubda -Development Inwad Fee Rudy
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. This type of fee is established as a rate, or
cost per unit of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development, provided that
adequate capacity remains 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.
September 16, 2008 .1-5
Cay of La Quhda - 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 Quints.
2002 General Plan, 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 July 2007 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.
September 16, 2008 1-6
City of La Quinta — Developmentlmpact Fee Stud&
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 2002 La Quinta General Plan, the 2000 U.S. Census,
California Department of Finance population estimates, and the Residential and Commercial
Development Status Reports prepared periodically by the Community Development Department.
Data on existing land use, and demographics and development used in this report have been
updated through July 2007.
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 Quinta 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 contains one or more golf courses.
Although a relatively small portion of the land in La Quinta is designated for commercial 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 2002 La Quinta General Plan. 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
City's Residential Status Report, single family detached units accounted for about 77% of all
residential units as of July 2007, with single family attached units making up about 16%. Thus
together, the two categories make up approximately 93% of La Quinta's Existing residential
units. Forecasts of future residential development indicate the percentage of Single-family
detached units at build out will increase to 79%, with single-family attached and multi-
family/other unit accounting for 14% and 7% respectively.
September 16, 2008 2-1
City ofLa Quinta — 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
2000 Census 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 population the forecasts.
La Quinta's January 2007 population, as estimated by the State Department of Finance, was
41,125. 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 2000 Census showed that 28.5% of all residential
units in La Quinta were vacant, including 15% which were for "seasonal, occasional, or
recreational" use. The Planning Department estimates that the City's total population may exceed
the permanent population by as much as 50% during peak periods.
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.
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Permanent Population
_ ■
irn�i
�0)- r0N0N 00N0oo) 0 0
O O O O O O O O NN N
0
■ Permanent Population
Figure 2-A
Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is not especially
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.
September 16, 2008 2-2
City ofLa puinta — 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 2000 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 July
2007, 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 Commercial Development Status Report.
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 later in this section present 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
September 16, 2008 2-3
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual Trip Generation (The 6`h
edition was used as the primary source, supplemented by data from the 4 1 edition).
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, Traffic Generators.
Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta, we
believe 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 lengths 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 beginning on the following page. Charts on this page illustrate
graphically the relationship of existing development (from Table 2-1) to future development
(from Table 2-2).
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.
Residential
K -11h111
c 20000
15000
5000-
0 1
00001
SFD SFA MFO
■ Residential Added
■ Residential Existing
Figure 2-B
September 16, 2008 2-4
Qbt 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.
3500
3000
0
0 2500
X
2000
� 1500
1000
rr
y 500
0
Non- Residential
Office Commercial
3000
2500
2000 -
1500
1000
500 -
0
Tourist Commercial
Rooms
■ Non Residential Added
■ Non Residential
Existing
Figure 2-C
■ Tourist Commercial
Added
■ Tourist Commercial
Ebsting
Figure 2-D
September 16, 2008 2-5
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 2-1
Existhip, Develoumem - As of July 2007
Land use Category Use
Developed
Acres
Dev
12
Units
No. of
Units
Potential
Population
3
Peak
Hour
Trips
Peak
Hour Trip
Miles s
Residential (SF Detached)
4,645
DU
16,827
47,116
16,995
132,933
Residential (SF Attached)
797
DU
3,557
9,960
3,593
28,100
Residential(Multi / Other)
175
DU
1,477
4,136
871
6,883
Office ( Includin)
39
KSF
616
1,127
9,585
General Commercial
226
KSF
2,781
8,816
35,263
Tourist Commercial
95
Rooms
1,187
641
4,867
Public Facilities
75
KSF
302
2,398
14,387
Schools
115
Acres
115
150
598
Developed Parks
77
Acres
75
251
:11357
Golf Courses
4,108
Acres
41108
1,232
6,162
TOTALS
10,350
61,212
36,074
240,135
* 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 mobile home/other. Private non-residential development is
broken down into several categories: offices, 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.
1 DU = Dwelling Units, KSF =1,000 Square Foot Gross Area
2 Estimates for existing Development were 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 = 2.8; multi/Other = 2.8.
4 Peak hour trip rates: SFD = 1.0l/DU; Multi/Other = 0.59/DU; Office=1.83/KSF; Gen Commercial = 3.17/KF=SF;
Tourist Commercial -0.54/Room; Public Facilities = 7.94/KSF; Schools= 1.3 Acre; Parks= 3.35/Acre; Golf-
0.30/Acre.
S Peak hour trip miles = peak hour trips x average trip miles (from DANDAG Traffic Generators). Average trip length and
peak hour trip miles; Residential SFD/SFA = 7.9 mi (7.98); Residential MFO = 7.9 (4.66); Office = 8.5 mi (15.56);
General Commercial = 4.0 mi (12.68); Tourist Commercial = 7.6 mi (4.10); Public Facilities = 6.0 mi (47.64); Schools
= 4.0 Mi (5.20); Parks = 5.4 mi (18.09); Golf Courses = 5.0 mi (1.50)
September 16, 2008 2-6
City o f La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study
Table 2-2
Foreemted New Develonment- As of July 2007 to Build Out
-
Land use Cate oryUse
Developed
Acres
Dev
Units
No. of
units
Potential
Population
Peak
Hour
Tri
Peak Hour
Trip miles
Residential (SF Detached)
3,093
DU
8,982
25,149
9,072
70,958
Residential (SF Attached)
55
DU
955
2,674
965
7,545
Residential (Multi / Other)
69
DU
780
2,184
460
3,635
Office ( Including)
37
KSF
865
1,583
13,459
General Commercial
72
KSF
356
1,129
4,514
Tourist Commercial
83
Rooms
1,385
748
5,679
Public Facilities
0
KSF
0
0
0
Schools
0
Acres
0
0
0
Developed Parks
48
Acres
50
168
905
Golf Courses
855
Acres
855
257
1,283
TOTALS
1 4,314
1
30,007
14,380
107,976
* NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes.
Table 2-3
Ultimate Development at Build Out
Land use Category Use
Developed
Acres
Dev
Units
No. of
units
Potential
P elation
Peak m
Hour
Tri
Peak Hour
Trip miles
Residential (SF Detached)
7,738
DU
25,809
72,265
26,067
203,891
Residential SF Attached)
852
DU
4,512
12,634
4,557
35,645
Residential (Multi / Other)
244
DU
2,257
6,320
1,332
10,518
Office ( Includin
76
KSF
1,481
2,710
23,044
General Commercial
298
KSF
3,137
9,944
39,777
Tourist Commercial
178
Rooms
2,572
1,389
10,545
Public Facilities
75
KSF
302
2,398
14,387
Schools
115
Acres
115
150
598
Developed Parks
125
Acres
125
419
2.261
Golf Courses
4,963
Acres
4,963
1,489
7,445
TOTALS
14,664
91,219
50,454
1 348,111
* 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 general Plan. 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.
September 16, 2008 2-7
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 3
TRANSPORTATIONIWACT 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.
Policy 1-1.1 of the 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 variable 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.
September 16, 2008 3-1
Ci oto fLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Stun &
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, and sound attenuation walls. 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 and traffic signals 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 or Riverside County.
Tables 3-1 through 3-5 identify the street system capital improvements attributable to future
development. Total costs for development -related street -system improvements are shown in
Table 3-6. A detailed breakdown of cost estimates are included in Appendix A.
Table 3-1
Estimated Street Systems Improvement Costs- Major Arterials
Facility
Construction Cost 1
Right-of-way Cost
Total Cost
Fred Waring Drive
$4,644,946
$0
$4,644,946
.Highway 111
$1,851,983
$0
$1,851,983
TOTAL
$6,496,929
$0
$6,496,929
See Appendix 1 for detailed cost estimates
September 16, 2008 3-2
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-2
Estimated Street Systems Improvement Costs- Primary/Secondary Arterials
Facility
Construction Cost
RighC way
Total Cost
Miles Avenue
$922,062
$0
$922,062
Avenue 50
$2,256,710
$0
$2,256,710
Avenue 52
$4,846,261
$0
$4,846,261
Avenue 54
$1,048,021
$0
$1,048,021
Airport Blvd (Ave 56)
$590,977
$0
$590,977
Avenue 58
$5,569,743
$0
$5,569,743
Avenue 62
$5,952,644
$0
$5,952,644
Monroe Street
$2,320,304
$0
$2,320,304
Dune Palms Road
$976,427
$0
$976,427
Madison Street
$6,955,148
$0
$6,955,148
TOTAL
$31,438,297
$0
$31,438,297
For entirely new bridges, 64.17% of the City's cost is attributed to existing development and
35.83% is attributed to future development. That split is based on the shares of a total build out
trip generation contributed by existing future development. For bridge widening projects, the
entire cost is attributed to future development because all bridge widening covered by this
analysis is required only to serve future development.
Table 3-3
Street System Improvements- Bridge Improvements
Table 3-4 shows the cost of traffic signals needed to serve future development. As noted in the
table, costs for some of those signals will be shared with other jurisdictions.
35.83% of City costs for new bridges attributed to new development based on shares of total build out traffic volume (See
Table 2-2 and 2-3)
New Bridge
September 16, 2008 3-3
New
New
Facility
Estimated City Cost
Development
Development
Share 2
Cost
Avenue 50 at Evacuation Channel 3
$3,760,000.00
35.83%
$1,347,208
Dune Palms at Whitewater River
$12,208,000.00
35.83%
$4,374,126
Adams Street at Whitewater River
$12,208,000.00
20%
$2,441,600
Avenue 52 at All American Canal(Widening)
$2,400,000.00
100%
$2,400,000
Avenue 50 at All American Canal
(Widening)
$2,400,000.00
50%
$1,200,000
TOTAL
$32,976,000.00
$11,762,934
Table 3-4 shows the cost of traffic signals needed to serve future development. As noted in the
table, costs for some of those signals will be shared with other jurisdictions.
35.83% of City costs for new bridges attributed to new development based on shares of total build out traffic volume (See
Table 2-2 and 2-3)
New Bridge
September 16, 2008 3-3
Cito
LLa Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study
With the exception of the citywide central control system, all of the signals on the list will be
needed entirely as a result of future development. As indicated in the Table 34, 35.83% of the
cost of the citywide central control system is attributed to future development, based on shared of
a total build out trip generation contributed by existing and future development.
Table 34
Street System Improvement - Traffic Signals
Location
City Costs
New
Development
Share
New Development
Cost
Adams Street & Corporate Center Drive
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Dune Palms Road & Corporate Center Drive
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Washington Street & Via Sevilla
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Washington Street & Lake La Quinta Drive
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Caleo Bay & Avenue 47
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Dune Palms Road & Retail Center
$430,000
50%
$215,000
'Desert Club & Avenue 52
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Eisenhower Drive & Montezuma
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Eisenhower Drive & Sinaloa
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Calle Tampico & Civic Center Way
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Madison Street & Avenue 50
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Madison Street & Avenue 52
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Madison Street & Avenue 54
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Madison Street & Avenue 58
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Madison Street & Avenue 60
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 52
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Monroe Street & Avenue 54
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Monroe Street & Airport Boulevard
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 58
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 60
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 61
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Monroe Street & Avenue 62
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Orchard & Avenue 50
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Fred Waring Drive & Palm Royale
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Jefferson Street & Dunbar
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Jefferson Street & Avenue 53
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Jefferson Street & Avenue 54
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Citywide Central Control
$1,100,000
35.83%
$394,130
TOTAL
$8,564,130
September 16, 2008 3-4
Qly ofLa Quinta — 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 Svstem Improvement - Sound Attenuation Walls
Location
Costs of Walls at Developed
Property
West Washington Street at Laguna de la Paz
$1,262,470
West Washington Street at Villas at La Quinta
$991,058
'North Avenue 50 at Lago La Quinta
$955,835
East Madison at Trilogy
$192,115
TOTALS
$3,401,478
Table 3-6 shows the total cost of development -related capital improvement from Table 3-1
through 3-5. The overall total in that table will be used as the basis for the impact fee calculation.
Table 3-6
Street System li nprovements for Future Development - Summary by Type
Improvement Type
Development Related Costs
Major Arterials
$6,496,929
Primary/Secondary Arterials
$31,438,297
Bridges
$11,762,934
Traffic Signals
$8,564,130
Sound Attenuation
$3,401,478
TOTAL
$61,663,768
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 3-7 shows the calculation of a unit cost per peak hour trip -mile. To establish that unit cost,
the total cost of development related improvements from Table 3-6 is divided by the projected
volume of peak hour trip -miles to be added by new development, from Table 2-2, Section 2.
Table 3-7
Street Svstem Imiwovements - Costs per Peak Hour Trill -Mile
Total EHgib)Improvement
Added Peak Hour Trip -Mlles 6
Cost/Peak Hour Trip -Miles'
$61,663,768
107,976
$445.45
4 Cost of walls adjacent to developed property are included in the impact fee calculation.
5 See Table 3-6
6 See Table 2-2
7 Improvement 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%.
September 16, 2008 3-5
City oLka Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-8 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 3-7.
Table 3-8
Standardized Impact Fees- Street Improvements
Land Use Category
Units of
Development
Peak flour trip -Miles/ Unit
of Development '
Cost/ Peak Hour
Trip- We 9
Fee/Unit of
Development to
Residential SFD
DU
7.98
$445.45
$3,555
Residential SFA
DU
7.98
$445.45
$3,555
Residential WO
DU
4.66
$445.45
$2,076
Office/ Hospital
KSF
15.56
$445.45
$6,931
General Commercial
KSF
12.68
$445.45
$5,648
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
4.10
$445.45
$1,826
Public Facilities
ACRE
47.64
$445.45
$21,221
Schools
ACRE
5.20
$445.45
$2,316
Parks
ACRE
18.09
$445.45
$8,058
Golf Courses
ACRE
1 1.50
$445.45
$668
The standardized fees shown in Table 3-8 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. Multiplying the fee per
unit of development from Table 3-8 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 3-8 for each of the receiving categories. Table 3-9
summarizes the adjustments to allocated cost per trip mile.
See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4
9 See Table 3-7
10 Fee per unit of development =peak hour trip -miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees rounded to the nearest dollar
September 16, 2008 3-6
QtVoL4 a Quinta —Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-9
Adincted Cnst Allocation
Land Use Category
Units of
Development
Initial
Cost/Peak
How
Public Facility
CostIrrip-Mile 112
SchoolsAdjust
CoWrri
e13p
]'arks Costfrrip
Mile 14
Cost/Trlp
Miles 15
Residential SFD
DU
$445.45
$4.71
$450.16
Residential SFA
DU
$445.45
$4.71
$450.16
Residential WO
DU
$445.45
$4.71
$450.16
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$445.45
$445.45
General Commercial
KSF
$445.45
$445.45
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
$445.45
$445.45
Public Facilities
ACRE
Reallocated
$0.00
Schools
ACRE
I Reallocated
$0.00
Parks
ACRE
Reallocated
$0.00
Golf Courses
ACRE
$445.45
$445.45
Finally, the adjusted cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-9 can be substituted for the initial
cost per peak hour trip -mile in Table 3-8 to arrive at the final adjusted impact fee per unit of
development. The adjusted fees are shown in Table 3-10 on the following page. The difference
between the initial fees, and the adjusted fees can be seen by comparing the impact fees, in Tables
3-8 and 3-10.
11 See Table 3-7
12 Reallocated Public Facilities cost = 0 KSF of firture public Facilities x 47.64 Peak Hour Trip Miles per KSF x Initial
Allocation of $445.45 per Peak Hour Trip Miles/107,073 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving development =
an increase of $0.00 per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development
l Reallocated Schools cost = 0 Acres of Future Schools x 5.2 Peak Hour Trip Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $445.45
per Peak Hour Trip Mile /82,138 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development
= an increase of $0.00 Per Peak Hour Trip We for receiving development
l Reallocated Parks cost= 48 Acres of Future Parks x 18.09 Peak Hour Trip Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $445.45
per Peak Hour Trip Miles/82,138 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development = an
increase of $4.71 per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development
i 5 Adjust cost per Peak Hour Trip Mile = the sum of initial cost per Peak How Trip Mile plus the reallocated public facility,
school and park costs for each land use category
September 16, 2008 3-7
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-10
Adjusted Standardized Impact Fees- Street Improvements
Land Use Category
Units of Dev.
Peak Hour Trip
Nmettinit of
Dev.16
Adjusted
Cost/Park Hour
Trip Mile"
Adjusted
Feetua t of
Dev is
Residential SFD
DU
7.98
$450.16
$3,592
Residential SFA
DU
7.98
$450.16
$3,592
Residential MFO
DU
4.66
$450.16
$2,098
Office/ Hospital
KSF
15.56
$445.45
$6,931
General Commercial
KSF
12.68
$445.45
$5.648
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
4.1
$445.45
$1.826
Public Facilities
ACRE
47.64
$0.00
$0
Schools
ACRE
5.2
$0.00
$0
Parks
ACRE
18.09
$0.00
$0
Golf Courses
ACRE
1.5
$445.45
$668
Table 3-11 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 3-11
Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land Use Category
Units of Dev.
Adjusted FeefUnit of
i9
Future Units
of Dev. zA
z�
Impact Fee Revenue
Residential SFD
DU
$31592
9,072
$32,588,283
Residential SFA
DU
$3,592
965
$3,464,909
Residential WO
DU
$2,098
460
$965,376
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$6,931
1,583
$10,971,699
General Commercial
KSF
$5,648
1,129
$6,374,199
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
$1,826
748
$1,365,918
Public Facilities
ACRE
$0
0
$0
Schools
ACRE
$0
0
$0
Parks
ACRE
$0
168
$0
Golf Courses
ACRE
$668
257
$171,386
$55,901,770
16 See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4
17 See Table 3-9
is Fee per unit of development equals the peak hour trip miles per unit of development times the cost per peak hour trip mile.
Fees 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 3-10
20 See Table 2-2 — Peak Hour Trips
21 Impact Fee Revenue = adjusted fee per unit of development x future units of development
September 16, 2008 3-8
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 4
PARKS & RECREATIONIMPACT FEES
This section of the report addressed 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
Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District (CVRPD). 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.
September 16, 2008 4-1
Ci o
LLq Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 4-1
F,xistin Parks
Park Name
Type Facility
Size Acres
Adams Park
Neighborhood Park
3.5
Center Point Park
Neighborhood Park
2.75
Civic Center Campus
Communi Park
9.5
Desert Pride Park
Neighborhood Park
.1
Eisenhower Park
Mini Park
0.5
Fritz Bums Park
Community Park
7.7
La Quinta Park
Community Park
18
Monticello Park
Neighborhood Park
4
Saguaro Park
Mini Park
0.75
Avenue 50 Sports Complex
Community Park
18.16
Francis Hack Park
Community Park
6
Seasons Park
Neighborhood Park
5
Velasco Park
Mini Park
0.25
TOTAL
77.11
The existing level of service for parks in La Quints will be defined in terms of acres of existing
developed park land per 1,000 population. Table 4-2 computes the existing level of service.
Policy 5-1.1.2 in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan established a standard of
3.0 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 - lmuroved Park Acreap-e
Park Acreage
July 2007 Population 2
Acres/1,000 Po ulation
77.11
61,212
1.26
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 41
Population figures used in this study are based on 100% occupancy of all existing dwelling units
September 16, 2008 4-2
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
Improvement Cost/Acre'
Acres/1,000
4 Cost/ Capita
Future Por.
Total Cost to Build
Out
Population
Increase
$500,000
1.26 $629.86
30,007
$18,900,214
Cost Estimate by City of La Quinta Community Services Department.
See Table 4-2
See Table 2-2
September 16, 2008 4-3
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 44 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
Land Use a
Type
of
Development
Demand/Unit of
Development 6
Cost/Unit of
Demand 7
Fee/Unit of
Development s
Residential SFD
DU
2.80
$629.86
$1,773
Residential SFA
DU
2.80
$629.86
$1,773
Residential MFO
DU
2.80
$629.86
$1,773
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
Land Use Category
Units of
Development
Fee/Unit of
Development 9
Future Units of
Development 10
Impact fee
Revenue
Residential SFD
DU
$1,773
8,982
$15,924,822
Residential SFA
DU
$1,773
955
$1,693,241
Residential WO
DU
$1,773
780
$1,383,039
TOTAL
$19,001,102
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
September 16, 2008 4-4
ON Of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
SEC77ON 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 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, 2007 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.
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 at least correlate
with, the need for additional capital improvements.
For facilities such as water and sewer systems, service usage can be physically measured and
attributed to specific types of development. However, the relationship between development and
the need for Civic Center facilities is complex and, in some cases, indirect.
It is self-evident that the need for administrative facilities in any city generally increases as the
city grows. Nevertheless, the relationship between specific types of development and the need for
administrative facilities is difficult to quantify. In La Quinta, the Civic Center houses staff from
all City departments. Given the multiplicity of services supported by the Civic Center, and the
indirect relationship between development and the demand for some of those services, no single
attribute of development neatly represents the effect of development on space needs in that
facility. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to use generalized measure of development to
approximate service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees.
September 16, 2008 5-1
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 5-1
Developed Acreage ( Excluding Public Facilities)
Land use Category Use
Developed Acreage
(EX1st1IIg) 1
Developed Acreage
(Future) 2
Developed Acreage
(Build out) 3
Residential SF Detached
4;645
3,093
7,738
Residential SF Attached
797
55
852
Residential(Multi / Other)
175
69
244
Office Including Hospitals)
39
37
76
General Commercial
226
72
298
Tourist Commercial
95
83
178
Golf Courses (59/. of total acres e
205
43
248
TOTALS
6,182
3,452
9,634
% of Total
64.17%
35.83%
100.000/.
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 35.83% of
total developed acreage at build out. Consequently, 35.83% 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
September 16, 2008 5-2
City of LaQuinta — 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 301/o) and by future general fund contributions
(401/o) 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
Cost Components
Total Cost
Future Fund Needs
Civic Center (Revenue Bonds) 4
$11,382,746
$3,646,495
Civic Center (Infrastructure Fund cash outlays)
$4,856,788
Civic Center ( general Fund cash outlays)
$1,407,182
Future Civic Center ExpanSion 5
$12,651,000
$12,651,000
Sub -Total
$30,297,716
$16,297,49
Less Developer Fees Collected
($4,458,923)
Future Development Shares
6 $10,855,150
$11,838,572
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 35.83% share of total eligible cost. See Table 5-1
September 16, 2008 5-3
City of La Quinta — 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
V; -;i Van*ar f net Allnratinn
Future Development Cost Share 7
Added Development Acres B
Cost Per Developed Acre
$10,855,150
3,452
$3,145
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
C4.inrlawrlivarl lmnarf W"e - rivir irPT*Pr
Land Use Category
Future Dev.
Acres 9
Cost/Dev.
Acre10
Cost for
Category 11
Future
Units of
Dev. 12
Unit of
Dev.
Fee/Unit
of Dev"
Residential SFD
3,093
$3,145
$9,726,944
8,982
DU
$1,089
Residential SFA
55
$3,145
$172,965
955
DU
$182
Residential MFO
69
$3,145
$216,993
780
DU
$280
Office/Hospital
37
$3,145
$116,359
865
KSF
$135
General Commercial
72
$3,145
$226,427
356
KSF
$639
Tourist Commercial
1 83
$3,145
$261,020
1,385
Room
$189
Golf Courses
1 43
$3,145
$134,441
855
Acre
$158
7 See Table 5-2
8 See Table 5-1
9 See Table 2-2. For Golf Courses, developed acreage is assumed to = 5% oftotal 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)
September 16, 2008 5-4
City of La Quints — 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
Proiected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land Use Category
Units of
Development
Fee/Unit of
i4
Development
Future Units of
Development 15
Impact Fee
Revenue 16
Residential SFD
DU
$1,089
8,982
$9,778,497
Residential SFA
DU
$182
955
$173,882
Residential WO
DU
$280
780
$218,143
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$135
865
$116,975
General Commercial
KSF
$639
356
$227,627
Tourist Commercial
Room
$189
1,385
$262,404
.Public Facilities
Acre
$0
0
$0
Schools
Acre
$0
0
$0
Parks
Acre
$0
0
$0
Golf Courses
Acre
$158
855
$135,154
$10,912,682
14 See Table 5-4
15 See Table 2-2
16 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development
September 16, 2008 5-5
Cib� ofLa Quinta — Developmentlmpact 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 2007 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 1.2 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.
September 16, 2008 6-1
City of La Quinta — 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.
Table 6-1
Lib ary Costs
Component
Quantity
Total Cost
Build Out
Population
Cost Per Capita
Design/Construction
20000 GSF
$8,500,000
91,219
$93.18
Land
2.0 Acres
$261,3602
91,219
$2.87
Materials
103,128 Volumes
$2,062,5603
91,219
$22.61
Total
$10,823,920
$118.66
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.
The total cost to bring the current level of service up to the proposed standard would be
approximately $6,058,699 based on a per capita costs in Table 6-1 and the existing population
shown in Table 2-1. Against that cost, the City can claim credit for the aforementioned library
materials with a value of $550,000. The remaining $5,508,699 in current dollars would have to be
paid from non -impact fee sources. The impact fees calculated in this section assume that the City
will contribute, from City non -development -related fund sources, the additional capital necessary
to raise the current level ofservice to the proposed service standard.
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.
The total cost presented has been adjusted to reflect the actual cost of design and the awarded construction contract
Based on a cost of $3.00 per square foot
Based on average cost of $20.00 per volume
September 16, 2008 6-2
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 6-2
Standardized lntnact Fees - Libraries
Land Use Type
Units of
Development
Population/ Unit Cost
of Development
Per Capita s
Fee/ Unit of
Developmente
Residential SFD
DU
2.80
$118.66
$334
Residential SFA
DU
2.80
$118.66
$334
Residential WO
DU
2.80
$118.66
$334
Table 6-3 projects total revenue from the library impact fees. That is the amount, in current
dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for library improvements through
build out, at the recommended fee levels.
Table 6-3
Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land/Use Category
Units of Dev
Fee/Unit of
Dev.
Future Units of
Dev. 8
Impact Fee
Revenue
Residential SFD
DU
$334
8,982
$3,000,058
Residential SFA
DU
$334
955
$318,988
Residential MFO
DU
$334
780
$260,549
Office/Hospital
KSF
$0
0
$0
General Commercial
KSF
$0
0
$0
Tourist Commercial
Room
$0
0
$0
Public Facilities
Acre
$0
0
$0
Schools
Acre
$0
0
$0
Parks
Acre
$0
0
$0
Golf Courses
Acre
$0
0
$0
$3,579,595
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)
7 See Table 6-2
8 See Table 2-2
9 Impact Fee Revenue = impact fee per unit of development x fixture units of development
September 16, 2008 6-3
City ofLa 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 one existing community center facility, the
multipurpose room at the La Quinta Senior Center.
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 the July 2007 through
build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City has adopted a level of service standard for the community center facilities. In this
analysis, the current ratio of community center building area to population will be used as the
level of service standard. In other words, the level of service used in computing impact fees for
future development will be identical to the current level of service for existing development. The
existing ratio of facilities to population is shown in Table 7-1.
Area
5300
C. DEMAND VARIABLE
Table 7-1
Level of Service - Conn
61,212
Center Facilities
re Feet Per
0.09
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 Impact Fees - Conin
Cost Per Square Foot Square Feet Per C;
$425.00 0.09
I Based on multi-purpose room of La Quinta Senior Center
2 See Table 2-1
3 Cost provided by Department of Building and Safety
4 See Table 7-1
Center Facilities
Cost Per
$36.80
September 16, 2008 7-1
City of La Quinta — 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
C4ondordivad fmnaof i ppe - (nmmunity renter Facilities
Table 74 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
Frnip"4-d imnnet FPP Revenue from- Future Development
Land Use Category
Unita of
Development
Fee/Unit of
g
Development
Future Units of
Development
Impact Fee
Revenuelo
Residential SFD
Units of
Population/ Unit
Cost Per
Feet Unit of
Land Use
Development
of Dev. s
Capita 6
Development 7
Residential SFD
Dwelling Unit
2.80
$36.80
$104
Residential SFA
Dwelling Unit
2.80
$36.80
$104
Residential MFO
Dwellin Unit
2.80
$36.80
$104
Table 74 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
Frnip"4-d imnnet FPP Revenue from- Future Development
Land Use Category
Unita of
Development
Fee/Unit of
g
Development
Future Units of
Development
Impact Fee
Revenuelo
Residential SFD
DU
$104
8.982
$930,376
Residential SFA
DU
$104
955
$98,924
Residential WO
DU
$104
780
$80,801
$1,110,102
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
10 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of Development x fixture units of development
September 16, 2008 7-2
City ofLa Quinta — Development lmpactFee 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 Quinta will be
considered a single benefit area in assessing impact fees for those facilities. The time frame for
this analysis is from July 2007 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 specific existing and proposed facilities and will be discussed in more detail later in this
section.
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, that is, the relationship between existing development and the City's
investment in current facilities are calculated in Table 8-1.
September 16, 2008 8-1
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 8-1
Estimated Value of City Corporation Yard (Existing Facility)
Cost Component
(Square Feet)
Unit Cost'
Total
Site
65,340
$3.00
$196,020
Paving
21.800
$2.50
$54.500
Outdoor Storage
10.000
$10.00
$100,000
Office
1,200
$240.00
$288,000
Garage
800
$185.00
$148,000
Long Term Storage
1,000
$100.00
$100,000
Vehicle Wash
300
$60.00
$18,000
TOTAL $904,520
The replacement costs for existing corporation yard facilities, as estimated by the Public Works
Department, is shown in Table 8-2. All costs are given in current dollars.
Table 8-2
Estimated Cost of New Maintenance Facility to Meet Demand
Cost Component
`
Quantity
(Square
Feet)
Unit Cost
Total
Office/Crew Spaces
5,325
$300.00
$1,597,500
Decant Storage
1,800
$35.00
$63,000
Bulk Storage
1,125
$40.00
$45,000
Maintenance Shops
6,500
$300.00
$1,950,000
Sweeper Parkin
2,000
$150.00
$300,000
Covered Parking
22,900
$10.00
$229,000
Fuelin Station
2,000
$200.00
$400,000
Vehicle Wash Area
1,620
$100.00
$162,000
Departmental Storage
8,400
$200.00
$1,680,000
TOTAL $6,426,500
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 subtracted from the estimated cost of the new maintenance facility
presented in Table 8-2. The resultant cost, presented in Table 8-3, will establish the unit of
demand for future development and will be used as the basis for the impact fees.
Public Works Department Estimate
September 16, 2008 8-2
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 8-3
New Development Share Calculation
Value of Existing Facility
$904,520
Estimated Cost of New Facility
$6,426,500
Maintenance Faci!q Costs Assigned to New Development
$5,521,980
The cost per unit of demand, for each facility type is calculated in Table 84. Costs are broken
down to distinguish street maintenance facilities from park maintenance facilities. All amounts
are current in dollars.
Table 8-4
Cost Per Unit of Demand - Street and park Maintenance Facilities
E. IMPACT FEES
Tables 8-5 and 8-6 convert the cost per unit of demand from Table 8-4 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 terms of peak hour trip miles. Paries, 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 is stated in term of population
September 16, 2008 8-3
Cost of Existing
Cost per Unit of
Type of Asset
Current Demand
Facilities
Demand
Street Maintenance 2
223,7933
$4,417,584
$19.74
Park Maintenance
61,2124
$1,104,396
$18.04
Totals
$5,521,980
E. IMPACT FEES
Tables 8-5 and 8-6 convert the cost per unit of demand from Table 8-4 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 terms of peak hour trip miles. Paries, 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 is stated in term of population
September 16, 2008 8-3
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee SW4
Table 8-5
Standardized Impact Fees - Street Maintenance Facilities
Land/Use Category
Units of
Dev
Demand unit of
Developments
Cost/ Unit of
Demand 6
FceJQnit of
Development?
Residential SFD
DU
7.98
$19.74
$158
Residential SFA
DU
7.98
$19.74
$158
Residential WO
DU
4.66
$19.74
$92
Office/Hospital
KSF
15.56
$19.74
$309
General Commercial
KSF
12.68
$19.74
$252
Tourist Commercial
Room
4.10
$19.74
$81
Public Facilities
Acre
47.64
$0.00
$0
Schools
Acre
5.20
$0.00
$0
Parks
Acre
18.09
$0.00
$0
Golf Courses
Acre
1.50
$19.74
$30
Table 8-6
Standardized Impact Fees — Park Maintenance Facilities
Table 8-7 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.
5 Demand is measured by peak hour trip miles. See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4
6 See Table 8-4
7 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)
a Demand is measured by population per unit of development. See Table 2-1, Note 2
9 See Table 8-2
10 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)
September 16, 2008 8-4
Units of
Demand Unit of
Coat/ Unit of
Fee/Unit of
Land/Use Category
Dev
Development 8
Demand 9
Development 10
Residential SFD
DU
2.80
$18.04
$51
Residential SFA
DU
2.80
$18.04
$51
Residential WO
DU
2.80
$18.04
$51
Table 8-7 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.
5 Demand is measured by peak hour trip miles. See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4
6 See Table 8-4
7 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)
a Demand is measured by population per unit of development. See Table 2-1, Note 2
9 See Table 8-2
10 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)
September 16, 2008 8-4
ON of La Quinta — Development ImMact Fee Stud}
Table 8-7
Proiected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Developments
Land/Use Category
Units of
Dev
Combined Fee/Unit
of Development 11
Future Units of
Development 12
Impact Fee
Revenue 13
Residential SFD
DU
$209
11,598
$2425640
Residential SFA
DU
$209
-1,279
$267,496
ResidentialMFO
DU
$143
973
$139397
Office/Hospital
KSF
$309
1,142
$352,622
General Commercial
KSF
$252
1,086
$273,264
Tourist Commercial
Room
$81
728
$59231
Public Facilities
Schools
Acre
Acre
$0
1 $0
46
20
$0
$0
Parks
Acre
$0
51
$0
Golf Courses
Acre
$30
1,173
$34,916
$3,552,5651
Combined fee per unit of development = sums of street and park maintenance fees per unit of development from Tables 8-5
and 8-6
See Table 2-2
Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development
September 16, 2008 8-5
City ofLa 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 newest of these stations was recently constructed with
funds that were advanced, or loaned to the DIF, from other funding sources. One of the existing
stations needs to be expanded because it is too small to meet future urban fire protection needs.
A fourth City fire station is in the site selection process. The fourth station is intended to serve
areas of the City that are currently underserved, as well as, new development in the southeastern
parts of the City and the unincorporated County areas, specifically the Vista Santa Rosa
community.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide
first response emergency calls, all fire protection facilities operate as part of an integrated
citywide system. The resources of the entire system are needed to provide adequate fire
protection in any part of the City. Thus, it makes sense to treat the entire City as a single service
area for purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees. That approach is further supported by
the fact that calculating separate impact fees for individual fire station service areas may well
impose significantly different charges on similar development projects in different parts of the
City for essentially the same level of service. This analysis will allocate costs for fire protection
facilities citywide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be
the same regardless of its location in the study area.
The time frame for this analysis is from July 1, 2007 through build out of all development
contemplated in the General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service for fire protection is typically defined in terms of maximum response times.
Response times, in turn, depend largely on the maximum distance that must be traveled in
responding to an emergency call, and that distance is determined by the size of the area covered
by a particular fire station. For purposes of this analysis, level of service must be translated to
facility needs. The number of fire stations needed to serve an area with acceptable response times
is typically determined by analysis of specific conditions within the area served. The number of
fire stations needed to serve La Quinta at build -out has been determined by the City, and will be
used as the basis for the impact fee analysis.
C. DEMAND VARIABLE
In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the 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
need for facilities. As indicated in the level -of -service discussion, above, the most important
September 16, 2008 9-1
ON ofLa Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study
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
D~—Inned AcreaQe fExcludine Public Facilities)
�- --- --
Land Use Category
Developed
Acreage
(existin
Developed
Acreage '"
(Tuture
Developed Acreage
3
(build out)
Residential SFD
4,645
3,093
7,738
Residential SFA
Residential WO
Office (Includin Hospital)
797
175
39
55
69
37
852
244
76
General Commercial
226
72
298
Tourist Commercial
95
83
178
Golf Courses (5% of total acreage)
205
43
248
Total
1 6182
3,452
9,634
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, owned by Riverside County, is functionally
inadequate to serve the added development expected in La Quinta, and will need to expanded or
replaced in the future. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume the station will be expanded.
Based on running distances and projected response times, a third station serving the northern
portion of the City was recently constructed with funds that were advanced, or loaned to the Fire
Protection Facilities DIF, from other funding sources. In addition, a fourth station is currently in
the planning and site selection process and is intended to serve the southeastern portion of the
City and portions of the unincorporated County, specifically the Vista Santa Rosa community.
See Table 2-1
See Table 2-2
See Table 2-3
September 16, 2008 9-2
CityofLa Wnta — Development Impact Fee Study
Thus the expansion of the existing County -owned fire station will be required to provide adequate
coverage for the City at build out. The existing County -owned station is 5,000 square feet in size.
According to Riverside County Fire Department standards, it should be 8,500 square feet. The
cost used in calculating impact fees will include the cost of a 3,500 square foot expansion. In
addition, the cost of the City's third fire station, serving the northern portion of the City, will be
included in order to pay back the borrowed funding.
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 be 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. In this analysis, the cost of future fire
protection facilities is being allocated to future development.
Table 9-2
Future Fire Station Costs
Facility
Cost of Future
Facilities
Future Developed
Acres 4
Cost / Developed
Acre
North Area Station'
$3,786,288
Impact Fee Contribution
($1,368,000)
Southeast Area Station6
$2,198,500
Village/Cove Area Station 7
$1,487,500
$6,104,288
3,452
$1,768.46
E. IMPACT FEES
As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in the allocation of fire facility costs is
developed acreage. The resulting cost per developed acre is the basis for establishing impact fees
for fire protection facilities. Table 9-3 converts the cost per acre into a fee per unit of
development.
4 See Table 2-2. Does not include Public Facilities, Schools, Parks, and 95% of Golf Course Acreage
5 Reflects the actual cost for land, site development, design, construction, and the cost of a new engine. Costs in current
dollars
6 7,000 SF /1.5 acres — costs split 50% with County of Riverside
7 Estimated cost of addition = 3,500 sq ft x $425 per sq ft for design, construction, and site development. Costs in current
dollars
,September 16, 2008 9-3
City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study
Table 9-3
Ctandardized Tmnart Fees - Fire Protection Facilities
Land Use CategoryDevelopment
Units of
Acre/Unit of
Developments
9
Cost/Acre
Fee/Unit of
Develoment
p
Residential SFD
DU
0.34
$1,768.46
$612
Residential SFA
DU
0.06
$1,768.46
$102
Residential MFO
DU
0.09
$1,768.46
$157
Office (Inclu m Hospital)
KSF
0.04
$1,768.46
$76
General Commercial
KSF
0.20
$1,768.46
$360
Tourist Commercial
Room
0.06
$1,768.46
$107
Golf Courses 5% of total acreage)
Acre
0.05
$1,768.46
$89
Total
Table 9-4 projects total revenue from the fire impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars,
that would be collected from future development to pay for fire protection improvements. The
total revenue projected in Table 9-4 is approximately 1% more than the total cost of future fire
station's improvements, as estimated in Table 9-2. This is due to rounding the fees to the next
whole dollar.
Table 9-4
Praiected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land Use CategoryUnits
of
Development
Fee�nit v
Development
Future Units of
Development
12
e
�P Fe13
Revenue
Residential SFD
DU
$140
8,982
$5,498,843
Residential SFA
DU
$23
955
$97,781
Residential MFO
DU
$36
780
$122,671
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$17
865
$65,780
General Commercial
KSF
$82
356
$128,004
Tourist Commercial
Room
$24
1,385
$147,560
Golf Courses
Acre
$20
855
$76,002
$6,136,641
8 See Table 2-2. Average acres per unit = total acres/total units for each land use type
9 See Table 9-1
10 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)
11 See Table 9-3
12 See Table 2-2
13 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development
September 16, 2008 9-4
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 10
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 2006-068 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 that 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.
September 16, 2008 10-1
City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
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.
Imposition of Fees. Under Section 66001, when the City imposes establishes, increases, or
imposes a mitigation fee it must make findings relative to items 1-3b, below. When imposing
such a fee on a specific project, the City must also make a finding relative to item 3c.
Identify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
Determine that there is reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed and;
C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Most of those findings would normally be based on the impact fee study, and this study is
intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use of the
fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public document.
This study is intended to be used as the public document to satisfy that requirement.
In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency, at the time it
imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project. "... Shall identify the
public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated in this
report, the specific improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified. Consequently,
this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for
residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected
upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one
dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon
final inspection, of the first dwelling unit completed.
September 16, 2008 10-2
City of La Quints — Development Impact Fee Study
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.
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
commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary
investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.
Interest earned on fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same
purpose. We recommend that fees be deposited in accounts established for each type of facility
addressed in this report.
Loans to the DIF Program. In order to accelerate the construction of projects set forth in the
Development Impact Fee Program it may be necessary to loan funds from either the City's
Redevelopment Agency or 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 RDA or 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.
September 16, 2008
10-3
QV o 1.a ulnta -- Development Jjjjpact Fee Stu
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
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.
September 16, 2008 10-4
City ofLa Quinta—DevelopmentlmpactFee Study
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.
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.
September 16, 2008 10-5
City ofLa Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
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.
September 16, 2008
10-6
APPENDIX 1
DETAILED COST ESTIMATED
FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Appendix -1
MAJOR ARTERIALS
SUMMARY
June -08
Locadmi
Cost
HIGHWAY 111
Adams Street to Jefferson Street
$1,851,9$3
TOTAL HIGHWAY 111
$1,851,983
FRED WARING DRIVE
Waship,glon Street to Jefferson Street
$4,644,946
TOTAL FRED WARING DRIVEI
$4,644,946
TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS 1 $6,496,929
Appendix 1 (1 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Major Arterial
Project: Highway 111 Improvements (Adams Street to Jefferson Street)
rlaarrinfinn
The proposed improvements will widen Highway 111 to its ultimate General Plan Configuration, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street. This
segment of Highway 111 is partially complete to six lanes with raised curb median. The unimproved area represents approximately 3,890 linea
feet. Improvements include the installation of one 12' travel lane, 8' shoulder, curb and gutter, 8' sidewalk, 4 handicap ramps, intersection
improvements, traffic signal modifications and the potentially the acquisition of 15 feet of right of way. DIF eligible improvements include the
costs associated with the median curb, median island landscape and irrigation improvements.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL TOTAL
COST DIF SHARE
1
MCBELIZATION
LS
1
$70,100.04
$70,100.00 28,741.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$65,040,04
$65,000.00 26,650.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$50,000,00
$50,000.00 20,500.00
4
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
LS
1
$1,350.00
$1,350.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
4893
$15.04
$73,395.00
6
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
10571
$1.50
$15,856.50
7
REMOVE CURB
LF
2512
$2.25
$5,652.00
8
REMOVE AC PAVEMENT
SF
6059
$1.50
$9,088.50
9
5"AC
TCN
2549
$40.00
$101,960.00
10
10" CLASS 11 AB
CY
6015
$20.00
$120,300.00
11
FULL DEPTH 13" AC PAVEMENT
TON
139
$50-00
$6,950.00
12
6" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
3555
$11.50
$40,882.50
13
6" CURB
LF 1
6225
$12.00
$74,700.00 74,700,00
14
PED RAMPS
EA
4
$650.00
$2,600.00
15
CATCH BASIN
EA
4
$10,000.00
$40.000.00
16
18" REINFORCED CONCRE=TE PIPE
LF
90
$75.00
$6,750.00
17
BUS TURNOUT
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
18
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS
LS
1
$555,000.00
$555,000.00
19
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
$10,500.00
$10,500.00
20
LANDSCAPE
SF
149400
$5.50
$821,700.00 821,700.00
21
IRRIGATION
SF
149400
$3.50
$522,900.00 522,900.00
SUB TOTAL
$2.484,584.513 1,495,191.04
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n: $248,458.45 101,867.96
Inspection/Testing/Survey: $192.555.30 78,947.67
City Admin: $124,229.23 50,933.98
Contingency:11 $304,982.7511 125,042.93
Total Estimate:11 $3,354,810.22 1,851,983.55
RCTC FUNDING - CONSTRUCTION 17EMS: $1,277,135.00
DIF ELIGIBLE ITEMS: $1,851,983.55
OTHER FUNDING TBD: $225,691.68
6/19/2008 TOTAL: $3,354,810.22
Appendix 1 (2 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Major Arterial
Project: Fred Waring Drive (Washington St. to Jefferson Street)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of one additional travel lane, median island, and median
island landscape and irrigation between Washington St. and Palm Royale; the installation of median island and
median island landscape between Palm Royale and Adams; the installation of half a median island and median
island landscape between Adams St. and Port Maria; one additional travel lane, median island, and median
island landscaping between Port Maria and Jefferson St.
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS
QUANTITY UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1 MOBILIZATION LS
1 $322,322.67
$322,322.67
2 'TRAFFIC CONTROL LS
1 $293,020.61
$293,020.61
3 ]DUST CONTROL LS
1 $126,181.13
$126,181.13
4 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS
1 $133.525.00
$133,525.00
5 6" MEDIAN CURB LF
17700 $12.50
$221,250.00
6 5 1/2" AC OVER 6 1/2" AB SF
43200 $4.00
$172,800.00
7 ADJUST VALVES/MANHOLES EA
35 $750.00
$26,250.00
8 SIGNING AND STRIPING LS
1 $20,000.00
$20,000.00
9 ]LANDSCAPE SF
159300 $5.50
$876,150.00
10 IRRIGATION SF
159300 $3.50
$557,550.00
11 ELECTRICAL SF
159300 $5.00
$796,500.00
SUB TOTAL
$3,545,549.41
Estimated Soft Costs:
6/19/2008
Design:1
$354,554.94
Inspection/Testing/Survey: 1
$274,780.08
City Admin:1
$177,277.47
Contingency:
$652,824.29
Total Estimate:
$5,004,986.19
Total DIF SHARE: $4,644,946.1911
Developer Bonds: $360,040.001
Notes:
1. This project is subject to future developer reimbursement to Lennar for full median, and median island
landscape, from Port Maria Road to Jefferson St., constructed by the developer in the amount of $586,670.
Appendix 1 (3 of 19)
PRIMARY/SECONDARY ARTERIALS
SUMMARY
JUN 08
Location Cost
MILES AVENUE
Seeley to Dune Palms Road $922,062
TOTAL MILES AVENUEJ $922,062
AVENUE 50
Washington Street to Madison Street $2,256,710
TOTAL AVENUE 50 $2,256,710
AVENUE 52
Jefferson Street to 1/2 mile east of Madison
$4,846,261
TOTAL AVENUE 521
1
AVENUE 54
Madison to Monroe $1,048,021
TOTAL AVENUE 54 $1,048,021
AIRPORT BLVD (AVE 56)
Monroe to 1/2 Mile East of Monroe) $590,977
TOTAL AIRPORT BLVD $590,977
AVENUE 58
Lake Cahuilla Access Road to Madison $5,569,743
TOTAL AVENUE 58 $5,569,743
AVENUE 62
Monroe Street to Madison Street $5,952,644
TOTAL AVENUE 62 $5,952,644
M NR E STREET
venue 52 to Avenue 60
$2,320,304
TOTAL M NR E
2, 0
DUNE PALMS ROAD
:Hi Lway 111 to Avenue 48 $976,427
TOTAL DUNE PALMS ROAD $976,427
MADISON
Avenue 50 to Avenue 52
$1,631,546
Avenue 52 to avenue 54
$2,214,723
Avenue 60 to Avenue 62
$3,108,879
TOTAL MADISON $6,955,148
TOTAL ALL PRIMARY/SECONDARY ARTERIALS 1 $31,4389297
Appendix 1 (4 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Miles (Seeley Avenue to Dune Palms Road)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island, median island landscape, and irrigation.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
I QUANTITYJ
UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$100,845.64
$100,845.64
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$91,677.85
$91,677.85
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$39,478.50
$39,478.50
4
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
CY
3100
$14.00
$43,4'00.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
3100
$14.00
$43,400.00
6
6" MEDIAN CURB
LF
8500
$12.00
$102,000.00
7
LANDSCAPE
SF
76500
$5.50
$420,750.00
8
IRRIGATION
SF
76500
$3.50
$267,750.00
SUB TOTAL
1 $916,778.50
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n:
$91,677.85
Inspection/Testin /Surve :
$71,050.33
City Admin:
$45,838.93
Contingency:
$112,534.56
Total Estimate.11
$1,237,880.17
Developer Bonds -11 $315,818.00
Development Impact Fee: $922,062.17
Total Fundin $1,237,880.17
Appendix 1 (5 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Avenue 50 (Washington Street to Madison Street)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island, median island landscape, irrigation and
electrical, from Washington St. to Jefferson St.; and the installation of half a median island, median island landscape,
irrigation and electrical and the adjustment of the centerline profile to implement urban drainage concept for future
widening of the south side, from Jefferson St. to Madison St.
ITEM
DESCRIPTIO=
UNITS I
QUANTITY UNITELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1 $158,476.39 $158,476.39
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1 $144,069.45 $144,069.45
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1 $62,039.48 $62,039.48
4
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
CY
1200 $14.00 $16,800.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1200 $14.00 $16,800.00
6
6" MEDIAN CURB
LF
11280 $12.00 $135,360.00
7
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
147820 $3.75 $554,325.00
8
ADJUST VALVES/MANHOLES
EA
35 $750.00 $26,250.00
9
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
10
LANDSCAPE
SF
67680 $5.50 $372,240.00
11
IRRIGATION
SF
57680 $3.50 $236,880.00
SUB TOTAL
$1,743,240.31
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design. -Il
$174,324,03
Inspection/Testing/Survey.
$135,101.12
City Admin:
$87,162.02
Contin enc :
$213,982.75
Total Estimate:
$2,353,810.23
Developer Bonds: $97,100.00
Development Impact Fee: $2,256,710.23
Total Funding: $2,353,810.23
Notes:
1. The proposed median improvements are not included between the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and Park St.
2. The project also includes the construction of a new outside lane adjacent to Polo Estates.
3. This project is subject to future developer reimbursement to the Toll Bros for 1/2 median curb and median island
landscape improvements, between Jefferson and Madison, constructed by the developer in the amount of $627,972.
4. This project is subject to future developer reimbursement to the TD Desert Development for full median curb and
median island landscape improvements, from Park Ave to Orchard Lane, constructed by the developer in the amount
of $186,900.
5. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with RJT Development in the amount of
$219,830 for full median curb and median island landscape, between Orchard and Jefferson. The improvements
have been constructed.
Appendix 1 (6 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Avenue 52 (Jefferson Street to 1/2 mile east of Madison)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island, median island landscape, irrigation and
electrical, and the adjustment of the centerline profile to implement urban drainage concept for the future
widening of the north and south sides, from Jefferson St. to Madison; and the installation of half a median island,
median island landscape, irrigation and electrical and the adjustment of the centerline profile to implement urban
drainage concept for future widening of the south side, from Madison St. to 1/2 mile east of Madison.
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $312,100.75 $312.100.75
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $283,727.95 $283,727.95
3 DUST CONTROL LS 1 $122,179.50 $122,179.50
4 UNCLASSIFIED FILL CY 4500 $14.00 $63,000.00
5 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 4500 $14.00 $63,000.00
6 6" CURB LF 13200 $12.00 $158,400.00
7 4.5" AC OVER 6" AB SF 198000 $3.75 $742,500.00
8 SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
9 LANDSCAPE SF 118800 $5.50 $653,400.00
10 IRRIGATION SF 118800 $3.50 $415,800.00
11 ELECTRICAL SF 118800 $5.00 $594,000.00
1
SUB TOTAL $3,433,108.20
Estimated Soft Costs:
6/19/2008
Desigryll $343,310.82
Inspection/Testing/Surve : $266,065.89
City Admin: $171,655.41
Contingency]l $632,121.05
Total Estimate:11 $4,846,261.36
Notes:
1. The project also includes the construction of a new outside lane adjacent to Polo Estates.
2. This project is subject to future developer reimbursement to the Madison Club for 1/2 median, median island
landscape, and street improvements, from Madison to 1/2 mile east of Madison Street, constructed by the
developer in the amount of $669,920.
3. This project is subject to future developer reimbursement to ND LQ Partners for full median, and median
island landscape improvements, from Madison to 1/2 mile west of Madison Street, constructed by the developer
in the amount of $1,344,690.
4. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with the Toll Bros in the amount of
$112,723 for street improvements on the north side, between Jefferson and the Coachella Canal. The
improvements have not been constructed as of May 08.
5. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with the Greystone Group in the
amount of $183,340 for full median island and median landscape improvements, between Jefferson and the
Coachella Canal. The improvements have been constructed.
Appendix 1 (7 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Secondary Arterial
Project: Avenue 54 (Madison Street to Monroe Street)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of paved, painted median and the adjustment of the
centerline profile to implement urban drainage concept for future widening of the north and south sides between
Madison St. and Monroe St.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
I QUANTITY
UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$67,492.89 $67,492.89
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$61,357.18 $61,357.18
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$26,421.75 $26,421.75
4
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
CY
2400
$14.00 $33,600.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
2400
$14.00 $33,600.00
6
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
126720
$3.75 $475,200.00
7
ADJUST VALVES/MANHOLES
EA
17
$750.00 $12,750.00
8
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
$32,000.00 $32,000.00
5UB TOTAL
$742,421.82
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design:11.
$74,242.18
Inspection/Testis /Surve :
$57,537.69
City Admin: 1
$37,121.09
Contingency:11
$136,698.42
Total Estimate:
$1,048,021.20
Notes:
1. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with the Madison Club in the amount
of $400,000 for half of the paved painted median improvements, from Madison to Monroe. The improvements
have not been constructed as of May 08.
2. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with Griffin Ranch in the amount of
$400,000 for half of the paved painted median improvements, from Madison to Monroe. The improvements have
not been constructed as of May 08.
Appendix 1 (8 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Airport Boulevard Median Island Landscaping
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of landscape and irrigation within the medians on Airport
Boulevard from Monroe street to 1/2 mile west of Monroe Street.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS I
QUANTITYJ
UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$15,000.00 $15,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$10,000.00 $10,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$10,000.00 $10,000.00
4
LANDSCAPE
SF
47520
$5.50 $261,360.00
5
IRRIGATION
SF
47520
$3.50 $166,320.00
SUB TOTAL
$437,680.00
6/1912008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design:11
$43,768.00
Inspection/Testing/Survey.jl
$33,920.20
City Admin:11
$21,884,00
Contingency:
1 $53,725.22
Total Estimate:
1 $590,977.42
Appendix 1 (9 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Secondary Arterial
Protect: Avenue 62
Desi n
Phase l SuhTolal:
5957,497.00
SO -00
Ins ectionlTeslin lSurve : S511.523.41
Phase kl SUh Total-
53.fi55,057.-SO
53.488,552.50
5}09,316.88
Phase ill Sub Total:
$1.987,752.50
59,272.616.53
55,952,644-08
TDTAL CONSTRUGTION:
56,600,342.00
$4.765,163.03
Desi n
5660,173030
1 $476.112.30
$366.990.13
Ins ectionlTeslin lSurve : S511.523.41
Estimated Soft Costs: Ci admin:
$330.015.10
S238,D58.15
5}09,316.88
Contingency- $150,156,87
6119!2008 Totak Eslimate-1
S8252.027 58
55,952,644-08
Total DIF Ell Ible Costs: 1
$5,952 646 -DS
Shea Homes ❑evelo er A regiment:
$2.050,000.00
)tier Covelp er Cnntrit7ulion:
5249.393.50
Co1al Cost:
59.252.027.5$
Appendix I (10 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial -A
Project: Monroe Street
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of half a median island, and landscape and irrigation
between Avenue 52 and Avenue 59; and full median, and landscape and irrigation between Avenue 59 and
Avenue 60.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITYJ
UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$180,434.72
$180,434.72
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$85,921.29
$85,921.29
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$73,999.20
$73,999.20
4
SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT
LF
21120
$1.25
$26,400.00
5
TEMPORARY AC BERM
LF
21120
$9.50
$200,640,00
6
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
4693
$5.00
$23,466.67
8
6" CURB
LF
21120
$12.00
$253,440.00
17
LANDSCAPE
SF
126720
$5.50
$696,960.00
18
IRRIGATION
SF
126720
$3.50
$443,520.00
19
ELECTRICAL
SF
$2.50
$0.00
SUB TOTAL
1
$1,718,425.87
Desi n; $171,842.59
Inspection/Testing/Survey]l $133,178.00
Estimated Soft Costs: City Admin:11 $85,921.29
Contin enc : $210,936.78
6/19/2008 Total Estimate: 1 $2,320,304.53
Appendix I (11 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Avenue 58 (Lake Cahuilla Access Road South and East to Madison Street)
Description
This project proposes to realign and construct Avenue 58 from PGA West south and east to Madison Street.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
CY
68000
$5.00 $340,000.00
2
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
27937
$2.50 $69,842.50
3
19" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
35528
$18.75 $666,150.00
4
6" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
1630
$18.75 $30,562.50
5
4.5" AC OVER 7" AB
SF
748076
$3.30 $2,468,650.80
6
4" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
63543
$3.15 $200,160.45
7
ig FT SIDEWALK 4" THICK
SF
257208
$3.50 $900,228.00
8
4 48" RCP CULVERTS - 400 FT EA
LF
1600
$200.00 $320,000.00
9
'78" IRRIGATION LINE
LF
200
$350.00 $70,000.00
10
10 FT MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL
LF
3250
$14.00 $45,500.00
11
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
$25,000.00 $25,000.00
SUB TOTAL
$5,136,094.25
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design:11
$513,609.43
Inspection/Testin /Survey:
I $398,047.30
City Admin:11
$256,804.71
Contingenc :$630,455.57
Total Estimate:
$6,935,011.26
Developer Contribution/Bonds: $1,365,268.00
Development Impact Fee: $5,569,743.26
TotalFunding: 1 $6,935,011.26
Notes:
1. This project is subject to future developer reimbursement to DDC for street improvements (Ave 58/Jefferson St.
realignment) in the amount of $2,217,313. The improvements have not been constructed as of May 08.
Appendix 1 (12 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Dune Palms Road (Highway 111 to Avenue 48)
np-,nrintinn
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island, median island landscape and irrigation.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$62,882.25 $62,882.25
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$57,165.68 $57,165.68
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$24,616.80 $24,616.80
4
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
CY
2000
$14.00 $28,000.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
2000
$14.00 $28,000.00
6
6" MEDIAN CURB
LF
5280
$12.00 $63,360.00
7
LANDSCAPE
SF
47520
$5.50 $261,360.00
8
IRRIGATION
SF
47520
$3.50 $166,320.00
SUB TOTAL
1 $691,704.73
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design]l
$69,170.47
Inspection/Testing/Survey:
1 $53,607.12
City Admin -.11
$34,585.24
Contingency:
1 $127,360.13
Total Estimate:
1 $976,427.69
Notes:
1. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with Sam's Club Retail in the
amount of $421,872 for full median and median island landscape improvements, from Highway 111 to
approximately .25 miles north. The improvements have been constructed.
Appendix 1 (13 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Madison Street (Avenue 50 to Avenue 52)
Descriotion
The proposed improvements include the installation of half a median, median island landscape and irrigation and
the adjustment of the centerline profile to implement urban drainage concept for future widening of the west side
between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$105,072.12 $105.072.12
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$95,520.11 $95,520.11
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$41,133.06 $41,133.06
4
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
CY
2300
$14.00 $32,200.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
2300
$14.00 $32,200.00
6
6" MEDIAN CURB
LF
5280
$12.00 $63,360.00
7
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
126720
$2.65 $335,808.00
8
.ADJUST VALVES/MANHOLES
EA
6
$750.00 $4,500.00
9
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
$14,000.00 $14,000.00
10
LANDSCAPE
SF
48000
1 $5.50 $264,000.00
11
IRRIGATION
SF
48000
$3.50 $168,000.00
SUB TOTAL
J $1,155,793.28
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n: $115,579.33
Ins ectionlTestin /Surveyjl $89,573.98
City Admin: $57,789.66
Contin enc $212,810.44
p Total Estimate:lf $1,631,546.69
Appendix 1 (14 of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: PrimaryArterial
Project: Madison Street (Avenue 52 to Avenue 54)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of two lanes, median curb, and median landscape, irrigation and lighting
between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 on Madison Street.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$
-
$
-
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$
35,000.00
$
35,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$
72,000.00
$
72,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
LS
1
$
78,062.50
$
78,062.50
5
GRADING
LS
1
$
102,109.33
$
102,109.33
6
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
AC
7
$
2,777.78
$
19,130.72
7
WET UTILITY GRADE ADJ.
LS
1
$
50,370.00
$
50,370.00
8
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
7500
$
10.45
$
78,375.00
9
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
176163
$
2.56
$
450,976.00
10
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
$
20,000.00
$
20.000.00
11
(LANDSCAPE
SF
90000
$
3.53
$
317,455.00
12
IRRIGATION
SF
90000
$
1.34
$
120,675.00
13
ELECTRICAL
LS
1
$
168,000.00
$
168,000.00
SUB -TOTAL
$
1,512,153.55
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design.,
$ 245,400.00
Inspection/Testin /Surve : $ 72,407.63
Cit Admin: 1 $ 82,332.00
Contin enc $ 302,430.71
Total Estimate: $ 2,214,723.88
Notes:
1. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with the Madison Club in the amount of
$2,030,887 for two travel lanes, median curb, and median landscape improvements, from Avenue 52 to Avenue 54. The
improvements have been constructed.
Appendix 1 (1 S of 19)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Secondary Arterial
Project: Madison Street (Avenue 60 to Avenue 62)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of two lanes and paved painted median between Avenue 60
and Avenue 62. The improvements also include 1,350 LF of full width widening on the east side adjacent to
Trilogy.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$104,873.37 $104.873.37
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$41.126.81 $41,126.81
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$59,893.42 $59,893.42
4
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
LS
1
$39,146.02 $39,146.02
5
UNCLASSIFIED FILL
CY
112500
$10.00 $1,125,000.00
6
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
127417
$3.60 $458,701.20
7
BARRICADE STD 620
LF
174
$500.00 $87,000.00
8
RIP RAP
SF
1200
$15.00 $18,000.00
9
18" RCP DRAIN PIPE
LF
72
$175.00 $12,600.00
10
,ARCH PIPE EQUILIZER CONDUIT I
LF 1
48
$5,000.00 $240,000.00
11
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
1
$1.6,000.001 $16,000.00
SUB TOTAL
1 $2,202,340.83
6/19/2008
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design:11 $220,234.08
inspection/Testing/Survey-.11 $170,681.41
Ci Admin: $110,117.04
Contin enc : $405,506.00
Total Estimate: $3,108,879.37
Notes:
1. This project has a pending Developer Reimbursement Agreement (DRA) with Travertine Development in the
amount of $1,563,733. The improvements have not been constructed as of May 08.
Appendix 1 (16 of 19)
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
MAY 2008
LOCATION
TOTAL COST
DIF
DIF COST
COMMENTS
SHARE
Ave. 50 Evacuation Channel
$3,760,000
35.83%
$1,347,208
Dune Palms Whitewater River
$12,208,000
35.83%
$4,374,126
IRemainin 64% funding TBD
Adams Street Whitewater River
$12,208,000
20%
$2,441,600
!Remaining 80% funding TBD
Ave. 52 All American Canal
$2,400,000
100%
$2,400,000
(Widening)
Ave. 50 All American Canal
'
$2,400,000
50%
$1,200,000
Wide
Shared with Indio
TOTAL
$11,762,934
Appendix 1 (17 of 19)
FUTURE TRAFIC SIGNALS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
JUN 08
LOCATION
TOTAL COST
S)FDIF
DIF COST
COMMENTS
.Adams St. & Corporate Center Dr.
$430,00,0
100%
$430,000
.Dune Palms Rd & Corporate Center Dr.
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Washington St. & Via Sevilla
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Shared with Indian Wells
Washington St. & Lake La Quinta Dr.
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Caleo Bay & Ave. 47
$430,000
100%
$4303000
Dune Palms Rd. & Retail Center
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Develo er Contribution
Desert Club & Ave 52
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Eisenhower Dr. & Montezuma
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Eisenhower Dr. & Sinaloa
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Calle Tampico & Civic Center Way
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Madison St. & Ave. 50
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Shared with Indio
Madison St. & Ave. 52
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Shared with Indio
Madison St. & Ave. 54
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Madison St. & Ave. 58
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Madison St. & Ave. 60
$430,000
100%
$4305000
Monroe St. & Ave. 52
$430,000
25%
$107,500
;shared with Indio
Monroe St. & Ave. 54
$430,000
50%
$215 000
Shared with County
Monroe St. & Airport Blvd.
$430,000
50%
$215,000
;shared with County
Monroe St. & Ave. 58
$430,000
50%
$215,000
;shared with County
Monroe St. & Ave. 60
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Monroe St. & Ave. 61
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Shared with County
Monroe St. & Ave. 62
$430,000
25%
$107,500
:shared with County
Orchard & Ave 50
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Developer Contribution
Fred Waring & Palm Royale
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Developer Contribution
Jefferson & Dunbar
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Shared with Coun /Inio
Jefferson & Avenue 53
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Developer Contribution
Jefferson & Avenue 54
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Developer Contribution
Citywide Central Control
$1,100,000
35.83%
$394,130
TOTAL
$8,564,130
Note: The cost for each traffic signal is based on the following:
Construction: $ 350,000.00
Engineering $ 35,000.00
Construction Engineering: $ 27,000.00
Administration: $ 18,000.00
Total: $ 430,000.00
Appendix 1 (18 of 19)
FUTURE SOUND WALLS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
JUN 08
LOCATION
DISTANCE LF
ESTIMATED COST
West Washin on St at Laguna de la Paz
1550
$1,262,470
West Washington St at Villas at La Quinta
2000
$991,058
North Avenue 50 at Lago La Quinta
2000
$955,835
East Madison at Trilogy
700
$192,115
Estimated cost of future sound wall in
Developed Areas
$3,401,478
Appendix 1 (19 of 19)
APPENDIX -2
BASIS FOR NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED
The trip generation rates used in this Study were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Manual "Trip Generation." The sixth edition was used as the primary source and was supplemented by data
from the fourth edition. 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) on its publication "Traffic Generators" Although the trip
lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta; it is believed they reasonably
represent trip lengths for various types of development.
CVAG has completed trip lengths on the regional facilities; however, they indicate the trip lengths on the
regional facility equate to an approximate 1:1 proportionality between residential use and commercial use.
Although this may be accurate for the traffic trip lengths on the regional system a City system with its local
street network reacts in a different way. The basis of City development usually includes separate core "village"
areas with different levels of commercial to support each separate village.
The study completed by SANDAG was established by surveying 1,700 commuters to determine their
destination and average trip length. This provided a proportional trip length of commercial to residential at
approximately one mile for commercial every 1.975 miles for residential (1:1.975). The CVAG trip length study
indicated a one mile commercial to one mile residential ration (1:1)
In order to estimate the ratio for trip lengths in the City of La Quinta's City map was prepared with one mile
radius permeating out from the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 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 rations in La Quinta was one mile for commercial for every
1.667 miles for residential (1:1.667). These numbers are closer to SANDAG calculations. Therefore, the
published SANDAG numbers were utilized for average trip lengths.
Appendix -2
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%.
Appendix - 3
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON
CONSTRUCTION
LA QUINTA
LA QUINTA
PALM
RANCHO
CVAG TUMF
DESERT HOT SPRINGS
TYPE
EXISTING FEE
PROPOSED FEE
1NDIO*
DESERT*
MIRAGE*
COACHELL4
PROPOSED FEE*
1,300 SF House
$4,475.00
$7,713.00
$13,054,00
$7,311.00
$10,518.00
$9,164.00
$16,474.00
1,700 SF House
$4,475.00
$7,713.00
$13,054.00
$7,546.00
$10,518.00
$9,164.00
$16,474.00
2,200 SF House
$4,475.00
$7,713.00
$13,045.00
$7,839.00
$11,274.00
$9,164.00
$16,474.00
3,000 SF House
$4,475.00
$7,713.00
$13,801.00
$8,514.00
$13,235.00
$9,164.00
$16,474.00
4,000 SF House
$4,475.00
$7,713.00
$13,801.00
$9,097.00
$13.235.00
$9,164.00
$16,474.00
10,000 SF BLDG, 10
Acres
$133,600.00
$149,184.00
$282,784.00
500,000 SF General
SF 10 Acres
$182,600.00
$107.596.00
$290,196.00
Commercial - 50 Acres
$1,756,000.00
$3,449.500.00
$5,516,805.00
$3,613,780.00
$2.800.780.00
$3,369,780.00
$6.040.780.00
20,000 SF Office - 1
Building 1,000 SF $2M
$41,960.00
$25,804.80
$67,764.80
Acre
$80,360.00
$149,020.00
$164,882.00
$175,740.00
$245.480.00
$175,588.00
$281,828.00
200 Acre Golf Course,
10,000 SF BLDG, 10
Acres
$108,800.00
$189,000.00
$401,374.00
$225,684.00
$173,424.00
$184,804.00
$238,224.00
100 Room Hotel; 45,000
SF 10 Acres
$116.500.00
$220,400.00
$629,297.00
$372,246.00
$154,621.00
$456,396.00
$465,196.00
20 Unit Townhouse;
1,200 SF $90k/Unit
$67,480.00
$125,920.00
$192,208.00
$131,104.00
$161,705.00
$183,280.00
$285,344.00
20 Unit Apartment
Building 1,000 SF $21M
$54,900.001
$97,780.001
$181,007.001
$120,764.00
$141,545-001
$183,280.001
$285,344.00
Includes Coachella Valley TUMF Fees
'* Includes Coachella Valley TUMF Fees only
Note: The impact fees presented for the Cities of Indio, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Coachella are based on the fees
in effect in June 2008. The fees presented for the City of Desert Hot Springs are proposed and not adopted.
TRANSPORATION DIF -VS- CVAG TUMF
Appendix 4
TA
CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED
CVAG TUMF
COMBINED
TYPE
TRANSPORATION
AMOUNT
DIF
1,300 SF House
$3,592.00
$1,837.00
$5,429.00
1,700 SF House
$3,592.00
$1,837.00
$5,429.0
:2,200 SF House
$3,592.00
$1,837.00
$5,429.00
3,000 SF House
$3,592.00
$1,837.00
$5,429.00
4,000 SF House
$3,592.00
$1,837.00
$5,429.00
500,000 SF General
Commercial - 50 Acres
$2,824,000.00
$1.588,780.00
$4,412,780.00
20,000 SF Office - 1
Acre
$138,620.00
$103,748.00
$242,368.00
200 Acre Golf Course,
10,000 SF BLDG, 10
Acres
$133,600.00
$149,184.00
$282,784.00
100 Room Hotel; 45,000
SF 10 Acres
$182,600.00
$107.596.00
$290,196.00
20 Unit Townhouse;
1,200 SF $90k/Unit
$71,840.00
$25.804.80
$97,644.80
:20 Unit Apartment
Building 1,000 SF $2M
$41,960.00
$25,804.80
$67,764.80
Appendix 4