Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/28/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (15) DATE: July 21, 2004 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/City Engineer ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 164 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 � j 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 II", 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 II 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 II. 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 , Page 2 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 pricesfor the Mountain Gate II 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: - i 1. A$1.1 million reduction of the total proposed assessment to $3,966,997. 2. A $147,500 increase to $431,500 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 11 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 y 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 'ctt // ;)" - Assessment District 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 g Gate II. SUBMITTED: L&- . DAVID J. BARAKIAN Director of Public Works/City Engineer APPROVED: DAVID H. READY City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Assessment District Application (final amended) 2. Resolution /X19 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 V I N TA G E Post Office Box 2743 H 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 I", 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 June 18`h,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 f 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$19,000 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# 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 street maintenance is borne by the Mormtain 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 "D" 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 an 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 during 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 Pintura $ 384,900 1,622—2,333 $214 - $237 4,300 26 Creative Commu nites $ 499,990 Palm Collection $ 267,990 1,900-2,102 $135 - $141 5,500 25 K. Hovnanian $ 282,990 Canyon Collection $ 318,990 2,288 —2,832 $121 - $139 6,000 2 K. Hovnanian $ 344,990 PS Colony $ 512, 000 2,499—3,042 $205 - $276 10,400 14 Far West Industries $ 799,000 The Canyons $ 752,900 2,262—2,673 $333 - $375 10,000 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.Hovnanian 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) and 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 development and revitalization. The model illustrated above is a"win-win-win" for the homebuyer,the City and the developer. doop C 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 II 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 tile 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 Sun 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 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 II 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, ,-4 Carlos H. Cueva Enclosures y l �� nns>t lM1°�5 xi spa- 'rSr71'�' tC k i� ° -¢ 4sL^a 1 MINEm- { y- fr ^r Y' T'-" 4(.4 Mtfia it '�/�r,.1}W i�>c. v v�,3 � >.a 4W �` l s 'a 4 1 x is 5 4 : '�` .✓ � n t a'�iY h✓:F 1 '- 451 � P i5 tt i 'x'� ! f n .� �. 7 u,, a 'f� k txtM ' �"s s yx i, 7 J" 4 9 w A u✓ i}a.; 'G; ra , ro c w A! s' s ➢ r x a �[I u '�f t qk`e y�x"vnF'V '✓e rhV ' nia� C`� s wah C 0. yk s F� fl I i r4 ilR `^3at A(S is rlI r i F " �a! �+ '� '�` � �y>i �i�'ri &rV 't!kY>t 7 x .;e ✓,.r1f1d�ro�� � •� � N a� 5 l r � ^1 � ! ly, eta % ,r ice. {Z �' C � "'�V`..�t1r y'' ° T r r t t r✓' ,,;i k e 0. O N O dMww ax e u Fi c, a 1 rt r l- f �>, �s i a F, , ✓ t'" r tl�a [ fd N a +ai t- oy� " �.` liar + Jn �'b f d / r r '✓i_' ✓ b 1 iai ta' Ek' '�v* s��ry"{y�E C E c Y 4fitt s y`� 4 am.rnk ' Is " at vs ! _ C U J i 1 nrP�' v '� �V � 3,� v�� !a n�J k y ll t,)✓"" U J u*C ix �' � -P/`4" r� 1 #✓h� +rr t 5 V t � rtl n�- rt a` h�j F a i k Lsref x4 ' f Y 1} , Fa t�-✓ o- krr f � , F§P �d'Sr pOra x �f JF'a,i ibur � `V,�f�,."x .>Ir➢..'J1rw�n`✓i�'f3'vn.,',;a ia,:rc "-c.i�ir� i.�,r�-., rx J,+Y vrp y,, { J tik ,i lA , t 1 C�A1 5/✓iµp��,�.;kj4 b'�' _ry Lry YY�" t�i i 1' t�tf71 r ✓;t ?w'�r r i z fi4 �S r�,r-aW rri 'E� f 13` vril"d ens f Tyir`} 4'P�ul`2'rv4i va{� ywi �f '� r� b�'U1a iayrw , kkfY a u�vh yb �(Vi nr`Nr j 'Fyw 1�ysn - y�W'rFf�' fit. � Ni 4 l �i r ✓ ,f�'dy ,�;� , cy ,�§ '4xtx7H 5�'�firx Y ib�'C:¢.- s ✓of d :�`,a ' vitrtnx�J.�nrva� � r o r iyx+73 F�LL)M(VIr4 ��q4 r<h � j�l J�YJ4}b rv1?` �(�Or�l � S�iti ],x` 5�v�a'?,i�`'f 1.rC• r - is-(rat r%��Rar ? a en s it��l4 Sx�V f .F t � vl,�xy 3 Oy JY 'ia{n I�a�42,�3�Pla�t��t,�4,�rf ��S✓�]�i�alra' Yrr�t� 3� s1y�r � e�,�n,}+v4f J� �'Y i tc r "' (J fiy T hi -z� M 1>4 i 5 r ai ��{ir -",o W Lr �}' ryr r r t a Ck 0O'k'�`�k x rr t.'n`Y�;t`fN' L'� a zw(LJd�R i � xsf✓{ ds r la JJ'r F,� T fw t �u �+ t r`mYlf a � i '�s't s�3e@ U aFr � .nf�'F'v "JYsi4'rs frd it ' �kJ-ar'44 air t �1.� '� 4,PY labti.,p6rn aati f�F. g r -g- ( l'Y"'n h(S9�Ytt''dt Ps _t �' S�4a3� st fvrW i�� �iag ram✓ - sL Ydw ks x"1Q (`�f �f54;5+ < 1r<t tY i`",fr a'x° r (�gl�n 3.�e�'r�'�YSft(xitra`r,^Y's„�t..,�rr w r ���aF'�i�4(y�`bW,fi,g'�li���{',a,��nF��n����5����3snvS��4�t``��tr�g ��:✓,,�S�r�,;��,h.xr�a t"i i'S`">A�+, arm, r et City of Palm Springs 4126104 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 $334,990 2,103 Canyon Heights $415,990 $350 2,107 Pintura $489,900 $125 2,037 Villas in Old Palm Springs $626,000 $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 $710,000 r �'�2�ig+`'IGn4r'("h >t• 'ATyy�t:14ti i-� �1Fr r�J Ir�S,v ni " ��y�-. �r FF r'�bpF��S�jt �{ � "T'µ'h'k��t Si tCc—�;s-�rh' �Y F py� W3AYI 1� r >17 �, Gr LL 4 i lid aH 1' 3 +(k 4' Jt ni t t1+{n 'Y yt LcV y N a. v k µ ] {inn F}�lr iY+S*3 �ltr vrW' 7xt �A rrrti. 7�lr Q. i{, NCIS t�`t'iSasiw{� r ,� e 5r�f 11t„}i� rrv'y a `9,t^-�Ba'SS€y A ><r fi S Ir"k4 f V u u 'sq 6�z F � 4 1''4x tq➢4 `p 7 ([3 Q. O '.'a t\ W4� V' F fit.r�piY�i� e�✓n� �11AY "vr7 i''ir tP f { bL,rr n 4}ly a 5 r+. kr r"If r d (tl N ? t r Y✓ i€''l,t'{a kl p't Yul 8 4 SSi x r. d o iE r fro r ' �«nc e; a' iu1 NPjjj UI ,; V k r U ir'S}I "t r !f�/�•+AL Z1uj{n'���`� r l �5r r 4� )n5,3 ,+ Jr FcP S �,� h a t� s r g: ❑. N Q1 N ° e r rrlt �. yaWrv't dih 9vt, js� r. N ar �' l i s}i' v rf Nryx I f -0r '1T ^r N C C P:' ' a ; l re��{r Saltv'Ih� /sl df u*fl srt � y{ rsX f rot !F snr st A 4F t�! t`+Jrq 4Z�, fad>•3, d � J J p 7 '�r� 3r r z 9 � e?v`a + Y3i 7zyv hl Rf Ja .�''-,.4 r 3 t d � h 3 S} gin � ✓r?dr e. d vsl✓€ P 112'r �14r � + )1 1 vl 'x aoy� 3q is v ! i•r).. ..t y v!� 517 r r€ as .. f tir P r >kc rr r us ayi ,}L lfkr,fir✓ '' r rja�r`•� `3 S }rw vSt v fiy rvx our' 1y'}aa �^�.� aS lil a6 +-x €, 5�$� 'trrr ✓ *,! 9d Y J u' !f kf r �€}�1'` �'�` I � �i:�alis�"+Ak��6 r.r NO ti P���11"r lr f{ae5 1cF m a y't i !vY 3 wY l2 kw �QtI- 1 A r{ygXti� `'- liy+iittr' - r t, .tr ✓ i {>y"�d Y-� t aN ` ' 'V }r afl� r xa �� x,�Qdl r os LS' f e '3.r v +1 iv3 + v fie a� Y 't. IV q9 fixv k. 4It AN �LSY fix(Y 9V1y, 6 r'7� v e �rm.t 4 h ' 'g f 4y(il+s T,rr tin 4nn f MAN, zrY'}p3sy at;t a rLy rS OrnLi k el r 4 oJa +u s r p11� -t p E 'mrw✓.BQ r/; V 1 Ui a Rv�r fir J" �ni, <M131 r i 'ti ?, c� IN r& !r 7 Q f�ti -; a rxp }7kf E 1' li' 4s�T rCj'm4 4. ' f e }.%. 1! Vm: te ' nr a! t LL v ,0 } , r*'a r u9.°ayGt s! a f�tii r { xtStb i[-. Wil �xari�\t A � ri€ T51 1'. itt �' ws db,"rno- WTUR . x ) m wx a fir � S`Isisl 9T !k v fIt, v IV -tWIt 4'aI kyir _ pkt.zlk 1d" ri.�s,� , �1 o Yn -o c� OCot 5atl�e,'h sareg " City of Palm Springs 4/2912oi14 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 11/7/2003 $318,000 1900 Jacques Dr 1,200 9/12t2003 $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 11/18/2003 $319,000 2800 Sunnyview Dr. 1,278 10/15/2003 $489,000 200 N.Sybil 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.Girasol Ave. 1,467 9/26/2003 $295,000 1200 E.Rosarilo Way 1,475 10/24/2003 $290,000 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 Grade 1,560 1/9/2004 $375.000 1500 S.La Brea Rd 1,600 10/15/2003 $645,000 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 $304,990 1,717 12/31/2003 $315,000 2100 N.Paseo De Anza 1,832 12/12/2003 $352,500 2000 E.Calls Felicia 1,832 9/10/2003 $430,000 1400 N.Opunlia Rd. 1,836 9/5/2003 $450,000 2200 N.Vista Dr. 1,839 11/17/2003 $575,000 700 E.Chia Rd. 1,865 9/16/2003 $310.000 2200 N.Avenida Caballero ,f _J 1,865 1/15/2004 $315,000 2000 E.Calle Felicia 1,876 1/29/2004 $365,000 600 Poppy St. 1,892 12M512003 $420,000 1000 E.Tachevah Dr. Average 1,839 $392,500 201 G 4.00 3.00 2,100 El Dorado $334,990 2,035 9/12/2003 $599,000 500 W.Via Escuela 2,074 12/19/2003 $365,000 2300 N.Trail Cir. 2,076 10/31/2003 $700,000 700 W.Via Olivera 2,087 1/23/2004 $650,000 200 Camino Sur 2,096 11/4/2003 $560,000 2400 N.Janis Dr. 2,113 12/5/2003 $400,000 2200 E.Conchtta Way 2,124 12/16/2003 $640,000 1100 N.Paseo Dero 2,160 1115/2003 $306.000 2300 E.EI Chorro Way Average 2,096 $538,750 202 Alt 3.00 2.00 2,200 El Dorado $359,990 2,111 10/30/2003 $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 1900 S.Yucca PI. 2,248 11/4/2003 $370,500 400 N.Orchid Tree Ln. 2,250 12/22/2003 $640,000 700 W.Regal Dr. 2,276 12/3/2003 $625,000 1300 S.Paseo De Marcia 2,289 1/6/2004 $626.000 2200 N.Janis Dr. Average 2,216 $562,071 202 G 4.00 3.00 2,400 El Dorado $384,990 2,300 12/5/2003 $499.500 1500 S.San Mateo Dr. 2,612 1/16/2004 $676,500 600 W.Leisure Way 2,642 9/18/2003 $465,000 700 W.Raquet Club Rd. 2,650 1/2612004 $555,000 400 N.Burton Way 2,734 12/12/2003 $438,300 2700 Bonita Cir. if 2,742 10/23/2003 $749,000 400 W.Stevens Rd. t, Average 2,613 $563,883 ee/4_/2004 11:46 9092/84001 GANAHL LUMBER PAGE 01/02 G C f3 Q C7 4 O © O o 4 O 4 ra O Ll O Il � 6127103 714/03 7111103 7118/03 7125103 811103 8/8/03 8/15103 8/22103 8/29103 915/03 9112103 9119/03 9128103 10//10 03 10/17103 10/24/03 10/31/03 1117/03 11/21/03 11/28/03 12/5/03 12/12/03 12/19/03 12/26103 112/04 19/04 1118/04 1/23t04 1130/04 216/04 O 2120104 a 2/27104 a 315104 ` 3/19 104 r 3104 C7 412 412104419/04 41 23/04 2 4130104 5/7/04 5/1 104 6/28104 6111/04 6118104 6126/04 - I l I y l w ^r N tW 0N N [h N N N o W W W c) x { ':i i�.�iF'}r�y' . : :.^i it,',,���+. i v �`•i '.���u�,4y�`,)I;1�i�n„ . uo/27/2 .4 11:46 90 2eb4001 WANAHL LUMEER PAGE 02/02 o cn a cn o rs o er, o yr o � 6/27/03 7/4103 7111/03 7/18/03 7125/03 8/1/03 8/8/03 8/15103 8/22103 8/29103 915103 9112/03 9/19/03 9/26103 1013103 10/17/03 10/24/03 10/31/03 11/7/03 11/14/03 11/21/03 11128/03 12/5/03 m 12/19/03 1211/2104 119/04 1/2310 1/30104 2/6104 2113104 2/20/04 2127104 3/5/04 3/12/04 3/26/044 4/2104 419/04 41123104 4130104 517104 5114104 5121/04 5/28/04 6/4104 6111104 6118104 6126104 ll yy j ll c rty o o . New housing development in historically poor neighborhood ushers in era of renewal By Simberly Trone The Desert Sun January 19th,2004 • More stories about On Mountain Gate street in north Palm affordable housing Springs, transformations have begun amid • More stories about the clamor and din of new-home construction growth and development at the end of the road. Mountain Gate Located:3599 Mountain Gate, Geraldine Campbell,48, 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 going anywhere. This is our home," Cost:Initially advertised for the high$100,000s,starting prices Campbell said, expressing optimism her have already increased to the low mother's long-ago investment as a single, $200,OOOs. working mother of four was going to Information: 325-5740 or appreciate after years of decline. www•centn-yvintagehomus.com Next door, 42-year-old Wendy Gray said she ■ Post or read comments in dislikes being next to a construction site but our online forums 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 Mountain Gate Palm 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 ICeinhaus, 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 Kleinhaus,who was showing off a model of her fiutrue 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 � ' 3 of ownership. Gentrification is going to happen before we can blink an eye." 1,1t,-•/Ai , --A 1 1 1 1 • 0W 1/1 1/')flf)"n i 1(11 i1-1 A 1 ' 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' two-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," Scimia 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 future 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 OF 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 II. 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 colmnunity 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 terns 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 constriction of low to moderate income restricted residences. The Developer has been plarming 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 terns in the Assessment Agreement for the AD: r 1003/009/33145.01 (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 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 party 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 2 inminr 1aa1A1.ai 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 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 establislnnent 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 irnplied, 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 all 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 terns 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 all agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the tens 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 Of9/Of"/771 d'01 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 Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney DEVELOPER: CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, LP By: Its: 4 1onvoc-oii -.ol RESOLUTION NO. I, 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 ll" 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 215' day of July, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA (J" By - City Clerk City Manager REVIEWED &APPROVED AS TO FORM: It: