HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 CUP 90-08 03-18-91bEAs
�� . -a 1
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 18, 1991
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08
APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI
203 TROJAN STREET
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804
OWNER: SAME
PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
3-18-91�°"
Inter - Com
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 APARTMENT PROJECT
ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 89-051 authorizing the construction of a two and one half
story, 11 unit apartment project on a 20,184 square foot lot in the
R-3 zoning district.
A conditional use permit was required since the subject property
abuts the R-1 zoned properties on its eastern ( rear) property line.
Provisions of Section 9226(c) of the Tustin Municipal code state:
"...when a lot in the R-3 District abuts at any point
along its property lines or is directly across a street
or alley from a property zoned R -A, E-4 or R-1 (developed
City Council Report
Conditional Use Permit 90-08
March 18, 1991
f 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 theapartment 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
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 pro osed
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
attempt to work out
June 4, June 18,
held between the developer and residents in an
a design compromise and public hearings held on
and July 2, 1990 the City Council aobroved
Community
Development Department
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 A enc
on July 16, 1990 and revised building permits were ig y
issued on August
21 1990. The City Council's action approved a significant)
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
ent
to the Pasadena Avenue property objectedto
properties the is uance of the
Conditional Use Permit and filed a Petition for Writ of
Administrative Mandamus entitled Paul Zukowsky, et al v.
Tustin. City of
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 Cit
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,ort'
welfare of persons residing or working Dina the neighborhoodand general
proposed use, or whether it would be injurious or detrimental uch 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
ropert
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
j Page 4
The subject property is located in the South/Central Redevelopment
Project Area.
Notice of the public hearing for
Tustin News and posted on the
1991. A copy of the notice
property owners within 300 feet c
22, 1991.
this meeting was published in the
subject property on February 22,
aas mailed to the applicant and
f the subject property on February
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONISITE 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 21-2 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
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"). Privateround level open s ace
g p p /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 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.
Additional architectural features include:
° 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 by the guest
parking spaces or by landscaping.
° 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 Council
in originallyapproving Conditional Use Permit 90-08 required the
following revisions to the project:
1. Removal of the second floor from the two east (rear) units of
Buildings A and B (units 5, 61 10 and 11) which are the units
closest to the R-1 properties.
Removal of the second floor of units 5 and 6 will create a
minimum 60 foot second story setback from the 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 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
City Council Report
Conditional Use Permit 90-08
March 18, 1991
i Page 7
height and design is compatible with the 20 foot high R-1
properties to the east.
3. Removal of windows on the east (rear) elevations of units 4,
6, 9 and 11 so that no windows face the R-1 properties to the
east. Specially designed window screens will be required on
sensitive bedroom windows on the first floor of units 5, 61 10
and 11 and thesecond 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 of
the property in closer proximity to the front of the project.
5. Removal of the spa/jacuzzi originally proposed in the
southeast corner of the site.
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
a discussion of the required findings necessary for granting of a
conditional use permit and discussion in support of each finding.
The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for
will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the subject use and the use will not be injurious
or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or
the general welfare of the City.
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:
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 51 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, 6, 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, 61 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.
CF
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 proximity
to the front of the project; the spa/jacuzzi originally
proposed 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 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
inc
orporated herein by this reference.
Community
Development Department
City Council Report
-- Conditional Use Permit 90-08
March 18, 1991
j 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% 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 18, 1991
Page 11
The applicant has also been required to pay Transportation
System Improvement fees in the amount of $1.00 per square foot
as a contribution toward areawide transportation system
improvements.
9. The project has the potential to add 24 new residents to the
area based upon the City's average household population of 2.4
persons per household (deducting the residents of the previous
existing dwelling on the site). This proposed density and
resulting increase in population is permitted and anticipated
by the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. The project is
proposed to meet minimum Uniform Housing Code requirements and
no overcrowding is anticipated.
10. The Community Services, Public Works, Fire and Police
Departments have also indicated that the project will not
create significant effects on city services. All services are
in place and the development of the site has been anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Section 9291 of the Tustin City Code, if it is found
that certain conditions will not result from a particular use
applied for, the City would be obligated to grant the use permit.
At this time, the City Council should open and close the public
hearing on this matter, discuss the evidence presented including
information contained in thisstaff report. Upon conclusion of the
i
City Council's discussion, t is advised that the City Council
indicate whatever action it deems appropriate and instruct staff
based on advice of the City Attorney to either:
1. Provide supporting resolutions for their action on the
evening of March 18, 1991, or;
2. Return to the City Council's next meeting with
Resolutions which support their action and the evidence
discussed at the hearing.
Christine A. Shing on
Assistant City Marhater
CAS:kbc\cup90-08.cas
Community Development Department
NEGP% CIVE DECLARA' k ON
CITY OF TUSTI N
S 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
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:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
LJ significant effect on the environment.
aThat potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have
been included i n 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
ommuni ty Developme, V Director
Attached negative declaration initial study—
revised on March 13, 1991 upon completion y4o�-&
of review.
CITY OF TUSTIN
Community Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent FERIDOUN REZAI
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 203 TROJAN STREET
ANAHEIM., CA 92804
220-2893
3. Date of Checklist Submitted March 12, 1990 originally, revised
February 21, 1991
4. Agency Requiring Checklist CITY OF TUSTIN
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Conditional Use Permit 90-08
Design Review 88-2
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
2.
3.
Yes Maybe No
g.
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure
or similar hazards?
X
Air.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emission or
deterioration of ambient air quality?
X
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? X
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperatures, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally? X
Water.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements,
in either marine or Xresh water?
X
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?
X
d.
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
X
e.
Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface water '
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
g
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate
Of flow of ground waters?
X
g.
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
X
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
X
C9
5.
1-V
7.
Yes Maybe No
i. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flooding
or tidal waves?
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?.
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?
Noise. Will the proposal result in':
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
X
X
X
X
M
X
N
X
X
X
8.
a
10.
11.
12.
13.
Yes Maybe No
Land Use. Will the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
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?
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area? X
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? X
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
X
X
X
X
X
X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
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?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe No
17. Hunan Health. Will the proposal
result ' in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? X
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards? X
18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create
additional solid waste requiring disposal
by the City?
X
19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to "public view? X
20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
x
21. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of
a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
Prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object? X
C. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
Yes Maybe No
22. 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? X
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). x
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or '
indirectly? X
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significanteffect 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
USE PERMIT 90-08
REVISED FEBRUARY 21, 1991 AND
Proiect Description Supplement
I. Background
EVALUATION
MARCH 13, 1991
On March 13, 1989, the Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit 89-05, authorizing the construction of
a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project on a
20,184 square foot lot in the R-3 zoning district.
A conditional
property abuts
property line.
Municipal code
use permit was required since the subject
the R-1 zoned properties on its eastern (rear)
Provisions of Section 9226(c) of the Tustin
state:
"...when a lot in the R-3 District abuts at any point
along its property lines or is directly across a street
or alley from a property zoned R -A, E-4 or R-1 (developed
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 theapartment 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 bya 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 filed by the
applicant, seeking re -approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-
05.
Exhibit A
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
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 90-08 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 11200 square feet in size
and contain three bedrooms and 22 baths, with four one story
units at the rear of the project approximately 660 square feet
in size and containing 1 bedroom and X 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 thegarages, 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. 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 isproposed 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 by the Building
Division prior to issuance of grading permits to ensure
proper drainage, compaction and retention.
2. AIR a - This proj ect 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 a4djacent 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, g, 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
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
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
parking, excepting the east (rear) of the structure
where four units are typically one-story in height.
The rear units on Buildings A and (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, 6, 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 61 10 and 11 and second floor windows of Units
31F 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
be at the rear of the project but will be relocated
in closer proximity to the front of the project;
the spa/jacuzzi originally proposed 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
are compatible with th
that the proposed colo
lap siding and stucco
used at the proj ect
Pasadena Avenue to the
earthtone stucco and
shingles on the single
materials proposed for the project
ose of surrounding developments in
r scheme and combination of wood
is similar to color and materials
I
the north, immediately across
west, to the south and the general
wood siding with composition
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
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, 61 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. (Sogrce: 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
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 the project
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. PUBLIC SERVICES - The project would not result in any
significant change to most public services. All services are
in place for the Brea 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 any project impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
CAS:kbc\up90-08.env
MYRTLE b MYRTLE
AVENUE
..
........... ........
....
................
..
V
...
........
.......
........
�a+ao' S6
............ ........
57 .... 58 • • • •
...............
60
.
�6/
. .....
62
........
�3
.......
64... .
SINGLE
FAMILY :::: ��::::.
T3 :::::
� ::.
RESIDENTIAL
-
3 C/RCL E
MYRTLE b MYRTLE
AVENUE
..
........... ........
....
................
..
..
.......
...
........
.......
........
�a+ao' S6
............ ........
57 .... 58 • • • •
...............
60
.
�6/
. .....
62
........
�3
.......
64... .
SINGLE
FAMILY :::: ��::::.
T3 :::::
� ::.
RESIDENTIAL
-
- -
�
(R-1).....
'::::::
..
.. v
10.64. 70•b0'• t... r... ....�.. .v... �... ::�:::
...... .
..................
T.
...................... ...... ...... . ....... .......
;:2tt2:c¢t• : mages:; _ : aF.e•r�::::: :: ;.::.-::
•1
:.:
..
Sir". A
........- D .
l
A
NN
E
P
FA
MiLY
D
UPLE
X
MULTIPLE
1
ti� <• •DEVELOPMENT
ENTIAL ��' RESIDENTIAL b
R E S I D ':�r
(R 2
P
-D
R 3 :=` )
SUBJECT,
B
JE
C
T
r
•Fi
T
Y
• •E
P
•O
•R
.�
•P.................. [ 'ON
VENUE PASADENA
(R-3)
6C
V
V
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
VALUE DIMINUTION STUDY
Community Development Department
JOHN C. DONAHUE
GREGORY J. HAWRAN
MICHAEL F. WALDRON
MICHAEL A. TAYLOR
NORMAN CANTOR
BARBARA L. ZACHRY
PETROS BERHANE
LAWRENCE M. MAXWELL
KEVIN J. DONAHUE
CHARLES P. FOX
ROBERT 1. STEIR
Mr. James G. Rourke
City Attorney
City of Tustin
Suite 7000
701 S. Parker Street
Orange, California 92668
Dear Mr. Rourke:
DONAHUE & COMPANY. INC.
PROPERTY AND URBAN ECONOMICS
2121 EAST COAST HIGHWAY
SUITE 140
CORONA DEL MAR. CALIFORNIA 92625
January 28, 1991
Re: Value Dimunition Study
City of Tustin C.U.P. 90-08
Job No. 4602
TELEPHONES
(714) 760-3166
(800) 654-074C
FACSIMILE
(714) 760-5496
KART E. NELSON
BUSINESS VALUATIC'
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/PURPOSE
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 adjoining 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 obtained
within the Subject Tract, other examples suitable for comparison were gathered from
throughout Tustin and analyzed in the above manner. A description and evaluation of
each of the tracts selected is included following the Subject Property section; their locations
are indexed on the Market Data Map.
SUBJECT TRACT 4250
Description
Tract 4250 is located on the north side of McFadden Avenue, east of Pasadena
Street in Tustin, California. Rights of way within the tract include Myrtle, Corla and
Medallion Avenues as well as Pacific and California Streets. It is further identified
as Assessors Map Book 402 Page 38, County of Orange.
There are a total of 86 single family residences in the tract, currently zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential, under the City of Tustin Municipal Code. A variety of
construction styles and qualities indicate the involvement of several developers in
the original construction, with the majority of homes built in the early to mid 1960's.
Public records indicate some homes as new as 1975 and as old as 1958. Most
contain 3, 4 or 5 bedrooms, with living areas ranging from about 1,100+ square feet
to 2,000+ square feet.
Pride of ownership, maintenance and general condition vary greatly within the
subject tract. Although some homes appeared well kept, others have accrued a
substantial amount of deferred maintenance in addition to having neglected
landscaping.
Environs
Uses which surround the Subject Tract include McFadden Avenue to the south
elevation; an eighty (80) 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 +.
Mr. James G. Rourke -3- January 28, 1991
SUBJECT TRACT 4250 (Cont.)
The Subject Tract's west elevation is bounded by several types and densities of
multiple family dwellings, all of which front to Pasadena Avenue. The northwest
corner of McFadden Avenue and Pasadena Avenue is improved with a 32 unit
condominium project constructed in 1964 which has a situs address of 15712 S.
Pasadena. A 14 unit, one story apartment building built in 1963 is situated at 15660
S. Pasadena; a 22 unit, two story apartment building built in 1967 is located at 15622
S. Pasadena.
Also situated on the tract's west elevation is the subject of the petitioner's
complaint; an eleven (11) unit apartment building located at 15642 S. Pasadena,
presently nearing completion. The structure consists of two buildings which are a
Ilow two story over depressed or partially subterranean parking, excepting the rear of
the structure where they are a typical one story in height. It has been constructed of
good quality materials and has an aesthetically pleasing and newer architectural
style compared to its neighboring conventional apartment and garage buildings.
Traffic
Traffic counts in the vicinity, as provided by the City of Tustin Traffic Engineering
Department, are as follows:
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% annual
growth rate as a conservative estimate recommended by the City of
Tustin Traffic Engineering Department.
WK
�y
r
9
7
M
To
M
r:,
F.1
J
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 (I1) unit apartment building differs widely among the nine
properties. For instance, the Nessl Property as 15702 ,P.,acific 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 Karels property
at 17191 Corla Avenue. The remaining five properties are all located on the 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 property
line at 15621 S. Myrtle Avenue. The Gordon property, located at 17191 Corla
Avenue, has a rear property line before backing to a fourteen (14) unit, one story
apartment project located at 15660 S. Pasadena, and lies catercorner to the eleven
(11) unit project being disputed.
i�
19
7
M
Mr. James G. Rourke
SUBJECT TRACT 4250 (Cont.)
Pre-existin2 Conditions
-5-
January 28, 1991
The petitioners claim of dimuted property values due to the presence of the ellev o f
partially (11) unit apartment building is p Y invalidated based on a num
berpre-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
t
projectsy
The vary in height between one and two story and the majority
tract's
re
constructed in the mid 1960's or early 1970's. A total of 68 units bore ,thee north
west elevation in addition to a 73 unit complex on the eas side.
boundary is bounded by two projects totaling over 140 un
Secondly, the houses within Tract 4250 have extremely_ shallow back yards; curtailing
houses
are set back to where the front yard is much larger than therear, also situated
rear and privacy regardless of adjoining uses. Overhead utilities
detrimental to the
y pre-existing condition considered
along the rear, property lines, a p g
neighborhood's aesthetic Quality. Additionally, the deferred maintenance and
general mix
ture of ownership pride which are apparent in Tract 4250 have
negate p on P to
negative impact property values. These conditions have nothing whatsoever
do with the arrival of the new apartment building.
in apartment buildings at 15712 Pasadena Avenue have pitched
Finally, the adjoin g 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,
setbacks and general neighborhood conditions all preceded the subject
property se
petitioner's complaint regarding any affects of the construction and prospective
the pet
occupancy of the eleven (11) unit project.
As further supportan evaluation of sales within the Subject Tract as well as other
,
comparable tracts are presented hereforth.
f�
r
INMr. James G. Rourke
r
ON
MARKET DATA
General
IN
January 28, 1991
Further invalidation of the petitioner's 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 reflect prices unaffected by
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 th
September, 1987. This home backs to adjacent single family residences. Bo
properties are in average condition.
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 ks
September, 1990. It also backs to another single fan -lily residence and is two bloc
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.
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 City
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 of
Andrews Street back to both one and two story apartment complexes. similar to the
conditions affecting the Subject Tract.
Two pairings were selected from within this tract representing sales which back to
apartments, comparable with those which do not.
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 for 4.2%
more despite having sold seven months earlier.
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 be in good
condition.
These two properties are quite similar, with normal market appreciation causing a
5.5% increase in value over a six month period.
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.
Mit
Mr. James G. Rourke
01 MARKET DATA (Cont.)
Tract 4527
ih%
10
in
January 28, 1991
Located south of Sycamore Avenue, east of Newport Avenue in Tustin. Residences
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 because
it also has properties adjacent to multiple family dwellings which can be paired with
those which. abut single family dwellings. Additionally, these properties have
shallow rear yards like those of the Subject Tract.
Two pairings were drawn from this tract suitable for analysis:
Item 5A, located at 1141 Mear Lane, sold for $139,500 in May, 1986. It backs to a
two story apartment building.
Item 513, located at 1202 Mear Lane, sold in May, 1986 for $144,000. It backs to
adjacent single family residences.
The properties are both in good condition with Item 5B slightly superior to 5A. The
3.1% price difference is attributable to condition, the additional bedroom and 65+
square feet more living area enjoyed by 5B.
Item 6A, located at 1162 Drayton Way, sold in January, 1990 for a price of $229,000.
It is situated adjacent to a two story apartment building.
Item 6B is located at 1161 Drayton Way and sold in June, 1989 for a price of.
$220,000. It adjoins other single family residences.
Both items are similar in condition, with the 3.9% price difference attributable to
market appreciation and the additional 89 + square feet of living area enjoyed by
Item 6A.
Tract 6484
Tract 6484 is located north of Walnut Avenue and easterly of Red Hill Avenue in
Tustin. Properties within this tract are slightly newer than those in the Subject
Tract, having been built in 1968; they are similar in size and slightly superior in
quality.
7i
711
�.r
Mr. James G. Rourke -9- January 28, 1991
MARKET DATA (Cont.)
This tract was selected because the residences on the north side of Copperfield
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 1591 Copperfield Drive, sold in February, 1988 for $189,000.
j This property backs to the "Brighton Terrace" apartments.
Item 711, located at 1552 Copperfield Drive, sold in November, 1987 for $175,000. 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 of the Subject
Apartment Building is unfounded. Numerous neighborhood conditions, including
hundreds of apartments surrounding the tract, mixed pride of ownership, overhead
utilities and shallow rear yard setbacks all pre-existed the eleven (11) unit project.
These combined inherent property characteristics create an environment in which
property values are not easily impacted.
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 of the
adjoining properties and provides architectural betterment to the area. In any
O
r
in
r
No
R
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.
John C. Donahue, MAI
Principal Appraiser
JCD/KJD:tmm
Respectfully submitted,
DONAHUE & COMPANY, INC.
Kevin J. onahue
Staff Appraiser
"
d
O
Q
g�
C
d
O
co
•W
qt C_
C
C
C
_
Y
�+
C ,
O
E
W
O
d O
O
4.0P
_
u
u
(AIM
O� -,
340
3F,
✓
d
.�
L H N
C P
•N
>-
v
C
C
C
fFQ1
'pry
;L m
0
C
i�
Q!
E`
L -
y y
y
O
a.
L.
E
CU >. �
O
N
=
co
Q
Q
c9 N
c9
d
eq
A
o
d L
y l0 M
�' W
c0
01
Q1
�c5 C
C
41 d N
W
�_
"
C 4A
C
N
L
a -+--
X
" ` o
ca
C "
•�
+,
L
'r'
d
•� =
L
N0. O O
]
7
O
'x
N
co
3
_. a+ O
c. Co .�
y
K
W CL•d
Q T
N c
'-
=cc
d L
c
v-
a
�i
O
c0
L N
O o
y
�
O
a+ W
iJ
U 4f
QI
C O
i� C
N L
y
d
4+
co C
d 1
N M
Y
y
U
.�
•w
u
U
m
eo
m
O
a o
a D
- to
m
m
m
n
_
cn •O d
L •1- C7
m
F-
d
a
C
Cf
M
O
•~•
dl
d/
c0
ca
N
C">
ccl
cn
N
O
>
>
O
O
N
d
O
O
U
C07
47
d
m
CD
W
N
co
L
Q)
cc
Q1
CD
L-
L
w
>
a
co
W
>
u
>
>
>
>im
Q
Q
�
co
m
>
;
>
Q
W
Q
>
Q
Q
q
~
..
Z
w
LU o
0
O N
LL-
...
ace -r
Q
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
ce
O` �I
to
M
O ~
d m
cc
2
C-
y
p�
+I
+LLJ'
+1 I
0.
P
l
Z
N'
L�
of
N N
N
N
N
�O
u
N
r'
Ln
N
ti
ti
Oti
ce
N
m
`O
N O
Ln
a0
D
C Co
N
ti
„�
P
.t
Q
�
N
r -
J
Ol
N
a
N
10
PP
J
N
cli
10
P
toI
`O
10
P
o`ol
P
�
r
LI
J
�
C
N
CED L
O
*'
C
O
N
O
c-
m
Q
N
O
Y
CIix
F S
2
O
Z
Oco
>
d
d
a
c
ai
>
>
a
.
a
>
Q
a
Q4ca�
4►
>
-j
41
�+
41
N
L
L
A
N
Q
41
Y
O
P
O O,
w
T
N
r S
tn
O
p
N
f
N
N
O
N
S N
1 cn
U �
U
r'
N N M
N to
N� !
M
M
M
M P M
�-
CL
00
M
NNQ
r M
�t
NO
e- N
O
M M
N
NO N �
O N
NO cf%
Ln
s O
r
N ' N
Ln O
tf1 Cl
r
s r
't
r
1
�
Gp
P
N
M
s u'%
a.J
i
I. CORL A
AVENUE
� ` f
2 Y O
a
w
w
r
i t 1C
Z � •n I j a s •� �i
Z C �
9c m 1
N C► o "CDA L L /ON AVENUE T.
A � w
� 0
1 u L 8 O O of �'
u. 1. •7 ♦\ o. �. l� O b 6 12 ti 1105
L 44c F.c DDEN AVENUE B
r`
C 12 15 �c
r
g O
N
W ..
Subject Tract 4250 -PETITIONERS
ot AIV
I
O
A
�O
aaf
�O�OOO�
WHITBY CIRCLE
r
f ti. ytr a' •7.L
cN 0 O 0 0 0
MAO, so,
tP4.l!' / »
N
,
w
•a
a �
�wc FAaofry_TT_z -17
Av£�vr
12
y PLAT MAP - 15642 S. P
�. ASADENA AVE
T
ENVIRONS
View of parking lot for the Pasadena Village Apartments abutting the north elevation of
15601 S. Myrtle. The two story apartments are visible in the right of the photograph.
View looping north along Myrtle Avenue, at the Pasadena Village Apartments which
border a portion of Subject Tract 4250's north elevation.
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
View looking east at the eleven unit Subject Apartment complex at 15642 Pasadena
Avenue. The roof line of the Arnold residence can be seen in the center of the
photograph.
.Y�
h6m1'
View of the northerly property line and the Mitchell residence abutting the apartment
project.
71
I'm
SUBJECT PROPERTY
1 TvR!G;"r-y .�
--
__.. ..�__ . �......�.w..: a � •� - `fes � _ _ � � � .._ �.. ...
Westerly view of the Subject Apartment Building, taken from between 15621 & 15631
Myrtle Avenue, owned by Mitchell & Arnold, respectively. Overhead utilities are also
apparent in this photograph.
N
N
C
U
,
y
N Q! N
fA
C om.
D
N
N
c
O N
c
�
L ^'
` o v '' >�
d
E
E
E
E
a+ C L-
to
fD
aqC�
"
>`
N
a� D
N C E
E _
c.,
L
eo
E
C
E
CL
E
co
ca
co
CD
O
y
C
C
P
1 O
N
p
L
>.
d
N F+ E y
C
pC ._O
_CO
C
O _dl
.6-
4.1 N
NNG!
d
w4
C
O O
41
O
Y
Y
'O N N
Z7
L d w d
N4'
C ✓
4.1C
N
co
V U
W
N
(Y.f ` Y Y
U
N
^ N
N
m
m
L m
m
dJ
L
C U N
m O Cl)
-1'L
U U
Y
N U
Y
U N
O
U N fn L
m
do
m
L
m
L
m
co
C9
ti N
10 fl- O.
(n
f�
N
1A
p; M CO M
N O
v
10
CO
f�
07
N tf1
N M
M
N
�J
co P 00
w
U P
N
v► w w
4A
4A
w w
w
w
a
U
d
O
Op
O
O
O O
O O O
Ln
00
C>
N
D
N
f,
N
CDP O
00
O
O
M
V1 N
O -
O
Q
y
~
w
w
-
r�v
N
w
--
w Ir9 w w
M
N
N
N
N
Z
J d'
w w
w
w
a o
= J
cc
W Q
O U
Q
N
O
'o
C
P
^
Pcc co m
W
v
A.0
`p N
p
d
N
N
Oa+
L N
fV
N
N N
m
M
�
M1 M
N N N fV
N0)
fV N
N
N
v v
M v
v
v
�jco
�
N
N M
cli
Y-�
O•
P
P O0.
P 10 •O 10
M M
►n
rn
10
10
10
P
P
dl
co
co
ol
d
P
O. a
co ro\
00
P
of
O
O
O O
N
CD
\
V/l
O r• O
O
Ln N
O
_\
O
O
O
d
d
O j
w
y
a.� Dv
>
N
�
I
fD
C �-
d � >
•L
�t
>
<
w �'
> y
L Q7
L O
C
41 >
> 41
N .L
p
, V
N
p O
f0
A
C
Q
>•
fp
V
i f1
M
L U L f�
C NI
L
O
O
U
d r
N
It
go Lr%M
< J 4• v
<
O d
W
O
vtl0
`Q
N O
UI
N
S X:�O
N !2t2
to W%
w
N
N .p P M
I--
M N M ]CUD
O
`p
.p
UyI
r
�
l
cn
Q
m
v
Q m
_
1!1 {n
<
co
`0
f
1
H o MANGE `� IR N !mK WAVI Sl -l' �;z E� 1 ►5 r \ `L
7 �. c . ) �F� NORW000 PARK J WRK 4 MANN/7�IG y ��-� w
= NOR W000 Qcj c 4� j+ ���\V Q`
1.MRTMAt J ARREN ;c ,
.T Q Z
KE R OR + HATHAM Ai+�GE-57� TM o A
_ 17300 OR THEODORAC:'DRc )
Zm LUCERO Illy
R
N tnit� z < WCEWO BENETA WYJ vWii J= �1 �p!% •Lr
P
z e ; ftiAMAG ASE o i z VV�g BENETA WY vt j J • c m
v m W ; = �� �d��1�ay�y� �1♦1Z� �q w
ST - E?�Bt)R--t++ 'O "`c_ :-X- - _ SS ~ u�w►. C .�
(� m h ELLA NA h• Z Q N Z H NS Rte_ Z r
f- p Av 2 1 IRVINE - BLVD �'
17300 '2 ORANGE- T f _ • -
Q • i t~it LN O PRosPE T PK > " -� \ O 6� 9 • /,L,
►- N LOCK 4000 TH --A FASHION ` A l 9 `v
z p ►K R PROSPE T PK r_ LN j = c,�C'f�c 1
• 8 <� 1 8 S T a¢ 11ST S T r 9. 9S <aG9 P ti ly 99/
- = I �Q
R.Cn OF
lmv* EK10 200 P.O. 500E O W .J 09 OP
• ST `
Q � �c SOww[ 8 t:EjN �° CS2NO V,9 / iy Q• '
ST r 4 i `� .2.,
S Q sT01160�
ST W CTR PO !'t.`;`ylG' �Gy� PJP g r �• �`'
m AIN ST e
0 L 14—
3,7` 100w 100E VB P + Q p
LA_
CENTER Q Q S " `-q <C
6TH : L) ST 1 W
_ OA � m W Z SFS r<.1,G �C'� ,.,�'.' fP _ - `Y `P•�O O \' `�Q� (yy36y <
o e w<3�� oPo���
E >
DR 55 ARL`J�1t ,q� ao :0 PQM LF
V �Z>��{ C1R A E'er• c,� ■ •� ° 9 <yS9 L
P"C ICq
OP P O
4
EL
L KED 1011 - " V 1 �� ♦L1j �' �r L�.r r.P ll 'Lj C
DEN;, EST
Q Cy P y
. _
3 7000
RE
Q^ ¢ �i :r cs`, FROAMER ti <� =: io 1
�� •� . -PARKUJ
0 ALTADEN _`Q y�� <�♦iC r -� t cF� .. y P o! ! �L c�C� r�` i * _`.YS " <
<EA! TH ��
'9
> _ MED SC J � ♦ ` �as'E9 PSP Q�'P 64 5 L't"'fes kC /� � ,C --
4L �sc�?iT
rR pF '`rFEn
KENY TUS
O Oti S/� 9F9 �r`�' = \�GFS� ? QJ<' !y♦G cfC , CQhY �C��\NO R
ti09Ftr QIP �r P! c� �0 JE F9 �cp • !! `♦ � `c? � � : E` �\�
+� `.t' �c 5 ^off � 104
�
&4 c
Mb
�O/ c c` J r 'r
', ' :�'(C}7 S'+�°O ��� 9 ' aye �O'9 e s<' tt•` cP '9c' c� : �t,�•jt
.�
HS -)LX40 9
Y s� Eft. , �P �`r `\ p +4 4E p 0�' _CFP .Lam: a - ' i - P .Q
./ CF "Q ��SE. 4♦ r '4L P e� `c `o .Q?' ! P �- J ` � _ -l> Y_ 1 7
J T6Zsac- fS_ �Y4 ,r�Q .' p `gyp? {'r�::..'�o `a e: "sir' vo z` �1=Ee' 41L�
__ -_ _ ` _SCP .� `� '.A�"•' `�� •'! ��F • �/. _s �1lOC�J /Ci'_ �!'
� P � C �•c:.c •'iC, � P�`tl ••.; :•} : tivJ` !` 1{�/S� Ca Jt
LEGEND==
y P Q •:o, O
P" -R°° _�`� ���:� Subject Tract 4250
tic r 90 0�
1 \ '_ 4179 =_ ``PC% 2 Tract 4334
Tract 4527
Tract 6484
RD
T Market Data Ma
p
l
t
2.
N
I CORL A
kpr �
2 9
A,
.03 t
V
v u
1A OID
C DIL
y
U
,n r�
W
MEDAL L /ON
AVENUE lk
60
2 x O
AVENUE B�
�s
12 15�
8 �
it
Subject Tract 4250 COMPARABLES
U
W
1
� .
j
' - I
z�•�
c
i
z
j i
n �
1
i -,(C FADDEN
f
O ^ „
c ;
N
Z j' n
N
�o
D
MEDAL L /ON
AVENUE lk
60
2 x O
AVENUE B�
�s
12 15�
8 �
it
Subject Tract 4250 COMPARABLES
FIL
0
to
Item 1A: 15661 Myrtle Avenue
Backs to one story apartment buildings; sold 5/87 @ $142,000
�'��% �./,'„ ^^` : ""CYC .y � •-'' f ` t. jr- i
Item 1B: 15661 California Street
Adjoins other single family residences; sold 9/87 @ $147,000
7Q
N
,I
One bi��x removed from two-' -- ��V" lvryrtle Avenue
story apartment complexes; sold
:.�9190 @ $232 000
•s
TRACT 4250
Item 2B:
Abuts single family15701 Pacific Street
residences; sold 9/90 @ $215,500
z
0
t
� SAN ✓UAN
-K
�
S77PE2r
r
x
1
•rt1•
11�/
As
ifri
tb
Rol
-
o�
ti
. v
►�j
�
O
0
•' .1W
4A
f, ANDREWS
STREET t
t LANCC
vr- �
LEAR LANE
40.
V ,o •. �� y y y '
O I !.
r, a BRYAN AV£NUFR�
12 a
Tract 4334
LINLI
Liu
kirlf
r"A
Ilk
LINLI
Ilk
e . `v.-.,'.g� `\tib' P v'2� � •V.- .�1�:AwOjai----------------------
•`� . 'iii.. �� �� .
.r
TRACT 4334
Item 4A: 1292 Andrews Street
Backs to a two story apartment complex; sold 8/87 @ $162,900
R✓ `r o_. Vv�'
Item 4B: 13631 Fielding Drive
Adjoins other single family residences; sold 2/87 @ $15000
a
m
�y
2
JS
btiq�
Po
it
Cj
AVENUE' ! --o—
a
a � �xti• sus.• sf � I� o0
®a 40s _
i DEL AMO S AVEM.AF S A
41
•O' V fro • (X ] \ n
7 „s . `.�
g M AMO
N
7 n > O .•r
qtr
to
N� e)� � w vd so.
`C 4k 0
c0 C
�Q3 ' f11
Q Q 0
CA.4FAX
'rr I CAAfAX
� m �
OR/VE t oar v�
(� N O A— �® 0 0 w •
'o, 400 Or Oro°O �Uv4v 07.p
U ~ b.
01
C4
� N
' 1
$ U1
w"' 6rir Mrrew wn pc+pnw,yR Nva
Tract 4527
.e
\
S
i
R
V'
a
a � �xti• sus.• sf � I� o0
®a 40s _
i DEL AMO S AVEM.AF S A
41
•O' V fro • (X ] \ n
7 „s . `.�
g M AMO
N
7 n > O .•r
qtr
to
N� e)� � w vd so.
`C 4k 0
c0 C
�Q3 ' f11
Q Q 0
CA.4FAX
'rr I CAAfAX
� m �
OR/VE t oar v�
(� N O A— �® 0 0 w •
'o, 400 Or Oro°O �Uv4v 07.p
U ~ b.
01
C4
� N
' 1
$ U1
w"' 6rir Mrrew wn pc+pnw,yR Nva
Tract 4527
.e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
L.
1
TRACT 4527
Southwesterly view of the two story apartment building which abuts Item 5A-
TRACT 4527
wk
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
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
TRACT 4527
Item 6A: 1162 Drayton Way
Backs to a two story apartment complex "Brighton Terrace";
Sold 1/90 @ $229,000
Item 6B: 1161 Drayton Way
Backs to single family residences; sold 6/89 @ $220,000
.4A*
I
e
SIL V£RBROOK
w O
N
� N
o
N L
n
n
SANDBROOK S DRI VE
DR/V£
Tract 6484
a
2
�
I�
a,
�C
b
I
a�
dth
z
o
r
N
6 I�
C H
A
�R
O
I
e
SIL V£RBROOK
w O
N
� N
o
N L
n
n
SANDBROOK S DRI VE
DR/V£
Tract 6484
'rRacr 6484
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
71,
1
1
1
1
1
i
I I
Easterly view of the "Avalon Townhouse Apartments" which abut Item 7A on Copperfield
Drive.
i
1
1
1
1
TRACT 6484
' {�`� T rf'�i •�vt '�v ;� -�• k ... - t. �'r(7*n. a ,p
f
Item 7A: 1591 Copperfield Drive
Backs to two story apartments within 60+ feet; "Avalon Townhouse Apartments"
Sold 2/88 for $189,000
Item 7B: 1552 Copperfield Drive
Backs to orchard; sold 11/87 @ $175.000
CERTIFICATION AND RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE
11
' 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
1
1
1
1
7-7
L
1
71
1
1
u
11
Ji
1
Pj
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.
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
UPON WHICH APPRAISAL IS MADE
r
This report is made. expressly subject to the contingent and limiting conditions, factors and
I�
assumptions herewith:
I
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.
i
4. That no guarantee is made as to the correctness of estimates or opinions furnished
' by others which have been used in inal:ing 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.
J
1
I
EDUCATION
JOHN C. DONAHUE, MAI
QUALIFICATIONS & CLIENT REFERENCES
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
Currently Certified under the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Voluntary Continuing Education Program. _
International Right of Way Association
EMPLOYMENT
R W Agent, County r
/ g ty 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, Independent (Tustin), 1965-1969
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
l
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�l
1
1
1
1
F,'
1
INSTRUCTOR-LECTURER-SPEAKER/PANELIST
Instructor, Norwalk -La Mirada Adult School
Instructor, California State University Long Beach
Lecturer, Riverside City College
Speaker, National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials
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
Orange County Superior Courts
Riverside County Superior Courts
San Bernardino Superior Courts
Federal Bankruptcy Courts
Property Tax Appeals Boards
CLIENT REFERENCES
Public
Public Utilities Commission
Nevada District Court,
Clark County, Nevada
Department of Transportation, State of California (Caltrans & Legal)
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/Redevelopment Agencies
Alhambra
Brea
Commerce
Anaheim
Burbank
Compton
Azusa
Calapatria
Corona
Baldwin Park
Cathedral City
Costa Mesa
Brawley
Colton
Covina
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CLIE1\T REFERENCES (Cont.)
Public - 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
rAdohr
Farms
Loma Linda
Allstate Insurance
iBewley
Atlantic Richfield (ARCO)
Allen Cadillac
Monterey Park
Carley Group
Moreno Valley
Carl Karcher Ent.
Circle K
Norco
Dreyfus
Orange
EPM
t
Exxon
Pasadena
Far West Management
Perris
General Motors
Placentia
General Residential
Provo, Utah
Gulf Oil -USA
Rancho Cucamonga
Koll Company
Lewis Homes
Mii-dt 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
West Covina
Provo, Utah
Whittier
Rancho Cucamonga
,et al
Reason Buick
Santa Fe Industries
Santa Fe Railroad
Seven -Eleven Markets
Shell Oii
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
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CLIENT REFERENCES (Cont.)
Financial -Institutional
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
Attornevs-Professionals
Albert E. Webb & Assoc.
Allard, Shelton & O'Connor
Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble
& Mallow
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 Verde 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
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
talcings 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
Riverside
Azusa
Santa Ana
Corona
Santa Monica
Havnhorne
Yorba Linda
Pasadena
Private
Numerous, referrals upon request
EXHIBIT C
SHADE AND SHADOW ANALYSIS
Community Development Department
Principals
Rob Balen
Les Card
Jim Culver
George Kurilko
Carollvn Lobell
Bill Mayer
Ray Moe
Rob Schonholtz
Malcolm Sproul
Associates
Michael Cale
Lyn Calerdine
Connie Calica
Gary Dow
Kevin Fincher
Steve Granholm
--Richard Grassetti
ger Harris
.rt Homrighausen
Robert Hrubes
Gina Jurick
Benson Lee
Rob McCann
Sabrina Nicholls
Beth Padon
Harrigene Perry
Anthony Petros
Amy Rudell
Dean Williams
Jill Wilson
LSA.
February 15, 1991
LSA Associates, Inc.
Environmental Assc•:sme?7t
_17-ntsportation En;incc ing
Resource : i fa na�en7e71 t
Cwmnunify Planning
Environmental Restoration
To: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development
From: Rob Balen
Subject: Shade/Shadow Analysis for Pasadena Apartments
ISA Associates, Inc. has prepared a shade/shadow study for the Pasadena
Apartments in the City of Tustin. The following is a discussion of the find-
ings of the study. Exhibits are attached which illustrate these findings.
SHADE/SHADOW STUDY OVERVIEW
The study focussed on four single family residences fronting on Myrtle Street
directly east of the Pasadena Apartment site, apartment buildings north of the
site at 15622 Pasadena Avenue, apartment buildings south of the site at
15646 Pasadena and apartments due west of the site, across Pasadena Ave-
nue. To determine potential impacts, ISA identified the shadow coverage
associated with the summer and winter solstices, June 21 and December 21.
These two dates represent the maximum range of shadows and provide the
worst case scenario for determining shade/shadow impacts. For each sol-
stice, two evening time periods were analyzed (as depicted on Exhibits 1
through 5) to determine the extent of shadow coverage and progression of
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
0Z/15/91(C0T101 *,SHINGLET.MEM)
One Park Plaza,Suite 500 7elephone° 714 55.3-0666
Irvinc•, California 92714 F.icsimilc 714 553-8076
LSA Associates, 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 de�icted 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 "V 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(C0T101 %SHINGLET.MEM) 2
LSA Associates, Inc.
Project Impacts
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 Strekt
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.
02/15/'91(COT101=.SHINGLET.MEM) 3
LSA Associates, 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 parldng 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 effect
Gune 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
1
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
affects occupied single story apartments at 15622 Pasadena and a driveway
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(C0T101 %SHING=.MEM) 4
LSA Associates, Inc.
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, 156212 15631 and 15461 Myrtle Street.
02/15/91(COT101,.SHINGLEr.MEM) 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)
- Angle of sun in relation to north/south
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 #2). 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).
N�
.uw1.Kw
.OL.TICE
_'ZOO, ON wNTCw
.oLencc
For the northern hemisphere, a shadow will always be longest on
Dec. 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).
SUN ANGLE /N
ELEVATION
ll a�
c\ r
B I BUILDING
ORIENTATION
x �\ I
C
GUN
ANGLE
IN PLAN
S
TRUE SOUTH
Diagram #2
,o. a ,o' -
Diagram #1
'
� 11
I �II
I II
Diagram #3
MYRTLE AVE �D E' Q W
Z�Z
w W� �)
�p N
11C V) N h l Q
r^
1
Q
♦1 ♦ �� W
j % 1 C/)
1 ♦
1 ♦ 1
i ♦ 1 ♦ r^
t � C/) F•�•� w
lo
Ile
i ♦ �/ J
1 :❖:: ' Ls .; Z�
1 , llti l .•.
l :• ❖:❖::'', N
u
1 =
' _ Q
• := N
♦ xxv
-
♦ :%:
♦me. ovo
3
j::;;:;: •r;:•• • C
L
• .. cc U
Vii:'
v
Q Im Z
cn
J
1
,f
PASADENA AVE
« r _.
M
e---I
MYRTLE AVE _ �D '
w WSW
H�
HOZ
cn
Z�
1 Q
44.
'
i `+ C/)
, % ►- A
i % 1
C/)�W
a C/)
1 ,
{ 9 mai a+
r�r
U
I N
i
— I I
PASADENA AVE
z �=
MYRTLE AVE
I _
PASADENA AV
� I �
►�"' N
��DU
4E, W
WcnQ
.OZ
Q�
cn
4-4W
W �
QW�
�QC7
C,f)��
a O
AP P RA I SAL R E P OR 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
The Taylor Co., Realtors
2139 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
Caryl J. Goldstone
Certification #6204
Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates
310 N. Crescent Drive, #305
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Appraisal No. 910310
THE TAYLOR CO., REA. jRS
Appraisal Division
2139 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: 213/475-2529
Fax: 213/475-4469
i
March 11, 1991
Mr. Feridoun-Rezai
203 Trojan Street
Anaheim, CA 92804
CARYL J. GOLL. JNE & 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
of'
property owned by Lakbnda Mitchell, 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 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
It
Mitchell Appraisal
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 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.
(d). payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars
or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto;
and
Mitchell Appraisal
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 151, Pages
15 and 16 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the
County Recorder, County of Orange, State of California. ~"
(Also identified as Qrange 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.
Mitchell Appraisal
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
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.
Mitchell Appraisal
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
It
feet to the improvements, then level to the rear yard with drainage
Mitchell Appraisal
15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA
March 11, 1991
Page 6
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:
n
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
living area. The building is one story, frame and stucco, .
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 Appraisal
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 following
h
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.
7,2701 $215, 500 9-90
$151.23/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
Mitchell Appraisal
15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA
March 11, 1991
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 improvements, 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 Appraisal
15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA
March 11, 1991
Page 9
Exterior Wall: Stucco
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Plumbing Fixture, Rough -In....
1
310.00
310
Fireplace Single ..............
1
2425.00
2,425
Subtotal Basic Structure Cost..
-----------------------------------------------
1,400
52.13
72,980
Gara ge :
Attached Garage ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------
480
15.97
7- 666
Extras:
Site Improvements...... .
4,000
.Garage conversion to liv area.
5,000
Metal storage shed............
300
Storage shed -slab..... ......
300
New tile, baths & kitchen.....
5,015
Subtotal........... -••••••••••
---------------------------------------------
14,615
Replacement Cost New...........
--------------------------------------------
1,400
68.04
95,261
Less Depreciation:
Physical and Functional.......
<13.5%>
<12,860>
Depreciated Cost ...............
--------------------------------------------
1,400
58.86
82,401
Miscellaneous:
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.
� 1
Mitchell Appraisal
15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA
March 111 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
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 southerly
of the said apartment building, abutting on the property line of
the Subject Property and adjoining properties, are car port type
Mitchell Appraisal
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 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.
Mitchell Appraisal
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,
W� �FreSj;�4
Taylor
Pr sident, The T or Co.
Caryl J. Go stone
Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates
FWT:ab:\wp\aprsl\mitchell.tus
Mitchell Appraisal
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 Appraisal
15621 Myrtle Avenue,
March 11, 1991
Page 14
Tustin, CA
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted
in this Report:
1. That the Appraiser has no present or contemplated future
interest 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 owne�,s or occupants of the properties in the
vicinity of the property appraised.
3. That the Appraiser has personally inspected the
property,
inside and outside, and has made an exterior inspectionof ball
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
Appraiser whose signature a Prepared by the
appears on the A
change of any item in the A Appraisal Report. No
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
Fred W. aylor
Caryl Goldstone
Mitchell Appraisal
15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, CA
March 11, 1991
Page 15
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 Appraisal
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 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
Fr d .Taylor
Caryl J. G ldstone
Mitchell Appraisal
15621 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, 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.
Mitchell Appraisal
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 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
National Association of
Lincoln Graduate Center
Lincoln Graduate Center
Lincoln Graduate Center
Lincoln Graduate Center
Lincoln Graduate Center
Lincoln Graduate Center
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:
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
m
4
.r N M
P.
W
H
a
0
w
r'
Hct
.°; -4
(a
w�,/
it
E E E
W
0 0 0
COIt .0 t
M EXH 1 B IT g
' Cil' 8 ( Subject Property )
0
�W
2
�I Z�
3
. J
Std �
e '
9�
l
#.700 vd -7/Y
9
I]
W
U
v S
u U
r
0 _
N
an
W u
N
W
0
Z
EXH=BIT 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, 8-15.53)
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 " ti
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 V3 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
1
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
EXHIBT'r C
TUSTIN CITY CODE 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
(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 "M"
District and when properly landscaped, subject to use permit.
(Ord. No. 157, Sec. 4.2)
REV: 1-88
LU -2-10
\� PD XHIBIT D t A ,fn� ��•
k School Locations)
% 'r • _ •\` O Jif ri I-
P&I c4-,rER PM P ° r.i R 3
/ .� ` � � � � G(�`♦ `oft `"
i (C2PC 2 P G�< G
R 3lis
` R3 \
' C 0 1i
1500. R 4 C 2 C,-, ,'C "+1 9.�
: PD 9 \ ,C ' cy P"
W ,1
OJ , , r ' 1'O may' , 'S'0 " / • .
W, _aW�aaN 1 r ` , v< .
MHP A C`�
R3
+1750 c c� oAof— 9`u� cC' / I� C? • `\ A�
R 3 IZ a �R 3° •oP�i° . �� 1
W .J
A CV
Cr
lf50
1
' Q.
RI i
Al
R 3i" i ;+ ',Q '�, C
_ L , - L o 400 \ , ;� ..Q� \ c
c. 1;,, N S 9 O / '' 7 , vas /;
r /.
I -T IT r \ \ `-
� �
R3 � •, C-1
i r90
r
R3 R3
SO
C%05,
0
C 00
R 3 A�/ is `• p/,s�4.4�9\`"�r/,Q?
/
R 31� , G '�:��• �) �. Y�J ;4r, 4 'anti` �e � '• �1;, �
3A / nt 4 %.. �� ,p O
77 / '� A \ 600 A
SO a 4 V. r-
f l
J
/L O ' / t `rte J/ `'• `` fs ,:iPi o0 Q ,� �,, .
100
? �0 C ('� 15 /`� ,C 1 / ^7/,`\• 9'iOt 3'i'! \, P��� ` e
P
190 l`P^~t�/, r''• '• '`•,O* i , O� 'tor/ Q �i��v C\\' �
l
A _6 1.
/ \ ^t A �. .
! �0 �. A_ • c^.,1 LvL moo. - ,.� (S ��y•• Y � / •Qj�,�"
000Q41e:
, r1 '7 •• FS` • ''''/' 1. ��, c o P<3'
/O0O \
2 � /
O,p
+ CO40
`1
ro
.�. � EXHIBIT E
.g ( Comparable
Properties)
0
. W
u
v W O
HQO
0
• W V
do tj
— a .?nN-7A v
F-2
N300 d.� �W
A At
^• ti ti � � e .tt
IA
Q j a O h
O «° u ?
� -7nN-7,1 d
r. t
r -
°t at
r� V
• b
NO/77V03H 4
,. A0
el V7800
AL .°'i
CD c,
W
O
z
10
h
O
h
2
v
Valuation section . UNIFO'
I ESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL 10RT
Purpose of A (aisal is to estimate Market Wkle as d,
Filo No.
i the Certification b Statement
1lrW sates of rxof>ertres most s„n,wr arK7
J Wl"Irktiit• reflectuvj marmot reactrOn to those demS of b4itwfrcanl var,als in bt.-tw ren Itle subject wia conpag corrsrderecr eb'.11 u� the n►:xhut anal sis. Tlw duyc;r llrun u
w. or rrxxe tavuraWc than, tlw Subject ,paraulr y r s a UWI:u
re aopurty, a mows 1-1 aUusuM:nf
BUILDING SKETCH (SHOW GROSS LIVING AREA ABIX
of LimitingConditions.
.DE)
SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO t
a wr Frock se mm; u f � &A". allow �Y � k�or carcu.aw.s
CSTIMATED REPRODUu. _.� COST- NEW- OF IMPROVEMENTS:
.pp,h cunumua .n trws apace
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 4 $
15621 Myrtle - 15701 P'aci-'fic St.
ve.Tustin Ca.Tustin
_. E X H f B I T
Sq. Ft. kv $
F Extras
COMPARABLE NO.3
15682 Myrtle Ave.
URAR FORM)
_
L
Special Energy Efficient Items
=
Porches, Patios. etc.
$0.00across
$? 15 500
.
Garage/Carpo( Sq. Ft. (i $
f rom_subject
- -
Total Estimated Cost New
=
$
_ -
Physical Functional External
Less
.
_ Depreciation$
' .
Depreciated Wlue of ovements
Impr ..... ....
_ $ —""
'
Site Imp. "as is" (driveway, landscaping, etc.)
= $
'
•
ESTIMATED SITE VALUE ................._......
(1( leasehold, show only leasehold value.)
�-
(Not Required by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae)
INDICATED VALUE it COST APPROACH ..........
_
Dors property conform to applicable HUD/VA property standards? Yes Consifuctlon Vlfdfranly Yes No
0 Q No Name
DF.SCRIPTIUI� , I -Is nawst„,er,t
h No, explain:
of Warranty Program
i
Mrranty Coverage Expires
wWJdrsrgrlr;d has
recrled three recent
1lrW sates of rxof>ertres most s„n,wr arK7
J Wl"Irktiit• reflectuvj marmot reactrOn to those demS of b4itwfrcanl var,als in bt.-tw ren Itle subject wia conpag corrsrderecr eb'.11 u� the n►:xhut anal sis. Tlw duyc;r llrun u
w. or rrxxe tavuraWc than, tlw Subject ,paraulr y r s a UWI:u
re aopurty, a mows 1-1 aUusuM:nf
ej,ly i
is made, thus rerluci fru, rnd,caluU value ort�sulf Cl. if a urtilw�nt term a rm, I,,j jAe srs iu" 10.
i i,r loss favorapk, than, If�e Subject property. a plus r *1 adfusimentrIs m.rt]e, thus increasing file- u�rcaled value of the rp�ral,le is inlurrur to,
ITEM
SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO t
supfecl.
COMPARABLE N0.2
Address
15621 Myrtle - 15701 P'aci-'fic St.
ve.Tustin Ca.Tustin
15622 Mytrle Ave.
COMPARABLE NO.3
15682 Myrtle Ave.
Pfoximity to Subject
Ca.
blocks from subject
Tustin Ca.
Tustin, Ca.
Sales Price
$0.00across
$? 15 500
across from subject
f rom_subject
Price/Gross Liv. Area
SO.00 R] $ 15 3.9 3
S 232, 000
�m�im nn�OS, 000
1B1JlllllllJll--
Ja� �-Source
_
.Amer. Title . Amer_i_can Title Co. -
$130.70 p 115.49
ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION • l ►S �uti,,,urrrnt
ata Quik RE Data, Inc Same
DESCRIPTION
or Financing
___
193, 950 FHA
$208, 750--- • I -I$ Aal�stnwfa
DF.SCRIPTIUI� , I -Is nawst„,er,t
,uncessions
0
conventional
907
0
$184 500 :90%
)are of Sale/Time
-
NM A
09-24-90 0
conventional loan
conventional_ loan
0
:ucatlon
v. Neiborhoo e ual 0
_09-26-90 0
09-05-90 '
0
SiIe/view
vera e 0
e ua 1
Corner +142A/;
—- )- (16 8 8)
a ua 1
0
)esign at,d Appeal;
app_0
equal
-
e ua 1
0
Duality of Construction 0
:age
e ua 1 0
equal .
0
r
Yea s
0
equal
0
�oiidition
- —Avirm
'
9 years
0
kt,uve Grade
iuofn Count
lura . Barons Gans iutul , aims . Batiks
—� —
A
>ot°� • Barns . flans
Aver,La.r---�.
local
0
7 3 2 7 3
. fkfrrns , Gains
_
gross Living Area
1400 Se. Ft. ____-_400 Sq. ft. ; 0
Sq�Ft. ; (28125)
8 S 2
1
0
,asement & Finished
Built up roc
- -
1775 Sq.FI. ;
luoras Below Grade
roof/ None Composition 0
Composition :
P 0
Composition '
unctional Utility
Average e ual ' 0
'
'
0
v:+ring/Cooling
Avera e e ual 0
equal 0
equal
0
:araue/Carport
C nverted F. R -
Att. 2 car: -(5000)
a cov, ----.------
equal 0
A pears Conv.; 0
equal
'
p
arches, Patio,
pav •-
concrete oats
;
Att .-2 car ; - 5000
x,Is c1c
',ecwl Enefyy
d fence shgLd________Doo 1 X11000
A rox e ual
-P�—� a_ 0
rox a ual
�------ �-'
o
'Iiacnt Items
None equal 0
equal 0
�
-
Ipl�ce(s)
fireplace equal 0
---;
----
equal
_.eq—_ual—.
p
Ter (e.g. kitchen
femudeGng)
updated equal 0
-equal -
--
-- ---- -:- ----
0-
..-_ _
equal 0
equal
0
Value
�.._ ,:cr
I
j t
���
in
III
16,001
111r
IMI �������II(lr
--
- ---
Ifimlrrfnrn�r'rmn�,�r►t- -- --
uurnunl5 oil Sales cullipalvaln:
GICATEO VALUE It SALES COMPARISON APPRnACM
$-19 9 , 500 Iflllllll(Illlll(llllllllll1111$ 20-1.875 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 171, 875
'�fi: :. �w•.r•-ruY,... -.-•-•.•""�-aw
.. -.
t„�.;��..it�!�c.�,,,�+.kY�+Y.I�i�'7L�i•�r�'- 7��"y�� �.,
... ._ - .. ..
_ � A.�
_' _.T"�i��,�� �,�„"-11nF+�'T`j ��-_ori TMdop
r
'LI
'�fi: :. �w•.r•-ruY,... -.-•-•.•""�-aw
.. -.
t„�.;��..it�!�c.�,,,�+.kY�+Y.I�i�'7L�i•�r�'- 7��"y�� �.,
... ._ - .. ..
_ � A.�
_' _.T"�i��,�� �,�„"-11nF+�'T`j ��-_ori TMdop
71,
.p ��iy� '��j�� i}�Y[z �4 �'.i tA� '�' a, s .,y.� �.. .,.s �, i SYv �.. .A�- ,�• t•. i:•
�• � .r•�`+c 1( ,.ry �, 7r f4k � t� t v� a C✓V?r �iC •6��
Mitchell
Appraisal, 15621 Myr' Avenue
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
Subject Property, patio view
PHOTOGRA - EXHIBIT G
. Photo #910212
Subject Property, view from rear yard
Photo # 910223
Mitchell
Appraisal, 15621 M'-V.Lle avenue
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
PHOTOGh,�.?HS - EXHIBIT G
Subject Property, front street view-,
Photo #910305
Subject Property, front view Photo # 910323
Mitchell 1
Appraisal, 15621 Myi 3 Avenue PHOTOGR. .S - EXHIBIT G
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
15642 Pasadena Ave., rear yard, south.
lox, �
T
-
�' i t bra
15642 Pasadena Ave., rear south wing
Photo #910207•
Photo 4910208
s- 1
' - - _ - _ � - �, �+iiKb'11�-ti�,1 v�+c.s�tri �•: -':•..
r-.
+.h"t' �" ,r .� � ft .v` ��t sem: �* ���! ` ��'•!r� ��"
.
rf ~.'�_?[�c
J" Mme,.
,�•���y'� �
-
.: � .� �.. 1
4 -lJ• _
q =_ c 5a��'4 ^s'� i.�'C�'�j1ty'�•y�►a..a..,,
1yv
' • %may ��c:
_ ._ � _ r w ♦
� Vii' �:.,y:, �'� - _ _-ti, �•�� t.
_l
_
Mitchell
Appraisal, 15621 MN -Le Avenue
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
:l
PHGTOG, HS - EXHIBIT G
15701 Pacific Ave., Comparable #1
Photo #910312•
�,, __ _ - ,_�..-�=-•_'; �:::.:.:...-:._�:..::.�:::_•=.=fir_
_ _ - - - w yam.-. �.r.,�^.j...��;'er ^���+w'."�•�.
15622 Myrtle Ave., Comparable #2
Photo #910313
Mitchell
Appraisal, 15621 M
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
le Avenue PHOTO( 'HS - EXHIBIT G
Olt
_.. - ..
" _.. .- .... �. ,r.•_ � `�G _io.�Ji►r�..s{�Y. .sem vy; i-�; "� t_•f�"aT�' +arra -
15682 Myrtle Ave., Comparable 43' Photo 4910314
AP P RA =SAL R E P OR T
of
LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS
Located at
15631 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., RE `�RS
Appraisal Division
2139 Westwood BouL rd
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: 213/475-2529
Fax: 213/475-4469
March 11, 1991
CARYL J. GO!"'NONE & ASSOCIATES
ppraisal Service
310 N. C. ,cent 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 Avenin 2ustin, CA
March 11, 1991
Page 2
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.
(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.
Arnold Appraisal
15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tus, 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 Frgeway) 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.
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, Tust 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:
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.
;: *gold Appraisal
.5631 Myrtle Avenue, Tust
..arch 11 , 1991
.age 5
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
CA
l
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 Iand). 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
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
pp al
15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tusk CA
March 11, 1991
page 6
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, 51-
6' wood fencing -on the north, south and westerly property lines,
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
i
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
i
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 following
properties have been used to establish current market value for the
land and improvements of the subject property.
Arnold Appraisal
15631 Myrtle Avenub ustin, CA
March 11, 1991
Page 7
SOLD RESIDENTIALC_OMPARABLES
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.
7,2701
$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
;xnold Appraisal
'5631 Myrtle Avenue, Tust CA
uarch 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.........
Including 8 Plumbing Fixtures
1,568
36.06
56,542
Composition Shingle...........
Warmed and Cooled Air.........
1,568
1.19
1,866
Quarry Tile ...................
1,568
3.56
5,582
Floor Cover.
157
7.99
1,254
............... ��
Wood subfloor.
1,568
1.91
3,000
_
Appliance Allowance. ..
1,568
5.33
8,357
Plumbing Fixture, Rough-In....
1,568
1.47
2,305
Fireplace Single
1
310.00
310
..............
Subtotal Basic Structure Cost..
1
1- 568
2425.00
2,425
---------------------------------------------------_-------
5207
81,641
Arnold Appraisal
15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tusi CA
March 11, 1991
page 9
Garage:
Attached Garage ............... 480 15.81 7,589
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Extras:
Site Improvements ............. 5,000
Swimming pool ................. 11,000
Pool decking....... ... .... 4,000
Metal storage shed............ 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l ------------------------------
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.
Arnold Appraisal
15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tust, ,'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':
building is approximately 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 the 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, Tus, 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
i
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: $209,124
Cost Approach to Value: (Land and Improvements) $196,127
Economic Approach to Value: $ NA
Arnold Appraisal
15631 Myrtle Avenue
March 111 1991
Page 12
Tustin, CA
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 NINETY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($199,500)
AS OF MARCH, 1991:
TWO HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($202,500)
Respectfully submitted,
W
Fre�lo
y r
Prqfsident, The Tay or Co.
Caryl J. Go stone
Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates
FWT:ab:\wp\aprsl\arnold.tus
Arnold
Appraisal
15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tust� 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
Arnold Appraisal
PPraisal
15631 1yrtle�91venue, Tusti, CA
March
page 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,
March 11, 1991
page 15
Tust- , 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 completion,
repairs, or alterations, the Appraisal Report and value conclusion
are contingent upon compl6tion of the improvements in a workmanlike
manner.
Dated: March 11, 1991
Fred. Taylor Caryl K.G one
Arnold Appraisal
15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tusti._, 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
interest 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 W. ayloF Caryl Goldstone
Arnold Appraisal
15631 Myrtle'Avenue, Tust. 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
15631 Myrtle Avenue, Tust, 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 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 #305, 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
h
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
I Owner, Caryl J. Goldstone & Associates
Sales Manager, Commercial Real Estate -Schreiber Realty
i Instructor, Appraisal Courses, Lincoln Graduate Center
Licensed California Real Estate Broker
CLIENT BASE:
International, National, Corporate and Local
References available upon request.
j March 11, 1991
dvw v 33S
F��
C
>4
F
N fh
0
a
d fy fu
H F
cU c, r,
M U
►. w l4
b.-4 w
cC cc fC
X a
EQ.
E E
=D
0 0 0
C
E
�? EXHIBIT g
0 8 ( Subject Property)
3nN3A d
4tF �
0
L
G
' k
O
r �
14
A01
�
Q
O ,
�
Al 001
A01
O
O
�
J
O
O '
3
41 001
•o
o•
a
-
t
O •
•
.•1I�ov1
o
=
.
w
..
O
.14 001
O
n
•
O
o
•�
'
.1, 001
•
�
O
h
... •001
ti
•S,'ool .�
h
N3OO d3.7H
q
El
W
u
� z
u v
N t •�'
O
r_
w k z
H
N
w
O
z
V
r �
A01
A01
Q
O ,
�
v
• m
O
2
O
O '
3
•o
o•
a
-
N3OO d3.7H
q
El
W
u
� z
u v
N t •�'
O
r_
w k z
H
N
w
O
z
TT ISTIN CITY CODE
EXH=B=T C
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 C,ommission 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 16 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 % 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
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. 334, 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.
(fl 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
EXH=B=T C �
TUSTIN CITY CODE 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
(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 feats 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: 1-88
LU -2-10
t/ PD "A
� O
r (School Locations)
�J P&i PM �= p - •i ^ J ��` C? r10 / tiO ;7#`
< t
C 2 P .0 2 P
3 QG
R % 9
R4 c �.:
1500. � C 2 �'�\`' c+4,
00
C> caa; As C j �l ,
r
i MHP - A -
R 3 C„)
1750 C11141 0 A.,
' 1
N 1 50 p� /O l G `'r, �� 9� �i
cc
-%
,i C
1p
o I Ia, ;o G
o E PO ; 9/
` ��
LU
•rznnta UD SZ \` " /�' `t1 nQ O� JC, C.
�I7000 fN C 1 j90 9 j� ,/ I 4Z -
R3
,
R 3 00 Q.
J R 3 R 3
�1CK
R 3 - ! 'mss \
O
00
'`-' z R 3 A / r /.��� ei.��\q /Ig• t' J� �` 9
R3JD f
r y��
tu..
ZTO
.SuAGc a� 000 O �
9
( 94
M '09
� ASO �'" � 'Q4 ` ' '• f � � �.
a OO A!
\ .
t
re
l oO / OOO \ '' 9P. /P' d', `'U� / /�cj o° r•�' \� >, P 'L .
' O / � O,►• yl rte( J `P� ��, , %,yy `�- �` `, ��
DO `\ 1 i /, • / P.. 7�,° t�f .a-�� rF� 7,9C,�� a -\ • yi:. ' �•.
.70
c
000
f y �-�440
yra• X00 �/ \ ,� ..
co
M EXHIBIT !
N
o $ ( Comparable Properties )
� W
• '� S�
F 8 3nN3A d
OS .
`�` Af'fN h f0'll h
dl'
z
• e
AL `
` •� `ll
N � �
0
ac
�
0W
z
H
h
•( .o V
N300 d.� �W
s
ff�
AL
'si
W
f--
0
z
C
ca
Z
V
W
u
z
4
u O
N � �
0
ac
�
0W
z
H
h
•( .o V
N300 d.� �W
s
W
f--
0
z
C
ca
Z
V
Valuation Section UNIFO' '11ESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL l TORT File No.
run sr ut Mptaisai is to estimate Market Value as d n the Certification b Statement
of Limitinq Conditions
BUILDING SKETCH (SHOW GROSS LIVING AREA ABO ADE)
ESTIMATED REPRODW...,rr COST -NEW -OF IMPROVEMENTS:
M kx Food" Mac w Fenno Mir. show orgy solAm 1 k'04 carcutn.ora Graf cosi approach communis on tna apace.
Dwells%
Sq. Ft. 0 $ _ $
Sq. Ft. 0 $
_
E X H I B I T F
Extras =
WRAR FORM)
—
Special Energy Efficient Items =
-
-
Porches, Patios, etc.
Garage/Carport Sq. Ft. o $
Total Estimated Cost New ...................... _ $
- -
Physical Functional External
_
Less
Depreciation In $
Depreciated Value of Improvements ......... . _ $
Site Imp. "as is" (driveway, landscaping, etc.) _ $
ESTIMATED SITE VALUE ........................ _ $
-
(II leasehold. show only leasehold value.) "
INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH ...........
(Not Required by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae)
Construction Warranty LJ Yes No
Does property conform
to applicable HUD/VA property standards? Q Yes Q
No
Name of Warranty Program
If No, explain:
Warranty Coverage Expires
the unddrsj(jned has recited three recent sates ol properlws most s,nHlar and proximate to subject and has catsrdered these ut the n►arkut analysis. Tlx: ddscrpNkxt utck,des a "W
iolustnwnt, ruliectrrw market reaction to those items of "jrklrcant variation twtween Ilia subject and conparat" propertk:a. N a significant dem m Itse cw4mrable properly is twperror
to, or rrwre favorable than, this suujeet property• a mows (-i adjustment is made, thus reducing 1116 kkLcalua vakw or subject• r1 a sigrut"nl Nem in tlw curtrparawe is aticxitx
to,
of less lavoraow than, the subject property, a plus 1*1 adjuslment is made. thus increasing It* indicated value of the subjecl.
ITEM
SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1
COMPARABLE NO. 2
COMPARABLE NO. 3
15621 Myrtle - 15701 P'ac f St.
15622 Mytrle Ave.
15682 Myrtle Ave.
Address
ve.Tustin Ca.Tustin, Ca.
Tustin Ca.
Tustin, Ca.
Proximity to Subject
2 blocks from subject
across from subject
across from subject
Sales Price
10.00 $215 500
$0.00 !7� $153.93 0
S 232,00019
$130. 70 CZl
Quik, RE Data, Inc
�O5 , 000
$ 115.49 011111
Same
Place/Gross Liv. Area
^�ou(ce
.Amer.Title .American Title Co.- Eata
ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION • i-1 S Anjuslmem
DESCRIPTION • (-► I Adjustment
DESCRIPTION . (-)s Atljustajcrn
Sales or Financing1$193,950
FHA
11�1111lilconventional:
$208,750 9070
$184 , 500 ;907
_uncessions
0
conventional loan
conventional loan
0
)ate of Sale/Time
r
N/A 09-24-90 0
09-26-90 0
09-05-90
0
-ocation
v. Neiborhoo e ual 0
Corner+142;'I.) - (i688)
e ua1
0
3lte%view
Average equal 0
equal 0
equal
0
Jesign and Appeal
Averaee qual 0
equal 0
equal
0
)uality of Construction
-- -
0
equal
0
yparsyears
0
29 ears
0
:undition
gr— ��—r--r
%buve Grade
lulal . etlum
ns r earns Total r ean . Dallis
total , (fauna . !laths
total Btluns r Baths
uom Count
7 3 2 7 3 2
9 2
8 - 5�2
0
iross Living Area
1400 Sq. Ft. 1400 Sq. Ft. 0
1715 Sq. Ft.. (28125)
1775 Sq. Ft.
asement & Finished
uums Below Grade
Built up rock—
roof/ None Composition 0
Composition ; 0
Composition
0
urlellonal Utility
Average equal 0
equal 0
equal
0
eatlrlrJ/Cooling
Average equal 0
equal 0
equal
0
arage/Carport
CQnve-ted F . R Att . 2 car: -(5000)
aI um,
A ears Conv .: 0
Att . 2 car ; - 5000
.,rches, Patio•
c v, pav
concrete patio,
"'I'• sic.
d fence.shgd pool 11000
Approx equal 0
Approx equal
0
,rcial Erlt;ryy
lictcnt Items
None equal 0
equal ; 0
,
equal
0
..........
ClAdCr(s)
fireplace equal 0
equal ^ D
equals
0-
updated equal 0
Itrr (e.g. kitchen
equal. 0
equal
0
;uip., tr,tludt Gng)
(total)
+ -•S 16,000
t-
. v:tlut;
--
W11111illi
Suulect
$ 199 500
U11s203,87 5
S 171,875
mill ills oil Sales Cur,tparlsun:
OICATEO VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 41 1
Arnold
Appraisal, 15631 Myr
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
Avenue PHOTOGR, - EXHIBIT G
Subject Property, front view
Photo #910222
Subject Property, front view
Photo # 910220
Arnold l
Appraisal, 15631 Myrt \venue
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
PHOTOGRAI
EXHIBIT G
Subject Property, rear view
Photo #910224
Subject Property, rear view
Photo #910202
Arn-old
Appraisal, 15631 1
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
le Avenue
PHOTO 'HS - EXHIBIT G
Subject Property, front street view
Photo 4910305
Subject Property, front view
Photo #910323
Arnold 111
Appraisal 15631 Myrt %venue PHOTOGRAF - EXHIBIT G
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
15642 Pasadena Ave., rear yard, south
rs-
Photo #910207
15642 Pasadena Ave., rear south wing Photo #910208
ti
^yy. J'�� 4 `fit ; - A� • s�• � .j'. �_47.TaOX
TIN
-'•R� y""'�s� w t 77
y.•� ♦ _ -. J f t
' --
T
��r��. tet' �•c.
.k"VpZ+'w.=�yyj,
Fel
.�
t.
•f
_ 4
- — - -
- E.
1
t
Arnold
Appraisal, 15631 Myrt-La Avenue
Tustin, CA. 92680
March 11, 1991
PHOTOGRAr,iS - EXHIBIT G
15701 Pacific Ave., Comparable 41
Photo #910312
15622 Myrtle Ave., Comparable #2
Photo 4910313
PH
0TOGRRPHS - F- '.1gIT ,
-hold M rtle Ave,
92680
,praisal, 15631 Y
astin, CR.
arch 11, 1991
Photo #910314
Comparable 43
15682 MY
rtle R ''