HomeMy WebLinkAbout00493C - CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES DESERT HIGHLAND PUBLIC BENEFIT MOU RES 21068 CRA RES 1266 Century Crowell Communities
Desert Highland Public Benefit
MOU AGREEMENT #0493C
Res 21068, 7-28-04
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CRA Res 1 266, 9-1-04
THIS AGREEMENT (this "MOU") dated as of July 27, 2004, is made by and between the
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a Charter municipality (the "City"), the COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a public body, corporate and
public (the "Agency") and CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, LP, a California limited
liability company(the "Developer"),with reference to the following facts,
RECITALS:
A. The Developer is in the process of planning the construction of a new single
family subdivision (the "Project"or"Mountain Gate II") located in the City of Palm Springs.
B. The Developer desires to apply to the City for the creation of an assessment
district (1913 Act District using 1915 Act Bonds — herein "AD") to assist in its development of
Mountain Gate ll.
C. The City Council has adopted a policy, the Policy and Procedure for Special
Assessment (the "Policies and Procedures"), which permits establishment of assessment and
community financing districts where certain criteria exist, including the provision of general
community benefit.
D. Pursuant to the Policies and Procedures, the City's Special Districts Committee
has met with the Developer and has recommended proceeding with the application for the AD
provided sufficient public benefit is established (see attached July 21, 2004, staff report).
E. The City anticipates that following the execution of this Agreement, the City and
the Developer shall negotiate the terms of a Assessment Agreement ("AD") for the Project and
said Assessment Agreement shall include the public benefit items described in this MOU.
F. It is contemplated that the economic contributions made herein will not be
included in the assessments to the homeowners.
G. The Agency and the Developer are also negotiating a Disposition and
Development Agreement ("DDA") for five residential lots owned by the Agency to be sold to
Developer for construction of low to moderate income restricted residences. The Developer has
been planning to seek public assistance in the development of these units.
H. The City, Agency and the Developer desire to enter into this MOU in order to
facilitate the negotiation of the AA and the DDA and to set forth the basic understanding of the
parties with respect to the public benefits finding necessary under the City's Policy and
Procedures for Special Assessment.
NOW,THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Public Benefits to be provided by Developer as terms in the Assessment
Agreement for the AD:
O4•e GS i`,IAL 00
AND/01t AGRE'ENIENT
10031Do863145.01 1
(a) $150,000.00 contribution to the rehabilitation and improvement of the
visitor center facility located in close proximity to the proposed AD. This
will supplement other funding provided by City.
(b) $50,000.00 payment to provide improvements to the Desert Highland
Unity Center. This will supplement approximately $160,000.00 in CDBG
funding already available to the City for a budget of$210.000.00.
(c) $10,000.00 to be used toward a $40,000.00 study of fire safety costs and
needs that will be City-wide but will have a primary focus on fire safety
needs in the developing area of the City, surrounding the Project, and
which study is also being funded by other developers.
(d) $50,000.00 to a pilot property improvement program in the Desert-
Highland area, to be administered by City, and supplemented with
another$100,000.00 in Agency funding.
(e) Developer agrees to support the formation of an assessment district for
police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression,
ambulance, paramedic, and other safety services and recreation, library
and cultural services, and shall waive any right of protest, provided that
the amount of such assessment shall be established through appropriate
study and shall not exceed $500.00 annually per lot subject to CPI. The
district shall be formed prior to sale of any lots or a covenant agreement
shall be recorded against each parcel in a form approved by the City
Attorney.
(f) The potential development of blighted in-fill lots pursuant to Section 2.
The collective contributions of the parties hereunder to the general area where the
Project is located would be $500,000.00, not counting enhanced property values from the
Project itself or the development of the in-fill lots, should the projects contemplated above
proceed.
2. NEGOTIATION IN GOOD FAITH FOR DDA. Developer and Agency agree to
negotiate in good faith a DDA providing for transfer of five infill lots owned by Agency to
Developer at fair market value to be developed as low or moderate income single family
residences. Developer and Agency have been in negotiations for this program and Developer
was seeking a subsidy in the write down of the land value. Developer will pay fair market value
for the lots not exceeding $25,000.00.
3. TERMINATION. The Agency and/or the City may terminate this MOU if
Developer fails to comply with all material provisions hereof on Developer's part to be
performed. The Developer may terminate this MOU if Agency and/or City fail to comply with all
material provisions hereof. If a parry hereto believes the other party has not complied with its
obligations under this MOU, such party shall give the other party ten (10) business days written
notice detailing with specificity such noncompliance, and if such noncompliance has not been
cured within such ten (10) business day period, then the party who delivered such notice may
terminate this MOU by delivering written notice thereof to the defaultinq party at any time
thereafter.
1003/0003145.01 2
4. NO PREDETERMINATION OF CITY AND AGENCY DISCRETION. The parties
agree and acknowledge that, while this MOU does provide that the parties shall negotiate in
good faith, this MOU does not obligate either the City, the Agency or the Developer to enter into
an AA or DDA, and approval of any AA or DDA shall require the approval of all parties, with the
City Council and/or Agency Board giving its approval, if at all, only after consideration of the AA
or DDA at a public meeting and any other proceedings required by law. It is the intent that
binding legal instruments be in effect prior to establishment of the AD.
5. . NO OTHER AGREEMENT. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no agreements or
understandings between the parties and no representations have been made by either party to
the other as an inducement to enter into this MOU, except as expressly set forth herein. All
prior negotiations, written or oral, between the parties are superseded by this MOU. This MOU
may not be altered, amended or modified except by a writing executed by both parties.
Notwithstanding anything provided herein to the contrary, whether express or implied, the
parties shall have no obligation to enter into a contract, and neither the City nor the Agency nor
their respective members, officers, staff or agents have made any promises to Developer. No
statements of the City or the Agency or their respective officers, members, staff or agents as to
future obligations shall be binding upon the City or the Agency unless and until the proper legal
contract is approved by the City and the Agency.
6. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT BY DEVELOPER. This MOU shall not
be assigned by Developer to an unaffiliated party without the City and Agencys prior written
consent,which consent may be withheld in its sole and absolute discretion.
7. NON-BINDING NATURE OF AGREEMENT. Each of the parties acknowledges
and agrees that because circumstances may change, and because each of the parties have not
fully considered the ramifications of their present intentions, including the proposed terms of the
DDA, the AD, the Assessment Agreement, and/or any other agreement this MOU shall not be
construed to bind the City, Agency or the Developer to enter into or establish the AD, DDA,
Assessment Agreement and/or any other agreement. The actual covenants and agreements of
the parties with respect to the disposition and development of the Property shall be set forth in
the AA, DDA or other agreement to be hereafter negotiated. This MOU does not constitutera
disposition of property or exercise of control over property by the Agency or the City and does
not require a public hearing. Execution of this MOU is merely an agreement to enter into a
period of exclusive negotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretion and
approval by the Agency and the City as to any AD, DDA, Assessment Agreement or other
agreement and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith.
10. APPLICABLE LAW. This MOU shall be construed and interpreted under, and
governed and enforced according to the laws of, the State of California.
11. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same MOU.
1003608133145.01 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the day and
year first written above.
AGENCY:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM 6
SPRINGS, a public body, corporate and
politic _, - By:
Executive Director
gencSySecretary wuvwm1t1� iq6
5
C
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
By:
Attest- APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
Vbtk Citfv��lerk —
Ap /r ved'a s. form:
Cgh
City At�6mey �{
/ 6 44;L
DEVELOPER:
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, LP
l/ qp
1003,008/33145.01 4
RESOLUTION NO. 1266
OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS AND CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES,
LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP,
RELATING TO THE PUBLIC BENEFIT DERIVED FROM A
PROPOSED 19131IG15 ACT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. A0439C
BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs that
the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Springs and Century Crowell
Communities, LP, a California Limited Liability Corporation, relating to the public benefit derived
from a proposed 1913/1915 Act assessment district is hereby approved and incorporated herein
by this reference.
r*�
ADOPTED this I"day of September, 2004.
AYES: Members Foat, McCulloch, Mills, Pougnet and Chairman Oden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF P RINGS, LIFORN[A
By-
YZ
Assistant Secretary Chairman
REVIEWED &APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. 21068
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR
FURTHER PROCESSING OF THE FORMATION OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 164, SUBMITTED BY CENTURY
CROWELL COMMUNITIES, L.P.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs adopted Resolution No. 17774 on January 22,
1992, amended by Resolution No, 20304 on April 3, 2002, establishing Policies and
Procedures for Special Assessment and Mello-Roos Community Facility District (CFD)
Municipal Bond Financing for Public Improvements for Development Projects; and
WHEREAS, the City's Policies and Procedures establish minimum criteria for the
formation of Special Assessment and CFD municipal bond financing for public
improvements for development projects requiring that proposed public facilities to be
finance must meet a public need, including the provision of major infrastructure
improvements that significantly benefit the general public, and/or the provision for
significant financial benefit to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has received an application from Century Crowell Communities,
L.P., for formation of a 1913 Act Assessment District using 1915 Act Bonds for the
"Mountain Gate II" development (Tentative Tract Map 32028), located northeast of
Highway 111 and north of Gateway Drive; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Assessment District will facilitate public improvements for
private development that will help stimulate the local economy and provide a financial
benefit to the City.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. The City Council does hereby approve the application for further processing of the
formation of Assessment District 164, submitted by Century Crowell Communities,
L.P.; and
2. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to select and negotiate contracts with
consultants for an assessment engineer's report, appraisal and market absorption
study; and to collect necessary deposits from the applicant to fund consultant
contracts.
ADOPTED this 28"day of July, 2004.
AYES: Members Foat, McCulloch, Mills and Pougnet
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Oden
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED &APPROVED AS TO FORM: ��
DATE: July 21, 2004
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/City Engineer
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 154
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the application for further processing of
the formation of Assessment District 164, submitted by Century.Crowell Communities,
L.P., in accordance with the City's Policies and Procedures for Special Assessment and
Mello-Roos Community Facility District (CFD) Municipal Bond Financing for Public
Improvements for Development Projects;.and authorize staff to select and negotiate
contracts with consultants for an assessment engineer's report, appraisal and market
absorption study; and collect necessary deposits from the applicant to fund consultant
contracts.
SUMMARY:
An application was filed with the City on February 24, 2004 for formation of a 1913 Act
Assessment District using 1915 Act Bonds for"Mountain Gate II", Tentative Tract Map
32028, located adjacent to Highway 111, north of Gateway Drive. This development is
being constructed by Century Crowell Communities, L.P., and is a direct extension of
Mountain Gate I, consisting of 196 single family homes. The City has established
Policies and Procedures for Special Assessment and Mello-Roos Community Facility
District (CFD) Municipal Bond Financing for Public Improvements for Development
Projects (the "Policy") that outlines the minimum criteria for Assessment Districts formed
in the City, as well as the guidelines and process for their formation. The Policy
established a Special Districts Committee comprised of various staff members, and it is
the Committee's responsibility to review the Assessment District Application and render
an opinion regarding the City Council's approval or denial of its formation.
BACKGROUND:
Century Crowell Communities, L.P., is the developer of "Mountain Gate 11", Tentative
Tract Map 32028, located on the northeast side of Highway 111 and north of Gateway
Drive. This development is a direct extension of "Mountain Gate I", currently under
construction of its final phase by the developer, and for which the City approved
Assessment District 161 for public financing of its construction. The Mountain Gate I
development will construct 308 single family homes,while Mountain Gate If development
will add another 196 single family homes, for a total of 504 new single family homes in
that development. The City Council recently approved Tentative Tract Map 32028 at its
July 7,'2004, meeting.
Carlos Cueva of Century Crowell Communities, L.P., has submitted an ,application for
formation of a 1913 Act Assessment District using 1915 Act Bonds for the public
improvements for Mountain Gate 11. In accordance with the City's Policy, a pre-
` application conference With staff was held and the applicant submitted a $10,000 initial
application fee. On March 24, 2004, the applicant met with the City's Special Districts
Committee to review the proposed application.
Assessment District 164
July 21,2004
Paget
The applicant is proposing that Assessment District 164 fund public sewer
improvements, water improvements, street improvements, drainage improvements,
landscaping improvements, undergrounding of existing electrical lines, sewer fees,water
fees, engineering costs, and all district formation and financing costs. The total
estimated bond amount for Assessment District 164 initially proposed was $5,067,996.
The Committee reviewed the application and had the following concerns:
1. The total proposed assessment of$5,067,996 was higher than the total assessment
approved for Assessment District 161, which was spread over 308 homes as
compared to a spread of over 196 homes for the new Assessment District.
2. The proposed total assessment per lot was $24,000 for the Ventana product and
$26,000 for the El Dorado product, higher than the assessments of$13,400 for the
Ventana,product and $18,000 for the El Dorado product approved with Assessment
District 161.
3. Proposed sales.prices for the Mountain Gate If development are set at approximately
$100,000 more than the initial sales prices for Mountain Gate I development; and
sales prices during construction of the various phases of Mountain Gate I
development increased and kept pace with market demand.
The applicant received the Committee's questions and concerns, and revised the
Assessment District Application in order to address some of those concerns. The
revisions consisted of the following:
1. A$1.1 million reduction of the total proposed assessment to $3,966,997. —'
2. A $147,500 increase to $431,600 representing the developer's cdntribution to
Assessment District 164(nearly 11% of the total proposed assessment).
3. An approximate 20% reduction of assessments per lot with proposed assessments
of$19,000 for the Ventana product and $22,000 for the El Dorado product.
The applicant also provided a submittal of information to identify the facts regarding the
increased initial sales prices for the Mountain Gate II development (see Attachment 2,
letter from Carlos Cueva dated June 30, 2004).
The Special Districts Committee reconvened on July 1, 2004, to review the revised
application and discuss a finding regarding further processing of Assessment District
164. The Committee continued to discuss the disparity regarding the proposed per lot
assessment in Assessment District 164 and the existing assessment per lot in
Assessment District 161. However, giving consideration to the fact that the Mountain
Gate II development includes a substantial more length of Highway 111 frontage, as well
as a more significant length of electrical undergrounding than the Mountain Gate I
development, it was understood by the Committee why the total proposed assessment
was more than the previously approved assessment for Assessment District 161.
Furthermore, the Mountain Gate II development Includes 196 lots, as compared to 308
lots in the Mountain Gate I development, yielding a higher per lot assessment.
However, with more careful consideration on the Committee's part, the applicant was
asked to continue to review its proposed assessments and to reevaluate bringing the
proposed assessments In the new development more in line with the assessments in the
existing development. The applicant agreed, and further decreased the proposed
assessment to a level that approximates the percentage of public financing in
Assessment District 161 which was 91.7% of the overall costs within Assessment Dis 'c
Assessment Distdct 164
July 21,2004
Page 3
161. This further reduction revised the total proposed assessment amount to
$3,806,000 yielding a proposed assessment per lot of $17,600 for the Ventana product
and$22,000 for the El Dorado product.
The controlling criteria established in the City's policy on the formation of Assessment
Districts is outlined under Section 4, "Minimum Requirements,"Section 1, "Benefit". This
section indicates that the City should consider formation of Assessment Districts if the
following minimum "benefit"criteria are met:
1. The proposed project shall provide major infrastructure improvements that
significantly benefit the general public, and/or
2. The project shall provide significant financial benefit to the City.
Determining whether the proposed Assessment District application meets these two
general criteria is somewhat subjective. However, the application does propose to
construct street improvements and significant parkway landscaping along Highway 111,
and convert existing overhead utility lines to underground facilities within the property, as
well as provide for future regional flood control improvements. The applicant is also
contributing in the Desert Highland Gateway Community through various activities, and
is coordinating with the City's Redevelopment Agency in considering the construction of
Century's residential products on vacant lots within the community. The Committee also
recognizes the significant beneficial impact the Mountain Gate I development has had on
the north Palm Springs area, which will continue through the development of Mountain
( Gate Il.
SUBMITTED:
---- '.
DAVID J. SARAKIAN
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
APPROVED:
.e "
READY
City M C
City ManID ager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Assessment District Application (final amended)
2. Resolution
1X,9 -3
June 30,2004
Mr. Marcus L.Fuller,P.E. Hand Carried
Department of Public Works
and Engineering
CENTURY City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
VINTAGE Post Office Box 2743
T 7 O M E S Palm Springs,CA 92263-2743
By Century Crowell
Dear Marcus,
Thank you for your letter of June 21,2004. I have prepared a formal response for your review
and distribution to other staff members in advance of the committee meeting July 1st
Assessment District(AD)Reduction
1.) The total proposed assessments have been substantially lowered in response to the City's
request.As'noted in my letter to you of Jame 18u',the total amount of the proposed
assessment has been revised downward by$1.2 million while Century's owner's
contribution of$431,500 has increased more than 50%. Our initial estimate reflected a
total bond issue of$5,067,996 with assessments of$24,000 and$26,000 for our Ventana
and El Dorado products. The revised estimate reflects a total bond issue of$3,966,997
with assessments of$1.9,000 and$22,000 respectively. These assessments are
approximately 18.5%(average)higher than the preliminary engineering assessments of
$18,000 and$16,750 as calculated in AD 161 and prepared by Webb&Associates. This
increase reflects the soaring cost hikes associated with raw materials and insurance
premiums incurred over the last year. (See paragraph 4 6 below)As you know,the
current assessments under AD 161 were revised downward due to total tax load
considerations.
Costs for City Services
2.) Unfortunately,I am unable to provide you with the costs for Police and Fire Emergency
Services. It is my understanding that the costs of fire services are mitigated due to the
installation of overhead sprinklers in each of the homes.As a gated community,a higher
degree of property protection is afforded the residents and thereby causes less
dependence on police patrols.Finally,the responsibility of sheet maintenance is borne by
the Mountain Gate Homeowner's Association.
Financial Benefit to the City
3.) Substantial financial benefits to Palm Springs are realized by populating the North Palm
Springs area with the necessary foot traffic to sustain retail businesses. I made an inquiry
to Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce recently and found that retail space in the north
part of the city generates approximately one third the lease rates per square foot,than for
other parts of the City. I was told this was directly related to the lack of"foot traffic"to
the area.Revitalization of North Palm Springs is occurring not only in the residential y'+�
1535 South 'U'Street, Suite 200, San Bernardino, California, 92408, (909) 381-6007,' Fax(909) 381-0041
1-800-BUY-CENTURYI,http://www.centuryvintage.com
areas,but will become more and more evident in the retail locations,and will
significantly increase sales tax revenues for many years to come.
Sales Price Increases
4.) Sales prices at our Mountain Gate I subdivision have increased but are substantially less
than the local new home subdivisions and resale markets(Charts and Data enclosed).
Century's home prices are up but not to the degree where the benefit from the assessment
cannot be easily determined. The following table from the Meyers Group(America's
largest and most trusted source for residential real estate information)extracted today,
provides comparisons for Palm Springs new home sales prices, cost per square foot,lot
size and number of homes sold dining the four(4)month period from January to April of
this year,
Project--Builder Base Price Finished Cost Per Typical Number
Range Square Ft, Square Foot Lot Size of homes
Range (Sq Ft.) sold
Mountain Gate I $269,990 1,211 —2,778 $145-$223 8,000 39
Century Crowell Communities $402,990
Plutara $384,900 1,622—2,333 $214-$237 4,300 26
Creative Commwrites $499,990
Palm Collection $267,990 1,900-2,102 $135-$141 5,500 25
K. Iiovnanian $282,990
Canyon Collection $318,990 2,288—2,832 $121 -$139 6,000 2
a IC.Hovnanian $ 344,990
PS Colony $ 512,000 2,499—3,042 $205 -$276 107400 14
Far West Industries $799,000
The Canyons $ 752,900 2,262—2,673 $333 -$375 10,006 2
Temple Development $998,900
As illustrated in the table above, our Mountain Gate Subdivision has the lowest price per square
foot,with the exception of the K.Hovnaruan subdivisions whose prices reflects a lot size only
55%to 66% of the typical lot size for a Mountain Gate I home.
The Benefits of Improvement Districts
5.) The advantage to a new homeowner is a lower home purchase price.A$15,000
assessment on a house represents approximately a$25,000 reduction in sales price. The
reduced price drives sales and closings (see table above) slid thereby shortens the time
driven costs of model maintenance, loan interest costs, sales and marketing expenses.The
impact of a denial on Century's application for AD 164 assessment would cause a
significant increase in price,thereby slowing sales to the lower absorption rates of other
subdivisions (see table above). In an environment of rising interest rates, Assessment
Districts provide a way for builders to sell homes quickly through lower sales prices,
thereby reducing the risks inherent in real estate development. The higher absorption rate
also allows the City to capitalize on the number of roof tops when engaging commercial
g development and revitalization. The model illustrated above is a"win-win-win"for the
homebuyer,the City and the developer.
Rising Costs of Construction
6.) Increased workers compensation insurance,land based costs, and the rising costs of
construction have resulted in dramatic price increases. The cost of land rose 27%per
acre,between the Mountain Gate I and Mountain Gate 11 subdivisions. Costs that have
been passed through by subcontractors below is a partial list of price increases:
• Workers compensation premiums have risen between 50%to 150%over the last
year. Unfortunately,the higher workers compensation premiums have resulted in
fewer qualified subcontractors,thereby putting additional upward pressure on the
cost of labor,due to the greater demand for building homes.
• Concrete costs are up more than 20%,due to worldwide demand(China),thus
impacting the cost of installing reinforced concrete pipe for underground sewer
and laterals,roof the and concrete slab foundations.
• Board lumber and plywood prices,as evidenced by the enclosed charts from
Ganahl Lumber, have increased 26 %and 33%respectively,over a 12 month
period.
• The recent run up in fuel prices are factored into all raw material and slipping
costs.
Finally, I have included a copy of an article from the Desert Sim dated January 19, 2004 that
addresses the gentrification that has occurred as a result of the construction of our Mountain
Gate I(AD 161)subdivision. Due to the City's willingness to allow for public financing to
be place on Mountain Gate I,we were able to participate in the gentrification via various '
community revitalization projects. Century was involved in two community cleanup L i
activities and we will continue our involvement with the next planned activity in the Fall
2004. Presently we are working with the Redevelopment Agency to construct five (5)to
eleven(11)moderate priced homes. We anticipate working with our Mountain Gate IT
subcontractors to complete these moderate income homes. Century anticipates continued
support of our neighbors within the Desert Highland subdivision and the approval of public
financing will facilitate that continued support.
We respectfully request your support of the public financing for our subdivision and look
forward to our meeting July 1, 2004,
Sincerely,
Carlos H. Cueva
Enclosures
! rq rat a�ii ��3 u•�Sa tt i� �,^�Cj"I,}S'��L= r, ��C ;�d'.-3N7 �,:7i�>iY�' >11
��Cr'Rr qxe r it.>�y! '�{ 5 s � '.fN Q,���',�Ar r�3, C •_ �"Wit"ai."r'k'��"n'S���44Is�'��fi'rF.nt•fl['v 1 �r�t�i�'�-1",�'�'
A'y5e�1.�R'k� N.b1�`M1�w•,yks� ��"�� r`� Ys#1�a6'"`x U �. N knr fq�C"'>xd m d: i S ��'« SrR y '
k w a` hb
c
4i;�r'gi. a�` a �r' � X�� '�rnn ,,� � o- `b^1�r'+ gr 3r N.>t' ,r�r a�i^r a•
`r3`F ay� a �t� �~v ;�`� � 'kssk p d o ewt ri•�h '� Y�r t.r�d`3y�,1 ci`vi .� nY i", h
°
eny'�
U U
R R'ar ,tF 1 /ink
b"`4 h rs+�!'4�¢S A� �(tu�`�t'yA a .+�'`rkl3 +d *.� ♦ � �a nX a r �..
4?t4m'-,
E m'��'" >ry fi' ,nub P�.. ✓a� " & Ki ',R..r . a .� � P "b�-}I"�' i�����
° to
Itga"`F y
i
IMA
kij`tr 'laz'a �,,fl `4yl"�Lv'�Yu 7 xyf�x 7 'G eaN �1'a,trk(s 4,>, 4 F} S�'Fkw£W'iS, )f � QY'as�i k
f
'r�`,a r'3' "��T�¢ t �+�i�A vR 'a`' �~,�y' X�'" � ti�+r'U,+twt• c2'.�'^^�tdr .,;�I� �� ru�"A� ,$
fr,
v" ✓.?<�ty ='�li*A" � y �� k !un� j',M�{'� � 5�i'7Y#��'r��1.�d��pp {t1dS ��!�. C�5�2'y��e�IF��Sdi
PL
City of Palm Springs 4128104
Housing Price Comparison
Century Crowell Communities New Home Construction
Plan Square Product Proposed Square Proposed
Type Bedroom Bath Footage Type Price Footage Subdivision Name Price HOA Fees
101 2.00 2.00 1,200 Ventana $274,990
102 3.00 2.00 1,400 Ventana $284,990 1,535 48 at Baristo $399,000
103 3.00 2.00 1,650 Ventana $294,990 1,622 Pintura $384,900 $125
1,675 48 at Baristo $499,000
104 3.00 2.00 1,850 Ventana $304,990 1,740 48 at Baristo - $429,990
1,740 48 at Baristo $469,000
1,753 Villas in Old Palm Springs $495,000 $264
201G 4.00 3.00 2.100 El Dorado $334,900 2,103 Canyon Heigh[s $475,990 $359
2,107 Pintura $469,900 $125
2,037 Villas in Old Palm Springs $625,000 $264
202 Alt 3.00 2,.00 2,200 El Dorado $359,990 2,209 Canyon Heights $437,990 $350
202 F 3.00 .2.00 2,200 El Dorado $359,990 2,333 Pintura $499,990 $125
202 G 4.00 3.00 2,400 El Dorado $384,990 2,350 Canyon Heights $459,990 $350
2,500 Canyon Heights $514,990 $350
2,499 Palm Springs Colony $512,000
2,784 Palm Springs Colony $769,000
3,033 Palm Springs Colony $719,000
3,042 Palm Springs Colony $799,000
_ 2,442 Villas in Old Palm Springs $710,000
r� 1
f, Ul.
co
> h., Xv
(D
-r- ID -a
w CL
IS >
w
0 ,q
tq1M 0
, @,gi P
A M
.s MMM
011
OMAR
A 4,1
OYOO RR
N g',ZIEaE
gTg?
ff AW,
u�S
Im
1110,
.0 ig,�Mp
l_.9Lw
Ow-r&OX
NEU, tl
g,wrg-gw
1
RI,
TR4 Z O
l SM R rgr �'TI&
e
ag
Rc g,w 1 A M
fT
N
'11+ 41 1
OR-
M��,ig
10
%4.
.I........
J7
M,
Gi
City of Palm Springs 4/29/2oD4
Housing Price Comparison
Century Crowell Communities Palm Springs Resales
Plan Square Product Proposed Square Block
Type Bedroom Bath Footage Type Price Footage Date Sold' Price-Sold No. Street
101 2.00 2.00 1,200 Ventana $274,990 1,200 11/712003 $318,000 1900 Jacques Dr '!
1,200 9/12/2003 $326,000 2100 ' Starr Rd.
1,225 12/19/2003 $295,000 2900 N.Davis Way
1,225 11/26/2003 $300,000 500 E.Francis Dr.
1,225 11118/2003 $319,000 2600 Sunnyview Dr.
1,278 10115/2003 $489,000 200 N.Sybll Rd
Average 1,226 $341,167
102 3.00 2.00 1,400 Ventana $284,990 1,302 9/26/2003 $321,000 200 N.Sunset Way
1,314 1/5/2004 $350.000 200 N.Sunset Way
1,329 11/20/2003 $345,000 1200 Linda Vista Rd.
1,334 1/9/2004 $300,000 2000 E.Racquet Club Rd
1,395 1/7/2004 $290,000 2200 N.Glrasol Ave.
1,467 9/20/2003 $295,000 1203 E.Rosarito Way
1.475 1012412003 $200,000 1400 E.Adobe Way
Average 1,374 $313,000
109 3.00 2.00 1,650 Ventana $294,990 1,558 1/13/2004 $335,000 2100 E.Paseo Groot@
1,660 1/912004 $375.000 1500 S.La Brea Rd
1,600 '1011512003 $545,000 1000 N.Rose Ave.
1,644 10/16/2003 $363,000 1500 S.Compadre Rd
1,674 9/30/2003 $312.500 2700 E.Livmor Ave
1,674 9/15/2003 $362,000 2700 E.Plaimor Ave
1,682 1/14/2004 $305,000 3000 N.Guy Circle
Average 1,627 $371,071
104 3.00 2.00 1,850 Ventana $304,900 1,717 12/31/2003 $315,000 2100 N.Paseo De Anza
1,832 12/12/2003 $352,500 2000 E.Calle Felicia
1,832 9/10/2003 $430,000 1400 N.Opun0a Rd.
1,830 9/5/2003 $450,000 2200 N.Vlsta Dr.
1,839 11/17/2003 $575,000 700 E.Chia Rd, I
1,865 9/16/2003 $310.000 2200 N.Avenida Caballero 1 -
1,865 1/15/2004 $315,000 2000 E.Calle Felicia '-
1,876 1/29/2004 $365,000 600 Poppy St.
1,892 12115/2003 $420.000 1000 E.Tachevah Dr.
Average 1,839 $392,500
201G 4.00 3.00 2,100 El Dorado $334,990 2,035 9/12/2003 $599,OD0 500 W.Via Escuela
2,074 12119/2003 $365,000 2300 N.Trall Cir.
i � 2,076 10I31/2003 $700,000 700 W.Via Oliver@
2,087 1/23/2004 $650,000 200 Camino Sur
2,W6 11/4/2003 $560,000 2400 N.Janis Dr.
2,113 1215/2003 $400,000 220D E.Conchita Way
2,124 12/16/2003 $540,000 1100 N.Paseo Dero
2,160 1115/2003 $396,000 2300 E.EI Chorm Way
Average 2,096 $538,750
202 Aft 3.00 2.00 2,200 El Dorado $369,990 2,111 10/3012003 $450,000 1000 E.Marshall Way
202 F 3.00 2.00 2,200 El Dorado $359,990 2,117 10/21/2003 $725,000 500 W.Panga Way
2,135 11/26/2003 $465,000 1500 E.EI Alameda
2.194 9/19/2003 $475,000 190o 9.Yucca PI.
2,248 11/4/2003 $370,500 400 N.Orchid Tree Ln,
2,250 12/22/2003 $649,000 700 W.Regal Dr.
2,276 12/3/2003 $625,000 1300 S.Paseo Be Marcia
21289 1/6/2004 $625.000 2200 N.Janis Dr.
Average Z216 $562,071
202 G 4.00 3.00 2,400 El Dorado $384,990 2.300 12/5/2003 $499.500 1500 $.San Mateo Dr.
2,Q12 1/16/2004 $676,500 600 W.Lelsure Way
2,642 9/18/2003 $465,000 700 W.Raquel Club Rd.
2,650 1/26/2004 $555.000 400 N.Buron Way
2,734 12/12/2003 $438.300 2700 Bonita Cir. f
2,742 10/23/2003 $749,000 400 W,Stevens Rd. I�
Average 2,613 $663,883
I r17 �i y�
v m N
701911
- 760d/ti%9s
-7dl zr5
- to/ M9
0/Ll9
- 70/0E17
t,00/9L1
- tia1617
- 7dlzr7
� - 7016E/E
GydtZ 4/8
0
7d,9r�
- tia/d£IL
770o%69
n, - M
- EO�Z4ILL
EOl9ZIL L
- £0/LZlLL
MAIML
£dIL1 L L
eoi�z lo L
£OIL LId L
£O/aL/OL
- eoiez°rs
£0/6L/6.
- EO/ZL/6
E015/6
£d16Z19
ED/ZZI9
£0/5 L/9
£0/9/9
£OIL19
£0I5Z/L
£0�1�9L1L
• £0(7lLL .
— £OlGZ19
Z9/T0 391yd J39WIlj IHVNVD TOO"IZ606 9b:TT G097./-7/qn
uo/2y/2 .4 11:4G 90,1r84001 tdANAHL LUMBL-R PAGE 02/02
rn Nw 0 CO CA
O U7 6 C}7 C:t Cif STt O tTi CJ
6714103
7111/03
7/18103
7125/03
8/1103
8/8/03
8115/03
8122103
89�5703
9l12103
9119/03
191l25/03 -
1Q�1fl%Q3
10/17103
10/24/03
10113/7l03
11114/03'
11/21/03
11128/03
1215103
12%19/03
12/2610�34
1
119/04
J 1123104 - "
1180104 - w
2/6104
2/13104
21g27104
3/112104
3/19104
3126104
4412/04
419/04
URI04
4130104
517/04
5/14/00p44
5/28104
614104
6111104
6118/04
6125104
New housing development in historically poor
neighborhood ushers in era of renewal
By IClmherly Trone
The Desert Sun
January 19th,2004
�___- «. • More stories a ont
On Mountain Gate street in north Palm affordable houstug
Springs,transformations have begun amid • More stories about
the clamor and din of new-home construction growth and devela went
at the end of the road.
Mountain Gate
Located:3599 Mountain Gate,
Geraldine Campbell,4S,is repairing and Pahn springs.
painting the home her elderly mother,a Size:308-home residential
retired cleaning woman, "worked herself to development,houses up to 3,000
bones"to buy more than 30 years ago. "I square feet
ain't gcing'anywhere. Tbis is our home," Cost:Initially advertised for the
high S100,000s,starting prices
Campbell said,expressing optimislnher have already increased to the low
mother's long-ago investment as a single, S200,000s.
working mother of four was going to Information: 325-5140 or
appreciate after years of decline. www_cenuayviutagehomesxom
Next door, 42-year-old Wendy Gray said she . Post or read comments in
dislikes being next to a construction site but our online fortlmp
also believes the value of her childhood
home in the predominantly black north-end neighborhood has begun to
increase.
Both Campbell and Gray live adjacent to Mormtain Gate Pahn Springs, a
308-home residential development under construction.
The residential development is the largest to open in Palm Springs in
decades.
The block walls ringing the master planned community by Century Vintage
Homes abut one of the city's oldest and poorest neighborhoods.Many living
there are sons and daughters of families living in low-income homes razed
by the city in the 1950s and 1960s to make way for new development.
Locating in a downtrodden neighborhood was not a concern to buyer
Roberta Meinhaus, 49,who said she stood among a throng of prospective
buyers waiting to get into Mountain Gate when homes went on sale July 19.
"I have already seen a change in the surrounding neighborhood," said
I{lehnbaus,who was showing off a model of bar firture home last week to a
friend. She hopes to move into her home sometime in April.
'People are painting, cleaning up and putting in landscaping. It's about pride �a
of ownersluli. Gentrification is going to happen before we can blink an eye."
hi lh--IAhr--A 1 r r , onr nn 1/'1 nn"ni iomnA "i 1 Y/tr/1--
So far, 179 of the 308 Mountain Gate homes have sold. Last week couples,
singles,seniors and families swarmed the on-site models for a look.
Kleinhaus' iwo-bedroom,two-bath unit on a pie-shaped lot cost her
$176,900,
Starting prices in the development have already increased to the low
$200,000s.In November,the median price of a new home in the valley was
$293,500 according to DataQuick Information Systems.
Homeowners association fees to pay for upkeep of pools and other amenities
such as playgrounds and picnic areas are expected to run about$70 a month.
Tony Scimia, senior vice president of sales and marketing for Century
Vintage Homes, said the entire community will improve with Mountain
Gate's opening.
While Century Vintage Homes has built pricier projects in the valley,Scimia
said his company recognizes the need for homes affordable to seniors and
first-time buyers.
Increased expenses of subcontractors and materials,more than market
demand,had to do with homes in Mountain.Gate rising from the initially
advertised price of the high$100,000s, Scimia said.
"We feel the more affordable arena is the wisest business at this time,"
Schi is said. "We have had a very long,healthy run in the home industry
with very high numbers.We are hoping this will last forever,but we are
preparing for the future."
For residents living next to Mountain Gate,however,the fixture of their
neighborhood is as much about the past as it is the new development next
door.
"We call this the `hood'now," said Gray, as she looked down the road going
opposite of Mountain Gate, at the drooping,weathered houses that were new
when she moved in. "We all grew up here and everybody is like family."
MEMORANDUM Or UNDERSTANDING
THIS AGREEMENT (this "MOU") dated as of July 27, 2004, is made by and between
the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a Charter municipality (the "City"), the COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a public body, corporate
and public (the "Agency") and CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, LP, a California
limited liability company(the "Developer"),with reference to the following facts.
RECITALS:
A. The Developer is in the process of planning the construction of a new single
family subdivision(the "Project"or"Mountain Gate II") located in the City of Palm Springs.
B. The Developer desires to apply to the City for the creation of an assessment
district (1913 Act District using 1915 Act Bonds —herein "AD") to assist in its development of
Mountain Gate 11.
C. The City Council has adopted a policy, the Policy and Procedure for Special
Assessment (the "Policies and Procedures"), which permits establishment of assessment and
community financing districts where certain criteria exist, including the provision of general
conununity benefit.
D. Pursuant to the Policies and Procedures, the City's Special Districts Committee
has met with the Developer and has recommended proceeding with the application for the AD
provided sufficient public benefit is established(see attached July 21, 2004, staff report).
E. The City anticipates that following the execution of this Agreement, the City slid
the Developer shall negotiate the terms of a Assessment Agreement ("AD") for the Project and
said Assessment Agreement shall include the public benefit items described in this MOU.
F, It is contemplated that the economic contributions made herein will not be.
included in the assessments to the homeowners.
G. The Agency and the Developer are also negotiating a Disposition and
Development Agreement ("DDA") for five residential lots owned by the Agency to be sold to
Developer for construction of low to moderate income restricted residences. The Developer has
been planning to seek public assistance in the development of these emits.
H. The City, Agency and the Developer desire to enter into this MOU in order to
facilitate the negotiation of the AA and the DDA and to set forth the basic understanding of the
parties with respect to the public benefits finding necessary under the City's Policy and
Procedures for Special Assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Public Benefits to be provided by Developer as terms in the Assessment
Agreement for the AD;
Ik
10031008/33145.01
(a) $150,000.00 contribution to the rehabilitation and improvement of the
visitor center facility located in close proximity to the proposed AD.
This will supplement other funding provided by Ciiy.
(b) $50,000.00 payment to provide improvements to the Desert Higldand
Unity Center. This will supplement approximately$160,000.00 in CDBG
funding already available to the City for a budget of$210,000.00.
(c) $10,000.00 to be used toward a $40,000.00 study of fire safety costs and
needs that will be City-wide but will have a primary focus on fire safety
needs in the developing area of the City, surrounding the Project, and
which study is also being funded by other developers.
(d) $50,000.00 to a pilot property improvement program in the Desert-
Highland area, to be administered by City, and supplemented with another
$100,000.00 in Agency fundnig.
(e) Developer agrees to support the formation of an. assessment district for
police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression,
ambulance, paramedic, and other safety services and recreation, library
and cultural services, and shall waive atty right of protest, provided that
the amount of such assessment shall be established through appropriate
study and shall not exceed $500.00 annually per lot subject to CPI. The
district shall be formed prior to sale of any lots or a covenant agreement
shall be recorded against each parcel in a form approved by the City
Attorney.
(f) The potential development of blighted in-fill lots pursuant to Section 2.
The collective contributions of the parties hereunder to the general area where the Project
is located would be $500,000.00, not counting enhanced property values firom the Project itself
or the development of the in-fill lots, should the projects contemplated above proceed.
2. NEGOTIATION IN GOOD FAITH FOR DDA. Developer and Agency agree to
negotiate iu good faith a DDA providing for transfer of five infill lots owned by Agency to
Developer at fair market value to be developed as low or moderate income single family
residences. Developer and Agency have been in negotiations for this program and Developer
was seeking a subsidy in the write down of the land value. Developer will pay fair market value
for the lots not exceeding$25,000.00.
3. TERMINATION. The Agency and/or the City may terminate this MOU if
Developer fails to comply with all material provisions hereof on Developer's part to be
performed. The Developer may terminate this MOU if Agency and/or City fail to comply with
all material provisions hereof. If a party hereto believes the other party has not complied with its
obligations under this MOU, such party shall give the other patty ten (10) business days written
notice detailing with specificity such noncompliance, and if such noncompliance has not been
cured within such ten (10) business day period, then the party who delivered such notice may
2
mnlinr Ill IAt.oi
terminate this MOU by delivering written notice thereof to the defaulting patty at any time
thereafter.
4. NO PREDETERMINATION OF CITY AND AGENCY DISCRETION. The
parties agree and aelmowledge that, while this MOU does provide that the parties shall negotiate
in good faith, this MOU does not obligate either the City, the Agency or the Developer to enter
into an AA or DDA, and approval of any AA or DDA shall require the approval of all parties,
with the City Council and/or Agency Board giving its approval, if at all, only after consideration
of the AA or DDA at a public meeting and any other proceedings required by law. It is the intent
that binding legal instruments be in effect prior to establishment of the AD.
5. NO OTIIER AGREEMENT. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no agreements or
understandings between the parties and no representations have been made by either party to the
other as an inducement to enter into this MOU, except as expressly set forth herein. All prior
negotiations, written or oral, between the parties are superseded by this MOU. This MOU may
not be altered, amended or modified except by a writing executed by both parties.
Notwithstanding anything provided herein to the contrary, whether express or implied, the
parties shall have no obligation to enter into a contract, and neither the City nor the Agency nor
their respective members, officers, staff or agents have made any promises to Developer. No
statements of the City or the Agency or their respective officers, members, staff or agents as to
future obligations shall be binding upon the City or the Agency unless and until the proper legal
contract is approved by the City and the Agency.
6. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT BY DEVELOPER. This MOOT shall
not be assigned by Developer to an unaffiliated party without the City and Agency's prior written
consent, which consent may be withheld in its sole and absolute discretion.
7. NON-BINDING NATURE OF AGREEMENT. Each of the parties
acknowledges and agrees that because circumstances may change, and because each of the
parties have not fully considered the ramifications of their present intentions, including the
proposed terms of the DDA, the AD, the Assessment Agreement, and/or any other agreement
this MOU shall not be construed to bind the City, Agency or the Developer to enter into or
establish the AD, DDA, Assessment Agreement and/or any other agreement. The actual
covenants and agreements of the parties with respect to the disposition and development of the
Property shall be set forth in the AA, DDA or other agreement to be hereafter negotiated. This
MOU does not constitute a disposition of property or exercise of control over property by the
Agency or the City and does not require a public hearing. Execution of this MOU is merely an
agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the tenns hereof,
reserving final discretion and approval by the Agency and the City as to any AD, DDA,
Assessment Agreement or other agreement and all proceedings and decisions in connection
therewith.
10. APPLICABLE LAW. This MOU shall be construed and interpreted under, and
governed and enforced according to the laws of,the State of California.
3
1 Orq/Of"/741 A'a
11. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same MOU.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the day and
year first written above.
AGENCY:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, a public body, corporate and
politic By.
Executive Director
Attest:
Agency Secretary
CITY:
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
By:
Mayor
Attest:
City Cleric
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
DEVELOPER:
CENTURY CROW ELL COMMUNITIES,
LP By:
Its:
4
tnnrmr-arr-.n�
RESOLUTION NO.
A
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR
FURTHER PROCESSING OF THE FORMATION OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 164, SUBMITTED BY CENTURY
CROWELL COMMUNITIES, L.P.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs adopted Resolution No. 17774 on January 22,
1992, amended by Resolution No. 20304 on April 3, 2002, establishing Policies and
Procedures for Special Assessment and Mello-Roos Community Facility District (CFD)
Municipal Bond Financing for Public Improvements for Development Projects; and
WHEREAS, the City's Policies and Procedures establish minimum criteria for the
formation of Special Assessment and CFD municipal bond financing for public
improvements for development projects requiring that proposed public facilities to be
finance must meet a public need, including the provision of major infrastructure
improvements that significantly benefit the general public, and/or the provision for
significant financial benefit to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has received an application from Century Crowell Communities,
L.P., for formation of a 1913 Act Assessment District using 1915 Act Bonds for the
"Mountain Gate II" development (Tentative Tract Map 32028), located northeast of
Highway 111 and north of Gateway Drive; and
_ ! WHEREAS, the proposed Assessment District will facilitate public improvements for
private development that will help Stimulate the local economy and provide a financial
benefit to the City.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. The City Council does hereby approve the application for further processing of the
formation of Assessment District 164, submitted by Century Crowell Communities,
L.P.; and
2. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to select and negotiate contracts with
consultants for an assessment engineer's report, appraisal and market absorption
study; and to collect necessary deposits from the applicant to fund consultant
contracts.
ADOPTED this 21"day of July, 2004.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED &APPROVED AS TO FORM: li'`�i
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF CENTURY HOMES COMMUNITIES,A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
On April 4, , 2005 at 10:00 a.m., a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of Century Homes Communities was held at
the Corporation's office at 1535 So. "D"Street, San Bernardino, California:
SIGNING AUTHORIZATION: RATIFICATION OF PRIOR ACTS
WHEREAS, the Corporation is the general partner of Century Crowell Communities, L.P., a
California limited partnership ("Century Crowell").
WHEREAS, Century Crowell was formed for the purpose of acquiring land and developing same
with single family homes.
WHEREAS, the Corporation has determined that it is in the best interests of Century Crowell that
ownership in each Century Crowell project ("Project") be vested in a limited liability company or limited partnership
("Project Entity").
WHEREAS, primary responsibility for management of the Projects has been delegated to
Michael Mandilakis, Vice President of Land Acquisition, Michael Reed, Vice President of Project Development or Betty
Williams Vice President of Palm Springs Division and the Corporation's Project Managers, who are Sharon Merritt,
Kenneth Kim, Jerold Herman, Randolph Madrid,Allen West, Debi Myers and Lillian Bass.
RESOLVED, that in connection with the development of any Project, any Project Manager (or
Gary Weintraub as Vice President or Assistant Secretary) is authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation, as general
partner of Century Crowell, acting in its capacity as Managing Member or General Partner of any Project Entity, and as
general contractor to the Projects, any and all documents in connection with plan checks, permits, entitlements, and all
other documents relating to city, county, water district and other governmental agency actions respecting the Projects.
RESOLVED, that in connection with the development of any Project, either Gary Weintraub, as
Sr. Vice President, or Tony P. Scimia acting as Assistant Secretaries, signing alone or, if required, either Gary Weintraub,
Elizabeth Williams, Michael Reed or Tony P. Scimia, together or individually together with any Project Director are
authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation, as General Partner of Century Crowell, acting in its capacity as Managing
Member or General Partner of any Project Entity, surety bonds, and all documents relating to same, in connection with the
Projects.
RESOLVED, that Dennis Harrison, Tony P. Scimia, Michael Mandilakis or Michael Reed are
authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation, as general partner of Century Crowell, acting in its capacity as Managing
Member or General Partner of any Project Entity and as general contractor to the Projects, all documents as required for
the issuance of the DRE Public Report for the Projects.
RESOLVED, that Candace Trude, Lawrence Nordstrom, Michael Mandilakis, Michael Reed or
Wanda Robinson are authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation, as general partner of Century Crowell, acting in its
capacity as Managing Member or General Partner of any Project Entity, all documentation as required for submission
and/or consummation of any Public Financing Arrangement(i.e. Assessment Districts, Community Facility Districts, etc.)
in connection with the projects.
RESOLVED, that Dennis Harrison, Tony P. Scimia or Michael Mandilakis are authorized to sign
on behalf of the Corporation, as general partner of Century Crowell, acting in its capacity as Managing Member or
General Partner of any Project Entity and as general contractor to the Projects, all Purchase and Sales Contracts, Escrow
Instructions, Deeds of Trust, Notices of Completion and any other documents needed to sell and close escrows on homes
in our projects.
Updminmcs\cmpmrl\010801.doc
RESOLVED, that John Pavelak, Gary Weintraub, Wanda Robinson, Tony Scimia are authorized
signers on all deposit accounts (checking, savings, time certificates, etc.) and that two (2) signatures are required on all of
the before mentioned deposit account as regards all checks, withdrawal instruments, etc., drawn on the accounts.
RESOLVED, that John Pavelak, Gary Weintraub, George Mooradian, Michael Mandilakis,
Elizabeth Williams or Michael Reed are authorized signers on all Recorded Tract Maps on behalf of the Corporation, as
general partner of Century Crowell.
RESOLVED, that copies of these Minutes may be provided to any person or public agency
requiring evidence of authorization, ALL SUCH PERSONS OR PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE HEREBY PUT ON
NOTICE THAT ALL AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES HEREUNDER ARE SIGNING ONLY IN THE
CAPACITIES SET FORTH HEREIN AND ARE NOT INDIVIDUALLY OR PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR ANY
DEBTS OR OBLIGATIONS OF THE CORPORATION,CENTURY CROWELL OR ANY PROJECT ENTITY.
All Directors were present and unanimously consented to the above.
DATE: April 4, 2005 ATT T:
hn W. Pavelak, Pre (dent
ry mtraub, Assistant Secretary
UpaWnuteskowfal\010p01 doc