CC Resolution 1985-026 Fees^ 2D RESOLUTION NO. 85-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE FEE POLICY TO BE IMPOSED ON NEW
DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982 and,
on an interim basis, the City has adopted the existing County
General Plan and the City is now in the process of preparing its
own complete General Plan, consisting of all required elements; and
WHEREAS, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues
to experience significant development pressure in the form of applica-
tions and proposals for new residential and commercial land development
within the City; and
WHEREAS, new development does not currently pay it's reasonable
share for infrastructure improvements while development is occurring
in La Quinta at a rapid rate adding further deterioration and impacts
on the City's existing infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, there are inadequate drainage facilities in the City and
there is a need to develop a drainage system since La Quinta is located
in several flood zones and is therefore subject to serious flooding of
both a local and regional nature; and
WHEREAS, there is a lack of public improvements and facilities,
including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is
responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the
present and future citizens of La Quinta; and
WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta currently has no permanent public
buildings, such as a City Hall and a Municipal Library, to conduct
government business and provide for quality service to the community
and there is a need to acquire land for and construct such public
buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is no specific funding source to acquire land
and develop city parks and recreation facilities, and maintain and
improve its existing park facilities and there is a need to provide
for the public's park and recreation needs to accommodate the City's
growing population; 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 for
suitable traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and
WHEREAS, existing City revenues and fees imposed upon new devel-
opment, including the existing development fee collected for fire and
police facilities and equipment and traffic signalization pursuant to
Section 3.17.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, are inadequate to
provide needed infrastructure for future anticipated development; and
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DRESOLUTION NO. 85-26
WHEREAS, the City has recently adopted a Public Facilities and
Building Element of the General Plan, the goal and objective of which
is to provide a comprehensive public services and facilities and pub-
lic building program for the citizens of the City of La Quinta now
and in the future so as to ensure that all necessary public facilities
will be available concurrent with need in connection with the develop-
ment of the City pursuant to the balance of the General Plan. The
provisions of said Public Facilities and Building Element are incorpor-
ated in this Resolution by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City,
with the consequent increase in population and in the use of public
facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities,
including but not limited to 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 will enable the City
to fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as
they are required and demanded; that if a development agrees to pay
the community infrastructure fee established by this policy, the
Council will be able to find that all necessary public facilities
and services will be available concurrent with 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
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and desirable to hereby estab-
lish a policy regarding the requirements which must be met before the
City Council will find that the Public Building and Facilities Element
has been satisfied and to establish a policy that will allow development
to proceed in an orderly manner while insuring that the requirements of
the Public Building and Facilities Element will be satisfied by estab-
lishing a fee to fund the cost of the above stated City provided
facilities which will insure the availability of said facilities
concurrent with need.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby
adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City
Council further finds that:
a. The report entitled Infrastructure Fee Study",
dated March 19, 1985, 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.
Said report sets forth a necessary and reasonable method of
funding said buildings and facilities. Said report is hereby
approved.
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DRESOLUTION NO. 85-26
b. The categories of community infrastructure and
the percent of said infrastructure fee attributed to each
category of infrastructure is as follows:
Public Buildings 10.6%
Public Safety Building 8.7%
Recreational Facilities 11.8%
Bridges 14.0%
Major Thoroughfares 46.5%
Traffic & Pedestrian Signals 2.4%
c. In order to allow residential and commercial land
development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring
that all new development is consistent with the General Plan,
including the Public Building and Facilities Element, it is
necessary and appropriate to establish the following infra-
structure fee to be imposed upon new development. Said fee
will assist the City in funding a construction program to
provide such needed public buildings and facilities as they
are required and needed. If said infrastructure fee is
imposed upon and paid by new development in accord with the
provisions of this resolution, then and in that event, the
City is enabled to make a required finding that all necessary
public facilities and services will be available concurrent
with need. On the other hand, if said infrastructure fee is
not so imposed and paid, the City shall be required to disap-
prove such development as not consistent with the General
Plan.
2. Community Infrastructure Fee Policy. Amount. Prior to
approval of any zoning, rezoning, subdivision, or development
proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Community
Infrastructure Fee in the following amount for the following
type development:
a. Residential An amount equal to 1% of the building
permit valuation for each dwelling or structure, with
a maximum fee of $2,000.00.
b. Commercial, Industrial and all other non-residential-
$6,000.00 per gross acre.
The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building or other
similar permits and shall be based on the permit valuation at
that time.
3. Use of Funds. Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected
pursuant to the community infrastructure 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
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DRESOLUTION NO. 85-26
expenditures of funds available from the special capital
outlay fund(s) shall be made by the City Council in the
context of approval of the City's annual operating and
capital improvements budget or at such other time as the
Council may direct.
4. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluded 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 building 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.
c) The City Council may grant an exception for a low cost
housing project where the City Council finds such project
consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan
and that such exception is necessary. In approving an
exception for low cost housing, the City Council may
attach conditions, including limitations on rent or
income levels of tenants. If the City Council finds a
project is not being operated as a low cost housing
project in accordance with all applicable conditions,
the fee, which would otherwise be imposed by this chapter,
shall immediately become due and payable.
5. Credits. Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless
otherwise specifically provided herein, the community infra-
structure fee shall be in addition to and not in lieu of other
valid exactions imposed upon new development through the sub-
division or other approval processes. Provided, however, that
payment of the infrastructure fee shall be in lieu of payment
of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signaliza-
tion fund 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 e.g. major thoroughfare
widening or fire station construction), developer shall
receive a fair and equitable credit against the fee.
City hereby determines that the infrastructure fee is not
intended to be the exclusive method of installation of needed
public buildings and facilities and the City will consider
alternative proposals such as the Mello-Roos Community Facil-
ities Act of 1982, and Subdivision Map Act provisions for
major thoroughfares, bridges and parks), to provide needed
infrastructure to particular development and, to the extent
such alternative proposal is discretionarily approved by the
City Council, developer shall receive a fair and equitable
credit against payment of the infrastructure fee. Any developer
seeking alternative methods of installation shall submit such
proposal to the City at the time of submittal of an application
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DRESOLUTION NO. 85-26
for development.
6. Validity. Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to
be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The
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.
In determining the amount of infrastructure fee, the City
Council has been guided by the report entitled Infrastructure
Fee Study", but has reduced the fee from the amount recommended
therein in order to reduce the overall cost of housing in the
City. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared
invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of
any other category. The Council further finds, declares and
determines that the infrastructure fee on all remaining valid
fee category shall be increased by the amounts of the fee
categories declared invalid. Provided, however, that the
amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so
increased over and above the amount recommended by said report
for each category.
7. Administration and Enforcement. Effective Date. Repealer.
The Community Development Director shall be responsible for
the administration and enforcement of this policy. His
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 May 19, 1985, and shall
remain in effect for a period of ten 10) years through May 17,
1995) at which time it is repealed. Provided, however, that
such period of time shall be extended by any period of time
during which a residential development moratorium is in
existence within the City.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of March 1985.
ATTEST:
CITY CL*K
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CITY TOR CI* MA*A*ER
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEVELOPER-OWNER
AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR THE
PAYMENT OF A COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19
by and between
name of developer-owner)
a hereinafter referred to as
corporation, partnership, etc.)
Developer" whose address is
street)
and the CITY of
City, State and Zip Code)
LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, herein
after referred to as City".
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the real property described on
Exhibit 1'A", attached hereto and made a part of this agreement, herein-
after referred to as Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Property lies within the boundaries of City or is
proposed to be annexed to City; and
WHEREAS, Developer proposes a development project as follows:
on said Property, which development carries the proposed name of
and is hereafter referred to as Development"; and
WHEREAS, Developer filed on the day of 19
with the City a request for
Hereinafter referred to as Request"; and
WHEREAS, City has adopted a Public Buildings and Facilities Element
of the City General Plan which requires that the City Council find that
all public facilities necessary to serve a development will be available
concurrent with need or such development shall not be approved; and
WHEREAS, Developer and City recognize the need and validity of
Council Resolution No. 85- dated March 19, 1985, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference, and that the
City's public facilities and services are at capacity and will not be
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D available to accommodate the additional need for public facilities and
services resulting from the proposed Development; and
WHEREAS, Developer has asked the City to find that public facilities
and services will be available to meet the future needs of the Development
as it is presently proposed; but the Developer is aware that the City
cannot and will not be able to make any such finding without financial
assistance to pay for such services and facilities; and therefore,
Developer proposes to pay its pro-rata share of the cost of said facili-
ties by payment of the Community Infrastructure Fee as required by
Resolution No. 85-
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Developer shall pay to City a community infrastructure fee
for the purpose of funding the cost of increasing the level of
public facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate the
increased needs resulting from the cumulative impact of new
development. The amount of said fee and the terms and conditions
relative to payment thereof shall be as set forth in said
Resolution No. 85- Said fee shall be paid prior to issuance
of a building or other construction permit for the development
2. This agreement and the fee paid pursuant hereto are required
to ensure the consistency of the Development with the City's
General Plan. If the fee is not paid as provided herein, the
City will not have the funds to provide the public facilities and
services, and the development will not be consistent with the
General Plan and any approval or permit for the Development shall
be void.
3. City agrees to deposit the fees paid pursuant to this agree-
ment into one or more public facilities capital outlay funds for
the financing of public facilities to be constructed when the City
Council determines the need exists to provide the facilities and
sufficient funds from the payment of this and similar community
infrastructure fees are available.
4. City agrees to provide upon request reasonable assurances
to enable Developer to comply with any requirements of other
public agencies as evidence of adequate public facilities and
services sufficient to accommodate the needs of the Development
herein described.
2-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D 5. All obligations hereunder shall terminate in the event
the Requests made by Developer are disapproved.
6. This agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of, and shall apply to, the respective successors and
assigns of Developer and the City, and references to Developer
or City herein shall be deemed to be reference to and include
their respective successors and assigns without specific mention
of such successors and assigns. If Developer should cease to
have any interest in the Property, all obligations of Developer
hereunder shall terminate; provided, however, that any successor
of Developer's interest in the property shall have first assumed
in writing the Developer's obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed in Riverside
County, California, as of the date first written above.
DEVELOPER-OWNER CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal
corporation of the
State of California
name)
BY BY
City Mar*ger
Title)
BY_____________________________ Appr9 d as to Fo
Title)
ATT$jS** *
City C
3-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D CITY OF LA QUINTA
4;*:Th*
INFRASTRUCTURE FEE STUDY
w*cH 19, 1985
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D CITY OF LA
* INFRASTRUCTURE FEE STUDY
ThBICFC*IE*I* * No.
Section 1 Ba*gr*lnd 1
*tion 2 Stat***t of Need 3
s*tion 3 Description of Needs 9
Section 4 *isting F*ding Constraints 13
Section 5 Alternate *th*o1ogies 15
*tion 6 Discussion and Analysis 17
Section 7 * Action 22
A*:p&*lices
* IA Criteria Used to Develop Population
Projections for Use in the Community
Infrastructure Fee Program
A* B Criteria Used to Develop Commercial
Growth Projections
*pt*p*1*V IC Criteria Used to Develop Ratio Between
*esidential and **ial *
* ID Anticipated Valuations from Residential
Buiidin* Permits Projected Annually to
1995
* IE An Analysis of * *
P*nriit Valuations **er the 1985-1995
Period
* II * of New Residential Developeent
in t* Ooi*d*ella Valley
* III-Funding Community Infrastructure Through
Exactions on New Developeent
IV Draft pesolution/Agreeent for Infrastructure
Fee Program
*ix V Public Buildings and Facilities Element of
General Plan
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D sF*rI* I
BACKGROUND
It is evident that the City has been and continues to experience significant
development pressure and that this pressure will place an increasing burden on
city-wide infrastructure. In an effort to offset current concerns* as*coated with
serious deficiences in community infrastructure, the Council has in the past
supported a policy of requiring fees *ich *uld be intended to provide a resource
to construct the necessary infrastructure.
On November 2, 1982, City Council adopted Ordinance No.17 establishing a Fire and
Police Facilities and Equipment Fund and a Traffic Signalization Fund. This fee
has been applied to any new residential ur\:it or any non-residential construction or
addition on the basis of $150.00 per l000-square-feet of structure under roof.
In March of 1984, the City developed a policy which was subsequently attached to
virtually all development approvals. This policy indicated that the City was in the
process of developing an infrastructure fee program to create funds for oertain
infrastructire f*ilities, including bridges, traffic signals, major thoroughfares,
parks, schools, libraries, city hall, public safety buildings, drainage and other
potential coepoeents of the City*e infrastructure program. This policy, in the
form of Conditions of Approval, has been consistently applied to all develonnnt
approvals since * of 1984.
On January 14, 1985, the City Council directed the Community Development Director
and the City Attorney to p*are an Interim Community lnfrastrcture Fee to be
imposed on new development
On February 5, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution No.85-81 establishing an
Interim Community Infrastructure Fee on all j*w development as follows:
Residential, excluding certain previously subdivided areas,
at a fee of $4000.00 per unit.
Residential and previously subdivided areas at a fee of
$l000,00 per unit.
oCommerical Office and Industrial at a fee of $8000.00 per
acre.
o An exception was accorded in the above fee program for plot
plans currently in process.
1-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D February 19, 1985, due to a c**ange in state law regarding &Lacting or increasing
fees on residential devel*t, the C*incil adopted Reso1ution No.85-14, *&iich
* si!rLiiar to Resolution No.85-8, except that, because of the pr*isions of the
law, it * *ted as an urgency measure. This allows the fee to be in effect
for thirty 30) days with a maximum of two 3O-day extensions. At this tirr*, the fee
adopted two *pie*s earlier *i'as also n*dified as follows:
Residential, at a fee of $2000.00 per unit.
Commerciall, Office and Industrial, at a fee of
$4000.00 per acre.
The exception for approved or submitted plot plans
maintained.
It is evident that the past history of the infrastructure fee prggr*n ir*ica*tes that
it is fizmly established as City policy. *ile it may not be the only *y to facili-
tate constittion of neoessary and essential infrastructure, it has * an
incraasingly caon met* used by cities to pwvide a *ce of revenue *hich *uld
be sufficient to provide infrastructure attributable to new growth. This becomes
increasingly important, particularly in new cities, in light of Proposition 4 and
Proposition 13 restrictions. It is also important J'*L in newer and smaller cities,
*ihich are in periods of high growth, when those cities obtain limited revenue fran
other sources that can be used for capital improvements will become evident as
you read this report that a *iinta is clearly in that position and must rely exten-
sively on sources of revenue such as infrastructre fees.
2-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2
D SE*I*C* II
STATEMENT
OF
NEED
The City of La C*liiita is required by state law to adopt and implement a
long-term General Plan for the physical development of the City, consisting of seven
required elements and any other elements which relate to the physical development of
the City. In order to pxovide for a complete and comprehensive plan for the develop-
ment of the community in accord with the state general plan requirements, it is essential
that provision be made for the adequacy of public buildings and facilities to serve
existing and future residents of the City. Accordingly, the Public Buildings and
Facilities Element" will establish goals and objectives for the implementation of
policies necessry for providing needed public buidings and facilities.
PUBLIC BUILDING & FACILITY NEEDS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS
Sinc* its ji*orporation, the City has been and contines to experience significant
development pressure in the form of applications and proposals for residential
and commercial land development within the City. At the present tue, the City has
serious deficiencies in that its public buildings and facilities are inadequate to
serve its current and future residents. The goal and objective of this Public
Facilities and Building Element is to proVide a comprehensive public services and
facilities and public building program for the citizens of the City of La *linta
now and in the future so as to ensure that all necessary public facilities will be
available concurrent with need in conneotion with the devel*t of the City
**irsuant to the balance of the General Plan.
The La Quinta Community Development Department has developed the following population
projections, based upon consideration of existing, approved and anticipated devel*
*t within the next ten years:
jj*wP* 1 SEASONAL POPULATION HOUSING UNITS
1995 8,500 3,900
1990 15,900 7,340
1995 23,500 10,841
3-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D 1
The following is a summary of the needs for public buildings, public safety buildings,
recreational facilities, bridges, major thoroughfares, traffic signals, pedestrian
signals, and drainage, based upon these projections for population and housing units:
Public Buildings
City Hall. The City is currently leasing a private office building with appr*irn*tely
3000 square feet. With the increase in City Staff since incorporation, this space is
currently insufficient. The City will be installing temporary office trailers with a
total of 1650 additional square feet on a lot adjacent to City Hall in April, 1985.
Based upon estimated population and a review of comparable facilities in other Cochella
Valley cities, phased construction of an ultimate 25,000-square-foot facility is
warranted.
Pulic Library. Residents have use of the Riverside City and County Public Library
System, with the nearest branches being in Palm Desert, Indio and Palm Desert Country
Club. A bookmobile visits the City once a week. Aocording to figures provided by the
Facilities Planner and Head Librarian for the Riverside City and County Public Library
System, the current population warrants a 3000-square-foot library, comparable with
the existing facility in Cathedral City. They recommend that the facility be expanded
to 6000 square feet far the anticipated 1990 population of 15,900, and to approximately
9000 square feet for the projected 1995 poulation of 23,500.
Community Center. The only public assembly building available for the resident's
use is a 2500-square-foot building located at the La *linta City Park. The building
contains an assembly/general purpose room with a stage, a kitchen and restrooms. The
structure is not in compliance with current construction oode or earthquakee standards;
therefore, substantial structural modifications would be required in order to expand
the current blulding. Sirce the building is owned and crerated by Coad*la Valley
I*creation and Parks District, the District's recreational activities have priority
in the use of the builing. There are no other facilities within La Quinta for either
youth or the elderly.
Corporation Yard. The City is currently leasing a 4000-square-foot lot adjacent to
the City Park for use as a corporation yard. Improvements include fencing and a
10' x 20' metal shed for storage. With the exception of this small shed, city vehicles
and equipeent are stored outside on the graveled lot. There are no facilities for the
rnintennce and repair of City vehicles and equipment.
Public Safety Buildings
Public Safety Building. The City is currently contracting with Riverside County
Sheriiff's department for police protection and associated services. As the population
increases, the dsnand for police services provided by the City may result due to a
desire for local control of the department, the level of service economically provided
through contract with the Sheriff, and the responsiveness of the Sheriff's Department
to local concerns.
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DFire Stations. The only fire station within the City limits is located on Avenue 52
approximately one-eighth mile east of Avenida Bermudas. The station building is
owned by Riverside County Fire Department, and the land is owned by the Desert Club
of La *inta, to *hi* ownership of the land will revert if this station is relocated.
The station has approximately 3000-square-feet total, which is one-half the space
standard for new stations of similar type. The equipment includes two engines owned
by Riverside County Fire, one of which is used as backup and is loaned out
to other stations as needed. Also stationed here are three vehicles owned by the
La Quinta Volunteer Fire Association; a quick-attack vehicle, a reserve unit and a
squad truck. Because of the age and high mileage of the two engines, Riverside County
will replace one engine with a new unit in April, 1985. The station has one paid
24-hour firefighter position, with assistance provided by the volunteers.
The station's five-minute response time is limjted to that area within a three-mile
radius, as measured along roadways. Therefore, a substantial portion of the City is
outside the five-minute respnse time of this station and other existing stations in
Indian Wells and Bermuda Dunes. Based upon this situation and other factorsm including
water system fireflow, population and manning levels of the station, the Insurance
Service office ISO) rating for the City is 7 to 9, with 10 being the poorest level
of protection.
The report entitled Fire Protection Recommendations for the Cceehella Valley,
pr*red by Riverside County Fire Department as a basis for their futrre facility
and personal plan for the area, recommends the construction of five new stations, two
of which are located within the current City limits of La Quinta.
A station to be located in the vicinity of Washington Street and
Highway 111, equipped with one engine company having one Fire
Apparatus Engineer and one Firefighter per shift. Recommended
date of completion is December, 1985.
o A station to be located at Madison Street and Avenue 54, equipped
with the following: a telesquirt/engine company with one Fire
Apparatus Engineer and one Firefighter per shift; a medic unit
with two FirefighterslParamedics; and an additical engine company
by buildout of PGA West.
Recreational Facilities
The only local park within the City is the four-acre La Quinta Park, which was
originally purchased by the La Quinta Property Owners Association and is now owned
and operated by the Coacella Valley Recreation and Parks District. The park has
one lighted baseball field, two lighted basketball courts, and a children's play
area. To partially accommodate the demand for organized sports programs by residents,
this facility is augmented by temporary playing fields located west of Eisenhower
Drive near San Lucas Street and north of Avenue 52 at Adams Steeet alignment. These
two temporary playing fields have no permanent improvements, and use of the land will
terminate at such time that development occurs on this private property.
5-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DUnder the standards established by the Quirby Act, three acres of recreational
facilities is warranted per 1000 in population. Based upon City population
projections ard subtracting the existing four-acre park facility, the current unmet
and future anticipated requirements for residential facilities are as follows:
* 1985 26 Acres of Parkland
o 1990 48 Acres of Parkland
o 1995 71 Acres of Parklard
Currently, the nearest public swimming facilities for residents are the pool
operated by Cochella Valley Recreation am* Parks District in Indio, and Lake Cahuilla
Regional Park operated by Riverside County Parks Department. While the newer devel-
ments generally have swimming facilities, the appr*cirnately 6200 lots in the older
Cove area have inadequate size to permit construction of private pools unless nore
than one lot is used per house. In a survey distributed by the City to residents,
provision of a community swimming pool was rated as having the top priority.
Bridges
The foliowing bridges are currently existing within or adjacent to the City:
o Washington Street at the Whitewater River, a half-width, two-lane
bridge located within the County area).
Washington Street at the La Quinta Stormwater Channel, a half-width,
two-lane bridge.
o Eisenhower Drive at La Quinta Stormwater Channel, a half-width,
two-lane bridge.
o Jefferson Street at the La Quinta Stormwater Channel, a part-width,
two-lane bridge located within the City of Indio).
* Jefferson Street at the All American Canal, a half-width, two-lane
bridge east half located within Riverside County).
In aocordance with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan,
see Attacheent #1) * designates the above streets as arterial or major highways,
these five bridges must be widened to a minimum of four lanes to accommodate expansion
of the City road system.
Th additiom, the following two existing surface crossings will require a11-weather
crossings in the future to provide for safe and efficient circulation within the City:
o Jefferson Street at the Whitewater River, ultimately a four-lane bridge.
o Averue 50 at La Cuinta Stormwater Channel, ultimately a four-lane bridge.
Major Thoroughfares
The major thouroughfares are those streets which provide the backbone for the traffic
circulation system of the City and are designated within the Circulation Element of
the La Quinta General Plan. Major Thoroughfares" are defined as the following streets:
6-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D o Arterial Highway, 110' right-of-way, four travel lanes with 22-foot-wide,
raised center median.
o Major Highway, 100' right-of-way, four travel lanes with a 12-foot-wide,
raised center median.
* Secondary Highway, 88' right-of-way, four travel lanes, no center turn
lane or median.
* Collector Street
Major deficiencies of the major thoroughfare system, in light of current and
projected traffic levels and circulation needs within the City, are as follows:
o Inadequate street width to accommodate existing and anticipated
traffic levels.
o Varying pavement widths along partially impoved streets resulting
in increased traffic hazards for motorists.
* Piecemeal improvements to the overall thoroughfare system adversely
affecting both internal circulation and areawide circulation.
o deteriorating pavement due to age, construction standards and
increased traffic levels.
* lack of curb and gutter resulting in an increased rate of roadway
deterioration due to damage from uncontrolled drainage and from
vehicles.
* Lack of medians separating traffic on high traffic arterial and
major highways resulting in increased safety hazards.
Traffic Signals
As the amount of traffic increases within the City, traffic signals are required
to increase the efficiency and carrying capacity of streets by providing for the
flow of traffic with minimal delays, congestion and safety hazards. In addition
to increasing efficiency of individual streets, a coordinated city-wide signal plan
provides for smooth and efficierrt flow throughout the entire major thoroughfare
system. Installation of individual traffic signals are warranted on a case by case
after review of traffic volumes, speed survey data, existing roadway conditions and
accident reports. After preliminary review of the current and planned improvements
to the thoroughfare system, the City Engineer has tentatively determined that traffic
signals wi1l be warranted in the next ten years at 18 major intersections, including
the two existing signalized intersections of Washington Street at Eisenhower Drive
and at Highway 111.
Pedestrian Signals
As traffic volumes and City population increase, more conflicts will arise between
motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Essentially, the same criteria as for traffic
signals is foflowed with an additional factor being adjacent land uses. The City
7-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DEngineer recommends the installation of pedestrian signals at Eisenhower adjacent
to la Quinta Park, and on Avenue 50 adjacent to the school site where pedestrian
traffic is the highest and traffic volumes on the streets are significant.
Drainage
There are *irrently no local drainage facilities within the City. of ocurse, the
City does have some* regional flood protection with the unimproved Bear creek
Channel, Oleander Reservoir, the La Quinta Stormwater Evacuation Channel and the
Wiitewater River Channel. This has resulted in a threat to pL*lic health and
safety due to the runoff. In addition, the uncontrolled runoff has resulted in
damage to private p**y and * to p:tlic streets.
me city, thrc*h its Redevelopment Agency, plans to construct *jor flood control
facilities al*the east and *t sides of the Cove. This syst*m, **le cons*ted
to accept local drainage, does not include a conveyance system to collect the local
drainage.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City currently has no public admistration and community buildings, such
as City Hall, a Community Center, a public Iibrary, or permanent Corporation
Yard, all of *ihi* are warranted * curr*it and anticipated City p**]*tion.
2. The only public safety building within the City, the existing fire station on
Avenue 52, is inadequate to serve the health and safety needs of the current
and future residents.
3. me City's only local park is in**eguate to serve the *nt recreational
* of the residents.
4. The current road system, including associated bridges, traffic control devices
and related facilities, will be inadequate to serve future population needs
due to inadequate width, poor condition of exisiting pavement.
5. *Iiile regional flood control improvements will resolve m*ny * related
to drainge, major improvements of the local storm drain system will be required
to provide adequate flood protection for current and future residents.
9-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D SE*TI* III
DESCRIPTION
OF
NEEDS
It should be evident fr*n the * Section that there are major areas in the
general cate*ory of public buildings and facilities in *lich the City has serious
deficiencies. Th order to establish a program to specifically relate these
deficiencies to the impacts associated with growth, it is then necessary to identify,
in detail, each needed public facility and to identify, to the ext*t feasible, the
estim*ted cost for pr*Tiding that facility. As a result, City Staff has pr**d a
description and estimated cost breakdown for each needed public facility. This
detailed description is contained in the ensu* tables.
Th establi*iing a capital improvement program, it is necessary to determine a time
frame over *ddi the desired *r**t*nts would be o*str*. Th this case, the
tixr* frame selected has been ten 10) years or 1995. Th order to then relate these
iz**raveeents to * and deve*ent, various projections have been m*de of popula-
tion and o**ial grc*h for the oorre*onding l*year period. It is ferteer
evident that the are additional City projects *id will be necessary beyond the
l0-yea* tm* frare selected. It is envisioned that these will be * into the
program in en*ing years as scme of these facilities are *trected and deleted fran
the progran.
*en reviewing the attached tables listitg those public buildings and facilities that
are needed in the City within the i*f 10 years, you *ild be a**re that the estimates
are primarily based up*i discussions with other cities in the Coae*la valley and
Riverside Cooty **hich have recently had experience with costs associated with those
facilities. This information has been used to prepre apprc*riate descriptions of
facilities and to prepare cost estimates for those facilities. There will
obviously be incr*ses in the costs of facilities during the course of the lO*year,
time period and it will be necessary to pr**ide for some adjustment in the fee program
usim* a stansard construction index, the Consumer Price Index or some similar mechanism.
It Tnay even be preferable to sin*ly do a new update in cost adjustment rather than the
index approach.
The needed infrastructure has been broken into a series of categories which include:
o Public Buildings
o Public Safety Buildings
9-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D o *reational Facilities
o Bridges
o *jor Thorc**hfares
o **fic Signals
o Pedestrian Signals
It *ld be noted at this time that there are several Tm*jor areas of infrastructure
needs *hich are not included in this program. These principally include schools,
*tiich are currently governed by a separate program, arx* drainage facilities.
with regard to schools, it has been determi that the mitigation fee program was
seperately established in oonjunction with each of the t* affe*ted school districts.
Since these programs are already operational and since each district is responsible
for actual collecton of funds, it seems reasoaable to exclude that need fr*t' the
program being developed here and this program has been designed with that *tliios**y
in mind.
Th the devel**t of this program, Staff initially included drainage facilities
within the fee program; h*ever, further exa**tion jidicated that since this fee
**uld vary significantly, fran area to area, based upc*i the particular drainage
d*racteristics of a particular drainage area, that it saneh* sewed ir*nsiste*t
with the City*ide ccncept *isioned by the inpreeeeents identified in the following
*les. As a result, it seemed appropriate to har*11e drainage separately. It is
still intened that the City Engineer develop a master plan for drain*ge, a preliminary
estimate for drainage needs within each area, and a fee program *ijlich will likely be
related to appr*als under the &**V*5*on *p Act. It did not, *ver,
sistent with the intent of this program to include it here even t*gh there still
r**ins an ovvious need for drainage related infrastrccture.
*n public *iildings * with the program includes the following:
o City Hall and *re *cp*nsion.
o public Lihrary
o Qxr[rLmity Center
Public *rks Corporation Yard
Careful effort has been made to aaalyze size needs within the 10-year period specified
and to detenne unit otsts and tottl costs based on today's dollars. As established
in the following table, it is estlitated that during the next 10 years, the City will
need $6,320,000.00 for these public buildings.
Public safety Buildings have been *aluated and it has been determ*ed that the
principal need in this area will be fire stations and related *uipeent. It is
estim*ted that three fire stations will be need, one of **ijch is a planned replace-
*t of the e*ing facility. Costs identified in this program were primarily
10
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2Dupdated fran the Riverside County Fire D*ent. It has been determined that a
Public Safety Building will not be needed by the City within the nest 10 yaars.
The City Hall facility has been sized to ao*mdate this need during that time
period. O,er the n*t 10 years, the total cost need for P*lic Safety alildings
will be $3,310,000.00.
Th the category of Recreati* Facilities, it has been determined, based upon estimated
pooulation and using the low range of the QLiiir*y Act staix*ard of three acres per 1000
pooulation, that approximately 67 acres of recreatioaal land will be needed over the
neet 10 years. **ile this report does not identify specific locations for that park
land, it is nevertheless able to identify acreage needs, cost Per acre for land, cost
per acre for typical recreation jir*rov*ts. In addition, a major ocunity pool
facility has been included within this program, principally because it appears to be
a major c*t**ty need based upon a survey recently conducted thr* the City r*s-
letter. It is estimated that the total cost need for Recreation Facilities over the
neet 10 years will be $7,550,000.00.
The nest coeecnent of the infrast*ure program is Bridges. The Staff has identified
seven bridges that either need to be widned or constructed. * two of the
bridges identified both i* oees) are beyond the 10-year, time fr* being used in
this program and, as a resLilt, have been excluded fran the total at this tine. Five
bridges * to be widened include two on **lingtai Street, one on Eisenhower
*ive and two on Jefferson Street. All of these bridges are 100% cost to the City
with the exception of the Jefferson Street bridge at the a *ijnta Channel, *idi
should be a shared cost with the City of Thdio. The total cost of bridge needs in
the next 10 years is estimated to be $5,330,000.00.
*jor Thorou*hfares is the i*I o***nent of the program. Major Tha*ares have
been *erst* to mean those roads identified on the current Circulation El*t
of the General Plan as collectors, seo**ary roads, major highways and arterial
highways. The foll*wing table has identified right-of*y needs, * area and
curb and gutter needs and, in certain cases, medan costs; but has not identified
* as a car*onent of this program. The Major Thoro*are program would
envision that all of the identified *- in the General Plan Cirlulation Elenent
should be constructed to their full width within the 10-year tine. period. It is
estimated that the cost of this Major Thorou*hfare program will be $25,651,000.00.
The last r**innng ca*ts * for the infrastructure fee program are
*affic Signals and Pedestrian Signals. Staff has identified, by location, each
of the Traffic and Pedestrian Signals **ich would be neeed over the *se of the
next 10 years. It should be noted that a ni*rter of these signals, because of the
locations, * not be 100% cost to the City. It involves sharing either with
the County of Rivrrside or the City of lndio. Iwicusly, the program costs envisioned
at this cost sharing will be able to occur. O,er the oc*irse of the next 10 years, it
is estimated that $1,125,000.00 will be necessary to construct needed T*f fic and
Pedestrian Signals.
11
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D Ii s*, the needed inf rastn*ure program as identified in the attached tables
*i*d result in the following:
P*lic Buildings $ 6,320,000
Public Safety I*iildi 3,310,000
4, qe*, * 11.1
Re*reati*a1 Facilities 7,**0,00C
Bridges 5,330,000
*7 7Z3, * 4'J
Major *r*]hfares * 52.1%
2+
Traffic & Pedestrian Signals 1,l2*,00O *T3%
100.0%
Based upon the program and infrastructure needs identified in this r*rt, it can be
seen that nearly $50,000,000 with the *ublic infrastruebire is necessary to provide
ad*uate service to the City of La *inta's residents over the next 10 years. As
has been disaussed previ*sly, it is not reas*le to expeat the entire program of
infrastructure to be cm. struated through a fee program on new devel**ir*nt. Th order
to provide a reasonable relationship justification for the infrartructure program,
it is re*i'* that these infrastruature costs be fairly a*rtioe'd beteeen
existing deve**t and new develo*xt*t. This wculd result in the fol1*y:wg a*or-
Exist* Deve1o*xt*nt 36.2%
Future D*ve1c*xt*it 63.8%
* a*plied to the 10-year infrastnrture program, this W*11* irxlicate that
deve1*ent *ould be fairly apporti* to provide a oontrlhition to future infra-
struat* needs thr**h the fee program in the total amuunt of $31,444,468.00. The
r*ainm* differoce of $17,841,532.00 *cilld need to be deeel*ed frrm other funding
souroes available to the City, ir*iuding gas tax funds, grants, assessment districts,
*11o-* Dittricts, and other available tmding u**ni*ns.
12
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D 0 o o 00 0 0* 0 0 00 a a
00 0 * 0a 0 0* 0 0 00 *
00 0 00 0 00 Q 0 00 0 0
CO C * C* Ln CC Lh Ln CO C C
CO 0 *C * WLn *
C C
I I H H
i4*ti
Co I I*Co*i'
w
In
In
* * * C CCC*
*C *C *
CC* C* CC C Ln
0 * *
I *. H
U
+
H *-ICo
** *-ICo*
C,)
i'2* *-4Co
HCI!Ln* I;
C In C 0
o C
H
u*I U
U
B
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D
*
*li
a
*
8 0**0 0* 0* 0* 0
*Ln W'0 *LO 02*
*
* *
H
i'* Ii I
I*HW
802
+ H
H
H
* H
* w.
I0*
4'>' *00* *`000**
0
I
H
I
Ln*
U U
H
AL-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D
0
0
0
o
43 I
a
I
Co
o a e
0
00* 11
a a *
w
0
U
VA'
0
hAL
I 1*
+ I* * U,'9
* U
LnOW
I
I I
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D 0 0 0 *4-' 0
0 0 0 0 OU 0
8 * oo: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 *4t 0
0 * 0
0
* * Ln
Ir
Ln
I
iw*
w
I I
0 0
0 p
0 * 0* 0* * * *w 00*O
w * 0
8
J*I* ii dp0 *H00 * *
a)
0
I
0 0
S *0! MI M* 011,1
*1;' Iii" *pi I I I!
H* 5B* E* El
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D 0010 00010 0001 * 000 0 00010 000 0
0010 0000 00010 000 0 00010 000 0
0010 00010 00010 0000 0001* 0000
* I
N?*1 * * *W4LnW)*LnLfl*
8
*
* *
00**
00* 0*
0 0 *0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0
I,]
a,
1 I*..* I...
0
H
*
A
0 0tfl* * * * *
c.'mN**vv:.'* * 0W0'0:3!H** 00** * *
* *
I I* I I
ii' i*i
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D 0000 0 000 000 1*e 000000
00
000
0000 0 000
*o00 0 000 0*0
U
w
1
Al
* * *\0Ln
A
liii * 1<11 *
8 1 1* I
In
In In
liii
*
1+ ** I o:*j*;;.**.
i i
I'
4"
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D Co 000 C 0 *tI
00100 000 0 * 0 000 *o*o*o 8
Co I 0010 * 0 CO
Co 000 0 00000 0 000 e
00000 0 000
0J0*
* * * *1
1
**.
I i..;1I*i Ii f** i**i1 I
CO *
C *
0 0 *
0 * 0
0.0
w *
0
U
i*
I I
+
II
I *
wuJ
0 * *0 0
IJ *u.
00**** C b.* *
LJ 0.--1** *
WLfl**
* ** * CO * * *
I jjijJ
I I
i i
g::
0
0Lfl iii
I
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 Ln if Ln C
H 0 0
I H
It,>
4 4
* 0001 1 8* I *o*1 0001! 0001 1
** HOC CO
+ * 4* w t,>HJE
H
U
H
*j*!$Ugo *b*: 8* CL* u;*>' * u;;*>' A
**-`8 **8
8 *8 *
*dp * * *C
* C 0 0 0 C Ln C
W* *H *H *H *H * WLn
*Ln;* *
I I; jWHj *j ICi* if *i IIH IHIW* *`
I* I!
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO CO *0 CO CO 0 0
0 0
Ln in ll*
Ln0 tn0 0 U it
in
I
00*
5
a) Ln *
8 C*
U, CI
II,
U
9
i*t>9*
8 *8 *8 **8
z LiC *
0
w *in *in * *in *-E
0 * Ii* uLn*
I I! II II II
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2 D 0 *0 0 0 0000000 000010
00000 00000 *0o0 0
00001
0000 00000 * 00000 * *
ONLfl*Ln *
* 0 0N
* *Ln-Ln 0'
4
*. a. 9* a. 9. a.
*
*
a aa*'8*'3 *
Ia a Ii
o 0
0
0
* 0
In-
1 1
*a0*0
I
I
I
90* 0 0
I a0'* * *
U * *
000*** *9
I I I I I
I
I 31
0
I
0*
I
I H
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2!D 0 0
*0QO. 0010 a tO 0 *
OQ * * * 0
* 4
CA
0
CL
0
I
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2"D 0
0
In
0
I
Ir In
1> 1>
*1
I!H* *
H
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2#D S*TION Iv
FUNDING
CONSTRAINT S
E'Ten a quick glance thr*h preceding Section III clearly indicates that the City has
significant needs in the area of inf rastructure. One IrList then oonsider *t*t cptions
the City has in responding to these needs. Certainly, a fee program * on new
develc***t is not the only available * and, in fact, it **i1d be noted that
the design of the City's infrastructure fee *rosm does not rely solely upon new
devel**ent for funding.
Within one of the appedices, a previous report prepar** by the City Attorney)
discusses certain existing authorities available to the City through its devel*xr*nt
a*raval p**-; to seure needed infrastructure i.e., park and raceation through
the * Act, drainage fees through the &*division *p Act, etc.). *liie these
r**in available and, in fact, will pr*ably be used for drainage, they can occur on
a pi*eal and sporadic basis **hich is frequently not oonsistent with needs. These
a**ro*d*es basically rely * exactions on deeelo*ir**t projects.
* City of La *iinta also generates rev*e fran a nur**er of other sources including
gas tax, reeenue sharing, and general fund property tax, sales tax, occL*pncy tax,
etc.). It *oL*d, hoeever, be evident that these fddds will never be sufficient to
*port an inf*tructre prggr*n of the scope that is * For exxxple, gas tax
is ab*t $100,000 a year and revenue sharing is estssated to be $38,784 in FY 94-95
and is likely to be cut by the Federal Gc'veriinent anyway. The General Fuii3 is a
little less than $2,000,000 for FY 84-85, but nearly all of it is needed to pay for
general *ernrental need rather than for major capital projects.
OtI*r opportuhities that might be available ir*lude asses*rent districts, **lo-Roos
districts, redevelc**nt ag*icy funds and grants, but for the most part, these *
n*hanisms cannot be effectively inpl*rented on a City-wide basis. So, *A*e they
might be used for * of the needed projects, th* just are not practical *thods to
use for such an extensive program, as is *
It s*uld also be pointed out that at least s*re of these *rces will have to be
*ed for the 36* of the program that cannot be *ed by new develo**t*nt. Th fact,
it will likely be a major struggle to generate all of these furKis.
13
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2$DAn* familiar with the City's *et and available reverve * with little
hesitati*, realize the cle*r and present need for an infrastructure fee pr*gr*ri
su* as is being oont*Tplated. There should also be little d*2bt that * of the
need for this inf rastructure program is generated dir*tly * the major, new
devel*xnent projects on the imt*diate horizon.
14
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2%D s*rIot* V
ALTERNATE
*ETHODOLOCIES
Th pre*i*s discussic*is relative to the infrastruc*e fee progr*n, it has been
*ieent that there is a desire to develop at least two alternate a**ro*dies to
the fee progr**. The current interim fee is based u*n a flat fee a*roach. It
also arrears desirable to consider a ir*thodology based i*on a varying fee.
It will be neciessary to f* appro*tely $31,444,468.00 fr*n new resid*itial,
*K*I*ial and related deeelo*it*nt. It has * necessary to prepare vari*is
projecti*is ceer the 10-year period of the progr*n * order to relate esti*
groth to the fir*ds neeed for iffrastructure. S*te detail on how the projections
* generated are ir*1* in apperdices *ich are attached to this report,
alt*coh they wil* be briefly discussed *ere appropriate in this secticn.
RME NETWIOGY
This approach W*11* levy a fee based *` a *ecified percentage of the k*dj
permit valuation assigned to new oontrtction. The variable rate approach is
deermed as follc*s:
24,194, *
o * to be Funded $ 31,444,4*8
o $ 925,000,000
See * for Residential
Pez*uit Valuation *thoc*1ogy
o * Gr*th $ 204,700,000
See * for C*mercial
Peimit Valuation *thodo1ogy
2.*5
$ 31;444,A*0
F]
$925,000,000 + $204,700,000 *% f *rmit Valuation
15
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2&DIt s*uld be understood that 9*iilding pex*t valuation" is different than both
sales price arx* assessed valuation. It is based up*n stardardized tables u*dated
S*ni*nnually * the Thternational *nf*oe of *ildix* officials I*).
flAT R*TE ME*I*W*Y
This approach *ild levy a fee based up** a per unit" for***la for residential and
a per acre" foz*t'ila for ocxrir*rcial, industrial and related uses. The flat rate
approa* is determir*d as follows:
krount to be P'r**ed $ 31,444,468
o * Growth 6,941 *h*ts
See **i'e for Pc*u1ation/*ir*
Projection *t1*dology
o *ia1 Growth 235 Acres
See * for *imercial Growth
Projection *tho*logy
o *ti.o of O*it*ercial Gr*h/*identi Growth 1 Acre/lO *s
See * for Determination of
Ratio
Q*Et**ial A*rtio*m*t
$2,858,588 $12,164/Acre Ibmd off to $12,200)
235 *---
*identi *ron'ent
$28,585,890 $4,U8/nnit P*x* off to $4,100)
6,941 Units
16
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2'D SE*TIGN VI
DISCUSSION
AND
ANALYSIS
It is inportant to stress that the purpose of the conteeplated *mucity Irif rastructre
Fee Program is not to m*ke the develorers oocng into the c*mnity pay for *er*thi,
or to imake their projects infeasible, or to *oessarily burden thEti with unfair
inpositions. Rather, it is the pprpose of this progr*n to, in a fair and reasonable
manner, establish a Caccunity Infrastructure Progran' in *ich the de**l*irent ccKt*ty
is one c*tp**t, abbeit a major c*tponent primarily due to strong groth trends *ich
are currently ir*cated. The * of this report has been to identif* the c**nity' S
needs and to deeelop a prggram *hich can, in a fair and reasoonble *er, respood to
those needs. It is, therefore, inportant to fully re*gze these *j*ves in deter-
mrning *hich iret*dology is used to izrplement the program and **ijch guidelines are used
in the program' S c*eration.
General *
The infrastn*t* fee * has been part of the City's policy for nearly a year.
During that tirrE, an *ctensive list of cormunity infrastructure to be potentially
funed under the *gram has been maintaned in a(*litions of appro**al, * and
other City do*ents. This infrastrucure program has been intended to in*lude various
**blic buildings, *lic safety facilities, major tho*hfares, bridges, signals,
SchoOls, drainage and other izr*ortant eleeents of that jirportant * ba*one
**hich is called infrastructure. Th eaaluating the details associated with the permanent
fee program, it a*ears that at least two *oeents of the program previously considered
for inclusion *uld not be handled Separately. These are schools and drainage.
The mitigaticri fees associated with schools ha**e been previously eslished separate
from the *rr*ty Infrastruure Fee Program. These furxls, *hich are currently
collected at a rate of $628.00 a unit, are collected directly * the school district
* provides a periodic aco*ting to the City relative to their use. *use the
program is *ted separately, with separate collection, it apears best to not ir*lude
fees for schools within this pent*t infrastructrre fee program. AIthogh, the fact
that the fee is being collected needs to be recognized in an overall analysis of fees
attached to biildin* and develcpt*t.
17
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2(DDrainage is another * of the infrastructure fee prggran *hich is not seen
best suited * considered with other infrastruoture which has City*ide inpacts.
Drainage has a tendency to have localized effects and as a rusult, it seens a**risable
to review drainage under the pro*7isions of the SL*VisjOn M* Act and its related
authorities. Th essence, this *ild call for the preparation of a master plan of
drainage which *uld establish several different drainage areas within the o*myiity
for *ich a drainage fee *i*d *enly be de*ried. Since this rate will vary fran
location to location within the City, unlike the infrastructure fee program as
*irrently designed, it *uld *i best to handle this separately.
Flat Rate Versus Variable Rate Fee
It sholid be fairly evident that the flat rate foritij* differs fran the variable rate
fonrijla in a n*er of *ers. For *le, the variable rate fo*a is int* to
m*e the fee ore consistent with the value as deternined for building permits only)
of the structure. This basic pranise is that a $70,000 hsuse *ot absorb, in a fair
and reasonable *ner, the saae fee as a $150,000 hosse. This jirportant difference is
particularly lrt*)rtant if the City is going to maintain Sate rea**nably affordable
housing stock. It should be racalled that the initial cut of the interim infrastruct*
fee included a provision to aco*tiodate this iit*ortant *unity need. It does *ear
that the variable rate pr*ram can aoo**lish this * with*t the a*pa:rent stigma
of identifying partcular areas as *re or less affordable.
the flat rate fee w*d pro*ly be a little easier to a&Thnister because there
*ild be little di*ite as to *t a unit is, *i*ez*as there may be dispute over 1**w
value is detennined, the flat rate fee *ild likely place an ir*eased burden on those
least able to pay.
Th ca*ing the two methodologies, it is in*ortant to understand that the variable
rate program is based on building permit valuation, as deermi fran standard tables
p*red by the Thternatioaal Q*'iference of Building officials. It is not a *
based on anticip*ted sales prioe or on the values determined by the County Assessor.
It is also inorant to understand that the ICBO tables, in the area of resid**taal
housing, do * distinctions between good and average housing. Fbr the *t part, it
has been City policy to apply the ter!n tmgood housing" and the fee associated therewith
to custan houses and to oondaninjwn and related o*intry club projetts. The City has
applied the average category in the table to all other housing. With r*ct to per-
8guare-foot valuations for other uses, the table is fairly e)censive and detailed;
alt** on occasion, judgr*nts will have to be made as to * category a*plies to
*iiich type of str*. All of this w*d primarily occur in the * and
m*ustrial area. Siooe the I* tables are fairly a*pted and * used, it is
hoped that this will rni!u**e any dispute that might occur * the deteennation of
pennit valuation.
Ccx*ison With Other *ac**ella Valley Cities
Within the * of this report, there is a ii*i* *izr*izing residential devel*itent
fees for other *aniti within the Coadiella Valley and a table *hich prvvides a
18
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2)D n*)re detailed l:*akresn of fees associated with OOnstttotion of Bin*le-fa*iy
dwellings. For pprpose of ocirparison, the fees have been broken down for a $70,000
residence approx*tely 1380 square feet with an atta* 400-squar*foot garage)
and a $130,000 residence aF*roximately 2150 square feet with an attaceed 50*sguar*
foot garage). At the present time, fees currently d*a*ed by the City of La **ijnta
place us in approx*tely the rni&*1e of the range in both of the prttotypes used for
the **irpose of this analysis.
Th considering the proposed **thodologies for the c*rmunity Iflfrastructur* Fee Program,
it should be * that the infrastructure fee program, as proposed, *uld virtually,
in all cases, nvve the City of La *inta to the top of this list. * further illustrate,
if the flat fee program describ** in Se*tion V is utilized, the s'* of fees for the City
of La Quinta for the $70,000 prototype *ld be $8,630, *ich would place us s*te $2,000
above the current nwtter one, * is the City of Palm *rings. *lying the flat fee
to the $130,000 prototype *ild yield a fee of $8,840, *ich **uld be
$1,500 *re than the current n*zrt)er one, * is again the City of Palm *rings.
If the variable rate fo*la were *:*1ied to the oththeise current fees, the $70,000
residence would have a Co*ity Infrastructure Fee of $1,960, *`ilich * raise the
total fee for the $70,000 prot*type to $6,490, *ilich *ild leave the City in seo*
place on the list. *en reviewin* the $130,000 residence, the variable rate fee w*d
be $3,640 for a*nounity infrastruct*, yielding a total of $8,380, * * be
appr*rately $1,000 higher than the cur*t flLKr*er one.
It is evident that any substantive *iange in the fees char* by the City of La Quita
will ir*ve us f* the middle of the list to the top *en *rparing with other cities
in the Coachella Valley. It should, however, be clearly understood in doir* so, that
*ihi1e' there is a*I*titic11 aii*iy cities in the dev**t business, that each city has
certain uniqi* diaracteristics in te*ns of its tppe of deve1**it*nt, its * *or-
tuflities, its bid*et constraints and its resour* **ties. As an exrrple, the
nore establi*ed, older cities receive n'*d* *re extensive revenue in tern* of sales
tax and transi*t *pancy tax, gas tax and other resources that are *ently availible
to the City of La *iinta. In light of stroog residential gttwth tr*s and in light of
the *turing of * pr*rty tax, for the nost part by the *devel*ir*nt Agcy,
it sirply *ot be eepec* that the City of La QLiinta will have *iaable to it the
* res*es to facilitate infrastructure that are available to other cities in the
valley. As a result, this a*p*s to place us in a *c*re*t unique situation and, to
some *ct*it, * the value of *rparisons.
possible *b&ifioations to the Fee Program
Th previous disiussions on the issue of the *rrrrunity Infrastruct* Fee * there
has been consideration to establishing certain ex**ons fmn the fee. *hese *
can generally be brcken into two categories, *i'hidi are ex*rpting Sele*ted areas or
* selected gr*s/*sons* Th the Initial interim fee program, effort *s m*de
to ex*rpt certain selected areas, or at least offer th*n a reduced fee. There *s at
least sooe negative ba*dash L*1 this effort that the public purposes t* *hich the
19
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2*DC'ty relied to aoo*lish this reduction stigmatized the selected area branding it
as loeer oost housing. As a result, this reaction n*es it less desirable to **tpt
*rtain selected areas.
Consideration nust th* be given to the feasibility of **t*ting selected *ps or
persns. Within the body of the current draft of the Resolution *hich *`11d a&pt
the *anent infrastructure fee program, there are currently two *cETptons *
Che is for projects done by g**eriimant agencies and the second is for lo*o*t housing
projects this *c*i1d be sub*ect to City Council appraval). It has further been
suggested that there may be other * or pe*s apprc*riate for *c*tpticris. Fbr
*c*nple, the City has previously ex*ed those plot plans *ich have been s**injt*
or approved prior to the establisinent of the interim fee program. There are *estions
that owner/hifiders s*u1d be considered for * fr*ri the program sir*e these
houses are built for r**ial *X1r!*ses; i.e., the o*t*ncy of a particular cener
or b*ilder. There may also be other gr*]ps or classes of per* that could be *
sieered for * fran the program.
There is significant concern that each *cETption be carefully evaluated using the
criteria established in the City Attorney's * *iich is contained in the
of this re**rt. It would seem essential that any * TrIlst *et a fair and
reascnableness test to assure that, in fact, the fee p*ram does not end up being
discriminatory to s*te other * Using the oener/*xiiider exarr*le SU*9ested *ave,
it w*i1d se*n that the follonnng concerns *ld mitigate against such an *lusion:
It is scoeti difficult to distingu* beb*en the true
oeeer/builder and the for-profit huieder and this diffi-
culty **uld create at least a&nnistrative difficulties.
o An * of this sort could significantly cut into
POtential re',ei* needed to sustain the program.
o This epep*ion may also fail the fair and rea*nable test by
9*ng.ly direcing the bulk of the progr*n to the devel*
*t o*Thunity.
ii*e this *le was intended for illustrative F'lrp* only, it should be ntted
that any *c*ptions consieeed should be evaluated in essentially the same m*ner.
It *ears to the Staff that the two P*sed *ettti(*w i.e., * ager*ies
and l**L I**ing projects) represent valid ***lic *POses *hich *i1* stand the
close court *zru*y that may be necessary to assure that this program is fairly and
reasonably a*plied.
Credits
Within the * Resolution, consideration is given to cr*lits for infrastructure
that is provived as part of a particular project. *i*e the program is not fully
de*ed out, it is likely that the higher end projects, typically associated with
o*untry club and related deve1*rents will be able to reduoe the fee to soce degree
by actial constrcction of irr*ro*eeents i*tif ied in the program and * receive
credit therefor. As an *le at the present time, no crerit is given for road
20
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2+Dirpravements curr*tly constructed in oonjunction with developeent projects. Since
that represents a significant portion of the program as currently designed, cradits
associated with that *iould reult in direct reductions in the fee an**t. It is
inportant to *i'i7e that the credit program accOoplishes the sart* *ees as
getting the infrastructure constructed and should be r*ognized as such * beth the
City and the devel*t ca*ty.
Tirre of Collecton
Previ*is1y, in the interim program, it was deterned to 9Cxt* d*ree the I*ir* of
collection of the inf rastructur* fee could be deferred fran xiilding permit time to
occupancy permit tixt*. This was basically intened to *OO*te projects *
had * financing and * could not absorb the additional cost associated with
the infrastructure fee program. It does not a*pear that this oonsiderati W*11* be
appropriate for the perit*t fee prggram since a 6O*y warning **i1d be in effect
prior to the i'tplementation of the new fee.
Periodic t*date
The infrastructure fee program as identified and designed within this report will need
to be u*dated on a periodic basis. Consideration had been given to using a construction
ixeax to account for future costs, since all costs identified in the program are based
on cur*ent dollars. Wiile this may ultimately be the irost feasible way to *oach
n*eased future costs, Staff is concerned that an a*ropriate index be selected and,
to date, has not been able to determine &lich w*d be most satisfactory. As a result,
it *ould a*:pear desirable to leave this questici * for reonsideration during the
first periodic review of this program. Since the City is curr*Uy involved in the
prep*tion of a * Plan, it likely that consideration *ild be given to a
review of the innrastru*ure fee program *rtly after the G*eral Plan precess is
completed. This would allow us to lo*c at all costs in the program and detezine an
appri**iate nehnd to assure that there is sufficient funus available in the future
based on inflation and other eccmic factors that cannot be reasonably anticipated
at the preeent *
Cor*us ion
It is the judgrt**t of the Staff that the c*tw*ty Infrastructure Fee Program is an
absolutely essential *ept *hich is *-* to provide the tppe of infrastructure
**ich is both desired and neeed within the c*tnity. Wiile there may be n*r*is
ways to design a poogram of this sort, it se*ns that the two basic itethodol*ies
evaluated within this report present a re*able range to consider and gives several
*ions to the decision maker. It is * that after careful review and considera-
tion of the dettils cocerning this * contaned herein that there should be
support for a prg*am of the tppe e*isioned.
21
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2,D S*TI* VII
RECOMMENDED
ACT ION
It is the staff reo**ndati* that the * Infrastruct* Fee Progrun be
* as follows:
Adoptic* of the N*ative *larati*
o * the F*gs in the jitpl*renting Resoluti*
o * the *luticxi establi*in* an bifrastructure
Fee using the Variable Rate *th* with the fee beir*
2.8% of the pei*uit vaiuati*
22
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2-D APPEDIX IA
CRITERIA U* * DEVE[*P P*ULA*I*
P*WE*TI*S USE IN ThE *?li]iii
FEE P*GRAM
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2.D MEMORANDUM
CPTY OF LA QUINTA
To lawrence L. Stevens, Al* *xtirunity Devel*:i*nt Director
From Gary Price, Associate Planner
Date *rci 11, 1985
Subject Criteria Used to Deeel* P*u1ation Projectiorks for Use in the
*ltmknity lnfrastn*e F* Progran
* following reeort describes how the subject pc**ilatixi estitesiprojectians set
forth in the memo to y"'i dated February 28, 1985, refer to Atta*ent A) *re
developed.
P*atic*i projecti*1estimates *re based on a cx*tbinatian of two studies. The
first study is an in**th review of cLirrently *reved projects, applying vacancy
rates and pers* per hcuseeold, in addition to projecting ir*fill devel*ent in
a *liflta's eiisting sudivided areas based an historical oonstructlon rates. The
seo* study is a market analysis taken fr* the draft of the a Q*ta General Plan.
Final p*xilation projectia*s/estirnates **! dete*mii* by aveegir* the two studies'
totals as follows:
P*UIATI* ToThLs
General Plan Approv** Project Final
J*ary 1, *rket Study $t*y Averaged
1990 15,701 16,057 15,900
1995 25,436 21,582 23,500
The estimated 1985 **atic*i estimate is based an taking the State * of
Finance's 1984 records and adding deve1c*it**t to the total. Se**o* p*ibtion
* estimated by the Cb**1a Valley Association of *erm*ts' CW*G) 1980
5easonal poOLkIatim estimate peroentage inc* over the pei***t pculation
estimate and applying this to 1985 estim*tes:
January 1, Pernanant Pc*:Ulation Se*sonal *ulation
1985 6,355 8,452
CW*G 1980 **ent *lation 4,701
1980 seasoral P*ation 6,267 33% Difference
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2/D*UE Iawre*e L. Stev*, AI* * D*ve1*ant Dire*r
Nardi 11, 1985
Pag* 2.
* determining a proj*ted estim*te of housir* units, a oa*ination of the General
Plan Stix*y and *rored Proj*t st* * used. The final luters are an average
of the t*:
January 1, General Plan 5birl* *wved Ptoj* SL* Final
1985 3,913 3,913 3,900
1990 6,574 8,103 7,340
1995 10,650 11,032 10,940
Atdi: *, * 2/28/85
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 20D MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To * L. Stev*, AI* * Z*velc*xr**t Direotor
From *rn*tunity Develc*it*nt Dep*rt:nent
Dete F*bmary 28, 1985
Subject * PR*I* * C?* THE *U**I*z * PT*S
The fo11* are estimates and projetti* of both *K*iSin* and *easoral *ulati*xi.
The estimates ard/or proj*ti*is are baeed ai both a market s*z*y pr*red for the
a *inta G*nera1 Plan and a *iew of ciirrently *roved proj*ts. A *taiied
report, describin* * t*se est:iteslprojeotiorrs were arrived at, is forth*u*.
Please be awere that the population figures are *-*` off to the r*r* 100 and
t* dwelling unit estites are rounded of f to the nearest 10.
* 1 SE*S** P*TI* HOUSI*3 *
1985 6,500 3,900
1990 15,900 7,340
1995 23,500 10,841
PREP* BY:
*ry W. Prioe
Associate *lanner
A
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 21D APPNDIX B
* u* * C(I!EIAL
GIWTh P*i*s
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 22D MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: Thfrastructure Files
*rom: Ia**ren*e L. Stevens, Al* C*tiriinjty *elo:eent Dittctor
Date March 12, 1985
Subject CRI***RIA USE* To DEVEbOP *IAL G!*Th P*3E*Ti*S
This meec is inte**ed to pwvide a more detailed dis*sian of the method used to
pro*ect growth rate for *c:,ercial develc*it*nt NOIE: All references to **cial
devel*t also include offices, irx*ustry, etc.) o**er the 10-year period of the
infrastructure fee pr*gr*n.
It should be understood that these projections are not as well-founded as those used
for residential growth since these are not approved *rri*ial projects. Available
market studies p**ide cNily limited giLidance in these projections.
Discussi* with the City's general plan consultant indicates that a very r*
rule-of-th* is 10-15 acres of * deeelc*tent for each 1000 persons pcoulation).
I have used the lower end figure for the follc** reasc**s:
o * ratio is appr*cirnately 3 Acres/lOGO
o City will likely not en*urage much industrial devel*xrent
Ibtels are not includ* in the stanard
o * fran I(* green bodc" w*d yield less than
100 acres of shcpping centers for the 1995 *ulatic*i
As a result, it is estimated that there will be app*cra*y 235 acres of **ial
dE"**t over the 1985-86 ti* period. Unlike other projections, I have not br*cen
this down to an annual basis.
ILs:dm*T
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 23D APPEDIX IC
CRITERIA U* * I*VEL* RATIO BETWEE
REsI[*IAL AND *EFCIAL *J1*
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 24D MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To Infrastructure Files
From Iawrer* L. Stevens, M* Q:it*riinity * D*ctor
Date Mar* 12, 19B5
Subject CRITERIA US* * * *TIO BEIWE*** RESIL**L, AND C*E**IAL
GR**Th
Since the c*ri*ial and residential c*t*onents of the flat rate *roach are
on different standards acres vs units), it is necessary to determine a reasonable
*rticm*it between them.
The selected ratio of one acre of **ial grc*th to 10 acres of residential growth
is also based on the 10-acres/bOO st* discussed in the *in*ial Grcoh
Projection neeo.
Essentially, the *roach *lied is as follows:
1. 10 acres of c*n*ia1 devel*t for eadi 1000 residents,
**lidi is also one acre for ead* 100 residents.
2. E*di 100 residents ir**its 45 dwelling units, using 2.2
pers*is per dwelling units derived fran p**ilation and
housim* projecti*is).
3. Eadi 45 dwelling uxiits o*t*ies **mateiy 10 acres of
residential derived fr*n overall residential density of
4-5 dwelling urlits per acre).
There*re, *imate1y 10 acres of residential land creates a need for * acre of
**ial lard on a City*ide basis.
It s*uld be noted that, as with the * gro* projectic*s, these ratios are
i*L as wel1-f*inded as might be *ired. * do represent a reasonable j*geent to
a ratioaal relati*ip between two, *t fully related, categories.
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 25D APPEIX ID
A*ICIP VAWATI*S r*1 RESI*IAL
BUIDING PEF*I* P* *iIAT.Ty *
1995
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 26D MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To Iawrecce L. St*ens, AICP **ttrwiity Develc*itent Dire*r
From Gary W. Price, Associate Planner
Date * 11, 1985
Subject Anticipated Valuations fr*n Residential Building Permits Proje*ted
Annii*y to 1995
This report discusses a projecton of permit valuations the City of La Quinta can
anticipate frcxn residential building penrLits thr*igh the neet 10 years. These
projections are based on the following ass*zrq*ais:
1) That the specified a*roved projects in the attached are developed
in * generally as *icated and no other similar projects are
approv* in the future;
2) *at the curr*t I* tables are used to deter* values as
La *ilnta with an annual average increase of 3% as projected by
the City's alief Building In*ectcr; and,
3) That ir*f ill de*elope*t will occur as piojected, based on historic
counts in the existi* su*divided areas of La *
TbI*' anticipated residential ixijiding permit valuations fran projects in La *ijnta
during the years 1990 and 1995 are as follows:
January 1,
* 1985 1990 $ 490,350,000
1990 1995 434,620,000
1990 1995 $ 925,000,000 **-` off)
* The 1985-1990 estimate has be*i adjusted not to include projects
**iich have already taken out building permits prior to a*ted
infs**t* fees.
G*:dmv
Atchs: Thbles
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 27D
*
0 0 *
*
4 *IIo.
*--
4
10
4
*
*
1
e
I
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 28D Et'u
tf*j.;";:i1 IL11r**
Th*
1%
I;
II
II
II*
N
V'
1
3
II
I
*1-
p
*II
J
*uI
N
Ua.
0
*1
II
C
C
3
en V
C
HZ_
C
C
C t
4
t
C
II *
3
0
0
* 3
4
3
C
* *;-k **
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 29DLJ*'
I
I
I-
I
II
II
IL
II
I-.
*II
2
II N 0
0 *
b N
*
8.
4
4
0
t
*
e
\)1..--
U'
*.. *
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2:D APPDIX IE
AN ANALYSIS * *1*4EE*IAL *IWIM PEI*T
aVER 19B*1995 PERi*
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2;D MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To lnfrastrucsure Files
From * L. Stevens, AI* C**ty Develc*ir**t Dire*r
Date: M*di 12, 1985
Subject: AN A*YSIS * *IAL BUflDIN* PERMIT W**S *ZER
ThE 1985-1995 PERIOD
This LL*[LJ is intended to p*vide s*re ba*groued on how o*ti*cial permit valuations
used in the variable rate net**logy established.
As before, the 235 acres of cayoercial deveio*iot derived for the 10-acre/bOO persons
standards serves a base. Q:**rercial develo**ent typically *vers 35-45% of a lot *th
i:*liidings, 50 40% lot *verage was assu*. This yields an estimated *uare footage
of a little o'jer 4,000,000 square feet of o*rmrcial de*relopeant on the 235 acres
est*mated to be devel*ed o*er the 10-year, tine frame.
*ile I* per s*u* foot valuation figures vary oonsiderably for different types of
**iai de'*e*t, the fo1lowin* ranges are typical:
Irdustrial $15/Sq.Ft.
*tail O*u*rcia1 $45/Sq.Ft. $55/Sq.Ft.
offices $55/Sq.Ft. $651Sq.Ft.
bialuation of these ranges results in using $501Sq.Ft. for all **cial develc**nt
yielding a*r*cirm*tely $205,000,000 in permit valuation for oor*jal d*elopant
* the n*ct 10 ye*rs.
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2<D APPED II
SURVEY OF NEW RESIDE* IEVEL*ME!*
IN THE *
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2=D MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: Lawr*ce L. Stevens, AICP * DEVelO**flt Dir**r
From: Gary W. Pri*, Associate Planner
Date Marcb 11, 1985
Subject SLL'*ey of * Resi*tial Develo*rent Fees im the Coa*ella Valley
A survey * taken between F*bruary 28 and M*i 4, 1985, of fees diarg* for new
r*idential d**el*t in the Ccachella valley. The survey includes fees for
*ildir* permits, utility * and other ThlSCel1an* fees *ed to the
ocr*tr'rti* of a $70,000 sing1*family dwelling and a $130,000 O*d*tYcci**rn. The
fees are based on devel*yrents in an existing SL*vision with access to utilities,
including *ter, sewer, gas and electricity. A SurTnary* of results fr* the survey
* pr*ed. Pefer to *1es A-i and A-2.
Survey restilts in*icate that the average devel*irent fee for the $70,000 valued
1*'* is $5,034 with a high of $6,660 Palm Springs) to a low of $3,530 City of
Ir**io). For a $130,000 house, the aeerage is $5,550 with a high of $7,370 Palm
Springs) and a low of $3,790 City of Ir*lio).
The following is a liBt, rar**ing fran high to low, of the fees currently placed on
flew residential d*veloanent * City:
$70,000 I*sidenoe/1,380 sq.Ft. $130,000 *ider*e/*,150 Sq.Ft.
1) Palm Springs $ 6,660 1) Palm Springs $ 7,370
2) Ir**ian *11s 6,070 2) Ir*lian *1ls 6,930
3) Palm Derrt 6,020 3) Palm Desert 6,850
4) * Mirage 5,910 4) *ancho Mirage 6,430
5) la *ijnta 4,980 5) Ia **nta 5,340
6) Desert *t Springs 4,960 6) Desrt *t *rings 5,280
7) Riverside C*znty 4,680 7) Riverside County 4,520
8) Cathedral City 3,885 8) Cathedral City 4,250
9) Coadiella 3,645 9) *achella 4,200
10) Ir*Iio 3,530 10) Indio 3,790
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2>D i5L' *2 * *
* *
V 4
*
V' 4I*'*tt* *
Oi*
Z*[*#mI___
A
4 e
LI
V
*
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2?D
V'
*
V) *
I *
o I *
o I * I I
I*-t** *
I
*
Lii
Lii
*
*
C
5 ** 4-
I
*41 C
9
S *
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2@DAPPDIX III
NEW DEVL**
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2AD FLThI'DING CO*ITy IN*SThuCTuR
ThROUGII EXACTIONS ON NEW DEVEI*FMENT
1. Introduction. Authority. Reasonable Relationship Test.
There is probably no issue in land development law hich has generated more
controversy than that of required dedications, improvements, fees and other exactions
as a condition of development approval. The concept is quite simple in theory. The
developer1 in return for the privilege of developing his land, is required to dedicate
land to public use, make public improvements1 or pay required fees, all needed to
mitigate the impact of the development on the community, provide governmental services
to new residents, and implement the requirements of the local general plan. The posi-
tion of the city is that this arrangement is only fair. The developer has created a
Dew, and cumulatively overwhelming burden on local government facilities, and therefore
be should offset the additional responsibilities required of the public agency by the
dedication of land, construction of improvements, or payment of fees, all needed to
provide improvements and services required by the new development. The developer on
the other band, may contend that he, or his predecessors in interest, have been
paying property taxes on the undeveloped land for years which has benefited the devel-
oped land in the community but not his own; and, he claims the beneficiaries of those
years of taxes, the public, is now disclaiming any responsibility to reciprocate. This
argument now falls on deaf legislative and judicial ears, at least as to conditioning
for basic services such as streets, utilities and park requirements.
The legal authority for the power of a uunicipality to impose exactions as a
condition of development is the constitutional police po*er to protect the public health,
safety and welfare of its citizens. California Constitution, Article XI, Sect. 7.
Additionally, certain state statutes provide enabling legislation for municipal
imposition of specific types of exactions eg. Subdivision Map Act.).
The power of a city to impose Exactions as a condition of development is no longer
in question. The issue is how far can the city go in imposing exactions? The primary
limitation is that the condition imposed must bear a reasonable relationship to the
public needs created by the development. Scrutton V. Co. of Sacramento 1969) 275 Cal.
App. 2d 412, 422. However, it is not required that there be a direct relationship
between the particular project and the particular needs and solutions generated by the
project. Thus, a condition is not invalid only because the required improvement also
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2BDbenefits the City as a *ole. For example, a developer my be required to pay fees
into a fund for future perk, road, and sewer improvements required by the cumulative
impact of flew development. even though the funds may riot be expended for Several
years and the improvements viii Dot be located on the project property. Associated
flome Builders V City of ValDut Creek 1971) *.Cal.3d 633,640. Tvo receDt court of
appeal cases, both of which are now before the California Supreme Court for final
decision, cast some doubt on the municipal authority to impose exactions1 other than
exactions specifically authorized by legislation eg. Subdivision Map Act.), on new
development to fund the cost of capital improvements generated by the Cumulative
impact of such flew development. See Candid Enterprises V. Crossmont School District
Permanent school facilities fee) and 5.l,A. V. City of Oxnard growth requiremen*
capital fee). A method of establishing such capital improvernent ex*ctions to hopefully
avoid reasonable relationship nexus) attacks1 is included as part 4 of this report.
2. Existing & 1eeded Infrastructure Exactions.
This report is not concerned with the usual in-tract" exactions imposed upon
Dew development for basic development needs such as streets1 utilities and design
Conditions. Rather1 this report concerns itself with exactions for off-site capital
improvements which viii benefit both existing and Dew residents general city-wide
benefit) but which are required due to the cumulative impact of Dew development over
a defined time period.
ExiStinR Exacti*s. The city has only three existing exactions for such general
capital improvements, to wit: a) the fire & police facilities & equipment fund and
traffic signalization fund L.Q.M.c. chap. 3.17) which provides for fees based on
square footage of new residential units; b) drainage fees which are applicable
following adoption of an area drainage plan" Ord. #460, Sect. 10.25), pursuant
to enabling Subdivision map act legislation Cov. C. 66483); and c) permanent school
facility fees Res. #84-14). Item a) may be some what defective under the reasonable
relationship test; under item b) there has been Do area drainage plan adopted and,
thus, no fees exacted; and item c) may be pre-empted by subdivision map act
legislation providing for temporary school fees only.
*eeded Exactions. Based upon condition 43 attached to the P.C.A. West Specific Plan
approval, and o*er development approvals since P.G.A. West, the City has stated its
intent to impose uniform fees on new development to fund the following public
improvements: fire station, public safety facility, city hall, park and recreation
2-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2CD City re*. All devel***nt *rorals * zci*e dianges *5SaX* to 5U*
new devel*t mist be *lished in *rd with the General Plan ard
*sp*ially in a*rd with this *lic facilities ard *ilding eletent. It is
here* determ** to be a basic tenet of the Ger*al Plan that ar**s pla*
for residenti use shall *t be *t to scch a use nor zone d'an*s or si*divi-
sian *ra'a* oonsider*d until the City is assur*3 that all *ssary *lic
facilities for the area to be develc* can and will be available c*rrent
with c*ty need. The guality of the *L*div151On and zonnng' ordinnoes and
the rnanr*r of their adminis*trati*, in *- w*th this General Plan policy,
will greatly affect the character of the futiire City. In order to inpleeent
this *ral Plan, it will be n*sary to car*filly a**ter the sudivision
ard zoning pr*sses to ensure that all n*sary *ublic services are m*de
available * with n*d.
flI. Goal and Ctj*tive
* goal ard *jective of this PLtlic *ilities and Building El*t is to
pwvide a c*iprd*ensive *ub1ic servioes and facilities and poblic k**g
progra* for the citizens of the City of la C*nnta * and in the futur* so as
to *ire that all r*ary **)lic facilities will be avalable c*current **ith
* in * with the deve1*nt of the City *ursuant to the *noe of
the *ral Plan.
Iv. Policy and *tar*ards
Before givir* a*roval to zaling, rez*iix*, de*e1*x*nt or r**elc*rr*it pr*sals,
the * health and safety and the generai **1fare of the o*r*ty and all its
citizens * that the p*ent of ar* s*di atticns shall pres*t evider*
satisfactory to the City that all *essary services and facilities ard *lic
hiildings will be available c**t with need and that sccn pr**t will
contril**te its fair share thereto. * evidenoe and assurar*s ni*y ii*l**3e the
fol1**ir** * policies and st*rdrds'
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02
^ 2DD1. It is fair, e*uitable ard a*:***iate that de"el*ers be requir** to * \\
the prii* re5*ibility for p*idir* said public and ocit*ty facilities
to serve the * of those *o will reside in the devel*rrent * Said
* *ub1ic facilities and s&vioes *y be p*ided and f* l:*
develc*r * fees, *ial asses***ts, other deve1c*er ecctici*s, or
saTe ccitt inatici* * ir*l*xiji* City c*tri*iti* * *p*riate
In the case of developer ilr**t fees, such fees sh*ild be fairly *rtioned
residents ard exitir* oarauaity deve1*ent.
2. * those services and facilities * * ax*ther entity, scch as public
utility a:itpy or sd*ool district, the City shhld C*3tiflue to be guided *
an a****iate **icate of availability fr* such entity.
3. Fbr t*se services and facilities provided by the City, in order to establish
a policy that will allow devel*ir**t to proo* in an orderly * while
enrrring that the r*ir*Tents of the Ge** Plan, includix* this Public
* and *cilities Ei*t, will be satisfied, it is **riate to
establish an e:*uitable fee to be iepsed * deve1*im*. me payment
of suct a fee will assist the City in f**lii* a * pro*ram to
*ovide s'x* public faciljtees as they are *ired and * If a
*velppar * to pay said deve1*xt** irtpact fee, the City m1* *
its requ* findjr* that all *sary public facilities and servioes *;ii
be avai*le *)c*t with need and, in the evant such fimling *ct be
made, the City * be r*ired to disspr* such **Ve1*z*ert as i*L
consistent with the Cenemi Plan.
4-
BIB]
06-04-1998-U01
04:24:54PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
26-U02