Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10151996 - D9 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / Costa FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1996 SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES NEAR THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL AND RELATED ACTIONS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT report from Anderson & Brabant, Inc. regarding residential property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill as complete. 2. DETERMINE whether there has been property value losses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts and where the losses have occurred. Anderson report identified losses for various properties fronting on the east side of Bailey Road. 3. DETERMINE whether or not a compensation program is warranted. 4. DETERMINE what source of funds are to be used if a compensation program is adopted. 5. DEFINE parameters of compensation program, including which persons/properties should be included or excluded (based on timing of sale/purchase and other qualifications), method of compensation and schedule. Areas may include properties fronting on the east side of Bailey Road and individual properties in the Hillsdale neighborhood that can furnish justification for compensation. 6. DIRECT County Counsel to provide input regarding legal authority & limitations, necessary findings, etc. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: J —RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE ' OTHER SIGNATUREISI: ACTION OF BOARD ON October 15, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ OTHER X PA;ease see Addendum (Attached) for a list of speakers and Board action on this matter, VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND _ x UNANIMOUS (ABSENTIII (Bishod ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED October 15, 1996 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL ELOR,CLERK OF THE BO OF Contact: Val Alexeeff(510) 646-1620 ERMSORS O U N TY CC: County AdministratorTRATO County Counsel - GMEDA Departments VAIDD:dg DD10:KCL-PVS.BO � y Property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill October 15, 1996 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of this study and previous studies was borne by the landfill operator, BFI- Keller Canyon Landfill Company. If the Board adopts a compensation program a funding source must be specified. Condition 35.3 of the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit 2020-89 requires that upon adoption of a compensation program by the Board, "the landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified by the Board". BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The study of property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill is based on the authority and requirements of the Landfill's Land Use Permit 2020-89 (LUP 2020-89) granted by the County Board of Supervisors on July 24, 1990. Condition of Approval 35.3 of LUP 2020- 89 states: The landfill operator shall provide funding for the preparation of a property value compensation program study when requested by the County of Contra Costa. The study will address the means of determining the extent of property value losses or reductions attributable to landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions. When a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified by the Board. If the Board determines that progress on the implementation of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the Board may require the use of a facilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. The key phrases are: "The study will address the means of determining the extent of property value losses..." "...attributable to landfill impacts such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution..." -> "...means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions." In 1992, the County entered into a contract with Sonoma State University - ICPA (funded by landfill operator) to prepare the Property Valuation Study. The study methodology was developed after consultation with the Keller Canyon Landfill Local Advisory Committee. The study began in late 1992 and was completed in November 1994. The purpose of the "Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study" completed by Sonoma State University - ICPA was to address the means of determining the extent of property value losses. The main questions were: "Does it appear that property values were affected and if so, how do we determine which properties and how much?" The ICPA study included analysis and recommendations based on neighborhood property value averages for four separate neighborhoods. The study concluded that property values were not impacted in two neighborhoods (Woodside and Oak Hills). However for the other two neighborhoods (Hillsdale and Bailey Road) the study recommended that "a compensation or mitigation program may be warranted" and "appraisals of individual properties would be needed". Property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill October 15, 1996 Page 3 BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (continued) It is important to note the following comments which were included within opening statements of the ICPA study: "There is a generally widespread feeling in all of the primary neighborhoods that the landfill has affected residents and their property values. Yet, in two of the neighborhoods, Oak Hills (NB) and Woodside (NC), this feeling is not validated by any of the findings of the computer price model and support surveys. A loss of premium has been found in the Hillsdale neighborhood(NA), yet the magnitude of the loss is much less than the residents have claimed. The generally low level of landfill impacts recorded by ICPA staff in the field surveys in this neighborhood appears to be closely related to the actual level of premium loss calculated by the Hedonic Regression Price Model. It must be reiterated here that the results of the Hedonic Regression Price Model are average values for specific neighborhoods. The actual value of a particular home in a neighborhood at any point in time is dependent on many factors. An appraisal would be needed to establish the price of any particular parcel. Neighborhood NA (Hillsdale) There have been premiums (higher prices paid than for similar properties in comparable neighborhoods) averaging$5,700 experienced in this neighborhood extending over many years. Between 1991 and May 1994, these premiums disappeared. This occurrence coincides with site approval construction, and operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill. A general loss of property values in this neighborhood has occurred. A compensation or mitigation program may be warranted for properties in this neighborhood. An appraisal of each particular property is needed. The sales history of each property must be documented. It is necessary to know when the parcel was purchased and/or when it was sold, and who was involved in the transactions. Compensation would not necessarily go to the current owner. Alternative compensation approaches should be investigated. Neighborhood NB (Oak Hills) There have been significant premiums in this neighborhood over all years relative to comparable neighborhoods. There has been no loss of premiums in the time between the decision to locate the landfill in Keller Canyon and its operational status in May 1994. No compensation program is indicated for this neighborhood. Neighborhood NC (Woodside) Except for an unusual premium in 1989, no premiums historically have existed in this neighborhood relative to comparable neighborhoods. Sales prices have been higher close to the landfill and lower farther away. No compensation program is indicated for this neighborhood. Neighborhood NE (Bailey Road) As noted in the previous chapter, there is great variation in the characteristics of the properties along Bailey Road. Historical sales data for this area are not plentiful. A large number of homes in this area recently were demolished for the BART parking lot. The parcels along Bailey Road are greatly impacted by traffic on this busy thoroughfare. Many of them were found in the field surveys to be severely impacted by landfill transfer trucks, especially from noise, litter, and odor emanating from these vehicles, and a few also are affected by views of the landfill service road. -1. 1 Property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill October 15, 1996 Page 4 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (continued) Under this complex set of circumstances, and lacking sufficient historical sales data, it is difficult to provide any definitive recommendations for this area. Because parcels along Bailey Road are heavily impacted by landfill traffic activities, more so than parcels in the primary neighborhoods, a compensation or mitigation program may be warranted. Because of the existing traffic and other activities, appraisals of individual parcels will be needed. Conclusion of the Study In approaching the Keller Canyon Property Valuation Study from so many different perspectives, a comprehensive picture of the effects of this regionally needed but locally unwanted facility on nearby neighborhoods has emerged. The Keller Canyon Landfill has been found to be a classic example of a "locally unwanted land use" (LULU). A loss in property values has been documented for one neighborhood near the landfill but not for two others. One conclusion has emerged from this study. The cause and effect relationship of the introduction of a landfill into the landscape near established neighborhoods, and the resultant adjustment in housing prices, can be much more complex than initially it might appear. The distance from the landfill alone may not be enough to explain the value prospective buyers place on homes in a neighborhood. The level and accuracy of housing market information held by buyers and sellers may be a factor. Landfill impacts, whether real or perceived, may contribute to the "image"of the neighborhood held by its existing residents, local realtors, and prospective buyers. This may translate into a greater eagerness to sell on the part of homeowners. The attitudes of, and negative publicity generated by, neighborhood residents may damage the image of neighborhood. This is what Alan K. Reichert in his 1991 study of the impact of landfills on property values terms a "self-fulfilling prophesy." It is difficult to pinpoint what or who actually may have caused a loss of property values in one of three neighborhoods near the Keller Canyon Landfill. What can be said with certainty is that the growth of eastern Contra Costa County has resulted in a need for an additional solid waste disposal facility. Keller Canyon was selected as the site for a state- of-the-art sanitary landfill. The landfill was constructed and has been operating for over two years. It has been a locally unwanted land use. Many nearby Pittsburg residents and city officials have vigorously opposed it over a period of several years. This opposition has been well documented in the media. The construction and operation of the landfill has had some impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. Finally, one neighborhood has experienced a loss of premium since the decision to locate the landfill nearby." The ICPA study was not intended to provide an appraisal of specific properties but instead identify a potential area of impact. It stated further review and appraisals were needed for two neighborhoods. The ICPA study did not escape controversy any easier than other aspects of landfill location, selection and approval. The study was challenged by BFI. Coopers and Lybrand under contract to BFI prepared a study which stated that the ICPA study was flawed for the Hillsdale subdivision because weighted averages were not used in comparisons with other subdivisions. The weighted averages would have reflected the differences in the number of sales. Secondly, two dissimilar subdivisions, Hillsdale II and Country Club, were combined to equal the sales in Hillsdale I. Further, the premium was not consistent. It existed in some years and not in others. �r Property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill October 15, 1996 Page 5 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (continued) A further study was commissioned by BFI and conducted by Gordon Raussen, Dean of the College of Natural Resources at Berkeley, with assistance from the Law and Economics Consulting Group. The Raussen study concluded that there were several flaws in the statistical modeling and subsequent interpretation as reported in the Sonoma State - ICPA study. The analysis of landfill effects on property values occurred in the midst of three disruptive factors—major construction of State Route 4 and the BART station, severe decline in the California/Bay Area real estate market, and significant opposition and negative descriptions of the proposed landfill. Diminution in value occurred before construction began. This diminution may have been due to perception, but not due to any development operation characteristic of the landfill. The premium in Hillsdale had been declining prior to Keller. There was no relationship between proximity to landfill and decrease in values. Closer units didnot experience greater decrease. The Raussen study further criticized the statistical model and its application. Most everyone agrees with at least one statement in the ICPA study which is "[t]he actual value of a particular home in a neighborhood at any point in time is dependent on many factors". One significant challenge is successfully isolating one factor, such as the landfill, and determining its' sole impact on property values. While the County did not order a new study on the basic questions considered by ICPA, there was a desire to avoid on-going duels between technical experts and along with self- imposed limitations in the ICPA study, it was determined that additional information and/or analysis was needed. In late 1995, the County was informed of a property value loss case for the San Marcos Landfill in San Diego County. While gathering information regarding the San Marcos Landfill case, staff was referred to the real estate appraiser/consultant who analyzed the property values and developed the compensation program which was approved by the Court. The consultant is Bill Anderson of Anderson & Brabant, Inc. The County entered into a contract with Anderson & Brabant Inc. to provide the Board with a basis to determine appropriate action in light of all available information. Bill Anderson was provided with the ICPA study and the challenges as well as additional background materials for his use in developing an approach for the Board. He was selected to develop this approach based on his experience and expertise as a real estate appraisal professional who had successfully analyzed similar circumstances. Anderson started with visits to the Keller Canyon Landfill and surrounding neighborhoods as well as conducting interviews with property owners, real estate professionals, and representatives from the landfill and local government (City of Pittsburg and County). Anderson proceeded to gather information and conduct various analyses. Anderson used a four pronged approach to address the property value issue: Multiple Listing Service Historical Data, Price Trends Study, Regression Studies and Comparable Sales Analysis. On September 26, 1996, upon completion of his analyses, Anderson released his preliminary conclusions. Anderson's conclusions are summarized below: HillsdaleNVoodside By focusing on actual values of individual properties rather than neighborhood averages, Anderson did not find property value losses in Hillsdale or Woodside due to the landfill. He stated that "ftJhere is no historical precedent reflected in our studies to indicate that properties within the Hillsdale neighborhood have suffered a loss in value due to their proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill'. 3 Property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill October 15, 1996 Page 6 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (continued) Bailey Road Anderson found an impact associated with landfill operations to some residential properties situated on the east side of Bailey Road and proposed a means of calculating a compensation amount based on rental values. He states that "recognizing that this section of Bailey Road is more appealing for tenant occupancy than owner occupancy, the incremental influence on the properties can be analyzed on the basis of the income loss or potential income loss associated with landfill operations". Anderson developed a mathematical formula that can be used to determine appropriate property compensation based predominantly on market rental rates. Applying market rental rates ranging from $300 to $800 per month to the calculation recommended by Anderson results in lump sum amounts ranging from $1,800 to $7,200. There are 38 lots on the east side of Bailey Road between Highway 4 and Willow Road (7 of which are in the new Evergreen Estates subdivision developed by Seeno and 10 of which are owned by Contra Costa County). About eight of the homes (not including Evergreen Estates) are owner occupied the balance are tenant occupied. Although Anderson's report did not find evidence of property value losses to homes in Hillsdale, his report does not preclude the possibility that individual properties within the Hillsdale neighborhood may have been affected by the landfill. Staff can develop criteria for review of individual homes to enable property owners to apply for compensation (which would be based on property owners providing justification that their property has lost value due to landfill impacts). Anderson finalized his report on October 7, 1996. The final report (Attachment A) includes additional information regarding his analyses and provides the study methodology, eligibility criteria, distribution methodology as well as detailed appendices (including 78 individual appraisals). COMPENSATION PROGRAM & FUNDING ISSUE If the Board determines property values have been impacted by the landfill the Board may adopt a compensation program. The Board is responsible for specifying the funding source for the compensation program. Possible funding options include but are not limited to: 1. Landfill operator (BFI/KCLC) to fund compensation on a County designated schedule. Condition 35.3 of LUP 2020-89 requires the landfill developer to fund the compensation program in the manner specified by the Board. 2. Utilize mitigation fees (either those specified for use in the City and/or unincorporated areas) to fund compensation on a designated schedule. 3. Direct staff to investigate other sources of revenue. Attachments: A. Final Report by Anderson & Brabant, Inc. dated October 7, 1996 (not including appendices) B. Conceptual Criteria for Review of Individual Property Values - DRAFT for discussion purposes only- dated October 7, 1996 DD10:KCL-PVS.B0 D.9 ADDENDUM Item D.9 October 15, 1996 Subsequent to the presentation of the attached report and comments from Board members, the following persons commented on the issues: Joe Canciamilla, Mayor, City of Pittsburg, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg; Frank Aiello, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg; Lance J. Dow, Chair, Citizens United, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg; Keith Robb, 2224 Carmel Court, Pittsburg; Jim Mac Donald, 274 Pebble Beach Loop, Pittsburg; Mark Rusch, 1764 Berrywood Drive, Concord; Jeff Kolin, City Manager, City of Pittsburg, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg; Frank Sharkey, 751 Bailey Road, Pittsburg; Andrew Thomas, 2219 Concord Drive, Pittsburg; Gary Carr, 2250 Mt. Whitney Drive, Pittsburg; and Mark Miller, 2374 Peachtree Circle, Antioch. All persons desiring to speak were heard. Following Board discussion and on the recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report from Anderson & Brabant, Inc., regarding residential property values near the Keller Canyon Landfill is REFERRED to the Finance Committee for review and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on issues including; the development of a compensation program; a proposal for compensation program parameters which project transaction costs; and a proposed draft contractual agreement between all parties as an alternative to a compensation program; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Administrator, County Counsel and the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, are DIRECTED to work with the Finance Committee, Citizens United, the City of Pittsburg, residents, and BFI to develop recommendations for Board consideration regarding the issues raised in the correspondence from Citizens United and the City of Pittsburg including: the issue of water; the issue of landscaping; the issue of air monitoring; and the issue of potential financial solutions. cc: County Administrator Finance Committee (via CAO) Citizens United (via CAO) City of Pittsburg County Counsel Director, GMEDA BFI (via GMEDA) 7 T10 Ali 10: 17 FINAL REPORT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL AN ANALYSIS OF ITS INFLUENCE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES PREPARED FOR Ms. Deidra Dingman, Senior Planner Community Development Department CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor - North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 DATE OF REPORT October 7, 1996 PREPARED BY Anderson & Brabant, Inc. 353 West Ninth Avenue Escondido, California 92025-5032 f File No. 95-153 ANDERSON b BRABANT. INC. T ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 353 W. NINTH AVENUE ESCONDIDO,CALIFORNIA 920255032 TELEPHONE(619)741 4146 FAX(619)741.1049 October 7, 1996 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Senior Planner Community Development Department CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street 4th Floor - North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 RE: Keller Canyon Landfill Our File 95-153 Dear Ms. Dingman: As requested,we have completed our analysis of the Keller Canyon Landfill and its influence on surrounding property values. The purpose of our study was to provide an estimate of the diminution in value to properties adversely influenced because of their proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill. You have also requested that we provide a distribution methodology of funds to be allocated to the affected property owners. Our opinions are set forth as of October 7, 1996. The following report contains a complete summary of our findings and conclusions. The report consists of an Introduction Section which describes, among other things, the methodologies utilized In our analysis; a Description and Analysis Section which sets forth the results of the various studies;and an Addenda Section which contains charts, graphs, and summaries. While our study did involve the valuation analysis of numerous properties in an effort to isolate value loss associated with Landfill proximity and/or influence,this document is not an appraisal as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The following text contains documentation and support for our conclusion that the residential properties located in the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Keller Canyon Landfill have not sustained a loss in market value directly attributable to this proximity or the operations of the Landfill, but certain residential properties along Bailey Road have been adversely affected by the Landfill. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance in this matter. Respectfully submitted, ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC. William B. Anderson, MAI State Certification AG 002315 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Identification of the Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Objective of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Intended Use of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Scope of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS SECTION Results of the Various Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 MLS Historical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Price Trends Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Regression Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Comparable Sales Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Reconciliation of the Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 BaileyRoad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Bailey Road Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 ADDENDA Exhibit A- MLS Historical Statistics Exhibit B- Price Trends Study. Hillsdale and Woodside Neighborhoods Exhibit C- Price Trends Study: Comparable Neighborhood Exhibit D- Summary of Regression Studies and Price Trends Analysis (Sale and Resale of Same Model Home) Exhibit E- Summary of Regression Studies with Charts Exhibit F- 1990- 1996 Summary of Comparable Sales Analysis with Individual Summaries for Each Index Sale Exhibit G- Photographs Exhibit H- Map of Subject Neighborhoods ANDERSON 8 BRABANT. INC. INTRODUCTION ANDERSON 8 BP ABANT, INC. INTRODUCTION SECTION Identification of the Task The siting of the Keller Canyon Landfill adjacent to an existing urbanized area has resulted in significant controversy and related problems. Our study has focused on the contention that the Landfill and its operations have resulted in a diminution In value to those improved properties situated In adjacent residential neighborhoods. These'neighborhoods have been specifically identified as Hillsdale,Woodside, and Bailey Road. As indicated In prior correspondence, landfills can create both physical and perceptional Influences which could impact market value. For purposes of our study,Market Value is defined as follows. 'The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment Is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale."' The significance of the above definition for our purposes is that it provides a tangible basis for considering the alleged value loss issue. The consideration of a potential value loss associated with Landfill proximity assumes that a property would be sold under the criteria set forth in this definition. In other words, a property in one of the Identified areas that is sold under the precepts of this definition at a price above or below its Market Value could be said to be influenced by some unusual feature or The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal,3d ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 1993),p.222-223 2 ANDERSON 6 BKABANT. INC. circumstance. if the Landfill is having an adverse Influence on property values,the price paid for a particular property would be something less than its Market Value by definition. Obiective of the Study. The objective of our study is to comply with a special condition of approval set forth in Land Use Permit 2020-89 for the Keller Canyon Landfill which was approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on July 24, 1990,and amended by the Supervisors on November 1,.1994. Special Conditions of Approval 35.3 is set forth below in its entirety. "Property Value Compensation Program. The Landfill operators shall provide funding for the preparation of a property value compensation program study when requested by the County of Contra Costa. The study will address the means of determining the extend of property value loses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts,such as aesthetics,noise, traffic, or pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions. When a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the Landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified by the Board. If the Board of Supervisors determines that progress on the implementation of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the Board may require the use of a facilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting." Intended Use of the Studv The study will be used to implement Special Conditions of Approval 35.3. Scope of the Analysis The initial research for this project began in March of this year. Since that time, we have conducted an extensive Investigation of the various factors considered pertinent to our study. The following Is a brief summary of the more significant components of this Investigation. • The Keller Canyon Landfill property and surrounding residential developments were initially inspected in March of this.year. • Interviews were conducted with local real estate agents and property owners during our first visit to the area. 3 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. �v • Officials with the County, City of Pittsburg, and representatives of Citizens United were interviewed. • Complaint logs made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the County Local Enforcement Agency were reviewed. • Documentation relating to various public meetings and correspondence from numerous parties were reviewed. • The lawsuit history of the Keller Canyon Landfill was reviewed. • The County provided a copy of the data base assembled for the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study prepared by Sonoma State University. These data were reviewed. • We have reviewed information relating to the chronology of Landfill development. • The chronology of the Bart Station development has been reviewed. • Public Record information regarding sales histories over an extended period of time were obtained from an on-line data resource provider. • An extensive data base was assembled utilizing information provided by the local Multiple Listing Service. These data included listings and sales of properties within the Pittsburg and Antioch areas, as well as a compilation of statistical historical information summarizing year-end results. • Carefully reviewed published literature relating to other landfill valuation studies. • Interviewed operators and owners of other landfills. • During our second visit to the area, we conducted additional property owner interviews and inspected hundreds of properties, both within the landfill proximity neighborhoods and identified comparable neighborhoods. • Telephone interviews were conducted with homeowners and real estate agents active in the area. • On our third visit to the area,we inspected all of the identified index sale properties within the landfill proximate neighborhoods and the comparable sale properties which were taken from other locations. • We reviewed zoning and General Plan Land Use designations for properties located along Bailey Road. • Additional interviews were held with property owners and real estate agents. • Housing trends and development patterns within the East Bay area were reviewed and analyzed. 4 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. • Clip files from the Ledger Dispatch for the Keller Canyon Landfill were assembled and reviewed. These articles were written between 1992 and 1996. Methodology All of the research provided invaluable help in developing the proper analytical methodologies for this study, however, interviews with both property owners and local real estate agents were particularly helpful. It must be remembered that the early years of this decade represented a period of prolonged market decline resulting in significant equity losses for property owners everywhere. The tremendous price Inflation of the late 1980's largely disappeared due to the unusually long downturn in the real estate market. This can be attributed to general economic conditions as well as local market dynamics. During this period, consumer confidence in the economy had significantly declined, and home buyers had become extremely price sensitive. Homes in the Landfill proximate neighborhoods are typically marketed to either first time buyers or first time move-up buyers, and it is this group that is particularly sensitive to the Issue of affordability. There is a heavy concentration of government guaranteed loans throughout the area,which means that mortgage payments for these buyers are typically higher than those where conventional loans are involved. These lenders typically require a minimum down payment of ten percent and sometimes 20 percent of the purchase price, resulting in somewhat lower mortgage payments for the buyer. All of these factors influenced the effective demand for real estate in a the area. The primary task In the current analysis has been to isolate the influence of the Keller Canyon Landfill on property values apart from the influence of general economic conditions and local marketplace dynamics. In order to accomplish this goal, it was necessary to consider a number of different methodologies. The local Multiple Listing Service tracks sales and listings that have been analyzed over an extended period. These data were assembled for properties within the identified subject neighborhoods and the same information was collected for comparable neighborhoods outside the influence of the Landfill. An analysis of these data provided an indication of how property values have been affected by the market in general, as opposed to how the landfill has affected property values within its influence. 5 ANDERSON 8 BRABANT. INC. Another analysis that was conducted involved the sale and resale of the same property,and sales of different properties with the same floor plans and living areas. These data were also assembled and analyzed for Landfill proximate and comparable neighborhoods. This analysis also provided an indication of how general market conditions have impacted home prices in both areas. A series of regression studies were also completed for areas within close proximity to the Landfill and other areas outside the boundaries of the Landfill neighborhoods. The regression studies also provided a basis upon which to analyze price trends in various areas to see if the Landfill was creating an unusual or Identifiable Increment of value loss over and above what was typical of the marketplace in general.The final study was property specific In that various index sale properties were identified within the alleged impact neighborhoods and directly compared to comparable properties in other areas. The goal of this analysis was to isolate,through an adjustment process,the amount of influence Landfill proximity had on the sale price of the index property. We attempted to isolate and verify every sale transaction that has occurred within the Hillsdale, Woodside and Bailey Road neighborhoods between 1989 and mid-1996. A total of 78 index sales were randomly selected for analysis from this pool of market data. Each of these studies were carefully prepared and analyzed. The conclusions from each were compiled and compared against one another. A significant correlation amongst the various studies would lend credibility to each, while variations could elicit additional questions and provide the basis for other studies. All four of our studies were independently developed, meaning that each one was based upon a different data base. 6 ANDERSON 6 BKABANT. INC. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS SECTION 7 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS SECTION Results of the Various Studies 1. MLS Historical Data Historical listing and sales transaction data were obtained from the Contra Costa Association of Realtors and the Delta Association of Realtors. These two entities provide annual statistical data summarizing the performance of its members. We have studied these statistics for an eight year period, between 1988 and 1996. While both associations provide data for.the entirety of Contra Costa County, our study has focused primarily on transactions reported for the communities of Antioch and Pittsburg. We have reviewed trends in some of the other Contra Costa communities and noticed similar trends. It is recognized that these associations do not handle all of the residential real estate transactions within these areas, but our research indicates that most of the transactions will be handled by members of the two associations. The purpose of our study was to track historical listing and sale transactions for trends in pricing and marketing times. A number of factors were analyzed, including the number of properties reported; the percentage of listings sold for available years, the average list price and percentage change from year to year, the average sale price and percentage change from year to year; the selling price to listing price ratio;and the average number of days on the market as reported by the Multiple Listing Service. The year end statistical data provided by these sources was supplemented by our review of hundreds of individual sale transactions during the eight year study period. Specific information relating to the various subdivisions within the Hillsdale neighborhood was gleaned from this research. For purposes of this analysis, we have studied only those transactions involving properties located south of West Leland Road. Exhibit A in the Addenda is a summary of the multiple listing data historical statistics. The number of residential properties marketed in Antioch during this study period remained fairly constant with over 600 properties typically-'sold each year. The only exception was 1991 when only 493 sales were reported. In contrast, Pittsburg has shown a steady decline in the number of sales during this period from a high of 736 in 1989 to a low of 313 in 1995, but this is explained by the fact that Bay Point 8 ANDERSON & BRABANT. INC. separated from Pittsburg in 1994, creating its own separate market area. In 1994, Bay Point reported 125. sold listings which would reflect a Pittsburg equivalent of 498 sales. This is actually an Increase over 1993. The 1995 equivalent for Pittsburg, after adding the Bay Point sales was 410 sold listings. When viewed in this manner, the overall trend in Pittsburg tracks similar to Antioch. During the four year period between 1992 through 1995,Antioch typically reported around ten to eleven percent of all listings sold,while Pittsburg reported between five to seven percent sold. Statistics for the number of listings sold were not available for prior years. The average list price in Antioch reflects a strong upward spike between 1988 through 1990. The average list price Increased 15.52 percent from 1988 to 1989 and another 17.90 percent between 1988 and 1990. A modest growth of 1.94 percent was reported from 1990 through 1991. Since then,the average list price has declined steadily from a low of .80 percent from 1992 to 1993, to a high of 4.70 percent between 1993 and 1994. The average list price in Pittsburg reflects a similar trend. A strong spike was experienced between 1988 through 1990, followed by a modest increase and then a steady decline. However, The greatest percent decline occurred from 1994 to 1995, one year later than Antioch. As noted, the Hillsdale neighborhood was also tracked for these trends. The data are almost exclusively located south of Leland Road. Hillsdale showed a strong spike between 1988 through 1990 when the market peaked in this area. The decline in the Hillsdale neighborhood started one year earlier than it did in Antioch or Pittsburgh, dropping an average of four percent between 1990 and 1991. Both Antioch and Pittsburg showed market increases during this same time period. Hillsdale then reflects steady annual declines ranging from .72 percent in 1992 to 6.22 percent in 1993. The data sample for the Hillsdale neighborhood is significantly smaller than the other two areas, but the trends are similar; albeit slightly more dramatic. The average selling price followed the same exact patterns reflected by the average listing price for all three study areas. 9 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. �CA. It was found that the housing stock within the study areas consist primarily of conforming residential tract subdivisions which are typically marketed to entry level and move-up buyers. This situation is extremely helpful to real estate agents marketing homes in these areas since it is fairly easy to obtain comparable data to establish pricing for a particular property. Yesterday's sale Is tomorrow's comparable and it Is this realty of the marketplace that provides some degree of conformity In the pricing of product within a given area. This helps to explain the relatively dose relationship between the average list price and average sale price reported by the Multiple Listing Service. The sale price to list price ratio never drops below about 96.5 percent for any of the study areas,which means that, on average,the sale price of a home is within no less than 97 percent of the list price. This relationship is similar in all three areas, with the Hillsdale neighborhood actually showing a slightly better track record than Antioch and Pittsburg as a whole during the period 1993 through 1995. It tracked fairly consistently with these two areas in prior years. The average number of days a particular property is on the market can be influenced by many things, including price, property conditions, neighborhood, etc. As with any compiled statistical data, the average days on the market can be somewhat misleading because it only represents the most recent marketing period for a particular property. Many properties are marketed through different agents over an extended period of time and any prior listings of a given property may not be reflected in this statistic. For a given area, the average number of days on the market can be a useful indicator in establishing the presence of positive and/or negative influences on the marketability of homes. It can also provide an indication of how the forces of supply and demand are affecting a given market area. As can be expected, the early years of this study period reflected shorter average marketing times than the subsequent years due to gradually deteriorating market conditions. For instance, in 1989 Antioch reflected an average marketing period of 30 days while Pittsburg reflected an average marketing period of 33 days. The Hillsdale subdivision reflected an average marketing period of 41 days for nineteen properties. In contrast, Antioch reflected an average marketing period of 69 days in 1994 while Pittsburg reflected an average marketing 10 ANDERSON & BRABANT. INC. period of 71 days. The Hillsdale subdivisions show an average marketing period of 54 days during this same year for fifteen properties. Between 1991 and 1995, the Hillsdale subdivisions actually reflect significantly lower average marketing periods than either Antioch or Pittsburg. However, this may simply be an aberration caused by the limited data sample. Overall,this area of analysis tracks fairly well with the other categories of analysis. Conclusions Most,if not all,of the trends reflected by these data are common to other areas of this state and reflective of a prolonged slump in the market for residential housing. These same trends have been seen in other studies that we have conducted in various communities in southern California. While Pittsburg and Antioch tracked similarly in most categories of analysis, Pittsburg did veer somewhat in the percentage of listings sold beginning in 1992. While the ratio remained fairly constant between 1992 and 1995 within both Pittsburg and Antioch, Pittsburg was typically between three to five percent less than Antioch. Our research indicates that Antioch has, in the past, benefited from a superior overall reputation to that of Pittsburg. The housing stock is somewhat newer and the overall amenities associated with this community are generally regarded as superior to those associated with Pittsburg. Real estate agents indicate that even In the years before the Keller Canyon Landfill was developed that this was the case, and they also note that the overall reputation of the City of Pittsburg has improved over the years. The data provided by the Multiple Listing Service does not suggest any alarming trend or indication that either Pittsburg or Hillsdale has been adversely influenced by the Keller Canyon Landfill project. 2. Price Trends Studv This study focuses narrowly on the pricing patterns of a given property over time; that is, the sale and resale of a given property during a specific time period, and more broadly on the price trends of the same model home within a given area over time. The study period for this analysis involves sales 11 ANDERSON 8 BRABANT. INC. occurring between 1990 and 1996. The resale analysis was conducted both within the Hillsdale/Woodside neighborhoods, and from areas outside these neighborhoods. The purpose of this study is to compare the relative pricing trends within the two study areas in order to develop an indication of how the landfill might be affecting pricing within the subject neighborhoods. A total of 32 sales and resales were discovered within the Hillsdale/Woodside areas. The initial sales took place between 1988 and 1993, while the resales occurred between 1990 and 1996. A summary of this study can be found in the Addenda as Exhibit B. The elapsed time between sales ranged from as little as .63 to over 7 years. The percent change per year varied from a decrease of 7.82 percent to an increase of 27.07. The higher average annual change also reflected the shortest elapsed time period. Within the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods, the study shows that for those initial sales occurring before 1990, the average annual rate of change was an increase of 6.60 percent. Those sales that took place after 1989 reflect an average annual decrease of 3.84 percent. To help compensate for possible distortion caused by unusually high or low indicators,the median of the data sample was calculated. The median for the sales which occurred before 1990 is an annual increase of 4.27 percent; and for the sales n: after 1989, the median is an annual decrease of 2.94 percent. A total of 48 sale and resale transactions were discovered involving properties outside the Hillsdale and Woodside developments. These sales are summarized in the Addenda on Exhibit C. In this group of data,the initial sales took place between 1988 and 1994,while the resales took place between 1991 and 1996. The average annual rate of change varied from a decrease of 16.91 percent per year to an increase of 8.21 percent per year. Again, the highest and lowest percentages typically reflect the shortest elapsed time periods. This group of data reflects an average annual rate of change for those sales that took place before 1990 of .23 percent, while those sales that took place subsequent to 1989 reflect an annual average decrease of 2.77 percent. The median for the pre-1990 sales is an annual decrease of.16 percent; and the post-1989 sales reflect an annual median decrease of 2.55 percent. 12 ANDERSON b BRABANT. INC. A comparison of the two studies shows that the homes within the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods decreased at a slightly faster rate than those homes located outside the boundaries of these neighborhoods. This may be partially explained by the fact that most of the sales in this later study were taken from the newly developed Oak Hills neighborhood, and it is our experience that newer homes in a developing area tend to hold value better than fully developed older areas. This usually happens because as new product is introduced into the market, higher prices are typically achieved reflecting not only elements of cost, but the greater demand for the newer housing stock. It is also.partially explained by the time period in which the sale and resale took place. A review of Exhibit B shows a number of 1988 initial sale transactions and none in 1989. This was a period of tremendous price appreciation so the resales that took place in the early 1990's before the bottom fell out of the market are going to reflect large appreciation rates. This is shown in the 6.60 percent average and 4.27 percent median growth rates for those transactions where the initial sale was before 1990. Therefore, in our view, the minimal variation between the two study areas is not considered significant. The more global sale and resale analysis involved properties throughout Pittsburg and Antioch. This analysis is summarized on Exhibit D in the Addenda. While the prior analysis focused on the sale and resale of the same home,this study focuses on the sale and resale of the same model home within a given neighborhood. This study is meaningful because of the general conformity of both the housing stock and prices over time within given neighborhoods. Studies were conducted on four different areas considered to be potentially influenced by the Keller Canyon Landfill and eight areas outside the potential Influence of the landfill. Three of the neighborhoods are located In Antioch while the balance are located In Pittsburg. One of the neighborhoods was unable to provide sufficient documentation for this analysis, consequently, only eleven of the twelve study areas yielded data for purposes of this analysis. The data utilized in this analysis were selected from the listing of sales utilized in our various regression studies. These studies are discussed in the next section. The same model home criteria means that the square footage and floor plan are essentially the same for the two properties selected for 13 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. comparison purposes. The first sale was selected in the early years of the analysis,while the second sale was selected towards the end of the analysts period. The sale price of these two properties were compared to reflect the total percentage change over time and this indicator was then adjusted to reflect the average annual percentage change. After all of the sale and resale studies were completed for a given year, an overall composite average annual rate of change was derived. This is the number reflected at the bottom of Exhibit D. This exhibit also contains the individual data sheets for each Map Grid coordinate considered In our analysis. The search parameters for data were based upon map grid coordinates Identified In the Thomas Brothers Directory of Streets. The landfill influenced neighborhoods were located in Map Grids 17 D-2 and D-3, and 17 E-2 and E-3. This is the general vicinity of the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods. With the exception of the Oak Hills neighborhood which is located in Map Grids 17 C-2 and C-3, the balance of the study areas are located in various coordinates on Map Pages 18, 20, and 21. In those areas identified as being potentially impacted by the landfill,the sale/resale analysis produced average annual percentage changes ranging from a decrease of 3.6 percent for Map Grid coordinates 17 D-3, E-2, and E-3; to a decrease of 4.48 percent for homes located specifically within Map Grid 17 E-3. Map Grid 17 E-3 involves only those properties located within the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods. Amongst these four areas, the overall average decrease during the study period was 4.13 percent. The comparable neighborhoods located in various areas of Pittsburg and Antioch reflected overall average rates of change from a decline of 3.24 percent for Map Grids 18 B-4, B-5, and B-6 to a decline of 5.62 percent for Map Grids 18 D-6, D-7, E-6, and E-7. The overall average decline for these areas was 4.39 percent. Conclusions The initial Price Trends Study reflects the sale and resale of the same home, while the second Price Trends Analysis reflects the sale and resale of the same model home within a given 14 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. neighborhood. The former analysis shows that there is less than a one percent average annual difference between those properties selling within dose proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill and those selling in other neighborhoods,primarily Oak Hills. The median difference,which eliminates the influence of unusually high or low indicators, reflects less than one-half percent variation between these two data groups. The second, more global study involved an analysis of eleven different neighborhoods for price trends characteristics. This analysis showed very similar overall rates of change for both the landfill proximate neighborhoods and those located outside the boundaries of landfill influence. Both studies indicated minor variations when comparing price trends for those home situated around the landfill to the homes in other areas. 3. Regression Studies The aforementioned data base utilized in the second part of our Price Trends Study provided the basis for our regression analysis. We have utilized a computer generated linear regression model graph for each of the twelve study areas that reflect price trends between 1990 and 1996. In our regression analyses,the goal is to correlate the pattern of two variables in order to'predict'within a reasonable degree of success, a quantified amount for one variable from the knowledge of a quantified amount of another variable. We have found that in areas where there is a high degree of conformity of both housing stock and price, that the relationship between home size per square foot and the sale price per square foot provides a meaningful basis for such a study. We have also produced similar studies for each area based on the relationship of sale price per square foot and the time of sale. A summary of the regression studies can be found in the Addenda as Exhibit E. One very important assumption underlying this process Is that the relationship between our two variables is indeed jingaL and can be represented by a straight line drawn on a scattergram. The basic regression equation Is y equals a + b x, where y is the predicted value of the dependant variable; a is the constant; b is the coefficient or multiplier for the independent variable, and x is the value of the variable. In our regression studies, the dependent variable is the price paid per square foot, while the independent variable is either the time of sale or house size. 15 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. 39. For each of the twelve areas analyzed, the data base of sales was plotted on a graph and based upon the relationship of the two variables,the computer plotted the regression line which reflects the weighted average rate of change illustrated by the data set. The number of sales available for analysis varied from area to area, ranging from a low of 38 sales for Map Grids 17 D-2 and D-3 to 220 sales for Map Grids 17 C-2 and C-3. Typically, over 100 sales were available for analysis. The summary in the Addenda reflects the price range,of the data within each study area, as well as averages relating to price, price per square foot, home size, and home age. The purpose of this analysis was to provide an indication of how prices have changed over time within the various neighborhoods and/or grid coordinates. In order to provide a basis for comparison, it was necessary to select an example variable that could be plotted on the slope of the regression line to illustrate the relationship of the two variables. For Instance, a review of the available data for Map Grid coordinates 17 D-3, E-2, and E-3 suggests typical home sizes of 1,150 square feet, 1,450 square feet and 1,600 square feet. The placement of these house areas on the regression line results in corresponding indications of price per square foot. In the example cited, our study reveals that$122 per square foot is the appropriate unit value for a house of 1,150 square feet; $107 per square foot is appropriate for a house of 1,450 square feet; and $99 per square foot is appropriate for a house with 1,600 square feet. Each area analyzed has unique characteristics, therefore, it was not possible to utilize the same variable for all twelve study areas, but the number of studies conducted made it possible to extract meaningful comparisons from the data. As previously noted,there are four landfill proximity neighborhoods or Map Grid areas that have been analyzed and eight comparable areas located in Pittsburg and Antioch. The areas chosen for analysis are considered representative of the general pricing structure for housing product within Pittsburg and Antioch. The summary in the Addenda reveals some interesting results. In general, it can be seen that there is an inverse relationship between the size of the homes and the attainable unit prices. In other words, the smaller homes typically generate higher prices per square foot. This market characteristic is constant throughout each of the study areas. The housing stock in the landfill proximity neighborhoods was 16 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. generally newer than the housing in the comparable locations. The one exception is the Oak Hills area which reflects an average year built of 1991. The averages for the landfill proximity neighborhoods range from 1980 to 1985. The balance of the data is grouped between 1974 and 1982. What is evident in these studies is that those homes located within proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill produced some of the higher unit values. For Instance, a 1,200 square foot home In Map Grid 17 D-2 and D-3 reflects a weighted average price of$115 per square foot; a 1,400 square foot home reflects a price of$107 per square foot; and a 1,550 square foot home reflects a price of$100 per square foot. In Map Grid 18 B-4, B-5, and B-6, a 1,440 square foot home reflects a unit price of$97 per square foot or$10 less; and a 1,650 square foot home reflects a unit price of$93 per square foot. A 1,250 square foot home In Map Grid 20 0-7 reflects a unit price of $100 per square foot compared to $115 per square foot In Grid 17 D-2 and D-3; or$121 per square foot for an 1,150 square foot home in Map Grid 17 E-3. In this same Grid, a 1,600 square foot home Is priced at $102 per square foot, while a 1,750 square foot home is priced at$98 per square foot in Map Grids 21 C-7 and 56 C-1. It Is also evident from the analysis that the older housing stock will typically reflect slightly lower unit prices when compared to newer homes. This can be seen throughout the summary in both the average price paid per square foot and the individual example comparisons. The second type of regression study conducted provides an indication of the relationship between sales price per square foot and the time of the sale. Again,the study period is generally from 1990 through mid-1996. The individual sales from each study area are again plotted on a chart resulting in a regression line that represents the weighted average rate of change reflected by the data. The trends reflected by these studies have been previously discussed in the preceding section of this report. Conclusions It has been our experience that simple linear regression can provide a meaningful analytical basis for comparative analysis. The components chosen as variables for our study are understood by participants in the market for this type of real estate product, moreover, it is often the basis upon which 17 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. homes are priced for sale. Furthermore,the fact that the dominant residential product in these communities Is located in conforming housing tract developments lends credibility to the results of these studies. Simple regression analysis Is particularly useful when one element is overwhelmingly important in determining a property's sale price such as the size of the home. In comparing the four landfill neighborhoods to the eight comparable neighborhoods, it is clear that there is no unusual pattern or trend evident from one location to another. In fact, it appears that the homes in certain landfill proximity locations are actually producing higher unit values than those found In otherwise comparable areas. The example comparison properties produced home sizes and price per square foot indicators that are representative of the data analyzed and the relationships of these data reflect logical trends and patterns. Comparable Sales Analysis The Comparable Sales Analysis is the most direct method of estimating market value and it is the most common approach employed by real estate appraisers and real estate agents in estimating values for residential property. Our analysis is a slight variation of the traditional sales comparison technique which normally Involves isolating all dissimilar features of the subject property and comparable in adjusting for these dissimilarities. Since we are trying to isolate the influence of the landfill on property values, we have adjusted for all of the known dissimilarities with the exception of landfill proximity. In other words, adjustments have been made for each element of comparison except for the one associated with how the landfill influences property value. This study involved an analysis of various properties in each year between 1990 and 1996. A total of 78 individual properties have been analyzed during this time period. The selected sales are predominantly located in the Hillsdale area south of Leland Road, but a number of properties were also analyzed on the north side of Leland Road. The 78 subject properties have been identified as index sales and for each index sale, a total of three comparables from various locations were selected for analysis. 18 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. -D.9 These comparables were selected on the basis that they were not Influenced by the Keller Canyon landfill project,a fact that has been thoroughly researched with both property owners and real estate agents active in both Pittsburg and Antioch. Some of the same comparables have been utilized for more than a single index sale. Summaries of this analysis can be found in the Addenda as Exhibit F. A separate summary has been prepared for each year. The summaries are based upon the preparation of individual appraisals for each of the 78 properties. Each of the comparables utilized in the analysis of an index sale was adjusted for such factors as view amenity, age, number of stories, room count (including bedrooms and baths), home size or square feet, number of garages, fireplaces, heating, air conditioning, condition, quality, yard improvements, and other features. These elements of comparison are commonly analyzed by market participants as well as appraisers and real estate agents. Each exerts some degree of influence on the price or value of a given property. As noted, the one element that was excluded from the adjustment process is the landfill proximity which varies from index sale to index sale. The adjustment process for each item of data results in a net adjustment amount that is the difference between all of the plus and minus adjustments made for dissimilarities. The net adjustment has been subtracted from the gross price difference between the comparable and the subject property before adjustments, resulting in an adjusted price of the comparable property exclusive of any consideration for landfill proximity. The adjusted comparable is then compared to the price of the index sale and the difference between these two prices represents the adjustment for the influence of landfill proximity. A negative number means that there is no landfill influence while a positive number indicates that there has been some measure of influence on the price paid for the property due to its proximity to the landfill. Admittedly,this process is somewhat subjective, but so is any valuation analysis of a given property. The goal of this study has been to analyze enough properties to develop a visible trend or pattern amongst the data. The fact that all of the sales are in conforming tracts and given the large number of 19 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. C( . properties analyzed,the results of this study are considered meaningful. All of the index sales and all of the comparables were inspected from the exterior and real estate agents and homeowners provided useful descriptive information on certain properties. Multiple Listing Data Sheets were also reviewed for the bulk of the index and comparable sale properties. In a perfect world, the three comparables utilized in analysis of each index sale would produce the same Indicated adjusted value, but this Is rarely the case in the real world. The prices asked and obtained for a given property typically reflect the total amenity package associated with that property as viewed by the respective parties. Intrinsic value to a seller may or may not be appreciated and paid for by a buyer. On the other hand, buyers may pay a premium for certain amenities associated with a given property not possessed by another competing property. Likewise, one buyer may penalize a property for a negative influence while another may be unaffected by this influence resulting in no adjustment to the price paid for the property. The analysis of each sale property resulted in a range of adjustments that could be all negative, all positive, or a combination of each. Typically, the ranges were relatively minor, but it was common to experience both negative and positive net adjustments for a given property. In order to develop a single indicator for each property, the three separate net adjustments were first converted into a percentage factor and then averaged to yield a single percentage adjustment for a particular property. These individual factors were then averaged, resulting in an overall composite adjustment factor for all properties analyzed during each year. During 1990, the individual average adjustments ranged from 5.72 percent negative to 2.9 percent positive. The composite rate for the year was .95 percent negative. On balance, this suggests that proximity to the proposed.landfill had little, If any, influence on property values during 1990. During 1991, the range varied from 4.94 percent positive to 2.65 percent negative. The composite rate was.35 percent positive reflecting some level of influence due to landfill proximity. In 1992, the pattern illustrated by the data reflects a range from 4.64 percent negative to 3.11 percent positive. The composite rate was 1.19 percent negative. The data analyzed in 1993 also reflect both positive and negative 20 ANDERSON & BRABANT. INC. adjustment amounts and an overall composite rate of.18 percent negative. 1994 reflects a similar pattern with a composite rate of.82 percent positive. The data analyzed in 1995 show a composite indicator of.64 percent positive while the 1996 data show a composite rate of .60 percent positive. Amongst the data utilized for analysis, it is possible to pick and choose Individual properties that support someone's preconceived thought of what has happened In the landfill proximate neighborhoods. However, this would defeat the purpose of our study which provides a broad overview of properties throughout these neighborhoods. It is also possible to question individual adjustments and for that matter, the selection of data utilized In the analysis. Again, these data were primarily selected based upon availability without regard to any specific selection criteria beyond the fact that the property is located within the Hillsdale neighborhood. Adjustments have been made based upon our analysis of the market, a study of individual paired sales to extract adjustment amounts for various elements of comparison, and the input of real estate agents active in the various market areas. It was not necessary to appraise each and every property within the Hillsdale neighborhood since the data utilized in our analysis represent a reasonable cross section of location within the neighborhood, and property features. Conclusions It can be stated with unequivocal certainty that the real estate market is an imperfect place. The results of our comparable sales analysis dearly illustrates this fact. Some of the properties that one would consider to be most adversely impacted by the landfill such as those at the very end of Jacqueline Drive actually exhibited just the opposite. The property at 2308 Jacqueline Drive sold In 1993 for$158,000 and an analysis of three sales reflected an overall negative net adjustment factor. The property at 2303 Jacqueline Drive sold in 1994 for$158,000, and the analysis of this sale likewise resulted in an overall net negative adjustment factor. On the other hand, some of the properties located on the north side of Leland Road actually reflected overall positive net adjustment factors and these are properties that would likely be considered, and are in fact, to be less influenced by proximity to the landfill. For instance, the property at 21 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. 2187 Sugartree sold for$138,950 In 1990 and an analysis of sales resulted In a positive net adjustment factor of .55 percent. This indicates an Influence on the magnitude of less than $800. Within the data sample, there were eighteen sales analyzed along Jacqueline Drive;ten of these sales reflected negative adjustment factors while the balance reflected positive adjustment factors. On balance, we feel that this study reflects minimal, if any,adverse influence on property values associated with proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill. -Reconciliation of the Studies Four separate comprehensive valuation studies have been conducted in an effort to isolate what influence the Keller Canyon Landfill project has had on property values within the immediately surrounding neighborhoods. The studies are unanimous in illustrating that there has been a prolonged period of steadily decreasing values and prices for residential real estate product that can most likely be attributed to relatively poor general economic conditions during the first half of this decade. It is well known that the real estate markets throughout California during the last half of the previous decade experienced significant price appreciation for virtually all types of product. This trend came crashing down as a direct result of the failure of the savings and loan industry and the economy in general in the late 1980's and early 1990's. While interest rates remained relatively competitive during this time period, consumer confidence deteriorated gradually, greatly reducing the demand for residential real estate. it is this lack of consumer confidence and subsequent dearth of prospective buyers that has played a significant role in the price deflation that has occurred for residential housing product in Contra Costa County as well as other areas of the state. The cyclical correction within the California housing market as a whole,anticipated by most analysts during the first part of 1991, failed to materialize because of the increasingly gloomy national economic picture. The United States economy was officially declared in a recession during the last quarter of 1990, however, the economy had been sluggish for some time because the Fed had kept real interest rates high and consumers had become less and less optimistic about the future. What was to have been the eighth anniversary of the longest post-war recovery in November 1990, did not occur. In order for price 22 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. Inflation to occur,the local economy must produce an expanding employment base, rising incomes, rapid population gains,and strong consumer confidence,all of which.have been absent during the first half of this decade. Consequently, housing affordability has declined,producing a buyer's market and a destabilization of pricing. In a static market, one where pricing remains fairly constant, it would be relatively easy to Isolate the impact of a single positive or negative feature on a given property. In both increasing and decreasing markets,the difficulty of this task is amplified. It is especially difficult in a declining market where buyers are extremely price sensitive and the influence of a single negative or positive feature on a given property wanes in consideration of the buyer's ability to afford mortgage payments. On the other hand, a declining market allows prospective buyers to be somewhat more discriminate in their selection of a property typically because of an imbalance of the supply of housing versus the demand for such housing. A property with a negative influence can be quickly eliminated from consideration in favor of another property not so Influenced. Interviews conducted with both property owners and real estate agents active in the subject neighborhoods suggests a general level of satisfaction with the area due to its overall market appeal. In other words,the positive amenities associated with the neighborhood seem to outweigh perceived negative influences. The positive attributes commonly cited about the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods include freeway accessibility,shopping availability,the quality of the housing,and its affordability. The Bart complex Is also considered by many to be a positive attribute of the area, but our research indicates that uncertainties as to when the station will open has lead to very little quantifiable speculation as to its potential Influence on property values. Those homeowners located on the west side of the Hillsdale development within the Mt. Diablo School District often cite this as a positive influence on property values. However,we did not note a quantifiable value increment associated with this feature. The primary purpose for conducting the numerous studies that have been cited in this report has been to try to isolate the impact of the landfill on property values apart from the impacts associated with general economic conditions. The statistical data provided by the Multiple Listing Service and supplemented 23 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. by our review of individual sale transactions suggest that pricing and marketing periods in both Hillsdale and Pittsburg, as a whole,tracked similar to those experienced in Antioch. There were periods of dissimilarity but, for the most part, the indicators were similar. The Price Trends Study showed a slightly greater rate of decline for the homes situated in Hillsdale and Woodside, but the difference was less than one percent. The regression studies encompassed a fairly wide geographic area of both Pittsburg and Antioch, and the results showed fairly consistent patterns for the landfill and comparable neighborhoods. These studies were helpful in establishing the fact that the prolonged economic slump in both the national and Calffomia economies has adversely affected property values within all areas of Pittsburg and Antioch. These same trends have likewise adversely influenced home values in the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods during the first half of this decade. The comparable sales analysis provides a micro view of the real estate market in these areas. All influences on property value are inherently reflected in the price paid for a particular property and our analysis of 78 index sales allowed us to isolate the influence of the landfill on property value for each of these sales. A significant influence from the landfill would have been clearly visible in this analysis, however, more of the properties indicated no adverse influence than those indicating some level of adverse influence. Even in those cases where there was some indicated value loss associated with landfill proximity, it was minor. As a final note to our analysis, and one that has been related in previous correspondence, there are no physical features of the Keller Canyon Landfill that have been identified which adversely affect property value. There have obviously been periods where some physical disturbance has occurred, especially those associated with the construction period of the project and at various other times due to the high winds that prevail in this area. However, most of the people interviewed during the course of our Investigation Indicated that there are no physical features associated with the landfill that have adversely affected their quality of life for prolonged periods. We have noted periodic mice and rat problems, but long- time residents in Hillsdale report that this was a'problem long before the landfill was built. We have studied landfills at numerous other locations and have found that perception within the marketplace can have a significant bearing on the value of real estate. Prolonged periods of controversy 24 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. . a have had negative Impacts on property values at numerous landfill locations throughout the State and we are aware that there is no shortage of controversy associated with the Keller Canyon Landfill project. However, our studies are unanimous in showing that home prices in the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Keller Canyon Landfill have trended in a similar fashion to other areas not located proximate to the landfill. It is not reasonable to assume that home prices in the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhood would have declined at a lesser rate than experienced by other areas,and this Is evident In our studies of other very popular residential areas. - Consequently, it is our opinion that while the landfill will be a neighbor to the residents of this community for quite some time,there is no historical precedent reflected In our studies to indicate that properties within Hillsdale and Woodside have suffered a loss in value due to their proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill. Bailey Road - Bailey Road has been separately considered in our analysis because its character is significantly different from the conforming tract developments found in the Hillsdale and Woodside neighborhoods. The properties along Bailey Road are typically much older with the exception of three newer residences built in 1991 and there are two jurisdictional agencies influencing potential land uses along this right-of-way. Bailey Road is the primary access route to the Keller Canyon Landfill, and as a result of the landfill development, the traffic flow between State Highway 4 and the Keller Canyon Landfill property has increased since its development. Since the late 1980's,there has been significant development in the vicinity of Bailey Road and State Highway 4. This development has taken the form of both commercial and residential projects. Oak Hills Is a large residential development of attached and detached housing that was begun In the late 1980's and development continues today. The Oak Hills Shopping Center, which is anchored by Safeway, Payless Drugs, Blockbuster Video, Chief Auto Parts, Round Table Pizza, and Burger King, was developed in 1989/90 and it alone has been responsible for an increase in the traffic volume along the section of Bailey 25 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. Road between State Highway 4 and West Leland Road. The Oak Hills development also generates significant volumes of traffic and the Bart Station, which is projected to open in early 1997, will provide another incremental increase to the traffic flows in this area. The properties north of West Leland Road are within an unincorporated area of the county. The current zoning of these properties is R-6, which Is a single-family residential zone classification that permits detached residential development on minimum 6,000 square foot sites. The General Plan designation for those sites fronting Bailey Road within the county Is MF,which is a medium density multi- family residential classification permitting 12 to 21 dwelling units per net acre. The lots located along the east line of Bailey Road between State Highway 4 and Maylard Street meet this size criteria, while most of the lots between Maylard Street and West Leland Road fall below this size standard. The lots between West Leland Road and Willow Avenue, again on the east side of Bailey Road, also fall below this size standard with the typical lot having dimensions of 50 feet of frontage by 100 feet of depth for an area of 5,000 square feet. South of West Leland Road the properties fall within the jurisdiction of the City of Pittsburg. The zone designation for all of the homesites fronting Bailey Road is RM,which is a medium density residential zone classification permitting 14 dwelling units per gross acre. Along the stretch between the State Highway and Willow Avenue on the east side of Bailey Road, there are 38 lots, and seven of these lots are within the Evergreen residential development built by Seeno Homes. These lots, while abutting Bailey Road, have no access to this right-of-way and there is a soundwall in place along Bailey Road. Ten of the 38 lots located along the east line of Bailey Road are - owned by Contra Costa County. Four of the lots are owned by Margaret Fazio and two lots are owned by Rogers/Fogleman. The balance of the properties are individually owned. Based on our interviews with people along this section of Bailey Road, and a review of the public records, most of the homes in this stretch are rented. About eight of the homes appear to be owner occupied and the balance, excluding those located in the Evergreen development, are tenant occupied. 26 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. Bailey Road Is designated as an arterial right-of-way by both Contra Costa County and the City of Pittsburg. It is also designated as a region serving arterial road by Contra Costa County because of its linkage with the City of Concord to the south. However,there are some political issues between the City of Concord and other public agencies that reduce the significance of this classification. Both the County and the City of Concord are on record as discouraging commuter traffic utilization of Bailey Road and Kirker Pass in favor of the state highway system. Because of its design capacity,these entities would like to limit the traffic flow along Bailey Road, especially in that area south of West Leland Road. According to the EIR prepared for the Keller Canyon Landfill project,the average daily traffic count in 1989 along Bailey Road, north of Leland Road, was 13,000 vehicles. The traffic count south of Leland Road was 5,300 vehicles. Information provided by the City of Pittsburg reveals that the traffic count along Bailey Road at Willow Avenue on July 12, 1994,was 3,973 northbound vehicles and 3,554 southbound vehicles. The combined two-way count was 7,527 vehicles which, for the day, represents an Increase over the 1993 count of about 42 percent. Traffic counts have been studied along Bailey Road for quite some time. During the original siting process for the Keller Canyon Landfill,a traffic study was conducted by JHK and Associates in 1985. Also, while General Plan Amendment 3-89-CO, which is commonly referred to as the Keller Canyon (Keller-Bailey) Landfill Amendment to the County's General Plan, did not directly discuss traffic Issues, it did put the public on notice that there was a possibility that the Keller Canyon Landfill would be sited at its present location and that there would be traffic issues to address. Another issue to consider in addressing the possibility of value loss to properties along Bailey Road is the highest and best use of properties in this area. This is an issue only because many of the homes along this stretch of the road are quite old with relatively short remaining economic lives. Many of the houses are rented and the underlying land use designations, at least along a portion of this stretch of road, would allow for development to a more intense residential utilization. Multiple properties under single ownership would be the strongest candidates for new development. Our review of the street networks 27 ANDERSON 13 BKABANT. INC. In both Pittsburg and Antioch did not reveal the existence of any single family detached residential development along the more heavily travelled thoroughfares. Rather,these streets were commonly improved with commercial product as well as higher density multi-family residential housing. However, without the assemblage of numerous adjacent lots,the relatively small size of the typical site along Bailey Road would preclude all but the very smallest of projects. It is conceivable, however,that compensation for value loss could be paid based upon the existing use of a property, and that same property could become part of a redevelopment effort within the foreseeable future resulting not only in a change of that use, but In an increase in its market value. Another Issue to deal with is tenant occupancy versus owner occupancy. The entire west side of Bailey Road in this area is tenant occupied, either by commercial tenants in the Oak Hills Shopping Center or by residential tenants in the Oak Hills Apartment project. As noted, most of the detached residential properties along the east side of Bailey Road are also tenant occupied. Depending upon the amenities associated with a particular property,the homes and apartments generally rent within the range of$300 to$800 per month. In other words,the dominant occupants along this section of Bailey Road are tenants. All of these occupants,whether owner or tenant, are subject to the incremental increase in traffic along Bailey Road caused by landfill operations. Any negatives associated with this increase equally affect residential tenants and owners. Therefore, if there is a value loss attributed to this incremental increase in traffic and its associated problems, then this loss could accrue to tenant as well as owner occupied properties. Our research indicates that rents have not necessarily been adjusted in this area due to landfill associated traffic. The manager at the Oak Hills Apartment project reports that there has not been any unusual turnover of apartments closest to Bailey Road, nor are there rental adjustments for this proximity. It has been recognized for quite some time that Bailey Road is a heavily travelled street and with the growth that is occurring in the West Pittsburg Area, it is not reasonable to assume that traffic-related 28 ANDERSON 6 BKABANT. INC. problems, whether those associated with landfill-generated traffic or otherwise, would improve in the near future. It is more likely that traffic conditions would be viewed as worsening over time and that changes in land use would be appropriate. The small size of the lots along Bailey Road have created significant development constraints as exhibited by the three most recently developed homes at 743, 74.7, and 751 Bailey Road. These three homes were developed in 1991 for sale on the open market. These lots slope down from the street and the homes not only sit somewhat below street grade,but they are extremely close to the travelled right-of-way. The developers were unsuccessful in their bid to sell these homes and two are now tenant occupied while the third is owner occupied. In our view, these homes have extremely limited appeal, especially in a soft and declining real estate market. That has been the case since these homes were developed. It is possible that the transfer truck traffic associated with landfill operations has inhibited the ability of the owners to market these properties, however, one would have to sort through a series of other problems associated with these properties and the market in general in order to estimate an incremental value loss that could be associated with the additional traffic from landfill operations. This is essentially the case with all of the properties along this section of Bailey Road. Our research indicates that the older tenant-occupied homes and the Oak Hills Apartment project are essentially unaffected by this incremental increase in traffic. That is not to say that there are not problems associated with landfill generated traffic, but neither rental rates or occupancy rates appear to be adversely impacted by this incremental increase in traffic. Various people have noted occasional odor,dust,and noise problems created by the landfill-associated traffic, but this has not seemed to detract from the willingness to live in this area. Furthermore, rental rates in the neighborhood are fairly low and there are amenities associated with the area that would seem to provide an offset to most, If not all, of the problems associated with the landfill-generated traffic. This is especially true for those properties located north of West Leland Road since this strip generates a heavy traffic flow associated with the shopping center and surrounding residential developments. Opening of the new Bart Station is obviously going to compound any existing traffic-related problems. 29 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. Conclusions The above comments should not be Interpreted to mean that there is no Influence from landfill operations on those properties along Bailey Road. There is indeed an impact associated with landfill operations, but Bailey Road was a heavily travelled right-of-way even before the landfill was built and given the residential growth that has occurred in the area since the late 1980's,this condition could not have been expected to Improve. Furthermore, both values and rents for residential property along heavily-traveled right-of-ways are typically less than those of similar properties situated on less heavily travelled roadways. In other words, the values and rents along Bailey Road were already influenced by traffic conditions prior to development of the landfill. The landfill operations have created an incremental increase in traffic as well as related problems including the occasional loss of trash from the transfer trucks. These trucks are large and there is a steady flow six days a week. While there is no indication that the apartments on the west side of Bailey Road or the commercial project which is also on the west side of Bailey Road are adversely affected by landfill operations, it is our opinion that there could be some incremental Influence to those residential properties situated on the east side of Bailey Road. There is some buffer area available to the commercial and apartment tenants due to setbacks that were created at the time of development that do not apply to those pre-existing (pre-Keller Landfill) homes along the east line of Bailey Road. It Is recognized that this influence is a layering effect on these properties, essentially making a bad situation worse. It is fairly common in the marketplace for residential properties that are located along heavily traveled thoroughfares to be rented, especially older housing product in transitional areas. With this in mind, and recognizing that this section of Bailey Road is more appealing for tenant occupancy than owner occupancy, the incremental influence on the properties can be analyzed of the basis of the Income loss or potential income loss associated with landfill operations. The greatest potential effect on these properties is a higher turnover rate due to tenant dissatisfaction with the additional landfill related"traffic. Higher maintenance costs could also be a problem and there could be more management required of the property owner due to these conditions. The 30 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. payment to these property owners, therefore, can be a function of this potential lost Income applied to a market derived multiplier. Multipliers are typically calculated by dividing the sale price of a property by its annual income. For instance, If a property sells for$100,000 and it is generating $10,000 worth of gross annual income, the multiplier would be 10. It has been our experience that these multipliers, when applied to residential properties, typically range between 10 and 15.times the gross annual income. The next part of the equation is an estimate of the percentage of lost income attributable to landfill operations. In reality,the rental rates are sufficiently low-along Bailey Road due to circumstances not related to the landfill that tenant turnover is not unusually high. However, we have estimated that an allowance of five percent represents a reasonable allocation of the potential lost income, expressed on an annual basis, associated with landfill operations. Accordingly, the value loss calculation can be made as shown in the following examples. These examples assume market rental rates of$300 per month and$800 per month. Example 1 $300 x 12 = $3,600 x 5 Percent x 10 = $1,800 $300 x 12 = $3,600 x 5 Percent x 15 = $2,700 Example 2 $800 x 12 = $9,600 x 5 Percent x 10 = $4,800 $800 x 12 = $9,600 x 5 Percent x 15 = $7,200 The above analysis is intended to recognize the pre-existing conditions associated with frontage along Bailey Road and the incremental value influence on these properties associated directly with operations at the Keller Canyon Landfill. Components of the formula used to calculate the loss are reasonable and fair given the market appeal of these properties. This analysis also recognizes the potential for a change in land use for some of the properties, since the lower rental rates typically reflect properties 31 ANDERSON b BRABANT. INC. vi that are closer to redevelopment, or redevelopment potential,than some of the higher rates which apply to the newer more substantial homes located along this stretch of Bailey Road. In order for a particular property to be eligible for compensation,certain criteria will be need to be met. These criteria are discussed in the following section of this report. 32 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY 33 ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. C, DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY Eligibility The issue of eligibility must first be determined before payment can be made. There are. a number of considerations relative to eligibility, however, perhaps the most significant is at what point in time were property values adversely affected by the Keller Canyon Landfill. As we have discussed, only certain properties along Bailey Road have Incurred some measure of value loss Influence, but the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors may want to consider some form of distribution schedule for certain other,,` properties within the Hillsdale neighborhood. It is difficult to pick a speck date where it can be said, 'before that date, there was no influence and after that date, there was some degree of influence.' What really happens is that at some point in time,some degree of influence is realized,and as time goes on,this level of influence magnifies and subsides based upon the public's awareness of the problem. in other words, at periods where there is a great public outcry,the Impact would be greater than it would be during periods of complacency on the part of the affected property owners. In the subject case,the general public was made aware that a landfill could be sited at this location as early as 1984,and this level of awareness was more visible during 1989 and early 1990.. However, the final permit from Contra Costa County was not issued for the project until July 1990, and it is this date that essentially removes all questions as to whether or not landfill development will occur at this location. Therefore, It seems reasonable to conclude that the appropriate date for deciding eligibility Is July 24, 1990, the date the Board of Supervisors approved the land use permit for the project. Accordingly, claims would not be allowed for any seller who sold their home prior to this date; any buyer who purchased their home after this date; and any house built after (or building permits issued after) this date. 34 ANDERSON B BRABANT. INC. Bailey Road Neighborhood Eligible property owners along Bailey Road must provide documentation relating to the Fair Market Rental Value of their property under its existing use. Fair Market Rent is defined as 'the rental Income that a property would most probably command in the open market; indicated by the current rents paid and asked for comparable space as of a specific date.' In this case, Fair Market Rent could be established by providing actual rental records or by producing an appraisal of the current Fair Market Rental Value of a particular property from a qualified appraiser. The Board has a certain amount of discretion in deciding upon what constitutes a quailed appraiser, however, the minimum level of qualification could be provided by a State Certified Appraiser that has some experience in the area with residential properties and whose work has been accepted by various lenders serving the communities of Pittsburg and Antioch. The payout would be a lump sum amount predicated upon one of the previously discussed example formulas. 35 ANDERSON 8 BRABANT. INC. Attachment B Conceptual Criteria for Review of Individual Property Values PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY October 7, 1996 NAME: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: Applications will be accepted from November 1, 1996 to January 3, 1997. A claims' examiner will be appointed and decisions rendered by February 28, 1997. Was your property sold prior to July 24, 1990? Was your property purchased after July 24, 1990? If your property was sold after July 24, 1990, was it sold to a relative? Has your property been foreclosed by a lien holder? Have you made any improvements to your property between July 24, 1990 and the present? What was the cost of those improvements (please provide evidence)? What is the distance from your property to the landfill boundary? Can the landfill be seen from your property? If so, what part of the landfill (please provide pictures)? Can the landfill be seen from your residence? If so, what part of the landfill (please provide pictures)? With the exception of construction, what impact(s) has your property suffered from the operation of the landfill (please provide details)? What evidence have you submitted to substantiate this claim? Please provide justification that distinguishs this claim of landfill impact from the general downturn in the economy and other value influencing factors. VA:dd DD I OXCLCLAIMIRM OC:T-09-1996 13=43 5104278142 P.02 Citizens V nIted 2232 Concord Dr. Pittsburg, CA 94565 W(510)458-1793 R L Citizens helping other Citizens. Tom Torlakson,Supervisor 5th District October 8, 1996 300 E Leland Rd., Suite 100 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Tom: Citizens United has put together what we believe is a package of benefits so to speak that we believe can be.presented to finally resolve the issues of what is fair and reasonable for the residents of Hillsdale in regards to the siting and SO year operations of the Keller Canyon Landfill. We ve.cre given input from our board members,old board members,and also Yong-term residents of this area,and even homeowners that owned prior to the landfill going in but selling after it was sited,constructed and operating. We believe that this should could be the basis for a package of benefits that the Board of Supervisors can quickly approve so we can start to rebuild both our neighborhood and restore our faith in government: We are available to meet and or discuss the items when after you have had a chance to review. Sincerely, Lance I Dow, Chair OCT-09-1996 13=43 5104278142 P.03 CA Proposals for benefits to Hillsdale Homeowners and Residents J due to the siting,construction and ongoing operations of the Keller Canyon LandfilL 1. A $1500 onetime benefit for property owners owning a home prior to the issuance of the Land Use Permit for the landfill. This to be paid out to the 417 homes identified as an affected area(Hillsdale) by the Sonoma State Study. 2. A Fund of$500,000 to be established to be drawn against for claims by those who believe and can reasonable demonstrate losses in excess of the $1500 The fond will be available for a two year period after which time the balance would revert back to the county,be refunded to residential ratepayers, or be returned to Browning Ferris Industries. 3. An allocation from the Host Community Mitigation fund of$.25 per ton of waste entering the landfill including CPI adjustment for the life of the landfill that will be put into a fiord for the benefit of Hillsdale residents to offset the negative impacts, and stigmas associated with living next to a landfill. a. The funds can be used within the discretion of an appointed board of trustees made up of homeowners living in the neighborhood, possibly a liaison member from the city council or city manager's office and either the district's board supervisor, or a staff member thereof. The voting members would be the appointed homeowners. b. Some of the areas the funding could be used for could be: A Community swimming pool in the Hillsdale Park. A Daycare center or Community Center/meeting place for the various neighborhood watch groups, children's issues,etc. c. Fends for landscaping projects,including funds that homeowners could go to request such as matching funds to improve their landscaping and or plant trees in their yards. Also similar matching landscape fiords could be made available for qualified Section 8 housing which has increased in the area. OCT-09-1996 13:44 5104278142 P.04 d, Funding for subsidized gardening services that could be applied for by qualifed seniors with disabilities or families with a qualifying member of the family with a substantial disability. Subsidized gardening services for qualified Section 8 renters and homeowners. e. 'A fund or allocation for General Services work program personnel to do a monthly pass to retrieve litter from the neighborhood. E A fund or equivalent allocation of resources from the General Services work program personnel to do weed abatement of homeowner's properties as required by the Riverview Fire District. g. The possibility of a private security service to patrol and work with the neighborhood watch groups to deter crime in the area. TOTAL P.O4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT S& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 11, 1996 FAX TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director By: Deidra Dingman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: LETTER FROM CITY OF PITTSBURG REGARDING THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY (Item D.9 on 10/15/96 agenda) We received the attached letter from the City of Pittsburg after the Board Order was prepared. Therefore we are transmitting this separately to each Supervisor's office for the Board's consideration of Item D.9 on October 15, 1996. cc: Clerk—of-the_Boar_d Press Box City of Pittsburg BFI/Keller Canyon Landfill V,Vdd DD I O W S-CITY.MEM • OCT-101996 09:08 FROM CCC G.M.E.D.A TO 51299 P.01 City luf PittsburgQ Civic Center•P.O.Box 1518•PkL*w CW(asnia 94-565 Ole IgCE OF THE CITY MANAGER P it' 7571 .a3 c 11-3 -pow_ e October 8, 19% PhonetC "� '4'%" �a W,Val Alemwff,Dt e= , _ _ ... Canna.Costa COuttty (kvwth Maoag==wd Ecanoadc Deveiopmamt Agency 651 PhLe Street;North Wing—2ad Ploy Martin,Califomia 94554 gUBJECT- KELLER CANYON LANDFJLL PROMTY VALUATION 5"I MY V=W.Alv=ff•. Tbank you fm the vgportWdW to garticipde its the te=t QMfM=caIl at.S*Tvieor Todabon's ofd,with Mr.B01..And t to digeim his vm*n dative to the SWted SU*.We Appmcigic the opportuwuty to review Mr.,puoukrsoa's draft report and ask dicm�pmlimivarY gta�esdaos t+e his fin�ils�. We ate eagerly awaiting a appy of W Anderson's find report,wtdch we axgeot will include his tewmrn=Wati=rtSwding compensation amounts and distribution methodologies.Upon rept of the ileal repott,we will review ii andd mane every efort to provide you with our comms and questions prior to the meeting scheduled on this mamr. Thm is c u*m that the Board of SWavism has beet diad to consider the report in cm week, yet,neither Ilse City nor the residents in the affedged neighborhoods have receivod a ftd dirdL Combined with the fact brat the public b eaug dm Btis matter is agendized for 5 p.m.--- a t a*Rin most residents=just leavinS wok—it appears that the pdtblie's ebd�ity tv folly pardoipatc its this process hm Imm limita L Your of to bold an advanced worksbop on dais m;Med are commandabld:,however,�the wvxkAwp at 3:30,p.m.zmay also sear"to limit anmdowe.liM&we undw*md Benno of the achtmdnt ag dffficultie s associated with the Board's calendar,yow c nmmeat$tat the Board s*ly bw too many mom important projects to deal with k dasasttdng-Aga*we request that the Board v`onsider this item,at a special meeting if umd be,at a time first provides the rwdents kgacW by tate Laud M an Wequstie opportunity to M)mvieew the rspart andpattYcW to is the ddiwumions rrlative to it. Naimd Care-ler PAM- Swok7 Awed-!l=93 40� City of New Hoxiuons OCT-10-1996 09:09 FROM CCC G.M.E.D.A TO 51299 P.02 A�Ix.VsI Alexecff Letter Outnber 9, t 996 PREe Two Yuu[eft�►move this pcooess forward i>z ag tim0ly a manger as prsct�al axe a►ppre�c�isroed.�Iawever, w=der for a naomeat that the I,andU PropettY V&Im lots Study was a tegt>Omerst of Rellees 1990 Land Use Pecmit,and that the Study itself was not WWHA@d tutit'1 1992,a0d that ft fnal veWon Of the Sonoma Surae Study was submitted to Coumy staff m 1994.Giv=that dM PCOMS,to date,bas lavoed over six years,it is difl'ic Wt wada%od what can be pined by mbing this its to the Board at this time,it seems that the process can be better served,at least in teams of public pmv6on and fsirnM by giving all wWcAed patties adequate time review the docmanudon and participate in the prrocem. We tmftrstand Amlemm&Bmabwea need to porfivtm a review oftbn lJAW canyon Property Valuation Study prepared by the iostttute for Cw=msity Razing,Assislam(ICPA)at Sonoma State Uniycity,fn addition to its primary candmctusi ob*ivc of da:Wmia n dam amounts and recommending appropunte distribution mediodeloOes.Given that Andmw&Brabaut'S concl=ons arc*Afieway different thanthis findings contained in the Boaxd-qpvvvd Sonoma State Study,we assume that the ICPA will be provided an opporhmity to"VieW sad VeTON to the Andersw and Brabant report at the octobtT I5th, 1996,Board meeting. At U November 30, l 994,Ad Hoc Sohl Waal Cie Mecdzi&as vmU as at s subsequent proset#t don to the Board of Supervisors,Pr (cssor Sievers C.Qtft pronounced his wotk to be a "landmark qW'and"mom couvrebewiver dao any other study he bed reviewed.Similarly, Prokasor Stephen D.Lewis sratod that he had a cvAfidewe level in the Study that approached 99%.In his November 15. 1995,letter to the Board,Cloxk Gruen,the economist laxed by the City to review IC,PA Study,noted that the Study oras`°a�currwi"in awa ting thot,"tbera bred boom a dgaifioant devaluation of property in the area due to the introduction of the lantli."to light of these at emeass.and the obviam mveowtad that the ICDA has mads;in its Sfxtdy,a reciprocal review of itis Andersam&Br dmW report by the ICDA mm apprapd$ts. In addition to nKpK%tb*a premobAon by Profsmara Cklick and Lewis at both the whop and the tma*scheduled for Qctaber 15th,we wilt app mefide receiving any wrinm omnments that the ICDA may proem in;resWnsc to the sport. Similarly,we will appreciate receiving an advanced copy of*e Board report that wiU accompany this agenda ftwL It w1U be apprezurted ifthe Board report addresm our caac cri&E6 as cgxvuW A Supavisor Tada)csmn's office,ti.the St*has only aaltnined the I moffilI's dW our property values xeialive(y early in Sia facility's operatim and st a time ffie faality is o witic ft below its pew capacity. Impacts aseooiatod`vitt the LandU are sum to inemasw mown its permitted lifmpn. TI*Pnqwrty Valuation Study grogram needs to be a continww proem that examines the Landfill's refatiomhig to area party values and to the City of Pittsburg 10,20,30,40 and mm 50 and Wy=s in dw future. OCT-10-1996 09:10 FROM CCC G.M.E.D.A TO 51299 P.03 Mz»Vat AlexeefE Letter October 8, 19% ■bxrP 7bm*you in actv=x foi y0tW c�sponsivcucss issaas and towva:xl slte a seDed nc*bmhood.If you have any quev=,or vasa to&=W say of these maftS furtlrer,please caA me.We look farwsrd to a fair and equitable outoame of this vexy tong Fpm, 1 .'Kolin ty Maua�er - cc; mayor anti C*Com;cil Board of Supervism Phil Bw1w4or,Co=ty Adi Wsfttor Mcbaei R. WoMs,City Attmney Denny Femoa,BFI Dr.Claude Cin=L Gn=Gmcn dt Associates Stn=C.Orli*ICPA Steloben D.Lewis,ICPA Lamm Dow,Citizens United TOTAL P.03 IT j;..- ! k. L } -fir Civic Center ^ P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg, California '9�?S(,5 ,.... .lf RECEIVED OCT 1 ! 1996 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS October 8, 1996 CONTRA COSTA CO. Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director Contra Costa County Growth Management and Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street;North Wing --2nd Floor Martinez, California 94554 SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PROPERTY VALUATION STUDY Dear Mr. Alexeeff: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the recent conference call at Supervisor Torlakson's office with Mr. Bill Anderson to discuss his work relative to the subject study. We appreciate the opportunity to review Mr. Anderson's draft report and ask some preliminary questions regarding his findings. We are eagerly awaiting a copy of Mr. Anderson's final report, which we expect will include his recommendations regarding compensation amounts and distribution methodologies. Upon receipt of the final report, we will review it and make every effort to provide you with our comments and questions prior to the meeting scheduled on this matter. There is concern that the Board of Supervisors has been scheduled to consider the report in one week, yet, neither the City nor the residents in the affected neighborhoods have received a final draft. Combined with the fact that the public hearing on this matter is agendized for 5 p.m. -- a time when most residents are just leaving work--it appears that the public's ability to fully participate in this process has been limited. Your efforts to hold an advanced workshop on this subject are commendable, however, scheduling the workshop at 3:30 p.m. may also serve to limit attendance. While we understand some of the scheduling difficulties associated with the Board's calendar, your comment that the Board simply has too many more important projects to deal with is discouraging. Again, we request that the Board consider this item, at a special meeting if need be, at a time that provides the residents impacted by the Landfill an adequate opportunity to fully review the report and participate in the discussions relative to it. California Healthy Cities Project ®�f National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Atvard - 1993 City of New Horizons 1%N4r. Val Alexeefi; Letter October 5, 1996 Page Two Your efforts to move this process forward in as timely a manner as practical are appreciated. Irlowever, consider for a moment that the Landfill Property Valuation Study was a requirement of Keller's 1990 Land Use Permit, and that the Study itself was not initiated until 1992, and that the final version of the Sonoma State Study was submitted to County staff in 1994. Given that the process,to date, has lasted over six years, it is difficult understand what can be gained by rushing this item to the Board at this time. It seems that the process can be better served, at least in terms of public perception and fairness, by giving all interested parties adequate time review the documentation and participate in the process. We understand Anderson& Brabant's need to per.'form.a review of the Feller Canyon Propez t . Valuation Study prepared by the Institute for Community Planning Assistance (ICDA) at Sonoma State University, in addition to its primary contractual objective of determining compensation amounts and recommending appropriate distribution methodologies. Given that Anderson&Brabant's conclusions are significantly different than the findings contained in the Board-approved Sonoma State Study, we assume that the ICPA will be provided an opportunity to review and respond to the Anderson and Brabant report at the October 15th, 1996, Board meeting. At the November 30, 1994, Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee Meeting, as well as at a subsequent presentation to the Board of Supervisors, Professor Steven C. Orlick pronounced his work to be a "landmark study" and"more comprehensive"than any other study he had reviewed. Similarly, Professor Stephen D. Lewis stated that he had a confidence level in the Study that approached 99%. In his November 15, 1995, letter to the Board, Claude Gruen,the economist hired by the City to review ICPA Study, noted that the Study was "indeed correct"in asserting that, "there had been a significant devaluation of property in the area due to the introduction of the landfill."In light of these endorsements, and the obvious investment that the ICPA has made in its Study, a reciprocal review of the Anderson& Brabant report by the ICPA seems appropriate. In addition to requesting a presentation by Professors Orlick and Lewis at both the workshop and the 1._arkrig; scheduled for October 15th, we will appreciate receiving any vv-n tea coiTiinents tiia! tile. !CPA. may prepare in response to the report. Similarly, we will appreciate receiving an advanced copy of the Board report that will accompany this agenda item. It will be appreciated if the Board report addresses our concerns, as expressed at Supervisor Torlakson's office, that the Study has only examined the Landfill's affect on property values relatively early in the facility's operation, and at a time the facility is operating far below its permitted capacity. Impacts associated with the Landfill are sure to increase over its permitted lifespan. The Property Valuation Study program needs to be a continuous process that examines the Landfill's relationship to area property values and to the City of Pittsburg 10, 20, 30, 40 and even 50 and 60-years in the future. Nir. Val A.lexeeff: Letter Octot!er 3;, Page Tbxee Thank you in advance for your responsiveness to these issues and sensitivity toward.the affected neighbonccod. If you have any questions, or want to discuss any of these matters further, please call me. We look forward to a fair and equitable outcome of this very long process. A Sincerely, / is (Jef Kolin. City Manager cc: Mayor and City Council ►,B-oard of Supervisors Phil Bachelor, County Administrator Michael R. Woods, City Attorney Denny Fenton, BFI Dr. Claude Gruen, Gruen Griffen& Associates Steven C. Orlick, ICPA Stephen D. Lewis, ICPA Lance Dow, Citizens United D - 9 BRUEN & GORDON THOMAS M. BRUEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE: (5 1 O)295-3 1 3 1 SCOTT'W.GORDON FACSIMILE: (5 1 O)295-3132 W. PHILIP CARUTHERS 1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD DAVID J.MILLER SUITE 940 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 October 14, 1996 RECEIVED l.'.,e eaA, OCT 1519% Mr. Phil Batchelor CLER CONTRA COSTACO.Clerk,Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Item D9 -Report Regarding Residential Property Values Near the Keller Canyon Landfill and Related Actions Board of Supervisors Agenda for October 15, 1996 Dear Mr. Batchelor: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of my November 22, 1995 letter to Valentin Alexeeff,previously submitted to Mr. Alexeeff,his staff and to County Counsel in connection with the above-referenced matter. Although the Board has been fully briefed regarding the letter and its content, I wanted to provide a courtesy copy to the Clerk's office for the Administrative Record of this proceeding. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Thomas M. Bruen TMB:jcf Enclosures RECEIVED BRUEN & GORDON .Id.A 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 15 IMC 1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD OCT1 �`�" � SU"E 940 WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (510) 2fl5-3131 CONTRA COSTA Co. Fax 1510) 295-3132 November 22, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE& U.S. MAIL Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director GIv EDA Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 2nd Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Dear Val: At the October 17th hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the Keller Canyon Property Valuation Study, the Board directed staff to prepare for its consideration a list of alternative courses of action and procedures to be followed in evaluating the Study and in determining whether to award compensation to property owners near the Keller Canyon landfill. We are writing to you on behalf of the Keller Canyon Landfill Company("Keller Canyon")to set forth our views on this subject. There are two threshold issues which need to be addressed by the Board of Supervisors: (1)whether the Board has the legal authority to require that Keller Canyon pay,compensation to local property owners based on the Sonoma State Study; and (2) what are the hearing and pre- hearing procedural rights of Keller Canyon given this potential Board action? We believe that both issues involve important questions of law which need to be resolved prior to the next Board hearing on the Sonoma State Study. The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to give you our view of the applicable legal authority on both of these issues. Mr. Val Alexeeff November 22, 1995 Page 2 I. The County Lacks Authority to Impose a Property Value Compensation Fee Based Upon the Keller Carron Landfill Property Valuation Study. A. Land Use Permit Condition 35.3 Authorizes Compensation for Physical Impacts Only. And the Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study Identified No Significant Physical Impacts. Condition 35.3 of the Keller Canyon Landfill conditional use permit provides in its entirety as follows (emphasis added): Property Value Compensation Program. The [Keller Canyon] Landfill operator shall provide funding for the preparation of a property value compensation program study when requested by the County of Contra Costa. The study will address the means of determining the extent of property value losses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions. When a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the Landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified by the Board. If the Board of Supervisors determines that progress on the implementation of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the Board may require the use of a facilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. Thus, the compensation program authorized by Condition 35.3 is clearly limited to"losses or reductions attributable to Landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution"--all of which are physical impacts. Condition 35.3's limitation to physical impacts was expressly affirmed by the County in the course of the permit condition negotiations. The Keller Canyon Landfill Property Valuation Study provides no evidence that the Keller Canyon facility has had any significant physical impacts on surrounding communities. The Study, which was commissioned by the County and prepared by Sonoma State University, concludes that noise affected only 10% of one of the three neighborhoods studied-- and this impact was found to have gone away by the time of the third field survey, which occurred after the Landfill had disabled the back-up beepers on its trucks. Property Valuation Study, pp. 65-6. "Landfill- generated dust, odor and wind-carried trash were not found to affect any of the primary neighborhoods." Id., at p.7. In sum, the Study does not document any significant physical impacts of the Landfill on local properties.' 'The absence of physical impacts also precludes the County from claiming mitigation authority under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). CEQA authority does not extend to the mitigation of purely economic impacts. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21004, 21068, 21060.5; Mr. Val Alexeeff November 22, 1995 Page 3 B. In Addition to Being Unauthorized By Condition 35.3. Fees for Purported "Psychological" Effects Cannot be Assessed Because Such Effects Are Illusory. As discussed above, the Property Valuation Study concludes that the Keller Canyon facility creates no significant physical impacts in the neighborhoods studied. Apparently, the authors of the Study believe the purported loss of property value"premiums" identified by the Study in one neighborhood is the result of some psychological"stigma" which may be caused by the(unfounded) statements of local Landfill opponents. Not only are such impacts unrelated to the conduct of the Landfill operations, the Sonoma State Study contains critical flaws which render it unusable as reliable evidence of any cause and effect whatsoever. These flaws are discussed in the Coopers&Lybrand report filed with your office on November 16th. The errors in the preparation of the Property Valuation Study have so skewed the results that the Study cannot provide any reliable evidence of property value diminution, even as the result of alleged psychological factors. Moreover, applying the use permit condition to require compensation for alleged "psychological" property value effects occurring before the landfill commenced operations in May, 1992violates the basic tenet of statutory and constitutional construction prohibiting the retroactive application of governmental enactments and impositions. C. Keller Canyon Landfill Was Not Provided with Effective Notice of the Fees It Was Expected to Pay. Imposition of the contemplated compensation fees at this point in time would violate Keller Canyon's procedural due process rights. Due process mandates that developers such as Keller Canyon be afforded"effective notice of the fees they will be expected to pay." Kau" an& Broad Central Valley. Inc. v. Citgo Modesto, 25 Cal.AppAth 1577, 1589 (1994). As the Court stated: "A developer about to commit substantial time and resources to a project should be able to predict with at least some degree of assurance what the fee will be when the time comes to pay it." Id at 1589. In addition to being expressly limited to physical impacts, condition 35.3 clearly indicates that any resulting fee"shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting." Thus, at the time condition 35.3 was included in the use permit, Keller Canyon believed that any compensation fee would be limited to physical impacts and that funding for the compensation was to be"passed-through" to rate-payers under rates set by the Board of Supervisors— and thus not to be paid out of the Company's proprietary revenues or profits. 14 Cal.Code Reg. §§ 15040(b), 15041(a), 15382. Mr. Val Alexeeff October 14, 1996 Page 4 Instead, Keller Canyon is now faced with a proposed property compensation fee of several million dollars for alleged non-physical effects, which fee can no longer be recovered from ratepayers. ' Clearly, this fee is far different than, and far exceeds, the fee Keller Canyon was notified of upon issuance of the conditional use permit.' D. The Compensation Fee Would be a Violation of the 5th Amendment Takings Clause. Because the Keller Canyon facility does not result in significant physical impacts, there is no "essential nexus" between the compensation fee now being considered by the County and a "legitimate state interest."' Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). Nor is there a"rough proportionality" between the fee and the facility's alleged impact. Dolan v. City of Tigard, _U.S. _; 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2319 (1994) (condition must be related "both in nature and extent" to impact of development). Accordingly, the fee would constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ZRecent United States Supreme Court cases have interpreted the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution as prohibiting certain local government restrictions on the flow of solid waste within states. These rulings, in turn, have resulted in neighboring counties relaxing their restrictions on the export of Contra Costa waste into landfills in these counties, causing competition for landfill disposal to increase dramatically. Recognizing that rate controls over Keller Canyon's disposal fees were no longer needed or effective, the Board of Supervisors removed these controls on Keller Canyon's rates last June. Also, Keller Canyon has been forced to greatly decrease its disposal fees to remain competitive, and to commit to these lower fees in long term disposal contracts with several jurisdictions. The County itself is a party to one such contract. Therefore, it is no longer feasible for the Board to order compensation fees be added onto Keller Canyon's rates as a"pass-through" cost, and Keller Canyon would be unable to pass such fees onto its customers. 'As indicated above, the Keller Canyon facility was constructed in reliance on the County's assurances that any compensation fee would only apply to physical impacts and that it could be passed-through to ratepayers. Accordingly, the County is now estopped from denying that condition 35.3 refers only to physical impacts and fees that can be"passed-through." See City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3 d 462 (1970). 'It also does not appear that the County's imposition of a fee to enrich select landowners reflects a"legitimate state interest." Thus, the imposition of the fee may be in excess of the County's"police power" authority. Mr. Val Alexeeff November 22, 1995 Page 5 E. The Compensation Fee Would Be Invalid Under the Government Code and Proposition 13. The compensation fee now being considered by the County exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the service for which it is being imposed, because the proposed compensation payment would not be in exchange for a service being provided to the developer--i.e., Keller Canyon. The compensation fee thus violates Government Code section 66005 which limits fees imposed on development projectss to the"reasonable cost of providing the service or facility for which the fee or exaction is imposed." Gov. Code § 66005(a). In addition, the amount of the compensation fee allocated to Keller Canyon would not bear a fair and reasonable relation to Keller Canyon's benefit from the fee, since Keller Canyon would receive no benefit from the proposed fee. Thus, the fee would also be invalid under Proposition 13 as a special tax imposed without voter approval. Bixel Associates v. City of Los Angeles, 216 Cal.App.3d 1208 (1989). F. The Compensation Fee Would Violate Keller Canyon's Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection Rights. The County has previously approved several other industrial and waste handling facilities without imposing fees for property value compensation. Thus, the County's imposition of a fee here is arbitrary and irrational in violation of the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of the California and federal Constitutions. See, e.g., Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1987). II. Keller Canyon Must be Granted Full Due Process Rights Prior to the Imposition of Any Compensation Fee. A. Full Due Process Rights are Required by the Constitution and the Government Code. Because nonpayment of the proposed compensation fee could result in revocation of Keller Canyon's conditional use permit, and given the magnitude of the potential fee, the imposition of this fee would impact a significant property interest. Goat Hill Tavern V. City of Costa Mesa, 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1529 (1992)("the right to continue operating an established business in which [the owner] has made a substantial investment" is a"fundamental vested right" and subject to court review under the"independent judgment" standard). Thus, constitutional due process requires that Keller Canyon be provided a fair hearing prior to the deprivation of this interest. Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d 605 (1979). "'Development project" is broadly defined as"any project undertaken for the purpose of development." Gov. Code § 66000(a). . V Mr. Val Alexeeff November 22, 1995 Page 6 B. Keller Canyon Must be Granted Full Discovery and Hearing Rights. Because a significant property interest will be affected, Keller Canyon must be provided with the right to subpoena relevant documents and statements (Shively v. Stewart, 65 Cal.2d 475 (1966)), depose witnesses for evidentiary material within their possession or control (Everett v. Gordon, 266 Ca1.App.2d 667, 672-73 (1968)), and pose interrogatories (Romero v. Here, 276 Cal.App.2d 787 (1969)). Keller Canyon must also be granted subpoenas requiring witnesses to attend the hearing and be subject to cross-examination. McLeod v. Board of Pension Commissioners, 14 Cal.App.3d 23, 28 (1970) (right to cross-examine witnesses in administrative proceedings is fundamental element of due process). In this proceeding, Keller Canyon should be allowed to subpoena representatives of Sonoma State and any relevant County staff and public witnesses to attend and testify at the hearing, and be allowed to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Keller Canyon should also have the right to conduct reasonable pre-hearing depositions of the Sonoma State representatives regarding the issues raised in the Coopers&Lybrand report and the declaration of Dwight Duncan. Please consider this letter our formal request for such pre-hearing discovery. As you can see, the County's proposed action raises numerous significant concerns. Keller Canyon will continue to comment on these issues as proceedings progress and hopes that a balanced process, giving due regard to Keller Canyon's substantive and procedural rights, is adopted. Very truly yours, Thomas M. Bruen TMB:jcf cc: Victor I Westman, County Counsel D. a CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: October 10, 1996 TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director By: Deidra Dingman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDA FOR FINAL REPORT FROM ANDERSON SL BRABANT REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES NEAR THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL (Item D.9 on 10/15/96 agenda) We have received a copy of the final report from Anderson &- Brabant Inc. entitled "Final Report: Keller Canyon Landfill - An Analysis of its Influence on Surrounding Property Values". The final report with the exception of the addenda (appendices) is included as Attachment A to the Board Order for item D.9. The addenda (appendices) are quite extensive and therefore were not included as attachments to the Board Order. This memorandum transmits the complete Addenda from the Anderson &-Brabant Inc. report for your review. Bill Anderson will present his report and be available to answer your questions at the October 15, 1996 Board of Supervisors meeting. cc: Press Box City of Pittsburg BFI/Keller Canyon Landfill VA/DD DD IO:ADDENDA.MEM I i i OF- ADDENDA i i i I � I i I i i ANDERSON 6 BRABANT. INC. �J 9 mg coO01 r- h CND V to h � co C4 h ICD 0 CL d �� g e o o e e o o e o 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e J O N h V) r r CD A M O h A WD M M MN � tCD h r r- O N CD h "It N N h 1l: 1 1lt tD UD 't CO M N W Pt N CD W� Cpm t� NIX coa. co A A A A co GOD ChD (DD ChD Oh) 0 co W Q co co ChD A W ChD A A ti O oe eeoe of iri opfD e`e e`e e'E at at OX co O CD r a0 C) O N A m W �l to 0) m V) A m Iff tVf N IfT CV .7 1 N N CQ V CD C4 94) Z 8 A i r 1 ca ti V O 00 O A co Uf co CV)CO N A N IL p Cr� y a p m a I� O M Cr N co A M r CCpp r N V N M 0AD M r N to M CD co co) � h M to to CO) Q y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V O at i+ of of gE of o2 0 a2 ; of of ;� e e of ; of p m r N O CD N0 r O h A r /p ICD O A /7 O A A A r CD h Co to N h P',: CR N r h m A W) IV P. 40 eq N 11 � �CV � Q Q r � � �r N N � r � � I"> A N N ONC N A A V) v- NWOm OGo O as O V rCD W C m w A N co co N M 3 CD A a m IR rD m A v 3 IN M _ (A b r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N J m CA CO L J d A A `O r 0 0) to t?! tC N 1A h w � 4" to CID co t0 N O M N N CO CD N M N M 0 N m N M N CO) C> r M O r , W) tp M h CD r �N, m .rJ Z � !O tD tD h m tD � tCD tD '7 tD et h M tD M CL c t 0) = O) N = � m i cm d L Ofd L � 0 r Me a o � o0M 'o o .0 0 .0 o � � oar oa 'Q �L Qn. Qa = Qa = Qa = Qa = Qa = Qa = Qas z CoOD CD r N M Ili m m OND OND OND OND OND ONE ONE c" Exhibit B _ Price Trends Study Sale/Resale Analysis Datum House Size Lot Size Initial Pur. Purchase Resale Resale Change Percent Elapsed Percent Na Address Sq.Ft Sq.Ft Date Price Date Price In Price change Time(Yes) ghmwefft 1 2224 Jacqueline Dr. 1,160 8,222 02/2688 $106,000 07/28/93 $139,600 $34,600 32.86% 6A2 6.06% 2 2260 San Remo Wy. 1,528 9,750 03101/88 $118,000 03131/95 $146,000 $27,000 22.88% 7.08 3.23% 3 2211 Begonia Ct 1,610 7,800 03/24/88 $130,000 11/18/94 $150,000 $20,000 15.38% 6.66 2.31% 4 2237 San Remo Wy. 1,430 6,100 03/31/88 $123,000 06/07193 $148,000 $26,000 20.33% 6.11 3.96% 5 2210 Begonia Ct 1,349 7,245 04122!88 $118,600 07128/93 $1$7.000 $28,600 24.06% 5.27 4.66% 6 2223 Montevideo Dr. 1,791 7,000 04/22/88 $144,000 08/01/91 $187,000 $43,000 29.86% 3.28 9.11% 7 221T San Remo Wy. 1,609 8,000 06!28188 $133,000 04MM $175,000 $42,000 31.58% 2.82 11.20% 8 2271 Jacqueline Dr. 1,160 6,283 08112/88 $114,000 11116191 $150,000 538,000 31.58% 3.26 9.69% 9 2255 Mt.Whitney Dr. 1,416 6,100 08130/88 $128,500 07130191 $164,000 $35,600 21.63% 2.92 9A8% 10 2229 Jacqueline Dr. 1,419 8,500 10107188 $124,000 01121194 $162,000 $28,000 22.58% 5.29 4.27% 11 924 Rock Ridge Wy. 1,823 9,834 10125188 $145,600 061#0190 $184,000 $36,500 26A6% 1.64 17.19% 12 2249 San Remo Ct 1,430 7„246 11M1/88 $136,000 11119/90 $175,000 $40,000 29.83% 2.06 14A6% 13 2238 Westwood Ct 1,420 7,000 1216/88 $121,000 09116/94 $121,000 $0 0.00% 6.75 0.00% 14 2215 Montevideo Dr. 1,166 6,000 1216188 $129,500 03/19192 $160,000 $30,500 23.55% 3.26 7.2376 15 1202 Alamo Way 1,497 9,012 02M689 $110,000 01/24191 $168,600 $68,500 63.18% 1.96 27.07% 16 2283 Jacqueline Dr. 1,160 8,407 02124189 $114,000 08118194 $139,000 $25,000 21.93% 648 4.00% 17 1023 Rock Ridge Ct 1,386 18,900 040789 $128,000 07/16/93 $160,000 $22,000 17.19% 4.28 4.02% 1S 2246 Jacqueline Dr. 1,416 6,000 04/0789 $140,000 12102193 $146,600 $6,600 4.64% 4.66 1.00% 19 2213 Daffodil Dr. 1,160 12,360 0612389 $134,000 04126195 $130,600 ($3,500) -2.81% 5.84 -0A5% 20 1200 Alamo Way 1,349 11AN 07/06/89 $140,000 03131196 $139,000 ($1,000) -0.71% 5.74 -0.12% 21 2225 Montevideo Dr. 1,506 10AN 1110789 $152,600 0804193 $164,000 $1,500 0.98% 3.58 0.28% 22 2259 ML Whitney Dr. 1,350 6,306 03121190 $169,000 03/28/96 $140,000 ($29,000) -17.16% 6.02 -22110 23 221O Zannie Ct 1,823 6,660 OGM9/9O $184,600 0701192 $179,000 ($6,600) -2.98% 2.15 4.39% 24 2266 Jacqueline Dr. 1,160 6,300 05/26/90 $152,000 01/28/93 $140,000 ($12,000) -7.89% 2.68 -2.94% _ 25 2246 Daffodil Dr. 1,262 7,200 0612190 $168,000 0206196 $145,000 ($23,000) -13.69% 4.66 -2.94% 26 2292 Jacqueline Dr. 1,084 7,128 0616/90 $156,000 10123/92 $137,000 ($19,000) -12.18% 2.36 -6.18% we 27 2239 Daffodil Dr. 1,171 7,200 06126/90 $167,000 09129194 $145,000 ($12,000) -7.64% 4.27 -1.79% 28 2284 Jacqueline Dr. 1,442 7,920 06129/90 $175,000 08/03/94 $163,000 ($22,000) 42.67% 4.10 3. 29 2246 Daffodil Dr. 1,419 6,000 08124/90 $170,000 0410191 $164,000 ($6,000) .3.53% 0.63 6.� 30 1094 Honey Ct 1,430 7,000 04/26191 $164,000 05103/98 $142,000 ($21,000) -13A1% 6.03 -2.6 31 2243 Montevideo 1,342 7,476 09/85/92 $168,000 12/02/94 $131,000 ($27,000) -17.09% 2.19 -7.82% 32 2225 Carmel Ct 1,386 7,420 07123193 $152,000 03129196 $12T,50O ($24,600) -16.12% 2.68 -6.00% Average Percent Change Nr-.Initial Purchase After 1989 -3,84% Average Percent Change/Yr-Jn"Purchase Before 1990 6.60% .J Exhibit C Price Trends Study Sale/Resale Analysis Datum House Size Lot Size Initial Pur. Purchase Resale Resale Change Percent Elapsed Percent No Address Sq.FL Sq.FL Date Price Date Price In Price Change Time(Yrs) ChangelYr. 1 2124 Monostory Ct 1,342 8,100 09/16/88 $109,600 10105195 $161,000 $41,500 37.90% 7.05 6.37% - 2 2234 Bayberry Circle 2,026 7,400 04/18/89 $184,000 08106/94 $187,000 $3,000 1.63% 6.30 0.31% 3 2221 Oak Hills Dr. 1,420 6,760 0511689 $147,500 07/28/94 $162,000 $14,600 9.83% 5.21 1.89% 4 2227 Oak Hills Dr. 1,420 6,350 06/0289 $166,000 12/11195 $142,000 ($74,000) -8.97% 6.53 -1.37% 5 2251 fsayterryCircle 2,026 4,275 06/2389 $194,600 05128/93 $2C5,000 $10,600 5.40% 3.93 1.37% 6 2242 Bayberry Circle 1,601 6,190 07/1289 $171,500 0822195 $160,000 ($21,500) -12.54% 6.12 -2.06% 7 2249 Bayberry Circle 1,826 4,370 07/2189 $188,000 07/14/95 S ;9,000 ($19,000) -10.11% 5.98 •1.69% 8 1626 Bkdhaven Way 930 4,250 07/28/89 $120,000 04/03/92 $ 32,500 $12,500 t0A2% 2.68 3.88% 9 2260 Bayberry Circle 1,826 6,480 07/28/89 $175,500 09/10/92 $194,600 $19,000 10.83% 3.12 3A7% 10 1616 Birdhaven Way 1,308 3,660 07/28/89 $140,000 04114191 $160,000 $20,000 14.29% 1.74 8.21% 11 2245 Bayberry Circle 1,601 4,500 08/0189 $176,000 11116/96 $165,000 ($11,000) -6.26% 6.29 -0.99% 12 1624 Birdhaven Way 930 4,100 08/2189 $119,000 0426/94 $126,000 $7,000 5.88% 4.68 1.26% 13 1606 BkMwven Way 930 3,850 0812289 $128,000 09030/93 $128,000 $0 0.00% 4.11 0.00% 14 1610 Birdhaven Way 1,468 3,660 0823189 $461,500 04/02191 $156,000 $4,500 2.97% 1.61 1.86% 15 1617 Birdhaven Way 1,306 4,680 08/3089 $140,500 0726/96 $139,500 ($1,000) -0.71% 5.91 -0.12% 16 1619 Birdhaven Way 1,466 4,900 09/1889 $151,600 1226/96 $150,000 ($1,500) -0.99% 6.27 -0.16% 17 2279 Bayberry Circle 2,026 6,176 0912089 $214,500 06/25/95 $190,000 ($24,600) -11 A2% 5.68 -2.01% 18 2127 Monostory Ct 1,342 7,000 10/06/89 $152,000 06117194 $118,500 ($33,500) -22.04% 4.70 -4.69% 19 1625 Meilowood St 1,826 6,600 1011389 $189,000 021115/94 $185,000 ($4,000) -3.12% 4.35 -0A9% 20 2231 Oak Hills Dr. 1,828 5,600 102789 $192,600 03/15/96 $172,000 ($20,500) -10.65% 6.39 4.67% 21 1620 Birdhaven Way 1,458 3,800 10/30189 $166,000 1027194 $149,000 ($7,000) -0A9% 4.99 -0.M07fi 22 12 Lire Oak Court 2,026 9,400 1112889 $227,000 07121193 $180,M) ($47,000) -20.70% 3.65 -6.68% 23 10 Live Oak Court 2,026 9,600 12113189 $233,500 0922/96 $166,01.'0 ($68,600) -29.34% 5.78 -5.08% 24 1610 Meliowood St 1,601 4,386 12/1989 $195,000 03101/91 $210,000 $15,000 7.69% 1.20 SAM `- 26 1651 Birdhaven Way 1,308 4,360 1229/89 $146,500 04/06/94 $13,9,000 ($8,600) -6.80% 4.27 -1.38% 28 7 Live Oak Court 1,826 4,100 02109/90 $207,000 07116/93 $185,000 ($22,000) -10.63% 3.43 3.10% 27 1758 Bridgeview St 2,026 6,072 06/01190 $216,600 08/18/95 $177,000 ($39,600) -18.24% 5.22 3.50% 28 1712 Bridgeview St 1,826 5,544 06/29/90 $200,500 08/04194 $185,000 ($16,500) -7.73% 4.10 -1.88% 29 1744 Peachwillow St 1,826 5,400 08/01/90 $205,000 06131/94 $185,000 ($20,000) -0.76% 3.83 -2.56% 30 1762 Peachwillow SL 1,826 6,400 08/08190 $203,000 06/01/94 $187,000 ($16,000) -7.88% 3.82 -2.07% 31 1768 Peachwillow St 1,828 5,500 10119190 $205,000 08112/94 $183,000 ($22,000) -10.73% 3.82 -2.81% 32 1719 Peachwillow St 1,601 4,950 01114191 $199,000 10/07/94 $173,500 ($25,500) -12.81% 3.73 3A3% 33 1772 Peachwillow St 2,026 6,800 0222/91 $194,000 09122196 $187,000 ($7,000) 3.61% 4.68 -0.79% 34 1740 Peachwillow SL 1,601 5,400 04/12/91 $174,600 07124/92 $184,000 $9,600 5A4% 1.28 4.24% 35 1739 Peachwillow St 2,026 5,000 06/07/91 $193,000 0324196 $178,000 ($16,000) -7.77% 3.80 -2.06% - 36 2219 Alderbrook Way 1,826 5,010 06/19/91 $178,500 12030193 $180,000 $1,500 0.84% 2.53 0.33% 37 1763 Clearrvood St 1,826 4,500 09/09/91 $186,500 0627/94 $184,000 ($1,600) -0.81% 2.80 -0.29% 38 1706 Clearwood St 1,826 5,000 0926/91 $173,000 02/14/96 $186,500 $13,600 7.80% 3.39 2.30% 39 1754 Clearwood St 1,420 6,080 11113191 $160,000 03/28/96 $143,600 ($22,500) -13.55% 4.38 3.10% _ 40 1631 Meilowood St 2,026 6,260 11120/91 $210,000 03/22196 $164,000 ($46,000) -21.90% 4.34 -6.06% 41 1731 Peachwillow St 2,026 4,960 02104/92 $193,000 06/30/96 $178,700 ($14,300) -7A1% 4.32 -1.71% 42 2250 Woodhill Dr. 1,522 5,880 07/01/92 $166,000 02/09196 $161,500 ($14,500) -8.73% 3.61 -2A2;6 43 11 Burlwood Court 1,746 4,400 08/06192 $191,000 07123/93 $185,000 ($6,000) 3.14% 0.96 3.26% 44 2243 Woodhill Dr. 1,746 7,100 09111192 $181,600 08/12/94 $167,000 ($14,500) -7.99% 1.92 -4.17% 45 2234 Woodhill Dr. 1,522 4,600 01/11/93 $167,000 04/01196 $151,000 ($16,000) -0.58% 3.22 -2.97% 46 2229 Oak Hills Dr. 2,026 6,000 03/19193 $189,500 04/27/96 $165,000 ($24,500) -12.93% 2.11 4.14% Average Percent Change/Yr.-Initial Purchase After 1989 -2.11% Average Percent Change/Yr.-Initial Purchase Before 1990 0.23% i 7020 sco C, 0 0 0 0 0 N b b O D O } _ ? ti O b S O O Y p A S 0 0 CC U N N N N N N N M N O � U O� N P. O O tb 0 0 0 .7 O O m S S m m N S N S O N00 NNS N �N N 0 0 n=pp() S S ���Op N 0 0 0 S S aR 0 0 p m /O l A N G �O O O Law • O 1p O ct O ^ O OOO O 00O O qQ O 0 O N M m N O M 40P w mNOb r.N 000 �O �1Cp,p O V C?m O m 0 S S O S^ o Of 0 b b 40 m ' d L OOp N pp 1 A = 7.2 0 0 F a 1O- b 0 O O O S a C D NA Op OO! b_Qr;A OOP S A da N N N Y W Q `r0S P- NO Nb C-2 000 O S ry 7 OHO 1N0 a O f t0 b0 Oka m . MM C O • 0Q» l��V�oN$$ g.a►�����Apppppp oS OS Os � dr NN NN ter► �"► ^N �� n E Q c �o go �e�io 00 00 00 �R EQc � oN � P. go 0,6 OO O o H Q O O O O O O aR 0 y W p O o O b b O C N�%O P. fV�SS �N f$ b� N to b 0. NN NMS e-y r N N SON 00mS0 00 00 00 LQ N 0 D W M 00 O o o O_ C O 0 C 0 f.. O O 0 N N �N N 'N O 00 a W p ��W�p 00 0O S 00 top OQop O O�- 4'��� N ~O m Q CR aU NN GOP. A C O 0 LL LL LL �C LL y O y LL t G 00 • $•< am aU a • • • a- c a $ yz ayt "!t oaa � E �aoa swa -8 C �S•eia <' U c rn I- � coo t 1- rn 00 o cfl Q = r M M N vi Ole r r r r r r Q cc ti N O 0) co ti N M '0 U Cn O Ctj m CA CD r r r N - CT m PrCO (DcoI-- U*) 0 P0CDLOtn0r- m ou000 � 0000a00000c0000 L } U (j CV) MMMMMMMMmMMMMMMmM C Ntifftiti00CD01 (D TO Z � B LL, NNC'omoclOOCDMCDCDCDCD0oNNNN Q Y0 (n m0 OOT- T- MMMC'?� V V "Cr1ctd) t 14- OP P r r r 'r r P r r P P r r r r j 'drOOrtCnlnMtJ) Oco01- � Ntt r O 0 N V N Mr- N O r O r O r O r O N 0 Cc C) rrrPrPPe- P r P e- rrr C EA t,H H EH EA 61),EA to 44 4a to 64 64(a t4 .� t!) __ a r O�( 0) 000000000000000000 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W a oo �n000 �no �r0000d000rn �n N CMNInMMe07 ( � � NCOOMt~ (0Ul) I- v cc V- P r r r P P P P P r r r P r r r T- U) (n 6A 69 60 69 64 69 6%6%69696%w6%6%646%696% f.L Q� � � CTN CO , O) owaLnoOCACAC�UC� �-52 --) < -1QQru) Z � V) QQQ0n m MMMCONO � Ln0Wr- V � tM V- ((0CDD0 Cn o Cl CD M V- V N a I- r- 1�- V LO M (0 (0 qT LONCDrCOU) V roU) I,- lnsf NP- 1-- (Dgt (0U) I-- vf` 00 gY' Morl` Ovtt00N (DI- m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - O O O O O r 0 0 WOOZOWW � WWZOWZZ Q ~ Q QaUZI- OtYO� —�jOtYFZ- ZF- QSZHFZ- - O O Z - - Wcf- -11- W W ooD :r m � � � _w = L) _ -- z ZZzz 3: (oa � 0CS o00Q0E- < QoFQL) Ln N r CD N M O M M M I- N N M v m v I'- m m 1l- Nr "T CD M LO V N 0 (D N N N O CD (D N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N MMMMMMMM MMMMMNMM C0 N C '� p O O W W W W W W O W W W W W N W W 2Z tititil4t` tititir-L1` tiJ�LP4t.L P• P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Q m � °Ov cD N OL N M CD > U QO 0 0 0 (�0 N � CD Cl (3) N c N r- O � O �— C) N O O L 0 9 p N N M (� 0 7 _ _ C CO CMC 000 cocoGoco00 O000Co.co Q Cv O m > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q �j r� CCc C-;5C,;5c� C-�') r� � � E OOOOOOC, 0s � cc E r-_ ti �zaiz: ;aizizasa O 000000000 .- > UL N N W W cap0 aO�pp M M O O q �CA CA � V- lA tl� � G LL Mm N O O co M O O V I- e- T- r. T- O V O 6969699%6.4 696964 g4- 0 O °� 000 $ 00 $ 0000 Uj O -o -pp� o -qCtp MOT- NI.. � T" MT" O y cc T" r- r- r- I.. Ir- r- r- r- r- N� (n 69 69 44 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Li. q cm N 0 0 M N 0 (Cf M (DCDWWr- MmNLo MCDOCDO � CMcoNN 3 Mr CN C) MONr- M M r- M N N M Cp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ WWW ; uW Z � 00WW2RZ ~ w Q = _ Q U Y Q wmww < Dw0w � U' C/) Cnaww2 Mr- mm000tiC/) Lr) OV- NLOOT— CONOOO N NCO OOQ1NNr- CON N N N N N N N N N N aCwwwwwwwwww z r- C O O O 0�. �IO �0-0 O O C M O O N� t=5(D LO to m N Go C �. L N M V ttj to to rnU rte. � N co M VO' M M 1- CD F- U � 4- N N 06 N 06 N •� rn m to CD co co co In co In V' d Cn CO to Cn V• V' C 00 CO CC) 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO N }` U o _ c � p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C Q U m M M M M M MM M M M cM M M M M C cocoOcocco00000 a) 0) (nOtiti0) r C) 0) N T � N Q '0 u- MOMOOMDCMOcODCODCODCODN V � CDCDC) M «DM M o o ❑ U N ca000rnovornr, vor. totior- I- 0 N V' NNOMOOI- Or- OM' O r V'- 60 r C 64 69 69 60(a 60 60 69 60 60 69 vi 69 60!• COva ^ O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W •= O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ._ a oo �nov� 00000 �n,0000000 (a tb IrzNr-O 6666 COC-COtf) t�tn M-0 N N r rM- � T- e�- r. � r- � rM-1 V- eM- T- T- � � 'r. T- �Qy) mfA6fl69696A4069w6f369fA40fH6H60696H69 N maw ao 0 m7 maUi aUi ams y a � V V gQ '-) Qzm00 ¢ gQ -) 00 a? Cf) f-- t-- r-- NMMMCMOv — MLo V' OCDM p M CCDDOCODN OMOMCD VV' - N- r- � CMO (DN V r- (DT- NNCDNCMr- V' cMll. uO V' CMM (f) 3 LO V' r� tNCn1� LOcMN V' mr-- 0 -.4- CQ 00 N O O O O r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- '- ctIx w 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O O p Q >- O W o o o OO W o W >- W W O U OOZO � � O ..iOOOW W (� ZZZZOO cn w w �- CEljo � 0 > O OowE- lj w > � 00 = ODOOOwwo - O ,= OOW W - zz � Z ( zLLz � zYc� � c� c� z a oo �- O < < OQ ¢ oo0Q �- QQod UU2U -5OUOcn � UOn2 -» 2V) MCDTwWNMWMCDCMOOf 00NNMNM LOV' t-- V rt- OV' ONV' eMOCDCDCVOCV -t N N N N N N N N N N N 0) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CA N N N N N N MCW) mMMMMCV) CV) Cf) MMCV) MmMMM a wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWw -- � z r• r4r: r` 14P: r: i: r4r4r4tih� r4r+ r. r; ti T- r- r- r T- r- r r T- T- r- V- V- r V- r- r- V- CDcc o 0 0 0 0 L N 06 N CM Q c 0 0 0 0 0 a= N N ti M00 0 cc co N LO r U , , � rn 0 c m U ` N N N N N N N N C ;75 ti ti ti Q Ecm O O T. Z O Q CO CO 00001,N M N _ {.{., Nap COtip (NM 0 (n CD0) MM '�v_v_�rv_v_ O > cn•��./ E "T NN0 - COV- 0V- 0 O (, `- � � Oe- O � Oe 64 - 6969696O C � 969 � �w •— co a _. 0 O LU 0 a o ouoIqo M O O Un LOT- 1-N Wm (� O r f- V-r VII D N CO d' CD et y O r r V- T- r r V- V- 49 69 69 69 6f3 to d� O O (d p O N O N O M M M fp � M -1z2w22 --) 1- M000LOCDMOI� Cd WW 1` O 14" InWM p CO O I- r- l-_ uO 0 0 et 3 CDN1� tn LO0NO CO In 1-- � 0 to In � r- O O O r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLI f- � QQ UQ w � F- QQ �- OQ ~ � } QQO00 QWg ~ ► W 2 2 OZZZWZZ :DOQQ -iWQO _ � cnmww < 3: cn = QQ 1,- NCDMWWNO 000 � Nr- M C) co � ONNNNNON �- - CL N M M M N N M M N N C06 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ T- V- V- V- V- T- T- ylj, Y Q)7, 0) �. C ti < , �� ti N C C 4 C6 vi vi 4 Ci cm T Q o c IR o 0 0 0 .�. co N co CR O ti H U N N co N .. N — rn M O O � N O O � N O O O .- ca O O O O O O O O O co O O U � o O C.. NNMNNNNNNNNN M � Q Q C.1 MM M M co M C � � r' � � 8OOOO a� � ao ao 0 o ca cc .- � co cc ca co Q (/) MM � N LO 0c0 DC0 CNON0OO � '^ O c�c U- G }� NU) t�- 0MU) O � U) NaN0T- 0Npr' prp U e-^ T- %- a- V- T- r- EA T V- 60 69 CD O 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0 � 000000000000 � � 000000000000 W a o o 0LOC 0 0 0LOM 0 o m tpDMCOO 'Md � � � l) OtiMti N N rrr � rrrrNr (�J �- (q to 69 69 69 H 69 69 to 69 69%69 r � O �DOU7p0 LO0w - o CL CL m w y O 5 O j CO QQ22o ' z " Q2 -) O WMI- OMCOWM W r' cMO �p in LooU) m , t-- wI- ,, MO o O U) to N M M 1-- 1.- 1-- N M U) M N 0 v- eM 0 1,- U1 1-- V M N d V CD M M N 1—r T-- O M to 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 O CD o CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 zz � pzz � USUp � to WWwpWWwlnW } p -j CD » > >> > -j O Q Q W > Q W -j W = 2C� � 22C7 = CDW0 = Q Oo � OooYO } -iQ W J Q Q W W mmmummmomm2m U7 O o � v o f` f` ti (0 W N T- �t 1'- U) U) - O ti M N � O cD cD 1� 1� cD cD 1� N 1� N cc 1-- r .-- .- rrrrN 'rNrr CL N N N N N N N M N N N N r� o UUUUUUUUVUUU gz tititir� r- ti � r. i• r: tir: r r r r r r r r r r r r c a) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QN N co O N N "Cr N r. Co M M CD In co I*- Co (13 L In I� 00 tt M M In > Q � 0 a) C7 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a) 0 m N LO co coc � ti i cc 0 LL f•-- U N M M N M N U oi i � o tt) •� O m i ti 1 I i ti t ti 1-- I`' tT m N N N N N N N N N N N N = N Q M C+) CM M M C`M C` M M ` V\ d` Cm cn m r E to co r- I- � � 1� t7Dt�OCD CO > O o 2 M Cn P .- to to N N r- r• 0 014' It U_ 00NNtncn000DNNCDC) LOU) CDM (n cn0) NNtncncnm t �t "Tv. LOLO Dco O 1 ® O rL T � ti00tnOLnvP00P00tntn •� O d• OPOr' r- Pr- 0000r• Ptnoco A2 69 69 69 to V- 40 T- 69 69 4A T- 40 646H 69 (n a �( O 0000000000000000 O000000000000000 LLIO a ootntn0000000tn0000 0cfl0W0MoMLOtoMCO V- tritritri V OV P1nOto0VPtoO1'. CMr- M /A NC (n 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 r,.f.. PLn , tnPLor CO -- � CIO to p) D.C T� tC a cc Q a O O N N O O O• U O O cd b O cts CO ¢ � U) ocnQO - Z � g � -� N to IT C) OD LO 0 v - (0 ce) C'M Q) I-- cM 00 1-_ cJ o) CMD O T- M CM rn ti M CO (Mti CO O 1-- ct Q t'MMOcM �tcoUnIt CV) Vn tDtnNNI-- O 3 ItTI,- OCDtnNtDOetOr- v-- Mtni` T cm oOPOoPOOo .- oPOOOC� 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Z: -j _ w W _ J (r- QQ QQOUQQU > _! w --F in ❑ ZZF- ZZQZOZZQ2Q Z (1) Z W W U W W R W M W Wrz Z J w -v zrwrrow U) U) ww -i w _ ww c� _ O Q Q -Wi � J � � C� � � � � wOw00 W (DQNP- LOLONO) to O 11) cf) V N (0 - "T LO 0 t•) to N T- "t c'M 'RT O N N 0 N CD M Cr) O CO N CO M N e r- � Un a e- r — 't1 T V- (7) 'T r 'V• vt 0 o. m to 0 co to to 0 0 Coco to co to co r• to W W W W W W W W W W W W ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MZ 666o5obc66 � obab � ababobab -D( ,g CD Q m� 0 0 LO Oo L r; L? P'. Qo o o 0 0 0 v_ o v o CD to c ti c6 ca O L N r r N r F- C) m 0w0NCticomtico coo n }` U 5 U N N N N N N N N N N C �U t� i;s a E i l i i © 3 � a3CBrn N TT � i j � NN OCA COO Q OOOOOOmO foam I, m C �EAy�tf)�694469691fl C) 0._ pp $ p O U 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W a Into - o $ to ti ff o tri C6tri o ui o(c m N U) CO M to Mf-- N CO '7 N m e- �- e- V- r %- T- � T-- � (a 60 60 69 01.41to013�Q)� N to O a) o) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) cc 0 0com :' coCL5c`cma CO Y � OCOLOr-- N0WM N tor- CD r U') U") to ACV N CDCANtotn � CM � l� N N �- 0 0 0 0 COM0 0 0 9 C) o Z o 0 Z oz tv wwo0wzwozw 2 = oW = gZm gowgo Q U Q Y ~ O Y O Y � 2Ozm � Oz � O v ti Ocpm N- OOe� a Tl- co O CD w C> CL too oLOu") totoOLOO Wo ¢ 1 ¢ ¢ 11 ¢ 11 ¢ MZ 0000000000 N N N N N N N N N N Q °r° rn co M o Q o 0 0_ 0 I 0 0 IR p. co O O N ti ti cd r r-� N U7 r I- 0 0 U N N N N N r' w. a) C m CD "7 P f+ fd d (aCD 'n coCD 1l_ I-_ I U O o r r r r N N N N N N N N C � � C MM C ti1jC�DC1D (� � titi � coococo G N ^tin C ca 2 � V- O O N N M M N N Q C� CSd0rrr � � etf- � �- CD 0 DNr E V r- cn � NrMrto OOO •'� 0 rrrMr69 (a M '^ C 69 69 69�(a 69�(a 69� y � NJy"" Q. X O 0V O O O O O O O O O O O O •2 O O O O O O O O O O O O tQ1�i0O000000t� 0m1O�tn0Ne00co0 � M r M O M O lD r CD N U7 M N l0 rrrrrrrrr �- rr 69 69 to 69 69 64 EA 69 69 64 69 I.L toM � M � Mpto jMM tC D � rororomro0 0 M CD M COtir (MNI-- OMV N - p r.- vLO1 m- mwNcoOMrn (D 3 IOU) V WON — O (OMN I� - U') MONN V 0 (D (Din (d OOOOOOr- Ore- 00 U p > U _. N F- ZZZ Z U U) U 00t— _ 0 Z 0 f- UU0 Q � � > � > JWDD � Q � 0z0 T- ZZZJwQ2 aL.L � 2 00 ¢ (0 0 0 1: < rOCV — — NrM - _ U) N N M N — ,-t r r N r N aM M M N N N M M M N N N cap mmmmmmmmmmmm _ g z ab ab eb ab ab ab a5 ab ab ab ob ob rr �- r �- rrrr- �- rr N V ca N Ch CSI M C7 0i Q o 0 0 0 0 0 o CU co CD CT m M O 0) 0) .� m to CD to �- 0V e- N m anmwmw.ccwwm o ca w000DI` I-- I- I- titi U o OR N N N N N N N N N N C Q� U 5) � � � C MM � �tMMMM �I �t Q E 0 \ \ \ co \ \ E CD 1.- f� I� co 00 co 00 0 0 0 TO ..I.. CD 75 tntnl- t-- 00vITd' It Q u- to to0CDtotoM "Cry f/1 MMMMOLOOCDt7 W N O -- rrrr �- rr �- r N K a� t.t_ O (Q ti � � CON �t � O � N (c U 06090w m6969OH c 69 69 69 69 CO Q. �( 0000000000 W •c 0000000000 _� a 0000tn00000 tO vNVMN7 cvi rZvtwnMMtNn U) co T- V- T- a- r- e- e- e- T-r N� (n 69 69 69 6%69 6A 69 60 69 to {.L 4) TTTTTTTTTM A >, >, C -0 C CTC p M M M = 0 > > m M n 222 � u. -) Q -, -, Q CD coMtno0NON1l_ 00t— ca LO W 'ttnNOT- V- i� t0 p toOO � NtoMV 1- 0 LON � MNN1I- 01-- v- lntntnCDN0000r- 1-- 0' CO 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � U o = = n. CL p � J ~ ~ Zp cl�0) < w a00000 - w > p � p z0 Q - Q � � > ZQ (� = =LLJ � 0 0 C� w2Z000Ow oocovg � o0 (0w OD co CD M o 0 NCIOCv) NCAC7JV, C'M NMMMMNMCf) V, r' CL 1wvIV IV IT 0LntnCDtn co mmmmmmmmmm Z cbcbobcbebcbcbcbcbcb C� _ a C U') 000 0 04 (D � V ca 0 -C CO CDCV CD CD N CM Ui > U Q o o 0 0 0 0 0 m ��-- co •V' Itf O Co CD cu CV Ci Ln N U') r Cf) I- U M N N r m M 'crLOmv t* U) mvCf) CMcr)_Cf) .0 co ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti r _ ` }` U 010 _ C :3 , N N N N N N N N N N N N C w' V (� C� MmmmMMITVV• V, qTMCM C cWc LnLnr- tititi � titi Q G a) O 2 O0NNMW r-- e- tt) l!) f� 1� Q U- NNOOr`` I� o0o0NN000ACA co co r N N 'V Co CD 0 0 O > O U- C:) C> W r"ccoomccoom � co c 60 60 .® co a I.. �( O CD O00oo000000000 LU OO00000000000a a LO LQ q o0oo0oo000 �O � OMOM � COOOCODNWCl M V, N N r � r r r r r T- %— P P !- t... r fn to to to to to to to to to to to to to a) � tDNtoNcoC c to _ w+ O O O O CA O O CA CA CA CA CA CA O co MOODca o000CDMtDOMM � O MU') OcoMLOW0 WLOMMOf-_ 3 CONT- OONI— NI- NMCDMLo I— CDN — r- coMLOMCDMa (D � cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 V) J z �- t-- z t- I- U a 0 C/) U) U (A zN CO - } � f- 1- Wg � 00 Wy- 0 �0 fnW -j < WLJ ) _ WwJw a- LL S LL W IL cr W W W QQa � � � C/) W 0- W Q S S W W W Q D Q Q Q Q Q Q S UUa. aazmdmS : dmwu M0LOLOL•) LO U7 — OMCD � OMNOOvY- OMOOOM - --- M M M N M N N N M N N N M M a mz 66666666666666 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C: o O O O o C ►M w� LO N U') M Q = O N.:•. N 4 O U Q o o c 0 NO m r a0 Ln r CO ICT M CSC cc r r- M CD H U N N T- V- N f •� O m 00000 � 0T- 00000 m CO OO Cp r. CO pO C0 00 r• r- t j U OR T- T- N N N N �-- N N N C () a M M M M ZZI MM M Q tntocDt`o I cDr- � ti N O N Z j 00w "Ol14' CDoOm Q LL O O w to N N to to to to "0 !n � � OOv- - NNNN T- r �V- e- r- V- T- VII - > 1 0 W C cn Nr' 1� ONN O � .s C N 'crT- NmNO � � `- 00 C 696464 'Ad� 696A� EA� ct) a O V O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLJ •C O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 L O O O O O u') O r �c6 totor, NWN N c4 ems- .N- eM- V- fn 6A 6H E9 E�6H 6A EA 6H � tn0000cop00co ca..r C7) CJ) CTtTC7) CAQ) � � � > 0 O M 0 C = C j C ZQQ � Z -=i � -a� 0 � Or- MClN 000 0 cucm r. MLnNOtio .- O WNMNNtotitnto 3 O ,gTM - NNr• NN NWOMNor- cDr- O cc �-- 000000 - 0 U) cn _QQ_ U c~!) U � U) 00zwzw ►' � -- a C�lC'1 � 2U4- Un. 22 c� cAUQaUaUQQ r to M to r M to M M CD N e r � N O C M N C Y) N N M M N N N N M M a r• tititir• tir• r• titi cc UUUUU00000 gz 6 (666666666 N N N N N N N N N N U a y� 0 0 0 I" o 0 0 0 0 0 cm b 0 0 O IR m N 10 w 0 O O 1+EA 100 ED 44 m r O h 017 w��U N Eg cb •-N —N NN . N N N N O Q ti O p ck N P O 10 0 0 � O O a D (Op O 1D C N W ^Y OCD ON C_ .O Q N N N N N 'N N • V o 0 a bo N 0 0 0 0 0 W N om�AmCD NN NN �N �N e � Law CpC. Q ���p C434.cotO cm P. �Of Q p LU ELc li ca NN NN N 1MO O Vl �NN Co 0�p1`.NpO 000 NO b0 w C. �ONA O' Ol 0444...m NM NNS 'N �N0 r U m C 7 � � w:3LM � p QA bNr r 4* •-N r w • a L2 W O O p l0 , *oO 9ENDN'PO. o0 00 00 e O ' w ED N O! INO O� ~ Ick-CD CA Q a� NN N — �N V.:-N Q ED m 0 O N p p O V E OE O 0 g O o 0 0 O o o 08 E � tt NN co ..r. C o o Y A O O o O o O o W C 0 0w I.O m N b O b 0 N EO Y fti r MN NN•- e-N '-N �N t7 o o w C. O O O �W 0 0 0 cl N O O O O O O Z _ Ln n o U, aP�-D COO _o 'N ~o C O .J CL N N N N �-V► 'N 'Y► O Oa O O m O O O N= ti w E 7 O O O a D E D O O O O 0 0 WC 0^000 I��cO� O N NO "Of G J L..�—O P t7 Vo. w w 00 0 NO O GSW 0o mo. o0 00 00 W C r io O Y N W N Y O m o J a 0 N N N N N N N C LL LL 0 C LL y 1n O LL S rpm o< dm IL a a S a < S a� a� n�t CR�� � 9 9z Eaoa` EDoa gEwa a e '�aai$ E u7 2zm <' Exhibit E-1 Pittsburg - Landfill Vicinity,Neighborhood . Sales During January 1,990 -June 1996 Map No No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm,Count Yr.Built Amenity 1 17-03 2235 SANTA MARIA 0.065934 Jun-91 $133,000 F ,:$134,, 992 71311 81 2 17-03 2205 SANTA MARIA 0.065934 Jun-91 $142,000 F $143 992 7/3/1 81 P 3 17-E3 2239 MT WHITNEY 0.010638 Jan-94 $140,000 F $141 992 7/3/1 81 4 17-E3 2231 SANTA MARIA 0.085106 Aug-94 $130,000 F $131 992 7/311 81 A 5 17-E3 2216 MT WHITNEY 0.095745 Sep-94 $102,000 F $103 992 7/3M 81 6 17-03 1092 HONEY CT 0.052083 May-96 $120,000 F $121 992 7/3/1 81 7 17-E2 2268 MT WHITNEY 0.111111 Oct-90 $141,500 F $140 1013_ 8/311 86 8 17-E3 2254 JACQUELINE 0.021053 Feb-95 $123,000 F $121 1013 8/3/1 86 9 17-E3 2253 CONCORD DR 0.054945 May-91 $148,000 F $136 1083 8/3/2 86 10 17-E3 2284 CONCORD DR 0.065934 Jun-91 $152,000 F $140 1083 8/312 86 11 17-E3 2271 MT WHITNEY 0.076087 Jul-92 $152,500 F $140 1083 8/3/2 86 12 17-E3 2283 CONCORD DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $130,000 F $120 1083 8/3/2 86 13 17-E3 2258 CONCORD DR 0.127660 Dec-94 $135,000 F $124 1083 81312 86 14 17-E3 2248 CONCORD DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $131,000 F $120 1083 8/3/2 86 15 17-E3 2292 JACQUELINE 0.066667 Jun-90 . $158,000 F $144 1084 7/312 87 A 18 17-E3 2265 JACQUELINE 0.076923 Jul-91 $153,000 F $141 1084 71312 87 17 17-E3 2292 JACQUELINE 0.108696 Oct-92 $135,000 F $125 1064 713/2 87 A 18 17-E3 2268 CONCORD DR 0.031915 Mar-94 $145,000 F $133 1084 6/3/2 86 19 17-E3 2298 JACQUELINE 0.107527 Oct-93 $140,000 V $122 1140 5/3/2 87 20 17-E3 2302 JACQUELINE 0.021277 Feb-94 $140,000 F $123 1140 6/3/2 87 21 17-E3 2302 JACQUELINE 0.031250 Mar-96 $124,000 U $109 1140 6/3/2 87 -- 22 17-E3 2227 MT WITNEY 0.064516 Jun-93 $140,000 F $121 1159 7/312 81 23 17-E3 2266 JACQUELINE 0.055556 May-90 $152,000 F $131 1180 5/3/2 85 24 1T-E3 2272 JACQUELINE 0.122222 Nov-90 $150,500 F $129 1160 8/312 86 25 17-E3 2281 JACQUELINE 0.043956 Apr-91 $155,500 U $134 1160 8/312 87 26 17-E3 2248 CONCORD DR 0.076923 JUI-91 $156,000 F $134 1160 8/3/2 86 27 17-E3 2271 JACQUELINE 0.120879 Nov-91 $150,000 F $129 1160 8/3/2 87 28 17-E3 2286 JACQUELINE 0.010753 Jan-93 $140,000 F $120 1160 8/312 86 29 17-E3 2280 CONCORD DR 0.075269 Jul-93 $139,000 F $119 1160 8/3/2 86 30 17-E3 2224 JACQUELINE 0.075269 Jul-93 $139,500 V $120 i 160 6/3/2 85 31 17-E3 3285 CONCORD DR 0.129032 0"3 $135,000 V $118 1160 61312 86 32 17-E3 2270 MT WHITNEY 0.010838 Jan-94 $140,000 F $120 1160 813/2 88 33 17-E3 2252 JACQUELINE t.'031915 Mar-94 $138,000 F $118 1180 8/312 86 34 17-E3 2283JACQUELINE 0.0,85108 Aug-94 $139,000 F $119 1180 8/312 87 35 17-E3 2272 MT WHITNEY 0.117021 Nov-94 $129,500 F $111 1160 8/3/2 Be 36 17-E3 2227 JACQUELINE 0.010989 Jan-91 $180,500 F $128 1252 7/312 85 37 17-E3 2230 CONCORD DR 0.044444 Apr-90 $168,500 F $125 1350 9/3/2 85 w 38 17-E3 2259 MT WHITNEY 0.033333 Mar-90 $189,000 F $118 1350 7/3/2 85 39 17-E3 2233 CONCORD DR 0.075269 Jul-93 $147,000 V $108 1350 7/312H 86 40 17-E3 2259 MT WHITNEY 0.031250 Mar-96 $140,000 F $103 1350 913/2 86 41 17-E3 2279 JACQUELINE 0.088957 Aug-92 $158,000 F $116 1354 913/2 88 A 42 17-E3 2221 MT WHITNEY 0.043478 Apr-92 $149,000 F $106 1384 6/312 86 43 17-D3 2207 SANTA MARIA 0.066667 Jun-90 $183,500 F $118 1,388 8/3!2 81 E 44 17433 2216 SANTA MARIA 0.077778 Jul-90 $170,000 V $122 1,388 8/312 81 AS 45 17-E2 2238 MT WHITNEY 0.100000 Sep-90 $157,500 F $114 1386 813/2 88 -' 46 17-E2 2243 MT WHITNEY 0.100000 Sep90 $164,400 F $119 1386 813/2 81 47 17-E2 2203 MT WHITNEY 0.054945 May-91 $170,000 F $122 1386 7/312 81 A 48 17-E3 2233 SANTA MARIA 0.120879 Nov-91 $165,000 F $119 1388 8/312 81 49 17-E3 2226 MT WHITNEY 0.032609 Mar-92 $159,000 F $115 1386 8/312 81 50 17-E9 2237 MT WHITNEY 0.054348 May-92 $158,000 F $114 1386 8/3/2 81 51 17-E3 2225 CARMEL CT 0.075289 Jul-93 $152,000 V $110 1386 7rV2 81 52 17-E2 2169 JACQUELINE 0.031915 Mar-94 $128,500 U $91 1386 8/3!2 80 A 53 17-E3 2229 MT WHITNEY 0.063830 Jun-94 $130,500 F $94 1388 8/3/2 81 - 54 17-E2 2228 MT WHITNEY 0.021053 Feb-95 $127,000 F $92 1386 8/312 81 55 17-D3 1097 HONEY CT 0.094737 SW95 $131,000 F $94 1,386 8/3/2 81 56 17-03 2223 SANTA MARIA 0.115789 Nov-95 $125,000 F $90 1,386 813/2 81 57 17-E3 22$1 MT WHITNEY 0.010417 Jan-96 $134,000 F $97 1386 8/3/2 81 58 17-E2 2225 CARMEL CT 0.031250 Mar-96 $127,500 F $92 1386 7/3/2 P4 59 17-E3 2273 JACQUELINE 0.055556 May-90 $179,000 F $126 1416 9/3/2 86 S 60 17-E3 2268 JACQUELINE 0.077778 Jul-90 $166,000 F $117 1416 7/3/2 86 61 17-E3 2267 MT WHITNEY 0.077778 Jul-90 $168,000 F $118 1416 7/312 85 62 17-E3 2244 CONCORD DR 0.133333 Dec-90 $160,000 F $113 1416 9/3/2 86 63 17-E3 2255 MT WHITNEY 0.076923 Jul-91 $164,000 F $415 1416 7/312 86 _.. 64 17-E3 2266 CONCORD DR 0.120879 Nov-91 $162,500 V $114 1416 7/312 86 65 17-E3 2246 JACQUELINE 0.129032 Dec-93 $146,500 V $103 1416 7/3/2 86 66 17-E3 2237 CONCORD DR 0.074468 Jul-94 $145,500 V $102 1416 7/3/2 86 67 17-E3 2262 MT WHITNEY 0.095745 Sep-94 $135,000 F $95 1416 7/3/2 86 68 17-E3 2222 JACQUELINE 0.044444 Apr-90 $167,000 V $117 1419 9/3/2 85 69 17-E3 2223 CONCORD OR 0.054348 May-92 $158,000 F $111 1419 7/3/2 85 70 17-E3 2229 JACQUELILE 0.010638 Jan-94 $152,000 F $107 1419 7/3/2 85 71 17-E3 2229 CONCORD DR 0.042553 Apr-94 $134,000 F $94 1419 7/3/2 85 72 17-E3 2203 JACQUELINE 0.063830 Jun-94 $125,000 F $88 1419 7/3/2 85 A 73 17-E3 2218 JACQUELINE 0.106383 Oct-94 $144,000 F $101 1419 7/3/2 85 74 17-D3 2204 SANTA MARIA 0.055556 May-90 $167,500 V $117 1,430 7/3/2 81 S 75 17-E3 2192 JACQUELINE 0.088889 Aug-90 $150,000 F $105 1430 7/3/2 84 76 17-133 2209 SANTA MARIA 0.122222 Nov-90 $171,000 F $119 1,430 7/3/2 81 PS 77 17-D3 1094 HONEY CT 0.043956 Apr-91 $164,000 F $115 1,430 7/3/2 81 E 78 17-E3 2224 CARMEL CT 0.087912 Aug-91 $160,000 F $112 1430 7/3/2 81 79 17-E3 2222 MT WHITNEY 0.021739 Feb-92 $158,000 F $110 1430 7/3/2 81 80 17-D3 1093 HONEY CT 0.043011 Apr-93 $151,000 F $105 1,430 7/3/2 81 81 17-E3 2223 CARMEL CT 0.031915 Mar-94 $143,000 F $100 1430 7/3/2 81 82 17-E2 2208 MT WHITNEY 0.127660 Dec-94 $150,000 F $104 1430 7/312 81 83 17-03 1094 HONEY CT 0.052083 May-96 $142,000 F $99 1,430 7/3/2 81 E 84 17-E3 2284 JACQUELINE 0.066667 Jun-90 $174,950 F $121 1442 7/3/2 86 85 17-E3 2263 JACQUELINE 0.021978 Feb-91 $'.60,000 F $110 1442 913/2 87 Exhibit E-1 FPffsbUrg- Landfill Vicinity Neighborhood Sales During January 1990-June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amend 88 17-93 2298 JACQUELINE 0.076087 Jul-92 $157,000 F $108 1442 9/3/2 87 87 17-E3 2308 JACQUELINE 0.021505 Feb-93 $158,000 V $109 1442 8/3/2 87 88 17-E3 2303 JACQUELINE 0.042553 Apr-94 $158,000 V $109 1442 913/2 86 89 1T-E3 2281 JACQUELINE 0.063830 Jun-94 $146,000 F $101 1442 9/3/2 87 90 17-E3 2267 JACQUELINE 0.074468 Jul-94 $145,500 F $100 1442 6/3/2 87 _ 91 17-E3 2284 JACQUELINE 0.085106 Aug-94 $153,000 F $106 1442 9/3/2 87 92 17-E3 2240 MT WHITNEY 0.033333 Mar-90 $153,000 F $104 1474 9/4!2 81 93 17-E3 2242 MT WHITNEY 0.119565 Nov-92 $150,000 F $102 1474 9/4/2 81 94 17-03 2245 MT WHITNEY 0.052083 May-96 $138,500 F $94 1,474 9/4/2 81 95 17433 2224 SANTA MARIA 0.043956 Apr-91 $162,500 V $108 1,503 10/412 81 96 1T-E2 2205 MT WHITNEY 0.031250 Mar-96 $100,000 F $66 1503 10/412 81 97 17-E3 2252 CONCORD DR 0.122222 Nov-90 $168,000 F $108 1553 1014/2 86 98 17-E3 2262 CONCORD DR 0.076087 Jul-92 $159,000 F $102 1553 10/4/2 86 S 99 17-93 1061 WESTMONT CT 0.086957 Aug-92 $161,000 F $103 1553 10/4/2 86 A 100 17-E3 2226 JACQUELINE 0.042553 Apr-94' $155,000 V $98 1569 8/4/2 85 101 17-E3 2215 JACQUELINE 0.109890 OCI-91 $164,000 F $100 1640 9!312 85 S 102 17-E3 2231 JACQUELINE 0.095745 Sep-94 $170,000 V $93 1823 8/4/2H 85 103 17-E3 2228 JACQUELINE 0.041667 Apr-96 $163,000 F $89 1823 10/4/2H 85 104 17-93 2249 JACQUELINE 0.064516 Jun-93 $168,000 V $91 1843 10/4/21-1 87 105 17-93 1063 WESTMONT CT 0.055556 May-90 $194,000 F $104 1862 10/4/2.5 Be 108 17-E3 1065 WESTMONT CT 0.010753 Jan-93 $184,000 F $98 1862 10/4/2H 86 Example Comparison A $122 1,150 Example Comparison B $107 1,450 Example Comparison C $99 1,600 RAN12 SFR Home Sales-Landfill Vicinity Neighborhood ,So ■ _ x HO — 01n LL ■ ; 130 — ■ ■ • ..�, & 120 — ■ ■ ■ ; ■ o_ 110 — ■ • ■ 0 ■ ■ ro a" ,060 1160 1250 1350 who 1550 1850 1750 ,a5o ,860 Home Size In Square Feat ■ Home Sales — Weighted Average Rate of Change Exhibit E-2 Pittsburg - Landflll.Neighborhood Sales During Janua 1990-June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price PrrA/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Buil) Amenity 1 17-E2 2189 PEACHTREE C 0.033333 Mar-90 $170,000 F $116 1430 07/03/02 80 2 17-E2 2203 MT WHITNEY 0.054945 May-91 $170,000 F $122 1386 07/03/02 81 A 3 17-E2 2130 DOUGLAS CT 0.055556 May-90 $170,000 F $109 1553 09/04/02 84 J 4 17-E2 851 BIRCHWOOD DR 0.120879 Nov-91 $167,000 V $117 1409 09/03/02 85 E 5 17-E2 2106 BANCROFT CT 0.043956 Apr-91 $166,000 F $106 1553 09/04/02 84 6 17-E2 2188 PEACHTREE C 0.054945 May-91 $165,000 F $111 1477 07/04/02 80 7 17-E2 830 SERRANA CT 0.022222 Fel-90 $164,000 F $107 1503 09/04/02 80 8 17-E2 2100 GREENWOOD P 0.088889 Aug-90 $162,000 F $117 1342 08/03/02 83 9 1T-E2 2172 RANCHO WY 0.077778 Jul-90 $158,000 F $134 1159 07/03/02 80 10 17-E2 2133 SUGARTREE D 0.100000 SOP-90 $156,000 F $109 1430 07/03/02 80 A 11 17-E2 2177 SUGARTREE D 0.011111 Jan-90 $156,000 F $104 1477 07/04/02 80 A 12 17-E2 1020 ROCK RIDGE 0.096774 Sep-93 $155,000 V $99 1557 09/04/02 81 13 17-E2 2143 SUGARTREE D 0.053763 May-93 $155,000 F $102 1503 09/04/02 80 14 172 2177 PEACHTREE C 0.032967 Mar-91 $155,000 V $103 1503 09/04!02 80 A 15 17-E2 931 OAKTREE CT 0.043011 Apr-93. $154,000 V $104 1477 07/04/01 80 18 17-E2 2135 SUGARTREE D 0 G76087 JUI.92 $154,000 F $111 1386 07/03/02 80 A 17 17-E2 2187 PEACHTREE C 0.065934 Jun-91 $154,000 F $132 1159 0X03/02 80 S 18 17-E2 2104 SUGARTREE 0 0.086957 Atq.92 $154,000 V $111 1386 07/03/02 80 A 19 17-E2 2121 SUGARTREE D 0.021739 Feb-92 $154,000 F $109 1386 07/03/02 80 20 17-E2 2109 SUGARTREE D 0.133333 Deo-90 $152,000 F $108 1388 07/03/02. 80 A 21 17.122 824 SERRANA CT 0.0: 333 Mar-90 $151,000 F $108 1386 07/03/02 80 E 22 17-E2 819 SERRANA CT 0.033333 Mar-90 $150,000 F $99 1503 09/)4/02 80 A 23 17-E2 2155 EL SECO WY 0.098901 Sep-91 $150,000 V $105 1430 07/03/02 80 24 17-E2 2174 EL SECO WY 0.130435 Dec-92 $150,000 F $99 1503 09/04/02 80 P 25 17-122 930 OAKTREE CT 0.010989 Jarr91 $150,000 F $107 1386 07/03/02 80 26 17-E2 912 ROSEWOOD CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $150,000 F $101 1477 07/04/02 80 A 27 17-E2 932 OAKTREE CT 0.010989 Jan-91 $150,000 F $104 1430 07/03/02 80 28 17-E2 2208 MT WHITNEY 0.127660 Dec-94 $150,000 U $104 1430 07/03/02 81 29 17-E2 1023 ROCK RIDGE 0.075269 Jul-93 $150,000 V $108 1386 07/03/02 81 A 30 17-E2 2169 SUGARTREE D 0.021277 Feb-94 $148,500 F $103 1430 07/03/02 80 31 17-E2 2127 RIESLING CT 0.053191 May-94 $148,000 V $104 1409 09/03/02 85 A 32 17-E2 1019 ROCK RIDGE 0.043011 Apr-93 $148,000 V $103 1430 07103/02 81 33 17-E2 2187 RANCHO WY 0.129032 Doc 93 $147,000 F $98 1477 07/04/02 80 34 17-E2 2128 STOCKTON CT 0.010417 Jan-96 $147,000 F $105 1394 09/03/02 85 35 17-E2 2129 SUGARTREE D 0.054945 May-91 $145,000 F $104 1386 07103/02 80 A 36 17-E2 2170 SUGARTREE D 0.044444 Apr-90 $145,000 F $125 11.39 07/03102 80 37 17-E2 2118 SUGARTREE D 0.130435 Dec-92 $145,000 F $103 1386 07/03102 80 A 38 17-E2 2192 JACQUELINE 0.010838 Jan-94 $145,000 V $101 1430 07/03102 80 P 39 17-E2 2171 EL SECO WY 0.054348 May-92 $145,000 F $125 1159 07/03/02 80 A 40 17-E2 2130 STOCKTON CT 0.118280 Nov-93 $144,000 F $101 1409 09103102 85 S 41 17-E2 2176 EL SECO WY 0.011111 Jan00 $143,000 F $99 1430 07/03/02 80 A 42 17-E2 824 BIRCHWOOD DR 0.032967 Mar-91 $143,000 F $123 1156 06103/02 85 43 17-E2 2129 STOCKTON CT 0.073684 JU05 $142,000 F $100 1409 09/03/02 85 A 44 17-E2 2169 PEACHTREE C 0.085108 Aug-94 $141,500 F $93 1503 09104/02 80 45 17-E2 1077 BAJA CT 0.022222 Feb-90 $140,000 F $100 1386 07103/02 80 A 46 17-E2 2158 EL SECO WY 0.032967 Mar-91 $140,000 F $93 1503 09/04/02 80 47 17-E2 2199 RANCHO WY 0.021978 Feb-91 $140,000 F $141 992 07/03/01 81 A 48 17-E2 2187 PEACHTREE C 0.031579 Mar-95 $140,000 F $97 1430 07/03/02 80 P 49 17-E2 2155 PEACHTREE C 0.010753 Jan.93 $139,500 F $100 1386 07/03/02 80 50 17-E2 865 SERRANA CT 0.083830 Jm.94 $139,000 F $99 1386 07/03/02 80 51 17-E2 $43 BIRCHWOOD DR 0.043478 Apr-92 $139,000 F $120 1156 08103/02 85 52 17-E2 853 SERRANA CT 0.053191 May-94 $138,500 F $96 1430 07/03/02 80 1 17-E2 2103 GREENWOOD P 0.033333 Mar-90 $138,500 F $139 992 07/03/01 83 2 17-E2 831 SERRANA CT 0.032258 Mar-93 $138,000 F $118 1159 07103/02 80 3 17-E2 2112 GREENWOOD P 0.062500 Jun-96 $138,000 V $96 1430 09/03/02 83 A 4 17-E2 2149 SUGARTREE D 0.129032 Dec-93 $137,100 V $98 1386 06/03/02 80 5 17-E2 2156 PEACHTREE C 0.031579 Mar-95 $137,000 F $95 1430 07/03/02 80 6 17-E2 2173 PEACHTREE C 0.031915 Mar-94 $136,500 F $90 1503 09/04/02 80 7 17-E2 2195 PEACHTREE C 0.042553 Apr-94 $136,000 F $97 1386 07/03/02 80 A 8 17-E2 2199 PEACHTREE C 0.042553 Apr-94 $135,500 V $116 1159 07/03/02 80 9 17-E2 2103 SUGARTREE D 0.122222 Nov-90 $135,000 F $94 1430 07/03/02 80 A 10 17-E2 1018 ROCK RIDGE 0.075269 Jul-93 $135,000 V $101 1334 08/03/02 81 11 17-E2 2107 SUGARTREE D 0.096774 Sep-93 $135,000 V $97 1386 08/03102 80 P -� 12 17-E2 1027 ROCK RIDGE 0.020833 Feb-96 $135,000 F $93 1430 07/03/02 81 A 13 17-E2 2127 DOUGLAS CT 0.075269 M-93 $135,000 V $109 1232 07/03/02 85 A 14 17-E2 2161 PEACHTREE C 0.084211 Aug-95 $134,000 F $96 1386 09/03/02 80 A 15 17-E2 2165 SUGARTREE D 0.095745 SW94 $132,500 F $95 1386 07/03/02 80 16 17-E2 884 SERRANA CT 0.097826 Sep-92 $132,000 F $132 992 07!03101 80 17 17-E2 847 WEDGEWOOD DR 0.086957 Aug-92 $132,000 V $133 992 07/03/01 83 A 18 17-122 840 BIRCHWOOD DR 0.131868 Dec-91 $131,000 F $128 1013 08/03/01 85 E 19 17-E2 895 SERRANA CT 0.086022 Aug-93 $130,500 F $93 1386 07/03/02 80 20 17-E2 827 BIRCNWOOD DR 0.086022 Aug-93 $130,000 F $128 1013 08/03/01 84 21 17-E2 1024 ROCK RIDGE 0.042105 Apr-95 $130,000 V $93 1386 08/03/02 81 22 1T-E2 825 BIRCHWOOD OR 0.073684 Jul-95 $130,000 F $91 1409 09!03102 85 P -y 23 1T-E2 2171 PEACHTREE C 0.031915 Mar-94 $128,500 F $92 1386 06/03/02 80 24 17-122 883 SERRANA CT 0.075269 Jul-93 $128,000 F $91 1386 08/03/02 80 25 17-E2 2162 EL SECO WY 0.126316 Dec-95 $128,000 V $86 1477 09/04/02 80 26 17-E2 2179 SUGARTREE D 0.010417 Jan-96 $127,000 F $84 1503 09/04/02 80 27 17-E2 2169 JACQUELINE 0.031915 Mar-94 $126,500 F $91 1386 08/03/02 80 A 28 17-E2 2132 SUGARTREE D 0.031915 Mar-94 $126,000 U $90 1386 08/03/02 80 29 17-E2 2169 EL SECO WY 0.094737 Sep-95 $125,000 F $89 1386 08/03/02 8C 30 17-E2 905 ROSEWOOD CT 0.020833 Feb-96 $124,500 F $86 1430 07/03/02 80 A 31 17-E2 2157 SUGARTREE 0 0.118280 Nov-93 $124,000 F $122 992 07/03/01 80 32 17-E2 852 BIRCHWOOD DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $122,000 F $105 1156 08/03/02 85 33 17-E2 2154 EL SECO WY 0.106383 Oct-94 $122,000 F $90 1334 06/03/02 80 A Exhibit a-2 Pittsburg - Landfill Neighborhood Sales During January 1990-June 1996 Map No No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price PricWSF SF Rm.Count Yr.Suitt Amenity 34 17-E2 1072 BAJA CT 0.062500 Jun-96 $120,500 F $79 1503 09/04/02 80 S 35 17-E2 834 BIRCHWOOD DR 0.086022 Aug-93 $120,000 F $118 1013 08/03/01 85 36 17-E2 2149 PEACHTREE C 0.010417 .3n-96 $120,000 F $86 1386 09/03/02 80 P 37 17-E2 2159 PEACHTREE C 0.052083 May-96 $120,000 F $118 992 07/03/01 80 38 17-E2 1016 ROCK RIDGE 0.107527 Oct-93 $118,000 F $118 992 05/03101 81 39 17-E2 836 SERRANA CT 0.031579 Mar-95 $117,500 V $117 992 07/03/01 80 40 17-E2 2159 SUGARTREE 0 0.010417 Jan-96 $117,000 F $84 1386 08/03/02 80 41 17-E2 878 SERRANA CT 0.115789 Nov-95 $116,500 F $83 1386 08/03/02 80 A 42 17-E2 2101 BANCROFT CT 0.084211 Aug-95 $116,000 F $113 992 07/03101 84 43 17-E2 853 CARPETTA CI 0.032967 Mar-91 $113,000 F $110 992 07/03/01 83 44 17-E2 806 SERRANA CT 0.129032 Dec-93 $113,000 F $113 992 07/03/01 78 45 17-E2 2110 SUGARTREE D 0.115789 Nov-95 $110,000 F $110 992 07/03/01 80 46 1T-E2 2163 RANCHO WY 0.105263 Oct-95 $110,000 v $110 992 07/03!01 80 A 47 17-E2 2106 SUGARTREE D 0.094737 Sep-95 $110,000 F $109 992 07/03/01 80 A 48 17-E2 2180 JACQUELINE 0.031579 Mar-95, $109,000 F $108 992 07/03/01 80 49 17-E2 2131 SUGARTREE D 0.041667 Apr-96 $108,000 F $104 992 07/03/01 80 w 50 17-E2 1028 ROCK RIDGE 0.052632 May-95 $104,000 F $100 992 07/03/01 81 51 17-E2 2205 MT WHITNEY 0.031250 Mar-96 $100,000 F $66 1503 10/04/02 81 Example Comparison A $120 1,000 Example Comparison B $110 1,200 Example Comparison C $101 1,400 Repg11 SFR Home Sales- Landfill Neighborhood uo B LL 1p — hir • -Acr110 — i y__ ■ as 100 — i • ' ■ a 00 — ■ ■ ■ ■ 70 — C 060 'M 1150 1250 1350 1130 1560 1050 Fbme Size in Square Feet ■ Horne Sales -- Weighted Average Rate of Change Exhibit E-3 Pittsburg - Landfill Vicinity Neighborhood Sales During January 1990-June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 1 17-E3 2254 JACQUELINE 0.021053 Feb-95 $123,000 F $121 1013 8/3/1 86 2 17-E3 2253 CONCORD DR 0.054945 May-91 $148,000 F $136 1083 8/3/2 86 3 17-E3 2271 MT WHITNEY 0.076087 Jul-92 $152,500 F $140 1083 8/3/2 86 4 17-E3 2263 CONCORD DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $130,000 F $120 1083 8/32 86 5 17-E3 2258 CONCORD OR 0.127660 Dec-94 $135,000 F $124 1083 8/32 86 6 17-E3 2246 CONCORD DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $131,000 F $120 1083 8/32 86 7 17-E3 2292 JACQUELINE 0.108696 Oct-92 $137,000 F $126 1084 7/32 87 A 8 17-E3 2268 CONCORD OR 0.031915 Mar-94 $145,000 F $133 1084 6/32 86 9 17-E3 2298 JACQUELINE 0.107527 Oct-93 $140,000 V $122 1140 5/32 87 10 17-17-3 2302 JACQUELINE 0.031250 Mar-96 $124,000 U $109 1140 6/32 87 11 17-E3 2215 MONTEVIDEO 0.032609 Mar-92 $160,000 F $138 1156 9/3/2 84 12 17-E3 2272 JACQUELINE 0.122222 Nov-90 $150,500 F $1Z 1160 8132 86 13 17-E3 2261 JACQUELINE 0.043956 Apr-91 $155,500 U $13 1160 8/3!2 87 -; 14 17-E3 2248 CONCORD DR 0.076923 Jul-91 $156,000 F $134 1160 8/32 86 15 17-E3 2271 JACQUELINE 0.120879 Nov-91 $150,000 F $129 1160 8/32 87 16 17-E3 2266 JACQUELINE 0.010753 Jan-93 $140,000 F $120 1160 8/32 86 17 17-E3 930 ROCK RIDGE W 0.064516 Jun-93 $140,000 V $120 1160 62/2 85 A 18 17-E3 2224 JACQUELINE 0.075269 Jul-93 $139,500 V $120 1160 6/3/2 85 19 17-E3 2260 CONCORD DR 0.075269 Ju!-93 $139,000 F $119 1160 8/32 86 20 17-E3 2265 CONCORD DR 0.129032 Dec-93 $135,000 V $116 1160 6/312 86 21 17-E8 2270 MT WHITNEY 0.010638 Jan-94 $140,000 F $120 1160 8/3/2 86 `^ 22 17-E3 2252 JACQUELINE 0.031915 Mar-94 $138,000 F $118 1160 802 86 23 17-E3 2263 JACQUELINE 0.085106 Aug-94 $139,000 F $119 1160 8/3/2 87 24 17-E3 2272 MT WHITNEY 0.117021 Nov-94 $129,500 F $111 1160 8/32 86 25 17-E3 2213 DAFFODIL DR 0.042105 Apr-95 $130,500 F $112 1160 8/3/2 85 26 17-E3 970 ROCK RIDGE W 0.031250 Mar-96 $127,000 F $109 1160 8/3/2 87 A 27 17-E3 2203 DAFFODIL DR 0.052083 May-96 $116,000 F $100 1160 8/32 85 28 17-E3 2266 JACQUELINE 0.055556 May-90 $152,000 F $131 1160 5/3/2 85 29 17-E3 2222 BEGONIA CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $151,000 F $128 1174 8/3/2 85 30 ;T-ES 2213 RIDGECREST 0,032967 Mar-91 $150,000 F $125 1195 8/32 85 31 "T-E3 2203 MONTEVIDEO 0.066667 Jun-90 $165,000 F $133 1232 9/312 85 32 17-E3 940 ROCK RIDGE W 0.043956 Apr-91 $132,000 F $105 1252 622 85 A 33 17-E3 2245 DAFFODIL DR 0.021053 Feb-95 $145,000 F $115 1252 62/2 85 34 17-E3 2247 DAFFODIL DR 0.011111 Jan-90 $164,500 V $124 1323 8/32 85 35 17-E3 2224 MONTEVIDEO 0,122222 Nov-90 $170,000 P $127 1342 913!2 84 . 36 17-E3 2226 SAN REMO WY 0,133333 Dea90 $160,000 V $119 1342 9/32 84 37 17-E3 2239 MONTEVIDEO 0,098901 Sep-91 $160,000 F $119 1342 9/3/2 84 38 17-E3 2227 MONTEVIDEO 0.098901 Sep-91 $166,000 F $123 1342 9!3/2 84 39 17-E3 2228 RIDGECREST 0,021739 Feb-92 $155,000 F $115 1342 9/312 84 A 40 17-E3 2242 RIDGECREST 0,032258 Mar-93 $154,000 F $114 1342 9!32 84 41 17-E3 2232 SAN REMO WY 0,107527 Oct-93 $153,000 V $114 1342 6/3/2 84 S 42 17-E3 2243 MONTEVIDEO 0,127660 Dec-94 $131,000 F $97 1342 913/2 84 43 17-E3 2230 CONCORD DR 0,044444 Apr-90 $168,500 F $124 1349 913/2 85 44 17-E3 2241 DAFFODIL DR 0,010989 Jan-91 $163,500 F $121 1349 9/3/2 85 45 17-E3 2210 BEGONIA CT 0,075269 Jul-93 $147,000 V $108 1349 7!3/2 85 46 17-E3 910 ROCK RIDGE W 0,053191 May-94 $130,000 F $96 1349 913/2 84 A 47 17-E3 2233 CONCORD DR 0.075269 JuF93 $147,000 V $108 1350 7132H 86 48 17-E3 2259 MT WHITNEY 0.031250 Mar-96 $140,000 F $103 1350 9/32 86 49 17-E3 2279 JACQUELINE 0.086957 Aug-92 $158,000 F $116 1354 913/2 86 A 50 17-E3 2239 SAN REMO WY 0.085106 Aug-94 $146,000 F $105 1386 9/32 84 A 51 17-E3 2267 MT WHITNEY 0.077778 Jul-90 $168,000 F $118 1416 7/32 85 52 17-E3 2268 JACQUELINE 0,077778 Jul-90 $166,000 F $117 1416 7/32 86 53 17-E3 2255 MT WHITNEY 0.076923 Jul-91 $164,000 F $115 1416 7/332 86 54 17-E3 2266 CONCORD DR 0,120879 Nov-91 $162,500 V $114 1416 7/32 86 55 17-E3 2246 JACQUELINE 0.129032 Dec-93 $146,500 V $103 1416 7/32 86 56 17-E3 2237 CONCORD DR 0,074468 Jul-94 $145,500 V $102 1416 7/32 86 57 17-E3 2262 MT WHITNEY 0.095745 Sep-94 $135,000 F $95 1416 7132 86 58 17-E3 2222 JACQUELINE 0.044444 Apr-90 $167,000 V $117 1419 9132 85 59 17-E3 2223 CONCORD DR 0.054348 May-92 $158,000 F $111 1419 7132 85 60 17-E3 2229 JACQUELINE 0,010638 Jan-94 $152,000 F $107 1419 7/3/2 85 61 17-E3 2229 CONCORD DR 0.042553 Apr-94 $134,000 F $94 1419 7132 85 62 17-E3 2203 JACQUELINE 0.063830 Jun-94 $125,000 F $88 1419 7132 85 A -- 63 17-E3 2218 JACQUELINE 0.106383 Oct-94 $144,000 F $101 1419 7/32 85 64 17-E3 2192 JACQUELINE 0.088889 Aug-90 $150,000 F $105 1430 7/32 84 65 17-E3 2249 SAN REMO CT 0.122222 Nov-90 $175,000 F $122 1430 9/32 84 A 66 17-E3 2222 MONTEVIDEO 0.108696 Oct-92 $159,000 U $111 1430 9/32 84 _ 67 17-E3 2237 SAN REMO WY 0.053763 May-93 $148,000 V $103 1430 9/32 84 A 68 17-E3 2228 MONTEVIDEO 0.096774 Sep-93 $149,000 V $104 1430 6/32 84 69 17-E3 2231 SAN REMO CT 0.042553 Apr-94 $152,000 V $106 1430 9/32 84 70 17-E3 2227 SERRANO WY 0.063158 Jun-95 $148,000 F $103 1430 9/32 84 71 17-E3 2243 SAN REMO CT 0.105263 Oct-95 $140,000 F $97 1430 9/32 84 A 72 17-E3 2284 JACQUILINE 0.066667 Jun-90 $174,950 F $121 1440 7/3/2 86 73 17-E3 2263 JACQUELINE 0.021978 Feb-91 $160,000 F $110 1442 9/32 87 74 17-E3 2296 JACQUELINE 0.076087 Jul-92 $157,000 F $108 1442 9/32 87 75 17-E3 2308 JACQUELINE 0.021505 Feb-93 $158,000 V $109 1442 8/32 87 76 17-E3 2303 JACQUELINE 0.042553 Apr-94 $158,000 V $109 1442 9132 86 77 17-E3 2281 JACQUELINE 0.063830 Jun-94 $146,000 F $101 1442 9/3/2 87 78 17-E3 2267 JACQUELINE 0.074468 Jul-94 $145,500 F $100 142 6/32 87 0v , l - Exhibit E-3 Pittsburg - Landfill Vicinity Neighborhood _� Sales During Janua 1990 -June 1996 - Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity. 79 17-E3 2284 JACQUELINE 0.085106 Aug-94 $153,000 F $106 1442 913!2 87 80 17-E3 2225 MONTEVIDEO 0.064516 Jun-93 $154,000 U $102 1505 9/3/2 84 81 17-E3 2233 MONTEVIDEO 0.052083 May-96 $143,000 U $95 1505 9/3/2 84 82 17-E3 2221 SERRANO WY 0.119565 Nov-92 $142,000 F $92 1528 9/3/2 84 83 17-E3 2250 SAN REMO CT 0.031579 Mar-95 $145,000 F $94 1528 9/3/2 84 84 17-E3 2246 DAFFODIL DR 0.043956 Apr-91 $164,000 F $106 1537 9/3/2 85 85 17-E3 2235 MONTEVIDEO 0.032258 Mar-93 $169,000 V $109 1538 8/3/2 84 86 17-E3 834 SANTA SUSANA 0.086022 Aug-93 $150,000 F $97 1538 9/32 84 87 17-E3 2252 CONCORD DR 0.122222 Nov-90 $168,000 F $108 1553 10/42 86 88 47-E3 2248 SAN REMO CT 0.120879 Nov-91 $167,000 F $107 1553 10/42 84 89 17-E3 2262 CONCORD DR 0.076087 Jul-92 $159,000 F $102 1553 10/42 86 90 1i 73 1061 WESTMONTCT 0.086957 Aug-92 $161,000 F $103 1553 10/42 86 A 911 1 Z3 2215 BEGONIA CT 0.096774 Sep-93 $160,000 F $101 1569 9/42 85 92 1 t-E3 2226 JACQUELINE 0.042553 Apr-94 $155,000 V $98 1569 8/4,[ 85 93 17-E3 2217 SAN REMO WY 0.043958 Apr-91 $175,000 F $108 1609 9131 84 H 94 17-E3 2255 SAN REMO CT 0.064516 Jun-93 $159,000 V $98 1609 7rw2 84 E 95 17-E3 2230 DAFFODIL DR 0.055556 May-90 $164,000 F $102 1610 9/32 85 96 17-E3 2211 BEGONIA CT 0.117021 Nov-94 $150,000 F $93 1610 7/32 85 97 17-E3 2215 JACQUELINE 0.109890 Od-91 $164,000 F $100 1640 9/32 85 S 98 17-E3 2223 MONTEVIDEO 0.087912 Aug-91 $187,000 U $104 1791 10/42H 84 99 17-E3 862 SANTA SUSANA 0.098901 Sep-91 $180,000 F $100 1791 10/42H 83 100 17-E3 2223 SERRANO WY 0.076087 Jul-92 $175,000 F $97 1791 10/42H 84 101 17-E3 2211 SERRANO WY 0.032258 Mar-93 $160,000 V $89 1791 10142H 84 E 102 17-E3 2230 RIDGECREST 0.126316 Dec-95 $180,000 F $100 1791 10/42H 83 103 17-E3 924 ROCK RIDGE W 0.055556 May-90 $184,000 F $100 1823 10/42H 85 A 104 17-E3 2226 DAFFODIL DR 0.054945 May-91 $187,000 F $102 1823 10/42H 85 105 17-E3 2210 ZENNIA CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $179,000 F $98 1823 10/42H 85 106 17-E3 2231 JACQUELINE 0.095745 Sep-94 $170,000 V $93 1823 8/42H 85 107 17-E3 2228 JACQUELINE 0.041667 Apr-96 $163,000 F $89 1823 10/42H 85 108 17-E3 2249 JACQUELINE 0.064516 Jun-93 $168,000 V $91 1843 10/42H 87 109 17-E3 1065 WESTMONTCT 0.010753 Jan-93 $184,000 F $98 1862 10/42H 86 A 110 17-ES 890 SANTA SUSANA 0.109890 Oct-91 $159,000 F $84 1877 8/3/2 83 Example Comparison A $121 1,150 Example Comparison B $108 1,450 Example Comparison C $102 1,600 -. Regg1 • SFR Home Sales - Landfill Vicinity Neighborhood ,50 ,40 ■ . B LL ■ ; ■ - m ,30 - ■ C CL 110 - ■ ■ ■• �' .9 ■ - a 100 - A %• Imb 4 ■ • i 1p ■ t� oo ■ ■ ■ eo ■ 950 1050 1150 1250 1350 1450 1550 few 1750 ,650 1950 Home Size in Square Feet ■ Home Sales - Weighted Average Rate of Change r C� Exhibit E-4 Pittsburg - Landfill Vicinity Neighborhood �- Sales During Janua ,1990 -June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Pnce PrwAWSF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 1 17-02 2187 SUGARTREE D 0.066667 Jun-90'... $139,000 F $140 992 VVI 80 2 17-03 2205 SANTA MARIA 0.065934 Jun•91 $142,000 F $143 992 7/3/1 81 P 3 17-03 1098 ALAMO CT 0.120879 Nov-91 $136,000 V $137 992 7/3/1 81 4 17-03 1119 LOS PALOS C 0.042553 Apr-94 $130,000 F $131 992 7/3/1 81 A 5 17-03 1092 HONEY CT 0.052083 May-96 $120,000 F $120 992 7/3/1 81 6 17-03 1094ALAMO CT 0.041667 Apr-96 $124,000 F $108 1,147 7/3/2 81 A 7 17-02 2207 CHESTNUT DR 0.031915 Mar-94 $134,000 U $97 1,151 6/3/2 78 8 17-03 1093 ALAMO CT 0.122222 NOV-90 $139,000 V $119 1,159 7/3/2 81 A 9 17-02 2231 CHESTNUT DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $133,000 F $98 1,349 7/3/2 78 A 10 17-02 1200 ALAMO WY 0.031579 Mar-95 $139,000 F $103 1,349 7/3/2 78 A 11 17432 2100 CHESTNUT DR 0.052083 May-96 $137,000 F $101 1,349 7/3/2 78 12 17-03 2216 SANTA MARIA O.OT.W8 Ju00 $170,000 V $122 1,386 8/3/2 81 A 13 17-02 1089 LISLIN CT 0.043011 Apr-93 $137,000 F $98 1,386 8/3/2 80 A 14 17-03 1097 HONEY CT 0.094737 Sep-95 $131,000 F $94 1,386 8/3/2 81 15 17-03 2223 SANTA MARIA 0.115789 Nov-95 $125,000 F $90 1,386 8/3/2 81 16 17432 2185 SUGARTREE D 0.115789 Nov-95 $134,500 F $97 1,386 8/3/2 80 17 174:)2 2114 CHESTNUT DR 0.032967 Mar-91 $148,000 V $104 1,420 7/312 78 18 17-02 1218 ALAMO WY 0.054945 May-91 $165,000 V $116 1,420 7/3/2 78 A 19 17-02 1146 ALAMO WY 0.131868 Dec-91 $157,000 F $110 1,420 71312 78 20 17-02 2208 WESTWOOD CT 0.042553 Apr-94 $135,000 F $95 1,420 7/312 78 A 21 17-02 3 EL PINTADO CT 0.053191 May-94 $149,000 F $104 1,420 7/312 78 P 22 17-02 2238 WESTWOOD CT 0.095745 Sep-94 $121,000 F $85 1,420 71312 78 23 17433 1121 LOS PALOS C 0.011111 Jan-90 $151,000 F $105 1,430 713/2 81 24 17433 2204 SANTA MARIA 0.055556 May-90 $167,500 V $117 1,430 7/3/2 81 S 25 17-03 2209 SANTA MARIA 0.122222 Nov-90 $171,000 F $119 1,430 7/3/2 81 P 26 17-03 1093 HONEY CT 0.043011 Apr-93 $151,000 F $105 1,430 7/312 81 27 17-03 1094 HONEY CT 0.052083 May-96 $142,000 F $99 1,430 7/312 81 E 28 17-02 2195 SUGARTREE D 0.111111 Oct-90 $155,000 F $104 1,477 9/412 80 29 17-02 1134 ADOBE PL 0.077778 Jul-90 $168,000 V $112 1,497 8/412 78 C A 30 17402 1202 ALAMO WY 0.010989 Jan-91 $168,500 F $112 1,497 8/4/2 78 A 31 17-02 1150 LOS PALOS C 0.053783 May-93 $145,000 F $98 1,497 8/4/2 78 A 32 17-02 2243 WESTWOOD CT 0.063830 Jun-94 $155,000 V $103 1,497 8/4/2 78 33 17-02 2130 CHESTNUT OR 0.106383 Oct-94 $137,000 F $91 1,497 814/2 78 S 34 17-02 1130 ALAMO WY 0.010417 Jan,% $143,000 F $95 1,497 8/4/2 78 35 174D3 2224 SANTA MARIA 0.043956 Apr-91 $162,500 V $108 1,503 10/412 81 36 17-02 1098 W LELAND RD 0.077778 Jul-90 $180,000 V $117 1,530 101412H 80 C 37 17-03 2240 WESTWOOD LN 0.010638 Jan-94 $195,000 V $102 1,898 9/4121-1 79 A 38 17402 2221 WESTWOOD CT 0.041667 Apr-96 $164,500 F $83 1,959 9/4/2 82 P Example Comparison A $115 1,200 Example Comparison B $107 1,400 a Exempla Comparison C $100 1,550 PAM £' SFR Home Sales-Landfill Vicinity Neighborhood 160 150 - 140 - , a m 130 - ■ a � 120 - a- - ■ a 110 - ■ - ■ i 100 - ■ ■ •`a ■ I � ■ a 90 - ■ ■ __ m FA] ■ - 70 - �.. to 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Home Size in Square Feet ■ Home Sales --- Weighted Average Rate of Change U, Exhibit E-sPittsburg- Comparable Neighborhood �� Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 Map No No Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Buhl Amenity 1 17-02 1624 BIRDHAVEN W 0.042553 Apr-94 $126,000 F $135 930 6/2/2 90 2 17-02 1608 BIRDHAVEN W 0.053191 May-94 $126,000 F $135 930 6/2/2 90 - 3 17-02 1606 BIRDHAVEN W 0.096774 Sep-93 $128,000 F $138 930 6!2/2 90 4 17-02 1626 BIRDHAVEN W 0.043478 Apr-92 $132,500 F $142 930 612/2 90 5 17-02 1656 BIRDHAVEN W 0.010417 Jan-96 $120,000 F $118 1015 512/2 90 A 6 17-02 1649 BIRDHAVEN W 0.042553 Apr-94 $137,000 F $105 1308 7/3/2H 90 7 17-02 1651 BIRDHAVEN W 0.042553 Apr-94 $138,000 F $106 1308 7/3/2H 90 A 8 17-02 1617 BIRDHAVEN W 0.073684 Jul-95 $139,500 F $107 1308 7/3/2H 90 9 17-02 1633 BIRDHAVEN W 0.133333 Deo-90 $156,000 V $119 1308 7/3/2H 90 10 17-02 1615 BIRDHAVEN W 0.043956 Apr-91 $160,000 F $122 1308 7/3/2H 90 11 17-02 2227 OAK HILLS D 0.126316 Dec-95 $142,000 F $100 1420 7/3/2 89 A 12 17-02 1754 CLEARWOOD S 0.031250 Mar-96 $143,500 F $10' 1420 7/3/2 92 13 17-02 2212 SOUTHWOOD D 0.031250 Mar-96 $144,500 F $102 1420 7/3/2 90 14 17-02 2215 OAK HILLS 0 0.094737 Sep-95 $155,000 F $10!1 1420 7/3/2 89 15 17-02 1720 CLEARWOOD S 0.109890 Oct-91 $162,000 U $114 1420 7/3/2 92 16 17-C2 2221 OAK HILLS D 0.074468 Jul-94 $162,000 F $114 1420 7/3/2 89 17 17-02 1766 CLEARWOOD S 0.098901 SeP-91 $162,000 F $114 1420. 7/32 92 18 17-M 2215 ALDERBROOK 0.120879 Nov-91 $162,500 F $114 1420 7/32 92 19 17-02 1782 CLEARWOOD S 0.010870 Jar►-92 $164,000 F $115 1420 7/32 92 A 20 17-02 2218'AYBERRY CI 0.065217 Jun-92 $165,000 V $116 1420 7/32 R9 21 17-C2 1608 MELLOWOOD S 0.120879 Nov-91 $175,000 F $123 1420 7,32 89 22 17-02 1746 BRIDGEVIEW 0.055556 May-90 $178,000 F $125 14?0 7/32 91 23 17-02 1770 BRIDGEVIEW 0.066667 Jun-90 $180,000 F $127 1420 7/32 91 24 17-02 1722 BRIDGEVIEW 0.055556 May-90 $180,500 F $127 1420 7/3/2 91 25 17-02 1773 BRIDGEVIEW 0.055556 May-90 $182,000 F $128 1420 7/3/2 91 26 1702 1620 BIRDHAVEN W 0.106383 Oct-94 $149,000 F $102 1456 &42H 90 27 17-M 1619 BIRDHAVEN W 0.126316 Dec-95 $150,000 F $103 1456 &42H 90 28 17-02 1610 BIRDHAVEN W 0.043956 Apr-91 $156,000 F $107 1456 8/42H 90 29 17-02 1634 BIRDHAVEN W 0.100000 Sep-90 $160,000 V $110 1456 6/42H 90 30 17-02 1654 BIRDHAVEN W 0.033333 Mar-90 $167,000 F $115 1456 7/3/2H 90 31 17-C3 SVMIEWOOD CT 0.041667 Apr-96 $148,000 F $97 1522 7732 92 w� 32 17-C3 2253 SOUTHWOOD D 0.054348 May-92 $164,000 F $108 1522 7/32 92 33 17-C3 2248 OAK HILLS D 0.054348 May-92 $164,500 F $108 1522 8/32 92 34 17-09 2257 SOUTHWOOD D 0.065217 Jun-92 $166,500 F $109 1522 7/3/2 92 35 17-C3 2258 OAK HILLS D 0.043478 Apr-92 $167,000 F $110 1522 8/3/2 92 36 17-03 2266 OAK HILLS D 0.043478 Apr-92 $168,500 F $111 1522 8/3/2 92 37 17-03 2245 SOUTHWOOD D 0.076087 Jul-92 $168,500 F $111 1522 7/32 92 38 17-M 2249 SOUTHWOOD D 0.054348 May-92 $169,000 F $111 1522 7/32 92 39 17-M 2252 OAK HILLS D 0.043478 Apr-92 $169,000 F $111 1522 8/32 92 40 17-M 9 VINEWOOD CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $170,000 F $112 1522 7/32 92 A 41 17-09 2263 OAK HILLS C 0.043478 Apr-92 $175,500 F $115 1522 8/3/2 92 A 42 17-02 6 BURLWOOD CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $175,500 F $115 1522 8/3/2 93 43 17-02 2208 SOUTHWOOD D 0.105263 Oct-95 $144,000 F $90 1601 9/32H 90 44 17-02 2242 BAYBERRY CI 0.084211 Aug-95 $150,000 F $94 1601 9/3/2H 89 45 17-03 2277 OAK HILLS C 0.115789 Nov-95 $158,000 F $99 1601 8/32H 92 46 17-03 2271 OAK HILLS C 0.105263 Oct-95 $160,000 F $100 1601 8/42H 92 A 47 17-02 1727 PEACHWILLOW 0.054945 May-91 $165,000 V $103 1601 &WH 91 48 17-02 2245 BAYBERRY CI 0.115789 Nov-95 $165,000 F $103 1601 9/3/2H 89 - 49 17-02 1746 CLEARWOOD S 0.087912 Aug-91 $167,500 F $105 1601 9f312H 92 50 17-02 2223 ALDERBROOK 0.065934 Jun-91 $168,000 F $105 1601 8/32H 91 51 17-C2 1770 CLEARWOOD S 0.098901 Sep-91 $168,500 F $105 1601 9/32H 92 52 17-02 1728 CLEARWOOD S 0.087912 Aug-91 $169,000 F $106 1601 9/32H 92 53 17-02 1751 PEACHWILLOW 0.043956 Apr-91 $170,000 F $106 1601 &32H 91 -- 54 17-C2 1762 CLEARWOOD S 0.098901 SeP-91 $170,500 V $106 1601 9132H 92 55 17-C3 2284 OAK HILLS D 0.120879 Nov-91 $170,500 F $106 1601 8132H 92 56 17-02 1775 PEACHWILLOW 0.054945 May-91 $172,500 F $108 1601 8/32H 91 57 17-C3 2280 OAK HILLS D 0.131868 Dea91 $172,500 F $108 1601 8/32H 92 58 17-02 1719 PEACHWILLOW 0.106383 Oct-94 $173.500 V $108 1601 7/32H 91 59 17-02 1794 CLEARWOOD S 0.098901 Sep-91 $175,000 F $109 1601 9/32H 92 60 `7-C9 2265 OAK HILLS C 0.131868 Dec-91 $176,500 F $110 1601 8/32H 92 A 61 17-02 1755 CLEARWOOD S 0.101,890 Oct-91 $176,500 F $110 1601 9/32H 92 62 17-09 2251 OAK HILLS C 0.076087 Jul-92 $177,500 F $111 1601 8/32H 92 63 17-02 1733 CLEARWOOD S 0.087912 Aug-91 $179,000 F $112 1601 9132H 92 A 64 17-02 9 BURLWOOD CT 0.130435 Dec-92 $179,000 F $112 1601 f02H 92 Exhibit E-5 Pittsburg - Comparable Neighborhood Sales During Janua y 1990- June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 65 17-40 2261 OAK HILLS C 0.043478 Apr-92 $180,000 F $112 1601 aWH 92 66 17-C2 1723 CLEARWOOD S 0.087912 Aug-91 $182,000 F $114 1601 9/3/2H 92 A 67 17-02 1740 PEACHWILLOW 0.076087 Jul--92 $184,000 F $115 1601 &3/2H 91 68 17-02 1606 MELLOWOOD S 0.120879 Nov-91 $184,000 F $115 1601 9/3/2H 89 A 69 17-02 2210 SOUTHWOOD D 0.022222 Feb-90 $188,500 F $118 1601 M2H 90 70 17-02 1738 BRIDGEVIEW 0.044444 Apr-90 $192,000 F $120 1601 &3/2H 91 71 17-02 1708 BRIDGEVIEW 0.077778 Jul-90 $193,500 F $121 1601 8/3/2H 91 72 17-02 1749 BRIDGEVIEW 0.066667 Jun-90 $194,500 F $121 1601 8/312H 91 73 17-02 1733 BRIDGEVIEW 0.066667 Jun-90 $196,000 V $122 1601 9/3/2H 91 74 17-1:2 1756 PEACHWILLOW 0.122222 Nov-90 $198,500 V $124 1601 T/9/2H 91 75 17-02 1707 BRIDGEVIEW 0.077778 Jul-90 $199,500 F $125 1601 9/3f2H 91 76 17-M 1717 BRIDGEVIEW 0.111111 Od-90 $202,500 F $126 1601 9/32H 91 77 17-02 1610 MELLOWOOD S 0.032967 Mar-91 $210,000 F $131 1601 9/3/2H 90 78 17 4 2257 BAYBERRY Cl 0.088889 Aug-90 $220,000 F $137 1601 9WH 89 79 17-C3 2 VINEWOOD CT 0.129032 Dec-93 $144,000 F $83 1745 8/42H 92 80 17-C3 2259 SOUTHWOOD D 0.065217 Jun-92 $174,000 F $100 1745 8/42H 92 81 17-M 2237 OAK HILLS C 0.054348 May-92 $175,000 F $100 1745 9/42H 92 82 MM 2264 OAK HILLS D 0.043478 Apr-92 $176,500 V $101 1745 W42H 92 83 17-40 2247 SOUTHWOOD D 0.054348 May-92 $176,500 F $101 1745 8/42" 92 84 17-00 2251 SOUTHWOOD D 0.065217 Jun-92 $176,500 F $101 1745 8/42H 92 85 17-40 8 VINEWOOD CT 0.054348 May-92 $177,000 F $101 1745 8/42H 92 - 88 17-02 8 BURLWOOD CT 0.010753 Jan-93 $179,500 F $103 1745 9142H 93 87 17-M 2256 OAK HILLS D 0.106383 Oct-94 $180,000 F $103 1745 9142H 92 S 88 17-49 2245 OAK HILLS C 0.043478 Apr-92 $181,000 F $104 1745 9/412H 92 89 17-M 2259 OAK HILLS C 0.043478 Apr-92 $183,000 F $105 1745 8/42H 92 A 90 17-3 12 VINEWOOD CT 0.065217 Jun-92 $183,500 F $105 1745 8/42H 92 91 17-C2 1791 PEACHWILLOW 0.032258 Mar-93 $184,000 F $105 1745 9/42H 93 92 17-12 11 BURLWOOD CT 0.075269 Jul-93 $185,000 V $106 1745 8142H 93 93 17-C3 19 VWEWOOO CT 0.065217 Jun-92 $187,000 F $107 1745 8/42H 92 94 17-42 7 Bt1RLWOOD CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $188,500 F $108 1745 9142H 93 A 95 17-09 5 VVIEWOOD CT 0.065217 Jun-92 $234,000 F $134 1745 8/42H 92 A 96 17-02 1724 PEACHWILLOW 0.073684 Jul-95 $158,000 F $87 1826 10/3/2" 91 97 17-M 2249 BAYBERRY Cl 0.073684 Jul-95 $169,000 F $93 1826 10/3/2H 89 -' 98 17.42 1743 PEACHWILLOW 0.032967 Mar-91 $170,000 F $93 1826 9/32" 91 99 17-M 1723 PEACHWILLOW 0.032967 Mar-91 $170,000 F $93 1826 9/3/2H 91 100 17-2 2226 BAYBERRY Cl 0.084211 Aug-95 $170,900 F $94 1826 10/3/2H 89 101 17-2 2231 OAK HILLS D 0.031250 Mar-96 $172,000 F ,$94 1826 10/3/2H 89 E 102 17-M 1716 CLEARWOOD S 0.087912 Aug-91 $173,000 F $95 1826 9/3/2H 92 103 17-02 1735 PEACHWILLOW 0.032967 Mar-91 $173,000 F $95 1826 9WH 91 104 17-43 2292 OAK HILLS D 0.053191 May-94 $175,000 V $96 1826 9/3/2H 92 105 17-02 1783 PEACHWILLOW 0.054945 May-91 $176,000 F $96 1826 9r3/2H 91 106 17.02 1774 CLEARWOOD S 0.043478 Apr-92 $176,000 F $96 1826 9142H 92 107 17-02 1750 CLEARWOOD S 0.087912 Aug-91 $176,000 F $96 1826 10/32" 92 108 17-C2 1779 PEACHWILLOW 0.043958 Apr-91 $176,000 U $96 1826 9/3/2H 91 109 174±2 223SALDERBROOK 0.087912 Aug-91 $176,000 U $96 1826 10/3/2H 92 110 17-02 1763 PEACHWILLOW 0.076923 J&91 $176,500 F $97 1826 9/3/2H 91 111 17-C3 2268 OAK HILLS D 0.120879 Nov-91 $178,500 F $98 1826 9WH 92 112 17-12 1786 CLEARWOOD S 0.109890 Oct-91 $178,500 F $98 1826 902H 92 113 17-M 1715 PEACHWILLOW 0.054945 May-91 $178,500 F $98 1826 9f321-1 91 114 17-03 2288 OAK HILLS D 0.131868 Dec-91 $178,500 F $98 1826 9/32H 92 115 17-M 1710 CLEARWOOD S 0.109890 Oct-91 $178,500 U $98 1826 10/0/2" 92 116 17-C3 2272 OAK HILLS D 0.120879 Nov-91 $179,000 U $98 1826 9/32H 92 117 1T-C2 1732 CLEARWOOD S 0.096901 Sep-91 $180,000 F $99 1826 10f32H 92 118 17-02 2219 ALDERBROOK 0.129032 Dec-93 $180,000 V $99 1826 7/3/2H 91 119 17-42 1778 CLEARWOOD S 0.098901 Sep-91 $101,000 F $99 1826 10/32H 92 120 17-C3 2276 OAK HILLS D 0.120879 Nov-91 $181,000 F $99 1826 9132H 92 121 17-02 1709 CLEARWOOD S 0.021739 Feb-92 $181,000 F $99 1826 8/42H 92 122 17-02 2231 ALDERBROOK 0.087912 Aug-91 $182,000 V $100 1826 8/42H 92 123 17-02 1749 CLEARWOOD S 0.087912 Aug-91 $182,000 F $100 1826 10/32H 92 A 124 17-C3 2289 OAK HILLS C 0.120879 Nov-91 $182,500 F $100 1826 10/9/2H 92 A 125 17-M 2285 OAK HILLS C 0.065217 Jun-92 $183,000 F $100 1826 9/42H 92 A 126 17-02 1768 PEACHWILLOW 0.085106 Aug-94 $183,000 F $100 1826 10/32H 91 -' 127 17-42 1763 CLEAPWOOD S 0.063830 Jun-94 $184,000 V $101 1826 9/32H 92 A 128 17-02 1701 CLEARWOOD S 0.010870 Jan-92 $184,500 V $101 1826 9/32H 92 A 129 17-02 1737 CLEARWOOD S 0.131868 Dec-91 $185,000 V $101 1826 9/32H 92 A 130 17-02 1625 MELLOWOOD S 0.021277 Feb-94 $185,000 V $101 1826 M2H 90 A 131 17-02 1744 PEACHWILLOW 0.053191 May-94 $185,000 V $101 1826 7/32H 91 132 17-02 1727 CLEARWOOD S 0.131868 Dec-91 $185,000 F $101 1826 9/32H 92 A 133 17-02 7 LIVE OAK CT 0.075269 Jul-93 $185,000 V $101 1826 6/32H 90 134 17-03 2291 OAK HILLS C 0.129032 Dec-93 $185,000 V $101 1826 7f32H 92 A Exhibit E-5 Pittsburg- Comparable Neighborhood r��1 Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 - Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Buitt Amenity 136 17-02 1712 BRIDGEVIEW 0.085106 Aug-94 $185,000 F $101 1826 9/3/2H 91 136 17-03 2279 OAK HILLS C 0.054348 May-92 $186,000 F $102 1826 8/3/2H 92 A - 137 17-02 1752 PEACHWILLOW 0.063830 Jun-94 $187,000 V $102 1826 7/3/2H 91 138 17-02 1771 CLEARWOOD S 0.098901 Sep-91 $190,900 F $105 1826 10/3/2H 91 A 139 17-02 1604 MELLOWOOD S 0.076087 Jul-92 $191,000 F $105 1826 10/3/2H 89 140 17-02 2260 BAYBERRY CI 0.097826 Sep-92 $194,500 F $107 1826 10/3/2H 89 141 17-02 1730 BRIDGEVIEW 0.066667 Jun-90 $196,000 F $107 1826 8/4/2H 90 A 142 17-02 1701 PEACHWILLOW 0.133333 Dec-90 $198,000 F $108 1826 10/3/2H 90 143 17-02 1762 BRIDGEVIEW 0.055556 May-90 $198,500 F $109 1826 9/3/2H 90 144 17-02 1706 PEACHWILLOW 0.122222 Nov-90 $199,000 F $109 1826 10/3/2H 90 145 17-02 1629 MELLOWOOD S 0.022222 Feb-90 $200,500 F $110 1826 10/3/2H 90 146 17-02 1754 BRIDGEVIEW 0.055556 May-90 $200,500 V $110 1826 9/3/2H 90 147 17-02 1774 BRIDGEVIEW 0.077778 Jul-90 $204,000 V $112 1826 9/3/2H 90 148 17-02 2263 BAYBERRY CI 0.088889 Aug-90 $205,000 F $112 1826 10/3/2H 90 A 149 17-02 1757 BRIDGEVIEW 0.066667 Jun-90 $205,000 F $112 1826 9/3/2H 90 150 17-02 1725 BRIDGEVIEW 0.088889 Aug-90 $207,500 F $114 1826 10/3/2H 90 151 17-M 1616 MELLOWOOD S 0.011111 Jan-90 $208,500 F. $114 1826 10/32H 90 152 17-C2173713RIDGEVIEW 0.077778 10-90 $208,500 F $114 1826 10/d2H 90 153 17-02 11 LIVE OAK CT 0.011111 Jan-90 $212,500 U $116 1826 10/3/2H 90 154 17-22 1631 MELLOWOOD S 0.031250 Mar-96 $164,000 F $81 2026 10/3/2H 90 A 155 17-02 10 LIVE OAK CT 0.094737 Sep-95 $165,000 F $81 2026 10/32H 90 156 17-02 2229 OAK HILLS D 0.042105 Apr-95 $165,000 F $81 2026 7/3/2H 89 157 17-02 10 LIVE OAK CT 0.094737 Sep-95 $165,000 F $81 2026 10/312H 90 158 17.02 1702 PEACHWILLOW 0.062500 Jun-96 $170,000 U $84 2026 10/32H 91 E 159 17-03 2270 OAK HILLS D 0.117021 Nov-94 $170,500 F $84 2026 9/3/2H 92 160 17-M 4 VINEWOOD CT 0.074468 Jul-94 $176,000 F $87 2026 8/412H 92 161 17-02 1758 BRIDGEVIEW 0.084211 Aug-95 $177,000 F $87 2026 9/3/2H 91 162 17-12 1739 PEACHWILLOW 0.031579 Mar-95 $178,000 F $88 2026 9/3/2H 91 163 17-02 2229 ALDERBROOK 0.062500 Jun-96 $180,000 F $89 2026 9/3/2H 91 164 17-02 12 LIVE OAK CT 0.075289 Jul-93 $180,000 F $89 2026 10/32H 90 t66 17-=2221 ALDERBROOK 0.054945 May-91 $186,000 F $92 2026 9/3/2H 91 166 i7-C2 1790 CLEARWOOD S 0.032609 Mar-92 $186,000 F $92 2026 9/412H 92 167 17-C3 2278 OAK HILLS D 0.021739 Feb-92 $186,000 F $92 2026 8/4/2H 92 168 17-02 2234 BAYBERRY CI 0.085106 Aug-94 $187,000 F $92 2026 10/32H 89 169 17-02 2217 ALDERBROOK 0.087912 Aug-91 $187,000 F $92 2026 10/3/2H 92 170 17-02 1772 PEACHWILLOW 0.094737 Sep-95 $187,000 F $92 2026 10/3j2H 91 A 171 17-02 2225 ALDERBROOK 0.087912 Aug-91 $187,500 F $93 2026 10/32H 92 172 17-M 2253 OAK HILLS C 0.062500 Jun-96 $187,500 F $93 2026 9/42H 92 A 173 17-M 11 VINEWOOD CT 0.010417 Jan-96 $188,000 F $93 2026 8/42H 92 A 174 17-M 1755 PEACHWILLOW 0.043956 Apr 91 $188,500 F $93 2026 9/3/2H 91 175 17-M 1714 CLEARWOOD S 0.109890 Oct-91 $188,500 F $93 2026 10/4121-1 92 176 17-M 2279 BAYBERRY CI 0.052632 May-95 $190,000 F $94 2026 10/32H 90 177 17-02 1748 PEACHWILLOW 0.065934 Jun-91 $192,000 V $95 2026 9/32H 91 178 17-M 1767 CLEARWOOD S 0.109890 Oct-91 $192,500 F $95 2026 10/3/2H 92 179 17-C3 2273 OAK HILLS C 0.120879 Nov-91 $192,500 V $95 2026 9/3/2H 92 A 180 17-M 2290 OAK HILLS D 0.021739 Feb-92 $192,500 F $95 2026 8/421-1 91 181 17-C3 2262 OAK HILLS D 0.043478 Apr-92 $192,500 F $95 2026 9/42H 92 182 17-C2 1747 PEACHWILLOW 0.054945 May-91 $193,000 V $95 2026 9/32H 91 183 17-02 1720 PEACHWILLOW 0.021978 Feb-91 $193,500 F $96 2026 10/32H 91 184 17-02 1767 PEACHWILLOW 0.054945 May-91 $194,000 F $96 2026 9/32H 91 185 17.03 2282 OAK HILLS D 0.120879 Nov-91 $194,000 F $96 2026 9/32H 92 186 17-02 2233 ALDERBROOK 0.098901 Sep-91 $194,000 F $96 2026 10/32H 92 A 187 17-02 2217 BAYBERRY CI 0.095745 Sep-94 $194,500 F $96 2026 10/3/2H 89 188 17-M 1751 CLEARWOOD S 0.109890 Oct-91 $194,500 F $96 2026 10/3/2H 92 189 17-02 1709 PEACHWILLOW 0.054945 May-91 $194,500 F $96 2026 9/32H 91 190 17-02 1741 CLEARWOOD S 0.098901 Sep-91 $195,000 F $96 2026 10/32H 92 191 17-02 1759 CLEARWOOD S 0.120879 Nov-91 $195,000 F $96 2026 9/32H 92 A 192 17-02 1731 CLEARWOOD S 0.065217 Jun-92 $195,000 F $96 2026 9/412H 92 193 17-C3 2281 OAK HILLS C 0.131868 Dec-91 $195,000 F $96 2026 9/32H 92 A 194 17-M 2241 OAK HILLS C 0.076087 1 -92 $195,500 F $96 2026 9/42H 92 195 17-02 1787 PEACHWILLOW 0.021505 Feb-93 $196,000 F $97 2026 10/321-1 93 196 17-02 10 BURLWOOD CT 0.097826 Sep-92 $196,000 F $97 2026 9/42H 93 197 17-03 2250 OAK HILLS D 0.065217 Jun-92 $197,000 F $97 2026 9/42H 92 198 17-C3 2254 OAK HILLS D 0.065217 Jun-92 $197,000 F $97 2026 9/42H 92 199 17-03 2269 OAK HILLS C 0.032609 Mar-92 $199,000 F $98 2026 9/42H 92 A 200 17-03 10 VINEWOOD CT 0.065217 Jun-92 $201,000 F $99 2026 8/42H 92 201 17-03 2247 OAK HILLS C 0.043478 Apr-92 $202,000 F $100 2026 9/42H 92 A 202 17-02 1602 MELLOWOOD S 0.131868 Dec-91 $202,000 F $100 2026 10/32H 89 203 17-02 2251 BAYBERRY CI 0.053763 May-93 $205,000 V $101 2026 7/32H 89 204 17-03 7 VINEWOOD CT 0.054348 May-92 $206,500 F $102 2026 8/42H 92 A o Exhibit E-5 Pittsburg - Comparable Neighborhood q Sales DuringJanua 1990-June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Dale Dale Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 205 17-C3 14 VINEWOOO CT 0.054348 May-92 $206,500 F''' $102 2026 8142H 92 206 17-02 1704 BRIDGEVIEW 0.066667 Jun-90 $210,000 F $104 2026 9/32H 91 207 17-C2 15 BURLWOOD CT 0.097826 Sep-92 $212,500 V $105 2026 922H 93 E 208 17-02 1734 BRIDGEVIEW 0.055556 May-90 $215,500 F $106 2026 9/32H 91 209 17-02 1742 BRIDGEVIEW 0.088889 Aug-90 $216,000 F $107 2026 9/32H 91 210 17-02 1736 PEACHWILLOW 0.100000 Sep-90 $219,000 F $108 2026 10/32H 91 211 17.02 1711 BRIDGEVIEW 0.077778 Jul-90 $219,000 V $108 2026 10/3/2H 91 A 212 17-02 1769 BRIDGEVIEW 0.088889 Aug-90 $220,000 F $109 2026 9/32H 91 213 17-C2 1710 PEACHWILLOW 0.088889 Aug-90 $221,000 F $109 2026 10/32H 91 214 17-02 1750 BRIDGEVIEW 0.077778 JUI-90 $221;500 F $109 2026 9/32H 91 215 17-02 1764 PEACHWILLOW 0.100000 Sep-90 $221,500 F $109 2026 10/32H 91 216 17-M 17 VINEWOOD CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $22000 F $111 2026 8/42H 92 217 17-02 1753 BRIDGEVIEW 0.066667 Jun-90 $224;500 F $111 2026 9/32H 91 218 17-02 1761 BRIDGEVIEW 0.088889 Aug-90 ?,226,500 F $112 2026 IO/32N 91 219 17-02 1729 BRIDGEVIEW 0.111111 Oct-90 $226,500. V $112 2026 10/3/2H 91 220 17-02 1618 MELLOWOOD S 0.033333 Mar-90 $232,000 F $115 2026 10/3/2H 90 Example Comparison A $114 1,440 Example Comparison B $109 1,610 Example Comparison►C $103 1,800 Re992 SFR Home Sales- Comparable Neighborhood 130 140 — ' q u- 130 — . __ • C 120 — 110 — _ ■ �— _ 100 — ■ ■ 0o — ■ 7o _ No 000 1000 1100 1200 1300 ,400 1300 low 1700 ,*00 1900 2000 2100 2200 Home Size in Square Feet ■ Home Sales -. Weighted Average Rate of Change EAU E-0 Pittsburg - Comparable Neighborhood 4. Sales During January 1994- June 1996 ✓ Map No. NO. Address Raw Data Data Sale Price Pnce/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Aman' ty -...i 1 18-ES 1411 JENSEN DR 0.073684 Jumm $106,000 F $107 986 6/3/1 73 2 18-E8 32 SANDALWOOD CT 0.052083 May-96 $124,000 F $125 986 61311 73 P 3 1S-ES 1295 GLORIA DR 0.097826 Sep-92 $130,000 F $131 986 613/1 73 4 18-E7 1548 KINGSLY OR 0.054945 May-91 $134,000 F $135 986 6/311 74 5 18-ES 19 SANDALWOOD CT 0.055556 May-90 $140,000 V $141 986 6/3/1 73 6 18-E8 1338 ALPINE DR 0.043956 Apr-91 $140,000 V $141 986 6/311 73 7 18-ES 1292 JEWETT AV 0.063830 Jur,94 $120,000 F $100 1,196 6/312 70 8 18-ES 52 ALPINE CT 0.063158 Jun-95 $118,500 F $96 1,223 7/312 73 9 116-ES 4368 SAN MIGUEL 0.042553 Apr-94 $123,000 F $100 1,223 7/312 73 10 18-ES 1337 JENSEN OR 0.011111 Jar00 $144,000 F $117 1,223 7/3/2 73 11 18-ES 1046 METTEN AV 0.100000 SW90 $146,500 F $119 1,223 7/3/2 72 12 18-EB 4266 MCDERMOTT D 0.105263 Oct-95 $112,000 F $84 11,3_�, 7/3/2 67 13 18-E7 4406 PALO VERDE 0.097826 Sap-92 $127,000 F $94 1,350 7/312 75 A 14 18-ES 1067 METTEN AV 0.126316 Dec-95 $103,000 F $76 1,351 713/2 72 15 18-EG 971 JENSEN CI 0.064211 Aug-95 $112,000 F $82 1,351 7/312 72 18 18-E7 1873 KINGSLY DR 0.042105 Apr-95 $114,000 F $84 1,351 7/3/2 74 17 18-E8 1012 JENSEN CI 0.041667 Apr-96 $115,000 F $85 1,351 7/312 72 18 1S-ES 1043JEWETT AV 0.073684 Ju145 $117,500 F $86 1,351 713/2 72 E -+ 19 18-E7 1625 KINGSLY DR 0.115789 Nov-95 $118,000 F $87 1,351 7/3/2 74 20 18-E8 1255 GLORIA DR 0.094737 Sep-95 2119,000 F $88 1,351 7/3/2 72 21 1S-E8 1159 JENSEN DR 0.127660 Dec,94 $125,000 V $92 1,351 613/2 71 22 18-ES 1275 JENSEN DR 0.086022 Aug-93 $129.ODO F $95 1,351 6/312 71 23 18-ES 1279 JEWETT AV 0.085106 Aug-94 $128,500 V $95 1,351 6/3/2 70 24 18-E8 1099 JENSEN DR 0.086957 Aug-92 $130,000 V $% 1,351 7/312 71 ?. 25 18-E7 25OAKBROOKPL 0.053191 May-94 $130,000 F $96 1,351 7/3/2 74 26 18-ES 1129 METTEN AV 0.094737 Sep-95 $130,000 F $96 1,351 7/312 70 27 1"S 1361 JENSEN DR 0.021053 Feb-95 $131,000 F $96 1,351 7/3/2 74 28 18-ES 1032 JEWETT AV 0.129032 Dec-93 $130,500 V $96 1,351 613/2 72 29 18-E8 1336 SPRINGHILL 0.042553 Apr-94 $132,000 V $97 1,351 6/4/2 73 30 18-ES 1101 METTEN AV 0.086022 Aug-93 $133,500 F $98 1,351 7/312 70 A 31 18-E8 1312 JEWETT AV 0.131868 De"i $135,000 F $99 1,351 7/3/2 70 32 18-E8 1408 SPRINGHILL 0.118280 Nov-93 $134,500 F $99 1,351 6/3/1 73 33 18•E8 1295 JENSEN DR 0.120879 Nov-91 $135,000 $99 1,351 7/3/2 71 34 16-ES 1370 ALPINE DR 0.042553 Apr-94 $136,000 V $100 1,351 6/3/2 73 A •� 35 18-E8 1012 JEWETT AV 0.043478 Apr-92 $136,000 r $100 1,351 7/3/2 72 36 1"S 1121 JEWETT AV 0.053191 May-94 $136,500 Y $101 1,351 6/3/2 71 A 37 18-E7 1801 KINGSLY DR 0.085106 Aug,% $139,000 V $102 1,351 7/3/2 74 38 1"0 1390 SPRINGHILL 0.054945 May-91 $140,000 V $103 1,351 7/3/2 73 A 39 18-E7 1513 KINGSLY DR 0.054348 May-92 $140,000 F $103 1,351 7/3/2 74 A 40 18-E8 1063 JEWETT AV 0.120879 Nov-91 $142,000 F $105 1,351 7/312 72. 41 48-ES 1371 BERG CT 0.053783 May 93 $142,000 V $105 1,351 6/312 71 A 42 18-ES 1103 JENSEN DR 0.052632 May-95 $145,000 F $107 1,351 7/312 71 A 43 18-E8 1220 JEWETT AV 0.085108 Aug-94 $148,000 V $109 1,351 7/3/2 70 44 18-ES 1323 SPRINGHILL 0.076087 Jul-92 $148,000 F $109 1,351 7/3/2 73 45 1"S 1135 METTEN AV 0.065934 Jun-91 $149,500 U $111 1,351 7/3/2 70 46 1"8 1330 SPRINGHILL 0.054945 May-91 $150,000 F $111 1,351 7/3/2 73 A 47 18-E81379SPRINGHILL 0.043478 Apr-92 $150,000 V $111 1,351 7/312 73 - 48 18-ES 1163 METTEN AV 0.021505 Feb-93 $155,000 V $114 1,351 6/3/2 70 P 49 18-EB 1222 METTEN AV 0.054945 May-91 $155,000 U $115 1,351 713/2 70 50 1S-E8 1045 JENSEN Ct 0.094737 Sep-95 $103,000 F $74 1,385 7/3/2 72 51 18-ES 1090 JEWETT AV 0.031250 Mar-98 $104,000 F $75 1,385 7/3/2 70 A 52 1"8 1150 METTEN AV 0.062500 Jun-% $113,000 F $81 1,385 7/3/2 70 53 10-ES 951 JEWETT AV 0.129032 Doo-93 $126,000 V $90 1,385 6/312 71 A 54 18-ES 934 JENSEN CI 0.127660 Dec-94 $178,000 V $92 1,385 6/3/2 72 55 18-E6 1205 GLORIA DR 0.100000 Sep-90 $135,000 V $b7 1,385 713/2 72 56 IS-EG 1181 JENSEN DR 0.064516 Jun-93 $137,000 V $98 1,385 7/3/2 71 57 18-EG 1174 JEWETT AV 0.043011 Apr-93 $142,500 V $102 1,385 613/2 71 A 58 18-E8 1052 JEWETT AV 0.054348 May-92 $149,500 F $107 1,385 7/3/2 72 59 18-ES 1215 GLORIA DR 0.065934 Jur,91 $160,000 F $115 1,385 7/312 72 60 18-E7 18 LINFORD CT 0.052632 May-95 $122,500 F $86 1,420 7/312 75 61 18-E7 43 QUAIL CT 0.043478 Apr-92 $134,000 F $94 1,420 71312 75 P 62 18-E7 4413 PALO VERDE 0.032609 Mar-92 $144,000 F $101 1,420 7/312 75 63 18-E8 1309 JENSEN DR 0.105263 Oct-95 $115,000 F $80 1,422 7/312 73 64 18-E7 50 OAKBROOK PL 0.041667 Apr-96 $116,000 F $81 1,422 8/3/2 74 S Exhlbft E-8 Pittsburg- Comparable Neighborhood [Sales During January 1990-June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date_ Sale Price Pnce/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 65 10-EB 1365 ALPINE DR 0.126316 Dec-95 $117,000 F. $82 1,422 7/3/2 74 A 66 18-ES 4391 SAN MIGUEL 0.041667 Apr-96 $122,000 F $85 1,422 713/2 73 P 67 18-EB 44 ALPINE CT 0.119565 Nov-92 $129,000 V $90 1,422 7/3/2 73 A 68 18-E7 16 CEDERBROOK PL 0.107527 Oct-93 $130,000 F $91 1,422 713/2 74 A 69 18-ES 1413 ALPINE DR 0.052083 May-96 $130,000 F $91 1,422 7/3/2 74 70 18-ES 4331 SAN MIGUEL 0.085106 Aug-94 $135,000 F $94 1,422 7/3/2 73 71 16ES 1377 JENSEN DR 0.100000 Sep-90 $135,000 F $94 1,422 7/3/2 73 _. 72 18-E8 4306 SAN MIGUEL 0.064516 Jur,93 $137,000 V $96 1,422 6/3/2 73 73 18-ES 1329 HORAN CT 0.073684 Jul-95 $137,500 F $96 1,422 7/3/2 73 74 18-E7 1532 KINGSLY DR 0.032258 Mar-93 $137,500 V $96 1,422 6J312 74 75-18-FB 4342 PALO VERDE 0.075269 Jut-93 $137,000 V $96 1,422 6/3/2 73 P 76 18-17 1540 KINGSLY DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $138,000 F $97 1,42? 713/2 74 77 18-ES 4352 SAN MIGUEL 0.043956 Apr-91 $145,000 V $101 1,422 7/3/2 73 78 18-ES 1403 JENSEN DR 0.088889 Aug-90 $145,000 V $101 1. "? 7/312 74 79 18-E7 19 DANRIDGE PL 0.033333 Mat-90° $144,000 V $101 1, 2 7/3/2 74 80 16E7 1569 KINGSLY 3R 0.053783 May-83 $147,000 F $103 1,122 7/3/2 74 P 81 1"7 1577 KINGSLY OR 0.095745 Sep-94 $145,000 F $97 1,482 7/3/2 74 A 82 18-ES 952 JEWETT AV 0.041667 Apr-98 $130,000 F $87 1,492 8/4/2 72 `- 83 18-EB 960 JEWETT AV 0.043011 Apr-93 $139,000 F $93 1,492 8142 72 A 84 10-ES 931 JEWETT AV 0.115789 Nov-% $106,500 F $71 1,497 6/4/2 72 85 18-ES 1182 JEWETT AV 0.105263 Oct-95 $115,000 F $76 1,497 8/4/2 71 88 18-ET 28 DANRIDGE PL 0.094737 Sep-% $118,000 F $78 1,497 8/4/2 74 A 87 1B-E8 1191 JENSEN DR 0.111111 Oct-90 $120,000 F $80 1,497 8/4/2 71 88 18-ES 1369 JENSEN OR 0.052632 May-95 $125,000 F $83 1,497 7/3/2 74 89 18-ES 1073 METTEN AV 0.084211 Aug-95 $125,000 F $83 1,497 8/4/2 72 90 18-ES 1438 SPRINGHILL 0.032258 Mar-93 $125,500 V $83 1,497 7/4/2 73 91 1B-EB 1405 ALPINE DR 0.052632 May-95 $128,500 F $65 1,497 8/4/2 73 A 92 18-ES 60 ALPINE CT 0.041667 Apr-% $129,500 F $86 1,497 8/4/2 73 93 18-ES 4318 SAN MIGUEL 0.020833 Feb-98 $129,500 F $86 1,497 7/412 72 A 94 18-ES 1426 SPRINGHILL 0.107527 Oct-93 $129,000 F $86 1,497 8/4/2 73 P 95 18-ES 4237 PALO VERDE 0.031915 Mar-94 $133,500 F $89 1,497 8/4/2 73 96 18-07 4323 DIED WY 0.082500 Jun-96 $137,000 F $91 1,497 8/3x2 81 97 18-E8 57 ALPINE CT 0.021277 Feb-94 $140,000 F $93 1,497 7/4/2 73 98 18-ES 1004 JE14SEN CI 0.033333 Mar-90 $140,000 V $93 1,497 8/4/2 72 99 1B-E7 35 OAKBROOK PL 0.076923 Jul-91 $140,000 F $93 1,497 814/2 74 100 18-EB 1165 JEWETT AV 0.097826 Sep-92 $140,000 F $93 1,497 8/4/2 71 P 101 18-ES 4364 SAN MIGUEL 0.054348 May-92 $142,000 V $94 1,497 8/4/2 73 102 18-ES 906 JENSEN CI 0.031915 Mar-94 $141,000 F $94 1,497 8/4/2 72 103 1"0 1143 METTEN AV 0.064518 Jun-93 $141,000 V $94 1,497 81312 70 104 18--7 1505 KINGSLY OR 0.010989 Jan-91 $141,500 F $94 1,497 8/412 74 105 16E8 1111 JEWETT AV 0.032987 Mar-91 $141,000 U $94 1,497 8/4/2 71 106 18-ES 1383 BERG CT 0.120879 Nov-91 $143,500 U $98 1,497 8/4/2 71 107 18-EB 4372 SAW MIGUEL 0.108698 Oct-92 $145,000 F $96 1,497 8/4/2 73 106 16E7 1730 KINGSLY DR 0.053191 May-94 $144,000 V $96 1,497 8/4/2 74 109 19-EG 12 ALPINE CT 0.0136687 Jun-90 $147,000 F w 1,497 8/42 73 110 18-EB 1355 SPRINGHILL 0.133333 Dec-90 $149,500 V $99 1,497 8/4/2 73 111 18-EB 1080 METTEN AV 0.031915 Mar-94 $149,000 F $99 1,497 8/4/2 72 P 112 16-8 4313 SAN MIGUEL 0.055558 May-90 $152,000 F $101 1,497 8/4/2 73 113 1"111 4350 PALO VERDE 0.078087 Jul-92 $154,000 F $102 1,497 8/4/2 73 114 16E8 1357 ALPINE DR 0.120879 Nov-91 $153,500 F $102 1,497 8/4/2 73 P 115 18-E8 915 JEWETT AV 0.053763 May-93 $155,000 V $103 1,497 7/42 72 118 18-E8 1055 JENSEN CI 0.076923 J"I $158,000 U $106 1,497 8/412 72 117 10-E0 4358 SAN MIGUEL 0.085217 Jun-92 $159,000 F $108 1,497 8/4/2 73 118 18438 4262 SUZANNE DR 0.054348 May-92 $160,000 F $106 1,497 7/3/2 78 A 119 18-ES 1387 SPRINGHILL 0.043011 Apr-93 $160,000 F $106 1,497 6/412 73 P 120 18-D8 4299 OAKDALE PL 0.096774 SW93 $163,500 V $109 1,497 8!3/2 79 121 18-00 4305 DIEHL WY 0.010638 Jan-94 $147,500 V $97 1,515 7/3/2 80 122 18.08 4299 FOOTHILL WY 0.063158 Jun-95 $115,000 F $74 1,550 813/2 80 A 123 18438 132 REGENT DR 0.052083 May-96 $139,000 F $89 1,550 8/3/2 79 124 1638 4258 SUZANNE DR 0.020833 FW96 $146,000 F $94 1,550 8/3/2 78 125 18-08 152 FAIROAKS WY 0.032258 Mar-93 $149,000 V $96 1,550 7/312 79 126 18438 4250 SUZANNE DR 0.031579 Mar-95 $149,000 F $96 1,550 8/3/2 79 127 18-06 4229 SUZANNE OR 0.076087 Jul-92 $152,500 F $96 1,550 6'1x2 79 128 1836 4341 CAMPBELL DR 0.063158 Jur,95 $153,500 F $99 1,550 9/312 79 129 18436 4290 DIEHL WY 0.107527 Oct-93 $155,000 V $100 1,550 6/3/2 80 130. 18436 4269 SUZANNE DR 0.066667 Jun-90 $160,000, F $103 1,550 8/3/2 79 131 1606 4301 FOOTHILL WY 0.064516 Jun-93 $164,000 F $105 1,550 813/2 79 132 18-08 4296 GOLDENHILL 0.130435 Dec-92 $166,000 F $107 1,550 6/3/2 79 133 18.08 4237 SUZANNE OR 0.098901 Sep-91 $168,000 F $108 1,550 8/3/2 79 134 16-D6 4202 BUCHANAN CT 0.011111 Jar}90 $170,000 F $109 1,550 813/2 79 �4 6 �^ Exhibk.E-6 Pittsburg- Comparable Neighborhood R Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Data Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Buid Amendy i 135 18-08 4286 DIEHL WY 0.087912 Aug-91 $170,000 F $109 1,550 7/3/2 80 136 184:)8 4299 THORNHILL W 0.032967 Mar-91 $171,000 F $110 1,550 8/3/2 79 137 18-ES 1302 JEWETT AV 0.043011 Apr-93 $150,000 F $96 1,554 8/4/2 70 a 138 16-E8 1238 JEWETT AV 0.074468 Jul-94 $154,500 V $99 1,554 7/4/2 70 l 139 18-E8 1211 MOSS CT 0.032609 Mar-92 $159,000 F $102 1,554 8/4/2 69 140 184)8 4278 GOLDENHILL 0.129032 Dec-93 $152,000 V $96 1,572 8/3/2 79 A 141 164)8 4357 APPLE PL 0.096774 Sep-93 $162,000 F $102 1,583 7/3/2 94 A 142 18-DO 31 BARRIE DR 0.087912 Aug-91 $172,000 V $108 1,587 6/3/2 59 P 143 18-E8 1196 METTEN AV 0.053191 May-94 $133,000 F $83 1,596 81412 67 144 18-E8 1185 COAD CT 0.088889 Aug-90 $155,000 F $97 1,596 8/4/2 67 P 145 18-ES 1292 METTEN AV 0.119565 Nov-92 $154,000 F $95 1,608 814/2 67 146 184)8 4245 GOLDENHILL 0.010417 Jan-96 $139,000 F $85 1,6:4 8/3/2 79 147 16.06 4286 FOOTHILL WY 0.073684 JUI-95 $144,000 F $88 1,634 8/3/2 80 149 If JS 4254 ST PAUL CI C -31250 Mar-96 147,000 F $89 1,634 7/3/2 79 149 1f-D8 4218 SUZANNE DR C.J42105 Apr-95 4148,500 F $90 1,634 8/312 79 150 18408 24 BARRIE DR 0.053783 May-93 $190,000 F $115 1,648 &V2 60 ~� 151 18-EB 1084 JENSEN CI 0.122222 Nov-90 $147,000 F $89 1,651 7/312 72 152 18-D7 4336 OAKDALE PL 0.084211 Aug-96 $130,000 F $78 1,664 8/312H 81 153 18-07 4327 OAKDALE PL 0.041667 Apr-96 $134,500 F $80 1,664 8/312H 82 A 154 18438 306 SAN SIMEON P 0.041667 Apr-98 $142,000 F $85 1,664 8/3/2H 81 n 155 18-07 4313 DIEHL WY 0.094737 Sep-95 $144,500 F $86 1.,664 8/3/2H 82 A 158 18-DT 4318 FOOTHILL WY 0.084211 Aug-95 $147,500 F $88 1,664 9/3/2H 82 157 18-07 4340 OAKDALE PL 0.108696 Oct-92 $160,000 F $96 1,664 8/3/2H 81 158 18-D7 4310 DIEHL WY 0.119565 Nov-92 $161,000 F $96 1,664 7/3/2H 82 A 159 18-07 4314 DIEHL WY 0.077778 JUI-90 $175,000 V $105 1,664 8/3/2H 82 160 18.08 4213 ST PAUL CI 0.031250 Mar-96 $145,000 F $85 1,698 814/2 79 161 18.06 4273 GOLDENHILL 0.052632 May-95 $155,000 F $91 1,658 8/4/2 79 A 162 18438 196 REGENT DR 0.031915 Mar-94 $160,000 V $94 1,698 8/4/2 79 183 184)8 4286 SUZANNE DR 0.052083 May-96 $158,000 F $92 1,715 9/4/2 79 164 18438 4333 CAMPBELL DR 0.074468 Jul-94 $180,000 F $103 1,742 8/4/2H 94 A 165 18-58 1147 JEWETT AV 0.133333 Dec-90 $166,000 U $95 1,745 9/5/2 71 P 168 18-ES 4338 SAN MIGUEL 0.107527 Oct-93 $145,000 F $81 1,781 8/3/2 72 A 187 18436 305 SAN SIMEON P 0.098901 Sep-91 $179,000 V $98 1,814 9/3/2H 81 A 166 18-011 304130-L WY 0.120879 Now-91 $177,500 F $96 1,831 9/3/2H 79 189 18.38 4209 ST PAIN.CI 0.010870 Jan-92 $150,000 F $81 1,844 9/41/2 79 170 16438 4217 SUZANNE OR 0.063158 Jun-95 $165,000 F $89 1,844 9/412 79 g 171 184)6 4280 ST PAUL CI 0.095745 Sep-94 $175,000 F $94 1,844 9/4/2 79 A 172 18-07 4301 GOLDENHILL 0.097826 Sep-92 $168,000 F $90 1,849 9/3/2H 81 173 18-ES 4281 MCDERMOTT D 0.043956 Apr-91 $143,000 F $75 1,882 7/3/2 53 174 18-DO 4268 CAMPBELL DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $178,000 V $89 1,984 6/313H r62 A 175 18.07 4309 GOLDENHILL 0.010870 Jan-92 $192,000 F $95 2,001 11/4/2H 81 178 18438 4307 THORNHILL W 0.097826 Sep-92 $150,000 F $73 2,042 10/4/2H 81 177 18-DO 4323 OAKDALE PL 0.010989 Jan-91 $172,000 F $84 2,042 10/412H 90 A 178 18.38 4303 THORNHILL W 0.043956 Apr-91 $176,500 F $86 2,042 10/4/2H 81 179 18438 4308 THORNHILL W 0.077778 JUDO $183,500 F $89 2,042 10/4/2H 81 180 18-07 4310 SUZANNE DR 0.022222 FW90 $185,000 V $90 2,042 10/4/2H 82 181 18-07 4311 GOLDENHILL 0.022222 Feb-90 $190,000 F $93 2,042 10/4/2H 81 182 18-07 4318 FOOTHILL WY 0.130435 Dec-92 $204,500 F $100 2,042 10/4/2H 82 A 183 18.38 4310 THORNHILL W 0.021978 Feb-91 $207,000 F $100 2,051 10/4/2H 81 A 164 18-)7 4348 OAKDALE PL 0.127860 Dec-94 $189,500 F $82 2,052 11/4/2H 81 A 185 18-)7 4309 KINGSLY OR 0.011111 Jan-90 $179,000 F $87 2,052 10(4/2H 83 186 18-07 4300 GOLDENHILL 0.054348 May-92 $184,000 F $89 2,052 10/4/2H 81 187 18-07 4312 FOOTHILL WY 0.100000 Sep-90 $194,500 F $94 2,052 10/4/2H 82 188 184)8 4298 ST PAUL CI 0.129032 Dec-93 $195,000 F $95 2,052 8/4/2H 81 189 18-07 4311 DERBY PL 0.042553 Apr-94 $200,000 V $97 2,052 8/4/2H 82 A 190 18-138 36 CARROLL DR 0.098901 Sep-91 $190,000 F $90 2,099 &2/2H 63 191 184)8 4314 THORNHILL W 0.077778 JU-90 $190,000 F $89 2,116 10/4/2H 81 192 18438 303 SAN SIMEON P 0.054348 May-92 $180,000 F $84 2,141 11/4/2H 81 193 16-07 4312 SKYLINE PL 0.021739 Feb-92 $175,000 F $81 2,157 10/4/2H 83 A 194 18.08 4301 INVERNESS D 0.077778 Jut-90 $235,000 V $105 2,223 9/4/2 68 A 195 18-08 28 CARROLL DR 0.010526 Jan 95 $174,000 F $77 2,236 11/5/3H 69 196 184)8 4298 OAKDALE PL 0.053763 May-93 $175,000 F $75 2,332 11/4/2H 79 197 18-D6 4209 SUZANNE DR 0.064516 Jur,93 $210,000 V $90 2,332 9/4/2H 79 S 198 184)8 4305 FOOTHILL WY 0.106383 Oct-94 $218,000 F $92 2,332 11/4/2H 80 P A 199 18-DB 300 DIEHL WY 0.076087 Jul-92 $222,000 F $95 2,332 11/4/2H 79 A 200 18-DO 4304 THORNHILL W 0.052083 May-96 $180,000 F $74 2,428 11/4/2H 81 201 18-137 4310 DERBY PL 0.115789 Nov-95 $203,000 F $83 2,428 11/4/2H 83 C 202 18-D8 4313 THORNHILL W 0.042553 Apr-94 $215,500 V $88 2,428 9/4/2H 81 203 18-07 4315 GOLDENHILL 0.100000 SW90 $215,000 F $88 2,428 1114/2H 81 204 18-D7 4315 FOOTHILL WY 0.076923 Jul-91 $217,500 F $89 2,428 11/412H 82 -r Exhibit E-8 Pittsburg - Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 1990- June 1996 9 Map f No. No. Address Raw Data Date Sale Price Prica/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 205 18-07 4321 FOOTHILL WY 0.053763 May-93'.:a. 5220,090 V;,,: $90: 2,428 9/4/2H 83 206 1B-M 4309 THORNHILL W 0.065934 Jun-91 $221,500 F' $91 2,428 11/4/2H 81 P 207 18-07 4306 SKYLINE PL 0.066667 Jun-90 $225,000 V $92 2,428 11/412H 83 S 208 16-07 4308 GOLDENHILL 0.055556 May-90 $195,000 F $79 2,444 11/4/2H 81 j 209 184[)8 23 LAKE ST 0.122222 Nov-90 $258,000 V $105 2,456 9/4/3 91 210 18-07 4314 FOOTHILL WY 0.063830 Jun-94 $217,500 V 387 2,479 9/4/3 82 211 18.00 1000 BUCHANAN RD 0.098901 Sep-91 $255,000 F $96 2,653 6/3/2 48 212 18.38 83 BARRIE DR 0.096774 Sep-93 $230,000 F $85 2,893 9/3/2H 63 P 213 184)8 4301 THORNHILL W 0.054348 May-92 $227,500 F $81 2,780 1Z/5/2H 50 214 18408 4202 INVERNESS D 0.010638 Jan-94 $274,000 V $91 2,987 10/5/3H 63 A Example Comparison A $98 1,400 Example Comparison B $95 1,600 Example Comparison C $91 1,900 RepM3 SFR Home Sales-Comparable Neighborhood Iso "o - a • y 170 - C 110 - • Q. 100 - `"_--i■- ■ ■ ■ ■ a bio ■ h■70 -;---�._�- ■ ■ A •■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ :M w no law rM 1400 160 180 two 2700 2400 2600 2ew 3w0 37w Home Size in Square Feet ■ Home Sales -- Weighted Average Rate of Change y C\, Exhibit Ea Pittsburg - Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 1990 -June 1996 Map No. No Address Raw Date Dale Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 1 20-A5 3740 CYPRESS WY 0.031579 Mar-95 $118,500 V $85 1385 6/3/2 72 2 20-A5 19 MELISSA CT 0.065934 Jun-91 $160,000 F $112 1422 7/3/2 74 A 3 20-A5 42 SHERWOOD CT 0.065934 Jun-91 $164,000 F $115 1422 7/3/2 75 4 20-A5 3866 ROUNDHILL D 0.031915 Mar-94 $139,000 V $97 1424 7/3/2 72 5 20-A5 29 TAHOE PL 0.044444 Apr-90 $175,000 V $120 1454 7/3/2 73 P 6 20-A5 1650 WOODLAND DR 0.055556 May-90 $153,000 V $105 1454 71312 74 7 20-A5 1612 LIMEWOOD PL 0.100000 SGP-90 $90,000 F $61 1454 7/3/2 73 8 20-A5 1744 SYCAMORE DR 0.111111 Oct-90 $157,500 V $106 1472 7/3/2 75 A 9 20-A5 1569 GREENRIDGE 0.076087 Jul-92 $156,500 F $106 1472 713/2 74 10 20-A5 1673 HEATHERWOOD 0.086022 Aug-93 $149,000 F $101 1472 71312 74 P 11 20-AS 2095 OAKRIDGE LN 0.021053 Feb-95 $138,500 F $94 1472 713/2 75 12 20-A5 1873 HEATHERWOOD 0.031250 Mar-96 $117,500 F $79 1472 7/3/2 76 13 20•A5 1585 GREENRIDGE 0.041667 Apr-96 $129,000 F $87 1472 7/3/2 74 A 14 20-A5 1671 LIMEWOOD PL 0.010870 Jan-92 $142,500 F $96 1473 71312 74 P 15 20-A5 3732 ROUNDI-:IL'-D 0.109890 Oct-91° $144,000 F $96 1497 8/412 72 P 18 20-AS 3793 CYPRESS WY 0.064516 Jurr93 $143,500 V $95 1497 7/4/2 73 17 20-A5 3837 CYPFr:sS WY 0.031250 Mar-96 $150,000 F $100 1497 814/2 65 P 18 20-A5 1686 HEATHERWOOD 0.098901 Sep-91 $150,000 U $100 1499 7/3/2 75 _ 19 20-M 2049 OAKRIDGE LN 0.054348 May-92 $160,000 F $106 1499 7/3/2 75 A 20 20-A5 1797 HEATHERWOOD 0.129032 Dec-93 $90,000 F $60 1499 7/312 74 21 20-AS 2017 OAKRIDGE LN 0.108383 Ock% $129,000 F $86 1499 7/3!2 75 22 20-A5 3850"')UNDHILL D 0.052632 May-95 $139,000 F $92 1499 71312 72 23 20-A5 1536 NORINE DR 0.084211 Aug-95 $135,000 F $90 1499 7/3/2 72 24 20-M 3818 CYPRESS WY 0.062500 Jun-96 $140,500 F $93 1505 7/3/2 73 25 20-A5 1664 NORINE OR 0.119565 Nov-92 $102,000 F $65 1566 8/4/2 73 26 20-M 3778 CYPRESS WY 0.010417 Jan�6 $115,500 F $73 1566 8/4/2 73 27 20.A5 26 SAN MARCOS OR 0.011111 Jan-90 $155,000 F $94 1634 9/3!2 75 28 20-A5 1689 HEATHERWOOD 0.055556 May-90 $151,000 V $92 1634 8/3/2 74 29 20-AS 1553 GREENRIDGE 0.032967 Mar-91 $175,000 V $107 1634 8/312 74 H 30 20-M 2031 HEATHERWOOO 0.054945 May-91 $169,000 F $103 1634 8/312 76 31 20-AS 1729 SYCAMORE DR 0.106696 Oct-92 $164,000 F $100 1634 8/3/2 75 32 20•A5 1704 GREENRIDGE 0.084516 Jun-93 $150,000 V $91 1634 7/3/2 74 33 20-A5 3858 ROUNDHILL D 0.075269 Jul-93 $167,500 F $102 1634 813/2 72 P 34 20-A5 38 SAN MARCOS DR 0.098774 Sa"3 $140,000 U $88 1834 8/312 76 P 35 20-A5 11 SAN MARCOS DR 0.042553 Apr-94 $145,000 V $B8 1634 7/312 75 P 38 20-A5 1650 NORINE DR 0.115789 NOV-95 $150,000 F $91 1634 8/3/2 73 37 20-AS 1622 NORINE DR 0.020833 Feb-96 $124,000 U $76 1634 B/3/2 73 38 20-M 1677 WOODLAND DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $139,500 F $85 1634 8/3/2 74 39 20-A5 1548 LIMEWOOD PL 0.011111 Jan-90 $152,500 F $90 1676 8/312 73 P 40 20-AS 1634 WOODLAND DR 0.095745 Sep-94 $155,500 F $92 1682 8/3/2 74 41 20.A5 1918 HEATHERWOOD 0.044444 Apr-90 $163,000 F $95 1698 8/412 75 42 20-M 1642 WOODLAND DR 0.077778 Ju1-90 $164,500 V $96 1698 8/4/2 74 S 43 20-A5 1522 ROLLINGWOOD 0.122222 Nov-90 $186,000 F $109 1698 814/2 72 P 44 20•A5 2044 OAKRIDGE LN 0.087912 Aug-91 $170,000 V $100 1698 8/4/2 76 A 45 20-A5 1809 HEATHERWOOD 0.021739 FW92 $146,000 F $85 1698 8/4/2 74 46 20-A5 1792 LIMEWOOD PL 0.088957 Aug-92 $158,000 F $93 1698 81412 75 47 20M 1902 HEATHERWOOD 0.088957 Aug-92 $135,000 F $79 1698 8/4/2 75 48 20-M 1797 LIMEWOOD PL 0.097828 Sep-92 $158,500 V $93 1898 8/412 75 ` 49 20-A5 2002 OAKRIDGE LN 0.119565 Nov-92 $165,000 F $97 1698 8/4/2 76 50 20-A5 3869 ROUNDHILL D 0.130435 Doc-92 $159,500 F $93 1698 8/4/2 72 51 2D-A5 7 MELISSA CT 0.053763 May-93 s187,500 V $98 1698 8/412 74 P 52 20-A5 2019 HEATHERWOOD 0.075269 Jul-93 $175,000 V $103 1698 71412 76 P 53 20-M 1637 NORINE DR 0.075269 Jul-93 $144,500 V $85 1698 7/4/2 73 " 54 20-A5 26 TAHOE PL 0.031915 Mar-94 $150,000 F $88 1698 8/4/2 73 55 20-A5 1602 WOODLAND DR 0.063830 Jun-94 $133,500 F $78 1698 8/4/2 74 A 58 2OA5 1780 SYCAMORE DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $148,500 F $87 1698 8/4/2 75 57 20•A5 1806 HEATHERWOOD 0.127660 Dec-94 $150,000 F $88 1698 8/4/2 75 A 58 20-A5 2074 OAKRIDGE LN 0.073684 Jul-95 $133,800 U $79 1698 8/3/2 76 P 59 20-A5 1605 NORINE DR 0.031250 Mar-96 $125,000 F $73 1698 8/4/2 73 60 20-AS 6 MELISSA CT 0.041667 Apr-96 $148,500 F $87 1698 814/2 74 A 61 20-A5 1540 WOODLAND DR 0.055556 May-90 $180,000 F $97 1844 8/3/2 74 62 20-A5 1640 LAKEWOOD PL 0.087912 Aug-91 $182,000 V $98 1844 9/4/2 74 P 63 20•A5 2058 HEATHERWOOD 0.097826 Sep-92 $175,000 F $94 1844 9/4/2 76 64 20-A5 2022 HEATHERWOOD 0.064516 Jun-93 $162,000 V $87 1844 8/4/2 76 65 20-AS 1723 LIMEWOOD PL 0.075269 Jul-93 $175,000 F $94 1844 9/4/2 75 C 66 20-A5 1630 NORINE DR 0.075269 Jul-93 $152,500 F $82 1844 9/4/2 73 67 20-A5 1976 OAKRIDGE LN 0.096T7� Sep-93 $152,000 F $B2 1844 91412 75 68 20-A5 2080 OAKRIDGE LN 0.042553 Apr-94 $146,000 F $79 1844 914/2 76 69 20-A5 3 SAN MARCOS OR 0.052083 May-96 $163,700 U $89 1844 9/4/2 75 P y 70 20-A5 1950 HEATHERWOOD 0.115789 Nov-95 $135,000 F $72 1866 9/4/2 75 Exhibit Ea Pittsburg- Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 19.90- June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 71 20-M 2062 OAKRIDGE LN 0.118280 Nov-93 $139,000 F,y,;.-$74 1873 8/4/2 76 P 72 20-A5 1676 LIMEWOOD PL 0.095745 SW94 $174,000 F $92 1874 8/4/2 74 P 73 20-A5 1665 GREENRIDGE 0.105263 Oct-95 $137,000 F $72 1885 9/4/2 74 A 74 20-A5 10 HEA7HERW000 C 0.100000 Sep-90 $182,000 F $96 1892 10/412H 74 P 75 20-AS 1508 LIMEWOOD PL 0.055556 May-90 $190,000 F $90 2102 10/4/3 73 P 76 20-A5 1792 SYCAMORE DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $155,000 F $72 2146 8/4/2 75 A Example Comparison A $94 1,485 Example Comparison B $91 1,650 Example Comparison C $86 1,850 Repg7 SFR Home Sales-Comparable Neighborhood 140 130 — A C 120 — LL r 110 — ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 100 —90 ■ >• •--� ---rE.� ■ CL 80 — ■ ■ 1 —� ■ so — ■ ■ B 50 — 40 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 Hone Size in Square feel ~ ■ Home Sales -r- Weighted Average Rate of Change FxhibR E-8 Pittsburg - Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 1990-June 1996 _ Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 1 18-82 98 ARLINGTON DR 0.088889 Aug-90 $117,500 F $141 833 4/2/1 74 2 18-82 141 ARLINGTON DR 0.065934 Jun-91 $115,000 V $138 833 4/211 74 3 18-82 13 ARLINGTON DR 0.065217 Jun-92 $108,000 F $129 833 4/2/1 74 0 4 18-82 74 ARLINGTON DR 0.107527 Oct-93 $93,000 V $111 833 5/2/1 77 P 5 18-82 100 COVINGTON OR 0.031915 Mar-94 $90,000 F $108 833 4/2/1 74 P 6 18-83 1 ORINDA LN 0.022222 Feb-90 $135,000 F $136 986 6/3/1 75 P 7 18-83 5 PETAR LN 0.077778 Jul-90 $139,500 V $141 986 7/3/1 76 8 18-83 35 SAN CARLOS CT 0.054348 May-92 $133,000 V $134 986 6/3/1 76 A 9 18-83 40 SAN CARLOS PL 0.118280 Nov-93 $111,000 F $112 986 5/3/1 75 P 10 18-83 68 OXFORD CT 0.063830 Jun-94 $124,000 V $125 986 5/3/1 75 A 11 18-83 216 ALVARADO AV 0.085106 Aug-94 $108,000 F $109 986 6/311 74 P 12 18-83 21 FAIRWAY CT 0.010417 Jan-96 $110,000 F $111 986 5/3/1 76 13 18-83 302 W LELAND RD 0.088889 Aug-90 $105,000 F $105 1000 7/311 79 A - 14 18-82 7 ROSSMOOR CT 0.022222 Feb-90 $126,000 F $123 1020 6/3/1 78 15 18-82 82 ARLINGTON DR 0.033333 Mar-90 $129,000 V $126 1020 6/3/1 74 A 18 18-82 69 SALISBURY DR 0.055556 May-gO $130,000 F $127 1020 6!3/1 77 17 18-83 2349 DOVER WY 0.055556 May-90 $137,000 V $134 1020 6/3/1 77 la 18-82 37 SALISBURY DR 0.066667 Jun-90 $117,000 V $114 1020 6/3/1 74 _ 19 18-63 2399 DOVER WY 0.077778 Jul-90 $120,000 F $117 1020 6/3/1 77 P 20 18-82 5 CROWLEY CT 0.077778 JUI-90 $132,000 V $129 1020 6/311 77 21 18-82 31 COVINGTON DR 0.100000 Sep-90 $130,000 V $127 1020 6/3/1 73 22 18-83 43 ORINDA CI 0.111111 Oct-90 $117,500 F $115 1020 7/312 76 p 23 18-82 2178 DOVER WY 0.111111 Oct-90 $131,000 F $128 1020 6/3/1 75 24 18-82 2302 DOVER WY 0.111111 Oct-90 $134,500 V $131 1020 6/3/1 77 D 25 18-82 4 COVINGTON DR 0.133333 Dec-90 $120,000, F $117 1020 6/•V1 73 26 1"3 2379 DOVER WY 0.133333 Dec-90 $151,000 F $147 1020 6/3/1 77 27 18-82 52 COVINGTON DR 0.043956 Apr-91 $128,000 V $125 1020 WWI 73 28 18-83 28 PETAR CT 0.054945 Mey-91 $138,500 V $135 1020 7/311 76 29 18-63 21 ORINDA CI 0.131868 Dec-91 $125,000 F $122 1020 6/3/1 76 30 18.82 13 SALISBURY DR 0.010870 Jan-92 $115,000 V $112 1020 WWI 73 P 31 18.82 98 ATHERTON CI 0.032609 Mar-92 $129,000 V $126 1020 6/3/1 77 32 18-P2 79 ATHERTON CI 0.078087 AA-92 $129,500 F $126 1020 6/311 77 33 18.8: 83 ASBURY WY 0.064516 Jun-93 $119,000' V $118 1020 6/3/1 75 34 1"2 70ASBURYWY 0.086022 Au9.93 $123,000 F $120 1020 6/311 75 35 18-62 10 ARLINGTON DR 0.021277 Feb-94 $113,000 F $110 1020 613/1 73 36 18-82 61 SALISBURY DR 0.074468 Jul-94 $92,000 F $90 1020 5/3/1 74 37 18-82 2188 DOVER WY 0.031579 Mar-95 $112,500 F $110 1020 6/311 74 P -' 38 18-83 2342 DOVER WY 0.073684 Jul-95 $113,500 F $111 1020 6/311 77 A 39 18-62 34 HUNTINGTON CI 0.094737 SW95 $100,000 F $97 1020 6/3/1 77 40 18-63 210 ALVARADO AV 0.083158 Jurr-95 $93,000 F $82 1126 7/3/1 74- 41 18.132 66 SALISBURY DR 0.133333 Dec-90 $136,000 V $115 1130 5/312 74 42 18-B2 2181 DOVER WY 0.098901 Sep-91 $134,000 V $118 1130 513!2 74 43 18-82 2172 DOVER WY 0.129032 Dec-93 $130,000 F $115 1130 5/3/2 68 44 18-62 19 ASBURY WY 0.085108 Aug-94 $130,000 F $115 1130 513/2 73 P 45 18$2 34 ARLINGTON DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $108,000 F $93 1130 6/312 74 48 18-132 2162 DOVER WY 0.031579 Mar-95 $108,500 F $96 1130 5/3x2 74 S 47 18.132 76 COVINGTON DR 0.052632 Mary-95 $109,000 F $96 1130 5/3/2 74 48 18.132 101 ARLINGTON DR 0.020833 Feb-96 $105,000 F $92 1130 5/3/2 74 -- 49 1"2 71 COVINGTON DR 0.041667 Apr-98 $100,000 F $88 1130 5/312 74 P 50 18-83 298 W LELAND RD 0.031915 Mar-94 $115,000 F $98 1162 61312 79 A 51 18-62 2138 DOVER WY 0.073684 Jul-95 $123,000 F $101 1213 5/2 IH 73 52 %.63 37 ORINDA CI 0.088957 Aug-92 $146,000 F $116 1250 713/2 76 53 18433 434 ATHERTON AV 0.129032 Dec-93 $135,000 F $108 1250 71312 76 A 54 18-82 6 ALTA CT 0.032609 Mar-92 $127,000 F $97 1305 6/3/2 74 55 18-82 2185 DOVER WY 0.107527 Oct-93 $132,000 V $101 1305 6/3/2 75 56 18-62 54 ASBURY CT 0.106383 Oct-94 $125,000 V $95 1305 7/3/2 75 57 18-82 84 COVINGTON DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $100,000 F $76 1305 6/3/2 73 58 18482 26 SALISBURY DR 0.066667 Jun-90 $128,000 F $95 1338 6/4/2 71 A 59 18-82 63 COVINGTON DR 0.031250 Mar-96 $110,000 F $82 1338 6/4/2 74 60 18-82 8 HUNTINGTON CI 0.111111 Oct-90 $150,000 V $111 1341 6/3/2 77 61 18$3 426 ATHERTON AV 0.122222 Nov-90 $150,000 V $111 1349 7/312 76 62 18-83 25 ORINDA C1 0.021978 Feb-St $140,000 V $103 1349 8/3/2 76 P 63 18-83 41 ORINDA CI 0.065934 Jun-91 $143,000 F $106 1349 8/3/2 76 A 64 18-83 333 ATHERTON AV 0.087912 Aug•91 $139,000 F $103 1349 7/3/2 76 Exhibit E-s r Pittsburg-Comparable Neighborhood •� Sales During Janua ,41990-June 1996 - Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price P6ce/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 65 18-83 18 ORINDA CT 0.098901 Sep-91 5138,000 V:�:. $102 1349 7/3/2 75 66 18-83 360 ATHERTON AV 0.098901 Sep-91 $155,000 F $114 1349 7/3/2 75 P 67 1"3 32 SAN CARLOS CT 0.043478 Apr-92 $136,500 F $101 1349 713(2 76 68 18-83 44 OXFORD CT 0.043478 Apr-92 $144,000 F $106 1349 713/2 75 69 18-82 14 TEAL CT 0.076087 Ad-92 $148,000 F $109 1349 7/3/2 77 - 70 1"3 38 BROOKSHIRE CT 0.043011 Apr-93 $135,000 V $100 1349 6/312 76 71 18-83 27 ORINDA CT 0.053763 May-93 $134,000 F $99 1349 613/2 75 A 72 18-83 10 OXFORD CT 0.075269 Jul-93 $138,000 P $102 1349 7/3/2 75 73 18-82 26 ATHERTON CI 0.107527 OG-93 $132,500 F $98 1349 7/3(2 77 A 74 1"3 56 ORINDA CI 0.021277 Feb-94 $131,500 V $97 1349 713/2 76 75 18-82 2214 DOVER WY 0.053191 May-94 $125,000 F $92 1349 7/3/2 77 P 78 18-82 41 ATHERTON CI 0.074468 Jul-94 $130,000 V $96 1349 6/3/2 77 P 77 18-83 8 ORINDA LN 0.021053 FW95 $108,000 F $80 1349 7/3(2 75 - 78 18-83 2350 DOVER WY 0.083158 Jun-95 $130,000 F $96 1349 7/312 77 79 18-83 80 ORINDA CI 0.084211 Aug-95` $125,000 F $92 1349 8/3/2 76 A 80 18$2 14 ATHERTON CI 0.094737 Sep-95 $120,000 F $88 1349 7/3/2 77' 81 18-83 14 SAN CARLOS CT 0.094737 Sop-95 $130,000 F $96 1349 7/3/2 75 82 18$3 31 ORINDA CI 0.020833 FW96 $120,000 F $88 1349 8/312 78 83 18.83 402 ATHERTON AV 0.031250 Mar-98 $126,500 F $93 1349 7/312 76 84 1"3 15 ORINDA CT 0.041667 Apr-98 $112,000 F $83 1349 7/3/2 75 85 18.83 59 ORINDA CI O.u41667 Apr-98 $127,000 F $94 1349 7/3/2 76 86 18$3 33 SAN CARLOS PL 0.031915 Mar-94 $124,000 V $91 1350 7/3!2 74 P 87 1"3 246 RAVINE DR 0.053191 May-94 $124,500 F $92 1350 7/3/2 74 A 88 18-63 222 ALVARADO AV 0.065217 Jun-92 $139,000 F $102 1351 713/2 74 89 18-83 228 ALVARADO AV 0.086022 Aug-93 $118,000 V $87 1351 7/312 74 90 18-83 5 KINGSFORD CT 0.063830 Jun-94 $125,000 F $92 1351 7/3/2 74 91 1"3 219 ATHERTON AV 0.094737 Sep-95 $125,000 F $92 1351 7/3/2 74 92 1882 21 ARLINGTON OR 0.087912 Aug-91 $138,000 F $100 1368 613/2 73 93 1"2 22 DOVER CT 0.041667 Apr-98 $106,500 F $77 1370 6/3/2 74 A _. 94 1"3 298 W LELAND RD 0.122222 Nov-90 $145,000 F $105 1372 813/2 79 95 18-83 2388 DOVER WY 0.055556 May90 $125,000 V $88 1420 7/312 77 98 1"3 51 ORINDA CT 0.055558 May90 $130,000 F $91 1420 7/32 75 97 1"3 2396 DOVER WY 0.066667 Ju)-90 $143,000 V $100 1420 7/3/2 77 A 98 18.83 14 ORINDA CI 0.100000 Sep-90 $164,500 F $115 1420 7/312 76 Fi 99 1682 78 ATHERTON CI 0.010989 Jan-911 $152,500 F $107 1420 7/3/2 77 100 1"3 26 ORINDA CI 0.109890 Oct-9115148,500 V $104 1420 8/3/2 76 A 101 1682 2258 DOVER WY 0.054348 May-92 $133,000 F $93 1420 7/32 77 102 18-83 2383 DOVER WY 0.086957 Aug-82 $153,000 P $108 1420 7/3/2 77 103 18-82 16 CHELSEA WY 0.119565 Nov-92 $133,000 V $93 1420 7/3/2 78 104 18-82 90 CHELSEA WY 0.086022 Aug-93 $137,000 V $98 1420 7/3/2 77 105 18-83 32 ORINDA CI 0.118280 Now-93 $127,000 V $89 1420 7/312 76 A 106 1"3 33 BROOKSHIRE CT 0.118280 Nov-93 $130,000 F $91 1420 7/312 76 A -d 107 1"3 34 SAN CARLOS PL 0.031915 Mar-94 $124,000 F $87 1420 7/3/2 75 A 106 1"2 22 HUNTINGTON CI 0.106383 Oct-94 $129,000 V 590 1420 6/312 77 109 1682 93 ATHERTON CI 0.115789 Nov-95 $125,000 F $68 1420 7/312 77 A 110 1683 275 RAVINE DR 0.077778 M-90 $138,000 V $95 1422 6/3/2 74 A 111 1683 19 BROOKTREE CT 0.085217 Jun-92 $120,000 F $84 1422 7/312 74 P 112 1683 leg ATHERTON AV 0.052063 May-98 $137,000 F $96 1422 71312 74 P 113 1682 39 COVINGTON DR 0.044444 Apr-90 $149,500 F $103 1440 8/3/2 84 A 114 1682 74 SALISBURY DR 0.100000 Sep-90 $144,500 F $98 1468 814/2 74 115 1682 50 SAIJSBURY DR 0.054945 May-91 $155,000 F $105 1468 8/4/2 74 118 1682 102 ASBURY WY 0.106383 Oct-94 $134,000 F $91 1468 8/4/2 74 117 1682 30 DOVER CT 0.127660 Dec-94 $120,000 F $81 1468 8/412 74 P 118 1683 33 ORINDA CI 0.130435 Dec-92 $137,000 F $92 1477 813/2 76 119 1683 18 KINGSFORD CT 0.086957 Aug-92 $150,000 F $100 1492 8/4/2 74 120 1683 2 BROOKTREE CT 0.044444 Apr-90 $145,000 V $98 1497 8/4/2 74 121 1683 18 FAIRWAY CT 0.055556 May-90 $153,000 U $102 1497 9/4/2 76 122 1683 41 BROOKSHIRE CT 0.077778 Jut-90 $147,000 U $98 1497 8/4/2 76 123 1683 44 ORINDA CI 0.122222 Nov-90 $150,000 F $100 1497 9/412 76 124 1682 11 TEAL CT 0.065934 Jun-91 $153,000 F $102 1497 8/4/2 77 125 1683 2 PETAR LN 0.076923 Jul-91 $147,000 F $98 1497 8/4/2 76 P 126 1682 58 CHELSEA WY 0.120879 Nov-91 $132,000 V $88 1497 814/2 77 127 1682 57 CHELSEA WY 0.120879 Nov-91 $135,000 V $90 1497 8/412 78 128 1683 14 BROOKSHIRE CT 0.120879 Nov-91 $150,000 U $100 1497 8/4/2 76 S 129 16B3 23 PETAR CT 0.065217 Jur,92 $133,000 V $88 1497 814/2 77 130 1682 76 CHELSEA WY 0.065217 Jun-92 $145,000 F $96 1497 814/2 78 131 1683 2328 DOVER WY 0.119565 Nov-92 $148,500 F $99 1497 8/4/2 77 A 132 1683 2400 DOVER WY 0.130435 Dec-92 $125,000 F $83 1497 814/2 77 133 18-83 86 HUNTINGTON CI 0.032258 Mar-93 $129,000 F $86 1497 a/4/2 77 A 134 1682 85 ATHERTON CI 0.032258 Mar-93 $140,000 V $93 1497 814/2 77 S Exhibit E-8 Pittsburg- Comparable Neighborhood 1'/ Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 — Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 135 18-83 194 ATHERI ON AV 0.032258 Mar-93 $148,000 V $98 1497 7/4/2 74 S 136 18-83 64 ORINDA Cl 0.053763 May-93 $133,000 V $88 1497 7/3/2 76 P A 137 18.83 24 PETAR CT 0.096774 SW93 $146,000 V $97 1497 71412 76 A 138 18-83 11 ORINDA Cl 0.042553 Apr-94 $127,000 F $84 1497 8/412 76 A 139 18-83 132 RAVINE DR 0.074468 Jul-94 $135,000 V $90 1497 7/4/2 74 140 18-83 94 HUNTINGTON Cl 0.085106 Aug-94 $135,000 F $90 1497 8/412 77 141 18-83 30 ORINDA CT 0.085106 Aug-94 $140,000 F $93 1497 8/4/2 75 142 18-83 20 SAN CARLOS CT 0.095745 SW94 $115,000 F $76 1497 8/4/2 75 143 18-83 57 HUNTINGTON CI 0.127660 Dec-94 $140,000 F $93 1497 8/4/2 77 P 144 18.83 204 ALVARADO AV 0.021053 Feb-95 $110,000 F $73 1497 8/4/2 74 S 145 18-82 23 ATHERTON Cl 0.052632 May-95 $136,000 F $90 1497 8/4/2 77 146 18-83 217 ALVARADO AV 0.084211 Aug-95 $106,000 F $70 14S; 8/4/2 74 A 147 18$3 187 ATHERTON AV 0.094737 Sep-95 $137,500 F $91 1497 8/4/2 74 A 148 18-83 57 ORINDA Cl 0.052083 May-96 $138,000 F $92 1497 814/2 76 A 149 18-83 38 ORINDA CI 0.010526 Jan-95 $137,000 F $80 1893 9/4/2 78 150 18-83 2354 DOVER WY 0.085106 Aug-94 $137,500 V $77 1772 7/3/2 77 151 18-82 33 ATHERTON Cl 0.063158 Jun,% $166,500 F $91 1817 8/3/2H 77 P 152 18-83 37 ORINDA LN 0.084211 Aug495 $135,000 F $72 1870 9/4/2 74 A Example Comparison A $117 1,000 Example Comparison 8 $100 1,325 Example Comparison C $88 1,550 -A RwO m SFR Home Sales-Comparable Neighborhood 160 140 ■ ■ 120 — ■ Ci v ■ 100 ■ ■ �■ ■ ■ �. _ _ ■ w 60 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 - Home Size in Square Feel ■ Home Sales -.- Weighted Average Rate of Change Exhibit E-9 Pittsburg - Comparable;N�=rq Sales During January 1.99 Map 1,10. No, Address Raw Date Dale Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenihr 1 16.84 3751 CRESTVIEW D 0.062500 Jun-% $98,500 F' $81 1205 7/312 69 P 2 18.84 274 OLYMPIA DR 0.077778 Jul-90 $130,C00 V $104 1248 6/312 69 3 18-84 3760 CRESTVIEW D 0.130435 Dec-92 $125,000 F $100 1248 6/312 69 4 18-86 3977 ALTA VISTA 0.075269 Jul-93 $158,500 V $117 1334 8/312 86 P 5 18-84 228 MORI ST 0.055556 May-90 $145,000 F $107 1355 61312 68 6 18-84 3799 CRESTVIEW D 0.021978 Feb-91 $150,000 V $110 1355 7/3/2 69 A 7 18-134 207 MORI ST 0.010870 Jan-92 $130,000 F $95 1355 7/3/2 69 S 8 18-B4 275 PAPPAS ST 0.097826 Sep-92 $125,000 V $92 1355 8/312 69 9 18-84 3730 AUGUSTA DR 0.021505 Feb-93 $125,000 F $92 1355 7/3/2 68 10 18-84 3630 RIVERVIEW D 0.043011 Apr-93 $124,000 F $91 1355 6/3/2 68 1 i 18.54 3683 CRESTVIEW D 0.118280 Nov-93 $119,000 F $87 1355 7/3/2 68 12 18-64 3650 RIVERVIEW D 0.021277 Feb-94 $112,500 F $83 1355 7/3/2 68 13 18-84 3791 CRESTVIEW D 0.021277 Feb-94 $121,500 F $89 155 7/312 69 14 18.84 3711 ENEA DR 0.021277 Feb-94 $121,500 V $89 55 713/2 69 15 18484 3741 ENEA DR 0.085106 Aug-94 $117,000 F $86 355 7/312 69 18 18-84 3685 OLYMPIA Cl 0.010417 Jan-96 $128,000 F $94 1355 6/312 69 17 18.84 3781 ENEA OR 0.031250 Mar-98 $135,000 F $99 1355 7/3/2 69 P 18 18484 3780 AUGUSTA OR 0.052083 May-98 $124,000 F $91 1355 7/3/2 69 19 18-84 3760 RIVERVIEW C 0.054945 May-91 $143,000 F $104 1367 7/4/2 68 20 18.84 3740 RIVERVIEW C 0.032609 Mat-92 $138,500 F $101 1367 7/412 68 21 18-84 250 OLYMPIA DR 0.076087 J"2 $128,000 F $93 1367 7/4/2 69 22 18.84 3770 CRESTVIEW O 0.119565 Nov-92 $140,000 V $102 1367 7/4/2 69 23 1894 3840 RIVERVIEW D 0.053783 May-93 $140,000 V $102 1367 7/4/2 68 A 24 18-84 3738 ENEA DR 0.063158 Jun-95 $121,000 F $88 1367 7/4/2 69 25 18-84 3650 OLYMPIA Cl 0.064516 Jun-93 $144,000 F $98 1491 7/4/2 69 26 18484 3750 AUGUSTA DR 0.064516 Jun-93 $130,000 F $87 1491 8/4/2 69 27 18434 228 OLYMPIA DR 0.010417 Jan-96 $119,000 F $79 1491 8/4/2 69 28 18-84 3799 CHATWORTH S 0.096774 Sep-93 $148,000 V $97 1497 6/312 78 29 18.86 7 VISTA DIABLO 0.042553 Apr-94 $155,000 V $103 1497 7/312 76 30 18-65 1 CLAIRMONT PL 0.106383 Oct-94 $133,000 F $88 1497 7/312 77 31 18430 14 KINGSWOOD OR 0.127660 Dec-94 $132,500 F $68 1497 7/3x2 T7 A -> 32 18.86 2 BARCELONA CT 0.011111 Jan-90 $154,000 V $99 1550 813/2 76 A 33 18.84 3804 MALIBU PL 0.022222 Feb-90 $174,500 F $112 1550 8/3/2 78 34 15438 155 CASTLEWOOD D 0.033333 Mar-90 $160,000 V $103 1550 8/3/2 79 A 35 1886 9 LEMONWOOD PL 0.066667 Jun-90 $164,500 F $106 1550 8/3/2 76 A 38 18-84 327 KINGSBERRY P 0.066667 Jun-90 $170,000 F $109 1550 813/2 78 37 18434 340 HILLSDALE DR 0.066667 Jun-90 $170,000 V $109 1550 8/312 78 C 38 18$4 3817 MAI IBU PL 0.077778 Jui-90 $189,000 F $109 1550 8/3/2 78 P 39 18.86 290 KINGSBERRY P 0.010989 Jan-91 $171,500 F $110 1550 8/3/2 18 A 40 18.84 3793 CHATWORTH S 0.021978 Feb-91 $158,000 F $101 1550 8/3/2 78 A 41 18438 35 KINGSWOOD DR 0.032967 Mar-91 $163,000 F $105 1550 8/3/2 77 P 42 18-85 20 BUENA VISTA 0.043956 Apr-911 $150,000 F $98 1550 7/3/2 77 P A 43 18.84 313 KINGSBERRY P 0.054945 May-91 $167,000 U $106 15W 81312 78 44 18.86 8 KINGSTON PL 0.043478 Apr-92 $153,000 F $98 1550 8/312 78 45 18$8 125 CASTLEWOOD D 0.107527 Oct-93 $154,000 V $99 15W 7/3x2 79 P 48 1884 3810 CHATWORTH S 0.118280 Nov-93 $143,500 V $92 1550 7/312 78 47 18-84 3648 CHATWORTH S 0.010638 Jan-94 $153,000 F $98 15W 8/31 78 48 1886 305 ALTA VISTA 0.042553 Apr-94 $133,000 F $85 15W 8/3/2 78 49 18-86 5 NINA PL 0.074468 Jul-84 $121,000 F $78 1550 81312 76 50 1886 24 BUENA VISTA 0.065108 Aug-94 $145,500 V $93 15W 7/3/2 77 A 51 1886 2 NINA PL 0.065108 Aug-94 $150,000 F $96 1550 613x2 77 52 1886 4 PACINI AV 0.031579 Mar-95 $140,000 F $90 15W 3/2/1H 77 �+ 53 18-86 7 LEMONWOOD PL 0.052632 May-95 $141,500 F $91 1550 8/3/2 76 54 18.85 4 CASA VERDE WY 0.073684 Ju-95 $139,500 F $90 1550 8/3/2 78 55 18-68 24 KINGSWOOD DR 0.062500 Jun-96 $147,000 F $94 1550 8/312 76 56 18-86 3967 ALTA VISTA 0.044444 Apr-90 $187,000 F $120 1553 81312 86 A 57 18-85 3925 ALTA VISTA 0.119565 Nov-92 $158,500 F $100 1564 8/3/2 85 58 18-86 3921 ALTA VISTA 0.021505 Feb-93 $149,000 F $95 1564 8/3/2 86 59 18-65 3982 ALTA VISTA 0.075269 Ju03 $165,000 V $103 1593 9/3/2 85 60 18-86 3968 ALTA VISTA 0.010638 Jar,94 $153,500 V $96 1593 7/3/2 86 S 61 18-65 5 ALTA VISTA CT 0.053191 May-94 $150,000 V $94 1593 7/3/2 85 A 62 18$5 3978 ALTA VISTA 0.020833 Feb-96 $147,000 F $92 1593 9/3/2 85 63 18-85 3934 ALTA VISTA 0.097826 Sep-92 $175,000 F $109 1598 7/3/2 92 A 64 18$6 3859 CHATWORTH S 0.066667 Jun-90 $168,000 F $102 1634 8/3/2 78 65 18-88 4412 BUCHANAN PL 0.077778 Jul-90 $178,500 F $109 1634 8/312 79 A 66 18-86 3901 CHATWORTH S 0.087912 Aug-91 $155,000 F $94 1634 8/312 78 67 1885 25 SUNNYHILL WY 0.032609 Mar-92 $149,000 F $91 1634 8/3/2 77 68 18-84 3787 CHATWORTH S 0.021505 FW93 $137,000 F $83 1634 8/312 78 P " 69 18-85 308 CABRILLO PL 0.085106 Aug-94 $135,000 V $82 1634 7/4/2 78 70 18-85 2 DEL CERRO 0.010526 Jan-95 $152,000 F $93 1634 8/312 77 71 18-86 3 BUENA VISTA 0.063158 Jun-95 $152,000 F $93 1634 8/3/2 77 72 18-85 8 CASA VERDE WY 0.115789 Nov-95 $130,000 F $79 1634 8/3/2 77 P 73 18-85 3918 CHATWORTH S 0.010417 Jan-96 $130,000 F $79 1634 8/3/2 79 74 18-135 30 CASA VERDE WY 0.041667 Apr-96 $135,000 U $83 1634 81312 77 A 75 1864 3817 CHATWORTH S 0.031250 Mar-96 $142,000 F $86 1638 8/4/2 78 76 18-85 9 SUNNYHILL WY 0.084211 Aug-95 $153,000 F $93 1644 8/3/2H 77 A 77 18-88 171 ENCINAL PL 0.042553 Apr-94 $162,500 F $98 1650 6/3/2H 84 A 78 18.84 3829 CHATWORTH S 0.055556 May-90 $180,000 U $108 1659 8/3/2 78 A 79 18$5 28 CLAIRMONT PL 0.032258 Mar-93 $142,500 F $83 1698 8/4/2 78 A 80 18-85 3912 CHATWORTH S 0.075269 Jul-93 $157,500 V $92 1698 814/2 78 81 18-135 306 GRANITE PL 0.095745 Sep-94 $135,400 V $79 1659 71412 78 P 82 18-84 312 KINGSBERRY P 0.052083 May-96 $118,500 F $69 1698 7/4/2 78 A 83 18-84 311 HILLSDALE DR 0.021739 Feb-92 $160,000 F $93 1711 9/3/2H 78 __ 84 18-85 3991 ALTA VISTA 0.043478 Apr-92 $185,000 F $107 1716 9/4/2 86 A Exhibit E-9 Pittsburg - Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 85 18-86 301 ALTA VISTA 0.052632 May-95 $144,500 F $83 1731 8/3/2 78 88 18-88 2 CASTLEWOOD DR 0.066667 Jun-90 $140,000 F $78 1774 8/4/2 76 87 18-BB 172 ENCINAL PL 0.075269 Jul-93 $163,500 V $91 1778 7/3/2 84 A 88 18-84 3812 MALIBU PL 0.073684 Jul-95 $154,000 F $83 1841 9/4/2 78 A 89 18-88 4419 BUCHANAN PL 0.033333 Mar-90 $184,000 V $99 1844 9/4/2 79 P 90 18-88 4416 BUCHANAN PL 0.077778 Jul-90 $194,000 F $105 1844 9/4/2 79 91 18-85 6 VISTA DIABLO 0.122222 Nov-90 $190,000 V $103 1844 9/4/2 76 S A 92 18-85 14 BUENA VISTA 0.054945 May-91 $163,000 F $88 1844 9/4/2 77 93 18-88 18 KINGSWOOD DR 0.065934 Jun-91 $168,500 F $91 1844 9/4/2 76 P 94 18.85 8031 CRESTVIEW D 0.065934 Jun-91 $175,000 F $94 1844 9/4/2 77 95 18-86 301 GRANITE PL 0.065217 Jun-92 $167,000 V $90 1844 9/4/2 78 96 18-85 261 KINGSBERRY P 0.130435 Dec-92 $166,000 F $90 1844 9/4/2 76 97 ---86 2 CLAIRMONT PL 1075289 Jul-93 $160,000 V $86 1844 8/4/2 77 38 .-95 25 CLAIRMONT PL .021053 FW951 $167,500 F $90 1844 9/4/2 77 A 9S '6-84 3841 CHATWORTH S 0.094737 Sep,% $134,000 F $72 1844 9/4/2 78 A 100 18-84 3807 CANTERBERRY 0.020833 Feb-96 $140,000 F $75 1844 6/4/2 78 101 18.86 5 SUNNYHILL WY 0.020833 Feb-96 $158,000 F $85 1841 9/4/2 77 102 18-85 13 LEMONWOOD PL 0.041667 Apr-98 $152,000 F $82 1844 9/4/2 78 103 18.85 3910 ALTA VISTA 0.130435 Dec-92 $181,500 F $97 1658 10/4/2H 87 A 104 18-86 3916 ALTA VISTA 0.063830 Jun-94 $170,000 V $91 1856 8/4/21.1 87 A nd 105 18-85 3944 ALTA VISTA 0.041667 Apr-96 $179,500 F $96 1862 10/4/2H 86 A 108 18-88 4444 BUCHANAN PL 0.031579 Mar-95 $165,000 F $87 1886 7/3/2 83 A 107 18-88 4440 BUCHANAN PL 0.126316 Dec-95 $151,000 F $80 18W 9/312 83 A 108 18-88 8 CASTLEWOOC DR 0.133333 Dec-90 $181,000 U $95 1905 9/4/2 76 109 18-84 336 HILLSDALE DR 0.021978 Feb-91 $168,000 F $87 1915 10/4/2H 78 110 18-84 3840 CHATWORTH S 0.053763 May-93 $179,000 F $92 1940 10/4/2H 78 P 111 18488 166 ENCINAL PL 0.084211 Aug-95 $189,000 F $95 1978 10/4/2H 84 A 112 18-88 11 CASTLEWOOD DR 0.130435 Dec-92 $168,000 F $84 1990 9/3/2H 93 A 113 1"5 4 LEMONWOOD PL 0.032609 Mar-92 $161,500 F $80 2007 9/4/2 76 114 18-88 130 ENCINAL PL 0.044444 Apr-90 $199,000 F $97 2050 9/4/2 80 A 115 18.88 119 CASTLEWOOD D 0.118280 Nov-93 $167,000 V $79 2107 10/412H 79 » 118 18.85 3973 ALTA VISTA 0.064518 Jun-93 $185,000 F $87 2118 8/4/2H 86 A 117 15-86 3904 ALTA VISTA 0.052083 May-96 $175,000 F $82 2118 10/4/21-1 85 A 118 18-84 3800 HILLSDALE D 0.021277 Feb-94 $180,000 V $83 2160 10/4/2H 78 A '^q 119 18-85 3922 ALTA VISTA 0.076923 Jul-91 $220,000 F $100 2194 9/4/2H 86 A 9 120 18-85 3878 ALTA VISTA 0.010417 Jan-96 $163,000 F $73 2205 10/4/3 87 121 18-86 39W ALTA VISTA 0.041667 Apr-96 $159,000 F $72 2208 10/4/3 87 A 122 18-86 280 KINGSBERRY P 0.055556 May-90 $175,000 F $75 2332 11/4/2H 78 123 18-86 3930 CHATWORTH S 0.095745 Sep-94 $197,500 F $84 2332 11/4/2H 78 A . w 124 15-88 4130 CRESTVIEW D 0.086667 Jun-90 $215,000 V $90 2368 11/4/3 {r78 A 125 18-88 141 ENCINAL PL 0.119565 Nov-92 $215,000 F $87 2450 10/4/2H 80 PA Example Comparison A $97 1,400 Example Comparison B $93 1,650 Example Comparison C $89 1,900 PAW9 SFR Home Sales-Comparable Neighborhood -� 135 } 125 - U. ■ C 115 - • B X 105 - ■ ■ ■ ■ 4 85 - + ■ ■ ■ ___'_■' ■ ■ 75 - � n � ■ 65 • 1150 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 2450 2550 Home Size in Square Feet ■ Home Sales -•• Weighted Average Rate of Change 2 Exhibit E-10 Antioch- Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Bud Amenity 1 20-07 3013 CHERRY ST 0.076923 Jul-91 $116,500 V'"' $140 828 5/211 73 2 20-CT 3103 PERSIMMON S 0.063830 Jun-94 $81,000 F $97 828 4/211 75 3 20-C7 3001 S APPLE CT 0.041667 Apr-96 $83,500 F $100 828 5/211 74 4 20-07 3121 PERSIMMON S 0.052083 May-96 595,700 U $116 828 5/2/1 75 5 20-C7 3000 CHERRY ST 0.062500 Jun-96 $79,000 F $95 828 5/211 74 6 20-C7 3135 PERSIMMON S 0.021978 Feb-91 $131,500 F $121 1080 6/3/2 75 7 20-CT 3025 PEAR ST 0.054348 May-92 $127,000 F $117 1080 6/3/2 74 -� 8 20-C7 2912 PEAR ST 0.108696 Oct-92 $125,500 F $116 1060 6/312 72 9 20-07 2925 PEAR ST 0,010638 Jan-94 $105,000 F $97 1080 6/3/2 73 10 20-07 2901 CHERRY ST 0.021277 Feb-94 $112,000 V $103 1080 5/12 73 11 20-C7 2904 GARFIELD CT 0.010638 Jan-94 $115,000 F $102 1120 5/3/2 73 S 12 2047 2001 PUTNAM ST 0.031915 Mar-94 $107,500 F $95 1120 5/1? 74 -- 13 20-07 2209 PUTNAM ST 0.010417 Jan-96 $126,500 F $112 1120 5/3/2 74 14 20.07 3025 CHERRY ST 0.011111 Jan-90. $122,000 V $104 1172 5/3/2 74 15 20-C7 3005 PEAR ST 0.010989 Jan-91 $130,000 F s1f0 1172 513/2 74 A -� 16 20-07 3018 PEAR ST 0.107527 Oct-93 $115,000 F $98 117:? 5/3/2 74 17 20-C7 3021 S APPLE CT 0.021277 FW94 $109,500 V $93 1•" 6/3/2 73 18 20-07 3110 PINE ST 0.031915 Mar-94 $120,000 V $102 1172 5/12 75 19 20-M 3009 S APPLE CT 0.010526 Jan-% $105,000 V S89 1172 5/2/2 73 P 20 20.07 2909 PEAR ST 0.052632 May-95 $107,000 F $91 1172 5/3/2 73 21 20-07 2905 N APPLE CT 0.062500 Jun-96 $110,000 F $93 1172 5/3/2 74 22 20-W 3000 CLEVELAND P 0.107527 Oc(93 $128,500 F $103 1243 7/3/2 74 23 20-C7 3017 HARRISON PL 0.011111 Jan-90 $152,000 V $118 1288 7/3/2 74 24 20-07 2217 WASHINGTON 0.044444 Apr-90 $147,500 F $114 1288 7/3/2 73 25 20.07 2013 PUTNAM ST 0.044444 Apr-90 $155,000 V $120 1288 7/312 74 28 20-07 2911 GENTRYTOWN 0.088889 Aug-90 $148,000 V $114 1288 7/12 73 27 20-07 2204 BAKER CT 0.032967 Mar-91 $149,000 P $116 1288 7/3/2 73 28 20.07 3041 CLEVELAND P 0.021739 Feb-92 $118,500 F $92 1288 7/3/2 74 29 20-07 2213 PU?4AM ST 0.065217 Jun-92 $132,000 F $102 1288 7/3/2 74 P 30 20-07 2113 PUTNAM ST 0.097826 Sep-.92 $138,000 F $107 1288 7/3/2 75 A 31 20.07 2221 WASHINGTON 0.108696 Oct-92 $135,000 F $104 1288 7/312 73 32 20-07 2213 JEFFERSON W 0.129032 Dec-93 $125,500 F $97 1288 7/3/2 73 A 33 20-07 2214 PUTNAM ST 0.031915 Mar-94 $120,000 V $93 1288 613/2 74 34 20-07 2139 JEFFERSON W 0.042553 Apr-94 $132,500 V $102 1288 713/2 73 j 35 20.07 2028 PUTNAM ST 0.053191 May-94 $122,000 F $94 1288 7/3!2 75 38 20.07 3008 MADISON CT 0.074468 Ju1-94 $133,000 F $103 1288 7/312 74 e 37 20.07 2009 PUTNAM ST 0.074468 Jul-94 $128,000 F $99 1288 7/3/2 74 38 20-07 3025 CLEVELAND P 0.074468 Jul-94 $120,000 F $93 1288 7/3/2 74 39 20-07 2917 GARFIELD CT 0.052083 May-98 $107,000 F $83 1288 7/3/2 73 A 40 20-07 2929 N APPLE CT 0.053763 May-93 $120,000 F $88 1362 5/3/2 72 41 20.07 3020 S APPLE CT 0.041667 Apr-98 $116,500 F $84 1371 513!2 74 A 42 20-07 3112 POLK CT 0.033333 Mar-90 $137,000 F $96 1421 7/4/2 74 43 20.07 3024 HARRISON PL 0.076087 Jul-92 $153,000 F $107 1421 7/4/2 74 P 44 20.07 3005 HARRISON PL 0.097826 Sop-92 $160,000 F $112 1421 7/4/2 74 45 20-C7 3028 MADISON CT 0.130435 Doo-92 $130,000 F $91 1421 7/4/2 75 46 20-CT 2213 BAKER CT 0.032258 Mar-93 $138,000 F $97 1421 7/4/2 73 47 20.07 2206 BAKER CT 0.043011 Apr-93 $135,500 U $95 1421 7/4!2 73 48 20-CY 3013 CLEVELAND P 0.098774 Sop-93 $129,000 F $90 1421 7/4/2 74 49 20-07 3007 MADISON CT 0.126318 Doc-% $147,000 F $103 1421 7/4/2 74 7.1 50 20-07 2109 PUTNAM ST 0.041687 Apr-96 $136,000 F $95 1421 7/4/2 75 P 51 20-07 2131 WASHINGTON 0.062500 Jun-98 $120,000 F $84 1421 7/4/2 73 52 20-01 2909 GARFIELD CT 0.126316 Dec95 $105,000 F $72 1456 6/3/2 73 A 53 20-C7 3121 PINE ST 0.043478 Apr-92 $143,000 F $93 1524 6/3/2 75 54 20.01 29W GARFIELD CT 0.033333 Mar-90 $150,000 V $93 1605 7/412 73 55 20-C7 3001 MADISON CT 0.054348 May-92 $154,500 F $96 1605 7/4/2 74 56 20-C7 3012 MADISON CT 0.075269 Jul-93 $156,000 F $97 1605 714/2 74 57 20-07 3105 ADAMS CT 0.031915 Mar-94 $140,000 F $87 1605 7/4/2 74 P - 58 20-C7 2209 JEFFERSON W 0.085106 Aug-94 $127,000 F $79 1605 7/4/2 73 59 20-07 2201 BAKER CT 0.106383 Oct-94 $132,000 F $82 1605 7/4/2 73 60 20-07 3005 S APPLE CT 0.065934 Jun-91 $141,500 F $83 1697 7/12 73 61 20-C7 3017 CHERRY ST 0.053763 May-93 $125,000 F $73 1697 7/3/2 74 62 20-07 31)33 CHERRY ST 0.010638 Jan-94 $122,500 F $72 1697 6/3/2 73 63 20-07 3000 PEAR ST 0.053191 May-94 $126,000 F $74 1697 7/3/2 75 A 64 20-07 2901 N APPLE CT 0.042105 Apr-95 $123,000 F $72 1697 6/13 74 _. t Exhibit E-10 Antioch - Comparable Neighborhood Sales DuringJanuary 1990- June 1996 Map No No. Address Raw Date hate Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 65 20-07 3036 CHERRY ST 0.115789 Nov-95 $120,000 F $70 1697 7/312 75 66 20-C7 2910 CHERRY ST 0.041667 Apr-96 $120,000 F $70 1697 7/312 72 P 67 20-C7 3012 HARRISON PL 0.126316 DOC-95 $127,000 F $69 1838 7/3/2 74 Example Comparison A $101 1,200 Example Comparison B $93 1,400 Example Comparison C $85 1,600 Regg5 SFR Home Sales-Comparable Neighborhood 150 140 —■ A 130 — 120 — CL 100 "_■'j ■ ■ CL 90 — 80 70 — 1 ■ 60 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 Home Size in Square Feel ■ Home Sales .- Weighted Averacu Rate of Change r.� Exhibn E-11 Antioch- Comparable Neighborhood ` Sales During Januar" 1990-June 1996 Map • No. No, Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm,Count Yr,Built Amendy 1 20-C7 2413 CYPRESS ST 0.022222 FW90 $110,000 U $129 850 5/2/1 80 P 2 20•C7 2432 CYPRESS ST 0.044444 Apr-90 $117,500 V $138 850 5/2/1 80 3 20-C7 2421 SEQUOIA OR 0.120879 Nov-91 $121,000 V $142 850 512/1 80 4 20-CT 2355 CYPRESS ST 0.043478 Apr-92 $119,000 F $140 850 5/2/1 80 P 5 20-C7 2416 CYPRESS ST 0.054348 May-92 $119,500 V $140 850 5/2/1 80 6 20-C7 3116 PERSIMMON S 0.108696 Oct-92 $116,500 F $137 850 5!2/1 78 S 7 20-07 2453 CYPRESS ST 0.130435 Dec-92 $111,500 V $131 850 5/2/1 81 8 20-07 2313 CYPRESS ST 0.021505 Feb-93 $100,000 F $117 850 5/2/1 80 9 20-07 2425 CYPRESS ST 0.043011 Apr-93 $110,000 V $129 850 4/2/1 80 10 20.07 2321 REDWOOD DR 0.129032 DOC-93 $111,000 V $130 850 5/2/1 78 11 20-07 3118 HEMLOCK ST 0.031915 Mar-94 $106,000 V $124 850 4!211 78 12 20.07 2355 SEQUOIA DR 0.031915 Mar-94 $90,000 F $105 850 S/2/1 80 13 20-C7 2453 REDWOOD DR 0.053191 May-94 $105,000 V $123 850 5/2/1 81 A 14 20.07 2489 REDWOOD DR 0.053191 May-94• $107,000 V $125 850 5/211 81 A 15 20-07 2404 SEQUOIA DR 0.053191 May-94 $95,000 F $111 850 5!2!1 80 A 16 20.07 3104 CEDAR CT 0.063830 Jun-94 $108,000 V $127 850 5/2/1 81 17 20.07 3140 CEDAR CT 0.085106 Au¢94 $105,000 V $123 850 5/2/1 80 18 20-07 3104 ASH ST 0.063158 Jun-95 $91,000 F $107 850 4/2/1 78 A 19 20.07 2347 SEQUOIA DR 0.063158 Jun-95 $95,000 F $111 850 512/1 80 20 20.07 2445 SEQUOIA DR 0.084211 Aug-95 $95,000 F $111 850 STI 80 a 21 20-07 3274 MADRONE ST 0.094737 Sep-95 $92,000 F $108 850 5/2/1 78 22 2047 3132 PERSIMMON S 0.031250 Mar-96 $70,000 F $82 850 5/2/1 78 23 20-07 3253 MADRONE ST 0.082500 Jun-96 $100,000 F $110 904 61211 78 A '+ 24 20.07 2421 CYPRESS ST 0.022222 Feb-90 $125,000 F $118 1058 5/3/2 80 25 20.07 3266 MADRONE ST 0.033333 Mar-90 $129,000 V $121 1058 6/3/2 78 26 20.07 3113 CEDAR CT 0.088889 Aug-90 $134,500 V $127 1058 6/3/2 80 A 27 20-07 2403 CYPRESS ST 0.021978 Feb-91 $131,500 V $124 1058 6/3/2 80 28 20-CT 2433 REDWOOD DR 0.054945 May-91 $135,000 V $127 1058 6/3!2 81 P 29 20-07 2352 CYPRESS ST 0.065934 Jun-91 $130,000 F $122 1058 6/312 79 A 30 20-07 3110 CEDAR CT 0.076923 Ju191 $134,000 U $127 1058 6/3/2 80 31 2047 2333 REDWOOD DR 0.119585 NOV-92 $118,000 F $111 1058 6/3/2 78 y 32 20-07 2445 REDWOOD DR 0.130435 DOa92 $130,000 F $122 1058 6/3/2 81 33 20.07 2359 CYPRESS ST 0.021505 Feb93 $121,000 F $114 1058 6/3/2 79 K� 34 20-C7 3240 MADRONE ST 0.032258 Mar-93 $122,000 F $115 1058 6/3/2 78 35 20-M 2312 SEQUOIA OR 0.063783 May-93 $125,000 F $118 1058 6/3/2 79 36 20-C7 3209 OAK CT 0.075269 Jul-93 $118,000 F $111 1058 6r312 91 +s 37 20-07 3117 ASH ST 0.107527 Oct-93 $119,000 F $112 1058 6/3/2 78 38 20-07 2332 CYPRESS ST 0.107527 Oct-93 $117,000 V $110 1058 5/3/2 80 39 20-07 2421 PECAN ST 0.129032 Dee-93 $120,000 F $113 1058 6/3/2 81 P 40 20-07 3284 MADRONE ST 0.010638 Jan-94 $109,000 F $103 1058 5/3/2 78 41 20.07 2325 REDWOOD DR 0.010638 Jan-94 $112,000 F $105 1058 6/3x2 78 42 20-C7 2440 CYPRESS ST 0.031915 Mar-94 $107,500 F $101 1058 6/312 80 43 20.07 3212 OAK CT 0.053191 May-94 $114,000 V $107 1058 5/3/2 81 44 20.07 3254 MADRONE ST 0.063830 Jun-94 $118,500 V $110 1058 51312 78 P 45 20-CT 2417 CYPRESS ST 0.074468 Jul-94 $120,000 V $113 1058 5/312 80 48 20-C7 2444 SEQUOIA DR 0.074468 Ad-94 $115,000 F $108 1058 6/3/2 80 47 20.07 2337 CYPRESS ST 0.085108 AuQ94 $118,500 F $110 1058 61312 79 48 20-CT 2325 CYPRESS ST 0.031579 Mar-95 $98,500 F $93 1058 6/3/2 79 A 49 2C-C7 3208 OAK CT 0.073684 Ju195 $112,000 F $105 1058 61312 81 50 20-07 2341 CYPRESS ST 0.073684 Jul-95 $103,000 F $97 1058 613/2 79 51 20-07 3211 MADRONE ST 0.105283 Od95 $112,000 F $105 1058 613!2 78 P 52 20-07 3265 MADRONE ST 0.105263 Oct-95 $114,000 F $107 1058 6/312 78 "O 53 20-07 2380 SEQUOIA DR 0.105283 Oct-95 $108,000 F $102 1058 6/3/2 80 54 20.07 2457 REDWOOD DR 0.020833 Feb-96 $95,000 F $89 1058 6/3/2 81 55 20-07 2425 SEQUOIA OR 0.031250 Mar-96 $110,000 F $103 1058 6/3/2 80 58 20-07 3125 ASH ST 0.031250 Mar-96 $98,000 F $92 1058 6/3/2 78 57 20-07 3208 MUIR CT 0.041667 Apr-98 $85,000 F $8C 1058 6/3/2 31 A 58 20-07 2356 CYPRESS ST 0.041667 Apr-98 $80,000 F $75 1058 6/3/2 79 59 20-C7 2445 CYPRESS ST 0.066667 Jun-90 $134,000 V $119 1124 713/2 81 A 60 20-C7 2401 PECAN ST 0.122222 Nov-90 $135,000 F $120 1124 713/2 81 61 20-07 2460 CYPRESS ST 0.065934 Jun-91 5133,000 F $118 1124 7/312 80 P 62 20-C7 3284 MADRONE ST 0.131868 Dec-91 $127,000 V $112 1124 71312 78 63 20-C7 2461 SEQUOIA DR 0.010870 Jan-92 $128,'00 V $114 1124 7/3/2 80 64 20-C7 3140 ASH ST 0.032609 Mar-92 $130,000 V $115 1124 7/3/2 78 Exhibit E-11i Antioch - Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 -- Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Pnca/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity . 65 20-07 2920 MELON CT 0.065217 Jun-92 $130,000 V $115 1124 7/3/2 80 66 20-C7 3144 CEDAR CT 0.064516 Jun-93 $118,000 V $104 1124 6/3/2 81 67 20-C7 2340 SEQUOIA DR 0.010638 Jan-94 $120,000 V $106 1124 7/3/2 80 68 2O-CT 2473 REDWOOD DR 0.021277 Feb-94 $118,000 F $104 1124 7/312 81 69 20-C7 3299 MADRONE ST 0.020833 Feb-96 $95,500 F $84 1124 7/312 78 70 20-C7 2433 CYPRESS ST 0.062500 Jun-96 $115,000 F $102 1124 7/3/2 80 A 71 2O-C7 2425 PECAN ST 0.077778 Jul-90 $141,000 V $112 1256 6/2/1 81 A 72 20-C7 3212 MADRONE ST 0.077778 Jul-90 $133,500 F $106 1256 7/712 79 73 20-07 2356 SEQUOIA DR 0.010870 Jan-92 $125,000 F $99 1256 7/311 80 74 20-07 2441 SEQUOIA DR 0.032609 Mar-92 $126,000 V $100 1256 7/311 80 75 2O-C7 3,124 PERSIMMON S 0.054348 May-92 $125,000 V $99 1256 7/3/2 78 78 20-C7 3136 CEDAR CT 0.076087 Jul-92 $100,000 V $79 1256 6/2/1 80 77 20.07 2413 PECAN ST 0.130435 Dec-92 $130,000 V $103 1256 6/2/1 81 A 78 20.07 2460 SEQUOIA DR 0.043011 Apr-93. $126,500 F $ICO 1256 6/3(2 80 79 20-07 2436 SEQUOIA DR 0.043011 Apr-93 $125,000 V $99 1256 6/3/2 80 P 80 20-07 2348 CYPRESS ST 0.118280 Nov-93 $122,500 V $97 1256 5/2/1 80 A 81 20-07 2900 MELON CT 0.010638 Jan-94 $110,000 F $87 1256 7/3/2 80 82 20-07 2313 SEQUOIA DR 0.042553 Apr-94 $124,000 V $98 1256 7!312 80 83 20.07 3109 CEDAR CT 0.063830 Jun-94 $123,000 F $97 1256 7/3/2 81 A 84 20.137 3104 HEMLOCK ST 0.117021 Nov-94 $112,000 V $89 1256 6/3!2 78 85 2O-C7 3229 MADRONE ST 0.094737 Sep-95 $119,000 F $94 1256 7/312 81 86 20-07 2333 CYPRESS ST 0.062500 Jun-96 $122,000 F $97 1256 7/3/2 80 87 20-CT 3220 MADRONE ST 0.044444 Apr-90 $136,000 V $108 1259 7/3/2H 81 P 88 20-CT 3204 WAR CT 0.100000 Sep-90 $139,000 F $110 1259 7/312H 81 89 20-07 3113 ASH ST 0.111111 OCI-90 $138,500 F $110 1259 7/3/2H 78 90 2O-C7 2301 SEQUOIA DR 0.010989 Jan-91 $135,000 U $107 1259 7/312H 79 91 20-07 3112 PERSIMMON S 0.021978 Feb-91 $135,000 V $107 1259 7/312H 78 92 20-07 3112 HEMLOCK ST 0.065934 Jun-91 $137,000 V $108 1259 7/3/2H 78 93 20-07 2341 REDWOOD DR 0.065934 Jun-91 $131,000 V $104 1259 7/3f2H 78 94 20.07 2301 CYPRESS ST 0.076087 14 412 $135,000 F $107 1259 7/3/21-1 80 A 95 20-07 3128 PERSIMMON S 0.108698 Oct 92 $122,000 F $98 1259 7/3/2H 78 96 20-07 3117 CEDAR CT 0.042553 Apr-94 $125,000 F $99 1259 7/3/2H 80 97 20-07 2432 REDWOOD DR 0.083830 Jun-94 $124,000 V $98 1259 6/3/2H 81 98 2O-CT 2368 SEQUOIA DR 0.063830 Jun-" $136,000 P $108 1259 7/3/2H 80 A 99 2O-C7 3293 MADRONE ST 0.074468 Jul-94 $121,000 F $96 1259 7/3/2H 78 100 2O-C7 2452 CYPRESS ST 0.042105 Apr-95 $122,500 F $97 1259 7/3/2H 80 101 20-07 3103 HEMLOCK ST 0.083158 Jun-95 $100,000 F $79 1259 7/3/2H 78 102 20.07 3205 OAK CT 0.041667 Apr-96 $107,000 F $84 1259 7/3/2H 81 103 2O•C7 3116 ASH ST 0.062500 Jun-96 $102,000 F $81 1259 7/3/2H 78 104 20.07 3011 MADISON CT 0.032258 Mar-93 $140,000 F $95 1465 7!212 179 Example Comparison A $120 860 Example Comparison B $110 1,065 ' Example Comparison C $100 1,250 RWO SFR Home Sales-Comparable Neighborhood 190 IN - LL B o m 130 - c120 - ---•--�-._.`may _ y 110 - ' ■ a - -� 100 - ■ - _- - 1 ■ y 90 - ■FA _ 70 - 900 900 1000 1100 1200 1900 1400 1500 - 1-600 Home Size in Square Feet ■ Home Sales •-- Weighted Average Rate of Change ExNbu E-12 Antioch -Comparabls Neighborhood �- Sales During January, 1990 -June 1996 Map No. No. Address Raw Date Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 1 21-07 2701 COUNTRYWOOD 0.055556 May-90 $116,000 F`"' $115 1006 6/2/2 84 P 2 21-07 1317 SHADDICK DR 0.066667 Jun-90 $122,000 V $121 1006 6/2/2 84 3 21-07 2814 COUNTRYWOOD 0.111111 Oct-90 $130,000 V $129 1006 6/2/2 64 4 21-07 1200 ALMONDWOOD 0.133333 Dec-90 $132,000 V $131 1006 6!2/2 84 S 5 21-07 1246 ALMONDWOOD 0.032609 Mar-92 $120,000 V $119 1006 6/2/2 84 P 6 21-07 2907 HARBOUR DR 0.053763 May-93 $130,000 V $115 1130 5/3/2 77 7 21-07 3000 HARRIS DR 0.031915 Mar-94 $137,000 F $117 1164 813/2 84 8 21-07 1463 MELLISSA CI 0.031579 Mar-95 $134,000 F $115 1164 8/3/2 64 9 21-C7 1226 ALMONDWOOD 0.064516 Jun-93 $140,000 V $112 1244 7/3r2H 84 10 21-07 1115 BOND CT 0.010753 Jan-93 $135,000 F $106 1266 7/3/2 75 P 11 21-07 1120 BOND CT 0,052083 May-96 $115,000 F $90 1266 7/3/2 75 12 21-07 3012 HARBOUR DR 0.077778 Jul-90 $165,000 F $125 1317 7/312 77 13 21-C7 1116 DANBURY CT 0,043011 Apr-93 $148,000 P $112 1317 8/3/2 77 14 21-07 2919 HARBOUR DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $148,000 F $110 1317 8/312 77 A 15 21-07 1105 BOND CT 0.022222 Feb-90 $155,500 F $111 1394 8/3/2 75 S 18 21-07 1101 SHADDICK DR 0,087912 ALV-91 $156,000 F $111 1394 7/3/2 75 17 21-07 1100 SHADOICK DR 0.130435 Dec-92 $136,500 F $97 1394 8/3/2 75 ., 18 21-C7 1119 BOND CT 0.053191 May-94 $160,000 V $114 1394 813/2 75 P 19 21-07 1409 MILLISSA CI 0043478 Apr-92 $189,500 F $119 1416 91312 84 20 21-07 3004 HARRIS DR u.074468 Jul-94 $159,000 F $112 1416 913/2 84 21 21-07 1229 ALMONDWOOD 0.055558 May-90 $130,000 V $91 1424 7/31H 81 22 21-07 1405 MILLISSA CI 0.088889 Aug-90 $162,500 V $112 1440 9/3/2 84 23 21-07 1430 MELLISSA CI 0.130435 Dec-92 $160,000 F $111 1440 9/3/2 84 P 24 21-07 1437 MELLISSA CI 0.043011 Apr-93 $140,000 V $97 1440 7/3/2 84 25 21-07 1008 CAYES CT 0.021978 Feb-91 $170,000 F $116 1464 8/3/2 77 28 21-07 3000 HARBOUR DR 0.031579 Mar-95 $130,000 F $88 1464 9/4/2 77 27 21-07 1249 ALMONDWOOD 0.115789 Nov-95 $120,000 F $79 1512 7/3/2H 81 28 21-07 1237 ALMONDWOOD 0.066667 Jun-90 $139,000 F $91 1527 7/312H 81 29 21-07 1205 ALMONDWOOD 0.076087 Ju4-92 $130,000 F $85 1527 7/3/21-1 81 30 21-07 1111 BOND CT 0.077778 Jul-90 $169,000 F $110 1536 814/2 75 31 21-07 1101 BOND CT 0.075269 Ju1-93 $152,000 F $98 1536 8/4/2 75 A 32 21-07 1001 CAYES CT 0.032258 Mar-93 $150,000 V $95 1565 7/3/2 77 P 33 21-07 1408 MELLISSA CI 0.131868 Dao-91 $189,000 F $120 1568 81312 82 34 21-07 2805 HARRIS DR 0.117021 Nov-94 $150,000 F $95 1568 8/3/2 82 A 35 21-C7 1212 SHADDICK DR 0.055558 May-90 $140,000 F $89 1569 7/312H 82 A 36 21-07 3112 BARMOUTH DR 0.098901 Sep-91 $170,000 F $107 1579 7/312 76 P 37 21-07 3204 BARMOUTH DR 0.020833 Feb-96 $125,000 F $79 1579 8/3/2 79 38 21-07 1314 PROVENCE CT 0.100000 Sep-90 $193,000 F $121 1593 8/3/2 79 P 39 21-07 1300 PROVENCE CT 0.052832 May-95 $128,000 F $80 1593 8/3/2 79 C 40 21-07 3212 BARMOUTH DR 0.010989 Jan-91 $170,000 F $108 1603 813/2 79 A 41 21-07 3116 BARMOUTH DR 0.085217 Jun-92 $168,000 F $104 1806 7rV2 76 42 21-07 3001 BARMOUTH DR 0.118280 Nov-93 $168,000 V $103 1609 7/3/2 78 P 43 21-07 1336 A1AONOW00D 0.055556 May-90 $128,500 F $79 1619 8/3/2H 85 A 44 21-07 2729 COUNTRYWOOD 0.098901 Sa"1 $150,000 F $92 1619 8/3/2H 82 45 21-07 2725 COUNTRYWO00 0.075269 Jul-93 $153,500 F $94 1619 8/3I2H 82 46 21-07 1333 SHADDICK DR 0.095745 Sep-94 $125,000 F $77 1819 8/3/2H 84 P 47 21-07 1230 ALMONDWOOD 0.054348 May-92 $153,000 F $94 1623 8/3/2H 84 48 21-07 1222 ALMONDW000 0.053191 MW-94 $140,000 F $86 1823 8/312H 84 49 21-M 2804 COUNTRYWOOD 0.094737 SW-95 $128,000 F $77 1623 arsm 84 A cT 50 21-07 2820 COUNTRYWOOD 0.052083 May-98 $130,000 F $80 1623 8/3/2H 84 A 51 21-07 1125 SHADDICK DR 0.074468 .14-94 $134,000 F $80 1658 7/312 75 52 21-07 1108 SHADDICK DR 0.127680 Doc-94 $144,000 V $86 1658 7/4/2 75 53 21-07 3137 BARMOUTH DR 0.020833 Feb-98 $153,000 F $91 1666 9/4/2 79 P 54 58-01 2426 SHELBOURNE 0.097826 Sep-92 $178,000 F $101 1756 8/3/2 93 55 21-07 1530 MELLISSA CI 0.033333 Mar-90 $203,000 V $114 1771 10/4/2 85 56 21-07 1508 ALEXIS CT 0.107527 Oct-93 $189,000 V $95 1771 8/412 86 57 21-07 1501 MELLISSA CT 0.105263 Oct-95 $158,000 F $89 1771 101412 85 P A 58 21-07 1548 MELLISSA CI 0.052083 May-96 $166,000 F $93 1771 1014/2 85 A 59 21-C7 3009 HARRIS DR 0.041667 Apr-96 $161,000 F $89 1791 10/4/2 85 60 21-07 3105 ASHLEY WY 0.021277 F91>94 $169,000 V $94 1794 9/412 79 S 61 21-07 1400 HARRIS CT 0.064516 Jun-93 $172,000 V $95 1801 8/4/2 82 A 62 21-07 1517 ALEXIS CT 0.130435 Dec-92 $156,000 F $86 1812 9/3/2H 87 - 63 21-07 1100 NEAR CT 0.100000 Sep-90 $189,000 F $104 1814 6/3/2H 79 A 64 21-07 1416 MELLISSA CI 0.065217 Jurr92 $188,000 F $101 1858 11/4/21-1 84 P 65 58-01 2442 SHELBOURNE 0.108696 Oct-92 $184,000 F $98 1862 914/2 93 66 21-07 1211 CHELSEA CT 0.065217 Jun-92 $177,000 F $95 1863 9/4/2H 78 A 67 21-C7 3113 TALBOT WY 0.105263 Oct-95 $159,500 F $84 1892 9/4/2 79 68 21-C7 3055 BARMOUTH DR 0.043011 Apr-93 $199,500 F $105 1898 8/312 77 P 69 21-C7 1512 PAUL CT 0.054945 May-91 $206,000 F $105 1945 91312H 85 P 70 21-07 1512 MELLISSA CT 0.031915 Mar-94 $180,000 V $92 1945 7/312H 86 P 71 21-C7 1116 NEAH CT 0.054945 May-91 $185,000 F s90 2044 10/4/2H 79 72 21-C7 1417 MELLISSA CI 0.010753 Jan-93 $187,000 F $88 2116 10/412 82 A 73 21-C7 1412 MELLISSA CI 0.021053 Feb-95 $180,000 F $85 2116 10/4/2 82 74 21-C7 1534 MELLISSA CI 0.077778 JUI-90 $235,000 V $110 2123 10/4/2H 85 75 21-C7 1514 MELLISSA CT 0,111111 Oct-90 $205,000 V $96 2123 10/4/2H 85 P 76 21-C7 1517 PAUL CT 0.021277 Feb-94 $207,000 F $97 2123 101412H 85 P 77 21-07 3047 BARMOUTH DR 0.043011 Apr-93 $184,000 F $86 2135 10/4/2H 77 A 78 21-C7 1219 MARCUS CT 0.042553 Apr-94 $195,000 V $90 2158 814/2H 76 P Exhibit E-12 Antioch - Comparable Neighborhood Sales During January 1990 - June 1996 -71 Map Vj No No Address Raw Dale Date Sale Price Price/SF SF Rm.Count Yr.Built Amenity 1 79 21-07 2822 HARRIS DR 0.074468 Jul-94 $184,000 F $84 2173 10/412 82 PA 80 21-07 3020 BARMOUTH DR 0.033333 Mar-90 $240,000 V $107 2231 10/3r2H 77 P 81 58.01 2446 SHELBOURNE 0.119565 Nov-92 $215,000 V $95 2252 9/3/3 93 P 82 58-01 2454 SHELBOURNE 0.119565 NOV-92 $220,500 F $97 2252 91313 93 A rsJ 83 58-01 2422 SHELBOURNE 0.130435 Dec-92 $215,500 F $95 2252 9/313 93 P 84 58-07 2434 SHELBOURNE 0.010753 Jan-93 $207,000 F $91 2252 913/3 93 85 21-07 3013 HARRIS DR 0.021739 Feb-92 $186,000 F $82 2257 1014/21-1 85 86 21-07 3025 HARRIS DR 0.126316 Dec-95 $178,000 F $77 2257 10/4/2H 85 A 87 21-07 3016 HARRIS OR 0.041667 Apr-96 $160,000 F $70 2257 10/4/2H 85 88 21-07 1216 CHELSEA CT 0.076087 Jut-92 $217,000 F $93 2332 10/4J2H 79 P 89 21-07 1311 PROVENCE CT 0.042105 Apr-95 $205,000 F $87 2132 10/4/2H 79 P 90 21-07 1107 CARDIFF CT 0.053763 May-93 $202,500 F $86 2348 11/4/2H 79 A 91 58-01 2437 SHELBOURNE 0.108698 Oct-92 $218,000 F $91 2391 1014/3 93 92 50-01 2430 SHELBOURNE 0.130435 Dac-92 $219,000 F $91 2391 10/4/3 93 93 58-01 2449 SHELBOURNE 0.130435 DOC-92 $222,500 F $93 2391 10/4/3 93 94 58.01 2438 SHELBOURNE 0.053763 May-93 $221,000 F $92 2391 101413 93 A 95 21-07 1505 PAUL CT 0.055556 MOY-90 $245,000 V $101 2412 1014/2H a6 C 98 21-C7 1501 PAUL CT 0.098901 Sep-91 $205,000 F $84 2412 10/4/2H 86 P 97 21-07 1208 MARCUS CT 0.119565 Nov-92 $250,000 F $97 2577 11/413 77 CA Example Comparison A $103 1,450 Example Comparison B $98 1,750 Example Comparison C $93 2,000 R&W10 SFR Home Sales-Comparable Neighborhood 140 130 — A a 1120 — ■ ■' 110 — ''� ■ �` in ■ ■ ■ ■ .J a 100 — ■ :'�–+�_'■■ 8 ® ' ■ 90 — ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ 80 — ■ MINI ■ ■ 70 — B ■ 69 850 950 1050 1150 1250 1350 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 2450 2550 2650 2750 Home Size in Square Feet ■ Home Sales --Weighted Average Rate of Change z 1 a � 0 o� q ;otX X e W n N m ax0 H n o c?r o o q q o o Y '4 c 7e ae ae ae;e ae ae,e;e ,e;e ae ae;e ae ae�_ae ae ae;e ;e ae ae ae ;e ae-e X ae X�R rA �(DQ� p(7d al'1 �W P7O W A d Np t7 (7Opp ASS CO I.- N"' (O a D A S O W W � I �O Y d 0� d A A S S m co d S N W N O a 0 a �?1pp�pp6 pr qpp? m S QQ ppM Oppd O Nps pNOp� 171?9 pNp?po Op-Q NC?t7 �IQ p?QpA (afO �O Sp0 OAS NOO OOh •!f�L:N Q(O ANti nNA O�O ooG c00 _ co OOW// N d�O N a Z N f 1nH N S�D W O d Cl) C ♦ O N a. (D aqW S NNN NNH NHN � H NN � N H�� _ KXwN 6-1, KXNN NHN i�Y;v `sp°max p�p� �p�p�pm0 p0 CD pp a0co0 8 ass t0 tD(O t9 t9 l�f N S 2 Yf�� b a b �W OD 1�t�A �t0� tD tO lO t fO fD a C•_ NNN NNN NNH N N N N NN N H H N N H NNN N N N N H N N N N N N N ,.a SCLg HN�p(Opr - 5 SS1f11p C-4 ��� O�!AOpW (NyO�ANAS g�Vh� Rm (DV - v - a� k' . aD(Dd C V N n"1 Yh H N N N N N N N N H N N N N N N N V!H N N N N N N N N NN N N N 8 p g8 QQQQ 8 p p8 8 O {{OpD�aD� fD �D O df iY7f��p DApAy�opp� (pOa� tiS O W W O o®�Qja^ O h YA rm taaD - NHN N N N HHN N N~ NNN N N N N N�% W)W2 H N H N N �1 (A cot X faapt at eipt ie�R it X yi t*a�;9 aR ippR��Xpp 0 �R gyp aA �e.14 3e aR A A �C 3pe�2 ;ot 2R a aR aR X �• NtD� �tD tD Nf NaD Na0^ a'f a9O Ss" OAOW 8d� MUM .g$g OaAnr 00V v Com, a� i+iq.- cp�iaQ riccq ncne qq� i:<Q.- iri�N o�N e:Qq nodi n�4°t ��4°1 Q _to H v Y �app S!S W 1p N dd .f of �p pp 0 as N N NNH M N N N N M H N N N H NMN N N N v $N dM{� MpNr�N� sZDMSHDNO N2HA N8 iT♦OA/Na'f �OoNf ONl LA N�^� +n f�f t0 t0 t�'D)NN^NO <DWfO NaNo 1982 . aC �O8 V• O �8eggO 0 O MNNNNNN NNNN 4* 4* ""NN NN N NNNM NZ; Z; MNNM C� Sun uu u L dK$nS?v 2(�nma Kz(s-(-D K9�(�i� `�i .#DY(�aoAOA �i�� L�DNai� K#Da°asa'�Da y NNN NH NN fA 1/f40W NNNN 40 &4 44 N NNNN *9NHH NNNN *4 ft 4,'41, NNHCD UN 0 ciOO Off�lO�► aN0O O thU O ' W �N t�0 W <cif^ 3O W �O tf �V Od ON7_ ^7OY �Lp P. W W �A W m l�W W KO W W 0 KO m(D co ��A. =D 06 as W m O .:(r W(O Gl M O N <O W a0 m h W W aO i• 7 01't7 S MM S 10NN S WS('7 AWm ZO W V W W d W W(D Ow S W W W LNpMSd Yp t7Sd �Dp @ A A A A Lp ap(p A AAA A A #AAA A N'A A A! AAA �p A A A Q/W W W LAW W O r m LLKO d p W N W N A N(D W NNN W d O O N d L p O Krip.d}Y 7 O t'7 Q y d.dp �_f N N O Q d KD N N ((OO t+f [VNNS LY•Df S t0(O� (nS NOD aD �ddSd Yy�f dd♦ �dd (O (D U Y O m o , c w o __c �' m cV m �a c (`� m m m m � m E � myE o m � p mcc cmcm sm ° cc° m acc° mmoy m a m E—r m v c 3 p o o c y a m 3 c Emma m $— m m n C. m U �U 3 C G u S Y ""' a m V m cr a m 0 C m H V U.m C D Y U J m E �00� V')2' � QU lump -6 co m > >� may_ c� apO m�N a�JVfS 3 3 3mm m nt — mm m ALO CD a0 O l�(O(D d C A d_co 40'� � S 1Y lO W Vl N(D d (p pp T=(D A O A S �p y A O 7 N N d N p OfM W N Nl7 W V(O Nt+f�cD 00,> W N :vd LN N N d N(I W Nf0d W N N W �{d(D V N 7 gfdd D v M Nal r N/7 r (7 N/@@7 NO> �-N(7 N@ 01 r Nt'f '-N(�f e-NNl7 NgM O a D 3 aa 3 m m Oa 37 U.m D dm $ d a m a s a - 020 a 2:3 G 3 m m 3 � y L° mac � � gm � � @ in � eL ��� a.FL aaa aaa masa � aaa � �� maa� aaa maga baa Landtet:Keller Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable t Ad)ust. Comparable 2 Ad)ust. Comparable 3 Ad)ust. Address: 2288 Jacqueline 1418 A4ondarrs P1. 3828 Cyprus Way 1744 Sycamore Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Setler KBD Smith Clan Hal _J Dyy,r Miller (door Scott Rodriquez Sale PrIce: $180,000 $155,000 $159,000 5137,300 Document: 15984-289 15832-402 15940-421 i6176-M Price Per SF Home: $112.99 $103.98 5111.81 $107.00 Adler P: .gale Data: 07109/DO 02/01/90 $0 08f22/90 $0 10111/90 $Q Ftnrrolr Types Typical $0 Typical $0 Types $0 i 91le Stas on: 8,000 7,300 $300 9,000 ($1,000) 8,413 ($300) Vbw A,,,wd)r Toe Berm/Front Yard None $0 None $0 None $o Yew Bust: 1988 1983 $1,500 1973 $8,500 1975 $5,500 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 gloom Count: 3/2 312 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bedroome/Baft) Homs Size(SF): 1,418 1,491 ($1,875) 1,422 (5150) 1,472 (51,100) M.Gerape Spsoa: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 M.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 30 $0 $0 Cenral CenUW 50 Carded Cenfral A? t wWM:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KCI-00 Impact of Landfill Proximity I11m Index Sale Comparable 1 Adam. Comparable 2 Agh!!j Comparable 3 AdN@L ldroond8lorft Central central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Property Cond8lon: Averape Averape $0 Average $0 Averepe $0 Dwta1 CuWW Averepe Averape $0 SI.Interior $1,500 Averape $0 Yard Improvements: Poot None None $0 NOM $0 Mone $0 Fw cft Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 LarldanPkw Avorape Av raps $0 Average $0 Average $0 Patio: Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 Ya $0 'Other Features: NA NA $0 WA $0 WA $0 Oonckni ns .y <iroea Prlos Difference: ($5.000) ($1.000) ($2,MM Before AdJu bmft Pwowd ps Difference: -323% -0.63% -1.b07i yi fret AdAmbnente: $125 $8,850 $3,800 Net Prim Difference: ($1,875) $5,850 $1,100 After AdXntrnents A4 Price of Comp.: $155,125 $185,850 $181,100 Price of Index Sale: $160,000 $160,000 $180,000 : ($1,875) $5,850 $1.100 i Paresntaps Difference: -0.11% 3.53% 0.88% t.wWM:Kara canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity "M Index Sale Co le 1 must Co le 2 AdJust. Com le 3 r Address: 2287 Mt.Whitney 1418 Mondene Pl. 3828 Cypress 1741 Sycamore Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg ,salla. Harrelson Amador (mon Had .J Chang Cox Scott RodrIgLw J Sala Pricy. $188,000 5155,000 $159,000 $157,500 Document: 15982.883 15832-402 15940-421 18178-US ?rba Par SF Homo: $118.84 $103.08 $111.81 $10;.00 v Adl wbr-ts ,sale Wda: 07103/90 02/01/90 $0 08122/90 $0 10111/90 $o Fhwwbv. Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 Ss Stm(SF): 7,938 7,300 $500 0,000 ($1,000) 8,416 ($5pp) coma Interior Intodor View Amenity: Footless Nona $0 Nona $0 Nona S0 Yaw Burt: 1988 1983 $1,500 1973 $8,500 1975 $5,500 ,stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 S0 Ttoorn Count: 312 312 $0 312 312 S0 (Bedtoo►m/Batta) tlomsSize(SF): 1,418 1,491 ($1,875) 1,422 ($150) 1,472 ($1,400) ft.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 S0 -- No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 HaalM►9: Central central $0 central $0 Central S0 t.arndW Ke6er canyon Comparable Sates Analysis KC2-90 Impact of Landfill Proximity Meru Indus Seta Comparable 1 yj2q, Compareble 2 AdJuet. Comparabla 3 AdJwL Airconditlordnp: Norio Yee ($1,000) central ($1,000) central (=1,000) �mpaAy condition: Average Average $0 Average Average DvMY Oua1W. Average Average $0 Si.Inferior $1,500 Average so Yard Impuvamants. r PC,* None None $0 NOM $0 None $0 i Fencing: Yee Yee $0 Yea $0 Yee , landsoapkp: Average Average $2,500 Average $1,500 Average $2,000 1 "+ Patb: Yw Yea $0 Yes $o Yes $0 .a Dthw Feedsas: NA NA $0 WA $0 WA $0 Concknione 1 <iroaa Price Drbrarnoe: (113,000) ($9.000) (110,600) 1 .,3 Beton AdjuetnreMs 1Peroerdape Difference: 4.39% -5,68% 4.67% .Not AdJwbnents: $1,625 $7,350 $4,600 Not Price Difference: ($11,375) ($1,850) (66 900) After AdAntnnerds Adl.Price of Comp: $156,625 $168,350 $162,100 fMce of Index Sale: $168,000 $168,000 6168,000 ' ..] ON}erance: ($11,375) ($1,650) ONO) i Parentage Difference: -7.26% -0.99% -3.64% U WW.Kellar Conlon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Ind"Sale Comparable 1 Adjust Comganbla 2 Adjud. Comparable s A** A"re": 2230 DeffodH 1447 Oakmont Place 4314 DION Wy 1918 HOaftrwocd Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Seller NA NA Cantrall AgM over: GabrleYHemandaz DaggW Sed8es/Cotto Moon _. Sale Pte: $184,000 $168,000 $175,000 5188,000 Document 15888.482 15800-689 15998-187 15820358 Price Per SF Home: $101.88 $103.38 $105.17 $96.00 Adjusters•a Sale Deb: 05r3W90 01!20/90 $0 07/20/90 $0 a 04rx 0 $0 V fkwr . Typical Typical $0 Typicd $0 Typkat 0 - gp Stits(BF): 7,000 8,820 ($1.500) 7,062 $0 9,516 ($2,500) ylowAmenity. Park/FNone $2.500 Low Level Real $0 None $2.500 Power Ll es/Towers Yw suit 1985 1982 $1,500 1982 $1,600 1975 $5,000 3tdlee: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Const: 312 W2 $0 312.5 ($1,000) 412 (j9.ppp) (aedroorre/Batla) Y }lobe Size(SF): 1,610 1,825 ($375) 1,664 ($1,350) 1,898 ($2200) No.Ganga Spec": 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Nom: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 LwAN:War Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis ` KC340 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ibm Indy Sale le 1 Adjust. Co le 2 AdW. Comparable S I JlkowWWoning: central I Central $0 Central $0 Central SO -- i Property Condition: Average I Average $0 Average $0 Average 30 I OM"01aw. Average Average $0 A-rape $0 Average $0 Yard krptovernanb: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ,J PO4* NOM None $0 None $0 None $0 Fencing: Ya Yee $0 Yee $0 Yee $0 urdecq*w. Average Avenge $0 Average $0 Avenge $0 .K,.a Pdb: Ya Ya 50 Ya $0 Ya $0 0,00W Features: NA NA $0 WA $0 WA $0 Conckolone flna Pdw Olfferenoe: $4.000 $11,000 (j1,000) ... Before AdAmbnente Percentage Difference: 2.38% 8.29% ' -0.81% I Not Ad)Adnw rde: $2,125 ($850) (32gp) I I Net Price Difference: $8,125 $10,150 (31 200) Affer AdAwMwft Adt Price of Comp: 5170,125 $174,150 i 3182 800 Price of Index Sale: $154,000 $184,000 $184,000 'JChrence $8,125 $10,150 (51,200) 1031ereentage Difference: 3.80% 5.83% -0.74% LandW Kehr Canyon Comparable Safes Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 AdJusL Comparable 2 AdJusL Comperabb 3 AA :.i Address; 2187 Sugartne 3928 Meadowbrook CW 930 Gokbnleaf way 19 Sandlewood _ PIttsburg Pittsburg Plttsburg Pittsburg Sew. Demastus Newsome NA Bsmgrc&w 011yer Alexander Kirkpatrick PradolSwarat Aamodt ,._.j Sam Pyla: $/38,950 $132,000 :134.500 $140,000 Document 15898$54 18003,238 155663 15874-784 1Prla Par SF Home: $140.07 $133.08 $135.68 $141.99 Ad)wtmeMe Sam Data: 08f04MI 07/24/90 $0 07/31/90 so OW23/90 $0 0 nnanft: Typlow Typical $0 Typkatl $0 rypleal so Sim an cwt 8,540 8,1100 $500 8.100 S60o 5.588 $1,000 Interior Interior Corner interior ! yip Atr sw. Freeway None $0 None $0 None s0 Year suit 1980 1978 $1,000 1978 $1,000 1973 s3 600 �. StoAp, 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 s0 doom count 3/1 3/1 $0 3/1 $0 3/1 s0 +,Bedkoonq/Batln) 1 Ionto SW(SF): 992 992 $0 992 $0 988 $150 No.Garage Spam: 2 2 $0 2 so 2 so No.Fireplaces: 1 0 $1,000 0 $1.000 0 l $1.000 'Ll"ling: Central Central $0 Central so Central so Landfill:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC4-90 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ibm Index Sala Comparable 1 Ad uaL Comparable 2 Adjust. Co ruble 3 Ad Alroondkloabtg: Central Central $0 Well $500 Wall $500 7roperty Condltlon: Average Average $o Average $0 Average $0 am"ouawf.. Average Avenge - $0 Average $0 Average Yard Improvenwnte: Poot None None $0 None $o None 110 Fendnp: Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 Ya so Landscaping: Average Average $0 None $1,500 Average $0 ^� Patb: Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 Ya $0 »UK FeebAw NA NA $0 NA $0 NA $0 t Conclusions - am PAba Drt*wgw ($5,950) ($4,450) $1.050 IBelbn AdjustnanIe Velow""prterenom: -5.27% -3.31% 0.75% IHd Ad)ulmenb: $2,500 $4,500 $5.150 Nd Price OWerence: ($4,450) $50 $7,200 AW Adp9mente A4 Prbe of Comp: $134,500 $139,000 $140,150 Price of Index Sale: $138,950 $138,950 $138,950 DMbranq: ($4.450) $50 $7,200 Reye Difference: -3.31% 0.04% 4.93% Lance Koper Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity erre Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjust. Comparable 2 Adjust. Comparable 3 PAdreaa; 2272 Jacqueline 8 Huntington Circle 428 Atherton 937 Goldenleaf Way Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Heir Cerduod Vstcher Mallow Hall a guyar Odel Santos Ssntlago Orellone Sala PrkM $160,500 $150,000 $150.000 $149,000 nooimwt 18270-555 18171,200 18247-47 15953-589 Pfto Per SF Homs: $129.74 $111.88 $111.19 $111.89 Adpistmsnto gala Diic 11/29/90 10/90 $0 11/90 $0 i __. *Vwncing: Types Typical $o Types $0 Typical 0 —%a sta W� 8.140 8,884 ($500) 8.300 s0 8,570 ($S0p) Interior Comer View pnonkr None None $0 None $0 None $0 Yew Suit 1986 1977 $4,500 1976 $5,000 1978 $4,000 -Stofhw 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 s0 Room Count 3/2 312 so 3/2 $0 3/2 s0 (gsdtoomal8aths) Mono Size(SF): 1,150 1,341 ($4,525) 1,349 ($4,725) 1,334 (14,350) No.Geroge Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Heating: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $o -10 Landfllt Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KCS-00 Impact of Landfill Proximity Itern index Sale Comparable 1 Adjust. Comparable 2 Adjust Comparable 3 Ad)usL AlroondltIoning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Inferior $2.000 Average $0 DvafaN Ouawr. Average Average $1,500 Average $1,500 Average $0 Yard Impmemerrts: Ptwt None None $0 None :J None $0 Fendrrg Yes Yes $o Yes $o Yes $0 Landseaptng: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 patio: Yee Yee $0 Yes $0 Yes $o �r l`. rather Features: NA NA $0 NA $0 NA $0 Conduslone Arose Pita DVw*nOe: ($500) ($500) ($1,500) Befam AdJtlsbwft Percentage Difference: .0.33% -0.33% -1.01% -Vat Ad)mbnw s: $975 $3,775 ($550) Not Pike Dtfferance: $475 $3,275 ($2.350) After Adjustments Jd}Prim of comp: $150,975 $153,775 $146,150 Prke of Index Sale: $150.500 $150,500 $150,500 — sMwence: $475 $3.275 ($2,350) Percentage Difference: 0.31% 2.13% -1.59% Land ne K"W Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis s Impact of Landfill Proximity M Item Index Sal* Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdMA » jwidMa; 2140 Chestnut /9 Denrldge PI, 1403 Jensen 1650 Woodland Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Sem Classen Lawson Erteoa Frills Medford Russo Currie SIIno Sala Prba $164,950 $144.000 $145,000 $153,000 I Doq meat 130089 15720$9 18028-790 15834-003 grin Per 8F Home. $109.12 $101.27 $101.97 $105.23 Adjwtmwft Sale pate; 08/28f90 03/15/90 so 08/03/90 $0 05/04/90 $0 Typical Typical $0 Typical so Typical s0 Me slin(SFk 10.922 12,800 ($2.000) 7,200 $3,500 8,925 $1,600 Interior Interior Interior Comer Vim Arnan1 r. Datta Hgk $6.000 Rooftop $3,000 None so Year Built 1978 1974 $2,000 1974 $2,000 1974 12,000 I 1 p 1 t $0 1 $0 1 $0 I I 00M Count 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 so 32 $0 {Bodroome/Boths) glome SRe(SF). 1,420 1,422 s0 1,422 $0 1,454 ($860) No.Geroge Spacer 2 2 s0 2 s0 2 $0 i No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Central Ngtyrg; Central Central $0 $O Centre) $0 1 I tandrrt:Keller Carryon Comparable Sales Analysts �. KCC 60 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustment Comparable 3 AdINstments Jlboond9bning: Central Central $o Central $0 Central $0 Property Condltbn: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 OAW"oua*f.. Average Average $0 Average So Average $0 Yard Improvement: Poot Spa/Gazebo None $1,500 None $1,5110 None $1,500 Fencing: Ya Ya $0 Ya $o Ya $0 Landscaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Patti: Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 Ya $0 a:1 0111w Features: NA NA $0 NA $0 N/A so . 1 Condusbm A lose Price orference: (=10.950) 09.960) (=1.960) Mefore AdjMJabw t PercnNape Difference: -7.80% -8.88% -1.27% NotAdpsbnertt: $8,500 $10,000 $4.150 Met Prim Difference: ($4,150) $50 $2,200 AW Adjustment Ag Price of Comp: $150,500 $155,000 $157,150 Price of Index Sale: $154,950 $154,950 $154,950 — Difference: ($4,450) $50 $2= Percentage OtHarence: -2.98% 0.03% 1.40% Lsndrut Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity ttern Index Sala Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adp1� -Addrew 2238 Mt.Whitney 937 Goldenleaf Way 155 Castlewood 1860 Woodland Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Sebr. Schlrrrler Hap Bouley Frits 3uyer Palomino Orellana 10ng Sllno Salo PAoe: $157,500 $149,000 5180,000 $1-,.000 Doplment 10148-317 15953-589 1$898-34 15834-803 f"ce Per SF Home: $113.84 $111.59 $103.23 $105.23 Ad)mtments Sale Dab: 09/27/90 08/28/90 $0 3/90 $0 5/90 $0 kmndW Typical Typical $0 Typical $0Ical TYP f0 Sb stm WS 6.300 0.570 ($500) 10,837 ($4.000) 8.925 ($2. comet VWmAmenWf.. Rooftop/Foothft None $0 None $0 None $p <w Yew Built 1981 1978 $1,500 1979 $1,000 1974 $4.500 Storles: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 S0 Room Count 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 32 $0 Medtoome/BaMs) _. 3W Stw(SF): 1,380 1.334 $1,300 1,550 ($4,100) 1.454 $25 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $p No.Fireplaces: 1 0 $1,000 1 $0 1 $o -Heating: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Landolt Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Kc1-90 impact of landfill Proximity rltem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adpratrnsele JWoondabning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 7roperty Condition: Average Similar $0 Similar $0 Inferior $2,000 04MI QuaRr.. Average Average $0 Average s0 Average $o Yard Improverrrenb: Poot None None $0 None so None $0 Fencing: Yes Yes So Yes $0 Yes 6o Landscaping: Average Average $0 Average =o Average $0 Patio: Ya Ya s0 Yee so Yes $0 Otfw Features: NA NA $0 NA $0 NA so i Conclusions QMw PAoe Dlffararroe: (51,500) 62,500 ($t,500) Ae1, Ad)xdnwnts Percentage Difference: -5.70% 1.58% 4.14% Not Adjustments: $3,300 (67.100) $4,025 Not Pike Difference: ($5,200) ($4.800) ($475) After Ad)uetments Ad?Med Prim of Comp: $152,300 $152,800 6157,025 Prke of Index Safe: $157,500 $157,500 $157,500 Difference: ($5,200) ($4.800) ($475) Dercentape Difference: -3.41% -3.01% -0.30% Landnt Kapur canyon Comparable Sales Analysis �qj Impact of Landfill Proximity ttafn Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Addiew 1083 Westmont 4418 Buchanan 4419 Buchanan 8 Vista Diablo Plttsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg —saw. Mandujano Keech Nichols Brooks guys NA Hempen Park Sumey, Saleprlow $194.000 5194,000 $184,000 $/90.000 Document 15891-508 15995-71 15754,222 18201.639 Prlos Per SF Homo: $/01.19 $105.21 $99.78 $103.04 Adjwtmenb ~ Sale pate: 05/31/90 07/19/90 $0 03/30/90 $0 11/21190 so i Financing: Typical Typical so Typical $0 Typical $o sb St w(SF) 9,480 13,410 ($3.000) 15,300 ($5.000) 12,750. ($3,000) View Amenity: Backs to open Space open Space $0 None so Low Level Area $0 Access Road Power Linsa/Towers YesrBuilt 1988 1979 $3,500 1979 $3,500 1978 $5,000 Morkw 2 1 $2,000 / $2,000 1 $2,000 Room Count 4/2.5 4/2 $1,000 4/2 $1,DOO 4/2 $1.000 {Bedroomw1Mft) Morn,Stye(SF): 1.882 1,944 $450 1.844 $450 1.844 $450 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 so 2 $0 2 so No.Fireplaces: 1 1 so 1 $0 1 so J-146tb+lF. Central Central $0 Central so Central $0 Landfill:Ke9ercanyon Comparable Sales Analysis �. KC13-90 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ram Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments ---Comparable 3 A0 AbowWIlloning: Central Central $0 Central so Central s0 Property Condition: Good Good $0 Average $0 Average $0 Dverall QLMW.. Average Avenge - $0 Avenge s0 Average $t Yard Improvements: Poot None None $0 None $0 Spa (:1,000) Fencing: Yes Yee $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 UndaapkW Average Average $0 Avenge $0 Average s0 Poo: 2 Decks Urge Deck $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 DMer Features: Sewrity System None $1,000 None $1.000 None $1.000 Conclusions Grose Price Or ence: s0 ($10.000) Befom Adpj me t -. Percentage Dlffermm 0.00% -5.43% -2.11% 94et Adjustments: $4,950 $2,960 $6,450 Wet Prloe DMfennce: $4,950 ($7,050) $1.450 Atter Adjustments Aldjwted Price of Comp: $198,950 $188,950 $196,450 Prim of Index Sale: $194,000 $194.000 $194,000 .j Werence: $4,950 ($7,050) $1,450 Percentage Difference: 2.49% I -3.77% 0.74% tandM K•q•r Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis . Impact of Landfill Proximity (tMn Index Sap Co rabp 1 -Adjust. Com robp 2 Ad uri. Comparable 3 Ad Address: 2209 Santa Marta 29 Tahoe 327 i0ngsberry PI 340 Hillsdale Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Dial White Davis S}ruae �uysr pinede Sparta Yoo Carter 8si•Prla: $171,000 $175.000 $170.000 $170.000 VoCl/ment 18227.450 15921-284 15941427 15948-020 Vfte Pw Sp Ham•: $119.58 $120.38 $109.88 $109.88 Ad)ustmerde 3als Dale: 11/05190 04/30/90 $0 08/22/90 $0 08/27/90 $0 0 FM1meY►9 Typical Typiai $0 Typical $o Typiai $0 9b 8tr•(8fx 7.910 19.000 (:8.000) 9.102 ($1.000) 8.825 $1,000 interior Interior Vow Ant nW. None Hills $0 None $0 Doke (58.000) «r Yew1981 1973 $4.000 1978 $2.000 1975 $2,000 Built 3terlss: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Voom Count 3✓< 3/2 $0 312 $0 3/2 $0 {Bedrpgm•/gatlss) +10M sits(SF 1,430 1.454 (5800) 1.550 ($3.000) 1.550 ($3.000) No.carp•specs: 2 2 $0 2 50 2 $0 No.Flrappoes: E i i $0 1 $O 1 $0 J 1 +Watb . I Control Central $0 Control Central $0 I Landn t Kotler Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC7-90 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Compirabla/ AdJUSL Comparable 2 AdjurL COMParable 3 I ;AlroondltIonbrg: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central IA WW" Average Average $0 Average $0 Average I $0 OM"Quality: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average to Yard Imp womants: Poot PoollSpdChanging Rm Pool $1,000 None $0,800 None $5,000 Fencing, Yee Ya $0 Yes $o Yee $0 Landscaping: Average Superlor ($2,500) Average $0 Average $o Patio: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $o Other Features: NA NA $0 NA $0 Security System ($1,000) i. Conduslons - those Prtoe OMfefM14M $4.000 ($1.000) ($1.000) Safore AdJwtmw is WwoMMsge DWerana 2.29% -0.59% -0.59% Net AdAmbnonts. ($3.100) $3.000 ($400) Net P*A Dnferenee: $900 $2.000 ($1.400) a1Rer Ad)ustmerrts A4 Me of Comp: $171,9pt1 $173,000 $189,e00 Price of Index Sale: $171.000 $171,000 $171,000 1Dnarona: $900 $2.800 (;1,400) 0 ereentoge DlHerana: 0.52% 1.50% 483% t.andfi t Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity ^� item Index Sala Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdM09 — I Addteea: 924 Rock Ridge Way 441E Buchanan 4419 Buchanan I :Vista Diablo PMaburg Pittsburg Pittsburg ! Pittsburg I saw. Broddrick Keech Nichols Brooke BrryK Chang Hempen Park Surrey A 3"Mr. $184.000 $194,000 =104,000 $190,000 appr t 15047451 15995-71 15754-222 18281-839 Vfto Per SF Home: $/00.93 $105.2/ $99.78 $103.04 Adjustment eJ Salle Dab: 05/10/90 07/19/90 50 03/30/90 50 11/21/90 '010 }7iancIng: Typical Types $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 =9 811m(BF): 9.814 13,410 ($6.000) 15.300 ($8.500) 12.750 ($1,000) Some Nola y Am-Ky. Dela Foothills $0 None $2.600 Foothills $2.500 Power Linea/rowera Year Built 1980 1979 $0 1979 $0 1970 $4,000 2 1 ($2.000) 1 ($2,000) 1 ($2.000) PAM count 4/2.5 4/2 $1,000 4/2 $1,000 4/2 $1,000 Apedrooma/Baths) VAms S1ze(SF): 1,823 1,044 ($525) 1,044 ($525) 1,044 ($525) Vo.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 to 2 5o No.Fkpinow 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 480ting: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Landfill wear canyon Comparable Sales Analysis y Kcto-00 Impact of Landfill Proximity Itern Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdNsbn«tle Laning: Central Central $0 Central to Central $0 _J f4uperty Condition: Good Good $0 Average $0 Average so ` *herd Ouaw.. Average Average $1,500 Average $0 Average $0 l(wd Improven wft Poot Norte Nona $o None $0 Spa (:1.500) FwmMg: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes m Landseapbg: Average Average $n Average so Average so Patio: 2 Docks Large Deck $0 Ya $0 Yes m Utfw Featurw NA NA $0 NA so NA $0 Conckmbrs 4)roaa Me DOrnanoa $10.000 $o $8,000 AM"AdMitmeMa �+ iperoerltage Dlffwwee: 5.15% 0.00% 3,18% Net AdMOneMe: ($5,025) ($5,525) $475 NN Me DMrenmes: $4,975 ($5,525) S6,4T5 A1tw AdJudmw to JAAQUMW Prim or Comp: $188,975 $178,475 $190,475 Vdw or Index Sale: $184.000 $184,000 $164,000 rMwence: $4,975 ($S,525) $8,475 3�arantaga DMlerance: 2.53% -3.10% 3.40% LAfw=Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity herr! Index Sale Comparable/ Ad)uatments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adju* -braes: 2222 Jacqueline Dr. 3820 Cypress 1744 Sycamore 11150 Woodland Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pltsburg S Lake Chon Hal Frills Owyw: Greene soon Rodrigues Sano Selo Price: $187,000 $159,000 =157,000 $153,000 Dowment 15818-1 15940-421 18178-555 15934.603 fricePar SIF Home: $1/7.69 $111.81 $106.66 $105.23 «M Ad)1latmenb d a Sale Date 04/27/90 06/22/90 $0 10/11/90 $0 05/04/90 $0 9 fwmwk a Typical Typal $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Sp ghee(SF): 8.200 9,000 ($3.000) 6.415 ($2.000) 6,925 0.800) Comer View Am IW.. None None $0 None $0 None $o Year sw t 1985 1973 $6.000 1975 $5,000 1974 $5,500 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room Count 3/2 3/2 so 3/2 $0 3/2 so (BednwnrlBatM) }ion»Slee(SIT 1,419 1,422 ($75) 1,472 ($1,325) 1,454 ($875) No.Garage Spm: 2 2 $o 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 0 $1,000 4-leating: Central Central $o Central $0 Central $0 WAR c eCarrion Comparable Sales Analysis 1x11.90 Impact of Landflil,Proximity Itefn Inde Sale Comparable 1 Adjustment Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjusttnwft J1Mooradttlonttag: Central None $1,000 Central $0 Central s0 ProperlyConditn: Average Average so Average $0 Inferior $3,500 OM"Cr1aRty: Average SL Interior $1,500 Average $0 Average s0 _ -Yard Improvernents: (soot None None $0 None $0 Hot Tub/Genebo (:2.000) Fencing: Yes Yes $0 Yes so Yes so Landscaping: Average Avenge $0 Average $0 Average so Pew. Ya Yes so Yes $0 Yes $0 Other Feenrres: NA NA $0 NA $0 NA $0 i Condusbne ]Grow PAoe ONWOM : (:5.000) (:10,000) ($14.000) GWM Adpplms t - �0 tPerowdage DSference: -5.03% -0.37% -0.15% #lel Adluetmarab: $5,425 $1.875 $4,825 :+let Price Difference: (:2,575) (:8,325) (;9,375) AW Ad)uetmwft Ad)uged Price of Comp: $184,425 $158,875 $157,015 Price of Index Sale: $187.000 :187,000 $187,000 a7ltlerenoe: (:2,575) (:8.325) ($9,375) perpatage Durennoe: -1.57% i -5.25% -0,95% Landt9t Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdM* Address: 1089 Alamo Ct. 3828 Cypress 1744 Sycamore 1850 Woodland Plttsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg gspsr Redding Chon Hall Frits �uysr Mekorlc Scott Rodrigues SHOO Salsprim $1E7,000 $169,000 $167,600 $163,000 DoClmUnt 15751-7333 15940-421 16176-655 15834.803 Price Per SF Home: $116.78 $111.61 $107.00 $105.23 Adprstment9 Sale pate: 03/29/90 OtL22/90 $0 10/11/90 $0 05/04/90 $p . Ftrrncing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $c =a 8129(81F): 5,400 9.000 ($3.600) 8.416 (;3,000) 8.925 ($3.600) Comer View AMen1r.. UkndrM boundary None $0 None so None $0 Dein Year suit 1981 1973 $4,000 1975 $3.000 1974 $3,501) Morles: 1 1 $0 1 s0 1 $0 - ROOM Count 3/2 3/2 s0 3/2 $0 3/2 so ti9WidroomUsaths) Nome Sla(SF): 1,430 1,422 $200 1,472 ($1,050) 1,454 ($800) No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 so No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Nesting: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 LandIR Kotler canyon Comparable Sales Analysts KC12-90 Impact of Landfill Proximity Mem -Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adpxd"- e JlYoondkbning: Central None $1,000 Central $0 Central $0 FmpertyCondkbn: Average Avenge $0 Avenge $0 Interior $3,500 *vow Quww.. Avenge Average $0 Avenge $0 Avenge i Tool!ImprWAMMts: Poole Spa None $1,000 None $1,000 Hot Tub/Gazebo (:1,000) Fencing: Ya Yes $0 Yes $0 Yee $0 Landscaping: Avenge Average $o Avenge $0 Average $0 Patio: Yes Yee $0 Yee $0 Yee s0 .tea Dpar Features: NA NA $0 NA $0 NA 50 Concitalons Gins PAaWerenoc (:8.000) ($a.wm f lefore AdpMntenfe --� F%nmltW Dffferana: -6.03% 4.03% -0.15% ?let Ad)ustments: $2.700 ($50) :1.900 -34M Price Difference: ($5.300) ($9.550) ($12.100) After Adpwinve is AdAwled Prim of comp: $181,700 $157,150 $161,900 f fte of Indent Sale: $187,000 $187.000 $187,000 y Mwer"os: ($5,300) ($9,550) ($12,100) ?arpntage Dlfferana: -3.28% -8.07% 7.81% m at �< a m o9 �ob4 aebtae maR w 4Omo �r�i��r Djm� deaebt at ataR bR2Ra4 00 r OtD40 rP W N V N PNN ttl,Pb bdt(j W Or'^ _ 44,�C9 �to 0,D LD V M~ C? o•-r4 -W N9-7 riyo nr Si Cia r ? n M0d MbM cr Ch mesio WCp Dbo 0 0 oa ['ao c oo NO bh b NNN goo bP O Oh t0 W a CD40b Q� 1 o tl N 1 bo MNb. <'MtA <"�iDM W"w m44a P%b NCD 0OOs et NNN a M 40 t�1W9W C 9N NyN HNf40A Ny� 4409 c40vA NHS `: N N co i NNN In O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 6 1 O O O O O O O O O O� bb tC! O 00 000 tObb 000 004 00 O 000 ( 000 000 000 W W to b b 4D 000 tiN.P. Oo0 000 bb b bb b I 000 04 O OC7 O 1t M M Oi N N(V N-h.P Hf�q 10j PPP as(p C pY mtQ tLf iD tG{O +L)K{to YY Y 4!�D t0 4D c0 qi t0 i8 W wa0 I cb7 co (cM co +D.0 Q C NNN NNN 4411►N4 MNN 601.6-91 NN Q44 NNN Na Z; NNN NV►N NNN a i b b o b b O bb 0 000 ot0a @b @ OOb Od tt1 O LL'r t0 b0 0 N N W N N b NNN bb O 1ONb ONtO b0h Ott?N O P N h b O mYl^�b Q.� 40 4410 t0 tD actt�h� Oro YN d hPOD 40o-W 40 W 40 ttr tDN h r b Oh N NO)t0 MOf M W coo mmol ti W tnP M Mh d Od tt3 40 _ 40b40 40 b40 40b40 v d h_bt0 Pr tri cO SQ tO40 40btA d d d d Y d s C H H H N N N N N N w w w N N N N N N 40601.40 N N w ' w N N N N N N N H b 0 bb- bb0 , a00 0400 ab0 OQ�. 00t(T Ob to @ FN40 c040 40 40 f0 nhN.d ��d 'q'_N V ow hr�p t0 40N NNj 40f0 oh'r ��N Ih�" h tGh yv�tcf N4040 M M toAb PwIn HwN NNS"+ hXiN oMQ; P040 O N H N N N N N N N N N N N N NY9N NNN NNN �jly $$ be bt dQ' .�bt bt b¢3t��OL bt dt dt ilt 3e at at dQ 3t 2R��.y bt ydpt et de dt dt 24 dt bt dt ZR bt bt ti «,��e Y Y40r•h1' NNt40A �p?t0 M140�.0 YO�w c?Y<0 M�co NNtO NOWT,N Nr'^ cclig Cvpr 7917 C' q 9prr? o 9C-; t?NtV tti+ g 4nta vvv � � o'oo coo 000 000 0�0 �'co oto 0 bob o@a oao bbb o00 000 0t00 000 000 000 o00 Daae tn4fj 0 00o mPP C!Na 00@ nN b Ob 67 wio@o^ o00 6o torr_ �/� YY W40M N N yy� 4sNN NNN 1,t,P -E vj NNH Nva NVN yN440Li N(AI vNH —4 NNN LLtp NN +OrNN ��pp NN 0W W CMN" xD tp ON _N r@ y/�..� 'h;Mtp LD i^yM 10N sO .1P s0 E6♦O NM40b R[i N1400,b `A OfN r MNY N V O T NtY[j fOp �Mp tNO M �/ CL 00 rN+ TOO f �Oa r 71- P40f .b-O.N- ,DmX6 X000 2"; m Mrs e409 t#7 Mc9 t"} E?Q o _W� E l4wNNN MNNM MNNN NNN iif MFNN "w 11 +N►NNN MNNN MNNN *I Iv r► Nyy 's iQrg6s�Qr � � r @¢k0 k {A Qs s� Q3 Q� Q"1Qf @¢rlQJ ,,.� GD +(3�Y 4i �nl 04 0000 00 a 0 x9000 Q 00 o 0 a0 a 0 000 0080 x7 p0 O 000 O 4000 +0000 E +ri0a0 Y4000 08ad •D 00o Q000 0000 0000 000 00@O 0000 0000 �iA00 0 V?O Q O C!O GD O it W O0 0000 00p 0 x0000 X0000 0 00 0 G p O O 0 OO b E Z:"�a MO NO m o o mo W.p h N y�M0 -`�.aCi 74 nD OMO tNpm P cpM b tD M 40 tiMMCV 1040o w (owo t0 �%Do w _Mc7M xD bb to 4D oh R7 Z QGN .0 mb b [7 MA M r4 M�M SDbLO» "'-t N iM►NNN V4NNN MNNN MNNN Z;NNN tN NNN NHNN a.1 Hww t/iNNN wNNN tNNNN V- �o 00 x7000 o o O - x00 C}OQN NOY O xD0Q q N NNO Q NN_O .00a .fi O O N O O O N O K7 O N O O 0 �O b N a"rOb N f-'n 01 O 40bN O Y:ti b 7Or tD 6t ck W �tWDv w cOD_tod co x07 wo Of 0 co -1AD0P W OtOh W a:040h W IN tOP 0 .r,Wh W �..tO rR tO m tOht� S W o '�Lt3P t.:'d KDhP40 ' r �-w v 'tONNd xDNN Y Md CO CD d WO VO Nh 40 NPP @P v to P v e t-NN m 4740 40 P 4o40 c0 P to tD COP m PPP '�hco h �DPrD Sr 1,.tDhh x>,40h+P fP Ph P rOhPP apo pD tD N W W W Krf W W W W Or W W W tW W W W LL ""• �tpr N t0 N �r N O NrN S7bv W P. P t0 t7 P W m W W N W W N N W W N W W N N W N N v ar W W W O W W W N N tO N N cy 40 N V b f04 - .YYY„ _d.Y Y, aYYY,? 00>W W 'V V.d7 W WacW +f<Y tD -n7v o Oo W W 00W W 'd'tv7 Orr r r rr r.- �-r r r r rr r -r rr*- .-e-.-r T.,..:.= W W �f W W = r rr r ,-rrr r;i m io m of m to � D }, @ m Q o Q ¢ p RG 7 0 f4 C m @ C y O ¢ O C o m N N ro N O m-Vi O J ro N U X_ yy C Y- C o �r/py (J}G y; 'p !_ ro m 4y O N m N N ro N m a C.. ,7 Vl N_y C tV c0 t0 tYy V Iti L v01 O•� m •5r t� 0 0 O>m VO} QO} tndXv� Q�>'� �O m0 QO m0 Uro m.5 U mY n Q C'rY(A ° o ro ar .0M N <DM N aoM N .n0co O 13 N �( -M 0 m `-p = r '��}.0 vN40P'c) io40P Y40P� 0MQ N �P A�DD'VV D nN 040E v N ID 'D c mUwt�N �v440 N N -- �.c4 W Nd v W `dd W Nc7 tlr cD NNv W rcV M@M <V vrO N v•'w N11')tO tD O N '40�P a {N r r N r r r r r r N r r M r v r r M M v r r r N N r r o N LD r M r 40 r N M r N M 0 r N M r N Cl) r N M r N M r N M r N M mnmOR 102.04 ?Da—Dora ORAa wmma LLm R Ugmm = mNm — armor �armQ Y�m� Tn w m m m m m m m m m m a ro m m m m m m m m m W ° a o a m n.0 D co m zr a n m a a o m m m a ro m m m m ro m m m ro ro mmm wmmm �mmm wmmm Nmmm mmm wmmm 01m`mw u) mmm t/1 `m `m `m tnm` m` a�n x n xaaa xnao xngg.a xnnru rcng a wE mEEE noon Doo 00 oEEE mEEE mEEE CD x 0 0 0 0 o a 65 0 0 0 oxo 0 0 0 0 0 qo v E E k �UUU SUUU SUUU 5CSUUU SUUU SUUU [UUU SUUU St3UC S8 00 x v, Le WW.Kellar canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impactor Landfill Proximity Ibm Index Salo Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdjusUnerb — 1 Address: 2255 Mt.Whitney 1483 Oakmont 1472 Valenzuele 19 Mena"CL Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Seller. Swide Mason Louver Blaekw@n lHtryer Gonzales Residentlal Sierra Inc. Turner 3talka Sala Price: $183,950 $180,000 $163,000 $180,000 Dooxnent: 16788-107 18890-321 18519-31 18898-194 prloe Per SF Horne: $115.78 $107.31 $102.62 $112.52 Adpnbnwft Sale pale: 07/30J91 O94201V1 $0 04115/91 $0 08/27/91 f0 Fkww*a Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 3e sbe PF). 6,100 8.000 ($2,000) 7.520 ($1,500) 9,200 (32,600) j VlewArnenlly: Dena None $2,500 None $2,500 None $2,500 Year Buft 1988 1982 $2,000 1982 $2.000 1974 $6,000 Stones: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 doom count 312 3/2 $0 312 $0 3/2 $0 (Bedr°ernoisahs) y Horne St:e(SF). 1,416 1,491 ($1,875) 1,491 ($1,875) 1,422 ($160) i _ ft.Gatape Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 I No.Firepkwas: 1 1 $0 1 $0 i 1 $0 I Central Central $0 Central $0 ' Central $0 Landfir Kolar Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC1-01 Impact of landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Com Ia 2 Adjustments Com le 3 AdiLW* i I _ Alroondlipning: central Central $0 Central $0 Control $0 I i Properly Condemn: Average Average $0 Interior $3,500 Average $0 i i DvWY ply: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 I Yard knprovwmrts: i ^� r Pool: None None $0 NOM $0 Nora $0 f I r 1 Fes: Yes Ya $0 Ya $0 Yes S0 1 i Landscaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average i0 Pte: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 7ttw Featrxw: NA NA $0 NA $0 NA S0 ConckWAne Glow Price D9feronae: ($3,950) ($10,950) ($3XM Solara Ad)Abr-b Percentage Difference: -2.47% -7.16% -2.47% NO AdJustmente: $625 $4,625 $5,850 Wot Prim DMfaence: ($3,325) ($8,325) $1,900 After AdAmbnonts Ad)usted Price of ComP: $160,625 $157,625 $165,850 'Price of Index Sale: I $183,950 $163,950 $163,950 ,Difference: ($3,325) ($8,325) $1,900 percentage Difference: -2.07% -4.01% 1.15% LwxM:rc.aer Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landflil Proximity j Iter Index Sale Comparable 1 AdJustmants Comparable 2 AdJuatmants Comparable 3 Adluabmnb Address: 2288 Concord 1463 Oakmont 1472 Valerauels 19 Mallow CL Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg seller Frekes Mason Lauver Blackwell buyer Alined Sierra RasktaNal Tumor Stake Sala Price: $182,500 $180;000 $153,000 $180,000 Documant: 17027-074 18890321 1651951 166WI94 ffbe Per SF Homs: $114.78 $107.31 $102.62 $112.52 Adlumbnents $els Date: 11/21/91 09/20/91 $0 04/15191 $0 06/27/91 $0 >Ftnncing Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 As Stns(SF): 9.900 8,000 $1,500 7,520 $2.000 9200 $0 .y .J Y1e1e Amenity: NOM None $0 None $0 None $0 Yew Bout: 1986 1982 $2,000 1002 $2,000 1974 $8,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ftoom Count: 3/2 W2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 Oledroorrr/Baft) $Ion Sire(SF): 1,416 1,491 ($1,875) 1,491 ($1,875) 1,422 ($150) 74o.Garage Spec": 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 }laet4�g: Control Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 t wXW:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC2-91 Impact of Landfill Proximity Iters Index Sall Corroarablo 1 Ad Comparable 2 Ad ustmaIs Comparable 3 AO�* I � b Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 ply Condition: Average Average $0 Inferbr $3,500 Average 30 -a Oven Oudw. Average Average $0 Aver" $0 Avenge ;s0 Yard Irnprovem,nb: Pool NOM NOM 30 NOM $0 None $0 Fencing: Yea Yee $0 yea $0 Yes $0 :av Landeeving: Average Avenge $0 Avenge $0 Avenge $0 Patio: yen Yes $0 yes $0 Yes 30 a•: OttwrFesttxas: SecurkySystem None $1,000 None $1,000 None $1,000 Conckwions Groes Prbe Dtlf,ranee: (52,500) (59,50o) (32.600) Before AdAwknents �erdrdape Dkfonnce: 21% -1.56% M Adiustrrwrds: $2,825 $8,825 $6,850 Not Price Dilfersnce: $125 ($2,875) $4,360 AfbrAdjustments Ad)jdW Price of Comp: 5182,825 $159,825 $186,860 4'rice of Index Sale: 5182,500 $182,500 $162.590 $125 ($2,875) $4,350 �6fonnrw: -- iPwcadage DWerence: I 0.08% -1.80% 2.61% I Landfill:K.9r Guyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Ibrn Indus Sale CompanbM 1 Adk+etmer" Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjusbro4 a Address: 1146 Alma 1463 Oaknant 1472 Valonzuels 19 Mona CL Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Soler Hayes Mason Louver Blockwel Buyer: Arteags Residential Sierra Tumor Stake Sale Plica: $157,000 $180,000 $153,000 $180,000 ^"1 Docurn nt 17119.120 18890-321 18519-31 18898.194 Price Per SF Nome: $110.58 $107.31 $102.82 $112.52 AdJrsrmonb .al Sale DW: 12/31/91 09/20191 $0 04/75191 $0 Oem/91 $0 Fkrarwkw Typical Typical $0 Typloal $0 TypkW $0 3"Stca(SF): 8,330 8,000 $0 7.520 $1,000 9,200 xv ViewAnsriy: Good Ana None $5,000 None $5,000 None $0 Detre Ter BuBt 1978 1982 ($2,000) 1982 ($2,000) 1974 $2,000 3EorMe: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Fhme Count: 312 312 $0 3/2 $0 312 $0 {Bedroornal left) Noma Size(SF): 1,420 1,491 ($1,775) 1,491 ($1,775) 1,422 ON) No.Gauge Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 ft.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Asatkrg: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Landfill:Kellar canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC3-01 Impact of Landfill Proximity -- it" Indus Sale Com le 1 Ad ustmerrts Comparable 2 Ad ustments Comparable 3 Ad L.W# -- A4eonditloning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Property CwWWon: Average Average $0 Interior $2,000 Average $0 Ovud Quww. Average Average $1,500 Average $1,500 Average $1,500 Yard WWmvemuds: POOL: None NOM $0 NOM $0 NOM $0 Fencing: Ya Ya $0 Yee $0 Yee $g w Landscaping: Avenpe Avenge $0 Avenpe $0 Average $0 Patio: Yes Ya $0 Yes $0 Yea $0 Other Features: Security System None $1,000 None $1,000 None $1,000 Conciambne Grow Prim DNIWWWO: $3.000 ($4.000) $3,000 " before AdAntments Psawnhpe Difference: 1.88% AJet Adjuetrnents: $3,725 $8,725 $3,450 2Mt Prim Difference: $8,725 $2,725 $8,450 After AdXntnnnte JldAmdW Price of Comp: $183,725 $158,725 $183,450 _ x rice of Index Sale: $157,000 5157,000 $157,000 ONference: $8,725 $2,725 $4,450 Percentage DNterence: 4.11% 1.71% 3.95% La xW:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of L'''andfill Proximity Item Index Sebe Comparsbb 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comperable 3 AdMwber is Address: 2205 Santa Maria 1338 Alpine Dr. 1548 KWVsy 3820 St.Moritz Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Soler: Mena Connell Bennet,. Scheys -fryer Parka/Moore Wves Pesclak Henderson Sale Price: $141,760 $139,900 $134,000 $135,000 DoowrMs k 18899-801 18548.948 18817.695 18898-27 PrWe Per SF Homo: $142.89 $141.89 $135.90 $136.09 Adrotmenb f $ale Dab: 08128191 OU28/91 $0 08/24/91 $0 08x27191 $0 t iFirranckrp: Typist Typical SO Typical $0 Typical $0 Sb Ston(SF): 7,700 8,500 $1,000 7,412 $0 8,800 $1,000 Comer VlawAmenky. None None $0 None $0 None j0 Yew Bust 1981 1973 $4,000 1974 $3,500 1978 $2,000 3brfer. 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room Count: 3/1 311 $0 311 $0 3/1 $0 (Bedroor a/Barhs) flans Size(SF): 992 988 $150 988 $150 992 $0 ft.Gw pe Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 Wo.Fireplaces: 1 None $1,000 $1,000 $0 None $1,000 }balkp: Central Central $0 Central $0 central $0 7-7 tarrdnl:Kehr C—y,n Comparable Sales Analysis KC4-91 Impact of Landfill Proximity ROM Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdNvbv rds :a Ailoondlioning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average s0 Overall!any' Average Average ($1,000) Average $1,500 Average $0 Yard 7mprovemonts: Pook None None $0 None $0 None $0 Fencing: Yes Ya $0 Yee $0 Yee $0 Pirry; Average Superior ($2,000) Average $0 Average $0 r:+ Paw* Yes Yes $0 Yoe $0 f' Yes $0 iOUW Feabo": California Room None $2,000 None $2,000 Sec.Sys. $1,000 Carokielorre Hives Pdw Dowerrcr. ($t,es0) ($7,750) ($0,760) � 10etora 1ldxratrtretts pero~Difference: -1.32% -5.78% -5.00% Not Adp atmerds: $5.150 $7,150 $5,000 Nd Prig DMference: $3,300 ($800) ($1,750) After Adm -- Ad)Y;bW Price of COW: $145,050 $141,150 $140,000 J Prim of Index Sale: $141,750 $141,750 $141,750 M-Ifferance: $3,300 ($800) _ ($1,750) Pwcwfto Dftrere: 2.28% -0.43% -125% U r4W.Kaw Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of landfill Proximity . lterrr Indus Bob Comparable 1 Ad)ustrr»nts Comparable 2 musiments Comparable 3 Ad)Abnents Address: 1218 Alamo Way 42 Sherwood 1472 Valenzuela 19 Melissa Ct. Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Seger Henankohl "raphe Louver Blackwell wryer 0e0rlo LassardaConnor Tumor SttYet Sale Prlco: $185,000 $184,000 $163,000 $180,000 D moment: 18634-940 18681349 1861931 1889&194 ?rice Par SF Home: $116.20 5115.33 $102.82 $112.52 AdAnbrients Sale Ode: 06/31IM /91 OQI $0 04/15/91 $0 08/27!91 $0 I FlrwrcYra Typical Typical So Typical $0 Typical So 9b Slee(SF): 10,117 8,811 $2,000 7,520 $3,000 9,200 $1,000 Some Nobe VlewAmwrty: left None $2,500 None $2,500 NOM $2,500 Yew Bunk: 1978 1975 VAN 1982 ($2,000) 1974 $2,000 Storlse: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 atoorn Count: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bedroonn/Baths) +tome Stm(SF): 1,420 1,422 ($50) 1,491 ($1,775) 1,422 ($W) 340.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.FYeplaeos: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 30 +Nwft: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 LarldM:Ite6er Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC6-01 Impact of Landfill Proximity Kam Index Sale ComEmble 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 A!'uetmerft Com le 3 A4,000 Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 fvopwty Condition Average Averape $0 Interior $3,500 Average $0 py y Average Average $1,500 Avwpe a $0 Averape $0 OverallYwd tnlpfOvMnards: .� Pod: None Nona $0 Nora $0 Nona $0 Fencing: Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 Ya $0 i La Average Avwape $0 Average $0 Avwape $0 s Patio: Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 Ya $0 NOM None $0 None $0 i None $0 Dtfrer Featua: - ConcMwfone ) t &-ooe Prim Dfffwwsm: (:1,000) ($12,000) ($6.000) lkftm Ad$nbrwft 1 DMrance: -0.81% -7.84% 3.13% flet AdjumbnW : $7,450 $5,225 $5,450 Nit Pries D6f m—: $8,450 ($8,775) $450 After Ad)utn w" AdNa wi Prim of Comp: $171,450 $158,225 $168,450 Prim of Index Sale: $165,000 $165,000 5186,01x1 YJlffersrloe: $8,450 ($6,775) $450 Pwwntage Difference: 3.76% -4.28% 0.27% r LandnF.Keller Carryon CGmparbale Sales Analysis i `- Impact of Landfill Proximity ROM Indus Sols Comparable 1 MLw rnents Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 9 Adkiabnerts I Address: 2220 Daffodil Dr. 338 Hillsdale 305 San Simeon PI 4325 Olelt Wy Pittsburg I Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg _ 9sisr McCauley Absyte Sturman Haut Buyer: Qusvedo Easley Matzke Evans .SaM Pyla: $187,000 $188,000 $179,000 $184,000 noaamnt: 18810887 18388-229 18904-34 18708-842 its Per SF Home: $102.58 $87.79 $98.88 $99.51 Ad)usbrenb . Sals Dab: O6/2?/91 02/05191 ; $0 09127191 $0 0710=1 $0 I e 1Fknrrctrrp Typkal Typhi $0 Typical $0 Typhi $0 - SIts Sits(SF): 7,000 8.470 ($1.500) 7,740 $500 8,502 $1,500 Ylew Amenity: FooU~xowsr Low Level Area $2.500 Good Deka $0 Nons $2,500 I k»NDslb Water Res. Yew BuBt: 1985 1978 $9,500 1981 $2,000 1981 $2.000 .Stales: 2 1 ($1.000) 1 ($2,000) 1 ($2.000) $loom Count- 412.5 412.5 $0 312.5 $9,000 3/2.5 $9,000 (BsdroomoSaft) flours Sita(SF): 1,823 1,915 ($2,300) 1,814 $225 1,849 ($860) ft.Gangs Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Firspleces: 1 1 $0 1 $O 1 $0 Nbstkg: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 I.sndfl8:KOw Cowlyon Comparbale sales Analysts I Kcs41 Impact of Landfill Prox)mlty Item index Sale tAmpanbN 1 Adlustmente CompevabN 2MJustments Comparable 3 J1YcorxlNioninp: central control $0 Central $0 Central $0 Properly(;ondltion: Average Inforlor $3.500 Averaps $0 AveMo $0 __ Dvan1 Y Ave" Average $0 Awrape $0 31.superior (51,800) Yard Improvements: pyot NOM NOM $0 None $0 None $0 FerrcYq: yes Yea $0 Ya $o Ya $0 Lwwsoapirrg: Average Avenge $0 Averape $0 Avenge $0 • Pdb: Yes Yee $0 yes $0 Yee So w Other Feduns: secrxpy system None $1,000 None $1,000 None $1,000 CorAknions I Oran Prim Drfennce: ($19,000) ($8.000) ($3.000) i 93efbra Adjurtmenb Wennoo: -11.31% -4.47% 4.83% Not Ad)tshnerde: $5,700 $4,725 $5,850 Not Price Dtirennce: ($13,300) ($3,275) $2,850 After Adjustments Adjusted Place of Comp: $173,700 $183,725 $189,850 nrloo of Index Selo: $187,000 $187,000 $187,000 M- : ($13,300) ($3,275) $2,8W -uuventape Oftronce: -7.88% -1.78% 1.50% - UwKM:Keler Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis r/` Impact of Landfill Proximity Real Indus Sole co N 1 !gbLornents le 2 Ad its Comparable 3 Adknbmwft Address: 1202 Alarm Way 1463 Oakmont 11 Teal Ct. 2044 Oakridge Ln Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Saler. Rubino Mason Holoomb I sunougto r f Muyer: Kumw/Karr Residential Sierra Andrea i ColoradoMarrrnda¢ Is PrIoe: $tee,600 $180,000 $153,000 $170,000 "1 Document: 16365.411 16690-321 16e60-121 1693&712 f4loe Per SF Homo: $112.56 $107.31 $102.20 $100.12 a+i AdllMtnMny I Sale Date: 01/24/91 09Y1W91 $0 06/07/91 $0 I 0er"91 $0 1FYwmkw Typical Typkwi $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 — SbSlee(sF) 9.072 e,ow 61,000 7,194 $2,000 _ 7,600 $1,500 sen.Nolae I YNwAnwdty: Def None $3,500 None $3,500 l Hone $3,500 YarBuet 1978 1982 ($2,000) 1977 $500 1976 $1,000 Storfee: 1 1 $0 1 $0 i $0 7ioom Count: 4/2 3R $3.000 412 $0 4/2 $0 {BedroomelBdM) *lone Ste*(SF): 1,497 1,491 $150 1,497 $0 1,696 ($6,025) <;y filo.Gwalps Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 :o.Fkeplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Heaft: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 LwWM:KeSer Carrion Comparable Sales Analysis KC7-01 Impact of Landfill Proximity Itarfr Index Sala Comparable 1 Ad)uetmerds ComparaDk 2 Adjustnwnb Comparable 3 Ad ILWO alkaondiUoning: Central Central $0 central $0 central s0 Property p"Willon: Average Average $0 Average $0 SI.Superior ($2 000) Dverall CANY• Average Average $0 Inferior $5,000 SI.Superior ($1,500) Yard Improwrr»nb: Pte: Spa None $1,000 Spa $0 None $1,000 Fencing: Yee Ya $0 Ya $0 Y" $0 larbecrophg: Average Average $0 Average $0 Avery" $0 Pte, Yee Yee $0 Yoe $0 Yea $0 OUwrFee6aee: Updated KSchen None $1,000 Soler $500 None $1,000 Owwknions Gross Pike DNference: ($8.500) ($15,500) $1,500 Defore AdAmbnenb "Difference: -6.31% -10.13% 0,88% Not Ad)Ab wnb: $7,650 $11,500 ($em) _w iVet Price DYfaence: ($850) ($4,000) $975 After AdAwbrionls Ad)mded Price of Comp: $187,650 $164,500 $18905 7ficeof Index Sale: $168,500 $168,500 $188,500 DIferance: ($850) ($4,000) $975 PeR»ntage Difference: -0.51% -2.43% 0 0.58% LarWN:Kolar Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis J. I Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale come ebls 1 Adlustmw is Comparable 2 Adluotmerds Comparable 3 Adjustments Address: 2224 Santa Marta 1403 Oaknwrd 11 Taal Ct. 5 Encina PI Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg —Sellar Maggio Meson Holcomb Wardlew wryer. Phnds RNIdeMW Sierra Andrews Gelrrdo Salle Price: $182,500 $180,000 $153,000 $157,000 Document: 18510-42 18890-321 18850-121 18570.487 Prba Par SF Home: $108.12 $107.31 $102.20 $92.48 Adltntments Sw Dds: 04/15191 09P20J91 $0 08!07191 $0 05/08/91 $o r. �t+tartcYtp: Typical Typical $0 TYOW $0 Typical $0 _- Me Am(SF): 8,800 8,000 ($1.000) 7,134 ($1,000) 8,900 ($2.000) ViewAmw*r. Norm Nan $0 Nona $0 Nona $0 Yaw SLAt: 1981 1982 $3,500 1977 $2,000 1977 $2.000 3todes: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $o Room Corer 412 312 $3,000 4/2 $0 4/2 $0 ,IBWMona/sdlt.) 3Horns Size(SF): 1,503 1,491 $300 1,497 $150 1,898 ($4,875) NO.Ganga Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 i 2 $0 I M.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 i 1 $0 eating: Central Central $0 Central $0 I Central $0 1 Comparable Sales Analysis i"�'xee.�canyon Impact of Landfill Proximity KC"i Kern Index-We Comperebi+1 Adjustments comparable 2 Adiuetmente s Comparable 3 Ad Central central $0 WOW $0 Central $0 �ropetty CNWttfon: Average Averege $0 Average $0 SI.Interior IIIIAW .... rOrraraM Qr�Y AvwOP Average $0 Intertor $5,000 Average $0 Yard tmprovernertta: Poor None NOM $0 Spa ($1,000) None $0 FenainW Ya Yee $0 Ya So Yee $0 tan4eaplrr9: Average Average $0 Average $0 Avenge $0 Now Yee Yee $0 Yee $0 Yee $0 T, Other FeaLtxas: None None $0 Solar {$500) None $0 Concbnlone "i Grow Price Diffewwo: ($2,500) ($9,500) ($5,500} Boom Ad)xbfw is -1.58% $2tX .1.5Qlt ;Pnardage Dance: $5,800 $4,850 ($3,375) ,slat Ad)trettnertts: .%M Prig gMfererx»: $3,300 ($4,850) {35.575) After Adkretrnertte Adjusted Price of Comp: $185,800 $157,850 $153,525 $182,500 $182,500 S152,500 ?}rice of index gale: K $3,300 ($4,850) ($5,875) 1.99% 3.08% -5.75% vercerdage Difference: JJ t mdM:War canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of:Landfill Proximity Remi Index Sala ComparabN 1 Ad)wtmdifs ComparabN 2 MjUstments CompwabN 3 Ad)vetresrfb _ -* Address: 2171 El Saco 2250 Lynbrook 2239 Lynbrook 2214 Ackerman Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Setbr. Woolfson NA Hayes NA BAW.. Pilkk4on NA NA NA Sale Prim: $145,000 $150,000 $147,000 $152,000 Documwtt.' 17504-430 NA NA NA Price Per SF Home: $125.11 $111.61 $109.38 $121.99 Adlustrmnts -Sas Oats: 05/15/92 07/02/92 $0 10/16/92 $0 03/13192 $0 1 , iFMmrobq Typical Typical $0 Typ" $0 Typical 0 - SU 3Ne W): 6,000 10.919 05.0(10) 5,665 $500 5,700 $500 YNN Mnrdy: None NOM None $0 None $0 Yew Bult 1960 1981 ($500) 1981 ($500) 1985 -totes: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ftm causal: 312 3/2 3/2 3/2 !Bedrooma/Baths) Morris Size(SF): 1,159 1,344 ($4,625) 1,344 ($4,625) 1,248 ($2,17b) ft.Coupe Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 i 2 $0 I*.Fksplaces: None 1 ($1,000) 1 ($1.000) 1 ($1.000) f4saft: Central Central $0 Central Central $0 i Ct i Uv dM:Ketier Carryon Comparable sates Analysis KC742 Impact of Landfill Proximity ft*M index Seie i AdIturtrnents ConnWablo 2 Ad'uetmerrts Comenblo 3 AdIJI-0 <3 -ltreorw ontng: Central Central Central Central pmWty ewWftn: Average Average $0 Average Average Overall t]L"T. AVefage SI.Inferior $1,500 Average $0 St.Interior 31,500 Yard lmprownenb: .a Poor None Spa MAW None hone Fencing: Yes Yee $0 Yea $0 Yea u1ndsc rPlrg' Average Average $0 Average avenge ^+ Patlo: Yes Yee Yes $0 Yes $0 . Other Feettaes: None Sec.System (#1,000) None Security System (=1,000) CorroMralona those Price orwence: ($1.000) ($4.000) $1.000 Sabra Ad)usbaerds Percentage Difference: -0.87% -2.72% 0.88% Not Adjudinants: ($3,250) $1,750 $2.700 ?W Price DRforonee: ($4,250) ($2.250) $3.700 Mar Adprtments 4. Aomftd Price of COM: $148,750 $148,750 $184,700 -Nice of Index Sale: $151,000 $151,000 $151,000 _... 311forence: ($4,250) ($2,250) $3,700 ?wcontage Difference: -2.90% 1.51% 2.39% Lw dnr:Kellar canyon Comparable Sales Analysts Impact of Landfill Proximity Ilern Index sale comparable 1 Ad)uetments Comparable 2 Ad)ustments Comparable 9 AdNabnwft �a s Addraw: 2722 Begonia 7250 Lynbrook 2239 Lynbrook 2214 Ackernm Pittsburg P'dtaburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Sa/ar: Lear NA Hayes NA 1krier: Walker NA NA NA Sale Price: $151,000 $150,000 $147,000 $152,000 Document: 17682-410 NA NA NA aria Per SF Home: $128.62 $111.61 $109.38 $121.99 Ad xbnenb sale Date: 07/22/94 07/02/92 $0 10116x92 $0 03/13/92 F2 wnetp Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 y Sb Stns(SF): 7,000 10,919 ($3,600) 5,669 $1,000 5,700 61,000 `j YlewAmw*y: Foothills Nora $3,000 None $3,000 None $5,000 Next to Park Year BLO: 1985 1981 $2,000 1981 $2,000 1985 3tarlee: 1 1 s0 1 $0 1 $0 aim, Count 3/2 3/2 3/2 312 {BedroonrlBaft) ?Home Size(SF): 1,174 1,344 ($4,250) 1,344 ($4,250) 1,246 (s1,800) No.Garage Spam: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 • BVo.Firaplecp: 1 t 1 1 $0 iiaathrp: Central Central $0 Central Central $0 LwWM:War Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KCS-02 Impact of Landfill Proximity (tarn index Sale Comparable 1 Adju tments Comparable 2 Ad)tietments Comparable 3 Adjuotme its 1 Central Central Central Central I 1 property CoMRion: Average Average $0 Avenge Averaps ! I OvaraO may; Average St.Irderbr $1,500 Average $0 Sl.Infarbr 51,600 1 Yard Improvements: i I i Pool., NOM ape (31,000) Norw NOM 1 Fencbp: yes Ya So Yea $0 Yes 1 _ 1 I arrdecePgrB Average Average $0 Averags Average i ..v I I M Patio: yes Yes Yes 30 Yes 50 _ C1Uw Features: Nom sec.Sys ($1.000) None Security System ($1,000) tiros Price DMfenrrce: (M.6og) (56.600) (3600) Metas Adjuslnanb P•rceritsp DlRorence: -1.67% -3.74% -0.33% Net Adpdmwb: ($5.500) $0 X60 Not Price DMfarsnce: ($6.1X10) ($5,500) $450 After AOOXWT-o - AdOsted Price of Comp: $144,500 $147,000 $152,050 ptbe of Index Sale: $152,500 $152,500 $152,500 - Miffefsncs: ($9,000) ($5,500) 5450 Percentage Difference: -5.54% -3.74% 0.29% LwK#M:Keller n Comparable Sales Analysis . . . Canyon Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Indus Sale Comparable 1 Ad)ustmante Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad)uetmenls _. Address: 2271 Mt.Whitney 2250 Lynbrook 2239 Lynbrook 2214 Ackerman Pittsburg Pittsburg PRtsburg Pittsburg SeMr Azevedo NA Hey in NA ..r Buyer Edgmond NA NA NA r, 3als PrkA: $162,500 $150,000 $147,000 312,000 3bcune t 17708-528 NA NA NA 1Prloe Per SF Home: $140.88 $111.81 $109.38 $121.99 Adjusbrrurb Sala pate: 07/31192 07102/92 $0 10/18/92 $0 03113/92 $0 I Firwrckp: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typkml 0 Sb Ske(SF): 7,822 10,919 (=9.000) 5,Q83 $2,000 6,700 $2.WG :. Comer t ..J Ylew Amw*y: Foothills None $2,000 None $2,000 None $2,000 Year Bunt: 1986 1981 $2,500 1981 $2,500 1985 5600 Storlse: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Nwn Count: 3/2 3/2 312 3/2 (BedroomwBdM) Morse Size(SF): 1,084 1,344 ($8,500) 1,344 ($8,500) 1,248 ($4,060) M.Garepe Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 b.Fkeplscss: 1 1 1 1 $0 sstJnp: Central Central $0 Central Central $0 LwWM:Keller myon Comparable Sales Analysis KCS-92 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Ad)uet"rft Comparable 2 Ad Uatmnte Comparable 3 Ad)rratnrents Alrowiditning: Central None $1,000 Central Central Property C"Wition: Average Average $0 Average Average err ply; Average Sl.Interior $1,500 SI.Interior $1,500 31.Interior S1,Sgg Yard Improvernerta: Pool: None NOM Nene Nene Fencing: Yes Ya $0 Yea $0 Yes LWWO=Pkv. Average Average $0 Average Average Poo: Yn Yea Yea $0 Yes $0 filar Fes: Nene NOM Nene None . i Bron Price Difference: ($7,000) ($8.500) ($7 SWOre AdAmOnenta Peroenfago DMwonee: -5.35% -8.61% -5.79% idet AdAntnrente: $14,950 $11,300 $10,075 Nd Price DMfararrca: $7,950 $2,800 $2,575 After Adoet"rde AdOeW Price of Comp: $144,950 $139,800 $139,575 Price of Index Sale: $137,000 $137,000 $137,000 DNhwance: $7,950 $2,800 J $2,575 . Percentage Difference: 5.48% 2.00% 1.84% WOW Keller Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity herr Index SW Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdN@Un nb Address: 2292 Jacqueline 1295 Gloria 4140 Camelot 79 Atherton Cl Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Serer: Bartlett Orgeron Burger Heredla 'Buyer. Hunter/Bitlirps Lelft Solt Carvajal gds Price: $137,000 $130,000 $128,500 $129,500 Docurnerd: 17981-288 17805457 17513.883 17705-321 Price Per SF Home: $128.38 $131.85 $129.54 $128.84 Adjustments Sats Date: 10/23/92 09/04/92 $0 05/19/92 $0 07/30/92 $0 I r Financing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 1 -tib Size Mn. 7,128 8,500 ($1.000) 8,800 ($1,000) 7280 ($1,000) Private Drtve -- view Amw*r. LandN Toe Berm None None $0 None $0 Yew Bul t 1987 1973 $7,000 1978 $4,500 1977 $8,000 StaAsa: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room Count: 3/2 3/1 $3,000 3/1 $3,000 3/1 $3,000 (BedroornwBaths) Horne Size(SF): 1,084 988 $2,450 992 $2,300 1,021 $1,575 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 1 Nora $1,000 None $1,000 1 $0 Hedhp: Central Central $0 Central Central $0 landle.KWK Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC4-02 !mpact of Landfill Proximity 16e11f Index Sale Comparable 1 yj) Mmerts COmparable 2 Mtjtrtertl Comparable 3 AdM0.9 Ai condltioning: central Nona $1,000 Central Central Pmpeft Condition: Average Average $0 Average Average >Dverall CKMW. Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Ywd Improvements: Pool: Spa None $1,000 None $1,000 None $1,000 Fencing Yea Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes 4.e Landscaping: Average Average $0 Average Average Pallid: Yes Ya Ya $0 Ya $0 -� Ot1w FWAM: NOM None Nora Nona Corickabna Grow Pubs Orwance: $8•000 S2•5W $11,000 Zdbre AdJwtmerds 74roertege Difference: 3.24% 1.38% 5.79% Not Ad)xrtrnents: ($4,425) ($10,825) (S/422b) Wet Prba DHhrsncs: $1,575 ($8,325) JUtsr AdMdnwft Add Price a Comp: $180,575 $170,875 $175,775 Prim of Index Sale: $179,DOO $179.000 $179,000 Dillarance: $1,575 ($8,325) ($3,225) Percentage Dtnarence: 0.87% -4.88% .1.83% LarWW.Kelw Cs ryon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Compwable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Compavable 3 Adjustments alddnes: 2210 Zennia Ct 3906 Alta Vista 3910 Alts Vista 4429 Valle Vista Pillsbury Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg War Seyfried NA Hal Beshears SUM Trevino Drawsky Jones Lsonardy Davidson Trust Sale Plica: $179,000 $185,000 $181,500 $190,000 Document: 17635-773 98806 18142-097 17364-300 Prim Per SF Homs: $98.19 $98.40 $97.79 $81.48 Adjustments Sale Dade: 07/01/92 04/23/92 $0 12/23/92 $0 03/31192 $0 PYrsrncing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 I Sia Stn(SF): 6,660 8,014 $500 15,876 ($5.000) 10,388 ($3.500) View Amenky. Nona Good Ana ($5,000) Good Area ($5,000) Good Ares ($2.500) Adjacent to Park Yew Butt: 19815 1988 ($500) 1987 ($1,000) 1978 $3,500 i Slorles: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 Room(bunt: 4/2.5 4/2.5 412.5 412.5 $0 (Bedroomeffieft) 31ome Slee(SF): 1,823 1,880 ($1,425) 1,858 ($825) 2,332 ($12,725) M.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 1 1 1 1 $0 Hestkp: car" Central $0 Central Central $0 Landfill:Kotler Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis ` KC302 impact of Landfill Proximity Iter Indus Sele Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments L++ Comparable 3 AdW* I ..J I ndtljonpp: Central Central central Central Property Condition: Average SI.Superior ($2,000) Average Average __. Ovenr .per. Average SI.Inferior $1,500 Average $0 Average $0 Yard ImWowmenfs: Pool: None None None Hot Tub (:1.000) Forcing: Yee Ya $0 Ya $0 Yes Landswing: Average Avenge $0 Average Average POW: Deck Ya '.'se $0 Yes $0 DtherFeaRuao: None None None None Car ckabne ~ !item Pries();!serene: $3.000 $3,000 (34.000) f?e wtoge Werane: 1.08% 1.88% -2.81% IM Adjustments: $3,575 ($2,375) $1,826 #M Prke DlRerance: $6,575 $625 ($2,375) Aller Adpwab erb Adjusted Noe of Corny: $163,575 $157,625 $154,6 -Prkm of Index Sale: $157,000 $157,000 I $157,000 M111wronce: $6,575 $625 I ($2,375) 1 perI eentepe Difference: 4.02% 0.40% i -1.54% r, Comparable Sales Analysis Landl6l:Keller Carryon P Impact of Landflll Proximity ftm Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustmsrds ComDveble 3 AdNdmwrb Address: 2296 Jacqueline 2049 Oakridge 4262 Suzanne 10 PW-" Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg ;Saw. Sierra Residential Gage Smith Cheney Buyer Berson Passch Fearon NA Sale Prim: $157,000 $180,000 $180,000 $153,000 Doctxnwt: 17898-851 17548343 17485-284 17998-910 Sika Per SF Flame: $110,41 $108.74 $106.88 $102.20 Adjustments i E 4 $ala gab: 07/26/92 05/29/92 $0 05/01/92 $0 11/03192 50 I rlrnsrakrg: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typiot 0 3b Sita(SF): 8,030 8,200 11,124 ($3,000) 8.800 (5600) Comer Comer View Amenky: Foothills None Low Level Rooftop ($2.000) None $0 Minimal Year Built 1987 1975 $8,000 1978 54,500 1977 $5,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room count 312 3/2 3/2 312 $0 (Bedmon s/6aths) 1come Site(SF): 1,422 1,499 ($1,925) 1,497 ($1,875) 1,497 ($1,675) -- No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 S0 2 $0 • No.Fireplaces: t 1 1 1 $0 9iee": Central Central $0 Central Central $0 t.wWM:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis ' KC242 Impact of Landfill Proximity ROM Index gale le 1 Ad ustnwnts Co Ie 2 Ad ustnwnts Com N 3 AdX.** AboondNbrdrp: central central Central central Property Condition: Average SI.Superior ($2,000) Average Average Oval"MOW Average SI.Interior $1,500 Average $0 Average $0 Yafd Improwmafb: Pool: Norm Hone None Hot Tub ($1,000) Fencing: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Ya Lanciecaping: Average Avenge $0 Average Average .�W w< Pte: Deck Ya Yee $0 Yes $o -- Other Features: None Norm None None ConoMuions QtoM P1t o DNWw": $2.000 $2.000 ($5,000) Before Ad)ustnwnts pwoentage DNfwence: 1.25% 1.25% -32M NsQ Adjusbnwdr $2,500 ($2.950) 0 Net Price Dftrenco: $4.500 ($950) ($4.450) AfterAdprtmwds i AdW*d Price of Comp: $162,500 $157,050 $153,550 PAce of Index Sale: I $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 9Nferwrce: $4,500 ($950) (S4,450) ?weentege DWerence: 2.77% -0.60% -2.90% Lwdftl:Kolar Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity • lienal Indy Sala Com N 1 Aable 2 Ad ustments Compnble 3 AdjoAdmante l Address: 2223 Concord 2049 Oakridge 4282 Suzann 10 Pacini Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Saler Creed Gaga Sm'th Chaney Salyer Clayton Pansch Fearon NA �.A Sala Nice: 5758,000 $180,000 $180,000 $1°3,000 DocurrenL 17494-77 17548.343 17485-284 17998-010 Price Per SF Homo: $111.35 $108.74 $108.88 $102.20 Ad)uebnnts Sale Data: 05112192 OS/29192 $0 05/01/92 $0 11/03/92 $0 tl 'rkwwkw Typical Typical . $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 Sb Sire(SF): 8,500 8,200 ($2,000) 11,124 ($4,500) 8,800 ($2,500) comer Connor _-+ View Amenity: Rooftop Foothills None $2,000 Low Level Rooftop $0 Non $2,000 Yew Buck: 1985 1975 $8.000 1978 53,500 1977 $4,000 Action: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 3toom Card: 3/2 3/2 312 3/2 $0 {Blsdnlonre/Balhs) 3tarn Size(SF): 1,419 1,499 ($2,000) 1,497 ($1,950) 1,497 ($1,950) No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 FH'eplaces: 1 1 1 1 $0 Heaft: Central control $0 central Central $0 Kaaer CanYan Comparable Sales Analysis KC1.02 impact of Landfill Proximity Ibm index Sant le 1 Adjustrrierft Comperable 2 Ad ra N 3 Ad j,.W.* AYcorrditloning: COMM Central Central Centnry Property CondNbn: Average $1.Superior (#2,000) Avenge Avenge Over"OAXW- Ave" sl.Werior #1,500 Avenge #0 Average $0 Yard kr*nwwrrenta: p wt Spa None #1,000 None $1,000 Hot Tub $0 FenChQ i Yee Yee $0 Yee #0 Yee UrMacaD„g� , Average Average $0 Avenge Avon** u Deck Yee Yoe $0 Yee $0 Ottwt Fodurae: security Syst— None #1,000 None $1,000 None #1,000 t Gron Price Offeror": (#5,000) (#5.000) 1312000} 2leftre Adjuebr+erAe per Wtop Dftrerx»: -3.13% -3.13% -7.54% No Adjustmerds: #5,500 (#450) #3,550 44g pfte DWerorrce: #500 ($5,450) (#8,450) AfterAdlveUr»nix -- J1dJrMted Price of Camp: #185,500 #159,550 $158,550 Pike of Index Safe: $185,000 $185,000 3185,000 - $500 ($5,450) (#8.480) 0.30% -3.42% -5.40% -percentage Difference: t Comparable Sales Analysis ` l.artdf8l:Kellet Carryon Pa Impact of Landfill Proximity Itefn Indus Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adltuhnents Address: 2229 DafffodN 2049.Oakridge 4282 Sraanne 10 Pacini Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Saler: West Gaps Smith Cheney Buyer. Saeaham Pesech Fearon NA Sale Price: $165,000 $180,000 $160,000 $153,000 Doafnm t: 4616 1754&& 17466-284 17998-010 ;Ptfoe Per SF Home: $118.28 $106.74 $106.88 $102.20 Adpiabnonts Sala Dale: 01/08/92 05/29192 $0 05/01192 $0 11/03/92 $0 1FlrratrcirtQ Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 _� Stte Stas(SF): 9,360 8,200 $1,000 11,124 ($2.000) 8,800 $600 Corner Cones View Amenity. Nona None Low Level Rooftop ($2.000) None $0 Power Lk»e/i ow w Yew guilt: 1985 1971$ $5,000 1978 $3.500 1977 $4,000 storfa: 1 1 $0 1 $0 , $0 $t001rt count: 3/2 3/2 3/2 W $0 (e.droon-Maths) tloma Size(SF): 1,419 1,499 ($2,000) 1,497 ($1,950) 1,497 ($1.950) ft.Gwape Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 1 1 1 1 $0 ilealMt9: Central Central $0 Central Central $0 0 xlot A wt ;p aR3* X. t- 0 - aaCIO f_: CR N ;ot aR aot3R e at ale ae aR aR ag aR ac at aR ag aR aR C4 "i 9 40— T 1? 9 1 W?I?c; N Va 6;—4 a— p- aa aak &.1 all 19a Us M ag 44 IG 1- 90-0 C, V ;! - HMN V - UR 1000 an V Z;Z; 4; g's 000 NNN Z;Z;Z; NNM NMM NMN CG: aa 42 gag 7ro aR 7R aR aR at 39 ye aR 0 pot .L- gI? Cv 9 C4 vi'i 6 'o P;ei 4? 01 vi aga :i ;g vy ill ills :9 "Wo, NNNN �VM MR RM �?91 9-991 RIM 3M M9 t, I 1_ V,2 zfs' 2 'S820, ii§FF to:, C I -W C*A 0 ok MR R �V� Ok vivi .05! w0 KCT 40 W Q 1 10 11 !gig iin (4 wom 0, k C,a, N CMTrr m mii OF =12 5 -5 0>10 1: 0 0 a 0 0 > OE -'j jz :J 0 AI C'4 V) !Nm Lu N m JJ ese U.!N m =;No R Ul alit A A A R 1 a 1� 1 ift i H 9 E E E 9 E E E 9 E� 9 E E E 9 E E 9,E E E 9,EE-E 9EE8 9 9 9 E 3 3 3 fAg E -2 g E.3 E8 E 18 E E 9 '2883 '2883 38 ? 008 � 8 UO ? 88 988 8 C3 8 9 138 LwdM:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC841 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ilam Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdJuatrnenb Akoonditlonlnp: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 IPropaAy Condition: Avempe Averepe $0 51.Interim $2,000 Averape $0 OVOW Quawy: Averape Average $0 Aver pe $0 Inferior $500 Yard Improvanerds: Poot None None $0 None $0 Nnne $0 Fa zkW Yea Yee $0 Yea $0 Yaa $0 Landecapkrp: Average Averepa $0 Avarapa $0 Averape s0 w Patio: Ya Yee $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 OfNw Featurae: None Nona $0 Nona $0 None $0 Ooncknione r Grow PAoe Dtfferanoe: ($7,000) ($7.000) MAIM Sabre Ad)A mends Veroerdapa DWwwwo: -4.58% -4.58% -4.02% Not AdXnbnards: $1,675 $1,775 $10,050 Net Price Difference: ($5,325) ($5,225) $2.650 Attar Ad)uatments AdJwtad Price of Comp $154,675 $154,775 $102,560 f4te of Index sale: $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 Difference: ($5,325) ($5,225) 52.560 ;Peroentape Difference: 3.44% -3.38% 1.57% I UwWM:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Urn Index Sale Compers 18 1 Adjust"rds CompaMble 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad i Aare": 2263 Jacqueline 1484 Mondene 1472 Wontuele 78 Atherton C1 Pittsburg Pittsburg PRtsburg Pittsburg Campbell Gillespie Lower Yom Bu - Deepoelto Rama Turner Cahn" 301181 Price: $180,000 $153,000 $153,000 :152,500 Document 18400442 16831.31 1861"1 16369 43 1pr1pa per SF Home: $112.52 $109.13 $102.62 $107.39 Adluetnrnts Sele Dom: 02/14/91 08/29/91 $0 04/16/91 $0 F 01/25/91 i0 Ftr+errcYrp Types Typkw $0 Typhi $0 Typical $0 J Sft Sita(SF): 9,390 7,600 ($1,000) 7.620 ($1.000) 8,884 $0 Y1ew A„,.,,tty: Foothills None $0 None $0 None $0 Year Built 1987 1982 $2,500 1982 $2,500 1977 $5,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 S0 #loom Coed: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 S0 (Swiroolnaffie") I1 alorrre site(SF): I 1,422 1,415 $175 1,491 ($1,725) 1,420 $50 o.Gera9,Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 I -- No.Fireproes: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $D -- ice, I Central central $0 central $0 Central S0 1-rww:Keller Canyon Comparable Sates Analysis KC11-01 Impact of Landfill Proximity tern Index Sale Comparable 1 Mustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 J1YoordNbning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Averpe so Dvanl Gt ww. Average SI.Interior $1,500 SI.Superior $1,500 Avenge $0 Yard Imprownnnts: t^ Pool: Nora None $0 None $0 None $0 Fench Ya Ya $0 Yee $0 Ya $0 Lardscapru: Avenue Aver p $0 Avenge $0 Average $0 Pdb: Ya Ya $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 ADOW Features: None None $0 None $0 security System ($1,000) ConoMrbrr area Prks Difference: ($3.000) ($2,050) 61 Po AdJustrnards Percentage Diffarence: -2.28% -1.53% -0.74% Not Adpstmerts: 37,975 $10,150 $0,500 Net Price Warence: i $4,n5 $8,100 $5,500 J1tbr AdXstmMb I Adjusted Price of Comp: $140,775 3144,100 $141,500 Prka of Index Sale: $135,000 $135,000 $138,000 I I MIlference: $4,775 $8,100 $5,b00 Percentepe Diffenme: 3.30% 5.82% I 3.59% T-1 La WW.Kolar Can)— Comparable Sates Analysis -- Impact of Landfill Proximity IEerrr Index Sala CompanbN 1 Adiuslmants ComparabN 2 AdJusNmrns Comparable 3 Ad Address: 1098 Alamo Ct 65 ChaNaa Way 1548 Kingsley 3820 St.Morriz Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg SotIK Watkins NA Barratt Scheys Buyer. Ewd McLeskey Pasclak Henderson Sala Price: $138,000 $133,000 $139,950 $135,000 DeOument 17034.39 240871 16617.695 18898-27 Frlae Par SF Moms: 3137.10 $130.26 $135.P5 :138.09 `v -o" AdXabrmnla w I gw Osla: 1MMI 11/14/91 $0 05124/91 $0 08127/91 $0 I Flrwrcirq: Typical TY*d $0 Typ" SO Typical $0 � I 1 SAs Sme Mn: 6,800 6,592 $2,000 1 7,412 $1,000 I 6,600 $2,000 Some Noise Sane Freeway Nola i VlwvrAMW*r. Good Area None $3,000 Nam $3.000 None $3,000 Deft Year Buil: 1981 1977 $2.000 1974 $3,500 ' 1978 31,500 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 RAM court: 3/1 3/1 $0 3/1 $� 3/1 $p (BedroorrmBatha) aim. Size(SF): 992 1,021 ($725) 986 $150 992 $0 M.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 ft.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 0 $1,000 0 $1,000 Meef ng: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 UmWM:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC10-01 Impact of Landfill Proximity ItWn Index Sale Comparable 1Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdjuMmarrh Airconditlordrrg: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Property CmWftn: Average Average $0 Avenge $0 Average $0 loveraiQUOIT. Average 37.Interior $1,500 SI.Superior $1,500 Average $0 'lard Improvements: POOP NOM NOM $0 None $0 None $0 Farming: Yes Ya $0 Yea $0 Yee $0 LarrdegpNp: Average Avenge $0 Avenge $0 Average $0 Patlo: Yes Yee $0 Yes $0 Yea $0 Ottw Feahsae: None None $0 None $0 Security System ($1.000) Conclusions •v Bross Price Difference: ($5,000) ($4,000) ($3000) M Mdba Adjustments Peroantage DlRarsnce: -3.76% -2.99% -2.22% AIM Adjustments: $10,500 $13,875 $9,225 Not Prim Dgferance: $5,600 $9,875 $6,225 After Adjustmerds - Adiusted Price of Comp: $143,500 $147,875 $144,225 Prlw of Index Sale: $138,000 $138,000 $138,000 Ofference: $5,500 $9,875 $8,225 ?arcarrtape DNfanrxw: 3.83% 6.68% I 4.32% Lmndtl6:KeW Corwyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity IENrn Index Sale Comparable 1 Ad)uslmerts Comparable 2 Adjustmerda Comparable 3 AdMt,& Address: 2218 Chestnut 65 Chelsea Way 1548 Iangely 3820 St.Moritz Pittsburg PMaburg Pittsburg Pittsburg ;S~. NA NA Berxwtt Scheye Sulfur pay Mct.eekey Pawlsk :;enderson gAft PdM: $138,000 $133,000 $134,000 $135,000 Meqnwd 96945 240871 16617895 1689&27 Prim Per SP Honw: $135.16 $130.26 $135.90 $136.09 SW*Dab: 0524191 11/14/91 $0 05124/91 $0 06/27191 $0 • i Typial Typlal $0 Typkal $0 Typical SO gp Ske(SF): 16,060 6,592 $5.000 7,412 $5.000 6,800 $6,000 Sonne Fnemwey Nota yyw may: good Ana None $3.500 None $3,500 None $3,500 w Yw suit 1976 1977 $500 1974 $2,000 1978 $0 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 V4xwn Coreg 311 3/1 $0 311 $0 3/1 $0 �aednporrrlBdhe) ?comm Stzs(SF): 1,021 1,021 $0 986 $875 992 $725 M.Gangm Ste: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 J M.Fireplace: 1 1 $0 0 $1,000 0 $1,000 I Noa&np: central central $0 Central $0 Central $0 I LmvN t Kew a.nyon CoinlwaWe Sales Analysis KCG-e2 Imped of Landfill ProAmlty ROOM trrdex Sale Comparable 1 AdAmbnamb Comperfb!2 Adjustments Comparable 9 AdkoUnWb .i Aboomdttbntrg: Nom Control ($1,000) Cerrint ($1,000) Control ($1.000) 1Aopaety CwWtk)n: Average Average $0 Averep Average 1 Dvere6 may'• Average Average $0 SL Stwedor ($1,500) Average $0 ..a Yard Nnproveererib. Poole Nom Spa ($1,000) None None Femotnp Yee Yea $0 Yee $0 Yee Londeoopiap Average Average $0 Avenge Average Pdb: Yee Yea Yea $0 Yee $0 IODOaer F.du.e: None sec.system ($1.000) Nom Security System ($1.000) OomoAwbro, Gmee Price DRerenoe: $6.000 $2.000 $7,000 ir-71 Wm AdJtr lnnrds iaMoenlepe 1311faw 5.93% 1.38% 4.61% Net AdAni menti: ($14.125) ($8,125) �Y Not Price D6fereracr (39,125) ($8,125) Atter Aoxilm orris -� AdJnbd Price of Cone: $195,675 $138,875 $144,625 prier of trdex sole: $145,000 $145,000 $145.100 Difference: ($9.125) ($8,125) (3173) -01Pe1oanfepe D6fererree: -0.72% -4.41% -0.12% i Lerdl!Kdw Cewon Comparable Sales Analysis 1 Impact of Landfill Proximity ` fern index Sale Comparable 1 Adke=t Comparable 2 AdNdmwft Comparable 3 Address: 2282 Concord 2002 Oakridge 4358 Sart Miguel 2320 Down Way ^ Pkbburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg -, Soler: Gullw y Tapb Ferguson NA J Door Rutz Dummy Hod Ungam Sale Price: $159,000 11164,600 $147,000 $149,000 .01 DOoune1t: 17672-490 19060x16 17566-18 17413.890 f4w Per SF Hoare: $102.39 $99.98 $9920 199.53 Adltrtments ,., SaleOdA: 07/18(92 11/26M $0 O8rv6/92 $0 04/18/92 $0 FlrwrobTypical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 Sb fts(SFX 9.50 T." $2,000 9,925 $2,600 5.799 $'l.= �J VlowAmertty: FootftY None Noon $0 Nona $0 MnMnel Yw suit 1998 1979 $5,000 1973 $8,500 1977 $4,600 StwIN; 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 aioorn Cast: 412 412 4R 4/2 (BedrootlMl Wn) Horne Stre(SF): 1,553 1,999 ($3,825) 1,497 $1,400 1,497 $1,400 .i No.Garope Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 — ince Fieplaeea: 1 1 1 1 0 ala ing: Central central $0 central central $0 1 LAndef:Kolar Canyon Comparable Sales Analyst KCa-02 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ibm Index Sale Co le 1 Ad le t Ad le a Ak*Wlditlordnp: Central Contra: I Certru, Central Property Condition: Average Superbr ($2,500) Average Average 04WA OwAr. Average Superior (15,000) SI.Interior $1,500 S1.Interior $1,800 TWO impmvwrmte: Pool: SpalGaxebo None $1,500 None $1,500 None 31,500 Fetwhig: Yee Yee $0 Yee $0 Yee Larrdarrapkra Averpe Averape $0 Averepe Average �i Patio: Yes Ya Yes $0 Yee 10 00t1w FeeUaee: None None None Slowly 3yetem ($1.000) OorroMrNons era Qnft Palm D6Unnce: 36 600 (312,000) ($10.0001 ..r �e 11dJrrehrrertb -1 fWasrtage DMference: 3.34% -6.18% 4.71% ?ret Adpatmeets: (12,625) $13.100 $10.400 Not Prbe Difference: 12.875 $1,400 $400 After Adk.tm.rft JWlrreted Price of Comp: 1181,875 $180,400 315p;400 Price of Index Sale: $159,000 $159,000 $160,000 D111fMnee: $2,875 $1,400 $400 POtteMape D6hnnce: 1.78% 0.87% O26% LwwMk:Keler canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Pro)dmity aY Urn Index Sale Comparable 1 Ad)ustments ConrpOrable 2 Adjustn ds CoavoOble 3 Address: 2174 EI Seen 2002 Oakridge 4358 San Miguel 2320 Doves'way Pittsburg PBLburg Pittsburg PRbburq 9eker Hoktgets TogBo Ferguson NA $rysr LombeNo Du—y Heki Ling— V 9010 Prbs: $160,000 $184,500 $147,000 $149,000 " Document: 18147-000 18060-618 17686-18 17413-890 Price Per SF Homo: $99.80 $98.88 $98.20 $99.53 Adkwtmonte ti 9010 Deb: 12/24J92� 11/2bf92 $0 08/0til92 $0 04/18ID2 $0 76 mob Typical Typ" $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 3"ske(SF): 8,400 7.408 ($1.000) 6,825 8.798 Vl&wAnwg)r. None None None $0 None $0 Ys sr Blink: 1980 1978 $2.000 1973 $3,500 1977 51,600 $testae; 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 J i/tpoo�rn coourt::� 4/2 4R U2 412 (Bed oornsr aft) }Irnrre Stre(SF): 1,503 1,898 ($4,875) 1,497 $150 1,497 $160 1'10.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 trio.Fkapkwes: 1 1 / 1 3testlng: Cerdrel c4nb l $0 CsrtnY cental $0 t.wWW KNw Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC10-02 Impact of Landfill Pfoxlmlty Index Sale Compenble 1 Adtjt!!b Comparabia 2 AdJuebnerrte comparable 3 AdXwbnerte } ...r Akoondklarft: Central central central central V 3Nopwty Condition: Average Average $0 Average Average Dvww OLWA . Average Superior ($6,000) Average $0 Avenge $g Ywd Mprowmerta: p1 Pat None Nor* None None Feick Yee Yea $0 Yea $0 Yea Landeppkw Average Average $0 Average Average Pdlo: Yee Yee Yee $0 Yee $0 r Other Features: None None None I Security SYdam ($1.000) ConaknbM 3+208 Pdoe tlMbranoa: $14,500 ($3.000) ($1.000) ;B F, Ad)idmerts IPOIOW ger Di<fwerm: 8.81% -2.04% -0.67% Not Adpntmenta: ($8,875) $3,850 $850 Nd Prim Werenoe: $5.825 $880 ($380) After Adjuetrnenls Ad)Ated Price of Comp: $155,825 $160,850 $110,860 fMM of Index Sale: $150,000 $160,000 $150,000 Z8bnn>ce: $5,625 $850 ($360) 0rerpntepe DMbrance: 3.81% 0.43% -023% LmM.Kehr Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis 1 Impact of Landfill Proximity Main Indus Sale Comparable 1 Adlustmu>fs Comparable 2 AdAntmenb CmVwsbb 3 Addis": 1216 Alma 1455 ValwMiela 301 Grange PL 4 Lemonwcod PI Pittsburg Pkbburg Pktsburg PWaburg Nemec Lamy Ch*M Arnold KYvwbrg I IUW. GaMpwr/Ak Kahn Lloyd Singh Nunez ~ Sala Prion: $165,000 $182,000 $187,000 $181,500 "1 Document: 17949-618 17269.323 17576.72 17562,296 FWn Per SF Nome: $92.75 $99.69 $90.58 $80.47 .w Adlrrdremds :.•,a Sala Dab: 0312592 02126/92 $0 08I10A2 $0 09x17/92 $0 FYlsrmcing; Typical Typkal $0 Typkal $0 Typical 0 _J =4 Sten;9F): 10,086 9,680 $500 10AW $0 r SAW $2.= Soma Nolan .. 1lbw Amwdr. Dom Naw $9,000 AtinYrel $3,000 Naw $5,000 Year Butt 1978 1982 ($2,000) 1978 $0 1976 $1,000 Slobs: 1 t $0 t $0 1 $0 raw Mount: 3R 3/2 412 ($3,000) 412 ($3,000) {Bedroarme/Balfe) dome Sita(SF): 1,779 1,825 $3,550 1,844 ($1,825) 2,007 (38,700) No.Ganage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 FNaplscee: 1 1 1 1 • +%dinw Central Central $0 Central Curtrw $0 t MWW Kehr Canyon Comparable Sales Anaysis KC12.82 Impact of Landfill Proximity �a ,Ibm index Sale 2ompaLd"1 Adjustrnerts ComparaW Adt!rtrerts Comparable 3 AQua mwb _. AYoondItIoNnp: Central Central Contra! Cartrol Pmpwty Condr�on. Averope Average $0 Anrspe Avenge Drwr lauslRy Average Si.Superior MAW sl.buperior 01151)0) Average $0 Ywd Irnprovwrrrts: ^9 Poole None None None None Fwxtrrp: Yee Ya $0 Yw $0 Yee l arrdaoapinp: Averope Averope $0 Averep Avarapa Pdb: Yee Yee Yee $0 Yee $0 i . OUMr Fedurve: None None None .. y sydee. (31.000) Conclusions QMw Price Drhrwroe: ($3,000) 32.000 (35,806) +g Mdbra AdjumbnNlb Pwow fte Mwence: -1.85% 1.20% -.17% Not AdAN*n w b: $3,850 ($3,125) ($3.700) Not Price DWwwwo: 3860 ($1,125) (37,200) Ager Ad)Atmwts Ad)ueted Paco of Comp: $165.850 $183,875 3157,80C Prim of Index sale: $185,000 $155,000 $166,000 IWWWOe: $860 ($1,125) ($7,200) Percentage DWorenee: 0.51% -0.69% -4.N% LwdW.Ke1Mr Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis "T Impact of Landfill Proximity Ilem Indy SAW Comparable 1 Ad)uetments Comparable 2 AdNetmenle Comperable 3 Jlddnes: 2278 Jacqueline 2250 Lynbrook 2239 Lynbrook 2214 Ackerman PRteburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Seller Well NA Hayes NA Brysr. Esta NA NA NA 3de Price: $158,000 $150,000 $147,000 $152,000 Mocunent: 17738878 NA NA NA F. Per SF Home: $116.69 6111.81 $109.38 $121.99 yq Sale Dale: T12M 07/02194 $0 10I1M $0 o3/13A2 >D 0 FYtancing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 (sFk $,761 10,919 ($6,000) 6,663 $600 5,700 $500 vj YMwAmndy: F0otM0s None $2,000 Nona $2,000 Nona $2,000 Power l.YrdTowam Year suit 1968 1981 $2,500 1981 $2,500 1986 $500 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 72oom Count: 3/4 M 312 9/2 {BedroortrNBetlm) home Sire(SF): 1,354 1,344 $250 1,344 $250 1,246 $2,700 71o.Gars"Space: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 Ab.Fireplaces: 1 1 I 1 1 $0 i Healing: Central Central $0 Central Central $0 -. t.wxW Keller(myon Comparable Sales Analysis / KC1342 Impact of Landfill Proximity .Kern Indy Sale Compwable, Adjustments a Compwab 2 Adjustments Compwable 3 AdAmbnerts A koondiioeft: Central Central Central Central PropertY Condition: Average Average $0 Average Average Ov"Quay. Average 31.Interior $11,500 Average $0 Si.Inferior 31,600 Yerd Improvements: Poot None Spa ($1,000) None None Fencing: Yee Yee $0 Yea $0 Yea .,g 1-ardacapirv. Average Average $0 Average Avwap i POW: Yes Yee Yee $0 Yee $0 Other FMtuna: None sec.System ($1.000) None ° Security System ($1.000) faortoluabrr Ora"Me DBenrror. ($5 ($11.000) (WPM Mdom Aftmbnanb �+ t°wow*W Werwroa: -5.33% -7.58% Not Adjusuna ts: ($750) $5,250 $6,200 No Prior Dorene m: ($5.750) ($6,750) 6200 sifter Adjustments Adjusted Price of Comp: $152,250 $16s,2oo Prim of ind.x saie: $156,000 s,ba,000 $tMIXIO Dithwonce: ($5,750) ($5,750) $200 wcwtage DHference: 5.66% -3.75% 0.13% La xW.Keaw Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis �• Impact of Landoll Proximity Kenn Index Selo Comparable 1 Adjustrrronts Comperable 2 Adjustmsnb Coif"abie 3 _ Address: 2237 Mt Whitney 2250 Lynbrook 2239 Lynbrook 2214 Ackennen Pittsburg Pittsburg Pftowg Pittsburg Soler. King NA iayec NA Buyer Ga NA NA NA 3de Price: $158,000 $150,000 1.147,000 $152,000 Docurnert: 17527.808 NA NA NA F. Per SF Homs: $114.00 $111.81 $109.38 $121.99 Adjuefirartls I i =w 1we Date: P 2 07/02/92 $0 1816/92 $0 03113192 $0 ",-nch Typical Typical $0 Typial $0 Typical 0 I J me was(Sn 6,300 10,919 ($4XM 5,663 $00 5.790 $606 .w VNaAnwly: F-H 0 Nora $2.000 None $2,000 None $o Power L kwarroema Year&nil: 1981 1961 $0 1961 $0 1985 ($2,000) I I Stortea: , , $0 1 $0 1 $0 I 4ioom Count: 3n 312 312 3n {BedroomelBaM) :toms Slxe(SF): 1,388 1,344 $1,050 1,344 $1,050 1,248 $7,1100 No.Geroge Spam: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 - No.Fkepleces: 1 1 1 1 $0 Hoeft: Central central $0 Central Central $0 Lendfw:Keller Canyon Comparable Sates Analysis KC14-02 Impact of Lail M Proximity �m Index Sale Comparable 1 Adhrdmerts Comperable 2 r Adiwtmenb Comparable 3 A*wbranle i Akoondkicning: Central Central Central Central Y Caldkicn: Average Average $0 Average Average Omid Gudk)r. Average ss.Inferior $1,500 Average $0 9l.Inferior :1,600 Yard Improtiartwta: Pool: Nona Spa ($1,000) Nona Nona Feick Yea Yea $0 Yea $0 Yea l endeoapbW Average Average $0 Average Avenge Palb: you Yee Yee $0 Ya $0 D00.Fedurae: None sec.System ($1.000) None Secrrky System ($1.000) OawMrebrr { 4m"PAoe Dwww": ($8.000) ($11.000) 1$0.000) 94 In Ad]LWb w be "emer""Overarm: 4.31% -7.48% aAs% tNst AdAntmants: ($1.950) $3.550 $1.500 Nd Price Dklerwoe: ($9.950) ($7.450) (33A00) Afar Adjontments A*xbed No at clomp: $148.050 $150,550 $154.500 P, of Index Sale: $155.000 $158,000 318.000 Dower": ($9,950) ($7,450) ($3.500) Per doge bwerence: -8.72% -4.95% 2.47% co ' W Y�Y m N 00 O `• Y � N � � O O O N 4 4 O O N M "_• c aR aQ 2Q JQ ZQ ZQ aR aR aR aR aR 2e a2 JR CoA Yrn� 1, svo A(0W '000'0 to 0) Ln'naR 2¢rnN Rom 0w o Drn Ao oaov, AN Drno Morn v V 0 01-0 aWA tnvA a M 17 v7 N o6,79 I 9 o CV'T Ni -7M 7 79U? ovM ' N O 0 N O N IO(0 0 O�A h ' N N V1 O O O u 1 O O O O O v)(0 0 N O N A N A N A O O O N N N O N N O N O A N O O�0 v) N N N to(D D DY a h w woo NDN DO D ADW 10 Y M N1010 In.-O NN A NNM MN♦ Goll y) OhA •A�f NhN N f0 At0 Q NNN NNM NNN NM N� NNN Z. ANN NN NNN S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 000 O O O O� O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 633 OOO N N W O o O W 0 Y) Laha 00Q? $00 00O 000 000 0Oo WWQ oOO G�OkC wmm ccppao0 o0o r:r`� A(:(: a22 YY Wcoa YYY `1YY W VV YYY MMM SSS 4cl1 MMM smS (0Iul N fR N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i L aatnQ n"ih bcRm amvt aMm QWO r WO, �v(ws aOD.ev foo IL Y N M wow N N M A W N A (p A N OS2 0 pp A v)A 'In w W M�z N Y Yhvlv)v) Y YYt0m_Y Mty v) A 10 My M Wv)Y Y)mm O V161P6% NNN NNN OA(AGot NNN 61 61k c4 HNN HWN NNN NGov.N (A D N W O O O O W h w v) O N O O O MOO (O v)O N O ON W N Nom'O NO A A Aho 01,N v1 W O No B 0 6a N N a O A N Y v) O DA (D coODM N�D NM W A tD COpNtO ct W 10 . 3 m 10 M OOP/ 0A(/l Ln v)N NM N M N NN� X10 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NC* aR aR ZR aR aR aR aR aR aR vt aR ZR aR zOt aR aR 3R aR aR aR ♦Y s(0 A A O fp M g N O W O aD% M O N X `O M Y W A M !�l tp Y MOp w0 Nto N (O N W W MSA 0l�f� m(0 W IT N (p q.-ci 6v `4`44 '7(?? 4,T '4W(? vino ri4Ar­vi cc m 0O 000 000 0t 00 000 000 ,o6o 000 000 oa11 d oOo 000 000 Oo 000 00 0o v)v)v) 00o v> CNN 000 (OOv) O1nD a ul) DOO Dv)O 00 Y OM O DD v) NNM N A aDN N'CO (O tON O W D ON MA v M W N NM aD 4 LL U) O ANN 0/ NH Go), 6,2114,6,2114, Nvv Go,G* NNN N N N NMv NN . y ICI-0 LL D M N W X 7 M"" W t'1 W N i r-W N -1-2 !r0SM N 'NW OO W�j N S g A Y V(0 N N 45 c!Y W bNY YV a0 r M X)I AODM x0�m Nm xoOA A Y M i0 N Nmm N L C -41OO.A- 11qq PIN O O N 0 O�OO �AOO 000 OSS � 5� O�O riOONOZ-.-. 0000� SOS W� M NN i1►NNN MNNN il►NNN MNNN y► N NNNN 64 ow NNNN MNNN MMM t7 M M M M M M t+f M M M v)M M M v)M M M 17 M N M W)M MN M Z7 M Mn o H'11�� Js5s_ SIS@ MIS ���@ sm tW t?�� 12% US% OOO n O O O O O �Q O 00 —Op O O .d E o o$ Soo oSo� $$`� cQcQapp �S$S two$ 'log SpO Z S �nBoS E ,oSOO X000 �0 C2&0 � tOb a.22 2 .WW Xw �O(0 SNOW O Q r7 s0 l ai v a HPIOp i. H N OOpp i-v)O♦ �p�p rn v Y♦♦ �p vi Pi n W A:ani G.lIYY _'YYY SOY Yb :;t;t :t v:! t! TD(A�2.D T2:t:: +l �(AS' —19-19 iA z4a Z;a iANNN MNNN NNNN NNIll,N iA NMN MNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN . vM� op ppp �p �Op t.n �WyOS S n �M Std �S SO Nf0OO �h S'3 MS ll O m W O Ym hP� in a �O ac _j.6W aDA T W c6 A: 2.12A W OD #WA(0 "DAAm Ac� Y -(O ASO tp 1AAA OlAtD c;! i" 7 w v h mYh gg w .0 w ONNM AAA tO t0 A O tDN Q A OtoQ hO•rn fD�A A W A A m A A 0m A A A XO S N.A 30 A A A tD W t0 W tD co co A aD W W A A A aD W W W XD W W W XA W W W W W W XO W W XA W W W XM W W W Uf W co W Of W W W O)W W W LL -� WSDAN co CAN W SON xb N m W s� NN(0(D 'ornQ NO 1nm M 4 W AO Y7W AO mt0(0 �f�O OD w0�0�0 wO'OM !D OQ t"1 ��0 �0 W[�1 W ;Y4't Y �f YYY MMM t7 Ml'7M a7YMM Oac aD r�tyM (01�i000 VVV`��� T(OD� OO yy� O m L m OZ m > Qp2 TT — C C C v m C C Y�a C �yy m m O g _m m O m O i A ..: O L m m ' 7.Hl 7 L S'e LSC S C C CTc a W 7 .> 7 Y C 7—>> �d m m 0 U m m 0 U ; m ;a f5 O 3,C U m m a �9 t9 Q p L ai to f� m �Uirn ngv=� ��ma m� 'nin�tn �= 3 n °qq �(n�� end �. Wo Orn M0 <DM MO Of ON m A/ m CN =0 OO > [D Orn <OON O m�..,rn Q W A M rn A M N A A A AAA 7 M M O 4 a W N rn.-J aD M M A O rn N N N rn r,-, �A(D O^M rn ^IM�'<D T•-OY N O ON W NNN- Y-7 Nrn W N N M�N r M�N � r-M N'-e-rn N N�� N N N N r Y M A -NNN(7 f N Y M M FNM —NM —NM —NM FNM —NM �N M �'N M .-NM —NM Q m As M m g m U g m g o g m m W m g g LLm g g g g m =g g m - m g g -g g g gann gnan masa gann gaga gnaw Aman gaga gaga gaga ._ to o`e (om � ff � � to `mwff Ne � � N (e (om yme = we m tnmm `m tnm � m momma =888 =888 =888 =888 =888 2888 5888 =888 =888 s888 rr . t andlB Ke1ern Comparable Sales Analysts Impact o(Uhdflll Proximity Ibm Indez Sale Compreble 1 Adpst� Comprable 2 Adjustments Comprable 3 AdXwtn+rts Address: 2248 Jacqualine 3790 Chatsworth 1873 Heatherwood 2130 Stockton Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pesburg sew. Russo Fket Natbral bank Jong cow IkW- Bruetalrn Tart Weaver Elat a Sale Pnbe: $148,600 $146,000 $149,000 $143,000 i =w+ I)oaurwft 19228-020 18912-621 18892-63 19207887 F be Per SF Horns: $103.48 $97.63 $101.22 $101.49 Ad)<whranb gals Data: 12MM 09103/92 $0 08131193 $0 11/90/03 $0 «r Firanck Typical T"I at $0 Typical, $0 Typkat $0 Me Ste OF): e.Ow a,W ($sAM $,OW (MOM 7,700 (SIAM j +� VlowArnrrMr: Foothi SlntlrOveral $0 Nona $0 lions $0 Power Linsa/Towars Yew Bult 1968 1976 $4,000 1974 $8,000 1986 $600 stones: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 PAM, Court 3/2 3/2 $0 31.2 $0 3/2 $0 (BedroornsMaft) #iorna Sb:e(SF): 1,416 1,497 ($2,026) 1,472 ($1,40n) 1,409 $176 ft.Garage spm: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0- No. 0.No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $p 1 $p flssling: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 �. I J 1 Undfit:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KCI-03 Impact of Landfill Proximity Kern Index SW Compwble 1 Adlwtrtwnts Comparable 2 Adpatrnenfe Compweble 3 JWoond1kwft: Control Control $0 Control $0 Central $0 Property CondWon: Average Average $0 Aver ,a $0 Average $0 4>vNell pudlty; Average Average $0 SI.Interior $1,500 SI.Infector $1,800 >. yard Improvement: Poet Nor* None $0 Spa ($1,000) None $0 Footh Yee Ya $0 Yw $0 Yee $0 .-a landaeOF' Average Average $0 Averpe Avenge $0 Paso: Yee Yee $0 Yee $0 you $0 Ottw Feabsea: None Nor* $0 None $0 Nor* $0 OorroMrebrra °+9 Yiroae Prbe OMweaoe: ($500) $2.500 {xx% sal BefM Ad)nbr*nb Owwwwo: -0.34% 1.68% -X45% Not Ad)xdnm b: ($1,025) $3,100 $078 NA Pdw DMfwwm: ($1,525) $5,800 Aftr Adknbrmft JWprted Price of Comp: S144,g75 $152,100 $1/5,875 Frbe of Index Sale: $148,500 $146,500 $1 AIM Dlfwerloe: ($1,525) $5,600 02A Pegeort a Difference: -1.05% 3.68% t wWM:haler Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity �1bm Index sw Comparable 1 AdiuetmeMs Comparaolsr2 Ady.»trnents companbM 9 AdlusbtwfAt Address: 1019 Rockrtdpe 3799 Chohn oath 1873 HestMrnood 2130 Stocidon Pittsburg PNtsbury Pittsburg Pittsburg eMr GhnN Fbnt No0onal Bank A •s cow Buyer Bkwvwaysa Thtnd Weawr Elsbwry 9de Pnloe: $148,000 $148,000 $149.000 $149,000 Doenment 18411477 18912-621 18892-63 19207-8T ^� arlos Per 3F Horne: $103.50 $97.63 $101.22 $101.49 Adjusbnenls .z, � SaN Data: 04A02/93 09103192 $0 0813119.9 $0 1IMM $0 I . F' FYnncirra Typfcd TypkW $0 Typkw $0 Typk w 0 3Rs Sks(917: 13.770 9,960 $4.000 8,000 $8,000 1,700 SUN blssrAnw*r. None Sl.Supwbr ($2,000) None $0 Nona $0 Year oust: 1961 1978 $1.600 1974 $3,500 1986 ($2,000) 3tartes: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ROM count 3R 3R $0 3Q $0 312 $0 tom ►») ±coma Size(SF): 1,430 1,49T ($1,876) 1,472 ($1,050) 1,409 $11215 M.Gwgp Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 so ft Fkaplaeee: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ` iieet4p: central OW&W $0 Central $0 Central $0 tWOW.Keber carryon Comparable Sales Analysis 1�0 KC243 Impact of Landfill Proximity (brn Index Sele Comperable 1 Adjue ants Comparable 2 6d8lents Comparable 3 Ad NOW rltroondboning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Frop«ty Condition: Average Average $0 Average SU Average $0 O"W OLMar. Average 31.Superior (:1,500) Average $0 Average $0 Yard gnprowmenb: Poot None None $0 Spa ($1,000) None $0 FenckW Yee Ya $0 Yee $0 Yee $0 Landed*' g: Average AvwW $0 Avenge $0 Average $0 Pat1o: Yee Yes $0 Yee $0 Ya $0 00w Fedune: None+ None $0 None $0 None $0 CorokRbrq Grow Prbe 05Twanoe: ($2,000) $1,000 r 11 1,f Adjustrnonb percentage Drhrence: -1.37% 0.07% -3.50% Nd AdjuetnrrMa: $325 $6,450 $3,520 flet Prim DNhrerroe: ($1,875) $7,450 ($1.475) a11br Ad*ftnents A*Nftd Prbe o1 Comp: $140,325 $155,450 $140,625 Prim of Index Sale: $148,000 $148,000 $145,000 DMlenree: ($1,875) $7,450 ($1,475) pereerdege pftrenp: -1.14% 4.79% -1.01%0 t.wxM Kehr oenyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Itwm Index sew ComperebM 1 Adpmtmerts Comparobie,.2 Adhstmenls Cortpatable 3 Adkwbrwte Address: 1023 Rockridge 1174 Jews# 1371 Berg 3977 Aka Meta Pittsburg Pktsburg Pittsburg Pkbbug Seller. Perk Downing i Mun slow Fterrdectr .. i Buyer. EtKNgalC M Hanson i Rwahew CWTord �d I Sale Prbe: $150,000 $142,500 1 $142,000 $158,500 j Docu lent: 18754-420 18407-M 18699 15 18801-410 i Price Per SF Home: $106.23 $102.89 $105.11 $117.32 I Adkatmen is Sob Data: 07116193 04/01/93 $0 Ob/28/9 i $0 07/30193 $0 -,a I IF' g- Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Us atee MF): 1a,900 7,000 $5.000 6,660 $5,000 8,004 $5,600 blew An w*f. None Nora $0 None $0 Good Area ($6.000) Yew Built 1981 1971 $5,000 1971 $5,000 1986 (32,500] 3torbe: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Vzoer Coot: 3/2 3/2 $0 4 $0 3/2 $0 ;B.aroonwe.tta) 3tona stm(SF): 1,388 1.385 $25 1.351 $876 1,334 $1,300 No.Garage spec": 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 Flo.Repiwom: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 4jieet4p central Cenhol $0 central $0 Control $0 s Lw%M:Kellar Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC9.99 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ibm Index Sala ComparobN 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Ad]ustrtmrha Co 3 AlroondRloning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 s'rropaty Condition: Averapa Average $0 Avwape $0 Average $0 Drard OLMItyr Avwape Avwape $0 Avergpa $0 Sl.Supwbr ($1,800) Yard hnprovanmrda: Poot Nona Nona $0 Nona $0 Norm $0 Fw=kp: Ya Yea $0 Yea 3o Yea $0 Landmrpkep: Avarepa Average $0 Avwapa $0 Averapa $0 Patio: Ya Ya $0 Yea $0 Yea $0 w. Other Fedoras: Nona Nona $0 Nona So Norm $0 OawMMb» 4 maa Pdoe owwwwa: (=700) ($8.000) $@No $ekro AdAmbrmnta FOOM hips Werenca: -8.28% -8.89% 4.15% Net Ad)m nmnta: $10,025 $10,975 ($2.700) NA Pfte DIfwance: $2.525 $2,875 $9.800 After Ad)Atmmnb: AdAnted Price of Comp: $162,525 $152,975 $159,800 a F. of Index Sala: $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 aaNfarerwe: $2,525 $2,875 $9,800 'Pwemntep t781arence: 1.66% 1.BB% 2.47% Landfll:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of t ibitflil Proximity �Mam Index Sale —Comparable 1 Ad nts .a CornE=bw 2 Ad nts Com N 3 AdAmbnonts - Address: 2210 Begonia 1371 Berg 1174 Jewett 967 Goldonleaf Way Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Saler: LucIN Munalow Downing Morris >&rysr Royer Renshaw Hanson Berdiago Sete Price: $1,07,000 $142,000 $142,500 $138,500 Jcoler KIL- 18787-505 18599-816 18407-659 18825807 Price Per SF Homo: $106.97 $105.11 $102.89 $102.32 �. AdAmbnonte Date: 07/28/93 05!28!93 $0 0"1193 E'I So 08/09/93 $0 0S." e FlnancYup Typical Typicel $0 Typical $0 TypkW $0 988 Ske(SF) 7,245 9,680 ($2.000) 7,000 5o 0.098 $1.000 i °' YNw ArraruRy None None $0 None $0 None $0 Yearsullt 1985 1971 $7,000 1C71 $7,0G.: 1978 $3,500 Str>r1oe: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 kom Count: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bodmorra/Balhs) Horne Ske(SF): 1,349 1,351 ($50) 1,385 ($900) 1,334 $375 iJO.GaIve Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 - No,Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 i0 Control control $0 Central $0 Central $0 -S LardllM:Keller Crryon Comparable Sales Analysis -919 I KCG-03 Impact of Landfill Proximity ,i Kom Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparshle 2 Adjustments Com N 3 Ad Jlkconditlonkrg: Central Central $0 Central So Central $0 IPropMty CondMon: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $o DVWMI CAMNty: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvements: Pool: None None $0 None $0 None $0 Fencing: Ya Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 "! LrW.cepkrg: Average Avenge $0 Average $0 Average $0 tai Path: Ya Yes $0 Y" $0 Ya $0 OtlwrFestasea: SecurRySystem None $1,000 None $1,000 None $1,000 Qonckwiorra 40rooa Prior DMrorance: (15.000) ($4,500) (!10.600) `e Befaa Ad)wUwrb ,9 fercerdage DMforarlce: 3.62% 3.16% -7.09% Net Adjrwtrrwrdn: $5,950 57,100 $6,675 Nd Price DM wawa: $950 $2,600 %4,62b) After Adpa nwnb _ Adputed Prtce of Comp: $147,950 $149,600 $142,375 _ Frioe of Index Sale: $147,000 I $147,000 $147,000 I X1Mfennce: $950 $2,600 ($4,8 5) Percentage DOwenco: 0.64% 1.74% 3,25% LwmW..Keller canyon Comparable Sales Matysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Rem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments+ ble 2 — Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad J Address: 2149 Sugartree 2130 Stockon 1032 Jewett 1408 Springhill Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg _ SNer Marlow Cahill Lowe. Nunley Sayer Csxares Etwbeny Teixeira Rangel Sale Prim: $137,000 $143,000 $130,500 $134,500 Do0umertt: 19225-117 19207.887 381392 19187-410 F.Oce Per SF Name: $98.85 $101.49 $98.80 $99.58 Adkrebnenh Sam Dela: 12/02/93 11/30/93 $0 12/17/0 $0 11/18/93 $0 Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 _J Sft am W); 5,980 7.700 ($2.000) 7,000 ($1,009) 8.800 ($1.000) Freeway Nome ei View Amw*y: Now None $0 None $0 NOM $0 Year BUIL 1980 1985 ($2,500) 1972 $4,000 1073 $3.500 Storms: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 PAW coral: 32 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 iBedroon+elBaUr) MomeSize(SF): 1,388 1,409 ($575) 1,351 $875 1,351 $575 NO.Garage Spacss: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.FMepmcea: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ?Hoeft: Central Central $0 Central SO Central $0 t wxM:Keller Canyon Com rable Sales Ma ra Pa Analysis KC7-93 Impact of landfill Prox)mity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments comparable 3 Ad I Akeondltloning: Central Central $0 central I so Central $0 I Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 04wa1 Quww. Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 t Ywd Irtpmvwfw*e: Pool: None None $0 None $0 Spa (:1,000) Fwvft: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 Lwxhmapkq: Average Avenge $0 Avenge $0 Average $0 POW: Yes Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 Othw Featwes: None None $0 None $0 None $0 __. Cor4kmbrn Grace Price Difference: $4,000 ($8.500) (31.50D) i Before Adjushrwds Fwewdape Difiorence: 4.20% 4.98% -1.80% Not Ad)wtmenta: ($5,075) $3,875 $2,375 Net Price Dd%rence: $925 ($2,825) (5126) Aftw AdNatrnents M Adjusted Price of Comp: $137,925 $134,375 $134,875 i Rice of Index Sale: $137,000 i $137,000 $137,000 I, Dwerence: $925 ($2,625) (5125) Percentage Difference: 0.67% -1.95% -0.09% t.ardit Kolar Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis �( Impact of Lar dfil Proximity tem Index Sala Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad)uelrnenb Addrew: 2249 Jacqueline Dr. 2 Pacini 1Encine 2022 Heatherwood Ci Pittsburg Pittsburg PittsbLrp Pittsburg Behr Irvine White De n Borman Buyer: Rodriquez Malasig Hurt GnnwB 3&%Prim: $168,000 $158,000 $159,000 $162,000 Document: 18885-153 199474 18454-745 18701-190 Fria Per SF Home: $91.16 $85.68 $86.23 $87.85 AdXxbnertt• ,,03W*Date: 06/18193 0728/93 $0 04/16193 $0 06/30193 $0 FHrarrckp: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 ate 8bM(8F7: 6;254 10,320 ($4,000) 7.950 $0 9,960 (=3,000) some Noise View Amenity- Lwx=Toe Berm None None $0 None $0 Open Spec YewBuit: 1987 1977 $5,000 1977 $5,000 $1,976 $8,500 3torlee: 2 1 ($2,000) 1 ($2,000) 1 ($2,000) Hoorn Count: 42.5 42 $1,000 412 $1,000 42 $1,000 'BedroorrM/Bathe) Han*Size(SF): 1,843 1,844 ($25) 1.844 ($25) 1,844 (US) Ab.Garage Speees: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 'Jo.Fireplaces: 1 t 1 1 Hoeft: Central central $0 Central Central $0 LandMN:K*W Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis y/ KCG-03 Impact of Landfill Proximity _ Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3__Ajdt.* AIrcondMbning: Central Central Central Central 1Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average Average OvaralQUWKY Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard InrproverroWs: Pool: NOM None None Vinyl Pool/Spe ($2,100) Fenckq: Yee Yes $0 Ya $0 Ya Larrdsaft: Average Average $0 Average Average Path: Ya Yes Yee $0 Yes $0 t Otter Features: None None None Security System ($1.000) _._ CorreM�abtra {hose Price Qrlenwm: ($10,000) ($9,000) ($0.000) •r Bator Ad)ustnn ds �eroentage Di fersnce: -8.33% 5.66% 3.70% Not AdAntmerds: ($25) $3,975 Net Price DMlsrena: ($10,026) ($5,025) ($719M After Adjustments awjuaW Price or Comp: $157,975 $162,975 $180,075 _. Prim of Index Sols: $168,000 ( $168.000 $168,000 Dtltnsnce: ($10,025) ($5,025) ($7,925) ?en»ntage DMfsrence: -8.35% -3.08% -1.95% Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Y Impact of Landfill Proximity �I}am Index Sala Compa able 1 Adjustments.n Comparable 2___A_d'ustments Comp"Is 3 Adjusbr»rts I JWdrsn: 1065 Westmont 4298 St.Paul G 3910 Aka vista I 7 Live Oak Ct. Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg I Satyr. Roberts Shaver Had Bollinger Buyer. Myers Carothers/Howard Jones Panugaling 3d*Price: $184,000 $194,950 $181,500 $185,000 Document: 18195-175 19249-852 18142$97 18751-928 P, Per SF Homs: $98.82 $95.00 $97.79 $101.31 Adjustments �4 Date: 01/12/93 12/09193 $0 12/23192 $0 07118/93 $0 Fkwrch Typical Typkwl $0 Typ" $0 Typical $0 ^ Sita Slee(SF): 10,057 9,880 $0 15.676 $0 4,100 $8,000 Slopkv ^' View Amenity: Landfill Access Road Rooftop ($2,000) Good Area ($5,000) Della ($1,000) Open Space Minimal Year BWK: 1966 1981 $2,500 1987 (SSoo) 1990 ($2,000) Stories: 2 1 ($2,000) 2 $0 2 $0 Room Count: 4/2.5 4/2.5 $V10, 4.,e.5 $0 3/2.5 $3,000 (Bedroomffleft) Home Size(SF): 1,862 2,052 ($4,750) 1,858 $150 1,826 $900 — No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 + $0 2 $0 4r*Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 SO 1 $0 Heatkq: Centrsi Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 I Keder canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KCIO-03 Impact of Landfill Proximity Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 _ A4djustments Comparable 3 Ad AlrcondMbning: Central Central $0 Central SO Central $0 (Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Dvwd QLwq - Average Average $0 Average $0 Averegs $0 Yrd improvements: Pool: NOM None $0 None $0 None $0 Fencing: Yee Ya $0 Yes $0 Yee $0 Landscaping: Average Average $0 Avenge $0 Avenge $0 Patio: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 00w Features: Nons None $0 None $0 RV sag In Row ($x,000) Concknions Brow Price Dlffwwms: $10,950 ($2,500) $1,000 rw Before AdXnbnwft _ Pweenfsge Difference: 5.62% -1.38% 0.54% Nd AdAntmerds: ($8,250) ($5,350) $3,900 NA Price Difference: $4,700 ($7,850) $4,900 After Adkatmsrdr. Adjusted Pros of Comp: $188,700 $170,150 $168,900 Price of Index Sale: $184,000 1'84.000 $184,000 Difference: $4.700 ($7,850) $4,900 Pwcenfsgs Difference: 2.49% -4.46% 2.59% L&-Oft Koller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity .Ione Index Sale Com rable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad Address: 2266 Jacqueline 2130 Stockton 2239 Lynbrook 967 Gokienleaf Way Pittsburg Antioch Pittsburg Pittsburg $seer• Mason Cahill Taylor Morris NA ;Breyer. Hleft Elsbsrry Bsrdiepo -N&Price: $137,950 $143,000 $147,000 $138,500 " Document: 18234-513 19207-887 17941384 18826407 -P ice Per SF Home: $120.65 $101.49 $109.38 $102.32 AdJrwUr*rrb *Ials Date: 01128193 1130/93 $0 10/18/92 I $0 08/09/93 $0 7lrfendnp: Typical Typical $0 TypkW $0 TypkW $0 Sb Site(SF): 6,300 7,700 (11,500) 5,720 $500 8,098 $0 ae View Anw*r, Footh& Nona $0 Nor* $0 Nor* $0 Minimal YewBult: 1986 1985 $500 1an1 $2,500 1978 $4,000 stones: 1 1 $0 1 50 1 $0 Room Count: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 {Bedrsonr/BatM) S1onw Stte(SF): 1,160 1,409 ($8,225) 1,344 ($4,600) 1,334 ($4,350) ado.Garage Spaces: 2 2 s0 2 s0 2 $0 M.Fksplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 so Ieatlnp: Central Central $0 Central $0 central $0 i.eatdf%:War Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC12-93 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ibm Index Sale Com arable 1 Ad marts Com le 2 Adjustments Com le 3 Ad A ftondlionUp: Central Central SO Centra! SO Central $0 aPropsrty Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Aver pe $0 Over"Qusfffy: Average SI.Inferior $1,500 Average $0 F, inferior $1,500 Yard Improvornents: Pool: NOM NOM $0 NOM $0 NOM $0 Fsneft: Yes Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 Lerdsgpktp: Average Average $0 Avorep. $0 Avorege $0 Pado: Yes Ya $0 Ya $0 Yoe $0 n .. Other Feolures: Norm NOM $0 NOM $O NOM $0 OwwkW" 4roee Price Diffaenie: $3.050 $7,0150 ($5,450) .,r SNme A*mbnerks Percentage Difference: 2.13% 4.80% ,2.53% +W Adluetments: ($5,725) ($1,600) $1,150 y Net Price Difference: ($2,675) $5,450 ($2,900) MW Adjustment Adjusted Price of Comp: $137,275 $145,400 $137,550 j Pros of Index Sale: $139,950 $139,950 $139,950 Difference: ($2,675) $5,450 ($2,300) Percentago Difference: -1.95% 3.75% -1.67%0 t.wWW.Kehr Cww Comparable Sales.Analysis d� / Impact of t_andflli Proximity i Kern Index SW (omperabie 1 Adjustments Compwable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjustments ;i Address: 2308 Jacqueline 4290 Diehl Way 3925 Atte Meta 3921 Alta Vista Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg SeMr Sierra Res.Inc. Reed Grsnd Psc.Finance Mack Diver: Johnson Berboss Watson Cruz/Gonzalez Sate Price: $158,000 $155,000 $156,500 $149,000 Docrmont: 18280-119 19025.309 18058-221 18249-439 F. PK SF Moms: $109.57 $100.00 $100.06 $95.27 -- Adjustments Sats pate: 02/17/93 10/93 $0 11/24/92 $O 02/03193 $0 I : %� FYwroirp Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 3e Slee(SF) 7,930 7.5+00 $0 7,502 $0 7,008 $1,000 YMw Amenity. t.arK fM Toe Berm Naw $0 None $0 None $0 Foothill@ Year Suit. 1987 1980 $3,500 1985 51,000 1988 $500 Stales: 1 1 $0 2 $2,000 2 $2,000 RM t.orert: 3/2 3/2 $0 312 $0 312 $0 ,Mleftoms/Baft) Horne StEs(SF): 1,442 1,550 ($2,700) 1,564 ($3,050) 1,564 ($3,050) No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Ftreplaces: t 1 $O t $O 1 $O ?testlrp: Central Central $0 Central $0 C.antrai $0 Landfill:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis K01343 Impact of Landfill Proximity Mom Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad T I AMcondMbning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 i Property Condition: Average Average $0 Avera $0 Average $o _. C%W t]ualky: Average Average $O Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvements: Pool: Mone None $0 None $0 None $0 Fencing: Yeo Ya $0 Yoe $0 Yeo $0 I Landscaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average so POND Ya Yom $0 Yee $0 Yes $0 Oltw Festues: Nona None $0 None $0 NOM $0 CorickMOM Bross Prla Difference: ($3,000) ($1,500) 0,000) s 3* Adfixft nts Percentage DUhrence: -1.94% -0.98% 4.04% Nat Adjustments: $800 ($50) $450 A1rt Pros Difference: ($2,200) ($1,550) ($5 550) AW Adjustments AdAmW Price of Comp: $155,800 $158,450 $149,450 ?rico of Index Sale: $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 OtlTWance; ($2,200) I ($1,550) Percentage Difference: t.tt% � -O.9S% -5.72% Ls NW.Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity �Ibtn Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adhrefnrsr" Address: 1020 Rock Ridge 7 Melissa Ct 34 Tahoe PI 4299 Oakdale Pittsburg Pltfnburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Saler: Andrews Shevlln NA Brown JBtlyer. Sepulveda WIIsonfFoata-Wilson NA Caeclaronl Sala Prim: $184,950 $187,500 51681000 $163,500 Doo4mrent: 18931-943 18512-296 18833-W2 19001-465 Prim Per SF Noma: $99.52 $98.85 $102.82 $109.22 '"r AdJuafnranb . Sale Dab: 09/13/93 06/0.9/93 $0 08/11/93 l: $0 09riom s0 I. I, FYw kW Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 9b fteMY 9,447 7.940 $2.000 6,000 :1,600 12,876 (:3,000) corner Corner ViewAersrrily: Good View None Nona $0 None s0 Year Bulli 1981 1975 $3,000 1973 $4,000 1979 $1,000 Stades: 1 1 $0 1 s0 1 $0 VAWh Cam!: 4/2 4/2 3/2 $3,000 3/2 $3,000 (BadroomalBafM) Horns Size(SF): 1,557 1,698 ($3,525) 1,634 ($1,925) 1,497 $1,500 Ab.Gw pe Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 so 2 $0 Vo.Flrepleep: 1 1 1 1 Hoeft: Central Central $0 Central Cantral $0 LWWW.Keaw Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Kcs43 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ifwn Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments CompeTble 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad wtment ft JWcoMkJoning: Central Central Central I Central Property Conditior Average Average $0 Average Average Overer OuafltY: Average Superior r 1,000) Superior ($5,000) Superior ($6,000) Yard Improvement: Pool: Nona Pool ($7,500) Pool ($7,500) None fencing: Yes Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes L,ndsgpNg: Average Average s0 Avel.Ve Avenge Patio: Yes Yes Yes $0 Yee $0 .w Ott w Features: None None None None Conckahm Otto Prbe DRIN rarm: $12,650 $13,050 $0,560 330ore AdAmbnerde PMoontege Dftrance: 7.49% 7.77% 523% I'M Adjustments: ($11,025) ($5,925) '_Met Price DWerence: $1,525 $7,125 ,O60 After Adjustments Adjusted Price of Comp: $156,475 $1132,075 $161,000 Price of Index Sale: $154,950 $154,950 $164,960 zwerence: $1,525 $7,125 $6,050 r'ercentage Difference: 0.97% 4.40% 3.75% I _ o 2 g of d �x x x x x at x x X x x x�pp x K fV 4 r xxr� x x xxx xxx xxx xxx xx x x xxx at xxx xxx xxe xxit R:Bx 8u: 9t 7i 535t� �93 Si sap - 8 x a i f"C IH N 004 hC1' T W RNC •QQT N f 'i.-0 .6Noi� ��•' NmI{ ��pp atpa�ya Mau ��M Mas � ��� ��� xx� Ott» �N� �x� � xaa ,11»h NNN MNN NN NNN A Si535t ttl RRR PiPi;i ili 999 5i 5t 5t 9f99 99f d a a gvfv N N N N N N »N N N N» N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M»N N N N b ahaa as gag a m3' St�3t l3� 'pR ;9th . 9ti 19si R9ipf 3Sx ll 7t3S o »»N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N» M N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N»M N NN 9t»9Z tLiR max,, xFtSt x» »Jf attx .� xxx xxx xo8 mxm xxx x3 iot x Bx x�� 8 x x � 8 � m9 4 m4 4 ?moo �i9NN T� iC N�.' si si siq yj eQ ap o a� 22 o NY�p}lV O_ {V x' N 0 C'L►C 'L' N L' CSN at--1 "'�� �� �v� �� NC!► Cali oi. ^�C a 'L� C N♦ O D♦+dO T yp t0 �p ��'.- • N �f q p N � +A yy $$$ L jZ;as r., •!NaA slag &;is ;q Z;t 44942 NgHO 1 338N tRcg3 14 aaA na a W. 9��5 aaA zz s H ` H O O H!�0 T H-;I :N 1� IA gg W, iii i ggl a24V8 �� g g� ��� g 8 � ga 471►N M►» » N« » +I►N .T►«M N N w+ » N +M N N N N .N « E 4915f v 9 q Pi 49Pf9 ;91m,A X21 :9Ac4 945f zf99;1 N N M N M N N N N N N s�N N M M N N N N N N N M N N N M N»» N N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N M N N N !I►N M N CD CD ,� J_yrAm 4C�AIA -0�lA IA w A9D IG - ��-lD r tGA A D10W m �fG mtC nJ COi H �-�h A ,D'G OD tp =D ID Oi tG QAC "�OOO py ypp m QQ O��I OI OlT NA OAi OA1 I'M OI OI O.OI AT �OAI OAi aO�Ad SOI Orn of T T of ?�O)T or Orn OI OAi OIQ OAI 0 00 LL m~QNN .D� v 00 N^ NCl K 010N V NN01 OIM lOI 4�.^ql N •D yNm v'� t7�A OI O1 A :V�(N(pp <mHm M t1 M CS K '-' s�� 3 J 9 J 9 m y T 1 U 'eoaoo �qog ByQ �og ozmo ic2 -._mim 1 3:rxo 5 .2-Y, 3- if �Nsf �NI'/ �N!'� �N PI �N� �Nt'1 �N t7 �NPf �N e'f �N17 .-N•+/ �Nt7 NM NA 4.YSS S.2-2 V22.2x.444 wS Ss LL.4 Y.4 �Y Ss =SSS .4 S YS2 Y.9sB �YYY Z' VIII Aw � s jilt IS I VIII AD VIII LwxM:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Anatysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Mom Index Sale Comparable i Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad Address: 2303 Jacqueline Dr. 7 Vista Diablo 1577 Kngsiy 2 Nina PI Pittsburg Pittsburg ?Tea ;; Pittsburg -sour. Arp Mbbenhorst Johnston Everett Teat Bryot: McCrae Moubarak GuUdseth Azlz Akio Prim: $158,000 $155,000 $145,000 $150,000 Mocum,rd 117342 120315 241458 200104 Prim Per SF Home: $109.57 $103.64 $97.84 $96.77 AdP-tments Sols Della: 04/28!94 04/29/94 $0 09127/94 $0 08109/94 $0 Firwocing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 3b Stix(SF): 20,850 11,550 $5.000 7,995 $5,000 8,330 $8,000 comer ..e+ View Amenity: Landfill Toe Berm FoothtlM $0 None $0 None $0 Power LklewfTowere Yen Built: 1988 1978 $5,000 1974 $8,000 1977 $4,500 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room count 312 312 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bedrooms/Baths) Homo Size(SF): 1,442 1,497 ($1,375) 1,482 ($1,000) 1,550 ($2,700) No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 M.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Hoeft: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 ._ I LwWM:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC1-94 Impact of Landfill Proximity Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparabw 3 Ad)udrnenta r A keondRloning: Central Central $0 Central ( $0 Central $0 Property Conditbn: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 LlM"Curtly: Average Average $0 SI.Interior $1,500 Average $0 Yard Improvements: Pool: NOM Mone $0 None $0 None $0 Fencklg: Yee Ya $0 Yes $0 Yes so Lander aping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average :o Patio: Ya Year $0 Yee $0 Yes $0 ,, t$Itrer Feature: None Soler Hot Water ($600) Soler W W;Sec.Systei ($1.600) None $0 Conclusions tinea Prim Difference: ($3.Oo0) ($13,000) ($8.000) Zefors Ad)AIrnenls iaercentage Difference: -1.94% -8.97% -6.33% Net Adjwtmerds: $8,125 $10,000 $6,800 Net Price Difference: $5,125 ($3,000) ($1 00) After,AdAntments Ad)Mod Price of Comp: $163,125 $155,000 $158,600 Price of Index Sale: $156,000 $158,000 $158.000 Difference: $5,125 ($3,000) •Percentage Difference: 3.14% -1.94% .0,77% Landfill:K~Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity J Item Index Sale Comparable 1 AolLatments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparnble 3 Ad i Address: 2237 Concord 7 Vista Diablo 1577 Kngsiy 1030 Jensen C1. Pesburg Pittsburg Pittsburg 3eCer Strazals Wibbenhorst Johnston Schmid Buyer. Luu Moubarak GLOdseth GhkWo -sale Prim: $14:,500 $155,000 $145,000 $137,500 Document: 179076 120316 241459 197816 Price PwSF Home: $102.75 $103.54 $97.84 $101.78 Adprstmefdo Sale Date: 07/12194 OW29194 $0 09/27/94 $0 08/05194 $0 Finanekq: Typical Typical $0 Typ" $0 Typical $0 3"ska(SF): 8,300 11,560 ($5.000) 7,995 (=1.000) 7,500 (31,000) ViewAmw*y: Foofhi9e Area View Front Yard $0 None $0 None $0 Power Lines/Towere Yew Bunt: 1988 1978 $5,000 1974 $6,000 1972 $7,000 Stones: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ;loom Count: 312 312 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 {Bedroome/Baths) 'Home Size(SF): 1,411 1,497 ($2,025) 1,482 ($1,850) 1,351 $1,826 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fkeplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 -leathp: central Central $0 central $0 Central $0 Landf@:Kenw canyon Comparable Sales Analysis K102-04 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Y Adjustments Corriamblit-2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad)ustmrnb f Akeondltloning: Central C.antrai $0 Central $0 Window $1,500 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 O"M OMMQY Average Average $0 Sl.Inferior $1,500 SI.Interior $1,500 Yard Improverrwrds: -� Pool: Above Ground None $0 None $0 Spa/Gazebo ($1,500) Forclrng: Yen Yee $0 Y" $0 Ya $0 LmWocopkp: Average Average $C Average $0 Average $0 ae Pdb: Ya Ya $0 Yee $0 Ya $0 100w Features: None Solar Hot Water ($500) Solar HIW;Sec.lystem ($1,500) None $0 ConckMfore ' {irons Price Dlforanos: $9,500 ($600) ($Bloo0) MMore Adjuetrrionts Pnresotago Difference: 6.13% -0.34% -5.02% Not Adjustments: ($2,525) $3,350 $9,125 ldnt Price Difference: $8,975 $2,850 $1,125 After Adjustments -— Adjusted PAce of Comp: $152,475 $148,350 $148,525 Prke,of Index Sale: $145,500 $145,500 $145,500 Difference: $8,975 $2,850 $1,125 Psrfartape N.feDrance: 4.57% 1.92% 0.T7% Lardffl:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of landfill Prox)rr.4 item Index S'Sle Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparebls 3 Ad Address: 2267 Jacqueline 7Vista Diablo 1577 Kingsry 1030 Jensen G. Pittsburg P ttsburg Pittsbum. Pittsburg Seger: Haley 1Kbbenhorst Johrmton Schmid Buyer: Petty Moubarsk Guikiseth Ghkado Sale Price: $145,500 $155,000 $145,000 $137,500 Docurlwk 191378 120315 241459 197818 Price Per VF Home: $100.90 $103.54 $97.84 $101.78 Sale Dets: 07/27194 0429/94 $0 09/27/94 $0 08/05194 $0 • 1F'-Mwktp Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 - Sb Stm(91F): 8.380 11,650 ($6,000) 7,995 ($1.000) 7,500 ($1.000) ViewAmw*r.. Foothills Foothills $0 None $0 Norm $0 Year Suit- 1987 1976 $5,500 1974 $6,500 1972 $7.500 Stories: 1 1 i SO 1 $0 1 $0 #loom Coad: 312 312 $0 312 $0 312 $0 <BsdroomwTlaths) ?tome Size(SF): 1,442 1,497 ($1,375) 1,482 ($1,000) 1,351 $2,275 M.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $O $0 2 $0 M.FirepMces: 1 1 $O 1 $O 1 m Heatkv: Central Central $0 central $0 Central $0 t.arrdf .-Kellar Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis KCS-04 Impact of Landfill Proximity •Rena Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments' comparable y__ Adjustments Comperabie 3 Ad}ustnrsrgs a llrcondRloning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Window $1,500 Property Condit,.: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average s0 Dveral t]aas8ty: Average Average $0 Sl.Infdoor $1,500 SI.Inferior $1,500 Yard Improvements: Pool: NOM None $0 None $0 Spa/Gazebo ($1,500) Farachrg: Yes Yes $0 Yee $0 Yes $0 Lerwhiosphp: Average Average $0 Average $0 Averago $0 Patio: Ya Yes $0 Yes I $0 you $0 Dann Fedora: None Solar Hol Water ($500) Solar HM;Sec.System ($1,500) Norm $0 ConeMaslons Bross Prloe Dllbrarroe: $9.500 ($500) ($8,000) Moto AdJrastments Percentage Difference: 8.13% -0.34% -5.82% Net Adjustments: ($1,375) $4,500 $10,275 Not Price Difference: $8,125 $4,000 $2X5 After Adjustments -- Adjuded Price of Comp: $153,825 $149,500 $147,775 Price of Index Sale: $145,500 $145,500 314b,500 -Difference: $8,125 $4,000 $2,275 •Percentage Difference: 5.29% 2.88% 1.54% Landfill:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity "M index Sale Comparable t Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad Address: 2211 Begonia Ct. 24 Buena Vista 4218 Suzanne 5 Alta Vista Ct. Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsbur, Pittsburg 1 Saber. Fraley Pease ale Locours Suyor Condos Hoch Andrews Burchell $ab Price: $150,0w $145,5oo $148,500 $150,000 110curnerd: 279071 206873 88445 140106 Price Per SF Home: $93.17 $93.87 $90.66 $94.16 Ad)-tmonb Sale Date: 11/18/9} 08/17/94 $0 04/25/94 $0 05/24/94 $0 i Fkwnchp: Typical Typical $o Typical $0 Typical $0 Sb Sko(SF): 7,800 7.935 ($1,000) 8,800 ($1,000) 6,468 $1,000 view Manly: NOM None None $0 Rooftop ($2.000) Yew Buil 1985 1977 $4,000 1979 $3,000 1985 $7,500 Stories; 1 1 $o 1 $0 2 $2,000 Room Count: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bodrooms/Baths) 'Home Size(SF): 1.810 1.550 $1,500 1,634 i (5600) 1,593 $425 i M.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 So 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: t _ 1 SJ t ` SO 1 $O 0 (Hoeft: Central Central $0 central $0 Centra( $0 UWWM:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis �• K04.404 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sala Comparable 1 Adiustmente' Comperebhl,4 AdJuetmerrts COmparebM 3 Adjrretmerrts AlreondlOoning: Central Central $0 Central , $0 Central SO Property Condition: Average Average $0 Averal;e $0 SI.Superior ($2,000) -Z)*MM Quality. Average Average $0 St.Inferior $1.500 Average $0 std Improvements: IPool: NOM NOM $0 NOM $0 NOM $0 I FencMp: Ya Ya $0 Yes $0 Yee $0 Ilandscaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 I I Pwo: Ya Ya $0 Yee $0 Yes $0 I1 1.. t . NRrer Features: None NOM $o None E $0 None $o CancknioneI Grose Prim DI faence: ($4,500) ($1,5W) $0 33e1ora Ad)wbrwft PNcenGpe Dworance: 3.09% A.01% 0.00% Net Ad)uetrnents: $4,500 $2,900 $6,925 Not Pyles Difference: $0 $1,400 $6,925 MW AdAntnients AdWed Price of Comp: $150,000 $151,400 sls6,92b Price of Index Sale: $150,000 } $150,000 $160,000 71Rennce: s0 $t 400 $6,925 t Percentage Difference: 0.00% 0.92% 4.41% t..nae9:KaUw canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjuatmerts Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Address: 2281 Jacqueline Dr. 7 Vista Diablo 1577 Kingsly 2 Nina PI Pittsburg Pittsburg Prtisbur^„ i Prtisburg -" 3eNar Whits Wibbenhorst Johns-ton Everett Trust BUY-. Pascoal Mouberak GuOdseth Aziz 3&Prk»: $148,000 $155,000 $145,000 515',000 Mocumenl: 180834 120315 241459 200104 ?rioa Pec 3F Homs: $101.25 $103.54 $97.84 $98.77 Ad)u'xirnerds T SNa Date 06117/94- 04x29191 $0 09!27/94 $0 08/09/94 $0 ktancYiO: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 — 311a Stm(SF): 7,770 11,550 ($3,000) 7,995 $0 8,330 - $0 YhwArnandy: Foothills Foothills $0 None $0 None $0 Year Bot: i987 1978 $4,500 1974 $5,500 1977 $4,000 Amiss: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room Gourd: 3/2 3/2 $0 3x2 $0 3/2 $0 (BodroomeBaths) :tomo Size(SF): 1,442 1.497 ($1,375) 1 482 ($1,000) 1,550 ($2,700) _ 1 rb.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 ! $0 2 $0 __. M.Fireplaces: 1 - 1 $O 1 $O 1 $ u Heating: Central central $0 Central $0 Central $0 ti 1 Land*Ke0er Canyon Comparable Sales Ana"Is KC15-44 Impact of Landfill Proximity 0kem Index Sale Com ble 1 Ad ustments Com arable 2 Ad ustments Com le 3 A4Antments AUeonditlonIng: Central Central $o Central $0 Central $0 roparty Corrdttbn: Average Average $0 Average $O Average $0 nw"Quar. Average Average $0 SI.Inferior $!,500 Average $0 Yard Improwenenb: Pock None None $0 None $0 None $0 Ferkdrrg: Yee Yes $0 Ya $o Yee $0 Lendacepbp: Average Average $0 Average $o Average $0 Patio: Ya Yee $0 Yq i $0 Yea $0 ORW Reduee: None Soler Hot Water ($500) Solar HRN:Sec.System ($1,500) None $0 Concklielom (kaw Prim Difference: $9,000 ($1,000) $4.000 I ed 3e110re Adpwtnrnb iPeneenfage Difference: 5.51% -0.89% 2.57% 'W AdAwltments: ($375) $4,500 $1,300 Net Price Difference: $8,625 $3,500 $0,300 Jinx Adp atments MANded Price of Comp: $154,825 $149,500 $151,300 $rloe of Index Sale: $146,000 $146,000 $148,000 ;]Cferarfce: $8,625 $3,500 $5,300 Pwcwdage Difterance: 5.58% 2.34% 3.50% LarxM:Kellar canyon Comparable Sales Analysis 7)_7 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable/ Adjustments Camperacre 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad I Address: 1119 Los Pelos Cf. 967 Terry Ct. 4125 CsmWof 1292 Jewett Pittsburg Pdtsburg P t sbur^„ Pittsburg _saw. Micloh Hendrbc Pcwlekes Knepper stryor: Lefalve Freeman Kimicata Valu Sale Price: $130,000 $125,000 $117,500 $120,000 Document 113085 197285 138126 149907 price Per SP Home: $131.05 $126.01 $118.45 $100.33 Adjustments Sala Data: 04/22/94 08104194 $0 06/20/94 $0 08/03194 $0 Fkwwk : Typw Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 SM Sko(SF): 10,676 8,380 $22,000 7,823 $3,000 7,100 $3,600 View Marty. NOM NOM $0 None $0 None $0 Year 64dtt: 1 ud 1 1985 Eff. ($2,000) 1978 $1,500 1970 $5,500 Storfq: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ADom Count: 311 3/1 $0 311 $0 3/2 ($3.000) (Bedroon -lathe) Home Stte(SF): 992 992 $0 992 SO 1,196 ($6,100) W.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $00 Hoeft: central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 l.andtig:Kolar Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC54M Impact of Landfill Proximity i hinni index 3aNs Cotrfperatsle 1 Adisretmerta Camparepin;2__— Ad uatmants Com�arsbN 3 Adnb ^`+ Central Central Sd Central s0 Central $0 AMt:onditioning: Pop"Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 ' �grygty Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard tmproverrnnts: dw Pool: None inground Do-boy ($1000) Warm $0 None $0 Feick Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 utwocepwo Average Avenge $0 Average $0 Average $0 Patio: Yes Ya $0 Yea $0 Yes $0 1 OOVW FssRuaa: None None $o Nona $o None $0 ter. Orwo Prtae i]Mterance: (55.000) (512,soo} {510 0°0} 9dare Adp,stmar" P.n»nt.ge tNffsnrks: 1.00% -10.84% -8.33% idst Adjustments: (s1,000) $4,500 $900 IkW Prks DNhranoa: ($6,000) ($8,000) ($9.100) Atbr Adjustment. ,Adjueted Price of Comp: $124,000 $122,000 $120 900 Prics of Index Sale: $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 DwIleronce: ($8,000) ($8.000) ($9.100) -4.84% -8.56% -7.53% Orw""Mamma: _ l vxM:KaSer canyon Comparable Sales Analysis ' Impact of landfill Proximity Kem Index Sala Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad f Address: 2165 Sugartree 3892 Meadowbrook 1601 Kingsly , 3890 Meadowbrook Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg SeSer Sknaz Cooper Kneen Weber $fryer: Singh Patterson Gallagher Gable S M Price: $132,000 $130,250 $139,000 $132,500 Document 222618 177667 201745 59288 Price Per SF Home: $95.24 $97.84 $102.89 $95.80 .., ,ditadmenM Sala Data: 09/08/94 07/08/94 $0 08111/94 $0 03/02/94 $0 Firranekq: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 y Stta Sho(SF): 5.922 8,000 $0 8,418 ($2.500) 6.001 $0 ..,e ViewAmMRy: None None $0 NOM $0 None $0 Frewmy Noise Year Buil: 1980 1979 $500 1974 $3,000 1978 $1,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 J 7ioom Count: 312 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bedroonal8aths) Nome Sita(SF): 1,388 1,334 $1,300 1.351 $875 1,388 $0 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 _ No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $o 1 $0 1 $00 Heaft: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 La xft:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC744 impact of Landfill Proximity 0 nem Index Sale Comparable 1 s Adlustments Conparyk+r2 Adjustments CornpiTble 3 Ad wbrrnts Airconditioning: None Central ($1,000) Central ($`,000) Centra! (=1.000) 7ropetty Condition: Average Average $0 Superior ($3,500) Average $0 Ovwa Ot altty: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvements: Pool: None None $0 None $0 None $0 Fencing: Yes Yee $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 Ls Welding: Average Avenge $0 Average $0 Average $0 -a Patio: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 A� r 1, bttw Feetursa: None None $0 None $0 None $0 t$arroluslorrs Grose Price Dithwonce: ($1.750) $7,000 $800 ^� jkfbM Adjrrabnents Peroentage Dftmnce: •1.34% 5.04% 0.38% Nat Adpistmente: 5800 ($3,125) $o fret Price Difference: ($950) $3,875 $800 After Adp»tments Adjwted Price of Comp: $131,050 $135,875 $132,500 _ Prim of index Sale: $132,000 $132,000 $132,000 Difference: ($950) $3,875 S5oo -0.72% 2.85% Percentage Difference: 0.38% LarW M:War Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Mem Index Sale Comparable I Adjustments Comparable 2 4djustmer" Comparable 3 Ad — a Kehr Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis :9 KCS-04 Impact of Landfill Proximity •Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Aajustments Comperaole 2 Adjustments Commable 3 Aftobnerds Akeonditioning: Central Central $0 Cantrai $0 Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average 50 SI.Superior ($1,500) Average $0 Overe1 QLWKY: Average Average so Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvements: Pool: Normo None So None $0 None $0 Fencing: Yee Yee $0 Yee $0 Yee $0 Larrdecapkrg: Average Average Average $0 Average $0 w Pelvo: Yee Yee $0 Ya $0 Yee $0 i Ottw Feshow: NOM None $0 NOM $0 Norm $0 Conckialors t Grow Price Dtllerence: (:12,750) ($4,000) ($10,500) Before Adjustments ?erterdrtpe Difference: -0.79% 2.86% -7.92% IM Ad)ustrnents: $5,400 63,975 $4,600 Not Rice Werence: ($7,350) ($25) ($5,900) AJtw Ad)usbMnts M)usted Price of Comp: $135,650 i $142,975 $137,100 Price of Index Sale: $143,000 f 143,000 $143,000 Difference: ($7,350) (f25) ($5,900) r ?eroerdage Difference: 5.42% -0.02% 4,30% WNW.haler Cwrjon Comparable Sales Analysis `D, 7 Impact of Landfill Proximity It" Index Selo Comparable 1 AdWni4nts Cornpareb(*1 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad�ustrrwnfa Addreee: 2206 Westwood Ct. 1447 Mondans PI. 3866 Roundhill 1331 San Miguel C4. P ttsburg Pittsburg P ttsburg Pittsburg SeMr Oemicco Levin Lobar Huggett Ht/yw Crowder Young Sidney Sweeney Sam Prim: $135,1100 $142,500 $139,000 $135,000 Document: 114714 160914 63308 209295 F. Per SF Nome: $95.07 $100.71 $97.61 $94.94 Ad)mtments Sam Oda: 04/28/94, 06117/94 $0 03/04/94 $0 08/1W94 10 Fttw CkV Typical Typical $0 Typicd $0 Typlcai $0 SW 8ke(9F): 8,500 8,906 9,310 ($1.000) 5,915 $2,500 VmaAnwnly: Rooftop Nona $0 None $0 Norio $0 Osla YON BUIL. 1978 1982 ($2,000) 1972 $3,000 1973 $2,500 3torl": 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 30 'loom Count: 312 312 $0 312 $0 3/2 $0 ;BedroomelBdha) Morrie Size(SF): 1,420 1,415 $125 1,424 i ($10()) 1,422 ($50) l W Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 2 $o No.Fbspleoes: 1 $0 SC 0 $1,000 • :iedlrp: Central Central $0 Central SO Central $0 . t.wxW:Kawn Comparable Sales,Ane is � Pa � Ka10-04 Impact of Landfill Proximity Ilan Indus Said Comenble 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Cornelable 3 Adkiabrisift AircondilionUp: Central None $1,000 Central I SO Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 _ 04"Omar. Average Average (52,500) Average $0 Average s0 Yard Improvwrmnls: --� Pool: None None $0 None $0 Norm $0 Fencing: Ya Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 Wrdsrapbp: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 •n1 Patio: you Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 _... Othw Feshaes: NOM NOM $0 Norm $0 NOM $0 Concklellons Bross Pros Dtflwwwo: $7.500 $4,000 $0 Mahm Adiuqftwits Percent"Difference: 5.26% 2.88% 0.00% Not Adjustments: ($3,375) $1,900 $5,950 NO Prim Difference: $4,125 $5,900 $1,960 After Adjustments Adjusted Price of Comp: $139,125 $140,900 $140,980 ?rice of Index Sale: $135,000 1135.000 $135,000 i DMTerenae: $4,125 S5.900 $5,950 0 Percentage Difference: 2.96% I 4.19% 4.22% LwwM:Keller Ceinyon Comparable Sales Analyels Impact of Landfill Proximity "M Index Sale Comparable 1 AdjustmentsComparable 2 Aujustments Comparable 3 AdolnQft 1 Address: 2208"Whitney 7 Vista Diablo 1577 Kingsly 1030 Jensen G. Pittsburg Pittsburg Pttsburg Pittsburg 4%19r. Cutehell W bbanhorst Johnston Schmid Buyer Baker Wubarak GtAdseth Ghlrado Sals Price: $150,000 $155,000 3145,000 $137,500 �odarrerd: 304271 120315 241459 197816 Prior Per SF Home: $105.93 $108.39 $97.84 $101.78 Ad)rstrrards Akio Data: 12/29/94 04/29/94 $0 09/27/94 30 08/05194 $0 FYwrcbV Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typkrel $0 Sb Size(SF): 15,775 11,550 $4.000 7,995 $5,000 7,500 $6,000 ViewAmw*y: View to Delta Foothips $0 None $2,500 Nora $2,500 Year BUBt 1981 1978 $2,500 1974 $3,500 1972 $4,500 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room(fount: 3/2 3/2 $0 Y2 SO 3/2 $0 {BedroomalBaths) ilorrre Size(SF): 1,418 1,430 ($350) 1,482 I ($1,650) 1,351 $1,825 I M.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 $0 2 $0 I -ft.FkopkK=: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 }ieathlp: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Y l.arwlel:Keller carryon Comparable Sales Analysis KC1111-94 Impact of L.endfill Proximity �Itam Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 _Adjustments Comparable 3 AdjwtMWft Abcondltfoning. Central Central $0 Central SO Window $1,500 Property Condllon: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Overall puNpy. Average SI.Superior ($1,500) Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvements: -.. Pool: Above Ground None $0 Nona $0 Spa/Gazebo ($1,500) Forking: you Yea $0 Yee $o Yea $0 Larrdsapirq: Avenge Average $0 Avenge $0 Average $0 Patb: Yea Yee $0 Yes $0 Yea $0 Other Features: None Soler Hot Water ($500) Solar HIW;Sec.t3yptem ($1,500) None $0 Oonckrabria dross Price OMferi rws: $5,000 ($5,000) (512 600) w Zdon Adkrtmwds Percentage Deference: 3.71% -3.45% Net Adjustments: 54,150 $7,850 $13,026 Not Price Difference: $9,150 $2,850 $1,125 AMr Adjustments Adjusted Prkm of Comp: $159,150 $152,850 $151,125 'Orbe of Index Sale: $150,000 5150,000 $160,000 DHfe encs: $9,150 52.650 $1,125 Pawntage Difference: 5.75% 1.369E 0.74% UvxM:Keder canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity 'D. 9 Item moi® Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 .4dlustmenls Comparable 3 Adfustmenb Mdras: 2195 Peachtree Cl. 3892 Meado%trook 1601 Kngsly 3890 Meedowbrook P ttsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg SaOor Beemer Cooper Killeen i Weber Bllyaf Suarez Patterson Gallagher Gable SW Price: $135,500 $130,250 $139,000 $132,500 "` �Oelsrrard 119427 177687 201745 59288 fmco Par SF Homs: $97.78 $97.84 $102.89 $05.80 Adlustrnonts ` Sala Data: 04/29/94 07/08194 $0 08/11/94 $0 03/02/94 $0 Fi mob g: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Sb Shs(SF): 8,500 8,000 $500 8,418 ($2,000) 8,001 $800 VbWAMW*Y. Nona Nona $0 None $0 Nona $0 Year Bunt: 1980 1979 $500 1974 $3,000 1978 $1,000 Stoma: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 " Room Count 3/2 32 $0 312 $0 32 $0 {BadroonrlBaths) ttonwStra(SF): 1,388 1,334 $1,300 1,351 ; $875 1,388 $0 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fhplaees: 1 1 $0 1SO $0 +Waft: Central Central s0 Central So Central $0 ! L&W M:Kehr carrion Comparable Sales Analysis Y KCR-04 Impact of Landfill Proximity -Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad)1ssUMrrts i A4conditioMng: Central Central $0 Central i So Central 50 Property Condition: Fair Average ($2,000) Average (34,000) Average ($2,000) Ow"Quw. Average Average $0 Average $0 Averr a $0 Yard ImprovemerAs: Pool: Pion None $0 None $0 None $0 Fenchrp: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 landscaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Palo: Yes Yee $0 Yee $0 Yoe $0 6 i OLIFeshir": NOM None $0 NOM ' . $0 NOM $0 COrIQIUaIOfN Gram Price Dlf wwwo: ($5,250) $3,500 ($3.000) - Sef01a AdAmbnenb Percard"Difference: -4.03% 2.52% -2.26% Nit Ad)ustmenfs: $300 ($2,125) (5500) - Net PriceDffference: ($4,950) $1,375 ($3.500) AfterAdAntments Adjusted Price of Comp: $130,550 5'36,875 $132,000 I Price of Index Sale: $135,500 t S'• 5.500 $135,500 i f]dference: ($4,950) ($3,500) ercenfage Difference: -3.79% 1.00% 2.65% LarxM:Keller rynyon Cmparable Sales Analysis 5 Impact of Landfill Proximity Mem Index Sale Cornenble 1 Ad ustments Com N 2 A justments Ccm wuble 3 Ad ustmo Addrww: 2173 Peachtree Ci. 3901 Meadowbrook 906 Jensen Cl i 937 Newcastle Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg j Pittsburg 3d@r Pascua Wareham Davis NA Buyer: Oritz Limas Leat@ Scheffler S019 Pdc@: $138,000 $148,000 $141,000 $135,000 1110cuffW nt: 87492 101211 63188 118507 Price Per SF Honw: $90.49 $100.20 $94.19 $91.40 Sd@ Dat@: 03/30/94 04/12/94 $0 03/04/94 $0 04/28!94 $0 FNtartcktp: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 b Shoe(SF): 6,540 6,279 9,900 ($3.000) 6,000 5600 View AMW. None Non@ ($1,500) Nor* (51,500) Novo ($1.600) Backs to L@land Yew Buk 1980 1978 $1,000 1972 $4,000 1978 $1,000 Storles: 1 1 $0 1 50 1 $0 ROOM count: 4/2 4/2 $0 4/2 $0 4/2 Sa (Bedroorrs/Battts) Homo Size(SF): 1,503 1,477 $850 1,497 $150 1,477 5660 *lo.Gwage spec": 2 2 S0 2 10 2 $0 M.FUsplec": 0 1 ($1,000) 0 $0 1 (51,000) i Hoeft: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 LarrdllN:Keller Carryon Cfnparable Sales Analysis -� 9 Kc13-e4 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad Akoonditioning: Central Centra! $0 Central $0 Central $0 l Property Condition: Average Superior ($3,000) Average $0 Average $0 Overd(war. Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard improvements: Pool: None None $0 None $0 None $0 Fendt: Yes Yes $0 Ya $0 Yee $0 Landscaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $o Pada: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 E, *Othw Featuss: None None $0 None ; $0 Note $0 Carakniom Gross Prim D(fbrance: $12.000 $5,000 (:1.000) Wore Adjuslme is Percentage Difference: 8.11% 3.55% -0.74% Not Adjustrnerds: ($3.850) ($350) ($350) #W Price Werence: $8,150 $4,650 ($1,360) Atter Adpotrtents Adjusted Pike of Comp: $144,150 $140,650 $134,660 Price of Index Sale: $138,000 $138,000 $138,000 I Difference: $8,150 $4,650 ($1,350) Percentage Difference: 5.65% 3.31% 1,00X Larrdtl0:KMw Carrion Comparable Sales Analysis / impact of Landfill Proximity Ite1r1 Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjustment_ t Jlddraee: 2284 Jacqueline Dr. 7 Vista Diablo 1577 Kingsly 2 Nina Pi Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Se1er Alvarez Trust Wibbenhorst Johnston Everett Trust �tryer Mah Mouberak Guldseth Azlz Sale Pdce: $153,000 $155,000 $145,000 $150,000 McCU"WI: 195994 120315 241469 200104 Fr1a Far SF Homs: $106.10 $103.54 $97.84 $98.77 Ad)uebnenh Sale Dene: 0�I/03194 04/29/94 $0 09/27104 $0 08/09194 $0 . rq J iFkrartcYrg Typkoal Typk* $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 -RRa Sk*WY 7,020 11,550 ($3.000) 7,998 $0 8,330 $0 Cortar VW&Arrrenky: Foothills Foo#Wle $0 None $0 None $0 Yew stlat 1987 1976 $4,500 1974 $5,500 1977 54,000 Stod": 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Roorn Count: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 11lorrre Size(SF): 1,442 1,497 ($1,375) 1,482 :,S1,OOr.1 1,550 ($2,700) 340.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 SO 2 $0 No.Firepiacee: 1 1 $O t SO 1 $0 !•testing: Central Central $0 Central So Central So -1 t.wWR Kefler anyon Comparable Sales Analysis Lel KC14=04 Impact of Landfill Proximity •Meru Index Sale Com ls 1 Ad ustments Com Ie 2 AC'uetments ComE=ble 3 Ad .y �l 4 Ai condkioning: Central Central $0 Central SO Central $0 f"Porty Condplon: Average Average 50 Average $0 Average $0 04waOL T. A;srage Average $0 S).Inferior $1,500 Avenge $0 Yard Improvonwrts: Pool: None NOM $0 None 50 None $0 Fencing: Yes Ya $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 Lsndsarphp: Average Average $0 Average $o Average $0 Pado: Yee Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes :o r. Atfrer Feabim: None Soler Hot Water ($500) Soler HIW;Sec.Systs ($1,500) None $0 Concknions OM"Prbe Offference: S2.00O ($8,000) (33,000) Zslbre Aea m•nts Ferewtege DMennce: 1.29% -5.52% -2.00% Net AdAwtmerds: ($375) $4.500 $1,300 - Net Price Dkhww ce: $1,825 ($3,500) ($1,700) Jif br AdAwhmrds Adpreted Price of Comp: $154,825 $149,500 $151,300 Price otIndex Sale: $153,000 S153,000 $153,000 I Difference $1,825 ;53.500) ($1,700) •percentage Difference: 1.05% -2.34% 1.12% t.andllC Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis —D, ,,9, Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Indus Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjudnenb- _ 1 �Wdaep: 2262 Mt Whitney 3892 Meadowbrock 1601 IGngsly ( 3890 Meadowbrook Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg 9eMr Areilano Cooper IGlleen Weber $tryst: Casm Patterson Gallagher Gable sob Pat o: $135,000 $130,250 $139,000 $132,500 Dootam C 220438 177687 201745 59288 Pace Par SF Holm: $95.34 $97.64 $102.89 $95.60 Ad}uetmertte Zalo pale: 09/06/94 07/08!94 $0 08/11/94 $0 03102/94 $0 i T*Mock Typkd Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 - Sfb shm W-): 7,540 6,100 $1,600 8,418 ($1,000) 6,001 $1,500 ViewAnwr*y: Foothills None $0 None $0 Nom $0 Yeas Bu t: 1986 1979 $3,500 1974 $8,000 1978 $4,000 $►orlso: 1 1 $0 1 so 1 $0 7toom count: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (tladmont~w) #!Darla Size(SF): 1,418 1,334 $2,050 1,351 $1,625 1,386 $750 M.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 SO 2 So 1 M.Fireplaces: 1 1 $O t $O 1 50 ?!eating: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 LandW:Kehr canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Kc16.04 Impact of Landfill ProximRy Index Sale Com rable 1 Ad uatments Com rable 2 Adjuslmenta Comparable 3 Ad)wUMnis A400ndMoning: Central Central SO Central i 50 central $0 1Ploperly CorldNbn: Average Average $0 Superior ($2,500) Average $0 DvwvdOLORY. Average SI.Inferior $1,500 31.Inforior S1,Soo St.Inferior $1,500 Ywd ftwenwrds: Pool: NOM NOM $0 None $0 None $0 Fwx*Q. Ya Yes $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 Lardscaphg: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Pslb: Yee Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 0, 10UW Feduw: None None $0 None $0 None $0 Conolustona Oro"PAoe OMhrence: ($4,750) $4,000 (32,500) AOAbnWO 3'ercenbw Odference: 4.65% 2.88% -1.89% Nd Ad)ustnwrds: $8,550 $5,625 $7,750 _ AM Price Olffersnee: $3,800 $9,625 $5,250 AflerAdAnbrwab Ad)a6W Price of Comp: $138,800 $144,625 $140,250 glee of Index Sale: $135,000 $135,000 $135,000 ZlIRerence: $3,800 ( $9.625 S5 250 I Pen:erdage OMbrence: 2.74% 6.66;6 9.74% I > � 0< o aR aR N aR ae �? aQ m o o co m Q M N r t7 O O ..pp .P ,p .D,y.D .J.p � ..DD..DD .O J ,,pp,p.D J > m T�� oE�OR oQ aP aE aze oQ ' aeT ae aQ�a'� JET k 3—X �� fi T t N•no rnMm of,-It vco i rim ra n'j0 m t'1 U] mO,V m OO NM t�mc�i N0 m Q N V N �O ,J m U O'.00 ONO Om 00 000 00 rnmrn .� 000 C O N N O N N O ry 0 O�O O i 1J 0 0 O t O 0 n N t O 0 00 ..... rb(O rb v!V)O O c0'n �O� � O oo�O n M m C O N N N N n N(O cI'A N Nt:N r 1Oy Ohy0i NM MN Nm fD v c7 M 0 N H H HNN H N H N H NN. N N N H N H N N H o O O O o 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O 0 0 0 O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 tb 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 OOo OOp brb rb OOo MlD tb OG/C1 VrDb OOO C 00 rd nU) 000 Y Y Y MCIO mmm 00 C) 000 MM m mm m NNN Of7(•7 NNN t7 l'7 f'3 Me7 f7 t")M17 M{'7 f7 NNN NNN a C N N N N H w N H N 60 H N w w w H N N N y N w w w N H N O b O O b 0 ... b 0 O O O O O O O O O b b b -00 N O O O O O N r b O N N O N In o�N 1 0 0 0 N 0 0 I N h O N O O O O IL b m rb tb M O m M O rb•O O N N n n n.N �h N m th r Orb f00 to Nn N 1q ON m O CDM W O N0 _ N v N Y O N N N H").4., H N N H'0 N H H N N H H N H N H H H H H H C o ONN OYO ONS rAgO t�Mn NON NNN (")m Ql BOO V) ' ZO NyN t0 r, c'>r Oi N 6,* -0 m(DN V; N m n N N yNN N NNN f9MN •--H HyGm. HNHtsN QU aR aR aR ZR aR ae aR aR aR aR f aR aR* *f aR aR aR aR �� O n0 n o b f00 Nm N Orb YCO tI tp to aD ng m 0,�p O nO n O v�ry O O rt�< n�f ci c�oC�i `?44 1? LO o6CN Q s M t� W d 00 0-�0 00 000 000 000 C3 o�0 00 c o0 000 000 O'DO o 0 0 b,Do 000 000 000 b OJ N b 0 0 O O O O h O NY O O Y N b b 0 0 0 H� Nwv ....NHN NNH NNN yqN xMN HNw CO b LL N O N C N CO N aD N O N n N l7 •O o O N to o C/N O N P I n n o n KO b 0 :E ca <D GNp M �1D NM Tb NOl -e-N �f-� q <C c7-M. �0N�ppf �r0 M 'D�00 V0 X a' Im 10mOD 0 -MW OT �00m 0x00 Orn0 -MQ0m "QQCO 'o 0 m Ln worn 0 W E a«NNN ..NMN *ANNN ;yNN wHNN .n NNN ;,IANN +►NNN wd►yN 0 O�bbb NW bb t+D b Nbbb ■Dbbb bbbb bbbb +O bbb �bbb c �I1@ 3,11 sill NS�ee Nse� IewI a s��s �Sss D�YD�O �fY00CD �DY00 a nY ICY V Y r.n T o0oo -0 C. »o00 0o0 0000 o 0o n000 0o o 0000 000o c000 0oo0 0ob0 o00r .D�ov> o00o a000 0000 O b O o O b O o .Db O O C OO O ■0 O b O �l o b 0 b b 0 0 �N o 0 0 N o 0 E C+n rD ON otOQN Vb0'n Ol o00 ■O n ; -M n - -00oo Y'; 00 m0D Grb a N N N N C')N^ N N N N N [7 v v t'7 Y(7- 12 Y M- Y!1 R2 v N r 0 t'7 tV N M N CO 40 &4 i0IMg.NN HNHN 6-01 44 iANNH I1PNNN Wf NHN N H H H Sn NfR v+ L co LL o Q) 0000 O 00 00 X000 O f 0O o MOO N m o0 NOO Y O 1000 a O Om m r b+C1 O t'7b To C'1(D OO C' b r0 N 4r)0b0 "Omm ONr Z �OMLO J m CD ram -Mww m- mm co T C (6n 'D t6 : t, A.C1Omh NOr,7O [0 m m Ci tD _r W In mt v ANY 0mO Of")Yrl1 m V.D .000m �Dn M'S d mf\ ry maD1-nn <Dnt�n 0r.t- cpnhn .0 f Aonnn - nO- - z,- w rnAa,rn rnrnrnrn awrnrn rnrnrnrn �rnrnrn .0, rnrnrnrn arnrnrn rnrnrnrn Yrrrr rrrr Trr.- rr�r Trr.- �-r�r LL w m m O a t0 m p Op Y 3D m O�Wj Of yO Cf O O ry 0 O O N O O m r OQ M(7 (7 l'I C)C7 C7 t'1 M f") th!'�t'> 4T,t7 t7 f•'1 2 DO G 03 0 G Up 3p O G v C D U ?, L C C �• 7 C D _ ) D`� C N m C G _ �� � GL �o m� a �2Y fl mSY ���❑ 0Mm�G -rmtjQ cornN'� oo'Qrn anc->Tv r�rnv mao :4 1, r -. N O Y r Qf O� MM�r :V MN V ! O N t7�N r(7 r N (V f7 r N �N r (V.-r r KV r.-r I(") Q r N t7 r N n -"M -N n r N M -C-4m r N M _F N M 0) 01 at m 0) 01 m U m 01 01 C m m m W0 m m LL m r0 0 m 07 D '� D D D 'D D m 0n Z matin mn`aa m.01]a mJ31�1] ml]ad 9l]p 9�OL) �.. U) l0 t0 t0 (1) R Q w 0) m m m N to m m N m m t0 b m m m w m m W W 0 m ca co N mE E m E E E m E t m ttt m E tE m t t m 9 E m tE E m t t 00 0 00 0838 =833 =383 =383 0333 2363 =333 t.andrll:K.wrn Comparable Sales Ana � Pa Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Ilae1 Indus Sale Comemble 1 Ad ustments Com M 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad I Jlddren: 2223 Santa Maria 3928 Meadowbrook Cl 14 San Carlos I 219 Atherton G Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Satyr Haag@ Marin Beaudin Neal Buyer Goodson Rand James Surge Sala Price: $125,000 $128,500 $129,900 $125,000 Docunwrt: 192214 55049 154815 149859 'Dr1ce Per SF Home: $90.19 S91.27 698.29 $90.32 AdN*nenla Sole Date: 11103!95 04J07195 $0 09115195 $0 09AW95 $0 FY.—=it tg Typical Typical $0 Typical $o Typical $0 9w Stae(SF): 8,900 8,000 $1,000 8,300 $500 6,800 $0 View Amery: Average Hills None $0 None $o None $0 Year suit 1981 1979 $1,000 1975 $3,000 1974 $3,500 Storlea: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Mown Court 372 312 $0 3/2 50 3/2 $0 {Bedrooms/BsdM) V }Ionto Stn(SF): 1,388 1,388 $0 1,349 $925 1,384 $50 too.Garage Spaces: 2 2 50 2 I? so 2 $0 I No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 SO 1 $0 }ieatktg Central Central $0 central $0 Central $0 LerrdW.Keller c.nyon Comparable Sales Analysis -1-59 KD145 Impact of Landfill Proximity Kern Index Sale Cornenble 1 Adjustments Com bls 2 Ad Lotments Com le 3 Ad Aboondkbnlrq: Central Central SO Central I $0 Central $0 7roperty Condition: Average Average $0 SI.Superior ($2,500) Average $0 loverM t]LWW. Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvennnts: -mow Pool: None None $0 None $0 Spa ($1,004) FencMp: Yea Yee $0 Yes $0 Yea $0 Lerldscepklp: Averegs Average $0 Averegs $0 Average $o ra Pstlo: Yoe Ya $0 Yea $0 Yee $0 Dl11or Feahm: None None $0 Remodeled Bath ($1,000) None $0 OorlcMwlwrs taros Price t7tlfaerlce: $1,500 $4,94O $0 w Before Adjuefmonts 3'erowt"Difference: 1.19% 3.77% 0.00% Net Adjustments: $2,000 $925 $2,554 Nd Price Difference: $3,500 $5,825 $2,560 Aft rAdjwtments Adjusted Price of Comp: $128,500 $130,825 $127,550 '2dca of Index Sale: $125,000 $125,000 $125,004 Difference: $3,500 I 55,825 $2,550 Percentage Difference: 2.72% 4.45% 2.00%0 Kath canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity ht.m Index Sets Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparabl l Adjustments - Comparable 3 - AdpArlments -Address: 1024 Rockridge 3926 Meadowbrook CI 14 San Carlos i 219 Atherton C1 Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg i Sstisr Bamacascel Marin Beaudln Neal Buyer Jassal Rand James Sungs Sale Price: $130,000 $128,500 $129,900 $125,000 Docurnertt: 68350 55049 154815 149659 74te Per SF Home: $93.80 $91.27 $98.29 $90.32 `� Adjts#rrrenb Sab Dab: 04/28/95 04/07/95 $0 09115/95, $0 09/08!95 $0 0 1, Te wwktg Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 9s ske on. 9,100 6.000 $2.000 8,900 $1.500 6.800 i1,b00 Som.Was View Amw&lr Delia Nora $3.000 Nona $3.000 None $3,000 Year Suit: 1981 1979 $1,000 1975 $3,000 1974 $3,500 Modes: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 doom count: 312 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bodrooms/Baths) }lone Size(SF): 1,386 1,386 $0 1,349 $925 1,384 $50 No.Garage Speoes: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 M.Fireplaces: 1 1 SD 1 $0 1 $o Heating: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Kaw Carrion Comparable Sales Analysis -D, KC2-" Impact of Landfill Proximity Ibsrn Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjuetmenta Comparable 2 Adjuatmerrta Comparable 3 AdNstmerds- AiroondMloning: Central Central $0 Central so Control $0 ?-party Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 t Dverati Quawr. Average Average $0 Averaeje $0 Average $0 Yrd Improve: Pool: None None $0 None $0 Spa ($1,000) FencbV: Yes Yee $0 Yes $0 Yee $0 Lsndecapfng: Average Avernfle $0 Average $0 Average $0 ri Patio: yes Yea $0 Yes $0 Yee $0 ]Dow Features: None None $0 Remodeled Bath ($1,000) Nora $0 Coraknions Ofom Price DMfsrenee: ($5.500) ($100) ($8.000) Before Adjrebnents fercerltage Difference: -2.77% -0.08% -4.00% NA Adkistrnente: $8,000 $7,425 $7,050 ~ 7det Price Difference: $2,500 $7,325 $2,050 Mar Ad)usbrlente A1d)usted Price of Comp: $132,500 ! $137,325 $132,050 Atlee oflndex Selo: $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 '�illorence: $2,500 $7,325 $2,050 'Weentoge Difference: 1,89% 5.33% 1.55% Kellar f?snyon Comparable Sales Analysis Y Impact of Landfill Proximity Itsrrr Index Sala comparable 1 yjustnrents Com le 2 Ad'ustrnents Co k 3 Ad wnte 4� I Address: 2169 EI Seco 3928 Meadowbrook Ci 14 San Carlos 219 Atherton C7 Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg _J slsr Wong Marin Beaudin Neal Buyer. Bonner Rand Jams Sungs S lsPrice: $124,500 $128,500 $129,900 3125,000 Doeurwtrl: 159873 55049 154815 149659 Priam Per SF Harv: $89.83 $91.27 $98.29 $90.32 Ad tistments . Sale Date: 09/22/95 04/07/95 $0 09/15/95 $0 09!08/95 $0 FYwrrekrg: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 y SM Sks(SF): 7.000 8,000 $1.000 8,300 $500 8,800 $800 Yon Anw&r. Norm Nan $0 Nate $0 None So 'Yew suit 1981 1979 $1,000 1975 $3,000 1974 $3,500 Storks: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 ROM coram: 3/2 3l2 $o 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 {8edroonwl8st►w) lain Sks(SF): 1,386 1,388 $0 1,349 $925 1,384 $50 ft.Gars"Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 so 2 $0 t No.Ftreplacss: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Meaft: Central Central So Central $0 Central $0 KOW Carryon Comparable Sales Analysis KC3-" Impact of Landfill Proximity Man Index Bele Comparable i Adiustrrants Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AA 1 oordlbrdng: None Central ($1,000) Central ($1,000) Central ($7,000) j I 1Y condMbn: Below Average Average ($2,000) Average ($2,000) Average ($2.000) DvaalOL"M : Average Average $0 Average $0 nrarage $0 Yana Inprowmenb: ~ Pool: None NOM $0 None $0 Spa ($7,000) Fencing: Ya Ya $0 Yea $0 Ya $0 Landeceping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 s Petb: Ya Yee $0 Yee $0 Yee $0 DOWFeedree: Norm None $0 Remodeled Beth ($1,000) Nora $0 Conduelone 43rooe Price Wilbrarme: $2,000 $5,400 $600 Manors AdPMTwds 7woentege Dkiorerxa: 1.58% 4.18% 0.409 AM Ad)uetmenie: (51.000) $425 $50 Not Pike Difference: $1,000 $5,825 5560 AW AdJt merle AdJusted Prim of Comp: $125,500 $130,325 $125,050 i -riga of Index Sale: $124,500 j $124,500 $124,500 -12 I DNference: $1,000 $5,825 $550 Percentage Difference: 0.80% 4.47% 0.44%• j Land13:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysts Impact of Landfill Proximity Index Sale Com 101 Ad rets Com b Adjustments Comparable 3 AdMdmwft r, Address: 1200 Alamo 2350 Dover 14 Atherton Ci 1129 Motion Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Seiler Forsberg Connor Pluto Kcbata Dryer. Moore Grh")m Frazier Brywd Sde Pride: $139,000 $130,000 $119,950 $130,000 Mocunwt: 50758 102727 151766 162896 -P. Par SF Home: $103.01 $96.37 $88.92 $98.23 Aelatmenb _*S.k*Date: 03/31/95 06/30/95 $0 09!12!951 $0 09/28/95 $0 Financing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Site Sloe(SF): 11,100 9,148 $2.000 8,630 $5,000 7,200 $4.000 Some Nolee Mlew Affwi : Def None None $0 None $0 Yee Butt: 1981 1979 $1,000 1976 $2,500 1970 55,500 Slorin: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Rown Court: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 {Bedroonns/Bethe) Norse She(SF): 1,349 1,319 $0 1,349 50 1,351 ($50) — i No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 1tlo.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 �leatkng: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 fW:Kolar --D,7 Land M: Comparable Sales Analysis KC4-95 Impact of Landfill Proximity Rsrrr Index Sale Comparable t Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad Akcondttioning: Central well $500 Central i $0 Central $0 2'roperty condition: Average Average $0 Inferior $3,500 Average so OwreIA Quality: Average Average $0 Average 5o Average $o t_ Yard Inprovemsnts: Pool: None None $0 Mone 50 None 5o Forcing: Ye Ya $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 Landsca - Average Average $0 Average $0 Average 5o Patio: Yes Yee $0 Yea $0 Ya $0 Other Feature: Sec.System Sec.System $0 None $500 None $500 tis cmCkslone Orow Prig gNtonnee: ($9.000) ($19.050) (39,000) ,.. fkfte Adjhntmenb pevow"ge Dtfferance: -8.92% -15.88% -8.92% NO Ad)ustments: $3,500 $11,500 $9,950 Net Prke DMfsraws: ($5.500) (57,550) 5950 After Adjustments Ad)trstsd Price of Comp: $133,500 i $131,450 $189,950 i Niko of Index Sale: $139,000 $139,000 $139,000 DSfsrence: ($5,500) 57.550) $950 1 Porcardage Difference: -4.12% -5.74% 0.88%10 i 1 LwxM:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Index Sale Comperabb 1 Adjuatrtwnts Comparabbr Adjustments Comperabb 3 Adlwtrtards I Jlddrep: 2156 Peachtree CI 1103 Jensen 1329 Horan Ct I 1114 Kngely Dr Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg SeMr Siffennan Btrtticci Soucb Hall -.d B1ryer: Banks Wells Calka/Ramlrw Akroworth 9e1e Price: 't138,500 $141,000 $137,500 $131,950 Document: 42849 83048 109594 54990 41rice Par SF Home: $95.45 $99.30 $96.89 $92.92 AdJustrnerxs ,Bete prate: 03/17/95 05/24195 $0 07/12/95 j $0 04/07/95 $0 ;Fkn wft Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Site Site(an: 6,300 6,930 ($500) 8,800 ($2,500) 7,800 ($1.000) w View Mwaity: None None $0 None $0 None $0 Yew Built 1980 1973 $3,500 1974 $3,000 1975 $22,500 Stotfes: 1 1 $0 1 SO 1 $0 itaom Count: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (BedmonulBaths) :-lone Site(SF): 1,430 1,420 $250 1,422 $200 1,420 $250 l +lo.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 50 2 $0 �:No.Fireplaces: 1 1 SO 1 $O t $0 1 Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 -D- `7 LandM:K*W canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC3-" Impact of Landfill Proximity Iten1 Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Com le 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad i - Alroonditiordng: Central Central $0 Central s0 None $1,000 f Property condition: Average Average s0 Average $0 Average $0 Overact CfUWW. Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard Irnprovernents: Pod, None None $0 None so None $0 Fenckp Yes Yes $o Yes $0 Yes $0 LandacaPk Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 `w Patio: Ya Yes $0 Yea $0 Yes $0 r Other Foohnse: None Completely Remodeled ($5,000) Compistaty Remodeled (551000) Nona 30 conehnione {irow Prion DMfaronce: $4.500 $1,000 (54 560) a Setas Ad)Abnarka fWaurdap Deference: 3.19% 0.73% 3.45% Not AdNaftents: ($1,750) ($4,300) $2,750 ,W Price Die: $2,750 ($3,300) (51,800) After Adhs mwb Ad)mtW PMP of Comp; $139,250 $133,200 $134,700 price of Index Sets: $136,500 $136,500 $136,500 Dance: $2.750 $3.300) Percentage Difference: 1.97% -2.46% -1.34% i UrdW Keller cwnyon Comparable Sales Analysis 9 Impact of Landfill Proximity harry Index Sale 22=nble 1 Adjustments CoM=bI4L2 Adjustments Com ble 3 AdpAtmerts Amrasa: 2187 Peachtree C! 1103 Jensen 1329 Horan Ct ( 1714 Kngaly Dr Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pdteburg SONIC. Cramer Buttlecl Soucle Had Buyer Morsla Weds Caliea/ nIniz Ainsworth gale Pricy. $139,950 $141,000 $137,500 $131,950 Moeurnent: 32582 83048 109594 54990 'Once Per SF Home: $97.87 $99.30 $98.89 $92.92 .� AdJraibnente Sale Date: 03/01/95 05/24/95 so 07112/95 $0 04/07/95 $D j: Ft OW Typical Typical $0 Typical ! $0 Typical $0 Sb Ske(SF): 8,250 8,930 $1,000 8,800 (6500) 7,800 $800 ViewAnw*r. NOM None $0 None $0 Nona $o Yew BLAt.• 1981 1973 $3,500 1974 63,500 1975 $3,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 doom Coram: 3/2 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 3/2 $0 (Bedroomamaths) dome Stze(SF): 1,430 1,420 $250 1,422 $200 1,420 $250 No.Gaspe Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 so 2 $0 i No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 s :ieatlrq: Central Central $0Central $0 Central $0 t wWM:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis v KC646 Impact of Landfill Proximity IEern Index Sale Comparable! Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adfrrdmerrb� Alreonditning: Central central $0 central ( $0 None $1,000 Property Condlbon: Average Average $0 Average $0 Inferior $2,500 Dvetd QtraRy: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard lmpovemants: •-P Poole Spa NOM $1,000 Norm $1,000 NOM $1,000 Facing: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes 5o w t adegplrq Average Avenge $0 Average $0 Average $0 w: Pwo: Ya Yes $0 Yee $0 Yes $0 Other Feabxve: Norm Completely Remodeled ($5,000) Completely Remodeled ($5,000) Norm $0 s Cortdudone Bross Price DWwance: $1,050 ($2,450) ($0.000) Pereentsoe Dghwence: 0.74% -1.78% -d.00% Not Ad)abnerds: $750 ($800) $8,250 fm Price Dlfererce: $1,800 ($3,250) $250 AW Adm AdJtmted Price of Comp: $141,750 j S136,700 $140,200 Ili -'i Pltoo of Index Sale: $139,950 S 139.950 $139,950 DiRennce: $1,800 ;S 3.250) $250 Percentage Diffonrlce: 1.27% -2.38% 0.18% 0 i Landru:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity kern Index Sale Comparable i Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdXwtn-nW Addrsw: 2213 Daffodil 3928 Meadowbrook Cl 1129 Motion I 2350 Dover Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Senor Johnson Marin Kobeta Connor Bnyr: Baker Rand Bryant Grffkhs Selo Price: $130,Soo $126,500 $130,000 $130,000 DOCU"Writ: 67243 55049 162896 102727 Price Per SF Home: $112.50 $106.39 $96.23 P96.37 Adiusbnente ale Date 04/26MS 04/07/95 $0 0028/95 $0 o6l30NS $0 I, rMterrc4f0: Typical Typical $0 Typical r $0 Typical $0 Ske Stye(SF): 12,350 6,000 52,500 7,200 $2,500 0,400 $1,000 Soper View AtnenNy: Power LktealTowen None $0 None $0 Note $0 Year Built 1985 1979 $3,000 1970 $7,500 1977 $4,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 so 1 $0 Room Counts: 32 32 50 32 $l 32 $0 {Bedrooms/Beths) :Clone Stze(SF): 1,160 1,189 ($725) 1,351 ($4,775) 1,349 ($4,725) f ' No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 No.Fimpians: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 0: Central Central $0 central 50 Central $0 LwKM:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC7-05 Impact of landfill Proximity Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad Akeaditioning: Central Central $0 Central I $0 None $1,000 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 [)versiarx.+ty: Average St.Interior $1,500 S1.Interior $1,500 St.Interior $1,500 Yard Improvements: Pool: Above Ground None $0 None :0 None $0 Forcing: Yes Yes $0 Yee $0 Yes $0 Landeaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Patio: Yee Ya $0 Yee $0 you $0 Ottw Feeirses: None None $0 None $0 Sec.System ($500) CorcMmlorr .<w Gross Price DI faence: ($4.000) ($500) ($500) .• Beton Adprstments Percentage Difference: -0.16% -0.38% -0.35% Net Adjustments: $6,275 $6,725 $2,275 Md Price Difference: $2,275 $6,225 $1,775 J11tw AdNotmerts #djwted Price of Comp: $132,775 $136,725 $132275 Price of Index Sale: $130,500 $130,500 $130.500 Difference: $2,275 $5,225 $1,775 Percentage Difference: 1.71% 4.55% 1.54%• t Landfill:War Canyon Comparable Sales Ana pe Analysis impact of Landfill Proximity Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Ad)ustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AdNetmente alddrew: 2254 Jacqueline 2342 Dover 1411 Jensen 2350 Dover Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg �' Se1et I Federal Hone Loan Joggers Sweet Connor I Buy-. Burton Taylor Moss GrMMths Sale Price: $124,900 $113,500 $106,000 $130,000 JoctaMnL' 26988 121364 123503 102727 ?Ace Per SF Home: $123.30 $111.17 $106.00 $96.37 Adhntrnerde .4a+ Daft: 02/16/95 07127/95 $0 07128/951 $0 06/30195 $0 -Fkwwktp Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical 0 Sb Ske(SF): 6,540 CM ($1,000) 6,000 9,400 ($3.000) Mow A n *r. FoothMs None None $0 None $0 Yew Bugle 1988 1977 $4,500 1973 $8,500 1977 $4,500 Modes: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room Count: 311 311 311 3/2 ($3.000) (BedroomdBaths) Moms size(SF): 1,013 1,021 ($200) 1,000 $325 1,349 ($8,400) ft.Gaspe spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 I No.Firnpkw*s: 1 0 $1,000 0 j $1,000 1 Hoellnp: Central Central $0 Central Central $0 t www:Keber canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KCB-" Impact of Landfill Prox)mity _ Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad i Aircondifionktg: Central Central None $1,000 None $1.000 Property Condition: Average Average SD Average Averge Overml u"T. Average St,inferior $1,500 St.Inferior $1,500 i Sl.Inferior $1,500 Yard Improvements: Pool: None None None Non& FenckV: Yes Yes $o Yes $0 Yee LandteaPinO: Average Average $0 Average Avenge Patio: Ya Ya Yes $0 Ya $0 Other Features: None Security System ($500) None Security System (5500) Corg*nbm i Gross Price Werance: ($11,400) ($18,900) 56,100 .,J Afore Adjustments Percentage Difference: -10.04% -17.83% 3A2% Ne(Adjustments: $5,300 $10,325 ($7,900) Not Price Dkference: ($6,100) ($8,575) ($2.800) After Adjustments Adjusted Price of Comp: $118,800 5118,325 $122,100 Ptics of Index Sale: $124,900 S124,900 $124,900 Difference: ($6,100) i :.$8.5751 ($2,900) Percerdage Dlfferance: 5.13% -7.37% -2.29% I LwWM:Kollar Canyon l rable SalestAna t;ompa Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity •Rem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments. ' Com lo.2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad)ustmento 1 I JAWroes: 2162 EI Seco Wy 1405 Alpine 23 Atherton Ci 1073 Metten ! Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg SeNa�r Stoker Thom Pollard NA Buyer Han curiel Hurd NA gale Prim: $128,000 $128,500 $138,000 $125,^00 Document: 224454 77348 79602 NA :Drlce Per SF Home: $88.88 $85.84 $90.85 $83.50 -�v AdAlotments S t Dote: 1288/95 05/15/95 $0 05/19/95] $0 08116415 $0 iFkrarrcln0: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 SM She(SF): 6,300 7,000 (5500) 7,584 ($1,000) 5,580 $5w ViewAmw*lr None None so None $0 Nona $0 Yew Will: 1980 1973 $3,500 1977 $1,500 1972 $4,000 Storlee: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Gown ODunt 4/2 4/2 $0 4/2 $0 4/2 $0 ,'aedmomwMaths) $I ma Size(SF): 1,477 1,497 ($500) 1,497 I ($500) 1,497 ($500) ?b.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 $0 2 $0 I +b.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $O t $0 !sating: Central central $0 Central $0 Centra! $0 I Land181:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC"S Impact of Landfill Proximity Iterrr Index Sale Com arable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 _Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjustmerta• I i Abconditbrtrq: Central central $0 central $0 Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Superior ($2,500) Below Average $2,500 OVOM OLMIR . Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvements: r.. pool: None None $0 Spa/Gazebo ($1,500) Nora $0 Fencing: Yes Yes $0 Yea $0 Yes $0 Lendecaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Patio: Ya Ya $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 Ottw Feah/ae: NOM None $0 None $0 NOM $0 QOM Ora"Price oMferenee: $500 $8,000 ($3.000) ." *Wm Adjustment Pwotnage Difference: 0.39% 5.88% -2.40% toot Adjuttmentt: $2,500 ($4.000) $8,5" Nst Price pffference: $3,000 $4,000 $3,500 After adjustment, Ad)tbd Price of Comp: $131,000 2132,000 $131,500 I fMm of Index Sale: $128,000 $128.000 $128,000 Dghwence: $3,000 $4.700 $3,500 Percentage Difference: 2.29% 3.03% 2.88% m � oC)Q C g �p e m f O O A? N N f QCV O N aR� �e 3Q 2R dR A aR aR aR JR aR aR e dR aR 3Q 3'2.i2-A 32 3e m A N r O V M A to O O V O m M O t7 O m N O M m V V V CV N N O V m NIS .!m O A. N r 000 N O m t0 t?t` M V r v C7 N N V ..0 Q .] O () 0 h 0 OO O t 0)O Oto 0 t O t 0 0 O N t 0 t O N C' t o ,J:0 i O t 0 0 C A A O O O O O A N O A O N N O o A N N A O A O A N N U �.-O NAC7 A NC7 e-Nm OMO AC7 N AOO NNN OOm V A V O tOON h V c7 ('7 fD to A tom f O HNN H N GAN 1H NNN NNN H vN NNN eq.4 N NN O o 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O o o o O O O Og 0 00 N N N N t)u7 o o 0tO t0 000 OOO o00 OOO O O O m o m (3k m m 0 0 0 m o D m O O O t O N h O O O O O O NNN m a)m O)mm y m0)A AAA O V "mm IL f V f OO^ N N --tom V C7^� ♦V V NNN NNN OOO N N N N N N N N H N N N Vf N N N N H N N N N N N N N N h m O O N O O O O O N O t0 o 0 O 0 t0 )O)0 0 O O V) �t0 O N N O t O N 0 )O N A O N O A A t A O N N N N O A O A +A o a mmN A f N O NN PIAN mf m t7mN Nf 0 N N N O W N N04 COO N�V O)V ft0 If)tpf 0)It f NO OtTm 1_ MC7v f V C")P)C7 f NN V Y'C VV f NNt0 C7� t7V t7 �to O NNN HNN NwN NNN NNN fAIAN NNN NNH www In O O Cn 0 O CO CO o O Cn 0 O 1A C0 C. t0 0 C0 A t 0 0 )O A N O N A o 0 0 G N 10 O)O A O N O AOA t`A O Z�' 10 hon N .-NN �Nm NOm ASA NYO ANN .I!W N 7 Y yN ♦CD C7 Pf�.� Chp0 NN chy Cy NO o) Cp f �y CA N 1ANy NNN N N "NN NDN IAN NNN NN woo AOv Ngg OAm mos fNID fW0 OCO CO m ?It Of fO CO O/Y f m O m V fA O 0 fODO tANO Nc0 C7 ... (a a C`t fV 0 N V 6 q C o N CJ t7 (7 t0 0 N f r CQ N r M N m Q x r � O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 66o 0 O 66 O O O O O O IL O O O t(7 O O O O O O O t0 O N 0 N o o h O O O O O O h N t0 O O -o O L■ VJ 11 MN yN� 1NN Naa NNN NN NHS '1HN NNN �oNm♦ G m^ � m O xgN m -mmmA �m NNm O) bO n l'f f OOp C7 'r10�aD N -V)Ab r0 O00 u) d((p9 Ofp�fmp 1�ANN 3)0 lOcR� �Np O�Of�I E. iA"1.1 :ANHN MNHN NNNN NNNW MNNN Na NN NHMN N/ANGov. cc occo voce o000 oocc oaoo 0000 ooco v000 ooaa E 0 Cl 0 0 �h O I f m N 0 0 IR p Cpp N O v O N O 0 0 0 0 N b 0 0 O)q C 0 O N 0 O0 O E mvm°o �f f V NNmm �ANm �V f f V NC')f NNNN NNNN Ko O00 ca N N N N M N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N H N N N N N -' In CD 000 f Cm V O 0o A O OOOA TN.OOO [000 V NOOw O Na 6 N O A SON ttt fff BO N A -(q-t G fO tO N <A NNCO vl mNN -v�tO f'f t0 -'Q J7.-m AA CO(0OO =OOA A [D AOA rn M m KOAmO n WOO :M [0 NA I _r O m •O N 0 O m N N f N m N m V N A V-t0 N O O T m V m -0 O A m (GmmA A �Dm mm NAA A N NAmm NAA O NAA A N mA A . )mmm Tmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm rn Wmm rnmm m O)mmm _-. Om 7mN m N V t0 m mmmt0 -ON cD 7a) a, mNm n O1 mm -o mw O A I Q j V_V_V_- V_t0.V -O V O V_ i"I V V O O O O, �_V_V t0 ('1 V,.C, t 7 C') 9 m m_A S m c o to �i 221 0> a T J o 3 TG> t s n 3n N ¢ '.'aj - - C L m 3 :U m J C C '0 y m O m D 'A _ v 7 9 m 3 n m D) m :C'J^Y A D v _• ? >."� mSO 1`JQN 1toU YnU Q ,nO Qv,UQ VN cz '_ _ = = n vr)nY aQmN mmm .-omo o�am r> tem ,nmpm xC.�r � Q Zj0 Vn A .- N N V" " =') " m O C7 A V I A I'm, N m m u-) ;V J)t'I m N V N m t7 m N t7 O O�O m N m N V t0 N CYN N V C7 m =`) Q t7 V O N V C7 N V m a m m m m m m m U m m m o m m m w m m m LL m m m U mmm = m m m - m m m maaD ma�� maria mnn� mina mnna masa maa� maDa mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmm m mmmm mmmm Crim mm COmmm mmmm CO m m m CO m m m CO m m m mmmm - EEE - EEE - EEE - EEE - EEE mEEE - EEE - EEg mEEE o 0 0 o 0 0 o o o a o 0 o D o 0 0 'D o 0 0 'o o 0 o a o p o o 0 0 SUUU c000 .9 L) SUUU SUUU SUUU SUUU 'ED L) SUUU I Landfill:Kolar canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad s Address: 2156 Rancho Wy 4318 San Miguel C! 3918 Chatsworth 952 Jewett P1lsburg Pittsburg Prttsburg l Pittsburg Serer: Fischer Falser Pies + Alvarez I $dyer Pinnock Anderson Har Saxon Sale Price: $129,950 $129,500 $130,000 $130,000 Doctnwil: 134477 37069 2388 66360 Prim Per SF Home: $86.46 $86.51 $79.56 $87.13 Ad)wtrnenls -sale Date: 07/18/96 02129M $0 01/05/96 $0 04/11/98 $0 Fkrnckp: Typical Typical $0 Typical $o Typical $0 -s e Sb*(SF): 6,800 8,500 $O 7,272 $500 7,000 $0 Ylew Amy: None None $0 Doke ($2,000) None $0 YsarBunt 1980 1972 $4,000 1978 $1,0- 1972 $4,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Room Court: 4R 4/2 $0 3/2 $3.)00 4/2 $0 (Bedrooms/Baths) }tomo Slze(SF): 1,503 1,497 $150 1,634 ($3.275) 1,492 $275 f No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 S. $0 s W.Fireplaces: 1 1 so 1 I $0 1 $0 Nwtlrp: Central Central $0 Central so Central so I LwxtM:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis ' 1 KC3.96 Impact of Landfill Proximity i •Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Ad ustments Comparable 2 fi Adjustments Comparable 3 Adpikmerds AhcordMbning; Central Central $0 Cantral $0 Central $0 Property CondMlon: Average Average $0 Below Average S2,000 Average $0 Owrd Quality: Average Average $0 werege $0 Avenge $0 Yard Improvements: Pool: None None SO None SO None $0 Fencirg: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 UwWacaping: Average Avenge $0 Avenge $0 Average s0 Pedo: Yes Yes $0 Ya $0 Yes $0 0I .. Otter Featluee: NOM Remodeled Kitchen ($1,000) Nor* $0 NOM $0 OonckxOons ..J «+n Gross Prkw Odreferme: ($450) $50 $50 SefOn AdMdments . Percentage DiHeronce: -0.35% 0.04% 0.04% Net Adjustments: $3,150 $1,225 $4,275 Not Price Werence: $2,700 $1,275 $4,325 After AdJustments AdWed Price of Comp: $132,650 $131,225 $134,275 Pr1ce of Index Sale: $129,950 ( S129,350 $129,950 i Werence: $2,700 $4,275 $4,325 Percentage D'RFerence: 2.04% 0.97% 3-22% Landfill:Keller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis �~ r impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 AO i Address: 2251 Mt Whitney 1540 Kingsly 4318 San Miguet C! 3918 Chatsworth Pittsburg Pittsburg PIVAC'ur; Ptttsburg Serasr. Abel Harrington Pelser Plait dryer Bettiga Baidazo Anderson Hal Sala price: $134,000 5138,000 $129,500 $130,000 Document 9881 73988 37089 2388 -Price Per SF Home: $98.88 $97.05 $88.51 $79.58 Adjustments S.w Date: 01/19/98 04/23M $o 02/29/98 $o 01/05M $0 Financing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $o Typical $O SNe slag(BF): 8,000 7,805 ($1.500) 8.500 ($500) 7.272 ($1,000) View Amenity.. Hillside None $0 None $0 None $0 Year Built 1982 1974 $4,000 1972 $5,000 1978 $2,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 EO 1 $0 7ioom Court: 3/2 3/2 So 4(2 ($3,000) 3/2 $0 {8edroome/Baths) Home Size(SF): 1,388 1,422 ($900) 1,497 ($2,775) 1.834 ($8,200) No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 Eo 2 SO 2 $o No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $o so 1 f0 Heating: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Landfill:KeW canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KC7-M Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable/ Adjustments - Com arable 2 Ad'ustmonts Comparable 3 Adjustments .0 #koondttloning: Central Central s0 Central $0 Central s0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Below Average $2,000 DVefall Quality. Average St.Inferior $1,500 El.Inferior .1,500 Sl Interior $1,500 Yard Improvements: Poole None None $0 None $0 Pool (:4,100) Fencing: Yes Yes s0 Yes s0 Yes $0 Landsceping: Average Average so Average $0 Average so Patti: Yee Ya so Yes $0 Yes so .Other Features: None None $0 None I $0 None $0 Conclusions Qroea Pftoe Dffernoe: $4,000 ($4,500) ($4.000) Sefors Adjustments ... Pwoaitege Difference: 2.90% -3.47% J.06% -fat Adjustments: $3,100 $225 ($5,800) Not Price Difference: $7,100 ($4,275) ._ After Adjustments Adjusted Price of Comp: $141,100 $129,725 $124,200 Prim of Index Sale: $134.000 i $134,000 $134,000 I Difference: $7.100 S4 275) Percentage Difference: 5.03% I 7.30% gg% Laldffl:Kotler canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments_ Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjustmerd& Address: 1130 Alamo 4213 St.Paul Ci 6 Maiissa i :08 Oakmont Pittsburg Pittsburg P'ac-r, Ptsburg Seller. Arledge Car# nher4. Chapel Buyer Perdue Martinez Lemay Reitter awe Price: 4t39,950 $145,000 $148,500 $140,000 Ibcument: 17049 39173 85919 4111 Price Per SF Home: $23.49 $85.39 $87.48 $88.47 Ad)ustments Sale Date: 01/31/96 03/05/98 $0 04/11/98 $0 01/10198 $0 • I Finercing: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Slee Slee Com: 9,975 8,200 $500 7,200 $1,500 8,810 $600 Some Nobe View Amenity: Delta Park $0 Nona $2,500 None $2,600 Yea Buil 1978 1979 ($500) 1974 $2,000 1982 ($2,000) Stories: 1 1 $0 t SO 1 $0 Room Count: 4/2 4/2 $0 412 SO 4/2 $0 (Bedrooms/Baths) Nome Size(SF): 1,497 1,698 ($5,025) 1,698 ($5,025) 1.619 ($3,050) No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 Sa ;J $O I No.Fireplaces: 1 1 SO 1 f 50 1 $0 I • Heating: Central Central SO Centra) SO Central $0 Landfill:Keifer Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis ` KC64e Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Com arable 1 Ad ustments Com arable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjustments Alreonditioning: Central Central $0 Central I $0 Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 SI.Superior ($2,000) Average $0 Overall dtaNty: Average Average $0 Superior ($3,500) Average $0 Ysrd Improvements: Pool: None None $0 None $0 Spa ($1,000) Fencing: Yes Yes $0 Yee $0 Ya $0 L.sndealpirw Average Average $0 leverage $0 Average $0 Patio: Yee Ya $0 Yes $0 Yee $0 00ther Features: Completely Remodeled None $5.000 Remodeled $2,500 None $5,000 Concl stirs -Gross Price Difference: $5,050 $8,550 $60 Before Adjustments Percentage Difference: 3.48% 5.76% 0.04% Net Adjustments: ($25) ($2,025) $1,950 Net Price Werence: $5,025 $6,525 $2,000 After Ad;ustments Adjusted Price of Comp: $144,975 $146,475 $141,950 Price of Index Seel: $139,950 $139,950 $139 950 Difference: $5,025 $6,525 ,$2,000 Percentage Difference: 3.47% 4.45% 1.41% Lsr+dfip:Kellar canyon Comparable Sales Analysis TTT Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjueiments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad i i I Address: 2253 Jacqueline 132 Repent Or, 4323 Dienl'Way I 3978 Alta Vista Pittsburg Pittsburg PrttsDurr Pittsburg 8e8a Morn Sims Waters clappis Buyoc Olson Bennett Dao Cook -UW Price: $141,000 $139,000 $137,000 $147,000 Document 141238 79948 110865 32451 Price Per SF Hom•: $97.78 $89.68 $91.52 $92.28 >.q Ad)+retmen s Sal•Deb: 07/30/98 05/01/98 $0 06/13/98 $0 02/23198 $0 FMrst+e4rp Typical saw $0 Typical $0 Typical $o S8e Sbm(SF): 8.380 8,892 ($2.500) 8,200 ($2,000) 6,240 $0 Viwv Am•rdty Foothills Non• $0 Nor* $0 Area (:2,500) Yew BUIC 1987 1979 $4,000 1981 $3,000 1985 $1,000 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 $0 2 $1,500 Room Court 312 312 $0 312 $0 312 $0 (B•droomwBaths) Home Stz•(SF): 1,442 1.550 ($2,700) 1,.+97 ($1,375) 1,593 ($3,715) M.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 it $0 2 $0 1 hlo.Fireplaces: 1 1 so 1 $0 1 $0 Heating: Central central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Landfill:War canyon Comparable Sales Analysis l� KC146 Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sala ----=Comparable t Adjustments Corn araoJ�2_=--`—Adjustments Corn le 3 Adjudrmnh ,Akoonditioning: Central Central 30 Central ( SO None $1,000 ?mperty Condition: Average Superior ($2,500) Average $0 Average $0 Overall Quality* Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvements: Pool: None None $0 None $O None $0 Fenckq: Yee Yee $0 Ya $0 Yee $g Lerpkp: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 i Pado: Y" Yes $0 Yee $0 Yes $0 bttw Features: NOM / NOM $0 No $O NOM $O Owicklelions Ciro"Price t7ltererrce: ($4,000) ($4,000) $6.000 Alefo a AdJrrtmenb Perardape Difference: -1.44% •2.92% 4.08% Net Ad)etnwnts: ($3,700) ($375) ($2.775) Not Price DUNrencs: ($5,700) ($4,375) $3,225 Ater Adjuetrnente AdWed Price of Comp: $135,300 136,625 $144,225 Price of Index Sale: $141,000 ria+ -CO $111,000 +f Difference: ($5,7DO) I iS4,3751 $3,225 Percentage Difference: -4.21% I 3.20% 224% ti LwWM:Koller canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Mem Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2_ Adjustments Comparable 3 AdJtstmenb -low "i Address: 2225 Gariel 4318 San Miguel C! 31 Orinda I 1073 Metten Pittsburg Pttaburg Pittsburg Pittsburg I $elMr. Vaga Palsor Ngin NA Buyer NA Anderson Arevalo NA SAW Price: $127,500 $129,500 $120,000 512b,000 Document 57748 37089 32414 NA Price Per SF Home: $91.99 $86.51 $88.95 $90.19 Adjustments Sale Deb: 03/29/98 02129/98 $0 02/23196 $0 08/16/95 $0 �krnctrtp: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Sire Stre(SF): 7,420 8,500 $1,000 8,300 $1,000 5,580 $1,500 View Arnenky: None None $0 None $0 Norm $0 Yea Bunt: 1981 1972 $4,500 1978 $2,500 1966 $7,500 Stories: 1 1 $0 1 SO 1 $0 4toom Capri 3/2 4!2 ($3,000) 312 $0 3/2 $0 pWroornaGaths) Home Stre(SF): 1,388 1,497 ($2,775) 1,3x9 1925 1,388 $0 No.Garape Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 i SO 2 $0 M.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 0 }{eating: Central Central 50 Central $0 Central $0 Landfill:Keifer Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Kc2-06 Impact of Landfli Proximity ~Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Com e�rebleSAdjustments Comparable 3 Adl�atnMxts i Jlkoonditloning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 ;Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Oveneti Ousa : Average Averego $0 Average $0 Average s0 Yard Improvernents: Pool: None NOrm $0 NOM $0 Norm $0 Fencing: Yea Yea $0 Yea $0 Ya $0 Lendecaping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Patio: Yu Yes $0 Yw $0 Yea $0 6 Other Featrses: NOM None $0 None $0 Norm $0 Concknione l Grow Pries Difference: $2,000 ($7.500) fs2.ti00) Bohm AdNabrmnts Percentage Difference: 1.54% -8.25% Z 00X Net Adjustments: ($275) 54,425 $9,000 NN Price Difference: $1,725 ($3,075) $8,500 After Adjwtnwnts Adjusted Price of Comp $129,225 $124,425 $134,000 _ Price of Index Sale: $127,500 $127,500 $127,500 Difference: $1,725 33,075) $8.500 WercentagIe Difference: 1.33% -2.47% 4.85% Landfill:Kellar canyon Comparable Sales Analysts KC10-98 Impact of LandfM Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Comparable 2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Adjwt— Addrees: 905 Rosewood Ct 402 Atherton AY 1585 Greenridge Dr 59 Orinda Pittsburg P ttsburg Pittsburg Pittsburg Seder Max Miyakl Hagen Walter Buyer. Gadsby Barry Orozco Oncena Sole Price: $124,000 $125,500 $129,000 $127,000 Document: 27859 54852 74898 78032 Prke Per SF Home: $88.57 $93.03 $87.84 $94.14 AdNatfmrds ^_ Sale Date: 02/18!98 03/27/98 $0 04124/98 $0 0425!98 So FtwrcYrp: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 SRe Size(SF): 9,800 8,878 $3,000 8,800 S3.000 8,400 $3,000 View Arnendy: None None None Norte $0 Year Built: 1981 1978 $2,500 1974 $3,500 1978 $2,500 Stomas: 1 1 So 1 $0 1 5o Room Count: 32 32 $0 32 5o 312 $0 (BedroomalBalhe) Home Size(SF): 1,400 1.349 $1,275 4.472 51.800) 1,349 $1,275 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 SO 2 $0 tb.Fkepleces: 1 1 $O 1 $O 1 $0 Ham: central Central $0 Central $0 Central $0 Lwx=:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis KCIO-W Impact of Landfill Proximity Item Index Sale Comparable 1 Adjustments Compara2 Adjustments Comparable 3 Ad)c� ( t _ A1Yconditloning: Central Central 5o Central ( SO Central $0 Property Condition: Average Average $0 Superior (S2,000) Superior (SZSO0) Overal;:udlty Average Average $0 SI.Superior ($1,500) Average $0 Yard Imprevernonte: Pool: None None $0 None $0 None 50 Fencing: Yes Yee $0 Yee $0 Yee $0 Landeceping: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Patio: Yee Yee $0 Yes $0 Yes $0 j : OtherFoohnee: None None $0 None $0 None $0 Concknione Grog Price DiRennce: 51,500 $5,000 $9.000 Edon AdMAr ants Percentage Difference: 1.20% 3.88% 2.96% W Adjustments: $8,775 $1,200 $4,275 NA Price Difference: $8,275 $8,200 $7.275 After Adjustments Adjusted Price of Comp: $132,275 $130,200 $191,275 Price of Index Sale: $124,000 $124,000 $124.000 Difference: $8,275 ; $6,200 ,$7.275 Percentage Difference: 8.28% I 4.78% 5,54% t,wmM:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Impact of Landfill Proximity Ilam Index Sale Comparable 1 _ Adjustments Compa�bie 2__-- Adjustments Comparable 3 AdL..6.0 1 Address: 2228 Jacqueline 3944 Alta Vista Ct 5 Sunnyhill + 4286 Suzanne 1 Pittsburg Pittsburg Prtsou, Prttsburg i Seller: Hasson Hart ripe Ademakl i Buyer: Pelessaa Albert Gomez Moline I I Sao Price: )163,000 $179,500 $158,000 $158,ow Document: 62655 77299 38233 89595 1 Price Par SF Home: $99.41 $96.40 $85.68 $91.13 Ad)iwtmerd Sao Dote: 04/05/96 0426/96 $0 02129/98 $0 05/15/98 50 Fkrnckr9: Typical Typical $0 Typical $0 Typical $0 Y Slta Size(SF): 6,148 20,956 (:5,000) 7,500 ($1,500) 10,875 ($4.500) - Vow Amenity: Foothills Good Area Vow ($5,000) None $0 Nons s0 Yew Built: 1985 1986 ($500) 1977 $4,000 1979 $3,000 Stories: 2 2 $o 1 !$2,000) 1 ($2,000) Room Count: 42.5 42.5 $0 412 $1,000 4t2 $1,000 (Badroome/Baths) Home Size(SF): 1,823 1.862 ($975) 1,644 ( ($525) 1,715 $2,700 No.Garage Spaces: 2 2 $0 2 1 $3 2 $0 No.Fireplaces: 1 1 $0 1 so 1 $0 Heating: Central Central $0 Central s0 Central $0 Landit9:Keller Canyon Comparable Sales Analysis Kc1196 Impact of Landfill Proximity Kom Index Sale Comparable 1 Adlustments Comparable 2�a Adjustments COME=ble 3 Adhistmente 1 II I Airconditloning: Central Central $0 Central $0 Central so Property Condition: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Oven"QLWWY Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $0 Yard Improvemerds: Pool: Spa None $1,000 None $1,000 None $1,000 Fenc' Yes Ya $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 LAndeapMp: Average Average $0 Average $0 Average $o Pelvo: Yes Yes $0 Yes $0 Ya $0 E � Other Features: None None $0 None $0 Upgraded Kitchen ($1,000) Conoluebne Grow Price DRerence: $16,500 ($5,000) ("Poll Before AdJustrrrerrb Percentage Difference: 9.19% -3.16% -3.16% -bW Adf ustments: ($10,475) $1,975 sm NA Price Difference. $6,025 ($3,025) After AdIwtments Adlixted Price of Comp: $169,025 $159,975 $168,200 _ Price of index Sale: $163,000 $:63,000 $185,000 Difference: $6,025 ($3,025) ($4,800) •Percentage Difference: 3.56% 1.89% -3.03% SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTO GRAPHS ti L A / 3 1 i i I i Street scene in front of 2246 Jacqueline Drive looking southerly towards the landfill property with the toe berm visible in the central part of the photo. t � f Street scene in front of 2284 Jacqueline Drive looking southerly towards the landfill property with the toe berm visible in the central part of the photo. I ANDERSON 's BRABAN T 1.1{ OOO"' SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOGRAPHS i i•,. �7,. ; ...r. ,'tet ' - 3 � ' /fl I I Looking westerly from the intersection of Mt. Whitney Drive and Westmont Court. I r Street scene looking southerly toward the landfill property from the front of 2223 Concord Drive. The toe berm is visible in the central part of the photograph. ANDERSON !s BR ABAN i INC - 1 ti=k�. ;e ..�. :. • ,, a, r _ ,. � . .� _ _ _ _ - - -- - 1 _ _ ./ I. f � 1 -- � i +II � I� �`*S ��15 t... � III S,L I��.+- '"i�['».a j�/f', if .. . :! • � • � � �E" ,.. � .;�: �•� ;f ,� fpl/y�,� I � rtv'x�-1.f lP'V,� .. µ Y.. � _ �h �-�,� i ,'. ;t �7 .� , a ' .•. _ �.i�..r �. y{ jt ..._. - ` '; ' z Clrj�'� b��aya*' ri 3. :v:. t .4 t��y t;�a ��' ,. � t tt z f l �, s j a p a � � r � v � � a �z s d±1 � .� f S�w cam. 5 1 f ! X + i�� § '�_� Y �% y�i>,{f�,0 a s s f t f r .s.,. . ' two ,.,� Y�„`? r � ��t a,O Y4S:k�� 3�?��h+�M,;'7'SI�Y.-�-6�v'��„'It(� t,.i 4 t�:. . 1 ,, ��'9: 4r°>' 4 ,ff!:u,<Lx ; alei`,5�;r.f M.r t':: y ..,r • • � • • • � SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOGRAPHS � � rs.;xiv s,• lh i I J I I I ,a I View of the landfill toe berm from the end of Jacqueline Drive. I j� .=c Q Street scene looking southwesterly from the front of 2205 Daffodil Drive. i � . 9 SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOGRAPHS i I ' 3w Looking northerly along Bailey Road towards its intersection with State Route 4. Looking southerly along Bailey Road towards its intersection with West Leland Road. I I - ---- w P, SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOGRAPHS 1 I I I ' vat t _ ' i_ I �Y i i Looking southerly along Bailey Road towards the Evergreen Residential Development which j is visible behind the white fence on the east side of the road. i ,I r I i I Looking southerly along Bailey Road from its intersection with West Leland Drive. I .v r„ w� t •+ -„vdt' _ ra,,,h,3 « /.�,,.-; :��� i �� ep`ad a � � t AS Y rn, t ;\4 F- < q-T''i" .tY Sem.' r'-� �'\ff`. c-, rt, •°��;.�I`r, \•�k it 15 ..•'- v 4 i�n,a c .i a t^Pi._; ���- �a�r�.- �,�%•% � `,b,yy�r;/y .y� �n�a'�m 1 , y- ,p-�orv+vs `�� f .''".�= <_ c+J�.tn3wr,,. "', =(�':� ,..�� f •� -J' :�\'�' ?��' � I r HV'H 1Hai S xis Sa3w���i yr/.=.; { ;�a'•' .fir LS_f t`�iA.` j ,r ` <. =sd. NV�NY.fi< d Q"< J` � ' `' ' ' ;- z� t d'p •"/ b ,'1 h.. :-3rrj ,. rlS� y -- oxwwz l.rd0 �ba �Il' NY`tiYHa„oil _�,ur rn -4W � N`in 4i "�a Y(�/��., Y . i'� ('� Sia \ ,ig�.,,--'`�./'i' ( f WlNtrp� $Q tl✓J ri 1 � a 4 �a� ld VI of, 9 6t, kwoo � � rp�+K!t•� 0 t ,ASU<� \ s !�'s;�i r k. .,,-�- 1 N N ��► c, atr ow � ,lav l � � ) , \✓/� �^` � � \ / .-hVi .✓ re'�WL YnV No'S e}. 1 '[¢ 3NIA 0� ,- - .�. tlCL d' VA 3,4 00. 338 r jjjj 1 r r QUALIFICATIONS-OF THE APPRAISER William B. Anderson, MAI I. Resident of San Diego County since 1970 II. Educational Background: A. Graduated from EI Segundo High School — 1963 B. Attended EI Camino Junior College, Palomar Junior College, and U.C.L.A. C. Professional Education Completed: 1. Appraisal Institute a. Real Estate Appraisal I — Principle Methods and Techniques b. Real Estate Appraisal II — Urban Properties c. Real Estate Appraisal VI — Investment Analysis d. Real Estate Appraisal VIII e. Standards of Professional Practice f. Litigation Valuation 2. Society of Real Estate Appraisers: a. Course 101 — Real Property Valuation b. Course 201 — Income Property Valuation 3. Recent Seminars: Market Analysis, 4/88 AIREA UCIR Appraisal Report Seminar, 4/88 AIREA Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, 10/88 Cash Equivalency Analysis, 2/89 Investment Feasibility, 2/89 Capitalization Overview, 2/89 Applied Sales Comparison Approach, 2/89 Litigation Seminar, 12/89, 12/90, 11/91, 11/92, 11/94, 11/95 Apartment Analysis, 4/90 Easement Valuation, 11/90, 3/95 FIRREA and Its Impact on Appraisers, 6/92 Valuation in Today's Capital and Financing Markets, 6/92 Arbitration Principles, Procedures and Pitfalls, 6/92 Institutional Real Estate in the 1990's: A Valuation Perspective, 6/92 Narrative Report Generation, 11/92 Impact of Changing Demographics and Economic Influences on Value, 9/93 Subdivision Analysis, 9/93 The Impact of Hazardous Substances on Real Estate, 9/93 Understanding Limited Appraisals, 7/94 Trial Preparation (Mock Trial), 9/94 Fair Lending and the Appraiser, 12/94 California Laws & Regulations, 3/96 The Appraiser In Cyberspace, 12/95 ANDERSON &. BRABANT, TNC. .. Qualifications of the Appraiser William B. Anderson, MAI . Page 2 III. Professional Affiliations: A. Member. Appraisal Institute, MAI B. Member, International Right of Way Association C. 1988 President, AIREA, San Diego Chapter No. 42 D. FNMA: Approved Appraiser, Level III — FNMA No. 1141363 -.- E. Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (AG002315) Office of Real Estate Appraisers, State of California IV. Appraisal Experience: Co-owner — Anderson & Brabant, Inc., 1979 to present Co-Owner — Robert M. Dodd & Associates, Inc., 1977 to 1979 Staff Appraiser, Vice President and Appraisal Manager — Financial Appraisals, Inc., 1968 to 1977 itaff Appraiser — Financial Savings and Loan Association, Culver City, California, 1964 to 1966 V. Expert Witness: Superior Court, San Diego County Municipal Court, San Diego County Federal Bankruptcy Court, San Diego County, San Bernardino County Assessment Appeals Board, San Diego County Various Arbitration Hearings as Witness and Arbitrator VI. Wipes of Appraisals: Residential Property: Single-Family Residence,Condominiums,Apartments,Subdivisions, Mobile Home Parks, Existing and Proposed Commercial Property: Automobile Dealerships, Office Buildings, Shopping Centers, Office Condominiums, Etc., Existing and Proposed Industrial Property: Single/Multi-Tenant, Business Parks, Etc., Existing and Proposed Vacant Land: Industrial, Commercial, Residential, and Rural Agricultural: Ranches, Avocado and Citrus Grnves, Etc, Special Purpose Appraisals: Leasehold Estates, Possessory interest, Historical Appraisals, Etc. Special Purpose Properties: Churches, Yacht Club & Marina, Golf Courses, Etc. Special Projects: San Marcos County Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill ANDERSON & BRABANr, INC. '-D,7 Qualifications of the Appraiser William B. Anderson, MAI Page 3 .y VII. Partial List of Appraisal Clients: Lenders Law Firms - Bank of America Daley & Heft North County Bank Endeman, Lir;oln, Turek & Heater First Federal of Santa Monica Gray, Cary, v�.are & Freidenrich First Interstate Bank Jones, Hatfield & Penfield GE Capital Kaufman, Lorber & Grady Great Western Bank Muns, Mehalik & Lynn Imperial Savings and Loan Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker Pacific Coast Savings & Loan Post, Kirby, Noonan & Sweat Palomar Savings & Loan Rutan & Tucker Rancho Santa Fe National Bank Smith & Peltzer Union Bank Sobel & Custer Wells Fargo Bank Sternberg, Eggers, Kidder & Fox Sullivan, Delafield, McGrath & McDonald Title Comi)anies Wingert, Grebing, Anello & Chapin Chicago Title Co. White & Bright First American Title Co. Safeco Title Co. Others St. Paul Title Co. Theodore Barry & Associates Title Insurance & Trust CDS Development Company The Dickerson Company Government Agencies and Municipalities Fox Plumbing Company California Department of Transportation/Caltrans Hollandia Dairy City of Chula Vista Homer Heller Ford City of Escondido The Kissell Company City of Oceanside Los Alamitos Race Course City of San Diego MCI City of San Marcos North County Transit District City of Vista Pacific Shelter Company County of Sar; Diego Pacific Telephone Fede•al Deposit Insurance Corp. Pacific Western Holding Co. Olivenhain Municipal Water District Pardee Const.-L.--.... r: Poway Municipal Water District The Phelan Grout_, Ramona Unified School District Sasco Deve oct~-r; �-3mpany Small Business Administration J.C. Schuma--- -^,pany - Vallecitos Water District Sutro Valley Center Municipal Water District Wessell --ompany U.S. Department of Justice • ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC. Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum be addressing the Board. Address: 7 l 331a-1 4ru I I am speaking for or organ - Oww of o�anizadon) CHECK ONE: k�eIle,rC ,Lee 1 wish to speak on /Agenda Item #_ My comments will be: general _.for. ainst�_• wish to Weak abject 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form rp . ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place h in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Marne: _ -C.�2v�c�✓a.i �� .._!'Dorn*: �''�� - �'� Address:--/ 1 am speaking for myself. or organization: �o Ile r of ay��ation) CHECIC ONE: o� 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #s Dater My comments will be: general ...*w."aind.. ! wish to speak on the abject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these co nments for the Board Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' mmum before addressing the Board. Ckr a14-sba-5 I am speaking for myself or organization: Omm of orpnitntioo CHUX ONE: _ i wish to speak on Agenda Item My wounents will be: Sones! _,ior„�Sainst_„_.• I wish to speak on the abject of - �_� 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the board gre G 1160ssC) - ru� Ox)A4- se!/ �j Peo®le- S / 2a f �►R�i�Y �, �,,, yc��/r-5e�� Y V Y Would you please take a moment to answer xx > the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RE C1 WED7, Picture Your Dream Houlse, OCT 15 1996 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERi.'ORS House A _ House CONTRA COSTA CO. * :Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta zardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ Given the features above, which house would you u I would buy house A. _ 70 y house B. would b u h I f� If you chose house B, would you b ouse A f r $20,000.001- ss? Yes_ -- No— Name )j4ffl�-------------------------- : _ 17 City of Residence:_0'0-�Jc o (- __ __________________ nLe 4A Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants V RECEIVED -�9 OCT 1 5 1990 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Would you please take a moll - rrc-r�A��� I the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your Dream House. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _—___ would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,00_0-0.0-less? Yes_--_ Name: — -- —= -------------------- b- City of Residence:—__ ���� _______________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants N ou 1 E Bl PERVIS0RS Would you please take a mome the following questions. This information tv > will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your Dream House. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1-400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet + * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. __—__ I would buy house B. _ If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes____ No Name: — fiden ------------------- City of Re•__ _______________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants E RECI �t LOC559996 OAR OF SUPERVISORS ,Q Would you please take a mome `� �;.� � �a -- the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your Dream House. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A- ----- I _—___I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes—___ No—X_ Name: —a/ --- -------------------------- City of Residence:—_ _A- C',Q '------------------------ Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants \ JF Would you please take a moment to answer \\ i the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study, RECEIVED Picture Your Dream House. OCT 1 5 1996 House A House B CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _—___ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house Ay- Name: 20,000.00 less? Yes____ No-- --- ------------------------------------ 11DI� City of Residence.--- '------------------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants n Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill studLv. RECEIVE i 1 OCT 1 5 1996 Picture Your Dream H UIC-1 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. House A House * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? would buy house A. _—__— I would buy house B. �— If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? e _ -- No Name: --- -- -- -(A iL-- ——————————————————— I City of Residence:---D—'-kAL' ------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study; RECEMED -'� Picture Your Dream Hous,oc 1 Iy' �—BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I House A House ICONTRA COSTA CO. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2,baths * 1400 square feet t * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub,:, . * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. —__—_ I would buy e hous B. �/ _ If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $2 ,000.00 less? Yes____ No— Name: _ City of Residence:--4 _ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants J, 1 r Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. DECEIVED Picture Your Dream Horil, • ocT ,y" House A HouseRK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONTRA COSTA CO. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet t * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _—_-- I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes___— No---- Name: -- / ---------------------- City of Residence: PI TT-,&U C, ------------------------------ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED s OCT l 5 j Picture Your DreamHous RK BOARD OF SUi�ER ISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. __—__ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, wouldou uy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes__ No---- N a rn e: o____Name: ---------- ------------------ City o Residence: Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study... RECEIVED COCT1519796 Picture Your Dream Holts :CLERK BOARD OF SUPE SIVR ORS �_CONTRA COSTq CO House A House .� * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A- ----- I _____I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes I/ No____ Name �I C v� o ry — ------------------------------------- City of Residence:__—__ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED Picture Your Dream Hou.,,q- e OCT Z CLERK BOARD CONTR House A House F * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. --_-- I would buy house B. — Y", _ If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No_-� _ c Name: — — ----------=------ -------------------- City of Residence:—__-- _ ----------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer SID , the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. I RECEIVE Picture Your Dream House. OCT 15 1996 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS House A House B CONTRA COSTA CO. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. —___— I would buy house B. _/____ If you chose house B, would you bey house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes_ / No---- Name: — -- ------------------------------- City of Residence:_ Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVE® Picture Your Dream Housc. OCT 1 5 1996 House A House B CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' CONTRA COSTA Co. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta _ Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A- ----- I ___—_I would buy house B. -X— If If you chose house B, would you buy house Ayr20,000.00 less? Yes____ No _ Name: Y12M ____ City of Residence: av L--------------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants t Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. _ RECEIVED Picture Your Dream Hous , OCT ► 51996 : IIRK BOARD OF SUfER House A House d CONN COST3ORS * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _____ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $.20,000.00 less? Yes---- No- --Name: — -- -- ------------------------------ City of Residence: - --------------------- _____ Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants .r Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIV — OCT 1 5 lgye , Picture Your Dream House 7 CLERK BOARD OF SUP__ERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. House A House * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet + * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. —____ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No Name: _ � �----------------------------------- City of Residence:___ �__________________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer SFO the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RE C Eo ' . .�:D Picture Your Dream House_ OCT ' S '�= ' CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' .Mouse A House B CONTRA COSTA CO. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. -_____ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes__—_ No_X_ Name- --- —y ----------------------------- Cit of Residence:__ � �Z ——————————————————— Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1996 Would you please take a moment i, LAVIsoRS , CONTRA.COSTA CO. the following questions. This ir�#�rnTation will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your Dream House. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? would buy house A- ----- I --___I would buy house B. If you chose house B, wyo bu y house A for $20,000.00 less? ?_ _ No Name: -- ---- -- — ------------------ City of ResidencC __ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants CA moo ' Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1996 Picture Your Dream House. CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i 3 CONTRA COSTA CO.n_ House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet t * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _____ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house Af`o� $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No 1� i � �t � � Name. ��----�.�------------------------------- ' ��i — -------------------------- City of Residence:__ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants 61 �f Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This inf will be used for a landfill study. OCT 15 I� . P • I icture Your Dream Hou RK BOARD OF SUPERVfSORS CONTRA COSTA CO. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet i * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _____ I would buy house B. —4-- If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No�— Name: ——— -- — — -- ---------------- City of Residence:— _ _______ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants n X n Xr rD Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED r Picture Your Dream Housej-. OCT 51996 f CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COf�TRA COSTA CO House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub --------------------------------------------=-- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. ___—_ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes_—__ Name: — ?�- --- � CitCit of Residence: )^ T Sb y — --(__-- V-- -------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants n� X Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVE® Picture Your Dream House OCT 15 1996 CLERK BOARD 0�EORS� CONTRA COSTA CO. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet + * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _____ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes____ No____ Name: City of Residence: Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants I " Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED OCT 1 5 199b t Picture Your Dream Hous .,. CL,BRa BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CON RA COSTA CO. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _—___ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes--__ No_ Name: ---��_ -_&&,A-- ---------------------- Cit &`,A-= ---------------------- Cit of Residence sa Coe-,4NOV)-1) Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Y ` Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1996 Picture Your Dream House. CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS House A House B COAiTRA COSTA CO * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. __—__ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No- _ Name: ———— ---- --- — ----------------------- City of Residence:_—_ ® � '� --------------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer SFO the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED-7-1 Picture Your Dream Hou w., OCT 15 Igg� CLERK BOARD OF SUPERI,'SI ORS House A House B conlrRa cosrA co. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet t * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _---- would buy house B. --✓--_ If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes--_— No—v_ Name: ----------------------- City of Residence:—_eOA15---------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants s� Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. ECEIV�® � Picture Your Dream House. OCT 15 1996 RK BOARp OFSUPERV ORS House A House B CLEGOr�iTRA COSTA CO. ¢_ * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _—___ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No 7K-- Name: -- =r�-=-- -—————— ----------------- City of Residence:____— d Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer SFO I the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your Dream House. OCT / 51996 CLE11 181 D pF SUPE House A House B o®�vrRA CosrA o rsoRs * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A- ----- I _—___I would buy house B. X---- If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes____ No_�_ Name: ------- .-- � City of Residence:---Ce//Wc�irj----------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants w ,rte Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEVE5---] YourocT I 5 IyghPicture Dream .�—j CMK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7� __COtUTRA COSTA CO._ House A House * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. __—__ I would buy house B. _X- If you chose house B, would you buy house A for 20,000.00 less? Yes _ _ No_ Name: _ --C— � j - --- -—————————————————— City of Residence:__—_—_ - =—�—CL--------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants U Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. F ,R—,EC-,—EIV—E!b-­� OCT 15 Picture Your Dream HouseL�. , 19g6 BOARD OF SUPE ORS COf�TRA COSTA CO. House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. —_—_— I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes___— No-4-- Name: ----- =-- ---- — ------------------- &VM�-(��(�dl (�� / '� f- -� � / ---- — Cit of Residence:__ Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants •r . 1 Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill stud � IED _ OCT 1 5 196 t Picture Your Dream House;.CLERKBpgRpOFSUpt:RitS co�rR�eosra Go CRs- House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? would buy house A. _____ would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20 .00.00 less? es____ No Name, _ City of Residence•__ __________________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants iso Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your .Dream House ," °Cr 1 5 1996 CLERK BOARD OF PSU E SVlR ORS u House A House B COfUTRA COSTA CO. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _—___ I would buy B. house B — If you chose house B, would you buy house A for 20,000.00 less? Yes____ No _ Name: -----_ � �� E-S----------------- City of Residence: C-0__ �__________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECE OCT 5 1996 Picture Your Dream House. CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS House A House B C°NrRA cosrA Co. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A- ----- I —____I would buy house B. \I- 7r-=— If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No, ` Name: ---- City --City of Residence:__ Ls v--� Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants ,r Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your Dream Hous 'e. • OCT 1 5 1996 a House A House B CLERK BOARD OF SUPERV;SORS coN RA COSTA CO. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? 1 would buy house A. _--__ I would buy house B. X— If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No Name: — ----- ------------------------------- City of Residence:—2�[�Ul d-__ -------------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants J i Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVED ! ' Picture Your Dream House.. OCT ! 5 1996 F CLERK BOARD 1F P5 lE PS ERVISORS i House A House B �ti� ~ °sTA * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. —___— I would buy house B. _ If you chose house B, would you buy house A for W,000.00 less? Yes__-- No_ Name: -------------------------------------------- City of Residence: Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants 1-9 Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEIVE® 96 Picture Your Dream House.1 OCT 15 19 JCLERK BOARD OF SUP_ERVISORS ! _Ct)IVTRA COST,#CO, House A House B -- - * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A- ----- I __—__I would buy B.house B —�l _ -- If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes_—__ No—z__ Name: --- ------------------------------ City of Residence._-A--------------------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants `-F RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1996 Would you please take a moment. -answer L t rsn w�dFit)Vo SUPERVISORS the following questions. This in'fo�r-rrl' tio`'n���� will be used for a landfill study. Picture Your Dream House. House A. House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet + * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub --------------------------------------------=-- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A- ----- I _____I would buy house B. _ _ If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes____ No_ Name: —__ �Q 1 r————————————————————————— City of Residence:___— ____ ________________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants q Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study RECEIVED Picture Your Dream Ho use OCT 1 5 1996 House A House BERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS j can;rRA cosrA co. * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? 1 would buy house A- ----- I _—___I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No_-�,/-- Name: —_�� �-------------------------------- City of Residence:Q ________________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants 1 Would you please take a moment to answer the following question. This information will be used for a landfill study. E��� 0VE® � Picture Your Dream House. OCT 15 Igg6_ CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i' House A House B SONTRA COSTA C * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ------------------------------------------------ Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. —____ I would buy house B. Name: l I - pity of Residence:__ / Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants ,o Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. RECEI .. Picture Your Dream HoUSLCT 15 Igg� House A House '5 ER�����°��os� ISORS� * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet i * All new kitchen appliances 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped Hot tub ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ Given the features above, which house would you buy? would buy house A. _—___ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house Afor $ 00.00 less? Yes____ No____ p Name: —6 z- all ---------------------------- City of ResidenciY.---I'— -7/�;�- ------- Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants ' Y ax Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study: RECEIVE® OCT 1 5 1996 Picture Your Dream Hous' o C0A °0s -,soRS House A House B - * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet f * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. ----- I would buy house B. __✓_ If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No— ' Name: ------ --------=r — =` -------------------- City of Residence: ' Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants F� Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. ' SEC E11/EDD 4 Picture Your Dream House,FOCT 15 I996 �ILL, CLERK BOARD p--Z. Ep—VI SQRS CONTRA COSTA CO. House A House B---_ * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. _____ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No_*- Name: ------------------------------- City of Residence:_ _________ _______________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants C\ �I ,r Would you please take a moment to answer the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study"—RE: D OCT 15 Picture Your Dream HouS IICLERK BOARQ OF SUPERVISORS �� CONTRA COSTA CO. E House A House B * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of Delta Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Given the features above, which house would you buy? I would buy house A. __—__ I would buy house B. If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes---- No_�(—_ Name: _ ra�1�C� �se _—_----__ ------------------- City of Res idence:_ c_n„ _ -________________________ Printed by Aiello and Dow,Consultants Would you please take a moment to answer JFO 1 the following questions. This information will be used for a landfill study. � E��i V E Picture Your Dream House. , J,i OCT 1 5 1996 House A House B a CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �___ CO`�TRA COSTA CO. i * Next to Reclassified * Scenic View of--Delta A- � Hazardous Waste Dump * 1400 square feet * Scenic view of the Delta * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * 1400 square feet t * All new kitchen appliances * 3 bedrooms, 2 baths * Fully landscaped * All new kitchen appliances * Hot tub * Fully landscaped * Hot tub ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ Given the features above, which house would you buy? would buy house A. _____ I would buy house B. J\s- If you chose house B, would you buy house A for $20,000.00 less? Yes—__— No--_— Name: — — `—,�------------------------ City of Residence:_ __ —M� ----------------------- Printed by Aiello and Dow, Consultants