Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
RPVCCA_SR_2011_04_19_10_Ocean_Terrace
PUBLIC HEARING Date:April 19,2011 Subject:Tract Map Amendment Regarding a Trail Easement at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive (SUB201 0-00003) Location:6270 Ocean Terrace Drive 1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Long 2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale 3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Senior Planner Schonborn 4.Public Testimony: Appellant:N/A Applicant:Minaz Ahamed 5.Council Questions: 6.Rebuttal:N/A 7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Long 8.Council Deliberation: 9.Council Action: 10-1 CITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Project Manager: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS~(I JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~:5,t" APRIL 19,2011 TRACT MAP AMENDMENT REGARDING A TRAIL EASEMENT AT 6270 OCEAN TERRACE DRIVE (SUB2010-00003) CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Plannr::tr//'NL-- RECOMMENDATION 1)Accept the payment of $28,000 to allow the property owner at 6270 Ocean Terrace to convert a portion of an existing public trail easement on their property to a restricted use easement area that would allow them to use the converted easement area for limited private improvements. 2)Adopt Resolution No.,2011-_,approving a Tract Map Amendment that would: a)replace a portion of an existing trail easement located at 6270 Ocean Terrace with a Restricted Use Easement; b)allow limited landscaping,improvements and a fence/wall up to a maximum height of 6-feet within the Restricted Use Easement area; c)establish a 30-foot structure setback from the rear property line to replace the existing 15-foot structure setback that is measured from the edge of the 15-foot wide trail easement;and d)allow construction of a trellis sun shade structure along the rear of the residence located at 6270 Ocean Terrace that would maintain a 20-foot setback from the rear property line. 10-2 Tract Amendment for easement at Ocean Terrace Drive April 19,2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In October 2010,the City Council considered a license agreement proposed by the property owner at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive that would allow limited improvements within a 15-foot wide trail easement that runs along his rear property line.The Council directed Staff to work with the property owner in order to obtain an appraisal to determine the value of the trail easement area.An appraisal has concluded that the net value to the property of replacing the trail easement with a restricted use area easement that would allow limited improvements is $28,000.Because the current trail path is not within the trail easement on the applicant's property,and it is impractical to re-Iocate the trail to said trail easement, Staff is recommending that the City Council accept said payment and approve a tract amendment that would abandon a portion of the trail easement along the rear property line on the applicant's property and replace it with a restricted use easement that will allow only certain private improvements in the new restricted use area,and allow the applicant to construct a trellis shade structure next to the dwelling 20 feet from the rear property line. BACKGROUND On December 31,2009,the City acquired the 191-acre Upper Filiorum property.The Filiorum property is bounded by a residential tract (Tract No.31617)to the north,where the majority of residences take access via Ocean Terrace Drive.Tract Map No.31617 was approved by the City and subsequently was recorded in 1977.The recorded tract map identifies an "easement to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for trail purposes",over the westerly portion of the property at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive ("the subject property")and along the rear southern property line of several properties within this Tract that abut the Filiorum property,including the subject property. Mr.Minaz Ahamed,the owner of the subject property,submitted a tract amendment request in June 2010,requesting that the City vacate the recorded 15-foot wide public trail easement along the rear of his property.The reason for Mr.Ahamed's request is that the trail easement along a portion of his rear property is no longer needed,since the trail connection from the McBride Trail (the trail along the rear of the properties in Tract 31617) to the City's NCCP Nature Preserve is provided via the Upper Filiorum property,which the City acquired in December 2009.Mr.Ahamed's property is part of Tract No.31617 and is located at the end of the Ocean Terrace Drive cul-de-sac.Mr.Ahamed's request is a result of his desire to landscape the modest rear yard area behind his house,which has not been improved since oonstruction of the residence was completed in 2004.Mr.Ahamed also desires to permanently enclose his rear yard area with a decorative fence or wall,which up to now has been enclosed with an unattractive chain link fence.Lastly,the property owner requests approval to construct a shade trellis along the rear of his residence,which will maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback. After reviewing the request,Staff and the property owner met to discuss the proposed trail vacation.At that time,it was determined that a revocable license agreement would be the appropriate document to achieve Mr.Ahamed's request.Thus,a proposed license 347702-1 10-3 Tract Amendment for easement at Ocean Terrace Drive April 19,2011 agreement between the City and Mr.Ahamed to allow limited improvements within the unutilized trail easement was presented to the City Council for consideration on October 5, 2010.During the meeting,the Council expressed concern that allowing the private property owner to utilize the trail easement for private purposes without compensation to the City could be construed as a gift of public funds.The Council felt that the owner was gaining the ability to utilize a City easement for his own private benefit,while the City was not being monetarily compensated.As a result,the Council directed Staff to work with the property owner in order to obtain an appraisal to determine the value of the trail easement area.An appraisal was conducted (attached)and the issue is now being brought back to the City Cou ncil for further consideration.In add ition,the property owner is also requesting approval to construct a shade trellis along the rear of the residence. DISCUSSION EXISTING TRAIL EASEMENT SITUATION Similar to other properties along the south side of Ocean Terrace Drive,the subject property contains a dedicated public trail easement to accommodate the McBride Trail, which runs along most of the tract's perimeter.This dedicated trail easement resulted from a condition of approval of Tract 31617 in 1977.On the subject property,the trail easement extends from the end of the cul-de-sac at Ocean Terrace Drive at the front property line of the subject property,then west down the hill along the side property line of the 'Subject property,then along the southern rear property line that is adjacent to the Upper Filiorum property (see attached map). The actual trail path that is used by the public is not located within the recorded trail easement along the rear property line of the subject property.Due to the steep topography on a portion of the site,prior to construction of the residence on the subject property in 1999,trail users would cut across the flat portion of Mr.Ahamed's property (outside of the easement)to gain access to the McBride Trail.When construction of the residence commenced,trail users entering the McBride Trailhead at the end of Ocean Terrace Drive continued west down the hill along the side property line,continued along to the southwest corner of the subject property,and onto the Upper Filiorum property to the south,which was previously owned by York Long Point Associates (YLPA)and is now owned by the City.The physical trail path then goes uphill on the Upper Filiorum property adjacent to the subject property to access and continue within the McBride Trail easement along the rear of the Ocean Terrace Drive properties located to the east of the subject property (see attached aerial photograph).This route avoids a steep incline that is within the recorded trail easement on the subject property. In the past,Staff has reviewed the site conditions to determine if the physical trail should be relocated to be wholly contained within the established trail easement along Mr. Ahamed's southern rear property line.Although relocation of the trail to the trail easement is possible,due to topographic conditions,re-aligning the trail would require extensive improvements,which would include grading to minimize the steepness of the area, 347702-1 10-4 Tract Amendment for easement at Ocean Terrace Drive April 19,2011 retaining walls to buttress the area,and perhaps a staircase and handrail to provide for adequate ascent and descent by the trail users within the constraints of the easement. Staff believes that these improvements would detract from the natural trail experience and, accordingly,that the location of the existing physical trail on the City's Filiorum property (as part ofthe City Council approved Preserve Trails Plan)provides for a better,more natural, trail experience. REPLACEMENT OF TRAIL EASEMENT WITH RESTRICTED USE AREA EASEMENT Since the City has no plans to move the existing physical trail onto the existing public trail easement that runs along Mr.Ahamed's southern property line abutting the City's Filiorum property,Mr.Ahamed is requesting permission to use a portion of the trail easement on his property for certain landscaping improvements that would improve the visual appearance of his rear yard and provide his rear yard with some privacy from nearby trail users.This seemed reasonable;however,to ensure that the improvements would not interfere with the views and privacy of the neighbor to the east,Staff wanted maintain some restrictions on the use of that area,which would be recorded against the property in place of the trail easement.To achieve this,the portion of existing trail easement on his property would be replaced with a Restricted Use Area (RUA)easement,which will allow the underlying property owner (Le.,the applicant)to construct or install limited improvements in the RUA easement area. Staff obtained the services of Riggs and Riggs,Inc.,afirm the City has used in the past for appraisal services,including appraisals for the RDA property (now Mirandela)and the Upper Filiorum property to appraise the value of the existing trail easemnet.In summary, the appraisal determined that the fair market value of trail easement is $39,000.Stated another way,the financial benefit of the removal of the trail easement to the Ahamed property is $39,000. In addition,the appraisal also determined the value of the burden that the restricted use easement,which prevents the property owner from having unrestricted use of the property, would place on the property.The appraisal evaluated that issue and determined that the value of the establishment of the restricted use easement is $11,000.Thus,by allowing the portion of public trail easement to be converted to a restricted use area easement equates to a net gain in value to the Ahamed property of $28,000.As such,in order to allow the existing trail easement to be converted to a restricted use easement that would allow the applicant to make only certain improvements within the easement,Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the payment of $28,000. If the City Council agrees to accept the payment and allow the trail easement to be converted to a restricted use easement,Staff is proposing a tract amendment that would memorialize the removal of a portion of the trail easement and require the recordation of a restricted use easement,which is to be drafted by City Attorney and stipulate the improvements that would be allowed within the restricted use area (see new conditions of attached Resolution Exhibit "A").Said improvements would be limited to a decorative 347702-1 10-5 Tract Amendment for easement at Ocean Terrace Drive April 19,2011 fence or wall and landscaping not to exceed a height of six feet along with decorative water features,seat walls,benches and any other structures up to 4 feet in height. CLARIFICATION OF STRUCTURE SETBACK In order to ensure that structures are sufficiently setback from the intended public trail,a condition was incorporated into the Tract approval that requires a 15-foot setback between any buildings or structures and the edge of the trail easement.Since the trail easement is 15 feet in width and located along the rear yard property line,this resulted in a 30-foot structure setback from the actual rear property line.Since the trail easement is being replaced with a restricted use easement,in order to continue with the intent of the tract's setback conditions,Staff is recommending that the tract conditions be amended to establish a 30-foot structure setback from the rear property line for the subject property. PROPOSED TRELLIS The property owner is also proposing construction of an attached shade trellis on the first floor,along the rear of the residence.The trellis will measure 12-feet high and will be located a minimum of 20-feet from the rear property line.Although the structure will encroach into the 30-foot structure setback explained above,Staff believes that the encroachment will not be materially detrimental,since the trellis will not be enclosed;it will not have a solid roof covering;it will be limited to the first floor of the residence,and it will be sufficiently setback from the physical trail path. As indicated above,in 2005,the City Council required removal of 1O-feet of the rear yard balcony to ensure that a 15-foot setback is maintained between the trail easement line and the balcony structure (Le.,a total setback of 30-feet from the rear property line to the balcony structure).The purpose was to address the privacy infringement resulting from that portion of the balcony,upon the abutting neighborto the east.The proposed trellis will be located in the same location as the previous balcony portion that was conditioned to be removed.However,as specified above,the reason the balcony was removed was to address privacy infringement from the balcony onto the adjacent property to the east at 6264 Ocean Terrace Drive,which is owned by Mr.and Mrs.Butterworth. The Butterworths have been made aware of the proposed trellis and are in support of such a request since the proposal includes a trellis that cannot be accessed by the second floor and cannot be walked upon.As such,the Butterworths have written a letter of support and do not object to a trellis at the proposed location. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A letter in opposition (attached)was received from a resident across the canyon,indicating that the trail path should be relocated into the trail easement.For the reasons indicated earlier in this Staff Report,Staff believes that relocating the path would not be beneficial to the trail users,since the topographic conditions would require extensive improvements, 347702-1 10-6 Tract Amendment for easement at Ocean Terrace Drive April 19,2011 grading,retaining walls,and perhaps a staircase and handrail to provide for adequate ascent and descent by the trail users within the constraints of the easement.Further,it would not be an efficient use of City time and money to relocate the trail to the easement when the location of the existing physical trail on the City's Filiorum property (as part of the City Council approved Preserve Trails Plan)provides for a better,more natural,trail experience. FISCAL IMPACT There would be no fiscal impact if the applicant compensates the City for the value of allowing the conversion of a public trail easement to a restricted use easement. CONCLUSION Based upon the information above,Staff believes that the requested Tract Amendment is warranted to remove the trail easement and replace it with a Restricted Use easement and to allow the construction of an attached trellis along the rear of the residence with a 20-foot setback rather than a 30-foot setback to the rear property line,subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration: 1.Deny the Tract Amendment and the proposed trellis structure;or 2.Identify any issues of concern and continue approval of the Tract Amendment to a future meeting to allow the City Attorney to address the issues. Attachments: •Draft Resolution No.2011- •Resolution No.2005-83 •Letters Received in Response to Notice •Appraisal of Easement Interests for 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive • Maps illustrating subject property and area to be part of License Agreement 347702-1 10-7 RESOLUTION NO.2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO.SUB2010-00003,FOR AMENDMENT NO.4 TO TRACT 31617,REMOVING THE 15-FOOT BY 150-FOOT TRAIL EASEMENT SEGMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND REPLACING IT WITH A RESTRICTED USE EASEMENT THAT ALLOWS LIMITED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RESTRICTED USE AREA;ALLOWIN~CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED TRELLIS ON THE FIRST FLOOR,ALONG THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE WITH A 5-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NEW RESTRICTED USE AREA EASEMENT (I.E.,20- FEET FROM THE REAR SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE),FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6270 OCEAN TERRACE DRIVE (LOT 20ITRACT 31617). WHEREAS,on August 24,1999,the Planning Commission approved Height Variation No.884,allowing the construction of a new two-story,single-family residence with a new attached garage measuring a total of 6,696 square feet,on a vacant parcel located at the end of the Ocean Terrace Drive cul-de-sac.The proposed height was 22'-3"as measured from the highest pre-construction (existing)pad elevation on the rear of the lotto be covered by the structure to the ridge line of the structure,and 25-feet high as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the ridge line of the structure for the property located at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive (Tract 31617/Lot 20);and, WHEREAS,consistent with the Tract's requirement for development of the subject property,the residence was conditioned to maintain a 15-foot setback from the 15-foot wide trail easement along the south (rear)property line;and, WHEREAS,on October 20,1999,the City issued a building permit for construction of the new residence;and, WHEREAS,as the site was prepared for construction of the new residence and the foundation was being prepared,the applicant's Registered Engineer of record,submitted certified documentation attesting that he had measured features of the new residence and certified that the building location was consistent with the approved plans.Further evidence,in the form of an inspection report from the Engineer's firm conducted on December 21,1999,confirmed that "set backs are per approved plans and construction staging by this firm".Since the documentation,which was prepared and certified by the applicant's Engineer,stated that the improvements to this property were per the approved plans bearing the stamp of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,the Building and Safety Division conducted the required inspections related to plumbing,mechanical,electrical and structural work throughout calendar year 2000;and, WHEREAS,on January 27,2000,Grading Permit No.2154 was approved by the Planning Commission during construction of the residence for a total of 1,616 cubic yards of remedial grading under the building footprint,which included 856 cubic yards of removal, 760 cubic yards of re-compaction and 96 cubic yards of export;and, 10-8 WHEREAS,during final inspection,it was noticed that the building pad was not in compliance with the approved plans.Staff then requested that the owner,Mr.Ahamed, prepare and submit an as-built plan;and, WHEREAS,on March 2,2001,Mr.Ahamed submitted an as-built plan prepared by his Engineer,and it was discovered that the extent of the grading went beyond the approved boundaries on the property into the City's trail easement and onto an adjacent property that was not encompassed within the approval.It was also discovered that the house encroached into the setback from the trail easement,and a rear balcony extended beyond the tract's building/grading restriction (BGR)line;and, WHEREAS,it was also determined that the existing trail (Le.,the McBride trail)was not located entirely within the established trail easement on the subject property,so that a portion ofthe trail traverses the adjacent,separately owned,Upper Filiorum property;and, WHEREAS,the subject property owner submitted the necessary applications and fees on July 28,2004;and, WHEREAS,on August 2,2005,the City Council adopted Resolution No.2005-83, thereby approving Case No.ZON2004-00409,for Amendment NO.2 to Tract 31617, allowing Lot 20 to have two balcony support columns that measure greater than 30-inches in height to encroach beyond the BGR Line,and grading on a slope greater than 10- percent,and a revision to Height Variation No.884 to approve the new location of the two- story residence and require the removalqf a portion <;>fthe second story balcony to ensure compliance with the tract setback requirement;and, WHEREAS,on June 16,2010,the property owner submitted Case No.SUB201 0- 00003 for a Tract Amendment to vacate a portion of the trail easement along the south property line of Lot 20,Tract 31617;and, WHEREAS,in September 201 0,Case No.SUB201 0-00003 was held in abeyance in order to pursue a License Agreement to allow certain improvements in the trail easement;and, WHEREAS,on October 5,2010,the City Council considered the license agreement proposed by the property owner at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive that would allow limited improvements within the trail easement area. WHEREAS,at the October 5,2010 meeting,the Council felt that a license agreement to allow improvements within a City-owned easement without compensation could be construed as a gift of public funds.As a result,the Council directed Staff to work with the property owner in order to obtain an appraisal to determine the value of the trail easement area. WHEREAS,on January 21,2011,an appraisal was completed by Riggs and Riggs, Inc.;and, Resolution No.2011- 10-9 WHEREAS,in February 2011,the applicant decided to also propose an attached trellis as part of the project,and to pursue reclassifying the trail easement to a Restricted Use Area easement through Case No.SUB2010-00003;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),Staff found no evidence that Case No.SUB2010-00003 would have a significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301),since the project does not intensify the use of the lot because the property currently is developed with a single-family residence;and, WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 19,2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:Tract Amendment No.4 is specific to Lot 20 only and replaces a portion of an existing trail easement (15'x150')with a Restricted Use Area Easement to allow limited landscaping,improvements and a fence/wall up to a maximum height of 6-feet within the Restricted Use Easement area;and,to allow construction of a trellis along the rear of the residence,maintaining a 20-foot setback from the rear property line. Section 2:Tract Amendment No.4 would allow the construction of an attached trellis on the first floor of the residence,along the rear of the structure,thereby maintaining a 20-foot setback from the southern rear property line. Section 3:Tract Amendment NO.4 will not create an adverse impact since,due to the topography of the site,the actual physical trail path continues to be located south of the rear property line of the subject property within the City's Upper Filiorum property,and is not within the recorded trail easement on Lot 20.Further,relocation of the trail easement to the location that presently is being used by the public,due to topographic conditions.Re-aligning the trail into the existing easement along the rear property line would require extensive improvements,which would include grading to minimize the steepness of the area,retaining walls to buttress the area,and perhaps a staircase and handrail to provide for adequate ascent and descent by the trail users within the constraints of the easement. Thus,relocation of the trail into the easement would detract from the natural trail experience and,accordingly,the location of the existing physical trail on the Resolution No.2011- 10-10 City's Filiorum property (as part of the City Council approved Preserve Trails Plan)provides for a better,more natural,trail experience. Section 4:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes and other records of these proceedings,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Case No.SUB201 0-00003, Amendment No.4 to Tract 31617,removing the 15-foot by 150-foot trail easement segment along the southern property line and replacing it with a restricted use easement that allows limited improvements in the restricted use area,allowing construction of an attached trellis on the first floor along the rear of the residence with a 20-foot setback from the rear southern property line subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A",attached hereto and made a part hereof,w~ich are necessary to protect the public health,safety, and welfare. Section 5:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution,if available,must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2011. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2011-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 19,2011. City Clerk Resolution No.2011- 10-11 EXHIBIT "A" REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL of Resolution No.77-22 City Council Approved on April 19,2011 (New language shown in underline) 34.A 15-foot by 150-foot segment of the public trail easement paralleling the southern property line and abutting the southeast corner of Lot 20,Tract 31617, shall be removed and replaced with a restricted use easement.Said restricted use easement shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office within 90 days of this approval. 35.Only the following improvements are allowed within the boundaries of the restricted use easement on Lot 20:fences,walls,hedges or any other landscaping not to exceed six feet in height,as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to said improvements and decorative water features,seat walls and benches,and any other structures approved by the Community Development Director not exceeding a maximum height of 48-inches as measured from adjacent grade. 36.An attached trellis shade structure along the rear of the residence is allowed on Lot 20,Tract 31617.Said trellis shall not exceed 13-feet in height,as measured from adjacent grade to top of trellis structure.Further,the trellis roof shall not be solid,shall not be used as a deck,and shall be a minimum 50-percent open to the sky.Lastly,the trellis shall maintain a minimum 20-foot setback from the southern property line to the trellis structure.Setback certification by a licensed surveyor shall be required prior to pouring of footings. 37.With the exception of the improvements and structures identified in conditions 35 and 36 above,all other structures on Lot 20 shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the southern property line. Resolution No.2011- 10-12 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-83 ATTACHMENT 10-1 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2004-00409, FOR AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO TRACT 31617, ALLOWING LOT 20 TO HAVE TWO BALCONY SUPPORT COLUMNS THAT MEASURE GREATER THAN 30-INCHES IN HEIGHT TO ENCROACH BEYOND THE BGR LINE, AND GRADING ON A SLOPE GREATER THAN 10-PERCENT, AND A REVISION TO HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 884 TO APPROVE THE NEW LOCATION OF THE TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF THE SECOND STORY BALCONY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRACT SETBACK REQUIREMENT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6270 OCEAN TERRACE DRIVE (LOT 20/TRACT 31617). WHEREAS, on April 5, 1977, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 77-22, thereby approving Tract No. 31617 and establishing a BGR line in the rear yards of the eighty (80) single-family residential lots. The purpose of the BGR line was for “grading and visual” purposes to articulate the view of the development as seen from below and to prevent grading and construction from encroaching into the slope and the trail easement located at the rear of the properties; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-86, Amendment No. 1 to Tract No. 31617 to allow at-grade accessory uses outside the BGR line; and, WHEREAS, on August 24, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Height Variation No. 884, allowing the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence with attached garage measuring a total of 6,696 square feet, on a vacant parcel located at the end of the Ocean Terrace Drive cul-de-sac. The proposed height was 22’-3” as measured from the highest pre-construction (existing) pad elevation on the rear of the lot to be covered by the structure to the ridge line of the structure, and 25-feet high as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the ridge line of the structure for the property located at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive (Tract 31617/Lot 20); and, WHEREAS, consistent with the Tract’s requirement for development of the subject property, the residence was conditioned to maintain a 15-foot setback from the 15-foot wide trail easement along the south (rear) property line; and, WHEREAS, on October 20, 1999, the City issued a building permit for construction of the new residence; and, WHEREAS, as the site was prepared for construction of the new residence and the foundation was being prepared, the applicant’s Registered Engineer of record, submitted certified documentation attesting that he had measured features of the new residence and certified that the building location was consistent with the approved plans. Further evidence, in the form of an inspection report from the Engineer’s firm conducted on December 21, 1999, confirmed that “set backs are per approved plans and construction ATTACHMENT 10-2 Resolution No. 2005-83 Page 2 of 5 staging by this firm”. Since the documentation, which was prepared and certified by the applicant’s Engineer, stated that the improvements to this property were per the approved plans bearing the stamp of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Building and Safety Division conducted the required inspections related to plumbing, mechanical, electrical and structural work throughout calendar year 2000; and, WHEREAS, on January 27, 2000, Grading Permit No. 2154 was approved by the Planning Commission during construction of the residence for a total of 1,616 cubic yards of remedial grading under the building footprint, which included 856 cubic yards of removal, 760 cubic yards of re-compaction and 96 cubic yards of export; and, WHEREAS, during final inspection, it was noticed that the building pad was not in compliance with the approved plans. Staff then requested that the owner, Mr. Ahamed, prepare and submit an as-built plan; and, WHEREAS, on March 2, 2001, Mr. Ahamed submitted an as-built plan prepared by his Engineer, and it was discovered that the extent of the grading went beyond the approved boundaries on the property into the City’s trail easement and onto an adjacent property that was not encompassed within the approval. It was also discovered that the house encroached into the setback from the trail easement, and a rear balcony extended beyond the tract’s building/grading restriction (BGR) line; and, WHEREAS, it was also determined that the existing trail (i.e., McBride trail) was not located entirely within the established trail easement on the subject property, so that a portion of the trail traverses the adjacent, separately owned, Upper Filiorum property; and, WHEREAS, the subject property owner submitted the necessary applications and fees on July 28, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the City deemed the applications complete on August 12, 2004; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Case No. ZON2004-00409 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301), since the project does not intensify the use of the lot because the property currently is developed with a single-family residence; and, WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission continued the item to October 26, 2004; and, ATTACHMENT 10-3 Resolution No. 2005-83 Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, on October 26, 2004, the Planning Commission continued the item to the November 23, 2004; and, WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the Planning Commission found that since the balcony encroaches into the required setback, the location results in an unreasonable privacy infringement upon the residence at 6264 Ocean Terrace Drive, that the two southernmost windows along the eastern façade of the second story must contain translucent material, and that the balcony support columns and grading beyond the BGR line were appropriate. As such, conditions were incorporated to remove that portion of the balcony that encroaches into the required 15-foot setback and require that other than up to two support columns, all portions of the balcony maintain the required 15-foot setback, and require the two most southerly windows along the eastern façade of the second floor to be modified to contain translucent glazing; and, WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2004-51 and 2004-52, recommending that the City Council approved Case No. ZON2004-00409 for a revision to Height Variation No. 884 and Amendment No. 2 to Tract No. 31617, provided that the balcony be modified to ensure compliance with the required setback from the trail easement, provided that the two southernmost windows along the eastern façade of the second story contain translucent material, and provided the applicant enter into an agreement with the City; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 15, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and the City Council gave direction to Staff regarding the content of a proposed resolution and agreement to be considered by the City Council in conjunction with the adoption of the resolution; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the continued public hearing was conducted by the City Council on July 19, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present additional evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Revision to Height Variation No. 884 approves the “as-built” location of the new residence, which was constructed 15-feet farther towards the rear, as modified by the City Council to remove a portion of the balcony. The residential structure continues to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Further, the new location of ATTACHMENT 10-4 Resolution No. 2005-83 Page 4 of 5 the residential structure does not result in significant view impairment from the viewing area of another parcel. Section 2: Since the residence was constructed 15-feet farther south and a portion of the balcony encroaches into the required setback, the location results in an unreasonable privacy infringement upon the residence at 6264 Ocean Terrace Drive. As such, approval of the Revision to Height Variation No. 884 incorporates conditions to require removal of a portion of the balcony and that the two most southerly windows along the eastern façade of the second floor to be modified to contain translucent glazing. In addition, another condition has been added to require the planting of foliage along the east side property line to ensure privacy between the residence on the subject property and the residence on the adjacent property to the east. Section 3: The Tract Amendment request will not alter any right, title or interest in real property reflected on the recorded map. The amendment to the tract would be specific to Lot 20 only, and would allow the construction and encroachment of up to two balcony support columns and grading to remain outside the BGR line. Section 4: The proposed Tract Amendment to allow up to two balcony support columns and the grading on the slope greater than 10-percent will not create a geotechnical hazard to the property or to adjacent property, as determined by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, because the balcony support columns are required to be underpinned and the fill is required to be compacted, pursuant to Condition no. 5 in the attached Exhibit “A”. Section 5: An Agreement has been drafted to address the responsibilities of the property owner regarding the trail easement. The applicant is required to acquire a portion of the adjacent Upper Filiorum property so that the trail can remain in its existing general location with some necessary modifications to address erosion control issues or to relocate the trail entirely upon the subject Property within a modified easement, to the satisfaction of the Director. Section 6: Notice of the continued public hearing was issued by the City pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. The continued public hearing was conducted by the City Council on July 19, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present additional evidence. Although the applicant's representative initially requested rebuttal time, which was inadvertently omitted following his client's remarks and after everyone else had spoken, the applicant's representative did not advise the City Council that he still wanted additional time for rebuttal. Because both the applicant and his representative were given an ample opportunity to address the City Council regarding this matter, the absence of an additional opportunity to present rebuttal testimony did not result in a denial of due process. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of these proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Case No. ZON2004-00409, ATTACHMENT 10-5 Resolution No. 2005-83 Page 5 of 5 thereby allowing up to two balcony support columns that measure greater than 30-inches in height to encroach beyond the BGR line and grading on a slope that is greater than 10- percent on Lot 20, and a revision to Height Variation No. 884 to acknowledge the new location of the two-story residence, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 8: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August 2005. /s/ Larry Clark Mayor Attest: /s/ Carolynn Petru City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carolynn Petru, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2005-83 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 2, 2005. __________________________ City Clerk ATTACHMENT 10-6 Resolution No. 2005-83 Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Resolution No. 2005-83 - Exhibit “A” Conditions of Approval Case No. ZON2004-00409 1. Except as expressly amended by the following conditions, all conditions of approval associated with Tract No. 31617 (illustrated in Resolution No. 77-22) and associated with Amendment No. 1 to Tract No. 31617 (illustrated in Resolution No. 93-86) shall remain in full force and effect. 2. A minimum of 10-feet of the second story balcony along the rear (south) elevation shall be removed so that other than two support columns, the balcony will maintain a minimum 15-foot setback from the trail easement line, which is equivalent to a 30-foot setback from the rear (south) property line, as such line existed at the time the Planning Commission approved Height Variation No. 884 (August 24, 1999), within 180 days of this approval. 3. Lot 20 is allowed to maintain the following improvements beyond the BGR line: a. Two balcony support columns located at the southwest corner of the balcony, that measure greater than 30-inches in height. b. Grading on a slope at the southwest corner of the pad that was greater than 10-percent. 4. The two most southerly windows along the eastern façade of the second floor shall be modified to contain frosted/translucent glazing within 90 days of the date of this approval, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. 5. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the project geologist and the City geologist including, without limitation, requirements concerning recompaction of the fill that is located on the site and underpinning of the balcony support columns. All permits, reports, or other documentation to conduct the underpinning and compaction shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of the work. Any such work shall commence within 180 days from the date of approval of the reports and plans by the City. 6. Approval of this Revision shall be contingent upon the owner entering into an agreement with the City within ninety days of this approval that sets forth alternative solutions either to relocate the trail easement and trail entirely on the applicant’s property to the satisfaction of the Director or to require the applicant to acquire a portion of the adjacent Upper Filiorum Property so that the trail can be maintained in its current location. The Agreement shall include a one-year deadline from the date of this approval to implement one of the alternative solutions. ATTACHMENT 10-7 LETTERS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ATTACHMENT 10-8 EduardoS From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr.Schenborn, Jenny &Bill ButtelWorth Oennybill6264@earthlink.net] Tuesday,April 12,2011 9:56 AM Eduardo Schon born Case No.SUB2010-00003 I am writing to you in support of the referenced case.As the adjoining neighbors we find the proposed solution a positive one for the homeowners,the neighborhood and the people who use McBride Trail. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call. sincerely, L.William Butterworth 1 ATTACHMENT 10-9 RECEIVED APR 0 p.2011 PlANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT 6304 Sattes Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.90275 April 6,20 II Joel Rojas Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,Calif.90275 Dear Mr.Rojas: Re:Case SUB2010-00003 I am opposed to the request of the referenced item.The preferred solution is to move the physical trail into the tract map trail easement.I suspect that the perceived slope problem is the result ofthe owner pushing the development (and dirt)improperly to the rear.If this solution is not adopted,the trail easement designation should remain as it exists on the Map.In no case should any hardscape be permitted in the trail easement.I assume that the City and the Conservancy did not purchase Upper Filiorum so that the owner could construct such elements on the trail easement location and thereby rid his property of the trail easement. Further,it should not be permitted to place a structure within the structure setback area. This is rather obvious. It appears that the owner is requesting rights that do not currently exist and which would be unique in that subdivision.Such "spot modifications"should not be permitted. I request that the entire amendment of the referenced case be denied. Sincerely, :r~/tWeu Thomas L.Alley ATTACHMENT 10-10 APPRAISAL OF EASEMENT INTERESTS FOR 6270 OCEAN TERRACE DRIVE ATTACHMENT 10-11 SUMMARY APPRAISAL OF EASEMENT INTERESTS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND LOCATED AT 6270 OCEAN TERRACE DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275 FOR CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AS OF JANUARY 21, 2011 BY RIGGS & RIGGS, INC. 4195 VALLEY FAIR STREET, SUITE 207 SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 93063 ATTACHMENT 10-12 RIGGS & RIGGS, INC. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants 4195 Valley Fair Street, Suite 207, Simi Valley, CA 93063 Business: (805) 578-2400 Fax: (805) 526-6097 E-mail: appraisal@riggsandriggsinc.com February 26, 2011 Ms. Carolyn Lehr, City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Our File No.: 11-032 Re: Existing Trail Easement and Proposed Restricted Use Easement Portion of: 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, CA 90275 Dear Ms. Lehr: In accordance with our contract, we have made an investigation and analysis of the market value of an existing trail easement and proposed restricted use easement, referred to as the subject properties, as of January 21, 2011. The underlying land encumbered by the existing easement (“the servient tenement”) will be referred to in this appraisal as the “larger parcel”. The intended use of the report is for negotiations between the underlying fee property owner and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to extinguish a portion of an existing trail easement and replace it with a restricted use easement, both in favor of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The existing and proposed replacement easements share the same legal description and encumber the same 2,250± square foot area of the larger parcel. A complete legal description for the subject easement areas are provided in this Summary Appraisal Report. This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), which is part of the Appraisal Institute Code of Ethics and Professional Appraisal Standards for a Summary Report. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop our opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in our files. The depth of discussion contained in this Summary Appraisal Report is specific to the needs of only the client. We recognize that the larger parcel is currently improved with a single family residence. The subject easement areas to be appraised will not impact the building improvements. Therefore, as agreed to with the Client, this report is limited to a valuation of the underlying land only, and does not include an analysis of the building improvements. This Summary Appraisal Report has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of representatives with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Law Offices of Richards, Watson & Gershon, and the underlying fee owner, the intended users, and is not intended for any other user. The Client is City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We request that our written authorization be obtained before releasing this report to any other party. Any third party who relies on this appraisal does so at their own risk. The user of this Summary Appraisal Report is directed to review the Limiting and Extraordinary Assumptions and Conditions. The Market Value opinions are strictly contingent upon the Limiting and Extraordinary Assumptions and Conditions. ATTACHMENT 10-13 Ms. Carolyn Lehr February 26, 2011 Page Two Based on our analysis, the market value of the 2,250± square foot existing trail easement, as of January 21, 2011, is: THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ........................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... .$39,000. Based on our analysis, the market value of the 2,250± square foot proposed restricted use easement, as of January 21, 2011, is: ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... .$11,000. The attached summary and exhibits provide the basic details of the property and our analysis. Additional data has been retained in our files. This Summary Appraisal Report is not based on a requested minimum or specified valuation. Further, we have not considered any personal property, fixtures, or intangible items which are part or located on the real property. This letter of transmittal, including the Limiting and Extraordinary Assumptions and Conditions and Certification on the accompanying pages, must remain attached to the report, which contains 33 pages plus related exhibits, in order for the value opinions set forth to be considered valid. We hereby certify that we have no interest, present or prospective, in the property appraised and that our opinion is in no way contingent upon the basis of our employment. Respectfully submitted, RIGGS & RIGGS, INC. Heather N. Riggs Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA SCREA AT043081 SCREA AG 005451 Expires September 18, 2011 Expires April 7, 2013 ATTACHMENT 10-14 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. i SUMMARY OF SALIENT DATA .................................................................................................................... ii ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .........................................................................................iii EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND CONDITIONS .......................................................................... v CERTIFICATION OF THE APPRAISER ....................................................................................................... vii APPRAISAL REPORT ...................................................................................................................................... 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES ........................................................................................ 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL ........................................................................................................ 1 INTENDED USE/USER OF THE APPRAISAL .................................................................................. 1 PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED ..................................................................................................... 1 DATE OF REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 1 DATE OF VALUATION ...................................................................................................................... 1 DATE OF INSPECTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 PROPERTY HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 3 REGIONAL DATA ............................................................................................................................................ 4 CITY DATA ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 NEIGHBORHOOD DATA .............................................................................................................................. 13 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 14 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ............................................................................................................................ 19 APPROACHES TO VALUE ............................................................................................................................ 22 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 23 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL OPINION OF VALUE ............................................................................ 33 ADDENDA Subject Photographs Tract Map No. 31617 Legal Description & Map for Subject Easement Areas Aerial Overlay of Subject Easement Areas Appraisal Qualifications ATTACHMENT 10-15 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject properties consist of: 1) a portion of an existing trail easement; and 2) a proposed restricted use easement, encumbering a portion of a larger parcel site located at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, and State of California, 90275. The subject trail easement consists of a 2,250± square foot portion of an existing permanent trail easement. It is approximately 15.00± feet wide by 150.00± feet long, and is located along the southern boundary of the larger parcel site. The purpose of the existing trail easement is to provide for open public access for recreational purposes, prohibiting any development and/or improvements within the easement area, with the exception of ground cover landscaping. The entire easement extends from the western side of the larger parcel site, approximately 1.0± mile to the southern side of Crest Road, just east of Highridge Road. The underlying fee owner is seeking to replace a 2,250± portion of the existing trail easement with a proposed 2,250± square foot restricted use easement. The primary purpose of the proposed restricted use easement is to provide for unobstructed views for the neighboring properties; however, it will allow the underlying fee owner to fence the easement area and utilize it as additional rear yard area. Additionally, site improvements permitted within the proposed restricted use easement area will include an in-ground pool, water feature, some hardscaping, and low level landscaping, that are not allowed in the trail easement. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 22. The larger parcel site is irregular in shape and contains a gross area of 78,408± square feet and a net area of 18,731± square feet, net of trail and restricted use easements. The larger parcel site is located at the terminus of a cul-de-sac location with access along a secondary street. Topography is moderate to steeply sloping- rolling with a level pad area located at the southeast corner. The larger parcel site is zoned RS-1, Single- Family Residential, with a Residential (1 d.u./acre) general plan designation, and is also located within the Urban and Natural Overlay Districts. As discussed, the areas to be appraised will not impact the residential structure; therefore this report is limited to a valuation of the underlying land only, and does not include an analysis of the building improvements. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption Nos. 17 and 18. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes to extinguish a portion of the existing trail, and replace it with a proposed restricted use easement. This will be transmitted in greater detail in the sections to follow. ATTACHMENT 10-16 ii SUMMARY OF SALIENT DATA MARKET VALUE OPINIONS: MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT TRAIL EASEMENT ................................................... $39,000 VALUE INDICATION BY COST APPROACH ...................................................................... N/A VALUE INDICATION BY INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH .............................. N/A VALUE INDICATION BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ................................... $39,000 MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT RESTRICTED USE EASEMENT .............................. $11,000 VALUE INDICATION BY COST APPROACH ...................................................................... N/A VALUE INDICATION BY INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH .............................. N/A VALUE INDICATION BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ................................... $11,000 SUBJECT DATA EXISTING SUBJECT TRAIL EASEMENT AREA ............................................................... 2,250± SF PROPOSED SUBJECT RESTRICTED USE EASEMENT AREA ........................................ 2,250± SF LARGER PARCEL LAND AREA .............................................. 78,408± SF GROSS/ 18,731±SF NET ZONING ............................... RS-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RANCHO PALOS VERDES GENERAL PLAN .............................. RESIDENTIAL (1 D.U./ACRE), RANCHO PALOS VERDES HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF UNDERLYING FEE AS THOUGH VACANT ........................................................................................ TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OWNER/HOLDER OF EASEMENT INTEREST .................... CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OWNER OF UNDERLYING FEE INTEREST ...................................................... FARIDA AHAMED DATE OF REPORT .............................................................................................. FEBRUARY 26, 2011 DATE OF INSPECTION ........................................................................................ JANUARY 21, 2011 DATE OF VALUE .................................................................................................. JANUARY 21, 2011 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL ............................................................................. MARKET VALUE PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED ..... RESTRICTED USE AND TRAIL EASEMENT INTERESTS ATTACHMENT 10-17 iii ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This Summary Appraisal Report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description provided or for matters pertaining to legal or title considerations. Title to the subject properties is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. 2. The subject properties are appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report. 4. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering studies are assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative materials in this report are included only to help the reader visualize the subject properties. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the subject properties, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that the subject properties are in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the appraisal report. 8. It is assumed that the subject properties conform to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless a nonconformity has been identified, described and considered in the appraisal report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the opinion of value contained in this report is based. 10. Any sketch in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the subject properties. Maps and exhibits found in this report are provided for reader reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report. No survey has been made for the purpose of this report. 11. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the subject properties described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. 12. Any allocation of the total opinion of value in this report between the land and the improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. ATTACHMENT 10-18 iv 13. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purposes by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of Riggs & Riggs, Inc., and in any event, only with properly written qualification and only in its entirety. 14. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., by reason of this summary appraisal, is not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the subject properties in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 15. Neither all nor any part of the contents of the appraisal report shall be disseminated to the public or any unauthorized third party through advertising, public relations, public meetings/hearings, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of Riggs & Riggs, Inc. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., assumes no liability for the unauthorized release of this report. 16. An inspection of the subject properties was made by Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA, and Heather N. Riggs. Mrs. Riggs and Ms. Riggs gathered all the information, reviewed the data, and prepared the analysis in the appraisal report. ATTACHMENT 10-19 v EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND CONDITIONS This Summary Appraisal Report is strictly contingent upon the following conditions affecting the subject properties. The client is urged to review these extraordinary assumptions and conditions and to obtain experts in the field as needed. 17. This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a summary appraisal report. As such, it does not include full discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop our opinion of value. Based on our understanding of the appraisal problem and conversations with the Client, the easement areas to be appraised do not appear to impact the existing residential improvements. This report is therefore limited to a valuation of the underlying land only and does not include an analysis of any of the site and building improvements, as agreed to with the client. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in our file. The information contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use as stated in this report. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report. 18. According to Tract Map No. 31617 dated December 22, 1977, APN 7581-020-017 (the servient tenement/larger parcel) contains a gross land area of 78,408± square feet, with a net area of 18,731± square feet. The larger parcel’s net area reflects a 32,971± square foot trail easement and a 26,706± square foot restricted use easement, encumbering the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the larger parcel site. The Los Angeles County Assessor’s Plat Map notes a smaller gross area for the larger parcel of 45,437± square feet, with a net area of 18,731± square feet. The gross area does not include the 32,971± square foot trail easement encumbering the larger parcel. For purposes of this appraisal, Riggs & Riggs, Inc. has utilized the 78,408± square foot gross land area as reported by Tract Map No. 31617. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., reserves the right to alter the opinion of value if provided additional information that is contrary to the tract map, subsequent to the date of this report. 19. Although requested, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., was not provided any Phase I, or II Environmental Site Assessment Reports. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous materials, which may or may not be present on the subject properties and larger parcel, was not observed during the on-site inspection. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as contaminated soil, tainted ground water or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the subject properties. The opinion of value is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the larger parcel and subject properties that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The Client is urged to retain an expert in this field and consider the impact on value, if any. We reserve the right to alter the opinion of value if said information becomes available to Riggs & Riggs, Inc. 20. Although requested, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., was not provided a soils or geologic report. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the subject properties are not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, all areas in Southern California are susceptible to intermittent earthquakes. Additionally, no portion of the larger parcel is located in the Landslide Moratorium Area. For the purpose of this appraisal, it is assumed that the soil and geologic conditions are not unfavorable for the concluded Highest and Best Use. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover any defects in the larger parcel. The ATTACHMENT 10-20 vi Client should retain experts in the field and make their own assessment of the physical condition of the larger parcel before making a decision on the subject properties. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., reserves the right to amend the opinion of value if additional information is provided subsequent to the date of this report. 21. Although requested, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., was not provided a preliminary title report for the larger parcel of the subject properties. Therefore, this Summary Appraisal Report is made on the assumption that the larger parcel is free and clear of all debt, easements, encroachments, and liens recorded against it. The user of this Summary Appraisal Report should obtain and review a preliminary title report and all underlying documents to consider the impact of any items that may have an effect on value, if any, before making a decision concerning subject properties. We reserve the right to alter our opinion of value if a title report and underlying documents are provided subsequently to Riggs & Riggs, Inc. 22. According to Mr. Eduardo Schonborn and Ms. Carol Lynch with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the underlying fee owner of APN 7581-020-017 is seeking to replace a portion an existing trail easement encumbering the larger parcel site, with a proposed 2,250± square foot restricted use easement. As instructed by the client, the primary purpose of the proposed restricted use easement is to provide for unobstructed views for the neighboring properties, permitting the underlying fee owner to fence off the easement area and utilize it as additional rear yard area. Site improvements which will be permitted within the proposed easement area will include an in-ground pool, water feature, some hardscaping, and low level landscaping. Any fencing and/or site improvements erected within the easement area must not exceed 6 feet in height. Furthermore, the additional 10 foot setback originally required by the existing trail easement will remain in place, totaling a 30 foot rear yard building setback requirement for the larger parcel site. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., has relied on said instruction and reserves the right to alter the opinion of value if this instruction is revised and/or additional information is provided subsequent to the date of this report. 23. This Summary Appraisal Report has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of representatives with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Law Offices of Richards, Watson & Gershon, and the underlying fee owner, and is not intended for any other user. We request that you seek our written authorization before releasing the report to any other party. Any third party who relies on this report does so at their own risk. 24. The liability of Riggs & Riggs, Inc., is limited to the fee paid for appraisal services. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., is not responsible for erroneous information provided by others. 25. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., is not a necessary party in any inquiry or judicial proceeding and will not be called to testify in any litigation or other proceeding arising out of their duties in this matter. If Riggs & Riggs, Inc., is compelled to incur court costs, attorney fees or other out-of-pocket expenses in connection with court proceedings, such costs or expenses together with the appraiser's usual hourly per diem of $250.00 per hour for professional services for study preparation, testimony or travel will be paid by the party (or parties) who acts to bring any suit requiring a judicial proceeding. ATTACHMENT 10-21 vii CERTIFICATION OF THE APPRAISER I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. I have no personal bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the opinion of value, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Heather N. Riggs made an inspection of the property that is the subject of this report on January 21, 2011. The date of value is January 21, 2011. No one provided professional assistance to the persons signing this assignment. As of the date of this report, Heather N. Riggs, has completed the requirements of the Continuing Education Program of the Office of Real Estate Appraisers. I certify that use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relative to review by its duly authorized representatives. Respectfully submitted, RIGGS & RIGGS, INC. Heather N. Riggs SCREA AT043081 Expires September 18, 2011 ATTACHMENT 10-22 viii CERTIFICATION OF THE APPRAISER I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. I have no personal bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the opinion of value, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA made an inspection of the property that is the subject of this report on January 21, 2011. The date of value is January 21, 2011. No one provided professional assistance to the persons signing this assignment. As of the date of this report, Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA, has completed the requirements of the Continuing Education Program of the Office of Real Estate Appraisers, the Appraisal Institute, and the International Right of Way Association. I certify that use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relative to review by its duly authorized representatives. Respectfully submitted, RIGGS & RIGGS, INC. Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA SCREA AG 005451 Expires April 7, 2013 ATTACHMENT 10-23 1 APPRAISAL REPORT IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES The subject properties consist of: 1) a portion of an existing trail easement; and 2) a proposed restricted use easement, encumbering a portion of Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Number 7581-020-017 (the larger parcel). The larger parcel has a situs address of 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, and State of California. The 2011 Los Angeles County Thomas Map reference is page 822, grid J/3. The U.S. Postal Zip Code is 90275. The U.S. Census Tract Number is 6706.00. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Although requested, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., was not provided a Preliminary Title Report for the larger parcel. A legal description of the subject easements (Exhibit “A”) is provided in the Addenda Section of this report. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to develop an opinion of the market value of: 1) a portion of an existing trail easement interest; and 2) a proposed restricted use easement interest, in a portion of the larger parcel, as of January 21, 2011. INTENDED USE/USER OF THE APPRAISAL The intended use of the report is for negotiations with the underlying fee owner to extinguish a portion of the existing trail easement and replace it with a restricted use easement in favor of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes This appraisal has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of representatives with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Law Offices of Richards, Watson & Gershon, and the underlying fee owner, and is not intended for any other user. Any third party who relies on this appraisal does so at their own risk. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The permanent trail easement interest and permanent restricted use easement interest are the property rights to be appraised. DATE OF REPORT The date of report is February 26, 2011. DATE OF VALUATION The date of value is January 21, 2011. DATE OF INSPECTION The date of inspection was January 21, 2011. ATTACHMENT 10-24 2 OWNER OF RECORD According to public record, the underlying fee title to the subject properties is vested in: FARIDA AHAMED, AS SOLE TRUSTEE IN THE SULTAN AND FARIDA AHAMED TRUST, DATED AUGUST 21, 2000 According to Tract Map No. 31617, the existing trail easement is vested in: THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DEFINITIONS Market Value: “(a) The most probable price that the specified property interest should sell for in a competitive market after a reasonable exposure time, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently knowledgeably, for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under duress.” “(b) A type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer of a property (i.e., a right of ownership or a bundle of such rights), as of a certain date, under specific conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as applicable in an appraisal.”1 Fee Simple Estate “Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”2 Easement “Nonpossessory (incorporeal) interest in landed property conveying use, but not ownership, of a portion of that property.”3 Servient Tenement “A property burdened by an easement, also known as the servient estate.”4 Dominant Tenement “A property that is served or benefitted by an easement. The opposite of servient estate, which granted the easement. Also known as the dominant tenement and the servient tenement, respectively.”5 1 Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition 2010, Appraisal Institute, Page 122. 2 Id., at, Page 78. 3 Id., at Page 246. 4 Id., at Page 179. 5 Id., at Page 60. ATTACHMENT 10-25 3 SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT The scope of this Summary Appraisal Report involved a thorough analysis of the subject properties, a 2,250± square foot portion of an existing trail easement, a 2,250± square foot proposed restricted use easement, and the legal conditions underlining each eased area. Since the subject easements dominant tenement, are only a portion of the bundle of rights to a property, an appropriate means of valuing it is to value the underlying fee land (servient tenement/larger parcel) first, then consider the rights that the easement(s) possess over that encumbered land area. In this instance, the servient tenement is the entire underlying land area, or the larger parcel, which contains 78,408± gross square feet of residential land area. The site is located at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive. Therefore, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., considered the physical, legal, and economic factors that affect the larger parcel underlying fee area in order to conclude a reasonable indicator of market value. As previously discussed, the larger parcel site is improved with a two story single family residence; however, this report does not include an analysis of the building, as agreed with the client. Please see Extraordinary Assumption No. 17. We recognize the larger parcel is currently improved with a single family residence; however, based upon our understanding of the appraisal problem and conversations with the Client, the building improvements are not/will not be impacted by the existing or proposed easement areas to be appraised. Therefore, we have appraised only the underlying fee simple land of the larger parcel. An inspection of the subject properties and larger parcel was made. A search of similar properties was undertaken with respect to the comparable land sales in developing an opinion of the Market Value for the subject’s underlying fee land using the Sales Comparison Approach to value. Various local agents and services, such as CoStar Group, Inc., MLS, and NDCdata.com, provided information concerning the land sales relative to the Sales Comparison Approach to value. Each market comparable was inspected and buyers, sellers, and/or their representatives were contacted to verify information where possible. This investigation also included discussions with city officials, as well as researching recent market trends. A conclusion was made as to the market value of the larger parcel site. Then, an analysis of the rights possessed by each subject easement area was made and applied to the concluded value indicator and subject easement areas. The result is the indicated market value of the subject trail easement and restricted use easement areas. PROPERTY HISTORY The subject property consists of a portion of an existing trail easement which was established in favor of the City of City of Rancho Palos Verdes per Tract Map No. 31617, dated December 22, 1977. The public trail easement varies in width and is situated adjacent and along the northern, western, and southern boundaries of APN 7581-020-017 (Lot #20). According to public record, the subject underlying fee interest of the larger parcel encumbered by the subject easement, is currently vested in Farida Ahamed, as sole trustee in the Sultan and Farida Ahamed Trust, dated August 21, 2000, per an Affidavit – Death of Trustee Document No. 08-1693542 recorded September 19, 2008. Farida Ahamed originally acquired the larger parcel as Sultan J. Ahamed and Farida S. Ahamed, husband and wife as joint tenants, from Thomas H. Kim and Myungia Kim, on January 12, 1999 for $950,909, per Document No. 99-0039153. Mr. and Mrs. Ahamed then quitclaimed vesting to Sultan Ahamed and Farida Ahamed, trustees of the Sultan and Farida Ahamed Trust on July 6, 2004, per Document No. 04-1716511. No transfers are known to have occurred within the last three years and the property is not available for sale. An inspection of the subject properties (existing and proposed) and larger parcel was made on January 21, 2011 by Joyce L. Riggs and Heather N. Riggs, with Riggs & Riggs, Inc., Mr. Eduardo Schonborn, Senior Planner with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and Mr. Menaz Ahamed, son of the vested property owner. ATTACHMENT 10-26 DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2009 REGIONAL MAP Data use subject to license. © DeLorme. DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2009. www.delorme.com TN MN (12.7°E) 0 3 6 9 12 15 0 4 8 12 16 20 mi km Scale 1 : 600,000 1" = 9.47 mi Data Zoom 8-4ATTACHMENT 10-27 4 REGIONAL DATA The subject properties and larger parcel area are located within the County of Los Angeles. The following is a discussion of the environmental, governmental, social, and economic forces affecting the stability of the real estate market and the larger parcel. This section of the report will analyze the effect that these forces have on the economic bases of the state, county, and subject's trade area, relative to the larger parcel. California had a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approximately $1.8 trillion in 2008 and would rank 8th as a separate nation, ahead of Spain, Canada, Brazil and Russia. The Los-Angeles 5-County Metropolitan Area accounted for approximately $860 billion and would rank 17th as a separate nation, ahead of Turkey, Poland, and Belgium. Clearly, the region is a major economic center of development. The State experienced a period of economic growth between 1995 and 2001, during which time the state underwent a transition from a predominantly aerospace and defense industry reliant economy to a diversified economy with the expansion of radio, television and film industries, a rise in the professional and service sectors and an increase in trade and manufacturing resulting from its position as an entry point for Pacific Rim goods. The state slipped back into recession in late 2001, emerging in late 2003 and 2004 due to higher spending by the Department of Defense and other governmental agencies leading to modest job gains. The state experienced modest growth between 2005 and 2006. California is currently in the midst of a deep recession that started with weakness in housing and mortgage finance in 2007 and 2008, and subsequently spread to the rest of the economy. The situation has been exacerbated by soaring energy prices, which have caused further problems for businesses and consumers. A number of prominent retail chains have shrunk or disappeared altogether, and auto dealerships have suffered from the combined impact of high fuel prices and the credit crunch. State and local government revenues have fallen, and unemployment has risen across the State, with the majority of job losses in the manufacturing, retail trade, and construction sectors. Conditions are expected to stabilize in 2010, with recovery anticipated in 2011. Preliminary estimates indicate that California experienced an annual unemployment rate of 12.4% in 2010. The current unemployment rate in the state as of December 2010 is 12.5%. Personal income dropped by 2.9% in 2009 in the first annual decline since 1938, although it is expected to increase by 1.3%. Although California has no official state consumer price index (CPI), the Greater Los Angeles Market CPI rose by 1.3% in 2010 according to preliminary estimates. Taxable Retail sales experienced an estimated decline of 16.0% in 2009, but are forecast to increase by 3.3% in 2010. New home construction is expected to increase by 24.0% in 2010, while non-residential construction is expected to decline by 12.4%. Overall, California's economy is expected to stabilize in 2011, with more substantial recovery predicted for 2012. Location and Physical Factors The subject is located within the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Area (LAMA). The LAMA contains five counties: Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino. San Diego County is not considered part of the LAMA, but is located within Southern California. ATTACHMENT 10-28 5 Los Angeles County contains 4,084 square miles, and is the largest county in the state in terms of population. The County is comprised of 88 cities and unincorporated areas. Los Angeles County is located in the southwestern part of California and borders the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. It is bounded by the following regions: On the North ..................................................................................................... Kern County On the South ................................................................................................. Orange County On the East ....................................................................................... San Bernardino County On the West ................................................................................................. Ventura County The terrain of the County varies from a broad coastal plain, known as the Los Angeles basin, to mountain ranges separated by interior valleys. Major mountain ranges include the San Gabriel Mountains, Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susana Mountains, and Puente Hills. The interior valleys include the San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pomona Valley, and Antelope Valley. There are several minor fault lines located in Los Angeles, which connect to California’s major fault line, the San Andreas Fault. Los Angeles County experiences a Mediterranean-like climate, sunny and warm, with a mean annual temperature of 61.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Due to the mild climate, Los Angeles County has lower heating and air conditioning costs than most cities in the United States. The mean annual rainfall is 12.9 inches, and its mean annual humidity is 65%. A favorable climate has contributed greatly to the growth of the region. However, during the past several decades, the area has experienced increased air pollution due to smog. Governmental agencies at the state and local levels, through zoning and transportation regulations, have had moderate success in reducing this hazard. Sociological Factors According to U.S. Census 2000, Los Angeles County has a population of about 10 million people. The County accounts for almost 30% of the California population. The population has grown at a steady pace and has increased over 13% since 1990. Foreign immigration and natural births added 50% to the region’s growth over the past decade. However, population growth is expected to continue at a slower pace in the future. The chart below reflects the age distribution of Los Angeles County. AGE DISTRIBUTION (U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 2000 STATISTICS) According to the U.S. Census 2000, Los Angeles County residents are predominantly between the ages of 25- 34 years old (16.6%). Los Angeles County has over 3.2 million housing units and an average household of 2.87 persons. There are many social and cultural facilities that enhance the desirability of the County. Recreational amenities include beaches and harbors along the Pacific Ocean, marinas, golf courses, parks, theaters, and entertainment centers. Cultural facilities include numerous colleges and universities, libraries, and museums. 7.7% 8.4% 7.6% 7.2% 7.4% 16.6% 15.9% 12.1% 7.3% 5.2%4.6% Under5Years 5to9Years 10to14Years 15to19Years 20to24Years 25to34Years 35to44Years 45to54Years 55to64Years 65to74Years 75YearsandOver ATTACHMENT 10-29 6 Health care facilities, including hospitals and acute-care nursing homes, are well-represented in the County. Some points of interest within the County are: Los Angeles Civic Center, Chinatown, Dodger Stadium, Aquarium of the Pacific, J. Paul Getty Museum, Huntington Library, Griffith Park, Greek Theatre, Hollywood Bowl, Hollywood Park, Santa Anita Racetrack, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, Hollywood Walk of Fame, La Brea Tar Pits, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles Zoo, Los Angeles County Music Center, Norton Simon Museum, Queen Mary, Rose Bowl, Six Flags Magic Mountain, and Universal Studios. These points of interest attract local residents and are also visited by millions of tourists worldwide. Some new and major projects under construction in Los Angeles County include the 1.4 billion dollar Alameda Corridor East Project, Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Expansion, MetroRail line extensions, the expansion of Los Angeles International Airport, the Grand Avenue Project in downtown Los Angeles, and “L.A. Live,” a retail/entertainment/hotel complex in downtown Los Angeles. Recently completed projects include the Walt Disney Concert Hall, a 2,265 seat auditorium located on a 3.6 acre site and home to the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, and the Hollywood-Highland Project, an entertainment and retail center with a 3,300-seat broadcast auditorium home to the Academy Awards. Economic Factors Los Angeles County is a major economic center for the city, state, and national level. According to the 2010- 2011 Economic Forecast & Industry Outlook, Los Angeles County’s GDP would be $513.6 billion, which would rank 18th in the world if it were a separate nation. Los Angeles County has a very diverse economic base, as indicated in the following table. 2009 NONFARM EMPLOYMENT IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY (LOS ANGELES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2008 BENCHMARK) The economy is diverse with no single sector dominating the market. Education, health services, information, and professional business services are expected to add jobs in 2010, while retail, manufacturing, construction, and government are expected to lose jobs. 0.11% 3.2% 10.2% 5.5% 10.2%3.9%5.1% 5.7% 13.1% 6.2% 1.4% 10.2% 9.8% 15.3% NaturalResources Construction Manufacturing WholesaleTrade RetailTrade Transport&Utilities Information Finance/Insurance/RealEstate Services Admin&Support ManagementofCompanies&Enterprises HealthCare&SocialAssistance Leisure&Hospitality Government ATTACHMENT 10-30 7 The excellent public and private services offered in Los Angeles County are major industries in their own right. A vast network of hospitals and health care facilities, educational institutions, entertainment productions, and sporting events are major building blocks that demonstrate the growth of Los Angeles County. According to the California Department of Education, Los Angeles County has over 1,900 public schools, with over 1.6 million students enrolled at the elementary and secondary levels. The County has a number of local programs to successfully integrate students into the workplace and enhance teacher skills. The area will continue to progress with its vast pool of skilled and unskilled workers and economic activity. Business, cultural, and geographic diversification of Los Angeles County will play a prominent role in the local, regional, and national economies. The per capita income for Los Angeles County is expected to be $38,178 in 2010, below the state average per capita income of $40,675. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 statistics, Los Angeles County has a median household income of $40,929 and an average household size of 2.87 persons. Approximately 18% of the income earned is between $50,000 and $74,999. The following chart illustrates household income in Los Angeles County. HOUSEHOLD INCOME (U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 2000 STATISTICS) According to DataQuick News, Los Angeles County has the third highest housing cost in Southern California, while neighboring Orange County has the highest cost. The median Los Angeles County home price was $320,000 as of January 2010, down from $300,000 in January 2009. The chart below shows the median housing selling prices in Southern California as reported by DataQuick News in January 2010. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIAL HOUSING SELLING PRICE (DATAQUICK NEWS JANUARY 2010) 10.5% 6.5% 12.7% 12.2% 15.1% 17.8% 10.2% 8.8% 6.3% Under$10,000 $10,000$14,999 $15,000$24,999 $25,000$34,999 $35,000$49,999 $50,000$74,999 $75,000$99,999 $100,000$149,999 $150,000andOver $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 MedianHomePrices LosAngeles Orange Riverside SanBernardino SanDiego Ventura ATTACHMENT 10-31 8 During the past decade, Los Angeles County’s economy underwent major job restructuring due to the national recession of the 1990s. As presented below, the economy experienced generally increasing job growth between 1996 and 1998, and generally decreasing growth between 1999 and 2001. It slipped into recession in 2002 and 2003, before returning to generally increasing growth between 2004 and 2006. The rate of job growth decreased in 2007, and was nearly flat in 2008. Current forecasts anticipate a loss of 0.5%, or 20,000 jobs, in 2010. California had an unemployment rate, not seasonally adjusted, of 13.2% as of January 2010, up from 10.3% in January 2009. Los Angeles County had an unemployment rate, not seasonally adjusted, of 13.2% as of January 2010, up from 10.6% in January 2009. LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TREND (LAEDC 2010-2011 ECONOMIC FORECAST AND INDUSTRY OUTLOOK) Historically, Los Angeles County has been the second largest business and post-industrial economic center in the United States, due to its diversity of people, cultures, scenery, climate, and physical environment. It has been a highly influential force in the Western United States and the Pacific Rim. Los Angeles County accounts for one-third of California’s total economy and is the nation’s leading manufacturing and aerospace center. Although the manufacturing, trade, and service sectors are predominant, the County is a major center for economically resilient industries such as telecommunication, motion pictures, computer and communications equipment, medical laboratories, television, and business services. In summary, Los Angeles County is expected to experience a gradual economic improvement throughout 2010 and 2011, after recessionary conditions throughout 2009. Personal income, taxable retail sales, and nonfarm employment are all expected to increase after the steep decline from the previous year. According to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation 2010-2011 Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook, some of the factors contributing to stabilizing conditions in Los Angeles County in 2010 include: Improvement in international trade and tourism; Increased construction from the federal government’s infrastructure program; Stabilizing retail sales; Continued decline in the nonresidential real estate sector with rising vacancies, declining lease rates and decreasing property values; Decreased construction of apartments and condominiums; Continued decline in manufacturing employment due to problems in construction and housing; and Financial problems for local governments. 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009(p)2010(f) ATTACHMENT 10-32 9 Transportation Factors Regional transportation in Los Angeles County includes highways, air, rail, and other means of travel. The heart of the County’s vast transportation system is its advanced highway system. This mass transit system, consisting of hundreds of miles of highways and freeways, connects Los Angeles County to the rest of California and the United States. The freeway system that serves Los Angeles County includes, but is not limited to, U.S. Interstate 5, U.S. Interstate 10, U.S. Interstate 405, and Highway 101. Los Angeles County has the largest freeway system in the world and allows commuters to travel in any direction within the County. Los Angeles County is situated near several major airports with relatively short driving distances. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is the primary international airport that services the region. It is the 3rd largest airport in the world and the key facility in Southern California airport network. Fueled by the growing volume of LAX activity, intensive development of commercial land is noticeable in the airport area. Bob Hope Airport (BUR) does not offer international service, but provides commuter air service to major national cities. This airport caters to 4.9 million travelers per year on six major carriers, with more than 70 flights daily. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Area has three other metropolitan airports to serve the region: John Wayne Airport (SNA), Ontario International Airport (ONT), and Long Beach Airport. This network of airports serves as a travel medium for residents and an economic portal for businesses. Los Angeles County provides both public and commercial rail use. MetroRail commuter rail lines provide linkage to neighboring counties and are quickly becoming an alternate source of transportation. Long Beach and Los Angeles County Harbors are found in the heart of Los Angeles County. They are the second and third largest economic ports in the nation, respectively. They contain 9.2 square miles and as one entity rank as the 2nd largest economic port in terms of dollar value of exports and imports. Together, L.A. and Long Beach Harbors handle more than half of the United States Pacific Coast tonnage. This vast maritime center is an economic stimulus to the region, generating nearly 300,000 jobs and billions of dollars in annual revenue. Port Hueneme and San Diego Harbor are found west and south of Los Angeles County, respectively. National and international businesses use these ports as their gateway for trade with North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Technological advancements in transportation and innovative changes in the workplace will continue to improve, including flexible work schedules, child care facilities for employees, and telecommunications systems for employees to work at home. Since 1975, air quality control programs have evidenced a 35 percent decline in emissions of reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides. Carbon monoxides emissions have dropped by 45 percent during the last decade; smog alerts have declined 60 percent. With modern technology, transportation and air quality should continue to improve. Governmental Factors Los Angeles County consists of incorporated and unincorporated cities. The unincorporated portions of the County are governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors elected to four-year terms. The County provides key municipal services, such as fire and police protection, to many of its unincorporated cities. The larger incorporated cities provide their own municipal services. Los Angeles has an elected mayor who leads the administrative branch of the government. The legislative branch, represented by 15 City Council members, is elected by voters to 4-year terms to administrate over the City and its services. Additionally, the State of California provides many services for residents through their employment services, state parks, regulatory agencies, and state highway system. The services provided by the City, County, and State agencies have been adequate, despite budget cuts resulting from the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and past recession. Given the continued stability of local government, along with adequate revenues, these municipal services are expected to continue. ATTACHMENT 10-33 10 Future Outlook The area’s extraordinary expansion has created important challenges to its future growth (i.e., affordable housing, clean air, adequate water supply, and traffic congestion). Los Angeles County is a freeway county with many centers of economic activity. Distance is measured in terms of driving time, not miles. As traffic congestion increases, freeway and light rail access have become critical considerations for Los Angeles County and its commuters. Despite the challenges that Los Angeles County faces, the region is expected to retain its premier position in the world for decades to come. This is supported by its strategic location, role among trading nations of the Pacific Rim and South America, vast transportation network, vital marketplace, skilled workforce, and climate. The region is expected to stabilize in 2011, after experiencing recessionary conditions in the late 2000s; however, many of the County’s major industries will continue to struggle throughout the year. [The following articles and sources have been used in development of the Regional Analysis: “2010-2011 Economic Forecast & Industry Outlook,” Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation; various articles from the Los Angeles Times; 1994-2010 Labor Market Information, California Employment Development Department; www.factfinder.census.gov, U.S. Census Bureau website; www.bls.gov/lau, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics website; lacounty.info, Los Angeles County website; www.dqnews.com, DataQuick News website] ATTACHMENT 10-34 De L o r m e S t r e e t A t l a s U S A ® 2 0 0 9 AR E A M A P Da t a u s e s u b j e c t t o l i c e n s e . © D e L o r m e . D e L o r m e S t r e e t A t l a s U S A ® 2 0 0 9 . ww w . d e l o r m e . c o m TN MN ( 1 2 . 6 ° E ) 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 0 1 2 3 mi km Sc a l e 1 : 7 5 , 0 0 0 1" = 1 . 1 8 m i D a t a Z o o m 1 1 - 4 ATTACHMENT 10-35 11 CITY DATA The subject properties and larger parcel are located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. More specifically, the larger parcel is located in the southern portion of Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County. Rancho Palos Verdes is approximately 25 miles south of Downtown Los Angeles and is bounded by the following surrounding cities and unincorporated areas: On the East ................................................................................................. Los Angeles On the West .............................................................................................. Pacific Ocean On the South ............................................................................................. Pacific Ocean On the North ................................................ Rolling Hills Estates/Palos Verdes Estates The Palos Verdes Peninsula consists of four incorporated cities - Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates, along with two small areas of unincorporated territory of Los Angeles County. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes operates with a City Manager/City Council form of government. The picturesque Palos Verdes Peninsula was established in 1834 by Jose Dolores Sepulveda who later named the area Rancho De Los Palos Verdes. The character of the development has resulted in preserving the residential setting, limiting commercial uses to isolated areas and disallowing industrial development entirely. The four cities which make up the Palos Verdes Peninsula were incorporated as follows: Palos Verdes Estates - 1940; Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates - 1957; and Rancho Palos Verdes - 1973. According to the Department of Finance Website, Rancho Palos Verdes, as of January 1, 2010, has a population of 42,893, which is up about 0.6% over the January 1, 2009 population of 42,642, and is the largest of the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The City includes a significant portion of the Peninsula along the southern, eastern and western edges, and a major portion of the central section. Although Rancho Palos Verdes covers an area of only 13.5 square miles, it features 7.5 miles of striking coastline including peaceful coves and steep ocean cliffs. Some light agricultural activity still takes place on portions of the south coastal area. Properties range from slightly upscale single family homes, condominiums and townhouses to multimillion dollar mansions. Some homes off Palos Verdes Drive East are zoned for horses, and the east side of the City enjoys good access to the city and harbor of Long Beach and the Harbor (110) Freeway. Also located within the City are two golf courses, and the beautiful campus of Marymount College. Overall, since incorporation, growth has been controlled by the City and peninsula residents. Rancho Palos Verdes is mostly residential and serves as a “upscale bedroom community” to the job centers located to the north and east. As of the 2000 census, Los Angeles County median household income was $42,189, and the Rancho Palos Verdes median household income was $95,503, or more than double the County figures. According to DQNews, and based on 20 transfers, the median sale price of single family homes was $828,000 in January 2011, which was 1.4% less than in January 2010. Employment within Rancho Palos Verdes is diversified, as most upscale communities are, with all sectors represented. Preliminary figures for December 2010, State of California, Employment Development Department - the labor force was estimated at 21,000, with 900 unemployed. As such, the unemployment rate of 4.4 percent is significantly below the Los Angeles County unemployment rate of 12.7 percent. According to the Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce, the chamber for the four Palos Verdes Peninsula cities, Marymount College, with 200 employees, is the major employer. Most of the City employers are small employers with staffs of 5- to-10 employees, providing local services and sales. No industrial uses are permitted on the peninsula. There is adequate local shopping, and regional malls are located off the Peninsula in nearby Torrance and Long Beach. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District provides 12 elementary, and 6 middle and high schools, in addition to Marymount College. ATTACHMENT 10-36 12 Major north-south arterials are Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards, and Palos Verdes Drive, north, south, east and west and almost encircles the peninsula, and all connect with either the San Diego (405) Freeway or the Harbor (110) Freeway which provide access in all directions to the major cities of California and beyond. Los Angeles International is approximately 15 miles away. Regional rail service is provided by Metrolink via its station in Long Beach, and bus service is provided by the Metropolitan Transit Agency. In conclusion, the subject properties are located in a well-established community. Its proximity to regional transportation, which includes major freeways, airports, rail service, and public transportation, is considered average. New construction will be controlled, both commercial and residential, due to the topography, preservation of sensitive biological habitat, and the overall slow growth attitude of city administration and peninsula residents. The continued and future acceptance of the Rancho Palos Verdes area appears good, once the national and local economy improve. ATTACHMENT 10-37 De L o r m e S t r e e t A t l a s U S A ® 2 0 0 9 NE I G H B O R H O O D M A P Da t a u s e s u b j e c t t o l i c e n s e . © D e L o r m e . D e L o r m e S t r e e t A t l a s U S A ® 2 0 0 9 . ww w . d e l o r m e . c o m TN MN ( 1 2 . 6 ° E ) 0 80 0 16 0 0 24 0 0 32 0 0 40 0 0 0 20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 10 0 0 ft m Sc a l e 1 : 2 8 , 1 2 5 1" = 2 , 3 4 3 . 8 f t D a t a Z o o m 1 2 - 7 ATTACHMENT 10-38 13 NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject properties and larger parcel are located in the southern portion of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The neighborhood is bounded by Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard on the north, the western boundary of the City of Rolling Hills on the east, Palos Verdes Drive South on the south, and Hawthorne Boulevard on the west. The subject larger parcel is located outside of the former “Landslide Moratorium Area”. The subject neighborhood uses consists primarily of open space and protected land, with low density residential land, Overlay Control Districts, and sensitive biological habitat. There are limited agricultural, recreational and equestrian uses. Residential and commercial uses are located proximate to the larger parcel, and to the east, west and north of the subject’s neighborhood. Overall, the subjects’ neighborhood land uses are as follows: commercial 5±%, public and recreational 20±%, residential 40±%, and open space 35±%, and no industrial uses. Much of the neighborhood has steep topography, which constrains development. The closest freeway access to the east is the Harbor (110) Freeway approximately 5½ miles, and the San Diego (405) Freeway to the northeast approximately 8± miles. The Pacific Ocean is located to the south and west. The larger parcel is located in proximity to residential subdivisions, major thoroughfares, and regional transportation systems. These transportation systems provide linkage to rail, airport, and shipping facilities as previously discussed. Community facilities including libraries, parks, golf courses, schools, and hospitals are also located nearby. Noteworthy attractions located nearby include Trump National Golf Club, Abalone Cove Shoreline Park & Ecological Reserve, and the Wayfarer’s Chapel. In conclusion, the subjects’ neighborhood growth has been and will continue to be controlled by the City and peninsula residents. This affluent neighborhood is somewhat insulated from the economic woes that plague the rest of the state and nation. As such, the neighborhood is in a stable stage of development. The future acceptance of the subject properties and larger parcel appears to be good, once the economy improves. ATTACHMENT 10-39 ~o 2000- ---s:: , ..•-/i$;..--~l\~-~g 8 '-@ (')'-l\,8 g,, ,=< "_.•_... ....."""l~, ~.."'-4_. •~ ATTACHMENT 10-40 14 SITE DESCRIPTION Location The subject properties to be appraised consist of a 2,250± square foot (15’ x 15’) portion of an existing trail easement, and a proposed replacement restricted use easement encumbering the southern boundary of a larger parcel site located at 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, and State of California,90275. The site is also identified as a portion of Los Angeles Tax Assessor’s Parcel Number 7581-020-017. The following will provide a site description of the larger parcel site for analysis purposes. Size and Shape The larger parcel site is irregular in shape and contains a gross area of 78,408± square feet, with a net area of 18,731± square feet. The larger parcel site’s net area reflects a 32,971± square foot trail easement and a 26,706± square foot restricted use easement encumbering the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the larger parcel site. (Please refer to the Assessor’s plat map on the accompanying page, and Tract Map No. 31617 provided in the Addenda section to this report.) Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 18. Topography/Drainage The topography of the larger parcel site is moderate to steeply sloping-rolling with a level pad area located at the southeast corner. The larger parcel site is situated along the eastern edge of a steep ravine and blue line stream, with an elevation change of approximately 60± feet between the eastern and western boundaries. The topography of the larger parcel provides excellent views of the coastline, Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island and surrounding area. Drainage is currently accomplished by natural runoff through the numerous watercourses and storm drains are located along Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive South. Flood Zone Per FIRM Panel No. 06037c1920F, dated September 26, 2008, the larger parcel site is located in Zone D. Zone D is an area where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards as no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. Flood hazard insurance is available but is not required by federal regulations. Nuisances and Hazards Although requested, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., was not provided with a copy of a Phase I or Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report pertaining to the larger parcel site. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of any potentially hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the larger parcel site, was not observed during our inspection. Riggs & Riggs, Inc., however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as contaminated soil, tainted groundwater, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the larger parcel site. The opinion of value is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the larger parcel site that would cause a loss in value. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 19. Soils and Geology Although requested, Riggs & Riggs, Inc. was not provided a soils and geological report of the larger parcel site. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the larger parcel site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Palos Verdes Fault traverses the Palos Verdes Peninsula on a west to east direction; however, this fault is considered a Type B active fault and is not listed as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. Additionally, the larger parcel site is located outside of the Landslide Moratorium Area. ATTACHMENT 10-41 15 For the purposes of this appraisal, it is assumed that the geologic conditions are not unfavorable, unless otherwise noted in this report. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 20. Environmental The larger parcel site is not located within the State’s Natural Communities Conservation Planning (“NCCP”) area; however, the site is located along the northern boundary of the Upper Filiorum of the NCCP. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, undifferentiated and artemisia dominated vegetation may be present on the larger parcel site; however, these species are not classified as endangered nor a sensitive native habitat, and should not impact the development potential of the site. Utilities Customary public utility services are located to the larger parcel site along Ocean Terrace Drive. Utility services in the neighborhood are provided by the following companies: Gas ......................................................................................................... The Gas Company Water ........................................................................... California Water Service Company Electric ..................................................................... Southern California Edison Company Telephone ...................................................................................................... SBC/Verizon Sewer .............................................. City of Rancho Palos Verdes/County of Los Angeles Offsite improvements include asphaltic streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in the vicinity of the larger parcel site, and along Ocean Terrace Drive. Visibility and Accessibility The larger parcel site consists of a cul-de-sac location with access provided via 1 curb cut along the western side of the Ocean Terrace Drive terminus. The larger parcel site has 86.48± feet of gross frontage along Ocean Terrace Drive; however, approximately 50± feet of the overall street is encumbered with and utilized as a public trail easement. Additionally, an estimated 50% of the remainder 36.48± feet of frontage is encumbered with a restricted use easement. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 18. Ocean Terrace Drive is a paved secondary street varying in width, with one lane traveling northeast to southwest in each direction. The nearest access to the Harbor (110) Freeway is at North Gaffey Street 5.5± miles to the east. The nearest access to the San Diego (405) Freeway is at Crenshaw Boulevard 8.3± miles to the northeast. Traffic was noted to be light along Ocean Terrace Drive at the time of inspection, which was conducted during normal business hours. Overall, the larger parcel site has average visibility and accessibility. Zoning The larger parcel site is governed by the Zoning and General Plan enforced by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The larger parcel site is designated as RS-1, Single-Family Residential, and is also located within the Urban and Natural Overlay Districts. RS-1 is a single family residential zone designation, which provides individual homes on separate lots, each for the occupancy of one family, or one dwelling unit per acre. ATTACHMENT 10-42 16 Development standards for the RS-1 zone are provided below: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RS-1 Site Conditions Required by City Minimum Lot Size 43,560 square feet, or 1.0 acre Minimum Lot Width 100 feet Minimum Lot Depth 150 feet Open Space Requirement 75% of lot area Parking 2 enclosed spaces for dwellings 5,000 square feet 3 enclosed spaces for dwelling 5,000 square feet Setbacks* Front Side Rear 20 feet 10 feet minimum for one side (20 feet if abutting street), and 25 feet combined 30 feet (20 feet plus additional 10 feet from existing trail easement boundary) * It should be noted that there are increased setback requirements for buildings over 16 feet in height. There are three Overlay Control Districts in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: the Natural, the Socio/Cultural, and the Urban District. Only the Natural and Urban Districts impact the larger parcel site. OC-1, is the Natural Overly Control District, and was established to: 1) Maintain and enhance land and water area necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation, and 2) Enhance watershed management, control storm drainage and erosion, and control the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies within the City. OC-3, is the Urban Overly Control District, and was established to: 1) Preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas, structures and other improvements which are of significant value because of their recreational, aesthetic and scenic qualities, as defined in the visual aspects portion of the General Plan and corridors element of the Coastal Specific Plan; 2) Preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands and waters within the City which characterize the City’s appearance as defined in the visual aspects portion of the General Plan and the corridors element of the Coastal Specific Plan; 3) Insure that site planning, grading and landscaping techniques, as well as improvement planning, design and construction will preserve, protect and enhance the visual character of the City’s predominate land forms, urban form, vegetation and other distinctive features, as identified in the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan; and 4) Preserve, protect and maintain significant views of and from slope areas within the community which characterize the City’s dominant land form appearance. Overlay District requirements impact a potential construction project to the extent that the planned construction must meet the requirements for wildlife preservation, watershed management and quality, storm drains, and preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas. If there are issues involving the requirements of the applicable Overlay Districts, then these issues must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City, in site planning, grading, and landscaping of the project. Given that the larger parcel is a single lot with an existing residential tract, these additional provisions may not be applicable. ATTACHMENT 10-43 17 General Plan The larger parcel site’s General Plan designation is Residential (1 d.u./acre). The General Plan designation and two Overlay Districts are similar to the zoning designation. Thus, the RS-1 zoning designation is in conformance with the General Plan. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is currently in the process of updating the General Plan, although the larger parcel site is not likely to be impacted according to Senior Planner Mr. Eduardo Schonborn. Encumbrances Although requested, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., was not provided a preliminary title report for the larger parcel site. The larger parcel site is encumbered with a 32,971± square foot trail easement and a 26,706± square foot restricted use easement, per Tract Map No. 31617, dated December 22, 1977. The purpose of the trail easement is to provide for open public access for recreational purposes. The trail easement varies in width and extends along the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the larger parcel site. The restricted use easement is irregular in shape, and is situated adjacent to the trail easement, encumbering approximately 1/3 of the northern, western, and central portions of the site. The area cannot be improved with any structures or site improvements, including fencing. The purpose of the restricted use easement is for storm drain purposes, as well as ingress/egress. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, any development and/or improvements within the easement areas are prohibited, with the exception of ground cover landscaping. It should also be noted that an additional 10 foot setback is required from the trail easement boundary, totaling a 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the larger parcel site. As a survey or title report were not provided, Riggs & Riggs, Inc., makes no legal opinion nor expresses any warranty about the property rights, lines, encroachments, or easements affecting the larger parcel site. Further, this appraisal has been prepared assuming the larger parcel site is free and clear of any liens or debt recorded against it. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 21. Site Utility The larger parcel site is irregularly-shaped with a cul-de-sac location along a secondary street. Topography is moderate to steeply sloping-rolling with a level pad area located at the southeast corner. The larger parcel site is situated along the eastern edge of a steep ravine and blue line stream, with an elevation change of approximately 60± feet between the eastern and western boundaries. Visibility and accessibility are considered average, and all utilities are available to the site. The site is legally conforming to current zoning requirements. However, no improvements can be erected in the trail nor restricted use easement areas. Building improvements may be made only on the 18,731± net square feet that are not encumbered by the easements. There are no other apparent on/off site conditions that detrimentally impact the site’s use, except as previously discussed. Thus, it is our opinion that the site utility is considered fair overall. Real Estate Assessment Data The larger parcel site is identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Number 7581-020-017. The Tax Rate Area is 12631. The 2010-2011 tax rate is 1.073222 percent per $100 of assessed value. Real estate taxes are limited from 1.00 to 1.25 percent of the market value of the property, as of a specified base year. The base year valuation is the 1975 Assessor's market value estimate, the market value indicated by a sale, the market value based upon a new valuation, or a reappraisal of the property brought about by new construction. A maximum 2 percent per year increase in the assessed values assigned to the land and improvements is allowed to compensate for inflation if there is no sale or new construction. ATTACHMENT 10-44 18 Assessed values and real estate taxes due for 2010-2011 are shown on below: SUBJECT TAX ASSESSMENT APN Assessed Values General Taxes Special Assessments Total Taxes Due Land Imp. Exemptions Total 7581-020-017 $1,153,790 $1,084,472 ($7,000) $2,231,262 $23,946 $1,317.63 $25,264 We have estimated real estate taxes based on the Market Value of $1,500,000, at the tax rate of 1.073222 percent. Therefore, the Market Value real estate taxes are estimated at $17,416, rounded, inclusive of special assessments. Improvements The larger parcel site is improved with a 2-story single-family residence. The existing subject trail easement area and proposed restricted use areas are essentially vacant land, with temporary chain-link fencing. However, as discussed previously, our valuation of the subject properties and larger parcel site involves only the underlying fee land. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 17. ATTACHMENT 10-45 19 HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is defined on Page 277 of The Appraisal of Real Estate, Appraisal Institute (13th Edition, 2008), as: “The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in the highest value.” The concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based. In the context of the market value definition used in this report, other appropriate terms can also reflect the highest and best use concept. These are the most probable and most profitable use for the site, first "as if vacant" and then "as improved or proposed." The determination of highest and best use is based not only on an analysis of the property in question, but also on an analysis of the overall community, its history and trends, zoning, market conditions, as well as the basic principles of land utilization. As indicated in the definition above, there are four elements in highest and best use analysis that must be considered. The highest and best use of a property is that use, among alternate uses, that is legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. The following factors must be considered as follows: Legal Use: The use in question must be legally permissible. Physical Use: The use in question must be physically possible. Feasible Use: The use in question must be economically feasible, not speculative or conjecture. Productive Use: Among the feasible uses, that use which will produce the highest net return to the land. Factors controlling highest and best use include: Type of use; Duration of use; Location of use; and Degree of intensity of use-density. The highest use of land is dictated by zoning and other government and/or private restrictions. The best use is constituted by that single use from the possible alternative types of improvements which will produce the greatest economic advantage. The following are our conclusions of Highest and Best Use As-Vacant of the larger parcel: ATTACHMENT 10-46 20 As-Vacant The Highest and Best Use of the subject as vacant assumes that the property is vacant or could be rendered vacant by demolishing the existing improvements. Since the subject properties are a portion of an existing trail easement, they only reflect legal rights over encumbered land. Thus, the following analysis considers the highest and best use of the larger parcel impacted by the subject easement areas. Based on that assumption, possible uses for the property can be considered among those uses which are legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. Legal – The larger parcel site’s is zoned RS-1, with a corresponding General Plan designation of Residential (1 d.u./acre), and is also located within the Urban and Natural Overlay Districts. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the General Plan and zoning designations are consistent and compatible. The RS-1, designation allows single family residential uses, permitting one dwelling per acre. Development standards include a 1 acre minimum lot area, minimum lot width of 100 feet and a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. Required setbacks are 20 feet for front and rear yards, 25 feet combined for side yards, with increased setback requirements for buildings over 16 feet in height. The overlay districts further restrict uses and development and preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas, structures and other improvements which are of significant value because of their recreational, aesthetic and scenic qualities. The larger parcel site is encumbered with a 32,971± square foot trail easement and a 26,706± square foot restricted use easement situated along the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the site. These easements do not permit any buildings within the encumbered areas. It should also be noted that an additional 10 foot setback is required from the trail easement boundary, totaling a 30 foot rear yard building setback requirement for the larger parcel site. These are the legal uses of the site. Physical - After identifying the legal uses of the site, the physical uses of a vacant site are considered. Development constraints imposed on a site vary by its configuration, size, and topography, which are fixed in location. The larger parcel site is irregularly shaped, with topography that is moderate to steeply sloping- rolling with a level pad area located at the southeast corner. The larger parcel site has average visibility and accessibility, with an adequate frontage-to-depth ratio, and a cul-de-sac location along a secondary street. The larger parcel site has a gross land area 78,408± square feet, with a net developable area of 18,731± square feet. Taking these physical and legal factors into consideration, the larger parcel site has fair site utility and appears to be legally and physically suited for a single family residence consistent with zoning. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 18. Economic - The best use is considered to be that single use from among all the physically possible uses legally-permitted by zoning which will produce the greatest economic advantage to a vacant site. This is due to the fact that real estate is fixed in location and return on land arises from the residual income remaining after all operational and financial expenses are deducted from the gross income. Surrounding land uses are mixed: open space, single family residences, recreational both passive and active, golf courses, Marymount College, and commercial. No industrial uses are allowed on the peninsula. Market conditions for residential land had declined since approximately January 2008. However, since the beginning of 2010 appear to be stable-to-slightly increasing, with continued low market demand due to the lack of or limited available financing. There were however, a few new construction projects for single-family residential development evident in the neighborhood. Based on a cursory review of the legal restrictions and physical constraints, it is our opinion that it is currently economically feasible to develop a residential use on the site. The maximally productive use is considered to be that single use from among all the legally permissible and physically possible uses that will produce the greatest economic advantage to a vacant site. After review of the physical, legal, and economic factors mentioned relative to the larger parcel site, it is our opinion that the highest and best use of the site is to develop with a single-family residence consistent with zoning designation, if financing can be obtained. ATTACHMENT 10-47 21 As-Improved As previously stated, an analysis of the Highest and Best Use As-Improved is not necessary because our valuation of the subject properties and larger parcel is limited to only the underlying land. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 17. ATTACHMENT 10-48 22 APPROACHES TO VALUE The valuation of any parcel of real estate is derived principally through the three basic approaches to market value: the Cost Approach; the Income Capitalization Approach; and the Sales Comparison Approach. The methodology used in the following sections of the appraisal include: Cost Approach - This approach to value is devoted to an analysis of the physical value of the property; that is, the current market value of the vacant land, to which is added the cost to construct the improvements. Any accrued depreciation is deducted for physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence. Physical deterioration measures the physical wearing out of the property as observed during the field inspection. Functional obsolescence reflects a lack of desirability by reason of layout, style or design of the structure. External obsolescence denotes a loss in value from causes outside the property itself. Income Capitalization Approach - Investment properties are normally valued in proportion to their ability to produce income. Hence, an analysis of the property in terms of its ability to provide a sufficient net annual return on invested capital is an important means of valuing an asset. An opinion of value by the Income Capitalization Approach is arrived at by capitalizing the net income at an interest rate or investment yield commensurate with the risk inherent in the fee ownership of the property. Such a conversion of income considers competitive returns offered by alternative investments. Commercial developments are considered to be desirable real estate investments. Sales Comparison Approach - This approach to value is based upon the principle of substitution; that is, when a property is replaceable in the market, its value tends to be set at the cost of acquiring an equally desirable property, assuming no costly delay in making the substitution. As no property is identical to another, it is necessary to make adjustments for any differences. The indications of value by the three approaches are not always possible or practical to use. The nature of the property being appraised, and the amount, quality, and type of market data available dictates the applicability of each approach to value. In this appraisal, the subject properties consist of an existing and a proposed easement, which reflect only a portion of the bundle of rights that comprise fee simple interest. In order to value the easements, a value indicator for the unencumbered fee land must be determined first. Then, the concluded unencumbered market value indicator will be applied to the easement areas in order to conclude a market value for the existing subject easement and proposed easement. Thus, only the Sales Comparison Approach was utilized since our valuation is limited to the Market Value of the underlying land of the larger parcel. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 17. ATTACHMENT 10-49 23 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The application of the Sales Comparison Approach produces an opinion of value for the larger parcel site by comparing it with similar or comparable properties which have recently sold. The comparison process is used to determine the degree of comparability between two properties. This process involves judgment. Similarity in value factors, such as property rights, buyer expenditures, financing, condition of sale, market conditions, location, and physical characteristics are considered meaningful for this analysis. The sale price of the properties deemed to be most comparable establish a range in which the value of the larger parcel site should fall. Further consideration of the comparative data will result in a figure representing the value of the larger parcel site -- the highest price at which it could be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer as of the date of the value. The technique is fairly simple in nature. Sales data of comparable properties are gathered, investigated, and verified. Data sources have been discussed, and each sale is confirmed with buyer, seller, or representative when possible. After verification, comparison is made between the comparable and the larger parcel site. Adjustments, if required, are made for any differences between sale and subject. The result is some unit or units of comparison which will be helpful in evaluating the larger parcel site. The Sales Comparison Approach is used to estimate the value of real estate, based on the theory that an informed and prudent buyer would not pay more for a property than the cost of acquiring another property with the same utility. It is, therefore, based upon the principle of substitution. This approach requires an active market and the availability of other properties from which a buyer can make a choice. Several transfers are considered reasonably comparable to the larger parcel site and suitable for further analysis. Data items are narrowed to those sales which exhibit the greatest similarity to the larger parcel site. In order to determine an indicated value, the larger parcel site was evaluated based on the Sale Price Per Square Foot Method, utilizing the gross land areas of the larger parcel site and comparables, and the Sale Price Per Lot Method. Market Data Summary The comparable land sales are reflected in the following summary chart and map. These sales were gathered, compared and analyzed. The results of this process provide the basis for the opinion of value for the larger parcel site as if vacant and available for development to its highest and best use. All of the sales are adjusted for cash equivalency when applicable. Our market data is found on the following page and is accompanied by a location map depicting each sale. Detailed data sheets can be found on the following pages. ATTACHMENT 10-50 De L o r m e S t r e e t A t l a s U S A ® 2 0 0 9 CO M P A R A B L E R E S I D E N T I A L S A L E S Da t a u s e s u b j e c t t o l i c e n s e . © D e L o r m e . D e L o r m e S t r e e t A t l a s U S A ® 2 0 0 9 . ww w . d e l o r m e . c o m TN MN ( 1 2 . 6 ° E ) 0 ¼ ½ ¾ 1 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 mi km Sc a l e 1 : 5 0 , 0 0 0 1" = 4 , 1 6 6 . 7 f t D a t a Z o o m 1 2 - 0 ATTACHMENT 10-51 24 Do c u m e n t N o . L a n d A r e a ( S F ) S a l e P r i c e Zo n i n g To p o g r a p h y S a l e P r i c e / Gr o s s S F 18 1 5 V i a C o r n e l , P a l o s V e r d e s E s t a t e s 11 - 0 1 4 0 4 5 3 33 , 5 1 0 ± $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 A P N : 7 5 4 4 - 0 1 5 - 0 1 1 SF R ( R - 1 ) g e n t l y d o w n w a r d s l o p i n g $ 6 5 . 6 5 30 1 5 4 C a r t i e r D r . , R a n c h o P a l o s V e r d e s 10 - 1 3 7 2 3 3 1 15 , 4 4 0 ± $6 2 6 , 0 0 0 A P N : 7 5 8 1 - 0 0 6 - 0 1 2 RS - 2 m o d e r a t e u p w a r d s l o p i n g $ 4 0 . 5 4 30 1 5 6 C a r t i e r D r . , R a n c h o P a l o s V e r d e s 10 - 0 4 6 4 2 7 1 15 , 2 1 0 ± $6 2 0 , 0 0 0 A P N : 7 5 8 1 - 0 0 6 - 0 1 3 RS - 2 m o d e r a t e u p w a r d s l o p i n g $ 4 0 . 7 6 3 M e a d o w l a r k L n . , R o l l i n g H i l l s 09 - 1 4 5 8 6 6 0 66 , 6 5 0 ± $6 5 5 , 0 0 0 A P N : 7 5 6 9 - 0 0 3 - 0 0 2 RA S - 1 mo d e r a t e d o w n w a r d s l o p i n g w/ l e v e l p a d $9 . 8 3 32 3 9 P a l o s V e r d e s D r . , R a n c h o P a l o s V e r d e s 09 - 1 4 3 8 0 7 5 g r o s s 5 6 , 6 2 8 ± / n e t 2 9 , 6 2 1 ± $1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 A P N : 7 5 6 4 - 0 2 6 - 0 2 4 RS - 1 mo d e r a t e l y s l o p i n g t o r o l l i n g w/ l e v e l p a d $2 0 . 7 5 27 M a r g u e r i t e D r . , R a n c h o P a l o s V e r d e s 08 - 0 4 6 9 6 3 4 g r o s s 1 9 6 , 0 2 0 ± / n e t 4 6 , 6 0 9 ± $5 , 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 A P N : 7 5 8 2 - 0 0 1 - 0 1 2 RS - 1 , O S - H & C Z s l o p i n g - b l u f f s t o o c e a n w/ l a r g e l e v e l p a d $2 5 . 7 6 10 C h a p a r r a l L n . , R a n c h o P a l o s V e r d e s 07 - 2 0 6 9 2 2 2 88 , 4 3 0 ± $6 6 5 , 0 0 0 A P N : 7 5 6 8 - 0 1 9 - 0 2 6 RS - 2 & O S - H s t e e p s l o p i n g w / l a r g e l e v e l pa d $7 . 5 2 62 7 0 O c e a n T e r r a c e D r . , R a n c h o P a l o s V e r d e s - - gr o s s 7 8 , 4 0 8 ±/ ne t 1 8 , 7 3 1 ± - - AP N : 7 5 8 1 - 0 2 0 - 0 1 7 RS - 1 mo d e r a t e t o s t e e p s l o p i n g - ro l l i n g w / l e v e l p a d - - - - 4/ 6 / 1 0 9/ 2 5 / 0 9 9/ 2 2 / 0 9 3/ 1 9 / 0 8 9/ 6 / 0 7 Su b . 3 4 5 6 72 RE S I D E N T I A L L A N D S A L E S S U M M A R Y Sa l e No . Lo c a t i o n 11 /2 6 /1 1 9/ 2 8 / 1 0 Sa l e D a t e ATTACHMENT 10-52 25 Discussion of Adjustments: All of the land sales have been adjusted to the larger parcel site for property rights, buyer expenditures, financing, conditions of sale, market conditions (time), location and physical factors as applicable. These adjustments are defined below: Property Rights at Sale This category adjusts for property rights conveyed and takes into account differences in legal estate between the subject and each comparable property. Generally, property rights are either fee simple interest or leased fee interest. Buyer Expenditures This category adjusts for additional costs incurred by the buyer which are required to make the property ready for development and/or use. This includes expenditures for demolition costs and other expenses paid by the buyer in addition to the purchase price. Financing This category adjusts the sale price of each comparable into its cash equivalent or modifies the price to current market financing. Favorable financing often leads to a higher selling price and unfavorable financing may reflect a lower selling price. Condition of Sale This category adjusts for atypical conditions of sale and reflects any difference between the actual sale price of a comparable and its probable sale price if it had been sold in an arm's length transaction. Market Conditions (Time) This category adjusts for market conditions and reflects changes in the prices paid due to changes in market conditions over time. The comparable properties are adjusted from the date of sale to date of value. In reviewing the market, we found seven residential land sales that cover a marketing time from September 2007 through January 2011. These comparables were the most recent and competitive residential land sales in the market. Our analysis of available market information, supported by discussions with market participants in the course of our verifications, indicates that prices for residential land within the subject market were stable for the year 2007; then decreased approximately 12.0 percent annually, or1.00 percent monthly, from January 2008 through December 2009; and then stabilized from January 2010 through to the date of value. Market Condition adjustments have therefore been applied as applicable from date of sale to date of value. ATTACHMENT 10-53 26 Location and Physical Conditions These categories consider differences between the larger parcel site and each comparable property for location and physical conditions. We considered differences in location, zoning/density, size/net area, site utility, accessibility, and view. Each is defined below: Location - This category adjusts the sales for differences in location for linkages, area, and other factors. Zoning/Density - This category adjusts for differences in zoning and density. Size/Net Area - This category adjusts for differences in the size of each comparable to the larger parcel site. Typically, smaller properties require downward adjustment as they tend to reflect higher unit prices than larger sites. Larger properties require upward adjustment as they tend to reflect lower unit prices than smaller sites. Additionally, our analysis of available market information, supported by discussions with market participants, indicates that prices for residential land within the subject market generally reflect the net usable area of a site. Typically, properties that have a larger gross land area in ratio to the net usable area tend to reflect lower unit prices as compared with properties having the same gross and net areas. Relative to the larger parcel site, there is a large differential between the gross and net land areas. The sales however, vary in that some of them do not have any restricted use areas. This adjustment is based on the net area of the sales, as compared to the larger parcel site. Site Utility - This category adjusts for differences in the utility of the site and takes into consideration the configuration, topography, and usability of the site. Accessibility - This category adjusts for differences in the accessibility of each sale to the larger parcel site. View - This category adjusts for differences in the view of each sale to the larger parcel site. The adjustment grid on the following page summarizes the adjustments for each of the sales as they apply to the larger parcel site. Adjustments for differences between the larger parcel site and each comparable property are expressed in percentages for property rights, buyer expenditures, financing, condition of sale, and market conditions based on our analysis of the market, as applicable. Qualitative adjustments have been applied for the location and other physical characteristics of each sale compared with the larger parcel site. Each physical characteristic may not be weighted equally. Then, an overall rating is assigned to each sale as it compares with the larger parcel site. ATTACHMENT 10-54 27 A d j u s t m e n t F a c t o r s S u b j e c t S a l e 1 S a l e 2 S a l e 3 S a l e 4 S a l e 5 S a l e 6 S a l e 7 U n a d j u s t e d $ / S F $6 5 . 6 5 $ 4 0 . 5 4 $ 4 0 . 7 6 $ 9 . 8 3 $ 2 0 . 7 5 $2 5 . 7 6 $ 7 . 5 2 P r o p e r t y R i g h t s F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e A d j u s t e d $ / S F $6 5 . 6 5 $ 4 0 . 5 4 $ 4 0 . 7 6 $ 9 . 8 3 $ 2 0 . 7 5 $2 5 . 7 6 $ 7 . 5 2 B u y e r E x p e n d i t u r e s - - No n e N o n e N o n e N o n e No n e No n e N o n e A d j u s t e d $ / S F $6 5 . 6 5 $ 4 0 . 5 4 $ 4 0 . 7 6 $ 9 . 8 3 $ 2 0 . 7 5 $2 5 . 7 6 $ 7 . 5 2 F i n a n c i n g - - Ca s h C a s h C a s h C a s h Ma r k e t Ca s h C a s h A d j u s t e d $ / S F $6 5 . 6 5 $ 4 0 . 5 4 $ 4 0 . 7 6 $ 9 . 8 3 $ 2 0 . 7 5 $2 5 . 7 6 $ 7 . 5 2 C o n d i t i o n o f S a l e - - Ar m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A d j u s t e d $ / S F $6 5 . 6 5 $ 4 0 . 5 4 $ 4 0 . 7 6 $ 9 . 8 3 $ 2 0 . 7 5 $2 5 . 7 6 $ 7 . 5 2 M a r k e t C o n d i t i o n s - - 0. 0 0 % 0 . 0 0 % 0 . 0 0 % - 3 . 2 2 % - 3 . 3 2 % - 2 1 . 4 8 % - 2 4 . 0 5 % A d j u s t e d $ / S F $6 5 . 6 5 $ 4 0 . 5 4 $ 4 0 . 7 6 $ 9 . 5 1 $ 2 0 . 0 6 $2 0 . 2 3 $ 5 . 7 1 Lo c a t i o n Av e r a g e Go o d A v e r a g e A v e r a g e F a i r - A v g A v e r a g e Go o d F a i r - A v g A d j u s t m e n t Su p e r i o r - S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + S i m i l a r S u p e r i o r - S l . I n f e r i o r + Zo n i n g / D e n s i t y RS - 1 SF R ( R - 1 ) RS - 2 R S - 2 R A S - 1 RS - 1 R S - 1 , O S - H & C Z R S - 2 & O S - H A d j u s t m e n t Si m i l a r S l . S u p e r i o r - S l . S u p e r i o r - S i m i l a r S i m i l a r I n f e r i o r + S l . I n f e r i o r + 78 , 4 0 8 ± S F ( g r o s s ) 33 , 5 1 0 ± S F 1 5 , 4 4 0 ± S F 1 5 , 2 1 0 ± S F 6 6 , 6 5 0 ± S F 56 , 6 2 8 ± S F ( g r o s s ) 1 9 6 , 0 2 0 ± S F ( g r o s s ) 88 , 4 3 0 ± S F 18 , 7 3 1 ± S F ( n e t ) (s a m e ) ( s a m e ) ( s a m e ) ( s a m e ) 29 , 6 2 1 ± SF ( n e t ) 46 , 6 0 9 ± SF ( n e t ) (s a m e ) Ad j u s t m e n t La r g e r + S i m i l a r S i m i l a r L a r g e r + + S l . L a r g e r + L a r g e r + L a r g e r + + Si t e U t i l i t y Fa i r Av e r a g e A v e r a g e A v e r a g e Fa i r Fa i r Fa i r Fa i r A d j u s t m e n t Su p e r i o r - S u p e r i o r - S u p e r i o r - S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Ac c e s s i b i l i t y A v e r a g e Av e r a g e A v e r a g e A v e r a g e F a i r - A v g A v e r a g e A v e r a g e F a i r - A v g A d j u s t m e n t Si m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + S i m i l a r Si m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + Vi e w Bl u e / w h i t e w a t e r B l u e / w h i t e w a t e r B l u e w a t e r B l u e w a t e r N o n e B l u e / w h i t e w a t e r B e a c h f r o n t Ci t y A d j u s t m e n t Si m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + S l . I n f e r i o r + I n f e r i o r + + S i m i l a r S u p e r i o r - I n f e r i o r + Ov e r a l l R a t i n g Su p e r i o r S u p e r i o r S u p e r i o r I n f e r i o r I n f e r i o r S u p e r i o r I n f e r i o r L o c a t i o n a n d P h y s i c a l C o n d i t i o n s LA N D S A L E S A D J U S T M E N T G R I D - S A L E P R I C E P E R S Q U A R E F O O T M E T H O D S i z e / N e t A r e a ATTACHMENT 10-55 28 Analysis and Conclusion – Sale Price Per Square Foot Method The adjusted land sales ranged from $5.71 to $65.65 per gross square foot, before applying qualitative adjustments. Based on our analysis of land sales, the overall ratings of the adjusted sales compared to the larger parcel site are as follows: Inferior (Sale Nos. 4, 5, and 7) $5.71 to $20.06 per gross square foot Similar N/A Superior (Sale Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6) $20.23 to $65.65 per gross square foot Based on our analysis, an expected value indicator should fall between $20.06 and $20.23 per gross square foot. Sale Nos. 4, 5, and 7 were considered inferior to the larger parcel site at $5.71 to $20.06 per gross square foot due to larger size/net area and/or inferior location, zoning/density, accessibility, and/or view, and set the lower range of value. Sale Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 were considered superior to the larger parcel site overall at $20.23 to $65.65 per gross square foot due to superior location, zoning/density, and/or site utility, and set the upper range of value for the larger parcel site. After considering these factors and adjusting the sales for differences in property rights, buyer expenditures, financing, conditions of sale, and market conditions, as well as location and physical characteristics, it is our opinion that the value of the larger parcel site is $20.15 per gross square foot, which is within the range of the market. Shown below is our summary and calculation of the larger parcel site land value: LAND MARKET VALUE Gross Site Area $/SF Indicated Value 78,408± Square Feet x $20.15 = $1,579,921 Indicated Market Value of the Larger Parcel Site by the Sales Comparison Approach Rounded To: $1,580,000 ATTACHMENT 10-56 29 A d j u s t m e n t F a c t o r s S u b j e c t S a l e 1 S a l e 2 S a l e 3 S a l e 4 S a l e 5 S a l e 6 S a l e 7 U n a d j u s t e d $ / L o t $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 6 5 , 0 0 0 P r o p e r t y R i g h t s F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e F e e S i m p l e A d j u s t e d $ / L o t $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 6 5 , 0 0 0 B u y e r E x p e n d i t u r e s - - No n e N o n e N o n e N o n e No n e No n e No n e A d j u s t e d $ / L o t $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 6 5 , 0 0 0 F i n a n c i n g - - Ca s h C a s h C a s h C a s h M a r k e t Ca s h Ca s h A d j u s t e d $ / L o t $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 6 5 , 0 0 0 C o n d i t i o n o f S a l e - - Ar m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A r m ' s L e n g t h A d j u s t e d $ / L o t $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 6 5 , 0 0 0 M a r k e t C o n d i t i o n s - - 0. 0 0 % 0 . 0 0 % 0 . 0 0 % - 3 . 2 2 % - 3 . 3 2 % - 2 1 . 4 8 % - 2 4 . 0 5 % A d j u s t e d $ / L o t $2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 3 3 , 9 0 9 $ 1 , 1 3 5 , 9 9 0 $ 3 , 9 6 5 , 2 6 0 $ 5 0 5 , 0 6 8 Lo c a t i o n A v e r a g e Go o d A v e r a g e A v e r a g e F a i r - A v g A v e r a g e Go o d F a i r - A v g A d j u s t m e n t Su p e r i o r - S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + S i m i l a r S u p e r i o r - S l . I n f e r i o r + Zo n i n g / D e n s i t y RS - 1 SF R ( R - 1 ) RS - 2 RS - 2 R A S - 1 RS - 1 R S - 1 , O S - H & C Z R S - 2 & O S - H A d j u s t m e n t Si m i l a r S l . S u p e r i o r - S l . S u p e r i o r - S i m i l a r S i m i l a r I n f e r i o r + S l . I n f e r i o r + S i z e ( G r o s s ) 78 , 4 0 8 ± S F 33 , 5 1 0 ± S F 1 5 , 4 4 0 ± S F 1 5 , 2 1 0 ± S F 6 6 , 6 5 0 ± S F 56 , 6 2 8 ± S F 1 9 6 , 0 2 0 ± S F 88 , 4 3 0 ± S F Ad j u s t m e n t Sm a l l e r + S m a l l e r + + S m a l l e r + + S i m i l a r S l . S m a l l e r + L a r g e r - - S i m i l a r Si t e U t i l i t y Fa i r Av e r a g e A v e r a g e A v e r a g e Fa i r Fa i r Fa i r Fa i r A d j u s t m e n t Su p e r i o r - S u p e r i o r - S u p e r i o r - S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Ac c e s s i b i l i t y A v e r a g e Av e r a g e A v e r a g e A v e r a g e F a i r - A v g A v e r a g e A v e r a g e F a i r - A v g A d j u s t m e n t Si m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + Vi e w Bl u e / w h i t e w a t e r B l u e / w h i t e w a t e r B l u e w a t e r B l u e w a t e r N o n e B l u e / w h i t e w a t e r B e a c h f r o n t Ci t y A d j u s t m e n t Si m i l a r S l . I n f e r i o r + S l . I n f e r i o r + I n f e r i o r + + S i m i l a r S u p e r i o r - I n f e r i o r + Ov e r a l l R a t i n g Su p e r i o r I n f e r i o r I n f e r i o r I n f e r i o r I n f e r i o r S u p e r i o r I n f e r i o r L o c a t i o n a n d P h y s i c a l C o n d i t i o n s LA N D S A L E S A D J U S T M E N T G R I D - S A L E P R I C E P E R L O T M E T H O D ATTACHMENT 10-57 30 Analysis and Conclusions - Sale Price Per Lot Method We also analyzed the sales on the basis of Sale Price per Lot. The adjustment factors are the same as in the Sale Price Per Square Foot Method, except for size/net area. In the Sale Price Per Lot Method, the sales were analyzed and adjusted based on the gross land areas of the larger parcel site and comparables. The adjusted land sales ranged from $505,068 to $3,965,260 per lot, before applying qualitative adjustments. Based on our analysis of land sales, the overall ratings of the adjusted sales compared to the larger parcel site are as follows: Inferior (Sale Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7) $505,068 to $1,135,990 per lot Similar N/A Superior (Sale Nos. 1 and 6) $2,200,000 to $3,965,260 per lot Based on our analysis, an expected value indicator should fall between $1,135,990 and $2,200,000 per lot. Sale Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were considered inferior to the larger parcel site at $505,068 to $1,135,990 per lot due to smaller size and/or inferior location, zoning/density, accessibility, and/or view, and set the lower range of value. Sale Nos. 1 and 6 were considered superior to the larger parcel site overall at $2,200,000 to $3,965,260 per lot due to larger size and/or superior location, site utility, and/or view, and set the upper range of value for the larger parcel site. After considering these factors and based on our research and analysis of the market, it is our opinion an appropriate value indicator for the larger parcel site is $1,500,000 per lot, which is slightly below the range of value indicators included in the Sale Price Per Square Foot Method. INDICATED MARKET VALUE OF THE LARGER PARCEL SITE BY THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH $1,500,000 Equating the value of the larger parcel on a price per square foot basis ($1,500,000 ÷ 78,408± SF) is $19.13 per gross square foot. Value Conclusion of the Larger Parcel Site In the Sales Comparison Approach, two methods, the Sale Price Per Square Foot of gross land area, and the Sale Price Per Lot, were used to provide indications of value for the larger parcel site. The indications provided by the two methods ranged from $1,500,000 to $1,579,921 per lot, or $19.13 to $20.15 per gross square foot. Both were considered reliable indications of value and are given equal emphasis; however, based on our research, verifications, and analysis of the market, the price per lot value indicator appears to be the most meaningful indicator for residential land in the subject market area. Therefore, we conclude a value of $1,500,000 for the larger parcel site, or $19.13 per gross square foot of land. ATTACHMENT 10-58 31 Analysis and Valuation of the Existing Subject Trail Easement The larger parcel site is currently encumbered with a 32,971± square foot trail easement, per Tract Map No. 31617, dated December 22, 1977. The trail easement varies in width and extends along the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the larger parcel site. The subject trail easement is rectangular in shape, and consists of a 2,250± square foot portion of the existing trail easement. The subject easement area is approximately 15.00± feet wide, and extends 150.00± feet east-to-west along the larger parcel’s southern boundary. The purpose of existing trail easement is to provide for public access for recreational purposes, prohibiting any development and/or improvements within the easement area, with the exception of ground cover landscaping. The area may not be fenced, improved with any structures, and must remain open to public access. It can only be improved with grass. It should also be noted that there is an additional 10 foot setback required from the northern trail easement boundary, totaling a 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the larger parcel site. Given the following, it is our opinion that the existing trail easement impacts approximately 90% of the underlying fee rights. This percentage will be applied to the concluded market value indicator of the unencumbered fee land area, or $19.13 per square foot. The following is the calculation of the market value of the 2,250± square foot subject trail easement: LAND MARKET VALUE Subject Trail Easement Area $/SF Percentage of Rights Indicated Value 2,250± Square Feet x $19.13 x 90% = $38,738 Indicated Market Value of the Subject Trail Easement by the Sales Comparison Approach Rounded To: $39,000 ATTACHMENT 10-59 32 Analysis and Valuation of the Proposed Subject Restricted Use Easement As previously discussed, the underlying fee owner is seeking to replace the 2,250± square foot portion of the existing trail easement, with a proposed 2,250± square foot restricted use easement. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the primary purpose of the proposed restricted use easement is to provide for unobstructed views for the neighboring properties. The proposed replacement easement is considered less restrictive than the existing the trail easement, permitting the underlying fee owner to fence off the 2,250± square foot easement area and utilize it as additional rear yard space. Additionally, site improvements permitted within the proposed easement area will include an in-ground pool, water feature, some hardscaping, and low level landscaping. Any fencing and/or site improvements erected within the proposed easement area must not exceed over 6 feet in height. It should also be noted that the additional 10 foot setback originally required by the existing trail easement will remain in place, totaling a 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the larger parcel site. Therefore, it is our opinion that the replacement restricted use easement impacts approximately 25% of the underlying fee rights. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 22. This percentage will be applied to the concluded market value indicator of the unencumbered fee land area, or $19.13 per square foot. The following is the calculation of the market value of the subject restricted use easement: LAND MARKET VALUE Subject Restricted Use Easement Area $/SF Percentage of Rights Indicated Value 2,250± Square Feet x $19.13 x 25% = $10,761 Indicated Market Value of the Subject Restricted Use Easement by the Sales Comparison Approach Rounded To: $11,000 ATTACHMENT 10-60 33 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL OPINION OF VALUE The final step in the appraisal process is the correlation of the three indications of value derived by the Cost, Income Capitalization, and Sales Comparison Approaches, as applicable. In correlating these three approaches into a final opinion of value, the appraiser has taken into account the purpose of the appraisal, the type of property, and the adequacy of the data processed in each of the three approaches. Most important is which approach most nearly reflects the actions of buyers and sellers in the market. In this instance, the subject properties represent a portion of an existing trail easement, and a proposed replacement restricted use easement. The Cost and Income Capitalization Approaches to value were not relevant as our valuation of the subject properties and larger parcel site is limited to only the underlying land. Please refer to Extraordinary Assumption No. 17. The Sales Comparison Approach was considered most appropriate in valuing the subject properties and larger parcel. The larger parcel site was first valued to provide a value indicator, which in turn was applied to the subject properties for valuation purposes. There was adequate information of similar type properties in the market to provide an indication of value for the larger parcel site. The indicated value was based on the analysis of the most recent residential land sales available in the market using the Sale Price Per Square Foot Method and Sale Price Per Lot Method. Seven comparables were reviewed, inspected, and verified to ensure reliability of the data used in this approach. All adjustments made were judged to be reasonable and given adequate support through the use of market-derived analysis. Then, the concluded value indicator was applied to the subject properties, along with an analysis of the percentage rights the subject existing trail easement and the subject proposed restricted use easement possess. Conclusion The final conclusion or opinion has resulted from the application of the Sales Comparison Approach. In summary, this approach provides a value indicator for the subject properties and larger parcel site and is considered reasonable and appropriate. The Sales Comparison Approach is considered to be the primary approach to value. Based on our analysis, the market value of the fee simple interest in the 2,250± square foot existing trail easement, as of January 21, 2011, is: THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ........................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... .$39,000. Based on our analysis, the market value of the fee simple interest of the 2,250± square foot proposed restricted use easement, as of January 21, 2011, is: ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... .$11,000. ATTACHMENT 10-61 A D D E N D A ATTACHMENT 10-62 FRONT VIEW OF LARGER PARCEL RESIDENCE REAR VIEW OF LARGER PARCEL RESIDENCE FROM HIKING TRAIL SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT 10-63 VIEW OF SUBJECT EASEMENT AREAS LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY VIEW OF SUBJECT EASEMENT AREAS LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY ATTACHMENT 10-64 VIEW OF HIKING TRAIL/EASEMENT AND LARGER PARCEL LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY VIEW OF HIKING TRAIL/EASEMENT AND LARGER PARCEL LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM OCEAN TERRACE DRIVE ATTACHMENT 10-65 VIEW OF LARGER PARCEL DRIVEWAY FROM OCEAN TERRACE DRIVE ATTACHMENT 10-66 ATTACHMENT 10-67 ·j.! 1 1I· ....rt' ;~ ATTACHMENT 10-68 SCALE:I"=80' -TRAcT NO.31617 IN THE CITY OF fU;NCHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF (QS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA .. 'SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS L,F11:''ED WItH L,0,5 A,NG'J''COUNT'fRECORDER \'.Dre 2.~J;gn .".--,"""''''f v LAND -,-LANCO-- CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS ~% ,0, ..... 1'<; ATTACHMENT 10-69 .~j ., ) ,r·. ·1 J 1 ..(-~ _. ·\ ., / IN THE CITY 6j:;RANCHO P'LOS 'y".~!\ii;,,~ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES •.STATE OF CAUFMNrA-,rf~d~.'..."....f LANC'O LAND CONSULTANTS -AND CIVIL ENGINEER S .-fIb~!r IT#-~OS ANGEl§S, go!JNTY:RI'CORDE!\. ~,>OEC n,1977 . ,, .~..J .... J .~; r', ATTACHMENT 10-70 SCALE:I"=80' TRAC'"NO.31617 IN THE CITY OF RANcHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGEL~S.STATEOF CALIFORNIA SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS b~D -ITH lOS AN(;ElES .COUNTY RECORDER., ~'i OEC 1.1-/1977 --LANCO--\ '\ CIVIL ENGINEERSLAND \"::I e:e \.~ r' ! ATTACHMENT 10-71 EXHIBIT "A' BEING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FOR TRAIL PURPOSES WITHIN LOT 20,TRACT NO.31617,IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS RECORDED IN BOOK 888,PAGES 4 THROUGH 8,iNCLUStVE,OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,DESOCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 20;THENCE N 09"29'30'W ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 20 A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET;THENCE S 800 30'30'WA DISTANCE OF 150 FEET;THENCE S 09"29'30'E A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 20;THENCE N 80°30'30 E ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 20 A DISTANCE OF 150 FEET TO THE POtNT OF BEGINNING. ATTACHMENT 10-72 '. •1 I , I •, .. ! 10l@,. " I- dl '">< UJ • ATTACHMENT 10-73 ATTACHMENT 10-74 APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS HEATHER N. RIGGS APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE Entered the real estate field in 2003 and began working as an Administrative Assistant with Riggs and Riggs, Inc., an appraisal and consulting company. Services rendered involved research, appraisal report production and support, and trial preparation. In 2006, promoted to an associate appraiser. Services rendered involve appraisal report preparation for vacant land, residential, commercial, and other income producing properties for institutional and acquisition purposes, partial acquisition valuation, including determination of severance damages and/or benefits for public projects, and preparation of cost studies for budget purposes involving public projects. CURRENT EMPLOYMENT Associate appraiser with RIGGS & RIGGS, INC., Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, located at: 4195 Valley Fair Street, Suite 207 Simi Valley, California 93063 EDUCATION Moorpark College; Associate Degree in General Liberal Arts and Science Areas of Study at Moorpark College ! Business Law ! Statistics ! Accounting Areas of Study at California State University Northridge ! Financial Management Completed courses with the Appraisal Institute: ! Appraisal Principles ! Appraisal Procedures ! Residential Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use ! 15-Hour National USPAP Course ! General Applications Completed courses with the International Right-Of-Way Association: !The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS State of California Trainee Real Estate Appraiser, Certificate No. AT043081 Associate Membership of the Appraisal Institute No. 490663, October 2006 Member of the International Right of Way Association No. 7896247, 2007 ATTACHMENT 10-75 APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS JOYCE L. RIGGS, MAI, SR/WA APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE Entered the appraisal profession in 1988 as an appraisal assistant with B.G.R. Appraisals in Simi Valley, California. Services rendered involved appraisal report preparation for a variety of property types including: commercial/retail and office; industrial; bulk acreage; and multi-family residential. In 1991, I accepted a position as a Real Estate Representative for The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWDSC”). Services rendered involved appraisal report preparation, review, mass appraisal cost studies for budget purposes, and evaluation of full and partial takings of property for capital projects and surplus portfolio properties; coordination between Legal, Right-of Way, Engineering, Planning, and Environmental Divisions relative to appraisal issues as appraisal project manager of the Diamond Valley Reservoir Project, a capital project. From 1993 to 2001, I was associated with the appraisal firm of Mason & Mason in Montrose, California. Services rendered involved appraisal review, and full and partial take appraisal report preparation of retail, office, industrial, agricultural, and residential uses, including determination of severance damages and/or benefits for condemnation acquisitions, redevelopment acquisitions, property tax appeals, deficiency judgments, financial decisions, and planning purposes throughout Southern California. Since 2001, I joined Riggs & Riggs, Inc., an appraisal and consulting firm in Simi Valley, California, and serve as Vice President of the corporation. Services rendered include expert witness testimony, appraisal review, appraisal report preparation for full and partial take of fee, permanent easement, or temporary easement right of way assignments, and appraisal report preparation for private and lending assignments. Property types include retail, office, industrial, agricultural, mobile home parks, and residential uses, including determination of severance damages and/or benefits for condemnation acquisitions, redevelopment acquisitions, property tax appeals, deficiency judgments, financial decisions, and planning purposes. Appraisal assignments have been undertaken in the Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino San Diego, and Santa Barbara County regions. Experience includes completion or major contributions to the following: • Litigation appraisals for the widening and realignment of Lewis Road and U.S. Highway 101, Highway 395 and Phelan Road, and realignment and widening projects along the 405, 210, 5, 215, 91/215/60, and 134 Freeways in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Ventura, Orange, and Riverside Counties, 1995 to present • Consulting Valuation Cost Study prepared for budgeting purposes relative to the projects in Orange and Riverside Counties for The Metropolitan Water District, 2006, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District in 2008 and 2009, and a Grade Separation Project for OCTA and HDR Pharos, 2008 • Market Rental Study on Port-Oriented Property in Los Angeles Harbor area, for Southern California Edison, Los Angeles County, 2007 • Appraisal of Partial Acquisition and Disposition of Fee and Easement Interests in port-related properties for the Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, 2004 and 2006 • Appraisals of partial fee, permanent, and temporary construction easement acquisitions for Murrieta Creek Project Phases 1 and 2, and Eagle Canyon Dam, for Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Temecula, Palm Springs, and Cathedral City, 2002 to present • Appraisals of partial fee, easement, and temporary construction easement acquisitions along Interstate 10 for interchange projects, for the County of Riverside and City of Palm Springs, Riverside County, 2007 to 2009 • Appraisals of partial fee, easement, and temporary construction easement acquisitions for the widening of Flower Street, Glendale, 2005 • Appraisals of partial fee, easement, and temporary construction easement acquisitions for the widening of Van Buren Boulevard, Riverside, 2004-2005 • Appraisals of partial fee, easement, and temporary construction easement acquisitions for Kanan Road/ U.S. Highway 101 Interchange Project, Agoura Hills, 2004 • Appraisals of partial fee and temporary construction easement acquisitions for the Alameda Corridor East, San Gabriel Valley, Los Angeles County, 2001 to present 12/09 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 10-76 • Litigation appraisals for inverse condemnation cases proximate to Ontario Airport, Santa Monica Airport, and 210 Freeway extension through San Bernardino County, to determine diminution in value freeway effects, if any, in 2006-present, and airport noise and vibrations, in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, 1993 to 1997 and in the West Los Angeles, 2000 to 2001 • Appraisals of partial fee and temporary construction easement acquisitions for the Pasadena Gold Line, Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena, Los Angeles County, 1999-2001, 2004-2005 The following is a partial list of government agencies, attorneys, and private clients: Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado & Smith Best, Best & Krieger Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri California Department of Transportation City of Agoura Hills City of Loma Linda City of Los Angeles - General Services City of Los Angeles - CRA City of Los Angeles - Department of Airports City of Palm Springs City of Pasadena City of Riverside City of Santa Clarita County of Orange County of Riverside County of San Bernardino County of Ventura Demetriou, Del Guercio, Springer & Francis Epic Land Solutions, Inc. Glendale Community College HDR Pharos Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTA) Los Angeles Unified School District Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLC Metropolitan Water District of So. California Metrolink McCormick, Kidman & Behrens Mullen & Henzel Nevers, Palazzo, Maddux & Packard, PLC Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP Orange County Transportation Authority Port of Long Beach Paragon Partners, Ltd. Richards, Watson & Gershon Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Riverside County Transportation Commission Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Sempra Energy Southern California Edison State of California, Department of Justice Stradling, Yocca, Carlson, & Rauth University of California, Riverside Wells Fargo Bank Western Municipal Water District United States Army Corps of Engineers Yaspan & Thau PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS, ACTIVITIES, TRAINING & CERTIFICATION Elected to MAI membership in the Appraisal Institute, October 1995, Member No. 10852; certified through 2010, under Appraisal Institute’s Voluntary Continuing Educational Program Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California; recertified to April 7, 2011, No. AG005451 Senior Right of Way Member, International Right of Way Association, Member No. 4495; certified through 2014 Qualified as an expert witness in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Superior Courts SPECIALIZED APPRAISAL COURSES Appraisal Institute Courses International Right of Way Association • Real Estate Appraisal Principles • Principles of Real Estate Acquisition • Basic Valuation Procedures Engineering, Course 101 • Capitalization Theory and Techniques Part A • Bargaining Negotiations, Course 205 • Capitalization Theory and Techniques Part B • Presentation Skills, Course 206 • 7 Hour USPAP Update • Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions, Course 401 • Report Writing and Valuation Analysis • Easement Valuation, Course 402 • Advanced Applications • Legal Aspects of Easements, Course 802 • OREA Update Workshop • Eminent Domain Law Basics for R/W • Business Practices & Ethics Professionals, Course 803 • Engineering Plan Development and Application, Course 901 • Introduction to Property Management, Course 700 12/09 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 10-77 Attended numerous workshops and seminars presented by the Appraisal Institute and International Right of Way Association. POSITIONS HELD Appraisal Institute Region VII 1996-1998 General Guidance Committee Chairperson Southern California Chapter 2006-2007 Director of Central Coast Branch, Litigation Seminar Chairperson 2004 Immediate Past President, Nominating and Litigation Seminar Chairperson 2003 President 2002 Vice President and Region VII Representative 2001 Treasurer 1999 - 2000 Director 1998 Secretary 1997 General Guidance Committee Chairperson 1996 - 1998 Experience Review Committee 1997, 2006 Litigation Seminar Co-Chairperson 1995 - 1997 Installation Committee Chairperson 1994 - 1995 Candidate Liaison and Chairperson Candidate Leadership Committee International Right of Way Association (IRWA) Chapter 1 Activities 2005 Secretary, PDC Member, and Nominations/Awards Chair 2001 Immediate Past President, Nominating and Awards Chairperson 2000 President 1999 President Elect and International Director 1998 Vice President 1997 Treasurer 1996, 2001, 2006-7 Fall Seminar Committee Chairperson and/or Committee Member 1996-97, 1999, 2005-2007, 2009-2010 Valuation Conference Committee Member TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1999 Instructor, Real Estate Principles at Glendale Community College 1998 Instructor, Real Estate Appraisal at Glendale Community College EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND California State University, Northridge Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration with dual emphasis in Real Estate and Finance 12/09 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 10-78 MAPS ILLUSTRATING SUBJECT PROPERTY AND AREA TO BE PART OF LICENSE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT 10-79 / :=j v- .< .- "~ I \,. I ,~ 0, f ~; '-:' " ,..,:'.' -::-~", SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS W lOS M'Ga£S COUIm'RECORODl ~.'DEC 210m•I f·,,1 .. o fir ~...... •,<,'Oi;'.~,~:,~,1) "DeTAIL •A',;.., Z c·....,\It'\;oltIOof"l &lfN.~(."(t"ol.DIl.~~._,_J"''OUIl~...t_••Oll~~.cf>f-"'~~. 1~,'~/CJ~":""r i IN THE CITY OF RA~CHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA --LANCO-- CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 15 \' 'CT'~l' ,TRACT NO:31617 -~======:ZfNMT1 It'-'"~t5 or Lob "......,~T~cr t1,it~~~~~~u~~~! THe 05.r:-L.'f ~tJF 'Jl'...l.G.1 ~o '1"&U \ "",' SCALE:,".80' ,/ ,r ';:'1'"' "',.'f;..'. I.'" ATTACHMENT 10-80 srz "----;q't.l'/ w ~ococw f- 7b Z« Wuo ATTACHMENT 10-81