Loading...
2020 02 04 Council CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 FEBRUARY 4, 2020 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2020 3:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION | 4:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Fitzpatrick, Peña, Radi, Sanchez, Mayor Evans PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. The City Council values your comments; however in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b). CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION; SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (d) of GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (NUMBER OR POTENTIAL CASES: 1) 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (d) of GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: WASHINGTON-111, LTD., CLAIMANT, V. CITY OF LA QUINTA, RESPONDENT, JUDICATE WEST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO. A257070 City Council agendas and staff reports are available on the City’s web page: www.LaQuintaCA.gov CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 FEBRUARY 4, 2020 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (d) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9. NAME OF CASE: CITY OF LA QUINTA V. CHIN FAMILY PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. PSC1803284 RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE AT 4:00 P.M. REPORT ON ACTIONS(S) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. The City Council values your comments; however in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b). ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS, AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion. PAGE 1. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE MARKETING MANAGER TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION BOARD MEETING IN SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 24-26, 2020 7 2. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR MARKETING MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICIALS (CAPIO) ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN SANTA BARBARA CALIFORNIA, APRIL 20-22, 2020 9 3. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT ANALYST TO ATTEND PSMJ RESOURCES, INC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 27-28, 2020 11 RECOGNITION OF ALEX NAPIER, IRONMAN VOLUNTEER DIRECTOR/ COMMUNITY LIAISON, FOR HER COMMITMENT, DEDICATION, AND EFFORTS ON THE COORDINATION AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR THE 2019 INDIAN WELLS LA QUINTA IRONMAN 70.3 TRIATHLON EVENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 3 FEBRUARY 4, 2020 4. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEND THE 2020 CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 14-17, 2020 13 5. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/INSPECTION SUPERVISOR AND SENIOR ACCOUNTANT TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY LEADERSHIP ACADEMY IN PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA, MARCH 23-27, 2020 15 6. APPROVE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE, AND ADVERTISE FOR BID THE LA QUINTA LANDSCAPE RENOVATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LOCATED AT THE LA QUINTA RANCHO OCOTILLO DEVELOPMENT, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET (PROJECT NO. 2016-03E) 17 7. APPROVE GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER PIPELINES WITHIN COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT’S BOOSTER SITE 06630 LOCATED OFF OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS 21 8. APPROVE DEMAND REGISTERS DATED JANUARY 10 AND 17, 2020 39 9. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2019 61 BUSINESS SESSION PAGE 1. AWARD CONTRACT TO JONES BROS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SILVERROCK WAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT NO. 2014-13/141513) BETWEEN AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET 65 2. APPROVE SECOND ROUND COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 71 STUDY SESSION - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS – after 5:00 p.m. For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed “Request to Speak” form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to consideration of that item. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 FEBRUARY 4,2020 A person may submit written comments to City Council before a public hearing or appear in support or opposition to the approval of a project(s). If you challenge a project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. PAGE 1.ADOPT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO 2019 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY [RESOLUTION NO. 2020-003] 79 2. ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2017-0006, AND APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN 2017-0002 AMENDMENT NO. 2, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PROPOSING AN APPROXIMATE 120,000 SQUARE-FOOT SHOPPING CENTER WITH FOUR DRIVE-THROUGHS AND A 63,000 SQUARE-FOOT SUPERMARKET WITH ASSOCIATED VEHICLE FUEL CENTER; CEQA: THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 50 AND JEFFERSON STREET; PROJECT: PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER [RESOLUTION NOS. 2020-004 & 2020-005] 227 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 1. CITY MANAGER A. 2020 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP RECAP 607 B. MARKETING QUARTERLY REPORT – OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2019 613 2. CITY ATTORNEY – REQUEST FOR LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REVIEW TO CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V. BECERRA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CASE NO. G057013 615 3. CITY CLERK 4. COMMUNITY RESOURCES A. HUMAN RESOURCES BIANNUAL REPORT 663 B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BIANNUAL REPORT 665 C. COMMUNITY PROGRAMS AND WELLNESS 667 D. LIBRARY 669 E. MUSEUM 673 F. CODE COMPLIANCE 675 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 6. PUBLIC WORKS 7. FINANCE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 5 FEBRUARY 4, 2020 8. POLICE – QUARTERLY REPORT OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2019 679 9. FIRE - QUARTERLY REPORT OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2019 681 MAYOR’S AND COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ITEMS REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. CVAG CONSERVATION COMMISSION (Evans) 2. CVAG ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Evans) 3. CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Evans) 4. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (Evans) 5. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DELEGATE (Evans) 6. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE (Evans) 7. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (Evans) 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (Evans & Peña) 9. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (Fitzpatrick) 10. DESERT RECREATION DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Fitzpatrick & Radi) 11. COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Fitzpatrick & Peña) 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (Fitzpatrick) 13. SILVERROCK EVENT SITE AD HOC COMMITTEE (Fitzpatrick) 14. GREATER CV CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (Fitzpatrick) 15. CANNABIS AD HOC COMMITTEE (Peña and Sanchez) 16. CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (Peña) 17. CVAG VALLEY-WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE (Peña) 18. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES – PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE (Peña) 19 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT – ENERGY CONSUMERS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Peña) 20. CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (Radi) 21. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY (Radi) 22. CITYWIDE SECURITY CAMERAS AD HOC COMMITTEE (Radi) 23. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Radi & Sanchez) 24. ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION (Sanchez) 25. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES – TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE (Sanchez) 26. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (Sanchez) 27. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DATED JANUARY 14, 2020 685 28. PALMS SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2019 AND SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 689 ADJOURNMENT ********************************* CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 6 FEBRUARY 4, 2020 The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on February 18, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Monika Radeva, City Clerk, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting was posted on the City’s website, near the entrance to the Council Chambers at 78495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51321 Avenida Bermudas, on January 31, 2020. DATED: January 30, 2020 MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Public Notices  The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk’s office at (760) 777-7092, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.  If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the City Council, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (760) 777-7092. A one (1) week notice is required.  If background material is to be presented to the Councilmembers during a City Council meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the City Clerk for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting.  Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Community Development counter at City Hall located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE MARKETING MANAGER TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION BOARD MEETING IN SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 24-26, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for Marketing Manager to attend the California Travel Association Board Meeting in San Diego, California, February 24-26, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •California Travel Association (CTA) is considered one of the most influential advocates for California’s travel and tourism industry. •The President and CEO of the CTA has invited the Marketing Manager to attend the board meeting. •Attendance at a CTA board meeting would allow the Marketing Manager to participate in committee meetings to gain knowledge of legislative impacts on the tourism industry as well as future marketing strategies for the City. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated cost will be $750, which includes travel, lodging, parking, and meals. Staff was personally invited to attend at no cost for the board meeting. Funds are available in the 2019/20 Marketing Department’s Travel and Training budget (Account No. 101-3007-60320). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The CTA is California’s primary source for tourism industry news, intelligence, advocacy, and insight. It provides high-quality educational and networking opportunities through the CTA’s annual conference, board meetings and political action committee fund-raising events. Staff is seeking further involvement in CTA, along with the Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau, in order to promote the destination directly and tourism advocacy on behalf of the City. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 7 ALTERNATIVES Council may elect not to authorize this request. Prepared by: Marcie Graham, Marketing Manager Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager 8 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR MARKETING MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICIALS (CAPIO) ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 20-22, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for Marketing Management Specialist to attend The California Association of Public Information Officials (CAPIO) Annual Conference April 20 - 22, 2020 in Santa Barbara, California. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The California Association of Public Information Officials (CAPIO) provide training, resources, and networking opportunities that strengthen and engage communities and advance public sector communications. •The CAPIO Annual Conference educates participants on their roles, responsibilities and challenges of public communicators and provides tools and advanced best practices to better serve the community. •The City is committed to enhancing Staff’s skills and knowledge through continuous education. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated cost would be $1,400, which includes registration, travel, lodging, and meals. Funds are available in 2019/20 Marketing Travel and Training (101-3007-60320) account to cover the expenses. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CAPIO’s annual conference is an assembly of communication experts, brought together for the purpose of advancing public sector communicators across all levels of government. This year’s conference includes innovative workshops and learning labs with a focus on branded outreach techniques, crisis communication planning and advanced online engagement. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect to deny this request. Prepared by: Approved by: Katie Camarena, Marketing Management Specialist Jon McMillen, City Manager CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 9 10 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT ANALYST TO ATTEND PSMJ RESOURCES, INC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 27–28, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for the Public Works Management Analyst to attend the PSMJ Resources, Inc. Engineering and Construction Project Management Training Program in San Diego, California, February 27-28, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •PSMJ Resources, Inc. (PSMJ) offers a premier project management training program for architectural, engineering, and construction project managers. •The Engineering and Construction Project Management Training Program (Training Program) is a 2-day intensive educational opportunity to further develop engineering and construction related project management skills. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses are $2,200, which includes registration, travel, parking and meals. Funds are available in the Design and Development Admin Travel and Training budget (Account No. 101-6001-60320). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The intensive Training Program is designed to provide engineering and construction project managers with the tools to improve project delivery. This Training Program offers a learning environment through sessions focused on project development, delivery, financial planning, and risk management. Attendees will be taught critical skills necessary to deliver successful engineering and construction projects while managing risk and budget. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect not to authorize this request. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, Public Works Director/City Engineer CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3 11 12 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEND THE 2020 CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 14-17, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for the City Clerk to attend the 2020 City Clerks Association of California Annual Conference in Burlingame, California, April 14-17, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City is committed to enhancing Staff’s skills and knowledge through continuous education. The long-standing City Clerks Association of California (CCAC) Annual Conference is a 4-day event that will provide an opportunity to learn new processes, receive election and legislative updates, and build networks with other Clerk professionals. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses are $2,100, which includes registration, travel, lodging, and meals. Funds are available in the City Clerk’s Travel and Training budget (101- 1005-60320). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The CCAC was founded in 1977 with the objective of promoting the Clerk profession throughout the state. It provides mentoring programs, leadership and management training opportunities, fosters proactive programs to promote effective legislation, and improved standards of effectively administering Clerk duties. The CCAC Annual Conference provides election and legislative updates, strategic planning, leadership training, records management trends, best practices and uniform standards for administering City Clerk responsibilities, networking opportunities with other Clerk professionals, and promote better municipal government through increased cooperation with other municipal officials. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect not to authorize this request. Prepared by: Monika Radeva, City Clerk Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 4 13 14 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/INSPECTION SUPERVISOR AND SENIOR ACCOUNTANT TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY LEADERSHIP ACADEMY IN PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA, MARCH 23-27, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for Construction Manager/Inspection Supervisor and Senior Accountant to attend the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Leadership Academy in Paso Robles, California, March 23-27, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The Leadership Academy (Academy) is offered by California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) and provides a curriculum of workshops and experiences to cultivate leadership excellence. •The Academy is held once a year in California and is limited to 30 participants. This year’s Academy will be held in Paso Robles, California. FISCAL IMPACT Total estimated expenses for both attendees are $2,200, which includes training registration, travel, lodging, parking, and meals. Funds are available in respective Department’s Travel and Training accounts (101-7006-60320 and 101-1006-60320). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Academy provides attendees with the tools and resources to improve leadership skills, strategic thinking, influential communication, and team development. The Academy will offer the following leadership enhancing workshops: •Trust, Strategic Thinking, and Innovation; •Organizational Risk Management; •Public Service Ethics/Making Decisions in the Gray Zone; and •Conflict Resolution: Leadership Strategies, Tools, and Techniques to Help Employees Get Along CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5 15 CJPIA’s Academy workshops are specific to the public sector and provides staff the opportunity to network, improve leadership skills, think strategically and apply skills that will enable them to achieve effective, sustainable results. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect not to authorize this request. Prepared by: Carla Triplett, Human Resources Analyst Approved by: Chris Escobedo, Community Resources Director 16 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE, AND ADVERTISE FOR BID THE LA QUINTA LANDSCAPE RENOVATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LOCATED AT THE LA QUINTA RANCHO OCOTILLO DEVELOPMENT, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET (PROJECT NO. 2016-03E) RECOMMENDATION Approve plans, specifications, engineer’s estimate, and authorize Staff to bid the La Quinta Landscape Renovation Improvements Project located at the La Quinta Rancho Ocotillo Development, on the south side of Fred Waring Drive and east side of Adams Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •This fifth phase of the Measure G funded La Quinta Landscape Renovation project is situated at the La Quinta Rancho Ocotillo Development on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, the entrance on La Palma Drive at Adams Street, the east side of Adams Street, and two (2) retention basins within Rancho Ocotillo (Attachment 1). •The project includes: o Approximately 80,000 square feet of parkway, median, and retention basin; of which 28,000 square feet is turf, and will be converted to the Desert Oasis plant palette. o Wall cleaning and painting. FISCAL IMPACT The 2019/20 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocates $8,541,292 to Landscape Renovation projects, $7,791,292 of Measure G Funds, $412,694 of General Funds, and $337,305 of CVWD reimbursement. The following is the project budget: Total Budget (All Phases) Phase 5 – Rancho Ocotillo* Professional: $ 462,757 $ 35,000 Design: $ 597,106 $ 55,250 Inspection/Testing/Survey: $ 582,178 $ 73,000 Construction: $ 5,971,058 $ 720,000 Contingency: $ 928,193 $ 75,000 Total Budget: $ 8,541,292 $ 958,250 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6 17 *Note: ✓Following the construction of Phase 5, approximately $5,272,178 is expected to be available for the construction of the next phase of Landscape Renovation Turf Conversion projects (Desert Pride, Sierra Del Rey, Marbella, and Topaz), projected for winter, 2020. ✓Staff anticipates about $56,000 in Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) turf rebates. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The 2019/20 CIP prioritizes renovating the parkways in north La Quinta over the next two years. These improvements will entail converting turf to the Desert Oasis landscape palette, which uses hardscape textures with minimal planting to create an aesthetically pleasing environment with lower installation, long- term maintenance, and water costs. Wall cleaning/painting complete the renovation effort. The parkway renovation effort is divided into seven phases. The sixth phase, located at Desert Pride, Sierra Del Rey, Marbella, and Topaz, will be under design spring of 2020 and may be further phased into each neighborhood. Contingent upon approval to advertise the project for bid on February 4, 2020, the following is the project schedule: Council Bid Authorization February 4, 2020 Bid Period February 5 to March 5, 2020 Council Considers Project Award March 17, 2020 Execute Contract and Mobilize March 18 to May 4, 2020 Construction (120 Working Days) May to October 2020 Accept Improvements October 2020 ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, Public Works Director/ City Engineer Attachment: 1. Vicinity Map 18 *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS Legend Notes REPORT PRINTED ON...4/5/2019 11:12:16 AM Vicinity Map Rancho Ocotillo Landscape Renovation 0 3,0091, 505 Feet Blueline Streams City Areas World Street Map ATTACHMENT 1 19 ATTACHMENT 1 20 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER PIPELINES WITHIN COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT’S BOOSTER SITE 06630 LOCATED OFF OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS RECOMMENDATION Approve two Grant of Easements to Coachella Valley Water District for access to and maintenance of water pipelines within Booster Site 06630; and authorize the City Manager to execute the grant of easements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) requires two easements from the City for access and maintenance of water pipelines within Booster Site 06630. •The site lies within the City’s vacant parcels bearing Assessors’ Parcel Numbers 774-182-006 and 007. FISCAL IMPACT - None BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CVWD requires an access and pipeline easement from the City for their existing access route and pipeline that serves their Booster Site 06630 off of Avenida Bermudas; the affected parcels are APNs 774-182-006, and 007. CVWD has requested the City grant them two easements for access to and maintenance of their facilities. CVWD has prepared the Grant of Easements and legal descriptions for access (Attachment 1) and pipeline booster (Attachment 2). ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend an alternative; this easement is necessary for CVWD to access and maintain their facilities. Prepared by: Angela Ferreira, Management Analyst Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager Attachment: 1.Grant of Easement for Access 2. Grant of Easement for Pipeline Booster CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 7 21 22 No Recording Fees or Documentary Transfer Tax Government Code § 27383 Rev & Tax Code § 11922 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Post Office Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 ___________________________________________________________________________________ APN: 774-182-006 and (Space above this line is for Recorders Use) FILE: 0425.114, 0651.4, 774-182-007 0655. TRA: 020-015 Booster Station 06630 DTT: -0- GRANT OF EASEMENT (Access Road) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation, a body politic (“Grantor” or “collectively Grantor”) hereby grants to COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public agency of the State of California, its successors and assigns (“Grantee”), a permanent, nonexclusive easement for ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of an access road, and necessary devices and appurtenances (“Access Road”), upon, over and across that certain real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” attached hereto (“Easement Area”). The Easement Area is a portion of a larger legal parcel owned by Grantor, more particularly described in Exhibit “C” attached hereto (the “Servient Tenement”). The Easement Area described herein is appurtenant to real property owned by Grantee, more particularly described in Exhibit “D” attached hereto (the “Dominant Tenement”). The easement rights described herein include the right to construct and maintain the Access Road, including any slopes associated therewith. The Access Road may, but is not required to be improved with asphalt or any other paved surface. Improvement and periodic repair of the Access Road by Grantee will be for Grantee’s sole benefit and does not create a duty or obligation of any type to third parties, including Grantor or any persons claiming rights under Grantor, for death, personal injury or property damage allegedly resulting from the condition of the Access Road. Grantee shall have the right to limit use of the Access Road by means of gates and fences secured by locks or other access control devices. Grantee, in its exercise of the rights provided by this easement, shall not be liable to Grantor or parties claiming under Grantor for any damage to or destruction of improvements within the Easement Area installed by Grantor or parties claiming under Grantor. [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] Doc. No. 060613-1-031 ATTACHMENT 1 23 GRANTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation, a body politic ________________________________ Date ________________________________ By Its: Doc. No. 060613-1-031 ENG RW-016 (Rev. 10/19/16) 24 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF _________________ ) On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared __________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: (Seal) 25 EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT AREA 26 27 28 29 EXHIBIT “B” DEPICTION OF EASEMENT AREA 30 31 EXHIBIT “C” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVIENT TENEMENT ALL OF THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL NO. C-856 & C-857 IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JUNE 24, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 232192, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND STATE. 32 EXHIBIT “D” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DOMINANT TENEMENT ALL OF THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (PARCEL NO. LQ-09) FILED MARCH 2, 1987 AND RECORDED MARCH 26, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83145, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND STATE. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL NO. C-856 & C-857 IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JUNE 24, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 232192, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND STATE. 33 No Recording Fees or Documentary Transfer Tax Government Code § 27383 Rev & Tax Code § 11922 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Post Office Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 ____________________________________________________________________________________ APN: 774-182-006 (Space above this line is for Recorders use) FILE: 0425.114, 0651.4 TRA: 020-015 0655. DTT: -0- G R A N T O F E A S E M E N T FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation, a body politic (“Grantor” or “collectively Grantor”) hereby grants to COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public agency of the State of California (“Grantee”), and its successors and assigns, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right -of-way to install, construct, enlarge, survey, reconstruct, remove and replace, operate, maintain, repair, improve and relocate underground pipeline(s) and necessary devices and appurtenances thereto (“Pipeline(s)”) in, on, over, under, along and across that certain real property in the County of Riverside, State of California, described in Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” attached hereto (such rights being described hereafter as the “Easement” and the area affected thereby, the “Easement Area”). The Pipeline(s) may be installed pursuant to this Easement at different times and over a period of time. The Pipeline(s) and every part thereof shall, where it crosses Grantor’s property of which the Easement Area is a part (“Grantor’s Property”) be confined to the Easement Area and shall be constructed by Grantee with sufficient ground cover (i.e., distance between ground surface and top of Pipeline(s)) as shown on the construction plans for the Pipeline(s). The ground cover shall not be changed by any party other than Grantee. Fixtures and appurtenances used or useful in the operation of the Pipeline(s) may be constructed any distance either below or above the ground surface. The Easement includes (a) the right to enter Grantor’s Property to survey, construct, reconstruct, lay, relay, maintain, operate, control, use and remove the Pipeline(s), fixtures, appurtenances, and to remove objects interfering with the construction, operation and maintenance thereof; and (b) a reasonable right of access across Grantor’s Property to and from the Easement Area for the purpose of exercising the rights granted herein. Grantor reserves the right to occupy and use Grantor’s Property for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights and privileges above granted and which will not interfere with or endanger the Pipeline(s) or the use thereof. Grantee shall use due care in the construction, operation and maintenance of the Pipeline(s). Grantee, in its exercise of the rights provided by the Easement, shall not be liable to Grantor or parties claiming under Grantor for any damage to or destruction of improvements within the Easement Area installed by Grantor or parties claiming under Grantor. [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] Doc. No. 060613-1-032 ATTACHMENT 2 34 GRANTOR CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation, a body politic Date _______________________________ By __________________________________ Its __________________________________ Doc. No. 060613-1-032 ENG RW-004 (Rev. 10/19/16) 35 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF _________________ ) On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: (Seal) 36 37 38 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 04, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE DEMAND REGISTERS DATED JANUARY 10 AND 17, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Approve demand registers dated January 10 and 17, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – None FISCAL IMPACT Demand of Cash: City 2,834,468.75$ Successor Agency of RDA -$ Housing Authority 13,886.16$ 2,848,354.91$ BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Routine bills and payroll must be paid between Council meetings. Attachment 1 details the weekly demand registers for January 10 and 17, 2020. Warrants Issued: 200563-200643 1,879,528.45$ 200644-200720 392,036.83$ 200721-200722 1,497.10$ AP Voids (18,466.18)$ Wire Transfers 337,929.26$ Payroll Tax Transfers 44,968.48$ Payroll Direct Deposit 210,860.97$ 2,848,354.91$ In the amounts listed above, twenty-seven checks were voided all of which were stale-dated checks. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 8 39 The most significant expenditures on the demand register are: Account Name Amount Riverside County Various 1,145,319.89$ Oct - Nov 2019 Sheriff Dept Police Services DBX, Inc Various 409,954.36$ Nov - Dec 2019 HSIP Interconnect Improvements Economic Various 90,047.50$ Jul - Oct 2019 Museum & Development Agency Makerspace Contract Svcs Dell Marketing LP Machinery &77,556.61$ Servers, Firewall, Gateway Equipment Mounts, Laptops Construction 49,285.00$ Dec 2019 Intersection Electric, Inc Rewire - Washington/Miles PurposeVendor Wire Transfers: Six transfers totaled $337,929. Of this amount, $169,369 was for PERS and $160,293 for Landmark. (See Attachment 2 for a full listing). Investment Transactions: Full details of investment transactions as well as total holdings are reported quarterly in the Treasurer’s Report. Transaction Issuer Type Par Value Settle Date Coupon Rate Call HSBC Bank USA CD 240,000$ 1/14/20 2.300% ALTERNATIVES Council may approve, partially approve, or reject the demand registers. Prepared by: Bernice Choo, Account Technician Approved by: Rosemary Hallick, Financial Services Analyst Attachments:1. Demand Registers 2.Wire Transfers 40 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 1 of 8 Demand Register City of La Quinta Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND 200.00Election Deposit08/01/19 - POLITICAL SIGN REFUND SA20…200563 DR RAUL RUIZ FOR CONGRESS 101-0000-22835 150.00Maintenance/Services09/17/19 - WC CARPET CLEANING200564ACE CARPET CLEANING 101-3008-60691 125.00Building Plan Check Fees01/03/19 - BRES2019-0007 REFUND ON D…200566AGUILAR, RICARDO 101-0000-42600 462.92Printing12/31/19 - 1099 & PAYROLL FORMS200567ALTEC 101-1006-60410 21.34Electrical Permits02/06/19 - BELC2019-0018 REF W/DRAW …200568A'S CONTRACTOR INC 101-0000-42403 3.25Operating Supplies11/27/19 - SUPPLIES200569AUTOZONE 101-7003-60420 20.00Digitization/Records Manage…07/26/18 - REFUND WRONG PERMIT200570B & L HEATING/COOLING 101-0000-42416 125.00Building Plan Check Fees07/26/18 - REFUND WRONG PERMIT200570B & L HEATING/COOLING 101-0000-42600 2.70Credit Card Fee Revenue07/26/18 - REFUND WRONG PERMIT200570B & L HEATING/COOLING 101-0000-43505 27.00Cash Over/Short07/05/16 - LIC-763910 REFUND OVERPYM…200572CALIFORNIA PATIO 101-0000-42300 17.68Water -Seasons Park - Utilities12/19/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61208 5,285.11Water - Civic Center Park - Utili…12/23/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61202 15,849.67Water -Community Park - Utilit…12/23/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61209 297.62PM 10 - Dust Control12/23/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-7006-60146 468.03Water -Pioneer Park - Utilities01/07/20 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61207 233.87Water - Utilities12/23/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-2002-61200 116.65Water -Eisenhower Park - Utilit…12/23/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61203 75.13Water -Velasco Park - Utilities12/23/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61205 1,826.81Water -Fritz Burns Park - Utiliti…01/07/20 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61204 561.26Water - Utilities01/07/20 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3008-61200 125.00Citywide Conf Room Supplies01/2020 - COFFEE EQPT200578DAIOHS FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 101-1007-60403 200.00Election Deposit08/01/18 - SIGN DEPOSIT REFUND SA2016…200579DALLAS TUFF & ASSOCIATES 101-0000-22835 850.00Maintenance/Services12/23/19 - SEASONS PARK GATES200581DESERT CONCEPTS CONSTRUC…101-3005-60691 250.00Maintenance/Services12/23/19 - PIONEER DOG PARK LIGHT FIX…200581DESERT CONCEPTS CONSTRUC…101-3005-60691 15,748.95School Officer10/10-11/06/19 - BP#5 SCHOOL RESOURC…200582DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHO…101-2001-60168 79.81Cable - Utilities12/22/19-01/21/20 - EOC CABLE200583DISH NETWORK 101-2002-61400 200.00Election Deposit08/01/18 - POLITICAL SIGN REFUND SA20…200586ELECT LINDA EVANS LA QUINT…101-0000-22835 40.00Fitness Membership Reimburs…12/19/18 - FITNESS REIMB200588FUSON, JACOB 101-1004-50252 82.68Gas - Utilities11/19-12/19/19 - FS #32 GAS SERVICE200589THE GAS COMPANY 101-2002-61100 122.82Gas - Utilities11/26-12/27/19 - FS #93 GAS SVC200589THE GAS COMPANY 101-2002-61100 751.00Gas - Utilities11/19-12/19/19 - CITY HALL GAS SVC200589THE GAS COMPANY 101-3008-61100 285.30Gas - Utilities11/19-12/19/19 - WC GAS SERVICE200589THE GAS COMPANY 101-3008-61100 8,881.00Fire Station09/17/19 - FIRE STATION 70 LOCKERS200590GEARGRID LLC 101-2002-60670 818.21Materials/Supplies11/26/19 - CH KEYLESS LOCK200591GRAINGER 101-3008-60431 48.00Wellness Center Leisure Enric…10/10/18 - CLASS REFUND200592HINMAN, SHIVAUN 101-0000-42214 324.62Sheriff - Other11/26/19 - CH SPECIAL EVENT200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-2001-60176 16.98Materials/Supplies11/26/19 - PARKS MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3005-60431 56.45Materials/Supplies11/08/19 - PARKS MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3005-60431 119.69Materials/Supplies11/25/19 - PARKS MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3005-60431 44.85Materials/Supplies11/26/19 - PARKS MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3005-60431 30.73Materials/Supplies11/06/19 - FRITZ POOL MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 741.51Materials/Supplies11/27/19 - HOLIDAY LIGHTS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 59.70Materials/Supplies11/07/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 32.46Materials/Supplies11/26/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 78.55Materials/Supplies11/18/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 89.95Materials/Supplies11/06/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 190.93Materials/Supplies11/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 63.28Materials/Supplies10/31/19 - CITY HALL KEYS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 30.25Materials/Supplies10/29/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 28.58Materials/Supplies10/31/19 - FRITZ POOL KEYS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 28.22Operating Supplies11/25/19 - BATTERIES200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-7003-60420 114.46Operating Supplies10/30/19 - MAINT MADISON ST200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-7003-60420 16.75Operating Supplies11/08/19 - MAT'LS ROOF TO WALL FLASH…200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-7003-60420 ATTACHMENT 1 41 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 2 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 32.98Operating Supplies11/27/19 - ELECTRICAL/WELDING200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-7003-60420 1,200.00Developer Deposits01/09/20 - REFUND REMAINING DEPOSIT …200595IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-0000-22810 1,068.74Electric - Civic Center Park - Uti…12/23/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61103 268.87Electric - Fritz Burns Park - Utili…12/23/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61105 774.36Electric - Sports Complex - Utili…12/23/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61106 497.07Electricity - Utilities01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-2002-61101 13.04Electric - Monticello Park - Utili…01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61102 506.48Electric - Colonel Paige - Utiliti…01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61108 4,962.54Electric - Community Park - Util…01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61109 45.99Electric - Adams Park - Utilities01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61110 13.64Electric - Velasco Park - Utilities01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61111 5.37Electric - Eisenhower Park - Util…01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61113 13.16Electric - Desert Pride - Utilities01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61114 125.00Cash Over/Short11/26/18 - BCOM201-0029 REFUND OVER…200597JACOBS HOMES INC, PETER 101-0000-42300 6,955.79Fritz Burns Pool12/16/19 FRITZ BURNS POOL PUMP200599KNORR SYSTEMS, INC.101-3005-60184 165.00Community Experiences12/2019 FY1920 ART ON MAIN SPONSOR…200600KPSP 101-3003-60149 7,001.56Community Experiences12/06/19 AV SVCS FOR FY1920 EVENT - T…200602LH PRODUCTIONS 101-3003-60149 70.21Maintenance/Services12/12/19 - FS #32 MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-2002-60691 142.11Materials/Supplies11/30/19 - MATERIALS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-3005-60431 47.40Materials/Supplies11/27/19 - MATERIALS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-3005-60431 2.65Materials/Supplies12/17/19 - WELLNESS CENTER MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-3008-60431 3.16Operating Supplies12/19/19 - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-7003-60420 25.10Operating Supplies12/02/19 - MATERIALS YARD200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-7003-60420 34.06Operating Supplies12/03/19 - GLOVES200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-7003-60420 5.74Operating Supplies11/27/19 - TAPE200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-7003-60420 35.74Tools/Equipment12/10/19 - TOOLS SOLDERING200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-7003-60432 47.51Tools/Equipment12/12/19 - CONE DRILL BIT200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…101-7003-60432 714.73Public Works Permits05/02/18 - REFUND INCORRECT PERMIT A…200604LYFT 101-0000-43632 1,550.00Travel & Training03/10-03/13/20 - TTC TRAINING T FLORES200605MAUREEN KANE & ASSOCIATE…101-1005-60320 3,762.84Site Development Permit05/31/18 - SITE DEV PERMIT REFUND 201…200606MENDOZA, RAMIRO 101-0000-42435 79.80Instructors12/12/18 - ZUMBA200608MISELL, STACY 101-3002-60107 29,080.00Developer Deposits01/07/20 - RELEASE DUST CTRL DEP TM 3…200609MONTERRA HOLDINGS, LLC 101-0000-22810 2,500.00Developer Deposits01/07/20 - RELEASE DEP LA PALOMA 2003…200610MSA CONSULTING INC 101-0000-22810 175.00Membership Dues01/06/20 - NRPA MEMBERSHIP C CALDER…200611NATIONAL RECREATION & PA…101-3002-60351 2,500.00Travel & Training02/21/20 - PSAM SPONSORSHIP GALA200612PALM SPRINGS AIR MUSEUM …101-1001-60320 2,500.00Advertising02/21/20 - PSAM SPONSORSHIP GALA200612PALM SPRINGS AIR MUSEUM …101-3007-60450 125.00Maintenance/Services08/22/19 - FS #70 DOOR REPAIR200613PATTON DOOR & GATE 101-2002-60691 20.00Credit Card Fees12/2019 - WC CREDIT CARD FEES200614PLUG & PAY TECHNOLOGIES I…101-3001-60122 20.00Credit Card Fees12/2019 - HUB CREDIT CARD FEES200614PLUG & PAY TECHNOLOGIES I…101-6001-60122 16.16Office Supplies12/10/19 - CODE NAME PLATE200615POWERS AWARDS INC 101-6004-60400 105.00STVR Registration Fee11/19/18 - LIC-0108078 & -0110696 REFU…200616PRICE, DALE 101-0000-41415 18.00Business Licenses11/19/18 - LIC-0108078 & -0110696 REFU…200616PRICE, DALE 101-0000-41600 480.00Map/Plan Checking11/06/19 FPM 2019-003200618RASA/ERIC NELSON 101-7002-60183 900.00Map/Plan Checking11/18/19 PMER 2019-0006 ANDERSON P…200618RASA/ERIC NELSON 101-7002-60183 420.00Map/Plan Checking12/04/19 CIP 2015-09 XPARK & DUNE PA…200618RASA/ERIC NELSON 101-7002-60183 550.02Operating Supplies11/2019 - RADIO MAINT200619RIVERSIDE COUNTY INFORMAT…101-2001-60420 661,314.35Sheriff Patrol10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60161 41,596.40Police Overtime10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60162 191,843.52Target Team10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60163 56,230.20Community Services Officer10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60164 13,622.40Gang Task Force10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60166 13,622.40Narcotics Task Force10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60167 48,196.56Motor Officer10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60169 38,034.64Dedicated Sargeants10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60170 21,363.20Dedicated Lieutenant10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60171 35,718.05Sheriff - Mileage10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60172 3,452.17Special Enforcement Funds10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60175 453.00Sheriff - Other09/24-10/24/19 - COPS FUEL200621RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60176 1,173.63Temporary Agency Services12/20/19 - HUB TEMP SVCS M GONZALEZ200622ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 101-6006-60125 198.00Election Deposit09/26/18 - SA2018-0058 REFUND POLITIC…200623RUIZ, RAUL 101-0000-22835 42 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 3 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 750.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…01/2020 - PRINT AD200624SEATTLE MET 101-3007-60461 2,580.00LQ Park Water Feature12/2019 LQ WATER FEATURE MAINTENA…200625SHARK POOLS INC 101-3005-60554 2,747.50Fritz Burns Pool12/2019 FRITZ BURNS POOL MAINTENAN…200625SHARK POOLS INC 101-3005-60184 1,350.00Civic Center Lake Maintenance12/2019 CC CAMPUS LAKE MAINT200626SOUTHWEST AQUATICS INC 101-3005-60117 84.73Citywide Conf Room Supplies12/27/19 - CITY WIDE DRINKING WATER200628SPARKLETTS 101-1007-60403 65.79Operating Supplies12/18/19 - OPERATING SUPPLIES200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-7003-60420 76.82Office Supplies12/19/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-1002-60400 118.72Office Supplies12/20/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6001-60400 100.64Office Supplies12/21/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6001-60400 146.80Office Supplies12/24/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6004-60400 93.51Office Supplies12/27/19 - INK FOR D&D PLOTTER200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6001-60400 37.25Office Supplies12/28/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-3001-60400 146.80Office Supplies01/01/20 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200629STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-3001-60400 1,328.00Due to SunLine12/2019 - SUNLINE BUS PASSES200630SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 101-0000-20305 -112.00Miscellaneous Revenue12/2019 - BUS PASSES200630SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 101-0000-42301 98.06Travel & Training08/13/19 - REIMB ALL HANDS MTG200631THOMPSON, TERESA 101-1002-60320 52.87Travel & Training09/18/18 - COUNCIL MEMBERS SUPPLIES200631THOMPSON, TERESA 101-1001-60320 41.69Cable - Utilities12/16/19-01/15/20 - FS #70 CABLE (1860)200632TIME WARNER CABLE 101-2002-61400 108.94Cable - Utilities12/24/19-01/23/20 - FS #93 CABLE (2415)200632TIME WARNER CABLE 101-2002-61400 84.99Cable - Utilities12/29/19-01/28/20 - FS #32 INTERNET (64…200632TIME WARNER CABLE 101-2002-61400 40.00Pest Control12/06/19 - FRITZ BURNS PEST CONTROL200633TRULY NOLEN INC 101-3008-60116 94.00Cash Over/Short09/25/18 - LIC-763507 REFUND BL OVERP…200634TUCKERS FAMILY RESTAURANT…101-0000-42300 103.00STVR Registration Fee07/17/18 - LIC-766275 REFUND STVR PER…200635VACASA 101-0000-41415 3,000.00Professional Services12/2019 STVRP COMPLIANCE SERVICES200636VACATION RENTAL COMPLIAN…101-6006-60103 15.84Mobile/Cell Phones/Satellites11/14-12/13/19 - EOC CELL PHONES (7813)200637VERIZON WIRELESS 101-2002-61304 617.50Maintenance/Services08/23/19 - WC LIGHTING REPAIR200638VINTAGE E & S INC 101-3008-60691 499.00Maintenance/Services12/22/19 - CH & PW YARD LIGHTING200638VINTAGE E & S INC 101-3008-60691 400.00Consultants12/2019 WELLNESS WORKS - EMP ASSIST …200639WELLNESS WORKS 101-1004-60104 600.00Maintenance/Services12/12/19 - CITY HALL ROOF REPAIR200640WESTERN PACIFIC ROOFING C…101-3008-60691 22,050.00Contract Traffic Engineer10/26-11/29/19 ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGIN…200641WILLDAN 101-7006-60144 766.15Printing02/08/19 - FY19/20 BUDGET TABS200642XPRESS GRAPHICS 101-1006-60410 526.01Printing12/19/19 - CLQ NOTE CARDS200642XPRESS GRAPHICS 101-3007-60410 600.00Professional Services12/2019 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS200643YOCKEY, JENNIFER LYNNE 101-1004-60103 Fund 101 - GENERAL FUND Total:1,292,030.72 Fund: 201 - GAS TAX FUND 10.84Safety Gear11/12/19 - SAFETY GLOVES200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 201-7003-60427 64.33Materials/Supplies11/06/19 - CONCRETE200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 201-7003-60431 298.47Materials/Supplies11/12/19 - CONCRETE200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 201-7003-60431 655.06Electricity - Utilities12/23/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 201-7003-61101 Fund 201 - GAS TAX FUND Total:1,028.70 Fund: 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 133.95Telephone - Utilities12/13/19-01/12/20 - MUSEUM PHONE200587FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…202-3006-61300 260.11Gas - Utilities11/19-12/19/19 - LIBRARY GAS SVC200589THE GAS COMPANY 202-3004-61100 93.02Maintenance/Services11/12/19 - LIBRARY MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 202-3004-60691 23.81Maintenance/Services11/19/19 - LIBRARY MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 202-3004-60691 51.66Maintenance/Services11/26/19 - MUSEUM MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 202-3006-60691 11.90Maintenance/Services11/18/19 - MUSEUM MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 202-3006-60691 15.42Maintenance/Services12/17/19 - LIBRARY MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…202-3004-60691 14.62Maintenance/Services12/04/19 - MUSEUM MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…202-3006-60691 90.13Maintenance/Services12/04/19 - MUSEUM MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…202-3006-60691 38.73Maintenance/Services12/18/19 - MUSEUM MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…202-3006-60691 56.51Maintenance/Services12/18/19 - MUSEUM MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…202-3006-60691 1,847.00Maintenance/Services12/22/19 - MUSEUM LIGHTING200638VINTAGE E & S INC 202-3006-60691 212.50Maintenance/Services12/22/19 - MUSEUM SECURITY LIGHTS200638VINTAGE E & S INC 202-3006-60691 525.00Maintenance/Services12/12/19 - LIBRARY REPAIR LEAKS200640WESTERN PACIFIC ROOFING C…202-3004-60691 Fund 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND Total:3,374.36 Fund: 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 15,774.30COPS Robbery Prevention10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…212-0000-60178 43 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 4 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 4,551.70COPS Burglary/Theft Preventi…10/10-11/06/19 - BP5 POLICE SERVICE200620RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…212-0000-60179 Fund 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND Total:20,326.00 Fund: 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 116.59Water - Medians - Utilities12/19/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…215-7004-61211 10,600.97Water - Medians - Utilities12/23/19 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…215-7004-61211 9,901.88Water - Medians - Utilities01/07/20 - WATER SERVICE200575COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…215-7004-61211 801.00Maintenance/Services12/19/19 - EISENHOWER MEDIAN200576CREATIVE LIGHTING & ELECTR…215-7004-60691 84.39Supplies-Graffiti and Vandalism10/30/19 - GRAFFITI PAINT200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60423 196.95Supplies-Graffiti and Vandalism10/30/19 - GRAFFITI PAINT200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60423 45.83Supplies-Graffiti and Vandalism11/25/19 - GRAFFITI SUPPLIES200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60423 7.57Supplies-Graffiti and Vandalism11/07/19 - GRAFFITI REMOVAL200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60423 27.09Materials/Supplies11/14/19 - L&L EISENHOWER200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60431 2,712.16Electric - Utilities12/23/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61116 1,583.70Electric - Medians - Utilities12/23/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61117 2,942.04Electric - Utilities01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61116 1,513.50Electric - Medians - Utilities01/07/20 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200596IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61117 400.13Materials/Supplies11/27/19 - MATERIALS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…215-7004-60431 -189.91Materials/Supplies11/27/19 - MATERIALS CREDIT200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…215-7004-60431 4,100.00Maintenance/Services12/20/19 - SHRUB REMOVAL200617PWLC II, INC 215-7004-60691 912.34Materials/Supplies12/18/19 - AZ RIVER ROCK200627SOUTHWEST BOULDER & STO…215-7004-60431 1,024.30Materials/Supplies12/18/19 - PS GOLD FINES200627SOUTHWEST BOULDER & STO…215-7004-60431 1,112.44Materials/Supplies12/18/19 - INDIAN RED200627SOUTHWEST BOULDER & STO…215-7004-60431 Fund 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND Total:37,892.97 Fund: 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 4.00SB 1186 Revenue11/19/18 - LIC-0108078 & -0110696 REFU…200616PRICE, DALE 230-0000-42130 Fund 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 Total:4.00 Fund: 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 10,240.98CVAG07/01-09/30/19 - 1ST QTR VEHICLE REG …200574COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC OF…235-0000-60186 Fund 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND Total:10,240.98 Fund: 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 1,500.00APP Maintenance03/2019 ART CONSULTANT SERVICES200601LEBASSE PROJECTS INTERNATI…270-0000-60683 1,000.00Art Purchases04/2019 ART CONSULTANT SERVICES200601LEBASSE PROJECTS INTERNATI…270-0000-74800 Fund 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND Total:2,500.00 Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 2,461.20Technical11/12-11/15/19 EISENHOWER RET BASIN …200565AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CA…401-0000-60108 46.16Construction11/26/19 - ELECTRICAL WIRE200569AUTOZONE 401-0000-60188 595.00Technical12/18/19 EISENHOWER RET BASIN ARCHE…200577CRM TECH 401-0000-60108 -21,576.55Retention PayablePO 1920-0101 RETENTION 1200580DBX, INC.401-0000-20600 431,530.91Construction11/18-12/17/19 2016-02 HSIP INTERCON…200580DBX, INC.401-0000-60188 515.30Construction11/14/19 CROSSWALK SAFETY LIGHT FOU…200584EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 401-0000-60188 862.80Technical12/13/19 2016-02 MATERIALS TESTING200584EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 401-0000-60108 160.00Construction12/13/19 HIGH SCHOOL CROSSWALK LIGHT200584EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 401-0000-60188 49,285.00Construction12/31/19 INTERSECTION REWIRE - WASHI…200585ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC 401-0000-60188 2,626.79Design10/2019 EISENHOWER DRAINAGE PRJ 201…200607MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIO…401-0000-60185 25,214.64Design10/2019 SRR PHASE II INFRASTRUCTURE P…200607MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIO…401-0000-60185 4,169.00Construction09/18/19 - CH TRAFFIC ROOM200638VINTAGE E & S INC 401-0000-60188 Fund 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS Total:495,890.25 Fund: 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 1,066.27Motorcycle Repair & Mainten…12/11/19 - MOTORCOP REPAIR R1200RPT200571BMW MOTORCYCLES OF RIVE…501-0000-60679 261.59Motorcycle Repair & Mainten…12/13/19 - MOTORCOP REPAIR R1250RTP200571BMW MOTORCYCLES OF RIVE…501-0000-60679 9,980.00City Bldg Repl/Repair12/14/19 WELLNESS CENTER REMODEL200598JR HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC.501-0000-71103 786.15Furniture11/26/19 - OFFICE FURNISHINGS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…501-0000-71020 1,831.97City Bldg Repl/Repair09/20/19 - CITY HALL DOORS200638VINTAGE E & S INC 501-0000-71103 Fund 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT Total:13,925.98 Fund: 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5.00Technology Enhancement Sur…07/26/18 - REFUND WRONG PERMIT200570B & L HEATING/COOLING 502-0000-43611 1,976.93Machinery & Equipment12/04/19 32" MONITORS (4)200573CDW GOVERNMENT INC 502-0000-80100 85.98Cable - Utilities12/25/19-01/24/20 - CITY HALL INTERNET200587FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 44 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 5 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 5.00Technology Enhancement Sur…05/02/18 - REFUND INCORRECT PERMIT A…200604LYFT 502-0000-43611 5.00Technology Enhancement Sur…11/19/18 - LIC-0108078 & -0110696 REFU…200616PRICE, DALE 502-0000-43611 141.75Cable - Utilities11/15-12/14/19 - WC CABLE (8105)200632TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 5.00Technology Enhancement Sur…07/17/18 - LIC-766275 REFUND STVR PER…200635VACASA 502-0000-43611 Fund 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total:2,224.66 Fund: 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 32.51Repair & Maintenance11/22/19 - SRR MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 601-0000-60660 31.34Repair & Maintenance11/26/19 - SRR MAT'LS200593HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 601-0000-60660 25.98Repair & Maintenance12/06/19 - SILVERROCK MAT'LS200603LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT…601-0000-60660 Fund 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT Total:89.83 Grand Total:1,879,528.45 45 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 6 of 8 Fund Summary Fund Expense Amount 101 - GENERAL FUND 1,292,030.72 201 - GAS TAX FUND 1,028.70 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 3,374.36 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 20,326.00 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 37,892.97 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 4.00 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 10,240.98 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 2,500.00 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 495,890.25 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 13,925.98 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2,224.66 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 89.83 Grand Total:1,879,528.45 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-0000-20305 Due to SunLine 1,328.00 101-0000-22810 Developer Deposits 32,780.00 101-0000-22835 Election Deposit 798.00 101-0000-41415 STVR Registration Fee 208.00 101-0000-41600 Business Licenses 18.00 101-0000-42214 Wellness Center Leisure E…48.00 101-0000-42300 Cash Over/Short 246.00 101-0000-42301 Miscellaneous Revenue -112.00 101-0000-42403 Electrical Permits 21.34 101-0000-42416 Digitization/Records Man…20.00 101-0000-42435 Site Development Permit 3,762.84 101-0000-42600 Building Plan Check Fees 250.00 101-0000-43505 Credit Card Fee Revenue 2.70 101-0000-43632 Public Works Permits 714.73 101-1001-60320 Travel & Training 2,552.87 101-1002-60320 Travel & Training 98.06 101-1002-60400 Office Supplies 76.82 101-1004-50252 Fitness Membership Reim…40.00 101-1004-60103 Professional Services 600.00 101-1004-60104 Consultants 400.00 101-1005-60320 Travel & Training 1,550.00 101-1006-60410 Printing 1,229.07 101-1007-60403 Citywide Conf Room Suppl…209.73 101-2001-60161 Sheriff Patrol 661,314.35 101-2001-60162 Police Overtime 41,596.40 101-2001-60163 Target Team 191,843.52 101-2001-60164 Community Services Offic…56,230.20 101-2001-60166 Gang Task Force 13,622.40 101-2001-60167 Narcotics Task Force 13,622.40 101-2001-60168 School Officer 15,748.95 101-2001-60169 Motor Officer 48,196.56 101-2001-60170 Dedicated Sargeants 38,034.64 101-2001-60171 Dedicated Lieutenant 21,363.20 101-2001-60172 Sheriff - Mileage 35,718.05 101-2001-60175 Special Enforcement Funds 3,452.17 101-2001-60176 Sheriff - Other 777.62 101-2001-60420 Operating Supplies 550.02 101-2002-60670 Fire Station 8,881.00 101-2002-60691 Maintenance/Services 195.21 101-2002-61100 Gas - Utilities 205.50 101-2002-61101 Electricity - Utilities 497.07 101-2002-61200 Water - Utilities 233.87 101-2002-61304 Mobile/Cell Phones/Satell…15.84 46 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 7 of 8 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-2002-61400 Cable - Utilities 315.43 101-3001-60122 Credit Card Fees 20.00 101-3001-60400 Office Supplies 184.05 101-3002-60107 Instructors 79.80 101-3002-60351 Membership Dues 175.00 101-3003-60149 Community Experiences 7,166.56 101-3005-60117 Civic Center Lake Mainten…1,350.00 101-3005-60184 Fritz Burns Pool 9,703.29 101-3005-60431 Materials/Supplies 427.48 101-3005-60554 LQ Park Water Feature 2,580.00 101-3005-60691 Maintenance/Services 1,100.00 101-3005-61102 Electric - Monticello Park -…13.04 101-3005-61103 Electric - Civic Center Park…1,068.74 101-3005-61105 Electric - Fritz Burns Park -…268.87 101-3005-61106 Electric - Sports Complex -…774.36 101-3005-61108 Electric - Colonel Paige - U…506.48 101-3005-61109 Electric - Community Park …4,962.54 101-3005-61110 Electric - Adams Park - Util…45.99 101-3005-61111 Electric - Velasco Park - Uti…13.64 101-3005-61113 Electric - Eisenhower Park …5.37 101-3005-61114 Electric - Desert Pride - Uti…13.16 101-3005-61202 Water - Civic Center Park -…5,285.11 101-3005-61203 Water -Eisenhower Park -…116.65 101-3005-61204 Water -Fritz Burns Park - …1,826.81 101-3005-61205 Water -Velasco Park - Utili…75.13 101-3005-61207 Water -Pioneer Park - Utili…468.03 101-3005-61208 Water -Seasons Park - Util…17.68 101-3005-61209 Water -Community Park -…15,849.67 101-3007-60410 Printing 526.01 101-3007-60450 Advertising 2,500.00 101-3007-60461 Marketing & Tourism Pro…750.00 101-3008-60116 Pest Control 40.00 101-3008-60431 Materials/Supplies 2,166.80 101-3008-60691 Maintenance/Services 1,866.50 101-3008-61100 Gas - Utilities 1,036.30 101-3008-61200 Water - Utilities 561.26 101-6001-60122 Credit Card Fees 20.00 101-6001-60400 Office Supplies 312.87 101-6004-60400 Office Supplies 162.96 101-6006-60103 Professional Services 3,000.00 101-6006-60125 Temporary Agency Servic…1,173.63 101-7002-60183 Map/Plan Checking 1,800.00 101-7003-60420 Operating Supplies 329.51 101-7003-60432 Tools/Equipment 83.25 101-7006-60144 Contract Traffic Engineer 22,050.00 101-7006-60146 PM 10 - Dust Control 297.62 201-7003-60427 Safety Gear 10.84 201-7003-60431 Materials/Supplies 362.80 201-7003-61101 Electricity - Utilities 655.06 202-3004-60691 Maintenance/Services 657.25 202-3004-61100 Gas - Utilities 260.11 202-3006-60691 Maintenance/Services 2,323.05 202-3006-61300 Telephone - Utilities 133.95 212-0000-60178 COPS Robbery Prevention 15,774.30 212-0000-60179 COPS Burglary/Theft Prev…4,551.70 215-7004-60423 Supplies-Graffiti and Van…334.74 215-7004-60431 Materials/Supplies 3,286.39 215-7004-60691 Maintenance/Services 4,901.00 47 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02244 - BC 01/10/20 1/17/2020 2:58:45 PM Page 8 of 8 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 215-7004-61116 Electric - Utilities 5,654.20 215-7004-61117 Electric - Medians - Utiliti…3,097.20 215-7004-61211 Water - Medians - Utilities 20,619.44 230-0000-42130 SB 1186 Revenue 4.00 235-0000-60186 CVAG 10,240.98 270-0000-60683 APP Maintenance 1,500.00 270-0000-74800 Art Purchases 1,000.00 401-0000-20600 Retention Payable -21,576.55 401-0000-60108 Technical 3,919.00 401-0000-60185 Design 27,841.43 401-0000-60188 Construction 485,706.37 501-0000-60679 Motorcycle Repair & Main…1,327.86 501-0000-71020 Furniture 786.15 501-0000-71103 City Bldg Repl/Repair 11,811.97 502-0000-43611 Technology Enhancement…20.00 502-0000-61400 Cable - Utilities 227.73 502-0000-80100 Machinery & Equipment 1,976.93 601-0000-60660 Repair & Maintenance 89.83 Grand Total:1,879,528.45 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense AmountProject Account Name **None**1,335,760.63**None** 12-002E 29,080.00MONTERRA HOLDINGS EXP 12-007E 2,500.00MSA CONSULTING EXP 13-008E 1,200.00IMPERIAL IRRIGATION EXP 141513D 25,214.64Design Expense 151612D 2,626.79Design Expense 151612T 3,056.20Technical Expense 1920TMICT 54,129.30Construction Expense 201602CT 431,530.91Construction Expense 201602RP -21,576.55Retention Payable 201602T 862.80Technical Expense 201804E 7,977.17Landscape & Lighting Median Isla… OTLQE 165.00OLD TOWN LQ SPONSORSHIP EXP… TREEE 7,001.56Tree Lighting Ceremony Expense Grand Total:1,879,528.45 48 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 1 of 8 Demand Register City of La Quinta Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND -52.41Sales Taxes Payable01/07/20 - WC GYM WIPES SALES TAX2006442XL CORPORATION 101-0000-20304 797.13Operating Supplies01/07/20 - WC GYM WIPES2006442XL CORPORATION 101-3002-60420 660.00Security & Alarm01/01-03/31/20 BURG ALARM MONITORI…200646ALARM MONITORING SERVICE…101-3008-60123 510.00Fire Station01/01-03/31/20 FIRE ALARM MONITORI…200646ALARM MONITORING SERVICE…101-2002-60670 510.00Security & Alarm01/01-03/31/20 FIRE FACILITIES ALARM …200646ALARM MONITORING SERVICE…101-3008-60123 4,000.00Community Experiences10/01-10/22/19 107.3 MOD FM IRONMAN…200647ALPHA MEDIA LLC 101-3003-60149 305.00Blood/Alcohol Testing11/30/19 - BLOOD/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS200648AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES …101-2001-60174 4,000.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…02/2020 GRAPHIC DESIGN200649ARK CONNECTS LLC 101-3007-60461 125.00Telephone - Utilities12/20/19 - LA193500092 SHERIFF TRACK …200650AT&T 101-2001-61300 88.00Blood/Alcohol Testing12/13/19 - BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING200651BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 101-2001-60174 2,616.00Blood/Alcohol Testing12/13/19 - BLOOD ALCOHOL ANALYSIS200651BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 101-2001-60174 207.00Blood/Alcohol Testing12/12/19 - BLOOD ALCOHOL ANALYSIS200651BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 101-2001-60174 10,000.00Boys & Girls Club01/2020-03/2020 FACILITY USE AGREEME…200652BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COACH…101-3001-60135 50.00Travel & Training02/11/20 - EDUCATION WKSHOP M RADE…200656CITY CLERK ASSOCIATION OF C…101-1005-60320 50.00Travel & Training02/11/20 - EDUCATION WKSHOP N ROM…200656CITY CLERK ASSOCIATION OF C…101-1005-60320 50.00Travel & Training02/11/20 - EDUCATION WKSHOP T FLORES200656CITY CLERK ASSOCIATION OF C…101-1005-60320 740.60Instructors01/10/20 - CARDIO & SUN STYLE TAI CHI200658COHEN, ANN MARIE 101-3002-60107 34.00Over Payments, AR Policy01/07/20 - LIC-0101230 REF OVERPYMT B…200659DAVID KEVIN OR EMILY PLOU…101-0000-20330 350.00Community Experiences12/2019 - ART ON MAIN ST AD200662DESERT ENTERTAINER/DESERT…101-3003-60149 1,780.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…01/2020 PS LIFE VISION PUBLICATION200663DESERT PUBLICATIONS INC 101-3007-60461 83.47Over Payments, AR Policy01/07/20 - LIC-0110438 REFUND OVERPY…200665DUPONT ESTATE RESORT 101-0000-20330 1,942.50Contract Services - Administrat…01/01-06/30/2020 - GRANT MGMT SERVI…200666ECIVIS INC 101-1002-60101 11,000.00Auditors2019 CAFR/AUDIT200668EIDE BAILLY LLP 101-1006-60106 800.00Sexual Assault Exam Fees11/27/19 - LA193290076200669EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER 101-2001-60193 95.00Recruiting/Pre-Employment01/03/20 - PHYSICAL200670EISENHOWER OCCUPATIONAL…101-1004-60129 2,900.00Rental Expense12/03/19 - RENTAL EXP/LEASE OBLIGATION200672FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT 101-3002-60157 310.78Uniforms12/31/19 - CODE UNIFORMS200676GALLS LLC 101-6004-60690 137.07Travel & Training11/11-11/15/19 - REIMB CPRS MAINT MGT200677HANSEN, DIANNE 101-3005-60320 300.00Consultants12/26/19 - 4TH QTR TRANS TAX200679HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & AS…101-1006-60104 47.00Over Payments, AR Policy01/06/20 - LIC-0111888 REFUND OVERPY…200680HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC 101-0000-20330 3,770.00Map/Plan Checking11/30/19 ON-CALL ENG PLAN CHECK SVCS200681HR GREEN PACIFIC INC 101-7002-60183 3,741.25Plan Checks11/2019 ON-CALL BUILDING PLAN CHECK …200682INTERWEST CONSULTING GR…101-6003-60118 445.00Instructors01/10/20 - STRETCH & RESTORE SCULPT F…200683JOHNSON, KAREN T. PAYNE 101-3002-60107 583.98Maintenance/Services01/01-03/31/20 - CITY HALL ELEVATOR M…200684KONE INC 101-3008-60691 470.40Instructors01/10/20 - TAI CHI CHUAN200685MEDEIROS, JOYCELEEN 101-3002-60107 4,500.00PM 10 - Dust Control12/31/19 - FRONTIER WALL TEMP FENCING200687MONJARAZ, FELIPE DE JESUS 101-7006-60146 1,603.33Marketing & Tourism Promoti…12/06/19-01/02/20 IN-THEATER ADVERTIS…200688NATIONAL CINEMEDIA LLC 101-3007-60461 1,603.33Marketing & Tourism Promoti…01/03-01/30/20 IN-THEATER ADVERTISING200688NATIONAL CINEMEDIA LLC 101-3007-60461 81.55Office Supplies12/12/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 20.65Office Supplies12/11/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-2002-60400 -0.17Office Supplies12/12/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE RETURN200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 74.43Office Supplies12/13/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 7.12Office Supplies12/16/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 -74.25Office Supplies12/19/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE RETURN200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 -0.17Office Supplies12/16/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE RETURN200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 -7.12Office Supplies12/17/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE RETURN200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 253.08Office Supplies12/18/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 36.51Office Supplies12/30/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 45.66Office Supplies01/03/20 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CODE200690OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60400 1,484.03Community Experiences11/29/19 - XMAS TREE INSTALLATION200691PACIFIC DECORATING COMPA…101-3003-60149 1,173.63Temporary Agency Services11/22/19 - HUB TEMP SVCS M GONZALEZ200695ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 101-6006-60125 1,155.00Instructors01/10/20 - TAEKWONDO200696ROJAS, MIGUEL ANGEL 101-3002-60107 71.50Operating Supplies01/16/20 - REIMB NOTARY & BOND REGIST200697ROMANE, NICHOLE 101-1005-60420 49 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 2 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 153.93Travel & Training10/16-10/18/19 - REIMB LEAGUE 2019 C…200698SANCHEZ, STEVE 101-1001-60320 4,775.00Fritz Burns Pool12/27/19 - FB POOL SAND FILTERS SVCS200699SHARK POOLS INC 101-3005-60184 675.00Fritz Burns Pool12/27/19 - FB POOL PUMP INSTALL200699SHARK POOLS INC 101-3005-60184 364.00Instructors01/10/20 - BALLROOM DANCING200700SHIRY, TERESA 101-3002-60107 174.75Operating Supplies12/27/19 - DRINKING WATER200702SPARKLETTS 101-7003-60420 1,500.00Veterinary Service01/11/20 LOW COST SPAY / NEUTER SERV…200703SPAY NEUTER IMPERATIVE PR…101-6004-60194 80.46Citywide Conf Room Supplies12/20/19 - PLOTTER PAPER FOR T920200704STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-1007-60403 46.29Office Supplies12/24/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200704STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-1004-60400 106.55Citywide Conf Room Supplies01/04/20 - CITY WIDE COFFEE200704STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-1007-60403 -6.51Office Supplies01/08/20 - OFFICE SUPPLIES CREDIT200704STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-3001-60400 6.51Office Supplies01/08/20 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200704STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-3001-60400 29.34Office Supplies01/08/20 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200704STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-1004-60400 7,229.17Marketing & Tourism Promoti…12/2019 GEM ADVERTISING CONTRACT200706THE CHAMBER 101-3007-60461 7,229.17Marketing & Tourism Promoti…01/2020 GEM ADVERTISING CONTRACT200706THE CHAMBER 101-3007-60461 895.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…01/01-01/28/20 AIRPORT ADVERTISING200707THE LAMAR COMPANIES 101-3007-60461 84.99Cable - Utilities01/03-02/02/20 - FS #93 INTERNET (3514)200709TIME WARNER CABLE 101-2002-61400 1,298.94Telephone - Utilities12/23/19-01/22/20 - EOC200711TPX COMMUNICATIONS 101-2002-61300 780.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…01/2020 LOCAL PRINT PUBLICATION200712TRAVELHOST PALM SPRINGS 101-3007-60461 295.40Instructors01/10/20 - SUNSET YOGA200713TRUE, ARTHUR ALLEN 101-3002-60107 933.48Telephone - Utilities11/26-12/25/19 - LQPD CELL SVC (6852)200714VERIZON WIRELESS 101-2001-61300 889.84Instructors01/10/20 - GENTLE & CHAIR YOGA200715VIELHARBER, KAREN 101-3002-60107 -10.76Sales Taxes Payable12/30/19 - CREATION STATION SALES TAX200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-0000-20304 1,187.48Employee Computer Loan12/27/19 - COMPUTER LOAN C GAMEZ200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-0000-20915 90.12Recruiting/Pre-Employment12/05/19 - BLDG INSP INTERVIEW PANEL200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60129 90.12Recruiting/Pre-Employment12/12/19 - BLDG OFFICAL INTERVIEW PAN…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60129 58.84Travel & Training12/18/19 - SAFETY TRAINING200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 82.57Travel & Training12/18/19 - SAFETY TRAINING200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 239.20Subscriptions & Publications12/19/19 - CA 2020 LABOR LAW POSTER200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60352 138.03Travel & Training12/06/19 - EXECUTIVE RETREAT200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 160.00Travel & Training12/03/19 - CSMFO MEETING 12/11/19200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 275.00Travel & Training12/26/19 - CMTA TRAINING R HALLICK200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 110.00Membership Dues12/02/19 - CSMFO DUES R HALLICK200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60351 871.11LQ Police Volunteers12/02/19 - POLICE BIKE REPAIRS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60109 804.25Special Enforcement Funds12/06/19 - POLICE LUNCH IRONMAN200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60175 195.21Disaster Prep Supplies12/06/19 - FOOD IRONMAN200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60406 43.48Small Tools & Equipment12/18/19 - EM/FIRE FIELD SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60545 55.18Fire Station12/04/19 - FS #70 RAIN GAUGE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60670 6.41Community Experiences12/03/19 - TREE LIGHTING SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 60.89Community Experiences12/10/19 - SANTA BEARD/WIG200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 120.00Operating Supplies12/16/19 - CLEANING TABLECLOTHS (8)200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60420 53.07Operating Supplies12/13/19 - CORKBOARD200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60420 14.99Marketing & Tourism Promoti…12/10/19 - APPLE MUSIC 12/2019200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 238.31Travel & Training12/11/19 - TEAM BUILDING BREAKFAST200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 585.00Travel & Training12/16/19 - LAND USE LAW & PLAN D CAS…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 8.25Office Supplies12/13/19 - LIGHTBULBS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60400 76.11Office Supplies12/19/19 - DESK LAMP200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60400 143.85Office Supplies12/04/19 - BINDER DIVIDER TABS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60400 585.00Travel & Training12/16/19 - LAND USE LAW & PLAN C FLOR…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6002-60320 71.19Supplies - Field12/10/19 - CODE SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6004-60425 43.48Supplies - Field12/18/19 - CODE FIELD SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6004-60425 300.00Travel & Training12/11/19 - TEAM BUILDING BREAKFAST200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7002-60320 32.60Office Supplies11/26/19 - IPAD CASE & SCREEN PROTEC…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1002-60400 64.16Office Supplies11/10/19 - MEETINGS TIMER200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1002-60400 86.18Recruiting/Pre-Employment11/02/19 - CODE I INTERVIEW PANEL200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60129 54.81Travel & Training11/06/19 - SAFE WORKPLACE TRAINING200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 96.33Travel & Training11/06/19 - SAFE WORKPLACE TRAINING200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 210.00Employee Recognition Events11/14/19 - EMPLOYEE TREE TRIMMING E…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60340 69.59Operating Supplies11/02/19 - VIDEO CAMERA200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60420 29.34Travel & Training11/16/19 - TRAINING BOOKS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60320 293.06Membership Dues11/21/19 - NOTARY PKG N ROMANE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60351 50 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 3 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 98.00Office Supplies11/26/19 - NOTARY SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60400 425.00Travel & Training11/15/19 - 2019 CSMFO CONF K BLONDELL200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 110.00Membership Dues11/13/19 - CSMFO MEMBERSHIP K BLON…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60351 110.00Membership Dues11/22/19 - CSMFO MEMBERSHIP200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60351 9.79LQ Police Volunteers11/12/19 - POLICE VOLUNTEER DINNER200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60109 3,008.00Special Enforcement Funds11/27/19 - SHOP W/ COP PROGRAM200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60175 11.95Volunteers - Fire11/13/19 - VOLUNTEER DINNER FS #93200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60110 72.29Small Tools & Equipment11/24/19 - TV MOUNT200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60545 18.44Fire Station11/13/19 - VOLUNTEER DINNER FS #93200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60670 41.53Fire Station11/11/19 - FS #93 SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60670 42.93Operating Supplies11/20/19 - SENIOR LUNCHEON 11/2019200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3002-60420 1.39Community Experiences11/19/19 - MARSHMALLOWS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 59.70Community Experiences11/20/19 - TREAT BAGS TREE LIGHTING E…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 69.21Community Experiences11/20/19 - MARSHMALLOWS/SKEWERS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 53.29Community Experiences11/20/19 - SOLUTION SNOW MACHINE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 247.79Community Experiences11/21/19 - S'MORE MAKERS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 863.68Community Experiences11/25/19 - RENTAL EQPT WELLNESS FESTI…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 135.00Community Experiences11/05/19 - BALLOONS VET EVENT200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 301.73Community Experiences11/20/19 - SNACKS TREE LIGHTING EVENT200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 107.90Community Experiences11/22/19 - HOLIDAY TRUNK TREE EVENT200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 54.97Operating Supplies11/14/19 - IRONMAN OPEN HOUSE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60420 98.91Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/24/19 - SUPPLIES TREE EVENT200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 0.99Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/03/19 - ICLOUD STORAGE 11/2019200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 14.99Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/10/19 - APPLE MUSIC 11/2019200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 108.96Travel & Training11/08/19 - APWA EXPO200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3008-60320 199.00Travel & Training11/05/19 - ADMIN ASST CONF200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 27.24Travel & Training11/08/19 - APWA EXPO200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 29.34Travel & Training11/27/19 - APWA LUNCHEON 12/2019200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 71.00Operating Supplies11/26/19 - DESK LAMP & PHONE CORD200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6006-60420 217.49Operating Supplies11/08/19 - DESK HUB USE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6006-60420 163.44Travel & Training11/08/19 - APWA EXPO200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7003-60320 163.44Travel & Training11/08/19 - APWA EXPO200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7006-60320 88.02Travel & Training11/27/19 - APWA LUNCHEON 12/2019200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7006-60320 335.00Travel & Training11/07/19 - TRAINING U AYON200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7006-60320 199.00Travel & Training11/05/19 - ADMIN ASST CONF200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7006-60320 -15,000.00Operating Supplies12/02/19 - TO REVERSE BANK DRAFT REC…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60420 Fund 101 - GENERAL FUND Total:93,208.05 Fund: 201 - GAS TAX FUND 632.31Equipment Rental11/19/19 - ROTARY MIXER200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 201-7003-61701 -440.00Equipment Rental11/19/19 - ROTARY MIXER DEPOSIT REF200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 201-7003-61701 Fund 201 - GAS TAX FUND Total:192.31 Fund: 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 165.00Security & Alarm01/01-03/31/20 BURG LIBRARY ALARM M…200646ALARM MONITORING SERVICE…202-3004-60123 165.00Security & Alarm01/01-03/31/20 BURG MUSEUM ALARM …200646ALARM MONITORING SERVICE…202-3006-60123 255.00Security & Alarm01/01-03/31/20 FIRE LIBRARY ALARM M…200646ALARM MONITORING SERVICE…202-3004-60123 255.00Security & Alarm01/01-03/31/20 FIRE MUSEUM ALARM …200646ALARM MONITORING SERVICE…202-3006-60123 174.00Maintenance/Services01/08/20 - LIBRARY AUTO FLUSHER200653BRUINSMA, LEW 202-3004-60691 48,750.00Museum Operations07/19-09/19 - MUSEUM CONTRACT SVCS …200667ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A…202-3006-60105 41,297.50Makerspace Operations07/19-09/19 - MAKERSPACE CONTRACT S…200667ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A…202-3009-60105 583.98Maintenance/Services01/01-03/31/20 - MUSEUM ELEVATOR MA…200684KONE INC 202-3006-60691 243.61Operating Supplies12/30/19 - CREATION STATION SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 202-3009-60420 76.21Operating Supplies12/31/19 - CREATION STATION SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 202-3009-60420 70.90Operating Supplies12/31/19 - SUPPLIES200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 202-3009-60420 88.51Operating Supplies11/15/19 - GOBO PROJECTOR200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 202-3006-60420 Fund 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND Total:92,124.71 Fund: 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 1,480.00AB 939 Recycling Solutions12/01-12/31/19 MIX 100.5 LOCAL FM RAD…200647ALPHA MEDIA LLC 221-0000-60127 1,480.00AB 939 Recycling Solutions12/01-12/31/19 U92.7 LOCAL FM RADIO …200647ALPHA MEDIA LLC 221-0000-60127 51 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 4 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 160.00AB 939 Recycling Solutions12/01-12/31/19 THE BULL 98.5 LOCAL FM…200647ALPHA MEDIA LLC 221-0000-60127 Fund 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND Total:3,120.00 Fund: 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 6,300.00Professional Services12/2019 HOUSING COMPLIANCE AND M…200654CAHA, BECKY 241-9101-60103 1,528.92Operating Supplies11/21/19 - WSA THANKSGIVING LUNCHE…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 241-9101-60420 Fund 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY Total:7,828.92 Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 650.00Design12/31/19 - CVWD PLAN CK FEE 2018-01200657COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…401-0000-60185 107.02Construction12/20/19 - EISENHOWER BASIN FERNANDO200661DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 401-0000-60188 1,467.40Construction12/06-12/13/19 - PUBLICATIONS200664DESERT SUN PUBLISHING, LLC 401-0000-60188 433.76Construction12/26/19 - EISENHOWER BASIN FERNANDO200678HIGH TECH IRRIGATION INC 401-0000-60188 4,876.67Construction01/13/20 - BANNER BRACKETS200689NEXTECH SYSTEMS, INC.401-0000-60188 174.55Construction12/11/19 - EISENHOWER BASIN FERNANDO200701SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY CO 401-0000-60188 276.11Construction12/11/19 - EISENHOWER BASIN FERNANDO200701SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY CO 401-0000-60188 2,970.81Construction12/13/19 - EISENHOWER BASIN FERNANDO200701SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY CO 401-0000-60188 -1,838.15Retention PayablePO 1920-0165 RETENTION 1200716WATERLINE TECHNOLOGIES, I…401-0000-20600 36,763.00Construction12/31/19 2019-18 FRITZ BURNS POOL HE…200716WATERLINE TECHNOLOGIES, I…401-0000-60188 Fund 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS Total:45,881.17 Fund: 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 19,383.32Vehicles, Rentals & Leases01/2020 - FLEET LEASE200671ENTERPRISE FM TRUST 501-0000-71030 1,007.37Fuel & Oil12/2019 - FUEL CHARGES200675FUELMAN 501-0000-60674 30.65Vehicle Repair & Maintenance12/31/19 - ACETYLENE200692PRAXAIR INC 501-0000-60676 2,340.25City Bldg Repl/Repair01/06/20 - WC REMODEL BENCHES (4)200693RAMOS UPHOLSTERY 501-0000-71103 562.00Vehicle Repair & Maintenance12/20-12/21/19 R.A.N. AUTO WASH200694RAN AUTO DETAIL 501-0000-60676 50.75Vehicle Repair & Maintenance12/20/19 - 2007 FORD TRUCK SMOG TEST200705STONE'S, CAM AUTOMOTIVE I…501-0000-60676 151.38City Bldg Repl/Repair01/03/20 - WC REMODEL PAINT200708THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.501-0000-71103 2,245.26Fuel & Oil12/16-12/31/19 - VEHICLE FUEL200710TOWER ENERGY GROUP 501-0000-60674 3,172.56Vehicle Repair & Maintenance12/18/19 - POOL VEH REPAIR CHRYSLER 3…200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 501-0000-60676 738.70Furniture12/04/19 - FURNITURE FOR YARD200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 501-0000-71020 478.39Furniture11/26/19 - CITY YARD FURNITURE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 501-0000-71020 454.52Furniture11/26/19 - CITY YARD FURNITURE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 501-0000-71020 Fund 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT Total:30,615.15 Fund: 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 23,160.00Consultants01/2020 IT SERVICES NETWORK ADMIN200645ACORN TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 502-0000-60104 1,419.96Consultants11/18/19 EQPT SETUP MOVE FROM EOC …200645ACORN TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 502-0000-60104 736.30Copiers 12/20/19-01/19/20 CANON COPIER CON…200655CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, …502-0000-60662 72,723.49Machinery & Equipment12/10/2019 SERVERS (5), FIREWALL, GAT…200660DELL MARKETING LP 502-0000-80100 322.57Machinery & Equipment12/19/19 PREMIUM ACTIVE PEN & THUN…200660DELL MARKETING LP 502-0000-80100 4,510.55Machinery & Equipment12/03/19 PREMIUM PEN, LAPTOP (2), TH…200660DELL MARKETING LP 502-0000-80100 800.00Consultants12/2019 COUNCIL MTG MEDIA RECORD, …200673FISHER INTEGRATED INC 502-0000-60104 50.98Cable - Utilities12/27/19-01/26/20 - BLACKHAWK/LQ PA…200674FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 55.98Cable - Utilities12/26/19-01/25/20 - CITY HALL DSL200674FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 4,253.78Software Licenses12/10/19-01/09/20 - MS AZURE ONLINE S…200686MICROSOFT CORPORATION 502-0000-60301 162.88Cable - Utilities01/2020 - CITY HALL CABLE (4625)200709TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 244.22Cable - Utilities12/24/19-01/23/20 - WC CABLE (4601)200709TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 8.83Cable - Utilities12/20/19-01/19/20 - WC CABLE (1909)200709TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 2,493.31Telephone - Utilities12/23/19-01/22/20 - PHONE LINE SVC200711TPX COMMUNICATIONS 502-0000-61300 66.52Cable - Utilities12/02/19-01/01/20 - BACKUP SERVER (21…200714VERIZON WIRELESS 502-0000-61400 2,663.99Cell/Mobile Phones12/02/19-01/01/20 - CITY CELL SVC IPADS …200714VERIZON WIRELESS 502-0000-61301 1,917.16Cell/Mobile Phones12/02/19-01/01/20 - CITY HALL CELL SVC (…200714VERIZON WIRELESS 502-0000-61301 18.71Software Licenses12/02/19 - SNAGIT UPGRADE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 50.00Software Licenses12/13/19 - BASECAMP 12/2019200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 58.27Machinery & Equipment12/05/19 - IPAD CASE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 326.10Machinery & Equipment12/04/19 - IT ITEMS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 352.20Machinery & Equipment12/04/19 - HARD DRIVES (12)200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 352.18Machinery & Equipment12/04/19 - IT ITEMS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 1,008.69Computers12/11/19 - TABLETS (6) CONF RMS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80103 72.95Software Licenses11/19/19 - GOLF TOUR WEBSITE200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 50.00Software Licenses11/13/19 - BASECAMP200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 52 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 5 of 8 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 65.24Operating Supplies11/25/19 - IPHONE CASE M SALAS200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 68.50Machinery & Equipment11/24/19 - PHONE CORDS (5)200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 212.06Machinery & Equipment11/20/19 - DUAL-MONITOR ARM CC200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 217.44Machinery & Equipment11/10/19 - TABLET HOLDER (4)200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 289.17Machinery & Equipment11/24/19 - WIRELESS DISPLAY ADAPTER (7)200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 157.24Computers11/13/19 - GALAXY TAB CONF RM200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80103 Fund 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total:118,889.27 Fund: 504 - INSURANCE FUND 199.00Travel & Training12/23/19 - FRED PRYOR P NIETO200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 504-1010-60320 635.10Operating Supplies12/24/19 - STANDING DESK200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 504-1010-60420 -656.85Operating Supplies11/27/19 - RETURN DESK HR200717WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 504-1010-60420 Fund 504 - INSURANCE FUND Total:177.25 Grand Total:392,036.83 53 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 6 of 8 Fund Summary Fund Expense Amount 101 - GENERAL FUND 93,208.05 201 - GAS TAX FUND 192.31 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 92,124.71 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 3,120.00 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 7,828.92 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 45,881.17 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 30,615.15 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 118,889.27 504 - INSURANCE FUND 177.25 Grand Total:392,036.83 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-0000-20304 Sales Taxes Payable -63.17 101-0000-20330 Over Payments, AR Policy 164.47 101-0000-20915 Employee Computer Loan 1,187.48 101-1001-60320 Travel & Training 153.93 101-1002-60101 Contract Services - Admini…1,942.50 101-1002-60400 Office Supplies 96.76 101-1004-60129 Recruiting/Pre-Employme…361.42 101-1004-60320 Travel & Training 292.55 101-1004-60340 Employee Recognition Ev…210.00 101-1004-60352 Subscriptions & Publicati…239.20 101-1004-60400 Office Supplies 75.63 101-1004-60420 Operating Supplies 69.59 101-1005-60320 Travel & Training 179.34 101-1005-60351 Membership Dues 293.06 101-1005-60400 Office Supplies 98.00 101-1005-60420 Operating Supplies 71.50 101-1006-60104 Consultants 300.00 101-1006-60106 Auditors 11,000.00 101-1006-60320 Travel & Training 998.03 101-1006-60351 Membership Dues 330.00 101-1006-60420 Operating Supplies -15,000.00 101-1007-60403 Citywide Conf Room Suppl…187.01 101-2001-60109 LQ Police Volunteers 880.90 101-2001-60174 Blood/Alcohol Testing 3,216.00 101-2001-60175 Special Enforcement Funds 3,812.25 101-2001-60193 Sexual Assault Exam Fees 800.00 101-2001-61300 Telephone - Utilities 1,058.48 101-2002-60110 Volunteers - Fire 11.95 101-2002-60400 Office Supplies 20.65 101-2002-60406 Disaster Prep Supplies 195.21 101-2002-60545 Small Tools & Equipment 115.77 101-2002-60670 Fire Station 625.15 101-2002-61300 Telephone - Utilities 1,298.94 101-2002-61400 Cable - Utilities 84.99 101-3001-60135 Boys & Girls Club 10,000.00 101-3001-60400 Office Supplies 0.00 101-3002-60107 Instructors 4,360.24 101-3002-60157 Rental Expense 2,900.00 101-3002-60420 Operating Supplies 840.06 101-3003-60149 Community Experiences 7,741.02 101-3003-60420 Operating Supplies 174.97 101-3005-60184 Fritz Burns Pool 5,450.00 101-3005-60320 Travel & Training 137.07 101-3007-60420 Operating Supplies 53.07 101-3007-60461 Marketing & Tourism Pro…25,249.88 101-3008-60123 Security & Alarm 1,170.00 54 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 7 of 8 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-3008-60320 Travel & Training 108.96 101-3008-60691 Maintenance/Services 583.98 101-6001-60320 Travel & Training 1,078.89 101-6001-60400 Office Supplies 228.21 101-6002-60320 Travel & Training 585.00 101-6003-60118 Plan Checks 3,741.25 101-6004-60194 Veterinary Service 1,500.00 101-6004-60400 Office Supplies 416.64 101-6004-60425 Supplies - Field 114.67 101-6004-60690 Uniforms 310.78 101-6006-60125 Temporary Agency Servic…1,173.63 101-6006-60420 Operating Supplies 288.49 101-7002-60183 Map/Plan Checking 3,770.00 101-7002-60320 Travel & Training 300.00 101-7003-60320 Travel & Training 163.44 101-7003-60420 Operating Supplies 174.75 101-7006-60146 PM 10 - Dust Control 4,500.00 101-7006-60320 Travel & Training 785.46 201-7003-61701 Equipment Rental 192.31 202-3004-60123 Security & Alarm 420.00 202-3004-60691 Maintenance/Services 174.00 202-3006-60105 Museum Operations 48,750.00 202-3006-60123 Security & Alarm 420.00 202-3006-60420 Operating Supplies 88.51 202-3006-60691 Maintenance/Services 583.98 202-3009-60105 Makerspace Operations 41,297.50 202-3009-60420 Operating Supplies 390.72 221-0000-60127 AB 939 Recycling Solutions 3,120.00 241-9101-60103 Professional Services 6,300.00 241-9101-60420 Operating Supplies 1,528.92 401-0000-20600 Retention Payable -1,838.15 401-0000-60185 Design 650.00 401-0000-60188 Construction 47,069.32 501-0000-60674 Fuel & Oil 3,252.63 501-0000-60676 Vehicle Repair & Mainte…3,815.96 501-0000-71020 Furniture 1,671.61 501-0000-71030 Vehicles, Rentals & Leases 19,383.32 501-0000-71103 City Bldg Repl/Repair 2,491.63 502-0000-60104 Consultants 25,379.96 502-0000-60301 Software Licenses 4,445.44 502-0000-60420 Operating Supplies 65.24 502-0000-60662 Copiers 736.30 502-0000-61300 Telephone - Utilities 2,493.31 502-0000-61301 Cell/Mobile Phones 4,581.15 502-0000-61400 Cable - Utilities 589.41 502-0000-80100 Machinery & Equipment 79,432.53 502-0000-80103 Computers 1,165.93 504-1010-60320 Travel & Training 199.00 504-1010-60420 Operating Supplies -21.75 Grand Total:392,036.83 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense AmountProject Account Name **None**289,401.47**None** 141513CT 1,467.40Construction Expense 1920TMICT 4,876.67Construction Expense 201704CT 3,962.25Construction Expense 201801D 650.00Design Expense 55 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02250 - BC 01/17/2020 1/17/2020 2:55:44 PM Page 8 of 8 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense AmountProject Account Name 201805E 1,671.61Corporate Yarrd Expense 201814CT 4,500.00Construction Expense 201819RP -1,838.15Retention Payable 201918CT 36,763.00Construction Expense IRONE 5,054.43Ironman Expense MAKERE 41,688.22Makerspace Expense OTLQE 1,213.68OLD TOWN LQ SPONSORSHIP EXP… TREEE 2,491.25Tree Lighting Ceremony Expense VETSE 135.00Veterans Day Ceremony Expense Grand Total:392,036.83 56 1/17/2020 2:26:21 PM Page 1 of 2 Demand Register City of La Quinta Packet: APPKT02253 - BC 01/17/2020 WF JON AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND 338.00Travel & Training12/16/19 - LEAGUE 01/23/20 AIR SANCHEZ200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 398.93Travel & Training12/16/19 - LEAGUE 01/23/20 LODGING S…200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 113.58Travel & Training12/18/19 - COUNCIL MTG 12/17/19200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 36.00Travel & Training12/20/19 - DVBA LUNCHEON J PENA200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 33.95Travel & Training12/12/19 - UPDATE WITH MAYOR200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1002-60320 36.00Travel & Training12/20/19 - DVBA LUNCHEON G VILLALPA…200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1002-60320 139.90Employee Recognition Events12/02/19 - HOT CHOC EE TREE TRIMMING200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60340 699.00Travel & Training12/18/19 - 2020 CAL TRAVEL SUMMIT200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60320 84.99Membership Dues12/02/19 - MAILCHIMP 12/2019200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60351 225.00Membership Dues12/18/19 - CAPIO MEMBERSHIP200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60351 181.61Marketing & Tourism Promoti…12/20/19 - FB CREDITS200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 -15,000.00Operating Supplies12/02/19 - TO REVERSE BANK DRAFT REC…200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60420 266.10Travel & Training11/21/19 - LEAGUE MTG LODGING J PENA200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 116.63Travel & Training11/19 - CC MTG200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 310.52Travel & Training11/15-11/16/19 - LEAGUE MTG AIR J PENA200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 102.33Travel & Training11/05/19 - CC MTG DINNER200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 39.00Administration12/02/19 - BANK FEE200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60102 382.99Travel & Training11/13/19 - CAPIO REG & AIR K CAMARENA200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60320 164.59Travel & Training11/08/19 - CULTURAL MUSEUM TOUR200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3001-60320 649.00Travel & Training11/07/19 - CA OUTLOOK FORUM M GRAH…200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60320 383.00Travel & Training11/13/19 - CAPIO REG & AIR K CAMARENA200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60320 84.99Membership Dues11/06/19 - MAILCHIMP200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60351 206.64Operating Supplies11/06/19 - PHONE CASES (2)200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60420 125.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/18/19 - BOOSTING ADS200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 90.22Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/19 - BOOSTING ADS200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 75.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/01/19 - BOOSTING ADS200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 Fund 101 - GENERAL FUND Total:-9,717.03 Fund: 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 375.47Operating Supplies11/18/19 - WSA THANKSGIVING LUNCHE…200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 241-9101-60420 Fund 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY Total:375.47 Fund: 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 277.87Software Licenses12/06/19 - DOMAIN NAME RENEWAL200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 426.68Computers12/20/19 - MACBOOK PRO ACCESSORIES200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80103 2,799.31Computers12/19/19 - MACBOOK PRO G VILLALPANDO200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80103 1,301.80Technical11/04/19 - CALCOMM INV 4961 FIBER REP…200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60108 299.97Software Licenses11/04/19 - PARALLELS DESKTOP (3)200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 477.60Software Licenses11/25/19 - CANVA SOFTWARE ANNUAL FEE200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 5,700.55Software Licenses11/13/19 - ESRI LIC SUBSCRIPTION RENE…200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 -499.95Software Licenses11/04/19 - PARALLELS RENEWAL REFUND200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 22.22Operating Supplies11/22/19 - VELCO STRIPES (CABLE TIES IT)200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 32.61Operating Supplies11/26/19 - HDMI CABLES200721WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 Fund 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total:10,838.66 Grand Total:1,497.10 57 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02253 - BC 01/17/2020 WF JON 1/17/2020 2:26:21 PM Page 2 of 2 Fund Summary Fund Expense Amount 101 - GENERAL FUND -9,717.03 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 375.47 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 10,838.66 Grand Total:1,497.10 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-1001-60320 Travel & Training 1,682.09 101-1002-60320 Travel & Training 69.95 101-1004-60340 Employee Recognition Ev…139.90 101-1006-60102 Administration 39.00 101-1006-60420 Operating Supplies -15,000.00 101-2002-60320 Travel & Training 382.99 101-3001-60320 Travel & Training 164.59 101-3007-60320 Travel & Training 1,731.00 101-3007-60351 Membership Dues 394.98 101-3007-60420 Operating Supplies 206.64 101-3007-60461 Marketing & Tourism Pro…471.83 241-9101-60420 Operating Supplies 375.47 502-0000-60108 Technical 1,301.80 502-0000-60301 Software Licenses 6,256.04 502-0000-60420 Operating Supplies 54.83 502-0000-80103 Computers 3,225.99 Grand Total:1,497.10 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense AmountProject Account Name **None**1,497.10**None** Grand Total:1,497.10 58 City of La Quinta Bank Transactions 01/04 – 01/17/2020 Wire Transaction Listed below are the wire transfers from 01/04 – 01/17/2020 Wire Transfers: 01/07/2020 - WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 125,170.21$ 01/07/2020 - WIRE TRANSFER - TASC 3,051.72$ 01/09/2020 - WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK 160,293.39$ 01/10/2020 - WIRE TRANSFER - ICMA 4,765.29$ 01/10/2020 - WIRE TRANSFER - LQCEA 450.00$ 01/10/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 44,198.65$ TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS OUT 337,929.26$ ATTACHMENT 2 59 60 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2019 RECOMMENDATION Receive and file revenue and expenditure report dated November 30, 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The report summarizes the City’s year-to-date (YTD) revenues and period expenditures for November 2019 (Attachment 1). •These reports are also reviewed by the Finance Advisory Commission. FISCAL IMPACT – None BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Below is a summary of the column headers used on the Revenue and Expenditure Summary Reports: Original Total Budget – represents revenue and expenditure budgets the Council adopted in June 2019 for fiscal year 2019/20. Current Total Budget – represents original adopted budgets plus any Council approved budget amendments from throughout the year. The 2018/19 operating and Capital Improvement Project carryovers to 2019/20 will be processed after the year-end audit is completed. Period Activity – represents actual revenues received and expenditures outlaid in the reporting month. Fiscal Activity – represents actual revenues received and expenditures outlaid YTD. Variance Favorable/(Unfavorable) - represents the dollar difference between YTD collections/expenditures and the current budgeted amount. Percent Used – represents the percentage activity as compared to budget YTD. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 9 61 The revenue report includes revenues and transfers into funds from other funds (income items). Revenues are not received uniformly throughout the year, resulting in peaks and valleys. For example, large property tax payments are usually received in December and May. Similarly, Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund payments are typically received in January and June. Any timing imbalance of revenue receipts versus expenditures is funded from the City’s cash flow reserve. The expenditure report includes expenditures and transfers out to other funds. Unlike revenues, expenditures are more likely to be consistent from month to month. However, large debt service payments or CIP expenditures can cause swings. Prepared by: Rosemary Hallick, Financial Services Analyst Approved by: Karla Romero, Finance Director Attachment: 1. Revenue and Expenditure Report for November 30, 2019 MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 2,225,379$ 10,040,111$ 17.39% All Funds 2,948,261$ 15,639,367$ 12.67% MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 3,441,355$ 13,184,072$ 23.23% Payroll - General Fund 607,662$ 4,332,643$ 38.80% All Funds 5,724,748$ 36,588,245$ 32.84% November Expenditures November Revenues General Fund Non-General Fund Measure G Sales Tax 477,188$ SilverRock Greens Fees 288,085$ Sales Tax 413,023$ Interest Earnings 89,932$ Property Tax 396,874$ Gas Tax 69,461$ Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Tax 259,972$ Pension Trust Earnings 56,749$ Cable TV Franchise Fees 160,455$ Transportation Developer Impact Fees 37,496$ General Fund Non-General Fund Sheriff Contract (August/Sept)2,265,470$ CIP-Construction(1)1,006,993$ Contract Legal Services 56,785$ SilverRock Maintenance 311,590$ Marketing and Tourism Promotions 50,111$ Contributions to Other Agencies 115,833$ Parks Landscape Maintenance 41,890$ CIP-Design (2)75,725$ Utilities-Electric 32,053$ Lighting & Landscape Maintenance 67,658$ Top Five Revenue/Income Sources for November Top Five Expenditures/Outlays for November (1)CIP Construction: Hwy 111 auto dealer signs, Village Complete Streets, SilverRock event space, Eisenhower Drive drainage, and LaQuinta Highlands landscape project. (2)CIP Design: Village Complete Streets, SilverRock infrastructure and event space, Washington/Fred Waring triple left lanes, X-park, and Dune Palms Road bridge and widening. 62 Page 1 of 2 Revenue Summary Fiscal Activity Variance Favorable (Unfavorable)Fund Period Activity Current Total Budget Original Total Budget Percent Used 101 - GENERAL FUND 10,040,1112,225,37957,847,200 57,737,200 -47,697,089 17.39 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 552,99169,4612,360,900 2,357,400 -1,804,409 23.46 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND -15,5823192,752,000 2,752,000 -2,767,582 0.57 % 203 - PUBLIC SAFETY FUND (MEASURE G)-3,24403,200 3,200 -6,444 101.37 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 2,1040123,200 123,200 -121,096 1.71 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 72,1858,333100,500 100,500 -28,315 71.83 % 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 15,18416,7672,274,200 2,274,200 -2,259,016 0.67 % 220 - QUIMBY FUND -9,5170140,000 140,000 -149,517 6.80 % 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 6,1142,78470,000 70,000 -63,886 8.73 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 129,36201,311,300 1,311,300 -1,181,938 9.87 % 224 - TUMF FUND -1,249000 -1,249 0.00 % 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND -610300300 -361 20.27 % 226 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG)-19012,000 12,000 -12,019 0.16 % 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 8,4211,39421,200 21,200 -12,779 39.72 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 16,564920,539,264 20,539,264 -20,522,700 0.08 % 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND -278053,500 53,500 -53,778 0.52 % 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN -50401,500 13,505 -14,009 3.74 % 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 155,39225,506448,000 1,688,256 -1,532,864 9.20 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND -5,807022,000 40,000 -45,807 14.52 % 247 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND -8,346000 -8,346 0.00 % 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014)724000 724 0.00 % 249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)100,3180270,000 350,000 -249,682 28.66 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 172,75637,496395,000 395,000 -222,244 43.74 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 125,51526,624306,000 306,000 -180,485 41.02 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 58,82812,100110,000 110,000 -51,172 53.48 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 21,6724,47245,000 45,000 -23,328 48.16 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 7,6811,67722,000 22,000 -14,319 34.91 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 7,0421,50823,000 23,000 -15,958 30.62 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 2,5205207,000 7,000 -4,480 36.00 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 27,0435,56255,000 55,000 -27,957 49.17 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 36,733738160,500 160,500 -123,767 22.89 % 275 - LQ PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER -12102,600 2,600 -2,721 4.67 % 299 - INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND 1,324,05589,93200 1,324,055 0.00 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 -1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 986,18523,95621,222,000 24,350,201 -23,364,016 4.05 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND -17,4240100,000 100,000 -117,424 17.42 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 208,3830900,200 900,200 -691,817 23.15 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 347,0571,3001,394,400 1,394,400 -1,047,343 24.89 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 158,7370719,000 719,000 -560,264 22.08 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 233,3460929,500 929,500 -696,154 25.10 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 725,753335,6764,105,600 4,105,600 -3,379,848 17.68 % 602 - SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE -1,20705,500 5,500 -6,707 21.94 % 735 - 97-1 AGENCY REDEMPTION FUND -82000 -82 0.00 % 760 - SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN -29707,000 7,000 -7,297 4.24 % 761 - CERBT OPEB TRUST 31,816040,000 40,000 -8,184 79.54 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 128,51356,749200,000 200,000 -71,487 64.26 % Report Total:2,948,261 15,639,367119,100,564 123,465,526 -107,826,159 12.67 % Accounts are subject to adjusting entries and audit. The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), published annually in December, is the best resource for all final audited numbers. ATTACHMENT 1 For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 11/30/2019 63 For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 11/30/2019 Page 2 of 2 Expenditure Summary Fiscal Activity Variance Favorable (Unfavorable)Fund Period Activity Current Total Budget Original Total Budget Percent Used 101 - GENERAL FUND 13,184,0723,441,35555,638,500 56,755,789 43,571,717 23.23 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 446,23761,2582,360,900 2,400,500 1,954,263 18.59 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 118,90748,9572,419,100 2,529,100 2,410,193 4.70 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 00123,200 123,200 123,200 0.00 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 4,981951100,000 100,000 95,019 4.98 % 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 713,175160,2182,274,200 2,443,200 1,730,025 29.19 % 220 - QUIMBY FUND 18,3280263,000 263,000 244,672 6.97 % 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 17,08811,62450,000 130,000 112,912 13.14 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 44,58501,298,300 1,298,300 1,253,715 3.43 % 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 1,32333800 -1,323 0.00 % 226 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG)0012,000 12,000 12,000 0.00 % 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 1,19004,600 4,600 3,410 25.86 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 13,120,36108,394,963 8,405,468 -4,714,893 156.09 % 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 1,05450191,500 111,500 110,446 0.94 % 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN 1,95030012,005 13,505 11,555 14.44 % 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 219,00346,945609,300 888,957 669,954 24.64 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND 00250,000 351,000 351,000 0.00 % 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014)1,739360390,500 388,761 0.45 % 249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)0020,000 60,000 60,000 0.00 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 401,323338483,700 483,700 82,377 82.97 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 1,32333800 -1,323 0.00 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 1,324338130,000 0 -1,324 0.00 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 9,88433832,000 32,000 22,116 30.89 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 1,32333800 -1,323 0.00 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 1,32333830,000 0 -1,323 0.00 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 1,3233386,000 0 -1,323 0.00 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 1,3233387,500 0 -1,323 0.00 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 3,8002,300160,000 160,000 156,200 2.38 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 4,901,8731,222,82321,222,000 24,705,690 19,803,817 19.84 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND 7,73300520,679 512,947 1.49 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 288,124112,126898,200 1,374,200 1,086,076 20.97 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 616,90767,0291,390,400 1,880,600 1,263,693 32.80 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 125,46149,982700,000 940,036 814,575 13.35 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 772,8103,764870,500 870,500 97,690 88.78 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 1,537,359488,4264,185,700 4,153,200 2,615,841 37.02 % 760 - SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN 12,833012,850 12,850 17 99.87 % 761 - CERBT OPEB TRUST 351000 -351 0.00 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 7,8573,11600 -7,857 0.00 % Report Total:5,724,748 36,588,245104,051,418 111,415,074 74,826,829 32.84 % Accounts are subject to adjusting entries and audit. The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), published annually in December, is the best resource for all final audited numbers. 64 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AWARD CONTRACT TO JONES BROS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SILVERROCK WAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT NO. 2014-13/141513) BETWEEN AVENUE 52 AND JEFFERSON STREET RECOMMENDATION Award a contract to Jones Bros Construction Company in the amount of $3,994,466 to construct the SilverRock Way Street Improvements backbone infrastructure Project 2014-13 between Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street; and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •Jones Bros Construction Company of Coachella, California, submitted the lowest responsive bid at $3,994,466 (Attachment 1). • This project will provide access to the proposed SilverRock Resort by constructing a through street from Avenue 52 to Jefferson Street (Attachment 2). •The Project entails: Constructing approximately 5,800-foot-long 30 foot wide road; Completing the roadway over the box culvert canal crossing constructed by the Coachella Valley Water District; Constructing sewer and water lines. FISCAL IMPACT The 2014/15 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocates $6,253,700 of Bonds proceeds. The remaining will be contributed by SilverRock Development Company (Developer). The following is the project budget: BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 65 Anticipated Total Budget City Contribution (Bonds) Developer Contribution Professional: $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 0 Design: $ 524,332 $ 524,332 $ 0 Inspection/Testing/ Monitors/Utility/ Survey: $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 0 Construction: $ 3,994,466 $ 3,741,295 $ 253,171 CVWD Constructed Canal Crossing $ 1,701,243 $ 1,448,073 $ 253,170 Contingency: $ 400,000 $ 0 $ 400,000 Total Budget: $ 7,160,041 $6,253,700 $ 906,341 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with RBF Consulting in July 2006 to design Phase II infrastructure improvements for SilverRock. In 2014, Council approved an agreement with SilverRock Development Company, which requires the City to fund the design and construction of SilverRock Way, a public roadway that will be owned and maintained by the City. On December 5, 2019 staff solicited construction bids from qualified contractors. The City received 6 bids on January 23, 2020. Jones Bros Construction Company submitted the lowest responsible and responsive bid of $3,994,466. Staff reviewed the bid comparison and the lower cost is attributed to lower mobilization, likely due to the Contractor performing work in the area, and lower prices for the pipeline bid items, likely because the pipeline Contractor is the Prime Contractor. The anticipated schedule is: Council Considers Project Award February 4, 2020 Execute Contract and Mobilize February 5 to March 16, 2020 Construction (160 Working Days) March 2020 to October 2020 Accept Improvements November 2020 ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, P.E., Public Works Director/ City Engineer Attachments: 1.Bid Comparison Summary 2.SilverRock Way Project Vicinity Map 66 Bid Opening Date: 1/23/20 SilverRock Way Street Improvements City Project No. 2014-13 ATTACHMENT 1 Item Item Description Unit Quanitity Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization LS 1 480,700.00$ 480,700.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 155,101.50$ 155,101.50$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$ 300,000.00$ 300,000.00$ 2a Dust Control LS 1 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 2b PM-10 Plan LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 3,200.00$ 3,200.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 2c SWPPP LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 3 Traffic Control LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 4 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 36,000.00$ 36,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 137,500.00$ 137,500.00$ 105,000.00$ 105,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 4a Remove (36” +/- diameter Trunk) Tree near station 47+00 and Stump Grind a minimum of 18” below existing or finished grade (whichever is deeper)EA 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 5 Roadway Finish Grading LS 1 61,450.00$ 61,450.00$ 20,035.00$ 20,035.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 175,000.00$ 175,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 5a(F)Unclassified Fill between station 46+60 to 48+00 CY 300 10.00$ 3,000.00$ 102.00$ 30,600.00$ 170.00$ 51,000.00$ 10.00$ 3,000.00$ 6.00$ 1,800.00$ 16.00$ 4,800.00$ 80.00$ 24,000.00$ 5b Dewatering for BOR Laterals 120.8 and 120.8a LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 5,206.00$ 5,206.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 6 Remove and Cap Irrigation Line (Regardless of Size or Type) Located near station 33+00 and 33+75 LF 220 150.00$ 33,000.00$ 25.00$ 5,500.00$ 50.00$ 11,000.00$ 55.00$ 12,100.00$ 100.00$ 22,000.00$ 135.00$ 29,700.00$ 200.00$ 44,000.00$ 6a Remove Concrete Golf Cart Path SF 3,403 4.00$ 13,612.00$ 1.12$ 3,811.36$ 4.00$ 13,612.00$ 3.00$ 10,209.00$ 2.00$ 6,806.00$ 2.00$ 6,806.00$ 4.00$ 13,612.00$ 7 2’ wide by 0.1’ depth Cold Plane, Overlay, and Join Existing A.C. Paving where Temporary Pavement Joins Existing Pavement at Station 14+46.25 SF 60 40.00$ 2,400.00$ 25.75$ 1,545.00$ 32.00$ 1,920.00$ 26.00$ 1,560.00$ 2.00$ 120.00$ 16.00$ 960.00$ 130.00$ 7,800.00$ 8 Construct 3” AC over Compacted Native Soil SF 4,390 3.50$ 15,365.00$ 4.12$ 18,086.80$ 3.00$ 13,170.00$ 4.25$ 18,657.50$ 1.60$ 7,024.00$ 4.00$ 17,560.00$ 2.00$ 8,780.00$ 9 Construct 4" A.C. Paving Over 4.5" Class II Aggregate Base SF 177,630 4.20$ 746,046.00$ 3.27$ 580,850.10$ 2.80$ 497,364.00$ 2.85$ 506,245.50$ 2.50$ 444,075.00$ 3.00$ 532,890.00$ 3.80$ 674,994.00$ 10(F)Backfill with 6" Class II Aggregate Base from Cross Gutter to End of Curb Returns over Compacted Sub-grade SF 3,574 0.75$ 2,680.50$ 5.60$ 20,014.40$ 2.00$ 7,148.00$ 1.50$ 5,361.00$ 1.00$ 3,574.00$ 2.50$ 8,935.00$ 1.50$ 5,361.00$ 11 Construct 4" Rolled Curb (Type "C" Curb) per City of La Quinta Std. No. 203 LF 11,460 20.00$ 229,200.00$ 12.00$ 137,520.00$ 23.00$ 263,580.00$ 23.00$ 263,580.00$ 30.00$ 343,800.00$ 15.00$ 171,900.00$ 17.10$ 195,966.00$ 12 Construct Curb Transition per City of La Quinta Std. No. 205 LF 300 30.00$ 9,000.00$ 33.00$ 9,900.00$ 50.00$ 15,000.00$ 37.00$ 11,100.00$ 40.00$ 12,000.00$ 27.00$ 8,100.00$ 36.40$ 10,920.00$ 13 Construct 6” Curb and Gutter per City of La Quinta Std. No. 201 over the Canal LF 100 40.00$ 4,000.00$ 33.00$ 3,300.00$ 34.00$ 3,400.00$ 37.00$ 3,700.00$ 40.00$ 4,000.00$ 30.00$ 3,000.00$ 19.40$ 1,940.00$ 14 Construct Gutter Depression per City of La Quinta Std. No. 330 SF 1,066 15.00$ 15,990.00$ 25.00$ 26,650.00$ 14.50$ 15,457.00$ 15.00$ 15,990.00$ 16.00$ 17,056.00$ 20.00$ 21,320.00$ 9.00$ 9,594.00$ 15 Construct Access Ramp, Case D per City of La Quinta Std. No. 250 with truncated domes. Modified with 10’ wide Landing, One Wing, Retaining Curb in Lieu of Second Wing, and as shown on sheet 12. Shall be Placed at West Crosswalk near station 47+00 EA 2 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 2,760.00$ 5,520.00$ 6,200.00$ 12,400.00$ 5,800.00$ 11,600.00$ 5,300.00$ 10,600.00$ 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 2,800.00$ 5,600.00$ 16 Construct Cross Gutter and Spandrel per City of La Quinta Std. No. 230 (Modified with Rolled Curb, Curb included cost from BCR to ECR)SF 5,422 15.00$ 81,330.00$ 8.68$ 47,062.96$ 42.00$ 227,724.00$ 16.00$ 86,752.00$ 17.00$ 92,174.00$ 13.00$ 70,486.00$ 15.00$ 81,330.00$ 17 Construct Cross Gutter and Spandrel per City of La Quinta Std. No. 230 SF 1,250 15.00$ 18,750.00$ 8.68$ 10,850.00$ 42.00$ 52,500.00$ 16.00$ 20,000.00$ 17.00$ 21,250.00$ 13.00$ 16,250.00$ 15.00$ 18,750.00$ 18 NOT USED 19 Construct Driveway Approach per City of La Quinta Std. Dwg. No. 221 SF 640 18.00$ 11,520.00$ 7.79$ 4,985.60$ 15.00$ 9,600.00$ 11.00$ 7,040.00$ 15.00$ 9,600.00$ 10.00$ 6,400.00$ 10.10$ 6,464.00$ 20 Construct 10' Wide PCC Cart Path per City of La Quinta Std. Dwg. No. 245 SF 3,750 5.00$ 18,750.00$ 5.00$ 18,750.00$ 9.00$ 33,750.00$ 7.75$ 29,062.50$ 10.00$ 37,500.00$ 6.00$ 22,500.00$ 6.80$ 25,500.00$ 21 Construct 6' Wide Sidewalk per City of La Quinta Std. Dwg. No. 245 (Modified, Adjacent to Curb). Located Opposite to PCC Cart Path and within same limits SF 1,085 5.00$ 5,425.00$ 6.77$ 7,345.45$ 8.80$ 9,548.00$ 8.00$ 8,680.00$ 10.00$ 10,850.00$ 7.00$ 7,595.00$ 8.00$ 8,680.00$ 22 Construct Concrete Encasement with Conduits Extended to Sidewalk/Walkway/Ramp as shown in the Canal Crossing Plans and as modified to extend Conduits Extended to Sidewalk/Walkway/Ramp. (Furnish and Install 1" X18" Iron Pipe Embedded in Ground at Ends for Future Locating and pull rope) as shown in Appendix F. LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 88,000.00$ 88,000.00$ 23 Install 12" SCH 40 PVC Sleeve with End Caps for Future Irrigation Lines, (Furnish and Install 1" X18" Iron Pipe Embedded in Ground at Ends for Future Locating and pull rope) LF 104 65.00$ 6,760.00$ 38.00$ 3,952.00$ 22.00$ 2,288.00$ 125.00$ 13,000.00$ 90.00$ 9,360.00$ 70.00$ 7,280.00$ 250.00$ 26,000.00$ 24 Install 15" SCH 40 PVC Sleeve with End Caps for Future Irrigation Lines, (Furnish and Install 1" X18" Iron Pipe Embedded in Ground at Ends for Future Locating and pull rope) LF 408 85.00$ 34,680.00$ 87.00$ 35,496.00$ 51.00$ 20,808.00$ 140.00$ 57,120.00$ 115.00$ 46,920.00$ 135.00$ 55,080.00$ 220.00$ 89,760.00$ 25 Install 6" SCH 40 PVC Sleeve with End Caps for Future Electrical Lines, (Furnish and Install 1" X18" Iron Pipe Embedded in Ground at Ends for Future Locating and pull rope) LF 102 65.00$ 6,630.00$ 18.00$ 1,836.00$ 24.00$ 2,448.00$ 105.00$ 10,710.00$ 45.00$ 4,590.00$ 40.00$ 4,080.00$ 150.00$ 15,300.00$ 26 Signing, Striping, and Pavement Markers LS 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 18,162.00$ 18,162.00$ 12,800.00$ 12,800.00$ 19,000.00$ 19,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 27 Signing and Striping per SilverRock Way Interim Access Plan as shown in Appendix E LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4,803.00$ 4,803.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 3,800.00$ 3,800.00$ 4,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 28 Install Barricade per City of La Quinta Std. No. 620 LF 305 50.00$ 15,250.00$ 66.00$ 20,130.00$ 16.00$ 4,880.00$ 112.00$ 34,160.00$ 95.00$ 28,975.00$ 100.00$ 30,500.00$ 300.00$ 91,500.00$ 29 NOT USED 30 Construct Pilasters at the Four Corners of the Bridge as shown in the Canal Crossing Plans in Appendix F.LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 18,500.00$ 18,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00$ 72,000.00$ 72,000.00$ 31 Install 18" RCP Storm Drain (D-Load per Plan)LF 879 118.00$ 103,722.00$ 52.00$ 45,708.00$ 70.00$ 61,530.00$ 125.00$ 109,875.00$ 130.00$ 114,270.00$ 112.00$ 98,448.00$ 180.00$ 158,220.00$ 32 Install 24" RCP Storm Drain (D-Load per Plan)LF 166 135.00$ 22,410.00$ 55.00$ 9,130.00$ 105.00$ 17,430.00$ 130.00$ 21,580.00$ 135.00$ 22,410.00$ 125.00$ 20,750.00$ 310.00$ 51,460.00$ 33 Install 30" RCP Storm Drain (D-Load per Plan)LF 106 180.00$ 19,080.00$ 67.00$ 7,102.00$ 125.00$ 13,250.00$ 142.00$ 15,052.00$ 150.00$ 15,900.00$ 160.00$ 16,960.00$ 350.00$ 37,100.00$ 34 Install 36" RCP Storm Drain (D-Load Per Plan)LF 1,141 190.00$ 216,790.00$ 83.00$ 94,703.00$ 155.00$ 176,855.00$ 128.00$ 146,048.00$ 140.00$ 159,740.00$ 165.00$ 188,265.00$ 240.00$ 273,840.00$ 35 Install 18" End Cap EA 3 200.00$ 600.00$ 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 680.00$ 2,040.00$ 250.00$ 750.00$ 225.00$ 675.00$ 800.00$ 2,400.00$ 3,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 36 Construct Catch Basin per City of La Quinta Std. No. 300 and as shown on Plans (See Plan for Width)EA 13 10,000.00$ 130,000.00$ 6,983.00$ 90,779.00$ 17,550.00$ 228,150.00$ 11,000.00$ 143,000.00$ 8,300.00$ 107,900.00$ 10,400.00$ 135,200.00$ 9,900.00$ 128,700.00$ 37 Construct Manhole per City of La Quinta Std. No. 340 and as shown on Plans EA 3 8,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 5,610.00$ 16,830.00$ 6,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 8,300.00$ 24,900.00$ 38 Construct Junction Structure per City of La Quinta Std. No. 351 and as shown on Plans EA 2 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 3,190.00$ 6,380.00$ 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 3,350.00$ 6,700.00$ 39 Construct Outlet Structure per Detail "A" Shown on Sheet 12 EA 7 10,000.00$ 70,000.00$ 7,150.00$ 50,050.00$ 11,000.00$ 77,000.00$ 8,500.00$ 59,500.00$ 13,000.00$ 91,000.00$ 12,500.00$ 87,500.00$ 7,800.00$ 54,600.00$ 40 (F)Install 1/4 Ton Rip-Rap per Detail "B" Shown on Sheet 12 (See Plan for Dimensions)SF 314 40.00$ 12,560.00$ 13.00$ 4,082.00$ 71.00$ 22,294.00$ 13.00$ 4,082.00$ 22.00$ 6,908.00$ 48.00$ 15,072.00$ 120.00$ 37,680.00$ 41 (F)Install 1/2 Ton Rip-Rap per Detail "B" Shown on Sheet 12 (See Plan for Dimensions)SF 81 50.00$ 4,050.00$ 16.00$ 1,296.00$ 71.00$ 5,751.00$ 16.00$ 1,296.00$ 35.00$ 2,835.00$ 48.00$ 3,888.00$ 250.00$ 20,250.00$ 42 Water Main Trench Repair in areas with existing improvements LF 160 125.00$ 20,000.00$ 63.00$ 10,080.00$ 220.00$ 35,200.00$ 35.00$ 5,600.00$ 185.00$ 29,600.00$ 88.00$ 14,080.00$ 80.00$ 12,800.00$ Engineer's Estimate - Base Bid Riverside Construction Co.MNR Construction, Inc.Jones Brothers Construction TBU, Inc.Weka, Ic.Granite Construction Co.ATTACHMENT 167 Bid Opening Date: 1/23/20 SilverRock Way Street Improvements City Project No. 2014-13 Item Item Description Unit Quanitity Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Engineer's Estimate - Base Bid Riverside Construction Co.MNR Construction, Inc.Jones Brothers Construction TBU, Inc.Weka, Ic.Granite Construction Co. 43 Furnish and Install 18" Ductile Iron Water Main Class 350 with Restrained Joints LF 5,980 150.00$ 897,000.00$ 129.00$ 771,420.00$ 80.00$ 478,400.00$ 164.00$ 980,720.00$ 175.00$ 1,046,500.00$ 172.00$ 1,028,560.00$ 150.00$ 897,000.00$ 44 Furnish and Install 18"X18"X8" D.I. Tee EA 3 4,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 1,480.00$ 4,440.00$ 4,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 2,700.00$ 8,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 6,300.00$ 2,700.00$ 8,100.00$ 45 Furnish and Install 18"X18"X12" D.I. Tee EA 4 4,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 1,480.00$ 5,920.00$ 4,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 3,100.00$ 12,400.00$ 2,100.00$ 8,400.00$ 2,950.00$ 11,800.00$ 46 Furnish and Install 18" 22.5° Ductile Iron Bend EA 2 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 700.00$ 1,400.00$ 2,700.00$ 5,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 4,800.00$ 2,100.00$ 4,200.00$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,350.00$ 2,700.00$ 47 Furnish and Install 18" 45° Ductile Iron Bend EA 28 4,000.00$ 112,000.00$ 700.00$ 19,600.00$ 2,700.00$ 75,600.00$ 2,400.00$ 67,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 67,200.00$ 1,600.00$ 44,800.00$ 1,450.00$ 40,600.00$ 48 Furnish and Install 18" 11.25° Ductile Iron Bend EA 5 4,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 700.00$ 3,500.00$ 2,700.00$ 13,500.00$ 2,400.00$ 12,000.00$ 1,700.00$ 8,500.00$ 1,700.00$ 8,500.00$ 1,400.00$ 7,000.00$ 49 Furnish and Install 18" Ductile Iron Butterfly Valve per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-17 EA 21 10,000.00$ 210,000.00$ 5,080.00$ 106,680.00$ 10,500.00$ 220,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 178,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 115,500.00$ 6,000.00$ 126,000.00$ 4,900.00$ 102,900.00$ 50 Furnish and Install 12" Ductile Iron Water Main Class 350 with Restrained Joints LF 136 125.00$ 17,000.00$ 36.50$ 4,964.00$ 225.00$ 30,600.00$ 73.00$ 9,928.00$ 110.00$ 14,960.00$ 245.00$ 33,320.00$ 250.00$ 34,000.00$ 51 Furnish and Install 12" Ductile Iron Gate Valve per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W- 17 EA 7 7,000.00$ 49,000.00$ 2,300.00$ 16,100.00$ 8,000.00$ 56,000.00$ 4,600.00$ 32,200.00$ 4,300.00$ 30,100.00$ 3,450.00$ 24,150.00$ 3,300.00$ 23,100.00$ 52 Furnish and Install 12"X6" Ductile Iron Reducer EA 3 4,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 200.00$ 600.00$ 1,200.00$ 3,600.00$ 1,700.00$ 5,100.00$ 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 840.00$ 2,520.00$ 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 53 Furnish and Install 12" Detector Check per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-38 EA 2 10,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 11,500.00$ 23,000.00$ 8,500.00$ 17,000.00$ 13,500.00$ 27,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 46,000.00$ 13,500.00$ 27,000.00$ 28,500.00$ 57,000.00$ 54 Furnish and Install 8" Ductile Iron Water Main Class 350 with Restrained Joints LF 195 100.00$ 19,500.00$ 26.00$ 5,070.00$ 70.00$ 13,650.00$ 115.00$ 22,425.00$ 85.00$ 16,575.00$ 180.00$ 35,100.00$ 220.00$ 42,900.00$ 55 Furnish and Install 8" Ductile Iron Gate Valve per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-17 EA 5 2,500.00$ 12,500.00$ 2,128.00$ 10,640.00$ 5,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 2,900.00$ 14,500.00$ 2,600.00$ 13,000.00$ 2,200.00$ 11,000.00$ 2,200.00$ 11,000.00$ 56 Furnish and Install 8"X4" Ductile Iron Reducer EA 5 2,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 600.00$ 3,000.00$ 900.00$ 4,500.00$ 1,100.00$ 5,500.00$ 285.00$ 1,425.00$ 870.00$ 4,350.00$ 350.00$ 1,750.00$ 57 Furnish and Install 6" Blowoff Assembly per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-23 EA 9 5,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 2,600.00$ 23,400.00$ 9,000.00$ 81,000.00$ 7,500.00$ 67,500.00$ 5,400.00$ 48,600.00$ 7,000.00$ 63,000.00$ 7,700.00$ 69,300.00$ 58 Furnish and Install 6" Fire Hydrant Assembly (Wet Barrel) per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-33A EA 9 11,000.00$ 99,000.00$ 7,778.00$ 70,002.00$ 15,600.00$ 140,400.00$ 11,500.00$ 103,500.00$ 13,500.00$ 121,500.00$ 12,900.00$ 116,100.00$ 9,900.00$ 89,100.00$ 59 Furnish and Install 1 1/2" Meter and Service per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-11 EA 1 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 2,448.00$ 2,448.00$ 3,200.00$ 3,200.00$ 3,400.00$ 3,400.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 4,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 2,900.00$ 2,900.00$ 60 Furnish and Install 2" Meter and Service per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-11 EA 5 1,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 2,572.00$ 12,860.00$ 4,500.00$ 22,500.00$ 3,600.00$ 18,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 4,900.00$ 24,500.00$ 3,300.00$ 16,500.00$ 61 Furnish and Install 2" Combination Air & Vacuum Relief Valve per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-21B EA 5 6,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 4,432.00$ 22,160.00$ 6,200.00$ 31,000.00$ 6,700.00$ 33,500.00$ 6,500.00$ 32,500.00$ 6,200.00$ 31,000.00$ 6,700.00$ 33,500.00$ 62 Furnish and Install 36" Steel Casing per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-23 LF 154 900.00$ 138,600.00$ 1,376.00$ 211,904.00$ 820.00$ 126,280.00$ 884.00$ 136,136.00$ 1,150.00$ 177,100.00$ 1,265.00$ 194,810.00$ 1,200.00$ 184,800.00$ 63 Furnish and Install 4" Blowoff Assembly per CVWD Std. Dwg. No. W-23 EA 5 7,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 2,600.00$ 13,000.00$ 8,900.00$ 44,500.00$ 5,200.00$ 26,000.00$ 3,200.00$ 16,000.00$ 5,600.00$ 28,000.00$ 6,900.00$ 34,500.00$ 64 Furnish and Install 18"X18"X8"X8" D.I. Cross EA 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,300.00$ 2,300.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,300.00$ 2,300.00$ 65 NOT USED 66 NOT USED 67 NOT USED 68 Furnish and Install 12” Ductile Iron Blind Flange EA 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 50.00$ 50.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,400.00$ 1,400.00$ 445.00$ 445.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 600.00$ 600.00$ 69 Furnish and Install 12” 45º Ductile Iron Bend EA 2 680.00$ 1,360.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 1,100.00$ 2,200.00$ 415.00$ 830.00$ 950.00$ 1,900.00$ 750.00$ 1,500.00$ 70 Furnish and Install 18”X18”X18” D.I. Tee EA 1 4,400.00$ 4,400.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,700.00$ 2,700.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 2,750.00$ 2,750.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 71 NOT USED 72 Furnish and Install 18”X6” Ductile Iron Reducer EA 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,750.00$ 1,750.00$ 800.00$ 800.00$ 73 Sewer Pipe Trench Repair in areas with existing improvements LF 150 150.00$ 22,500.00$ 50.00$ 7,500.00$ 350.00$ 52,500.00$ 45.00$ 6,750.00$ 30.00$ 4,500.00$ 85.00$ 12,750.00$ 90.00$ 13,500.00$ 74 Furnish and Install 8" PVC Sewer Pipe LF 150 40.00$ 6,000.00$ 54.00$ 8,100.00$ 80.00$ 12,000.00$ 179.00$ 26,850.00$ 120.00$ 18,000.00$ 142.00$ 21,300.00$ 350.00$ 52,500.00$ 75 Furnish & Install 10" PVC Sewer Pipe LF 2,050 45.00$ 92,250.00$ 60.00$ 123,000.00$ 90.00$ 184,500.00$ 94.00$ 192,700.00$ 90.00$ 184,500.00$ 134.00$ 274,700.00$ 170.00$ 348,500.00$ 76 Furnish & Install 24" PVC Sewer Pipe LF 3,860 100.00$ 386,000.00$ 130.00$ 501,800.00$ 110.00$ 424,600.00$ 143.00$ 551,980.00$ 140.00$ 540,400.00$ 187.00$ 721,820.00$ 220.00$ 849,200.00$ 77 Furnish & Install 48" Dia. Manhole, EA 9 5,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 3,625.00$ 32,625.00$ 13,000.00$ 117,000.00$ 6,500.00$ 58,500.00$ 6,000.00$ 54,000.00$ 7,400.00$ 66,600.00$ 17,000.00$ 153,000.00$ 78 Furnish & Install 60" Dia. Manhole EA 9 6,000.00$ 54,000.00$ 7,905.00$ 71,145.00$ 17,000.00$ 153,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 81,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 99,000.00$ 9,400.00$ 84,600.00$ 19,900.00$ 179,100.00$ 79 Furnish & Install 72" Dia. Manhole EA 9 7,500.00$ 67,500.00$ 10,921.00$ 98,289.00$ 21,000.00$ 189,000.00$ 13,500.00$ 121,500.00$ 13,000.00$ 117,000.00$ 14,200.00$ 127,800.00$ 23,000.00$ 207,000.00$ 80 Furnish & Install 42" Steel Casing LF 165 950.00$ 156,750.00$ 1,676.00$ 276,540.00$ 800.00$ 132,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 165,000.00$ 1,250.00$ 206,250.00$ 1,355.00$ 223,575.00$ 2,200.00$ 363,000.00$ 81 Furnish & Install 6" PVC Lateral LF 84 35.00$ 2,940.00$ 137.00$ 11,508.00$ 50.00$ 4,200.00$ 250.00$ 21,000.00$ 140.00$ 11,760.00$ 300.00$ 25,200.00$ 250.00$ 21,000.00$ 82 Furnish & Install 6” Lateral Cleanout EA 3 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,088.00$ 3,264.00$ 475.00$ 1,425.00$ 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 3,800.00$ 11,400.00$ 6,500.00$ 19,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 83 Furnish & Install 27” VCP Sewer Pipe LF 18 125.00$ 2,250.00$ 1,480.00$ 26,640.00$ 400.00$ 7,200.00$ 400.00$ 7,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 21,600.00$ 625.00$ 11,250.00$ 1,200.00$ 21,600.00$ 84 Furnish and Install 2” HDPE (SDR 11) Force Sewer Pipe (Extend Existing Fore Main at Venue Site to Sewer Manhole at Station 54+54.07)LF 400 40.00$ 16,000.00$ 20.00$ 8,000.00$ 24.00$ 9,600.00$ 80.00$ 32,000.00$ 40.00$ 16,000.00$ 120.00$ 48,000.00$ 80.00$ 32,000.00$ 85 Remove Sewer Manhole 23 and 27, Backfill, and Trench Repair. Native Soil is allowable Backfill EA 2 7,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 1,120.00$ 2,240.00$ 4,500.00$ 9,000.00$ 4,300.00$ 8,600.00$ 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 5,900.00$ 11,800.00$ 7,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 86 Remove Portion of 27” VCP Sewer Line to Connect Proposed Sewer Line, including clean out LF 18 500.00$ 9,000.00$ 277.00$ 4,986.00$ 30.00$ 540.00$ 35.00$ 630.00$ 250.00$ 4,500.00$ 430.00$ 7,740.00$ 100.00$ 1,800.00$ 87 Relocate 2” Force Main as needed to manhole 22 to maintain service, 4” minimum depth LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 1,325.00$ 1,325.00$ 8,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 5,301,000.50$ 3,994,465.67$ 5,066,292.00$ 5,151,637.00$ 5,155,457.00$ 5,944,350.00$ 6,897,251.00$ Grand Total Base Bid: 68 Vicinity Map SilverRock Way Street Improvements (Project No. 2014-13) ATTACHMENT 2 69 70 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE SECOND ROUND COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 RECOMMENDATION Approve second round Community Service Grants for fiscal year 2019/20. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The Council considers Community Services Grants and Economic Development/Marketing funding requests three times per fiscal year. •Three grant applications were received and reviewed by the Community Services Grant Ad Hoc Committee (Committee). FISCAL IMPACT The total 2019/20 grant budget is $110,000 with $60,000 (101-3001-60510) allocated to Community Service Grants. The first round of grants awarded $21,000 leaving a balance of $39,000. The Committee recommends funding $7,400 of these requests. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Grants are awarded to 501(c)3 non-profit groups and organizations that benefit La Quinta residents and strengthen the business community. Grants are limited to $5,000 per request and consecutive fiscal year funding is not allowed (Attachment 1). The Committee has recommended that Desert Arc receive a matching grant of $2,500 to purchase a new stove for their program. Desert Arc has agreed to match the $2,500. During this round the Committee requested staff provide the following for all future grant submissions: •Refine questions in the grant application that allow for more detail regarding services/programs that organizations provide for La Quinta residents. •Provide a summary report on how funding has been used from the previous year grant recipients. BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 2 71 The Committee, comprised of Mayor Pro-Tem Peña and Council Member Fitzpatrick, reviewed the applications and recommended the following: Applicant Requested Committee Recommendation Desert Arc $5,000 $2,500* Rotary Club of La Quinta $4,900 $4,900 Steinway Society Riverside County $5,000 $0 Total $14,900 $7,400 *Matching grant recommendation Attachment 2 presents all submitted grant requests. All applications are available for review in the Community Resources Department. ALTERNATIVES Council may modify and/or deny funding for any or all grant applications received. Prepared by: Christina Calderon, Community Resources Manager Approved by: Chris Escobedo, Community Resources Director Attachments: 1. Community Services Grant Overview 2.Recommended Grant Requests 72 The City of La Quinta offers a grant program for community services support. •Community Services Grants go to recognized nonprofit organizations that benefit the residents of La Quinta. •Grants are considered and funded up to three times per year (rounds). •All three rounds are held within the city’s fiscal year (July 1 – June 30). •Organizations that have been funded are ineligible for funding for the next fiscal year. •All funding requests are limited to an amount not to exceed $5,000. Q: How much money is available? A: Requests are limited to an amount not to exceed $5,000. Any funding amount requested could be adjusted to a lesser amount at the discretion and approval of the City Council. Q: Who can apply for this grant? A: Applications are accepted from recognized nonprofit organizations that directly benefit La Quinta residents. Second consideration is given to nonprofit organizations that indirectly affect the quality of life for the residents of La Quinta. Q: Can an individual apply for this grant? A: No, individuals are not eligible for funding through the City of La Quinta grant program. Q: What if my organization is applying for a grant for the first time? A: Organizations applying to the Community Services Grant program for the first time are eligible for a “Starter Grant” The “Starter Grant” allows first time applicants grant funding up to $500 if they demonstrate their commitment to provide services to the La Quinta community. If an organization is selected to receive the “Starter Grant” they would then be eligible to apply to the program again the next fiscal year. Q: Can my organization request “seed” money for a start-up? A: Yes, organizations can request “seed” money, however they are required to obtain matching funds from other sources in the same fiscal year before the grant funds will be released. Q: Is my organization eligible if we received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds? A: No, organizations that receive CDBG funds from the City of La Quinta during the same fiscal year are not eligible for funding. Q: Is my organization eligible if we received Community Services Grant (CSG) funds in the past? A: Yes, and No. Organizations that were funded before June 30, 2018 are now eligible to apply. Organizations that were funded after July 1, 2018 are ineligible for funding and must wait until July 1, 2020 to re-apply. What you need to do: 1.Determine eligibility based on the information provided above. If eligible, proceed to step 2. 2.Review the grants calendar for submission dates (in red). If within due date, proceed to step 3. 3.Fill out the grant application. Once completed proceed to step 4. 4.Submit application via email to ccalderon@laquintaca.gov, or in person to the Wellness Center. a.The Wellness Center is located at 78450 Avenida La Fonda, La Quinta, CA 92253. The next steps: 5.Applications are received and reviewed by staff to ensure eligibility and completeness. 6.Completed grant applications will be reviewed by a designated Grant Review Committee (in blue). a.The committee’s review includes: consideration of the funding amount, the intended use of the funds, and the organizations service to the community. If the committee approves the application, they will then recommend for approval to the City Council. 7.Committee approved applications are submitted to the City Council for consideration and approval (in green) 8.If approved, funds will be dispersed to grantee (in white ) and can be spent over a 12 month period. 9.Funding expenditures will need to be reported to the city at 6 months and a full reconciliation form with supporting documentation will be due before the end of the 12 month period. For more information on the City of La Quinta Grant program, please contact the Community Resources Department at the Wellness Center 760.564-0096 or at 760.777.7183 COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT OVERVIEW IS MY ORGANIZATION ELIGIBLE? THE PROCESS… ATTACHMENT 1 73 74 Community Services Grants First Round JULY 2019 AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Second Round NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY 2020 FEBRUARY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Third Round MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Application Due Date Ad-Hoc Committee Review City Council Decision Checks Distributed 75 76 Recommended Grant Requests: 1.Desert Arc is requesting $5,000 to fund the purchase of a 60” range with 6-burners and a 24” griddle to provide breakfast, lunch and snacks for clients with developmental/ intellectual disabilities who are on-site daily participating in Desert Arc programs. This organization has a Kitchen Academy with the Pathways to Employment program where they train 12 client workers in the culinary arts each year. This program serves meals to approximately 300 clients participating in the Nutrition Program. Lunch is served in staggered time slots from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 251 works days per year. This organization was last funded $5,000 in 2017/18. The Grant Review Committee recommends funding a matching grant amount of $2,500. 2.Rotary Club of La Quinta is requesting $4,900 to be used to send 14 qualified La Quinta High School students, at $350 each, to the Rotary Youth Leadership Awards (RYLA), a 3-day leadership training program. High school juniors are selected based on leadership potential, personal values, intelligence, and potential for future success. The sponsoring Rotary Club appoints a screening committee to make the final selections. RYLA, which is sponsored by the 58 Rotary Clubs in District 5330 (Riverside & San Bernardino Counties), is meant to develop understanding of Rotary among youth participants and reinforce and provide recognition for their efforts, accomplishments, skills and potential as leaders. This organization was last funded $3,000 in 2011/12. The Grant Review Committee recommends funding $4,900 Grant Requests not recommended for funding and/or did not meet the criteria in the Grant Guidelines include: 3.Steinway Society Riverside County is requesting $5,000 to go towards their music education programs and instruction in music instruments to 35,000 Coachella Valley school children, 100 adults and 100 Alzheimer patients at Eisenhower Medical Center. These funds will help to train volunteers, provide music resources and replace 300 ten-year-old Yamaha Model PSRE463 keyboards. Steinway Society Riverside County is a first-time applicant to the Community Services Grant program. The Grant Review Committee does not recommend funding this organization at this time. ATTACHMENT 2 77 78 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO THE 2019 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to adopt Development Impact Fees pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Study, dated September 23, 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Development impact fees (DIF) 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 2019 update is the sixth update to the 1999 DIF and is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000 et seq.) commonly known as “AB1600”. The City must update the DIF periodically in order to comply with state law. • The City Council discussed the Development Impact Fee Study Update (Study) during two Study Sessions on October 1, 2019 and December 17, 2019. Comments received from the City Council, Financial Advisory Commission members and the development community have been addressed and incorporated within the DIF Study. • 2-year and 3-year phased options are proposed to allow for yearly incremental increases to all DIF fees until they are at the Study’s final proposed fee. FISCAL IMPACT The DIF schedule could generate up to $81,492,532, assuming that all development anticipated in the City General Plan occurs. The following presents the possible projected impact fee revenue by facility type: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 79 FACILITY TYPE PROJECTED REVENUE Parks $13,878,869 Community and Cultural Centers $6,299,893 Library $2,615,154 Civic Center $9,932,414 Maintenance Facilities $2,997,432 Fire Protection $2,957,885 Transportation $42,810,885 TOTAL $81,492,532 The proposed 2-year and 3-year phased options would allow for yearly incremental increases to all DIF fees until they are at the Study’s final proposed fee. The following represents the two proposed phased fee options by land use category: OVERALL DIF FEES with 2-Year Phasing Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 8,132 $ 9,380 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 7,182 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 5,552 $ 6,113 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 6,474 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 7,813 $ 9,191 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,542 $ 2,864 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,127 $ 1,306 OVERALL DIF FEES - with 3-Year Phasing Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Effective July 1, 2022 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 7,707 $ 8,531 $ 9,380 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 6,999 $ 7,354 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 5,361 $ 5,732 $ 6,113 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 6,095 $ 6,831 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 7,344 $ 8,254 $ 9,191 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,432 $ 2,645 $ 2,864 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,065 $ 1,184 $ 1,306 80 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In 1989, a California statute took effect, which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval “for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to this development project.” Public facilities are defined in this statute to include “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as “AB1600" requirements after the 1987 assembly bill in which they originated. The US Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between such an exaction and the government’s legitimate interest. The court made clear that an agency must also show that an exaction is “roughly proportional” to the burden created by development. 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. The Council reviewed the Study during two Study Sessions on October 1, 2019 and December 17, 2019. During the first Study Session the Council received testimony from the Desert Valley Builder’s Association (DVBA) and the Building Industry Association (BIA). Following discussion, the Council referred the Study to the City’s Financial Advisory Commission (FAC) for its review and implementation recommendations. The City’s FAC appointed a Committee, and the Committee conducted an in- depth review of the 2019 Study and held 4 four-hour meetings with Staff. NBS Consulting (DIF Consultant) participated in two meetings and the DVBA and the BIA attended one meeting. Staff presented the FAC Committee’s findings at a second Study Session and received feedback from Council to prepare both 2-year and 3-year phased incremental options for the implementation of the proposed DIF fees. The phased option is included in the proposed DIF resolution language with identified increases each year (Attachment 1). Presented for the Council’s consideration is the Sixth update of DIF Study, dated September 23, 2019 (Exhibit A to the Resolution). As with the previous report, Section 1 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 81 organizes that data in a form that can be used in the DIF analysis. Sections 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify facilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 10 discusses procedures and legal requirements for implementing an impact free program under California law. Section 10 also addresses adoption, administration, and training. The types of public facilities covered by the DIF are: Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Chapter 4. Community and Cultural Centers Chapter 5. Library Facilities and Materials Chapter 6. Civic Center Facilities Chapter 7. Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Chapter 8. Fire Protection Facilities Chapter 9. Transportation Facilities Public notice requirements were met for this public hearing. It was published in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 25 and January 31, 2020. All written comments received through the publishing of this staff report are included in Attachment 2. Any additional comments received will be distributed to the Council during the public hearing. Attachment 3 provides the findings of the Lemoore Court Case, as a point of reference for the comments included in Attachment 2. ALTERNATIVES The Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended or choose an alternative phasing option. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Phased Implementation Charts 2. DVBA and BIA comments with City Responses 3. Lemoore Court Case Findings 82 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – xxx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982; and WHEREAS, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues to experience development activity in the form of applications and proposals for new residential and commercial land development within the City; and WHEREAS, additional development and growth will result in the lack of public improvements and facilities, including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the present and future citizens of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing circulation system is inadequate to handle current and future traffic patterns and it is essential to widen City streets, which have inadequate width, improve the circulation system to accommodate an anticipated increase in traffic, and improve and develop bridges and traffic signals suitable for traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City, with the consequent increase in population and demand for the use of public facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities, including but not limited to fire stations, park and recreation facilities, major thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety facilities and other public buildings directly from new development and the need cannot be met and financed from ordinary City revenues; and WHEREAS, the most practicable and equitable method of paying for such needed facilities is to impose a fee upon new development within the City and the payment of such a fee enables the City to fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as they are required and demanded; that when a development pays the Development Impact Fee established by this policy, the City Council will be able to fund that all necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the need and, in the event such finding cannot be made, the City Council will be required to disapprove the development as being inconsistent with the General Plan; and 83 Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, in 1989 the California Statute took effect, which governs the establishment, increase, and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval “for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project”; and WHEREAS, public facilities are defined in the statute to include “public improvements, public services, and community amenities”; and WHEREAS, these requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as “AB1600" requirements after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of a fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and type of development on which the fee is imposed; c. The amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides authority to the City to regulate all municipal affairs under Article 1 Section 100; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this fee program and procedures as set out in this resolution are found to be a matter of local concern to implement in a timely manner public infrastructures; and WHEREAS, the City in 1999 conducted studies relative to future community infrastructure needs; the funds necessary to meet said capital improvement needs; and the relationship between those needs and future development; and based upon said studies and reports, on June 15, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1999-080; and 84 Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 3 of 7 WHEREAS, the 1999 Development Impact Fee Study report was previously updated in a report titled “2002 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on March 5, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-034; and WHEREAS, the 2002 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2005 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on June 7, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-047; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2006 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on July 5, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-068; and WHEREAS, the 2006 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2008 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on October 7, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-061; and WHEREAS, the 2008 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2013 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on February 5, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-006; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, on the 4th day of February, 2020, held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the 2019 Development Impact Fee Study and recommended updates to the City’s DIF, and related public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 2013-006 adopted on February 5, 2013, is hereby repealed, and this Resolution supersedes all prior Development Impact Fee resolutions adopted by the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City Council further finds that: a.The report entitled "Development Impact Fee Study," dated September 23, 2019 (the “Fee Study”), attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herewith by this reference, accurately states the City’s need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities and services to serve new development. The Fee Study sets forth a necessary and reasonable method of funding said buildings and facilities. The Fee Study shows that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee 85 Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 4 of 7 and the projected types of development; the need for the various public facilities by the projected types of development pursuant to the City’s General Plan; and the amount of the fee and the proportionate facility cost related to the development. The Fee Study is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. b.As set forth in detail in the Fee Study, in order to allow residential and commercial land development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring that all new development is consistent with the General Plan, including the Public Infrastructure and Services Element, and the Community Development Element, it is necessary and appropriate to approve the following Development Impact Fees to be imposed upon new development. Said fees will assist the City in funding a construction program to provide such needed public buildings and facilities as they are required and needed. SECTION 3. Development Impact Fee Policy Amount. Prior to approval of any zoning, re zoning, subdivision, or development proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Development Impact Fee for the following development types as listed below in Table 1. The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Table 1: Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 8,132 $ 9,380 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 7,182 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 5,552 $ 6,113 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 6,474 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 7,813 $ 9,191 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,542 $ 2,864 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,127 $ 1,306 SECTION 4. Use of Funds Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Policy shall be paid into special capital outlay funds to be established by the City. Said fund or funds shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property and public improvements and facilities described as community infrastructure in this Resolution, as the City Council may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures of funds 86 Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 5 of 7 available from the special capital outlay fund(s) shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual operating and capital improvements budget or at such other time as the City Council may direct. SECTION 5. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluding from the fees imposed by policy, the following: a.Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States or the State of California. b.The construction of any facility by the City of La Quinta, the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. SECTION 6. Credits. Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Development Impact Fee shall be in addition to and not in lieu of other valid exactions imposed upon new development through the subdivision or other approval processes. Provided; however, that payment of the Development Impact Fee shall be in lieu of payment of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signalization funds pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code, 3.17.020. Provided further that in the event developer is required to directly provide infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee structure, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against the “Development Impact Fee.” The City hereby determines that the development impact fee is not intended to be the exclusive method of installation of needed public buildings and facilities and the City will consider alternative proposals to provide needed infrastructure to particular development and, to the extent such alternative proposal is discretionary approved by the City Council, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against payment of the Development Impact Fee. Any developer seeking alternative methods of installation shall submit such proposal to the City at the time of submittal of an application for development. SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 87 Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 6 of 7 In determining the amount of Development Impact Fee, the City Council has been guided by the Fee Study mentioned in SECTION 2 of this Resolution. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other category. The City Council further finds, declares and determines that the Development Impact Fee on all remaining valid fee categories shall be increased by the amounts of the fee categories declared invalid. Provided; however, that the amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so increased over and above the amount recommended by Fee Study for each category. SECTION 8. Administration and Enforcement. Effective Date. Repealer. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this policy. The Public Works Director’s decision may be appealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute necessary agreements for the administration of this policy. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall go into effect 60 days following the effective date of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 4th Day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 88 Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 7 of 7 ATTEST: __________________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 89 90 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 CITY OF LA QUINTA Revised Final DRAFT Report Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 nbsgov.com Prepared by: Corporate Headquarters 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 Toll free: 800.676.7516 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XXX EXHIBIT A ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 4, 2020 91 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table of Contents Chapter 0. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................S-1 Organization of the Report ....................................................................................................................S-1 Development Projections ......................................................................................................................S-1 Impact Fee Analysis................................................................................................................................S-2 Recovery of Study Costs .........................................................................................................................S-5 Impact Fee Summary .............................................................................................................................S-5 Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1-1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................1-1 Legal Framework for Developer Fees ....................................................................................................1-1 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ....................................................................................................1-6 Facilities Addressed in this Study ...........................................................................................................1-8 Chapter 2. Development Data .........................................................................................................2-1 Background and Setting .........................................................................................................................2-1 Study Area and Development Scenario .................................................................................................2-1 Time Frame ............................................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types ...............................................................................................................................2-2 Residential Development and Population .............................................................................................2-2 Non-Residential Development ...............................................................................................................2-3 Demand Variables ..................................................................................................................................2-3 Demand Factors .....................................................................................................................................2-5 Existing and Forecasted Development ..................................................................................................2-5 Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fees ...................................................................................3-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................3-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................3-1 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................3-1 Quimby Act Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication .................................................................................3-2 Methodology and Level of Service Standard –Quimby Act ..................................................................3-3 Fees In-Lieu of Park Land Dedication –Quimby Act ..............................................................................3-3 Park Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................................3-5 Methodology-Park Impact Fees ............................................................................................................3-5 92 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Level of Service Standard –Park Impact Fees........................................................................................3-5 Cost Per Capita –Park Impact Fees .......................................................................................................3-5 Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees per Unit ..........................................................................................3-6 Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit ...............................................................................................3-7 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................3-7 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................3-8 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................3-8 Chapter 4. Community and Cultural Centers ....................................................................................4-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................4-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................4-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................4-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................4-1 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................4-2 Cost per Capita .......................................................................................................................................4-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................4-3 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................4-3 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................4-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................4-4 Chapter 5. Library ...........................................................................................................................5-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................5-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................5-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................5-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................5-1 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................5-1 Cost per Capita .......................................................................................................................................5-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................5-2 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................5-3 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................5-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................5-4 Chapter 6. Civic Center ....................................................................................................................6-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................6-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................6-1 93 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................6-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................6-2 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................6-2 Cost per Developed Acre .......................................................................................................................6-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................6-3 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................6-3 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................6-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................6-4 Chapter 7. Maintenance Facilities ....................................................................................................7-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................7-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................7-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................7-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................7-1 Facility Needs .........................................................................................................................................7-2 Park Maintenance Facilities Cost per Capita.........................................................................................7-3 Street Maintenance Facilities Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip........................................................7-3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Park Maintenance Facilities...................................................7-4 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Street Maintenance Facilities ................................................7-5 Park Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue .............................................................7-7 Street Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue ..........................................................7-7 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................7-8 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................7-8 Chapter 8. Fire Protection ...............................................................................................................8-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................8-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................8-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................8-2 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................8-2 Facility Needs .........................................................................................................................................8-2 Cost per Developed Acre .......................................................................................................................8-3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................8-4 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................8-6 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................8-7 94 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................8-7 Chapter 9. Transportation ...............................................................................................................9-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................9-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................9-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................9-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................9-1 Improvement Needs ..............................................................................................................................9-2 Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip ........................................................................................................9-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................9-3 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................9-5 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................9-6 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................9-6 Chapter 10. Implementation .........................................................................................................10-1 Adoption ..............................................................................................................................................10-1 Administration .....................................................................................................................................10-2 Training and Public Information ..........................................................................................................10-7 Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs .............................................................................10-7 95 City of La Quinta Page S-1 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Chapter 0.Executive Summary The City of La Quinta has retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on the City’s capital facilities and infrastructure and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis.The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution,the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Gov ernment Code Sections 66000 et seq.)and The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) where it applies. Organization of the Report Chapter 1 of this report provide s an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees,and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development that is used in this report . Chapters 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities.The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below: Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Chapter 4.Community and Cultural Centers Chapter 5.Library Facilities and Materials Chapter 6.Civic Center Facilities Chapter 7.Maintenance Facilities Chapter 8.Fire Protection Facilities Chapter 9.Transportation Facilities Chapter 10 contains recommendations for adopting and implement ing impact fees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Development Projections Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in La Quinta and projections of future development through buildout of the area with the existing corporate boundaries of the City.Because the City’s population fluctuates seasonally, this study uses “potential population” in the impact fee analysis. Potential popul ation is based on full- occupancy of all dwelling units in the City as any given time. Future development projected in Chapter 2 indicates that the City’s potential population could increase by about 28% to 82,300, as undeveloped residential land within the City’s existing boundaries is built out. The impact fees calculated in this report are in current dollars and do not require assumptions about the rate or timing of future development. However, based on the City’s population 96 City of La Quinta Page S-2 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 growth rate over the last several years, it could take 25 years to absorb the land available for residential development within the existing boundaries of the City. Impact Fee Analysis The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter. In each case, the relationship between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified. The impact fees are based on the cost of facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development . All of the fees calculated in this report are based on capital costs and may be spent only for capital facilities and other capital assets identified in this report. The following paragraphs briefly discuss the approach used to calculate impact fees for each type of facility addressed in this study. Tables summarizing the impact fees calculated in this report and comparing them with the City’s existing impact fees are presented later in this chapter. Park and Recreation Impact Fees.Chapter 3 of this report calculates three types of fees for park land acquisition and park improvements: Quimby Act fees in lieu of park land dedication for residential subdivisions Park land acquisition impact fees for residential d evelopment not involving a subdivision Park improvement impact fees for all residential developme nt The City currently has an ordinance requiring residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication . Those requirements are authorized by the Quimby Act.At present, when the City collects fees in lieu of park land dedication, the amount of the fee is based on the value of the land under the subdivision.An alternative employed by many cities is to base in-lieu fees on the estimated average cost-per-acre for park land purchased on the open market. Chapter 3 shows the amount of in-lieu fees calculated in that manner. Chapter 3 also calculates park land impact fees for residential development that does not involve a subdivision.Those fees are based on the City’s existing ratio of park acres to population and the estimated cost-per-acre for park land In addition, Chapter 3 calculates impact fees for park and recreation improvements. Those fees are based on La Quinta’s existing rat io of improved park acreage to population and the estimated cost per acre for park improvements. All of the in-lieu and impact fees in Chapter 3 are calculated as a cost per capita and then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average 97 City of La Quinta Page S-3 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 population per unit for the three types of residential devel opment defined in this report (Single Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, and Multi -Family-Other). Because parks and recreation facilities are intended to serve resident s of the City,the park and recreation in-lieu and impact fees apply only to residential development. Community and Cultural Centers Impact Fee.Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for community and cultural centers.Up to now, this fee has been called the Community Centers Impact Fee and was based on only portions of certain City-owned facilities such as the La Quinta Museum and the Boys and Girls Club, in addition to the Wellness Center. In this study, the basis for this fee has been broadened to include the Wellness Center,the entire Museum and the Boys and Girls Club building,as well as land acquired for the Village Art Plaza and Promenade . The amount of the fee is based on the value of the City’s current per-capita investment in the relevant facilities,including land and furniture, fixtures and equipment.The community and cultural centers impact fees are calculated as a cost per capita and then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average population per unit fo r the three types of residential development defined in this report. Because community and cultural center facilities are intended to serve residents of the City,this fee applies only to residential development . Library Impact Fee. Chapter 5 calculates impact fees for the library.The calculation of this fee assumes that the existing La Quinta Branch Library has adequate capacity to serve all existing and future residential development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. This fee is calculated by allocating the cost of the Library building,land,library materials and furniture fixtures and equipment to the projected buildout population of the area within the existing City limits.The building cost is defined as the original cost of the b uilding plus nominal interest to date on the outstanding loan originally issued by the Redevelopment Agency to fund construction of the library. The impact fees are calculated as a cost per capita and then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average population per unit for the three types of residential development defined in this report. Because the library is intended primarily to serve residents of the City, this fee applies only to residential development. Civic Center Impact Fee.Chapter 6 calculates impact fees for the civic center. The calculation of this fee is based on the relationship between the cost of the existing Civic Center and existing developed acreage within the City. This fee is calculated by allocating the cost of the Civic Center building, land,and furniture fixtures and equipment to existing development within the existing City limits based on developed acreage.The building cost is defined as the original cost of the building. 98 City of La Quinta Page S-4 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 The civic center impact fees are calculated as a cost per developed acre and then converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average acres per unit for each type of development defined in this report. The Civic Center impact fees apply to all t ypes of private development in the City. Public facilities, schools, and parks are excluded from the impact fee analysis because they do not create a demand for services supported by the Civic Center.The Civic Center impact fee applies to golf courses, but only 5% of golf course acreage is assumed to impact services supported by the Civic Center. Maintenance Facilities Impact Fee.Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for corporate yard maintenance facilities, including some major equipment .The calculation of this fee allocates costs for both existing and future maintenance facilities to all existing and future development within the existing corporate bounda ries of the City at buildout.Costs for future improvements to the City’s maintenance facilitie s are based on estimates for Phase II and Phase III of the planned Corporate Yard improvements. To calculate this fee, the City’s maintenance facilities are broken into two components —park maintenance facilities and street maintenance facilities. Costs fo r park maintenance facilities are allocated to development in the same manners as parks, based on population. Costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated to development in the same manner as transportation improvements, based on weighted peak hou r trips. In the initial impact fee analysis for street maintenance facilities, impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks because they do generate some traffic. However, because the traffic created by those public uses is a seconda ry impact of private development, the costs initially allocated to those uses are re -allocated to private development, resulting in a small increase in the fees for all types of private development. The maintenance facilities impact fees apply to all types of private development in the City. Fire Protection Impact Fee.Chapter 8 calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities. The calculation of this fee allocates the cost of both existing and future fire protection facilities to all existing and future development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City at buildout. This study assumes that the City of La Quinta will be responsible for one -half of the cost of a fourth fire station in the Southeastern quadrant of the City. To calculate this fee,costs for fire protection facilities are allocated to development based on developed acreage.In the initial impact fee analysis for fire protection facilities, impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks based on the acreage they occupy. However, because the need for those public uses is created by private development, the costs initially allocated to those uses are re-allocated to private development, resulting in a small increase in the fees for all types of private development. The fire protection facilities impact fees apply to all types of private development in the City. 99 City of La Quinta Page S-5 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Transportation Impact Fee.Chapter 9 of this report calculates impact fees for transportation improvements.For purposes of the impact fee analysis, transpor tation improvements are divided into two groups: those that increase capacity for vehicular traffic and others such as sidewalks and bike lanes.Costs for capacity-capacity-enhancing improvements are allocated only to future development. Costs for non -capacity-enhancing improvements are allocated to both existing and future development.Both groups include costs to repay remaining balance s on reimbursement agreements. To calculate this fee, costs for all types of transportation improvements are allocated to development based on the number of weighted peak hour trips generated by various types of development. Weighted peak hour trips reflect both the number of trips generated and trip length for various types of development. In the initial impact fee analysis for transportation facilities, impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks based on the number of weighted pea k hour trips they generate. However, because the need for those public uses is created by private development, the costs initially allocated to those uses are re-allocated to private development, resulting in a small increase in the fees for all types of p rivate development. The transportation facilities impact fees apply to all types of private development in the City. Recovery of Study Costs In this report, the impact fee calculations include a small administrative charge designed to recover the cost of this study. That charge amounts to about 1/3 of 1% of the impact fees. Impact Fee Summary Impact fees per unit calculated in this report are summarized in Table S.1, below. Table S.1: Summary of Impact Fees Calculated in This Study Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8 Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,106$956$397$1,230$313$369$4,009$9,380$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,794$814$338$1,115$247$335$3,076$7,719$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$779$323$628$198$188$2,281$6,113$ Office/Medical KSF 522$374$151$6,542$7,589$ General Commercial KSF 522$461$151$8,057$9,191$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 698$106$201$1,859$2,864$ Golf Course Acre 251$53$72$930$1,306$ Note: Rows may not total precisely due to rounding 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building floor area; Room = hotel/motel guest room or suite acre = net acre 2 Fee for maintenance facilities includes both park maintenance and street maintenance 100 City of La Quinta Page S-6 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Table S.2 shows the City’s existing impact fees.It is important to note that the existing impact fees for transportation improvements were reduced 22%from the amounts that were supported by improvement costs in the City’s 2013 impact fee study. Table S.3 shows the difference between the proposed fees in Table S.1 and the existing fees in Table S.2. Table S.2 Summary of Existing Impact Fees Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Transpor-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire tation 3 Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,048$129$344$942$156$433$2,842$6,894$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 2,048$129$344$796$156$366$2,842$6,681$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,048$129$344$447$111$206$1,745$5,030$ Office/Medical KSF 373$190$171$4,645$5,379$ General Commercial KSF 373$232$172$5,679$6,456$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 363$65$167$1,590$2,185$ Golf Course Acre 179$27$82$669$957$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building floor area; Room = hotel/motel guest room or suite acre = net acre 2 Impact fees for maintenance facilities include both park maintenance and street maintenance 3 Existing impact fees for transportation improvements were discounted 22% from actual costs Table S.3 Difference Between Existing and Proposed Impact Fees Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Transpor-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire tation 3 Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 58$827$53$288$157$(64)$1,167$2,486$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU (254)$685$(6)$319$91$(31)$234$1,037$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU (332)$650$(21)$181$87$(18)$536$1,084$ Office/Medical KSF 149$184$(20)$1,897$2,210$ General Commercial KSF 149$229$(21)$2,378$2,735$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 335$41$34$269$680$ Golf Course Acre 72$26$(10)$261$349$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building floor area; Room = hotel/motel guest room or suite acre = net acre 2 Impact fees for maintenance facilities include both park maintenance and street maintenance 3 Existing impact fees for transportation improvements were discounted 22% from actual costs 101 City of La Quinta Page 1-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 1.Introduction Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for types of public facilities provided by the City of La Quinta. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in the analysis of impact fees and Quimby Act park land dedication requirements and in lieu fees. The methods used to calculate impact fees and in-lieu fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section s 66000- 66025), and, where applicable,the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477). Legal Framework for Developer Fees This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview.It was not prepared by an attorney,and should not be treated as legal advice. U. S. Constitution.Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation . Both state and federal courts have recognized the impo sition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution. In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in la nd as a condition of development approval, or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden c reated by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994). Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively -enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Su preme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District (2013),state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue. In light of that uncertainty, any agency enacting or im posing impact fees would be wise to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calculation of those fees. 102 City of La Quinta Page 1-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Defining the “Nexus.”While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees,that term can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard.The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings requir ed by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees. Need or Impact.Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees. 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 the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community wil l deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development -related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information ne eded to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus. Benefit.Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Con stitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees. Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expedi tiously or refunded.Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substant ive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus. Proportionality.Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes metho ds used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard. California Constitution.The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and deve lopment. That police power 103 City of La Quinta Page 1-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impac t fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Ar ticle XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of pr oviding facilities needed to serve the project. In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.” The Mitigation Fee Act.California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time ,the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code. The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only. The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessm ent…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development projec t for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely -accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, incre asing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the c ollection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re -evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements ar e discussed in the implementation chapter of this report. Required Findings.Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 104 City of La Quinta Page 1-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 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 typ e 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. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project .) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below. Identifying the Purpose of the Fees.The broad purpose of impact fees is to pro tect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of certain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of pla nned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City g rows. This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development. Identifying the Use of the Fees.According to Section 66001,if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement pl an may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents.In this case, we recommend that the City Council adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees. Reasonable Relationship Requirement.As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that , for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between: 1.the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; 2.the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, 3.the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in cou rt decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees. 105 City of La Quinta Page 1-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case,and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus. Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements.The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000)or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477). Existing Deficiencies.In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991). That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies. However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development pr oject in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Impact Fees for Existing Facilities.Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. The Quimby Act.The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), which pre -dates the Mitigation Fee Act, authorizes a city or county to require dedication of land, payment of fees in - lieu of dedication, or a combin ation of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a residential subdivision. The city or county must adopt an ordinance that includes definite standards for determining the proportion of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the in-lieu fees to be paid. Under the Quimby Act, land dedication and in -lieu fee requirements are based on the ratio of park acres to population in the jurisdiction. That ratio may not exceed three acres per thousand residents unless the existing ratio is higher, but is limited to five acres per thousand. The population added by the subdivision is determined by the number of dwelling units and the average number of persons per household. The population and the average number of persons per hou sehold in the city or county are to be based on the most recent federal census. Park acreage is to be based on the area of neighborhood and community parks in the city or county at the time of that census. 106 City of La Quinta Page 1-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be u sed only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. A 2013 amendment to the Quimby Act added a provision that in -lieu fees may be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities in a neighborhood other than the neighborhood in which the subdivision paying the fees is located, if certain conditions are met (see paragraph (a)(3)(B) of Section 66477). “Neighborhood” is not defined in the statute. The Quimby Act requires that the legislative body adopt a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, and that the amount and location of land to be dedicated o r the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by future inhabitants of the subdivision. The Quimby Act provides that if park and recreational services and facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city or county, the amount and location of park land to be dedicated or fees to be paid shall be jointly determined by that other public agency and the city or county having jurisdiction. The land or fees shall be conveyed directly to th e public agency that provides park and recreational services on a communitywide level if that agency elects to accept the land or fee. Only payment of fees may be required for subdivisions containing 50 units or less, or for condominium, stock cooperative or community apartment projects. Impact Fee Calculation Methodology Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development. Plan-Based or Improvements-Driven Method.Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development.The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity. Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development. To calculate plan- 107 City of La Quinta Page 1-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 based impact fees, it is necessary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development. With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by the total units of additional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g.a cost per capita for parks). Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing demand per unit of development (e.g. population per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development. This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specific facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significant ly the fees will have to be recalculated. Capacity-Based or Consumption-Driven Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated and the fa cility has adequate capacity available to serve the development. Since the cost per unit of demand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans. In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capacity -based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to derive a unit cost. H owever, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of facilities. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non - residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories. Standard-Based or Incremental Expansion Method.Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard th at determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be established as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area. Using the standard-based method, costs are defined on a generic unit -cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. Park in-lieu and impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in terms of acres of parks per thousand residents. A cost -per-acre for park land or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks is used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of development based on the average population per dwelli ng unit for various types of residential development. 108 City of La Quinta Page 1-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Facilities Addressed in this Study Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report: Park Land and Improvements Community and Cultural Centers Library Facilities Civic Center Facilities Maintenance Facilities Fire Protection Facilities Transportation Facilities Each of those facilities is addressed in s separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter 3.Chapter 2 contains data on existing and fut ure development used in th e impact fee analysis. 109 City of La Quinta Page 2-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 2.Development Data This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this chapter may be used to establis h levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development. Background and Setting La Quinta is located along Highway 111 in the desert res ort area of the Coachella Valley in south-central Riverside County, adjacent to the City of Indian Wells to the west and the City of Indio to the east. Existing development in the City is primarily residential and includes both conventional residential development and gated residential and resort communities, some of which contain one or more golf courses. Major regional commercial development in La Quinta exists along Highway 111 in La Quinta and more is planned. A significant portion of the land within th e City lies on the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef mountains. Much of that area is preserved as open space. Study Area and Development Scenario The study area for this impact fee study is the existing City, meaning the area within the exist ing corporate boundaries of La Quinta.The future development scenario used in this study assumes buildout of all developable land within those corporate boundaries. La Quinta’s population fluctuates seasonally. Projections in this chapter indicate that undeveloped residential land in the study area has the capacity to accommodate approximately 18,000 additional residents when all of the projected new residential units in the City are occupied. That would be an increase of about 28% from the City’s estimat ed 2019 full- occupancy population of 64, 531, and would bring the total population within the existing corporate boundaries of La Quinta to just over 82,000 when all residential units are occupied. As explained below, the term “potential population” is use d elsewhere in this study to mean the population of the City when all residential units are occupied. Time Frame No time frame is assumed for the buildout of future development projected in this study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this stud y do not require assumptions regarding the rate or timing of development. 110 City of La Quinta Page 2-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Development Types The development types defined in this study are intended to reflect actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. The following breakd own of development types is used throughout this study: Residential -Single Family Detached Residential –Single-Family Attached Residential –Multi-Family/Other Office General Commercial Tourist Commercial Public Facilities Public Schools Parks Golf Courses Residential Development and Population As indicated in the list above, this study classifies residential development into three categories: Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, which includes condominiums and townhouses, and Multi-Family/Other which includes ap artments and mobile homes. Dwelling units are used as the basic measure of the amount of the amount of existing and future development in each residential category. The graph at right shows the California Department of Finance (DOF) official January 1 population estimates for the City of La Quinta for the years from 2010 through 2018. DOF’s population estimate for La Quinta has grown at an average rate of 1.2% per year since 2010. The City’s estimated January 1, 2018 population of 41,204 is an increase of 3,737 or 10% from a population of 37,467 at the time of the 2010 Census. The figures shown above reflect the City’s total population, including both household population and population in group quarters such as nursing homes. Th e group quarters population in La Quinta is very small, amounting to only 57 people in 2018. It is important to note that the official Census Bureau and Department of Finance population estimates reflect only the City’s permanent population. A substantial percentage of the 111 City of La Quinta Page 2-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 dwellings in La Quinta are occupied seasonally, so the official population estimat es substantially understate the service demand represented by residential development in La Quinta. Once a dwelling unit has been approved and constructed , the City is committed to serve the demand created by that unit, even if that demand is seasonal. Th e City 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” to gauge the de mand for population-related public services and the facilities that support them. As used in this study, “potential population” means the number of people who would reside in the City when all dwelling units existing at a particula r time are occupied. Unless otherwise indicated, when the term “population” is used in subsequent cha pters of this report, it will mean potential population. The potential population is estimated for each category of residential development by multiplying the number of units (existing or future) in that category by the average population per unit for that type of development. This study uses data from the U. S. Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates to calculate the population per d welling unit factors for each category of residential development defined in this study. Those factor s are shown in Table 2.1. Non-Residential Development In this study, private, non -residential development is classified into three categories : Office, General Commercial and Tourist Commercial. The Office category is equivalent to the Office Commercial (CO) classification in the General Plan Land Use Element. Tourist Commercial is equivalent to the Tourist Commercial (CT) classification in the Land Use Eleme nt. And the General Commercial category used in this study encompasses all other types of commercial development defined in the Land Use Element. La Quinta has no existing industrial development and none is planned within the existing City. For purposes of impact fee analysis, commercial development can be measured in a number of ways. In this report, the basic measure of office and general commercial development is gross building area in thousands of square feet, which is abbreviated “KSF.” Tourist commerc ial development, which consists of hotels and associated uses, is measured in terms of “rooms,” meaning guest rooms or suites. Several other categories of non-residential development are also used in this study. Those categories are Public Facilities, Schools, Parks and Golf Courses. The amount of existing and future development in the Public Facilities c ategory is measured in terms of building area in KSF. Schools, Parks and Golf Courses are measured in terms of acreage. Demand Variables To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocati on formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development (for 112 City of La Quinta Page 2-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 example, added population or added vehicle trips) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities. Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonabl y correlated with that demand. For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain that relationship. Logically,then, the increase in population related to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick,or demand variable, for use in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks. Each demand variable has a specific value for each t ype of development defined in this study. Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.”So, if the demand variable used to calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand factor for single-family residential d evelopment would be the p opulation per dwelling unit for that specific type of development. Demand variables used in this study are discussed below, and specific demand factors can be found in Table 2.1. Acreage.Acreage is a basic attribute of all development. In this report, net developed acreage is used as a demand variable for some types of facilities. Population.Resident population is used in this study to represent the need for facilities such as parks and community centers that are intended to se rve residents of the City and are not impacted substantially by non-residential development. As discussed above, because of seasonality in La Quinta’s population, the population used to calculate impact fees in thi s study is “potential population” Weighted Peak Hour Trips.Both the number of peak hour trips generated by development and the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour roadway capacity needed to serve development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for transportation facilities in this report is weighted peak hour trips, which is the product of the number of peak hour trips per unit per day and a trip length factor representing the relationship between the average trip length fo r a particular development type and the system-wide average trip length. The best available information on trip lengths by development type are those published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in the publication Traffic Generators.Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not specifically apply to La Quinta, we believe they reasonably represent the proportional relationship of trip lengths for various types of development in the City. 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 the actual trip length that is important in the impact fee calculations. 113 City of La Quinta Page 2-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 It should be noted that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has developed trip length data for the Coachella Valley. However, those trip lengths are calculated by trip purpose not by development 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 impact fee analysis. Peak hour trips-per-unit-per-day, trip length factors and weighted peak hour trips for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.1. Demand Factors Table 2.1 on the next page shows the values of demand factors used in this study, by development type. Existing and Forecasted Development Summaries of existing and forecasted development within the corporate boundarie s of La Quinta, by development type, are presented in Tables 2.2 through 2.4 later in this section. At present, La Quinta is about 78% built out in terms of the total residential units and potential population forecasted for buildout within the existing co rporate boundaries of the City. Commercial and Office development are approximately 63% built out based on square footage, and Tourist Commercial is about 45% built out based on existing and forecasted h otel rooms. Table 2.1 Demand Factors Land Use Category Unit Type Acres per Unit 1 Population per Unit 2 Pk Hr Trips per Unit 3 Trip Length Factor 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips per Unit 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 0.245 2.70 1.01 1.14 1.16 Residential - Single Family Attached DU 0.222 2.30 0.78 1.14 0.89 Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 0.125 2.20 0.58 1.14 0.66 Office/Medical KSF 0.104 1.49 1.28 1.90 General Commercial KSF 0.104 3.75 0.62 2.34 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Rooms 0.139 0.49 1.10 0.54 Public Facilities KSF 0.270 2.85 0.87 2.48 Schools Acres 1.000 1.30 0.61 0.79 Parks Acres 1.000 1.59 0.32 0.51 Golf Courses Acres 1.000 0.30 0.91 0.27 1 Acres per unit based on projected buildout conditions 2 Average population per unit based on analysis of data from U. S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey (2017, 5-Year Estimate), Tables B25032 and B25033 3 Peak hour trips per unit per day from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition 4 Trip length factor = average trip length for each development type / a system-wide average of 6.9 miles; trip lengths based on data from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publication,Traffic Generators (see discussion in text) 5 Weighted peak hour trips per unit = peak hour trips per unit X trip length factor 114 City of La Quinta Page 2-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 As of 2019, single family residential un its make up approximately 80% of all residential units in the City, with the other two categories of residential development comprising about 10% each. That mix is projected to change very little as a re sult of future development forecasted for this study. Table 2.2 on the next p age shows estimated existing development in the City as of January 1, 2018, in terms of acres, units, potential population, and weighted peak hour trips. Table 2.3 on the next page shows forecasted future development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City of La Quinta through buildout. Table 2.2 Existing Development as of January 1, 2019 Land Use Category Developed Acres 1 Unit Type 2 No. of Units 3 Potential Population 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family Detached 4,824 DU 19,780 53,406 22,945 Residential - Single Family Attached 532 DU 2,417 5,559 2,151 Residential - Multi-Family/Other 317 DU 2,530 5,566 1,670 Office/Medical 78 KSF 753 1,431 General Commercial 423 KSF 3,692 8,639 Tourist Commercial/Lodging 207 Room 1,130 610 Public Facilities 88 KSF 360 893 Schools 115 Acre 115 91 Parks 242 Acre 242 123 Golf Courses 4,317 Acre 4,317 1,166 Totals 11,143 64,531 39,719 1 Existing developed acres estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 3 Number of existing units estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 4 Potential population = number of residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Existing weighted peak hour trips = number of units X weighted peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 115 City of La Quinta Page 2-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 2.4 on the next page shows total development at buildout of the existing City. Table 2.3 Additional Development to Buildout of the Existing City Land Use Category Developed Acres 1 Unit Type 2 No. of Units 3 Potential Population 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family Detached 1,294 DU 5,186 14,002 6,016 Residential - Single Family Attached 170 DU 743 1,709 661 Residential - Multi-Family/Other 118 DU 946 2,081 624 Office/Medical 54 KSF 512 973 General Commercial 104 KSF 1,358 3,178 Tourist Commercial/Lodging 138 Room 1,360 735 Public Facilities 32 KSF 84 208 Schools 0 Acre 0 0 Parks 54 Acre 54 28 Golf Courses 817 Acre 817 220 Totals 2,781 17,792 12,643 1 Increase in developed acres estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Dept. 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 3 Increase in the number of units estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Dept. 4 Increase in potential population = increase in residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Increase in weighted peak hour trips = increase in number of units X weighted peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 116 City of La Quinta Page 2-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 2.4 Total Development at Buildout of the Existing City Land Use Category Developed Acres 1 Unit Type 2 No. of Units 3 Potential Population 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family Detached 6,118 DU 24,966 67,408 28,961 Residential - Single Family Attached 702 DU 3,160 7,268 2,812 Residential - Multi-Family/Other 435 DU 3,476 7,647 2,294 Office/Medical 132 KSF 1,265 2,404 General Commercial 527 KSF 5,050 11,817 Tourist Commercial/Lodging 345 Room 2,490 1,345 Public Facilities 120 KSF 444 1,101 Schools 115 Acre 115 91 Parks 296 Acre 296 151 Golf Courses 5,134 Acre 5,134 1,386 Totals 13,924 82,323 52,362 1 Developed acres at buildout estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 3 Number of units at buildout estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 4 Potential population at buildout = residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Weighted peak hour trips at buildout = number of units X wieghted peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 117 City of La Quinta Page 3-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 3.Parks and Recreation Impact Fees This chapter updates two different types of fees available for funding parks tha t serve the added population associated with new residential development in La Quinta. 1.Quimby Act In-Lieu Fees -The Quimby Act (Government Code 66477) authorizes the City to require that residential subdivisions dedicat e land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication. This chapter calculates the in -lieu fees, which apply only to residential projects that involve a subdivision. 2.Development Impact Fees –Impact fees for parkland acquisition that apply to residential projects not involving a subdivision,and impact fees for construction of park improvements that apply to all residential development projects. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of de velopment that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facilit y. The need for parks is almost universally defined in terms of the population to be served, so the demand variable used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is added population. Because the impact of development on the need for parks is created by an increase in population associated with new residential development, the fees calculated in this chapter will apply only to new residential development. Service Area La Quinta’s park facilities serve the entire City, so impact fees for those facilities w ill apply to all new residential development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Existing Facilities Both Quimby Act and park impact fee calculations in this chapter reference a list of the City’s existing parks as part of their basis.Table 3.1 lists La Quinta’s existing parks and breaks down the acreage of each park into city-owned and city-improved acres. 118 City of La Quinta Page 3-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 All acreage of existing parkland shown in Table 3.1 is improved with the exception of two nature preserve areas, Fred Wolff Bear Creek Nature Preserve and Cove Oasis. This analysis estimates that 10 percent of the total acreage of those preserve areas, or 14 acres, is improved as nature trails and public access points. Those 14 acres are treated as developed community park acreage in this analysis. The land under the sports fields at Paige Middle School is owned by the Desert Sands Unified School District, but the City has paid for the impr ovements to that land.Similarly,the land under the Sports Complex is also owned by the Scho ol District, but the City has paid for the improvements to that park. The City is currently developing two new parks not listed in Table 3.1: the 14 -acre Silver Rock Event Venue which is out to bid, and the two -acre X Park skate park which is nearing construction. Quimby Act Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication The calculation of fees subject to the stipulations of the Quimby Act differs in a number of ways from park impact fees, which are discussed later in this chapter. Table 3.1: Existing Parks Park Park City-Owned City-Improved Name Type Acres Acres Adams Park Neighborhood Park 3.50 3.50 Civic Center Campus Community Park 7.90 7.90 Desert Pride Park Neighborhood Park 1.00 1.00 Eisenhower Park Mini Park 0.50 0.50 Fritz Burns Park Community Park 12.00 12.00 La Quinta Park Community Park 18.00 18.00 La Quinta Community Park (Frances Hack) Community Park 6.50 6.50 Monticello Park Neighborhood Park 4.00 4.00 Pioneer Park Neighborhood Park 3.20 3.20 Paige Middle School Sports Fields Community Park 0.00 7.00 Saguaro Park Mini Park 0.75 0.75 Sports Complex Community Park 0.00 16.75 Seasons Park Neighborhood Park 5.00 5.00 Velasco Park Mini Park 0.25 0.25 Fred Wolff Bear Creek Nature Preserve Open Space 26.00 2.60 Cove Oasis Open Space 114.00 11.40 Total 202.60 100.35 Source: City of La Quinta 119 City of La Quinta Page 3-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Methodology and Level of Service Standard –Quimby Act The level of service standard used to calculate Quimby Act fees in lieu of parkland dedication is based on the relationship between population and park acreage, but it must conform to rules specified in the statute. The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) requires use of population data as shown in the most recent available federal census, which at the time of this study is the 2010 Census population. The statute authorizes municipalities to im pose a requirement on residential subdivisions (including parcel maps) that they dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of park land dedication. Those requirements may not exceed the 2010 ratio of park acreage to population if that ratio is between 3.0 acres per thousand and 5.0 acres per thousand. If the 2010 ratio is lower than 3.0 acres per thousand, land dedication and/or in lieu fees may be based on 3.0 acres per thousand. As shown in Table 3.2, La Quinta’s ratio is below the Quimby Act’s minimum standard. Consequently, the park land in-lieu fees calculated later in this chapter are based on the minimum of 3.0 acres per thousand. Fees In-Lieu of Park Land Dedication –Quimby Act Per Chapter 13.48.060 of the City’s Municipal Code, Quimby Act pa rkland acquisition in -lieu fees “…shall be based on the fair market value of land within a subdivision.” As such, the City calculates these fees on a case by case basis, depending on the market value of land under each subdivision at the time the project i s approved using the following formula to determine the fee: Table 3.2: Level of Service - Quimby Act Facility Acres1 Population2 Acres per Capita 3 Acres per 1000 4 Total Park Acres - 2010 (Quimby) 100.35 58,610 0.00171 1.71 1 All parks shown in Table 3.1 were in existence in 2010 2 Reflects 2010 potential population based on 100% occupancy of 2010 dwelling units 3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000 120 City of La Quinta Page 3-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In-lieu fee = Number of dwelling units x Population per dwelling unit by development type x .003 acres per capita x market value of land per acre A review of the in-lieu fees charged by the City since 2010 shows that per-acre in-lieu fees have varied widely from project-to-project.As an alternative, the City Council could choose to establish a standardized schedule of in-lieu fees based on the estimated average Citywide cost- per-acre for park land used in this chapter.Table 3.3 shows what those in-lieu fees would be if the City Council chooses this alternative. Table 3.3: Park Land In-Lieu Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $1,306.80 2.70 $3,528.36 $11.43 $3,539.79 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $1,306.80 2.30 $3,005.64 $9.74 $3,015.38 Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $1,306.80 2.20 $2,874.96 $9.31 $2,884.27 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 Cost per capita = 0.003 acres per capita X $435,600 per acre 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 121 City of La Quinta Page 3-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Park Impact Fees This chapter calculates two types of impact fees for parks: 1.Park land acquisition impact fees, which apply to residential projects that do not involve a subdivision. 2.Park improvement impact fees, which apply to all residential development in addition to any park land dedication,park land in-lieu (Quimby Act) fees, or park land acquisition impact fees. Park improvement impact fees would be used to construct park improvements to serve the added population associated with new residential development. Methodology-Park Impact Fees The method used to calculate development impact fees in this chapter is the standar d-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees using a level -of-service standard and the estimated cost of new facil ities needed to maintain that standard. The level of service standard used in this chapter is discussed below. Level of Service Standard –Park Impact Fees The level of service standard used to calculate the park impact fees in this chapter is the City’s existing level of service, defined as the relationship between existing park acreage and existing population.Table 3.4 shows the ratio of park acreage to population based on the estimated potential population as of January 1, 2019. See Chapter 2 for a disc ussion of potential population. Cost Per Capita –Park Impact Fees The following tables convert the acres-per-capita factor from Table 3.4 into costs per capita. Table 3.5 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition impact fees, which can be applied to residential projects that do not involve a subdivision. Table 3.4: Existing Level of Service - Impact Fees Facility Acres1 Existing Population2 Acres per Capita Acres per 1000 Existing Park Acres 100.35 64,531 0.00156 1.56 1 See Table 3.1 2 The City's 2019 potential population based on 100% occupancy of all existing dwelling units; see Table 2.2 3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000 122 City of La Quinta Page 3-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 3.6 calculates the cost per capita for park improvement impact fees. Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees per Unit Table 3.7 calculates park land acquisition impact fees per dwelling unit based on the cost per capita from Table 3.5 and the population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1 and then adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjuste d impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Table 3.5: Cost per Capita - Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees Cost Cost per Acres per Cost per Component Acre 1 Capita 2 Capita 3 Park Land Acquisition $435,600 0.00156 $677.39 1 Cost per acre estimated by the City of La Quinta 2 See Table 3.4 3 Cost per capita = cost per acre X acres per capita Table 3.6: Cost per Capita - Park Improvements Cost Cost per Acres per Cost per Component Acre 1 Capita 2 Capita 3 Park Improvements $500,000 0.00156 $777.53 1 Cost per acre estimated by the City of La Quinta 2 See Table 3.4 3 Cost per capita = cost per acre X acres per capita Table 3.7: Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $677.39 2.70 $1,828.95 $5.93 $1,834.88 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $677.39 2.30 $1,558.00 $5.05 $1,563.04 Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $677.39 2.20 $1,490.26 $4.83 $1,495.09 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.5 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 123 City of La Quinta Page 3-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit Table 3.8 calculates park improvement impact fees per dwelli ng unit based on the cost per capita from Table 3.6 and the population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1 and then adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjuste d impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of thi s study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this stud y (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 3.9 shows projected revenue from the in-lieu fees and impact fees for park land acquisition calculated in this chapter.Because the fees are different for subdivisions and non- subdivision projects, the only way to project revenue from those fees is to make assumptions about how many future units will be in subdivisions. For purposes of projecting revenue, we are assuming that all new units in the Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached c ategories will involve a subdivision, and that no future units in the Multi-Family/Other category will involve a subdivision.Potential revenue from future residential development is projected by applying the appropriate in-lieu fees or impact fees per unit from Tables 3.3 and 3.7 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Table 3.8: Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $777.53 2.70 $2,099.33 $6.80 $2,106.13 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $777.53 2.30 $1,788.32 $5.79 $1,794.11 Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $777.53 2.20 $1,710.57 $5.54 $1,716.11 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.6 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 124 City of La Quinta Page 3-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 3.10 shows projected revenue from the impact fees for park improvements calculated in this chapter.Potential revenue from future residential development is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Ta ble 3.8 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Updating the Fees The in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of park land and improvements.We recommend that the fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposin g impact fees, must make findings to : Table 3.9: Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Park Land In-Lieu and Impact Fees Development Fee per Future Projected Type Units 1 Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $3,539.79 5,186 18,357,361$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $3,015.38 743 2,240,426$ Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $1,495.09 946 1,414,352$ Total 22,012,139$ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 Fee per unit for Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached from Table 3.3; Fee for Multi-Family/Other from Table 3.7 3 See Table 2.3 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 3.10: Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Fee/Unit of Future Projected Type Units 1 Development Units Revenue Residential - Single Family Detached DU $2,106.13 5,186 10,922,405$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $1,794.11 743 1,333,026$ Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $1,716.11 946 1,623,438$ Total 13,878,869$ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.8 3 See Table 2.3 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 125 City of La Quinta Page 3-9 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, 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. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for parks in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used t o provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may al so be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to serve the needs of additional population associated with new residential development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.New residential development increases the need for parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this cha pter. Without additional parks, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project.The amount of the Parks and Recreation impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City. 126 City of La Quinta Page 4-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 4.Community and Cultural Centers This chapter calculates impact fees for community and cultural centers needed to serve future development in La Quinta. This fee was formerly known as the Community Centers impact fe e. The scope of the fee has been broadened in t his study to include cultural facilities such as the La Quinta Museum. Previously, only portions o f the museum and Boys and Girls Club used as meeting rooms were covered by the Community Centers impact fee. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are ba sed on the City’s existing investment per capita in community and cultural center facilities, and will be used to provide additional facilities to maintain the current level of service as the City continues to grow. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the standard -based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees using a level-of-service standard and the estimated cost of new facilities needed to maintai n that standard.The level of service standard used in this chapter is discussed below. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of de velopment that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 f or a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. Community and cultural center facilities are intended to serve residents of the C ity, so, population will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for those facilities. Since the fees are based on the added population asso ciated with new residential development, these impact fees will apply only to residential developm ent. Service Area La Quinta’s community and cultural centers serve the entire City, so impact fees for those facilities will apply to all new residential development within the existing corporate boundaries of the La Quinta. Level of Service The level of service standard used to calculate impact fees for community and cultural centers in this chapter is the existing level of service, defined as the City’s current capital investment in those facilities per capita of population. The fees calculat ed in this chapter are designed to maintain that existing level of service as the City grows. 127 City of La Quinta Page 4-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Existing Facilities Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and cultural center facilities and the estimated value of the existing assets associated with those fac ilities, including land, buildings, and furniture, fixtures and equipment . Costs for site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping are included in th e building cost. The City has acquired two sites adjacent to the La Quinta Museum for a Village Ar t Plaza and Promenade, which are programmed for development in the 2020 -21 City budget. The cost of those two sites is included in Table 4.1, but an estimated $3.3 million in future costs for improvements on those sites is not included. The current balance in the Community Center Impact Fee Fund is shown as an existing asset in Table 4.1 and represents additional f acilities that will be constructed with funds t hat have previously been collected from development projects in the City through impact fees. Cost per Capita Table 4.2 calculates an average replacement cost per capita for Community and Cultural Center facilities based on the total impact fee cost bas is from Table 4.1 and the 2019 potential population of the City. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of potential population. Table 4.1: Existing Community and Cultural Center Facilities Cost Building Est Building Est FF&E Site Est Site Impact Fee Component Sq Ft 1 Value 2 Value 3 Acres 4 Value 5 Cost Basis 6 La Quinta Wellness Center 21,900 10,750,000$800,000$2.10 1,372,140$12,922,140$ La Quinta Museum/Historical Society 9,551 4,150,000$1,124,567$0.30 196,020$5,470,587$ Boys and Girls Club Building 5,000 2,200,320$16,018$1.50 980,100$3,196,438$ Village Art Plaza Site (Lumberyard)Actual Purchase Price 526,825$ Promenade Site on Ave Montezuma Actual Purchase Price 509,655$ Community Center Impact Fee Fund Balance 7 149,681$ Total 17,100,320$1,940,585$2,548,260$22,775,326$ 1 Existing square feet from the City of La Quinta Asset Report 2 Estimated building value from City property insurance cost analysis 3 Estimated value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the City property insurance cost analysis and the City asset report 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Estimated site value based on $653,400 per acre ($15.00 per square foot) 6 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the amounts for the building, FF&E, and site value. 7 Community Center impact fee fund balance as of 12/31/18 128 City of La Quinta Page 4-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 4.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for community and cultural center facilities. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per capita from Table 4.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1. A small administrative charge is then added to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study b y estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this stu dy (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 4.4 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added residential development shown in Tabl e 2.3 is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 4.3 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Table 4.2: Community and Cultural Center Facilities - Cost per Capita Total Impact Fee 2019 Potential Impact Fee Cost Cost Basis 1 Population 2 per Capita 3 $22,775,326 64,531 $352.94 1 See Table 4.1 2 See Table 2.2 3 Cost per capita = total impact fee cost basis / 2019 potential population Table 4.3: Community and Cultural Center Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 352.94$2.70 952.93$$3.09 $956.02 Residential - Single Family Attached DU 352.94$2.30 811.75$$2.63 $814.38 Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 352.94$2.20 776.46$$2.52 $778.98 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 4.2 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 129 City of La Quinta Page 4-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Updating the Fees The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current value of Community and Cultural Center facilities. We recommend that the costs used i n this chapter be reviewed periodically and adjusted in the event that updated costs become available. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or impo sing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship b etween: 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. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact F ees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs expla in how the impact fees calculated in this chapt er satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for community and cultural center facilitie s in La Quinta. Table 4.4: Community and Cultural Center Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $956.02 5,186 4,957,895$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $814.38 743 605,087$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $778.98 946 736,911$ Total 6,299,893$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 4.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 130 City of La Quinta Page 4-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and cultural center facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and cultural cente r facilities to serve the needs of additional population associated with new residential development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.New development increase s the need for community and cultural center facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional community and cultural center facilities, the increas e in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project.The amount of the community and cu ltural center facilities impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project.The fees per unit of development calculated in this ch apter for each type of residential development are based on the population per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for community and cultural center facilities in the City. 131 City of La Quinta Page 5-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 5.Library This chapter calculates impact fees for the La Quinta Library, which is owned by the City of La Quinta and operated by the Riverside County Library System. The existing Library was designe d to serve the projected buildout population of the area within the existing cor porate boundaries of the City. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impa ct fees by allocating the cost of specific facilities to the development served by those facilities.In this case, since the Library is designed to serve a buildout population, new development is effectively buying -in to the existing Library through impact fees. The Library impact fees calculated in this chapter represent new developm ent’s proportionate share of the cost of the existing Library facilities and materials. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to repre sent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 f or a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. The La Quinta Library is intended to serve residents of the City, so, population will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for that facility. Since population increase is associated with new residential development, these impact fees will apply only to residential development. Service Area La Quinta’s library serves the entire City, so the library impact fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new residential development within the existing corporate limits of the City. Level of Service The level of service used in calculating the Library impact fees is the relationship between the cost of existing Library facilities and materials and the projected potential po pulation at buildout of existing and future residential development in the area within La Quinta’s existing corporate boundaries. That relationship is defined by th e cost per capita shown in Table 5.2 on the next page. Existing Facilities Table 5.1 shows the original cost of the existing La Quinta Library building, the building site, the facility’s furniture, fixtures and equipment, and the books and other materials in the library’s 132 City of La Quinta Page 5-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 collection.Costs for site improvements such as parking lots and landscapin g are included in the building cost. Actual interest on the Redevelopment Agency loan used to fund a portion of the cost of the La Quinta Library is also shown in Table 5.1. That interest cost has not been adjusted for inflation, which would have increased the amount. Cost per Capita Table 5.2 calculates an average cost per capita for Library facilities based on the total impact fee cost basis from Table 5.1 and the buildout potential population o f the area within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 5.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for Library facilities and materials. Impact fees per unit ar e calculated using the impact fee cost per capita from Table 5.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1 and then adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculate d by dividing Table 5.1: Existing Library Facility and Materials Cost Building Original Est FF&E Site Original Impact Fee Component Sq Ft 1 Bldg Cost 2 Value 3 Acres 4 Site Cost 5 Cost Basis 6 La Quinta Library Building 20,517 8,500,000$1,025,000 2.40 313,632$9,838,632$ Library Materials (71, 480 volume @ $25.00 each)1,787,000$ Nominal Interest on RDA Library Loan since 2005 435,319$ Total 12,060,951$ 1 Existing square feet from the City of La Quinta Asset Report 2 Building value from City property insurance cost analysis 3 Estimated value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the City property insurance cost analysis and the City asset report 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Original site cost based on $130,680 per acre ($3.00 per square foot) 6 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the amounts for the building, FF&E, and site value. Table 5.2: Library Facility and Materials - Cost per Capita Total Impact Fee Buildout Potential Impact Fee Cost Cost Basis 1 Population 2 per Capita 3 $12,060,951 82,323 $146.51 1 See Table 5.1 2 See Table 2.2; see discusion of potential population in Chapter 2 3 Cost per capita = total impact fee cost basis / 2019 potential population 133 City of La Quinta Page 5-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 the cost of the st udy by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 5.4 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added residential development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the adjusted impact fees per unit from Table 5.3 to added units of residential de velopment from Table 2.3. Construction of the La Quinta Library was funded, in part, by a loan from the City’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA) before the State of California eliminated redevelopment agencies in 2012. That loan is now in the portfolio of the Successor Agency that is responsible for winding down the business of the now-dissolved La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. Impact fees collected for the Library will be used primarily to repay principal and interest on the outstanding debt to the Successor Agency. The impact fees may also be used to pay for library materials. Table 5.3: Library Facility and Materials - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 146.51$2.70 395.57$$1.28 $396.85 Residential - Single Family Attached DU 146.51$2.30 336.97$$1.09 $338.06 Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 146.51$2.20 322.32$$1.04 $323.36 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 5.2 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge Table 5.4: Library Facility and Materials Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 396.85$5,186 2,058,076$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 338.06$743 251,178$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 323.36$946 305,900$ Total 2,615,154$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 5.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 134 City of La Quinta Page 5-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 There is no set repayment schedule or interest rate for that loan, so it is not possible to estimate the ultimate cost of retiring that debt. The Successor Agency charges interest at th e rate earned by the City’s investment pool, and repayment is based on the availability of impact fee revenue. The current balance on that loan is approximately $1.552 million. The total cost of the facility continues to increases over time because of int erest on the balance of the RDA loan. However, the interest rate being charged on that loan is quite low, and the revenue projected in Table 5.4 appears adequate to cover principal and interest payments until that loan is retired. Based on the rate at whic h Library impact fees have been collected since 2008, full repayment of the RDA loan is likely to take many years. Updating the Fees The impact fees calcu lated in this chapter are based on the original cost of the library facility and those costs are fixed . However, interest on the outstanding loan continues to a ccumulate, so we recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted if necessary to reflect actual costs. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees,must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, 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. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexu s” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculate d in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providi ng library facilities to the residents of La Quinta. 135 City of La Quinta Page 5-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to repay the Redevelopment Agency loan that was used to fund a portion of the cost of the La Quinta Library and to acquire additional materials for the Library’s collection. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to retire debt that was used to pay for future development’s share of the cost of the La Quinta Library. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.The La Quinta Library was constructed with adequate capacity to serve the anticipated buildout population of the area within the existing City Limits of La Quinta. Those impact fees are imposed on residential development because added residential development drives the growth of the City’s population. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the library impact fe es charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the population per un it for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of library facilities in the City. 136 City of La Quinta Page 6-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 6.Civic Center This chapter calculates impact fees for the La Quinta Civic Center.When the most recent Civic Center expansion was constructed, the City expected that the expanded facility would have adequate capacity to serve all planned development within the corporate boundaries of the existing City through buildout.However, that expectation has changed as the City began to bring in-house more services that were formerly contracted out. So now, space in the Civic Center is at a premium and additional space will be required as the City continues to grow. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees using a level-of-service standard and the estimated cost of new facilities needed to maintain that standar d.The level of service standard used in this chapter is discussed be low. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 for a general d iscussion of demand variables and demand factors. The City departments housed in the Civic Center provide services of one kind or another to all private development in the City, but most of them are not line departments providing services directly to City residents and businesses. In a number of cases, those departments are responsible for management, administrative and support functions essential to City government. It is self-evident that the need for those functions in any city generally increases as th e City grows. But given the variety of functions located in 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 impact of development on spa ce needs in that facility. Thus, it is reasonable to use a generalize d measure of development to represent service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees for the Civic Center. Acreage is the most common attribute of all types of development, and d eveloped acreage will be used here as the demand variable representin g the impact of development on the need for Civic Center facilities. Service Area La Quinta’s Civic Center serves the entire City, so the Civic Center impact fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new private development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. 137 City of La Quinta Page 6-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Level of Service The level of service standard used to calculate Civic Center impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, defined as th e City’s current capital investment in those facilities per developed acre. The fees calculated in this chapter are designed to maintain that existing level of service as the City grows. Existing Facilities Table 6.1 shows the original cost of the existing La Quinta Civic Center building, the building site, and the facility’s furniture, fixtures and equipment.Costs for site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping are included in the building cost. Cost per Developed Acre Table 6.2 on the next page calculates an average cost per developed acre f or the Civic Center using the impact fee cost basis from Table 6.1 and the acreage of existing private development within the corporate boundaries of the City. The developed acreage shown in Table 6.2 excludes public facilities, schools and parks which do not impact the n eed for Civic Center facilities, and includes only 5% of golf course acreage. Golf courses have a very limited impact on the demand for City services housed in the Civic Center. Table 6.1: Existing Civic Center Facility Cost Building Building Est FF&E Site Site Impact Fee Component Sq Ft 1 Cost 2 Value 3 Acres 4 Cost 5 Cost Basis 6 Civic Center 54,553 30,297,716$2,000,000 5.50 718,740$33,016,456$ Total 33,016,456$ 1 Existing square feet from the City of La Quinta Asset Report 2 Original building cost by the City of La Quinta 3 Estimated value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment from the City property insurance cost analysis and the City asset report 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Estimated site value based on original costs of $130,680 per acre ($3.00 per square foot) 6 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the amounts for the building, FF&E, and site value. Table 6.2: Civic Center - Cost per Developed Acre Impact Fee Adjusted Existing Cost per Cost Basis 1 Dev Acreage 2 per Acre 3 $33,016,456 6,597 $5,004.88 1 See Table 6.1 2 Adjusted existsing developed acreage excludes public facilities, schools, parks and includes 5% of golf course acreage; see Table 2.2 3 Cost per acre = impact fee cost basis / adjusted existing developed acreage 138 City of La Quinta Page 6-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 6.3 shows the calculation of impac t fees per unit of development by development type for the Civic Center. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impac t fee cost per acre from Table 6.2 and acres-per-unit factors from Table 2.1, except for golf courses which are included at a rate of 0.05 acres per acre of golf course. No impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks which do not im pact the Civic Center. Table 6.3 also adds a small administrati ve charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 6.4 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potentia l revenue for the added private development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 6.3 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 6.3: Civic Center - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Acres Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 5,004.88$0.245 1,226.20$$3.97 1,230.17$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 5,004.88$0.222 1,111.08$$3.60 1,114.68$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 5,004.88$0.125 625.61$$2.03 627.64$ Office/Medical KSF 5,004.88$0.104 520.51$$1.69 522.19$ General Commercial KSF 5,004.88$0.104 520.51$$1.69 522.19$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 5,004.88$0.139 695.68$$2.25 697.93$ Public Facilities Acre 0.00$0.270 0.00$$0.00 0.00$ Public Schools Acre 0.00$1.000 0.00$$0.00 0.00$ Parks Acre 0.00$1.000 0.00$$0.00 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre 5,004.88$0.050 250.24$$0.81 251.05$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 6.2 3 Acres per unit; see Table 2.1; for golf courses, the share of acreage impacting the Civic Center is estimated at 5%, so 0.05 acres per acre of golf course is used to calculate the impact fee for golf courses 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 139 City of La Quinta Page 6-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Updating the Fees The impact fees calcu lated in this chapter are based largely on the original cost of the Civic Center, and those costs are fixed, so there is no need to review this fee until the City’s next impact fee update. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees,must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, 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. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) Table 6.4: Civic Center Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 1,230.17$5,186 6,379,656$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,114.68$743 828,210$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 627.64$946 593,745$ Office/Medical KSF 522.19$512 267,363$ General Commercial KSF 522.19$1,358 709,140$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 697.93$1,360 949,188$ Golf Courses Acre 251.05$817 205,112$ Total 9,932,414$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 6.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 140 City of La Quinta Page 6-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calcu lated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providing Civic Cente r facilities to serve residents and businesses in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for future expansion of the Civic Center. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used for future expansion of the La Quinta Civic Center to meet the needs of additional development in the Ci ty. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.The La Quinta Civic Center serves all private development in the City and the need for space in the Civic Center increases as the City grows. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project.The amount of the Civic Center impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added developed acreage a ssociated with that project. The fees per unit of development calcul ated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated a cres per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project refle cts that project’s proportionate share of the cost of Civic Center facilities in the City. 141 City of La Quinta Page 7-1 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Chapter 7.Maintenance Facilities This chapter calculates impact fees for the corporate yard maintenance facilities and equipment needed to serve future development in La Quinta. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the new development’s share of the total cost of existing and planned maintenance facilities including equipment .The City has developed a master plan for future improvements to the m aintenance facilities at the City’s corporate yard. Those improvements are to be added in two phases. The existing facilities are considered Phase I. Future improvements are designated Phase II and Phase III. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1.That method calculates impact fees by allocating the cost of specific facilities to the development served by those facilities. In this chapter, separate impact fees will be calculated for the portions of the facilities devoted to its two primary functions:street maintenance and park maintenance. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type o f facility. See Chapter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. Because separate impact fees are being calculated for street maintenance facilities and park maintenance facilities, two demand variables are used in this chapter. C osts for park maintenance facilities are allocated using potential population, t he same demand variable used for parks. And costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated using weighted peak hour trips, the same demand variable used for transportati on facilities. Service Area La Quinta’s maintenance facilities serve the entire City, so the impact fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Level of Service For the types of facilities covered in this chapter, level-of-service standards are 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 here to calculate impact fees for maintenance facilities is the level service implied by the relationship of facilities and development at buildout of the area within the existing corporate boundaries of La Quinta. 142 City of La Quinta Page 7-2 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Facility Needs Table 7.1 shows the estimated value of the City’s existing corporate yard maintenance facilities, and the estimated cost of future improvements in Phases II and III. The value of existing site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping are included in the value of the existing facilities. Table 7.2 shows a partial list of the City’s existing maintenance equipment . The impact fee cost basis shown in Table 7.2 is the original cost of the equipment, all of which has been purchased in the last two years. City staff estimate that approximately 20% of the City’s maintenance facilities are used for park maintenance and 80% are used for street maintenance. Consequently, in the impact fee Table 7.1: Maintenance Facility Cost Facility Site Est Site Impact Fee Component Value/Cost 1 Acres 2 Value 3 Cost Basis 4 Existing Maintenance Facilities 3,768,443$2.8 1,219,680$4,988,123$ Future Improvements (Phase 2) 3,183,903$3,183,903$ Future Improvements (Phase 3) 4,018,794$4,018,794$ Total 12,190,820$ 1 The value of existing maintenance facilities based on original cost; cost for Phase II improvements from the 2019/20 and 2020/21 CIP; cost for Phase III improvements estimated by the City of La Quinta 2 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 3 Estimated site value based on $10.00 per square foot ($435,600 per acre) 4 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the facility value/cost and site value Table 7.2: Existing Maintenance Equipment Equipment Impact Fee Year Type Make Model Cost Basis 1 2018 Dump Truck Ford F650 88,416$ 2017 Boom Truck Dodge Ram 5500 109,500$ 2018 Backhoe John Deere 310HL 131,640$ 2018 Skid Steer Quinn Cat 232D 44,149$ 2017 Wood Chipper Vermeer 23,000$ 2017 Gator Utility Veh.John Deere 8,600$ 2018 Stump Grinder Vermeer 22,500$ 2018 Dump Trailer (Single Axle)10 Foot 5,700$ 2019 Dump Trailer (Double Axle)10 Foot 7,600$ 2018 Trailer Butler 3,200$ 2019 Trailer Big Tex 16 Foot 3,600$ Total 447,905$ Source: City of La Quinta Facilities Department 1 Impact fee cost basis = original cost 143 City of La Quinta Page 7-3 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 calculations that follow, 20% of the impa ct fee cost basis for the facilities and equipment will be attributed to park maintenance and 80% will be attributed to street maintenance. Park Maintenance Facilities Cost per Capita Table 7.3 calculates an average cost per capita for the park maintenance share of the City’s maintenance facilities and equipment,based on 20% of the total impact fee cost basis from Tables 7.1 and 7.2,and the City’s projected buildout potential population from Table 2.4. As explained earlier, potential population is the same demand variable used to calculate impact fees for parks in Chapter 3. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of potential population. Street Maintenance Facilities Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip Table 7.4 calculates an average cost per weighted peak hour vehicle trip for the street maintenance share of the City’s main tenance facilities and equipment, based on 80% of the total impact fee cost basi s from Tables 7.1 and 7.2,and the City’s projected buildout weighted peak hour trips from Table 2.4. As explained earlier,weighted peak hour trips are also used as the demand variable in calculating street impact fees in Chapter 9.See Chapter 2 for a discussion of weighted peak hour trips. Table 7.3: Park Maintenance Facilities - Cost per Capita Impact Fee Park Maint Park Maint Buildout Cost per Cost Basis 1 Share 2 Cost Basis 3 Potential Pop 4 per Capita 5 $12,638,725 20% $2,527,745 82,323 $30.71 1 Sum of impact fee cost basis from Tables 7.1 and 7.2 2 Share of facilities devoted to park maintenance estimated by the City of La Quinta 3 Park maintenance cost basis = impact fee cost basis X park maintenance share 4 Buildout potential population; see Table 2.4 5 Cost per capita = park maintenance cost basis / buildout potential population Table 7.4: Street Maintenance Facilities - Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip Impact Fee Street Maint Street Maint Buildout Wtd Cost per Wtd Cost Basis 1 Share 2 Cost Basis 3 Peak Hour Trips 4 Peak Hour Trip 5 $12,638,725 80% $10,110,980 52,362 $193.10 1 Sum of impact fee cost basis from Tables 7.1 and 7.2 2 Share of facilities devoted to street maintenance estimated by the City of La Quinta 3 Street maintenance cost basis = impact fee cost basis X street maintenance share 4 Buildout weighted peak hour trips; see Table 2.4 5 Cost per weighted peak hour trip = street maintenance cost basis / buildout weighted peak hour trips 144 City of La Quinta Page 7-4 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Park Maintenance Facilities Table 7.5 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for park maintenance facilities .Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per capita from Table 7.3 and population-per-unit factors from Table 2.1.This portion of the maintenance facilities impact fees will only apply to residential development because population increase is associated with n ew residential development. Table 7.5 also adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to rec over the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the co st of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Table 7.5: Park Maintenance Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 30.71$2.70 82.90$0.27$83.17$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 30.71$2.30 70.62$0.23$70.85$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 30.71$2.20 67.55$0.22$67.77$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 7.3 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 145 City of La Quinta Page 7-5 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Street Maintenance Facilities Table 7.6 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for street maintenance facilities. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per weighted peak hour trip from Table 7.4 and weighted peak hour trips-per-unit factors from Table 2.1. Table 7.6 also adds a small administrative charge o n the same basis as in Table 7.5. Table 7.6 calculates impact fees for public facilities, schools, and parks, even thou gh the City cannot collect impact fees from those types of development. On the n ext page, costs allocated to public facilities and parks are re -allocated to private development. It is not necessary to reallocate costs from schools. No additional schools ar e planned for the service area defined in this study, so no costs were allocated to schools. In Table 7.7 on the next page , the street maintenance facility costs initially allocate d to public facilities and parks are re -allocated to private development by adjusting the cost per weighted peak hour trip for private development. Reallocation is justified by the fact that the demand associated with public facilities and parks is a secon dary impact of private development, because the need for public facilities and parks is created by private development. Table 7.6: Street Maintenance Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (Before Reallocation) Development Cost per Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 193.10$1.16 223.99$0.73$224.72$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 193.10$0.89 171.86$0.56$172.41$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 193.10$0.66 127.44$0.41$127.86$ Office/Medical KSF 193.10$1.90 366.89$1.19$368.07$ General Commercial KSF 193.10$2.34 451.85$1.46$453.31$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 193.10$0.54 104.27$0.34$104.61$ Public Facilities KSF 193.10$2.48 478.88$1.55$480.43$ Schools Acre 193.10$0.79 152.55$0.49$153.04$ Parks Acre 193.10$0.51 98.48$0.32$98.80$ Golf Courses Acre 193.10$0.27 52.14$0.17$52.31$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.4 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per wieghted peak hour trip X weighted peak hour trips per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 146 City of La Quinta Page 7-6 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 In Table 7.7 above,costs attributed to public facilities are re-allocated to all types of private development while costs attributed to parks are re-allocated only to residential development. Table 7.8 on the next page recalculates the street maintenance impact fees per unit of development for private development using the adjusted cost per weighted peak hour trip for street maintenance facilities from Table 7.7 .Table 7.8 also includes the adjustment for an administrative charge on the same basis as in Tables 7.4 and 7.5.The increase in impact fees resulting from the reallocation amounts to 2.1%for residential development and 1.7% for non- residential development. Table 7.7: Street Maintenance Facilities - Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip with Reallocation Initial Cost Reallocated Reallocated Adjusted Development per Weighted Pub Fac Cost per Parks Cost per Cost per Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 3 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $193.10 3.25 0.73 197.08$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $193.10 3.25 0.73 197.08$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $193.10 3.25 0.73 197.08$ Office/Medical KSF $193.10 3.25 196.35$ General Commercial KSF $193.10 3.25 196.35$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $193.10 3.25 196.35$ Public Facilities KSF Reallocated 0.00$ Schools Acre No Allocation 0.00$ Parks Acre Reallocated 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre $193.10 3.25 196.35$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.6 3 Reallocated public facilities cost per weighted peak hour trip = 84 KSF of future Public Facilities X $480.83 per KSF = $40,356.44 / 12,407 weighted peak hour trips for receiving facilities = $3.25 per weighted peak hour trip 4 Reallocated parks cost per weighted peak hour trip = 54 acres of future Parks X $98.80 per acre = $5,335.14 / 7,301 weighted peak hour trips for receiving (residential) development =$0.73 per weighted peak hour trip 147 City of La Quinta Page 7-7 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Park Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue Table 7.9 shows projected revenue from the park maintenance facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 7.5 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Street Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue Table 7.10 shows projected revenue from the street maintenance facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the adjusted impact fees per unit from Table 7.8 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 7.8: Street Maintenance Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (After Reallocation) Development Cost per Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 197.08$1.16 228.61$0.74 229.35$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 197.08$0.89 175.40$0.57 175.97$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 197.08$0.66 130.07$0.42 130.49$ Office/Medical KSF 196.35$1.90 373.07$1.21 374.27$ General Commercial KSF 196.35$2.34 459.46$1.49 460.95$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 196.35$0.54 106.03$0.34 106.37$ Public Facilities KSF 0.00$2.48 0.00$0.00 0.00$ Schools Acre 0.00$0.79 0.00$0.00 0.00$ Parks Acre 0.00$0.51 0.00$0.00 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre 196.35$0.27 53.01$0.17 53.19$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.7 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per wieghted peak hour trip X weighted peak hour trips per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge Table 7.9: Park Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 83.17$5,186 431,333$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 70.85$743 52,642$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 67.77$946 64,111$ Total 548,086$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 7.5 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 148 City of La Quinta Page 7-8 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 The combined projected revenue of $3 million for the park maintenance and street maintenance facilities impact fees amounts to approximately 42 % of the estimated $7.2 million cost of future improvements to the City’s maintenance facilities shown in Table 7.1.The balance of the cost will have to come from non-impact fee sources. Updating the Fees The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based in part on estimated costs of futu re maintenance facilities improvements. We recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted in the event that up dated costs become available. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, 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. Table 7.10: Street Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 229.35$5,186 1,189,434$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 175.97$743 130,746$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 130.49$946 123,448$ Office/Medical KSF 374.27$512 191,629$ General Commercial KSF 460.95$1,358 625,968$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 106.37$1,360 144,667$ Golf Courses Acre 53.19$817 43,453$ Total 2,449,345$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.8 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 149 City of La Quinta Page 7-9 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions beari ng on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providing maintenance facilities to serve the City. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional maintenance facilities needed serve new development in La Quinta . As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional maintenance facilities needed to serve new development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.New development increases the need for parks and streets and the facilities supporting their maintenance. The City’s existing maintenance facilities don ’t have the capacity to support future growth in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the maintenance facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added potential population and weighted peak hour vehicle trips generated by that project . The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated increase in potential population and weighted peak hour trips per unit of development . Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of additional maintenance facilities needed to serve new development in the City. 150 City of La Quinta Page 8-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 8.Fire Protection This chapter calculates impact fees for La Quinta’s fire protection facilities. The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department fo r fire protection, fire prevention, rescue, Fire Marshal and medical emergency services. The City builds and owns the fire stations in La Quinta. Those stations are part of an integrated system of fire protection facilities used by the Riverside County Fire Department to provide fire protection to La Quinta and surrounding communities, including unincorporated portions of the County. There are three existing fire stations in the City and preliminary plans call for a fourth fire station to be constructed in or near the southeastern quadrant of La Quinta. That station will be needed to provide an acceptable level of service to development in that part of the City and in portions of unincorporated Riverside County. This study assumes that the cost of the fourt h fire station will be shared equally between La Quinta and Riverside County. Firefighting apparatus assigned to fire stations in La Quinta is owned by the County. Although the City contributes to the cost of some apparatus through its contract payments to the Riverside County Fire Department, costs for apparatus and vehicles are not included in the cost basis for impact fees in this chapter. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees by allocating the cost of specific facilities to the development served by those facilities.In this case, the cost of existing and future fire stations will be allocated to existing and future development so that all development in the City will share proportionately in the cost of those facilities. The fi re protection impact fees calculated in this chapter represent new development’s proportionate share of the cost of La Quinta’s fire protection facilities. Service Area Although individual fire stations are assigned to provide the initial emergency respo nse in a specific area, resources from multiple f ire stations are often needed to provide an adequate response to an emergency call. A first alarm response to a smal l structure fire can require resources from as many as five fire stations. So it makes sens e 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 cal culating separate impact fees for individual fire stations could result in substantially di fferent impact fees for development in different parts of the City receiving essentially the same level of service. This analysis will allocate costs for fire protec tion facilities citywide, so the impact fees for a particular type of development will be t he same throughout the City. 151 City of La Quinta Page 8-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Level of Service The critical measure of level of service for fire protection and emergency medical services is emergency response time. The number of fire stations needed to serve a particular area with acceptable response times is determined by specific condition s within the area, and is affected heavily by the size of the area to be served. In La Quinta’s case, the City and the Riversi de County Fire Department have determined the number and location of fire stations needed t o provide an acceptable level of service in the City. The impact fee analysis in this chapter is based on the number of fire stations needed to serve the City at bui ldout. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used t o represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. The cost of capital facilities (i.e., fire stations) needed to provide fire protection and emergency medical response services in the City with acceptable response times depends to a large extent on the size of the area to be served. Acreage is the most common measure o f land area, so developed acreage will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for fire protection. Facility Needs Table 8.1 on the next page lists existing and future fire protection facilities in La Quinta, including costs for buildings , fire station sites and furniture fixtures and equipment (FF&E). The impact fee cost basis shown in the right-hand column of Table 8.1 will be used in the impact fee calculations. As indicated above, costs for apparatus and vehicles are not included in th is analysis. 152 City of La Quinta Page 8-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Cost per Developed Acre Table 8.2 calculates an average cost per developed a cre for fire protection facilities base d on the total impact fee cost basis from Table 8.1 and the projected acreage of development to be served at buildout within t he existing corporate boundaries. The developed acreage shown in Table 8.2 encompasses all development expected within the existing corporate boundaries of the City at buildout, including public facilities, schools, parks and golf courses. However, while parks and golf courses have the potential to create a demand for emergency medical services , they present a very low risk of fires relative to their acreage. Consequently, only 5% of park and golf course acreage is included in the adjusted buildout developed acreage in Table 8.2. Table 8.1: Existing and Future Fire Stations Year Building Est Building Est FF&E Site Est Site Impact Fee Facility Completed Sq Ft 1 Cost/Value 2 Cost/Value 3 Acres 4 Cost/Value 5 Cost Basis 6 Fire Station 32 2009 7,500 3,500,066$100,000$1.2 522,720$4,122,786$ Fire Station 70 1985 5,750 1,298,269$170,000$1.3 566,280$2,034,549$ Fire Station 70 Expansion Future 1,200 480,000$0$0.0 0$480,000$ Fire Station 93 2002 7,690 2,420,350$125,650$1.5 653,400$3,199,400$ Southeast Fire Station 7 Future 7,000 4,550,000$100,000$1.5 653,400$2,651,700$ Total 12,488,435$ 1 Building square feet provided by the City of La Quinta 2 Building value for existing stations from the City property schedule ; building cost for future station based on $650 per square foot including site improvements 3 Value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the City property schedule; estimated cost of FF&E for the future Southeast fire station based on existing stations 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Cost or value of site estimated based on $10.00 per sq ft ($435,600 per acre) 6 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building, FF&E and site cost or value 7 Impact fee cost basis for Southeast fire station assumes 50% of the cost will be paid by Riverside County Table 8.2: Fire Protection Facilities - Cost per Developed Acre Impact Fee Adjusted Buildout Cost per Cost Basis 1 Dev Acreage 2 per Acre 3 $12,488,435 8,766 $1,424.73 1 See Table 8.1 2 Adjusted buildout developed acreage includes 100% of developed acreage for all other development types and 5% of acreage for parks and golf courses; see Table 2.4 3 Cost per acre = impact fee cost basis / adjusted buildout developed acreage 153 City of La Quinta Page 8-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 8.3 shows the calculat ion of impact fees per unit of developm ent by development type for the fire protection. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per acre from Table 8.2 and acres-per-unit factors from Table 2.1, except for parks and golf courses which are included at a rate of 0.05 acres per developed acre. Table 8.3 also adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of th e study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Note that Table 8.3 calculates impact fees for public facilities, schools,and parks, even though the City cannot collect impact fees from those types of development. On the next page, costs allocated to public facilities and parks are re -allocated to private development. It is not necessary to reallocate costs from schools. No a dditional schools are planned for the service area defined in this study, so no costs were allocated to schools. In Table 8.4 on the next page, the fire protection facilities costs initially allocated to public facilities and parks are re-allocated to private development by adjusting the cost per acre for private development. That reallocation is justified by the fact that the need for public facilities and parks is created by private development. Table 8.3: Fire Protection Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (Before Reallocation) Development Cost per Acres Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 1,424.73$0.245 349.06$1.13$350.19$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,424.73$0.222 316.29$1.02$317.31$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,424.73$0.125 178.09$0.58$178.67$ Office/Medical KSF 1,424.73$0.104 148.17$0.48$148.65$ General Commercial KSF 1,424.73$0.104 148.17$0.48$148.65$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 1,424.73$0.139 198.04$0.64$198.68$ Public Facilities KSF 1,424.73$0.270 384.68$1.25$385.92$ Public Schools Acre 1,424.73$1.000 1,424.73$4.62$1,429.34$ Parks Acre 1,424.73$0.050 71.24$0.23$71.47$ Golf Courses Acre 1,424.73$0.050 71.24$0.23$71.47$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 8.2 3 Acres per unit; see Table 2.1; for parks and golf courses, the share of acreage impacting fire protection facilities is estimated at 5%, so 0.050 acres per acre is used to calculate impact fees for those development types 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per acre X acres per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 154 City of La Quinta Page 8-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 In Table 8.4 above, costs attributed to public facilitie s are re-allocated to all types of priv ate development while costs attributed to parks are re -allocated only to residential development. Table 8.5 on the next page r ecalculates impact fees per unit of development for private development using the adjusted cost per acre for fire protection facil ities from Table 8.4. Table 8.5 also includes the adjustment for an administrative charge on the same basis as in Table 8.3. The increase in impact fees resulting from reallocation amounts to 5.5% for residential development and 1.4% for non-residential development. Table 8.4: Fire Protection Facilities - Cost per Acre with Reallocation Initial Cost Reallocated Reallocated Adjusted Development per Pub Fac Cost Parks Cost Cost per Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Acre 3 per Acre 4 Acre 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $1,424.73 20.08 58.13 1,502.93$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $1,424.73 20.08 58.13 1,502.93$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $1,424.73 20.08 58.13 1,502.93$ Office/Medical KSF $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ General Commercial KSF $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ Public Facilities KSF Reallocated 0.00$ Schools Acre No Allocation 0.00$ Parks Acre Reallocated 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 8.3 3 Reallocated public facilities cost per acre = 120 Acres of future Public Facilities X $1,424.73 per acre = = $170.967.60 / 8.516 acres for receiving facilities = $20.08 per acre 4 Reallocated parks cost per acre = 296 acres of future Parks X $1,424.73 per acre = $421,720.08 / 7,255 acres for receiving (residential) development = $58.13 per acre 155 City of La Quinta Page 8-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Projected Revenue Table 8.6 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added private development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the adjusted impact fees per unit from Table 8.5 to added units of development from Table 2.3 Table 8.5: Fire Protection Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (After Reallocation) Development Cost per Acres Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 1,502.93$0.245 368.22$1.19$369.41$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,502.93$0.222 333.65$1.08$334.73$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,502.93$0.125 187.87$0.61$188.47$ Office/Medical KSF 1,444.80$0.104 150.26$0.49$150.75$ General Commercial KSF 1,444.80$0.104 150.26$0.49$150.75$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 1,444.80$0.139 200.83$0.65$201.48$ Public Facilities KSF 0.00$0.270 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Public Schools Acre 0.00$1.000 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Parks Acre 0.00$0.050 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Golf Courses Acre 1,444.80$0.050 72.24$0.23$72.47$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 8.4 3 Acres per unit; see Table 2.1; for parks and golf courses, the share of acreage impacting fire protection facilities is estimated at 5%, so 0.050 acres per acre is used to calculate impact fees for those development types 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per acre X acres per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 156 City of La Quinta Page 8-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The total impact fee revenue projected in Table 8.4 is about $280,000 less t han the $3.13 million in future facilities costs shown in Table 8.1. So assuming the impact fee revenue projections are reasonably accurate, about 9% of the cost of future fire station improvements would have to come from non -impact fee sources. Updating the Fees The impact fees calcu lated in this chapter are based in part on the cost of existing facilities and in part on the estimated cost of future facilities. Over time those costs can change, so we recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted if necessary to reflect actual costs. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, 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 Table 8.6: Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 369.41$5,186 1,915,765$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 334.73$743 248,706$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 188.47$946 178,297$ Office/Medical KSF 150.75$512 77,182$ General Commercial KSF 150.75$1,358 204,713$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 201.48$1,360 274,010$ Golf Courses Acre 72.47$817 59,211$ Total 2,957,885$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; acre = net acre 2 See Table 8.5 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 157 City of La Quinta Page 8-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the developmen t project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court deci sions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework fo r Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of pr oviding fire protection facilities to serve development in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be use d to pay for future fire protection facilities needed to provide a reasonable level of cove rage for the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to anot her. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for new development’s proportional sh are of the fire protection facilities needed to ser ve all development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for additional fire protection facilities needed serve anticipated development through buildout of the area within the existing corporate boundar ies of La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the fire protection impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added develo ped acreage associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each ty pe of development are based on the estimated acres per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of fire protection facilities in the City. 158 City of La Quinta Page 9-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 9.Transportation This chapter calculates impact fees for improvements to La Quinta’s transportation system, including arterial streets, medians, roun dabouts,traffic signals,bridges, bike lanes and sidewalks. Information on transportation infrastructure needs and costs is taken from the City of La Quinta 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting , as revised August 5, 2019. That study assigns shares of the cost of each improvement to impact fees and to various other funding sources. It is important to note that the California Complete Streets Act requires local governments in the state to address the transportation needs of all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees by allocating the cost of specific facilit ies to the development served by those facilities. In this case, costs for improvements that increase the traffi c-carrying capacity of streets and are not funded from other sources are allocated to future development (see Table 9.1). Costs for improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes that do not increase the traffic -carrying capacity of streets and are not fund ed from other sources are allocated propo rtionately to existing and future development (see Table 9.2). Service Area The service area for La Quinta’s transportation system, as defined in the 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis is the area within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Level of Service The improvement needs identified in the 2018 Transportation Infrastruc ture Needs Analysis are based on level of service standards adopted in the Circulation Element of the La Quinta 2 035 General Plan. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. The demand variable used in this analysis is weighted peak hour trips, which is the product of peak hour trips per unit and a trip length factor representing the relationship between the average trip length for a particular development type and the system -wide average trip length . See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of weighted peak hour trips. 159 City of La Quinta Page 9-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Improvement Needs Tables 9.1 and 9.2 summarize the improvement costs identified in the 2018 La Quinta Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by type. Table 9 .1 shows a breakdown of costs by type of improvement and funding source for capacity -enhancing improvements. Table 9.2 shows a similar breakdown for non-capacity-enhancing improvements. Note that in both of those tables, there is an item titled “Remaining Balance on Reimbursement Agreements.”Those items refer to amounts the City has committed to repay developers for improvements those developer s have constructed in excess of the amount for which they were responsible, and for which the City has agreed to reimburse them from impact fees collected from future development that shares responsibility for the improvements in question. The City share of costs from Table 9.1 is allocated in this analysis to future development based on weighted peak hour trips. The City share of costs from Table 9.2 is allocated in this analysis to both existing and future development based on weighted peak hour trips. Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip Table 9.3 calculates an average cost per weighted peak hour trip based on the City share of costs for capacity-enhancing improvements from Table 9.1 and the number of weighted peak hour trips associated with future development in Table 2.3.Weighted peak hour trips are discussed in Chapter 2. Table 9.1: Transportation System Capacity- Enhancing Improvements Improvement City Cost Developer Hwy Bridge Total Category Share Contribution TUMF Program Cost New Roadway Construction 2,376,019$664,160$3,040,179$ Roadway Improvements - Capacity Enhancing) 11,996,238$20,708,470$4,481,320$37,186,028$ Structure Improvements 4,259,250$7,188,750$12,442,000$23,890,000$ New Roundabouts 8,656,500$1,791,000$9,850,500$20,298,000$ New Traffic Signals 1,290,000$967,500$2,257,500$ Remaining Balance on Reimbursement Agreements 2,288,591$2,288,591$ Total 30,866,598$24,131,130$21,520,570$12,442,000$88,960,298$ Source: 2018 La Quinta Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis, Revised 8/5/19 Table 9.2: Transportation System Non Capacity- Enhancing Improvements Improvement City Cost Developer Hwy Bridge Total Category Share Contribution TUMF Program Cost Roadway Improvements - Non-capacity Enhancing) 29,575,145$4,628,855$34,204,000$ Median-Only Improvements 3,346,000$3,346,000$ Sidewalk-Only Improvements 5,882,691$904,309$6,787,000$ Bike Lane-Only Improvements 8,644,000$8,644,000$ Remaining Balance on Reimbursement Agreements 1,451,133$1,451,133$ Total 48,898,969$5,533,164$0$0$54,432,133$ Source: 2018 La Quinta Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis 160 City of La Quinta Page 9-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 9.4 calculates an average cost per weighted peak hour trip based on the C ity share of costs for non-capacity-enhancing improvements from Table 9.2 and the number of weighted peak hour trips associated with both existing and future development in Table 2.4. Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 9.5 shows the initial calcu lation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for the transportation improvements.These impact fees per unit are cal culated using the sum of the cost per weighted peak hour trip from Tables 9.3 and 9.4, and the weighted peak hour trips-per-unit factors from Table 2.1. Table 9.5 also adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the a djusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Note that Table 9.5 calculates impact fees for public facilities, schools and parks even though the City cannot collect fees for those types of development. On the next page, costs allocated to public facilities and parks are re-allocated to private development. It is not necessary to reallocate costs from schools. No additional schools are planned for t he service area defined in this study, so no costs were allocated to schools. Table 9.3: Capacity Enhancing Improvements - Cost per Wtd Pk Hr Trip City Cost Added Weighted Cost per Weighted Share 1 Peak Hour Trips 2 Peak Hour Trip 3 $30,866,598 12,643 $2,441.40 1 See Table 9.1 2 See Table 2.3 3 Cost per weighted peak hour trip = impact fee cost basis / added weighted peak hour trips Table 9.4: Non-Capacity-Enhancing Improvements - Cost per Wtd Pk Hr Trip City Cost Buildout Weighted Cost per Weighted Share 1 Peak Hour Trips 2 Peak Hour Trip 3 $48,898,969 52,362 $933.86 1 See Table 9.2 2 See Table 2.4 3 Cost per weighted peak hour trip = impact fee cost basis / buildout weighted peak hour trips 161 City of La Quinta Page 9-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 In Table 9.6, the costs initially allocated to public facilities and parks based on traffic generated by those uses, are reallocated to private development. That reallocation i s justified by the fact that the need for public facilities and parks is created by private developmen t. Table 9.5: Transportation Improvements - Impact Fees per Unit (Before Reallocation) Development Cost per Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 3,375.26$1.16 3,915.30$12.69$3,927.99$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 3,375.26$0.89 3,003.98$9.73$3,013.72$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 3,375.26$0.66 2,227.67$7.22$2,234.89$ Office/Medical KSF 3,375.26$1.90 6,413.00$20.78$6,433.78$ General Commercial KSF 3,375.26$2.34 7,898.11$25.59$7,923.70$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 3,375.26$0.54 1,822.64$5.91$1,828.55$ Public Facilities KSF 3,375.26$2.48 8,370.65$27.12$8,397.77$ Schools Acre 3,375.26$0.79 2,666.46$8.64$2,675.10$ Parks Acre 3,375.26$0.51 1,721.38$5.58$1,726.96$ Golf Courses Acre 3,375.26$0.27 911.32$2.95$914.27$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 Sum of costs per weighted peak hour trip from Table 9.3 and Table 9.4 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per weighted peak hour trip X weighted peak hour trips per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge Table 9.6: Transportation Improvements - Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip with Reallocation Initial Cost Reallocated Reallocated Adjusted Development per Weighted Pub Fac Cost per Parks Cost per Cost per Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 3 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $3,375.26 56.67 12.73 3,444.67$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $3,375.26 56.67 12.73 3,444.67$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $3,375.26 56.67 12.73 3,444.67$ Office/Medical KSF $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ General Commercial KSF $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ Public Facilities KSF Reallocated 0.00$ Schools Acre No Allocation 0.00$ Parks Acre Reallocated 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 9.5 3 Reallocated public facilities cost per weighted peak hour trip = 84 KSF of future Public Facilities X $8,370.65 per KSF = $703,144.56 / 12,407 weighted peak hour trips for receiving facilities = $56.67 per weighted peak hour trip 4 Reallocated parks cost per weighted peak hour trip = 54 acres of future Parks X $1,721.38 per acre = $92,954.71 / 7,301 weighted peak hour trips for receiving (residential) development =$12.73 per weighted peak hour trip 162 City of La Quinta Page 9-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 In Table 9.6, above, public facilities costs are reallocated to all types of private development while parks costs are reallocated only to residenti al development that creates the need for parks. Table 9.7 recalculates the impact fees per unit of de velopment using the adjusted cost p er weighted peak hour trip for each type of development after reallocation.It is worth noting that the increase in impact fees for private development resulting from reallocation is very small on a percentage basis,about 2.1 % for residential development and 1.7% for non-residential development. Projected Revenue Table 9.8 on the next page shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added private development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 9.7 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 9.7: Transportation Improvements - Impact Fees per Unit (After Reallocation) Development Adj Cost/Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 3,444.67$1.16 3,995.81$12.95 4,008.76$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 3,444.67$0.89 3,065.75$9.93 3,075.69$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 3,444.67$0.66 2,273.48$7.37 2,280.85$ Office/Medical KSF 3,431.93$1.90 6,520.68$21.13 6,541.80$ General Commercial KSF 3,431.93$2.34 8,030.73$26.02 8,056.75$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 3,431.93$0.54 1,853.24$6.00 1,859.25$ Golf Courses Acre 3,431.93$0.27 926.62$3.00 929.62$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 9.6 3 See Table 2.1 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 163 City of La Quinta Page 9-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The total impact fee revenue projected in Table 9.8 represents approximately 5 4% of the City’s share of the total cost of transpo rtation improvements shown in the 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis. Updating the Fees The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on cost estimates in the 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis. We recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted when updated costs become available. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, 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. Table 9.8: Transportation Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 4,008.76$5,186 20,789,425$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 3,075.69$743 2,285,235$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,280.85$946 2,157,680$ Office/Medical KSF 6,541.80$512 3,349,403$ General Commercial KSF 8,056.75$1,358 10,941,061$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 1,859.25$1,360 2,528,579$ Golf Courses Acre 929.62$817 759,503$ Total 42,810,885$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 9.7 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 164 City of La Quinta Page 9-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of p roviding transportation improvements to serve development in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for transportation facilities shown in the City’s 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis , as revised August 5, 2019,and to reimburse developers for improvement costs expended for the benefit of future development. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for new development’s proportional share of the transportation improvements neede d to serve all development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.Additional demand created by new development necessitates the construction of improvements to the City’s transportation system. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for a portion of tho se improvements. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the transportation impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of peak hour added traffic associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated weighted peak hour trips associated with that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charge d to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of new transportation facilities in the City. 165 City of La Quinta Page 10-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 Chapter 10.Implementation This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of impact fees, and for th e interpretation and application of the development impact fees and in - lieu fees calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed a s a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Requirements for park land dedication and fees in lieu of dedication are governed by the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). Adoption The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the City attorney. The specific requirements are diff erent for impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, and for park land dedication and in -lieu fees under the Quimby Act. The latter requirements must be adopted by ordinance, and are subject to the same noticing and public hearing procedures as any ordinance. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062 a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10 -day notice period. Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by th e governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings , as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report. Establishment of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Section 66001(a), when an agency establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval,it must make findings to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 2.Identify the use of the fee; and 3.Determine how there is a re asonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed 166 City of La Quinta Page 10-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below. The specific language of such findings should be reviewed and approved by the agency’s Attorney.A more complete discussion of the nexus for each fee can be found in individual chapters of this report. Sample Finding:Purpose of the Fee.The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of park and recreation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development . Sample Finding: Use of the Fee.The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to provide public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City and identified in the 2019 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study by NBS.1 Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship:Based on analysis presented in the 2019 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study by NBS, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and, b.The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. Administration The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code. Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act , Section 66001(a), when an agency imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essentially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 2.Identify the use of the fee; and 3.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; 1 According to Gov’t Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that inf ormation. 167 City of La Quinta Page 10-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 b.The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed Per Section 66001 (b), at th e time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific development project, the City is also required to make a finding to determine how there i s a reasonable relationship between: c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed. In addition, Section 66006 (f)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."The required notification could refer to the improvements identified in this study. Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee ,provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice o f a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge. Section 66022 (a)provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment. Collection of Fees.Section 66007 (a), provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects pr ior 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 ap plication for utility service.In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit,Section 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) whe n the local agency determines that the fees “will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy” or (2) the fees are “to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made.” Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non - residential development. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building or grading permits are issued and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at that time. 168 City of La Quinta Page 10-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits ( of grading permits for golf courses), Sections 66007 (c) (1)and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien ag ainst the property until the fees are paid. Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue.Section 66006 (a)mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the impro vement in a separate capital facilities 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 , and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was colle cted.”Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same pur pose. The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. And, as a practical matter,that approach would be unworkable in any event because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues b y facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual proj ects. Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers . In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged,such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently sma ller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly.Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the developme nt on relevant public facilities. In some cases, the agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or redu ction may not result in increased costs to other development projects,so the effect us such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from other fund sources. Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer,as a condition of project approval,to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged,the City should ensure that the impact fees are ad justed so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development. 169 City of La Quinta Page 10-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land,or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers, and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements . Credit for Existing Development.If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fe es should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that particular impact fee. Annual Report.Section 66006 (b) (1)requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make availa ble to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues: 1.A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; 2.The amount of the fee; 3.The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; 4.The amount of the fees collected and interest earned; 5.Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; 6.Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determine s sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; 7.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 improveme nt on which the transfer or loan will be expended; 8.The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Secti on 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f). The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public , per Section 66006 (b) (2). Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996,The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to ex pend or commit impact fee revenue within five years,or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act,changed that requirement in material ways. Now, Section 66001 (d)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 (b), and every five 170 City of La Quinta Page 10-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following find ings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: 1.Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put; 2.Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; 3.Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used; 4.Designate the approximate 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 could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund ,per Section 66001 (d). Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approxim ate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to proc edures specified in Section 66001 (d). Refunds under the Quimby Act.The Quimby Act, Section a.(6)(A) requires that a City, County or other agency to which park land or in-lieu fees are conveyed or paid shall develop a schedule “specifying how, when and where it will use the land or fees or both to develop park or recreational facilities to serve residents of the subdivision…. Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five ye ars after the payment of the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. Any fees not committed within five years must be refunded. Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan . Section 66002 (b) of the Mitigation Fee Act provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvemen t plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the g overning body at a noticed public hearing.The alternative, per Section 66001 (a) (2)is to identify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public documents. In most cases, the CIP identifies projects for a limited number of yea rs and may not include all improvements needed to serve future development covered by the impact fee study.We recommend that the City Council cite this development impact fee study as the public document identifying the use of the fees. Indexing of In-Lieu/Impact Fees. Where impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs, those costs should, if possible,be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by the impact fees.That 171 City of La Quinta Page 10-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. We recommend the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index as the primary basis for indexing construction costs .Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices. Training and Public Information Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of t he fee program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirab le if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to pay close attention to ha ndouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear. Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees m ust be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues.Some fees recommended in this report are tied to spe cific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs To recover the cost of periodic impact fee update studies a nd ongoing staff costs for managing those updates and preparing annual reports and five-year updates required by the Mitigation Fee Act, an administrati ve charge may be added to the impact fees calculated in this report. The administrative charges are included in the calculation of impact fees in this report. 172 Current DIF Fees Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8*Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Development Type Dev. Unit Current Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 6,894$ 8,132$ 9,380$ Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 942$ 156$ 433$ 2,842$ 6,894$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 6,681$ 7,182$ 7,719$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 796$ 156$ 366$ 2,842$ 6,681$ Residential - Multi Family/Other DU 5,030$ 5,552$ 6,113$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 447$ 111$ 206$ 1,745$ 5,030$ Office/Medical KSF 5,379$ 6,474$ 7,589$ Office/Medical KSF 373$ 190$ 171$ 4,645$ 5,379$ General Commercial KSF 6,456$ 7,813$ 9,191$ General Commercial KSF 373$ 232$ 172$ 5,679$ 6,456$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 2,185$ 2,542$ 2,864$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 363$ 65$ 167$ 1,590$ 2,185$ Golf Course Acre 957$ 1,127$ 1,306$ Golf Course Acre 179$ 27$ 82$ 669$ 957$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2020 Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8*Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,077$ 543$ 397$ 1,086$ 235$ 369$ 3,426$ 8,132$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,921$ 472$ 338$ 956$ 202$ 335$ 2,959$ 7,182$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,882$ 454$ 323$ 538$ 155$ 188$ 2,013$ 5,552$ Office/Medical KSF 448$ 282$ 151$ 5,594$ 6,474$ General Commercial KSF 448$ 347$ 151$ 6,868$ 7,813$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 531$ 86$ 201$ 1,725$ 2,542$ Golf Course Acre 215$ 40$ 72$ 800$ 1,127$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2021 (Final Recommended DIF Fees) Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8*Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,106$ 956$ 397$ 1,230$ 313$ 369$ 4,009$ 9,380$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,794$ 814$ 338$ 1,115$ 247$ 335$ 3,076$ 7,719$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$ 779$ 323$ 628$ 198$ 188$ 2,281$ 6,113$ Office/Medical KSF 522$ 374$ 151$ 6,542$ 7,589$ General Commercial KSF 522$ 461$ 151$ 8,057$ 9,191$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 698$ 106$ 201$ 1,859$ 2,864$ Golf Course Acre 251$ 53$ 72$ 930$ 1,306$ OVERALL DIF FEES - with Phasing Option 1 *Recommended DIF fee is lower than current DIF fee, DIF will be adopted at recommended DIF fee with no phasing for Chapter 5 Library and Chapter 8 Fire Fees ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1173 Current DIF Fees Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 942$ 156$ 433$ 2,842$ 6,894$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 796$ 156$ 366$ 2,842$ 6,681$ Residential - Single Family Detached DU 6,894$ 7,707$ 8,531$ 9,380$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 447$ 111$ 206$ 1,745$ 5,030$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 6,681$ 6,999$ 7,354$ 7,719$ Office/Medical KSF 373$ 190$ 171$ 4,645$ 5,379$ Residential - Multi Family/Other DU 5,030$ 5,361$ 5,732$ 6,113$ General Commercial KSF 373$ 232$ 172$ 5,679$ 6,456$ Office/Medical KSF 5,379$ 6,095$ 6,831$ 7,589$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 363$ 65$ 167$ 1,590$ 2,185$ General Commercial KSF 6,456$ 7,344$ 8,254$ 9,191$ Golf Course Acre 179$ 27$ 82$ 669$ 957$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 2,185$ 2,432$ 2,645$ 2,864$ Golf Course Acre 957$ 1,065$ 1,184$ 1,306$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2020 (33% Fee Increase) Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5*Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8*Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,067$ 402$ 397$ 1,037$ 208$ 369$ 3,227$ 7,707$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,964$ 355$ 338$ 901$ 186$ 335$ 2,919$ 6,999$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,938$ 344$ 323$ 507$ 140$ 188$ 1,922$ 5,361$ Office/Medical KSF 422$ 251$ 151$ 5,271$ 6,095$ General Commercial KSF 422$ 308$ 151$ 6,464$ 7,344$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 474$ 79$ 201$ 1,679$ 2,432$ Golf Course Acre 203$ 36$ 72$ 755$ 1,065$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2021 (66% Fee Increase) Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5*Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8*Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,086$ 675$ 397$ 1,132$ 260$ 369$ 3,612$ 8,531$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,880$ 581$ 338$ 1,007$ 216$ 335$ 2,996$ 7,354$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,829$ 558$ 323$ 566$ 168$ 188$ 2,099$ 5,732$ Office/Medical KSF 471$ 311$ 151$ 5,897$ 6,831$ General Commercial KSF 471$ 383$ 151$ 7,248$ 8,254$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 584$ 92$ 201$ 1,768$ 2,645$ Golf Course Acre 227$ 44$ 72$ 841$ 1,184$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2022 (Final Recommended DIF Fees) Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5*Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8*Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,106$ 956$ 397$ 1,230$ 313$ 369$ 4,009$ 9,380$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,794$ 814$ 338$ 1,115$ 247$ 335$ 3,076$ 7,719$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$ 779$ 323$ 628$ 198$ 188$ 2,281$ 6,113$ Office/Medical KSF 522$ 374$ 151$ 6,542$ 7,589$ General Commercial KSF 522$ 461$ 151$ 8,057$ 9,191$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 698$ 106$ 201$ 1,859$ 2,864$ Golf Course Acre 251$ 53$ 72$ 930$ 1,306$ *Recommended DIF fee is lower than current DIF fee, DIF will be adopted at recommended DIF fee with no phasing for Chapter 5 Library and Chapter 8 Fire Fees OVERALL DIF FEES - with Phasing Option 2 Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Effective July 1, 2022Development Type Dev. Unit Current 174 December 12, 2019 From: City of La Quinta Monika Radeva, City Clerk 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Tel: (760) 777 – 7035 Email: MRadeva@LaQuintaCA.gov VIA EMAIL TO GG@TheDVBA.org and James@TheDVBA.org To: Gretchen Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) 75100 Mediterranean Palm Desert, California 92211 SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) STUDY UPDATE RESPONSE TO DVBA’S COMMENT LETTER DATED DECEMBER 10, 2019 Dear Ms. Gutierrez, The City’s consultant, NBS Government Finance Group, has prepared a memorandum with written responses, dated December 11, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 1 to this correspondence, related to the DVBA’s comment letter, dated December 10, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 2, with regards to the City’s update of its DIF Study. Council reviewed this item on October 1, 2019, and directed Staff to facilitate review of the Study by an Ad-hoc Committee comprised of members of the Financial Advisory Commission (FAC), and to provide recommendations on the amount of fee increase; the Ad-hoc Committee has completed its review of the Study. This matter is scheduled for Council review and discussion at the December 17, 2019, regular Council meeting as Study Session Item No. 1, thus Council will not be taking any action on this item during this meeting. The Study will be scheduled again for Council consideration as a public hearing item during a future meeting, and City staff will notify the DVBA of the hearing in accordance with California state law notification requirements. This correspondence will be incorporated into the record for the December 17, 2019, Council meeting, and made available to the public. Any person may submit written comments, and/or speak on this item during this meeting, and any future meetings this item is being contemplated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Monika Radeva, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 175 Page 1  Memo  To:  City of La Quinta  Bryan McKinney, Public Works Director/City Engineer  From:  NBS Government Finance Group  Nicole Kissam, Joe Colgan  Date:  December 11, 2019  Re:  City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update – Response to DVBA Letter Dated  December 10, 2019  This memo provides responses to issues raised in the latest DVBA letter, dated December 10, 2019,  regarding the City of La Quinta Draft Impact Fee Report.   To Identify Need, or Continue Charges According to Past Investment (DVBA, pages 2 & 3). DVBA’s  letter concedes that the method used to calculate impact fees for the Civic Center/City Hall is sup‐ ported by California Court of Appeals decision in Homebuilders Association of Tulare and Kings County  v. City of Lemoore. The letter goes on to argue that the case was wrongly decided, citing procedural protections contained  in the Mitigation Fee Act. We feel confident the Lemoore Court was aware of those provisions of the  Mitigation Fee Act when it decided the case.  Furthermore, DVBA misstates the requirements of the Act, saying, “The Act requires that after 5 years  of collections without construction of the ‘identified’ need, that those funds be refunded to the cur‐ rent property owners….”   What Section 66001(d)(1) of the Act actually requires is that every fifth year after funds are deposited  into an impact fee fund or account, the agency collecting the fees must make a determination as to  whether sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improve‐ ment. if so, the agency must identify an approximate construction date when construction will be  commenced. The refund requirement is triggered only if sufficient funds have been collected, AND the  agency fails to identify a construction date.  The Quimby Act vs. The Mitigation Fee Act (DVBA, pages 3 & 4). DVBA has repeatedly claimed that  the City may not charge park impact fees in addition to Quimby Act in‐lieu fees. However, as we have  pointed out previously, the Court of Appeals in the Lemoore came to the opposite conclusion, stating:  “Moreover, the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities independent  of the Quimby Act. Quimby Act Fees are expressly excluded from the fees authorized to  be collected under the Mitigation Fee Act. (§ 66000 subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the Mitiga‐ tion Fee Act permits fees to be adopted for [p]arks and recreation facilities” (§ 66002  subd. (c)(7).)  176 177 178 179 180 November 19, 2019 Desert Valley Builders Association Gretchen Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer 75100 Mediterranean Palm Desert, California 92211 VIA EMAIL TO GG@TheDVBA.org & James@TheDVBA.org SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA 2019 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE – RESPONSE TO DVBA’S COMMENT LETTER DATED OCTOBER 15, 2019 Dear Ms. Gutierrez, The City’s consultant, NBS Government Finance Group, has prepared a memorandum of written responses dated November 6, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 1 to this correspondence, related the City’s update of it Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. The memorandum is in response to the DVBA’s comments letter dated October 15, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 2. The La Quinta Financial Advisory Commission has completed its review of the DIF Study and is preparing a letter of recommendation for Council consideration on whether or not to adopt fee increases. This matter is scheduled for Council discussion as a Study Session item during the December 17, 2019, regular meeting. This correspondence will be incorporated into the record. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Monika Radeva, City Clerk 181 Page 1 of 2 Memo   To:  City of La Quinta  From:  Nicole Kissam, Joe Colgan  Date:  November 6, 2019  Re:  Response to DVBA Letter Dated October 15, 2019  This memo provides responses to issues raised in the DVBA letter, dated October 15, 2019, regarding  the City of La Quinta Draft Impact Fee Report. Many of the issues raised in the letter were also raised  in DVBA’s September 27, 2019 letter and were addressed in our September 30, 2019 memo.  Failure to Establish a Need. The DVBA reiterates the claim made in its September 27, 2019 letter, that  the City has failed to establish a need for certain types of facilities and proposes its own method for  doing that. The DVBA misinterprets the manner in which “need” must be established.  NBS’s response  provided on September 30, 2019 is reiterated below:  “The ‘need’ for any type of public facility in La Quinta or any other city is determined by City  Council level‐of‐service policies, whether implicit or explicit. The City can choose to provide a  street system that operates at level of service A or level of service E, and that policy decision  determines the need for street system improvements. The City can choose to design a drain‐ age system for a 100‐year storm or a 25‐year storm, and that policy decision determines the  need for drainage system improvements. The City can choose to plan for fire stations that  provide a 5‐minute response time or a 10‐minute response time, and that policy decision  determines the number of fire stations needed to serve the City. The “need” for facilities like  parks, recreation facilities, and libraries is also determined by the level of service the City  Council chooses to provide.   In most cases where the City’s  level‐of‐service policy is not explicitly stated, the current im‐ pact fee study bases impact fees on the cost of maintaining the existing level of service so  that new development will not cause a reduction in the level of service provided to the exist‐ ing community. The City’s level of service policies for those facility types are implied by its  choice to provide a certain level of service to the existing co mmunity. With respect to mainte‐ nance facilities, the desired level of service is implied by the City’s adoption of a plan for future  maintenance facility improvements.”  With respect to establishing a need for community and cultural centers, the California Court of Appeals  addressed that specific issue in Homebuilders Association of Tulare and Kings County v. City of Lem‐ oore. In that case, the Homebuilders made exactly the same claim regarding community recreation  facilities that DVBA makes in its letter, to wit, that “no specific [planned] public improvements were  ATTACHMENT 1 182 Page 2 identified.” The Court of Appeals found that using the existing level of service, defined as a cost per  capita for existing facilities, was adequate justification for the fees.   We submit that the same logic applies with respect to the Civic Center/City Hall.  In the case of the impact fee for maintenance facilities, the impact fees were based on the most recent  master plan and cost estimates for improvements to the corporate yard. The fact that not all of the  funding for those improvements has been identified in the current Capital Improvement Plan is irrel‐ evant to the calculation of impact fees. Capital improvement plans often don’t extend far enough into  the future to be useful for impact fee analysis.  Parks and Recreation. In the October 15 letter, DVBA reiterates the claim made in its September 27,  2019 letter that the City may not charge park impact fees in addition to Quimby Act in‐lieu fees. How‐ ever, the Court of Appeals in the Lemoore case (cited above) came to the opposite conclusion, stating:   “Moreover, the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities independent of the  Quimby Act. Quimby Act Fees are expressly excluded from the fees authorized to be collected  under the Mitigation Fee Act. (§ 66000 subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the Mitigation Fee Act per‐ mits fees to be adopted for [p]arks and recreation facilities” (§ 66002 subd. (c)(7).)  The per‐acre costs used to calculate park improvement impact fees are based on the City’s recent  experience constructing parks. The examples of lower costs cited by DVBA from other studies may  result from differences is park improvement standards among jurisdictions.  Transportation. DVBA argues that “the imposition of road diets, bike lanes and golf cart routes to  existing roadways, whether or not a response to the Complete Streets Act, the General Plan or an  existing long‐term plan to create a ‘Village’… is not going to be the responsibility of new development.  It doesn’t add capacity.”   Aside from the fact that bike lanes and golf cart routes are amenities enjoyed by both existing and  future residents of La Quinta, they encourage environmentally friendly transportation alternatives  which is a major purpose of the Complete Streets Act. Sidewalks improve safety and convenience for  all residents of the City, existing and future.   In the calculation of the proposed transportation impact fees, costs for bike lanes, sidewalks and other  improvements that do not add vehicle capacity to the City’s street system are allocated to both exist‐ ing and future development, so that future development will pay only its fair share of those costs,  about 24%. It is also worth noting that La Quinta has already provided most of the arterial streets  needed to serve new development. In many cities, impact fees would include much more of the cost  of those improvements.  Fire Facilities. The DVBA does not seem to raise any specific objections to the calculation of the fire  impact fees.  Maximum Supportable Fees/Competitive or Incentive. DVBA argues for reducing the impact fees be‐ low the amounts calculated in the NBS impact fee study. That, of course, is a decision to be made by  the City Council, which may choose to adopt impact fees at any level up to the amounts justified in the  impact fee study.  183 ATTACHMENT 2184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 October 1, 2019 From: City of La Quinta Monika Radeva, City Clerk 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Tel: (760) 777 – 7035 Email: MRadeva@LaQuintaCA.gov VIA EMAIL TO GG@TheDVBA.org and James@TheDVBA.org To: Gretchen Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer Desert Valley Builders Association 75100 Mediterranean Palm Desert, California 92211 SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) STUDY UPDATE – RESPONSE TO DVBA’S COMMENT LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 Dear Ms. Gutierrez, The City of La Quinta is updating its DIF Study. City Staff submitted the draft DIF Study, dated August 8, 2019, to the DVBA for review and comments on August 27, 2019; and met with DVBA staff on September 11, 2019 to discuss proposed changes and answer questions. The draft DIF Study is scheduled for City Council review and discussion at the October 1, 2019, regular Council meeting as Study Session Item No. 2, thus Council will not be taking any action on this item during this meeting. The draft DIF Study will be scheduled again for Council review and consideration as a public hearing item during a future meeting, and City Staff will notify the DVBA of the hearing in accordance with California state law notification requirements. Following the publication of the Agenda Packet for the October 1, 2019 Council meeting, the City received the DVBA’s comment letter dated September 27, 2019, enclosed hereto as Attachment 2. The City’s consultant, NBS Government Finance Group, has provided responses to the DVBA’s comments in the enclosed memorandum dated September 30, 2019 as Attachment 1. This correspondence will be incorporated into the record for the October 1, 2019, Council meeting, and made available to the public. Any person may submitted written comments and/or speak on this item during this meeting, and any future meetings this item is being contemplated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Monika Radeva, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 192 Page 1  Memo  To:  City of La Quinta  Bryan McKinney, City Engineer  From:  NBS Government Finance Group  Nicole Kissam, Joe Colgan  Date:  September 30, 2019  Re:  City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update – Response to DVBA Let‐ ter Dated September 27, 2019  This memo provides responses to issues raised in the DVBA letter, dated September 27,  2019, regarding the City of La Quinta Draft Impact Fee Report. In general, it addresses those  issues in the same order in which they appear in the letter.   Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4: Increasing Level of Service.  Only two of the impact fees calculated in  the La Quinta Impact Fee Study involve an increase in the level of service provided to the  City, so this discussion relates only to the maintenance facilities impact fees and the trans‐ portation Impact fees.  If it were the case that future improvements to the City’s maintenance facilities or transpor‐ tation system were to be funded with a dedicated special tax, we agree that it would be ap‐ propriate for the impact fee calculations to reflect a credit for future development’s contri‐ bution to the revenue generated from that source.  While laws in some states require such a  credit even for general taxes, California does not. As a practical matter once revenue is cred‐ ited to the General Fund, there is no way of tracking what sources of revenue are used for a  particular purpose.  With respect to transportation improvements, the City has already constructed most of the  arterial streets needed to serve future development and is not proposing that the impact  fees recover future development’s share of the cost of those improvements. Furthermore, in  the past the City has discounted the transportation impact fees, so that the existing commu‐ nity has been subsidizing the cost of street improvements needed to serve new develop‐ ment. Overall, it’s unlikely that new development is contributing even its fair share of the  cost of the City’s transportation system.  As for maintenance facilities, the existing community has paid for the existing facilities and  will probably contribute close to 90% of any non‐impact fee funding needed to fund future  maintenance facilities. Future development represents only about 25% of buildout develop‐ ment and it could take 20 years or more for buildout to occur, so new development’s contri‐ bution to the City’s General Fund revenues over that period might average around 12%.  Parks and Recreation Impact Fees.  DVBA asserts that the City may not charge both a  Quimby Act in‐lieu fee for park land and an impact fee for park improvements. That is incor‐ ATTACHMENT 1COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 193 Page 2 rect. It is true that the definition of “fee” in the Mitigation Fee Act excludes in‐lieu fees  charged under the Quimby Act as well as fees for processing applications, fees collected un‐ der development agreements and certain other fees. DVBA interprets that to mean the City  can’t charge both a Quimby Act fee and a park improvement impact fee. But by that logic, if  the City charges Quimby Act in‐lieu fees, it could not charge fees for processing applications  or fees pursuant to development agreements.    DVBA’s claim is also refuted by this statement from the California Court of Appeals decision  in Homebuilders Association of Tulare and Kings County v. City of Lemoore, the case cited by  DVBA in its letter.  “Moreover, the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities in‐ dependent of the Quimby Act. Quimby Act Fees are expressly excluded from  the fees authorized to be collected under the Mitigation Fee Act (Section  66000, subd. (b).). Nevertheless, the Mitigation Fee Act permits fees to be  adopted for parks and recreation facilities.”  As noted by the court in Lemoore, the Mitigation Fee Act, in Subsection 66002(a)(7) specifi‐ cally lists parks and recreation facilities among the facilities or improvements to which the  Mitigation Act applies.  Establishing Need. Another contention in the DVBA letter regarding park impact fees and  several other types of impact fees is that the City must determine a need for facilities to be  funded by impact fees. While that is true, DVBA misinterprets the manner in which “need”  must be established.  The “need” for any type of public facility in La Quinta or any other city is determined by City  Council level‐of‐service policies, whether implicit or explicit. The City can choose to provide a  street system that operates at level of service A or level of service E, and that policy decision  determines the need for street system improvements. The City can choose to design a drain‐ age system for a 100‐year storm or a 25‐year storm, and that policy decision determines the  need for drainage system improvements. The City can choose to plan for fire stations that  provide a 5‐minute response time or a 10‐minute response time, and that policy decision  determines the number of fire stations needed to serve the City. The “need” for facilities like  parks, recreation facilities, and libraries is also determined by the level of service the City  Council chooses to provide.   In most cases where the City’s  level‐of‐service policy is not explicitly stated, the current im‐ pact fee study bases impact fees on the cost of maintaining the existing level of service so  that new development will not cause a reduction in the level of service provided to the exist‐ ing community. The City’s level of service policies for those facility types are implied by its  choice  to  provide  a  certain  level  of  service  to  the  existing  community.  With  respect  to  maintenance facilities, the desired level of service is implied by the City’s adoption of a plan  for future maintenance facility improvements.  Park Land Cost. Land costs used in the impact fee study range from $10.00 per square foot  to $15.00 per square foot, depending on whether the land in question is likely to be residen‐ tial or non‐residential in nature. While every parcel is a special case, those costs are in line  with what the City has been paying for land in the recent past.  COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 194 Page 3 Park Improvement Cost. While $500,000 per acre certainly sounds expensive for park im‐ provements, we have seen similar cost estimates in other cities ranging from San Diego  County to the middle of the Central Valley. There is no doubt that construction costs have  escalated substantially as the economy recovered from the Great Recession. In spite of that  fact, the park improvements impact fees calculated in the current study are actually lower  than the City’s current fees for two of three types of residential development, and only mar‐ ginally higher for the third.  Community and Cultural Facilities. The discussion above, regarding how need is determined  for purposes of calculation impact fees, applies to these facilities as well.  Use of insurance  appraisals to establish the value of existing facilities is reasonable and appropriate. In our ex‐ perience, those valuations tend to be conservative.  The significant increase in the proposed impact fees for these facilities, compared with the  existing community center impact fees reflects the fact that the existing fees were based on  a very narrow definition of what constitutes community centers.  Library. The calculation of Library impact fees is based on the conservative assumption that  the library has capacity to serve both existing and future residents of the area within the ex‐ isting corporate boundaries of the City. The cost per capita was computed by dividing the  cost of the library plus nominal interest paid to date on the RDA loan used to fund construc‐ tion.   Footnote 2 to Table 5.1 in the report states that the building value was based on the City’s  property insurance cost analysis. That footnote conflicts with the column heading (“Original  Building Cost”) and the footnote is incorrect. The building cost shown in Table 5.1 is the orig‐ inal building cost as shown in the City’s 2013 impact fee study and is slightly less than the in‐ surance valuation. It should be noted that the current study includes only nominal interest  paid to date. It does not include any future interest cost in calculating the impact fees.  Final‐ ly, it should be noted that the library impact fees proposed in the current study are some‐ what lower than the City’s existing Library impact fees.  Civic Center. The issue of establishing “need” has been discussed previously. It is our under‐ standing that the increased utilization of space in City Hall has resulted from decisions to  bring formerly contracted services in‐house.   DVBA’s comment regarding the use of developed acreage as the demand variable in calculat‐ ing the Civic Center impact fees is worth mentioning. A demand variable is used to represent  the impact of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Be‐ cause of the variety of City functions housed in the Civic Center, any demand variable used to  calculate impact fees for that facility must be broad‐based. Developed acreage has been  used to calculate La Quinta’s Civic Center impact fees for at least twenty years.   DVBA contends that acres don’t drive the need for services, but the fact is, development on  those acres does drive demand. Developed acreage is simply a broad‐based way of measur‐ ing development. Population doesn’t work in this case because it doesn’t reflect demand  from non‐residential development, which needs to be accounted‐for in the case of the Civic  Center. Many impact fee studies use a construct called “service population” or “functional  population” to reflect the demand for services created by general government facilities. Ser‐ COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 195 Page 4 vice population is a composite variable consisting of population plus employees of businesses  in the study area. Employees are typically given a lower weight in the service population than  resident population. While using a different demand variable to calculate these impact fees  would undoubtedly have some differential effect on the distribution of costs among devel‐ opment types, there is no definitive way of determining that one method is “better” than  another. The legal standard is reasonableness, and we believe that the use of developed  acreage in calculating these impact fees is eminently reasonable.   Maintenance Facilities. Some of the issues raised by DVBA regarding the impact fee for  maintenance facilities were discussed above. A few others will be addressed here. The City  has developed a master plan for improvements to its maintenance facilities and some fund‐ ing for those improvements is shown in the City’s current Capital Improvement Program.  DVBA’s letter implies that the Mitigation Fee Act requires that facilities to be funded by im‐ pact fees must be identified in a capital improvement program. However, the relevant provi‐ sion states that such identification “may” be made by reference to a capital improvement  plan (Government Code 66001(a)(2)).  Fire Facilities. The issue of establishing “need” has been discussed previously, but with re‐ spect to fire facilities, the DVBA letter states that “the only true ‘nexus’ to ‘need’ is the num‐ ber and frequency of calls based on land use. We disagree. The capital cost of fire protection  facilities is determined almost entirely by the number of fire stations needed to serve a cer‐ tain area. And the need for fire stations is determined by response times. Response time de‐ pends on the distance between a fire station and the location of an emergency call. So, in  essence, the number of fire stations needed to serve an area depends, not on calls, but on  geography, and most importantly, on the size of the area (number of acres) to be served.  That is why developed acreage is a reasonable measure of demand for fire protection facili‐ ties.  Transportation. Some of the issues raised in the DVBA letter regarding the transportation  impact fees have been discussed above. Others deal with matters of opinion which can be  addressed with City staff. We would only note that when we account for the fact that the  City’s existing transportation impact fees were discounted by 22%, the transportation impact  fees calculated in the current impact fee study represent about a 10% increase from the fees  calculated in 2013. In the meantime, the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index  has increased by 15.9%   COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 196 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATEATTACHMENT 2197 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE198 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE199 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE200 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE201 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE202 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE203 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE204 1 Monika Radeva From:Gretchen Gutierrez <gg@thedvba.org> Sent:Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:43 AM To:Monika Radeva; James Brownyard Cc:Jon McMillen; Teresa Thompson; Nichole Romane; Tania Flores; Julie Mignogna; Bryan McKinney; William H. Ihrke (bihrke@rutan.com) Subject:Re: DVBA Written Response to the City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study - Dated August 8th 2019 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **  Good morning Monika,  Thank you for sending over the City of La Quinta's response to our correspondence.  We will review and be in  attendance at  this evening's Council Meeting.  Best regards,  Gretchen Gutierrez  CEO  Desert Valleys Builders Association  75100 Mediterranean  Palm Desert, CA 92211  760‐776‐7001  760‐776‐7002 ‐ fax  email: gg@thedvba.org  website: www.TheDVBA.org  From: Monika Radeva <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>  Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:31 AM  To: Gretchen Gutierrez <gg@thedvba.org>; James Brownyard <james@thedvba.org>  Cc: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Teresa Thompson <Tthompson@laquintaca.gov>; Monika Radeva  <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>; Nichole Romane <nromane@laquintaca.gov>; Tania Flores <tflores@laquintaca.gov>; Julie  Mignogna <jmignogna@laquintaca.gov>; Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>; William H. Ihrke  (bihrke@rutan.com) <bihrke@rutan.com>  Subject: DVBA Written Response to the City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study ‐ Dated August 8th 2019   Good Morning Ms. Gutierrez,  The City’s responses to the DVBA’s comment letter, dated September 27, 2019, regarding the City’s DIF Study update are enclosed in the attached correspondence dated October 1, 2019.  COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 205 2 Please contact me if you have any questions. Have a wonderful day.  Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk  City of La Quinta  78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253  Tel: (760) 777‐7035  MRadeva@laquintaca.gov  From: Gretchen Gutierrez <gg@thedvba.org>   Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 2:38 PM  To: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Monika Radeva <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>; Nick Nickerson (Email)  <nnickerson@naiconsulting.com>; Julie Mignogna <jmignogna@laquintaca.gov>; Bryan McKinney  <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>  Cc: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; John Peña <jpenalq@gmail.com>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick  <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <robertdradi@gmail.com>  Subject: DVBA Written Response to the City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study ‐ Dated August 8th 2019  ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **  Good afternoon,  Attached please find the DVBA's written response to the City of La Quinta's DIF Study, dated August 8th,  as a  follow up to a meeting  held earlier this month between DVBA and City Staff.    This correspondence denotes in depth a variety of areas of concern with the Study that should be carefully  reviewed and acknowledged.  Please provide this letter for the Council information packet on this item for the upcoming work  session/council meeting.  Thank you for the opportunity to have DVBA meet and respond to this issue.  We look forward to continuing  the engagement on this   topic to an equitable outcome.  Gretchen Gutierrez  CEO  Desert Valleys Builders Association  75100 Mediterranean  Palm Desert, CA 92211  760‐776‐7001  760‐776‐7002 ‐ fax  email: gg@thedvba.org  website: www.TheDVBA.org  COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 206 October 1, 2019 Mayor Linda Evans La Quinta City Council City Clerk, Monika Radeva 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Session Dear Mayor Evans, La Quinta City Council, City Clerk Radeva and staff, BIR Riverside caumr ChaPter Building lndusll)' Association ofSouthi?m Calirorni:i 389 / I llh S1n:,,1 Rh·crsidc, Calif om ill 92501 Offico(95I) 781-7310 l'a.x (95 I )781--0509 The Building Industry Association (BIA) is writing in reference to the "2019 Update of the Development Impact Fee Study" scheduled to be heard during a Study Session at the October 1, 2019 City Council meeting. As the lead body in the counties of Riverside and Imperial, that is dedicated to protecting and advocating for the interests of the building industry, we respectfully submit the following comments and questions. 1.The BIA has concerns with the methodology for the cost per acre estimates. The Development Impact Fee Study states four projects that were used on Table 3.6, Footnote 1 on page 3-6 (Park Acquisition). The provided information does not actually supply any information other than the names of the projects. The BIA does not believe that these projects are usable for the Park Land Acquisition due to their intended use. The Study does not explain why or how the projects were purchased. The BIA did find a comparable example purchased by the City on June 3, 2019 as an undeveloped 9.42-acre site for $1,390,000 (document on second page). 2.How did the Study determine a land value of $653,400 per acre and exclude the value of the building or property on the acre? Attachment 4, Table 4.1 page 4-2 in the Study breaks down the replacement value and insurance coverage for the facilities that the City uses. This is not a usable comparison as it is not actually relying on the land value but the building and furniture, fixtures and equipment values. If you have any questions that our staff at the BIA can answer, please call 951-781-7310. The BIA appreciates the working partnership with the City of La Quinta. Thank you, Damian Fussel Deputy Director of Governmental Affairs COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 207 Slit AIX!r­ Parcel ·No, {Af'III) Lani! Use Cal Lanij Use· DaS<. 3uildlngP.rea LotAtea auuoinl}ot.ot Rauo No'.ofVnit,; Year·Built Tctll.Assd Vakle owner·1 OY,ner2 Owner Address LastTr.msfer last M;ir¥.et Sala Addlotisl ,. Location SiteAddrim P/llc.i No. (APN) Lt!Q311nrormaton SU!rltw..lon Leg3ll.Ot LegalBlotk 600-020-053 VACA1tTIAND 'COMMERCIAl 410,770 SF (9,4' -'CRES) CnY OF LA QUINTA PO BOX-15041.A QUINTA, CA 92241 3141\1 6f.11111 lorS1,l!IO,0OO Full ProPErlY Oelail vMora liOIJ-020,USJ 9.43 ACIIES'Mlk IN POR SE 114 OF .SEC 2!I TSS R7E FOR TOTAL DEiiCRlPTION SEE ASSESSORS MAPS �?-��----,·I COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 208 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Extend by Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda, Cal.App. 1 Dist., May 15, 2019 185 Cal.App.4th 554 Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF TULARE/ KINGS COUNTIES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LEMOORE et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. F057671. | June 9, 2010. | As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 8, 2010. | Review Denied Sept. 22, 2010. Synopsis Background: Developers' association petitioned for writ of mandate challenging city's development impact fees. The Superior Court, Kings County, No. 07C0185, James T. LaPorte, J., upheld the majority of the disputed fees. Association appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Levy, J., held that: [1] city adequately identified facilities to be paid for with community/recreation facility impact fee under city ordinance; [2] city adequately identified facilities to be paid for with community/recreation facility impact fee under Mitigation Fee Act; [3] existence of carryover balance did not render community/ recreation facility impact fee invalid; [4] community/recreation facility impact fee was not preempted by the Quimby Act; [5] park land impact fee resolutions were not preempted by Quimby Act; [6] park land impact fee resolution was not inconsistent with city general plan; [7] there was adequate nexus between police impact fee and burden caused by development; [8] initial capital costs of police vehicles and equipment were properly included in calculating police impact fee; [9] city adequately identified public facilities to be paid for with police impact fee; [10] there was adequate nexus between municipal facilities impact fee and burden caused by development; [11] city adequately identified public facilities to be paid for with municipal facilities impact fee; but [12] there was no nexus between fire protection impact fee and burden caused by development in service area where facilities were already in place; but [13] there was adequate nexus between fire protection impact fee and burden caused by development in service area where new fire station would be required; [14] initial capital costs of vehicles and equipment were properly included in calculating garbage collection impact fee; [15] segregating funds by facility category rather than by project was proper; and [16] city was not required to identify improvements that fees would be used to finance when they were collected. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Ardaiz, P.J., filed opinion concurring in the result. West Headnotes (32) [1] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals in general ATTACHMENT 3 209 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 City's adoption of development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act was reviewed under the narrower standards of ordinary mandate, since the city's action involved a quasi-legislative action. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Judicial review of city's adoption of development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act by petition for writ of ordinary mandate was limited to an examination of the proceedings before the city to determine whether its action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals If a development impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act is challenged, the local agency has the burden of producing evidence in support of its determination. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 2 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments For a local agency to meet its burden of producing evidence in support of its determination imposing a challenged development impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, the local agency must show that a valid method was used for imposing the fee, one that established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [5] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals A local agency's burden of producing evidence in support of its determination imposing a challenged development impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act is not equivalent to the burden of proof, and does not operate to shift the burden of proof. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals A plaintiff challenging a Mitigation Fee Act impact fee has the burden of proof with respect to all facts essential to its claim, and therefore the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to establish in the mind of the trier of fact or the court a requisite degree of belief. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Municipal Corporations Scope of inquiry and powers of court Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals in general In general, the imposition of various monetary exactions, such as special assessments, user fees, and impact fees, is accorded substantial judicial deference. [8] Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments In the absence of a legislative shifting of the burden of proof, a plaintiff challenging a Mitigation Fee Act impact fee has to show that the record before the local agency clearly did not support the underlying determinations regarding the reasonableness of the relationship between the fee and the development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 210 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 3 Cases that cite this headnote [9] Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals When a plaintiff challenges a Mitigation Fee Act impact fee, the local agency has the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it used a valid method for imposing the fee in question, one that establishes a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development, and if the local agency does not produce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against it on the validity of the fee, the plaintiff challenging the fee will prevail, but if the local agency's evidence is sufficient, the plaintiff must establish a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact or the court that the fee is invalid, e.g., that the fee's use and the need for the public facility are not reasonably related to the development project on which the fee is imposed or the amount of the fee bears no reasonable relationship to the cost of the public facility attributable to the development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 6 Cases that cite this headnote [10] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by a community/recreation facility impact fee under city ordinances requiring that impact fee resolutions shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act and requiring the city council to “list the specific public improvements to be financed,” in using the standard-based method of dividing the ratio of the value of existing facilities by the current population to arrive at the per capita fee imposed on developers, and identifying examples of future facilities including a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum, even though specific construction plans were not in place. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66001(a)(1, 2). [11] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by a community/recreation facility impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, in using the standard-based method of dividing the ratio of the value of existing facilities by the current population to arrive at the per capita fee imposed on developers, and identifying examples of future facilities including a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum, even though specific construction plans were not in place; city was not required to use a plan-based method to determine the fee. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66001(a)(1, 2). [12] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions The existence of a carryover balance of approximately $1,486,000 in city's recreation capital impact fee fund did not render a community/recreation facility impact fee imposed on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act invalid as in excess of the reasonable cost of the public facilities for which the fees are imposed, as a general revenue fee, or as a violation of the reasonable relationship requirement, where the carryover balance must be used to pay for facilities that served existing development, and if the carryover balance was not expended on the public improvements for which the fees were collected, the unexpended fees were to be refunded pro rata to the owners of the lots of the development project that paid the fees. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66001(a)(1, 2), 66008. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, or plans;  subdivisions 211 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4 City's Mitigation Fee Act community/recreation facility impact fee imposed on new development was not preempted by the Quimby Act, where the impact fees were to be used to build unique facilities intended to serve the entire population of the city. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66002(c)(7), 66477. 2 Cases that cite this headnote [14] Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments The Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities independent of the Quimby Act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66002(c)(7), 66477. [15] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, or plans;  subdivisions City's park land impact fee resolution, setting fees in lieu of park land dedication under the Quimby Act, was not preempted by the Quimby Act, because it was adopted pursuant to that act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66477. [16] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, or plans;  subdivisions City's park land impact fee resolution, setting fees in lieu of park land dedication for residential development not involving a subdivision of land, was not preempted by the Quimby Act, because such development was not subject to the Quimby Act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66477. [17] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City acted within its discretion in finding city's park land impact fee resolution, setting fees at the proportionate amount necessary to provide five acres of park per 1,000 residents of the subdivision as authorized by the Quimby act, was not inconsistent with the city general plan establishing a standard of three acres as the basis for requiring land dedications and/or fees as authorized by the Subdivision Map Act, where city's general plan reflected city's commitment as a matter of policy and priority to parks and recreation for its citizens, and the plan expressly recognized that circumstances could change. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 65030.1, 66477(a) (2). [18] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals City's conclusion that its park land impact fee resolution, setting fees at the proportionate amount necessary to provide five acres of park per 1,000 residents of the subdivision as authorized by the Quimby act, was consistent with city's general plan, carried a strong presumption of regularity that could only be overcome by a showing of abuse of discretion. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66477(a)(2). [19] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals An abuse of discretion is established in a city's conclusion that its park land impact fee resolution is consistent with its general plan only if the city council has not proceeded in a manner required by law, its decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. [20] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals in general Appellate review of a city's conclusion that its park land impact fee resolution is consistent with its general plan is highly deferential to the local agency, recognizing that the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. 212 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5 [21] Zoning and Planning Conformity of regulations to comprehensive or general plan A city's action is consistent with the city's general plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan. [22] Zoning and Planning Conformity of regulations to comprehensive or general plan State law does not require perfect conformity between a city's action and the city's general plan; rather, to be consistent, the action simply must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. [23] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City's police impact fee on new development was supported by an adequate nexus between the development that paid the fee and the burden on the police department caused by that development under Mitigation Fee Act, where increased population due to new development would place additional demands on the police department, the department would need to be expanded to maintain the current level of service, and the fee calculation standard classified the cost of service by development type. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(3, 4). [24] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions The initial capital costs of police vehicles and equipment were properly included in calculating a police impact fee on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act, since vehicles and officer safety equipment were necessary to provide the public service of police protection, which was within the Act's definition of “public facilities.” West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000(d). [25] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by police impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, where city's report relied upon in setting the fees referred to expanding the current police headquarters, constructing a substation, and adding the necessary police vehicles and officer safety equipment. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(1, 2). [26] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City's municipal facilities impact fee on new development was supported by an adequate nexus between the development that paid the fee and the burden on municipal facilities caused by that development under Mitigation Fee Act, where increased population due to new development would place additional demands on the existing complement of municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment, the complement would need to be expanded to maintain the current level of service, and the fee calculation allocated costs between residential and nonresidential development because some city services were impacted only indirectly by residential development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(3, 4). 1 Cases that cite this headnote [27] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by municipal facilities impact fee on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act, even though city's report acknowledged that specific plans for future municipal facilities and equipment were not currently available, where the report noted that it was likely that some of city's future space needs would be accommodated by finishing additional space in the existing municipal complex, and that other space might be acquired or 213 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6 developed downtown. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(1, 2). [28] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions There was no nexus between the burden posed by new housing and city's fire protection impact fees for a service area where the facilities and equipment needed to serve future development were already in place, and thus the fees were invalid under the Mitigation Fee Act, where city proposed to use the fees to reimburse the city for its prior general fund money investments to pay for the facilities in the service area; such a fee would constitute general revenue to the city. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66001(a)(3, 4), 66008. See Cal. Jur. 3d, Zoning And Other Land Controls, §§ 120, 250; Cal. Civil Practice (Thomson Reuters 2010) Real Property Litigation, § 14:77; 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25:45. [29] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions City's fire protection impact fees for a service area where a new fire station would be required to serve future development was supported by an adequate nexus between the development that paid the fee and the burden on fire protection facilities caused by that development under Mitigation Fee Act, even though the city's calculation of the cost per capita of the new fire station included the forecasted population of a 476 acre area that might be annexed to the city in the future, where there was no indication that, without the potential annexation, additional fire protection facilities would be unnecessary to serve new development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(3, 4). [30] Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans;  subdivisions The initial capital costs of refuse vehicles and containers were properly included in calculating refuse vehicle and container impact fees on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act, since refuse vehicles and containers were necessary to provide the public service of garbage collection, which was within the Act's definition of “public facilities.” West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000(d). [31] Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments City's act of segregating funds from impact fees imposed on new development by facility category, rather than by a specifically identified project, did not violate the Mitigation Fee Act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000, 66006(a). [32] Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments Developers' association failed to establish that city violated the Mitigation Fee Act provision requiring that “at the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance,” absent evidence that a development fee had been imposed directly on association or one of its members. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66006(f). 1 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms **13 Law Offices of Walter P. McNeill and Walter P. McNeill, Redding, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dowling, Aaron & Keeler and Daniel O. Jamison, Fresno, for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION 214 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7 LEVY, J. *559 In late 2005, respondents, the City of Lemoore and the Lemoore City Council (City), engaged Colgan Consulting Corporation and Joseph Colgan (Colgan) to conduct a development fee impact study and prepare a report (Colgan Report). In late 2006 and early 2007 the City adopted various development impact fees based on the Colgan Report. Appellant, Home Builders Association of Tulare/ Kings Counties, Inc. (HBA), challenged certain of these fees as being invalid under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov.Code 1 , § 66000, et seq.). The trial court upheld the majority of the disputed impact fees. HBA contends the trial court erred in that it applied an incorrect and excessively deferential “quantum of proof.” HBA further argues that the various fees violate certain Mitigation Fee Act requirements. HBA also contends that some of these fees are preempted by the fees imposed for neighborhood and community parks that serve a subdivision under the Quimby Act (§ 66477). As discussed below, the fire protection impact fee for the east side of the City is invalid in that it is not reasonably related to the burden created by the development project. However, the balance of the judgment upholding the remaining disputed fees will be affirmed. BACKGROUND Between October and December 2006, the City received Colgan's findings on the development impact fee study. Based on this report, the City held public hearings on the adoption of various impact fees. In December 2006 and January and February 2007, the City adopted 13 impact fees for new housing in Lemoore. In May 2007, HBA filed and served its first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint. HBA challenged 7 of the impact fees adopted *560 pursuant to the Colgan Report. According to HBA, the Colgan Report incorporated and applied a variety of accounting methods that are unlawful under the Mitigation Fee Act. Specifically, HBA objected to development impact fees for law enforcement, park land acquisition and improvement, refuse vehicles and containers, fire protection, general municipal facilities, and community/ recreational facilities. HBA also challenged the process by which the City accounts for and spends the impact fees collected. The City initially demurred to the first amended petition/ complaint and moved to strike all allegations that the fees were special taxes or proceeds of taxes, were excessive as such, and violated the California Constitution. The trial court overruled the demurrer but granted the motion to strike. HBA did not amend. Accordingly, all constitutional issues were removed and the case proceeded on the statutory claims raised by HBA as to the City's alleged noncompliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Thereafter, the City moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication. The trial court granted summary adjudication in the City's favor on the causes of action **14 regarding the fire protection impact fees, police impact fees, municipal facilities impact fees, and the administration of the impact fees. The court concluded that the City had adequately demonstrated that it complied with the Mitigation Fee Act and that its determination of the amount of these disputed fees was neither arbitrary nor capricious. However, the court found that triable issues of material fact existed with respect to the causes of action regarding the park land acquisition, park land improvement, community/recreation, and refuse vehicles and containers impact fees. Following a trial on the remaining causes of action, the trial court ruled in favor of the City on the validity of those fees with one exception. The court invalidated the park land improvement impact fee as applied to subdivisions subject to the Quimby Act. DISCUSSION 1. The Mitigation Fee Act. At issue in this appeal is whether, in adopting the disputed impact fees, the City complied with the Mitigation Fee Act. This act embodies a statutory standard against which monetary exactions by local governments subject to its provisions are measured. (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 865, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242, 911 P.2d 429.) It was passed by the Legislature “ ‘in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects.’ ” (Id. at p. 864, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242, 911 P.2d 429.) 215 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.8 *561 The Mitigation Fee Act requires the local agency to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee will be put. (§ 66001, subd. (a)(1) and (2).) The local agency must also determine that both “the fee's use” and “the need for the public facility” are reasonably related to the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§ 66001, subd. (a)(3) and (4).) In addition, the local agency must “determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.” (§ 66001, subd. (b).) “Public facilities” are defined as including “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” (§ 66000, subd. (d).) 2. The standard of review and burden of proof. [1] [2] The City's adoption of the development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act involved a quasi-legislative action. (Cf. Warmington Old Town Associates v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 840, 849, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 744.) Thus, the City's action is reviewed under the narrower standards of ordinary mandate. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 320, 328, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) Accordingly, judicial review is limited to an examination of the proceedings before the City to determine whether its action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 38 Cal.4th 653, 667, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 133 P.3d 1028.) The action will be upheld if the City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of the enabling statute. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) This issue is a question of law. (Id. at p. 233, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) **15 [3] [4] As noted above, before imposing a fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, the local agency is charged with determining that the amount of the fee and the need for the public facility are reasonably related to the burden created by the development project. If such a fee is challenged, the local agency has the burden of producing evidence in support of its determination. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 329, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) The local agency must show that a valid method was used for imposing the fee in question, one that established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 235, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) [5] [6] *562 However, this burden of producing evidence is not equivalent to the burden of proof. “Attorneys, judges, and commentators often have confused these terms and the concepts they represent. As the United States Supreme Court observed, ‘For many years the term “burden of proof” was ambiguous because the term was used to describe two distinct concepts. Burden of proof was frequently used to refer to what we now call the burden of persuasion-the notion that if the evidence is evenly balanced, the party that bears the burden of persuasion must lose. But it was also used to refer to what we now call the burden of production-a party's obligation to come forward with evidence to support its claim.’ [Citations.]” (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1666–1667, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 279.) Thus, the local agency has the obligation to produce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against it on the issue. (Mathis v. Morrissey (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 332, 346, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 819.) However, this burden of producing evidence does not operate to shift the burden of proof. The plaintiff has the burden of proof with respect to all facts essential to its claim for relief and that burden remains. (Ibid.) Therefore, the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to establish in the mind of the trier of fact or the court a requisite degree of belief. (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1667, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 279.) [7] [8] In general, the imposition of various monetary exactions, such as special assessments, user fees, and impact fees, is accorded substantial judicial deference. (San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643, 671, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 269, 41 P.3d 87.) In the absence of a legislative shifting of the burden of proof, a plaintiff challenging an impact fee has to show that the record before the local agency clearly did not support the underlying determinations regarding the reasonableness of the relationship between the fee and the development. (Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 444, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 312, 187 P.3d 37.) [9] Accordingly, the local agency has the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it used a valid method for imposing the fee in question, one that established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. If the local agency does not produce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against 216 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.9 it on the validity of the fee, the plaintiff challenging the fee will prevail. However, if the local agency's evidence is sufficient, the plaintiff must establish a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact or the court that the fee is invalid, e.g., that the fee's use and the need for the public facility are not reasonably related to the development project on which the fee is imposed or the **16 amount of the fee bears no reasonable relationship to the cost of the public facility attributable to the development. (Cf. Sinclair Paint Co. v. *563 State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 881, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 937 P.2d 1350.) There have been occasional comments from courts of appeal that the burden of proof in a fee case falls on the local agency. These cases cite Beaumont Investors v. Beaumont–Cherry Valley Water Dist. (1983) 165 Cal.App.3d 227, 211 Cal.Rptr. 567 as support for this shift. However, in Beaumont Investors, the local agency failed to produce any evidence to support its calculation of the disputed fee. Thus, it was a failure to meet the burden of production, not the burden of proof. In ruling that the facilities fee was invalid because the local agency failed to develop a record from which costs reasonably related to the development could be determined, Beaumont Investors conflated the two concepts. In contrast here, the City produced a record to support the disputed fees. Thus, Beaumont Investors and its progeny are distinguishable. Here, the standard applicable to ordinary mandate applies and there is no basis for shifting the parties' burdens. Thus, the City had the initial burden of producing evidence of the reasonableness of the relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. However, HBA had the burden of proving that the record before the City did not support the City's underlying determinations. 3. Community/Recreation Facility Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2007–1). The City relied on the Colgan Report in adopting the various development impact fees. Colgan proposed the community/ recreation facility impact fee to fund the cost of adding community and recreation facilities that will be needed to maintain the current level of service as the City grows. Colgan calculated these fees based on the existing ratio of community and recreation facility asset value to population, the rationale being that the need for such facilities is based on the size of the population to be served. Colgan determined that the City had invested $5,477,160 in existing community recreational facilities and then divided that number by the current population to arrive at the per capita cost. That cost was then multiplied times the population per unit of development type to arrive at the fee per unit. This calculation is known as the standard-based method. Regarding future needs, Colgan noted that the existing community and recreation facilities are unique and will not be duplicated. These facilities *564 include the civic auditorium, a youth plaza skate park, a teen center, the train depot complex, and a golf course. Rather, the City intends to expand the range of recreational choices by constructing other types of facilities including a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum. These facilities are expected to cost in excess of $5 million while the impact fee is projected to yield approximately $3.2 million. HBA objects to the community/recreation facility impact fee on two grounds. HBA argues that the fee violates the Mitigation Fee Act's requirement that the public facilities be identified and that the fee is preempted by the Quimby Act. a. The City adequately identified the public facilities. [10] Section 66001, subdivisions (a)(1) and (2), requires the City to “[i]dentify the purpose of the fee” and “[i]dentify the use to which the fee is to be put.” If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities must be identified. However, the statute **17 provides flexibility regarding how that identification may be made. It may, but need not, “be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.” (§ 66001, subd. (a)(2).) Similarly, Lemoore City Code section 8–10–3 requires that impact fee resolutions shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. Regarding the content of such resolutions, Lemoore City Code section 8–10–2 requires the city council to “list the specific public improvements to be financed.” [11] HBA contends the City disregarded these provisions in establishing the community/recreation facility impact fee in that no specific public improvements were identified. Rather, reference was made to examples of future facilities without any actual plan or commitment. The crux of HBA's complaint is the City's use of the standard-based method to calculate the fees to maintain the current level of service, i.e., the ratio of the value of existing facilities divided by the current population to arrive at the per capita cost. HBA argues the 217 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.10 Mitigation Fee Act requires the identification of a specific improvement plan and its attendant costs, not simply a type or category of future public facilities. In other words, the City must use a plan-based approach. Contrary to HBA's position, section 66001 is not so limiting. Rather, it is acceptable for the local agency to identify the facilities via general plan requirements. In fact, a “fee” may be “established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability.” (§ 66000, subd. (b).) It would *565 be unreasonable to demand the specificity urged by HBA and require local agencies to make a concrete showing of all projected construction when initially adopting a resolution. Such a resolution might be in effect for decades. (Cf. Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 332, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) Moreover, HBA's concern that the standard-based fee “is a spinning turnstile for the collection of money” is unwarranted. Section 66001, subdivisions (c) through (e) require that collected fees be kept segregated from other funds; unexpended funds be accounted for yearly; and if a use for the collected fees cannot be shown, they must be refunded pro rata with interest. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 332, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) Thus, there is a mechanism in place to guard against unjustified fee retention. (Ibid.) Further, the standard-based method of calculating fees does not prevent there being a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. There is no question that increased population due to new development will place additional burdens on the city-wide community and recreation facilities. Thus, to maintain a similar level of service to the population, new facilities will be required. It is logical to not duplicate the existing facilities, but rather, to expand the recreational opportunities. To this end, the City intends to construct an aquatic center, a gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum. Since the facilities are intended for city-wide use, it is reasonable to base the fee on the existing ratio of community and recreation facility asset value to population. The fact that specific construction plans are not in place does not render the fee unreasonable. The public improvements are generally identified. The record, here the Colgan Report, need only **18 provide a reasonable basis overall for the City's action. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 333, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) The community/recreation facility impact fee also meets the identification requirements of the Lemoore City Code. Under section 8–10–3, the Mitigation Fee Act controls the adoption of such fees. [12] HBA additionally argues that the existence of a carryover balance of approximately $1,486,000 in the City's recreation capital impact fee fund invalidates the community/ recreation facility impact fee. According to HBA, the failure of the City to credit that carryover balance to the calculation of the new development impact fee causes the resulting fees to: be in excess of the reasonable cost of the public facilities for which the fees are imposed; causes the fees to be levied, collected and imposed for general revenue purposes; and fails the reasonable relationship requirement. *566 However, as explained by Colgan, the development that paid those fees and created the balance is now existing development and those funds must be used to pay for facilities that serve that existing development. Colgan further noted that if, as suggested by HBA, the City were credited with that account balance as existing facilities, the impact fees would be higher. Moreover, under section 66001, subdivision (e), if the carryover balance is not expended on the public improvements for which the fees were collected, the unexpended fees are to be refunded pro rata to the owners of the lots of the development project that paid the fees. Thus, it would be contrary to the statute to credit refunds that are due to existing development to new development. In sum, the City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors and the community/recreation facility impact fee. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) The City's action was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 667, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 133 P.3d 1028.)2 b. The community/recreation facility impact fee is not preempted by the Quimby Act. [13] Section 66477 (the Quimby Act) permits a city or county to enact an ordinance requiring the dedication of land, or the payment of fees in lieu thereof, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a subdivision so long as certain requirements are met. The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the 218 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.11 proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof. However, this dedication or payment cannot “exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area ... exceeds that limit, in which case the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard **19 not to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section.” (§ 66477, subd. (a)(2).) Further, “[t]he land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision.” (§ 66477, subd. (a)(3), emphasis added.) Also, *567 “[t]he amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.” (§ 66477, subd. (a)(5), emphasis added.) HBA contends that, because the community/recreation facility impact fee and the Quimby Act both pertain to “recreation,” the Quimby Act preempts the community/ recreation facility impact fee. According to HBA, any impact fee imposed on subdivisions for recreational facilities would overlap and duplicate exactions for recreational facilities imposed under the local Quimby Act ordinance, causing builders to pay twice for such recreational facilities. However, the Quimby Act is designed to maintain and preserve open space for the recreational use of the residents of new subdivisions, not the city at large. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal.3d 633, 637, 94 Cal.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606.) Accordingly, under this scheme, the park must be in sufficient proximity to the subdivision to serve those future residents. (Ibid.) The statute specifically states that the land or fees are to be used for neighborhood or community parks or recreation facilities. Although non subdivision residents are not excluded, the recreation facilities required by the Quimby Act ordinance are for the new residents whose presence creates the need for additional park land near the subdivision, as distinguished from a more general or diffuse need for area wide services. (Id. at p. 642, 94 Cal.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606.) In contrast, the community/recreation facility impact fees are to be used to build unique facilities intended to serve the entire population of the City. Thus, there is no duplication of fees. Rather, the Quimby Act fees and the community/recreation facility impact fees pertain to entirely separate categories of “recreation.” [14] Moreover, the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities independent of the Quimby Act. Quimby Act fees are expressly excluded from the fees authorized to be collected under the Mitigation Fee Act. (§ 66000, subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the Mitigation Fee Act permits fees to be adopted for “[p]arks and recreation facilities.” (§ 66002, subd. (c)(7).) In sum, the community/recreation facility impact fees address needs other than “neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision.” Accordingly, those fees are not preempted by the Quimby Act. 4. Park Land Impact Fee. [15] [16] The City adopted two separate park land impact fee resolutions. Resolution No. 2007–04 set fees in lieu of park land dedication under the Quimby Act. *568 Resolution No. 2006–46 set such fees for residential development not involving a subdivision of land, i.e., development not subject to the Quimby Act. HBA contends the Resolution No. 2007–04 park land impact fee is invalid for three reasons. According to HBA, this impact fee is preempted by the Quimby Act, is calculated using the invalid “standard-based method,” and is inconsistent with the City's general plan. In support of the **20 first two reasons, HBA merely references its arguments regarding the community/recreation facility impact fee. However, this parkland impact fee cannot be preempted by the Quimby Act because it was adopted pursuant to that act. If HBA meant this argument to pertain to Resolution No. 2006–46 parkland fees, it is also without merit because those fees are expressly limited to residential development outside of the Quimby Act. HBA's contention that the fees are invalid due to the use of the standard-based calculation method is also unavailing for the reasons stated above. a. The park land impact fee standard is not inconsistent with the City's general plan. [17] The Quimby Act provides that the dedication of land, or the payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park per 1,000 residents of the subdivision. However, if the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, the legislative body may adopt the calculated 219 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12 amount as a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. (§ 66477, subd. (a)(2).) The Colgan Report calculated the ratio of existing park acreage to population as exceeding five acres per 1,000 persons. Accordingly, the City adopted the five acre standard as authorized by the Quimby Act. HBA argues that this standard of five acres per 1000 residents is inconsistent with the City's general plan. The 1990 general plan, relied on by HBA, established a standard of three acres as the basis for requiring land dedications and/or fees as authorized by the State Subdivision Map Act. [18] [19] [20] In enacting the parkland fee ordinance and resolutions, the City concluded that the standard of five acres per 1000 residents was consistent with the City's general plan. This conclusion carries a strong presumption of regularity that can only be overcome by a showing of abuse of discretion. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 816, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251.) “ ‘An abuse of discretion is established only if the city council has not proceeded in a manner required by law, its decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Ibid.) Appellate review is highly deferential to the local agency, “ ‘recognizing that “the body which adopted the general plan policies in its *569 legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. [Citations.]” ’ ” (Ibid.) [21] [22] An action is consistent with the general plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan. (Corona–Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 803.) State law does not require perfect conformity between the action and the general plan. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 817, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251.) Rather, to be consistent, the action simply must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. (Ibid.) Here, the City's general plan reflects the City's commitment as a matter of policy and priority to parks and recreation for its citizens. The plan proposes the acreage standards as “policies” and expressly recognizes that circumstances could change. The reference to the acreage standard being as authorized by the Subdivision Map Act indicates that the general plan was intended to be consistent with that act. **21 Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that the City did not abuse its discretion in finding that the five acre standard was not inconsistent with the general plan. The general plan references the Subdivision Map Act, which authorizes the five acre standard in section 66477, i.e., the Quimby Act. This is an officially approved statewide goal that the Legislature intended the City to be guided by in its planning process. (§ 65030.1.) Moreover, this standard furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan to promote access to parks and recreation. In sum, the five acre standard is compatible with the general plan. 5. Police Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2006–46). The City adopted the police impact fee to maintain its current level of service for police facilities, vehicles, and equipment as the City grows. The Colgan Report calculated the impact fees based on the cost of maintaining existing ratios of facilities, vehicles, and officer safety equipment to calls for service. Colgan used a random sample of all calls logged for 2005 classified by development type, i.e., single family residential, multi-family residential, etc., and the number of existing units per development type to arrive at the average police calls per existing unit of development type. Colgan then used the estimated replacement cost of existing facilities and assets divided by the total number of service calls to arrive at an average cost per call. To arrive at the capital cost per unit of development type, Colgan multiplied the calls per unit of development type times the cost per call. The Colgan Report also found that the existing police headquarters building was nearing capacity and additional space would be needed to accommodate the City's growth. *570 HBA again objects to the City's use of a standard- based method to arrive at the impact fee. According to HBA, this standard has no nexus to new housing that pays the fees and fails to identify public facilities required to serve new development. HBA additionally argues that the standard improperly includes operational expenses that are not “public facilities” such as radios, weapons, protective clothing, and vehicles. [23] Contrary to HBA's position, the Colgan Report provides a reasonable basis overall for the police impact fee. There is no question that increased population due to new development will place additional demands on the police department. To maintain the current level of service, the 220 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.13 department will need to be expanded. Since the fee calculation standard classifies the cost of service by development type, there is a nexus between the development that pays the fee and the burden on the police department caused by that development. [24] HBA's objection to the fee calculation including the capital cost of police vehicles and equipment is also without merit. Section 66000, subdivision (d), defines “public facilities” as including public improvements and public services. Vehicles and officer safety equipment are necessary to provide the public service of police protection. The fees are to be used for the initial capital costs of these items, not for the costs of operation and maintenance. [25] Finally, the public facilities to be financed by the police impact fees are adequately identified. The Colgan Report refers to expanding the current headquarters, constructing a substation, and adding the necessary police vehicles and officer safety equipment. **22 In sum, the police impact fee is valid. The City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors and the fee. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) 6. Municipal Facilities Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2006– 49). The City adopted the municipal facilities impact fee to maintain the City's existing level of service for municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment as the City grows. To calculate this fee, Colgan valued the existing municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment and calculated a per capita cost based on the current relationship between municipal facility costs and functional population. As with the community/recreation facility impact fee and the police impact fee, HBA objects to the City's use of a standard- based method to *571 arrive at this fee. According to HBA, this standard has no nexus to new housing that pays the fees and fails to identify public facilities required to serve new development. [26] Contrary to HBA's position, the Colgan Report provides a reasonable basis overall for the municipal facilities impact fee. Increased population due to new development will place additional demands on the existing complement of municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment. To maintain the current level of service, this complement will inevitably need to be expanded. Colgan noted that some city services are impacted only indirectly by residential development and thus allocated costs between residential and nonresidential development. This specific allocation of costs among different types of development provides a nexus between the development that pays the fee and the burden on municipal facilities posed by that development. [27] The Colgan Report acknowledges that specific plans for future municipal facilities and equipment are not currently available. The report further notes that “[t]he existing municipal complex contains large areas that are currently unfinished and unused. It is likely that some of the City's future space needs will be accommodated by finishing additional space in that building, which currently houses offices, maintenance facilities, and storage. Other space may be acquired or developed downtown.” Nevertheless, as discussed above, it is acceptable for the local agency to identify the facilities via general plan requirements. Moreover, contrary to HBA's position, Colgan considered the capacity of the existing facilities noting that such areas could be finished to provide for future municipal needs. Further, the section 66001, subdivisions (c) through (e) requirements that the collected fees be segregated, accounted for yearly, and refunded if a use cannot be shown guard against unjustified fee retention. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 332, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) The City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors and the municipal facilities impact fee. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) The City's action was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 667, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 133 P.3d 1028.) Accordingly, this fee is valid. **23 7. Fire Protection Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2006–49). For purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees, the Colgan Report divided the City into two service areas, the older, established east side and the newer west side. Regarding the east side, the Colgan Report states that “the facilities and equipment needed to serve future development are already in place, so impact fees for that area are intended 221 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.14 to recover new development's *572 proportionate share of the cost of the fire protection assets serving the area. The revenue from those fees will be used to offset a portion of the City's recent investments in facility improvements and new equipment, which were funded in part with general fund money.” In contrast, the west side will need a new fire station and equipment to serve that area as it develops. a. The east side impact fees are invalid. As discussed above, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the local agency to determine that the amount of the fee and the need for the public facility are reasonably related to the burden created by the development project. Further, the local agency must identify the facilities to be financed by the fee. [28] HBA objects to the east side fees on the ground that they are being imposed for general revenue purposes. Since there is no need for additional fire protection facilities in that part of the City to serve new development, HBA contends that no nexus exists between the fees and the burden posed by new housing. HBA is correct. While a fee may be imposed to cover costs attributable to increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan (§ 66001, subd. (g)), the existing east side fire protection facilities are already adequate to continue to provide the same level of service. In other words, the new development will not burden the current facilities. The Colgan Report's proposal to reimburse the City for its prior general fund money investments is not authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act. Rather, such a fee would constitute general revenue to the City in violation of section 66008, and therefore is invalid. b. The west side impact fees are valid. [29] The Colgan Report concludes that, due to the barrier created by Highway 41 between the east side and the west side of the City, a new fire station will be required to serve the west side as it develops. In calculating the cost per capita for the west side, Colgan included the forecasted population of a 476 acre area that may be annexed to the City in the future. This addition resulted in reducing the west side fire protection impact fees by approximately 28 percent. HBA objects to the calculation including this potential annexation area as opposed to using the existing legal boundaries of the City. HBA posits that a new fire station might not be needed if the hypothetical annexation does not occur. Contrary to HBA's position, the Colgan Report provides a reasonable basis for the City's adoption of the west side impact fee. There is no indication *573 that, without the potential annexation, additional fire protection facilities would be unnecessary to serve new development. Rather, it can be inferred from the relatively low percentage of fee reduction, i.e., 28 percent, that fire protection facilities would be required with or without the annexation. The City considered **24 the potential population to be served for the purpose of reducing the fee that would otherwise be charged and spreading the costs more equitably. This action was not arbitrary or capricious. 8. Refuse Vehicle and Container Impact Fees (Resolution No. 2006–46). To calculate the refuse vehicle impact fees for single family residences, Colgan used the existing relationship between the number of side-loading trucks and the number of dwelling units in the City. These fees are intended to provide for additional vehicles as the number of customers increases. The analysis assumes the need for additional vehicles will increase in proportion to the number of additional dwelling units. The impact fee calculated for refuse containers is based on the cost of the three containers provided to each new single family residence. [30] HBA contends this standard improperly includes operational expenses in violation of section 65913.8. According to HBA, the refuse containers and rapidly depreciating refuse vehicles are not public facilities that may be funded by development impact fees. Rather, HBA argues, the containers and replacement vehicles should be paid for by the monthly garbage collection service fees. Section 66000, subdivision (d), defines “public facilities” as including public improvements and public services. Refuse vehicles and containers are necessary to provide the public service of garbage collection. The fees are to be used for the initial capital costs of these items, not for the costs of operation and maintenance. Accordingly, these fees are valid. 222 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.15 9. City's collection and administration practices comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. Fees collected under the Mitigation Fee Act must be administered pursuant to the Act's statutory requirements. In general, the local agency must deposit the fee collected “with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency....” (§ 66006, subd. (a).) Thereafter, within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the local agency must provide certain information to the public for each *574 separate account or fund. This information includes: a brief description of the type of fee; the amount of the fee; the beginning and ending balance; the amount of the fees collected and interest earned; an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement; and an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected. (§ 66006, subd. (b).) A fee may be established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or be imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis. (§ 66000, subd. (b).) At the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it must identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance (§ 66006, subd. (f)) and must expend the fee solely and exclusively for the purpose or purposes so identified (§ 66008). HBA objects to the City's administration of the development fees on the ground that the City did not adequately identify the public facilities and improvements to be financed as part of enacting the fee resolutions. HBA further argues that the City's annual reporting does not identify each public improvement on which funds were **25 expended and does not show the total percentage of the cost of public improvement that was funded by fees as required by section 66006, subdivision (b)(1)(E). HBA additionally contends that, when the City imposes and collects a fee payment, it does not identify the public improvements that the fee will be used to finance in violation of section 66006, subdivision (f). As discussed above, the City adequately identified the public facilities and improvements when it enacted the development impact fees. [31] Further, the City's annual reporting meets the statutory requirements. HBA objects to the City segregating the funds by facility category, rather than by a specifically identified project. However, fees may be established, as they were here, for a broad class of projects as opposed a specific improvement. (§ 66000, subd. (b).) Moreover, under section 66006, subdivision (a), all that is required is that the fees be deposited into “a separate capital facilities account” to avoid commingling with the local agency's other revenues and funds. Further, contrary to HBA's position, the City's annual accountings for fiscal year 2006–2007 do identify the specific projects on which the fees were expended and the percentage of the cost that was funded by the fees in compliance with section 66006, subdivision (b). [32] HBA's claim that the City violated section 66006, subdivision (f), is also without merit. That section pertains to imposition of “a fee for public *575 improvements on a specific development project.” (Italics added.) As noted by the trial court, HBA has neither alleged nor shown that a development fee has been imposed directly on it or one of its members. Accordingly, section 66006, subdivision (f), cannot provide HBA with a basis for relief. DISPOSITION The portion of the judgment upholding the fire protection impact fee for the east side of the City is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. I CONCUR: DAWSON, J. ARDAIZ, P.J. I concur in the result. I write separately to express my view regarding the assessment of a Community/Recreation Facility Impact Fee. In the instant case, City imposed a fee pursuant to section 66000 et seq., regarding a category of desired potential municipal improvements such as a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center and a naval air museum. Appellant objects that the specific facility is not clearly identified and therefore complains that it must be specifically identified. As noted in the majority opinion “reference was made to examples of future facilities without any actual plan or commitment.” (Maj. opn., p. 17.) I agree with the majority that a class of projects may be identified as opposed to a specific project. However, that resolution does not address my concern regarding the nature 223 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.16 of the class of projects in terms of relationship to the specific development. Section 66000 specifically provides within its definition of a “fee” that it is a monetary exaction “imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, ....” (§ 66000, subd. (b), italics added.) Section 66001 addresses the duties of the local agency in regard to the fee and provides in pertinent part, “Determine how there is a reasonable relationship **26 between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.” (§ 66001, subd. (a)(3), italics added.) Specifically, my concern is the category of municipal improvements designated as justification for the fee in question. Using general rules of construction, there are two that have bearing here. Noscitur a sociis, it is known from its associates, means that a word may be defined by an accompanying word. Ejusdem generis, of the same kind, means that general words are construed to *576 embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the specific word. (2A Sutherland, Statutes & Statutory (7th ed. 2007) Construction, §§ 47:16–47:17). In the context of this case, I would conclude that the specific facilities identified such as a municipal aquatic center and a naval air museum identify the class of projects referred to. Or, to be specific, the class of projects referred to would be reasonably identified as community wide projects, which is precisely how they were described. This brings me to the specific concern that I raise. Section 66000 and 66001 refer to a fee related to the development project. The term “related” would in its normal usage mean associated with or having a close connection to. (Webster's New World Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) p. 1198.) I would infer from this that the proposed specific project or class of projects must be a consequence of or have a direct relationship to the proposed development. I have no argument that the proposed class of municipal projects herein is not desirable or beneficial. However, I have great difficulty concluding that their desirability or need are a consequence of or have a direct relationship to the proposed project herein. That a community may be desirous of celebrating its military heritage is laudable. However, it is a community benefit that springs from an expression of the nature of the community atmosphere and culture. Likewise, an aquatic center is a desirable and useful thing but it is difficult to infer how its need springs from the project herein. Clearly as population expands or shifts, more and different infrastructure facilities are required. New population centers require building new elementary schools and new roads, etc. However, there is a significant difference between building a new elementary school or a new high school that may service more than just the development and a facility that services the entire community. That a community grows and the nature of the population changes relates to policy decisions that fall upon the entire community as opposed to one aspect of the community. In other words, the fact that a new development may increase traffic on a central roadway does not mean that the new development should be responsible for building a freeway. Such responsibilities should fall equally within the community and, in my view to link it to a specific development is a tenuous thread. Utilizing that type of reasoning justifies a development fee for almost anything and I do not glean that type of result from the words of this statute. Appellant argues, as it did before the trial court, that failure to identify a specific project violates the provision of section 66001, subdivision (a)(2) that the “facilities shall be identified;” likewise the provisions of section 66006, subdivision (b)(1)(E) requiring *577 “[a]n identification of each public improvement” as well as related statutes with similar language. While I do not read the statute so narrowly, I would contend that the failure to identify a specific project could deprive the developer of any reasonable ability to determine if the specific project is reasonably related to **27 the proposed fee. On the other hand, a listing of projects that clearly would relate to the development such as increased sewage, schools, water, et cetera does define projects that on the surface do bear a reasonable relationship to the normal infrastructure facilities generated by a new development. The impact of allowing general community municipal improvements without any realistic showing as to how they bear a direct or reasonable relationship to the proposed development raises serious issues as to whether the statute herein does justify the fees imposed for the proposed improvements. I do not accept that simply concluding a particular general municipal improvement benefits the community as a whole and necessarily a specific development within that community somehow supports the conclusion that it is related to a specific development. 224 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.17 The majority concludes by footnote that the specific nature of the facility was not argued as opposed to the contention that the specific identity of the project must be specified, in other words, that the specific issue was not preserved for appeal. (See maj. opn., fn. 2, p. 18.) In my view the issue is at best ambiguous as to whether the general argument subsumes the specific but I do agree that the specific argument directed toward my concern was not raised. I write separately to ensure no implication that inferentially I accept the conclusion that the projects indicated herein are justified under the statute. In my view, absent some showing of a more direct and specific relationship between the municipal improvement and the proposed development, such fees are seriously subject to question. All Citations 185 Cal.App.4th 554, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 Footnotes 1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code. 2 The concurring opinion questions the validity of this community/recreation facility impact fee on the ground that the proposed city-wide municipal projects are not adequately related to the specific development project. The concurring justice opines that the relationship between the development and the need for the improvement must be direct to be reasonable. However, HBA did not argue, either in the trial court or on appeal, that this reasonable relationship requirement was not met. Rather, HBA limited its argument to the specificity requirement. Accordingly, we express no opinion on this issue. End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 225 226 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2017-0006, AND APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN 2017- 0002 AMENDMENT NO. 2, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PROPOSING AN APPROXIMATE 120,000 SQUARE- FOOT SHOPPING CENTER WITH FOUR DRIVE-THROUGHS AND A 63,000 SQUARE- FOOT SUPERMARKET WITH ASSOCIATED VEHICLE FUEL CENTER; CEQA: THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 50 AND JEFFERSON STREET; PROJECT: PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt a resolution to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Assessment 2017-0006. B. Adopt a resolution to approve Specific Plan 2017-0002, Amendment No. 2 of the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan (SP 1998-034), Tentative Parcel Map 2017- 0003 (TPM 37370), and Site Development Permit 2017-0009, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rancho Cielo Specific Plan (SP 1998-034) was approved in May 1999 for a 111,000 square foot (sq. ft.) shopping center on the site. A General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) were also approved. Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 was approved in 2002 for an approximate 100,460 sq. ft. shopping center on the site. The applicant is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), TPM, Site Development Permit (SDP), and Environmental Assessment (EA) to construct an approximate 120,000 sq. ft. shopping center consisting of 12 commercial/office and retail buildings (Attachment 1). PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 227 FISCAL IMPACT If approved, once operational the project would generate sales and property taxes. Estimated taxable sales range from $7-9 million per year for the Pavilions store, $5- 8 million per year in gas sales and approximately $16 million per year for retail and restaurant sales for the remainder of the center. This volume of sales will produce $560,000-660,000 per year in new tax revenues for the City. Additionally, the estimated assessed value of the property is $28 million, yielding an estimated $12,000-17,000 per year in property taxes to the City. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Rancho Cielo Specific Plan (SP 1998-034) was approved in May 1999, for a 111,000 sq. ft. shopping center on 12.5 acres at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. A GPA, ZC, and TPM (TPM 29052) were also approved. TPM 29052 subdivided the property into seven parcels with a 33-acre remainder parcel (the current Renaissance development). In 2002, SPA No. 1 was approved for a 100,460 sq. ft. shopping center and renamed as the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan. This project was not constructed. On May 8, 2018, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission (Commission) to consider the project consisting of a SPA to allow for a 125,800 sq. ft. shopping center, renamed the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center, and allow deviations from the City’s zoning standards, a TPM to subdivide the site into 12 parcels, and a SDP for the center’s site plan, architecture and landscaping. The Commission at that time recommended approval of the project to Council. Due to the potential for a conflict of interest on the part of one of the Commissioners, Council did not hear the project but remanded it back to the Commission for a new public hearing without the participation of that Commissioner. Another public hearing was held June 26, 2018 before the Commission which was continued in order to allow the applicant time to revise their traffic study to include an analysis of other intersections in the area in compliance with Engineering Bulletin (EB) 06-13. The applicant complied with this request and the continued public hearing was held October 8, 2019, where the Commission had other comments and requests regarding the site design and the landscape plan to encourage walkability and create public spaces. The applicant revised their site plan and the continued public hearing was held December 10, 2019 where the Commission recommended the project for approval with some added conditions of approval to further encourage walkable design and address lighting issues. Specific Plan Amendment The Pavilion Palms Shopping Center project includes proposed deviations from the City’s Zoning standards and permitted uses (Attachment 2): •Reduce the minimum landscape setback along Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 from 20 to 18 feet—a 10% reduction 228 •Allow retail stores over 50,000 sq. ft. as a permitted use (Pavilions building is proposed at 63,000 sq. ft.) •Allow a fuel center (automobile service station without repair facilities) as a permitted use, in conjunction with an anchor tenant—should the fuel center be proposed without an anchor tenant, it would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) •Modify the current Master Design Theme from Spanish Mediterranean style to a Contemporary style. •Remove the sign program under the current Specific Plan to allow future sign programs to be considered without a SPA. Tentative Parcel Map The current parcel configuration consists of five parcels on the property. The TPM proposes to reconfigure the property into 12 parcels (Attachment 3) to accommodate 12 buildings. Site Development Permit Since the first public hearing in 2018, the applicant has revised the site plan in response to comments from the public and the Commission. The revised site plan proposes a reduction of the shopping center from 125,800 to 119,182 sq. ft., resulting in 0.22 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), below the allowed 0.30 FAR for the underlying Community Commercial (CC) zone. The 12 commercial buildings consist of the following (Attachment 4): A 63,000 sq. ft. Pavilions grocery store building, with a drive-through pharmacy, along the western portion of the site. A retail building approximately 4,400 sq. ft. (Retail 1) directly north of Pavilions. A multi-tenant building (Shops 1) approximately 11,700 sq. ft. at the northern portion of the site. Six buildings ranging from 4,000 sq. ft. to 6,360 sq. ft. (Buildings 1-6) along the Jefferson Street frontage, with Buildings 2, 3, and 5 as drive-throughs. Buildings 8 and 9 are proposed at the southwestern portion of the site at 4,675 sq. ft. and 6,357 sq. ft. respectively. A Pavilions-branded fuel center, originally proposed with a 3,000 sq. ft. mini- mart now reduced in size to 825 sq. ft. based on public comments (Building 7). Improvements to the site plan (Attachments 4 and 5) based on comments from the Commission, included as conditions of approval, are below: Four gathering spaces with tables and chairs, covered patio areas, games areas and other interactive displays with public art pieces integrated, Pergolas on the south side of the site along Avenue 50 for enhanced screening, Shade structure over the central parking rows within the main parking area in front of Pavilions, Direct sidewalk connections from Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 to each pad, 229 Pergolas on the north side of the site along Derek Alan Drive, Enhanced architectural relief along the south elevation of the Pavilions building, and Pedestrian walkways delineated with stamped concrete. Fuel Center Operations The Pavilions-branded fuel center will include dispensing of motor vehicle fuel, an automobile-related air/water unit, and an 825 sq. ft. mini-mart that will offer the sale of convenience dry goods and general merchandise, lottery tickets, refrigerated dairy/deli products and prepared food and drinks. The sale of beer, wine and alcohol would be prohibited. Hours of operation for the fuel center (including the mini mart) will be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The CC zone and existing Specific Plan require approval of a CUP for gas stations (the fuel center). The applicant proposes the SPA to allow the fuel center as a permitted use only if developed with an anchor tenant. Similar to the fuel center hours of operation, deliveries for the entire shopping center will be limited to 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. per Mitigation Measure NOI-8 (Exhibit A). Traffic/Circulation The project vehicular circulation includes access from four driveways, two along Jefferson Street and two along Avenue 50. Two driveways will be restricted to right- in, right-out movements. The north driveway along Jefferson Street will be restricted to right-in, right-out and left-in movements. The easternmost driveway along Avenue 50 is proposed to allow full movements in and out of the site. The applicant proposes full movements at this driveway to facilitate access to the supermarket and fuel center. The traffic analysis prepared in 2019 (Attachment 6) studied the project’s potential to impact intersections within a one-mile radius of the project site and considered potential traffic from nearby future development, including the Citrus Plaza expansion project across Jefferson Street to the east in Indio. Traffic volume data was collected in November 2018. The analysis shows that levels of service of surrounding intersections and project driveways would not be significantly impacted by the addition of project related traffic. Additionally, staff coordinated with City of Indio staff regarding potential traffic signals along Jefferson Street. Both cities agreed that since the Citrus Plaza expansion and Pavilion Palms shopping center can function, without signals, at acceptable levels of service, no signal along Jefferson is required nor desired. Architecture The architectural style of the project is proposed to be contemporary which will utilize materials such as glass, wood, and various metals. Building forms are designed with clean, sharp horizontal and vertical planes. Architectural detailing using building projections and variations in color and materials is provided along building elevations facing Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street to break up building mass. 230 The Commission added a condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide more architectural relief along the south elevation of the Pavilions building to break up building mass and to make it more consistent with the north elevation of the Shops 1 building. Architectural plans (Attachment 4) show elevations, roof plans, and shell plans for the Pavilions building and fuel center, Retail 1, Shops 1 and Buildings 4 and 5. These buildings are representative examples of the proposed architecture of the site. The architectural design of other retail pad buildings, Buildings 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9, will require separate SDP approval since they were not included in this package. Landscaping and Lighting Landscaping for the project includes desert tolerant, water efficient plants, including Acacia Salicina trees, Thevetia Peruviana trees and Washingtonia Filifera Hybrid palms (Attachment 7). The plans include landscape berms within the landscape setbacks along Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 to improve views into drive-through facilities and parking areas. Additional landscape treatment is proposed along the project’s western wall behind the Pavilions building to screen it from the views of the residences to the west. Pergola structures are included along the south side of the project on Avenue 50 for enhanced screening of the fuel center. The Commission added a condition of approval that the applicant duplicate this treatment along the north side of the project on Derek Alan Drive for enhanced screening from the Renaissance neighborhood to the north. The applicant proposes Washingtonia Filifera Hybrid palms as parking area landscaping to enhance the architectural statement of the shopping center. In response to Commission concerns regarding shading, the applicant revised the landscape plan to add more shade trees in addition to the palms to provide more shade and has added a shade structure at the center of the parking lot. The shading plan shows 65% shading of the parking lot which is in excess of the 50% required by the Code. Additionally, groupings of pygmy date palms are placed at the four entrances to create a sense of arrival. The applicant also requested to add a condition of approval where pads that remain vacant after two years of the opening of the Pavilions will be fully landscaped. Parking lot lighting for the project will consist of LED lighting, no taller than 20 feet, which complies with height limits of the CC District (Attachment 8). Additionally, a condition of approval was added that restricts the height of the lights on the back of the Pavilions building to under 20 feet in height to reduce lighting impacts on the Renaissance neighborhood to the west. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW SB-18 and AB-52 Native American Tribal Consultation As per SB-18 and AB-52 consultation requirements, information regarding the proposed Specific Plan amendment and associated environmental document was forwarded to those tribes referenced on the Tribal Consultation List provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Staff consulted with tribes who requested information or consultation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the 231 Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, and placed their monitoring recommendations in the Conditions of Approval and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Public Agency Review This request was sent to all applicable City departments and affected public agencies on August 31, 2017. All written comments received are on file and available for review with the Design and Development Department. All applicable comments have been adequately addressed and/or incorporated in the recommended Conditions of Approval. Public Notice The public hearing notice was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 24, 2020 and was sent to property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site (Attachment 9), in accordance with Section 9.200.100 of the Municipal Code. No comments have been received from January 24 to the time of writing this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Design and Development Department has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be prepared for the proposed project. Since the proposed project, is essentially the same as originally approved in 1999 and amended in 2002, the MND reviewed the difference in the project between what was approved and what is currently proposed, (25,340 sq. ft. increase) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 regarding subsequent environmental review. The MND included mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents and proposed new mitigation measures where necessary. The MND was distributed to the City’s responsible agencies and sent to interested members of the public. Thirteen comments were received during the 30-day comment period. Responses to these comments have been prepared and sent to each commenting party. Comments and responses are included in the Final MND, which has been included as Exhibit A of the proposed Resolution. The MND has been revised, subsequent to circulation for public review, to be consistent with the findings of the updated traffic analysis and to add suggested air quality mitigation measures from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These revisions do not introduce any new impacts and do not trigger the need to recirculate the Draft MND for public review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. ALTERNATIVES  Council may elect not to adopt the MND and not to approve the SPA, TPM and SDP, which would leave SP 1998-034 Amendment No. 1 effective over the project site and a commercial shopping center project could be developed under that Amendment.  Council could also elect to adopt the MND and approve the SPA, TPM and SDP, with modified conditions of approval. Prepared by: Cheri Flores, Planning Manager Approved by Danny Castro, Design and Development Director 232 Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Specific Plan Modifications 3. Tentative Parcel Map 4. Architectural Plan Set 5. Architectural Renderings 6. August 2019 Traffic Study by Albert Grover and Associates 7. Landscape Plan 8. Photometric Plan 9. 500-foot Radius Map 233 234 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 50 CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2017-0006 APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 4th day of February, 2020, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Lundin Development Company for approval of the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center consisting of approximately 119,000 sq. ft., generally located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 more particularly described as: APN 602-180-004 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 24, 2020 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 10th day of December 2019, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing where the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did previously hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 8, 2019 to consider this project and continued the Public Hearing, to allow the applicant time to revise the site plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did previously hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on June 26, 2018 to consider this project and continued the Public Hearing, to allow the applicant time to revise the traffic study and include an analysis of other intersections in the area; and 235 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, Environmental Assessment 1998-375 was adopted by the City Council on May 18th, 1999 (Council Resolution 1999-62) and analyzed the original project consisting of an approximate 111,000 sq. ft. shopping center, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, an addendum to Environmental Assessment 1998-375 was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA and approved by the City Council on February 19, 2002 (Council Resolution 2002-30), which analyzed an amendment to the project reducing the size of the shopping center to approximately 100,460 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA, and determined that the project was substantially similar to the original project and amendment but that one or more conditions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 had been met requiring a subsequent analysis and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be prepared to analyze the difference in impacts from the originally adopted MND (Environmental Assessment 1998-375) and subsequent addendum to the currently proposed project. The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.250.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of Environmental Assessment 2017-0006: 1.As conditioned, proposed application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2017-0006. 236 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 3 of 4 2.The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3.There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4.The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. Impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable can be mitigated to be less than significant. 5.The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. Impacts associated with noise and air quality can be mitigated to be less than significant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and constitute the Findings of the City Council in this case. SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby adopts “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 ‘Pavilion Palms’ Shopping Center La Quinta, CA” and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, enclosed as Exhibit A and incorporated herewith by this reference, for Environmental Assessment 2017-0006. 237 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta City Council, held on this the 4th day of February 2020, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: _________________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ WILLIAM IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 238 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center La Quinta, CA EA2017-0006 Prepared for Lead Agency: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared by: Jericho Systems, Inc. 47 N. First Street, 1st Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 307-5633 March 2018 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XXX EXHIBIT A ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 4, 2020 239 [this page left intentionally blank] 240 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1  SECTION 2 – REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 2  SECTION 3 - DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 3  SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .................................................................... 8  I. AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................... 13  II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: ......................................... 16  III. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 19  IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 26  V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: ............................................................................... 31  VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................... 36  VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: ................................................................... 40  VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................... 44  IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: ....................................................... 47  X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: .......................................................................... 51  XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: .................................................................................. 53  XII. NOISE: ................................................................................................................ 54  XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: ....................................................................... 62  XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: .......................................................................................... 64  XV. RECREATION .................................................................................................... 66  XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: ....................................................................... 67  XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: ................................................................ 73  XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: ........................................................... 75  SECTION 5 - SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................... 80  SECTION 6 - REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 84  FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Overview ......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Site Location ................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 7 241 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page ii TABLES Table 1 Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 4  Table 2 Summer Construction Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) ..................................................... 20  Table 3 Winter Construction Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) ........................................................ 21  Table 4 Summer Operational Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) ....................................................... 22  Table 5 Winter Operational Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day)......................................................... 23  Table 6 Localized Significance Thresholds (Pounds per Day) ................................................................... 24   Table 7 Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) ................................................ 41  Table 8 Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) .................................................. 42  Table 9 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ........................................................................... 55  Table 10 Vibration Source Levels for Typical Construction Equipment.................................................... 56  Table 11 Existing and Projected Future Operational Noise ........................................................................ 58  Table 12 Existing Conditions – Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street .................................................................. 69  Table 13 Opening Day – With Project – Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street ..................................................... 69  Table 14 Future Buildout (Year 2035) – With Project – Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street ............................ 69  APPENDICES Appendix A Site Lighting Plan  Appendix B Air Quality Model Results  Appendix C Biological Resources Report  Appendix D Cultural Resources Report  Appendix E Noise Study  Appendix F Traffic Studies  Appendix G City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin 06-13    242 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 1 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION Background La Quinta is a resort city in the Coachella Valley of Riverside County located between Indian Wells and Indio. As of the 2010 census, the population was approximately 37,000, up from the 2000 census, which recorded approximately 24,000. The city limits encompass approximately 37 miles and are generally bounded on the west by Washington Street and the Santa Rosa Mountains, on the north by lands south of Hovley Lane East, on the east by Jefferson Street and Monroe Street, and on the south by Avenue 62 and Avenue 64 (Figure 1). Topographically, the City is situated on a flat valley floor surrounded by low mountains, foothills and alluvial fans characteristic of the desert environment. The valley floor is the site of most of the City’s developed areas, while surrounding mountains and foothills have been designated and are retained as open space. The City has historically contained large areas of agriculture on the valley floor, but this has changed in recent years with increased urbanization. Development within the City limits is now primarily residential, commercial and resort oriented (Terra Nova, July 2012). Hwy 111, a major thoroughfare that provides access to most of the cities in the Coachella Valley, bisects the city’s northern portion. A majority of the major commercial and resort facilities are found along Hwy 111, with the remainder of the city designed for residential and light commercial/retail. In May 1999, the City of La Quinta approved the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan of Land Use and associated parcel map to allow for the development of 100,460 square feet of a supermarket- anchored shopping center with adjacent retail pads on 12.5 acres at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue. The parcel is designated and zoned for Community Commercial (CC) use. The Specific Plan adoption included adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. In 2002, an amendment to the Specific Plan was also adopted. To date, that project has not been constructed. On February 19. 2013, the City of La Quinta adopted the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its 2035 General Plan (SCH# 2010111094) which included the impacts of adding to commercial uses within the City, including the approved Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was also adopted for environmental impacts that could not be mitigated to a level below significance for: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Traffic (Resolution 2013-009). Currently, the Lundin Development is requesting the City to authorize Amendment No. 2 to the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan to change the name of the approved Specific Plan to “Pavilion Palms” and construct a total of 125,800 square feet of a supermarket-anchored shopping center and adjacent retail pads on the 12.5-acre site at the corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue, within the same area of the previously- approved Fairway Plaza Specific Plan, and its subsequent amendment. Amendment No. 2 would add 25,340 square feet of retail and ancillary uses. Proposed uses within the commercial center development are similar to the previously approved plan, and include banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store (Figure 3). 243 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 2 SECTION 2 – REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The City of La Quinta has identified that the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Project meets the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 definition of a Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 defines a Project as the following: (a) "Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). This IS/MND is an informational document intended for use by the City of La Quinta, City Council and Responsible agencies, and members of the general public in evaluating the physical environmental effects of the proposed Project. It was compiled by the City of La Quinta with the assistance of Jericho Systems Inc. (Jericho). The City of La Quinta is serving as the Lead Agency for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA §21067 and CEQA Guidelines Article 4 and §15367. “Lead Agency” refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a Project. Organization of the Initial Study The Initial Study is organized as follows: Introduction: Provides the regulatory context for the review along a brief summary of the CEQA process. Project Information: Provides fundamental Project information, such as the Project description, Project location and figures. Lead Agency Determination: Identifies environmental factors potentially affected by the Project and identifies the Lead Agency's determination based on the initial evaluation. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Prepared when a determination can be made that no significant environmental effects will occur because revisions to the Project have been made or mitigation measures will be implemented which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Monitoring Program Table: Identifies objectives, criteria, and specific procedures to administer the SBVWCD’s responsibilities under CEQA. Evaluating Environmental Impacts: Provides the parameters the SBVWCD uses when determining level of impact. CEQA Checklist: Provides an environmental checklist and accompanying analysis for responding to checklist questions. References: Includes a list of references and various resources utilized in preparing the analysis. 244 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 3 SECTION 3 - DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction Lundin Development, a private entity, is requesting authorization from the City of La Quinta to amend the previously approved Fairway Specific Plan by changing the name to “Pavilion Palms,” and constructing a total of 125,800 square-foot mixed-use commercial center development project on the 12-acre vacant parcel at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. Amendment No. 2 would add 25,340 square feet of retail and ancillary uses to the 100,460 square feet previously approved. Proposed uses within the commercial center development include the same uses as previously approved, including banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store (Figure 3). The site zoning is Community Commercial, which allows for a 0.30 Maximum Floor Area Ratio ([FAR] gross floor area of all buildings divided by the building site area). The amended Project, with the 125,800 square feet represents approximately 0.22 FAR, below the maximum allowed under the City’s General Plan. The Assessor Parcel Numbers for this Project are: APNs: 602-180-003, 602-180-004, 602-180-005, 602- 180-013, and 602-180-014. Per the City of La Quinta General Plan, the Project site is zoned Community Commercial (CC) for commercial use. The site is bordered on the north by Derek Alan Drive and residential development that fronts Derek Alan Drive, on the west by residential development that fronts Jess Anne Drive, on the east by Jefferson Street and commercial development, and on the south by Avenue 50 and residential development. Detailed Project Description Site Plan The Project site consists of five parcels that total approximately 12 acres. The proposed Project will be anchored by Pavilions grocery store and includes restaurants, banks, and retail units, as well as a fuel center/convenience market. In total, the proposed development would provide approximately 125,800 square feet (sf) of gross floor area, which is detailed by building and proposed use in Table 1. Construction Scenario The site is currently vacant, so no demolition of existing structures are necessary. The project is anticipated to be constructed and opened to the public in approximately two years. For this analysis, the project opening day is assumed to be in the year 2020. Grading The site is relatively flat and contains sparse desert scrub. Soil balancing will be used during grading so that there will be no soil import or export. The desert scrub brush on site will be removed or buried depending on size and type. 245 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 4 Site Utilities All utilities are available for connection from the main lines located within the paved rights of way along Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. Site Ingress/Egress Development Access to the Project is proposed via five driveways (labeled A-E in Figure 3): two to the south on Avenue 50, two to the east on Jefferson Street, and one to the north on Derek Alan Drive. Table 1 Proposed Site Plan 246 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 5 Figure 1 Regional Overview 247 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 6 Figure 2 Site Location 248 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 7 Figure 3 Site Plan 249 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 8 Section 4 - Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Pavilion Palms Shopping Center 2. Lead Agency Name: City of La Quinta Address: 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person: Cheri Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 8-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone Number: (760) 777-7000 4. Project Location: Assessor Parcel Numbers 602-180-003, 602-180-004, 602-180-005, 602-180-013, and 602-180-014 0660-081-30 Intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 5. Project Sponsor’s Lundin Development Name and Address: 16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 207 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC) 7. Zoning: Community Commercial (CC) 8. Project Description Summary: Lundin Development, a private entity, is requesting authorization from the City of La Quinta to amend the previously approved Fairway Plaza Specific Plan by changing the name to “Pavilion Palms,” and constructing a total of 125,800 square-foot mixed-use commercial center development project on the 12- acre vacant parcel at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. Amendment No. 2 would add 25,340 square feet of retail and ancillary uses to the 100,460 square feet previously approved. Proposed uses within the commercial center development include the same uses as previously approved, including banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store (Figure 3). The site is designated and zoned for Community Commercial (CC) use. The proposed Project will be anchored by Pavilions grocery store and includes restaurants, banks, and retail units, as well as a fuel center/convenience market. The project is anticipated to be constructed and opened to the public in approximately two years. For this analysis, the project opening day is assumed to be in the year 2020. Prior approvals for this site include the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan and associated Amendment No. 1, which was approved by the City of La Quinta in 1999 and 2002, respectively. That plan identified the development of 100,460 square feet of a supermarket-anchored shopping center with adjacent retail pads on 12.5 acres at the corner of Jefferson Street 50th Avenue. The 1998 and 2002 250 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 9 Specific Plan adoption included adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. That project was not constructed. On February 19. 2013, the City of La Quinta adopted the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its 2035 General Plan (SCH# 2010111094) which included the impacts of adding to commercial uses within the City, including the approved Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was also adopted for environmental impacts that could not be mitigated to a level below significance for: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Traffic (Resolution 2013-009). The Proposed Project represents Amendment No. 2 to the existing, approved Specific Plan. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The site is located on a vacant parcel at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. Proposed uses within the commercial center development include banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store (Figure 2). The site is bordered on the north by Derek Alan Drive and residential development that fronts Derek Alan Drive, on the west by a large retention basin with residential development west of the retention basin, on the east by Jefferson Street and commercial development within the City of Indio, and on the south by Avenue 50 and residential development. 10. Lead Agency Discretionary Actions: Discretionary actions that may be taken by the Lead Agency include, but are not limited to, the following:  Grading Plan approval  Approval of an Amendment to SP98-034 Fairway Plaza Specific Plan (SP2017-0002)  Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 37370 (TPM2017-0003)  Approval of Site Development Permit (SDP2017-0009) 11. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Construction Compliance – Stormwater Discharge. Construction projects that disturb 1 acre of land or more are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities (General Construction Permit), which requires the applicant to file a notice of intent (NOI) to discharge stormwater and to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes an overview of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Federal, State and Local permits for the fuel station, as required. 12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) 251 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 10 Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. The City of La Quinta initiated AB52 process began October 3, 2017. Letters were sent to tribes on the list received from the Native American Heritage Commission. Responses were received from Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (Cabazon), Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) and Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Twenty-Nine Palms). The Cultural Study from CRM Tech was sent to ACBCI and Twenty-Nine Palms as requested. Both ACBCI and Twenty-Nine Palms asked for approved Native American Monitors from the ACBCI and Twenty-Nine Palms to be present during ground disturbing activities of the project construction. 252 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 11 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ̀ Aesthetics . Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation, the following finding is made: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature (prepared by Jericho Systems, Inc.) Date Signature (Lead Agency, City of La Quinta) Date 3/22/2018 3/22/2018 253 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. d) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 254 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply I. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Environmental Setting La Quinta includes a mixture of building types built over various time periods, and with a variety of architectural styles. Development includes structures built in the early twentieth century, and new master- planned communities built within the last decade. Architectural styles include those typical of Spanish Colonial, Mediterranean, Contemporary, Tuscan, and Modern styles. Spanish Colonial architecture is the most prevalent style used in La Quinta, and examples include the La Quinta Resort & Spa and Old Towne in the Village (Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc., July 2012). The Project site is currently vacant. The surrounding land use designations consist primarily of residential and commercial. The site is bordered on the north by Derek Alan Drive and residential development that fronts Derek Alan Drive, on the west by a retention basin with residential development west of the retention basin, on the east by Jefferson Street and commercial development, and on the south by Avenue 50 and residential development. Proposed uses within the commercial center development include banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store. Consistent with the approved Fairway Plaza Specific Plan, the Project, as revised, will still contain design elements consistent with the City’s design standards, including Contemporary architectural style using arched colonnades with tile roofs. Additional architectural elements such as textured finishes, roundels, accent tile and raised trellises will be used to provide further details and interest, thus further enhancing the individual buildings and the quality appearance of the shopping center in general. The landscaped setbacks along Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street will incorporate sidewalks with a variety of trees, shrubs and flowers, which accompanied by the parking lot landscaping, are designed to provide an inviting atmosphere to draw shoppers to the center. Impact Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 255 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 14 Less Than Significant Impact. The CEQA Guidelines do not provide a definition of what constitutes a “scenic vista” or “scenic resource” or a reference as to from what vantage point(s) the scenic vista and/or resource, if any, should be observed. However, a scenic vista can generally be defined as a viewpoint from a public vantage that provides expansive views of a highly-valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Common examples include undeveloped hillsides, ridgelines, and open space areas that provide a unifying visual backdrop to a developed area. Scenic resources can generally be defined as those landscape patterns and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing and that contribute affirmatively to the definition of a distinct community or region such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. The Project site currently consists of vacant, disturbed land. The Project site is not considered to be a scenic vista. As previously discussed, the surrounding land uses include residential and commercial use. The heights of the proposed buildings are consistent with the municipal code and other commercial areas in the vicinity, and are not considered to be obtrusive when compared to the surrounding area. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Project is not located within a state scenic highway, and therefore, no impact to trees or rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site currently consists of vacant, disturbed land. As previously discussed, the surrounding land uses include residential and commercial uses. The height and scale of the proposed buildings are consistent with other commercial areas in the vicinity, and is not considered to be obtrusive when compared to the surrounding area. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta does not permit construction activities outside of daylight hours, so the construction associated with the proposed Project would not cause the emission of light beyond existing circumstances in that area. Within the City limits, the majority of lands are developed, and daytime and nighttime skies are already impacted to a limited extent by light and glare. The site lighting includes 14 poles for the entire 540,989 square foot lot. The lighting plan identifies the use of LED lighting placed in a manner where the light will spread out uniformly across the lot while maintaining a lower power density. Based on the photometric plans, there is almost no leakage onto off site areas. The light intensity begins to fade long before reaching anywhere outside the lot. A lighting plan and study was completed on August 21, 2017 by Innovative Design Engineers (Appendix A). The dual head pole in the southwest corner will need to be shielded to prevent spillage into the residential area. 256 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 15 Additionally, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Parts 1 and 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards), establishes requirements for outdoor lighting for residential and nonresidential development. The standards regulate lighting characteristics such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. The City requires that commercial structures comply with Title 24. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006 No mitigation measures were identified to be associated with the previously-approved project. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): AES-1 Provide shielding for the dual head pole in the southwest corner as per the lighting design engineering recommendations. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measure. 257 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 16 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X Environmental Setting Agriculture has historically been a major economic sector in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley, including La Quinta. Although most of the farms have within the incorporated regions of La Quinta no longer exist, agriculture is still an economic factor east of the incorporated boundary, within the proposed Sphere of Influence and beyond. (Terra Nova, July 2012). The Riverside County Important Farmland 2016 Map, developed by the California Department of Conservation, highlights areas within the Coachella Valley that are important agricultural producing lands. Prime Farmland includes areas with both good physical and chemical attributes able to sustain 258 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 17 long-term agriculture production. Unique Farmland areas produce crops of statewide importance; however contain lower quality soils than those within Prime Farmland. The site was formerly utilized for citrus grove farming, but the groves were removed in the early 1990s. The site is identified by the State of California Department of Conservation as Farmlands of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance are lands generally without irrigation, and which produce dry crops that may be important locally, but are not important for statewide agriculture production. The Project site is currently vacant land that is zoned for commercial uses. Impact Analysis a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less Than Significant. The site was formerly utilized for citrus grove farming, but the groves were removed in the early 1990s. The site is identified by the State of California Department of Conservation as Farmlands of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance are lands generally without irrigation, and which produce dry crops that may be important locally, but are not important for statewide agriculture production. The Project site is only approximately 12 acres which is not suitable for sustainable commercial crops. The City of La Quinta has designated the Site as Community Commercial for development of commercial use. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact to this criterion because while the site is designated for local importance, it is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. There are no agricultural or Williamson Act contract lands within the Project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project site currently consists of vacant land, and is zoned Community Commercial (CC). The Project site does not contain forest land. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There is no forest land in the Project area. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? 259 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 18 No Impact. The Project Area consists of vacant, disturbed land and is zoned Community Commercial (CC). Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): No mitigation measures are required. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 260 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 19 III. Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Environmental Setting Lundin Development is proposing a 125,800 square-foot mixed-use commercial center project on approximately 12 acres. In May 1999, the City of La Quinta approved a 100,460 square-foot mixed-use commercial center Specific Plan for the 12-acre Project Site. The approval of the Specific Plan included adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The City also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable air quality impacts identified in the updated General Plan EIR on February 19, 2013. Therefore, the analysis herein is based on the net increase of approximately 25,340 square-feet of new uses not previously reviewed or approved in the 1999 Specific Plan and subsequent 2012 Updated General Plan. Impact Analysis – Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant. The Project Site is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the SSAB. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the state and federal air quality standards. The most recent AQMP (AQMP 2016) was adopted by the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council on April 7, 2016. 261 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 20 The Proposed Project is located within the Community Commercial (CC) land use designation of the Specific Plan/General Plan. The proposed mixed-use commercial uses are allowed within the CC land use area which have been reviewed and approved within the 2012 General Plan update. Approval of the proposed revision would not require a zone change nor a General Plan Amendment. Therefore, approval of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the AQMP. Less than significant impact is anticipated. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions (based on net the increase of approximately 25,340 square-feet of new uses) were screened using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.1 prepared by the SCAQMD (Appendix B). CalEEMod was used to estimate the on-site and off-site construction emissions. The emissions incorporate Rule 402 and 403 by default as required during construction. The criteria pollutants screened for include: reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). In addition, reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions are analyzed. Two of the analyzed pollutants, ROG and NOX, are ozone precursors. Both summer and winter season emission levels were estimated. Construction Emissions Construction emissions are considered short-term, temporary emissions and were modeled with the following construction parameters: site grading (mass and fine grading), building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The resulting emissions generated by construction of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, summer and winter construction emissions, respectively. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with the implementation of a 10-day painting schedule. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is recommended during the construction Phase: Table 2 Summer Construction Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source/Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 0.9 10.5 4.5 0.0 0.7 0.5 Grading 1.3 10.5 8.3 0.0 1.1 1.0 Building Construction 1.3 13.2 8.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 Paving 1.0 8.8 7.9 0.0 0.7 0.5 Architectural Coating 59.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 Highest Value (lbs/day) 59.0 13.2 8.5 0.0 1.1 1.0 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Summer Emissions. Phases do not overlap and represent the highest concentration. 262 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 21 Table 3 Winter Construction Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source/Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 0.9 10.5 4.5 0.0 0.7 0.5 Grading 1.3 10.5 8.3 0.0 1.1 1.0 Building Construction 1.3 13.2 8.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 Paving 1.0 8.8 7.9 0.0 0.7 0.5 Architectural Coating 59.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 Highest Value (lbs/day) 59.0 13.2 8.5 0.0 1.1 1.0 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Winter Emissions. Phases do not overlap and represent the highest concentration. Compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402, and 403 Although the Proposed Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction emissions, the Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations as the SSAB is in non-attainment status for ozone and suspended particulates (PM10). Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, and 403 The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Rules 402 nuisance, and 403 fugitive dust, which require the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) for each fugitive dust source, and the AQMP, which identifies Best Available Control Technologies (BACTs) for area sources and point sources. The BACMs and BACTs would include, but not be limited to the following: 1.The Project Proponent shall ensure that any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre-watered prior to the onset of grading activities. a.The Project Proponent shall ensure that watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly (2 times daily) to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface and shall be watered at the end of each workday. b.The Project Proponent shall ensure that all disturbed areas are treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. c.The Project Proponent shall ensure that landscaped areas are installed as soon as o reduce the potential for wind erosion. d.The Project Proponent shall ensure that all grading activities are suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. During construction, exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated by equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, would increase NOX and PM10 levels in the area. Although the Proposed Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction, the Applicant/Contractor would be required to implement the following conditions as required by SCAQMD: 263 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 22 1.To reduce emissions, all equipment used in grading and construction must be tuned and maintained to the manufacturer’s specification to maximize efficient burning of vehicle fuel. 2.The Project Proponent shall ensure that existing power sources are utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on-site power generation during construction. 3.The Project Proponent shall ensure that construction personnel are informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4.All buildings on the Project Site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 5.The operator shall maintain and effectively utilize and schedule on-site equipment in order to minimize exhaust emissions from truck idling. 6.The operator shall comply with all existing and future California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD regulations related to diesel-fueled trucks, which may include among others: (1) meeting more stringent emission standards; (2) retrofitting existing engines with particulate traps; (3) use of low sulfur fuel; and (4) use of alternative fuels or equipment. Operational Emissions The operational mobile source emissions were calculated using the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Albert Grover & Associates on July 27, 2017. The TIA determined that the shopping center would generate approximately 13,328 daily trips (See Table 4 of Appendix F). Trips were broken down by land use and land use size. The TIA also included a 20-percent reduction in traffic to account for pass- by-credit. As the Proposed Project is evaluated as the Specific Plan delta of 25,340 square-feet of new uses (approximately 20 percent greater than was approved in the Specific Plan), 4,513 daily trips (approximately 34 percent of the development based on more intense uses) were modeled to represent a worst-case scenario. Emissions associated with the Proposed Project’s estimated vehicle trips were modeled and are listed in Table 3 and Table 4, summer and winter operational emissions, respectively. As shown, both summer and winter season operational emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Table 4 Summer Operational Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 8.2 45.8 41.7 0.1 5.5 1.6 Totals (lbs/day) 8.9 46.5 42.2 0.1 5.5 1.6 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significance No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Summer Emissions. 264 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 23 Table 5 Winter Operational Emissions Summary (Pounds per Day) Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 6.7 44.7 42.2 0.0 5.5 1.6 Totals (lbs/day) 7.4 45.4 42.2 0.0 5.5 1.6 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significance No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Winter Emissions. The Proposed Project does not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds during the short-term construction phase with the implementation of at a minimum 10-day painting schedule or operational activities and the associated impacts are considered to be less than significant with the mitigation measure incorporated. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant. The project was previously reviewed and approved as the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center, Project 2002-06, designed to provide approximately 100,460 square feet of retail space with accommodating parking and landscaping areas The Proposed Project, revised as the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center, includes the original 100,460 square feet of retail space with accommodating parking and landscape area plus an additional 25,340 square-feet of complementary uses. The additional uses would not cumulatively generate a considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant nor violate any air quality standard during construction and operation of the Proposed Project (refer to Table 2 through Error! Reference source not found.). The site zoning is Community Commercial, which allows for a 0.30 Maximum Floor Area Ratio ([FAR] gross floor area of all buildings divided by the building site area). The proposed Project represents approximately 0.22 FAR. Therefore, because the Project proposes to use less than the maximum allowed under the zoning, a less than significant impact is anticipated. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant. SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the localized impacts of emissions from a Proposed Project as outlined within the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology report; completed in June 2003 and revised in July 2008. The use of Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local public agencies acting as a lead agency pursuant to CEQA. Although the proposed use would not exceed SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 2 through Table 4) LSTs, including the restaurant drive-through facilities, were evaluated to further demonstrate at a local level that impacts would be less than significant. LSTs would typically only apply to projects that must undergo CEQA or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and are five acres or less. Although the Proposed Project calls for 5.78 acres of net development, LST methodology will be incorporated to represent worst-case scenario emissions thresholds. CalEEMod version 2016.3.1 was used to estimate the on-site and off-site construction emissions. The LSTs were developed to analyze the significance of potential air quality impacts of proposed projects to sensitive receptors (i.e. schools, single family residences, etc.) and provides screening tables for small projects (one, two, or five acres). Projects are evaluated based on geographic location and distance from the sensitive receptor (25, 50, 100, 200, or 500 meters form the site). 265 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 24 For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as residence, hospital, convalescent facility or anywhere that it is possible for an individual to remain for 24 hours. Additionally, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees do not typically remain on-site for a full 24 hours, but are usually present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours. The Proposed Project includes approximately 12 acres of development. The “5 acres scenario” was used to represent a worst-case scenario as the larger the site the greater the emission allowance. The Project Site is located at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 and is bordered to the north by Derek Alan Drive and residential development, to the west by Jess Anne Drive and residential development, to the east by Jefferson Street and commercial development, and to the south by Avenue 50 and residential development. The nearest sensitive receptor land uses are the residential developments located adjacent to the north, west, and south boundary of the Project Site and therefore LSTs are based on a 25-meter distance. A comparison of the construction and operational emissions with the appropriate LST, per distance from the Project Site boundary (geographical area of Source Receptor Area (SRA) No. 30 – Coachella Valley; 5-acre site) according to the SCAQMD Mass Rate Look-up Tables, are listed in Table 6. Table 6 Localized Significance Thresholds (Pounds per Day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions (Max. from Table 2 and/or Table 3) 13.2 8.5 1.1 1.0 Operational Emissions (Max. Total from Table 4 and/or Table 5)1 4.6 4.2 0.6 0.6 Highest Value (lbs/day) 13.2 8.5 1.1 0.6 1.0 0.6 LST Thresholds 132 2,292 14* 4† 8* 2† Greater Than Threshold No No No No No No Note: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are separated into construction and operational thresholds in accordance with the SCAQMD Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. * Construction emissions LST threshold † Operational emissions LST threshold 1 Per LST Methodology, mobile source emissions do not need to be included except for land use emissions and on-site vehicle emissions. It is estimated that approximately 10% of mobile emissions will occur on the Project Site. Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Summer & Winter Emissions; SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology; SCAQMD Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 5-acre site in SRA No. 30, distance of 25 meters. As shown in Table 6, the Proposed Project’s emissions are not anticipated to exceed the LSTs. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant. The Proposed Project does not contain land uses typically associated with the emission of objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the Proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities; and the temporary storage of domestic solid waste (refuse) associated with the Projects’ long- term operational uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts resulting from construction activity. Any construction odor emissions generated would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of 266 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 25 construction activity. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City of La Quinta’s solid waste regulations. The Project would be also required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the Proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition, and shall be properly serviced and repaired as needed. ꞏ Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the project proponent shall demonstrate, or cause to be demonstrated to the Community Development Department that all construction equipment to be utilized shall be low emission, or how the use of low emission construction equipment is infeasible. Low VOC paints, primers and coatings shall be required for all buildings on the project site. All paints shall be applied using either a high volume/low pressure spray or by hand. The proposed project shall provide a bus turnout, shelter and associated improvements on Jefferson Street and on Avenue 50, unless Sunline Transit provides written confirmation-that no such turnout(s) or shelters are needed. As required by the Municipal Code, the businesses operating within the proposed project shall conform to the Transportation Demand Management requirements in place at the time they begin operation. Deliveries to the project site shall occur during off-peak periods. Mitigation Measures: AIR-1: Contractor is to implement at a minimum a 10-day painting schedule. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measure. 267 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 26 IV.Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Environmental Setting The subject parcel is mapped on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – La Quinta, 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map near the southern boundary of Section 32, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The elevation of the center of the project site is 34 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The existing topography of this site is relatively flat. The soils within the subject parcel consist of Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes and Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes. This soil type consists of wind-blown sandy alluvium and is somewhat excessively drained. The local climatic conditions in the project area are characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, and low humidity. The average annual temperature ranges from an average low of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) in December to an average high of 107° F in July-August. The rainy season begins in November and continues through March, with the quantity and frequency of rain varying from year to year. The average annual rainfall is approximately 3.15 inches. 268 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 27 Biological Surveys Jericho Systems, Inc. (Jericho) prepared a General Biological Resources Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Review in May 2017 (Jericho, May 23, 2017). The City of La Quinta falls entirely within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) area. The subject parcel is not located within or adjacent a Conservation Area. The CVMSHCP requires a habitat assessment for the burrowing owl (BUOW). If habitat for the BUOW is present, a focused survey is required. Several sensitive species have been documented within the vicinity of the subject parcel, including the State- and/or federally-listed as threatened or endangered flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) and Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), as well as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), which is considered a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). On May 7, 2017, Jericho Biologist Eugene Jennings conducted a systematic and comprehensive pedestrian survey on site to assess the habitat suitability for burrowing owl to satisfy the requirements set forth in the CVMSHCP and to determine if focused presence/absence surveys for any of the species would be required. The habitat assessment included a 100 percent coverage pedestrian field survey, and adherence to the MSHCP Burrowing Owl California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) survey protocols. Surveys were conducted during optimal burrowing owl activity times, consistent with conservation ethics, systematic and covered all habitat types on the site, and during a good rainfall year. Survey Results The biological survey report (Jericho, May 23, 2017) indicated that the entire subject parcel is within an urban developed area and consists of disturbed, undeveloped land that has previously been rough graded. The project site is completely disturbed, consisting entirely of previously graded soils with sparse weedy vegetation and re-sprouted creosote bush scrub (Larrea tridentata Shrubland Alliance) associated species. Plant species observed on site include creosote, as well as ruderal and non-native species including, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima). No suitable BUOW habitat was identified on site during the burrowing owl habitat assessment survey. Therefore, no additional protocol-level focused surveys will be required. No other listed or sensitive species or sensitive habitat were observed on the site. The subject parcel does not contain suitable habitat for any of the sensitive species that have been documented in the project vicinity. There were no stream channels, washes, or swales as defined by Section 1600 of the State of California Fish and Game Code (FGC) under jurisdiction of the CDFW, or “Waters of the United States” (WoUS) as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) within the subject parcel. 269 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 28 Impact Analysis a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant. Several sensitive species have been documented within the vicinity of the subject parcel, including the State- and/or federally-listed as threatened or endangered flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) and Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), as well as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), which is considered a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The biological survey results identified that the entire subject parcel is within an urban developed area and consists of disturbed, undeveloped land that has previously been rough graded. No suitable BUOW habitat was identified on site during the burrowing owl habitat assessment survey; therefore, no additional protocol-level focused surveys are required. No other listed or sensitive species or sensitive habitat were observed on the site. The subject parcel does not contain suitable habitat for any of the sensitive species that have been documented in the project vicinity. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Riparian communities occur along stream courses and drainages, and are floristically and structurally distinct from the adjacent upland communities. The biological survey results identified that the entire subject parcel is within an urban developed area and consists of disturbed, undeveloped land that has previously been rough graded. There were no stream channels, washes, or swales as defined by Section 1600 of the FGC under jurisdiction of the CDFW, or WoUS as defined by Section 404 of the CWA under the jurisdiction of the Corps within the subject parcel. The Project site is completely disturbed and barren with no hydrological process on site. There are no natural streams or drainages that traverse the Project site. The lack of hydrology on site makes it non-suitable for riparian habitat. No adverse impacts to riparian or sensitive natural habitat would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The biological survey results identified that the entire subject parcel is within an urban developed area and consists of disturbed, undeveloped land that has previously been rough graded. There were no stream channels, washes, or swales as defined by Section 1600 of the FGC under jurisdiction of the CDFW, or WoUS as defined by Section 404 of the CWA under the jurisdiction of the Corps within the subject parcel. The Project site is completely disturbed and barren with no hydrological process on site. There are no natural streams or drainages that traverse the Project site. The lack of hydrology on site makes it non-suitable for riparian habitat. Therefore, there is no impacts because no wetlands occur on site, nor are there fluvial processes where wetlands would be present. 270 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 29 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is surrounded by urban development. Additionally, the Project site itself is fully disturbed with no ability to provide movement of fish or wildlife species. Additionally, no known wildlife corridors are identified within the Project site or the immediate vicinity. No adverse impacts to wildlife movement would occur. However, the project site contains sparse weedy vegetation and re-sprouted creosote bush scrub (Larrea tridentata Shrubland Alliance) associated species, as well as ruderal and non-native species including, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), which represents potential foraging and nesting habitat for migratory bird species. The impacts for these bird species however, are not considered regionally or locally significant but the State of California prohibits the “take” of active bird nests. To avoid an illegal take of active bird nests, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required to reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measure BIO-1 is located at the end of this section. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. As biological resources, including threatened resources and habitat that could support such species, are not present on or near the Project site, no policies or ordinances protecting such resources would apply. This includes tree preservation policies. Therefore, there are no conflicts with local policies or ordinances. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant. The City of La Quinta falls entirely within the CVMSHCP area. The subject parcel is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Area. The CVMSHCP requires a habitat assessment for the BUOW which requires focused surveys if present. Several sensitive species have been documented within the vicinity of the subject parcel, including the State- and/or federally-listed as threatened or endangered flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) and Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), as well as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), which is considered a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). However, site surveys for the BUOW indicated that there is no suitable habitat for the BUOW or any sensitive species documented within the vicinity. Therefore, there are no conflicts with any adopted conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. 271 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 30 Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): BIO – 1: Any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should be conducted outside of the State identified nesting season for migratory birds, which is typically March 15 through September 1. If work cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a migratory nesting bird survey within and adjacent to the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiating the construction activities. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) will be prepared and implemented. At a minimum, the NBP will include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The NBP will include a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be determined by the biologist, and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and expected types of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and a monitoring report has been submitted, reviewed and approved by the City of La Quinta. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measure. 272 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 31 V.Cultural Resources: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleon- tological resource or site or unique geologic feature?X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?X e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? X Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement where a large number of Indian villages and rancherias were observed in the mid-nineteenth century. The Cahuilla people are generally divided, by anthropologists, into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla in the Banning-Beaumont area, the Mountain Cahuilla in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own. These were lands they considered theirs for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources in the forms of trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Cultural Surveys CRM Tech prepared two studies for the Project site. The first consisted of Phase I and Phase II cultural assessments conducted in 1998 and 1995 for approximate 50 acres of undeveloped land as part of Tentative Parcel Map No. 29052 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29053, which included a residential development and the current commercial Project site. The study was part of the environmental impact review process for the proposed subdivision and development of the property, as required by the City of La Quinta, Lead Agency for the project, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The second study was conducted in June 2017 and consisted of a historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background review, and an archaeological field inspection of the approximately 12-acre Project site (CRM Tech, June 5, 2017). The Phase I survey in 1998 identified and recorded a total of seven prehistoric - i.e., Native American - archaeological sites, three of which were located within or partially within the current project area (CRM Tech, June 5, 2017). All three of these sites represented prehistoric habitation remains featuring surface 273 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 32 scatters of lithic and ceramic artifacts. The presence of these sites, along with the previous discovery of a dense cluster of similar sites in the surrounding area, which lies on the former shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, prompted the subsequent Phase II archaeological testing and evaluation program. The Phase II study entailed surface collection of all artifacts and excavation of 13 standard hand-dug, one-square-meter archaeological testing units to the depth of one meter at the three sites and within a modified mesquite sand dune near one of the sites. In addition to CRM TECH staff archaeologists, the field crew included three Native Americans affiliated with the nearby Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. A total of 106 artifacts were recovered through surface collection, but the test units indicated “an almost complete absence” of subsurface cultural material. Only three pottery sherds and two flakes of chipped quartz were produced from the 13 excavated units. In light of these findings, none of the three sites was found to meet CEQA criteria for significance (CRM Tech, June 5, 2017). The Phase II study concluded that the proposed development of the subject property would not cause a substantial adverse change to any historical resources or important archaeological resources, but recommended archaeological monitoring of earth-moving activities in the area of the modified dune. The artifact collection and catalogue have since been curated at the La Quinta Historical Society. Records Search A standard one-mile-radius records search was conducted on May 17, 2017, by CRM TECH. The records indicated that no further archaeological studies have occurred in the project area since 1998, and no additional sites have been identified on the property. In 2006, the project area was included in a citywide survey focusing on built-environment resources of historical origin, but none was found in or near the project area. Outside the project area but within the one-mile scope, historical records identified that more than 70 previous cultural resources studies have been completed on various tracts of land and linear features, 49 of them since 1998. Collectively, these studies covered roughly 85 percent of the land within the scope of the records, and resulted in the identification of 93 historical/archaeological sites and 21 isolates - i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts - within the one-mile radius. Nearly all of these sites and isolates were of prehistoric origin, and most were found along or near the ancient shoreline of Lake Cahuilla. None of these sites or isolates was found in the immediate vicinity of the Project area, but their presence certainly supports the high archaeological sensitivity assessment for the project vicinity. Field Inspection On May 15, 2017, CRM TECH archeologist Daniel Ballester, M.S., carried out the field inspection by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) apart. Survey Results In 1998, the project area was noted as former agricultural land that had been cleared of its groves, with a rectangular-shaped mound, representing the modified dune, near Avenue 50. The 2017 report noted that the since the 1998 report, the project area has undergone additional disturbance from the installation of underground sewage pipes, as evidenced by several man holes across the property. The mound has been removed, and a 110 foot x 110 foot earthen pad has been created near the center of the property since July 2016 (Google Earth 2016). Furthermore, the ground surface bears evidence of recent mechanical clearing. 274 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 33 No archaeological features or artifacts, either prehistoric or historical, were encountered during the field inspection. The 2017 survey concluded that the original conclusion of the 1998 Phase II study - that the proposed development would have No Impact on any known “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA - remains valid and appropriate for the current Project. Nevertheless, in light of past discoveries in the vicinity, the overall archaeological sensitivity of the project location remains high, and the potential of encountering subsurface prehistoric cultural remains within the project boundaries cannot be overlooked (CRM Tech, June 5, 2017). Paleontological Resources The San Bernardino County Museum performed a Paleontology Literature/Records Review on May 2, 2017 for the subject parcel (Appendix D). The report identified that although there were no recorded paleontological resource localities are present within the project area, or within 1 mile of the project, paleontological resources have been identified on sites within approximately 1.5 miles of the proposed Project site. Additionally, the Riverside County’s Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Map (RCPTSM) identifies that the Project site is located on sedimentary rocks that have a high paleontological sensitivity. The City’s General Plan EIR also identifies the Project area as one with High Paleontological Sensitivity (Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc., July 2012). Impact Analysis – Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? No Impact: Historic resources generally consist of buildings, structures, improvements, and remnants associated with a significant historic even or person(s) and/or have a historically significant style, design, or achievement. Damaging or demolition of historic resources is typically considered to be a significant impact. Impacts to historic resources can occur through direct impacts, such as destruction or removal, and indirect impacts, such as a change in the setting of a historic resource. Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5. According to the records search conducted for this site, no resources that are considered historically significant exist on site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to historic resources would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Archaeological sites are locations that contain resources associated with former human activities, and may contain such resources as human skeletal remains, waste from tool manufacture, tool concentrations, and/or discoloration or accumulation of soil or food remains. The Phase I and Phase II study results indicated that there would be no impact. However, the survey identified that because there have been past discoveries in the vicinity, the overall archaeological sensitivity of the project location remains high, and the potential of encountering subsurface prehistoric cultural remains within the project boundaries is a potential. 275 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 34 Therefore, adverse impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will be implemented to address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources. Mitigation Measures are listed at the end of this section. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Implementation of the proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource as defined in 15064.5 since it is located in an area of High Paleontological Sensitivity. It is not anticipated that proposed excavations to support the proposed Project will encounter native material that could impact paleontological resources. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will be implemented to address unanticipated discoveries of paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures are listed at the end of this section. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Implementation of the proposed Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Should human remains be found during construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measures are listed at the end of this section. e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although the Project site is located in an area that has been home to Native American tribes for centuries, the Project site is not anticipated to contain tribal cultural resources. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-3 will be implemented to address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources. Mitigation measures are listed at the end of this section. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): CUL-1: Grading activities shall be overseen by a qualified archeological monitor. In the event unanticipated archaeological resources are discovered: The Archaeological monitor shall notify the project foreman The Archaeological monitor has the authority to temporarily halt work in the area of archaeological discoveries until the resource has been evaluated All work in the vicinity of the find shall halt Work in the area of the discovery shall not resume until written notification is received from the Project archaeologist 276 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 35 CUL-2: Grading activities shall be overseen by a qualified paleontological monitor. Paleontological monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors will be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring will be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units as described by the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Earth Sciences May 2, 2017 report are not present, or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The local authorities must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measures. 277 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 36 VI.Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X Environmental Setting A geotechnical report was prepared for the site in 1998, and updated in 2017 (Landmark Geo-Engineers and Geologists, August 25, 2017). The project site is at the northern portion of the Salton Trough physiographic province. The Salton Trough is a geologic structural depression resulting from large scale regional faulting. The trough is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas Fault and the southwest by faults of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. The Salton Trough represents the northward extension of the Gulf of California with continual in- filling with both marine and non-marine sediments since the Miocene Epoch (Southland Geotechnical, November 5, 1998). 278 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 37 Earthquake Faults A review of the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone maps indicate that the nearest mapped Earthquake Fault Zone is the San Andreas-Coachella fault, located approximately 6.1 mile northeast of the project site (Landmark Geo-Engineers and Geologists, August 25, 2017). Soils and Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when a saturated or partially saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, usually earthquake shaking or other sudden change in stress condition, causing it to behave like a liquid. Groundwater was encountered at 40 feet deep during exploration efforts in 1998. Groundwater was not encountered in 2017 sampling efforts which consisted of trench excavation to a depth of between 5 and 12 feet. Groundwater is believed to exist at a depth of 70 ft based on water level in nearby water wells in 1978 as reported in USGS Water Resources Report 91-4142 (Southland Geotechnical, November 5, 1998 and Landmark Geo-Engineers and Geologists, August 25, 2017). The field exploration conducted from October 29 to November 5, 1998 indicates that the surficial and subsurface soils consist generally medium dense Silty Sand, Sandy Silt, and fine Sand (SM, ML, and SP- SM). Layers of Sandy Silt to Silt (ML) exist at depths greater than 4 feet. The upper surficial soils has varying concentrations of wood branches and roots from the old citrus grove. (Southland Geotechnical, November 5, 1998). Landslides The site and the surroundings are flat, and there are no mountainous or hillside areas adjacent to the site. Wind Erosion Much of the Valley are in La Quinta is susceptible to wind and wind-blown sand hazards. This means that soils may be loosened and transported during grading and construction activities. According to the City of La Quinta’s General Plan, the project site’s Wind Erodibility Rating is “High.” Impact Analysis – Geology and Soils a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? Less Than Significant. The Project site lies within a seismically active region of Southern California. According to Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone maps, the Project site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone nor is the Project site or its immediate vicinity situated above any active faults. To minimize potential damage to the proposed access road and rock placement caused by groundshaking, 279 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 38 all construction would comply with the latest Uniform Building Code and any applicable criteria set forth by the City, and would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of known earthquake faults. Impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault are considered less than significant. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine to medium-grained soils in areas where the ground water table is 50 feet or less below the ground surface. When these sediments are shaken, such as during an earthquake, a sudden increase in pore water pressure causes the soils to lose strength and behave as a liquid. The resulting features are called sand boils, sand blows or "sand volcanoes." Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations and lateral spreading. According to the analysis conducted for the 1998 and 2002 Fairway Specific Plan approvals, the proposed project occur in a Zone Ill groundshaking zone, approximately one quarter mile east of an inferred and inactive fault. The project site can expect to experience significant groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake in the Coachella Valley. In order to mitigate the potential impacts of groundshaking on buildings throughout the City, the Building Department has implemented the Uniform Building Code, as amended, which requires reinforced construction in groundshaking zones. The Project site does not occur in an area prone to liquefaction, and its distance from an active fault makes ground rupture unlikely (Landmark, August 25, 2017). The Project will be required to meet the City’s Building standards, thereby reducing the potential impact from groundshaking hazards to a less than significant level (Warner Engineering, February 19, 2002). b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Minor soil erosion may occur during the grading and construction period of the new buildings. The project site occurs within the City's blowsand hazard area where soils at the Project site have a high potential for wind erosion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 will reduce the impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures are listed at the end of this section. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant. Unstable soils that can result in a landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse generally occurs in when shallow groundwater liquefies soil especially during a seismic event. The Project site is generally flat and fully graded. The geotechnical reports prepared for the Project identify that liquefaction is unlikely due to groundwater being greater than 50 feet (Landmark, August 25, 2017). Therefore, the risk of soil instability is low. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant. Expansive soil is typically clay or a soil type that is prone to large volume changes (swelling and shrinking) that are directly related to changes in water content. The geotechnical report indicates that the surficial and subsurface soils consist generally medium dense Silty Sand, Sandy Silt, and fine Sand (SM, ML, and SP-SM). Layers of Sandy Silt to Silt (ML) exist at depths greater than 4 feet. The upper surficial soils had varying concentrations of wood branches and roots from the old citrus grove. 280 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 39 In arid climatic regions, granular soils have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse potential tests performed in 1998 indicate a potential of 3.1 and 1.6 percent collapse upon inundation and are considered a moderate site risk. The Project will be constructed using the latest engineering and construction practices which include developing the building foundations in a manner that includes overexcavation and recompaction of the zone beneath the building pads to mitigate for the potential of hydroconsolidation caused by soil saturation from landscape irrigation or broken utility lines by overexcavation and recompaction of the zone beneath building pads. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Project does not include the use of septic systems. Thus, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): GEO-1 Prior to grading plan approval, submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, a PMl0 management plan. GEO-2 For portions of the site not immediately under construction, ensure the stabilization of soils through the use of soil cement or re-vegetation, frequent watering. including watering during the evening and weekends during significant wind events; street sweeping or washing during construction, and the chemical stabilization of unpaved construction roadways. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measures. 281 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 40 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply VII.Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Background Lundin Development is proposing a 125,800 square-foot mixed-use commercial center project on approximately 12 acres. In May 1999, the City of La Quinta approved a 100,460 square-foot mixed-use commercial center Specific Plan for the 12-acre Project Site. The approval of the Specific Plan included adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The City also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable air quality impacts identified in the updated General Plan EIR on February 19, 2013. Therefore, the analysis herein is based on the net increase of approximately 25,340 square-feet of new uses not previously reviewed or approved in the 1999 Specific Plan and subsequent 2012 Updated General Plan. CEQA and Greenhouse Gases According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, when making a determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions, the “lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to (1) use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c) provides that “a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts” on the condition that “the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” The Proposed Project is located within the City of La Quinta. The City of La Quinta adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Plan) on February 13th, 2013. The Plan provides reduction strategies and reduction measures that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at their source and at the end use by improving operating efficiency, increasing reliance on renewable source for energy production, developing new technologies, and through conservation. These reduction measures are listed in Table 28 of the Plan and can be implemented as needed during the design phase. However, the City does not have their own thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. The City finds persuasive and reasonable the approach to determining significance of greenhouse gas emissions established by SCAQMD. Impact Analysis a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 282 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 41 Less Than Significant. The Proposed Project is located within the Community Commercial (CC) land use designation of the Specific Plan/General Plan. The proposed mixed-use commercial uses are allowed within the CC land use area which have been reviewed and approved within the 2012 General Plan update. The project was previously reviewed and approved as the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center, Project 2002-06. Subsequently, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable air quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts identified in the updated General Plan EIR on February 19, 2013 was adopted. Approval of the proposed revision would not require a zone change nor a General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the delta was reviewed. Emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2016.3.1 (Appendix B). The analysis prepared for the Proposed Project assumed the construction of an additional 25,340 square-feet of mixed-use commercial uses on the 12-acre Project Site. Construction was anticipated to begin approximately early- 2018 and be completed in late-2018. Other parameters which were used to estimate construction emissions such as the worker and vendor trips and trip lengths were based on the CalEEMod defaults. The TIA determined that the Proposed Project would generate approximately 13,328 daily trips. Trips were broken down by land use type and land use size. The TIA also included a 20-percent reduction in traffic to account for pass-by-credit. As the Proposed Project is evaluated as the Specific Plan delta of 25,340 square-feet of new uses (approximately 20 percent greater than was approved in the Specific Plan), 4,513 daily trips (approximately 34 percent of the development based on more intense uses) were modeled to represent a worst-case scenario. Additionally, the site zoning is Community Commercial, which allows for a 0.30 Maximum Floor Area Ratio ([FAR] gross floor area of all buildings divided by the building site area). The proposed Project represents approximately 0.22 FAR. Therefore, because the Project proposes to use less than the maximum allowed under the zoning, a less than significant impact is anticipated. Many gases make up the group of pollutants that are believed to contribute to global climate change. However, three gases are currently evaluated and represent the highest concentration of GHG: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous oxide (N2O). SCAQMD provides guidance methods and/or Emission Factors that are used for evaluating a project’s emissions in relation to the thresholds. A threshold of 3,000 MTCO2E per year has been adopted by SCAQMD for non-industrial type projects as potentially significant or global warming (Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, SCAQMD, October 2008). The modeled emissions anticipated from the Proposed Project compared to the SCAQMD thresholds are shown below in Table 7 and Table 8. Table 7 Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N20 Site Preparation 0.5 0.0 0.0 Grading 1.1 0.0 0.0 Building Construction 45 0.0 0.0 Paving 2.5 0.0 0.0 Architectural Coating 1.3 0.0 0.0 Total MTCO2e 47.3 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Significant NO Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Annual Emissions. 283 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 42 Table 8 Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N20 Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 373.9 0.0 0.0 Mobile 2,045.3 0.3 0.0 Waste 23.7 1.4 0.0 Water 20.1 0.1 0.0 MTCO2e 2,510.5 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Significant NO Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Annual Emissions. As shown in Table 7 and Table 8, the Proposed Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance and therefore would have less than significant impact for greenhouse gas emissions; no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant. There are no existing GHG plans, policies, or regulations that have been adopted by CARB or SCAQMD that would apply to this type of emissions source. However, the operator shall comply with CARB and SCAQMD regulations related to diesel-fueled trucks, which may include among others: (1) meeting more stringent emission standards; (2) retrofitting existing engines with particulate traps; (3) use of low sulfur fuel; and (4) use of alternative fuels or equipment. It is possible that CARB may develop performance standards for Project-related activities prior to construction of the Proposed Project. In this event, these performance standards would be implemented and adhered to, and there would be no conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation. The City of La Quinta adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Plan) on February 13th, 2013. The Plan provides reduction strategies and reduction measures that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at their source and at the end use by improving operating efficiency, increasing reliance on renewable sources for energy production, developing new technologies, and through conservation. During the development review process the City would implement as feasible necessary development upgrades to further reduce GHG footprint. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. The Proposed Project is consistent with CARB scoping measures and therefore does not conflict with local or regional greenhouse gas plans. Additionally, the City of La Quinta requires all new development to comply with the California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards which are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): 284 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 43 No mitigation measures are required. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 285 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 44 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply VIII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Environmental Setting The Project site has historically been vacant. The general area surrounding the Project site consists of residential and commercial uses. Impact Analysis a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 286 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 45 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Hazardous substances and wastes would be used during construction of the new building. These would include fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, and storage containers and applicators containing such materials. The potential exists for localized spills of petroleum-based products or other chemicals during construction. These spills could expose construction workers and the public to hazardous materials either directly, at the site of the spill, or indirectly, by introducing these substances into stormwater runoff. All development requiring ground disturbance would be subject to regional and local regulations, including the need for an SWPPP under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAR000002). In addition, the City requires a grading permit for all developments that would require grading. Compliance with SWRCB‘s General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit regulations requiring a SWPPP, and the grading permit required by the City would ensure hazardous materials generated during construction would not create a significant impact. Additionally, construction is anticipated be temporary, therefore any potential impacts would have a limited and temporary timeframe to occur. Potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Mitigation Measures are listed at the end of this section. The site plan also proposes a convenience fuel station which will receive routine fuel deliveries as needed. The station would be regulated and permitted by all federal and state regulations. Therefore, the regulatory permits, coupled with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, will reduce the impacts to less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Additionally, as discussed in Response VII(a), a variety of hazardous substances would be used and stored during construction of the proposed Project. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, or explosions involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not properly addressed. As proposed in Mitigation Measure HAZ- 1, a hazardous substance spill prevention plan shall be prepared and implemented, and hazardous materials spill kits shall be maintained on site for small spills. The implementation of BMPs, such as having spill kits available on equipment, would minimize the potential effect of such occurrences. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Mitigation Measures are listed at the end of this section. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There is no existing or proposed school within one-quarter mile of the Project site. There- fore, there is no impact. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and as a result would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment and there would be no impact. 287 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 46 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. There are several airports in the vicinity, but none are located within two miles of the Project site. These airports include: the Bermuda Dunes Airport, located south of Interstate and West of Jefferson Street in Bermuda Dunes, and the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, a public airport located east of Harrison Street and between Airport Boulevard on the north and Avenue 60 on the south. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is approximately 4 miles north of the Project site, and the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is located approximately 7 miles southeasterly of the Project site. Therefore, there is no impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. There are no private airstrips in vicinity the Project area. Therefore, there is no impact. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant, and does not include facilities for emergency response. Additionally, no part of the Project design would impede or redirect emergency response within the area. The site provides for ingress and egress that can be used for emergency response to the various businesses proposed. Therefore, there is no impact. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The Project site is located in an area that consists of vacant land and retail uses in a desert setting, and not located adjacent to an area susceptible to wildland fires. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): HAZ – 1 A hazardous spill prevention plan shall be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City for approval to minimize the likelihood of a spill shall be prepared prior to construction. The plan shall state the actions that would be required if a spill occurs to prevent contamination of surface waters and provide for cleanup of the spill. The plan shall follow Federal, state, and local safety guidelines and standards to avoid increased exposure to these pollutants. HAZ – 2 If a contaminated area is encountered during construction, construction shall cease in the vicinity of the contaminated area. The construction contractor shall notify all appropriate authorities, including the EPA and the City. If necessary, the contaminated site shall be remediated to minimize the potential for exposure of the public and to allow the Project to be safety constructed. 288 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 47 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply IX.Hydrology and Water Quality: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Environmental Setting Although the climate in the Coachella Valley and the Planning Area are generally temperate, seasonal storms can produce significant amounts of precipitation within short periods of time. Winter storms are 289 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 48 responsible for much of the area’s annual rainfall, and usually occur between November and April. However, the region and surrounding mountains may also experience localized thunderstorms at other times, especially during the summer monsoon season. Rapid snowmelt from the mountains may also result in flooding downslope (Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc., July 2012). Areas within the City of La Quinta are subject to flash flooding along natural or man-made channels and sheet flooding across the valley floor. Although of short duration, flash floods result in high peak water volumes and velocities, which are frequently intensified by features of the local natural and built environment (Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc., July 2012). There are no dams in the Project vicinity, and the Whitewater Rivers is located nearly 10 miles to the east of the Project site. The Project site not considered at risk from inundation from dam failure or flooding hazard from levee damage or failure along the Whitewater River or from above-ground water storage tanks at higher elevations within and adjacent to La Quinta (Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc., July 2012). Impact Analysis a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant. All development requiring ground disturbance would be subject to regional and local regulations, including the need for an SWPPP under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, NPDES No. CAR000002). In addition, the City requires a grading permit for all developments that would require grading. Compliance with SWRCB‘s General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit regulations requiring a SWPPP, and the grading permit required by the City would ensure water quality standards are not exceeded. Additionally, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 will require the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and subject to approval by RWQCB. The Project will create an impermeable surface over much of the entire site when complete. This can increase the potential for pollutants to occur in surface water primarily be from cars parked in the parking lot leaking fluids. However, the project includes an underground system to collect all of the stormwater runoff from the project site. The WQMP prepared for the site as part of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 will also address the requirements and operations of the underground system. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on water quality. b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant. During construction, the project will employ various measures for dust control including the use of water that is readily available from the Coachella Valley Water District. The water used during construction will be temporary, and water will not be the sole method used for dust control. Water-conscious measures will be used as part of the final design, including installation of water-efficient features such as water-efficient toilets and drought-tolerant landscaping. c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? 290 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 49 Less Than Significant. The Project site has been previously graded and is on level ground completely surrounded by urban development, vacant land, and paved streets. Further, there are no streams or rivers on the Project site or its adjacent vicinity. The construction phase of the Project would involve standard best management practices (BMP’s) associated with commercial development, such as drainage to city sewers in the parking lots, curbs, and landscaping to allow water percolation during rain events. Impacts would be less than significant. d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? Less Than Significant. Refer to Response IX(c), above. The Project site is surrounded by residential and retail uses, and is not located directly adjacent to any stream or river. An underground stormwater collection system will be installed as part of the project to capture all of the stormwater runoff from the site. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant. The project includes the construction of an underground stormwater system to handle all of the stormwater from the site, and little to no water is anticipated to be collected by the City’s stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant. As previously discussed, the proposed Project proposes to construct a project that will utilize an underground stormwater collection system. Uses for some of the buildings include a gas station. The gas station would be constructed to the latest standards and required to comply with State and federal requirements for this use. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The Project does not propose to construct housing. As a result, construction and operation of the Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Map or Federal Flood Insurance Map. Therefore, no impacts would occur under this criterion as a result of the Project. h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant. The City’s General Plan identifies that the Project site is within FEMA Flood Hazard Zone D which is an area of undetermined risk. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would not place structures within a 100 year flood area and would not impede or result in the redirection of flood flows in the City. A less than significant impact would occur. i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant. The Whitewater River is located nearly 10 miles east of the site, and the Project site is not located in proximity to a levee or dam. Therefore, there is no impact from flooding that could occur as a result of a dam failure or levee breech. However, the Coachella Valley is subject to thunderstorms that can create flash flooding. The new buildings would be required to adhere to current 291 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 50 California Building Code regulations for commercial development. Additionally, the project includes an underground system to collect all of the stormwater runoff from the project site. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. There are no bodies of water in the vicinity of the Project site that are capable of producing seiche activity. There is also no potential for tsunamis in the Project area as the Pacific Ocean is more than 150 miles to the southwest of the Project area. As discussed above, the City’s General Plan has not identified the Project site as being in an area susceptible to mudflows as the topography of the site is generally flat and a sufficient distance from hills and mountains to ensure that mudflows in this area would not occur. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): HYD-1 Prior to Project approval, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan that shall, at minimum, include the following: Identifies all project related pollutants, impacts to the site’s hydrologic condition, and potential impacts to local waterways caused by Project post-construction runoff; Identifies BMPs required to remove pollutants from the Projects’ post construction runoff and prevent downstream hydromodification; Identifies parties responsible for long term operation and maintenance activities of all BMPs Identifies the design, operation and maintenance of the underground stormwater collection system. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measure. 292 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 51 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply X.Land Use and Planning: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?X Environmental Setting The site is located on a vacant parcel at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. Proposed uses within the commercial center development include banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store (Figure 2, and Figure 3). The site is bordered on the north by Derek Alan Drive and residential development that fronts Derek Alan Drive, on the west by a retention basin with residential development west of the basin, on the east by Jefferson Street and commercial development, and on the south by Avenue 50 and residential development. In May 1999, the City of La Quinta approved the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan of Land Use and associated parcel map to allow for the development of 100,460 square feet of a supermarket- anchored shopping center with adjacent retail pads on 12.5 acres at the corner of Jefferson Street 50th Avenue. The parcel is designated and zoned for Community Commercial (CC) use. The Specific Plan adoption included adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. In 2002, an amendment to the Specific Plan was also adopted. To date, that project has not been constructed. On February 19. 2013, the City of La Quinta adopted the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its 2035 General Plan (SCH# 2010111094) which included the impacts of adding to commercial uses within the City, including the approved Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was also adopted with the General Plan EIR for environmental impacts that could not be mitigated to a level below significance for: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Traffic (Resolution 2013- 009). Currently, the Lundin Development is requesting authorization from the City to construct 125,800 square feet of a supermarket-anchored shopping center and adjacent retail pads on the 12.5-acre site at the corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue, within the same area of the previously-approved Specific Plan. Proposed uses within the commercial center development are similar to the previously approved plan, and include banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store. 293 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 52 Impact Analysis a)Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project proposes to develop a shopping center on a contiguous vacant 12.5-acre parcel as a retail center. Retail uses exist across Jefferson Street on the east. There are no surrounding land uses that would currently conflict with the proposed use. Therefore, there is no impact. b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant. The site is zoned Community Commercial (CC) by the City of La Quinta. The subject property has received prior approvals as a commercial center in 1998 and in 2002. The project is proposed to be developed as a commercial center in accordance with the municipal code standards of the Community Commercial zone. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact. c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant. The City of La Quinta falls entirely within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) area. The site is a vacant dirt parcel that has been previously disturbed. The subject parcel is not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Area. The CVMSHCP requires a habitat assessment for the burrowing owl (BUOW). If habitat for the BUOW is present, a focused survey is required. The Biological Resource Assessment prepared for the project (Jericho, May 23, 2017) determined that there was no suitable BUOW habitat, nor were there signs of BUOW activity. No suitable BUOW habitat was identified on site during the burrowing owl habitat assessment survey. Therefore, no additional protocol-level focused surveys will be required. No other listed or sensitive species or sensitive habitat was observed on the site. The subject parcel does not contain suitable habitat for any of the sensitive species that have been documented in the project vicinity. The Project must also comply with local conservation regulations which require payment of a mitigation fee at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): No mitigation measures are required. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 294 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 53 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XI.Mineral Resources: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Environmental Setting The Project site is currently vacant, and no mineral mining occurs onsite or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The City of La Quinta General Plan (City of La Quinta, February 19, 2013) identifies the Project site as mapped within Mineral Resource Zone – 1, defined as areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood for their presence exists. Impact Analysis a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant and is zoned Community Commercial (CC) by the City of La Quinta. No mineral resources are known to occur onsite nor is the Project site zoned for mining uses. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response XI a), above. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): No mitigation measures are required. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 295 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 54 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XII.Noise: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Environmental Setting Noise – General Sound is a physical disturbance in a medium, such as air, that is capable of being detected by the human ear. Sound waves in air are caused by variations in pressure above and below the static value of atmospheric pressure. Sound is measured in units of decibels (dB) on a logarithmic scale. The “pitch” (high or low) of the sound is a description of frequency, which is measured in Hertz (Hz). Most common environmental sounds are a composite of frequencies. A normal human ear can usually detect sounds within frequencies from 20 to 20,000 Hz. However, humans are most sensitive to frequencies in the range of 500 to 4,000 Hz. Certain frequencies are given more “weight” during assessment because human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of sound. The A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale corresponds to the sensitivity range for human hearing. Noise levels capable of being heard by humans are measured in dBA. A noise level change of 3 dBA or less is barely perceptible to average human hearing. However, a 5 dBA change in noise level is clearly noticeable. A 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling or halving of noise loudness, while a 20 dBA change is considered a “dramatic change” in loudness. Sound from a source spreads out as it travels away from the source, and the sound pressure level diminishes with distance. Individual sound sources are considered “point sources” when the distance from 296 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 55 the source is large compared to the size of the source (e.g., construction equipment, and turbines). Sound from a point source radiates hemispherically, which yields a 6 dB sound level reduction for each doubling of the distance from the source. If the sound source is long in one dimension, the source is considered a “line source,” (i.e., roadways and railroads). Sound from a line source radiates cylindrically, which typically yields a 3 dB sound level reduction for each doubling of the distance from the source. The metrics for evaluating the community noise environment are based on measurements of the noise levels over a period of time. These metrics are used in order to characterize and evaluate the cumulative noise impacts. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) represents a 24-hour A-weighted sound level average from midnight to midnight, where sound levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dB weighting, and nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dB weighting. Potential noise from construction equipment to be used for this project are included on Table 9. Table 9 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source* Backhoe 80 Compactor 82 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Pump 82 Dozer 85 Grader 85 Loader 85 Scarifier 83 Scraper 89 Truck 88 FTA, May 2006 *Data taken from EPA Report - EPA 550/9-76-004 Vibration – General Sources of vibration included geotech drill rigs, excavators, dump trucks, backhoes, and other general construction equipment. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact thresholds for noise-sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land uses. These are usually measured as “vibration decibels” or VdB. According to the FTA guidelines, a vibration level of 65 VdB is the threshold of perceptibility for humans. These thresholds are typically 80 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g., nearby residences and daycare facilities) and 83 VdB at institutional buildings (e.g., schools and churches). The FTA guidelines also state that, for a significant impact to occur, vibration levels must exceed 80 VdB during infrequent events (FTA, May 2006). 297 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 56 Typical vibration levels from project equipment are based on the FTA guidelines provided in Table 10. Table 10 Vibration Source Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment Vibration Level at 25 feet (VdB) Large bulldozer 87 Caisson drilling 87 Loaded trucks 86 Jackhammer 79 Small bulldozer 58 Source: FTA 2006 Project Location The site is immediately adjacent to a stormwater detention basin along the northern and western edges, with residences abutting the detention basin’s west and north sides. The basin provides for an approximately 50- to 120-foot buffer between the Project and the residence backyard. Three residences on the southwest area of the project site directly abut the project site. Residences exist to the south of the Project site, just beyond 50th Avenue. Commercial uses exist to the east of the project, just beyond the site’s border with Jefferson Street. Local Noise Ordinances The residential areas to the north and west and south of the Project are zoned Low Density Residential. The City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.100.210 “Noise control,” identifies this land use as “noise sensitive.” The City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 6.08.050 “Disturbances by construction noises” limit construction noise impacts, predominantly through restriction of times and days when work may be carried out: Construction is not permitted on Sundays or defined Holidays Construction is restricted to 8am to 5pm on Saturdays Between October 1st and April 30th, construction is restricted 7am to 5:30pm Between May 1st and September 30th, construction is restricted to 6am to 7pm. The City’s code also identifies limits for operational noise for the residential and non-residential land uses. Operational noise shall not exceed the levels set out in the Noise Standard, or the existing ambient noise. For the “noise sensitive” properties to the South, West and North, operational noise from the project shall not exceed: 65 dB(A) between 7am and 10pm 50 dB(A) between 10pm and 7am For the “other non-residential” land uses to the East operational noise from the project shall not exceed: 75 dB(A) between 7am and 10pm 298 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 57 65 dB(A) between 10pm and 7am Project Noise Studies Noise studies for the Project were prepared in 2002 as part of the Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 approval and in 2017 and 2018 to serve as an update (Appendix E). The 2002 study identified that both Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue were impacted, and exceed 60 dBA CNEL. The study identified that all new development is required to mitigate to the City's standards for noise, as required in the General Plan (Table EH-1) (Warner Engineering, February 19, 2002). The 2017 noise study also concluded that areas along Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue were impacted and exceeded the 60dBA criteria. Ambient noise measured along various locations along the north and west perimeter of the site, nearest to the residences, measured between 53.9 and 60 dBA. The study determined that the main sources of noise across the site are noise from road traffic on 50th Avenue and Jefferson street, other noise sources included HVAC systems serving the houses to the north, west and south of the site and from HVAC serving the commercial buildings to the east, across Jefferson Street. There was also minor noise from distant aircraft and birdsong (Antonio Acoustics, June 16, 2017, Appendix E). Noise is also anticipated from the speakers of the drive-through eating establishments, as well as vehicle doors closing in the parking lot. The Project is proposed approximately 150 feet between the closest development building and the residences to the south. The residences to the south already have a concrete masonry boundary wall. Impact Analysis a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant. The noise study (Appendix D) identified that the noise from the site through the day would not exceed the measured levels at the edges of the site closest to the residences, and that the noise from the HVAC units on the buildings and parking does not exceed the City of La Quinta daytime noise criteria of 60dB(A) at any residence. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact. b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant. The noise related to construction would include those generated from the use of heavy equipment at the site or vehicles transporting materials. Activities that could generate groundborne vibration include pile-driving and demolition; however, pile-driving and significant demolition is not anticipated to be utilized during construction. Some construction activities would occur within approximately 30 to 75 feet of residences, with residences to the southwest being the closest receptors. Screening-level calculations based on the FTA Guidelines (Table 10) indicate that vibration levels associated with these activities would have attenuated to a level of approximately 78 VdB at the nearest residence given the intervening distance. This analysis shows that vibration levels at all identified sensitive receptors were below the threshold of 80 VdB. 299 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 58 Construction activities would be temporary and would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels due to the adherence of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, groundborne vibration impacts associated with proposed construction activities will be less than significant. c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The 2017 noise study and 2018 amendment measured ambient noise levels along various locations of the Project site perimeter, and projected the potential future noise levels (Table 11). The studies identified a variety of potential operations noise sources that will contribute to a permanent increase in ambient noise: HVAC systems serving the buildings Commercial loading and unloading Noise from parking and the gas station Noise from speakers at the drive-through eating establishments Noise from car doors closing at night To project the potential increase in ambient noise, the 2017 noise study assumed that the HVAC for each new building would not exceed a sound power level of 100dB(A), (equivalent to 68 dB(A) at 50 feet). In the absence of a national standard for the US, the parking lot methodology was based on ISO 9603-2 1996 (Antonio Acoustics, June 16, 2017, Appendix E). Table 11 Existing and Projected Future Operational Noise Location Measurement Location and Distance from Sensitive Receptors Measured level, dB(A) New noise from HVAC and parking, dB(A) New noise exceeds measured? 1 Southwestern site perimeter, close to Avenue 50, between proposed parking and residences 64.2 52 No 2 Adjacent to boundary wall, southwestern site perimeter, approximately 200 feet north of Location 1, between proposed parking and residences 55.9 53.1 No 3 Adjacent to boundary wall, western site perimeter, approximately 90 feet between proposed back of proposed Pavilions grocery store and residences 53.9 50.4 No 4 Adjacent to boundary wall, western site perimeter, approximately 200 feet between proposed loading dock for proposed Pavilions grocery store and residences 60.0 54.5 No 5 Adjacent to boundary wall, western site perimeter, approximately 200 feet between proposed loading dock for Pavilions grocery store and residences 55.6 55.4 No 6 Adjacent to boundary wall, western site perimeter, approximately 150 feet between proposed parking and residences 58.3 54.3 No 7 Northeast perimeter corner, adjacent to Jefferson Street, not near residences 68.2 52.3 No 8 East site perimeter, adjacent to Jefferson Street 68 Not Estimated No 9 Southeast site perimeter, adjacent to Jefferson Street and 65.1 Not Estimated No 300 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 59 Avenue 50, not near residences The noise studies prepared in 2002, 2017, and 2018 indicated that the ambient noise will not exceed the City’s standard. However, because the ambient noise is already close to the City’s maximum level for the area, the Project operations will include Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 be implemented to ensure that ambient noise levels will not exceed the City’s maximum standard. Mitigation Measures are located at the end of this section. Additionally, the noise study identified that additional screening would be appropriate to accommodate the noise from the speaker at the drive-through eating establishment and the residences along the south. Mitigation Measure NOI-6 will be implemented to reduce noise from the speakers at the drive-through, which will ensure impacts are less than significant. Mitigation measures are located at the end of this section. The 2018 noise study regarding vehicle doors closing also identified that for the closest parking space to 1 meter from the windows of the closest house, the LAMax,F noise level is 60dB for car door slams. This is the worst case scenario and noise from the majority of the parking spaces will be substantially less than this. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact from car doors closing the in the parking lot. d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. While the exact construction method and equipment has yet to be determined, noise from construction is expected to occasionally reach 85 dB(A) at 50 feet from the louder noise sources. The timing of construction work is limited to the City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 6.08.050 “Disturbances by construction noises.” However, to reduce construction noise to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measures NOI-7 and NOI-8 are required. Mitigation measures are located at the end of this section. e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no airport land use plans within the project area. Therefore, there is no impact. f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: All construction activity shall be limited to the hours of construction permitted by Municipal Code Section 6.08.050. All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 301 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 60 All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units. All on-site deliveries shall be limited to 7.00 a.m. To 10.00 p.m. The proposed perimeter wall shall be 8 feet in height. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier close to the device; Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drive throughs; Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises Turn off idling equipment and vehicles All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers 302 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 61 All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications All on-site deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measures. 303 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 62 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XIII.Population and Housing: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?X Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is one of nine cities in the Coachella Valley, and offers numerous destination resorts. The population was 37,467 at the 2010 census, up from 23,694 at the 2000 census. Impact Analysis a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant. The Project includes the construction of an approximate 12.5-acre vacant lot for the operation of a retail center designed to serve the existing population. Therefore, the Project will not indirectly induce an increase in population; the impact will be less than significant. b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There are no existing houses on the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project will not displace any housing, or require the construction of replacement housing. c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There are no homeless camps on the Project site, therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): No mitigation measures are required. 304 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 63 Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 305 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 64 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XIV.Public Services: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Recreation/Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X Environmental Setting The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection services, with a total of six stations located throughout the City, all staffed by full time, paid firefighters and volunteers (Terra Nova, July 2012). Police services are contracted through the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department which provides two Police Department offices in the City, and a jail facility in Thermal (Terra Nova, July 2012). The Project site is within the Desert Sands Unified School District boundaries. The DSUSD serves students located west of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 48. The Harry S Truman Elementary School and the La Quinta Middle School are located on Avenue 50, approximately one mile west of the Project site. The City of La Quinta Community Services Department maintains numerous small pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and trails throughout incorporated portions of the City. Pocket parks are generally less than one acre, and provide small playgrounds, tot lots, and passive seating areas. These small parks tend to be built within neighborhoods and serve local residents. One of the largest parks within the City of La Quinta is the Lake Cahuilla County Park operated by the County of Riverside. Lake Cahuilla is an 845-acre park located in the southwestern portion of incorporated La Quinta. The Desert Recreation District owns and operates the La Quinta Community Park in La Quinta, which is a 6.5-acre park that includes a 5,000 square foot community center, baseball diamonds, basketball courts, a playground and picnic pavilion (Terra Nova, July 2012). Impact Analysis Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 306 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 65 a)Fire protection? Less Than Significant. As previously discussed, the Project site is served by the City of La Quinta Fire Department. The nearest fire station to the Project site is located approximately 2.3miles southwest of the site at 78111 Avenue 52. The proposed project will be developed in compliance with applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Codes and all applicable provisions of the adopted and applicable Building, Construction and Fire Codes. Additionally, the fire department will review all plans submitted to the City and the applicant is required to comply with all development requirements recommended by the Fire Department. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay impact fees to assist the fire department in offsetting potential impacts. Given the Project’s compliance with development requirements, impacts to fire services are anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. b)Police Protection? Less Than Significant. As previously discussed, the Project site is served by the City of La Quinta’s police services. The assigned police station for the Project site is located at 86625 Airport Blvd., Thermal, approximately 6 miles to the southeast. However, La Quinta police and Riverside County Sheriff’s routinely patrol the Project vicinity given the urban nature of the area. Response times to the Project site will vary, depending on the nature of the call. The Project provides for state-of-art security provisions in areas such as outdoor lighting and adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. c)Schools? No Impact. The Project is commercial in nature and does not propose uses that would directly or indirectly induce population growth, and thus would not generate demand for additional schools. No impact would occur. d)Recreation/Parks? No Impact. The Project does not propose uses that would directly or indirectly induce population growth, and thus would not generate demand for additional parks. Therefore, there is no impact. e)Other Services? No Impact. The Project does not propose uses that would directly or indirectly induce population growth, and thus would not generate demand for other public facilities. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay an impact fee that will assist the City in funding maintenance of city infrastructure. Therefore, there is no impact to this criterion. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 307 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 66 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XV.Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Environmental Setting The Project is to construct an approximate 12.5-acre vacant lot for a retail center. The Project site is not currently utilized for recreation purposes, nor will the use induce growth that would require the construction of additional recreational facilities. Impact Analysis a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The Project does not include uses that would directly or indirectly induce population growth, therefore, an increase in the use of existing recreational facilities in the City is not anticipated. Therefore, there is no impact. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project site is not currently used for recreational purposes and does not propose development that would increase existing recreational uses. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): No mitigation measures are required. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 308 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 67 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVI.Transportation/Traffic: Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X Environmental Setting The proposed Project is located in the City of La Quinta, bordered on the north by Derek Alan Drive (a private street owned by the Renaissance Homeowners Association) and residential development that fronts Derek Alan Drive, on the west by a retention basin followed by residential development, on the east by Jefferson Street and commercial development, and on the south by Avenue 50 and residential development. Regional access to the site can be accommodated via Interstate 10 and Hwy 111. A traffic study was performed in July 2017 to evaluate the traffic ingress and egress proposed for Jefferson Street (Albert Grover and Associates, July 27, 2017, Appendix F). Access for the development project is proposed via four driveways: three limited-access (no left-turns out) driveways and one full- access unsignalized driveway on Avenue 50, approximately 400 feet from the Jefferson Street signalized intersection. It should be noted that the one driveway into the shopping center from Derek Alan Drive, as previously identified on the previously-approved Fairway Plaza Specific Plan, has been removed with this current 309 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 68 proposed Project. The previously-approved Fairway Plaza Specific Plan had included a driveway from Derek Alan Drive to the shopping center as a convenience to the residents in the residential development to the north and west. However, due to resident concerns regarding unwanted traffic in the neighborhood after the residential development was constructed, the driveway access from Derek Alan Drive has been eliminated from the “Pavilion Palms” project as amended. At the project location, Jefferson Street is a six-lane, two-way arterial roadway with a raised median and serves as one of the main thoroughfares in the area. Avenue 50 is a two-way roadway with one westbound lane and two eastbound lanes. At the intersection, each approach has one dedicated left-turn lane and one dedicated right-turn lane, except the southbound approach, which has two left-turn lanes. The City of La Quinta has published Engineering Bulletin 06-13 (Appendix G) which applies to site access and gives criteria and methodologies for completing traffic studies. Regarding site access, it states the following: SITE ACCESS Auxiliary lanes shall be installed on all primary arterial, secondary arterial and higher order street classifications according to the following criteria: A left-turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length is required for any driveway with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume estimated to be 25 vehicles per hour (vph) or greater. The taper length shall be included as part of the required deceleration lane length. A right-turn deceleration lane is required for any driveway with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume estimated to be 50 vph or greater. The taper length shall be included as part of the required deceleration lane length. Pocket storage length requirements shall be based on individual project characteristics. A right-turn deceleration lane should be considered for lower turning volumes on high volume streets (e.g. Washington Avenue, Highway 111). A left-turn deceleration lane should be considered for locations where left turning vehicles would be required to queue in a high speed (> 40mph) through lane. Installation recommendations for deceleration lanes and related intersection turning movement distributions shown in the final traffic study report will be subject to approval by the City Engineer. The Project includes the following traffic control features: One additional westbound through lane on Avenue 50 along the project frontage, continuing east of the signalized intersection. Extend the eastbound dedicated storage lane on Avenue 50 at the signalized intersection to the proposed full-access driveway (the easternmost driveway on Avenue 50) an additional 110 feet for a total storage of 360 feet. Install a right-turn overlap operation for the southbound right-turn movement signal phase. These proposed improvements are integrated into the project design to improve operational capacity by providing increased lane and storage capacity for the westbound through and eastbound left-turn movements as well as more green time for the southbound right-turn movement (Albert Grover and Associates, July 27, 2017, Appendix F). The following tables identify the results of the traffic study prepared for the project: 310 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 69 Table 12 Existing Conditions – Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street Scenario Eastbound Left Design Queue* Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Period 1.5  Qavg Delay (sec/veh) LOS Volume/Capacity Ratio AM Peak Hour 180 ft 43 D 0.50 MD Peak Hour 240 ft 47 D 0.47 PM Peak Hour 180 ft 39 D 0.45 * Length of available storage in EBL turn pocket: approximately 250 ft. Table 13 Opening Day – With Project – Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street Scenario Eastbound Left Design Queue* Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Period 1.5  Qavg Delay (sec/veh) LOS Volume/Capacity Ratio AM Peak Hour 220 ft 39 D 0.46 MD Peak Hour 240 ft 45 D 0.53 PM Peak Hour 220 ft 45 D 0.52 * Length of available storage in EBL turn pocket: approximately 400 ft. Table 14 Future Buildout (Year 2035) – With Project – Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street Scenario Eastbound Left Design Queue* Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Period 1.5  Qavg Delay (sec/veh) LOS Volume/Capacity Ratio AM Peak Hour 240 ft 43 D 0.52 MD Peak Hour 300 ft 47 D 0.61 PM Peak Hour 240 ft 46 D 0.59 * Length of available storage in EBL turn pocket: approximately 400 ft. Impact Analysis a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant. Per the City of La Quinta General Plan, the parcel is zoned for commercial use; therefore, the development project is already accounted for in the City’s traffic growth forecasting. Less than significant impacts would occur. Additionally, the site zoning is Community Commercial, which 311 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 70 allows for a 0.30 Maximum Floor Area Ratio ([FAR] gross floor area of all buildings divided by the building site area). The proposed Project represents approximately 0.22 FAR. Therefore, because the Project proposes less than the maximum allowed under the zoning, a less than significant impact is anticipated. b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The flow of vehicle traffic is frequently described using the level of service (LOS) scale, which is a measurement of operational characteristics of traffic flow on a roadway or at the intersection of roadways, based on traffic volumes and facility type. Traffic operations are assessed using levels ranging from “A” to “F,” with “A” representing the highest (best) level of service in terms of travel speed, delay, maneuverability, driver comfort, and convenience. In general, the following descriptions apply to the qualitative levels described above: “A”- free flow; “B” - reasonably free flow; “C” - stable flow; “D” - approaching unstable flow; “E” - unstable flow; and “F” – forced or breakdown flow. The 2017 traffic study identified that approximately13,328 net new vehicle trips will be generated by the project, assuming a conservative 20 percent pass-by trip rate. It is estimated that approximately 1,066 net new trips will occur in the AM peak hour and approximately 1,359 net new trips will occur in the PM peak hour (Albert Grover and Associates, July 27, 2017, Appendix F). The City of La Quinta conducted a Left-turn Queue Study in December 2017, which studied the queuing at the dedicated eastbound left turn storage lane on Avenue 50 at the intersection with Jefferson Street. The study was comprised of 329 signal cycles over two days. The longest queue experienced during the entire study period was 15 cars and that occurred one time over the two days. In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s Engineering Bulletin 06-13 (EB 06-13) left-turn pockets do not need to be designed to the longest possible vehicle queue length but to the 95th percentile queue. In accordance with EB 06-13, the 95th percentile queue length was computed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to be 11 vehicles and 220 feet in length. Currently, the dedicated eastbound left turn storage lane on Avenue 50 at the intersection of Jefferson Street is approximately 250 feet long. Per the 2017 traffic study, the worst-case queue length of the eastbound left turn lane at Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street at Project opening day will be approximately 240 feet long. With the project, and area buildout, by the year 2035 the traffic study indicated that in the worst-case scenario, the eastbound lane queue length needed would be approximately 300 ft. The Project proposes to extend the eastbound left storage lane to approximately 360 feet, which is greater than the requirements of EB 06-13 and greater than the requirements of the HCM Methodology. The proposed Project improvements listed below will accommodate the projected traffic loading at the intersection. Additionally, the City of La Quinta provides automated traffic light timing at the intersection. The automated timing allows for demand-response/service-convenience timing to the intersection to accommodate better traffic flow at peak times as necessary. The July 2017 traffic study indicated that without the project, the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 will operate at LOS D, assuming a 2 percent ambient growth rate in the area (Albert Grover and Associates, July 27, 2017, Appendix F, Table 3). Assuming the ambient area growth, plus the new expected project trips, as well as the additional westbound through lane capacity, and implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 and project improvements listed above, the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is expected to operate at its current LOS D, which is an acceptable level of service per the 312 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 71 General Plan and EB 06-13, and the proposed full-access driveway on Avenue 50 will operate at LOS A at opening day conditions. Therefore, the impact of this criterion is anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation. c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The buildings are proposed to be one story, and approximately 22 feet from floor to roof line. This is consistent with the height of the buildings in the surrounding area. Additionally, there are no design elements of the Project that would result in a potential change in air traffic patterns. No impacts would occur. d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant. The Project includes the following traffic control features: One additional westbound through lane on Avenue 50 along the project frontage, continuing east of the signalized intersection. Extend the eastbound dedicated storage lane on Avenue 50 at the signalized intersection to the proposed full-access driveway (the easternmost driveway on Avenue 50) to an additional 110 feet for a total storage of 360 feet. Install a right-turn overlap operation for the southbound right-turn movement signal phase. The Project will allow for two driveways onto Avenue 50, spaced approximately at 460 feet and 720 feet, respectively, from the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. Both driveways are spaced from the intersection in a manner that provides good sight distance and ample turning distance from the intersection. The eastern driveway on Avenue 50, approximately 460 feet west of the Jefferson Street intersection, will allow for full movement of both left and right turns onto Avenue 50 thereby providing users access to points east of the Project. Shared left-turn and right-turn markings are specifically outlined in Chapter 3 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) and such movements are generally allowed at many corner gas stations throughout Southern California. The western driveway on Avenue 50, approximately 720 feet west the intersection of Jefferson Street, will be restricted to right turns only. As stated above, the driveway from Derek Alan Drive was eliminated due to concerns from surrounding residents. The traffic consultant for the project has stated that it would be unlikely for motorists driving along Jefferson Street to the shopping center would use this driveway. This elimination would have little to no impact on site circulation or on-street circulation/access since it was originally designed to accommodate residents living in the adjacent residential neighborhood. There would be no negative impact for residents using the shopping center and no negative impact for residents accessing their neighborhood since they would still have access to the center from Jefferson Drive and Avenue 50. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 313 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 72 e)Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. As previously discussed, the Project would be developed within vacant land, and construction is short-term. Thus, implementation of the Project would not impede or inhibit emergency access. No impacts would occur. f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant. The Project would be developed within vacant land, and does not propose long- term construction impacts to the surrounding street system. The SunLine transit agency provides bus service in the region. SunLine currently provides no service within proximity to the project site, and the closest bus stop is located approximately 1.5 miles from the project, at Washington and Avenue 50. SunLine has no plans to install a bus stop at the project location (SunLine Transit, October 3, 2017). The Project includes non-meandering sidewalks along the perimeter, and interior sidewalks offer ADA- compliant access to the perimeter sidewalks. Therefore, the Project can accommodate transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the future. Thus, implementation of the Project would not conflict with public transit and alternative transportation facilities. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: The proposed site plan shall be redesigned to provide at least 90 feet of stacking at all access points or dedicated right turn into the driveways shall be provided. If one of these standards cannot be met, the applicable access point shall be eliminated. Note: Since the approval of the original Specific Plan, the site plan has been revised to provide at least 90 feet of stacking within the development at all access points through a combination of internal stacking and/or dedicated right turns into the driveways. Therefore, this mitigation measure is no longer applicable to the currently Proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): TRAF-1 Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measure. 314 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 73 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVII.Tribal Cultural Resources: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or X b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. X Environmental Setting CRM Tech prepared two studies for the Project site. The first consisted of Phase I and Phase II cultural assessment conducted in 1998 and 1995 for approximate 50 acres of undeveloped land as part of Tentative Parcel Map No. 29052 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29053, which included a residential development and the current commercial Project site. The study was part of the environmental impact review process for the proposed subdivision and development of the property, as required by the City of La Quinta, Lead Agency for the project, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The second study was conducted in June 2017 and consisted of a historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background review, and an archaeological field inspection of the approximately 12-acre Project site. The CRM research concluded that no “historic properties,” “historical resources,” or “tribal cultural resources” are present within or adjacent to the Project area. However, CRM identified that there have been previous discoveries in the Project vicinity, an overall high sensitivity to archaeological resources on the Project site, and the potential to encounter subsurface prehistoric cultural remains within the project boundaries. Therefore, CRM TECH recommended that all grading, grubbing, trenching, excavations, and other earth-moving activities in the project area be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. This information and mitigation has been identified in Section V of this document. While the Phase II cultural resources investigation indicated that there were minimal subsurface artifacts recovered from the Phase II survey, the project area is in an area that has high prehistoric sensitivity. Additionally, the project is adjacent to the Chemehuevi Traditional Use Area. For these reasons, the 315 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 74 project area has the possibility of inadvertent discoveries, which may have significant impacts on potential cultural resources that concern the Tribe. There is an increased possibility of encountering cultural resources during the construction processes that may take place because of cultural resources recorded within the project's boundaries, and it is in the vicinity of an area with high archaeological sensitivity. Avoidance, if feasible, would negate adverse effects on the project. CRM TECH, recommended that a qualified archaeologist monitor all grading, grubbing, trenching, excavations, and other earth-moving activities in the project area. Impact Analysis a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), No Impact. There are no resources that have been identified as eligible for listing to the California Register of Historic Places. Therefore, there is no impact. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no resources supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Therefore, there is no impact. However, there have been past discoveries in the vicinity, therefore overall archaeological sensitivity of the project location remains high, and the potential of encountering subsurface prehistoric cultural remains within the project boundaries is a potential. Implementation of TCR-1 will reduce the potential impacts to potential undetermined discoveries to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): TRC-1 Native American Monitor(s) from the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians or Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians should be present during the initial grading/ground disturbing activities. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse effects are anticipated with the inclusion of the above mitigation measure. 316 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 75 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVIII.Utilities and Service Systems: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?X Environmental Setting Lundin Development, a private entity, is requesting authorization from the City of La Quinta to construct a 125,800 square-foot mixed-use commercial center development project on a 12-acre vacant parcel at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. Proposed uses within the commercial center development include banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store (Figure 2, Figure 3). The Assessor Parcel Numbers for this Project are: APNs: 602-180-003, 602-180-004, 602-180-005, 602- 180-013, and 602-180-014. Per the City of La Quinta General Plan, the Project site is zoned Community Commercial (CC) for commercial use. Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Its source of water is groundwater and import water. Wastewater services is also provided by the CVWD. The Project site will be served by the Mid-Valley Water Reclamation Plant. The CVWD reports that it annually treats nearly 6.3 billion gallons of 317 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 76 wastewater from throughout the Coachella Valley. The CVWD also has the capacity to increase its wastewater treatment as the Coachella Valley’s population grows. Solid waste in the City is served by Burrtec Waste Recycling Services which transports the waste to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, located in the City of Cathedral City. From the transfer station, the waste is transported to one of three regional landfills: Lamb Canyon, Badlands or El Sobrante, each of which has remaining long-term capacity. Burrtec also provides solid waste and greenwaste recycling services. Impact Analysis a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Less Than Significant. Once complete, the project will be served by the CVWD’s existing sewer system. Stormwater will be treated through an underground system to collect all of the stormwater runoff from the project site. Therefore, the Project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and will have a less than significant impact. b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant. The CVWD reviewed the Project and identified that it could serve the Project with the existing water and wastewater treatment facilities (CVWD, October 5, 2017). The CVWD identified that utilities are available in the public rights of way; the only water and wastewater improvements required for the Project are on-site pipelines and unit connections to the infrastructure systems, which are subject to connection fees. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities off-site, and the Project would have no significant impacts. c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant. The project will not require levels of water usage that would impact stormwater drainage systems on or around the Project site. As discussed in Section IX Hydrology and Water Quality, impervious runoff created from the project will drain into an underground system. Therefore, use of the proposed onsite underground system will not require in new or expanded storm drain public infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects. d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant. The proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning. The CVWD reviewed the Project and identified that it could serve the Project with the existing water and entitlements (CVWD, October 5, 2017). The CVWD identified that the Project lies within the study area of the 2010 Water Management Plan Update. The CVWD identified that the groundwater basin in the Coachella Valley is in a state of overdraft, and each new development contributes incrementally to the overdraft. CVWD identified that its Water Management Plan is in place to reduce overdraft and identifies specific actions for reducing overdraft. The CVWD identified that the Project must comply with elements and actions described in the plan. The proposed Project would not require new or expanded water entitlements, and the Project would have no related significant impacts. 318 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 77 e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant. Refer to (b) above. f)Be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant. Burrtec Waste provides trash collection for the City of La Quinta, and will haul the waste to a transfer station for proper disposal at one of three regional landfills: Lamb Canyon, Badlands or El Sobrante. All three landfills have capacity remaining for the long-term (City of La Quinta, February 19, 2013). Construction Waste: The site is undeveloped, so no demolition waste is anticipated. Small volumes of construction waste are anticipated during construction including pallets, strapping, packaging, excess wood and metal. Due to the small volume of construction-related waste that may be generated during construction, and the millions of cubic yards of remaining capacity at the three regional landfills that would serve the Project, less than significant impacts would occur under this criterion as a result of future construction activities. Operations Waste: The waste generated by this proposed Project is anticipated to be similar to retail centers with similar uses. Annual waste generation is anticipated as follows: Grocery 63,000 s.f.: 2,920 cubic yards Shops and banks. 30,000 s.f: 624 cubic yards Fast Food and restaurants. 32,000 s.f.: 520 cubic yards The three regional landfills have long-term capacity; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. All solid waste generated by the Project during both construction and operation would be handled in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. The City is currently required to implement new and maintain ongoing waste and recycling programs and recycle at least 50 percent of its solid waste stream, and is meeting that goal (City of La Quinta, February 19, 2013). Therefore, no impacts would occur under this criterion as a result of future Project activities. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: No mitigation measures were identified with the previously approved Specific Plan for this criterion. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 2 - EA2017-0006 (Pavilion Palms): No mitigation measures are required. Impact Conclusions: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 319 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 78 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVIII.Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Impact Analysis a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre‐historical resources were evaluated as part of this IS/MND. Potential impacts associated with nesting birds were identified however implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 reduces the potential impacts to than significant. Section IV, Biological Resources, addresses the potential impacts and mitigation measures in detail. As there are no other potentially significant impacts and no further mitigation is required in any other area, the adoption of the mitigation measures associated with biological impacts will ensure that the Project as a whole would have less than significant cumulative impacts on the environment in and around the Project area. 320 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 79 Additionally, as previously discussed, a cultural resources records search for the Project was conducted to identify cultural resources within one mile of the project site (CRM, June 5, 2017). The research did not identify any cultural resources within Project site specifically, but identified that Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 were required during grading activities due to a high cultural resources sensitivity. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The project objective is to construct a retail center that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning. The preceding evaluation of project impacts concluded that it can be implemented without causing any significant adverse impacts on any environmental resource issues. Therefore, meeting short-term goals will not be to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable primarily in the categories of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Traffic. The City’s General Plan analysis this site assumed the site was zoned Community Commercial with a FAR of 0.33, which is greater than the 0.22 proposed. Since the General Plan Environmental Impact Report was a City-wide analysis and found significant impacts, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the categories of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Traffic. For this project, in all instances where the analysis identified that the Project has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce potential effects to less than significant levels. As such, with incorporation of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this IS/MND, the Project would not contribute to environmental effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this IS/MND, and are primarily in the categories of: Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Traffic. In instances where the analysis identified that the Project has potential to result in direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings, mitigation measures have been applied to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. With required implementation of mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve any activities that would result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 321 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 80 Section 5 ‐ Summary of Mitigation Measures I. Aesthetics AES-1 Provide shielding for the dual head pole in the southwest corner as per the lighting design engineering recommendations. III. Air Quality AIR-1: Contractor is to implement at a minimum a 10-day painting schedule. IV. Biological Resources BIO - 1: Any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should be conducted outside of the State identified nesting season for migratory birds, which is typically March 15 through September 1. If work cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a migratory nesting bird survey within and adjacent to the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiating the construction activities. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) will be prepared and implemented. At a minimum, the NBP will include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The NBP will include a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be determined by the biologist, and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and expected types of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and a monitoring report has been submitted reviewed and approved by the City of La Quinta. V. Cultural Resources CUL-1: Grading activities shall be overseen by a qualified archeological monitor. In the event unanticipated archaeological resources are discovered: The archaeological monitor shall notify the project foreman The Archaeological monitor has the authority to temporarily halt work in the area of archaeological discoveries until the resource has been evaluated All work in the vicinity of the find shall halt Work in the area of the discovery shall not resume until written notification is received from the Project archaeologist 322 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 81 CUL-2: Grading activities shall be overseen by a qualified paleontological monitor. Paleontological monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors will be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring will be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units as described by the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Earth Sciences May 2, 2017 report are not present, or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The local authorities must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. VI. Geology and Soils GEO-1 Prior to grading plan approval, submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, a PMl0 management plan. GEO-2 For portions of the site not immediately under construction, ensure the stabilization of soils through the use of soil cement or re-vegetation, frequent watering. including watering during the evening and weekends during significant wind events; street sweeping or washing during construction, and the chemical stabilization of unpaved construction roadways. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ – 1 A hazardous spill prevention plan shall be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City for approval to minimize the likelihood of a spill shall be prepared prior to construction. The plan shall state the actions that would be required if a spill occurs to prevent contamination of surface waters and provide for cleanup of the spill. The plan shall follow Federal, state, and local safety guidelines and standards to avoid increased exposure to these pollutants. HAZ – 2 If a contaminated area is encountered during construction, construction shall cease in the vicinity of the contaminated area. The construction contractor shall notify all appropriate authorities, including the EPA and the City. If necessary, the contaminated site shall be remediated to minimize the potential for exposure of the public and to allow the Project to be safety constructed. IX. Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-1 Prior to Project approval, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan that shall, at minimum, include the following: 323 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 82 Identifies all project related pollutants, impacts to the site’s hydrologic condition, and potential impacts to local waterways caused by Project post-construction runoff; Identifies BMPs required to remove pollutants from the Projects’ post construction runoff and prevent downstream hydromodification; Identifies parties responsible for long term operation and maintenance activities of all BMPs; Identifies the design, operation and maintenance of the underground stormwater collection system. XII. Noise NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier as close to the device; Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drivethroughs; Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises Turn off idling equipment and vehicles All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers 324 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 83 All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications All on-site deliveries shall be limited to 7.00 a.m. To 10.00 p.m. XVI. Traffic TRAF-1 Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources TRC-1 Native American Monitor(s) from the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians or Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians should be present during the initial grading/ground disturbing activities. 325 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 84 Section 6 - References Albert Grover and Associates, July 27, 2017. Focused Traffic Study to Determine the Feasibility of a Full-Access Unsignalized Driveway on Avenue 50 West of Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta. Antonio Acoustics, June 16, 2017, Lundin Development Com Proposed Retail Development, La Quinta, Noise Study. Antonio Acoustics, September 18, 2017. Retail Development at Ave 50 & Jefferson St - Outdoor Retail Audible Devices California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: California Important Farmland Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html, accessed 8/13/17. City of La Quinta, February 19, 2013. La Quinta 2035 General Plan. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), October 5, 2017. Pavilion Palms Shopping Center, TPM 2017-0003, SDP 2017-0009, EA 2017-0006, MUP2017-0016, Northwest Comer of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, APN's 602-180-003, 602-180-004, 602-180-005, 602- 180-013, 602-180-014. CRM Tech, June 5, 2017, Letter Report: Re: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Studies Parcel 1, TPM 36539-R (Formerly TPM 29052), City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. CRM TECH Project No. 348/355/3210. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Construction Equipment Noise Levels. Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Innovative Design Engineers, August 21, 2017. Pavilions La Quinta, Site Lighting, NWC Avenue 50 & Jefferson St, La Quinta, CA Jericho Systems Inc (Jericho), May 23, 2017. General Biological Resources Assessment And Coachella Valley MSHCP Consistency Review For a 12-acre Parcel (APNs: 602-180-003, 602-180-004, 602-180-005, 602-180-013, & 602-180-014) City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California Landmark Geo-Engineers and Geologists, August 25, 2017. Geotechnical Report, Fairway Plaza, NW Corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street, La Quinta, California, LCI Report No. LP 17117. San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Earth Sciences (SBCM), May 2, 2017. Paleontology Literature / Records Review, Parcel 1, of Parcel Map 36539-R. Southland Geotechnical, November 5, 1998. Geotechnical Investigation, Lucky’s Shopping Center, NW Corner of Ave 50 and Jefferson Street, La Quinta, California. State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control Website. www.dtsc.ca.gov SunLine Transit Agency, October 3, 2017, Letter to Cheri Flores, Project Planner, City of La Quinta, RE: Pavillion Palms Shopping Center. 326 City of La Quinta Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center EA2017-0006 INITIAL STUDY Page 85 Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc., July 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2010111094) for the City of La Quinta General Plan. Warner Engineering, February 19, 2002. Fairway Plaza Shopping Center, Specific Plan Amendment #1, Planning Commission Resolution 2002-006; Originally Approved by the City of La Quinta City Council Resolution 99-63, Adopted May 18, 1999, Original Specific Plan No. 98-034, New Case 98-034 Amended Adopted by City Council on September 19, 2002. 327 [this page left intentionally blank] 328 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 “Pavilion Palms” Shopping Center La Quinta, CA EA2017-0006 Lead Agency: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 329 Introduction This Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center project has been prepared to report to the decision-making authority of the City of La Quinta of the comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public review process. The public review period for the project took place between March 23, 2018 and April 23, 2018. This Final MND includes a list of persons, organizations and public agencies who commented on the Draft MND, the comment letters and responses, a section of errata explaining revisions to the Draft MND which were made in response to comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Comments and Responses The City of La Quinta received a total of 12 comment letters from various agencies and residents living in the project vicinity. The following list provides the name of the commenter, his/her affiliation, and the date the letter was sent. The comment letters and responses follow in order of this list. Letter Number Author/Affiliation Date A Katie Croft, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians April 2, 2018 B Gerald Cantarini, La Quinta Renaissance HOA April 3, 2018 C Anthony Madrigal, Jr., Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians April 2, 2018 D Rosie Lua, City of Indio April 10, 2018 E Lijin Sun, J.D., South Coast Air Quality Management District April 17, 2018 F Pat Kelly, Resident of Palmilla April 18, 2018 G Kent Bailey, Resident of Palmilla April 20, 2018 H Ken Hulbert, Palmilla HOA April 21, 2018 I Leila Namvar, Resident of La Quinta Renaissance April 22, 2018 J Robert and Marilyn Lang, Residents of Palmilla April 23, 2018 K Steve Cenicola, Resident of La Quinta Renaissance April 23, 2018 L Anita Petke, Sunline Transit Agency April 20, 2018 330 03-003-2017-004 Dear Ms. Cheri Flores, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center project. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments: [VIA EMAIL TO:clflores@la-quinta.org] City of La Quinta Ms. Cheri Flores 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 April 02, 2018 Re: Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6829. You may also email me at ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net. Cordially, Katie Croft Cultural Resources Manager Tribal Historic Preservation Office AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS *The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. #* Kotevewit village, a Tribal Cultural Resource, is located in the project area. #* There is a mitigation measure for an archaeological monitor, but there should also be a mitigation measure for a Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities. 331 April 23, 2017 Katie Croft, Cultural Resource Manager Tribal Historic Preservation Office Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Katie: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment A-1: The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Kotevewit village, a Tribal Cultural Resource, is located in the project area. Response A-1: Comments are noted. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-3 and TCR-1 are included to minimize impacts to cultural and tribal resources. CUL-1—Grading activities shall be overseen by a qualified archeological monitor. In the event unanticipated archaeological resources are discovered: •The Archaeological monitor shall notify the project foreman •The Archaeological monitor has the authority to temporarily halt work in the area of archaeological discoveries until the resource has been evaluated •All work in the vicinity of the find shall halt •Work in the area of the discovery shall not resume until written notification is received from the Project archaeologist CUL-3—If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The local authorities must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission 332 of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. TCR-1—Native American Monitor(s) from the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians or Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians should be present during the initial grading/ground disturbing activities. Comment A-2: There is a mitigation measure for an archaeological monitor, but there should also be a mitigation measure for a Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities. Response A-2: As mentioned in Response A-1 above, the Mitigated Negative Declaration does include in Section XVII, Tribal Cultural Resources, a mitigation measure (TCR-1) which requires a Native American Monitor during ground-moving activities. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 333 334 Highway 111 and A venue 50 there are seven (7) gas stations. In addition, there is severe concern that the proposed mini mart will offer an after hour's gang hangout. We are all aware of the crime and gang activity in Indio, which has already attempted to infiltrate the Eastern La Quinta residential areas. Should removal of the gas station and mini mart not be an option, we would offer the following proposal: A.Restrict the size and hours of the operation of the mini mart; B.Relocate the gas station to the east of the project site, closer to Jefferson with a landscape berm; C.Require that the gas station be more aesthetically appealing to the environment. 2.Proposed left turn lane on A venue 50 near Jefferson: While the developer has proposed infrastructure changes, these changes do not offer a solution to the hazards created by this left turn lane: A.The left turn lane location is too close to the Avenue SO/Jefferson traffic light and intersection; B.The proposal does not adequately address the east/west traffic flow. The submitted traffic study was completed in July of 2017 and did not take into consideration the heavy fluctuation and traffic counts during the November through April period. Without question, the left tum lane as proposed, will create a severe traffic hazard. 3.The heavily traveled eastbound A venue 50 street creates the gateway to the City of La Quinta. The appearance of the northeast comer should require a more appealing and inviting appearance with stone, landscaping, berms, and possibly a statue. There are many other concerns that should be considered by the City Council: timing of finished build-out of the project, i.e. all proposed building pads, noise control during construction and upon completion, and height of the existing wall. Additionally, the La Quinta Renaissance Board and residents have concern over the developer's ability or willingness to create proper design, color schemes, maintenance and completion timeline. This concern was magnified after the inspection of two similar properties constructed, but not finished by the proposed developer on another construction site. This concern was also communicated by the Indio Planning Commission, who had an unfavorable experience with Loudin Development on both projects. -2- 335 336 April 23, 2017 Gerald Cantarini, President La Quinta Renaissance Homeowners Association 79783 Joey Court La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Mr. Cantarini: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment B-1: Proposed left turn lane on Avenue 50 near Jefferson: While the developer has proposed infrastructure changes, these changes do not offer a solution to the hazards created by this left turn lane: A.The left turn lane location is too close to the Avenue 50/Jefferson traffic light and intersection; B.The proposal does not adequately address the east/west traffic flow. The submitted traffic study was completed in July of 2017 and did not take into consideration the heavy fluctuation and traffic counts during the November through April period. Without question, the left tum lane as proposed, will create a severe traffic hazard. Response B-1: The traffic section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed potential hazards due to design features. The eastern driveway on Avenue 50 will allow right and left turns. Shared left-turn and right-turn markings are specifically outlined in Chapter 3 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) and such movements are generally allowed at many corner gas stations throughout Southern California. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 will be implemented in order to minimize impacts to the Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street intersection due to projected area growth. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 337 338 April 23, 2017 Anthony Madrigal Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians 46-200 Harrison Place Coachella, CA 92236 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Mr. Madrigal: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment C-1: This letter is in regards to consultation in compliance with AB 52 (California Public Resources Code§ 21080.3.1) for the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. As stated in our letter, sent October 24, 2017, the Tribal Historic Preservation Office is aware of numerous cultural resources within 1-mile of the project area and three cultural resources within the project boundary. For these reasons, the report recommended archaeological monitoring during earth-moving activates. There is an increased possibility of encountering cultural resources during the construction processes that may take place because of cultural resources recorded within the project's boundaries, and it is in the vicinity of an area with high archaeological sensitivity. Avoidance, if feasible, would negate adverse effects on the project. The THPO continues to request that approved Native American Monitor(s) from the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians be present during any ground disturbing activities during the project as indicated in TCR-1. The following conditions (CUL 1 -4, TCR-1) would mitigate current concerns for the aforementioned project, however, if there are any changes, please notify the THPO. Response C-1: Comments are noted and mitigation measures are incorporated in the MND document and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 339 From:Rosie Lua To:Cheri Flores Cc:Les Johnson; Tom Brohard Subject:RE: Pavilion Palms Shopping Center-Jefferson and Ave 50 Date:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:11:38 AM Hi Cheri, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2. At this time, we have no further comments on this project. Our previous response letter dated October 18, 2017 which summarized priority items discussed in the Initial Study and Focused Traffic Study remain. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Thank you, Rosie Lua Assistant Planner City of Indio rlua@indio.org 760-391-4016 340 City of La Quinta Attention: Cheri Flores Design and Development Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 October 18, 2017 Development Services Department RE: Pavilion Palms Shopping Center -Initial Site Plan & Focused Traffic Study Dear Ms. Flores, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center project proposed at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. The 125,800 square foot project includes a supermarket, a gas station with convenience market, five pads with drive thru facilities, and other commercial buildings. The following are comments provided by the City's Traffic Engineer responding to the Initial Site Plan and a July 27, 2017 Focused Traffic Study: 1)Trip Generation -While pass-by trip reductions are shown, the Traffic Study does not appear to include a table that summarizes peak hour and daily trip generation forecasts for each proposed building as well as internal trip reductions within and between the uses on the site itself. (Page 8 of the Traffic Study is missing from my copy of the report). 2)Derek Alan Drive Connection -Access is proposed to connect the shopping center to Derek Alan Drive on the north, a local street that serves the gated Renaissance residential development. Left turns out of Derek Alan Drive to northbound Jefferson Street are physically prohibited by a raised median while northbound left turns into Derek Alan Drive are accommodated. The driveway connection between the shopping center and Derek Alan Drive should be eliminated as it will create congestion at the entrance/exit to the gated residential development and it does not facilitate exiting to the north. 1 341 3)Eastbound Left Turn Lane on Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street -The Traffic Study indicates concerns have been expressed by City of La Quinta staff regarding peak hour queuing in the eastbound left turn lane on Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street. From my observations of this intersection, the longest queues result from parent trips to and from the elementary and middle schools on the north side of Avenue 50 to the west rather than from traditional peak hour commuter trips. Calculations in the Traffic Study indicate that storage for eastbound left turns at Jefferson Street will be adequate in 2019 and will be marginally adequate in Year 2035. Additional left turn storage is proposed to be provided west of the full access driveway for left turns into the proposed full access driveway and for Jefferson Street. This treatment has been used in urbanized areas were left turn storage for stacking may only be marginally adequate. 4)Relocate Avenue 50 Full Access Driveway Further To The West -Before accepting the open-ended eastbound left turn lane shown on the site plan and described immediately above, it is suggested that alternatives be explored in further detail including: a.Flip Building 8 just south of the supermarket with the Pavilions Fuel location southeast of the supermarket. b.Reorient the supermarket so it is parallel to the diagonal at the northwest corner in the site. c.Designate and widen the westerly aisle driveway on Avenue 50 as the major full-access driveway and narrow and limit the easterly driveway on Avenue 50 to right turns only. This would provide a longer throat on the repositioned major full access driveway. Entering the fueling area as currently designed from the main full access driveway could potentially block the entering traffic lane as motorists seek the first opportunity to line up for fuel. To access the fueling positions closest to Avenue 50 requires a sharp right turn greater than 90 degrees. 5)Avenue 50 East of Jefferson Street -There are no significant issues associated with the Citrus Plaza Ralphs full access driveway on the north side of Avenue 50 about 300' east of Jefferson Street. 2 342 6)Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street Operational Improvements -To improve the traffic signal operation at Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, a westbound right turn green arrow overlap should be considered. With this additional feature and a shorter traffic signal cycle, the intersection operation would improve and delays would be reduced. The City of La Quinta should also consider "conditional service" (a practice used by the City of Indio) so that eastbound left turns could be served a second time in the same signal cycle if a gap in opposing westbound through traffic occurs. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please contact me at (760) 391-4016 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Rosie Lua Assistant Planner 3 343 April 23, 2017 Rosie Lua, Assistant Planner City of Indio 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 rlua@indio.org SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Ms. Lua: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked with and responses are as follows: Comment D-1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the Fairway Plaza Specific Plan Amendment No. 2. At this time, we have no further comments on this project. Our previous response letter dated October 18, 2017 which summarized priority items discussed in the Initial Study and Focused Traffic Study remain. Response D-1: We have included the October 18, 2017 letter and comments from that letter are addressed subsequently. Comment D-2: Trip Generation - While pass-by trip reductions are shown, the Traffic Study does not appear to include a table that summarizes peak hour and daily trip generation forecasts for each proposed building as well as internal trip reductions within and between the uses on the site itself. (Page 8 of the Traffic Study is missing from my copy of the report). Response D-2: Page 8 of the Traffic Study is attached which shows the trip generation. The MND included this information and analyzed the project accordingly. Comment D-3: Derek Alan Drive Connection - Access is proposed to connect the shopping center to Derek Alan Drive on the north, a local street that serves the gated Renaissance residential development. Left turns out of Derek Alan Drive to northbound Jefferson Street are physically prohibited by a raised median while northbound left turns into Derek Alan Drive are accommodated. The driveway connection between the shopping center and Derek Alan Drive should be eliminated as it will create congestion at the entrance/exit to the gated residential development and it does not facilitate exiting to the north. Response D-3: The Derek Alan Drive connection has been eliminated. 344 Comment D-4: Eastbound Left Turn Lane on Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street - The Traffic Study indicates concerns have been expressed by City of La Quinta staff regarding peak hour queuing in the eastbound left turn lane on Avenue 50 at Jefferson Street. From my observations of this intersection, the longest queues result from parent trips to and from the elementary and middle schools on the north side of Avenue 50 to the west rather than from traditional peak hour commuter trips. Calculations in the Traffic Study indicate that storage for eastbound left turns at Jefferson Street will be adequate in 2019 and will be marginally adequate in Year 2035. Additional left turn storage is proposed to be provided west of the full access driveway for left turns into the proposed full access driveway and for Jefferson Street. This treatment has been used in urbanized areas were left turn storage for stacking may only be marginally adequate. Response D-4: The MND includes a mitigation measure to account for this situation. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. Comment D-5: Relocate Avenue 50 Full Access Driveway Further To The West - Before accepting the open-ended eastbound left turn lane shown on the site plan and described immediately above, it is suggested that alternatives be explored in further detail including: a.Flip Building 8 just south of the supermarket with the Pavilions Fuel location southeast of the supermarket. b.Reorient the supermarket so it is parallel to the diagonal at the northwest corner in the site. c.Designate and widen the westerly aisle driveway on Avenue 50 as the major full- access driveway and narrow and limit the easterly driveway on Avenue 50 to right turns only. This would provide a longer throat on the repositioned major full access driveway. Entering the fueling area as currently designed from the main full access driveway could potentially block the entering traffic lane as motorists seek the first opportunity to line up for fuel. To access the fueling positions closest to Avenue 50 requires a sharp right turn greater than 90 degrees. Response D-5: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 in the MND would address the concerns with the easterly full access driveway on Avenue 50. Additionally, the suggested alternative configurations would not be feasible since the neighboring communities do not want the fuel center closer to them. Also, reorienting the supermarket would result in inefficient utilization of the property with conflicting diagonal and right angles throughout the parking field and access points. To address the position of the fueling area, the fuel center has been reduced and positioned farther from the Avenue 50 entrance thus eliminating sharp turns. Comment D-6: Avenue 50 East of Jefferson Street - There are no significant issues associated with the Citrus Plaza Ralphs full access driveway on the north side of Avenue 50 about 300' east of Jefferson Street. 345 Response D-6: Thank you for your comment. Comment D-7: Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street Operational Improvements - To improve the traffic signal operation at Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, a westbound right turn green arrow overlap should be considered. With this additional feature and a shorter traffic signal cycle, the intersection operation would improve and delays would be reduced. The City of La Quinta should also consider "conditional service" (a practice used by the City of Indio) so that eastbound left turns could be served a second time in the same signal cycle if a gap in opposing westbound through traffic occurs. Response D-7: Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 346 347 SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: April 17, 2018 cflores@la-quinta.org Cheri Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 8-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comment is meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final MND. Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to develop a total of 125,800 square-foot mixed-use commercial center development project on the 12-acre vacant parcel (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project will include various commercial uses, including banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store. Based on a review of aerial photographs and Figure 2, Site Location1, in the MND, SCAQMD staff found that residential uses are located immediately to the south and southwest of the Proposed Project. Compliance with SCAQMD Rules Since the Proposed Project includes gasoline service station, a permit from SCAQMD would be required, and SCAQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency for this Project in the Final MND. The assumptions in the air quality analysis in the Final MND will be the basis for permit conditions and limits. The Final MND should also demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rules, including, but are not limited to, Rule 201 – Permit to Construct, Rule 203 – Permit to Operate, and Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing. If there are permitting questions concerning the gasoline service station, they can be directed to SCAQMD Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-2551. Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality analysis, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s regional construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. However, it does not appear that the Air Quality analysis include operational ROG emissions generated from storage tanks or from the fueling process. This may have likely led to an under-estimation of the Proposed Project’s operational air quality impacts. It is important to note that while CalEEMod2 quantifies mobile source emissions (e.g., trip visits by patrons) associated with operating a gasoline service station, CalEEMod does not quantify the operational stationary source emissions from the storage tanks and fueling equipment. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lead Agency quantify operational emissions from the fueling process in the Final MND. Health Risk Assessment The Proposed Project would be sited in close proximity to existing residential uses. Benzene, which is a toxic air contaminant, may be emitted from the Proposed Project’s gasoline refueling operations. 1 MND. Page 6. 2 CalEEmod incorporates up-to-date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CalEEMod is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. 348 SCAQMD staff is concerned about the potential health impacts on the residents from being exposed to benzene. As such, it is recommended that the Lead Agency evaluate, quantify, and perform a health risk assessment for the Proposed Project in the Final MND. Guidance for performing a gasoline dispensing station health risk assessment can be found in the SCAQMD’s Emission Inventory and Risk Assessment Guidelines for Gasoline Dispensing Stations3. Guidance Regarding Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Sited Near Sensitive Receptors SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning4 in 2005. Additionally, it is recommended that a 50-foot separation between a gasoline dispensing facility and sensitive land uses (e.g., residential uses)5. SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider these guidance when making local planning and land use decisions. Mitigation Measures Six mitigation measures from the Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 – Resolution 2002-2006 are incorporated in the MND for the Proposed Project6. Since CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures go beyond what is required by law to minimize any significant impacts, and to further reduce criteria pollutant emissions, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures that are more stringent than those from the Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 – Resolution 2002-2006. Regarding the Second Bullet of Mitigation Measure – “Low Emission Construction Equipment” To further reduce particulate matter emissions during construction and minimize their impacts on nearby residents, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the CARB and USEPA Tier 4 off‐road emissions standards for equipment rated at 50 horsepower or greater during Project construction. Such equipment will be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices including a CARB certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF). Level 3 DPFs are capable of achieving at least 85 percent reduction in in particulate matter emissions7. A list of CARB verified DPFs are available on the CARB website8. These requirements shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. In the event that construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Project, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/risk-assessment. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. May 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/planning- guidance/guidance-document. 5 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Page 4. Accessed at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. 6 MND. Page 25. 7 California Air Resources Board. November 16-17, 2004. Diesel Off-Road Equipment Measure – Workshop. Page 17. Accessed at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/presentations/nov16-04_workshop.pdf. 8 Ibid. Page 18. 349 Regarding the Third Bullet of Mitigation Measure – “Low VOC Paints, Primers, and Coatings” To further reduce VOC emissions from architectural coating, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require the use of architectural coatings (no more than 50 grams/liter of VOC) that are beyond the limits in SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings9. Regarding the Sixth Bullet of Mitigation Measure – “Deliveries during Off-Peak Periods” SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require that no delivery vehicles may idle for more than five consecutive minutes. This is consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s idling policy guidelines10. Closing Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources LS RVC180327-04 Control Number 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf. 10 California Air Resources Board. June 2009. Written Idling Policy Guidelines. Accessed at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/guidance/writtenidlingguide.pdf. 350 April 23, 2017 Lijin Sun, J.D., Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR SCAQMD Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Ms. Sun: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment E-1: Project Description—The Lead Agency proposes to develop a total of 125,800 square-foot mixed-use commercial center development project on the 12-acre vacant parcel (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project will include various commercial uses, including banks, restaurants, gasoline service station, and grocery store. Based on a review of aerial photographs and Figure 2, Site Location, in the MND, SCAQMD staff found that residential uses are located immediately to the south and southwest of the Proposed Project. Response E-1: Pages 1 and 8 of the MND identify that while the total project is 125,800 square feet, 100,460 square feet was already approved in 2002. The uses approved in 2002 are the same as the uses currently proposed. Therefore, the MND uses the analysis from the previously certified MND (2002) for the approved 100,460 square feet and is only required to focus on the impacts of adding of 25,340 square feet to the retail areas. Comment E-2: Compliance with SCAQMD Rules—Since the Proposed Project includes gasoline service station, a permit from SCAQMD would be required, and SCAQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency for this Project in the Final MND. The assumptions in the air quality analysis in the Final MND will be the basis for permit conditions and limits. The Final MND should also demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rules, including, but are not limited to, Rule 201 – Permit to Construct, Rule 203 – Permit to Operate, and Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing. If there are permitting questions concerning the gasoline service station, they can be directed to SCAQMD Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-2551. Response E-2: The applicant has been made aware of the requirement to obtain a permit from the SCQAMD for the gasoline service station. Comment E-3: Air Quality Analysis—In the Air Quality analysis, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s regional construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than 351 significant. However, it does not appear that the Air Quality analysis include operational ROG emissions generated from storage tanks or from the fueling process. This may have likely led to an under-estimation of the Proposed Project’s operational air quality impacts. It is important to note that while CalEEMod quantifies mobile source emissions (e.g., trip visits by patrons) associated with operating a gasoline service station, CalEEMod does not quantify the operational stationary source emissions from the storage tanks and fueling equipment. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lead Agency quantify operational emissions from the fueling process in the Final MND. Response E-3: The Proposed Project which was analyzed is the added 25,340 square feet to the retail areas. The previous approval included an air quality analysis for the gasoline service station, therefore, no further analysis was conducted for the gasoline station. However, a Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) analysis was prepared for the additional 25,340 square feet, and the results (which were less than significant) were identified in the MND. Comment E-4: Health Risk Assessment—The Proposed Project would be sited in close proximity to existing residential uses. Benzene, which is a toxic air contaminant, may be emitted from the Proposed Project’s gasoline refueling operations. SCAQMD staff is concerned about the potential health impacts on the residents from being exposed to benzene. As such, it is recommended that the Lead Agency evaluate, quantify, and perform a health risk assessment for the Proposed Project in the Final MND. Guidance for performing a gasoline dispensing station health risk assessment can be found in the SCAQMD’s Emission Inventory and Risk Assessment Guidelines for Gasoline Dispensing Stations. Response E-4: The Lead Agency determined that a Health Risk Assessment wasn’t necessary since it is not a requirement. The comment will be shared with the Planning Commission for consideration. Comment E-5: Guidance Regarding Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Sited Near Sensitive Receptors—SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 2005. Additionally, it is recommended that a 50-foot separation between a gasoline dispensing facility and sensitive land uses (e.g., residential uses). SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider these guidance when making local planning and land use decisions. Response E-5: Thank you for your comment. The location of the proposed gasoline dispensing facility is over 50 feet away from sensitive uses in the area. The guidance will be considering in planning and land use decisions. Comment E-6: Mitigation Measures—Six mitigation measures from the Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 – Resolution 2002-2006 are incorporated in the MND for the Proposed Project. 352 Since CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures go beyond what is required by law to minimize any significant impacts, and to further reduce criteria pollutant emissions, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures that are more stringent than those from the Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 – Resolution 2002-2006. Regarding the Second Bullet of Mitigation Measure – “Low Emission Construction Equipment” To further reduce particulate matter emissions during construction and minimize their impacts on nearby residents, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use off‐road diesel‐ powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the CARB and USEPA Tier 4 off‐road emissions standards for equipment rated at 50 horsepower or greater during Project construction. Such equipment will be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices including a CARB certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF). Level 3 DPFs are capable of achieving at least 85 percent reduction in in particulate matter emissions. A list of CARB verified DPFs are available on the CARB website. These requirements shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. In the event that construction equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by the Lead Agency before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Project, using cleaner vehicle fuel, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously. Regarding the Third Bullet of Mitigation Measure – “Low VOC Paints, Primers, and Coatings” To further reduce VOC emissions from architectural coating, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require the use of architectural coatings (no more than 50 grams/liter of VOC) that are beyond the limits in SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. Regarding the Sixth Bullet of Mitigation Measure – “Deliveries during Off-Peak Periods” SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require that no delivery vehicles may idle for more than five consecutive minutes. This is consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s idling policy guidelines. Response E-6: Page 22 of the MND states: 6. The operator shall comply with all existing and future California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD regulations related to diesel-fueled trucks, which may include among others: (1) meeting more stringent emission standards; (2) retrofitting existing engines with particulate traps; (3) use of low sulfur fuel; and (4) use of alternative fuels or equipment. 353 Additionally, Mitigation Measures will be added to the Final EIR which address SCAQMD’s concerns. AIR-2: To the extent feasible, project applicant shall use paints and coatings with a VOC content lower than SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires or more stringent standards if in place at the time development occurs. AIR-3: In accordance with California Air Resources Board’s idling policy guidelines, no delivery vehicles may idle for more than five consecutive minutes. Comment E-7: Closing—Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. Response E-7: Responses to your comments have been provided as requested. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 354 From:Kelly, Pat To:Cheri Flores Subject:Pavilions Palms Shopping Center Date:Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:27:01 PM My name is Pat Kelly and I reside at 50375 Via Puesta Del Sol, La Quinta.  This is the Palmilla Development located at Avenue 50 & Jefferson. I have some concerns about the proposed Pavilions Palms Shopping Center 1)It appears that there is a fuel island designed on the southwest portion of the property.  I believe this is unsafe and should be moved to the north and up against Jefferson Street. Light pollution from a fuel island, especially if opened 24 hours, will have a negative impact on my residence. 2)How are U-turns from this development going to be prevented at the entrance to Palmilla on Avenue 50.?  The City of La Quinta police does an awful job of patrolling Avenue 50 as it is, so how would this safety issue be mitigated? 3)How will the developer mitigate noise that will impact properties near the development? This appears to be a high density development and will have lots of traffic & noise so how will this be addressed? I am concerned that this will have a negative impact on my residence. 4)Avenue 50 is already in terrible shape and this development will likely make it even worse. What is the City of La Quinta’s plan to fix the pavement that is already in awful shape, and is basically never even maintained? Thank you, Pat Kelly 355 April 23, 2017 Pat Kelly 50375 Via Puesta Del Sol La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Pat: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment F-1: It appears that there is a fuel island designed on the southwest portion of the property. I believe this is unsafe and should be moved to the north and up against Jefferson Street. Light pollution from a fuel island, especially if opened 24 hours, will have a negative impact on my residence. How are U-turns from this development going to be prevented at the entrance to Palmilla on Avenue 50.? The City of La Quinta police does an awful job of patrolling Avenue 50 as it is, so how would this safety issue be mitigated? How will the developer mitigate noise that will impact properties near the development? This appears to be a high density development and will have lots of traffic & noise so how will this be addressed? I am concerned that this will have a negative impact on my residence. Response F-1: The fuel center will be in operation from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. A lighting plan has been designed to result in no light spillage onto surrounding properties. The project includes a full movement access point at the easterly driveway on Avenue 50. Vehicles exiting the shopping center on Avenue 50 would be able to turn left out of this driveway in order to go in the eastbound direction. There would be minimal U-turns at the Palmilla entrance on Avenue 50. A noise study was prepared for the project that evaluated the project’s noise impact on the area and was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The existing ambient noise in the area which is generated from traffic along Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is approximately 65 decibels. The noise study shows that the project would not generate noise levels in excess of this. Additionally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration included mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. 356 Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. •Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier close to the device; •Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drive throughs; •Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; •The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; •There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: •Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools •Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises •Turn off idling equipment and vehicles •All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers 357 •All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units •Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment •Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum •Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use •Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications •All on-site deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 358 From:Kent Bailey To:Cheri Flores Cc:Dana S Bailey Subject:Proposed Pavilions Palms Center Comment Date:Friday, April 20, 2018 4:42:30 PM Hi Cheri, Thanks for the note, I’ll try again! After reviewing the summary of the plan for the proposed shopping, food and fuel center, my wife and I are most concerned. We can understand a need for a modest sized upscale grocery, but find a new center unnecessary when a desireable space is already available nearby. We’re disappointed that the developer, the current owner and city haven’t worked together to rehab the old Ralph’s location and dilapidated mall on Washington and Calle Tampico. As you no doubt know, there is an existing good sized grocery pad and space for numerous retail spaces that are way under utilized. With modest change a 24 pump fuel center could be placed on the lot as well. The 50th and Jefferson location is objectionable to us and many of our neighbors in Palmilla, with our entrance almost across the street from the proposed center. The center would negatively impact our quality of life us in the following ways: Much more traffic and congestion on 50th and at the Jefferson intersection. The Palmilla egress would be especially impacted and difficult. Late night fast food drive thrus and gas pump intercoms... noise pollution some of which would pollute for 24 hrs daily. High intensity lighting creates light pollution, the Ralph’s Center across the street has plenty of that already. A larger than needed fuel center would serve hundreds of vehicles daily and further impact traffic on our busy intersection. If it were placed further North on Jefferson that would be Mitgate some of the congestion and be a possible alternative site. Restaurant emissions of smoke and smell such as exists along Hwy 111 between Stater Bros and Wells Fargo is unacceptable in any residential setting such as ours. The commotion and traffic created by the addition of this center would no doubt drive our property values down and in fact lead to lower property tax revenue. We urge the city to say NO to this proposal in favor of a better center on the space across from City Hall on Calle Tampico. J Kent Bailey Dana S Bailey 50415 Via Serenidad LaQuinta Ca 92253 206 890 5386 Cell 359 April 23, 2017 Kent Bailey 50415 Via Serenidad La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Mr. Bailey: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment G-1: The 50th and Jefferson location is objectionable to us and many of our neighbors in Palmilla, with our entrance almost across the street from the proposed center. The center would negatively impact our quality of life us in the following ways: Much more traffic and congestion on 50th and at the Jefferson intersection. The Palmilla egress would be especially impacted and difficult. Late night fast food drive thrus and gas pump intercoms... noise pollution some of which would pollute for 24 hrs daily. High intensity lighting creates light pollution, the Ralph’s Center across the street has plenty of that already. Response G-1: The Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses the impacts of traffic on the Avenue 50 and Jefferson intersection. The project includes a full movement access point at the easterly driveway on Avenue 50. Vehicles exiting the shopping center on Avenue 50 would be able to turn left out of this driveway in order to go in the eastbound direction. There would be minimal U-turns at the Palmilla entrance on Avenue 50. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. A noise study was prepared for the project that evaluated the project’s noise impact on the area and was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The existing ambient noise in the area which is generated from traffic along Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is 360 approximately 65 decibels. The noise study shows that the project would not generate noise levels in excess of this. Additionally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration included mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. •Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier close to the device; •Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drive throughs; •Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; •The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; •There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: •Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools •Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises •Turn off idling equipment and vehicles 361 •All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers •All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units •Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment •Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum •Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use •Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications •All on-site deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The fuel center will be in operation from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. A lighting plan has been designed to result in no light spillage onto surrounding properties. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 362 As President of Palmilla HOA, a 159-single home development with a main entrance guard gate off of 50th just 500 feet west of Jefferson, our main concerns center around the traffic issues involved with this development. 1.The primary issue concerns location and the stacking capacity of the gas pumps. The gas station has the same number of dispensers as Costco, which implies sales of over 15,000 gallons per day. That translates into roughly 1,000 vehicles per day. However, the stacking design is not as long as the one at Costco that creates a potential bottleneck and interferes with the ingress and egress, thus backing up onto 50th Question: Can you explain your methodology and assumptions for the stacking lanes, especially during peak traffic times? We contend that the movement of the gas station 200 ft north on Jefferson can easily mitigate this issue. 2.Also at issue are concerns regarding the ingress/egress to our community from our main traffic gate on 50th. The current gas station location will force drivers to exit onto west bound traffic onto 50th. We believe that 50% of the new west bound traffic will U-turn at the entry into Palmilla to travel back east or back to Jefferson. (Via Palmilla is our street name.) Question: What were your estimates of U-turn activity and how were they based? We disagree with the EIR assessment and feel that a “no U turn sign” on 50th at our main entrance would discourage this, encourage people to exit onto Jefferson and prevent problems with our access. 3.The EIR indicated that noise issues would be mitigated yet it didn’t address whether the fuel dispensers will have the small TV’s (audible devises) on top showing minute commercials. This noise travels differently than normal ambient noise. Our homeowners nearest to the gas pumps will be adversely impacted if this is the case. Question: Can we be assured that the gas pumps discussed will not have these screens? If they do, what measures will be taken to mitigate this issue? We feel strongly that this type of audible advertising is intrusive in residential adjacent areas and should not be allowed. 4.When our community was being built, Avenue 50 was a two-lane road. Yes, we knew it was going to be widened but the result is that homes adjacent to the street have lost value due to the noise level. 363 Question: Is the city considering building a sound wall to or raising our community wall to mitigate the growing commercial and traffic noise issues. As the city grows and fills out, we feel that the pressure will increase from local residents to mitigate some of the impact. 5.The developer is anticipating up to 5 fast food restaurants and area residents are concerned about blowing trash. Question: What are the developer’s plans to mitigate this issue or will it reside with each fast food establishment? We would like some assurances that a plan is in place and responsibility assigned. 6.As we all know, there are many empty storefronts and restaurants in La Quinta. In addition to the 5 fast food restaurants, the plans call for two free standing bank branches (5,000 and 6,000 sq. feet) with drive-through windows. A report on NBC showed that big banks are still shuttering their locations. Citigroup closed 7 percent of North American branches year over year. And they are looking to take up less space. Technology is dramatically changing how they do business with the ability to do more transactions by computer and phone. We are concerned that this plan is overly ambitious and may wind up with empty commercial storefronts, obsolete bank buildings, and shuttered or less than desirable fast food alternatives. Question: How does the developer plan to roll out the build-out? In addition to the Pavilions market, gas station and convenience market, what other buildings will be built first? Will any other structures be built without a firm commitment from a store, restaurant or bank? What will the empty “pads” look like as we wait for the future commitments? We welcome the addition of the new. high quality grocery store. It will be an added benefit to those of us who live in the neighborhood. We just don’t want to live next to an empty shopping center or one that appears “failed” like others in the La Quinta community because they are overbuilt or not in demand (Sam’s Club, Ralph’s across from city hall, Jules, etc.) We are all proud to call La Quinta home and want it to reflect the appearance and values of our upscale community. 364 April 23, 2017 Ken Hulbert, President Palmilla Homeowners Association ken.hulbert@daumcommercial.com SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Mr. Hulbert: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment H-1: The primary issue concerns location and the stacking capacity of the gas pumps. The gas station has the same number of dispensers as Costco, which implies sales of over 15,000 gallons per day. That translates into roughly 1,000 vehicles per day. However, the stacking design is not as long as the one at Costco that creates a potential bottleneck and interferes with the ingress and egress, thus backing up onto 50th Question: Can you explain your methodology and assumptions for the stacking lanes, especially during peak traffic times? We contend that the movement of the gas station 200 ft north on Jefferson can easily mitigate this issue. Response H-1: The proposed fuel center is not expected serve the needs beyond the immediate community and therefore will operate at significantly less volumes than the fuel center at Costco. As planned, there will be 12 pumping stations with the capacity for 12 additional cars in waiting, for a total of 24 car parked at any one time. Based on the proposed operator’s experience, the number of pumps and queue capacity are adequate to safely and conveniently handle expected volumes even at peak hours. Comment H-2: Also at issue are concerns regarding the ingress/egress to our community from our main traffic gate on 50th. The current gas station location will force drivers to exit onto west bound traffic onto 50th. We believe that 50% of the new west bound traffic will U-turn at the entry into Palmilla to travel back east or back to Jefferson. (Via Palmilla is our street name.) Question: What were your estimates of U-turn activity and how were they based? We disagree with the EIR assessment and feel that a “no U turn sign” on 50th at our main entrance would discourage this, encourage people to exit onto Jefferson and prevent problems with our access. 365 Response H-2: The project includes a full movement access point at the easterly driveway on Avenue 50. Vehicles exiting the shopping center on Avenue 50 would be able to turn left out of this driveway in order to go in the eastbound direction. There would be minimal U-turns at the Palmilla entrance on Avenue 50. Comment H-3: The EIR indicated that noise issues would be mitigated yet it didn’t address whether the fuel dispensers will have the small TV’s (audible devises) on top showing minute commercials. This noise travels differently than normal ambient noise. Our homeowners nearest to the gas pumps will be adversely impacted if this is the case. Question: Can we be assured that the gas pumps discussed will not have these screens? If they do, what measures will be taken to mitigate this issue? We feel strongly that this type of audible advertising is intrusive in residential adjacent areas and should not be allowed. Response H-3: Audible advertising devises are to be restricted from the pump island. Comment H-4: When our community was being built, Avenue 50 was a two-lane road. Yes, we knew it was going to be widened but the result is that homes adjacent to the street have lost value due to the noise level. Question: Is the city considering building a sound wall to or raising our community wall to mitigate the growing commercial and traffic noise issues. As the city grows and fills out, we feel that the pressure will increase from local residents to mitigate some of the impact. Response H-4: Avenue 50 has been designated as a 4-lane divided roadway in the City’s General Plan and is currently mostly built to this designation. The project would build out the rest of the roadway per the General Plan designation. A noise study was prepared for the project that evaluated the project’s noise impact on the area and was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The existing ambient noise in the area which is generated from traffic along Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is approximately 65 decibels. The noise study shows that the project would not generate noise levels in excess of this. The noise study does not show the need for additional sound walls or raising the Palmilla community wall. Additionally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration included mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. 366 NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. •Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier close to the device; •Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drive throughs; •Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; •The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; •There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: •Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools •Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises •Turn off idling equipment and vehicles •All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers •All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units •Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment •Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum 367 •Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use •Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications •All on-site deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Comment H-5: The developer is anticipating up to 5 fast food restaurants and area residents are concerned about blowing trash. Question: What are the developer’s plans to mitigate this issue or will it reside with each fast food establishment? We would like some assurances that a plan is in place and responsibility assigned. Response H-5: The project proposes up to 3 drive throughs which would not necessarily all be fast food restaurants. With this submittal, the applicant has not proposed any fast food drive through restaurants. The applicant has indicated that housekeeping to maintain first class standards will be incorporated within the CC & R’s. Comment H-6: As we all know, there are many empty storefronts and restaurants in La Quinta. In addition to the 5 fast food restaurants, the plans call for two free standing bank branches (5,000 and 6,000 sq. feet) with drive-through windows. A report on NBC showed that big banks are still shuttering their locations. Citigroup closed 7 percent of North American branches year over year. And they are looking to take up less space. Technology is dramatically changing how they do business with the ability to do more transactions by computer and phone. We are concerned that this plan is overly ambitious and may wind up with empty commercial storefronts, obsolete bank buildings, and shuttered or less than desirable fast food alternatives. Question: How does the developer plan to roll out the build-out? In addition to the Pavilions market, gas station and convenience market, what other buildings will be built first? Will any other structures be built without a firm commitment from a store, restaurant or bank? What will the empty “pads” look like as we wait for the future commitments? Response H-6: In addition to the market, fuel center and convenience market, the initial build-out will include Shops 1 along the north end of the development. In addition, all the infrastructure for the development including all perimeter street improvements, sidewalks and landscaping will be completed with the initial development. Any building area not included with the initial build-out will be treated with a dust control agent and dressed out with decorative ground cover. 368 Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 369 April 22, 2017 Cheryl L. Flores Senior Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA, 92253 RE: INITIAL STUDY (IS) FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 50. Dear Ms. Flores: Please see the following comments regarding the IS for the above noted project. A)General Comment: The prepared Initial Study is a biased document, since it was commissioned by the applicant and it is only considering the additional (approximate) 20,000 q.ft. that has been added to the project, since the approval of the original Specific Plan (SP) in 1999. Please note that the entire project and its cumulative impacts of building a full shopping center shall be consider, since the original SP was prepared in 1999, where there was no development within two (2) square mile of the project (please see the County of Riverside GIS maps from 1996 & 2011 or see attached). B)Traffic Comments: Based on the Initial Study the traffic study was done in June 2017, and the traffic study refers to the preparation date as March of 2017 (page 14 of traffic study). Collecting the traffic data in June is not accurate, sine it is outside of the season and collecting the traffic data in March is not either, since it is at the tail end of the season. The traffic study is based on the first site plan that delineates an exit on Derek Allen; however, the final site plan does not show this exit. Therefore, the traffic study needs to be updated to show where the cars that "originally" were supposed to exit Derek Allen would go, what is their impact on the other driveway approaches (to and from the site), and on the overall site's circulation. The drive thru for building number two (2) shall be redesign. The proposed design will not work. The turning radius is too sharp and the space is very limited; therefore, the cares need do a three-point turn and back up into the main drive aisle in order to get to the drive thru. This will create a safety problem. Page 1 of 6 370 C)Lighting Comments: The site proposes 14, 40-foot light poles. 40' is the height of a three and half story building. The proposed height is not acceptable for commercial centers that are abutting residential neighborhoods. D)Noise Comments: The noise study states that: "It is assuming that the development will not operate through the night" (page 3 of noise study). This assumption is wrong, since based on the Specific Plan the convenience store will operate from 5:00 am to 12:00 (until midnight). Therefore, the proposed mitigation measures will not mitigate the noise pollution, since the mitigation measures only may reduce the noise during day and not addressing the noise during night. The noise data was collected from 4:50 pm to 5:50 pm on May 30, 2017 (page 5 of Noise Study). The data (table 2, page 9 of Noise Study) indicates that the noise level exceeds 50 db. (please note 50 db. is the acceptable noise level for sensitive land uses such as residential uses). Even with applying the mitigated measures, the noise level will exceed acceptable noise level (50 db.) for sensitive uses such as residential uses. All above noted issues will impact on the health and the quality of life of the people living adjacent to the proposed Center. Therefore, I respectfully request the City to response to my comments and perhaps update the above noted studies to reflect the actual situation. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, L�i�� 49590 Ali Ct La Quinta CA, 92253 leilanamvar@yahoo.com Cc: Linda Evans, Mayor of La Quinta Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Mayor Pro Tern John Pena, Council Member Robber Radi, Council Member Steve Sanchez, Council Member Page 2 of 6 371 372 373 374 375 April 23, 2017 Leila Namvar 49590 Ali Ct La Quinta, CA 92253 leilanamvar@yahoo.com SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Leila: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment I-1: The prepared Initial Study is a biased document, since it was commissioned by the applicant and it is only considering the additional (approximate) 20,000 q.ft. that has been added to the project, since the approval of the original Specific Plan (SP) in 1999. Please note that the entire project and its cumulative impacts of building a full shopping center shall be consider, since the original SP was prepared in 1999, where there was no development within two (2) square mile of the project (please see the County of Riverside GIS maps from 1996 & 2011 or see attached). Response I-1: The Lead Agency determined that it was appropriate to consider the additional square footage added to the project as allowed by CEQA Section 15162 regarding subsequent environmental analysis. Since the project has already been approved previously and no substantial changes to the project were proposed, the analysis of the additional square footage was appropriate. Cumulative impacts were based on the analysis of the City’s 2035 General Plan since the project site is zoned and general planned for commercial use; therefore, the project would have been considered in the General Plan EIR. Comment I-2: Based on the Initial Study the traffic study was done in June 2017, and the traffic study refers to the preparation date as March of 2017 (page 14 of traffic study). Collecting the traffic data in June is not accurate, sine it is outside of the season and collecting the traffic data in March is not either, since it is at the tail end of the season. The traffic study is based on the first site plan that delineates an exit on Derek Allen; however, the final site plan does not show this exit. Therefore, the traffic study needs to be updated to show where the cars that "originally" were supposed to exit Derek Allen would go, what is their impact on the other driveway approaches (to and from the site), and on the overall site's circulation. 376 The drive thru for building number two (2) shall be redesign. The proposed design will not work. The turning radius is too sharp and the space is very limited; therefore, the cares need do a three-point turn and back up into the main drive aisle in order to get to the drive thru. This will create a safety problem. Response I-2: The Mitigated Negative Declaration discussed the impacts of the closure of the Derek Alan Drive driveway. The closure has little to no impact on-site circulation or on- street circulation/access. A limited number of residents living in the surrounding residential neighborhood would be impacted by the closure since they would have to drive on arterial streets (Jefferson St. and Avenue 50) to access the project rather than being able to access the project directly from Derek Alan Drive. Regarding on-street circulation, it is unlikely that northbound Jefferson Street motorists destined to the Shopping Center would drive past the left-turn access driveway on Jefferson Street to turn on to Derek Alan Drive only to have to make another left-turn into the site. Likewise, it is unlikely that southbound Jefferson Street traffic would turn right in large numbers on to Derek Alan Drive in order to make a sharp left-turn to enter the far corner of the Shopping Center when they can just continue straight on Jefferson and make a right-turn at one of the other project driveways closest to their destination within the Center. The applicant will be conditioned to redesign the entry to the drive thru at Building 2. The plan does meet the minimum driveway width required of 12 ft. Comment I-3: The site proposes 14, 40-foot light poles. 40' is the height of a three and half story building. The proposed height is not acceptable for commercial centers that are abutting residential neighborhoods. Response I-3: The site is zoned for Community Commercial use which allows a maximum building height of 40 ft. The parking lot design standards in Municipal Code Section 9.150.100 state that light poles in the parking areas are allowed to be the same height as allowed in the underlying zone or 18 ft., whichever is greater. The light poles would be allowed to be 40 ft. per this section of the code. Additionally, the lighting plan for the project shows that there would be no light spillage onto surrounding properties. Comment I-4: The noise study states that: "It is assuming that the development will not operate through the night" (page 3 of noise study). This assumption is wrong, since based on the Specific Plan the convenience store will operate from 5:00 am to 12:00 (until midnight). Therefore, the proposed mitigation measures will not mitigate the noise pollution, since the mitigation measures only may reduce the noise during day and not addressing the noise during night. The noise data was collected from 4:50 pm to 5:50 pm on May 30, 2017 (page 5 of Noise Study). The data (table 2, page 9 of Noise Study) indicates that the noise level exceeds 50 db. (please note 50 db. is the acceptable noise level for sensitive land uses such as residential uses). Even with applying the mitigated measures, the noise level will exceed acceptable noise level (50 db.) for sensitive uses such as residential uses. 377 Response I-4: The City’s Noise Ordinance shows that normal acceptable levels in residential areas are up to 60 dB. Noise limits are 65 dBA from 7 am to 10 pm. The hours of operation for the fuel center would be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The projected noise levels from the shopping center would not exceed the normal acceptable levels of 60 dBA or the noise limits in the City’s ordinance of 65 dBA. Additionally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporated mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. • Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier close to the device; • Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drive throughs; • Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; • The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; • There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: • Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools 378 • Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises • Turn off idling equipment and vehicles • All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers • All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units • Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment • Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum • Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use • Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications • All on-site deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 379 April 23, 2018 La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission La Quinta City Hall, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Pavilion Palms development located at the Northwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson. As it is currently designed, the development will adversely affect the neighboring communities of Palmilla, Renaissance, Mountain View, Citrus, and Estancia. The plan should undergo close scrutiny and extensive modification to minimize noise, light and air pollution, as well as traffic and telecommunications overload. At a minimum, the fuel center/mini mart and five drive through buildings should be eliminated from the plans for several reasons. Noise/light pollution/air quality •Light pollution from the 24 hour operation of a fuel center. •Noise levels from intercoms and drive through service windows. •Off hour and frequent deliveries to a large Pavilions market and restaurants will cause continuous disturbances for the adjacent residences. •Emissions from fast food restaurants and cars idling at drive through service windows will diminish the air quality. Traffic/telecommunication overload •Ave 50 and Jefferson intersection is already heavily traveled and the addition of 300+ cars will create an unsafe traffic egress due to the poorly planned location of the fuel center •There is no transit stop nearby and vehicular traffic will intensify. •Both Avenue 50 and Jefferson are main access routes during festival season and events with high traffic congestion. •Existing telecommunication service in this part of La Quinta is already suboptimal and more development will add to an existing problem. A "LA-Style" strip mall of this magnitude at this location diminishes property values and does not truly fit the small town La Quinta lifestyle. A development with a "village vibe" and farmers market style amenities would better suit the needs and aesthetics of the community. With so much vacant commercial space within the city of La Quinta, we request that the Planning Commission significantly downsize this proposed development and keep large scale commercial developments within the Highway 111/Washington Street corridors. Thank you for your consideration. rec Robert L g 50460 Via Amante La Quinta, CA. 92253 380 April 23, 2017 Robert and Marilyn Lang 50460 Via Amante La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Mr. and Ms. Lang: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment J-1: Noise/light pollution/air quality • Light pollution from the 24 hour operation of a fuel center. • Noise levels from intercoms and drive through service windows. • Off hour and frequent deliveries to a large Pavilions market and restaurants will cause continuous disturbances for the adjacent residences. • Emissions from fast food restaurants and cars idling at drive through service windows will diminish the air quality. Response J-1: Impacts from noise, light pollution and air quality were considered in the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration. The fuel center operating hours will be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Additionally, the project’s lighting plan shows that there would be no light spillage onto surrounding properties. Mitigation measures will be implemented during project construction and operations to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. 381 NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. • Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier close to the device; • Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drive throughs; • Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; • The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; • There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: • Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools • Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises • Turn off idling equipment and vehicles • All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers • All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units • Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment • Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum • Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use • Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications • All on-site deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Comment J-2: Traffic/telecommunication overload • Ave 50 and Jefferson intersection is already heavily traveled and the addition of 300+ cars will create an unsafe traffic egress due to the poorly planned location of the fuel center 382 • There is no transit stop nearby and vehicular traffic will intensify. • Both Avenue 50 and Jefferson are main access routes during festival season and events with high traffic congestion. • Existing telecommunication service in this part of La Quinta is already suboptimal and more development will add to an existing problem. Response J-2: The proposed project has been planned for in the City’s General Plan and was factored into the growth projections of the General Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated traffic impacts and incorporated Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 to reduce traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the City continuously coordinates with Sunline Transit Agency to identify opportunities for transit stop locations. At this time, no transit stops are needed, however, that may change in the future. Telecommunication services are continuously being updated as available. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 383 April 20, 2018 La Quinta – Renaissance Cheri L. Flores clflores@la-quinta.org Senior Planner City of La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Ms. Flores, As a resident of Renaissance at La Quinta, please accept my respectful opposition of the proposed Pavilion Palms Development on the corner of Jefferson and Ave 50th. Although I appreciate the right of the builder to develop his commercially zoned property, I strongly oppose to the type of use and the potential negative impact on those neighborhoods surrounding the project as well as the City of La Quinta as a whole. The City of La Quinta’s General Plan 2035, among other things, aims to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gasses, to provide high quality community design, to promote efficient use of car, to advocate for expansion of other non-motorized means of transportation, to encourage transportation options that do not rely as much on the automobile, and to improve the health of residences by promoting healthy living practices. The proposed commercial project is upsettingly auto oriented. It is more suitable for the I-10 corridor or Highway 111, not a neighborhood community. The project (among other retail uses) is proposing 2 drive-thru fast food facilities, a late night gas station and mini mart selling alcoholic beverages similar to that proposed on the corner of Washington and avenue 50 a few years back, which was not approved. I do not believe you will find any type of similar development with a gas station, mini mart and fast food drive-thru restaurants off of the Hwy 111 corridor in La Quinta. I don’t believe this location should be the first for our beautiful City or neighbors. Concerns from our neighbors as it relates to noise, increased traffic and its impact on air quality; lighting from a late night gas station, minimart and fast food restaurants; possible increase in crime and an impacted view of the Santa Rosa Mountains are just a few reasons this project should be removed from consideration. Also, as we understand from our April 11th meeting which the developer himself attended, the proposed project does not meet the approved requirements in regards to square footage and density. As a result, an amendment to the approved additional environmental review is needed. 384 Please note the developer has a shopping center within the City of Indio (Showcase at Indio Shopping Center). That center is not being maintained properly. The center is full of trash and debris, with vacant dirt pads that are partially covered with weeds. The trash enclosures are dirty and full of trash. The buildings’ paint is faded and 30% of the parking lot trees are either missing or dead. There are shops with boarded and broken windows. It should also be noted that the Center has not been completed since its approval on 2006 and there are still several empty pads including an empty anchor, Super Target, which closed over a year ago. During our meeting with the Developer on Wednesday April 11th, he stated that he only has the Pavilions committed and once again we could end up with the same scenario as indicated above. Less than half occupied and dying landscape. We already have this at the closed Sam’s club location. An empty warehouse, closed gas station and dying landscape. I would like to add that approving this project, the way it has been proposed, will be a huge missed opportunity for the City of La Quinta and the community as whole. The Applicant does not live in our City or even in the Valley. The Applicant owns a great piece of commercial real estate in La Quinta and plans to build it for financial gain “ONLY”, without paying attention to the City’s General Plan and/or basic elements of urban planning. I find this project to be a public health and safety risk for the citizens and visitors of the great City of La Quinta. I do encourage you to review this proposal thoroughly and reject it to be re-designed and to conform to the City’s General Plan. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me directly. Respectfully, Steven Cenicola 79963 Julee court La Quinta, CA. 92253 scenicola@thevintageclub.com Cc: Linda Evans, Mayor of La Quinta Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Mayor Pro Tem Avail Property Management 385 April 23, 2017 Steve Cenicola 79963 Julee Court La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Mr. Cenicola: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment K-1: Concerns from our neighbors as it relates to noise, increased traffic and its impact on air quality; lighting from a late night gas station, minimart and fast food restaurants; possible increase in crime and an impacted view of the Santa Rosa Mountains are just a few reasons this project should be removed from consideration. Response K-1: The Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated impacts regarding noise, traffic, air quality and lighting. Regarding noise, hours of operation in the center would be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. A noise study was prepared for the project that evaluated the project’s noise impact on the area and was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The existing ambient noise in the area which is generated from traffic along Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is approximately 65 decibels. The noise study shows that the project would not generate noise levels in excess of this. Additionally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration included mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. 386 NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. • Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier close to the device; • Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drive throughs; • Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; • The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; • There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise-producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: • Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools • Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises • Turn off idling equipment and vehicles • All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers • All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units • Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment • Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum • Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use • Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications • All on-site deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Regarding traffic and air quality, Mitigation Measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 387 Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. Mitigation Measures: Fairway Plaza Amendment 1 - Resolution 2002-006: • All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition, and shall be properly serviced and repaired as needed. ꞏ • Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the project proponent shall demonstrate, or cause to be demonstrated to the Community Development Department that all construction equipment to be utilized shall be low emission, or how the use of low emission construction equipment is infeasible. • Low VOC paints, primers and coatings shall be required for all buildings on the project site. All paints shall be applied using either a high volume/low pressure spray or by hand. • The proposed project shall provide a bus turnout, shelter and associated improvements on Jefferson Street and on Avenue 50, unless Sunline Transit provides written confirmation-that no such turnout(s) or shelters are needed. • As required by the Municipal Code, the businesses operating within the proposed project shall conform to the Transportation Demand Management requirements in place at the time they begin operation. • Deliveries to the project site shall occur during off-peak periods. Mitigation Measures: AIR-1: Contractor is to implement at a minimum a 10-day painting schedule. AIR-2: To the extent feasible, project applicant shall use paints and coatings with a VOC content lower than SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires or more stringent standards if in place at the time development occurs. (added per request by South Coast Air Quality Management District) AIR-3: In accordance with California Air Resources Board’s idling policy guidelines, no delivery vehicles may idle for more than five consecutive minutes. (added per request by South Coast Air Quality Management District) Additionally, a lighting plan has been designed to result in no light spillage onto surrounding properties. Comment K-2: Also, as we understand from our April 11th meeting which the developer himself attended, the proposed project does not meet the approved requirements in regards to square footage and density. As a result, an amendment to the approved additional environmental review is needed. Response K-2: The applicant has prepared a Specific Plan Amendment and updated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project which addresses the increase in 388 square footage. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review March 23, 2108 through April 23, 2018. Additionally, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed under the Community Commercial Zone is 0.30, which would allow up to approximately 162,000 square feet. The project proposes approximately 122,000 square feet, which results in a FAR of 0.22. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 389 Sunl1ne TRANSIT AGENCY A Public Agency April 20, 2018 Cheri Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Pavilion Palms Dear Ms. Cheri Flores: MEMBERS: Desert Ho t Springs Palm Springs Ca thedral City Rancho Mirage Palm Desert Indian Wells La Quinta Indio Coachella Riverside County This letter responds to your request for comments regarding the proposed Pavilion Palms located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 within the La Quinta. The SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) staff has reviewed the project and offers the following comments. SunLine staffs assessment conclu des the proposed project will have no impact on transit services. Please keep staff informed of any approvals and/or future changes to the proposed project so we can keep all existing bus stops and services routes current. Additionally, if there is a need for transit service and/or transit amenities in the future, SunLine staff will coordinate it with the City of La Quinta. Should you have questions or concerns regarding this letter, please contact me at 760-343- 3456, ext. 1603. Transit Communications Service Specialist cc: Lauren Skiver, General Manager Stephanie Suriel, Deputy Chief of Administration 32-505 Harry Olive r Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-1986 www.sunline.org 390 April 23, 2017 Anita Petke, Transit Communications Service Specialist 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Thousand Palms, CA 92276 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON EA 2017-0006 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Anita: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Pavilion Palms Shopping Center. The comment letter has been marked and is attached. Responses are as follows: Comment L-1: SunLine staff’s assessment concludes the proposed project will have no impact on transit services. Please keep staff informed of any approvals and/or future changes to the proposed project so we can keep all existing bus stops and services routes current. Additionally, if there is a need for transit service and/or transit amenities in the future, SunLine staff will coordinate it with the City of La Quinta. Response L-1: Thank you for your comments. The City will continue to work with Sunline on transit service coordination. Thank you for your participation in the public review process. Cheri L. Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 391 Revisions in Response to Comments Received Revisions have been made to the text of the Draft MND in response to comments received during the public review period from South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding air quality mitigation measures and in response to revisions in the traffic study. The added air quality mitigation measures reflect typical practices that have been updated since the previous MND was certified in 1999. The addition of this text does not constitute a substantial revision per Section 15073.5 (c)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. All revisions to the Draft EIR are done with new text being underlined, and deleted text stricken through. Text to be added to Section 1 Introduction, page 1: July 2019 Revision Note: An additional traffic study was conducted at the request of the City. The results are included in Appendix F and Section XVI. The results of the study revealed no additional impacts. Text to be added to Section 4-III Air Quality, Mitigation Measures, page 25 and to Section 5, Summary of Mitigation Measures, page 80: AIR-2: To the extent feasible, project applicant shall use paints and coatings with a VOC content lower than SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires or more stringent standards if in place at the time development occurs. AIR-3: In accordance with California Air Resources Board’s idling policy guidelines, no delivery vehicles may idle for more than five consecutive minutes. Text to be added to Section 4-XVI Transportation/Traffic, page 69: An updated traffic study was completed in July 2019 per the request of the City to study additional intersections (Appendix E). The 2017 Traffic Study studied the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. The 2019 Traffic Study analyzed the following intersections: • Jefferson Street at Avenue 48 • Jefferson Street at Avenue 49 • Avenue 50 at Park Avenue • Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 • Avenue 50 at Madison Street • Jefferson Street at Pomelo 392 • Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 • Jefferson Street at N project driveway • Avenue 50 at E project driveway To analyze the “existing conditions + project traffic” scenario, the expected project trips were added to the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections according to the anticipated project trip distribution, while the pass-by project trips are added back into the traffic volumes only at the project driveways. Additional traffic from a planned expansion of the existing Citrus Plaza, located across Jefferson Street from the proposed Project site, was also added to the opening day traffic volumes, based on project details obtained from the applicant developer and City of Indio staff, to ensure cumulative traffic impacts were analyzed. The 2019 Traffic study identified that all of the Project intersections operate at a similar level of service, with the Project or without the Project, and including ambient growth and growth from the neighboring Citrus Plaza. Text to be revised in Section 4-XVI Transportation/Traffic, page 71: The July 2017 traffic study indicated that without the project, the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 will operate at LOS D, assuming a 2 percent ambient growth rate in the area (Albert Grover and Associates, July 27, 2017, Appendix E, Table 3). Assuming the ambient area growth, plus the new expected project trips, as well as the additional westbound through lane capacity, and implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 and project improvements listed above, the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is expected to operate at its current LOS D, which is an acceptable level of service per the General Plan and EB 06-13., and the proposed full-access driveway on Avenue 50 will operate at LOS A at opening day conditions. However, some delays are expected for vehicles entering traffic on Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 from the project driveways, which are expected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Per EB 06-13, however, this is considered acceptable traffic operations conditions for a stop control at a driveway location. Therefore, the impact of this criterion is anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation. The results of the 2019 Traffic Study identified that all the additional intersections studied with the Project, without the Project, and with the ambient growth of the area, including the Citrus Plaza development, will continue to operate LOS D during AM and PM peak hours, which is the same operating condition without the Project. The impact of this criterion is anticipated to be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 as previously identified. 393 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS AESTHETICS AES-1 Provide shielding for the dual head pole in the southwest corner as per the lighting design engineering recommendations. AIR QUALITY AIR-1: Contractor is to implement at a minimum a 10-day painting schedule. AIR-2: AIR-2: To the extent feasible, project applicant shall use paints and coatings with a VOC content lower than SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires or more stringent standards if in place at the time development occurs. AIR-3: In accordance with California Air Resources Board’s idling policy guidelines, no delivery vehicles may idle for more than five consecutive minutes. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO - 1: Any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should be conducted outside of the State identified nesting season for migratory birds, which is typically March 15 through September 1. 394 BIO – 1 (continued): If work cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a migratory nesting bird survey within and adjacent to the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiating the construction activities. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) will be prepared and implemented. At a minimum, the NBP will include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The NBP will include a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be determined by the biologist, and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and expected types of disturbance. The nests and 395 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS BIO – 1 (continued): buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and a monitoring report has been submitted reviewed and approved by the City of La Quinta 396 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: Grading activities shall be overseen by a qualified archeological monitor. In the event unanticipated archaeological resources are discovered: • The archaeological monitor shall notify the project foreman • The Archaeological monitor has the authority to temporarily halt work in the area of archaeological discoveries until the resource has been evaluated • All work in the vicinity of the find shall halt • Work in the area of the discovery shall not resume until written notification is received from the Project archaeologist 397 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS CUL-2: Grading activities shall be overseen by a qualified paleontological monitor. Paleontological monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors will be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring will be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units as described by the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Earth Sciences May 2, 2017 report are not present, or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition 398 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS CUL-3 (continued): pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The local authorities must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 Prior to grading plan approval, submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, a PMl0 management plan. GEO-2 For portions of the site not immediately under construction, ensure the stabilization of soils through the use of soil cement or re-vegetation, frequent watering. including watering during the evening and weekends during significant wind events; street sweeping or washing during construction, and the chemical stabilization of unpaved construction roadways. 399 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ – 1 A hazardous spill prevention plan shall be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City for approval to minimize the likelihood of a spill shall be prepared prior to construction. The plan shall state the actions that would be required if a spill occurs to prevent contamination of surface waters and provide for cleanup of the spill. The plan shall follow Federal, state, and local safety guidelines and standards to avoid increased exposure to these pollutants. HAZ – 2 If a contaminated area is encountered during construction, construction shall cease in the vicinity of the contaminated area. The construction contractor shall notify all appropriate authorities, including the EPA and the City. If necessary, the contaminated site shall be remediated to minimize the potential for exposure of the public and to allow the Project to be safety constructed. 400 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYD-1 Prior to Project approval, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan that shall, at minimum, include the following: • Identifies all project related pollutants, impacts to the site’s hydrologic condition, and potential impacts to local waterways caused by Project post-construction runoff; • Identifies BMPs required to remove pollutants from the Projects’ post construction runoff and prevent downstream hydromodification; • Identifies parties responsible for long term operation and maintenance activities of all BMPs; • Identifies the design, operation and maintenance of the underground stormwater collection system. 401 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS NOISE NOI-1 It is recommended that the Pavilions delivery dock is enclosed with walls and a roof, and that an acoustically absorptive material is used to partially line the internal walls to control noise build up. This will limit potential disturbance from unloading. NOI-2 Vehicle loading and unloading for all retail units should be carried out in a quiet manner. NOI-3 It is recommended that HVAC equipment on roofs is screened by a noise barrier from the residences. This barrier should at a minimum, provide line of sight screening. NOI-4 It is recommended that noisy HVAC equipment at grade is enclosed with CMU walls at least 2 feet higher than the equipment. NOI-5 It is recommended that noise from HVAC equipment is limited to 60 dB(A) at the site boundary. 402 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS NOI-6 Reduce the noise from the audible devices for the drive-through eating establishments using any and/or all methods as follows: • Position devices away from the site boundary to the south. • Provide additional screening such as positioning of the retail buildings or a noise barrier as close to the device; • Reduce the number of audible devices, such as one device to serve two drivethroughs; • Orient the device perpendicular to the vehicle and at ear height, with the device aimed at the listener in the vehicle; • The sound from the devices should be limited to a maximum of 75 dB(A) at 3 feet; • There shall be no annunciator tones, whistles, beeps or other characteristic sounds. NOI-7 Lay out the site working to keep noise- producing activities as far as possible from residences, minimize the use of backup alarms, and minimize truck activity and truck queuing near the residential areas. 403 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: • Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools • Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises • Turn off idling equipment and vehicles • All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers • All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units • Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment • Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum • Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use • Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications • All on-site deliveries shall be limited to 7.00 a.m. To 10.00 p.m. 404 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS NOI-8 Perform construction in a manner to minimize noise where practicable. For example: • Where practicable, use hydraulic rather than pneumatic impact tools • Operate equipment to minimize banging, clattering, buzzing, and other annoying types of noises • Turn off idling equipment and vehicles • All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers • All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units • Phase in start-up and shut-down of site equipment • Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations to keep noise to a minimum • Limit the time that steel decking or plates for street decking or covering excavated areas are in use • Limit the use of annunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications • All on-site deliveries shall be limited to 7.00 a.m. To 10.00 p.m. 405 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY STATUS / DATE / INITIALS TRAFFIC TRAF-1 Prior to recordation of the Final Tentative Parcel Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of La Quinta and post security to design and construct at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street two eastbound left turn lanes on Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street if required by the Planning Commission. TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES TRC-1 Native American Monitor(s) from the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians or Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians should be present during the initial grading/ground disturbing activities. 406 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 50 CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2017-0002 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHEREAS the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 4th day of February, 2020, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Lundin Development Company for approval of the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center, generally located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 more particularly described as: APN 602-180-004 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 24, 2020 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, previously on the 10th day of December 2019, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing where the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did previously hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 8, 2019 to consider this project and continued the Public Hearing, to allow the applicant time to revise the site plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did previously hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on June 26, 2018 to consider this project and continued the Public Hearing, to allow the 407 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 2 of 12 applicant time to revise the traffic study and include an analysis of other intersections in the area; and Specific Plan (Amendment) 2017-0002 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council, having great deference in interpreting the project’s consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies, knowing that it is nearly impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every General Plan Goal and Policy (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510-1511), did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code to justify approval of said Specific Plan: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that it will result in the development of an approximate 119,182 sq. ft. shopping center which is permitted in the General Commercial land use designation. The proposed project is consistent with and would not frustrate the Goals and Policies of the General Plan as follows: • Goals LU-6 and ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City, and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. • Policy LU-2.2 which requires Specific Plans for projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the Zoning Ordinance. This project proposes variations from several development standards therefore a Specific Plan is appropriate for the project. • Policy CIR-1.12 to reduce vehicular traffic on major roadways and to reduce vehicle miles traveled by traffic originating in the City by the development of a land use pattern that maximizes interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses. This project proposes a shopping center near residences 408 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 3 of 12 which would provide jobs near housing and provide goods and services near residences to shorten vehicle miles traveled. • Policy CIR‐2.3 to develop and encourage the use of continuous and convenient pedestrian and bicycle routes and multi-use paths to places of employment, recreation, shopping, schools, and other high activity areas by providing sidewalks on Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street along the project’s frontage as well as walkable areas within the project site. • Policy SC-1.6 to expand the City’s alternative transportation network by providing sidewalks along Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street to connect gaps in the City’s sidewalk system. • Program PR-1.8.c: to promote and improve public access to farmers markets and grocery stores that sell fresh produce and healthy foods with the establishment of a supermarket at the site. • Policy AQ‐1.6 which states that proposed development air quality emissions of criteria pollutants shall be analyzed under CEQA. The project’s MND analyzed these and determined that mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. • Policy BIO-1.2 which states that site‐specific, species-specific surveys shall be required for species not covered by the MSHCP. The project’s MND includes mitigation that requires pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl, which is not a covered species under the MSHCP. • GOAL CUL-1 which supports protection of significant archaeological, historic and paleontological resources which occur in the City. The project’s MND includes mitigation measures to include a tribal monitor during ground disturbing activities. 409 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 4 of 12 • GOAL N‐1 which supports a healthful noise environment which complements the City’s residential and resort character. The project’s MND includes mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. • GOAL GEO-1 which supports the protection of the residents’ health and safety, and of their property, from geologic and seismic hazards. The project’s MND determined that with implementation of required building and seismic code standards, the project would have a less than significant impact on geological resources. • Policy FH-1.3 which states that the City shall continue to implement development standards that provide for a reduction in runoff from developed lands and are consistent with local and regional stormwater management plans. The project is consistent with this policy since underground retention will be provided that will contain the 100 year storm for the site. • Policy PF‐1.3 which states that the City shall identify all viable financing mechanisms for the funding of construction, maintenance and operation of municipal facilities. The project will be required to pay development impact fees which is a funding mechanism for municipal facilities and public services. • The project conceptual landscape design is consistent with Goal WR-1 and Policy UTL-1.2 as it will result in the efficient use and conservation of the City’s water resources. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or 410 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 5 of 12 agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 3. Land Use Compatibility The proposed Specific Plan incorporates a land use that is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. The property will continue to be zoned as Community Commercial which is intended to provide for the sale of general merchandise, hardware and building materials, food, drugs, sundries, personal services and similar goods and services to meet the needs of multi-neighborhood area. The proposed shopping center would result in a floor area ratio of 0.22, which is below the allowed 0.30 floor area ratio in the Community Commercial zone. 4. Property Suitability The uses permitted in the Specific Plan are suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that the site is relatively flat, vacant, and the area can be served by all necessary public services and utilities. The proposed project is located at the intersection of arterial streets and provides convenience to goods and services to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Tentative Tract Map: 1. Tentative Parcel Map 37370 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, and Specific Plan 2017-0002 as proposed. The Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation as set forth in the General Plan, and as set forth in Specific Plan 2017-0002. 2. The design and improvement of Tentative Parcel Map 37370 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, and Specific Plan 2017- 0002 with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval. 411 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 6 of 12 3. The design of Tentative Parcel Map 37370 and proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. The design of Tentative Parcel Map 37370 and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, insofar as the project will be required to comply with all laws, standards and requirements associated with sanitary sewer collection, water quality and other public health issues. 5. The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type of development and proposed density of development given the site’s location at the corner of two arterial roadways and the site is relatively flat, vacant, and can be served by all necessary public services and utilities. 6. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, minimum lot area requirements, any other applicable provisions of this code, and the Subdivision Map Act. 7. The design and improvements required for Tentative Parcel Map 37370 will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property. All roadway improvements, easements, if any and surrounding improvements will be completed to City standards. 412 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 7 of 12 Site Development Permit 2017-0009 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council, having great deference in interpreting the project’s consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies, knowing that it is nearly impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every General Plan Goal and Policy (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510-1511), did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The City’s General Plan policies relating to General Commercial encourage shopping centers in the City, and the proposed use maintains those policies. The proposed project is consistent with and would not frustrate the Goals and Policies of the General Plan as follows: • Goals LU-6 and ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City, and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. • Policy LU-2.2 which requires Specific Plans for projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the Zoning Ordinance. This project proposes variations from several development standards therefore a Specific Plan is appropriate for the project. • Policy CIR-1.12 to reduce vehicular traffic on major roadways and to reduce vehicle miles traveled by traffic originating in the City by the development of a land use pattern that maximizes interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses. This project proposes a shopping center near residences which would provide jobs near housing and provide goods and services near residences to shorten vehicle miles traveled. 413 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 8 of 12 • Policy CIR‐2.3 to develop and encourage the use of continuous and convenient pedestrian and bicycle routes and multi-use paths to places of employment, recreation, shopping, schools, and other high activity areas by providing sidewalks on Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street along the project’s frontage as well as walkable areas within the project site. • Policy SC-1.6 to expand the City’s alternative transportation network by providing sidewalks along Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street to connect gaps in the City’s sidewalk system. • Program PR-1.8.c: to promote and improve public access to farmers markets and grocery stores that sell fresh produce and healthy foods with the establishment of a supermarket at the site. • Policy AQ‐1.6 which states that proposed development air quality emissions of criteria pollutants shall be analyzed under CEQA. The project’s MND analyzed these and determined that mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. • Policy BIO-1.2 which states that site‐specific, species-specific surveys shall be required for species not covered by the MSHCP. The project’s MND includes mitigation that requires pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl, which is not a covered species under the MSHCP. • GOAL CUL-1 which supports protection of significant archaeological, historic and paleontological resources which occur in the City. The project’s MND includes mitigation measures to include a tribal monitor during ground disturbing activities. • GOAL N‐1 which supports a healthful noise environment which complements the City’s residential and resort character. The project’s MND includes mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. 414 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 9 of 12 • GOAL GEO-1 which supports the protection of the residents’ health and safety, and of their property, from geologic and seismic hazards. The project’s MND determined that with implementation of required building and seismic code standards, the project would have a less than significant impact on geological resources. • Policy FH-1.3 which states that the City shall continue to implement development standards that provide for a reduction in runoff from developed lands and are consistent with local and regional stormwater management plans. The project is consistent with this policy since underground retention will be provided that will contain the 100 year storm for the site. • Policy PF‐1.3 which states that the City shall identify all viable financing mechanisms for the funding of construction, maintenance and operation of municipal facilities. The project will be required to pay development impact fees which is a funding mechanism for municipal facilities and public services. • The project conceptual landscape design is consistent with Goal WR-1 and Policy UTL-1.2 as it will result in the efficient use and conservation of the City’s water resources. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Community Commercial District as well as the development standards of the City’s Zoning Code and Specific Plan 2017-0002 in terms of architectural style and landscaping. The project satisfies the District’s intent to provide for the sale of general merchandise, hardware and building materials, food, drugs, sundries, personal services and similar goods and services to meet the needs of multi-neighborhood area. The project is generally consistent with the non-residential development standards and permitted use table, except deviations that include requested reductions from landscape setback standards, increased retail building size, and allowance of automotive service station as a 415 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 10 of 12 permitted use. These development standard and land use deviations may be approved with the Specific Plan Amendment. 3. Compliance with CEQA The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. 5. Site Design The site design of the project including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. 6. Landscape Design Project landscaping, including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General 416 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 11 of 12 Plan and Zoning Code. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to enhance the building architecture. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and constitute the Findings of the City Council in this case. SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby approves Specific Plan 2017-0002, Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003 and Site Development Permit 2017-0009 subject to the Conditions of Approval enclosed as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B”, and “Exhibit C” respectively, and incorporated by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta City Council, held on this the 4th day of February 2020, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: __________________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California 417 Resolution No. 2020 - XXX Specific Plan 2017-0002; Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003; Site Development Permit 2017-0009 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center February 4, 2020 Page 12 of 12 (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ WILLIAM IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 418 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX – “EXHIBIT A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2017-0002 (SPECIFIC PLAN 1998-034, AMENDMENT 2) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 1 OF 2 SPECIFIC PLAN 2017-0002 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (“City”), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Specific Plan 2017-0002 shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, and the approved Specific Plan document. In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of Specific Plan 2017- 0002, these conditions shall take precedence. 3. Specific Plan 2017-0002 shall comply with all applicable terms, conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 1998-375 and 2017-0006 Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003 (TTM 37370) Site Development Permit 2017-0009 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Design and Development Director shall adjudicate the conflict by determining the precedence. 4. Within 30 days of City Council approval, applicant shall provide an electronic copy (.pdf) and three bound paper copies of the Final Specific Plan document to the Design and Development Department. The Final Specific Plan shall include all text and graphics, all amendments per this action, and correction of any typographical errors, internal document inconsistencies, and other amendments deemed necessary by the Planning Manager. 5. Fuel center operating hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as stated in the Specific Plan. Any changes that need to be made to these hours after approval of the Specific Plan shall be subject to approval by the Design and Development Director. 6. Representatives from tribes within the project vicinity commented and have requested the following considerations: 419 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX – “EXHIBIT A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2017-0002 (SPECIFIC PLAN 1998-034, AMENDMENT 2) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 2 OF 2 A. The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be onsite during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). B. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. 420 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 1 of 22 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (“City”), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Parcel Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code §§ 66410 through 66499.58 (the “Subdivision Map Act”), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (“LQMC”). 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Development Services Division (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Exemption Form – Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • La Quinta Planning Division • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board • SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 421 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 2 of 22 4. Coverage under the State of California General Construction Permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (“RWQCB”) acknowledgment of the applicant’s Notice of Intent (“NOI”) and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City’s NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (“SWPPP”) to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant’s SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non-Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. 422 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 3 of 22 D. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council. E. The inclusion in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), a requirement for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post-construction BMPs as required. 6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney’s fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer’s failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant’s fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer’s failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of access easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal by City staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to remove graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall establish the aforementioned 423 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 4 of 22 requirements in the CC&R’s for the development or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant shall submit and execute an “AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY” form located at the Public Works Department Counter prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street rights-of-way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 12. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) – 64 feet from the centerline of Jefferson Street for a total 128-foot ultimate developed right of way except additional variable right of way dedication to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) – 54 feet from the centerline of Avenue 50 for a total 108-foot ultimate developed right of way except additional variable right of way dedication to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 13. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1” equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line 424 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 5 of 22 alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement. 14. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights-of-way shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such rights-of- way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights-of-way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 15. The applicant shall create minimum perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights-of-way as follows: A. Jefferson Street - 18-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Avenue 50 - 18-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately-owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 16. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 17. Direct vehicular access to Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative parcel map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final parcel map. 18. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other 425 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 6 of 22 encroachments will occur. 19. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access for Individual Properties and Development) for public streets. 21. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 22. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF-SITE STREETS 1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) a. Widen the west side of the street along frontage as necessary in order to accommodate deceleration/right turn only lanes serving the two entrances to the project. b. Reconstruct the existing landscaped median to provide the left turn in with physical left turn out restriction and restore the median landscaping. c. Class II bike lane as approved by the City Engineer d. Applicant shall pay cash fee to reimburse City for sidewalk improvements made to applicant’s frontage through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. 426 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 7 of 22 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) a. Widen the north side of the street along all frontage to the project boundary to its ultimate width on the north side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b. A deceleration/right turn only lane serving the entrances to the project as approved by the City Engineer c. 12-foot wide landscaped median along the entire boundary of the project plus variable width as needed to accommodate for a left turn lane into the easterly Avenue 50 project entry and for a left turn lane for eastbound Avenue 50 traffic at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street as approved by the City Engineer. d. Class II bike lane as approved by the City Engineer e. 6-foot wide sidewalk—The applicant shall revise the site plan and landscape plan to include a non-curb adjacent 6-foot wide sidewalk along Avenue 50 at a minimum distance of 4 feet from the street curb. The site plan and landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Manager prior to construction. f. The applicant is responsible for the cost to design and install dual eastbound left turn lanes to northbound Jefferson Street when determined by the City Engineer and a traffic study prepared for the applicant per Engineering Bulletin #06-13 that the left-turn volumes cannot be adequately served by the single left-turn lane. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post separate security for the cost to design and install the dual 427 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 8 of 22 eastbound left turn lanes. This obligation will remain in effect for 10 years after recordation of the final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 3) Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 Intersection: All necessary traffic signal modifications in the northwest quadrant of the intersection and any other modifications warranted by the timing and traffic generation of this development. 4) Other required improvements in the right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the project boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 23. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Jefferson Street (northerly): Right turn in, right turn out, and left turn in movements are permitted. Left turn out movements are prohibited. Jefferson Street (southerly): Right turn in and right turn out movements are permitted. Left turn in and left turn out movements are prohibited. Avenue 50 (westerly): Right turn in and right turn out movements are permitted. Left turn in and left turn out movements are prohibited. Avenue 50 (easterly): Full turn movements in and out are allowed. 24. Standard knuckles and corner cut-backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 25. The applicant shall install a transition for the eastbound Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street left turn lane that separates the turn lane from the left turn lane into the shopping center from eastbound Avenue 428 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 9 of 22 50. This transition will keep the left turn queue for Jefferson Street from backing up into the median break for the shopping center full turn movement. FINAL MAPS 26. Prior to the City’s approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate mylars of the Final Map. The Final Map shall be 1” = 40’ scale. PARKING and ACCESS POINTS 27. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to evaluate ADA accessibility issues can be evaluated. D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. E. Parking stall lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is required per 8 handicapped parking stalls. F. Drive aisles between parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 429 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 10 of 22 28. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site-specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c /5.5" c.a.b. Loading Areas 6” P.C.C./4” c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials per the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 30. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid-block street lighting is not required. 31. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by engineers registered in California. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as “engineer,” “surveyor,” and “architect,” refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 32. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 33. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for 430 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 11 of 22 review and approval by the Development Services Division. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On-Site Rough Grading Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1” = 40’ Horizontal C. Erosion Control Plan 1” = 40’ Horizontal D. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. E. Off-Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal, 1" = 4' Vertical F. Off-Site Signing & Striping Plan 1” = 40’ Horizontal The Off-Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. G. On Site Sewer and Water Improvement Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal H. On-Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal, 1"= 4' Vertical I. On-Site Precise Grading Plan 1” = 30’ Horizontal (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. 431 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 12 of 22 All Off-Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On-Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. “Rough Grading” plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2016 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Division. “On-Site Precise Grading” plans shall normally include all on-site surface improvements including but not limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, wall elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 34. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the “Plans, Notes and Design Guidance” section of the Design and Development Department at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Please navigate to the Design and Development Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 35. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). 36. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record 432 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 13 of 22 Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as-built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the EOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 37. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off-site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 38. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security). 39. Prior to constructing any off-site improvements, the applicant shall deposit securities equivalent to both a Performance and Labor & Material Bonds each valued at 100% of the cost of the off-site improvements, or as approved by the City Engineer. 40. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 41. When improvements are phased through a “Phasing Plan,” or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off-site improvements and common on-site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City 433 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 14 of 22 Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 42. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Parcel Map, and the status of the off-site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off-site improvements. B. Construct additional off-site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this Tentative Parcel Map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. Off-Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off-Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 20% Building Permit. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 43. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all 434 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 15 of 22 proposed on-site and off-site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule as approved by the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant’s detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 44. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 45. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 46. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 47. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, B. A preliminary geotechnical (“soils”) report prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). E. A WQMP prepared by an appropriate professional registered in the 435 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 16 of 22 State of California. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with the Plan as required by the City Engineer. 48. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 49. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6’) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 50. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer’s approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval, or as approved by the City Engineer. 51. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 52. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the 436 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 17 of 22 adjoining properties and the lots within this development. 53. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus half of a foot (0.5’) from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance review. 54. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 55. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the Pavilions Plaza Commercial Development project (TPM37370 and SDP2017-0009), or as approved by the City Engineer. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 56. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06- 16 – Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 57. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 – Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for 437 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 18 of 22 Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 58. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 59. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on-site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 60. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Manager and the City Engineer. 61. For on-site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 – Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin. 62. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to LQMC Section 9.100.040(B)(7). 63. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 64. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 65. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 66. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction 438 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 19 of 22 runoff per the City’s NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011. A. For post-construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7- 2013-0011. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of stormwater BMPs. UTILITIES 67. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 68. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above-ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 69. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. 439 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 20 of 22 The 92 KV transmission power poles and all existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 70. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 71. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly-maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 72. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 73. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 74. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 75. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Commission for their approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) and 9.150.080 (Parking Facility Design Standards). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be shielded to minimize trespass of light off the property. Security lighting along the west elevation of the anchor building shall be installed below 20 440 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 21 of 22 ft. in height and shall be shielded to minimize trespass of light off the property and not shine directly onto neighboring residences. Any illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 76. All water features shall be designed to minimize “splash”, and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. 77. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 78. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Design and Development Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Commission approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Manager and/or City Engineer. 79. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition” or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 80. The final design of the perimeter landscaping, particularly the perimeter wall, shall be included with the Final Landscape Plan submittal. 81. All vacant pads shall be planted with drought tolerant landscaping and/or decomposed granite and shall include fencing as appropriate so long as they are vacant. Any landscaping on vacant pads shall be irrigated and maintained regularly. The final landscape plan for the project shall include plans for fencing, landscaping, irrigation (as applicable), and maintenance for vacant pads. The final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing prior to construction. If, after two years from the opening of the Pavilions store, 441 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT B” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2017-0003 (TPM 37370) PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 22 of 22 any pads remain vacant, the applicant shall fully convert any such vacant pads into enhanced landscaping consistent with the design and planting materials approved in the final landscape plan throughout the balance of the shopping center, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. The applicant shall enter into a SIA covering these improvements and post separate security for the cost to install landscaping on each vacant pad. This obligation will remain in effect on each vacant pad until those vacant pads are ultimately built out. PUBLIC SERVICES 82. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements if required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 83. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 84. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, common areas, access drives, sidewalks, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 85. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 442 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 1 of 28 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (“City”), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Site Development Permit 2017-0009 shall comply with all applicable conditions for the following related approval(s): Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003 (Tentative Parcel Map 37370) Specific Plan 2017-0002 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Director of Design and Development shall adjudicate the conflict by determining the precedence. 3. Pad Buildings 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 shall require, prior to construction of any structures, a Site Development Permit to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. 4. The Site Development Permit shall expire two years from City Council approval and shall become null and void in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.200.080, unless a building permit has been issued. A time extension may be requested per LQMC Section 9.200.080. 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Development Services Division (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Exemption Form – Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • La Quinta Planning Division 443 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 2 of 28 • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board • SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 6. Coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (“RWQCB”) acknowledgment of the applicant’s Notice of Intent (“NOI”) and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 7. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City’s NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (“SWPPP”) to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at 444 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 3 of 28 www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant’s SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non-Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council. E. The inclusion in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), a requirement for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post-construction BMPs as required. 8. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 9. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney’s fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer’s failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 10. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant’s fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or 445 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 4 of 28 modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer’s failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 11. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of access easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal by City staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to remove graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall establish the aforementioned requirements in the CC&R’s for the development or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant shall submit and execute an “AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY” form located at the Public Works Department Counter prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 12. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 13. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street rights-of-way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, site development permit, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 14. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) – 64 feet from the centerline of Jefferson Street for a total 128-foot ultimate developed 446 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 5 of 28 right of way except additional variable right of way dedication to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) – 54 feet from the centerline of Avenue 50 for a total 108-foot ultimate developed right of way except additional variable right of way dedication to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. 15. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the rough grading plans submitted for plan checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1” equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement. 16. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights-of-way shown on the approved Site Development Permit are necessary prior to approval of the improvements dedicating such right-of- way, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 17. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights-of-way as follows: A. Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) – Minimum 18-foot from the R/W- P/L. B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) – Minimum 18-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. 447 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 6 of 28 The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately-owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 18. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 19. Direct vehicular access to Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative parcel map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final parcel map 20. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 21. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property after the date of approval of the Site Development Permit unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access for Individual Properties and Development) for public streets. 23. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 24. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) 448 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 7 of 28 A. OFF-SITE STREETS 1) Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) a. Widen the west side of the street along frontage as necessary in order to accommodate deceleration/right turn only lanes serving the two entrances to the project. b. Reconstruct the existing landscaped median to provide the left turn in with physical left turn out restriction and restore the median landscaping. c. Class II bike lane as approved by the City Engineer d. Applicant shall pay cash fee to reimburse City for sidewalk improvements made to applicant’s frontage through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) a. Widen the north side of the street along all frontage to the project boundary to its ultimate width on the north side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b. A deceleration/right turn only lane serving the entrances to the project as approved by the City Engineer c. 12-foot wide landscaped median along the entire boundary of the project plus variable width as needed to accommodate for a left turn lane into the easterly Avenue 50 project entry and for a left turn lane for eastbound Avenue 50 traffic at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street as approved by the City Engineer. 449 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 8 of 28 d. Class II bike lane as approved by the City Engineer e. 6-foot wide sidewalk—The applicant shall revise the site plan and landscape plan to include a non-curb adjacent 6-foot wide sidewalk along Avenue 50 at a minimum distance of 4 feet from the street curb. The site plan and landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Manager prior to construction. f. The applicant is responsible for the cost to design and install dual eastbound left turn lanes to northbound Jefferson Street when determined by the City Engineer and a traffic study prepared for the applicant per Engineering Bulletin #06-13 that the left-turn volumes cannot be adequately served by the single left-turn lane. Applicant shall enter into a SIA to post separate security for the cost to design and install the dual eastbound left turn lanes. This obligation will remain in effect for 10 years after recordation of the final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 3) Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 Intersection: All necessary traffic signal modifications in the northwest quadrant of the intersection and any other modifications warranted by the timing and traffic generation of this development. 4) Other required improvements in the right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the project boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 450 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 9 of 28 25. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: Jefferson Street (northerly): Right turn in, right turn out, and left turn in movements are permitted. Left turn out movements are prohibited. Jefferson Street (southerly): Right turn in and right turn out movements are permitted. Left turn in and left turn out movements are prohibited. Avenue 50 (westerly): Right turn in and right turn out movements are permitted. Left turn in and left turn out movements are prohibited. Avenue 50 (easterly): Full turn movements in and out are allowed. 26. Standard knuckles and corner cut-backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 27. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to evaluate ADA accessibility issues can be evaluated. D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. E. Parking stall lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is required per 8 handicapped parking stalls. 451 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 10 of 28 F. Drive aisles between parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 28. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site-specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c /5.5" c.a.b. Loading Areas 6” P.C.C./4” c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials per the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 30. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid-block street lighting is not required. 31. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by engineers registered in California. 452 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 11 of 28 IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as “engineer,” “surveyor,” and “architect,” refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 32. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 33. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Design and Development Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On-Site Rough Grading Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1” = 40’ Horizontal C. Erosion Control Plan 1” = 40’ Horizontal D. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. E. Off-Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal, 1" = 4' Vertical F. Off-Site Signing & Striping Plan 1” = 40’ Horizontal The Off-Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. G. On Site Sewer and Water Improvement Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal 453 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 12 of 28 H. On-Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal, 1"= 4' Vertical I. On-Site Precise Grading Plan 1” = 30’ Horizontal (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off-Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On-Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Design and Development Department. “Rough Grading” plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. “On-Site Precise Grading” plans shall normally include all on-site surface improvements including but not limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, wall elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 34. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the “Plans, Notes and Design Guidance” section of the Public Works Development Division at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Please navigate to the Design and Development Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 35. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans acceptable to the City Engineer. 454 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 13 of 28 36. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as-built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the EOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 37. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off-site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 38. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security). 39. Prior to constructing any off-site improvements, the applicant shall deposit securities equivalent to both a Performance and Labor & Material Bonds each valued at 100% of the cost of the off-site improvements, or as approved by the City Engineer. 40. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 41. When improvements are phased through a “Phasing Plan,” or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off-site 455 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 14 of 28 improvements and common on-site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. If construction of the commercial center proceeds in phases, the first phase of development shall include the construction and completion of the Anchor tenant building and associated fuel center, Shop 1, project landscaping and parking areas. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 42. Depending on the timing of the development of this Site Development Permit, and the status of the off-site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off-site improvements. B. Construct additional off-site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this Site Development Permit. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. 456 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 15 of 28 Off-Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off-Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 20% Building Permit. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 43. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on-site and off-site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule as approved by the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant’s detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 44. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 45. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 46. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 47. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, 457 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 16 of 28 B. A preliminary geotechnical (“soils”) report prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). E. WQMP prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with the Plan as required by the City Engineer. 48. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 49. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6’) of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb. 458 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 17 of 28 50. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer’s approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval, or as approved by the City Engineer. 51. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 52. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. 53. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus half of a foot (0.5’) from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit Site Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance finding review. 54. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 55. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the Pavilions Plaza Commercial Development project (TPM37370 and SDP2017-0009), or as approved by the City Engineer. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 56. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06- 16 – Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for 459 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 18 of 28 Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 57. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 – Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 58. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 59. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on-site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 60. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Manager and the City Engineer. 61. For on-site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 – Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin. 62. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to LQMC Section 9.100.040(B)(7). 63. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 460 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 19 of 28 64. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 65. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 66. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City’s NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011. A. For post-construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7- 2013-0011. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of stormwater BMPs. UTILITIES 67. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 461 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 20 of 28 68. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above-ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 69. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. The 92 KV transmission power poles and all existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 70. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 71. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly-maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 72. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 73. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 74. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City’s Water 462 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 21 of 28 Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 75. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Commission for their approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Sections 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) and 9.150.080 (Parking Facility Design Standards). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be shielded to minimize trespass of light off the property. Security lighting along the west elevation of the anchor building shall be installed below 20 ft. in height and shall be shielded to minimize trespass of light off the property and not shine directly onto neighboring residences. Any illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 76. All water features shall be designed to minimize “splash”, and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. 77. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 78. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Design and Development Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Commission approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Manager and/or City Engineer. 79. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition” or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 463 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 22 of 28 80. The final design of the perimeter landscaping, particularly the perimeter wall, shall be included with the Final Landscape Plan submittal. 81. Applicant/Developer shall install paving patterns, such as stamped concrete or decorative colored pavers, to delineate and differentiate pedestrian-oriented areas throughout the project from the vehicular circulation, parking areas, ingress and egress, to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Paving patterns shall be approved with the final landscape plans by the Planning Commission prior to construction. 82. Applicant/Developer shall install and maintain pergola-style screen structure(s) of at least 40 feet and no more than 100 feet along the Derek Alan Drive frontage. The pergola-style screen structure(s) shall match the pergola-style screen structures that are provided along the Avenue 50 street frontage and shall not obstruct sight distance onto Jefferson Street. Pergolas shall be approved with the final landscape plans by the Planning Commission prior to construction. PUBLIC SERVICES 83. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements if required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 84. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 85. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, common areas, access drives, sidewalks, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 86. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 464 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 23 of 28 FIRE DEPARTMENT 87. The required fire flow shall be available from Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 21/2" x 21/2") spaced not more than 350 apart and shall be capable of delivering a fire flow 1500 GPM per minute for two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the construction site. 88. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to Fire Department for review and approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. 89. Prior to issuance of building permits, the water system for fire protection must be provided as approved by the Fire Department and the local water authority. 90. Blue dot retro-reflector pavement markers shall be located on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of the fire hydrant per standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org) 91. Fire Apparatus access road shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department Standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). Access lanes will not have an up, or downgrade of more than 15%. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance not less than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes will be designed to withstand the weight of 60 thousand pounds over 2 axles. Access will have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Access lane shall be constructed with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. 92. An approved Fire Department access key lock box (Minimum Knox Box 3200 series model) shall be installed next to the approved Fire Department access door to the building. If the buildings are protected with an alarm system, the lock box shall be required to have tampered monitoring. Required order forms and installation standards may be obtained at the Fire Department. 93. Display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side of 465 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 24 of 28 building(s) and/or rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be a minimum of 12” in height for building(s) up to 25’ in height. In complexes with alpha designations, letter size must match numbers. All addressing must be legible, of a contrasting color, and adequately illuminated to be visible from street at all hours. 94. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler system(s) with pipe sizes in excess of 4” in diameter will require the project Structural Engineer to certify with a “wet signature”, that the structural system is designed to support the seismic and gravity loads to support the additional weight of the sprinkler system. All fire sprinkler risers shall be protected from any physical damage. 95. The PIV and FCD shall be located to the front of building within 50 feet of approved roadway and within 200 feet of an approved hydrant. Sprinkler riser room must have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. A C- 16 licensed contactor must submit plans, along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 96. Install an alarm monitoring system for fire sprinkler system(s) with 20 or more heads, along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 97. Install a portable fire extinguisher, with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, for every 3,000 sq. ft. and/or 75 feet of travel distance. Fire extinguishers shall be mounted 3.5 to 5 ft above finished floor, measured to the top of the extinguisher. Where not readily visible, signs shall be posted above all extinguishers to indicate their locations. Extinguishers must have current CSFM service tags affixed. 98. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which exceeds quantities listed in 2013 CBC. No class I, II or IIIA of combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building. 99. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path marking shall be installed per the 2013 California Building Code. 100. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted “ELECTRICAL ROOM” on outside of door. 101. Fire Alarm Control Panel room doors if applicable shall be posted “FACP” on outside of door. 466 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 25 of 28 102. Fire Riser Sprinkler room doors if applicable shall be posted “Fire Riser” on outside of door. 103. Roof Access room door if applicable shall be posted “Roof Access” on outside of door. 104. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required by the Mechanical Code. 105. Air handling systems supplying air in excess of 2000 cubic feet per minute to enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. 2013 CMC. 106. Gate(s) shall be automatic or manual operated. Install Knox key operated switches, with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Building plans shall include mounting location/position and operating standards for Fire Department approval. 107. Nothing in our review shall be construed as encompassing structural integrity. Review of this plan does not authorize or approve any omission or deviation from all applicable regulations. Final approval is subject to plan review and field inspection. All questions regarding the meaning of the code requirements should be referred to Fire Department at 760-777- 7074. 108. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision for the turn around capabilities of fire apparatus. 109. Any portion of the facility or of an exterior wall of the first story of the building shall not be located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access roads as measured by an approved route around the complex, exterior of the facility or building. 110. Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes and entrance curb radius should be designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. The applicant or developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the appropriate lane printing and/or signs. BUILDING DIVISION 111. Building Plans prepared for permitting shall meet applicable California 467 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 26 of 28 Building Codes effective at the time of submittal. MISCELLANEOUS 112. Representatives from tribes within the project vicinity commented and have requested the following considerations: A. The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be onsite during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). B. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. 113. The County Coroner shall be contacted if human remains are identified during earthmoving activities. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and the landowner will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 114. No signage is permitted with this approval. A separate permit from the Design and Development Department is required for any temporary or permanent signs. 115. The applicant shall submit exhibits to the Planning Manager and City Engineer that demonstrate vehicles can turn into approved drive aisles for drive through facilities in one continuous movement prior to precise grading plan approval. The applicant shall modify drive aisle entries for drive through facilities on precise grading and building construction plans if the Planning Manager and City Engineer determine such modifications are necessary to accommodate vehicles turning into drive aisles. 116. The applicant shall install a transition for the eastbound Avenue 50 to northbound Jefferson Street left turn lane that separates the turn lane from the left turn lane into the shopping center from eastbound Avenue 50. This transition will keep the left turn queue for Jefferson Street from 468 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 27 of 28 backing up into the median break for the shopping center full turn movement. 117. Applicant/Developer shall add metal louvres as a decorative element to the fuel center canopy consistent with the architecture of the convenience store building. The metal louvres shall be reviewed and approved during building plan check. 118. The size of Building 7 shall be reduced from 3,000 square feet to 825 square feet and shall not include the sale of alcoholic beverages. 119. Applicant/Developer shall include architectural depth and relief on the south elevation of the anchor tenant building and extend around the southwest corner a distance of 20 feet with detail similar to that of site renderings for Retail Building #1 as presented to the Planning Commission at its December 10, 2019 Regular Meeting. The Planning Manager shall review and approve final design prior to issuance of building permits. 120. Public Art shall be dedicated on the project site or the Applicant/Developer shall pay a development fee pursuant to the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 2.65 Art in Public Places. 121. All vacant pads shall be planted with drought tolerant landscaping and/or decomposed granite and shall include fencing as appropriate so long as they are vacant. Any landscaping on vacant pads shall be irrigated and maintained regularly. The final landscape plan for the project shall include plans for fencing, landscaping, irrigation (as applicable), and maintenance for vacant pads. The final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing prior to construction. If, after two years from the opening of the Pavilions store, any pads remain vacant, the applicant shall fully convert any such vacant pads into enhanced landscaping consistent with the design and planting materials approved in the final landscape plan throughout the balance of the shopping center, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. The applicant shall enter into a SIA covering these improvements and post separate security for the cost to install landscaping on each vacant pad. This obligation will remain in effect on each vacant pad until those vacant pads are ultimately built out. 122. The project sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing prior to construction. 469 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX “EXHIBIT C” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2017-0009 PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER ADOPTED: Page 28 of 28 123. The height of parking lot lighting shall be modified to heights consistent with existing commercial centers in the Community Commercial Zone, not to exceed 20 feet, and shall be approved with the final landscape plans by the Planning Commission prior to construction. 124. The applicant shall install a minimum of 12 electric charging facilities in the anchor tenant’s parking lot. 125. The landscape architect shall identify standards for planting, irrigation and maintenance in the final landscape plan and the standards shall be included in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which shall be recorded on the Property and shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 126. Applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the Property. The CC&Rs shall (1) require minimum covenants for satisfactory, perpetual maintenance obligations on the Property; (2) name the City of La Quinta as an express third party beneficiary; (3) be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation; and (4) state that the CC&Rs cannot be amended without prior written consent of the City. 127. Applicant shall execute and record a maintenance agreement with the Renaissance HOA and the Palmilla HOA. The agreement shall (1) be imposed as an equitable servitude on the Property (2) require satisfactory, perpetual maintenance of the Property, (3) name the City as an express third party beneficiary; (4) be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation; and (5) state that the maintenance agreement cannot be amended without prior written consent of the City. If the applicant shows substantial evidence that the Renaissance and Palmilla HOA’s are not negotiating in good faith, the applicant may provide the evidence to the Design and Development Department and request removal of this condition. 470 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1471 472 ATTACHMENT 2 473 Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan Amendment #2 La Quinta, CA Original Approval: Specific Plan No. 98-034 La Quinta City Council Resolution 99-63, Adopted May 18, 1999 Amendment No. 1 - 98-034 Amended Adopted September 19, 2002 Amendment No. 2 Adopted _______ Applicant Lundin Development Company 16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 207 Huntington Beach, California 92649 Preparer: Jericho Systems, Inc. 47 N. First Street, 1st Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 307-5633 Amendment #2 Prepared March 2018 474 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Relationship to the General Plan.................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Relationship to Zoning ................................................................................... 3 1.2 Specific Plan Summary .............................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Project Summary ............................................................................................ 4 1.2.2 Project Objectives .......................................................................................... 4 1.2.3 Project Characteristics ................................................................................... 4 1.2.4 Master Design Theme .................................................................................... 5 2 MASTER PLAN .................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Project Description..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Grading ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Undeveloped Land ......................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Flood Protection ............................................................................................. 7 2.3 Drainage ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Drainage Plan Description ............................................................................. 7 2.4 Water ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.4.1 Water Service Description ........................................................................... 12 2.5 Sewage Disposal ...................................................................................................... 12 2.5.1 Sewer Service Description ........................................................................... 12 2.6 Utilities ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.6.1 Existing Utilities .......................................................................................... 12 2.6.2 Underground Utilities .................................................................................. 13 2.7 Circulation................................................................................................................ 13 2.7.1 Project Area Background ............................................................................. 13 2.7.2 Circulation Description ................................................................................ 13 2.7.3 Public Transportation ................................................................................... 14 2.7.4 Street and Traffic Improvements ................................................................. 14 2.7.5 On-Site Traffic Circulation Plan ................................................................. 16 2.7.6 Construction/Financing of Improvements 
 ................................................ 17 2.8 Signage ..................................................................................................................... 17 2.9 Landscape Concept .................................................................................................. 18 2.9.1 Development Standards ............................................................................... 18 2.10 Maintenance of the Shopping Center ....................................................................... 20 3 SPECIFIC PLAN ................................................................................................................ 21 3.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Cultural/Archaeology ............................................................................................... 21 3.2.1 Tribal Consultation, SB18 and AB52 .......................................................... 21 3.3 Paleontology ............................................................................................................ 22 3.4 Environmental .......................................................................................................... 23 3.4.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................... 23 3.4.2 Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................................... 23 3.4.3 Noise ............................................................................................................ 24 3.4.4 Trash Recycling ........................................................................................... 24 3.5 Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 25 475 3.5.1 Zoning Standards ......................................................................................... 25 3.5.2 Deviations from Zoning Code ..................................................................... 25 3.5.3 Permitted Uses ............................................................................................. 28 3.6 Specific Design Features.......................................................................................... 29 3.6.1 Screen Wall .................................................................................................. 29 3.6.2 Screening of Rooftop Equipment................................................................. 29 3.6.3 Utility Enclosures......................................................................................... 29 3.6.4 Cart Storage ................................................................................................. 29 3.6.5 Exterior Lighting .......................................................................................... 30 3.7 Property Rights ........................................................................................................ 30 3.8 Administration ......................................................................................................... 31 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Plan ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Lighting Plan Attachment 2 Preliminary Landscape Plans Attachment 3 Preliminary Grading Plans Attachment 4 Conditions of Approval Fairway Shopping Center Specific Plan 476 Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center (Project renamed) CITY OF LA QUINTA City of La Quinta, PO Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 City Council Linda Evans, Mayor Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Mayor Pro Tem John Peña, Council Member Robert Radi, Council Member Steve Sanchez, Council Member Planning Commission Mary Caldwell (Chair) Michael Proctor (Vice Chair) Stephen Nieto, Commissioner Kevin McCune, Commissioner Taylor Libolt Varner, Commissioner Philip Bettencourt, Commissioner Loretta Currie, Commissioner City Staff Jon Millen, City Manager Danny Castro, Design and Development Director 477 Insert site plan Figure 1 Site Plan EXHIBIT REPLACED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2 478 479 480 481 1 SUMMARY In May 1999, the City of La Quinta approved the Rancho Cielo Shopping Center Specific Plan and associated parcel map, proposed by Lundin Development. The Specific Plan identified the development of 111,000 square feet of a supermarket-anchored shopping center with an associated fuel center and adjacent pads for retail and restaurant uses on 12.5 acres at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue. The parcel is designated and zoned for Community Commercial (CC) use. The Specific Plan approval included the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 2002, an amendment to the Specific Plan (renamed to Fairway Plaza Shopping Center) was adopted that identified approximately 100,460 square feet of grocery store/pharmacy with fuel center and adjacent retail and restaurant uses. To date, Lundin Development has yet to construct the Project. On February 19. 2013, the City of La Quinta adopted the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its 2035 General Plan (SCH# 2010111094) which included the impacts of adding to commercial uses within the City, including the approved Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was also adopted for environmental impacts that could not be mitigated to a level below significance for: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Traffic (Resolution 2013-009). In 2018, the Lundin Development is requesting Amendment No. 2 to the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center Specific Plan to construct 125,800 square feet of grocery store/pharmacy with fuel center and adjacent retail and restaurant uses. In 2019, the Project was reduced to 119,195 square feet. The Project under Amendment 2 will occur on the same 12.5-acre site at the corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue, within the same area of the previously-approved Specific Plan, with uses similar to that which were already identified. Highlights of Amendment No. 2 include the following: • Renames “The Fairway Plaza Shopping Center” to the “The Pavilion Palms Shopping Center” • Adds 18,735 square feet of retail and ancillary uses similar to that which was previously approved. • The supermarket anchor tenant has changed from Albertsons to Pavilions • Eliminates references to components of the Project that have already been constructed between 1999 to date (i.e., such as the retaining wall between the commercial parcel and residential area and the requirement for a retention basin for residential area, both of which have been constructed) • Identifies changes in ingress/egress (i.e., two driveways in Avenue 50 instead of one, and the elimination of the access from Derek Alan Drive) • Stormwater will be managed by an underground system, instead of open retention basins. • The architectural components have been revised from Spanish/Mediterranean to Contemporary. 482 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is to provide an overview and analysis of the proposed Project for the property located at the northwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. The subject site in this report shall be referred to as the "Fairway Plaza Shopping Center." Additionally, this document augments the City's Zoning Code in terms of establishing permitted uses and setting forth particular design guidelines and development standards that are unique to the developer and anchor tenant.. It should be noted that where this document is silent on any matter, the City's Zoning Code shall apply. The Conditions of Approval as approved for the original Specific Plan by the City of La Quinta are contained within Appendix "A" and as approved development standards, are incorporated by reference. 1.1.1 Relationship to the General Plan The development of the Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center will be implemented to carry out the goals and policies contained in the General Plan. All development within this Project will be consistent with the provisions of the CC ("Community GC ("General Commercial") General Plan designation. Among the important provisions of the General Plan, which will be implemented upon the development of this Project, are the following: Land Use The proposed Project is consistent with the CCGC General Plan designation for this site. The Project represents approximately 0.22 FAR ([Floor Area Ratio] gross floor area ratio ("FAR"), which describesof all buildings divided by the average building floor area to net site area, is 0.187,), or 18.72%. The shopping center will be comprised primarily of retail businesses to serve the needs22 percent, which is consistent with the CC Zoning designation of a multiple neighborhood area.0.30 Maximum FAR. Tenants will include a grocery supermarket, drug store with pharmacy and associated fuel center, retail shops, drive-thruand restaurants, professional services and office uses, and an automobile with drive-through service station. These uses are consistent with those outlined for the CommunityGeneral Commercial designation. Additionally, walking, bicycling, and public transit will be encouraged by the design features of this Project. Circulation The Circulation Element of the General Plan outlines the design and location of required street improvements to complete the transportation system in the City of La Quinta. The Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center will widen and/or improve adjacent portions of both Jefferson Street, a major arterial, and Avenue 50, a primary arterial, according to General Plan standards. 483 Roadway Image Corridors In addition to roadway improvements, the Project will implement special roadway corridor improvements consistent with the unique character that the City of La Quinta requires. Improvements will include pedestrian walks, street name signs, and landscaping consistent with the themes suggested by the General Plan. 50th Avenue 50, being a secondary image corridor, will incorporate the appearance of low profile, indigenous canopyscreening type trees, limiting palm trees to node areas and shrubs (i.e., main entries and street intersections).oleanders). Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, being image corridors, will incorporate the appearance of screening type trees and shrubs. Water Quantity and Quality This Specific Plan outlines the use of drought tolerant planting and irrigation techniques, and incorporates a grading concept designed to retain storm water on-site as required by the City of La Quinta as per Condition No. 23 of the original Conditions of Approval of this Specific Plan. The Project is subject to regional and local regulations, including the need for an SWPPP under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAR000002). In addition, the City requires a grading permit for all developments that would require grading. Compliance with SWRCB’s General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit regulations requiring a SWPPP, and the grading permit required by the City would ensure water quality standards are not exceeded. The Project will create an impermeable surface over much of the entire site when complete. This can increase the potential for pollutants to occur in surface water primarily be from cars parked in the parking lot leaking fluids. However, the Project includes an underground system to collect all of the stormwater runoff from the Project site. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is proposed to be developed for the Project that will identify Best Management Practices for maintenance of the system. 1.1.2 Relationship to Zoning The development of this Project will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Community Commercial zone. As stated above, this document augments the City's Zoning Code in establishing permitted uses and setting forth particular design guidelines and development standards that are unique to the developer and anchor tenant.. It should be noted that where this document is silent on any matter, the City's Zoning Code shall apply. As noted above in Section 1.1, the original Conditions of Approval as approved for this Specific Plan are contained within Appendix "A" and are incorporated by reference. For further discussion of zoning see Section 3.5 of this Specific Plan. 484 1.2 Specific Plan Summary 1.2.1 Project Summary The proposed Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center Project is a 12.5 -acre site located at the northwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. This site is immediately adjacent to the City limits of the City of Indio and will provide approximately 100,460 119,195 square feet of retailmixed-use commercial space with accommodating parking and landscaping areas. The Pavilion Palms Shopping Center will widen and/or improve adjacent portions of both Jefferson Street, a major arterial, and Avenue 50, a primary arterial, according to General Plan standards. The Project will implement special roadway corridor improvements consistent with the unique character that the City of La Quinta requires. Improvements will include pedestrian walks, street name signs, and landscaping consistent with the themes suggested by the General Plan. Avenue 50, being a secondary image corridor, will incorporate the appearance of screening type trees and shrubs (i.e., oleanders). Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, being image corridors, will incorporate the appearance of screening type trees and shrubs. 1.2.2 Project Objectives This Project has been developed to provide retail and commercial space that will be easily available to the majority of people in the eastern and central Coachella Valley. The Project will provide additional retail shopping facilities, drive-thru restaurants, and a service station that in addition to accommodating La Quinta residents, will also serve the needs of residents from Palm Desert, Bermuda Dunes, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, and beyond. 1.2.3 Project Characteristics Based on additional preliminary studies of the Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center Project, the following conclusions have been drawn: • The site has unencumbered direct access via Jefferson Street, from Interstate 1Oto10 to Avenue 50. • The subject parcel, located on a corner, draws special advantages with direct access to both Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street as arterials.
Both the required zoning and general plan designation allow for this development on this site.. 
 • Both the required zoning and general plan designation allow for this development on this site. • This Project will place a commercial development of a viable size which could be absorbed by the area market located near the perimeters of the City of La Quinta, thus providing the City the opportunity to additionally draw from the greater Indio market area with its concentration of stable, year-round resident families. 
 485 1.2.4 Master Design Theme La Quinta includes a mixture of building types built over various time periods, and with a variety of architectural styles. Development includes structures built in the early twentieth century, and new master-planned communities built within the last decade. Architectural styles include those typical of Spanish Colonial, Mediterranean, Tuscan, and Modern styles. Spanish Colonial architecture is the most prevalent style used in La Quinta, and examples include the La Quinta Resort & Spa and Old Towne in the Village. The Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center is designed in a traditional Spanish Mediterranean architectural style using arched colonnades with tile roofsContemporary that will generally utilize traditional materials such as glass, wood, brick, and various metals. Additional architectural elements such as textured finishes, roundels, accent tile and raised trellises will be used to provide further details and interest, thus further enhancing the individual buildings and the quality appearance of the shopping center in general. The landscaped setbacks along Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street will incorporate meandering sidewalks with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access as well as landscaping that will include a variety of trees, shrubs and flowers, which accompanied by the parking lot landscaping, should provide an inviting atmosphere to draw shoppers to the center. 486 2 MASTER PLAN 2.1 Project Description The Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center will provide approximately 100,460 119,195 square feet of restaurant, /retail commercial space when complete. The Project consists of one combinationwill be anchored by Pavilions grocery store/ with a pharmacy, "Albertsons-Sav-On", as the major anchor, with 57,560 that will occupy 63,000 square feet. Albertsons will combine the sale of groceries with the off-sale of beer, wine and hard liquor, and a drive thru pharmacy. There are also sevenAdditionally, 11 other proposed retail buildings, each ranging from 2,2003,000 to 8,50011,700 square feet each. These will contain a variety of retail uses including two drive-thru, will be occupied by restaurants and an automobile service station and possibly a car wash. (The developer understands that a Conditional Use Permit will be necessary for the automobile service station)., banks, and retail units, as well as a fuel center/convenience market that is associated with the Pavilions. Parking for at least 474 cars, includingincludes 546 stalls, which includes compact and handicap spaces and shall include a minimum of 12 electric vehicle charging stations. will be provided.. 2.2 Grading The grading plan will conform to the recommendations of the soilsgeotechnical report and prepared for the site in 1998 and updated in 2017 (Landmark Geo-Engineers and Geologists, August 25, 2017). The site is relatively flat and contains sparse desert scrub. Soil balancing will be certified as adequate by a soils engineerused during grading so that there will be no soil import or engineering geologistexport. The desert scrub brush on site will be removed or buried depending on size and type. 2.2.1 Undeveloped Land Graded, undeveloped portions of the site anticipating future construction will be maintained to prevent dust and blows and nuisances. These undeveloped portions of the site shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Design and Development DepartmentCommunity Development and Public Works Departments. As per Condition No. 22 of the original Conditions of Approval for this Specific Plan, (Attachment 4), prior to occupation of the Project site for construction purposes, the applicant will provide for City approval a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, and the applicant will furnish security to the City in a form deemed acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. Vacant undeveloped pads shall be planted with drought tolerant landscaping and/or decomposed granite and shall include fencing as appropriate so long as they are vacant. Landscaping on vacant pads shall be irrigated and maintained regularly. The final landscape plan for the project shall include plans for fencing, landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance for vacant pads. The final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing prior to construction. 487 2.2.2 Flood Protection According to the August 19, 1991 Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), this Project site is not located within a designated flood hazard zone. 2.3 Drainage 2.3.1 Drainage Plan Description Project site is situated on the north side of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson Street. The southeast portionentire parcel is generally flat with the remainder of the parcel consisting of natural and man- made, graded dunes. The topography is, slightly irregular, with a general gradient sloping to the south and the east. The storm water runoff from the parking area will generally sheet flow to the east and the southeast. The points of flow concentration will be picked up in the future underground storm drain system that will terminate in an on-site retention basins.,.underground storage system. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. Storm water falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the right-of-way of the adjacent public streets. Flows in excess capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 488 489 Slopes shall not exceed 3:1 within the basin or the landscape area unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Retention facility design was based on an extensive drainage study performed by Warner Engineering. The purpose of this study was to model the 100-year, 1, 3, 6, and 24-hour events, then route the flows to retention basins using the City's required percolation rate. The event generating the greatest water volume was used as the design for onsite retention basins. Criteria for the study was based on the Hydrology Manual of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District manual and the City of La Quinta standards. 2.3.2 Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan (see accompanying exhibit) 2.3.3 Typical Section of Retention Basin (see accompanying exhibit) 490 EXHIBIT REMOVED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2491 492 2.4 Water 2.4.1 Water Service Description Based on preliminary discussions with the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD"), this development will take water service from an 18-inch water main located in Avenue 50. The water main comes through Tract No. 29858 and terminates in Avenue 50 approximately 250-300 feet west of Jefferson Street. Water service will be provided by CVWD has required that via an 18-inch water main be constructed in Avenue 50 along the project frontage. Installation of and a 24-inch main in Jefferson Street along. The CVWD reviewed the Project and identified that it could serve the Project frontage will also be required, terminating at with the north boundaryexisting water and entitlements (CVWD, October 5, 2017). The CVWD identified that the Project lies within the study area of the 2010 Water Management Plan Update. The CVWD identified that the groundwater basin in the Coachella Valley is in a state of the site. The timingoverdraft, and each new development contributes incrementally to the overdraft. CVWD identified that its Water Management Plan is in place to reduce overdraft and identifies specific actions for completion of this 24-inch water system for Jefferson Street will depend upon future developments as they are proposed, and will provide a backup water supply for this project at that time.reducing overdraft. The CVWD identified that the Project must comply with elements and actions described in the plan. 2.5 Sewage Disposal 2.5.1 Sewer Service Description Based on discussions with CVWD, this development will connect to a proposed sewer main in Avenue 50. If that main is not yet available when this development is constructed, the developer will construct or participate in the construction of a temporary connection to an existing sewer main located in the Citrus development, approximately one quarter mile south of Avenue 50.trunk line that runs through the site. 2.6 Utilities 2.6.1 Existing Utilities To ensure optimum placement for aesthetic, as well as, practical purposes, the developer shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above-ground utility structures, including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves and telephone stands. 493 2.6.2 Underground Utilities In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The developer shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the Public Works Director. 2.7 Circulation 2.7.1 Project Area Background Being located at the northwest corner of the Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street intersection, the Project site serves a central location as an important link, via Jefferson, from Interstate 10 to southwest Indio and the City of La Quinta. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") in conjunction with the City of La Quinta is currently in the process of redesigning Jefferson Street to the ultimate 120-foot wide right-of-way. Widening work is anticipated to precede the development of the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center. 2.7.2 Circulation Description In accordance with the City of La Quinta design policies, and as shown on the Off-Site Traffic Circulation Plan Exhibit, the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center is proposing the following circulation pattern: Major customer traffic access will be via two primaryThe previously approved Fairway Specific Plan identified four access points located : two from Jefferson Street, one from Avenue 50 and one from Derek Alan Drive. This Specific Plan amendment revises the site access plan to four driveways: three limited-access (no left-turns out) driveways and one full-access unsignalized driveway on Avenue 50, approximately 610440 feet to the west of the intersection at Avenue SO/Jefferson Street on Avenue 50, and 620 feet to the north of the Avenue SO/center line of the Jefferson Street intersection on signalized intersection. The access from Derek Alan Drive has been eliminated in this current plan. Stop signs will be provided within the interior parking lanes at the intersections with the major through lanes and at the driveway intersections with Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. An additional driveway allowing only right turn-in and right tum-out movementsThis will alsoensure inbound traffic has a continuous, uninterrupted flow into the parking lot. It should be provided on both Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. In addition tonoted that the above access directlyone driveway into the shopping center, the entry off of Jefferson Street into the future residential subdivision, which will be to the north and west of the commercial center, will also allow for entry from Derek Alan Drive, as previously identified on the previously-approved Fairway Specific Plan, has been removed with this current proposed Amendment No. 2. The 494 previously-approved Fairway Plaza Specific Plan had included a driveway from Derek Alan Drive to the shopping center. as a convenience to the residents in the residential development. However, due to resident concerns regarding unwanted traffic in the neighborhood after the residential development was constructed, the driveway access from Derek Alan Drive has been eliminated from the “Pavilion Palms” Project as amended. For all driveways leading from streets, the adjacent perpendicular drive aisle closest to the street shall be provided with stop signs. Additionally, the driveways leading to the street shall be provided with stop signs which will insure inbound traffic a continuous, uninterrupted flow into the parking lot. Two (2) additional approaches have been added as part of this Specific Plan Amendment. The revised building layout reflects the addition of two approaches on the Avenue 50 frontage, one to serve Parcels 1 and 2 directly (with a deceleration lane, right turn in and right turn out) and a one- way exit (right turn out only) located on the far west side of Parcel 1 for emergency vehicles only. The previous layout would have relied excessively on the approach situated immediately east of Parcel 2. The revised layout helps relieve this problem by reducing the concentration of traffic from the single driveway. This arrangement also accommodates the concerns of the Fire Department by creating an exit- only drive to accommodate oversized fire vehicles. Furthermore, the previous layout had insufficient turning radii, which would have obstructed the ability of responding fire vehicles to maneuver on the site, especially when exiting the parking lot. 2.7.3 Public Transportation Bus waiting shelters shall be provided as required when street improvements are installed, as approved by Sunline Transit and the Public Works Director. The SunLine transit agency provides bus service in the region. However, SunLine currently provides no service within proximity to the Project site, and the closest bus stop is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Project, at Washington and Avenue 50. The Project includes non-meandering sidewalks along the perimeter, and interior sidewalks offer ADA-compliant access to the perimeter sidewalks. Therefore, the Project can accommodate transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the future. 2.7.4 Street and Traffic Improvements 2.7.4.1 Minimum Street Improvements The developer will be responsible for the following street improvements: •Jefferson Street - Major Arterial: 51 feet of southbound travel improvements accommodating half of a raised landscaped median, three traffic lanes with widths of 12, 13, and 14 feet, a 5-foot bike lane, and a sidewalk. 495 • Jefferson Street – a sidewalk and minor relocation of the existing “pork chop” left turn median that serves the existing Ralph’s shopping center east of Jefferson Street as well as the Pavilions Palms Shopping Center. • Avenue 50 - Primary Arterial: 38 feet of westbound improvements accommodating half of a raised landscaped median, two through traffic lanes, left turn stacking and a 5'deceleration lane, a 5-foot bike lane and a sidewalk. 
 • Traffic Signals: Jefferson Street Uat Avenue 50 - All necessary traffic signal modifications in the northwest quadrant of the intersection and any other modifications warranted by the timing and traffic generation of this development. • Bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and/or other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths, raised medians or other mitigation measures as determined by the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 
 2.7.4.2 Access Points Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows: • The eastern driveway on Avenue 50 - One 30-foot wide right-in/right-out drive centered, approximately 4406 feet west of the centerlinecenter line of the Jefferson Street and one 40-foot wide right-in/right-out drive, which also allows a left turn into the project, centeredintersection, will allow for full movement of both left and right turns onto Avenue 50 thereby providing users access to points east of the Project. Shared left-turn and right- turn markings are specifically outlined in Chapter 3 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) and such movements are generally allowed at many corner gas stations throughout Southern California. • The westerly driveway on Avenue 50, approximately 610745 feet west of the centerlinecenter line of the Jefferson Street, or as approved by the City Engineer. In addition to these two entries, a third 30-foot wide right-in/right out drive has been added to provide entry to serve Parcels 1 and 2 directly and thereby relieving excessive traffic exiting and entering for the main shopping center. An emergency exit intersection, will be restricted to right turns only drive has been added to accommodate the concerns of the Fire. 496 Department by creating an exit-only drive and also providing sufficient turning radii for oversized fire vehicles. • Jefferson Street - One 30-foot wide right-in/right-out drive centered approximately 41O350 feet north of the centerline of Avenue 50, and one 4026-foot wide right-in/right-out drive, which also allows a left turn into the Project site centered approximately 6240 feet north of the centerline of Avenue 50, or as approved by the City Engineer.. • Entry street to the residential subdivision, north of commercial center - one 30-foot wide left-right-in/left-right-out drive centered approximately 230 feet from the centerline of Jefferson Street. 2.7.4.3 Access Drive Aisles The main traffic drive aisle leading into the shopping center from Avenue 50 will provide an access way of 146 feet. The second drive aisle from Avenue 50 has been designed to provide an access way that is approximately 50 feet in length. Because Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code, requires a length of 90 feet, this is obtained by adding and additional right turn lane or referred to as a deceleration lane which will be provided. The third drive aisle will further relieve traffic flowing in and out of the shopping center. A deceleration lane will also be provided to adequately mitigate any ill effects of the shorter access way lengths. The easterly drive aisle from Avenue 50 has been designed to provide a 130-foot throated curb along its west side and a 50-foot throated curb along its east side. A dedicated 90-foot deceleration lane is provided along the incoming approach east of this drive. 2.7.4.4 Improvement Appurtenances Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices and street name signs. 1.1.1.1 Off-Site Traffic Circulation Plan (See accompanying exhibit) 2.7.5 On-Site Traffic Circulation Plan (See accompanying exhibit) 1.1.1.2 Construction/Financing of Improvements Depending on the timing of development of this Specific Plan area and the status of the off-site improvements at that time, the developer may be required to construct the improvements, to reimburse the City or others for the cost of the improvements, to secure the cost of the improvements for the construction by others at a later date, or a combination of these methods. Site access is provided by to two Primary driveways, one each off Jefferson and Ave 50. The Primary driveway on Avenue 50 offers full turning movements and aligns with the main 497 north/south traffic lane along the front of the Pavilions that distributes traffic to the drive isles within the main field of parking. The secondary driveway on Avenue 50 is right turn in, right turn out only, and provides secondary ingress and egress. The Primary driveway from Jefferson restricts left turn exits, and allows right turns in and right turns out, along with left turns into the site. This Primary driveway intersects the two main north/south internal traffic lanes that distributes traffic to the drive isles within the main field of parking along with the out-parcel parking areas. The secondary driveway on Jefferson is right turn in and right turn out only and provides for secondary ingress and egress. Figure 1 also identifies the on-site truck circulation. 2.7.6 Construction/Financing of Improvements 
 If the developer is required to construct improvements for which this document only obligates a share of the cost, the developer may seek reimbursement of the remaining cost from the City or from adjacent developments, as appropriate, under the City's reimbursement policy. 2.8 2.8 Signage A required sign program, as required per Resolution No. 99-63, was will be submitted and approved by the Design and Development DepartmentCommunity Development Director in April of 2001. 2.8.1 2.8.1 Signage Locations (See accompanying exhibit) 1.1.1.3 2.8.2.1 Building Sign Locations (See accompanying exhibit) 2.8.2 Major Tenant Sign Details (See accompanying exhibit) 2.8.3 Shop Sign Details • priorPurpose: To identify tenant • Quantity: One per lease area frontage Size: One (1) square foot per lineal foot lease frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet, with the size proportional to the facade of the building on which it is mounted.construction. • Design: Letter style and color to be determined by tenant, and approved by the City of La Quinta. • Ancillary signs: Maximum of three (3) information signs on the Albertsons building without further approval for additional signs. As per Specific Plan Condition No. 5 of the Final Conditions of Approval approved as per Council Resolution No. 99-63 498 EXHIBIT REMOVED IN EXHIBIT 2499 [this page left intentionally blank] 500 EXHIBIT REMOVED IN EXHIBIT 2501 [this page left intentionally blank] 502 EXHBIT REMOVED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2503 EXHIBIT REMOVED IN AMENDMNET NO. 2504 EXHIBIT REMOVED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2505 EXHIBIT RMEOVED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2506 507 508 509 510 511 [this page left intentionally blank] 512 EXHIBIT REMOVED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2513 EXHIBIT REMOVED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2514 "Ancillary signs shall be defined as those identifying products not typical of a food store, such as a bank or one-hour photo." 2.8.4 Monument Sign (See accompanying exhibit) 2.8.5 Store Identity Sign (See accompanying exhibit) 2.9 Landscape Concept The Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center will be landscaped following an agrarian theme which will emphasize the use of both palm trees and citrus in groupings. This project lies within a predominately agricultural area which consisted mainly of citrus groves and date orchards in the past. The goal of this design theme is to blend with the surrounding plant palette. Plant material selection will be based on this theme, as well as appearance, low maintenance requirements, climatic suitability and tolerance to local conditions. Palm trees will be used for accenting project features limited to node areas of main entries and street intersections, and canopy trees will be used in parking areasevenly spaced to provide shade. As per Condition No. 37 of the original Conditions of Approval approved for this Specific Plan, upon submission of the first site development permit or conditional use permit, whichever comes first,a dramatic street view statement along with 50 percent shading within the field of parking. A preliminary landscape plan will beis submitted for City as part of this Amendment which is attached (see Attachment 2, which was revised per the Planning Commission ). Planning Commission review and approval. The plans include the entire perimeter of the center, retention basin, parking lot area, and the area immediately around the buildings proposed under the permit. The sizes of the proposed trees are included within the plans approved by the City Planning Department, by caliper sizes per accepted industry standards. The plans include the location of permanent cart return corrals proposed for use. 2.9.1 Development Standards Landscaping for the Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center shall comply with the zoning code requirements and the "General Landscaping Guidelines and Irrigation System Design Criteria" by the Coachella Valley Water District. As per original Condition of Approval No. 35 of this Specific Plan, the landscape plans as developed for the shopping center, were reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department in April of 2001.a landscape plan is provided as part of this amendment. As per Condition No. 21 of the original Conditions of Approval for this Specific Plan, efforts will be employed to minimize differences in elevations at abutting properties and between separate lots within the shopping center. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more 515 than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage where the differential will not exceed five feet. Alternatively, if compliance with this requirement is not feasible, the City of La Quinta will consider and may approve viable options intended to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties, and neighboring-owner dissatisfaction with the grade differentials. 2.9.1.1 Landscape Shading Requirements for Parking Lots The shade trees in the parking areas will be a variety that will provide shade coverage over 50 percent of the parking area within 15 to 20 years from installation. 2.9.1.2 Landscape Maintenance Responsibility for the maintenance of the common landscape areas within the development shall be stipulated in the conditions, covenants, and restrictions ("CC&R's") developed for the shopping center, or other enforceable mechanism satisfactory to the City of La Quinta. Landscape materials shall be maintained as planted in perpetuity. Any dead or missing trees shall be replaced within 30 days. 2.9.1.3 Landscape Development Standards Landscaping shall be provided within the landscape setback and retention basins along Jefferson Street and the setback area along Avenue 50. The following standards shall be utilized within the landscaped areas of the Project site: • Slopes: Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights-of-way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. • Finger Islands: A minimum of six feet wide • Tree Size: All 24-inch box trees shall be a minimum orof 4-inch in diameter as measured 12-inch from grade. All 24-inch box trees shall be a minimum of 2-12 to 3-inch in diameter as measured 6-inch from grade. Approved landscape plans will include caliper sizes per accepted industry standards..
 • Irrigation: Landscape areas shall have a permanent irrigation system meeting the requirements of the City Engineer, with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. • Lawn Areas: Use of lawn areas will be minimized..
 • Coordination: The developer shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of aboveground utility structures. • Line of Sight: Plant materials within the clear sight triangle of each entrance shall not exceed 30-inches in height..
 • As per Condition No. 39 of the original Conditions of Approval for this Specific Plan, if the Project is phased, undeveloped pads shall be turfed or landscaped and 516 irrigated with a groundcover as approved by the City of La Quinta for dust control purposes, and to enhance the appearance of the Project. • As per Condition No. 40 of the original Conditions of Approval for this Specific Plan, landscaping will be provided in the area in front of the Albertsons/Savon building, as approved in the applicable Site Development Permit application. • The final landscape plan for the project shall include plans for fencing, landscaping and irrigation for vacant pads. The final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Comission. 2.9.1.4 Landscape Screening The drive-thru restaurants shall provide screening of the cars using the drive-thru facilities by a combination of walls and/or landscaping. Screening of the parking lot surface from the adjacent streets shall be provided through berming, landscaping and/or short decorative walls. 1.1.1.4 Preliminary Landscape Plan (see accompanying exhibit) 1.1.1.5 Proposed Plant Palette (Table 1) 2.10 Maintenance of the Shopping Center As per Condition No. 45 of the original Conditions of Approval approved for this Specific Plan, the applicant will make provisions for the continuous, perpetual maintenance of all required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City of La Quinta. This will include formation of an association or other arrangement acceptable to the City for the maintenance of the retention basins, common areas, and perimeter walls and landscaping. The retention basins are no longer part of this Specific Plan, as stormwater will be directed to underground stormwater system. Therefore, the applicant will make provisions for the continuous, perpetual maintenance of the underground stormwater system. Applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the Property. The CC&Rs shall (1) require minimum covenants for satisfactory, perpetual maintenance obligations on the Property; (2) name the City of La Quinta as an express third party beneficiary; (3) be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to redecoration; and (4) state that the CC&Rs cannot be amended without prior written consent of the City. 517 EXHIBIT REVISED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2518 LIST REVISED IN AMENDMENT NO. 2519 3 SPECIFIC PLAN 3.1 Land Use The Project site and surrounding properties are is currently vacant land. To the north a golf course and west exists the residential tract are planned.subdivision, Renaissance. An approximate 3-acre stormwater retention basin and a Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) well site buffers most of the subdivision from the Project site. Across Avenue 50, to the south, is a newthe Palmilla residential development Tract 29858 andneighborhood. Across Jefferson Street to the east and is an existing Ralphs shopping center. To the southeast, the land is mostly vacant with a few scattered residences. The adjoining properties have been studied in conjunction with projected development and have not called attention to any adverse or extraordinary circumstances surrounding the area across Jefferson Street are additional residential subdivisions. This Project will be developed in accordance with ordinances and/or circumstances stipulated by the City of La Quinta. 3.2 Cultural/Archaeology A cultural resources survey was undertaken by CRM TECH to identify and assess cultural resources on the subject site. For complete study see Cultural Resources Report dated December 14, 1998. CRM Tech prepared two studies for the Project site. The first consisted of Phase I and Phase II cultural assessments conducted in 1998 and 1995 for approximate 50 acres of undeveloped land as part of Tentative Parcel Map No. 29052 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29053, which included a residential development and the current commercial Project site. The study was part of the environmental impact review process for the proposed subdivision and development of the property, as required by the City of La Quinta, Lead Agency for the Project, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The second study was conducted in June 2017 and consisted of a historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background review, and an archaeological field inspection of the approximately 12-acre Project site (CRM Tech, June 5, 2017). Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, or ground disturbance, mitigation measures as recommended by the archaeological assessment for the site shall be completed at the developer's expense. 3.2.1 Tribal Consultation, SB18 and AB52 California Senate Bill 18 requires a 90-d ay consultation period between a lead agency and California Native American Tribes when an application for a General Plan Amendment, Specific 520 Plan, or Specific Plan Amendment is submitted. The City of La Quinta initiated the SB18 consultation process on January 10, 2018 and the process will end April 10, 2018. The outcome of consultation is anticipated to result in Native American Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. California Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) went into effect on July 1, 2015, which established and requires a consultation process with all recognized California Native American Tribes to consider any tribal or cultural values when determining a specific Project impact/mitigation. The City of La Quinta initiated AB52 process began October 3, 2017. Letters were sent to tribes on the list received from the Native American Heritage Commission. Responses were received from Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (Cabazon), Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) and Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Twenty-Nine Palms). The Cultural Study from CRM Tech was sent to ACBCI and Twenty-Nine Palms as requested. Both ACBCI and Twenty-Nine Palms asked for approved Native American Monitors from the ACBCI and Twenty-Nine Palms to be present during ground disturbing activities of the Project construction. Mitigation measures have been implemented into the environmental study to have a Native American Monitor present from either tribe. 3.3 Paleontology A paleontologic assessment of the Project site was conducted by the Paleontologic Resource Assessment Program of the Section of Paleontology, San Bernardino County Museum in November, 1998. It was and on May 2, 2017. Both studies concluded in the report that sediments found at the site have the potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontologic resources which may be negatively impacted by any grading or excavation. A review of relevant paleontologic literature indicates that significant fossil remains have been recovered from properties in the same vicinity as the Project site, thus contributing to the interpretation of high paleontologic sensitivity. Due to the above considerations, a program to mitigate the impact on nonrenewable resources is recommended. This program should include, but not be limited to, the monitoring of any excavation of the site, preparation of the recovered specimens, identification and curation of specimens and the preparation of a final report, and inventory, of the findings. The mitigation program will be complete when the final report is submitted to the lead agency, the City of La Quinta. 521 3.4 Environmental 3.4.1 Air Quality The potential of1998 air quality report prepared for the original Specific Plan identified that the Project construction and subsequent operations of the Fairway Plaza Shopping Center toProject would result in air quality emissions that would exceed the daily criteria, as recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, willbut would be mitigated to the extent that they are reasonably feasible by measures as recommended by Synectecology in their air quality report of November 5, 1998. Mitigation measures recommended include, but are not limited to, maintaining all construction equipment in good condition so as to reduce operational emissions, the use of low emission construction equipment whenever feasible and the use of low VOC paints, primers and coatings. In addition, long term mitigation will be aided by the availability of public transportation facilities along with direct vehicular and pedestrian access points to the adjacent residential subdivision, and the provision of bicycle facilities within the development. Although residual emissions would be expected to remain in excess of recommended threshold values for CO, NOx, ROG and the impact iswas expected to remain significant, Synectecology found this Project to be consistent with the policies and goals of the Air Quality Management Plan and that it will result in less intensive commercial development at the site than that allowed under the existing General Plan, thereby reducing potential emissions. In 2013, the City of La Quinta adopted its General Plan, which assessed the environmental impacts of current and future projects based on the zoning designations or approved specific plans. The Fairway Plaza Specific Plan, which included 100,460 square feet of retail space with accommodating parking and landscape area, had been approved prior to the assessment of environmental impacts of the City’s General Plan. On February 19, 2013, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable air quality impacts identified in the updated General Plan EIR. In 2018, a revised air quality assessment was prepared to address the net increase of approximately 21,920 square-feet of new uses not previously reviewed or approved in the 1999 Specific Plan and subsequent 2012 Updated General Plan. The study found that the net increase would not exceed thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. Further, that the additional uses would not cumulatively generate a considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant nor violate any air quality standard during construction and operation of the proposed Project. The site zoning is Community Commercial, which allows for a 0.30 Maximum Floor Area Ratio ([FAR] gross floor area of all buildings divided by the building site area). The proposed Project represents approximately 0.22 FAR. Therefore, the Project proposes less intensity than allowed under the zoning. 3.4.2 Greenhouse Gas The City of La Quinta adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Plan) on February 13, 2013. The Plan provides reduction strategies and reduction measures that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at their source and at the end use by improving operating efficiency, increasing reliance 522 on renewable source for energy production, developing new technologies, and through conservation. These reduction measures are listed in Table 28 of the Plan and can be implemented as needed during the design phase. The Project will comply with the strategies of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. 3.4.23.4.3 Noise A noise study, dated November 5, 1998, was provided by Synectecology for this Project. Recommendations made to ensure that any construction noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels include the following: all construction will be performed between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday; all internal combustion equipment will be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers; and, all pieces of stationary equipment will be located as far as practical from adjacent residences. Operational noise will be reduced by limiting on-site deliveries to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and erecting a wall by an existing soundwall that varies in height from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet in height behind the north and west commercial center. This measure will reduce any potentially significant impacts to a level that is less than significant and no further mitigation will be warranted parcel perimeter. Noise studies for the Project were prepared in 2002 as part of the Specific Plan Amendment approval and in 2017 and in 2018 to serve as an update. A 2002 study identified that both Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue were impacted, and exceed 60 dBA CNEL. The study identified that all new development is required to mitigate to the City's standards for noise, as required in the General Plan (Table EH-1, Warner Engineering, February 19, 2002). The 2017 noise study also concluded that areas along Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue were impacted and exceeded the 60dBA criteria. Ambient noise measured along various locations along the north and west perimeter of the site, nearest to the residences, measured between 53.9 and 60 dBA. The study determined that the main sources of noise across the site are noise from road traffic on 50th Avenue and Jefferson street, other noise sources included HVAC systems serving the houses to the north, west and south of the site and from HVAC serving the commercial buildings to the east, across Jefferson Street. There was also minor noise from distant aircraft and birdsong. Noise is also anticipated from the speakers of the drive-through eating establishments, as well as vehicle doors closing in the parking lot. The Project is proposed approximately 150 feet between the closest development building and the residences to the south. The residences to the south already have a concrete masonry boundary wall. 3.4.33.4.4 Trash Recycling Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a plan for adequate trash recycling provisions shall be approved by the CommunityDesign and Development Department. The plan is to be reviewed for acceptability by applicable trash company prior to City review. 523 3.5 Zoning The subject property has a CC ("Community Commercial") designation in place and is identified within the General Plan use designation as CommunityGeneral Commercial. The specific uses and requirements of the CC zone relevant to this Project are outlined in Section 3.5.3 of this Specific Plan. 3.5.1 Zoning Standards The Fairway PlazaPavilion Palms Shopping Center will be developed following the framework of the general zoning requirements of the CC zone of the City of La Quinta. 3.5.2 Deviations from Zoning Code The following development standards are proposed as deviations from the City of La Quinta Zoning Code. A brief justification for each request is included. and identifies if previous deviations are still applicable. 3.5.2.1 Number of Parking Stalls Provided The parking stall deviation requested in the previously-approved Specific Plan no longer applies. The site has been redesigned to accommodate the required parking for the shopping center is 474of 579546 stalls, and the applicant shall install a minimum of 12 electric charging facilities in the anchor tenant’s parking lot. and has been provided in the design. . The percentage of landscaping proposed, both in the parking areas and near the buildings exceeds the required percentage by 30 percent. 3.5.2.2 Reduction in Landscape Setback Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 are considered arterial roadways in the City’s General Plan. The municipal code requires a 20-ft. landscape setback along arterial roadways. The Specific Plan will change the standard for the site to 18 ft., which is a 10 percent reduction to the setback. 3.5.2.23.5.2.3 Retail Store over 50,000 Square Feet of Floor Area The AlbertsonsPavilions grocery store will have approximately 57,56063,000 square feet of floor area which exceeds the permitted retail store size of 50,000 square feet maximum. This retail store, however, will actually combine several allowed uses under one roof. Included within the grocery store will be a full service pharmacy with a drive-thru window, as well as a liquor department which will sell beer, wine and hard liquor. 524 1.1.1.6 Automobile Service Station 3.5.2.4 Fuel Center/Convenience Store The site has been designed to accommodate the option of an automobile service stationa fuel center with a convenience store that would be located on the building pad located atjust west of the southeast corner of the site. In the event that the developer wishes to develop it for this purpose, the service station use will need to be approved by This fuel center/convenience store is an adjunct to the grocery store/pharmacy anchor tenant. The proposed operation will consist of one 825 square-foot convenience market, a 100-foot by 50- foot fueling canopy over three sets of double fuel islands with 12 fueling stations and a monument sign for required pricing and identification. The specific location and design of the monument sign will be part of the overall sign program for the Specific Plan that will be submitted at a future date. The fuel center operation will include dispensing of motor vehicle fuel, an automobile-related air/water unit, and a 825 square-foot convenience market that will offer the sale of convenience dry goods and general merchandise, lottery tickets, refrigerated dairy/deli products and prepared food and drinks., including the sale of beer, wine and alcohol, for off-premised consumption. As provided for in the Specific Plan landscape plan, the operation will be heavily screened from Avenue 50 with densely spaced 36-inch box Yellow Oleander planted at 10 feet on center within the landscape set back planting area along Ave 50. Yellow Oleander spreads approximately 8 to 20 feet and develops quickly into a dense medium to large evergreen shrub to 8 feet high, or higher as a small tree to 25 feet, and will be trimmed to effectively screen the operation from Avenue 50 and areas south. The hours of operation of the convenience store/fuel center will be 7:00 AM to 10 PM, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission or the Director/Manager of the Design and Development Department. The convenience store/fuel center will be staffed by 156 employees. The anchor tenant Pavilions is responsible for obtaining and maintaining all State, federal and local permits associated with the fuel operations and convenience store. Primary fuel center equipment will include air and water dispensers, two-10,000 gallon and one 20,000-gallon underground tanks along with necessary underground compressors and pumping components. Primary equipment for the convenience store will include refrigerated cases for display and storage of dairy/deli and beverage products, together with related compressors and refrigeration systems. The convenience store will include twoone restrooms and a manager’s office. During the operation, typical material such as solvents, paints, lubricants, metals, industrial-grade cleaners, refrigerants, petroleum products and other automotive-related hazardous materials will 525 be utilized. These materials will be handled in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations with respect to hazardous materials. Parking lot lighting, access and customer and truck circulation will be integrated as part of the Specific Plan. Final exterior building design will be subject to future Planning Commission underapproval, but will follow the Contemporary architecture theme as established with Specific Plan. The fuel center and convenience store is currently planned to be associated with the supermarket tenant and will be considered a permitted use in the Specific Plan with an anchor tenant. However, if the fuel center and convenience store will not be developed by the associated supermarket tenant, and rather an unassociated entity, the City will require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The fuel center and convenience store is currently planned to be associated with the supermarket tenant. The anchor supermarket tenant and fuel center (with or without a convenience store) are permitted uses as long as both uses are developed in tandem and both uses continue to operate. However, if one use continues and the other is discontinued, approval of a Conditional Use Permit will be required. 3.5.2.33.5.2.5 Depth of Entry Access Ways The lengths of threethe east side of the access wayseasterly most Ave 50 drive into the commercial development areis less than the 90 feet as required by the Zoning Code, Section 9.150.080. Due to the fact that this shopping center and parking lot are located diagonally to the adjacent streets, entryways of shorter lengths will allow for greater efficiency in traffic flow in to and through the parking areas. A As a mitigating measure, a dedicated 90-foot deceleration lane will also be provided at each of the shorter entries intended to mitigate any traffic flow problems off of the adjacent public streets.has been provided along its easterly approach. 3.5.2.43.5.2.6 Retention Basin An extensive drainage study was performed to address the retention on the project. Even though the Zoning Code, Section 9.60.240 states that no retention of storm waters is allowed within the setback area other than incidental storm water that falls on the setback, certain areas used for the above ground retention fall into the setback area in several sections of the landscape area due to the meandering of the designated landscape area. Areas will be used with catch basins and drywalls, or combinations thereof, to collect water that eventually flow into the proposed above ground retention areas utilizing the landscape area for capacity. A determination has been made that the proposed retention basin and drainage system will meet or exceed the criteria of the Riverside County Flood Control, Water Conservation District, and the City of La Quinta standards.\ A retention basin was approved for stormwater retention in the previous Specific Plan. This Amendment removes the basin and replaces it with an underground stormwater system. This is consistent with City codes, and no deviation is necessary. 526 3.5.3 Permitted Uses Community Commercial: • Retail stores under 10,000 square feet floor area per business • Retail stores under 10,000 to 50,000 square feet floor area • Retail stores under 50,000 to 75,000 square feet floor area · • Food, liquor and convenience stores under 10,000 square feet floor area, open less than 18 hours/day • Automobile service stations, with or without minimart, with anchor tenant. (For this development, the fuel center and convenience store are planned to be associated with the supermarket tenant. The anchor supermarket tenant and fuel center [with or without a convenience store] are permitted uses so long as both uses are developed in tandem and both uses continue to operate. However, if one use continues and the other one is discontinued, approval of a Conditional Use Permit will be required. • Showroom/catalog stores, without substantial onsite inventory • Barber shops, beauty, nail and tanning salons and similar uses • Miscellaneous services such as travel services, photo developing, videotape rentals, shoe repair, appliance repair, and similar uses • Laundromats and dry cleaners except central cleaning plants 
 • Printing, blueprinting and copy services 
 • Pet grooming without overnight boarding 
 • Banks 
 • General and professional offices • Medical offices - physicians, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, and similar practitioners • Medical centers - four or more offices in one building 
 • Surgical and medical clinics • Restaurants, other than drive-thru • Restaurants, drive-thru 
 • Restaurants, counter take-out with ancillary seating, such as yogurt, ice cream, pastry shops and similar • Commercial recreational 
 • Museum or gallery displaying sculpture, artwork or crafts, including schools for the above
 • Parks, unlighted playfields, and open space 
 • Bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails 
 • Fire stations 
 • Government offices and police stations 
 • Public flood control facilities and devices 
 • Emergency shelters 
 • Auto parts stores, with no repair or parts installation on the premises 
 * Notes: 527 1. Other than convenience stores. Items sold may include clothing, groceries, meat, drugs, jewelry, sundries, office supplies, pets, furniture, appliances, hardware, building materials (except lumber yards), and similar retail items. 2. With no consumption of alcohol on the premises. 3.5.4 3.5.4 Permitted Uses with a Conditional Use Permit Automobile service stations are permitted use within the Community Commercial zoning designation upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 3.6 Specific Design Features 3.6.1 Screen Wall In order to mitigate noise and light generated from the shopping center, a solid eight-foot high masonry screen wall that varies in height from 6 feet to 8 feet has been constructed to the City of La Quinta standards between thise commercial Project site and the plannedexisting residential development to the north and west will be constructed to City of La Quinta standards. 3.6.2 Screening of Rooftop Equipment Consistent with the Zoning Code, the design of the buildings will architecturally integrate or screen from view the location of all rooftop and wall mounted mechanical equipment by means of a parapet wall. 3.6.3 Utility Enclosures Unless located underground, any utility enclosures including pallet enclosures, propane/generator enclosures shall consist of masonry materials sufficient in height to screen all storage with solid painted gates provided, with the design, colors, and materials architecturally integrated with that of the shopping center subject to approval of the CommunityDesign and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 3.6.4 Cart Storage Cart storage areas will be provided as required by the City of La Quinta with the design and location subject to approval by the Design and Development DepartmentCommunity Development Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. 528 3.6.5 Exterior Lighting Exterior lighting for the Project will be designed to comply with the City's "Dark Sky"outdoor lighting ordinance, (Section 9.100.150 of the Municipal Code) and shall be subject to approval by the CommunityDesign and Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. All exterior lighting will incorporate directional lenses and/or will architecturally incorporate shield lighting elements intended to minimize ambient light from illuminating adjacent streets and residential properties to the satisfaction of the CommunityDesign and Development Department. Parking lot light standards shall be a maximum 25 20 feet in height with light elements that will similarly be shielded, and shall provide a uniform minimum average of one (1) candle foot illumination within the parking lot areas. 3.7 Property Rights Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final map, the property owner will acquire or confer easements and other property right s required by this Specific Plan or any tentative maps or site development permits necessary in the development of the Specific Plan area. The property owner will also dedicate or grant public and private street right-of- ways and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Right-of-way dedications required of this development will include the following: • Jefferson Street-: 60-foot half of a 120-foot right-of-way. In addition, the owner shall make an irrevocable offer to grant an additional 17 feet of right-of-way, (not to exceed 250 feet in length), for future southbound turn lanes at the Avenue 50 intersection. • Avenue 50 - SO: 50-foot half of a 100-foot right-of-way Dedications will also include additional widths, as necessary for corner cutbacks, bus turnouts and other features contained in the approved construction plans and as per the representations made within this Specific Plan. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 rights-of- way are necessary prior to development of the commercial area or approval of the final map for the residential subdivision, the developer shall grant easements or permanent right-of-way over those areas within 60 days of written request by the City. The property owner shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights-of-way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): • Jefferson Street - 20: 18 feet (34 feet in areas where deceleration lanes are provided and 37 feet in the area of the future turn lane widening)minimum 529 • Avenue 50 - 20: 18 feet minimum The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately owned setbacks, the property owner shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. The property owner will vacate abutter's rights of access to Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 from all frontage along streets except access points conforming to the General Plan and approved by the City Engineer. The developer will furnish to the City of La Quinta proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate as obtained from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes or other encroachments are to occur. 3.8 Administration In accordance with General Plan Programs LU 2.2b and 2.2c, if the need for any changes to the Specific Plan arise, the Design and Development Director will have the authority to waive the need for a Specific Plan amendment under the following circumstances: • When changes to the land use allocation are less than 5%; • When the off‐site circulation pattern and turning movements will not be altered by the proposed change; • When the change is considered minor in nature and does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan; • When no new land use is proposed. Additionally, the Design and Development Director will determine substantial conformance in approved Specific Plans. 530 Attachment 1 Lighting Plan 531 Attachment 2 Preliminary Landscape Plans 532 Attachment 3 Preliminary Grading Plans 533 Attachment 4 Conditions of Approval Fairway Shopping Center Specific Plan Resolution 99-63 Conditions of Approval – Final Specific Plan 98-034 Lundin Development May 18, 1999 534 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3535 536 537 538 ARCHITECTURAL ■Site Plan■Colored Site Plan ■Amenities ■Site Photometric Plan ■Pa vilions Shell Plan ■Pa vilions Roof Plan ■Pa vilions Elevations ■Pa vilions Elevations ■Pa vilions Fuel Shell/Roof Plan ■Pa vilions Fuel Elevations ■Pa vilions Fuel Canopy ■Retail/ Shell/Roof Plan ■Retail Elevations■Shops 1 Shell Plan■Shops 1 Roof Plan■Shops 1 Elevations ■Building 4 Shell Plan ■Building 4 Roof Plan■Building 4 Elevations■Building 5 Shell Plan ■Building 5 Roof Plan ■Building 5 Elevations■Trash Enclosure Details 1n Development Co. Sheet 1 Sheet 2 Sheet 2A Sheet 3 Sheet 4 Sheet 5 Sheet 6 Sheet 7 Sheet 8 Sheet 9 Sheet 10 Sheet 11 Sheet 12 Sheet 13 Sheet 14 Sheet 15 Sheet 16 Sheet 17 Sheet 18 Sheet 19 Sheet 20 Sheet 21 Sheet 22 I 32' 24' eannEn P.lRCE 26' ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 4539 76'60'PAVILIONS 195' 63,000 S.F. 63'-3" 55' AVENUE 50 202'-8"100'-6"85'JEFFERSON STREET312'90'55'50'83' BLDG. 3 4,000 SF 40'100'LOADING DOCK106'45'16 9 2 30'99'42'11' TYP.5'12' 20 26'9'TYP.7'-1"26'9' TYP. 9' TYP.6'17'EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN 12'19'30'26'12'26'12'26'24'8'8'-4"26'16'38'26'27'-4"15' 9'-6"30' 30'-6"26'41'-9"16 6 18 38 36 34 3'36 29 10 5 4 8 9 8 13 15 20 12 32 9 9 RETAIL 1 4,400 S.F.26'10 30' 5'54'R/WBLDG. 6 4,100 SF BLDG. 5 4,900 SF BLDG. 9 6,357 SF 38'26'12'17'16'18'6'26'19'26'26'SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION8'-6"60'12'8'BLDG. 1 4,725 SF BLDG. 2 4,150 SF BLDG. 4 6,360 SF BLDG. 8 4,675 SF 32'-6"26'38'26'38'26'17'26'46'38'38'26'35'38'26'17' 26' 26'35'19' 10'-11" 17'15'-6"17'5'26' 9' TYP. 36' 106' 60' CMU WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' HIGH 8'6'7'-4"26'c EXISTING 6' HIGH CMU WALL TO REMAIN c 17'26'EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN 8'-6" TYP. c 10,000 GALLONCOMPARTMENT TANK FILL139'-7"ccc cccc c EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN FILL REGULAR UNLEADED20,000 GALLON TANK DIESEL 10,000 GALLONCOMPARTMENT TANK FILL STANDARD TANKSPREMIUMUNLEADED T c c 4 17'EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN cc c c c c c c c 19' c c c c c c c c c cc c 10 8'-6" TYP. ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL 12'9' TYP. c 6'c c c cc c c 8'-6" TYP. c 18'cc RELOCATED POWER POLE 28'-6"26' c cc cc c cc 2 20'17'-6"c 7'-6"c c cc c c c 5'-1"±119'-4" R/W EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN ADJACENT C.V.W.D. WELL SITE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL 18' 38' 12'-1"30'R35'R35'R 3 5 'R35'c c c 19'-6"10'26'ccc ccc 43'-3" 42'-3" 18' WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK, TYP 3 30' c c 19'SHOP 1 11,700 SF DEMO EXISTING POWER POLE 20' 19'19'6'9'6 810 R35' R 3 5 'R35'R 3 5 '20'19'20' 18' 18' 18' 18' 22'-11" 18'-1" 18' 10'-6"LOADING ONLY19'LOADING ONLYLOADING ONLY18'26'26'7'-6"35'LOADING ONLY LOADING ONLY12 6 LOADING ONLY 6' LOADING ONLY CART CORRALCARTCORRALCART CORRALCART CORRALc 17'26'38'26' 7'-5" 16'26'17'c c c c c c9'9'TYP.64' R/W 26'-5" NEW 4'X10' PALM TREE PLANTERS ALONG P.L.46'PAVILIONS FUEL BLDG. 7 825 SF 68'-11" 18' 1 28' 7'-2"42'-11"EVEV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV CARTCORRALPEDESTRIAN CONNECTION 4 PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION 6 18 10 c 8 4 9 c 19'-0"40'-0"6'-0"30'-0"2'-812"TRELLIS TRELLIS TRELLISTRELLISPERGOLA PERGOLA PERGOLA Overall Site Summary LAND:±540,989 S.F.±12.42 AC BUILDING: 119,195 S.F. LAND/BUILDING RATIO:3.53/1 BUILDING COVERAGE:22.03 % PARKING RATIO:4.58/1000 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 546 STALLS N 0 SITE PLAN Scale : 1" = 60' 30' 60' 120' AVENUE 50 JEFFERSON STREETAVENUE 48 AVENUE 49 AVENUE 52 MADISON STREETMONROE STREETWASHINGTON STREETADAM STREETDUNE PALMS STREETNVicinity Map NOT TO SCALE SITE NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect. DATE: MCG JOB #: REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 16400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207 NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREET LA QUINTA, CA16.454.05 MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC Legend PROPOSED LANDSCAPE Sheet 1 PROPERTY LINE 30,636 SFPERIMETER LANDSCAPE REQUIRED 29,130 SFPERIMETER LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 4.9%PROPOSED REDUCTION MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED 99,560 SF @ 1/300 (RETAIL/OFFICE) 13,050 SF @ 1/100 (DRIVE THRU) 6,357 SF @ 1/125 (RESTAURANT) 332 STALLS 131 STALLS 51 STALLS TOTAL MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED 514 STALLS PARKING SUMMARY: STANDARD PARKING COMPACT PARKING ADA PARKING 439 STALLS 82 STALLS 25 STALLS MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIRED 99,560 SF @ 1/250 (RETAIL/OFFICE) 13,050 SF @ 1/100 (DRIVE THRU) 6,357 SF @ 1/75 (RESTAURANT) 398 STALLS 131 STALLS 85 STALLS TOTAL MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIRED 614 STALLS 18'-20' LANDSCAPE SETBACK TRELLISED SHADE STRUCTURE PUBLIC ART WORK* * * * EV PERGOLAS GATHERING PLACE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION FREE WIFI K-9 WATERING STATION 11-19-19 PLANNING COMMENT UPDATES 01.14.2020 STAMPED CONCRETE PATHWALK (Herringbone 45° w/ Soldier Header) 540 541 542 SIGNALIZEDINTERSECTION10,000 GALLONCOMPARTMENT TANKFILLFILLREGULAR UNLEADED20,000 GALLON TANKDIESEL10,000 GALLONCOMPARTMENT TANKFILLSTANDARD TANKSPREMIUMUNLEADED1.11.51.11.61.21.11.31.51.21.61.11.42.01.82.01.71.51.72.01.92.01.61.21.82.21.81.31.51.51.92.11.81.11.41.92.12.01.61.51.61.91.92.01.51.11.51.61.31.31.21.41.61.71.51.20.91.00.90.91.01.11.31.41.31.11.31.41.21.41.11.41.81.71.81.31.82.32.32.21.61.92.42.42.31.61.82.41.91.71.21.92.21.41.21.01.80.62.1 1.60.71.01.11.21.61.41.30.91.21.61.21.61.40.91.01.72.21.71.91.51.01.51.91.61.71.10.71.21.92.41.81.91.41.01.41.72.11.51.61.20.71.01.81.92.01.61.51.21.01.20.90.71.42.32.22.21.91.31.51.62.01.61.00.61.62.62.62.32.41.81.91.21.81.71.01.01.02.22.32.72.82.12.41.01.00.90.81.11.41.41.41.41.20.70.80.90.90.80.80.81.21.72.22.11.02.42.43.02.92.12.42.01.81.61.61.51.41.31.11.31.31.61.31.01.31.11.31.41.51.41.31.21.21.41.02.01.42.62.32.42.41.72.01.81.82.02.22.22.01.61.51.70.70.71.81.51.72.02.22.22.01.61.41.41.41.82.42.31.91.61.11.41.51.41.82.22.32.21.92.12.00.81.01.00.92.12.12.02.32.52.52.21.81.61.31.21.61.51.31.21.00.80.81.01.52.12.62.93.13.02.22.81.31.11.21.32.92.43.13.23.23.23.12.81.71.81.51.70.71.31.11.00.70.60.81.41.82.42.93.23.32.73.31.71.31.31.83.42.73.53.43.23.23.33.32.22.21.81.80.91.31.32.02.22.63.03.22.43.11.41.41.41.43.02.43.13.13.03.03.13.02.02.01.51.81.21.61.42.22.62.83.43.52.93.43.23.01.31.73.22.73.43.33.23.23.43.42.32.31.81.81.62.12.02.62.82.93.23.12.53.03.03.01.21.32.82.33.03.23.23.23.22.91.81.91.51.60.92.11.71.21.00.91.32.11.92.22.52.42.32.02.22.32.72.71.00.82.22.01.92.22.52.52.31.81.51.31.71.71.62.22.22.11.51.31.32.12.02.32.32.12.01.71.51.61.92.00.80.61.51.51.82.22.42.42.11.71.21.01.71.71.11.71.81.91.62.02.12.11.91.81.81.51.41.61.71.71.01.01.61.31.92.12.12.21.91.71.31.52.01.71.61.21.11.01.31.61.91.21.61.31.61.51.51.51.51.61.01.31.21.51.51.01.21.41.31.62.01.81.91.62.11.92.52.72.31.81.01.01.11.31.71.51.91.41.10.90.70.80.80.70.81.11.21.41.31.21.31.42.01.71.61.31.41.51.72.01.91.81.62.01.92.12.02.31.92.82.22.01.91.61.31.31.21.71.72.11.81.21.10.91.11.11.41.21.51.41.21.72.22.31.61.91.82.01.91.92.21.31.31.91.72.21.71.31.11.41.31.31.81.61.91.41.01.41.92.42.12.22.01.72.32.22.62.11.61.41.72.21.92.41.81.11.32.12.62.12.21.91.82.52.02.72.01.61.41.72.32.02.21.60.90.91.41.81.11.61.31.72.42.32.72.21.41.31.31.81.51.91.41.01.11.82.21.82.11.71.11.71.42.01.61.01.01.11.30.91.21.00.81.21.71.32.01.82.31.81.20.60.60.61.01.51.31.81.20.90.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.00.81.00.80.80.91.10.91.00.70.40.00.80.01.00.01.00.01.00.00.80.00.60.00.70.00.90.00.90.01.00.00.81.21.41.41.60.91.31.71.61.81.71.71.71.71.31.60.91.00.60.81.11.01.21.11.51.41.00.90.70.60.60.60.60.60.60.70.60.60.6STATISTICSDescription Symbol AvgMaxMinMax/MinAvg/MinMAIN SITE LIGHTING1.7 fc3.5 fc0.6 fc5.8:12.8:1LUMINAIRE SCHEDULESymbol Label QtyLumens LLF WattsCatalog NumberDescriptionLampF1 6F2 80.81 550.81 110AbsoluteHUBBEL LIGHTINGLED SITE LIGHTLEDAbsoluteLED SITE LIGHTLEDVPS-24L-55-5K7-4F3 20.81 165AbsoluteLED SITE LIGHTLED3 HEADS2 HEADS1 HEAD20' TALL20' TALL20' TALLRESIDENTIAL BORDER0.3 fc1.1 fc0.0 fcNANAHUBBEL LIGHTINGVPS-24L-55-5K7-4HUBBEL LIGHTINGVPS-24L-55-5K7-4F4 180.81 220AbsoluteLED SITE LIGHTLED4 HEADS20' TALLHUBBEL LIGHTINGVPS-24L-55-5K7-4ES-1PSITE PLANPHOTOMETRICNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0511.18.2019MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC1106 W. Magnolia Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506Tel: (818)842-7285email: admin1@idengineers.net543 812345679ABDEFGH10AH19312'-0"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"12'-10"32'-2"18'-212"CPROPOSED TRUCK RAMPSLOPE DOWNPROPOSED ENTRYDRIVE AISLECONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED ENTRYPROPOSEDPAVILIONS63,000 S.F.202'-8" 33'-6"16'-11"16'-11"33'-912"33'-10"33'-10"33'-10" RAMPDOWN ADJACENTBUILDING7'-2"31'-8"7'-2"4'-6"8'-0"74'-1"8'-0"18'-6"4'-0"14'-0"4'-0"14'-0"4'-0"14'-0"4'-0"14'-0"6'-10"17'-3"7'-0"41'-4"LINE OF CANOPYABOVERAMPDOWNRAMP DOWN ANODIZED ALUMINUMSTOREFRONT WITH CLEARGLAZING8'-6"PROPOSEDPHARMACYWINDOWRAMPDOWNRAMPDOWNRAMPDOWNRAMPDOWNNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0503.06.18MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL11/29/173RD ENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL03/08/18Sheet 40PAVILIONS SHELL PLANScale : 1/16" = 1'-0"8' 16' 32'N544 812345679ABDEFGH10AH19312'-0"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"44'-6"12'-10"32'-2"18'-212"CPROPOSEDPAVILIONS63,000 S.F.202'-8" 33'-6"16'-11"16'-11"33'-912"33'-10"33'-10"33'-10"LINE OF CANOPYADJACENTBUILDING+34'-0"T.O.S.+34'-0"T.O.S.+30'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+42'-0"T.O.S.+42'-0"T.O.S.+28'-0"T.O.P.+28'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+21'-9"T.O.D.+21'-9"T.O.D.+21'-9"T.O.D.+21'-9"T.O.D.+22'-7 1/2"T.O.D.+22'-7 1/2"T.O.D.+22'-7 1/2"T.O.D.+22'-4 1/4"T.O.S.+22'-7 1/2"T.O.D.+22'-7 1/2"T.O.D.+26'-0"T.O.D.+28'-0"T.O.P.BELOW+28'-0"T.O.P.SLOPESLOPE1/4" = 1'-0" SLOPE 1/4" = 1'-0"LINE OF WALLBELOWLINE OF WALLBELOW+25'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.D.+23'-6"T.O.D.+23'-2"T.O.D.SLOPE +30'-0"T.O.P.NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0503.06.18MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL11/29/173RD ENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL03/08/18SHEET 50PAVILIONS ROOF PLANScale : 1/16" = 1'-0"8' 16' 32'N545 546 547 2' HIGH PROFILECIGARETTE(IMA 8582)2' LOW PROFILEOTHER TOBACO(IMA 8462)PASTRYCOUNTERTOP(BAR 1574-S-13)COFFEEBREWER(BUN 051200-0100)HOT FOODMERCH(HAT GRSDS-24D)2' OTPSHELVINGSAFE(BELOW)2' TOBACCOSHELVINGELECTRICAL PANEL 7' X 8'REDBOXLEFTGENERIC ICECONTAINERICE CONTAINERREDBOXPROPANEEXCHANGE12 (20LB) CYLINDEREXCHANGE CAGE(53" TALL)6' X 7'3' X 7'TRASHPROMO DISPLAY AREAPROMODISPLAY AREAMULTI-USE CASE 8' 6-DECK(HUS IDD6SU)MULTI-USE CASE 8' 6-DECK(HUS IDD6SU) 0'-4" 16'-4" 0'-4"(6) DECK REACH-IN FOOD / BEVERAGE CASE WATERBACKFLOW3' X 7'CHANGINGSTATIONRESTROOMIT RACKTRIPP-LITESR42UBI.T. RACK(CONFIRM W/CORP I.T.)DEMARCPHONE PANEL FUEL CONTROLSDAN FOSS CHAIRSHELVING(ABOVE)TERMINALCOMPUTER /PRINTER /STORAGECABINETFC36 X 1316-6016-6036 X 13 16-60MOPSINK10GAL WATERHEATER(ABOVE)84" COMBO PREP SINK / 3-COMP SINK(WIN WS4T12182D13RTS-PC-SV)12w18d12w12w 12wHSPT(1) DOORFREEZER1-DOORUPRIGHTFREEZER(TRA G12010)3' X 7'4-TIER SHELVING48" X 20"COMBO PREPSINK / 3-COMPSINKSHELF(ABOVE)4' (4) TIERSHELVING24 PUMP RACK(BAR 161111000Q3082)BAG-N-BOXRACKCO2 TANKATMREGISTER(TYP OF 2)LOTTERYSCRATCHLOTTERYSLATWALLPANELATM 3'-0"GATE9'-1"4'-9"4'-2"6'-8"4'-0"1'-1"4'-8"1'-1"4'-0"4'-4"20'-1"4'-4"2'-11"5'-0"HOT DOG ROLLER(STA-50CBD)CAPPUC(iMIX-3s+)ICE NUGGET(SCO N0622)BEVERAGEDISPENSER(COR)SLUSHEE(I-PRO-M-2)HOTDOGROLLERSNEEZEGUARD8-FOUNTAINBEVERAGE / ICEDISPENSERBAG-N-BOXRACK(BELOW)2-FOUNTAINICEEHOTFOODSMICROWAVE(BELOW)PASTRYDISPLAYCAPPUCCINOCONDIMENTSCOFFEEBREWER3'-4"3'-0" 7'-8"2'-3"5'-2"3'-4"20'-2"17'-4"46'-0"18'-0" 5'-10"7'-4"4'-10" 18'-0"4'-8"7'-10"6'-4"7'-7"19'-7"1 2 A B 28'-8"10'-6"46'-0"18'-0" 5'-10"7'-4"4'-10" 18'-0"4'-8"7'-10"6'-4"7'-7"19'-7"1 2 A B6'-10"ROOF ACCESS LINE OF AWNING BELOW SIDEWALKSIDEWALK6'-8"6'-9"8'-6"6'-0"SLOPE 3/8" = 1'-0" LINE OF ROOF CRICKET, TYP. +22'-0" T.O.P. +22'-0" T.O.P. +20'-0" T.O.P.LINE OF AWNINGBELOW6'-0"1'-512"1'-6"SLOPE 3/8" = 1'-0" BLDG. 7 828 SF 0 PAVILIONS FUEL SHELL/ROOF PLAN Sheet 8 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4' 8' 16' NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect. DATE: MCG JOB #: REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 16400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207 NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREET LA QUINTA, CA16.454.05 07.12.17 MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC N ROOF PLANFLOOR PLAN 11-22-2019 PLANNING COMMENT UPDATES 548 549 550 ABC13256'-9"19'-3"49'-3"40'-9"19'-8"8'-0"30'-4"8'-0"10'-0"ADJACENTPAVILIONSRAMP DOWN ANODIZED ALUMINUMSTOREFRONT AND CLEARGLAZINGRAMPDOWNLANDSCAPEPLANTER76'-0"RETAIL 14,400 S.F.ABCSLOPE: 3/8" = 1'-0"+22'-0"T.O.S.+22'-0"T.O.S.+32'-0"T.O.P.+32'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+20'-9 3/4"T.O.D.+24'-0"T.O.P.7'-0"52'-4"16'-8"ROOF DRAIN& OVERFLOWDRAIN, TYP.LINE OFRAISEDPARAPET,TYP.LINE OF PARAPET60'-0"132+20'-9 3/4"T.O.D.+21'-4 3/4"T.O.D.+20'-2 3/4"T.O.D.+24'-0"T.O.P.9'-0" 15'-0"+24'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.ELEC. ROOMASR ROOMROOF HATCH0RETAIL/SHELL/ROOF PLANSheet 11Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0503.06.18MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL11/29/173RD ENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL03/08/18N551 03-08-18 552 AB12195'-0"ELEC. ROOMASR/ROOFACCESSROOMCONCRETESIDEWALKENTRY/EXITDOORS, TYP.ANODIZEDALUMINUMSTOREFRONTTYP.PARKING STALL STRIPINGADA PARKINGNO PARKINGRAMPDOWNLANDSCAPEPLANTERLANDSCAPEPLANTERCONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETESIDEWALKFUTURE DEMISEWALL TYP.LINE OF CANOPYABOVERAMPDOWN RAISEDCONCRETECURBSHOP 111,700 S.F.PROPERTY LINE5'-0"14'-11"19'-0"3'-6"7'-1"68'-4"6'-3"6'-3"35'-5"7'-1"29'-8"5'-0"18'-7"14'-8" 19'-0" 60'-0"35'-6"5'-8"5'-8" 3'-6"11'-5"LINE OF CANOPYABOVELOADING ONLYN0SHOPS 1/ SHELL PLANSheet 13Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0507.12.17MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC11-19-19 PLANNING COMMENT UPDATES553 AB12195'-0"+26'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+28'-0"T.O.P.+28'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+21'-3 3/4"T.O.S.+20'-2 3/4"T.O.S.+20'-2 3/4"T.O.S.+20'-2 3/4"T.O.S.+21'-3 3/4"T.O.S.+24'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.SLOPE 3/8" = 1'-0" 31'-012"33'-9"25'-2"6'-0"3'-5"28'-1"47'-11"66'-10"27'-11"3'-0"4'-6"23'-5"+26'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+28'-0"T.O.P.SLOPE 3/8" = 1'-0"LINE OFAWNINGBELOW,TYP.LINE OFAWNINGBELOW,TYP.LINE OFPARAPET.LINE OFPARAPET.ROOFHATCHLINE OF ROOFCRICKETROOF DRAIN& OVERFLOWDRAIN+26'-0"T.O.P.+26'-0"T.O.P.+26'-0"T.O.P.LINE OFAWNINGBELOW,TYP.N0SHOPS 1/ ROOF PLANSheet 14Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0503.06.18MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL11/29/173RD ENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL03/08/18554 03/08/18 555 A B 1 2 BUILDING 4 6,360 S.F. 6'-6"30'-11"8'-0"34'-7"6'-0"16'-0"6'-0"16'-0"6'-0"34'-0"60'-0"1'-6"106'-0"2'-0"4'-0"4'-0"16'-0"6'-0"29'-6"8'-6"SIDEWALKSIDEWALK ENTRY DOORS, TYP. ELEC. ROOM ASR ROOM FUTURE DEMISE WALL FUTURE DEMISE WALL PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTER6'-0"6'-0"PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTER 6'-0"16'-0"6'-0"6'-0"22'-0"8'-0" LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE 2'-0" 1'-6" 0 BUILDING 4 SHELL PLAN Sheet 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4' 8' 16' NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject to adjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, and Governmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties of any kind are given or implied by the Architect. DATE: MCG JOB #: REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 16400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207 NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREET LA QUINTA, CA16.454.05 07.12.17 MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC N 11-18-19 PLANNING COMMENT UPDATES 556 AB12BUILDING 45,700 S.F.60'-0"106'-0"+19'-3 3/4"T.O.S.+30'-0"T.O.P.30'-4"+30'-0"T.O.P.+21'-0"T.O.S.+24'-0"T.O.P.+26'-0"T.O.P.+21'-0"T.O.S.+19'-3 3/4"T.O.S.LINE OF RAISEDPARAPET, TYP.30'-4"35'-1"45'-4"LINE OF ALIGNINGBELOWROOF DRAIN& OVERFLOWDRAIN, TYP.LINE OF ROOFCRICKET, TYP.SLOPE 3/8" = 1'-0" 6'-0"28'-4"30'-4" 32'-10"+24'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+26'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.+20'-1"T.O.CRICKETLINE OF ALIGNINGBELOW+26'-0"T.O.P.+26'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.LINE OF ALIGNINGBELOW30'-4"0BUILDING 4 ROOF PLANSheet 17Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0507.12.17MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCN11-18-19 PLANNING COMMENT UPDATES557 558 12AB90'-0"55'-0"5'-0"5'-0"45'-6"5'-0"14'-0"5'-0"5'-0"14'-0"5'-0"32'-6"BUILDING 54,900 S.F.1'-6"13'-0"RAMPDN.ENTRYDOORS,TYP.STOREFRONTELEC. ROOMASR ROOMDRIVE THRUWINDOWPROPOSEDADA PARKINGNO PARKINGPROPOSEDPARKINGPROPOSEDDRIVE THRUEXITPROPOSEDDRIVE THRUENTRYSIDEWALK12'-0"8'-10"81'-2"RAMPDN.RAMPDN.RAMPDN.RAMPDN.8'-10"24'-2"13'-0"5'-0"5'-0"1'-0"LINE OF CANOPYABOVERAISEDCONCRETECURB0BUILDING 5 SHELL PLANSheet 19Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0503.06.18MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL11/29/173RD ENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL03/08/18559 12AB90'-0"55'-0"BUILDING 54,900 S.F.LINE OF ROOFCRICKET, TYP.ROOF DRAIN& OVERFLOWDRAIN, TYP.LINE OFAWNINGBELOW,TYP.+30'-0"T.O.P.+23'-0"T.O.P.26'-6"31'-6"+19'-8 3/4"T.O.C.+24-0"T.O.P.+22-0"T.O.P.23'-0"44'-6"26'-6"+21'-0"T.O.S.+24-0"T.O.P.+19'-4 1/2"T.O.S.+19'-4 1/2"T.O.S.+20'-2"T.O.D.+19'-6 1/2"T.O.C.+19'-6 3/4"T.O.S.+21'-0"T.O.S.SLOPE 3/8" = 1'-0"LINE OFAWNINGBELOW,TYP.+26-0"T.O.P.+26'-0"T.O.P.+22-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+30'-0"T.O.P.+24'-0"T.O.P.ROOF HATCH0BUILDING 5 ROOF PLANSheet 20Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'NOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0503.06.18MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL11/29/173RD ENTITLEMENT RESUBMITTAL03/08/18N560 561 562 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 5563 564 565 566 Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Pavilion Palms Center at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 Submitted to September 2019 Submitted by TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS ATTACHMENT 6 567 September 5, 2019 Mr. Bryan McKinney, PE City Engineer City of La Quinta Public Works 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Traffic Impact Analysis for proposed redevelopment project on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta Dear Mr. McKinney: Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) is pleased to present to the City of La Quinta this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for a proposed multi-use project to be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. The 119,000 square-foot development, also known as the Pavilion Palms Center, is proposed within a currently-vacant lot and would include a Pavilions supermarket with fueling station as well as various smaller restaurant and retail businesses. This TIA has been prepared in accordance with City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 and the City’s General Plan as well as standard traffic engineering practices. The preparation process included discussions with City staff as well as our professional evaluations of traffic factors pertinent to the study area. This study provides an assessment of the most probable traffic and transportation outcomes should the proposed project be approved, constructed, and fully occupied. We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you, the City, and others. Should you have any questions regarding this study or its conclusions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Ms. Kawai Mang at our office. Respectfully submitted, ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIATES David Roseman, TE Principal Transportation Engineer \828-001\2018 Update\Report\Cover Letter.docx 568 Colyton Street Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i I Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 1 Study Intersections .............................................................................................................. 1 Intersection Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................... 6 Significant Impact Criteria .................................................................................................... 7 Congestion Management Program ...................................................................................... 7 II Proposed Project Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 8 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................ 8 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................. 8 III Existing (Year 2019) Level of Service Analysis ................................................................... 12 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 12 Existing Conditions + Project Traffic .................................................................................. 15 IV Project Opening Day (Year 2021) Level of Service Analysis .............................................. 17 Ambient Area Growth......................................................................................................... 17 Related Project Analysis .................................................................................................... 17 Opening Day Conditions (without Project) ......................................................................... 18 Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic .......................................................................... 20 V Proposed Improvements ....................................................................................................... 22 New Traffic Signal Installation ............................................................................................ 22 Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic with New Signal ............................................... 22 VI Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 24 569 Colyton Street Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Study Area and Proposed Project Location ...................................................................................... 2 2 Proposed Project Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 3 3 Existing Intersection Geometrics ................................................................................................ 5 4 Proposed Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................ 10 5 Proposed Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 11 6 Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes (2019) .............................................................................. 14 7 Existing Conditions with Project Traffic ........................................................................................... 16 8 Opening Day Conditions (2021) ..................................................................................................... 19 9 Opening Day with Project Traffic .................................................................................................... 21 10 Opening Day with Project Traffic & Improvements ......................................................................... 23 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Proposed Project Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 4 2 Level of Service Rankings: Traffic Signals ................................................................................. 6 3 Level of Service Rankings: Unsignalized Locations ................................................................... 7 4 Proposed Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................. 9 5 24-hour Roadway Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 12 6 Existing Conditions Analysis (2019) ......................................................................................... 13 7 Existing Conditions with Project Traffic ..................................................................................... 15 8 Citrus Plaza Expansion Trip Generation (Estimated) ............................................................... 17 9 Opening Day Conditions Analysis (2021) ................................................................................. 18 10 Opening Day Conditions with Project Traffic ............................................................................ 20 11 Opening Day with Project and New Signal ............................................................................... 22 12 Intersection LOS Analysis Summary – AM Peak Hour ............................................................. 25 13 Intersection LOS Analysis Summary – PM Peak Hour ............................................................. 25 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Proposed Project Site Plan B Existing Traffic Volume Data C Intersection Analysis Worksheets D Proposed Citrus Plaza Site Plan 570 Page i Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate potential traffic impacts of the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial shopping center development in the City of La Quinta. This study has been prepared in accordance with City of La Quinta General Plan, dated November 19, 2013; Engineering Bulletin (EB) 06-13, dated December 19, 2006; and study parameters developed in conjunction with City staff. The study and analyses are based on recent traffic data, information provided by the developer and/or their representatives, City comments, field review of the study area, and pertinent reference materials. Project Description The proposed project site is a 12-acre vacant lot located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. The proposed project site plan (Appendix A) proposes to construct a mixed-use shopping, service, and dining development, with access via four driveways: two to the south on Avenue 50 and two to the east on Jefferson Street. The proposed project would be anchored by a 63,000 square- foot Pavilions grocery store and includes restaurants, banks, and retail units, as well as a fuel center, totaling approximately 119,000 square feet of gross floor area. It is expected to be completed and fully occupied in 2021. The project trip generation, trip distribution, and LOS analyses are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the City’s General Plan, and EB 06-13. Accounting for the proposed site plan, anticipated pass-by trip rates, and internal trip capture, the project is expected to generate 664 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 999 net new trips in the PM peak hour on the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The study considers five analysis scenarios at nine study intersections as outlined below: UAnalysis Scenarios: • Existing conditions (year 2019) • Existing conditions + project traffic • Opening day conditions (year 2021) • Opening day conditions + project traffic • Opening day + project + improvements UStudy Intersections: 1. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 48 2. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 49 3. Avenue 50 @ Park Avenue 4. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50 5. Avenue 50 @ Madison Street 6. Jefferson Street @ Pomelo 7. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50 8. Jefferson Street @ N project driveway 9. Avenue 50 @ E project driveway 571 Page ii Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic operations analyses for the existing conditions are based on traffic volume data collected in November 2018, normalized for the 2019 peak season per EB 06-13. The opening day conditions analysis also considers expected ambient area growth and planned/approved projects within the area (“related projects”). Per EB 06-13, this study employs the latest Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method to analyze traffic operation conditions at signalized study intersections. The HCM method uses lane geometrics, traffic volumes, and traffic signal timing parameters to determine average delays for vehicles traveling through the intersection and subsequently rank the intersection operations from Level-of-Service (LOS) A to F, accordingly. Per the General Plan, the City considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable LOS at signalized intersections throughout the City and LOS E to be the minimum acceptable LOS at two-way stop-controlled intersections such as the project driveways. The project’s potential traffic impacts are evaluated by the City’s significant traffic impact criteria as stated in EB 06-13, based on changes in average intersection delay. Findings Under existing conditions as well as future conditions before project opening, the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Per the analysis, no significant traffic impacts are expected at any signalized study intersection during the peak hours, including at the project driveways. Per EB 06-13, LOS E is considered acceptable conditions for the stop- controlled driveways. Meanwhile, there may be some delays for vehicles entering traffic on both Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 from the project driveways as well as for vehicles making left turns into the project from Jefferson Street. That is, customers exiting the project or the opposing development may expect to wait a few seconds. Therefore, the potential future installation of a traffic signal on Jefferson Street at the northerly project driveway is expected to improve driveway LOS by facilitating access for both the project and the development on the east side of Jefferson Street. This potential traffic signal would be a future City consideration under traffic conditions most likely to occur after the completion of both the proposed project and the Citrus Plaza expansion. 572 Page iii Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Significant Impact 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 38.5 D 40.0 D NO 42.6 A 43.9 D NO 43.9 D NO 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 18.0 B 20.4 C NO 21.0 A 23.3 C NO 23.3 C NO 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave 20.1 C 20.7 C NO 20.5 A 21.1 C NO 21.1 C NO 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 40.9 D 41.5 D NO 38.3 A 41.0 D NO 38.8 D NO 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St 18.5 B 18.7 B NO 19.1 A 20.1 C NO 20.1 C NO 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo 10.4 B 11.7 B NO 11.5 A 12.1 B NO 12.1 B NO 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 13.8 B 15.9 C NO 10.0 A 11.0 B NO 11.0 B NO 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy 13.8 B 14.4 B NO 15.5 A 16.3 C NO 10.3 B NO 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy --#N/A 18.0 C NO --#N/A 18.2 C NO 16.4 C NO Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Significant Impact 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 42.8 D 47.3 D NO 48.4 D 50.3 D NO 50.3 D NO 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 20.2 C 18.6 B NO 22.7 C 28.3 C NO 28.3 C NO 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave 19.1 B 22.6 C NO 20.7 C 23.9 C NO 23.9 C NO 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 43 D 15.4 B NO 46.2 D 52.6 D NO 44.5 D NO 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St 19.9 B 21.2 C NO 20.4 C 16.8 B NO 16.8 B NO 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo 10.3 B 11.8 B NO 12.4 B 14.4 B NO 14.4 B NO 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 9.9 A 11.3 B NO 19.5 C 26.2 D NO 26.2 D NO 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy 16.2 C 28.1 D NO 19.4 C 42.3 E NO 21.1 C NO 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy --#N/A 45.3 E NO --#N/A 36.4 E NO 24.2 C NO * average vehicle delay calculated in seconds for all approaches at traffic signals and roundabouts and for driveway approaches only at driveway locations Table 13: Intersection LOS Analysis Summary – PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions (2019) Existing Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day Conditions (2021) Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day + Project Traffic with Improvements Intersection Table 12: Intersection LOS Analysis Summary – AM Peak Hour Existing Conditions (2019) Existing Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day Conditions (2021) Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day + Project Traffic with Improvements Intersection 573 Page 1 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis I. INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate potential traffic impacts of the proposed Pavilion Palms commercial shopping center development on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. This study has been prepared in accordance with City of La Quinta General Plan, dated November 19, 2013; Engineering Bulletin (EB) #06-13, dated December 19, 2006; and study parameters developed in conjunction with City staff. The study and analyses are based on recent traffic data, information provided by the developer and/or their representatives, City comments, field review of the study area, and pertinent reference materials. Project Description The proposed project site is a 12-acre vacant lot located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta (Figure 1). The proposed project site plan (Figure 2, details in Appendix A) proposes to construct a mixed-use shopping, service, and dining development, with access via four driveways: two to the south on Avenue 50 and two to the east on Jefferson Street. The proposed project would be anchored by a 63,000 square-foot Pavilions grocery store and includes restaurants, banks, and retail units, as well as a fuel center (Table 1), totaling approximately 119,000 square feet of gross floor area. It is expected to be completed and fully occupied in 2021. Study Intersections Based on a review of the proposed project, existing roadway network, and anticipated project traffic generation, the following study intersections were approved by City staff: 1. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 48 Traffic Signal 2. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 49 Traffic Signal 3. Avenue 50 @ Park Avenue Traffic Signal 4. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50 Traffic Signal 5. Avenue 50 @ Madison Street Traffic Signal 6. Jefferson Street @ Pomelo Traffic Signal 7. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 52 Roundabout 8. Jefferson Street @ N project driveway Unsignalized driveway 9. Avenue 50 @ E project driveway Unsignalized driveway Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometrics and traffic control at all study intersections. 574 Page 2 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 1: Study Area and Proposed Project Location Madison St Ave 48 Jefferson St Ave 49 Ave 50 Ave 52 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 4 575 Page 3 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2: Proposed Project Site Plan Ave 50 Jefferson St 576 Page 4 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Pavilions Retail Grocery 850 :Supermarket 63,000 SF Retail 1 Retail 820 :Shopping Center 4,400 SF Building 1 Retail/Restaurant 932 :High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 4,725 SF Building 2 Retail/Food/Bank 934 :Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 4,150 SF Building 3 Retail/Restaurant 934 :Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 4,000 SF Building 4 Retail/Restaurant 820 :Shopping Center 6,360 SF Building 5 Service/Bank 912 :Drive-in Bank 4,900 SF Building 6 Service/Bank 912 :Drive-in Bank 3 4,100 SF Building 7 Retail 945 :Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 815 SF Building 8 Retail/Restaurant 932 :High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 4,675 SF Building 9 Restaurant 931 :Quality Restaurant 6,357 SF Shop 1 Food/Retail/Service 820 :Shopping Center 11,700 SF 119,182 SF 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed. (2017) 2 SF - Square Feet 3 ITE Land Use Code 912 (Drive-In Bank) used due to insufficient data provided for ITE Code 911 (Walk-In Bank). Gross Floor Area2 OVERALL SITE PLAN Table 1: Proposed Project Site Plan Building Proposed Business Type ITE Land Use Code 1 577 Page 5 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 578 Page 6 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Intersection Analysis Methodology This traffic impact analysis performs intersection Level-Of-Service (LOS) analyses for the following scenarios for both the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours: ♦ Existing conditions (year 2019) o UWithoutU project scenario o UWithU project scenario ♦ Opening day conditions (year 2021) o UWithoutU project scenario o UWithU project scenario o UWithU project and proposed improvements scenario Per EB 06-13, this study employs the latest Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method to analyze traffic operation conditions at signalized study intersections. The HCM method uses lane geometrics, traffic volumes, and traffic signal timing parameters to determine average delays for vehicles traveling through the intersection. These delays are then used to rank the intersection operations from Level-of-Service (LOS) A to F, in a similar fashion to educational grading systems. Generally, intersection operations from LOS A through LOS D are considered to be acceptable operational conditions, while LOS E and LOS F are typically defined as over-capacity conditions. LOS rankings at signalized intersections are based on average vehicle delays for all vehicles traveling through the intersection (Table 2), while LOS rankings at unsignalized driveway intersections are based on the driveway approach with the highest delays (Table 3). LOS Description 0 -10 A Free flow 10 -20 B Stable flow (slight delay) 20 -35 C Stable flow (acceptable delay) 35 -55 D Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay) 55 -80 E Unstable flow 80 +F Forced flow Table 2: Level of Service Rankings Traffic Signals Average Delay per Vehicle 579 Page 7 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Significant Impact Criteria Per the General Plan, the City considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable LOS at signalized intersections. The project’s potential traffic impacts are evaluated by the City’s significant traffic impact criteria, based on changes in vehicle delay. Per EB 06-13, traffic impacts are considered significant under the following conditions: • At signalized intersections with a pre-project LOS of D or better, the addition of the proposed project traffic results in LOS E or F operations. • At signalized intersections with a pre-project LOS of E, the addition of the proposed project traffic results in LOS F operations, UorU increases the average intersection delay by two or more seconds. • At signalized intersections with a pre-project LOS of F, the addition of the proposed project traffic increases the average intersection delay by one or more seconds. • At unsignalized intersections with two-way or side-street stop control (such as driveways), the addition of the proposed project traffic results in LOS F operations UandU increases the average intersection delay by three or more seconds. Congestion Management Program In June 1990, the passage of California Proposition 111 brought both a statewide gasoline tax increase and an accompanying requirement that each urbanized area in the state with a population of 50,000 or greater adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The nearest Riverside County CMP monitoring location is the intersection of Jefferson Street and SR-111, about 1.5 miles north of the project, outside of the study area. Therefore, no significant impacts to the CMP network are anticipated to be generated by the proposed project. LOS Description 0 -10 A Usually no conflicting traffic 10 -15 B Occasionally some delay 15 -25 C Delay noticeable, but not inconveniencing 25 -35 D Delay noticeable and irritating 35 -50 E Delay approaches tolerance level 50 +F Delay exceeds tolerance level Table 3: Level of Service Rankings Unsignalized Locations Average Delay per Vehicle 580 Page 8 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis II. PROPOSED PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Project Trip Generation The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual – 10th Edition (2017) uses thousands of studies across the nation to determine common trip generation characteristics by land use. Using the Manual, the anticipated project trip generation was determined using parameters given by various ITE Land Use Codes, including #820 (Shopping Center), #850 (Supermarket), #912 (Drive-In Bank), #932 (High-Turnover Restaurant), and #945 (Gasoline Station with Convenience Market). It is also common to determine the trip generation for the existing land uses at the project site and deduct those trips from the project trips to determine the net new trips generated. In this case, as the project site is currently a vacant lot, there are no existing vehicles accessing the site and therefore no existing trip credits are applied. Typically, a portion of trips accessing new commercial developments may be vehicles already present on the roadway system. Such trips are referred to as “pass-by” trips; i.e., vehicles already on the roadway that will make an intermediate stop at the development before continuing on their original routes. Pass-by trip percentages can range from a few percent for some specialized retail uses to as high as 80% for fast-food and/or coffee shops with drive-through lanes. For this study, a 20% pass-by trip reduction rate is applied to the calculated project trip generation to provide a conservative “worst-case” analysis. However, per standard traffic engineering practices and typical project traffic characteristics, no pass-by trip reductions are applied at the project driveways. Additionally, businesses located within commercial areas typically experience what is referred to as “internal trip capture,” where some trips are made to more than one business in the vicinity (e.g., a pharmacy and a laundromat, or a retail store and a café, etc.). In some cases, the internal trip capture can result in a total trip reduction of as much as 15-20%. The proposed project is a multi-use development, where it is likely that supermarket patrons might also utilize the fuel station, for example, or park once within the project parking lots and walk to an adjacent restaurant as well. For this study, a 10% internal trip capture rate is applied to provide a conservative “worst-case” analysis. After determining the appropriate project trip generation and applicable trip credits, it is expected that the proposed project will generate approximately 664 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 999 net new trips in the PM peak hour. Table 4 gives the ITE trip generation rates, project trip generation, and trip reduction credits applied to this project for the typical weekday 24-hour, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour periods. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Once it is determined how many trips the proposed project is anticipated to generate, those vehicle trips are distributed over the nearby roadway network. Per discussions with City staff, the project trips are assigned to the various movements at the study intersections in roughly a similar fashion to the current traffic patterns in the area. 581 Page 9 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis A graphical summary of the project trip distribution is given by percentage (Figure 4) as well as trip volumes (Figure 5). In Out Total In Out Total Pavilions 850 :Supermarket 6,727 144 96 240 297 285 582 Retail 1 820 :Shopping Center 166 3 2 5 8 9 17 Building 1 932 :High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 530 26 21 47 29 18 47 Building 2 934 :Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 1,954 85 82 167 71 65 136 Building 3 934 :Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 1,884 82 79 161 68 63 131 Building 4 820 :Shopping Center 240 4 2 6 12 13 25 Building 5 912 :Drive-in Bank 490 27 20 47 50 50 100 Building 6 912 :Drive-in Bank 2 410 23 16 39 42 42 84 Building 7 945 :Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 2,464 76 73 149 86 82 168 Building 8 932 :High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 524 26 21 47 28 17 45 Building 9 931 :Quality Restaurant 533 23 6 29 33 16 49 Shop 1 820 :Shopping Center 442 7 4 11 21 23 44 16,364 526 422 948 745 683 1,428 3,273 105 84 189 149 137 286 1,636 53 42 95 75 68 143 11,455 368 296 664 521 478 999 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed. (2017) 2 ITE Land Use Code 912 (Drive-In Bank) used due to insufficient data provided for ITE Code 911 (Walk-In Bank). TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT TRIPS PROJECT TRIPS SUBTOTAL Table 4: Proposed Project Trip Generation DailyBuildingITE Land Use Code 1 PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour 20% PASS-BY CREDIT 10% INTERNAL CAPTURE CREDIT 582 Page 10 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 583 Page 11 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 584 Page 12 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis III. EXISTING (YEAR 2018) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Existing Conditions The proposed project site is a twelve-acre vacant lot located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, opposite the existing Citrus Plaza in the City of Indio, which includes a Ralphs grocery store and various other businesses. Accordingly, the study intersections (Figure 3) are located along the arterial roadways of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. Other roadways included in this study are Avenue 48, Avenue 49, Park Avenue, Madison Street, Pomelo, and Avenue 52. Within the study area, Jefferson Street forms part of the eastern border of the City of La Quinta, as a six-lane, north-south roadway designated as a Major Arterial and divided by a raised, landscaped median. Avenue 48, Avenue 50, and Avenue 52 are four-lane, east-west roadways designated as Primary Arterials. Madison Street is a four-lane, north-south roadway designated as a Primary Arterial. To establish a baseline analysis for existing conditions (year 2019), 24-hour roadway traffic counts and intersection turning movement counts were conducted within the study area on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 (Appendix C). 24-hour roadway traffic volumes were collected at the following locations (Table 3): • Jefferson Street north of Avenue 49 • Jefferson Street between Avenue 49 and Avenue 50 • Jefferson Street south of Avenue 50 • Avenue 50 west of Jefferson Street • Avenue 50 east of Jefferson Street In the vicinity of the proposed project, Jefferson Street carries approximately 26,000 vehicles daily in both directions as a major regional roadway, while Avenue 50 carries approximately 10,000 vehicles daily. NB/EB SB/WB Total north of Avenue 49 14,384 15,812 30,196 between Ave 49 & Ave 50 12,450 13,143 25,593 south of Avenue 50 10,415 10,312 20,727 west of Jefferson Street 4,807 5,326 10,133 east of Jefferson Street 5,608 5,564 11,172 Avenue 50 Jefferson Street North-South East-West Table 5: 24-hour Roadway Traffic Volumes Roadway Location Orientation 24-hour Volumes 585 Page 13 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis As a popular recreational destination, the demographics of the City of La Quinta vary throughout the year. Per the 2006 Bulletin and 2013 General Plan, the period of January through March is considered the City’s peak season; therefore, the intersection turning movement data is increased by 5% to normalize the analysis for 2019 peak season traffic conditions. Per the intersection turning movement counts and peak-season adjustment factor, Figure 6 shows the existing traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours. The existing intersection LOS is summarized in Table 4, with detailed analysis worksheets provided in Appendix D. Under existing conditions, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Avg Delay LOS V/C Avg Delay LOS V/C 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 Traffic Signal 38.5 D 0.82 42.8 D 0.83 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 Traffic Signal 18.0 B 0.57 20.2 C 0.75 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave Traffic Signal 20.1 C 0.48 19.1 B 0.49 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 Traffic Signal 40.9 D 0.65 43.0 D 0.69 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St Traffic Signal 12.8 B 0.45 14.7 B 0.59 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo Traffic Signal 10.4 B 0.5 10.3 B 0.54 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 Roundabout 13.8 B 0.93 9.9 A 1.21 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy Side-Street Stop 13.8 B 0.36 16.2 C 0.48 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy Side-Street Stop --#N/A 0.21 --#N/A 0.26 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Table 6: Existing Conditions Analysis (2019) Intersection Traffic Control 586 Page 14 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 587 Page 15 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions + Project Traffic To analyze the “existing conditions + project traffic” scenario, the expected project trips are added to the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections according to the anticipated project trip distribution, while the pass-by project trips are added back into the traffic volumes only at the project driveways. The resulting traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7. The “existing conditions + project traffic” LOS analysis is summarized in Table 5, with detailed analysis worksheets provided in Appendix D. When adding the anticipated project trips to existing traffic flows, all study intersections are expected to continue operating at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour and at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour, except for the study driveway on Avenue 50. Per EB 06-13, however, this is considered acceptable traffic operations conditions for a stop control at a driveway location. The additional project trips are expected to have a minimal effect on traffic operations within the study area. Avg Delay LOS V/C Avg Delay LOS V/C 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 Traffic Signal 40.0 D 0.82 47.3 D 0.85 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 Traffic Signal 20.4 C 0.58 18.6 B 0.79 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave Traffic Signal 20.7 C 0.5 22.6 C 0.52 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 Traffic Signal 41.5 D 0.67 46.6 D 0.76 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St Traffic Signal 13.5 B 0.68 49.2 D 0.62 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo Traffic Signal 11.7 B 0.52 11.8 B 0.58 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 Roundabout 15.9 C 0.96 11.3 B 1.26 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy Side-Street Stop 14.4 B 0.38 28.1 D 0.53 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy Side-Street Stop 18.0 C 0.32 45.3 E 0.4 Table 7: Existing Conditions with Project Traffic Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 588 Page 16 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 589 Page 17 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis IV. PROJECT OPENING DAY (YEAR 2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Ambient Area Growth Should the City approve the proposed project, it is expected to open for business (i.e., construction would be completed and leases fully occupied) in 2021. To assess the future anticipated traffic conditions, the project opening day traffic conditions consider additional traffic volumes attributable to ambient area growth. Per discussions with City staff, near-term traffic growth rates in the study area are expected to be approximately one percent per year, while potential nearby developments are expected to increase traffic by an additional one percent per year. Therefore, existing traffic volumes were increased by four percent to reflect the anticipated regional ambient growth from 2019 to 2021. Related Project Analysis Additional traffic from a planned expansion of the existing Citrus Plaza, located across Jefferson Street from the proposed project site, is also added to the opening day traffic volumes, based on project details obtained from the applicant developer and City of Indio staff. Table 8 provides the anticipated Citrus Plaza expansion trip generation, based on ITE rates and a proposed site plan dated September 18, 2018 (Appendix D). In Out Total In Out Total Ralphs Gas 944 :Gasoline/Service Station 18 FP 3,034 113 113 226 141 141 282 Hotel 310 :Hotel 120 RM 980 34 29 63 42 31 73 Restaurants 932 :High-Turnover (Sit- Down) Restaurant 7,600 SF 853 61 46 107 69 64 133 Shops 820 :Shopping Center 19,500 SF 736 11 7 18 36 39 75 Ralphs Expansion 850 :Supermarket 20,000 SF 2,136 46 31 77 94 91 185 7,739 265 226 491 382 366 748 1,548 53 45 98 76 73 149 774 27 23 50 38 37 75 5,417 185 158 343 268 256 524 1 Based on City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin 06-13 and ITE standard practices 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed. (2017) 3 FP = fueling positions, RM = rooms, SF = square feet Table 8: Citrus Plaza Expansion Trip Generation (Estimated)1 DailyDescriptionITE Land Use Code2 PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour Size 3 PROJECT TRIPS SUBTOTAL 20% PASS-BY TRIP CREDIT TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT TRIPS 10% INTERNAL CAPTURE TRIP CREDIT 590 Page 18 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Day Conditions (without Project) With the anticipated traffic from the nearby related projects and ambient area growth added to the existing traffic volumes (Figure 8), all study intersections are still expected to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours (Table 9, details in Appendix C). Avg Delay LOS V/C Avg Delay LOS V/C 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 Traffic Signal 42.6 D 0.84 48.4 D 0.86 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 Traffic Signal 21.0 C 0.6 22.7 C 0.78 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave Traffic Signal 20.5 C 0.5 20.7 C 0.52 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 Traffic Signal 38.3 D 0.68 46.2 D 0.75 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St Traffic Signal 13.3 B 0.61 15.8 B 0.8 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo Traffic Signal 11.5 B 0.52 12.4 B 0.57 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 Roundabout 10.0 A 0.98 19.5 C 1.29 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy Side-Street Stop 15.5 C 0.43 19.4 C 0.57 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy Side-Street Stop --#N/A 0.25 --#N/A 0.27 Table 9: Opening Day Conditions Analysis (2021) Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 591 Page 19 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 592 Page 20 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic To assess the anticipated impacts of the proposed project on its opening day (year 2021), the anticipated project trips (Figure 5) are added to the “opening day without project” analysis, which includes expected traffic volumes from ambient area growth and related regional projects (Figure 9). The intersection LOS analysis for the “opening day + project traffic” scenario is summarized in Table 10, with detailed analysis worksheets provided in Appendix C. With the anticipated traffic from the proposed project, cumulative projects, and ambient area growth added to the existing traffic volumes, all signalized study intersections are expected to continue operating at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. The additional project trips are expected to have a minimal effect on opening day traffic operations within the study area, with no significant impacts on the adjacent roadways. However, some delays are expected for vehicles entering traffic on Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 from the project driveways, which are expected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Per EB 06-13, however, this is considered acceptable traffic operations conditions for a stop control at a driveway location. Given the high traffic volumes on these arterial roadways, though, a wait time of approximately 40 seconds is not considered significant for vehicles merging onto a major roadway from a private driveway. This wait time would affect only the convenience of customers exiting the Pavilion Palms or Citrus Plaza developments, and does not affect roadway traffic flows on Jefferson Street or Avenue 50. Avg Delay LOS V/C Avg Delay LOS V/C 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 Traffic Signal 43.9 D 0.84 50.3 D 0.87 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 Traffic Signal 23.3 C 0.61 28.3 C 0.81 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave Traffic Signal 21.1 C 0.53 23.9 C 0.56 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 Traffic Signal 41.0 D 0.71 52.6 D 0.74 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St Traffic Signal 14.0 B 0.71 16.8 B 0.84 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo Traffic Signal 12.1 B 0.53 14.4 B 0.6 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 Roundabout 11.0 B 1.01 26.2 D 1.34 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy Side-Street Stop 16.3 C 0.44 42.3 E 0.62 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy Side-Street Stop 18.2 C 0.32 36.4 E 0.38 Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Table 10: Opening Day Conditions with Project Traffic 593 Page 21 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 594 Page 22 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis V. POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS Possible Future Traffic Signal Installation Although the project is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic conditions at the study intersections, the potential future installation of a new traffic signal at the northern project driveway is expected to facilitate ingress and egress for both the proposed project and the Citrus Plaza development on the east side of Jefferson Street. This proposed new traffic signal would provide full turning-movement access for both developments, reducing southbound U-turn and eastbound left-turn movements at the adjacent traffic signal at Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. As an additional measure, the future traffic signal could also provide left-turn arrows for inbound traffic to the two adjacent developments. Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic with New Signal Future traffic patterns accessing the two developments are expected to shift in accordance with the installation of the proposed traffic signal (Figure 10). The intersection LOS analysis for the “opening day + project + improvements” scenario is summarized in Table 11, with detailed analysis worksheets provided in Appendix D. Avg Delay LOS V/C Avg Delay LOS V/C 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 Traffic Signal 43.9 D 0.84 50.3 D 0.87 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 Traffic Signal 23.3 C 0.61 28.3 C 0.81 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave Traffic Signal 21.1 C 0.53 23.9 C 0.56 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 Traffic Signal 38.8 D 0.69 44.5 D 0.74 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St Traffic Signal 14.0 B 0.71 16.8 B 0.84 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo Traffic Signal 12.1 B 0.53 14.4 B 0.6 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 Roundabout 11.0 B 1.01 26.2 D 1.34 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy Traffic Signal 10.3 B 0.68 21.1 C 0.79 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy Side-Street Stop 16.4 C 0.32 24.2 C 0.38 Table 11: Opening Day with Project and New Signal Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 595 Page 23 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis 596 Page 24 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A mixed-use development is proposed within an existing vacant lot on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. The project trip generation, trip distribution, and LOS analyses are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the City’s General Plan, and Engineering Bulletin (EB) 06-13, as well as study parameters developed in conjunction with City staff. Accounting for the proposed site plan, anticipated pass-by trip rates, and internal trip capture, the project is expected to generate 664 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 999 net new trips in the PM peak hour on the surrounding roadway network. This project is not expected to impact any intersections on the Riverside County Congestion Monitoring Program (CMP) network, as the nearest CMP monitoring intersection is over a mile from the project location. The study considers five analysis scenarios at nine study intersections as outlined below: UAnalysis Scenarios: • Existing conditions (year 2019) • Existing conditions + project traffic • Opening day conditions (year 2021) • Opening day conditions + project traffic • Opening day + project + improvements UStudy Intersections: 1. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 48 2. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 49 3. Avenue 50 @ Park Avenue 4. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50 5. Avenue 50 @ Madison Street 6. Jefferson Street @ Pomelo 7. Jefferson Street @ Avenue 50 8. Jefferson Street @ N project driveway 9. Avenue 50 @ E project driveway Traffic operations analyses for the existing conditions are based on traffic volume data collected in November 2018, normalized for the 2019 peak season per EB 06-13. The opening day conditions analysis also considers expected ambient area growth and planned/approved projects within the area (“related projects”). The analysis results for all scenarios are summarized in Tables 12 and 13 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Under existing conditions as well as future conditions before project opening, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Per the analysis, no significant traffic impacts are expected at any signalized study intersection during the peak hours, including at the project driveways. Per EB 06-13, LOS E is considered acceptable conditions for the stop- controlled driveways. Meanwhile, there may be some delays for vehicles entering traffic on both Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 from the project driveways as well as for vehicles making left turns into the project from Jefferson Street. That is, customers exiting the project or the opposing development may expect to wait a few seconds. Therefore, the potential future installation of a traffic signal on Jefferson Street at the northerly project driveway is expected to improve driveway LOS by facilitating access for both the project and the development on the east side of Jefferson Street. This potential traffic signal would be a future City consideration under traffic conditions most likely to occur after the completion of both the proposed project and the Citrus Plaza expansion. 597 Page 25 Pavilion Palms Traffic Impact Analysis Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Significant Impact 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 38.5 D 40.0 D NO 42.6 A 43.9 D NO 43.9 D NO 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 18.0 B 20.4 C NO 21.0 A 23.3 C NO 23.3 C NO 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave 20.1 C 20.7 C NO 20.5 A 21.1 C NO 21.1 C NO 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 40.9 D 41.5 D NO 38.3 A 41.0 D NO 38.8 D NO 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St 18.5 B 18.7 B NO 19.1 A 20.1 C NO 20.1 C NO 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo 10.4 B 11.7 B NO 11.5 A 12.1 B NO 12.1 B NO 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 13.8 B 15.9 C NO 10.0 A 11.0 B NO 11.0 B NO 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy 13.8 B 14.4 B NO 15.5 A 16.3 C NO 10.3 B NO 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy --#N/A 18.0 C NO --#N/A 18.2 C NO 16.4 C NO Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Delay*LOS Significant Impact Delay*LOS Significant Impact 1 Jefferson St @ Ave 48 42.8 D 47.3 D NO 48.4 D 50.3 D NO 50.3 D NO 2 Jefferson St @ Ave 49 20.2 C 18.6 B NO 22.7 C 28.3 C NO 28.3 C NO 3 Ave 50 @ Park Ave 19.1 B 22.6 C NO 20.7 C 23.9 C NO 23.9 C NO 4 Jefferson St @ Ave 50 43 D 15.4 B NO 46.2 D 52.6 D NO 44.5 D NO 5 Ave 50 @ Madison St 19.9 B 21.2 C NO 20.4 C 16.8 B NO 16.8 B NO 6 Jefferson St @ Pomelo 10.3 B 11.8 B NO 12.4 B 14.4 B NO 14.4 B NO 7 Jefferson St @ Ave 52 9.9 A 11.3 B NO 19.5 C 26.2 D NO 26.2 D NO 8 Jefferson St @ N project dwy 16.2 C 28.1 D NO 19.4 C 42.3 E NO 21.1 C NO 9 Ave 50 @ E project dwy --#N/A 45.3 E NO --#N/A 36.4 E NO 24.2 C NO * average vehicle delay calculated in seconds for all approaches at traffic signals and roundabouts and for driveway approaches only at driveway locations Table 13: Intersection LOS Analysis Summary – PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions (2019) Existing Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day Conditions (2021) Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day + Project Traffic with Improvements Intersection Table 12: Intersection LOS Analysis Summary – AM Peak Hour Existing Conditions (2019) Existing Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day Conditions (2021) Opening Day Conditions + Project Traffic Opening Day + Project Traffic with Improvements Intersection 598 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 7599 600 601 602 SIGNALIZEDINTERSECTION10,000 GALLONCOMPARTMENT TANKFILLFILLREGULAR UNLEADED20,000 GALLON TANKDIESEL10,000 GALLONCOMPARTMENT TANKFILLSTANDARD TANKSPREMIUMUNLEADED1.11.51.11.61.21.11.31.51.21.61.11.42.01.82.01.71.51.72.01.92.01.61.21.82.21.81.31.51.51.92.11.81.11.41.92.12.01.61.51.61.91.92.01.51.11.51.61.31.31.21.41.61.71.51.20.91.00.90.91.01.11.31.41.31.11.31.41.21.41.11.41.81.71.81.31.82.32.32.21.61.92.42.42.31.61.82.41.91.71.21.92.21.41.21.01.80.62.1 1.60.71.01.11.21.61.41.30.91.21.61.21.61.40.91.01.72.21.71.91.51.01.51.91.61.71.10.71.21.92.41.81.91.41.01.41.72.11.51.61.20.71.01.81.92.01.61.51.21.01.20.90.71.42.32.22.21.91.31.51.62.01.61.00.61.62.62.62.32.41.81.91.21.81.71.01.01.02.22.32.72.82.12.41.01.00.90.81.11.41.41.41.41.20.70.80.90.90.80.80.81.21.72.22.11.02.42.43.02.92.12.42.01.81.61.61.51.41.31.11.31.31.61.31.01.31.11.31.41.51.41.31.21.21.41.02.01.42.62.32.42.41.72.01.81.82.02.22.22.01.61.51.70.70.71.81.51.72.02.22.22.01.61.41.41.41.82.42.31.91.61.11.41.51.41.82.22.32.21.92.12.00.81.01.00.92.12.12.02.32.52.52.21.81.61.31.21.61.51.31.21.00.80.81.01.52.12.62.93.13.02.22.81.31.11.21.32.92.43.13.23.23.23.12.81.71.81.51.70.71.31.11.00.70.60.81.41.82.42.93.23.32.73.31.71.31.31.83.42.73.53.43.23.23.33.32.22.21.81.80.91.31.32.02.22.63.03.22.43.11.41.41.41.43.02.43.13.13.03.03.13.02.02.01.51.81.21.61.42.22.62.83.43.52.93.43.23.01.31.73.22.73.43.33.23.23.43.42.32.31.81.81.62.12.02.62.82.93.23.12.53.03.03.01.21.32.82.33.03.23.23.23.22.91.81.91.51.60.92.11.71.21.00.91.32.11.92.22.52.42.32.02.22.32.72.71.00.82.22.01.92.22.52.52.31.81.51.31.71.71.62.22.22.11.51.31.32.12.02.32.32.12.01.71.51.61.92.00.80.61.51.51.82.22.42.42.11.71.21.01.71.71.11.71.81.91.62.02.12.11.91.81.81.51.41.61.71.71.01.01.61.31.92.12.12.21.91.71.31.52.01.71.61.21.11.01.31.61.91.21.61.31.61.51.51.51.51.61.01.31.21.51.51.01.21.41.31.62.01.81.91.62.11.92.52.72.31.81.01.01.11.31.71.51.91.41.10.90.70.80.80.70.81.11.21.41.31.21.31.42.01.71.61.31.41.51.72.01.91.81.62.01.92.12.02.31.92.82.22.01.91.61.31.31.21.71.72.11.81.21.10.91.11.11.41.21.51.41.21.72.22.31.61.91.82.01.91.92.21.31.31.91.72.21.71.31.11.41.31.31.81.61.91.41.01.41.92.42.12.22.01.72.32.22.62.11.61.41.72.21.92.41.81.11.32.12.62.12.21.91.82.52.02.72.01.61.41.72.32.02.21.60.90.91.41.81.11.61.31.72.42.32.72.21.41.31.31.81.51.91.41.01.11.82.21.82.11.71.11.71.42.01.61.01.01.11.30.91.21.00.81.21.71.32.01.82.31.81.20.60.60.61.01.51.31.81.20.90.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.00.81.00.80.80.91.10.91.00.70.40.00.80.01.00.01.00.01.00.00.80.00.60.00.70.00.90.00.90.01.00.00.81.21.41.41.60.91.31.71.61.81.71.71.71.71.31.60.91.00.60.81.11.01.21.11.51.41.00.90.70.60.60.60.60.60.60.70.60.60.6STATISTICSDescription Symbol AvgMaxMinMax/MinAvg/MinMAIN SITE LIGHTING1.7 fc3.5 fc0.6 fc5.8:12.8:1LUMINAIRE SCHEDULESymbol Label QtyLumens LLF WattsCatalog NumberDescriptionLampF1 6F2 80.81 550.81 110AbsoluteHUBBEL LIGHTINGLED SITE LIGHTLEDAbsoluteLED SITE LIGHTLEDVPS-24L-55-5K7-4F3 20.81 165AbsoluteLED SITE LIGHTLED3 HEADS2 HEADS1 HEAD20' TALL20' TALL20' TALLRESIDENTIAL BORDER0.3 fc1.1 fc0.0 fcNANAHUBBEL LIGHTINGVPS-24L-55-5K7-4HUBBEL LIGHTINGVPS-24L-55-5K7-4F4 180.81 220AbsoluteLED SITE LIGHTLED4 HEADS20' TALLHUBBEL LIGHTINGVPS-24L-55-5K7-4ES-1PSITE PLANPHOTOMETRICNOTE: This information is conceptual in nature and is subject toadjustments pending further verification and Client, Tenant, andGovernmental Agency approvals. No warranties or guaranties ofany kind are given or implied by the Architect.DATE:MCG JOB #:REVISIONSDATE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264916400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207NWC AVENUE 50 & JEFFERSON STREETLA QUINTA, CA16.454.0511.18.2019MCG ARCHITECTS 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDC1106 W. Magnolia Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506Tel: (818)842-7285email: admin1@idengineers.net ATTACHMENT 8ATTACHMENT 8603 604 ATTACHMENT 9 ATTACHMENT 9605 606 2020 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 1-A 607 Date: Saturday, January 11, 2020 Time: 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Location: La Quinta Wellness Center               78450 Avenida La Fonda, La Quinta Approximate Number of Participants: 81 Council Members      4 (1%) City Staff               25 (30%) Residents               56 (69%) Theme: Visioning for Tomorrow VISIONING FOR TOMORROW Table Exercise Participants were teamed up by table and asked to identify and discuss the meaningful changes they have seen in the City over the past 10 years. Each table selected a spokesperson who then announced the top 3. 608 La Quinta's Sacred Values Continuing the Traditions... Health & Wellness High Quality Aesthetics Vibrant & Safe Community Visually Beautiful City Cultural Diversity Fiscal Responsibility & Stability 609 2019/20 Completed Projects & Accomplishments Highway 111 Corridor Area Plan  610 Technology Improvements to Hub/Permit Services Facilitate SilverRock Development Highway 111 Corridor Plan Implementation Citywide Historic Resources Survey Update Short-Term Vacation Rental Program Highway 111 Landscape and Street Design Guidelines Highway 111 Cultural Trail Fritz Burns Park Revitalization Washington Street Sidewalk Connectivity Art in Public Places Funding Cultural Campus New Signature Events Recycling education efforts, composting, and related legislature Housing - affordable housing efforts and expansion of homelessness programs Marketing - enhance the City's marketing strategies through advance technology, digitization, and expand reach and frequency Design & Development Public Works Community Resources City Manager's Office City's Initiatives & Big Rocks 611 Voted - Top 3 Priorities for La Quinta Participants were asked to rank the top three Big Rock projects. Additionally, they were allowed to write in options that were otherwise not mentioned. 1. Highway 111 Corridor Plan Implementation - 53 points 2. Enhance Short Term Vacation Rental Program - 27 points 2. Facilitate SilverRock Development - 27 points 3. Cultural Campus - 24 points 4. Enhance Recycling Education Program - 23 points 5. Art in Public Places Funding - 19 points 5. Splash Pad for Cove - 19 points 612 MARKETING QUARTERLY REPORTOctober 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019Traditional Marketing Publications Los Angeles Magazine San Francisco Magazine LOCALE Magazine Seattle Met Portland Monthly CV Kids Print Ads Radio Campaigns IRONMAN Recycling Campaign - Coachella Valley Challenge Brew in LQ TV Campaign Century XD La Quinta Theater (General Leisure & IRONMAN) Palm Springs Life TravelHost Alaska Airlines Magazine Desert Health Logo Creation Golf - Leisure IRONMAN The American Express DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 1-B 613 Digital Campaign Facebook/Twitter/NextDoor IRONMAN Brew in LQ Christmas Tree Lighting Library Events/Programs Museum Exhibits/Programs Art on Main Street Farmers Market Wellness Center Programs/Events SNIPS Bus Gingerbread Lane Digital Marketing Social Media Campaign Shop LQ Hikes Holiday Open House Commission Vacancies Small Business Saturday Golf Leisure Community Workshop Nixel Sign Up Recycling Education DRD Events/Programs Instagram Art in Public Places Creation Station Golf Shop LQ Wellness Center Programs/Events Boosted Campaigns Brew in LQ IRONMAN Christmas Tree Lighting Street Food Cinema Community Workshop Toast to LQ The American Express General Leisure/Tourism Fritz Burns Pool Programs/Events Museum Exhibit IRONMAN Hikes Brew in LQ 614 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Attorney’s Office Bill Ihrke DATE: February 4, 2020 SUBJECT: Request for Letter in Support of Petition for Review to Cal. Supreme Court City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra, Fourth Appellate District Case No. G057013 Per the attached e-mail sent from the Huntington Beach City Attorney’s Office, Staff and our office look for direction from the Council whether to submit a letter to the State Supreme Court in support of granting review of the attached Court of Appeal opinion. Under California Rules of Court, there is no automatic right of appeal for the above-referenced case, and pursuant to criteria in the Rules of Court the State Supreme Court will decide whether it will review the Court of Appeal’s opinion. If State Supreme Court review is not granted, the Court of Appeal’s opinion becomes final and will have precedential effect because it has been ordered to be published. Letters in support of granting review are generally concise written requests, usually in the form of an official letter filed with the court, explaining the legal merits for the State Supreme Court to revisit the issues decided by a Court of Appeal. City-based advocacy groups, such as the League of California Cities, occasionally submit such letters when a particular appellate court opinion may have significant state-wide impacts on cities. It is completely within the discretion of the Council whether the City of La Quinta should submit a letter in support of granting review. Possible alternatives include contacting the League of California Cities or other city-based advocacy group to inquire if it will be submitting a letter in support of review and deferring to that organization, or taking no action or position on the case. Attachments: E-mail from Huntington Beach City Attorney’s Office Court of Appeal Opinion * * * DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 2 615 616 1 Ihrke, Bill From:Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:31 PM To:Ihrke, Bill; Jon McMillen Subject:Fwd: Request for support re: Huntington Beach Appeal to California Supreme Court Please see below. Linda Evans | Mayor City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760.777.7030 C: 760.899.3279 E: levans@laquintaca.gov www.laquintaca.gov www.playinlaquinta.com Begin forwarded message: From: "Vigliotta, Mike" <MVigliotta@surfcity-hb.org> Date: January 28, 2020 at 3:25:39 PM PST To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>, Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>, John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>, Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>, Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov> Cc: "Gates, Michael" <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Request for support re: Huntington Beach Appeal to California Supreme Court ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Dear Mayor Evans and Council Members, As you may know, our local Court of Appeal issued a decision January 10, 2020 reversing the lower court’s ruling that SB 54, or the Sanctuary State law, is unconstitutional as applied to Charter Cities. As you know, as a Charter City, we derive our local authority to govern municipal affairs from Section 5, subdivisions a and b, of Article XI of the California Constitution. We therefore sued the State of California in 2018 claiming that SB 54 was unconstitutional as SB 54 attempted to tell our police department what it can and cannot do, and attempted to tell our City what it can and cannot spend its resources on, in violation of Section 5(b) of the Constitution. In any event, our City Council has since authorized us to appeal the January Court of Appeal decision to the California Supreme Court. This decision, and Supreme Court review, is absolutely essential in order to defend Charter City rights, including the ability to continue to govern local affairs, such as voting at- large rather than by-district, zoning and housing, managing our own police departments, and spending our own resources – all without interference from State control. A lot is at stake. If, for instance, all cases involving municipal affairs are viewed through the lens of the Vista four-part test (as in the 2014 City of Palmdale case), courts can always find a way to rule in favor of the State legislation (over local regulation and control). On the other hand, if the California Supreme Court were to clarify what analysis ATTACHMENT 1 617 2 should be applied, and in this case, not apply the Vista four-part test and allow the California’s plain language to speak for itself (see Article XI, Section 5(b) of the Constitution), then our local control over certain matters of local governance will be preserved. We will be filing our Petition for California Supreme Court review in the coming weeks. We are request that you, as Charter City, join the fight simply by submitting a letter to the California Supreme Court, in Amicus support, to help let the highest court know how important this issue is, how necessary it is to take this Appeal up, and what it means for the future for local governments. You do not need to get involved in the Appeal itself, we just need letters of support. We are urging you to contact one of our lead attorneys on this effort, Mike Vigliotta, at mvigliotta@surfcity-hb.org, and let him know that your City is willing to file an Amicus letter to the Supreme Court. Letters will be due to the Supreme Court on or shortly before March 6, 2020. If you can contact us to express your interest, we will put you on a list of frequent contacts, we will send you a “model” letter with draft language for you, and we will send you the Supreme Court file number for the Petition to include in the letter so that it gets associated with the Petition. Please contact Mike Vigliotta for more information and for any questions you may have. Please help. Thank you in advance. Michael E. Gates, City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main St., Fourth Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ph: (714) 536-5538 Fx: (714) 374-1590 Confidentiality Notice: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work- product for the sole use of the addressee. Further, this email is protected under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2522. Any review by, reliance, or distribution by others or forwarding to others without express permission of the author is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail. Thank you. 618 Filed 1/10/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. XAVIER BECERRA, as Attorney General, etc., Defendant and Appellant. G057013 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00984280) O P I N I O N Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James L. Crandall, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, Stepan A. Haytayan and Jonathan M. Eisenberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant. Michael E. Gates, City Attorney, and Brian L. Williams for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * ATTACHMENT 2 619 2 INTRODUCTION The California Values Act, Government Code section 7284 et seq. (the CVA), restricts the ability of local law enforcement agencies to inquire into immigration status, place individuals on an immigration hold, and use personnel or resources to participate in certain immigration enforcement activities. The issue we address is whether charter cities are exempt from compliance with one part of the CVA, Government Code section 7284.6 (section 7284.6), on the ground it infringes the authority of charter cities under article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution to create, regulate, and govern city police forces. We hold section 7284.6 is constitutional as applied to charter cities because it addresses matters of statewide concern—including public safety and health, effective policing, and protection of constitutional rights—is reasonably related to resolution of those statewide concerns, and is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local government. In so holding, we follow and apply the opinions of the California Supreme Court in California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1 (California Fed. Savings) and State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547 (City of Vista). The trial court concluded otherwise, and granted a petition for writ of mandamus brought by the City of Huntington Beach (the City), which is a charter city. The court ordered Xavier Becerra, as the California Attorney General, to refrain from enforcing section 7284.6 against the City. Based on our holding that section 7284.6 is constitutional as applied to charter cities, we reverse with directions to deny the writ petition and enter judgment in favor of the Attorney General. In a companion appeal, City of Huntington Beach v. Los Alamitos Community United, G057209, two community organizations and four people challenge the trial court’s ruling the CVA is unconstitutional as to charter cities. In that case, we conclude the appellants lack standing to appeal and grant the City’s motion to dismiss. 620 3 RELEVANT LAW Resolution of this appeal turns on the relationship and potential conflict among three sources of law: (1) the CVA, (2) article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, and (3) the Huntington Beach Charter and municipal code provisions. I. The CVA When enacting the CVA, the Legislature found “[i]mmigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community,” “[a] relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California,” and “[t]his trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.2, subds. (a), (b) & (c).) As a result, the Legislature found, “immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians.” (Id., subd. (c).) In addition, the Legislature found that “[e]ntangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.2, subd. (d).) The Legislature expressed concern that state and local participation in federal immigration enforcement could lead to the unconstitutional detention of California residents who were targeted based on race or ethnicity in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause. (Id., subd. (e).) The goal of the CVA, the Legislature declared, is “to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments.” (Id., subd. (f).) 621 4 The CVA carries out its purposes by prohibiting state and local law enforcement from engaging in certain specifically identified acts related to immigration enforcement. Section 7284.6, the challenged part of the CVA, prohibits state and local law enforcement from: (1) inquiring into a person’s immigration status (id., subd. (a)(1)(A)); (2) detaining a person on the basis of a “hold” request from immigration authorities (id., subd. (a)(1)(B)); (3) providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates unless that information is available to the public (id., subd. (a)(1)(C)); (4) providing personal information, such as address and employment status, to immigration authorities, unless that information is available to the public (id., subd. (a)(1)(D)); (5) making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants (id., subd. (a)(1)(E)); (6) assisting immigration authorities in warrantless searches near the United States border (id., subd. (a)(1)(F)); (7) performing the functions of an immigration agent (id., subd. (a)(1)(G)); (8) placing local law enforcement officers under the supervision of a federal agency for purposes of immigration enforcement (id., subd. (a)(2)); (9) using immigration officers as interpreters for law enforcement matters under the jurisdiction of state or local law enforcement agencies (id., subd. (a)(3)); (10) transferring a person to immigration authorities unless authorized b y a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination (id., subd. (a)(4)); (11) providing office space exclusively dedicated for immigration agents within a county or city law enforcement facility (id., subd. (a)(5)); and (12) contracting with the federal government for use of California law enforcement facilities to house persons as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody (id., subd. (a)(6)). The CVA makes clear that California law enforcement agencies are not prohibited from engaging in certain activities with federal authorities. California law enforcement agencies are not prohibited from investigating, enforcing, detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting a person for a violation of section 1326(a) of title 8 622 5 of the United States Code (reentry of removed aliens). (§ 7284.6, subd. (b)(1).) California law enforcement agencies are not prohibited from responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history if otherwise permitted by state law. (Id., subd. (b)(2).) California law enforcement agencies may conduct enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force so long as the primary purpose of the task force is not immigration enforcement and the enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of law unrelated to immigration enforcement. (Id., subd. (b)(3).) The CVA states that it “does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of [any] individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to [federal immigration laws].” (§ 7284.6, subd. (e).) The CVA imposes on the California Attorney General the task of preparing and publishing “model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers Compensation, and shelters, and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.8, subd. (a).) The CVA also imposes restrictions on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR). The DCR must, in advance of an interview between United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a person in DCR custody, provide that person with a written consent form explaining the purpose of the interview, that the 623 6 interview is voluntary, and that the person may decline to be interviewed or be interviewed only with an attorney present. (Gov. Code, § 7284.10, subd. (a)(1).) The DCR must, upon receiving an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request, provide a copy of the request to the person who is the subject of the request and inform him or her whether the DCR intends to comply with it. (Id., subd. (a)(2).) The CVA prohibits the DCR from (1) restricting access to “any in-prison educational or rehabilitative programming, or credit-earning opportunity” solely on the basis of citizenship or immigration status and (2) considering citizenship or immigration status in determining a person’s custodial classification level. (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (2).) II. California Constitution, Article XI, Section 5 California law classifies cities as either charter cities, which are organized under a charter (Gov. Code, § 34101), or general law cities, which are organized under the general law of the State of California (id., § 34102). (See City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 552, fn. 1.) The City is a charter city. Under the home rule doctrine, “[c]harter cities are specifically authorized by our state Constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to the matters deemed municipal affairs.” (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 555.) Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution defines the scope of home rule powers of a charter city. Section 5 does so in two subdivisions. Section 5, subdivision (a) (Section 5(a)) sets out the general rule of municipal self-governance and provides: “It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with 624 7 respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.” (Ibid., italics added; see Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, 397 (Johnson).) “Whereas subdivision (a) of article XI, section 5 articulates the general principle of self-governance, subdivision (b) sets out a nonexclusive list of four ‘core’ categories that are, by definition, ‘municipal affairs.’” (Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 398, fn. omitted.) Article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution (Section 5(b)) states: “It shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this Constitution, and by the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees.” (Ibid., italics added.) III. Huntington Beach Charter and Municipal Code Provisions Section 103 of the Huntington Beach Charter states: “The City shall have the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be provided in this Charter or in the Constitution of the State of California.” Section 2.52.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code states: “It shall be the duty of each and every member of the Police Department to enforce impartially all the laws and statutes of the United States and of the State of California and all of the ordinances of the City, within the limits of this City, and 625 8 to perform such other and further duties as by statute and ordinance now existing or hereafter enacted, may be imposed upon them in their capacity as peace officers.” Section 2.24.050 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code states: “The Police Chief shall perform such other acts as the laws of the state and ordinances of the Council may require.” FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The City filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a complaint for declaratory relief to “invalidate the unconstitutional mandates of the [CVA] that impermissibly strip the City’s constitutionally protected Charter authority with respect to local ‘municipal affairs.’” The petition and complaint had three causes of action: (1) writ of mandate, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) injunctive relief. Each cause of action alleged the CVA unconstitutionally violates the City’s authority to conduct municipal affairs guaranteed under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution by mandating how the City operates its police force. As relief, the City prayed for issuance of “[a] Writ of Mandamus that commands and compels [the Attorney General] to comply with [his] respective mandatory and ministerial duties with respect to the City’s claims raised in this action, including . . . that [the Attorney General] not enforce the [CVA] against the City and comply with Article XI, § 5 of the California Constitution.” The City also prayed for a declaration that the CVA is unconstitutional and preempted by article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution. In a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the petition for writ of mandamus, the City argued article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution grants charter cities “supreme authority” over municipal affairs, which include operation of the City’s police force. The City argued the CVA is “an impermissible, un-Constitutional overreach, is void, and should be invalidated” because it intrudes upon the City’s control of its police force. The City submitted a declaration from its Chief of 626 9 Police, Robert Handy, who voiced a number of criticisms of the CVA. Chief Handy declared the CVA “interferes with effective local law enforcement by limiting the discretion of the City police to work cooperatively with the United States Department of Homeland Security and [ICE].” The Attorney General filed opposition, which included the legislative history of the CVA, a declaration from Professor Tom K. Wong of the University of California, San Diego, and copies of declarations from four other law enforcement officials that had been filed in a federal court action. Wong concluded: “When undocumented immigrants hear about the [CVA], they have [a] deeper belief that California’s laws can protect them, their families, and their communities, and they have more trust that California’s laws can protect the confidentiality of witnesses to crimes even if they are undocumented.” He also concluded, “When undocumented immigrants hear that some cities in California want to opt out of the [CVA], this has wide-ranging chilling effects as they become significantly less likely to engage with public institutions, including law enforcement.” A hearing was conducted on the City’s petition for writ of mandamus and complaint. The City narrowed the scope of relief sought by identifying section 7284.6 as the “operative portion” of the CVA that the City sought to have invalidated. The trial court granted the City’s petition for writ of mandamus and issued an order for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate. A peremptory writ of mandate was issued ordering the Attorney General to refrain from enforcing section 7284.6 against the City. In a statement of decision, the court found: (1) the “constitution, regulation and government” of a police force is a “quintessential municipal affair under [Section] 5(a)”; (2) the “constitution, regulation and government” of a police force is “a municipal prerogative” protected by Section 5(b); and (3) “there is no ‘statewide concern’ justifying the state[’]s regulation of a Charter City’s police force.” 627 10 The Attorney General timely filed a notice of appeal from the order granting the City’s petition for writ of mandamus. An order granting or denying a petition for writ of mandamus is considered a final judgment for purposes of an appeal. (Public Defenders’ Organization v. County of Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409.) DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review “[T]he question whether in a particular case the home rule provisions of the California Constitution [article XI, section 5] bar the application of state law to charter cities turns ultimately on the meaning and scope of the state law in question and the relevant state constitutional provisions. Interpreting that law and those provisions presents a legal question, not a factual one. [Citations.] Courts accord great weight to the factual record that the Legislature has compiled [citations], and also to any relevant facts established in trial court proceedings. [Citation.] Factual findings by the Legislature or the trial court, however, are not controlling. [Citation.] The decision as to what areas of governance are municipal concerns and what are statewide concerns is ultimately a legal one.” (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 558.) II. A Municipal Affair Identified in Section 5(b) Can Be Subject to a General Law of Statewide Concern. A. The Four-Part Analytical Framework Home rule authority under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution does not mean charter cities can never be subject to state laws that concern or regulate municipal affairs. “[A] charter city’s authority to enact legislation is not unlimited.” (Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 781, 795 (Jauregui).) 628 11 The Legislature may legislate as to matters of statewide concern and, if the statute is not overbroad, then the conflicting charter city law “ceases to be a ‘municipal affair’ pro tanto and the Legislature is not prohibited by article XI, section 5(a), from addressing the statewide dimension by its own tailored enactments.” (California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 17.) “[G]eneral law prevails over local enactments of a chartered city, even in regard to matters which would otherwise be deemed to be strictly municipal affairs, where the subject matter of the general law is of statewide concern.” (People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591, 600 (Seal Beach), quoting Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 60 Cal.2d 276, 292 (Professional Fire Fighters); see Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 136 (Baggett) [“‘As to matters which are of statewide concern, however, home rule charter cities remain subject to and controlled by applicable general state laws regardless of the provisions of their charters’”].) The California Supreme Court has developed a four-part “analytical framework” to determine whether a state law unconstitutionally infringes the home rule authority of charter cities granted by article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution. (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 556; California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 16-17.) First, the court determines whether the local law at issue regulates an activity that can be characterized as a municipal affair. (City of Vista, supra, at p. 556; California Fed. Savings, supra, at p. 16.) Second, the court determines whether there is an actual conflict between state law and the local law. (City of Vista, supra, at p. 556; California Fed. Savings, supra, at pp. 16-17.) If no conflict exists, the analysis is complete and there is no need to go to the next step. (California Fed. Savings, supra, at p. 16.) Third, the court decides whether the state law addresses a matter of “‘statewide concern.’” (City of Vista, supra, at p. 556; California Fed. Savings, supra, at p. 17.) Fourth and finally, the court determines whether the state law is “‘reasonably related to . . . resolution’” of the identified statewide concern and is “‘narrowly tailored’ to avoid unnecessary 629 12 interference in local governance.” (City of Vista, supra, at p. 556; California Fed. Savings, supra, at p. 17; see Marquez v. City of Long Beach (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 552, 562-563 (Marquez); Jauregui, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 795-796.) B. The Language and History of Section 5(a) and Section 5(b) The trial court concluded and the City argues the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings is inapplicable if the local law concerns one of the four municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b). The City argues as to those municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b), which include creation, regulation, and governance of a police force and compensation of city employees, “the four-part test is unnecessary and the Charter City’s authority is limited only by the state and federal constitutions.” Thus, according to the City, Section 5(b) grants to charter cities absolute home rule authority over its police department “to the exclusion of any substantive restrictions by the Legislature.” The City’s argument is based largely on the language and history of article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution. The language and history of article XI, section 5 lead us to conclude the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings applies equally to municipal affairs under Section 5(a) and Section 5(b). The text of a constitutional provision is the starting point of its interpretation and “the best indicator of the intended meaning.” (Powers v. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal.4th 85, 93.) Section 5(a) states that charter city ordinances “in respect to municipal affairs” are subject only to “restrictions and limitations” provided in the city charter and, with respect to municipal affairs, that the city charter “shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.” Despite such language, charter city ordinances regulating a municipal affair must give way to inconsistent state laws addressing issues of statewide concern. (E.g., City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 556.) 630 13 Section 5(a) does not define or provide examples of municipal affairs. Section 5(b) fills the gap left by Section 5(a) by providing a nonexclusive list of four areas defined to be municipal affairs. (See Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 398.) Unlike Section 5(a), Section 5(b) does not say that charter city ordinances in those areas are subject only to the restrictions and limitations of the city charter. Nor does Section 5(b) accord any special status to the identified municipal affairs. The most logical interpretation of Section 5(b), particularly when read with Section 5(a), is that it identifies four areas that are at least presumptively deemed to be municipal affairs for purposes of Section 5(a). As relevant here, Section 5(b) deems “the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force” municipal affairs for purposes of Section 5(a). The history of article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution supports our interpretation. This history starts with the California Constitution of 1849, under which cities were “but subordinate subdivisions of the State Government,” and the Legislature had the power to “enlarge or restrict” city powers. (Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 394-395, quoting San Francisco v. Canavan (1872) 42 Cal. 541, 557.) The Legislature often enacted special legislation directly managing the affairs of charter cities. (Peppin, Municipal Home Rule in California: I (1941) 30 Cal. L.Rev. 1, 10-12.) The California Constitution of 1879 added article XI, former section 6, which provided: “Cities or towns heretofore or hereafter organized, and all charters thereof framed or adopted by authority of this Constitution shall be subject to and controlled by general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, former § 6.) Article XI, former section 6 of the California Constitution, while intended to “emancipate municipal governments from the authority and control formerly exercised over them by the Legislature” (People v. Hoge (1880) 55 Cal. 612, 618), was interpreted by the California Supreme Court to make city charters and local laws subordinate to general state law (Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 395). In response, article XI, former section 6 was amended in 1896 to read: “Cities and towns heretofore or hereafter 631 14 organized, and all charters thereof framed or adopted by authority of this constitution, except in municipal affairs, shall be subject to and controlled by general laws.” (Italics added; see Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 395.) The lead opinion by Justice Garoutte in Fragley v. Phelan (1899) 126 Cal. 383, 387, concluded the amendment to article XI, former section 6 “was intended to give municipalities the sole right to regulate, control, and govern their internal conduct independent of general laws.” Municipal affairs are “the internal regulation and control by municipalities”; that is, “the internal business affairs of the municipality.” (Fragley v. Phelan, supra, 126 Cal. at p. 387, lead opn. of Garoutte, J.) Justice Harrison also wrote an opinion in which he warned that the amendment to article XI, former section 6 meant charter cities retained control only over municipal affairs identified in the city charter. (Id. at pp. 395-396 (conc. opn. of Harrison, J.) “In effect, this meant that city charters were ‘not paramount to general state laws, even as to purely municipal affairs, in cases where the charter was silent.’” (Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 396.) The term “municipal affairs” used in article XI, former section 6 was “deceptively simple,” and “no universal truth emerged from these words.” (Sato, “Municipal Affairs” in California (1972) 60 Cal. L.Rev. 1055, 1058.) At the same time that article XI, former section 6 was amended, article XI, former section 8½ was adopted. (See McBain, The Law and the Practice of Municipal Home Rule (1916) p. 370.) Article XI, former section 8½, which was the predecessor of Section 5(b), read, in relevant part: “It shall be competent, in all charters framed under the authority given by section eight of article eleven of this Constitution, to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this Constitution and by law of the State, as follows: [¶] . . . [¶] 3. For the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the members of the boards of police commissioners shall be elected or appointed; and for the constitution, regulation, compensation, and government of such boards and of the municipal police force.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, former § 8½.) 632 15 One authority explains the enactment of article XI, former section 8½ was prompted “by cases which had been adjudicated prior to 1896 and by the assumption or fear that the specific powers here conferred would not be regarded by the courts as falling in the general category of municipal affairs.” (See McBain, The Law and the Practice of Municipal Home Rule, supra, at p. 371.) By enacting article XI, former section 8½, “the people of the State of California sought to confirm to their home rule cities certain specific powers which might otherwise have been excluded by the courts from the category of municipal affairs.” (McBain, The Law and the Practice of Municipal Home Rule, supra, at p. 372.) In Nicholl v. Koster (1910) 157 Cal. 416, 420-421, the California Supreme Court held a charter city did not have the authority to enact laws relating to municipal affairs identified in article XI, former section § 8½ if the city charter was silent on the subject. (See Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 396.) “As a result, municipalities that wished to exercise their constitutionally granted exclusive control over municipal affairs were forced to adopt ‘bulky charters’ that attempted to enumerate specifically and extensively their municipal powers.” (Ibid.) An article published in 1913 criticized this result and suggested the California Constitution be amended to imply a grant to all charter cities the powers to legislate all municipal affairs regardless whether a specific function is identified as a municipal affair in a city charter. (Ibid., citing Jones, “Municipal Affairs” in the California Constitution (1913) 1 Cal. L.Rev. 132, 145.) In 1914, article XI was amended by the voters in the manner suggested. Article XI, former section 6 was amended to give charter cities the power “to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters, and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to and controlled by general laws.” (See Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 396.) Article XI, former section 8 was amended by the insertion of a similar provision stating: “It shall be competent in any charter framed under the authority of this 633 16 section to provide that the municipality governed thereunder may make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to all other matters they shall be subject to general laws.” (See Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 396-397.) Finally, article XI, former section 8½ was amended to grant charter cities “plenary authority . . . subject only to the restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several . . . municipal officers . . . shall be elected . . . [and] for their compensation.” (See Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 397.) The provision in article XI, former section 8½ regarding “the constitution, regulation, compensation, and government of . . . the municipal police force” was not changed. (See Voter Information Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 3, 1914).) After the 1914 amendments, the municipal affairs provisions of article XI, former sections 6, 8, and 8½ remained unchanged in substance. (See Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 396-397.) “In 1968, as part of the general overhaul of the state Constitution, the California Constitution Revision Commission recommended to the Legislature that the above sections be retained in substance but rewritten and renumbered as new article XI, section 5.” (Id. at p. 397.) In a 1970 Special Election the voters approved the revised article XI, section 5. (Ibid.) The municipal affairs provisions of article XI, former sections 6 and 8 became Section 5(a), while the municipal affairs provisions of Article XI, former section 8½ became Section 5(b). (Historical Notes, 2A West’s Ann. Cal. Const. (2013 ed.) foll. art. XI, § 5, p. 245.) The lesson from this history, as relevant here, is that a charter city may provide in its charter that the city may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to “municipal affairs” (subject only to restrictions in the city charter) and otherwise is subject to general laws. Because the term “municipal affairs” was subject to judicial interpretation, article XI, former section 8½ (now Section 5(b)) was enacted to 634 17 ensure that certain identified functions would be municipal affairs and could not by judicial interpretation be deemed otherwise. Thus, Section 5(b) was not intended to and does not create a special class of municipal affairs1 that are categorically distinct from municipal affairs under Section 5(a). Rather, Section 5(b) merely confirms that certain functions—including the “constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force”—are municipal affairs, just like any other functions deemed municipal affairs under Section 5(a). C. California Supreme Court Authority The four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings would therefore apply to a state law that is claimed to intrude on a charter city’s right under Section 5(b) to create, regulate, and govern a police force, just as it would apply when the municipal affair comes within Section 5(a). Indeed, the California Supreme Court, in assessing the validity of state laws under the home rule doctrine, has never drawn a distinction between municipal affairs under Section 5(a) and Section 5(b). The California Supreme Court, in Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at page 131, indirectly rejected the notion that municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b) can never be subject to state regulation. The issue in Baggett was whether the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights (Gov. Code, §§ 3300-3311) (the PSOPBR) applies to charter cities. The defendants argued the PSOPBR could not apply to charter cities because Section 5(b) grants such cities authority over the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force and plenary authority over the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office, and removal of city employees, including police officers. (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 137.) 1 With perhaps the exception of the election and compensation of municipal officers, for which Section 5(b)(4) grants charter cities “plenary” authority. 635 18 The Supreme Court first observed that “[s]uperficially” Section 5(b) did “raise some doubts as to whether the [PSOPBR] may be applied to charter cities.” (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 137.) Although the PSOPBR “impinge[d] on the city’s implied power to determine the manner in which its employees may be removed” (id. at p. 138), the PSOPBR addressed a matter of statewide concern—“the maintenance of stable employment relations between police officers and their employers” (id. at pp. 139-140). In addition, rights created by the PSOPBR had a “direct, substantial connection” to the Legislature’s purpose. (Id. at p. 140.) The court held the PSOPBR applied to charter cities notwithstanding their authority granted by Section 5(b) to regulate police departments and “plenary authority” over the removal of employees. (Baggett, supra, at pp. 138, 140; see Morgado v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-15 [administrative appeal provision of the PSOPBR applies to charter cities notwithstanding Section 5(b)]; Jackson v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 899, 906-907 [statute of limitations of PSOPBR applies to charter cities].) In Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at page 600, the California Supreme Court expressly rejected the notion that municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b) can never be subject to state regulation. The issue in Seal Beach was whether a charter city must comply with the “‘meet-and-confer’” requirement of Government Code section 35052 before the city can propose an amendment to its charter concerning the terms and conditions of public employment. (Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 594.) Plaintiff relators in that case challenged a city charter amendment requiring the immediate firing of any city employee who participated in a strike as being in violation of Government Code section 3505. (Seal Beach, supra, at pp. 594-595.) The defendant charter city contended the MMBA violated its absolute right under Section 5(b) to regulate the city 2 Government Code section 3505 was enacted as part of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code section 3500 et seq. (Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 594.) 636 19 police force and provide the manner in which city employees may be compensated and removed. (Seal Beach, supra, at pp. 599-600.) The California Supreme Court rejected the defendant charter city’s argument and held Government Code section 3505 applied to the defendant charter city. After quoting Section 5(b)(4), the court stated: “What grant of power could sound more absolute? Yet in an unbroken series of public employee cases, starting with Professional Fire Fighters . . . and ending for the time being with Baggett . . . , it has been held that a ‘general law prevails over local enactments of a chartered city, even in regard to matters which would otherwise be deemed to be strictly municipal affairs, where the subject matter of the general law is of statewide concern.’ [Citation.] Fair labor practices, uniform throughout the state, are a matter ‘of the same statewide concern as workmen’s compensation, liability of municipalities for tort, perfecting and filing of claims, and the requirement to subscribe to loyalty oaths.’ [Citation.] With these precepts in mind, in Professional Fire Fighters we resolved a conflict between the statutory right of firemen to organize and the city’s ‘charter provisions, ordinances and regulations’ [citation] in favor of the statute. In Baggett . . . , we held it to be of no consequence that the [PSOPBR] conflicted with and impinged on a charter city’s power to determine the manner in which its employees could be removed and, generally, impinged ‘to a limited extent on the city’s general regulatory power over the [police] department.’ [Citation.] In the same vein, in Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492, a charter city resolution purporting to exclude work hour schedules from the meet-and-confer process was held invalid.” (Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 600.) In Jauregui, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at page 781, the Court of Appeal followed the reasoning of Seal Beach to conclude that provisions of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Elec. Code, §§ 14025-14032) applied to the defendant charter city. The challenged code sections bar a municipality from using at-large elections in a manner 637 20 that would dilute the votes of members of a protected class. (Elec. Code, §§ 14026, 14028; see Jauregui, supra, at p. 793.) The defendant charter city argued it could not be bound by those anti-vote-dilution statutes because Section 5(b) grants charter cities “plenary authority” over elections. (Jauregui, supra, at pp. 802-803.) The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. Extensively quoting from Seal Beach, the court found the analysis of that opinion “applies with equal force in the municipal election context” and concluded “[t]he plenary authority identified in article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) can be preempted by a statewide law after engaging in the four-step evaluation process specified by our Supreme Court.” (Id. at p. 803.) The Court of Appeal in Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pages 556 through 557 addressed the issue whether charter cities must comply with state law minimum wage orders. Although Section 5(b) grants charter cities plenary authority over compensation of city employees, the court concluded “the Legislature may constitutionally exercise authority over minimum wages, despite the constitutional reservation of authority in charter cities to legislate as to their municipal affairs.” (Marquez, supra, at p. 557.) The court summed up the relevant case law as follows: “We take from these cases that article XI, section 5, of the state Constitution limits the Legislature’s authority to determine the wages of charter city employees, to cap those wages, and to outsource to a third party the authority to determine employee wages. However, the Legislature may enact laws of broad general application that impact charter city compensation where the state law’s infringement on local authority is reasonably related to an important statewide concern.” (Id. at p. 567.) These four decisions—Baggett, Seal Beach, Juaregui, and Marquez— demonstrate the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings applies when a state law is challenged as infringing a municipal affair identified in Section 5(b). These decisions confirm what we have gleaned from the language and history of Section 5(a) and Section 5(b); that is, Section 5(b) does not create a special 638 21 class of municipal affairs but identifies certain activities at least presumptively deemed to be municipal affairs under Section 5(a). A municipal affair identified in Section 5(b) is not immune from any and all state laws; rather, a city ordinance regulating an activity identified in Section 5(b) would by definition and without more be a municipal affair under the first part of the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings. In arguing Section 5(b) defines core municipal affairs that are subject only to constitutional and substantive legislative restriction, the City relies on several California Supreme Court cases (listed in the order in which we address them): Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th 389; Graham v. Mayor & Board of Trustees (1907) 151 Cal. 465 (Graham); Ector v. City of Torrance (1973) 10 Cal.3d 129 (Ector); and Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma (1979) 23 Cal.3d 296 (Sonoma County). None of the cases supports the City’s argument. The City contends Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th 389 impliedly holds that as to matters identified in Section 5(b), a charter city’s authority is limited only by the federal and state constitutions. The issue in Johnson was whether a state law banning public financing of election campaigns barred a charter city from enforcing a city charter provision providing for partial public funding of campaigns for city elective offices. (Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 392.) The charter city argued that partial public financing of municipal election campaigns constituted a “‘manner’” of municipal elections and therefore fell within the city’s plenary authority granted by Section 5(b)(4). (Johnson, supra, at p. 403.) The California Supreme Court declined to decide whether the city charter provision was by definition a “‘core’” municipal affair under Section 5(b)(4) because the court concluded the charter provision was enforceable as a municipal affair under Section 5(a). (Johnson, supra, at pp. 403-404.) At footnote 15, the court stated: “Of course, even if a given matter is deemed to be a municipal affair, a charter 639 22 city’s regulation remains subject to the various guarantees and requirements of the state and federal Constitutions.” (Id. at pp. 403-404, fn. 15.) It is in footnote 15 that, according to the City, the California Supreme Court “necessarily implied” that a charter city’s authority over municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b) is subject only to constitutional limitation. We believe the City is over reading that passage. Because the Supreme Court declined to address whether the city charter provision fell within Section 5(b), the court did not address whether the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings would apply in that situation or not. And in footnote 14, the court in Johnson stated it agreed that “charter cities may not enforce laws that are inconsistent with or impede statewide regulation of the integrity of the political or electoral process” (Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 403, fn. 14) even though the conduct of city elections and the manner, method, and times of elections of municipal officers are municipal functions under Section 5(b). Reading Johnson in the manner urged by the City would place that case in conflict with Seal Beach. Section 5(b)(4) grants charter cities plenary authority “subject only to the restrictions of this article” over the manner in which municipal officers are elected. In Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d 591, the court concluded the plenary authority language in Section 5(b)(4) was not absolute and did not mean local laws regarding removal and compensation of municipal employee were not subject to general laws of statewide concern. In Graham, supra, 151 Cal. 465 at pages 467-468, the court addressed whether a charter city was required to create and pay for a justice court, as required by state law, when the city had created a police court under authority conferred by article XI, former section 8½. The court concluded article XI, former section 8½ did not “interfere with the power of the legislature in the matter of provision for justices of the peace for cities and towns.” (Graham, supra, at p. 470.) But, the court held, article XI, former section 8½ made the matter of police courts “purely a municipal affair” and requiring a 640 23 charter city to pay the cost of maintaining the justice court “would be an invasion of the jurisdiction of the municipality, and inconsistent with the charter provision regarding the subject-matter of city police courts.” (Graham, supra, at pp. 472-473.) The City cites Graham as holding that as to municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b) a city’s charter authority is supreme and supersedes all inconsistent laws. (See Graham, supra, 151 Cal. at p. 473.) Since Graham was decided 112 years ago, California jurisprudence in the area of the home rule doctrine has changed. A city’s charter authority under both Section 5(a) and Section 5(b) no longer can be said to be supreme, but is subject to general laws of statewide concern. (E.g. City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 556; California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 16-17; Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 600; Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 135, 140; Professional Fire Fighters, supra, 60 Cal.2d at pp. 289-295.) The issue in Ector, supra, 10 Cal.3d 129 was whether a city charter requirement that city employees reside within city borders was rendered unenforceable by a state law forbidding such a residence requirement. In a passage relied on by the City, the California Supreme Court stated it was “not without guidance” in resolving whether the residence requirement involved a municipal affair because Section 5(b) is a specific directive that charter cities have plenary authority over the qualifications of their employees. (Ector, supra, at p. 132.) The court did not, however, reach the issue whether the state law violated Section 5(b) because, after examining the statutory language and legislative history, the court concluded the state law was limited by its terms to general law cities and did not apply to charter cities. (Ector, supra, at pp. 133-134.) At issue in Sonoma County, supra, 23 Cal.3d 296 was a statute, passed in response to Proposition 13, prohibiting the disbursement of state surplus or loan funds to any local public agency granting its employees a cost-of-living pay increase that exceeded the cost-of-living pay increase provided for state employees. In addition, the 641 24 statute nullified any agreement by a local agency to pay a cost-of-living pay increase that exceeded the cost-of-living pay increase provided for state employees. (Sonoma County, supra, at p. 302.) Labor organizations challenged the statute on the ground, among others, it violated Section 5(b)’s grant of plenary authority to charter cities to provide for the compensation of their officers and employees. (Sonoma County, supra, at p. 314.) The California Supreme Court, after quoting Ector and earlier authority, stated: “It seems clear to us, therefore, that both the language of the Constitution and prior authority support the proposition advanced by [the labor organizations] that the determination of wages paid to employees of charter cities as well as charter counties is a matter of local rather than statewide concern.” (Id. at p. 317.) The Supreme Court analyzed the argument made by the respondent counties that the state statute addressed a matter of statewide concern and therefore was binding notwithstanding the plenary authority granted by Section 5(b). (Sonoma County, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 318-319.) The court concluded the respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of a statewide emergency and for that reason rejected their argument that the state statute prevailed over the salary ordinances and resolutions enacted by charter cities and counties. (Id. at p. 318.) The City argues the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings would be “ridiculously redundant” if made applicable to the municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b) because the first part of that framework is to determine whether the activity in issue is a municipal affair. This argument is without merit. A charter city measure addressing an activity identified in Section 5(b) would automatically satisfy the first part of the analytical framework and thus move the inquiry along to the second part without further ado. A more fundamental problem, the City argues, is if a state law prevails over a city charter measure addressing activity deemed a municipal affair identified in Section 5(b), then by definition that activity ceases to be a municipal affair. Because Section 5(b) 642 25 identifies activities that are by definition municipal affairs, the City argues the application of the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings to state law addressing such activity would effect a de facto repeal of Section 5(b). This argument is mistaken because a subject of regulation can be both a municipal affair and a matter of statewide concern, depending on the “historical” and “factual” context. (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 557.) As stated in California Fed. Savings, “[i]n performing that constitutional task, courts should avoid the error of ‘compartmentalization,’ that is, of cordoning off an entire area of governmental activity as either a ‘municipal affair’ or one of statewide concern.” (California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 17.) If a state statute addresses an issue of statewide concern and is reasonably related to resolving that concern, “then the conflicting charter city measure ceases to be a ‘municipal affair’ pro tanto.” (Ibid., italics added.) The term “pro tanto” means “[t]o that extent; for so much; as far as it goes.” (Black’s Law Dict. (11th ed. 2019) p. 1478.) In other words, the city charter measure ceases to be a municipal affair only to the extent or so far as it is in conflict with a statute addressing a matter of statewide concern; the measure does not cease to be a municipal affair altogether. D. Substantive/Procedural Distinction The City acknowledges that in Baggett and Seal Beach the California Supreme Court upheld state laws infringing the conduct of municipal affairs identified in Section 5(b). The City maintains, however, the state laws in those cases “impose[d] mere procedural regulations, rather than substantive limitations, on a Charter City’s authority over its municipal affairs.” The City thus asserts “the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that this exception to the home rule supremacy over enumerated Core Municipal Affairs is limited to setting forth procedural standards rather than substantive obligations or prohibitions.” 643 26 In regards to issues of the compensation, qualification, and removal of charter city employees, which come within Section 5(b)(4), the California Supreme Court has emphasized “there is a clear distinction between the substance of a public employee issue and the procedure by which it is resolved.” (Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 600, fn. 11.) Thus, “the process by which salaries are fixed” is an issue of statewide concern, while the salaries themselves of charter city employees are not subject to general laws. (Id. at pp. 600-601, fn. 11.) In County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278, 282 (County of Riverside), the California Supreme Court struck down, as violating county home rule constitutional provisions, a state law requiring counties and other agencies to submit to binding arbitration economic issues arising during negotiations with unions representing firefighters or law enforcement officers. A proponent of the state law argued it was valid because it involved a matter of statewide concern. (Id. at p. 286.) The court reviewed cases addressing state laws regulating relations between local governments and their employees, including Baggett, Seal Beach, and Sonoma County, and concluded they permitted the imposition of procedural requirements governing employee relations. (Id. at pp. 287-289.) The state law in issue was invalid, the court reasoned, because it “is not merely procedural” but “is substantive,” and “permits a body other than the county’s governing body to establish local salaries.” (Id. at p. 289.) In City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at page 564, the court struck down the state law regulating the wages of local government contract workers in part because “it imposes substantive obligations on charter cities, not merely generally applicable procedural standards.” The substantive nature of the state law “undermined” its proponent’s assertion that it addressed a statewide concern. (Id. at p. 565.) The Court of Appeal, in Dimon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1279, 1289-1290, used this procedural/substantive dichotomy to conclude state laws regulating compensation for meal periods did not apply to county 644 27 probation officers. The court stated: “Another factor to be considered in determining if a state law reflects a matter of statewide concern so that it applies to a charter county is whether the law is procedural or substantive. A procedural (state) law leaves the ultimate decision making authority about employee compensation, job qualifications, or reasons to terminate in the hands of the charter county and thus can be applied to it. ([Baggett].) On that basis, our Supreme Court has upheld the application of the [PSOPBR] [citation] to a charter city ([Baggett]) and has found that a charter city is required to comply with the meet-and-confer requirements found in Government Code section 3500 et seq. before proposing amendments to the city charter concerning the terms and conditions of public employment ([Seal Beach].) A substantive law, on the other hand, takes away a charter county’s ability to establish local salaries and control working conditions.” (Id. at pp. 1289-1290.) The Court of Appeal held the state law regulating compensation for meal periods was substantive because “it would divest the County of its ability to provide for and regulate meal periods and to prescribe the remedy (if any) for violation of its regulation(s).” (Id. at p. 1290.) Yet in Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 552, the Court of Appeal held the statewide minimum wage law, no doubt very substantive, applied to charter cities notwithstanding Section 5(b)(4). The Marquez court addressed Baggett, Seal Beach, Sonoma County, County of Riverside, and City of Vista but drew no substantive/procedural distinction from them. Instead, the Marquez court concluded from those cases that “the Legislature may enact laws of broad general application that impact charter city compensation where the state law’s infringement on local authority is reasonably related to an important statewide concern.” (Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 567.) The Marquez court responded to an argument that the challenged law was substantive by concluding, “the distinction between substantive and procedural measures is not determinative, and substantive laws displacing local authority over municipal affairs have been upheld by the courts.” (Id. at p. 573.) The Marquez court cited 645 28 Jauregui, in which the Court of Appeal made no substantive/procedural distinction in concluding the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 applied to charter cities. (Jauregui, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 788, 802-804.) Recently, in Anderson v. City of San Jose (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 685, 715 (Anderson), the Court of Appeal, faced with a contention that a state law was substantive, stated Marquez “aptly summarized the balance of considerations when the law in question substantively regulates a municipal affair.” In Anderson, the Court of Appeal concluded the state’s Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, §§ 54220-54233) preempted a conflicting city policy regarding the sale of surplus municipal property. (Anderson, supra, at p. 693.) The Surplus Land Act, the court found, was “neither entirely procedural nor substantive in effect” and had specific substantive requirements. (Id. at p. 713.) The substantive requirements did not render the Surplus Land Act inapplicable to charter cities, and “courts have upheld state regulation of municipal affairs on numerous occasions after identifying a countervailing statewide concern.” (Id. at p. 714.) In summary, the substantive/procedural distinction has been made, or rejected in the case of Marquez, in situations in which charter city or charter county authority is asserted in the areas of the manner of electing city officials and the qualification, compensation, tenure, and removal of local government employees.3 Whether the same distinction should, must, or could be made in cases arising under Section 5(b)(1)—the constitution, regulation, and government of a charter city police force—is a different matter. It has been said that a procedural law defines or creates the mode of procedure by which a legal right is enforced, while substantive law gives and declares that right. (Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.) Does the CVA create or declare rights, or does it define the mode of procedure to enforce rights? It appears section 7284.6 does not create or declare substantive rights but 3 The City contends the CVA unconstitutionally infringes its right to compensate employees, a municipal affair under Section 5(b)(4). 646 29 regulates police procedures with the stated goals of ensuring effective policing, enhancing public safety, and protecting already established constitutional rights. But “substance and procedure are not always dichotomous” (Anderson, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 714), and the CVA might have both procedural and substantive provisions. We do not enter the legal thicket of determining whether section 7284.6 is procedural or substantive. We agree with Marquez that the distinction between substantive and procedural laws is not determinative of whether a state law may infringe a charter city’s home rule authority under Section 5(b). Whether the CVA is substantive or procedural might have some bearing on whether it addresses a statewide concern and is narrowly tailored to resolve that concern, but simply labelling it as one or the other should not be the decisive factor in its application to charter cities. The better course of action is to apply the four-part analytical framework of City of Vista and California Fed. Savings to section 7284.6 as it is, without characterizing it as substantive or procedural. III. Under the Four-Part Analytical Framework, the CVA Applies to Charter Cities Without Violating the California Constitution. A. Part One: The Huntington Beach Charter and Municipal Code Provisions Regulate Municipal Affairs. The first part of the four-part analytical framework is to determine whether the city ordinance at issue regulates an activity that can be characterized as a municipal affair. (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 556.) The City identifies two charter provisions and one municipal code section as unconstitutionally infringed by section 7284.6. The first is section 103 of the Huntington Beach Charter, set out above, which gives the City the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs. The second is section 105 of the Huntington Beach Charter, which provides the “City may exercise any of its powers or perform any of its functions . . . with 647 30 . . . the United States or any agency thereof.” The ordinance identified is Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 2.52.030, also quoted above, which makes it “the duty of each and every member of the Police Department to enforce impartially all the laws and statutes of the United States and of the State of California and all of the ordinances of the City.” The discussion in the preceding section leaves no doubt Huntington Beach Charter section 103 and Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 2.52.030 regulate activity that can be characterized as a municipal affair—the constitution, regulation, and government of the City police force. (See § 5(b)(1).) Huntington Beach Charter section 103 is broadly drafted to include all city functions, including operation of the police force. The City also asserts the CVA unconstitutionally infringes its right to compensate employees. While compensation of employees is a municipal affair under Section 5(b)(4), the City never explains how the CVA affects employee compensation and never identifies a charter provision or municipal code section at odds with the CVA on that subject. B. Part Two: There Is an Actual Conflict Between Section 7284.6 and Huntington Beach Charter Section 103. In part two of the analytical framework, we determine whether there is an actual conflict between section 7284.6 and the invoked charter and municipal code provisions. (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 556.) “[A] court asked to resolve a putative conflict between a state statute and a charter city measure initially must satisfy itself that the case presents an actual conflict between the two.” (California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 16.) “The question whether an actual conflict exists between state law and charter city law presents a matter of statutory construction. [Citation.] Charter city law is contradictory to state law when it is inimical thereto. [Citation.] ‘[N]o inimical conflict will be found where it is reasonably possible to 648 31 comply with both the state and local laws.’” (City of El Centro v. Lanier (206) 245 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1505.) We agree with the Attorney General there is no actual conflict between section 7284.6 and Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 2.52.030. The City argues that municipal code section imposes a requirement on every member of the City police department to enforce all the laws, both federal and state, and to do so impartially. The Attorney General argues the municipal code section only imposes a requirement of impartial enforcement, and does not mean the members of the police department must enforce every single state and federal law, an impossibility by some measure. We conclude the Attorney General’s interpretation is more plausible. Which laws to enforce at any given time is a matter of police regulation and command decisions based on resources, demands, and priorities. Further, the obligation to enforce all laws would include the obligation to enforce the CVA. Under section 2.24.050 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the police chief must “perform such other acts” as state law requires, and such acts would include the requirements imposed by the CVA. Nor do we find a conflict between section 7284.6 and Huntington Beach Charter section 105. Section 105 says only the City “may exercise” its powers or perform its functions with the United States or one of its agencies. (Italics added.) Section 105 does not say the City must do so and is not limited to immigration enforcement. Section 105 thus imposes no obligations on the City to participate with federal agencies in enforcing immigration law. Likewise, “Federal law provides states and localities the option, not the requirement, of assisting federal immigration authorities. [The CVA] 649 32 simply makes that choice for California law enforcement agencies.” (United States v. California (9th Cir. 2019) 921 F.3d 865, 889.)4 The City has never identified a relevant charter or municipal code provision regarding employee compensation. We therefore cannot tell whether there is any actual conflict between such a charter or municipal code provision and the CVA. We do find a conflict, however, between section 7284.6 and Huntington Beach Charter section 103, which grants the City its full constitutional power to make and enforce laws regarding municipal affairs. “A city need only provide in its charter that it may ‘make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs’ to transform a charter from an instrument conferring specific powers to one granting broad, residual powers except as expressly limited by the charter.” (Sato, supra, 60 Cal. L.Rev. at pp. 1056-1057, fn. omitted; see West Coast Adver. Co. v. San Francisco (1939) 14 Cal.2d 516, 521.) Huntington Beach Charter section 103 thus confers on the City a broad grant of authority over any and all legally cognizable municipal affairs, including authority over “the constitution, regulation, and government of the police force.” (§ 5(b)(1).) “[A] ‘conflict’ may exist between state and local authority even though the city has not specifically legislated on that point through its charter, or by other ‘enactment.’” (Johnson, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 399, fn. 9.) By prohibiting state and local law enforcement from engaging in certain activities related to immigration enforcement, section 7284.6 directly restricts the regulation of the City police force. Huntington Beach 4 In United States v. California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the CVA against a challenge by the United States that it is preempted by and violates federal law. (United States v. California, supra, 921 F.3d at pp. 873, 886-895.) The Ninth Circuit concluded the CVA “is consistent with California’s prerogative under the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering rule.” (Id. at p. 873.) The only issue we address, however, is whether section 7284.6 violates the California Constitution if applied to charter cities. 650 33 Charter section 103 would grant the City authority, for example, to regulate its police force by having its officers inquire into an arrestee’s immigration status or participate in arrests based on civil immigration warrants. Subdivisions (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(E) of section 7284.6 prohibit such activity. Because there is an actual conflict between section 7284.6 and Huntington Beach Charter section 103, we move to the issue whether the CVA, and section 7284.6 in particular, addresses a matter of statewide concern. C. Part Three: The CVA Addresses a Matter of Statewide Concern. In the third part of the analytical framework, we decide whether the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern. (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 556.) “When, as here, state law and the ordinances of a charter city actually conflict and we must decide which controls, ‘the hinge of the decision is the identification of a convincing basis for legislative action originating in extramunicipal concerns, one justifying legislative supersession based on sensible, pragmatic considerations.’ [Citation.] In other words, for state law to control there must be something more than an abstract state interest, as it is always possible to articulate some state interest in even the most local of matters.” (Id. at p. 560, quoting California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 18.) “The issue is whether [the concern] is of sufficient extramural dimension to support legislative measures reasonably related to its resolution.” (California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 23-24.) We accord “great weight” to the factual record compiled by the Legislature and to any relevant facts established in trial court proceedings. (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 558.) “The basis for deferring to the legislative evaluation of a problem is that ‘“the factors which influenced the Legislature to adopt the general laws may likewise lead the courts to the conclusion that the matter is of statewide rather than merely local concern.”’” (Anderson, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 707, quoting County of Riverside, 651 34 supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 286-287.) Nonetheless, factual findings made by the Legislature and the trial court are not controlling, and the decision whether a state law addresses a statewide concern is a legal issue to be decided by the court. (Anderson, supra, at p. 707; see County of Riverside, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 286 [“The judicial branch, not the legislative, is the final arbiter of this question”].) Any doubt as to whether a matter is of statewide or strictly local concern must be resolved in favor of “‘the legislative authority of the state.’” (California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 24.) The Legislature made substantial and detailed findings to support its enactment of the CVA. We quote them in full: “(a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent. “(b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California. “(c) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians. “(d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments. “(e) State and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on immigration status. See Sanchez Ochoa 652 35 v. Campbell, et al. (E.D. Wash. 2017) 2017 WL 3476777; Trujillo Santoya v. United States, et al. (W.D. Tex. 2017) 2017 WL 2896021; Moreno v. Napolitano (N.D. Ill. 2016) 213 F.Supp.3d 999; Morales v. Chadbourne (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 208; Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (D. Or. 2014) 2014 WL 1414305; Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir. 2014) 745 F.3d 634. “(f) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments. “(g) It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall not be construed as providing, expanding, or ratifying any legal authority for any state or local law enforcement agency to participate in immigration enforcement.” (Gov. Code, § 7284.2.) We accord those legislative findings great weight and, though not controlling, we conclude as a matter of law they sufficiently identify statewide concerns that justify binding charter cities to the dictates of section 7284.6. It is virtually self-evident that public safety is a matter of statewide concern (cf. O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1076 [prostitution and trafficking of controlled substances are matters of statewide concern]); that is why California has a lengthy Penal Code and a vast state prison system. “The historic police powers of the State include the suppression of violent crime and the preservation of community safety. In this power inheres the authority to structure and influence the relationship between state law enforcement and the community it serves.” (United States v. California (E.D. Cal. 2018) 314 F.Supp.3d 1077, 1108, affd. in part & revd. in part United States v. California, supra, 921 F.3d 865.) The California Assembly Committee on Public Safety understood the statewide public safety concerns justifying the CVA. That committee, in a hearing held on June 13, 2017, summarized a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago, which 653 36 found: (1) 44 percent of surveyed Latinos were less likely to contact police officers if they had been victims of a crime for fear of police inquiring into their immigration status; (2) 45 percent were less likely to volunteer information about a crime and were less likely to report a crime for fear of police inquiring into their immigration status; (3) 70 percent of undocumented immigrants reported they were less likely to contact law enforcement if they were victims of a crime; (4) 28 percent of U.S.-born Latinos were less likely to contact police if they were victims of a crime for fear of police inquiring into their immigration status; and (5) 38 percent of Latinos feel like they are under more suspicion now that local law enforcement have become involved in immigration enforcement, with the figure rising to 58 percent among undocumented immigrant respondents. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions (N.D. Cal. 2018) 349 F.Supp.3d 924, 938-939.) The University of Illinois at Chicago study found, “[c]oncerns have been raised that the increasing involvement of state and local police in immigration enforcement will increase the mistrust immigrant communities have towards the police, thereby reducing public safety.” Giving priority to immigration enforcement means that “law enforcement resources will be directed away from important public safety objectives.” The study supports the Legislature’s finding that the CVA was necessary to promote public safety and law enforcement. In opposition to the City’s Petition for writ of mandamus, the Attorney General submitted copies of declarations from four law enforcement officials: (1) Arif Alikhan, the Los Angeles Police Department Director of Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy; (2) Bruce Goldstein, Sonoma County Counsel; (3) Jim Hart, Santa Cruz County Sheriff; and (4) Jeffrey F. Rosen, Santa Clara County District Attorney. These declarations had been filed in federal court litigation over the CVA. Alikhan declared: “The cooperation of immigrant communities to report crimes and assist in the investigation and prosecution of criminals is critical to the fair and effective enforcement of the law and the safety of all members of the community.” Hart declared: “We firmly 654 37 believe that cooperation with ICE harms our relationship with our immigrant community and results in a less safe community because immigrants fail to disclose crimes that they witness and/or are victims to out of fear of deportation” and “based on my experience, I have found that community members are less forthcoming in assisting the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office if it were viewed as an extension of [ICE].” Rosen declared: “Fear of deportation by victims, witnesses, and families and friends of undocumented victims and witnesses has a toxic effect on our ability to detect and prosecute crime, thereby making the entire community less safe.” These declarations support the Legislature’s finding that lack of trust between immigrants and law enforcement is detrimental to public safety. Immigrants live throughout the State of California and, as the Legislature found, are a large portion of its population. Law enforcement agencies throughout the state interact with immigrants. The need for immigrants to report crimes, work with law enforcement, and serve as witnesses, is therefore a statewide, and not purely local, concern. Public health is a matter of statewide concern (City of Watsonville v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 875, 886), as is education (Butterworth v. Boyd (1938) 12 Cal.2d 140, 152; Madsen v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 574, 578). The Legislature’s finding that immigrant community members might be deterred from seeking health care or attending school if local law enforcement were “entangled with federal immigration enforcement” raises an issue of statewide concern. Goldstein, the Sonoma County Counsel, declared that after the devastating wildfires in Sonoma County in October 2017, immigrant families avoided interacting with local, state, and federal government agencies for fear of federal immigration raids. The treatment and welfare of immigrants, whatever their status, is a matter of statewide concern. (See e.g., Gov. Code, § 7285, subd. (a) [“All protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited by federal law, are available to all individuals regardless of immigration status who have 655 38 applied for employment, or who are or who have been employed, in this state”].) As the Legislature found, “[a]lmost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent.” (Id., § 7284.2, subd. (a).) The health, education, and legal treatment of a group of people of this size and residing throughout the state is, virtually by description, a matter of statewide concern. Finally, we conclude the protection of the constitutional rights of California residents is a matter of paramount statewide concern. The State of California has a constitution which guarantees and protects certain rights to all people. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 [“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights”].) The Legislature found that state and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs would create the risk that California residents would suffer violations of their constitutional rights. Guaranteeing rights and protections afforded by the state constitution is a matter of statewide concern. Uniform application of the CVA throughout the state is necessary to ensure it adequately addresses these statewide concerns. “If every city and county were able to opt out of the statutory regime simply by passing a local ordinance, the statewide goal[s] of [public safety, better law enforcement, and protection of constitutional rights] would surely be frustrated.” (Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 895, 919.) Evidence was presented to the trial court to support the need for uniform application of the CVA. In opposition to the City’s Petition for writ of mandamus, Professor Wong, an expert on immigration policy, prepared and submitted a declaration describing the results of his recent academic survey of 158 undocumented Mexican nationals in Southern California. On the matter of opting out of the CVA, Wong presented two conclusions. First, he concluded: “When undocumented immigrants hear about the [CVA], they have [a] deeper belief that California’s laws can protect them, their families, and their communities, and they have more trust that California’s laws can 656 39 protect the confidentiality of witnesses to crimes even if they are undocumented. These beliefs are severely eroded when undocumented immigrants hear that some cities in California want to opt out of the [CVA].” Second, he concluded: “When undocumented immigrants hear about the [CVA], they are more likely to engage with a broad range of public institutions, including being more likely to report crimes that they witness to the police, being more likely to report crimes that they are victims of to the police, use public services (e.g., go to City Hall) that requires them to give their personal contact information, do business (e.g., open a bank account, get a loan) that requires them to give their personal contact information, participate in public events where police may be present, and report wage theft by their employer. When undocumented immigrants hear that some cities in California want to opt out of the [CVA], this has wide-ranging chilling effects as they become significantly less likely to engage with public institutions, including law enforcement.” The fact that California is highly urbanized and integrated makes uniform statewide application of the CVA all the more critical. Over 37 years ago, the California Supreme Court recognized “[o]ur society is no longer a collection of insular communities” and “[c]ommunities today are highly interdependent.” (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 140.) Cities in large and even medium-sized metropolitan areas flow seamlessly into one another and millions of people pass through them daily along freeways and intercity thoroughfares. As the Attorney General points out, the City police department not only protects the City’s nearly 200,000 residents, but “millions of visitors each year.” Police officers, including those employed by the City, have authority “any place in the state.” (Pen. Code, § 830.1, subd. (a).) If a charter city were allowed to opt out of the CVA, the effect would not be limited to the city’s residents but would extend beyond the city’s boundaries. In support of the petition for writ of mandamus, the City submitted a declaration from its police chief, Handy, who severely criticized the CVA. He declared: 657 40 (1) the CVA limited and interfered with the City’s ability to operate its jail; (2) tactical use of immigration in policing is an important law enforcement tool; (3) the CVA placed restrictions on law enforcement that allow criminals to be released into communities; (4) the CVA interfered with a contract the City police department had with ICE to participate in joint operations, and (5) the CVA interfered with effective law enforcement and limited the discretion of the City’s police officers to work cooperatively with the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE. Chief Handy also declared that before passage of the CVA, “[t]here was not a sense in the immigrant community that the trust of Huntington Beach Police Department was eroded because the Police Department utilized the services of Federal Immigration Authorities.” Handy’s credentials and experience are impressive, and his service is to be commended. His declaration does not, however, alter our conclusion the CVA addresses a matter of statewide concern. Handy’s statement about the degree of trust the immigrant community has in the City’s police force is made without any facts or studies in support. Most importantly, Handy’s declaration must be considered against the Legislature’s thorough and detailed findings (to which we accord great weight), the evidence cited in the legislative history of the CVA (such as the research report from the University of Illinois at Chicago), Wong’s declaration, and the declarations of the four law enforcement officials that had been prepared for the federal court action. Weighed against that record, Handy’s declaration does not convince us the CVA addresses strictly local concerns. D. Part Four: The CVA Is Reasonably Related to the Statewide Concerns. The fourth part of the analytical framework directs us to determine “whether the law is ‘reasonably related to . . . resolution’ of [the statewide] concern [citation] and ‘narrowly tailored’ to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.” (City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 556.) “[T]he state law must be reasonably related to the issue at hand and limit the incursion into a city’s municipal interest.” (Lippman v. 658 41 City of Oakland (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 750, 765.) All that is required is a “direct, substantial connection between the rights provided by the [CVA] and the Legislature’s asserted purpose.” (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 140.) The CVA, in particular section 7284.6, is reasonably related to the statewide concerns of effective policing, public health and safety, prudent use of public resources, and protection of constitutional rights. Section 7284.6 limits or prohibits certain law enforcement activities, such as inquiring into immigration status and placing a person on an immigration hold, that erode trust between immigrants and the police. Section 7284.6 thereby encourages both immigrants and nonimmigrants to report crimes, work with law enforcement, and serve as witnesses. These restrictions are not only related to public safety, but make it more likely that immigrants and others will seek education and medical care. By prohibiting local law enforcement agencies from participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants, assisting immigration authorities in warrantless searches near the United States border, performing the functions of an immigration agent, and providing office space to immigration agents, section 7284.6 works to ensure that public law enforcement resources are dedicated to fighting state-law crimes, which pose a greater threat to the safety of California communities. What the CVA does not do demonstrates it is narrowly tailored and does not intrude unnecessarily into municipal interests. In particular, section 7284.6, subdivision (b) lists those activities the CVA does not prevent local law enforcement from undertaking. Those activities are engaging in activity related to enforcement of title 8 of the United States Code section 1326(a) (reentry of removed aliens), responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history if otherwise permitted by state law, and participating in a joint law enforcement task force so long as the primary purpose of the task force is not immigration enforcement. (§ 7284.6, subd. (b)(1), (2) & (3).) Section 7284.6, subdivision (e) 659 42 expressly states the CVA does not prohibit or restrict a government entity or official from sending to or receiving from federal immigration authorities information regarding a person’s citizenship and immigration status. The restrictions placed on local law enforcement agencies by section 7284.6 must be read in conjunction with Government Code section 7282.5. Section 7284.6, subdivision (a)(1)(C) prohibits a local law enforcement agency from providing information about a person’s release date from incarceration unless that information is public or provided in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Government Code section 7282.5. Section 7284.6, subdivision (a)(4) prohibits a local law enforcement agency from transferring a person to immigration authorities unless authorized by judicial warrant or a probable cause determination, or in accordance with section 7282.5. It is significant that section 7282.5, subdivision (a) provides that a law enforcement official (defined to include an official charged with operating jails) may engage in the activities described in section 7284.6, subdivisions (a)(1)(C) and (a)(4) when the person being held has been convicted of any one of dozens of specified state-law crimes,5 is registered on the California Sex and Arson Registry, or has been convicted of a federal crime that meets the definition of an aggravated felony. Reading section 7284.6, subdivisions (a)(1)(C) and (a)(4) with Government Code section 7282.5 shows the Legislature narrowly tailored the CVA to address legitimate public safety and other statewide concerns and not to thwart the ability of state and local law enforcement to transfer dangerous felons to federal immigration officials. The CVA does not prohibit all local law enforcement activity related to immigration or a 5 These crimes include all of those identified in Penal Code sections 1192.7, subdivision (c) and 667.5, subdivision (c); “a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison”; and a host of other felonies and misdemeanors punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Gov. Code, § 7282.5, subd. (a)(1), (2) & (3).) 660 43 person’s immigration status, but only prohibits such activity to the extent necessary to resolve the statewide concerns identified by the Legislature. The City’s only argument regarding the fourth step of the analytical framework is the CVA exempts the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) from its mandates. The City argues the CVA leaves intact Penal Code section 5026, which requires the CDCR to provide federal immigration authorities the “use of prison facilities, transportation, and general support, as needed, for the purposes of conducting and expediting deportation hearings and subsequent placement of deportation holds on undocumented aliens who are incarcerated in state prison.” (Ibid.) “In other words,” the City argues, “the CDCR is required under state law to do what [the CVA] otherwise purports to prohibit all Charter Cities’ police departments from doing.” Section 7284.6 applies to all “California law enforcement agencies,” which is defined to include “a state or local law enforcement agency” but to exclude the CDCR. (Gov. Code, § 7284.4, subd. (a).)6 The exclusion of the CDCR from section 7284.6 is rationally related to the CVA’s purpose of encouraging immigrants to report crimes, cooperate with the police, and serve as witnesses. The CDCR operates California’s state prison system (Gov. Code, § 12838 et seq.) and is not involved in workaday law enforcement activities. Persons subject to CDCR authority already are convicted felons. In addition, if the CDCR were subject to section 7284.6, it nonetheless would be able pursuant to Government Code section 7282.5 to provide information regarding release dates and transfer people to immigration authorities. Further, the CDCR is bound by the CVA provisions set out in Government Code section 7284.10. The CDCR must obtain written consent from an inmate before allowing ICE to interview him or her and notify any inmate in custody that ICE has issued a hold, transfer, or notification request for that person. (Id., § 7284.10, subd. 6 Section 7284.6, subdivision (f) preserves a California law enforcement agency’s right to assert its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters.” 661 44 (a)(1) & (2).) The CDCR must not restrict, solely on the basis of immigration status, an inmate’s access to education or rehabilitation programs or opportunities to earn credits, and must not consider citizenship or immigration status in determining an inmate’s custodial classification level. (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (2).) E. Conclusion We conclude, based on our application of the four-part analytical framework set forth in City of Vista and California Fed. Savings, section 7284.6 does not unconstitutionally infringe a charter city’s rights under Section 5(b) to constitute, regulate, and govern a city police force or to compensate city employees. This conclusion means we need not address the Attorney General’s argument based on the doctrine of state preemption of local regulation. DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to deny the petition for writ of mandamus and enter judgment in favor of Appellant. Appellant to recover costs on appeal. FYBEL, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: IKOLA, J. GOETHALS, J. 662 HUMAN RESOURCES BIANNUAL REPORT July 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 Recruitment Metrics Recruitments 13 71% Promotional Hires Average Days Advertised 15 Applications Received 424 49 Days to Fill Job Posting to Offer Date Turnover Rate 9.5% Internal Recruitments –Promotional Maintenance Worker II Parks/Lighting and Landscape Management Analyst External Recruitments Assistant Construction Manager –Promotion Building Inspector II –Promotion Building Official –Promotion City Clerk Administrative Assistant Code Compliance Officer I –Promotion Code Compliance Officer II –Promotion Housing Management Specialist Recreation Leader Senior Recreation Leader Human Resources Biannual Report 1 National Unemployment Rate 3.5% National Average Turnover Rate 3.7% Industry Biannual Average Turnover Rate 10% Source: US Department of Labor–Labor Statistics (US BLS) DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 4-A 663 Training Metrics Training Sessions 17 Wellness Sessions 31 Training Participation Training Summary California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) CJPIA –CJPIA Aerial Lift CJPIA –Contractual Risk Transfer CJPIA –Emergency Preparedness & Fire Extinguisher Safety CJPIA –Playground Safety CJPIA –Safe Workplaces/Bombs and Suspicious Packages CJPIA –Traffic Control and Flagging Safety LCW –Difficult Conversations LCW –Labor Code 101 LCW –MOU Auditing LCW –Navigating Common Legal Risks for the Front Line Supervisor LCW –Preventing Workplace Harassment 65% Human Resources Biannual Report 2 Wellness Summary 471 Recovery Adolescents and Marijuana American Fidelity Supplemental Benefit Workshop Brandman Educational Opportunity Workshop Employee Health Fair Health and Wellness Stretching Health Metrics Hearing Test Working Scholars Program Overview 664 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BIANNUAL REPORT July 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Meetings held: 4 CERT members attended: 28 Meeting Topics •State Disaster Service Worker (DSW)requirements •New CERT/DSW membership applications •Terrorism and situational awareness workshop 31 new participants completed the required 20-hour training class The City utilizes a whole community approach to minimize impacts of a major disaster through extensive training in prevention,mitigation,response and recovery efforts. •Ironman Community Outreach:Staff hosted meetings with community groups to discuss race detour routes,public safety access,and race day events. •JFK Disaster Preparedness Expo:Staff promoted CERT and personal preparedness •Lowe’s Public Safety Event:Staff provided information about family preparedness and disaster kits •Annual Appreciation Dinner for CERT and Police volunteers held on November 22. Community Events DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 4-B 665 EOC Training Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Procurement Disaster Assistance team training was provided to the finance and logistics sections.The trainings focused on federal procurement and contracting standards. The City Manager was provided an overview of Emergency Management and EOC functions. The City participated in the Great Shake Out on October 17 which included an EOC activation workshop. An Ironman exercise was held in the EOC on November 6 to define responsibilities and identify available resources needed to address traffic and communications before and during the race. The EOC was activated to a level 3 (lowest level)for Ironman on December 8 to provide communications support to the field and command center, and assisted with public information. FEMA Required Incident Command Trainings Trainings include practical applications in the EOC and working with contract agencies to provide increased understanding of assigned EOC positions. Upcoming Milestones Next 20-hour CERT class will be on March 27-29,2020. The City will activate/exercise the EOC in support of the Coachella Festival’s first weekend ingress of festival goers. Staff will monitor traffic conditions, prepare plans and coordinate with partner agencies. IS-100 IS-200 IS-700 FULL TIME 59.55%58.43%65.17% PART TIME 46.15%46.15%46.15% TRAINING COURSES COMPLETED EOC DIRECTOR & SECTION CHIEFS IS-300 IS-400 64.29%50.00% 666 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS & WELLNESS REPORT October 1, 2019 –December 31, 2019 Fritz Burns Pool •155 participants in programs •Open Swim •Water Aerobics •Residents used Palm Desert Aquatic Center for pool programming during November/December 81 34 14 6 2 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 Open Swim Water Aerobics Aqua Fit Arthritis Water Therapy Senior Splash Floating Pumpkin Patch Attendance* October Events •Street Food Cinema •Brew in LQ •Veterans Recognition •Christmas Tree Lighting Quarter Highlights •380 Fitness Memberships sold •254 participants for Wellness West programs at Old Town Artisan Studios *Pool programming closed during November & December during heater installation project. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO.4-C 667 PROGRAMS OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Class Attendees^ 1,900 2,413 4,172 Classes Held 243 136 217 Revenue*$7,968 $6,259 $7,251 FITNESS OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Attendees 5,039 4,780 4,617 Revenue*$8,945 $11,270 $11,330 RENTALS OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Attendees 3,010 3,060 2,540 # of Rentals 104 81 58 Revenue*$6,800 $2,584 $5,291 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 October November December Participation Revenue •October reflects increase in facility rental revenues. •November shows a slight decrease in revenues for programs. •Participation numbers steadily increasing during November and December for the fall/winter season. *Generated from classes,annual fitness memberships/renewals,daily fitness drop-in attendance,and rentals held at the Wellness Center,La Quinta Museum,La Quinta parks/sports fields,and Creation Station classes and memberships. ^Includes participants for community events, open gym and free programs. 668 LIBRARY & CREATION STATION QUARTERLY REPORT October 1, 2019 –December 31, 2019 Quarterly Stats •Pumpkin Day (ages 2-12) •24 Sip ‘n’ Paint Night (ages 21+) •Stuffed Animal Scream Over (ages 13- 17) •Fandom Fridays (all ages) •Harry Potter Trivia •Studio Ghibli Fest •Frozen Interactive Sing-a-long movie •Percy Jackson Escape room •Teen Trivia Hunt (ages 13-17) •Winter Ball (ages 13-17) October November December Visitors 10,559 10,886 9,337 Library Cards*166 145 110 Circulation^18,836 17,747 17,255 Reference Questions 1,116 1,056 906 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 4-D 2019 Fall Special Events 155 26 6 68 6 5 Pumpkin Day Sip 'n' Paint Stuffed Animal Scream Over Fandom Fridays Teen Trivia Hunt Winter Ball *Includes new and renewed library cards ^Check in/out of library resources 669 Programs Weekly •Baby Storytime (ages 0-18 months) •Toddler Storytime (ages 18 months –3 years old) •Preschool Storytime (ages 3-6 years old) Monthly •Family Fun Night (all ages) •Science! Club (ages 8-12 years old) •Let’s Talk About Art (ages 8-12 years old) •Gardeners of the Galaxy (ages 8-12 years old) •Read to Rusty (ages 8-12 years old) •Tween Reading Machines book club (ages 8-12 years old) •Anime Zone (ages 13-17 years old) •Teen Think (ages 13-17 years old) •Candy and Conversation (ages 13-17 years old) •Teen Game Night (ages 13-17 years old) •Writing Workshop; Technology Classes; Master Gardener (ages 18+) •Eisenhower Lectures Book Clubs (ages 18+) •Graphic Novel Club •Chapter Book Club •Classics Book Club •ARYA Book Club •La Quinta Reads •Mystery Book Club Appointments •1-on-1 with a Librarian Age appropriate programs available for all patrons Noise Reduction Headphones are now available for patron use during programs. Outreach & Social Media •The Palms of La Quinta o 6 visits/ 50 patrons assisted •Farmer’s Market Booth – 4 th Sundays, 281 patrons reached •includes library services & story times, free books available •Facebook –1,803 followers •Instagram –1,039 followers •Blogspot –contains blogs about events, book recommendations, book clubs, programs and other library related subjects.670 Creation Station Stats October November December Memberships 69 80 93 Member Check-ins 20 25 54 Social Media & Collaborations •Facebook –135 followers •Instagram –270 followers •Assisted with Library Pumpkin Day program •Assisted with Library Science! Club: Geodes program by providing a complimentary VR program utilizing the VR headsets. •Created giant character displays for LQPL Studio Ghibli fest •3D printed medallions for Teen Trivia Hunt at LQPL Highlights/ Special Projects/ Programming October •MakerSpace Project request created for City of La Quinta and LS&S Libraries •Created Sewing Level 2-Buttons, Interfacing and Bias Tape class •MakerSpace Camp: Sewing sold out •MakerSpace Camp: 3D Printing sold out November •MakerSpace Camp: Tools sold out •MakerSpace Camp: 3D Printing sold out December •MakerSpace Camp: 3D Printing sold out •MakerSpace Camp: Snow Globe •12/7 Visited Library Maker Faire, Downtown LA Library 671 672 MUSEUM QUARTERLY REPORT October 1, 2019 –December 31, 2019 Museum Attendance Highlights •2,349 visitors and program/event participants •2019 attendance increased 14% over 2018, total: 10,313 Exhibits 1170 Events 721 Programs 431 Attendance Exhibits: Wild Blue Yonder & Salton Sea Stories 353 374 443 October November December Attendance DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 4-E 673 Events Exhibit Opening: Wild Blue Yonder : 43 History Panel: Veterans: 16 Culture Fix: Books :16 October: The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien November:Code Talker by Chester Nez Culture Fix: Music:127 October: The Flusters November: Freehand Trio December: The Swing Kittens Culture Fix: Art: 28 October: The Art Lab LQ Artists Open Studio Tour:196 Casita Lighting:75 Field Trips/ Group Tours:222 Franklin Elementary students toured Wild Blue Yonder 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Adult Coloring Club Brown Bag TED Talks Lunch Break w/Huell Howser STITCH Fiber Arts Club Mah Jongg Program Attendance October November December 674 CODE COMPLIANCE/ANIMAL CONTROL QUARTERLY REPORT October 1, 2019 –December 31, 2019 Updates 633 442 505 October November December Site Inspections* False Alarms •$73,859 fees collected •14% decline compared to same quarter last year •Continued outreach with excessive business violators of 5 or more false alarms •Businesses with excessive false alarms this quarter: 14; prior quarter: 21 Code Compliance •Top Code Violations: •STVR: 52 •Landscaping: 51 •Trash cans: 30 •Early morning patrols for leash law enforcement had 86 Dedicated patrol hours by Code Officer •Activated Saturday inspections of suspended short-term vacation rentals (STVR)*Site inspections to observe reported code issues. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 4-F 194 178 163151154 155 Oct Nov Dec False Alarms 2018 2019 675 Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVR) 79 38 20 October November December Hotline Calls •New cases opened this quarter: 77 •New cases opened last quarter: 131 •Suspensions this quarter: 2 •Suspensions YTD: 13 •Average number of calls per month (Jan.-Dec.): 94 Animal Control Update 139 17948 162 Licensing Statistics New Renewed Closed Not Renewed 65 25 1 1 1 2 1 Impounds Stray Stray-Dead Owner Surrendered Foster Return Confiscated Disposal Requested Adoption Return 21 1119 0 17 1 0 Outcomes Adoption Transfer Adoption Partner Return to Owner Euthanized Treatable Euthanized Untreatable Foster Home Dead 676 Special Projects SNIP Low Cost Spray/Neuter Clinic •Clinics held: November 13 & December 14 •Clinics scheduled for next quarter: January 11 & February 15 •SNIP Clinics available throughout the Coachella Valley, to make appointments, please call (760)366-1100 in English, (760)366-1105 in Spanish. Code Compliance Special Programs: •Free Gravel Program: Available to homeowners •Grant Program: Available to homeowners that meet program income requirements. •For more information, please call Code at (760) 777-7050 •To report Short Term Vacation Rental issues please call 24/7 Hotline at (760)777-7157 677 678 SHERIFF’S STATION QUARTERLY REPORT October 1, 2019 –December 31, 2019 Statistics Priority 1 –Involve circumstances that pose a clearly defined threat to human life or property; Priority 2 –Involve circumstances of an urgent but not life threatening nature (e.g. minor assaults and batteries); Priority 3 –Involve circumstances which are neither urgent nor life threatening (e.g. disturbances of the peace); Priority 4 –Incidents occurring in the past or “cold” calls. 3.78 14.39 20.88 29.44 6.31 15.92 20.56 30.68 5.37 12.29 18.88 22.52 Priority 1: Average Response Priority 2: Average Response Priority 3: Average Response Priority 4: Average Response Average Response Time October November December 23 443 434 250 18 433 396 232 14 464 440 215 Priority 1: Calls for Service Priority 2: Calls for Service Priority 3: Calls for Service Priority 4: Calls for Service Number of Calls for Service October November December DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 8 679 Special Enforcement Team & Business District •Actions: 1104 •Property Recovered: $49,745.31 Traffic Team •Actions: 2888 Community Service Officers & Crime Prevention Specialists •Actions: 608 •Community Meetings: 19 •Trainings: 0 48 507 849 240 1089 Citations Seat Belt Citations Excessive Speed Citations Other Hazard Citations Other Non- Hazard Citations Citations Other 8 2 45 83 17 Collisions DUI Collisions DUI Injury Collision DUI Arrest Traffic Collisions Traffic Injury Collision School Resource Officers •Actions: 357 Narcotics Task Force •Actions in La Quinta: 12 •Narcotics Seized: 2557.8 g (90.2 oz) Gang Task Force •Actions in La Quinta: 101 Citizens on Patrol •Actions: 775 •Hours Donated: 307.4 Office Volunteers •Hours Donated: 167.5 (4 volunteers) Actions by Teams: 0 1 6 57 0 11 4 11 0 1 1 54 3 10 2 11 0 0 3 63 1 10 3 17 Rape Homicide Aggravated Assault Larceny Robbery Burglary Vehicle Theft Simple Assault Crime Statistics October November December 680 FIRE DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT October 1, 2019 –December 31, 2019 Incident Response Activity Incident Type # Medical 839 False Alarm 134 Public Service Assistance 73 Traffic Collision 57 Standby 15 Ringing Alarm 7 Other Fire 7 Other Miscellaneous 5 Rescue 4 Residential Fire 4 Wildland Fire 2 Vehicle Fire 2 Commercial Fire 1 Incident Total In La Quinta 1,150 Incident Total for La Quinta Fire Stations (Mutual Aid) 1,754 Average Enroute to On-Scene Time Enroute Time: When a unit has been acknowledged as responding. On-scene Time: When a unit has been acknowledged as being on-scene. <5 Minutes +5 Minutes +10 Minutes +20 Minutes Average Min.% 0 to 5 Min. 684 400 53 5 4.9 59.5 Ladder Truck Report Ladder Truck 86:shared between Indio,Riverside County, Coachella and La Quinta -28 recorded responses in La Quinta Ladder Truck 33: shared between Palm Desert,Indian Wells,Rancho Mirage, La Quinta - 1 recorded response in La Quinta. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 9 681 Significant Incidents 1.On November 16,2019,Firefighters were dispatched to a reported drowning in La Quinta.Upon arrival,a 3-year old boy was found to be breathing, but lethargic.The patient was said to have been underwater approximately 2-3 minutes in the pool spa. CPR was performed by a bystander and the patient was transported to a local hospital. 2.On November 30,2019,Firefighters responded to reports of a fire at the Ross store located at 78700 Highway 111.The first arriving Company Officer reported a fire in a well-involved trash compactor attached to a rear loading dock of the building,with evacuations of the store in progress.The remaining smoke was removed from the store to allow business to remain open. 3.On December 6,2019,Firefighters were dispatched to 79180 Corporate Center Drive, for a vehicle in a building with moderate damage to the building.Firefighters evacuated the suite and business was closed until repairs were completed.There were no injuries. 4.On December 12,2019,Firefighters responded to Adobe Restaurant in La Quinta Resort,located at 49499 Eisenhower Drive,for a reported grease fire inside a kitchen oven.Upon arrival,firefighters found an active fire within a commercial oven.No extension of fire was found and there were no injuries. Fire Inspection Report Updates: Fire Safety Specialist Kohl Hetrick,was presented with the “2019 Firefighter of the Year – Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM)”award in recognition for his off-duty actions that resulted in successful resuscitation of a 2-year old child that was not breathing. During the Fourth Quarter of 2019,OFM staff worked with the City to present updated amendments to the 2019 edition of the CA Fire Code. Initial thorough inspections were completed at all Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD)schools located in La Quinta. Activities: •American Express Golf Tournament meetings have been held to develop a public safety plan. •Attended plan review meetings related to the SilverRock project. •OFM staff reviewed,permitted and inspected a total of 5 Outdoor Public Firework displays. Plan Reviews: SilverRock project officially submitted several packages requesting six different Alternative Methods and Material(AM&M)clearances. Construction Inspections: •Residence Inn by Marriott -private fire main inspections •Floor &Décor •Okura Sushi •Tradition Golf Club •La Quinta Resort Marketplace/meeting rooms/conference rooms 682 2019 in Review •Battalion 6 (La Quinta, Coachella, Thermal, Mecca & North Shore) was the 10th busiest of Riverside County Fire with 9,960 incidents. •Battalion Chief 6A (De La Cruz) was the 3rd busiest with 276 incidents. •Engine 93 (North La Quinta) was the 9th busiest with Riverside County Fire Department with 3,384 runs. •Engine 32 (Christopher Douglas) tallied 2,039 runs. •Engine 70 (PGA West) tallied 1,411 runs. •Fire Station #93 total of 3,482 incidents. •Fire Station #32 total of 2,102 incidents. •Fire Station #70 total of 1,442 incidents. Fire Prevention Week (October 6-12, 2019) This year's Fire Prevention Week Theme,"Not every hero wears a cape.Plan and practice your escape!"aimed to educate about the importance of making a home escape plan and practicing it often.Open houses were held at Fire Stations 93 &32 and an outreach/educational table was set up at City Hall and the La Quinta Library to provide information &educational material on what can be done to prevent fires and practice a home fire escape plan. Riverside County Fire attended a “Fire Safety Day”event held at Lowe’s in La Quinta, providing another opportunity to educate residents on fire safety and smoke detectors. At the event,several fire fighting apparatus were present for tours and multiple visits by Sparky the Firefighter Dog were made to the joy of the kids and families that were present. Fire Safety Specialist, Kohl Hetrick next to the Fire Prevention Week table at City Hall Division Chief,Robert Fish,speaking during the City Council Meeting Fire Prevention Week Proclamation Sparky the Fire Dog at the Lowe’s Fire Safety Day event 683 684 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2020 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Caldwell. PRESENT: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto, Proctor and Chairperson Caldwell ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Design and Development Director Danny Castro, Commission Secretary Wanda Wise-Latta and Administrative Assistant Mirta Lerma PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner McCune led the Planning Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA – None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 10, 2019 MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Bettencourt/Proctor to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto, Proctor and Chairperson Caldwell. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION 1.ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE START TIME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETINGS 1 REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 1 685 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2020 Commission Secretary Wise-Latta presented the staff report, which is on file in the Design and Development Department. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Currie/Libolt Varner to approve Planning Commission Resolution 2020-001 amending the start time for the Planning Commission regular meetings to 5:00 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto, Proctor and Chairperson Caldwell. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed unanimously. STUDY SESSION - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 2019-0002 AMENDING SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLES 8, 9, AND 13 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE Design and Development Director Castro presented the staff report, which is on file in the Design and Development Department. Staff responded to the Commission’s inquiries regarding daycare facilities and noted that under California SB 234 daycare facilities are regulated by the state; and maximum garage square footage. Chairperson Caldwell declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 6:40 p.m. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Mr. Serko Khatchadourian, Los Angeles – spoke in support of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2019-0002 and stated he was more specifically in support of removing the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement for subdivisions of 10 acres or less in Low Density Residential zones south of Avenue 52 and west of Monroe Street. Chairperson Caldwell declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 6:43 p.m. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Proctor/Currie to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2020-002 recommending to the La Quinta City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2019-0002 approving amendments to Titles 8, 9, and 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and a finding of exemption from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions – Common Sense Rule. AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto, Proctor and Chairperson Caldwell. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed unanimously. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None 2 686 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2020 COMMISSIONERS’ ITEMS Commissioner Bettencourt spoke regarding the Washington Street Apartment rehabilitation project and the status of the utilities which have not been undergrounded. Director Castro stated that the undergrounding infrastructure for the utilities is in place and coordination with the Imperial Irrigation District is planned. Commissioner Bettencourt spoke about the Community Workshop held on January 11, 2020. Director Castro provided a recap from the Community Workshop and noted that a formal update will be presented to the Planning Commission in the future. Commissioner McCune inquired about the galvanized rooftop elements at the Washington Street Apartments rehabilitation project. STAFF ITEMS -None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Proctor/Bettencourt to adjourn this meeting at 6:53 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, WANDA WISE-LATTA, Commission Secretary City of La Quinta, California 3 687 688 AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 8:00 A.M. Wednesday, November 13, 2019 Airport Conference Room (upstairs center terminal) 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pursuant to G. C. Section 54957.5 the designated office for inspection of public records in connection with the public meetin g of the Airport Commission is the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, located at 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Spr ings, California 92262. It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the Department of Aviation will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact (760) 318-3800 forty-eight hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. Please advise us at that time if you will need accommodations to attend or participate in meetings on a regular basis. Parking for all attendees will be validated, please bring your parking receipt to the meeting. City of Palm Springs Riverside County City of Cathedral City Gerald Adams Aftab Dada Peter A. Freymuth Richard Altman Patricia Breslin David Feltman Todd Burke Ken Hedrick City of Indian Wells City of Coachella Jeffrey Clarkson Al G. Jones -Chairman Paul Budilo Bill Pattison Kevin J. Corcoran M. Guillermo Suero City of La Quinta City of Desert Hot Springs Kathleen Hughes Jan Pye Palm Springs City Staff David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D. City Manager Thomas P. Nolan, A.A.E Executive Airport Director 1.CALL TO ORDER -PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2.POSTING OF AGENDA 3.ROLL CALL 4.ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA City of Palm Desert Rolf Hoehn -Vice Chair City of Rancho Mirage William R. Riesen City of Indio Jhan Schmitz 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS:Limited to three minutes on any subject within the purview of the Commission. 6.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Airport Commission Meeting of 10-08-19 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Thomas Nolan, Executive Director Aviation, City of Palm Springs, California, hereby certify this agenda was posted on November 7, 2019, in accordance with established policies and procedures. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 2 689 Palm Springs International Airport Commission Agenda November 13, 2019 Page 2 7.CHAIRMAN REPORT 8.INTRODUCTIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 9.CITY MANAGER REPORT 10.BUDGET AND FINANCE REPORT 11.DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS: 11.A Local Marketing Campaign (Presentation by Marketing Committee) 12. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF REPORTS 13.COMMISSIONER REQUESTS AND REPORTS 14. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTIONS 14.A Past City Council Actions 14.B Future City Council Actions 15. CORRESPONDENCE 16.RECEIVE AND FILE: 16.A October 2019 Airline Activity Report 16.B December 2019 Airlines Schedules ADJOURNMENT: The Airport Commission will adjourn to a Regular Meeting, Wednesday, December 11, 2019, at 8:00 A.M. in the Airport Conference Room, 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. 690 Palm Springs Airport Commission Report – November 13, 2019 Meeting  Budget and Finance Report – Through October 2019, the airport is 13.9% over 2018 in total passengers.  The months of September and October are the weakest of the year to date with an average of 4.5%  increase over prior year.  However even with the two weak months, it appears as if the airport will  exceed 2.4 million passengers for 2019. Concessions increased from 8 to 12 % increase. The overall  budget is very positive and is following the budget plan closely.   Discussion and Action Report:  City Manager Report – David Ready stated that the Airport Marketing position has been posted and advertised. The service of a recruiter will be utilized for this position but not necessary for the new position of Airport Engineer who will spearhead the new car rental facility and the ticket wing. New Art on Loan – The first installation in the regional terminal is now on view and has received positive feedback. It demonstrates the importance of art in the Coachella Valley. Title of art is “A Tale of Survival in the Face of Crushing Inertia”. Local Marketing Campaign ‐ The goal is to increase the awareness of the community on the convenience and amount of lift that Palm Springs Airport currently offers. The airport will now develop its own web page and have its own microsite.  Because the marketing budget is less than $80,000 annually, the only viable means of marketing will be through social media. The campaign will consist of digital ads and be on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. We will have to depend on behavioral targeting and social influencers to spread the word. Next Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for December 11th.   691 692 AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 8:00 A.M. Wednesday, September 11, 2019 Airport Conference Room (upstairs center terminal) 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pursuant to G. C. Section 54957 .5 the designated office for inspection of public records in connection with the public meeting of the Airport Commission is the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, located at 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262. It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act {ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the Department of Aviation will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact (760) 318-3800 forty-eight hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. Please advise us at that time if you will need accommodations to attend or participate in meetings on a regular basis. Parking for all attendees will be validated, please bring your parking receipt to the meeting. City of Palm Springs Riverside County City of Cathedral City Gerald Adams Aftab Dada Peter A. Freymuth Richard Altman Patricia Breslin David Feltman Todd Burke Ken Hedrick City of Indian Wells City of Coachella Jeffrey Clarkson Al G. Jones -Chairman PaulBudilo Bill Pattison Kevin J. Corcoran M. Guillermo Suero City of La Quinta City of Desert Hot Springs Kathleen Hughes Jan Pye Palm Springs City Staff David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D. City Manager Thomas P. Nolan, A.A.E Executive Airport Director 1.CALL TO ORDER -PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2.POSTING OF AGENDA 3.ROLL CALL � ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA City of Palm Desert Rolf Hoehn -Vice Chair City of Rancho Mirage William R. Riesen City of Indio Jhan Schmitz 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS:Limited to three minutes on any subject within the purview of the Commission. 6.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Airport Commission Meeting of 07-10-19 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Thomas Nolan, Executive Director Aviation, City of Palm Springs, California, hereby certify this agenda was posted on September 5, 2019, in accordance with established policies and procedures. 693 Palm Springs International Airport Commission Agenda September 11, 2019 Page2 7.CHAIRMAN REPORT 8.INTRODUCTIONS AND PRESENT� TlONS 9.CITY MANAGER REPORT 10.BUDGET AND FINANCE REPORT 11.DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS: 11.A New Art on Loan 11.B Car Rental Project Design Services Agreement with Gensler 11.C Professional Services Agreement with WSP for Passenger Boarding Bridge Rehabilitation and Condition Pavement Inventory 12. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF REPORTS 13. COMMISSIONER REQUESTS AND REPORTS 14. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTIONS 14.A Past City Council Actions 14.B Future City Council Ac�:��� 15. CORRESPONDENCE 16.RECEIVE AND FILE: 16.A July-August 2019 Airline Activity Report 16.B September-October 2019 Airlines Schedules ADJOURNMENT: The Airport Commission will adjourn to a Regular Meeting, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, at 8:00 AM. in the Airport Conference Room, 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. 694 Palm Springs Airport Commission Report -September 11, 2019 Meeting Budget and Finance Report -Through August 2019, the airport is 15.5% over 2018 in total passengers. The month of August alone was 14.5% ahead which proved to be the strongest month of the summer season. The overall budget shows revenue up significantly with strong growth in car rentals. It is the strongest single source of revenue and continues to climb each year. (In 2018, $235, 309 car rental transactions were recorded compared to $219,149 in 2017.) The introduction of rideshare has not made any impact in the demand for car rentals. Although the PSP airport is small, the number of car rentals is among the highest in the nation. They believe the reason is people coming to golf and wanting their own vehicle to transport their golf bags to and from various golf courses. Discussion and Action Report: •City Manager Report -David Ready encouraged the airport to take out its own earthquake insurance policy as the city of Palm Springs doesn't have adequate coverage for the entire city and airport. We all know that due to our very limited access in/out of the Coachella Valley and that because the 10 freeway runs parallel to the San Andreas fault, that the airport will be the only means to get emergency supplies into the valley. No coverage is provided by FAA. The airport commission voted to pay $330,000 annually for an additional $12 million in coverage for the airport. •New Art on Loan-The commission voted to have a public art installation in the regional terminal at no cost to the airport from October 2019 through April 2020. The cost will be underwritten by the Palm Springs Arts Commission. It will be the first installation in the regional terminal. Title of art is "A Tale of Survival in the Face of Crushing Inertia". •Car Rental Project Design Services Agreement with Gensler & Associates-The commission approved this firm for schematic design phase services in the amount of $1,281,519.76 based on the master plan created 5 years ago. Car rental companies will be able to more realistically evaluate and make suggestions. This firm is the one who designed the Bono concourse and has an international reputation. The goal is to relocate the car rental customer service counters and offices from the main baggage claim area to a new area outside the north of the terminal. The project will take 3 years to finalize. •Passenger Boarding Bridge Rehabilitation -There are 8 boarding bridges at PSP and 2 of them are for larger aircraft. Cost is $800,000 for a new bridge with a 20 year life expectancy or $400,000 to be refurbished with a 5-10 year warranty. Commission wanted more feedback from other similar size airports who have chosen to refurbish instead of investing in new bridges before a decision could be reached. Next Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for October 9th • 695 AIRPORT COMMISSION MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Wednesday, September 11, 2019, at 9:15 A.M. Palm Springs International Airport Conference Room -2nd Floor 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.POSTING OF AGENDA 3.ROLL CALL 4.ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS 6.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of 03/26/19 7.PRESENTATION 8.ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 8.A. Local Advertising Program 8.8. Air Service Development Position 8.C. Airport Co-op Advertising Opportunities 9.ADJOURNMENT AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Thomas Nolan, Executive Director Aviation, City of Palm Springs, California, hereby certify this agenda was posted on September 5, 2019, in accordance with established policies and procedures. It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the Department of Aviation will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact 318-3800 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. Please advise us at the time if you will need accommodations to attend or participate in meetings on a regular basis. 696 Palm Springs Airport Marketing and Business Development Committee Report -September 11, 2019 Discussion and Action Report: •Local Advertising Program -PS Tourism was unable to attend this meeting and concern was voiced if they had the staff resource to spend time on the minimal budget of $70,000 to promote the airport to Coachella Valley residents. Some members felt the money should go to the CVB while others felt that the city commission should be able to present at a future meeting. With such a limited budget perhaps the money should be allocated to social media only. There is no doubt that the CVB does an outstanding job but it is their mission to create awareness and drive traffic to the destination and not promote the PS Airport to local residents. •Air Service Development Position -The commissioners did not seem to understand the time or process that it takes the City of PS to post a job position. Currently the airport has requested posting of both a Senior Engineer due to the airport development projects ahead and a Deputy Director of Aviation -Marketing. The role of the Marketing Director would be to create a strategic plan for business development, oversee the airline incentive program, coordinate neighborhood outreach, seek new business opportunities and of course suggest the best use of the $70,000 marketing budget. A few commissioners demanded that a head hunter be hired while others of us recommended caution and let the city process take its course. There is no need to cause negative feelings between the city staff and the airport. •Airport Co-op Advertising Opportunities -This discussion point will need to be discussed at a future meeting as PS Tourism was unable to attend. There is no future Marketing and Business Development Committee meeting scheduled at this time. 697 698 POWER POINTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 1 City Council Meeting February 4, 2020 PH2 – Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Vicinity Map 1 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 2 General Plan and Zoning GC Background •Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map,General Plan Amendment, Zone Changeapproved May 1999 –111,000 sq. ft. shopping center •Supermarket anchor, fuel center, retail andrestaurant uses including drive-throughs –Subdivide property into seven parcels with33-acre remainder (current Renaissancearea) –Change zoning of remainder from CC to RL 3 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 3 Background •Amendment No. 1 to SP 1998-034 approved February 2002 –Changed sq. ft. from 111,000 to 100,460 –Included supermarket anchor, fuel center, retail and restaurants, including drive-throughs 5 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 4 Background Proposal •Requested Entitlements –Specific Plan Amendment 2017-0002 –Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003 –Site Development Permit 2017-0009 –Environmental Assessment 2017-0006 7 8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 5 Specific Plan Amendment •18 ft. minimum landscape setback •Fuel center to be permitted use instead of requiring CUP –Only when coupled with anchor tenant •Allow retail stores over 50,000 sq. ft. without MUP 9 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 6 11 12 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 7 Elevations - Pavilions 13 14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 8 15 16 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 9 Elevations – Building 4 17 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 10 19 20 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 11 Site Plan Revisions Site Plan Revisions 21 22 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 12 Lighting 23 24 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 13 Environmental Assessment •Initial Study was adopted in 1999 fororiginal approval –New proposal substantially similar tooriginal •Initial Study for proposal analyzed thes.f. difference of new project •Mitigation measures are proposed toreduce impacts to less than significant 25 26 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 14 27 28 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 15 Site Plan Revisions •Four gathering spaces added •Pergolas on the south and north sides of the site added •Shade structure over the central parking rows added –Main parking area in front of Pavilions –Provides covered pedestrian link from Pavilions to perimeter pads Site Plan Revisions •Direct sidewalk connections from Jefferson St and Ave 50 added •Condition added to fully landscape vacant pads after 2 years of Pavilions opening •Revised the height of the light poles to be no taller than 20 feet –In parking lot and along west side of Pavilions 29 30 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 16 Landscape Plan Revisions •Includes additional tree wells in the parking area •Shade trees such as acacia, palo verde and African sumac added •Pindo palms placed at corners of entrances to create a better sense of arrival Tentative Parcel Map 31 32 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 17 Shell Plan - Pavilions Shell Plan – Retail 1 33 34 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 18 Shell Plan – Shops 1 Shell Plan – Building 4 35 36 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 19 Shell Plan – Building 5 Existing Conditions Homes to the north and west 37 38 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 20 Existing Conditions View of Jefferson Street, facing north Existing Conditions Citrus Plaza in Indio to the west 39 40 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 21 Existing Conditions Homes to the south PH 2 – Pavilion Palms City Council Meeting February 4, 2020 41 42 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 22 43 44 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 23 45 46 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 24 47 48 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 25 49 50 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 26 51 52 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 27 53 54 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 28 55 56 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 29 57 58 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 30 59 60 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 31 61 62 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 32 63 64 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 33 65 66 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 34 67 68 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 35 69 70 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 36 71 72 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 37 73 74 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 38 75 76 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 39 77 78 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 40 79 80 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 41 81 82 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 42 83 84 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 43 85 86 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 44 87 88 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 45 89 90 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 46 91 92 HAND OUTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 Public Hearing Item No. 2 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center The following residents submitted COMMENTS IN SUPPORT of this project 1. Kay Brennwald 2. Keith Burleigh 3. Lynda Cordova 4. Sylvia Corsini 5. Ron Cox 6. Yvonne Cyr 7. Ted De Maio 8. Ronald Deovlet 9. K. Detlefsen 10. Karen Dunlap 11. Roger Farson 12. David Gleason 13. David Gould 14. Marjory Guentzler 15. Matthe Gutowicz 16. Brian Hansen 17. Cathy Horrobin 18. James Hudson 19. Susan Hudson 20. Jerry Juhl & Sophia Motaghedi 21. Mark Kaufer 22. Matthew Kotz 23. Daniel Thomas Lambert 24. James Lewis 25. Briana Limon 26. Rebecca Loethen 27. Gina Malloy 28. Wayne Maverick 29. Dana McQuown 30. Chuck Meadowd 31. Lou Mitchell 32. Gordon Neil 33. Robert Pannoni 34. Judith Patton 35. Michael Pohl 36. Tim Putnam 37. Carole Salak 38. Mary Schrick 39. Randy Schrick 40. Dan Stites 41. Patricia Stites 42. Dale Tyerman 43. Chris Ward 44. Deb Warren 45. Richard Wheeler 46. Richard Wilson HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Kay Brennwald Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:59 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:New Von's Pavilion grocery store  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Kay Brennwald      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Keith Burleigh Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:10 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Please vote YES on Pavilion Palms Shopping  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Keith Burleigh      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Lynda Cordova Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 4:59 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:RE: Pavilion Palms shopping center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Lynda Cordova    A QUINTA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Sylvia Corsini Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 4:55 PM To:Linda Evans Cc:City Clerk Mail Subject:RE: Approving the Pavilion Palms shopping center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Sylvia Corsini     La Quinta  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Ron Cox Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 6:37 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Please Vote Yes on The Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Ron Cox      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Ted De Maio Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:47 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Von's Pavilion grocery store approval  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Ted De Maio      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Ronald Deovlet Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 6:15 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Pavilion Palms Shopping Center support  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Ronald Deovlet      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:K. Detlefsen Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:51 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Re: I Support of The Project  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  K. DETLEFSEN      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Karen Dunlap Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 6:20 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:The Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,    Karen Dunlap      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Monika Radeva Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 5:21 PM Cc:Teresa Thompson; Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva; Nichole Romane; Tania Flores; Cheri Flores; Danny Castro Subject:Council Meeting 2/4/2020 Public Heating Item 2 Pavilion Palms - Written Comments in Support Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good afternoon Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, Please see the written comments below provided by La Quinta resident David Gleason in support of the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center project scheduled for Council’s consideration at the February 4, 2020 Council meeting as Public Hearing Item No. 2. The written comments will be incorporated into the record and will be made available to the public. Thank you. Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk City of La Quinta  78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253  Tel: (760) 777‐7035  MRadeva@laquintaca.gov     From:   Date: February 1, 2020 at 1:07:28 PM PST  To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>  Subject: Proposed new shopping center at 50th and Jefferson      EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution  when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Hello Madame Mayor,     We are 18‐year residents of La Quinta and property owner all that time.      We have been following the nearly two decades of cancelled, aborted and delayed efforts to add  additional commercial properties at 50th and Jefferson.      Initially, we did not take much interest. When Ralph’s first opened across the street, there were few  customers and at times one might be shopping alone or with only a handful of other clients present. But  as the population in the Southeast part of our city expanded, accompanied by more area special events  and attractions, that supermarket became rather busy. When the markets near Old Town closed, the  Ralph’s traffic became so heavy that we have had to try to pick “off hours” to shop due to the  congestion.     HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2 La Quinta has grown. The one current market in the southeastern section does not, unfortunately,  provide any tax benefits to our city as it is in Indio. But beyond city revenue, I strongly favor an  additional shopping area with a supermarket and additional restaurant and commercial outlets.      The area on Highway 111 between Washington and Jefferson has become overly congested. At certain  hours of the day we call “drive time” that traffic can even be considered “aggressive” and, of course,  dangerous. Accidents are prolific and near‐misses are frequent. Adding further congestion to that area is  not a productive idea but establishing secondary shopping areas is. The proposed commercial center at  50th and Jefferson will both satisfy the increased needs of the southeastern sections of our city and  avoid increased future congestion along the frantically busy portion of Highway 111 within our city.      The corner in question has been zoned commercial, it appears, for at least two decades. Persons buying  residential property in this area of town have had ample time to understand that such a commercial  zoned area predates their residency. Opposition to the already‐zoned area is simply a self‐centered and  Luddite approach, and such attitudes should not be part of the City Council’s final decisions.      We have considered attending the City Council meeting, but in the last few years we’ve found that  having a contrary or controversial opinion on social and political matters is frightening and potentially  dangerous. I don’t want to subject myself or my wife to offensive or aggressive responses, so I am  sending this request to approve the proposed shopping center in writing in the hopes that the council  will understand that there is considerable support for the new commercial center and that its approval  will improve the quality of life for many, many voting residents.      Sincerely,     David Gleason         HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Teresa Thompson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:15 PM To:Teresa Thompson Cc:Monika Radeva; Danny Castro; Cheri Flores Subject:COMMENT-SUPPORT: Please vote 'YES' on Pavlions shopping center - GOULD   On Feb 3, 2020, at 10:31 AM, David Gould  wrote:      EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution  when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  David Gould      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Marjory Guentzler Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:31 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Yes Vote on Pavilion Palms  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Marjory Guentzler      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Matthew Gutowicz Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:54 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Pro Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Matthew Gutowicz      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Brian Hansen Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:37 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Vote Yes on Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Brian Hansen      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Teresa Thompson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:27 PM To:Teresa Thompson Cc:Danny Castro; Cheri Flores; Monika Radeva Subject:COMMEN -SUPPORT: Pavilion Palms - HORROBIN   Begin forwarded message:  From: Cathy Horrobin   Date: February 3, 2020 at 12:46:33 PM PST  To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>  Subject: Pavilion Palms shopping center vote      EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution  when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Cathy Horrobin    HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:James Hudson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 5:08 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Please approve the Pavilion Palms shopping center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  James Hudson    La Quinta, Ca  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Susan Hudson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 5:17 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Please approve the Pavilion Palms shopping center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Susan Hudson    La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Mark Kaufer Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 7:03 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Shopping Center...Yes  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Mark Kaufer      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Matthew Kotz Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 5:12 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms shopping center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Matthew Kotz      La Quinta, Ca  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Daniel Thomas Lambert Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:41 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Re: The Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Project  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Daniel Thomas Lambert      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:James Lewis Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:13 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Approval for the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  James Lewis      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Rebecca Loethen Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:25 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Please Vote to Approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Rebecca Loethen      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Gina Malloy Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:57 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:In favor of Pavilion Palms  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Gina Malloy      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Wayne Maverick Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:21 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Vote to Approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Wayne Maverick      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Teresa Thompson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:09 PM To:Teresa Thompson Cc:Monika Radeva; Wanda Wise-Latta; Danny Castro; Cheri Flores Subject:COMMENT-SUPPORT -Pavilion Palms - MCQUOWN   Begin forwarded message:  From: Dana McQuown   Date: February 3, 2020 at 12:16:32 PM PST  To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>  Subject: Pavilion Palms shopping center vote tomorrow      EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution  when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Dana McQuown    La Quinta CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Teresa Thompson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:21 PM To:Teresa Thompson Cc:Jon McMillen; Danny Castro; Cheri Flores; Monika Radeva Subject:COMMENT - SUPPPORT - Pavilion Palms - MEADOWS For your information/use. Teresa Thompson | Management Specialist  City Manager’s Office  City of La Quinta  78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253  Ph. 760.777.7030  www.laquintaca.gov   www.playinlaquinta.com  Begin forwarded message:  From: Chuck Meadowd   Date: February 3, 2020 at 1:13:38 PM PST  To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>  Subject: The vote on Pavilion Palms shopping center      EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution  when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Chuck Meadowd    La Quinta  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Lou Mitchell Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 6:23 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Vote for The Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Lou Mitchell      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Robert Pannoni Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 7:46 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Approval  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Robert Pannoni      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Judith Patton Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:50 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Resident in favor of Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Judith Patton      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Michael Pohl Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:47 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Re: Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Michael & Vivian Pohl      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Tim Putnam Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:59 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Please vote YES on Pavilion Palms  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Tim Putnam      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Carole Salak Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 4:47 PM To:Linda Evans Cc:City Clerk Mail Subject:Yes on Pavilion Palms shopping center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Carole Salak      La Quinta  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Mary Schrick Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 7:57 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Re: Shopping Center Approval: Pavilion Palms  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Mary Schrick    La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Dan Stites Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 7:24 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Dan Stites      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Patricia Stites Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 7:28 AM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Patricia Stites      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Teresa Thompson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:59 PM To:Teresa Thompson Cc:Jon McMillen; Monika Radeva Subject:COMMENT: Pavilion Palms - TYERMAN Good Afternoon, For your information/use, below is a comment (highlighted) from Dale Tyerman regarding the project. Teresa Thompson | Management Specialist City Manager's Office City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico ◦ La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760.777.7030 www.laquintaca.gov www.playinlaquinta.com From: Tyerman    Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 8:41 AM  To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>  Subject: Health Dept. approval     EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Cheri, I hope you had a great weekend and did not think too much about Pavilions. Thanks for your help in understanding our permit status and process. I want to contact the County Health Department to understand if we are in a review process, what is that process and where are we in it. Below is contact information I pulled up for the Health Dept. Do you have a contact that I might reach out to or is this contact info the best place to start? I look forward to seeing you tomorrow night. I may make a comment. I also started a thread on Nextdoor, Trilogy and our immediate surrounding communities. Most seem in favor of both the store and gas station, some opposition to gas. I have a more fundamental concern. This corner is a key gateway to La Quinta. We have spent and will spend a significant amount of money on Hwy 111 moving it in the direction that we want. We have a chance at this gateway to make a clear statement that others will look at. Can we celebrate and point to the Pavilions development and say this is what we are moving towards on Hwy 111 and in the development of the look and feel of La Quinta, residents, visitors and businesses thriving. Tomorrow will be interesting. Let me know about the Health Dept. contact. Dale HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Deb Warren Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 6:12 PM To:Linda Evans; City Clerk Mail Subject:My Support for the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center  EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Deb Warren      La Quinta, CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Teresa Thompson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:10 PM To:Teresa Thompson Cc:Monika Radeva; Danny Castro; Cheri Flores; Wanda Wise-Latta Subject:COMMENT - SUPPORT: Pavilion Palms - WHEELER From: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>   Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 3:04 PM  To: Richard Wheeler <contact@pavilionpalmslaquinta.com>  Cc: Monika Radeva <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>; Teresa Thompson <Tthompson@laquintaca.gov>; Jon McMillen  <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>  Subject: Re: Pavilion Palms shopping center    Richard ‐   Thank you for your email in support of this project.   I will forward this to our City Clerk to share with the other Council Members.   Thanks.     Linda Evans | Mayor City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760.777.7030 C: 760.899.3279 E: levans@laquintaca.gov www.laquintaca.gov www.playinlaquinta.com   On Feb 3, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Richard Wheeler  wrote:      EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution  when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Richard Wheeler      HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Teresa Thompson Sent:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:12 PM To:Teresa Thompson Cc:Monika Radeva; Danny Castro; Cheri Flores; Wanda Wise-Latta Subject:COMMENT - SUPPORT: My vote is 'YES' on the Pavlions shopping center - WILSON   On Feb 3, 2020, at 10:48 AM, Richard Wilson  wrote:      EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution  when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.     Dear City Council Member,    I am a resident of La Quinta.    Please vote to approve the Pavilion Palms Shopping Center.    Thank you,  Richard Wilson      La Quinta CA  HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 Public Hearing Item No. 2 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center The following residents submitted COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION of this project 1. Joel Banner 2. Greg & Shirley Lindsay 3. Petition to Stop the Proposed Gas Station at Avenue 50 & Jefferson St – signed by 95 residents HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET Convenience Stores, Gas Stations & Vehicle Repair Facilities CEDS helps individuals, home owner associations and nonprofit groups throughout the U.S. with threats to neighborhoods and the environment. The threats prompting people to seek help come in two types:  Fundamentally sound projects where impacts can be resolved through modest design changes, and  Those so poorly planned that the only way to resolve impacts is to prevent the project from being approved. Assessing Gas Station Need Gas Stations: The number of gas stations in the U.S. has been declining. In 1994, there were 202,800 gas stations across the nation, but by 2012 the number was down to 156,065. The decline can be attributed to cars getting more miles per gallon, thus needing less gas, as well as new stations adding many more pumps. The decline is also due to supermarkets, big-box stores and others using cheap gas outside to draw customers inside. Over the years CEDS has researched the effects of many proposed convenience stores, gas stations and vehicle repair facilities. With regard to gas stations, the market area usually extends 0.5- to 1.5-miles. It takes about 3,000 to 6,000 people living or working within the market area to support a single gas station. IBIS World Report on Gasoline & Convenience Store Industry Statistics & Market Size. March, 2018 Revenue $411bn -2.6% Forecast Growth CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET Employment 831,787 Businesses 107,792 According to NACS, Advancing Convenience & Fuel Retailing. There are 122,552 convenience stores selling fuel in the United States, and these retailers sell an estimated 80% of all the fuel purchased in the country. Gas Stations in the area - Costco, Mobil and others are less then 3 miles from the proposed site. My house to Costco is 2.5 miles 9 minute drive. To the Mobil station is even shorter. There is already a gas station in Old Town that services the COVE. Most snowbirds use Costco. There are Two other Gas Stations on Hwy 111 within the same 3 mile radius – Chevron and the USA today. The Mobil and USA offer car wash. So what will the new gas station have to attract new customers? The chances for success for a Gas Station as planned is somewhat speculative. Gas station Blight is a real problem as unbuilding a Gas station is difficult and hardly ever done. Buyers for failed gas stations are hard to find – Sam’s Club is an example. Community Character Originally, most commercial uses were located in downtown areas. With the automobile new convenience stores and other commercial uses were increasingly located in strips along major highways. This ugly form of growth is only accessible by car. Modern planning philosophy calls for locating convenience stores in neighborhood scale commercial areas accessible by walking, bicycling or car. Of course there will always be a need to locate convenience stores and gas stations along major highways. However, managing growth to bring convenience stores and other retail outlets back to downtown areas could do much to revitalize blighted areas and enhance our quality of life. What other Gas Station in Coachella Valley borders on high end residential neighborhoods like Rancho La Quinta, Pamila, Talente, The Renaissance? Property Value CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET A convenience store or gas station can lower the value of nearby homes. One of the most plausible effects is on mortgages. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance is not available for properties located within 300 feet of tanks capable of storing 1,000 gallons or more of gasoline or other flammable-explosive materials. Most gas station storage tanks have a capacity far in excess of 1,000 gallons. A Georgia study noted that commercial development in general can depress residential property value when first completed then the effect diminishes with time. However, this study examined homes located 0.5- to 1.0-miles distant. Several studies documented that commercial uses can depress nearby property value but not at a distance. In King County, Washington commercial uses were found to depress residential properties within 300 feet but not beyond 1,000 feet or so. Real Estate News 2016 – printed on Housely… #2 Ranked feature that reduces house prices – verified by Zillow – 8-10% Convenience Store With Gas Station People will be driving in and out of your intersection, hanging out at the property, and buying lots of lotto tickets, cigarettes, and beer when they gas up. Although handy, these shops do nothing to help property values and hurt them significantly according to Zillow.com. Although the realtors questioned on the site did not have exact statistics, common sense would show that the increase in robberies, accidents, traffic and pedestrians would add up to decreased property value. Still, many gas stations with mini-markets are springing up like wildfire. Traffic Traffic noise can have a significant effect on property value. A home located adjacent to a major highway may sell for 8% to 10% less when compared to one located along a CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET quiet neighborhood street. Heavy truck traffic lowers property value at a rate 150 times greater than cars. This is because at 50 feet heavy trucks emit noise at 90 dBA while a car traffic produces noise at a level of 50 dBA.5 An increase in heavy truck traffic may also cause damage to nearby homes through vibrations transmitted through the earth. As a rough rule of thumb, each proposed pump at a gas station generates about 100 to 130 trips per day. By "pump" we mean fueling position. The convenience store will generate 800 to 1,200 trips per day per 1,000 square feet. So a 2,000 square foot store with ten pumps would generate around 3,150 trips per day. We provide these numbers so you can compare them with those for a proposed store to see if they are in the right range. However, the standard reference is ITE's Trip Generation manual. Good & Bad Convenience Store-Station Locations Given the impacts and corrective measures described above, an optimum convenience store-gas station location would have the following characteristics:  At least 300 feet from the nearest home; or  Buffered so the store cannot be seen or heard from the nearest home;  For ultra-high volume gas stations, a minimum if 300 feet away;  Not within view of historic resources;  Away from highly sensitive ground or surface water resources;  Accessible by foot and bike as well as cars;  Located in a downtown or neighborhood commercial area;  Well lit, but not to the point of causing light trespass into nearby homes;  In an area with many passersby and few escape routes for criminals; and  In an area where the market can accommodate a new store without putting existing ones out of business. Aquatic Resource Impacts Because of the high traffic volume and refueling, convenience stores-gas stations pose an unusually severe threat to ground and surface waters. Adding vehicle servicing facilities increases the threat. One study found that contaminant levels in convenience store-gas station runoff were 5- to 30-times higher when compared to residential runoff. In another study researchers detected several compounds in vehicle repair facility runoff which were probable cancer-causing agents. These findings have prompted a number of states and local governments to list vehicle repair facilities as stormwater hotspots. USEPA guidance advises caution with regard to allowing hotspot runoff to infiltrate the soil, particularly in areas where drinking water is obtained through wells. The use of highly-effective stormwater Best Management Practices to treat repair facility runoff before it is infiltrated into the soil. CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET Fuel storage tanks and pipelines pose another source of contamination, though the design of both has improved dramatically over the past couple of decades. Spillage at the pump is a more likely source of fuel release into nearby waterways. In fact, Johns Hopkins University researchers found that an average of 40 gallons of gasoline is spilled at a typical gas station per year at the pumps. The JHU researchers also found that a significant portion of the spilled gasoline can migrate through the concrete pads at many fueling stations. So how far should a gas station be from a well or surface waters to reduce the likelihood of contamination to a reasonable level? Well, the key question is actually how far can one anticipate that a plume of spilled gasoline will travel underground. One review of scientific studies of plume travel indicated that the 90th percentile distance is 400 feet. Add another 100 feet for installing grout curtains or other containment measures and a gas station should be no closer than 500 feet to a well, wetland, spring, stream, river, pond, lake, reservoir or tidal waters.   CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET Address2018 Price TR 2020 Zillow High Price High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L49595 Ali Court555,000             555,073        649,000       2006 11/20/2018 530,000           (93,927)              25,073             (68,854)              49530 Ali Court602,000             602,292        602,500       2005 3/25/2005 602,500           (208)                    (208)                 (208)                    49500 Ali Court561,816             585,366        725,000       2006 5/5/2016 540,000           (139,634)            45,366             (94,268)              49535 Ali Court487,011             560,974        703,000       2006 3/15/2013 450,000           (142,026)            110,974           (31,052)              49530 Ali Court602,000             602,501        602,500       2005 3/25/2005 602,500           1                         1                       ‐                      49565 Marne Court632,000             650,029        650,029       2020 2/10/2005 548,500           ‐                     101,529           101,529              49440 Marne Court520,200             588,601        699,000       2005 4/30/2019 574,900           (110,399)            13,701             (96,698)              49595 Marne Court531,921             565,365        647,000       2005 12/22/2008 470,000           (81,635)              95,365             13,730                49470 Marne Court452,776             537,677        646,000       2006 8/20/2009 400,000           (108,323)            137,677           29,354                49530 Marne Court632,000             651,680        760,000       2007 9/18/2007 760,000           (108,320)            (108,320)          (108,320)            49445 Loren Court497,000             545,404        545,404       2020 7/16/2004 513,000           ‐                     32,404             32,404                49590 Loren Court497,000             546,522        546,522       2020 6/10/2004 420,500           ‐                     126,022           126,022              49530 Loren Court520,200             585,347        700,000       20052/7/2018 549,000            (114,653)             36,347              (78,306)              49505 Loren Court474,300             541,354        541,354       2020 12/21/2016 465,000           ‐                     76,354             76,354                49410 Loren Court479,400             546,814        675,000       2005 2/22/2017 470,000           (128,186)            76,814             (51,372)              49475 Loren Court629,000             664,976        664,976       2020 12/30/2004 650,000           ‐                     14,976             14,976                49430 Brian Court461,643             547,821        449,000       2004 1/27/2011 410,000           98,821                137,821           137,821              49425 Brian Court501,000             546,234        546,234       2020 5/7/2004 480,500           ‐                     65,734             65,734                49410 Brian Court388,455             568,105        568,105       2020 6/9/2011 345,000           ‐                     223,105           223,105              49450 Brian Court553,885             708,880        708,880       2020 5/24/2012 496,000           ‐                     212,880           212,880              49585 Brian Court602,000             717,209        717,209       2020 6/16/2004 630,000           ‐                     87,209             87,209                79958 Julee Court511,000             580,028        725,000       2007 4/30/2007 725,000           (144,972)            (144,972)          (144,972)            79926 Julee Court537,920             585,452        585,452       2020 4/9/2004 430,500           ‐                     154,952           154,952              79931 Julee Court606,000             734,642        734,642       2020 3/26/2004 570,000           ‐                     164,642           164,642              79979 Julee Court561,816             665,496        740,000       2006 6/10/2016 540,000           (74,504)              125,496           50,992                79963 Julee Court511,000             586,590        586,590       2020 3/26/2004 523,000           ‐                     63,590             63,590                Totals15,570,432  16,718,397  (1,147,965)         1,874,532        881,244              (1,147,965)      6.9%Address2018 Price TR 2020 Zillow High Price High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L79911 Derek Allen Drive505,000             562,245        562,245       2020 8/11/2017 505,000           ‐                     57,245             57,245                79897 Derek Allen Drive496,000             542,580        542,580       2020 5/2/2004 436,000           ‐                     106,580           106,580              79883 Derek Allen Drive580,942             595,774        725,000       2008 7/30/2014 550,000           (129,226)            45,774             (83,452)              79869 Derek Allen Drive629,000             548,380        700,000       2005 7/5/2019 540,000           (151,620)            8,380                (143,240)            79855 Derek Allen Drive594,151             597,909        597,909       2020 6/11/2004 475,500           ‐                     122,409           122,409              79841 Derek Allen Drive483,000             542,970        624,000       2007 8/27/2008 490,000           (81,030)              52,970             (28,060)              79827 Derek Allen Drive494,000             566,577        670,000       2005 4/15/2005 670,000           (103,423)            (103,423)          (206,846)            79828 Joey Court396,110             488,034        638,500       2006 4/3/2019 475,000           (150,466)            13,034             (137,432)            79814 Joey Court491,000             547,557        668,500       2006 3/10/2006 668,500           (120,943)            (120,943)          (120,493)            79800 Joey Court544,066             588,257        627,000       2006 7/10/2013 490,000           (38,743)              98,257             59,514                79825 Joey Court495,000             563,235        610,000       20066/16/2008 466,000           (46,765)              97,235             50,470                79811 Joey Court489,600             544,423        621,000       2006 9/29/2016 480,000           (76,577)              64,423             (12,154)              79797 Joey Court481,599             557,989        667,000       2006 11/13/2012 445,000           (109,011)            112,989           3,978                  79826 Danielle Court469,200             537,000        639,000       2008 9/23/2016 460,000           (102,000)            77,000             (25,000)              79812 Danielle Court491,000             560,939        570,000       2006 4/24/2018 525,000           (9,061)                35,939             26,878                79817 Danielle Court415,479             530,346        604,727       2006 6/23/2011 369,000           (74,381)              161,346           86,965                79803 Danielle Court463,000             509,459        623,000       2006 6/30/2006 623,000           (113,541)            (113,541)          (113,541)            49900 Patti Court464,457             589,282        693,000       2006 10/22/2010 412,500           (103,718)            176,782           73,064                49930 Patti Court419,477             530,296        628,000       2006 9/30/2011 380,000           (97,704)              150,296           52,592                49960 Patti Court386,359             565,122        647,000       2006 7/8/2011 350,000           (81,878)              215,122           133,244              49955 Patti Court402,726             536,608        586,500       2006 9/9/2009 355,000           (49,892)              181,608           131,716              49925 Patti Court415,944             533,971        605,000       2006 6/10/2011 340,000           (71,029)              193,971           122,942              12,138,953  13,849,961  (1,711,008)         1,633,453        157,379              (1,711,008)      12%Zillow Home Values Analysis - Renassiance - Althea - Palmia - Rancho La Quinta 1-28-2020CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET Zillow Home Values Analysis - Renassiance - Althea - Palmia - Rancho La Quinta 1-28-2020Address2018 Price TR 2020 Zillow High Price High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L79798 Danielle Court632,000             652,128        653,000        2006 12/8/2006 653,000           (872)                   (872)                  (872)                    79784 Danielle Court525,300             585,584        619,000        2006 4/19/2017 515,000           (33,416)             70,584             37,168                79831 Danielle Court632,000             669,069        669,069        2020 6/28/2006 668,000           ‐                     1,069                1,069                  79770 Danielle Court632,000             665,513        689,000        2006 8/30/2006 689,000           (23,487)             (23,487)            (23,487)               79783 Joey Court400,227             512,591        715,000        2006 5/1/2009 423,000           (202,409)           89,591             (112,818)            79769 Joey Court471,776             575,488        739,000        2006 5/25/2011 419,000           (163,512)           156,488           (7,024)                 79786 Joey Court491,000             546,338        628,000        2006 10/11/2016 628,000           (81,662)             (81,662)            (81,662)               79772 Joey Court632,000             671,686        675,000        2006 12/1/2006 675,000           (3,314)                (3,314)              (3,314)                 7981 Derek Allen Drive479,000             542,097        542,097        2020 3/31/2005 493,000           ‐                     49,097             49,097                79799 Derek Allen Drive527,075             577,920        590,000        2005 10/30/2014 499,000           (12,080)             78,920             66,840                79785 Derek Allen Drive411,997             474,614        595,000        2006 5/31/2016 396,000           (120,386)           78,614             (41,772)               79771 Derek Allen Drive480,191             563,989        563,989        2020 5/3/2012 435,000           ‐                     128,989           128,989              7,037,017    7,678,155    (641,138)           544,017           12,214                (641,138)          8%Althea ‐ Address2018 Price TR2020 Zillow High Price High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L49555 Rancho La Merced617,348             826,272        826,272        2020 8/9/2002 440,000           ‐                     386,272           386,272              49555 Vista Luna1,067,129          1,158,740    1,252,000    2011 4/10/2013 929,000           (93,260)             229,740           136,480              79650 Rancho San Pascual564,425             743,019        743,019        2020 11/1/2002 413,000           ‐                     330,019           330,019              49490 Ranch Las Mariposas612,586             811,980        811,890        2020 12/6/2002 442,500           90                        369,480           369,570              49690 Rancho San Julian726,374             929,000        929,000        2020 5/16/2003 547,000           ‐                     382,000           382,000              Totals4,469,011    4,562,181    (93,170)             1,697,511        1,604,341          (93,170)            0.02                     Pamilla ‐ Address79520 Vin Cuidado1,249,520          1,357,637    1,412,500    2015 12/20/2015 1,412,500        (54,863)             (54,863)            (54,863)               79560 Via Sin Cuidado892,858             954,328        954,328        2020 7/2/2018 899,000           ‐                     55,328             55,328                50100 Via Puente923,000             1,018,391    1,030,500    2005 10/28/2005 1,030,500        (12,109)             (12,109)            (12,109)               50485 Orchard Lane1,214,290          1,329,320    1,400,000    2003 4/10/2012 1,350,000        (70,680)             (20,680)            (91,360)               50295 Via Puente1,136,368          925,000        1,050,000    2013 6/25/2013 1,050,000        (125,000)           (125,000)          (125,000)            Totals5,584,676    5,847,328    (262,652)           (157,324)          (228,004)            (262,652)          0.04                     Rancho La Quinta ‐ Address79854 Mission Drive East805,800             896,036        790,000        2017 5/9/2017 790,000           106,036            106,036           106,036              79846 Mission Drive East808,041             834,328        765,000        2015 4/3/2015 765,000           69,328               69,328             69,328                79822 Mission Drive East797,000             806,763        870,000        2004 8/31/2004 870,000           (63,237)             (63,237)            (63,237)               79758 Mission Drive East737,389             835,057        650,000        2010 5/3/2010 650,000           185,057            185,057           185,057              49330 Vista Estrella857,000             1,028,548    1,028,548    2020 4/14/2019 1,000,000        ‐                     28,548             28,548                Totals4,400,732    4,103,548    297,184            325,732           325,732              297,184           0.07                     CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HANDOUT BY JOEL BANNER PUBLIC HEARING ITEN NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTERHAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 1 Pavilion Palm Project A Win Win Solution Presented by Joel Banner February 4, 2020 1 We Can All Agree •Something must be done on the property. •Lundin Development has had the property a long time – needs to get  a Return On Investment. •La Quinta Residence in the neighborhood need to be protected and  considered. •House values will decline with Fuel Station as currently proposed. •Offering a 3 Steps Solution. 2 1 2 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 2 Economic Outlook and Prospects for Success •Is there a recession around the corner?  Some early signs – Housing  Market – Business Expansion, Yield Curve, Unemployment, Stock  Market first sign – margin rates on the upswing.   •May be 2023 – double whammy for Coachella Valley ‐ Snowbirds  leave causing economic downturn. •LQ is a Snow‐Bird Community ‐ Who knows Pavilions? •Competition –Ralph’s –Costco –CVS –Walgreens.   •My estimate 50‐50. 3 Economic Outlook and Prospect for Success •Demographics for LQ & Indio. •Indio, CA – Median Income – Data, USA ‐ $49,951 – Point2Homes Average HHI ‐ $29,571 – Households 32,301. Snowbirds account for +or – 50% of the households,  est. •La Quinta, CA – Median Data USA ‐ $71,074 – Point2Homes Avg HHI $116,190 – Households 15,166.  Snowbirds account for +or‐ 50% of the Households, est. •Five Partners in Pavilion Palms Project. •The City of La Quinta. •Lundin Development Corporation. •Pavilion Markets. •Fuel Station. •La Quinta residents. 4 3 4 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 3 The Five Partners •City of La Quinta –Taxes – Remove the blight from Ave 50 & Jefferson.   There are a significant amount of vacancies in the Starbucks and old Ralph’s  market center as well as others near old town.  The Sam’s Club Fuel Station  would have been a disaster if it was near a residential area.  Fuel Station  now a Vehicle staging area lot. •Lundin Development Corporation – HQ – Huntington Beach, CA ‐ROI –long  time owners small development company – 26 Employees ‐ $7.5 Million in  annual revenue. Has a reputation as poor commercial citizen here in  Coachella Valley.   By any means not a well‐financed organization. Has an  agreement with Pavilions for market which requires fuel station with mini  market.   •Has LDC told Pavilion about Ralph’s Fuel Station? 5 The Five Partners •Pavilion Markets – owned by Albertsons (2,260 stores) through  merger with Safeway stores in January 2‐15.  Safeway acquired Vons  in 1994 through an exercise of options to buyout Vons.  Pavilions  opened in 1985.  Currently 26 Pavilion stores – 19 in LA County.  7 in  Orange and San Diego Counties.  None in Riverside County.  All  Pavilions outside of LA County do not have Fuel Stations.  In LA  County some Fuel Stations but not all Pavilions have Fuel Stops.   Pavilions represents less than 1% of Albertsons revenues which were  over 60,500,000,000 in 2018.  Pavilions will be competing with Ralphs  and CVS directly across the street. 6 5 6 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 4 The Five Partners •Fuel Station – Who will it be?  Chevron typically is the fuel station in  Pavilions that have one.  Could it be a Vons’ Fuel Station?  Either way  the fuel station will be competing with a Ralph’s Fuel Station directly  across the street.  Ralph’s on Washington Street charges $3.15 for  regular.  Chevron on Highway 111 get $3.70 for regular.  Whose  buying at Chevron? •La Quinta Residents – Avenue 50.  The Renaissance, Althea, Palmia,  Ranch La Quinta, Talente.  Other than the Renaissance the other  Communities are littered with Million Dollar Homes. 7 Neighborhood and House Values •C.E.D.S. Report (2018) – Community & Environmental Defense Services •A convenience store or gas station can lower the value of nearby  homes. One of the most plausible effects is on mortgages. Federal  Housing Administration (FHA) insurance is not available for properties  located within 300 feet of tanks capable of storing 1,000 gallons or more of  gasoline or other flammable‐explosive materials.Mostgas station storage  tanks have a capacity far in excess of 1,000 gallons •As a rough rule of thumb, each proposed pump at a gas station generates  about 100 to 130 trips per day. By "pump" we mean fueling position. The  convenience store will generate 800 to 1,200 trips per day per 1,000 square  feet. So a 2,000 square foot store with ten pumps would generate around  3,150 trips per day. 8 7 8 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 5 Neighborhood and House Values •Because of the high traffic volume and refueling, convenience stores‐ gas stations pose an unusually severe threat to ground and surface  waters. Adding vehicle servicing facilities increases the threat. •One study found that contaminant levels in convenience store‐gas  station runoff were 5‐ to 30‐times higher when compared to  residential runoff. •Fuel Station ‐ #2 Ranked feature that reduces house prices – verified  by Zillow – 8‐10% 9 Neighborhood and House Values 10 9 10 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 6 House Value Analysis North of Derek Allen Zillow Home Values Analysis ‐ Renassiance ‐ Althea ‐ Palmia ‐ Rancho La Quinta As Of 1‐28‐2020 Address 2018 Price TR  2020 Zillow  High Price  High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price  Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L 49595 Ali Court 555,000  555,073  649,000 2006 11/20/18 530,000  (93,927) 25,073  (68,854) 49530 Ali Court 602,000  602,292  602,500 2005 3/25/05 602,500 (208)(208)(208) 49500 Ali Court 561,816  585,366  725,000 2006 5/5/16 540,000  (139,634) 45,366  (94,268) 49535 Ali Court 487,011  560,974  703,000 2006 3/15/13 450,000  (142,026) 110,974  (31,052) 49530 Ali Court 602,000  602,501  602,500 2005 3/25/05 602,500 1 1 ‐ 49565 Marne Court 632,000  650,029  650,029 2020 2/10/05 548,500 ‐101,529  101,529  49440 Marne Court 520,200  588,601  699,000 2005 4/30/19 574,900  (110,399) 13,701  (96,698) 49595 Marne Court 531,921  565,365  647,000 2005 12/22/08 470,000  (81,635) 95,365 13,730  49470 Marne Court 452,776  537,677  646,000 2006 8/20/09 400,000  (108,323) 137,677  29,354  49530 Marne Court 632,000  651,680  760,000 2007 9/18/07 760,000  (108,320) (108,320) (108,320) 49445 Loren Court 497,000  545,404  545,404 2020 7/16/04 513,000 ‐32,404 32,404  49590 Loren Court 497,000  546,522  546,522 2020 6/10/04 420,500 ‐126,022  126,022  49530 Loren Court 520,200  585,347  700,000 2005 2/7/18 549,000  (114,653) 36,347  (78,306) 49505 Loren Court 474,300  541,354  541,354 2020 12/21/16 465,000 ‐76,354 76,354  49410 Loren Court 479,400  546,814  675,000 2005 2/22/17 470,000  (128,186) 76,814  (51,372) 49475 Loren Court 629,000  664,976  664,976 2020 12/30/04 650,000 ‐14,976 14,976  49430 Brian Court 461,643  547,821  449,000 2004 1/27/11 410,000  98,821  137,821  137,821  49425 Brian Court 501,000  546,234  546,234 2020 5/7/04 480,500 ‐65,734 65,734  49410 Brian Court 388,455  568,105  568,105 2020 6/9/11 345,000 ‐223,105  223,105  49450 Brian Court 553,885  708,880  708,880 2020 5/24/12 496,000 ‐212,880  212,880  49585 Brian Court 602,000  717,209  717,209 2020 6/16/04 630,000 ‐87,209 87,209  79958 Julee Court 511,000  580,028  725,000 2007 4/30/07 725,000  (144,972) (144,972) (144,972) 79926 Julee Court 537,920  585,452  585,452 2020 4/9/04 430,500 ‐154,952  154,952  79931 Julee Court 606,000  734,642  734,642 2020 3/26/04 570,000 ‐164,642  164,642  79979 Julee Court 561,816  665,496  740,000 2006 6/10/16 540,000  (74,504) 125,496  50,992  79963 Julee Court 511,000  586,590  586,590 2020 3/26/04 523,000 ‐63,590 63,590  Totals 15,570,432  16,718,397 (1,147,965) 1,874,532  881,244  (1,147,965)6.9% 11 House Value Analysis ‐ Red Zone  Address 2018 Price TR  2020 Zillow  High Price  High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price  Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L 79911 Derek Allen Drive 505,000 562,245  562,245 2020 8/11/17 505,000 ‐ 57,245  57,245  79897 Derek Allen Drive 496,000 542,580  542,580 2020 5/2/04 436,000 ‐ 106,580  106,580  79883 Derek Allen Drive 580,942 595,774  725,000 2008 7/30/14 550,000  (129,226) 45,774  (83,452) 79869 Derek Allen Drive 629,000 548,380  700,000 2005 7/5/19 540,000  (151,620) 8,380  (143,240) 79855 Derek Allen Drive 594,151 597,909  597,909 2020 6/11/04 475,500 ‐ 122,409  122,409  79841 Derek Allen Drive 483,000 542,970  624,000 2007 8/27/08 490,000  (81,030) 52,970  (28,060) 79827 Derek Allen Drive 494,000 566,577  670,000 2005 4/15/05 670,000  (103,423) (103,423) (206,846) 79828 Joey Court 396,110  488,034  638,500 2006 4/3/19 475,000  (150,466) 13,034  (137,432) 79814 Joey Court 491,000  547,557  668,500 2006 3/10/06 668,500  (120,943) (120,943) (120,493) 79800 Joey Court 544,066  588,257  627,000 2006 7/10/13 490,000  (38,743) 98,257  59,514  79825 Joey Court 495,000  563,235  610,000 2006 6/16/08 466,000  (46,765) 97,235  50,470  79811 Joey Court 489,600  544,423  621,000 2006 9/29/16 480,000  (76,577) 64,423  (12,154) 79797 Joey Court 481,599  557,989  667,000 2006 11/13/12 445,000  (109,011) 112,989  3,978  79826 Danielle Court 469,200  537,000  639,000 2008 9/23/16 460,000 (102,000) 77,000  (25,000) 79812 Danielle Court 491,000  560,939  570,000 2006 4/24/18 525,000 (9,061) 35,939  26,878  79817 Danielle Court 415,479  530,346  604,727 2006 6/23/11 369,000 (74,381) 161,346  86,965  79803 Danielle Court 463,000  509,459  623,000 2006 6/30/06 623,000 (113,541) (113,541) (113,541) 49900 Patti Court 464,457  589,282  693,000 2006 10/22/10 412,500  (103,718) 176,782  73,064  49930 Patti Court 419,477  530,296  628,000 2006 9/30/11 380,000  (97,704) 150,296  52,592  49960 Patti Court 386,359  565,122  647,000 2006 7/8/11 350,000  (81,878) 215,122  133,244  49955 Patti Court 402,726  536,608  586,500 2006 9/9/09 355,000  (49,892) 181,608  131,716  49925 Patti Court 415,944  533,971  605,000 2006 6/10/11 340,000  (71,029) 193,971  122,942  12,138,953  13,849,961 (1,711,008) 1,633,453  157,379  (1,711,008)12% 12 11 12 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 7 House Value Analysis – Yellow Zone Address 2018 Price TR  2020 Zillow  High Price  High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price  Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L 79798 Danielle Court 632,000  652,128  653,000 2006 12/8/06 653,000 (872) (872)(872) 79784 Danielle Court 525,300  585,584  619,000 2006 4/19/17 515,000 (33,416) 70,584  37,168  79831 Danielle Court 632,000  669,069  669,069 2020 6/28/06 668,000 ‐1,069  1,069  79770 Danielle Court 632,000  665,513  689,000 2006 8/30/06 689,000 (23,487) (23,487) (23,487) 79783 Joey Court 400,227  512,591  715,000 2006 5/1/09 423,000  (202,409) 89,591  (112,818) 79769 Joey Court 471,776  575,488  739,000 2006 5/25/11 419,000  (163,512) 156,488  (7,024) 79786 Joey Court 491,000  546,338  628,000 2006 10/11/16 628,000  (81,662) (81,662) (81,662) 79772 Joey Court 632,000  671,686  675,000 2006 12/1/06 675,000  (3,314) (3,314) (3,314) 7981 Derek Allen Drive 479,000 542,097  542,097 2020 3/31/05 493,000 ‐ 49,097  49,097  79799 Derek Allen Drive 527,075  577,920  590,000 2005 10/30/14 499,000  (12,080) 78,920  66,840  79785 Derek Allen Drive 411,997 474,614  595,000 2006 5/31/16 396,000  (120,386) 78,614  (41,772) 79771 Derek Allen Drive 480,191 563,989  563,989 2020 5/3/12 435,000 ‐ 128,989  128,989  7,037,017  7,678,155 (641,138) 544,017  12,214  (641,138)8% 13 House Value Analysis ‐ Neighborhood Althea ‐ Address 2018 Price TR  2020 Zillow  High Price  High Price Year Last Sale Date Last Sale Price  Diff High Price Diff Sale Price Economic G/L G/L By Group % G/L 49555 Rancho La Merced 617,348 826,272  826,272 2020 8/9/02 440,000 ‐ 386,272  386,272  49555 Vista Luna 1,067,129  1,158,740  1,252,000 2011 4/10/13 929,000  (93,260) 229,740  136,480  79650 Rancho San Pascual 564,425  743,019  743,019 2020 11/1/02 413,000 ‐ 330,019  330,019  49490 Ranch Las Mariposas 612,586  811,980  811,890 2020 12/6/02 442,500 90  369,480  369,570  49690 Rancho San Julian 726,374  929,000  929,000 2020 5/16/03 547,000 ‐ 382,000  382,000  Totals 4,469,011  4,562,181 (93,170) 1,697,511  1,604,341  (93,170)0.02  Pamilla ‐ Address 79520 Vin Cuidado 1,249,520  1,357,637  1,412,500 2015 12/20/15 1,412,500  (54,863)(54,863) (54,863) 79560 Via Sin Cuidado 892,858  954,328  954,328 2020 7/2/18 899,000 ‐ 55,328  55,328  50100 Via Puente 923,000  1,018,391 1,030,500 2005 10/28/05 1,030,500  (12,109) (12,109) (12,109) 50485 Orchard Lane 1,214,290  1,329,320  1,400,000 2003 4/10/12 1,350,000  (70,680)(20,680) (91,360) 50295 Via Puente 1,136,368  925,000  1,050,000 2013 6/25/13 1,050,000  (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) Totals 5,584,676  5,847,328 (262,652) (157,324) (228,004) (262,652)0.04  Rancho La Quinta ‐ Address 79854 Mission Drive East 805,800  896,036  790,000 2017 5/9/17 790,000  106,036  106,036  106,036  79846 Mission Drive East 808,041  834,328  765,000 2015 4/3/15 765,000  69,328  69,328  69,328  79822 Mission Drive East 797,000  806,763  870,000 2004 8/31/04 870,000  (63,237) (63,237) (63,237) 79758 Mission Drive East 737,389  835,057  650,000 2010 5/3/10 650,000  185,057  185,057  185,057  49330 Vista Estrella 857,000  1,028,548  1,028,548 2020 4/14/19 1,000,000 ‐ 28,548  28,548  Totals 4,400,732  4,103,548 297,184  325,732  325,732  297,184 0.07  14 13 14 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 8 House Value Analysis ‐ Aftermath •The Renaissance has already felt some effect. •Renaissance values decline dramatically during and after build out. •Appraisals spiral downward in Red/Yellow zones – 10‐20%.  •Appraisals spiral downward in Green zone – 8‐10%.  •Rancho La Quinta already has some effect on Renaissance boundary. •Palmia homes off Avenue 50 get similar effect as Renaissance. •Althea & Talente values decline modestly. 15 Proposed Solution •The City partners with the NBA, the Lakers & maybe the Clippers. •Three Steps to Success. 1. Veto Proposal. 2. Buy land from Lundin Development Corporation at a fair price. 3. Use land to develop the Kobe Bryant Memorial Park. 16 15 16 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 2/4/2020 9 Proposed Solution •The Park: •Indoor Gym with 2‐3,000 seats. •2 Outdoor Basketball Courts for youth games. •1 Mini‐Court for kids 11 and under – small court with low baskets. •Other recreational park facilities for youth and seniors. •Conduct the Kobe Bryant Basketball Tournament between March Madness  and Coachella.  Or after Stagecoach. •Invite amateur teams from all over SoCal to participate in 7‐day elimination  tournament with $100,000 in prizes.  Prize money to be raised from sponsors. •Attract Laker and Clipper team members to practice at the Park during off  season. 17 Recap •Win‐win for all parties. •La Quinta generates much more tax revenue. •Meets needs of its citizens. •Shows a positive & exciting vision for the City of La Quinta. •Puts La Quinta on the Basketball Map. •Thank you……. 18 17 18 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET 1 Monika Radeva From:Monika Radeva Sent:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:16 AM To:Monika Radeva Subject:COMMENT - OPPOSE: Pavilion Palms - LINDSAY -----Original Message----- From: Greg & Shirley Lindsay Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 9:23 AM To: Wanda Wise-Latta <wlatta@laquintaca.gov>; Greg Lindsay Subject: Fwd: Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Despite what I heard at the Public Planning meeting I remain adamantly opposed to this development. Nothing that has been said has changed my mind and I urge City Council to vote this proposed project down. As a resident of Palmilla and a La Quinta taxpayer for the last ten years I strongly object to proposed development. It will result in unacceptable increases in noise & congestion along Jefferson & Ave 50. The architectural design is not consistent with that found in our neighbourhood or in La Quinta. It will result in increased litter and fast food odours. This development should not be approved by the City of La Quinta. Greg & Shirley Lindsay La Quinta, CA 92253 HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET HAND-OUT BY STAFF - COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA PACKET CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY RESIDENT RICHARD (DICK) MILLS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – ADDED AND REVISED PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER Page 1 of 4 SDP 2017-0009 Conditions of Approval 3.Pad Buildings 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 shall require, prior to construction of any structures, a Site Development Permit to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. 24.A.2.e. 6-foot wide sidewalk—The applicant shall revise the site plan and landscape plan to include a non-curb adjacent 6-foot wide sidewalk along Avenue 50 at a minimum distance of 4 feet from the street curb. The site plan and landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Manager prior to construction. 41.When improvements are phased through a “Phasing Plan,” or an administrative approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off-site improvements and common on-site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured, prior to the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. If construction of the commercial center proceeds in phases, the first phase of development shall include the construction and completion of the Anchor tenant building and associated fuel center, Shop 1, Retail Building 1, project landscaping and parking areas. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 75.Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Commission for their approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) and 9.150.080 (Parking Facility Design Standards). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be shielded to minimize trespass of light off the property. Security lighting along the west elevation of the anchor building shall be installed below 20 ft. in height and shall be shielded CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY STAFF PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – ADDED AND REVISED PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER Page 2 of 4 to minimize trespass of light off the property and not shine directly onto neighboring residences. Any illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 81.Applicant/Developer shall install paving patterns, such as stamped concrete or decorative colored pavers, to delineate and differentiate pedestrian-oriented areas throughout the project from the vehicular circulation, parking areas, ingress and egress, to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Paving patterns shall be approved with the final landscape plans by the Planning Commission prior to construction. 82.Applicant/Developer shall install and maintain pergola-style screen structure(s) of at least 40 feet and no more than 100 feet along the Derek Alan Drive frontage. The pergola-style screen structure(s) shall match the pergola- style screen structures that are provided along the Avenue 50 street frontage and shall not obstruct sight distance onto Jefferson Street. Pergolas shall be approved with the final landscape plans by the Planning Commission prior to construction. 117. Applicant/Developer shall add metal louvres as a decorative element to the fuel center canopy consistent with the architecture of the convenience store building. The metal louvres shall be reviewed and approved during building plan check. 118. The size of Building 7 shall be reduced from 3,000 square feet to 825 square feet and shall not include the sale of alcoholic beverages. 119. Applicant/Developer shall include architectural depth and relief on the south elevation of the anchor tenant building and extend around the southwest corner a distance of 20 feet with detail similar to that of site renderings for Retail Building #1 as presented to the Planning Commission at its December 10, 2019 Regular Meeting. The Planning Manager shall review and approve final design prior to issuance of building permits. 120. Public Art shall be dedicated on the project site or the Applicant/Developer shall pay a development fee pursuant to the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 2.65 Art in Public Places. 121. All vacant pads shall be planted with drought tolerant landscaping and/or decomposed granite and shall include fencing as appropriate so long as they are vacant. Any landscaping on vacant pads shall be irrigated and maintained regularly. The final landscape plan for the project shall include plans for fencing, landscaping, irrigation (as applicable), and maintenance for vacant CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY STAFF PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – ADDED AND REVISED PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER Page 3 of 4 pads. The final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing prior to construction. If, after two years from the opening of the Pavilions store, any pads remain vacant, the applicant shall fully convert any such vacant pads into enhanced landscaping consistent with the design and planting materials approved in the final landscape plan throughout the balance of the shopping center, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. The applicant shall enter into a SIA covering these improvements and post separate security for the cost to install landscaping on each vacant pad. This obligation will remain in effect on each vacant pad until those vacant pads are ultimately built out. 122. The project sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing prior to construction. 123. The height of parking lot lighting shall be modified to heights consistent with existing commercial centers in the Community Commercial Zone, not to exceed 20 feet, and shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to construction. 124. The applicant shall install a minimum of 12 electric charging facilities in the anchor tenant’s parking lot. 125. The landscape architect shall identify standards for planting, irrigation and maintenance in the final landscape plan and the standards shall be included in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which shall be recorded on the Property and shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 126. Applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the Property. The CC&Rs shall (1) require minimum covenants for satisfactory, perpetual maintenance obligations on the Property; (2) name the City of La Quinta as an express third party beneficiary; (3) be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation; and (4) state that the CC&Rs cannot be amended without prior written consent of the City. 127. Applicant shall execute and record a maintenance agreement with the Renaissance HOA and the Palmilla HOA. The agreement shall (1) be imposed as an equitable servitude on the Property (2) require satisfactory, perpetual maintenance of the Property, (3) name the City as an express third party beneficiary; (4) be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation; and (5) state that the maintenance agreement cannot be amended without prior written consent of the City. If the applicant shows substantial evidence that the Renaissance and Palmilla HOA’s are not CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY STAFF PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – ADDED AND REVISED PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER Page 4 of 4 negotiating in good faith, the applicant may provide the evidence to the Design and Development Department and request removal of this condition. Tentative Parcel Map 2017-0003 Conditions of Approval: 22.A.2.e. 6-foot wide sidewalk—The applicant shall revise the site plan and landscape plan to include a non-curb adjacent 6-foot wide sidewalk along Avenue 50 at a minimum distance of 4 feet from the street curb. The site plan and landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Manager prior to construction. 75.Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Commission for their approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) and 9.150.080 (Parking Facility Design Standards). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be shielded to minimize trespass of light off the property. Security lighting along the west elevation of the anchor building shall be installed below 20 ft. in height and shall be shielded to minimize trespass of light off the property and not shine directly onto neighboring residences. Any illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 81.All vacant pads shall be planted with drought tolerant landscaping and/or decomposed granite and shall include fencing as appropriate so long as they are vacant. Any landscaping on vacant pads shall be irrigated and maintained regularly. The final landscape plan for the project shall include plans for fencing, landscaping, irrigation (as applicable), and maintenance for vacant pads. The final landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing prior to construction. If, after two years from the opening of the Pavilions store, any pads remain vacant, the applicant shall fully convert any such vacant pads into enhanced landscaping consistent with the design and planting materials approved in the final landscape plan throughout the balance of the shopping center, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. The applicant shall enter into a SIA covering these improvements and post separate security for the cost to install landscaping on each vacant pad. This obligation will remain in effect on each vacant pad until those vacant pads are ultimately built out. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY STAFF PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY DIANA SOTO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY RESIDENT RICHARD (DICK) MILLS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY RESIDENT RICHARD (DICK) MILLS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY RESIDENT RICHARD (DICK) MILLS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2020 - HAND-OUT BY RESIDENT MARILYN LANGPUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - PAVILION PALMS SHOPPING CENTER