The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH 2 CUP 90-08 04-01-91riUL i DA -.i -.41 APRIL 11 1991 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING N0. 2 4-1-91 Inter - coin CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-o8 - 15642 PASADENA AVENUE RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND On March 18, 1991, the City Council opened and co hearing on Conditional Use Permit 90-08ntinued the public original staff report on Conditional Use Permit copy of the entire dated March 181 1991 are included). 90-08 and Exhibits Based on public testimony., received on March 18, Photographs and written statements additional written and o al9eer viden ostaf f . will be into the record to respond to testimony received from the public on March 18 P nd to 18th. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 9291 of the Tustin City that certain conditions will not result fro Code, a a if i is found applied for, the City would be obligated to rant particular use At the April 1st continued g the use permit. open and close the Public hearing, the City Council should evidence presented on March 18th includinghearing g °n this matter, discuss the the March 18th staff report and all adadditional information contained in d evidence information presented on April 1st, Upon conclusion of the that the City Council indicate City Council's discussion, It is advised l and instruct staff, based on advice of the Cit A to deems appropriate supporting resolutions on the environmental determi nay to provide project and the project itself. nation for the Christine A. �Shingl n Assistant City Manager CAS:kbc\cup90-08.rev �► ' ��.. �: � � -� 1 QTY PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1 3-18-91 l DATE: `� inter -- Com I MARCH 18, 1991 TO: FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08 APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE ZONING: R-31 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN 11 UNIT APART NT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO ANRE 1T (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF LA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND On March 13, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Permit 89-05, authorizing the constructionofa t Conditional oe Use story, 11 unit apartment project on a 20, 184 s and one half R-3 zoning district. quare foot lot in the A conditional use permit was re abuts the R-1 zoned , properties on itseeastern e the subject property Provisions of Section 9226(c) of the Tustin Municipal a coley line. p 1 code state: when a lot in the R-3 District abuts at any g proper,.y lines or is directly across a oint along street or alley from a property zoned R -A. E-4 or R-1 (develo e p d City Council Report \ Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 Page 2 or undeveloped), no main building shall be erected on said R-3 lot to a height to exceed one (1) story, and/or twenty (20) feet, whichever is more restrictive,.within one hundred fifty (150) feet of said R -A. E-4 and R-1 zoned property, unless the Planning Agency shall grant a conditional use permit thereof." Building permits for the apartment project were issued in May, 1989. During construction (framing), staff began to receive complaints from several owners of the single family residences located immediately to the east of the subject property concerning privacy and the height of the buildings. In March, 1990, staff reviewed the mailing list used for notification of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 89-05 to determine why these residences were only now voicing their concerns about the project. Review of the mailing list, which was prepared by a title company, revealed that while all affected properties were shown on the 300 foot radius map, the typed mailing labels provided to the City did not include the owners of the R-1 properties adjacent to and east of the subject property. Based on several decisions of the California Supreme Court, the City Attorney determined that Conditional Use Permit 89-05 was invalid due to improper notification. Consequently, the building permits for the project were revoked and construction halted. Conditional Use Permit 90-08 was later filed by the applicant, seeking re -approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-05. A new public hearing was held with the Planning Commission on April 91 1990. In response to public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the April 9th hearing to April 30th and directed the applicant to explore design modifications to the buildings that would mitigate the concerns of the owners of the adjacent single family residences. At the April 30th hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposed modifications and took additional testimony from the public. After consideration of testimony and proposed modifications, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2762, denying Conditional Use Permit 90-08. This matter was appealed by the City Council on May 7, 1990. After two workshops held between the developer and residents in an attempt to work out a design compromise and public hearings held on June 4, June 18, and July 2, 1990 the City Council approved Community Development Department I City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 90-08 with adoption of Resolution No. 90-73(A) on July 2, 1990. A revision to the Design Review of the project was approved by the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency on July 16, 1990 and revised building permits were issued on August 21 1990. The City Council's action approved a significantly revised building design for the apartment project, including but not limited to reducing the building height for portions of the project. A number of owners of the single family properties lying adjacent to the Pasadena Avenue property objected to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus entitled Paul Zukowsky, et al v. City of Tustin. The'Superior Court* after a trial on December 13, 1990 issued a decision ordering the City to set aside Resolution No. 90-73 (A) and the conditional use permit granted thereunder. Review of the statement of decision indicates that the judge felt that the City did not have adequate evidence in the record at the City Council hearing to support the findings required by Tustin City Code Section 9291 which provides that for the issuance of a conditional use permit the City "shall determine whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or whether it would be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City." The judge felt that because there was "evidence" (in the form of statements by the adjacent property owners and others), that the project would cause "detrimental" shade/shadows on their property and that there would be "detriment" to their properties in the form of devaluation of their property values and there was no evidence in the record to counter -balance the property owners' statements, that the granting of the use permit could not be upheld. . The subject property was previously developed with a one-story single family residence. Surrounding zoning and land uses consist of a 22 unit two-story apartment building on property zoned R-3 to the north and two story apartments across Pasadena Avenue on the west, a 14 unit one-story apartment building on property zoned R-2 (Duplex Residential) to the south, and single family residences on property zoned R-1 to the east (Exhibit "A"). Community Development Department City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 y Page 4 The subject property is located in the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area. Notice of the public hearing for this meeting was published in the Tustin News and posted on the subject property on February 22, 1991. A copy of the notice was mailed to the applicant and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on February 22, 1991. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE PLAN The project is substantially completed and consists of two separate, apartment buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type units. Six units are located in Building "A" located parallel to the northern property line of the site and five (5 ) units are to be located in Building "B" located parallel to the southern property line. Seven units will be two and one half stories in height approximately 1,200 square feet in size and contain three bedrooms and 22 baths, with four one story units at the rear of the project of approximately 660 square feet in size and containing 1 bedroom and 1 bath each. The overall density of the project is 23.7 units per acre. Under current provisions of the R-3 District, the maximum number of units that could be authorized on the site is 11 units. Building coverage on the site will be approximately 38% instead of the 65% allowed in the R-3 District. Proposed setbacks are substantially in excess of the minimum setbacks required in the R-3 District which are as follows: 15 foot front yard, 5 foot interior side yards and 10 foot rear yard. Setbacks proposed are approximately 35 to 44 feet along the front of the property, 8 feet along the north side lot line, 15 feet 6 inches along the south side lot line and 10 to 24 feet 8 inches at the rear of the property adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. A one story apartment building could be constructed in the R-3 District within 10 feet of the R-1 property lines without a conditional use permit.. A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are proposed for the project, 11 two car garages and three open covered guest spaces. Access to all parking is proposed from a 27 foot wide driveway. Entryways to each unit will be provided by concrete walkways located adjacent to the northerly and southerly property lines of the project with pedestrian access to parking below grade provided Community Development Department I City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 Page 5 at three proposed stairwells (one at the front and rear of building "B" and one at a central location between unit 3 and 4 of building "A"). Private ground level open space/patio areas are also proposed at the front of each unit adjacent to entries. Air conditioning units will be located in the corner of each enclosed patio area. Walkways and driveway areas will be accented with special brick pavers or other special pavement treatment. The proposed grading scheme for the project involved excavating approximately five (5) feet below existing grade for the central driveway and tuck under parking. The resulting driveway ramp incorporates 6% blend slopes at each end with an 11.23% slope over the remaining portion. This is within the maximum 13% slope permitted by the City. Because the garage level is only five (5) feet below grade, and an eight ( 8 ) foot ceiling is proposed for the garages, the grade at the front entrances to the units is raised as much as 3.5 feet above existing. grade, which is accomplished in steps. Specifically, the grading concept proposes a two (2) foot grade difference at the side property lines, (pedestrian walkways) stepping up 18 inches to the patio and front door level. The actual finished floor level of all 11 units is six ( 6 ) inches above the patio level (see Sheet 3 of attached plans). As the sections on Sheet 3 indicate, the adjacent properties (north and south) will face a 6' 8" wall of decorative split face concrete block. The grade level in the front and rear yard setbacks will 'not change from existing conditions except for landscape berming and drainage, concept i.e. grade level will not be raised. This design feature helps preserve privacy between the project and the rear yards of the single family residences at the rear of the subject property. ARCHITECTURAL -DESIGN The proposed architectural design for the project is a modified cape cod, design which utilizes a combination of wood lap -siding and stucco with wood trim at building corners and around doors and windows. The project incorporates a variety of insets, projections and cantilevers to achieve relief on all sides of the two buildings. The proposed color scheme includes "silver gray" stucco, "pearl gray" siding, "swiss coffee" trim and "charcoal gray" asphalt composition shingles. Surrounding color and material themes in the general vicinity of the project include white stucco with blue trim and a white gravel roof immediately to the north, white stucco with blue trim and gray asphalt composition shingle roofs immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, tan stucco Community Development Department I City Council Report �! Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 ` Page 6 and wood siding with brick accents and a shake roof immediatelyt the south and general earth .tone stucco and wood siding' oy composition shingle, shake and gravel roofs on the single famil residences to the east. .Overall, the proposed color and Y material scheme is compatible with that of surrounding develo m s. Additional architectural features include: P ent Six inch bay window projections above front doors. ° Multi -paned windows wherever windows occur. ° Lap -sided garage doors ("swiss coffee" white). ° Sliding glass doors located on patios. Electric and gas meters concealed below grade b the ue parking spaces or by landscaping. Y g st Mail box enclosures with roofing, siding and colors to match the main buildings. Chimneys at each unit (stuccoed, silver gray) DESIGN ALTERATIONS As a result of community and Public hearing input, the City Councilin originally approving Conditional Use Permit 90-08 required the following revisions to the project: 1. Removal of the second floor from the two east (rear) units o Buildings A and B (units 5, 6, 10 and 11) which are the units closest to the R-1 properties. Removal of the second floor of units 5 and 6 will creat minimum 60 foot second story setback from the R -1e a properties to the east. The removal of the second floor of units 10and 11 will create a minimum 741 8" second story setback from R-1 properties to the east. 2. Incorporation of pitched sloping roofs on the one story near portions of buildings A and B with a hip roof at the ends of the roofs. The height of said roofs is proposed to be limited to a maximum of 20 feet with a pitch not to exceed 5:12. This Community Development Department I City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 Page 7 height and design is compatible with the 20 foot high R - properties to the east. g 1 3. Removal of windows on the east (rear) elevations of unit 6, 9 and 11 so that no windows face the R-1 s 4, east. Specially designed window screens will be Properties to the sensitive bedroom windows on the first floor of unitrequired,61on 0 and 11 and the second floor windows of units 3, 4 and 9 to prevent the views to the east (rear) and further assure privacy of the R-1 properties. 4. Relocation of trash enclosure from the east (rear) portion o the property in closer proximity to the front of the project. . P ro7 5. Removal of the spa/jacuzzi originally proposed in southeast corner of the site. the 6. Required planting of closely spaced 24" box evergreen trees ( along portions of the north and south sides and east rear Property lines of the subject site; and at least one major specimen size tree in the southeast corner of the site. 7. An.increase in the height of the wall along the east rear property line from 6' 8" to 8 feet. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 9291 of the Tustin City Code, the following is conditional use permit and discussion in support of eachtfind0fa ing . The establishment, maintenance or operation of the useapplied will not be detrimental to the health, safety, Omftnd for general welfare of the persons .residing �or org workin int neighborhood of the subject use and the use will not be injurioush or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood o the general welfare of the City. r 1. The design of the project is compatible with adjacent sin le family residences and will result in a minimal impact on the privacy of adjacent single family residents and will no negatively impact the use of their rear backyards based 'on the following facts: Community Development Department City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 Page 8 a. To reduce the scale of the project and potential privacy impacts, the project has been redesigned as two stories in height over depressed subterranean parking, excepting the east (rear) of the structure where four units are typically one-story in height. The rear units on Buildings A and B (units 5, 61 10 and 11) have been reduced in height to one story and will not exceed 20 feet in maximum height. The maximum height and pitched roof design are compatible with the adjacent single family homes that are approximately 20 feet high. Removal of second floors on the above units will create a 60 foot second story setback on Building A from R-1 properties to the east and a 74 foot 8 inch second story setback from R-1 properties to the east. b. Residents of the project will not have a direct line of sight from their units onto adjacent R-1 properties to the east since obscure glass will be incorporated on certain bathroom windows and no windows will be permitted on the east (rear) elevations of Units 4, 61 9 and 11 adjacent to R-1 properties. In addition, specially designed window screens will be required on certain bedroom windows, specifically, first floor windows in units 5, 6, 10 and 11 and second floor windows of Units 31 4 and 9 with bathroom windows on the same units again treated with obscure glass. That will prevent views to the east (rear) toward the R-1 properties. C. Proposed side and rear yard setbacks substantially exceed the minimum setbacks required by the R-3 District. The R-3 district only requires a minimum 5 foot interior side yard setback and 10 foot rear yard setback. The project, as designed, provides a minimum 8 foot side yard setback on the north side of the lot, a 15 foot 6 inch minimum side yard setback on the south side of the lot and a 10 to 24 feet 8 inch rear yard setback adjacent to R-1 zoned properties to the east. A single story apartment building could be built within 10 feet of the rear yard and 5 feet of the side yards,with no conditional use permit. The setbacks for the one-story units meet or exceed these standards. d. To provide additional privacy for R-1 properties to the east the following additional measures will be taken: trash enclosures for the project will not be at the rear Community Development Department City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 Page 9 of the project but will be relocated in closer proximit to the front of the project; the s a y ly proposed in the southeast corner of the sites will not be installed; a rear wall along the rear property line will be raised from 6' 8" to 8 feet; 24 inch boxed evergreen trees will be planted closely spaced at 10 foot intervals along portions of the side and rear property subject site, and at least one majorspecimen tree wile be planted at the southeast corner of the site. 1 e. The appraisal firm of Donahue and Company concluded in their report dated January �28,1c 19911 attached hereto as Exhibit B, that the subject roject has been constructed to assure the privacy of adj�oining properties and provides architectural betterment to the area (see page 9 of Exhibit B). 2. Based on a shade and shadow study for the project dat February 15, 1991 and � ed e specializes in environmental assessment, theyprojectfirm which not substantially affect the existing solar coverage of theeroofs or structures fronting on Myrtle in the R-1 Zone, and in the vicinity of the project nor will the shadow coverage b extensive throughout the majority of any day for any time of the year. The report concludes that there will be no significant shade/shadow impacts associated with the project. A copy of the report and exhibits are attached as Exhibit C and one incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the above information, video tapes of the shade and shadow situation on the site taken at different times of the day and particularly in the late afternoon. Based on a review of video tapes, it is not believed that the shadows/shade of the project will cause any detriment to adjoining properties. 3. An appraisal study has been completed by a qualified a rais firm, Donahue and Company, Inc, pP al diminution in value to adj a entte R-1 e hr much, if any opertand neighborhood improvement would occur as a P r sults of the completion and occupancy of the project. As a result of this comprehensive analysis, it was found that no negative impact on any neighborhood values would result from the subject Project. A copy of the report is attached as Exhibit B is incorporated herein by this reference. Community Development Department City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 18, 1991 Page 10 4. Light and glare from project lighting will not be an impact on adjacent properties since the project will be required to confine direct light rays to the subject property as required by the Zoning Code through the use of lighting fixtures which incorporate cut-offs and shielding. 5. According to the appraisal firm of Donahue and Company, Inc., the proposed project provides architectural betterment to the area. The project has been constructed of good quality materials and has an aesthetically pleasing and newer architectural style (see page 3 of Exhibit B). The second story portions of the project, are only at or slightly above pitched. single story rooflines of residences to the east in the R-1 District (see page 10 of Exhibit B). 6. To enhance light and air at the project site and on adjacent R-1 properties, the project incorporates a variety of insets, projections and cantilevers to achieve relief on all sides of the two buildings. The project also only has a lot coverage of 38-1. of the site as compared to the 65% lot coverage that is authorized in the R-3 Zoning District and is below the maximum allowed building height of 35 feet in the R-3 District. 7. The proposed color and materials proposed for the project are compatible with those of surrounding developments in that the proposed color scheme and combination of wood lap siding and stucco is similar to color and materials used at the project to the north, immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, to the south and the general earthtone stucco and wood siding with composition shingles on the single family residences to the east. 8. The proposed project is located on Pasadena Avenue which the City Traffic Engineer has determined is adequate in size to carry the quantity and kind of traffic to be generated by the project. As presently designed, the project provides all required parking of the R-3 Zoning District. Eleven two car garages (with automatic garage door openers) and three covered guest spaces (with no garage doors) are proposed. Due to the semi -subterranean location of garages and the grade of the project's access driveway, the project is required to install a speed bump in the driveway ramp to reduce vehicle speed and a stop sign at the driveway exit to provide additional protection for passing motorists and pedestrians. Community Development Department City Council Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 March 181, 1991 Page 11 The applicant has also been re System Improvement fees in the am u t of uired o -00 pay Transportation as a contribution toward areawide transportation ort t onsqus foot improvements. P ion system 9. The project has the potential to add 24 new resident area based upon the City's average household pope atis to the persons per household (deducting the residents of the previous 2.4 existing dwelling on the site). This P evious resulting increase in population is permitted and antics and by the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. The nticipatis proposed to meet minimum Uniform Housing Code requirements is no overcrowding is anticipated. and 10. The Community Services Departments have also indicated c that th Fire and pect Police create significant effects on city services. AllIces are services not in place and the development of the site has bee n anticipated. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Section 9291 of the Tustin that certain conditioCitns will not result from Cod e, if it is found applied for, the City would be obligated to a Particular use At this time, the City Council should open and t the use permit. hearing on this matter, discuss the evidence close the public pre information contained in this staff report. U presented including City Council's discussion, it is advised that conclusion of the indicate whatever action it deems appropriate the City Council based on advice of the City Attorney oither;and instruct staff 1• Provide supporting resolutions for their acti evening of March 18, 1991, or; on on the 2• Return to the City Council Resolutions which support their discussed at the hearing. Christine A. Shing on Assistant City Ma er CAS:kbc\cup90-08,cas 's next meeting with action and the evidence Community Development Department NEuATIVE DECLARA (ION CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 90-08 File No. Design Review 88 -20 -- Project Location:15642 Pasadena Avenue,- Tustin Project Description:Proposed two story, 11 unit apartment project Project Proponent: Feridoun Rezai Contact Person:Christine Shingleton Telephone:544-8890 Ext -253 ,I The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby find: n That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. �j That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have �J been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.. Said revisions are attached to and hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a Negative Declaration and extends for 21.. calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m.•on March 13, 1991 DATED: February 22, 1991 mmuni ty Devel opme,.KV Director Attached negative declaration initial study revised on March 13, 1991 upon completion of review. G� O CITY OF TUSTIN J CommunityDevelopmentDepartment P ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent FERIDOUN REZAI 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, UA VZbU4 220-2893 3. Date of Checklist Submitted March 12, 1990 originally, revised February , 199T- 4. Agency Requiring Checklist CITY OF TUSTIN 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Conditional Use Permit 90-08 Design Review -H -_20 - II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations'of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? x C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? x e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any ban, inlet or lake? x Yes Mamie No g• Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, ortemperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or .fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X C. Alterations to the course or flow Of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e• Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water ' quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate Of flow of ground waters.> g• Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 91 X X X X X X X Yes M- maybe No i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass,.crops, and aquatic plants) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a• Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or'result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or .wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in*: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the new light or glare? proposal produce X X X X X X- X X X- X X 1 Yes Maybe No 1 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any — natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?, X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X .d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X J Yes Maybe No e. Alterations to waterborne rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? X' X X X e S X Yes Mme No 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result ' in: a. Creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal the obstruction of any scenic Vista lorin view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to `public view? 20. Recreation. Will the proposal re impact upon thesuit in an quality existing recreational o or Pp nitres. X 21. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b• Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a Prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the Potential impact area? X X X X X X 1 22. Yes Maybe No Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory> _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?(A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs.in a -relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulativelco - ,l siderable? (A project may impact on t n or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of impacts those on the environment is significant. d. Does the project have environmental which will cause substantial adverseeeffecs on human beings, either directly or is indirectly? III• Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) g cy) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project significant effect on theenvironment, NOT have a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be and a Prepared x x - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation measure described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Revised March 13, 1991 Date Signature Christine A. Shing on Director of Community Development EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERM REVISED FEBRUARYE21, 199190-08 AND Pro-iect Descrintinn Supplement I. Background EVALUATION MARCH 13, 1991 On March 131 1989 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 89-05, authorizing the construction a two and one half story, 20 p 11 unit apartment Pro ofject on a ,quare foot lot in the R-3 zoning district. 184 s A conditional use permit was required since t property abuts the R-1 zoned he subject r property line. Provisions ofSections9226 cs eastern (rear) Municipal code state: ( ) of the Tustin "...when a lot in the R-3 District abuts at any point along its property lines or is directly across a tr- or alley from a property zoned R -A, E-4 or R-1 develoeet ped or undeveloped), no main building shall be erected said R-3 lot to a height to exceed one (1) story, on twenty (20) feet, whichever is more restrictive and/or one hundred fifty (150) feet of said R -A, E_4 'a within zoned property, unless the Planning Agency shall rant -1 conditional use permit thereof.', g a Building permits for the apartment project were issued 1989. During construction (framing), in May' complaints from several owners of the singlef began to receive located immediately to the east of he sublet' residences concerning privacy and the height of the buildings. Property 1990, staff reviewed the mailing list used forinoti• • In March, the public hearing for Conditional Use Perm. notification of determine why these residences were only now voicing 89-05 to concerns about the project. Review of the mailing 1 i their was prepared by a title company, which affected p Y, revealed that while all Properties were shown on the 300 foot radius map, the typed mailing labels provided to the City did no owners of the R-1 properties adjacent to and teastlude the subject property. of the Based on several decisions of the California Supreme Court the City Attorney determined that Conditional Use , was invalid due to improper notification. Conse Permit 89-05 building permits for the quently, the halted. project were revoked and construction Conditional Use Permit 90-08 was filed b applicant, seeking re -approval of Conditional Use y the 05. Permit 89- Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation I Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 2 A new public hearing was held with the Planning Commission on April 9, 1990. In response to public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the April 9th hearing to April 30th and directed the applicant to explore design modifications to the buildings that would mitigate the concerns of the owners of the adjacent single family residences. At the April 30th hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposed modifications and took additional testimony from the public. After consideration of testimony and proposed modifications, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2762, denying Conditional Use Permit 90-08. This matter was appealed by the City Council on May 7, 1990. After two workshops held between the developer and residents in an attempt to work out a design compromise and public hearings held on June 4, June 18, and July 2, .1990 the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 90-08 with adoption of Resolution No. 90-73(A) on July 2, 1990. A revision to the Design Review of the project was approved by the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency on July 16, 1990 and revised building permits were issued on August 2, 1990. The City Council's action approved a significantly revised building design for the apartment project, including but not limited to reducing the building height for portions of the project. A number of owners of the properties lying adjacent to the Pasadena Avenue property objected to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus entitled Paul Zukowsky, et al v. City of Tustin. The Superior Court after a trial on December 13, 1991 issued a Preemptory Writ of Mandus and ordered the City to set aside Resolution No. 90-73 (A) and any conditional use permit issued thereunder. The City Attorney has determined that a new public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 90-o8 is necessary. II. Surrounding Properties The subject property was previously developed with a one-story single family residence which has been demolished. Surrounding zoning and land uses consist of a 22 unit two- story apartment building on property zoned R-3 to the north Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 3 and two story apartments across Pasadena Avenue on the west, a 14 unit one-story apartment building on property zoned R-2 (duplex residential) to the south, and single family residences on property zoned R-1 to the east. The subject property is located in the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed project will also require Redevelopment Agency approval of Design Review 88-.20. III. General Description of Project The project as substantially completed consists of two separate, apartment .buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type units. Six units are located in Building "A" located parallel to the northern property line of the site and five (5) units are to be located in Building "B" located parallel to the southern property line. Seven units will be - two stories in height approximately 1,200 square feet in size and contain three bedrooms and 2h baths, with four one story units at the rear of the project approximately 660 square feet in size and containing 1 bedroom and � bath each. The overall density of the project is 23.7 units per acre. Under current provisions of the R-3 District, the maximum number of units that could be authorized on the site is 11 units. Building coverage on the site will be approximately 38% instead of the 65% allowed in the R-3 District. Setbacks proposed are approximately 35 to 44 feet along the front of the property, 8 feet along the north side lot line, 15 feet 6 inches along the south side lot line and 10 to 24 feet 8 inches at the rear of the property adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. Proposed setbacks are substantially in excess of the minimum setbacks required in the R-3 District .as follows: 15 foot front yard, 5 foot interior side yards and 10 foot rear yard. A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are proposed for the project, 11 two car garages and three open covered guest spaces. Access to all parking is proposed from a 27 foot wide driveway. Entryways to each unit -will be provided by concrete walkways located adjacent to the northerly and southerly property lines of the project with pedestrian access to parking below grade provided at three proposed stairwells (one at the front and Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 4 rear of building "B" and one at a central location between unit 3 and 4 of building "A"). Private ground level open space/patio areas are also proposed at the front of each unit adjacent to entries. Air conditioning units will be located in the corner of each enclosed patio area. Walkways and driveway areas will be accented with special brick pavers or other special pavement treatment. The proposed grading scheme for *the project involved excavating approximately five (5) feet below existing grade for the central driveway and. tuck under parking. The resulting driveway ramp incorporates 6% blend slopes at each end with an 11.23% slope over the remaining portion. This is within the maximum 13% slope permitted by the City. Because the garage level is only five ( 5 ) feet below grade, and an eight (8) foot ceiling is proposed for the garages, the grade at the front entrances to the units is raised as much as 3.5 feet above existing grade, which is accomplished in steps. 1 Specifically, the grading concept proposes a two (2) foot grade difference at the side property lines, (pedestrian walkways) stepping up 18 inches to the patio and front door level. The actual finished floor level of all 11 units is six (6) inches above the patio level (see Sheet 3 of attached plans). As the sections on Sheet 3 indicate, the adjacent properties (north and south) will face a 6' 8" wall of decorative split face concrete block. The grade level in the front and rear yard setbacks will not change from existing conditions except for landscape berming and drainage. This concept helps preserve privacy between the project and the rear yards of the single family residences at the rear of the subject property. The proposed architectural design for the project is a modified cape code design which utilizes a combination of wood lap -siding and stucco with wood trim at building corners and around doors and windows. The project incorporates a variety of insets, projections and cantilevers to achieve relief on all sides of the two buildings. The proposed color scheme includes "silver gray" stucco, "pearl gray" siding, "swiss coffee" trim and "charcoal gray" asphalt composition shingles. Surrounding color and material themes in the general vicinity of the project include white stucco with blue trim and a white gravel roof immediately to the north, white stucco with blue trim and gray asphalt composition shingle roofs immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, tan stucco and wood siding Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 5 with brick accents and a shake roof immediately to the south and general earth tone stucco and wood siding with composition shingle, shake and gravel roofs on the single family residences to the east. Overall, the proposed color and material scheme is compatible with that of surrounding developments. 1. EARTH - This project would not result in any change to existing geologic conditions; however, grading is proposed that will require excavation 5 feet below existing grade for driveway and parking purposes and raise grade levels 3.5 feet above existing grades for the units themselves, resulting in disruptions, overcovering and compaction of the soil and changes to existing topography. This is proposed to accommodate below grade, tucked under parking and still maintain a two and one half story building design. (Source: Field inspection, June 30, 1988, precise grading plans) Mitigation/Monitoring - Appropriate soils reports and precise grading plans will be required _ Qu by the Building Division prior to issuance of grading permits to ensure proper drainage, compaction and retention. 2. AIR a - This project would not result in any change to the existing air quality based on review of AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents. (Source: AQMD Regulation No. 15, Site and Floor Plan) Air b - The proposed trash enclosure was originally proposed to be located four feet from the rear yards of the adjacent single family properties when CUP 89-05 was approved. Since odors from open bins could adversely affect those residents, Revised site plans and permits issued for the project show the required trash enclosure to be relocated towards the front of the site subject to approval by the Community Development . Department. (Source: Revised construction plan dated 8/2/90.) Air c - Residents have voiced concerns about the effect on microclimate in the area and the creation of permanent shade conditions on adjacent properties. A shade and shadow study to determine such impacts on adjacent properties has been prepared by LSA, a firm which specializes in environmental assessment. It is the report's conclusion that the project Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 6 does not substantially affect the existing solar coverage of the roofs or structures in the vicinity nor will the shadow coverage be extensive throughout the majority of any day for any time of the year. The report concludes that there will be no significant shade/shadow impacts associated with 'the project. In addition, the report emphasizes that the current projects reduced structure heights for portions of units 5, 61 10 and 11 substantially lessened the effects of shade/shadow on adjacent residences over what impacts would have occurred as a result of the original design for the site (CUP 89-05). (Source: Shade/Shadow Analysis for Pasadena Apartments prepared by LSA and dated February 15, 1991, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.) 3. WATER a, c, d, e, f, q, h, i - This project would not result in any change to the existing water conditions based on review of the site by City staff on June 30, 1988. The site is located in Flood Zone C, which is subject to minimal flooding. (Source: Tustin FIRM, Proposed Site/Grading Plans) Water b - Improvements are proposed which will add impervious surface area to the property which could affect drainage and absorption rates. (Source: Site Inspection, June 30., 1988, Community Development Department). Mitigation/Monitoring - Drainage plans for the project for acceptance of water into the public storm drain system will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 4. PLANT LIFE a, b, c, d - The site was developed with an existing single-family residence and landscaped with turf -in front and fruit trees in the rear. Development of this project resulted in removal of existing vegetation and eventual replacement with new turf, shrubs, ground cover and trees that are common species to the area. (Source: Field Inspection, June 30, 1988, submitted landscape plans) 5. ANIMAL LIFE a, b, c, d, - Based on review of City records and site inspection conducted by City staff, no rare or endangered species are known to inhabit the project site. (Source: Field Observation, June 30, 1988) Exhibit A l Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1 Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 7 6. NOISE - Adjacent, existing residents may experience increases in ambient noise levels related to construction activities, however, this is considered a short term impact. Mitigation/Monitoring - Construction activities shall be limited between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday (including engine warm-up) and will be monitored by the Community Development Department. Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal holidays. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE - The project will introduce additional lighting into the area by means of exterior fixtures on the future buildings. Mitigation/Monitoring - Specific lighting plans and light standards will be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department which confine direct light rays to the subject property as required by the Zoning Code. 8. LAND USE - Since the subject site was previously occupied by a single family dwelling, the proposed project does alter the land use of the site although the proposed number of apartment units (11) at a density of 23 units per acre is permitted by the R-3 Zoning District standards and the Tustin General Plan. The subject property is surrounded by a 22 unit two-story apartment building on property zoned R-3 to the north, a two story apartment building across Pasadena Avenue on the west, a 14 unit one-story apartment building on property zoned R-2 (Duplex Residential) to the south and single family residences on property zoned R-1 to the east. The project as substantially completed consists of two separate, apartment buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type units. Six units are located in Building "A" located parallel to the northern property line of the site and five (5) units are to be located in Building "B" located parallel to the southern property line. Seven units will be two stories in height approximately 11200 square feet in size and contain three bedrooms and 2z baths, with four one story units at the rear of the project approximately 660 square feet in size and containing 1 bedroom and 1 bath each. Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation } Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 8 To ensure compatibility with surrounding buildings and uses, the project has undergone extensive design modifications. These modifications support goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan which are "to promote an economically balanced community with complimentary and buffered land uses." More specifically evidence. to support that the project will not negatively impact surrounding land uses are noted below: 1. The design of the project is compatible with adjacent single family residences and will result in a minimal impact on the privacy of adjacent single family residents and will not negatively impact the use of their rear backyards based on the following facts: a. To reduce the scale of the project and potential privacy impacts, the project has been redesigned as - two stories in height over depressed subterranean l parking, excepting the east (rear)of the structure �1 where four units are typically one - story in height. The rear units on Buildings A and B (units 5, 6, 10 and 11) have been reduced in height to one story and will not exceed 20 feet in maximum height. The maximum height and pitched roof design are compatible with the adjacent single family homes that are approximately 20 feet high. Removal of second floors on the above units will create a 60 foot second story setback on Building A from R-1 properties to the east and a 74 foot 8 inch second story setback from R-1 properties to the east. b. Residents of the project will not have a direct line of sight from their units onto adjacent R-1 properties to the east since obscure glass will be incorporated on certain bathroom windows and no windows will be permitted on the east (rear) elevations of Units 4, 61 9 and 11 adjacent to R-1 properties. In addition, specially designed window screens will be required on certain bedroom windows, specifically, first floor windows in units 51 6, 10 and 11 and second floor windows of Units 3, 4 and 9 with bathroom windows on the same units again treated with obscure glass. That will prevent views to the east (rear) toward the R-1 properties. Exhibit A Discussion of -Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 9 C. Proposed side and rear yard setbacks substantially exceed the minimum setbacks required by the R-3 District. The R-3 district only requires a minimum 5 foot interior side yard setback and 10 foot rear yard setback. The project, as designed, provides a minimum 8 foot side yard setback on the north side of the lot, a 15 foot 6 inch minimum side yard setback on the south side of the lot and a 10 to 24 feet 8 inch rear yard setback adjacent to R-1 zoned properties to the east. A single story apartment building could be built within 10 feet of the rear yard and 5 feet of the side yards with no conditional use permit. The setbacks for the one- story units meet or exceed these standards. d. To provide additional privacy for R-1 properties to the east the following additional measures will be taken: trash enclosures for the project will not I be at the rear of the project but will be relocated in closer proximity to the front of the project the spa/jacuzzi originallyproposed in the southeast corner of the site will not be installed; a rear wall along the rear property line will be raised from 6' 8" to 8 feet; 24 inch boxed evergreen trees will be planted closely spaced at 10 foot intervals along portions of the side and rear property lines of the subject site, and at least one major specimen tree will be planted at the southeast corner of the site. e. The appraisal firm of Donahue and Company, Inc. has concluded in their report dated January 28, 1991" attached hereto as Exhibit B. that the subject project has been constructed to assure the privacy of adjoining properties and provides architectural betterment to the area (see page 9 of Exhibit B). 2. Based on a shade and shadow study for the project dated February 15, 1991 and prepared by LSA, a firm which specializes in environmental assessment, the project does not substantially affect the existing solar coverage of the roofs or structures fronting on Myrtle in the R-1 Zone, and in the vicinity of the project nor will the shadow coverage be extensive throughout the majority of any day for any time of the year. The report concludes Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 10 that there will be no significant shade/shadow impacts associated with the project. A copy of the report and exhibits are attached as Exhibit C and one incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the above information, video tapes of the shade and shadow situation on the site taken at different times of the day and particularly in the late afternoon. Based on a review of video tapes, it is not believed that the shadows/shade of the project will cause any detriment to adjoining properties. 3. An appraisal study has been completed.by`a qualified appraisal firm, Donahue and -Company, Inc., to determine how much, if any diminution in value to adjacent R-1 properties and neighborhood improvement would occur as a result of the completion and occupancy of the project. As a result of this comprehensive analysis, it was found that no negative impact on any neighborhood values would result from the subject project. A copy of the report is attached as Exhibit B is incorporated herein by this reference. 4. Light and glare from project lighting will not be an impact on adjacent properties since the project will be required to confine direct light rays to the subject property as required by the Zoning Code through the use of lighting fixtures which incorporate cut-offs and shielding. 5. According to the appraisal firm of Donahue and Company, Inc., the proposed project provides architectural betterment to the area. The project has been constructed of good quality materials and has an aesthetically pleasing and newer architectural style (see page 3 of Exhibit B) . The second story portions of the project, are only at or slightly above pitched single story rooflines of residences to the east in the R-1 District (see page 10 of Exhibit B) . 6. To enhance light and air at the project site and on adjacent R-1 properties, the project incorporates a variety of insets, projections and cantilevers to achieve relief on all sides of the two buildings. The project also only has a lot coverage of 38% of the site as Exhibit A - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 11 compared to the 65% lot coverage that is authorized in the R-3 Zoning District and is below the maximum allowed building height of 35 feet in the R-3 District. 7. The proposed color and materials proposed for the project are compatible with those of surrounding developments in that the proposed color scheme and combination of wood lap siding and stucco is similar to color and materials used at the project to the north, immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, to the south and the general earthtone stucco and wood siding with composition shingles on the single family residences to the east. (Source: Community Development Department, General Plan Land Use Element, Tustin Zoning Code, site plan dated 3/18/91 and revised construction plans dated 8/2/90, Value Diminution Study prepared by Donahue and Company, - Inc. dated January 28, 1991 and Shade/Shadow analysis for l Pasadena Apartments prepared by LSA dated February 15, 1991.). Mitigation/monitoring: While measures to reduce land use impacts have been incorporated into the submitted site plan and revised construction plans for the project and no additional mitigation measures will be necessary, the following are a list of revisions to the project which will reduce impacts to an acceptable level: 1. Removal of the second floor from the two end units of Buildings A and B (units 5, 6, 10 and 11). Removal of the second floor of units 5 and 6 will create a minimum 60 foot second story setback from R-1 properties to the east. The removal of the second floor of units 10 and 11 will create a minimum 74' 8" second story setback from R-1 properties to the east. 2. Incorporation of pitched sloping roofs on the one story portions of buildings A and B with a hip roof at the ends of the roofs. The height of said roofs are proposed to be limited to a maximum height of twenty feet with a pitch not to exceed 5:12. 3. Removal of windows on the east (rear) elevations of units 4, 6, 9 and 11 and window screens to be designed on Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 12 privacy sensitive bedrooms on the first floor of units 5, 61 10 and 11 and the second floor windows of units 3, 4 and 9. 4. Relocation of trash enclosure in closer proximity to the front of the project. 5. Removal of the spa/jacuzzi originally proposed in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant will also be prohibited from building a spa or jacuzzi in the future. 6. Planting of closely spaced 24" box evergreen trees along the side and rear property lines of the subject site; and at least one major specimen size tree in the southeast corner of the site. 7. An increase in the height of the wall along the rear property line from 6' 8" to 8 feet. Conformance with these conditions will be monitored by the Department of Community Development through review of plans and inspection prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The project would not result in any significant increased use of natural resources. The site is presently developed, and is located in an area of numerous existing multi -family developments as determined by field inspection on June 30, 1988. (Source: Field Inspection, June 30, 1988) 10. RISK OF UPSET - The proposed project would not result in any increased risk of upset to the property or future residents in that the proposed use is for an 11 unit apartment project and no hazardous or flammable materials are associated with this use. Applicable requirements of the Fire Department and Uniform Building Code will be satisfied to significantly reduce any risk of upset (Source: Building Division and Fire Department). 11. POPULATION - The proposed project will remove an existing single family residence and replace it with 11 apartment units, adding approximately 24 new residents to the area, based upon the City's average household population of 2.4 persons/household (deducting the residents of the existing dwelling). The proposed density and resulting increase in Exhibit A �l Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 13 population in the immediate area will not result in any significant impacts, as the increase in number of dwelling units and population are permitted and anticipated by the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. Comments received from the Community Services, Public Works, Police and Fire Departments did not note significant impacts to their services as a result of this project. (Source: State Department of Finance Census data - 1/88, Community Development, Police, Fire, Public Works and Community Services Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code.) 12. HOUSING - See No. 11. 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a b c d e - The project will generate approximately seven (7) average daily trips (ADT) per unit, for a total of approximately 77 ADT as compared to approximately 10 ADT for the existing single family residence. Although this is a substantial increase, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that theJ ro'ect P would not significantly impact the carrying capacity of existing streets, as they are capable of handling the anticipated additional vehicle trips generated by the project; however, the subject property is located in area B of the Tustin -Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), whose purpose is to implement a program for transportation system improvements in the two cities. (Source: Engineering Department/City Traffic Engineer TSIP) Mitigation/Monitoring - Should the City's TSIP Fee Ordinance be in place prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the developer shall pay development fees as established by said ordinance to be calculated by the Community Development Department. Transportation f - Vehicles exiting the site may create a potential hazard to passing motorists/pedestrians due to the upward grade of the driveway. (Source: submitted grading, site plans). Mitigation/Monitoring - The developer shall install a speed bump in the driveway ramp to reduce vehicle speeds and a stop sign at the drive exit subject to verification by the Community Development Department prior to an issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 14 14. EUBLIC SERVICES - The project would not result in any significant change to most public services. All services are in place for the area and development of the site has been anticipated by the Community Development Department. Since new families are likely to have children utilizing public schools potential impacts on school enrollment and facilities might occur. In addition, additional households in the city will increase potential impacts on the city's- parks and recreational programs. While the size of the project would indicate that impacts will be minimal, mitigation measures shall be imposed on the project. (Source: Tustin School District, Fire, Police, Public Works, Community Services Departments) Mitigation/Monitoring - The developer shall pay impact fees to the Tustin Unified School District prior to issuance of permits and parkland dedication fees in amount established by the City of Tustin in the Community Services Department. 15. ENERGY - The project will not result in a substantial change in the use of energy. The project site has existing energy service. (Source: Public Works Department) 16. UTILITIES - The project would not result in any increased need for utilities, as all utilities are existing and presently serve the site and have adequate capacity to serve the project. (Source: Public Works Department) 17. HUMAN HEALTH - The project would not result in.any effects to human health given the nature of the proposed land use. (Source: Community Development Department) 18. AESTHETICS - Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a Use Permit to construct a building on an R-3 lot whose height would be greater than one-story or 20 feet, when the property abuts an R-1 zone and the building would be within 150 feet of a single family residence; all of these conditions apply to the subject project. To mitigate potential impacts to the single family residences to the east, and one-story apartments to the south, the proposed project has undergone an redesign, resulting in construction which incorporates colors and materials that are compatible with those found on existing structures and building height that is consistent with existing two-story buildings located to the Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Revised March 11, 1991 Use Permit 90-08 Page 15 north and west. Additionally, impacts to the existing developments to the east and south have been further mitigated as discussed under the Land Use category (Item 8) in this Discussion of Environmental Discussion. Mitigation/Monitoring - All mitigation measures listed and discussed in Item 8 under the Land Use discussion are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 19. RECREATION - Future residents of the project may use existing recreational facilities; however, due to the small scale of the project (11 units), anticipated impacts are minimal. (Source: Community Development and Community Services Departments) Mitigation/Monitoring - Parkland dedication fees shall be paid - in an amount established by the Tustin City Code to the Community Services Department. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The project site is not located in an area known as an archaeological resource, nor is it located in the City's Cultural Resources District. The site is presently developed with a one-story, stuccoed, single-family residence. There is no evidence that any cultural resources exist on the subject property. (Source: Tustin Area Historical Survey, Field Inspection, June 30, 1988.) 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The environmental evaluation provided herein, attempts to fully identify, discuss and mitigate any impacts associated with the proposed development project. Considering the sources used, the proposed level of development and the mitigation and monitoring measures incorporated herein, staff has determined that anyproject impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. CAS:kbc\up90-08.env PAC/F/C Iwo: (R-1) O c'......... bo- :::: b9 55 ! �. ji.0� : bb.l0.: :: ::: :::�I::: ::: c• ... i. ... ... .... .... . bS10 S6 57 ::::: : .... : :Se:::::: :. 62 X63 64 SINGLE FAMILY :::: �:::: 73 ::::: ::. :: T/. ?I?77 fl: RESIDENTIAL - ' ' ' ' ' .. (R-1): .. ..... ..... MYRTLE ....MYRTLE AVENUE ..10. 4. 70.60:. ...t... ...r......... ........ .. ...... ..r... ..r... ...v. :. ....... ::::::: ::::::: :(R-1) ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: :::::: ::::.. ... ::Q� �,:...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... .... ...... ..... o. :I Z :3 ..................... ........ ........ ........ ....... ......... ..... . .......... ... ..................... ........ ........ ....... ....... ........ ..... ........ ..... ... ..... ....... e .. 6.C' �. . :r i. F. i' 1 •• ::N : ::• -• .J v• l « Y D . M1 UP IP FAMILY L ULT LE E X M D= - �..�. PL ANN E ' ENTIA L 3SIENTIAL RES1D t. �D EVEL N l' c= 3,!•: —3 e R =;sgfi: . ( R — .4G:tG•• — •a � ( D 2 P t r: r R JEC T ..: SU B _ O P -R TY 'f ..� �•R ••� r as .................. a. p r� v ,ems• ' � v v V i:. moo• Z. :,! Z CIRCLE AVENUE PASADEIVA (R-3) 4 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B VALUE DIMINUTION STUDY Community Development Department DONAHUE & COMPANY. INC. PROPERTY AND URBAN ECONOMICS JOHN C. DONAHUE 2121 EAST COAST HIGHWAY GREGORY J. HAWRAN MICHAEL F WALDRON SUITE 140 MICHAEL A. TAYLOR CORONA DEL MAR. CALIFORNIA 92625 NORMAN CANTOR BARBARA L. ZACHRY PETROS BERHANE LAWRENCE M. MAXWELL KEVIN J. DONAHUE CHARLES P. FOX ROBERT 1. STEIR January 28, 1991 Mr. James G. Rourke Re: Value Dimunition Study City Attorney City of Tustin C.U.P. 90-08 City of Tustin Suite 7000 701 S. Parker Street Orange, California 92668 Job No.. 4602 Dear Mr. Rourke: TELEPHONE (714) 760-31( 1600) 654-07 FACSIMILE 1714) 760-54, KART E. NELS BUSINESS VALUA At your request and authorization, we have prepared a study pertaining to possible dimunition in value of nine (9) single family residences located in Tract 4250 (hereforth referred to as the Subject Tract), as a direct result of the presence of a new eleven (11) unit apartment building located to the west, off of Pasadena Avenue frontage. INTRODUCTION/PUR.POSE This study addresses the development of an eleven (11) unit apartment building at 15642 S.: Pasadena Avenue, in accordance with Conditional Use Permit 90-08 and City Council resolution 90-73 (A), and the consequences to the single family residential neighborhood to the east, Tract No. 4250. The purpose of the study is to determine how much, if any, diminution in value may result to adjoirung properties and neighborhood improvements upon completion and occupancy of the apartment complex. SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT The approach utilized in arriving at the value conclusion presented herein involved an inspection of the Subject Tract together with an investigation of all relevant transfers which have occurred within the past four (4) years. Our analysis of this and other data focused on what (if any) measurable differences exist between sale prices of these single family Mr. James G. Rourke _2_ . January 28, 1991 SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT (Cont.) residences abutting apartment projects, and prices of those residences within the same tract but not abutting apartments. To provide additional support for the evidence obtai within the Subject Tract, other examples suitable for comparison were gathered ned throughout Tustin and analyzed in the above manner. A - description and evaluationfrom each of the tracts selected is included following the Subject Property section; their locations of are indexed on the Market Data Map. ations SUBJECT TRACT 4250 Description Tract 4250 is located on the north side of McFadden Avenue, east of Pasaden Street in Tustin, California. Rights of way within the tract include MyrtleCorla � ad Medallion Avenues as well as Pacific and California Streets. It is further identi e fl as Assessors Map Book 402 Page 38, County of Orange. ed There are a total of 86 single family residences in the tract, currently zoned R - Single Family Residential, under the City of Tustin Municipal Code. A variety1� construction styles and qualities indicate the involvement of several developers of in the original construction, with the majority of homes built in the earl to mid P9 s Public records indicate some homes as new as 1975 and as old as 1958.mMost ost contain. 3, 4 or 5 bedrooms, with living areas ranging from about 1,100+ s u to 2,000± square feet. _ q are feet Pride of ownership, maintenance and general condition vary greatly within the subject tract. Although some homes appeared well kept, others have accrUed substantial amount of deferred maintenance in addition to having neglected landscaping. g lected g d Environs Uses which surround the Subject Tract include McFadden Avenue to th elevation; an eighty g e south b ty (0) foot wide primary artery, while a 73 unit apartment complex borders the majority of the tract's east elevation. Two projects border the north elevation: a 188 unit, 2 story apartment building built in 1969, and Tract 5415 which consists of a 72 unit multi -family project built in 1965+. Nor. James G. Rourke January 28, 1991 SUBJECT TRACT 42SO (Cont.) The Subject Tract's west elevation is bounded by severale multiple family dwellings, all of which front to Pasadena Avenue Tle and densities of corner of McFadden Avenue and Pasadena Avenue is improved with northwest condominium project constructed in 1964 which has a situs addres a 32 unit Pasadena. A 14 unit, one story apartment building built in 1963 i sof 15712 S. S. Pasadena; a 22 unit, two story apartment building built in 1967 i situated at 15660 S. Pasadena. s located at 15622 IAlso situated on the tract's west elevation is the subject o complaint; an eleven (11) unit apartment building located at 1 f the petitioner's Presentlynearing 5642 S. Pasadena g completion. The structure consists of two buildings which are a low two story over depressed or partially subterranean Parking, excepting the rear of the structure where they are a typical one story in he'ht. It has been constructed of good quality materials and has an aesthetically pleasing style compared to its neighboringsing and newer architectural conventional apartment and garage buildings. Traffic Traffic counts in the vicinity, as provided b e City of Tustin Traffic Department, are as follows: y the Engineering ADT McFadden Ave., Between Newport Ave. and Pasadena Ave. both directions 18700 Pasadena Ave., from McFadden Ave. to Sycamore, both directions 11900 Pasadena Ave., north of McFadden Ave., both directions 4193 ` Taken in 1989 "* This figure was arrived by multiplying 1986 counts by a 2% an growth rate as a conservative estimate re annual commended b Tustin Traffic Engineering Department. y the City of Mr. James G. Rourke -4- January 28, 1991 SUBJECT TRACT 4250 (Cont.) Petitioners The nine (9) ownerships which have disputed the City's allowance for the eleven (11) unit apartment building are all situated in Tract 4250, herein referred to as the Subject Tract . Their property characteristics are listed on the Summary of Neighboring Properties/Petitioners which follows this discussion. All nine (9) single family residences are of average quality construction built in the early to mid 1960's. Bedroom counts are between three and five with living areas ranging from 1,400 square feet to 2,191 square feet. .Lot sizes range between 7,209 sf to 7,681 sf. Condition of the improvements varies between average and good. Proximity to the eleven (11) unit apartment building differs widely'among the nine properties. For instance, the Nessl Property as 15702 Pacific Street is two blocks removed from the project. The O'Rourke and Barth properties, located at 15632 and 15622 S. Myrtle, respectively, are one block removed as is the Karelsro er at 17191 Corla Avenue. The remaining five properties are all located on he west side of Myrtle Avenue and directly back to the existing R-3 zoned neighborhood and its older developments. The properties owned by Tammaro and Mitchell, situated at 15601 and 15621 S. Myrtle Avenue, respectively, have rear yards directly abutting a two story 22 unit apartment building situated at 15622 S. Pasadena Avenue, known as Colonial Village. Those complainant residences with rear property lines directly adjacent to the subject apartment building are 15631 S. Myrtle Avenue (owned by Arnold) and 15641 S. Myrtle (owned by Zukowsky) as well as a portion of Mitchell's pro er ty line at 15621 S. Myrtle Avenue. The Gordon. pro e located a p Avenue, has a rear property line before backingto a fourteen t, on Corla apartment project located at 15660 S. Pasadena,and lies cat (14 )unitt, one story catercorner to the eleven (11) unit project being disputed. Mr. James G. Rourke -5- January 28, 1991 SUBJECT TRACT 4250 (Cont.) Pre-existing. Conditions The petitioners claim of dimuted roe values due to the presence of the eleven P property rty (11) unit apartment building is partially invalidated based on a number of pre-existing conditions affecting the Subject Tract. Firstly, the small pocket of R-1 zoned property which comprises Tract 4250 is already surrounded by existing R-3 zoned land improved with numerous apartment projects. They vary in height between one and two story and the majority were constructed in the mid 1960's or early 1970's. A total of 68 units border the tract's west elevation in addition to a 73 unit complex on the east side. The north boundary is bounded by two projects totaling over 140 units. 1 Secondly, the houses within Tract 4250 have extremely_ shallow back yards; the houses are set back to where the front yard is much larger than the rear, curtailing rear yard privacy regardless of adjoining uses. Overhead utilities are also situated along the rear, property lines, a pre-existing condition considered detrimental to the neighborhood's aesthetic quality. Additionally, the deferred maintenance and general mixture of ownership pride which are apparent in Tract 4250 have a negative impact values. These conditions have nothing whatsoever to on ve PenY ro g P property do with the arrival of the new apartment building. 2 Pasadena Avenue have itched Finally, the adjoining apartment buildings at 1571 p style roofs which exceed the height of the single family residences they abut; very much like a two story structure. In summary, the surrounding multi family residential uses, overhead utilities, property setbacks and general neighborhood conditions all preceded the subject of the petitioner's complaint regarding any affects of the construction and prospective occupancy of the eleven (11) unit project. P As further support, an evaluation of sales within the Subject Tract as well as other comparable tracts are presented hereforth. LTJ LT Nor. James G. Rourke -6- January 28, 1991 MARKET DATA General Further invalidation of the petitioners claim is forthcoming from our comparative analysis. This evaluation involves the comparison of sales which back to existing multiple family dwellings to those that do not. In addition to an overview of sales within Subject Tract 4250, other tracts have been selected within Tustin to support the conclusions stated , n this study. Subject Tract 4250 Two pairings were chosen from the Subject Tract which reflectrices unaffected b P y any neighboring multiple family influences. Item 1A, located at 15661 Myrtle Avenue, sold in May, .1987 for $142,000. It backs to existing one story apartment buildings fronting Pasadena Avenue. It is matched with: Item 1B, a residence located at 15661 California Street which sold for $147,000 in September, 1987. This home backs to adjacent single family residences. Both properties are in average condition. I The price difference, 3.4% over four months, is attributable to normal market appreciation and possibly a superior floor plan present in Item 1B. Item 2A, located. at 15622 Myrtle Avenue, sold in September, 1990 for $232,000. The seller; Barth, et ux, is a petitioner in the case. The residence backs to adjacent single family residences and is a block removed from the subject apartment building. Item 2B is a residence located at 15701 Pacific which sold for $215,500, also in September, 1990. It also backs to another single family residence and is two blocks removed from the subject property. Both residences are in the same average condition, Item 2A has 391 + square feet more living area than does Item 2B. The 7.1% difference is attributable to larger living area and superior room count. No locational difference could be isolated from these two samples. F� Mr. James G. Rourke _7_ January 28, 1991 MARKET DATA (Cont.) Tract 4334 Tract 4334 is located north of San Juan Street, east of Newport Avenue in the Cit of Tustin. The residences within this tract are similar in size and age to those within the subject tract, although they are slightly superior in quality and condition. This tract was selected for comparison because the houses on the southerly side Andrews Street back to both one and two story apartment complexes. similar of conditions affecting the Subject Tract. o the Two pairings were selected from within this tract representing sales which back t apartments, comparable with those which do not. o Item 3A, located at 1252 Andrews Street, sold in May, 1986 for $141,000 and is situated adjacent to a two story apartment complex. _ Item 3B is located at 1362 Lance Drive, having sold December, 1986 for $135,000. It is a corner lot adjoined by other single family residences. Item 3A has 348+ square feet more living area than does 3B, and sold more despite having sold seven months earlier. for 4.2% Item 4A, located at 1292 Andrews Street, sold in August, 1987 for a sale price of $162,900. It backs to a*two story apartment complex and is in good condition.. Item 4B, located at 13631 Fielding Drive, sold in February, 1987 for $154,000 and backs to adjoining single family residences. It is also considered to begin good condition. These two properties are quite similar, with normal market appreciation causin 5.5% increase in value over a six month period. g a Thus far, all residences exampled which back/side to apartments sold for higher prices than their neighbors which did not, excepting Item lA which sold four months prior to Item 1B. D Mr. James G. Rourke _8_ January 28, 1991 MARKET DATA (Cont.) Tract 4527 Located south of Sycamore Avenue, east of Newport Avenue in Tustin. es within this tract are quite similar in age and size to those in the Subject Tract although slightly superior in quality and condition. This tract was selected b Tract it also has properties adjacent to multiple family dwellings which can be paired because those which abut single family dwellings. Additionally, theseproperties ed with shallow rear yards like those of the Subject Tract. have Two pairings were drawn from this tract suitable for analysis: Item 5A, located at 1141 Mear Lane, sold for $139,500 in Ma ► two story apartment building. }, 1986. It backs to a Item 5B, located at 1202 Mear Lane, sold in May, 1986 for $144 000. I adjacent single family residences. t backs to The properties are both in good condition with Item 5B slightly su eri r 3.1% price difference is attributable to condition, the additional bedro to 5A. The square feet more living area enjoyed by 5B. oom and 65 ± Item 6A, located at 1162 Drayton Way, sold in January, 1990 forarice of It is situated adjacent to a two story apartment building. P $229,000. Item 6B is located at 1161 Drayton Way and sold in Jun $220,000. It adjoins other single family residences. e, 1989 for a price of. Both items are similar in condition, with the 3.9% price difference attributable market appreciation and the additional 89+ square feet of livin areaenjoyeto Item 6A. g enjoyed by Tract 6484 lu Tract 6484 is located north of Walnut Avenue and easterly of Red Hill in Tustin. Properties within this tract are slightly newer than those in thevenue ct Tract, having been built in 1968; they are similar in size and slightly su Subject quality. g y Subject in TE MWMr. James G. Rourke -9- January 28, 1991 MARKET DATA (Cont.) This tract was selected because the residences on the north side of Co erfiel pp d Drive back to a two story complex know as 'Brighton Terrace", vs. properties on the south side which adjoin either orchards or other single family residences. One pairing suitable for analysis was: Item 7A, located at 15 91 Copperfield Drive, sold in February, 1988 for $189,000. This property backs to the Brighton Terrace" apartments. Item 7B, located at 1552 Copperfield Drive, sold in November, 1987 for $17,000. It is situated adjacent to an orchard. Item 7B is larger than Item 7A and contains an additional bedroom. Despite the size inferiority of Item 7A, it sold for 7.4% more than Item 7B in only three months time. - CONCLUSION The petitioners' claim of dimuted values resulting from the presence Apartment Building is unfounded. Numerous nei hborhood conditi ons, including the Subject hundreds of apartments surrounding the tract, mixed ride of owner g utilities and shallow rear yard setbacks all pre-existed the eleven 11) unit project, overhead o These combined inherent property characteristics create an environment property values are not easily impacted. ) u�n which Further, the properties are all in Tustin's limited affordable priced housing range and in demand given normal market conditions. The paired market data study presented herein indicates there to be absolutely no difference in prices/values between residences nearest apartments and those that are not. No negative impact on any neighborhood values will result from the eleven (11 unit Subject Apartment Building. It has been constructed to assure the privacy) adjoining properties and provides architectural betterment to the area. 'In of the an), Mr. James G. Rourke -10- January 28, 1991 CONCLUSION (Cont.) event, as partially subterranean, the more distance second story portion of this complex is, only at or slightly above the pitched single story rooflines of the complainant's residences. Thank you for this opportunity to provide valuation services. Respectfully submitted, DONAHUE & COMPANY, INC. John C. Donahue, MAI Principal Appraiser JCD/KJD:tmm Kevin J. Donahue Staff Appraiser v Y 0L L C o •% d d N m O z E O .. c :3 CL D O d 4 H < L La < < a.. 5 U C +� aj c N •u 4 N N .- YC to � �E LD d MO c o' C >; e x d d co d U c o N M � C> N •p N N •O N •� p LPL O Ln O S - .- EI M v Ln v %O N N L_ O• M � � •� u u N H s N J N �t u N '' ✓ C C p CO u C N tYL r p ✓ C C C M .- M O N •E �+ 7 N Q O CD ✓ N q E %O N'O to O O .. %O Ln O Ln Cl L_ LD >. C -0 Ln L oN p O �. `' a+ L L O O L co s a N w LD �+ N °' N ti c0 P C a a rn C d lU t_ N •• m M .z, a a a m co N co N co co 64 `� V- A-, L L- W C c 64 c LQ 3t go L- L _ > v- L. d W N > _CD _ v- ej th V) 10 a C 7 d �- d CO a •E L_ �. C a~i L_ D +' 31 L- LD n °L_' a c cu c w c L- Li a a CA w- U C: N i► N a. d d N �- '+p a0+ O a+ C C 7 `+ C F+ a0+ vOi m n• W C � W N ii N N N N L N �+ Q N �+ L Y .._. -%ZC u Yu u u 'L� ` U U O X a W d w >c L. L_ N E ?. d Q LL) 7 u LD co LD co co 7 m d LD m LD co C O Q1 dIm d d a� cn Cf CD O ZL_ W CD L 41 Ol ui a+ I Of CfCD cb CL Im Cf Cf ID G LD Q L Q L ` tQ.. L_ L y LD LL d d a w< a a Q 6 Q < a <> c LL CD o d Ln U. O N ce v J � < N V � U Z Q � L N \ ►- ^� 41 'p CDl Ln Ln Ln M M v v M Ln co �' y m _ = o J W z 1 of 1 P of of +1 W N1 Ln1 a �1 N O O O O O �-+N .- N N CIL N <`I fl - Ln N C N u ti O• N Co N co LI r- co v v Ln Lnco J < r N •- •- •-- � .- r r- 4; N N N to N N N N N m P a P a P P Pa P L_ v Y 0L L C N OOC d N m O z E O to C Y L_ D O d 4 H < L 4.7 < < a.. d U C +� ✓ N •u 4 N N .- N N O LD d MO N d d d co d N M M M N M � C> N •p N N •O N to p LPL O Ln O S - .- EI M v Ln v %O �- O N M 0L d N c H E C Y L_ D O 4 H < N 4.7 ][ C 4 4 < d d d d d d S - .- M v Ln %O P O O O O O O O N H s N J N �t u N O co p CO t0 L^ M r M �- M — M M .- M O N M N N N O. Lti %O N'O to O Lr% N O %O Ln O Ln Cl C) s Ln %0 ti c0 P C - v 2 . ; t. Ilk i COQ L Q AVENUE t, I w • ,. " .no 4A. n .�41 'vc� '. .�. ,c,n .� 2t. U N� W CG V ^ V \ I � \ 1• 1� i m v ti CD 4.4 (� •40I Ln A Y 1C C ! p P , ^i 1p 1 "CDA L L /ON ,4 VENUE T. t , T Z Ju J 1 � L •r1 ' i C �� 8 O -� c+ v� zk /mac FADDEN AVENUE g M o 1 2 ^ '^ 15 e- ., •. . C\ r .j 1 2 . ; t. Ilk i COQ L Q AVENUE t, I w • ,. " .no 4A. n .�41 'vc� '. .�. ,c,n .� 2t. U N� W CG V ^ V \ I � \ 1• 1� i m v ti CD 4.4 (� •40I Ln A Y 1C C ! p P , ^i 1p 1 "CDA L L /ON ,4 VENUE T. t , T Z Ju J 1 � L •r1 ' i C �� 8 O -� c+ v� zk /mac FADDEN AVENUE g M o 1 2 ^ '^ 15 e- ., •. . C\ r .j fi WHITBY AIC rADA ry CIRCLE � AIV) To a 0 O y• ♦ AVENL�' � I � 12 mama PLAT MAP - 15642 S. PASADENA AVE .A It ENVIRONS View of parking lot for the Pasadena Village Apartments abutting 15601 S. Myrtle, The two story apartmentsg are visible in the right ng the north elevation of of the photograph. View looking north along Myrtle Avenue, at the Pasadena Apartment Village A border a portion of Subject Tract 4250's north elevation. g p s which SUBJEC 'PHOTOGRAPHS View looking east at the eleven unit Subject Apartment complex at 15642 Pasadena Avenue. The roof line of the Arnold residence can be sen center the in the cent photograph. of the N im e• View of the northerly property line and the Mitchell residence abutting the apartment project. D SUBJF( r PRppERT, r.[w�... :rte• a^�� T •��•�Y �- NNW,.- .. '_= .•�v ....: rL�j�.t�/'k•.C�li.�+ Westerly view of the Subject Apartment Building, taken fro Myrtle Avenue, owned by Mitchell &Arnold, res ectivel . m between 15621 & 15631 apparent in this photograph. p Y Overhead utilities are also N y V u qC C E co �t O N c co L O E u .. 1. C u C L d CL i. E N fo a os y go � v '•- E Co to a y N '^ . N y. y --' 4 d O d C N O .y N N C -- i. vi U d _ y d ''' C a. O O y N N N 0 0 O . C y C N ai U •'1f Y N a � �►- a O U y y N N N N U y V -W U L N C! N C O d N `� 0 d co '0 m ` m d u C a Y N o m ` ca c m V y co ` 1.0 V U Y m O N U .Y m m L m 4 d M W Lri N CO tr% M � ti N \ `O 0; M K 0 N ._ H Lr%M co V1 N K M M ^ co a v N01 N 0 N CO r► V1 v P V M H P N v1 H V1 d U -L ~ H O a c o0 0 0 N �� N O O v: O - O Co N Co O O O N rn ^ 64N P O co = N N ^ ^ N v O 00 O r m V/ 10Ln p� O o " O M ~ OvO N Ncv 4o%~ ~ N W 61 O V < H v NA CWC C 0 \ N 1� O 0• yj 00. N \ CLCO WN O 6 N 0 V L N N m M N N m yy y, N N N N v v , v N N v N N M N 10 N M P a 10 N N a NO 10 N N 1O 10 ol M pn P 10 10 6 .P 10 P d co \ P a P \ \ `� .app N1 O O O 0. \ 0 0 O co N ap CoGo A an L \ O \ O O 00 d V d � \r1 V V C v j V V < L "C H V 4- V N V O L4n 64 N 2 L to p C t MI ` y d d d to 3 do 0. b c ` yC C .i . i v N < N V1� O L L a. O hN N P U O SOI F- ^ p t ryy L. N N co 1 M M co v co Q 1 I -7 � C> PAR �� HANG( � rc a►c Qy � z � I NOfiWOOn PARY, 2 I (� > x N oo `a°aK 4 0 /ti4NN„� _...7 �T Q 17 3DO BOR OA FIAT HAM..' ORM'U �� _ WAggEN `2 c • �`-I 4t. c��,\V-� < oq THEODORATH Av a c !�'yf- P wCEWYO SEWIA WY ' < _ i ^ �''. ,r 0 ' z at c�-AMAG ASE o ` Z , 8 BEWE) A Nt P •~n ` a i "� m '• �'�o o ' ��s �/ P y� ST : o ' J J 1low _ '• _ = al` I C,,Vk �. Co AJ ETtlfvp,” t �� t Y PLAYA P Q YIN • M `" I • '.� X- -- 0- SS �~ �rw.► . 1 R I N E 17-00 AV C BLVD 300 � en -'- . IORANGE. u i a--i�l`' C,+ w z yyoop N TH c Z ~ SOC EN PROSTE T PK > \ .r �9 '•;. i cw000 -J FASHION ` O p O = O W I O nc R PAOSPt T PK I 8 > Q' g -� S C'iq \'tc� — uoo ST IT STI I9s ti > a .- .,.:f 10.�A E K)0 20o P.( Z 2ND V o0ay.�S o.J I w Civic ,�.2 G� tJFt94 /•>� ;ya Q IAS In x Q STEW CTR JP r r r 7 �r V' CL d I ST �i �. O - O LL IDOW 100 Ue AIN ,y , a�P 'f�� -� - Ocs�y• _ O — yp� ��Q' t o� CPQ eco, • -� 6TH : ST Jw „P s - `4�Y der � Way:. .>� � c l � } �� syr tiG 'rV'E r G1 re• _ � �P�O r L E JDR o. `.eG•. �, W<3� l � ti� ^ l ,.`-�: oF. � �v�'Oa L� l'fts'R • V z} 55 cta J' 4 W fl T 6 j Y i < off. oEisuo ` O ■ ; �fC 9 � l fS RO '" ea�� Lc� F- w CLR 1 •� �p`O <�r S� G KED ►ON �i a `� r +`j E OV'E O pQ' `� P DEN —� �,----1 IST �``�� w �� .�� y�J E� ams,'�- �'� t } )ow P�!P fit. ,6ti > \ �y P ��k. (� '1,��(,��' • A. C c _ �c < l R o �,, L F`�.` ��►�� •> C� POP �P �,tO ls�+` p S90 fRONTIER =. J�'L��.��= QP VQ ♦ ALTAOEN \ ��/ 4- -cr I 7 p�j> > ` `TA! J OR J AEA1T�r ��' + s•4V- r , > MED S F �, �` �� K Nyo GTR AF Ay, 9 �� • -T ,y .. �.. X O'9�. t�P •. �' Yet' y��•�� CO,e lC Y2. f <,� �4F.^.i �C�y � ::. Vis\ Ii r C �c, 1 "it-JR t 2 r, Fo c �� `:C� �.`c �'lr 4:4;HS s` Q�w- `��' SCi � 3t P 5~ P 1 ~ `?S�ti�(► C, �� C ••(. �`� c� �'`'.•�'l ••� Ci�L, '9,y �.aF �'4r �`t� �� map `�� \o ^� �� .� t4�eP O?,��cF .. ... � _." �� 1 ti •• _> ''tom _ _ ��i �� ? .* ` O�y� a o• tri ��. ~°� " `_• e� �� f <c i`,'t;, �q� .r J . �•:•'b „fi. .�/� Ci��t�{C,- if=�\ -/ t•'S.i I �`� `•� ey C F� „`�>r7Fiwr �,_, '! 7�� s�L`Q`7� p"moi `�-: / S! ! :•►� ! N[: .' 9 -wGS'' Cs—,/ err -� -ter �� 3 �� P •,rp `�f� �, y. :,,. '�fsr�� LEGEND 4 Subject Tract 42 opo ,<�•`1 V /` `+� �� `` cs,� 2 Tract 4334 �- Cr9 9CS�✓ \. e/ '� \ �?� �� `�; ��t r . t l9Ff 3 Tract 4527 i Tract 6484 AL Ooov"moT wr Market Data Map t CORL UO F 2A o "470A Z Z /0,V VENUE 12 fs 15 tit 0 C - 0 Subject Tract 4250 COMPARABLES Item lA: 15661 Myrtle Avenue Backs to one story apartment buildings; sold 5/87 @ $1427000 e�wYA��•v`i��_ri::?,.eyf'�i''",v.�y�r�.._ ,._�.`,i.r.="•�"yR.,'.'r._--� .� ... ..moi•: ..�.'.s•y..k :,� . Item 1B: 15661 California Street Adjoins other single family residences; sold 9/87 @ $147,000 TRACT 4250 One block removed froItem 2A: 15622 Myrtle Avenue m two story apartment com 1 p exec; sold 9/90 @ $232,000 Item 2B: 15701 Pacific Street Abuts single family residences; sold 9/90 @ $215,500 wl r r1 ~ V V e r U% to i nQ� N 'b �wLIN� Cb ti to w ` Cb d U q I f ? f tl f IC C SAN ✓UAN 11r\ Y•Mr•\1000 � tn1.�� STREr R --- FT X r � 0t. 1 BOO 2 t o t • $� I ro � J O .I O o O O O (D r' C-) y •� . 4A - 3 f. ANDREWS STREET t L. . z o � : t L ANCE ' S DRIVE 3 O io _ I♦. ,, � T N +• .y O O O O • Alm 1 , O Iter Q . NO ti O i O L , , • � � LEAR LANE tiO • i .1 • N 10, w •w C r L j e 6RYAN � ,4VENC/Fx--+ ci 12 Tract 4334 tu x t3 Jazz wn; I --aloft Atli tu x t3 Jazz wn; � • � ;,maM 4b y} ��' .�! �-�., • y ,• .. •: `'.:ti i 'i M... �. may. - - . +� '� � ,:• _; �.-�`�,..,., �... ��^= ' �; :•�; � : - � __ ". �`- SAVWWI • .. f .'S- �5. :fes'. - • - � r _ . � ^ � Y a r,r : '.ems• ` ^ ,` ' .r ',1 WIN- �R'•i - u J . �R'•i - u J . F1 G OIL A v 4r, F1 G OIL A v NC1✓I�g4i AVEN(R- tl it --o-- er w Aur $w•r O.,,r.•, ws Oppe,f p"R'" Tract 4527 Of DO d b ti � b q v -b:ti t ca O fb ~ NS.ni• _ � `O r 0 e• Io e�N• a+cs• s� ► e DEL AMO14 ti� ® G "�AVC. j"r v �- IIs'AAIO N 7 L •. w• 'i'® a ,. A O ss I 'o t r'l© r% • O ' 60 ty le' 10• j u 0 ti 2 •'• � � � Nr II• III• ,. CA.VrAX ,' C/ AAA X O e DRIVE t• OMY! ft I fin~ :U a ait 01 A 44 � N Aur $w•r O.,,r.•, ws Oppe,f p"R'" Tract 4527 �Lzil fr•��.r� r �� •4.,�"��w.��:iw�. ^,. - ^Ala...:. - r��. 1 1 �1 1 1 1 1 e e TRACT 4527 Item 5A:. 1141 Mear Lane Backs to two story apartment building; sold 5/86 @ $139,500 Two story apartment building can be seen on the left. Item 5B: 1202 Mear Lane Backs to other single family residences; sold 5/86 @ $142,000 � -� •r�e.3 erg^ "-I :. .... _ ' ' r'�,.,.. _ _- - �w� �+��+,�V v .. t.� r!�' .�. � w-..rw•••••°r.••r'• fes. f 1 t.' �'•'�Yti' �.. ,1�\-moi'• ! , .r �-- , � .... •� U ~ �C a.3tz aCb m 1 z o %• N �o N C) H - � Ij r 0 CN 0 qN N an U+ o ^ N N C) n "06, L SANOBROOK S DR/VE DR/VE 0 Tract 6484 I W N N � t SIL. V£RBROOIK "06, L SANOBROOK S DR/VE DR/VE 0 Tract 6484 I W N N �i 1 0 1 1 1 TRACT 6484 Easterly view of the "Avalon Townhouse Apartments" which abut Item 7A on Copperfield Drive. 1 1 1 1 TRACT 6484 Item 7A: 1591 Copperfield Drive Backs to two story apartments within 60+ feet; "Avalon Townhouse Apartments" Sold 2/88 for S189,000 Item 7B: 1552 Copperfield Drive Backs to orchard; sold 11/87 @ $175,000 � CERTIFICATION AND RESTRICTIONTUPON DISCLOSURE AND USE ® ® The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report. 2. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. 3. The compensation received is not contingent upon any action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use, of, this report. 4. 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. 5. The undersigned have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report except otherwise noted in the preceding transmittal letter. 6. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of my assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions and conclusions contained in this report. 7. This appraisal report has been prepared in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors. 8. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report except as noted in the transmittal letter. 9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 1 1 4 CERTIFICATION AND RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE (Cont.) 10. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or to the MAI or RM designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned. U" CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS UPON WHICH APPRAISAL IS MADE This report is made expressly subject to the contingent and limiting conditions, factors and assumptions herewith: IJ 1. That the vesting and legal description furnished this appraiser are correct. 2. That measurements and areas furnished by others are correct. No survey has been made for the purpose of this appraisal. 3. That the property is appraised as if free and clear of liens and that the title is good and merchantable. 4. That no guarantee is mad-- as to the correctness of estimates or opinions furnished by others which have been used in inaldrig this appraisal. 5. That no liabilities be assumed on account of inaccuracies in such estimates or - opinions. 6. That no liability is assumed on account of matters of a legal nature, affecting this property, such as title defects, liens, encroachments, overlapping boundaries, etc. 7. That this appraisal is subject to review upon presentation of data which might be later made available, undisclosed or not available at this writing. 8. That the appraiser herein, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give testimony or attendance in court or any governmental hearing with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have previously been made therefore. 9. That the maps and exhibits found in this report are provided for reader reference P purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is expressed or implied. 10. That no responsibility is assumed by the appraiser for the existence of any hazardous or toxic wastes, nor for the determination of the costs of removal and/or disposal thereof. IJ B JOHN C. DON AHUEI 1AI QUALIFICATIONS & CLIENT REFERENCES 1 EDUCATION Whittier College, B. A. Degree; 1958 University of California Extension Courses; 1959 & 1960 Southwestern Law University; 1963-1965 American Institute of Real Estate Courses; 1968-1978 Professional Seminars, Workshops & Refresher Courses; Ongoing MEMBER. Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers MAI Certificate No. 5998, designated in 1979 Cun-ently Certified under the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Voluntary Continuing Education Program. International Right of Way Association EMPLOYMENT R/W Agent, County of Orange Right of Way Department, 1958-1959 Acquisition Agent, Land Acquisition Service, Inc. (Santa Ana), 1959-1963 Appraiser, United Appraisal Company, Inc. (Santa Ana), 1963-1965 Self -Employed, John C. Donahue Inde (Tustin), � Independent , 1965-1969 TP ( ) Senior Partner, Donahue-LaMoureaux, a partnership (Tustin), 1970 Chairman, Donahue-LaMoureaux, Inc. (Tustin), 1971-1974 President/ Chairman, Donahue & Company, Inc. (Tustin, Santa Ana, Corona del Mar & San Francisco), 1975 - Present 1 INSTRUCTOR-LECTUIZEIZ-SPEAKER/PANELIST Instructor, Norwalk -La Mirada Adult School Instructor, California State University Long Beach Lecturer, Riverside City College Speaker, National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officals Speaker, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Orange County Chapter Speaker, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Northern California Chapter No. 11 Southern California Chapter No. 5 Panelist, International Right of Way Association -Mock Trial QUALIFIED AS EXPERT WITNESS Los Angeles County Superior Courts Public Utilities Commission Orange County Superior Courts Nevada District Court, Riverside County Superior erior Courts Clark County, Nevada San Bernardino Superior Courts Federal Bankruptcy Courts Property Tax Appeals eals Boards P CLIENT REFERENCES Public a Department of Transportation, State of California (Caltrans & Leaal) Department of Justice, State of California (Attorney General) Department of Water Resources, State of California County of Riverside (Flood Control & Water Conservation, Road & Parks) County of Orange (EMA-Real Estate, Transit District & County Counsel) County of Los Angeles (Flood, Real Estate, Community Dev. &. County Counsel) Metropolitan Water District Southern California RTD Cities/Redevelopnient Agencies Alhambra Brea Commerce Anaheim Burbank Compton Azusa Cala atria Corona s p Baldwin Park Cathedral City Costa Mesa Brawley Colton Covina 1 d 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 CLIENT REFERENCES (Cont.) PtIblic - Cities/Redevelopment Agencies (Cont.) El Monte Fullerton Garden Grove Glendale Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Huntington Beach Inglewood Indio Irvine Lakewood La Palma Private Numerous; referrals upon request Corporate Adohr Farms Allstate Insurance Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) Bewley Allen Cadillac Carley Group Carl Karcher Ent. Circle K Dreyfus EPM Exxon Far West Management General Motors General Residential Gulf Oil -USA Koll Company Lewis Homes Mirdt Lube Mobil Oil Pacific Lighting Properties Pacific Telesis (Pac Tel) La Mirada Redlands Loma Linda Riverside Long Beach San Clemente Monterey Park San Dimas Moreno Valley San Juan Capistrano Norco Santa Ana Orange Stanton Ontario Temple City Pasadena Tustin Perris Walnut Placentia `'Fest Covina Provo, Utah Whittier Rancho Cucamonga ,et al Reason Buick Santa Fe Industries Santa Fe Railroad Seven -Eleven Markets Shell Oil Southern Pacific Land Southern Pacific Transportation Co. Standard Oil State Farm Insurance Taco Bell Tektronix, Inc. Telacu Industries Temple Investment Thrifty Corporation Thdmas Brothers Trust Services of America (TSA) Union Oil Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Xerox Corporation ,et al CLIENT REFERENCES (Cont.) 1-inancia1-1nstittit iomd Arlington College Bank of America Bank of Newport Beverly Hills Savings California Federal Savings & Loan California First Bank Chapman College Elwyn Institute FEIC Houlihan, Lokey, Howard & Zukin Jurupa Unified School Dist. Lake Elsinore School District Lawyers Title Manufacturers Bank Moreno Valley School District Attorn evs-Professionals Albert E. Webb & Assoc. Allard, Shelton & O'Connor Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory Astor & Phillips Best, Best & Krieger Norburt Bunt Burke, Williams & Sorenson Cheadle & Garrett Cooksey, Coleman & Howard Dolle & Dolle Farano & Kieviet Garvey, Ingram & Baker Goldrich & Kest Heumann & Singer Hosp, Lytle, Richard & Granieri Eugene Jacobs Kindel & Anderson Laskin & Graham 4 Newport National Bank Pasadena Unified School District Pomona Unified School District Riverside City Community College Santa Ana School District Salvation Army Santiago Commercial Bank Security Pacific Bank So. California First Nat'l. Bank South Pasadena School District Union Bank Val Ver6e School District Wells Fargo Bank Westlands Bank Westmount College ,et al McClintock, Kirwin, Benshoof & Rochefort NBS Lowry, Eng. Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Einboden O'Melveny & Myers Palmeri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron Parkinson, Wolf, Lazar & Leo Richards, Watson & Gershon Rutan & Tucker Norman H. Smedegaard Spray, Gould & Bowers James A- Stearman Sullivan, Workman & Dee Telanoff, Wallin, Kress & Dilkes Tomkins & Parrington Richard M. Wonder ,et -al I 1 1 1 1 I] KEVIN J. DONAHUE APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS & CLIENT REFERENCES EDUCATION Cal State Fullerton, presently enrolled; Business Major Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa, California; AA Degree December 1988 Mountain View H.S., Mesa, Arizona Professional Seminars Attended: ' Easement Valuation; American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, (January 1990) * Professional Writing Style In Appraisal Reports; American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, (August 1989) EMPLOYMENT Donahue & Company, Inc., Corona del Mar, California 1986 -Present Staff Appraiser As a Staff Appraiser, Mr. Donahue has assisted in completing many varied assignments, including commercial, industrial, residential, and partial and full takings relative to condemnation -type appraisals. Mr. Donahue is presently completing assignments independently. CLIENT REFERENCES - PARTIAL Public Department of Transportation, State of California Cal Trans Division Jurupa Community Services District, Riverside Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana Cities/Redevelopment Agencies Anaheim Azusa Corona Hawthorne Pasadena Private Numerous, referrals upon request Riverside Santa Ana Santa Monica Yorba Linda EXHIBIT C SHADE AND SHADOW ANALYSIS Community Development Department LSA LSA Associates, Inc. I n:•lrownewal A:2w:,.o lent , L,r�•iru),»rcutal Rcstun+tiu» Principals February 15, 1991 Rob Balen Les Gard JIM curer George Kuriliu To: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Carollyn Lobcll Bill Maya, From: Rob Balen Ray Moe Rob Scbonboltz Subject: Shade/Shadow Analysis for Pasadena Apartments Malcolm Sproul Associates LSA Associates, Inc. has prepared a shade/shadow study for the Pasadena Michael Cale Ly" ine Apartments in the City of Tustin. The following is a discussion of the find - Connie e caarica C ings of the study. Exhibits are attached which illustrate these findings. Gary Dow Kevin Fincber Steer Granbolm SHADE/SHADOW STUDY OVERVIEW Richard Grassctt; Ivr Harris let Homrigbausen The study focussed on four single family residences fronting on Myrtle Street g yet Robert Hrubes directly east of the Pasadena Apartment site, apartment buildings north of the Gina Jurick site at 15622 Pasadena Avenue, apartment buildings south of the site at Benson Lee 15646 Pasadena and apartments due west of the site, across Pasadena Ave- RobMcCann Sabrina Nicbolls nue. To determine potential impacts, ISA identified the shadow coverage Beth Padon associated with the summer and winter solstices, June 21 and December 21. Harrigene Perry These two dates represent the maximum range of shadows and P g provide the Anthony Petros worst case scenario for determining shadelshadow impacts. For each sol- AmyRudell stice, two evening time periods were analyzed (as depicted on Exhibits 1 Dean Williams through 5) to determine the extent of shadow coverage and progression of Jill Wilson shadow during each- time of year: 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. for the winter solstice, and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. for the summer solstice (approximately two hours before sunset). During the remainder of daylight hours, before approximate- ly 2:45 winter and 5:00 summer, the project does not substantially affect property or the structures of 15611, 15621, 15631 and 15641 Myrtle Street. It should be noted that the time of sunset is 4:45 for December 21 and 7:00 for June 21. All adjacent properties will experience partial shading from the project in the evening or early morning hours. The study discusses both morning and evening effects. The study considered five criteria in establishing the level of significance of shade/shadow impacts to these properties. Each potentially 02/15/91(COT101 tiSHINGLET.MEM) 0m, Park Plaza. Strife 500 7M f)1 om. 714 55.3.0666 Califorma 92714 F.tcsimile 714 553.5076 LSA Assocr.stes, Inc. affected property was reviewed for shade/shadow effects for 1) lot coverage, 2) structural coverage, 3) shadow duration/portion of day, 4) number of days affected, and 5) solar energy access for each structure. The worst case evening shadow impacts of the project will occur on June 21 for the residence at 15631 Myrtle and December 21 for the residence at 15611 Myrtle and the apartment buildings at 15622 Pasadena. The residence at 15621 Myrtle will be affected at both winter and summer solstices. The residence at 15641 Myrtle is only marginally affected during the summer solstice, after 6:00 p.m., as shadows elongate beyond those shown on the exhibits. Because the shadows after 6:00 p.m. are not of significant duration, and are only present close to sunset, they were not shown on the graphic exhibits. The apartment buildings across Pasadena Avenue are only marginal- ly affected by early morning shadow before 8:00 a.m., and no later than 8:30 a.m. For approximately 30 days before and after the solstices, the shadow effects of the project will be 90 to 100 percent of the shade coverage occurring at the solstice, the solstice being 100 percent. Once outside this 60 day time- frame, the amount of shade coverage associated with the project diminishes rapidly. For the balance of the year, the shade/shadow impacts of the project will be less than depicted in Exhibit 1. It is important to note that the shad- ow from the project is marginal at 3:00 winter/5:00 summer due to the existence of the block wall. The shadow that the buildings throw at 3:00 winter/5:00 summer does not affect the yards of the residences on Myrtle Street due to the presence of the wall, as shown in Exhibit 2. All potentially effected surrounding structures are aligned in an "L" shaped configuration or are in an east -west orientation, exposing portions of each structure to the sun, taking maximum advantage of solar heating opportuni- ties. Because of their orientation and uninterrupted solar access during winter for virtually all day for 15621 and 15631 Myrtle and 15642 Pasadena, and from sunrise through approximately 4:00 for 15611 Myrtle, the solar heat generating capability at each of these structures is unaffected. The apartment structures at 15622 Pasadena will have effective coverage of ap- proximately one-half of the roof before 7:30 a.m. and after 3:30 p.m. Visual inspection of each of the potentially affected structures and yards was per- formed to determine whether any solar heating devices were affected. None of the properties appear to have any such devices. The project does not substantially affect the existing solar coverage of the roofs of these structures, nor will the shadow coverage be extensive throug- hout the majority of any day for any time of year; therefore, there will be no significant shade/shadow impacts associated with the proposed project. 02/15/91(COT101%SHINGLEr.MEM) 2 LSA Associates, Inc. Project In:pacts Each of the properties was . examined for potential shade/shadow impacts separately. The findings of this analysis are provided below for each address. 15611 Myrtle Street As illustrated in Exhibit 1, this residence will only be affected by shadow coverage beginning shortly before 4:00 during the winter solstice. The pro- jected shadow will occur over approximately one-half of the backyard area, including the patio area, .at 4:00. As the position of the sun continues to- wards sunset, the shadow depicted for 3:00 on Exhibit 1 will elongate and begin to extend up the side wall of the house, eventually reaching the roof at 4:00, as shown in Exhibit 2. This gradual progression of shadow coverage would be of one to one and one-quarter hour duration prior to sunset. This worst case situation would diminish to roughly 90 percent at 30 days past solstice, and then rapidly transition from partial shadow in February to no shadow approaching the summer solstice. 15621 Myrtle Stre6t During the winter solstice, approximately one-third of the backyard will be affected by shadows at 3:00 p.m., and all of the backyard including patio area and approximately one-third of the roof would be affected at 4:00 p.m. The maximum shadow coverage would occur for approximately 75 minutes at the winter solstice. Impacts at this location would be less during the summer solstice, with one- half of the backyard affected by shadows at 5:00 p.m. The same amount of yard and less than one-quarter of the roof is affected at 6:00 p.m.. The maxi- mum shadow coverage would occur on one-third of the yard and one-third of the structure for up to two hours during the summer solstice. 15631 Myrtle Street This residence will not be affected by shadow at the winter solstice; however, there will be shadow coverage during the summer solstice. As shown in Ex- hibit xhibit 1, a small portion of the backyard at this location will have shadow coverage at 5:00 p.m., while almost the entire backyard and a varying, but small, portion of the structure (less than 20 percent) will be affected by shad- ows at 6:00 p.m.. This residence will be partially affected by shadow cover- age for up to two hours during the summer solstice. OZ/15/94COT101=.SHINGLELMEM) 3 LSA Associalo, Inc. 15644 and 15646 Pasadena Avenue This property is only marginally affected during the month of June and early July. As indicated in Exhibit 1, a small portion of the structure (ten percent) at 15646 Pasadena is partially affected and a small portion of the parking lot at the rear of the property is affected at the June 21 solstice. Exhibit 1 shows the relatively small area affected at the one day of the year of maximum erect Qune 21). Lessening amounts of shadow could be anticipated for approxi- mately three to four weeks before and after June 21, until there is no shadow falling on the property at all as the shadows rotate toward the northeast and northwest, away from this property. The structure at 15644 is affected in the same manner as 15646, only in the morning hour at 8:00 a.m. until approxi- mately 8:30 a.m., when the shadow falls only on the Pasadena Apartments property. Because of. the relatively minor impact during the worst case period, and because the duration of this period is a maximum of six to eight weeks out of the year, there is no significant impact on the property. 15622 Pasadena Avenue I As shown on Exhibit 1, building W of the Pasadena apartments will cast shadow affecting 15622 Pasadena only during the winter months, beginning approximately in early November and lasting through February. The shadow laffects occupied single story apartments at 15622 Pasadena and a driveway J and parking structure to the east (rear) of the property during the late after- noon. In the early morning, these same apartments and the structure facing Pasadena Avenue would be in shadow at 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. During the months of March through October, the structures are in sunshine all day as the shadow rotates to the southeast in the evening and the southwest in the morning hours, away from this property (which is directly north of the Pasa- dena Apartment site). The worst case shadow effects begin at approximately 2:45 p.m. on Decem- ber 21. At 3:00 p.m., the shadow begins to partially affect the lower wall of the structure. The shadow, gradually extends up the wall and eventually covers three of the four individual apartment entrances, and approximately half of the occupied apartment building. The parking structure at the rear of the property is approximately 40 percent covered in shadow. Properties on West Side of Pasadena Avenue The properties on the west side of Pasadena Avenue across the street from the the Pasadena Apartments are substantially farther away from the project and are separated from the project by Pasadena Avenue. The separation from the front of the closest Pasadena Apartment Building to the nearest 02/15/91(COT101-.SHINGLEr.MEM) ,4 A LSA Associates, hic. apartment building is comprised of -the following: 20 foot setback of Pasade- na Apartments, 60' foot right-of-way for Pasadena Avenue, 25 to 30 foot set- back of apartments buildings on the west side. Measurement of the total building separation from aerial photographs indicates that there is a total of 110 feet separation. Review of Exhibit 1 shows the length of shadow at 4:00 p.m., December 21 to be 130 feet. At 5:00 p.m., June 21, the length of shad- ow is 90 feet. These same shadows would appear to the northwest during the morning hours at 8:00 a.m., December 21, and to the west at 6:00 a.m., June 21. These shadow lengths would lessen as the sun rises. Because the maximum morning shadow cast is approximately 130 feet at the winter solstice (December 31) and covers mostly the front yard of the project and street areas, with a minor amount (20 feet maximum) of the shadow falling on the apartments across Pasadena Avenue, the relative impact is considered insignificant. Within 30 minutes, the morning shadow at 8:00 affecting the structures across Pasadena Avenue would be gone. Comparison of Current/Original Design As shown in Exhibits 2 through 5, the current project, which incorporates reduced structure heights for portions of Units 5, 6, 10 and 11, results in reduced shade/shadow impacts to the existing residences compared to the original design of the project. There are similar reductions in impacts during the summer solstice. The change in design from the original configuration substantially lessens the effects of shade/shadow on the four residences at 15611, 15621, 15631 and 15461 Myrtle Street. 02/15/91(COT101--.SHINGLEr.ME1) 5 SHADOW CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Shadow configurations were produced using graphic projection via solar path diagram methodology. To determine the solar path for any given day, three variables need to be determined: - Geographic orientation of structure to north/south axis - Angle of sun to horizon (altitude) a 0 - Angle of sun in relation to north/south W axis (azimuth) These three variables can be obtained by taking information from a solar path diagram for the proper latitude (diagram #1) and applying it to a geometric equation (diagram #2I The altitude and azimuth angles obtained can then be projected on a plan and eleva- tion view of a structure to determine shadow length and shape (diagram #3). For the northern hemisphere, a shadow will always be longest on -' ec. 21 (Winter Solstice; sun at its lowest arc on the horizon), and shortest on June 21 (Summer Solstice; sun at its highest arc on the horizon). «.o�..s b b SOLOT. iOI �TKC 4L '►•zo c —WYE. .OL.TKC S ^C Oi/v MIrLE Iw ELEV4TION I i I I I I I I A/vo C Ic. . .o' - Diagram #1 t ll t t� I It Diagram #3 1 x 1 I p rx R BVILOwG \ I OAIENTATION �\ C SV N nrvGLE I IN PLAN I TRVE SOVT. Diagram #2 I i I I I I I I A/vo C Ic. . .o' - Diagram #1 t ll t t� I It Diagram #3 MYRTLE AVE PASADENA AVE N J r_ N � 4 ci u J � L � u J :c t > v� U 3 Q ,c c v r -T- w l• � ry n MYRTLE AVE M C/) Q N �D E---4� P Z �, U w WSW � Q HOZ �C/) Q ZC�3Q WWW QQ C� a C/ Nil N tY 1 � 1 _ AVE PASADENA M C/) Q N �D E---4� P Z �, U w WSW � Q HOZ �C/) Q ZC�3Q WWW QQ C� a C/ Nil 0 c MYRTLE AVE 1, 1 � 1 1 `♦ 1 `% , 1 1 1 % 1 et - W w tl oz Q z /W V ON R* M A T �' I ♦ i�/ t . fit' MS :� ♦ t' Zti� ♦♦ r ;; 1 j : '' r r et - W w tl oz Q z /W V ON ATE: MARCH 13, 1991 Inter -- Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: CHRISTINE A. SHINGLETON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: REZAI APPRAISAL REPORT TRANSMITTAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08 The applicant has submitted the attached two appraisal reports for the properties at 15621 and 15631 Myrtle Avenue and requested that staff make the reports available to the City Council. Please note that these reports are not part of the staff report on Conditional Use Permit 90-08. CAS:kbc\rezapra.mem FA AP P RA =SAL R � POR T of LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS Located at 15621 Myrtle Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Prepared For Mr. Feridoun-Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, California 92804 Prepared Jointly By: Fred W. Taylor Caryl J. Goldstone The Taylor Co., Realtors Certification #6204 2139 Westwood Boulevard Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates Los Angeles, California 90025 310 N. Crescent Drive, #305 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Appraisal No.•910310 THE TAYLOR CO., i 'TORS Appraisal Division 2139 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 213/475-2529 Fax: 213/475-4469 March 11, 1991 Mr. Feridoun-Rezai 203.Trojan Street Anaheim, CA 92804 1 CARYL J. Gk ,STONE & ASSOCIATES Appraisal Services 310 N. Crescent Drive, #305 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: 213/859-1220 RE: APPRAISAL OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS, 15621 MYRTLE AVENUE, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 Dear Mr. Rezai: In answer to your request for an estimate of the market value for all of the real property being appraised as defined in this Report i of property owned by Lakbnda Mitchell, situated at the referenced I address, I have examined the property, and submit herewith my estimate of market value as defined in,this Report. IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY: The property that is being appraised in this Report is the P real property (land and improvements), situated at 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, California 92680 (Orange County Thomas -Guide, 23-E3). PURPOSE AND DATE OF APPRAISAL: The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the "Diminution of Fair Market Value" of the real property (land and improvements) between the dates of September, 1989, and March 2, 1991, the date 1 Mitchell Apprais,. 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 2 of this appraisal, with respect to the newly constructed apartment building located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, CA. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The value conclusions contained in this Report are based on the definition of market value as set forth by the (1) California Supreme Court; and (2) Federal Home Loan Bank Board's guidelines, American Institute of. Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, which is as follows: (1). Market Value is the highest price, estimated in terms of money, which a property will bring if exposed in the open market, with a reasonable time allowed to find a purchaser, buying with full,knowledge of all the uses and purposes to which it is adApted, and for which it is capable of bein q used. (2). 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, knowledgeably 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: (a). buyer and seller are typically motivated (b) . both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (c). a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. (d) . payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and Mitchell Apprais,_ 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 3 (e). the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by any one associated with the sale. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The property rights appraised are those of a Fee Simple Estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The site of the real property is legally described as follows: Lot 3, of Tract No. 4250 as recorded in Book 1511 Pages 15 and 16 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder, County of Orange, State of California. (Also identified as Orange County Assessor's Parcel 402- 384-03). NEIGHBORHOOD'DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located within the incorporated City of• Tustin in the neighborhood being that area southerly of Interstate Highway 5 (Santa Ana Freeway) and easterly of State Highway 55 (Newport -Costa Mesa Freeway). The neighborhood has been fully developed for many years with a mixture of older, newer, remodeled and rebuilt single and multiple family residences. There is evidence of continuing development and reconstruction of residential and commercial properties in the neighborhood. I- Mitchell Appraisa 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 4 SCHOOLS: Elementary, Intermediate and High Schools are all within one mile of the Subject Property. (See Exhibit D for locations). PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Orange County Transit District provides public transportation through and near the neighborhood by bus lines 22, 60, 65, 66, 71 and 71A and Dial -A -Ride service ZONING: Current zoning of the property is City of Tustin SINGLE FAMILY 1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1). The present use of the subject property was at the time of construction a permitted use under Tustin City Code 9223, and at the present time is a, permitted use under said code. (See Exhibit C - City of Tustin Zoning Code, Section 9223, page LU-2� 8 et. seq.).. There is no information available or indication of any change to the General Plan that would affect the subject property. 1 Mitchell Appraisa 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 5 HIGHEST AND BEST USE: The term is defined by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers as follows: "The most probable likely use to which a property can be put. That use to which the land may reasonably be expected to produce the greatest net return to land over a given period of time. That legal use which will yield to land the highest present value. Sometimes called optimum use." The Highest and Best use of the subject property is the present use as asingle family residence. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The property is an rectangular shaped, parcel located on the westerly side of Myrtle Avenue, north of McFadden Street. At the subject property Myrtle Avenue is a fully improved single family 60 foot wide roadway, asphalt concrete residential' street with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks and landscaped parkways between the curb and sidewalk, terminating at a cul-de-sac approximately 150 feet north of the subject property. The land consists of one parcel containing 7,209± square feet, (see plat, Exhibit B, for shape and dimensions of land). The land is level with the street at the sidewalk, sloping upward approximately three feet to the improvements, then level to the rear yard with drainage Mitchell Apprais ' 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 j Page 6 1 1 to the front. The Property is joined on the north and south by comparable single family residences of comparable size and quality and on the west by a new multiple family apartment building. All utilities are currently installed on the site. Electric and telephone service is supplied by above grade poles and lines located on a five foot easement at the rear property line. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS: The land is improved with a seven room, single family three bedroom, two bath residence containing approximately 1,400 square feet of living area, plus a two car attached garage converted to - 1 living area. The building is one story, frame and stucco l originally constructed in 1962 with the conversion of the garage to living area at a later date. (No building permit was found at the Building Department for the garage conversion). Outside improvements include an aluminum covered concrete paved patio, 51- 6' wood fencing on the north, south and westerly property lines, a 6' ornamental concrete block wall at the front set -back line, and a 6' x 6' metal storage shed on a concrete slab in the north side yard. The improvements appear to be in good condition and have been fairly well maintained, however, some of the interior improvements (as stated by the owner approximately $5,000.00), have been updated to current standards. The value thereof will be considered for the purpose of this appraisal. Mitchell Apprais, 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 7 MARKET APPROACH TO VALUE: The Market Approach to Value, sometimes called the Comparison 1 Approach to Value, is the only direct approach to market activity. The premises are located on a quiet, lightly traveled street, therefore comparables have been limited to recent sales of properties located witrhin the boundaries of the properties shown on Exhibit "B" in the area of the subject property. Three sales have been located which have been sold during 1990. The followinc properties have been used; to establish current market value for the land and improvements of the subject property. SOLD RESIDENTIAL COMPARABLES ADDRESS LAND PRICE DATE REMARKS 1) 15682 Myrtle Ave. 7,270' $205,000 9-90 115.49 sf* 2) 15622 Myrtle Ave. 7,270' $232,000 9-90 $130.70/sf* 3 ) 15701 Pacific St. 7 , 270' $215,500 9-90 $151.23/sf* *Selling Exhibit price of land F) and improvements. (See URAR _ Form, Ther --listed comparables are for properties near the subject property. Consideration has been given to: (i)the size of the land; (ii)the size of the improvements thereon; (iii)the age and condition of the improvements; (iv)the proximity to the Subject Property and the real property located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, CA, and, (v) the date of the sale. All adjusted sales prices average $133.37 per square foot for land and improvements 1, Mitchell Appraisa-, 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 •1 Page 8 of the comparable sales, which indicates a value of the Subject. Property of $186.718. COST APPROACH TO VALUE: The Cost Approach to Value is based on the principal that no one will pay more for an existing property than it would cost to replace or substitute the property with one of similar utility. The cost approach usually sets the upper limit of value unless the property is encumbered with a lease or other significant matters affecting the continued use of the property. Estimates of cost are based on cost per square foot, less any depreciation for age, obsolescence, condition, etc., of the 0improvements, Plus land value. The improvements of the subject property are described in detail under PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS of this Report. VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS: .COST APPROACH BY MARSHALL & SWIFT RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATOR: Property Owner Lakonda Mitchell Address 15621 Myrtle Avenue City, State, ZIP Tustin, CA 92680 Appraised By Fred W. Taylor and Caryl J. Goldstone Date of Survey March 2, 1991 Appraisal -Date March 2, 1991 Purpose of Appraisl: Diminution of Value Appraised For Feridoun-Rezai Single Family Residence Effective Age: 15 years Cost as of 3/91 Style: One Story Floor Area: 1,400 square feet Quality: Average Condition: Good Mitchell Appraise 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 9 Exterior Wall: Stucco ----------------------- - -------------------_ U Units Cost Total Basic Square Foot Cost......... ------------_ 1,400 35.70 49,980 Including 6 Plumbing Fixtures Built-up Rock. . ......... 1,400 1.35 1,890 Warmed and CooledAir......... 1,400 3.56 4,984 Quarry Tile ................... 140 7.99 1,119 Floor Cover. .................1,400 .1.79 2,500 Wood subfloor................. 1,400 5.33 7,462 Appliance Allowance........... 1,400 1.65 2,310 I Plumbing Fixture, Rough -In.... 1 310.00 310 ! Fireplace Single .............. 1 2425.00 2,425 25 Cost --1,400 Subtotal - - BasicStructure- ------------ 52.13 72,980 Garage: ---- ---------- ---------- Attached Garage.... -------- 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- 480 15.97 7,666 Extras: Site Improvements ............. Garage conversion to liv area. 4,000 5,000 Metal storage shed. ' 300 Storage shed -slab... 300 I New tile, baths & kitchen..... 51015 Subtotal...................... ------------------------------------- 14,615 Replacement CostNew ........... - - --- 1,400 68.04 ------ 95,261 Less Depreciation. Physical and Functional....... <13.5%> <12,860> Depreciated Cost ............... ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,40058 .86 82,401 Miscellaneous: I Land ................. -------------------------------------- 100,000 Total_--__-_----,,,,,,,,,, -----1,400----130.29----182,401 _ Improvements New as of 10/89 - 179,637 Cost.data by MARSHALL and SWIFT Rear and side yard landscaping is minimal. No lawn or shrubs. Wood fencing is adequate but not aesthetically attractive. Conversion of garage to living area may exclude some buyers. No permit on file in Building Department for garage conversion. Mature, bearing avocado tree in front yard. Front yard well landscaped. End of Cost Data by MARSHALL and SWIFT Residential Estimator. Mitchell Appraisal 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 10 ECONOMIC APPROACH TO VALUE: The Economic Approach to Value (income approach) utilizes the Processed annual income that a property is expected to produce. This estimated net income is capitalized according to the prevailing rate of return on similar property or investments of comparable risk to indicate the price -an investor would be justified in paying for ownership of the property. The subject property is not the type normally used for rental income, which is judged to be not the Highest and Best use, therefore, no value will be given to the Economic Approach. DIMINUTION OF VALUE: The rear lot line of the Subject Property joins a portion the rear lot line of a newly constructed apartment building located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, CA. The northerly wing of said apartment P tment building is approximately fifteen feet from the- rear property line, separated from the Subject Property by a concrete block wall approximately eight feet high from the grade level of the Subject Property. (See photographs, Exhibit G). Northerly and southerl Y of the said apartment building, abutting on the property line of the Subject Property and adjoining properties, are caror P t type J Mitchell Appraisa,. 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 11 garages serving multiple residential apartment buildings northerly and. southerly of the property located at 15642 Pasadena &Avenue. The newly constructed apartment building has no windows or other means of allowing any invasion of privacy of the Subject Property under ordinary and usual conditions without the use of some means of elevation above the existing grade. It is this A ' ppraisers opinion that the physical characteristics and conformation of the Subject Property and said apartment building are no less desireable than property built side by side with windows facing windows or on terraced lots. Therefore, it is the opinion of these Appraisers i that there is- no diminution (loss) of value of the Subject Property i due to the construction and occupancy of said apartment building. CONCLUSION: After reviewing the immediate area, reviewing properties that have been on the market and sold; and properties that have not sold, taking into consideration the current market conditions relative to buyer demand, the existing use of the premises, it is this Appraiser's opinion that a prudent buyer would pay a price comparable to other property in the neighborhood. Mitchell Apprais, 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 12 SUMMARY OF VALUES: Market Value Approach: $186,718 Cost Approach to Value: (Land and Improvements.). $182,401 Economic Approach to Value: $ NA Therefore it is these Appraiser's opinion that the property in the present condition would bring a price approximating an average of the Market Value Approach and the Cost Approach to Value as set forth below. FINAL ESTIMATE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS: AS OF OCTOBER 1989: ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($183,000) AS OF MARCH, 1991• ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS 184 500 Respe fully submitted, e:ta Fre Taylor Pr sident, T e T or Co. Caryl J. Go stone Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates FWT:ab:\wp\aprsl\mitchell.tus Mitchell Apprais__ 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 13 ATTACHMENTS Certification Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Personal Qualifications of Fred W. Taylor Personal Qualifications of Caryl J. Goldstone Exhibit A - Arpa Map Exhibit B - Assessor's Plat Exhibit C - Tustin City Zoning Code Exhibit D - School Locations Exhibit E - Comparable Locations Exhibit F - Photographs End of Attachments Mitchell Appraisa-L 15621 Myrtle Avenue, March 11, 1991 Page 14 Tustin, CA CERTIFICATION The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise note in this Report: d 1. That the Appraiser has no present or contemplated futu interest in the property appraised; and neither the emplo men re make the appraisal, nor the compensation for it, is contingent u to the appraised value of the property. Pon 2. That the Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the A por participants to the sale. The "Estimate f Market Value" .or the Appraisal Report is not based in whole or in In the color, or national origin of the Part upon the race, of the property appraised, or upon other race/. color owners oo occupants origin of the present owners or occu ants of the r national vicinity of the P properties in the property appraised. 3. That the Appraiser has personally inspected the property, inside and outside, and has made an exterior inspection on both all comparable sales listed in this Report'.. To the best of Appraiser's knowledge and belief, all statements and info the in this Report are true and correct, and the A rmatiot knowingly withheld any significant information. Appraiser has not 4. All contingent and `limiting conditions are contained (imposed by the terms of the assignment and conclusions contained in the Report). 5. This Appraisal Report has been made in conformity with and subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethicsaid Standards of Professional Conduct of the National Assoc ' n Realtors and the American Institute of Real Estate A cation of ppraisers. 6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate are set forth in the A to that Appraiser whose SignaturePraisal Report were prepared by the change of any item n the A appears on the Appraisal Report. *No other than the Appraiser, Appraisal Report shall be made by anyone responsibility for any suchd the Appraiser shall have no unauthorized change. Dated: March 11, 1991 Fred W. aylor "i Carylc • • - Mitchell Appraisa_ 15621 Myrtle Avenue, March 11, 1991 - Page 15 Tustin, CA ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The certification of the Appraiser appearing in this Appraisal Report is subject to the following conditions as are set forth by the Appraiser in this Report. 1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property or the title thereto, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and.marketable. The property is appraised though under responsible ownership. 2. Any sketch in the Report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefore. 4': Any distribution of the valuation in the Report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 5.. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil or structures, -which would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. 6. Information, estimates and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in this Report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of this Appraisal Report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated. Mitchell Appraisd,. 15621 Myrtle Avenue, March 11, 1991 Page 16 Tustin, CA 8. Neither all, or any part of the content of this Report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value, the identity of the Appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected), shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client specified in the Report, the borrower if the appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent of the Appraiser. 9. On all appraisals,: subject to satisfactory repairs, or alterations, the Appraisal Report and value are contingent upon completion of the imornvPmP„tc ;n manner. 1' Dated: March 11, 1991 _l Y d Taylor Caryl J. G ldstone completion, conclusion workmanlike Mitchell Appraisa, 15621 Myrtle Avenue, March 11, 1991 Page 17 MEMBER: Tustin, CA QUALIFICATIONS OF FRED W TAYLOR, REALTOR Los -Angeles Board of Realtors, 1954 to present. President 1980, Director, 1972 through 1987. Beverly Hills Board of Realtors, 1970 to present. San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors, 1976 to present. California Association of Realtors,.1954 to present; Director, 1972 to 1986; Regional Vice President, 1982. National Association of Realtors, 1954 to present. BUSINESS: Owner, President, The Taylor Co., Realtors, 1976 to present. Co-owner, Vice President, President, Wesley N. Taylor, Co., 1956 to 1976. General Partner, California Limited Partnerships owning and operating shopping centers and office buildings, 1960 to present Co-owner, real estate development and management company, 1960 to present. Co-owner, commercial store and office buildings, 1960 to present. Owner, commercial -retail store buildings, 1978 to present. Owner/co-owner several single family and small apartment buildings. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Licensed as real estate broker since 1956 (salesman, 1954). Thirty seven years' experience: Appraising residential and business properties including simple, luxury and estate single family residences, residential income (apartment) properties including complexes containing up to 350 units, commercial retail and combination commercial retail, office and mixed use buildings, multi -story office buildings, small to medium community -size shopping centers, small to medium size industrial buildings; subdividing, developing, building, owning and managing community shopping centers, owning and managing commercial and office buildings; owning and managing a general real estate brokerage, property management and real estate appraisal business with a sales staff from 15 to 75 salespersons. Many appearances in Superior and Federal Courts as an expert witness, appearances before the Los Angeles County Appeals Board as an appraisal witness. Mitchell Appraisa, 15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 18 CLIENTELE: Includes corporations, partnerships, builders, developers, subdividers, individual property owners, attorneys, receivers, banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies,. State of California, City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles. EDUCATION AND TRAINING: University of Missouri University of California at Los Angeles Advanced Appraisal courses at UCLAJ. School of Business Administration, 1966,1967, 1968. Marshall & Swift Residential Estimator Program, 1989 Marshall & Swift Commercial Estimator Program, 1989 Numerous seminars conducted by various Realtor Institutes and private parties. March 11, 1991 CARYL J. GOLDSTONE & ASSOCIATES 310 N. Crescent Drive #305, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 (213) 859-1220 QUALIFICATIONS OF CARYL J GOLDSTONE APPRAISAL EDUCATION: Principles & Techniques of R.E. Appraisal Realtors National Association of Principles of Real Estate Appraisal Practice of Real Estate Appraisal Lincoln Graduate Center Farm and Land Appraisal Lincoln Graduate Center Commercial & Investment Appraisal Lincoln Graduate Lincoln Center Writing the Narrative Appraisal Report Fundamentals of Business Graduate Lincoln Graduate Center Center Appraising Lincoln Graduate Center PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS: Member, National Association of Master Appraisers PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS: - Master Residential A ' Appraiser, National' Appraisers Association of Master Master Farm & Land Appraiser, National Appraisers Association of Master Master Senior Appraiser, National Association of Master Appraise Graduate Realtors Institute rs DEGREES: AA San Diego State College Journalism BA California Coast University Business/Real Estate./Finance MBA California Coast University Business/Real Estate/Finance BUSINESS -OTHER: Owner, - Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates Sales Manager, Commercial Real Estate -Schreiber Realty Instructor, Appraisal Courses, Lincoln Graduate Center Licensed California Real Estate Broker CLIENT BASE: International, National, Corporate and Local References available upon request. March 11, 1991 �p� � " .� F1 .._ CV � C„7 J 1^,t-ice •!a::.. � llq u r � � y � vJ •r.u. �' to 6, i � . i• � S� 911 S 1 ,qy �•, ,`- �� ` "' Y „) 1 i�.r.. �.•) •m fi .r0I1k__ ,�•� V b a� �•'Lt ., 1. �. • _%/. u.. voo"nrl -1: :i ; I i e». t' 6 1 Irl J �! :1' t, `1'� t�� .l• %' .. r19: !I 'lr ,1• �•: L. W • 1� )- `/V 173 ..ee '0 1 �1 ' ty �� ' -f?�: \•, "-.,41 / ,• •, �� i:., _.. .1 .+I • j• § >< r'• t+t){ wt.lw•�' •• �• '� t Yy. �,r )r �6 •/`S•+ i' `• �'� •,` I' 1 r J o n I, li ' ry • •o• �t �O ..*� �' •�Sr r ,a•AA� yIi ".41 ��l>L • �r•r �.�� - JS • 7 o I_ + X�~/��.,� �. .�( Ir F. aV .` •� .�Yi�faw'• L )i •�• •'•r •t..� t•wr w• 's.MJ 14.6•��/�:t.c�y,0 �J/; /��'le•• _ -. r ., .�✓ • �� _- - i rN i• • '"1 ••� MsAJlr S1S JrI: d•�+•rr.a-• �.. 1S K'+• L.lJ� , c:J 4'\��+•b `r Q��Y' 11 .ptfr.rri it tr1()A rru• • Y L��r �•�Il• Kral—�1 it � AMHj �$3W-: fro > w •ri:lt l,aJn. '•- Vl':07 At 311Nafv.ww. .• i•'-li3OJ/Mj� A• •Srr ••? `,'; %! 1• 7i t� ,/,. � f• � " "/ fr � s AV NI`$(ljz ZzU U-(".i o ` :. JtM. V:iJW b r► art wr..a•w V L �. • y:f..'r. "' '�'[; �11'• f4; 11 ° r a) icf j •1..r!r. 'r 1 L >..)lao`., y rl rM• A: �.�.1r:'w , L. r ll=n�S 1•, rl. � j �• ,• f J..r � I •. /••f ,.r.1 �._. y. ��. r.. 11w •L�••L;7 P w tr r .. ' .'. on,•,, I � y � Y r r at •., , I.a =•7t4,: -- 4`C i�`1,,-1S•S:W04117M. �_ Y• i re P t�•�%�� •T Ulilwr� ♦i�::• • I c7p'd �1• a 2 .:....... -Z_ : 15 � .w. r13H�11M E� p 1'V, _.. �'�__ .f. �r. -� 1.•, I � g ..r - Q? � `� �^ S • r1YvN • ►�irv.w hl:^ Y13 : � ,• Y l�. • r X P •I? •l1V I -• J` �� lr 11 r011•� ? M _ L.1 iS ? w v} ~ >~ CON C° ,S NQ,I e•s 15 arc :. NO1.1 � � At r•o.l •••i: Pd0�rR171 ��A i I� ;� �ti. fic, i + t .r' •• l0 1►t 71bM I. Y �. _•• rl !j� hV J • ( lb Zw r 1) triYM 1. i "•.Q� �/ �� .. p r .n • 3015/'93 g t.,� Q �• J• r'f. %iS�rt, ' Z�) �O -Y d afO 007 OOt•i0• _ I A �[ 1J w• S Ir tlrl frr.rf .All � I C % ,•.;�'••t.� � _J • ^ a v.-.s 1u " � Ab .I � ►- ►-15 vU�vf ;� .'Ad /.-. � .. r, : : Nda9 � •N ' i �• O •• � yl � _ Lla:vif.,f j, w. r&7 • :-.; Av avl. 111S y,l' _ •1S �QOAt1SV ,••v NivrIt J, ..,112S! v •l oo:i wi!/r7 � ,') •�� an •w fw"a�r, / JS :Z 1S lvw,wr)a OU`Y �•a T �`--- -- «iw:r2�_•-_N-._ _ �. ` : :/1`ii t� A fi o 'r'I f Ir O •in =_ \..T;: 31NNIM w '1 M NI/f V g t_ �: : irwwrw 1 J 1 1 7 a _ •N M V »w .,D]Al -. I a:wwl•_i i 40)TI�-i. Olk rlg^ ra rr "I �r I �S u O L1 Y311r1S n : .cwll - �,t 1rIrv037. , i tftL.' r�. !Si 1: I Sulu A a 3` 037 +. a ;,L Mu.v.lwi .. 1r- 1 A u3)iJ9a3n 11 --- ): iii 4' ,,, 15 Yv J in P, I J r r Av iS •'_ •' �/ y IrO. ti b BIW 1. fr4r rrl �"r UW3I N F'=N oat) :Y C V Uv0)I _ :OrtiC rS . 1•' �t'clvllvlf L � � n 1' � . _IM9Uw9S• i 6• ,r„ j 1+ 0911YN is a n tabUlt�1N n • .;i�j 1S IvOvIIVH .1� ,s ►'v1113SN1p1 b J y< • 1.1 At,O,r t14 R'i >s 1. xus,+3t11 -'� <�a:Iw C� •/ �' LS b3Jb0.1 F A.. N0;1111 N '•A l" 7 w %"f.),. .J •U �_ �U a rw NOSl1>» a15 931v .S N ♦, /•. 1 1 JS �1 F- t r a' 1tU 1 : at n •),wr. 1S aro b0 NQ:iI' •')II 1f0 .. 'J\ •`. .L ii 1•' glaNln r'i Jl .,. a. i w ✓. r Y i Lr 15 J:: M VO '•O I t Jay > �� -`, ...N «'r - a! n0 .:. OJ�1••.. �N it u l: )YO 1S NONIbJ e 1 t� v' 11 =Tl 3'livr, ;' rI_i _ +l-'.:�, 7tT 1�-I�]).SIY,n._.. ;a•t_w.' _ Il�rvw. r . •3N3ns I>j 1S ): o O G i Sc rr 0, 1S ! a I uf r ' ICYry ;, 1S I i _ Y I. No +wy; A. ra YSNVYO3'ONYUORP M � J. e• �� G • NSAr •• I� SSe.ral �, � ar]�c •i - rt )'.YrvrJ '. L ww •t.aw+. �S. 1 ••w OO: OOt hr«.r•'Kc) /r.,, iil^U i• A: {,�w: ,.J a a. X OON . 00.,7 p�rSS lnd�A7 a^�j wv SS)�.I IrOw9]1S SS H : z 3YOwtIaS 1S � Oo -_ y� • �aD V31S^ 1S _ I C31. ` N,} a] 1S 3 11Yuu,c ••� w. t �r �i �'- 3bOn_.1� 'y ► ]' 7 lYJVVGUU n r. "�I _"'IAVVXUvOatl Jj 1r1fr10 ` . ' a N3 W _' L S _ r.. Jr.r ? I Q 11 NIb,1 •...... ....• fraf r !A )Ma)wW N ' I� �e U • � }! � J I•^ 113CIti 1$ N�tllt) '` ,_ _ M Si3ry a i 4 �! i .:1 . 1� , : I• ; ssoa SsoY •{ :i L:-: c... it rvA t ) w9 •� Stir LrA '' ►rvn • • o� ;. > �.� frw Y .S ..+... ... j• AV '3•i I ` SS3N Nvn a_.i r»r S •. S �! N d !S_ MOtY9,r 1 f . ol►I > 1 oxr olav 1SaJSNet9 ty ~Ir .'iSA.99 Qty lr, r ., ' •)SNa•� 1S-•-.o00<1��_. _1 _I�:!+ut,7--'. � ••t ✓ •- aoa I w.tr �1•„S15rrv1n1J3)xa0J 1 - =N•'c[ is- is SLS 3A110 !f Y3rr0i•1• .a`�-: •� FF.` :. .....Oo r'?.c” ^i ' .M!.. S n,a a'I. n,zA :_ <,o� A I'= n in" 11�_ bI .a• _o11 3A tiO l llIaNWI .nI .f.,. •' ,itr a ta)_ ' ..�i •_.' . wrf f\f rrYJwA- nI ., ".__ I- v 15 Ato w ,IO V"Onvb eo v IuOoi R 1.otT u ,n i 00• - OQ, ri r. t .. bu )•uva� 1 >C � � •rl .S b1N••Ul �` �•� - J .• !S OC! �" p�`� t^�'r rOJ� IiN:Q W x■OVd •1 �ro A9 o00aiSir 1 Oi13rf.: y y �_ -Ji ;, 1 ' o ao trac�tl �n_wr:i , _ U•N� ,. AY r .moi Y 'a I !� N 1S f ••.+11311: r. V 04 _ r; : m Q I UDurn3:UU < •+ vrl f /. •rrltAiltp•�, r..r fc f Y3719i 1 y i w . � •+ tJ'MVU LAj i 1S � aiwo frN wv000,w1•:UU bc.,,,,,3�e, )tirl.vi� �� v lS ?SYlol« a r. Wwirr -i 911 N �. 1 J • 1:: U'JMvG ' t.OJI _ w �' Ill • p� H � � 0 '1VA ,� W Y� � V IyI .I .l — .. 'r� I • r , •J i ] : A. 00 1 ♦e a /✓r. 1 AV Vllt Nf;lV r•• w •a ;- ��III r � � ` l01 ar .w Otw {AJ r :vY • ";J rt l�. ` , � � �� 1 � �11" � I J � • � � )/,w.I :; w.r , . .f1w: . ' IS fr•y )Y.,rr " i'' NVIN rO:Irf - ;� J= O Vp!! I ; _ -• _d - raiJ:)r.` 11 i Nw.7.n J« ••1 I y L• r ` ft •. •�... M .Q LO " Y_Yf— 3 3s v E.7 w •••. N t'1 0 ' F R to rp •••� Sa 1 f0 t0 t9 y co E E E r.t 0 0 0 �r M 8 EXHIBIT g ( Subject Property) tU loll .r AL � ••. h - - w �• .0� e u O O 0 to Q, It W 0 z 1 EXHSBST C TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9222a2 4. Attached second residential units when lot is developed with a single-family resi- dence subject to a use permit and the following criteria: (a) The unit shall be attached to an existing residence and a part,of the living area of the existing dwelling (b) The added unit shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the existing inhabitable living area, excluding garages and accessory buildings (c) Parking requirement: One (1) covered space (carport or garage) in addition to the two (2) garage spaces required for the primary residential unit (d) The applicant for a permit and occupant of one of the dwelling units shall be an owner -occupant and such restriction of occupancy shall be recorded on the prop- erty deed (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 4.3; Ord. No. 892, Sec. 2, 8-15-83) 9223 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) a Permitted Uses and Development Standards In the Single Family Residential District (R-1) none but the following uses, or uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar, will be allowed, subject to the development standards of this Chapter. 1. Single family dwellings (a) Maximum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building site: 7,200 square feet (c) Minimum lot width at property line: 60 feet (d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent (e) Minimum front yard setback: 20 feet (f) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet, but not less than 1,000 square feet clear and unobstructed on rear Vi of lot (h) Minimum lot area per family unit: 7,200 square feet (i) Off-street parking: 2 car garage per dwelling. (Ord. No. 299, Sec. 2) 2. Accessory buildings only if constructed simultaneously with or subsequent to the main building on the same lot. (a) Maximum height: 20 feet (b) Minimum lot width at property line: 40 feet on cul-de-sacs at property line (c) Maximum lot coverage: 30 percent of rear yard (d) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet (e) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet, but not less than 1,000 square feet clear and and unobstructed on rear �6 of lot. 3. Accessory uses normally incidental to single family residences. This is not to be construed as permitting any commercial uses. (a) Minimum side yard setback: 1 foot (b) Minimum rear yard-setback:.l foot except 5 feet required on an alley REV: 7-84 LU -2-8 D TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9223a4 4. Day care homes for children. (Ord. No. 563) 5. Home occupations in accordance with this Chapter. (Ord. No. 330., Sec. 2a) 6. Large family day care homes, caring for seven (7) to twelve (12) children, are subject to the following regulations: (a) Prior to commencement of operation of - any large family day care home, the applicant for a permit shall complete and submit an application to the Commu- nity Development Department. Information provided on the permit shall in- clude: Name of operator; address of the home; and a list of property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary of the proposed day care home. (b) Large family day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the noise level in the Tustin Noise Ordinance, nor shall such day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. A day care home shall by design, location and layout avoid any, potential noise which may constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. (c) A permit shall not be granted for a large day care home that would be `estab- lished within 300 feet of the exterior property boundaries of any existing licensed large family day care home. (d) All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary of a proposed large family day care home, as shown on the last equalized County assessment roll, shall be notified of the intent to establish such a home. (e) No hearing on the application for a permit shall be held by the' Planning Com- mission unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or a property owner within a 100 foot radius of the exterior boundary of the proposed home. If no hearing is requested, the permit shall be granted if the large family day care home complies with the provisions of this Code. (f) Any day care home must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced by the State Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire Department. (g) The play yard of the home must be enclosed by a minimum six-foot high fence setback from the required front yard. (h) The Planning Commission shall not grant a permit for a large family day care home for any location that has on the property a swimming -pool as defined by Section 102 of the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, as adopted. (i) Any day care home must comply with the provisions of the State Uniform Building Code and City of Tustin Building requirements which apply to single family residences. (j) Any large day home must provide one (1) off-street parking space for each employee who is not a resident of the premises, and provide adequate drop-off and/or pick-up facilities on-site or immediately adjacent to the site as necessary to avoid interference with traffic and to promote the safety of children. (k) An'applicant for a large family day care home shall be licensed or deemed to be exempt from licensure by the State of California as a large family day care home. REV: 1.88 LU -2-9 TUSTIN CITY CODE ) Exx=]a=T C ZONING 9223a6(1) (1) Nothing contained in the provisions of this amendment shall preclude the revo- cation for cause of any permit granted for a large family day care home following proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission to determine if said use is operated in a manner detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the commu- nity or surrounding properties. (Ord. No. 911, Sec. 3, 5-21-84; Ord. No. 991, Sec. 2,8-3-87) b Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards 1. Second single family structure when lot area is minimum of 12,000 square feet, subject to use permit. (a) Maximum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building site: 12,000 square feet (c) Minimum lot width at property line: Corner lot 70 feet; Interior lot 60 feet. (d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent (e) Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map (f) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 20 feet. (h) Minimum lot area per family unit: 6,000 square feet (i) Off-street parking: 2 car garage per dwelling (Ord. No. 299, Sec. 2) 2. Churches, schools, parks, playgrounds, public utility and public and quasi -public buildings and uses, crop and tree farming; subject.to use permit. (a) Maximum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building site: 20,000 square feet for churches, 5 acres for schools, public utility and other uses as specified in use permit. (c) Minimum lot width at property line: 100 feet (d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent (e) Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map M Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 20 feet (h) Off-street parking: one (1) parking space for each three seats in churches or places of public assembly. 3. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, providing no cooking facility is installed or maintained, subject to use permit. (a) Maximum height: 20 feet (b) Maximum lot coverage: 30 percent of rear yard (c) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map (d) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (e) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet 4. Public or private parking lots for automobiles when adjacent to any "C" or "M" District and when properly landscaped, subject to use permit. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 4.2) REV: 1 -tib LU -2-10 b 4 -Li .+ PD J? D9.�' •� A (School Locations) c \ O --.: 014.+ ^� R 3 P8t I ` " `` R PM P �e / Q•,100 J `v~'�•! ;` / s t R 3 / QG 9 tip ,Gs R 3 �J C .� r ' R4 �� ' �'~yam •9�? 1500 PD C 2 a N' `y ti . • o /• s :aw•atia t t . 0 ,= , of n MHP I �o Colly\/. ♦ O 1750 I «.h: a Aj s ,s CV * 1 50 pp �/ Oo / G > . cc CC' lu / a': Dat t • r .. f `. Q O a\ , r_ rb; N S 1 i C 07000 .- t R 3 ��/ G o`. Q \ Ily R3 -10 �Q C 00 CIQ 00 1 / \ o RY3'Ali ! ,' S�`.�%¢'�=9�. ~r'9.��'g? �%;'%9 �• l '9 i1 00 0 PD '90 ASO • ' : �,. �OSO 000 a ` � !c 16? QD y (`�P� / /y i.tom•' .S' \� \ � l�y ^'F A. V v INN 100 F 190 / x'00 \ gym..�� , �,�4 C ��: �Q o ' ter`, •r �� / P� r /L1-00 190 OY ° • \ ,\ \` =�^}.c •+. Yom/ •� CO ) EXHIBI -JF N _ i, 0 � ( Comparable Properties) • W u 4 W �v u O • .dy Jf �l yl O O • O V L: • N L rti W • V1 8 -7/7,V 7A V ADIL AL AL •01 GG N A: W s O h / O � "� ct•c .i� ? � .Gt•t.l S .7nN�.� d Z W •t1 tt NO/77P102N � � :OQ � SW Z { �(� � .111. O► •• a.. h y •�. d 0 '' Y O •.� N O O .016 D91 ' bA41 x h r O r '' (� � O O• ,• W 0 m Q .� 1001 O h o • O 0 � h O O .ti"OUB p O • O O • O ,D O% • � h w � �. Al 001 �D • O ~ `o o ti �p O .•a •oor � \ .11001 On O Q.., •401 PO F o R O ® � x, j:�16 A3,096 o o4 O 1.4 9 A, 0 O + �. � y ^+ z An e �e v7,YOO 9 •o LD CD cttt :�E N O .lr�t .o, .ti'lol 4•• SC ! Valuation s.cuon UNIFO' �:RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL r !ORT l ITEM SUBJECT ` Purpose of aisal is to estimate Market Vak,e Fite No, , In tree Certification b Statement of Limiting Cow BUILDING SKETCH (SNOW GROSS LIVING AREA c GRADE) COMPARABLE N0.3 rt fFewo ur .w l t..: v 0 "W— M.., sfa.. phi, �,1,..,,, Alw c�+cw.wa �..1 w.s .11{�u.cn carnma+wa .n ttia afucr CSIIMATEO REP ,;TIOty COST -NEW -UF IMPROVEMENTS: Myrtle - 15701 Pacific St. ' 15682 Myrtle Ave. Dwel iN sq. Ft. 0 $ -s ve.Tustin Ca -Tustin Ca. Sq. Ft. u $ Tustin, Ca. E X H I B I -f- F Extras a WRAR FORM) — --�,lce/Gross Liv. Area $0.00 5_215 500 Ill $153.93 Q) S 232 , 000 5130. 7�(� Special Energy Efficient Items _— = • ata Quik RE Data, Inc Putches• Patios, etc. Financing Garage/Carport Sq. Ft. Qb$ .. . .. _ . lotal Estimated Cost New ......... ............. .. $ •"— ' - - - Physical Functional External - - - MR193 Less , 950 FHA Q 2 0 $ O8 750 ;907 184 - 500 $ . • _ Depreciation N/A ,� $ Depreciated Value of Improvements conventional loan - - Site Imp. -as is" (driveway, landscaping, etc.) _ $ • 09 -OS -90 : ESTIMATED SITE VALUE ............. v.Neiborhoo ie/view equal 0 hf leasehold• show only ( y leasehold value.) - .._.__ (Not Required by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) hsign arW Appealmerage INDICATED VALUE SY COST APPROACH ........... equal 0e Does property conform to applicable HUD/VA property standards? E] Yes [--j No Construction Vlrerranty Yrs No Name of Warranty Program )u�{ity of Construction, I No, explain: eoual 0 equal Q age 29 Mrranty Coverage Expires equal 1)tie L"30fsKrs" If lec"ad wee recefll sales d 9001 wiles MOSl s1111,6u alba WoAanale 10 au ;Khm-liskint. Ielleellrly ma kvi fdaCtson to thOse Verna of bAvMllcallt vi/lsallon bo.jwe n llw S b t>KS l acid 11:IS CO,ISrGM(rd ttll:ae Ml this t11:Ni�{sl allalyylS. TIW ousurj tllcxl plck,oax 8 C1W1:lf $.Aleu aeba f=�K>�atl+r I W W 1nWe laWfablc than. tIW SubjeCl p, I11UQCfirrL•!. W :1 SlglrilCalll tient In Itrs COlrll►sfill7ks pOpally is sa+lxs/Kx naoc. 11 a slp/lils;anl Itdrn In t/1s CUlllpaf:/l is r11w1.r Iv,. i w Ings levor&Wvr Ihun• lire Suoldct properly, a plus t*1 aoluslnbeml 1! nubble. thus lrlcreaaulg 1116 barCatbd vak* l ITEM SUBJECT ` COMPARABLE NO. t of 1 w `Sut>►@Cl• I. COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 15621 Address Myrtle - 15701 Pacific St. 15622 Mytrle Ave. 15682 Myrtle Ave. ve.Tustin Ca -Tustin Ca. Tustin Ca. Tustin, Ca. i'toximity to Subject S:ftt Price $0.00 blocks from subject across from subject across from subject --�,lce/Gross Liv. Area $0.00 5_215 500 Ill $153.93 Q) S 232 , 000 5130. 7�(� SOS , 000 ��--' 511.5.49 Source _.Amer 1DJUSIMENTS DESCAIPTtON -Title .American Title Co.- DESCRIPTION ata Quik RE Data, Inc _ �_] Same Financing • t'is %kiw�lll,rlu DESCRIP_TIO_N_ • 1 -IS AGluitmrm IS /w►ustnlcnf DE$CAIPTIUI�1�-9 uncessions MR193 , 950 FHA Q 2 0 $ O8 750 ;907 184 - 500 $ . gate of Site/Time N/A conventional conventional loan conve_ntional:loan 0 ocatlon 09-24-90 0 09-26-90 : 0 09 -OS -90 : 0 v.Neiborhoo ie/view equal 0 _Corner +14210-(1688) — a cal ' Q hsign arW Appealmerage vera e e ual 0 equal 0e ual 0 )u�{ity of Construction, equal' 0 eoual 0 equal Q age 29 0 equal 0 Amidnionars _. years 29 9 ears 0 4Uuve Grade loan Count Will . ealrls . Bilinsw1.i .Burnt) . fialtls ----. , rage 0 lOtrl . t10rr115 . t1:11M r lull . tI1111115 I— tl gross living Area 7 7 3 2 1400 Sq. 1400 Sq. Ft.: 0 Sq. Ft. (28125) 8 5' 2 1775 0 asement b Finished Built up rocc Sq. Ft. ; - Wmils Below Grade ------+ roof/ None Composition 0 Composition : 0 Composition 0 utwtional Utility , -Avera e equal 0 equal 0 Vitlirltl/Cooling Avera e equal 0 equal 0 equal equal ' p -arayr/Carpal ilclies, Patio, C nverted F. R Att. 2 car: a ur c' vim: Appears Conv.; 0 -- Att. 2 car ;- 5000 Jul, l:Ic concrete oats d fenceshpd Rool 11000 � Ap Vox equal 0 , al A Vox a ' cal 0 ;�ecwl Crtt:lyy c IWIL'itt arms None equal 0 , equal : 0 1 equal ' 0 lrplrtcc(s) fireplace equal 0 equalequa-1 0- her (e.g. kitchen updatedequal 0 - -- equal 0 — ---- ___ '�- equal - 0 _.„t,_relnuuelint)) tut.li{ + --s 16.00 0 t -- vIIt1t: --PEI .ct 1 1 19ISL2 875 I �s 171 , 875 ululll:nts oil Sales Cuulpauiwn: OICATED VALUE If SALES COtMPARISOM APPRIIArM _ f 3Vi, }}•a _ •, wr•�•' �Jfw 7. upCK'•,""y!+t•'V'Or!r-----nP.t�....ti�.�+r.. • op"Or ��'f►�i _� ��`�rl:... .z:�-�� _ �f�f � tt��'�•� l^.r-'„•`� ta, M !� rte+.■ ., r, ��,•t''. r %�.�'L•.TS• -:.� • ,,. � � � `•� n . r .� y.�. `�^" f1,.y�r�•7• �'.�.?M�?'y.-+rt.�'-a .••i .,; • � _. �l l � ..-. -. r: , '�a .i �... �S:r�.'` �i y 'l+. - - [ � r lb MONUZ Y "- •_- -.♦ ;�. .f i:'�• 1, •a '�+ •ice ..i^,! ��. :.'t' ♦•• �•` - �. . •-� ��'j •.•' F;.';:t irk'-- Mitchell Appraisal, 15621 1._ _tle Avenue Tustin, CA. 92680 March 11, 1991 Subject Property, patio view PHOTO. PHS - EXHIBIT G Photo #910212 Subject Property, view from rear yard Photo # 910223 17 '.-�� •`a��fy , �--rR•-•�:��_!7 .:i. , c:_.r.". `T^._�`~+� Z.. .:.r^v �.i•+r .i :C •:T--. �, �, .. .fit T - ♦ _ �� . - �"��``c-,•. __ •+- ,jam _ r+' -_ _ ?j;�. � =_ Z _ - _ - .. �,' ,}`s yryr tea- .w s..". y L+.► .'_"'�.�Y.1� rte: :�'� ' ..rte s'},-•�„�`t:� __'+ :... �'`', :''� � , ` -� ze r, ..+vim r-�"'.� _ _ �K�.-..'r'� �.` it t_'y,.�+�.y�.�rw •Y.i �' �w L 1 . .'•^'� h • ,. ' 3.S � � v.now- QI �a�'yS: � J'•+. 'til �•a�� .�� .�.c. - NO c �� yet �-�.�s..y� ��T � �� r.• -.r � _ '�.C.•'_. rlr Mitchell Appraisal, 15621 tle r.venue PHOTO PHS - EXHIBIT G Tustin, CA. 92680 March 11, 1991 • • South 31 ice" k �r.'_'T�.�,•�•, � .4•�� • "' � '': �� • •.ate- �. �a-'••` _:_ ✓,'' .�• : , =1 _7" 15642 15642 Pasadena Ave., rear south wing Photo 4910207 Photo 9910208 tie Mitchell Appraisal, 15621 rtle Avenue Tustin, CA. 92680 March 11, 1991 PHGi .<APHS - EXHIBIT G 15701 Pacific Ave., Comparable #1 1 1 Photo #910312• _ _ - _ . ..`.:^t.".' •�• may,••'. 15622 Myrtle Ave., Comparable 412 Photo 9910313 Mitchell Appraisal, 1562" _,le Avenue Tustin, CA. 926. March 11, 1991 1 PHO" --j?HS - EXHIBIT G 4 '-:: ...__. � '_„r-;� `--`t.-_� _"�.7o=+•-n.�a�. �_},s�_`.^.�'rYi�,".y*,�-'.'r� ..fir - 15682 Myrtle Ave., Comparable 43"- Photo 4910314 AP P RA 2 S AL R E P OR T of LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS Located at 151631 Myrtle Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Prepared For Mr. Feridoun-Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, California 92804 Prepared Jointly By: Fred W. Taylor Caryl J. Goldstone The Taylor Co., Realtors Certification #6204 2139 Westwood Boulevard Caryl J. Goldstone Associates Los Angeles, California 90025 310 N. Crescent Drive, #305 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Appraisal No. 890911 THE TAYLOR -CO., RF PRS Appraisal Divis; . 2139 Westwood B avard Los Angeles, CA _i0025 Tel: 213/475-2529 Fay:: 213/475-4469 March 11, 1991 CARYL J. GO! TONE & ASSOCIATES .appraisal Service 310 h .rescent Drive, #310 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 213/859-1220 Mr. Feridoun-Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, CA 92804 RE: APPRAISAL OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS, 15631 MYRTLE AVENUE, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 .Dear Mr. Rezai: In answer to your request for an estimate of the market value for all of the real property being appraised as defined in this Report of property owned by Kathleen. Lois Arnold, situated at the referenced address, I have examined the property, and submit herewith my estimate of market value as defined in this Report. IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY: The property that is being appraised in this Report is the real property (land and improvements), situated at 15631 Myrtle Avenue Tustin, California 92680 (Orange County Thomas Guide, 23-E3). PURPOSE AND DATE OF APPRAISAL: The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the "Diminution of Fair Market Value" of the real property (land and improvements) between the dates of October, 1989, and March 2, 1991, the date of this appraisal with respect to the newly constructed apartment building located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, CA. Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Av March 11, 1991 Page 2 Tustin, CA DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The value conclusions contained in this Report are based on the definition of market value as set forth by the (1) California Supreme Court; and (2) Federal Home Loan Bank Board's guidelines, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, which is as follows: (1). Market Value is the highest price, estimated in terms of money, which a property will bring if exposed in the open market, with a reasonable time allowed to find a purchaser, buying with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes to which it is adapted, and for which it is capable of being used. (2). 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, knowledgeably 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: (a). buyer and seller are typically motivated; (b) . both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own.best interest; (c). a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. 10 (d). payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (e). .the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected .by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by any one associated with the -sale. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The property rights appraised are those of a Fee Simple Estate. I ) Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, :in, CA March 11, 1991 Page 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The site of the real property is legally described as follows: Lot 4, of Tract No. 4250 as recorded in Book 151, Pages 15 and 16 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder, County of Orange, State of California. (Also identified as Orange County Assessor's Parcel 402- 384-03). NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located within the incorporated City of Tustin in the neighborhood being that area southerly of Interstate Highway 5 (Santa Ana Freeway) and easterly of State Highway 55 (Newport -Costa Mesa Freeway). The neighborhood has been fully developed for many years with a mixture of older, newer, remodeled 1 and rebuilt single and multiple family residences. There is evidence of continuing development and reconstruction of residential and commercial properties in the neighborhood. SCHOOLS: Elementary, Intermediate and High Schools are all within one mile of the Subject Property. (See Exhibit D for locations). PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Orange County Transit District provides public transportation through and near the neighborhood by bus lines 22, 601 65, 66, 71 and 71A and Dial -A -Ride service. Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, T in, CA March 11, 1991 Page 4 ZONING: Current zoning of the property is City of Tustin SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1). The present use of the subject property was at the time of construction a permitted use under Tustin City Code 9223, and at the present time is a permitted use under said code. (See Exhibit C - City of Tustin Zoning Code, Section 9223, page LU -2-8 et. seq.). There is no information available or indication of any change to the General Plan that would affect. the subject property. HIGHEST AND BEST USE• The term is defined by the American Institute of Real Estate: 1 J Appraisers as follows: "The most probable likely use to which a property can be put. That use to which the land may reasonably be expected to produce the greatest net return to land over a given period of time. That legal use which will yield to land the highest present value. Sometimes called optimum use." The Highest and Best use of the subject property is the present use as a single family residence. •,:Hold Appraisal , -5031 Myrtle venue, T �n, CA !parch ill age 5 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The property is a rectangular shaped parcel located on the westerly side of Myrtle Avenue, north of McFadden Street. At the subject property Myrtle Avenue is a fully improved single family 60 foot wide roadway, asphalt concrete residential street with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks and landscaped parkways between the curb and sidewalk, terminating at a cul-de-sac approximately 200 feet north of the subject property. The land consists of one parcel containing 7,209± square feet, (see plat, Exhibit B, -for shape and dimensions of land). The land is level with the street at the sidewalk, sloping upward approximately three feet to the improvements, then level to the rear yard with drainage . 1 I to the front. The property is joined on the north and south by comparable single family residences of comparable size and quality and on the west by a new.multiple family apartment building. All utilities are currently installed on the site. Electric and telephone service is supplied by above grade poles and lines located on a five foot easement at the rear property line. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS: The land is improved with a seven room, single family three bedroom, two bath residence containing approximately 1,568 square feet of living area, plus a two car attached garage. Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, :in.. CA f' March 11, 1991 Page 6 i The building is one story, frame and stucco, originally constructed in 1962 with a swimming pool added at a later date. Outside improvements include an aluminum covered concrete paved patio, 5'- 6' wood fencing -on the north, south and westerly property lines, i a 6' x 8' metal storage shed on a concrete slab in the rear yard, a freeform swimming pool, approximately 15' x 30', pool stone decking and a stone paved patio area. The improvements appear to j be in good condition and have been fairly well maintained. The value thereof will be considered for the purpose of this appraisal. MARKET APPROACH TO VALUE: The Market Approach to Value,. sometimes called the Comparison;. 1 Approach to Value, is the'only direct approach to market activity. The premises are located on a quiet, lightly traveled street, therefore comparables have been limited to recent sales of properties located witrhin the boundaries of the properties shown on Exhibit "B" in the area of.the subject praperty. Three sales have been located which have been sold during 1990. The following properties have been used to establish current market value for the land and improvements of the subject property. Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Av( Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 7 SOLD RESIDENTIAL COMPARABLES ADDRESS LAND PRICE DATE REMARKS i 1) 15682 Myrtle Ave. 7,270' $205,000 9-90 $115.49/sf* ! 2) 15622 Myrtle Ave. 7,270' $232,000 9-90 $130.70/sf* 3) 15701 Pacific St. 7,270' $215,500 9-90 $153.93/sf* *Selling price of land and improvements. (See URAR Form, Exhibit F) The listed comparables are for properties near the subject property. Consideration* has been given to: (i)the size of the land;. (ii)the size of the improvements thereon; (iii)the age and condition of the improvements; (iv)the proximity to the Subject Property and the real property located,at 15642 Pasadena Avenue,: Tustin, CA, and, (v) the date of the sale. All adjusted sales prices average $133.37 per square foot for land and improvements of the comparable sales, which indicates a value of the Subject Property of $209,124. COST APPROACH TO VALUE: The Cost Approach to Value is based on the principal that no one will pay more for an existing property than it would cost to replace or substitute the property with one of similar utility. The cost approach usually sets the upper limit of value unless the property is encumbered with a lease or other significant matters r.rn old Appraisal �5b31 Myrtle Avenue, I in, CA march 11, 1991 ,age 8 affecting the continued use of the property. Estimates of cost are based on cost per square foot, less any depreciation for age, obsolescence, condition, etc., of the improvements, plus additional features and/or improvements and land value. The improvements of the subject property are described in detail under PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS of this Report. VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS: COST APPROACH BY MARSHALL & SWIFT RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATOR: Property Owner : Kathleen Lois Arnold Address : 15631 Myrtle Avenue City, State, ZIP : Tustin, CA 92680 Appraised By : Fred W. Taylor and.Caryl J. Goldstone Date of Survey : March 2, 1991 ' Appraisal Date : March 2, 1991 Purpose of Appraisl: Diminution of Value Appraised For* : Feridoun-Rezai Single Family Residence Effective Age: 15 years Cost as of 3/91 Style: One Story Exterior Wall: Stucco Floor Area: 1,568 square feet Quality: Average Condition: Good ------------------------------------------Units -------------- Cost Total Basic Square Foot Cost......... 1,568 36.06 56,542 Including 8 Plumbing Fixtures Composition Shingle........... 1,568 1.19 1,866 Warmed and Cooled Air......... 1,568 3.56 5,582 Quarry Tile ................... Floor Cover. 157 7.99 1,254 ................. Wood subfloor................. 1,568 1,568 1.91 5.33 3,000 8;357 Appliance Allowance........... 1,568 1.47 2,305 Plumbing Fixture, Rough -In.... 1 310.00 310 Fireplace Single .............. 1 2425.00 2,425 Subtotal BasicStructure - ------------ Cost --1,568--- - 52.07 81,641 Arnold Appraisal j 15631 Myrtle Avenue, 7 in, CA March 11, 1991 page 9 1 Garage: Attached Garage ............... 480 15.81 7,589 ----------------------------------------- Extras: Site Improvements ............. 5,000 Swimming pool................. 11,000 Pool decking .• ............ 4,000 Metal storageshed............ 400 Patio decking ................... 1,500 Subtotal...................... 21,900 ----------------------------------------------- Replacement Cost New........... 1,568 70.87 111,130 ------------------------------------------------- Less Depreciation: Physical and Functional....... <13.5%> <15,003>" Depreciated Cost .......... = .... 1,568 61.31 96 127 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Miscellaneous :. Land..........' ................ 100,000 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 1 ------------------------------ Total ---------------------------- Total .......................... 1,568 125.08 196,127 ----------------------------------------------------- Improvements New as of 10/89 193,156 Cost data by MARSHALL and SWIFT Front and side yard well landscaped. Additional masonry work in front yard and stone trim on front. Entire rear yard is improved with pool, stone pool decking and patio area. End of Cost Data by MARSHALL and SWIFT Residential Estimator. ECONOMIC APPROACH TO VALUE: The Economic Approach to Value (income approach) utilizes the processed annual income that a property is expected to produce. � 1 Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, TL in, CA March 11, 1991 page 10 This estimated net income is capitalized according to the prevailing rate of return on similar property or investments of comparable risk to indicate the price an investor would be justified in paying for ownership of the property. The subject property is not the type normally used for rental income, which is judged to be not the Highest and Best use, therefore, no value will be given to the Economic Approach. DIMINUTION OF VALUE: The rear lot line of the Subject Property joins a portion the rear lot line of a newly constructed apartment building located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, CA. The southerly wing of said apartment'. J building approximately _ g is thirty feet from the rear property line, separated from the Subject Property by a concrete block wall approximately eight feet high from the grade level of the Subject Property. (See photographs, Exhibit G). Northerly and southerly of the said apartment building, abutting on t -he property line of the Subject Property and adjoining properties, are car port type garages serving multiple residential apartment buildings northerly and southerly of the property located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue. The newly constructed apartment building has no windows or other means of allowing any invasion of privacy of the Subject Property under ordinary and usual conditions without the use of some means Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, 7 in, CA March 11, 1991 page 11 of elevation above the existing grade. It is this Appraisers opinion that the physical characteristics and conformation of the Subject Property and said apartment building are no less desireable than property built side by side with windows facing windows or on terraced lots. Therefore, it is the opinion of these Appraisers that there is no diminution (loss) of value of the Subject Property due to the construction and occupancy of said apartment building. CONCLUSION: After reviewing the immediate area, reviewing properties that have been on the market and sold; and properties that have not sold, taking into consideration the current market conditions relative to buyer demand, the existing use of the premises, it is this Appraiser's opinion that a prudent buyer would pay a price comparable to other property in the neighborhood. SUMMARY OF VALUES: Market Value Approach: Cost Approach to Value: (Land and Improvements) Economic Approach to Value: $209,124 $196,127 $ NA Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Ave If Tustin, CA March 11, 1991 Page 12 i Therefore it is these Appraiser's opinion that the property in the f present condition would bring a price approximating an average of the Market Value Approach and the Cost Approach to Value as set forth below. FINAL ESTIMATE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS: AS OF OCTOBER, 1989: ONE HUNDRED NINETY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($199,500) AS OF MARCH, 1991: TWO HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($202,500) Respectfully submitted, Fre �lo y r Pr sident, The Tay or Co. Caryl J. Go stone Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates FWT:ab:\wp\aprsl\arnold.tus Arnold Appraisal i 15631 Myrtle Avenue, TL n, CA March 11, 1991 page 13 ATTACHMENTS Certification Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Personal Qualifications of Fred W. Taylor Personal Qualifications of Caryl J. Goldstone Exhibit A - Area Map Exhibit B - Assessor's Plat Exhibit C - Tustin City Zoning Code Exhibit D - School Locations Exhibit E - Comparable Locations Exhibit F - URAR Appraisal Form Exhibit G - Photographs End of Attachments 1 Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, TL n, CA ;arch 11, 1991 ?age 14 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The certification of the Appraiser appearing in this Appraisal Report is subject to the following conditions as are set forth by the Appraiser in this Report. 1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property -or the title thereto, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is appraised though under responsible ownership. 2. * Any sketch in the Report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property.. 3. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefore. 4. Any distribution of the valuation in the Report between land : and improvements applies only under *the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 5. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. _ 6. Information, estimates and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in this Report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of this Appraisal Report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated. Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, Ti n, CA March 11, 1991 page 15 8. Neither all, or any part of the content of this Report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value, the identity of the Appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected), shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client specified in the Report, the borrower if the appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent of the Appraiser. 9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the Appraisal Report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner. Dated: March 11, 1991 Fred Ta for y Caryl Goldstone Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tu. _n, CA March 11, 1991 page 16 CERTIFICATION The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this Report: 1. That the Appraiser has no present or contemplated future W. in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal, nor the compensation for it, is contingent upon the appraised value of the property. 2. That the Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the Appraisal Report or the participants to the sale. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the Appraisal Report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color, or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race, color or national origin of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the -property appraised. 3. That the Appraiser has personally inspected the property, both inside and outside, and has made an exterior inspection of all comparable sales listed in this Report. To the best of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief, all statements and information '. in this Report are true and correct, and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld any significant information. 4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment and conclusions contained in the Report). 5. This Appraisal Report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional -Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the National Association of Realtors and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. 6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the Appraisal Report were prepared by the Appraiser whose signature appears on the Appraisal Report. No change of any item in the Appraisal Report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser, and the Appraiser shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change. Dated: March 11, 1991 Fr �;7W, 4aylo Caryl• • - Arnold Appraisal 15631 Myrtle Avenue, Ti n, CA March 11, 1991 Page 17 QUALIFICATIONS OF FRED W TAYLOR, REALTOR MEMBER: Los Angeles Board of Realtors, 1954 to present. President 1980, Director, 1972 through 1987. Beverly Hills Board of Realtors, 1970 to present. San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors, 1976 to present. California Association of Realtors, 1954 to present; Director, 1972 to 1986; Regional Vice President, 1982. National Association of Realtors, 1954 to present. BUSINESS: Owner,*President, The Taylor Co.,- Realtors, 1976 to present. Co-owner, Vice President,.President, Wesley N. Taylor, Co., 1956 to 1976. General Partner, California Limited Partnerships owning and operating shopping centers and office buildings, 1960 to present Co-owner, real estate development and management company, 1960 to present.. Co-owner, commercial store and office buildings, 1960 to present. Owner, commercial -retail store buildings, 1978 to present. Owner/co-owner several single family and small apartment buildings. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Licensed as real estate broker since 1956 (salesman, 1954). Thirty seven years' experience: Appraising residential and business properties including simple, luxury and estate single family residences, residential income (apartment) properties including complexes containing up to 350 units, commercial retail and combination commercial retail, office and mixed use buildings, multi -story office buildings, small to medium community -size shopping centers, small to medium size industrial buildings; subdividing, developing, building, owning and managing community shopping centers, owning and managing commercial and office buildings; owning and managing a general real estate brokerage, property management and real estate appraisal business with a sales staff from 15 to 75 salespersons. Many appearances in Superior and Federal Courts as an expert witness, appearances before the Los Angeles County Appeals Board as an appraisal witness. Arnold Appraisal l 15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tt n, CA March 11, 1991 page 18 i CLIENTELE: Includes corporations, partnerships, builders, developers, subdividers, individual property owners, attorneys, receivers, banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies, State of California, City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles. EDUCATION AND TRAINING: University of Missouri University of California at Los Angeles Advanced Appraisal courses at UCLA, School of Business Administration, 1966,1967, 1968. Marshall & Swift Residential Estimator Program, 1989 Marshall & Swift Commercial Estimator Program, 1989 Numerous seminars conducted by various Realtor Institutes and private parties. March 11, 1991 CARYL J. GOLDSTONE & ASSOCIATES 310 N. Crescent Drive 9305, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 (213) 859-1220 QUALIFICATIONS OF CARYL J. GOLDSTONE APPRAISAL EDUCATION: Principles & Techniques of R.E. Appraisal Realtors Principles of Real Estate Appraisal Practice of Real Estate Appraisal Farm and Land Appraisal Commercial & Investment Appraisal Writing the Narrative Appraisal Report Fundamentals of Business Appraising PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS.: National Association of Lincoln Graduate Center Lincoln Graduate Center Lincoln Graduate Center Lincoln Graduate Center Lincoln Graduate Center Lincoln Graduate -Center Member, National Association of Master Appraisers PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS: Master Residential Appraiser, National Association of Master. Appraisers Master Farm & Land Appraiser, National Association of Master Appraisers Master Senior Appraiser, National Association of Master Appraisers Graduate Realtors Institute DEGREES: AA San Diego State College BA California Coast University MBA California Coast University BUSINESS -OTHER: Journalism_ Business/Real.Estate/Finance Business/Real Estate/Finance Owner, Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates Sales Manager, Commercial Real Estate -Schreiber Realty Instructor, Appraisal Courses, Lincoln Graduate Center Licensed California Real Estate Broker CLIENT BASE: International, National, Corporate and Local References available upon request. March 11, 1991 . I vm-jvn I , I o0051- ll +0 rll;71, lrn4 VI =11,4—i 4.4 I ; Idfir jv� LO --i —4 al.) a ct C, Cl. cr cc M. m C6 E E E CO 1 M EXH I B I T E 8 (Subject Property) 0 v IL � ) � v �-- a 3nN3A r St e ' �• o� �u .� AOIL .�, AL W U U N � W O �► u W rl H (�I H ON S N300 d. DIY AL 0 W 0 z 1 U W U U N � W O �► u W rl H (�I H N300 d. DIY W 0 z 1 �XH=B=T C TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9222x2 4. Attached second residential units when lot is developed with a single-family resi- dence subject to a use permit and the following criteria: (a) The unit shall be attached to an existing residence and a part,of the living area of the existing dwelling (b) The added unit shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the existing inhabitable living area, excluding garages and accessory buildings (c) Parking requirement: One (1) covered space (carport or garage) in addition to the two (2) garage spaces required for the primary residential unit (d) The applicant for a permit and occupant of one of the dwelling units shall be an owner -occupant and such restriction of occupancy shall be recorded on the prop- erty deed (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 4.3; Ord. No. 892, Sec. 2, 8-15,83) 9223 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) a Permitted Uses and Development Standards In the Single Family Residential District (R-1) none but the following uses, or uses which .. in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar, will be allowed, subject to the development standards of this Chapter. 1. Single family dwellings (a) Maximum height: 30 feet l (b) Minimum building site: 7,200 square feet / W. Minimum lot width at property line: 60 feet (d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent (e) Minimum front yard setback: 20 feet (f) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet, but not less than 1,000 square feet clear and unobstructed on rear '5 of lot (h) Minimum lot area per family unit: 7,200 square feet (i) Off-street parking: 2 car garage per dwelling. (Ord. No. 299, Sec. 2) 2. Accessory buildings only if constructed simultaneously with or subsequent to the main building on the same lot. (a) Maximum height: 20 feet (b) Minimum lot width at property line: 40 feet on cul -de -sacs -at property line (c) Maximum lot coverage: 30 percent of rear yard (d) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet (e) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet, but not less than 1,000 square feet clear and and unobstructed on rear �6 of lot. 3. Accessory uses normally incidental to single family residences. This is not to be construed as permitting any commercial uses. (a) Minimum side yard setback: 1 foot (b) Minimum rear yard setback: _1 foot except 5 feet required on an alley REV: 7-84 � LU -2-8 i EXHIBIT C TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9223a4 4. Day care homes for children. (Ord. No. 563) 5. Home occupations in accordance with this Chapter. (Ord. No. 33(, Sec. 2a) 6. Large family day care homes, caring for seven (7) to twelve (12) children, are subject to the following regulations: ' (a) Prior to commencement of operation of any large family day care home, the applicant for a permit shall complete and submit an application to the Commu- nity Development Department. Information provided on the permit shall in- clude: Name of operator; address of the home; and a list of property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary of the proposed day care home. ' (b) Large family day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the noise level in the Tustin Noise Ordinance, nor shall such day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. A day care home shall by design, location and layout avoid any potential noise which may constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. (c) A permit shall not be granted for a large day care home that would be estab- lished within 300 feet of the exterior property boundaries of any existing licensed large family day care home. (d) All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary of 1 a proposed large family day care home, as shown on the last equalized County J assessment roll, shall be notified of the intent to establish such a home. (e) No hearing on the application for a permit shall be held by the Planning Com- mission unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or a property owner within a 100 foot radius of the exterior boundary of the proposed home. If no hearing is requested, the permit shall be granted if the large family day care home complies with the provisions of this Code. (f) Any day care home must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced by the State Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire Department. (g) The play yard of the home must be enclosed by a minimum six-foot high fence . setback from the required front yard. (h) The Planning Commission shall not grant a permit for a large family day care home for any location that has on the property a swimming -pool as defined by Section 102 of the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, as adopted. (i) Any day care home must comply with the provisions of the State Uniform Building Code and City of Tustin Building requirements which apply to single family residences. (j) Any large day home must provide one (1) off-street parking space for each employee who is not a resident of the premises, and provide adequate drop-offand/or pick-up facilities on-site or immediately adjacent to the site as necessary to avoid interference with traffic and to promote the safety of children. (k) An applicant for a large family day care home shall be licensed or deemed to be exempt from licensure by the State of California as a large family day care home. REV: 1-88 LU -2-9 TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9223a6(1) j (1) Nothing contained in the provisions of this amendment shall preclude the revo- cation for cause of any permit granted for a large family day care home following proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission to determine if said use is operated in a manner detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the commu- nity or surrounding properties. (Ord. No. 911, Sec. 3, 5-21-84; Ord. N6. 991, Sec. 2,8-3-87) b Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards 1. Second single family structure when lot area is minimum of 12,000 square feet, subject to use permit. (a) Maximum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building site: 12,000 square feet - (c) Minimum lot width at property line: Corner lot 70 feet; Interior lot 60 feet. (d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent (e) Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map (f) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 20 feet (h) Minimum lot area per family unit: 6,000 square feet (i) Off-street parking: 2 car garage per dwelling (Ord. No. 299, Sec. 2) 2. Churches, schools, parks, playgrounds, public utility and public and quasi -public buildings and uses, crop and tree farming; subject to use permit. \ (a) Maximum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building site: 20,000 square feet for churches, 5 acres for schools, public utility and other uses as specified in use permit. (c) Minimum lot width at property line: 100 feet (d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent (e) Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map (f) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 20 feet (h) Off-street parking: one (1) parking space for each three seats in churches or places of public assembly. 3. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, providing no cooking facility is installed or maintained, subject to use permit. (a) Maximum height: 20 feet (b) Maximum lot coverage: 30 percent of rear yard (c) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map (d) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (e) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet 4. Public or private parking lots for automobiles when adjacent to any "C" or District and when properly landscaped, subject to use permit. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 4.2) KE v: 1 -HR LU -2-10 \ PD .M EXHIBIT D / ,c (School Locations) .. 4rio C-.4pM =:p �',� " '' moo �' ~�.�+•-'r, P&I u + �• I I C 2 P l.0 2 P Gfl / G lsoo R4 C2 C ,` 9� z PD J p q��w , C �C ,,41 ., 'lip ® r , MHP - R3 f I. A `.. _ Cy \/ ♦ .� _ ,9` cmc l� <1 �►� ,� I '1750 I C'U.1 A Q ' o o R 3 NtR 3Al oo .P�l G ":;0 1 � / R1 ; , i Q` • , do /' / Qy�' I o !c �� M /i E QQ J _ _�l „o PUD 00 ,, �. ,,- • loft, • � rcn�K a \ ^ 17000 /d> i v I R 3 R 3 G o - Q' •1 I 1 G '9 / ` ,o ` C� I , ,o Y SO ELY Lcrj- /Q ? 9 � , sr Y t v .�; •• C % `• � ' •�` Q / R 3 o 00 tu NO,/ C IAJ 4 P D9s � SO , • ' / ' �, sQ C 00 M ''r '••/ `� QQ/.O :y,'rl^ \ y Wig-. � , V. O 10\ • r CC \ r �.L• i O ! 10 O14 O / 'OO 1p VOv . �/ fir! O / ~\ �. 'may' •► s� `' P / �.' ` FS ,�`'• gy � . vt• c 41 ( t�✓ _ 1 `. /°off. \ `\ �'° cs �'D' ` •r,�� P • ' TSE' • Q zr. CO 1 E X H I B I T' ( Comparable Properties) ' u `( W jv �' "YC 00 • '• SL �t °i; HQT. H 'K •o U a SnNSA V �•ot• oc tc! AGIL h AL .it 5��` •• s O O 9 O e W a�� O AL st•t.! Q; "o (D6 .t! tt N0/77VO-7tY W � AVCL ` -" G O F .0% 991 .10! a 114 aor aor O • O ev o O Q O , • O z h _ r � b b ` o � w w oo! O b h •oo! � O • o , ..a �Qi O • eta ,� o O ' J, Cal o • O b O • O • � .l, `001 '•'� h h h • O h St = O Y ti ., o .'a �t ..or .nor , v ,Q ,d, v JC y O X .Vv O 4 • �•• x wo �. ��, O ,L Q�l D'7�10O Q-kO ~ .tot .!t JL R CO y.. Valuation 111- cuort UNIFO' 'RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL Purpose of Appraisal is to estimate Market Valu _._., in the Certification b Statement of Limiting Cond �O Fit* No. BUILDING SKETCH (SHOW GROSS LIVING AREA E GRADE) ESTIMATED REF. ,:TION COST -NEW -Of IMPROVEMENTS: 11 kX F••U4 M61' CY f &n -r— "". &t%>- o'•IY bo,,o kAA CdG/..14.% tear com .y(no.*ch comRft'Ns .n Irv! bpiGt Dwelli% Ft. Sq. 0 $ s $ Sq. Ft. tib $ _ E X H I B I T I` Extras = } ( URAR FORM) Special Energy Ellicient Items = . Porches, Patios. etc. _ Garage/Carport Sq. Ft. o $ _ total Estimated Cost New ...................... a $ - - - Physical Functional External Less . _ Depreciation = $ . Depreciated Value of Improvements .............. = $ . _ Site Imp. "as is" (driveway, landscaping, etc.) = $ w _ ESTIMATED SITE VALUE ......................... _ • (II leasehold, show only leasehold value.) INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH ........... (Not Required by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) Construction Warranty Yes No Does property conform to applicable HUD/VA property standards? ❑ Yes ❑ No Name of Warranty Program h No, explain: Warranty Coverage Expires - the urvi rslprled has recited three recent sates or propenies most stnlllar and proAimate to subject arta has cofisiceted these vt the nvatkot analysis. TIK; ddsertHwn sixWes a o(XL&( ;xhus,nlunt, ruliectlny market reaction to those items or s►[I,pvl[eant vw►aison wnween Ute uADDpaet awtd cony. rue peoperttea. N a siyrwricani nem in we corry.►aratxe properly ss WiP40" to. or rrwrt lavorable than, the sut"ect property, a nwlus (-) adrustnlent is maoe, thus reducing the wluic: ioa vakw of subject, it a iigiwiscwil Nem in tie curlpa(atAe is interior to, ur less favorat" Than, the subject property. a plus Ir) aor•.Isinlent is rn:+de, thus "aeaswv int wld[cated valve or ine subject. - ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 15621 Myrtle - 15701 Pacific St. 15622 Mytrle Ave. 15682 Myrtle Ave. Address ve.Tustin Ca.Tustin Ca. Tustin, Ca. Tustin, Ca. Proximity to Subject 2 blacks from subject across from subject across from sub j ect Sales Price $0.00 HBO1215 500 S 232,000 S205,000 a-'ce/Gross Liv_Area 50.00 $153.93 01111091 5130.70 Q1IRM911 t 115.49 ❑] V (ce .Amer.Title .American Title Co.- Eata Quik, RE Data, Inc Same - ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION • 1.11 AnM,srnwni DESCRIPTION • t-)1 Upwilntenl DESCRIPTION . (-) i Anjusilllern Sates or Financing RME $193,950 FHA0 $208,750 ;90% $184 , 500 ;90% _uncessions conventional 0 conventional loan conventional loan 0 Sate of Sale/Time N/A 09-24-90 0 09-26-90 : 0 09-05-90 0 -ocation v. Neiborhoo e ual 0 Corner (+1420-0688) (1688) e ua1 0 Site/view vera e e ua 1 0 equal 0 equal 0 )csign are Appealeq,uala ua 1 0 e ua 1 0 )uaWy of Construction equa0 equal* 0 c years ears 0 :urtdilion ragT� 0 lbuve Grade twat .cams [ B.u►s tour . Bann. 1131lts ta:ti .bale, , Wths k,t;st [ bat ins: eau's tuom Cowl 7 p ;toss Living Area _ 1400 Sq. Ft. 1400 Sq. Ft.: p 1715 Sq. Ft.: (28125) 1775 Sq. Ft. .asemenl & Finished :ocnns Below Grsde Built up rockComposition 0 roof / None Composition Com p 0 Composition 0 wxaiurtal utility Average equal 0 equal 0 e ual_ caluuJ/Cooling Average equal 0 equal 0 equa 1 0 mage/Carport a eve-tedp - Att . 2 car:... -(5000) Appears Conv .: 0 Att . 2 car :-(50005 .,nils. Patio• ed— concrete patio—�— ,vt'• ctc. d fence.she_ pool 11000 Approx equal 0 Approx equal 0 #Cci.11 Erkryy I t licie arms Non e equal 0 equal 0 equal 0 !eplece(s)fireplace equal 0 equal equal -0 - updated equal 0 her (e.g. kitchen ;wp , rrrnu0lantg) equal. . 0 - equal l 0 001.J1)+ V'.due � -•S 16,000 'll + �uJ)CCr IE-MliliIS199,500- _111011 111 203 875 I I 11 s 1.71.85 ...n....i .... ..a.c.J vV.[.lJ[I10(111. OICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISOM APPROACH Appraisal, 15631 m - Tustin, CA. 92680 March 11, 1991 Avenue PHOTOCT' - EXHIBIT G Subject Property, front view Photo #910222 Subject Property, front view Photo # 910220 Arnold Appraisal, 15631 My Tustin, CA. 92680 March 11, 1991 I Avenue PHOTOGP I - EXHIBIT G N Subject Property, rear-view Photo #910224 .� i - •ca MJF Mrs 2& ®A Subject Property, rear view Photo #910202 Arnold Appraisal, 1563" vitle Avenue Tustin, CA. 926 March 11, 1991 P H C mAPHS - EXHIBIT G Subject Property, front street view Photo "910305 Subject Property, front view Photo "4910323 Arnold Appraisal, 15631 M le Avenue PHOTOG Ii5 - EXHIBIT G Tustin, CA. 92680 March 11, 1991 15642 Pasadena Ave., rear yard, south Photo #910207 15642 Pasadena Ave., rear south wing Photo #910208 im R �r 1 _ . .: '•moi" �� .. �.� . �� _ .. .�""•. jfr : •'^.�.•' � yr.`s ..ti � �� ;•'• : . 'f Tw►�! J'.�1 _Jit•A' •w tr sow AlUN ,JP n'%ice. �': •!`T Vo -_�f�_.t.�ltf�'.'_•'�' .:. .-'Sw._ 4.-M�.',k."�w _ _ "mss -t,L.w�1�r�E'S." 71 `; ..� ltd j .. �. :�:.,'t'-s�3... -• _ mac.: --'..'•..� .: :, t a �+: �� r � ,yam • ,�, '�' , • � 7.7 •• f, t � 1 ��tY� -J � yiw �� 1 Arnold Appraisal, 15631 1M1 _ tle Avenue Tustin, CA. 92680 March 11, 1991 PHOTO- -PHS - EXHIBIT G 15701 Pacific Ave., Comparable 41 Photo 910312 15622 Myrtle Ave., Comparable "2 Photo 4910313 l pxOTOGRAP"S •nold Myrtle F ,praisal, 15631 92680 lstln, CA - arch 11, 1991 11 K' '� �� -� -�._ ��i; ..�-�^ - .-� -_.� �;_.. -. '. •- ,---a-•-,'. � .�• •�� - - '`• .... _ .-- .,•--��a�-- # 910 314 - -- - _- Photo •., Comparable #3 15682 Myrtle Ave