HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-1192 - Property appraisal, Civic Center site1
i
1
1
A P P R A I S A L R E P O R T
covering
SITE A: Existing City Hall Complex
SITE C: 19.34 Acres in Newport Center
'- 13 -6
w ' &Ad
L � �.
--
DATE OF VALUE: SUBMITTED T0: O-W
January 1, 1969 City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
DATED AT: SUBMITTED BY:
Anaheim, California Cedric A. White, Jr., M.A.I.
January 10, 1969 531 South Harbor Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal . . . . . . . . 1
' Purpose of the Appraisal. . . . . ; . . . 2
Premise Section 3
Summary of Data and Conclusions . . . . . 5
' Introduction Map. . . . . . . . . 6
Introduction. 7
Site A Aerial Photograph. . . . . . . . . 11
Site A Property Description . . . . . . . 13
' Site A Plot Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Site A Zoning Map 19
Site A Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
' Site A Market Data Map. . . . . . . . . . 29
Site A Market Data, 42
Site C Aerial Photograph. . . . . . . . . 55
' Site C Property Description . . . . . . . 58
Site C Map of Surroundings. 57
Site C Plot Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Site C Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 71
t Site C Market Data Map. . . . . . . . . . 72
Site C Market Data, 81
Qualifications of Appraiser . . . . . . . 89
1
1
1
F1
r
CEDRIC A. WHITE, JR., M.A.I.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISER
531 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 • (714) 774 -0510
January 10, 1969
City Council
' City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
' Gentlemen:
RE: Site A: Existing City Hall Complex
Site C: 19.34 Acres in Newport Center
In accordance with your request, I have completed an investigation
of the above mentioned properties. The purpose of my investigation
and subsequent analysis has been to make an estimate of-the fair
market value of Site A, the existing City Hall property, and Site C,
the Irvine land in Newport Center.
Date of Value:
January 1, 1969
' After careful inspection of the properties and analysis of matters
pertinent to value, I have arrived at the following conclusions:
' } q'1 `, ` ✓ FAIR MARKET VALUE
Site A: $675,000
' C Or 158,123 Land @ $4.43/1 = $700,485, say $700-,000
Improvements - 25-0000
$675"bud
Site C: '::$2,000-,000-
' Or 842,450 @ $2.375/ _ $2,000,819, say $2,000,000
' Your attention is invited to the following report wherein is set
forth factual data, descriptions, computations, photographs and
discussions from which, in part, the value conclusions were derived
' This is to certify that the undersigned has no personal interest
in the subject properties, nor have I in the past; that the fee for
the appraisal is in no way contingent upon the value conclusions
derived; and that the appraisal has been made in conformity with
the Rules of Professional Ethics of the American Institute of Real
Estate Appraisers, of which I am a member.
' Respectfully submitted,
'Cedric A. White, Jr., M.A.I.
CAW:mt
J
' PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
'
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the
fair market value of two separate properties:
Site A: A 3.63 net acre parcel containing
.the existing City Hall complex.
'
Site C: A 19.34 net acre site in Newport
Center.
'
Date of Value: January 1, 1969
Fair market value is defined as the highest price
estimated in terms of money which a property will
'
bring if exposed for sale in the open market with
a reasonable time allowed in which to find a pur-
chaser buying with knowledge of all the uses and
purposes to which it is best adapted and for which
it is capable of being used. (Supreme Court of
California)
This definition further assumes that neither the
buyer nor the seller are under any undue compulsion
'
to sell or buy.
In addition, "in terms of money" is construed as
cash equivalent. In other words, it is the amount
'
a seller would c sh out. This reflects the fact
that the face amount of some trust deed encumbrances
would be discounted if exposed for sale in the open
market.
1 2
F1
PREMCSE SECTION
' This appraisal has been based upon the following assumptions and
limiting conditions:
1. That I assume no responsibility for matters-legal in character,
' nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to
be good. All existing liens, easements, leases, bonds and other
encumbrances have been disregarded unless otherwise specified.
' The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership
and competent management.
2. That while information was obtained from sources felt to be
' reliable, it is in no sense guaranteed.
3. That title reports have not been reviewed and that exceptions to
. title, if any, will not measurably affect the evaluation.
4. That as regards Site A:
' a. The property is evaluated as is, for a cash transaction,
and assuming that the length of-escrow will permit neces-
sary rezoning and /or use permit, and variance to accommo-
date the highest and best use.
b. That soil conditions are subject to detailed testing.
' c. That the north and northeast portions of subject, while
partly in present use for public driveway- road -alley
tpurposes, have no prescriptive rights thereon.
d. That the net area of 3.63 acres has been determined by
' Ben Nolan, City Engineer, and reflects the following:
Newport Boulevard -- 34' required dedication
to widen existing 90' R /W.
' 32nd Street -- 90' existing R/W
Alley -- 20' R/W to east of subject
5. That as regards Site C:
' a. The site is evaluated as 19.34 net acres of land with
streets, utilities and drainage in and paid for, but
with the existing topography. And, that the evaluation
' is subject to review of final plans for the streets,
utilities and drainage.
1 3
PREMISE SECTION (Continued)
' b. A drainage easement 20' x 300' will overlap the northerly
portion of the frontage along Newport Center Drive.
' c. That soil conditions are subject to detailed testing.
1
11
1
4
SUMMARY OF
DATA AND CONCLUSIONS
Item
Fair Market Value
Unit Price of Land
Square Footage
Acreage
(This is net area, or
excluding all perim-
eter street dedica-
tion)
Zoning
Improvements
5
Site A Site C
$675,000 $2,000,000
$4.43/ $2.375/0
$192,840 /acre $103,410 /acre
158,123fi 842,4506
3.63 Acres 19.34 Acres
C -1 -H C -N -H & C -O -H
City Hall Complex; Vacant land, but
fair market value seller to install
reflects a pen- streets and
alty of $25,000 utilities and
for removal of drainage
the permanent
structures
' 1
{
a
1 ! H °d3�nN °0
Qi 1' S NOJ.ON
w,
M131
m,
0 II�:
m
n
'd.
5
f �
R':R :�c J ♦i
II �d
Pb'
=u �UgJLJ6.l 8#
C^
R7
a
4^
I
P
IN V
�9
_-_e
SAY
.a'
a
./ ORr'1
0 111 � S Wd
a°
r;
❑ Y
Fe
S
7IMi'
D ew
C003
I �.
I
1
This report consists of the evaluation of two properties
in the City of Newport Beach. The properties are described
'
as Site A, the existing City Hall complex, and Site C, a
pare @l of lend in M @wp6rt Unter. Edch pere @l i@ ideAti-
'
fied on the map on the opposite page.
Our investigation has developed extensive information
about existing City and area development. Also, we have
studied the probable area development, particularly at and
'
around each of the sites.
Much of the general information has already been submitted
'
to the City. Two detailed and extensive studies have been
made, as follows:
'
Traffic Planning, Parking and Operation 3/68
Study (Submitted by Wilbur Smith and
Associates)
Civic Center Site Selection Study 8/68
(By Welton Becket and Associates,
and Economics Research Associates)
In addition, the City developed a Civic Center Study in
12/66. That report was prepared as a preliminary inter-
departmental report. It was designed to facilitate future
civic center planning. Some of the general information in
that report has been of assistance to your appraiser.
The pertinent general information from these reports and
our investigation is summarized on the following pages.
Other general data, background information, and statistics
'
have not been placed in this report.
1
7
[1
J
I
INTRODUCTION (Continued)
CITY GROWTH
The City has-undergone a rapid growth in population. From
4400 in 1940, 12,000 in-1950 and 21,500 in 1960, the popula-
tion is estimated at 44,000 as of 1/1/69. Estimates-by the
CitY PlAnnin IPepartment are for a pog_ulatign gf 115,000 to
120,000 by 1985:
Annexations have increased the area of the City from 5.17
square miles in 1950 to 13.90 square miles in 1968. During
the foreseeable future, continued growth in area is expected.
CENTRAL NEWPORT GROWTH
All of the studies indicate that the major growth in City
population has been occurring and will occur in the inland
portions of the City. Of additional significance are sta-
tistics in the City's study wherein there is a discussion of
population growth by area. The three City designated areas
that pertain to Site A are as follows:
Area
West Newport
(This area designation
includes subject prop-
erty and immediate area)
Lido Island
Balboa Peninsula
In contrast to these percentage
area (an inland portion of the
8377, or a 161% increase. The
in 7/66 was 38,980.
tion % Increase
3760 5876 56%
1466 1645 12%
3993 4360 9%
increases, the east upper bay
City) increased from 3206 to
total City population estimate
While the City population is projected to the 115 - 120,000
bracket by 1985, the great bulk of this increase is expected
to occur in the inland portions of the City. Within the 3
designated areas environing subject, the following projections
of increase were made:
2
INTRODUCTION (Continued)
' West Newport 1182 (essentially by replacement
of dwellings with apartments)
' Lido Island 80 (construction of homes on lots)
Balboa Peninsula 955 (replacement of homes with units)
' Total 2217 increase
' CITY POPULATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Due to its being a resort -type area, Newport Beach population
is influenced by the seasonal and daily influx of people.
Excluding people passing through, the population can be clas-
sified as follows:
1. Permanent resident population
2. Seasonal resident population
3. Seasonal weekend visitors
' 4. Day visitors
It is estimated that the population is increased by more than
' 50% during the summer months and by about 75% during the
summer weekends. Services must be provided for this tran-
sient increase. During the summer months, daily weekday
beach attendance is estimated at 40,000 and weekend atten-
dance at 75,000. This influx occurs largely in the Central
Newport area.
CENTRAL COAST POPULATION
'
The County has been divided into 10 statistical areas by the
Orange County Planning Department. -The purpose has been to
create areas for study. Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, and Newport
Beach are located in Area F and this area is referred to as
Central Coast.
In this area, the population has increased from 39,000 in
19501 80,000 in 1960, to an estimated 150,000 at the present
'
time. According to the studies, this area has the highest
numerical gain in population projected through 1985. The
'
bases for this judgment are the development efforts of the
Irvine Company, the availability of vacant land, the pro-
posed development of Upper Bay, the economic impact of U.C.I.,
and the developing industrial impact on the Central Coast.
1 9
INTRODUCTION (Continued)
H
' Economics Research Associates have developed the following
population projection for the Central Coast area:
' Year Population
1970 186,500
' 1975 281,000
1980 343-,500
1985 425,000
TRAFFIC VOLUME
Newport Boulevard summer daily volumes range from 40,000 at
the Arches Bridge to 22,000 at 26th Street. This is the major
traffic-arterial in the Central Newport area. Via Lido carries
' 7000- 11,300 vehicles daily, and 32nd has 7000 westerly from
Newport Boulevard and 4000 easterly therefrom. These volumes
range from 50 -100% greater than volumes during winter months.
The Smith report on Page 17 states that Newport Boulevard,
Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street are carrying traffic volumes
which are in excess of their practical capacity levels and at
t times are approaching their possible capacity. Such loads
are being accommodated at the expense of driving convenience
and freedom of movement.
' 1 10
The Smith report has an extensive number of recommendations as
to changes in the traffic signals, improving-many intersections
for better traffic movement, one -way streets, street widening,
etc. As regards parking, there are various recommendations.
The traffic and street recommendations by Smith reflect an
approximate 80% increase in beach attendance by 1990. The
1967 daily attendance figure was 26,840. This is projected
to a 1990 figure of 46,740 persons. This transient population
would be served by a beach area of ±200 acres that is above
high water from the harbor entrance to the Santa Ana River.
Finally, all future traffic and parking studies have taken
into account the major additions to the external network of
highways. These additions essentially consist of future
freeways -- Corona del Mar, Coast, and Newport.
' 1 10
'a
it
\ - �l .
! i. � '!
i
/
V 1 4� �J•
s +
`• ,•l:'.p' �\ � 1y�.1P,1 � !) it
All
11 1
. J,�� .I, 1, .� .+ .S \ � 'I'•�: .'�. � .
90� I • , �li .. T. r! ���
y`1P7T t ,I t
,A 311
y ' Yllr if
irr
I, II
• 6 � `g
//11 II:� ii��: r •J 1i'/ � ` / 4. ,'r �t� J ' r+ �r �y'./i.' -'��i � \. r' + °r �t�i 1 � !I�' ^� ' � �: J
"/ r
I
1
'
1
1
i
1
44 s4
m a°)
o
°•Ca a)
ca
C> box
.a)
d
T
CV) a
0,4 •r+
U 4 x W
o
° 1' w
a)
u'cs
u •�
m g C
1
� 44
bO
(1) co 4 -H N
ar o ff
o
�co
°
°$S,
- V,
: x (
Q, u Co
0 N
W p C N
� W
q
N
m
1
a) •rl a)
a) • O H Z
W'H -4 ca
14 +j0.
3
riZrgbo
O ji O
Cd cC O
O
(D m 0Q)
tJ 4-1 NU
41 a �4
a
a)a 4J
Ox O
�
1
u� a
x'P
'
�
10 C .
P -a
O u
0 -H O o
W " 4a
4- a)
0
O a >1 v CO
x $4 .,4
ao •r•)
-H
a)
u v g m
a °Ln �
P4
d
o
1
v
x
w W •A
Q A m
(v
a) F 44
O rq 001
C
10 O
b •ra 'd
1
,4 44 ca
0
°1 0, 0 4J W
41 ca aali
O O
O
mca a)0C.
0 0 m44 r4
U 4 41 b0
-A �4 U N -A
.00 a) :j
u
a) >,.,I
r4
N O }4 N
44
a) u M
i
mN4{
aJ
pp
4J>,6 °
•ri .. a) O
U
m00.0
H = L1. ca ca O
J•)
a1 'd p
N O
a)
p,:s 04
b0$ qG 0 O
m r4 4d P
•ri Z N
-n
A
O 41 A m
'O a) 44
p x 3 ca P.
1,
4a.) O O
O
a) �4
-ABx a) N m
O 60 O S
6x G OZm
H co m m
rn
a +a w r-i cq r{
11
1
0
11
1
1 12
' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
' LOCATION
Subject property comprises the northeast corner of the inter-
' section of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street, City of Newport
Beach.
' LEGAL DESCRIPTION
To be provided in a title report. That description will
' describe the parcel shown on the plot plan in this report.
' RECORD OWNER
City of Newport Beach
' IMMMATE SURROUNDINGS
' West: Across Newport, commencing at 32nd and going north -
are: Older Humble station, parking lot, the White Horse Inn,
gallery and beauty salon; then, there is a 2 -story building
' extending-north to Finley and including on the first-floor
wallpaper, artists supplies, marine paint, gift shop, designs,
hair fashions; on the second floor is office space including
bail bonds and considerable space that appears to be vacant.
tNorth: Immediately north is Richards Lido Center and adjacent
commercial enterprises. The area is 4.85 acres and the -land
' and buildings are owned by Griffith Company. Mr. Mirams, Vice
President,-was interviewed 12/27/68. The center includes a
market (33,004), Via Lido Drugs, candies and flowers, gift
' shop, etc. Easterly from the Center and extending to Newport
Boulevard are Bidwell, the shop for men and women, Security
Pacific National Bank, the Lido Theater, and office-facilities
above the bank. Opposite the north line of subject, about
150' east from Newport Boulevard, is a driveway from subject
to the Richards parking area.
' East: Easterly from the north portion of subject are parts
ot the Richards storage area and parking facilities. East
from the south portion.of subject is the fire station. East-
' erly beyond the abutting uses is Via Oporto. Beyond it are
offices, a thrift shop, St. James Church, First Church of
Christ Scientist, a parking lot, the 3 -story Lido office
' building with the Blue Dolphin Coffee Shop on the first floor.
13
' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
1
' GENERAL SURROUNDINGS AND TREND
Height of Build' s: The bulk of improvements in the Central
' Newport area are and 2 stories. The Lido Building contains
3 stories, Newport- Balboa Savings and Loan has S stories, and
there is the Vista del Lido privately -owned apartments in an
8- story, basement, and penthouse structure.
1 General Comments: This area is a heterogeneous mixture of
retail and service stores, office buildings, industrial prop-
, erties and residential properties. The immediate area of
subject property and properties lying to the north and east
has the most pleasing appearance and has the superior types
' of stores. This immediate area has underground utilities,
streets are wider, and activity is greater than in the com-
mercial areas lying to the south.
' It is reported that the sales volume of commercial facilities
in this central Newport area has been adversely affected by.
the development of other shopping centers throughout the City,
especially Fashion Island. Also, the construction of new
office buildings in Newport Center, as well as other compe-
ting office facilities, is resulting in more vacancies in
' this area. Even though the City, merchants, and property
owners are cooperating to maintain the vitality of this down-
town area, it must be recognized that the competition, parti-
cularly in the Irvine Newport Center, will be increasing.
1
Other uses east and northeast include First California Com-
'
pany, men's shop, P. A. Palmer Real Estate, beauty salon,
and a clothing store.
'
South: Across 32nd Street are 1 and 2 story buildings and
some vacant land. Occupancies include Shore Properties
Realty, small U. S. Post Office, plumbing shop, Mary Webb
'
Davis School. These extend from Newport to the alley and
are in 1 -story structures. At the alley and going east are:
Hair styling, barber shop, paint store, law offices, and-then
office space on the second floor. Beyond is a residence,
'
vacant lot, small garage, some masonry buildings, one of
which is vacant, another contains attorney offices, then a
'
second -hand store, barber, Newport Beach Realty, and a den-
tist. From Villa Way going easterly, the first half of the
block is personnel parking for Newport- Balboa Savings. The
second half of the block is vacant land partly used for
parking.
' GENERAL SURROUNDINGS AND TREND
Height of Build' s: The bulk of improvements in the Central
' Newport area are and 2 stories. The Lido Building contains
3 stories, Newport- Balboa Savings and Loan has S stories, and
there is the Vista del Lido privately -owned apartments in an
8- story, basement, and penthouse structure.
1 General Comments: This area is a heterogeneous mixture of
retail and service stores, office buildings, industrial prop-
, erties and residential properties. The immediate area of
subject property and properties lying to the north and east
has the most pleasing appearance and has the superior types
' of stores. This immediate area has underground utilities,
streets are wider, and activity is greater than in the com-
mercial areas lying to the south.
' It is reported that the sales volume of commercial facilities
in this central Newport area has been adversely affected by.
the development of other shopping centers throughout the City,
especially Fashion Island. Also, the construction of new
office buildings in Newport Center, as well as other compe-
ting office facilities, is resulting in more vacancies in
' this area. Even though the City, merchants, and property
owners are cooperating to maintain the vitality of this down-
town area, it must be recognized that the competition, parti-
cularly in the Irvine Newport Center, will be increasing.
1
14
I r 1,
V14
ALLEY (PAC) ,
1 .
+ V�
3.6i-,4C.
IM
`_
' '�� sriEET�
9 �El?iPp,PT
U
OPORTO d°
3' 8 •
20, .i9' . _ l
BLVD.
90
1,
W
ZZ-
SCqLE�/ � /00
EX /STING- CITY 1-14LL SITE
m
0
I
P
rl
1
i
i
III
1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
SIZE AND SHAPE
Note: The existing site of the City Hall Complex is larger -
in size than the parcel shown on the opposite page. However,
the map on-the opposite page reflects the net or usable area
of subject, under the assumption that it will be sold by the
City for private development. The pertinent changes consist
of the following:
First, a dedication of 34' will have been made along
Newport Boulevard.
Second, the R/W for 32nd Street will-be 90' even
though the presently used R/W is 60', and the
northerly 30' thereof is actually contained within
the City utilized property.
' Third, no legal access to the general public or to
the property owner to the north is required along
the north and east sides of the property, even
' though there are current driveways in this area
that are in use by the general public.
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Fourth, to the east of subject is a 20' asphalt -
paved strip of land used presently by the City and
the general public, and assumed to be dedicated
for alley and street purposes.
Dimensions
Size
Shape
Newport Boulevard Frontage
32nd Street Frontage:
East line:
North line:
±3.63 acres or 158,123
Irregular
Source of Information
201.60' + 200.19' = 401.79'
495.33 - 34' = 461.33'
205.35'
144.33' + 306.17' + 77.63'
- 34.00' = 494.13'
The map was provided by the City Engineer, Ben Nolan.
16
' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
L
' STREETS
Newport Boulevard
' Site A fronts on Newport Boulevard, one of the major
arteries in the City, This boulevard serves local
traffic as well as being the-major entrance to the New-
, port - Balboa area. Presently, Newport Boulevard merges
into the Newport Freeway in Costa Mesa.
' Dedicated Width: Through subject area at present date,
the ou ever is a 90' R /W. The purchaser of subject,
however, would obtain the property with an additional
34' dedication having been made. This is for a major
highway. It is probable, within the next 5 -10 years,
that widening of this boulevard to 6 travel lanes at
city expense will be made through this area.
Paved Width: The present paved width is ±70' from curb
to cur ordering subject, there is 25' of paving,
then a 10' center divider, and then 35' of paving on
the west side. This presently provides for 2 lanes of
travel on either side, no parking along subject side,
metered parking on the west side, and turn -out lanes
for the signals at 32nd and Finley Avenue. -The ulti-
mate widening of this road, at City expense, will result
in 104' paved from curb to curb, and providing for 6
travel lanes plus parking on either side plus a center
divider island with turn-out lanes.
32nd Street
This road, between Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard,
will be widened and made into a 2 -way street within the
next several years. It is also probable -- if subject is
sold by the City for private use -- that the City will do
reconstruction work from Newport Boulevard east two
blocks' distance to Lafayette. Such work would involve
acquiring some R/W in a block east from subject and then
reconstruction of the street to a secondary highway
designation, or 64' paved from curb to curb.
Dedicated Width: 90' R/W lying immediately south of
subject, o w ich 60' is actually serving for street
R/W and the north 30' is utilized as part of the City
property.
17
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
1
Paved Width: There is presently 40' paved from curb
to cure —w with ±10' -wide sidewalks on both sides. Ulti-
mate in this area, with work to be accomplished at City
' expense in possibly S years, is a 64' road paved from
curb to curb.
' Finley Avenue
The intersection of Newport Boulevard and Finley Avenue
has the east side deadending into subject. There is one
traffic lane into subject property and two traffic-lanes
going out. If subject is developed to private use, the
street improvement on subject depends upon the probable
' land usage. It is probable that Finley Avenue would be
extended a certain distance into subject in order to
afford a corner and to provide assembly with the shop-
' ping center to the north. This Center presently makes
use of a driveway off of the north portion of subject-,
which is essentially an extension of Finley. However,
interview with the City Attorney, Tully Seymour, indi-
cates that no public rights exist for continuation of a
driveway along the north and east part of subject, nor
for a driveway off of this into the shopping center.
' Note
' There are street lights-bordering the south and west
sides of subject. Also, along the west side are palm
trees set within the 8' sidewalk bordering the curb.
Parking is permitted along the north side of 32nd and
' there are meters. There are no above ground utility
poles bordering subject on either street, or on the
properties lying north and east from subject.
' UTILITIES
' Interview with Ben Nolan, City Engineer, indicates that ade-
quate sewer and water facilities are available in this area
to serve the probable developments of subject property.
' Other Utilities: Electricity, gas and telephone are available
in the area.
1
11
[1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
ASSESSED VALUE
Parcel No. 46- 090 -19
Assessed value of land = $182,180
Land area, which extends to Via Oporto = 4.16 acres -
Assessed value per acre = $182,180 - 4.16 acres = $43,793/acre
or $1.01 /fi
Tax Rate: Code 07 -001 = $8.4424/$100
Estimated taxes on land within assessor parcel:
$182,180 x 8.4424/$100 = $15,380
(or $.085 /� /year)
Note: The Richards Center to the north is assessed at $1.64/fi.
Lots to the south range from $1.25/fi to $1.65 /ri.
ZONING
Zonin Code Cha ter 20.24: Subject is zoned C -1 -H. This
' is the light commercia zone. The H designation is a com-
bining district and designates the requirement for off - street
parking.
' Uses permitted in C -1 are summarized as follows:
I1
1
(A) Professional offices, community center, social
halls, lodges and clubs
(B) Retail stores and personal service establish-
ments within a building -- including banks,
drug stores, restaurants -- and other uses
designated as being similar by the Planning
Commission
(C) By a use permit, from the Planning Commission,
other uses are permitted -- -animal hospitals, -
boat sales, service station, wholesale stores,
pet shops, hotels, motels, boarding houses, and
residential uses.
The "H" designation generally requires 1 parking space for
each 2501 of floor area in the building. Special uses have
additional requirements, as restaurants with 1 parking space
19
3` �5Arj
�>• 3 S
3� C2•N C•2y/
N c_2'k C�H • w C /.'� Ny
M1 a A
v a o P "'
V.
y • y.� r e y
PM1 'PM1- U PO _., � .0 -Pi . J .. i C•�.11�\\�w .. �r f
C -1 B
-H 1, V
°L P' tM1 P~ y :p' • P v u JCO „ !� p1_N � 9 . \ \ � ���`\ \O ' ' i
°L p 'L l-G `p• J ,Cti 6T.2EfT ` \7_\
� aL L P M1 at o' oaY �
C c I .. 0 �2 _1 - u
•. -° ati P ' P' p M1 p . c I- ah
y I Cz C Y
Q aM1 i
sr
C -1 c a
Fi C-I M
Jr
M _ .
.1
1 \ \\
' Z i M-I S - Q \ <
aJ P 5,q 51'ti <�za sr
% E rN
4 M -I r
Y
'. ♦ 9 aM1 ° P- ¢ / M -1 i \ �x
\\ \
---.s
6 \ SS . Of
V J C"/
♦` 0 qy - q 3 BYzq q"3
"_ a
-
F
o< 20--
• qy 3 y_
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
' for each 3 seats, hotel with 1 parking space for each 2 guest
rooms, and a motel with 1 parking space for each guest unit.
Other provisions of this zoning are a 35' maximum building
' height. Setbacks are not generally necessary except there
must be a 10' yard where the rear yard abuts an alley.
'
Area Zoning: (See City Map on opposite page)
North and east is the same C -1 -H zone. South and west is C -1
zoning. Since these areas do not have the combining "H"
' factor, such properties are not presently required to provide
off - street parking.
Other zoning in this immediate vicinity includes the designa-
tion C -O -Z. Ordinance 973 enacted in 1961 granted the C -O -Z
on a 32nd Street parcel.
' The C -0 zone is limited commercial and multiple residential.
It automatically permits multiple dwellings or apartment
houses. (C -1 permits such by a use permit.) If a multiple
' use is contemplated, 800f of lot area is required per family
unit. The maximum height is 85' except that the mechanical
appurtenances may exceed this by an additional 15'.
' The Z designation is a combining parking district. In the
Z district, the parking requirement is generally 1 space for -
each 350f of floor area. If apartment usage is contemplated,-
' one space is required for units having no more than 1 bedroom,
otherwise 2 parking spaces per unit.
Master Plan: As stated in the Civic Center Study of 12/66,
being a preliminary inter - departmental report, "The zoning
is relatively static and no adopted planning study or con-
cept exists to indicate radical changes in either land use -
' or intensity of development." The subject of area rezoning,
etc. has been discussed with various city officials, most
notably Daren Groth, Acting Planning Director.
' A recent zoning amendment in Central Newport is at-the north-
east corner of Via Oporto and Via Malaga. In 8/67, by Amend-
ment 233, a parcel was changed from C -1 to C -O -H zone. That
' would have permitted an 8 -story building (85' high). By an
application for Variance 911 on 9/15/67, the property owner
(Dr. Monroe et al) requested an 11 -story high building (121')
' rather than the 85' designation. Hearings on that subject
resulted in a limitation of 109'. The owner was granted a
6- months extension as of 10/3/68.
1
21
I
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
' Dr. Monroe was interviewed on 12/27/68. Plans for their 11-
story building are in final stages, tentative financing has
been arranged, and construction is anticipated in 1969.
' CURRENT USE AND IMPROVEMENTS
' This site is improved with a City Hall structure that was
built in 1948. This structure contains 12,460. There is
extensive area in landscaping, and vehicular-parking. There
' is also a moved -in, portable building. Also, there is the
police building which contains 7474 of floor area.
' These improvements are nct consistent with highest and best
use. In our opinion, the purchaser of subject property would
contemplate demolition of all the improvements except the
' portable building which would be moved off.
The Welton Becket report had a demolition estimate of $24,200.
In addition, a bid was obtained by your appraiser from Fowler
Equipment -, Inc. on 12/31/68. That bid, a copy of which is
' available, is for $20,255 and is good for one year.
' As a demolition penalty for subject, the following has been
arrived at:
I
Fowler Bid $20;255
Profit to developer 20% 4j 05511
$2,306 4+
Round to 25,000
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
My investigation reveals that subject has a number of feasible
and likely uses including commercial, apartment, hotel and
motel usage, or a combination of these. The zoning for these
could be accomplished through a use permit or subject could be
rezoned to a C -O -Z zone. This zone would increase the market-
ability of subject. It would also enhance the value and this
has been reflected in this report.
Within the Z designation, an 85' high structure could be ob-
tained ( }8 stories). However, based upon City approval in the
area, a ±10 -story high rise structure would be possible.
Necessarily, the height relates to many factors, a key being
22
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
I
t required parking. In 1966, Buccola obtained approval for a
10- story-building (See Market Data Item No. 1) and more
recently, Monroe was granted an 11 -story building.
Within the broad range of possible uses on subject, the most
obvious would be an assembly of subject with the Richards
' Lido Center that lies to the north. This subject was dis-
cussed with Mr. Richard on 12/26/68. Subject could then be
utilized for parking, additional shops, possibly a Farmers
Market type arrangement, and probably a service station at
the corner of Newport and 32nd.
Another likelihood for subject would be construction of
' apartments. If such is contemplated in the foreseeable
future, it is my opinion that a 2 or 3 story stucco on wood
frame structure would be constructed. There is little evi-
dence at the present time that a high rise structure -- ±8
to 10 stories -- would be economically justified and could
be financed. Since subject City Hall will not be vacated
' for a minimum of 3 years, the demand for high rise may have
improved by then.
' Finally, there is the possibility of subdividing subject prop-
erty. Three categories of lots could be developed. First,
there would be the Newport Boulevard frontage including the
excellent corner at 32nd. Second, there would be 32nd Street
frontage. Third, there would be interior land which could be
served by an interior street or which could be assembled with
' the Richards facility to the north.
II
[1
I
There is little evidence that subject would be devoted to
office -type uses, or general commercial uses -- unless these
t
were tied in with the Center immediately north. However, it
is possible that a purchaser would contemplate holding sub-
ject in some interim capacity for a period of 5 to 10 years.
,
At that future date, the general commercial and office uses
might be more reasonable. Also, high rise structures could
be feasible at that future time.
The interim uses of subject might include continuation of an
office use in the present City Hall structure. Or, the land
could be cleared and a use requiring very modest improvement
'
could be contemplated. Such uses could be a boat sales yard,
parking, automobile sales, etc.
' Finally, there is the possibility of subdividing subject prop-
erty. Three categories of lots could be developed. First,
there would be the Newport Boulevard frontage including the
excellent corner at 32nd. Second, there would be 32nd Street
frontage. Third, there would be interior land which could be
served by an interior street or which could be assembled with
' the Richards facility to the north.
II
[1
I
I
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
1
Since one of the most obvious immediate possibilities for
subject is a 2 to 3 story apartment structure, your appraiser
has assembled some-pertinent information on this subject.
' First, Daren Groth, Acting Planning Director, has been inter-
viewed extensively as to other apartment developments under
construction and contemplated in the City. In °addition, we
' have discussed parking requirements, unit size, and many
other factors. Also, numerous interviews have been conducted
regarding apartment rentals, costs of construction, operation
expenses, etc. -Parties involved included Mr. Berke of the
Balboa Bay Club, Mr. Burshem of Great Western Savings and Loan
Association (Caribe owner), many real estate offices, etc.
' Set forth in following paragraphs is information on some cur-
rent and proposed apartment developments within the City.
tTABULATION OF UNITS
South Bay Club South Bay Club
(R &B Singles (R &B Married Gerson
Item Buccola Development) Couples Develop) Baker
' Units 45.6 50.31 49.14 ±26
t Per Acre
Parking 1.88 1.39 1.5 1.7
Per Unit
' Size of 1- BR =588c Sgt= 405 -460 Sgt= 405 -443fi
Unit +Priv.Bal- 1BR= 633 -718[i 1BR= 664 -754
' cony +entry 2BR= 957 -1053[ 2BR= 988 -1085fi
balcony 241 singles 170 singles
Also some 362 1BR 356 1 -BR
' 2 -BR 129 2BR 189 2 -BR
Note Proposed Under Proposed Proposed
' Construction
1
1 24
I
1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
SOIL. TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
Soil: The following information is contained on Page 10 in
tBecket Report:
"Leroy Crandall -and Associates, Consulting Founda-
tion Engineers, were asked to submit their opinion
on anticipated foundation characteristics of Sites
A and C and had the following to offer on Site A:
'From explorations we have made on this specific
site and across the street to the west, we expect
that the ground water table will be some five feet
below the present ground surface. This will present
a problem to subterranean construction extending
below this depth. Foundation support for the pro-
posed structure will require the use -of driven
piling. In view of these conditions, Site A must
be rated as having relatively poor foundation con -
ditions. "'
' The extent of the soil problem, necessarily, would require
extensive soil tests. In effect, the evaluation in this
report assumes the abnormal problems as described by Crandall
' and Associates. However, the accuracy of this can only be
proven by future testing.
LJ
1
1
1
Topography: Parcel is relatively level at street grade.
Drainage: Parcel drains to bounding streets. Future develop-
ment will also permit such drainage, with no assessment or
off -site drainage burden.
The City has a system of underground storm drains and surface
street drainage. Since these facilities ultimately carry
water to the Bay, problems can arise at periods of extremely
high tide. The result is some general inconvenience, though
this generally occurs in locations other than at subject prop-
erty.
ANALYSIS OF TITLE REPORT
A report-has not-been reviewed. It is assumed that exceptions
to title, if any, will not measurably affect the evaluation.
25
SITE A
1/2/69
Northwest
Corner
Southwest
Corner
JAN 59
Facing east across Newport Boulevard at Finley
Avenue. Subject includes and is to the right of
the street.
JAN 59
Facing east along 32nd Street; subject is on the
left. Newport Boulevard is in the foreground.
SITE A
1/2/69
Southwest
Corner
Southeast
Corner
JAM . 69
Facing north along Newport Boulevard. Subject
is on the right; taken from 32nd Street
JAM 69
Facing north along the east line of subject; taken
from 32nd Street. Subject parcel is to the left
of alley, Richards Market is in the distance.
EVALUATION
' GENERAL
The best evidence of the value of real property is found in
the prices paid for similar property. Thus, your appraiser
' made an investigation into the surrounding area of Site A
for recorded sales, current escrows, listings, leases and
offers on real property.
' While there has been considerable activity in this area,
very few transactions involve parcels of a size even ap-
proaching subject 3.63 acres. Thus, distant commercial and
apartment acreage transactions were studied: (These are
discussed in detail under Site C.) Finally, your appraiser
found it necessary it make additional studies on subject
property.
First, a subdivision approach was utilized. The basis for
' this approach is that a probable purchaser of subject prop-
erty could contemplate division of the site into various
smaller parcels. By study of small parcel sales in-this
area, as well as consideration of development costs, one can
' estimate the net price obtainable after dividing the prop-
erty into segments. Then, -by consideration of the profit
incentive to the developer, the residual reflects the price
' that could be paid for the raw land.
Second, I have used a land residual study. One reasonable
and probable use of subject is development as an apartment
project. Such a project, at current date, would consist of
a 2 and 3 story apartment building. By study of probable
' income from such a project, and cost of construction and
operation, it is possible to arrive at a residual income that
would be attributable to land. By capitalization of this net
income at an appropriate rate of return, an indication of
' land value is arrived at.
Other residual approaches could have been based upon-other
methods of land development -- commercial enterprise, high
rise ( ±10 stories) apartment or office building, or a com-
bination of these. However, the commercial enterprise is
' difficult to predict as to number andsize of buildings.
And, the high rise doesn't appear to be feasible at this
time due to costs of construction which are not justified
by present rentals.
1
n
26
EVALUATION (Continued)
' GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF STUDY
The primary area of investigation is described as Central
' Newport. This area is the commercial property along Newport
Boulevard commencing from the Arches Bridge on the north and
extending southerly to the Newport Pier area. The investiga-
tion was expanded to include the central areas that have an
' industrial zoning as well as R -zoned property along Balboa
Boulevard and backing up some of the commercial zonings on
other streets.
' Additional consideration was given to property fronting on
Coast Highway from the Arches Bridge easterly to Dover Drive.
' Also, consideration was given to several recent sales of
frontage along Coast Highway in the Corona del Max area
In addition to the close -in locations referred to above, an
' acreage search for commercial land was made in conjunction
with Site A and Site C.
DATES CONSIDERED
' The records of title companies were considered as far back as
1964. Also, in terms of listings and offers in the area, our
study dated back several years. In effect, an attempt was
made to obtain all real estate activity in the Central Newport
area.
As regards the acreage sales in outlying locations, the search
' was primarily concerned with more recent activity. In effect,
there had been good-comparable acreage data to Site C in recent
years. In contrast, the limited comparability of sales to Site
A required our going back farther in point of time.
DATA OBTAINED
In the search for Site A, the investigation produced in excess
of 100 items of market data. -The bulk of these were recorded
' transactions. As noted above, other items of data consisted
of listings, offers, escrows and leases.
' As regards the acreage search, in excess of 25 transactions
were investigated. Many of these acreage transactions were
Irvine leases.
1 27
I
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
EVALUATION (Continued)
PERTINENT DATA
Many of the Central Newport transactions were eliminated.
Initially, it was determined that property fronting either
on the Bay or along the ocean would be superior to subject
and other interior parcels. Thus, most waterfront trans-
actions were eliminated. Then, a number of the transactions
were found to be heavily improved. It was difficult to
allocate the purchase price between land and improvements.
Thus, these sales were discarded. Finally, a number of the
older Central Newport sales were eliminated due to small
size. In terms of small lot sales, there have been many in
the past several years. Thereby, older lot sales would
have been of less significance.
In terms of acreage transactions, most of these were more
recent, and were unimproved. Thus, the bulk of them were
felt to be pertinent. The acreage transactions are tabulated
and located on a map under the Site C portion of this report.
The pertinent transactions in Central Newport are tabulated
on the following page. Opposite the tabulation is a map
setting forth the location of each transaction. Each is
described as a market data item.
Detailed information on each market data item is contained
in separate sections of this report.
il
W m � �
a ,y �
W I
V p ?
R
fv� z
V z
e
(� s
P $ Q yl
p e S
t \ ar
\ly 4 \ \I
■$ , i,��y s y s co i
!� I 1• 1L0 S/1 ' it
m it o jp ,
II if �n.j L /ir N N n '" ApOE� ^N,d =v
o^
�bPtE
LV
14 Ilk
\e f.
'F �M%/ � H E / i It I I i b �3 `� TSO/ b. ♦ A�' 4♦ m h
/ ir' 0° a/ i� � 4 \ 1,i A✓.»2r, > C ti >v_; M1u v . /, ^bbRry 1s _ _ ° u
_ Sri'! ti b z 1 "` t '.s .A °p5 +I � eh .n / rc J¢`� .•. ii -I�PC\ "m '�"°r .; # E
T°s �AFAYE .:fi - `, .0 , t v `Cn \ Q 1 ./1P1 4 !"_ @A 8 0 p.. : U'r-� f ^' !� k #j�� � "➢ # �' �
`• v \° • ` � \p a �.n 'r Ib ^� \q �. `�• `v = g ° � y _ fit` ix � N e � e Z
� to '• �\ ` �\ g ^ �� \0 t \ A J ^ 0 'oN y a8 \T ! °1 � �A . ,. � . o a � %
\ � J c et\ 0 .r M1\ 1` .4\ lu � 5 p ,. J � #° � e% b v � °:l�I '�,; • .:. r ° v l
d �, �a r' , ° . . ®P �LpP �d, P 1pt\ D ,, > q$ s �Q � o ^b� + /. Po ; ,'i ♦ « $ w \, r y # /
�, 1. -s, ° °„� \\ � \, A ti •.4 tt u ,♦, z �4e a sp F, °a m ry aa�` �
%�`:� 3. &.♦\ t � .4 to 0 w Ga - / '- � f lI
I i i i
.Ii
q
iil/ �1f �FFL311 %d •%%° '�`\ P� b1 '�� �5�fd�/ / # .!S :N �;�' s ? l
;•f.1 d °°sx ,L I l M .� 1 pfd ♦ y w (,b 6- dy i @ e. m �Q /
do
jet Lo
90 91
�t.
°, �IfI � JQ• N ^!I i y y N3 of l
r\ ` \` \' � \\ {IEV) ¢ h -! � ` 3 ° ° nF� c ,1"i '� ^' v ,^ •v,%lr°y n # , /
N
Nil/
d�
i ,�11. .,. °. �..ti✓+ � ro : 4 � � �I �° W u nu'7, � 4 1
° .." w, rlJ �. ^ O � °nvlye °ti. Y�p"A%Sj.O•• P9,.� ° R. /
1
'
TABULATION
OF MARKET
DATA
Record
No.
Date
Price
Net Area
Price/
1
1
Cur,List.
$350,000
±31,000
$11.30/
'
2
6/14/65
1502000
± 825560
17.50/
'
3
Cur.List.
100,000
±112160fi
8.96/0
'
4
9/26/68
24,000
2,790
8.60/0
5
12/29/67
302000
297900
10.76/0
'
6
11/4/64
35,000
2,790fi
12.54/0
'
7
Cur.List.
669500
81370
7.94/0
8
1/23/67
23,500
2,790fi
8.42/0
'
9
4/16/65
40,500
5,1350
7.89/0
10
Cur.List.
100,000
±9,7230
10.28/0
'
11
7/15/64
60,000
6,1610
9.74/01
'
12
3/11/64
72,000
±8,5000
8.47/0
13
4/6/65
22,500
2,3750
9.47/0
'
14
Cur.Escrow
55,000
7,1250
7.22/0
15
1/31/68
25,500
±2,000fi
12.75/0
'
16
6/24/68
100,000
11,8750
8.42/0
'
17
7/5/68
22,000
2,603x0
8.45/0
18
Cur.Escrow
25,000
2,5520
9.80/0
'
19
7/29/64
83,000
12,014x0
6.91/0
20
12/31/64
62,500
9,5390
6.55/0
' .
21
12/63 & 3/64
298,500
55,024
5.43/0
'
22
12/30/65
18,500
2,2500
8.22/0
23
12/30/65
18,500
2,2500
8.22/0
'
24
3/19/68
829000
t10,400�
7.5610
25
7/12/68
24,500
±108250
13.42/fi
\'
26
11/30/65
1102000
10,5480i
10.43/0
An
Remarks
Current listing
15 lots containing
±411004 @ $14.63
per fi average
Cur.List.$8.674
Land in fee @ $5/0
Cur.Escrow $9.44/0.
Cur.Escrow $9.44/
Current Escrow
I
1
1_]
EVALUATION (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
On the following pages are these analyses:
Comparison to Central Newport Market Data
Comparison to General Market Data
Subdivision Approach
Residual Study
In conjunction with these various methods of evaluation ana-
lysis, your appraiser attempted to verify all transactions.
Verification was sought with buyer, seller and /or real estate
broker involved. In addition, interviews were conducted with
various brokers,-real estate owners and real estate developers.
These interviews, conducted from 11/4- 12/31/68, included the
following firms: Coldwell, Banker; Shore Properties; Greer;
Maskey; P. A. Palmer; Callison; Burr White; Bay and Beach....
etc.
From the investigation and.analysis, various generalizations
can be made:
Value Trend: Generally speaking, land values appear
to have gradually increased during the past few years.
An example of this is as follows: Item 9 sold 4/65
for $7.89/ and currently is listed at $8.67/0. Items
22 and 23 sold 12/65 for $8.22/ and currently are in
escrow at $9.22/0 ( ±12% in 3 years or ±4% /year.)
Develo ment Tnd: Many informed people consider
that t e esre
t use in Central Newport is more inten-
sive commercial and office with high rise buildings
that would contain these uses as well-as apartments.
While this is a reasonable projection, it is not
evident for the foreseeable future.
My studies indicate that the development trend for
' commercial use is static, and that the major or pre-
dominant interest in the area appears to be for con-
ventional type stucco on wood frame apartment con-
' struction. Many factors relate to this static com-
mercial trend -- competition from outlying areas,
slow population growth in immediate area, unsatis-
factory economic results with past high rise attempts
in the general Newport area, various holdings with
owners that have a wait - and -see attitude, etc.
I
31
[1
1
1J
E
EVALUATION (Continued)
Commercial vs. Residential Values: Apart from a strategic
commerciai corner, it appears tat a commercial location
and zoning will not command an appreciably higher price
than a residentially zoned parcel. Generally speaking,
commercial land will command a higher price as compared
to residential zoned property. However, in the Central
Newport area, such is not the case.
COMPARISON TO CENTRAL NEWPORT MARKET DATA
Market Data Item No. 1 is a nearby listing which has had re-
ported offers as high as $7.74 /t. This parcel fronts on the
Bay and is superior to subject for this reason. While bonus
for water location is not clearly evident from the data-in-
vestigated, it probably would be in the ratio of 2 to 1, or
more. Or, all other factors being the same, the value of
subject would be $3.87/0. Since Item No. 1 has a lesser
amount of water frontage per square foot than would a more
regular shaped parcel, it is probable that the ratio of 2 to
1 should not be applied when comparing to an otherwise simi-
lar interior parcel.
' However, subject has good commercial frontage and, thereby,
a superior commercial adaptability.than does Item 1. As much
of the market data shows, the bonus of commercial over and
' above residential land is a minor factor. Thus, the commer-
cial bonus attributable to subject may increase very little
the indication of $3.87/f.
' In contrast, since subject is slightly more than 5 times as
large as Item 1, it is probable that subject marketability
would be less. In my opinion, by reason of the size differ-
' ence, subject would probably have a 75 -80% factor times the
indication from the smaller sale.
' Rather than attempting detailed computation from Item 1, it
is my opinion that it can best be used as an upper limit
indicator. The only correction, then, would be to take the
$7.74/ and correct to subject larger size by discounting by
' a ±75% factor. This would result in an upper limit indication
for subject at $7.74/0 x 75% _ $5.80 /x.
' Market Data Item No. 2 occurred at $17.50 /[ji. Based upon all
other data in the area, this transaction is special and can
not be used as a general indication for area value. For
' example, across the street is Market Data Item 3, which is a
' 32
L
LJ
C
1
EVALUATION (Continued)
current listing at $8.06 /�. The parcels are similar. Thus,
Item 3, which has been-available for many years and has
received good exposure, indicates the $8 asking bracket at
current-date. Furthermore, by reason of Item 3 having only
11,1606, a size penalty for subject larger area would require
a discount of 30 -40%. Or, $8 x 65% = $5.20/fi as a probable
listing price for subject.
Items 4, 5 and 6 plus many of the others that are small parcels
' can best be used in a subdivision study of subject. From my
inspection, a transaction along side streets is definitely
inferior as to location when compared to subject. The access
on various of the side streets is inferior, the character-of
surroundings is inferior, the trend of activity is slower,
and utility poles are above ground.
[1
1
Fl
1
Item 9 is an old sale at $7.89/ and a current listing at
$8.67/fi. The price is not materially different than Item 3
which lacks the Newport Boulevard frontage but is a secondary
corner. Item 9 is useful in two ways. First, it is evidence
that land values are not substantially different because of
location and zoning. Second, this transaction indicates to
your appraiser that a lot of similar size along-subject boule-
vard frontage, even though superior in location, access and
other factors, probably could not bring a price in excess of
$12.50/fi.
Item No. 10 is a current listing, and possible sale, at
$10.28 /r. This is higher than the nearby Item No. 9. However,
No. 10 is a corner, even though there is no signal. Thus, it
appears that a corner commercial location has a definite
bonus over and above a similar interior location. Also, a
corner lot on subject, if subdivided, would certainly bring
in excess of the $10.28/x.
Under Items 11 -18, there is a price range from $5.66/ as a
current listing on up to $12.75/ for a recorded sale that
has a small lot and a residence. The current listing at
$5.66 /fi is contained in the remarks under Item 14. It is
significant to have this low a price. The reason seems to
be that the lot, even though large, can only be used for two
units. In other words, and generally speaking, irrespective
of lot size, there seems to be a value bracket of around
$10,000 /unit in the prices paid for the-small apartment lots.
Item 16, being a 5 -lot purchase at $100,000 ($8.42/fi) is good
evidence of this market demand at the present time.
33
EVALUATION (Continued)
1
l�
Items 19 and 20 are older City sales at $6.91 and $6.55/fi,
respectively. Both parcels are 3- street frontage with good
visibility and access. Because the size is substantially
' smaller than subject, neither of these-transactions can be
directly compared to subject. However, the transactions do
point out the reduced unit price on larger parcels. Various
older sales in the 1963 -1965 dates brought higher prices
than each of these transactions. However, the higher prices
were obtained on parcels much smaller in size.
Items 22, 23, and 24 are contiguous and indicate the $8.00/
bracket in past years. The current escrow at $11.00 -11.50
on ±17,6001 is a good indicator for the value of potential
subdivided lots on subject boulevard frontage.
Item 25 at $13.42/0 indicates the high unit price that is
obtainable on a very small lot with a usable improvement.
There is no comparability to subject. However, the size and
price relationship is of interest.
Item 26 is a corner purchase at $10.43/0. Subject corner is
superior. Thus, this sale is evidence that subject corner,
if 10- 15,000, could command a price of $12.50, possibly more,
' in the current market.
Market Data Item 21 is the largest parcel of the Central
'
Newport sales. However, Item 21 is the combination of two
fee land purchases and the purchase of a leasehold interest.
The purchaser spent $198,500 to acquire some land and a long-
term ground lease on-adjacent land. By capitalizin the
the becomes ±298,500
ground-lease payments, effective value
for 55,024fi, or $5.43/fi.
'
has
Subject a superior location by reason of being in the
center of activity at two roadways which form a strategic
intersection. In contrast, Item 21 is 1/3 the size of sub-
'
ject and has a superior marketability. In addition, this
transaction is bounded by four streets and it develops
excellent access, site prominence, and adjacent street
'
parking. In my opinion, this item places a bracket on sub-
ject at $5.00/0.
Items 22, 23, and 24 are contiguous and indicate the $8.00/
bracket in past years. The current escrow at $11.00 -11.50
on ±17,6001 is a good indicator for the value of potential
subdivided lots on subject boulevard frontage.
Item 25 at $13.42/0 indicates the high unit price that is
obtainable on a very small lot with a usable improvement.
There is no comparability to subject. However, the size and
price relationship is of interest.
Item 26 is a corner purchase at $10.43/0. Subject corner is
superior. Thus, this sale is evidence that subject corner,
if 10- 15,000, could command a price of $12.50, possibly more,
' in the current market.
34
EVALUATION (Continued)
1
' COMPARISON TO GENERAL MARKET DATA
Under the SITE C portion of this report are tabulated and
' discussed the acreage sales. While most of these are at
some distance from subject Site A, some general indications
can be developed for subject.
' Items 1, 2 and 3 are acreage parcels near regional shopping
centers at prices ranging from $1.84/ to $2.65/x. In addi-
tion, there are several listings near Item 1 at prices of
' just over $3 /t for t3 -acre parcels. It is my opinion that
these transactions provide a firm minimum value indication
for subject. To attempt more specific comparisons with
' these would be difficult because of location and size dif-
ferences.
' Market Data Item 4, at $1.04 /�, is of little significance in
the analysis of subject property.
Item 5 is an Irvine lease near the airport at $3.504 on a
' corner 3+ acre parcel and $3 /ri on an inside 6+ acre parcel.
My general reaction to these parcels is that they are compe-
titive with subject. Both are in an active and rapidly
improving area. This would seem to offset the Central Newport
location of subject.
' Item 6 is the Senior Citizens, 18 -story structure in Costa
Mesa. The 2.76 acre size is reasonably comparable to subject
area at 3.63 acres. However, it is of interest that the price
paid is only $2.28/x. It would appear from this transaction
' that the high -rise potential of the site, with government
financing, did not bring an appreciably higher land value than
if conventional 1 and 2 story structures had been used.
' Item 7 consists of a group of transactions in the area of Hoag
Hospital. The prices range from ±$1.50- $3.00 /�. These trans-
, actions-are reasonably close to subject in terms of distance.
However, subject is felt to be superior. Thus, the range from
$1.50 - 3.00 /ti serves as a minimum bracket for subject property.
35
Item 8 is a 1966
recording at
$3.94/x.- The
size of 54,629fi is
'
more marketable
than subject.
However, the
location is on 17th
Street in Costa
Mesa and it is
difficult to
equate such a loca-
tion to subject.
action would be
All in all,
competitive with
it would seem
subject and
that this trans-
would indicate the
bracket of $4 /fi.
35
' EVALUATION (Continued)
'
Item 9 at $2.05/0 and Item 10 at $1.91/0 are both uses that
could be placed upon subject. -Such uses would be inferior
to highest and best use. Thus, these transactions reaffirm
t
a firm minimum on subject.
Market Data Item 11 is an Irvine ground lease of 4.07 acres
for a Volkswagen agency. The land value utilized in the
1
lease was $2.50/0. Parcel has good comparability to subject
in terms of size. While this location lacks the central
Newport environment, it is on heavily - traveled Coast Highway.
'
Parcel had some problems pertaining to street widening and
restrictions on use by reason of proximity to a choice resi-
dential neighborhood. The transaction has fewer uses than
.
subject and would serve as a lower limit at $2.50/01
Item 12 is a large acreage ground lease with the minimum
rent based upon $2.00/0. It is of general interest as
'
regards Site A.
'
Market Data Item 13 consists of various Irvine leases in New-
port Center. The highest of these are parcels along Newport
Center Drive. A 1966 lease was based upon $4.50/01 for 175,0000.
r
A current lease of ±4 acres is on the basis of $5.25 /0. Then,
'
there are smaller parcels ( ±1 acre and less) on secondary
streets which are being leased on the basis of $4.50, $4.25
and $3.00/0.
The higher Irvine leases are for parcels that are being deve -,
loped with high -rise structures. There is little likelihood
'
of such development on subject property within the foreseeable
future. Thus, it would seem that the range of $4.50 - 5.25/0
would serve as a maximum for subject property.
1
1 36
' EVALUATION (Continued)
[1
1
1
1
L
1
SUBDIVISION STUDY
Divide 3.63 acres (158,123f) by extending Finley Avenue easterly
into the parcel ±250', then extending it south to 32nd. Yield
will be ±112,000 of salable lot area. Lot sizes would range up-
ward from 5000. Also, attempt to sell north half of Finley to
owner on north. Probably take 2 years from purchase date to sell
off all land. Planning and City approval would be obtained during
escrow.
Retail Potential
36;000 @ $12.00 = $432;000
33;000 @ $10.50 = 346;500
4342 -000 @ $ 8.00 = 336,000
fi - - -
Less sales, advertising, escrow, title 7%
Net proceeds from sales
Less Costs:
Streets and alleys
= $35,000
Loss of interest on land
±700,000 x 7% for
average of 1 year
= 49,000
Land taxes during 2 -year
holding period
= 13,500
Interest and profit on
cost of streets & alleys
- 8,000
Management, overhead,
planning, etc:
= 10,000
Net to land and profit:
_ $1,114,500
_78- 0.,0,0
—7
= 51, V3d..5V5
- - 1 6
Land = x
Profit = 30% Or: x + 30% x = $9212000
x - $708,500
Add possible bonus for what adjacent owner
' on north may pay for obtaining access to
Finley; {as per discussions with City
Attorney, no prescriptive rights exist in
the roadway that now comprises the north-
erly portion of subject);assume up to
equivalent of 1/2 Finley cost:
' R/W 1/2 x 56 x ±250' long @ $10 /ti _ $70 -,000
Street cost 1/2 x $34 /LF x 250 4-250
$74,2250-say $75 000 -
Land Value: - $708,500 to ,500
$708,500 - 158;123 _ $4.48
783,500 a 158,123 = 4.963
37
EVALUATION (Continued)
' - LAND RESIDUAL
' PROPOSED APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON SITE A
3.63 acres @ 45 -50 units /acre = 163 -182 units based on
densities of newest and proposed development in the City.
Use 175 units.
' 2 and 3 story stucco on wood frame building, parking on
ground and beneath portions of building; could use some
subterranean parking.
CI
1
Singles -- probably none
1 BR + 1 Ba = 650 -700fi
2 BR + 2 Ba = 1000 -1050f
3 BR = ±1300 - 1350, probably none
Parking = 1 -3/4 spaces per unit is probable with some for
compacts; all should be on the ground floor; decking or
basement space shouldn't be required.
Building size:
Use 85 - 1 BR
9900 -2 BR
' PROBABLE INCOME
units @ 700
units @ 1000
Average /Unit = 857fi
= 59,500f
= 90; 000
say 150,000f
' Monthly Income:
85 @ $150- 175 /month on yearly lease unfurnished =
90 @ $225- 250 /month =
1 Yearly = 12 x $35,000 = $420,000
' TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
150,000 @ $12.50/ contract price
' Architect + Engineering; Financing(construction,
fees, interest during construction); Miscel-
laneous (tax during construction, legal, com-
pletion bond)
Total
Or 2,175,000 - 175 units = $12,430 /unit
' And, $2,175,000 - 150,000 = $14.50/
1
M
$12 -,750- 14;875
20:250- 22;500
.?.»2uuu- .3i,ai-)
Use $35,000 /month
= $1,875,000
= 300- 000
a
I
L
1
1
F
F
EVALUATION (Continued)
LAND RESIDUAL
Gross
Less vacancies ±5%
Gross effective income
Operation costs:
Taxes, insurance, utilities, management,
repairs, etc. = 35% of gross effective
Net to land, building, and depreciation
' Less depreciation: 2-1/2%-x cost of
$2,175,000
' Less return on building: 7%-x cost of
$2,175,000
Net to land
1
Il
$52,725/7% _ $753,200 - 158,123fi _ $4.76/
_ $420;000
_ _ 2 pOud
e
= 139,650
_ $259,350
54,375
_ - 152,250
_ $ 52,725
This is land value if project completed and in operation.
Since land would probably be the equity with construction
costs covered by a loan, the developer could require an
equity profit of up to ±20%.
Or Raw Land = 80% x $753,200 = $602,560 = $3.81 /fi
The land value of $3.81/ raw and $4.76/ after development
is no more accurate than the many estimates regarding the -
proposed project, income therefrom and expenses. However,
it is felt that all of the estimates are reasonable.
However, it should be noted that this approach reflects no
commercial usage, possible sale of access to the ownership
on the north, etc. Thus, the $3.81 /� indication should
serve as a lower limit to value. But, since commercial
doesn't command much more in price than apartment land, it
is doubtful that the.commercial value would exceed the $4.764
value.-
While additional residual studies have been made, projecting
other apartment usage, and /or considering an equity return
method that reflects a probable trust deed, the approach
placed in the report is felt to be of greatest usefulness.
39
I
1
[1
1
1
EVALUATION (Continued)
CONCLUSION OF VALUE
' NOTE
Indications from various approaches are:
Central Newport Market Data: Maximum indications
for subject ranging from $5.20 on up to $5.80/fi
as a listing price.
General Market Data: Wide value range from $2.50
to $5.25/fi.
Subdivision Approach: $4.48- 4.96/fi
Land Residual Study: $4.76/0 after development and
$3.81/fi as raw land
Within this bracket, it is my opinion that the-land value
would be in the $4.25 - 4.50/0 bracket. However, from this
must be deducted the cost of demolition of existing improve-
ments. The demolition penalty is $25,000.
Thus, as the result of this analysis, giving consideration
also to other less significant data-, the following conclusion
has been arrived at as of January 1, 1969:
Fair Market Value: $675,000
Or Land: 158,123 @ $4.43/ _ $700,485 say $700,000
(3.63 acres @ $192,840 /acre)
Improvements:
2
The evaluation by Economic Research Associates on Page 32 of
' the Becket - E.R.A. report, concluded at "about �1.3 million."
While this is substantially higher than my conclusion, there
are some explanatory factors.
'. First, E.R.A. used a land area of 178,500, based upon the
best sources at that time. However, current detailed studies
' by the City Engineer have concluded with a salable area of
158,1230. This is a reduction of ±20,000f.
40
EVALUATION (Continued)
1 Second, the conclusion assigned no value to the improve-
ments. Actually, these are a demolition problem to which
' I have assigned a minus $25,000 value.
Third, their value reflects the market situation in about
' two years, presumably when the site would be available for
sale. This was discussed with Mr. Trivedi of E.R.A. Your
appraiser, in contrast, has used the current date -- 1/1/69.
' Environmental conditions will probably be better in several
years. 32nd Street will have been widened to the west of
Newport Boulevard. Several current proposed developments
' (Monroe office building, Buccola 34 -unit apartment, sale of
cannery for restaurant, etc.) could be completed. High -rise
structures may have become successful -- generally -- in the
' bay area; or, high -rise would at least be nearer to date of
probable economic success.
These improved environmental conditions can be expected to
' result in higher land values. If sale of Site A does not
take place for even longer -- say 3 or more years -- then
environmental conditions could be even better than in the
' 2 -year interval.
1
1
1
41
42
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 1
'
Location:
East side Lafayette Avenue, between Lido Park
Drive and-32nd Street
Legal:
Block 529 Lancaster's Addition, and other land
Size:
182.16/78; x 170' average = 132,500fi existing,
but ±31,000fi net after dedications
Owner:
Buccola, George et al
Asking Price:
$350;000 = $10.77 /fi existing area, but $11.30 /fi net
Maximum Offer-
$240,000 = $7.39/fi existing area, but $7.74/[; net
'
Date of Listing:
Current (available for past 8 years)
Assassar Parcel
47- 021 -6, 7 11 and 16
Improvements:
12/3/68: 741+ on bay, misc. asphalt paving, small
building; essentially vacant; good access and promi-
nence; small park to north; Vista del Lido apartments
to south.
'
Zoning:
C -2; has OK for 10 -story building (1966); currently
has use permit 1407 in progress for 34 -unit, 3 -story
apartment.
tRemarks:
Superior to subject by bay frontage; however, of
usefulness since large parcel. Voluntary street
'
dedications reviewed with City Engineer. Reported
offers have been up to $240,000
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 2
Location:
Northwest corner Lafayette and 31st Street
Legal:
Lots 11, 12, 13; Block 530, Lancaster's Addition
Size:
±75'/±110' x 931 8556fi
Seller:
Todd, Arnold W. and wife
Buyer:
Wallace, Vard B. and wife
Sale Price:
$150,000 = $17.50/fi
'
Date of Deed:
5/5/65
Recording:
Date: 6/14/65 Instr. #: 5604- Book: 7513
'
IRS: $165 Ind.SP: $150,000 Page: 201
Assessor Parcel #:
47 -031 -8 and-9 -
'
Assessed Value:
Improvements:
Land: 10,670 Bldg: 1,350
12/2/68: Small stucco residence
Zoning:
C -2
'
Remarks:
Purchase price confirmed. -Buyer now has total of
15 lots, available at $600,000 or $40,000 /lot.
Or $600,000 t 141,000 = $14.63/fi average asking
'
price.
42
MARKET DATA ITEMS
N0. 1 AND N0. 2
1/2/69
JAN 69
Facing westerly across Item No. 1. No. 2 is in
the upper center of photograph
[1
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 3
Location: Southwest corner 31st Street and Lafayette
Legal: Lots 11, 12, 31 and 14,-Block 430, Lancasters Add.
Size: ±110'/ ±130' x 93' = ±11,160
Seller: Rom -and Cola, Inc. (George Buccola et al)
Asking Price: $90,000 = $8.06/f (Price during past years)
$100,000 = $8.96/f (Current price)
Date: Current listing (available for many years)
' Improvements: 12/3/68: Vacant
Zoning: M -1
1
1
1
1
Remarks: Has been available at $90 000 for some years.
Owner now has a more optimistic attitude for the
area and has raised price to $100,000. Probable
use is for parking in conjunction with old cannery
property across Lafayette. The cannery is available
and current interest includes a restaurant buyer.
1 43
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 4
Location:
North-side
31st Street, 150'
east of Villa
Way
Legal:
Lot 6, Block
530, Lancaster's
Addition
Size:
30' x 93'
= 2790
Seller:
Bengochea,
Elmira B.
Buyer:
Ball, Roland
S. and wife
Sale Price:
$24,000 =
$8.60/
Date of Deed:
9/4/68
Recording:
Date:
9/26/68 Instr. #:
17349 Book:
8733
IRS:
$26.40 Ind.SP:
$24,000 Page:
130
Trust Deed:
Date:
9/26/68 Instr. #:
17341
Unpd.Bal:
$19,000 Bfy:
Seller
Improvements:
12/2/68:
Old, small shed with fenced lot
Zoning:
C -2
Remarks:
Bona fide
sale; may have been
slightly low.
Indicates
current maximum lot
of this size
would
be ±$25,000, on a terms transaction.
1 43
I
Trust Deed
' Assessed Value:
Improvements:
Zoning:
' Remarks:
Date: 12/29/67 Instr. #: 19365
Unpd.Bal: $26,900 Bfy: Seller
Land: 2940 - Bldg: 2250
12/2/68: 2- story, stucco residence at rear
M -1
Improvements not highest and best use. Indicates
-- generally -- that improvements not compatible
with zoning have some enhancement.
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 5
Location:
502 31st Street, south side 31st, 30' east of Villa
Location:
Way
Legal:
Lot 20, Block 430, Lancaster's Addition
Size:
30' x 93' = 2790
Seller:
Begg, Althea M.
Buyer:
Whaling, Thomas M.
Sale Price:
$30,000 = $10.75/
Date of Deed:
12/24/67
Recording:
Date: 12/29/67 Instr. #; 19364 Book: 8479
Listed at $45,000 = $16.13/0 (inc. building)
IRS: $33.00 Ind.SP: $30,000 Page: 382
Trust Deed
' Assessed Value:
Improvements:
Zoning:
' Remarks:
Date: 12/29/67 Instr. #: 19365
Unpd.Bal: $26,900 Bfy: Seller
Land: 2940 - Bldg: 2250
12/2/68: 2- story, stucco residence at rear
M -1
Improvements not highest and best use. Indicates
-- generally -- that improvements not compatible
with zoning have some enhancement.
1
1 44
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 6
Location:
426 31st Street, 60' west of Villa Way
Legal:
Lot 18, Block 331, Lancaster's Addition
'
Size:
30' x 93' = 2790
'
Seller:
Buyer:
Marquis, SidneyL. and wife
Johoy, Inc.
Sale Price:
$35,000 = $12.54/ (inc. building)
Listed at $45,000 = $16.13/0 (inc. building)
'
Date of Deed:
10/20/64
Recording:
Date: 11/4/64 Instr. #: 2288 Book: 7287
'
IRS: $38.50 Ind.SP: $35,000 Page: 562
Trust Deed:
Date: 11/4/64 Instr. #: 2289
'
Unpd.Bal: $34,000 Bfy: Seller
Assessor Parcel #:
47- 042 -21
Improvements:
12/2/68: 1 -story commercial; office spaces and shop
'
Zoning:
C -2
Remarks:
Some repairs made after purchase. Probable current
sales price may not exceed original price plus repairs.
'
made. Indicates little, if any, upward trend for
total property value.
1
1 44
MARKET DATA ITEM
N0. 7
1/2/69
JAN 59
Facing north toward the vacant parcel; 30th
Street is in the foreground.
1 45
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 7
Location:
North side -30th Street, 120' west of Villa Way
Legal:
Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 331, Lancaster's Addition
'
Size:
90' x 93' = 8374
Seller:
Richard, Jonnie Trust
Sale Price:
$66,500 = $7.94/
Date of Deed:
Current Listing
Assessor Parcel #:
47- 042 -16
Assessed Value:
Land: 8390
Improvements:
12/2/68: Vacant land; industrial area with mixed
desirability; but Karam's Restaurant nearby
'
Zoning:
M -1
Remarks:
$62,500 net to seller is converted to a gross
price of $66,500 which includes estimated selling
'
commission of 6%.
1
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 8
Location:
421 31st Street; north side 31st Street, 150'
west of Villa Way-
,
Legal:
Lot 15, Block 431, Lancaster's Addition
Size:
30' x 93' = 2790
Seller:
Suttora, Mary
'
Buyer:
Martynec, Michail H. and wife
Sale Price:
$23,500 = $8.42/fi
'
Date of Deed:
12/23/66
Recording:
Date: 1/23/67 Instr. #: 11366 Book: 8159
IRS: $13.20 Ind.SP: $12,000 Page: 55
Deed:
Trust
Subject to TD of record
Date: 1/23/67 Instr. #: 11367
'
PMTD: $7,579 Bfy: Seller
Assessor Parcel #:
47- 041 -17
'
Assessed Value:
Improvements:
Land: 2800 Bldg: 1210
12/2/68: Small stucco residence
Zoning:
C -2
Remarks:
Price confirmed. Bulk of value in land. Liberal
terms.
1 45
Assessor Parcel #: 47 -041 -9 and 10
' Improvements: 12/3/68: Vacant lot
Zoning: C -1
' Remarks: Price confirmed. Currently listed at $44,500 with
$11,000 down and 1% per month. Indicates fairly
static trend since 1965.
1
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 9
'
Location:
East side Newport Boulevard, 50' south of 32nd
Legal:
Street between 3104 and-3112
Lots 3 and 4 Block 431, Lancaster's Addition
'
Size:
100' x 93.73'/ ±100.74' _ ±97230
Size:
50' x 102.71; = 51350
'
Seller:
Smith, T. V. and Frances F. et al
'
Buyer:
Wickland, Daniel W. and wife
'
Sale Price:
$40;500 = $7.89/0
'
Current Listing:
$44,500 = $8,67/x0
Date of Deed:
2/22/65
Recording:
Date: 4/16/65 Instr. #: 13602 Book: 7485
'
IRS: $44.55 Ind.SP: $40,500 Page: 972
Assessor Parcel #: 47 -041 -9 and 10
' Improvements: 12/3/68: Vacant lot
Zoning: C -1
' Remarks: Price confirmed. Currently listed at $44,500 with
$11,000 down and 1% per month. Indicates fairly
static trend since 1965.
1
1
46
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 10
'
Location:
Northeast corner Newport Boulevard and 31st Street
Legal:
Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 431, Lancaster's Addition
'
Size:
100' x 93.73'/ ±100.74' _ ±97230
Owner:
Isbell, Lester L.
'
Asking Price:
$100,000 = $10.28 /fi
Date of Deed:
Current Listing
'
Assessor Parcel #:
Assessed Value:
47- 041 -11
Land: 15,000 Bldg: 3410
Improvements:
12/3/68: 1- story, old commercial partly truck -high;
covers ±40% of lot; value nominal; interim use may
offset demolition cost; surroundings along 31st are
fair.
'
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Buyer interest at or near listing price.
1
46
MARKET DATA ITEM
N0. 10
1/2/69
REUIPURT BUILDERS SUPPL%
i pp
11
JAM 69
Facing northeasterly; taken from intersection
of Newport Boulevard and 31st Street.
n
47
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 11
'
Location:
Northeast corner Newport Boulevard and 30th Street
Legal:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 331, Lancaster's Addition
Size:
Irregular; 6161
'
Seller:
LeBaron; Laura T.
Buyer:
Hoffman, Robert A. and wife
'
Sales Price:
$60,000 = $9.74/
'
Date of Deed:
Recording:
6/9/64
Date: 7/15/64 Instr. #: 14516 Book: 7134
IRS: $66.00 Ind.SP: $60,000 Page: 330
'
Assessor Parcel #:
47- 042 -12 Land: 11,690 Bldg: 4,280
Improvements:
12/2/68: Stucco and metal garage building
Zoning:
C -1
'
Remarks:
Old sale but nearby. Price reflects some enhance-
ment for improvements.
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 12
Location:
Northwest corner 30th Street and Newport Boulevard
'
Legal:
Portion of Section 28 -6 -10
Size:
Irregular; ±8500f
'
Seller:
Torono, Frank F. and wife
Buyer:
Union Oil Company of California
Sale Price:
$72,000 = $8.47/f
'
Date of Deed:
12/6/63
Recording:
Date: 3/11/64 Instr. #: 11741 Book: 7002
'
IRS: $79.20 Ind.SP: $72,000 Page: 648
Improvements:
12/2/68: Union Oil station
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Contained old station at purchase date. Old
sale but a corner, and fairly large lot.
'
n
47
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 13
Location:
Northeast
corner Lake Avenue and 32nd Street
Legal:
Lot 24, Block 232, Lake Tract
Size:
25' x 95'
= 2375fi
Seller:
Hinnen, William A. and wife
Buyer:
Slowikowski, Joseph W. and wife
Sale Price:
$22,500 =
$9.47/fi
Date of Deed:
3/5/65
33rd Street: 1 -way street, 2 -lanes paved.
Recording:
Date:
4/6/65 Instr. #: 3840 Book: 7471
Parcel is in the process of being re- subdivided back
IRS:
$24.75 Ind.SP: $22,500 Page: 854
Trust Deed:
Date:
4/6/65 Instr. #: 3841
only 4 units.
Unpd.Bal:
$18,000 Bfy: Providence S &L
Improvements:
12/2/68:
Vacant lot; residential type area. -
at the south corner of 35th Street and Clubhouse
12/20/68:
Building under construction; 2 units,
1750fi + 2
carports.
Zoning:
R -2
Remarks: Duplex now being built. Lot had old residence in
rundown condition at time of purchase which sub-
sequently burned. However, bulk of value in land.
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 14
Location:
Southeast corner 33rd and Balboa Boulevard
Legal:
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 132, Lake Tract
Size:
75' x 95' = 7125fi
Seller:
Summers, John H.
Price: Sale
$55,000 = $7.72/fi
Date of Deed:
Current escrow
Assessor Parcel #:
45- 283 -22 Land: 6430 Bldg: 4170
Improvements:
12/20/68: 1 and 2 story older stucco improvements.
Streets:
33rd Street: 1 -way street, 2 -lanes paved.
Zoning:
R -2
Remarks:
Parcel is in the process of being re- subdivided back
to 3 lots so can have 6 units. Some time ago, the 3
lots were subdivided into 2 lots. This would permit
only 4 units.
A listing of an R -2 lot at the northeast corner of
35th and Finley is at $8.77/fi. A triangular R -2 lot
at the south corner of 35th Street and Clubhouse
Avenue is listed at $5.66/fi.
X
49
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 15
Location:
210 32nd Street -1001 east of Balboa Boulevard
Legal:
Lot 5, Block 131, Lake Tract
'
Size:
25' x ±80' = ±2000
Seller:
Supple, John J. and wife
'
Buyer:
City of Newport Beach
Sale Price:
$25,500 = $12.75/f
Other City
'
Purchases:
Range from $7.68/fi to $15.00/
Date of Deed:
1/5/68
Recording:
Date: 1/31/68 Instr. #: 17736 Book: 8505
'
IRS: $19.80 Ind.SP: $18,000 Page: 795
Improvements:
12/2/68: 1- story, stucco residence
Zoning:
R -2
Remarks:
Price confirmed by Public Works Department. Lowest
total price of City purchases, but one of higher
'
unit prices. To be used for future widening of
32nd Street. Price reflects enhancement for im-
provement.
Other City purchases in Block 131 and Block 231
have been made. Prices and properties have been
reviewed. Most of the City purchases range from
$7.68 to $9.23/x, and purchases include residential
buildings.
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 16
Location:
Southwest corner Balboa Boulevard and 30th Street
'
Legal:
Lots 15, 16, 17, 18,19, Block 29, Newport Beach Tract
Size:
95' x 125' = 11,875
Seller:
Dront, David Evans et al
'
Buyer:
Horn, Thomas H. Jr.
Sale Price:
$100,000 - $8.42/
Recording:
Date: 6/24/68 Instr. #: 14274 Book: 8638
IRS: $110.00 Ind.SP: $100,000 Page: 735
'
Improvements:
12/2/68: Apartments under construction, 5 separate
2 -story buildings, 2 garages on alley. Each building
has 2215 of living space.
'
Zoning:
R -2
Remarks:
One block to beach. Purchase price confirmed, as
'
well as cost, rents, etc.
49
MARKET DATA ITEM
N0. 16
1/2/69
JAM 59
Facing southerly; taken from intersection of
Balboa Boulevard and 30th Street.
L
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 17
Location:
216 29th Street '±50' west of
Newport
Boulevard
Legal:
Lot 9, Block 128, Lake Tract
Location:
2817 Newport Boulevard, ±218' north of
'
Size:
25' x 104.12' = 2603
Lot 15, Block 227, Section A, Newport
Beach
'
Seller:
Amsbry, Robert E. and wife
Seller:
Buyer:
Grant, Thomas and wife
Buyer:
Barben, Theodore R.
Sale Price:
$22,000 = $8.45/fi
Sale Price:
$25,000 = $9.80/
Date of Deed:
6/4/68
Current escrow
'
Recording:
Date: 7/5/68 Instr.#:
3596
Book: 8650
little, if any, enhancement to land.
IRS: $24.20 Ind.SP:
$22,000
Page: 629
'
Trust Deed:
Date: 7/5168 Instr. /k:
3597
Newport Boulevard is one -way traffic at
each end
Unpd.Bal: $14,000 Bfy:
American
S&L
'
Improvements:
12/3/68: Old, 1- story, wood
siding residence;
old homes along street
18 is a
Zoning:
R -2
reasonable land indicator
11
1 50
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 18
'
Location:
2817 Newport Boulevard, ±218' north of
28th Street
Legal:
Lot 15, Block 227, Section A, Newport
Beach
'
Size:
25' x 100.27/103.90' = 2552fi
Seller:
City of Newport Beach
Buyer:
Barben, Theodore R.
Sale Price:
$25,000 = $9.80/
Date of Deed:
Current escrow
'
Improvements:
12/3/68: 1- story, old commercial -type
building;
little, if any, enhancement to land.
Zoning:
C -1
'
Remarks:
Newport Boulevard is one -way traffic at
each end
of this parcel. Buyer owns 2 lots to
south and
is now acquiring the third lot to the
south. All
of these are improved. Only subject Sale
18 is a
reasonable land indicator
11
1 50
r
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 19
' Location: North side 28th St., between Newport Blvd., east
and west
' Legal: Portion Lot 10, Block 227, Section-A. Newport Beach
Size: 119.14/68.59' x 112.4/130.06' = 12,014
51
Seller:
City of Newport Beach
t
Buyer:
Coast Capital, Inc.
Sale Price:
$83,000 = $6.91/
Date of Deed:
7/20/64
'
Recording:
Date: 7/29/64 Instr. #: 28005 Book: 7153
IRS: None Page: 988
'
Trust Deed:
Unpd.Bal: $55,333 Bfy: Seller
Improvements:
12/3/68: Vacant
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Old sale but good location and large lot. Sold
by highest verbal bid, 1/3 down, balance at 6%
'
over 3 years. Original sealed bids had been
$75,000 and $80,010. Two parties did the
'
bidding.
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 20
Location:
South side 28th Street, between Newport Boulevard
west and east -
'
Legal:
Lots 8, 9 and a portion of 10, Block 227, Section
A, Newport Beach
'
Size:
Irregular; 95390
Seller:
City of Newport Beach
Buyer:
Moore, Norman E and wife; Anderson, Harry J and wife
Sale Price:
$62,500 - $6.55/fi
Date of Deed:
12/24/63
Recording:
Date: 12/31/64 Instr. #: 26223 Book: 6864
IRS: $68.75 Ind.SP: $62,500 Page: 879
'
Trust Deed:
Unpd.Bal: $41,666.67 Bfy: Seller
Improvements:
12/2/68: 2 -story motel; no improvements at purchase
date
'
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Old sale but vacant at purchase and fairly large
lot. Sold by sealed bid with 1/3 down and balance
at 6% over 3 years. Only one bid was made.
51
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 22
' Location: East side 21st Street, 41.6'-north of Balboa Blvd..
Legal: Lot 26, Block 220, Section A, Newport Beach
Size: 25' x 90' = 2250
'
Seller:
MacDonald, W. Fred and wife
Buyer:
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 21
'
Location:
West side-Newport Boulevard, between 26th and 28th
Legal:
Lots 2 -20, Block 127, Lake Tract, plus city property
'
Size:
Irregular; 55,024r
Seller:
Various, including City of Newport Beach on portion
Buyer:
Pope, Ed
Improvements:
12/2/68: Vacant lot; near bay and beach, but
Land Value
$298,500 = $5.43/fi for 55,0246
'
Indication:
Land actually purchased - $78,500 = $5 /fi for 15,700fi
tImprovements:
12/3/68: El Rancho Market; streets on all sides,
but no traffic signals
'
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Purchase includedleasehold on a portion. Breakdown
is as follows:
'
Lot 20 (Fee) 12/63 $12-,000 ) 15 700fi
City Property (Fee) 3/64 66;500 )
Leasehold on Lots 2 -19 120- 0000 0, 39- 324
'
Add value of leased fee
on 39,324c� which is esti-
mated at ±100
Total Estimate
,
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 22
' Location: East side 21st Street, 41.6'-north of Balboa Blvd..
Legal: Lot 26, Block 220, Section A, Newport Beach
Size: 25' x 90' = 2250
'
Seller:
MacDonald, W. Fred and wife
Buyer:
Tri -City Savings and Loan Association
Sale Price:
$18,500 = $8.22/r
Date of Deed:
12/27/65 escrow at $9.44/0
Recording:
_(Current
Date: 12/30/65 Instr.#: 24469 Book: 7793
IRS: $20.35 Ind.SP: $18,500 Page: 527
Improvements:
12/2/68: Vacant lot; near bay and beach, but
mixed surroundings
'
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks: This lot and Lot 27 (Market Data Item No. 23)
' are in escrow to same buyer at $42,500 for both
lots. This is $9.44/f Cash transaction.
Escrow will close 1/18/69.
This escrow on Lots 26 and 27, confirmed with the
savings and loan.
Also see Item 24 for additional escrow comments.
52
1 53
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 23
'
Location:
East side 21st Street, ±16.6' north of Balboa Blvd.
Legal:
Lot 27, Block 220, Section A, Newport Beach
'
Size:
25' x 90' - 2250
Seller:
West, George F.
Buyer:
Tri -City Savings and Loan
'
Sale Price:
$18,500 = $8.22/fi (Current escrow at $9.44/6)
Date of Deed:
12/27/65
Recording:
Date: 12/30/65 Instr. #: 24467 Book: 7793
'
IRS: $20.35 Ind.SP: $18,500 Page: 518
Improvements:
12/2/68: Vacant lot, near bay and beach, but
'
mixed surroundings
Remarks:
Now in escrow; see Market Data Items 22 and 24
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 24
'
Location:
North side Balboa Boule7ard, between 20th and 21st
Legal:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 28, Block 220, Section A, Newport
Beach -
'
Size:
Irregular; ±10,854
Seller:
Heim, James E.
Buyer:
Ireland, Wayne B.
Sale Price:
$82,000 = $7.56/6
Date of Deed:
2/20/68
'
Recording:
Date: 3/19/68 Instr. #: 10812 Book: 8546
IRS: $90.20 Ind.SP: $82,000 Page: 494
'
Trust Deed:
Date: 3/19/68 Instr. #: 10814
Unpd.Bal: $50,000 Bfy: Mariner S&L
'
Improvements:
12/2/68: Old commercial building and vacant land
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Court sale by public administrator; $82,000 stated
'
in deed.
'
Note:
This 10,850fi-property and three adjacent lots, all
totaling ±17,600[i, are now in escrow. There are
three ownerships and 7 lots involved Purchase
details have been obtained. The total price to
'
the buyer (Jack -in- the -Box) reflects an average
price in the bracket of $11.00 - 11.50/ ,$.
Since the two S &L interior lots are in this at
$9.44/fi, it follows that the Balboa frontage con-
'
tributes at a price over the average.
This escrow consists of Market Data Items 22, 23,
'
24 and adjoining Lot 4. Lot 4 is on 20th Street.
1 53
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
1
1
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 25
Location: South side Balboa-Boulevard,-50.9' west of 20th Street
Legal: Lot 13, Block 120, Section A, Newport Beach
Size: 25.2/25' x ±73' = ±1825
Seller:
Chewning,
Ella M.
Location:
Northeast corner Balboa Boulevard and
Buyer:
Stine, William K. and wife
Lots 22, 23, 24 and south half of Lot
Sale Price:
$24,500 =
$13.42/r
Size:
Date of Deed:
6/14/68
Seller:
Bedworth, Wilfrid J.
Recording:
Date:
7/12/68
Instr. #:
8031 Book: 8656
IRS:
$26.95
Ind.SP:
$24,500 Page: 616
Trust Deed:
Date:
7/12/68
Instr. #:
8032
Improvements:
PMTD:
$19,500
Bfy:
Seller
Improvements:
12/3/68:
1- story,
old frame
house, 3 BR, 1 -car garage
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Indicates
high unit
price on
small lot and enhance-
ment by old improvement. Price was confirmed as
well as rental
54
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 26
Location:
Northeast corner Balboa Boulevard and
20th Street
Legal:
Lots 22, 23, 24 and south half of Lot
12, Block
219,.Section A, Newport Beach
Size:
±92.5 x ±115.65' = 10,5480
Seller:
Bedworth, Wilfrid J.
Buyer:
Gulf-Oil Corporation
Sale Price:
$110,000 = $10.43/0
Date of Deed:
11/18/65
Recording:
Date: 11/30/65 Instr. #: 22020
Book: 7755
IRS: $121.00 Ind.SP: $110,000
Page: 275
Improvements:
12/3/68: Gulf station
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Price confirmed. Other parcels involved in trans-
action. Price probably above fair value.
54
1
1
1
1
1
1
'1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
+J G
G
0 4
4J O
Q) m
m .
.0 •ri
CO •n •
•rl m a
alc
ocn �
�a)G N
NSW
M }
}+ G a
a3 a)
G w O G
G
oG N
N G
GAP C
CC G
O O a
a1 64 a) W
W a)
ai 4
u
G a
4 a) O 4
4O.i u
� b
m W a
a 4
bD m
m F m
4 ::),
G a
a �•rf (
(1) P4
a°) 0 :
:1 caw a
aa)i w
0w 1
14 a w
w•,4
A. ^
U�NG O
OpCC
^3 U
0� 0
o� 0
0 0 0
44 CD 0
00aGi 4
4PSao
o•a u
aG a
.--1i o
u4b a
a)
co �" r
�.vwv u
ro �
0+i
ca e
0 0
e •r4 U
U 0 0
r0+ U-A
H N
N .
O N
O g
N O
N gi O
56
' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
' LOCATION
' Subject property is located at the northeasterly corner-of
Newport Center Drive and proposed Pacific Coast Freeway, City
of Newport Beach. The site is bounded on the west by Newport
' Center Drive, on the south by the proposed Pacific Coast Free-
way, on the east by the future northerly extension of Avocado
Avenue, and on the north by a proposed street connecting New-
' port Center Drive to the extension of Avocado Avenue. This is
in the Newport Center area.
' LEGAL DESCRIPTION
To be available in title report; will describe parcel shown
' on attached plot plan.
' RECORD OWNER
The Irvine Company
' SURROUNDINGS
The existing surroundings are indicated on the aerial photo-
graph. Subject is presently bounded on all sides by vacant
land-, other than Newport Center Drive on the west side. How-
, ever, substantial developments are proposed in the immediate
surrounding area.
M
Northerly of the site is vacant land. Beyond is Fashion Island,
a "soft goods" shopping center. These areas are portions of
'
the Newport Center being developed by Irvine Company. The map
on the opposite page indicates this center, subject, proposed
freeways, etc.
Subject and the vacant land to the north had been proposed for
the "hard goods" shopping center. Interview with Dick Reese,
'
Vice President of Planning, The Irvine Company, on 11/11/68,
indicated the following possible uses for this area: Farmers
Market type theme facility, restaurants, drug store, furniture
store, appliances, supermarket, etc.
West of subject is Newport Center Drive, with the Irvine Coast
Country Club and the Granville Apartments development adjacent
t
on the west. East of subject is the future extension of Avo-
cado Avenue, the proposed Corona del Mar Freeway, and existing
MacArthur Boulevard. Beyond to the east is a hillside residen-
'
M
1.
uj
�I
ti
u
0
A
y
W.
A
0 o
V
h
Q=
t4 °roe
W
D
C'
Wy
3
o 0
Z
V
U
K
F
Z
1.
uj
�I
ti
u
0
A
y
W.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
tial development, Harbor View Hills. South of subject is the
future Pacific Coast Freeway and existing Coast Highway. Beyond
to the south are commercial uses on the south side of Coast
' Highway and then the Irvine Terrace residential area.
' SIZE AND SHAPE
Note: The map on the opposite page was provided by the Engi-
neering Department of the Irvine Company. The map was reviewed
by the City Engineer, and is considered suitable as a property
description for this report.
'
Dimensions
Direction
Gross
Net
'
North
1751.07'
1631.57'
East
716.87'
±760.00'
South
1525.79'
±1360.00'
'
West
459.47'
±421.00'
Gross is defined
as measurement at
center line-of street.
'
Net is defined as
of street R /W.
measurement at property line, or edge
Size
1
Gross (to center
line of streets) =
22.28 acres
Net (excluding perimeter
streets) =
19.34 acres
tShape
Irregular
STREETS
Newport Center Drive (Existing)
'
Dedicated Width:
130' R/W
Paved Width: 36'
paved curb to curb on either side of
'
a 20' landscaped median (this is 3
side, and no parking is permitted);
travel lanes on either
19' parkways with 5'
sidewalk.
1
1
a
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
'
This street contains a 15" sewer and an 8" stub to sub-
ject, 12" water and 8" stub to subject, underground
electrical, street lights in median, landscaped parkways
and center median. The side parkway has trees on ±50'
centers. Also, there are trees on subject set ±20' back
from the walk on ±50' centers.
Avocado Avenue (Proposed)
Dedicated Width: None; to be 109' R/W
'
Paved
Width: None; to be 32' paved curb to curb on each
side of a 20' median, 12 -1/2' parkways with 6' walk; no
utilities are proposed; street lights, landscaping on each
'
side and in median.
Grade: The intersection at pro�osed G Street will be at
'
elevation 160', or a cut of ±15 below existing grade.
The road will slope down to the south. At the southeast
corner of subject, the street grade will be at elevation
155'. Natural grade is ±140' at that point. Thus, a
'
fill of up to 15' will be made.
'
G Street (Proposed)
Dedicated Width: None; to be 77' R/W
'
Paved Width: None; to be 50' paved curb to curb, 13 -1/2'
parkways with 6' sidewalks; to have underground electri-
cal, landscaped parkway, 12" water line, 8" sewer line,
'
telephone, gas, and street lights.
Grade: This street will meet Newport Center Drive at
existing grade, or ±114' elevation. At.Avocado, the
'
elevation will be 160'. This will grade down the 175'
hill northeast of subject by 15' and also fill in those
portions of the eroded ditch within the street. The
t
result will be a drop of 46' in 1650', or an average
slope of 2.8 %.
FREEWAYS
' General
Southerly of subject will be the Pacific Coast Freeway.
Easterly of subject, beyond Avocado, will be the Corona
' del Mar Freeway. These two freeways will interchange in
'
61
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
62
the area to the southeast from subject. Details are
shown on many city and Irvine maps, several of which
are reduced in size and included in this report.
'
Portions Abutting Subject
Immediately south of the east portion will be a freeway
'
to freeway ramp that carries traffic westerly from Corona
del Mar to Pacific Coast. This ramp will be near the
elevation of abutting portions of subject.
Immediately south of the west portion will be a Pacific
Coast westbound off -ramp that ends at Newport Center
Drive. This ramp will be at or below the existing grade
'
of subject.
'
On /Off Ramps
Pacific Coast westbound on and off will be at Newport
Center Drive. Eastbound on and off will be on Coast
tHighway
just east of Newport Center Drive.
On and off facilities for Corona del Mar will be at San
Joaquin Hills Road and Avocado Avenue. This is 1/2 mile
'
north of subject northeast corner.
'
Construction Dates
The Corona del Mar Freeway and those portions of the
Pacific Coast Freeway in this immediate area should be
constructed in 5 -7 years. The Corona del Mar Freeway
will extend ±6 miles inland to a connection with the New-
port Freeway and the San Diego Freeway.
'
The presently projected portion of the Pacific Coast
Freeway will be ±3 miles in extent. It "will commence
at Bayside Drive on the west and extend east to connec-
tion with the Pacific Coast Highway easterly of Corona
del Mar. Extensions beyond these points as to alignment
and construction date have not been determined.
62
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
tUTILITIES
1
11
1
1
1
1
The following information was obtained through the Welton
Becket Civic Center Report, interview with Mr. Nolan (City
Engineer) and Mr. Kaylor (Irvine Company): Essentially all
utilities are available to Site C with two possible exceptions:
These are as follows:
1. Gas service to Site C is approximately 1000'
distance from the site. At current gas company
cost of $1.86 /foot, there is a possible $2,000
off -site gas fee.
2. Water service to Site C will have an acreage fee
of $550 /gross acre.
Note: All utilities are underground in this area.
Newport Center Drive
Sewer: 15" line in center median
Water: 12" line along east portion of roadway
The sewer has an 8" stub over to subject and the water
has an 8" stub to subject.
Proposed G Street
To contain a 12" water line and an 8" sewer line (depth
of sewer line not determined thus far and suitability
for serving subject will depend upon line elevation as
compared to elevation and location of service point on
subject.)
Avocado Avenue
No utilities are proposed for this street.
63
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
ASSESSED VALUE
Parcel not separately assessed. It is a small portion of
' Assessor Parcel 442 - 014 -1. That parcel is assessed as follows:
Land: $1,628,730 - 145.75 acres = $11,175 AV per acre
Bldg: 217,750
' Tax Code: 07 -041
Tax Rate: $8.4860/$100
' Estimated Taxes $11,175 AV /acre x $8.4860/100
Per Acre: = $948.41, say $950 /acre /year
' It is probable that separation of the large assessor parcel
into smaller acreage parcels would result in substantial
increases in the per acre assessment.
1
ZONING
Subject property is zoned as follows:
' Northerly ± 3 acres = C -O -H = Limited Commercial -
Multiple Residential
Southerly ±16.38 acres = C -N -H = Neighborhood Commercial
' The C -N District permits offices, stores and service establish-
ments. The building height limitation is 35'.
' The C-0-District permits multiple dwellings, hotels, motels,
offices, retail stores and wholesale when combined with retail.
The building height limit is a maximum of 85'.
' The H designation with each zoning is a combining district and
pertains to off - street parking. Basically, this designation
requires one space for each 250 of floor area.
The subject of building height, view and Harbor View-Hills was
discussed with Mr. Reese, Vice President of Planning, The
Irvine Company, 11/11/68. In addition, the subject has been
reviewed with Mr. Groth, Mr. DeChaine and other officials at
City offices. Finally, your appraiser has reviewed the fol-
lowing documents:
1
64
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
71
' Letter to Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association
from Richard Reese, Irvine Company, dated 3/30/65.
' City Department memorandum to City Manager from City
Attorney, Tully Seymour, dated 11/6/68.
' From my investigation on this subject, it seems certain that
the Irvine Company has established a moral obligation to the
property owners in Harbor View Hills to have development in
subject area that will not detrimentally affect the view from
' those properties. Furthermore, the zoning line through sub-
ject, and the established elevations within the zoning on
subject, would appear to carry out this moral obligation.
' However, it is felt that some limited variation to the 35'
height could be made. For example, a tower structure as con-
' trasted to a large structure that would be several hundred or
more feet long -- would seem possible, without detrimentally
affecting the Harbor View Hills property. A statement in the
Reese letter carries out this thinking as follows: "We would
' prefer not to arbitrarily close the door to minor demonstra-
tions of -the height plane which are consistent with good
planning, which are a benefit to the area and which do not
' impair the view which we agree should be preserved."
Also, there is the possibility of higher elevations than 35'
' by reason of the C -0 zone on the northerly ±3 acres of subject.
In effect, a tower facility would be possible in the northeast
portion of the property and /or in the northwest portion.
SOIL, TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
' Soil: The Welton Becket report contained soils engineering
conclusions from the firm of Leroy Crandall and Associates.
The Crandall report contained the following comments regarding
' subject:
"From information developed in connection with our
foundation studies for the Newport Center, Site C
' is expected to have very good foundation character-
istics. Ground water is at a relatively great depth.
The only adverse feature for Site C is the presence
' of a natural drainage gulch through the site. Any
filling of the gulch should be done in a manner to
provide adequate support for at least the floor slabs
and parking areas of the development. If building
construction does not extend into the gulch area,
65
' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
L'
1
spread foundations may be utilized for support of
the proposed buildings. Any soils to be excavated
'
from the site will be suitable for use in compacted
fills on other portions of the property. In our
opinion, Site C will be an excellent site from a
'
foundation standpoint."
Based upon the Crandall studies, there-would appear to be no
'
abnormal foundation problems. However, this appraisal report
assumes that this can be determined only with additional and
more detailed tests.
'
Topography: Subject topography consists of a slight to moderate
s opt e down to the west and south. There are also minor eroded
'
areas. Elevations at the corners are as follows:
Northwest: ±114' (Based upon topography map
Southwest: ±105' of Quinton Engineers dated
'
Northeast: ±175' 7/26/65.)
Southeast: ±130'
The northeast portion has a moderate slope from 175' down to
'
145' in ±400' in a westerly direction:
'
35'/400 LF = ±9% average slope
Also the northeast has an eroded natural drainage course.
The slope of the east line is down 45' in 760 IF, or ±6% drop
'
to the south.
The west 75% has a more gradual downward slope, from 145' to
'
±110' average along the west line:
35'/1000 IF = 3 -1/2% average slope
'
Street Grades: Newport Center Drive is several feet below the
adjoining grade on subject.
G Street will tie into Newport Center Drive at the existing
±115' elevation. From that point and moving east, there will
be fill of ±5 -7' as the street will be above subject. Toward
the east portion ( ±300'-from Avocado) the road will be back
'
at natural grade. Then, the east 300; will be in cut, up to
±15' deep at Avocado.
Avocado, as noted, will intersect with G at an elevation ±15'
down fran existing grade. By grading of subject northeast
part, subject can be brought down to street grade at the
1 66
' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
.1
67
intersection. However, at the southeast corner, Avocado will
be at 155' while natural grade is only 140'. Thus, subject
will be ±15' below street grade at that point.
Finished Site: To provide this parcel with a more uniform -
'
topograp-_y ranging from 150' at the east to 115' on the west,
the Irvine Company (based on study by Quinton Engineering) has
'
a possible grading plan as follows:
Excavation (easterly ±4 -1/2 acres) 311000
Fill (average of ±4' on westerly 15 acres) 100,000
'
This would be a net import of 69,000 yards. The total cost
would approximate the following:
'
Excavation (on ±4 -1/2 acres)
31,000 yards @ $.40 = $12,400
Import -(on ±15 acres)
'
69,000 yards @ $.80
(Assumes a borrow from
immediately adjacent
land) 551200
_
Total Toi,000
If subject were to be graded as per the Grading Plan of Quinton
'
Engineers, the site would be at street grade along Newport
Center Drive and in the northeast portion at Avocado and G.
Generally,-along G, the finished grade would be ±2 -5' below
'
the street; and,-along the southerly line, particularly in
the east portion, there would be up to 1/2 acre with slopes
up to ±25 %. The average slope down to the west would be
35'/1400' = 2 -1/2 %.
The Welton Becket report on Table 7, Page 37, indicates the
'
following:
"Earth work cut and fill, 150,000 yards = $105,000"
This estimate would exceed the Irvine figures noted above
because the Welton Becket plan is for a specific plan of use.
The Irvine estimate referred to above is a means of rough
grading the property into a fairly uniform slope downward to
the west, but without specific terracing and additional grading
for a specific use.
Other finish grading plans, including terracing, would be pos-
sible. However, it is likely that the cost of soil movement
'
would be at or above the $3,500 /acre arrived at above. On a
.1
67
I
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
' per square foot basis, this would develop the following:
$3,500 /acre - 43,560 /acre = $.08/�
Due to the possible changes ranging upward from the $.08/[
bracket, your appraiser has arrived at $.10 /[ as the most
probable rough grading burden for subject.
View: This site, particularly the easterly and higher portions,
'ias an excellent view toward the south, southwest, west and
northwest. In these directions are the bay, much of the Newport
' area and then the Pacific Ocean. Elements within the view can
best be identified from the aerial photographs.
replaced by the Irvine Company as described below:
A 48" to 57" culvert will be constructed in G Street,
thence across the northerly 300' of subject Newport
Center Drive frontage. The preliminary Irvine esti-
mate of cost is $110,000. Subject site would bear
half the cost of this, or ±$55,000.
And, $55,000 - 19.34 net acres = ±$2,850 /acre
1 68
In conjunction with view from this property, the parcel also
will have good site prominence from the general surroundings.
The existing and proposed traffic arteries will provide subject
with excellent prominence.
Drainage: Subject property, in the current condition, has a
drainage channel crossing westerly-along and /or through the -
'
parcel. This channel is i20' wide, varies in depth from 3 -5',
with-some exceptions being deeper, and-contains some concrete
work, drainage pipes, corrugated metal, check dams, and earth
'
lining.
The westerly portion of the channel crosses through the west
'
part of subject. The easterly portion of the channel follows
near-the north line of subject. At the easterly side of sub-
ject, the channel extends on toward the north. The exact
dimensions, alignment, and water flow in this existing channel
are of limited significance. The existing facility will be
replaced by the Irvine Company as described below:
A 48" to 57" culvert will be constructed in G Street,
thence across the northerly 300' of subject Newport
Center Drive frontage. The preliminary Irvine esti-
mate of cost is $110,000. Subject site would bear
half the cost of this, or ±$55,000.
And, $55,000 - 19.34 net acres = ±$2,850 /acre
1 68
[1
1
n
1
I
IJ
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
CURRENT USE AND IMPROVEMENTS
Subject property consists of vacant land which -is unutilized.
There is scrub brush in the east portion. Also, along the
westerly side of subject set in about 20' from the sidewalk,
is a row of trees on ±50; centers.
As noted, there is a partially improved drainage channel
crossing through portions of the parcel. However, this channel
will be replaced by an underground pipeline (See Drainage on
Page 68).
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
While the bulk of subject has the C -N zone (retail stores, -
service facilities and offices), the best use of the parcel,
in my opinion, falls in the category of the C -0 zone which com-
prises-the northerly 3-acres. The C -0 zone permits multiple
family, hotels, motels, as well as the commercial uses permitted
in C -N. These uses can be developed within the 35' height
limitation of the C -N zoning, but with the possibility of one or
two tower structures.
In the absence of the Civic Center use on subject property,
the Irvine Company had contemplated this southerly portion of
Newport Center as a hard goods and convenience goods location.
A number of possibilities had been considered. In your ap-
praiser's opinion, the-category of-uses would have included a
supermarket or markets, drug store, furniture and appliances,
and restaurant. Possibly, as explained by Mr. Reese of Irvine
Company, a Farmers Market type facility could have been deve-
loped. These uses could be undertaken within the next several
years. However, the desirability of subject for these uses
will be enhanced when the freeway and related highway facilities
are constructed.
In addition to the uses discussed above, it is my opinion that
a feasible use on part of subject would consist of a 2 and 3
story motor hotel. In conjunction therewith would be a restau-
rant, specialty shops, and a service station. The remainder
could be devoted to commercial, offices, and /or apartments.
While-the uses could be undertaken within the next several
years, it is probable that the optimum time of development
would be ±5 years hence.
.•
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Continued)
' While offices are a possibility, it is doubtful that-such a
use would make up more than a third of the land area, more
' or less. The bulk of office facilities in-the Newport Center
are being developed to the north. However, subject strategic
location at the freeway interchange would make it suitable for
district office facilities, as a Southern California head-
' quarters for national firms.
' ANALYSIS OF TITLE REPORT
A title report has not been reviewed. It is assumed that a
drainage easement will be placed on subject land in order to
accommodate the underground pipe that will parallel Newport
Center Drive along the northerly 300' of subject frontage.
Otherside, there should be no significant exceptions to title.
1
1
1 70
I
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
EVALUATION
' The basic investigation was discussed under SITE A.
As regards Site C, the study of market data was concerned
' with obtaining recorded sales, leases, listings and escrows
on land which embodied the following basic factors.
1. Proximity to a regional shopping center.
2. Suitability for diversified commercial, office,
apartment and motel type uses -- but recognizing
' that the bulk of retail commercial facilities
and office facilities were being provided for
on adjacent land.
' 3. Freeway orientation in that subject will be
adjacent to two freeways with good prominence
therefrom and with good proximity to on and off
tfacilities.
The search for data was primarily concerned with acreage
parcels-. In order to have the best size comparability to
subject, parcels ranging from 10 -20 acres would be most com-
parable. Actually, since subject can be divided into smaller
acreage parcels, it was decided that acreage transactions
from one acre and larger would have reasonable comparability.
The area of investigation was essentially this coastal vicinity
' commencing first with the Newport Center and then extending -
westerly and northerly into other portions of Newport Beach,
Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. In order to find sales that
' are near regional shopping centers, your appraiser considered
the Huntington Beach area surrounding the Broadway Shopping
Center, and the Segerstrom Center in Costa Mesa, on Bristol
t at the San Diego Freeway. The Broadway Center is ±10 miles
northwesterly from subject. The Segerstrom Center is ±5.5
miles distant.
' While additional areas and regional centers could have been
studied, it was felt that the above mentioned areas were of
best comparability.
' Finally, it should be emphasized that subject land is being
evaluated as if all utilities, bounding streets and off -site
drainage problems have been provided and paid for by the land
owner. The only development problem which the site then has
is on -site final construction grading because of the irregular
topography.
71
P
L
P
j s,OJ\ \
o
wl��o °moo
,c va
hoot I'
a
I b LUa' fl
�nC j � s
let
[[[[ 99i99i W
Ii✓a � /1: �. H ,e`19 ,.ms'j °- ® n ��.a �a�C+. .�. �v�:lil��l
IdM3��sz
m
_ I
I
�I� o
l C
vIz
a
el
l >,
n
j� E3 ri
�.1;/ rl ,
I
N
r
jr
1
�r
r
1
r
1
r
1
r
.r
1
1
r
1
r
r
r
TABULATION OF MARKET DATA
73
Record
No.
Date
Price
Area
Price/
1
11/2/67
$1,375,000
13.56 ac
$2.33/
2
3/18/66
500,000
4.34 ac
2.65/c
3
1/9/67
19200,000
15.00 ac
1.84/0
4
3/7/68
357,000
7.87 ac
1.04/
5
7/67
Lease: Corner
3.228 ac
3.50/0
7/67
Lease: Inside
6.439 ac
3.00/
6
4/4/67
274,000
2.76 ac
2.28/0
7
9/64 -1/68
Various
Various
1.53/ to
3.00/0
8
12/22/66
215,000
5496290
3.94/0
9
7/5/68
--
30.30 ac
2.05/
10
3/14/67
250,000
3.00 ac
1.91/
11
5/22/68
Lease
4.07 ac
2.50/fi
12
Current
Lease
36.09 ac
2.00/
Negotiation
13A
Current
Lease
±60,000
3.00/
Negotiation
13B
Current
Lease
±39,500
4.50/
Negotiation
13C
5/13/68
Lease
±39,500fi
4.25/fi
13D
Current
Lease
t4 acres
5.25/r
Negotiation
13E
1230/66
Lease
4.02 ac
4.50/
73
P
E
1
EVALUATION (Continued)
INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Each of the transactions has been computed on the basis of
price per net area. This is the usable area after all re-
quired perimeter dedications for street and alley purposes.
Examples of these dedication requirements include Market Data
Item No. 6, which required an alley along the north portion,
and No. 9 which required dedications on several sides for
street widening purposes.
In relation to value trend, some of the Irvine lease activity
provides indications of a gradual increase in Newport Center
during the past several years. Transaction No.-13D is a cur-
rent lease negotiation at $5.25 /r. In contrast, No. 13E is a
very similar parcel that was leased in 1966 on the basis of
$4.50 /fi. These transactions indicate a yearly increase of
about 8 %.
As regards height restriction, almost all of the market data
is suited to, or has been developed with, one, two and three
story structures. Thus, these would be similar to subject
which has the 35' limitation over the bulk and 85' on the
northerly 3 acres. Several of subject data items, designated
as 13D and 13E, have been developed to high -rise structures.
However,-these two are superior to subject primarily due to
location, and not simply because of the high -rise potential.
ANALYSIS OF MARKET DATA
Transactions 1, 2 and 3 are commercial parcels near regional
shopping centers. The price range is $1.84/r on up to $2.65/x.
While both No. 2 and No. 3 are very near or adjacent to the
San Diego Freeway, Transaction No. 1 is about 1/2 mile distant
from the San Diego Freeway. These three recorded sales serve
as a general guide in the evaluation of subject.
No. 1 has good size comparability to subject, will probably
require a holding period of several or more years until deve-
lopment takes place, and would be inferior by reason of dis-
tance from the freeway and general location. However, the
sale did have only a 10% down payment as compared to subject
being based on a cash transaction. This would tend to reduce
' the cash price paid to below the $2.33/fi actual price. Also,
No. 1 is a level parcel. It lacks the grading problem of
subject.
74
EVALUATION (Continued)
1 75
Since this transaction is some distance from subject, it can
'
best be used as a-general guide. Considering the factors
referred to above, it is my opinion that the sale serves as
a close lower limit indication on subject at $2.25/f.
'
Item No-. 2 at $2.65/f is a smaller parcel than subject.
Thereby, it has greater marketability than subject. It is
'
superior in that it is adjacent to an existing freeway. It
is similar to subject in that probable uses -- motel, restau-
rant, service station -- are possible on portions of subject.
As a comparison to subject 19+ acres, this transaction is an
upper limit. However, were it compared to the westerly 4 -1/3
acres of subject, the $2.65/f would be a lower limit.
Market Data Item No. 3 is a 15 -acre parcel at $1.84/x. Price
'
was set in 2/66. Development nearby -- freeway and Segerstrom
Center -- have since become actuality. Some upward trending
'
could be applied to the price. It is near a regional center.
Generally speaking, this transaction would point toward the
$2 /f bracket on subject.
'
Market Data Item No. 4, at $1.04 /x, is of limited assistance
in the evaluation. Since it is a recent transaction and has
partly been developed to apartment uses, it serves-as a firm
minimum for subject. The minimum value on subject, were divi-
'
sion contemplated,would be the center portion.
Item No. 5 is an Irvine lease of a 6+ acre motel site based
on $3.00 /fi land value and the lease of a 3+ acre office buil-
ding site at $3.50/f land value. In my opinion, the westerly
portion of subject property is competitive with these.
'
While the leased land is in the airport area, and is suitable
for immediate development, offsetting factors for subject are
location in the Newport Center and superior proximity to the
'
harbor area. Thus, the westerly portion of subject, if con-
sidered as a ±6 -7 acre parcel, would have value as a separate
parcel in the bracket of $3.00 - 3.50 /f.
'
Item No. 6 is the Bethel Towers location in Costa Mesa. It is
a 2.76 acre parcel at $2.28/f. Comparability to subject is
'
limited by reason of different surroundings. However, the
1 75
IEVALUATION (Continued)
I
transaction is a general indication of a $2.00/ value on
land which has generally competitive characteristics with
the center portion of subject.
'
Transaction No. 7 is a group of parcels in the Hoag Hospital
vicinity at prices ranging from $1.50 - 3.00 /x. The transactions
indicate that subject, if divided into units, would generate
the higher values on the perimeter portions -- Newport Center
'
Drive and Avocado -- as contrasted to the interior portions.
The lower limit, or the $1.50/ bracket, is for apartment land
as of 2/65-. The central portion of subject would serve for
'
these uses, as a minimum, and would probably indicate-the
bracket of $1.75/0 currently.. The higher indications, or
$2.10 on up to $3.00/0, reflect parcels more comparable to
'
the east and /or west end portions of subject.
Item No. 8 is a 17th Street commercial parcel at $3.94/0. The
parcel is 1 -1/4 acres in size, has hetergeneous but fairly
desirable commercial surroundings, and reflects the high unit
prices obtainable-on smaller commercial parcels. As a general
t
guide for subject, a parcel of ±1 acre on the west side of sub-
ject property should generate a value of $4 to $4.50/0. However,
this would be the most desirable portion of subject property.
' Item No. 9 is the South Bay Club land which was acquired in
1968 at $2.05/x. In my opinion, this purchase reflects a mini-
mum value for subject land. Subject is adaptable to this type
' use. It has the additional benefits of location in the Newport
Center at a future freeway interchange.
' Transaction No. 10 is a church purchase of 3 acres at $1.91 /x.
In my opinion, were such a use contemplated on subject, it could
be in the central or easterly portion. Those portions of sub-
ject, if ultimately divided into parcels of 3 -5 acres in size,
' should have a current minimum value of $2.00 /fi.
Item No. 11 is an Irvine lease for a Volkswagen agency based on
' a land value of $2.50/fi. This is on the bay side of Coast High-
way and is a desirable location. The category of uses for this
leased parcel bear some comparability to the west portion of
' subject. For an auto agency use, were one to be contemplated
in the Newport Center area, a value for a finished site of
$3.00 /fi, or more, would be probable.
' Item No. 12 is a general guide that indicates $2.00/ as a
minimum on subject. This is a current Irvine lease negotiation
of a parcel that contains 49.13 acres within a lease, but only
' 36.09 usable acres after deducting sloping areas and perimeter
streets. The $2.00/ figure, which is a minimum rental against
76
I
I
[l
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
EVALUATION (Continued)
a percentage, is based upon a 38.02 -acre area which is the
level or usable land as computed to center line of bounding
streets.
Item No. 13 consists of Irvine leases within Newport Center.
Several of these are negotiations. Others are recorded leases
where land has either been developed or is in the process of
development. Land superior to subject is being leased at
values ranging from $4.50 - 5-.25 /r. However, small parcels
just under one acre in size, that have comparability to sub-
ject Newport Center Drive frontage and Avocado Avenue frontage,
are valued for lease purposes in the bracket of $4.25 and
$4.50/fi. Subject westerly portion, if in one acre sizes, would
be suited for immediate development when compared with the lease
transactions.
Summary of Indications: Soi
to subject in its entirety -.
minimum bracket of $2.00 /x,
of $2.25/f, and upper limit
$3.004. Many of the other
to segments of subject.
ne of the market data was comparable
These transactions indicated a
a closer indication in the bracket
indications from $2.65 on up to
sales were helpful as a comparison
To utilize these smaller transactions, it is necessary to make
a subdivision study. This study is placed on the-following
page. The subdivision study, while of assistance, is not as
significant as the comparisons to market data.
L
EVALUATION (Continued)
I]
' SUBDIVISION STUDY
This study is based upon dividing the 19.34 acres into lots
' of 1 to 2.5 acres. An interior street would require ±35,000f,
allowing for 807,450fi to be sold. It is probable that the
engineering, etc. could be accomplished during escrow with a
' one -year sales period required for most parcels.
Retail Potential (1 to 2.5 -acre lots):
' x = Raw Land
Profit = 207,x
' x + 207,x = $2,030;000 - 2,330-,000
x = 1,692,000- 1,942,000
Or, 842,454 @ $2.00/ to $2.31/
1
1 78
Newport Center Frontage
200,000 @ $4.00 /� to $4.50/r
_ $ 800,000 -$ 900,000
Interior Portion
367,4501 @ $2.50 to $2.80/
= 920,000- 11030,000
'
Avocado Frontage
220-000 @ $3.00 to $3.50/f
= 660,000- 770,000
'
'07,450qi or 18.54 subdivided
acres
= $2,380;000 - $2,700;000
Less Sales, Title, etc.
_ - -140-,000- - 160- 000
Net Potential
= ,Z4U,UUU-�Z,J4U,UUU
Costs:
Less
Grading, interior street,
engineering = $100,000
Taxes, interest loss,
'
profit on costs = 110,000
= 210,000
Net to Land and Profit:
_ $21030,000- $2,330,000
'
Profit Incentive:
' x = Raw Land
Profit = 207,x
' x + 207,x = $2,030;000 - 2,330-,000
x = 1,692,000- 1,942,000
Or, 842,454 @ $2.00/ to $2.31/
1
1 78
1
EVALUATION (Continued)
CONCLUSION
w
The value approaches utilized have been a comparison to
'
market data and a subdivision study. The market data indi-
cates a $2.00 /t minimum, $2.25/fi close indication, and an
upper limit of $2.65/6, and above. The subdivision study
'
indicates $2.00- 2.31/fi. Greatest weight is accorded the
analysis of market data. The subdivision approach, while
it tends to confirm the market data analysis, is of secon-
dary usefulness to your appraiser.
Your appraiser has not utilized a land residual study on
'
this parcel. Such a study was made on Site A. The land
residual study, while it can be a'good indicator of land
value, would be of limited significance on subject by
reason of the great diversity of potential uses. Further-
'
more, there are a good number of acreage transactions that
permit a reasonably accurate evaluation. On Site A, there
was an absence of transactions on parcels with comparable
size.- Thus, it was necessary to employ the land residual
'
study, even though primarily useful as a guide.
Thus, as the result of this analysis, giving consideration
also to other less significant data, the following conclu-
sion has been arrived at as of January 1, 1969:
Fair Market Value: $2,000,000
w
1
�I
1
EVALUATION (Continued)
FAIR MARKET VALUE
$2,000,000
Or 842,450fi @ $2.375/fi _ $2,000,819, say $2,000,000
Or 19.34 acres @ $103,410 /acre = $2,000,000
An allocation of this conclusion would be as follows:
' Westerly Portion (along Newport Center Drive):
$3.00 /f or $130,680 /acre
' Central Portion (along G Street):
$1.90 /f or $82,800 /acre
' Easterly Portion (along Avocado Avenue):
' $2.30/f or $100,200 /acre
Assuming that the City acreage requirement, as per Phase
One of the Welton Becket Report (relocation of present
facilities) is up to 6 acres in the easterly and partly
central-portion, the value would fall in the bracket of
$2.20/x, or approximately $575,000.
Assuming that the City acreage requirement, as per Phase
Two of the Welton Becket Report (headquarters library) is
up to 3 acres in the easterly and central portion, the
value would fall in the bracket of $2.20/x, or approxi-
mately $287,500.
Assuming that the Harbor-Judicial District Court facilities
' locate in Newport Center, in the central portion of subject
site, and would require 4.69 acres as per report compiled
by Economics Research Associates for submission to Orange
' County, the value would fall in the bracket of $1.90/ or
approximately $388,000.
all
t
1
81
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 1
'
Location:
SW Cor. Edinger and Sher Lane excluding corner
Legal:
Por. NW4 NE4 Section 23 =5 -11
Size:
825.16/1005.18 x 460/610 = 13.56 ac net & assessor
'
Seller:
Gulf Oil Corporation
Buyer:
B.C. &-R. Ltd. -
Sale Price:
$1,375,000 = $2.33/ or $101,400 /acre
'
Date of Deed:
10/12/67
Recording:
Date: 11/2/67 Instr. #: 1218- Book: 8423
IRS: $1512.50 Ind.SP:$1,235,000 Page: 457
'
Trust Deed:
Date: 11/2167 Instr. #: 1219
UnpdBal :$1,235,000 Bfy: Seller
'
Improvements:
6/17/68 and subsequent: Vacant, level land;
Broadway re�ional shoppin center to north
Streets:
Edinger: 50 to t, 100 R /W; 2 -lanes paved to t
'
Sher Lane: 30' to t; 60' R /W; fully improved ±40'
Zoning:
C -2
Remarks:
Estimated cost to complete street improvements
±$1000 /acre. Total price of $1,375,000 confirmed.
Minor discrepancies in area. Reliance has been
placed upon the assessor map. There are several
'
current listings to the east of Sher Lane at prices
of $3.05 and $3.15/fi for parcels ±3 acres in size
( ±225 x ±580).
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 2
Location:
West side Bristol, immediately south of San Diego
Freeway (includes service station corner)
Legal:
Portion of Lots 3 and 4, Block D, Berry Tract
'
Size:
Irregular; 4.34 acres
Seller:
Jordan, Richard V. and wife; Pope, Edker and wife
Buyer:
McKinley, Robert H.
Sale Price:
$500,000 = $2.65/fi or $115,207 /acre
Date of Deed:
3/8/66
'
Recording:
Date: 3/18/66 Instr. #: 13231 Book: 7872
IRS: $550 Ind.SP: $500,000 Page: 475
'
Trust Deed:
PMTD: $220,000
Improvements:
None; vacant level land at purchase and 11/68
Streets:
Bristol: 60' R /W, 3 -lanes asphalt paved; curbs
'
Zoning:
C -2 + Variance
Remarks:
Bulk of property deeded on 5/13/66, Doc. 48720, to
Casa Holiday, Inc.; no IRS. Also, on 5/13 by Doc.
'
4/8719, McKinley sold .627 acres to Gulf Oil for
$125,000.
1
81
MARKET DATA ITEM
N0. 1
1/2/69
JAM 69
LJ
i
11
Facing east along Edinger Avenue; parcel is vacant
land in the right. The Broadway Regional Shopping '
Center is shown on the left.
[1
' I
82
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 3
'
Location:
Northeast corner Paularino and Bristol, Costa Mesa
Legal:
Portion of Lots 2 and 3, Block D, Berry Tract
Size:
15 acres
Seller:
Pope, Edker and wife -
Buyer:
Big Eye - Costa Mesa, Inc.
'
Sale Price:
$1,200,000 - $1.84/[ or $80,000 /acre
Date of Deed:
10/14/66 (Price set 2/23/66)
Recording:
Date: 1/9/67 Instr. #: 3527- Book: 8147
'
IRS: $1,320 Ind.SP:$1,200,000 Page: 341
Trust Deed:
Unpd.Bal:$900,000 Bfy: United California Bank
'
Improvements:
Vacant at purchase; now improved with White Front
Store.
Streets:
Paularino: 40' to t; 4 -lanes paved; curbs; sidewalks
Bristol: 60' to t; 6 -lanes paved; curbs; sidewalks
'
Zoning:
C -1
'
Remarks:
7/6/67, Doc. #2893, 8304/70, lease to White Front.
Parcel had street improvement costs for Bristol
and Paularino
'
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 4
Location:
SW Cor. Palisades Rd. and Santa Ana Ave. Exc. Corner
Legal:
Por. Lot 149, Block 5 & Por. Lot 142, Blk. 6 Irv. Sub.
'
Size:
342,968 as per seller = 7.87 acres
Seller:
Irvine Industrial Complex
'
Buyer:
Thoner, Jack R. et al
Sale Price:
$357,000 = $1.04/
Date of Deed:
3/5/68 -
'
Recording:
Date: 3/7/68 Instr. #: 3559,60 Book: 8536
IRS: $393.80 Ind.SP: $358,000 Page: 184,187
'
Trust Deed:
Date: 3/7/68 Instr. #: 3561
Unpd.Bal :$167,329 Bfy: Seller
Improvements:
11/31/68: Westerly portion contains apartments.
'
Easterly portion is vacant land, slightly rolling
and drops down to the southeasterly corner.
Zoning:
R -2 = 1500 land per unit
'
Remarks:
Sale confirmed as 342,968 at a price of $357,000.
82
Ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[y?
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 5
Location:
Southeast corner MacArthur Blvd. and Michelson
Legal:
Por. Lot 135, Blk. 7 & Por. Lot 136, Blk. 49, Irv.Sub.
Size:
Corner is 3.228 acres, interior is 6.439 acres
Lessor:
Irvine Industrial Complex
Price:
Corner 3.228 ac is leased on the basis of $3.50 /f
Sale Price:
land value. Inside 6.439 ac is leased on the basis
Date of Deed:
of $3/� land value
Date of Lease:
7/67 for inside parcel
Improvements:
Corner is to be an office building. Inside parcel
Improvements:
is to be a 250 -unit motel. Parcels are vacant and
level. These are across the street from the airport.
Remarks:
Ground leases are based upon the above values at a
Zoning:
6 -1/2% net return.
[y?
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 6
Location:
North side 19th St., 125' E of Pomona Ave., Costa Mesa
Legal:
Portion of Lot A, Banning Tract
Size:
137,847 or 3.16 acres at purchase; 2.76 acres net
Seller:
Costa Mesa Investors, Inc.
Buyer:
Bethel Towers of Costa Mesa
Sale Price:
$2.284 or $99,275/acre
Date of Deed:
3/1/67
Recording:
Date: 4/4/67 Instr. #: 930- Book: 8215
IRS: $301.40 Ind.SP: $274,000 Page: 734
Improvements:
Vacant land at purchase; now contains 18 -story
building with 270 units.
Streets:
19th Street: 40' to t; 6 -lanes paved; curbs
Zoning:
C -1
Remarks:
Net or usable area computed by deducting for alley,
and landscaped area on Pomona. Purchase price
confirmed by seller.
[y?
1 *-
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 8
Location:
Northeast side 17th Street, 330' northwest
of t
SUMMARY OF
of Tustin Avenue, Costa Mesa
'
Legal:
MARKET DATA ITEM
NO. 7
Size:
195' x 280.15' = 54,629 net and net usable
Location:
These transactions
are northerly of Hoag
Hospital.
'
Item
7A 7B
7C
7D
7E
Sale Price:
Size
30,000 60,980f
68,390
169,580fi
60,550 fi
'
Price
$3.00/ $2.96/
$2.41/
$1.53/
$2.16/
Recording:
Record Date
1/2/68 4/10/67
9/3/64
2/3/65
3/29/65
187
Remarks
Bank use Inside
Adjacent
Apartment
Convales-
Unpd.Bal:$150,000 Bfy: Newport Natl.
corner parcel
to hospi-
use
cent
'
tal tri-
To
hospital
the northwest is an office building, beyond
are
angle
various commercial buildings. Southerly of
'
Note:
Transactions cover
9/64 to
1/68, vary in
size,
flower shop, Marie Callendar Pies, etc. Northeast
shape and use; of
general assistance
in
evaluation
'
of Sites A and C.
Commercial
1 *-
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 8
Location:
Northeast side 17th Street, 330' northwest
of t
of Tustin Avenue, Costa Mesa
'
Legal:
Portion Lot 96, Newport Heights
Size:
195' x 280.15' = 54,629 net and net usable
Seller:
Mariners Savings and Loan Association
Buyer:
Moskowitz, Dr. Irving
Sale Price:
$215,000 = $3.94/
Date of Deed:
12/9/66
Recording:
Date: 12/22/66 Instr.#: 12193 Book:
8134
IRS: $236.50 Ind.SP: $215,000 Page:
187
Trust Deed:
Date: 12/22/66 Instr. #: 12195
'
Unpd.Bal:$150,000 Bfy: Newport Natl.
Bank
Improvements:
Vacant, level, some fill has been dumped in
the
back. Corner of Tustin is a Mobil station.
To
t
the northwest is an office building, beyond
are
various commercial buildings. Southerly of
17th
Street are restaurant, real estate offices,
and
flower shop, Marie Callendar Pies, etc. Northeast
are apartments.
'
Zoning:
Commercial
il
' MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 10
Location: SE Cor. Dover Dr. and 16th Street, Newport Beach
' Legal: Portion of Lot 2, Tract 1125
Size: 249.65/229 x 384.30/571.64' = 3 net acres
Seller:
' Buyer:
Sale Price:
' Date of Deed:
Recording:
The Irvine Company
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church
$1.91/ = $83,333/acre
2/7/67
Date: 3/14/67 Instr. #: 7333 Book: 8197
IRS: $275 Ind.SP: $250,000 Page: 618
' Improvements: Vacant; slightly irregular topography sloping down
to Dover Drive.
Streets: Dover Dr.: Divided,-6 -lanes paved, curbs, sidewalks
' 16th St.: 60' paved, curbs, sidewalks
Utilities: Sewer available
' Remarks: Confirmed as sale of a fully improved site.
I
1 85
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 9
'
Location:
Northeast corner Irvine Ave. & 16th Street, Newport
Legal:
Portion Lot 3, Tract 1125
Size:
900.62/900.75' x 707.33' = 14.55 + 15.75 = 30.30 ac
existing; 13.90 + 14.55 = 28.45 acres net
Seller:
Griffith Brothers
Buyer:
Wilshire West Development Company
'
Sale Price:
$2.05/ net = $89,300 /net acre
'
Date of Deed:
Recording:
7/3/68
Date: 7/5/68 Instr. #: 3547 Book: 8650
IRS: None
Trust Deed:
Date: 7/5/68 Instr. #: 3548
'
Unpd.Bal: $360,000 Bfy: Seller
Improvements:
Vacant, slightly undulating land at purchase date;
west 14.55 net acres now being developed to South
'
Bay Club Swinging Singles; 732 apartments and 1019
parking spaces.
'
Zoning:
City Use Permit file reviewed
Remarks:
Perimeter dedications resulted in net area. Some
street widening costs
' MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 10
Location: SE Cor. Dover Dr. and 16th Street, Newport Beach
' Legal: Portion of Lot 2, Tract 1125
Size: 249.65/229 x 384.30/571.64' = 3 net acres
Seller:
' Buyer:
Sale Price:
' Date of Deed:
Recording:
The Irvine Company
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church
$1.91/ = $83,333/acre
2/7/67
Date: 3/14/67 Instr. #: 7333 Book: 8197
IRS: $275 Ind.SP: $250,000 Page: 618
' Improvements: Vacant; slightly irregular topography sloping down
to Dover Drive.
Streets: Dover Dr.: Divided,-6 -lanes paved, curbs, sidewalks
' 16th St.: 60' paved, curbs, sidewalks
Utilities: Sewer available
' Remarks: Confirmed as sale of a fully improved site.
I
1 85
MARKET DATA ITEM
No. 9
1/2/69
JAM 69
Facing northeasterly toward parcel; taken from
the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 16th Street.
' Remarks: 50 -year lease, 10/1/68- 9/30/2018; based on land
value of $2.50 /fi. Lease-was based upon raw land.
Street widening, grading, etc. were burdens of
lessee. Parcel had estimated street costs of
' ±$2,000 /acre.
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 12
86
Location:
Northwest corner San Joaquin Hills Rd. & Jamboree Rd.
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 11
'
Location:
SE Cor. Coast Hwy.
and Bayside Dr., Newport Beach
Irregular; 38.02 net acres, 36.09 net usable acres;
Legal:
Por. Blocks 54 and
94, Irvine Subdivision -
Size:
Irregular; 370/391.58 x 334.70/608.29 = 180,903
'
or 4.07 net acres
Lessor:
Seller:
The Irvine Company
Lessee:
Gerson Baker
Buyer:
Iverson, George C.
Minimum rent based on $2.00/
'
Sale Price:
$2.504 land value
is basis of lease
'
Date of Deed:
Recording:
5/21/68
Date: 5/22/68
Instr. #: 14528 Book: 8608
The usable area is at elevation 100 -120'. The stee�
Page: 997
'
Trust Deed:
Date: 4/24/68
Instr. #: 15764 Book: 8610
'
Lease based upon 38.02 level or usable acres at a
Unpd.Bal :$480,000
Bfy: Bank of America Page: 821
value of $24 in "as is" condition. Overage clause
Improvements:
New Volkswagen agency under construction, 1- story,
is 6 -1/2% against the minimum. Lessee must land-
extends from Coast
Highway to Bayside Drive
'
Zoning:
Commercial
'
' Remarks: 50 -year lease, 10/1/68- 9/30/2018; based on land
value of $2.50 /fi. Lease-was based upon raw land.
Street widening, grading, etc. were burdens of
lessee. Parcel had estimated street costs of
' ±$2,000 /acre.
'
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 12
86
Location:
Northwest corner San Joaquin Hills Rd. & Jamboree Rd.
Legal:
Por. Lots 55 and 56, Irvine Subdivision
'
Size:
Irregular; 38.02 net acres, 36.09 net usable acres;
49.13 acres within lease area (See Remarks for addi-
tional comments about usable area)
Lessor:
Irvine Company
Lessee:
Gerson Baker
'
Sale Price:
Minimum rent based on $2.00/
Date of Lease:
Current Negotiation
'
Improvements:
11/68: Vacant land. 38 acres is relatively level and
the balance of the leased premises are steep slopes.
The usable area is at elevation 100 -120'. The stee�
slopes drop off to a lower or base elevation of ±50 .
'
Zoning:
Use Permit
Remarks:
Lease based upon 38.02 level or usable acres at a
value of $24 in "as is" condition. Overage clause
is 6 -1/2% against the minimum. Lessee must land-
scape and maintain a greenbelt area and an adjacent
%aintenance" strip. Proposed development is 1304
'
units on the 38.02 usable acres. Computation of
36.09 net area by deducting for land in bounding
streets.
1
86
1 87
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 13A
'
Location:
East side Santa Cruz Dr. south of San Joaquin Hills
Drive, Newport Beach
Legal:
Portion Block 55, Irvine Subdivision
'
Size:
±60,000
Seller:
Irvine Company
Buyer:
J. Chasin
Sale Price:
$3.00/ is basis of proposed land lease
Date of Deed:
Current negotiation
'
Improvements:
12/26/68: Vacant; plan t25,000� building
Zoning:
Commercial
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 13B
Location:
West side San Joaquin Hills Rd. S of Santa Rosa Dr.
Legal:
Por. Lot 447, Block 93, Irvine Subdivision
Size:
±391500
Seller:
Irvine Company
Buyer:
Alison Newport Building
'
Sale Price:
$4.50 /r is basis of proposed land lease
Date of Deed:
Current negotiation
'
Improvements:
Vacant with curbs, gutters and sidewalks in. Parcel
is relatively level.
Zoning:
Commercial
MARKET DATA ITEM N0. 13C
'
Location:
West side San Joaquin Hills Rd. south of Santa Rosa
Drive -
Legal:
Portion Lot 447, Block 93, Irvine Subdivision
'
Size:
39,501fi
Seller:
Irvine Company
'
Buyer:
Alison Newport Building
Sale Price:
$4.254 is basis of land lease
Date of Deed:
5/8/68
'
Recording:
Date: 5/13/68 Instr. #: 8165 Book: 8599/910
Trust Deed:
Date: 5/16168 Instr.#: 10248 Book: 8603/246
Unpd.Bal: $226,000 Bfy: United Calif. Bank
Improvements:
12/68: Being improved by the Alison Company with a
1 -story brick structure. Concrete curbs, gutters
'
and sidewalks are in. San Joaquin Hills Road is a
divided parkway with 3 -lanes in each direction.
1 87
' MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 13D
Location: Southeast corner Newport Center Drive East and
' San Nicolas Drive, Newport Beach
Legal: Portion of Block 93, Irvine Subdivision
Size: ±4 acres net
' Sale Price: $5.25/ is basis of proposed ground lease
Improvements: Vacant land; some grading will be required upon
' development
Zoning: Commercial
' Remarks: Office building under construction to north and
existing medical building to south
[1
MARKET DATA ITEM NO. 13E
' Location: Northeast corner Newport Center Drive East and
San Miguel Drive-, Newport Beach
Legal: Portion Block 93, Irvine Subdivision
' Size: Irregular; 175,000 or 4.02 acres net
' Seller: Irvine Company
Buyer: Newport Center Medical Buildings
Sale Price: $4.50/ is basis of land lease
' Recording: Date: 12/30/66 Instr. #: 16936 Book: 8441/904
Trust Deed: Date: 12130/66 Instr. #: 16938
Unpd.Bal: $1,450,000 Bfy: Travelers Ins. Co.
' Assessor Parcel #: 442 -014 -2
Improvements: Vacant at lease date; now contains a 7 -story
medical building; some grading was required of
lessee
Zoning: Commercial
1
1
1
�1
88
I
11
1
1
I
QUALIFICATIONS FOR CEDRIC A. WHITE, JR.
Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (MAI)
EDUCATIONAL:
ig c oo1:
Long Beach Polytechnic - graduated February 1945
College:
Occidental College: February 1945 to June 1948, B.A. in
Mathematics and-Economics
U.S.C.: June 1950, B.E. in Civil Engineering
Advanced
Construction, Costs and-Estimates, 9/51 to 2/52, U.S.C.
Study:
M.A.I. Courses I and II, 1051 -1952
Teaching:
Appraising, Los Angeles High Adult Evening School, 5
Semesters, 1953 -1955. Advanced Appraising, U.S.C., Spring
1957. Appraising, U.C.L.A. Extension, Long Beach, Garden
Grove, Santa Ana. Advanced Appraising, U.C.L.A. Extension
Santa Ana.
PROFESSIONAL:
June
Real Estate Appraiser, Union Bank-and Trust Company, Los
1950
Angeles. During last three years, held position of senior
appraiser.
to
Primary Duty: Manager of Real Estate Appraisal Department
June
consisting of eight men and three women as of June 1956.
1956
Assignment of all appraisal work, involving about 500 per
year; all property types in Los Angeles Metropolitan area.
Review of all appraisal reports for adequacy of data and
valuation procedure. Management of department involving
judgment of caliber of work, suggested advancement, train-
ing procedures, etc.
Secondary Duties: General appraising, residential, and
residential income, commercial, industrial, subdivision
surveys. Cost estimating and analysis of plans on proposed
construction. Examples include: Half- million dollar shop-
ping centers in Covina; residential tracts in Los Angeles
and Orange Counties; industrial subdivision in Torrance,
church in Eagle Rock; restaurant in Manhattan Beach.
Represented Union Bank and Trust Company in talks to Ameri-
can Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, C.R.E.A. Appraisal
Division, Beverly Hills Realty Board, U.C.L.A. Real Estate
majors, San Diego Chapter of S.R.A.
Appraisals during the last few years were primarily on
larger income properties. Major assignments were fair market
value appraisals for the Trust Department, including $75,000
estate in Beverly Hills, $650,000 multi -story retail building
in downtown Los Angeles, $115,000 apartment in Long Beach.
In addition, fair market appraisals were made of all Union
Bank premises and parking lots.
:•
'
Cedric A. White,
Jr., M.A.T. Page 2
'
June
Areas appraised during bank employment included most cities
1950
in Los Angeles and Orange Counties as well as the following:
to
Atascadero: Vacant land; Carpinteria: Beach house; Corona:
June
Store building; Oxnard: Shopping center; Palm Springs: Golf
1956
course; Rancho Santa Fe: Houses and vacant sites; Rialto:
(Continued)
Gas stations, subdivision; San Bernardino: Subdivision;
Ventura: Subdivisions; Yucaipa: Ranch, commercial houses.
July
Associated with employer, George Hamilton Jones, M.A.I.,
'
1956
Anaheim, in appraisal of numerous properties including:
to
Residential and subdivision acreage in San Clemente
Three residential income properties adjacent to Harbor
'
August
Freeway in Los Angeles
1957
Partial takings for highway use: Anaheim, Santa Ana
Fair rental estimate of automobile agency, Anaheim
Dumpsites: Monterey Park, Huntington Beach
School Sites: Capistrano, Magnolia, Placentia, Westminster
10 to 640 -acre parcels: Edwards Air Force Base
Two -story Store Building: Santa Ana
'
Anaheim Memorial Hospital
Chicken Ranch: Riverside area
'
September
Self- employed Real Estate Appraiser
1957
Qualified for court testimony as expert witness on real
to
estate evaluation in Superior Courts of Orange County, Los
Angeles County, Riverside County, San Diego County.
September
1967
Representative clients include, in part, the following:
'
Attorneys:
TFomas A. Baggot: Westminster property; Beverly Hills
condemnation; downtown Los Angeles properties
'
John D. Chinello: Huntington Beach acreage
Stephen Claman: Fullerton property
Hodge Dolle: Decorative eucalyptus grove, Chatsworth
'
acreage, lumber yard, trailer park, acreage in Oceanside
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: La Habra property
Arthur Gray: 1200 acres in Yorba Linda
'
John Kent: Various Anaheim properties
Kindel & Anderson: Subdivision land in Westminster, Law
Building, Los Angeles Civic Center
Launer, Chaffee & Hanna: Various properties in Orange County
John Maeno: Dairy Valley, Ventura and San Dimas acreage
Scott Richmond: Santa Ana property
'
Rutan & Tucker: Numerous assignments in Orange County;
acreage at Prado Dam, Riverside County; property in
Newhall area; San Fernando Valley acreage
William Wenke: Huntington Beach acreage
'
'
90
Cedric A. White,
Jr., M.A.I. Page 3
'
September
Cities:
1957
Anaheim: Parking lots; acreage; courthouse area; downtown
area; ball park; convention center
to
Avalon: Well site; vacant land
Buena Park: Fire station, park sites, library sites
September
Colton: Downtown area for potential renewal
1967
Costa Mesa: Street R/W
'
Cypress: City hall site; flood control channel; park sites
(Continued)
Fountain Valley: Flood control in Miles Square
Fullerton: Park site; street widening
'
Garden Grove: Street widening for West Street
Laguna Beach: Street widening for Glenneyre
La Habra: Street widening
Newport Beach: Freeway alignments
'
Norwalk: Street widening in downtown area
Orange: Fire station site
'
Santa Ana: Street widening, well site
Westminster: City hall site, Trask Avenue widening, acreage
parcels
Co oration s and Individuals:
'
Lan ompany: creage in Oceanside
C
Anaheim Memorial Hospital: Property for expansion
Anaheim Union Water Company: Wells and reservoir
Assembly of God Church: Property in Santa Ana
'
Bechtel Corporation: Sites for nuclear plants
Casualty Insurance Company: Anaheim office building,
acreage in Cherry Valley
'
Catholic Welfare: House in Santa Ana
Chapman College: Parcels in Orange
Colwell Company: Food Giant Shopping Center
'
Cone Bros. Chevrolet: Used car lots
Corporations Commissioner: Fullerton R -3 land
Thomas Coughlin: Trailer park
Curci -Turner Company: Vacant land in San Bernaraino,
'
Santa Ana and Blythe
R. S. Diller: San Fernando Valley acreage
Doyle and Shields: Liquor store, Huntington Beach land
'
Edison Company: Homes in Orange; R/W in Mission Viejo
R. H. Grant Company: Acreage in Riverside
George Holstein & Sons: Acreage in Fountain Valley
'
Irvine Company: High school site
Kimco Corporation: SupeRx Drugs
Lambuth, Sill & Company: Cold storage plants
Howard Lawson: Santa Ana commercial; Town & Country center
'
Metropolitan Water District: Various vacant parcels;
reservoir in Hemet area; San Diego pipeline
'
Mission Viejo Company: R/W for Edison lines
Oil Companies: Gulf, Humble, Mobil, Standard, Texaco, Union
Pacific Telephone: Warehouse in Riverside; properties in
downtown Anaheim; San Clemente office
'
Rinker Development Corporation: Santiago Canyon parcel
Rossmoor Corporation: Leisure World land; E1 Toro parcel
Segerstrom & Sons: Freeway taking in Costa Mesa
'
Yorba Linda County Water District: Various parcels
91
1 Cedric A. White, Jr., M.A.I. Page 4
September County of Orange:
1957 Various app a sals of full and partial takings for roads,
flood control channels, retarding basins and dams,-refuse
to transfer stations, civic center parcels, park site, etc.
September School Districts:
' 1967 ABC, AlamiFo—s, Anaheim Elementary, Anaheim Union High,
Brea, Buena Park, Capistrano Unified, Capistrano Union
(Continued) High, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fullerton Elementary, Fuller-
' ton Union High, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach Elementary,
LaHabra, Los Alamitos, Magnolia, North Orange County Junior
College, Ocean View, Orange Unified, Placentia Unified,
' Rowland Union (Los Angeles County), San Clemente, San Juan,
Savanna, Seal Beach Elementary, Tustin Elementary, Tustin
High, Westminster
Len din Institutions:
' Banc 0, America, Crocker - Citizens, Manufacturers Bank,
Saddleback National, United California; Equitable Savings
& Loan, Liberty Savings & Loan, Premier Savings & Loan,
' State Mutual Savings & Loan, Tustin Savings & Loan
Residences for Employee Transfer:
'
American an, utomatic`Rlectric, Bank of America, Bell
Telephone, Bemis Co., Inc., Bethlehem Steel, Coin- C -Matic
Equipment, Continental Can, Crocker Citizens, Dow Chemical,
Essex Wire, First National City Bank of New York, Ford
' Motor Company, General Foods, General Mills, Homequity,
Honeywell, Kraft Foods, Minute Main, Morgan Guaranty Trust
Company of New York
' Membership in American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - November 1957
Talks to Anaheim Board of Realtors, Long Beach Board of Realtors, Orange
County SRA, Santa Ana /Tustin Board of Realtors, Long Beach SRA, MAI Seminars.
I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge. ^
Cedric White, , jr., � (
' 92
State of California:
Dept.ot Insurance: Office building in Anaheim; commercial
land in Laguna Niguel; acreage in Huntington Beach
Div. of Beaches & Parks: Underwater lots in Newport Beach
Div. of Finance: Fairview Hospital lands; motor vehicle
building sites
Div. of Highways: Various for freeways and highways
U. S. Government:
Dept. ot Justice: Nike site in Brea area
Dept of the Navy: Seal Beach property
'
FHA: Residences in Orange County
General Services Adminstration: Office build ng in Los
Angeles, site for building in Van Nuys
'
U. S. Treasury Dept.: Memorial park in Westminster
Len din Institutions:
' Banc 0, America, Crocker - Citizens, Manufacturers Bank,
Saddleback National, United California; Equitable Savings
& Loan, Liberty Savings & Loan, Premier Savings & Loan,
' State Mutual Savings & Loan, Tustin Savings & Loan
Residences for Employee Transfer:
'
American an, utomatic`Rlectric, Bank of America, Bell
Telephone, Bemis Co., Inc., Bethlehem Steel, Coin- C -Matic
Equipment, Continental Can, Crocker Citizens, Dow Chemical,
Essex Wire, First National City Bank of New York, Ford
' Motor Company, General Foods, General Mills, Homequity,
Honeywell, Kraft Foods, Minute Main, Morgan Guaranty Trust
Company of New York
' Membership in American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - November 1957
Talks to Anaheim Board of Realtors, Long Beach Board of Realtors, Orange
County SRA, Santa Ana /Tustin Board of Realtors, Long Beach SRA, MAI Seminars.
I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge. ^
Cedric White, , jr., � (
' 92
TO: Finance Director
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Contract
Contract No. 1192
Mayor authoriwd
Authorized Vq0AqP6bIRR9W No. adopted on 9/23/68
Date Mayor and {executed Contract -Oggdbev 0,,1568 —
Effective date of Contract October 8, 1968
Contract with Cedric A. White. Jr.. MAI
Address 531 South Harbor Blvd.
Anaheim, Calif.
Brief description of Contract aF� =B
gnnVertV is 1 fpr Cigit• rantarm Rita
r� --
Amount of Contract
ih
Attached (copy of contract)
Not to exceed $7,500
Cit Cl k i µ
9
i
Cedric A. White, Jr., MAJ''
531 South Harbor Boulevar&
Anaheim, California,.
Dear Mr. White:
The City Council of the City of Newport -Beach has authorized
me to enter into:an agreement for the purpose of securing
appraisals of two parcels of property which7-are under consi-
deration as sites-for the new Civic Center, one of which has
been designated'.-as Site A, the existing Civic Center location,
and the other bf°which has been designated?Site C, the Newport
Center location, located easterly of Newport .Center Drive and
northerly of Pacific Coast Highway, in the Newport Center.
If you accept this assignment, the- .terms and conditions of
your employment will betas follows:
It is understood that you .personally will>have` principal re-
sponsibility for preparing .the appraisal °eport. Your com-
pensation will be at the rate of $25 per hour for your services,
and your associate, *Mr. Everett Schmid, will-be compensated
at the rate of $12.50 per hour, and the maximum compensation
for all services that you will furnish shal -I not exceed $7,500.
The City has previously retained the - services of Welton Becket
and Associates and Economic Research Associates for the pur-
pose of preparing a Civic Center site selection study. It is
understood that you may;call upon these two firms for specific
planning and engineering data,., including the cost of demolish- j
ing the present, City Hall buildings, to aid you in your appraisal.
It is cont6mplated;.that the City may wish to consider dividing
Site C into 'smaller parcels.. It is understood that-you will
work with myself °and other City officials to determine the
precise configurations of these parcels for purposes of- -includ-
ing separate valuations of such parcels in your appraisal
report.
It is a reed that the completed a
g p Appraisal report will "8e pre -
sented to the City no later -than January 1, 19.69,. with 5 copies
Cedric A: `P1liite; .I , MAI
Page -2-
October 8, 1968
of the report to be incllu in your basic price, and an addi-
tional 20 copies of the report to be furnished to the City at
their actual reproduction cost.
If this agreement is acceptable to. you, please execute the
original and one copy on the line indicated for your signature
and return both to me. The other copy may be retained for your
file. -`;a
DM:THS:mm
The above agreement is approved
and accepted on behalf of the
City of Newport Beach:
Doreen Marshall
Mayor
Dated: October 8, 1968
*Please Note:
Yours very truly,
4&aMN' "
DOREEN MARSHALL
Mayor
I approve and accept
the above agreement:
.. Ld'
.Cedric A. White, Jr.
Dated: October 11, 1968
Ted Lundberg is also an associate of mine. He, and /or Mr.
Schmid, will be providing me with assistance in this matter.
His compensation will also be at $12.50 /hour and will be
included in the $7,500 maximum.
�CO
Cedric A. Wnite, r., M.A. .
9i
7