CC Resolution 1985-025+7 RESOLUTION NO. 85-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING RESOLUTION NO.
85-8 INTERIM COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE TO BE
IMPOSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT) FOR 30 DAYS.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 1985, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 85-8, establishing an interim community infra-
structure fee to be imposed on new development, as an urgency
measure. The provisions of said resolution are incorporated
herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, by its terms Resolution No. 85-8 expires March 19,
1985, and it is the intent of the City Council to extend the
provisions of said resolution for an additional period of 30 days;
and
WHEREAS, a noticed hearing on said extension has been conducted
in accord with the provisions of state law;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta,
does hereby resolve as follows:
1. All provisions of Resolution No. 85-8, including the
establishment of an interim community infrastructure
fee, are hereby extended for a period of 30 days.
2. This Resolution is adopted as an extension of an urgency
measure as an interim fee to protect the public health,
welfare and safety. The reasons for this urgency action
are set forth in the Whereas" to this Resolution and
Resolution No. 85-8 coupled with the fact that:
a) The City's public facilities and services are at
capacity and are not available to adequately accommodate-
date the additional need for public facilities and
services resulting from proposed new development;
b) City cannot and will not make required findings that
public facilities and services are available to meet
the demands of future development without financial
developer assistance to pay for such services and
facilities; and
c) Developers with developments totaling many hundreds
of units are presently in a position to request and
obtain building permits and other development entitle-
ments and, unless this Resolution is adopted as an
urgency measure, such developments may escape payment
of their pro-rata fair share of the cost of said
needed public facilities and services.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this l9thday of March 1985.
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7RESOLUTION NO. 85-25
ATTEST:
CIT??CL?RK
APPROVED AS TO FOR APPROVED AS NTENT:
NAGER
CITY? ATTOR
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 APPENDIX V
PUBLIC BUildings?INGS AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
PLAN
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 LA
PUBLIC BUILDING?I?? FACILITY?? T
CF ThE PLAN
I. Intx??jon
The City of quinta is re?uired State law to adopt? implement?t a
comprehensive?ive 1long-term?-te?rn General Plan for the physical development?rel?t of the City,
c?rsistj of required elements any other?r el?&ts ii? r?1ate to
the ysica1 d?el??t of the City. In or?er to pr?ide for a ca?1ete
irpre???sive plan for the c?r?nt of the o??ty in aooord with state
9eneral plan regu??ts, it is de?r?? essential that provision be ri?de for
the ad?u? of lic bLliidii??s and facilities to serve istj and future
residents of the City, and aooo?ing1y, that this ge??ral plan el?r?t be adapted
and irrpl?ted fortytith.
Ii. P??se and
The City of La inta in?incorporated in 1982 arx?, Cr an interim basis, the City
t?3 the existing County G&?General Plan. The City is in the pr?process of
pr?arlng its i xrp1ete General Plan ich will ir?lude all el?ts.
Sin? its ir?orporation, the City has be?n ard cxritjii?es to c?erier? significant
1c?irent pressure? in the form of applications and pr?proposals for residential
and c??rr?commercial 1ai?? deve1?irent within the City. At the present tiit?, the City
has seri?s deficiencies in that its lic Rliidir?7S and facilities are
to serve its residents. inadequacies t are necessarily l?mite?
to, the following:
a. re are inadequate drainage? facilities in the City causes an
lrr!T?te and seri?is threat to i:public health and safety six?e the
City i? located in several flood zones ar? is therefore subject to
SerlOQS fl?ing of th a local and regional?al nature;
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7b. There ar? currently no public safety buildings in the City, with t?
exception? of the fire station?, hi? is inadequate?ua?
to serve the health?th safety n?s of its residents?nts.
C. me City currently has 1public a&administration? and o?community buildings,
s??h as city hall, c??community center, l public library or corporation? yard.
d. The City's isting park facilities are in?&?te to prD?1de for t?
City' S l ic park ar?? recreation? needs to a??te the City's
fast i1ati?.
e. The City' S existim? cir?circulation?? system?n is ir?te to serve p?nt
and futur? residents and it is essenti to w?'en City streets
ic:h have in??equate width, ilrpr??e t? circuiati?xi syst? to ac?rir?)date
an anticipated in?ase in traffic, and to IiTpr?e and deeel? bridges?
and traffic signals for suitable traffic flo..' and to nwurniz*'e licts
between vehicle, bi?bicycle and pedestrian irOv?rent.
f. Th? are ceieently public schools in the City and all student residents?ts
IrLiSt be bussed to schools located c?tside its boundaries"aries.
A tanti iccct will be created existing?g* pL?public facilities as su?
di'visi? and other deve1?xr??ts in the uidevelcped rti?s Of the
City and its ecteed piannin? are?. This continued deve1?r?t of t? City,
wit]? the s?i?t increa? in and in the use of lic facilities,
will irr?ose ir?reased r?uir?ents for sIxi facilities and ildings, ir?luding,
hit mot ljmited to, schools, parks, major streets and bridges?es, traffic signals,
drainage facilities, and public buildings&ings, sui as fire station?, police facility-
ties, library, multi?:?purpose?se I?community center, corporate maintenance facilities,
and administration? offices. The necessity for su? blic 1dln?s ar??
facilities flew or ex??) re?ts, bot dire?y and ir?dire?tly, fni-
develc?rr?nt within the City. Financing of can?? be ret fra? ordinar?
2-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7facilities. schools, drainage facilities. major thoroughfareshfare? and bridges and
traffic signalization. Additionally. the City may also wish to include a library
and other fa?ilities.
3. Specific Authority for Each Type of Proposed Exaction.
Although the basic authority of a city in imposing exactions on flew development
is contained in the constitutional municipal police power Art. XI. Sect. 7) there
are several specific legislative authorizations enabling legislation), nostly
contaix?ed in the Subdivision Map Act. which should be implemented to the extent such
authorizations are applicable to the community infrastructure needed for La Quinta.
To the specific authority is not provided for a particular infra?infrastructure
improvement, then the city would impose the exaction under the constitutional police
power.
a. Park Recreation Facilities.
A city may by ordinance under Gov. C. 66477 Subd. Map Act) require
the dedication of land or payment of fees for neighborhood and
community park or recreational purposes. Associated Home uilders V
City of Walnut Creek 1971) 4.Cal.3d 633. Ho?ever, before such a con-
dition can be validly attached to approval of a map, certain criteria
Rust be met.
I) The ordinance must be in effect for a period of 30 days before
filing of the tentative or parcel map.
2) The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the
proportion of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the
fee to be paid. The standards provisions were substantially amended
in 1982 to permit a 3 acres of park area per 1.000 persons formula
with certain exceptions.
3) The land or fees are to be used only for the purpose of developing
new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities to
serve the subdivision and the amount and location of land to be
dedicated or fees paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the
use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabi-
tants of the subdivision. In Associated Home Builders, Inc., the
court did not put a strict limitation on this criteria. It stated
the fees are justified if used for park and recreational facilities
generally available to subdivision residents. The facilities need
not be exclusively for them. See footnote S on p.640 of court decisior.).
3-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 The legislative body must have a recreation element in its
general plan and the park and recreational facilities are to
be ir accordance with the plan.
5) The city shall develop a schedule apecifying ho?. when and
where it will use the land or fees or both to develop par? or
recreational facilities. Any fees collected under the ordinance
shall be co?itted within five years after payment of the fees
or the issuance of building permits on one half of the lots created
by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are Dot
co?itted, they shall be distributed and paid to the then record
o??ners of the &subdivision in the same proportion that the 6ize of
their lot bears to the total area of all lots in the subdivision.
6) only payment of fees may be required for subdivisions containing
50 parcels or less.
7) Subdivision of less than five parcels that are Dot used for resi-
dential purposes shall be exempt unless a building permit for
residential structure(s) is requested for one of the parcels within
four years. Parkland dedication does not apply to commercial and
industrial?strial subdivisions or condominium projects or stock cooperatives
which consist of subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment
building more than five years old when no new dwelling units are
added.
8) Fees shall be payable at the time of the recording of the final
map or at a later time as may be prescribed by local ordinance.
b. School facilities Interim & Permanent).
Interim Facilities.
The 1977 Legislature enacted GQv. C. 65970 Ct seq., requiring dedication of
land and the payment of fees for interim school facilities. This law auth-
orizes a city, under an ordinance adopted at least 30 days before, to
require dedication of land, fees, or both for classroom and related facilities
for elementary or high schools as a condition of approval for a residential
developm?t, provided that all the following occur:
1) The general plan provides for the location of public schools.
2) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days before the
ir?plementation of the dedication or fee requirement.
3) The land, fees or both? transferred to a school district s?a1l be useA
only for the purpose of providing inter? elementary or high? school
classroom and related facilities.
4-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 The location and amount of land to be dedicated or the amount of
fees to be paid. or both. shall bear a reasonable relationship to
the needs of the community for interim elementary or high school
facilities and shall be reason?nably related and limited to the need
for schools caused by the development. The fees shall not exceed
the amount necessary to pay five annual lease payments for the
interim facilities. Instead of the fees, the builder of a residential-
development may. at his option and expense. provide interim
facilities. owned or controlled by the builder. at the place
designated by the school district. and at the conclusion of the
fifth school year the builder shall, at his own expense. re?ve the
ir?interim facilities.
5) A finding is made by the city council or board of supervisors that
the facilities to be constructed from fees, land, or both. are
consistent with the general plan.
This law further provides that if the school district has received
apportionment under the Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease-
Purchase Law of 1976 Chapter 22 fco?encing with 17700 of Part 10
of the Education Code). the city shall not be permitted to le?' any
fee or to require any dedication of land within the attendance area
of the district. Interim facilities are defined as being limited to
temporary classrooms. including their utilities, furnishings. and
toilet facilities not constructed with permanent foundations.
Per?anent Facilities.
The above specific Map Act authority is for interim facilities only.
The City has adopted Res. #84-14 imposing fee payment requirements
for permanent facilities for Desert Sands Unified School District in
the amount of $628.00 per dwelling unit. Although there is some
authority for imposition of exactions for permanent school facilities
see Builders Ass'n of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz Counties v. Superior
Court 1974) C 3d 225). a court of appeal has recently held that a
similar permanent fee exaction is invalid as being pre-empted by the
Coverntnent Code provisions for interim facilities Candid Enterprises
v. Cross?ont School District). The California Supreme Court has granted
a bearing and the opinion is now vacated. A ruling by the Supreme?e Court
caL be expected within a year.
Recot?endation: Adopt an interim facilities exaction under the aegis
of the map act and a permanent facilities exaction under the aegis of
5-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 the constitutional police power See e) infra). Provide that payment
of the peru?nent exaction? only is required, unless? the peri?nent
exaction is invalid, in which case the inter? facilities exaction
shall be applicable.
C. Drainage facilities.
Government Code 66483 Subd. Map Act) details the requirements for payment
of fees to defray actual or estimated costs of constructing planned drainage
facilities and planned sanitary sewer facilities for local or neighborhood
areas. The local ordinance requirement must meet certain criteria. The City
must have a general drainage plan and the fees shall be paid into a *`planned
local drainage facilities fund". The fees that are required must be fairly
apportioned within the areas either on the basis of benefits conferred or on
the need for the facilities created by the proposed subdivider.
In interpreting this section the Attorney General has stated that a city
must comply with its requirements when enacting a drainage fee ordinance
under its police powers regulating a division of land but if it desires to
use so?e other police power authority or taxation power it need not follo?
the requirements of 66483.
The City of La Quinta has adopted, as its subdivision ordinance, Ord. 1460
of Riverside County, which imposes an xaction for drainage fees pursuant to
Ccv. C. 66483. However, it is still necessary to adopt an area drainage
plan and fairly apportion fees pursuant to the plan, before the exaction
becomes effective.
d. Major Thoroughfares & Bridges.
Under Ccv. C. 66484 Subd. Map Act), a local ordinance may require the
payment cf a fee, as a condition of approval, for purposes of defraying
the actual or estimated costs of constructing bridges over waterways,
railways, free?ays, and canyons, or constructing major thoroughfares.
Unfortunately, section 66484 reads like an assessment district act an?
provides for an abandonment of the exaction requirement bY a majority
protest of the owners of land to be benefited by the i'nprovements with
no provisions for overruling such protests by a 4/5 majority vote of the
city council). It is my view that Ccv. C. 66484 would not be helpful for
our purposes. Thus, it is recommended that exactions for bridges and
major thoroughfares be made under the aegis of the constitutional police
power.
e. Fire Station, Public Safety Facility, City Ad?inistrative Offices and
Traffic Si?Signalization?atjon.
o specific legislative authorization enabling legislation) e),ists for
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7exacting cw development fees for a fire station. public safety facility,
city administrative offices or traffic signalization at major intersections
or library. if desired by the city). Also, as stated previously, no such
authorization exists for permanent school facilities, and the map act
authorization for major thoroughfares and bridges is ineffective and
Virtually useless for our purposes herein. Thus, all of the above mentioned
exactions must be enacted under the Constitutional police power.
The major legal concern in imposing such exactions is the limitation that
the condition imposed must bear B reasonable relationship to the public
needs created by the development, especially in light of the recent court
of appeal case which invalidated B city growth requirement capital fee' cm
lack of reasonable relationship grounds. B.l.A. V. City of Oxnard Sup. Ct.
hearing granted). If the city follows the steps outlined in the n?t
section 4). it should alleviate reasonable relationship concerns relative
to these exactions.
Another potential problem is the Jarvis Initiative Jarvis III) on the
November 84 ballot. Jarvis III, if approved, amends Art. XIII of the
Calif Constitution, enacted as rop. 13 in 1978. by including within the
I St
definition of a prohibited * tax any levy or charge however labeled or
structured except fees, assessments, and fines. At this time it is uncertain
whether jarvis III will be approved, and if so, how and in at manner it
will be interpreted. In any sense, I feel that most of the potential problems
can be avoided, by structuring the exaction method as follows.
1) amend the general plan circulation, recreation and public facilities
element) by making recitals relative to the cumulative impact of
development which will create a need for the new or improved public
facilities and providing a program'? bich will insure all such facility-
ties will be available Concurrent with new development;
2) adopt such a program by resolution providing that, before development
approval. the developer shall present evidence" that all necessary)'
services and facilities will be available concurrent with need;
3) the evidence will be in the form of an agreement between the city and
developer, whereby developer commits to payment of a public facilities
fee for the purpose of defraying the cost of constructing such
facilities, concurrent with need; and
4) if the developer refuses to sigN the standard agreement, th? pr?ject
should be denied as being inconsistent with the general plan require?ents.
7-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 Ste?s to insure a Reason8ble Relationship lexuS) 3?tveeri the Exaction and the
Growth impact Generating? the Exaction.
a. Establish Time Period and Grow th Rate.
A ti? period must be established e?. 10 year?); a?d a growth?h rate must
be establish?hed during that time period, which growth rate 15 such that
existing facilitieS eg. major thoroughfares. city hall, parks, etc.) will
require improvement if the existing/needed level Qf service is to be
maintained.
Information sources: rate of growth statistics; economic surveys;
proposed development statistics; specialty statistics froto various
depart?ents and agencies eg. traffic volume, fire safety. water and
sewer permits, etc.)
b. Establish a Reasonable and Definable Area of Impact.
There must be a rational relationship nexus) between the impact of the
new user resident or commercial) and the necessity to make the required
improvements because of that impact. A definable area of impact must be
established. In the case of certain improvements eg. city ball), the
entire city and proposed future boundary at end of 10 years) may be the
area of it?pact. Other more local improvements eg. major thoroughfares
and traffic signalization) may require the establishment of areas of
impact'? within the city; and the fees collected vitbin each area must be
specifically earmarked for expenditure within the area.
C. Establish Cost of Proposed Improvements.
The coSt of providing the required new improvement must be established.
including today's documented costs and anticipated future costs within
the 10 year period or, perhaps. an annual inflation factor).
d. Apportion Projected Improvement Costs Between Existing Users and New Users.
Theoretically. the new users may only be required to pay the Cost of
projected improvements to the extent that the?r presence necessitates
such new improvements. That is, the fee should not exceed the new user
pr?rata share of the anticipated cost of the new improvements.
5. Recommended Implementation Procedure.
a. Ar?erid general plan as follows: 1) add a recreation element?ent to provide
necessary park and recreation facilities; 2) amend:end the circulation element??nt
to provide necessary' major thoroughfares, bridges and traffic signalization
facilities; 3) add a public facilities element to provide other necessary
8-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 facilities fire station, public safety facility. city administrative?ve
offices. library and school&); 4) make recitals relative to the cumulative-
impact of development creating the need for new or improved facilities
and providing a program which will insure all facilities will be available
concurrent with new development; and 5) adopt a drainage plan and apportion
fees pursuant to the plan.
b. Prepare a reasonable relationship financial study which will insure a
rational connection nexus) between the impact of new development and the
ne?essity to install the re?uired facilities because of the cumulative impact.
This would include establishing the cost of such new facilities and fairly
apportioning such costs between existing and ne? users. See section 4.
This study should be prepared concurrently wjtb the general plan a?end?ents.
C. Adopt necessary ordinances and resolutions implementing and establishing the
ex?ction programs and thereby implementing the general plan.
9-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7
APPENDIX IV
DRAFT?T Resolution/Agreement? for&x
Infrastructure Fee Program P?
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 RESOLUTION 95- DPA FT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFO?IA, ESTABLISH A COMM?ITY
I?FRAST?infrastructure FEE POLICY TO BE IMPOSED ON NEW
DEVLOPMENT
WHERAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982 and,
on an interim? basis, the City has adopted the existing County
General Plan and the City is now in the process of preparing its
own complete General Plan, consisting of all required elerne?ts; and
WHE?S, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues
to experience significant development pressure in the form of applica-
tions and proposals for new residential and commercial land development
within the City; and
W?ERLAS, new development does not currently pay it's reasonable
share for infrastructure improvements while development is occurring
in La Quinta at a rapid rate adding further deterioration and impacts
on the City's existing infrastructure; and
WREREAS, there are inadequate drainage facilities in the City and
there is a need to develop a drainage system since La Quinta is locatea
in several flood zones and is therefore sub?ect to serious flooding of
both a local and regional nature; and
WHEREAS, there is a lack of public improvements and facilities,
including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is
responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the
present and future citizens of La Quinta; and
WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta currently has no permanent public
buildings, such as a City Hall and a Municipal Library, to conduct
government business and provide for quality service to the community
and there is a need to acquire land for and construct such public
buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is no specific funding source to acquire land
and develop city parks and recreation facilities, and maintain and
improve its existing park facilities and there is a need to provide
for the public's park and recreation needs to accommodate the City's
rowing population; and
WHEREAS, the City's existing circulation system is inadequate
to handle current and future traffic patterns and it is essential
to widen City streets which have inadequate width, improve the
circulation system to accommodate an anticipated increase in
traffic, and frprove and develop bridges and traffic signals for
suitable traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and
WUERAs, existing City revenues and fees ixrposed upon new devel-
opment, including the existing development fee collected for fire and
police facilities and equipment and traffic signalization pursuant to
Section 3.17.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, are inadequate to
provide needed infrastructure for future anticipated development; and
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7ISOLUTION O. 85-
WHEREAS, the City has recently adopted a Public Facilities and
Building Element of the General Plan, the goal and objective of which
is to provide a comprehensive public services and facilities and public
building program for the citizens of the City of La Quinta now and in
the future so as to ensure that all necessary public facilities will be
available concurrent with need in connection with the development of
the City pursuant to the balance of the General Plan. The provisions
of said Public Facilities and Building Element are incorporated in
this Resolution by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City,
with the consequent increase in population and in the use of public
facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities,
including but not limited to park and recreation facilities, major
thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety
facilities and other public buildings; directly frorn new developments
and the need cannot be met and financed frorn ordinary City revenues; and
WHEREAS, the most practicable and equitable method of paying
for such needed facilities is to impose a fee upon new development
within the City and the payment of such a fee will enable the City to
fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as they
are required and demanded; that if a development agrees to pay the
community infrastructure fee established by this policy, the Council
will be able to find that all necessary public facilities and services
will be available concurrent with need and, in the event such finding
cannot be made, the City Council will be required to disapprove the
development as being inconsistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and desirable to hereby establish
a policy regarding the requirements which must be met before the City
Council will find that the Public Building and Facilities Element has
been satisfied and to establish a policy that will allow development to
proceed in an orderly manner while insuring that the requirements of
the Public Building and Facilities Element will be satisfied by estab-
lishing a fee to fund the cost of the above stated City provided
facilities which will insure the availability of said facilities con-
current with need.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF QUI?TA DOES
REREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby
adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City
Council further finds that:
a. The report entitled
*, dated arch 1985, accurately
states the City?s need of and lack of ability to provide for
the described public buildings, facilities and services to
serve new development. Said report sets forth a necessary
and reasonable method of funding said buildings and facili-
ties. Said report is hereby approved.
b. In order to allow residential and commercial land
development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7RESOLUT1O? NO. 95-
that all new development is consistent with the General
Plan, including the Public Building and Facilities Element,
it is necessary and appropriate to establish the following
infrastructure fee to be imposed upon new developments. Said
fee will assist the City in funding a construction program
to provide such needed public buildin9s and facilities as
they are required and needed. If said infrastructure fee
is imposed upon and paid by new development in accord with
the provisions of this resolution, then and in that event,
the City is enabled to make a required finding that all
NEcessary public facilities and services will be available
concurrent with need. On the other hand, if said infra-
structure fee is not so imposed and paid, the City shall be
required to disapprove such development as not consistent
with the General Plan.
2. Community Infrastructure Fee Policy. Amount. Prior to
approval of any zoning, rezoning, subdivision, or develop-
ments proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a
Community Ihf infrastructure Fee in the following amount for
the following type development:
a. Residential
b. Mobile Home Park
C. Commercial
The percent of said Community Infrastructure Fee attributed
to each category of infrastructure is as follows:
The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building or other
similar permits and shall be based on the valuation at that
tji?e.
3. Use of Funds. Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected
pursuant to the community infrastructure fee policy shall be
paid into special capital outlay funds to be established by the
City. Said fund or funds shall be used only for the purpose of
acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public
property and public improvements and facilities described as
commonality infrastructure in this Resolution, as the City Council
may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures
of funds available from the special capital outlay fund(s) shall
be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the
City? annual operating an? capital improvements bud9et or at
such other time as the Council may direct.
4. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluded from the fees
imposed by policy, the following:
a) Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7RESOLUTION O. 85-
would be in violation of the constitution and laws of
the United States or the State of California.
b) The construction of any building by the City of La Quinta
the United States or any department or agency thereof or
by the State of California or any department, agency or
political subdivision thereof.
c) The City Council may grant an exception for a low cost
housing project here the City Council finds such project
consistent with the housing Element of the General Plan
and that such exception is necessary. In approving an
exception for low cost housing the City Council may
attach conditions, including limitations on rent or
income levels of tenants. If the City Council finds a
pro?project is not being operated as a low cost ho?sing
project in accordance with all applicable conditions, the
fee, which would otherwise be imposed by this chapter,
shall immediately become due and payable.
5. Credits. Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless
otherwise specifically provided herein, the community infra-
structure fee shall be in addition to and not in lieu of other
valid exactions imposed upon new developments through the sub-
division or other approval processes. Provided, however, that
payment of the infrastructure fee shall be in lieu of payment
of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signalization-
tion fund pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code, 3.17.020.
Provided further, that in the event developer directly provides
infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee
structure e.g. ma3or thoroughfare widening or fire station
construction), the cost of which exceeds the cost of the
exaction to the extent said exaction could legally have been
imposed on developer, developer shall receive a fair and
equitable credit not to exceed the amount of infrastructure fee
paid for the fee category of the developer improvement.
City hereby determines that the infrastructure fee is not
intended to be the exclusive xnethod of installation of needed
public buildings and facilities and the City wi?l consider
alternative proposals such as the Mello-Roos Community Facil-
ities Act of 1982), to provide needed infrastructure to partic-
ular development and, to the extent such alternative proposal
is discretionary approved by the City Council, developer
shall receive a fair and e?equitable credit against payment of
the infrastructure fee.
6. Validity Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to
be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the
validity of the re?ainaing portions of this Resolution. The
Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution
and each Section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or re sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7RSOLUT:ON NO. 85-
In determining the amount of infrastructure fee, the City
Council has been guided by the report entitled Infrastructure
fee Study", but has reduced the fee from the amount recommended
therein in order to reduce the overall cost of housing in the
City. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared
invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of
any other category. The Council further finds, declares and
determines that the infrastructure fee on all remaining valid
fee category shall be increased by the aiflounts of the fee
categories declared invalid. Provided, however, that the
amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so
increased over and above the amount recommended by said report
for each such category.
7. A&r?administration and Enforcement. Effective Date. Repealer.
The Community?unity Development Director shall be responsible for
the adininistration and enforcement of this policy. His
decision nay be appealed to the City Council whose decision
shall be final. The City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute necessary agreements for the administration of this
policy.
This Resolution shall become effective May 18, 1995, and
shall remain in effect for a period of ten 10) years
through May 17, 1995) at which time it is repealed Provided,
however, that such period of time shall be extended by any
period of time during which a residential development moratorium
is in existence within the City.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1995.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED As TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CITY ATTO?EY CITY MANAGER
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEVELOPER-OWNER DRAFT
AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR THE
PAYMENT OF A COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19
by and between
name of developer-owner)
a hereinafter referred to as
corporation, partnership, etc?)
Developer" whose address is
street)
and the CITY of
City, State and Zip Code)
LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, herein
after referred to as City".
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the real property described on
Exhibit attached hereto and made a part of this herein-
after referred to as Property?; and
W?EREAS, the Property lies within the boundaries of City or is
proposed to be annexed to City; and
WHEREAS, Developer proposes a development project as follows:
on said Property, which development carries the proposed name of
and is hereafter referred to as Development?; and
WHEREAS, Developer filed on the day of 19
with the City a request for
Hereinafter referred to as Request"; and
WHEREAS, City has adopted a Public Buildings and Facilities Element
of the City General Plan which requires that the City Council find that
all public facilities necessary to serve a development will be available
concurrent with need or such development shall not be approved; and
WHEREAS, Developer and City recognize the need and validity of
Council Resolution No. 85- dated March 19, 1985, on file with the
ity Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference, and that the
City?s public facilities and services are at capacity and will not be
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7available to accommodate the additional need for public facilities and
5services resulting from the proposed Development; and
WHEREAS. Developer has asked the City to find that public facilities
a?d services will be available to meet the future needs of the Development
as it is presently proposed; but the Developer is aware that the City
cannot and w?ll not be able to make any such finding without financial
assistance to pay for such services and facilities; and therefore,
Developer proposes to pay its pro-rata share of the cost of said facili-
ties by payment of the Community Infrastructure Fee as required by
Resolution o. 95-
NO?, TkiERE?ORE? in consideration of the recitals and the covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Developer shall pay to City a community infrastructure fee
for the purpose of funding the cost of increasing the level of
public facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate the
increased needs resulting from the cumulative impact of new
development. The amount of said fee and the terms and conditions
relative to payment thereof shall be as Set forth in said
Resolution No. 8?- Said fee shall be paid prior to issuance
of a building or other construction permit for the development
2. This agreement and the fee paid pursuant hereto are required
to ensure the consistency of the Development with the City?5
General Plan. If the fee is not paid as provided herein, the
City will not have the funds to provide the public facilities and
services, and the development will not be consistent with the
General Plan and any approval or permit for the Development shall
be void.
3. City agrees to deposit the fees paid pursuant to this agree-
inent into one or more public facilities capital outlay funds for
the financing of public facilities to be constructed when the city
Council determines the need exists to provide the facilities and
sufficient funds from the payment of this and similar community
infrastructure fees are available.
city agrees to provide upon request reasonable assurances
to enable Developer to comply with any requirements of other
public agencies as evidence of adequate public facilities and
services sufficient to accommodate the needs of the Development
herein described.
2-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 5. All obligations hereunder shall terminate in the event
the request ade by Developer are disapproved.
6. This agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of, and shall apply to, the respective successors and
assigns of Developer and the City, and references to Developer
or City herein 8h811 be deemed to be reference to and include
their respective successors and assigns without specific mention
of such successors and assigns. If Developer should cease to
have any interest in the Property, all obligations of Developer
hereunder shall terminate; provided, however, that any successor
of Developer?s interest in the property shall have first assumed
in writing the Developer?s obligations hereunder.
I? WIT?ESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed in Riverside
County, California, as of the date first written above.
D?ELOPER-OWNER CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal
corporation of the
State of California
name)
S
BY________________________________ BY______________________________
City Manager
Title)
BY_______________________________ Approved as to Form:
Title) City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3-
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 June 6, 1987
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box i?O4
La QuinTa, CA 92253
ATTN Administrative Services Director
Pleaso accept this resume as application for the posiTion
of Principal Planner Advance Planning) as advertised in
the June is?ue of Jobs Available.
In addition to my resume, leL me briefly outline my general
qualifications and strengths.
Seven years increasingly responsible. experience
in the professional planning field.
Three years experience in a supervisory capacity
as a department head.
ExTensive experience working with city council,
planning commission, and related municipal committees.
Emphasis in comprehensive planning administration
in small, expanding communities.
Adept at public participation coordination, oral and
written communications, and creative problem solving.
I believe that my extensive experience in municipal planning,
coupled with my recent responsibilities as city manager,
p?ovide me with a solid background for the Principal Planner
position. I am available for an interview should you desire
to speak with me further regarding the job.
Effective July 1, 1987, I can be contacted at the following
address: 286 Nancy Drive
Kokomo, IN 46901
317) 4572033
Pcspectfully submitted,
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7 Jeffrey Labahn
P.O. Box 726
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: 907) 8422630 Honie)
907) 8425211 Work)
Work Experience
June 1986 to City Manager
present City of Dillingham
Box 889
Dillingham, AK 99576
Responsibilities: Chief Administrative
Officer responsible for a full range of municipal services in
a major commercial fishing community and regional cent?r of
2,200 residentS. 5,000 seasonal population) Supervisor
of approximately 40 permanent 6rnployees with administrative
responsibilities in the following areas: police, fire,
planning, finance,streets, water, sewer, port, harbor, library,
museum, and scnior citizens center. Position involves
budget preparation, capital improvements programming, contract
administration and personnel management. Representative
projects include annexation, marine industrial park development,
and tourism promotion. The City of Dillingham has an
operating and capital budget of $8 million. Dillingham has a
reputation for a high quality of life and progressive govern-
ment in western Alaska.
August 1985 to Planning Director
May 1986 City of Dillingham
Box 889
Dillingham, AK 99576
Responsibilities: Planning Department?
Manager charged with the administration of land use, sub
division, permits and general city planning activities.
Liaison and primary staff to the Planning Commission and
City?y Council regarding all issues pertaining to the planning
and developmenT of bhe city. F'csponsible for the administration
of professional service agreements and contract management of
planning projects. Position involved extensive public contact
and coordination with staLe and federal agencies. Economic
development planning and park/recreation planning as also
administered by the Planning Director. Delegated the
auLho?ity to act in bhe capacity of City Manager in his absence.
Reference James Dunn, City Manager
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7February 1983 Lo Land Manager
July 1985 City of Kenai
P. 0? Box 580
Ko.?i, AK 99611
Lsponsibilitios: Land Management Department
Head responsible for the administraTion of approximately 2,000
acres of municipally owned lands involving over 100 existing lease
agreement. Liaison to the City Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council encompassing all aspects of land use planning research,
zoning ordinance preparation and written arid graphic presentaTion.
Chief planning, platting and zoning review and enforcement official
for the City of Kenai. Project administraTor for the Kenai
Comprehensive Plan and the Kenai Original Townsite Redevelopment
Plan Contracts.
Reference, William J. Brighton, City Manager
October 1979 to Senior planner
October 1982 Kenal Peninsula Borough
P. 0 Box 850
Soldotna, AK 99669
Responsibilities: Planning Division Chief
responsible for borough land use, planning and zoning activities
Staff to Borough Planning Commission requiring topical research,
report preparation and recommendations involving zoning petitions,
permit applications and comprehensive plans. Contract administrator
for city and borough planning studies funded through the Alaska
Coastal Management Program. Liaison to the port cities of I?omer and
Seward regarding planning, platting and zoning matters. Provided
technical land use planning assistance to the unincorporated
communities located within the Chugach National Forest Administered
the borough subdivision ordinance for more than a year. Position
involved extensive public contact and coordination with local, state
and federal agencies.
Reference, C. S. Sain' Best, Borough Adnimistrative Officer
January 1979 to Planner IT
July 1979 Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Responsibilities: Team Leader responsible
for coordinating the development of t)e Concept Plan, the basis of
a new comprehensive plan for the Fairb nks North Star Borough.
Specific duties included conducting neighborhood meetings, en
couraging citizen participation and revising the Concept Plan Text.
Conducted field research involving the Local Service Roads and
Trails Program and the Chena iver Development Study.
Reference, Richard Wilhelm, Deputy Planning Director
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02
+7EDUCATION
M. S. Community and egional Planning Candidate)
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas
B. S. Geography 1976)
Illinois State UniversiLy
Normal, Illinois
Foreign Cultural Studies
Salzburg College
Salzburg, Austria
CONTINUTNG EDUCATION
Effective Oral Communications
Jun@au, Alaska March 1987
Land Management
Anchorage, Alaska August 1984
Land Use Planning for Noise Control
Portland, Oregon July 1980
Grants Writing Seminar
Soldotna, Alaska April 1980
HONORS AND MEMBERSHIPS
Recipient of the American Institute of Planners Student
Award for Outstanding Achievement, 1977 1976 presented
to approximately twenty students nation wide who have
exhibited excellence in the field of planning at the graduate
level based upon scholarly performance and professional
potential
Alaska Municinal Manaaers Association
American Planning Association
Alaska Planning Association
Outstanding Young Men of America 1962 and 1986
BIB]
05-21-1996-U01
01:07:37PM-U01
CCRES-U02
85-U02
25-U02