Loading...
1992 02 04 CC■/���■ AL • Ld jnta 1982 - 1992 Ten Cara[ Decade C = TY COUN C = L AG E ND A C S T Y COU N C S L CHAMBERS 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Regular Meeting February 4, 1992 - 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Beginning Res. No. 92-16 a. Pledge of Allegiance Ord. No. 202 b. Roll Call CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA PRESENTATION Presentation of Danny Johnson, Employee of the Month for January. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 21, 1992 ANNOUNCEMENTS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE a. Letter from Audrey Ostrowsky regarding The Village at La Quinta. b. Letter from Shirley P. McGinty regarding Stuart Enterprises Vista Santa Rosa. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Review and Consideration of the City of La Quinta Investment Policy. a) Minute Order Action. 0000001 2. Consideration of Approval of Lease with Boys and Girls Club for Property Located on Park Street and 50th Avenue. a) Minute Order Action. 3. Consideration of Selection of Consultant for Whitewater/ Washington Bridge Widening Project. a) Minute Order Action. 4. Consideration of Authorization to Request Proposals for Architectural Design Services for Senior Center Facility. a) Minute Order Action. 5. Discussion of Authorization for Request for Proposals for Landscaping Festival Grounds adjacent to the La Quinta Civic Center. a) Minute Order Action. 6. Consideration of Approval of Contract Change Order No. 3-B Assessment District 91-1 Area "B" (Modification of Wing Walls and Construction of Out -Fall Structure at La Fonda Storm Drain Channel). a) Minute Order Action. 7. Discussion and Appointment of Citizens Advisory Committee for Recommendations as to City's Financial Procedures. a) Minute Order Action. 8. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with CVAG Regarding the City's AB2766 Motor Vehicle Registration Fees. a) Minute Order Action. 9. Consideration of Traffic Control Measures on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. a) Minute Order Action. 10. Consideration of Civic Center Art Purchase Award. a) Minute Order Action. 0000 11. Reconsideration and Discussion of Temporary Street Closure for 1992 La Quinta Arts Festival. a) Minute Order Action. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 201 Re: Change of Zone 91-067. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Demand Register. 2. Approval of Tract Map 26524 and Related Subdivision Improvement Agreement - The Orchard - Strother Companies. 3. Approval of Parcel Map 26525 and Related Subdivision Improvement Agreement - The Orchard - Strother Companies. 4. Acceptance and Approval of Improvements to Tract 26524 - The Orchard - Strother Companies. 5. Approval of Improvements to Parcel 26525 - The Orchard - Strother Companies. 6. Acceptance of Project 91-17 and authorization to record Notice of Completion. STUDY SESSION 1. Continued Consideration of Request of La Quinta Chamber of Commerce for Funding Assistance for a Street Fair. 2. Report of Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Bureau - Hospitality Industry Business Council. 3. Discussion of Development of The Village at La Quinta. - Continued discussion of TMC Proposal. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 1992. b. Design Review Board Minutes of January 8, 1992. C. Tenth Anniversary Committee Minutes of January 9, January 16 & January 23, 1992. d. CVAG Committee Reports e. SunLine Minutes f. C. V. Mountains Conservancy - Report of Council Member Franklin 000003 DEPARTMENT REPORTS a. City Manager b. Assistant City Manager C. City Attorney d. Administrative Services Director e. Building and Safety Director f. Planning and Development Director g. Public Works Director - Report of City's intention to Vacate a Portion of Calle Paloma & Washington Street. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT COUNCIL COMMENT RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECESS UNTIL 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Planning Commission Action on Public Use Permit 91- 008 - La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church - Request for a 3,553 sq. ft. Exapansion to an Existing Church and Associated Parking Area at 53-800 Calle Paloma. a) Resolution Action. 2. First Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 25154 - 98 Single Family Residential Lots on 27 Acres Located 1300' East of Washington St. at the Intersection of Date Palm Dr. & Sagebrush Ave. Applicant: Valley Land Development. a) Resolution Action. 3. Lot Cleanings/Weed Abatements and Placment of Costs on 1991/92 Tax Rolls: a. Richard Grider APN 773-295-018 $187.50 b. David Evans APN 773-081-007 $187.50 C. William Barnett & Marilyn Anderson APN 769-062-004 $337.50 d. Anabelle Bumgardner APN 769-062-012 $337.50 e. Edward Goursky APN 769-062-011 $187.50 a) Resolution Action. 000, 004i MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT COUNCIL COMMENT CLOSED SESSION a. Discussion of potential pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Palmer CableVision concerns. b. Discussion of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - International Treasury Management/Denman Company - City of Indio - Indio Case No. 62944 C. Discussion of personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Saundra L. Juhola, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the City Council meeting of February 4, 1992 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-105 Calle Estado and on the bulletin board at the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce on Friday, January 31, 1992. Dated: January 31, 31, 1992. DRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California 00000, nn yfR='�rEN COMMC7N=CAT2ONS = � AUDREYBOY RFCE P. O. OX351 tVED LA QUINTA, CA 92253 JAN 619-564-4483 olTY 0,,,WK January 20, 1992 Mayor John Pena and City Council Members City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 DA AND DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL TO BE PUT ON THE AGEN MEETING: I would like to discuss the commercialuinta'srtconducties in t toward he downtown village area and the City TMC gave a comprehensive landowners. At the study meeting, development program on what they would like to do with the village area. ed I might state that e hdowntownCouncil villa villagemembers an part lcommunously ity. 3 to 2 against having g according to this report it appears th ity But, at your C council ManaBerand Ron Kiedrowski, went against the vote of the city consulted with TMC without the knowledge of all the Council mbers of the Members. Was there a secret meetinisof a subverttain ethe wishes of Council or did your city Manager, on the City Council Members? I would like an explanation as to how and why this happened. It does seem strange that for over ten years certain people in this community have used the City Council and the Redevellopmentners a Agency as a vehicle to subvert the wishes of the property el and advisors, people of La Quinta. Upon the advise of my papers relating to I would like you to know that I have keptall pap illegal for the this issue. As a matter of fact, it is probably Redevelopment Agency to use its funds for affordable housing for an artist live/work/sell concept with senior housing. Regarding the Chamber of Commerce, because it is subsidized by the City of La Quinta, its follows o ure purpose rof a Chambero of Commerce, Manager, subverting the true p P which is to serve the community's business/property owners. The atereport businessexplain peoplewhy fromthe thecommercial landownerstask force voted to se Par 2 When I was appointed head of the property owners, I insisted that office staff was needed, as the list of property owners was incomplete and as there are three times the number of property owners as business people, I wanted a complete list. The vote by the business owners was that they would retain the secretarial help, leaving the landowners no office help. When I ber of commerce and discussed this with Michelle at ersonnel the amshe told meth t they reiterated that I needed office P ive them moneys for office were going to ask the City Council to g moneys for the street personnel for both groups instead of asking agenda printed in the fair and other art activities. It was on the Desert Sun to do this but it was deleted from the meeting without explanation. It would appear that the City Council does not want the property owners to defend their rights against unfair actions. It would be nice if the City Council would havea study is going meeting e ing to discuss with the property owners when the City its past promise to spend $8 million in the downtown for the infrastructure so that property owners can develop the downtown village, enabling it to bring in the needed tax base to the City. I might add that if the City had spent the money years ago on the needed infrastructure instead of keeping the money in the reserve and investing it with an allegedly (according to the newspaper) dishonest investment counselor, they would have had the downtown developed, bringing in large amounts of taxes instead of losing millions. Very truly yours, Audrey Ostrowsky AO/ns 00('0O"i ' v _; �� I WR2TTEN COMM(.TN2CAT=ONS = 6 P. 0. Box 1767 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 January 24, 1992 Mayor Pena and City Council 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca. 92253 COP,GRATULATICNS! With the approval of Stuart Enterprises Vista Santa Rosa, you have taken a major step to turn La Quinta's ranch area into a mini Moreno Valley. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny listening to the council's proposals for the "perimiter" lots and treatments to give the development a custom home look so the interior could not be seen. If you want to "hide" the real development, why did you put it there in the first place? We will watch carefully to see that Stuart abides by the 9,000 sq. ft. minimum on the interior and the 10,000-12,000 per- imiter! ',,e do appreciate, however, any effort to mask this improperly located development. This has been a frustrating, anguishing experience for me. This has nct been an issue of the so called "rich" against the ,miidle c--ass" as claimed by the Coachella Valley Citizens for Fiscal 3es7onsibility in their totally inaccurate mail- ing. It has been an effort on our part to influence the city to create an area compatable with its existing flavor. I'm not goins to re -eat the points made in my "thank you" letter dated J-.:ly 1'%, 1991 which is a part of the application package. May I as, ou to read it again. The sno',ball has already begun to roll. Mr. Brummell has not renewed his 1 acre subdivision approval and has placed a portior. o`_' .:is property immediately behind us on the market. Three homes ad`acent to this property were built with the comfort of t::is ivality development. It indicated to us that La Quinta was going to respect our investments and the character of the area. Your action January 21 has seriously depreciated, these investments and may well discourage the currently planned building in our project. This hurts. We all have 'invested a substantial portion of our lifetime savings here. As you might expect, we have had many conversations with friends and acquaintences who own property in P. G. A., Santa Rosa Cove, Parc La Quinta, Brock Desert Fairways, etc. and none of them can understand why the council would place such Page 2 a project where it will now be. They, and we, all thought you would have the wisdom to not approve it. Yes, we saw the zoning maps when we voted for annexation. R 1 doesn't mean one must build to maximum density or even close to it. It also doesnt mean a grid type development with no open spaces needs to be built. We had, apparently, misplaced faith in the La Quinta goals when we were given assurances that the character of our area would not be changed. I'm sadly dis- allusioned and disappointed in all but one council member, who had the courage to stand up for the future of this area in the city. So far, being a Tart of La Quinta has been of negative benefit. We cannot even get our mail delivered from our post office! Perhaps :.ir. Stuart, with his considerable influence, can get deliver;; in _--vexation 5. Sincerely Shirley P. McGinty Go 010 �10 Twit 4 y OF V. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM M TITLE: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA'S INVESTMENT POLICY. AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: 1 CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: BACKGROUND: Attached is the proposed City of La Quinta's Investment Policy. This policy is intended to provide guidelines regarding the investment of the City's excess cash. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: 1) Provide additional suggestions and guidance regarding the content of the policy and investment portfolio. 2) Direct staff to include those suggestions approved by the City Council in the Policy document and approve the document as amended. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council: Signature RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER WHO MEMORANDUM OF T TO: FROM: DATE: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council ,� Thomas P. Genovese, Assistant City Manager January 28, 1992 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA'S INVESTMENT POLICY. BACKGROUND: Attached is the proposed City of La Quinta Investment Policy. This policy has been discussed with the independent accountants selected by the City Attorney's office. This policy is intended to provide guidelines and parameters for the investment of the City's excess cash.. The policy addresses the objectiveness, instruments and criteria of the investment program for the City. In addition to the policy, the City staff is developing an additional report format for the reporting of investments. Currently the investments are reported only on the monthly financial statements. It is our intent to further delineate the facts of each investment on this separate report. This additional report will be provided monthly and is anticipated to begin distribution next month. Also attached for the Council's review is a recap of the City's and Agency's cash and investments as of December 31, 1991. Our intent is to diversify this portfolio with the use of some of of those investment instruments contained in the investment Policy - Additionally, we will be developing the procedures necessary for the orderly implementation of the policy. We will continue our contact with the independent accountants regarding the development of these procedures as well as other issues necessary for the City's legal case with Institutional Treasury Management. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Provide additional suggestions and guidance regarding the content of the policy and investment portfolio. 2) Direct staff to include Council in the Policy amended. those suggestions approved by the City document and approve the document as TPG:cj Attachments invetpol.mem/TPG:cj 600011 C I TY OF LA QU = NTA = NVE S THE NT P OL I C Y MMMM., vM�� It_'i �i PURPOSE This policy is intended to provide direction and guidelines for the investment of the city's excess cash and outline the policies for maximizing the effectiveness of the city's investment management system. POLICY Investments of public funds of the City of La Quinta shall be made in accordance with written investment policies. Such investment policies shall address the issues of investment liquidity, safety of principal, yield and maturity. The investment policies of the City of La Quinta place primary emphasis upon the safety and liquidity of the investment instruments. These policies shall be submitted annually to the City Council for their review and approval. Prior to submittal to the City Council, these policies shall be reviewed by an independent accounting firm. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The city strives to maintain the level of investment of all idle funds as near 100% as possible, through the optimum operation of its cash management system which is designated to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenue. The city attempts to obtain the highest yield obtainable as long as investments meet criteria established for safety and liquidity. INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS As provided in Sections 16429.1, 53601.1 and 53649 of the Government Code, the State of California limits the investment vehicles available to local agencies as summarized in the following paragraphs. Section 53601, as now amended, provides that unless Section 53601 specifies a limitation on an investment's maturity, no investments with maturities exceeding five years shall be made unless the City Council has previously granted authority to do so. State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAI- As authorized in Government Code Section 16429.1 and by LAIF procedures, local government agencies are each authorized to invest a maximum of 15 million in this investment program administered by G 0 0 0 1 C the California State Treasurer. Money invested with LAIF is pooled with State money in order to earn the maximum rate of return possible in a manner consistent with sound investment practices. Government Agency Issues - As authorized in Government Code Sections 53601(a) through (e), this category includes a variety of government securities which include the following: • Local government bonds or other indebtedness • State bonds or other indebtedness • U.S. Treasury notes or other indebtedness secured by the full faith and credit of the federal government • Other federal agency securities including but not limited to issues by the Government National Mortgage Association, Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Negotiable Certificates of Deposit - As authorized in Government Code Section 53601(h), the City may invest 30% of its portfolio in negotiable certificates of deposit issued by commercial banks and savings and loan associations. Repurchase and Reverse Repurchase Agreements - As authorized in Government Code Section 53601(i), these investment vehicles are agreements between the local agency and seller for the purchase of government securities to be resold at a specific date and for a specific amount. Repurchase agreements are generally used for short term investments varying from one day to two weeks. There is no legal limitation on the amount of the repurchase agreement. However, the maturity period cannot exceed one year. As provided in Government Code Section 53635, reverse repurchase agreements require the prior approval of the City Council. Certificates of Deposit - As authorized in Government Code Section 53649, Certificates of Deposit are fixed term investments which are required to be collateralized from 105% to 150% depending on the specific security pledged as collateral. The collateral pool is administered by the State, and is composed of a wide variety of government securities, including those indicated above, as well as promissory notes secured by first mortgages on improved residential property located in the State and letters of credit issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. There are no portfolio limits on the amount or maturity for this investment vehicle. The City may utilize other investment instruments that are, or may become, legal investments through the State of California Government Code with prior and separate approval of the City Council. -2- 00u013 INVESTMENT CRITERIA The criteria for selecting investments by order of priority shall be: 1) Safety of the investment 2) Liquidity of the investment 3) Yield on the investment Safety of the principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Each investment transaction shall seek to avoid capital losses from securities, defaults or erosion of market value. The investment portfolio of the City of La Quinta shall be designed and managed to attain a market -average rate of return during budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the city's investment risk constraint and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. Liquidity is the second most important objective of the investment program. The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to enable the city to meet all budgeted requirements. Maturity. The maturity date of new investments should not be further away than the time the city anticipates it will need to utilize the funds. Maturities shall be selected to anticipate cash needs, thereby reducing the possibility of the need for forced investment liquidation. CUSTODY AND SAFEKEEPING All city investments shall have the City of La Quinta as registered owner. All interest and principal payments and withdrawals shall indicate the city as payee. All securities shall be kept in the custody of the city or a qualified safekeeping institution. Securities purchased from brokers/dealers shall be held in third party safekeeping by the trust department of the city's bank or selected custodian and in the city's name and control. All custody/safekeeping agreements shall require the approval of the City Council and review by the City Attorney. invstmt.po1/TPG:cj 01/28/92 -3 C��O111 CITY OF LA QUINTA RECAP CASH AND INVESTMENTS 12/31/91 Security Pacific Checking Acct N310-247607 (Indio): Total 12/31/91 balance Security Pacific (Indio) Petty Cash: Total 12/31/91 balance Security Pacific Money Market Acct 4318-180576 (Indio): Total 12/31/91 balance Security Pacific Trust Civic Center Bond Acct. , Pacific Horizons (Los Angeles): cash -capital improvement cash -reserve cash -redemption Total 12/31/91 balance Local Agency Investment Fund-LAIF Acct t98-334-34 (State of Calif.): Total 12/31/91 balance Glendale Federal Bank -Certificate of Deposit Acct #807-026011-9 (Glendale): G/L M 1-1900-000-077 100,000.00 G/L 4 1-1900-000-078 300,000.00 G/L k 1-1900-000-082 100,000.00 --------------- Total Glendale CD Great Western Bank Acct 1389-604654-1 (Palo Alto): Total Great Western CD Grand Total of Certificate of Deposits ITM Treasury Note/PAR value ITM Cash - Assessment Districts (2,421.82) Pooled Cash 700.00 Pooled Cash 318,438.11 Pooled Cash 6,598,510.56 704,717.50 1,012,698.15 --------------- 8,315,926.21 Bond Proceeds 9,230,743.98 Pooled Cash 500,000.00 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 Pooled Cash 2,900,000.00 Pooled Investment 23,192.48 Assessment Diet. TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS FOR CITY AND ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 21,786,578.96 LA QUINTA REDEVLOPMENT AGENCY RECAP CASH AND INVESTKENTS 12/31/91 Security Pacific Checking Acct 8318-163308 (Indio): Total 12/31/91 balance 81,391.11 Pooled Cash Security Pacific Money Market Acct N318-165652 (Indio): Total 12/31/91 balance 4,070,430.66 Pooled Cash Security Pacific Trust Restricted cash for RDA bond - 89 and 91 series Acct# TABS (Los Angeles) Total 12/31/91 balance 3,064,029.02 Restricted Cash ITM - RDA bond proceeds Total 12/31/91 investment ITM 267,430.15 Bond Proceeds Local Agency Investment Fund-LAIF Acct #51-334-36 (State of Calif.): Total 12/31/91 balance 9,857,795.63 Pooled Cash -------------- '1OM CASH AND INVE67 ENTS FOR RDA 17,341,076.57 60 01fj _cedifa� w �F vb y OF THt COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE WITH BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON PARK STREET AND 50TH AVENUE. BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: The City Attorney has completed the attached resolution and draft of the Lease Agreement with the Boys and Girls Club for Council's review and approval. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: Council's pleasure. Submitted by: Signature APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKII CITY MANAGER Co01•r STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH FRITZ R. STRADLING STEPHEN M. LACOUNT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION NICK E. YOCCA HARLEY L. SJELLAND C. CRAIG CARLSON STEPHEN T. FREEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM R. RAUTH III ROBERT A. WILSON K.C. SCHAAF LISA M. KITSUTA 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1600 RICHARD C. GOODMAN CHERYL A. DOW JOHN J. MURPHY NICHOLAS J. YOCCA POST OFFICE BOX 7680 THOMAS P. CLARK, JR. JULIE M. PORTER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA BEN A. FRYDMAN MARK T. PALIN 92660.6441 DAVID R. M-EWEN MICHAEL E. FLYNN TELEPHONE (714) 725-4000 PAUL L. GALE ROBERT C. FUNSTEN RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD ALETA LOUISE BRYANT TELEPHONE (714) 640-7035 ROBERT J. KANE RONALD A. VAN SLARCOM M. D. TALBOT STEPHEN M. MCNAMARA FAX NUMBER BRUCE C. STUART GARY A. PEMBERTON E. KURT YEAGER CAROL L. LEW (714 ) 7 25-4100 ROBERT J. WHALEN DENISE HARISAUGH HERING ROBERT E. RICH BARBARA ZEIO LEIBOLD THOMAS A. PISTONE JON E. GOETZ RANDALL J. SHERMAN ALAN J. KESSEL BRUCE W. FEUCHTER GARY P. DOWNS MARK J. HUEBSCH JOHN D. IRELAND KAREN A. ELLIS MICHAEL J. PENDERGAST ELIZABETH C. GREEN DAVID H. MANN BRUCE D. MAY CHRISTOPHER M. MOROPOULOS DONALD J. HAMMAN DANA M. KEZMOM JOHN J. SWIGART JR. DARRYL S. GIBSON MICHAEL A. ZABLOCKI JOHN G. M�CLENDON NEILA R. BERNSTEIN TODD R. THAKAR CELESTE STAHL BRADY RICHARD T. NEEDHAM CHRISTOPHER J. KILPATRICK ROBERT C. WALLACE JOEL H. GUTH DAMON C. MOSLER January 29, 1992 JULIE M-COY AKINS GERARD L. OSKAM DAWN C. HONEYWELL JOHN F. CANNON OWEN B. LUBOW JOHN E. WOODHEAD IV LAWRENCE S. COHN DOUGLAS P. FEICK WARREN B. DIVEN WILLIAM J. MORLEY JAMES DEXTER CLARK VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Thomas Genovese City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 JOHN E. BRECKENRIDGE RENA C. STONE OF COUNSEL WRITER'S DIRECT OIAU Re: Lease Agreement by and between the City of La Quinta and Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley Dear Tom: Enclosed please find a revised copy of the above - referenced lease and a resolution by the City Council regarding same. Please do not hesitate to give me a call regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH Dawn C. Honeywell DCH:cmm Enclosure cc: Dave Erwin, Best, Best & Krieger r� �$ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE DISPOSITION OF CITY WITH BOYS AND GIRLS WHEREAS, the City of authority to lease its real common benefit pursuant to CITY OF LA QUINTA RELATING TO PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A LEASE CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY La Quinta (the "City") has property and dispose of it for the Government Code Section 37350; and WHEREAS, the proposed lease between the City and the Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley (the "Lease") attached hereto is to provide for the operation of a youth center for the purpose of providing recreational opportunities geared towards school aged children and to allow for use of the center by other nonprofit community organizations on an as available basis; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta has approved Public Use Permit No. 91-012 for the proposed facility to be built pursuant to the Lease and thereby has determined the proposed project to be consistent with the City's general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta hereby finds and resolves as follows: 1. Environmental Assessment 91-220 and the finding of a negative declaration for the proposed project by the planning commission as confirmed by the City Council in conjunction with approval of Public Use Permit No. 91-012 adequately addresses any potential environmental impacts of the project as there has been no change in circumstances or the scope of the project since the approval of the PUP. 2. The proposed lease of City property to the Boys and Girls Club pursuant to the Lease attached hereto provides for the recreational use of youth and other community groups thereby providing a specific and unique public benefit to the community. 3. The proposed Boys and Girls Club project is a use that has been found to be consistent with the City's general plan by the Planning Commission pursuant to their approval of Public Use Permit No. 91-012. 4. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the attached Lease and any other documents necessary to effectuate the intent encompassed thereby. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1992 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk, City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 01/28/92 n-) 7n.. /ncnn LEASE AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF LA QUINTA "Lessor" and BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY "Lessee" TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE I. TERM OF LEASE 1.1 Premises ................................... 1 1.2 Reservation ................................ 1 1.3 Exceptions to Leasehold Estate ............. 1 1.4 Term ....................................... 1 1.5 Date of Lease and Legal Effect ............. 1 ARTICLE II. DEVELOPMENT AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Construction, Inspection by Lessor and Right to Improvements ................ 2 2.2 Cost and Expense of Improvements ........... 2 2.3 .Lessor Assistance .......................... 3 ARTICLE III. RENT 3.1 Net Lease .................................. 3 3.2 Minimum Rent ............................... 4 3.3 Additional Payments ........................ 4 3.4 Place of Payment; Late Payments ............ 4 ARTICLE IV. USE OF PREMISES AND COMPLIANCE WITH LAW 4.1 Permitted Uses ............................. 4 4.2 Nondiscrimination .......................... 5 ARTICLE V. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES ........................ 5 ARTICLE VI. MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES 6.1 Obligations for Maintenance ................ 5 6.2 Standard of Maintenance .................... 6 6.3 Liens .................................... 6 6.4 Lessor's Substitute Performance ............ 6 ARTICLE VII. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY 7.1 Lessee's Insurance ......................... 7 7.2 Cost of Living Adjustment .................. 9 7.3 Covenant to Indemnify and Hold Harmless .... 10 7.4 Waiver of Subrogation ...................... 11 (i) Page ARTICLE VIII. UTILITY CHARGES ............................ 11 ARTICLE IX. ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS .................. 11 ARTICLE X. CASUALTY LOSS AND RESTORATION 10.1 Non -Termination 10.2 ........................... Damage and Duty to Restore ................. 12 12 10.3 Right to Terminate Lease ................... 12 10.4 No Obligation of Lessor to Restore ....... 13 10.5 Continued Operations ....................... 13 ARTICLE XI. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 11.1 Agency's Consent Required .................. 13 11.2 Lessee Remains Obligated ................... 13 ARTICLE XII. DEFAULT 12.1 Events of Default 12.2 .......................... Remedies 14 12.3 ................................... Default by Lessor 14 12.4 ........................ Legal Expenses and Collection Costs ........ 17 17 ARTICLE XIII. HOLDING OVER ............................... 17 ARTICLE XIV. ACCESS BY LESSOR ........................... 17 ARTICLE XV. QUIET ENJOYMENT ............................ 18 ARTICLE XVI. TAXES ...................................... 18 ARTICLE XVII. FORCE MAJEURE .............................. 18 ARTICLE XVIII FINANCING/HYPOTHECATION .................... 19 18.1 Mortgages .................................. 19 18.2 No Settlement Without Mortgagee Consent .... 23 18.3 No Subordination ........................... 23 00ul0?3 Page ARTICLE XIX RENEWAL OPTION 19.1 Option to Extend 23 19.2 Continuation of Terms 23 ARTICLE XX. MISCELLANEOUS 20.1 Press Releases 24 20.2 Waiver ..................................... 24 20.3 Notices ................................. 24 20.4 Relationship of Parties 24 20.5 Accord and Satisfaction 24 20.6 Time of Essence 25 20.7 Remedies Cumulative 25 20.8 Effect of Invalidity ....................... 25 20.9 Successors and Assigns ..................... 25 20.10 Entire Agreement 25 20.11 Interest on Past -Due Obligations ........... 26 20.12 Execution of Lease; No Option .............. 26 20.13 Corporate Authority ........................ 26 20.14 Controlling Law 26 20.15 Specific Performance 26 20.16 Survival of Indemnities and Warranties 26 20.17 Estoppel Certificate ....................... 27 EXHIBIT A - Description of Premises EXHIBIT B - Scope of Development LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (the "Lease") is entered into this day of , 1992, by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA ("Lessor"), a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the State of California, and the BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY, a California ("Lessee"). In consideration of the payments to be made hereunder and the covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I. TERM OF LEASE 1.1 Premises. Lessor is currently the owner of that parcel of real property located in the City of La Quinta, legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Premises"). The address of the Premises is , La Quinta, California. Lessor agrees to lease to Lessee and Lessee agrees to lease from Lessor the Premises upon the terms and conditions expressed herein. 1.2 Reservation. Lessor reserves to itself, its successors, and assigns, together with the right to grant and transfer all or a portion of the same, the non-exclusive right to enter upon the Premises in accordance with any rights of Lessor set forth in this Lease. 1.3 Exceptions to Leasehold Estate. This Lease is made subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights -of -way, easements, and all other matters of record or apparent upon a visual inspection of the Premises affecting the Premises or the use thereof on the date this Lease is executed by Lessee. 1.4 Term. The "Term" of this Lease shall be forty (40) years, commencing on the date (the "Term Commencement Date") that Lessor has obtained a building permit for the Improvements (as herein defined) to be constructed by Lessee on the Premises. 1.5 Date of Lease and Legal Effect. The terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease shall become legally binding on the Term Commencement Date. G000 2;1 ARTICLE II. DEVELOPMENT AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Construction, Inspection by Lessor and Right to Improvements. Lessee shall construct or cause to be constructed the improvements on the Premises as set forth in the Scope of Development attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof ("Improvements") which Improvements shall include a youth center of approximately 24,000 square feet on the corner of Park Avenue and Avenue 50 in the City of La Quinta. Building permits shall be obtained and construction begun on the Improvements within one (1) year of the date of the execution of this Lease. Lessee shall provide status reports to Lessor concerning all actions taken towards commencing construction at six (6)-month intervals from the date of execution of this Lease by the Lessor until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the Improvements. Completion of construction shall be within eighteen (18) months of the issuance of building permits for the Improvements. Lessee covenants with Lessor that the Improvements of whatsoever nature constructed by Lessee on the Premises shall be constructed at Lessee's sole cost and expense in a good workmanlike manner according to and in conformity with plans and specifications to be submitted to Lessor pursuant to Section 2.2 below and in compliance with all applicable municipal building and zoning laws and with all other laws, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and requirements of federal, state and municipal governments and appropriate departments, commissions, boards and officers thereof. At all times during construction, and prior to completion, of the Improvements, Lessor shall have the right, after not less than twenty-four (24) hours notice to Lessee, to enter upon the Premises in the company of a representative of Lessee for the purpose of inspecting the same, provided that such entry and inspection shall not unreasonably interfere with Lessee's construction of the Improvements. Any and all Improvements which are made by Lessee to the Premises shall be owned by Lessee during the Term but shall remain a part of the Premises and be surrendered therewith at the end of the Term or sooner termination of this Lease, at which time the same shall become the property of Lessor. 2.2 Cost and Expense of Improvements. Except as set forth in Section 2.3 hereof, the entire cost and expense of constructing any and all Improvements on the Premises shall be borne and paid by Lessee, and Lessee shall hold and save Lessor and the Premises harmless from any liability whatsoever on account thereof. Before commencement of the construction of any Improvements, and before any materials in connection with such construction are delivered to the Premises, Lessee shall comply with the following conditions: 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -2- G L 0 ) 6 (a) Notify Lessor of Lessee's intention to commence a work of improvement at least fifteen (15) days before commencement of any such work or delivery of any materials in connection therewith to the Premises. The notice shall specify the approximate location and nature of the intended Improvements. Lessor shall have the right to post and maintain on the Premises any notices of nonresponsibility provided for under applicable law, and, after not less than twenty-four (24) hours notice to Lessee, to inspect the Premises, at all reasonable times and in the company of a representative of Lessee, in relation to such construction, provided that such entry shall not unreasonably interfere with such demolition and/or construction. (b) Deliver to Lessor for Lessor's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, a set of final construction plans and specifications prepared by a licensed architect or engineer as approved by all appropriate governmental agencies and authorities. 2.3 Lessor Assistance. Lessor shall assist Lessee in the amount equal to the costs of payment of all required municipal permit fees (collectively, the "Lessor Assistance"). ARTICLE III. RENT 3.1 Net Lease. It is the intent of the parties hereto that the rent provided herein shall be absolutely net to Lessor and that Lessee shall pay all costs, charges and expenses of every kind and nature against the Premises and any Improvements which may arise or become due during the Term and which, except for execution and delivery hereof, would or could have been payable by Lessor. 3.2 Minimum Rent. During the Term of this Lease, Lessee shall pay to Lessor as rental for the use and occupancy of the Premises, ground rental for each year from the Term Commencement Date of One Dollar ($1.00) (the "Rent"). The Rent owing for the full Term of the Lease shall be payable in advance of the Term Commencement Date. 3.3 Additional Payments. Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, all sums of money or charges whatsoever required to be paid by Lessee to Lessor under this Lease other than Rent shall be due and payable fifteen (15) days after demand, presented in writing by certified mail, without any deductions or offsets whatsoever. Lessor shall have no obligation to bill Lessee for annual Rent, security charges, or other operational expenses. Lessee's failure to pay any such amounts or charges 01/24/92 ( 8817u/2588/00 -3- G 0 V` 0 i� when due shall carry with it the same consequences as Lessee's failure to pay Rent and shall be deemed to be additional Rent. 3.4 Place of Payment; Late Payments. Lessee agrees to pay the rental and other charges herein reserved to Lessor at 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California 92253, payable to Lessor or to such other person and/or at such other location as Lessor may from time to time designate in writing. All payments shall be made by check for an account in lawful money of the United States. All payments requiring proration shall be prorated on the basis of a thirty (30) day month. ARTICLE IV. USE OF PREMISES AND COMPLIANCE WITH LAW 4.1 Permitted Uses. Lessor's primary purpose for entering into this Lease is to provide for the operation of the Improvements as a youth center for providing a variety of quality programs for children between the ages of 7 and 18. Included within the youth center shall be a gymnasium, an education center for reading and computers, a multipurpose room, a kitchen, a weight room, an exercise room, a games room for junior and senior members, locker rooms, a clinic, administrative offices, an outdoor play area, and a swimming pool. Lessee shall not use the Premises for any other purposes without prior written consent of the Lessor. Lessor and other nonprofit community organizations shall have the right from time to time to utilize the premises or appropriate portions thereof in connection with official city functions and/or other community programs, provided, however, that Lessor shall have first requested and obtained the consent of Lessee to such use, which consent Lessee shall not unreasonably withhold. Lessee, at Lessee's expense, shall promptly comply with all present and future laws, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and requirements of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction affecting the Premises and Improvements or the cleanliness, safety, occupancy and use of same, whether or not any such law, ordinance, order, rule, regulation or requirement is substantial, or foreseen or unforeseen, or ordinary or extraordinary or shall necessitate structural changes of the Improvements or interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Premises. 4.2 Nondiscrimination heirs, executors, administ claiming under or through accepted upon and subject discrimination against or Lessee covenants for itself, its rators, and assigns, and all persons it, that this Lease is made and to the condition that there shall be no segregation of any person or group of 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -4- GO G G 9 3 persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, political affiliation or physical handicap associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the Premises. ARTICLE V. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES Lessee shall pay all of the costs and expenses in the operation, management, and maintenance of the Improvements. Such expenses shall include, without limitation, the following: (i) expenses incurred by Lessee for general maintenance, painting, lighting, cleaning, trash removal, security, fire protection; and (ii) the actual cost of repairs to the Improvements. ARTICLE VI. MAINTENANCE OF THE PREMISES 6.1 Obligations for Maintenance. Lessee, at Lessee's expense without cost to Lessor, shall maintain in good order, condition, quality, and repair, the Improvements and every part thereof and any and all appurtenances thereto wherever located, and all other repairs, replacements, renewals and restorations, ordinary and extraordinary, foreseen and unforeseen. 6.2 Standard of Maintenance. Lessee shall keep and maintain the Premises and the Improvements in a clean, sanitary and safe condition in accordance with the laws of the State of California and in accordance with all directions, rules and regulations of the health officer, fire marshall, building inspector or other proper officials of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction, and Lessee shall comply with all requirements of laws and ordinances affecting the Premises and the Improvements, all at the sole cost and expense of Lessee. At the time of the expiration of the tenancy created herein, Lessee shall surrender the Premises and the Improvements thereon in good order, condition and repair. 6.3 Liens. Lessee shall keep the Premises, the Improvements, or any part thereof free from any and all liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by or for Lessee, and agrees to cause to be discharged any mechanic's or materialmen's lien of record within twenty (20) days after the lien has been filed or within ten (10) days after receipt of written request from Lessor, whichever shall be the sooner. Lessee shall give Lessor at least fifteen (15) days written notice prior to commencing or causing to be commenced any work on the Premises (whether prior or subsequent to the commencement of the Term), so that Lessor shall have reasonable opportunity to file and post notices of non -responsibility for Lessee's work. Lessor may condition its consent to any work upon Lessee posting lien and material and/or 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -5- �1 0 0 ti j completion bonds in amounts as may be necessary to cover the anticipated cost of such work and potential overruns. Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for any and all costs and expenses which may be incurred by Lessor by reason of the filing of any such liens and/or removal of same, such re 6.4 Lessor's Substitute Performance. In the event Lessee fails, refuses or neglects to commence and complete promptly and adequately any of the required repairs or maintenance, to remove any lien, to pay any cost or expense relating to such matters, or to otherwise perform any act or fulfill any obligation required of Lessee pursuant to Section 6.1, Lessor may, but shall not be required to, make or complete any such repairs, remove such lien, or pay such cost and expense, and Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for all costs and expenses of Lessor thereby incurred within fifteen (15) days after receipt by Lessee from Lessor of a statement setting forth the amount of such costs and expenses which shall be deemed to be additional Rent and subject to the same consequences as herein provided for failure to pay Rent. Any amounts owed to Lessor under this Article VI shall accrue interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until payment is received by Lessor. If reasonably possible under the circumstances, Lessor shall give Lessee written notice fifteen (15) days prior to commencement of any substitute performance. Any failure by Lessor to give such notice, however, shall not prejudice Lessor's rights hereunder or alter Lessee's obligations hereunder. Lessor's rights and remedies pursuant to this Section 6.4 shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies provided under this Lease or at law. ARTICLE VII. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY 7.1 Lessee's Insurance. (a) Types. Lessee, at no cost and expense to Lessor, shall procure and keep in full force and effect during the Term or cause to be procured and kept in full force and effect for the mutual benefit of Lessor and Lessee, insurance policies meeting the minimum requirements set forth below or such greater requirements that are generally obtained from time to time for properties, improvements, activities, and operations similar to those on the Premises in the Southern California area: 01/24/92 8817u/2 588/00 - 6- 0 0 0 0 3 0 (i) comprehensive general liability insurance with respect to the Premises and the operations of or on behalf of Lessee or its agents, officers, directors, and employees in, on or about the Premises in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence combined single limit bodily injury, personal injury, death and property damage liability per occurrence, subject to such increases in amount as Lessor may reasonably require from time to time. Coverage shall include, but not be limited to personal injury liability, premises and operation, blanket contractual, cross liability, severability of interest, broad form property damage, and independent contractors. The policy or policies shall include that Lessor and its officers, employees, and agents shall be additional insureds under such policy or policies. The adequacy of general liability coverage carried by Lessee may be reviewed and modified by Lessor to assure adequate liability coverage during the entire Term; provided, however, that the specified limits are not increased more frequently than once every three (3) years. Should Lessor and Lessee fail to agree on an appropriate adjustment to coverage, the increase if any shall be equal to the total percentage increase in the CPI as defined in Section 7.2 below from the time the limit then in effect was established to the date of Lessor's notice to Lessee to increase coverage limits, provided the cost for such increased coverage is either commercially reasonable or consistent with limits on insurance maintained for similar developments in the area for which the Leased Land is located; (ii) worker's compensation coverage as required by the laws of the State of California together with employer's liability coverage; (iii) with respect to the Improvements, fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other items of personal property located on or in the Premises, insurance against fire, peril of flood, earthquake, extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief, and such other additional perils, hazards and risks as now are or may be included in standard "all risk" forms in general use in Riverside County, California, for an amount equal to not less than the full current actual replacement cost thereof. Lessor shall be an additional insured under such policy or policies and such insurance shall contain a replacement cost endorsement; (b) Standard. All policies of insurance required to be carried by Lessee under this Lease shall be written by responsible and solvent insurance companies rated A or better O1/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -7- GQ' 03 by the Best Key Rating Guide and authorized to do business in the State of California. Any such insurance required of Lessee hereunder may be furnished by Lessee under any blanket policy carried by it or under a separate policy therefor. A copy of each paid -up policy evidencing such insurance (appropriately authenticated by the insurer) or a certificate of the insurer, certifying that such policy has been issued, providing the coverage required by this Section and containing provisions specified herein, shall be delivered to Lessor prior to the date Lessee is given the right of possession of the Premises or as Lessor may otherwise require, and upon renewals, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of such coverage. Lessor may, at any time, and from time to time, inspect and/or copy any and all insurance policies required to be procured by Lessee hereunder. In no event shall the limits of any policy be considered as limiting the liability of Lessee under this Lease. (c) Specific Provisions in Policy. Each policy evidencing insurance required to be carried by Lessee pursuant to this Article shall contain the following provisions or clauses: (i) a provision specifying that the City of La Quinta shall be named as an additional insured under the policy; (ii) a provision cancel or materially change policy without first giving written notice; and that the insurer will not the coverage provided by such Lessor thirty (30) days' prior (iii) a waiver by the Lessee's insurer of any right to subrogation against Lessor, its agents, employees or representatives which arises or might arise by reason of any payment under such policy or policies or by reason of any act or omission of Lessor, its agents, employees or representatives. (d) Lessor's Substitute Performance. In the event that Lessee fails to procure, maintain and/or pay for at the times and for the durations specified in this Section 7.1, any insurance required by this Section, or fails to carry insurance required by law or governmental regulation, Lessor may (but without obligation to do so) at any time or from time to time, after thirty (30) days written notice to Lessee, procure such insurance and pay the premiums therefor, in which event Lessee shall repay Lessor all sums so paid by Lessor together with ten percent (10%) interest per annum thereon. 01/24/92 G o v 3 n 8817u/2588/00 -8- 7.2 Cost of Living Adjustment. The cost of living adjustment to the amount of general liability insurance to be carried by Lessee to be made should Lessor and Lessee fail to agree on an appropriate adjustment shall be determined in the manner and pursuant to the following formula: I = W x A P In such formula "I" represents the adjusted amount of general liability insurance to be held by Lessee during the Lease Years for which amount of insurance coverage is being computed under such formula; "W" represents the amount of general liability coverage held by Lessee immediately prior to the adjustment being computed; "A" represents the Consumer Price Index ("CPI" herein) for All Urban Consumers, all items, most recently published and released prior to the adjustment date being computed, for the Riverside area as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics based upon the establishment of one hundred (100) as the index for the year 1982/84; "P" represents the CPI most recently published and released prior to the last adjustment date. If the CPI which is used or published for any relevant time as provided in this Lease is based upon the establishment of 100 as the price index for the year or a group of years other than 1982/84, the CPI to be substituted for "A" in the above formula shall be.computed by converting the index as then issued or published to the basis of 100 as the price index for 1982/84. In the event that no such index is issued or published within one (1) year previous to each period for which such amount of general liability insurance is being adjusted and computed hereunder or that said Bureau should cease to publish said index figure, then any similar index published by any other branch or department of the U. S. Government shall be used and if none is so published, then another index generally recognized as authoritative shall be substituted by agreement. In any event, the base used by any index shall be reconciled to the 1982/84 index. It shall be the duty and obligation of Lessor to make the computations and determinations pursuant to this Section and to communicate the results to Lessee, together with working papers to support the computation; 7.3 Covenant to Indemnify and Hold Harmless. Lessee covenants to defend and indemnify Lessor, its officers, directors, partners, representatives, agents and employees, and save them harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, losses, damages, liability, and expenses, including 01/24/92 r !� 8817u/2588/00 -9- 0 0 U t� 0 3 .:3 attorneys' fees, in connection with the loss of life, bodily injury and/or damage to property arising from or out of or in connection with any occurrence in, upon or at the Premises, or the construction of improvements, the occupancy or use by Lessee of the Premises or any part thereof, or arising from or out of Lessee's failure to comply with any provision of this Lease or otherwise occasioned wholly or in part by any act or omission of Lessee, its agents, directors, representatives, contractors, employees, servants, invitees or licensees, excepting that the foregoing indemnification and hold harmless provision shall not apply in the event of any uninsured willful or actively negligent misconduct on behalf of Lessor or any of its agents, representatives, or employees, or in the event any such claims, actions, losses, damages, liability, costs, or expenses arise out of a breach by Lessor of its obligations under this Lease. If Lessor is made a party to any litigation commenced by or against Lessee, then Lessee shall protect, defend and hold Lessor harmless and shall pay all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred or paid by Lessor in connection with such litigation. Lessor may, at its option, require Lessee to assume Lessor's defense in any action covered by this Section 7.3 through counsel selected by Lessor and reasonably satisfactory to Lessee. Lessee, as a material part of the consideration to Lessor, hereby assumes all risk of damage to property or injury to persons in, upon or about the Premises and Improvements from any cause whatsoever, and Lessee hereby waives all its .claims in respect thereof against Lessor excepting only damage or injury arising out of (i) the uninsured willful or actively negligent misconduct of Lessor or any of its agents, representatives, or employees, or (ii) a breach by Lessor of its obligations under this Lease. 7.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Each party hereto does hereby waive, remise, release and discharge the other party hereto and any officer, director, shareholder, beneficiary, partner, agent, employee or representative of such other party, of and from any liability whatsoever hereafter arising from loss or damage for which insurance containing a waiver of subrogation is carried by the injured party under such insurance. Lessee shall, upon obtaining the policies of insurance required hereunder, give notice to the insurance carrier or carriers that the foregoing mutual waiver of subrogation is contained in this Lease. ARTICLE VIII. UTILITY CHARGES Lessee shall pay all charges for gas, water, sewer, electricity, telephone and other utility services or franchise supplier used on or in the Premises. If any such charges are 01/24/92 r 8817u/2588/00 -10- U not paid when due, Lessor may pay the same after giving Lessee fifteen (15) days prior written notice, and any amount so paid by Lessor shall thereupon become due to Lessor from Lessee as additional Rent. ARTICLE IX. ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS Without Lessor's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld or granted in Lessor's reasonable discretion, Lessee shall not have the right to make changes or alterations to the Improvements or the Premises, except on the following conditions: (a) Lessee shall not make any alterations, whether structural or non-structural, which will decrease the value of the Premises or the Improvements. If the cost of such changes or alterations to the Improvements or the Premises exceeds Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), Lessee shall submit to Lessor plans and specifications for approval. (b) Before the commencement of any work, Lessee shall pay the amount of any increased premiums on insurance policies provided for hereunder; (c) Lessor shall in no event be required to make any alterations, rebuilding, replacement, changes, additions or Improvements or repairs to the Premises, except as specifically provided in this Lease; (d) All such changes, alterations, rebuilding, replacements, additions, improvements and repairs to the Premises made by Lessee shall be deemed to have attached to the realty and to have become the property of Lessor upon the expiration of the Term or upon sooner termination of this Lease. ARTICLE X. CASUALTY LOSS AND RESTORATION 10.1 Non -Termination. Except as provided herein, no destruction or damage to the Improvements or the Premises by fire, windstorm or other casualty whether insured or uninsured shall entitle Lessee to terminate this Lease. 10.2 Damage and Duty to Restore. In case of damage to or destruction of the Improvements caused by an event required to be covered by insurance pursuant to Article 7 hereof, Lessee's rental obligations shall continue as provided in Article 3 above, and Lessee shall promptly, at its sole cost and expense, restore, repair, replace or rebuild improvements of comparable value as existed on the Premises immediately prior to such damage or destruction. Such restoration, repairs, replacements 01/24/92 6 0 (j 8817u/2588/00 -11- or rebuilding shall be commenced promptly and prosecuted with reasonable diligence. All work required to be performed by Lessee under this Section shall be performed pursuant to all of the provisions of Article 2. 10.3 Right to Terminate Lease. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10.1 above, (a) if the damage to or destruction of the Improvements is caused by an event not required to be covered by insurance pursuant to Article 7 hereof, or (b) if during the last ten (10) years of the Term as may be extended by the option provision in Article XIX herein, the Improvements shall be damaged or destroyed by fire or any other casualty whatsoever to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of the full replacement value of the Improvements existing on the Premises immediately prior to such damage or destruction, within ninety (90) days after such damage or destruction, Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease. Said right shall be exercised by serving written notice upon Lessor within sixty (60) days of such damage or destruction. Lessee shall continue to perform all obligations of the Lessee hereunder until such termination is effected, and Lessor shall be entitled to retain that portion of the insurance proceeds otherwise payable to Lessee pursuant to Article 13. In the event that Lessee elects not to rebuild, and to terminate this Lease as provided above, Lessee shall then be obligated to utilize such insurance proceeds as may have been received to remove any damaged or destroyed portions of the premises as Lessor may request to be removed and to restore the site upon which such removed premises or portions thereof previously were located to the general condition of such site prior to the commencement of construction of the improvements. 10.4 No Obligation of Lessor to Restore. Lessor shall in no event be under any duty or obligation to restore, replace or rebuild any building or improvement at any time on the Leased Land, except to the extent that the damage thereto or destruction thereof occurs as a result of the negligence of Lessor. 10.5 Continued Operations. During any period of repair, Lessee shall continue, or cause the continuation of, the operation of its programs on the Premises and use of the Facility by community groups to the extent reasonably practicable. However, irrespective of the continued operation during such period of repair, the Rent payable hereunder shall not be deferred and shall not be abated. Upon completion of such repair and restoration, Lessee shall promptly refixture and restock the Improvements, if necessary, substantially to the condition prior to the casualty, or as otherwise required by this Lease, whichever is greater, and shall reopen if closed by the casualty. O1/24/92 r HUG O 8817u/2588/00 -12- V ARTICLE XI. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 11.1 Agency's Consent Required. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, Lessee agrees and covenants (which covenants shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, and administrators of Lessee) that Lessee shall not, assign, sell, encumber, pledge or otherwise transfer all or any part of Lessee's leasehold estate hereunder, or permit the Premises to be occupied by anyone other than Lessee, Lessee's employees or invitees, or sublet the Premises, (with the exception of the use for single occasions by other community groups as specified in Article IV, Section 4.1 and 4.2), or any portion thereof, without Lessor's prior written consent. No assignment, whether voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law, under legal process or proceedings, by receivership, in bankruptcy, or otherwise, and no subletting shall be valid or effective without such prior written consent, and at Lessor's election, shall constitute a default. 11.2 Lessee Remains Obligate . No subletting or assignment, even with the consent of Lessor, shall relieve Lessee of its obligation to pay Rent and all of its other obligations hereunder. The acceptance by Lessor of any payment due hereunder from any person or entity other than Lessee shall not be construed as a waiver by Lessor of any provision of this Lease or as a consent to any assignment or subletting. Consent by Lessor to an assignment of this Lease or to a subletting of the Premises shall not operate as a waiver or estoppel to the future enforcement by Lessor of its rights pursuant to this Lease. ARTICLE XII. DEFAULT 12.1 Events of Default. The word "default," as used in this Section 12.1, shall mean and include any one or more of the following events or occurrences: (a) The failure by Lessee to make any payment of rent, or other payment required to be made by Lessee hereunder, when due and the continuance of such failure for a period of fifteen (15) days after Lessor has given Lessee written notice specifying the same; (b) The failure of Lessee to perform any term, condition, covenant or agreement of this Lease, excluding the payment of Rent, and the continuation of such failure for a period of thirty (30) days after Lessor shall have given Lessee written notice specifying the same, or in the case of a situation in which the default cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days, if Lessee shall not promptly, within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, commence to remedy the situation by a means that can reasonably be expected O1/24/92 G J v 0 8817u/2588/00 -13- to remedy the situation within a reasonable period of time, and diligently pursue the same to completion; (c) The abandonment by Lessee of the Premises or a substantial portion thereof; (d) Lessee's (i) application for, consent to, or suffering of, the appointment of a receiver, trustee or liquidator for all or for a substantial portion of its assets; (ii) making a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (iii) being adjudged a bankrupt; (iv) filing a voluntary petition or suffering an involuntary petition under any bankruptcy, arrangement, reorganization or insolvency law (unless in the case of an involuntary petition, the same is dismissed within thirty (30) days of such filing); or (v) suffering or permitting to continue unstayed and in effect for fifteen (15) consecutive days any attachment, levy, execution or seizure of all or a substantial portion of Lessee's assets or of Lessee's interest in this Lease; 12.2 Remedies. (a) General. In the event of any default by Lessee, including the expiration of any applicable cure period, Lessor may: (i) Terminate Lessee's right to possession of the Premises by any lawful means, in which case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall immediately surrender possession of the Premises to Lessor. In such event Lessor shall be entitled to recover from Lessee: (1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid Rent which had been earned at the time of termination; (2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid Rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such loss that Lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided; (3) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid Rent for the balance of the Term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such loss that Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and (4) Any other amount deemed necessary and/or allowable by applicable statute or decision to 01/24/92 V V v U c"j 8817u/2588/00 -14- compensate Lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by Lessee's failure to perform its obligations under this Lease or which, in the ordinary course of events, would be likely to result therefrom, including, but not limited to, the cost of recovering possession of the Premises, expenses of reletting, expenses of restoring the Premises to the condition required hereunder (if applicable), reasonable attorneys' fees, and any other reasonable costs. The "worth at the time of award" of the amounts referred to in subparagraphs (1) and (2) above shall be computed by allowing interest at a rate equal to ten percent (10%). (ii) Lessor may terminate this Lease for default by express written notice to Lessee of its election to do so. Such termination shall not relieve Lessee of any obligation hereunder which has accrued prior to the date of such termination. In the event of such termination, Lessor shall be entitled to recover from Lessee the amounts determined pursuant to paragraph (i) above. (b) Reasonable Rental Value. In any action for unlawful detainer commenced by Lessor against Lessee by reason of any default hereunder, the reasonable rental value of the Premises for the period of the unlawful detainer shall be deemed to be the amount of Rent and other charges reserved in this Lease for such period unless Lessor or Lessee shall prove to the contrary by competent evidence. (c) Cumulative Remedies. Except as may be specifically provided herein, the rights and remedies reserved to Lessor and Lessee herein, including those not specifically described, shall be cumulative and, except as provided by California statutory or decisional law in effect at the time, either Lessor or Lessee may pursue any or all of such rights and remedies at the same time or otherwise. (d) Lessor's Non -Waiver. No delay or omission of Lessor to exercise any right or remedy shall be construed as a waiver of any right or remedy or of any default by Lessee hereunder. The acceptance by Lessor of Rent or any additional Rent hereunder shall not be a waiver of any preceding breach or default by Lessee of any provision hereof, other than the failure of Lessee to pay the particular Rent accepted, regardless of Lessor's knowledge of such preceding breach or default at the time of acceptance of such rent, or a waiver of Lessor's right to exercise any remedy available to Lessor by virtue of such breach or default. The acceptance of any 01/24/92 G �y 3'a 8817u/2588/00 -15- payment from a debtor in possession, a trustee, a receiver or any other person acting on behalf of Lessee or Lessee's estate shall not waive or cure a default under Section 12.1. (e) Lessor's Reentry. Lessee hereby irrevocably consents to Lessor's peaceable reentry, if Lessor so elects, to the Premises upon the occurrence of any of the events of default specified in Section 12.2 (a)(ii) above, including the expiration of any applicable cure period. (f) Lessor's Advances. In the event of any default by Lessee in the payment of money, other than Rent, or the performance of Lessee's obligations required under this Lease, and the expiration of any period expressly provided for herein for Lessee to cure said default after the delivery of notice by Lessor, in addition to the other remedies herein granted to Lessor, Lessor may, but shall not be obligated to do so, and without waiving or releasing Lessee from any obligations of -this Lease, make any payment and perform any other act on Lessee's part to be made or performed as provided in this Lease. All sums paid by Lessor and all necessary incidental costs, together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of the payment by Lessor shall be payable by Lessee to Lessor on demand. The sums shall be deemed to be additional Rent and subject to the same consequences as herein provided for failure to pay Rent. 12.3 Default by Lessor. Lessor shall not be deemed to be in default in the performance of any obligation required to be performed by it hereunder unless and until it has failed to perform such obligation within thirty (30) days after written notice by Lessee to Lessor specifying in reasonable detail the nature and extent of any such failure; provided, however, that if the nature of Lessor's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for its performance, then Lessor shall not be deemed to be in default if it shall commence such performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. 12.4 Legal Expenses and Collection Costs. If either party incurs any expense, including actual costs of collection, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses of discovery, preparation for litigation, expert witness fees and litigation expenses and costs, in connection with any action or proceeding instituted by either party by reason of any default or alleged default of the other party hereunder, the party prevailing in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its reasonable expenses from the other party. For purposes of this provision, in any unlawful detainer or other action or proceeding instituted by Lessor based upon any default or alleged default by Lessee hereunder, Lessor shall be deemed the prevailing party if (a) judgment is entered in favor of Lessor or (b) 01/24/92 r 0 ri v 0 4 i 8817u/2588/00 -16- prior to trial or judgment Lessee shall pay the Rent and charges claimed by Lessor, or eliminate the condition(s), cease the act(s) or otherwise cure the omission(s) claimed by Lessor to constitute a default by Lessee hereunder. ARTICLE XIII. HOLDING OVER This Lease shall terminate and become null and void without further notice upon the expiration of the Term herein specified, and any holding over by Lessee after such expiration shall not constitute a renewal or extension hereof or give Lessee any rights under this Lease, except when in writing signed by both parties hereto. ARTICLE XIV. ACCESS BY LESSOR In addition to the right of Lessor to reserve use of the Premises under Article IV, Section 4.1, Lessor and those agents, contractors, servants and employees of Lessor who are identified in writing to Lessee shall have the right, after reasonable notice to Lessee, to enter the Premises during normal business hours to examine the Premises, to perform any obligation of Lessor or to exercise any right or remedy reserved to Lessor in this Lease. ARTICLE XV. QUIET ENJOYMENT Upon payment by Lessee of the Rents provided herein, and upon the observance and performance of all of the covenants, terms and conditions on the part of Lessee to be performed hereunder, Lessor covenants and warrants that Lessee may peaceably and quietly hold and enjoy the Premises for the Term. ARTICLE XVI. TAXES Lessee shall be responsible for, and agrees to pay, prior to delinquency, any and all taxes, assessments, installments of taxes, levies, fees, and other governmental charges of every kind or nature (hereinafter collectively called "Taxes") in the event such Taxes are levied or assessed by municipal, county, state, federal, or other taxing or assessing authorities or governmental agencies or entities upon, against, or with respect to (i) the Premises or any portion thereof; (ii) all fixtures, equipment, and any other property of any kind owned by Lessee or placed, installed, or located within, upon, or about the Premises for which Lessor might be assessed or which might become a lien on the Premises if not paid by Lessee; (iii) all alterations, additions, and improvements of 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -17- 600041. whatsoever kind or nature, if any, made to the Premises or the Improvements; (iv) rentals or other charges payable by Lessee to Lessor (other than state and federal income taxes applicable to Lessor); and (v) any other interest in the Premises (including the leasehold interest created by this Lease), irrespective of whether any of the items described in clauses (i) through (v) above are assessed as real or personal property, and irrespective of whether any of such items are assessed to or against Lessor, Lessee or any other person. ARTICLE XVII. FORCE MAJEURE In the event the performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder is delayed by reason of the act or neglect of the other party, act of God, stormy or inclement weather, strike, labor dispute, boycott, lockout or other like defensive action by such party, inability to obtain labor or materials, governmental restrictions, riot, insurrection, war, catastrophe, fire or other casualty, act of the public enemy, or any other cause, whether similar or dissimilar, beyond the reasonable control of the party from whom such performance is due ("unavoidable delays"), the period for the commencement or completion thereof shall be extended for a period equal to the period during which performance is so delayed. ARTICLE XVIII FINANCING/HYPOTHECATION 18.1 Mortgages. Lessee may, with notice to and the prior consent of Lessor, mortgage this Lease and the leasehold estate hereby created and Lessee's interest in the Improvements. The execution and delivery of any Mortgage shall not be deemed to constitute an assignment or transfer of this Lease nor shall the owner of all the indebtedness secured by any Mortgage ("Mortgagee"), as such, be deemed an assignee or transferee of this Lease so as to require such holder to assume the performance hereunder. Lessor and Lessee agree to the following: (a) If Lessee or any Mortgagee shall have delivered to Lessor prior written notice of the address of any Mortgagee, Lessor shall mail to such Mortgagee a copy of any notice or other communication required to be made by Lessor to Lessee under this Lease at the time of giving such notice or communication to Lessee. (b) In the event of any default by Lessee under the provisions of this Lease, any Mortgagee shall have the same periods as are given Lessee for remedying such default or causing it to be remedied, plus, in each case, an additional period of thirty (30) days after the expiration thereof or 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -18- 6 0 v 0 4 after Lessor has given notice of such default to the Mortgagee pursuant to subsection 18.2(a) above, whichever is later. In addition, in those instances which require any Mortgagee to be in possession of the Premises to cure any default by Lessee, the time herein allowed any Mortgagee to cure any default by Lessee shall be deemed extended to include the period of time required by any Mortgagee to obtain such possession with due diligence, and in those instances in which any Mortgagee is prohibited by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Lessee from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof, the time herein allowed any Mortgagee to prosecute such foreclosure or other proceeding shall be extended for the period of such prohibition provided such Mortgagee makes payments of rent and performs all other monetary obligations of Lessee in accordance with the terms and within the time frames set forth in this Lease. In such event any Mortgagee, without prejudice to its rights against Lessee, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure such default within the applicable grace periods provided for herein whether such default consists of the failure to pay rent or any other monetary obligations to Lessor or the failure to perform any other matter or thing which Lessee is hereby required to do or perform, and Lessor shall accept such performance on the part of such Mortgagee as though the same had been done or performed by Lessee and for such purpose Lessor and Lessee hereby authorize such Mortgagee to enter upon the Premises and to exercise any of its rights and powers under this Lease and, subject to the provisions of this Lease, under the Mortgage. (c) In the event of any default by Lessee, and if prior to the expiration of the applicable grace period specified in subsection 18.2(b) above, a Mortgagee shall give Lessor written notice that it intends to undertake the curing of such default, or to cause the same to be cured, or to exercise its rights to acquire the leasehold interest of Lessee by foreclosure or otherwise, and shall immediately commence and then proceed with all due diligence to do so, whether by performance on behalf of Lessee of its obligations under this Lease, or by entry on the Premises by foreclosure or otherwise, then Lessor shall not terminate or take any action to effect a termination of this Lease or reenter, take possession of or sublet the Premises or similarly enforce performance of this Lease in a mode provided by law so long as such Mortgagee is with all due diligence and in good faith engaged in the curing of such default and is otherwise making payments of all rent and performing all other monetary obligations of Lessee in accordance with the terms and within the time frames set forth in this Lease. I£ the default is not susceptible to being cured by Mortgagee, such default shall be deemed cured if Mortgagee shall promptly cure all curable defaults in 01/24/92 G 0 0 0 4 3 8817u/2588/00 -19- accordance with the terms of this Article 18 and shall proceed in a timely and diligent manner to accomplish the foreclosure of Lessee's interest. (d) In the event Lessee's interest under this Lease is terminated by Lessor for any reason including, without limitation, Lessee's default or rejection of the Lease by a trustee in bankruptcy or a debtor in possession (and provided an unsatisfied Mortgage stands of record) or in the event Lessee's interest under this Lease shall be sold, assigned or transferred pursuant to the exercise of any remedy of any Mortgagee, or pursuant to judicial or other proceedings, Lessor shall execute and deliver a new lease of the Premises to such Mortgagee or its nominee, purchaser, assignee or transferee, upon written request by such Mortgagee or such nominee, purchaser, assignee or transferee given within sixty (60) days after such sale, assignment or transfer for the remainder of the term of the Lease with the same agreements, covenants and conditions (except for any requirements which have been fulfilled by Lessee prior to termination) as were contained herein and with priority equal to that hereof; provided, however, that such Mortgagee shall promptly cure any default of Lessee susceptible to cure by such Mortgagee, and provided further that if more than one Mortgagee requests such new lease, the Mortgagee holding the most senior leasehold mortgage shall prevail. Upon execution and delivery of such new lease, Lessor shall cooperate with the new tenant, at the expense of the said new tenant, in taking such action as shall be necessary to cancel and discharge this Lease and to remove Lessee named herein from the Premises. In such event the ownership of the Improvements to the extent owned by Lessee shall be deemed to have been transferred directly to such transferee of Lessee's interest in this Lease. (e) In the event of a default under a Mortgage, such Mortgagee may exercise with respect to the Premises any right, power or remedy under the Mortgage which is not in conflict with the provisions of this Lease. Further, in the event of a default under a Mortgage, such Mortgagee shall give the Lessor ninety (90) days notice to cure the default and/or purchase the Mortgagee's interest in the note prior to the institution of foreclosure proceedings. (f) The Lessor shall have a first right of refusal to purchase the Mortgagee's interest in either the note and deed of trust or a sale of the building in the event of a foreclosure in which the City has chosen not to cure the default under (e) above. (g) Notwithstanding Article 11 hereof, this Lease may be assigned and subject to Lessor's first right of refusal in (f) above, to any Mortgagee, pursuant to foreclosure or 01/24/92 6- 0 00 41 8817u/2588/00 -20- similar proceedings, or pursuant to an assignment or other transfer of this Lease to such Mortgagee in lieu thereof, and may be thereafter assigned by such Mortgagee with Lessor's consent and any Mortgagee shall be liable to perform the obligations herein imposed on Lessee only for and during the period it is in possession or ownership of the leasehold estate created hereby; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not in any way limit the necessity of curing any default under this Lease, as provided elsewhere in this Article 18, in order to prevent termination of this Lease, or exercise of its other remedies, by Lessor. (h) No surrender (except a surrender upon the expiration of the Term of this Lease as extended or upon termination by Lessor pursuant and subject to the provisions of this Lease) by Lessee to Lessor of this Lease, or of the Premises, or any part thereof, or of any interest therein, and no termination of this Lease by Lessee shall be valid or effective, and neither this Lease nor any of the terms hereof may be amended, modified, changed or cancelled and no consent of Lessee hereunder shall be valid or effective without the prior written consent of any Mortgagee. (i) Subject to Lessor's rights in (e) and (f) above, Lessor consents to a provision in any Mortgage or otherwise for an assignment of rents from subleases of the Premises to the holder thereof, effective upon any default under such Mortgage, provided that all such assignments will, by their terms, terminate upon termination of this Lease. (j) If at any time there shall be more than one Mortgage, the holder of the Mortgage prior in lien shall be vested with the rights under subsection 18.1(b) hereof (other than the provisions for receipt of notices as provided herein) to the exclusion of the holder of any junior Mortgage; provided, however, that if the holder of a first lien Mortgage shall fail or refuse to exercise the rights set forth in said subsection 18.1(b), each holder of a Mortgage in the order of the priority of their respective liens shall have the right to exercise such rights provided that in no event shall the exercise of such rights by all such holders of a Mortgage extend the period for remedy or cure of defaults by more than thirty (30) days beyond the deadline for remedy or cure by the holder of the first lien Mortgage as provided herein, and provided further, however, that with respect to the right of the holder of a Mortgage under subsection 18.1(d) hereof to request a new lease, such right may, notwithstanding the limitation of time set forth in said Section, be exercised by the holder of any junior mortgage, in the event the holder of a prior Mortgage shall not have exercised such right within such sixty (60) day period after the receipt of Lessor's termination notice, provided that such junior Mortgagee must exercise such 01/24/92 U U 8817u/2588/00 -21- 6 -y l� 4-5 right by no later than seventy-five (75) days after the giving of notice by Lessor of termination of this Lease as provided in said Article 18. (k) The foreclosure of a Mortgage, or any sale thereunder, whether by judicial proceedings or by virtue of any power contained in any Mortgage, or any conveyance of the leasehold estate created hereby from Lessee to any Mortgagee through, or in lieu of, foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof, shall not breach any provision of or constitute a default under this Lease, and upon such foreclosure, sale or conveyance Lessor shall recognize any Mortgagee, or any purchaser at such foreclosure sale, as Lessee hereunder. 18.2 No_ Settlement Without Mortgagee Consent. Lessor and Lessee shall not settle any condemnation proceeding or insurance claim with respect to the Premises and any Additional Improvements without any Mortgagee's prior written consent, provided such consent is not unreasonably withheld or delayed. 18.3 No Subordination. Notwithstanding anything else herein contained, Lessor and Lessee acknowledge and agree that neither Lessor's interest as fee owner of the Premises nor Lessor's reversionary interest in the Premises shall be subordinate to any Mortgage or any other lien, mortgage, deed of trust, pledge or other encumbrance of Lessee's leasehold estate and rights hereunder. ARTICLE XIX. RENEWAL OPTION 19.1 Option to Extend. Provided that Lessee is not otherwise in default under the terms of this Lease, and specifically provided that (i) Lessee continues to qualify as a tax exempt nonprofit organization under Section 5.01(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its equivalent successor section, (ii) that Lessee continue to operate under the name of "Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley" or other name acceptable to Lessor, and (iii) that Lessee continues to comply with the terms of Article III of this Lease, then, Lessee may at Lessee's election, extend the term of this Lease by a ten (10) year period. Such election shall be exercised by Lessee giving written notice to Lessor of intent to do so no more than three (3) years, but no less than one (1) year, prior to the then scheduled expiration of the initial term of this Lease or any extension thereof. 19.2 Continuation of Terms. The terms and conditions of this Lease during any such extension, specifically including all obligations of the Lessor and Lessee hereunder, shall O1/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -22- G. 0 v 4 continue in full force and effect except as may be expressly modified by subsequent written mutual agreement of Lessor and Lessee. ARTICLE XX. MISCELLANEOUS 20.1 Waiver. The waiver by either Lessor or Lessee of any breach of any term, condition or covenant contained herein shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, condition or covenant or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, condition or covenant contained herein. 20.2 Notices. All notices, demands or other writings to be made, given or sent hereunder, or which may be so given or made or sent by either Lessor or Lessee to the other shall be deemed to have been given when in writing and personally delivered or if mailed on the third (3rd) day after being deposited in the United States mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, and addressed to the respective parties at their addresses set forth below: To Lessor: City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 To Lessee: Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley P.O. Box 188 Indio, California 92202 20.3 Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed by the parties hereto, nor by any third party, as creating the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture between the parties hereto, it being understood and agreed that neither the method of computation of rent, nor any other provision contained herein, nor any acts of the parties herein, shall be deemed to create any relationship between the parties hereto other than the relationship of Lessor and Lessee. Nor shall anything herein be deemed or construed to imply financial support for Lessee's operation apart from the provisions of this Lease. 20.4 Accord and Satisfaction. No payment by Lessee or receipt by Lessor of a lesser amount than the Rent or other charges herein stipulated shall be deemed to be other than on account of the earliest due stipulated Rent or other charges, nor shall any endorsement or statement on any check or any letter accompanying any check or payment as Rent or other 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -23- 0 0 0 47 charges be deemed an accord and satisfaction, and Lessor shall accept such check or payment without prejudice to Lessor's right to recover the balance of such Rent or other charges or pursue any other remedy in this Lease provided. 20.5 Time of Essence. Time is hereby expressly declared to be of the essence of this Lease and of each and every term, covenant and condition hereof which relates to a date or period of time. 20.6 Remedies Cumulative. The remedies herein given to Lessor and Lessee shall be cumulative and are given without impairing any other rights or remedies given Lessor and Lessee by statute or law now existing or hereafter enacted, and the exercise of any one (1) remedy by Lessor or Lessee shall not exclude the exercise of any other remedy. 20.7 Effect of Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Lease or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of its terms and provisions to persons and circumstances other than those to which it has been held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. No acquisition by Lessor of all or any of the interest of Lessee in or to the Premises or the Improvements, and no acquisition by Lessee of all or any interest of Lessor in or to the Premises shall constitute or work a merger of the respective interest, unless expressly provided for. 20.8 Successors and Assigns. This Lease and the covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and shall apply to the successors and assigns of Lessor and to the permitted successors and assigns of Lessee, and all references in this Lease to "Lessee" or "Lessor" shall be deemed to refer to and include all permitted successors and assigns of such party. 20.9 Entire Agreement. This Lease and the exhibits hereto contain the entire agreement of Lessor and Lessee with respect to the matters covered hereby, and no other agreement, statement of promise made by either Lessor or Lessee which is not contained herein, shall be valid or binding. No prior agreement, understanding or representation pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Lease may be amended or added to except by an agreement in writing signed by Lessor and Lessee. 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -24- C 0 0 0 4 3 20.10 Interest on Past -Due Obligations. Any amount due from Lessee to Lessor hereunder which is not paid when due (including, without limitation, amounts due as reimbursement to Lessor for costs incurred by Lessor in performing obligations of Lessee hereunder upon Lessee's failure to so perform) shall bear interest at the rate of ten (10%) percent per annum from the date due until paid, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, but the payment of the interest shall not excuse or cure any default by Lessee under this Lease. 20.11 Execution of Lease; No Option. The submission of this Lease to Lessee shall be for examination purposes only, and does not and shall not constitute a reservation of or option for Lessee to lease, or otherwise create any interest by Lessee in the Premises. Execution of this Lease by Lessee and return to Lessor shall not be binding upon Lessor notwithstanding any time interval, until Lessor has in fact executed and delivered this Lease to Lessee. 20.12 Corporate Authority. Each individual executing this Lease on behalf of a corporation, nonprofit corporation, partnership or other entity or organization, represents and warrants that he is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of said corporation, partnership, entity or organization and that this Lease is binding upon same in accordance with its terms. Lessee shall, at Lessor's request, deliver a certified copy of its board of directors resolution or certificate authorizing or evidencing such execution. 20.13 Controlling Law. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 20.14 Specific Performance. Nothing contained in this Lease shall be construed as or shall have the effect of abridging the right of either Lessor or Lessee to obtain specific performance of any and all of the covenants or obligations of the other party under this Lease. 20.15 Survival of Indemnities and Warranties. The obligations of the indemnifying party under each and every indemnification and hold harmless provision contained in this Lease shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease to and until the last to occur of (a) the last date permitted by law for the bringing of any claim or action with respect to which indemnification may be claimed by the indemnified party against the indemnifying party under such provision or (b) the date on which any claim or action for which indemnification may be claimed under such provision is fully and finally resolved, and, if applicable, any compromise thereof or judgment or award thereon is paid in full by the indemnifying party and the indemnified party is reimbursed by 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -25- C v O the indemnifying party for any amounts paid by the indemnified party in compromise thereof or upon judgment or award thereon and in defense of such action or claim, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred. The representations, warranties, and covenants of the parties contained herein shall survive the termination of this Lease without regard to any investigation made by the parties. 20.16 Estoppel Certificate. (a) Each of the parties shall at any time and from time to time upon not less than twenty (20) days' prior notice by the other, execute, acknowledge and deliver to such other party a statement in writing certifying that this Lease is unmodified and is in full force and effect (or if there shall have been modifications that this Lease is in full force and effect as modified and stating the modifications), and the dates to which the rent has been paid, and stating whether or not to the best knowledge of the signer of such certificate such other party is in default in performing or observing any provision of this Lease, and, if in default, specifying each such default of which the signer may have knowledge, and such other matters as such other party may reasonably request, it being intended that any such statement delivered by Lessee may be relied upon by Lessor or any prospective purchaser of the fee or any prospective mortgagee or encumbrancer thereof or any prospective assignee of any mortgage or trust deed upon the fee, and it being further intended that any such statement delivered by Lessor may be relied upon by any prospective assignee of Lessee's interest in this Lease, any prospective sublessee of all or part of the Premises or any prospective mortgagee of Lessee. Reliance on any such certificate may not extend to any default as to which the signer of the certificate shall have had no actual knowledge. (b) If Lessor desires to refinance or transfer the Leased Premises, or any part thereof, Lessee hereby agrees to deliver to any lender or transferee designated by Lessor such financial information concerning Lessee as may be reasonably required by such lender or transferee and is reasonably available to Lessee. Such statements shall include, but shall not be limited to, the past three (3) years of financial statements of Lessee. All such financial information shall be received by Lessor in confidence and shall be used only for the purposes set forth herein. 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 -26- 0 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease as of the day and year first above written. "LESSOR" CITY OF LA QUINTA By: John Pena, Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved As to Form: Dawn C. Honeywell, City Attorney "LESSEE" BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY, a California By: Its: O1/24/92 6.0 0 v 0 8817u/2588/00 -27- bt EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES The footprint of the proposed Improvements as designated on plan The preliminary legal description prepared by the City Engineer is as follows: In the event that the actual building footprint differs from the preliminary description, said description shall be deemed to conform to the actual building footprint. 01/24/92 8817u/2588/00 Exhibit A 6 U 0 5,, EXHIBIT "B" SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT (To be Inserted) O1/24/92 0) ", 5 8817u/2588/00 Exhibit B G.0 it U 3 sty'°! 4Qnt"fw COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 .ITEMTITLE: Selection of consultant for Whitewater/Washington Street bridge widening. AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: 3 CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: BACKGROUND: The staff consultant selection committee, comprised of representatives from CVAG, Riverside County and city engineering staff, presents three consultants for Council consideration. The attached narrative discusses the project, the consultant selection process, interview results, and considerations for Council discussion. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION• Council pleasure. Submitted by: APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council: J°� /� k RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER 60005 4 Whitewater/Washington Street Bridge Widening The Project The Washington Street bridge near Hwy 111 is jointly owned by the city and Riverside County. The City of Indian Wells is considering annexation of the county portion. The bridge is slated for widening next winter to complement improvements to Washington Street adjacent to One -Eleven La Quinta Center. Funding for the bridge comes from the city, Measure A funds administered by CVAG, and state/local partnership funds administered by Caltrans. Consultant Selection In November, we requested Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from interested bridge engineering firms. The proposed engineering contract includes review of the seismic adequacy of the existing structure, design of the bridge widening and roadway transitions, liaison with all permitting agencies, and construction management. We received SOQs from 13 interested firms. We contacted CVAG, Riverside County and Indian Wells and invited them to participate in the consultant selection process. CVAG and Riverside County assigned representatives to the selection committee. Indian Wells discussed their concerns and deferred to the committee for the selection process. A five -person review team, consisting of CVAG and Riverside County representatives and city staff members Frank Reynolds, Steve Speer and Fred Bouma, chose six top firms for interviews. On January 27, the top six firms were interviewed to select three for referral to the City Council. The four -person interview team consisted of the CVAG and Riverside County representatives and city staff members Steve Speer and Fred Bouma. The interview team narrowed the field to three firms: The firms Holmes & Narver, Orange, and Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall, L.A., are endorsed by all four members of the interview team. The firms each propose project teams that are strong in all phases of this design/construct project. The firm Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, San Bernardino, makes up the third team. This firm presented a strong design group but was judged weaker in construction management than the other two firms. Council Options The next step in the selection process is ranking the top three teams for negotiations. Council options include, but are not necessarily limited to: 69040 J.. • Review the SOWS, interview the top three teams at a regular or a special Council meeting, and rank the teams for negotiations. • Appoint a final selection committee to perform the above tasks. Participants might include Council members, members of the community, members of other organizations, staff, or a combination of the above. • Defer the final ranking to the existing staff/county/CVAG selection committee. Considerations CVAG is providing partial funding for this project and has expressed interest in the final selection. Riverside County has joint authority over this bridge and has also expressed interest. The Council may wish to invite those organizations' representatives to participate in any final selection process. FRB/frb MEMORANDUM COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO REQUEST PROPOSALS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR SENIOR CENTER FACILITY. BACKGROUND: Council began discussing the need and design parameters have been requesting direction regarding the project. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: for a Senior Center in 1987. Dimensions altered on several occasions. Staff is further progress and development of this The City currently has a confirmed $327,351 on deposit in CDBG funds with the County's Economic Development Agency for the construction of a Senior Center. These funds and an anticipated additional $1531,000 (to be available by December 1993) will be needed for construction of even a modestly sized and designed building. APPROVED BY:i� RECOMMENDATION: Staff is seeking direction regarding proceeding with an RFP process for design or whether staff should continue working with Gruen Associates on a scaled down version of their January 7, 1992 presented design. Submitted by: Signature Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER V J ty OF„��5 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council members From: Clint Bohlen, Parks and Recreation Manager Date: January 29, 1992 Subj: Consideration of Authorization to Request Proposals for Architectural Services for the Senior Center Facility BACKGROUND CDBG History The City of La Quinta began the application process for CDBG funds from the Economic Development Agency of Riverside County in 1986, in accord with the thirteenth year of CDBG funding. The annual applications for funding have been primarily for funds to construct a senior center. The most recent application was in March 1991 for $63,000, of which $53,000 is to be used for the senior center construction. These funds have not been credited to the City's account according to the most recent County printouts. The City will again apply for funds this March, 1992 and in March of 1993, and we hope to acquire another $50,000 in grant funds each year. The current CDBG account balance for the senior center is $327,351.00. This total, plus the anticipated funds, would allow us to proceed with construction of the senior center with $480,351.00 in fiscal year 93-94. Senior Center Design and Construction History At the January 5, 1988 Council meeting, a Planning report was presented to the City Council which indicated that the proposed Civic Center site could accommodate a 8,500 - 10,000 square foot senior center. The minutes from this meeting reflects that no action was taken at this meeting, and the discussion neither affirms nor opposes the dimensions of the senior center as proposed. At the March 7, 1989 Council meeting, a discussion paper was presented to the Council during a study session, again by Planning, which now proposes that the senior center be scaled down to 2,000 sq ft (no doubt GO;iu�? 1/29/92 Senior Center Staff Report Bohlen to Council due to the associated discussion at this meeting regarding utilization of CDBG funds for construction, and the reality that funds available would not allow construction of a 8.5-10 thousand sq ft building) At the March 21, 1989 meeting, the Council passed a resolution which stated that a Phase I, 2,000 sq ft senior center was to be constructed, with two Phases to follow as financing allowed. During a Study Session in the May 7, 1991 meeting, staff sought direction from the Council on proceeding on the design and construction of a senior center. The Council discussed various concepts and desires for the facility, and then passed a Minute Order 91-70, motion by C. Sniff, seconded by C. Rushworth, directing staff to proceed on the design and construction of a 7,000 sq ft Senior Center. At the 6-18-91 meeting, the staff presented an agreement for the Council approval with the design firm of Gruen and Associates. A proposal to design a 7,000 sq ft building was discussed. Gruen returned to the Council on January 7, 1992 with a detailed, 10,000 sq ft building design. Council discussion focused on the cost and size of the building, with some concern expressed regarding the urgency to proceed with construction. Staff Analvsis The staff suggestion is that the Council may either decide to pursue another design firm, or should retain the current firm with direction to scale down the proposed design. However, a most helpful action the Council might choose to take would be to establish a dollar limit which the combined site improvements, design, landscaping and construction costs of the senior center may not exceed, realizing that the Council will in all probability have $480, 351.00 available for the senior center in CDBG funds by December, 1993. The remaining costs (whatever the ceiling limit the Council may impose) will have to be made up by City funds. As the Council has allocated some funds to design from Fund 18, it may be appropriate to consider continued utilization of this fund for the balance of the construction costs. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff is seeking direction regarding proceeding with an RFP process for architectural services, or whether staff should continue working with Gruen on a scaled down version of their January 7, 1992 design as presented. C�vI�J•% \ K . / $ § \ \ @ / ( [ w w w w j j 3 § } w 0 \ \ $ \ \ \ � \ \ ( \ / § 7 b§ § ) ) 2 2 m } § cc ! w@@ w » « ! ) @ } Cc } § o § § § } } \ \ \ \ \ z §a o § { K \ o c ) ) ) ® 2 w J k \ $ §cq LO % 2 _ 2 } 2 I & to : d k 2 k a a a a a a s a s#■ 2 2 z a a # a a a # i i K ■# a a a §k� Cj � } _ _ i k J\2k }\ v E- K k %§§ ` } K§ a 4s41, � _ cc & cc p j / § § § B _ � k g % R / q § K & k U. \ § § & ( E R ° / } § / } �M \ § § / w w ± w w)% S S S 4 § ir » . & w _ ƒ » N � p e < § z § « & < K a a § o a— w a % x< _ z 3 o 4 cc § K I � / / / w w � o - § o § 0 0m w w ir a \ / \ a. §E U) ( § { k ) \ k k LU \ 3 / a ° o z m g« g 9 a Q z 2 w o o o j !¥ w K} / 3 } w}co ( } � uj ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ i # t t # # # t « { { f ! « ! ! )§m � - � b ° m � � � � m w w w ui I. A. ,v 1.5 acres),a 1-acre II. / --?8 LA QUINTA CIVIC CENTER SITE ASSESSMENT 7" y BACKGROUND Project Description: The proposal is to evaluate location and siting construction of a 35,000-square-foot civic center on a 16+ acre site. The location being assessed is the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Washington Street (refer to Exhibit "A", Vicinity Map). The proposal would accommodate a 25,000-square-foot city hall (15,000 square feet initial construction, with 10,000 square feet expansion capacity), 8,500-10,000-square-foot senior center J##�V-W# $¢444{ 4;AWO$ #,tAHfOkN corporation yard for City equipment and vehicles, the possible inclusion of a fire station, sheriff substation/police facility, public library, and cultural events area. The site is vacant and sparsely vegetated, except for bordering areas to the southwest. Surrounding properties are predominately vacant, with residential zoning. Existing R-2-4000 zoning on the site would need to be changed to an appropriate classification. The site is currently designated High Density Residential by the La Quinta General Plan. The proposed land use could be considered consistent with this land use designation, though the City has not established specific policies relative to land use mix in the High Density Residential category. The proposal is listed in the infrastructure fee program adopted by the City. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See previous checklist and Section III. III. DISCUSSION OR EVALUATION 1. Earth l.b. & c. - These changes will occur as a part of construction grading and clearing processes. The impact will be minimal as the site is flat and regulation through grading plan review will mitigate any minor negative impacts due to disruptions. l.g. - Exposure to ground shaking will be mitigated through adherence to seismic building design requirements for public buildings. Impacts are insignificant, as they are associated with any development near active fault zones. MR/MCDOC.001 DISCUSSION PAPER: SENIOR CENTER MARCH 7, 1989 GENERAL LOCATION The Senior Center will be located somewhere on the site of the Civic Center. The exact location will be decided as a part of the Master Plan process. ISSUE NUMBER 1: SIZE _'ie resent activi=ies of the Senior Center within office space _n Plaza La Quinta are inadequately housed in 1,200 square feet. Construction under CDBG funds is a verl• expensive and staff -time consuming process. Davis Bacon Act compliance and special bookkeeping requirements are obligatory. As a result, it is suggested that the minimum structure for Senior Center purposes be constructed with CDBG funding. One concept which has been proposed suggests designing the Center in three phases: I Senior Center ..,2,,000 square feet 'II Adult Community Center -1,700 square feet III Adult Recreation Center 1,400 square feet TOTAL CENTER: 5,100 square feet Only Phase I�would be constructed with CDBG funds. Phases II and III would'be constructed with City funds at a later date. The site would be designed ,,;for ; all---three-phases with CDBG funding.`'Site,preparaiion and constructionfor Phase T .only would be accomplished with CDBG funding:.."Each section would'be designed for easy expansion as need'.and funding may allow:? 0 igvv�11 TAt 4.4 Qumro COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 21, 1989 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION MAKING COMMITMENTS TO ECD CONCERNING THE SENIOR CENTER COMPLETION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: REFER TO MEMO, MARCH 7, ON SENIOR CENTER COMMITMENTS. COUNCIL GAVE STAFF DIRECTION TO PREPARE RESOLUTION. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: COMMITS CDBG FUNDS AND CITY FUNDS TO COMPLETION, FURNISHING, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE. RECOMMENDATION• ADOPT RESOLUTION. APPROVED BY: Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Coungil S'gnature RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER C0U,06lf CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN COMMITMENTS TO THE COMPLETION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SENIOR CENTER WHEREAS, Year 13 CDBG Entitlement Funds in the amount of $120,000 was committed to the purchase of approximately one -and -one-half acres of the Civic Center site for the construction of a Senior Center; and, WHEREAS, Year 14 CDBG Entitlement Funds plus reprogrammed funds in the combined amount of $66,653 was committed to the design, site preparation, and start of construction of the Senior Center; and, WHEREAS, Year 15 CDBG Entitlement Funds (less $2,700) plus a reprogrammed amount of $29,297 were committed to the continuation of the Senior Center construction; and, WHEREAS, in a Public Hearing to be conducted in April, the City Council anticipates committing Year 16 CDBG Entitlement Funds to the completion of the Senior Center; and, WHEREAS, the Riverside County Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD) has requested certain commitments to be expressed by the City Council regarding the completion, operation, and the maintenance of the Senior Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the understandings of the Council in this matter; 2. The planned Senior Center (Phase I) is envisioned as approximately 2,000 square feet, single story, to serve on an annual basis a Senior population of approximately 500 persons. Phases II and III will be constructed at a later date with City funds; MR/RESOCC.031 -1._} v U V ht City Council Minutes 7 May 7 1991 STUDY SESSION ITEMS 4. DISCUSSION OF CVAG'S "VISION STATEMENT FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY" - THE 21ST CENTURY. Mayor Pena advised that CVAG has asked each City to review the vision statement as they see Riverside County in the 21st Century. It is an effort to bring the County and cities closer together. In response to Council Member Sniff's suggestions, Mayor Pena advised that a Committee of two can be set up to re -write or propose modifications to the statement. 3. DISCUSSION OF LIBRARY GRANT APPLICATION. Mr. Reynolds advised that the County is waiting to hear whether or not the City is going to proceed and reapply. Looking at the letter that came back from the State, it doesn't seem like correcting the discrepancies they found would be an overwhelming task. Mayor Pena advised that he would like to see the City proceed with the grant. Council concurred. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that staff will proceed and have a new application and resolution to Council by the end of June. 2. DISCUSSION OF SENIOR CENTER DESIGN. Council discussed the size and interior design of the new senior center. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that a recommendation from Council would enable staff to move forward with the project. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Rushworth to proceed on a 7,000 sq.ft. Senior Center Building. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 91-70. 1. REVIEW OF OPERATING BUDGET, GOALS, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES AND SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92. TOM GENOVESE, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the operating budget, goals, personnel and services and supplies and equipment portion of the budget for 1991/92. 0.1Q I) Mr. Mayor and Council Members: I am the spokesperson for the La Quinta Sr. Center Committee, a group of senior citizens who are very concerned about the Sr. Center. We request the following statements be read into the record. At our January potluck Mr. Kiedrowski gaveFus an update on the proposed new Sr. Center. We felt the subject needed to be brought up before the entire City Council for further discussion. In reviewing the plans that the City presented to us for the new Center, of approxi- mately 10-11,000 square feet, we feel the plans are adequate and are acceptable with some modifications. La Quinta urgently needs a Sr. Center and should not be the only city in the valley without one. It should be built as soon as possible. In order that all council members can be made aware of the deplor- able conditions under which we are forced to operate, we would like to give you a brief summary of some of the problems we face daily trying to operate out of a storefront. 1. Facilities for Potluck a. No kitchen. ? b. No hot water. D C. Water used for coffeepot comes from bathroom sink, which we believe is in violation of the health code. d. One bathroom for both sexes. e. Food for potluck is served on a board atop a billiard table. f. Inadequate storage space. Large tables are stacked in a very precarious manner in rear of the room, along with other supplies. g. Insufficient space precludes accommodation of all seniors who wish to attend potlucks. 2. Meals on Wheels Program This is a very vital function of the Center. Senior volunteers assemble and deliver approximately 20 meals per day, which includes breakfast and dinner, to shut-ins who would otherwise have no nourishment. These meals are assembled atop the billiard table under very difficult conditions. There is no space for stacking and cleaning the chests used for delivering the food. 3. Exercise Facilities Insufficient space to conduct exercise class, which has been moved approximately three miles away to Palm Desert Country Club, outside La Quinta city limits. V 4. Funds for New Sr. Center Mr. Kiedrowski assured us that the Sr.`Center Furniture and Fixtures Fund was secure and not affected by the recent $14,000,000 potential loss of funds. He stated the City was solvent and had $38,000,000 in the General Fund, from which the City will borrow to build the new Civic Center. We understand originally, $1,000,000 was allocated for the new Sr. Center. Then we were told by Mr. Kiedrowski there was less than $500,000 available. At the February 4th council meeting we were told that $1,000,000 would be made'(available for the construction of the Sr. Center. These funds would not be affected by the missing $141000,000. Perhaps some of the council members feel a new Sr. Center is not needed at this time. That may very well be because they have not taken the time to visit our Center to see firsthand the inadequate, cramped conditions under which we operate. The City is now ten years old, and we understand there are over 3,000 plus seniors in La Quinta who could avail themselves of facilities and programs offered by a well equipped Sr. Center. In closing, we request a target date for the start of construction of the Sr. Center. C00067 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: Discussion of Authorization to Request Proposals for Landscaping Festival Grounds adjacent to the La Quinta Civic Center. BACKGROUND• AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: 5 CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: NO STAFF REPORT INCLUDED IN AGENDA PACKET. OJU063 c-'V OF THty COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 2/4/92 ITEM TITLE• Consider approval of Contract Change Order No. 3-B Assessment District 91-1 Area "B" BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: In order to make La Fonda Storm Channel completely functional: 1) Required an increase in wing wall heights @ road crossings 2) To prevent storm water from Avenida La Fonda Storm Channel from eroding Calle Rondo Storm Channel it is necessary to construct outfall structure as indicated by Exhibits "A" & "B". FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: APPROVED BY: Additional allocation of R.D.A. Fund (060-5216-111-010) in the amount of $14,500.00. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of A.D. 91-1 Area "B" C.C.O. 3-B Submitted by: �9 gig -nature Approved for submission to City Council: RON kIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER 60000 � TO: T4'tf 4 4a Qw�t& L-1 Areas "B" & "C" Sheet 1 of 1 TARMAC CALIFORNIA Date: 1/23/92 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 3-B You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications for this contract. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 1) At La Fonda storm channel, increase wing wall heights (6), to match design grades. 2) Labor and materials to construct La Fonda and Calle Rondo outfall structure per plans and specifications and as detailed by sketches Exhibits "A" & "B" and Contract Drawing 23 of 24 Rev. 1. This structure shall be complete and in place. The contractor shall grade the Calle Rondo Channel so as to maintain unobstructed design flow over and beyond the outfall structure herein described. This Change Order shall include but is not limited to excavation, grading and compaction and be full and just compensation and no additional compensation shall be paid. Total Increase Authorized By this CCO No. 3-B = $14,500.00 By reason of this order the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: 0 WORKING DAYS ADDED/DELETED TO CONTRACT TIME Submitted By: Date: Approved By: Date: We, the undersigned Contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment the prices shown above. Contractor:` r—FAa¢ me Title: Accepted Date•-� By: Ir3iT "q L fJ Fa MOA CffAivNEL D U7F/�+=� %a ���� CHANNEL OC-7,0? �1�oxJ� Sono'' 4 I S' I / "Chas Ter �7np, j 1'-o"Cut 0(4Wa.�f3 r II 114: 10 ,, l a "xro" ',Wire Me5ti �Tu p� \ GI /LO"G tt off 6j 4'-0" Deep �OnSfructron t%in� i (?y fj ) \El 30.77 (Field Mecs.) 3p,1(p a/4/ &v.1213191 00u071 FacH�Bi T "5 0 0 N lr6,0s 55 "I,E 2%'/e 0 a cti lk o O T m C000 }' �c COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: Discussion and Appointment of Citizens Advisory Committee for Recommendation as to City's Financial Procedures. BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: NO STAFF REPORT INCLUDED IN AGENDA PACKET. TuT 4 Za Qg&rcv Continued from COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 7, 1992 AGENDA CATEGORY: ITEM TITLE• Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with CVAG Regarding the City's AB2766 Motor Vehicle Registration Fees. BACKGROUND: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: s Attached is a Memorandum of Understanding as drafted by CVAG which establishes an agreement whereby one-third of the revenues received by the City from the AB2766 Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Assessment Program will be allocated to CVAG for administration of the Coachella Valley PM10 Program. The City's approximate allotment this year is $3,137. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Council's pleasure. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council Signature RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER 000071 C VAG COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS • County of Riverside & Cities of: • Cathedral City • Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage December 17, 1991 Mr. Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: MOU Between CVAG and the City of La Quinta Dear Ron: As directed by the CVAG Executive Committee on November 25th, we have drafted an MOU for adoption by the City of La Quinta. This is to establish an agreement whereby one-third of the revenues received by your city from the AB2766 Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Assessments program, approximately $3,137 this year, will be allocated to CVAG for the administration of the Coachella Valley PM10 program. I request that you place this on the agenda of your City Council at its earliest date. Please let us know when this will be so that a CVAG staff person can attend this session to answer any questions that may arise. My point of contact in this matter is Mr. Jerry Mechanick at 346-1127, extension 115. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS LESTER D. D EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Enclosure cc: Michael Cohen Jerry Mechanick GOL07,? COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Mil OF 1992 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made and entered into by and between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the of The purpose of this MOU is to document the parties' understanding of and responsibilities for the allocation of a portion of the funds received by the of from revenues derived from the AB2766 Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Assessments program to CVAG for the Coachella Valley PM10 program. AB2766 funds are to be used to reduce emissions caused by motor vehicles consistent with requirements of the California Clean Air Act and the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Staff of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have stated it was the District's intention when allocating initial support to CVAG, that the portion of PM10 in the Coachella Valley attributable to mobile sources (one-third) be covered by local AB2766 funds allocated to CVAG to help continue the regional administration of the PM10 program. Upon recommendation of the Coachella Valley PM10 Technical Working Group (TWG) and the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), on November 25, 1991 the Executive Committee approved the following motion: "That the Executive Committee recommends that CVAG jurisdictions allocate one-third of the funds received from the AB2766 program to CVAG for administration of the PM10 program and that a memorandum of understanding between CVAG and each jurisdiction be initiated to that effect." Each CVAG jurisdiction has passed an ordinance adopting the AB2766 program, setting up a separate account from which to disburse and subsequently monitor and audit these revenues. Revenues are distributed quarterly by the SCAQMD, based on each jurisdiction's proportionate number of registered motor vehicles. Upon adoption of this MOU, the of shall forward to the Finance Director of CVAG an amount equal to one-third of revenues G0J07 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS received to date and deposited in its AB2766 account. Subsequently, each quarter, upon receipt, one-third of revenues received shall be then forwarded to CVAG. CVAG shall likewise deposit all monies received as a result of this MOU in a separate account and provide an audit annually, which shall be sent to each jurisdiction. The TWG shall receive a monthly financial report of revenues and expenditures in this account. RESTRICTIONS The funds accruing to CVAG from this MOU are designated for the regional administration of the PM10 program as outlined by the "State Implementation Plan for PM10 in the Coachella Valley" which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board in November 1990. Expenditures will be for salary and expenses relating to the ongoing management of the program such as staff, meetings, the preparation of agendas, publicity, and community outreach. CANCELLATION CLAUSE This MOU shall continue in effect until or unless the AB2766 Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Assessments program is discontinued, or the Coachella Valley PM10 program, as administered by CVAG, shall be discontinued or CVAG, for whatever reason, is dissolved or otherwise disbanded, whichever shall occur sooner. APPENDIX: Letter from Lester D. Cleveland to Executive Committee members, dated November 25, 1991 regarding Estimated Vehicle Registration Revenue (AB2766) for CVAG members during FY1991-92 is appended to this MOU, in order to provide an estimate as to the amount of revenue forthcoming to CVAG under this program. COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS By: Title: Chairman Date: OF By: Title: Date: 6.0 0077 c VAS COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS • County of Riverside & Cities of: • Cathedral City • Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage November 25, 1991 TO: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: Lester D. Cleveland, Executive Director RE: Estimated Vechicle Registration Revenue (AB2766) for CVAG members during FY 1991-92 COACHELLA VALLEY TOTAL AB2766 POPULATION CITY REVENUE ONE-THIRD EQUALS 31,850 CATHEDRAL CITY 23,148 7,716 17,550 COACHELLA 12,755 4,252 12,300 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 8,939 2,980 2,710 INDIAN WELLS 1,970 657 38,100 INDIO 27,690 9,230 125950 LA QUINTA %412 3,137 23,750 PALM DESERT 177261 5,754 40,600 PALM SPRINGS 29,507 9,836 10,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 7,268 2,423 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 48,123 UNICORPORATED 34,975 _ 11,659 237,933 172,925 57,644 GD%'Jo t MEMORANDUM TO: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER FROM: SAUNDRA JUHOLA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1991 SUBJECT: AB2766 MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES I talked to Les Cleveland this morning and he gave the following break -down as to which cities have decided to participate: PalmDesert .........................Yes Indio...............................Yes Desert Hot Springs..................Yes Riverside County....................Yes Coachella ) Rancho Mirage ) These cities have the matter on their next Indian Wells ) agenda, but have indicated that they will Palm Springs ) participate. Cathedral City has indicated that they are going to reconsider their decision and decide to participate. Les wanted you to know that if they fall short of the funds necessary to make the "match", they will be coming back to the cities for additional funds. C�vUIk COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Traffic Control Measures on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: The City is continuing to receive complaints of speeding on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue along with other safety concerns regarding the 90-degree turn at the intersection of these two streets. The Technical Traffic Committee met on January 6, 1992 to discuss these issues. Refer to the attached memo for the Committee's discussion. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: APPROVED BY: Approximately $60 per sign; total cost is approximately $960. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action. 1. Establish a speed limit of 35 MPH on Calle Tampico between Washington Street and Park Avenue. 2. Establish a speed limit of 35 MPH on Park Avenue between Calle Tampico and Avenue 50. 3. Authorize the Public Works Director to post 35 MPH speed limit signs on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue within the limits noted in recommendations #1 and #2. 4. Authorize the Public Works Director to install chevron signs facing both approach directions at the intersection of Calle Tampico and Park Avenue in lieu of the existing single "arrow" signs. 5. Authorize the Public Works Director to post "No Parking" signs on the near curb for a distance of 400 feet from the intersection in the sight restricted direction at the intersections providing access to the Painted Cove and Bajada subdivisions . C0Quo City Council Meeting: February 4, Business Item: #9 Submitted by: Signature 1992 Approved for submission to City Council: nun KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER 00 08.1. l�til(� y Y 117 , TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DATE: JANUARY 30, 1992 RE: TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CALLE TAMPICO AND PARK AVENUE On January 8, 1992 the Technical Traffic Committee met to discuss traffic control measures on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue along with other traffic issues in the City. The Committee addressed three separate traffic problems on Calls Tampico and Park Avenue. The problems are: 1. Speeding on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. 2. The 90-degree turn at the intersection of Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. 3. A sight distance problem for traffic desiring to egress the Painted Cove and Bajada subdivisions in the reverse curve area on Park Avenue. Speeding Two methods of speed control were discussed: (1) install a stop sign at Calle Rondo, or (2) set a reasonable speed limit and enforce it. 1. The topic of installing a stop sign at Calle Rondo to act as a speed control device has been discussed at a prior Technical Traffic Committee in late 1991. At the earlier meeting it was recommended that a stop sign not be installed because: (1) the location does not qualify for a stop sign based on traffic warrants, (2) it is generally believed that a stop sign at this location will not satisfactorily control the more flagrant speed offenders. Since traffic conditions have not changed in the short time since the prior discussion which would affect a difference in the earlier recommendation, the Committee quickly moved onto a discussion of a more comprehensive solution. That discussion focused on how to set a reasonable speed limit that is enforceable. 2. As you are aware, state law is quite specific regarding how speed limits are set on most streets and roads in California. It has recently come to staffs attention that the legal requirement related to performing a engineering and traffic study on streets that do not qualify as a residential street, prior to setting and enforcing a speed limit with radar, does not apply in certain circumstances. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members January 30, 1992 Page 2 The exemption applies to streets that have one lane in each direction, are 40 feet or less between curbs, and have an uninterrupted length of one-half mile or less. After some discussion it was determined that Calle Tampico and Park Avenue do not qualify for the special exemption because their combined uninterrupted length exceeds one-half mile. Only traffic control devices are considered to be interruptions. As a result of the preceding conclusion, the Committee turned its attention to the traditional method of setting a speed limit. Engineering staff pointed out the following special considerations that could and should be included in the engineering and traffic survey that would justify a reduction of the speed limit below the 85th percentile if the survey yielded a conclusive speed limit of over 35 MPH. a. Per Caltrans Traffic Manual (figure 4-3), the comfortable speed on horizontal curves with a 550-foot radius is 35 MPH. The curve radii through the reverse curves near the Painted Cove, Bajada and Desert Fairways subdivisions are 550 feet. b. The comfortable speed on a 45-foot radius curve (ie the 90- degree turn) can not be found on Figure 4-3 in the Traffic Manual because the table does address curves with radii smaller than 60 feet. The 90-degree turn at the intersection of Calle Tampico and Park Avenue is currently posted at 15 MPH based on field testing for an appropriate safe speed. C. There is a sight distance problem for traffic desiring to egress the Painted Cove and Bajada subdivisions. The corner sight distance is 400 feet utilizing the 7.5 second criteria promulgated by Caltrans' Highway Design Manual in Section 405.1 (2a) . The 400-foot clear sight distance implies the speed limit should be something less that 40 MPH per Table 405.1A in the Highway Design Manual since 30 MPH requires 330 feet of sight distance and 40 MPH requires 440 feet of sight distance. Following the Engineering staff presentation, Sheriff's Department personnel stated they would perform a speed survey to determine what the 85th percentile speed is on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. The speed survey results are summarized as follows. The speed surveys are attached for reference. a. Calle Tampico Highest speed - 50 MPH 85th percentile - 44 MPH Conclusive speed limit without special considerations - 40 MPH I. �% LIJI 6{ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members January 30, 1992 Page 3 b. Park Avenue Highest speed - 50 MPH 85th percentile - 44 MPH Conclusive speed limit without special considerations - 40 MPH The Sheriff's Department recommends the speed limit be posted at 35 MPH and cites the "Safer Route to School" designation as the special consideration for justifying the 5 MPH reduction below the conclusive speed limit that is based on the speed survey alone. Engineering staff believes the special considerations mentioned earlier in this memo are additional, as well as, substantive reasons for justifying the 35 MPH speed limits on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. 90-Degree Turn at Calle Tampico and Park Avenue The Committee recommended that the city install three (3) chevron signs facing both approach directions in lieu of the current "arrow" signs. The recommendation is considered the next higher step in signage. Coupled with a reasonable speed limit that can be enforced, the Committee believes this signage revision is the most logical step to take in light of the improved safety record experienced with the current signage and speed limit situation. Sight Distance Problem at Painted Cove and Baiada The sight distance problem for traffic desiring to egress the Painted Cove or Bajada subdivisions is caused by a combination of curves in the street along with conflicting landscape material. If a 35 MPH speed limit is adopted for Park Avenue the sight distance problem is eliminated, except in instances where a sight restricting vehicle may park near the intersection. To eliminate the occasional vehicle that may block the sight corridor, it is recommended that the street be posted for "No Parking" along the near curb in one direction only from each intersection for a distance of 400 feet. However, if the 35 MPH speed limit is not adopted, the Committee recommended that the City affect a revision in the landscaping material recently planted in the perimeter area adjacent to the Painted Cove and Bajada subdivisions. A revision of the landscaping could have some fiscal implications for the City since the City has accepted the developer's landscaping work as being complete and satisfactory. C0V08-1 TO VIEW THE TRAFFIC SURVEY, PLEASE SEE LASERFICHE PUBLIC WORKS folder > SPEED LIMIT/TRAFFIC SURVEYS subfolder •41 �W COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM TITLE: BUSINESS SESSION: Civic Center Art Purchase Award CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: BACKGROUND: Selection and approval of Civic Center Art Purchase Award Committee. /0 Approval of authorization to allow for a 10% "leeway" over the allotted amount for purchases. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None other than addressed in fiscal budget. None Submitted by: Signature APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER Cci�G: t T� V� z �FMo►MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Ronald L. Kiedrowski, City Manager DATE: January 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Civic Center Art Purchase Award/La Quinta Arts Festival On behalf of the Art in Public Places Committee, please consider this as a request for Council to select and approve members of the Civic Center Art Purchase Award Committee. The committee is comprised of the Art in Public Places Committee Members, plus two Council Members. The Art in Public Places Committee Members include: Elaine Franke Ron Kiedrowski Meg Robertson John Walling Kay Wolff The Art in Public Places Committee would also like to respectfully request authorization to allow for a 10% "leeway" over the allotted amount of $5,000 for purchases. Thank you for your consideration of this request. RK:kb T4tvl 4 4 Q9&rcv COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: Reconsideration of Temporary closure of streets for the La Quinta Arts Festival BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: To facilitate the temporary closure of streets, and establish a temporary pedestrian crosswalk. See attached resolution - Exhibit A. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adoption of the attached resolution. Submitted by: TOtHARTfUNG BUILDING AND SAFETY DIRECTOR FORM.14 Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA AND AVENIDA MENDOZA DURING A SPECIAL EVENT TO BE HELD MARCH 19, THROUGH MARCH 22, 1992 INCLUSIVE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta that upon authorization by the City Engineer, the following temporary street closures be established from 9:00 a.m. to dusk, and to be in effect during the period of the special event. Establish a temporary crosswalk at Avenida Bermudas and Avenida La Fonda. The duration of this event is March 19, 1992, through March 22, 1992, inclusive: 1. Avenida Montezuma at Eisenhower Drive (westbound lane will remain open between Avenida Mendoza and Eisenhower to allow egress from Isabella's) 2. Avenida Montezuma at Avenida Navarro 3. Avenida Mendoza South at Avenida Montezuma 4. Avenida Mendoza North at Avenida Montezuma (access will be given to customers of Isabella's Flower Boutique, 77-836 Avenida Montezuma at this gate. Parking in front of shop will be restricted to Isabella's customers) 5. Temporary pedestrian crosswalk on Avenida Bermudas north of Avenida La Fonda APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 1992. JOHN J. PENA, MAYOR City of La Quinta, CA ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California tl RESOLART v U 9 j �- - F. � ti ,:.> a !• c.�•. a.4\ w• p ip ga pp a n � z o - - £IS£NNOWER -r `^`"' "' ,: DRIVE 16 194 or m t I o .r C �� e•\ 17'1 ` e iP aMARTIN£Z i t I �� n O � ' ��./ a i V � c b i�0 • I p r — - -- •' <� ?5 • �/INO/M/[ O1 con.0 y 1 gdlia i _1 7 a O/R• I n Ni ^~i Jr I p AVENIDA e a / ss• s. s. fo rie OOo,OIC �iti • G 0 O O O G� / 3 `= �� rt s�• s / AV£NlDA - — NAVARRO------�- _T__ ° I y r• .. .. .. ss f• f+ . le +.r e i ant :3 �ooy I _ B O b b M l• « J 4 , V, I• • v � I O -L Q r � a• ` I O � b I Qb L v ��� y u • a In � • � • ^ .` � � � ^ V w — _ - SUS=NESS SESS=ON =TEM NO _ /� ORDINANCE NO. 201 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CHANGE OF ZONE 91-067 AND CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION CASE NO. CZ 91-067 - MADISON ESTATES/SEASTAR APN: 767-320-002 The City Council of the City of La Quinta does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 4.1 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (which was adopted by reference by this City Council by Ordinance 5, operative August 29, 1982) and La Quinta District Official Zoning Plan Map 14, as amended, are further amended by rezoning from R-1-20,000 Single Family Residential to R-1-10,000 Single Family Residential, the parcel shown and depicted for such rezoning on the map which is attached to and made a part of this Ordinance, and which attached map is labeled Exhibit "A", Change of Zone 91-067. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL. The Change of Zone has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended and adopted in City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study and has determined that the proposed Change of Zone will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 4. POSTING. The City Clerk shall, within 15 days after passage of this Ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council; shall certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on this day of 1992, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ORDDRFT.012 1 ! 6GigG0 JOHN J. PE A, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California ORDDRFT.012 .. n t1 li i) i 1 CPS pn�� off", R-2 R- I -?0000 �.......� EOUESiRM f,' j 1"Siftmo'vi" 52nd Avenue 52nd Avenue • R I R-1 20,000 •' V1 c 2otoc+i a to O �•1•t• 61 C ld tN 54th Avenue 54th Avencip • - �' - R-1-20,000 �•' R-1 20,000 • PGA WEST DEVELOPMENT -- --d s/%E . A ' . '' x R-2 ....�...: _. -. R-2 Airport Boule and CASE MAP NORTH CASE Nob Madison Estates/Seastar Change of Zone Amendment - From R-1 20,000 Single Family SCALE: Residential to R-1 10,000 Single Family Residential M EXHIBIT A .. s w OF COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 41 1992 ITEM TITLE: Demand Register BACKGROUND: Prepaid Warrants Payable Warrants AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: P/R 6592-66461 $61,491.44 10793-109861 471,452.35 11004-110581 61,690.99 $594,634.78 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Demand of Cash $594,634.78 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Demand Register Submitted bv: ture APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council ell" i RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER GL24U4 2/04/92 WARRANT R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 ,DATE OF WARRANT IN FAVOR OF CHECK AMOUNT ENCUMB DESCRIPTION ISSUE NUMBER AMOUNT NUMBER 1/07/92 10793* SO CA SOIL 6 TESTING INC 300.00- 300.00- ACI SEMINAR 1/14/92 10853* PETTY CASH 352.87 352.87 PETTY CASH REIIS 1/14/92 10854* BOYD, BARBARA D. 125.50 125.50 P/R 12/26/91 8 1/2/92 1/14/92 10855* SCOTSMAN GROUP INC,THE 517.20 517.20 MO RENT/BLDG 6 SAFETY 1/15/92 10948* SCOTSMAN GROUP INC,THE 517.20 517.20 MO RENT/SFTY 3 ENGRNRG 10,367.22 FED W/H TAX P/R 1/17/92 929.81 EMPLOYEE MEDICARE 1/17/92 1/17/92 10949* SECURITY PACIFIC BANK 12,226.84 929.81 EMPLOYER MEDICARE 1/17/92 1/17/92 10950* CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 2,443.14 2,443.14 STATE INC TAX W/H 1/17/92 44.64 REGULAR PERS 1/17/92 1/17/92 10951* P.E.R.S. 5,364.46 5,319.82 1959 SURVIVOR BNFIT 1/17/ 1/17/92 10952* ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 2,319.96 2,319.96 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 1/17/2 1/17/92 10953* RIVERSIDE COUNTY EMP. 4,344.00 4,344.00 CREDIT UNION W/H 1/17/92 1/17/92 10954* LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES' 140.00 140.00 EMPLOYEE DUES W/H 1/17/92 1/17/92 10955* UNITED WAY OF TEE DESERT 73.00 73.00 EMPLOYE CONTRIBTN 1/17/92 1/17/92 10956* RIV. CO. DIST ATTORNEY 300.00 300.00 GARNISHMENT JAN 1992 1/15/92 10957* SECURITY PACIFIC BANK 1,011.92 1,011.92 TRAVEL EXPENSES 12/91 1/17/92 10958* PRINCIPAL MUTUAL 34,323.56 34,323.56 MEDICAL INS FOR JAN 92 1/17/92 10959* VISION SERVICE PLAN 731.10 731.10 VISION INS FOR JAN 92 1/17/92 10960* SPIDELL, CRISTAL 180.00 180.00 REGIS/WORD PERFECT CLASS 1/17/92 10961* URBAN LAND INSTITUTE 40.00 40.00 REGIS/DESERT COUNCIL MTNG 1/17/92 10962* CAL/TRANS 27.00 27.00 A&E CONSULTNTS SERV MNUAL 1/17/92 10963* DELTA MUSIC 30.00 30.00 MUSIC LOTH ANNIV DANCE 1/17/92 10964* SMART i FINAL 71.47 71.47 TABLE COVERS/PLATES 1/16/92 10965* KIEDROWSKI, RONALD L. 968.59 968.59 REGMS UNUSED S/L 90/91 1/17/92 10966* LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES 200.00 200.00 CITY MNGRS DEPT MING 2/92 1/21/92 10967* COMPUTER CENTER 320.00 320.00 WORDPERFECT CLASSES 1/07/92 30968* COACHELLA VALLEY ICBO 300.00 300.00 ACI SEMINAR 1/22/92 10969* KIEDROWSKI, RONALD L. 72.00 72.00 MILEAGE REGIS 1/22/92 10970* EL RANCHITO 218.19 218.19 CITY COUNCIL DINNER 1,890.00 AD 91-1 AREA"A" PMT N4 219.24 AD 91-1 AREA"B" PMT R3 131,411.07 AD 91-1 AREA"C" PMT M3 84,304.35 AD 91-1 CVWD 1/22/92 10971* TARMAC/MASSEY SAND ROCK 322,815..96 104,991.30 AD 91-1 AREA "A"/RDA 334.66 SOFTWARE 6 PROF PUBLICATN 1/22/92 10972* CLINT BOHLEN 505.06 170.40 MILEAGE 1/22/92 10973* DIXIE ESCROW 80,000.00 80,000.00 ESCROW-BOWERMAN/MT DIABLO 1/24/92 10974* DESERT FACILIITES CORP 290.00 290.00 COMMUNITY AWARDS RECOGNTN 1/24/92 10975* LOW MOD SUBSIDY 80.03 80.03 REMB PRPTY TX 91-1/WATSON 1/24/92 10976* LOW MOD SUBSIDY 80.03 80.03 RENE PRPTY TX 91-1/HILL 1/24/92 10977* LOW MOD SUBSIDY 178.27 178.27 REMB PRPTY TX 91-1/JENSEN 1/24/92 10978* COMPUTER CENTER 160.00 160.00 INTRO TO WORD PERFECT CLS 1/24/92 10979* LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF 50.00 50.00 REGISTRATION FEE 1/24/92 10980* AEP CONFERENCE 225.00 225.00 REGIS CEOA 1991 WRKSHP 1/24/92 10981* BENEDICT,DOROTHY 25.00 25.00 COMMNTY SERV COMM MTNG 1/24/92 10982* BEST, LAWRENCE 25.00 25.00 COMMNTY SERV COMA MING 1/24/92 10983* FRANCIS, SUSAN 25.00 25.00 COMNNTY SEEV COMM MING 1/24/92 10984* FRANKE,ELAINE MARIE 25.00 25.00 COMMNTY SERV COMA MTNG 1/24/92 10985* KERNEDY,SHARON 25.00 25.00 COMMNTY SERV COMM MING 1/24/92 10986* NARD, NANCY 25.00 25.00 COMMNTY SERV COMM MTNG 2/04/92 11004 ACE HARDWARE 22.30 22.30 LOCKS 2/04/92 11005 ACTION PHOTOGRAPHY 9.96 9.96 PHOTO DEVELOPMENT 2/04/92 11006 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC 123.00 123.00 AM PLAN ASSOC DUES 16.00 TURN ROTORS GL24U4 2/04/92 WARRANT R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 ,DATE OF WARRANT IN FAVOR OF CHECK AMOUNT ENCUMB DESCRIPTION ISSUE NUMBER AMOUNT NUMBER 2/04/92 11007 BIG A AUTO PARTS 54.64 64.79- 103.43 BRAKE SHOE REIMS BRAKE DRUM B SHOE TRK5 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 11008 11009 11010 11011 BLUEPRINTER, THE BROOKS S ASSOCIATES BUSINESS RECORDS CORD CADET UNIFORM SUPPLY 131.17 1,545.00 1,090.00 255.42 23.42 107.75 1,545.00 1,090.00 255.42 4664 LUMBER CRAYON 4738 PLAN HOLD IOW MOD SEWER PROGRAM PAYROLL UPDATE SOFTWARE UNIFORM RENT/JAN 203.65 BINDING MACHINE 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 11012 11013 11014 11015 11016 COACHELLA VALLEY OFFICE S DESERT SUN, THE DOMINO-S SAFETY 6 GLOVES FIESTA FORD GENERAL CLEANING SERVICE 460.17 1,425.00 40.95 37.88 1,255.00 32.60 223.92 1,425.00 40.95 37.88 1,255.00 4732 LETTER OPENER/LABHLS MINUTE BOOK PAPER LEGAL ADV/DEC SOAP TAILGATE ASSEMBLY JANITORIAL SVC/JAN 243.57 PHONE SVC/JAN 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 11017 11018 11019 11020 GENERAL TELEPHONE GENOVESE, THOMAS GET ALARMMKD SECURITY GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1,445.52 92.48 97.58 36.39 101.74 1,100.21 92.48 97.58 36.39 ALARM SVC/JAN PHONE SVC/JAN MILEAGE REIMB/NEWPORT BCH ALARM SVC/ OCT-JAN 2306 FORMS SOFTWARE 37.40 SPRINKLER 2/04/92 11021 HIGH TECH IRRIGATION INC 380.48 233.82 109.26 4731 GRASS FERTILIZER 4741 TREE STAKES 13.39 4978 STAMPS/NAMEPLATE 28.50 4733 STAMP PAD 2/04/92 11022 HOLMAN INDUSTRIES 60,58 5.81 12.88 NAMEPLATE SELF INKING PAD 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 11023 11024 11025 11026 11027 IBM CORPORATION IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST. INTERNATIONAL RUBBER 6 ISARSi.LAS FLORAL JEANSONNE,CHARLETTE 218.73 2,583.43 21.07 49.03 16.19 158.93 59.80 2,583.43 21.07 49.03 16.19 2312 QUIETWRITER PRINTHEADS 2301 FUSER CLEANER ELEC SVC/DEC 2302 WATER PUMP PARTS FLOWERS MILEAGE REIMB/NOV-DEC 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 11028 11029 11030 11031 11032 11033 11034 11035 11036 JP REPROGRAPHICS KEITH COMPANIES, THE L & M DISTRIBUTING INC. LA CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO LA QUINTA MOBILE LASER TEC MCCORMICK,KIDMAN & HERREN NOEL BRUSH AWARDS PENA, JOHN 44.61 17.79 283.00 386.77 1,138..27 196.00 796.25 198.23 12.64 20.90 23.71 17.79 283.00 386.77 1,138.27 196.00 796.25 198.23 12.64 BLUELINE AREA B WATER BLUELINE 91-1 AREA A STS ENG SVC LGL DESC WASH ST 2277 9 JET WATERBROOM PHONE SVC/JAN GAS s OIL/DEC 4019 LASER TONER RECHARGE ATTORNEY SVC/DEC BRASS PLATES TRAVEL REIMB/ULI CONF 2/04/92 2/04/92 11037 11038 QUILL CORPORATION RIVERSIDE CO BLDG IND 380.33 17.00 14.02 366.31 17.00 ROLODEX/POST IT FLAGS TONER CARTRIDGE DESERT COUNCIL TECH MTG 31.38 TRASHLINER 2/04/92 11039 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF 77.34 12.31 33.65 FILES 4670 TOILET PAPER 120.16 TABLE SKIRT RENT 2/04/92 2/04/92 11040 ROAD RUNNER RENTALS 11041 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP 603.75 7,523.84 119.39 364.20 7,523.84 CHAFFER/RENT CIVIC CTR GRD BREAK CANDY DEC 91-SERVICES 978.75 ATTORNEY SVC/JAN 992.25 ATTORNEY SVC/DEC GL24U4 2/04/92 WARRANT R E G I S T E R - PAGE 3 DATE'OF WARRANT IN FAVOR OF CHECK I99UE RUp®Eg AMOUNT ENCUMB DESCRIPTION AMOUNT NUMBER 2/04/92 11042 RUBINO, MICHAEL J. 2/04/92 11063 SERVICE AUTO PARTS 2,972.25 1,001.25 ATTORNEY SVC/JAN 2/04/92 11044 SHARP IDEAS 67.58 67.58 BRAKE SHOES TRR 5 2/04/92 11045 SMITH, MARILYN 1,534.59 1,534.59 2281 GOLF TEES 2/04/92 11046 $iN)DCRASB,RATHY 55.62 55.62 REIMB FOOD 36.61 36.61 MILEAGE RELMB/NOV-DEC 300.00 CLEAN LOT WAS 300.00 CLEAN LOT 11/JAN 300.00 CLEAN LOT 12/JAN 165.00 CLEAN LOT 18/JAN 165.00 CLEAN LOT 7/JAN 2/04/92 11047 STEVE TAYLOR AND SONS 165.00 CLEAN LOT 12/JAN 2/04/92 11048 STOCKWELL 6 BINNEY 1,545.00 150.00 CLEAN LOT 5/JAN 2/04/92 11049 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON 27.91 27.91 4226 TAPE/CARD FILE 2/04/92 11050 STREET WORKS ATTORNEY SVC/NOV 2/04/92 11051 SUSRI 6 SAREMI MOWERS AND 7,787.51 7,787.51 , 7,787.51 7,787.51 STREET SWEEPING SVC/JAN 105.38 105.38 CHAIN 2/04/92 11052 TARMAC/MASSEY SAND F4DCK 10.00 4662 CLASS II EASE 2/04/92 11053 TOTALLY PALM SPRINGS 158.96 148.96 4684 SAND 1,290.21 1,290.21 2293 T SHIRTS 10TH ANNV 9,456.00 INSP SVC 91-1 A IV/DEC 1,032.00 INSP SVC 91-1 A/DEC 2/04/92 11054 TRI- LAKE CONSULTANTS 6,768.00 INSP SVC 91-1 C/DEC 2/04/92 11055 VIRING 17,256.00 .00 INSP SVC 91-1 A IV/DEC 2/04/92 11056 VINTAGE LANDSCAPE MAINT. 324.65 324.65 2313 RIBBONS/HANGING FILE FOLD 2/04/92 11057 Wffi.CH,B UNIFORM RENTAL 525.00 525.00 PLANT FLOWERS 46.45 46.45 MAT RENT/JAN 2/04/92 11058 REROX CORPORATION 278.00 IMAGE CARTRIDGE ----- SUB TOTAL DEMANDS--------- 461.18 183.18 DRY INK CARTRIDGE 533,143.34 ** 1/31/92 PAYROLL 61,491.64 GRAND TOTAL DEMANDS ------------- 594,634.78 f: lI" i -) c&t1t °& 4Q9&rw COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM E Approval of map and subdivision improvement agreement for Tract 26524, The Orchard - Strother Companies. AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: 01 STUDY SESSION: BACKGROUND: The developer has prepared a map in accordance with the conditions of approval and the Subdivision Map Act. Required improvements are complete and all fees have been paid. The subdivision improvement agreement provides bonding for the one-year warranty of improvements and for deferred construction of the median on 50th Avenue. Median on 50th Ave (Deferred) Grading warranty Off -site street warranty Off -site street striping warranty On -site street warranty Landscaping & wall warranty $45,000 37,180 16,888 196 60,523 8.960 Total Security: $168,747 The warranty security may be released on February 4, 1993. Deferred improvement security shall be retained until the construction of the median improvements. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the map and subdivision improvement agreement. Submitted by: 4CC� C 6Y tc�_ siggture APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER T4hf 4 4 aukro COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: Approval of map and subdivision improvement agreement for Parcel 26525, The Orchard - Strother Companies. BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: 3 STUDY SESSION: The developer has prepared a map in accordance with the conditions of approval and the Subdivision Map Act. Required improvements are complete and all fees have been paid. The subdivision improvement agreement provides bonding for the one-year warranty of improvements. Grading warranty On -site street warranty Total The warranty security may be released on February 4, 1993. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION• Approve the map and subdivision improvement agreement. Submitted by: $7,887 13.210 $211097 APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council: Si 7natur RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER .� TJ 0IJ,., T4ht 4 4 Q" COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE• Acceptance/approval of improvements to Tract 26524, The Orchard - Strother Companies. BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: Al STUDY SESSION: The developer has completed the required improvements to the satisfaction of our construction division. Council acceptance of public improvements and approval of private improvements will allow the developer to record the map without providing performance and payment security for the completed improvements. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Accept the public improvements and approve the private improvements. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council: Sig atur RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER G10C,1 li;Z � �F 1wQ�rw COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: Approval of improvements to Parcel 26525, The Orchard - Strother Companies. BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: _ STUDY SESSION: The developer has completed the required improvements to the satisfaction of our construction division. Council approval of the private improvements to this parcel will allow the developer to record the map without providing performance and payment security for the completed improvements. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION• Approve the improvements to this parcel. Submitted by: APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council: 4intu e RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER T4tvl 4 Zr4 Q" COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 AGENDA CATEGORY: ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Acceptance of Project 91-17 BUSINESS SESSION: (Low -Mod Sewer Hook Up) and authorization for City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR: to record Notice of Completion STUDY SESSION: BACKGROUND: All work for Project 91-17 has been completed in accordance with the specifications. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Accept Project 91-17 and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. Submitted by: Approved for submission BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPT. to City Council: V TOM HARTUNG RON KIEDROWSKI BUILDING AND SAFETY DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER FORM. 22 STUDY SESS=ON =wx O CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GETHE DESERT TO: Honorable Mayor John Pena and La Quinta City Council FROM: Michelle Dallas, Executive Director, La Quinta Chamber of Commerce RE: Addendum to previous Street Fair/Certified Farmers information packet The La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with the Village at La Quinta Advisory Council, feel that a Friday night event in the heart of La Quinta could be a special experience for people of all ages - residents, guests to our city and participants alike. We are looking to the City Council for assistance in a cooperative effort to maintain and nurture the family and community oriented atmosphere that is already such an integral part of our city. Spaces at the street fair would be filled with artisans, handcrafters, collectors, antique dealers, food and beverage vendors and flower vendors. There would be a number of spaces also allocated to non-profit organizations who service our community, as well as informational organizations. There mould be both professional entertainment and street entertainers such as mimes, clowns, musicians or puppeteers. All applicants would be required to submit their application (with a sample of their wares, when applicable). The application would then be processed through a reviewing committee, comprised of individuals who have expertise in the various categories, interested citizens and chamber staff. Strict rules and regulations would have to be complied with, as all participants would be subject to citation or ejection from the event for noncompliance. The reviewing committee could make recommendations for increasing the categories for vendors. The certified farmers market would participate at the invitation of event coordinators and would serve to promote the downtown by increasing the number of attendees to the event. The certified farmers market operates under State Dept. of Food and Agriculture regulations. Stringent and specific guidelines have been established by the state and 00U_107 Page two county for these growers. All growers must have a valid certified producers certificate issued or endorsed by the County of Riverside. All growers are subject to being cited by a county agriculture inspector and/or revocation of their certification for noncompliance. We feel that a weekly street fair/certified farmers market would help immensely in promoting business in the village area and that it would create a positive image of our downtown area. It would expose all that attend this event to the existing businesses, as well as the potential for growth and development. I CHAMBER of COMMERCE GEJOFTHE DESERT December 31, 1991 TO: Honorable Mayor John City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quanta, CA 92253 Pena and City Council FROM: Michelle Dallas, Executive Director La Quinta Chamber of Commerce RE: Funding of Full Time/Temporary staff person (under Chamber of Commerce supervision) to coordinate/ execute weekly street fair/certified farmers market The Event: A weekly street fair b certified farmers market to commence the end of March 1992. The street fair would be comprised of: 1) artisan b handcrafter vendors (approx. 60 *booths*) 2) entertainment which can change weekly if desired a) paid professional entertainment b) street entertainers who perform for donations 3) food concessions The street fair would take place every Friday evening from 6-9 p.m. on Calle Estado, which would be closed to vehicular traffic for the duration of the event. Background: In the fall of 1991.the Commercial Development Task Force reconvened to begin addressing issues pertinent to the commercial development of La Quints. The idea of a weekly street fair/certified farmers market met with the approval of the C. D. T.F. The Initial groundwork for coordination efforts began. From the C.D.T.F., two (2) subcommittees, known as the Village at La Quinta Property Owners/Merchants Advisory Council and the Highway 111 Property Owners/Merchants Advisory Council, were generated. C1061109 POST OFFICE IJUX 255 9 51-351 AVENIDA BERMUDAS 9 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253. (619) 564-3199 Page Two At one of the early meetings of the Village at La 9uinta Advisory Council, the subject of a weekly street fair was again addressed. The consensus of the Advisory Council was that this idea should be pursued. A budget was developed (attached for your review). The most pressing question to be answered was how to fund the salaried staff person who would be necessary to coordinate and execute this event. It was also discussed at the Village at La 9uinta Advisory Council that if the Chamber were to ask for funding from the City for a full time staff person, once the street fair/certified farmers market is being smoothly executed on a weekly basis, that staff person may have time to allocate to administrative/clerical support of the Village at La 9uinta Advisory Council. That council has subsequently divided into a property owners subcommittee and a merchants/business owners subcommittee. Goals of the Street Fair/Certified Farmers Market: 1) To provide a sense of community and a family oriented event for the residents of La Auinta to enjoy. 2) To familiarize/refamiliarize the residents of La 9uinta, as well as other Coachella Valley residents with the village area. Secondary Benefits: 1) To increase sales for existing businesses in the Village area by increasing their exposure. 2) To increase bed tax revenue to the City by providing additional room nights at La 9uinta hotels. Recent surveys have indicated Southern California visitors to our area have chosen to come on Saturday morning, rather than traditional Friday night arrival to avoid traffic. If we provide a high caliber event on Friday evenings, hopefully this will entice them to once again come in on Friday nights. Also, this may draw guests from surrounding areas to stay in La 9uinta rather than hotels in other Coachella Valley locations. GVUl ' fJ Page Three 3) There will be a brief increase in the number of business licenses sold through the City. Every vendor who participates in the street fair will be required to have a current La 9uinta business license. We would anticipate approximately 60 vendors at any given time to be participating. v.} 1) That City Council approve funding of seed money in the sum of $3950.00 (see attached budget for itemization). This money may be reimbursed to the City, if and when the event begins to generate revenue. 2) That City Council approve funding of a full time staff person, to be under the supervision of the Chamber of Commerce immediately,. with the understanding that a start up date for the street fair would be the end of March 1992. After three (3) months of the weekly street fair/cfm activities, an evaluation of the level Of success in attaining goals would be done. The amount of the request for salary would be $12,500 (6 months of $25,000 annually salary). Additional Information: The Chamber of Commerce will continue to solicit corporate sponsorships to subsidize income for the street fair. If we can successfully procure sponsors, city funding may not need to continue past the initial six (6) months. If we are unable to procure corporate sponsors, the Chamber will come back to the City, with a complete evaluation of the project for further considerations. The Chamber of Commerce feels a street fair/certified farmers market would be most successful in providing a family type of event for our local residents, as well as familiarizing people with our beautiful village area. Existing businesses should prosper from the increased exposure, and anticipated additional room nights would be a welcome secondary benefit. We hope You will look favorably on this project and will approve the funding to ensure La Auinta's continued success and progress. We thank you in advance for your consideration. GGU11L LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Special Event Budget Proposal Name of Event Street Fair/Certified Farmers Marke5ate of Event Weekly REVENUE Corporate Sponsorship 60 Booth Spaces/exhibitors @ $25 00 = 1500.00 5 Booth spaces/farmers @ $10 00 - 50.00 2 Street Entertainers @ 10.00 Total Revenue EXPENDITURES Provider of Serv/Product Service/Product Price per Unit Staff Manaement of Event 3 mo'8 s ,. 9 4 mo s ,33232. Advertising/Newspaper Advertising $140 = 14 column " Advertising/Radio Advertising 20 spots @ 20.00 Waste Management of the Desert Portalets 2 @ 60.00 Riverside Co. Sherriffs Dept. Police 37.50 hr/man 2@ 5hrs CDF Fire 22.00 hr/man 1 @ 3 hrs. City of La Quints. Street Maintenance 1500.00 LYia0101 20.00 1570.00 Total Expenditure 520.83 140.00 400.00 120.00 375.00 66.00 -0- Traffic Engineering will monitor on 9 9 temporary basis) -0- Entertainment Entertainment 1 @ 400.00 - 3hrs. 400.00 Misc/Contingency Fund Total Expenditures Total Revenue Total Expenditures Net Proceeds Generated 100.00 2121.83 1570.00 2121.83 -551.83 LA QUINTA CHAMBER. -OF COMMERCE Special Event - Budget Proposal Name of Event Street Fair/Farmers Market REVENUE EXPENDITURES Date of Event Start-up Costs Total Revenue ?rcvider of Serv/Product Service/Product Price.per Unit Newspaper/Radio Advertising Misc. Printers Flyers/Promo Materials State of California Permits/Certification Total Expenditure 2000.00 250.00 200.00 Misc. Printers Rules/Regs.,permits,no parking signs 1000.00 Misc. Lighting for entertainment - in lieu 500.00 or sEreet lignts Graphic Artist Develop Logo Total Expenditures Total Revenue Total Expenditures Comp. Net Proceeds Generated 011Y C's February 1, 1992 Honorable Mayor John Pena and La Quinta City Council City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Honorable Mayor and City Council: As a business owner in the Village of La Quinta and member of the Advisory Council, I would like to express my feelings in regard to the proposed weekly street fair/certified farmers market. This issue has been addressed at each of the Advisory Council meetings ( attended by approximately 25 Village business owners). It has been the overwhelming consensus each time, that this event could be very effective in promoting our downtown "Village" area and increasing the exposure of La Quinta in the Coachella Valley. Historically, cities have prospered from initiating these types of activities. With a community flavor for both residents and guests to enjoy, street fairs seem to bring hundreds ( sometimes thousands ) to their downtown areas week after week. A street fair may or may not have a dramatic effect on each of our individual businesses. That will only be determined once the event is initiated. The most crucial thing to consider is not individual gain, but much more importantly, the success of La Quinta and The Village as a whole. Sincerely, �D Dolly Cunard Dolly Cunard's Restaurant 78-045 Cal le Cadiz • La Quinta • CA 92253.Off ice 619. 564-2806 • FAX 619. 564-3672 . Reservations 619. 564-4443 600,1111 1 MEMORANDUM TO: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER FROM: JERRY HERMAN, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR4 DATE: JANUARY 15, 1992 SUBJECT: VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS For your information, the attached list identifies approved projects and preliminary projects that have been reviewed by this Department since 1986 in the Village area. As you can see, the list represents some 34 proposals constructed. MEMOJH.159 ca011-► a U i 00 ao al H a ?s1 a n m ca .. ti 00 00 00 00 0000 00 00 O M ,•y cq m a) Q7 W 00 00 O) � � � ° Ea C •O y � ° v z O U y Ltp w y y o p « Poy >4 S O U °U E a t+ 0U A4 Ua) e o hD � b �� b co a mW 3 '0 4 a wo y oF°�o p 00 O ° $F �0 ti� °� Wd¢ ~ aV ao D0�� �c. �� W� �o m cc da; ¢ a ps.... ca0 c ao 010 ya) F4 a ° A' o > c sOO O 0 O p p ai oae Gw ° w ri aa aU ° ¢ ° wrx La O10 ca a tsi ;y m N y y E w b aq ca F+ Cd 'd b is rn 10 W U Gl � � CU Q ° cc¢Cd O 44 D ¢ai U V0 0 w $4 � a o ca O 0 �4) °' a H a10 a: °¢ y c°iU ci c°�U wv w d w•o wzs wv d ai 3 d U zm za U z� z0 z0 ¢ Q zm ¢ E~ CD a y a a�i o W a ti d Cd V he a�i , O'V4 ri 4W O'er di 3 w, a� a v ao APQ w 30 o°aa Ua cE7 1P4 U0 w0 Q '� CV M 00 O) 6O 14 ti ti co F 9) O F U 9 ca U a W a 04 P4 I w CD ti O 1-4 .•, .-, ,-, .-, oo 00 00 m C) on m m r. O Q O O q O d U m C3 O O «+ d fd cd O z U U FOi Q y y CL A, a5 O �° „ ° 03 z n1 W U QO u C O f3 P4 CL C: N 0 S D O P4 A a P4 P, Rw a s. cc b'G ti U O y z o LO" u,0 UJ b O O N G S O D U a+ 7 :' co O d A CC�� °�a C ° a*' 00 �� GL P, ¢' P4 i+ G+ ¢ GA b °' O $4 p 6 ¢ ++ d a)Q d eW N QLL 2Z 04W O 04 CO1 w Pi O Q (O rd 0 d H O � 0a�i ,4 00 ri �y '" i ce P4_ 0 W cli : O S� E m co dui P E a)U y U Ocis U N 3� )$4 Q3y aa�"i °' ¢ c oU c�v oA sy. 0 0 U �jA cd oU bEc° 00 6 A Ova A� p 00 dui p y %4 COO N :' d 0 Ey U 0 D !r 0 ca O b d O O U y U d' 0 U q c.�> 0 0 a� y W 0 - a > 34 wb 3> v� m Z2z td Q mw U U � zto �V4 Z,d � m rnz a� A d o bA o PIZ �� >) $4 4G �� c ado ybiDNO hOD� 94 'a tb d 10 U Ew �w x Md w aye ?;Cd�a a �a °a w ao as a oa X M r-1 r-/ �r; r••1 C6 ri ti "4 00 rl 0; r-4 o CV 14 CV SIN ca a a m c c m ¢ w a w w w w w Z 0)m z ca a) o 0 0 0 o p hp o� z z z z z 3 �� 3 �� 3 3 3 3 3 5 � °4, N E• 3 a a r. a. r. q w E 4 ° > zs m 0 .0 ca .� m m W .o a .� E 4 uJ ° JL4 a) a+ (A to o u 6 °.., w a3i o 8 �° ° o .� u o �� w o o r~ a �>°�aa �aa A4 �. ata �r.z a� a.ta am a.� a� a� a.0 vai a a U co o a ° o ,d cd� E� UO Q' a�i Uq o COWA E m F d = ca �4 �� � D o� E A TJ q •+p c0 0 s+ Q ccz •d o°° y U6 OO UU � p o U A cq ° F. U0 aLn o'a0en w3 UB cda b r. o 4 c Q o .^ dr. 3b w 08 8 W c0 N r~ D D W 'C D 3 t°. W t°. W N r t!J EE+ U r. y J o >, a y y ca aho m a a Uas c ° s+v uto A TI ° Ebor. y� +, ;,w r. 0 Oa8y v a�� a ►�ww z r. .. `�$4 ,?E0-Dw o c 4 i'� °39 �Al� A m bD NO a) a) � a° 0 r~ o ' v��aU) N WO a) a �� °Cw M btom a0 a a0 EEo �d U D tnz U3 33 w CV M 00 C O ti CV M er In N CV CV cV N N N cV M M CO) M M M 011 3 r k M M m M GGo117 THE VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS BOUNDARY GUCIL0 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California January 8, 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Llewellyn brought the meeting to order at 5:33 P.M. and Boardmember Curtis led the flag salute. Chairman Llewellyn asked for a roll call. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers David Harbison, Paul Anderson, John Walling, John Curtis, Fred Rice, Planning Commission Representative Kay Ladner, and Chairman Ted Llewellyn. Absent: None III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Llewellyn asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 4, 1991. Boardmember Llewellyn moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Boardmember Walling seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. LA QUINTA CITY HALL PROJECT; a request of the City for review of landscaping and irrigation plans for the City Hall project. DRBMI/8 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Harbison expressed his disappointment that no local landscape architect was selected to do the project. The plans submitted were typical of what someone unfamiliar with the desert environment would submit. He stated the plans called for high maintenance. The plants were somewhat low water usage, although only a few could handle the extreme weather ranges. The design style was incompatible with what the City represents and requires of developers. The perimeter landscaping needs to have the amount of lawn reduced (especially near the curbs) to only where the public traffic would be. This should be replaced with ground cover. The density of the shrub planting is extremely high. The planting needs to be relaxed to allow the 1 Design Review Board Minutes January 8, 1992 plants room to spread and take form. The desert character is sparser on the perimeter and lush green up close to the buildings. Annual color use should be minimal and used only for accent. The elevated pots with annual color required too much maintenance. The deciduous plants (i.e., vines) should be replaced as they will go bare in the winter when the City should try to present an attractive face. If not replaced totally, they should be mixed with some evergreen plants. 3. Discussion followed among the Boardmembers relative to the above statements. All members were in agreement and expressed their disapproval of the plans. 4. It was noted that the Civic Center site is one of the coldest spots in La Quinta and that the bougainvillea proposed would freeze. Nearby homeowners have verified this fact. The 60" box Smoketree was felt to be larger than needed or optimum for a native type tree and excessively expensive. 5. Boardmember Curtis pointed out that the water source should be shown as originating on Tampico not Washington Street. 6. Following additional discussion relative to the range in temperatures throughout the Cove area and plants that are able to handle this type of weather, it was moved by Chairman Llewellyn and seconded by Planning Commission Representative Ladner to recommend to the City Council denial of the plans and ask that the architects meet with the Board in order to determine a plant pallet and design that would be compatible with our desert environment. It was noted that if the plans were deleted / from the City Hall contract, they could be redesigned. Unanimously approved. V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairman Llewellyn and seconded by Boardmember Walling to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on February 5, 1992, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 5:58 P.M., January 8, 1992. DRBM1/8 E GOO12 REPORTS = NFORMAT= ONAL 2 TEM = C TENTH ANNIVERSARY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 91 1992 Regular Meeting of the Tenth Anniversary Committee was called to order by Chairwoman Sheila Crane. PRESENT: Meg Robertson Judie Melkesian Judy Vossler Woodard Elaine Reynolds Myra Bohnenberger Sheila Crane Cheryl Ward ABSENT: Al Newkirk Fred Rice Lucia Moran OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Stan Sniff, Clint Bohlen, Saundra Juhola, Ned Millis, Robert Metkus, Audrey MINUTES of January 2, 1992 were approved as submitted upon motion by Mrs. Melkesian, seconded by Mrs. Reynolds and carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. REPORT OF SUB -COMMITTEES a. Day in the Park Mrs. Crane presented an outline of proposed activities and entertainment and advised that Ed Kibbey has volunteered to work on the music aspect portion of the day. The band Sugarfoot will be playing off and on all day with other music in between. Sugarfoot has a western flavor, but also plays other kinds of music. Mrs. Crane advised that she plans to go the Council on January 21, 1992 with a budget for this event. Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that Ted Axe will be present at the next meeting to report on the food and beverages for that day. b. Hospitality/Volunteers Mrs. Melkesian reported on the volunteer effort advising that several people have signed up to help. C. Commemorative Items Mrs. Ward advised that Mark Palmer plans to enter the Anniversary Logo in a competition and will be taking picture of all of the commemorative items for that purpose. Mrs. Ward advised that they were conservative in ordering the merchandise, but since it appears that the larger sizes of the shirts are what's selling, asked if additional shirts shouldn't be order. Following discussion, the Committee concurred on ordering an additional dozen of both the x-lrg. and the xx-lrg. Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that 190 wine glasses were left over. The Committee generally concurred on selling them for $10.00 a pair, but decided to let the Sub -Committee decide how to merchandise them. Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that the Hotel needs a list of people who are authorized to pick up merchandise. Following discussion, it was decided that each member of the Committee is authorized and for them to contact Mrs. Vossler Woodard when they wish to pick up and merchandise and she would have it available. Mrs. Ward advised that she attended the January 7th Council Meeting and presented the Council the options with regards to the plaques. She presented the plaque which was selected by the Council which is the more formal design on a walnut veneer. One hundred will be ordered. Discussion then ensued as to when the plaques will be handed out. Council Member Sniff felt that they should be handed out in some kind of ceremony. The Committee concurred on presenting different options to the Council on January 21st - two of which will be to present them during the Open House on May 1, or at a Council Meeting. d. Budget Mr. Bohlen presented the Committee with a break -down on the current financial status of the Committee. He advised that $1,022 was raised from the raffle. The total revenue to date is $22,581 and the total expenses are $21,811.83, leaving a balance of $769.17 from the original $25,000. This does not include the comp tickets approved by the Committee. Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that she will have firm figures for the Dinner Dance by Tuesday. Mrs. Ward questioned the future of the video and Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that Palmer CableVision has offered to have dupes made at their cost of $7.00, which will include a hard plastic cover and label. There was a brief discussion about giving each of the people receiving a plaque a copy of the video with the Committee generally concurring that if they are sold at $15.00, the cost is low enough that anyone could purchase one. MOTION - It was moved by Mrs. Reynolds, seconded by Mrs. Vossler Woodard that two dozen tapes be ordered. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Ward is going to check on stickers of the logo to place on the video. e. Fund -Raising Mrs. Vossler Woodard suggested that the fund-raising be advised that there is a need to concentrate on obtaining sponsors for the carnival booths. The Committee reviewed the fund-raising letter and concurred that Item No. 3 needs to moved to Item No. 1. Mrs. Vossler Woodard suggested that the letter state what the entire cost of the day will be. Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that the classic car show will be no cost. f. Public Relations Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that she and Karen Oppenheim and Saundra Juhola will be meeting Friday to discuss public relations. Mrs. Ward questioned the status of the bus shelter posters and Mr. Bohlen advised that he would look into it. Mrs. Ward suggested that the billboard be saved when the activities are over and Mr. Bohlen suggested that it be given to the Historical Society. Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that she has received a bill from the Chamber of Commerce for $295 for the expanded newsletter in November as a result of printing the invitation to the Dinner Dance. Mrs. Vossler asked Mrs. Juhola to obtain the cost of additional pages in the newsletter prior to the meeting on Friday. G0U' 1025_ g. Dinner Dance Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that she hasn't received any complaints, only compliments on the dinner dance and thanked everyone for their assistance including the Miss La Quintas. Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that it's the first event she's held at the hotel in which no complaints have been received. Mrs. Melkesian complimented the Hotel on the wonderful brunch the following day. Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that 82 people attended the brunch. Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that more than 200 people attended the film festival. The Committee applauded themselves for a job well-done! OTHER BUSINESS 1. Open House - Mrs. Vossler Woodard asked what kind of help the City will need in staging the Open House and Mr. Bohlen advised that he planned to approach the Employees Association about organizing it. 2. Logo Registration - Mrs.Ward suggested that it be suggested to the City Council that the logo be registered. 3. Float - Mrs. Audrey Manuel approached the Committee on the idea of having a Tenth Anniversary float in the Date Festival Parade on February 17th. The deadline for submitting applications is January 24th. The options for making a float are 1) to have volunteers make it; or 2) have a professional firm make it. If it is made by volunteers, it can be preserved and reused during the parade on May 2nd. MOTION - It was moved by Mrs. Vossler Woodard, seconded by Mrs. Robertson that an application be filed with the understanding that there is no financial commitment and that the suggestion be presented to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Audrey Manuel advised that she will report back on costs at the next meeting. 4. Mr. Metkus suggested that a listing of commemorative items available be published in the newsletter. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned upon motion by Mrs. Vossler Woodard, seconded by Mrs. Bohnenberger. NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 16TH FROM 4:00-6:00 P.M. 6001''6 TENTH ANNIVERSARY MINUTES JANUARY 16, COMMITTEE 1992 Regular meeting of the Tenth Anniversary Committee was called to order at 4:00 P.M., Chairwoman Crane presiding. PRESENT: Meg Robertson Judie Melkesian Judy Vossler Woodard Myra Bohnenberger Fred Rice Al Newkirk Sheila Crane Cheryl Ward ABSENT: Lucia Moran Elaine Reynolds OTHERS PRESENT: Ted Axe, Food and Beverage Director of La Quinta Hotel; Nancy Nard, Community Service Commissioner; Michelle Dallas, Executive Director of L. Q. Chamber of Commerce; Audrey Manuel; Council Member Sniff; Joan Gubler; Clint Bohlen, Parks & Recreation Manager; Saundra Juhola, Administrative Services Director. MINUTES - of January 9, 1992 were approved as submitted upon motion by Mrs. Melkesian/Mrs. Ward and carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. REPORT OF SUB -COMMITTEES a. Day in the Park Ted Axe advised that the Sub -Committee has selected R & R Concessions to be the main food vehdor at the "Day in the Park". He introduced Tom and Mary Lee Rickett, the owners, who briefly reviewed their background and the various events which they've served. Mr. Axe advised that there will be other vendors like Pel's which will supplement R & R. He noted that R & R has an agreement which will be forwarded to the City Attorney for review. Parade Mr. Bohlen introduced Nancy Nard of the Community Services Commission and Michelle Dallas of the Chamber of Commerce, both of whom will be working on the parade, along with Joan Gubler, Susan Francis and Linda Murrey. Mrs. Manuel advised that she has contacted the people who professionally design floats and have found the costs to be between $1,200-$2,500. One of the companys has a flat-bed trailer for sale for $1,000, if the City wished to handle the decorating using volunteers. She also noted that a golf cart could be decorated and entered. Gc0G,l:?7 Mrs. Crane advised that this matter will be included in the list of things to bring before the Council on January 21st. Open House Mr. Bohlen advised that he has talked to the Employees Association and they have indicated a willingness to assist with this function, but have not committed themselves to anything specific. In response to Mrs. Vossler Woodard, Mrs. Crane advised that the budget as proposed does not reflect any food for the Open House other than cake. Mr. Bohlen felt that there will be a sufficient amount of funds to cover any food. Table -Top Trade Show Mrs. Dallas advised that the Committee for the Table -Top Trade Show is meeting weekly. Entries are coming in and there should be a nice variety. To date, there are 25 committed exhibitors. b. Hospitality/Volunteers Mrs. Melkesian had no report. C. Commemorative Items Mrs. Crane advised that Mr. Bohlen has written to Von's about inserting a flyer in grocery bags advertising the commemorative items and where they may be purchased. She also suggested that the merchandise not be sold at the school events and the Committee concurred. She also advised that the lapel pins have not yet arrived. Mrs. Crane recommended that when the schedule of events is published in the newsletter that there be an asterisk next to the events in which commemorative items will be sold. d. Budget Mrs. Crane advised that with a budget of $20,000 for the Day in the Park events, the Committee is $4,900 short, so $5,000 will be requested of the Council on January 21st. Mrs. Crane asked that all bills be approved by the Committee prior to submission to Mr. Bohlen for payment. 6.0�1 1 .t�. . e. Fund Raising Mr. Newkirk advised that he took note of the suggestions made by the Committee relative to the fund raising letter and it will be modified to reflect the concerns mentioned. The number one item for which he is going to try to raise funds for will be the Day in the Park activities and for the bonds for the essay contest winners. Mrs. Crane suggested that sponsorship levels be considered, diamond sponsors; emerald sponsors, etc. that can be posted in the park on May 2nd to give recognition to the sponsors. Also that signs be placed on the game booths recognizing the sponsors of same. Mrs. Vossler Woodard suggested that there be a level of $25 or $50 which the average citizen could contribute to; and Mrs. Melkesian suggested an organizational sponsorship of $375. f. Public Relations Mrs. Vossler Woodard advised that the sub -committee met and will be coordinating all public relations through Karen Oppenheim. The Chamber of Commerce will be including two additional pages each month for Tenth Anniversary events and will bill the Committee for them. She noted that all articles for the March newsletter should be submitted to her by January 23rd at 5:00 P.M. Regarding the time capsule, Mr. Rice advised that Terry Henderson and Ray Bartlett are making the capsule itself. Mrs. Vossler Woodard asked for approval to purchase a couple of scrap books, which the Public Relations Committee will handle. The Committee concurred. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Bohlen made the following presentation: - He's now spending between 16-20 hours per week on Tenth Anniversary matters. - In the process of obtaining insurance forms for Day in the Park and the Parade. - A permit from C. V. Recreation and Parks District has been approved with conditions. - The ball -fields at the park were over -committed, but he believed that it's going to work out. - He is talking to the JayCees about the parade. - The extra T-shirts have been ordered. The art -work for the plaque is still at Mark Palmers. Is writing a letter to Von's regarding the placement of a flyer in the grocery bags for one week. The only cost should be for the printing of the flyer. Discussion then ensued regarding the advantages to placing a flyer in the grocery bags, noting that not just La Quinta residents will be targeted, as opposed to doing a direct mailing, or just using the newsletter. Following discussion, the Committee concurred on using the newsletter. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Vossler Woodard asked what is being presented to the Council on January 21st and Mr. Bohlen advised the logo registration, presentation of plaques, the float for the Date Festival Parade, and the budget supplement. Discussion then ensued regarding the feasibility of entering a float in the Date Festival Parade and the Committee concurred that there isn't enough time to build one and a professional one wouldn't be personalized enough. Mrs. Robertson advised that input on the banner has not yet been received from Mark Palmer. - Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that letters have been sent to the teachers advising them of the essay contest. Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that the Council will be presenting a resolution of appreciation to Palmer Cablevision on January 21st. - Mrs. Bohnenberger advised that there was an $8,476.38 profit from the dinner dance. There being no further business, it was moved by Mrs. Ward, seconded by Mr. Rice that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 23RD AT 4:00 P.M. 0ULJ0 TENTH ANNIVERSARY MINUTES JANUARY 23, COMMITTEE WT9k Regular meeting of the Tenth Anniversary Committee was called to order at 4:00 P.M., Chairwoman Crane presiding. PRESENT: Myra Bohnenberger Al Newkirk Sheila Crane Cheryl Ward ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Vossler Woodard Fred Rice Judie Melkesian Elaine Reynolds Lucia Moran Meg Robertson Robert Metkus, Clint Bohlen, Saundra Juhola, Council Member Sniff MINUTES - of January 16, 1992 were approved as submitted upon motion by Mrs. Melkesian, seconded by Mr. Newkirk and carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 1. REPORT OF SUB -COMMITTEES a. Fund -Raising Mr. Newkirk presented a revised fund-raising letter for the Committee's review. They are proposing different levels of sponsors with a Diamond sponsor being $2,500; an Emerald Sponsor being $1,000-$2,499; a Ruby sponsor being $500-$999; and a Sapphire sponsor being $100-$499. Each of the different levels would receive something different for their sponsorship, ranging from a thank you letter and certificate to being able to place a message in the time capsule and a plaque. The Committee then reviewed the letter and suggested some modifications. Mrs. Ward noted that Mrs. Vossler Woodard had suggested a donor level low enough for the average citizen to participate. Following discussion, it was decided that Mrs. Moran, Mrs. Melkesian and Mr. Newkirk will get together and modify the letter to be brought back to the next committee meeting. Ms. Crane asked that all thank you letters for contributions be written and signed by the chairman of the fund-raising committee. GTu13_ b. Open House Mr. Bohlen advised that the Employees Assn. is planning to organize the Open House. They're planning to have each department set-up exhibits in the parking lot and the food will be in the Council Chambers. At this point, no help is being requested of the Committee. C. Day in the Park Ms. Crane advised that the City Council approved registration 600. of logo in three different classification lement. at a Th y$also They also approved a $5,000 budget supp of the asked that the Committee organization distribution plaques and identify thewhich be handed ointed Mrs. Bo nenberger and Mrs. out. Ms. Crane then app ttee and Mrs.. Melkesian advised Melkesian to that sub-comm' that she will ask Sue Steding to help t Ms. Crane then advised that she talked to Audrey Manuel about Miss La Quinta being in the parade and Mr. Bohlen advised that there will be sufficient transportation, as the Corvette Club plans to being 30 cars. Mr. Bohlen made the followingts lace to rexhibit the 30 corvettes - trying to locate a p following the parade. parade - has invited Andy Williams to ride in the p has invited Richard Oliphant to be a judge the Cahuillas will lead the parade Morgan - he then referred to the letter from Sarktand felt regarding the conditions for usage of the p that they can all be complied with Rotary is getting the license to sell beer c. Commemorative Items Mrs. Ward advised that she has applied for a booth at the Table Top Trade Show. The mugs are in and MrTheohlen tile plaques that the pins will be in Friday or Monday. t she nd walk Pae in about six w. Ms. Crane advised lmer are meetingeekswith Margaret Meile tomorrows regarding the banner. d. Public Relations Ms. Crane advised that today is the last day to get newsletter items to Judy vossler Woodard. b. Open House Mr. Bohlen advised that the Employees Assn. is planning to organize the Open House. They're planning to have each department set-up exhibits in the parking lot and the food will be in the Council Chambers. At this point, no help is being requested of the Committee. C. Day in the Park Ms. Crane advised that the City Council approved registration of logo in three different classifications at a cost of $600. They also approved a $5,000 budget supplement. They also asked that the Committee organization distribution of the plaques and identify the events in which they can be handed out. Ms. Crane then appointed Mrs. Bohnenberger and Mrs. Melkesian to that sub -committee and Mrs. Melkesian advised that she will ask Sue Steding to help out. Ms. Crane then advised that she talked to Audrey Manuel about Miss La Quinta being in the parade and Mr. Bohlen advised that there will be sufficient transportation, as the Corvette Club plans to being 30 cars. Mr. Bohlen made the following reports - trying to locate a place to exhibit the 30 corvettes following the parade. - has invited Andy Williams to ride in the parade - has invited Richard Oliphant to be a judge - the Cahuillas will lead the parade - he then referred to the letter from Scott Morgan regarding the conditions for usage of the park and felt that they can all be complied with - Rotary is getting the license to sell beer C. Commemorative Items Mrs. Ward advised that she has applied for a booth at the Table Top Trade Show. The mugs are in and Mr. Bohlen advised that the pins will be in Friday or Monday. The tile plaques will be in about six weeks. Ms. Crane advised that she and Mark Palmer are meeting with Margaret Meile tomorrow regarding the banner. d. Public Relations Ms. Crane advised that today is the last day to get newsletter items to Judy Vossler Woodard. C��133 In response to Ms. Crane, Mr. Bohlen advised that he will provide the necessary information to the sign company to keep the billboard updated. NEW BUSINESS The Committee discussed the need to continue having weekly meetings. It was decided to have next week's meeting and then decide on a week -by -week basis when to meet next. Mr. Bohlen advised that he was going to check out a "bank" for the committee to use at various events to be kept out until the end of the activities. Mrs. Bohnenberger showed the Committee two different video cases and they selected the one in which a flyer can be inserted. There being no further business, it was moved by Mrs. Ward, seconded by Mrs. Moran that the meeting be adjourned. NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD THURSDAY, JANUARY 30TH. CJ�13 REPORTS 49c =NFORMAT=ONAL ITEM=e, SUMMARY OF SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY MONTHLY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING January 22, 1992 BOARD ACTIONS 1. The board voted to continue the item number regarding the proposed annual evaluation process of the general manager to the next board meeting in order to give board members more time to review this new format. 2. The board approved the agency's new conflict of interest code which expands the group of individuals to be required to file these statements to all directors, managers and buyers. Previously only the general manger and chief financial officer positions were specifically covered. 3. The board voted to receive and file the audited financial statements, the single audit reports and the management letter as completed by Ernst & Young, Inc. for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991. 4. The board approved SunLine's Complementary Paratransit Service Plan and authorized staff to submit the plan to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for review and to Caltrans and the Federal Transit Administration for approval. 5. The board adopted urgency ordinance number 92-2, amending ordinance number 91-1. This ordinance deletes the provisions for "contract service". The amendment also sets forth procedures for administrative enforcement of the ordinance. A new section of the ordinance includes an administrative hearing and authorization for the Taxi Administrator to assess administrative monetary penalties limited to the civil penalties identified in the ordinance. 6. The board approved the recommendation of the People Mover Committee approving Resolution number 0428 authorizing the contract for a People Mover study. The committee informed the board of one revision to Task 4 of the scope of services which requires the consultant to meet with local leaders to obtain their visions of the Valley's future. The committee recommended expanding the list of local leaders to include RCTC, local elected Assemblymen, State Senators, News Media, Major Employers, Shopping Centers, School Boards and Hospitals. 7. A public hearing was held to discuss possible discontinuance of Line 42 (Coachella Supplemental Service). No one from the public made any comments. Ridership for this line which (�3U135 carries Coachella school children has been decreasing since the first of the year. It appears the decrease is due to the fact the bus coupons, which had been purchased with private donations and enabled students to purchase the coupons at a discounted rate, have almost run out. The board had agreed to provide the service as long as the service achieved a 50% farebox recovery ratio. Two hundred trips per day are required to support the route. As the shift is made from a discounted rate to full fare, ridership may decrease even more than it has. Therefore, the board approved staff's recommendation authorizing staff to move rapidly to discontinue the service if and when ridership drops below 200 trips per day. In the meantime, SunLine staff and the City of Coachella are continuing in their efforts to find a resolution to the problem. INFORMATION ITEMS 1. The general manager reported on the results of the Western COG meeting of January 6. It does not look favorable for SunLine to be getting any more funding based on reapportionment. RCTC concurred with this. 2. On Thursday, January 23, SunLine will be unveiling two new customer information services: an automated trip planner service and a Valley wide ridematching service. 3. Ridership was up 11.6% for December 1991 and 14.2% year to date over last year. 4. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the SunLine Transit Agency Board of Directors is Wednesday, February 26, 1992, at 12:00 noon in SunLine's boardroom. C" �U13 , 4 TID � w �oMoF�� COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ITEM TITLE: DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BACKGROUND: FEBRUARY 04, 1992 AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: DEPAR'T'�ZENTAT. REPORTS = U Transmital of July 1, 1991 thru December 31, 1991 Statement of Financial Position. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Rrel 1� RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Submitted by: yzz:��� � Signature APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER Ar' GL102 CITY OF IA QUINTA 1/27/92 BTATRNOT OF FINANCIAL POSITICN PAU ONE PERIOD 7/91 TM40 >GH 12/91 GENERAL STATE FEDERAL COMMUNITY LANDSCAPE FUND GAS TAX REVENUE DEVELOPMENT MA33NTENANCE FUND SHARING FUND BLOCK GRANT DISTRICT /1 ASSETS CASH 6642263.72- 707438.19 94187.83 SEC PAC MONEY NET 324000.05 PET1Y CASH 700.00 ACCRUED INTEREST/PREPAID EXPS 611.25- ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 425.00 LOAN RECEIVABLE P.S.D.R.C.B. 39300.89 ACCTS. REC. REP CHECKS 83.10 PERFORMANCE BONDS / DEP RBL➢ 74000.00 DEPOSITS-AOIOERS CG4NENSATINN 24059.00 - SMILER REST DEPOSIT 992.40 DEPOSIT -ELECTRIC SVC TRAILER 75.00 ENPLOYEE ADVANCES/TRAVEL 200.00 DUE FROM OTHER OOVERNHEETS 12301.24 2000.00 DUE FROM REDEVELOPME T AGENCY 5091465.33 SUSPENSE 2942189.96- 10.00- GENERAL FIXED ASSETS PAYMENT OF TANG TERM DEBT INVESTMENTS - LAIF 9230743.98 INVESTMENTS C.D.'S 1000000.00 INVEST/DENMAN AND COMPANY 3344327.23 INTERFUND TRANSFER ACCOUNT 20000.00- TOTAL ASSETS 9337606.29 7D9428.19 94187.83 LIABILITIES 4 EQUITY LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 1019506.12- 38272.51- COMP ABSENCES PAYABLE CONTRACTS PAYABLE FIRE TRUCK ACCRUED EXPENSES 94361.34 9550.20 1959 PERE SURVIVOR BENEFITS 2634.13- DEPOSITS PAY - NON -CASH 74000.00- ENGINEERING DEPOSITS 34621.34 MISC.PATROLL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 5246.91- FRINGE BENEFIT CLEARING ACCT. 8933.28- MISC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 32341.14- STRONG MOTION INST. PROGRAM 2236.65- LANDSCAPE BONDS 3000.00- FRINGE WED LIZARD FEES 8537.26- SCHOOL MITIGATION FEES 5024.00- MP/SIGNAL-ESNRWR/CMCNELLA 22360.00- DEP/FRED WARING MEDIAN CTS/PLR DEP POTENTIAL MELLO RODS DIST 83313.74- RESERVES FOR ASSESSNENT DIST ARBITRAGE EXCESS EARNINGS DEPOSIT -DISCHARGE OF ASSMT DEPOSIT -PROPERTY TAX ROLL DEPOSIT -INTEREST DEPOSITS -ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES SUSPENSE 1306.20- DEPOSIT-DESERT COVE PROPERTIES 500.00- DEP/CONTRIBUTION SENIOR CENTER 816.00- DEPOSIT REGIONAL MALT. SIR 50000.00- DEPOSIT-SPORTS CDKPLEX 60.00- INVFST.IN GENERAL FIXED ASSETS PRIOR YEAR ENCUMBRANCES 3460.31- TOTAL LIABILITIES 1194293.06- 28712.31- RESERVE - LANDMARA 1175172.31- FUND BALANCE 6968140.92- 680715.88- 94187.83- TOTAL LIABILITIES 4 EQUITY 9337606.29- 709428.19- 94187.83- Cvvi3., CL102 CITY OF LA QUIETA 8TRIbutEP OF 71MMUL POSITION 1/27/92 PAGE TWO PERIOD 7/91 'TBROUGH 12/91 IIRAA- EQunwoI QuvmY STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT VILLAGE FUND FUND FUND PARKING ASSETS CASH 729299.20 4879269.21 51601.84 11568.81 SEC PAC MOM NET CIVIC CENTER BOND PROCEEDS 9315926.21 PETTY CASH ACCRUED INTERBST/PREPAID EMS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE LOAN RECEIVABLE P.S.D.R.C.B. ACCTS. REC. NSF CHECKS PERFORMANCE BONDS / DEP HELD DEYOBITS-WORIUMS COMPENSATION TRAILER RENT DEPOSIT DEPOSIT -ELECTRIC SVC TRAILER EMPLOYEE ADVANCES/TRAVEL DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS DUE FROM REDEVELOPMDDIT AGENCY SUSPENSE GENERAL FIRED ASSETS PAYMENT OF LONG THAN DEBT INVESTMENTS - LAIF INVESTMENTS C.D.'S INVEST/DEIMAN AND COMPANY INTERPUND TRANSFER ACCOUNT 20000.00 TOTAL ASSETS 729299.28 13195194.42 71601.84 11588.81 LIABILITIES A EQUITY LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 99245.99- CCMP ABSENCES PAYABLE CONTRACTS PAYABLE FIRE TRUCK ACCRUED EXPENSES 83021.44- 1959 PENS SURVIVOR BENEFITS DEPOSITS PAY - NON -CASE ENGINEERING DEPOSITS MISC.PAYROLL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE FRINGE BEREFIT CLEARING ACCT. MISC DEPOSITS PAYABLE STRONG MOTION INST. PROGRAM LANDSCAPE BONDS FRINGE TOED LIZARD FEES SCHOOL MITIGATION FEES DEP/SIGRAL-ESNHNR/COACE3LLA DEP/FRED NARING MEDIAS CTS/FIR DEP POTENTIAL MffiJA RODS DIST NESENVSS MR ASSESSMENT DIST ARBITRAGE EXCESS EARNINGS DEPOSIT -DISCHARGE OF ARENT DEPOSIT -PROPERTY TAX ROLL DEPOSIT -INTEREST DEPOSITS -ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES SUSPENSE 77100.00- ➢EPOSIT-DESERT COVE PROPERTIES DEP/COETRIBUTION SENIOR CENTER DEPOSIT -SPORTS COMPLEX INVEST.IN GENERAL FIRED ASSETS PRIOR YEAR ENCU14BRRNCES 7463.51- TOTAL LIABILITIES 266831.04- RESERVE - LANDMARK FORD BALANCE 729299.26- 12928363.38- 71601.86- 11588.51- TOTAL LIABILITIES A EQUITY 729299.28- 13195196.62- 71601.86- 11568.61- r. 0l33;:j OL102 CITY OF Ia QHINTA 1/24/92 STAIDffiR OF PINAMCIAL POSITION PAGE TUBE PERIOO 7/91 TWERM 12/91 ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CITY WIDE ASSESSMENT ARMAMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT ASSIM DIST DISTRICT DISTRICT 88-1 89-2 89-1 90-1 91-1 ASSETS CASE 77570.90 2571.89 152164.98- 50586.08 169427.52 SEC PAC MONEY MET PETTY CASE ACCRUED INTEREST/PREPAID SIPS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE LOAN RECEIVABLE P.S.D.R.C.B. ACOTS. NEC. Nap CBECKS PERFORMANCE BONDS / DEP GELD DEPOSITS-FORODi3 COMPENSATION TRAILER RENT DEPOSIT DEPOSIT -ELECTRIC SVC TRAILER EMPLOYEE ADVA J&S/TRAVEL DUE FROM OTHU GOVERNMENTS DUE FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUSPENSE 4.92- GENEM FIXED ASSETS PAYMENT OF LONG TERM DEBT INVESTMENTS - LAIF INVESTENTS C.D.'S INVEST/DEMMAR AND COMPANY 539.70 109439.30 272533.88 1816676.84 TOTAL ASSETS 78110.68 112011.18 152169.90- 323119.96 1986104.36 LIABILITIES i EQUITY LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 6985.90- 98654.88- 85011.03- CCMP ABSENCES PAYABLE CONTRACTS PAYABLE FIRE TRUCK ACCRUED MUSES 18622.50- 1347.40 1959 PERS SURVIVOR BENEFITS DEPOSITS PAY - NON -CASH ENGINEERING DEPOSITS MISC.PAYROLL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRINCE BENEFIT CLEARING ACCT. MISC DEPOSITS PAYABLE STRONG MOTION INST. PROGRAM LANDSCAPE BONDS FRINGE TOED LIZARD FEES SCHOOL MITIGATION FEES DEP/SIGNAL-ESNHWR/CGACRELLA DEP/FRED WARING MEDIAN CTS/FLR 31840.00- DEP POTENTIAL MELIO RODS DIST RESERVES MR ASSESSMENT DIST ARBITRAGE EXCESS EARRINGS 8700.00- 22672.00- DEPOSIT-DISCHARGE OF ABUT DEPOSIT -PROPERTY TAX ROLL DEPOSIT-INTIMIST DEPOSITS -ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES SUSPENSE DEPOSIT -DESERT COVE PROPERTIES DSP/COMTRIBUTION SENIOR CENTSN DEPOSIT -SPORTS COMPLEX INVEST.IN GE<ffiW, FIXED ASSETS PRIOR YEAR SNCUMBNANCES 9890.75- 1363.00- TOTAL LIABILITIES 27322.50- 22672.00- 50329.25- 98654.88- 86374.03- RESERVE - LAIIDMARK FUND BALANCE 50788.18- 69339.18- 202499.15 224465.08- 1899730.33- TOTAL LIABILITIES 6 EQUITY 78110.68- 112011.18- 152169.90 323119.96- 1986104.36- OL102 CITY OF LA QUINTS 1/24/92 STATlMRNT OF FINANCIAL POSITIOf PAGE POUR PERIOD 7/91 TH O= 12/91 AMR IN PUBLIC 88-1 89-2 90-1 91-1 PLACER AGENCY FUND AONNCY FUND AGENCY FUND AGENCY FORD AHBETS CARE 97301.38 74967.29 16486.79 25323.34 17907.04 SEC PAC Mom MKT PETTY CASH ACCRUED INTEREST/PREPAID ME ACCOUNTS EECBIAELE LOAN RECEIVABLE P.S.D.R.C.E. ACCTS. ABC. NSF CHECKS PERFORMANCE BONDS / DIP BEND DEP08ITS-UORKHRS COPENSATIOI TRAILER RENT DEPOSIT DEPOSIT -ELECTRIC SVC TRAILER EMPLOYEE ADVANCES/TRAVEL DUE FROM OTHER OOVSRNMBNT8 DINE PROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUSPENSE GENERAL FIXED ASSETS PAYMENT OF 14ONG TERM DEBT INVESTMENTS - LAIF INVESTMENTS C.D.'S INVEST/DERKNN AND COPANY 100564.12 130403.02 132171.74 226772.66 TOTAL ASSETS 97301.38 175531.41 146889.81 157495.08 244679.70 LIABILITIES A EQUITY LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE COP ABSENCES PAYABLE CONTRACTS PAYABLE FIRE TRUCE ACCRUED EXPENSES 1959 PENS SURVIVOR BENEFITS DEPOSITS PAY - NON -CASE ENGINEERING DEPOSITS MISC.PAYROLL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE FRINGE BENEFIT CLEARING ACCT. MISC DEPOSITS PAYABLE STRONG MOTION INST. PROGRAM LANDSCAPE BONDS FRINGE TOED LIZARD P8E3 SCHOOL MITIGATION FEES DEP/SIGNAL-PASSER/CWCHELLA DEP/FRED RARING MEDIAN CIS/FLR DIP POTENTIAL MELD BOOS DIST RESERVES FOR ASSESSMENT DIST 85598.46- 113841.01- 119390.62- 224086.60- ARBITRAGE EXCESS EARNINGS DEPOSIT -DISCHARGE OF A63MT 11368.56- 5171.49- 16736.35- 20279.60- DEPOSIT-PROPERTY TAX POLL 48176.29- 1976.94 8093.28- DEPOSIT-INPffiBST 30408.62- 29854.25- 13276.83- 313.50- DEPOSITS-ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES 40621.23- SUSPENSE DEPOSIT -DESERT COVE PROPERTIES DEP/CCUTRIBUTION Swim CENTER DEPOSIT -SPORTS COMPLEX INVEST.IN GHNEAL FIRED ASSETS PRIOR YEAR ENCUMBRANCES TOTAL LIABILITIES 40821.23- 175531.71- 146889.81- 157895.08- 244679.70- RESERVE - LANDMARK FUND BALANCE 56150.15- .30 TOTAL LIABILITIES A EQUITY 97301.38- 175531.41- 166889.81- 157695.08- 264679.70- !tw CITY OF LA QUINTA PAM I =102 87RTDOW OF FIRANCIAL POSITION 11.33.35 1/27/92 PAGE FIVE PERIOD 7/91 THROUGH 12/91 T O T A L S LONG TNEN GENERAL FIXED --- MEMORANDUM ORLY --- DEBT ASSETS CURRENT JUNE 30, 1991 ASSETS 11095.76 69156.11 CABS 324000.05 265081.25 SEC PAC M0NEY MDCf 8715 CIVIC CENTER BOND PROCEEDS 700.00.00 700.00 PZTTY CASH 611.25- 147419.37 ACCRUED INTEREST/PREPAID RIPS 00 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 300.89 39383.10 {{783.00 LOAS RECRIVABLE P.S.D.R.C.B. ACCTS. REC. NSF CRACKS 00.00 00.00 PER'ORMANCB BONDS / DR' �.D ' 24059.00 24059.00 23423.00 23423. 00 DE?OSIT2;%ORlUW COMBRERATION 975.00 975.00 TRAILER RENT DEPOSIT 75.00 DEPOSIT -ELECTRIC SVC TRAILER 50.00 00 EMPLOYEE ADVANCES/TRAVEL 301.24 99.62 DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNNERT9 5091665.33 91465.33 661558.17 2664925.00 Due FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2942204.88- 925.00 4925. 00 SUBPBRBE 3286870.35 3816313.60 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS 3816213.60 786B70.35 PAYMENT OF LONG TEEN DEBT 286870.35 9230740743..9E 6O80000.00 INVESTKENTS - LAIN 00 INVESTMENTS C.D.'S 6133{38.69 6133420.49 4141901.96 4141901.96 INVEST/DENMAN ARE COMPANY 286870.35 3816213.60 31421064.77 22015542.43 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES { EQUITY LIABILITIES 1347636.43- 843460.23- ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 24S124.SD- 243745.55- CD@ ABSENCES PAYABLE 243745.55- 43625.00- CONTRACTS PAYABLE FIRE TRUCK 43124.60- 3625.00 10301.80- 110301.72- ACCRUED EXPENSES 2634.13- 1942.00- 1959 PEES SURVIVOR BENEFITS 74000.00- 74000.00- DEPOSITS PAY - NON -CASH 34621.34 5836.35 ENGINEERING DEPOSITS 5246.91- 12.74- MISC.PAYAOLL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE FRINGE BENEFIT CLEARING ACCT. 8933.28- 32341. 16- 12341.14- MISC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 2236.65- 1372.13- STRONG MOTION IEST. PrJ)GR1M 3000.00- 3000.00- LANDSCAPE BOLDS 8537.36- 349.90- FRINGE TOED LIZARD PEES 5024.00- 5024.00- SCBOOL MITIGATION FEES 32360.00- 32600.00- DEP/SIGNAL-ESNRiR/COACCBE..LA 34860.00- 34860.00- DEP/FRED HARING RADIAN CTS/FLR 83313.74- 57813.74- DEP POTENTIAL ME.IA RODS DIET 547916.67- 318830.07- RERVES FOR ASSESSMENT DIST ESAREITRAGE 31372.00- 23262.31- EXCESS EARNINGS 53536.00- 18187.40- DEPOSIT -DISCHARGE OF ASSNT 54292.63- 247065.71- DREOSIT-PROPERTY TAX %DLL 73851.00- 78861. 58 DEPOSIT-IVIE REST 40831.23- 32393.75- DE!OSITS-ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACER 78406.20- ]{625.00- SUSPENSB 500.00- 500.00- DEPOSIT-DeBBRT COVE PROPERTIES 816.00- SENIOR CENTER DEP/ORITRIBUTION 60.00- ' DEPOSIT -SPORTS CO FLEX 50000.00- DEPOSIT BBGIONAL BALL SIR 3816213.60- 3816213.60- ' INVE8T.2N GENERAL FIXED ASSETS J815213.60- 22177.67- 26991.49- PRIOR YEAR ECUNERANC88 6647690.55- 6147339.35- TOTAL LIABILITIES 286870.35- 3816213.60- RESERVE - LANDMARK 1175172.31- 1175172.31- 23502201.41- 14693030.77- FUND BALANCE 31421064.27- 22015542.43- I TOTIRL LZABILITIE4 f EQUITY 286870.35- 3816313.60- 0 s�1 , GL64 1/24/92 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION RE VENUE SUMMARY ---- BY FUND ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 FUND 1 GENERAL FUND 1-3100-031-010 PROPERTY TAX 1-3100-031-012 DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 1-3100-031-020 SALES TAX 1-3100-031-030 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 1-3100-031-031 FRANCHISE TAX 1-3100-031 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-3100------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-3200-032-010 BUSINESS LICENSES 1-3200-032-012 ANIMAL LICENSES 1-3200-032-020 BUILDING PERMITS 1-3200-032-021 PLUMBING PERMITS 1-3200-032-023 ELECTRICAL PERMITS 1-3200-032-024 MECHANICAL PERMITS 1-3200-032-025 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 1-3200-032-026 MISC. PERMITS 1-3200-032 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-3200------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-3300-033-021 CIGARETTE TAX 1-3300-033-022 MOTOR VEHICLE IN -LIEU 1-3300-033-023 OFF HIGHWAY LICENSE FEES 1-3300-033-024 MOBILE HOME LICENSE FEES 1-3300-033-025 HDA ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 1-3300-033 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-3400-034-010 PLANNING 6 ZONING FEES 1-3400-034-011 ENGINEERING FEES 1-3400-034-012 PLAN CHECK FEES 1-3400-034-020 SALE OF MAPS 3 PUBLICATIONS 1-3400-034-030 DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FEES 1-3400-034 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-3400------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-3500-035-010 MISCELLANEOUS FINES 1-3500-435-011 MOTOR VEHICLE CODE FINES 1-3500------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-3600-036-010 INTEREST EARNINGS 1-3600------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-3700-037-010 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 1-3700-037-011 MISC REV/FRITZ BURNS PARK 1-3700-037-013 88-1 AD CALCULATION 1-3700-037-016 89-2 AD CALCULATION 1-3700-037-017 90-1 AD CALCULATION 1-3700-037-019 91-1 AD CALCULATION 1-3700-037-024 LOTH ANIVERSARY M. BRATION 1-3700-037-025 REVENUE SPORTS COMPLEX 1-3700-037-040 INSURANCE PROCEEDS 1-3700-037 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-3700-038-040 REVENUE/SR CENTER 1-3700-103-746 CASE OVER AND SHORT 1-3700------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1----------- FUND TOTAL RECEIVED 188428.98- 37109.42- 267868.44- 194554.21- 40775.51- 728736.55-* 728736.56-** 12605.00- 3808.50- 141010.95- 26424.95- 26868.60- 12262.13- 53351.09- 3525.00- 279856.22-* 279856.22-** 4068.75- 194735.56- 251358.84- 450163.15-* 450153.15-** 57242.96- 12447.71- 126875.71- 13643.48- 40000.00- 250209.86-* 250209.86-** * 106990.86-* 108990.88-** 24294.86- 60.00- 1115.00- 1350.00- 1185.00- 1650.00- 16900.00- 40.00- 3.48- 46598.34-* 3705.59-* 39.66-* 50343.59-** 1868300.26-*** PAGE R 13.30.53 REMAINING ESTIMATE ESTIMATE %COMP 310000.00- 188000.00- 694000.00- 1995000.00- 216300.00- 3403300.00-* 3403300.00-** 66000.00- 7200.00- 198000.00- 49500.00- 36300.00- 19800.00- 150000.00- 5000.00- 531800.00-* 531800.00-** 19900.00- 423000.00- 155.00- 11600.00- 479166.00- 933821.00-* 933821.00-** 35000.00- 30000.00- 165000.00- 250.00- 40000.00- 270250.00-* 270250.00-** 6000.00-* 14000.00-* 20000.00-** 560000.00-* 560000.00-** 59581.00- 59561.00-* 6400.00-* R 65981.00-** 5765152.00-*** 121571.02- 150890.58- 426131.56- 1800445.79- 175524.49- 2674563.44-* 2674563.44-** 53395.00- 3391.50- 56989.05- 23075.05- 9431.40- 7537.87- 96648.91- 1475.00- 251943.78-* 251943.78-** 15831.25- 228264.44- 155.00- 11600.00- 227807.16- 483657.85-* 483657.85-** 22242.96 17552.29- 38124.29- 13393.48 20040.14-* 20040.14-** 6000.00-* 14000.00-* 20000.00-** 451009.12-* 451009.12-** 35286.14- 60.00 1115.00 1350.00 1185.00 1650.00 16900.00 40.00 3.48 12982.66-* 2694.41-* 39.66 * 15637.41-** 3916851.74-*** 60.8 i 19.7 i 38.6 i 9.8 i 18.9 i 21.4 8 21.4 i 19.1 8 52.9 i 71.2 i 53.4 i 74.0 8 61.9 i 35.6 i 70.5 8 52.6 i 52.6 8 20.4 i 46.0 i .0 i .0 i 52.5 i 48.2 i 48.2 i 163.6 i 41.5 i 76.9 i 5457.4 i 100.0 i 92.6 i 92.6 i .0 i .0 i .0 i 19.5 i 19.5 i 40.8 i .0 i .0 i .0 i .0 i .0 i .0 i .0 i .0 i 78.2 i 57.9 $ .0 i 76.3 i 32.3 i FUND 2 STATE GAS TAX FUND 2-3300-233-023 SECTION 2105 SW ON = TAX 23803.15- 48000.00- 24196.85- 49.6 i �00l ' 1 �q `# v.i GL64 RE VENUE SUMMARY ---- BY FUND PALM 'K2, 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES TERU 12/31/91 13.30.54 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION FUND 2 STATE GAS TAX FUND 2-3300-233-024 SECTION 2106 2-3300-233-025 SECTION 2107 2-3300-233-026 SECTION 2107.5 2-3300-233 ---OBJECT TOTAL 2-3300-236-010 INTEREST EARNED 2-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2-3950-000-000 TRANSFER IN 2-3950------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 12 CCMM.DEV.BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 12-3300-833-112 COMMUNITY DEV. BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 12-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 12----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 13 LANDSCAPE MAIM'. DISTRICT M1 13-3300-135-010 INTEREST EARNED 13-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 13----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 14 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 88-1 14-3300-146-010 INTEREST EARNED 14-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 14----------- FUND TOTAL. FUND 15 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-2 15-3300-156-010 INTEREST EARNED 15-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 15----------- FUND TOTAL RECEIVED 27101.21- 47715.18- 3000.00- 101619.54-* 22825.40-* 124444.94-** 10.00-* 10.00-** 124454.94-*** * xx xxx 2923.84-* 2923.84-** 2923.84-*** 1492.94-* 1492.94-** 1492.94-*xx 71651.41 71651.41 ** 71651.41 *** REMAINING ESTIMATE ESTIMATE %COMP 53000.00- 25898.79- 51.1 % 95000.00- 47284.82- 50.2 % 3000.00- 100.0 % 199000.00-* 97380.46-* 51.1 % 63000.00-* 40174.60-* 36.2 % 262000.00-** 137555.06-** 47.5 % * 10.00 * .0 t ** 10.00 ** .0 % 262000.00-*** 137545.06-*** 47.5 % 63000.00-* 63000.00-* .0 % 63000.00-** 63000.00-** .0 i 63000.00-*** 63000.00-*** .0 t * 2923.84 * .0 % 2923.84 ** .0 i *** 2923.84 **" .0 % * 1492.94 * .0 % "* 1492.94 ** .0 % **" 1492.94 *** .0 H * 71651.41-* .0 % ** 71651.41-** .0 t *" 71651.41-*** .0 % FUND 16 CITY-WIDE ASSESSMENT DIST 89-1 16-3300-116-010 INTEREST EARNED 380.35-* * 380.35 * .0 % 16-3300-833-114 LANDSCAPE MAINT DISTRICT 41 * 565242.00-* 565242.00-* .0 % 16-3300 ------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 380.35-** 565242.00-** 564861.65-** .1 % 16-3700-300-000 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS ' 95000.00-* 95000.00-* .0 % 16-3700------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** 95000.00-** 95000.00-** .0 % 16-3950-000-000 TRANSFER IN 4.92-* * 4.92 * .0 % 16-3950------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 4.92-** ** 4.92 ** .0 % 16----------- FUND TOTAL 385.27-*** 660242.00-*** 659856.73-*** .l i FUND 17 QUIMBY FUND 17-3300-176-010 INTEREST EARNED 22476.42-* * 22476.42 * .0 i 17-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22476.42-** ** 22476.42 ** .0 i 17-3800-038-017 FEE IN LIEU PARKLAND DEDICATION 5689.00-* 50000.00-* 44311.00-* 11.4 t 17-3800------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 5689.00-** 50000.00-** 44311.00-** 11.4 t 17----------- FUND TOTAL 28165.42-*** 50000.00-*** 21834.58-*** 56.3 i FUND 18 INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 18-3300-186-010 INTEREST EARNED 148555.51-* 420000.00-* 271434.49-* 35.4 H 18-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 148565.51-** 420000.00-** 271434.49-** 35.4 i 18-3700-037-018 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 1353.47-* * 1353.47 * .0 i 18-3700-109-025 CIVIC CENTER BOND PROCEEDS 8515000.00-* * 8515000.00 * .0 i 18-3700------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 8516353.47-** ** 8516353.47 ** .0 % Gj I OL64 REVENUE SUMMARY ---- BY FUND PAGE R 2/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES TERU 12/31/91 13.30.55 REMAINING FED DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ESTIMATE ESTIMATE %COMP FUND 18 INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 18-3810-132-018 INFRASTRUCTURE FEES 18-3810------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 18----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 19 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 19-3300-120-010 INTEREST EARNED 19-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 19----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 20 VILLAGE PARKING FUND 20-3300-206-010 INTEREST EARNED 20-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 20-3700-104-020 VILLAGE PARKING LIEN AGREEMENT 20-3700------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 20----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 21 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-1 21-3300-216-010 INTEREST EARNED 21-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 21----------- FORD TOTAL FUND 22 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1 22-3300-221-010 INTEREST EARNED 22-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22-3400-034-022 SALE OF PLANS 8 SPECIFICATIONS 22-3400------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22-3700-105-022 PREPAYMENT/BENEFIT SEWER ASSESSMENT 22-3700-109-022 91-1 BOND PROCEEDS 22-3700 ------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 23 ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES 23-3300-226-010 INTEREST EARNED 23-3300------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 23-3900-000-000 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES 23-3900------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 23----------- FUND TOTAL 330000.69-* 660000.00-* 329999.31-* 50.0 t 330000.69-** 660000.00-** 329999.31-** 50.0 6 8994919.67-*** 1080000.00-*** 7914919.67 *** 032.9 i 1501.84-* * 1601.84 * .0 i 1601.84-** ** 1601.84 ** .0 i 1601.84-*** *** 1601.84 *** .0 i 359.74-* * 359.74 * .0 8 359.74-** •* 359.74 ** .0 t * 9375.00-* 9375.00-* .0 i RR 9375.00-** 9375.00-** .0 t 359.74-*** 9375.00-*** 9015.26-*** 3.8 t 66009.76 * * 66009.76-* .0 t 66009.76 ** ** 66009.76-** .0 t 66009.76 *** *** 66009.76-*** .0 i 41629.57-* * 41629.57 * .0 8 41629.57-** ** 41629.57 ** .0 i 15.00-* * 15.00 * .0 t 15.00-** ** 15.00 •" .0 t 233917.84-* * 233917.84 " .0 i 2016779.45-* * 2016779.45 * .0 i 2250697.29-** ** 2250697.29 ** .0 t 2292341.86-*** *** 2292341.86 *** .0 i 2907.51-* * 2907.51 * .0 t 2907.51-** ** 2907.51 ** .0 t 47.05-* * 47.05 * .0 t 47.05-** ** 47.05 ** .0 i 2954.56-*** **" 2954.56 *** .0 t CL64 A P P R 0 P R I A T I O N S U M M A R Y ---- By FUND PAGE A T 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 13.30.57 REMAINING FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET %COMP FUND 1 GENERAL FUND 1-2108-100-019 PM 26710 DESERT CLUB 190.99 190.99 190.99- .0 t 1-2108-100-025 TRACT 26444 .0 t 1-21CS-100 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 190.99 * 190.99 * * 190.99-* .0 i 1-2108------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** 190.99 ** 190.99 ** ** 190.99-** .0 i 1-4110-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR * 13700.00 * 13700.00 * 26400.00 * 12700.00 " 51.9 i 1-4110-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * 13878.21 * 13878.21 * 34363.00 * 20484.79 * 40.4 t 1-4110-110-015 L. Q. HISTORICAL SOCIETY 5000.00 5000.00 5000.00 100.0 i 1-4110-110-017 L. Q. SPORTS 6 YOUTH ASSOC. 3400.00 3400.00 3400.00 100.0 t 1-4110-110-021 GRANT/SHARE 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 100.0 i 1-4110-110-022 GRANT/FAMILY YMCA 4300.00 4300.00 4300.00 100.0 t 1-4110-110-026 GRANT/BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB L 4300.00 4300.00 4300.00 100.0 i 1-4110-110-030 BOY SCOUT TROUP #150 1000.00 1000.00 1500.00 500.00 66.7 i 1-4110-110-031 CV PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDAT 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 100.0 t 1-4110-110-032 FRIENDS OF LA QUINTA LIBRAR 2500.00 2500.00 2500.00 100.0 t 1-4110-110-050 MISC PROMOTIONS 500.00 500.00 500.00 100.0 i 1-4110-110 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 25000.00 * 25000.00 * 25500.00 * 500.00 * 98.0 t 1-4110-111-000 CONTRACT CITY ATTORNEY SERV * 131039.86 * 131039.86 * 200000.00 * 68960.14 * 65.5 t 1-4110-114-010 PUBLICATIONS/DUES * 14275.61 * 14275.61 * 35000.00 * 20724.39 * 40.8 t 1-4110-116-000 RENT/OFFICES * 6720.00 * 6720.00 * 14000.00 * 7280.00 * 48.0 t 1-4110-117-000 TRAVEL & MEETINGS * 27250.08 * 27250.08 * 40000.00 * 12749.92 * 68.1 t 1-4110-120-000 SPECIAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY * 2500.00 * 2500.00 * 15000.00 * 12500.00 * 16.7 t 1-4110-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.58 330.77 335.35 600.00 264.65 55.9 t 1-4110-130-001 PRINTING 500.00 500.00 .0 i 1-4110-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 4.58 * 330.77 * 335.35 * 1100.00 * 764.65 * 30.5 i 1-4110-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 1302.13 1302.13 3400.00 2097.87 38.3 t 1-4110-132-010 CIVIC CENTER ART PURCHASE 5000.00 5000.00 .0 i 1-4110-132 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 1302.13 * 1302.13 * 8400.00 * 7097.87 * 15.5 t 1-4110-133-000 TENTH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATI 2184.55 5118.09 7302.64 25000.00 17697.36 29.2 t 1-4110-133-010 TENTH ANNIVERSARY ACXNOWLED 4500.00 4500.00 .0 i 1-4110-133 ---OBJECT TOTAL 2184.55 * 5118.09 * 7302.64 * 29500.00 * 22197.36 * 24.8 t 1-4110------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2189.13 ** 241114.75 "* 243303.88 ** 429263.00 ** 185959.12 ** 56.7 t 1-4120-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR * 131948.29 " 131948.29 * 288227.00 * 156278.71 * 45.8 t 1-4120-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * 39063.05 * 39063.05 * 89182.00 " 50118.95 * 43.8 t 1-4120-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL- * 54.83 * 54.83 * 5500.00 * 5445.17 * 1.0 i 1-4120-114-010 PUBLICATIONS/DUES * 3314.46 * 3314.46 * 7500.00 * 4185.54 * 44.2 t 1-4120-116-000 RENT/OFFICES * 1200.00 * 1200.00 * 2400.00 * 1200.00 * 50.0 t 1-4120-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS * 13594.26 * 13594.26 * 35000.00 * 21405.74 * 38.8 i 1-4120-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9.16 1729.55 1738.71 2500.00 761.29 69.5 i 1-4120-130-001 PRINTING 42.56 42.56 900.00 857.44 4.7 i 1-4120-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 9.16 * 1772.11 * 1781.27 * 3400.00 * 1618.73 * 52.4 t 1-4129-131-000 ART IN PUBLIC-PRGM DEVLPMNT * * * 5000.00 * 5000.00 * .0 t 1-4120-132-000 SPECIAL DEPT. SUPPLIES * 134.72 * 134.72 * 1800.00 * 1665.28 * 7.5 t 1-4120-143-000 EQUIPMENT 36.55- 36.55- 36.55 .0 t 1-4120-143-100 EQUIPMENT - CAP 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 100.0 t 1-4120-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 1963.45 * 1963.45 * 2000.00 * 36.55 * 98.2 i 1-4120------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 9.16 ** 193045.17 ** 193054.33 ** 440009.00 ** 246954.67 ** 43.9 t 1-4130-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR * 47995.18 * 47995.18 * 100411.00 * 52415.82 * 47.8 i 1-4130-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * 20328.10 * 20328.10 * 44703.00 * 24374.90 * 45.5 i 1-4130-110-000 ADVERTISING/LEGAL & PUBLICI * 3554.66 " 3554.66 " 11400.00 * 7845.34 * 31.2 i 1-4130-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL- * 4275.54 * 4275.54 * 6500.00 * 2224.46 * 65.8 t 1-4130-114-010 PUBLICATIONS & DUES * 434.40 " 434.40 * 175.00 * 259.40-* 248.2 t 1-4130-115-000 POSTAGE * 1445.50 * 1445.50 * 2450.00 * 1004.50 * 59.0 i 1-4130-116-000 RENT/OFFICE 202.78 202.78 202.78- .0 t nri; , A;, GL64 1/24/92 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION A P P R 0 P R I A T ION S U M M A R Y ---- By FUND ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE PAU /j L 13.30.58 REMAINING BUDGET BUDGET %COMP FUND 1 GENERAL FUND 1-4130-116-010 RENT/EQUIPMENT 209.57 209.57 500.00 290.43 41.9 $ 1-4130-116 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 412.35 * 412.35 * 500.00 * 87.65 * 82.5 8 1-4130-117-000 TRAVEL B MEETINGS/STAFF 2701.86 2701.86 7050.00 4348.14 36.3 8 1-4130-117-001 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS/NON-STAFF 3850.00 3850.00 .0 $ 1-4130-117-050 CS COMMISSIONERS SALARIES 550.00 550.00 2100.00 1550.00 26.2 8 1-4130-117 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 3251.86 * 3251.86 * 13000.00 * 9748.14 " 25.0 8 1-4130-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.90 2330.60 2353.50 4000.00 1646.50 58.8 8 1-4130-130-001 PRINTING 767.72 767.72 2700.00 1932.28 28.4 8 1-4130-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 22.90 * 3098.32 * 3121.22 * 6700.00 * 3578.78 * 46.6 $ 1-4130-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 373.67 * 1204.09 * 1577.76 * 6700.00 * 5122.24 * 23.5 8 1-4130-143-100 EQUIPMENT -CAP * 1095.29 * 1095.29 * 4940.00 * 3844.71 * 22.2 8 1-4130------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 396.57 "* 87095.29 "* 87491.86 *" 197479.00 "* 109987.14 *" 44.3 8 1-4150-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR * 83277.47 * 83277.47 * 189407.00 * 106129.53 * 44.0 i 1-4150-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * 29316.39 • 29316.39 * 69083.00 * 39766.61 * 42.4 i 1-4150-111-000 CONTRACT SERVICES * 4345.00 * 4345.00 " 23300.00 * 18955.00 * 18.6 8 1-4150-114-010 PUBLICATIONS/DUES * 201.32 " 201.32 * 1200.00 " 998.58 * 16.8 % 1-4150-115-000 POSTAGE * * * .23 .23 * .23-* .0 $ 1-4150-116-000 RENT/OFFICES * 6720.00 * 6720.00 * 14000.00 " 7280.00 * 48.0 8 1-4150-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS " 1782.66 * 1782.66 " 4000.00 * 2217.34 • 44.6 8 1-4150-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC * 1305.74 " 1305.74 " 2500.00 * 1194.26 * 52.2 $ 1-4150-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 44.24 2094.34 2138.58 2800.00 661.42 76.4 % 1-4150-130-001 PRINTING 2028.15 2028.15 3500.00 1471.85 57.9 % 1-4150-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 44.24 " 4122.49 * 4166.73 * 6300.00 * 2133.27 * 66.1 8 1-4150-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 247.05 * 1390.15 * 1637.20 * 2980.00 " 1342.80 * 54.9 8 1-4150-143-000 EQUIPMENT 285.48 285.48 300.00 14.52 95.2 8 1-4150-143-100 EQUIPMENT -CAP 507.08 507.08 520.00 12.92 97.5 8 1-4150-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL 507.08 * 285.48 • 792.56 • 820.00 * 27.44 * 96.7 8 1-4150------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 798.37 •* 132746.93 ** 133545.30 ** 313590.00 •• 180044.70 •* 42.6 8 1-4190-110-000 ADVERTISING -JOB RECRUITMENT * 7163.27 * 7163.27 * 9000.00 * 1836.73 * 79.6 % 1-4190-111-000 SERVICES -CUSTODIAL 11370.27 11370.27 20460.00 9089.73 55.6 8 1-4190-111-005 CIVIC CENTER BOND ISSUANCE .0 $ 1-4190-111-010 SERVICES -EMPLOYEE EXAMS 1164.25 1164.25 2000.00 835.75 58.2 8 1-4190-111-030 SERVICES CONTRACT - CLAIMS 26061.00 26061.00 36995.00 10934.00 70.4 8 1-4190-111-050 COMPUTER STUDY .0 8 1-4190-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL " 38595.52 " 38595.52 * 59455.00 " 20859.48 * 64.9 8 1-4190-112-000 INSURANCE-LIABILITY/CASUALT * 106689.80 * 106689.80 * 121000.00 " 14310.20 • 88.2 8 1-4190-113-010 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE * 15726.77 * 15726.77 * 34712.00 * 18985.23 * 45.3 8 1-4190-114-010 PUBLICATIONS 6 DUES " 1138.82 * 1138.82 * * 1138.82-* .0 8 1-4190-115-000 POSTAGE * 13434.22 * 13434.22 * 15000.00 • 1565.78 * 89.6 $ 1-4190-118-020 UTILITIES -ELECTRIC 1983.50 1983.50 4500.00 2516.50 44.1 8 1-4190-118-030 UTILITIES -TELEPHONE 16741.51 16741.51 30000.00 13258.49 55.8 i 1-4190-118-040 UTILITIES-TELEPHONE(SPORTS 355.01 355.01 355.01- .0 % 1-4190-118 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 19080.02 * 19080.02 * 34500.00 * 15419.98 * 55.3 8 1-4190-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 52.38 52.38 52.38- .0 i 1-4190-130-001 PRINTING 517.95 517.95 517.95- .0 i 1-4190-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL " 570.33 * 570.33 * * 570.33-* .0 i 1-4190-131-000 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION 3502.52 3502.52 4500.00 997.48 77.8 i 1-4190-131-005 EMPLOYEE EDUCATION 711.08 711.08 1000.00 288.92 71.1 $ 1-4190-131 ---OBJECT TOTAL, " 4213.60 * 4213.60 * 5500.00 * 1286.40 * 76.6 i 1-4190-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 68.16 * 9463.18 * 9531.34 * 27020.00 * 17488.66 * 35.3 % 1-4190-142-010 XEROX COPIERS/SUPPLIES * 1791.40-* 1791.40-* * 1791.40 * .0 i 1-4190-143-100 EQUIPMENT - CAP * 6808.30 * 6808.30 * 2980.00 * 3828.30-* 228.5 $ 1-4190------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 68.16 ** 221092.43 *" 221160.59 ** 309167.00 ** 88006.41 ** 71.5 $ �n, GL64 A P P R O P R I A T I O N S U M M A R Y 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES FUND I GENERAL FUND 1-4192-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4192-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS 1-4192-110-013 R.S.V.P. 1-4192-111-000 CONTRACT SERVICES 1-4192-112-000 VOLUNTEER INSURANCE 1-4192-113-000 MAINT 6 OPERATION - EQUIPME 1-4192-116-000 RENT/OFFICE 1-4192-116-010 RENT -EQUIPMENT 1-4192-116 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4192-117-000 TRAVEL AND MEETINGS 1-4192-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC 1-4192-118-040 UTILITIES/GAS 1-4192-118 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4192-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1-4192-130-001 PRINTING 1-4192-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4192-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 1-4192------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-4195-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4195-105-000 RELOCATION EXPENSE 1-4195-109-000 BENEFITS 1-4195-111-045 CONTRACT SVCS - YMCA 1-4195-114-010 PUBLICATION AND DUES 1-4195-117-000 TRAVEL AND MEETINGS 1-4195-130-001 PRINTING 1-4195-132-000 SPECIAL DEPT. SUPPLIES 1-4195-143-100 EQUIPMENT - CAP 1-4195------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-4200-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4200-101-020 SALARIES, OVERTIME 1-4200-101 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4200-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS 1-4200-110-000 ADVERTISING/ LEGAL 6 PUBLIC 1-4200-110-020 FALL CLEAN UP CAMPAIGN 1-4200-110-080 C.P.R. TRAINING 1-4200-110-110 MICRO FICHE - APN 1-4200-110 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4200-112-010 VEHICLE INSURANCE (1) 1-4200-113-000 MAINTENANCE/OPERATION-AUTO 1-4200-113-010 MAINTENANCE/OPERATION-RADIO 1-4200-113 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4200-114-010 PUBLICATIONS/DUES 1-4200-116-010 RENT/EQUIPMENT 1-4200-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS 1-4200-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1-4200-130-001 PRINTING 1-4200-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4200-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 1-4200-143-000 EQUIPMENT 1-4200-144-000 SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 1-4200------- DEPAF434 P TOTAL 1-4201-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4201-101-020 SALARIES, OVERTIME R 4.58 19265.13 * 6957.36 * 1685.00 * 155.00 * x 583.94 * 7068.78 172.15 7240.93 * 421.10 * 1290.03 5.83 1295.86 * 452.67 452.67 * 530.22 * 38587.21 *• 5953.50 748.41 1705.39 x 422.60 635.00 42.56 987.47 3833.75 14328.68 ** 82556.20 - BY FUND BALANCE BUDGET 19265.13 * 6957.36 * 1685.00 * 155.00 * x 583.94 * 7068.78 172.15 7240.93 * 421.10 * 1290.03 5.83 1295.86 * 457.25 457.25 * 530.22 * 38591.79 ** 5953.50 748.41 1705.39 R 422.60 635.00 42.56 987.47 3833.75 14328.68 ** 82556.20 * 82556.20 * 82556.20 * * 27218.71 * 27218.71 * 687.32 687.32 672.35 672.35 743.48 784.42 1527.90 743.48 * 2144.09 * 2887.57 * R R f R R R R 22.86 45.79 68.65 268.51-* R R 543.62 *" 122.15 157.70 279.85 * 358.50 * 286.62 * 3915.45 * 1186.34 160.42 1346.76 * 2244.09 * 836.20 * f 121186.47 ** 41384.65 896.47 122.15 157.70 279.85 * 358.50 * 286.62 * 3915.45 * 1209.20 206.21 1415.41 * 1975.58 * 836.20 * f 121730.09 "* 41384.65 896.47 37409.00 * 14973.00 * 1769.00 * 360.00 * 200.00 * 3200.00 * 14700.00 1050.00 15750.00 * 800.00 * 2300.00 600.00 2900.00 * 700.00 500.00 1200.00 * 2850.00 * 81411.00 ** 23221.00 749.00 8186.00 30000.00 1000.00 1400.00 1000.00 1000.00 3850.00 70406.00 ** 166083.00 1139.00 167222.00 62175.00 50.00 1250.00 1300.00 1594.00 4194.00 1800.00 * 1200.00 6000.00 7200.00 * 400.00 * 1000.00 * 7950.00 * 1150.00 1000.00 2150.00 * 2856.00 * 850.00 * f 257797.00 ** 92177.21 664.79 REMAINING BUDGET 18143.87 * 8015.64 * 84.00 * 205.00 * 200.00 * 2616.06 * 7631.22 877.85 8509.07 * 378.90 * 1009.97 594.17 1604.14 * 242.75 500.00 742.75 * 2319.78 * 42819.21 ** 17267.50 .59 6480.61 30000.00 577.40 " 765.00 957.44 12.53 16.25 56077.32 ** 83526.80 1139.00 84665.80 " 34955.29 50.00 562.68 627.65 66.10 1306.43 1800.00 * 1077.85 5842.30 6920.15 * 41.50 * 713.38 * 4034.55 * 59.20- 793.79 734.59 * 880.42 * 13.80 * R 135066.91 ** 50792.56 231.68- PAGE A 3 13.31.00 %COMP 51.5 % 46.5 % 95.3 8 43.1 % .0 a 18.2 t 48.1 t 16.4 8 46.0 8 52.6 i 56.1 % 1.0 % 44.7 % 65.3 % .0 % 38.1 % 18.6 % 47.4 % 25.6 % 99.9 % 20.8 % .0 t 42.3 8 45.4 % 4.3 t 98.7 % 99.6 % 20.4 % 49.7 % .0 % 49.4 8 43.8 8 .0 t 55.0 $ 51.7 95.9 % 68.9 t .0 % 10.2 t 2.6 % 3.9 % 89.6 % 28.7 % 49.3 % 105.1 % 20.6 % 65.8 % 69.2 % 98.4 % .0 t 47.2 i 44.9 i 134.9 i GL64 A P P R 0 P R I A T I O N S U M M A R Y ---- BY FUND PAGE /4 Lt 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 13.31.01 REMAINING FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET %COMP FUND 1 GENERAL FUND 1-4201-101 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 42281.12 * 42281.12 * 92842.00 * 50560.88 * 45.5 % 1-4201-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * 19827.17 * 19827.17 * 48109.00 * 28281.83 * 41.2 % 1-4201-110-000 ADVERTISING -LEGAL 6 PUBLICI * * * 100.00 * 100.00 * .0 % 1-4201-112-010 VEHICLE INSURANCE (2) * * * 3600.00 * 3600.00 * .0 % 1-4201-113-OOD MAINTENANCE 6 OPERATION - A 60.59 " 1993.91 * 2054.50 * 2700.00 * 645.50 * 76.1 % 1-4201-114-010 PUBLICATIONS 6 DUES * * " 50.00 * 50.00 * .0 % 1-4201-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS " 5.86-* 5.86-* 300.00 * 305.86 * 2.0-% 1-4201-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC * 479.34 * 479.34 * 650.00 * 170.66 * 73.7 % 1-4201-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.58 473.32 477.90 850.00 372.10 56.2 % 1-4201-130-001 PRINTING 45.79 42.56 88.35 1000.00 911.65 8.8 % 1-4201-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 50.37 " 515.88 * 566.25 * 1850.00 * 1283.75 * 30.6 % 1-4201-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI * 1794.94 * 1794.94 * 2650.00 * 855.06 * 67.7 % 1-4201-143-000 EQUIPMENT 179.62 179.62 630.00 450.38 28.5 % 1-4201-143-100 EQUIPMENT - CAP 2628.36 2628.36 4150.00 1521.64 63.3 % 1-4201-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 2807.98 * 2807.98 * 4780.00 * 1972.02 * 58.7 % 1-4201-144-000 SPECIAL LOT CLEANING 107.75 6682.80 6790.55 16500.00 9709.45 41.2 % 1-4201-144-005 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 143.66 1670,81 1814.47 2220.00 405.53 81.7 % 1-4201-144-010 RIGHT OF WAY CLEANING 5105.00 5105.00 5000.00 105.00- 102.1 % 1-4201-144 ---OBJECT TOTAL 251.41 * 13458.61 * 13710.02 * 23720.00 * 10009.98 * 57.6 % 1-4201------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 362.37 •* 83153.09 '• 83515.46 •* 181351.00 *' 97835.54 •• 46.1 % 1-4202-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR * 18957.25 * 18957.25 • 44428.00 * 25470.75 * 42.7 % 1-4202-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * 9545.78 * 9545.78 * 23640.00 * 14094.22 • 40.4 % 1-4202-111-030 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES - C 4745.14 4745.14 15000.00 10254.86 31.6 % 1-4202-111-040 VETERINARY SERVICES 215.00 215.00 425.00 210.00 50.6 % 1-4202-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL • 4960.14 * 4960.14 * 15425.00 * 10464.86 * 32.2 % 1-4202-112-010 INSURANCE/VEHICLES " * * 1800.00 * 1800.00 * .0 % 1-4202-113-000 MAINTENANCE/OPERATION - AUT 76.37 2602.99 2679.36 4000.00 1320.64 67.0 % 1-4202-113-010 MAINT/OPERATION RADIO 700.00 700.00 .0 % 1-4202-113 ---OBJECT TOTAL 76.37 * 2602.99 * 2679.36 * 4700.00 * 2020.64 * 57.0 % 1-4202-114-010 PUBLICATIONS S DUES * * * 75.00 * 75.00 * .0 % 1-4202-116-010 RENT/EQUIPMENT 200.00 200.00 .0 % 1-4202-116-030 RENT/UNIFORMS 802.24 802.24 1500.00 697.76 53.5 % 1-4202-116 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 802.24 * 802.24 * 1700.00 * 897.76 * 47.2 % 1-4202-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS * * * 500.00 * 500.00 * .0 % 1-4202-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC " 247.48 " 247.48 * 500.00 * 252.52 * 49.5 % 1-4202-130-001 PRINTING 45.79 * 42.56 * 88.35 * 450.00 * 361.65 * 19.6 % 1-4202-132-000 SPEC. DEPT. SUP. - DARTS 6 71.85 * 156.53 * 228.38 * 675.00 * 446.62 * 33.8 % 1-4202-143-000 EQUIPMENT 250.14 256.50 506.64 630.00 123.36 80.4 % 1-4202-143-100 EQUIPMENT - CAP 15734.56 15734.56 17650.00 1915.44 89.1 % 1-4202-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL 250.14 * 15991.06 * 16241.20 * 18280.00 * 2038.80 * 88.8 % 1-4202------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 444.15 ** 53306.03 *" 53750.18 *' 112173.00 *" 58422.82 ** 47.9 % 1-4204-111-000 LAW ENFORCEMENT SVCS. 436788.84 436788.84 1330243.00 893454.16 32.8 % 1-4204-111-060 CALIFORNIA ID/FINGER PRINTI 8295.00 8295.00 8295.00 100.0 % 1-4204-121-070 BOOKING FEES 19209.00 19209.00 .0 % 1-4204-111-100 LAW ENFORCEMENT CMPTR PROGM 5000.00 5000.00 .0 % 1-4204-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 445083.84 * 445083.84 * 1362747.00 * 917663.16 * 32.7 % 1-4204------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL '* 445083.84 ** 445083.84 ** 1362747.00 ** 917663.16 ** 32.7 % 1-4205-110-017 VOLUNTEER FIRE APPRC. " * * 3500.00 * 3500.00 * .0 % 1-4205-111-050 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS - 8800.00 8800.00 .0 % 1-4205-111-070 FIRE EMERGENCY SUPPORT 6124.25 6124.25 14500.00 8475.75 41.9 % 1-4205-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 6124.25 * 6124.25 * 23400.00 * 17275.75 * 26.2 % 1-4205-147-000 FIRE ENGINE PASS THROUGH * 24581.13 * 24581.13 " 24600.00 * 18.87 • 99.9 % 1-4205------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** 30705.38 ** 30705.38 ** 51500.00 ** 20794.62 "* 59.6 % P I . 4 4 .. GL64 APPROPRIATION SUMMARY ---- By FUND 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 PAGE 13.31.02 REMAINING FND DEFT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET $COMP FUND 1 GENERAL FUND 1-4210-110-011 L.Q. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1-4210-110-012 L.Q. ARTS FOUNDATION 1-4210-110-013 PSDRCVB DUES 1-4210-110 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4210-111-000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1-4210-111-010 CONTRACT SERVICES * 991.25 33000.00 20000.00 41258.00 94258.00 * 4057.31 33000.00 20000.00 41258.00 94258.00 * 5048.56 100000.00 40000.00 180000.00 320000.00 * 24500.00 67000.00 20000.00 138742.00 225742.00 * 19451.44 33.0 % 50.0 t 22.9 $ 29.5 t 20.6 % 1-4210-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4210------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-4220-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4220-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS 1-4220-110-000 ADVERTISING -LEGAL 6 PUBLICI 1-4220-111-000 CONTRACT Svcs/PROFESSIONAL- 1-4220-113-010 MAINTENANCE 6 OPERATION-EQU 1-4220-114-010 PUBLICATIONS 6 DUES 1-4220-116-000 RENT/OFFICE 1-4220-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS 1-4220-118-010 UTILITIES/WATER 1-4220-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC 1-4220-118 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4220-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1-4220-130-001 PRINTING 991.25 * 991.25 ** * * * * * * * * * 194.13 4057.31 * 98315.31 ** 57667.65 * 19780.85 * 1060.02 * 1067.04 * 125.00 * 818.98 * 900.00 * 2778.66 * 68.30 1883.06 1951.36 * 3495.78 5048.56 * 99306.56 ** 57667.65 * 19780.85 * 1060.02 * 1067.04 * 125.00 * 818.98 * 900.00 * 2778.66 * 68.30 1883.06 1951.36 * 3689.91 45000.00 69500.00 * 389500.00 ** 119450.00 " 43713.00 * * 14000.00 * 450.00 * 800.00 * 2000.00 * 6500.00 * 150.00 3500.00 3650.00 * 5000.00 45000.00 64451.44 * 290193.44 ** 61702.35 * 23932.15 " 1060.02-* 12932.96 * 325.00 * 18.98-* 1100.00 * 3721.34 * 81.70 1616.94 1698.64 * 1310.09 .0 t 7.3 $ 25.5 t 46.3 $ 45.3 $ .0 $ 7.6 t 27.8 8 102.4 $ 45.0 $ 42.7 8 45.5 t 53.8 8 53.5 $ 73.8 $ 1-4220-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4220-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 1-4220-143-100 EQUIPMENT -CAP 1-4220------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-4230-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4230-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS 1-4230-110-000 ADVERTISING -LEGAL 6 PUBLICI 1-4230-111-000 CONTRACT SERVICES 1-4230-114-010 PUBLICATIONS/DUES 1-4230-116-000 RENT,OFFICE 1-4230-117-000 TRAVEL A MEETINGS 1-4230-130-001 PRINTING 1-4230-132-000 SPECIAL DEPT. SUPPLIES 1-4230------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-4240-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4240-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS 1-4240-110-000 ADVERTISING -LEGAL 6 PUBLICI 1-4240-110-030 LAFCO EXPENSE 194.13 * * * 194.13 '* * * * * 351.26 * * * 191.79 * * 543.05 ** * * 3495.78 * 91.05 * 221.65 * 89958.04 ** 46050.05 * 16439.04 * * 10063.60 * 758.81 * 1290.00 * 6668.52 * 91.56 * 77.05 * 81438.63 ** 106457.85 * 30292.35 " 3283.74 3689.91 " 91.05 * 221.65 * 90152.17 ** 46050.05 * 16439.04 * * 10063.60 * 1110.07 * 1290.00 " 6668.52 " 283.35 * 77.05 * 81981.68 ** 106457.85 * 30292.35 * 3283.74 500.00 5500.00 * 200.00 * 2500.00 * 198763.00 "* 96606.00 * 41016.00 * 250.00 * 15000.00 * 2050.00 * 3300.00 * 13320.00 * 800.00 * 250.00 " 172592.00 ** 225157.00 * 73844.00 * 5000.00 500.00 1810.09 * 108.95 * 2278.35 * 108610.83 ** 50555.95 * 24576.96 * 250.00 * 4936.40 * 939.93 * 2010.00 * 6651.48 * 516.65 * 172.95 * 90610.32 ** 118699.15 * 43551.65 * 1716.26 .0 8 67.1 % 45.5 % 8.9 $ 45.4 $ 47.7 % 40.1 % .0 t 67.1 % 54.1 % 39.1 % 50.1 % 35.4 % 30.8 $ 47.5 t 47.3 $ 41.0 $ 65.7 $ 1-4240-110 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4240-111-010 CONTRACT Svcs/PROFESSIONAL- 1-4240-114-010 PUBLICATIONS/DUES 1-4240-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS -STAFF 1-4240-117-001 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS - NON-STA 1-4240-117-050 SALARIES, PLANNING COMM.ISSS 1-4240-117 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4240-130-001 PRINTING 1-4240-132-000 SPECIAL DEPT. SUPPLIES 1-4240------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1-4311-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 1-4311-101-020 SALARIES, WERTIME 1-4311-101 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1-4311-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * * * * * * ** * " 3283.74 * 39696.40 * 264.13 * 2087.70 152.58 2000.00 4240.28 * 1561.61 * 440.24 * 186236.60 ** 174174.49 363.06 174537.55 * 56569.39 " 3283.74 * 39696.40 * 264.13 * 2087.70 152.58 2000.00 4240.28 * 1561.61 * 440.24 * 186236.60 *" 174174.49 363.06 174537.55 * 56569.39 * 7000.00 12000.00 * 189000.00 * 1400.00 * 5200.00 7500.00 6500.00 19200.00 * 6250.00 * 1000.00 * 527852.00 *" 349092.16 543.82 349636.00 * 124044.00 * 7000.00 8716.26 * 149303.60 * 1135.87 * 3112.30 7347.42 4500.00 14959.72 * 4688.39 * 559.76 * 341614.40 ** 174917.69 180.76 175098.45 * 67474..61 .0 $ 27.4 t 21.0 % 18.9 $ 40.1 $ 2.0 t 30.8 $ 22.1 t 25.0 $ 44.0 $ 35.3 t 49.9 t 66.8 % 49.9 t 45.6 t i" V Vv l .ill CL64 A P P R 0 P R I A T ION S U M M A R Y ---- By FUND 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 PAGE ;I(o 13.31.03 FND DEPT OB.J SUB DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE REMAINING BUDGET BUDGET tCOMP FUND 1 GENERAL FUND 1-4311-110-000 ADVERTISING -LEGAL i PUBLICI " 1-4311-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS-PROFESSIONAL/ 6580.00 5.00 * 5.00 5.00-* ,0 t 1-4311-111-001 CONTRACT SVCS - OTHER 37564.00 64144.00 35000.00 9144.00- 126.1 t 1-4311-111-050 NPD83 PERMIT CONSULTANT 32481.00 32481.00 32481.00- ,p t 1-4311-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 6580.00 * 70045.00 * 10000.00 10000.00 .0 t 1-4311-112-010 INSURANCE/VEHICLES . • 76625.00 * 45000.00 310 t 1-4311-114-010 PUBLICATIONS/DUES x • 1800.00 • 1800.00- 00.00 • ,170. p g 1-4311-116-000 RENT/OFFICE 306.25 304.25 ' 500.00 ' 195.75 " 60.9 t 1-4311-116-010 RENT/EQUIPMENT 5550.00 5550.00 8520.00 2970.00 65.1 t 1-4311-116 ---OBJECT TOTAL 100.00 100.00 .0 t 1-4311-117-000 TRAVEL i MEETINGS * 5550.00 * 5550.00 * 8620.00 * 3070.00 * 64.4 t 1-4311-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC x 3557.15 3557.15 * 7900.00 * 3342.85 * t 1-4311-130-000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 50.60- 557.15 " 557.15 * 900.00 * 342.85 * 61.9 61.9 t 1-4311-130-001 PRINTING 2425.01 2374.41 4000.00 1625.59 59.4 t 1-4311-130-002 PRINTING -REPRODUCTION 94.60 94.60 300.00 2..5 t 1-4311-130 ---OBJECT TOTAL 50.60- x 262.72 262.72 500.00 23737.28 28 5252.5 t 1-4311-132-000 SPECIAL DEPT. SUPPLIES 43.97 * 2782.33 * 2731.73 * 4800.00 • 2068.27 * 56.9 t 1-4311-143-000 EQUIPMENT 794.54 * 838.51 1200.00 361.49 * 69.9 t 1-4311-143-100 EQUIPMENT-CAp 380.56- 380.56- 380.56 .p t 1-4311-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL 3215.22 3215.22 3500.00 284.78 91.9 t 1-4311------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2834.66 2834.66 ' 3500.00 * 665.34 " 81.0 t 1-4400-100-000 CONTINGENCY RESERVES 6573.37 ** 317905.17 ** 324478.54 "* 547000.00 •* 222521.46 ** 59.3 t 1-4400------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL * ** * * 65056.00 * 65056.00 : .0 t 1-4450-000-000 TRANSFER OUT * ** ** 65056.00 *• 65056.00 ** ,O t 1-4650------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 14.92 ' 14.92 * x 14.92-• .0 t 1-4827-111-010 CONTRACT SVC/CONSTRUCTION *• " 14.92 ** 16.92 ** ** 14.92-** .0 t 1-4827------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 9922.49 * 9922.49 * 10000.00 * 77.51 * 99.2 t 1-4828-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL xx 9922.49 xw 9922.49 *• 10000.00 *• 77.51 ** 99.2 t 1-4828-111-010 CONTRACT SERV/CONSTRUCTION 272.61 598.16 598.16 98000.00 97401.84 .6 t 1-4828-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL, 272.61 • 1037.41 1310.02 2000.00 689.98 65.5 t 1-4828------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1635.57 • 1908.18 x 100000.00 • 98091.82 * 1.9 t 1-4891-117-000 TRAVEL i MEETINGS 272.61 •* * 1635.57 "* 1908.18 xx 100000.00 ** 98091.82 ** 1.9 t 1-4891------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL *•- 99.68-* 99.68-* x 99.68 .0 t 1 ------FUND TOTAL 99.68-** 99.68-** *• 99.68 ** ,p t 13390.52 "** 2446963.31 •*" 2460353.83 *•* 5017655.00 "** 3357301.17 *•• 42.3 t FUND 2 STATE GAS TAX FUND 2-4321-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 54888.41 54888.41 2-4321-101-020 SALARIES, OVERTIME 118409.00 62. 4.t 2-4321-101-030 STAND-BY PAY 1372.38 1372.38 3000.00 16 1627.62 62 65.7 t 2-4321-101 ---OBJECT TOTAL 780.00 780.00 2200.00 1420.00 35.5 t 2-4321-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS * 57040.79 * 57040.79 * 123609.00 • 66568.21 x 66.1 t 2-4321-111-010 STREET STRIPING i MARRING 29489.63 29689.63 * 70847.00 * 61357.37 * 41.6 t 2-4321-111-020 STREET SWEEPING 2697.42 2597.42 10000.00 7302.58 27.0 t 2-4321-111-030 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE 46429.81 46429.81 95000.00 48570.19 48.9 t 2-4321-111-040 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 3000.00 3000.00 .0 t 2-4321-111-050 STREET REPAIRS 6576.92 6576.92 20000.00 13623.08 32.9 t 2-4321-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 3000.00 24292.25 27292.25 55000.00 27707.75 49.6 t 2-4321-112-010 INSURANCE/VEHICLES 3000.00 * * 79996.40 * 82996.60 1800.00 • 30.0* 45.t 2-4321-113-000 MAINTENANCE i OPERATION - A 199.97 • Sd* 5400.00 54 5400.00 0 * 0 2-4321-113-010 MAINTENANCE i OPERATION-EQU 65.63 5957.36 6157.33 15000.00 8842.67 41.0 t 2-4321-113 ---OBJECT TOTAL 265.60 * 1186.69 1252.32 2000.00 767.68 62.6 t 2-4321-116-010 RENT/EQUIPMENT 7144.05 * 7409.65 17000.00 9590.35 • 43.6 t 2-4321-116-030 RENT/UNIFOHM3 114.54 114.54 1200.00 1085.46 9.5 t 949.19 949.19 1900.00 950.81 50.0 t GL64 A P P R 0 P R I A T ION S U M M A R Y ---- By FUND 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES TBRU 12/31/91 PAGE A 7 13.31.04 FND DEFT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION REMAINING EXPENDITURES BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET $COMP FUND 2 STATE GAS TAX FUND 2-4321-116-040 SAFETY GEAR 2-4321-116 ---OBJECT TOTAL 2-4321-117-000 TRAVEL a MEETINGS 2-4321-118-010 UTILITIES/WATER - YARD 2-6321-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC - YARD 2-4321-118-021 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC - SIGNAL 2-4321-110 ---OBJECT TOTAL 2-4321-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 2-4321-132-001 ASPHALT - COLD MIX 2-4321-132-004 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS 2-4321-132-005 STREET STRIPING PAINT 2-4321-132-006 TRACTOR BROOMS 114.05 114.05 * : * 57.84 120.00 322.59 1386.32 * 80.00 24.00 855.21 9433.64 10312.85 * 985.43 417.64 1119.28 115.83 436.64 1500.37 * 80.00 x 24.00 855.21 9433.64 10312.85 * 1043.27 417.64 1239.28 115.83 500.00 3600.00 * 100.00 * 50.00 700.00 15000.00 15750.00 * 4000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 63.36 2099.63 * 20.00 * 2.00 155.21- 5566.36 5437.15 * 2956.73 1082.36 760.72 2384.17 87.3 t 41.7 i 80.0 i 48.0t 12222.2 $ 62.9 $ 65.5 t 26.1 t 27.8 t 62.0 t 4.6 t 2-4321-132-008 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 2-4321-132 ---OBJECT TOTAL 2-4321-143-000 EQUIPMENT 2-4321-143-100 EQUIPMENT - CAP 2-4321-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL 2-4321------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2-4824-111-010 SERVICES/CONTRACTOR 2-4824------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2-4850-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFFESSIONAL 2-4850-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 2-4850-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 2-4850------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2 --FUND TOTAL 301.43 479.27 * * 3858.92 "* * *+ 70.04 70.04 * 70.04 ** 3928.96 *** 3040.72 5678.90 * 605.56 3450.82 4056.38 * 195185.32 ** 151.76 " 151.76 ** 16400.01 1150.67 17550.68 * 17550.68 ** 212887.76 *** 3342.15 6158.17 * 605.56 3450.82 4056.38 * 199044.24 *" 151.76 * 151.76 "* 16400.01 1220.71 17620.72 * 17620.72 ** 216816.72 *"" 1500.00 4000.00 15500.00 * 750.00 5850.00 6600.00 441406.00 +* * ** 7600.00 457400.00 465000.00 * 465000.00 *+ 906406.00 "** 1500.00 657.85 9341.83 * 144.46 2399.18 2543.62 242361.76 ** 151.76-* 151.76-** 8800.01- 456179.29 447379.28 * 447379.28 *+ 669589.28 "** .0 i 83.6 $ 39.7 g 80.7 i 59.0 t 61.5 t 45.1 t .0 % .0 t 215.8 $ .3 % 3.8 t 3.8 t 23.9 t FUND 12 COMM.DEV.BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 12-4800-111-035 CV CHILD CARE TASK FORCE 12-4800-111-040 EL PROGRF.SSO DEL DESIERTO 12-4800-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL * * 5000.00 10000.00 5000.00 10000.00 .0 t .0 g 12-4800------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** ** " 15000.00 * 15000.00 * .0 t 12----------- FUND TOTAL x** ** 15000.00 •* 15000.00 *** 15000.00 ** 15000.00 *** .0 t .0 % FUND 14 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 88-1 14-4500-111-000 CONTRACT SERV PROFESSIONAL 14-4500------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 14----------- FUND TOTAL * ** *+* 287.50 * 287.50 ** 287.50 **" 287.50 * 287.50 ** 287.50 *** * ** "*+ 287.50-* 287.50-** 287.50-**" .0 t .0 i 0 % FUND 15 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-2 15-4600-111-000 CONTRACT SERV/PROFESSIONAL 15-4600------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 15----------- FUND TOTAL * "* *** 328.75 * 328.75 *+ 326.75 *"* 328.75 * 328.75 *+ 328.75 *"* " ** *** 328.75-* 328.75-** 328.75-*** .0 % .0 % 0 t FUND 16 CITY-WIDE ASSESSMENT DIST 89-1 16-4700-101-000 SALARIES, REGULAR 16-4700-101-020 SALARIES, OVERTIME 16-4700-101 —OBJECT TOTAL 16-4700-109-000 FRINGE BENEFITS 16-4700-111-051 ADMINISTRATION/SUPPORT 6 LE 16-4700-111-052 CONSULTANT SERVICES 16-4700-111-053 COUNTY AD4INISTRATION * * 73223.32 422.83 73646.15 * 35092.34 * 9611.85 73223.32 422.83 73646.15 * 35092.34 " 9511.85 167755.00 2400.00 170155.00 * 93635.00 * 10000.00 25000.00 94531.68 1977.17 96508.85 * 58542.66 * 20000.00 15388.15 43.6 % 17.6 t 43.3 t 37.5 t .0 % 38.4 t 16-4700-111-056 DELINQUENCY ALLOWANCE 1000.00 1000.00 .0 i 16-6700-111-055 CONTINGENCY 1000.00 1000.00 .0 t 2000.00 2000.00 .0 g ran;... ._ GL64 AP P RO P R I AT I ON S U M M A R Y ---- By FUND 1/24/92 PAGE ACCOUNT BALANCES TBRU 12/31/91 13.31.05 FND DEFT OBJ SUE D88CRIPTION REMAINING ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET tCOMP FUND 16 CITY-WIDE ASSESSMENT DIST 89-1 16-4700-111-060 PALM TREE MAINTENANCE 8865.00 16-4700-111-081 MAINT-MADISON/AVE 54 8865.00 10000.00 1135.00 88.7 $ 16-4700-111-084 MAINT-EISENHOWER (CURVE) 18478.92 18478.92 60000.00 41521.08 30.8 % 16-4700-111-085 MAINT-MISCELLANEOUS 4569.74 4569.74 4569.74- ,0 % 16-4700-111-086 CONTR/MAINT ESBWR (COVE) 3151.70 3151.70 1200D.00 8848.30 26.3 ; 16-4700-111-088 SPORTS COMPLEX MAINT. CONTR 52355.52 20000.00 20000.00 ,0 ; 16-4700-111-089 AVE 52/JEFFERSON MAINT CONT 1800.00 12042.22 52355.52 67000.00 14644.48 78.1 % 16-4700-111-090 IMAGE CORRIDOR MAINT CONTRA 13842.22 40000.00 . 32.1 ; 16-4700-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1800.00 * 375.39 375.39 18000.00 176247624.61 .1 8 16-4700-112-010 INSURANCE/VEHICLE . 109450.34 * * 111250.34 263600.00 153600.00 * 41.8 t 16-4700-113-000 MAINTENANCE/OPHRATION-AUTO * 16-4700-113-010 MAINTENANCE/OPERATION-EQUIP 1794.69 1794.69 3000.00 1205.31 59.8 $ 16-4700-113 ---OBJECT TOTAL 142.82 1293.35 1436.17 2000.00 563.83 71.8 $ 16-4700-116-011 RENT/EQUIP-SOCCER FIELD 142.82 * 3088.04 * 3230.86 * 5000.00 x 1769.14 • 64.6 8 16-4700-116-030 RENT/UNIFORMg 727.75 727.75 2000.00 1272.25 36.4 t 16-4700-116-040 SAFETY GEAR 1581.52 1581.52 2000.00 62 . t 16-4700-116 ---OBJECT TOTAL 169.17 336.03 505.20 600.00 94. 94.80 80 8484.t 16-4700-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS 169.17 • . 2645.30 * 2814.47 * 4600.00 R 1785.53 " 61.2 $ 16-4700-118-010 UTILITIES/WATER " * * 9.72 " t 16-4700-118-020 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC 81.72 15181.72 81.72 15181.72 000.00 12000.00 3161.72- 126.5 $ 26.5 16-4700-118-030 UTILITIES/ELECTRIC-YARD 1560.68 1560.68 3500.00 1939.32 44.6 $ 16-4700-118-035 UTILITIES/TELE. SPORTS COMP 404.48 404.48 700.00 .5 26. 5 $ 16-4700-118-040 UTILITIES/ELEC. SPORTS CCMP 19.42 19.42 300.00 280.58 5 .5 $ 16-4700-118 ---OBJECT TOTAL 3070.46 3070.46 13000.00 9929.54 23.6 $ 16-4700-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI R 93.18 20236.76 20236.76 • 29500.00 " 9263.26 * 68.6 $ 16-4700-132-001 FERTILIZER, SEED 1813.73 1906.91 6000.00 4093.09 31.8 8 16-4700-132-002 LANDSCAPING MATERIAL 2728.78 2728.78 3000.00 271.22 91.0 $ 16-4700-132-003 MISCELLANEOUS SIGNS 1509.31 1509.31 3000.00 1490.69 50.3 8 16-4700-132-004 SUPPLIES -SPORTS COMPLEX 113.14 113.14 300.00 186.86 37.7 $ 16-4700-132 ---OBJECT TOTAI. 1026.42 1026.42 4700.00 3673.58 21.8 ; 16-4700-143-000 EQUIPMENT 93.18 R 7191.38 * 7284.56 * 17000.00 * 9715.44 * 42.9 $ 16-4700-143-100 EQUIPMENT - CAP 1996.38 1996.38 3000.00 1003.62 66.5 t 16-4700-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL 5791.02 5791.02 7445.00 1653.98 77.8 $ 16-4700------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL f 7787.40 7787.40 • 10445.00 * 2657.60 " 74.6 t 16-4848-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFFESSIONAL 2205.17 ** 259228.71 <• 261433.88 *• xx 600035.00 338601.12 *• 43.6 t 16-4848-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 1122.20 1122.20 5000.00 3877.80 22.4 $ 16-4848-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 90000.00 90000.00 .0R ; 16-4848------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL f 1122.20 1122.20 " 95000.00 * 93877.80 * 1.2 $ 16-4852-111-000 CONTRACT SVC3/PN8]FHSSIONAL xR 1122.20 Rx 1122.20 •* 95000.00 ** 93877.80 •* 1.2 $ 16-4852-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 4750.00 4750.00 ,0 ; 16-4852-111 —OBJECT TOTAL 3257.00 3267.00 80250.00 76983.00 4.1 t 16-4852------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL , 3267.00 x 3267.00 ' 85000.00 * 81733.00 * 3.8 t 16----------- FUND emu, RR 3267.00 •x 3267.00 •* 85000.00 ** 81733.00 "+ 3.8 $ 2205.17 "*• 263617.91 '"" 265823.08 *•* 780035.00 RxR 514211.92 "*• 34.1 ; FUND 17 QUIMBY FUND 17-4051-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 17-4851------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL "* 25000.00 * 25000.00 " .D ; 17----------- FUND TOTAL xwR fw RR 25000.00 •♦ 25000.00 .0 $ fRR fRw 25000.00 Rxx 250000.00 RRR .0 t FUND 18 INFRASTRUCTURE FU19D 18-4829-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/pROFESSIONAL R 18-4829------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 49099.46 * 49099.46 " f 49099.46-* ,0 ; 18-4830-111-000 SERVICES PROFESSIONAL •" R 49099.46 •" 49099.46 "• Rf 49099.46-*" ,p ; 10285.08 " 10285.08 ' 100000.00 * 89714.92 * 10.3 ; GL64 1/24/92 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION APPROPRIAT ION SUMMARY ---- By FUND ACCOUNT BALANCES TBRU 12/31/91 ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES RALANCE PAGE Aq 13.31.06 REMAINING BUDGET BUDGET %COME FUND 18 INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ' 18-4830------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 18-4835-111-000 SERVICES PROFFfiSSIONAL ** R 12157.97 ** 12157.97 ** 100000.00 ** 89714.92 *" 10.3 i 18-4835------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 157.97 * 2157.97 * * 2157.97-* 18-4837-111-000 SERVICES PROFFESSIONAL ** 2157.97 x* 2157.97 •* *+ 2157.97-** .0 i i 18-4837-111-010 SERVICES CONTRACTOR 17469.35 17469.35 20000.00 2530.65 .0 87.3 $ 18-6837-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 1125.00 256046.83 257171.83 329000.00 71826.17 78.2 8 18-4837------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1125.00 * 273516.18 x 274641.18 * 349000.00 74358.62 * 78.7 18-4843-I11-000 SERVICES PAOFFESSIONAL 1125.00 ** 273516.18 *+ 274641.18 +* 349000.00 *+ 74358.82 ** i 78.7 $ 18-4843-111-010 SERVICES CONTRACTOR 6000.00 6000.00 ,0 i 18-4843-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL k * 100000.00 100000.00 ,0 $ 18-4843------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL xx ** " 106000.00 * 106000.00 * 0 8 18-4845-111-000 SERVICEB PAOFFES3IONAL + ** 106000.00 ** 106000.00 ** ,p i 18-4845------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** 8.23 R 2928.23 " * 2928.23-" .0 8 18-4846-111-000 CO CONTRACT SVCS/pROpEgglppAL 2928.23 ** 2928.23 ** *• 2928.23-*• .0 i 18-4846-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 2400.00 2400.00 ,0 i 18-4846-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL * * 49600.00 49600.00 ,0 i 18-4846------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** ** * 52000.00 + 52000.00 * ,0 g 18-4847-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/pROgggglpNu. "* 52000.00 ** 52000.00 *• ,p g 18-4847-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 5654.66 5654.66 5200.00 454.66- 108.7 t 18-d867-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 125.00 125.00 249800.0 0 249675.00 .1 i 18-4847------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL *R 779.66 5779.66 * 255000.00 * 249220.34 * 2.3 i 18-4853-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PRpgggglpNN, 5779.66 ** 5779.66 ** 255000.** 00 249220.34 ** 2,3 $ 18-4853-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 16500.00 16500.00 .0 $ 18-4853-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 178500.00 178500.00 ,0 i 18-4853------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** * " 195000.00 * 195000.00 * ,0 g 18-4890-111-000 CONTRACT SVC/PROFESSIONAL ** "* 195000.00 •* 195000.00 •. •p g 18-6890-111-001 CONTRACT 3VC3/DESIGN-WELL 99532.40 99532.40 200000.00 100467.60 49.8 $ 18-4890-111-002 CONTRACT SVCS/DESIGN-IRRIGA 10000.00 10000.00 ,0 g 18-4890-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONST-IRRIGAT 10000.00 ,0 g 18-4890-111-011 CONTRACT SVCS/CONBT-WELL 32500.60 32500.60 100000.00 .4010000.00 67499 32.5 $ 18-4890-111-050 DEMOLITION 190000.00 190000.00 .0 8 18-4890-111-051 EXCAVATION 6 GRADING 63472.00 63472.00 ,0 $ 18-4890-111-052 UTILITIES 146027.50 145027.50 468110.00 322082.50 31.2 i 18-4890-111-053 GENERAL SITE 309428.00 309428.00 .0 $ 18-4890-111-054 LANDSCAPING 1921364.00 1921364.00 i 18-4890-111-055 BUILDING 61{.17 614.17 495879.00 495264.83 ,0 .1 i 18-4890-111-056 OFFSITE WORK 5007712.00 5007712.00 ,0 $ 18-4890-111-100 CIVIC CENTER BOND ISSUANCE 156036.00 156036.00 ,0 $ 18-6890-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 215436.79 215436.79 215436.79- $ 18-4890-143-100 ART - CITY HALL FACILITY 614.17 R 493497.29 * 494111.46 * 8932001.00 * 8437889.54 * .0 5.5 $ 18-4890-143-105 FURNITURE/FIXTURES/EQUIP 7700.00 7700.00 .0 $ 18-4890-143 ---OBJECT TOTAL R * 333000.00 333000.00 ,0 y 18-4890------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL * 340700.00 * 340700.00 * i 18-4895-111-000 CONTRACT gypg/pROFggSIONAL 614.17 ** * 493497.29 ** 494111. 46 +* 9272701.00 ** 8778589.54 ** .0 5.3 t 18-4895------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ** 236.00 w 6236.00 * 50000.00 * 43764.00 * 12.5 $ 18----------- p�Np TOTAL*+* 36.00 R* 6236.00 ** 50000.00 ** 43764.00 x* 12.5 $ 1739.17 6143499.87 *** 845239.04 *** 10379701.00 *** 9534461.96 *** 8.1 i FUND 21 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 90-1 21-4620-111-000 CONTRACT SERV PROFESSIONAL 21-{620-111-010 CONTRACT 8VC9/CONTRACTOR 5666.60 5683.17- t 21-4620-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 103666.60 3666.17 60 109349.77 103666.60- .0 t 21-4620------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL * 109349.77 * 109349.77 x * 109349.77-* ,0 t 21----------- FUND TOTAL wx 109349.77 *x 109349.77 x* wR 109369.77-** .0 t Rxx 109349.77 *x* 109349.77 x** www .0 109349.77-*** .0 t • W.64 1/24/92 PRO •DEPT OW SUB DESCRIPTION A P P R O P R I A T I O N SUMMARY --- HY FUND ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 FUND 22 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1 22-4630-110-000 ADVERTISING/LEGAL 22-4630-111-000 CONTRACT SERV PROFEBSIONu, 22-4630-111-005 BOND ISSUANCE COSTS 22-4630-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONTRACTOR 22-4630-111-015 CONTRACT SVCS/ENGINEERING 22-4630-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 22-4630------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22-4631-110-000 ADVERTISING/LEGAL 22-4631-111-000 CONTRACT SVC/PROFESSIONAL 22-4631-111-005 BOND ISSUANCE COSTS 22-4631-111-010 CONTRACT SVC/CONTRACTOR 22-4631-111-015 CONTRACT SVC/ENGINEERING 22-4631-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL. 22-4631------- DEPARMNT TOTAL 22-4632-110-000 ADVERTISING/LEGAL 22-4632-111-000 CONTRACT SVC/PROFESSIONAL 22-4632-111-005 BOND ISSUANCE COSTS 22-4632-111-010 CONTRACT SVC/CONTRACTOR 22-4632-111-015 CONTRACT SVC/ENGINEERING 22-4632-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 22-4632------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22----------- FUND TOTAL ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE " 10080.30 • 10080.30 26184.75 16184.75 30168.01 30168.02 188507.37 188507.37 5257.49 5157.49 + 240017.62 x 240017.62 +" 250097.92 *+ 250097.92 ** " 10080.30 * 10080.30 5894.54 5894.54 30167.99 30167.99 25150.67 25150.67 27.15 27.15 " 61240.35 " 61240.35 "• 71320.65 ** 71320.65 +* * 10000.32 * 10080.32 33.40 8205.30 8238.70 30167.98 30167.98 17435.59 17435.59 3260.00 3260.00 33.40 * 59068.87 • 59102.27 33.40 x* 69149.19 *+ 69182.59 x* 33.40 *+x 390567.76 x"* 390601.16 xx* REMAINING BUDGET BUDGET " 10080.30-* 16184.75- 30158.01- 188507.37- 5157.49- * 240017.62-* •• 250097.92-** " 10080.30-* 5894.54- 30167.99- 25150.67- 27.15- * 61240.35-* ** 71320.65-** * 10080.32-* 8238.70- 30167.98- 17435.59- 3260.00- * 59102.27-* 69182.59-** •** 390601.16-*** PAGE A ID 13.31.07 .. r .0 ; .0 t .0 t .0 ; .0 ; .0 t .0 ; .0 ; .0 t .0 t .0 ; .0 t .0 ; .0 t .0 ; .0 ; .0 t .0 t .0 8 .0 8 .0 t .0 ; a p, F 1 Z V > w OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ITEM TITLE: DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BACKGROUND: FEBRUARY 04, 1992 AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: Transmital of July 1, 1991 thru December 31, 1991 Statement of Financial Position. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: NONE RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Submitted by: Signature APPROVED BY: Approved for submission to City Council 'l RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER GL102 i/27/92 LA QUINTA REDEVELOpMEn AGENC.1. STSTAT&ffiVT OF FINANCIAL POSITION PAil PADS 1 PERIOD 7/91 THROUGH 12/91 CAPITAL LOW DEBT PROJECT MODERATE SERVICE T O T A L S FUND FUND FUND --- MEMORANDUM ONLY --- CURRENT JUNE 30, 1991 ASSETS CASE IN BANE 4202216.21- 294793.78 3144660.79 CASH MONEY MAN = 7284620.24 3197786.76- 762763.64- 441243.02- RESTRICTED CASH 4086833.48 31032.91 3064029.02 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 537227.92 3064029.02 753934.42 ACCRUED INTEREST RECEIVABLE 537227.92 306921.97 ACCRUED REVENUE 153573.09 152.70- SUSPENSE 7819269.67- 152.70- 154683.25 AMT AVAILABLE RETIREMENT LTD 7819269.67- LAIF INVESTMENT 9857795.63 INVESTMENT ITM 7819269.67 9857795.63 9009000.00 INTERFSIND TSF ACCT 160763.25- 7360.66 7819269.67 183087.65 153402.59- 153402.59- TOTAL ASSETS 3458866.70 302154.44 12868545.98 16629567.12 9997587.68 LIABILITIES 6 EQUITY LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 13905.00 13905.00- ACCRUED EXPENSES 3392.25- 82399.00 ARBITRAGE EXCESS EARNINGS 115541.00- 79006.75 6297.74- DUE TO CITY OF LQ - GEN FUND 1776389.18- 542359.91- 8580.17- 115541.00- 99416.19- TOTAL LIABILITIES 1881417.43- 556264.91- 73818.83 2327329.26- 1033267.15- 2363863.51- 1138961.08- FUND BALANCE 1577449.27- 254110.47 12942364.81- TOTAL LIABILITY 6 FUND EQUITY 3458866.70- 302154.44- 12868545.98- 14265703.61- 8858626.60- 16629567.12- 9997587.68- iJi�v.IJ i CLI02 LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1/77/92 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION PA12 PAGE 2 PERIOD 7/91 THROUGH 12/91 CAPITAL LOW DEBT T O T A L S PROTECT MODERATE SERVICE --- MEMORANDUM ONLY --- FUND FUND FUND CURRENT JUNE 30, 1991 ASSETS CASH IN BANK 10872.49 1701.81- 834984.07 ACCRUED REVENUE 844154.75 887598.39 AMT AVAILABLE AETIR9gNT LTD 62428.36 INTERFUND TSF ACCT 152232.59 1170.00 153402.59 153402.59 TOTAL ASSETS 163105.08 531.81- 834984.07 997557.34 1103429.34 LIABILITIES 6 EQUITY LIABILITIES ACCRUED EXPENSES 1892.25 105872.00 DUE TO CITY OF LQ - GEN FUND 2686421.82- 4090.69- 74267.05- 107764.25 2315.79- 2764779.56- 1628311.01- TOTAL LIABILITIES 2684529.57- 4090.69- 31604.95 2657015.31- 1630626.80- FUND BALANCE 2521424.49 4622.50 866589.02- 1659457.97 527197.46 TOTAL LIABILITY 6 FUND EQUITY 163105.08- 531.81 834984.07- 997557.34- 1103429.34- Guc`c LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1/27/92 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION PAGE 3 PERIOD 7/91 THROUGH 12/91 LONG GENERAL T O T A L 8 TERM FD® ___ MEMORANDUM ONLY --- DEBT ASSETS CURRENT JUNE 30, 1991 ASSETS AMT AVAILABLE RETIREMENT LTD 4959093.00 4959093.00 5096593.00 AM2 PROVIDED RETIREMENT LTD 62316588.40 42316588.40 33616588.40 GENERAL FI7tED ASSETS 5879910.05 5079910.05 5981652.17 TOTAL ASSETS 47275661.40 5879910.05 53155591.45 44694833.57 LIABILITIES 6 EQUITY LIABILITIES BONDS PAYABLE 35550000.00- 35550000.00- 26850000.00- DUE TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4306641.81- 4306641.81- 4306641.81- NOTE DUE HALL,BROWN,GENTILE 127500.00- 127500.00- 265000.00- NOTE DUE MURPHY,DALES,LANE 3118500.00- 3118500.00- 3118500.00- INVESTMENT IN GEN FIXED ASSETS 5879910.05- 5879910.05- 5981652.17- DUE TO C.V. SCHOOL DISTRICT 1546670.38- 1546670.38- 1546670.38- DUE TO DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DST 2626369.21- 2626369.21- 2626369.21- TOTAL LIABILITIES 47275681.40- 5879910.05- 53155591.45- 44694833.57- FUND BALANCE TOTAL LIABILITY 6 FUND EQUITY 47275681.40- 5879910.05- 53155591.45- 44694833.57- CUv1J,� m.6s REV:was 2/24/22 aDMMAaT _ --- BY FUND ShIJU CES MW 22/31/91 PAGE Al 13.30.33 FAD DEPT ONJ BOB DEBCRIpTIOa ROD9►ININO RECEIVgp E6'PINAM H8'PIlN71TE iCR!!p FOND 60 RDA CAPITAL IMpROVEgM pA81 60-3300-036-000 nrZCM 8T INCOME-CAp. paOJECT 50-3300-036-060 INTEREST INCOME 67787.56- 60-3300-036---OgJa= �L 15183.59 186667.00- 118869.44- 36.3 t 60-3300------- pyp� TOM186667.00-• 52613.97-• 15183.59- .0 i SERIES 801m pNDC88D8 60-3400-------D 52513.97-•• 185667.00-"• 174053.03-• 28.2 t 60-3400------- pA DSPAATZ," TOTAL 8700000.00-• 134053.03-•• 28.2 t 60-3700-037-060 HISCELLANEWH 8700000.00-*• 8000000.00-• 700000.00 • 108.E t RSViNUB 60-3700------- D,WA1�NT TOTAL 110000.00-• 8000000.00-•* 700000.00 •• 108.E t 60----------- Fm TOM110000.00-*• " 110000.00 • ,0 i 8662613.97-•** 110000.00 •• ,0 i 8196667.00-••• 675946.97 •*• 108.3 i FOND 62 RDA LCW/ll0p PtA10 PA81 62-3100-031-001 RDA TAX INCREMENT pA11 62-3100------- D�ARD'QIlPi' TOTAL " 1328909.00-" 62-3300-036-003 1' INCOME-LOM/!DD " 1328909.00-• ,p i 62-3300-------DEPARTMENT TOTAL * 1328909.00-•• 1328909.00-*• .0 i 62----------- pUgp TOTAL 140000.00-• 140000.00-*• 140000.00-• •0 t 1468909.00-*•* 1468909.00-*•• ,0 i FUND 63 RDA DEBT SERVICE FUND PA41 ' 63-3100-031-003 RDA TAX INCREMENT PAil 63-3100------- DEPARIMENT TOTAL * 7705598.00-+ 7705598.00-• 63-3300-036-001 INTREST INCOMZ-DEBT SERVICE �* 7705598.00-•+ 7705598.00-•+ .0 t 63-3300-036-002 INTEREST INCOME-REBERVE 148413.02- 560000.00- 611586.98- ,p t 63-3300-036---0g7ECT TOE, 50400.00- 50400.00- 26.5 t 63-3300------- DEp�NT. TOTAL 148413.02-• 610400.00-* .0 t 63-3700-037-063 MISCELLApy'OUg REVSIIUE 168413.02-•• 610400.00-•* 461986.98-• 24.3 t 63-3700------- DEPARTMENT TOM .14_1 * 461986.98-•• 24.3 t 63-3950-000-000 TRANSFER IN .14-** .14 • .0 i 63-3950------- DEp�MEgT TOTAL 766420.35-* + .14 •* .0 t 63----------- FUND TOTAL 768420.35-•* 768420.35 • 0 i •• 768420.35 •* 8315998.00-••• 7399164.49-••• 11.0 t FUND 66 RDA DEBT SERVICE FUND PAM2 66-3100-031-005 RDA TAX INCREMENT PA12 66-3100------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1105969.00-* 1105969.00-- 66-3300-036-004 RDA I NTEREST EARNINGS PAI2 *• 1105969.00-•* 1105969.00-•+ .0 9 .0 t 66-3300------- DEP ARTIENT TOTAL ` 60800.00-* 66----------- FUND , TOTAL +• 40800.00-*• e0800.00-* . p t 40800.00-•• 1146769.00-•*+ 1146769.00-*•• .0 i FUND 67 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS PA42 67-3700-400-000 LOAN FROM CITY 67-3700------- Dgp AICLMOS1Fp TOTAL 1020136.00-" 1020136.00-• 67----------- FTO � TAL *. 1020136.00-** 1020136.00-+• p t ,p i 1020136.00-••• 1020136.00-••• ,0 t FUND 68 RDA LOW/MOD FUND PA12 68-3100-031-006 RDA TAX INCREENT PA42 66-3100------- DHPARTIgNT TOTAL 276492.00-+ 276692.00-• 68-3300-036-005 RDA I ATEREBT EARNINGS PAM2 " 276492.00-•• 276192.00-•• .0 i 0 68-3300------- DEPARTMM TOTAL + 10200.00-• 10200.00-• i 68----------- FUND TA TOL •* 10200.00-•• 10200.00-*+ ,p t t+• .0 i 286692.00-•*• 286692.00-••* .0 l OL64 1/24/92 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION APPROPRIATION SUMMARY ---- BY FUND ACCOUNT BALANCES TBRU 22/31/91 FUND 60 RDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PANT 60-4450-000-000 TRANSFER OUT 60-4450------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5000-008-060 PROJECT NO.2 60-5000-017-000 ISSUANCE COST 1991 SERIES B 60-5000-017-060 ISSUANCE COST 1991 SERIES B 60-5000-017 ---OBJECT TOTAL 50-5000------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5200-101-000 CITY STAFF EXP-(SALARIES) 60-5200-101-001 AGENCY mEMSERS-(SALARIES) 60-5200-101 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5200-111-005 91 SERIES TAB 60-5200-111-015 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-ATTOR 60-5200-111-020 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-CONSU 60-5200-111-025 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -AUDIT 60-5200-111-031 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1990 SERI 60-5200-111-032 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1989 SERI 60-5200-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5200-116-000 OFFICE RENT 60-5200-117-000 TRAVEL i MEETINGS 60-5200-132-000 SPECILA DEPARTMENTAL SUPLIE 60-5200------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5210-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/pROFESSIONAL 60-5210-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5210-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5210------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL, 60-5215-111-000 CONTRACT BVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5215-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5215-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5215------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL ERCUMENANCES EXPENDITUEEB BALANCE PEA! 13.30.57 RDDIINING BUDGET BUDGET %COMP ' 768420.35 " 768420.35 " " 768420.35-" ,0 % ** 768420.35 "* 768420.35 •* •• 768420.35-•* .0 % " 12839.27 • 12839.27 * 12840.00 * .73 • 100.0 % .0 i 291065.41 291065.41 291065.41- .0 % * 291065.41 " 291065.41 " " 291065.41-* .0 t •* 303904.68 •* 303904.68 "* 12840.00 *• 291064.68-** 2366.9 \ 158975.07 158975.07 312636.00 153660.93 50.8 % 7800.00 7800.00 .0 \ • 158975.07 * 158975.07 * 320436.00 • 161460.93 * 49.6 t 1183.32 1183.32 1183.32- ,0 i 15761.21 15761.21 31500.00 15738.79 50.0 t 8543.71 8543.71 53000.00 54456.29 13.6 % 4320.00 4320.00 ,0 % 4724.55 4724.55 40000.00 35275.45 11.5 t 172.49 172.49 8000.00 7827.51 2.2 % ` 30385.20 • 30385.28 * 146820.00 * 116434.72 * 20.7 t 6336.50 4336.50 • 8673.00 • 4336.50 • 50.0 i 437.27 437.27 * 8400.00 ' 7962.73 • 5.2 % 26.8E 26.8E ` 5250.00 " 5223.14 * .5 \ ** 194160.98 *• 194160.98 ** 489579.00 "* 295418.02 ** 39.7 t 347474.21 347474.21 347476.21- .0 i 845158.43 845158.43 600000.00 245158.43- 140.9 \ " 1192632.64 * 1192632.64 * 600000.00 * 592632.64-* 198.8 % *" 1192632.64 *• 1192632.64 •* 600000.00 ** 592632.64-** 198.8 i 73988.93 73988.93 217798.00 143809.07 34.0 % 381492.09 381492.09 3468082.00 3086589.91 11.0 % " 455481.02 " 455481.02 * 3665880.00 • 3230398.98 • 12.4 % 455481.02 "• 455481.02 ** 3685880.00 ** 3230398.98 `* 12.4 % �Uv'ib I. GL64 1/24/92 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION AP P R 0 P R I A T I ON S U M M A R Y ---- BY FUND ACCOUNT BALANCES TRRU 12/31/91 FUND 60 RDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PA91 60-5216-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5216-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5216-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5216-144-000 LAND ACQUISITION 60-5216------- DEPARTMENT TYPAL 60-5220-111-000 CONTACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5220-111-010 CONTACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5220-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5220-144-000 LAND COST 60-5220------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5223-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5223------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5235-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROpESSIONAL 60-5235-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5235-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5235-144-000 LAND COST 60-5235------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5240-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5240-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5240-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5240------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5241-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5241-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5241-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5241------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5245-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5245-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5245-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5245------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5250-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5250------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5255-111-010 CONTRACT Svcs/CONSTRUCTION 60-5255 ------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 60-5260-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 60-5260-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 60-5260-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 60-5260------- DEPAP04ENT TOTAL 60----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 62 RDA LOW/MOD FUND PA►1 62-5000-006-006 A.D. 90-1 SUBSIDY 62-5000------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 62-5201-006-001 SUBSIDY AD 88-1 62-5201-006-002 SUBSIDY AD 89-2 62-5201-006-006 SUBSIDY AD 90-1 62-5201-006-007 SUBSIDY AD 91-1 62-5201-006 ---OBJECT TOTAL 62-5201-101-000 CITY STAFF EXP-(SALARIES) 62-5201-101-001 AGENCY MEMBERS -(SALARIES) 62-5201-101 —OBJECT TOTAL 62-5201-111-015 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-ATTOR 62-5201-111-020 PF40FMIORM SERVICES-CONSU 62-5201-111-030 88LP B.II.P BOfBING PROGRAM ENCUMBRANCES 58.83 38.79 97.62 R 97.62 ** 712.23 712.23 712.23 RR R 1R 21102.09 21102.09 •* 1211.00 699.72 1910.72 1910.72 ** R Rw 23822.66 *** R RR EXPENDITURES 16507.83 93369.47 109877.30 62188.84 * 172066.14 ** 21246.36 5306.83 26553.19 2500.00 " 29053.19 +* 92486.31 92486.31 ** f 15716.57 15716.57 •• 27154.67 254134.40 281289.07 ' 281289.07 •* 1558.74 17.00 1575.74 1575.74 '* 1977.50 BALANCE 16566.66 93408.26 109974.92 * 62168.84 * 172163.76 ** 21246.36 6019.06 27265.42 2500.00 29765.42 ** 92486.31 + 92486.31 *+ R 36816.66 36818.66 *• 28365.67 254834.12 283199.79 283199.79 '+ 1558.74 17.00 1575.74 1575.74 ** 1977.50 1977.50 * 1977.50 1977.50 •• 1977.50 ** w Rf 8062.17 143317.85 151380.02 151380.02 •• 3660144.21 ••• x R• R 8062.17 143317.85 151380.02 151380.02 *• 3683966.87 **• PAGE A Z 13.31.08 REMAINING BUDGET BUDGET %COMP 72510.00 1154510.00 1227120.00 * 172000.00 * 1399120.00 +* 10000.00 217000.00 227000.00 89000.00 316000.00 ** 490000.00 490000.00 ** 67000.00 18000.00 85000.00 + 175000.00 260000.00 ** 200000.00 200000.00 200000.00 *+ 40000.00 60000.00 100000.00 100000.00 ** 20000.00 880000.00 900000.00 900000.00 ** 25000.00 25000.00 Rf 30000.00 30000.00 •* 8900.00 141100.00 150000.00 150000.00 ** 8658419.00 ••* 13992.35 • 13992.35 13992.35 *• 13992.35 •* .. 1277.90 1177.90 49021.16 25639.83 75838.69 11742.38 11742.38 26996.02 21197.55 44000.00 49021.16 25639.83 75838.89 11742.38 11742.30 26996.02 21197.55 44000.00 40000.00 102825.00 60000.00 202825.00 * 24049.00 600.00 24549.00 * 10500.00 21000.00 750000.00 55943.34 1061201.74 1117145.08 * 109811.16 1226956.24 ** 11246.36- 210980.94 199734.58 86500.00 " 286234.58 ** 397513.69 397513.69 ** 67000.00 18000.00 85000.00 * 138181.34 * 223181.34 •* 28365.67- 54834.12- 83199.79-* 83199.79-** 38441.26 59983.00 98424.26 98424.26 ** 18022.50 880000.00 898022.50 " $98022.50 •* 25000.00 25000.00 w. 30000.00 30000.00 •• 837.83 2217.65- 1380.02-* 1380.02-** 4974452.13 *** 22.8 % 8.1 % 9.0 % 36.2 % 12.3 % 212.5 t 2.8 t 12.0 % 2.8 t 9.4 % 18.9 t 16.9 t .0 % .0 8 .0 t 21.0 % 14.2 % .0 t 127.4 % 141.6 % 141.6 % 3.9 8 .0 L 1.6 t 1.6 % 9.9 L .0 % .2 % .2 % .0 % .0 % .0 t .0 % 90.6 % 101.6 % 100.9 % 100.9 % 42.5 % 13992.35-* .0 % 13992.35-** .0 % 1177.90- .0 % 40000.00 .0 % 53803.84 47.7 % 34360.17 42.7 % 126986.11 * 37.4 % 12306.62 48.8 % 600.00 .0 % 12906.62 * 47.6 % 16496.02- 257.1 % 197.55- 100.9 % 706000.00 3.9 % ,� n Jv i h GL64 AP P ROPR IATZ Op S UMMARY - 1/26/92 --- BY FUND ACCOUNT BALANCES THRU 12/31/91 PAGH /aj 13.31.10 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES REMAINING BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET %Comp FUND 62 RDA LOW/MOD FUND PANT 62-5201-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 62-5201-116-000 OFFICE RENT • 92193.57 92333.48 + 781500.00 • 689306.43 • 62-5201-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETINGS " 333.d8 * 333.6E 667.00 + 333.52 • 11.8 t 62-5201-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI • 524.18 * 524.18• 6200.00 " 3675.62 • 50.0 i 12.5 i 62-5201-143-000 LAND ACQUISTITON-JEFFERSON/ • ' 2100,00 2100.00 * i 62-5201------- DEP AAT1�IL+NT ��' 443198.05 + • 600000.00 156801.95 • .0 73,E 62----------- FUND TOTAL '* 623830.55 ** 623830.55 623830.55 •* - 1615941.00 +* 992110.45 •* g 38.6 •"* 637822.90 "•* 637822.90 •*+ 1615941.00 **• 978118.10 •*• t 39.5 i FUND 63 RDA DEBT SERVICE FUND PAY1 63-5000-002-000 CV MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTR 63-5000-002-001 C V. SCHOOL DISTRICT 127312.00 127312.00 .0 t 63-5000-002 ---OBJECT TOTAL " 707390.00 707390.00 ,0 i 63-5000-003-002 ADMINISTRATIVE EXP " 834702.00 " 834702.00* •0 i 63-5000-005-001 INTEREST-89 SERIES 25.00 * 25.00 • * 25.00-* .0 t 63-5000-005-005 INTEREST-91 SERIES 582202.00 582202.00 .0 i 63-5000-005-007 INTEREST-90 SERIES 596790.00 596790.00 ,0 i 63-5000-005-020 INTEREST ON MONEY LOANED FR 1434835.00 1434835.00 t 63-5000-005 ---OBJECT TOTAL " 76378.36 76378.36 250000.00 175621.64 ,0 29.E i 63-5000-006-004 PRINCIPAL-89 SERIES - 74378.36 • 74378.36 2863827.00 • 2789448.64 * 2.6 t 63-5000-006-005 PRINCIPAL-91 SERIES 145000.00 145000.00 ,0 t 63-5000-006-007 PRINCIPAL-90 SERIES 158353.00 158353.00 .0 t 63-5000-006 ---OBJECT TOTAL * * 405000.00 405000.00 ,0 i 63-5000------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL " 708353.00 * 708353.00 "•* f 63----------- FUND TOTAL •*� 74403.36 *• 74403.36 "• 4406662.00 "" 4332478.64 •* .0 1.7 i 74403.36 ••• 74403.36 •+* 4406882.00 •*• 4332478.64 *•" 1.7 t FUND 66 RDA DEBT SERVICE FUND PAY2 66-5000-002-003 CV MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTR 66-5000-002-004 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PAp2 15760.00 15760.00 ,0 i 66-5000-002-005 CV CCMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST P 298404.00 298404.00 ,0 i 66-5000-002-006 RIVERSIDE CO SUPT SCHOOLS P 53363.00 53363.00 ,0 t 66-5000-002-007 CV WATER DISTRICT PAN2 28893.00 28893.00 .0 t 66-5000-002-008 P9 AIRPORT MITIGATION PAM2 2760.00 2760.00 106035.00 103275.00 2.6 t 66-5000-002 ---OBJECT TOTAL * 44000.00 44000.00 ,0 i 66-5000-005-021 INTHRBST ON MONEY LOANED FR * 2760.00 2760.00 " 546455.00 * 543695.00 •5 t 66-5000------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 47053.61 • 47053.61 • 181000.00 • 133946.39 * 26.0 i 66----------- FUND TOTAL **" 49813.61 +" 49813.61 *" 727455.00 *• 677641.39 *• 6.8 i 49813.61 *** 49813.61 *•• 727455.00 *•* 677641.39 *"* 6.8 i FUND 67 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS PA42 67-2106-000-067 ACCRUED EXPENSES " 67-2106------- DEPART148NT TOTAL •* * • ' 0 t 67-5400-101-000 CITY STAFF (SALARIES) * "• +• .0 i 67-5400-111-015 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-AT10A 8* 2221.40 82221.40 * 16834200 * . 86120.60 e 48.E t 67-5400-111-020 PAOFHSIONAL SERVICES - CONS24594.25 24594.25 31500.00 6905.75 78.1 t 67-5400-111-025 PROFHSBIONAL SERVICES - AUG 3319.37 3319.37 42000.00 38680.63 7.9 i 67-5400-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL " 1430.00 1430.00 ,0 i 67-5400-117-000 TRAVEL G MEETINGS * 27913.62 27437.27 * 74930.00 * 47016.38 * 37.3 i 67-5400-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL 9UPPLZ • l37.27 * 437.27 * 8400.00 * 7962.73 5.2 t 67-5400------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL + 5250.00 * 5250.00 • 0 t 67-5410-140-000 INTEREST EXPENSE • 110572.29 *• • 110572.29 *• 256922.00 *+ 146349.71 "• 43.0 t 67-5410-144-000 LAND AQUISITION • * * • i 67-5410------- DEpAATMEpT TOTAL 1{8628.73 * 148628.73 * 283214.00 • 134585.27 * ,0 52.5 67-5411-144-000 LARD ACQUISITION ** 148628.73 *• 148628.73 *• 283214.00 •* 134585.27 *• i 52.5 i 67-5411------- DHPARnapT TOTAL * 599915.12 • 599915.12 • * 599915.12-* •* 599915.12 •* 599915.12 *+ .0 i .* 599915.12-** .0 i GL64 AP PROP R I A T ION S U M M A R Y ---- BY FUND 1/24/92 ACCOUNT BALANCES TBRU 12/31/91 FND DEPT OBJ SUB DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES EXPENDITURES BALANCE BUDGET FUND 67 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS PAM2 67-5420-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 67-5420------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 67-5425-111-010 CONTRACT SVCS/CONSTRUCTION 67-5425------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 67-5430-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 67-5430-144-000 LAND COST 67-5430------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 67-5435-111-000 CONTRACT SVCS/PROFESSIONAL 67-5435------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 67----------- FUND TOTAL FUND 68 RDA LOW/MOD FUND PAY2 68-5202-111-015 PROFESSIONAL Svcs/ATTORNEY 68-5202-111-020 PROFESSIONAL SVCS/CONSULTAN 68-5202-111 ---OBJECT TOTAL 68-5202-117-000 TRAVEL 6 MEETING 68-5202-132-000 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLI 68-5202------- DEPARTMENT TOTAL 68----------- FUND TOTAL PAGE A `1 13.31.11 REMAINING BUDGET ♦COME • 9756.25 " 9756.25 " 46500.00 + 36743.75 • 21.0 i `• 9756.25 *• 9756.25 •• 46500.00 •• 36743.75 .. 21.0 i " • • 30000.00 • 30000.00 * .0 •t •t ;R 30000.00 R. 30000.00 "• .0 i h R R 300000.00 300000.00 • .0 i ' 88000.00 + 88000.00 * • 88000.00-• .0 i '• 88000.00 •• 88000.00 +* 300000.00 *• 212000.00 *• 29.3 " 125033.20 • 125033.20 * 250000.00 • 124966.80 + 50.0 i ** 125033.20 *+ 125033.20 ** 250000.00 •* 124966.80 •" 50.0 i "•• 1081905.59 "•• 1081905.59 ••• 1166636.00 •** 84730.41 ••• 92.7 797.50 797.50 10500.00 9702.50 7.6 2043.81 2043.81 21000.00 18956.19 9.7 i • 2841.31 * 2841.31 * 31500.00 • 28658.69 • 9.0 i R k " 4200.00 • 4200.00 • .0 + • R 2300.00 R 2100.00 * .0 i •• 2841.31 *• 2841.31 "• 37800.00 *• 34958.69 •* 7.5 "•• 2841.31 *•* 2841.31 *•* 37800.00 ••• 34958.69 ••• 7.5 i y�U4YIr i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DATE: February 3, 1992 ,-D r. eft - 9 RE: Partial Street Vacation of Calle Paloma and Washington Street The attached memo was a late hand-out at the January 21st City Council meeting. In summary, here is an analysis of the alternatives in the attached memo: VACATION ALTERNATIVES Alternative #1 - Vacate the street as proposed, abandon the existing water line, and reconfigure the water system as needed. This alternative will cost the City between $7,500 and $27,500 depending on whether the City expects the benefactors of this proposal to cover part of the cost. Advantages: 1. Triangular lot is attached to adjoining block. 2. Increased property values for benefitting landowners due to increased lot size; may also have secondary effect on adjoining landowners. 3. Benefitting landowners will have unrestricted use of the vacated right of way. 4. Reduced street maintenance costs? 5. Initial street work will cost $7,500 Disadvantages: 1- Right of way must be vacated on condition that benefitting landowners execute quitclaims to each other to affect a reconfiguration of vacated street area. 2. If landowners fail to execute quitclaims to each other within 30 days of conditional vacation approval, then the proposed street vacation is considered null and void. 3. If street vacation fails, then alternatives #3 or #4 must be adopted. 4. If any of the benefitting landowners dislike the street vacation they can kill the vacation by not executing their respective quitclaim. 5. Either the City, the benefitting landowners, or some combination of both, must pay the $20,000 cost to relocate the water line. 6. If the City pays the $20,000 water line relocation cost, then this alternative is the most expensive for the City; total city cost $27,500. G'00165 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Page 2 Alternative #2 - Vacate the street as proposed, but leave the existing water line in place with CVWD retaining an easement for their water line. This alternative will cost the City about $7,500. Advantages: 1. Triangular lot is attached to adjoining block. 2. Increased property values for benefitting landowners due to increased lot size; may also have secondary effect on adjoining landowners. 3. Benefitting landowners will have larger enclosed lots. 4. Reduced street maintenance costs? 5. This alternative is the least expensive at $7,500; $20,000 is saved by not relocating the water line. Disadvantages: 1. Right of way must be vacated on condition that benefitting landowners execute quitclaims to each other to affect a reconfiguration of vacated street area. 2. If landowners fail to execute quitclaims to each other within 30 days of conditional vacation approval, then the proposed street vacation is considered null and void. 3. If street vacation fails, then alternatives #3 or #4 must be adopted. 4. If any of the benefitting landowners dislike the street vacation they can kill the vacation by not executing their respective quitclaim. 5. Benefitting landowners will not be able to build any structures in the easement retained by CVWD for the existing water line. 6. Benefitting landowners must give CVWD access to water line and contend with District policies on access and restoration work. 7. Landowner of lot 96 must build home north of water line easement which means it most likely will not be located at the standard setback location. NO VACATION ALTERNATIVE Alternative #3 - Do not vacate the street. Build the westerly alinement of Calle Paloma in the existing right of way with a sharp curve at each end to create right-angle intersections where the street intersects Avenida La Fonda and the easterly alinement of Calle Paloma. This alternative will cost the City about $12,500. Advantages: 1. Street -wise, nothing changes for landowners on west side of Calle Paloma Disadvantages: 1. Triangular lot is not attached to adjoining block. 2. Lot sizes are not increased. C60-166; HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Page 3 3. Initial street work is more expensive than the street work in Alternatives #1 and #2; total cost $12,500. 4. Increased street maintenance costs? COO167 y dtOF TfiB�w TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DATE: January 20, 1992 RE: Partial Street Vacation of Calle Paloma and Washington Street You are likely aware that in order to improve traffic and neighborhood safety, the Engineering Department has modified a number of street alinements and intersections in the Cove as part of the Cove Improvement Program . The subject street vacation is still another case of the realinement locations. In the past, all of the street vacations have occurred after the street work was completed because the vacation had no significant impact on the adjoining landowners. However, this street vacation case has a number of factors influencing it that need to be considered before the street work is commenced. This particular street vacation case does not have a singular solution that is hailed by all. Therefore, three basic alternatives have been formulated for your consideration. Alternative #1 - Vacate the street as proposed, abandon the existing water line, and reconfigure the water system as needed. This alternative will cost the City between $7,500 and $27,500 depending on whether the City expects the benefactors of this proposal to cover part of the cost. Most of the domestic water lines in Area B are not being replaced by the Coachella Valley Water District because they are in good condition. One of the water lines that CVWD did not plan on replacing is the line located in the proposed vacation area. In order to eliminate that water line, the water system layout in the immediate area must be reconfigured. It is estimated that is will cost $20,000 to reconfigure the water system. CVWD is not willing to bear this cost. Either the City, or the landowners that will benefit from the street vacation and relocated water line, or a combination of the City and adjoining landowners, will have to bear the $20,000 expense. In addition to the $20,000 for water system work, there is about $7,500 worth of additional street work. Alternative #2 - Vacate the street as proposed, but leave the existing water line in place with CVWD retaining an easement for their water line. This alternative will cost the City about $79500. This alternative would mean the benefiting landowners would have an easement running across their land on which they would not be able to build any structures. Also, the COL�b� landowner's may not be able to build a permanent wall across the easement, but perhaps a permanent wall with a gate large enough for maintenance vehicle access immediately above the water line would be acceptable to CVWD. This compromise alternative saves the City $20,000, but means the landowners must live with the easement. As a concession to the landowner, perhaps a "sunset clause" could be attached to the easement which causes it to be extinguished when the existing water line is no longer kept in service. In another words, no replacement line could be installed in the easement. The replacement lines would have to be installed in the streets utilizing a reconfigured water system layout. Alternative #3 - Do not vacate the street. Build the westerly alinement of Calle Paloma in the existing right of way with a sharp curve at each end to create right-angle intersections where the street intersects Avenida La Fonda and the easterly alinement of Calle Paloma. This alternative will cost the City about $12,500. Although traffic safety would not be compromised with this alternative, the benefits that were originally conceived with the street vacation are lost. Originally it was thought that perhaps the full $12,500 could be saved by not constructing this portion of Calle Paloma. However, due to the lot layout of lots 97, 98, and 196, some of the savings is lost because of special street work that is needed in Alternative #2. Another benefit of the original idea is to eliminate the isolated effect of lot 198 (the triangular shaped island lot) by attaching it to the block to the west. A choice between Alternative #1 or #2 does not have to be made today, but if a preference is indicated perhaps some of the issues related to that alternative can be resolved before the public hearing is held. If the City Council desires to adopt a resolution of intent to vacate Calle Paloma, please be advised that is will cost the City between $7,500 and $27,500 to follow through with the street vacation. Conversely, if Calle Paloma is not vacated, then the street improvements should be installed in the westerly alinement of Calle Paloma in which case that will cost the City about $12,500. If Alternative #1 or #2 is selected If Calle Paloma is vacated, the vacated land returns to the adjoining landowner. Street right of way created by a subdivision map, such as this, is presumed to be an easement which the adjoining landowners own the underlying fee title (out to the street centerline) to the land upon the right of way is situated. Therefore, when the easement is vacated, the property previously subject to the easement is thereafter clear of the easement and the adjoining landowner has full rights to the land except for any other easement that the public may have reserved during the vacation process. However, as you can see, if the right of way easement is vacated in the manner described in the previous paragraph, it would create a very poor (probably unacceptable) lot configuration for lots 96 and 196. Therefore, in order effectuate a reasonable lot configuration for all parties c�U-1s3 Honorable Mayor January 20, 1992 Page 3 involved, it is recommended that the street vacation be approved only if certain conditions are met. Those conditions would be the requirement that the parties involved execute quitclaim deeds to their neighboring landowner to affect a consolidation and different configuration of the land mass and thereby make the lot shapes more useable. The attached sketch shows a lot configuration that has been preliminarily accepted by the landowners of lot 97 and 196. The owner of lot 96 has not responded in writing yet (a response was requested by January 24), however, her real estate broker says she has not voiced any opposition to the proposal to him. How much land is being vacated? A total of 20,182 square feet of Washington Street and Calle Paloma is being vacated. Fee title to the vacation area is broken down as follows: Lot 95 is entitled to 893 s.f. Lot 96 is entitled to 8,969 s.f. Lot 97 is entitled to 2,735 s.f. Lot 196 is entitled to 7,586 s.f. However, if the final lot configuration is to be achieved by splitting up only excess right of way, its not possible to rearrange the land mass into a sensible arrangement that permits the rightful landowners to receive their rightful share. One of the better configurations that can be achieved utilizing only excess right of way is the one proposed by the City as shown on the attached sketch. This configuration would cause the excess right of way to be vacated as follows: Lot 95 would receive 893 s.f. (equals entitlement) Lot 96 would receive 10,041 s.f. (1,072 s.f. more than entitlement) Lot 97 would receive 2,807 s.f. (72 s.f. more than entitlement) Lot 196 would receive 6,442 s.f. (1144 s.f. less than entitlement) i , a� z Ste' Of Tt�� COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1992 ITEM TITLE: STREET VACATION 91-019. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF CALLE PALOMA, AND WASHINGTON STREET AND FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR STUDY SESSION: 2 The purpose of this Street Vacation as shown on the attached map is to eliminate a poorly designed intersection at Calle Paloma, Avenida La Fonda, and Washington Street. Additionally with the realignment of Washington Street and diverting of Avenida La Fonda to the south on a frontage road adjacent to Washington Street, this street vacation has been made necessary. The attached Resolution sets the date of February 18, 1992, at 7:00 P.M. as the date and time for a public hearing for the proposed street vacation. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED BY: Move to adopt City Council Resolution 92- declaring the City's intention to vacate a portion of Calle Paloma, and Washington Street and fixing the time and place for a public hearing. Submitted by—. Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER 6001 7?. COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY 1. Move to adopt City Council Resolution 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE PORTIONS OF CERTAIN STREETS, FIXING A TIME AND DATE OF HEARING ALL PERSONS INTERESTED OR OBJECTING TO TEH PROPOSED VACATION, PROVIDING FOR POSTING PURSUANT TO THE STREET VACATION ACT OF 1941 AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 8300 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. SV - 91-019 Public Hearing date February 18, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED 60ui73 RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE PORTIONS OF CERTAIN STREETS, FIXING A TIME AND DATE OF HEARING ALL PERSONS INTERESTED OR OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED VACATION, PROVIDING FOR POSTING PURSUANT TO THE STREET VACATION ACT OF 1941 AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 8300 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO: SV 91-019 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the Street Vacation Act of 1941, and pursuant to Section 8300 et. seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of La Quinta declares intention to vacate a portion of that certain street described on attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. That a Hearing to be conducted on the 18th day of February, 1992, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Council Chambers, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California, at which time all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation will be heard. SECTION 3. Notices of said vacation shall be posted conspicuously along the street or part thereof proposed to be vacated at least ten days before the date set for the Hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than 300 feet apart, but at least three shall be posted. Said notices shall state the passage of this Resolution of Intention and the time and place of hearing. Said notices shall be posted by the Superintendent of Streets, and thereafter shall file an Affidavit of Posting with the City Clerk. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall cause this Resolution to be posted within fifteen days after its adoption in three (3) public places established by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOCC.040 1 U�ii17 t JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California RESOCC.040 ib,y -/j /"'°I 00, a r. C. A. 020 - O /6 B9 O 94 N 2 NW 4 SE 4 SEC AVENIDA TA,PAP/Go 0011.11 ll.11 le 3a 9/ O a 'O too N V 92 O "s d O Q 99 • �� 93 32 O Y, 98 /04 97 y" /09 / A /06 O t It /960,� 3O so ° IZ x /07 It /0. /02 /03 3 3 0 34 —AVEN/DA GA fnNOA ia�T CM, M.6. 2//6/-62 Desert- C/ub TrxJ Uni! No. 5 CASE NO. 'i 4 n � lamm W® I i r P a.1 'c I G' cab OF Tt�� COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH LOCATED AT 53-800 CALLE PALOMA APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: The Applicant has submitted a Public Use Permit application requesting approval of an expansion to an existing church plus associated parking area on a 0.74 acre site. In addition to a Variance application was submitted requesting the following: 1) increased building height limit, and 2) postponement on construction of masonry wall on south side of the project. The La Quinta Planning Commission considered this matter on November 26, 1991, (continued from October 22 and November 12, 1991) and denied Public Use Permit 91- 008. It should be noted that the Applicant withdrew the request for Variance 91-018 at this meeting. On December 3, 1991, the City Council scheduled this request for a Public Hearing on January 21, 1992, rather than accept the report of action. On January 21, 1992, the City Council continued this project until February 4, 1992. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED BY: Adopt City Council Resolution 92- denying or approving (with the attached Conditions of Approval) Public Use Permit 91-008. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER 001 COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY 1. Move to adopt City Council Resolution 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. PUP 91-008 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP OR 2. Move to adopt City Council Resolution 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. PUP 91-008 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP Subject to the attach Conditions of Approval. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED (;Uu"1 l9 002 PRIVANA ATTACHMENT N co _ A •.*#..;H AYE •' WR ant 1, c aa„cm nQ : . y� TAt 4 4Quw4u MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 21, 1992) PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 & VARIANCE 91-018 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH PLUS ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE. A NEW 3,553 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING IS PROPOSED. VARIANCE 91-018: NOTE THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. 1) INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT TO 23 FEET (ZONING REGULATION IS 17 FEET); AND 2) TO POSTPONE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT (PARKING REGULATIONS REQUIRE A 6 FOOT WALL AROUND THE SITE). APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH PASTOR MARK COLLINS ARCHITECT: JOHN BUND LOCATION: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA; LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #5 (SEE ATTACHMENT 1 & 2) ZONING: SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) NET ACREAGE: 0.74 ACRES GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-189 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. G��IBi - 004 MRMnAT._nad/CG -l- SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. RESIDENTIAL UNITS PRESENTLY EXIST ON THE EAST AND SOUTH EAST SIDE OF THE SITE. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: EXISTING CHURCH STRUCTURE, PAVED PARKING AREA WITH DESERT VEGETATION. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPORT FILL DIRT TO RAISE THE LOT ELEVATIONS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE ENTIRE SITE. A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22 1991: The La Quinta Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the above project on October 22, 1991. At this meeting approximately 5 members of the public spoke for and six against the project. A petition against the project was submitted at the meeting (Attachment A9). Letters of objection were also received and are attached to the Staff report. At this meeting motions to deny and approve the project were made. However, both motions died for lack of a second. The Planning Commission then continued the above project until November 12, 1991, to allow additional consideration of the request. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12 1991: The La Quinta Planning Commission held a continued Public Hearing on the above project on November 12, 1991. At this meeting a number of people spoke for and against the church expansion. In addition, the licensing and zoning of the church school were discussed. The Applicant withdrew the request for Variance 91-018 and this was accepted by the Planning Commission. Staff was directed to contact the City Attorney for clarification of the zoning status of the school. Attached is the letter sent to the City Attorney and reply received (Attachment 11 & 12). In summary the City Attorney states the following: "The PUP application should cover the school, existing church building and proposed church expansion. While the church and school may currently be a legal nonconforming use, expansion of the facilities would remove that status and require that all nonconforming structures obtain the appropriate City approvals." GO u i 8 2 005 "Recent case law upholds the right of a city to deny approval of a church in a residential zone based upon such concerns as noise, traffic, parking and compatibility with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the City cannot prohibit private schools in residential areas when public schools are allowed in such areas." "It is important to note that the effect of denial of the PUP would only be to prevent the Church expansion. Even if the PUP were denied, the existing church and school would continue to be a legal nonconforming use." "A city can probably also establish reasonable conditions to approval of private schools which do not have the effect of preventing such schools from being constructed.... For instance, a condition that the school be in compliance with state laws applicable to private schools would be reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of the city without excluding such school. Parking, height, lot coverage, setback and other typical requirements would also be upheld if not unduly burdensome and consistently applied." The request was continued to the meeting of November 26, 1991. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26. 1991: At the above meeting the Applicant reiterated that the church has withdrawn the request for Variance 91-018 and this request has been accepted by the Planning Commission. Two people then spoke in favor and two people spoke against the project. A motion to approve the request was made and seconded. That motion was defeated on a 2-3 vote with Commissioners Ellson, Ladner & Chairwoman Barrows voting against the motion. The Planning Commission then denied the application for Public Use Permit 91-008, on a 3-2 vote (Ellson, Ladner & Barrows for) and made the following findings to support the denial: 1. The expansion of the church and church school activities would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood particularly since the site in question is surrounded by residential lots on all 4 sides. 2. The expansion of the church will result in additional traffic and noise incompatible with a residential neighborhood. 3. There are alternative church sites that the Planning Commission would consider favorably. 4. The expansion of a church in this residential 'T`' neighborhood would diminish the property values of the surrounding area. 0 0 6 5. The activities of the expanded church & school would be inhibited by the fact that they are located in a residential neighborhood. 6. This denial for church expansion would not impose an excessive burden on the church since the existing church and school can still continue to operate. D. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING The Design Review Board reviewed this project at their meeting of October 2, 1991. An extract of the minutes of the above meeting are attached (Attachment A10). E. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 3. 1991 & JANUARY 21. 1992: At the meeting held on December 3, 1991, the City Council scheduled the above project for a public hearing on January 21, 1992. At the Public Hearing held January 21, 1992, the City Council continued the above project as requested by the Applicant. F. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: By City Council Resolution 92- , deny or approve (with the attached Conditions of Approval) Public Use Permit 91-008. Attachments: A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 26, 1991 1. Overall locality plan 2. Detailed locality plan 3. Plot Plan 4. Floor Plan & Elevation 5. Environmental Assessment 6. Letter from Fire Marshal dated August 29, 1991 7. Letter from IID dated July 5, 1991 8. Letter from CVWD dated September 9, 1991 9. Letters opposing this project including petition submitted 10/22/91 10. Extract from Design Review Board meeting meetings October, 1991 11. Memo sent to City Attorney dated November 15, 1991 12. Memo received from City Attorney dated Nov. 22, 1991 13. Private School affidavit 14. Copy of letter sent to County Office of Education from La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church B. Extract of Minutes from Planning Commission meetings October 22, November 12 & November 26, 1991 60O18 i 00t MEMOGL.044/CS -4- ATTACHMENT A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22 & NOVEMBER 12, 1991) PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 & VARIANCE 91-018 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH PLUS ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE. A NEW 31553 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING IS PROPOSED. THE VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW: 1) INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT TO 23 FEET (ZONING REGULATION IS 17 FEET); AND 2) TO POSTPONE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT (PARKING REGULATIONS REQUIRE A 6 FOOT WALL AROUND THE SITE. APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH PASTOR MARK COLLINS ARCHITECT: JOHN BUND LOCATION: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA; LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #5 (SEE ATTACHMENT 1 & 2) ZONING: SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) NET ACREAGE: 0.74 ACRES GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-189 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. RESIDENTIAL UNITS PRESENTLY EXIST ON THE EAST AND SOUTH EAST SIDE OF THE SITE. DESCRIPTION 60 13 ;] OF SITE: EXISTING CHURCH STRUCTURE, PAVED PARKING AREA WITH DESERT VEGETATION. � 008 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPORT FILL DIRT TO RAISE THE LOT ELEVATIONS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE ENTIRE SITE. A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1991: The La Quinta Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the above project on October 22, 1991. At this meeting approximately 5 members of the public spoke for and six against the project. A petition against the project was submitted at the meeting (Attachment A). Letters of objection were also received and are attached to the Staff report. The Planning Commission continued the above project Until November 12, 1991, to allow additional consideration of the request. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1991: The La Quinta Planning Commission held a continued Public Hearing on the above project on November 12, 1991. At this meeting a number of people spoke for and against the church expansion. In addition, the licensing and zoning of the church school were discussed. Staff was directed to contact the City Attorney for clarification of the zoning status of the school. Attached are the letter sent to the City Attorney and reply received (Attachment 11 & 12). In summary the City Attorney states the following: "The PUP application should cover the school, existing church building and proposed church expansion. While the church and school may currently be a legal nonconforming use, expansion of the facilities would remove that status and require that all nonconforming structures obtain the appropriate City approvals." "Recent case law upholds the right of a city to deny approval of a church in a residential zone based upon such concerns as noise, traffic, parking and compatibility with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the City cannot prohibit private schools in residential areas when public schools are allowed in such areas." "It is important to note that the effect of denial of the PUP would only be to prevent the Church expansion. Even if the PUP were denied, the existing church and school would continue to be a legal nonconforming use." C� G0� 009 "A city can probably also establish reasonable conditions to approval of private schools which do not have the effect of preventing such schools from being constructed.... For instance, a condition that the school be in compliance with state laws applicable to private schools would be reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of the city without excluding such school. Parking, height, lot coverage, setback and other typical requirements would also be upheld if not unduly burdensome and consistently applied." C. BACKGROUND: 1. The existing church was constructed prior to City incorporation on Lot 65, Desert Club Track #5 in 1973 through the Plot Plan process. The Plot Plan as approved by the County, included 25 parking spaces with surrounding landscaping. 2. When the church was originally established the zoning for Desert Club Tract #5 was R-3. This zoning allowed a church to be developed with a Plot Plan Application. This area now has a S-R zoning designation. 3. A Public Use Permit (PUP) allows a church to be located in a residential area. 4. This project is surrounded by Desert Club Tract Unit #4, a residential area which has been in existence for many years. About half of the surrounding lots have been developed. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (See Attachment 3 6 4) 1. The existing church building (1,404 square feet) is presently located on the site. The Applicant has proposed a new church building (3,553 square feet) to seat +100 people. 2. The new church will operate during the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Sunday and 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. on Wednesdays. 3. The church will employ 2 full time and 1 part time employees. 4. The existing school will utilize the existing church building. This school covers grades 1 through 8 and has 20 students. This school has been in existence for seven years. 3 "1 5. The proposed church is rectangular in shape with the entry vestibule facing Calle Paloma. The building has a gable roof and either tiles or concrete shingles will be utilized as roofing materials. Large windows have been placed on either side of the main entry door. Architectural detailing has been provided at the corners of the building. 6. Air condition units will be enclosed and located at the rear of the building. 7. Desert color scheme has been proposed for this project. 8. The future sign will be approved at a later date. 9. Some of the parking is already existing and does not comply with the existing Parking Regulations (see landscaping plan requirement below). 10. The building is +23 feet high, higher than the 17 feet allowed in this zone. The Applicant has submitted a Variance application requesting a higher height limit. The Applicant states that this height is necessary "to prevent a claustrophobic feeling and to provide a church atmosphere. The higher ceiling is needed to preserve the character of this type of building". 11. The Parking Regulations state that a masonry wall is required around all nonresidential uses in a residential area. The Applicant has also filed a Variance request to postpone the construction of a masonry wall on the south side of the property to reduce initial financial outlay of this project. E. ANALYSIS: 1. Recent similar applications: Two church proposals have been approved by the City of La Quinta in recent years, both located in the northern area of La Quinta. Staff has applied similar conditions and requirements to these applications and the public use permit now under discussion. 2. Request for increased building height: The Applicant has made a Variance application to increase the height of the church from 17 feet to 23 feet. The proposed church is located 8 to 15 feet from the north property boundary of the site. Staff feels that a church 23 feet high located that close to the property boundary would have a negative effect on the properties to the north. A church building 17 feet high would have a similar impact as a residential unit in this location. Givl t�Ji ` 011 If the proposed church building was located in a more central location, just north of the existing church building, 30 to 40 feet from the north property boundary, the impact of a 23 foot high church could be reduced to an acceptable level. Staff therefore recommends the Variance request for a building height of 23 feet be denied. 3. Request to postpone construction of wall on south side: Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to construct a masonry wall around the proposed project (excepting the front area) in accordance with the Parking Ordinance requirements, includes the south side of the project for the following reasons: a. The existing church and school imposes negative impacts on the surrounding community. A masonry wall is necessary to mitigate those impacts. A noise study will be required of this project and in all likelihood will indicate a wall is needed to alleviate excessive noise. b. The residential unit to be build at some time in the future to the south of this project will not be required to build a masonry wall on the side of their property. Therefore, the Applicant cannot expect that they could, in the future share the cost of the masonry wall with the owner of the property to the south. C. It is difficult to guarantee that a wall will be build at a later point in time. Once the occupancy permit for the new church has been issued the City has no leverage to ensure that the wall is built. 4. Acoustical Study: The Applicant will be required to do a noise study in accordance with the requirements of the La Quinta General Plan addressing the following issues: a. Noise from this project affecting the surrounding area. b. Noise from the surrounding major streets affecting this project. 5. Lighting proposals: 012 This project will have to comply with the Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and will be conditioned to use low, shielded lighting in the parking area. 6. Trash Enclosure: The Applicant will be required to provide enclosed sufficient space for two bins, one for trash and the other for a recycling bin. The location of the trash enclosure shown on the site plan shall be acceptable to Waste Management of the Desert. 7. Parking and Landscaping: The standards in the Parking Ordinance indicate that 33 parking spaces are required for this project which have been provided. Parking for the existing school use can be accommodated on the parking provided for the church. The circular driveway parking arrangement is satisfactory. A landscaping plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the Design Review Board. Landscaping of the parking lot and other parking details can be determined at that stage. It should be noted that a 6-foot high masonry wall is required around the perimeter of the site with the exception the front setback area. The front area will still need to be screened through berming, short walls and/or landscaping. It should be noted that a landscaping plan was approved for the existing church in 1973 by the County of Riverside as part of the original approval for this project. This landscaping plan was never complied with. Condition of Approval #16 attached to the approval of this project requires that the applicant comply with Plot Plan 1525 and the attached landscaping plan. 8. Existing School: The Applicant states that at present there are 25 children at the school and enrollment varies between 19 and 25 children. The existing facilities limits the school to 25 children. a) Licensing: State Code requires that all private schools file a private school affidavit with the appropriate county office. At the Planning Commission meeting November 12, 1991, the Applicant provided a copy of the letter recently sent to the Riverside County Office of Education in lieu of the required affidavit. Staff however has a concern that a Health Department and Fire Department inspection has not recently been done of the school property as is required by the private school affidavit form (Attachment 13). Staff therefore recommends that these be done prior to issuance of building permits for the church expansion. The validity -}} attaching Conditions of Approval for thi pf�PEYPl relating to the existing school is discussp� by the City Attorney in Attachment 12 - U 1) b) Zoning: The original approval of the church by the county in 1973 did not include the school. The school was established approximately 8 years ago, without city and apparently county approval. La Quinta Zoning Ordinance requires the submittal of a Public Use Permit Application for educational institutions. The applicant has argued that the school forms part of the church activities and therefore does not need to be dealt with as a separate issue. However, now that an application to expand the church has been made, Staff feels the school should be made part of the Public Use Permit Application. It should be stated that in any event the impact of a 25 children school would have the same impact on a neighborhood whether it was affiliated to a church or not. Please see Attachments 11 & 12 including correspondence with the City Attorney on the above matter. 9. Parcel Merger: The Applicant will be required to merge Lots 65 & 66, Desert Club Tract Unit #5 prior to building permit issuance. 10. Design of proposed building: The architectural design of the church is modest and has sufficient detailing on the front and ,side elevations. Some architectural dealing could be added or landscaping suitably located to add interest to the rear elevation. 11. Existing Building: Staff recommends that the Applicant be required upgrade the existing building. It should be noted that on the existing church there is an unscreened air conditioning unit on the roof and in one wall. These should be screened with materials architecturally compatible with the building. The existing church is plain and lacks compatibility with the new church. However, the window popouts and corner treatments could be added to the existing building. Additionally, the two buildings should be the same color. It should be noted that the existing church building does.not have a tile roof. However, requiring a new tile roof on this 014 building to match the new church would create financial hardship on the church. 12. Signage: All proposed signs will be submitted and approved at a later date. 13. Comments from the Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject development and determined that certain improvements, dedications, and special requirements are necessary to comply with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code to assure orderly development at the proposed location. The Engineering Department therefore recommends the following comments be submitted to the City Council for consideration as Conditions of Approval for this Public Use Permit: A. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code. B. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Calle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. C. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. D. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. 14. Comments from Building & Safety Department: The above Department comments that "openings less than 10-feet from the north property line must be protected by a 3/4 hour fire assembly per Table 5-A in the UBC. 15. Comments from other Agencies: Comments from the Fire Marshall, Imperial Irrigation District and CVWD are attached (Attachment #61 7 & 8). F. LETTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Letters regarding this proposed church expansion have been received from Barbara J. Brown, Dane Hooper and John & Yvonne Sessums. The above object to the proposed project and Variance application (see Attachment #9). 015 G. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING The Design Review Board reviewed this project at their meeting of October 2, 1991. An extract of the minutes of the above meeting are attached. H. CONCLUSION Staff feels that Public Use Permit 91-008 should be concidered in light of the above information, including the City Attorneys memo dealing with licensing and zoning issues. I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following options: - Approve the Public Use Permit and Variance application. - Approve the Public Use Permit and deny the Variance application. - Deny the Public Use Permit and Variance application. It should be noted that the City Attorney has stated that the Planning Commission can deny the Public Use Permit on the grounds that they feel that the expansion of this use is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the Planning Commission wishes to take any action other than continuing the above matter they can direct Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions. Staff requests that the Planning Commission adopt findings for the resolutions to justify any action taken. Staff has prepared the attached Conditions of Approval which can be adopted if the Public Use Permit is approved and Variance application is denied, or amended if an alternative decision is made. `JVvl Attachments: 1. Overall locality plan 2. Detailed locality plan 3. Plot Plan 4. Floor Plan 6 Elevation 5. Environmental Assessment 6. Letter from Fire Marshal dated August 29, 1991 7. Letter from IID dated July 5, 1991 8. Letter from CVWD dated September 91 1991 9. Letters opposing this project including petition submitted 10/22/91 10. Extract from Design Review Board meeting October, 1991 11. Memo sent to City Attorney dated November 15, 1991 12. Memo received from City Attorney dated November 22, 1991 13. Private School affidavit 14. Copy of letter sent to County Office of Education from La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church Gt 10 1 01'� RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA; DENYING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE CASE NO. PUP 91-008 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of November continued from the 22nd day of October, and the 12th day November, 1991, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church to expand an existing church complex generally located at 53-800 Calle Paloma, more particularly described as: LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #5, MAP BOOK 21/61-62 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 3rd day of December, 1991, schedule a Public Hearing on Public Use Permit 91- 008; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 4th day of February, 1992, (continued from the 21st day of January, 1992), hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the above request; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find that the following findings to justify denial of said Public Use Permit: 1. The expansion of the Church and Church School activities would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood particularly since the site in question is surrounded by residential lots on all four sides. 2. The expansion of the Church will result in additional traffic and noise incompatible with a residential neighborhood. 3. There are alternative sites on which the Church could locate. 4. The expansion of the Church in this residential neighborhood would diminish the property values of the surrounding area. 5. The activities of the expanded Church and School would be inhibited by the fact that they are located in a residential neighborhood. 6. This denial for Church expansion would not impose an excessive burden on the Church since the existing Church and School can still continue to operate. REsocc.041 1 (j U U 1 3 i 018 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby support the action of the Planning Commission and denies the subject Public Use Permit 91-008 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 4th day February, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California RESOCC.041 2 JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 019 RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE CASE NO. PUP 91-008 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of November continued from the 22nd day of October, and the 12th day November, 1991, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church to expand an existing church complex generally located at 53-800 Calle Paloma, more particularly described as: LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #5, MAP BOOK 21/61-62 . WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" ( County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study, that the Church complex will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Public Use Permit 91-008, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 3rd day of December, 1991, schedule a Public Hearing on Public Use Permit 91- 008; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 4th day of February, 1992, (continued from the 21st day of January, 1992), hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the above request; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find that the following findings to justify approval of said Public Use Permit: 1. That Public Use Permit 91-008 as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, SR Zoning District development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is fairly level and the proposed circulation design and building layout, as conditioned, are therefore, suitable for development. RESOCC. 042 1 G. tj 020 3. That the proposed buildings as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and therefore, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the site layout of Public Use Permit 91-008 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 5. That the proposed Public Use Permit 91-008, as conditioned, provides storm water retention and noise mitigation. 6. That the development of Public Use Permit 91-008, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 7. That general impacts from the proposed church were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment 91-189 relative to the environment concerns of this Public Use Permit. 3. That it does hereby approve Public Use Permit 91-008 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 4th day February, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOCC.042 2 JOHN PE A, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 1/rv13 02i ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California RESOCC.042 022 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 92- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 FEBRUARY, 1992 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development of the site shall comply with approved Exhibits as contained in the Planning Department's file for Public use Permit No. 91-008 and the following conditions which shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with these exhibits. 2. Public Use Permit 91-008 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division and Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years after final approval. Otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of permanent buildings (not including grading) authorized by this permit, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion. Prior to expiration of the permit, the Applicant may apply to the Planning & Development Department for an extension of time in which to use the permit, with the total time of approval not to exceed a period of three (3) years. 4. Construction of the future buildings and facilities authorized under this permit shall begin within five years after the final approval by the La Quinta City Council, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion; otherwise, approval of those unconstructed or uncompleted portions of the development authorized under Public Use Permit 91-008 shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. Chimes or church bells are not permitted on this site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshall o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o California Department of Education Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. CONAPRVL.038 1 i) V .l1 023 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 February 4, 1992 7. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 8. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any signs. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigating measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008 . The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 10. The Applicant shall submit a parcel merger application to the Planning and Development Department prior to building permit issuance. 11. Any further expansion of the existing school will require the submittal of an application to amend PUP 91-008. The existing school has a maximum of 25 children. 12. The existing building shall be upgraded in the following ways: A. All air conditioning units shall be shielded with materials architecturally compatible with the building. B . Pop -outs shall be added around windows to match new church windows. C. Corner treatments shall be added to match new church building. D. Both buildings shall be painted the same color. BUILDING DESIGN 13. The proposed building complex shall comply with all the SR Zoning requirements, including 17 feet height restriction and setback restrictions. CONAPRVL.038 2 U �Fi) 4 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 February 4, 1992 14. PUP 91-008 shall comply with the La Quinta Parking Ordinance including the requirement for masonry walls on the rear and side of the project. WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING 15. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire parcel, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: A. The use of irrigation during any construction activity. B . Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site. C. Provisions of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 16. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Plot Plan 1525 as approved by the Riverside County on June 20, 1972. 17. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval final plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, location, and irrigation system for all retention basin, landscape buffer, and entry areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting material shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Lawn use shall be minimized and not used adjacent to curb. No spray heads shall be used adjacent to curb. B . Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required wall and sidewalk. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light glare impacts to surrounding properties. D . Location and design of walled enclosure for trash and recycling bins. E. Parking area layout in accordance with the Parking Ordinance. CONAPRVL.038 3 V M 020 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 February 4, 1992 18. The approved landscaping and improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and viable condition for the life of the project. 19. The Applicant shall comply with the La Quinta Outdoor Light Control Ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 20. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the City Fire Marshal as stated in the memo dated August 29, 1991, including the following: A. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. B. The required fire flow shall be available from Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 1 / 2" x 2 1/2") located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. C. Install portable fire sprinklers per NFPA 13, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. D. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. E. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. F. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained a fire lanes. G. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. 21. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. 22. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of State Code & file a private school affidavit with the Riverside County Office of Education. The applicant shall provide proof of Health Department & Fire Department Inspection of the existing school (required by the affidavit) to the City of La Quinta prior to Building Permit issuance. CONAPRVL.038 4 G."It V 026 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 February 4, 1992 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall provide approved construction plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for the on -site grading and improvements required herein. 24. Prior to issuance of grading permit applicant shall post an approved form of security in guarantee of grading and environmental control. 25. Applicant shall fully landscape and maintain all street right of way contiguous to the site. 26. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscape lots shall conform with the requirements of the Planning Director and the City Engineer and shall be approved prior to construction. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas such as setback lots and retention basins. 27. An engineering, geological, and soils engineering report shall be submitted for review along with the grading plan. Recommendations in the report shall be incorporated into the grading plan. The adequacy of the grading plan shall be certified by the soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist. 28. ' Applicant shall submit a copy of the grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 29. The site shall be designed and graded so the difference in building pad elevations with those of adjoining lots in the adjacent tract does not exceed three feet. If compliance with the pad elevation differential requirements is not feasible, city will consider alternatives. 30. The parking lot and drives shall be improved in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code. 31. Applicant shall provide a California registered civil engineer to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the grading and improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, and applicable codes and ordinances. The engineer shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: A. That grading improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. B . That the finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. 0 CONAPRVL.038 n G 5 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 February 4, 1992 32. Applicant shall pay all plan check and construction permit fees. The fee amounts shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken. 33. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, and are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 34. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 35. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the LQMC . 36. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Calle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. 37. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. 38. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. CONAPRVL.038 6 0�34 _ PBO MIA o •' 'USH AVE ••CIP AUSH oa : r0, •T:/x: ATTACHMENT No. 2 '. 7t� 6s 33 l� i 0 n I o -VAc r rrojec� Sri y 46 O i 63 = 1 0.n.ht . 1 • • �i�+, ltt. r i 13 O M O 37 � O ` 6* ? 3 074 �{ N 70 0 30 t AV£• sa ® „ -o t�•' 4 r ! v1� e0 O . t D 19 �• ! t,.w. O j3f t• lu.�. E J � et ®' O$ si si © r1 eo I CASE MAP NORTH CASE No. PUP 91-008 c o ; 0'l L 030 Kit �►J�/�{(�y� �►�y� y� 'a9%DEU t NYd�7 W Yi * i 1 .yam AbeWwar... / .. %% ATTACHMENT No. 3 \ �` w� %a mow IV it a0TW tMWO ATTACHMENT No. 4 lc- nm 032 u I. Background ATTACHMENT No. 5 Environmental Assessment No.91Z157 Case No. (Do ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent GtRI ST- L.i.o Grp %-3rac4 2. Address 6 Phone Number of Proponent 5 3 — ?- c C,e, t t E p►ct t��,Q CA 9 Z.z.. 53 3. Date Checklist Prepared �1ze1 9 1 4. Agency Requiring Checklist G'1'M pF-- lar !a2 INM 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" t "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE X q. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? NO x 033 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? YES MAYBE NO X X X X X x x A V0v�111 03y YES MAYBE NO 1. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, 6 aquatic plants)? ✓ /� b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? _ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: l! a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish & shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? P'o+ 5�V� x b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. will the proposal produce new light or glare? B. Land Use. will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any G. natural resources? 035 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE NO x 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ru,t s�bs�h'� y a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ,f b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? not Sob sfaNtO%j x c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads? R. X YES MAYBE NO 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? y b. Substantial increase in demand upon /1 existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health). Scc a}�aCJ.�•�d ]� 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in /L the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? YES c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would - affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. 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? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well in the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) 04ta�eA MAYBE NO x x n IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project effect on the environment, IMPACT REPORT is required. q 2 �tl Date MAY have a significant and an ENVIRONMENTAL Signature of Preparer C0Q"2116 0 130 PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 & VARIANCE 91-018 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS INITIAL STUDY I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Use Permit 91-008 proposes a church expansion plus associated parking area on a 4.21 acre site. A new 3,553 square foot church building is proposed. A Variance Application has been made to allow increased building height limit to 22 feet (Zoning Regulation is 17 feet) and to postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project (Parking Regulations require a 6 foot wall around the site). This property is located at 53-800 Calle Paloma; Lots 65 & 66, Desert Club Tract Unit #15. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The environmental checklist completed for this project shows the potential environmental impact of this project III. MITIGATION MEASURES The environmental checklist identified areas where an environmental impact will take place as a consequence of the proposed development. The following pages discuss these impacts and mitigation measures to be taken to reduce these effects. 1. Earth a. No impact. This is a small project comprising one building on a relatively flat site. No major disruption of soil will occur. b. c. e. The proposal will result in very minors disruptions, displacements, compaction, overcovering of the soil and a minor change in the topography and ground surface features. This is due to proposed grading to be done when the implementation of the project is commenced. Unless mitigation measures are taken, once the land surface is disturbed wind erosion might occur. Note should be made that no exceptional topographical features exist*on the site. G, 0 01 421 1-1 ()O Mitigation measures proposed are as follows: 2. 3. Prior to any grading permits being issued, the Applicant shall submit (to the Planning and Development Department) an interim landscape program for the entire parcel which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan prior to issuance of building permit with a engineering geological and soils engineering report. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided on the site as required by the Director of Public works. d. & f. No impact. There are no unique geologic features on this site. g. This area is located in Groundshaking Zone IV as identified on the Riverside Seismic 1 Geology information maps. The site, however is not in close proximity to any established fault line, nor does it lie in any zone susceptible to liquefication. There will however be some groundshaking in the event of fault activity, depending upon the magnitude, location and other characteristics of the tremor. The Uniform Building Code provides seismic safety standards for buildings which help mitigate the above impact. Air No impact. This type of land use does not emit any hazardous substance into the air. Water a. No impact. See #1 d. and f. Site not located close to any water body. b. Development on this site will result in charges in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. Mitigation measures to reduce this impact has been covered under l.b., c. & e. (see previous pages). 04i c. to h. No impact. A limited amount of excess water will be discharged from the site. i. In accordance with Federal Flood Maps, this project is located in the "A0" Flood Zone and therefore is an area subject to shallow flooding. The Developer will be required to raise the building 1-foot above ground level in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. Plant Life. No impact. No unique plant life presently exists on site. 5. Animal Life a. to d. This site does not lie within the designated area for Fringe Toed Lizards or any other endangered species identified at this time. 6. Noise a. & b. This development will result in an increase in existing noise levels in this area in the following ways: 1) During construction periods. The City Ordinance has set forward work hours for construction crews and adverse noise after hours should therefore be minimal. 2) During normal working hours of the project there is the potential for surrounding residents to be disturbed by the noise of church activities. The La Quinta General Plan states that the Developer will be required to do a noise study and take enough mitigation measures to ensure that this project does not produce excessive noise in this area. 3) Future residents in this development will be exposed to a minor amount of traffic noise from Washington Street. The La Quinta General Plan requires noise studies for all projects within 2,800 feet of the centerline of major streets, which would apply to this project. 4; ) 042 7. Light and Glare This proposal will introduce an additional illuminated area to the City. All lighting proposed will be subject to the Outdoor Light Control Ordinance adopted by the City of La Quinta. The project will be conditioned to use low, shielded lighting in the parking area. . 8. Land Use. No impact. La Quinta General Plan designates this area as Residential. A church is considered a function which takes place in a residential area. The site is zoned S-R which allows a church with a Public Use Permit. 9. Natural Resources a. This development will increase the rate of use of natural resources. The effect will however be gradual and proportionately very small. 10. Risk of Upset. No impact. No hazardous substances are proposed. 11. Population - This project does not permanently house any people. 12. Housing This project will not affect the demand and supply of housing in this area. Existing residents or new residents in independently planned neighborhoods will utilize the church. Employees of the church have a wide variety of housing in which to live in the surrounding area (low, medium 6 high income, rent or owned). 13. Transportation/Circulation a. to f. Sufficient parking for the project will be provided on -site in accordance with City ordinances. This facility will generate additional traffic but it is not an excessive amount as stated in discussion with Steve Speer of the Engineering Department. The existing and future road system (when the wall is built leaving Calle Tampico as the major access into this area) has enough capacity for the proposed traffic. n G.0 U 043 14. Public Services a. b. e. & f. This development will result in a very minimal demand for public services. The Master Environmental Study for the La Quinta General Plan has addressed these issues. All conditions set out by County & City departments will be complied with. Detailed building plans will be subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. 15. Energy. No impact. This is a small development and will not utilize a substantial amount of fuel or energy. 16. Utilities The development will connect to existing utility services and comply with any requirements each utility agency will have. 17. Human Health. No impact. This development does not create any health hazard. No toxic chemicals, etc., are produced. 11 iy 11 I, �4.0k 18. Aesthetics. No impact/ This project will be reviewed and approved by the La Quinta Design Review Board ensuring that the resultant structures will be aesthetically of a high standard. This zone allows structures a maximum of 17-feet high. A residential unit could be located on this site with a height of 17-feet and have a similar visual impact. A building higher than 17-feet (22 fe O , as proposed by the applicant however, might disturb the view and have a greater visual impact. A building more centrally located on the site at a height of 23-feet might have less visual impact. 19. Recreation. No impact. This project will not create a demand for recreational activities. 20. Archaeological/Historical This development may result in the alteration of as yet unknown archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building. To mitigate this issue a comprehensive condition regarding archaeological studies is attached to the approval of the project. There is no evidence of this site having any unique ethnic cultural value. IV. CONCLUSION Therefore based on the above information, ttti project will have no great effect on the environment subject to the discussed mitigation measures. 0 4i} ATTACHMENT No. 6 ��-- RIVERSIDE COUNTY CbUNT Y ,~ • :? FIRE DEPARTMENT RIVERSI.b'E for off 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 9237U (714) 657.3183 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF To. City of La Quinta Planning Department ATTN: Glenda Lainis August 29, 1991 KjEctivu,* SEP C r, low Re: Public Use Permit 91-008 C11Y ur LmVuiNTH This letter supercedes Fire Department letter dated March 17;K�ROE'IEIOPurr0EP1 With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Public Use Permit, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1250 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2}" x 2}") located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 3. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet a10, but not less than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 4. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. S. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning b Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fired Department Planner By Tom Hutchison v Fire Safety Specialist 0 4 J PLANNING DIVISION 0 MO of O TBff:ctna oFFXI MPIRIAI ATTACHMENT No. A I IdN oislRici COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION AVENUE S9 - P. O BOX 1090 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA M53 TELEPHONE (619) 399 S911 - FAX (619) 393-5840 PD-DDC July 51 1991 City of La Quinta Development Review Committee 78-105 Calle Estado _ La Quinta, Calif. 92253 l.��Y ��� l ; :.UINIA Dear Sir: Subject: Public Use Permit, 90-008. Addition to Existing La Quinta Christian Fellow Church. In response to your letter dated February 21, 91, please note that a preliminary assessment of the proposed project has been completed. Based upon- the information provided, it has been determined that the project will impact the District's power system and surrounding customers. The effect of the additional electrical demand on the District's existing facilities at peak loading periods will result in the need for additional generation, transmission, substation and distribution facilities, which would impact future power rates in the District's service area. The availability of power service and future power supply to the project is contingent upon the system capacity at the time service is required. Any prior verbal or written inference to service, or future service availability having been implied is not a guaranty of same, but rather a declaration of intent to provide service, subject to the system capacity at the time service is requested. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, or if I might be of some assistance, please advise. LQChurch.LTR Yours very truly, THOMAS G. HILL Superintendent, Distribution Coachella Valley Divison G-004'23 046 WATER ATTACHMENT No. 8 City oria emote SE P 13 1991 61araIc1 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTR I EVILIC WORKS POST OFFICE Box ,05E • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (61913%?V' DIRECTORS tELLISC00EIw5 PRESIDENT 'HOWASE LEVY GENERAL MANAGE►; :9 %G*OFFICERs RAYMONDA RVMMONDS VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEER BE RNARDINE SV":•• SECRETARY /DHOW MM NICH September 9 1991 OWEN McCOOR ASSISTANT(j4=A. MANAGER THE ODOR M NIISH p REDWINE AND SHE►► .. ATTORNEYS TNEOOORE J FISH File: 016).1 Rfawtu City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 SEP La Quinta, California 92253 0'TA Ur LA Gentlemen: )LAN lK� 6 D�lEUJ�'r pfPl Subject: Public Use Permit 91-008, Portion of Northeast Quarter, Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected frum stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated tore AO, depth 1 foot, on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulaticr.s provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted tG Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormvater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, 4omLevy ral Manager -Chief Engineer '' �C: � 4 RF:lg/e9 4 cc: Don Park ATTACHMENT No. 9 LETTERS OPPOSING THE PROJECT GJuC). )". 046 May 170 1991 CITY OF OUINTA • • Box 1504 La • RE: PROPOSED CHURCH EXPANSION/PARKING LOT ON CALLE PALOMA STREET IN THE DESERT CLUB ESTATES COMMUNITY OF LA OUINTA Dear Planning Commissioners: The Church Expansion and Parking Lot case will soon be before the Planning Commission for your approval or denial. In March of this year, my family moved into a beautiful home located at 50-945 Calle Paloma in the Desert Club Estates after living up in the Cove for some 18 years. We love La Ouinta, and are pleased with all the improvements made through the years. We were fully aware of the small community church that sat directly across the street from our new house when we purchased our home, and at that time, it did not seem to pose a privacy problem. As the weeks continued on, we became aware there is also a school which goes on at the church during the week, and a Spanish congre- gation meets there on Saturdays for services. Sometimes during the week, in the early evening, there is singing and instrument playing at the church which has become annoying. Please understand that we do not oppose the church and all the related programs; we only wish that it not be in our front yard, and not on a seven-day week bases, which seems to describe the nature of the church operation. Recently, we were made aware that the community church had submitted to the City plans for expansion including a parking lot to the north and south of the church. My sister-in-law's home would be beside the parking tot to the north on Calle Paloma, and our home is located directly across the street from the church and proposed parking lot to the south. It is my understanding that if the church expansion is approved, a condition of that approval would be to provide more parking facilities to accommodate the increase in traffic. I would like to suggest that the parking required for a church expansion, in of itself, be incompatible with the residential character of this area. If this proposed expansion and parking lot is approved, can you imagine the noise, traffic, etc. in our front yard? 049 Barbara J. Brown Planning Commission, City of La Quints Continued, Page 2 The residents of the Desert Club Estates have paid premium price for their homes and do not want a full fledged church and parking lot in our front and back yards. This use should not be allowed in a small, soon to be walled, community to spoil the privacy and tranquility every resident desires in their neighborhood. The Desert Club Estates property owners will be getting together a petit;on against the expansion and parking lot, and will also be present to give testimony at the public hearing. I would hope the message would come through to the applicant that in order to expand their facilities, and enjoy their right to congregate in a large fashion, they move their location to a more appropriate area that would not infringe upon local resident's privacy. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and I hope the Commission agrees on denying the expansion of the church and parking lot. Sincerely, Barbara J. Brown 50-945 Calle Paloma La Quinta, CA 92253 564-5120 cc: Glenda Laines, Planner City of La Quinta CO''"'?'~ O ; Cp City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quint&, Ca 92253 AM: Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director Dear Mr. Herman, L E OCT 10 1991 :•;Y �?F :rC G�;GtIA In May, 1989 my wife and I moved into our new home in Desert Club unit 15 in La Quinta. We are very happy with our home and really enjoy the neigh- borhood. At the time we purchased our home we were told that we are in a SR zone that would guarantee no roof over seventeen feet would intrude into our view and our neighborhood. We now note an application for a public use permit and associated variances to build a large new church with a roof height in excess of twenty-three feet and exemption to requirements for a SIX foot masonry wall around the proposed project. There are several discrepancies in the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING regarding this application. They include but are not limited to the following: I. "--expansion to an existing church --ten a 2.4 acre site--". Actually the proposal is for a completely new 3553 sqft. church and expansion of school activities in the existing structure, all on .75 acre. 2. "increased building height limit to 22 feet". The building plans indicate a ridge height In excess of 23 feet. The La Quinta City land use ordinance states in 9.42: "The SR zoning district is intended to provide development standards for single family residential uses and to assure high quality devel- opment". 9.42.050 E1 says " shall be limited to seventeen ft. or one story in height whichever is less". The City of La Quinta General Plan states: The 17' height limit was established (prior to incorporation) in 1974 by Riverside County "for protection of views—". This action was based on a request by the La Quints Chamber of Commerce. The design re- quirements of the SR zone are necessary to maintain the continuous upgrading of the area and to prevent the intrusion of blighting influences. Health and Safety issues are at stake." This plan has served the area well as can be witnessed by noting the continuing development of beautiful homes in the area. 1 The General Plan continues: "Any suggestion that the City should consider relaxing its design requirements ---does not square with the law or with test cases as it relates to zoning administration. The purpose of Zoning is to insure uniformity by regulation. The relaxation of a requirement for this applicant could be construed as actionable discrimination, and could provide the basis for lawsuits against the City for differentially administering the requirements. " The application states "higher ceiling is needed to preserve the character of this type of building" and goes on "I do not be- lieve any of the property owners have been denied such request". While an increased height limit may "preserve the character of the building" it would do so at the expense of the character of the neighborhood. At least one close neighbor of the proposed development inquired about the possibility of building a second or elevated floor to take advantage of the exceptional views, and was told by the planning department that "the height limit is a very firm item". The environmental Impact Analysis initial study appears flawed in that the reference to "church expansion" may be misleading, this is truly a completely new building on a lot that is now vacant. Also item 18. AESTHETICS. No Impact— This is a false and misleading assumption. It is patently obvious that a 231+ roof height in a 17' height limit zone will have a substantial impact. In view of the foregoing I request that your staff recommend that these applications be denied. I ' also request that a copy of this letter be entered into the Planning Commissions consideration of this application. I will ask to be heard at the hearing on the evening of Oct. 22. Sincerely, `cane Hooper 78-620 Ave. Tujunga La Quinta, Ca 92253 (619) 564 1976 2 50-645 Calle Quito La Quinta, Ca 92253 October 14, 1991 Planning S Development Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Ref: Variance requested by La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church at 53-800 Calle Paloma Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman Dear Mr. Berman, We would like to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the above referenced variance. Moreover, the project described in your notice dated October 22, 1991 understates the scope of the undertaking, according to the church's plans. The building would actually be taller and be constructed on a considerably smaller area than listed. We would have liked to have been able to build our home with one slightly elevated room but were told that it was impossible. We certainly do not wish to have our view restricted by and cluttered with another building. Moreover, while a variance is requested enabling them to postpone building the required 6 foot fence around their property on the South side, no mention is made of the `act that they have no fence on the East. We believe fences are necessary as prescribed in the City Code. Our only contacts with the church in the past have been very cordial. We would like to keep them this way. Their present building is used as a school during the day on Monday through Friday. Evening meetings are held there most nights. Another denomination rents the building on Saturday and services are held on Sundays. It is a very busy Glace and is obviously serving a useful purpose. Perhaps it would be better suited in another locality. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Sincerely, JoIA D. Sessums Yvonne Sessums J 053 TO: CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANE HOOPER ET AL C RE: APPLICATION FOR iq PUBLIC USE PERMIT #t91-008 & VARIANCE #91-018 9 AT: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA LOTS 65 & 66 DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT 15 I STRONGLY RECOMMEND AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE APPLICA- TION. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. THIS UNIT IS ZONED SR AND, EXCEPT FOR THE EXISTING SMALL CHURCH -SCHOOL, CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS OCCUPIED, FOR THE MOST PART, BY OWNERS. 2.HOMES IN THE TRACT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY STANDARDS WHICH INCLUDE A 17' ROOF HEIGHT LIMIT AND WALLS SURROUNDING EACH LOT. THE SEVENTEEN FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IS DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE VIEWS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR ALL TO ENJOY. IT THEREFORE CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. A 22' OR 23' HIGH ROOF WOULD BE COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARAC- TER WITHIN THE TRACT, WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA AND WOULD PROVIDE AN NON -AESTHETIC EYESORE AND WOULD DETRACT FROM OUR VIEW AND APPRECIATION OF THE BEAUTIFUL SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS WHICH DREW US TO THE AREA INITIALLY. 3.POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 6' MASONRY WALL AROUND THE SITE WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH PREVAILING NEIGH- BORHOOD STANDARDS. WHEN EACH OF OUR HOMES WERE BUILT WE ACCEPTED THE ESTAB- LISHED STANDARDS. OUR HOMES MET THE 17' HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE WALLS HAVE BEEN BUILT- WITHOUT WAITING FOR A NEIGHBOR TO COME ALONG TO BUILD THEM FOR US. INCIDENTALLY THAT NEIGHBOR WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 6' MASONRY WALL AND COULD VERY WELL DECLINE TO PARTICIPATE IN CONSTRUCTION OF SAME. 4. A WALL IS TO BE BUILT DOWN WASHINGTON ST. RESULTING IN CLOSURE OF THE THREE STREETS NEAREST THE EXISTING CHURCH AND WILL CAUSE ALL CHURCH TRAFFIC TO BE ROUTED THROUGH THE UNCON- TROLLED INTERSECTION OF CALLS PALOMA AND CALLE TAMPICO. THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY A CHURCH AND SCHOOL OF THIS MAGNI- TUDE WOULD RESULT IN OVER -CROWDING OF THE INTERNAL STREETS AND WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARDS NOT IN KEEPING WITH A RESI- DENTIAL COMMUNITY. 5. THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ADDRESSES "EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH" ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE. IN FACT IF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT IS CORRECT THIS APPLICATION INCLUDES CONSTRUC- TION OF A COMPLETELY NEW CHURCH ON A VACANT LOT AND INCREASED USE OF THE PRESENT FACILITY AS AN ENLARGED DAY-CARE CENTER OR SCHOOL -ALL SITED ON A PROPERTY CLOSER TO .75 ACRE THAN TO 1.4 ACRES. 231. 054' PLANNING AND ZONING REGULATIONS PROVIDE IN TITLE 9.176.040 THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS "—SHALL NOT BE GRANTED --IF THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY." I THEREFORE PETITION THIS COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 91-018 TO ALLOW INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT AND POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY WALL AS NOT BEING APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA. I FURTHER PETITION THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3553 SQ. FT. CHURCH . BUILDING WITH ATTENDANT PARKING FACILITIES AND REQUIRED LIGHTING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR- HOOD. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION BE SET ASIDE. THE CONCENTRATION OF TRAFFIC ON THE PARKING LOT AND ON THE ONE STREET THAT WILL SERVE IT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROUS OXIDES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS. ALSO ADDED LIGHTING REQUIRED FOR SAFE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY MAY RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT POLLUTION. A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MAY THEREFORE BE INDICATED. NAME AND ADDRESS (please print) DANc /1004(r4 78 •bxo AY. TVJ&4fc4 94ye HOope•R 78b:o Aye, • Tvluvca ELt-EN A SN/T/,L So - 925 eAcLE Gu,,.vn So • 9a S C igL c E (9c=,e,a. �14(1rtiE.' 9-0 6 ^y Gdccc= S/v/�vrc7 Oil: a yZje->� �q - DYE -uCa f a ,*te T SIGNATURE i 1 v� of 055 yleeP r ,kZC���� co - 5_ l-// Ul/5b ( I-« 176U;vtf �- (C - g A I f i 72 -b 3V ?K; Vh('A ��►-r 6 �a /c ro w� f�o�hft- .%` dt Gsa'A J n �o�p�1e tau If Jrre .50 - man , Ov//e a l,In P Lq" MN mow� J "40fil,MA19 U-04 , iL,, - GU t:33 056 A'10vkol L,1 A'DA 4, Z c�)/J /�rv - L ?a e--* 04c.cff- Acryg.4 h � 4," 1 N ` A c�17ryGs �F�o CALi-e 1-/4 UUirU L) i� 5r yvov,v6 S e-- s s uM S M4, 5 4)uad I ) k yley ,nL k-. oa.E'n!S v d.a.t c •- 73, � 057 I 7F ` ]O 4yr T�'J�•NGM rlr i S C . :24- : LLt- /Z�/-// , 7 �U Piz AT 4 • �'r S.JA YIAW 5 0 6 3 c CA 4It �'u 1 vF4 0003 050 TO: CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DANE HOOPER ET AL RE: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT #91-008 & VARIANCE #91-018 AT: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA LOTS 65 & 66 DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT 15 I STRONGLY RECOMMEND AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE APPLICA- TION. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. THIS UNIT IS ZONED SR AND, EXCEPT FOR THE EXISTING SMALL CHURCH -SCHOOL, CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS OCCUPIED, FOR THE MOST ?ART, BY OWNERS. 2.HOMES IN THE TRACT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY STANDARDS WHICH INCLUDE A 17' ROOF HEIGHT LIMIT AND WALLS SURROUNDING EACH LOT. THE SEVENTEEN FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IS DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE VIEWS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR ALL TO ENJOY. IT THEREFORE CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. A 22' OR 23' HIGH ROOF WOULD BE COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARAC- TER WITHIN THE TRACT, WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA AND WOULD PROVIDE AN NON -AESTHETIC EYESORE AND WOULD DETRACT FROM OUR VIEW AND APPRECIATION OF THE BEAUTIFUL SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS WHICH DREW US TO THE AREA INITIALLY. 3.POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 6' MASONRY WALL AROUND THE SITE WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH PREVAILING NEIGH- BORHOOD STANDARDS. WHEN EACH OF OUR HOMES WERE BUILT WE ACCEPTED THE ESTAB- LISHED STANDARDS. OUR HOMES MET THE 17' HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE WALLS HAVE BEEN BUILT-- WITHOUT WAITING FOR A NEIGHBOR TO COME ALONG TO BUILD THEM FOR US. INCIDENTALLY THAT NEIGHBOR WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 6' MASONRY WALL AND COULD VERY WELL DECLINE TO PARTICIPATE IN CONSTRUCTION OF SAME. 4. A WALL IS TO BE BUILT DOWN WASHINGTON ST. RESULTING IN CLOSURE OF THE THREE STREETS NEAREST THE EXISTING CHURCH AND WILL CAUSE ALL CHURCH TRAFFIC TO BE ROUTED THROUGH THE UNCON- TROLLED INTERSECTION OF CALLE PALOMA AND CALLE TAMPICO. THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY A CHURCH AND SCHOOL OF THIS MAGNI- TUDE WOULD RESULT IN OVER -CROWDING OF THE INTERNAL STREETS AND WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARDS NOT IN KEEPING WITH A RESI- DENTIAL COMMUNITY. 5. THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ADDRESSES "EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH" ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE. IN FACT IF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT IS CORRECT THIS APPLICATION INCLUDES CONSTRUC- TION OF A COMPLETELY NEW CHURCH ON A VACANT LOT AND INCREASED USE OF THE PRESENT FACILITY AS AN ENLARGED DAY-CARE CENTER OR SCHOOL --ALL SITED ON A PROPERTY CLOSER TO .45 ACRE THAN TO 1.4 ACRES. v 0 v.2 JG 050 PLANNING AND ZONING REGULATIONS PROVIDE IN TITLE 9.176.040 THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS "---SHALL NOT BE GRANTED ---IF THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY." I THEREFORE PETITION THIS COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 91-018 TO ALLOW INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT AND POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY WALL AS NOT BEING APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA. I FURTHER PETITION THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3553 SQ. FT. CHURCH BUILDING WITH ATTENDANT PARKING FACILITIES AND REQUIRED LIGHTING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR- HOOD. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION BE SET ASIDE. THE CONCENTRATION OF TRAFFIC ON THE PARKING LOT AND ON THE ONE STREET THAT WILL SERVE IT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROUS OXIDES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS. ALSO ADDED LIGHTING REQUIRED FOR SAFE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY MAY RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT POLLUTION. A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MAY THEREFORE BE INDICATED. NAME AND ADDRESS (please print) DAPoe H o0pcT4 78 •blo AY. 7-vjv4(c / fir? Bumwok-xs _111AA)gfe A � � 50-735 Qy0o7v 7 SIGNATURE 060 50-925 Calle Paloma La Quinta, CA 92253 January 8, 1992 JAN 0 8 1992 La Quinta City Council c/o Planning and Development Dept. 78-099 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Public Use Permit 91-008 - La Quinta Christian Fellowship Dear Councilmembers: We are asking that you uphold the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced issue and deny the permit, as was requested by residents in 80% of the homes within the immediate area. Our reasons are stated as follows: 1. The location of a church/school or school/church is not suitable or compatible to our Special Residential area. a. Any additional traffic generated by this enlargement would be undesirable; not only because of the increase in the number of cars, but also; with the future closing of Paloma and Tujunga at Washington, this will become a dead end area. The church representatives have indicated that the traffic flow would occur almost every day or evening for various church related activities. b. The two lots, combined, are not large enough to properly accommodate a new building, the present house, a school operation with playground, adequate parking space, and "other normal church activities" Additionally, there would be no room for any future growth which the church representatives say they are hoping for. c. The consultant, at the December General Plan meeting indicated that they recommend arterial streets for churches and schools. This "dead end" area is the opposite of what they recommend. We would do well to take their advice, otherwise, we are wasting time and money in retaining their services. 2. We believe that the public notices were not stated correctly, clearly, and accurately. a. This is not an expansion. It is a new building on a separate lot, therefore, a new use. b. The size of the lot for the new p e,,j� of 1.4 acres C. The notices have not mentioned a schbol.o §A,ce a school is neither a usual part of, nor the customary intent, use, and function of a church, we suggest that a separate use nermit should bp rani,;raA We would further request that you require the present operation to adhere to the prevailing laws and regulations, with regards to fencing, lighting, and proper use permits for the school and church. It is our understanding that the school has been in operation at the location for about 8 years. Until this "expansion" issue came up, they had no permits, no inspections, and no other similiar regulating restrictions. If this was brought to The City's attention previously (and we believe that it was in 1985), was the use violation ignored? Our point is - It is much easier to deny a new use than to correct a misuse later. This example proves the point perfectly. We would ask that you keep that in mind when considering this issue. There is no "school" sign on the present building. We would not have bought a house directly across the street if we had known a school existed there. Since we moved in, which was late May 1991, we have found the school to be noisy at recesses, the playground has sub -standard equipment, broken wooden boards, and essentially no fencing. The outside maintenance, in general, is not in harmony with the neighborhood. If they can't take care of one lot, what can we expect if they develop a second one? We would appreciate your giving consideration to these points, and we ask, again, that you deny Public Use Permit 91-008. Since , , William P. Davis Roselyn Davis GUv�. 06� Design Review Board Minutes ATTACHMENT No. 10 October 2, 1991 6. There being no further discussion, It was move by Chairman Rice and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to adopt Minute Motion 91- 031 recommending approval to the Planning Commission subject to the Applicant working with Staff on concerns. Unanimously approved. C. Plot Plan 91-466; a request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for approval of a commercial center. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Phillip Pead, Developer for the project, addressed the Board regarding the project. 3. Chairman Rice stated he felt the project was an excellent solution to the vacant corner. 4. Boardmember Curtis asked if there was not another way of locating the parking structure so as not to be so close to the street. Mr. Pead stated they had spent a great deal of time on the layout of the buildings and this was the only workable solution. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives for the structure location. Putting one floor of parking below the bowling alley was suggested. S. Boardmember Harbison inquired if they had considered putting any of the parking floors below grade. Mr. Pead stated there was one floor below grade. Boardmember Harbison stated they needed to soften the height of the building by the use of trees and landscaping. S. There being no further discussion it was moved by Chairman Rice and seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91-032 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Plot Plan 91-466 subject to Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. D. Plot Plan 91-467; a request of Desert Villas, Inc. for approval of a proposed single story apartment complex., 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Craig Bryant, Applicant addressed the Board regarding the background of the proposed project. GQV%`llnn� DRBMIN-10/2 3 V ti Design Review Board Minutes October 2, 1991 the additional shading that Staff was recommending. Mr. Armstrong indicated there would be no shutters on these units/ 4. Mr. Ben Aguillar, Designer for the project gave a brief description of the units and also requested that the roof remain as is. 5. Boardmember Curtis asked the Applicant if he felt he could work this out with Staff. Mr. Armstrong stated he could. Boardmember Curtis asked how many two story units there would be. Mr. Armstrong stated there would be 24. 6. There being no further discussion, Boardmember Curtis moved and Boardmember Harbison seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-030 recommending approval to the Planning Commission of the architectural elevations for the four unit types subject to Staff recommendation maintaining the gable roof (two story units) with the Applicant to work with Staff to find a solution to the shading problem. Unanimously approved. B . Public Use Permit 91-008; a request of the La Quinta Fellowship Church for approval of an expansion of an existing church with associated parking in the SR Zone. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. DRBMIN-10/2 2. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project, addressed the Commission on the project. He requested that the church not be required to up grade the existing church as their intentions were to probably demolish the existing building. Discussion followed as to how soon that would be. The Applicant stated within a maximum ten years, hopefully sooner. Mr. Bund presented color chips indicating white stucco with brown trim. 3. Boardmember Curtis asked how many phases they were planning to build in and was landscaping part of their budgeting. The Applicant stated there would be only one phase and landscaping was included in their budgeting. 4. Boardmember Harbison and the Applicant indicated he could work out a time table with Staff. 5. Chairman Rice stated he was in support of the church and felt that every effort should be made to see the project to completion. co �41 os�� 2 C,� (ATTACHMENT No.> Ti &t r 11 MEMORANDUM OF TO: DAWN HONEYWELL, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: JERRY HERMAN, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1991 SUBJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008, LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP The Planning Department is presently processing a Public Use Permit for the expansion of the La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church. This church was approved in 1973 by the County and is presently comprised of one building and an adjoining parking area. The Applicant wishes to expand by building an assembly hall, 3,553 square feet in size. The future church services will take place in the new building. This church is in an SR (Special Residential) Zone. The previous zoning was R-1 and was rezoned SR in 1986. Approximately 8 years ago the church began operating a private school 5 days a week in the existing building without City approval or knowledge. In October of 1985 the City contacted the City Attorney at that time, Jim Longtin, and asked the following question: "Is the establishment of a full-time private school within an eadsting church considered a legal extension of the church use, thereby being exempt from additional City zoning requirements?" The reply was: "We have power to control expansion of the allowed use, especially where it causes further zoning problems (e.g., substantial additional traffic). I suggest you hold decision until (and if) we have complaints about traffic, noise, etc., if not, why make it an issue." In response to the above, the Planning Department did not pursue the above matter at that time. More recently the church has filed a Public Use Permit for the expansion of the church, i.e., a new assembly building. The old building will continue to house the existing school which has a maximum of 25 children. At previous Planning Commission Public Hearings for this project held October 22nd and November 12th (now continued until November 26, 1991), surrounding residents have questioned the legality of the existing private school and complained about the noise resulting from school activities. q GOB'=- MEMOGL.023 060 Please provide legal advice on the following: 1. If a PUP application is made for the expansion of the church should: a. The school be included in the evaluation and approval of the project and conditions of approval attached related to the school? b. Should the school not be considered part of PUP 91-008 since it already exists and will exist in the existing building and not the new building? 2. In any event, since a Public Use Permit is required for educational institutions in all zones (Section 9.176.010 of the Zoning Ordinance), does the Applicant need to apply for a PUP for the school to make the school comply legally with the Zoning Ordinance? The church agrued then and now, that the school is an integral part of the church's activities (see attached "Memorandum of Law" supplied by the church). It should also be noted that the church has in the past, failed to comply with State Code Requirements (Section 33190, 33191,35297, 44237 and 48222), and has not filed private school affidavits. At the Public Hearing held on November 12, 1991, the Applicant stated that they now have filed a 1991 Statement with the County to comply with the above State laws. We would appreciate legal advice in writing on the above issues and other pertinent issues for the Planning Commission to review prior to their next meeting to be held November 26, 1991. The reports go out on November 22, 1991. If more time is needed the Public Hearing on PUP 91-008 can be continued until December 10, 1991. Enclosure n r\ G0OO243 MEMOGL.023 066 �ttS, fss" wee.-Q�-,�c �-�..�•-� C % Jn► L o�� j� f � 64IF J- (�� - T.-O,m a ay ,�c • vy, /ie� e4,e+ � ./ eta ( A,r� •� c�* /� o � a ,�i/� 1�� G �-, ✓A.� JGie�l (�i��iri+ CiA 1 /'Cf -e"X zr x * 'r"Ir/rG4 ed.. fi 40, 4r/ 0 no G400r64 All :H../ C,� /& G IJ 17-e, /7, ,�L 11 Old- /:,.lie.o . 0/� --A `T O.WC•Cc CsT_..... /a/_c__ .i1,4o6,/. I 97J lip. / , I/rp'/odC .. G e,41, AtGC/jYCj 4C, ��/u si�A l+�✓HI U� '�+�V � O V APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS, INC. APOSTOLIC CHURCH "EL GETHSEMANI" • 16.601 Vugati Street Indio, Calilania 97201 Phone: 347.9876 ►Kw Rev. low A. 0rtept P.O. so% 234 1n4w, C►hfofnl. 92201 Mew: 3474280 June 22, 1981 Paul T. Kaneko, Associate Planner Planning L Development, City of Indio P.O. Drawer 1789 Indio, California 92202 Dear Mr. Kaneko, We. at Apostolic Church, do appreciate your concern for the welfare of our community. And we desire not to be a hind- erance to your efforts to better our community. And we hope that with the reading of the "Memorandum of Law" enclosed, will help you to better understand our position. Ne, at Apostolic Church, do not wish to seem to be rebel- lious towards the established laws and ordinances of our City; but we do wish to reiterate the same items our Conditional Use Permits have granted us. As you can see in reading the "Meeo- randum"s also those things that are granted us in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Sincerely, APOSTOLIC CHURCH in INDIO 0 Abel P. Adame 0 6:i t : T y p F► C V :T I: is ,r 5� , . tar`;ti! ICt:•r �.: ,, R'�'r.N �:T;! O.N MEMoiuM" or uw rACTS The Apostolic Church is located in a residential district 03) in the city of Indio and State of California, and the Church was lawfully established under the zoning ordinances of the city. The Church has since its establishment expanded its Educational Ministry by commencing a day school ministry. -The Church applied for and obtained a conditional use permit for its buildings to be used as classrooms. The Church's po- sition is that another conditional use permit, or a special exception, Is not necessary so long as the purpose of the school is to occupy those buildings for which they were permitted, and to propogate their faith. The tenets of faith and beliefs of the members of the Apostolic Church require as a convictional matter that their children receive an education which is Biblical In Its framework of philosophy and supposi- tional standards. They refer more commonly to this process of education as giving their children a "Christian Education." This conviction of be- lief concerning the education of the believers' children is shared by is excess of four thousand five hundred (4,500) Independent Churches through- out the United States representing an Individual believers' membership constituency in excess of two million. The Christian Schools which are operated for the purpose of providing the religious education to the believers' children are organized and operated as integral and Insepara- ble ministries of the Church. They are not operated In conjunction with the Church, but rather, as a part of the Church. The believers' dictates 47 of faith hold that the education of the children on Monday through Friday differs not from the education provided by the Church on Sunday. To pro- 0 7 0 Vida the children with a non-Christian education is believed to be A sit against the dictates of the believers' faith - Being convinced that there were no suitable Christian schools of like faith and practice whithin a workable area for the members and constituents of the Apostolic Church to enroll their children in, a day school was com- menced. This school was organized and is now operated as an integral and in- separable part of the Apostolic Church. This was discussed with Mr. Paul KA- neko, Associate Planner of the City, by Rev. Abel P. Adams on Harch 2S, 1981. ISSUE Is the day school in question an integral and inseparable ministry of the Apostolic Church so that an additional special exception need not be obtained for the operation of said school since the Church has already been lawfully established under the zoning ordinance? W LAW a Due to the extremely grave and damaging consequences of allowing as administrative or judicial body to determine what is or is not reasonably a part of a church and the convictional life style practice of faith of be-lievers, the courts have recognized many diverse uses which are classified and should be recognized as necessary, accessory and -or incidental uses to the descriptive term "church" in land use regulations. The concept of what constitutes a church has changed from a place. of worship, used once or twice . a week, to a church used during the entire week, nights as well as days, for various parochial and community functions. Unitarian Universalist Church v. jr a, Shirten, 63 Misc.2d 978, 314 N-Y.S.2d 66 (1970). 071 Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Consti- tution, the term "church" must be given the reset inclusive and all embracing definition. Since what maybe a sacred church building to one denomination or religious sect may not meet the test of another denomination or group. Any building in which a religious group or sect worchips God according to Its own practice is a church. Appeal of Stark, 72 D. 6 C. 1680 98 Pitt.L. J. 361 (Pa. 19SO). The law of multiple jurisdictions is clear and unambiguous that for purposes of legal consideration a school may be considered as an integral and inseparable part of a church. Westbury Hebrew Congregation, Inc. To Downer, 59 Nisc.2d 387, 302 N.Y.S.2d 923 (1969): What Constitutes "Church," "Religious Use" or the Like Within Zoning, Ordinances, 62 A.L.R.3d 197 (1975); Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Board, 1 N.Y.2d 508, 136 N.E.2d 827 (1956). Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery, 371 I11. 25% 20 N.E.2d 583 (1939). "Religious use is not defined solely in terms of religious worship. Clearly, it extends to 'education' which is offered by a religious institution primarily for the children of its members. It clearly includes. the church itself, a parochial school with its normal components for recreational and other extracurricular activity . . . ." American Law of Zoning 2d Vole 19 i12.2S at p. 459 and 460. As stated with quoted mention and approval in the decision of Diocese of Rochester et al. v. Planning Board of Town of Brighton st al*: "A church is more than merely an edifice affording people the opportunity to worship God. Strictly reli- gious* uses and activities are more than prayer and sa- crifice and all churches recognize that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading the con- gregation in prayer . . . To limit d church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, by depriving the church of the opportu- nity of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening it- 4 self and the congregation... ." 1 N.Y.2d 508, 136 N.E.2d 827 (1956). - U 7 2 In 'City of Concord Y. New Testament Baptist Church 382 A.2d 377 (1977)e' the court ruled that a special toning permit was not needed to o- perate A day school ministry of the Xew Testament Baptist Church. Accord. Ing to the court the school "was a permitted use under the ordinance allow. Ing facilities usually connected with a church." A "school may be consi- dered as an integral and inseparable part of a church." A single family residence used by a United Presbyterian Church as a combination worship and Information center, office, meeting place, and a of - fee house for college students was held to be a "Church" under a city zon- Ing ordinance which provided that a church could be situated In a resident- ial district. Synod of Chesapeake Inc. v. Newark, 254 A.2d 611 (Del. Ch. 1969). A Catholic convent which was to he a part of a proposed unit•or pro- ject consisting of a Catholic Church, a priests, mansion, a convent and a school was held to be an Integral part of a "church" under a city zoning ordinance permitting churches in dwellinphouse residence districts. Ac- cording to the court, building may be, erected for church purposes other than those connected with divine worship. The word "church" applies not only to a building used for worship, but to any body of Christians hold- Ing and propogating a particular form of belief. Any building intended to be used primarily for purposes connected with the faith of such a re• ligious organization may be said to be used for church purposes. Board of Zoniaing Appeals V. Wheaton, 118 Ind.App. 38, 76 N.E.2d 597 (1948). A synogogue was held to be a "church for public worship and other strictly religious uses," within the meaning of a village zoning ordi- nance which permitted such uses in residential districts. The avowed aim c d Of the synogogue was to establish a permament place for religious wor- ship, religious teaching and training, fellowship, guidance of Indoor O and outdoor activities for youths and community work. Coanunity Synogogue ve Batess 1 N.Y.2d We 154 N.Y.S.2d 1S$ 136 N.C.2d 488 (1956). A church is more than merely an edifice affording people the oppor- tunity to worship God. Religious uses and activities are more than prayer and sacrifice. All churches recognize that the area of their responsibility Is broader than leading the"congretation in prayers. Churches have always developed social groups for adults and youths "where the fellowship of the congregation is strengthened with the result that the parent church is strengthened." It was a religious activity for the church to provide a place for those social groups to meet, since the church by doing so was develop- ing into a stronger and closer -knit religious unit. To limit a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice, would in large degree be depriving the church of the opportunity of enlargings perpetuatings and strengthening itself and the congregation. Bates$ supra. The proposed use of an estate as a religious education center by the Protestant Episcopal. Church was held to come within a town zoning ordi+ nance permitting a "church or similar place of worship" in residential districts. The buildings on the property consisted of a main residence houses a tenant houses a boathouses and a barn. The Church planned to conduct there$ for adults and selected teen -aged youths$ a series of programs of supervised religious study, seminars, contemplations and training with emphasis on Christian living and service. Diocese of Central New York v. Schwarzers 23 Hisc.2d SiS, 199 N.Y.S.2d 9399 affsd 13 App.Div.2d 863, 217 N.Y.S.2d 567 (1960), • , A retreat house was considered a "church" within the meaning of a city zoning ordinance which permitted churches in residential districts �J J It was used by Roman Catholic laymen as sleeping quarters for retreat - ants during the conduct of closed spiritual retreats. The retreats$ dap- 074 ♦ine worship devoted to examination, contemplation, and meditation and Intended to improve and perfect the participants in service to God and their fellow men, were carried on in a Quiet manner under the constant supervision of the retreat master, a Catholic priest. Noting that what way be a sacred church building to one denomination or religious sect may not meet the test of another denomination or group, and that any definitive judicial delineation of the tern "church," controlling fu- ture decisions, would be harmful and a danger to religious freedom, the court decided that under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the term had to be given the most inclusive and all -embracing definition. when a property is used for a church, the court said, it may be used with- out any violation of the zoning, ordinance for any purpose connected witht the religious practices which the group or sect maintaining that particular church desires to pursue, unless there is substantial and unreasonable interference with, or injury to, public health, morals, safety, and public welfare. The court further declared that any build- ing in which a religious group or sect worships God according to its own practice is a church. Appeal of Starke supra. Uoder a city zoning ordinance provision permitting churches, chap• elm, convents, monasteries, or other places of worship and their adjacent residential dwellings in a residential district, a nonprofit religious corporation's use of a house and lot in such a district was held to comport with any conceivable definition of a church or other place of • worship. The ground floor of the house was used as a place of worship by two fundamentalist religious groups, onk affiliated with the plan J I.. ? iff corporation, and the other not so affiliated. Rooms on the second and third floors of the large dwelling accomodated missionaries passing 0 7 5 the affiliated church. Church school classes wars also held In the build. Inge Conversion Center, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 2 Pa.Com, 306, 278 A.2d 369 (1971)e A Bible camp owned and operated by a church was held to have quali. fled as a church within the meaning of a city zoning ordinance provision permitting "churches" In residence districts. State ex rel. Covenant Harbor Bible Camp v. Steinke, 7 Wis.2d 275, 96 N.M.2d 356 (1959)e In Idaho, the court ruled that the term "churches" in'a city zoning ordinance permitting churches in residential zones Includes a lighted recreational complex built by Mormons on the grounds of its church build- ing. Corporation of Presiding Bishop, etc. v. Ashton, 92 Idaho 571, 448 P.2d 185 (1968). A church is more than merely a building in which ac- tual services are held. Activities, if they are an official part of the church program,: are an integral part of the church and are sufficiently connected with the church itself that use of property for recreational purposes is considered a church use. Ashton, supra. To deny the bellers of a faith their opportunity to practice in lif e style Implementation their stated creeds of conduct by meant of refusing land use accomodation Is to effectively destroy all semblence of First Amendment guarantees. Accordingly, "the right to establish and maintain a religious use includes the right to establish and maintain uses whieh are accessory to it. This right is upheld even if the language of the ordinance Is broad ." American Law of Zoning 2d., Vol. 2 112.26 at p. 463. The obvious rationale for affording this latitude of scope to the 4 1 jL definition of a church Is that to allow dtherwise would place a judicial forum or administrative tribunal in the position of possessing God -like 076 attributes to the extent of being able to decree the boundaries of a person's religious faith by defining what is and is not a part of his church. No activity of a person's religious faith is accomplished or Initiated without some element of land use provision. Por example, wor- ship assemblies are impossible without occupying ground space; reli- gious education of youths and adults require a land space occupancy; preparation of religious literature, transmission of religious broad- casts, assemblies for fellowhip, etc., all require that the believers be able to make appropriate use of land for the carrying out of their faith. In complete accord with the aforesaid, said church has been law- fully established in the residential zone in question. The school in question is a ministry usually and naturally connected with a church. Unquestionablys the school in question was by design, intent and con- victional faith of the members of the Apostolic Church established as a part of their church and is a permitted use by right of statute and or- dinance. For anvone to contend that tie school in question is not a part of the Church and not permitted as a matter of right clearly vio- lates established judicial precedent of noted authority and advances the most dangerous and pugnacious of ideologies -that the State is able to decree by fiat the bounds of the believers faith through the church entity definition. Respectfully submitted, M BBS 9 CRAZE By: aniel Jon Loomis 4 6929 Best 130th Street Suite 600 Parma Heights, Ohio 44130 7'i (216) 845-6800 SfPYI. S� /9�/ OITY OF Pj�b OALIFORNIA 100 CIVIC CENTER MALL a I.O. DRAWER 17U • INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92M Phone. (7141 347.2361 W. PHILLIP HAWES CITY MANAGER Mr. Abel P. Adams The Apostolic Church of Indio 46-601 Vargas Street Indio, CA 92201 Dear Brother Abel: Planning b Development Dept August 27,, 1981 The purpose of this letter is to advise you on the status of your K-12 school located at the above address. As you will recall, the staff had determined that a conditional use permit was needed in order for the school to continue to operate. On June 26, 1981, we submitted the case to our City Attorney for his opinion on whether a CUP would be needed. According to the City Attorney, a conditional use permit may not be needed at this time "although technically we could require a use permit for an expanded use". We have concluded that since classrooms already exist on the site and conditional use permits 2-49, 2-118 and 2-263 have been previously approved and initiated, a new conditional use permit is not needed. If you have any future comments or questions, please feel free to contact use Sincerely, Paul T. Kaneko Associate Planner xc: legal request file re: Apostolic Church/School. PK/sg �j 5 078 11. 21. 91 04:58 PM W6VC&X X*Wport Hon CA P02 ATTACHMENT No. 12 M 1 M O 16 N Q U 0 To: Planning Commission Members FROM: Dawn C. Honeywell, City Attorney RE: Public Use Permit 91-008, La Quinta Christian Fellowship DATE: November 21, 1991 tov.:.....■.....r.r•aeecoms.r..............rr■�.eeap�pe�aee..... We have been informed that the La Quint& Christian Fellowship Church (the "Church•) is applying for a Public Use Permit ("PUP*) for the expansion of their church meeting space on their property. The original structure was built in 1973, with religious services continuously held in that building since that time. In addition, a church operated school has been operating on the site since approximately 1983. At a later time the site was incorporated into La Quinta and rezoned SR, a zone which allows churches and schools only upon issuance of a conditional use permit or public use permit. In connection with the Church's application, we have been asked by Jerry Herman to provide advice on the following questions: uestion No. : If a PUP application is made for the expansion of the church, (a) should the school be included in the evaluation and approval of the project and conditions of approval related to the school? (b) should the school not be considered part of PUP 91-008 since it already exists and will exist in the existing building and not the new building? Question No. 2: Since a PUP is required for educational Institutions in all zones (Section 9.176.010 of the zoning ordinance), does the applicant need to apply for a PUP for the school to make the school comply legally with the zoning ordinance? Short Answer: The PUP application should cover the school, existing church building and proposed church expansion. while the church and school may currently be a legal non -conforming use, expansion of the facilities would remove that status and , require that all non -conforming structures obtain the „ w,;,,,:`a, appropriate City approvals, ; - 079 ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 22 AND NOVEMBER 12,1991 080 CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California November 12, 1991 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ellson. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Glenda Lainis, Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. Chairwoman Barrows asked for a motion to reorganize the agenda to include the discussion of the cancellation of the December 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion to amend the agenda as stated. Unanimously approved. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Use Permit 91-008 and Variance 91-018; a request of La Quinta Christian Church Fellowship for approval of an expansion to an existing church plus associated parking area on a 0.74 acre site and a variance request to allow: A) Increased building height limit to 23 feet, and B) to postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff if the conditions that were imposed by the County in 1973 had been complied with. Staff stated that all the landscaping had not been completed or died. Staff further stated that the present Applicants were not involved with the original application. a v Z J 8 PCMINNO12 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1992 3. Commissioner Ellson asked for clarification as to how otany lots were involved. Staff stated that the original application only consisted of one lot. Since that time the Church had received the additional lot . 4. Chairwoman Barrows inquired about the school licensing. Staff stated that the school was not required to be licensed. They only needed to file an annual letter or affidavit with the County stating they were in operation. 5. Commissioner Mosher asked if the City Attorney had been contacted regarding this issue and what her opinion had been. Staff informed the Commission that they had been in contact with the City Attorney and she had asked the Commission to continue the matter to give her more time to research the matter. 6. Commissioner Marrs stated that he did not feel the school was part of the application before the Commission. Staff stated the school was only before the Commission if they chose to consider them jointly. It was to the discretion of the Commission whether to consider them jointly, separately, or to not take up the issue of the school at all. 7. Commissioner Mosher asked if the height limitations imposed on this area were governed by City zoning ordinances or by the property owners CC & R's. Staff stated the zoning was imposed on this area when the SR Zone was created. 8. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jack Clark spoke on behalf of the Applicant and addressed the issue of the school. He stated the school would be restricted to 25 students and requested that Staff impose this limitation in the Conditions of Approval. As to the letter or affidavit 'to the County, it had been sent that day and a copy was presented to the Commission. They had complied with all laws required of them to their knowledge. 9. Commissioner Ellson asked if the school needed to be licensed. Pastor Mark Collins stated the school was associated with the Accelerated Christian Education program and received their curriculum from them. lo. Commissioner Marrs asked how the school obtained accreditation. Pastor Collins stated that the only requirement needed of the school was a letter to the County stated they were operating a school. When a child leaves their school to go on to higher education, they only have to take a test and pass it. He stated that their students had scored extremely well on all to $1... PCMINNO12 2 0184; Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 11. Mr. Clark went on to state that the Church had met with as many of the neighbors as would attend their meeting, and tried to work out all the objections. In light of some of the objections, they were withdrawing the Variance application. He went on to state the other objections that had been raised at the previous meeting and how they had tried to solve them. 12. Chairwoman Barrows questioned the 17 foot height limitation. Discussion followed as to building heights. 13. Commissioner Mosher questioned the Applicant regarding the parking being able to accommodate the school and church. Mr. Clark stated that there were only 3 or 4 cars during the school hours. He further stated that the Church had surpassed the amount of landscaping originally conditioned on the Church. Commissioner Mosher stated that he felt the Church should be required to paint the existing building the same color as the proposed structure, screen the air conditioning equipment, and provide the landscaping that was suggested by Staff. 14. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project addressed the Commission regarding some of the conditions. He asked if the noise study would still be required if the Applicant provided the walls on three sides. Staff stated that if walls were provided on three sides and a 36-42" wall and berm were provided for the frontage, the elimination of the noise study was possible. Mr. Bund then inquired if the Fire Marshal requirements for a fire hydrant would be required. He felt this would be accomplished as a matter of the City improvements for this area. Staff stated this was up to the Fire Marshal, but the potential for this to be included in the City improvements existed. Mr. Bund then inquired if the Commission would consider the phasing plan to accomplish all the work as he requested at the last meeting. 15. Mr. Dan Hooper, neighboring resident, addressed the Commission and stated that he felt the Applicant had mitigated all of his objections and he would support the approval of the project. 16. Ms. Roselyn Davis, neighboring resident, spoke in opposition to the project stating her concerns regarding noise, traffic, parking facilities, the unknown growth of the church, and having a playground in her front yard. Commissioner Mosher inquired how long Ms. Davis had lived in this house. She stated she had moved to this house in June, 1991. 17. Ms. Catalina Porras, Church member, spoke in favor of the Church and stated how the Church had ministered (0) O12 V 0 Community and she was dismayed at the neighbors. objections. 3 083 PCMINNO12 planning commission Minutts November 12, 1991 18. Ms. Susie Sanford, neighboring resident, read a statement regarding her objections. She compared the location of this Church to locations of various churches in Indio. In addition she stated she was concerned about the unknown growth of the Church and showed pictures of the church showing what she felt was a lack of upkeep. 19. Mr. Clark addressed the Commission again and showed the original plans of the Church and stated the Church's growth would be restricted by the number of people it would hold. 20. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 21. Commissioner Ladner inquired why the Applicant had not completed the affidavit. Mr. Clark stated they had chose to write a letter instead following the procedure that was followed by most private schools. 22. Commissioner Mosher asked what the seating capacity of the new sanctuary would be. Mr. Clark stated it would be 110. 23. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff if the City's zoning regulations allowed churches in residential area. Staff stated they would be allowed under the Public Use Permit application in any zone. She felt that as there was obvious objections to this type of use in a residential area, maybe the City should consider rewriting the regulations. Staff stated this was a finding the Commission could use to deny the application if they so chose to do so. 24. Commissioner Ladner asked if the City made any allowances for homeowners who did not have the money to complete required improvements. Staff stated they did not. 25. Chairwoman Barrows questioned whether the school should be considered with the application before them. Staff responded that it was at the Planning Commission's discretion. 26. Commissioner Ellson asked if the current building would be replaced at some future date. Mr. Clark stated that there plans were to replace the building at a future time when funds were available. 27. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to continue this matter to the meeting of November 269 1991, to allow further City Attorney input regarding the school use. C 0 C, 4^ 61 084 pcmiNNOI2 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. B. Building Moving Permit 91-001; a request of D & M Morgan for permission to move a 11200 square foot building located at 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place to 54-038 Avenida Bermudas. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis asked that the matter be continued as the Applicant had not paid the fees (which were just established by the City Council) required to process the permit. 2. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to continue the matter to November 26, 1991. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. C. Preannexation Zoning 91-068 and General Plan Amendment 91-039; a request of Valley Land Development for a change to the boundaries for the zoning classification of a new zoning classification and land use designation for a portion of the property adjacent to Washington Street, north of Fred Waring Drive. 1. At the request of the Applicant, Commissioner Marrs moved to continued the Public Hearing to the meeting of November 26, 1991. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. D. S ecific Plan 88-012 and Tentative Tract 23995; a request of A. G. Spanos Construction Company for approval of a First One Year Time Extension. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff if there was any assurance that the bike path would be completed and would connect at both ends. Staff stated there was a master plan and as develo ments took place the bike path would be created. 085 PCMINNO12 5 cc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 22, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ladner. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Ladner, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. Commissioner Ladner moved to excuse Commissioners Mosher and Ellson. Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B . Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Glenda Lainis, Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Use Permit 91-008 and Variance 91-018; a request of La Quinta Christian Church Fellowship for approval of an expansion to an existing church plus associated parking area on a 0.74 acre site and a variance request to allow: A) Increased building height limit to 23 feet, and B) to postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff to explain the wording in paragraph #14 in reference to fire wall. 3. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff to explain how the parking requirement was determined. Planning Director Jerry Herman read the Municipal Code as it relates to parking. 4. Chairwoman Barrows asked for clarification on the height being requested. Staff stated the request was for 23 feet. i,�„ �, C�C b3 086 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 5. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project addressed the Commission and explained the purpose for their requests. He went on to explain that the costs of the recommended upgrades for the existing building would make the project cost prohibitive for the church. 6. Commissioner Marrs inquired if the other churches that had been approved were restricted on their height limitation. Staff stated they had not as they were located in a different zone. 7. Mr. Jack Clark, builder and member of the church, addressed the Commission regarding the request and addressed some of the concerns of the neighborhood. He further requested that the variance be changed from a request for 23 feet to 19 feet. 8. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Tujunga, spoke in opposition to the project stating his objection to the height, traffic, and presented the Commission with a petition signed by those in the neighborhood objecting to the expansion. He noted that the church was offered financial help in relocating. 9. Commissioner Marrs asked how many families were represented on the petition. Mr. Hooper stated 23 of the 27 families in the neighborhood. 10. Pastor Mark Collins, applicant, spoke on behalf of the church. He pointed out that the church had been in existence for ten years and the purpose of the expansion was to give the members a better facility to worship in. He further stated the school would remain in the existing building until funds were available to build another facility. Their plans were to demolish the existing building in three to five years. 11. Commissioner Marrs asked Pastor Collins if the church had been offered any assistance in relocating as was stated by Mr. Hooper. Pastor Collins stated he, and no one in his congregation that he knew of, had received any such offer. 12. Commissioner Ladner inquired if the site would be used by other groups. Pastor Collins stated the church functions and uses would continue as they are now and they would allow other groups to continue using their facilities. 13. Ms. Roselyn Davis, 50-925 Calle Paloma spoke in opposition to the project, in particular the roof height, traffic from the school, and the unsightly appearance of the existing building(f1 J b Q 081 PCMINOCT22 2 Planning Commieeion Minute• October 22, 1991 14. Mr. John Sessums, 50-645 Calle Quito, spoke in opposition to the request based on the building codes. 15. Mr. Peter Rodholm, P. O. Box 176, spoke in opposition to the location of the church. He felt the expansion would cause greater impacts on the community. 16. Mr. Joe Garza, 50-550 Quito, spoke in opposition to any expansion of the church. 17. Mr. Travis Mastin, 51-205 Calle Paloma, memober of the church, spoke in favor of the expansion and the benefits of having a church in the community. 18. Mr. Ray Snitil, 50-925 Quito spoke in opposition to the project stating objections to the height and traffic. 19. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project, spoke in rebuttal to the objections stated. He reminded the Commission that the church was not out of compliance with the zoning and their plans called for the upgrading of the property which would only improve the neighborhood. 20 he prof ct sta� stating several fu50-071 nctions of the Coachella,spokeMs. Catalina church that serve to help the community. 21. Ms. Sandy Goldman, 53-245 Diaz, spoke in support of the church and stated several reasons for the added space and expansion of the church. She also stated she was a parent of three students who are and had attended the school and the positive influence it had on them. 22. Ms. Susan Collins, 53-040 Ramirez, spoke in favor of the project and stated the positive influence a church has in the community. 23. Mr. Dane Hooper, added some rebuttal comments regarding the number of members who do not live in the neighborhood. Commissioner Marrs asked Mr. Hooper to explain the offer he referred to. Mr. Hooper stated that a local realtor, Mr. Rupert Yessayian, had stated he would list and sell the property for the church at no cost to the church as well as offering to find another location for them. 24. Mr. Jack Clark, church member, answered questioned posed by the neighbors in reference to property values and stated he had looked for other property in the area and had been unsuccessful. (� a b 08u 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 25. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 26. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff if there were any reasons to deny the Public Use Permit. He felt there were reasons for denying the Variance, but did not feel there were any reasons for denying the Public Use Permit. Staff stated the Use Permit could only be denied if reasons were found to show it to be detrimental to the health, welfare, or safety of the community. 27. Chairwoman Barrows inquired about a method of allowing the postponement of the wall, such as a bond or letter of credit. Discussion followed regarding the wall requirements, the church growth, and the need for the church to have room to grow. 28. Commissioner Ladner felt that if the church was to remain and be allowed to expand there should be some compromises with the surrounding neighborhood and those compromises should be the upgrading of the existing building and the construction of the wall. Discussion followed as to the timing and phasing of the upgrading and wall. 29. Following the discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner to deny Variance 91-018. The motion died for a lack of a second. 30. Commissioner Marrs moved to approve Variance 91-018 with the height amended to 19 feet. The motion died for a lack of a second. 31. Following discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner to continue the matter to November 12, 1991, in order to have all members of the Commission present. Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson. ABSTAINING: None. The Commission took a five minute recess. B. Building Moving Permit 91-001; a request of D & M Morgan for permission to move a 1, 200 square foot building located at 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place to 54-038 Avenida Bermudas. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis asked that the matter be continued as the Applicant had not paid the fees (which were just established by the City Council)' required to process the permit. C;i�I$n ►, PCMINOCT22 4 RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE CASE NO. PUP 91-008 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of November continued from the 22nd day of October, and the 12th day November, 1991, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church to expand an existing church complex generally located at 53-800 Calle Paloma, more particularly described as: LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #51 MAP BOOK 21/61-62 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 3rd day of December, 1991, schedule a Public Hearing on Public Use Permit 91- 008; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 21st day of January, 1992, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the above request; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find that the following findings to justify denial of said Public Use Permit: 1. The expansion of the Church and Church School activities would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood particularly since the site in question is surrounded by residential lots on all four sides. 2. The expansion of the Church will result in additional traffic and noise incompatible with a residential neighborhood. 3. There are alternative sites on which the Church could locate. 4. The expansion of the Church in this residential neighborhood would diminish the property values of the surrounding area. 5. The activities of the expanded Church and School would be inhibited by the fact that they are located in a residential neighborhood. 6. This denial for Church expansion would not impose an excessive burden on the Church since the existing Church and School can still continue to operate. RESOCC.041 1 050 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby support the action of the Planning Commission and denies the subject Public Use Permit 91-008 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 21st day January, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California JOHN PE A, Mayor City of La Quinta, California CO3Z'b8 RESOCC.041 2 09i RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE CASE NO. PUP 91-008 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of November continued from the 22nd day of October, and the 12th day November, 1991, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church to expand an existing church complex generally located at 53-800 Calle Paloma, more particularly described as: LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #52 MAP BOOK 21/61-62 WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" ( County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study, that the Church complex will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Public Use Permit 91-008, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 3rd day of December, 1991, schedule a Public Hearing on Public Use Permit 91- 008; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 21st day of January, 1992, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the above request; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find that the following findings to justify approval of said Public Use Permit: 1. That Public Use Permit 91-008 as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, SR Zoning District development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is fairly level and the proposed circulation designrand building layout, as conditioned, are therefore, suitable for developmiii� v 4. b J RESOCC.042 1rN 94 0 3. That the proposed buildings as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and therefore, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the site layout of Public Use Permit 91-008 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 5. That the proposed Public Use Permit 91-008, as conditioned, provides storm water retention and noise mitigation. 6. That the development of Public Use Permit 91-008, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 7. That general impacts from the proposed church were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment 91-189 relative to the environment concerns of this Public Use Permit. 3. That it does hereby approve Public Use Permit 91-008 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 21st day January, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN PE A, Mayor City of La Quinta, California C0U.`i Q RESOCC.042 2 0 9 0 ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM DAWN HONEYWELL. City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Eiji"^ 1 KZ RESOCC.042 09,! CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 92- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 JANUARY 21, 1992 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development of the site shall comply with approved Exhibits as contained in the Planning Department's file for Public use Permit No. 91-008 and the following conditions which shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with these exhibits. 2. Public Use Permit 91-008 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division and Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years after final approval. Otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of permanent buildings (not including grading) authorized by this permit, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion. Prior to expiration of the permit, the Applicant may apply to the Planning & Development Department for an extension of time in which to use the permit, with the total time of approval not to exceed a period of three (3) years. 4. Construction of the future buildings and facilities authorized under this permit shall begin within five years after the final approval by the La Quinta City Council, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion; otherwise, approval of those unconstructed or uncompleted portions of the development authorized under Public Use Permit 91-008 shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. Chimes or church bells are not permitted on this site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshall o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o California Department of Education Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. GG " �. n 72 uul. CONAPRVL. 038 1 O f1 J Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 January 21, 1992 7. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 8. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any signs. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigating measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 10. The Applicant shall submit a parcel merger application to the Planning and Development Department prior to building permit issuance. 11. Any further expansion of the existing school will require the submittal of an application to amend PUP 91-008. The existing school has a maximum of 25 children. 12. The existing building shall be upgraded in the following ways: A . All air conditioning units shall be shielded with materials architecturally compatible with the building. B . Pop -outs shall be added around windows to match new church windows. C. Corner treatments shall be added to match new church building. D. Both buildings shall be painted the same color. BUILDING DESIGN 13. The proposed building complex shall comply with all the SR Zoning requirements, including 17 feet height restriction and setback restr}�tjonp.,..., , CONAPRVL.038 2 096 Conditions PUP 91-008 January 21, of Approval 1992 14. PUP 91-008 shall comply with the La Quinta Parking Ordinance including the requirement for masonry walls on the rear and side of the project. WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING 15. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire parcel, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: A. The use of irrigation during any construction activity. B . Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site. C. Provisions of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 16. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Plot Plan 1525 as approved by the Riverside County on June 20, 1972. 17. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval final plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, location, and irrigation system for all retention basin, landscape buffer, and entry areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting material shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Lawn use shall be minimized and not used adjacent to curb. No spray heads shall be used adjacent to curb. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required wall and sidewalk. C. D. E. CONAPRVL.038 Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light glare impacts to surrounding properties. Location and design of walled enclosure for trash and recycling bins. Parking area layout in accordance with the Parking Ordinance. 3 600". 091 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 January 21, 1992 18. The approved landscaping and improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and viable condition for the life of the project. 19. The Applicant shall comply with the La Quints Outdoor Light Control Ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 20. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the City Fire Marshal as stated in the memo dated August 29, 1991, including the following: A. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. B. The required fire flow shall be available from Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 1 / 2" x 2 1 / 2") located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. C. Install portable fire sprinklers per NFPA 13, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. D. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. E. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. F . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained a fire lanes. G. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. 21. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. 22. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of State Code & file a private school affidavit with the Riverside County Office of Education. The applicant shall provide proof of Health Department & Fire Department Inspection of the existing school (required by the affidavit) to the City of La Quinta prior to Building Permit issuance. CONAPRVL.038 4 0 9 (51 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 January 21, 1992 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall provide approved construction plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for the on -site grading and improvements required herein. 24. Prior to issuance of grading permit applicant shall post an approved form of security in guarantee of grading and environmental control. 25. Applicant shall fully landscape and maintain all street right of way contiguous to the site. 26. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscape lots shall conform with the requirements of the Planning Director and the City Engineer and shall be approved prior to construction. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas such as setback lots and retention basins. 27. An engineering, geological, and soils engineering report shall be submitted for review along with the grading plan. Recommendations in the report shall be incorporated into the grading plan. The adequacy of the grading plan shall be certified by the soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist. 28. Applicant shall submit a copy of the grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 29. The site shall be designed and graded so the difference in building pad elevations with those of adjoining lots in the adjacent tract does not exceed three feet. If compliance with the pad elevation differential requirements is not feasible, city will consider alternatives. 30. The parking lot and drives shall be improved in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code. 31. Applicant shall provide a California registered civil engineer to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the grading and improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, and applicable codes and ordinances. The engineer shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: A. That grading improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. B . That the finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. T,, GUQ CONAPRVL.038 5 Q' Ov. Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 January 21, 1992 32. Applicant shall pay all plan check and construction permit fees. The fee amounts shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken. 33. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, and are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 34. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 35. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the LQMC . 36. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Calle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. 37. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. 38. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. CONAPRVL.038 6 1 CO 0 > 4 5� cFb of COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1992 ITEM TITLE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25154 (EXTENSION #1) A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL OF THE MAP FOR ONE YEAR. THE ORIGINAL MAP PERMITTED 98 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 27 ACRES IN AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF DATE PALM AND SAGEBRUSH AVENUE. APPLICANT: VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: The Tentative Map was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1989, and approved by the City Council on December 5, 1989. The tentative map was allowed for two years. The Applicant has applied to extend the map for a one year period. On January 14, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the map be extended for a one year period based on minor amendments to the original conditions. A copy of their recommendation is attached. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED BY: Move to adopt City Council Resolution 92- , confirming the Environment Assessment and approving Tentative Tract Map 25154, First Extension of Time. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council: `•1n."' i ' �.� , {.<<-tip.. � "1 RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER 00-1 COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY 1. Move to adopt City Council Resolution 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 25154 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 98 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A +27.45 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 25154 - VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. S UPPOR TING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED cou 002 TO: FROM: DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT OWNER: PROJECT ENGINEER: T 0 At 4 4vQuwA; MEMORANDUM HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 4, 1992 TENTATIVE TRACT 25154, EXTENSION #1 VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT; MR. TOM THORNBURGH LA QUINTA 98 ADVANCED ENGINEERING GROUP; MR. JOE SONEJI PROPOSAL: FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25154; DIVISION OF +27 ACRES (PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 25187) INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE HOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAGEBRUSH AVENUE AND DATE PALM DRIVE INTERSECTION (1,320 FEET EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC) EXISTING R-1 (ONE -FAMILY DWELLING; 7,200 SQUARE FOOT ZONING: MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ENVIRONMENTAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED FOR THE CONSIDERATIONS: ORIGINAL APPROVAL, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED. PAST THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM R-1-12,000 TO ACTIONS: R-1 IN 1989 (MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 71200 SQUARE FEET). PARCEL MAP 25187 WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE NOVEMBER 14, 1989 MEETING. THE MAP DIVIDES THE +30.75 ACRE SITE INTO TWO PARCELS. PARCEL 90. 1 CONTAINS +27.45 ACRES AND MAKES UP TENTATIVE TRACT 25154, WHILE PARCEL NO. 2 CONTAINS +3.3 ACRES, AND WILL BE USED AS A GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT IN THE FUTURE. MF.M(X;T_ ni 1 Ir.q -1- 000421310 OOs TENTATIVE TRACT 25154 IS A SUBDIVISION OF 27.45 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS SERVICED BY A PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. AT THE WEST END A STREET STUB AT LOT "D" FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED AT THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PARC LA QUINTA, WHICH HAS A PRIVATE STREET SYSTEM. SURROUNDING NORTH & EAST: ZONED R-2; EXISTING GOLF ZONING & USES: COURSES, PYRAMIDS PROJECT SOUTH: ZONED R-2 12,000 & W-1; VACANT TRIANGULAR PARCEL AND THE EXISTING LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL WEST: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPROVAL: The initial tentative tract the Planning Commission on the City Council on December the meetings are attached. EXTENSION REQUEST: ZONED R-1; PARC LA QUINTA SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION map was recommended for approval by November 14, 1989 and approved by 5, 1989. The minutes from both of The Applicant requested an extension of time* and paid the required filing fees on his map on October 30, 1991. PUBLIC NOTICE• The time extension request was published in the newspaper on December 28, 1991, for the Planning Commission meeting and on January 18, 1992 for this meeting. Notices were also mailed to the abutting property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, staff noticed all property owners on the south side of Sagebrush Drive from Date Palm to Washington Street. ON -SITE WORK CONSTRUCTION: The site has been graded but no other on -site work has been done. The applicant paid his Fringe -Toed Lizard fees on June 18, 1990, and a preliminary acoustic study was submitted to Staff by Endo Engineering. The acoustic study has been finaled. 004 nrtr.+urnnm n� � /nc� � FINAL MAP PROCESSING: The Engineering Department has indicated that the applicant has gone through plan check for their final map approval. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW & ACTION: (January 14, 1992) The City sent out the time extension request to all local public agencies on November 15, 1991, to determine if the original Conditions of approval were still adequate two years after their original adoption. We have reviewed the returned responses, and did not find any requests to modify previously approved conditions. One matter that has surfaced is the City's need to condition the project to contribute to the future traffic signal at Sagebrush and Washington Street. The original conditions did not require this tract to contribute even though its primary access is at Washington Street and Sagebrush Avenue. The Parc La Quinta project (TR 21555), to the west of this project, was required to contribute $25,000 toward the construction of this future signal. Therefore, it is only fair that this tract contribute to this signal. The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council require the project contribute their fair share to the cost of construction of this public facility (see Condition #31). The Planning Commission deleted the condition which required the developer to pay the Fringed -Toed Lizard Mitigation fee because the fees have been paid. However, the Planning Commission did not changed the condition requiring the archaeological study because we could not find any record that the site was evaluated during rough grading. If a study and on -site monitoring were done, this information should be submitted to Staff for review and filing. The Planning Commission retained the condition requiring an acoustical study, even though a study was done, because if the on -site grading plan changes in the future an updated study would be required. In conclusion, no major events have occurred in this area to necessitate cancelling the past tract map approval and not allowing an extension of time as requested by the Applicant. FINDINGS: Findings for justification of a recommendation for approval of the First One Year Extension of Time for this Tentative Tract Map can be made and are found in the attached City Council Resolution. ��v�8,) 00:1 RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt City Council Resolution 92-_, recommending approval of a one year time extension of Tentative Tract 25154, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 1992 3. Letter from Ms. Terri L. Nichols 4. Original Planning Commission/City Council Minutes 5. Draft City Council Resolution 6. Conditions of Approval 7. Tract Exhibit a n.•n d,218 006 c 4 ol LA GUENTA >LF ESTATE: FOOUENA 6t� 40 Cf AG6NA , 'LA PAZ i AVE ul I'AIO THEVILLAOE� AVE{unR4GA J LA GUINTA ARrS AT LA Q wrA FOUNDATION &hCIEAMBER OF GARDEM vE N SANDS ►L CjNIAND RAlN50R LAAKOUENrA 1 VIA ORVIETO a/lC DElI;oco1 VIA RAVENNA 3 VIA KORON �f 5 VIA tURICN .y 6 VIA GRAZIANNA PTLEOR 9GWi 3ESO CLUB B A YJ —SETT IJ-, , O A{QNDA 11 NI u A « 7 i 7 7 \ , a wt CITY LL _ 1 ,.R "W"a. \ NEW AV 52 CASE MAP CASE Nm LOCATION MAP ■ 7EMSI"'• BAYA NORTH SCALE: NTS OO IT Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1992 ROLL CALL VOTE' AYES: Commiss' ers Mosher, Ladner, Ellson & Chairwoman Barrows. No ommissioner Marrs. ABSENT: No ABSTAINING: None. Comm' loner Mosher moved and missioner Ellson secondedJA mo ' to adopt Minute Motion 001 approving Plot Plan 9 66 sdbiect to the amended con ' ons as follows: #37.b. Be correc to read 55 foot curb r;vy/and and 45 foot right-o ay. #70. To b ddZm de truck deli trash pick u acilitito Planni Staff approval. 11 CC The moti carried mmiss' er Z Commis ner Ellson stlt Commiingtheir ast actions bng buildialongWa ngton Street to ond that the Pissionould be more restriceir conditionouncilshould make changey feel thented. Chairwoman Barrows stated her agreement. The Commission recessed for a ten minute break. C. Tentative Tract 25154, Extension #1: a request of Valley Land Development for approval of a First One Year Time Extension of Time to create 98 single family lots. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mosher asked Staff to explain how much of the street right-of-way was on private property and what procedures were available to acquire the land. Commissioner Ladner asked if the City was still in negotiations with the Bangeters for a land swap. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated the Bangeters were still working on an alternative location. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained to the Commission that Sagebrush currently has a private easement for the street and the City would like to have a public ownership. There being no further questions of Staff Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Tom Thornburgh, applicant, stated the project was three to four weeks from recording and would be starting construction in 30-40 days. L 0 n ;� V � IN PCMINI-14 4 000 Planning commission Minutes January 14, 1992 6. Commissioner Ladner asked Mr. Thornburgh if he would be selling homes or lots. Mr. Thornburgh stated lots only. 7. Mr. Gary Avise, Pare La Quinta Homeowner's Association, spoke concerning the problem of blowsand. The Association would like to see the condition regarding controlling the sand enforced. He further stated they were working with the Applicant regarding the emergency access through Pare La Quinta. 8. Ms. Rosie Zamarripa, Sagebrush resident, stated her concern regarding Sagebrush being the only access for the project. Discussion followed regarding access on Date Palm Drive and the City Council's past action on Tentative Tract 26148. It was noted that the Date Palm Drive connection to 50th Avenue was deleted - because the neighbors in the area were opposed. v Commissioner Ladner asked if the Applicant would be required to IL participate in the cost of the signal at Sagebrush and Washington Street. Staff stated it was included in the Conditions of Approval. 10. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 11. Discussion followed relative to how Tract 26148 to the south, could be conditioned to require Date Palm to be continued to 50th Avenue. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 92-002 approving a First One Year Time Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 25154. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Elison, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 1. Gary Avise, Pare La Quinta Homeowner's Association, addressed the Co ission regarding the problem of satellite dishes in their tract. 2. Ms. Aud Ostrowsky, Cove resident, addressed the Commission regarding guest house roblems in the Cove. PCMINI-14 5 00 1) La Quinta City Hall 78099 Calle Estado La Quinta , Ca. 92253 Re: Tentative Tract Map 25154 To Whom it May Concern: � D JAN 2 4 1992 CITY OF !A GUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT I would hope that you would only allow single story homes. Otherwise, you will decrease the value of my property because you will obstruct my mountain view and destroy my privacy. Sincerely, 4TrriL. Nichols 11 010 RZANA104- //-/V- 89 B. Tentative Tract 25125; a request by trother terprises to subdivide +32 acres into 117 s le -family lots; located southwe of the int ection of Dune Palms Road westward Ho Drive. 1. PI ing Director Jerry He n presented the info ation contained i he Staff Report, a copy o which is on file n the Planning and Develop t Departmen Mr. Herman noted to the Commi ion that C dition No. 11 should be revis to re d, "...landscape buffer o areas...," r her an, "...hardscape buffer kn �A areas." 2. Chairman Wal n opened the Public Hearing. Chuck Stroth t Applicant, addressed the Commission to ve an overview of the project. There be g no further comment, t Chairma walling osed the Hearing and opene the matter for ission discussion. 7 3. Th Commission discusse the matter as p sented. A motion was a by Commissioner V oran and seconded by Comm sioner Bund to (�J adopt Planning Commission R lution 89-065, recommending to the City Counc concurrence with the environmental analysis nd approval of Tentative Tract 251250, ject to Conditions, including the change to ondition No. 11 as indicated by Staff. Following roll call vote, the moti unanimously adopted. C. Tentative Tract 25154, Parcel Map 25187, and Change of Zone 89-049; requests by Valley Land Development for a parcel map division of 30.75 acres into two lots, one 3.3 acres and one 27.45 acres; a zone change on 30.75 acres from R-1-12,000 to R-1; and a division of 27.45 acres into 98 single-family lots for future development of homesites; located at the northeast corner of the Sagebrush Drive and Date Palm Drive intersection, +1320 feet east of Washington Street. U 11, 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Sawa noted for the Commission the revision of four Condition 30: If any tract development is proposed, the Applicant shall submit complete architectural elevations for all units for Planning Commission review and approval as a Business Item. The architectural standards shall generally meet the standards of the SR zoning district for building and site design standards, with the exception of height restrictions which shall 'be as set forth in the R-1 zone, except where these Conditions shall take precedence. The architectural standards shall be included in the CC&Rs if any tract development occurs. Condition 31: The Applicant shall submit a unit siting plan at the time of submittals for architectural review of any tract development. Siting plan shall indicate two-story locations, if any, and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission along with the proposed unit types. If any lots are sold on an individual basis, the r Applicant understands that approvals of any two-story units on any lot are not guaranteed and will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis by the Planning and Development Department. If tract development occurs, CC&Rs are required to be submitted to the City for review prior to final map recordation. The above restriction shall be noted in the CC&Rs, if required. Condition 34: Landscaping of all units, including the model complex in Tentative Tract 251541 shall be in substantial compliance with the SR zoning district requirements as established in the Manual on Landscape Standards for Single -Family Residences, Condition 35: The Developer shall be required to participate in the installation of a suitable buffer along the eastern tract boundary of Tentative Tract 25154, between the residential lots and the future maintenance facility for the Pyramids project. Mutual participation by th� Developer of this tract and the Developer o 12 the Pyramids shall be required to provide an acceptable situation for both parties. The design components of any buffer area may include, but are not limited to, walls, bermina. landscavina. grade variatinn_ cdW9 backs, etc. Design of the buffer area shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. The improvements of the buffer shall be installed with the development of either property. Any reimbursement arrangement will be solely the responsibility of the Developers involved. Commissioners Moran and Steding asked various questions of Staff for clarification of several items in the Staff Report. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Tom Thornburgh, representing the Applicant, addressed the Commission to explain the project. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Following discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commission Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-066, recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 89-049 per Exhibit A; to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-067, approving Parcel Map 25187 subject to Conditions; and to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-068, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 25154 subject to Conditions as revised by Staff. Following roll call vote, the motion was = unanimously adopted. Q c PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission. Q V. \ CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and sec ded by Commissioner Moran to approve the minut s of the November 14, 1989, Planning Commis on meeting. Unanimous. ,,r, SEE. City Council Minutes r) Page 2 �cember 5, 1989 PUBLIC SAF Member: Mayo Pena Alternate: Rog r Hirdler EARTHQUAKE & DISASTER PRE AREDNESS SUB -COMMITTEE Member: Counci an Bohnenberger Alternate: oger Hirdler TRAN ORTATION Member: Cou ilman Bohnenberger Alternate: uncilwoman Bosworth FRINGE TOED LIZAWPRESERVE TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE Member: ouncilwoman Bosworth A ternate: Planner MOTION - It /wappointm y Councilmembers Bosworth/Rushworth that the CVAG Committeeis as hereinabove delineated be approved. Motion carriedly. MINUTE ORDER NO. 89-136. ABLEVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Council concuaving staff contact Palmer CableVision as to the status of ttee prior to taking action, in light of the fact that theup for sale. MOTION -It/was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Bosworth that the appoinKees to the Library Advisory Board and C. V. Mosquito Abatemen.y District remain as is. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER - PUB C HEARINGS 1. UBLIC HEARING ON CHANGE OF ZONE 89-049 FROM R-1-12,000 TO R-1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 25154 TO SUBDIVIDE 27.45 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SAGEBRUSH DRIVE AND DATE PALM DRIVE INTERSECTION. APPLICANT: VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Herman advised that the proposal is to create 98 single family lots on 27.45 acres located at the terminus of the northeast corner of Sagebrush and Date Palm Drive and to rezone the property from R-1-12,000 to R-1. The tract proposes a public street system. The Planning Commission has reviewed the tract map and change of zone and recommends approval with conditions and adoption of a negative declaration. In answer to questions by Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that the heights will be similar to those in Parc La Quinta. 014 TOM THORNBURG, P.O. Box 750, La Quinta, Applicant, advised that they plan to develop the lots and sell to builders. Most of the lots have 80' frontages and will probably sell for between $40,000 and $50,000. r nt,„i) 2. City Council Minutes 'IN Page 3 -+. ,cember 5, 1989 The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak, the hearing was CLOSED. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that Ordinancreade be. 9waived. Motione taken up ycarriedous and unanimonly and that unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 159 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA AMENDING LA QUINTA, THE OFFICIAL ZONING REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CHANGGEOFFZONE OR HE89-049 BY NORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that Ordinance No. 159 be introduced on first reading. following vote: Motion carried by the AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 89-133 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 25154 TO ALLOW THE CREATION ,� OF A 98-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 27.45 ACRE SITE CREATION N0. TT 25154 - NORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. - CASE It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Sniff that Resolution No. 89-133 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. I LIC117ARSINGLE FAMILYON �LOTSCTIN51T2H5E R_1SUZONEIDE SOU CRES INTERSECTION OF DUNE PALMS ROAD & WESTW L IV THE APPLICA STROTHER ENTERPRISES. 0 DRIVE - Mr. Herman ad that family lots on 32 a Palms Road and Westwa o zoned R-1 and designated Li Plan. He noted that t District is 1 the pro os '`""� P , 4 is to create 117 single ted soutwc t of th tract will having or developme stormwater re Public street on basins, as all stormwater nel. e corner of Dune The property is currently Residential in the General he sites Desert Sands School a high school. The Sys There will be no drainage flow to the The nning Commission has reviewed the tract map amend a oval with conditions. 01j n n ,'A -) RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25154 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 98 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A +27.45 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 25154 - FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME (VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of January, 1992, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Valley Land Development Company to extend approval of Tentative Tract 25154 which permits the subdivision of +27.45 acres into 98 single-family development lots for sale, generally located at the northeast corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Date Palm Drive. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 4th day of February, 1992, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Valley Land Development Company to extend approval of Tentative Tract 25154 which permits the subdivision of +27.45 acres into 98 single-family development lots for sale, generally located at the northeast corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Date Palm Drive, more particularly described as: A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.B.M. IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of November, 1989, did consider recommendation to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 25154; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th day of December, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission and did approve Tentative Tract 25154; and, WHEREAS, said tentative requirements of "The Rules to Environmental Quality Act of 1970" City Council Resolution 83-68 in conducted an initial study, and proposed tentative tract will not impact on the environment; and, map has complied with the Implement the California as amended and adopted by that the Planning Director has determined that the have a significant adverse liov:],9,} WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Council did find the following facts to justify approval of said tentative tract map time extension: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 25154, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, circulation requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 may cause some environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation in the form of fees for a new habitat area will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. 3. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 5. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 25154, as conditioned, provides for mitigation of incremental impacts on park facilities, circulation system, noise and aesthetic factors. 6. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the City Council has considered the effect of the First Year Extension of Time contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby reconfirm the original conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89-144 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby approve extension of Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 for one year subject to amended Conditions of Approval as noted herein in the attached Conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 4th day of February, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 018 C9;.;2"95 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 92- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 25154, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FEBRUARY 41 1992 + Added by the Planning Commission on January 14, 1992 ++ Modified by the Planning Commission on January 14, 1992 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map 25154 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on December 51 1992, unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. The Applicant acknowledges that the City-wide Landscape and Lighting recording a subdivision map, agrees District and to offer for dedication may be required for the maintenance related facilities. Any assessments benefit basis, as required by law. City is considering a District and, by to be included in the such easements as and operation of will be done on a 4. The Developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map, without the approval of the City Engineer. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o U.S. Postal Service Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development ., 01.) Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of Tentative Tract No. 25154 and Environmental Assessment No. 89-144, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the respective permit(s). The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT{S 7. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction and to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to final map approval. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. 8. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 9. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities; b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. OW 0 2 G 10. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 11. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. The design facilities shall be capable of handling a 100-year storm. Applicant shall provide drainage easements as required across lots abutting the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 12. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. These plans shall include the landscape and irrigation plans for all areas required to be landscaped. 13. Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 14. The Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways. Developer shall install suitable facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way from the subject tract. 15. Prior to any issuance of land disturbance permits, the Applicant shall contract with the University of California Riverside Archaeological Research Unit to perform a re-evaluation of the project site. The results of this evaluation shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review, along with the proposed method of testing for any potentially significant sites identified in the evaluation. If potentially significant sites are identified, the Applicant shall submit an archaeological mitigation plan to indicate the status of any existing archaeological/cultural resources of any potential significance. Said plan shall identify any existing 021 reports done by the University of California, Riverside, Archaeological Research Unit, and shall include methods by which any significant or potentially significant sites will be inventoried and/or excavated. A mitigation and monitoring program shall be required to be submitted, specifying a qualified archaeological monitor, including any assistants and other representatives. The statement shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. CONDITIONS RECORDATION I BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 16. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public Works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three-inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). 17. The Applicant shall acquire and dedicate a 30-foot ++ right-of-way easement over the property to the south of the subject site (portion of Sagebrush Avenue), for street construction purposes unless an alternative arrangement is approved by the Public Works Department . 18. Cul-de-sacs shall provide a minimum turning diameter right-of-way of 90 feet. Present design will require additional right-of-way dedication as sidewalks are required. 02 421 19. The Applicant shall construct or bond for street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows: a. The interior public street system shall be designed pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (Tract Map) for Tentative Tract 25154, and the requirements of the City Engineer. All streets shall maintain a 2% cross slope from centerline to edge of pavement. Any variations to the approved street system design sections shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 20. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be required. 21. Tract. phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning and Development Department prior to Final Map approval. 22. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the CVWD. Any necessary parcels for District facility expansion shall be shown on the Final Map and conveyed to the CVWD, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. 23. The Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Fire Marshal prior to Final Map approval. 24. Applicant shall pay in -lieu parkland fees, based upon .86 acres as determined by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Determination of payment amount shall be determined as set forth in Chapter 13.24, Article II of the La Quinta Municipal Code and shall be payable prior to Final Map recordation. 25. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter internal streets, and surrounding land uses, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.). 023 26. The Tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a Final Map shall be 7,200 square feet. 27. All residential lots within the approved boundaries of Tentative Tract No. 25154 shall only be conveyed to new ownership with the following declaration: "This property may be subject to limited or restricted viewshed(s) due to surrounding previously approved developments to the north and west of this tract (Tract 24545, the Pyramids Development and Tract 21555, Parc La Quinta respectively). Northerly views will be limited by approved landscaping and fencing which may be approximately 8 to 12-feet above finished grade of this property. Westerly views may be impacted due to development of two story homes on certain lots within the Parc La Quinta project. The prospective buyer is urged to investigate the full range of any potential view impacts prior to committing to any agreement(s)." 28. If any phased tract development (i.e., multiple -lot construction) is proposed, the Applicant shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units, for Planning Commission review and approval as a Business Item. The Architectural Standards shall generally meet the requirements of the SR Zoning District for Building and Site Design Standards, with the exception of height restrictions which shall be as set forth in the R-1 Zone, except where these conditions shall take precedence. The Architectural Standards shall be included in CC & R's if any phased tract development occurs." 29. Applicant shall submit a unit siting plan at the time of submittals for architectural review of any phased tract development. Siting plan shall indicate two-story locations, if any, and shall be reviewed at the Planning Commission along with the proposed unit types. If lots are sold on an individual basis, (non -phased tract development) the Applicant understands that approvals of any two-story units on any lot are not guaranteed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis by the Planning and Development Department during building permit review. If phased tract development occurs, (see Condition #28) CC & R's are required to be submitted to the City for review prior to Final Map recordation; the above restriction shall be noted in the CC & R's, if required." 02 G CvU�31T 30. The westerly termination point of the street shown as Lot "D" on Exhibit "A" (Tentative Tract Map), shall be gated with controlled access devices that restrict ingress/egress to emergency vehicles. Permits for the installation of controlled access devices shall be obtained from the Building Division and Fire Department prior to installation. 31. Applicant shall reimburse the City for 25% of the cost to + design and install a new traffic signal at Washington Street and Sagebrush Avenue intersection. TRACT DESIGN 32. Prior to any landscape installations, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, location, and irrigation systems for all areas to be landscaped. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting material shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 33. Landscaping of all units (including model complex) in Tentative Tract 25154 shall be in substantial compliance with the SR Zoning District requirements as established in the Manual on Landscape Standard for single family residences. 34. Developer shall be required to participate in the installation of a suitable buffer along the eastern tract boundary of Tentative Tract 25154, between the residential lots and the future maintenance facility for the Pyramids project. Mutual participation by the Developer of this tract and the Developer of the Pyramids shall be required to provide an acceptable situation for both parties. Design components of the buffer area may include, but are not limited to walls, berming/landscaping, grade variations, setbacks, etc. Design of the buffer area shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning and Development Department. The improvement(s) of the buffer shall be installed at time of any development activity on either property; any reimbursement agreement(s) arrangement will be solely the responsibility of the Developers involved. 025 35. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities. b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. C. on -site advertising/construction signs. 36. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. L t} 1, IOV/Wlt: R� f 1 , lop' of !, �a GO 70 • • 71 7t , 7J T4 7a 7i. '7 �7I \ ♦ ' LOT O lw aw ow it 1 EA ' 53 $a 31 ' so 43 1411 11;'F� . ♦' M' \ \ AO�T`, L It: do of 00 AV' Ast 31 $0 41 4s 43 447,' `. \ ! A` .le; IN e+' rw w' is' ♦ i .� � �pApT ��i 3ar a I LOT - "` w ` ,— R I• -�-- GIB\ \; \ �\ ! 7\ `� ! S= 30 L _ , 24 Via Melodia -mer ency +• (Private) -�— ,. ♦ IN,,. \ �,- Ce\� •`.tee\ / fir' \ �� � -Z led'/ :.BF do u� OF Maracas CT. r _ ,\zl s �V O' t pA (Privq� k / S , �:. o� / b lK -1T-1— -- i 1 �1% it / 10,1 Xir 44 Via Sonata—..,. (Private) '-t - '- 87lei t� R7h Sagebrush Avenue / Y. c.4i r / R-I- /t DOO / 1. ALL STREETS SHOWN ARE PUBLIC STREETS. �I 2. LOTS ARE TO BE USED FOR RETENTION PURPOSES. porTtt eevtH �� I• TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 90 RESIDENTIAL i F LETTERED. aR�Yf Ji MINIMUM LOT SIZE' 8 000 SQ FT .S..CWM Oti✓F J I ' MAXIMUM LOT SIZE: 11,600 SQ.FT. AVERAGE LOT SIZE: 8,900 SQ.FT. / DENSITY: 3.6 D.U./A.C. 27, 0) T t i R1w I R1W ` 40' fr,i r- 1'-�:f- f •�• - / • it /l � 1� rf � t - - ' - •' j f.i�.•�� I I I � t•t•.a� • C CW lrrTrtW � C1MI 'f KA/POrJLW Ccu.:t TY.o/C•44 A. 40C SEC T/ ON M .LOT i4 B; 'C; D E .4 F' R1W 50' AI/N Rir. i r �,• i I � � i•KI/00� C%VII •C/rrtrtwrlicr•/{R /ppit W Cuot - - CASE Na TY.o/C.44 zDT CASE MAP TYPICAL STREET SYSTEM SEC TiO" ORTH SCALE: f 2g NTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ITEM TITLE: Weed Abatement/Lot Cleaning Assessments For Placement On 92/93 Property Tax Roll BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: The purpose of this hearing is to provide the Council the opportunity to hear and consider all public objections and protests if any, to the report filed with the Council containing a description of each real property parcel cleared or cleaned by the City of La Quinta. Notices of tonight's public hearing were sent to the property owners, advising them of the hearing date. No written communications have been received regarding this matter. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Following public comment and close of public hearing, it is respectfully recommended that the Council take the following action: 1. Adopt the proposed Resolution, approving and adopting the Resolution to place the cost of cleaning said lots on the 1992/93 property tax rolls. Submitted by: Approved for submission BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPT to City Council: TOM HARTUNG BUILDING & SAFETY DIRECTOR RON KIEDROWSKI CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ASSESSING LIEN AND PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION ON TAX ROLLS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE WHEREAS, Chapter 11.72 of the La Quinta Municipal Code provides for the declaration and determination of certain conditions of property to be a public nuisance and further provides for the abatement of said nuisance by certain procedures including abatement by the City and collection of the cost of said abatement on the tax rolls; and WHEREAS, in accordance with said abatement procedures, the Building and Safety Director of the City of La Quinta, as agent of the City Manager, has determined that a public nuisance exists on the following described premises, and has given the notice required by law, and the owner thereof has failed to appeal said determination and has failed to abate said nuisance as required in said notice; and WHEREAS, in accordance with said abatement procedure, the Building and Safety Director has, by contract, provided for the abatement of said public nuisance on said properties and has filed a report thereon with the City Council and the City Council has conducted a hearing on said report and the assessment of said costs against said properties. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta does hereby RESOLVE as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that the City has abated a public nuisance on each of the following described premises and has conducted a hearing on assessment of the costs of said abatement in the time and manner as required by law and further determines that there were no objections or protests to assessments of said costs by any interested party. 2. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and orders that the report of the Building and Safety Director relative to assessment of costs is hereby approved and the City Council hereby orders that the following costs are hereby assessed as liens against the following properties and the amount of said assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary property taxes: C0031J7 Resolution No. 92- Page 2 ASSESSOR'S COST TO 25% ADMIN. OWNER PARCEL # ABATE COST TOTAL Richard Grider 773-295-018 $150.00 $37.50 $37.50 $187.50 $187.50 David Evans 773-081-007 769-062-004 $150.00 $300.00 $37.50 $337.50 William Barnett & Marilyn Anderson Anabelle Bumgardner 769-062-012 $300.00 $37.50 $337.50 $337.50 Edward Goursky 769-062-011 $300.00 $37.50 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the tax collector is hereby of the requested County to of Riverside and said tax collector of each assessment herein at the time and collect the amount in the manner of ordinary property taxes. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1992. ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quintal California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, Attorney City of La Quinta, California JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quintal California n` G-T-j j J