Loading...
10-23-2018 CC Rpt 09-ri COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT t�il5 til TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2018 MEMBERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ITEM NO:9 SUBJECT: QUITCLAIM FOR PARCEL 9465-5 LOCATED AT THE RINCON PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: Find that the conveyance of Parcel 9465-5 was previously considered in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on October 18, 2016, and that the conveyance of this remnant parcel is for the common benefit for the reasons explained below. Approve the execution and conveyance of a quitclaim deed to Eaton Lane Associates, LLC of Parcel 9465-5, an approximately 695 -square foot triangular shaped property located adjacent to The Rincon commercial center. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: During the entitlement process for the property that is now The Rincon commercial center in 2005, there was one issue of concern regarding two portions of land (Parcel 9465-4 and 9465-5) within the project site that were not under the ownership of CH -Central, LLC. Both areas were planned for parking and drive aisle access. At that time, staff researched the ownership history of that portion of land to assist the applicant. Given that the documents did not present clear ownership of the property, it was concluded that the property may be owned by either Caltrans or San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The property was subject to a temporary construction easement for CalTrans that has long since expired. Once staff relayed this info to the applicant, CH -Central, LLC had contacted and initiated negotiations with other entities to purchase the land. Therefore, staff recommended that the entitlement phase for 05SPR05 move forward due to good faith effort by the applicants to purchase the land. In order to address the land that was not under CH -Central, LLC's ownership, staff included a Condition of Approval that required the owner to purchase the land in question, and then process a lot merger to create one parcel for development. This action had to be completed by the owner prior to the issuance of any permits; this encompassed all building permits, including rough grading, utilities, building, etc. If CH - Central, LLC was unable to purchase the needed land, then they would be required to revise 05SPR05 to exclude those portions of land. When CH -Central, LLC sold the property to Chino Hills Golden Triangle, LLC, now under the name Eaton Lane Associates, LLC, the new owner was able to obtain ownership of Parcel 9465-4, but was not able to obtain ownership of Parcel 9465-5. At the time the project went to the Planning Commission in 2008 for approval, Caltrans ownership rights to Parcel 9465-5 were in question and discussions were being held between Caltrans and City staff. The project was approved with a Condition of Approval that required the owner to finalize the purchase of Parcel 9465-5 and process a lot merger to create one parcel for the ultimate development of the project prior to the issuance of building permits for the medical office building as the new medical office building overlapped onto Parcel 9465-5. It was later determined that the City of Chino Hills may be the legal owner of Parcel 9465-5, 21/454 not Caltrans. Thus, by quitclaiming any interest that the City may have to Parcel 9465-5, this will clear up any title concerns and allow Parcel 9465-5 to develop. The 2008 approval of the prior project was terminated by the Planning Commission in 2011 due to the applicant failing to meet certain timeline for Conditions of Approval. The project (Site Plan Review 15SPR03) was resurrected in 2015 and approved by Planning Commission in 2016. During the entitlement process, an appraisal report was prepared by R.P. Laurain & Associates for Parcel 9465-5. The appraisal report considered the highest and best use for the remnant parcel, and commercial land value indicators. The report indicated that the property value for the remnant parcel is estimated at $1,000, which will be paid prior to the execution and conveyance of the quitclaim deed. Currently, the site is under construction, and the applicant is seeking to purchase the remaining parcel in order to complete development. As can be seen by the aerial view and illustration below, Parcel 9465-5 is a very small remnant parcel that is not needed by the City. It is effectively landlocked, cannot be developed by itself and is not considered readily marketable as a stand-alone parcel. The common benefit is best served by allowing it to be sold to the adjoining property owner so that it can be developed to its full potential. Further, the City's Engineering Division has confirmed that there are no utilities or any reason that the City would need to access this parcel, so no reservations are needed for the City. 4 i � 704; I 22/454 The parcel is exempt from the surplus land procedures because it is less than 5,000 square feet (Gov. Code, § 54221 (e)). The Planning Commission found that the sale conformed to the General Plan conformity finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 on October 18, 2016. ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted by Planning Commission on October 18, 2016, which included the transfer of the subject property in the Project Description. This property transfer is a necessarily included element of the Rincon project considered in the MND, which adequately addressed the effects of the proposed project. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. REVIEWED BY OTHERS: This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Respectfully Submitted, Konradt Bartlam City Manager Attachments Appraisal report Quitclaim Recommended By: r--luzu'4 ill 0'V421 Indo Joann Lombardo Community Development Director 23/454 APPRAISAL REPORT REMNANT LAND PARCEL 9465-5 SOQUEL CANYON PARKWAY AT 71 FREEWAY CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA R. P. LAURAIN & ASSOCIATES I N C O R P O R A T E D 24/454 APPRAISAL REPORT REMNANT LAND PARCEL 9465-5 SOQUEL CANYON PARKWAY AT 71 FREEWAY CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA Effective Date of Market Value Study January 22, 2016 Prepared for CITY OF CHINO HILLS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 14000 City Center Drive Chino Hills, California 91709 Prepared by R. P. LAURAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3353 Linden Avenue, Suite 200 Long Beach, California 90807 Date of Report January 26, 2016 R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 25/454 R. P. LAURAIN & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED January 26, 2016 3353 LINDEN AVENUE, SUITE 200 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90807 TELEPHONE (562) 426-0477 FACSIMILE (562) 988-2927 RPLA@RPLAURAIN.COM City of Chino Hills Community Development Department 14000 City Center Drive Chino Hills, California 91709 Attention: Michael Hofflinger Associate Planner Subject: Remnant Land Parcel 9465-5 Soquel Canyon Parkway at the 71 Freeway Chino Hills, California 91709 In accordance with your request and authorization, I have completed an appraisal study to establish the market value of a City -owned remnant land parcel. The subject appraisal study consisted of (1) a review of the subject remnant land parcel from the adjacent public right-of-way, as well as via aerial mapping, (2) a review of market data (commercial acreage land sales) in the immediate and general subject market area, and (3) a valuation analysis. The market value of the subject remnant land parcel has been estimated utilizing sales of vacant commercial acreage land in the immediate and general subject market area, and applying an appropriate discount due to the limited utility and marketability of remnant land parcels. The subject remnant land parcel is effectively part of the Soquel Canyon Parkway right-of-way, at the on-ramp to the Chino Hills (71) Freeway. The subject property does not have an assigned Assessor's Parcel No., however, it is understood that the subject property is located adjacent north to Assessor's Parcel No. 1028-351-47. The subject remnant land parcel contains 695± square feet, per the City of Chino Hills. APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 26/454 City of Chino Hills Community Development Department Attention: Michael Hofflinger Associate Planner January 26, 2016 Page 2 Refer to the accompanying report for the land valuation analysis, as well as a discussion of the appropriate discount applied to "typical" commercial acreage land value due to the limited utility of subject remnant parcel. After considering the various factors which influence value, the market value of the subject remnant land parcel, as of January 22, 2016, is: ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS $1,000. The foregoing value estimate is subject to (1) the assumptions and limiting conditions set forth in the Preface Section, (2) the valuation study contained in the Valuation Analysis Section, and (3) other valuation analyses contained in our office file. No portion of this report shall be amended or deleted. This report has been submitted in triplicate as an Appraisal Report, in accord- ance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, per Standard Rule 2-2(a); an electronic PDF copy has also been provided. The report incorporates, by reference, certain data and the valuation analyses contained in our office file. If you have any questions regarding the report, please contact the under- signed at your convenience. Very truly yours, R. P. L AIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. o n P. L r Al, ASA ertified General Real Estate Appraiser California Certification No. AG 025754 JPL:cl R . P . LAURA IN & ASS O C I ATE S INCORPORATED 27/454 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents PREFACE Location Map Date of Value Purpose of the Appraisal Property Rights Appraised Intended User of Appraisal Intended Use of Appraisal Appraiser's Certification Scope of the Appraisal Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Terms and Definitions SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Apparent Vestee Property Address Legal Description Site Description Plat Map Exhibit G Site Plan Improvements Assessment Data Ownership History Neighborhood Environment VALUATION Highest and Best Use Analysis Valuation Methods Sales Comparison Approach Land Value Discount Fair Market Value Marketing Exposure _ R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 28/454 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) MARKET DATA Summary of Land Sale Properties Land Sales Data and Photographs Market Data Map ADDENDA Additional Photographs City of Chino Hills Data Qualifications of Appraiser R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 29/454 PREFACE 30/454 Data use subject to license. *N* Scale 1 : 81,250 © DeLorme. DeLorme Street Atlas USA@ 2015. MN (12.0°E) www.delorme.com IVB I = 1.28 mi Data Zoom 12-0 31/454 DATE OF VALUE The date of value (effective date) employed in this report, and all opinions and computations expressed herein, are based on January 22, 2016. Said date being generally concurrent with the inspection of the subject property, and the valuation analysis process. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal report is to express an estimate of market value, in fee simple, for the subject property, absent any liens, leases, or other encumbrances, as of the date of value set forth above. The definition of market value is set forth in the following portion of this section following the heading "Terms and Definitions." Further, it is the purpose of this appraisal report to describe the subject property, and to render an opinion of the highest and best use based on (1) the character of potential development of the property appraised, (2) the requirements of local governmental authorities affecting the subject property, (3) the reasonable demand in the open market for properties similar to the subject property, and (4) the location of the subject property considered with respect to other existing and competitive districts within the immediate and general subject market area. Further, it is the purpose of this appraisal report to provide an outline of certain factual and inferential information which was compiled and analyzed in the process of completing this appraisal study. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The property rights appraised herein are those of the fee simple interest. Fee simple is defined as, "An absolute fee; a fee without limitations to any particular class of heirs, or restrictions, but subject to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation. An inheritable estate." R . P . LAURA IN _ & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-1 32/454 INTENDED USER OF APPRAISAL It is understood that the intended user of the appraisal will be the client, the City of Chino Hills, and specific representatives thereof. INTENDED USE OF APPRAISAL It is understood that the subject appraisal study will be utilized by the City of Chino Hills as a basis of market value applicable to the remnant land parcel appraised herein, for the possible disposition (sale) of said remnant land parcel to the adjacent property owner. R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-2 33/454 CERTIFICATION The undersigned does hereby certify that: I have personally inspected the subject property; I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate which is the subject of this appraisal report. Also, I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report, or the parties involved in this assignment. My engagement in this assignment and the amount of compensation are not contingent upon the reporting or development of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a predetermined or stipulated result, or the occur- rence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. Also, to the best of my knowledge and belief the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. This appraisal report sets forth all of the assumptions and limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of this assignment or by the undersigned), affecting my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions, were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institutes, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As of the date of this report I have completed the continuing education program for Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute, the State of California and the American Society of Appraisers; note that duly authorized representatives of said organizations have the right to review this report. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opinions for this appraisal study. No other person provided significant professional assistance. I have not appraised or provided any other services pertaining to the subject property in the last thro-elears. Date: January 26, 2016 J(rfhn P. baizwdin, MAI, ASA ertified General Real Estate Appraiser California Certification No. AG 025754 Renewal Date: April 16, 2017 R. P. LAU RAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-3 34/454 SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL The appraiser, in connection with the following appraisal study, has: 1. Been retained, and has accepted the assignment, to make an objective analysis and valuation study of the subject property and to report, without bias, the estimate of fair market value. The subject property is particularly described in the following portion of this report in the section entitled Subject Property Description. 2. Toured the general area by automobile to become acquainted with the extent, condition, and quality of nearby developments, sales and offerings in the area, density and type of development, topographical features, economic conditions, trends toward change, etc. 3. Walked within the subject property, and some of the nearby neighborhood, to become acquainted with the current particular attributes, or shortcomings, of the subject property. 4. Completed an inspection of the subject property for the purpose of becoming familiar with certain physical charac- teristics. 5. Made a visual observation concerning public streets, access, drainage, and topography of the subject property. 6. Obtained information regarding public utilities and sanitary sewer available at the subject site. 7. Made, or obtained from other qualified sources, calculations on the area of land contained within the subject property. Has made, or caused to be made, plats and plot plan drawings of the subject property, and has checked such plats and plot plan drawings for accuracy and fair representation. 8. Taken photographs of the subject property, together with photographs of the immediate environs. 9. Made, or caused to be made, a search of public records for factual information regarding recent sales of the subject property. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-4 35/454 SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL (Continued) 10. Reviewed current maps, zoning ordinances, and other material for additional background information pertaining to the subject property, and sale properties. 11. Attempted to visualize the subject property as it would be viewed by a willing and informed buyer, as well as a willing and informed seller. 12. Interviewed various persons, in both public and private life, for factual and inferential information helpful in this appraisal study. 13. Formed an opinion of the highest and best use applicable to the subject property appraised herein. 14. Made, or caused to be made, a search for recent sales of comparable properties. Has viewed, confirmed the sale price, and obtained certain other information pertaining to each sale property contained in this report. 15. Formed an estimate of market value of the subject property, as of the date of value expressed herein, by application of the Sales Comparison Approach; the Income Capitalization and Cost -Summation Approaches were not considered applica- ble in the subject case. 16. Prepared and delivered three copies of this appraisal report in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and in summation of all the activities out- lined above. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-5 36/454 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is made with the following understanding as set forth in items No. 1 through 17, inclusive: 1. That this narrative Appraisal Report is intended to comply with reporting requirements set forth in the Uniform Stand- ards of Professional Appraisal Practice, under Standard Rule 2-2(a), for an Appraisal Report. The information contained in this appraisal report is specific to the needs of the client; no responsibility is assumed for the unauthorized use of this report. 2. That title to the subject property is assumed to be good and merchantable. Liens and encumbrances, if any, have not been deducted from the final estimate of value. The subject property has been appraised as though under responsible ownership. The legal description is assumed accurate. 3. That the appraiser assumes there are no hidden or unappar- ent conditions of the subject property, subsoil, structures, or other improvements, if any, which would render them more or less valuable, unless otherwise stated. Further, the appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions or for the engineering which might be required to discover such conditions. That mechanical and electrical systems and equipment, if any, except as otherwise may be noted in this report, are assumed to be in good working order. The prop- erty appraised is assumed to meet all governmental codes, requirements, and restrictions, unless otherwise stated. 4. That no soils report of the subject property was provided to the appraiser; therefore information, if any, provided by other qualified sources pertaining to these matters is believed accurate, but no liability is assumed for such matters. Further, information, estimates and opinions furnished by others and contained in this report pertaining to the subject property and market data were obtained from sources considered reliable and are believed to be true and correct. No responsibility, however, for the accuracy of such items can be assumed by the appraiser. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-6 37/454 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (Continued) 5. That unless otherwise stated herein, it is assumed there are no encroachments, easements, soil toxics/contaminants, or other physical conditions adversely affecting the value of the subject property. 6. That no report(s) pertaining to mold, organic toxins, or chemical substances at the subject property was provided to the appraiser; therefore, information, if any, provided by other qualified sources pertaining to these matters is believed accurate, but no liability is assumed by the appraiser for such matters. That unless otherwise stated herein, the subject property has been appraised assuming the absence of mold, organic toxins, the presence of asbestos, or other organic and/or chemical substances which may adversely affect the value of the subject property. 7. That no opinion is expressed regarding matters which are legal in nature or which require specialized investigation or knowledge ordinarily not employed by real estate appraisers, even though such matters may be mentioned in the report. 8. That no oil rights have been included in the opinion of value expressed herein. Further, that oil rights, if existing, are assumed to be at least 500 feet below the surface of the land, without the right of surface entry. 9. That the distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements, if any, applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 10. That the valuation of the property appraised is based upon economic and financing conditions prevailing as of the date of value set forth herein. Further, the valuation assumes good, competent, and aggressive management of the subject property. 11. That the appraiser has conducted a visual inspection of the subject property and the market data properties. Should subsequent information be provided relative to changes or differences in (1) the quality of title, (2) physical condition or characteristics of the property, and/or (3) governmental R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-7 38/454 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (Continued) restrictions and regulations, which would increase or decrease the value of the subject property, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the final estimate of value. 12. That the appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give testimony in court or at any governmental or quasi - governmental hearing with reference to the property appraised, unless contractual arrangements have been previ- ously made therefor. 13. That drawings, plats, maps, and other exhibits contained in this report are for illustration purposes only and are not necessarily prepared to standard engineering or architectural scale. 14. That this report is effective only when considered in its entire form, as delivered to the client. No portion of this report will be considered binding if taken out of context. 15. That possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor shall the contents of this report be copied or conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, sales, news, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly with regard to the valuation of the property appraised and the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or the American Society of Appraisers, or designa- tions conferred by said organizations. 16. That the form, format, and phraseology utilized in this report, except the Certification, and Terms and Definitions, shall not be provided to, copied, or used by, any other real estate appraiser, real estate economist, real estate broker, real estate salesperson, property manager, valuation consultant, investment counselor, or others, without the written consent and approval of Ronald P. Laurain. 17. That this appraisal study is considered completely confiden- tial and will not be disclosed or discussed, in whole or in part, with anyone other than the client, or persons designated by the client. R . P . LAURA IN _ & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-8 39/454 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Certain technical terms have been used in the following report which are defined, herein, for the benefit of those who may not be fully familiar with said terms. MARKET VALUE (or Fair Market Value Market value is sometimes referred to as Fair Market Value; the latter is a legal term, and a common synonym of Market Value. Market value as defined in Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) is defined as follows: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowl- edgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the prop- erty sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale." SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: One of the three accepted methods of estimating Market Value. This approach consists of the investigation of recent sales of similar properties to determine the price at which said properties sold. The information so gathered is judged and considered by the appraiser as to its comparability to the subject properties. Recent comparable sales are the basis for the Sales Comparison Approach. _ R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-9 40/454 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS (Continued) COST -SUMMATION APPROACH: Another accepted method of estimating Market Value. This approach consists of estimating the new construction cost of the building and yard improvements and making allowances for appropriate amount of depreciation. The depreciated reconstruction value of the improvements is then added to the Land Value estimate gained from the Sales Comparison Approach. The sum of these two figures is the value indicated by the Cost -Summation Approach. INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH: The Income Capitalization Approach consists of capitalizing the net income of the property under study. The capitalization method studies the income stream, allows for (1) vacancy and credit loss, (2) fixed expenses, (3) operating expenses, and (4) reserves for replacement, and estimates the amount of money which would be paid by a prudent investor to obtain the net income. The capitalization rate is usually commensurate with the risk, and is adjusted for future depreciation or appreciation in value. DEPRECIATION: Used in this appraisal to indicate a lessening in value from any one or more of several causes. Depreciation is not based on age alone, but can result from a combination of age, condition or repair, functional utility, neighborhood influences, or any of several outside economic causes. Depreciation applies only to improvements. The amount of depreciation is a matter for the judgment of the appraiser. HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Used in this appraisal to describe that private use which will (1) yield the greatest net return on the investment, (2) be permitted or have the reasonable probability of being permitted under applicable laws and ordinances, and (3) be appropriate and feasible under a reasonable planning, zoning, and land use concept. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 1-10 41/454 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 42/454 SUBJECT PROPERTY The objective of the subject appraisal study is to establish the market value of a City -owned effective remnant land parcel, identified as Parcel 9465-5, located in the City of Chino Hills. Refer to the assessor's plat map and portion of a site plan identifying the location of the subject remnant land parcel, on the following pages. Per the City of Chino Hills the subject property was formerly subject to a temporary easement as part of the construction of the Soquel Canyon Parkway on-ramp, however, it is understood that said temporary easement is expired. The subject property does not have an assigned parcel number and is considered to be effectively part of the Soquel Canyon Parkway right-of-way. A field survey of the subject property was not provided to the appraiser (via staking of the subject site), however, per discussions with the representatives of the City of Chino Hills, and the applicable mapping provided to the appraiser, it is understood that the subject property is located adjacent north to Assessor's Parcel No. 1028-351-47, as indicated on the mapping on the following pages. APPARENT VESTEE: City of Chino Hills PROPERTY ADDRESS: None. The subject property is effectively part of the Soquel Canyon Parkway right-of-way, at the on-ramp to the Chino Valley (71) Freeway. Chino Hills, California 91709 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of the south half of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 8 West, San Bernardino Meridian, County of San Bernardino, California. A complete metes and bounds legal description is on file with the City of Chino Hills. SITE DESCRIPTION COMMENT: The subject property represents a remnant land parcel, effectively part of the Soquel Canyon Parkway right-of-way LOCATION: The subject property is part of the Soquel Canyon Parkway on-ramp to the Chino Valley (71) Freeway, in the City of Chino Hills. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-1 43/454 0 ' ok 15 �r ? iz-_ y Exhibit � Q'` --5 �z Pa rce 19465 Ozto gl a. /Z.00 d ' O mLM OPOSED 3 _STORY W/ SUB LEVEL PARKING °u°b .. 4 MEDICA5L?IN eft it FF 596, M. FF 586.9 ar ' Level} l fill PARCEL ---,GROSS AREA= --2-,70 ACRE FM w a NEtAM= 2.63 ACRE --- ------ I I w OUR Au Am � awt� SITE DESCRIPTION (Continued) LAND SHAPE: The subject remnant land parcel has a triangular land configuration. DIMENSIONS: Various dimensions. LAND AREA: Per information provided by the City of Chino Hills, the subject remnant land parcel contains 695± square feet of land area. TOPOGRAPHY: Generally level. DRAINAGE: Assumed to be adequate. SOIL STABILITY: Assumed to be adequate. SOIL CONTAMINATION: Assumed to be free of soil contaminants and toxins. PUBLIC UTILITIES: Water, gas, electric power, telephone, and sanitary sewer are assumed to be available in the immediate area. EASEMENTS: Easements, if existing, are assumed to be located along the property boundary, not interfering with the highest and best use of the site. It is further assumed that there are no "cross -lot" or "blanket" easements over the subject parcel. EARTHQUAKE FAULT: It is assumed that the subject land parcel is not located in an earthquake fault study zone. PRESENT USE: Vacant land. ZONING: The subject property, as part of a public right- of-way, does not have a zone designation. The adjacent southerly property, which is privately -owned, is located within the C -F (Commercial Freeway) zone district. The subject property has been considered as an effective commercial remnant land parcel. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-3 46/454 SITE DESCRIPTION (Continued) HIGHEST AND BEST USE: The reader is referred to the first portion of the Valuation Analysis Section for a discus- sion regarding the highest and best use of the subject property. IMPROVEMENTS COMMENT: None; the subject property is effectively vacant land. ASSESSMENT DATA COMMENT: The subject property is effectively part of a public right-of-way and does not have an assessor's parcel number, or other assessment information. OWNERSHIP HISTORY COMMENT: The subject property has apparently been vested with the current owner (City of Chino Hills) for more than ten years. A Grant Deed provided to the appraiser, recorded September 13, 2000, as Document No. 332404 indicates the subject property was subject to an easement for temporary construction purposes, however, said temporary rights had previously expired on December 31, 1996. It is understood that the subject property is owned by the City of Chino Hills, in fee. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-4 47/454 NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT LOCATION: The subject property is located at the extreme southwest portion of the County of San Bernardino. The Orange, Riverside and Los Angeles County boundaries are located immediately south, east, and west, respec- tively, of the City of Chino Hills. The subject property is located in the east central portion of the City. The Chino Valley (71) Freeway is located adjacent northeasterly of the subject property. The Riverside (91) is located approximately seven miles southerly of the subject property; said freeways are part of the freeway network serving the greater Southern California region. Northerly -southerly thor- oughfares in the immediate subject vicinity include Peyton Drive, Ramona Avenue, and Central Avenue which turns into Soquel Canyon Parkway southerly of the 71 Freeway; easterly -westerly thoroughfares include Chino Hills Parkway and Grand Avenue; Soquel Canyon Parkway veers west, southerly of the 71 Freeway. LAND USES: As stated, the subject property is a remnant land parcel as part of the Soquel Canyon Parkway right-of-way. Commercial land, improved retail, and business park uses are located in the immediate subject area, along Soquel Canyon Parkway and Fairfield Ranch Road. The new Civic Center is located approximately 21/2 miles northwesterly of the subject property, in the southeast quadrant of Grand Avenue and Peyton Drive. The new Civic Center is adjacent to The Shoppes at Chino Hills, a major retail center. The Chino Spectrum Towne Center, another major retail development, is located approximately two miles northwesterly of the subject property, on the south side of Grand Avenue. Other commercial uses are typically located on primary thoroughfares. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-5 48/454 NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT (Continued) LAND USES: (Continued) The immediate area surrounding the subject property, along secondary streets, is devel- oped primarily with low to medium density single family residential uses. The Fairfield Ranch Business Park, a mixed commercial and industrial area, is located at the northwesterly quadrant of the 71 Freeway and Central Avenue. The Los Serranos Country Club is located westerly of the immediate subject area. Ruben S. Ayala High School, the Boys' Republic School, Chino Hills Community Park and the McCoy Equestrian Center, are located to the northwest of the subject property, along Peyton Drive. Chino Hills State Park is located southerly of the immediate subject area. BUILT-UP: The immediate subject neighborhood is effec- tively 60% built-up, exclusive of paved parking lots, public schools, and public parks/open space uses. OCCUPANCY: Single family residential: 90±% owners 10±% tenants Multiple family residential: 20±% owners 80±% tenants Commercial: 20±% owners 80±% tenants PRICE RANGE: Residential acreage land values in the imme- diate and general subject area range widely from approximately $10.00 to exceeding $30.00 per square foot of land area, depend- ent largely upon views, topography, develop- ment density, entitlements, etc. Commercial land values in the immediate and general area can range widely from approximately $6.00 per square foot of land area for larger "raw" land acreage sites, to exceeding $25.00 per square foot for smaller "lot and block" sites R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-6 49/454 NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT (Continued) PRICE RANGE: (Continued) and/or commercial pad areas in larger retail centers. Improved single family and low den- sity multiple family residential properties gen- erally range in value from $400,000 to exceeding $650,000, however, larger custom estate hoes can range in value in excess of $2,000,000. Large multiple family residential properties range in value in excess of $1,000,000. Smaller Improved commercial and industrial properties generally range in value from $400,000 to exceeding $1,000,000, however larger regional shopping centers range in value in excess of $75,000,000. PRICE TREND: There was a general upward value trend affecting residential properties within the immediate and general subject market area, from 2003 through the mid portion of 2006, after which property values generally stabi- lized. Beginning in 2007, residential property values began to decrease significantly. The decrease in residential sales activity and pricing continued through the latter portion of 2008, due primarily to the subprime credit and housing crisis, multi -billion dollar write-downs of mortgage-backed securities by regional and national banks, and a lack of available financing. In the first portion of 2009 residen- tial values abruptly stabilized, due primarily to fiscal stimulus programs and first time home buyer tax credits. The residential real estate market remained largely flat through the mid portion of 2012, with nominal price increases in certain markets. Beginning in the mid part of 2012, residential property values began to increase. Said price increase continued through the 2013, after which the rate of increase decreased slightly through 2014. Residential property values appear to have stabilized in latter portion of 2015, however, certain markets are still experiencing some slight increases in residential property values. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-7 50/454 NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT (Continued) PRICE TREND: (Continued) Real estate trends affecting commercial and industrial properties within the greater subject market area experienced an upward value trend from 2003 through the first portion of 2007, after which property values generally stabilized. In the first portion of 2008, how- ever, commercial and industrial markets also began to experience decreases in price levels and development activity, which decreases accelerated in the latter portion of 2008, and continued through the end of 2009. Per (1) discussions with various brokers, (2) a review of various published reports, and (3) a review of numerous sale transactions, commercial and industrial property values generally stabilized in the mid portion of 2010. In the latter portion of 2011, the number of commercial and industrial property sale transactions began to increase, which led to nominal price increases, beginning in the mid portion of 2012 and continuing through the latter portion of 2014. In the general subject market area, prices stabilized in 2015 and have remained relatively level through the present time. AGE RANGE: The age range of all types of improved prop- erties is rather broad. Generally, the age range is 40 years to less than 5 years. Single family and certain multiple residential proper- ties have effective of ages of approximately 5 to 20. Typical commercial properties have effective ages of approximately 10 to 30 years. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE: Property maintenance in the immediate and general neighborhood, evidenced by an on- going maintenance program, ranges from average to good. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-8 51/454 NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT (Continued) PUBLIC/PRIVATE FACILITIES: The availability and adequacy of public facilities, transportation, schools, industrial areas, commercial facilities and residential housing are rated average. The City of Chino Hills provides fire protection; police protection is provided under contractual arrangements with the County of San Bernardino. Refer to City of Chino Hills Description in the Addenda section. See Valuation Analysis in the following section. _ R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2-9 52/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS 53/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS The purpose of the subject appraisal study is the estimation of market value of the subject remnant land parcel; it is understood that the remnant land parcel may be sold to the adjacent property owner. Prior to the application of the appraisal process, it is necessary to consider and analyze the highest and best use of the subject remnant land parcel. HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANAL YSIS: Highest and best use is defined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, by the Appraisal Institute, 11 th Edition, Page 297, as: "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value." In the process of forming an opinion of highest and best use, consideration must be given to various environmental and political factors such as zoning restrictions, probability of zone change, private deed restrictions, location, land size and configuration, topography, and the character/quality of land uses in the immediate and general subject market area. There are four basic criteria utilized in the highest and best use analysis of a property as if vacant, as well as presently improved. The four criteria are summarized as follows: 1. Physically possible. 2. Legally permissible. 3. Financially feasible. 4. Maximally productive. The foregoing are typically considered sequentially; for example, a specific use may prove to be maximally productive, however, if it is not legally permis- sible, or physically possible, the productivity is irrelevant. The subject property represents a remnant land parcel containing 695± square feet of land area. It is understood that the site is a remnant parcel from the construction of the Soquel Canyon Parkway on-ramp at the Chino Valley (71) Freeway. Although the site is not physically improved with a public street it is understood the subject property was utilized as a temporary construction easement area. _ R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-1 54/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANAL YS/S: (Continued) The subject property does not have an assigned parcel number and is considered to be effectively part of the Soquel Canyon Parkway right-of-way. The site does not have a zone designation, however, properties in the immediate area are zoned for commercial use (commercial freeway and commercial general). All public utilities including water, gas, electric power, telephone, as well as sanitary sewer are available in the immediate area of the subject remnant land parcel (at the adjacent residential neighborhood). Due to the remnant nature of the subject property, the property is effectively landlocked, cannot be developed as a single entity, and is not considered readily marketable as a "stand alone" parcel due to the limited utility as a single entity. Based on the foregoing, the subject remnant land parcel, as a single entity, fails to meet the requirements of a good investment, i.e. (1) there is a very limited market of potential/speculative buyers, (2) liquidity is rated poor, (3) conventional financing is generally not available thus requiring an all cash purchase, or financing carried by the seller, and (4) value collateral is low due to the discount in price necessary to attract a buyer. In view of the foregoing, the highest and best use of the subject land parcel is joinder to the adjacent southerly property, wherein the site could be utilized as part of a larger commercial development (as currently proposed). Note that the adjacent southerly parcel (APN 1028-351-47) is a vacant land parcel proposed for commercial development, and is the only parcel the subject property could reasonably be joined to for economic development. While highest and best use generally involves a specific use or utilization of the land, an additional use which may be considered is a "probable use," which would be the speculative purchase and holding for value appreciation and profit at the time of resale. VAL UA TION METHODS: There are three conventional methods (approaches) which can be used to estimate value. They are the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost -Summation Approach, and Income Capitalization Approach. Inasmuch as the subject Appraisal study pertains to a vacant land parcel, the Sales Comparison Approach is the only approach considered applicable as a reliable indicator of _ R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-2 55/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) VAL UA T/ON METHODS: (Continued) land value. The reader is referred to the Preface Section following the heading "Terms and Definitions," for a brief description of the various approaches to value. Two -Phase Valuation: A two-phase valuation approach has been employed in the subject appraisal study. The first phase involved the estimation of typical commercial acreage land value in the immediate subject area (such as the property adjacent south to the subject remnant land parcel). Note that there are effectively no lot and block commercial land parcels in the immediate subject area. Further, as stated, the subject remnant land parcel would be reasonably joined to the adjacent southerly vacant commercial land parcel which contains 10.32 acres of land area. After reviewing and analyzing sales of commercial acreage land parcels in the immediate and general subject market area, the "base" unit rate applicable to acreage commercial land in the subject neighborhood is $10.00 per square foot of land area. The second phase of the appraisal study involved an analysis of sale prices of small, irregularly configured, landlocked, and/or marginally desirable/ - marketable land parcels having limited utility. The sale prices of the limited utility parcels were then compared to the sale prices of other comparable "typical" land parcels in the immediate and general area of the limited utility parcels; the differential in land value thus demonstrates the discount indicated for limited utility land sales. Due to the limited demand and marketability, and thus limited quantity of such sales, it was necessary to expand the market research to include (1) sales that took place within the past 25 years, (2) sales within the greater Los Angeles County region, and (3) properties zoned for residential, commercial, and industrial use, in order to find, review and analyze an adequate and repre- sentative number of limited -use sale properties. Based on a comparison of the two types of properties (limited -use and "typical" full utility properties), a discount is reflected in the purchase price of the limited -use parcels. The indicated discount rates range from 59% to 95%. The discount considered applicable to the subject remnant land parcel is 85%. The applications of the first and second phases of the Sales Comparison Approach follow. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-3 56/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: The Sales Comparison Approach takes into account properties which have sold in the open market. This approach, whether applied to vacant or improved property, is based on the Principle of Substitution which states, "The maximum value of a property tends to be set by the cost of acquiring an equally desirable substitute property, assuming no costly delay is encoun- tered in making the substitution." Thus, the Sales Comparison Approach attempts to equate the subject parcel, considered as a "typical" residential site, with the various sale properties, by analyzing and weighing the various elements of comparability. The Sales Comparison Approach was utilized to estimate the value of commercial land in the immediate subject neighborhood, after an investigation was conducted of sales of vacant, or effectively vacant, commercial land within the immediate and general subject market area. The reader is referred to the Market Data Section for detailed information pertaining to each commercial land sale property. Refer also to the Market Data Map in the Market Data Section, for an illustration of the location of each sale property. The reader is referred to the summary of Commercial Land Value Indicators on the following page. The properties surveyed consist of vacant commercial acreage land parcels ranging in size from 234,788 to 1,608,235 square feet (5.39± to 36.92± acres). The purchase prices per square foot of land area range from $6.66 to $11.05. The sales are set forth in chronological order and took place between March 2014, and January 2016. Financing and Cash Equivalency Adjustments: Sale properties are adjusted for financing arrangements involved in trans- actions which are not market -typical. A cash equivalency adjustment is generally made in those cases where the cash down payment is generally less than 10% of the purchase price and the financing is other than conven- tional. The less -than -typical cash down payment, combined with other than conventional financing, could influence a higher purchase price. All of the sale properties, with the exception of Data 3 and 5, involved all cash transactions. Data 3 involved all cash to the seller with a conventional construction loan which exceeded the land sale price. Data 5 involved 50% cash down to a first trust deed note with a conventional lender. A cash equivalency adjustment, therefore, is not warranted for any of the sale properties. R . P . LAURA IN _ & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-4 57/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) COMMERCIAL LAND VALUE IND/CA TORS: Data Date Zoning Land Size Corner Freeway Sale Price $ Per SF 1 3-14 C -G 1,144,757 sf yes no $7,622,500 $6.66 15920 Pomona Rincon Rd., Chino Hills 2 7-14 CF 378,972 sf yes yes $4,003,636 $10.56 NW Cnr. Fairfield Ranch Rd. and Red Barn Ct., Chino Hills 3 4-15 C3 341,118 sf no yes $3,000,000 $8.79 NW Cnr. Pomona (60) Fwy. and Euclid Ave., Ontario 4 6-15 PD 50-153 234,788 sf no yes $1,606,000 $6.84 S'ly side Fairfield Ranch Rd., W'ly of Central Ave., Chino Hills 5 10-15 BP 1,608,235 sf double no $17,776,000 $11.05 NE Cnr. Fairfield Ranch Rd. and Monte Vista Ave., Chino Hills 6 1-16 C -G 268,330 sf no yes $2,700,000 $10.06 N'ly side of Soquel Canyon Pkwy., at Pomona Rincon Rd., Chino Hills 7 1-16 C-G/R-S 911,711 sf no yes $8,300,000 $9.10 NW'ly quadrant of Soquel Canyon Pkwy. and Hwy. 71, Chino Hills R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-5 58/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Continued) Market Conditions: Consideration of the market conditions (date of sale) is appropriate when certain sale properties occur during a rising or declining market. The consid- eration for market conditions is based upon observation of the real estate market and value appreciation/declining cycles dating back more than 15 years. Based on discussions with local real estate brokers, and observations of overall market conditions, it is apparent that there was a general upward value trend affecting residential properties within the immediate and general subject market area, from 2003 through the mid portion of 2006, after which property values generally stabilized. Beginning in 2007, residential property values began to decrease significantly. The decrease in residential sales activity and pricing continued through the latter portion of 2008, due primarily to the subprime credit and housing crisis, multi -billion dollar write-downs of mort- gage-backed securities by regional and national banks, and a lack of available financing. In the first portion of 2009 residential values abruptly stabilized, due primarily to fiscal stimulus programs and first time home buyer tax credits. The commercial and industrial markets generally followed the residential market decline from 2007 through 2009. Residential property values remained generally level through the first portion of 2011, followed by increases in pricing and sales activity through the mid portion of 2015. Residential property values appear to have stabilized in latter portion of 2015; however, certain markets are still experiencing some slight value increases. Per (1) discussions with various brokers, (2) a review of various published reports, and (3) a review of numerous sale transactions, commercial and industrial property values generally stabilized in the mid por- tion of 2010. In the latter portion of 2011, the number of commercial and industrial property sale transactions began to increase, which led to nominal price increases, beginning in the mid portion of 2012 and continuing through the mid portion of 2014. In the general subject market area, commercial and industrial prices appear to have stabilized in 2015 and have remained relatively level through the present time. Refer to the following graphs, obtained from Loopnet, for the retail rent trend in Chino, the office rent trend in Ontario, and the retail sales trend in the larger Ontario area. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-6 59/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (Continued) Asking Rent Retail for Lease Chino. GA (5.SFNear) S22.00- S20.00- S18.00- 516.00- 514.00 - 2013 2414 2015 — State — IMetro — County — City 0 Asking Rent Office for Lease Ontario, CA ($/SF/Year) S24.00- 24.00- $22.00- $22.00- $20.00- SUM- S16.00 - S14 -00- 201 3 $20.00SUM516.00514.00-2013 2014 2015 — State — Metro — County R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-7 60/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) SALES COMPARISON APPROACH; (Continued) Asking Prices Retail for Sale Ontario, CA (55F) 6220 - $210- $200- S190- S180- S170- S160 2103200S1sEl318031705160 - 2013 2014 2015 State — Metro — County 0 Lowbk, As can be seen in the above graphs, property values and rental rates appear to have stabilized in the latter portion of 2014 and remained generally level to slightly increasing in 2015. The overall commercial land market is considered to be slightly increasing through 2014, and relatively stable in 2015. Based on the foregoing, adjustments have been made to the various sale properties based on the following market conditions schedule: January -June, 2014 July -December, 2014 January -December, 2015 Elements of Comparability.- + 12.0% per year, or + 1.0% per month + 6.0% per year, or + 0.5% per month 0.0% per year, or 0.0% per month All of the sales employed herein conveyed title to the fee simple interest, and represent arms -length transactions. After viewing all of the commercial land sale properties, an analysis was made of the various elements of compara- bility, as compared to a "typical" land acreage land parcel. Some of those elements include, but are not limited to, the following: R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS -ANALYSTS 3-8 61/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) SALES COMPARISON APPROACH; (Continued) General location. Topography/grading. Land size. Land configuration/utility. Site prominence. Zoning. Access. Off-site improvements. Corner location Plans/entitlements. The reader is referred to the Land Sales Comparison Grid on the following page, regarding certain elements of comparability of the subject property, as if "typical," as compared to the various commercial land sale properties. The adjustments for comparability, with the exception of conditions of sale, financ- ing, and market conditions, are judgment estimates and are intended to be general in the process of equating the subject property, as if "typical," with the respective land sale properties and varying elements of comparability. Data 1 and 2 required market conditions adjustments of positive 6.0% and 3.0%, respectively, for the inferior market conditions at the time of sale. None of the land sale properties required an adjustment for conditions of sale or financing. Adjustments for the various elements of comparability were applied on a qualitative basis due to the lack of direct market evidence regarding quantitative adjustments in the subject market. The adjustment applied to the various land sales for general location is based upon the experience and judgment of the appraiser, as well as consideration of the various areas wherein the land sale properties are located, as compared to the subject neighborhood. Note, however, that all of the sales properties are located in the immediate subject neighborhood with the exception of Data 3, located northerly of the subject area in Ontario, which is deemed inferior to the subject property regarding general location. As stated, the "typical" parcel has been considered as commercial acreage, generally ranging in size from 5 to 10 acres. In accordance with general economic principles, larger acreage land parcels will generally sell at an overall lower rate per square foot of land area, as compared to smaller acreage parcels. As such, Data 1 and 5, containing just over 26 and 36 acres, respectively, are deemed inferior to the "typical" parcel with respect to land size, when considered on a price per square foot basis. Data 7 also contains a relatively large land size; however, the property consists of 4 smaller parcels, generally ranging from 5 to 10 acres, and was marketed accordingly. R . P . LAURA IN _ & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-9 62/454 w 0 63/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) SALES COMPARISON APPROACH; (Continued) Data 1 is located in the immediate subject area, across the street from the parcel to which the subject may be joined. The site, however, requires significant fill and rough grading, due to the below street grade level of the site. As such, Data 1 is deemed inferior regarding topography/grading. Data 4 has a highly irregular land configuration, and is deemed inferior accordingly. The seller of Data 5 had preliminary plans for the development of an office/industrial business park, and is deemed superior accordingly. As noted on the foregoing grid Data 2, 6, and 7 are deemed generally similar to the "typical" commercial acreage land parcel. Note that Data 6 and 7 were acquired by the same buyer, on the same day, from two separate sellers. The site contains a total of 5 parcels located on the westerly side of Soquel Canyon Parkway, across from the subject property. The reader is referred to the following array of the commercial land sale properties utilized herein. The sales are placed in order within the array by rating with respect to overall comparability. As stated, the unit rates have been adjusted for market conditions; none of the land sale properties required an adjustment for conditions of sale or financing. The market conditions adjusted unit rates range from $6.84 to $11.05 per square foot, as follows: R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-11 64/454 Overall Rate Per Data Comparability SF Land 5 superior $11.05 2 similar $10.88 6 similar $10.06 "Typical" - - - $10.00 7 similar $9.10 3 inferior $8.79 1 inferior $7.06 4 inferior $6.84 R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-11 64/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) SALES COMPARISON APPROACH; (Continued) All of the sale properties were considered helpful in the forgoing valuation; primary weight was assigned to Data 2, 6, and 7; secondary weight was assigned to the remaining sale properties. Based on the foregoing analysis, the unit rate considered applicable to the subject property, as a "typical," commercial acreage land parcel, before the application of a discount, is: As -if "typical" commercial acreage $10.00 per square foot of land area See Land Value Discount beginning on the following page. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-12 65/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) LAND VALUE DISCOUNT: A discount in price is reflected in the marketplace for properties offering limited utility as a single entity. The limited utility sales include small, irregularly configured, landlocked, and/or marginally desirable/marketable land parcels that sold at significantly discounted rates, compared to prices of other compa- rable utilitarian/developable land parcels in the respective market areas. Due to the limited demand and marketability, and thus limited quantity of such sales, it was necessary to expand the market research to include (1) sales that took place within the past 25 years, (2) the greater Los Angeles county area, and (3) residential, commercial, and industrial zone designations, in order to find, review and analyze an adequate and representative number of limited - use sale properties. After locating said limited utility sale properties, the appraisers reviewed sales of comparable conventional/utilitarian parcels in the general area of the limited utility property, for the purpose of deriving the market -indicated discount. For example, if a landlocked or irregularly shaped remnant parcel offering limited or no utility as a single entity is acquired for assemblage to an existing utilitar- ian land parcel, or for speculative investment purposes, at a rate of $5.00 per square foot of land area, and generally comparable utilitarian land in the immediate area of the limited utility property is selling for $25.00 per square foot, the indicated discount is 80% ($5.00 -:- $25.00 = 20%). The discounted land sales utilized in this study are located at six locations within the county of Los Angeles. Each discounted land sale was compared with three comparable utilitarian land sales in the respective market areas. The limited utility land sales indicate discounts ranging from 59% to 95%. The group summaries are contained on the following three pages. Note that independent development of the subject remnant land parcel is not considered reasonably probable. The subject appraisal study assumes that the subject remnant land parcel could be sold on the open market for joinder and/or speculative purposes, as an individual entity. Continued . . . . R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-13 66/454 SUMMARY OF LAND VALUE DISCOUNT DATA Group A Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner A 4-88 CB 750 sf no E. side Pine Ave., beg. 150'N. of Broadway, Long Beach A-1 6-87 CO 23,700 sf yes NW cnr. Pacific Ave and Third St., Long Beach A-2 4-88 CO 23,700 sf yes NE cnr. Cedar Ave. and Third St., Long Beach A-3 8-88 CB 8,750 sf yes NE cnr. Elm Ave. and First St., Long Beach Indicated discount of Sale A: Sale Price $ Per SF $5,000 $6.67 $1,600,000 $67.51 $1,500,000 $63.29 $390,000 $44.57 A-1 $6.67 - $67.51 = 10% or discount of: A-2 $6.67 - $63.29 = 11% or discount of: A-3 $6.67 - $44.57 = 15% or discount of: Group B Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner Sale Price B 1-91 Mi 480 sf yes $1,000 NW cnr. Gardendale St. and Century Fwy., service drive, Paramount B-1 8-90 M2 70,700 sf no $1,050,000 E. side Garfield Ave., beg. 815.86'N. of Rosecrans Ave., Paramount B-2 2-91 M1 59,710 sf no $899,000 E. side Lakewood Blvd., beg. 325'S. of Rosecrans Ave., Bellflower B-3 7-91 M1 21,780 sf no $337,000 My side Sonrisa St., beg. 60' S'ly of Rosecrans Ave., Bellflower Indicated discount of Sale B: B-1 $2.08 - $14.85 = 14% or discount of: B-2 $2.08 - $15.06 = 14% or discount of: B-3 $2.08 - $15.47 = 13% or discount of: R. P. L A U R A I N & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-14 90% 89% 85% $ Per SF $2.08 $14.85 $15.06 $15.47 86% 86% 87% 67/454 PilikVilkVIF-11; I\D . =1 1111 1--ido-7011,11\ • — • Group C Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner Sale Price $ Per SF C 1-95 C2 1,500 sf no $7,500 $5.00 12-04 RS -6 8,253 sf no $374,000 S. side Imperial Hwy., beg. 549.61'W. of Crenshaw Blvd., Inglewood N. side Franklin St., beg. 45±'E. of Stanton Ave., Buena Park C-1 4-94 C2-2 84,116 sf yes $1,050,000 $12.48 N. side Cedar St., beg. 374±'E. of Lakewood Blvd., Bellflower SW cnr. 87th St. and Western Ave., Los Angeles D-4 10-05 R2 5,000 sf no $215,000 C-2 8-94 C2 67,639 sf no $825,000 $12.20 discount of Sale D: W. side Hawthorne Blvd., beg. 405.51'S. of 120th St., Hawthorne $2.14 - $45.32 = 5% or discount of: C-3 2-95 C2 35,250 sf no $435,000 $12.34 $2.14 - $34.82 = 6% or discount of: W. side Western Ave., beg. 11 5' N. of Imperial Hwy., Los Angeles $2.14 - $43.00 = 5% or discount of: Indicated discount of Sale C: C-1 $5.00 - . - $12.48 = 40% or discount of: 60% C-2 $5.00 - . - $12.20 = 41% or discount of: 59% C-3 $5.00 - . - $12.34 = 41% or discount of: 59% Group D Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner Sale Price $ Per SF D 8-05 OS/R1 2,894 sf no $6,200 $2.14 S. side Centralia St., at terminus of Studebaker Rd., Lakewood D-1 12-04 RS -6 8,253 sf no $374,000 $45.32 N. side Franklin St., beg. 45±'E. of Stanton Ave., Buena Park D-3 5-05 R2 19,670 sf no $685,000 $34.82 N. side Cedar St., beg. 374±'E. of Lakewood Blvd., Bellflower D-4 10-05 R2 5,000 sf no $215,000 $43.00 W. side Violeta Ave., beg. 200'S. of 223rd St., Hawaiian Gardens Indicated discount of Sale D: D-1 $2.14 - $45.32 = 5% or discount of: 95% D-2 $2.14 - $45.61 = 5% or discount of: 95% D-3 $2.14 - $34.82 = 6% or discount of: 94% D-4 $2.14 - $43.00 = 5% or discount of: 95% R. P. LAU RAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-15 68/454 SUMMARY OF LAND VALUE DISCOUNT DATA (Continued) Group E Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner Sale Price $ Per SF E-1 2-06 SP SFR 935 sf no $5,000 $5.35 Remnant land adj. N'ly of 12859 Rock Crest Ln., Pomona E-2 3-06 SP SFR 1,851 sf no $10,000 $5.40 Remnant land adj. N'ly of 12843 Rock Crest Ln., Pomona F-2 E-3 3-06 SP SFR 1,370 sf no $7,500 $5.47 NE cnr. Defiance Ave. and 99th St., Los Angeles Remnant land adj. N'ly of 12851 Rock Crest Ln., Pomona F-3 E-4 12-05 R1-6000 15,540 sf yes $250,000 $16.09 S. side 84th St., beg. 45±'W. of Beach St., Los Angeles SW cnr. Phillips Blvd. and Towne Ave., Pomona Indicated E-5 4-06 RS 4,200 sf no $160,000 $38.10 $4.05 - $22.41 = 18% W. side Monterey Ave., beg. 165'S. of Bird Farm Rd., Chino Hills 82% E-6 2-07 RD4.5 10,080 sf no $221,000 $21.92 F-3 N. side Walnut St., beg. 120'W. of Ross Ave., Chino or discount of: 68% Indicated discount of Sales E-1, E-2, and E-3 (mean): E-4 $5.41 - $16.09 = 34% or discount of: 66% E-5 $5.41 - $38.10 = 14% or discount of: 86% E-6 $5.41 - $21.92 = 25% or discount of: 75% Group F Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner Sale Price $ Per SF F 2-09 R1 1,975 sf no $8,000 $4.05 S. side 122nd St., beg. 120±'W. of Avalon Blvd., Los Angeles F-1 9-08 R1-1 3,123 sf no $70,000 $22.41 Ely side Gorman Ave., beg. 175' N'ly of 108th St., Los Angeles F-2 11-08 R1-1 6,572 sf yes $77,000 $11.72 NE cnr. Defiance Ave. and 99th St., Los Angeles F-3 6-09 R2 6,000 sf no $75,000 $12.50 S. side 84th St., beg. 45±'W. of Beach St., Los Angeles Indicated discount of Sale F: F-1 $4.05 - $22.41 = 18% or discount of: 82% F-2 $4.05 - $11.72 = 35% or discount of: 65% F-3 $4.05 - $12.50 = 32% or discount of: 68% R. P. LAU RAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-16 69/454 SUMMARY OF LAND VALUE DISCOUNT DATA (Continued) Corner Group G $ Per SF H 3-15 T 36,150 sf Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner Sale Price $ Per SF G 7-12 R1 1,205 sf yes $4,500 $3.73 yes NW cnr. Faber St. and Inglewood Ave., Redondo Beach G-1 2-11 R1 6,040 sf no $520,000 $86.09 9-14 2804 Timothy Ave., Redondo Beach no $850,000 $29.31 G-2 4-11 R1 5,500 sf no $450,000 $81.82 2917 Perkins Ln., Redondo Beach 10-14 SP 47,050 sf no G-3 12-11 R1 7,500 sf no $600,000 $80.00 59th St., 2013 Morgan Ln., Redondo Beach Indicated discount of Sale H: Indicated discount of Sale G: H-1 $10.71 G-1 $3.73 - $86.09 = 4% or discount of: 96% G-2 $3.73 - $81.82 = 5% or discount of: 95% G-3 $3.73 - $80.00 = 5% or discount of: 95% Group H Sale Date Zoning Land Size Corner Sale Price $ Per SF H 3-15 T 36,150 sf no $387,000 $10.71 S. side Washington Blvd., beg. 300±'W. of Lambert Rd., Whittier H-1 4-14 SP 31,664 sf yes $950,000 $30.00 12520 Washington Blvd., Whittier H-2 9-14 CP 29,000 sf no $850,000 $29.31 8050 Florence Ave., Downey H-3 10-14 SP 47,050 sf no $1,520,000 $32.31 W. side Halldale Ave., beg. 82'S. of 59th St., Los Angeles Indicated discount of Sale H: H-1 $10.71 - $30.00 = 36% or discount of: 64% H-2 $10.71 - $29.31 = 37% or discount of: 63% H-3 $10.71 - $32.31 = 33% or discount of: 67% R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-17 70/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) LAND VALUE DISCOUNT; (Continued) Note that joinder of the subject remnant land parcel, containing 695± square feet of land area, to the adjacent southerly acreage land parcel containing 10.32 acres, would not have a measurable impact on the overall land area, configuration, use, or utility of said adjacent property. The subject remnant land parcel is incorporated into the land area of the proposed development (per the Exhibit G site plan drawing contained in the Subject Property Section, as provided to the appraiser), however, the use of the subject land parcel is not deemed essential as part of the larger development. Hence, there is not an assemblage premium attributed to the subject remnant land parcel. Absent the joinder of the subject remnant parcel, the adjacent southerly development could be readily redesigned given the relatively large land area of 10.32 acres. As an individual entity the subject remnant land parcel is effectively land locked, and could only reasonably be acquired as a highly speculative purchase. Based on the foregoing, and taking into consideration (1) the limited number of potential buyers (adjacent property owner or speculative buyers), (2) the limited chances of procuring a speculative buyer on the open market, and (3) the size and landlocked nature of the subject remnant land parcel, a discount rate at the mid to upper portion of the indicated range is considered appropriate in the subject case. A discount of 85% is judged appropriate and has been applied to the "typical" commercial acreage land value of $10.00 per square foot. The discount is intended to attract buyers that would not otherwise be interested in making the effort to acquire the subject remnant land parcel for speculative investment purposes. As stated, the land value unit rate applicable to the subject property, as a "typical" site, is $10.00 per square foot of land area. Applying a land discount rate of 85% results in a unit rate of $1.50 per square foot of land area. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-18 71/454 VALUATION ANALYSIS (Continued) FAIR MARKET VALUE: By way of review and comparison, the subject property represents a remnant land parcel containing 695± square feet of land area. The site is landlocked as an individual entity, and does not have an assigned assessor's parcel number. The unit rate applicable to the subject remnant land parcel is $1.50 per square foot of land area. The value of the subject property, as of January 22, 2016, is estimated at $1,000, as follows: 695 SF x $1.50 = $1,043. Adjusted: $1,000. Based on the foregoing analysis, the fee simple market value of the subject property, as of January 22, 2016, is $1,000. MARKETING EXPOSURE: The marketing exposure of a particular property is a direct function of supply and demand within a particular market segment. Generally, a higher demand results in a shorter marketing period. During the course of market research for the subject appraisal study, interviews were conducted with parties involved in the transactions employed in the Sales Comparison Approach. Based on said interviews, as well interviews with real estate brokers special- izing in the subject market area, the marketing exposure estimated for the subject remnant land parcel, assuming an aggressive and comprehensive marketing program, is approximately 24 to 36 months; said extended market- ing exposure is due to the limited utility of the remnant land parcel and resultant difficulty in procuring a speculative buyer. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3-19 72/454 MARKET DATA 73/454 MARKET DATA SUMMARY COMMERCIAL LAND VALUE INDICATORS: Data Date Zoning Land Size Corner Freeway Sale Price $ Per SF 1 3-14 C -G 1,144,757 sf yes no $7,622,500 $6.66 15920 Pomona Rincon Rd., Chino Hills 2 7-14 CF 378,972 sf yes yes $4,003,636 $10.56 NW Cnr. Fairfield Ranch Rd. and Red Barn Ct., Chino Hills 3 4-15 C3 341,118 sf no yes $3,000,000 $8.79 NW Cnr. Pomona (60) Fwy. and Euclid Ave., Ontario 4 6-15 PD 50-153 234,788 sf no yes $1,606,000 $6.84 S'ly side Fairfield Ranch Rd., W'ly of Central Ave., Chino Hills 5 10-15 BP 1,608,235 sf double no $17,776,000 $11.05 NE Cnr. Fairfield Ranch Rd. and Monte Vista Ave., Chino Hills 6 1-16 C -G 268,330 sf no yes $2,700,000 $10.06 My side of Soquel Canyon Pkwy., at Pomona Rincon Rd., Chino Hills 7 1-16 C-G/R-S 911,711 sf no yes $8,300,000 $9.10 NW'ly quadrant of Soquel Canyon Pkwy. and Hwy. 71, Chino Hills R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-1 74/454 MARKET DATA 1 15920 Pomona Rincon Road Chino Hills GRANTOR: Higgins Brick Company GRANTEE: WLPX Eastvale, LLC SALE DATE: March 18,2014 DOC. NO.: 097727 APN: 1025-452-06 LAND SIZE: 1,144,757 sq -ft. ZONING: C -G TOPOGRAPHY: Effectively level SALE PRICE: $7,622,500 PRESENT USE: Vacant land TERMS: All cash BLDG. IMPS.: None CONFIRMED BY: Eric Westedt, broker VALUE INDICATION: $6.66 per SF land R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-2 75/454 MARKET DATA 2 NW corner Fairfield Ranch Road and Red Barn Court Chino Hills "low, ' GRANTOR: Indus -Chino Hills LP APN: 1028-191-05 GRANTEE: BAPS Development, LAND SIZE: 378,972 sq.ft. Inc. SALE DATE: July 9, 2014 ZONING: CF DOC. NO.: 247236 TOPOGRAPHY: Effectively level SALE PRICE: $4,003,636 PRESENT USE: Vacant land TERMS: All cash BLDG. IMPS.: Effectively vacant land CONFIRMED BY: Scott Kaplan, broker VALUE INDICATION: $10.56 per SF land R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-3 76/454 MARKET DATA 3 Northwest corner Pomona (60) Freeway and Euclid Avenue Ontario GRANTOR: GRANTEE: SALE DATE DOC. NO.: SALE PRICE: TERMS: CONFIRMED BY: Joseph & Doleen Borba APN: Family LTD Partnership TH Arbor Investments, LAND SIZE: LLC April 24, 2015 ZONING: 166429 TOPOGRAPHY: $3,000,000 PRESENT USE: 1051-061-01 341,118 sq.ft. C3 Effectively level Vacant land All cash BLDG. IMPS.: None Market data resources VALUE INDICATION: $8.79 per SF land R. P. LAURAIN _ & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-4 77/454 MARKET DATA 4 Southerly side of Fairfield Ranch Road Westerly of Central Avenue Chino Hills GRANTOR: Lenare, LLC APN: 1028-641-21 GRANTEE: Stafford, LLC LAND SIZE: 234,788 sq.ft. SALE DATE: June 1, 2015 ZONING: PD 50-153 DOC. NO.: 223870 TOPOGRAPHY: Effectively level SALE PRICE: $1,606,000 PRESENT USE: Vacant land TERMS: All cash BLDG. IMPS.: None CONFIRMED BY: Market data resources VALUE INDICATION: $6.84 per SF land R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-5 78/454 MARKET DATA 5 North East corner Fairfield Ranch Road & Monte Vista Avenue Chino Hills 470i.... r . AL GRANTOR: Turner Chino Hills, LLC APN: 1021-591-08 GRANTEE: ROC III CA Crossings at LAND SIZE: 1,608,235 sq.ft. Chino Hills, LLC SALE DATE: October 9, 2015 ZONING: BP DOC. NO.: 442582 TOPOGRAPHY: Effectively level SALE PRICE: $17,776,000 PRESENT USE: Vacant land TERMS: $8,888,000 conventional BLDG. IMPS.: None CONFIRMED BY: Sean Deasy, broker VALUE INDICATION: $11.05 per SF land R. P. L A U R A I N & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-6 79/454 MARKET DATA 6 Northerly side of Soquel Canyon Parkway at Pomona Rincon Road Chino Hills GRANTOR: Adriana Weeda Trust APN: 1028-351-18 GRANTEE: TH-HW Soquel, LLC LAND SIZE: 268,330 sq.ft. SALE DATE: January 4, 2016 ZONING: C -G DOC. NO.: 1662 TOPOGRAPHY: Effectively level SALE PRICE: $2,700,000 PRESENT USE: Vacant land TERMS: All cash BLDG. IMPS.: None CONFIRMED BY: Scott Kaplan, broker VALUE INDICATION: $10.06 per SF land R . P . LAURA IN _ & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-7 80/454 MARKET DATA 7 Northerly quadrant of Soquel Canyon Parkway and Highway 71 Chino Hills GRANTOR: Higgins brick Company APN: GRANTEE: TH-HW Soquel, LLC LAND SIZE: SALE DATE: January 4, 2016 ZONING: DOC. NO.: 1659 TOPOGRAPHY: SALE PRICE: $8,300,000 PRESENT USE: TERMS: All cash BLDG. IMPS.: CONFIRMED BY: Scott Kaplan, broker VALUE INDICATION: $9.10 per SF land R. P. LAURAIN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4-8 1028-351-30,31, 41,49 91 1,71 1 sq.ft. C-G/R-S Effectively level Vacant land None 81/454 Data use subject to license. *N* Scale 1 : 40,625 © DeLorme. DeLorme Street Atlas USA@ 2015. MN (12.0°E) o x 'A1 www.delorme.com IVB 1" = 3,385.4 ft Data Zoom 13-0 82/454 ADDENDA 83/454 See aerial photograph in Subject Property Description Section. PHOTO NO. 1: View looking southerly toward the general area of the subject remnant land parcel from the Soquel Canyon Parkway on-ramp. awa PHOTO NO. 2: View looking north along Soquel Canyon Pkwy. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 5-1 84/454 APPRAISERS - ANALYST% 85/454 CITY OF CHINO HILLS The City of Chino Hills Chino Hills is known for its high quality of life. The City was ranked 34th in Money magazine's "Best places to live 2012." The City also had the 6th highest income in the United States (from cities having a population of 65,000 to 250,000). In 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) ranked the City as the 13th safest City in the United States. L OCA TION: The City of Chino Hills is located at the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County. The City is located adjacent to Los Angeles County (to the northwest), Orange County (to the south), and Riverside County (to the southeast). Neigh- boring and adjoining communities include the Cities of Diamond Bar, Pomona, Chino, Corona, and Brea. GO VERNMEN T.- The ; The City of Chino Hills was incorporated on December 1, 1991, and utilizes a council -city manager form of government. The City is governed by a five - member City Council, which is elected by City residents. Once elected, the Council members serve a four-year term; the position of Mayor is rotated among the Council Members. The City Council is the legislative branch of the local government; it establishes all City ordinances, approves plans, adopts budgets, etc. The Council appoints the City Manager, who runs the day-to-day operations of the City. Police protection is provided by the by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's department. Fire protection is provided by the Chino Valley Independent Fire District (CVIFD); the department has three stations located throughout the City. POPULATION AND HOUS/NG: The City of Chino Hills encompasses approximately 46 square miles. The City has an elevation of 1,070 feet above sea level. The current population of the City is 76,033, of January, 2013. There are approximately 23,048 housing units within the City, of which 1,378 are multiple family units; the average household size is 3.41. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 86/454 CITY OF CHINO HILLS (Continued) ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT BASE; The largest employer in the City of Chino Hills is the Chino Valley Unified School District, which employs 1,375± people (as of 2011). Other large employers in the City include the City of Chino Hills (277± people), Costco (260± people), Boys Republic (198± people), Lowe's (184± people), and Albertson's (182± people). TRA NSPORTATION AND STREETS: Primary thoroughfares in the City of Chino Hills include Chino Avenue, Chino Hills Parkway, Grand Avenue, Soquel Canyon Parkway/Central Avenue, Peyton Drive, Carbon Canyon Road, Pipeline Avenue, and Butterfield Ranch Road/Euclid Avenue. The Chino Valley (71) Freeway is traverses the City in a southeasterly -northwesterly direction, near the northeast City boundary. The Pomona (60) Freeway is located approximately 1/4 mile north of the City boundary. The Orange (57) Freeway is located approximately two miles west of the City boundary. The Riverside (91) Freeway is located approximately one mile south of the City boundary. Said freeways are part of the freeway network serving the greater Southern California region. OPEN SPA CE/RECREA TION AREAS: The City of Chino Hills contains over 3,000 acres of open space land through- out the community. The City includes over 39 miles of multi -use trails, many of which traverse open space areas. Many of the housing developments in the City are located adjacent to the open space areas, so that City residents can enjoy the view of the surrounding natural environment. The City works to actively manage and protect the open space areas located throughout the City. Chino Hills State Park contains 14,102± acres of park land, and includes approximately 65 miles of hiking trails. As development in the City increased, the City's open space areas were given special attention, in order to be preserved for future generations. New devel- opments (both commercial and residential) were generally clustered in village cores along major corridors, and the surrounding open space areas were dedicated to the City as community -owned open space. The City of Chino Hills contains two public golf courses (Los Serranos Golf Course and Green River Golf Course) and two private golf courses (Western Hills Golf and Vellano Golf Course). R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2 87/454 ONS R IN E S APPRAISERS -ANALYSTS BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS John P. Laurain, MAI, ASA Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California Certification No. AG 025754 VICE PRESIDENT: R. P. Laurain & Associates, Inc. 3353 Linden Avenue, Suite 200 Long Beach, California 90807 Office: (562) 426-0477 - Fax: (562) 988-2927 rpla@rplaurain.com PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFILIATIONS: The Appraisal Institute MAI Designated Member American Society of Appraisers Senior member; hold professional endorsement and designation "ASA" in urban real estate. American Arbitration Association Associate arbitrator in title insurance matter. Certified General Real Estate Appraiser by the Office of Real Estate Appraisers, State of California. Certification No. AG 025754. APPRAISAL BACKGROUND; Real estate appraisal and valuation consultation services conducted for public purposes include eminent domain studies, street widening and grade separation (bridge) projects, public school and university expansion projects, relocation studies, housing and public loan programs, Navy housing, senior housing, public bond measures, leasing of publicly -owned properties, Quimby Act park fee studies, Fair Political Practices Commission analyses, budgetary studies, and transfers (exchanges) of properties between public agencies. Private real estate appraisal services have been conducted for lending institutions, insurance companies, attorneys, estates for tax and donation purposes, private subdivision development studies, and other private uses. R . P . LAURA IN _ & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 89/454 BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) APPRAISAL BACKGROUND: (Continued) Residential Property: Residential properties appraised include single family, condominiums, own - your -own, townhouse, low and medium density multiple family, 100+ unit apartment complexes, waterfront properties, boat docks, mobile home parks, vacant single family lot and acreage parcels, and low to high density vacant land parcels. Commercial and Industria/ Property: Commercial property appraisal studies have included single and multi -tenant retail, strip centers, shopping centers, low-rise and high-rise office buildings, medical offices, restaurants and fast-food developments, nightclubs, con- venience stores, theaters, automobile repair and service facilities, service stations, truck fueling and washing stations, car wash facilities, automobile sales, mixed-use properties including single resident occupancy (SRO) developments, as well as hotel and motel properties, and vacant land. Industrial property appraisals have included warehouses, light and heavy manufacturing, distribution and transit facilities, food processing, cold storage, lumber yards, recycling centers, open storage, vacant land, remnant and landlocked parcels, properties encumbered with oil and water injection wells, sites with soil contamination and land fill properties. Special Purpose and Special Use Properties: Appraisal services and valuation studies of public, quasi -public, special use, and nonprofit facilities include, among others, seaport properties, submerged land, river rights-of-way, reservoirs, conservation/mitigation and wetland properties, utility and railroad rights-of-way, flood control channels, city hall buildings and civic center complexes, courthouses, libraries, fire and police stations, post offices, public parking structures, parks, public and private schools, adult learning centers, athletic facilities and gyms, bowling alleys, tennis centers, youth homes, after school facilities, daycare facilities, homeless shelters, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, churches, meeting halls and lodges, and veteran facilities. Valuation Methodologies: In addition to the three conventional valuation methods (Sales Comparison Approach, Cost -Summation Approach, and Income Capitalization Approach), valuation methodologies have included discounted cash flow analyses, leased _ R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 2 90/454 BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) APPRAISAL BACKGROUND: (Continued) Valuation Methodologies: (Continued) fee, and leasehold analyses, absorption discounts, deferred maintenance, cost -to -cure, bonus value, excess rent, across -the -fence, value -in -use, fractional interests, hypothetical valuations, and reuse studies. Property interests appraised for eminent domain purposes include full and partial takings, as well as severance damage and project benefit studies. Valuation of various types of easements have included permanent surface, street, temporary construction, slope, utility, pipeline and subsurface, aerial, bridge structure, signal light, exclusive and nonexclusive surface rights, multi- layered, battered pilings, tie -back, railroad, drainage ditch, and flood control easements. Clients: Real estate research and analysis services performed on projects for the following public agencies and private corporations while associated with R. P. Laurain & Associates, Inc., since 1986: Cities: City of Alhambra City of Artesia City of Baldwin Park City of Bellflower City of Burbank City of Carson City of Cathedral City City of Compton City of Covina City of Cudahy City of Cypress City of Downey City of EI Segundo City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Park City of Irwindale City of Lawndale City of Long Beach City of Los Alamitos City of Los Angeles City of Monrovia City of Norwalk City of Ontario City of Palmdale City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Riverside City of San Juan Capistrano City of Santa Fe Springs City of Seal Beach City of Signal Hill City of South EI Monte City of South Gate City of Tustin City of Upland City of West Hollywood City of Whittier R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 3 91/454 BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) ACADEMIC BACKGROUND: (Continued) Clients: (Continued) Redevelopment Agencies: Azusa Redevelopment Agency Bell Community Redevelopment Agency Glendale Redevelopment Agency Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency La Mirada Redevelopment Agency Long Beach Redevelopment Agency Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency Monrovia Redevelopment Agency Ontario Redevelopment Agency Paramount Redevelopment Agency Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency Whittier Redevelopment Agency Other Public Agencies: Alameda Corridor Engineering Team Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority California High Speed Rail Authority Castaic Lake Water Agency Hawthorne School District Long Beach Unified School District Long Beach Water Department Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Office Los Angeles County Internal Services Department Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Beach Community College District Los Angeles Unified School District Lynwood Unified School District Port of Los Angeles Riverside County Transportation Commission State of California, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy U. S. Department of the Navy U. S. Postal Service R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 4 92/454 BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) ACADEMIC BACKGROUND: (Continued) Clients: (Continued) Other: Various attorneys, corporations, lending institutions, and private individuals. Gold Coast Appraisals, Inc. Associate appraiser, as independent contractor, during portions of 1991 and 1992, specializing in appraisal of single family residential through four -unit residential properties. EXPERT WITNESS: Qualified as an expert witness in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central District. Qualified as an expert witness in an arbitration matter before Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), in the County of Orange. Qualified as an expert witness Orange County Superior Court. Provided testimony as an expert witness in conjunction with eminent domain matters before the San Bernardino and Riverside County Superior Courts. ACADEMIC BACKGROUND: Walden High School, Anaheim, California College preparation curriculum; represented school in annual scholastic competition. Los Alamitos/Laurel High Schools Graduate June, 1985 Advanced courses in pre -calculus, and English writing composition. Cypress Community College Basic curriculum. R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS 5 93/454 BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) ACADEMIC BACKGROUND: (Continued) Long Beach Community College Basic curriculum. Real estate and related courses taken through and at various Community Colleges, Universities, the Appraisal Institute, and business schools, in accordance with the Continuing Education Requirements of the State of California, as follows: Fundamentals of Real Estate Appraisal Appraisal Principles and Techniques California Real Estate Principles Real Estate Appraisal: Residential Principles of Economics California Real Estate Economics Basic Income Capitalization Approach Advanced Income Capitalization Approach Advanced Applications Advanced Concepts and Case Studies Real Estate Escrow California Real Estate Law Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Part A Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Part B Federal and State Laws and Regulations R . P . LAURA IN & A S S O C I A T E S APPRAISERS - ANALYSTS R 94/454 Recorded at the request of: The City Clerk of the City of Chino Hills When recorded, mail to Eaton Lane Associates LLC 17777 Center Court Drive North #725 Cerritos, CA 90703 QUITCLAIM DEED For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, The CITY OF CHINO HILLS, a general law City and a municipal corporation ("Grantor"), quitclaims to Eaton Lane Associates LLC ("Grantee"), the Property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). By accepting this Quitclaim Deed, Grantee acknowledges and certifies that it is familiar with the Property and its physical aspects, conditions, and characteristics. Grantee agrees that the Property is being conveyed in its "AS IS" condition and that, other than as expressly provided herein, Grantor has not made or given, and is not making or giving, any representations or warranties whatsoever (oral, written, express or implied) respecting title or any physical aspect, condition, or characteristic of the Property or its suitability for use by Grantee. Grantee has satisfied itself completely respecting all such matters and upon acceptance of this Quitclaim Deed is deemed to have irrevocably waived and released any and all claims or objections with respect to all such matters. [Signatures on next page] 95/454 GRANTOR: PETER J. ROGERS CITY OF CHINO HILLS, MAYOR ATTEST: CHERYL BALZ, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARK D. HENSLEY, CITY ATTORNEY ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE: Eaton Lane Associates LLC 96/454 EXHIBIT'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 8 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE DESCRIBED IN A FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED APRIL 13, 1988 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 88-107607 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE CITED AS HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 23'56'11" WEST, AND A LENGTH OF 157.64 FEET IN SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION; THENCE ALONG SAID CERTAIN COURSE NORTH 23°31'35" WEST, 16.65 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CERTAIN COURSE NORTH 79°56'18" EAST, 85.88 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 68"46'05" WEST, 83.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, ZONE VI. MULTIPLY DISTANCES SHOWN BY 1.000012 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. CONTAINS 0.016 ACRES. PREPARED UNQER THLSUPERVISION OF: MARK L. hAAB RCE N616 DATE W N0, 29616 C * \ Exp. 3/31/19 CA L% 97/454 ■��� � ., �0©000 A log ll1111111111ir.'1'1y11411111111 •••• IIII111111111.:11111 ••••- `riaalot r.::' aillifill :11111'llll —=— 14 %-A " V� RIO, .r o� Bien -F of N W SUPERSM SSY M M riMoon M Wc3-iMT: P0110N5 OF � � 6 M. emu ■.�..: �� ■����������AU �� --sum— C2VSRRRMr7ON NOrl3• Q, an,.Ws. ae, �r,.•s „r°,a xxr°m,ar<R EXHIBIT 'B,/7 � '�% f �-�0 tea, //•�', ¢ fie. s•cua�w.mv °en ar,¢aism �. G x' r, - "W ,..,,\ � Te' \ � QQ ��Re•xr cmverr w.�e, rce rcr. w.werr: 42 � / [pl'"fT ouxN1 °m rcIu w Yeef i � / / ! (-a°Bf SMiD nM reg tt)M aY YReT SCALE: 1"=20' ut PROPOSED BUIJ.DING 7k, 59t _ r r,r P..xxr rc° rcR,. IT 7EASEMENT NORES• C.' 9 x' •.\ 4 't ;61 "°„ "°."aom"' -Z. PHASE / n / , � 6• .tom F6 tom°'% / •iI' a•; —� ��,F\� \� eu Anar Y e .r -- — — — „1 !rit : I _ -- — -- --- —! c— '{—�- - ---- - - - - - ---- --� - - tI PROPOSED BUILDING HOTELING � ,- _ _._ � _--. �Dt S3 / . — PHAst s PHASE 1—' O. O S89.70FF PROPOSED BUILDING 58920PAD t>�. 590.00FF I• 589.50PAD 10 �,1�..t -- �a i-- E ET F=\.� N 7 lw ao-„ee c `.c ett :•--fie --- \,� cw., ' ;.' Ar tr.As'r lAo own . � ,e YF EVfLOPM£N w.w,a��u �� ,.�� a Yx�K�S c.D59�., � ' 7• - �.- _i � ats�ic.,•L ' ' � .-� D . QES/GN COMPANY• LLC r1. ..... C C. cmL • —Y - CITY OF CHINO HILLS BENCH MARK: BASIS OF BEARINGS: <aR a REVISIONS ME CITY OF CHINO HILLS PRECISE GRADING PLAN""' EN491 M. DFPNt..T 11000 Cltt CEN]ER 2fiYE ,:X� oxn°x e` a NI; R. 2A m7oe SEE SHEET 1 SEE SHEET 1 �� Q�74 � PARCEL "A" LLA 115 ,- A* ((928)) SG, -3729 ? R OF POB -351-47 '""'�'v' Bf'Aq 293 fAY R. J6e-3]39 -- �-yp�Sjy� HE CORNER OF PO ON RINCON ROAD r. .minMole.ag ggalxx� & SOOUEL CANYON PARKWAY SHEET 5 OSI? 99/454 SCALE: l'-40' 0' 20' 40' 80' SHOWN AS N2356'11"W 157.64' IN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED - ON APRIL 13, 1998, INSTRUMENT NO. 88-107067, O.R. _ MARK L1 RAAB s� N23'31'35"W 16.65' OF: EXHIBIT 'B' LEGAL SKETCH Pp,RCE1- 9465-2 0 � �h �O PARCEL 9465-3 o_ 0 w PARCEL 9465-4 o_ 85 N�g56'18"E ' SOUTHERLY LINE OF FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED ON ORI 88 3, 1988, AS INSTRUMENT ELOFESSIp 107067O.R. SUBJECT PROPERTY Q k+� PAR. 9465-5 CONTAINS 0.016 AC N0. 29818 y^_ 3i Fp. 3/31/19 * rel i v i ���! s F OF CAL%F� NOTE: PARCELS SHOWN HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY MAPS 453203-A AND 453203-7A. SHEET 3 OF 3 100/454