Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 545 Marketing and Sales Residential Condo Mountain View Falls CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Consideration of approval of amendments to or the possible voiding of the existing development agreement specifying terms and conditions for the marketing and sales of residential condominium in Mountain View Falls. III . APPLICANT: Douglas Building Systems 68-895 Perez Road, #21 Cathedral City, CA 92234 IV. CASE NO: DA-2 (Development A. - ment V. DATE: June 23, 1988 MEETING DATE V I . CONTENTS: CONTINUED TO SE�7 T1" A. Staff Recommendation. Er g RE/M);NG f_ _.____ B. Discussion. - T C. Draft Ordinance No. 545 __�-- D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. DA-2. E. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 7, 1988. F. Related maps and/or exhibits. A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pass Ordinance No. 545 , declaring that the conditions and intent of DA- 2 have been met and terminating the agreement, to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: April 12, 1984 the city entered into a development agreement with Nick Tavaglione to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to moderate income households. Mr. Tavaglione received a density bonus on his 56 acre site from 5 units per acre to 6.25 units per acre. In return he agreed to sell 259E of the units at a price affordable to moderate income households. The total project was to be 352 units. The agreement also provided for resale controls for a period of two years and priority to certain households should there be a mass run on the units. Through a series of events only 100 units were built and the project then went into bankruptcy. STAFF REPORT DA-2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT JUNE 23, 1988 Over time all 100 units were sold at prices which complied with the moderate income levels ($70,000 and $78,000) . Recently planning commission approved a precise plan and parcel map to extend the Lakes County Club by 9 holes. A "J" shaped piece located east of Mountain View Falls was a remainder piece of that map. This piece is being marketed for development as an extension of 44 units to Mountain View Falls. Douglas Building Systems has obtained the right to complete the development of the remaining property subject to several conditions: 1 . They must exercise the right by July, 1988. 2. They must obtain approval of 67% (67) owners in the existing Mountain View Falls to annex this development to it. Staff is in receipt of a document provided by the Mountain View Falls Homeowners Association indicating that the required 67% acceptance has been achieved. Mr. Douglas proposes to sell the units for $88,600 and $99,600. Using a similar method of calculating the maximum selling price from that used in 1984, staff could only obtain prices of $84,000 and $94,000. In a letter dated May 19, 1988, Mr. Douglas points out several reasons for this discrepancy in the price structure. We do not dispute any of the items delineated by Mr. Douglas. All these items were not present when the agreement was executed. The question becomes, "Do we want to amend the agreement to take into account school impact fees, increased land costs over that paid by the original developer, and increased unit sizes above the referenced size for our income limits?" A second option would be to make the finding that the conditions and intent of the development agreement (DA-2) have been met and the agreement should be terminated. Planning commission determined that since all 100 of the existing units were sold in the moderate price level , the agreement has already resulted in more moderate income level units than were originally required (i .e. 25% of 352 = 88) or alternatively since only 144 units will be built, only 36 moderate income units are required (i .e. 144 x 25%) . Both these levels have been attained. In addition, the two year period of resale controls has expired. To come in and control the price levels on this last phase 2 STAFF REPORT DA-2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT JUNE 23, 1988 four years down the road could negatively impact any price appreciation to which existing residents are entitled. Accordingly, planning commission on a notion by Chairman Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, recommended to council that Development Agreement #2 conditions and intent have been satisfied and said agreement should be terminated or allowed to expire. Motion carried 4-0. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: / /tm 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARINENP OF CCRISUIYDENELOPMENT SMAFFIMMICET TO: Planning Camiission DATE: June 7, 1988 CASE NO: DA-2 (Development Agreement) REQUEST: Consideration of approval of amendments to or the possible voiding of the existing development agreement specifying terms and conditions for the marketing and sales of residential condominiums in Maintain View Falls. APPLICANT: Douglas Building Systems 68-895 Perez Road, #21 Cathedral City, CA 92234 I. BACXCR0 JND: April 12, 1984 the city entered into a development agreement with Nick Tavaglione to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to moderate income households. Mr. Tavaglione received a density bonus on his 56 acre site from 5 units per acre to 6.25 units per acre. In return he agreed to sell 25% of the units at a price affordable to moderate inane households. The total project was to be 352 units. The agreement also provided for resale controls for a period of two years and priority to certain households should there be a mass run on the units. Through a series of events only 100 units were built and the project then went into bankruptcy. Over time all 100 units were sold at prices which complied with the moderate inane levels ($70,000 and $78,000). Recently planning commission approved a precise plan and parcel map to extend the Lakes Country Club by 9 holes. A "J" shaped piece located east of Mountain View Falls was a remainder piece of that map. This piece is being marketed for development as an extension of 44 units to Mountain View Falls. II. CURRENT REQUEST: Douglas Building Systems has obtained the right to complete the development of the remaining property subject to several conditions: r PC STAFF REPORT DA-2 JUNE .7, 1988 III. REOCI NDATION: That the planning commission recommend to the city council that Development Agreement 2, Tavaglione, approved by Ordinance No. 364 be voided for the reasons outlined in the staff report dated June 7, 1988. Prepared by ‘...„65iZik,.....14:4 Reviewed and Approved by /tm 3 Page 2 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert May 19, 1988 5. Construction lenders require that all of these added costs be covered in order to qualify for construction loans. Your approval of the above listed sales prices is respectfully requested. Very truly yours, 9#66744-.41C. Dous, Jr. 9,— President JCD/nl CITY COUNCIL UKuINANCE NO. 364 • obtained from HUD. If in the future more current data is made available by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics or other officially recognized agencies, the applicant may request amendment to this AGREEMENT to include this data. ' 4. State Government Code Section 65915 requires that at least 25% of the units (hereinafter referred to as "AFFORDABLE UNITS") within the PROJECT be affordable by moderate income households. Pursuant and in addition to this requirement, the.DEVELOPER hereby agrees to price 100% 'of the units within Phase I of the PROJECT consistent with the S : income limits of moderate income households. This maximum selling price shall be based upon a monthly payment (mortgage, taxes and insurances) approximately equivalent to 30% of the maximum gross monthly income of a moderate income household. This figure shall be adjusted according to size and type of unit. The following selling maximum prices shall apply to Phase I of the PROJECT. - 42 two bedroom two story 991 sq. ft. $68,000 -16 two bedroom one story 961 sq. ft. $70,000 - 42 three bedroom two story 1288 sq. ft. $78,000 5. Resale Controls: In an effort to discourage speculation and preserve the affordable nature of this project, the following resale controls shall be made a part of the covenant conditions, and restriction of the PROJECT. • a. Resale Price Increase Limitations: i.� • The price increase allowable upon resale of the units subject to this agreement shall be based upon the increase in the C.P.I. from the date of the close of escrow of the original sale to the escrow opening of the resale. -2- •( CITY COUNCIL' INANCE NO. 364 • d. Enforcement: • 1. Prior to the entering into escrow, the seller shall submit a maximum price proposal to the city for review and approval. r . • The city's report will become part of the escrow documents. The city shall receive all escrow documents prior to closing to certify compliance with this agreement. 6. The marketing program for the PROJECT shall give priority to moderate income households and shall include the following features: a. 30 days prior to the opening of each phase, the DEVELOPER shall advertise and receive applications from eligible moderate income home buyers. The minimum qualifications shall be: 1. Minimum 2 person household. 2. Maximum income for the following household sizes: 4 persons or less- $30,150 (two bedroom unit) 5-6 persons - $33,900 (three bedroom unit) 3. The unit must be the purchaser's sole permanent residence. b. If the number of applicants meeting minimum qualifications exceeds the number of units offered,,,then the following priorities shall apply: 1. First time home buyers: Households which have not owned a home within the last 5 years. •. , 2. Single parent households. , • I I I , • • -4- • � I CITY COUNCIL (' . ,NANCE NO. 364 - 10. This AGREEMENT shall be reviewed by the CITY planning commission • every 6 months, at which time the applicant or his successor shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the AGREEMENT. If as a result of this review the commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the applicant has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the AGREEMENT, it shall recommend to the city council that the AGREEMENT be modified or terminated. If the city council concurs with the planning commission recommendation, the AGREEMENT shall be modified or terminated. Proceedings before the city council shall be a noticed public hearing. If at the time of the hearings substantial improvements have not yet occurred on the site, termination of the AGREEMENT will also involve revocation of all previous approvals and permits associated fherewith. If substantial improvements are already in place and l_,• modifications acceptable to the CITY cannot be negotiated, then P B enforcement of provisions of this AGREEMENT shall be pursued through legal action per No. 8 of this AGREEMENT. 11. The AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. If any portion of the AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. 12. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal •• capacity to make the AGREEMENTS herein contained, that,each such AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is •i executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. •Il.a I • _6_ STAFF REPORT DA-2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT JUNE 23, 1988 Over time all 100 units were sold at prices which complied with the moderate income levels ($70,000 and $78,000). Recently planning commission approved a precise plan and parcel map to extend the Lakes County Club by 9 holes. A "J" shaped piece located east of Mountain View Falls 'was a remainder piece of that map. This piece is being marketed for development as an extension of 44 units to Mountain View Falls. Douglas Building Systems has obtained the right to complete the development of the remaining property subject to several conditions: 1 . They must exercise the right by July, 1988. 2. They must obtain approval of 67% (67) owners in the existing Mountain View Falls to annex this development to it. Staff is in receipt of a document provided by the Mountain View Falls Homeowners Association indicating that the required 67% acceptance has been achieved. Mr. Douglas proposes to sell the units for $88,600 and $99,600. Using a similar method of calculating the maximum selling price from that used in 1984, staff could only obtain prices of $84,000 and $94,000. In a letter dated May 19, 1988, Mr. Douglas points out several reasons for this discrepancy in the price structure. We do not dispute any of the items delineated by Mr. Douglas. All these items were not present when the agreement was executed. The question becomes, "Do we want to amend the agreement to take into account school impact fees, increased land costs over that paid by the original developer, and increased unit sizes above the referenced size for our income limits?" A second option would be to make the finding that the conditions and intent of the development agreement (DA-2) have been met and the agreement should be terminated. Planning commission determined that since all 100 of the existing units were sold in the moderate price level , the agreement has already resulted in more moderate income level units than were originally required (i .e. 25% of 352 = 88) or alternatively since only 144 units will be built, only 36 moderate income units are required (i .e. 144 x 25%). Both these levels have been attained. In addition, the two year period of resale controls has expired. To come in and control the price levels on this last phase 2 STAFF REPORT DA-2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT JUNE 23, 1988 four years down the road could negatively impact any price appreciation to which existing residents are entitled. Accordingly, planning commission on a motion by Chairman Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, recommended to council that Development Agreement #2 conditions and intent have been satisfied and said agreement should be terminated or allowed to expire. Motion carried 4-0. Prepared by: C C/"e--- Reviewed and Approved by: /t 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF QZT JNITY DEVE[APNIENT STAFF RE CET T0: Planning Commission DATE: June 7, 1988 CASE ri): DA-2 (Development Agreement) REQUEST: Consideration of approval of amendments to or the possible voiding of the existing development agreement specifying terms and conditions for the marketing and sales of residential condominiums in Mountain View Falls. APPLICANT: Douglas Building Systems 68-895 Perez Road, #21 Cathedral City, CA 92234 I. BACKGROUND: April 12, 1984 the city entered into a development agreement with Nick Tavaglione to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to moderate income households. Mr. Tavaglione received a density bonus on his 56 acre site fran 5 units per acre to 6.25 units per acre. In return he agreed to sell 25% of the units at a price affordable to moderate income households. The total project was to be 352 units. The agreement also provided for resale controls for a period of two years and priority to certain households should there be a mass run on the units. Through a series of events only 100 units were built and the project then went into bankruptcy. Over time all 100 units were sold at prices which complied with the moderate inane levels ($70,000 and $78,000). Recently planning commission approved a precise plan and parcel map to extend the Lakes Country Club by 9 holes. A "J" shaped piece located east of Mountain View Falls was a remainder piece of that map. This piece is being marketed for development as an extension of 44 units to Mountain View Falls. II. CURRENT REQUEST: Douglas Building Systems has obtained the right to complete the development of the remaining property subject to several conditions: PC STAFF REPORT DA-2 JUNE 7, 1988 1. They must exercise the right by July, 1988. 2. They must obtain approval of 67% (67) owners in the existing Mountain View Falls to annex this development to it. Mr. Douglas advises that these two items should fall into place in the near future. The last outstanding problem involves his ability to sell the units at prices which met the agreement prices indexed fran April of 1984. Mr. Douglas proposes to sell the units for $88,600 and $99,600. Using a similar method of calculating the maximum selling price from that used in 1984, staff could only obtain prices of $84,000 and $94,000. In a letter dated May 19, 1988, Mr. Douglas points out several reasons for this discrepancy in the price structure. We do not dispute any of the items delineated by Mr. Douglas. All these items were not present when the agreement was executed. The question becomes, "Do we want to amend the agreement to take into account school impact fees, increased land costs over that paid by the original developer, and increased unit sizes above the reference size for our income limits?" A second option would be to void the entire agreement. approach. The original Staff favors this agreement was executed in April, 1984. At that time we were expecting a 352 unit development at build out and that it would happen in a reasonably straight forward fashion with the same ppmperty o44 tnerdeveloper. All that has changed. We now have a maximum of development and a portion of a 9 hole golf course and the property ownership has changed several times. Since all 100 of the existing units were sold in the moderate price level it could be argued, and the city attorney concurs, that the agreement has already resulted in more moderate income level units than were originally required (i.e. 25% of 352 = 88) or alternatively since only 144 units will be built, only 36 moderate income units are required (i.e. 144 x 25%). Both these levels have been attained. In addition, the two year period of. resale controls has expired. To cane in and control the price levels on this last phase four years down the road may negatively impact any price appreciation to which existing residents are entitled. 2 ' I i PC STAFF REPORT DA-2 JUNE 7, 1988 III. RE0214EN,IATICN: That the planning commission recommend to the city council that Development Agreement 2, Tavaglione, approved by Ordinance No. 364 be voided for the reasons outlined in the staff report dated June 7, 1988. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /tm 3 - ,„,_f_ J1RMRETE STRUCTURES ." _ __. DOUGLASS BUILDING SYSTEMS 68-895 Perez Road #21 License No. 493622 Cathedral City, CA 92234 May 19, 1988 (619) 328-9192 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Mountain View Falls Tract 19847-3 City Council Ordinance No. 364 Dear Commissioners: It is the desire of this company to build and sell 44 dwelling units to be added to the 100 units previously sold in this project. We are requesting that you approve the following sales prices: 2 bedroom, 2 bath - 991 sq. ft. at $88, 600 3 bedroom, 2 bath - 1, 288 sq. ft. at $99, 600 These are higher prices than were approved by City Council Ordinance No. 364 four years ago. Some of the reasons for the higher prices include: 1. School fees of $1.50 per square foot have been added to the direct costs. Indirect costs, including larger construction loans to pay for the school fees, added sales commissions, and others, have added at least 25% to the direct school fees. The result is then: 2 bdrm - 991 sq. ft. x $1.50 + 25% = $1, 857 added. 3 bdrm - 1, 288 sq. ft. -x $1.50 + 25% = $2, 415 added. 2 . The direct cost of the land has increased an average of $2, 840 per unit. Adding the 25% indirect costs brings this added land cost to $3,550 per unit. 3 . The sizes of the units to be built are increased from the City's reference sizes of 950 sq. ft. to 991 sq. ft. , and from 1, 150 sq. ft. to 1,288 sq. ft. resulting in added overall costs. 4 . Inflationary cost increases for subcontractors, labor and materials have added further to the costs. Page 2 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert May 19, 1988 5. Construction lenders require that all of these added costs be covered in order to qualify for construction loans. Your approval of the above listed sales prices is respectfully requested. Very truly yours, ohn C. Dou ss, Jr. 914,— President JCD/nl CITY COUN ORDINANCE NO. 364 !''., • r -2 7i V • EXHIBIT"A" , .• „• • • !! • TAVAGLIONE/PALM DESERT ., . MODERATE INCOME HOUSING ' ' • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ,• . • This agreement is made and entered into this 12th day of April, 1984, by,and • between the City of Palm Desert,,hereinafter referred,to as the "CITY",and Nick Tavaglione Construction Company,hereinafter referred to as the"DEVELOPER"provides: ii• no,. I, • 1. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is•described in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter 'PROPERTY")... • , 2. Pursuant to the goals and objectives of:the.Palm Desert,General Plan Housing Element and provisions of California State Government Code Section 65915 designed to facilitate. the construction of housing •p• affordable to moderate income households,. DEVELOPER has applied and •f: been granted conditional approval of Tentative Map 19847 and Precise Plan of Design 27-83 (hereinafter. "PROJECT") to construct 352 residential condominium units on the PROPERTY. , These approvals included a 25% density bonus increasing the density from 5 du/ac to 6.25 I ' • du/ac. ; • , . 3. As used herein, "moderate income households" shall refer to families or individuals whose gross income does not exceed 120% of the Riverside County median income based upon financial and demographic , information received from the United States Department of Housing and • Urban Development (HUD) or its successor agency. This information is contained in "Exhibit B" and shall be updated automatically as data is . ; . . ...• • ' ,•tr,t; , •'$ , • • • ' • I -1- ;It • CITY COUNCIL o wINANCE NO. 364 • • obtained from HUD. If in the future more current data is made available by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics or other officially recognized agencies, the applicant may request amendment to this AGREEMENT to include this data. 4. State Government Code Section 65915 requires that at least 25% of the units (hereinafter referred to as "AFFORDABLE UNITS") within the PROJECT be affordable by moderate income households. Pursuant and in addition to this requirement, the DEVELOPER hereby agrees to price 100% of the units within Phase I of the PROJECT consistent with the income limits of moderate income households. This maximum selling price shall be based upon a monthly payment (mortgage, taxes and insurances) approximately equivalent to 30% of the maximum gross monthly income of a moderate income household. This figure shall be adjusted according to size and type of unit. The following selling maximum prices shall apply to Phase I of the PROJECT. -42 two bedroom two story 991 sq. ft. $68,000 -16 two bedroom one story 961 sq.ft. $70,000 - 42 three bedroom two story 1288 sq. ft. $78,000 5. Resale Controls: • In an effort to discourage speculation and preserve the affordable nature of this project, the following resale controls shall be'made a part of the covenant conditions, and restriction of the PROJECT. • a. Resale Price Increase Limitations: i._ • The price increase allowable upon resale of the units subject to this agreement shall be based upon the increase in the C.P.I. from the date of the close of escrow of the original sale to the escrow opening of the resale. -2- CITY COU& ORDINANCE NO. 364 If for any reason there is any change in the method of calculation of the C.P.I., or that price index is no longer published, then another index generally recognized as authoritative shall be instituted. • Price increases shall not exceed ten percent (10%) per anum or the annual increase in the C.P.I., whichever is smaller. b. Capital Improvement Price Increase Limitations: A price increase shall'be allowed for any capital improvements installed pursuant to a building permit issued by the City of Palm Desert, or such capital improvement as distinguished from maintenance which qualify under ;the Internal Revenue Code Section 263. c. Term of Resale Restriction: 1. When all units in a particular,phase are priced within the • affordable limitations set forth in section .4 of this agreement, resale controls shall apply for a period of two years. 2. If within a particular phase,there exists a price differential of $5,000 or more between the lower priced 25% AFFORDABLE UNITS and the 75% remaining units, then the AFFORDABLE UNITS shall be subject to resale limitation for 5 years. The units priced $5,000 over the-affordable level shall be exempt from resale limitations. When the price differential is less than $5,000, section 5,c, 1 shall apply. • -3- ./ CITY COUNCIL' INANCE NO. 364 .• . d. Enforcement: 1. Prior to the entering into escrow, the seller shall submit a maximum price proposal to the city for review and approval. The city's report will become part of the escrow documents. The city shall receive all escrow documents prior to closing to certify compliance with this agreement. 6. The marketing program for the PROJECT shall give priority to moderate income households and shall include the following features: a. 30 days prior to the opening of each phase, the DEVELOPER shall advertise and receive applications from eligible moderate income home buyers. The minimum qualifications shall be: 1. Minimum 2 person household. 2. Maximum income for the following household sizes: 4 persons or less- $30,150 (two bedroom unit) • 5-6 persons -$33,900 (three bedroom unit) 3. The unit must be the purchaser's sole permanent residence. b. If the number of applicants meeting minimum qualifications exceeds the number of units offered,,,then the following priorities shall apply: 1. First time home buyers: Households which have not owned a home within the last 5 years. , , . 2. Single parent households. .1 `lr • • -4- 1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 364 • c. If 25% of the units within each phase are not sold to the target group during the pre-opening application period, sufficient units shall be reserved during the next 90 days to insure that the 25% moderate income target can be achieved. Units remaining after this 90-day period may be marketed without restriction other than price provisions of section 4 and 5 of this agreement. d. At least 120 days prior to the opening of each subsequent phase,the DEVELOPER shall submit a price schedule to the CITY consistent with the requirements of this AGREEMENT. A minimum of 25%of the units in each phase must conform to HUD moderate income guidelines. e. The DEVELOPER agrees to allow the city to audit DEVELOPER'S records to determine that terms of this AGREEMENT are being complied with. 7. The DEVELOPER shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sex, , national origin or age. S. The terms of this AGREEMENT shall run until all units of the PROJECT are sold. • 9. The provisions of this AGREEMENT shall run with, burden and bind the DEVELOPER and his successors. The provisions hereof shall be • enforceable by appropriate legal action brought by the CITY. In the • event legal action is brought to enforce any provision hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees together ) with other legally allowable costs. _5_ • CITY COUNCIL ( NANCE NO. 364 _ 10. This AGREEMENT shall be reviewed by the CITY planning commission • every 6 months, at which time the applicant or his successor shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the . AGREEMENT. If as a result of this review the commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the applicant has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the AGREEMENT, it shall recommend to the city council that the AGREEMENT be modified or terminated. If the city council concurs with the planning commission recommendation, the AGREEMENT shall be modified or terminated. Proceedings before the city council shall be a noticed public hearing. If at the time of the hearings substantial improvements have not yet occurred on the site, termination of the AGREEMENT will also involve revocation of all previous approvals and permits associated ( herewith. If substantial improvements are already in place and l_� modifications acceptable to the CITY cannot be negotiated, then P g enforcement of provisions of this AGREEMENT shall be pursued through legal action per No. 8 of this AGREEMENT. 11. The AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. If any portion of the AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. 12. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal :,, •• 1 capacity to make the AGREEMENTS herein contained, that .each such AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is ;1 •i executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. ‘._a 1 • _6_ CITY COUNCIL C JANCE NO. 364 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the year and date first above written. THE CITY OF PALM DESERT . . S . zg(46/ By I '‘‘ irt• j . • • By • • ; • NICK TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION ' • 11- ; (Notarized) By • • '; ; • ATTEST: II -7- '