Agenda packet, regular meeting — La Quinta City Council, August 6, 2024 (part 6 of 8)

P.O. Box 489, Yorba Linda, California 92885
Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597
62 until 2041 (when the redevelopment debt is fully retired). The FIA estimates property tax income for earlier years based on a formula supplied by City staff.

Summary Conclusions
Annually Recuring Impacts. At buildout, the proposed Project would generate City General Fund revenue of nearly $6.0 million per year. General Fund costs are projected at approximately $4.0 million per year. Thus, the Project would have a net positive impact of approximately $2.0 million per year on the City’s General Fund. Table 1 on the next page provides a detailed break-down of the projected revenues and costs by General Fund line item. The table also shows the fiscal impacts attributable to the portion of the Project north of Avenue 62 and the portion of the Project south of Avenue 62.

Based on the applicant’s current phasing plans for the project, the FIA assumes that the Project would be absorbed and occupied over a 7-year period, with Phase 1A absorbed in Years 1-2, Phase 1B absorbed in Years 3-4, Phase 2 absorbed in Year 5, and Phase 3 absorbed in Years 6-7. Appendix A provides year-by-year projections of the Project’s fiscal impacts during the 7-year absorption period (Table A-1a provides the projections for the North portion of the project; Table A-1b provides the projections for the South portion of the project; and Table A-1c provides combined projections for the overall Project area).
1021 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Memorandum to Hofmann Land Development Company
July 27, 2023

Page 3 ends

P.O. Box 489, Yorba Linda, California 92885
Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597
Table 1
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund at Buildout
Travertine Project, City of La Quinta
General Fund
North of
Avenue 62
South of
Avenue 62
Overall
Project
Revenues
Property Tax1 $787,715 $378,984 $1,166,698
Property Tax in lieu of VLF 203,117 97,723 300,840
Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax 25,733 13,125 38,858 State Sales Tax (on-site) 46,635 50,000 96,635
State Sales Tax (off-site) 187,727 95,750 283,478
Measure G Sales Tax (on-site) 46,635 50,000 96,635
Measure G Sales Tax (off-site) 187,727 95,750 283,478
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort 980,162 0 980,162 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs 1,410,908 751,718 2,162,625 STR Registration Fee 258,000 137,000 395,000
Utility Franchise Fees 99,273 39,928 139,201
Business Registration Fees 3,425 1,869 5,294
Licenses and Permits 261 104 365
Fines and Forfeitures 20,667 8,312 28,979
Total Revenues $4,257,985 $1,720,263 $5,978,248
Expenditures
Police Department $825,413 $331,983 $1,157,397
Fire Department 520,178 209,217 729,395
Code Compliance / Animal Control 76,106 30,610 106,716
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services 328,002 130,208 458,209 Public Works (except parks - included above) 206,213 82,939 289,152 Project-specific Infrastructure Maintenance 354,769 171,863 526,632 Design & Development 130,169 52,354 182,524
General Government 407,622 168,532 576,154
Total Expenditures $2,848,472 $1,177,707 $4,026,179
Net General Fund Fiscal Impact $1,409,513 $542,556 $1,952,069 Source: TNDG.
1022 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Memorandum to Hofmann Land Development Company
July 27, 2023

Page 4 ends

P.O. Box 489, Yorba Linda, California 92885
Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597
One-time Development Impact Fee Revenue. In addition to generating a recurring fiscal benefit to the City’s General Fund, the proposed Project would contribute towards the funding of future infrastructure and public facility improvements in La Quinta. Based on the City’s current fee schedule, the proposed Project would pay a total of approximately $11.6 million in City of La Quinta development impact fees.

Table 2 below shows the breakdown of this total by facility category. The detailed calculations are shown in Appendix A, Table A-2d.

Table 2
Projected Development Impact Fee (DIF) Contribution
Travertine Project, City of La Quinta
DIF Category Project Total
Park Improvements $2,476,344
Community/Cultural 1,124,054
Library 466,783
Civic Center 1,553,870
Maintenance Facilities 391,331
Fire 465,087
Transportation 5,122,481
Total $11,599,949
Source: TNDG
1023 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Memorandum to Hofmann Land Development Company
July 27, 2023

Page 5 ends

P.O. Box 489, Yorba Linda, California 92885
Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597
Overview of Methodology and Key Assumptions
The methodology for the FIA calculations is detailed in Attachment A.

Land Use Assumptions. The assumed land use breakdown for the proposed Project at full buildout is provided on Table A-2a. Table A-18 shows the assumed year-by-year absorption by land use.

Revenue Projections. The methodologies for projecting General Fund revenues are summarized below and detailed on the attached tables.

Property Tax, Property Tax in Lieu of VLF, and Property Transfer Tax • Projected home prices for the proposed Project are based on a market forecasts prepared by Market Watch, LLC (dated February 25, 2023). These projections are detailed by plan area and product type on Table A-2b and Table A-2c.
• For the non-residential components of the project, TNDG has assumed the following assessed values for the proposed Project:
o Commercial (retail/restaurant) space - $300/square foot o Golf facility - $10 million (excluding retail/restaurant/banquet facilities which are calculated separately based on the per-square foot factor above) o Resort hotel - $500,000 per villa
• As noted above, a portion of the Project (the area north of Avenue 62) is within a former County of Riverside redevelopment area (“Thermal Community Sub-Area”). The County’s debt obligations for the former redevelopment area will remain in place until 2041 (with portions of the outstanding bonds being retired in 2037 and 2040). As such, the City of La Quinta will not initially derive a full measure of property tax revenue from the portion of the project that is within this area. For the portion of the project not affected by the redevelopment issue (i.e., the area south of Avenue 62), the City of La Quinta General Fund will receive a 6.8% share of the total 1.0% property tax; in addition, the City will receive the Fire Fund’s 5.7% share of the 1.0% property tax (these percentages were supplied by City staff). The analysis assumes that the same property tax shares would accrue to the City for the portion of north of Avenue 62, beginning in 2041 (when the County’s debt obligations are fully retired). In the years leading up to 2041, the City’s would receive only a portion of its ultimate shares of property tax generated by assessed valuation north of Avenue 61. The FIA estimates property tax income for these earlier years based on a formula supplied by City staff. • The assessed valuation and related Property Tax calculations are shown on Tables A-4 and A-5. • The methodology for calculating Property Tax in Lieu of VLF is shown on Table A-6. 1024 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Memorandum to Hofmann Land Development Company
July 27, 2023

Page 6 ends

P.O. Box 489, Yorba Linda, California 92885
Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597
• The calculations for Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax are shown on Table A-7. The Transfer Tax projections reflect an assumed residential turnover rate of 8.1% per year, based on the latest available Census data (see Table A-17).

Sales Tax
• The FIA includes sales tax projections related to the on-site retail/restaurant space (see Table A8), and also considers off-site taxable purchases that Project residents would make within the City of La Quinta (Table A-9). The sales tax projections include the City’s standard share of the State Sales Tax (1% of taxable sales) and the additional revenue associated with the City’s voterapproved Measure G sales tax. • The FIA assumes the following taxable sales factors for the various retail and restaurant components:
o Hotel restaurant/bar/spa - $275/square foot (annually) o Golf restaurant/banquet facility - $450/square foot
o Other retail space - $500/square foot
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – Hotel (Villas)
• The TOT calculations related to the resort are provided on Table A-10a. • The FIA assumes the following room and occupancy rates for the proposed Villas:
o Room rate (peak season) - $650
o Room rate (off season) - $350
o Occupancy rate (peak season) – 61%
o Occupancy rate (off season) – 32%
• The analysis assumes that the peak-season and off-season periods would each be six months of the year.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Registration Fees – Short-term Rentals (STR’s) • In addition to TOT revenue derived from the resort Villas, individual residential units operated as short-term rentals (STR’s) are also projected to generate TOT revenue for the City. Based on City of La Quinta policy, there would be no restrictions on the number of dwelling units within the project that would be permitted to be operated as STR’s. However, current market trends (based on the City’s experience) suggest that approximately 30% of residential property owners opt to make their units available as STR’s. The FIA assumes that 50 units proximate the project’s golf facility would be STR’s. For the balance of the project, the FIA assumes that 30% of units would be STR’s. TOT calculations for these units are detailed on Table A-10b. • The FIA assumes the following rental and occupancy rates for STR’s:
o Rental rate (peak season) - $600
1025 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Memorandum to Hofmann Land Development Company
July 27, 2023

Page 7 ends

P.O. Box 489, Yorba Linda, California 92885
Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597
o Rental rate (off season) - $400
o Occupancy rate (peak season) – 30%
o Occupancy rate (off season) – 30%
• STR’s also generate City General Fund revenue in the form of STR registration fees. Based on data in the City’s current budget, revenue from STR registration fees is equivalent to 18.0% of STR-related TOT revenue. Thus, the FIA projects that for every $100 in STR-derived TOT revenue, the Project will generate an additional $18 in STR registration fee revenue.

Miscellaneous General Fund Revenue
• The FIA also includes the following General Fund revenues:
o Utility Franchise Fees
o Business Registration Fees
o Licenses and Permits
o Fines and Forfeitures
• These miscellaneous revenues are projected on a per capita basis, using factors that consider the Project’s resident population and its “daytime” employee population. The derivation of these per-person/per-employee factors is shown on Table A-12. For purposes of the per capita calculations, the FIA weights employees at 50% of full-time residents (i.e., one resident is assumed to be equivalent to 0.5 employees).

Cost Projections. The FIA includes the following General Fund cost categories:
• Police Department
• Fire Department
• Code Enforcement
• Parks, Recreation and Community Services
• Public Buildings and Streets
• Project-specific infrastructure maintenance
• Design & Development
• General Government (City Council, City Manager, Marketing/Community Relations, City Attorney, City Clerk, Fiscal Services, Human Resources and Community Resources Administration)
With the exception of General Government (as explained further below), the City’s costs are projected on a per capita basis, using factors that consider the Project’s resident population and its “daytime” employee population. The derivation of these per-person/per-employee factors is shown on Table A-14.

For purposes of the per capita calculations, the FIA weights employees at 50% of full-time residents (i.e., one resident is assumed to be equivalent to 0.5 employees). 1026 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Memorandum to Hofmann Land Development Company
July 27, 2023

Page 8 ends

P.O. Box 489, Yorba Linda, California 92885
Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597
As shown on Table A-14, the per capita cost factors are based on the City’s net General Fund costs in each category (i.e., total costs minus relevant offsetting revenues).

For purposes of deriving a per capita cost factor for fire protection, the current Citywide budget has been adjusted upward by $1.5 million to reflect the potential addition of a fourth fire station in La Quinta. According to City staff, a new station would have a total operating cost of approximately $3 million per year, 50% of which is assumed to be added to the City’s contract with Riverside County. 1 The
50% assumption reflects the expectation that a portion of the new station’s service area would be in the unincorporated County area, with the County absorbing this portion of the cost. The City’s Fire Department budget for FY 2022-23 is $8,851,872; for purposes of the FIA this budget has been increased to $10,351,872 ($8,851,872 plus $1,500,000). See Table A-14 for details.

Table A-15c itemizes project-specific infrastructure maintenance costs, as supplied by the applicant team. As noted previously, the FIA assumes that these costs would be funded through the La Quinta Park Maintenance and Landscape & Lighting Assessment District and therefore would not impact the City’s General Fund.

The FIA treats the General Government line items as an overhead cost category. As shown on Table A16, the combined General Government costs currently represent 18.8% of other General Fund expenditures. This percentage is applied to the increase in other General Fund costs to project future increases in General Government expenditures.
1 The portions of the operational costs to be absorbed by the City and the County are still being discussed. Should the City and County ultimately determine a cost-sharing formula other than the 50/50 split assumed in this report, the FIA will be amended.
1027 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Attachment A:

FIA Calculations for Proposed Project
1028 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-1
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund at Buildout
Travertine Project, City of La Quinta
General Fund
North of Avenue
62 South of Avenue
62 Overall Project
Revenues
Property Tax1 $787,715 $378,984 $1,166,698
Property Tax in lieu of VLF 203,117 97,723 300,840
Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax 25,733 13,125 38,858 State Sales Tax (on-site) 46,635 50,000 96,635
State Sales Tax (off-site) 187,727 95,750 283,478
Measure G Sales Tax (on-site) 46,635 50,000 96,635
Measure G Sales Tax (off-site) 187,727 95,750 283,478
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort 980,162 0 980,162 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs 1,410,908 751,718 2,162,625 STR Registration Fee 258,000 137,000 395,000
Utility Franchise Fees 99,273 39,928 139,201
Business Registration Fees 3,425 1,869 5,294
Licenses and Permits 261 104 365
Fines and Forfeitures 20,667 8,312 28,979
Total Revenues $4,257,985 $1,720,263 $5,978,248
Expenditures
Police Department $825,413 $331,983 $1,157,397
Fire Department 520,178 209,217 729,395
Code Compliance / Animal Control 76,106 30,610 106,716
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services 328,002 130,208 458,209 Public Works (except parks - included above) 206,213 82,939 289,152 Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance 354,769 171,863 526,632 Design & Development 130,169 52,354 182,524
General Government 407,622 168,532 576,154
Total Expenditures $2,848,472 $1,177,707 $4,026,179
Net General Fund Fiscal Impact $1,409,513 $542,556 $1,952,069 Source: TNDG.

Notes: 1. For portion of project north of Avenue 62, City would not receive full property tax share until 2041. (See Tables A--1A, A-1B, and A-1C for year-by-year projections.) 1029 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-1A
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund by Year
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Phase 1A Phase 1B Phase 2 Phase 3
Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout
General Fund Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10 Revenues
Property Tax $0 $0 $74,204 $146,735 $300,619 $415,814 $483,592 $483,592 $684,470 $684,470 Property Tax in lieu of VLF 0 0 31,167 61,631 126,265 174,649 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax 0 0 4,328 8,558 17,532 21,780 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 State Sales Tax (on-site) 0 0 0 0 0 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 State Sales Tax (off-site) 0 0 29,066 57,476 124,350 157,131 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 Measure G Sales Tax (on-site) 0 0 0 0 0 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 Measure G Sales Tax (off-site) 0 0 29,066 57,476 124,350 157,131 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort 0 0 0 0 0 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs 0 0 218,453 431,978 934,583 1,180,958 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 STR Registration Fee 0 0 39,946 78,992 170,899 215,951 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 Utility Franchise Fees 0 0 14,830 29,325 63,444 83,663 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 Business Registration Fees 0 0 0 0 0 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 Licenses and Permits 0 0 40 80 173 219 261 261 261 261
Fines and Forfeitures 0 0 3,087 6,105 13,208 17,417 20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ Total Revenues $0 $0 $444,187 $878,355 $1,875,423 $3,501,571 $3,953,863 $3,953,863 $4,154,741 $4,154,741 Expenditures
Police Department $0 $0 $123,302 $243,823 $527,511 $695,621 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 Fire Department 0 0 77,705 153,658 332,439 438,383 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 Code Compliance / Animal Control 0 0 11,369 22,481 48,638 64,139 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services 0 0 50,785 100,424 217,268 274,544 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 Public Works (except parks - included above) 0 0 30,805 60,914 131,788 173,787 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 Design & Development 0 0 19,445 38,451 83,190 109,701 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 General Government 0 0 52,340 103,499 223,919 293,281 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ Total Expenditures 0 0 365,751 723,251 1,564,753 2,049,455 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 Net General Fund Fiscal Impact $0 $0 $78,437 $155,104 $310,671 $1,452,116 $1,105,391 $1,105,391 $1,306,269 $1,306,269 Source: TNDG.
1030 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-1A
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund by Year
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
General Fund
Revenues
Property Tax
Property Tax in lieu of VLF
Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax
State Sales Tax (on-site)
State Sales Tax (off-site)
Measure G Sales Tax (on-site)
Measure G Sales Tax (off-site)
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs
STR Registration Fee
Utility Franchise Fees
Business Registration Fees
Licenses and Permits
Fines and Forfeitures
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Police Department
Fire Department
Code Compliance / Animal Control
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Public Works (except parks - included above)
Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance
Design & Development
General Government
Total Expenditures
Net General Fund Fiscal Impact
Source: TNDG.

Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 $684,470 $782,850 $787,715 $787,715 $787,715 $787,715 $787,715 $787,715 $787,715 $787,715 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 203,117 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 25,733 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 46,635 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 187,727 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 1,410,908 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 258,000 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 99,273 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 3,425 261 261 261 261 261 261 261 261 261 261
20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 20,667 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ $4,154,741 $4,253,120 $4,257,985 $4,257,985 $4,257,985 $4,257,985 $4,257,985 $4,257,985 $4,257,985 $4,257,985 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 $825,413 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 520,178 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 76,106 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 328,002 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 206,213 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 354,769 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 130,169 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 407,622 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 2,848,472 $1,306,269 $1,404,649 $1,409,513 $1,409,513 $1,409,513 $1,409,513 $1,409,513 $1,409,513 $1,409,513 $1,409,513 1031 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-1B
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund by Year
Travertine Project - SOUTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Phase 1A Phase 1B Phase 2 Phase 3
Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout
General Fund Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10 Revenues
Property Tax $192,892 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 Property Tax in lieu of VLF 49,738 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax 6,389 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 State Sales Tax (on-site) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 State Sales Tax (off-site) 46,612 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 Measure G Sales Tax (on-site) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Measure G Sales Tax (off-site) 46,612 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs 365,939 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 STR Registration Fee 66,692 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 Utility Franchise Fees 20,415 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 Business Registration Fees 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 Licenses and Permits 50 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 Fines and Forfeitures 4,250 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ Total Revenues $901,458 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 Expenditures
Police Department $169,744 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 Fire Department 106,973 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 Code Compliance / Animal Control 15,651 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services 63,386 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 Public Works (except parks - included above) 42,407 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 Design & Development 26,769 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 General Government 70,963 139,831 139,831 139,831 139,831 139,831 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ Total Expenditures 495,892 977,143 977,143 977,143 977,143 977,143 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 Net General Fund Fiscal Impact $405,566 $743,120 $743,120 $743,120 $743,120 $743,120 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 Source: TNDG.
1032 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-1B
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund by Year
Travertine Project - SOUTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
General Fund
Revenues
Property Tax
Property Tax in lieu of VLF
Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax
State Sales Tax (on-site)
State Sales Tax (off-site)
Measure G Sales Tax (on-site)
Measure G Sales Tax (off-site)
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs
STR Registration Fee
Utility Franchise Fees
Business Registration Fees
Licenses and Permits
Fines and Forfeitures
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Police Department
Fire Department
Code Compliance / Animal Control
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Public Works (except parks - included above)
Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance
Design & Development
General Government
Total Expenditures
Net General Fund Fiscal Impact
Source: TNDG.

Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 $378,984 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 97,723 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 13,125 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 95,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 751,718 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 137,000 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 39,928 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104
8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 8,312 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $1,720,263 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 $331,983 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 209,217 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 30,610 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 130,208 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 82,939 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 171,863 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 52,354 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 168,532 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 1,177,707 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 $542,556 1033 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-1C
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund by Year
Travertine Project - OVERALL PROJECT
City of La Quinta
Phase 1A Phase 1B Phase 2 Phase 3
Buildout Buildout Buildout Buildout
General Fund Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10 Revenues
Property Tax $192,892 $378,984 $453,188 $525,719 $679,603 $794,798 $862,576 $862,576 $1,063,454 $1,063,454 Property Tax in lieu of VLF 49,738 97,723 128,890 159,354 223,988 272,372 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax 6,389 13,125 17,453 21,683 30,657 34,905 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 State Sales Tax (on-site) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 State Sales Tax (off-site) 46,612 95,750 124,816 153,227 220,101 252,882 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 Measure G Sales Tax (on-site) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 Measure G Sales Tax (off-site) 46,612 95,750 124,816 153,227 220,101 252,882 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort 0 0 0 0 0 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs 365,939 751,718 970,170 1,183,695 1,686,300 1,932,675 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 STR Registration Fee 66,692 137,000 176,946 215,992 307,899 352,951 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 Utility Franchise Fees 20,415 39,928 54,757 69,253 103,372 123,591 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 Business Registration Fees 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 1,869 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 Licenses and Permits 50 104 144 184 277 322 365 365 365 365 Fines and Forfeitures 4,250 8,312 11,400 14,417 21,520 25,730 28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ Total Revenues $901,458 $1,720,263 $2,164,451 $2,598,619 $3,595,687 $5,221,834 $5,674,126 $5,674,126 $5,875,004 $5,875,004 Expenditures
Police Department $169,744 $331,983 $455,286 $575,807 $859,495 $1,027,605 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 Fire Department 106,973 209,217 286,922 362,875 541,656 647,599 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 Code Compliance / Animal Control 15,651 30,610 41,979 53,091 79,248 94,749 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services 63,386 130,208 180,993 230,632 347,475 404,752 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 Public Works (except parks - included above) 42,407 82,939 113,744 143,854 214,727 256,726 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 Design & Development 26,769 52,354 71,800 90,806 135,544 162,055 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 General Government 70,963 139,831 192,171 243,330 363,750 433,112 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ Total Expenditures 495,892 977,143 1,342,894 1,700,394 2,541,896 3,026,598 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 Net General Fund Fiscal Impact $405,566 $743,120 $821,557 $898,224 $1,053,791 $2,195,236 $1,647,947 $1,647,947 $1,848,825 $1,848,825 Source: TNDG.
1034 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-1C
Summary of Annual Impacts to General Fund by Year
Travertine Project - OVERALL PROJECT
City of La Quinta
General Fund
Revenues
Property Tax
Property Tax in lieu of VLF
Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax
State Sales Tax (on-site)
State Sales Tax (off-site)
Measure G Sales Tax (on-site)
Measure G Sales Tax (off-site)
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - Resort
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - STRs
STR Registration Fee
Utility Franchise Fees
Business Registration Fees
Licenses and Permits
Fines and Forfeitures
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Police Department
Fire Department
Code Compliance / Animal Control
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Public Works (except parks - included above)
Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance
Design & Development
General Government
Total Expenditures
Net General Fund Fiscal Impact
Source: TNDG.

Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 $1,063,454 $1,161,834 $1,166,698 $1,166,698 $1,166,698 $1,166,698 $1,166,698 $1,166,698 $1,166,698 $1,166,698 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 300,840 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 38,858 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 96,635 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 283,478 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 980,162 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 2,162,625 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 139,201 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 5,294 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365
28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 28,979 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ $5,875,004 $5,973,384 $5,978,248 $5,978,248 $5,978,248 $5,978,248 $5,978,248 $5,978,248 $5,978,248 $5,978,248 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 $1,157,397 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 729,395 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 106,716 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 458,209 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 289,152 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 526,632 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 182,524 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 576,154 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 4,026,179 $1,848,825 $1,947,205 $1,952,069 $1,952,069 $1,952,069 $1,952,069 $1,952,069 $1,952,069 $1,952,069 $1,952,069 1035 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-2a
Land Use Assumptions for Fiscal Impact Analysis
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta North of South of
Avenue 62 Avenue 62 Overall Project
Residential Units
MDR (units) 368 - 368
LDR (units) 491 341 832
Total Residential Units 859 341 1,200
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 500 1,000 1,500
Restaurant Space (square feet) 17,654 10,000 27,654
Commercial Total Square Feet 18,154 11,000 29,154
Resort
Villa Units 100 - 100
Total Resort Units 100 - 100
Golf
Golf Facility (acres) - 46 46
Total Golf Facility (acres) - 46 46
Population Summary
Residents 2,010 798 2,808
Employees 147 80 227
Equivalent Residents - Employees 73 40 113
Total Equivalent Residents 2,083 838 2,921
Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc.
1036 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-2b
Estimated Home Sale Prices
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Total Product Estimated Estimated
Planning Area Units Type Base Price Total Price1
PA-2 205 MDR $500,000 $595,125
PA-3 85 LDR $625,000 $743,906
PA-4 27 LDR $550,000 $654,638
PA-5 31 LDR $550,000 $654,638
PA-6 163 MDR $500,000 $595,125
PA-7 61 LDR $550,000 $654,638
PA-8 73 LDR $550,000 $654,638
PA-9 74 LDR $550,000 $654,638
PA-15* 24 LDR $655,000 $779,614
PA-16A 78 LDR $800,000 $952,200
PA-16B 38 LDR $625,000 $743,906
Total 859
*PA 15 is split north and south of Avenue 62.

Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., based on Travertine Project Pricing Update, prepared by Market Watch, LLC and dated February 25, 2023.

Notes: 1. Includes lot premiums (average 3.5%) and options (average 15%) applied to base prices.
1037 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-2c
Estimated Home Sale Prices
Travertine Project - SOUTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Total Product Estimated Estimated
Planning Area Units Type Base Price Total Price1
PA-10 75 LDR $550,000 $654,638
PA-12A 32 LDR $655,000 $779,614
PA-12B 15 LDR $900,000 $1,071,225
PA-12C 60 LDR $800,000 $952,200
PA-13A 38 LDR $900,000 $1,071,225
PA-13B 10 LDR $800,000 $952,200
PA-14A 12 LDR $800,000 $952,200
PA-14B 53 LDR $655,000 $779,614
PA-15A* 41 LDR $800,000 $952,200
PA-15B* 5 LDR $900,000 $1,071,225
Total 341
*PA 15 is split north and south of Avenue 62.

Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., based on Travertine Project Pricing Update, prepared by Market Watch, LLC and dated February 25, 2023.

Notes: 1. Includes lot premiums (average 3.5%) and options (average 15%) applied to base prices.
1038 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-2d
Calculation of Development Impact Fee (DIF) Contribution Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
City's DIF Schedule:

SFD SFA Commercial Lodging Golf Course
DIF Category Units Units (1,000 SF) Rooms Acres
Park Improvements $2,106 $1,794 N/A N/A N/A
Community/Cultural $956 $814 N/A N/A N/A
Library $397 $338 N/A N/A N/A
Civic Center $1,230 $1,115 $522 $698 $251
Maintenance Facilities $313 $247 $461 $106 $53
Fire $369 $335 $151 $201 $72
Transportation $4,009 $3,076 $8,057 $1,859 $930
Total $9,380 $7,719 $9,191 $2,864 $1,306
Project Units: 1,037 163 29.2 100 46.2
Project DIF Contribution by Category:

DIF Category SFD SFA Commercial Lodging Golf Course Total Park Improvements $2,183,922 $292,422 N/A N/A N/A $2,476,344 Community/Cultural $991,372 $132,682 N/A N/A N/A $1,124,054 Library $411,689 $55,094 N/A N/A N/A $466,783
Civic Center $1,275,510 $181,745 $15,218 $69,800 $11,596 $1,553,870 Maintenance Facilities $324,581 $40,261 $13,440 $10,600 $2,449 $391,331 Fire $382,653 $54,605 $4,402 $20,100 $3,326 $465,087
Transportation $4,157,333 $501,388 $234,894 $185,900 $42,966 $5,122,481 Total $9,727,060 $1,258,197 $267,954 $286,400 $60,337 $11,599,949 Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., based on City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Summary (dated July 1, 2021). 1039 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-3a
Project Description and Fiscal Model Input Factors
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Taxable Sales Estimated
Total Assessed per SF / Residents per Unit1 Residents or Assessed Development Category Units or SF Value/Unit or SF RevPAR or SF per Employee Employees Value Residential
MDR (units) 368 $595,125 N/A 2.34 861 $219,006,000
LDR (units) 491 730,380 N/A 2.34 1,149 358,616,374
Residential Total 859 $672,436 2.34 2,010 $577,622,374
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 500 $300 $500 200 3 $150,000 Restaurant Space (SF) 17,654 300 250 400 44 5,296,200
Total Commercial 18,154 $300 $257 389 47 $5,446,200
Resort
Villa Units 100 $500,000 $233 1.0 100 $50,000,000
Total Resort Units 100 $500,000 $233 1.0 100 $50,000,000 Golf
Golf Facility (acres) - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total Golf Facility (acres) - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: TNDG.

Notes: 1. California Department of Finance Persons per Household Estimate for City of La Quinta. 1040 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-3b
Project Description and Fiscal Model Input Factors
Travertine Project - SOUTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Estimated
Total Assessed Taxable Sales Residents per Unit1 Residents or Assessed Development Category Units or SF Value/Unit or SF per SF or SF per Employee Employees Value Residential
MDR (units) - - N/A 2.34 - -
LDR (units) 341 $863,978 N/A 2.34 798 $294,616,631
Residential Total 341 $863,978 N/A 2.34 798 $294,616,631 Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 1,000 $300 $500 200 5 $300,000 Restaurant Space (SF) 10,000 300 450 400 25 3,000,000
Total Commercial 11,000 $300 $455 367 30 $3,300,000
Resort
Villa Units - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total Resort Units - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Golf
Golf Facility (acres) 46.2 N/A N/A N/A 50 $10,000,000
Total Golf Facility (acres) 46.2 N/A N/A N/A 50 $10,000,000 Source: TNDG.

Notes: 1. California Department of Finance Persons per Household Estimate for City of La Quinta. 1041 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-4a
Assessed Value Estimates by Project Component
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Assessed
Project Component Units / SF Value
Residential
MDR (units) 368 $219,006,000
LDR (units) 491 358,616,374
Total Residential 859 $577,622,374
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 500 $150,000
Restaurant Space (square feet) 17,654 5,296,200
Total Commercial 18,154 $5,446,200
Resort
Villa Units 100 $50,000,000
Total Resort Units 100 $50,000,000
Total Assessed Value $633,068,574
Less Existing Value 2,392,415
Net Impact on Assessed Value $630,676,159
1042 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-4b
Assessed Value Estimates by Project Component
Travertine Project - SOUTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Assessed
Project Component Units / SF / Acres Value
Residential
MDR (units) - $0
LDR (units) 341 294,616,631
Total Residential 341 $294,616,631
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 500 $300,000
Restaurant Space (square feet) 17,654 3,000,000
Total Commercial 18,154 $3,300,000
Golf
Golf Facility (acres) 46.2 $10,000,000
Total Golf Facility (acres) 46.2 $10,000,000
Total Assessed Value $307,916,631
Less Existing Value 4,486,759
Net Impact on Assessed Value $303,429,872
1043 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-5
Total Property Tax Increment by Agency
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
North of
Avenue 62
South of
Avenue 62 Overall Project
Total Increase in Assessed Value $630,676,159 $303,429,872 $934,106,031 Total Property Tax Increment @ 1.0% of Assessed Value $6,306,762 $3,034,299 $9,341,060 City of La Quinta General Fund Share 6.8% 6.8%
Fire Fund Share 5.7% 5.7%
Total City Property Tax Share1 12.5% 12.5%
Annual General Fund Revenue $787,715 $378,984 $1,166,698 Source: TNDG.

Notes: 1. For portion of project north of Avenue 62, City would not receive full property tax share until 2041. (See Tables A--1A, A-1B, and A-1C for year-by-year projections.) 1044 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-6
Projected Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Citywide Property Tax In Lieu of VLF, FY 2023-24 $5,445,000 La Quinta Assessed Valuation (AV), FY 2022-23 (in $000's) $16,906,684 Variable
North of
Avenue 62
South of
Avenue 62 Overall Project
Incremental Assessed Value from Project (in $000's)1 $630,676 $303,430 $934,106 Percentage Increase over FY 2022-23 Base 3.7% 1.8% 5.5% New Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $203,117 $97,723 $300,840 Source: City of La Quinta, FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; Riverside County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder press release dated July 12, 2022; TNDG.

Notes: 1. See Tables A-4a and A-4b.
1045 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-7
Estimate of Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
North of
Avenue 62
South of
Avenue 62 Overall Project
Total Residential Assessed Value $577,622,374 $294,616,631 $872,239,005 Annual Ownership Turnover Rate 8.1% 8.1% 8.1%
Annual Value of Properties Sold $46,787,412 $23,863,947 $70,651,359 City Documentary Transfer Tax Rate 0.055% 0.055% 0.055% Annual City Revenue $25,733 $13,125 $38,858
Source: TNDG
1046 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-8
Estimate of On-Site Taxable Sales and City Sales Tax Revenue Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Project Component
North of
Avenue 62
South of
Avenue 62 Overall Project
Taxable Sales:

Retail $250,000 $500,000 $750,000
Restaurant 4,413,500 4,500,000 8,913,500
Subtotal Taxable Sales $4,663,500 $5,000,000 $9,663,500 On-Site Sales Tax @1% of Taxable Sales $46,635 $50,000 $96,635 Source: TNDG
1047 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-9
Estimate of New City Off-Site Sales Tax
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Proposed
Project
North of Avenue 62
Total Dwelling Units 859
Average Home Price $672,436
Household Income as Ratio of Home Price 25%
Average Household Income $168,109
Aggregate Household Income $144,405,593
% Spent on Taxable Retail Sales 26%
Total Taxable Retail Sales $37,545,454
% Captured in City 50%
New Taxable Sales in City $18,772,727
City Sales Tax Revenue @1% $187,727
South of Avenue 62
Total Dwelling Units 341
Average Home Price $863,978
Household Income as Ratio of Home Price 25%
Average Household Income $215,995
Aggregate Household Income $73,654,158
% Spent on Taxable Retail Sales 26%
Total Taxable Retail Sales $19,150,081
% Captured in City 50%
New Taxable Sales in City $9,575,041
City Sales Tax Revenue @1% $95,750
Total Projected Off-Site Taxable Sales: $28,347,768
Total Projected Off-Site Sales Tax Revenue: $283,478
Source: TNDG.
1048 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-10a
Estimate of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue from Villa (Hotel) Units Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Annual Total/
Peak Season Off Season Average
Months per season 6 6 12
Average occupancy rate 61% 32% 47%
Villa units 100 100 100
Occupied room nights (villas) 11,133 5,840 16,973
Average room rate (villas) $650 $350 $500
Resort fee (villas) $25 $25 $25
Room revenue (villas) $7,236,125 $2,044,000 $8,486,250
Resort fee revenue (villas) $278,313 $146,000 $424,313
Total Revenue Subject to TOT $7,514,438 $2,190,000 $8,910,563 City TOT Revenue @ 11% $826,588 $240,900 $980,162
Source: TNDG
1049 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-10b
Estimate of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue from
Short-Term Rentals (STRs)
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Annual Total/
Peak Season Off Season Average
North of Avenue 62
Total dwelling units 859 859 859
Portion available as STRs 30% 30% 30%
Total units available as STRs 258 258 258
Months per season 6 6 12
STR average occupancy rate 30% 30% 30%
STR nights 14,109 14,109 28,218
Average daily STR rental rate $600 $400 $500
STR revenue $8,465,445 $5,643,630 $14,109,075
City TOT Revenue @ 10% $846,545 $564,363 $1,410,908
South of Avenue 62
Total dwelling units 341 341 341
Golf area STRs 50 50 50
Remaining units 291 291 291
Portion of remaining units available as STRs 30% 30% 30% Total units available as STRs 137 137 137
Months per season 6 6 12
STR average occupancy rate 30% 30% 30%
STR nights 7,517 7,517 15,034
Average daily STR rental rate $600 $400 $500
STR revenue $4,510,305 $3,006,870 $7,517,175
City TOT Revenue @ 10% $451,031 $300,687 $751,718
Source: TNDG
1050 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-10c
Estimate of Registration Fee Revenue
Short-Term Rentals (STRs)
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Annual
STR Units Registration Annual City
Project Area (from Table 10b) Fee per STR Revenue
North of Avenue 62 258 $1,000 $258,000
South of Avenue 62 137 $1,000 $137,000
Project Total 395 $395,000
Source: TNDG; City of La Quinta.
1051 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-11
Estimate of New Employees
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
North of
Avenue 62
South of Avenue
62 Overall Project
Retail/Restaurant
Retail 3 5 8
Restaurant 44 25 69
Total Retail/Restaurant 47 30 77
Resort
Villa Units 100 0 100
Total Resort 100 0 100
Golf
Golf Facility 0 50 50
Total Golf Facility 0 50 50
Total Onsite Employees 147 80 227
Source: TNDG.
1052 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-12
Derivation of Revenue Projection Factors
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
City of La Quinta Population 37,979
City of La Quinta, Dwelling Units 24,233
City of La Quinta, Employee Population 17,854
Employee Weighting Factor 0.50
Effective Employee Population 8,927
Citywide Per Capita
GF Budget Allocation Relevant Cost or
Budget Category FY 2023/24 Basis1 Population Revenue
Utility Franchise Fees $2,235,000 R+E 46,906 $47.65
Business Registration Fees 417,000 E 17,854 23.36
Other Licenses and Permits 5,000 R 37,979 0.13
Fines and Forfeitures 465,500 R+E 46,906 9.92
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Table for 2023; Southern California Association of Governments, 2022 Spatial and Statistical Profile for City of La Quinta; City of La Quinta, FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; TNDG.

Notes: 1. Allocation basis: R - residents; R+E - residents plus effective employee population.

GF = General Fund.
1053 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-13a
Projected General Fund Revenues
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Business
Utility Registration Licenses Fines and
Variable Franchise Fees Fees and Permits Forfeitures
Allocation Basis R+E E R R+E
Residents 2,010 N/A 2,010 2,010
Onsite Employees 147 147 N/A 147
Weighting Factor 0.50 N/A N/A 0.50
Population Equivalent 2,083 147 2,010 2,083
Per Capita Revenue $47.65 $23.36 $.13 $9.92
Total Annual Revenue $99,273 $3,425 $261 $20,667
Source: TNDG.
1054 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-13b
Projected General Fund Revenues
Travertine Project - SOUTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Business
Utility Registration Licenses Fines and
Variable Franchise Fees Fees and Permits Forfeitures
Allocation Basis R+E E R R+E
Residents 798 N/A 798 798
Onsite Employees 80 80 N/A 80
Weighting Factor 0.50 N/A N/A 0.50
Population Equivalent 838 80 798 838
Per Capita Revenue $47.65 $23.36 $.13 $9.92
Total Annual Revenue $39,928 $1,869 $104 $8,312
Source: TNDG.
1055 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-14
Derivation of Cost Projection Factors
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
City of La Quinta Population 37,979
City of La Quinta, Employee Population 17,854
Employee Weighting Factor 0.50
Effective Employee Population 8,927
Less: Net
Citywide Offsetting GF General Fund Allocation Relevant Per Capita Budget Category GF Budget1 Revenues Cost Basis2 Population Costs Police Department $18,583,800 - $18,583,800 R+E 46,906 $396.19 Fire Department3 11,711,420 - 11,711,420 R+E 46,906 249.68 Code Compliance / Animal Control 1,713,340 - 1,713,340 R+E 46,906 36.53 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services 6,560,970 363,700 6,197,270 R 37,979 163.18 Public Works (excluding parks) 4,963,900 321,000 4,642,900 R+E 46,906 98.98 Design & Development 4,259,400 1,328,500 2,930,900 R+E 46,906 62.48 Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Table for 2023; Southern California Association of Governments, 2022 Spatial and Statistical Profile for City of La Quinta; City of La Quinta, FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget; TNDG.

Notes: 1. Adopted budget line items for FY 2023-24.

2. Allocation basis: R+E - residents plus effective employee population.

GF = General Fund.

3. Actual Fire Department budget for FY 2023-24 is $10,211,420; for purposes of this analysis, the existing budget has been adjusted upward by $1.5 million to reflect the potential addition of a fourth fire station in La Quinta (a new fire station would have a total operating cost of approximately $3 million per year, 50% of which is assumed to be added to the City's contract with Riverside County).
1056 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-15a
Projected General Fund Costs
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Parks,
Code Recreation,
Police Fire Compliance / and Community Public Design &
Variable Department Department Animal Control Services Works Development Allocation Basis R+E R+E R+E R R+E R+E
Residents 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010
Onsite Employees 147 147 147 N/A 147 147
Weighting Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 N/A 0.50 0.50
Population Equivalent 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,010 2,083 2,083 Per Capita Cost $396.19 249.68 $36.53 $163.18 $98.98 $62.48 Total Annual Cost $825,413 $520,178 $76,106 $328,002 $206,213 $130,169 Source: TNDG.
1057 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-15b
Projected General Fund Costs
Travertine Project - SOUTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Parks,
Code Recreation,
Police Fire Compliance / and Community Public Design &
Variable Department Department Animal Control Services Works Development Allocation Basis R+E R+E R+E R R+E R+E
Residents 798 798 798 798 798 798
Onsite Employees 80 80 80 N/A 80 80
Weighting Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 N/A 0.50 0.50
Population Equivalent 838 838 838 798 838 838
Per Capita Cost $396.19 249.68 $36.53 $163.18 $98.98 $62.48 Total Annual Cost $331,983 $209,217 $30,610 $130,208 $82,939 $52,354 Source: TNDG.
1058 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-15c
Projection of Project-Specific Infrastructure Maintenance Costs Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Total
Annual North of South of
Infrastructure Item Cost Avenue 62 Avenue 62
Madison Street Onsite $10,381 $7,009 $3,372
Madison Street Offsite 98,640 66,598 32,042
Jefferson Onsite 57,152 38,587 18,565
Jefferson Offsite (City) 40,091 27,068 13,023
Jefferson Offsite (County) 123,604 83,453 40,151
Avenue 62 Offsite 139,011 93,855 45,156
Flood Protection 93,355 63,030 30,325
Guadalupe Dike 4,217 2,847 1,370
Total $566,451 $382,448 $184,003
Costs offset by Landscape &
Lighting Assessment District2 $39,819 $27,679 $12,140
Net General Fund Cost $526,632 $354,769 $171,863
Source: TRG Land Inc.; TNDG; City of La Quinta.

Notes: 1. Total costs allocated between north and south subareas based on shares of total assessed valuation.

2. Annual Assessments of $35.60 per SFD unit and $17.80 per SFA unit.

Allocation by Subarea1
1059 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-16
Projected General Government Costs
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Citywide
General Government Categories GF Budget1
City Council $317,900
City Manager 1,588,360
Marketing / Community Relations 1,814,660
City Attorney 800,000
City Clerk 1,169,670
Central Services 3,189,100
Human Resources 651,800
Community Resources Admin. 888,160
Total $10,419,650
General Fund Total $72,828,750
General Fund (non-Gen Gov't) $62,409,100
General Government Functions @ 16.7% of other General Fund costs

1. Study uses the adopted budgeted amounts for FY 2023-24.

Source: City of La Quinta, FY 2022-23 Adopted & Capital Improvement Budget; TNDG. 1060 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-17
Estimate of Residential Turnover Rate
City of La Quinta
Owner- %
Occupied of Estimated Household
City of La Quinta units Total Years1 Years2
Year Moved In
Moved in 2017 or later 303 2.7% 0.5 152
Moved in 2015 to 2016 1,126 10.1% 2.5 2,815
Moved in 2010 to 2014 2,900 26.1% 5.5 15,950
Moved in 2000 to 2009 4,747 42.7% 14.0 66,458
Moved in 1990 to 1999 1,656 14.9% 24.0 39,744
Moved in 1989 or earlier 393 3.5% 33.0 12,969
Total 11,125 100.0% N/A 138,088
Household Years/Occupied Unit3 12.41
Implied Turnover Rate4 8.1%

1. Estimated years in occupied unit. Assume move in date at midpoint of range.

2. Product of owner-occupied units and "estimated years".

3. Ratio of total "household years" to total owner-occupied units.

4. Reciprocal of the total household years/total owner-occupied units estimate.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2014-18); The Natelson Dale Group, Inc (TNDG). 1061 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-18
Project Phasing Assumptions
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
|--Ph. 2--|
Buildout Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10 North of Avenue 62:

Residential (units)
PA-2 205 0 0 0 0 0 105 100 0 0 0
PA-3 85 0 0 0 0 0 45 40 0 0 0
PA-4 27 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0
PA-5 31 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-6 163 0 0 0 0 163 0 0 0 0 0
PA-7 61 0 0 31 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-8 73 0 0 37 36 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-9 74 0 0 37 37 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-15* 24 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-16A 78 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0
PA-16B 38 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 859 0 0 133 130 306 150 140 0 0 0
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 500 500
Restaurant Space (square feet) 17,654 17,654 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 18,154 0 0 0 0 0 18,154 0 0 0 0
Resort
Hotel Rooms 0 0
Villa Units 100 100 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
Golf
Golf Facility (acres) 0
|-------Phase 1A-------| |-------Phase 1B-------| |--------Phase 3--------| 1062 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-18
Project Phasing Assumptions
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Buildout
North of Avenue 62:

Residential (units)
PA-2 205
PA-3 85
PA-4 27
PA-5 31
PA-6 163
PA-7 61
PA-8 73
PA-9 74
PA-15* 24
PA-16A 78
PA-16B 38 ________
Total 859
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 500
Restaurant Space (square feet) 17,654 ________
Total 18,154
Resort
Hotel Rooms 0
Villa Units 100 ________
Total 100
Golf
Golf Facility (acres) 0
Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1063 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-18
Project Phasing Assumptions
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
|--Ph. 2--|
Buildout Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10 |-------Phase 1A-------| |-------Phase 1B-------| |--------Phase 3--------| South of Avenue 62:

Residential (units)
PA-10 75 35 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-12A 32 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-12B 15 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-12C 60 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-13A 38 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-13B 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-14A 12 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-14B 53 24 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-15A* 41 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PA-15B* 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 341 166 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 1,000 1,000
Restaurant Space (square feet) 10,000 10,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 11,000 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Resort
Hotel Rooms 0
Villa Units 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Golf
Golf Facility (acres) 46 46
Source: TNDG.
1064 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-18
Project Phasing Assumptions
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Buildout
South of Avenue 62:

Residential (units)
PA-10 75
PA-12A 32
PA-12B 15
PA-12C 60
PA-13A 38
PA-13B 10
PA-14A 12
PA-14B 53
PA-15A* 41
PA-15B* 5 ________
Total 341
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 1,000
Restaurant Space (square feet) 10,000 ________
Total 11,000
Resort
Hotel Rooms 0
Villa Units 0 ________
Total 0
Golf
Golf Facility (acres) 46
Source: TNDG.

Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1065 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-19
Cumulative Development
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10
North of Avenue 62:

Residential
PA-2 0 0 0 0 0 105 205 205 205 205
PA-3 0 0 0 0 0 45 85 85 85 85
PA-4 0 0 0 0 27 27 27 27 27 27
PA-5 0 0 16 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
PA-6 0 0 0 0 163 163 163 163 163 163
PA-7 0 0 31 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
PA-8 0 0 37 73 73 73 73 73 73 73
PA-9 0 0 37 74 74 74 74 74 74 74
PA-15* 0 0 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
PA-16A 0 0 0 0 78 78 78 78 78 78
PA-16B 0 0 0 0 38 38 38 38 38 38 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 133 263 569 719 859 859 859 859
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 0 0 0 0 0 500 500 500 500 500 Restaurant Space (square feet) 0 0 0 0 0 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 0 0 0 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154
Resort
Hotel Rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Villa Units 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100
Golf
Golf Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1066 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-19
Cumulative Development
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
North of Avenue 62:

Residential
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
PA-5
PA-6
PA-7
PA-8
PA-9
PA-15*
PA-16A
PA-16B
Total
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet)
Restaurant Space (square feet)
Total
Resort
Hotel Rooms
Villa Units
Total
Golf
Golf Facility
Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205
85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163
61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73
74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 859 859 859 859 859 859 859 859 859 859
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 17,654 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 18,154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1067 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-19
Cumulative Development
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10
South of Avenue 62:

Residential
PA-10 35 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
PA-12A 16 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
PA-12B 8 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
PA-12C 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
PA-13A 19 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
PA-13B 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
PA-14A 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
PA-14B 24 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53
PA-15A* 20 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
PA-15B* 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 166 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Restaurant Space (square feet) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 Resort
Hotel Rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Villa Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Golf
Golf Facility 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Source: TNDG, Table A-18
1068 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-19
Cumulative Development
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
South of Avenue 62:

Residential
PA-10
PA-12A
PA-12B
PA-12C
PA-13A
PA-13B
PA-14A
PA-14B
PA-15A*
PA-15B*
Total
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space (square feet)
Restaurant Space (square feet)
Total
Resort
Hotel Rooms
Villa Units
Total
Golf
Golf Facility
Source: TNDG, Table A-18
Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53
41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
1069 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-20
Projected Residents/Employees
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10
North of Avenue 62:

Residential (residents)
PA-2 0 0 0 0 0 246 480 480 480 480
PA-3 0 0 0 0 0 105 199 199 199 199
PA-4 0 0 0 0 63 63 63 63 63 63
PA-5 0 0 37 73 73 73 73 73 73 73
PA-6 0 0 0 0 381 381 381 381 381 381
PA-7 0 0 73 143 143 143 143 143 143 143
PA-8 0 0 87 171 171 171 171 171 171 171
PA-9 0 0 87 173 173 173 173 173 173 173
PA-15* 0 0 28 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
PA-16A 0 0 0 0 183 183 183 183 183 183
PA-16B 0 0 0 0 89 89 89 89 89 89 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 311 615 1,331 1,682 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010
Retail/Restaurant (employees)
Retail Space 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3
Restaurant Space 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 44 44 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 0 0 0 47 47 47 47 47
Resort (employees)
Hotel Rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Villa Units 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100
Golf (employees)
Golf Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Employees 0 0 0 0 0 147 147 147 147 147
Population Equivalent 0 0 311 615 1,331 1,756 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 1070 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-20
Projected Residents/Employees
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
North of Avenue 62:

Residential (residents)
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
PA-5
PA-6
PA-7
PA-8
PA-9
PA-15*
PA-16A
PA-16B
Total
Retail/Restaurant (employees)
Retail Space
Restaurant Space
Total
Resort (employees)
Hotel Rooms
Villa Units
Total
Golf (employees)
Golf Facility
Total Employees
Population Equivalent
Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480
199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199
63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63
73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73
381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381
143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143
171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171
173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173
56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183
89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 2,010 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147
2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 2,083 1071 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-20
Projected Residents/Employees
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10
South of Avenue 62:

Residential (residents)
PA-10 82 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176
PA-12A 37 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
PA-12B 19 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
PA-12C 70 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
PA-13A 44 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
PA-13B 12 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
PA-14A 14 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
PA-14B 56 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
PA-15A* 47 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
PA-15B* 7 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 388 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798
Retail/Restaurant (employees)
Retail Space 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Restaurant Space 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Resort (employees)
Hotel Rooms
Villa Units ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Golf (employees)
Golf Facility 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Total Employees 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
Population Equivalent 428 838 838 838 838 838 838 838 838 838 Source: TNDG, Tables A-3, A-11, and A-18.
1072 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-20
Projected Residents/Employees
Travertine Project
City of La Quinta
South of Avenue 62:

Residential (residents)
PA-10
PA-12A
PA-12B
PA-12C
PA-13A
PA-13B
PA-14A
PA-14B
PA-15A*
PA-15B*
Total
Retail/Restaurant (employees)
Retail Space
Restaurant Space
Total
Resort (employees)
Hotel Rooms
Villa Units
Total
Golf (employees)
Golf Facility
Total Employees
Population Equivalent
Source: TNDG, Tables A-3, A-11, and A-18
Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176
75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
838 838 838 838 838 838 838 838 838 838
1073 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-21a
Assessed Value Estimates by Year (in thousands)
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Project Component Buildout Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10 Residential
MDR (units) $219,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $97,005 $62,488 $59,513 $0 $0 $0 LDR (units) 358,616 0 0 97,140 94,949 104,444 32,867 29,215 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Residential $577,622 $0 $0 $97,140 $94,949 $201,450 $95,355 $88,728 $0 $0 $0 Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space $150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150 $0 $0 $0 $0
Restaurant Space 5,296 0 0 0 0 0 5,296 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Commercial $5,446 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,446 $0 $0 $0 $0 Resort
Hotel Rooms $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Villa Units 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Resort Units $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Assessed Value $633,069 $0 $0 $97,140 $94,949 $201,450 $150,801 $88,728 $0 $0 $0 Less Existing Value 2,392 0 0 367 359 761 570 335 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Net Impact on Assessed Value $630,676 $0 $0 $96,773 $94,591 $200,688 $150,232 $88,392 $0 $0 $0 Source: TNDG, Tables A-3, A-4 and A-18.
1074 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-21a
Assessed Value Estimates by Year (in thousands)
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Project Component Buildout
Residential
MDR (units) $219,006
LDR (units) 358,616 ________
Total Residential $577,622
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space $150
Restaurant Space 5,296 ________
Total Commercial $5,446
Resort
Hotel Rooms $0
Villa Units 50,000 ________
Total Resort Units $50,000
Total Assessed Value $633,069
Less Existing Value 2,392 ________
Net Impact on Assessed Value $630,676
Source: TNDG, Tables A-3, A-4 and A-18.

Yr-11 Yr-12 Yr-13 Yr-14 Yr-15 Yr-16 Yr-17 Yr-18 Yr-19 Yr-20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1075 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-21b
Assessed Value Estimates by Year (in thousands)
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Project Component Buildout Yr-1 Yr-2 Yr-3 Yr-4 Yr-5 Yr-6 Yr-7 Yr-8 Yr-9 Yr-10 Residential
MDR (units) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LDR (units) 294,617 143,420 151,196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Residential $294,617 $143,420 $151,196 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space $300 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Restaurant Space 3,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Commercial $3,300 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Golf Course
Skills Course $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Assessed Value $307,917 $156,720 $151,196 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Less Existing Value 4,487 2,284 2,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Net Impact on Assessed Value $303,430 $154,437 $148,993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Source: TNDG, Tables A-3, A-4 and A-18.
1076 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table A-21b
Assessed Value Estimates by Year (in thousands)
Travertine Project - NORTH OF AVENUE 62
City of La Quinta
Project Component Buildout
Residential
MDR (units) $0
LDR (units) 294,617 ________
Total Residential $294,617
Retail/Restaurant
Retail Space $300
Restaurant Space 3,000 ________
Total Commercial $3,300
Golf Course
Skills Course $10,000
Total Assessed Value $307,917
Less Existing Value 4,487 ________
Net Impact on Assessed Value $303,430
Source: TNDG, Tables A-3, A-4 and A-18.

TRAVERTINE PROJECT EXEMPTION FINDINGS
FROM GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66300 REQUIREMENTS
The City of La Quinta City Council does hereby find and determine as follows:

1. Government Code Section 66300(e)(3)(D), formerly 66300(h)(1), provides that the requirements of Section 66300, et seq. that constrain the authority of the City of La Quinta (“City”) to lower the residential dwelling unit density and intensity of use of real property through General Plan, zoning and other entitlement amendments do not supersede limit or otherwise modify the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) (”CEQA”).

2. The requirements of CEQA apply to “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps . . ..” (Pub Res.

Code § 21080.)

3. The environmental impact report certified by the La Quinta City Council on June 6, 1995 for the Travertine Specific Plan (State Clearing House No. 94112047) (“1995 EIR”) and the Travertine Specific Plan (“1995 Specific Plan”) approvals contemplated a maximum development of 2,300 residential dwelling units; however, the 1995 EIR and 1995 Specific Plan included many mitigation measures and conditions of approval that required additional environmental analyses before issuance of various federal, state and City permits and other approvals. The findings and conclusions of these additional environmental analyses have adversely impacted the amount of developable land and hence the number of residential dwelling units that can be developed within the 1995 Specific Plan area, as further discussed below.

4. Inasmuch as satisfaction of and compliance with the 1995 EIR mitigation measures and 1995 Specific Plan conditions of approval required extensive additional environmental analyses, the 1995 EIR is a de facto program environmental impact report that requires follow-on CEQA compliance in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).

5. The 1995 EIR mitigation measures, 1995 Specific Plan conditions of approval, in addition to other applicable species and habitat conservation plans approved after ATTACHMENT 4
1078 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
60133402.v1
DRAFT
certification of the 1995 EIR and approval of the 1995 Specific Plan requiring extensive further environmental analysis in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Hydrology and Drainage. 1995 EIR mitigation measure 3.7.2 requires the design and construction of storm water works including “Detention basins, and other storm water protective works [that] shall be constructed to protect structures from 100-year flooding.” Such storm water works must meet the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (“CVWD”) and the City’s Public Works Department.

1. To comply with 1995 EIR mitigation measure 3.7.2, a Drainage Master Plan was prepared, in 2020, in accordance with CVWD, City Public Works Department and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (for potential flood impacts to Dike No. 4, which did not exist in 1995 and is under the jurisdiction of the United States Bureau of Reclamation) requirements, taking into consideration the potential dynamic hydraulic, sedimentation and erosion conditions present at the 1995 Specific Plan site. The 2020 Drainage Master Plan is included in the administrative record of proceedings for certification of the environmental impact report required to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), as discussed in Section 4 above (State Clearinghouse No. 2018011023) (“2021 EIR”) for a General Plan amendment, specific plan amendment, tentative tract map and development agreement (“Revised Land Use Entitlements”).

2. The 2020 Drainage Master Plan identified project related impacts to the existing hydrologic and flood control features that affect the 1995 Specific Plan area and regional flood control and local drainage improvements required for development of the 1995 Specific Plan and to satisfy the 1995 EIR Mitigation Measures.

3. Implementation of the 1995 EIR Mitigation Measures, BO and other environmental requirements, as well as 2020 Drainage Master Plan will consume 394 acres of developable land as identified in 1995 Specific Plan area as depicted on Exhibit “A” hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, resulting in a reduction of 1012 residential units that can be developed. These acreage and unit reductions are detailed further below.

B. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. 1995 EIR mitigation measure 3.8.3 and Specific Plan condition of approval 15 require an assessment of impacts to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep and habitat associated with development of the 1995 Specific Plan area.

1. In June, 2004, in order to comply with 1995 EIR mitigation measure 3.8.3 and 1995 Specific Plan condition of approval 15, the owner of the Travertine Specific Plan area submitted a request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) to initiate a 1079 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Devil
Canyon
Devil
Canyon
Middle North
Canyon
Middle North
Canyon
Middle South
Canyon
Middle South
Canyon
Current Boundary
Development
Footprint 508.2 AC
RPA with
200’ Buffer
Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat/Critical
Habitat Boundary (USFWS)
Proposed
Basins
Streambed &
Habitat
Cultural
Resources
Restricted
Open Space
This exhibit summarized the various elements that have shaped the current development footprint and supports the current entitlement effect of 1,200 DU.

EXHIBIT A
1080 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT
Section 7 consultation process to assess the potential impacts to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep and habitat resulting from development of the Specific Plan area.

2. The Section 7 consultation process resulted in approval of a Biological Opinion by the USFWS (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) (“BO”) after consultation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation on December 7, 2005. The BO is included in the administrative record of proceedings for approval of the Revised Land Use Entitlements.

3. The BO concluded that a proposed reduction in the 1995 Specific Plan area plus the addition of critical habitat required to mitigate against impacts to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep as depicted on Exhibit “B” hereto and by this reference made a part hereof and explained above.

C. Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. In September and October, 2008, the state and federal governments, respectively, approved the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“CVMSHCP”) to address impacts to certain species and their habitat resulting from development. Compliance with the CVMSHCP substitutes, in part, for CEQA compliance for assessments of impacts to each individual species covered by the CVMSHCP and is mandatory.

1. Compliance with the CVMSHCP requires that no development will be permitted within the San Jacinto Mountains Conservation area. The CVMSHCP is included by reference in the administrative record of proceedings for approval of the Revised Land Use Entitlements.

2. The 1995 Specific Plan included area that encroaches into the San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area that must now be left undisturbed and preserved in perpetuity in compliance with the CVMSHCP.

3. Removing affected development areas of the 1995 Specific Plan area from the San Jacinto Mountains Conservation area as depicted on Exhibit “C” hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, resulted in a reduction of Specific Plan area as described above.

D. Jurisdictional Waters and Desert Dry Wash Riparian Woodland Habitat. Desert Dry Wash Riparian Woodland Habitat. The south end of the Specific Plan area contains a concentration of desert dry wash riparian woodland habitat that present within a number of ephemeral drainage courses flowing from mountains to the west and south.

1. Preservation of a significant portion of the desert dry wash riparian woodland habitat is necessary in order to provide nesting sites for a number of species of birds and habitat for terrestrial animals.
60133402.v1
1081 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1082 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Santa Rosa &
San Jacinto Mtns.

Conservation Area

EXHIBIT C
1083 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
60133402.v1
DRAFT

2. The 2021 EIR requires preservation of 55.98 acres of desert dry wash riparian woodland habitat as depicted on Exhibit “D” hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as a mitigation against loss of some of the habitat that will occur from development of the remainder of the Specific Plan area, resulting in a further reduction of 140 residential units that can be developed.

6. As a result of compliance with CEQA, the number of residential dwelling units that can be developed within the Specific Plan area has been reduced from 2,300 to 1,200. 1084 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1085 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
June 13, 2024
Subject: Travertine Specific Plan Project Technical Memorandum This technical memorandum is provided to the City to address comments and questions raised at the May 28, 2024 public hearing of the La Quinta Planning Commission on the Travertine Specific Plan Project (“Project”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”).

The City is currently preparing the Final EIR for the Project. The Final EIR will include responses to all comments received in the CEQA-mandated review and consultation process that raise significant environmental points. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15132.) I. Questions Relating to the Project Circulation and Phasing Plan.

The Project will be developed in phases. The phasing of the Project is described in Section 3.7 of the DEIR. The DEIR fully analyzes the air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic generation impacts of the Project phasing plan. (DEIR, p. 3-39.) As described in Section

3.8 of the DEIR, at buildout the Project property is proposed to be served by two access points:
(1) the southerly extension of Jefferson Street as a Modified Secondary Arterial; and (2) the westerly extension of Avenue 62 as a Modified Secondary Arterial west of Monroe Street. (DEIR, p. 3-42.) As is further described in the DEIR, the Travertine community land uses are proposed to be oriented on both sides of the Jefferson Street/Avenue 62 central spine roadway, with local loop collector roads emanating from the spine roadway via roundabouts to provide access to the neighborhoods. (DEIR Exhibit 3-14 (Circulation Plan).)
The La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element identifies Avenue 62 at its current terminus at Dike No. 4 as a modified secondary arterial roadway. (DEIR, p. 3-42; La Quinta General Plan, Circulation Element, p. II-79; Exhibit II-2.) The Project proposes to extend Avenue 62 to cross over Dike No. 4. (DEIR, p. 3-30.)
Riverside County Fire requires two access points to the Project site during both Project construction and Project operation to ensure adequate fire and emergency services (e.g., paramedics) to the site. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-19-4.14-20.) The extension of the existing terminus of Ave 62 west of Monroe Street and into the Project property has been approved by Riverside County Fire through the Fire Access Master Plan (FCMP2019-0008) as one of the two required points of access to the Project site. For this reason alone, elimination of the Avenue 62 crossing over Dike No. 4 is not feasible.

Proposals to modify the crossing that have been provided to the City are likewise infeasible. For example, Avenue 62 cannot be “notched” into Dike No. 4 due to a number of reasons including ATTACHMENT 5
1086 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
proposed utilities, maintaining existing flood protection and preserving the integrity of the dike.

The roadway will cross over the existing dike at a sufficient height (about 6’) to allow for utilities to be placed without penetrating the dike. Penetrating the dike with utilities is discouraged by the Bureau of Reclamation considering the possibility of seepage to occur either along the utility trench or due to a leak and potentially causing a failure of the dike as earthen materials (fines) can be suspended and carried along the seepage path. Placing the roadway below the top of dike is also problematic due to utility issues described above and the potential for flood depths of fifteen (15) feet plus contained behind Dike No. 4. The Project has been designed to allow storm flows to travel around the Project and easterly to where the run-off is contained behind Dike No. 4. The Project improvements will not change or minimize the need for the protection that Dike No. 4 currently provides.

II. The Extension of Avenue 62 Across Dike No. 4.

There is no evidence that the proposed crossing of Avenue 62 over Dike No. 4 raises significant environmental concerns. Per DEIR Section 4.1, although the Avenue 62 crossing over Dike No. 4 would be visible from some private rear yards and golf course holes, impacts would not be significant because views of the panoramic Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and Coral Mountain to the west would remain largely visible due to their scale and massing. DEIR Exhibits 4.1-8, 14, and 15 illustrate that the bulk of visual impacts from the proposed crossing over Dike No. 4 fall within the area where the dike is already obstructing views to the southwest. Additional permanent changes to views at the top of the dike are minimal and considered to be less than significant.

With respect to visual impact of trucks traveling at the height of a roadway atop the dike, a vehicle traveling 25 miles per hour over an estimated 20 feet of visibility at the top of the dike, would be visible for about 0.5 seconds.1
Further, as discussed above, this visual contrast would not be considered significant because the vehicle would not appreciably alter the panoramic Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and Coral Mountain to the west, which is already obstructed by utility infrastructure (i.e., the already existing dike).

As explained in the enclosed technical memorandum provided by Urban Crossroads, dated June 13, 2024, future long-range traffic volumes on Avenue 62 crossing over Dike No. 4 will not exceed a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level. Pursuant to the City General Plan and noise ordinance, and as fully explained in the DEIR, the City does not consider noise impacts below 65 dBA CNEL to constitute a significant disturbance for residential and other noise sensitive uses. 1 This calculation was derived as follows:
25 miles/ 1 hour = 132,000 feet / 60 minutes = 132,000 feet/3600 seconds 132,000 feet / 3600 seconds = 20 feet / X seconds
X = 3600 seconds (20 feet) / 132,000 feet = 72,000 / 132,000 = 0.5 sec 1087 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Construction traffic including workers, fuel trucks, maintenance trucks, material delivery trucks, etc. generated by the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas. This includes Project truck trips on Avenue 62 crossing over Dike No. 4. DEIR, Appendix C.1(Air Quality Impact Analysis) documents that approximately 288 construction trips and 74 vendor trips are expected. The 362 daily construction truck trips represent a fraction (less than 3%) of the 14,000 daily trips used to estimate the conservative worst-case future long-range 2040 traffic conditions and noise levels presented on Table 3. Therefore, consistent with the finding of the traffic analysis, construction traffic will not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level or constitute a significant disturbance for residential and other noise sensitive uses.

III. Questions Regarding the Traffic Impact Study Roadway Segment Analysis.

Table 1-7 in the Project Traffic Impact Study provides that average daily trips on Avenue 62 west of Monroe total 600 and 1800 in the existing condition and in 2031, respectively. The background growth on Avenue 62 for twelve years (from 2019 to 2031) is an interpolation of the ‘without project’ volumes from 2019 to 2040, and it amounts to a total volume of 1,200 vehicle per day being added by 2031 to the 2019 volume of 600 vehicles per day west of Monroe. The addition of 1,200 vehicles per day is equivalent to the traffic generated by 127 single family detached homes. In other words, consistent with the City’s anticipated growth projections, the annual background growth on Avenue 62 assumes the equivalent to 10 or 11 homes per year, occurring west of Monroe and east of the Project boundary.
1088 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
12189-24 Focused Noise Assessment
June 17, 2024
Mr. Mark Rogers
TRG Land, Inc.
898 Production Place
Newport Beach, CA 92663
SUBJECT: TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN FOCUSED NOISE ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. Mark Rogers:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this Focused Noise Assessment for the Travertine Specific Plan (“Project”), which is located west Madison Street, in the City of La Quinta, California. We have prepared this Focused Noise Assessment to respond to the specific questions that were raised at the May 28, 2024 hearing of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission regarding the traffic noise impacts associated with the Avenue 62 crossing over Dike #4.

BACKGROUND
On April 18, 2023, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared the Travertine Specific Plan Noise Impact Analysis (“NIA”). The NIA was prepared to satisfy applicable City of La Quinta noise standards and significance criteria based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. While the NIA focuses on the noise impacts associated with the Existing, Phase 3 and 2040 Project traffic on eleven roadway segments, this Focused Noise Assessment identifies Project noise levels at individual receivers locations specifically adjacent to the Avenue 62 segment crossing over Dike #4.

Focused Noise Assessment

NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (1) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet flyover noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (2) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.
1089 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Mr. Mark Rogers
TRG Land, Inc.

June 17, 2024

Page 2 of 7 ends

12189-24 Focused Noise Assessment
EXHIBIT A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the Avenue 62 crossing over Dike #4 noise impacts, the following nearby residential receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive uses or receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. To describe the potential off-site noise levels, ten receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified, including the location of the nearest existing noise sensitive residential receiver (R6 - 81307 Jasmine Ct.) located approximately 343 feet north of Avenue 62.

Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the centerline to each receiver location. 1090 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Mr. Mark Rogers
TRG Land, Inc.

June 17, 2024

Page 3 of 7 ends

12189-24 Focused Noise Assessment
EXHIBIT A: NEAREST NOISE SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL RECEIVER LOCATIONS 1091 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Mr. Mark Rogers
TRG Land, Inc.

June 17, 2024

Page 4 of 7 ends

12189-24 Focused Noise Assessment

TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the potential traffic noise impacts at the ten nearby residential receiver locations from the traffic going over the berm at the Avenue 62 crossing of Dike #4. Table 1 presents a summary of the roadway parameters used to predict the future exterior noise levels. The traffic volumes shown on Table 1 reflect future long-range 2040 traffic conditions that include both the Project traffic volumes and background traffic growth. The average daily traffic volumes are based Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (3) To ensure that the traffic noise analysis evaluates the reasonable worstcase traffic noise conditions, the change in elevation due to the roadway profile grade as well as the full throttle noise emissions due to vehicle acceleration and engine noise on Avenue 62 crossing over Dike #4 were assumed in the analysis. Changes in vehicle speeds are largely influenced by the engine noise of accelerating vehicles instead of the deceleration associated with vehicle braking. (4) TABLE 1: ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Road Segment Classification 2040 Average Daily
Traffic Volume
Near/Far Lane
Distance (Feet)2
Speed
(mph)
6 Av. 62 w/o Monroe St. Modified Secondary 14,000 42' 50 Source: Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Table 2 presents the time-of-day vehicle splits across a 24-hour timeframe and the traffic flow distributions (vehicle mix) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix is expressed as a percentage of the overall daily vehicle splits for all vehicle types. The vehicle mix used for purposes of this evaluation is the same as is presented on Tables 6-3 and 6-4 of the NIA and comprises heavy and medium trucks and autos, expressed as a percentage of the total modeled traffic flow by each vehicle type. This explains why the heavy truck time of day splits appear to disproportionally occur during the nighttime hours.

As shown on Table 2, roughly 75% of the traffic volumes take place during the daytime hours, with 14% during the evening hours and 11% during the nighttime hours. Less than 1% of the project traffic is expected to consist of heavy trucks with approximately 2% medium trucks and the remaining 97% consisting of autos. The vehicle mix assumptions employed in the NIA are representative of a typical Southern California vehicle mix consistent with the required traffic noise modeling parameters outlined County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene Requirements for Determining and Mitigating Traffic Noise Impacts to Residential Properties. (4)
1092 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Mr. Mark Rogers
TRG Land, Inc.

June 17, 2024

Page 5 of 7 ends

12189-24 Focused Noise Assessment
TABLE 2: AVENUE 62 VEHICLE MIX
Time of Day
Vehicle Mix Time of Day
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Split
Daytime 73.60% 0.90% 0.35% 74.85%
Evening 13.60% 0.04% 0.04% 13.68%
Nighttime 10.22% 0.90% 0.35% 11.47%
Daily 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00%
1 County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene. Values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. Vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

The expected future noise levels at residential receivers identified in Exhibit A were calculated using, the parameters outlined in Tables 1 and 2, and the planned Avenue 62 roadway elevation profile accounting for noise source activities at the elevated top of Dike #4. Table 3 presents these calculations as a summary of future exterior noise levels for the private outdoor living areas of the residences closest to the top of the Avenue crossing and that are shown in Exhibit A. Table 3 indicates that the exterior noise levels will range from 52.1 to 59.9 dBA CNEL.

Table 3 shows that the future long-range traffic volumes on Avenue 62 crossing over Dike #4 will not exceed a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level. As documented in the Project EIR, the city does not consider noise impacts below 65 dBA CNEL to constitute a significant disturbance for residential and other noise sensitive uses.

TABLE 3: AVENUE 62 EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver
Location1 Address
Av. 62 Traffic
Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)2
Exterior Noise
Level Standards
(dBA CNEL)3
Noise Level
Standards
Exceeded?4
R1 81272 Jasmine Ct. 52.9 65 No
R2 81260 Jasmine Ct. 56.7 65 No
R3 81271 Jasmine Ct. 59.9 65 No
R4 81283 Jasmine Ct. 58.7 65 No
R5 81295 Jasmine Ct. 55.8 65 No
R6 81307 Jasmine Ct. 52.1 65 No
R7 81319 Jasmine Ct. 54.8 65 No
R8 81337 Rustic Cyn. Dr. 55.0 65 No
R9 81349 Rustic Cyn. Rd. 57.7 65 No
R10 81361 Rustic Cyn. Rd. 57.2 65 No
1 See Exhibit A for the receiver locations.
2 Future Avenue 62 exterior traffic noise levels with crossing over Dike #4. 3 City of La Quinta General Plan Noise Element Policy N-1.2) 4 Do the estimated Avenue 62 traffic noise levels exceed the noise level standards? 1093 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Mr. Mark Rogers
TRG Land, Inc.

June 17, 2024

Page 6 of 7 ends

12189-24 Focused Noise Assessment

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Construction traffic including workers, fuel trucks, maintenance trucks, material delivery trucks, etc. generated by the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas.

This includes Project truck trips on Avenue 62 crossing over Dike #4. Based on the construction worker and vendor demand estimates from Travertine Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis, approximately 288 construction trips and 74 vendor trips are expected. The 362 daily construction truck trips represent a fraction (less than 3%) of the 14,000 daily trips used to estimate the conservative worst-case future long-range 2040 traffic conditions and noise levels presented on Table 3. Therefore, consistent with the finding of the traffic analysis, construction traffic will not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level or constitute a significant disturbance for residential and other noise sensitive uses.

CONCLUSIONS
Consistent with the findings of the NIA, this Focused Noise Assessment shows that the Project traffic associated with the Avenue 62 crossing over Dike #4 will not exceed the City of La Quinta 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standards (City of La Quinta General Plan Noise Element Policy N-1.2). Therefore, consistent with the findings in the NIA, the traffic noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

2. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

3. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. September 2021.

4. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Report 791). Supplemental Guidance of the Application of FHWA's Traffic Noise Model (TNM). 2014. 1094 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Mr. Mark Rogers
TRG Land, Inc.

June 17, 2024

Page 7 of 7 ends

12189-24 Focused Noise Assessment

5. County of Riverside, Office of Industrial Hygiene. Requirements for Determining and Mitigating Traffic Noise Impacts to Residential Structures. April 2015.

6. City of La Quinta. Municipal Code, Sections 9.100, 6.08. 1095 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

PUBLIC COMMENT
Travertine
ATTACHMENT 6
1096 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Cheri Flores
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:35 PM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: FW: Travertine
Attachments: Travertine.docx
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760-777-7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: Martin Brewer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Cheri Flores <[email protected]>
Subject: Travertine
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Hello,
Please forward the attached to the members of the City Council for their consideration at the August 6, 2024, meeting on this subject.

Thank you.

Martin Brewer
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1097 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
To: La Quinta City Council
From: MarƟn Brewer
Subject: TraverƟne Development
Date: July 30, 2024
My wife and I own a home in Trilogy La Quinta. Our residence is at the south end of the development, near Avenue 62.

We understand that the TraverƟne developers currently plan to make Avenue 62 the main entry into their development, rather than a more direct route via Jefferson Street. In listening to the presentaƟon by the applicant, it appears they have taken this posiƟon primarily as a maƩer of convenience, as they do not want to develop a Jefferson Street entry unƟl they are able to get another developer to share the cost.

Their “convenience” will have a major impact on us and others whose homes are near Avenue 62. The number of vehicles anƟcipated to use Avenue 62 during and aŌer construcƟon, day and night, is astronomical, which will cause unacceptable noise and polluƟon. To make maƩers worse, to get over the berm (“Dike No. 4”) on Avenue 62 leading to the development, they are proposing a bridge that will be aestheƟcally unpleasing, noisy, block views, and compromise the privacy of those living adjacent to it.

The applicant has produced reports and “experts” to aƩest to their posiƟon that none of this is going to be a problem of any significance. Much of what these reports and “experts” talk about is difficult for the lay person to understand, given the technological jargon, terms of art, and assessments that I believe only professionals can really decipher. But my “common sense” tells me, and I hope yours will tell you, that using Avenue 62 will unnecessarily burden Trilogy residents for the reasons given above, parƟcularly since there is a beƩer alternaƟve (Jefferson Street) available.

I am not opposed to this development, only the plans to use Avenue 62 as its main entrance. I am requesƟng that the development not be approved unless and unƟl the developer amends it to make its entrance via Jefferson Street, not Avenue 62.

Respecƞully submiƩed,
MarƟn Brewer
81625 RusƟc Canyon Drive, La Quinta (Trilogy)
1098 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Alena Callimanis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 6:02 PM
To: Planning WebMail; Tania Flores; Cheri Flores
Subject: Public Comments not on agenda July 9, 2024 please also send this to the Planning Commision
Attachments: Required approvals for Travertine.pdf; Untitled attachment 00009.htm My apologies for being so nervous today. I totally forgot to discuss this very important comment. Could you please forward this to the Planning Commissioners as well? Thank you. Alena **********************
Commissioners, I apologize that I forgot to also bring up this comment. This is from the Travertine DEIR Executive Summary page 1-4. The exact page is attached below.

The Travertine DEIR will require the approval from the following federal, State and local agencies:
 Bureau of Land Management
 Bureau of Reclamation
 US Fish and Wildlife Services
 US Army Corp of Engineers
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
 State Water Resources Control Board
 Coachella Valley Water District
This is why you need to see that status of all these approvals before you can approve the Final EIR for the City Council.

Respectfully,
Alena
Alena Callimanis
81469 Rustic Canyon Dr
La Quinta, CA 92253
919 606-6164
[email protected]
1099 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1100 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 7:43 PM
To: Cheri Flores; Tania Flores
Subject: Letter for Council members about Travertine Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** La Quinta City Council Members,
I am unable to verify if people who enjoy the desert canyons and mountains will be able to access the “Open Space” as well as the jumble of rocks that is the lower end of the Martinez Landslide when the Travertine project is built.

I spoke with Cheri Flores, City Planner, about this. She believed people would NOT be allowed in these areas due to critical wild life habitat issues and sensitive cultural places. I sent letters to the email addresses of the 3 contacts Cheri gave me, in hopes of getting my questions answered.

Mark Rogers of TRG Land, Inc. kindly replied. Mark stated outside agencies were involved due to wildlife and cultural issues. But I wasn’t clear if that meant people wouldn’t be able to access the “Open Space” and the mountain itself.

Vincent Jones at US Fish and Wildlife Service and Jacob Skaggs of CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife have not yet responded to my letters sent 7/19/24.

The mountain itself and the area at the base of the Martinez Landslide has been one of the many important family and friends gathering places for 5 generations of our family. For over a 100 years members of our family have been blessed to explore the area (always leaving it cleaner than we found it). Our adventures left us strong physically and nurtured a deep appreciation of the beauty of God’s creation as well as strengthening the bond of friendship as we gathered as a multigenerational group of family and friends.

I’m writing for my extended family and other families and people yet to be born , in saying people MUST have access to the desert and canyons.

Long ago I went to the La Quinta Planning Commission meetings when the original Travertine Project was being considered. I spoke about the need for people to have continued access to the mountains and canyons. It was agreed that there would be a parking area near the south west portion of the project to provide that close access.

The current project does not have the south west parking area, but I believe it has a parking area just as you would cross over the dike at Ave. 62.

This would make a long walk to get to the base of the landslide and would not allow for the multigenerational gatherings that have been so treasured by our family and others. If building this project means no close access to the mountains and canyons, I don’t feel it should be approved.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1101 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 There are other reasons why I, personally don’t like the project…increased noise and much increased traffic, more users of water, when the State Water Board is calling for reduced use of water and more.

Do we want our desert canyons filled with homes? It seems as if we are ruining what sets our area apart and makes it special for people to come to our area.

Thank you for “hearing” the words of my heart.

I know there are many different voices with other ideas, and I so appreciate that you took the time to hear my voice.

Gratefully,
Janice Harrison
82080 65th Ave
Thermal. CA 92274
760 578 1846
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
1102 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
From: [email protected]
To: Cheri Flores; Tania Flores
Subject: 2nd part of letter to council members, Travertine Date: Monday, July 29, 2024 8:11:21 PM
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important To La Quinta Council Members,
Some pictures to go with my letter.

Pictures can say more than words…
Celebrating what was my dad’s final birthday at base of landslide 1103 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Checking out the view from on high
1104 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Enjoying a cozy perch after a big climb
1105 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Afternoon picnic at base of Martinez Landslide
Thanks again,
Janice Harrison
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
1106 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Cheri Flores; Tania Flores
Subject: Added note on Travertine
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** 7/30/24
Hi, Please add that Jacob Skaggs of California Dept of Fish and Wildlife did get back to me today. He had been on vacation. He called and we talked but off the top of his head he was not sure where people would or would not be allowed and he wasn’t sure if the parking area over the dike would be for the public.

Thank you,
Janice Harrison
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1107 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1108
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

STVR QUARTERLY REPORT
APRIL 1, 2024 - JUNE 30, 2024

THE STVR PROGRAM CONSISTS OF PERMITTING, LICENSING,

TAX COLLECTION, AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT

PERMITTING
The City Clerk's Office issues all new and
renewed STVR permits and related business
licenses, handles Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) collections, and assists STVR property
owners with keeping their property in
compliance with the STVR program.

Number of STVR Permits:

June 2024 - Total STVR Permits: 1,275
53 47
1,175
Homeshares Primary Residence General Permits
0 500
1000
Figure 1
(Estate Permits: 72)
Active STVR Permits by Area - 2021, 2022, 2023, & 2024 Q-2:

Table 1
Enclosed at
the end of this
report is a list
of Active STVR
Permits by
Development,
see attachment 2.

Section 3.25.055 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code imposes a permanent ban
on issuing new STVR permits in General
and Primary permit categories. STVR
permits in these categories can only be
issued to properties located in Exempt
areas.

Effective January 4, 2024, STVR
Homeshare permits were exempted from
the permanent ban.

STVR zones are depicted in Attachment 1.

JAN-21 JAN-22 JAN-23 JAN-24 JUN-24
North La Quinta 140 115 110 110 112
Mid La Quinta 148 122 92 90 92
The Cove 292 252 236 226 232
South La Quinta (PGA West) 470 354 317 301 295
Permit Ban Areas 1,050 843 755 727 731
STVR Exempt Areas 270 331 434 530 544
Citywide Totals 1,320 1,174 1,189 1,257 1,275
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 3
1109 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

COMPLIANCE
The Code Compliance Department handles all
compliance related matters for the STVR
program, which includes managing complaints,
conducting investigations, and taking
enforcement actions, such as issuing notices of
violations, administrative citations, and STVR Complaints: permit suspensions. 2023 & Q-1 & Q-2 2024 STVR Complaints Citywide by Area
13 34
19 13
10 48
16 24
7 9
18 30
26 49
9 10
28 23
25 28
8 13
21 46
1 6
4 9
11 6
North LQ Mid LQ Cove South LQ (PGA West) Exempt Areas
Q-1 2023
Q-2 2023
Q-3 2023
Q-4 2023
Q-1 2024
Q-2 2024
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
81 141
47 54
88 153
Figure 2
Figure 2 above shows the complaints received citywide for each Area in 2023 and Q-1 and Q-2 of 2024.

The STVR program features a 24/7 STVR Hotline available to residents to call and report complaints or potential issues regarding STVR properties. These calls are answered by City staff or the call center vendor (see Picture-Chart included as Attachment 3), and each call is directed accordingly to a Code Enforcement Officer or the Local Contact on file for the STVR property. Calls can be reported anonymously. 24/7 STVR Hotline: (760) 777-7157
1110 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Figure 4
Complaints: January - June 2024 Permitted vs.

Unpermitted
6 9
6 16 13 13
4 32 31
92 16
3 Permitted Unpermitted
JAN-24 FEB-24 MAR-24 APR-24 MAY-24 JUN-24
0 25
50 75
Figure 3
YOY Quarterly Complaints: 2022 - 2024
71 129
56 30
81 141
47 54
88 153
2022 2023 2024
Q-1 Q-2 Q-3 Q-4
0 50
100
150
Figure 3 shows that 74% of complaints received for the first half of 2024 were for unpermitted STVR properties.

Figure 4 shows the number of complaints received have remained generally consistent. 1111 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Citations:
2023 & 2024 Q-1 & Q-2 STVR Citations:

Permitted vs. Unpermitted
1 5 5 4 3 10
36 49
9 5
10 22
Permitted Citations Unpermitted Citations
Q-1 2023 Q-2 2023 Q-3 2023 Q-4 2023 Q-1 2024 Q-2 2024
0 20
40 2023 & 2024 Q-1 & Q-2 STVR Citations:

Administrative vs. Disturbance
37 53
10 6
11 22
1 4
3 2
10 Administrative Citations Disturbance Citations
Q-1 2023 Q-2 2023 Q-3 2023 Q-4 2023 Q-1 2024 Q-2 2024
0 20
40 Figure 5
Figure 6
Disturbance - the majority of disturbance compliance activities are due to noise, generally caused by large events or gatherings, children running/screaming/laughing, popping balloons, construction, slamming doors, etc. Other complaints include excessive parking, bright lights, trash, unsecured pool access, unmaintained yard, etc.

Administrative - the overwhelming majority of administrative compliance matters are related to operating/advertising without an STVR permit or business license, or failure to display the STVR permit number on listings. Others include incorrect or missing occupancy limit advertised on listings, failure to report/remit transient occupancy tax, etc.

Figure 6 shows the vast
majority of citations in 2023
and Q-1 & Q-2 of 2024 were
issued for administrative
matters, primarily for
operating and/or advertising
without an STVR permit:
- 73% in 2024 Q-1 & Q-2
- 93% in 2023
Figure 5 shows the vast
majority of citations in
2023 and Q-1 & Q-2 of
2024 were issued to
unpermitted properties:
- 71% in 2024 Q-1 & Q-2
- 87% in 2023
1112 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

TAXES, FEES &

STVR PROGRAM
COSTS
The STVR program collects Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT), fees for citations
and inspections, and all program operating
costs such as STVR permit and business
licensing fees.

Table 2 *Citation Fine Collections are current as of July 16, 2024 TOT is a 10% tax due to the City each month on all STVR stays of 30-days or less.

Permit and licensing fees and fine collections covered STVR program operational costs in 2021, 2022, and 2023, and are expected to continue this trend through 2024.

TOT collections remained steady over the last 3 calendar years (2021 - 2023), and remain on track for 2024.

Table 2 below provides an overview of the annual STVR program revenues for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 Q-1 & Q-2.

STVR Annual Revenue Summary: 2020 - 2023, & 2024 Q-1 & Q-2 1113 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
-- CALIFORNIA --

FRED WARING DR
48TH AVE
J 50TH AVE
"'
r:5 � 0
z "' w :::,
� "' w
5 I
z i3 i3 w
z z w w
w � �

CALLE TECATE

STVRAREAS
t;;
Map
ID
.----� 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
50 52ND AVE
58TH AVE
STVR Exempt Areas
Development Name Exemption
Homewood Suites
(La Quinta Desert Villas - Center Pointe) Tourist Commercial District Legacy Villas Tourist Commercial District & Development Agreement La Quinta Resort including Spa & Tennis Tourist Commercial District & Adjacent to TC District Villas Embassy Suites (Casitas Las Rosas) Village Commercial District Villaqe Commercial Villaqe Commercial District
SilverRock Resort/ Talus Tourist Commercial District/ SilverRock Resort Specific Plan Club at Coral Mountain Development Agreement
Signature at PGA West (Haciendas) Tourist Commercial District Puerta Azul Entitlement Approval
Southwest corner Avenue 62 & Madison St Tourist Commercial District - Undeveloped Northwest corner Avenue 64 & Madison St Tourist Commercial District. Undeveloped Polo Villas Residences
Merv Griffin Estate
51555 Madison Street
51251 Avenida Obregon

AIRPORT BLV
-
:;::
0 z
�
Development Agreement
Estates at Griffin Lake Specific Plan
Large Lot Qualified & Certified; Resolution No. 2024-011 Large Lot Qualified & Certified; Resolution No. 2024-012 D City Boundary
- STVR Exempt Area
STVR Exempt Area - D Large Lot Qualified & Certified
City Areas
• North La Quinta
□ Cove
D Mid La Quinta
D South La Quinta
0 Miles
N
2 A
ATTACHMENT 1
1114
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Acacia 11 The Cove 231
Bella Vista 9 Large Lot Qualified & Certified 1
Cactus Flower 10 Cove Total STVR Permits 232
Del Rey 2
Desert Pride 11
Indian Springs Neighborhood 6 Avenida La Fonda Neighborhood (Desert Club TR Unit 2) 2 La Quinta Del Oro (Not Gated) 7 Calle Fortuna Neighborhood (Desert Club TR Unit 1) 3 La Quinta Highlands 14 Desert Club Estates (Desert Club TR Unit 5) 17 Marbella 4 Enclave 1
Monticello 11 Haciendas at La Quinta 1
Quinterra 3 Highland Palms Neighborhood 14
Rancho Ocotillo 3 Montero Estates (No HOA) 1
Sonrisa 7 Large Lot Qualified & Certified 1
Topaz 10 Renaissance 1
Vista Grande 2 Sagebrush Neighborhood (Desert Club Manor TR 1) 6 Westward Ho/Westward Shadows 1 Santa Rosa Cove 43
Westward Isle 1 Seasons at La Quinta (Residential) 2
North La Quinta Total STVR Permits: 112 Mid La Quinta Total STVR Permits: 92 Casitas Las Rosas 73
Homewood Suites (La Quinta Desert Villas) 1
Legacy Villas 213
Estates at La Quinta 1 Merv Griffin Estate 1
La Quinta Fairways 4 PGA West:Signature 157
PGA West: Fairways 95 Polo Villas 18
PGA West: Res I 133 Puerta Azul 38
PGA West: Res II 60 Spa Villas at LQ Resort 10
Village at the Palms 2 Tennis Villas 33
South La Quinta Total STVR Permits: 295 Exempt Total STVR Permits 544 Exempt
South La Quinta
*This information is current as of June 30, 2024 and is updated on a quarterly basis Number of Permitted STVR Properties per Development
1,275 Active STVR Permits as of 6/30/2024*
North La Quinta Cove
Mid La Quinta
ATTACHMENT 2
1115
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
**SHERIFF MAY BE DISPATCHED AT ANY TIME DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CALL *IF THE CODE OFFICER IS UNAVAILABLE OR UNABLE TO RETURN CALLS IMMEDIATELY, HOTLINE CALLS ARE FORWARDED TO THE HOTLINE VENDOR UNTIL

THE CODE OFFICER BECOMES AVAILABLE

CALL TO HOTLINE IS

RECEIVED
24/7 STVR HOTLINE - (760) 777-7157
HOTLINE CALLS EXTENDED-BUSINESS HOURS:

FRIDAY - SUNDAY: 6:00 PM - 2:00 AM (MONDAY)

HOTLINE VENDOR ANSWERS CALL

AND GATHERS COMPLAINT AND

PROPERTY INFORMATION FROM
CALLER

CITY CONTRACTED SECURITY PATROL
OFFICER IS DISPATCHED TO PROPERTY.

DEPENDING ON SITUATION, LOCAL
CONTACT MAY BE CALLED**
ALL CALLS MADE TO THE 24/7 STVR HOTLINE ARE ROUTED ACCORDINGLY DEPENDING ON THE

DAY/TIME OF THE CALL AS SHOWN BELOW
HOTLINE CALLS BUSINESS-HOURS:

MONDAY - FRIDAY: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM OR SATURDAY: 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

CITY CODE OFFICER IS DISPATCHED TO
PROPERTY. DEPENDING ON SITUATION,
LOCAL CONTACT MAY BE CALLED**

CITY CODE COMPLIANCE ANSWERS

THE CALL AND GATHERS COMPLAINT

AND PROPERTY INFORMATION FROM
CALLER*

HOTLINE VENDOR ANSWERS CALL AND

GATHERS COMPLAINT AND PROPERTY

INFORMATION FROM CALLER

HOTLINE VENDOR CONTACTS LOCAL

CONTACT ON FILE FOR STVR PROPERTY

TO ADDRESS COMPLAINT OR SHERIFF'S

DEPARTMENT IF NEEDED
HOTLINE CALLS AFTER-HOURS:

MONDAY - FRIDAY: 4:30 PM - 8:00 AM OR SUNDAY - MONDAY: 2:00 AM - 8:00 AM (MONDAY)

CALL TO HOTLINE IS

RECEIVED

CALL TO HOTLINE IS

RECEIVED
ATTACHMENT 3
1116 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 4

COMMUNITY SERVICES

QUARTERLY REPORT
Wellness Center, LQ Library, LQ Museum, and Creation Station April 1 – June 30, 2024
Community Programs & Social Services
Wellness Center, FIND Food Distribution, Fritz Burns Pool, & Sports Wellness Center provided fitness & recreation programs along with hiking opportunities to 12,625 participants/fitness members (11,426 fitness gym participants; and 1,199 program participants for SRR Resident Cards, Luncheons, AARP Tax, Love & Love Tennis, Yoga Flow, Pilates, Ballroom Dance, Deep Stretch, Essential Fitness, Pickleball 101, Tai Chi Yang, Social Bridge, Monday Movies, Mah Jongg, Ukulele, Dominoes, and Quilting for Good Times). Social service offerings such as the Riverside County Cool Center, HICAP, and FIND outreach were available to the public.

Desert Recreation District (DRD) served 1,823 participants (1,098 for open/lap swim, youth swim lessons, Adaptive Swim lessons; Parent & Me lessons; Lifeguard Pre-Qualification, and Lenny the Shark Water Safety; 351 Water Aerobics; 252 Senior Splash; and 122 Dive-In Movie) at Fritz Burns Pool programs/classes.

Youth sports programs had 32,204 total participants (players, spectators, coaches) for AYSO (soccer – 20,200), Friday Night Lights (flag football – 2,525), and La Quinta Youth Sports Association (baseball – 9,310). Practices and league games are held at La Quinta Park, Colonel Mitchell Paige Middle School, and the La Quinta Sports Complex. Open Court Time volleyball and basketball programs, a City of La Quinta partnership with DRD, had a total of 169 participants at the La Quinta Boys & Girls Club Gym.

Distributed 25,925 pounds of food (food packages/boxes of dry goods and produce) to 840 persons at Coral Mountain, Hadley Villas, Vista Dunes, Washington Street Apartments, and Wolff Waters; FIND also provides mobile pantries for food distribution two times per month at Horizon High School and La Quinta Community Fitness Center & Park. 1117 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
La Quinta Library
• Attendance: 26,400+ persons visited and participated in various programs; 55,200+ items were circulated; 5,585 participated in various programs, meetings, and events. During this quarter there were 7,646 reference questions, 1,850 computer sessions, and 4,229 wireless sessions. • Events: Día de los Niños Cultural Fair (included cultural booths and special performances) and Summer Reading Program activities (Monday Morning Movies, SRP Music Show, SRP Reptile Show, and SRP Galaxy Dance Party).
• Programs: Baby/Toddler Storytimes; Sensory Hour, Library Birthday Party, Teen Anime Café, Level Up LQ, Graphic Novel Club, Read the World, Readers Club, Pagemaster's Book Club, Page Turners Book Club, Chess Club, and Adult Speaker Series.

Circulation/ Programs/ Events
1118
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
La Quinta Library
Día de Los Niños Cultural Fair
• The La Quinta Library held the annual Día de los Niños Cultural Fair on Saturday, April 20th with approximately 800+ people attending. The event included cultural booths, crafts, carnival style games, performances, surprises, and a story walk throughout Civic Center Campus. The goal of this event is to connect kids to the world of learning through books, stories, and program offerings at the library. 1119 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
La Quinta Creation Station
• Attendance: 1,021 people participated in various programs/services. • Memberships: 30 new memberships; 346 active memberships. • Programs: MakerCraft (Marionette Bird Build, Soup Can Bird Feeder, Star Wars Day, Turtle Puppets – World Turtle Day, Summer Reading Program (SRP): Build-A-Dino & Jurassic Tracks, SRP: PVC Pipe Self-Watering System, and SRP: MakerSpace Flugtag), Fiber Arts Bootcamp (Pom Pom Flowers and Needle Felted Sea Turtle Brooch), NEW Crochet 1-on-1 Class, and MakerSpace Camps (Earth Day Crafts, NEW Digital Embroidery, 3D Printing & TinkerCAD), and SRP - Adult Workshop Saturdays:

DIY Journal.

Makerspace Programs/Services/Memberships
1120 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
La Quinta Museum
• Attendance: 1,600+ visitors/participants.
• Exhibits: Mission Grafica and La Quinta Legends: The Fisherman Steps • Events: Music at the Museum (Highroad Rock & Roll Band and The Mudbugs); Creative Conversations (The Wordkeepers); Field Trips: Ben Franklin Elementary; Tours: Daughters of the American Revolution; La Quinta Historical Society meeting; Summer Family Fun: Snakes! • Programs: Good Reads in the Gallery Book Club (Violeta by Isabel Allende, Sabrina & Corina by Kali Fajardo-Anstine, and The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin) and STITCH Fiber Arts Club, TED Talk Discussion, Take a Break with Huell, Genealogy Club, Sketchbook Journaling, and Museum Kids Summer Art Sessions.
• Social Media Promotion: Friday Fun Facts and Exhibit Content is shared via social media with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube subscribers.

Exhibits/Programs/Events
1121 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Concert in the Park Series @ SilverRock Park
• Gypsy Dreams A Tribute to Fleetwood Mac performed on Saturday, May 4 from 7:00-9:30 p.m.
• La Verdad Band performed on Saturday, June 1 from 7:30-9:30 p.m. • Approximately 500+ persons in attendance for both concerts. • City staff provided information and giveaways to participants and Birria Dona Emma was onsite with their food truck.

Community Events
1122 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Annual City Picnic and Birthday Celebration @ Civic Center Campus • The City of La Quinta’s annual Picnic and Birthday Celebration took place on Saturday, April 27 from 9 a.m. – 12 p.m. at the Civic Center Campus. Approximately 1,000 people were in attendance. The city provided small succulent plants, La Quinta branded coloring books, recycling/ composting information, and various other items. • The La Quinta Rotary provided free hot dogs and the Cone Zone provided free snow cones.

Party Pals bought out their inflatable slides, rock climbing wall, and trampoline jump. Nothing Bundt Cakes provided the City birthday cake, Algo Dulce Sum Sweets provided cupcakes, and Crumble Cookie provided individual boxed cookies.
• Performances were provided by Dance, Play, & Pretend, Beginning Ballet, Doug Hassett, Mariachi del Ayer, Natasha Terrell, La Quinta High School Cheer, Choir, and Theater Troup. • Businesses that participated include Action Park Alliance (APA), Algo Dulce Sum Sweets, Alliant Special Event Insurance, Burrtec Waste and Recycling, CFLC Sheltering Palm Springs, Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, Coachella Valley Yarn, Jewish Family Services, Cone Zone, Crumble Cookie, CVWD, Desert Recreation District (DRD), Elder Love, Grocery Outlet, LH Productions, La Quinta Boys & Girls Club, La Quinta Creation Station, La Quinta Fire Department, La Quinta Historical Society, La Quinta Library, La Quinta Museum, Riverside County Sheriff's Department, La Quinta Rotary, Nothing Bundt Cakes, Old Town Artisan Studio, Palm Desert La Quinta Football/Cheer, Party Pals, Scouts BSA Troops #1701 & #451, SCRAP Gallery, TerraMar Travel, Tuff Shed, and Tops & Barricades.

Community Events
1123
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Community Events
Fly Over LQ Kite Experience @ SilverRock Park
• The annual Fly Over LQ Kite Experience took place on Saturday, April 6th from 8:00-10:00 a.m. at SilverRock Park.
• Participants were able to bring their own or make a kite on-site. City provided kite making kits and Scouts BSA and Ophelia Girls were there to assist participants.
• Approximately 100+ persons participated in this event. 1124 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda • Attendance: 3,649 residents and 2,535 non-residents used the park this quarter.

Park hours: 7 days a week, 12:00 – 9:00 p.m. (Monday – Friday) and 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. (Saturday – Sunday) April; 5 days a week 12:00 – 9:00 p.m. (Wednesday-Friday) and 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. Saturday-Sunday (May – June). • Total Memberships: 100 memberships sold this quarter (71 resident and 29 nonresident). Overall memberships sold to date is approximately 1,327 (912 resident and 415 non-resident).
• Programs: Olympian Maze Paris and Red Bull team visited the park, BMX Jam, BMX Night, Mini Skate Camp Pop-up, Scooter Jam, Quad Lesson Meet-up, Summer Camp Week 1, and Go Skate Day.
• Events: CV AM Skate Contest, Coachiller Pop Contest, Friday Night Contests, and Memorial Day Quad Jam.

X Park
Bike & Skate Programs/ Events/ Memberships
1125
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1126 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
City of La Quinta

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

STAFF REPORT
TO: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Scott Nespor, Senior Planner
DATE: August 6, 2024
SUBJECT: Southern Sphere of Influence Outreach Update
At the March 19, 2024 Council Study Session on the Southern Sphere of Influence (SOI), Council reviewed information regarding fiscal considerations of annexation, an assessment of current infrastructure facilities, an overview of the annexation process, and directed staff to continue the study of the SOI.

Since the Study Session, staff has continued public outreach efforts and gave a presentation to the Vista Santa Rosa Community Council on May 29, 2024, on the City’s recent studies of the SOI. Staff also developed a survey to further engage the community and receive feedback from Vista Santa Rosa residents and property owners. The survey is available in English and Spanish versions. It was mailed on July 24, 2024 to all registered voters and property owners within the Southern SOI, with a return postage paid envelope. Online versions of the survey have also been prepared and can be accessed via a QR Code that takes you to a dedicated “Vista Santa Rosa” page available on the City’s website.

Staff will collect the feedback from the surveys and include a summary of the findings at a future SOI Study Session.

Attachment: 1. Vista Santa Rosa SOI Surveys
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 5
1127 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Yes No Neutral
S A L F O R D & C O .

The Vista Santa Rosa Community area is in the City of La Quinta’s Sphere of Influence, which is an area next to but outside of the La Quinta City boundaries. The City of La Quinta is evaluating possible annexation of this area. Please take a short survey so that we can learn what is important to you. For further information. please contact Scott Nespor, Senior Planner, at 760-777-7069 or [email protected]. An online version of this survey can be found using this QR code:

Vista Santa Rosa – Sphere of Influence
Please Mark Your Answer in the Box/Space Provided

1. Please indicate your connection to Vista Santa Rosa (Check all that apply)? Resident Property Owner
Business Operator in Vista Santa
Rosa

2. Do you support Vista Santa Rosa becoming part of the City of La Quinta (Annexation)?

3. Please describe why you do or do not support becoming part of the City of La Quinta? (Please Answer in the Space Below) HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU ARE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES? Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important

4. Fire Protection/Public Safety/Emergency Response Time

5. Code Compliance Enforcement (ie response to complaints regarding noise, short term vacation rentals, construction without building permits, nuisances)

6. Please provide any additional comments regarding public safety you would like to share. (Please Answer in the Space Below) WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES IN VISTA SANTA ROSA?

7. Stores/Services such as Grocery Stores, Retail, and Restaurants

8. Office, Medical Office, or Industrial Park

9. Automotive Service and Repair Facilities

10. Agricultural related businesses, such as farm stands, agritourism, Community Supported Agriculture operations

11. Learning Centers, Trade Schools

12. Small Event Centers/Ranchos

13. Please provide any additional comments regarding businesses you would like to share. (Please Answer in the Space Below) Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
WOULD YOU LIKE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BE INCLUDED AS PROPERTY OWNERS DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY IN VISTA SANTA ROSA?

14. Design Guidelines for Future Development (i.e Vista Santa Rosa Design Guidelines)

15. A Vista Santa Rosa Town Center

16. Preservation of Agricultural Lands

17. Expansion of Equestrian Properties and Activities
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral

18. Please provide any additional comments regarding future development in Vista Santa Rosa you would like to share.
(Please Answer in the Space Below)
English and Spanish versions of the survey have been provided.

Return one completed survey per person by using the enclosed stamped envelope.

ATTACHMENT 1
1128 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Vista Santa Rosa – Sphere of Influence
SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING HOUSING TYPES BE PROVIDED IN VISTA SANTA ROSA?

19. Agricultural Worker Housing

20. Mobile Home or Modular Home Park

21. Rental Housing

22. Affordable Housing

23. Market Rate Single Family Homes

24. Short Term Vacation Rental Housing

25. Please provide any additional comments regarding Housing in Vista Santa Rosa you would like to share.
(Please Answer in the Space Below)
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RECREATION AMENITIES? (Please Answer in the Space Below)
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral
Yes No Neutral

26. Equestrian/Multipurpose Trails Yes No Neutral

27. Recreation Opportunities, such as Pickleball, Sport Courts, and/or Skate Park Yes No Neutral

28. Parks and Open Space. Yes No Neutral

29. Please provide any additional comments regarding Recreation in Vista Santa Rosa you would like to share.

HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS?

30. Electrical System Upgrades

31. Internet/Telecommunications Upgrades

32. Regular Schedule of Road Maintenance

33. Expansion of Public Water and/or Sewer System

34. Sidewalks and/or Bicycle Lanes

35. Please provide any additional comments regarding Utilities/Infrastructure in Vista Santa Rosa you would like to share. (Please Answer in the Space Below) Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
1129 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Si No Neutral
S A L F O R D & C O .

El área de la Comunidad Vista Santa Rosa se encuentra en la Esfera de Influencia de la Ciudad de La Quinta, que es un área al lado, pero fuera de los límites de la Ciudad de La Quinta. La Ciudad de La Quinta está evaluando una posible anexión de esta zona. Realice una breve encuesta para que podamos saber qué es importante para usted. Puede encontrar una versión de esta encuesta en línea utilizando este código QR:

Para más información, por favor contactar Scott Nespor, Senior Planner, a 760-777-7069 o [email protected].

Vista Santa Rosa – Esfera de Influencia
Por favor marque su respuesta en el cuadro/espacio proporcionado

1. Por favor indique su conexión con Vista Sant Rosa (Marque todo lo que corresponda). Residente Dueño de la propiedad
Operador de negocios en Vista
Santa Rosa

2. ¿Apoya que Vista Santa Rosa forme parte de la Ciudad de La Quinta (Anexión)?

3. Por favor describa por qué apoya o no ser parte de la Ciudad de La Quinta. (Por favor responda en el espacio a continuación)
¿QUÉ IMPORTANCIA TIENEN PARA USTED LOS SIGUIENTES SERVICIOS DE SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA?

4. Protección contra incendios/Seguridad pública/Tiempo de respuesta a emergencias

5. Aplicación del código (es decir, respuesta a quejas sobre ruido, alquileres vacacionales a corto plazo, construcción sin permisos de construcción, molestias)

6. Proporcione cualquier comentario adicional sobre la seguridad pública que desee compartir. (Por favor responda en el espacio a continuación)
¿LE GUSTARÍA VER ALGUNO DE LOS SIGUIENTES NEGOCIOS EN VISTA SANTA ROSA?

7. Tiendas/servicios como supermercados, tiendas y restaurantes

8. Oficina, Consultorio Médico o Parque Industrial

9. Instalaciones de reparación y servicio automotriz

10. Negocios relacionados con la agricultura, como puestos agrícolas, agroturismo y operaciones de agricultura apoyada por la comunidad

11. Centros de aprendizaje, escuelas vocacionales

12. Centros de eventos/ranchos

13. Proporcione cualquier comentario adicional sobre las empresas que le gustaría compartir. (Por favor responda en el espacio a continuación)
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
¿LE GUSTARÍA QUE SE INCLUYERA ALGUNO DE LOS SIGUIENTES A MEDIDA QUE LOS PROPIETARIOS DESARROLLEN SU PROPIEDAD EN VISTA SANTA ROSA?

14. Guías de diseño para el desarrollo futuro (es decir, guías de diseño de Vista Santa Rosa)

15. Creación de un centro de la ciudad de Vista Santa Rosa

16. Preservación de Tierras Agrícolas

17. Expansión de propiedades y actividades ecuestres
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral

18. Proporcione cualquier comentario adicional sobre el desarrollo futuro en Vista Santa Rosa que le gustaría compartir.
(Por favor responda en el espacio a
continuación)
Importante
Un Poco Importante
No Importante
Importante
Un Poco Importante
No Importante
Le Hemos enviado la encuesta en inglés y español.

Le Pedimos que solo regrese una encuesta por persona en el sobre estampado que le hemos enviado.

En español
1130 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Vista Santa Rosa – Esfera de Influencia
¿SE DEBE PROPORCIONAR ALGUNO DE LOS SIGUIENTES TIPOS DE VIVIENDA EN VISTA SANTA ROSA?

19. Vivienda para trabajadores agrícolas

20. Parque de casas móviles o casas modulares

21. Viviendas de renta

22. Vivienda accessible de bajos ingresos

23. Viviendas unifamiliares a precio de mercado

24. Vivienda de renta vacacional a corto plazo

25. Por favor proporcione cualquier comentario adicional sobre Vivienda en Vista Santa Rosa que le gustaría compartir.
(Por favor responda en el espacio a
continuación)
¿LE GUSTARÍA VER ALGUNA DE LAS SIGUIENTES COMODIDADES RECREATIVAS? (Por favor responda en el espacio a
continuación)
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral
Si No Neutral

26. Senderos ecuestres/multiusos Si No Neutral

27. Oportunidades de recreación, como Pickleball, canchas deportivas y/o parque de patinaje Si No Neutral

28. Parques y Espacios Abiertos Si No Neutral

29. Proporcione cualquier comentario adicional sobre la recreación en Vista Santa Rosa que le gustaría compartir.
¿QUÉ IMPORTANCIA TIENEN LAS SIGUIENTES MEJORAS EN LOS SERVICIOS PÚBLICOS Y LA INFRAESTRUCTURA?

30. Actualizaciones del sistema eléctrico

31. Actualizaciones de Internet/Telecomunicaciones

32. Calendario regular de mantenimiento de carreteras

33. Ampliación del Sistema Público de Agua y/o Alcantarillado

34. Aceras y/o carriles para bicicletas

35. Proporcione cualquier comentario adicional sobre servicios públicos/infraestructura en Vista Santa Rosa que desee compartir.
(Por favor responda en el espacio a
continuación)
Importante
Un Poco Importante
No Importante
Importante
Un Poco Importante
No Importante
Importante
Un Poco Importante
No Importante
Importante
Un Poco Importante
No Importante
Importante
Un Poco Importante
No Importante
En español
1131 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1132 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

AIRPORT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Airport Conference Room, Palm Springs International Airport 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262
Wednesday, July 10, 2024 - 5:30 P.M.

The following agenda items were distributed on the next regular business day after the Airport Commission agenda packet was distributed to the Airport Commission, and at least 24 hours prior to the Airport Commission meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 9.B – Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc.

ATTACHMENT: Revised Staff Report with Attachment A
REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEM NO. 31
1133 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
9 AIRPORT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Airport Conference Room, Palm Springs International Airport 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262
Wednesday, July 10, 2024 - 5:30 P.M.

To view/listen/participate virtually in the meeting live, please contact Tanya Perez at [email protected] or the following telephone number (760) 318-3805 to register for the Zoom meeting. There will be an email with Zoom credentials sent after registration is complete, in order to access the meeting and offer public comment. Registration is not required to attend the meeting in person.

In addition, the meeting will also be teleconferenced pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 from the following location(s):

TELECONFERENCE LOCATION(S):

Commissioner David Feltman – Palm Springs
176 Bradford Street, #4
Provincetown, MA 02657
Commissioner Bryan Ebensteiner – Palm Springs
20375 Knightsbridge Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Commissioner Tracy Martin – Palm Springs
2771 Ori Ave
San Jose, CA 95128
Commissioner Keith Young -City of Rancho Mirage
6 Kai Ala Drive, Unit 2427
Lahaina, HI 96761
Commissioner Ken Hedrick – Palm Springs
2345 Mill Road, #1215
Alexandria, VA 22314
Each location is accessible to the public, and members of the public may address the Airport Commission from any of the locations listed above. Any person who wishes to provide public testimony in public comments is requested to file a speaker card before the Public Comments portion of the meeting. You may submit your public comment to the Airport Commission electronically. Material may be emailed to: [email protected] - Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. Any correspondence received during or after the meeting will be distributed to the Airport Commission and retained for the official record.

To view Airport Commission meeting videos click on YouTube. 1134 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Special Meeting Agenda
July 10, 2024 – Page 2
_______________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palm Springs: Riverside County:

Margaret Park
City of Cathedral City:

Vacant
City of Palm Desert:

Kevin Wiseman Kevn J. Corcoran
– Vice Chair David Feltman
Dave Banks J Craig Fong City of Indian Wells:

Robert Berriman
City of Coachella:

Denise Delgado
City of Rancho Mirage:

Keith Young Todd Burke Ken Hedrick
Daniel Caldwell Tracy Martin City of La Quinta:

Vacant
City of Desert Hot
Springs:

Jan Pye
City of Indio:

Rick Wise
Bryan Ebensteiner Samantha McDermott
Palm Springs City Staff
Scott C. Stiles Harry Barrett Jr., A.A.E. Jeremy Keating City Manager Airport Executive Director Assistant Airport Director

1. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. POSTING OF AGENDA

3. ROLL CALL

4. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS

5. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Limited to three minutes on any subject within the purview of the Commission

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Airport Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2024

8. INTRODUCTIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:

8.A Commissioner Bryan Ebensteiner

8.B Commissioner Ken Hedrick

8.C Commissioner Samantha McDermott

8.D Commissioner Representing Cathedral City

8.E Commissioner Representing La Quinta

8.F Executive Administrative Assistant Andrew LeCompte

9. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS:

9.A Palm Springs Air Museum Lease Extension

9.B Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc.

9.C Public Relations & Legislative Plan for Airport Master Plan

9.D Taxiway Rehabilitation Project

9.E Outbound Baggage Handling System Update

9.F Marketing and Air Service Update

9.G Measure J Update

9.H Parking Rate Analysis

9.I Turo Update
1135 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Special Meeting Agenda
July 10, 2024 – Page 3
_______________________________________________________________________________________

9.J Financial Summary Update

9.K Noise Committee Update.

9.L Concessions Update

9.M Smoking Ordinance Update

9.N Projects and Airport Capital Improvement Program Update

10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

11. COMMISSIONERS REQUESTS AND REPORTS

12. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTIONS:

12.A Past City Council Actions

12.B Future City Council Actions

13. RECEIVE AND FILE

14. COMMITTEES:

14.A Future Committee Meetings

14.B Committee’s Roster
ADJOURNMENT:

The Airport Commission will adjourn to a Regular Meeting on September 18, 2024, at 5:30 P.M.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Harry Barrett, Jr., Airport Executive Director, City of Palm Springs, California, hereby certify this agenda was posted on July 3, 2024, in accordance with established policies and procedures.

PUBLIC NOTICES
Pursuant to G.C. Section 54957.5(b)(2) the designated office for inspection of records in connection with the meeting is the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way. Complete Agenda Packets are available for public inspection at: City Hall Office of the City Clerk. Agenda and staff reports are available on the City’s website www.palmspringsca.gov. If you would like additional information on any item appearing on this agenda, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204.

It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, or in meetings on a regular basis, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the Department of Aviation, (760) 318-3800, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible.
1136 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Palm Springs Airport Commission Report – July 10, 2024 Meeting Discussion and Action Items:

Palm Springs Air Museum Lease Extension – Museum Director Fred Bell gave a presentation on the Air Museum and the need for a 10-year extension of the current lease which is set to expire in November, 2035. This extension will support a $3.5 million expansion and remodel of the museum’s front entry area, adding 4,000 square feet of new floor space and making significant improvements. The estimated annual economic impact of the Museum to our region is approximately $35 million. The Commission recommended to Council to approve the extension with various CPI adjustments on the rent and fees owed to the City.

Agreement Amendment with Mead & Hunt Inc for Professional Consulting Services for the Comprehensive Airport Master Plan – The amendment would extend the agreement through July, 2026. This will help assist with various parking and facilities configuration issues, options and impacts.

Council is still debating the location and composition of the new rental car facility. Two locations being considered for the Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRAC): (1) Near the main terminal (including the space where the USO and Pond hangar are now), requiring one or two floors to be constructed underground; or (2) On the south portion of the airport property, using shuttles (and possibly underground tunnels) to transport passengers and staff to and from the main facility.

Parking Rate Analysis – A study was presented comparing the Palm Springs Airport parking rate structure to competing airports in Southern California. The current daily rate of $20 was implemented in 2018. The study indicated an inflation-based adjustment would be $26 per day, and recommended a $24 daily rate. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission approved a recommendation to the Council for the City to increase the daily rate to $26 per day. The Finance Manager indicated she planned to begin having the rate study updating every two years, followed by bringing rate recommendations to the Council. I suggested that even though they plan to update the study every two years, it would be better to take an inflation-based rate recommendation in the first year, thus avoiding further spikes in rate increases. This idea was well received. If the $26 rate is approved by Council, then it is projected to bring in an additional $1.5 million annually.

Outbound Baggage Handling System Update – The new design is expected to be completed in August for presentation to the TSA for their comment period. Getting power from the Cogen plant across the street on the City Hall site to the airport is part of this consideration. The project is being sized to handle the expected growth in airport activity over the next 15 years. A temporary facility is expected to be needed for around nine months.

Measure J (1% tax) and Measure D (1/2% tax) Sales Tax Update – In 2015, the FAA issued a regulation requiring that sales taxes generated from special sales taxes on airline fuel sales be set aside for airport specific expenditures. In 2017, the City’s planned process for identifying and segregating these revenues was implemented by the City’s Finance Department. The current Director of Finance & Treasurer reported that he had just recently come to understand this process which is generating about $750,000 annually, and has generated over $4 million since 2017.

Executive Director Harry Barrett, Jr. was unable to attend the meeting, so a few discussion items were not presented or were just briefly mentioned.
1137 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Next Commission Meeting: an all-day special meeting and study session on September 12, 2024, from 9 AM to 5 PM. The Commission will be dark in August.

Note: On July 11, 2024, I attended a two-hour meeting on Open Meetings Law and the Brown Act for new and existing City of Palm Springs Commissioners as required by State Law. It was presented by City Attorney Jeff Ballinger, and attended by the City Clerk and staff, and introductory remarks were made by Mayor Jeffrey Bernstein and City Manager Scott Stiles.

Also, I will be meeting with Harry Barrett on August 6th at the airport at 2 PM to help bring me up to speed on various issues.
1138 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

Page 1 of 15 ends

AIRPORT COMMISSION

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION OF

THE PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Wednesday, February 21, 2024 – 5:30 P.M.
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Dada called the Airport Commission meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. The meeting was held in-person and via videoconference.

Chairman Dada led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: Posted on February 15, 2024.

3. ROLL CALL:

Commissioners Present:

Dave Banks (Palm Springs)* J Craig Fong (Palm Springs)
Todd Burke (Palm Springs) Tracy Martin (Palm Springs)
Daniel Caldwell (Palm Springs) Tony Michaelis (Cathedral City) Kevin Corcoran (Palm Springs) - Vice Chair Jan Pye (Desert Hot Springs) Aftab Dada (Palm Springs) - Chair Rick Wise (Indio)
Denise Delgado (Coachella) * Keith Young (Rancho Mirage) David Feltman (Palm Springs)
Commissioners Absent: Robert Berriman (Indian Wells), Kathleen Hughes (La Quinta), Margaret Park (Riverside County), M. Guillermo Suero (Palm Springs), and Kevin Wiseman (Palm Desert)
* Dave Banks (Palm Springs) joined the meeting at 5:31 p.m.

Denise Delgado (Coachella) joined the meeting at 5:46 p.m.

Staff Present:

Harry Barrett, Jr., Airport Executive Director
Jeremy Keating, Assistant Airport Director
Daniel Meier, Deputy Director of Aviation, Marketing and Air Service Victoria Carpenter, Airport Administration Manager
Geremy Holm, City Attorney
Christina Brown, Executive Program Administrator
Paula Pak, Executive Administrative Assistant
Item 7
1139 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 15 ends

Others Present:

Neil McLean, Gensler
Matt Townsend, Frasca & Associates, LLC
Ken Cushine, Frasca & Associates, LLC

4. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:

ACTION: Accept the Agenda as presented. Moved by Commissioner Dada, seconded by Commissioner Corcoran, and unanimously approved noting the absence of Commissioners Berriman, Delgado, Hughes, Park, Suero, and Wiseman.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Brad Anderson expressed concerns regarding increased traffic and its impact on local air quality. He acknowledged the need to strike a balance between providing airport benefits to residents and the impacts of increased pollution, including those caused by other modes of transportation. He requested the Commission address the noise impacts associated with the Airport and that he would submit written comments accordingly.

Executive Program Administrator Brown stated that Stewart Gandolf and John Wilhelmi were present via teleconference, and she informed Mr. Gandolf and Wilhelmi that public comment would be opened for Item 8.J. at the appropriate juncture of the meeting.

Mr. Wilhelmi requested permission to provide public comment on Item 8.J. at this juncture due to a personal conflict later in the evening. The Commission allowed Mr.

Wilhelmi to provide comment on Item 8.J. at this juncture. The detail of his comments are referenced under Item 8.J. in this document.

6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

ACTION: Approve the minutes of the Airport Commission Meeting of October 18, 2023. Moved by Commissioner Fong, seconded by Vice Chairman Corcoran, and unanimously approved noting the absence of Commissioners Berriman, Delgado, Hughes, Park, Suero, and Wiseman.

7. INTRODUCTIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:

7.A Executive Administrative Assistant Paula Pak
Chairman Dada introduced the Airport’s new Executive Administrative Assistant Paula Pak. Ms. Pak said that she had previously worked as a legal assistant and in hospitality. Airport Executive Director Barrett said that Ms. Pak would be serving as 1140 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 15 ends

his assistant, and she would be overseeing the Airport Commission and Committee meetings and matters.

8. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS:

8.A Budget and Finance Committee Update
Budget and Finance Committee Chairman Martin provided an update from the Budget and Finance Committee. He said that staff had presented several Baggage Handling System options, and the Committee had requested that staff gather and present additional information to provide to the Committee for a formal vote to be made by the Committee. The Committee also received a presentation concerning the Financial Consultant Agreement with Frasca & Associates, LLC, which appears on this agenda, and they approved a recommendation to approve the agreement. He said that there were material changes in both revenues and expenses and that the details would be provided by Airport Administration Manager Carpenter during the presentation of that item.

8.B Financial Consultant Agreement with Frasca & Associates, LLC.

Airport Administration Manager Carpenter reported that the item before the Commission was to review and consider a recommendation to the City Council to approve a contract service agreement with Frasca & Associates, LLC, in the amount of $3.5 million over a five-year term. Four proposals were received via a request for proposals process. The evaluation team included Airport staff, Finance Department staff, and finance staff from San Diego and Long Beach Airports. The proposals were evaluated and scored based upon publicly noticed criteria, and the team had determined that Frasca & Associates, LLC had the most highly qualified proposal.

Matt Townsend and Ken Cushine, representing Frasca & Associates, LLC, were in attendance and Mr. Townsend provided a brief overview of the company.

Mr. Townsend continued by reporting their initial projects with the Airport would consist of continued implementation of the Airline Use and Lease Agreement (AULA), including calculation of mid-year rates and charges based upon mid-year estimates of revenues, expenses, and activity. Over the next 60 days, their projects would include a cash liquidity forecast and working through a planned capital program for the remainder of the fiscal year. Additionally, they would assist with Fiscal Year 2025 budgeted rates and charges calculations, extension of rental car concession agreement, planning for a successor agreement as related to rental car companies, an amendment to the PFC applications, planning and strategy for the new PFC application in support of the terminal expansion projects, and longer-term capital program financial planning including anticipated bond financing. Long term work would include implementation of the Airport’s Master Plan expansion projects, developing strategies for revenue bond financings, and negotiating the successor AULA. He expressed their team’s excitement in partnering with the Airport. 1141 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 15 ends

ACTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of an agreement with Frasca & Associates, LLC. Moved by Commissioner Feltman, seconded by Commissioner Burke, and unanimously approved noting the absence of Commissioners Berriman, Hughes, Park, Suero and Wiseman.

8.C Financial Summary Update
Airport Administration Manager Carpenter reported on her work with Commissioner Martin concerning various modifications to the financial reports, and she thanked him for his support and guidance. Ms. Carpenter noted that a suggestion from Commissioner Martin was to implement a provision of an ongoing update to the Commission concerning the various revenue and expenditures in each fund account, including the respective purpose of each fund. She opened the floor to Commission comments concerning the financial summary update ending January 31, 2024.

8.D Operations, Properties and Facilities Committee Update Operations, Properties and Facilities Committee Chairman Feltman reported on the recent Committee meeting including the receipt of feedback on items related to the baggage claim area, an update on data on parking facility utilization during the holidays, and his perception was that the Airport staff had handled it well. Vice Chairman Corcoran inquired whether the data provided had answered the Commission’s question concerning utilization numbers for the closest parking and the length of the average stay in the parking lots. Airport Administration Manager Carpenter noted that the information would be covered during Item 8.K.

Commissioner Feltman reported on Assistant Airport Director Keating’s presentation on the implementation of the improved Wi-Fi capacity, including commencement with the two terminals, feedback concerning inadequate Wi-Fi at the Airport, and the important upgrades that were due to facilitate Wi-Fi availability.

8.E Baggage Claim Expansion Update
Airport Executive Director Barrett reported that the Commission would not be voting on this item during this meeting in light of new information received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), although the initial plan was to have both the Operations, Properties and Facilities and Finance and Budget Committees conduct further review and make a recommendation to the full Commission for consideration.

Mr. Barrett said that he would provide additional information after the update presentation.

Neil McLean, representing Gensler, provided an update on the various concepts forwarded for the Baggage Claim Project. A presentation was provided that detailed the need to address congestion at the baggage claim operation due to the baggage claim being undersized, the proposed plan to expand the building pursuant to the 1142 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 5 of 15 ends

Master Plan, the proposed high-capacity carousel devices and other planned improvements, including increases to the square footage in the respective areas.

Mr. McLean detailed the rendering of the expansion of the existing building, without alteration, to fit with the existing architecture. Alternate A was presented, including the analysis to establish the length necessary to meet projected bag demand, carousel device sizes, removal of the rental car operation from the designated space, and expansion to address congestion. Temporary relocation of the rental car operation outside of the building would be necessary until the contract work is completed.

Additionally, a temporary bag claim would be required due to a necessary invasive seismic upgrade to the building structure and detailed illustrations were displayed.

Two single occupant restrooms would be available, upgrades to the mechanical system would be completed, and a new mechanical room and bag services offices would be constructed. The cost for Alternative A would be approximately $41 million, inclusive of the items detailed in the presentation.

Mr. McLean presented Alternate B, which was designed to accommodate all of the current functions currently needed in the space and to meet passenger activity. This would necessitate expanding the building into a larger area, to include two bays on the airside and two bays further into the rental car lot and the four slope plate carousel devices would fit. Additionally, the difference from Alternate A is that the rental car operation would remain in the bag claim hall, and Alternate B would include the structure replacement as described for Alternate A and the temporary bag claim and rental car operation during construction. Mr. McLean said that it is more efficient to place those functions inside one temporary building, rather than trailers or a temporary structure, and the two single occupant restrooms and bag service offices would be included. He said that although the proposal would exceed the 10,000 square foot original plan, it would meet demand needs.

Mr. McLean noted that Alternate C was a much simpler option and that it was conceived prior to the preferred option for the Master Plan, and consideration was given to the minimal amount necessary to add to the building if eventually all functions would be moved to a new facility at the south end. With this option, the two devices would be in a new addition, and they would renovate the remainder of the bag claim hall. Mr. McLean said that this option would not address any replacement of the structural upgrade to the building as in the other alternatives presented, nor any other building upgrade, and the two areas would be knit together for a temporary operation.

Mr. McLean reviewed the temporary operation for when the rental car operations are moved outside of the building, which would displace parking spots from the current rental car lot.

Airport Executive Director Barrett reiterated that the original plan was to present the project to the Finance and Budget and Operations, Properties and Facilities Committees to receive feedback and to entertain a vote for a recommendation to the Commission and then to present the project to the full Commission. Shortly after staff had met with the Operations, Properties and Facilities Committee, staff had heard 1143 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 6 of 15 ends

from the FAA on two points of information. The first was regarding the $5.7 million ATP grant that the FAA had announced last year in March, which was only valid for a period of one year, not four years, and staff had had an issue with the environmental process delaying the project, as the building is on the National Historical Register, which requires additional scrutiny. As a result, the FAA determined that the $5.7 million grant had not been used within the allowed timeframe, and the FAA reallocated the grant funds to another airport. Mr. Barrett said that he didn’t believe that the reallocation of the grant funds would impact the project, and he said that staff was working through the process with the appropriate agencies.

Airport Executive Director Barrett said that the second point of information was in regard to the timing of the Airport’s projects relative to environmental processes and that the FAA had a concern in regard to the Baggage Claim Project currently being in the environmental process and the process impacting subsequent projects such as a potential North Concourse expansion or Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRAC).

Mr. Barrett said that staff has been working with their consultants to get additional information and that the FAA would be the determinant factor, noting that if the Airport commences this project, they are committed and may not be able to complete the other projects within five years due to the required environmental review process. He said that staff does not believe that the FAA’s initial interpretation is completely accurate and staff was working with the FAA to gain additional information and clarification. Mr. Barrett said that Baggage Claim Project was currently on pause while staff works on figuring out how to proceed.

Commissioner Delgado inquired as to the current length of the environmental process for the project. Mr. Barrett responded it had been about a year. Commissioner Delgado inquired about the length of time that staff had anticipated that the environmental process would take. Mr. Barrett said that staff had anticipated that the environmental process would be finished in six months. Commissioner Delgado inquired about how much longer staff was anticipating for the environmental process to be finished. Mr. Barrett said that the date of completion was unknown.

Commissioner Delgado expressed concern regarding the reassignment of the ATP funds, and she inquired as to the length of the original application process. Mr. Barrett responded it took approximately one month to complete the four grant applications and submission, and then a few extra months for the decision.

Commissioner Delgado acknowledged staff’s efforts to keep the $5.7 million grant and to inform the FAA of the additional environmental process requirements due to the historic nature of the building, she expressed concern regarding the FAA not being more considerate of the situation, and she inquired whether staff confirmed the ability to reapply for the grant funds. Mr. Barrett responded that the FAA suggested the Airport could reapply, the Airport staff reapplied for a grant, and the Airport did not receive funds for this year. He said that staff would reapply for next year’s competitive process cycle, which involves applications from airports across the nation. 1144 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 7 of 15 ends

Commissioner Delgado inquired as to whether the main difference between Alternatives A and B is the additional 9,000 square feet, adding $5 million to the project. Mr. McLean responded that Alternative B would include 8,400 more square feet than Alternative A, doubling the space. Commissioner Delgado stated that Alternative A would condense all the features and save $5 million, and to add 9,000 square feet and to keep the rental car facilities in the building, it would add $5 million under Alternative B. Assistant Airport Director Keating noted that the temporary baggage claim has to be built in either option.

Commissioner Martin questioned if having the baggage claim and the rental car facilities in the same building was the right long-term solution as opposed to putting in the CONRAC, and he said that he believed that the Commission needed more guidance on Alternatives A and B. Mr. Barrett expressed support for Alternative B’s opportunity to build and to get as much space as possible, and even though there are plans to build a CONRAC, Alternative B would provide the Airport the space it needs to work with over the long term.

Commissioner Feltman asked if the car rental companies had a preference in regard to keeping the car rental facilities at the baggage claim area or moving the facilities to the CONRAC. Mr. Barrett said that from a customer experience perspective, there is a preference for having service desks in the baggage claim area, and he noted that the car rental companies had not seen the alternatives that were being presented at the meeting.

Commissioner Banks inquired about the length of time that the temporary facilities would need to be utilized. Mr. Barrett responded that it would come down to the planning and phasing of the project, and he estimated that construction could take approximately 18 to 24 months.

Commissioner Burke inquired whether Alternative A or B was more customer-friendly.

Mr. McLean responded that Alternative B was slightly more customer friendly because Alternative B has the flexibility to orient the rental car on the left and the bag claim towards the back of the temporary facility. In Alternative A, passengers do have to travel along the front of the building and come back into the building, since bag claim is separated from the rental car operation. Alternative B provides access to necessary space in a timely manner and is more comprehensive in service access.

Commissioner Young inquired whether Alternative B would accommodate the necessary baggage and traffic flow without a structural expansion or would an expansion be required in Passenger Activity Level (PAL) 3 or 4. Mr. McLean said that in regard to PAL 3, there was not a call for an increase in the space itself, and PAL 4 would need quite a bit more space and it would be a part of the larger Master Plan expansion of the concourse.

Commissioner Feltman inquired as to the current total square footage. Mr. McLean responded that the total existing current bag claim area is 20,418 square feet. 1145 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 8 of 15 ends

Commissioner Feltman inquired about the temporary buildings in Alternative A being about 5,300 square feet, and Mr. McLean stated they were trying to get closer to the 10,000 square feet of space. Commissioner Feltman noted that in consideration of everything needed for the completion of the project, the project could take up to 48- months. He expressed concern about the amount of space needed to ensure a positive customer experience over the potentially 48-month long process, and the potential negative impacts to customers, particularly as related to weather and the impacts on senior citizens. He also inquired about how to facilitate the passage of customers at the temporary baggage claim area to their transportation mode for up to three or four years.

Vice Chairman Corcoran referred to the loss of FAA funds, and he asked if the project would now be part of the long range plan discussions related to Phase 1 of the Master Plan Alternative 1A, and if the Commission would be looking at all three of the projects together. Mr. Barrett responded it would be unlikely as it would take longer to get the environmental clearances and to design the expansion, and he said that there was a critical need now with the Baggage Claim Project. Mr. Barrett said that it would be staff’s preference to move forward with expanding the baggage claim and then deal with the remainder of the items at another time. Vice Chairman Corcoran inquired if moving forward on the project could place Phase 1 of the Master Plan on the back burner. Mr. Barrett responded that it could postpone Phase 1 of the Master Plan based on the conversations that staff has had with the FAA, and additional conversations were needed, as staff believes that the FAA may be interpreting the Airports proposed projects a little differently than they are intended to be.

Commissioner Caldwell stated that the Operations, Properties and Facilities Committee had reviewed Alternatives A, B, and C and that the Committee had determined that Alternative B was the better option based on staff’s input, with less impact on customers.

M. Barrett stated that the next steps were for staff to meet with the FAA on the following day where staff would be posing their questions and the FAA would need time to provide their responses, which could take a few weeks. He said that staff wanted to keep Mr. McLean on track with the project and that they would provide him with any additional information as it obtained, and staff was hoping to bring the item back for a vote in the near future.

Airport Executive Director Barrett provided detail on the bipartisan infrastructure law, which included two mechanisms for funding, one being the ATP grant that was lost, the other one was an entitlement or allotment over five years. There is already money in place for a large chunk of this project. The only item pending is the environmental clearance.

Commissioner Delgado asked if the understanding was that the Airport was seeking clarification from the FAA to see if the project can be moved forward for an action item with the hope that the FAA is not waiting on the Airport to complete the environmental 1146 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 9 of 15 ends

process which has an uncertain completion date. Mr. Barrett explained that with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law there were two mechanisms for funding, one being the ATP grant which had been lost, and the other being an entitlement or allotment over five years, and he said that the Airport has funds in place to fund a significant portion of the project and that staff was waiting on the environmental clearance.

Commissioner Delgado referred to the project being a multi-phase project, and she asked if the Airport doesn’t get an ATP grant, how successful would the Airport be in getting to all of the phases of the project. Mr. Barrett responded that expedient progress would be made once the environmental process is completed and the project is designed. He said that it remains to be determined whether the grant application will be successful as compared to those of other airports and the potential impacts of other longer-term planned projects. Commissioner Delgado expressed a preference for Alternative B only as it doubles the space, and long-term planning would be dependent upon the additional $5 million and whether it can be obtained.

8.F PSP Stay and Play Visitor Program

8.G Marketing Update
Items 8F. and 8.G. were heard concurrently.

Deputy Director of Aviation, Marketing and Air Service Meier provided a combined update report on the PSP Stay and Play Visitor Program and the January 2024 Marketing and Air Service Update. He said that Avelo was extending their service to Sonoma County for the whole summer, which would increase the Airport’s nonstop summer destinations to 13. Various corrections were noted for the March through July passenger data.

Mr. Meier announced that the Stay and Play Program had launched on Monday of last week and the program was going well. He noted that various news program had misreported that the Stay and Play passes were being issued during the Airports peak hours of the day, and he said that staff ensures that ticketed passengers always have priority over the Stay and Play pass holders, and the Stay and Play pass holders are not allowed to use the TSA PreCheck line and they cannot bring in any luggage. Mr.

Meier noted that in the last 12 months, approximately five airports had added this program to their services.

Commissioner Wise commented on the negative information provided in a recent news program concerning parking. Mr. Meier provided information on the Airport’s efforts to reach out to the news program to correct the information that was incorrectly provided. Commissioner Feltman inquired as to the purpose of the program. Mr. Meier stated that the purpose of the program is to allow the community the opportunity to dine, shop, and enjoy a positive experience at the Airport. 1147 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 10 of 15 ends

8.H Ad Hoc Design Review Committee Update

8.I Concessions Update
Item 8.H. and 8.I were heard concurrently.

Assistant Airport Director Keating reported that updates had been made to the concessions deployment schedule. He said that Nine Cities Craft would be opening in mid-March and several of the retail stores were in the final phases and were expected to be completed by the end of May, and he said that the primary focus was not to close everything at the same time. Construction was heavily underway on various concessions and there were some structural issues at the Agua Caliente Concourse which were not expected and were being addressed.

Ad Hoc Design Review Committee Chairman Corcoran reported that the Ad Hoc Design Review Committee had engaged in a significant discussion concerning passenger impacts as related to long lines and difficulty finding coffee and other items at the Airport and the information was shared with Paradies. He noted that it was understood that it would be a bit of a struggle until Nine Cities Craft opens and that Paradies was making an effort to open up and offer coffee in multiple locations, including the deployment of a mobile coffee cart. Commissioner Burke noted that directional signage would also be deployed to help get customers to the concessions and items they desire.

Ad Hoc Design Review Committee Chairman Corcoran reported that Paradies would be adding additional space to The Pink Door by using the space that had previously been a Starbucks, and Paradies would be providing greater service, greater offerings, and more space in the pre-security area. He said that there was additional discussion about the quality of food offerings planned and the Committee would be reviewing the proposed menus again to ensure that they include healthy offerings.

Commissioner Feltman noted that there was also a discussion about the vending machines. Ad Hoc Design Review Committee Chairman Corcoran said that Paradies had proposed to relocate the four vending machines that are currently located in front of The Pink Door Location across the way and in front of the windows, and the Committee directed staff to relocate the vending machines to a pre-security location that would not be covering any windows.

8.J Car Rental Car Wash Facility Noise
Assistant Airport Director Keating reported on the history of the car rental car wash facility noise issue. He said that the residents of the Sunmor community contacted staff concerning noise emanating from the Enterprise Rent-A-Car (Enterprise) location. Staff met with the residents and personally observed the noise, which appeared to be coming from the car wash blowers. Staff then met with Enterprise 1148 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 11 of 15 ends

representatives who said that they were willing to be a good community partner and that they would see what they could do to mitigate the noise.

Staff asked the City’s Code Enforcement to evaluate the decibels of noise that were coming from the Enterprise car wash facility, and Code Enforcement determined that Enterprise was out of compliance with the City’s noise code. As a result of discussions with Enterprise and the Sunmor residents, a sound barrier wall was installed, after which it was determined that Enterprise was in compliance with the City’s noise code.

The residents notified staff that they were not satisfied with the noise mitigation, and staff is continuing to work on potential solutions, including adding additional sound wall construction and noise testing.

Assistant Airport Director Keating reported that a proposed solution would be to keep the Enterprise blowers on continuously during certain hours, as turning them off and on increase the noise impacts. He said that staff would continue to work with Enterprise and the impacted residents, and it was acknowledged that Enterprise was operating in good faith as related to this issue and the subject blowers were installed for efficiency.

Vice Chairman Corcoran said that he went with staff to listen to the noise from the blowers and that there was a high-pitched noise that happens when the blowers come on, and he said that if the blowers were to run all day, there would only be white noise coming from the blowers. He acknowledged the ongoing impacts on the adjacent neighbors and that all parties were working toward solutions.

Commissioner Burke inquired if Enterprise had reached out to the manufacturer of the blowers to see if any additional mitigation measures could be deployed. Mr. Keating responded that he did not know if Enterprise had spoken to the manufacturer, however, adding dampeners was discussed as a mitigation measure, among other potential solutions.

Commissioner Delgado inquired as to how many homes were being impacted by the noise. Mr. Keating responded that he had originally met with three homeowners and that he was currently in contact with one resident who seemed to be representing the other homeowners. Commissioner Delgado inquired if the other residents were consulted as to their experience with the sound wall. Mr. Keating responded that he did not have the contact information for the other residents, and he reiterated that Enterprise is now in compliance with the City’s noise code.

Commissioner Banks inquired whether blowers could present a similar problem at the other car rental car wash facilities. Airport Executive Director Barrett responded the other two car rental companies have blowers in place and that Enterprise’s blower had become non-operational pre-pandemic and they didn’t want to invest in a new blower because they were under the impression that they would be moving to the CONRAC. Being that the CONRAC is still years away from being built, Enterprise decided to invest new blowers to make their operations efficient. 1149 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 12 of 15 ends

Mr. Wilhelmi’s comments were provided during Item No. 5 and are referenced below.

John Wilhelmi stated he provided comment at last month’s Noise Committee meeting concerning the excess noise coming from the Enterprise Rent-a-Car’s vehicle washing operations, and he said that he was grateful to see that the Commission had included this issue on the agenda. Mr. Wilhelmi explained that his residence is adjacent to the Airport and he noted that he has not previously had cause to complain concerning any noise or other issue. In September 2023, he reported a new, loud, intermittent whistling noise emanating from the car wash operation, which had been modified, and the noise occurs hundreds of times per day, on weekdays, weekends and holidays, and it can be heard at more than 20 homes in the adjacent Sunmor neighborhood.

Mr. Wilhelmi expressed further concern that the noise is extraordinary for car wash operations and should be prohibited adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He suggested that the Commissioners should visit his residence to evaluate the noise and that he had provided his contact information in his public comment submission.

Second, he requested the Commission urge, in the strongest possible terms, some type of immediate follow up action and to allow the community to weigh in on proposals, as well as have independent oversight over the car wash operation. Third, he said that he would be willing to hire an independent noise consultant at his own expense to provide actionable, reasonable, and effective advice, if he knew the advice would be heeded. He appealed to the Commission’s independent authority and expressed gratitude for being allowed to speak out of agenda order.

Stuart Gandolf stated that he owns the property two houses down on 2980 East Plaimor Ave, and he has heard the blower noises as well. He said that he would visit the property tomorrow to observe the mitigation measures to determine whether there is improvement in noise reduction. He said that he supported the suggestion for Enterprise to contact the manufacturer, and he noted there were other noise impacts from Enterprise, however, this was the main priority. He said that he would provide further feedback after he visited his property.

Brett Connor lives in the Sunmor neighborhood, he acknowledged he was one of the residents who met with Mr. Keating in September, he said that the noise has continued even with the sound wall, and he is unable to entertain in his own backyard. He stated that there were many residents impacted by the noise and who are concerned about impacts to their home values.

Vice Chairman Corcoran concluded that staff would continue working on this matter and provide updates to the Commission accordingly.

8.K Long-Term Vehicle Parking Data
Airport Administration Manager Carpenter reported that at the last Commission meeting, Vice Chairman Corcoran had inquired about the duration of vehicles that are staying within a five-day period. ABM Parking Management (ABM) was consulted and 1150 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 13 of 15 ends

the comparison results from calendar year 2022 through calendar year 2023 indicated that 52% of the parking sales were within the one hour or less period. 20% of the parking sales were within the one hour and 20 minutes to a day period, and then two to five days was at 21%. Anything over five days is a smaller percentage, which is within the 1% to 3% range.

Vice Chairman Corcoran inquired about staff conclusion about long-term parking. Ms.

Carpenter said that people were not camping out in the parking lots and that the majority of the parking sales were from the hourly to daily parking sales. Vice Chairman Corcoran asked if staff felt that there was a parking issue, and he referenced the complaint that had been made by residents who had had difficulty finding parking spaces during the holidays. Ms. Carpenter responded that staff did not feel that parking was an issue, and she noted that during high demand times, the overflow parking lot is opened, and ABM is there to help with the shuttle. Airport Executive Director Barrett noted that there is the flexibility to address excess capacity needs during the entire year and the ability to increase communication with passengers.

Commissioner Feltman inquired if rate increases would be considered. Mr. Barrett responded that this year’s rates and fees analysis has not yet been completed, and there is hesitation to increase the daily rate, as it is a competitive advantage.

Commissioner Wise suggested that more people would be willing to park in the overflow parking lot, if it were half price which would open more parking space in the other parking lots. Mr. Barrett said that he agreed with Commissioner Wise and that the matter was being considered in the long-term plan and that it will take several iterations of planning to get there.

8.L Wi-Fi Update
Assistant Airport Director Keating noted that Commissioner Feltman had provided a Wi-Fi update earlier in the meeting and that the project was imminent, with a cabling provider being onboarded within the next two or three weeks, with installation of new controllers and wireless access points shortly thereafter.

8.M Projects and Airport Capital Improvement Program Update

9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT:

Item Nos. 8.M. and 9 were heard concurrently.

Airport Executive Director Barrett reported that the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the City Engineer met with Congressman Calvert’s office to discuss the loss of the grant funds for the Baggage Claim Project and to also discuss potential avenues for additional funds for various projects around the Airport. Congressman Calvert was very receptive to the situation.
1151 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 14 of 15 ends

Mr. Barrett noted that he would be providing quarterly updates on the development of the Strategic Business Plan, and he said that staff had met with InterVISTAS who leading the Strategic Business Plan Project and they had were provided the scope of work, which was approved a few days prior. He said that in the coming two months, the Commission should be receiving the first draft to include stakeholder engagement, and staff would be reaching out to individual Commissioners to talk about ideas and strategies. Additionally, he reported on future meetings to engage the community on noise issues related to upcoming development, and provide an educational forum to ensure the community remains informed on the process and how noise and airspace works.

10.COMMISSIONERS REQUESTS AND REPORTS:

Commissioner Martin inquired as to the status of the mid-year financial update. Staff noted it would be placed on the next agenda.

Vice Chairman Corcoran requested an update at the next meeting on the legal status of the outbound baggage handling system matter.

Airport Executive Director Barrett added to the previous update report that a Commissioner had requested that staff revisit the Uber and Lyft signage that is curbside, and he said that City Attorney Geremy Holm had provided the draft ordinance which would be moving forward.

Commissioner Caldwell requested a brief update on the Measure J funds. Executive Program Administrator Brown noted that the projects that would be funded by Measure J would be presented at the February 29th City Council meeting for approval.

11. REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:

11.A. Past City Council Actions

11.B. Future City Council Actions

12.RECEIVE AND FILE:

12.A Airlines Activity Report January 2024

12.B Airline Activity Report Fiscal Year Comparison

13. COMMITTEES:

13.A Future Committee Meetings

13.B Committees and Airport Master Plan Working Group Rosters 1152 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Minutes
February 21, 2024
______________________________________________________________________

Page 15 of 15 ends

ADJOURNMENT:

The Airport Commission adjourned at 7:22 P.M. to a Regular Meeting on March 20, 2024, at 5:30 P.M.
____________________________
Christina Brown
Executive Program Administrator
1153 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

AIRPORT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO LEASE AGREEMENT NO. A3613 WITH PALM SPRINGS AIR MUSEUM, INC. AT THE PALMS

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FROM: Harry Barrett, Jr., Airport Executive Director
SUMMARY:

This action will approve Amendment No. 9 to the Lease Agreement No. A3613 with Palm Springs Air Museum, Inc. (Air Museum) for a ten-year extension and include a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase for certain fees at the Palm Springs International Airport (Airport).

RECOMMENDATION:

This action will recommend to City Council the approval of Amendment No. 9 to the Lease Agreement No. A3613 with Palm Springs Air Museum, Inc. (Air Museum) for a ten-year extension and include a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase for certain fees at the Palm Springs International Airport (Airport).

BACKGROUND:

The Air Museum is a popular attraction serving the entire Coachella Valley tourism industry and has been leasing property at the Palm Springs International Airport since November 1995. The Original Lease has been amended/extended on the following occasions:
• Amendment No. 1 was entered into on December 2, 1998, to include improvements of a rent- free office space for the Civil Air Patrol, a 10% food and beverage gross revenue share, and $ .25 per admission ticket for special events. • Amendment No. 2 expanded the original footprint of the real property of the original lease to include the available parking for visitors to the museum and to construct an educational facility and hangar.
• On January 1, 2016, the City and the Air Museum entered into Amendment No. 3, which included additional facilities such as a 20,000 square foot hangar, 8,100 square foot hangar restaurant, an aircraft apron tarmac expansion, retention basin, and road access improvements.

ITEM 9.A
1154 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 2
Approve Amendment No. 9 to Lease Agreement No. A3613 with the Palm Springs Air Museum • On February 15, 2020, the City and the Air Museum entered into Amendment No. 4 and leased an additional 10,000 square foot hangar on the airport premises to store aircraft through October 31, 2020.
• On November 1, 2020, the City and the Air Museum entered into Amendment No. 5, which extended the term for the 10,000 square foot hangar for an additional six months from November 1, 2020, through April 30, 2021.
• The City and the Air Museum entered into Amendment No. 6 on May 1, 2021, to extend the term of the lease of the 10,000 square foot hangar to October 30, 2021. • The City and the Air Museum entered into Amendment No. 7 on November 1, 2022, to extend the hangar for an additional six months from November 1, 2021, through April 30, 2022. On April 12, 2022, the City and the Air Museum extend the lease through December 31, 2022, upon mutual agreement.
• On November 9, 2022, the term for the 10,000 square foot hangar was extended by mutual agreement for an additional six months from January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023.
• On July 24, 2023, the City and the Air Museum entered into Amendment No. 8, which extend the term of the lease of the 10,000 square foot hanger to July 31, 2026.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The Air Museum facility at the Airport covers approximately sixteen acres on the east side of the airport, adjacent to Gene Autry Trail. This area includes several interconnected aircraft hangars, totaling about 85,000 square feet, which are used to store aircraft and memorabilia accessible to the public.

The current lease with the Air Museum expires on November 29, 2035; however the Air Museum is requesting an additional 10-year extension of its existing lease at the Airport ending on November 29, 2045. The extension is at the request of the Air Museum to support a $3.5 million expansion and remodel of the museum's front entry area. The project will add approximately 4,000 square feet of new floor space and impact 4,000 square feet of existing space, with no changes to the current curb line. The remodel will include a 200-seat education center, reconfigured admissions and gift areas, and expanded restroom facilities.

Pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Agreement, staff recommends adjusting the monthly admissions fees, facility rental rate and the gross gift sales for giftrate in line with changes in the CPI, subject to certain limitations. The Air Museum has agreed to a CPI adjustment for other fees owed to the City of Palm Springs (City) under the Agreement, including a percentage of gross sales detailed in Section 3.2(a)(i). 1155 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 3
Approve Amendment No. 9 to Lease Agreement No. A3613 with the Palm Springs Air Museum Furthermore, staff recommends that the City reserve the right to implement a CPI adjustment of the monthly rental and other fees owed for 2025. These additional adjustments will take effect on the one-year anniversary of the 2024 CPI adjustments outlined in this Amendment.

Further CPI adjustments after 2025 will occur every five years.

The Air Museum has not experienced a CPI increase in the past 20 years, making this adjustment necessary to align fees with current economic conditions and support the airport's ongoing needs. The adjusted monthly rent and fees are described as follows:

Year Per
Admission Gross Sales Facility Rental
2024 0.30 3.43% 0.30
Additionally, in the past five Fiscal Years the Air Museum has reported the following in Admissions, Gross Sales, and Facility Rental:

Fiscal Years 0.25 Per
Admission
3% Gross Sales 0.25 Facility
Rental
2022-23 $22,939 $17,403 $8,824
2021-22 $18,696 $13,738 $12,526
2020-21 $10,938 $8,694 $388
2019-20 $13,908 $6,741 $5,769
2018-19 $19,538 $8,495 $10,175
Total $86,019 $55,071 $37,682
FISCAL IMPACT:

The projected revenues for 2024 and 2025 Airport Lease Amendment will generate Admission Fees for an approximate amount of $17,204 applied to account 415.38185, Gross Sales for an approximate amount of $11,015 applied to account 415.38190, and Facility Rental Fees for an approximate amount of $7,537 applied to account 415.38195, for a total amount of $35,756
1156 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

AIRPORT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. A9391 WITH MEAD & HUNT INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL

CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT COMPREHENSIVE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
FROM: Harry Barrett, Jr., Airport Executive Director
SUMMARY:

This action will approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) to extend the schedule for professional consulting services for the Palm Springs International Airport (Airport) Comprehensive Airport Master Plan to a completion date of July 30, 2026, for an additional amount of $376,340 and a total revised contract amount not to exceed $2,709,476.

RECOMMENDATION:

This action will recommend to City Council the approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt, Inc, to extend the schedule or professional consulting services for the Palm Springs International Airport Comprehensive Airport Master Plan to a completion date of July 30, 2026, for an additional amount of $376,340 and not to exceed $2,709,476
BACKGROUND:

Palm Springs International Airport (Airport) is a commercial service airport consisting of 930 acres serving approximately 3.2 million passengers in 2023. The Airport serves as the major commercial and general aviation air transportation center for Southern California’s Coachella Valley.

Two previous Airport Master Plans have been prepared for the Airport with the initial plan completed in 2003 and the most recent update completed in 2015. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that airports update Master Plans every five years to reflect changes in the operating environment at the Airport and within the industry as a whole.

The Coachella Valley region is showing indications of regional change, which have already had an impact on the Airport. Local resorts have observed increasing occupancy and have ITEM 9.B
1157 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 2
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc. indicated considerable growth; the Airport has experienced a corresponding increase along the typical indicators which include annual enplanements, annual operations, employee and public parking and rental car transactions. These changing dynamics are resulting in challenges requiring a comprehensive approach to planning for future airside, terminal and landside development scenarios and operational changes.

On July 28, 2022, City Council approved the Airport Master Plan scope of work and authorized Staff to proceed with the issuance of a Request for Proposal.

On August 15, 2022, the City’s Procurement Department, working with the Airport and Information Technology staff, issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and advertised the RFP in the Desert Sun. Four firms submitted proposals and the proposals were evaluated against the criteria listed in the RFP. The evaluation criteria included experience of the firm, experience of the staff and understanding of the scope of work. After review and analysis by the evaluation committee consisting of staff from the Airport, Engineering, and Community & Economic Development Departments. Mead & Hunt was deemed the highest ranked firm. As cost was not allowed to be evaluated in the initial stage as outlined by FAA regulations, staff negotiated cost with the highest ranked firm to establish a fair reasonable price for the project.

The Airport also established a 3rd party independent cost estimate to aid in the negotiation process. The Airport executive staff along with Procurement staff negotiated a fair price for this professional service that was in alignment with the 3rd party independent cost estimate.

On January 18, 2023, the Airport Commission voted in favor to recommend to the City Council the approval of a professional service agreement for the Comprehensive Airport Master Plan to Mead & Hunt.

On January 26, 2023, the City Council approved Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt for a Comprehensive Airport Master Plan to be completed in 30 months for a total amount not to exceed $2,275,816.

In April 2023, an Airport Master Plan Working Group was created with the following working group members:
• Chairman Aftab Dada, Airport Commission
• Vice Chairman Kevin Corcoran, Airport Commission
• Commissioner Scott Miller, Airport Commission *
• Ken Hedrick, Former Airport Commissioner
• Harry Barrett, Jr., Airport Executive Director
• Jeremy Keating, Assistant Airport Director
• Daniel Meier, Deputy Director of Aviation, Marketing and Air Service • Victoria Carpenter, Airport Administration Manager
• Lindsey-Paige McCloy, Director of Sustainability
• Larry Klingaman, Director of IT
• Joel Montalvo, City Engineer
1158 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 3
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc. * Upon Airport Commissioner Scott Miller’s resignation, Airport Commissioner Kevin Wiseman filled the vacancy.

Mead & Hunt and the Airport Master Plan Working Group have held four meetings over the course of 12 months to review materials and discuss the Airport Master Plan recommendations and concepts.

On September 19, 2023, a public open house Airport Master Plan event was held at the Palm Springs Convention Center, to present four terminal concept alternatives to the community and to gather the community’s feedback. Approximately 160 members of the community attended the open house event and the feedback received from the community did not indicate a strong preference for any one terminal concept alternative. However, a significant number of public comments expressed appreciation for the alternatives preserving and maintaining the iconic Wexler terminal building.

On January 25, 2024, the City Council approved Airport Master Plan terminal concept 1A with the direction to staff to bring back an alternative site evaluation for the CONRAC, a description of the ground transportation and access to the airport terminal and facilities, and land acquisition recommendations to accommodate the Airport Master Plan facilities, if necessary.

On February 21, 2024, Amendment No. 1 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 was approved to revise the scope of services to encompass supplementary analyses and to increase the contract in the amount of $57,320, for a total amount not to exceed $2,333,136.

On March 20, 2024, the Airport Commission received a presentation from Mead & Hunt regarding the Airport Master Plan airside and landside conceptual development plan and voted unanimously (12-0) in favor to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Airport Master Plan airside and landside conceptual development plan.

On April 17, 2024, the Airport Commission received a presentation from Mead & Hunt regarding the Airport Master Plan airside and landside conceptual development plan and voted unanimously (13-0) in favor to recommend to the City Council the approval of the onsite CONRAC located east of El Cielo Road and north of East Tahquitz Canyon Way (Site 1).

On April 18, 2024, the Airport staff presented the CONRAC alternatives to the current Airport car rental companies listed below, and the rental car companies were unanimously in favor of the onsite CONRAC located east of El Cielo Road and north of East Tahquitz Canyon Way (Site 1).
• Alamo Rent A Car and National Car Rental
• Avis Budget Car Rental
• Dollar Rent A Car and Thrifty Car Rental
• Enterprise Rent A Car
• Hertz Rental Car
1159 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 4
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc.

On May 9, 2024, Airport Staff and Mead & Hunt presented the Airport Master Plan airside and landside conceptual development plan to the City Council, and the City Council directed staff to hold additional stakeholder meetings and community outreach meetings, to provide the following information at a future City Council meeting:
• Traffic and public parking impacts.
• Project manager and construction team plan.
• Government affairs plan.
• Public-Private Partnership funding for the CONRAC.
• Analysis of the details and impacts of the CONRAC.
• Analysis of an alternative CONRAC location for the proposed location at the south end of the Airport terminal area adjacent to Kirk Douglas Way. • Project schedule to detail how each phase of the project fits into the long-term timeline at a future City Council meeting.

On June 4, 2024, a public open house Airport Master Plan event was held at the Palm Springs Convention Center, to present the Airport Master Plan airside and landside conceptual development plan. Approximately 173 members of the community attended the open house, and the public was provided the opportunity to ask questions and to provide their comments in the open forum. While positive feedback and support was received from the community, many of the questions, concerns, and feedback that was received were in regard to sustainability, traffic, parking, public transportation, preserving the Wexler terminal building, the size of the CONRAC, the number of additional gates and flights, and noise.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

Per the City Council’s direction, Mead & Hunt, Inc. along with their subcontracted firms Aviatrix Communications, M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, and Daley Strategies (Mead & Hunt Team) have proposed the following project scope elements be implemented into the Airport Master Plan Project scope of work:

Develop And Analyze On-Site Consolidated Rental Car (CONRAC) Alternatives This element includes analysis of two additional CONRAC alternatives shown in orange in Figure 1 – CONRAC Site A – North and Figure 2 – CONRAC Site B – South alternatives (Attachment A). CONRAC sizing will be based on the previously developed Master Plan program analysis. New analysis will include detailed two-dimensional drawings illustrating ingress/egress to each CONRAC. These drawings will also illustrate CONRAC shuttling operations and routes and potential public shuttling operations and routes. Analysis of the requirements to expand the Airport property boundary to meet public and rental car parking demand will also be conducted.

1. Development and Analysis of South CONRAC to match existing analysis of North CONRAC
1160 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 5
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc.

The Mead & Hunt Team will evaluate the south location for the CONRAC facility to compare to the existing analysis conducted for the north CONRAC facility. The evaluation will include footprint requirements, height requirements, ingress and egress locations, routing of rental car shuttles/ vehicles and passenger flows from the terminal building to the CONRAC. The Mead & Hunt Team will develop graphical exhibits illustrating the CONRAC layout on each location and prepare a presentation and narrative summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of each location. The deliverables for this task include a summarization of key data and information on the south CONRAC matching work already completed for the north CONRAC.

2. 3D Renderings and Viewshed Renderings
The Mead & Hunt Team will prepare renderings of the south CONRAC, similar to the existing renderings of the north CONRAC.

Five views will be included:

1. Aerial view from the west

2. Aerial from east

3. Aerial from the south

4. Eye level view from Kirk Douglas Way looking east

5. Eye level view from Kirk Douglas Way looking west
This task also includes preparation of two simulated fly-through style animation visualizations, one for the south CONRAC, and one for the north CONRAC. Both would show the relationship between the Airport and the CONRAC. Each animation would be no more than 30 seconds in length. As a same cost alternative, staff has the option to have the Mead & Hunt Team prepare four panoramic 360 views.

Traffic Analysis of CONRAC, Airport Traffic and Agency Coordination In this task, the Mead & Hunt Team will assess and analyze traffic associated with Figure 1 – CONRAC Site A – North and Figure 2 – CONRAC Site B – South alternatives (Attachment A). The goal is a high-level understanding of the potential traffic impact with both alternatives including an assessment of intersections. Data will be collected for up to 10 intersections for the AM and PM peak period on a typical Friday. A traffic model of roadway segments and intersections will be created, and the limits of the model are anticipated to be El Cielo Drive from Aviation Drive to Ramon Road and Ramon Road from El Cielo Road to Gene Autry Trail.

Project level traffic data will be developed for the following:
• Adjust to seasonal summer peak.
• Identify overlapping of Airport and adjacent arterial AM and PM peak hour. • Future year traffic forecasts based on the design day flight schedule/show up profiles, mode of access and growth in regional background non-airport traffic. 1161 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 6
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc.

The Mead & Hunt Team will conduct a traffic operations and capacity analysis of study intersections and roadway segments for AM and PM peak hours reporting level of service/delay for the following:
• Existing Conditions
• Future No Build
• Future Build (up to two concepts)
The Mead & Hunt Team will develop recommendations to refine airport landside concepts, including pedestrian flows, external ingress and egress of parking lots/garages/ground transportation center, traffic controls/signal operations, etc. in order to mitigate any identified traffic issues or concerns.

The Mead & Hunt Team will identify intermodal/regional transit enhancements, development of a concept illustration location, footprint size, access for a transit center on or off-airport.

The task also includes facilitation of one meeting with regional stakeholders to discuss airport regional transit facility needs and potential airport connection recommendations.

Stakeholders could include Riverside County, Sun Line Transit, Amtrak and/or local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

The Mead & Hunt Team will make efforts to identify any needed land acquisitions for future parking facilities (passenger or CONRAC or transit facility) and final parking facility location recommendations and size recommendations.

The Mead & Hunt Team, including partner firm Aviatrix Communications, understands that the City of Palm Springs is committed to engaging Palm Springs and Coachella Valley stakeholders in the planning process. The Mead & Hunt Team will coordinate with Airport staff to manage stakeholder and public outreach, identify media to share the Airport’s vision with stakeholders, provide assistance with the staffing of public meetings and producing exhibits, press releases, project microsite, and presentation materials. The following tasks will also include a customized, strategic approach to outreach and education including airport staff/consultant team meetings, two additional Airport Commission meetings and presentations, and one additional City Council meeting and presentation.

Additional Weekly Airport Staff Meetings, Legislative Relations and Communications Specific critical needs of this project will be identified for related consultant support, and the Mead & Hunt Team anticipates 12 additional weekly meetings with the Airport staff.

Additional legislative relations include:
• Development of a memo assessing the current state of the Airport’s external affairs and outlining an outreach strategy with key elected officials and staff at the local, state, and federal levels along with relevant government agencies related to master plan briefings.
• Track, research, and explore federal, state and county funding opportunities. 1162 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 7
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc. • Begin to develop and implement a comprehensive legislative plan to support funding requests for the overall Airport Master Plan.

Additional communications include:
• Work collaboratively with Mead & Hunt Team on communications materials, press releases, position letters, presentations, and briefings prior to events in which Airport staff and City Councilmembers participate.
• Provide strategic counsel to Airport staff on media relations, community outreach, and engagement.
• Assist the Airport staff with developing and executing an impactful social media strategy.

Additional Stakeholder Meeting for Airport Tenants and Additional Community Relations Support
An additional stakeholder meeting will be conducted with the Airport tenants, and the Mead & Hunt Team will present the preliminary results of the analysis on CONRAC and traffic/visual impacts. Additional community relations and stakeholder outreach will be conducted, and the Mead & Hunt Team will also provide the following:
• Support the Airport staff on meetings and messaging to discuss the CONRAC analysis, traffic study and overall Airport Master Plan.
• Develop a holistic stakeholder and community relations plan that includes Palm Springs stakeholders as well as communities in the Coachella Valley. • Organize and execute community events to engage stakeholders and raise awareness of the Airport’s ongoing initiatives and goals for the future.

Additional Public Open House Meetings
There are several public-engagement opportunities identified in the original Airport Master Plan schedule. These key milestones include project kickoff, terminal concepts review, airport master plan review, and draft final master plan report, as well as the public meetings required in the CEQA process. In addition to these meetings, Aviatrix Communications will support two meetings regarding the additional analysis included in this amendment scope, primarily related to the consolidated rental car center. One meeting will be held in-person, likely in a large, centralized location such as the Palm Springs Convention Center, and one meeting will be virtual, allowing the public to participate via Zoom. It is anticipated that these meetings will take place in October 2024.

For each meeting and or event, the team will support Airport staff and City outreach staff by coordinating logistics; jointly developing informational materials, presentations, press releases and/or talking points; participating in prep sessions by phone or in-person, providing staffing as appropriate; and summarizing key stakeholder comments, questions, and concerns to help determine next steps.
1163 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 8
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc.

Project Microsite
To ensure the public has access to accurate, up-to-date project information, the Mead & Hunt Team will develop and maintain the project microsite. This comprehensive website will include project timelines, frequently asked questions, draft chapters, event calendar, and information from public meetings. Aviatrix Communications will develop, host, and maintain the microsite, and specific content for the website will be developed by the Mead & Hunt Team and may include reports, tables, drawings, and other graphics as required. The site will be ADA compliant, accessible on any device or browser, and will utilize Google Translate to make project information available in multiple languages. The public will not be required to register to view and/or download documents. The microsite will also provide an opportunity for the public to submit online comments for consideration by Airport staff and the Mead & Hunt Team. To account for an extended project schedule, Aviatrix Communications is prepared to host and maintain the project microsite for an additional 12 months.

Project Materials
In addition to the digital documents available on the project microsite, the Mead & Hunt Team will develop printed material to hand out during public meetings, inform stakeholders, and to clarify information. Such materials may include but are not limited to presentation display boards, PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets, meeting advertisements, and social media posts.

Documentation
An effective Master Plan places emphasis on developing concise, effective study documentation. Several types of materials will be revised and expanded upon to document the additional planning process. This task includes additions necessary to the Terminal Alternatives, Master Plan Development Program and Financial Implementation chapters. The Mead & Hunt Team will develop graphics, typically in the form of PowerPoint presentations, to convey the project information as necessary for various meetings. It is anticipated that these PowerPoints can be utilized by Airport staff for additional community and stakeholder outreach, as required. The Mead & Hunt Team will also provide narrative additions to the Airport Master Plan chapters.

Airport staff is recommending the approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt, Inc. to extend the schedule for professional consulting services for the Palm Springs International Airport Comprehensive Airport Master Plan to a completion date of July 30, 2026, and for an additional amount of $376,340 for a total revised contract amount not to exceed $2,709,476 to ensure the completion of the Airport Master Plan in accordance with the City Council’s direction to the Airport staff and Mead & Hunt.
1164 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Airport Commission Staff Report
July 10, 2024 -- Page 9
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract Services Agreement No. A9391 with Mead & Hunt Inc.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of this action would require the appropriation of $376,340 from the Airport Capital Project Fund 416 to the account 4167065-80000 in Fiscal Year 2024-25. 1165 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

EL CIELO RD

KIRK DOUGLAS WAY

TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY

N CIVIC DR

BARISTO ROAD

E RAMON ROAD
MH
MH
MH
P
P
P
P
P
VC
VC
P
P
P
P
P
P
P 0 200' 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Figure 1 - CONRAC SITE A - North
LEGEND:

EXISTING SIGNAL

PROPOSED SIGNAL

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

HEADHOUSE

PARKING

COURTYARD / GREENSPACE
CONRAC

FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY

GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER

CONCOURSE
4-x

AIRCRAFT AT GATE

AIRCRAFT RON

AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA
LOT G
LOT D
LOT B
LOT F
LOT A

AUTO PARKING
LOT AREA SPACES*
A 70,000 SF N/A
B 80,000 SF N/A
C 337,000 SF 1036
D 56,000 SF 172
E 181,000 SF 556
F 123,000 SF 378
G 342,000 SF 1052
* Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT C
LOT E

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT
Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023

ATTACHMENT A
1166 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

W TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY

N CIVIC DR MH EL CIELO RD

KIRK DOUGLAS WAY

BARISTO ROAD
CFM56-7
CFM56-7
E RAMON ROAD 737-800W 737-800W CFM56-7 CFM56-7 737-800W 737-800W CFM56-7 CFM56-7737-800W 737-800W CFM56-7
CFM56-7737-800W 737-800W 0 200' 400' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Figure 2 - CONRAC SITE B - South
LEGEND:

EXISTING SIGNAL

PROPOSED SIGNAL

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

HEADHOUSE

PARKING

COURTYARD / GREENSPACE
CONRAC

FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY

GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER

CONCOURSE
4-x

AIRCRAFT AT GATE

AIRCRAFT RON

AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT AREA
LOT E
LOT D
LOT B
TNC
LOT A

SHUTTLE

AUTO PARKING
LOT AREA SPACES* A 70,000 SF N/A B 80,000 SF N/A C 337,000 SF 1036 D 56,000 SF 172 E 342,000 SF 1052 * Based on assumption of 325 SF per parking area (includes circulation) LOT C

CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT
Source: Gensler and Mead & Hunt, 2023

CONRAC SURFACE STORAGE
CONRAC 3 LEVEL GARAGE

QTA & MAINTENANCE
1167 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Marketing & Air
Service Update
July 2024 Item 9.F
1168 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Scheduled Departing Seats
Based on 06/12/24 schedule data, subject to change.
77,146
90,417
170,591
81,356 93,181
161,282
95,976 107,435
152,520
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
August September October
2024 2023 2022
Month % Change
August - 5.2 %
September - 3.0 %
October 5.8 %
Bar Graph: Left to right: 2024, 2023, 2022
Seats vs. 1 Year Ago
Item 9.F
1169 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Air Service
• United increasing seasonal Houston service to twice daily on Saturday and Sunday in November and December.
• Previously one daily. Already twice daily in height of season.

Public Roadway Banners
• RFP issued to replace banner brackets on roadway light poles • Many are breaking due to age
• RFP scope includes printing and installation of new banners up to four times per year for the entire roadway system, and up to six times per year in the center median in front of the terminal • Call outs to replace damaged banners as needed
Customer Experience Program
• Initial scope development research complete
• Meeting on July 11 to review and determine next steps Air Service & Other Updates
Item 9.F
1170 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Newsletter
• Finalizing distribution program
• Planning re-launch this quarter
• Monthly distribution and as
needed for announcements
TSA PreCheck Enrollment at PSP
• Services opened on July 2, 2024
• Offers initial enrollments,
renewals, and identity verification
• Non appointment necessary
• Applications are processed at the
CLEAR Pods in Center Terminal
area
Air Service & Other Updates
Item 9.F
1171 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 TO: Victoria A. Carpenter, C.M., Airport Administration Manager FROM: Frasca & Associates, LLC
SUBJECT: Parking Rate Review
DATE: July 3, 2024
Summary
Frasca & Associates, LLC (FRASCA) was retained by the City of Palm Springs (“City”) to review the parking rate structure for Palm Springs International Airport (“PSP” or “the Airport”) in the context of the parking rate structures at peer Southern California airports and Airport financial requirements.

The objectives of this study were to:
 Benchmark PSP’s parking rate structure versus competing airports in Southern California  Estimate incremental revenues to PSP resulting from a proposed increase in the maximum daily parking rate from $20 to $24
The key findings of this study are:
 Parking is a critical revenue source for PSP and the most flexible source for the Airport to use in increasing revenues
 Recent inflationary trends have eroded the financial contribution of PSP’s parking operations  PSP’s current parking rates are below market relative to peers  Increasing parking rates to market levels would provide revenues for PSP to fund needed capital improvements
Based on these findings, FRASCA finds that the proposed increase in the maximum daily parking rate from $20 to $24 is reasonable. FRASCA estimates the rate increase will result in approximately $1 million in additional annual revenues that will provide additional funding and reduce the amount of debt needed to be issued to fund the Airport’s capital improvement program.

Parking Is a Critical Revenue Source for PSP
Airport operators have two broad groups of revenue sources—those from airlines (i.e., “airline revenues”) and those from all other sources, collectively referred to in the industry as “nonairline revenues.” Airline revenues generally include landing fees and terminal rentals and use fees, while nonairline revenues include those paid by passengers either directly (e.g., parking) or indirectly (e.g., privilege fees for terminal concessions) as well as those paid by other airport tenants through ground and facility rentals and other charges.

As a condition of receiving federal grants, airport operators are required to use cost-recovery methodologies to set airline rates, fees, and charges—in short, surpluses above financial requirements cannot be generated from airfield and terminal facilities used by airlines and other aeronautical users. 521 MADISON AVENUE, SEVENTH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022
TEL: 212 355-4050

Page 1 of 7 ends

1172 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 There are no similar federal restrictions, however, regarding rate-making for nonairline facilities. In fact, Federal Aviation Administration policies encourage airport operators to set rates and charges for nonairline facilities using market-based approaches in order to ensure airports are self-sustaining and maximize revenues for reinvestment into airport facilities. Rating analysts and investors also have the expectation (and increasingly so) that airport operators will use commercial approaches for managing nonairline facilities to enhance the airport’s creditworthiness and access to capital. Since nonairline ratemaking is driven by commercial principles, they are the key driver of net revenue surpluses for airport operators. These surpluses are required by the FAA to be reinvested into the airport, which means that they directly reduce the amount of debt an airport must issue to fund capital improvements.

Table 1

OPERATING REVENUES
Palm Springs International Airport
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2023
(Dollars in thousands)
Line item Amount
Share of
total
Airline Revenues
Landing fees $5,990 16.0%
Terminal rentals and use fees 3,667 9.8%
Subtotal $9,657 25.7%
Nonairline Revenues
Rental car privilege fees $12,748 34.0%
Parking and ground transportation 7,523 20.1%
Terminal concessions 2,012 5.4%
FBO and general aviation 1,848 4.9%
All other 3,726 9.9%
Subtotal $27,857 74.3%
Total $37,514 100.0%
Note: Numbers may not add to totals shown due to rounding.

Parking is typically one of the top nonairline revenue sources for airports. As shown in Table 1, preceding, parking (including ground transportation user fees) is PSP’s second largest nonairline revenue source after rental car privilege fees, accounting for 27.0% of nonairline revenues and 20.1% of operating revenues for FY 2023. (Rental car privilege fees are typically the top nonairline revenue source in leisure markets such as PSP.) Moreover, parking is the revenue source most directly within management’s direct control for increasing revenues. While rental car privilege fees are a higher revenue generator than parking, the business terms are largely dictated by the industry standard 10%-of-gross-receipts concession fee and rental car rates, which are out of control of airport management. Similarly, business provisions for terminal concessions are largely dictated by industry-wide business practices, and land and building leases are generally dictated by appraisals. While parking rates are constrained somewhat by competitive

9.H - Page 2 of 7 Page 2 of 7 Item 9.H
1173 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 industry forces, airports such as PSP that have very limited off-airport parking competition and have minimal competition from other airports are considered “price-setters.” Revenues from rate increases, therefore, generally flow directly to the airport’s bottom line, generating additional funds for reinvestment into airport facilities.

Recent Inflationary Trends Have Eroded the Financial Performance of PSP’s Parking Operations The financial performance of airport parking operations is determined by the parking rate structure, passenger volume, passenger composition (e.g., level of business versus leisure traffic), and the level of operating and capital costs. While operating costs in a “steady state” scenario can be assumed to increase with underlying inflation, parking revenues do not without a change in the rate structure. Therefore, without changes in passenger volume or composition, net parking revenues decrease over time on an operating basis.

FRASCA’S assessment of PSP’s parking operations finds that:
 Daily parking rates have not increased since 2018
 On an inflation-adjusted basis through May 2024, parking rates have lost approximately 30% of their value since the last rate increase, i.e., the $20 daily rate imposed in 2018 is worth approximately $14 in constant dollars
 Cost inflation, deferred maintenance, and a new parking operator contract have increased PSP’s parking operating expenses
 While major investments in parking facilities have not been recently required, the City expects to incur material costs from investments in parking upgrades and systems modernization such as a new revenue control system, electric vehicle (EV) chargers, and resulted infrastructure These factors have combined to result in a material deterioration in net revenues from parking operations.

This deterioration can only be expected to continue to increase with ongoing inflationary pressures. Other things equal, this erosion can be expected to result in PSP having to issue more debt than otherwise necessary to fund capital improvements. Indeed, the parking rate structure is the only variable within direct management control to improve the financial contribution of parking operations.

PSP’s Current Parking Rates Are Below Market Relative to Peers Parking rates typically vary by time (with maximum hourly and daily rates), by proximity to terminal (walkable or nonwalkable requiring a shuttle), shuttle bus frequency, and whether the parking spaces are covered or uncovered. Parking rates should also be influenced by the profile of the airport’s passengers, with airports located in more economically affluent areas generally able to charge higher rates than those located in economically depressed areas in which passengers are typically more price-sensitive.

PSP operates 4 public parking lots, all within walking distance of the terminal. A remote lot is used as needed for overflow. There is no off-airport parking competition. PSP has the ability to set parking rates, subject to the approval of the City Council.

FRASCA’S review of parking rates at other Southern California airports found that the Airport has among the lowest parking rates among peer airports. This review is summarized in Table 2 following, which prevents a survey of rates at walkable parking facilities at selected Southern California airports, the

Page 3 of 7 ends

1174 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
4 number of spaces provided, and the approximate walking distance in feet from the center of the parking lot to the terminal entrance.

The survey found that:
 Only Santa Barbara (SBA) offers a lot at a rate lower than $20, but it is located at a farther walking distance than all lots at PSP except Lot D.
 While John Wayne Airport (SNA) charges the same $20 parking rate as Palm Springs for facilities at a comparable walking distance, the Airport is currently pursuing a rate increase.  Long Beach Airport’s (LGB) most convenient garage has a maximum daily rate of $25, but has a less convenient walkable garage charged at a $20 rate. This facility has higher walking distances than every facility at PSP but Lot D.
 Similarly, Ontario International Airport (ONT) has a much less convenient, but still walkable surface lot charging a $20 rate in addition to the surface lots at more comparable distances to the PSP lots, which charge rates of $24 and $30.

When the demographic profile of PSP travelers is considered, the difference is even more stark. PSP has is an affluent metro area, with high household incomes. The most widely accepted surrogate measure for passenger composition is average fare, with higher average fares typically indicative of a market with more affluent passengers or one driven by more business traffic. As shown in Table 2 following, average domestic airfares at PSP are among the highest of Southern California airports. While Santa Barbara Airport and Los Angeles International Airport have nominally higher fares, they are only $4 (1.9%) and $2 (0.9%) higher than PSP’s, respectively. PSP’s average fares are 18.3% higher than ONT and 62.6% higher than LGB, the peer airport with the lowest average fare. Also shown in Table 2 are the maximum daily parking rates for each airport expressed as a percentage of the average fare as an indicator of relative affordability.

The data show that, when measured as a percentage of average fare, the maximum daily rates at PSP for walkable parking are at the lowest of benchmark airports. PSP’s maximum daily parking rate is only 9.4% of its average fare, lower than only the less convenient long-term lot at SBA. Excluding SBA, the ratio of the maximum daily parking rate for walkable parking at benchmark airports ranges from a minimum of

10.6% at other airports and as high as 30.2% at Hollywood Burbank Airport. These data provide further evidence that PSP is charging below-market parking rates. If PSP set its maximum daily rate at the same ratio to its average fare as BUR for the short-term garage, for example, the rate would be $64.

Finally, the PSP parking lots are often fully occupied, with the Airport having to open the remote overflow lot to accommodate demand. In CY 2023, for example, at least one of the Airport’s four lots was completely occupied on 105 days of the year, or approximately 29% of the days in the year, a clear indication that demand is higher than supply and that parkers who may otherwise be willing to pay more are being driven away. Industry studies indicate that, once frequent travelers are unable to find a parking space more than once, they change their travel mode to the airport out of fear of missing their flights.

Page 4 of 7 ends

1175 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table 2

BENCHMARK MAXIMUM DAILY PARKING RATES AND COMPARISON WITH AVERAGE AIRFARES Palm Springs International Airport and Selected Southern California Airports Walking Average Max daily
Maximum Number distance one-way rate as %
Airport/lot daily rate of spaces (feet) (a) airfare (b) of airfare Palm Springs International Airport
Lot A $20 106 300 $213 9.4%
Lot B 20 244 400 213 9.4%
Lot C 20 245 800 213 9.4%
Lot D 20 285 1,300 213 9.4%
Los Angeles International Airport
Terminal garages* $60 8,300 300 $215 27.9%
San Diego International Airport
Terminal 2 Parking Plaza* $38 3,400 600 $189 20.1%
Hollywood Burbank Airport
Short-Term Garage* $42 430 300 $139 30.2%
Lot E 28 (c) 600 139 20.1%
Lot F 28 (c) 800 139 20.1%
Lot G 26 (c) 800 139 18.7%
Ontario International Airport
Lots 2/4 Premium $30 699 200 $187 16.0%
Lots 2/4 General 24 (d) 400 187 12.8%
Lot 3 20 (d) 1,600 187 10.7%
Santa Barbara Airport
Short-Term Lot $27 380 200 $217 12.4%
Long-Term Lot 18 2,680 900 217 8.3%
Long Beach Airport
Garage A* $25 990 300 $131 19.1%
Garage B* 20 2,440 900 131 15.3%
John Wayne Airport
Garage A1 $20 1,470 600 $189 10.6%
Garage A2 20 1,590 800 $189 10.6%
Garage B2 20 1,500 400 189 10.6%
Garage C 20 2,000 500 189 10.6%
______________________________
Source: Frasca analysis of individual airport websites, Google Maps, and the AXN Airport Fact Book. (a) Approximate walking distance from center of lot to terminal entrance. (b) U.S. Department of Transportation DB1B database, accessed via Diio Mi, June 15, 2024.

Excludes taxes and ancillary charges (e.g., baggage, boarding, and seating fees). (c) Spaces by surface lot not available. BUR has approximately 6,600 total spaces, including the short-term garage and a remote, nonwalkable economy lot. (d) Spaces by lot not available. ONT has approximately 6,800 total spaces, including two remote, nonwalkable economy lots served by shuttles.

Page 5 of 7 ends

1176 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
6 Increasing Parking Rates to Market Levels Would Provide Revenues for PSP to Fund Needed Capital Improvements
Based on the benchmarking results in Table 2, PSP is proposing a 20% increase in the maximum daily parking rate from $20 to $24. As with any good or service, one cannot expect a proportionate 20% increase in parking revenues resulting from the rate increase as the price increase will result at least some customers on the margin will decide to “trade off” by consuming a “substitute good” or not choosing not consume altogether. For parking, this means choosing an alternative mode, such as a taxi, Transportation Network Company (e.g., Lyft or Uber), or being dropped off by family or friends. This economic concept is known as “elasticity,” or the ratio of the percent change in quantity demanded to the percent change in price.

In economic theory, elasticity ranges from 0.00 to -1.00 are considered relatively inelastic as the demand does not decrease by as much as an increase in cost (e.g., a 20% increase in price leads to a 10% decrease in demand, or an elasticity of -0.50, meaning that revenues increase 10% following the 20% price increase). This situation implies current prices are below market as more customers than not would be willing to pay more for the same good. An elasticity of exactly -1.00 means that the demand decreases by exactly the same increase in price (e.g., a 20% increase in price leads to a 20% decrease in demand such that total revenues would be unchanged after the price increase). An elasticity of less than -1.00 means that demand decreases by more than the price increase (e.g., a 20% increase in price leads to a 30% decrease in demand such that total revenues would be less following a price increase. Therefore, other things equal, a price increase for a good with an elasticity of less than -1.00 would not be rational as it would not generate additional revenues.

In FRASCA’S experience, elasticity ratios for parking depend on the magnitude of the increase and the time since the last increase. Generally, FRASCA assumes an elasticity ratio of -0.25 for a modest increase in walkable parking rates when there has not been a rate change in more than 3 years. This ratio implies that a 20% increase in parking rates will result in a 5% decrease in volume and therefore a 15% increase in parking revenues. FRASCA’S estimate of FY 2024 actual parking revenues based on 10 months of available data is $6.538 million. Therefore, assuming the increase in the maximum daily parking rate from $20 to $24 and the -0.25 elasticity, FRASCA estimates annual parking revenues would increase 15%, or $0.981 million, to $7.519 million. These additional revenues would provide funding for needed capital improvements.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary, a parking rate increase is justifiable for both cost-based and market-based reasons. From a cost-based perspective, a rate increase is justifiable to preserve the historical level of financial contribution of parking operations to PSP’s net revenues, while from a market-based perspective, a rate increase is justifiable to keep rates in line with peer airports. Consistent with the findings outlined above, FRASCA recommends PSP increases its maximum daily parking rate from $20 to $24.

It is worth noting with regard to this recommended rate that:

Page 6 of 7 ends

1177 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
7  As shown in Table 3, following, it would still be lower than the $20 rate implemented in 2018, as adjusted for inflation. When adjusted for inflation, the $20 rate in 2018 is equivalent to a $26 rate today.
 The recommended maximum daily rate would remain at or below that for all benchmark airports except SNA and those for less convenient facilities at LGB, ONT, and SBA.  When expressed as a percentage of average fare, the maximum daily garage rate would be below that for all benchmark airports except SNA and the least convenient walkable parking facilities at ONT and SBA.

Consistent with PSP’s goals to improve parking’s financial contribution to airport net revenues by adjusting rates to market, FRASCA recommends the adoption of this rate structure. Additionally, FRASCA recommends that PSP evaluate parking financial performance and benchmark parking rates at least every two years, as consistent with industry best practices, to keep rates aligned with the local market.

Table 4

RECOMMENDED PARKING RATE
Palm Springs International Airport
Duration Current rate
Inflation-adjusted
rate
Recommended
rate Percent change
Daily $20 $26 $24 20.0%
Note: Inflation-adjusted rate calculated using the CPI-U for All Urban Consumers for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA, not seasonally adjusted, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and accessed online, June 15, 2024.

Source: Frasca & Associates, LLC, July 3, 2024.

Page 7 of 7 ends

1178 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Fund 405 - Customer
Facility Charges
FY 23-24
Revised
Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 23-24
% Of Budget
FY 22-23
Actual
FY 22-23
vs
FY 23-24
% Change
Operating Revenue 9,181,327 9,495,365 103% 8,873,352 7% Operating Expenditures 11,780,574 - 0% - 0%
Surplus / (Deficit) (2,599,247) 9,495,365 -365% 8,873,352 -7% Fund 405 is the airports fund for customer facility charges (CFC).

Revenues
CFC revenue is collected by the car rental concessionaires and remitted to the Airport according to state law to support the future consolidated rental car facility project. In March 2022, City Council approved a change in the collection methodology rate from $10 per transaction to $9 per day up to five days maximum.

YTD, revenues of $9.5M represents 103% of the full year budget, reflecting seasonal nature of CFC revenues.

Expenditures
YTD, the airport has not spent any of the Fund 405 budgeted expenditures. (4,000,000)
(2,000,000)
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
(2,599,247)
9,495,365
8,873,352
Fund 405 - Customer Facility Charges - Net Balance
FY 23-24
Revised Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 22-23
Actual
7/2/2024 Page 1 of 11
Item 9.J
1179 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Fund 410 - Passenger
Facility Charges
FY 23-24
Revised
Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 23-24
% Of Budget
FY 22-23
Actual
FY 20-23
vs
FY 21-24
% Change
Operating Revenue 6,450,776 6,196,697 96% 5,910,577 5%
Operating Expenditures 9,072,099 340,291 4% 452,135 -25% Surplus / (Deficit) (2,621,323) 5,856,406 -223% 5,458,442 7% Fund 410 is the airports fund for passenger facility charges (PFC).

Revenues
The PFC, provides a source of additional capital to improve, expand, and repair the nation’s airport infrastructure. The FAA must approve any facility charges imposed on enplaning passengers. The PFC at PSP is $4.50 and the maximum PFC charge on any one passenger travel ticket is capped at $18.00.

YTD, revenues of $6.2M represents 96% of the full year budget, reflecting seasonal nature of CFC revenues.

Expenditures
On July 18, 2019, the City of Palm Springs issued 2019 Airport Passenger Facility Charge Revenue Bonds for $22,270,000 to finance a portion of the design, acquisition, and construction of ticketing hall and baggage handling system improvements.

Interest is payable semiannually on June 1, and December 1 of each year, commencing December 1, 2019, until maturity or earlier redemption. Fiscal year 2024 principal is $1,690,000 and interest is $807,000. Expenses to fund 410 include principal and interest and contractual services to the bond consultant.

YTD expenses of $340,291 represents the interest payments for the 2019 bond. (3,000,000)
(2,000,000)
(1,000,000)
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
1 (2,621,323)
5,856,406
5,458,442
Fund 410 - Passenger Facility Charges - Net Balance
FY 23-24
Revised Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 22-23
Actual
7/2/2024
Item 9.J

Page 2 of 11 ends

1180 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Fund 415 - Airport
Operations &
Maintenance
FY 23-24
Revised Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 23-24
% Of Budget
FY 22-23
Actual
FY 22-23 vs
FY 23-24
% Change
Operating Revenue 64,090,869 45,364,251 71% 53,751,639 -16% Operating Expenditures 51,371,103 30,639,297 60% 23,504,014 30% Surplus / Deficit 12,719,766 14,724,953 116% 30,247,625 -51% Fund 415 is the airports operation & maintenance fund which records for all the revenues and expenditures.

Revenues
Airport revenues included operating and non-operating revenues from airlines, fuel fees, terminal rentals, ground rentals, concessions, fines, parking, ground transportation, grant reimbursements, admission fees for the Palm Springs Air Museum and interest income.

Expenditures
Airport expenditures consist of personnel, contractual services, safety and security (Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) and law enforcement), utilities, maintenance, supplies, operating equipment, insurance, employee development, equipment rentals and repairs.
7/2/2024
Item 9.J

Page 3 of 11 ends

1181
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Fund 415 - Airport
Operations &
Maintenance
FY 23-24
Revised Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 23-24
% Of Budget
FY 22-23
Actual
FY 22-23 vs
FY 23-24
% Change
Operating Revenue
Airline Revenue
Landing Fees 5,910,134 5,620,399 95% 3,570,069 57%
Landing Fee Surcharge - (93,778) 0% 2,181, 634 -104%
Terminal Airline Space/Joint Use 9,467,216 5,396,901 57% 2,187,385 147% Gate Per Use Fees 3,470,605 1,673,522 48% 1,410,910 19% Passenger Loading Bridge Fee 1,255,064 630,613 50% - 0% Baggage Handling System Fees 897,000 812,189 91% ( 6,904) -11864% Total Airline Revenues 21,000,019 14,039,847 67% 9,343,094 50% Other Revenue
CARES Act - - 0% 5,989,698 -100%
CRRSAA-Airport 4,783,916 1,408,292 29% - 0%
CRRSAA-Concessions 280,390 - 0% 280,390 -100%
ARPA-Airport 1,481,290 - 0% 9,310, 342 -100%
ARPA - Concessions 1,121,560 - 0% (280, 390) -100%
Total Other Revenue 7,667,156 1,408,292 18% 15,300,040 -91% Non-Airline Revenue
General Aviation 406,000 388,937 96% 403, 501 -4%
Non-Aeronautical Ground Rental 457,315 639,631 140% 420, 511 52% Aeronautical Ground Rental 1,247,329 1,266,964 102% 1,397,783 -9% Parking 6,697,064 6,368,986 95% 6,222,599 2%
Airport Use Permits 53,263 110,657 208% 85, 164 30%
Non-Airline Terminal Rent Fee 9,998,816 3,277,497 33% 2,507,370 31% Rental Car - Overflow Parking 371,809 185,438 50% 196, 857 -6% Advertising 315,951 569,217 180% 423, 074 35%
On Airport Rental Car 11,944,780 11,374,511 95% 12,169,023 -7% Commercial Services Fees 1,099,000 1,243,468 113% 1,142,506 9% Ground Transportation Fees 1,195,000 1,431,102 120% 1,204,033 19% Customs 336,296 440,184 131% 427, 008 3%
All Other Revenue 1,301,070 2,619,521 201% 2,509,075 4% Total Non-Airline Revenue 35,423,694 29,916,112 84% 29,108,505 3% Total Operating Revenues 64,090,869 45,364,251 71% 53,751,639 -16% 7/2/2024
Item 9.J

Page 4 of 11 ends

1182
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
YTD actual revenue is $8.3M below the prior year because the prior year YTD included: CARES ACT funding of $6M and ARPA funding of $9.3M that will not repeat in the current year or future fiscal years. Adjusting for these two items, revenue is up 18% YTD over the prior year.

Note: FY22-23 had $15.3M in revenues from one-time CARES & ARPA grant funds 45,364,251
53,751,639
33,016,458
-16%
63%
1735
0 10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
FY 23-24 FY 22-23 FY 20-21
YTD Actual Revenue
Total Airline
Revenues
31%
Total Other
Revenue
3%
Total NonAirline
Revenue
66%
FY 23-24 OPERATING FUND REVENUES

BY CATEGORY
7/2/2024

Page 5 of 11 ends

Item 9.J
1183
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Fund 415 - Airport
Operations &
Maintenance
FY 23-24
Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 23-24
% Of Budget
FY 22-23
Actual
FY 22-23 vs FY
23-24
% Change
Operating Expenditures
Airport Administration 8,155,945 5,036,261 62% 4,577,919 10% Airport Information Technology 1,026,206 458,771 45% 92, 736 Airport Law Enforcement 3,130,981 3,211,249 103% 2,918,942 10% Aviation Security 1,936,264 287,423 15% - 0%
Airside Operations 5,981,668 4,646,163 78% 387,280 1100% Airport Rescue - Fire 4,828,582 3,770,211 78% 3,333,328 13% Landside Operations 2,217,250 1,919,989 87% 1,436,783 34% Grounds Maintenance 691,680 371,644 54% 500, 409 -26%
Terminal Building Operations 8,270,483 4,547,282 55% 6,302,485 -28% Passenger Boarding Bridges 120,000 35,434 30% 18, 163 95% Baggage Handling System 897,000 438,495 49% 344, 362 27% Control Center Operations 4,169,247 4,040,352 97% 3,315,823 22% U.S. Customs 336,436 298,305 89% 275, 785 8%
Planning & Projects 723,776 127,124 18% - 0%
Airport Pass Thru to Others 1,401,950 1,396,342 100% - 0% PERS Cost Recovery 500,000 - 0% - 0%
Budget Transfer Out 6,983,634 - 0% - 0%
Total Operating Expenditures 51,371,103 30,585,044 60% 23,504,014 -30% Surplus / (Deficit) 12,719,766 14,779,206 116% 30,247,625 -51% 7/2/2024 Page 6 of 11
Item 9.J
1184
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Airport
Administration
16% Airport Law
Enforcement
10%
Aviation
Security
1%
Airside
Operations
15%
Airport
Rescue -
Fire
12%
Landside
Operations
6% Grounds
Maintenance
1%
Terminal
Building
Operations
15%
Control
Center
Operations
13%
U.S.

Customs
1%
Airport Pass
Thru to
Others…
FY 23-24 OPERATING FUND

EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
30,639,297
23,504,014 22,881,798 30%
3%
904%
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
FY 23-24 FY 22-23 FY 21-22
YTD Actual Expenditures
Salaries &
Benefits
56%
Contractual
Services
19%
Utilities
5%
Materials &
Supplies
8%
Insurance
2%
Other City
Services
10%
FY 23-24 OPERATING FUND

EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY
7/2/2024 Page 7 of 11
Item 9.J
1185
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Fund 416 - Airport
Capital Projects
FY 23-24
Revised
Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 23-24
% Of Budget
FY 22-23
Actual
FY 20-23
vs
FY 21-24
% Change
Operating Revenue 69,701,796 1,968,678 3% 3,694,998 -47% Operating Expenditures 90,906,076 5,799,591 6% 4,365,246 33% Surplus / (Deficit) (21,204,280) (3,830,913) 18% (670,248) 472% Fund 416 is the airports capital program
Revenues
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants are offered to PSP to provide funding assistance for eligible capital projects that meet the criteria of the federal program. Additional funding is being distributed through AIP grant program by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). These grants have a 9.34% local share and the remaining

90.66% are reimbursed by the FAA. Revenues in excess of the Airport Operations & Maintenance are transferred to fund 416 to cover capital projects.

Expenditures
The airports Capital Improvement Program and Capital Outlay projects are shown on a separate sheet. Under the new the AULA, the airlines will be charged amortization for certain capital projects to help recover its portion of funds used for capital assets. A capital expenditure is any single item that costs $300,000 or more with a useful life in excess of three years, including planning studies, environmental studies, and environmental mitigation measures.

YTD there is a deficit of $3.8M. At the end of the year, fund 415 will transfer the surplus to the capital account to fund the deficit. We expect revenue to be $85M below budget due to the push out of associated capital projects. The corresponding expenses for the pushed out projects will also be deferred to future fiscal years. (25,000,000)
(20,000,000)
(15,000,000)
(10,000,000)
(5,000,000)
-
5,000,000
(21,204,280)
(3,830,913)
(670,248)
Fund 416 - Airport Capital Projects - Net Balance
FY 23-24
Revised Budget
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 22-23
Actual
#REF!
7/2/2024

Page 8 of 11 ends

Item 9.J
1186
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Cash Summary FY 23-24
Actual
FY 22-23
Actual
Fund 405 47,388,168 38,107,218
Fund 410 2,795,893 2,748,476
Fund 415 15,053,523 32,923,685
Fund 416 (913,480) 5,567,879
47,388,168
2,795,893
15,053,523
(913,480)
38,107,218
2,748,476
32,923,685
5,567,879
(10,000,000)
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
Fund 405 Fund 410 Fund 415 Fund 416
Cash by Fund
FY 23-24
Actual
FY 22-23
Actual
7/2/2024 Page 9 of 11
Item 9.J
1185
1187
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
Grant Type
Expiration Date
Grant
Awarded by
the FAA to the
Airport
Actual Used
as of 6/30/24
Remaining
Actual Unused
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) - Expires - May 10, 2024 11,067,877 11,067,877 -
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA)- Airport Operations
Expires - April 14, 2025 4,785,805 4,785,805 -
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA)- Concessions
Expires - May 31, 2025 280,390 280,390 -
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) - Concession
Expires - May 31, 2025 1,121,560 1,121,560 -
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) - Airport Operations Expires - August 10, 2025 10,791,632 10,791,632 -
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)*
Expires - 2027 15,918,762 - 15,918,762
Total Grants 43,966,026 28,047,264 15,918,762
Note: The BIL grant is allocated to the inbound baggage claim project Coronavirus
Aid, Relief,
and
Economic
Security Act
(CARES) -
Expires -
May 10,
2024
Coronavirus
Response
and Relief
Supplementa
l
Appropriatio
ns (CRRSA)-
Airport
Operations
Expires -
April 14,
2025
Coronavirus
Response
and Relief
Supplementa
l
Appropriatio
ns (CRRSA)-
Concessions
Expires -
May 31,
2025
American
Rescue Plan
Act of 2021
(ARPA) -
Concession
Expires -
May 31,
2025
American
Rescue Plan
Act of 2021
(ARPA) -
Airport
Operations
Expires -
August 10,
2025
Bipartisan
Infrastructur
e Law (BIL)*
Expires -
2027
Grant Awarded by the FAA to the Airport 11,067,877 4,785,805 280,390 1,121,560 10,791,632 15,918,762 Actual Used as of 6/30/24 11,067,877 4,785,805 280,390 1,121,560 10,791,632 - Remaining Actual Unused - - - - - 15,918,762
$11,067,877.0
$4,785,805.0
$280,390.0 $1,121,560.0
$10,791,632.0
$15,918,762.0
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
Grants - Remaining Balance
7/2/2024

Page 10 of 11 ends

Item 9.J
1188 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Financial Summary
Ending June 30, 2024
NO. OF

PROJECTS PROJECT NAME
BUDGET
FY 2021-2022
BUDGET
FY 2022-2023
BUDGET
FY 2023-2024
BUDGET
FY 2024-2025
PRIOR

EXPENSES

EXPENSES TO

DATE REMAINING FUNDING SOURCE
-
1 AIRCRAFT RESCUE & FIREFIGHTING TRUCK - 1,500,000 1,127,610 1,127,610 372,390 Airport 2 AIRFIELD 31L/13R REHABILITATION & AIRFIELD CONNECTOR - (DESIGN) - - - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 Airport / ACIP Grant 3 AIRFIELD W & A1 - (CONSTRUCT - PHASE 1) - - - 6,500,000 - - 6,500,000 Airport / ACIP / BIL-AIG Grant 4 AUTOMATED EXIT LANES - - - 750,000 - - 750,000 Airport 5 AUTOMATED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION 300,000 - - - 276,384 276,384 23,616 Airport 6 BHS - TERMINAL BUILDING EXPANSION (CONSTRUCT) - - - 25,000,000 - - 25,000,000 PFC 7 CARPET REPLACEMENT - MAIN TERMINAL LOBBY AND SECURITY CHECK POINT - - 400,000 - - - 400,000 Airport 8 COMMON USE 225,860 2,777,514 - - 1,322,121 2,217,443 785,931 Airport 9 CONSOLIDATED RENTAL CAR FACILITY (DESIGN) - - - 2,500,000 - - 2,500,000 CFC 10 CONVEYANCE REPLACEMENT - - - 4,700,000 - - 4,700,000 Airport / BIL-ATP Grant 11 ECONOMY LOT (CONSTRUCT) - PHASE 1 - - - 3,000,000 - 30,677 2,969,323 Airport 12 ECONOMY LOT (CONSTRUCT) - PHASE 2 - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Airport 13 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGERS - - 300,000 - 295,708 295,708 4,292 Airport/ACIP 14 FEDERAL INSPECTION STATION - (DESIGN) & NEW TERMINAL EXPANSION - - - 19,000,000 - 120,878 18,879,122 Airport / BIL - Entitlement Grant 15 GATE STRIPING - - 599,900 - 599,900 599,900 - Airport 16 HOT SPOT STUDY - - 181,320 - 53,283 53,283 128,037 Airport/ACIP 17 HVAC INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT - - - 2,000,000 - 6,209 1,993,791 Airport / BIL-ATP Grant 18 INBOUND BAGGAGE CLAIM - - 6,000,000 12,000,000 326,915 505,992 17,494,008 Airport/BIL-ATP Grant 19 LED RIBBON - - - - (3,000) 3,000 Airport
20 LOT A (CONSTRUCT) - - - 700,000 - - 700,000 Airport
21 MAIN TERMINAL FAÇADE RESTORATION (DESIGN) - - - 500,000 - - 500,000 Airport 22 MASTER PLAN - - 2,275,816 - 680,937 931,540 1,344,276 Airport/ACIP 23 OUTBOUND BAGGAGE HANDLING SYSTEM - - 20,000,000 10,000,000 540,106 646,762 29,353,238 Airport/ACIP/PFC 24 PAINT STRIPING TRUCK - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Airport 25 PARKING REVENUE SYSTEM - - 500,000 - - - 500,000 Airport 26 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS 29,205,802 - - - - - 29,205,802
27 PROCURE LANDSIDE VEHICLES - - 210,000 - - 67,772 142,228 Airport / VALE/ZEV Grant 28 PROCURE TWO ZERO EMISSIONS BUSES - - - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 Airport / VALE/ZEV Grant 29 PROPERTY ACQUISITION - - 8,800,000 - - - 8,800,000 CFC 30 PUBLIC PARKING PAVING - - 2,400,000 - 1,523 4,604 2,395,396 Airport 31 PUBLIC RESTROOMS - - 10,000,000 - 29,028 89,817 9,910,183 Airport/BIL-ATP Grant 32 REMAIN OVER NIGHT (RON) PARKING SPACES - - - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Airport / ACIP Grant 33 SHADE AREA - PHASE 1 - - 236,000 - - 148,209 87,791 Airport / VGPS Grant 34 SOLID SEPARATOR - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Airport
35 TAXIWAY REHABILIATION W & A1 - - 571,158 - 53,394 88,644 482,515 Airport/ACIP 36 TELEHANDLER/FORKLIFT - - 150,000 - - 373,469 (223,469) Airport 37 VERBIAGE MESSAGE SIGNAGE - DIGITAL - - 800,000 - - - 800,000 Airport 38 WI-FI CONSULTANT (DESIGN) - - 150,000 - - - 150,000 Airport 39 WIFI WIRELESS EQUIPMENT - - 500,000 - 5,474 405,933 94,067 Airport 40 WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSEMENT - - 126,924 - 15,044 41,557 85,367 Airport/ACIP 41 Z-SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CONSULTANT 73,632 - Airport TOTAL 29,731,662 2,777,514 53,724,194 98,650,000 5,306,909 7,711,403 177,301,470 7/2/2024

Page 11 of 11 ends

Item 9.J
1189 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
ID Task Name
1 Nine Cities- complete
2 Hey Joshua- complete
3 Las Palmas Oasis- complete
4 InMotion
5 Cactus to Clouds
6 Las Casuelas & Coachella Valley Coffee
7 Uptown Essentials
8 The Pink Door
9 Vino Volo
10 Trio
11 Coachella Duty Free Cart
12 Movie Colony Canteen
5/3
5/3
7/19
8/16
8/23
10/10
10/10
12/20
12/26
2/28
3/28
1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3 PSP Concession Projected Opening Dates
Palm Springs International Airport Tue 7/2/24
Item 9.L
1190
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
I T E M 12 . A Page 1 | 1
ITEM 12.A - PAST CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
Airport Commission Meeting of July 10, 2024
City Council Meeting of June 27, 2024:

There were no City Council items related to the Airport. 1191 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
I T E M 1 2 . B 7 - 1 0 - 2 4 Page 1 | 1
ITEM 12.B - FUTURE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
Airport Commission Meeting of July 10, 2024
July 9, 2024
• Amendment to Car Rental Concessionaire Agreements to adjust certain fixed rent charges and reinstate the Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG). • Southern California Edison/Hertz Rental Car Grant Easement. • Taxiway Rehabilitation Project
July 25, 2024
• ABM Aviation, Inc. - Amendment No. 3 to extend parking management services for one-year.
• Signature Technologies Inc. dba Com-Net Software – Amendment No. 2 to extend Flight Information Display System (FIDS) services for one-year. 1192 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
ITEM 1 4 . A / 7 - 1 0 - 2 4 Page 1 | 1
ITEM 14.A - FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Airport Commission Meeting of July 10, 2024
Date Time Committee
July 10, 2024 5:00 pm Noise Committee
July TBD TBD Marketing and Business Development Committee TBD TBD Ad Hoc Design Review Committee
TBD TBD Budget and Finance Committee
TBD TBD Operations, Properties and Facilities Committee 1193 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
REPRESENTING COMMISSIONERS Marketing
(7 Members)*
Budget
(7 Members)*
Operations
(7 Members)
Noise
(5 Members)
Ad Hoc Design
Review
(5 Members)*
Indian Wells BERRIMAN, Robert Member
Palm Springs BURKE, Todd Chair Member Member
Palm Springs CALDWELL, Daniel Member Member
Palm Springs CORCORAN, Kevin Member Member Chair
Palm Springs FELTMAN, David Chair Member
Palm Springs FONG, J Craig Member Member
Palm Springs MARTIN, Tracy Chair
Riverside County PARK, Margaret Member
Desert Hot Springs PYE, Jan Member Member
Palm Desert WISEMAN, Kevin Member Member Member Member
Indio WISE, Rick Member Member
Rancho Mirage YOUNG, Keith Member Member
* Ad Hoc Design Review Committee has one (1) vacancy
Budget & Finance Committee has two (2) vacancies
Marketing & Business Development Committee has two (2) vacancies Noise Committee has one (1) vacancy

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

REPRESENTING COMMISSIONERS
Palm Springs CORCORAN, Kevin
Palm Springs DADA, Aftab
Palm Desert WISEMAN, Kevin
Rancho Mirage YOUNG, Keith
AIRPORT COMMITTEES FY2023-24
REVISED 1-11-24
WORKING GROUP REVISED 1-19-24
ITEM 14.B
1194 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Palm Springs Airport Commission Report – July 10, 2024 Meeting Discussion and Action Items:

Executive Director Harry Barrett, Jr. was unable to attend the meeting, so a few discussion items were not presented or were just briefly mentioned.
1195 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Next Commission Meeting: an all-day special meeting and study session on September 12, 2024, from 9 AM to 5 PM. The Commission will be dark in August.

Also, I will be meeting with Harry Barrett on August 6th at the airport at 2 PM to help bring me up to speed on various issues.
1196 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

WRITTEN
PUBLIC

COMMENTS

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
AUGUST 6, 2024
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: Arlene Gotshalk <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2024 2:17 PM
To: City Clerk Mail
Subject: WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS for City council Meeting August 6, 2024 Attachments: Emergency response website - public speak at council meeting.docx; Request to Speak Form 8-6-24.pdf
Arlene Gotshalk
Residence: La Quinta
Subject matter: Emergency Response Website and Designated Spokesperson Please distribute my written comments to Council and incorporate them into the public record of the meeting.

Also attached is my "Request to Speak" form.

Thank you.

Arlene
--
_________________________________________________________ “You can’t wait until life isn’t hard any more before you decide to be happy.” Nightbird Arlene Gotshalk
CareGiving Toolkit
www.caregivingtoolkit.com
831-588-3373
[email protected]
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ARLENE GOTSHALK

MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - EMERGENCY RESPONSE WEBSITE AND DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
C:\Users\mradeva\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\TD4G8EXV\Emergency response website - public speak at council meeting.docx
RE: EMERGENCY RESPONSE WEBSITE & DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON One of the many challenges of disaster management is making sure that centralized information is available in a timely manner.

Currently, there is a lot of mixed information circulating in our community through different delivery systems. Each person has to find these sources of information. There is City Email Alerts along with local groups such as Next Door, La Quinta News, etc.. The result is conflicting, limited, and outdated information.. You have to:
 Know that these avenues of information exist!
 Find them
 Sign up for each one of them
 Hope the information is correct.

This maze of information is confusing, time-consuming, and difficult to navigate. And not all information is useful.

Rural Health Information Hub states: “The primary audience for dissemination of disaster information is typically the local community affected by the emergency or disaster event. Disseminating information centrally ensures transparency with the community. Central information keeps individuals and organizations informed of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.”
MY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE:

1. CREATE ACCESS TO A CENTRAL WEBSITE. A one-stop shop with real-time natural disaster information. The website would include time-stamped updates and reliable links with warnings about current, real-time dangers/damages such as:
 Evacuation orders
 Rising river levels
 Power outages
 Available resources (including reliable social media accounts)  Volunteer requests
 Whether water is safe to drink
 Which roads are safe to be on
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
C:\Users\mradeva\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\TD4G8EXV\Emergency response website - public speak at council meeting.docx
For example: Preparation and Response information during Tropical Storm Hilary could not be found in one location and was not always accurate or updated which led to fear, chaos, confusion, congestion, and potential danger.

When supplies of sand and sandbags ran out at fire stations, nobody seems to know if or when the supplies were going to be replenished – not the people manning the fire stations or the citizens looking for sand and sandbags. People were scared and angry and raced from one fire station to another wondering if they would be able to find some supplies. Different information was circulating about where to find supplies and a significant time lag occurred before information became available. A centrally posted update of available supplies would have eliminated misunderstandings and frustration.

It cuts through the clutter of all the information surrounding the emergency and offers time-saving solutions, rock-solid advice.

2. DESIGNATE A SPOKESPERSON to present daily live updates like the coordinated briefings made by Cal Fire Spokesperson during disasters. The briefings transcripts could be broadcasted live by the City Spokesperson at the same time (or times) every day on the radio, TV and on City Disaster website, etc. This type of communication and transparency would create a shared understanding and reduce misinformation. It builds trust and offers hope as the chaos unfolds. The Spokesperson could take questions during these live broadcasts and post answers in real-time on the website. Questions could be emailed in and answers could be posted.

By adopting a "simple" approach to complex problems and concentrating on which information is most useful, we can achieve clarity of communication and improve immediate responses. A central website will help simplify information to help us take focused actions during pressing challenges.

Effective communication saves lives and is a critical component of emergency management. Having ACCESS TO A CENTRAL WEBSITE AND A DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON will keep our community on the same page and unite us with trustworthy, real-time information.

I hope you and your team will create a CENTRAL WEBSITE AND DESIGNATE A SPOKESPERSON to make it more effective to help the people and the community we love.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: Dave Heckman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 2:49 PM
To: Jennifer Nelson <[email protected]>
Subject: Green/Talus mess
Dear MS. Nelson, I'm writing this to you because the email address to Deborah McGarrey will not open, so as per your instructions I'm sending this to you to forward to her before tonight's council meeting.. To: Deborah McGarrey I'm writing to you to demand a Grand Jury investigation into this fraudulent bankruptcy filed by Robert Green and his various Companies who are trying to avoid criminal prosecution for his actions and dealings with our City and other businesses throughout the Coachella Valley.. Isn't time for the City to stop doing business with a crook and thief? This should be time for you to stop the fraud. Sincerely, David Heckman You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT DAVID HECKMAN CLOSED SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - TALUS (FORMERLY SILVERROCK RESORT) - COMMENTS REGARDING DEVELOPER CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: Alena Callimanis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 9:32 PM
To: Linda Evans; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Deborah McGarrey; John Pena; Steve Sanchez Cc: Monika Radeva; Cheri Flores
Subject: City Council members - YouTube video links to Jefferson St Extension and also Avenue 62 dike Travertine hearing
Good day. I hope this will be helpful to you. I am attaching a YouTube link that shows a drive of one mile of the Jefferson Street Extension. The file below shows where the trip started. It is the one circle with a black border. The significant things I would like to point out is that it is pretty flat, it can be to the east more to get further away from the Quarry wall, and the road already is below the Quarry wall and could be graded even lower if need be. There is no dike to cross until you are far from the Quarry. The first dike is at the end of the one mile trip and it is significantly smaller. And far from everyone. The drive went from the one circle with black around it, to the other circle where it says 1.01. https://youtu.be/2UKPt9qFQU8
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ALENA CALLIMANIS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE - COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED ROAD:AY CLASSIFICATIONS CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 This second video is taken climbing up the Avenue 62 roadway to the top of the dike. Then you can see the irrigation ponds, back down Avenue 62, the duct tape that shows the bottom of the roadway which is 6 feet above the dike. Above the 6 foot mark, the vehicles (discounting motorcycles) can typically be 5 feet high to 13.5 feet hight. And of course you can see Trilogy residences. Keep in mind, where I am taking this video is below the 6 foot elevated roadway, https://youtu.be/oZqU9JnQb2s
Alena Callimanis
81469 Rustic Canyon Drive
La Quinta, CA 92253
919 606-6164
[email protected]
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: Gretchen Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 12:37 PM
To: Monika Radeva
Subject: Item for Council Meeting
Attachments: doc03230020240806123005.pdf
Hi Monika,
Comment letter for tonight's council meeting... Supportive of Jobs and Economic Development for the City.

Please include that in the staff/council notes letter is written to encourage projects hire local and spend local. gretchen
Gretchen Gutierrez
CEO
DVBA
34360 Gateway Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211
760-776-7001 office
661-478-3762 cell
email: [email protected]
website: www.TheDVBA.org
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 12:30 PM
To: Gretchen Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Subject:
-------------------
do not reply
-------------------
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY GRETCHEN GUTIERREZ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DVBA - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE - LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: John K. Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2024 10:03 AM
To: Linda Evans; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Deborah McGarrey; Steve Sanchez; City Clerk Mail
Subject: Written Comments - John Miller, La Quinta, Travertine Development Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members,
I am John Miller, and I own 81455 Golden Poppy Way in Trilogy La Quinta. I have lived in La Quinta for over 24 years and am happy to call it my home. As a Realtor, I have represented over 1,300 clients over the past 21 years, most of whom chose Trilogy La Quinta for its remote, peaceful, and tranquil location backing up to the Santa Rosa Mountains.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 1200-home Travertine development, particularly the planned primary arterial access routed through Avenue 62. As a resident and community advocate, I have several significant concerns about this development's adverse impacts on our area.

Firstly, the proposed bridge over the existing dike on Avenue 62 to facilitate access to Travertine will dramatically increase noise and traffic throughout our community. This surge in traffic will result in higher emissions and greenhouse gases, which is counterproductive to our collective efforts to reduce our environmental footprint and combat climate change. The influx of vehicles will contribute to air pollution, negatively impacting the health and well-being of current residents.

Moreover, the noise generated by the increased traffic, mainly from vehicles crossing the newly constructed bridge, will disrupt the tranquility of our neighborhood. The residents of Trilogy La Quinta chose this community for its peaceful environment, and introducing this development will undermine the quality of life we currently enjoy. The constant noise pollution will be a source of stress and discomfort for many residents, especially those closest to Avenue 62.

Another critical concern is the potential impact on the local wildlife, specifically the Bighorn sheep that inhabit this region. The construction and increased human activity will likely disturb their natural habitat, threatening survival. Protecting our local wildlife is essential, and the proposed development poses a significant risk to these animals.

Additionally, the infrastructure in our area may need to be equipped to handle the substantial increase in traffic and population density. The strain on local roads, public services, and amenities could lead to congestion and reduced service quality, further diminishing the living standards for current and future residents.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the city council to reconsider the access plan for the Travertine development. Routing the main arterial through Avenue 62 is not sustainable or community-friendly. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JOHN MILLER PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE - OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 recommend exploring alternative access points that will minimize the environmental impact, preserve the peace of existing neighborhoods, and protect our local wildlife.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the city council will take these concerns seriously and decide to prioritize the well-being of current residents and the environment.

Sincerely,
John K Miller
John K. Miller | President
Trilogy Onsite Sales Office, 60750 Trilogy Parkway, La Quinta, CA 92253 BD Luxe Office, 47350 Washington Street, Suite 101, La Quinta, CA 92253 Cell: 760.285.3642 | Fax: 877.251.4775 | Office: 760.564.3161 Email: [email protected] | CalDRE: 01371356
Website: www.JohnKevinMiller.com
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: Christina Clifton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 11:53 AM
To: City Clerk Mail; Cheri Flores
Cc: Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney at Law, P.C.; Jeremy Herwitt Subject: WSRCC - [City of La Quinta, Travertine Specific Plan] - Comment Letter Attachments: 20240806_WSRCC_La Quinta_TravertineSP_CCMeeting_FEIR_CL_Signed.pdf ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Good morning,
Attached please find a comment letter our office is submitting for the Travertine Specific Plan Project (SCH#: 2018011023). The project will be heard by the City Council at today's meeting, agenda item #2.

Please let me know if you have any questions. We would greatly appreciate confirmation of receipt of this email and its attachment.

Thank you,
Christina
--
Christina Clifton, Paralegal
Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm - Environmental & Land Use Litigation 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 314-3821
Fax: (626) 389-5414
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.mitchtsailaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at (626) 314-3821 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY MITCHELL TSAI LAW FIRM PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE - OPPOSED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
August 6, 2024
Mayor Linda Evans
La Quinta City Council
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
RE: City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 2 -
Travertine Specific Plan Project, Draft & Final Environmental Impact Report [SCH 2018011023]
Dear Mayor Evans, Honorable Councilmembers and Ms. Flores, On behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Western States Carpenters” or “WSRCC”), our firm is submitting these comments to the City of La Quinta (“City”) in connection August 6, 2024 City Council hearing regarding the Travertine Specific Plan Project (“Project”), as well as the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”; collectively, “EIR”) associated therewith.

The Project includes development of a mix of uses including up to 1,200 dwelling units of varying residential product types and two community parks (east and west) on 378.8 acres; a 38.3-acre resort/spa facility with a 45,000-square-foot boutique hotel with a 175-seat restaurant, 97,500 square feet of resort villas, and 8,700 square feet of spa and wellness center, as well as yoga and tennis courts; a 46.2-acre resort/golf facility with a 5,500-square-foot golf academy, a 1,000-square-foot clubhouse, and 10,000-square-foot banquet restaurant (500-seat capacity).

The Western States Carpenters is a labor union representing over 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
City of La Quinta – Travertine Specific Plan Project
August 6, 2024

Page 2 of 28 ends

La Quinta City CouncilAugust 6, 2024

La Quinta City Council
August 6, 2024