12th Street Remainder Parcel-1-22-14 PDF

APPRAISAL REPORT
12 Street Remainder Parcel

East 12th Street & 2nd Avenue
Oakland, California
January 22, 2015
TH
2716 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, California 94705 ~ 510-548-1210 ~ 510-548-3110 fax ~ www.yovino.com
January 22, 2015

James Golde
Manager of Real Estate Services
Project Implementation
City of Oakland
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, California 94612 2033
Re:
APPRAISAL REPORT
12th Street Remainder Parcel
Oakland, California
Our Reference No. 140665
Dear Mr. Golde:

At your request and authorization, we have completed an appraisal of the
above referenced property (under the ownership of the City of Oakland) which
consists of a single legal parcel, referred to below, and further described
herein:
12th Street Remainder Parcel; East 12th Street and 2nd Avenue, 0.925 acres.
The purpose of the appraisal is to form an opinion of the property's market
value as of December 1, 2014, assuming as is condition, and subject to
various extraordinary assumptions enumerated herein.
The function of this
appraisal is to assist the intended user, the City of Oakland, in negotiating
the proposed purchase of the property by UrbanCore Development LLC.
This appraisal report finalizes a draft document prepared on December 10,
2014, and incorporates additional new information and analysis.
The appraisal is communicated in an Appraisal Report, as defined and
regulated in Standard Rule 2-2 of the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice (USPAP), effective January 1, 2014. It has been performed
in accordance with standards and requirements of USPAP, and with the Code of
Professional Ethics of the Appraisal Institute.
(continued)
To: James Golde

Re: 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Page 2
1/22/2015
The appraisal is subject to the following extraordinary assumption:

1.
It is assumed that the prospective buyers of the property may
successfully apply for, and obtain, a conditional use permit allowing
development of the property to LM-275 Height and Bulk Standards under the
Lake Merritt Station Area Plan District.
2.
It is assumed that the designated land use zone districts for the Lake
Merritt Station Area Plan will be implemented as currently anticipated.
Based on this investigation and analyses, it is our opinion that the market
value of the Fee Simple Interest in the properties, in As Is condition, as
of December 1, 2014, and subject to the aforementioned Extraordinary
Assumptions and the General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions contained in
Section 4 of this report, is as follows:
FIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,100,000.00).
Attached as Exhibit E are statements of the professional qualifications of

the appraisers. The appraisers whose signatures appear below meet all of the
requirements of the Competency Provision of USPAP.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to be of service. We will retain
all relevant data and research material in file should you require further
appraisal services concerning this property.
Very truly yours,
YOVINO-YOUNG, INCORPORATED
__________________________
Peter D. Overton, MAI
Principal Appraiser
Certified General RE Appraiser
California State License No. AG002631
__________________________
_
Michael Yovino-Young, MAI, ASA, FRICS
Supervisory Appraiser
Certified General Real RE Appraiser
California State License No. AG002841
Attachments
PO:po
Subject Property
12th Street Remainder
Parcel, East 12th St &
2nd Avenue, Oakland,
California
Front of subject looking

across intersection of
14th and Harrison
Streets
Side of Subject
(Harrison Street
frontage)
Harrison Street looking

south
Yovino-Young Inc.
Reference No. 140655
Subject Property
12th Street Remainder
Parcel, East 12th St &
2nd Avenue, Oakland,
Harrison Street looking

north
14th Street looking west
14th Street looking east
Yovino-Young Inc.
YOVINO
YOUNG
INCORPORATED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS.............................1

SCOPE OF APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT..........................................2
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY.........................................4
LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS....................................5
A. General
B. As Is Condition
C. Special Limitations: Only Properties With Public Access
D. Special Limitations: Possible Impairment By Hazardous
Contamination
E. Reservation of Authorship Rights
F. Confidentiality Statement
G. Limitations on Obligation to Perform Services
H. Special Conditions
5. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE............................................10
6. DESCRIPTIVE DATA......................................................11
A. San Francisco Bay Region
B. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
C. City of Oakland
D. Subject Property Location Oakland CBD
E. Subject Site & Zoning
F. Improvements
G. Zoning
H. Proposed Improvements
7. HIGHEST AND BEST USE .................................................20
9. SALES COMPARISON APPROACH.............................................27
A. Market Conditions
B. Market Study
C. Site B Land Value Assuming Hotel Development
11. RECONCILIATION AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................36
12. CERTIFICATION........................................................37
ADDENDA
Exhibit A
Recorded Parcel Map
Exhibit B
Developers Proforma and Schematics
Exhibit C
Comparable Land Sales Data
Exhibit D
Overall Rate Comparables
Exhibit E
Professional Qualifications of the Appraisers
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 1.
INCORPORATED
1.
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Subject Property:
12th Street Remainder Parcel, East 12th Street & 2nd

Avenue, Oakland, Alameda County, California. Consists
of a single, vacant, parcel containing 0.925 acres.
Date of Valuation:
December 1, 2014
Zoning:
D-LM-1, Lake Merritt Station Area District Mixed

Residential Zone-1
Property History:
The property was formerly part of the 12th Street right

of way, and was demised as a separate parcel as part of
the nearly completed 12th Street Reconstruction Project.
Highest and Best

Use:
Immediate development with a multi-unit residential

project conforming to the LM-275 Height & Bulk Area
regulations under the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan
Marketing / Exposure
Time:
Nine to twelve months.
Value Indications:
Sales Comparison Approach:
Final Value
Estimate:
$5,100,000
$5,100,000
$127/'
~ of site area
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 2.
INCORPORATED
2.
SCOPE OF APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT
Client(s):
James Golde
Manager of Real Estate Services
Project Implementation
City of Oakland
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, California 94612 2033
Intended User(s):
Client and UrbanCore Development LLC
Purpose:
Form an opinion of market value of the

property under its highest and best use.
Intended Use:
Assist intended user in evaluation of the property

to assist in negotiation of a proposed sale to
UrbanCore Development LLC
Rights Appraised
Fee Simple,
assumptions.
Effective Date:
December 1, 2014
Special Conditions:
See Extraordinary Assumptions enumerated in Section

5(H) on Page 8.
Valuation Methodology:
Replacement Cost Approach; not applicable

Sales Comparison Approach; applicable
Income Capitalization Approach; not applicable
subject
to
enumerated
subject
extraordinary
The Replacement Cost Approach is based on the

current cost of reproducing or replacing a property,
less loss in value from deterioration and functional
or economic obsolescence (accrued depreciation),
plus the value of the site, as vacant.
This
approach is most applicable for proposed new
development projects where current, timely and
accurate project cost data is available for analysis
by the appraiser. Since the appraisal considers only
land value exclusive of any improvements, this
approach is deemed not applicable and is not used in
the appraisal.
The Sales Comparison Approach is based on the value
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 3.
INCORPORATED
indicated by comparison with recent sales of

competitive properties in the market. This approach
is most applicable when there is adequate and
reasonably
similar
market
data
available
for
comparison to the subject property. It is employed
in this appraisal.
The Income Capitalization Approach is based on the
value that the property's net earning power will
support, based on a capitalization of net income.
This approach is most applicable to the valuation of
properties
when
the
typical
income-producing
investor in such properties purchases it to receive
future income benefits. The property, consisting of
underdeveloped land does not produce income and
therefore this approach, is not used in this
appraisal.
Extent of
Analysis:
Research
Report Type:
&
Physical inspection and verification of land areas,

identification and analysis of applicable land use
property
encumbrances,
controls
(zoning),
development of opinions and conclusions of the
highest and best use of the subject properties,
analysis of market conditions relevant to the
subject property, investigation into relevant market
sales of land, and comparative analysis leading to
an opinion of market value for each property.
Appraisal Report (USPAP 2.2)
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 4.
INCORPORATED
3.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY
The subject property is commonly known as the 12th Street Remainder Parcel,
East 12th Street & 2nd Avenue, Oakland, Alameda County, California. The
property has recently been assigned an Assessors Parcel number, though the
the Assessors plat has not been published to date. Public records, a
preliminary title report dated August 23, 2013, and final recorded parcel map
provide the following factual data:
Legal Description:
Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map 10111, filed

December 3, 2013, in Book 324 of Parcel Maps,
Pages 44 through 46, Alameda County Records. (see
recorded parcel map attached as Exhibit A)
Owner of Record:
City of Oakland, the Oakland Redevelopment Successor

Agency.
Flood Map Zone:
The property is located in Flood Zone X, area

determined to be outside the .2% annual chance flood
plain, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0067G, dated 8/3/2009
Seismic Zone:
The property is not within a Special Study Zone as

designated by the Alquist-Priolo Act.
Assessed Values and Taxation 2014-2015

Address
Parcel No.
019-0027-014
Land
$0.00
Improvements
$0.00
Other
0
Subtotal
$0.00
Exemptions
0
Total Assessment
$0.00
Tax Rate
1.4376%
Ad Valorem Taxes
$0.00
Special Assessments
$0.00
Total Taxes*
$0.00
* Property owner is a public entity and
not subject to taxation.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 5.
INCORPORATED
4.
LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
A.
General
This appraisal investigation and analysis is communicated in an Appraisal

Report, as defined and regulated under Standard Rule 2-2 of the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), effective January 1,
2014.
Extensive background data, reasoning and analyses developed in the
appraisal process for this assignment are not necessarily included in this
summary report. Supporting documentation is retained in the appraisal files
of Yovino-Young, Incorporated.
The information contained in this report is specific to the requirements of
the named client and for the intended use stated in this report.
The
appraiser is not responsible for the unauthorized use of this reporting
document by any third party unless prior consent is obtained.
The estimates of value and supporting conclusions presented in this appraisal
represent our personal, unbiased and professional analysis of the valuation
issues and objectives addressed in this assignment.
These opinions and
conclusions are subject to certain limiting conditions and assumptions as set
forth in this section of the report.
Except as may be set forth as the specific purpose of this study, or, as
special conditions stated elsewhere in this document, this appraisal is of an
assumed marketable, Leased Fee interest to the property, free of debt
obligations, liens, encumbrances, or any other restrictions affecting title,
ownership or use of the property or properties in question.
No
representation is made or implied as to the actual conditions of title,
ownership or encumbrances, or matters legal in nature.
Utility of the property is assumed to be restricted only by normal zoning,
publicized governmental laws and governmental controls, and its use under
responsible ownership and adequate management.
The appraiser does not survey the property. All statements describing parcel
boundaries, dimensions, topography, utilities, and other descriptive physical
information have been obtained from available official county maps and
records or references as otherwise identified.
The appraiser may recognize
the need for and recommend the employment of other experts, but will not
render an expert opinion which may require engineering expertise as to
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 6.
INCORPORATED
structural conditions, soil composition,

characteristics of the property.
site
stability
or
geotechnical
All statements of fact and data gathered from others for this appraisal are
from sources deemed correct and reliable, and verified when possible to do
so, but in no sense can they be guaranteed. Should disclosure subsequent to
this appraisal indicate errors or omissions that may alter the conclusions
and opinions expressed herein, the authors reserve the right to review the
same and prepare an addendum setting forth the corrected facts and their
effect, if any, on the original appraisal.
Under certain assumptions for special valuation problems, estimated values of
limited interests and/or portions of a property need not, when combined,
accurately state or coincide with the value of the property in its entirety.
B.
As Is Condition
The property is appraised in

unless otherwise indicated
Special Conditions.
It is
conditions of the property,
more or less valuable.
C.
its as is condition as of the date of valuation

elsewhere in this report, or specified under
assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent
subsoil, or structures, which would render it
Special Limitations: Only Properties With Public Access
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992.
The appraisers signing this appraisal document have not made a specific
compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not
it is in conformity with the requirements of the ADA. The reader should be
aware that if a compliance survey revealed non-compliance with one or more
requirements of the Act, that a negative effect upon the value of the
property might result. Unless otherwise stated in this document, we have no
direct evidence relating to this issue and did not consider possible noncompliance with ADA in estimating the value of the property.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 7.
INCORPORATED
D.
Special Limitations: Possible Impairment By Hazardous Contamination
Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous

substances,
including,
without
limitation,
asbestos,
polychlorinated
biphenyls, petroleum products, urea formaldehyde, agricultural chemicals, or
other adverse environmental conditions which may or may not be present on the
property, were not identified to the appraiser, nor did the appraiser become
aware of such conditions during the appraiser's inspection.
The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in
the property unless otherwise stated and is not qualified to test for such
substances or conditions. The presence of such hazardous materiels or
environmental conditions might effect the value of the property. Therefore,
the value estimate in this appraisal is predicated upon the assumption that
there is no such adverse conditions on, in or under the property, 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 assessment on real estate, if subsequent
investigation reveals their existence.
E.
Reservation of Authorship Rights
All rights to this report are reserved, including the right to reproduce or
to publish in whole or in part, it being understood that this report may be a
portion of the services being rendered and the client may use the report
incident to the specific purposes stated herein for the appraisal, without
further conveyance to the public or unnamed third parties of the value
conclusion, identity or the professional designations of the author unless
prior written consent is obtained.
F.
Confidentiality Statement
Appraisers who are signatories to this report and certification statement are
dedicated
to
upholding
the
confidentiality
of
the
appraiser-client
relationship regarding the disclosure of personal, financial or other
information provided the appraiser that has been identified by the client as
confidential under the definitions provided in the Ethics Rule of the Uniform
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 8.
INCORPORATED
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and/or identified in the GrammLeach-Bliley Act of 1999.
G.
Limitations on Obligation to Perform Services
Submission of this appraisal constitutes full completion of the requested

service and does not obligate the author to any subsequent consultation,
services prerequisite to a legal action, or testimony in a deposition or
trial, unless specific arrangements are made prior to the rendering of such
services.
H.
Special Conditions
The appraisals are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions:

1.
It is assumed that the prospective buyers of the property may
successfully apply for, and obtain, a conditional use permit allowing
development of the property to LM-275 Height and Bulk Standards under the
Lake Merritt Station Area Plan District.
2.
It is assumed that the designated land use zone districts for the Lake
Merritt Station Area Plan will be implemented as currently anticipated.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 9.
INCORPORATED
5.
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
Market Value means the most probable price which a property should bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale;
the buyer and seller, each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming
the price is not affected by undue stimulus.
Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified
date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1.
buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2.
both parties are well informed or well advised and each acting in
what he or she considers his or her own best interest;
3.
a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4.
payment is made in terms of cash
financial arrangements compared thereto;
in
U.S.
dollars
or
in
terms
of
5.
the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold,
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by
anyone associated with the sale.
Source: (12 F.C.R. Part 34.42(g) 55 Federal Register 34696. August 24, 1990, as
amended 57 Federal Register, April 9, 1992, Federal Register 39499, June 7, 1994.
This source for the above definition is cited in the Dictionary of Real Estate
Appraisal, Fifth Edition, The Appraisal Institute, page 123.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 10.
INCORPORATED
6.
DESCRIPTIVE DATA
A.
San Francisco Bay Region
The San Francisco Bay region consists of nine counties, which surround San
Francisco and San Pablo Bays.
Its highly diversified physical features and
mild climate allow for a wide range of industry and lifestyles, and
contribute to a desirable living environment.
Economically, the region is
similarly varied, although there has been a marked shift from manufacturing
to service industries, principally high-tech related, over the last few
decades.
This diverse economic base has proved itself relatively resilient
during recessionary periods. Governmental regulation of land use is enacted
at the municipal and county levels, although there is a well-established
research and advisory body: the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
which has been in existence since 1961.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population of the nine-county Bay Area
as of the end of 2013 as follows:
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 11.
INCORPORATED
B.
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
The immediate sub-regional context for the subject property is the East Bay
Region, which includes Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These counties are
well within the daily commute sphere of San Francisco, the central economic
locus of the Bay region.
The two East Bay counties encompass intensively
developed inner urban areas immediately adjoining San Francisco Bay, and are
bordered on the east by low-lying hills paralleling the shoreline from
Richmond to Fremont.
The East Bay is developed with an extensive freeway
network, rail services, Oakland International Airport, and is well served by
the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and regional bus services. Along
with the University of California campus at Berkeley, there are several other
colleges and universities in the East Bay and numerous cultural and
recreational resources. The total population of these two counties as of the
2010 Census was 2,559,286 persons, with Alameda County accounting for
1,510,261 persons, and having Oakland as the largest city and the county
seat.
C.
City of Oakland
The City of Oakland is a large, economically diverse, and demographically

complex community, which encompasses approximately 78 square miles rising
from the east shore of San Francisco Bay to the crest of the East Bay hills.
The city has 19 miles of bay front coastline.
Oakland is the largest and
most established of the East Bay cities, and has a current estimated
population of over 400,000 people, (based on 2010 Census). It is the third
largest city in the Bay Area, and the eighth largest city in the state,
comprising about 27% of residents of Alameda County. Due to an economically
diverse population, median household income for Oakland is in the lower 50%
of East Bay communities at $51,700. The city benefits from immediate access
to rail, air, sea, freeway and bus service to all major employment and
residential centers of the vibrant Bay Area econoour.
Historically, Oakland supported a large manufacturing base, which grew out of
the industrial development period during and after WWII.
Much of this
industrial infrastructure is now obsolete, and is slowly being converted to
more intensive uses, including industrial R&D, as well as office, residential
and retail.
Services now represent the predominant employment sector
category in Oakland; seven of the top 10 employers in the City are government
agencies, school districts, medical centers, or utility companies.
The
others include airlines operating out of Oakland International Airport.
Oakland has a labor force of 180,000, of which 60,000 workers are based in
the central business district.
DeLorme Street Atlas USA 2014
Residential Development Map

Downtown Oakland 2003-2014
Data use subject to license.
Scale 1 : 11,200
TN
0
DeLorme. DeLorme Street Atlas USA 2014.

www.delorme.com
MN (13.8E)
200
400
100
600
200
1" = 933.3 ft
800
1000
300
400
500
Data Zoom 14-2
ft
m
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 12.
INCORPORATED
A steady influx of immigrants during the 20th century, along with thousands
of African-American war-industry workers who relocated from the Deep South
during the 1940s, have made Oakland one of the most ethnically diverse major
cities in the country. Oakland is known for its history of political
activism, as well as its professional sports franchises and major
corporations, which include health care, tech companies, and manufacturers of
household products. The city is a transportation hub for the greater Bay
Area, and its shipping port is the fifth busiest in the United States.
Oakland has a Mediterranean climate with an average of 260 sunny days per
year. Lake Merritt, a large estuary centrally located east of Downtown, was
designated the United States' first official wildlife refuge. Jack London
Square, named for the author and former resident, is a tourist destination on
the Oakland waterfront.
Much progress has been made in reducing the city's historically high crime
rate; violent crime is primarily concentrated in certain neighborhoods, and
property crime has declined throughout the city. Oakland is continually
listed among the top cities in the United States for sustainability
practices, including a No. 1 ranking for usage of electricity from renewable
resources.
In recent years, Oakland has gained national recognition as a travel
destination. In 2012, Oakland was named the top North American city to visit,
highlighting its growing number of sophisticated restaurants and bars, top
music venues, and increasing nightlife appeal. Oakland also took the No. 16
spot in "America's Coolest Cities," ranked by metrics like entertainment
options and recreational opportunities per capita. .
According to the City's 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the

top employers in the city are:
No.
Employer
# of Employees
Alameda County
Wells Fargo
5,862
Oakland Unified School District
5,704
City of Oakland
4,478
Cost Plus World Market
4,125
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
3,105
Peralta Community College District
2,759
Safeway
2,692
Internal Revenue Service
2,500
Albertsons
2,209
10
10,374
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 13.
INCORPORATED
Economic Base, Employment and Income
The following table summarizes certain salient demographic indicators for the
City, Region, State and Nation. (Source: ABAG, Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor
Statistics).
Item
Median HH
Income
Median Family
Income
Avg HH Size
Unemployment
Rate(8/2014)
City of
Oakland
Alameda
County
San
Francisco
Bay Region
$51,700
$70,079
$76,476
$61,154
$41,994
$71,530
$85,802
$90,927
$69,659
$50,046
2.49
2.75
2.72
2.92
2.59
9.4%
6.1%
5.0%
7.4%
5.7%
State
of
California U.S.
The unemployment rate in Oakland, CA, was 9.4% in mid-August 2014, which is a
dramatic decrease since 3rd quarter 2012, when it was over 16%. As of April
2014, the job growth has resulted in a further decrease to 8.9% in Oakland.
Future job growth over the next ten years is predicted to be 18.46% (per
decade), or 1.85% annually.
D.
Subject Property Location; Lake Merritt District
The property is located near the southeasterly corner of Lake Merritt, the
main civic focal point and prominent open space amenity in central Oakland.
The lake itself is a large tidal lagoon, located east of the Central Business
District. It is surrounded by parkland and city neighborhoods. It is
historically significant as the United States' first official wildlife
refuge, designated in 1870, and has been listed on the National Register of
Historic Places since 1966. The lake features grassy shores; several
artificial islands intended as bird refuges; an interpretive center called
the Rotary Nature Center; a boating center where sailboats, canoes and
rowboats can be rented and classes are held; and a fairy tale themed
amusement park called Children's Fairyland. A popular walking and jogging
path runs along its perimeter. The circumference of the lake is 3.4 miles
and its area is 155 acres.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 14.
INCORPORATED
Development of privately owned property in the neighborhoods surrounding the

lake consists mostly of multi-unit residential buildings of varying sizes,
built in the early decades of the early to mid 20th century. At the
northwesterly corner is a significant commercial node at the confluence of
Grand Avenue, Lakeshore Avenue and Lakeshore drive.
There is additional
commercial development along Grand Avenue on the north end of the lake,
including the Adams Point apartment district, and the Kaiser Center office
district bordering the west side. Southwesterly of the lake and park, is the
Alameda County civic center including courthouses and administration
buildings, the Oakland Main Library and other institutional buildings such as
churches, interspersed with apartments. At the south end is the historic
Kaiser Convention Center, which is currently vacant and underutilized, though
various re-use proposals are under active consideration as of this writing.
Between the lake and the convention center there is a major traffic artery
This roadway has
(12th Street) which connects the CBD with east Oakland.
recently been reconfigured, and the subject parcel was created from remaining
surplus land as result. Hence the designation of 12th Street Remainder
Parcel.
Subject
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 15.
INCORPORATED
The property is located at the southerly end of Lake Merritt in an area

dominated by civic institutions. To the southeast of the subject is the
Oakland Museum and to the south is the Laney College Campus of PCCD. To the
east of the Lake Merritt Channel, the subject property is proximate to
properties occupied by the Oakland Unified School District and, more
generally, various residential neighborhoods. Across 12th Street, and next to
the lake, is a high-rise apartment building, one of the few such structures
close to Lake Merritt. With the exception of the Essex, at 1 Lakeside Drive
(westerly side of lake) there have been no recent developments of large highrise residential projects around the lake within the last 20-25 years. The
proposed development of the subject property is the first project of its
type, on the lakefront, since 2009.
Site Overview
Subject
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 16.
INCORPORATED
E.
Subject Site
The subject consists of a single parcel as illustrated below.

Since the
property (and boundaries) have been defined relatively recently, there is no
established street address to date. This illustration is an excerpt from the
recorded parcel map, a document which is appended in full as Exhibit A in the
addenda.
Parcel Map
The property is gently downsloping from east to west, and at grade with the
street frontages. It fronts on East 12th Street for 305 feet, and on 2nd
Avenue for 73 feet. The westerly site boundary is formed by a new City park
constructed as part of the recently completed East 12th Street Reconstruction
Project.
The southerly boundary is with the former Oakland Unified School
District (OUSD) administration building, which fronts on East 10th Street and
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 17.
INCORPORATED
2nd Avenue.
feet ('
~).
The property contains a total of 0.925 acres, or 40,271 square
As of the date of valuation, the site was clear of all improvements and
landscaping, and appears to be under use for outdoor storage of construction
materials.
We reviewed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated 9/1/14 on the
subject property, and several soils and geotechnical reports and an ESA
dating from 2006 to 2009 which were developed in connection with the East 12th
Street Reconstruction Project.
These reports indicate no significant
contamination of the site (with the exception of some possible shallow soil
contamination from automobile exhaust) and no site conditions which would
preclude high-rise construction on the subject property assuming execution of
specific recommendations and best practices.
Site Overview looking Southeasterly
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 18.
INCORPORATED
Review of the recorded parcel map (See Exhibit A in addenda) indicates that
the only easements affecting the property are an storm drain and a utility
easement which lie adjacent to another in the extreme northwesterly corner of
the property, and together encumber approximately 355 ~
' , approximately 0.8%
of the total site area.
Physical inspection of the site revealed no
indications of any encroachments or hazardous contamination.
Off-site improvements include standard streetscape features including
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, storm drains, street-lighting and standard
utilities (gas, water, electricity).
G.
Zoning
The property is zoned D-LM-1 Lake Merritt Station Area District Mixed
Residential Zone-1. The intent of the D-LM-1 zone is to create, maintain,
and enhance areas of the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan District appropriate
for
high-density
residential
development
with
compatible
commercial
activities.
As of the date of valuation of this appraisal, the Lake Merritt Station Area
Plan was in the process of adoption by the Oakland City Council with the
second reading scheduled for December 9th, 2014. City staff members have
indicated that no significant changes or delays in adoption are anticipated
and that the ordinance will be effective as of January 8, 2015. As stated
previously, the appraisal assumes that the ordinance will be adopted and
effective as of these dates.
Approval Processes
Land Use
Lot Minimum Requirements
Design Review required.

Conditional Use Permit required to apply for
increase in Height/Bulk standards and Maximum
Tower Height. One such changes is permitted among
the opportunity sites identified within the
LMSAP district that are east of the Lake Merritt
Channel.
Multi-unit Residential, Civic and Commercial uses,
retail/commercial uses.
Width
25 feet
Frontage
25 feet
Size
4,000 ~
'
Setback Front
0 feet
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 19.
INCORPORATED
Building Requirements
Parking Requirements
I.
Setback Rear
10 feet
Height/Bulk Area
LM-85
Minimum Ground Floor Height
15 feet
Minimum Storefront Width
15 feet
Max Units/Acre
194
Max Units/Acre with CUP
369
5
Max FAR
Max FAR with CUP
12
Max Building Base Height
45 feet
Max Building Base Height w/CUP 85 feet
Max Tower Height
85 feet
Max Tower Height with CUP
275 feet
Tower:
Max Length
150 feet
Max Diagonal Length
180 feet
Min Distance btwn Towers
50 feet.
(Tower dimensions, floor plates may be increased
by 30% with CUP)
Multi-Unit Residential
3/4 space per Unit
Proposed Improvements & Entitlements
The following outlines a conceptual

properties, proposed by Urban Core LLC.
proposal
for
development
of
the
The proposed project would develop a 24-story residential apartment tower

with a 3-level podium base, and include 298 residential units, 2,000 ~
' of
ground floor commercial space, 209 parking spaces, and associated amenities
and infrastructure. The total building height would be 240 feet with a
maximum additional height consisting of architectural and mechanical features
above the roof line.
The proposed project would encompass 249,939 ~
' of net residential floor
area. The residential units are to include seven 2-story lofts at ground and
podium levels, 24 residential units in the south and west wings, 259 units
would be within a 21-story tower, and eight 2-story penthouses would be atop
the tower. The mix of unit types would include 7 lofts, 8 penthouse units,
113 studios, 110 one-bedroom units, and 60 two-bedroom units. Unit areas
would range from 550 ~
' to 1,559 ~
' . In sum, the project have net 251,939 ~
'
of rentable floor area inclusive of 2,000 ~
' of ground floor retail space.
Inclusive of all common areas, hallways, elevators and stairwells, we
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 20.
INCORPORATED
estimate the total gross floor area of the proposed building at 323,000 ~
'
assuming and net/gross efficiency of 78%.
The conceptual framework of the proposed project is consistent with the D-LM1 zoning assuming acquisition of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow use
of the LM-275 Height and Bulk standards for the project.
7.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
In standard appraisal methodology, highest and best use is usually defined

as:
"The use, from among the reasonably probable and legal alternative uses,
found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially
feasible and that results in the highest present land value."2 The highest
and best use of the property is analyzed from two perspectives: A) as vacant;
and, B) as improved. Further, four criteria are applied in the analysis: 1)
Physically Possible; 2) Legally Permissible; 3) Financially Feasible; 4)
Maximally Productive1.
1.
The legally permissible land uses proposed for the subject site
includes primarily multi-unit residential complexes, as the Lake Merritt
Station Area Plan (DLM-1) aims to promote this type of use. Other compatible
commercial uses are permitted, but the highest development density is
achievable
by
multi-story
apartments
or
condominiums.
Therefore,
a
residential tower appears to be the obvious choice among the legally
permissible uses.
2.
The physically possible uses, essentially include all legal uses of the
property, as evidenced by the numerous large and technically advanced
structures in the immediate vicinity.
3.
Those uses to be tested for financial feasibility include apartment
development.
a)
There has been an unquestioned assumption that residential development in all
its forms is (and has been since 2011) financially feasible in the Bay Area.
1
The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition, The Appraisal Institute,
Page 93.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 21.
INCORPORATED
Again, in San Francisco, rent levels of $6.00/'
~ to $7.00/'
~ for new apartments
are common, while in Oakland, rates for units in high-rise buildings hover
between $3.50/'
~ and $4.00/'
~. San Francisco is experiencing an unprecedented
building boom, while Oakland ground breakings among the various (and
numerous) entitled sites are more modest.
The possible exception is
Berkeley, where demand for student housing has prompted several new projects
to break ground in and around the CBD. However, this sub-market features high
demand from students, administrative constraints on the supply side, and
therefore rent growth almost commensurate with San Francisco.
The
accompanying map illustrates the extent of currently approved residential
projects in Oaklands development pipeline.
One large project which has remained entitled for over 10 years is 1331
Harrison Street, which consists of a proposed 27-story residential tower with
191 units and 130 parking spaces. The developer (Peter Iwate 415-288-1412)
stated that he is seriously considering initiating the project and consulting
with bank representatives regarding construction funding. He considers the
positive factors for a decision to move forward to be the propertys
proximity to BART and the ongoing spike in residential rents in San
Francisco. This project will feature expansive views of Oakland, the hills,
and San Francisco Bay.
The challenges appear to be the costs for Type 1
concrete and steel construction.
Mr. Iwate also cited the Ellington Condominiums at 222 Broadway, as a recent
example of a successful high rise project in Oakland. This 15 story-building
encompasses 134 units which are selling at prices between $400,000 and
$700,000. This building is also Type 1 concrete structure which is less
costly that steel frame construction.
Patrick Kennedy (510-883-1000), an experienced East Bay developer who is
building a 17-story mini studio project in San Francisco, cited a report by
Realfacts that rents in Oakland have increased 19% in the last year. His
project in San Francisco is costing approximately $400 per square foot, and
he expects to achieve rents of $6.00/'
~ to $7.00/'
~, which he maintains will
justify the costs of construction.
He stated that in Oakland, part of the
development challenge is that costs are virtually the same as in San
Francisco, but rents are only 50% to 60% those achievable in that city.
San Francisco and the Inner East Bay cities of Berkeley, Emeryville and
Oakland have historically been under-supplied with housing, and current
conditions have not changed this appreciably despite evidence of numerous new
multi-unit projects. In prior markets, when apartment rents climbed
appreciably, tenants would begin to compete with home buyers, but up-trends
Current Approved Residential Development
Scale 1 : 31,250
TN
0

www.delorme.com
MN (13.8E)
800
200
1600
400
2400
600
1" = 2,604.2 ft
800
3200
1000
4000
ft
m
Data Zoom 12-6
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 22.
INCORPORATED
in home prices have been so pronounced that tenants have not been able to
offer the necessary down payments and qualify for mortgage funding as
readily. This leaves greater numbers in the rental market competing for the
existing supply of apartments.
These market conditions will continue as long as the overall economy grows,
and in particular, as long as the high-tech boom in the Bay Area remains
stable. Many San Francisco developers project a 2 to 3 year run of growth
which has spurred dramatic competition for development opportunities in the
City. All of this evidence suggests that a high-rise apartment development on
the subject site would be financially feasible. While Oakland projects will
likely never command rents on par with San Francisco, it must be remembered
that the subjects location in Oakland is more convenient (via BART) to
employment centers in San Francisco than from many neighborhoods in the city.
4.
The maximally productive use of the subject property can be considered
by analyzing the developers conceptual proforma for the proposed apartment
complex. This analysis not only tests whether the proposed development option
would support the highest land value, but also provides an additional test of
financial feasibility. The development proforma provided by Urban Core
Development are attached in the addenda, as Exhibit B.
The analysis takes as a basis the following metrics from within the proforma:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Gross and Net Floor Areas and Number of Units

Efficiency (Net/Gross ~
')
Hard, Soft, and Financing Costs
Proforma Rental Income and Operating Expeneses
Occupancy at Stabilization
Annual Stabilized NOI
The inputs for Land Cost are the results from the Sales Comparison Approach.
One option not explicitly proposed by Urban Core Development is condominium
development. The developers cited a cautious approach to this option due to
recent experience in the San Francisco market in which access to debt capital
was significantly easier to secure for apartments over condominiums as banks
are just not as eager to enter that market. In any case, Urban Core would
plan to build for condominium conversion if they were to develop apartments
on this site. In our opinion, the location of this property is appropriate
for either rental housing or condominiums. However, a building configuration
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 23.
INCORPORATED
suitable for condominium conversion implies a greater degree of separately

metered utilities for tenant occupants.
A review of the developers proforma confirms that the building schematics,
development costs, and income projections are consistent (within 10%) of
indices from our other data sources for both high-rise residential projects.
The configurations of the proposed improvements appear consistent with the
basic concepts of highest and best use.
In the additional test for feasibility, the analysis indicates a Return on
Cost (NOI/Total Cost), or ROC, of 6.14% for apartment development. This
index is slightly lower than calculated by Urban Core Development, though we
believe it remains above the threshold for feasibility.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 24.
INCORPORATED
Lake Merritt Apartment Tower Proforma Analysis

Date of Proforma
14-Dec
Use
Apartments
Average Floor Plate (sf)
10,497
Building Height
Floors
Units
NSF/Unit
Net Residential SF
Ground Floor Retail SF
Total Net Floor Area (sf)
Efficiency (estimated)
Gross SF (estimated)
Parking Spaces
Land SF
FAR (floor area ratio)
Units/Acre
Land $/SF-Site
Devleopment Costs
Land Value (estimated)
Hard Cost
Soft Cost
Financing
Total Cost
Cost Per Net Rentable Square Feet of Building
Land
Hard Cost
Soft Cost
Financing
Total Cost
Cost / Residential Unit
(continued on following page)
240
24
298
839
249,939
2,000
251,939
78%
322,999
209
40,271
8.0
322
$127
% Total
3.86% $5,100,000
80.95% $106,938,680
13.09% $17,297,086
2.10% $2,767,605
100.00% $132,103,371
$20.24
$424.46
$68.66
$10.99
$524.35
$443,300
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 25.
INCORPORATED
Forecast Income/Expense
Income (Stabilized Year)
Rent PSF (Stabilized) mo
Residential (rent/sf/month)
Misc Income
Parking Income ($/space/mo)
Subtotal Gross Income
Occupancy
EGI (Effective Gross Income)
Operating Expenses ($/unit/yr)
Expense Ratio
Annual NOI
ROC
Overall Rate of Return
Capitalized Value of NOI
Capitalized Value/NSF
Capitalized Value/Unit
Developers's Incentive
Annual NOI/Site-SF
2018
1.
$3.75
$150
2.
$11,000
3.
5.
4.
$3.75
$11,247,255
$476,800
$376,200
$12,100,255
94.00%
$11,374,240
$3,278,000
28.82%
$8,096,240
6.13%
5.25%
$154,214,090
$612
$517,497
16.74%
$201.04
Key to Abbreviations:
PSF
=
Per Square Foot
Mo
=
Refers to PSF: Per Square Foot/Month
EGI
=
Effective Gross Income
NOI
=
Net Operating Income
ROC
=
Return on Cost
OAR
=
Overall Capitalization Rate
Table Notes for Proforma Analysis:
1. Rent PSF
Reflects Rent Per Net Square Foot / Month
(apartments) x Net Square Feet x 12 months
2. Effective Gross Income =
Total Scheduled Income x 94% Occupancy
3. Expense Ratio
(Effective Gross Income - Net Operating Income) /
Effective Gross Income. Apartment expense ratios
typically range from 25% to 40%. In this case, the
developer's proforma is reasonable since it
projects a new building mapped for condominium
conversion, minimum to nil repair expenses and
reserves, and all utlities separately metered
except for garbage
4. Developers Incentive
(Stablized Value - Total Costs)/Stabilized Value.
This figure is a result of the proforma
calculations.
5. Overall Rate of Return
Please see OAR comparables in addenda
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 26.
INCORPORATED
As shown in the analysis on the previous page, land represents only 4% of

the total costs, so a significant reduction in land value does not
appreciably impact the Return on Cost (ROC). However, the effect on
Developers Incentive is more pronounced, as shown in the sensitivity
analysis outlined in the table below:
Land Value/sf
125
Pct chg
150
20%
175
17%
200
14%
225
13%
250
11%
Hi/Lo Chg
100%
-44%
Return On Cost
5.89%
Pct chg
5.85%
-0.73%
5.80%
-0.72%
5.76%
-0.72%
5.72%
-0.71%
5.68%
-0.71%
-4%
-3%
Developer's Incentive
12.16%
Pct chg
11.35%
-6.71%
10.54%
-7.09%
9.75%
-7.52%
8.97%
-8.01%
8.20%
-8.59%
-33%
28%
The above table shows how changes in Land Value/sf affect Return on Cost and
Developers Incentive given the proforma costs, revenues, and overall values.
This demonstrates that the construction cost/revenue equation is far more
determinative of feasibility than land cost for high rise development in
general.
Overall rates of return were applied to the estimated net operating income
under stabilized conditions to generate the overall value of the site as
proposed for development.
For apartments, the selected (conservative) rate
is 5.25% which can be demonstrated as consistent with market activity for
newer apartment complexes.
The overall value for the subject (as improved per the developers proforma)
indicates a margin of developers incentive (Value/Cost) of 10%, which is
within a reasonable range for this type and size of project.
Conclusion
This analysis concludes that as of the date of valuation, acquisition of a
conditional use permit (CUP), for development with a multi-unit residential
development similar to that proposed by the prospective buyers of the
property, (UrbanCore Development LLC) represents
a viable highest and best
use option for the property.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 27.
INCORPORATED
8.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
A.
Market Conditions
The local market for vacant land, or properties suitable for redevelopment,
is currently very strong, due to the perceived opportunities for profit from
chronic under-supply of housing. This, coupled with the strong job market and
economic performance in the region has led to double digit growth rates in
rents in San Francisco and the inner East Bay markets. The rent growth has
not translated into increased numbers of buyers of condo units or single
family residences, as pricing in these markets has kept pace with rents due
to constrained supply.
Also the sources of housing demand have shifted in
emphasis to younger workers who prefer denser urban environments and there is
greater competition for available living units.
It is not clear at this time when the market cycle will peak, or if it will
continue in its growth phase for one or two more years.
Hence, it is not
unusual for developers to seek opportunities with even great urgency in order
to complete the development cycle before there is another broad economic
downturn, or a change in the market cycle.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 28.
INCORPORATED
B.
Market Study
The subject exists in a competitive market context of well-located

development sites suitable for multi-unit residential development.
The accompanying table provides a summary of the market transactions deemed
instructive in this valuation.
The primary indices extracted from the data
is price per square foot of land ($/'
~-Site), and price per living unit
($/Unit). Data sources include Costar, MetroScan, the Loopnet, local brokers
and developers and the East Bay Regional MLS.
As stated previously, the location and relatively clear set of development
possibilities for the subject property, coupled with the intent of the City
of Oakland (the owner) to facilitate near term development, affords a
competitive advantage in the market. Therefore, we have chosen to use sales
primarily of entitled sites. This usually means that the sale was closed
after receipt of approvals for the proposed development.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 29.
INCORPORATED
Land Sales Summary
NO. LOCATION
SALE PRICE
UNITS
SITE AREA
$/SF
APN
SALE DATE
SHAPE
ZONING
$/unit
1
1900 Broadway
$4,611,500
294
40,650
$113.44
008-0638-005,006-03
24-Feb-14
Irregular
CBD-P
$15,685
Three adjacent parcels including corner site improved with dilapidated four-story masonry office building (+/-36,00
sf) which will be rehabbed as part of the project. Costs to retaining and rehabbing structure are considered
equivalent to cost to replace, but retention provides some leverage in planning process. Buyer has scaled back
previously conceived project to a 24 story residential tower with ground floor commercial space. Location is
adjacent to 19th Street BART station.
2
4700-4770 Telegraph Ave, Oakland

$3,600,000
51
19,950
$180.45
013-1150-017-01,019-02
30-Jul-13
Rectangular
CN-2
$70,588
Entitled site for 51 residential units and 5,050 sf of retail space. Total GBA will 55,015 sf. FAR = 2.7 Units per
acre = 113. Existing residential units provide carrier income prior to construction.
3
4801 Shattuck Ave, Oakland
$2,660,000
44
14,934
$178.12
013-1162-009-01,009-02,010
30-Jul-13
Irregular
CN-2
$60,455
Three adjacent parcels with existing residential improvements to be removed to make way for 44 unit residential
condominium project. No commercial space included. Units per acre = 128
4
5175 Broadway, Oakland

$2,300,000
28
12,833
$179.23
014-1241-005-01
26-Jul-13
Rectangular
CC-2
$82,143
Rectangular corner parcel entitled for development with 28 unit condominium project with total GBA of 35,325 sf of
which 2,995 sf would be ground floor retail. FAR = 2.75; Units/Acre = 96
5
522-532 20th St
$1,180,000
82
7,405
$159.35
008-0645-006.007
29-Apr-14
Rectangular
CBD-X
$14,390
Recent sale for an un-entitled site zoned CBD-X (Height Area 6), which allows for a maximum density of 484
units/acre, maximum F.A.R. of 20.0 to 1.0, no building height limit (minimum building height of 45'), and a 100%
site coverage. The price/unit figure above is reflective of the maximum allowable density on the site (82 units based
on 484 units/acre). Site is rectangular and level with all off-sites. Currently being utilized as a parking lot.
6
1200 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley
$5,105,000
98
34,412
$148.35
053-1627-022,039,037
31-May-13
Irregular
C-1
$52,092
Vacant site entitled for development of 98 residential units (66,300sf) and 9,392 sf of retail space. FAR = 2.2. Units
per acre = 124. Location at major intersection in West Berkeley.
7
378 11th Street, Oakland
$1,500,000
111
10,000
$150.00
002-0057-020
7-Nov-14
Rectantgular
CBD-C
$13,514
Vacant in Oakland CBD, located two blocks SW of subject and two blocks from 11th Street BART station. Max
FAR = 20. Max Units/Acre = 483
8
1225 Webster Street
$2,200,000
133
12,000
$183.33
002-0057-004-02
1-Sep-14
Rectangular
CBD-C
$16,541
Current listing of corner site in CBD zoned for commercial, though residential development is most probable. Max
FAR is 20. No height limit.
Sub E. 12th St, west of 2nd Avenue
019-0027-014
Date of Value
298
40,271
1-Dec-14
Triangular
D-LM-!
Unentitled vacant site proposed for 298 units in 24 story structure with on-site parking. Max FAR (w/CUP) = 12.
Proposed FAR is 8. Max units/acre = 369, Proposed units/acre = 322
Land Sales Map
Scale 1 : 40,625
TN
0

www.delorme.com
MN (13.8E)
1" = 3,385.4 ft
mi
km
Data Zoom 12-3
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 30.
INCORPORATED
Sale One; 1900 Broadway, Oakland, is located in the downtown Central Business
District of Oakland, and consists of three adjacent parcels including corner
site improved with dilapidated four-story masonry office building (+/-36,00
sf) which will be rehabbed as part of the project. Costs to retaining and
rehabbing structure are considered equivalent to cost to replace, but
retention provides some leverage in planning process. Buyer has scaled back
previously conceived project to a 24-story residential tower with ground
floor commercial space.
Location is adjacent to 19th Street BART station.
The location is considered comparable to the subject overall.
Sale Two; 4700-4770 Telegraph Ave, Oakland, is located in the Temescal
District of Oakland at the intersections of Telegraph Avenue and 48th Street,
and consists of a corner site improved with residences providing carrier
income. It was entitled before the recession, and was purchased, along with
Sale Three & Five by a party intending to completely redevelop the site as
approved. The location is inferior to the subjects location.
Development
density and FAR are both inferior.
Sale Three; 4801 Shattuck Ave, Oakland, is a corner site, located in the
Temescal District near Sale Two, which also occupies a corner site and has
the benefit of existing improvements providing some carrier income.
Its
location is inferior as is its development density, compared to the subject.
This property will be developed with residential units only.
Sale Four; 5175 Broadway, Oakland, is a vacant corner site entitled for
development of 28 condominium units. Its location is at the southerly end of
the Rockridge district near the intersections of College Avenue, Broadway and
51st Street. This location is superior to most of the comparables, but still
inferior to the subject. It is across Broadway from the Rockridge Center, a
soon to be redeveloped major community shopping center. Density is lower than
the subject.
Sale Five; 522-532 20th Street, Oakland, is located in the revitalized uptown
district north of the Central Business District of Oakland and is a mid-block
rectangular site previously approved for development with a six-story
residential building with 19 units. It is currently operating as a similar
pay surface parking lot with NOI of $55,200. The site size is much smaller,
and the development density is higher compared to the subject. The mid-block
configuration is inferior. The location is rated slightly inferior. This sale
is not adjusted for previous approvals, and is not considered an immediate
development site, since new approvals must be sought.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 31.
INCORPORATED
Sale Six; 1200 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, is located at major traffic

intersection in West Berkeley, and spans two corners. It is entitled for
development of 98 residential units in a five-story building with 9,932
of ground floor retail space, now under construction.
The location is
inferior to the subject Oakland City Center setting.
This area is in the
path
of
new
development,
but
does
not
constitute
an
established
neighborhood or a pedestrian oriented retail district. The property is also
exposed to thoroughfare traffic from two directions. The development density
is inferior.
Sale Seven; 378 11th Street, Oakland, is a closed sale of a vacant site in the
Oakland CBD, located two blocks from the 11th Street BART station, and 6-7
blocks from the subject. It consists of a mid-block site located across the
street from the 10-story EBMUD headquarters. Like other CBD sites it has a
maximum FAR of 20, but was marketed as a potential 10-story project. The sale
is pending resolution of certain easement questions. Surrounding developments
are three to ten stories. The location is inferior to the subjects City
Center setting. At 10 stories high, this property will have a similar
development cost structure compared to the subject.
Sale (Listing) Eight: 1225 Webster Street, is a current listing on the market
for a site located at the corner of Webster Street and 13th Street. This site
is currently leased to a parking lot operator on a short-term basis (annual
NOI of $43,200). There are no current entitlements or approvals for the site.
Site is zoned CBD-C (Height Area 7), which allows for a maximum density of
484 units/acre, maximum F.A.R. of 20, building height ranging from 45' to
120', and a 100% site coverage. Site is level with all off-sites.
This
property has a similar zoning to the subject, and the location is comparable.
Development on this site will likely exceed 10 stories and will have similar
cost structure to the subject. Adjustments for listing status and no existing
entitlements are applied.
The sales were analyzed, and the data
differences with the subject property:
adjusted,
to
reflect
significant
Property Rights Appraised

This factor tends not to be applicable to vacant land. In any case, all of
the comparable transactions involved fee simple rights.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 32.
INCORPORATED
Financing Terms
All sales were financed with cash or mortgages at prevailing rates.
Conditions of Sale
No adjustments warranted, except for Comparable 8 which is adjusted downward
for its status as a listing.
Immediate Expenditures
No adjustments warranted.
Market Conditions (Time)
As discussed previously, market participants have observed factors including
lease rates, availability of financing, and consumer behavior leading them to
conclude that there have been increases in land values as evidenced by sale
of development sites. Anecdotal evidence supports the application of modest
price adjustments averaging between 0% and 1% per month. We have concluded
that an adjustment is realistic for all the transactions considered here, and
have applied a rate equating to 6% per year.
Location
Locational factors include visibility, accessibility, and concentration of
compatible and complementary uses. Adjustments were made to account for all
the influences that vary between the comparables and the subject. The subject
property is superior to most of the comparables except for One Seven and
Eight which have CBD settings, which are comparable in appeal to proximity to
the Lake Merritt.
Size and Scale
A uniform adjustment is applied to all of the comparables to reflect
economies of scale inherent in improvements larger (or smaller) in size
compared to the subject.
Construction Costs
This comparative factor takes into account the difference in costs between
Type 1 and Type 5 construction. High rise development is approximately 30%
more costly per ~
' than standard four to seven story wood (or lightweight
concrete) frame over podium construction techniques due to additional costs
for required fire and life safety features.
Configuration and Shape
The utility of the subject and comparables varies depending on access and
street frontage. This affects both the ease of development and exposure to
light and air, particularly in residential projects. Sales One and Seven are
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 33.
INCORPORATED
adjusted up for inferior non-corner sites; Sale Six is adjusted down for
superior three-street frontage.
Entitlements
Entitlement costs of processing applications and developing technical and
architectural specifications equate to approximately 25%-30% of land costs
for approved sites. In addition, there is the time value of money expended
during what can be a lengthy process, The time/cost of entitlements is likely
to be mitigated in the case of the subject properties. Sales One to Four and
Sale Six are adjusted downwards for acquired entitlements.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 34.
INCORPORATED
The comparable sale data and adjustments are summarized in the accompanying
spreadsheet for $/Unit and $/'
~ analyses.
1)
Site Valuation Analysis
Sales One, Seven and Eight are given most emphasis due to their greater
similarity to the subject in development density and location.
Summary of Adjustments to Data
Comparable No.
Address
Subject
E 12th Street
& 2nd Avenue,
Oakland
E 12th Street & 2nd Avenue, Oakland

1
1900
4700-4770 4801 Shattuck
Broadway Telegraph Ave, Ave, Oakland
Oakland
Price Per Unit

8
5175 522-532 20th

Broadway,
St
Oakland
1200 Ashby
Avenue,
Berkeley
378 11th
Street,
Oakland
1225
Webster
Street
133
Planned Units
298
294
51
44
28
82
98
111
Units per Acre
322
250
113
128
96
250
124
250
483
12/1/2014
2/24/14
7/30/13
7/30/13
7/26/13
4/29/14
5/31/13
11/7/14
9/1/14
$4,611,500
$15,685
$3,600,000
$70,588
$2,660,000
$60,455
$2,300,000
$82,143
$1,180,000
$14,390
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
$52,092
$13,514
$2,200,000
$16,541
0
$4,611,500
0
$4,611,500
0
$4,611,500
0
$3,600,000
0
$3,600,000
0
$3,600,000
0
$3,600,000
8%
$3,888,590
$76,247
10%
-16%
-12%
-30%
0%
-25%
-5%
-79%
$16,268
0
$2,660,000
0
$2,660,000
0
$2,660,000
0
$2,660,000
8%
$2,873,236
$65,301
10%
-15%
-13%
-30%
0%
-25%
0%
-73%
$17,728
0
$2,300,000
0
$2,300,000
0
$2,300,000
0
$2,300,000
8%
$2,485,885
$88,782
5%
-18%
-14%
-30%
0%
-25%
0%
-81%
$16,743
0
$1,180,000
0
$1,180,000
0
$1,180,000
0
0
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
0
0
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
0
0
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
0
$2,200,000
0
$2,200,000
-$110,000
$2,090,000
$1,180,000
4%
$1,221,784
$14,900
5%
-6%
-11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-11%
$13,190
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
9%
0%
$5,564,450 $1,505,902
$56,780
$13,567
15%
0%
-15%
-6%
-10%
-9%
-30%
0%
-5%
5%
-25%
0%
0%
0%
-70%
-10%
$16,782
$12,208
$2,090,000
1%
$2,121,179
$15,949
0%
12%
-8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
$16,615
$4,620,000
(rounded)
Sale Date:
Price
Price/Unit
Adjustments to Data
Rights Appraised
Adjusted Price
Financing Terms
Adjusted Price
Conditions of Sale
Adjusted Price
Adjusted Price
Time:
0.5%
Current Cash Equiv. Price
Adjusted Price/Unit
Location
Zoning/Density
Scale
Const Costs
Configuration/Shape
Entitlements
Improvements
Subtototal:
Adjusted $/Unit
Mean $/Unit
Max $/Unit
Min $/Unit
Variance mx/mn
Mean 1,7,8
Concluded Index
$4,611,500
5%
$4,823,175
$16,405
0%
-6%
0%
0%
5%
0%
10%
9%
$17,914
$15,931
$17,914
$12,208
1.47
$15,579
$15,500
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 35.
INCORPORATED
Summary of Adjustments to Data

Comparable No.
Address
Land Area (SF):
1
12th St West
of 2nd
Avenue,
O40,271
kl d
1900
4700-4770 4801 Shattuck
Broadway Telegraph Ave, Ave, Oakland
Oakland
5175 522-532 20th

Broadway,
St
Oakland
1200 Ashby
Avenue,
Berkeley
Price Per SF
8
378 11th 1225 Webster

Street,
Street
Oakland
40,650
19,950
14,934
12,833
7,405
34,412
10,000
8.0
2.7
2.0
2.8
2.0
2.2
10.0
20.0
12/1/2014
2/24/14
7/30/13
7/30/13
7/26/13
4/29/14
5/31/13
11/7/14
9/1/14
$4,611,500
$113
$3,600,000
$180
$2,660,000
$178
$2,300,000
$179
$1,180,000
$159
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
$148
$150
$2,200,000
$183
0
$4,611,500
0
$4,611,500
0
$4,611,500
0
$2,660,000
0
$2,660,000
0
$2,660,000
0
$2,660,000
8%
$2,873,236
0
$2,300,000
0
$2,300,000
0
$2,300,000
0
$2,300,000
8%
$2,485,885
0
$1,180,000
0
$1,180,000
0
$1,180,000
0
0
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
0
0
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
0
0
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
0
$2,200,000
0
$2,200,000
-100000
$2,100,000
$4,611,500
5%
$4,823,175
0
$3,600,000
0
$3,600,000
0
$3,600,000
0
$3,600,000
8%
$3,888,590
$1,180,000
4%
$1,221,784
$5,105,000 $1,500,000
9%
0%
$5,564,450 $1,505,902
$2,100,000
1%
$2,131,328
$119
-10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-10%
$195
10%
23%
-8%
-30%
0%
-25%
-5%
-34%
$192
10%
26%
-9%
-30%
0%
-25%
0%
-28%
$194
5%
23%
-10%
-30%
0%
-25%
0%
-37%
$165
5%
26%
-12%
0%
0%
0%
0%
19%
$162
15%
25%
-2%
-30%
-5%
-25%
0%
-22%
$151
0%
0%
-11%
0%
5%
0%
0%
-6%
$178
0%
0%
-11%
0%
5%
0%
0%
-6%
$107
$141
$196
$107
1.83
$139
$137
$140
$128
$138
$122
$196
$126
$141
$168
$5,640,000
(rounded)
Price
Price/SF ($/SF):
Adjustments to Data
Rights Appraised
Adjusted Price
Financing Terms
Adjusted Price
Conditions of Sale
Adjusted Price
Adjusted Price
Time:
0.5%
Current Cash Equiv. Price
Adjusted Price/SF
Location
Zoning FAR
Size:
Const Costs
Configuration/Shape
Entitlements
Improvements
Subtototal:
Adjusted $/sf
Mean $/sf
Max $/sf
Min $/sf
Variance mx/mn
Average 1,7,8
Mean Excl Max/Min
Concluded Index
8.0
FAR
Sale Date:
E. 12th St, west of 2nd Avenue
12,000
There is a significant divergence in overall value indications suggested by

the $/'
~ and $/Unit indices. We typically give greater emphasis to the results
based on the $/Unit index as it is more consistent with the viewpoint of
typical buyers of multi-unit residential developments. However, having
applied our adjustments consistently in each case, and finding that the
resulting indices show a relatively narrow pattern of values for both $/'
~ and
$/Unit, we have concluded that affording similar emphasis to both is
warranted.
Therefore, the foregoing analysis indicates a value for the subject of:
$5,100,000.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 36.
INCORPORATED
9.
CONCLUSIONS
Sales Comparison Approach:
$5,100,000
The sales comparison approach is based on analysis of similar properties in

the same market area as the subject. The analysis demonstrates that there is
a market for this type of property and that meaningful value indices can be
developed and applied to generate a consistent pattern of indicated overall
values, consistent with our conclusions regarding highest and best use.
The two most relevant land value indices for multi-unit residential
development sites, Price per Square Foot of Site Area ($/'
~) and Price per
Unit ($/Unit) indicate divergent overall values for the property.
This is
primarily due to the necessity to use comparable sales with quite different
effective development densities from the subject. Further, there is little
market consensus regarding land values for higher density high-rise
development, in contrast to San Francisco, where this pattern of development
is common.
We have concluded that similar emphasis on the $/'
~ and $/Unit indices is
appropriate in this case.
Thus, based on this investigation and analyses, it is our opinion that the
market value of the Fee Simple Interest in the properties, subject to the
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions contained in Section 4 of this report, as
of December 1, 2014 is:
FIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,100,000.00).
This final value estimate presupposes a specific exposure and marketing time
during which the subject would sell at this price.
We conclude that the
marketing and exposure periods for the property are relatively equivalent.
We estimate that the appropriate exposure and marketing periods relative to
this value estimate are from nine to twelve months.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 37.
INCORPORATED
12.
CERTIFICATION
This appraisal is conveyed in a Summary Report format (USPAP 2-2 (b)). The
signatory below certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge and
belief:
the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
the property was personally inspected unless otherwise indicated by
designating a signatory to this report as a "Supervising Appraiser".
the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by
the stated assumptions and limiting conditions, and are the personal,
impartial, and unbiased work product of the named appraisers.
there are no past, present, or prospective interests, adverse
interests, or bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this
appraisal, nor any personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
the acceptance of, engagement in, and compensation for this assignment
are not contingent upon developing or reporting a predetermined or stipulated
result, a predetermined value or direction of value that may favor the cause
of the client, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to
the intended use of this appraisal.
the analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report
prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP), and for members, the requirements of the Code of
Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of
the Appraisal Institute. The preparation and use of this report is subject
to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by duly
authorized representatives.
unless otherwise identified in this report, no one provided significant
professional assistance to the persons signing this report.
all appraisers licensed by the Office of Real Estate Appraisers (OREA) of
the State of California are required to complete a minimum level of
continuing education to be eligible for license renewal on specified dates.
The signatories to this report are currently licensed and have met all
current requirements of the Office of Real Estate Appraisers.
YOVINO
YOUNG
Page 38.
INCORPORATED
as of the date of this report, signatories who are members of the

Appraisal Institute have completed the requirements of the continuing
education program and are currently recertified.
As of the date of this report, Peter D. Overton, MAI, has completed the
requirements under the continuing education programs of the Appraisal
Institute.
As of the date of this report, Michael Yovino-Young, MAI, ASA, FRICS,
has completed the requirements under the continuing education programs of the
Appraisal Institute, the American Society of Appraisers, and the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
As of the date of acceptance of this assignment, the undersigned had
not provided services as appraisers, nor in any other capacity, with respect
to the subject property for the previous three years.
Attached as Exhibit E is a statement of the professional qualifications of
the appraiser.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to be of service.
This report
has been prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and with our agreement and understanding of the
nature and requirements of the appraisal assignment.
We will retain all relevant data and research material in file should you
require further appraisal services concerning this property.
YOVINO-YOUNG, INCORPORATED
__________________________
__________________________
_
Peter D. Overton, MAI
Michael Yovino-Young, MAI, ASA, FRICS
Principal Appraiser
Supervisory Appraiser
Certified General RE Appraiser
Certified General Real RE Appraiser
California State License No. AG002631 California State License No. AG002841
10/27/2014
Lake Merritt Boulevard Apartments

Oakland, California
a Leeding Edge Tower Project
#######
UrbanCore Development, LLC
1 of 9
10/27/2014
Project Assumptions
General
Project Name:
Project Type:
City & State
County
Class
Total Units
Market Rate
Total Number of Buildings
Land Cost/Per Unit
Lake Merritt Boulevard Apts

Multi-Family, Market Rate
Oakland, California
Alameda
New Development
298
298
1
$13,448
Construction
Construction Start
Construction Completed
Construction Period
Lease-up
Net Leasable Square Feet
Common Area Square Feet
Circulation Square Feet
Hard Cost Contingency
Soft Cost Contingency
Management Fee (% of Hard Costs)
Financing
Equity Bridge (% of Tax Credit Equity)
Equity Bridge Interest Rate
Construction Loan Interest Rate
Construction Loan Interest Rate Pay Off
Permanent Financing Begins
1st Mortgage Interest Rate
1st Mortgage Term
Amortization
Required DSCR
Equity Co-Invest Percent
Rental and Valuation
Marketing Starts
Marketing Ends
Rental Period Begins
Rent Up Completed (month, year)
Unit Rent-Up (months)
Sale Date
Cost of Sales
Cap Rate
6/30/2015
12/31/2016
18.0 Months
12.0 Months
249,939
Proforma
Lease Up
Base Year/Stabilization
Base Year Rents
Miscellaneous Income
Parking Revenue (Market Rate Only)
Total Parking Spaces
Market Rental Income Growth
Other Income Growth
Market Vacancy Rate
Other Vacancy Rate
Operating Expenses
Replacement Reserve Per Unit
Replacement Reserve Growth
Operating Expenses
per unit
2017
2018
See "Rent Schedule"
$133.33 Per Unit
$150.00 Per Unit
209
3.00%
3.00%
6.00%
6.00%
3.00%
$300
2.50%
$11,000
5.0%
5.0%
0.25%
30.0 Months
0%
4.00%
4.00%
12/31/2017
12/31/2017
5.00%
7 Years
30 Years
1.2x
0.0%
Month 10
Month 23
1/1/16
8/31/17
12
6/30/2025
1.00%
5.25%
2 of 9
Lake Merritt Boulevard Apartments

E. 12th Street Merritt Blvd.
Oakland, CA
Sources
Equity
Debt
Total
Cost
45,853,805
85,157,067
131,010,872
% of Cost
35.0%
65.0%
100.0%
Per Unit
153,872
285,762
439,634
Per NSF
183.46
340.71
524.17
Uses
Land Acquistion (to be appraised)
Hard Costs
Architecture & Engineering
Professional Services
Environmental
Insurance
Permits & Fees
Closing Costs and Taxes
Loan Interest and Fees
Financial Advisory Fees
Construction Loan Fee
Construction Loan Interest
4,007,500
106,938,680
3,556,156
370,000
380,000
380,000
3,576,000
723,969
2,767,605
638,678
2,128,927
% of Cost
3.1%
81.6%
2.7%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
2.7%
0.6%
2.1%
0.0%
0.5%
1.6%
Per Unit
13,448
358,855
11,933
1,242
1,275
1,275
12,000
2,429
9,287
2,143
7,144
Per NSF
16.03
427.86
14.23
1.48
1.52
1.52
14.31
2.90
11.07
2.56
8.52
Developer Overhead and Fee

Start-Up and Reserves
Soft Costs Contingency
Total Uses
4,200,000
3,155,500
955,461
131,010,872
3.2%
2.4%
0.7%
100%
14,094
10,589
3,206
439,634
16.80
12.63
3.82
524.17
10/27/2014
Return on Cost
Value Upon Completion: (Cap Rate)
Equity: (Upon Stabilization)
Equity Multiple
6.12%
5.25%
152,631,555
21,620,684
1.47
3 of 9
10/27/2014
Development Budget
Land
Land Acquisition
Total Land Costs
Hard Costs
GMP Contract with Suffolk (Estimate)
Construction Management Fee
Hard Cost Contingency
Total Hard Costs
0.25%
5.00%
Soft Costs
Architecture & Engineering
Environmental
Insurance
Permits & Fees
Loan Interest and Fees
Construction/Perm Loan Fee
Construction Loan Interest - Lease-up
Developer Overhead and Fee
Soft Costs Contingency
Total Soft Costs
Total Development Cost
4.00%
Total Cost
% of Total
Per Unit
Per NSF
4,007,500
4,007,500
3.1%
3.1%
13,448
13,448
16.57
16.57
101,604,447
254,011
5,080,222
106,938,680
77.6%
0.2%
3.9%
81.6%
340,955
852
17,048
358,855
420.23
1.05
21.01
442.30
3,556,156
370,000
380,000
380,000
3,576,000
723,969
2,767,605
638,678
2.7%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
2.7%
0.6%
2.1%
0.0%
0.5%
11,933
1,242
1,275
1,275
12,000
2,429
9,287
2,143
14.71
1.53
1.57
1.57
14.79
2.99
11.45
2.64
2,128,927
4,200,000
3,155,500
955,461
20,064,691
1.6%
3.2%
2.4%
0.7%
15.3%
7,144
14,094
10,589
3,206
67,331
8.81
17.37
13.05
3.95
82.99
131,010,872
100.0%
439,634
541.86
4 of 9
10/27/2014
Soft Costs
Architectural and Engineering
Pyatok Fees and Expenses To-Date
AVRP Fees and Expenses To-Date
Design Development
Construction Documents
Bidding and Negotiations
Construction Administration
Optional MEPS/DB Peer Review
Total A&E
3.5%
Amount
Per Unit
Per GSF
Per NSF
3,556,156
11,933
-
14.23
-
14.71
-
350,000
20,000
370,000
67
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Community Outreach, Entitlement Consultants
Audit & Tax Return
Tax Credit Cost Certification
Total Professional Fees
67
-
Environmental
Surveying
Geotechnical Engineer
Soil Testing/Inspections
Appraisal/Market Study/Financial Consultants
Phase One Envir./EIR Consultants
Total Environmental
40,000
134.23
0.16
0.17
250,000
45,000
45,000
380,000
838.93
151.01
151.01
1,275.17
1.00
0.18
0.18
1.52
1.03
0.19
0.19
1.57
Property Insurance
General Liability
Builder's Risk (hard costs)
Builder's Risk (soft costs)
Total Property Insurance
80,000
200,000
100,000
380,000
268.46
671.14
335.57
1,275.17
0.32
0.80
0.40
1.52
0.33
0.83
0.41
1.57
3,576,000
12,000.00
14.31
14.79
1.120%
523,969
200,000
723,969
1,758
671
2,429
2.10
0.80
2.90
2.00
0.83
2.99
0.00%
0.75%
0.00%
0.00%
638,678
2,143
2,143
2.56
2.56
2.64
2.64
2,128,927
7,144
8.52
8.81
3.42%
4,200,000
4,200,000
14,094
14,094
16.80
16.80
17.37
17.37
4,000
25%
1,192,000
819,500
894,000
250,000
3,155,500
4,000
2,750
3,000
1,000
10,589
4.77
3.28
3.58
1.00
12.63
4.93
3.39
3.70
1.03
13.05
5.0%
955,461
3,206
3.82
3.95
20,064,691
67,331
80.28
82.99
Permits & Fees

Total Permits & Fees
Property Tax During Construction(1)
Legal and Organizational Costs
Total Closing Costs and Taxes
Loan Fees
Construction Loan Fee/Closing Costs
Construction Loan Fees - B Piece
Permanent Loan Fees (Combined w Const Loan Fees)
Total Loan Fees
Loan Interest
Construction Loan Interest
12,000
4.00%
0
Total Loan Interest

Developer's Overhead and Fee
Developer's Overhead/Fee
Developer's Overhead and Fee
Marketing
Capitalized Lease-Up Reserve (2)
Operating Reserve(3)
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment
Contingency
Total Soft Costs
638,678
2,128,927
1 Tax Rate Multiplied by Land Cost and 50% of Construction Cost

2 25% of Operating Expenses
3 4 Months Operating Expenses
5 of 9
10/27/2014
Lease Up Projection
Pre-Lease
Market Rate
BMR
Lease-Up
Market Rate
BMR
Total
Lease Up Schedule
Occupancy
Market Rate
Total
Market Rate GPR
Total
Parking Revenue
Total
Total Revenue
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Month 11
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Month 12 Month 13
0
0
0
0
60
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
18
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
18
85%
100%
Month 14
0
0
Month 15
Total
0
0
0
0
60
0
238
0
298
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
28%
28%
35%
35%
35%
42%
35%
50%
42%
57%
50%
64%
57%
72%
64%
79%
72%
87%
79%
94%
Stabilized Base Year

11,253,975
11,253,975
188,825
188,825
258,061
258,061
327,297
327,297
396,533
396,533
465,769
465,769
535,004
535,004
604,240
604,240
673,476
673,476
742,712
742,712
811,948
811,948
881,184
881,184
937,831
937,831
937,831
937,831
937,831
937,831
937,831
937,831
9,636,374
9,636,374
476,800
376,200
853,000
8,000
6,312
14,312
10,933
8,627
19,560
13,867
10,941
24,808
16,800
13,255
30,055
19,733
15,570
35,303
22,667
17,884
40,551
25,600
20,199
45,799
28,533
22,513
51,046
31,467
24,828
56,294
34,400
27,142
61,542
37,333
29,456
66,790
39,733
31,350
71,083
39,733
31,350
71,083
39,733
31,350
71,083
39,733
31,350
71,083
408,267
322,127
730,393
12,106,975
203,137
277,621
352,104
426,588
501,072
575,555
650,039
724,523
799,006
873,490
947,973
1,008,915
1,008,915
1,008,915
1,008,915
10,366,767
6 of 9
Unit Breakdown
Floor
Ground
7
3 thru 4
1
1
2
3
1
2
Unit
Lofts
Unit Sqft
No. Units
Total Sqft
Gross Monthly
Rent
Annual GPR
Utilities
Net Annual Rent
Monthly
Rent Psf
Config.
1,450
10,150
4,975
417,926
417,926
3.43
Loft
Studio A
Studio B
Studio C
Studio C
1A
1B
588
641
741
610
931
743
2
2
4
6
2
4
1,176
1,282
2,964
3,660
1,862
2,972
2,421
2,639
3,051
2,512
3,493
2,787
58,106
63,344
146,451
180,841
83,824
133,793
58,106
63,344
146,451
180,841
83,824
133,793
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
3.75
3.75
Studio
Studio
Studio
Studio
1 BR/Den
1 BR
2
1C
1
1D
1
1E
1
2A
2
2B
5 thru 5
1
Studio A
1
Studio B
2
Studio C
3
Studio D
3
Studio E
1
1A
1
1B
2
1C
2
1D
1
1E
1
1F
1
2A
2
2B
6 thru 7
2
Studio A
2
Studio B
1
Studio C
3
Studio E
1
1A
1
1B
2
1C
1
1D
1
1E
3
2A
8 thru 22
1
Studio A
2
Studio B
2
Studio C
1
1A
1
1B
2
1C
1
1D
3
2A
Penthouse 23-24
4
2A
4
2B
Total
741
784
702
1,188
1,594
4
2
1
2
4
2,964
1,568
702
2,376
6,376
2,780
2,941
2,634
4,022
5,105
133,433
70,588
31,603
96,527
245,030
133,433
70,588
31,603
96,527
245,030
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.39
3.20
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
2 BR
2 BR/Den
588
641
741
610
672
931
702
743
741
784
1,026
1,188
1,594
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
588
641
1,482
1,830
2,016
931
702
1,486
1,482
784
1,026
1,188
3,188
2,421
2,639
3,051
2,512
2,767
3,493
2,634
2,787
2,780
2,941
3,849
4,022
5,105
29,053
31,672
73,226
90,420
99,611
41,912
31,603
66,897
66,717
35,294
46,188
48,264
122,515
29,053
31,672
73,226
90,420
99,611
41,912
31,603
66,897
66,717
35,294
46,188
48,264
122,515
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.39
3.20
Studio
Studio
Studio
Studio
Studio
1 BR/Den
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
2 BR
2 BR/Den
628
549
588
672
919
702
741
1,026
818
1,188
4
4
2
6
2
2
4
2
2
6
2,512
2,196
1,176
4,032
1,838
1,404
2,964
2,052
1,636
7,128
2,586
2,261
2,421
2,767
3,448
2,634
2,780
3,849
3,069
4,022
124,118
108,504
58,106
199,221
82,743
63,205
133,433
92,377
73,649
289,582
124,118
108,504
58,106
199,221
82,743
63,205
133,433
92,377
73,649
289,582
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.39
Studio
Studio
Studio
Studio
1 BR/Den
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
2 BR
588
628
549
919
702
741
818
1,188
15
30
30
15
15
30
15
45
8,820
18,840
16,470
13,785
10,530
22,230
12,270
53,460
2,421
2,586
2,261
3,448
2,634
2,780
3,069
4,022
435,796
930,884
813,783
620,573
474,040
1,000,750
552,371
2,171,866
435,796
930,884
813,783
620,573
474,040
1,000,750
552,371
2,171,866
4.12
4.12
4.12
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.39
Studio
Studio
Studio
1 BR/Den
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
2 BR
1,350
1,450
4
4
298
5,400
5,800
249,939
5,867
6,302
145,584
281,637
302,499
11,253,975
4.35
4.35
2 BR Den
2 BR Den
281,637
302,499
11,253,975
Avg/SF/Unit
839
3,147.08
3.75
10/27/2014
Proforma
2017
Lease-Up Period (15 Mos)
Market Rate GPR

Gross Potential Rent
Market Rate Rent PSF per Month
Rent % Growth
Parking/Storage Revenue
Total Other Income
(# of Spaces/Storage):
Market Rate Vacancy

Other Income Vacancy
Effective Rental Income
Operating Expenses (Market Rate)
Total Operating Expense
Replacement Reserve (Market)
Total Replacement Reserve
Capitalized Lease-Up Reserve
209
2019
Year 2
2020
Year 3
2021
Year 4
2022
Year 5
2023
Year 6
9,636,374
9,636,374
11,253,975
11,253,975
3.75
11,591,594
11,591,594
3.86
3.0%
11,939,342
11,939,342
3.98
3.0%
12,297,523
12,297,523
4.10
3.0%
12,666,448
12,666,448
4.22
3.0%
13,046,442
13,046,442
4.35
3.0%
408,267
322,127
730,393
476,800
376,200
853,000
491,104
387,486
878,590
505,837
399,111
904,948
521,012
411,084
932,096
536,643
423,416
960,059
552,742
436,119
988,861
6.00%
6.00%
10,366,767
(675,239)
(51,180)
11,380,557
(695,496)
(52,715)
11,721,973
(716,361)
(54,297)
12,073,633
(737,851)
(55,926)
12,435,842
(759,987)
(57,604)
12,808,917
(782,786)
(59,332)
13,193,184
11,000
29.1%
3,073,125
3,073,125
3,278,000
3,278,000
3,376,340
3,376,340
3,477,630
3,477,630
3,581,959
3,581,959
3,689,418
3,689,418
3,800,100
3,800,100
300
67,050
67,050
89,400
89,400
91,635
91,635
93,926
93,926
96,274
96,274
98,681
98,681
101,148
101,148
819,500
Net Operating Income

ROC
Debt Ratio
8,046,092
Debt Service
DSCR
Cash Flow
Annual Return on Equity (ROE)
2018
Base Year
8,013,157
6.12%
9.41%
8,253,998
6.30%
9.69%
8,502,076
6.49%
9.98%
8,757,608
6.68%
10.28%
9,020,818
6.89%
10.59%
9,291,936
7.09%
10.91%
4,087,539
5,485,699
1.46x
5,485,699
1.50x
5,485,699
1.55x
5,485,699
1.60x
5,485,699
1.64x
5,485,699
1.69x
3,958,553
2,527,458
2,768,300
3,016,378
3,271,910
3,535,119
3,806,237
6.91%
5.51%
6.04%
6.58%
7.71%
8.30%
9.45%
7.14%
8 of 9
10/27/2014
Mortgage Amortization Schedule
Base Year NOI
Annual Debt Service
DSCR
8,013,157
5,485,699
1.46x
Principal Balance
Interest Rate
Term
Amortization Schedule
Years
7.00
30.00
$85,157,067
5.00%
Months
84.00
360.00
9 of 9
SALE NO. ONE

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
SALE COMMENTS:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

1900 Broadway
008-0638-005,006-03
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER:
Oakland
190467, 190468
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
94612
Closed
STATUS:
$4,611,500
n/a
LISTING PRICE:
1-Aug-2014
n/a
LISTING DATE:
Jackson Center Two L BUYER:
19th & Broadway Assoc
All cash
Fee Simple
RIGHTS TRANSFERRED:
Property was not listed for sale on open market, but both buyer and
sellers are experienced developers and market participants.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (SF):
Shape:
40,650
Irregular
Street Frontage:
311 feet on Broadway, 150 feet on 19th Street
Probable Use:
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
Multi Residential
294
No. Units:
Three adjacent parcels including corner site improved with dilapidated
four-story masonry office building (+/-36,00 sf) which will be rehabbed
as part of the project. Costs to retaining and rehabbing structure are
considered equivalent to cost to replace, but retention provides some
leverage in planning process. Buyer has scaled back previously
conceived project to a 24 story residential tower with ground floor
commercial space. Location is adjacent to 19th Street BART station.
Zoning:
Topography:
ANALYSIS OF TRANSACTION:
Effective Sale Price:
UNIT INDICES:
$/SF:
$/UNIT:
Data Source:
$4,611,500
$113.44
$15,685
Listing Broker Rich Martini, Costar
CBD-P; Height Area 7

Level
SALE NO. TWO

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
SALE COMMENTS:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

4700-4770
Telegraph Ave
Oakland
94609
$3,600,000
7-Nov-2013
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
STATUS:
LISTING PRICE:
LISTING DATE:
4700 Telegraph LLc
BUYER:
61.1% cash down, pvRIGHTS TRANSFERRED:
Purchase for development as entitled
013-1150-017-01,019-02
238205
Sold
n/a
n/a
Ngi 4700 Telegraph LLC
Fee Simple
Site Area:
Shape:
19,950
Rectangular
Street Frontage:
150 feet Telegraph Avenue; 133 feet 48th Street
Probable Use:
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
51
Multi-unit ResidentNo. Units:
Entitled site for 51 residential units and 5,050 sf of retail
space. Total GBA will 55,015 sf. FAR = 2.7 Units per acre = 113.
Existing residential units provide carrier income prior to
construction.
Zoning:
Topography:
CN-2
Level
Effective Sale Price: $3,600,000

UNIT INDICES:
$180.45
$/SF:
$70,588
$/UNIT:
Costar; Listing Broker Todd Vitzhum 925-951-5022
Data Source:
SALE NO. THREE

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
SALE COMMENTS:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

4801 Shattuck Ave
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER:
Oakland
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
94609
STATUS:
$2,660,000
LISTING PRICE:
30-Jul-2013
LISTING DATE:
Scott Ward
BUYER:
20.9% down; pvt 1st TD RIGHTS TRANSFERRED:
Normal marketing and transaction.
013-1162-009-01,009-02,010
263381
Closed
n/a
n/a
NGI 4801 Shattuck
Fee Simple
Site Area:
Shape:
14,934
Irregular
Street Frontage:
205 feet 48th Street; 65 feet Shattuck Avenue
Probable Use:
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
Multi-unit Residential No. Units:

44
Three adjacent parcels with existing residential improvements to
be removed to make way for 44 unit residential condominium
project. No commercial space included. Units per acre = 128
Zoning:
Topography:
UNIT INDICES:
$178.12
$/SF:
$60,455
$/UNIT:
Data Source:
LoopNet, MetroScan, Broker Todd Vitzthum 925-951-5022
R-50/R-70
Level
SALE NO. FOUR

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
SALE COMMENTS:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

5175 Broadway
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER:
Oakland
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
94611
STATUS:
$2,300,000
LISTING PRICE:
26-Jul-2013
LISTING DATE:
Rockridge Heights LLBUYER:
All cash
RIGHTS TRANSFERRED:
Conventional sale
014-1241-005-01
261177
Sold
Lc Merrill Gardens
Fee Simple
Site Area:
Shape:
Street Frontage:
Probable Use:
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
12,833
Zoning:
CC-2
Rectangular
Topography:
Level
116.67 feet Broadway; 110 feet Coronado Ave
Multi-unit ResidentiNo. Units:
28
Rectangular corner parcel entitled for development with 28 unit
condominium project with total GBA of 35,325 sf of which 2,995
sf would be ground floor retail. FAR = 2.75; Units/Acre = 96
UNIT INDICES:
$/SF:
$/Unit:
$2,300,000
$179.23
$82,142.86
Data Source:
Costar, Broker; John Kovaleski 408-282-3844
SALE NO. FIVE

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
SALE COMMENTS:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

522-532 20th St
Oakland
94606
$1,180,000
29-Apr-2014
Patrick White
All Cash
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
STATUS:
LISTING PRICE:
LISTING DATE:
BUYER:
RIGHTS TRANSFERRED:
008-0645-006.007
101680
Closed
Undisclosed
3/1/2012
522-532 20th St LLP
Fee Simple
Normal marketing and transaction.
Site Area:
Shape:
Street Frontage:
7,405
CBD-X
Zoning:
Rectangular
Level
Topography:
74.67 feet on 20th Street (Thomas Berkeley Way)
Probable Use:
Multi-Family/Retail
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
Recent sale for an un-entitled site zoned CBD-X (Height Area 6), which
allows for a maximum density of 484 units/acre, maximum F.A.R. of
20.0 to 1.0, no building height limit (minimum building height of
45'), and a 100% site coverage. The price/unit figure above is
reflective of the maximum allowable density on the site (82 units
based on 484 units/acre). Site is rectangular and level with all offsites. Currently being utilized as a parking lot.

UNIT INDICES:
$/SF:
$/UNIT:
$1,180,000
Data Source:
Seller (Partrick White (707) 933-9431), Metroscan, Costar.
No. Units:
82
$159.35
$14,390
SALE NO. SIX

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
SALE COMMENTS:
Site Area (SF):

Shape:
Street Frontage:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

1200 Ashby Avenue
Berkeley
94702
$5,105,000
31-May-2013
R.B. Tech Center
All Cash
Conventional sale of entiteled
053-1627-022,039,037
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER:
196679
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
Closed
STATUS:
n/a
LISTING PRICE:
n/a
LISTING DATE:
1200 Ashby LLC
BUYER:
Fee Simple
RIGHTS TRANSFERRED:
site with all cash financing
34,412
C-1
Zoning:
Irregular
Level
Topography:
Dual corner frontage: 240 feet San Pablo Avenue, 125 feet Ashby Avenue, 150 feet
Carrison St.
Probable Use:
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
Vacant site entitled for development of 98 residential units (66,300sf) and 9,392
sf of retail space. FAR = 2.2. Units per acre = 124. Location at major
interesection in West Berkeley.
No. Units:
UNIT INDICES:
$/SF:
$/UNIT:
Data Source:
$5,105,000
$148.35
$52,092
MetroScan, Costar; Broker Todd Vitzhum 925-951-5022
98
SALE NO. SEVEN

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

ASSESSOR'S NUMBER:
002-0057-020
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
270493
STATUS:
Sold
LISTING PRICE:
$1,410,000
LISTING DATE:
1/1/2014
Salvation Army
BUYER:
OAK 378 LLC
RIGHTS TRANSFERRED:
All Cash
Fee Simple
Purchase of development site by developer. All cash.
378 11th Street
Oakland
94607
$1,500,000
7-Nov-2014
SALE COMMENTS:
Site Area:
Shape:
Zoning:
10,000
Topography:
Rectantgular
100 feet on 11th Street
CBD-C
Level
Probable Use:
Hotel
111
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
Non-corner site currently vacant and occupied as surface parking.

Max FAR = 20, Max units/acre = 483. Location across from EBMUD HQ;
two blocks from BART; Developer/Buyer plans 10-story building
implyin project FAR of 10.
Street Frontage:
No. Units:
UNIT INDICES:
$/SF:
$150.00
$/UNIT:
$13,514
LoopNet, MetroScan, Broker, Larry Westland 510-622-8466
Data Source:
LISTING NO. EIGHT

STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP:
SALE PRICE:
RECORDING DATE:
SELLER:
FINANCING:
SALE COMMENTS:
Site Area (SF):

Shape:
PROPERTY TYPE: LAND

ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: 002-0057-004-02
1225 Webster Street
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
Oakland
n/a
STATUS:
94702
Listed
LISTING PRICE:
n/a
$2,200,000
LISTING DATE:
n/a
9/1/2014
BUYER:
OAC Propertiies LLC
n/a
RIGHTS TRANSFERRED: Fee Simple
n/a
Property listed recently and has generated one offer which was
declined due to extended due diligence clause.
Zoning:
12,000
CBD-C; Height Area 7
Topography:
Rectangular
Level
100 feet on Webster Street, 120 feet on 13th Street
Street Frontage:
Probable Use:
PROPERTY COMMENTS:
Multi-unit ResidentialNo. Units:

133
Corner site in CBD zoned for commercial, though residential
development is most probable. Max FAR is 20. No height limit.

UNIT INDICES:
$/SF:
$183.33
$/Unit:
$16,541
Data Source:
Loopnet, Listing Broker, Matt Currie -415-543-9402
275 Turk St - King Edwards Apartments

San Francisco County
San Francisco, CA 94102

Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Price/SF:
Price/Unit:
Pro Forma Cap
Actual Cap Rate:
Comp ID:
Research Status:
07/15/2014
$12,000,000 - Confirmed
$370.54
$206,897
3.80%
3088080
Confirmed
Bldg Type:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
# of Units:
Parcel No:
1565 Madison St - Lake Park Apartments
Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Price/SF:
Price/Unit:
Pro Forma Cap
Actual Cap Rate:
Comp ID:
Research Status:
Bldg Type:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
# of Units:
Parcel No:
GRM/GIM: 11.00/Sale Conditions: -
SOLD
04/25/2014 (182 days on mkt)

Bldg Type:
$13,200,000 - Confirmed
Year Built/Age:
$318.96
RBA:
$220,000
# of Units:
Parcel No:
4.20%
3015958
GRM/GIM:
Confirmed
Sale Conditions:
Class B Multi-FamilyApartments
Built 1914 Age: 100
41,385 SF
60
0693-014
-
318-320 Turk St
SOLD

Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Price/SF:
Price/Unit:
Pro Forma Cap
Actual Cap Rate:
Comp ID:
Research Status:
11/04/2013
$6,843,000 - Confirmed
$278.74
$134,176
4.80%
2908956
Confirmed
Bldg Type:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
# of Units:
Parcel No:
Built 1924 Age: 89
24,550 SF
51
0337-007A
GRM/GIM: Sale Conditions: -
1389 Jefferson St - Doman Oakland
Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Price/SF:
Price/Unit:
Pro Forma Cap
Actual Cap Rate:
Comp ID:
Research Status:
SOLD
Alameda County
Oakland, CA 94612
Class C Multi-FamilyApartments
Built 1965 Age: 49
52,637 SF
66
008-0629-007-01
990 Geary St - Rex Arms Apartments
Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Price/SF:
Price/Unit:
Pro Forma Cap
Actual Cap Rate:
Comp ID:
Research Status:
SOLD
Alameda County
06/10/2014
$152.74
$121,818
4.80%
3057172
Confirmed
Built 1909 Age: 105
32,385 SF
58
0344-007
Oakland, CA 94612
SOLD
09/05/2013 (72 days on mkt)

Bldg Type:
$103,241,429 - Confirmed
Year Built/Age:
$411.32
RBA:
$391,066
# of Units:
Parcel No:
4.62%
2835273
GRM/GIM:
Confirmed
Sale Conditions:
Class A Multi-FamilyApartments
Built 2011 Age: 1
251,000 SF
264
002-0106-001-00, 002-0106-026-00,
002-0106-027-00, 002-0106-028-00 [Partial List]
-
500 Canyon Oaks Dr - Shadow Woods

Alameda County
Oakland, CA 94605
Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Price/SF:
Price/Unit:
Pro Forma Cap
Actual Cap Rate:
Comp ID:
Research Status:
SOLD
10/24/2012
$84.60
$10,068
4.80%
2668996
Confirmed
Bldg Type:
Year Built/Age:
RBA:
# of Units:
Parcel No:
Built 1986 Age: 26
43,438 SF
365
-
This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Yovino-Young, Inc. - 13733.
9/8/2014
Page 1
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
PETER D. OVERTON
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (License No. AG002631)
Recertified to 08/12/16 OREA, State of California
Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute
MAI; Appraisal Institute #11878
Qualified as Expert Witness - Alameda County Superior Court
EDUCATION
Department of Architecture, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964-65.
B.A. Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, 1965-1969
Professional Courses Completed:
AIREA - Real Estate Appraisal Principles Course 1A1
AIREA - Basic Valuation Procedures Course 1A2
AI - Capitalization; Theory & Techniques 1B_A
AI - Capitalization; Theory & Techniques 1B_B
AI - Case studies in Real Estate Valuation 2-1
AI - Report Writing & Valuation Analysis 540
AI - Eminent Domain Seminar
IRWA - Easement Valuation
IRWA - Legal Aspects of Easements
AI - Detrimental Conditions
McKissock - Regression Analysis
AI - USPAP 410-420
AI - Highest and Best Use / Market Analysis
1986
1987
1991
1991
1992
1994
1995
1996
1996
1998
1999
2000
2005
EXPERIENCE
All types of appraisal assignments in the San Francisco Bay Area
with an emphasis on commercial, industrial, office, complex
residential, and special purpose properties.
1986-1987 Mitch Durell & Associates Real Estate Appraisers

1987-1989 Dawson & Jones Inc. Real Estate Appraisals
1989-1990 Clyde Standley & Associates, Real Estate Appraisers
1990-Present
Senior Appraiser
Yovino-Young Incorporated, Berkeley, California
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
TAMARA SPOKANE, MAI
PROFESSIONAL CREDITENTIALS
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Licensed by the State of California Office of Real Estate
Appraisers (OREA), License AG 032515 Expiration 11/25/2015
Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute, MAI Designation
2012
Qualified as an expert witness in the Superior Court, State of California.

EDUCATION
Graduate of University of California at Berkeley, BS in Human Biodynamics
1995-1999
Allied Business School: Appraisal Principles, USPAP Courses, Real Estate Principles,
Real Estate Practice, Real Estate Finance
2003-2005
Appraisal Institute:
Business Practice & Ethics

Advanced Income Capitalization (Course 510)
Advanced Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use (Course 520)
Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches (Course 530)
General Appraiser Report Writing & Case Studies
Advanced Applications (Course 550)
Advanced Applications (Course 550)
Passed Comprehensive Examination for MAI Designation
Passed Demonstration Report Capstone Program
2005 & 2010

2005
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2012
EXPERIENCE
Yovino-Young, Inc.
2005-Present
Commercial Real Estate Appraiser
Commercial Real Estate Assignments in San Francisco Bay Area including property types: retail,
industrial, office, hospitality and mixed-use. Specializes in appraisal of Bed and Breakfast Inns,
boutique lodging properties, live/work conversion projects, condominium projects, apartments and
special purpose properties.
AppraisalHub
2004-2005
Commercial Appraiser Trainee
Assisted the in-house MAI in commercial appraisal assignments including apartment, Industrial, Retail
and Office properties. Assisted in the research, analysis, inspection and in the written report.
2003-2004
Regional Appraiser Manager
Managed 1,000+ residential assignments and 15+ commercial assignments per month. Managed team
of 100+ appraisers throughout the states of California, Hawaii, and Florida
2001-2003
Appraiser Panel Manager
Managed all types of appraisal assignments is San Francisco Bay Area with an emphasis on complex
residential assignments, 2-4 unit properties and live/work loft condominiums.

12th Street Remainder Parcel-1-22-14 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12th Street Remainder Parcel-1-22-14 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPRAISAL REPORT

12 Street Remainder Parcel

January 22, 2015

Dear Mr. Golde:

To: James Golde

The appraisal is subject to the following extraordinary assumption:

Attached as Exhibit E are statements of the professional qualifications of

Front of subject looking

Harrison Street looking

Harrison Street looking

14th Street looking west

14th Street looking east

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS.............................1

Reference No. 140665

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS

12th Street Remainder Parcel, East 12th Street & 2nd

D-LM-1, Lake Merritt Station Area District Mixed

The property was formerly part of the 12th Street right

Highest and Best

Immediate development with a multi-unit residential

Nine to twelve months.

Sales Comparison Approach:

Reference No. 140665

SCOPE OF APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT

Client and UrbanCore Development LLC

Form an opinion of market value of the

Assist intended user in evaluation of the property

See Extraordinary Assumptions enumerated in Section

Replacement Cost Approach; not applicable

The Replacement Cost Approach is based on the

Reference No. 140665

indicated by comparison with recent sales of

Physical inspection and verification of land areas,

Reference No. 140665

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY

Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map 10111, filed

City of Oakland, the Oakland Redevelopment Successor

Flood Map Zone:

The property is located in Flood Zone X, area

The property is not within a Special Study Zone as

Assessed Values and Taxation 2014-2015

Reference No. 140665

LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

This appraisal investigation and analysis is communicated in an Appraisal

Reference No. 140665

structural conditions, soil composition,

The property is appraised in

its as is condition as of the date of valuation

Special Limitations: Only Properties With Public Access

Reference No. 140665

Special Limitations: Possible Impairment By Hazardous Contamination

Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous

Reservation of Authorship Rights

Reference No. 140665

Limitations on Obligation to Perform Services

Submission of this appraisal constitutes full completion of the requested

The appraisals are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions:

Reference No. 140665

DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE

buyer and seller are typically motivated;

a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

Reference No. 140665

San Francisco Bay Region