HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04211992 - D.1 r
I .O.-6
ro: " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
� _ a
J
--
Costa
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE .- '�•
n. s
�o County
y
DATE: April 13, 1992 STq couK
SUBJECT: MARSH CANYON LANDFILL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATING TO AN
OFFER TO PURCHASE LAND AND HOMES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ROAD FROM
THE PROPOSED LANDFILL ENTRANCE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Acknowledge receipt of the memorandum report from the County
Counsel ' s Office dated April 13, 1992 and concur in the
conclusions reached in that report to the effect that the
Conditions of Approval for the Land Use Permit for the Marsh
Canyon Landfill do not require that Condition 35 . 1a be
complied with in any particular time frame, that condemnation
is not and has never been a viable option for resolving the
current dispute, and that the Conditions of Approval
accurately reflect the intent of the Board of Supervisors at
the Board' s hearing on March 20, ' 1990 when the Conditions of
Approval were adopted.
2 . Concur in the conclusion reached by our Committee on April 13,
1992 to the effect that Waste Management of North America,
Inc. has complied with Condition 35, la to the extent that it
has obtained "an appraisal prepared by a qualified real estate
appraiser acceptable to the County" , with regard to all
properties except that belonging to the Vieville' s, who have
thus far chosen not to have an appraisal done pursuant to the
terms of Condition 35 . 1a.
3 . Subject to advice from the County Counsel to the effect that
the Board of Supervisors can legally do so, agree to hold open
the appraisal report from Hector Leslie and Associates for a
30 day period ending close of business May 21, 1992 for the
purpose of receiving written comments from any or all of the
four landowners subject to Condition 35 . 1a or their
representatives, or from Waste Management of North America,
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY I RATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE
SIGNATURE(S): RO ER SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
ACTION OF BOARD ON AiDrl APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Please see Page 4 . ATTESTED -� /
PHIL BATCH i0R,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY
i
i
I.O.-6
Inc. or its representatives, which comments shall be filed
with the Community Development Director and the County Counsel
and thereafter with Mr. Hector Leslie to the extent that the
comments may involve Mr. Leslie' s appraisal report or the
facts or conclusions on which it was based. Request County
Counsel and the Community Development Director to report their
conclusions and recommendations, along with any response made
by Mr. Leslie, to the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 1992 .
4 . Concur with the conclusion reached by our Committee and all
present at our Committee meeting on April 13, 1992 to the
effect that Condition 36 . 3 does apply to the four property
owners to whom Condition 35 . 1a also applies, but that
Condition 36 . 3 also applies to all other property owners in
the vicinity of the proposed landfill, whereas Condition 35 :,1a
applies only to these four landowners.
5 . Request that appropriate representatives of Waste Management
of North America, Inc. meet with the four property owners (or
any of them who wish to meet with Waste Management) in an
effort to reach a negotiated settlement regarding the
implementation of the balance of Condition 35 . 1a.
6 . Remove this matter as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On March 17, 1992, the Board of Supervisors requested that the
County Counsel '.s Office research and report certain information to
our Committee and authorized our Committee to meet with all .
affected parties on April 13, 1992 .
On April 13, 1992, our Committee (with Supervisor Robert Schroder
absent) met with the following individuals :
Charles Zahn, Community Development Department staff
Lillian Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Ric &Paula Schiff
Christian & Corinne Vieville .
Don Schehrer, KYMCO, Inc.
Jeffrey D. Polisner, Attorney representing KYMCO, Inc.
Dene Ogden, Real Estate Appraiser, representing Mr. & Mrs. Schiff
Mary Lou Lucas, representing Waste Management of North America
Michael H. Zischke, Attorney representing Waste Management of
North America
Phyllis Roff
Claude Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator
We began by asking Lillian Fujii to review her memorandum dated
April 13, 1992 , which is attached to and incorporated herein by
reference, which presented her office' s conclusions regarding the
time frame within which Waste Management, Inc. was supposed to
implement Condition 35 . 1a, the feasibility of using condemnation as
an alternative to purchase of the properties in question, and the
results of her meeting with the property owners regarding the
accuracy of the wording of the Conditions of Approval in relation
to the transcript of the Board of Supervisors meeting of March 20,
1990.
Chuck Zahn, on behalf of the Community Development Department,
concurred with Ms . Fujii ' s report and noted that'the appraisal done
by Mr. Leslie did not include the Vieville' s property (at their
request) but that such an appraisal will have to be done at some
point in order to fully comply with Condition 35. 1a.
Mary Lou Lucas, on behalf of Waste Management, noted that her firm
had no control over and did not provide any instructions to Mr.
Leslie in doing the appraisal . Their only role was to pay for the
appraisal, which was done by an appraiser acceptable to the County.
Mr. Vieville presented his written comments dated April 7, 1992,
which are attached to Mr. Vieville' s memorandum dated April 7, 1990
[sic] and are attached to this report. Mr. Vieville made the point
2
y �
I .O.-6
that he wanted Condition 36 . 3 made applicable to his property. Ms .
Fujii clarified that Condition 35. 1a applies only to the four
properties in question, but that Condition 36 .3 applies to these
four properties as well as any other properties
which are affected by the construction or operation of the proposed
landfill .
It was noted that the value compensation study applies only to
Condition 36 . 3 and that the study is currently underway at Sonoma
State University.
Mr. Schiff noted that his property is at least as likely to be
negatively impacted by the construction of the landfill as by its
subsequent operation and that time is therefore of the essence to
him and his family.
Ms . Lucas noted that Waste Management was willing to meet with the
property owners, but that the appropriate representatives had not
been available for a meeting on April 10, -1992 . However, a meeting
will be set up in the near future.
Mrs . Schiff recounted the history of their purchase of their
property, pointing out why the recorded sale price does not
represent the true value of the property since the Schiffs and the
previous owners had also exchanged equity in their respective
properties as partial compensation. The Schiff ' s believe that they
actually paid the equivalent of $475,000 for their property and
that $100,000 of this was not reflected in the recorded sale price.
Mr. Schiff also disputed the statement in the appraisal report to
the effect that the Schiff ' s property does not have a domestic
water supply available to it. Mr. Schiff contends that he has a
water supply through percolation which serves the property and that
this information was shared with Mr. Leslie. Mr. Schiff also
argued with the conclusion in the appraisal report that few if any
improvements had been made to the property since the Schiff 's had
owned it.
Mr. Ogden noted that the appraisal had concluded that the value of
the three potential lots on the Schiff property were equal in value
at $120, 000 each. However, Mr. Ogden noted that the lot on which
the Schiff ' s home sits is level and thus is considerably more
valuable than $120,000. Mr. Ogden suggested that this lot alone
was worth $200,000 . He also noted that the Schiff ' s had done
considerable work in improving the property and that this work was
overlooked by Mr. Leslie' s appraisal .
Supervisor McPeak asked Ms . Fujii for an opinion as to what right
the Board of Supervisors had to question the methodology used by
the appraiser. Ms . Fujii indicated that the Board of Supervisors
has no obligation to go any farther with the appraisal process than
it has to date. She suggested that Mr. Ogden might want to put his
comments in writing and then have Waste Management ask Mr. Leslie
to respond to Mr. Ogden's comments. However, in the absence of
this, it is her opinion that Waste Management has complied with the
Condition of Approval in that the appraisal has been completed by
the appraiser approved by the County.
Mr. Polisner, representing KYMCO, Inc. , noted that the appraisal of
the KYMCO property is substantially understated, because Mr. Leslie
reached the conclusion that the property could not be subdivided
into more than one lot, thereby substantially understating the
value of the property, compared with the value if the property
could be subdivided. Mr. Polisner noted that they had consulted a
civil engineer, who concluded the KYMCO property could be
subdivided into at least three lots .
Ms . Fujii reiterated her previous statement that the only issue
before the Committee and the Board of Supervisors is whether the
Condition of Approval has been complied with and whether the
3
I.O.-6
appraisal is fair. In her opinion the appraisal as submitted meets
the Condition of Approval . She also noted that if the Committee
asks Mr. Leslie to review and respond to Mr. Ogden' s comments that
he may expect to paid more by Waste Management.
Mr. Schehrer noted his conclusion that the KYMCO property is worth
more like $425,000 since it can be subdivided into three lots .
Mr. Polisner noted that in Mr. Leslie' s appraisal (Assumptions and
Limiting Conditions) he notes that "In the event that any
inaccuracies or inconsistencies occur, the appraiser reserves the
right to review his final value conclusion. "
Based on all of the above discussion and the attached written
reports, including the appraisal itself, we have reached the above
recommendations, which we urge the Board of Supervisors to approve.
cc: County Administrator
Michael H. Zischke, Waste Management
c/o McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
P.O. Box V
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Mary Lou Lucas, Waste Management
1801 Oakland Boulevard, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
County Counsel
Community Development Director
Chuck Zahn, Assistant Director, CDD
Frederick & Paula Schiff
P.O. Box 744
Clayton, CA 94517
Christian & Corinne Vieville
P.O. Box 284
Clayton, CA 94517
Don Schehrer, KYMCO< Inc.
P.O. Box 696
Moss Beach, CA 94038
4
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: April 13 , 1992
To: Internal Operations Committee - Supervisors McPeak and
Schroder
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Re: Marsh Canyon Landfill Condition of Approval No. 35.1.a
ILUP 2010-90)
On March 17, 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted the
Internal Operations Committee's report and recommendations from the
Committee' s March 9, 1992 meeting. This office was requested to
address the following issues.
SUMMARY:
1. The conditions of approval do not require compliance with
Condition No. 35. 1.a within any express time frame. The Board may
reasonably require compliance with Condition No. 35.1.a within the
same time frame set forth in Condition No. 4.1 - three years after
obtaining the Solid Waste Facilities Permit or the opening of the
landfill. It may also be possible for the Board to impose a shorter
time period, but. such period must commence after the Solid Waste
Facilities Permit is obtained and all non-applicant appeals have been
concluded.
2. Condemnation would not have been a viable alternative to
Condition No. 35.1.a. However, if the parties agree, and there are
no other objections, the parties may participate in a procedure
similar to or based upon the procedure for condemning property to
effectuate a sale of the properties to the applicants.
TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTING CONDITION NO. 35.1.a
This office was asked to address the question of what time frames
may be explicitly or implicitly set forth in the conditions of
approval relating to when Condition No. 35.1.a should be implemented
or completed.
The conditions of approval do not appear to explicitly impose any
particular deadline upon the applicant' s compliance with Condition
No. 35 . 1.a. Based upon the wording of Condition No. 4.1, we believe
that it may be reasonable to require implementation of Condition
1
Internal Operations Committee
April 13 , 1992
2
No. 35. 1.a before the landfill is opened for receipt of waste.
Condition of Approval No. 4. 1 reads as follows:
114. 1 Validity Period. The Landfill developer shall
install prerequisite improvements and open the Landfill for
receiving refuse within three years of the final approval
of the project' s Solid Waste Facilities Permit. This validity
period shall be -tolled while any appeal filed by parties other
than the Landfill developer is pending. The Landfill developer
may request from the Director of Community Development one or
more one-year -extensions of the Land Use Permit. If the Land
Use Permit is not implemented within the specified time, it
shall become null and void. The Director of Community
Development may allow each one-year extension if the Director
finds that there are changed circumstances which warrant the
consideration of changes to the Conditions of Approval."
Specifically, Condition No. 4.1 requires the applicant to
"install prerequisite improvements" and open the landfill within
three years of the final approval of the project' s Solid Waste
Facilities Permit. Compliance with Condition No. 35.1.a does not
entail the installation of an improvement. However, based upon the
lack of any other specified time period for compliance with Condition
No. 35. 1.a, we believe that it would be reasonable for the Board to
require compliance with Condition No. 35.1.a within the same period
set forth in Condition No. 4.1 - within three years of obtaining the
Solid Waste Facilities Permit or the opening of the landfill for the
receipt of waste.
We are aware that the Internal Operations Committee members have
expressed the sentiment that the above-discussed three years' time
period may be undesirable, and that a shorter time period would be
preferred. A shorter period does not appear to be clearly prohibited
by the conditions of approval. However, in order for such shorter
period to be reasonable and legally defensible, the time frame for
compliance must still commence after the Solid Waste Facilities
Permit is obtained, and after all non-applicant appeals are
concluded.
CONDEMNATION AS ALTERNATIVE
Some of the property owners have asked the Board to consider
condemning their 'properties as an alternative to compliance with
Condition No. 35.1.a. As previously noted by this office, such a
change in the condition would require compliance with all applicable
procedural requirements as well as the applicant' s consent.
Even if the Board had originally considered requiring that the
subject properties' be condemned, . such a requirement would have been
l
Internal Operations Committee
April 13 , 1992
3
of doubtful legality. One of the fundamental principals of
condemnation is that the object property be acquired for a necessary
public use. The properties in question are not required for a public
use, and are not even required for the project. If challenged, we do
not believe that such a condition would have been upheld.
On the other hand, if the parties are now able to reach agreement
whereby the applicant would acquire the neighboring property owners '
properties in a procedure similar to or based upon the procedure for
acquiring property by way of condemnation, and there are no other
objections to this alternate procedure, we see no reason why the
parties may not proceed in this fashion.
MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS FOLLOWING MARCH 9, 1992 INTERNAL
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
The involved property owners have in the past asserted that the
transcript or tape from the Board's March 20, 1990 hearing will show
that Condition No. 35. 1.a does not accurately reflect the action
taken by the Board on March 20, 1990. This assertion was again made
during the Internal Operations Committee' s March 9 , 1992 meeting.
After the conclusion of the Internal Operations Committee' s
consideration of Marsh Canyon Landfill Condition No 35.1.a on March
9 , 1992 , this Deputy met briefly with Mr. and Mrs. Schiff and Mrs.
Vieville to provide them with the opportunity to indicate the source
of their belief that Condition No. 35. 1.a does not accurately reflect
the Board' s action on March 20,, 1990 with respect to the Marsh Canyon
land use permit. At that time, the Schiff s were not able to
immediately locate the testimony in the transcript of the March_ 20 ,
1990 hearing that supported their views.
At the conclusion of the meeting, both the Schiffs and Mrs.
Vieville were invited to submit, at any time, copies of transcripts
or other information which they believe support their views.
APRIL 10, 1992 MEETING WITH MR. AND MRS. VIEVILLE - CONDITION
NO. 36. 3
On April 10,' 1992, this deputy met with Mr. and Mrs. Vieville, at
which meeting the Vievilles provided this deputy with a memorandum
the Vievilles intended to submit to the Committee at the April 13 ,
1992 meeting. It appears that the Vievilles' primary concern is with
the wording of Condition No. 36. 3 and not Condition No.35.1.a.
Condition No. 36.3 reads as follows:
" . 3 Property Value Compensation Program. The Landfill
operator shall provide funding for the preparation of .a property
value compensation program study when requested by the County of
Internal Operations Committee
April 13 , 1992
4
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 for 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 a pass-through business cost for the
purposes of rate setting."
The Vievilles believe that this condition, as finally adopted by
the Board, does not accurately reflect the Board' s intent, as such
intent was expressed at the Board's March 20 , 1990 meeting. Upon
reviewing the information provided by the Vievilles as well as the
official record of the proceedings, we believe that the misunder-
standing was caused by erroneous assumptions concerning documents
before the Board on March 20, 1990.
At the March 20 hearing, the Board had before it, a document
referred to as "Exhibit B. " The content of the document that the
Vievilles believed was Exhibit B was very similar, but not identical
to the contents of the Exhibit B that was actually before the Board.
Attached is a copy of the Exhibit B before the Board on March 20 ,
1990 , which was adopted by the Board as additional conditions of
approval. The conditions in Exhibit B were included in the
Conditions of Approval as Condition No. ,36 .
The Vievilles also believe that the second to the last sentence
of Condition No. 36.3 does not accurately state the Board' s intent,
in that the Board intended to have an arbitrator or facilitator for
negotiations with the property owners, and that such intent is not
expressly reflected in the condition. Upon reviewing the subject
language of the condition and the transcript of the Board hearing, we
believe that the language of the condition of approval accurately
reflects the Board' s decision on the matter on March 20.
Attach: Exhibit B
a: \condition
' EX4IB11 B
J�� -
' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
2 . S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
'V,2 1+
TO:. Board of Supervisors DATE: March 16, 1990
e
FILE:
r ,
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon,
Director of Community Development
By: Charles A. Zahn, Assistant Director S+
-SUBJECT; Special Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval
1
In its action stating its intent to approve Land Use Permit 2010-90 for the
Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill, the Board of Supervisors on March 13, 1990, also
stated - its intent to include several special conditions of approval. These
special conditions were expressed in general terms. Staff has drafted specific
language for all but one of the conditions and provided it below.
No specific text was prepared for the
proposal to establish a 30-year $2.00 per
R'
ton fee for an East County host mitigation fee (subsequently, to drop to $1.00
per ton), because the Board indicated this would be considered at a later time
in connection with a franchise or an agreement.
u�r
r� If the Board of Supervisors wishes to adopt these special conditions in the
' € drafted form, or with modifications, the motion should include them with the
regular conditions of approval.
"-' The special conditions are:
Transportation System Impact Fee: The Landfill operator shall pay to the
County of Contra Costa a Transportation Impact Fee of $2.00 per ton of
waste received at the Landfill to mitigate the general impacts of the
Landfill-generated traffic on the County's road system. The operator shall
deposit the fee monies quarterly in a segregated account established by the
^r County. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for
N the purposes of rate setting.
` ' 2. Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee. The Landfill operator shall
pay to the County of Contra Costa an Open Space and Agricultural Preserva-
tion Fee of $2.00 per ton on solid wastes received at the Landfill to
mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill on open space, existing and
proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture. The operator shall
de sit .the fee monies po quarterly in a segregated account established by the
County. The fee. shall be considered to be epees-through business cost for
k '
the purposes of rate setting.
r ru t'
k
tb d
x '
t
2.
,Y 3. Property Value Compensation Program. 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 Super-
'''i visors, the Landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified b P P Y the
Board. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for
IN
..
the purposes of rate setting.
g 4. Resource Recovery Program Fee. The Landfill developer or operator shall
pay to the County of Contra Costa a resource recovery program fee of
$200,000 annually, beginning April 1, 1990. The developer or operator
shall deposit the monies in a segregated account established by the County.
The extent of the fee shall be subject to reconsideration when a franchise
or agreement is established for the Landfill. The resource recovery pro-
gram fee from its inception shall be a pass-through business cost for the
purposes of rate setting.
S. Violation of Prescribed Haul Route. Upon a determination by the County
that a user of the Landfill has violated Condition of Approval Section 29
by using a prohibited access route, and upon a written direction by the
County, the Landfill operator shall impose on that user the sanction that
is directed by the County. Such sanction may include a surcharge on the
tipping fee, prohibition against accepting waste from that user for a
designated period of time, or other sanction directed by the County.
:r.
CAZ/jn
181:bos.mem
1
Y
k
1
8697
Date : April 7, 1990
To: Internal Operations Committee- Supervisors McPeak and Schroder.
From: Christian P. Vieville
15675 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton CA 94517
Re: Marsh-Canyon Landfill condition of approval 35.La and 36
(LUP 2010-90)
April 7, 1992
The list of documents used for this review is
• The reporter's transcript ofproceedings ofthe meting of the Board ofSbperwsors held March
20, 1990
• The faxed copy of thee�aeric landAU mitigation list for Supermor Tom Torlakson sent to
Christian Vieville on March 14, 1990.
• The memo from County Counsel's Office dated March 6, 1992 from Lillian T. FuUi to the
Internal Operations Committee.
. Bgckground:
The reporter's transcript ofproceedmgs of the meeting of the Board of Supervisors consists of 128
pages covering two items on the Supervisors agenda:
Item Sl: Requested the County Administration to report to the Board on the D. B. Flett water study
for the Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park. Recorded in the pages 1 through S4.
T.4. Considers approval of Marsh Canyon landfill and use permit and related documents. Recorded
in the pages 54 through 128,
The debate on Item S.1 was a lively display of emotions with reference to relocation cost and
affected parties by'Chairperson Fanden:" The relocation cost—and this is Corinne H&We—is not
in there, ?here's 1.40 acres of homes right across the street from the landAU site. And the cost of
buying those,people out and relocating is not even put in the cost analysis."(lines 13 through 17
page 46)and Supervisor Torlaskson:" Nancy, we know that--the Board voted, the majority-voted for
Anv lanAll site, a value maFensation,.program We Arnow that ifyou have eight homes or seven it's
difierent than having two or three thousand homes Me you have on the other site."(Lines 21
through 25 page 46).
Discussion:
I will be referring to.the transcript of the debate on T.4(pages 54 through 128) .
It is assumed that a mention to Waste Management is a reference to Marsh Canyon while a reference
to B.F.I is a reference to Keller Canyon also that a reference to the "site" or"landfill" means
"Marsh Canyon" since the discussion is about the L.U. Pfor Marsh Canyon.
Pages 54 through 69 records various discussions concerning a procedural matter, reference to a
change to condition 17.18 concerning "the proposed rewording for the subdrain".(line 24, page
58).availability of soil to be used for cover, argument concerning who wrote the findings and various
lively exchanges between Supervisors. There is also a significant disclosure: "Who wrote these.
findings, do you know?Did the staff write the$ndings?
MR. ZAFIN.•Staffrewowed the findings which were provided.
CUURPERSONFABDEN.•But who wrote them? Ihat's not my question. Who wrote,the findings?
MR ZAMV.As is typical, the applicant provided draft findings.
CsK D?PERSON FAFIDEN.•So who's;the applicant m this case?Did Mt: Skaggs--
MR ZAIVN.• Waste Management."
Pages 70 through 98 records the formulation of the motion to approve the L.U.P and the approval
of the motion.
Throughout the discussion there are 22 references to Marsh.Canyon and 6 to Keller-Canyon, one
cannot consider the discussion as general and has to conclude that the whole subject debate was about
Marsh Canyon and related issues to that particular landfill.
During the discussion there were references made to exhibit B by several individuals:
Tom Torlakson:"I helped—I wrote basically most of the conditions m exhibit B, Page 2, N=&,r 3.
And I did propose and the majority of this board did support a value con4vnsa tion program And it
says, "When a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors the landfill developer
shall fund in.the manner speciSed by the Board.".(page 72 ,line 7 through 13).
"And I again think this is very in7portant: .HC-adopted this as generic language to apply to all landfill
sites because of the serious concern we have about wor]dng witb property ownres to be able to
mitigate any value igmct."(page 72 dine 25 ,page 73 line lthrough 4).
"I do flunk that we want to say that as an addition to that condition that an arbitrator ficilitator can
be required by the County if the progress in the discussions does notproceed satisfictorily, so that
therecould be some,you]mow, mechanism
That's one ofthe things that Corinne and Chris zwntioned this morning, that we could require that if
we felt that the process was breaking down and not wprA ng the way we designed it"(page 74 line 13
through-21).
Chuck Zahn: "--there is the Special Condition Number 3, which is the property value compensation
program That's Exhibit B. And that is one of the several special conditions that Supervisor
Torlakson recommend.
And should it be your Board's pleasure, those conditions,,special conditions should be added to the
regular conditions ofapproval."..(page 76, line 4 through 11).
Tom Torlakson: "and I would offer this to the Board, as an additron_to Exhibit B, Page 2—and this
number S, and it's the section that says "violation ofprescribed haul route.".(page 79, line 11
through 14).
Tom Torlakson: "It's Page 2 ofExhibit B. It's the second side of the conditions and it's Number S;
Wolk tion of prescribed haul route."".(page 80, line 13 through 15).
Tom Torlakson " I would then, if there aren't any, Madam Chair, nuke a_mollon to applbye
Me land use concfrtion, cos here vsenled to us in exhibits A and B, to
add die language that I've indicated under the value comption engram. diet
an ai tWor could be reauimd by Nle Count(Eif needed under Exhibit B. Number
3.".(page 86, line 13 through 19). .
Furthermore Tom Torlakson added to his motion item 17.18,regarding the subdrain(page 87, line 3
through 4).
The motion was seconded by Tom Powers .(page 87, line 8).
Page 87 through 98 immortalize a political recital from several supervisors on their concern about the
people living around landfill and their intent to be sensitive to their problems. There was no change
made to the motion proposed by Tom Torlakson and seconded by Tom Powers.
My discussion establishes the presence of Exhibit B comprising of 5 Items .
The memo from Tom Torlaskson faxed to Christian Vi6ville states:
XALUE DESCRIPTION 771 'SPAN
1. $2.00/7on Mitigation for road impacts 30 years
2. $2.00174a Open space/parks/trails/Ag land life of the site
Preservation Fund(To be supervised/
managed by the Board ofSuperwsors and
to be utilized for both acquisition and
maintemnce%pera t±on)
Note:All$/ton figures to be updated annually with built-in CPI adjustments.
I Development ofa value loss acquisition program for surrounding residences and/or businesses
that are impacted by the landfill(i.e. truck traffic, noise, etc.)due to proximity to the landfill.
Development ofa direct acquisition program with inclusion ofmoving costs for any residences or
business which determined by the Zoning Administra for to be visually i Wacted.
Both programs to be reviewed and approved of by the Board ofSupervisors.
4. $200,000 per year for recycling programs until the siteopens kir operation(at which time a
bigber scale more permanent financing program would become effective through the Franchising fee).
The fist payment would be made by April 15, 1990. If two permits are approved before April 15, the
cost ofthe program would be shared equally.
S. Strict controls on.the designated IandAU access routes--enfircemea LandSll operator stall be
responsible for the payment ofa $20,000 fine for each verified incident ofdeviahon of designated
routes. This money will be contributed to the road repair fund ofhost communityinrUgation fund;
The operator shall be responsible.for coordinating with Public Works the cost and placemont of
appropriate signage indicating the designated routes and forbidden access points to the landAU. The
landfill operator shall install, at some point close to the entrance of the landfill, a video recorder
capable ofrecordiag on a 24-hour basis any truck coming from the wrong direction to the site. The
operator shall cooperate filly in the investigation ofany complaint; and will pay all costs incurred as.
a result ofsuch investgadon."
The following condition of approval 35.La has been concluded by the County Counsel to
"accuratelysets forth the action-talon by the Board as to said condition". Memo from Lillian Fujii
dated March 6, 1992.
Condition 35.la reads as follows : " The applicant shall put firth a good faith effort to purchase the
four existing properties directly across Marsh Creek Road.from.the project site. Agood faith e9ort
shall be deemed to mean a bone Ede offer to purchase the properties for their fair market value, as
such is determined in an appraisal prepares by qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to the
County."
Condition 36. Special conditions of approval read as.follows
1. Transportation System I npactFee. The landfill operator shall pay to the County of Contra Costs
a Transportation Impact Fee of$2.00 per ton of waste received at the landfill to mitigate the
general impacts of the landkll generated traffic on the County's road system The operator shall
deposit the fee zwnies quarterlyin segregated account established by the County. The fee shall
be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the,purpose ofrate setting.
2. Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee. The landfill operator shallpay to the County of
Contra Costa an Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee of.$2.00 penton,on solid
wastes received at the landfill to mitigate the general impacts of the IandfiU on open space,
existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture. The operator shall deposit the fee
t
�Y
agonies quarterly in segregated account established by the County. The fee shall be considered to
be a pass-through business for the purpose a rate setting.
3. Property Value Compensation Program The Landfill operator shall provide funding for the
preparation ofa property value compensation program study requested by County of
Contra Costa. The study will address the mans of determining the extend of the property value
losses or reductions attributable to the Landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or
pollution, and the means ofcon pensating 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 inplementation is notprocessing in a tunely manner, the Board may require the
use ofa &cilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass through
business cost for the purpose ofrate setting.
4. Resource Recovery Program Fee. 7be landfill developer or operator shall pay to the County of
Contra Costa a resource recovery program fee of$200,000 annually, beginning April 1,1990
The developer or operator shall deposit the monies in a segregated account established by the
County. The extend of the fee shall be subject to reconsideration when a franchise or agreement
is established for the landfill. The resource recoveryprogram tee from its inception shall be a
pass-through business cost for the purposes ofrate setting.
S. Kola tion ofPrescribed Haul Route. Upon a determination by the County that a user of the
landfill has violated Condition ofApproval Section 29 by using a prohibited access route, and
upon a written direction by the County, the landfill operator shall irrlpose on that user the
sanction that is directed by the County. Such.sanction may include a surcharge on the tipping
fee,prohibition against accepting waste from tha t user for a designa ted period a time,
revocation of the County refuse hauling license, or other sanction directed by the County,A
system for reporting alleged violations and for the monitoring enforcement data shall be
esta blished by the County and the La adfdl opera tor.
The comparison each item of the memo from Tom Torlakson to each item of condition 36 shows
their similarity in content except for the portion mentioning "direct acquisition program with
inclusion ofnovin costs"(item.3).
In the memo for Lillian Fu11i there appears to be a discrepancy in the interpretation of condition
36 item 3 and the spirit of the discussion on the use of an arbitrator. The arbitrator is intended
to be use to facilitate the negotiations with the property owners not the progress of the property
value compensation study.
Conchusiow:
16 conclusion, the conditions 35.la and 36(item 3)are not mutually exclusive but are
complementary in defining the mitigation measures for compensation to the owners of the four
properties already identified to be directly impacted.
The condition 36(item 3) does not accurately represent the generic mitigation list put forth in
the motion by Tom Torlakson(inclusion of moving costs).
The third party arbitrator is to be used if. no agreement can be reach in the negotiation between
the property owners and the landfill proponent.
til �A_
11111111111i�Q Waste Management of North America,Inc.
Western Region-Contra Costa County Landfill Project
1801 Oakland Boulevard•Suite 250
Walnut Creek, California 94596•(510) 256-0155
HAND DELIVERED
March 31 , 1992
.''.; Charles Zahn, Assistant Director
Community Development Department
` Contra Costa County
' 651. Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Mr. Zahn:
Waste Management - is pleased toforward the appraisals of the
' Schiff, Burks and .Kymco properties. These appraisals have been
-prepared by. Hector LeslieandAssociates; the firm selected by the
:' property -owners from the County-approved list.
A copy of the appraisal has been forwarded to the property owners
and to Supervisors McPeak and Schroder, the Internal Operations
Committee of the Board of Supervisors.
If you have questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
WASTE MANAGEMENT. OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Mary .L. L cas, Assistant.'Project
Manager
Marsh Canyon Landfill Project
cc: Frederick and Paula Schiff (with enclosures)
Frederick and Pauline Burks (with enclosures)
Kymco, Inc. (with enclosures)
Supervisor Sunne McPeak (with enclosures)
Supervisor Robert Schroder- (with enclosures) .
John F. Rowden (w/o enclosures)
Sanford M. Skaggs, Esq. (with enclosures)
a
• 4�
.. .
f :� ) .5�
til"lc •'1( } rti,`� lit l:.i'..,� a•t, ;.e'li`I)t p.'""I". 1�, t'.• 7 C'Y f i ,.C+t.,t fi ,'{i } yi ..7t y.,,, t,.t ..a r 1, ,,,J.•, :, r ta.� 4,.
,Y., ri', ti. .S a "ir,Su •1:1 ,i1. >..W. '4a,e .,,7:,,'• .J.� +t ,>M''i, 5 p fi•'i !, +.r.�'t i + f
u., t.r'. 3> ra , 2.. o._ w , S" r. ,r x t, : tt rk: .:E fl y:r' c
ryiJ t L'i .:P Ftt, .{. :i., 5,y•; .t, a,, .«{ vJf r p Y. '8t +,tfil' z>s f(1 :v{,•z v7 r,r4 -a S v t; e n 4, i r s a ..,t
k '•tl yv L { p :a4'c. "b , +rt.,t. t s{' ,s? 4 n it` y s,4:) :5 -. U ,� •rit.t Yy...tl..tf t,t L ''�.
:='t6c�l ,M•�'. V::g- !!.4 9.��},,.4fyJl..f{'. ,t;1 St<'1E,Nt�. ':1,t r ( i: .1r•i' t4 t ,sr„,"y i',t' "7t1�v�'r ,r+•.i )�'� ,1.�t,,, a i,.a ItrS',�1 {
.1! `"fir (� , .; q: Y.y7{,} ''t,7, . tfe ,rys'{g�fyL�tl;:{ .t Y..�.y:A,t i" S l+ �t r, r 'al .,f 4.:• i 'f k. y1 b• J C:�.,;. tet+, {,`i�
MOW,, x•, ,si-s:ku 4"l, ,y,.E,,.,'"(,.S>•� A"t'"i'1 .aL1S*,•^, Y Y•").td :iF r,.., n. y ,^•.t} .k. ,: .s. '' , I ,'... ` Cl.,, St: i}6.1.•a.` :: i,.,,.
. •GtE r7'+.`/.i , r `,4t ..,.- , rral r.. },fit, a.,' t. f' ,6 !.S'..,, •, ...x,r.� ts.,g.F t.,1 . a{s. '.:'2r{jr'#G:{"r:'. 1,•r,� -:t. +T'..5e lI,c•�. �i {'- "'
t� r ,,„s, 9.:�, A is: t
-# afil b z ,~"r.. - k,`•i s,F j-.fj`i•'�.•:.u;(!tj'S.bg,'F'�t ,�ys��3 p,CS`,� ._ -.,.+. 'y.E , .: r,,..'t, •'3°i1a, t.: J`t,. .<a',.. .s 1,.,,#'F' {S. r .�1.' ai. 6! t�c 5 f''1C Y }_r>q.::E
t4r d v: y',A (i ,r 4w., a 1' A alit,, :"I t' .r r r 1 4 r':�r.. s p;�!S-
d.n t !`f di• A l,(, 7 tit' 4. ;,,+y �' S t t .,.v rt L.. -tt ? , 'L' ;. �> tt l..'t•I i .,�r:v — {'
j, , t ,s ,U•, ,;hdt , k. n. r k ,. tr, . ,r �. 11:4:33 ',
{ S ' N 4:
;.%,n,,,Y, ,}'
Fat
„'r.. ,q ,r s .. r�'�e . `�4y � .. 5 ',9 t '1 .Y, ',�•,; r j IT; -1, i� h5'i;;�{ N,..�, j�,y�q. �{,�,,.s;± t9' } s y�'+A,V. { � �, #'t k, -l {,1,
,e.• , M1p 1t'.�.�,,, 4 d 4 5 .i u,'i {'+t .d�,+t , ti �5 1 •�,' *• ;( k_ ”' ,j"Y',l? r' a f } t.tt,Z t7•.1.4'.a,, ri;.9 :5.. >:.
: '. �. r 1
.r d, ? C' A �1 .7,H' .. )• , 1..fC• �r`7 .S" 1 ' _ q, ,t �,..:�^��•. '. t .c t1 - ,�t 6P'U�. t„d}•?• t..( 5 rF
v'., fir.. . 11�. j ''"`'� #{'it sn ' , ,,� ,r ��Iw. 3?„�t,+�{ra{,:'Z';1r{iti, l' :ir,r'(t: t.a.l.''!i:&` EY,f;..7b,, .{r1 ,:;_. ,;.qf #,`a.v,�,. nt,rr „> ,.: .'
h 'tl 'It: t p r !�. i t,, -t. A`� ',Ir4'S�.ti<.,.�,` j°l�. 3 't }-!'.;;3•il, �ty '. �4s.1;. r;f•'`y'z.�''( ,a .Sie,: iP{,ra XF,. ,..I. r nX�.S..+ r".
Q :i,� F I
V..y. ::ti .r. '� 1 �a Ss; ,ry> ,+,i k:1••n.•�•. :.,(;�P3r�1 rk. "�,,i0;\' �g� J- f+ 1''b.J, th.^ ,��, P..r,1. t ,• A': :Z,1,5 y7. !.,, fd`r+n.;t.
t ':, E 4 {t q , i 1 R 4 �q ,, it 6,1 �( .y I t' yr t t 1r,r. Y. ,• {' c t i 6
st ,t{4 1 ,k {{,{i!�`x +r. R�St v t ,'r:, p:: {Rl�: i{a [Y�'” I1{ ( 'rf lC . •,;x} '1'. i
'P' ,Pt'. �, r ly .,�3',t �y.. r1..✓':1 .+l.{fig- C{it.. ,e"�dP ,'! y� aF�,r<r :Ci* 'S t!{• ,3 �f•�(.• '{ 1n- �i. :E..t x t �j�',.. Gf :;1Y 9. 'L 7j t
.i ' r) ,+ "aY, { .,F{{�3�' `t� �lr ,/,y. .?!. +{,ri i,, C' t t�•,};,. yy 'x,t �'}, 9.it.. i ;1 t�`'},t}.y a,,' ;..,�'' ..b r�
; " tt}!-., .,"1. -3 t. 'Vj ,, W L',:. �C r,BYA. }t51.. .Yfr, }. jt{ s y. 7" .,+t ;�'�a. 'Y" 7 !d!1' 'i .
t a rt ?+ ' ,.+ fit a, „,1 , .. 4 , ,�< k: €• a,33 rW ,dt �" �p ie q�4; p ! g
�y ..R t ��3,..u� r r t gr k. r. ., ,1 , t,,.-5,rat "` 'u:• :;,,.z 'M1' r.:, r a..,. x 't}gvv z t :,, L, � dj r,"�,Y,.g—b y�"C,y Tii t p`+4fi -
4Y_1j}� �` };V,,„. E da � k '11: 1' } �.. 1�i:'t r� t,• 1�.,J v �y?�t-�V•0" "r. t; ���i+, >;,ly,rlt'art3r•.:r rt,N
,-r#- "" ��S�i {'{ vh��J�;,. '�.f I. •,••`:.,,fir 'k• r;�. a � '. t ,r• ��,ya.�,. Z>x,.7, +.I i4 ..�4'i,, �,., r,,. 4 1ma�,,, �;
r t {" ? -f ,-s t•„i 4 ri ,.;1 5 .y rS �+:, i �'3 �' ._, F 3:tt Fi( t,l , xh yj+4c 1,$i t Y v
%T..1 "r i t ,y b {`�;,qy1'1 �•s+ 's ,'+ �,t Y•t j{ Ulf ��,�., t,S, S�'i r..+t.w i t
JpL,d ..�5,r .i,i 1i 1'. I r, 1' i, v ,. 5J11S, ' '. &�5. * 'zV„ M.'`! ,:Nl 1 ., Xl•,I ,Y,' "
v„ 711'G:t. U f"' ';{ 4. y, > ''* ;v }{ , ..,}.lnsrs�ua�,.yh 1 •p•S. ,T,`-Yu Vf. Y's E'"',tfl }'�+.•',?a�}et. .bP a'.>`` '+++ti'i+:
t. y t,. �}. Sa9 y. s9 .:•F, - k 1. war;: r r t. .4 r 4 i ��'i'q: i Sfi� it
'k + v1 ";.�A t •r {.t '1 r C(7; f+fi; .,{ ';. .' .4e' '�+, .a -�r a, ,} .6 k��! :i -� r+t '3 ,„ t ,
�N {n ': "� r ,4g k,,`ln Z?L a, t t} i 4� ¢i Ayyw3t ' ' 6 :, l� Re s:, vv t�'' ,�'J... .
{l; l..ur,,+ l.1• .1` -fc�. .,t. ';t� 4r'. .< , '} .d. �.. }a, r r{7',,f. t.,;! €:`Ir; r3 6, :c. S i, 1..iri»
";Ay... ,yt >� 'i;. Y./�T?C iiS:' > '}'h: „G1 ,B"� .t, {� .�-. ,rd,tut;!• .437�Fy fey 67 1..''F}:'.stG, F4,t",k;Ct+l c,+.t ( S" .r.t ,r"f'; G -i
yy1'i F. y, r. Ai+er a� xr :7 i4ny y 4 a x I iFy Y ti; t y a i?�a. a#{a2 rs , A �fi � -n i ar: u
Y ' t 3 Y2A s td { q4 F'Y 9,', r' i' ';i t ,ui`;G' t� �t•„t1 >.,.Ya? J`!, ,W s ,. x k -# he', 2,.
�F( "' zttif. $t 4 "yt44�d �i�5 .w• 'i'a x 4r ;?'1 .: 'F +: t r, 4,. �+-a, -S „t •+,x )• ` •p p
t:q t dCP r' ;c@ �" rt 6 ah rl:+S #+ w. �{, '#x i t }v c�i, , ,, :{iy °# .. 6,„�4 y .r.r c r^S Y:G 1 t y' r. k. 'i:
( r, ,,,,t f .} d r.},. .. + �`,'"F� 1 r}: y7f, � �f,. ihC(�Y ',ate Thr fid,' r-+,�,r>, 5I�„�� ,f ,t,
{ !j' fJ q'��,.t�i k. y';>`J k t.. r }�,{ 1,t. •t ,Zr, :�, �',+..!'�+s�,i., ,:{:M7,., tl�r.{Yi. 9'. H, ! .r "_ -`? "4 l� Anr d'r g'.” ,
` {,J4, 1,,2;"; 1' yry. ar �{#2rM ,t x' K Yf r t �f i��tY }7 r ;a i r , 1 .rj }7 �c.p i,'l -t Q',r J is $ F
i, '�. �t 4. r f�r7 , ! 1�, �i 7 4�t4���'T y l.ri4 t!: ,, ; {� t�'f I� ,{ � I k .. 71i'A r ,.wP-{._ t �4 , Y' -.Y
r �. . , APPRAISAL OF' .�. x .
YN P c as T7 X43 ',k �S + j #k f',,<, .�([{yY 4r i{5.. , ,t nt v,t. r +•!t ,
f ,v{ NL. ! ,3�y ,;. '� 6�'. .4 of�[ s� a• �7 V. ,�'.{d "Fjj ,• r%v„ ..7 7 A A, �'�
; .� 4 MI. �' l t :)k{ a ? to 4 �_f "arty ?i s '. ;{ p11, .,,,
�. 5- :Y l?ts.: t � . �, - '”. HRENO,P GELS �. a y. i�,_ ^+ ''' tfi ..�
-�','+ "' + �,$t -}*'.N - ''"}'i „{., .b•�4 '' " ,, .'er1.T AR i`r.3'er , �, k ,fr,,K +'"+(1i�' ,N.k ^b5. 2.
p
r{ ( .�,. � 5: ,5'. .[ y, ' . .,:, - x. i� , ,+,;vH s� i' `9 +' .�r'1x oft J:! �r� `zt?.G .. 4, o ,f r � �, 't .,5 a ,.'., x .'"k3'Y.., a,p. ,.'Ii. .3l:� i td -t1 .,�,. n6t" d }. ..,Pr 4 i p i t} •t 5 1:•Tl ir. yy }y�$s� i', i5T <.`. (rt ,a i .F v,'/�,,�i I !3`'„. tl. tt{yft Y ,�`j+.1 a �� +kµ'. �? !. " ,A! '•,4L ,tp' yy.7, 7 r}(' A '�''.;lhtT'' ( rf..M rr 11 r �,'I' ,,.41 1 !"', �:3'�t•},4 ri- `,-{��
r �e s, { K ( ,S ij:c �tr $ �er � ., , ro S a�T�={€(tr { ( � iytY'> t> � g tkt, l J ;A ' �W.�i ,t�}�
�{' a.n�•,. , ,�r, ; I
�,i� sg t rw(.,. ..� W �tU�> 1 yd 1t ._�L{.r.a q�,tr� Y".�s r' r')`V }tr:. r��,,,� ,4dei
a 4 +' is,, t r, j. Jf t� ' '.a' FREDERICK ,AND'<<PAULA+�SCH�Irri"11`_ti Z a1. 0 S, 'A T t.: ';c�, .+t ,�t r� .lj�{, kt"Nc ,e .,w. ;;a. + `rtt' .,�' #f+T'tr. .�J = l ';:i �l' Zr7r=''`: .4 .•;t r ,� '! �#p�; wr,t ti a �t�yr {r. t It.n �4, Sr yj fi a yt :ti bt:4 y ",. t�e�, (: f ,1,. �[jhr � ., y1 ,[,156'3,5.{ MARSH CREEK xROAD , t p t 'n.� t t ,. h. yf Y f 1+ , L S 7, q:``{k,: 1,,'1 }n: .5,1 •Rro Elv'o; "i:5n i •1'.L.�t ,t .•_.. ,ty:.,J. f4 4 ;'1''',,, 9 y IJJ7>t' .f' ,w �1 y.,. 1..4,, fi. { ty .', �3:'ra .. ,, .ti" .[ '( may!.{, ;i {'� .tS '' -s ,(L Jr?%'j:, t :fr %M '{ti, :Jt'3. t '. ,S, ,,1�,:1. g,.r< 7•„ <t {'
.'S� +,�', .. :{tt. 1,� �,r/. 'Ai,g^ • s..sl.. -;,,.. ,�'!',rl r't: ,t.�Tt:: '.,� 'f .K a4:" r i. V"1�,1'l I4�' P1..1 ,� ?Y-{. ,"•Y y.f<(, .,a? V s
yy
&. ? y �;$t .US t4�q 4 a �, a"l.t'<. �. � 7tb t�A ;r, F?6CY is ty"?� (,Fyi !" ,,,1j� Fr :?: st ,� ?! ss:y A
s-".; ,• r `'i;,A".J:y'„t'ib",f }1.i,'}tr�,. t Ya ".iF' r ":, ) ui!, .S`t {• 4 'eq. d,� fa7; �'1, `{.t•. �' " '+'j rl a�<�� Py t, {'�
`( f - !{ ., ` �) IA?, it .`� ,.} it Tsfi tAY; '`L71\DI' y�lY+ F'^' ,sR'.r. Yly lrkA asn l �' ,"
R 5� ) 4 r FREDERICK,s•:.. PAULI .;1 • t B.URKS F r �. t tit 't, '?
, J'�p ffe ':i, a +r�,..:� 3 nt aia' i,� L
..fib ¢ ` *6' 'r S �,. 4t t3' a �„r !.i :# S
4 l � �, o, ,y ,( .} �. ,.�. " �xl'559.,5r MARSH t=CREEK;'t ROAD.ra��� � ��im;tt :�}� }f�. � d 'aa�� .ry. ,ts •'G't.r�t' °,'�' ;�,•,,yfr(t�•.,t,,..�'y.. +pt :r.. .4. *• 1. :-l.,o .;,., ;;^'�. .x� .j,k yr + ia <f.: ,,; Y, 7 �p ',:.. Y' �'. ;,s ar+ .H' }.•. ? �1i� -11t. { 3 u } { $Y7�f i b � a {§� st e t k f: yly; 1t t r J5 z' i ; {: t {•s r' p, .w'�, d f ver{•. r A R: :�y � ttIN ,lr., bEt t:G fi�Y ,r t„ 1� t�:�,41 'q e.K ��t�i � � .' 3��,��r. hr �.C�{{ly�$?'�t s �5r,r � '.� Y ,�� s a { �.. d,r" n n A dh f,: n . i, f 'Y, S4 t q ' YF 'r, „�.°- a Ct �', S••' i,.!, -a
I #6 g,}• v s.. k , t.. ` ...,?t kc y,S r.� f o . 5q f z, M tr },::A'; �.Cl'� 2,' .'j 'r.'R :C.' •"{p 'k 'v. � i1,S?1f d-.t t�,l, ;1, ,.) p ,. a :rto' >' i it l f,f,� .�',- t�rs>'r +,Jj�:.' f:
{ ° HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES
REAL.ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS
1515 OAKLAND BLVD.. SUITE 20A.WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 a 1415) 932-8862
t
March 231 1992
Ms. Mary L.. Lucas
Assistant, Project Manager_
Marsh Canyon Landfill Project
....1801 Oakland Blvd. , Suite 250
Walnut :Creek,, CA 94596
tt
' Re: .. Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road
Brentwood, . California
Dear Ms. Lucas:
In accordance with my -contract, I am submitting three copies of my
appraisal report covering the above referenced properties . Property
location and description, together with the definitions of fair market
value and a statement of limiting conditions, are set forth elsewhere
in this report.
- MY Y g analysis leading to an estimate of fair market value for the
subject properties is based upon several physical inspections of the
parcels under. appraisement.
The subject area was researched to ascertain the extent of. market
transactions similar in character to the subject properties. These
transactions were analyzed and, based upon this analysis, the market
value of the subject parcels was estimated.
Value Estimate
Based upon the facts and factors contained herein and the analysis of
P Y
all the data which has been considered . in connection with the
appraisal, it' is my opinion that the value of the rights to be
acquired, for the subject properties, are summarized on the following
page.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your office on this
assignment.
Sincerely, _
R
HECTOR R. LESLIE, MAI
MAR 3 1 1��L
L
- y Appraisal of Three Parcels , Marsh C'reek Road, Brentwood, California
VALUATION SUMMARY
Owner Appraised Value
Frederick .& Paula. Schiff $425,000
Frederick &. Pauline Burks - $625,000'. .
Kymco $300;000
G
j
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of. Transmittal
IF
I. Nature of the Assignment 1
II. Assumptions and Limiting .Conditions 6
III Area Data 9
IV. Methodology 10
Y
V. Market Sales Discussion 13
Certification
Individual Parcel Sections
Tab. Schiff .
Tab. Burks
Tab. Kymco
Addenda
Appraiser's Resume of Qualifications
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal .of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood,
California
I. NATURE OF •THE -ASSIGNMENT
A• Purpose of 'the Appra.Lsal ,
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the., fair,,
market value of the . subject properties.
B.' Definitions
1 Market Value
BAJI 11.73
Fair-market value -is defined as the:,:highest. price
in terms of money for which the subject property:
w
- ould have sold :6n the open market-, on
the dateof
valuation; the seller having reasonable time
within which to :sell, - and being-.willing to sell
but not forced to do. so, the buyer being ready,'
willing, and , able to buy., but not forced ` to do`
so, and' having. a reasonable time. and, full
opportunity to investigate the . _property in
question and, to. determine ••its condition,. . ;=
suitability for use, and. all of the things about
.:
the property that would naturallyand .,reasonably,
affect -its market value.
r The. property must: be valued with•.reference to all
the uses and purposes for which, it is adaptable
and., .available, including -. its '.highest and best
use. This definition, of -fair. . market..: value.
Pr. esuPPoses that both Parties are familiar with
f theproperty and all . of its present
HECTOR LESLIE AND,.ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of .Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
adaptabilities and uses, and those uses which
would. be .reasonably probable in the near future.
2. Severance Damages
BAJI 11. 85
Where the property sought to be acquired
constitutes only a part of a larger parcel of
property, in addition to the market value of the
parcel taken, the defendant is entitled to
recover severance . damages in an amount, if any,
the market value of the remaining property is
depreciated -by reason of the severance of the
part taken or by the construction of the
improvements in the manner proposed by the
plaintiff, or by both.
Severance damages, like fair market value, must
be determined from the opinions of witnesses.
In the determination of severance damages, you
should not consider the effect of any special
E` benefits, since special benefits, if any, must be
determined separately.
For the purpose of determining the value of the
remainder in its condition after the taking, it
must be assumed that the improvements have been
f 2
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
C
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California s
completed in the manner proposed by the
plaintiff.
BAJI 11. 86
In assessing the damage, if any, which may accrue ;y
to the defendant's remaining property by reason
of the taking .and the construction of the
proposed improvement•, you must not consider
anything. as tending to depreciate. such market
value which is uncertain, remote, speculative, or
imaginary. The damage for which compensation is
. to be made is a damage . to the. property itself,
and does not include a mere infringement of the
owner's personal pleasure or enjoyment. Merely
rendering private property less desirable for
certain purposes, or even causing - personal
4nnoyance or discomfort in its use does not
constitute the damage contemplated by law, but
the property itself must suffer some diminution
in substance or be rendered intrinsically less
valuable by reason of the .public w3e.
3. Special Benefits
BAJh 11 .95
One of the issues in this action ' for your
determination is how , much, if any, the
defendant's remaining property will be
3
HECTOR LESLIE AND. ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
' Appraisal of ,Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
specifically benefitted . by the construction of
the proposed public improvement.
- In determining .the value of the benefits, if any,
to defendant's remaining property, you should
consider only -';the special benefits to such
ro ert . .
P P y•
Special benefits are advantages to the remaining
property that are reasonably certain to result
from the construction of the improvement in
accordance with the proposed plan, and which are
. P P
IF
peculiar to the land in question as contrasted to
general benefits which result from advantages
that will accrue to the community from the
improvement. A benefit may be special, not
general, even though it accrues to other property
in addition 'to that of the defendant.
C. Property Rights Appraised
... This is a valuation of the fee simple interest in the
properties appraised. It . does- not consider any .
mortgages, liens, or other encumbrances excepting
1..;
rar
those that are specifically discussed in the report.
D. Scope of the Appraisal.
The scope of this appraisal follows traditional
{ appraisal procedures. Firstly, sales, improved and
4
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road,, Brentwood, California
, undeveloped, are researched. These sales, represent
data within a reasonable .distance from the subject
. . 7
area. All of the sales are '.then field inspected to
ascertain comparability . to the subject. Based upon
the field review, _, certain sales are retained whereas .. r=
f
other .sales are discarded:-
Based upon ,this analysis, a market data approach - is
made.
} „HECTOR ,LESLIE AND.ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of ,Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
II. ASSUMPTIONS AND .LIMITING CONDITIONS
The • following •.assumptions and limiting conditions are
.inherent. in� the analysis and conclusions herein.
A. Plot plans and maps are included to assist the reader
in visualizing the properties Preparation was based
upon available data that appeared to be reasonably
correct.
B. Lnformation in this report has been carefullychecked
and is believed to be correct. In the event that any
in or inconsistencies occur,- the appraiser
reserves the right to review his final value.
-conclusion. -
C. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is
presupposed that titles to the properties are
marketable and that they are free and clear of all
liens and encumbrances unless otherwise specified in
the body of this report.
D. This a raisa
pp 1 and the information contained herein
remain the sole property of the undersigned and . is
prepared for the exclusiveuse of the client
11 addressee. In no event shall this appraisal be
duplicated for distribution to other parties without
the express written consent of the appraiser. The
duplication of this appraisal for internal purposes
I 6
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels , Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood,: California
and distribution to officers of .-the-client addressee,
its ':attorney or ,loan correspondent, is specifically
excluded from the foregoing restriction:
E.
The'- fee paid;..for. this 'appraisal —,. is in no - way.
: contingent upon .the., final value 'conclusion and . the
appraiser states- that he had no:".direct, or", indirect
interest in .the subject-properties.
F Parcel area , calculations. .are based upon the _Contra,
Costa CountyAssessor's records; as to the size of the
subject parcels
G. � Disclosure of the.contents- of this appraisal report 'is
:governed by the bylaws and. regulations of the American
Institute- of Real estate Appraisers, of the _ National
Association of :Realtors.
R. Neither all nor - any part,,:of "the contents.. of'- this
1`fj( report (especially any conclusions „as, to value; the
identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is
connected,.. or any reference to the American Institute
of Real Estate , Appraisers :or to the M.A.I. or R.M«
designation). shall :be disseminated : tothe, public, :.
through advertising '.:media, public relations media,
news media,, sales media- or any other public means of
communication-'without the prior written consent 'and
approval of the undersigned.: '
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels Marsh Creek Road Brentwood California
Z. Legal descriptions or .title reports for the subject
parcels under appraisal were not furnished by the
client.
J. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence
of hazardous substances; including without limitation
asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum
leakage, or. agricultural chemicals,. which may or may
not be present on the properties, or other
environmental conditions, were not called to the
attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of
such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser
has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on
or in the properties unless otherwise stated. The
appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such
substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde, foam
insulation, or other hazardous substances or
environmental conditions, which may affect the value
of the properties. The value estimated is predicated
on the assumptions that there is no such condition on
or in the properties or in such proximity thereto that
it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is
assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise
or engineering knowledge required to discover them.
� . The client is urged to retain an expert in the field
of environmental impacts upon real estate if so
desired.
i8
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
III. AREA 'DATA. _..:.
The subject area is considered to be the acreage easterly
of Clayton and extending to Byron.
.'; Primary arterials are Marsh Creek Road (a major east-west
arterial) , Morgan Territory Road, Vasco Road, and Deer.
Valle Road. The interspersing lands are rural in
Y P g
character- and where - development has taken place the
_development is in the form of ranchettes. The majority of
development is of a sufficient size to accommodate a horse
arrangement or privacy.
Collectively, ' . the area is attractive as to scenic
attributes such as. rolling to steep acreage with tree cover
.. in selected areas. r
Vasco Road-is a major north-south arterial linking Marsh
Creek Road with Livermore.
Deer Valley - Road is also a north-south -arterial that.
I connects with Antioch via, :Lone Tree Way.
9
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
'Appraisal of "Three. Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
IV. METHODOLOGY
There' are three commonly. accepted methods of estimating the
value of real property--the Replacement .Cost Approach, the
Market Data. (Comparison) Approach, and the Income Approach.
Generally., a value is estimated 'under each approach and the
three indications of value are then correlated to arrive at
the final value conclusion. However,: it should be noted
that in some instances only one ortwo of . the approaches
are .applicable.
Each -of the three approaches is explained below, as well as
reasons for their inclusion or exclusion.
A.. Cost Approach
The Cost Approach involves an estimate of the land
value of the property under appraisement as if vacant.
To this is added the depreciated value of the
improvements. Replacement cost is- the current cost of
constructing an improvement having equivalent utility
to 'that- of the subject. Depreciation is the loss in
} value of the subject improvements resulting from
physical deterioration (wearing away of the physical
asset) , as . well as both functional and economic
obsolescence. To some .extent. all of these factors
gradually contribute to loss in value of the
fimprovements over a period of time. The Cost Approach
t" is most applicable to new or special purpose
properties . In .older properties, it is extremely
10
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three 'Parcels, Marsh-.Creek Road, Brentwood California ,,"'.'
difficult to -accurately , estimate ' depreciation, and =
.this >process involves,-. a, great deal of'. subjective
c.j udgment.
r,
'A Market Data `Approach '
ln,.;the .Market :Data' Approach, the subject- property is. F
-Coin ared- with similar properties that' have recently '
sold, or are c.ur:rently available for sale. :
'
. Adjustments' are-. made, for major points r�:of " differences
such as -location, size, amenities;, age, quality and
condition of improvements, desirability, ; income
•potential,. , -and- the like. , > : Various methods, of
comparison . Include,-!,. but are not limited to, the.
overall sales price. per unit, salesprice peri"squa
re
foot of net ,rentable area,, . and_ the -gross--in
come
multiplier. On the. basis .of these. comparisons, an
estimate of the market value`.- of 'the 'property, being
appraised `is .reached.:
C. Income Approach
The ,Income . Approach,. is based on,' t:he : premise. that
investment properties are normally ;sold in proportion,•
to their ability to.* produce• a' competitive net income.
The Income Approach involves- an analysis : :•of the
,property, in terms of its ability. to; provide', a'., net
annual return on invested cap 'tal. . ° The estimated net
annual . income is processed by: capitalizing t . at a .
, , .
rate appropriate; for that type of property at a
I HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES ;' WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of •Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
particular point in time. The capitalization rate is
derived primarily from an analysis of the market,
including comparable sales, the . current mortgage
market, investor motivation, risk inherent to
ownership. of the property, and rates of return being
obtained ,for 'other_ real estate investments, as well as
capital investments in. general.
Comments
The Market Data Approach as it applies to land value is the
primary approach used in this report.
� 12
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
r C
• f
Appraisal of_,Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
V. Market. Sales Discussion = =
The chart on the facingpage lists sales in the subject's
P 9 7
area. Supplemental to the sales chart is general-= market
data obtained from local realtors that deals with' current
listings or parcels that are currently in ,escrow. --
All of .the above data is .considered in estimating a value
for the subject properties. Certain of the selected data
is allocated greater weight in arriving at a value
conclusion. This data consists of -recorded sales which are
factual transactions that reflect market considerations as
Y
expressed b buyer and seller.
P Y
Land. listings are also considered. However, what must be
remembered when listings are considered is that the listing
price has not been tested in the market. Generally
speaking, listings represent the upper valuation range for
a particular property.
Options and parcels in escrow are also part of a valuation
criteria. In these cases_ a market price has been reached,
however, the sale has not been recorded and for many
reasons may never be consummated.
Each of the listed sales will be discussed together with
other appropriate data. At the termination of this
discussion a market range is set forth. When each of the
subject properties are discussed, reference is made to the
13
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels , Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
market range and a fair market value for the subject set
forth.
Sales 1 and 2 : are both located on. Briones Valley Road.
These were acreage sales. but sales that could be and were,
subsequently subdivided (see following Sales 2b and 2c) .
These sales are older ( 198.9 ) and reflect , P arcels with an
unknown water source at the date of sale.
Sales. 2b and 2a reflect the division of Sale 2. Both
subdivided parcels sold in 1990 for $150,000 and $169,000,
respectively. They are 5 and 6 acres in size. . Both have
water in the form of. wells and easement access to Briones
Valley Road.
Sale 3 is the sales of a 5 acre parcel in a rural
subdivision.. It has access to public water via Morgan
Territory Road. The site is an .'attractive parcel that
upslopes to the top of a knoll.
Sale 4 is .the sale in December of 1990 of :`a 47-. 85 acre
parcel for $27.51000, which has subsequently been subdivided
into 10-acre parcels. One parcel is currently -in escrow at
$190,000 . Parcels have well water and a road has been-
graded from Deer Valley. to serve the subdivided parcels.
Sale 5 was the sale in 1991 of a 20 . acre parcel with a
modular dwelling. The purchase price, excluding the
i 14
I HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Marsh Creek Road Brentwood CaliforniaAppraisal of Three Parcels,
modular dwelling, was $230, 000. The site is attractive,
comprising ridge slopes and buildable areas, and also has
a well.
Sale 6 was the sale of a 75.63 acre parcel for $400,000 in
June of 1991 . It has the potential for subsequent
subdivision and had wells on the parcel at the date of
sale.
Sales 7 and 8 represent two 5. 98 acre parcels that sold in
Sa p t
October ' 1991 and January 1992 for $160,000 and $157,000,
respectively. Both have wells and easement access to Deer
Valley Road.
Transaction 9 as of March 1992 is in escrow. This is a
40 acre parcel with two wells selling for $256, 000.
The following listings are noted:
22 acres - $245, 000
'` 22 acres $275, 000
40 acres -"$195, 000
The above parcels have wells and access by easement to Deer
Valley Road. Transaction 9 is part of the subdivided area.
Four parcels, each 40 acres in size with wells producing 50
to 70 gallons per minute, are located to the north of the
15
J HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
subject parcels. The listing price is $329,000. Access is
by easement from Briones Valley Road.
The above represents the market data considered in valuing
the subject parcels. All of the sales, escrow, or listing-
parcels'
istingparcels have a water source and either front on a major.
roadway or have access to . such an arterial viaroadway
easement:
-16
�_ HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief :
. The statements of fact contained in this report are
true and correct.
. The P
,reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are
P Y
limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting
conditions, and are my personal, unbiased, professional
analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in the
property that is the subject of this report, and have no
personal interest or bias with respect to the parties
involved.
. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event
resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in,
or---the use of, this report.
My analyses, opinions, and .conclusions were developed,
and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the
requirements of the Code ofProfessional Ethics and the
Standards of Professional Practice of the American Institute
of Real Estate Appraisers.
The use of this report is subject to the requirements
of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers relating
to review by its duly authorized representatives.
�_ HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
. As of the date of this report, I, Hector R. Leslie,•
have completed the requirements under the continuing education
program of .the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
I have made a personal inspection of the property -that
is, the subject of this report.
wo
No one provided significant professional assistance to
the person signing this report.
Respectfully submitted,
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES
Hector R. Leslie, M.A.I.
t
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
-
i
Appraisal of -Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
i ASSESSOR'.S PARCEL -NO. 078-140-1771
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 15635 Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood
OWNER: Frederick and Paula Schiff`
DATE ACQUIRED:. . January 1990 '
RECORDED: BOOK: 15596 PAGE: 581
REVENUE STAMPS: -
PURCHASE PRICE: $375,000 - -
ASSESSED VALUATION: .
LAND: ' $264, 828 -
IMPROVEMENTS:- 117 ,671
TOTAL: $382,499
1990-91 TAX RATE: - TAXES: -
CODE AREA: 58011
ZONING: A-2
HIGHEST AND BEST USE: See following remarks.
INTERVIEWED: Rick Schiff, 2/26/92, at his property
ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALUE: $425,000
IHECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California. .,,
PROPERTY DATA
A. Site Description
The subject parcel is rectangularly shaped except for its.
easterly line which conforms to Marsh Creek Road.. In the
aggregate, the site is some 19.972 acres in size.
Topography-wise, the site is diverse. Approximately 5 acres, 's
the easterly one-quarter, contains the existing residence and is ,
fairly.- level' with .elevations of 420 to 430 feet along Marsh
Creek Road. The higher elevations; about 450 feet, are found °
towards the northwest corner of the five acre parcel. '
The residual acreage, some 15 acres, is rectangular in shape and
consists of a ride slope. - Elevations at the to '.,;I-of the parcel
g P P
are ..770 feet and at toe of slope are .430 to 440 feet.
Apond is located along the 15 acre east line. The ridge .area
is tree covered and provides views towards the north, northwest
and' northeast. , : .
B. Utilities
Sewer: Septic system
Power: P.G. & E.
Water: Presently the water system consists of a pump and tank
located outside of but adjacent to the property's
north line. It is not a well but is referred to as a
Spring Box. Water is collected by percolation or
natural drainage. The original owner was contacted as
to water availability. Apparently only one well was
drilled that produced water at approximately 10 to 15
gallons per minute. This well was located on' the
Vieville parcel. The well has since played out!
Other wells were drilled but did not produce potable
water. All parties in this area truck .in. water for
domestic .use. =k
G
1
i
s
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
( Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
The subject property contains a one story, brick single family
residence in average condition. It is a ranch style design consisting
of 2,232 square feet. The house contains a concrete foundation
(family room is concrete slab) , Spanish tile roof surface, galvanized
sheetmetal gutters and downspouts,. and steel casement window frames.
The single family residence contains a partial basement of
approximately 2.80 square feet with, poured concrete . walls
approximately. 7 feet in height.
The front of .the home includes a ,9 foot wide porch overhang which
includes the full length of the front entrances. The rear patio area
is irregularly shaped .and contains approximately 700 square feet of
aggregate patio. The exterior is painted brick and shows some minor
signs of settling (cracks) :
The interior of the improvement contains 7 rooms which include 3
bedrooms, a living room, dining - room, family room, . kitchen plus
laundry area, and 2 bathrooms. The -kitchen contains parquet floors,
brick and drywall walls, extensive wood cabinets, built-in 4 burner
stove plus oven and Jenn-Aire stove, trash compactor, double. sink unit
with garbage disposal, built-in dishwasher, fan plus hood,
refrigerator, in-window air conditioner, tile countertops,
incandescent light fixtures, and wallpaper. The adjacent laundry room
has parquet floors, washer and dryer, older metal storage cabinets and
wood cabinets,, single sink unit, built-in ironing board and tile
countertop.
Bathroom A contains a shower stall with resilient tile, linoleum
floor, toilet, sink unit with tile countertop, older metal framed
roll-out windows, medicine cabinet with mirror, and incandescent light
fixtures .
Bathroom-B contains wall to wall carpeting, toilet bowl, double sink
unit with large ceramic the vanity, sunken tile shower with double
showerhead and glass doors, laundry chute, built-in shelves, mirror,
and wallpaper on ceiling and walls.
The living room contains oak plank floors, drywall and brick walls,
wood surfaced cathedral ceiling, and a raised hearth, ceramic tile,
recirculating fireplace. The dining area is adjacent to the living
room and combines the same general features with large pane glass
windows and coverings.
The three bedrooms contain wall to wall carpeting, metal framed roll-
out windows, painted sheetrocked walls and ceilings, and spot lights
attached to ceiling surfaces.
The family room was a later add-on and contains a concrete slab floor,
all brick interior walls, wall to wall carpeting, incandescent light
fixtures, older metal framed roll-out windows, and rear yard exit
door.
LHECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California '.,.,
The heat is. furnished by a. forced air gas heater in the living room,
family room, dining room, kitchen and laundry room. The two rear
bedrooms, .,hallway and bathroom -are heated by means of a gas wall
heater located in the hallway. ,The bathrooms contain .small electric
bathroom heaters.
Theelectric wiring is 110 with 220 available. According to the
owner, the roof is approximately- 7 years old and the septic system was
installed approximately 2 years ago. - The owner also stated that the }
recent drought has resulted in •insufficxent water from the existing
well.. , Local well drillers have quoted costs from $25,000 to $30,000
for a .deeper well to correct the problem. Currently the owner is
trucking in water to satisfy the family's needs._ r.
I
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
HIGHEST .AND BEST 'USE..
The highest and best use is that use which will produce the greatest
g P
land return. .In thisinstance, the issue is the. division---of the
larger parcel .(19.972 acres) into. smaller parcels., _ ---
The-exist ing::residence sits..on.five acres. Thus., .thee residual acreage
is 14.972. The property owner has provided two plat maps. The first
indicates the division. of the .14+ acres into two parcels, while..the
second indicates the - 14 acres as one parcel. Given the parcel's
terrain, the two parcel .division appears to be the most feasible.
Based upon zoning, it is possible that the parcel's residual acreage
would be capable of a three parcel subdivision. The owner's parcel
maps- would value the division of the larger parcel into two units.
, Such a division would appear more compatible with comparable data.
f_
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
COST APPROACH
A. Land Valuation
The land is valued based upon the highest and best use premise
which considers. the land, as if vacant, as three individual
sites: -
• 5 acre parcel,
14 .972 acre parcel with the possibility of a parcel.
split
1. . . ,.._
The sales chart» sets forth land sales of various acreage.
Certain of these sales reflect smaller acre parcels (5± acres) .
Sales 2b and ' 2c sold for $157,500 and $169,000, respectively.
Both of these sales have well water, access . to a paved arterial
over a defined roadway, and are located in an area considered
more desirable than the subject area.
...Sales 7 and 8 are late 1991/early 1992 sales that reflect
selling prices of $157,500 to $160,000, respectively, for 5.98
acre. parcels . Both sales have access to well water and a paved
arterial. The base for these sales is $157,000. The subject
lots are less desirable because:.
A roadway must be constructed to serve the residual 15
acre parcel, and
The subject parcels do not have a proven source of
water. The below valuation does not penalize the
acreage for lack of a proven well but states factually
that the parcel does not have a proven water source.
Based upon the foregoing, a value of $120,000 per site for the
subject is used, .- Thus,
3 sites at $120,000 per site = $360,000
B. Improvement Valuation
Cost New:
Residence - 2,232+ sq.ft. at $70 per sq.ft. $156,240
Owner Porch Allowance- 5,000
Patio - 700+ sq.ft. at $5.00 _per sq. ft. = 3,500
Miscellaneous, . septic, fencing 2,500
Total Cost New $167,240
Accrued Depreciation (35%) 57,659(2)
Depreciated Value $109,581
Rounded to $109,500
Reflects basement area
(2) Depreciation against $164, 740
i
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, Califor-ni,a.
C. Recap
. Land' Valuation $360,000.
Improvement Valuation $109,500
Total $469,500
i
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of -Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
MARKET DATA APPROACH
The Market Data Approach by definition is a procedure in which an
appraiser derives a value indication by comparing the property being
appraised to similar properties that have been sold recently, applying
appropriate units of comparison -and making adjustments based on the
elements of comparison to the sale prices of the comparables.
In the Market Data definition, the world "similar" is used. What this
word means is the appraiser researches sales, improved or vacant, in
the subject's area and after a field review of that data selects
F.
parcels that have the least amount of. adjustment factors.
What better sales to use in estimating a value . for . the subject .
property but the sale of the subject itself and the sale of an
adjacent improved parcel. - _
The subject property sold in January 1990 for $375,000. Current
appraisal date is March/April 1992. The subject sale is approximately
two years and three months old. It is our understanding that little
if any changes to the property have been made since the sale date of
January 1990 . The question then is has the market in general changed
since the purchase date?
The majority of the subject's market value lies in its land. Thus,
a study of the land sales would shed some light on the subject's
appreciation over time.
Land Sale 2b is currently in escrow at $150,000. Land Sale 2c sold
in November 1990 for $169,000. Sale 2b sold without commission.
Sales 7 and 8 sold on October 16, 1991 for $160,000 and on January 6,
1992 for $157,50.0, respectively. Both these sales have a similar
location to Sales .2b and 2c.
Based upon the above, the subject's land would not indicate any
appreciation over the holding period.
The Frederick Burks dwelling, located several hundred yards north of
the subject was optioned b Waste Management in December of 1990 for
subject, P Y g
$550,000. The option:_ price is :thus 1+ years in arrears. Waste
Management also pays the Burks $20,000 per year as option money. The
parcel is rented and the Burks receive the rental . income.
The option price was based upon two appraisals : one at $600,000 and
.; the other at $530,000.
A brief comparison of the Burks parcel to the subject would indicate
_ the following:
Burks Subiect
Dwelling Size 3, 158+ sq.ft. 2,232 + sq.ft.
Acreage 40.297 19. 972
Possible Sites 2-3 2-3
Wells Yes No
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
The Burks ' dwelling is some 900 plus sq.ft. larger than the subject
and architecturally a far'. superior. structure. Acreage-wise, the-
Burks ' .parcel has twice. the acreage of the subject and is. superior to
the subject. The Burks' parcel,. per Mr. Burks, has the .potential to
split into .2 to 3 sites. Assuming" three sites, each site would be
.13.43± acres in size. The subject has residual acreage of. 15± acres.
If split equally, each site would be 7 .5 acres in size or
approximately one-half the size of the Burks ' . 1A:
The Burks- , do have. ' a well that was. eventually drilled to 320 feet.
According to Mr. Burks; the well provided water - for their use on a
year round basis . However, Mr. Burks stated that the water was
carefully rationed.
Presently the house is ,rented. The well does not provide sufficient
-water for the tenant's PP
usage. Mr. Burks su lements0=,the well for
rental usage, by trucking in water.
To the agreed- purchase price of $555,000, the option money of $20,000
per year, should be added. A purchase. price of $595,000 as of 1992
: would be created.
Based upon the foregoing, the market value of the subject, considering
the purchase price of $375,000, owner improvements since the purchase
date, and lack of land value appreciation' since purchase date, a,
market value of $375, 000- is reasonable :as of today's .'date.
Considering the subject against the Burks property, the subject -is a
substantially inferior parcel as to improvements and overall parcel
size. Further, the Burks parcel has a better location off Marsh Creek
Road, anda proven, though limited, water source .
Based upon the Burks' -parcel, market value for the subject in the
$400,000 to $425, 000 range is not incomprehensible.
4 HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
CORRELATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
The considered approaches provided the following:
Cost Approach $469,500
Market Approach $375,000 to $425,000
The Cost Approach considers basically the value of the land as if
vacant. Inherent in this assumption is that the land has access to
an acceptable water source and arterial access. Neither of these
r
assumptions. is supportable. as of the date of this appraisal.
In the Market Approach the sale of the subject in 1990 is considered.
The, question now, as related to sales date, is what has transpired
with respect to the subject itself or the market in general since the
purchase date? What has to be considered is the Burks ' sale at
$595,000 for a. parcel twice the size of the subject and with a far
superior. dwelling.
Based upon the foregoing, a market value of $425,000 for the subject
is used.
C
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
c-r
..
a
Ct
4
IC+
iC+
_ w
1
I
\ Cd
W
�- O o __ x
LLJ2 Q ; M 2 F
O � �
`JU Q 'Notice: This is neither a plat nor a ?` o
L0 t o survey. It is furnished merely as a ��� <<•�'°`'
AJ z
convenience to aid you in locating the
U o land indicat.d hereon with reference to
Cr U N s:;vets and 'ther land. No liability is
f A a A a a
•fri�6� rp aAA�QI�.
Alp aA A•1Ay:
Q O z Q �� 2ssumzd �, :;.ci;,an Of aay reliance hereon.*
CLzo `o
F- O N maffQf�►aOfM !y
_ N f ftH�JNN ty yf_
n
LL
NLA-
.n
►— vi Wff ^gong p 1
Q O O a W. bf�p'd b1ONm0mg�F.
OOV��NNNNp,G.
W
U f��N 1
e r N
QD
.J
W ( c'wd cz d3d)
,Cf'6LGz SONIMr3e
h►. _ _ 3 z!! ,61'0661 3.1L,00.0 N
NJ u
_ W 4 W� 4 Y `j p� 'gip► � � (� •
►N-y « �rN O W� ala �J .DL `'r
OV ZEU ONW Cil 1- �O�O�NO,ONmt W� ' h' ./� �F'� �'� •�
4 m A Mj Cy
$A andAAJO
(
0: -,J W�' Oaf W:WiW;3 -O
AO a "' Q n,a.1NN_• A„ajOn QUA fp
Oa W
Cr
r
`p N2 NRj wl�nly„�N_' NO =l
aO,�nbfnNaW, - ;-
u Z nn maofoa. h f` Yr
41—
TT
J N It!Wy�jI
Z 2W H F J i0Q0 0!
i OjW rrzZ61 6, 3,LC.o0.o NCL ski 0. — — mCy 6
e$�n
ZZ
N A p -.
A 0 ti V< Com�4D CDW - W l
40
6• n @I: td J
Ida
O CL Q ./• _ = W n�o: N
40P,
40 �•, T,
N O p :-
haCL
V0g 3 ,io'a99r ! e ,00.002 \`J
N J a .10'BZ61 < M, 1Z.92.o N M.ZL.10.0N
cc
a Y d a W>1�
t W
V N 1 O N 1 , h
Z� < e u 1�
W uO _ �J 43 W • 8 X1.1
CL Ci
In C14
20pp W in W5 81 Z<W01� N L l ^ -Nfr1N ,f C.CIE-Q.. cc
Ja y+>_ "t,-2 O a'a WWW W „ W j-I
O of �`u; .Q p� u u O pWp O itp rty CW
q W',�i a
N•
2 d Q '�yIW`2 Ua=i aty2Q Of 1r k?N
�vWf �� I��= 4Y!►"N� eN
3 Zx O f1v
a •O
.00'0[61 $Vc9
:on ' ^ ►1'CB:Z A.6',9Z .0 N •.{�L2LCZ
LJ� �nY jnhnl
to
N t `4. v - ..s'F i_q`z y r,i t s � ry :t--• tt"'
6ar 4 dbi\} �{-p� 1 `(y v .S SC ,,�, h.-fu ver•..
�w�SaSb��'•r""'$��} Me"ni,
S> ,,,,,G{ �, :. t Q `►�, i� .'�. + ? r'a � �t t(t i {'` +)r-it 2• +� } t� �y's4
��_
w 'ti.j,+ w �• 'Mi �� !�Y'e�� r 't ll� M`i, `.rt�,+y r iil� 1T,tr _ r
�$•�>.a a�� �:,G',ti3r�.�r�,u' � _ � ,�� t�, �t.�+�;'� �J,�2 a�qr� L��rt ,''r a��, " � .#�:`:
J'i�j �"`•3'9'rxtt.r. z��.` .� ,.. �� ,' �� r tw('� R•}�,�} r v� o�., iriY"`yi t`,Y -•+s�� " t4'x � ,}�.' '6 e-.t �,
� �?j'f is +r �. � '�s" �i���-,. {�'' ^,�iti�v°' �1 ��r ���•w S6hyr�}f��.l �,>y
S n#�s3" f Sv, 4x ' 31
� • 3.'t t.1 Yz ",ets� .*;fit"t ? ��},�4t r. •j`y,,{a�Y'�•6�.^' x,.� t -_ dSui.
•..t Zr e+.�. ° ;-� _�.. ll'-I fps 5*�„`-a {4 �+'k�Y',' f.7�� F 4�'^144.r L=,� r..'+t•.fy t y,`. tq
•4�"� ANyx, tii`v k x' 'Xp�-r.�D4i''�,�,r,., '+,�bt•�N,rr"•tS"� �yg� -�.
•'^kT r
`, u :.�!'s; .•t 13 ,°d. f+ .. �a��mss, ,�. ,� ����t7x �k,,�„k.•3 'rct'tt�i�y
' a Y .:, �.. ., �, rs�o. .�.5� a!i �`,4•\� +r �frk {Y����ytt.,
S � .L•1M �ci{:xA^F�M�i..y:w •b,l' 'Y.:�»�A•� ..(.'i
, ~
it � ``:fly r�lri� r ~��•�r\t:� j r i �...
f i
<:`s`-xA i�`r*`:',,�Frr 1�•: S" L:�:+' ..,+..� Kd �.r
I u.
(�
_ i +j t �,'u/ t n d1 � ! I ! r ,t .� fS.•S y�S fy i / „ I a
� ,7`� I • I I �: ,�}•r 1 R @A t - Y�} `A �3-� 1 t��yr F� :!�� x ���.,
-f 215 d. ,: r 1 •� .r•.r.r I 1tA i i4 .� d7 � K �.�y9 }l+ip 4 j. �{ fq 'ty+ gy'rP+
'� 9 t i It f i L ,S .3 -.�"{ �(+t.. ft` _ � r�{�' -� F� ,� ���hLf �.�y ,h• tri .+r-i_.
_�„� x-`r ' ' tl � > � 'CM,%+ :.�,t •:��� }}(� }=� 1q� i� ajj;�� � - � �a� .�rli,�
;tz�"t app-•,may t4 r� �'.: PON, t} + r,s�' fs t �"',�{-.x. •.i -, �� ..���,
' 't F'+. ••�' .'E I -af i. b Y�: }(qiy.� Ut c d�`r `�,} '�., t„�t
Will.,S 1.r 1 _ / l� -.! ; �l ,+' dry N• 3$ !Ff;^j �+� .�s��M .
1
t11
(1(��rf f.'
FF I r� 1 f i t
Ira• ri ll
Y ._.f ! •I:•. � / ` %i.%.��. .='1 tip S S. .:t.�. �i I, .-
vl `tZlp'Rtr t i 9�i i 1f..
! •�i Al 4'a f t�"`v l ry t•Ifl .r^d�4`�,{��� '�.�� ` "V� S,
�j.,.- fL't..r•.ri� ?'� 4'S a� "\ ,���.t .a��� ar ;x r1f,r,?# ., .,4h t• ,3'-
3'�+€�¢�a�i'��s'Lr.�,t �4*�3��(�;'l��}�"1f� °t�'�� `� L�Y� � '� �1 � �j•�.S}���`�f f''v,;�t"-).k F4 � � ,� .�'t £e
VAC• a 1�'S7`.v\4t 4 tic iY,i *- }�rr9 ,'r 9' �++s
f{Ktyn h' s" F} td r A ;' S�[ }Y� �74 f��f°iat � L 1i `ff1 �. Ky1+ •^~ 'f
67
+�a ^� .
.1vf7+.�;;i'iir,tit'+• a+si�i�"�... S.e:,i r.'>� ,tri. 1�"�.•'� :.i. �'?. st{'3�� t-. ,,,,i
•
p�,'�."�:C �3,R�..]•p•�.tP' r^o'�Iy4 ^'+R'yl.'Nc'c rte° .,F�s�.�7
i `["�+�l� -Sac as�$+ ,«'W �ji'� +^"""i r >•" ": �v'-1 ozF rT!^7 aV'
�'ti[��4,�e��l�,- - �1� -•.,cG �'�F"'Z'�-'i � z� t l y �,f«
'rl"I
``y�lr 1'a E'��r" ."1���+��prJ �r�� r .�r'�" • -�i°T�p�f�dT� •'•.�r� `��•� � � �..�v.
4rw t i'4�ript 4e
D? L
al
a
{tit)t 1.S, �w..{,`� yr � „ Ir>' yLdnnir•a t�,,.�.,r, L�h���� ' � ���'i � � Y+'K'^�'`f",(a'�S+l�.rykl zed}.'JY
:I `'hilt-Y'�' xtlt $l WL�,+c O's,71fr.«` v�y ,-c'c'7 1 '^ rC _ trJ w�S!'jjrSj:l c Lo. FL eyk ' c `r�Sdk ay
j
ran'1 � r�c 4i14�['3 t«F�ar'r c},� 1 Y!•„a k°" ril y
1 r a• �D � ,
g
- �rry�--
49
atlr+�wMrG1a� ir#r^ r!' a,"ri"b'4 !^ a + •' .,-
xR +c
.[ i,s
" 'tc�"yhp�'t}.K�`�*-�.' Nt ✓�,/„"a> +T .
�$)rt.�ry jT� -i�"�+n4' `�..y_45��'-' �t�y'`tj t�' rfi�..F�Y^'-�'ty � �y.r�Yr`""'+tiv�i �..., .;,� T.�.i.�.e„•(�,tq� "`�ry.
•"fT r 7 C
OY+M'Y.'M +t1c , ♦i •+:Sr y j k `M�, ti� ,.c« a' .Y y fY
Sf°t i r #���w ay .,..+^> «q"tlSl�"'{• r. � � l� �rJr 1���r,F,*c.. ���„�4^' _r^'l.ro{�•-a"t' x'n. �7< 1r1!r: s "w '
1 �.: � wr 7 c.��q }.a�,�,'"+N+1'';� r e �Y'iy��C+ telr,"af'�.Sy�P�„N�}�,p'i ti� v1�".,�'`+-�1'.`�.: � .'�.�'�"�4 s�1 Ere +. F•:Wh'4cr�L %'a'ci`�'�?l
r"'3.r,>'"�FYx Y.�$� b .�a� i� r�A l 1{I �.' I(Y'�+ �y't�L• b r i.c+«'+.}ai�',�.� ,Ui,� �a f ?+�yt
crN6i��'i
a 4 t r.
h,S r s a C” L!! t
i ? s .x .•-i1 �, t-{.''dA f,'1 tF s'tiar .._ +a.4.1 si r- iwrw4`Y ad" `rib
r. F 7 'FAt`v';1t. 1 '*.oq,+ r i1�47 f, :Y� s Z 'v'' (•yt,( S�" y 1 s,,R r r s _Dr 1 4,
rt„ .p ryt ip as .1• 'i v Mc� s .n'+[S'f�•'iy,,F'"il�4` -5. K} �«i -� 1 `l.•�.�
�l f.�rgtnl�l�"''jtr«L ..ca'-�,�st t$,�i fl3a v r ` E• • ,./'� s, ti.r a `+• � f to -
Y lzl
:> �f - "rel a Ir .r r�, ti tl �r (YaGa'Fi c, � r�•.'' 1- s nYr_
'T'7a .4.1: ;.�c E. $r�.G?"Vl[f K a[•. ? t.` �y"'.'tC
_tet,
C
r Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 078-140-018-9
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 15595 Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood
OWNER: Frederick E. and Pauline A. Burks
DATE- ACQUIRED: N/A
RECORDED: BOOK: - PAGE: -
REVENUE, STAMPS: -
PURCHASE PRICE: Purchased bare land in 1976_ ... .
ASSESSED VALUATION:
LAND: $ 38,998
IMPROVEMENTS: 260,486
TOTAL; . $299,484
1990/91 TAX RATE: - . - TAXES: - .
CODE AREA: 58011
ZONING: A-2
HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Residential
INTERVIEWED: Mr. Burks, 2/24/92, at property
ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALUE: $625,000
LHECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal .of- Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
PROPERTY DATA
A. Site Description
The subject parcel is rectangular in shaped and 40.297 acres in
size. It has access to Marsh Creek Road via a dirt road that
extends from the Burks parcel across Parcel C to Marsh Creek.
Topography-wise the subject has some level area along the .
southerly one-quarter of the parcel. From the -level area the
site slopes upward in a northerly direction, until the ridge.
linea or north .property line is reached. Elevations along the
south property line are in the 500 foot .range. . Elevations at
ridge top exceed 1,000 feet-. -
A fire road cuts diagonally through the approximate center of
the parcel: From the fire road north the land appears. too steep
for development. However, two sites could be. developed below
the fire road at the parcel's west and. east, boundaries There
is some tree cover along the site's west line.
B. Utilities
Sewer Septic tank -
Power: P.G. & E. and propane
Waters According to Mr. Burks, he had a well drilled on the
property. They drilled to 120 feet, hit water at both
25 and 85 feet, and ultimately drilled to 320 feet..
The well was sufficient for the Burks ' usage (two
individuals) . However, Mr. .Burks stated that they
were careful and used only the water that was.
available each day. The parcel is now rented and the .
Burks must supplement the well water by trucking in.
.: enough water for the tenants ' (four persons ) use. Mr.
Burks had the well tested and it was approved by. the
ff County.
} HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
ADDRESS: 15595 Marsh Creek Road PARCEL NO: 078-140-018-9
PROPERTY USE: - Residential AGE: Circa 1987
NO. OF UNITS: One TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Frame
.. EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION
Foundation:' Concrete
Siding: Shingle
Roof: : Shingle
Gutters & Downspouts: Yes . ,
MISCELLANEOUS
Square footage of 3 200 total per Mr. Burks
q g ,
INTERIOR DESCRIPTION
Floors: Tile to carpet
Windows: For the most part solid pane
Walls: Sheetrock, painted to wine barrel staves
Total No. of Rooms/Allocation:
First: 6 rooms - 3 bedrooms, bathroom, laundry, family room
Second: 6 rooms - 2 bedrooms, bathroom, living room, dining
area, kitchen
Heat: Wood stove, some perimeter electric
Baths: 2 - the first has tile floor, unit tub and shower with
glass door, . basin, toilet;... the second has -tile. floor, tub,
( toilet, and large circular tile shower.
Kitchen: Tile floor, drywall walls .and ceiling; tile drain and
splash, fluorescent lighting, one incandescent over sink,
range and oven, hood and fan.
Electrical: Average for unit
General Condition: . Average
9
Comments: The subject improvement is a uniquely designed
dwelling. Outside bedrooms, both floors, are constructed
from a wine vat. . On the second floor the dining area .
j comprises the upper area of the vat. The front or east
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
portion of the dwelling has large windows with a living
area allocated to family room on the first . floor and living
room on the second floor. The dwelling is supported by two
center posts with beams that extend away from the post in
a circular fan position. The second floor bedrooms and
dining area ceilings are cathedral type and of wood finish.
The second floor is reached by a circular type stairway.
The overall flow of the house is excellent.
f
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of .Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
COST APPROACH
A. Land Valuation
The sales chart sets forth selected sales that have- taken place
in the subject area. .
. Sale 2 sold in June 1989 for $256, 000. It is a 40 acre parcel
that was subsequently split into three 13+ acre parcels. Two of
the 13±. acre parcels were subsequently re-subdivided. The sale
parcel is superior. to the subject . as to its potential for
division into smaller sites. The sales topography, which is
flat to toe. of slope to slope, is superior to that of the
subject. Further, the sale has proven wells.
Sale 4 sold in .December of 1990 for $275,000. It has excellent
frontage on -Deer Valley - Road and has subsequently been
subdivided. One parcel that is 10 acres in size has sold for
$190,000. A road is being graded to provide arterial access to
Deer Valley. The roadway will serve. all of the subdivided
acreage. -
Sales. 7. and 8 reflect. the sale of a 6+ acre parcel for $157,500
and $160,000,; respectively.
Transaction 9 indicates the sale ' of a 40 acre parcel for
$256,000. Adjacent to this transaction are two 22 acre parcels
listed for $245,000 and $275,000, respectively. All of these
parcels are part of a 4 lot subdivision due to be recorded when
the roads and wells are completed.
The considered sales all have proven wells with a .capacity of 5+
gallons per minute.
Considering the foregoing, the subject sites are valued as
follows :
1 20-acre site $155,000
2 10-acre sites $135,000 each
Total Land Value $425, 000
B. Improvement Value
Cost New:
Residence
1st: 1,600 sq.ft. at $75 per sq.ft. _ $120,000
2nd: 1, 600 sq. ft. at $75 per sq.ft. x 92% _ $110,400
Basement: 750 sq. ft. at $15 per sq. ft. $11,250
Miscellaneous decks, patio area $15,000
Cost New $256, 650
Depreciation ( 15% ) $38, 500
E:
Depreciated Value $218, 150
I
Rounded to $218, 000
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
A raisal of Three Parcels Marsh Creek Road Brentwood California
C. Recap
Land Valuation $425,000
Improvement Valuation $218,000
Total $643,000
MG
IF
�Y
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
„Appraisal of Three Parcels; Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
MARKET DATA APPROACH
The , s.ub 'ect ..is unique. as to architectural. d
J. q esign and construction.. .,.
Similar properties are, for all practical purposes, non-existent.
Absent comparable sales,. the optiom .price of , $555,000 'as of December
1990 can be used as:.a basis for the, market analysis. To ' the base ; .
price. of' $555,000 is added the option payments of $20.,000 per year ,.or ”
a total =6-f, $40,000. The $40,000 represents .a 7 :2 percentincrease':. z
over the two year option period.
While the market, actual land sales wrould :indiccite' a .flat or slightly
declinin land. value" the improvements, because z=
g p , of: their un .
and to.'the right purchaser, could absorb the increased percentage.
HECTOR
LESLIE/AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
�,
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood,' California
CORRELATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE
The considered valuation estimates produced the following valuation
estimates:
Cost .Approach $643,000
Market Approach $595,000.
In the Market Approach 'a consensus of value was reached between the
parties. This consensus was arrived at by independent property
appraisals. However, .because of the uniqueness of the improvements,
the parcel's value is subject to a range reflectingpurchaser's
acceptance of. improvement design and construction.
The same comments pertain to, the Cost Approach as it relates to
depreciation estimates. Little physical depreciation is taken because
of the age of the structure. — Functional obsolescence, i.e. , the
design and--construction of the-improvements themselves., is subjective.
Considerin the: above a.market. value of $625,000 is set forth.
g _ , $
f
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
i
i 2
+ I
( s z r i r 1 •I% < n f��1„� 7ys.
4 C - ^i* ( �. �' �M �, YF�C ,ryr 'Ta`^ k,J✓''j .y,4�4��t 1 ..,y ..:r
I me
>7`ngq t f �++lr,»a ,+✓'*Ili
yed,,. �r"e TtF�,••v�'�.'II�T ° `y$ �a
ya{.�,' x'�# �" ,,•F .•' ,�rY��y �`� �'�` �"�1t ..t r��+ ,.:
�faj\g
�$ ...* a '�✓ r,' �" ,�`• r Pu ti �.„ t' 'tel,. ' 9�§°I r _ � �n3 t
� I ,.< �^' a ty+t» j: �ff�t �{' ..pY �r.t�+..r as < t♦ }�`F s1 S y� \
} KI �'x.zea^` r � � ,�, r p- r}�y�� � 4 d a �� �' �-'S 1P fi e ��fj�N,�l Ly `S t''•q�'�++$+f � ,
ly.t,}{��' ff.'s+cN as�}�R� r''Y �.. .���'f5frs< x'+�3�ti Yf La' tF.?e.' `�' '.°�'°�' .� •`
,.',('r'• ty"�C �! 9 7c^4{�!elf,x ��n'�. J� .� .g .�pn.c,SY.�#�s f�,,} � tFt<"f't
�� r Paf, F"'�k..f.�;:; �*at « e. n+; bra r�,l., ..?:_ i,:r: s7SR�-���y�ri'+�+�• ,�!3i�rs r ;�y'> .Y
1 I t
' i n ,{Y n Y 4 �; r ��Lx.�✓ i r,
K �. r -r, ��"..✓'�'� X511 S �y.l'�'A ,}.v S .5 } ��
' ^,`y ,Yv y h•. � �,:1�� �n r �'�� +�f: C Ar.�r". ,�'�,� 4- h Y r T3°+ag I ss `� '&
�,tx�'f k� i7 A.f d h� r� `t.� .. -.`^?,y$ "g`v'vF.`Y' •+v ,�iy� Y"�.� 4.,r� � v.F +'i r
•� + r.� t �: ,,.� ''.'S; r r "l"��h� '" x^�}„�' : y c> a'-e z t�t�f{eft+���7
�� ° �� '� �. `£,,,pp�.�•G.�' ti�r.,�$��tij �i�a�+,e,� � �+t�;�;;�qp!'.., -1��es�^t✓_""g,� ' :�`�A��='t117��'i`
• r r"G sry il' t• f ,R y }�, �+�r.�i�3r,5��-�.'.�gC\ '"3..4'f v ;s�
F r n Y � ✓ � 'fn "Z RIP
*�?.-1^"' Yvn., * c�
p w
01 I ��• �l/v •��
14 Z V !_
y t
73
t'?
:$ 4 � o'�f�w.£,.,� r �.t ,�r,,.�- ��r. •ts 7,z�i�-..- {�r�V`"��'. y�" s(94 � �Ir$. '�'��:
� � �•„"�;"�'�'�Zc,�;v-�4 'L�', ..M n 4 .:t n'� +�s "fix'x a*r•.. nc,�iri ..; � I ,, F...rs
b 4'r,y,y : w 1s ^" �r�'VW i �5__` � }{t ie,e. .h t.*s.* � sa� �.,V _ f.Zt:•h
z ti '+;`%o f%k) r���
+�..
-
✓' 3Y'e�„`' ,.�re ��l'y� t- l a; u *i " r. a7}lH .s'(A. y(.7 �'sS'y.,r
f,.Y.�y1•Y�Y" t.3\.ft 'a ri 4�'l �Li'' \X�}'i„ ��yV.t-`
'rrT Si5.�1 �T+•�(il,'}'.� {r C.}YSfi�'F,yr� q]wo W,yi Yv.tih. �', If .�p"^ii"�n. `* ➢`� �5'ay� � .� < �'Y.jf
����,,�� x
.,�
K si� �” tRY (k�.�:�+•-1�- w�• 41'� t�Fz t;r✓p• u i, �. ��..
Y����� s' g ,y�sl�•���..� t�.f�"�+� �'" -g'x �^ati��'
�a, x!3`4,-' �< 4 �i��' .t►� T'• M,. <�N��.ial.. �(.f�
a r
t.
4,
{
• 46 :-
r �a
F y ra
r t.
• - t � S � s t:.
• a :��d1 ;. � rrt-tn-r 3� Fenr.- �Ea �`4'w�+ �'�tfii,�';
ALM
• Ya5}'Y F-1 Y +f#p .•Y .r ,3 T - KwY Y iyU.,� �'
;rrf.y vfi`; 1
S1
' ..!! rJ:' [ rot a� �•�•q
a - s 1 c ," r
.41
Y
• es`- �EE!}# F i>' ¢.+.�itiFe t xs d' w}ru•,
V + i t ri'ali3
i ': K
• • - • -
r.,:. .a fj . i CObc
{40uwN o•.2e',s`w 2se31. w °' .l a
23727 !
635.I�f /930.00` tt ��•
1 .
Y
G��o x _ . �� ;o;+moi -syn 4'�•} y� �
lel•": ' e ua
A,41,
aM � • -
`Q.f f'��� b 1uD aM "a'r NbN .Sto ,•. pul.n�,b. .W O l,_t,o<fiT~O 4
a' 0oiOCi • o
xFlIw y - uw f
a
a,
4m
~YHx.X. .�at f+t `• - :o-p f•1 fly
uQl•ugL� ^ b 4 _ YCXtpq 6i •
P C� ;A � _d � p�t ,A Zen
t "l
M :• tw t T -•'. Cf S '''r°, ``v Vis. r'- {/�• .
i .. J,
a N 0:26`21 W > 19280t` :u
N 0'01'52'W a td68.O,t u>i e
' �. 200.00 a 1
ua +� "
*J _ •. Y Qai r6i� abi_ v w-•�1 '`tom �u. N ,..Vi _ v QNi:.
rt i. -� .le w� Y fs .� o • a N..
�
ca O v
b S
Q`•�2. • �i .Ir (� ' '
ts• � �� gyp' N
�N v ` �, 1' ..1�1 ♦f+a L ' r r9i a c r
urti � rn ^; N O 00'57 E 9 1922.14' 2.40_
a
1��OQ� r• +>. '�� /. _mow - ` •^a�coi '
CPO
um, , �oai>ff��>DDxzXxxxxx
. M
4A. . CJ Z / �n cr)(h v�u Z' r N y
PO
t
fri JN . ,r�i r�3 y W00U vi,'NNO�Qb Y '� ` f L Ory^- I,.
Cb *Xmmm
CD
..,
l>�O..O 101;
OO ptN,s�¢q`gr � � +4w•tr+►O � 'fn 7�.' �.� .
y
-i 'yea 0i, u p6 •'raWvam=uNUM� ..
WN
u
ri po }c
zy o
nttf rn
.�D � . •t ZZ t •^ 2 n
J 1934.77' R I t \ — L y a
N O.00 5T'E 1480 79' 1t 2 E a
j— 79.
.0 t� ` SIS' OF,BEARINGS 2535'
T-v (PER 23 PAI 3 r
-. Y TRUE
Mol
1-4
x -
05 14 appP�Opaq� uQpT- •N" "'� '�'1
av aaoUuuav o-
E: D
p Z "O
• • •p•{� • • UOalal( nUEt181 .G?lilnss? ry Z p
...NV ipaOQ�VUN TI _
51 X11110"1( ON Ue( laQ*, yJi S1�; ;S � n
of aaualalai pm U03124 ��iEa,Pui Puz( to
1 °
' , aql BU41eso(:u! nOA die of aauacUa&:oa
°+mowa se fi=aaaw payslUln Matins
E IOU.1C=d 7ai(l�dtl:St S+Yl 11j4H, z
_ ,
.1
} .. it♦. ,
nA=
3
_ C7
O
a
'. Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 078-140-020-5
PROPERTY ADDRESS 15715- Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood .
OWNER: Kymco Inc.
DATE ACQUIRED: :' 1/91' O.C.D.
RECORDED: - BOOK: - PAGE: -
REVENUE STAMPS:,. -
PURCHASE
TAMPS: -PURCHASE PRICEz -
ASSESSED VALUATION:
LAND i $382,034
IMPROVEMENTS• 0
TOTAL: $382,034
1990/91 TAX RATE - TAXES:
CODE AREA: 58011
ZONING: A-2
HIGHEST AND BEST USE: See Highest and Best Use section
INTERVIEWED: Don Schehrer, 2/26/92, at property
ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALUE: $300,000
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal 'of iThree .Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California , „
c PROPERTY DATA
A. Site Description .
The subject parcel is located on the north line of Marsh Creek
Road. It is 41.699 acres in size and has almost . '900feet of
frontage on Marsh Creek Road. Overall, the property, slope is
steep,- . and.. from parcel frontage to north property line.,
. Elevation along Marsh Creek. Road ranges from 380 to . 400 -.feet.,;-
Along the. north property line . the elevations are in excess of
900 feet.
B. Utilities
The . site has access to ' electricity and telephone. Sanitaryf
sewer. isrovided b septic p y p systems. Water would be obtained
from wells. Presently there are no wells on the parcel. Based
upon data -provided to the appraiser by .the property owner, the
_ site has .not been tested, for: a well.
I
HECTOR'LESLIE AND.. ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, :CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels, Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
HIGHEST AND BEST. USE
Highest and best use is that use which will produce the greatest net
return to the land.
The immediate question regarding the subject parcel is its potential,
4 ] P
if any, to be subdivided into smaller parcels. Based upon its zoning,
a division of the property is allowable. However, the property has
physical limitations, namely slope and lack of a proven available
water supply.
Highest and best use as to the number of units that can be developed
on the site . is uncertain. . Actual density can only be ascertained by
obtaining engineering services. . Further, the sales to which the
subject is compared have the same potential for subdivision. Thus,
the proven density of- the parcel 'is moot. ..
ff �
HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Appraisal of Three Parcels , Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood, California
MARKET DATA APPROACH
The market sales chart considers sales ranging in size from 5 to 75
acres, and in date of sale from mid-1989 to current escrow parcels.
Since the subject is a 40+ acre parcel with undefined, if any,
subdivision .,.potential, it . is=.best compared to similar appointed
parcels,...
. Sale l sold in July 1989 for $1.95,000. It is a .30+ acre parcel. .The
parcel sold as an all-dry lot parcel. When the parcel was sold, perc
tests had not been made and the property did not have wells. It is
a superior parcel to the subject when comparing topography.
Sale 2 is located adjacent and to the west.of Sale 1. It sold in June
of, 1989 for ..$252,000. This parcel was subsequently split into three
13 acre. parcels. Two of. the 13 acre. parcels have been or are being
further subdivided. The sale's topography is superior to that of the
subject. -It. has flat to toe..of slope to slope land. Access is to
Briones Valley Road via easement across intervening ownerships..
Sale 4 sold for $275, 000 in December 1990.. It is a 47 .85 acre parcel
that is being subdivided. The site has. excellent frontage .on Deer
Valley Road•. An interior roadway is being constructed , "for the e .
subdivided parcels. Overall, this parcel is superior to the subject
as to topography. and water availability.
Transaction 9 is a parcel 40 acres in size that is currently in escrow
for $256,000. The parcel will have access to Deer Valley Road via a
roadway easement across intervening ownerships. The parcel has two
wells,, each producing 5 to 8 gallons per minute. It is far superior
to the subject with regard to topography. Further, itslocation
allows for .privacy.
Current listings . in the area are many. Brokers contacted indicate
that over the last few years a softening or actual price reduction for
parcels in the Deer Valley/Briones Valley area has occurred.
The four sales comprised a market range of $195,000 to $275,000. All
of the considered sales are superior to the subject. Current listings
range from `$195, 000 to $329,000. These listings are also 40+ acre
parcels. These listings have a water source (wells) .
Based upon the foregoing, a fair market value for the subject slightly
in excess of the range is used, namely $300,000. This valuation is
contingent upon the parcel being able to demonstrate a water source
commensurate with development potential.
i
i HECTOR LESLIE AND ASSOCIATES WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA
�Yh
{{ Q tr Ct
257276I+u. o< N 0* 26'.9*W
2585.14'
653.1 1 19:50.00'
O
• 2 F )a �^oy��1.��j,,,,7^y��- N1 X O> to"N
1-1 Ai;p m 222azxzz Xr�2t_2?ga apt, �"� .4co
b. x t# 0.�=�j0V. - w 42b.yAz�WD On �tn���`l""'�"''"
a a(,.ww4�` •rte , � �o i:bO �a.
",M:;
A�VN1 - v 2. O .,Oj uqu-I ll Ul yn4j,M bZ0 N m O :*d
{>p+La
1% to t+f V t.i b G C N �2 O -�O b
rw x> a
ady_
Qft -zi
44
It
> N N +C
N O.Ot'S2'W �'" N 0*26.21 'W 1928.01, * r»
n
200.00' 1866.01' ti v
I, 4 w o x 4ib4
CD
w
o m
a� �a`5''S� t[': a pQ `d
.�. ai Nr d • v .y0^ m
CA
CD
4vC„•
N 0*00`57"E �9 1922.14' rn o o h
y bq
it In
fan *+b a 4,
M.24r 11:r,o>
y� � i -4
�� } a yDpzxzxzxzx ~�,ob
. o,mmmvuu }c
�a1 O p{ V .tt�r r 4 �,N P4ty*N .- Z
59� btb r l/ Zb V�VWgOtiO.C?O a �I h1th �C
� x ' vAb CO V •o too A a n 1 O> >
c 0 B�, a mm + O� o ran '.;„�^��E�nin+n+ v Zr 'sb
\ t+, ."C ♦. >O q:* CNN-.. .> W >.tbfib
'4' ✓ -
MCA q 4j lM No-O�,p'pp.V0 1 f•* .try b.
�+ Gam', �u t DM „>,tmNtnam mOwN., ~ - .'7 �!,t' ry
-•) 38• O try y+"
1 D t,^ otry N-
-240 a ;
1934.77' R I e \ meq
,.� N 0*00`57'E 1980.79• K2E.
BASIS
OF HEARINGS 2579.35
iPER 23 P.M:3 ) --7 r- _ GRID -
]D47'36. O1 -
�;
0 it
CA
000 �Oatr O A
• +,a »
pOa'"N.y b.A OU=44AaY rn -,.i..O
�N U
m z
o
. rv�SVO¢jdpVtaN �UO3Ja4 nurilal AL 10 U^"O"+ in rawnSS2 N b O
MSU
i e�o�.oYtO ��M SI l�l� I ti'I U UE' )a l ue aa;'s a W
�M, .��� �-Yri . �. -.� 'a i Ott a �„ �1
01 aoualaial y�� uoa y F J .P , pal
�,+-mold 041 Bullmol ul n0A pie 01 aouacua�:oo N ~
AjaJaw pa4SiUAJ Sl 11 'AgAJns
o e jou trld a jopau s} s"4! M110N. z
> •rn rn
_ b
+. app�
a.Yv�
0
a .
rn
0
=t
Assignments completed f
g omple ed or:
Bank�.of America Trust Department
Bank of California Trust Department
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
Federal Housing Administration
National Park Service:
Redwood National Park`
Point Reyes National Seashore
Whiskeytown National .Park
Western Pacific Railroad
General Services Administration,- Federal and State
Shasta County
State of California., Division of Highways
Occidental Life -Insurance Company
Electronic Data Systems :
James D. Landauer Associates, Inc.
Larwin Mortgage Investors
Abbott Laboratories
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund
U.A.W. Local 38 ' Trust Funds
- Transamerica. Mortgage Advisors, Inc.
Ford Marketing Corporation
Various corporations, companies, individuals and attorneys
San Francisco Assignments:
Appraisal of apartment houses on Lombard and Green Streets
Appraisal of One Beach Street for Electronic Data . Systems
of Dallas,_ Texas
Del-Webb Townhouse
Appraisal ;of'
Appraisal of warehouses on Brannon and Folsom Streets for
private clients
Appraisal- of Ninth and Harrison Street _ property. for
Salvation Army
Appraisal of office building on Market Street (near Van Ness
Avenue) for Dow Jones
San Francisco BART District Assignments:
Subsurface easements along Market Street
Proposed United Nations Plaza, , Leavenworth and Market
Streets
Great Western Savings and Loan, Stockton and- Ellis Streets
Gore corner, Van Ness and Market Streets
Redevelopment Projects:
San, Francisco - Yerba Buena, South of Market Street Western,
Addition, A-2
Santa nta Rosa Urban Renewal Agency
Oakland' Redevelopment Agency
Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency
f - 2
UNIQUE ASSIGNMENTS - 1984
Various studies of 526 Mission and joinder parcels for future
high :rise construction. Studies considered Highest and
Best Use and Discounted Cash Flow analysis as to site
density and height,.. First and Mission Streets for Western
Pacific Railroad.
" Various Alpha Beta Markets: San Jose, Morgan Hill , Half Moon '
Bay; for-American Stores Properties, Inc.
UNIQUE ASSIGNMENTS' -` 1985 ,
` In-.excess of nine months on appraisal of all industrial. park
holdings of western Pacific and Western,4,Oac if ic Is line
"segments from San' Francisco to Salt Lake, Utah.
UNIQUE ASSIGNMENTS 1986:
APPraisal of Union Pacific. Railroad's abandoned right of way
Industrial area, San Francisco
15 Industrial properties = Crocker Industrial 'Park, Brisbane,
California for The Prudential Realty Group.
Appraisal of Stockton Terminal and Eastern Railroad, Stockton,.
California for Standard Realty and Development, Co.
(Western Pacific)
.. UNIQUE ASSIGNMENTS - 1987
Appraisal of Park Executive Building', 925 L Street, Sacramento, .
California for. Real Estate Investment Department -
Prudential Insurance Company, i.e. high rise office
structure opposite State Capitol Building.
# Appraisal of Emeryville Crescent. 4.5 acres of uplands, .12 - 15
f' acres of marsh and _tidelands, 90 acres of bay.': for Santa Fe .
Pacific Realty Corp. . w.';.
Appraisal of Santa Fez Lead Track,. Central Avenue to' So. Richmond
for Richmond Redevelopment Agency
Consultation with Metropolitan Transportation Committee regarding
Southern Pacific Line, San Francisco to Santa Clara.
. 1988 - -Standard Assignments
` UNIQUE ASSIGNMENTS - 1989
Appraisal of portions of Southern Pacific's main line, Contra
Costa - Alameda County, for Caltrans (Department of
Transportation)
Highest and best use study of Santa Fe lands west of I-80 . at
University for Trust for Public Lands.
4
TESTIMONY
Qualified in Court as expert witness
Superior Court: San Francisco and Contra Costa County,
Sonoma County, Alameda County, Del Norte
County, Santa Clara County, Napa County
Federal Court Bankruptcy proceedings Court of Claims
Superior Court - San Francisco
UNIQUE" ASSIGNMENTS -- 1981
Orphe"um Office Building and Theater, Market Street, .San Francisco
Office structure and commercial , Chinatown, 341 Broadway,,
Pine/Grant!
Consultation- report Old White Front Property, now San Francisco
Auto Center, Swig Properties
Jacobs," Sills and Coblentz Office Building, Long Beach, CA
UNIQUE ,ASSIGNKENTS -- 1982
First Insurance Building, Honolulu, Hawaii for First Interstate
Mortgage Company
500 Forbes Boulevard Industrial Building Crocker Park, South
San Francisco for Wells Fargo Bank
Sweeney Ridge, Pacifica, California, National Park Survey
Wells Fargo Bank and Office Building, 121 Park Center Plaza, "
San Jose, California,. for Wells Fargo. Bank
UNIQUE ASSIGNMENTS - 1983
655 Beach Street, . Office Building, San Francisco;. for Joseph
Seagram and Sons, Inc.
Market .Study., Lear/Renofor Western Pacific Railroad.. Study
resulted in acquisition of land area for future industrial
park.
Office -Building, One Harbor Drive,` Sausalito, California for
First Interstate Mortgage
Southern Pacific 20 mile Right-of-Way, Hamilton Field to Larkspur
Ferry for Southern Pacific Railroad
Gemco Store, Colma, California:
San Francisco Bay Office Park for Prudential Insurance Co. , PRISA
I
HECTOR LESLIE AND. ASSOCIATES `y
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS
1515 OAKLAND BLVD. SUITE 204. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 14151 932-8662
APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS
HECTOR R. LESLIE, MAI
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, University of California, Davis
PROFESSIONAL bRGANIZATIONS
Member of . American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Chapter 11 President - 1988
Senior Member of American Right:-of-Way. Association
Chapter 2 President - 19.75
EXPERIENCE
Over PP 25 ears of appraisal experience covering the states of -
California,
California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, Texas, virgin
Islands, Hawaii, Utah.
Types of Properties Appraised:
.. Acreage - Recreational, Residential, Industrial and
Commercial
Apartment Houses
Automobile Wrecking Yards
Casinos
Commercial Properties
Hotels and Hotels
Industrial Plants
Office Buildings
Service Stations
Shopping Centers
Easements .- Power Line, Drainage, Subsurface
(specifically :BART System in San Francisca)
Supermarkets
Warehouses
Mobile Home Parks