e e e e e e e e e e e e good morning it is 9:35 today is the assessment appeals Board number one would brandan please take a roll call Board member Croft here board member finina board member cisk present thank you all right let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the it stands one nation God indivisible audience please remain standing I'm going to place those of you here in person and those of you on Zoom under oath before
you address the board please raise your right arm when you I complete reading your oath please stay I do you and each of you to solemly affirm that the testimony you're about to give and the matter is now pining before this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you you may now be seated thank you thank you now whenever Brandon is ready he will conduct the agenda review right so bear with him it might take with you we do have several pages so thank you for your p
atience um and we do have quite a number of people on Zoom um you should not hear your name called I'll stress that you should not be hearing your name called right now but if you do hear your name called please press the raise hand button or if participating by telephone star the 9 only if you hear your name called this is going to be to deny and reschedule cases that are not present today um all right sorry getting a little bit of feedback but I'll keep talking item 42 is going to be the first
on the agenda review application number 21299 applicant koh's Department Stores Incorporated as Le C removed from the agenda due to submission of a withdrawal item number 43 application number 21 10788 applicant CO's department stores Inc as Lei removed from the agenda due submission of a withdrawal items items 44 through 45 application numbers 22108 73 and 22108 78 applicant callose Incorporated removed from the agenda due submission of a withdrawal item 4 6 and 47 application number 21147 thr
ough 21148 contined to May 6 2024 Penning receipt of an original stipulations items 48 through 50 applications 21133 0 through 21113 31 and 2111 333 applicants homegood Incorporated continue to May 6 2024 pending receipt of original stipulations item number 51- 53 application number 2211 344 through 2211 346 applicant Home Goods Incorporated continued to May 6 2024 pending receipt of original stipulations item numbers 54 through 56 applications 21149 through 21411 applicant Marshals of Californi
a LLC continued to May 6 2024 pending receipt of original stipulations items 57 and 58 application numbers 2111 344 and 21335 applicant Marshals of California LLC continue to May 6 2024 pending receipt of original stipulations items 59 through 60 application number 2211 344 and 2211 349 applicant Marshals of California LLC continue to May 6 2024 Penny receipt of original stipulations items 61 and 62 application numbers 21412 and 20413 applicant TJ Max of California LLC continued to May 6 2024 pe
nding receipt original stipulations item 63 and 64 application number is 2111 335 and 2111 1337 applicant TJ Max of California LLC continued to May 6 2024 pening receipt original stipulations items 65 and 66 application numbers 22135 and 2211 351 applicant TJ Max of California LLC continued in May 6 2024 pinning receip of original stipulations item 105 application number 2110 872 applicant Rodriguez and Sons Pro as lur Garfield Beach CVS LLC as Lai continued to May 6 2024 pending receipt of orig
inal stipulations item 107 application number 22102 29 applicant Chad H and Janna Roberts trust by Chad Roberts seeing no one present deny due to lack of appearance item number 14 application number 22 111309 applicant Salem Radio Properties Incorporated removed from the agenda due to submission of a withdrawal item 118 application number 22114 38 applicant J Paul wandra continue to May 6 2024 pening receipt of original stipulation item 119 application number 22114 95 applicant Greenhawk LLC con
tinued to May 6 2024 Penny receipt of original stipulation item number 120 application number 22520 applicant Martinez John Senior trust estate Richard Martinez seeing no one present deny due to lack of appearance uh item 127 application number 2 31078 applicant Rod apek deny due to lack of appearance see no one present item number 128 application number 23101 01 applicant Kevin Voss deny due to lack of appearance again if you do hear your name called while I'm announcing these for denial due to
lack of appearance please press the raise hand button item 130 through 1 31 application 2310 1112 and 2310 1113 applicant MEK Family Trust deny due to lack of appearance item 132 application number 23138 applicant Z living trust denied due to lack of appearance item 133 application number 23138 2 applicant John France Deni due to lack of appearance item 134 application number 2310 388 applicant David and Angela Willis deny due to lack of appearance item 135 application number 23104 29 applicant
Steven Brock deny due to lack of appearance item 136 application number 231 0431 applicant 13 3 87 Fairview LLC Daniel toshner Deni due to lack of appearance item 139 application number 23106 32 applicant Renee H and Barbara Garcia Deni due to lack of appearance item 141 application number 23165 2 applicant Moen Family Trust deny it due to lack of appearance item 142 application number 23690 applicant Assad Reza Deni due to lack of appearance item 144 application number 23178 6 applicant Brett
Smith removed from the agenda due to submission of a withdrawal and items 145 through 147 application 2310 856 through 2310 858 David and a shine farb Family Trust deny due to lack of appearance I do not believe anybody made themselves known for the names I just read so recommendation is to approve the agenda review as stated is so move second thank you right and were there any objections to that motion right thank you all right that completes our agenda review do we have any public comments at
the moment I believe everybody in attendance today is for items on today's agenda which we'll get to shortly so there are no public comments at this time we have any comments from the board no all right thank you okay now it is time to roll through a regular agenda to figure out who wants to present their case or who wants to ask for a postponement and chair s just right before you do that we since we have a quite a number of people who I believe are rescheduling today I'm just going to let ever
ybody know what their options are going to be um our next hearing is April 8th however that's only 21 uh 28 days away so that probably won't work for most of you um May 6th is probably going to be the day that most people um request that's going to be 56 days away um but if you owe any additional information to the assess you're likely going to need to provide that to them by April 6th which is uh coming up and then the third option will be June 10th which is 91 days away um and in that case you
um depending on the discussion you would either need to provide um any outstanding data by May 5th sorry May 11th uh if it's requested 30 days prior or if you're requested to provide information within the next 30 days it would be April 10th so those of you requesting reschedule please please keep in mind which of those dates you would like to request and and be checking your schedules now so that when we get to you you know which date works best for you thank you thank you Cher sis okay thank
you okay so we'll start with our first application 18-114 Los robas Regional Medical Center and chair CIS we're actually going to be able to cover items 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 through 20 21 22 23 24- 26 27- 29 30 31- 32 33- 35 36 37 38 39 through 41 all with one action um this is a status hearing on all of the cases I believe we have Ryan mler on Zoom I and Ryan I got you unmuted is there anyone else from vers Tex I need to unmute just me this morning thank you let's see looks like we got a
problem with the sound there we go all right thank you Ryan um all right so chair s this is just a status hearing to determine if we are ready to set a special hearing for all of these cases and it's my understanding that we're not quite ready to set this the special hearing date yet is that right Mr McClure yes that's correct we've had uh several update calls with the assessor's office and it looks like we're going to most likely be able reach the stipulations on all these appeals so um no nee
d for a special hearing to be set just yet so chair syis I'd recommend uh well we can of course check in with the assessor as well but I'd recommend we continue the status heing to May 6th and then check in if if a special hearing is needed at that time given that the parties are still discussing um and I believe I discussed this with you prior Mr mlar May 6th would work for you for a subsequent status correct correct May six works and I want to check with the assessor any comments from the asse
ssor's office good morning Brook Hill representing the assessor's office May 6 uh sounds great to do another status conference we agree this is likely uh going to be resolved without a special hearing do you need any data or is everything I don't believe so no okay so we're just looking for a motion to postpone till May 6th before we get into that I see there's a stipulation for a continuance was signed um 20 of 20 do we need any other continuances any other stipulations are we running into any
other deadlines so those are the that's the history of Prior reschedules so this is getting uh rescheduled again um but um these are some very old cases going back to the 2014 year um so right now U today's hearing was just for the a check-in on the status of progression to see if the parties ready to set a a date for a special hearing dedicated to this case um and so all we're doing is rescheduling the status hearing to May 6 at this point and then we'll check in on May 6th to see if the partie
s are ready for a uh special hearing or if it's resolved we won't have to have any hearing at all thank you okay I move we rescheduled to the to uh what was it May 6 May 6th okay second thank you all right that takes care of items 8 through 41 and we have one more for Mr McClure while he's on the line if we just want to jump there it's going to take another chunk of our agenda out um give me just a second it's going to be the backs alter cases which I think is just two more pages forward startin
g on page eight item 70 okay so uh it's items 70 through 76 uh 77 through 83 84 85 through 91 and 92 through 98 are ALS so this is also status hearing for Mr McClair so turn it back over to him yes thank you um yeah for these appeals they include both real property and personal property and we've been making progress with on both sides of the um assessor's office there and um just also like to request uh postpone this to May 6 for another status hearing um as I think we'll likely be able to reso
lve these also VI stipulation okay thank you any comments from the assessor's office uh the assessor received uh some data last week uh so we do need additional time to review it and since we haven't had a chance to fully review what has been sent we would like to request a provis of that the data be provided within 30 days and May 6 is uh is fine so 30 days of today or May 6th 30 days from today okay looking for a motion to postpone to May 6 with the provice so that any data request should be p
rovided within 30 days of today so move I second that thank you all right thank you Mr mlar you're all set for today thank you everyone all thank you all right all right that's GNA take us all the way to page seven of our agenda item 67 oh yeah number 67 okay all right application 21-10 483 and 10484 Joshua 2415 LLC we have Mona gani on Zoom for this item thank you good morning good morning are you prepared to move forward today uh we'd like to have the hearing continued okay all right any com y
es uh we can go with the May 6th date okay any comments from the assessor's office um the May 6 is fine uh the assessor has received some data um but if we could go ahead and add a Proviso um so we have a chance to review it and see if there's anything else we need all right um looking for a motion to postpone to May 6 with the provide so that any data requested be provided within 30 days of today so move I second that thank you and CH just not for the record while it does indicate the two years
has expired Miss gani had submitted a two-year waiver after uh the agenda was uh sent out so we do have a waiver on file for this um allowing for today's continuance oh perfect thank you we're all set thank you Miss gani you're all set thank you okay next application 21-10 601 Jose Rellis Mr Rellis please come forward to the podium good morning good morning are you prepared to move forward today um I don't have all the documents because they're asking for taxes of my brothers uh 30 years 35 plu
s years I do have mine they're present here with me to testify that they don't have them uh I'm very new with this procedure so I I'm doing my best to um resolve this matter okay uh 2005 you guys did an assessment a and a appraisal that jump my prices on this house so that's why I'm I'm disputing the the reason of the increase of taxes since we own the house but I got all my taxes here proof of payments and where I've been the owner of the house since since then okay any comments from the assess
or's office uh the assessor was still requesting uh data um so we would request a Proviso and if uh Mr Rellis if you could speak with Mr Phillips before you go to connect on what data he's still looking for that would be great okay um so we'll postpone this do we have a date to postpone it to May 6th May 6th May 6th for reason we don't have any more documents to provide so what will be the reason to reschedule that's what we have right now at this moment but again I'll follow up with May 6 um I
take the May 6 uh after we speak to Joe Phillips about the procedure yeah if if we could do may with a Proviso um and then you and Mr Phillips can work out um what data is available sure okay sounds great looking for a motion to post one to May 6 yes can I make you were here about a month ago weren't you right right yeah and we had sort of the same discussion correct and I'm wondering why we seem to be chasing our tals around now that not that I going to vote against a continuance but are those
documents not available at all they're not available we look I mean we we tried our best but uh this is 30 plus years at income taxes so we're there's nothing that nothing to ex there's no there's no there there right exactly you may you don't you you don't have those documents I still don't yeah okay so um okay so if but I we don't go through this third time and look for something that isn't there uh because I think you said this before before right and I don't I think there was maybe some misu
nderstanding between the sides so if if we can hopefully next time proceed with the data we have and both parties can talk and try and figure out what D what other data might be available um the board would appreciate that or at least I would appreciate that okay thank you thank you looking for motion to postpone to May 6 with the provice so that any data requested by the Assessor's Office must be provided within 30 days so move I second thank you next application 21-10 771 and 10772 Best Buy Co
rporation and we can also simultaneously uh handle items 101 through 104 also for Best Buy we have uh Katherine CAU of uh Best Buy on Zoom thank you Miss CTO thank you um we are asking for postponement um for all for these for these two matters um we have complied with uh with the assessor uh requirements to get information in but um it unfortunately was not down by 126 so um I believe the assessor's office is also fine with us I not sure that we need the provisor all I think we have provided th
e information um and we're pending a review okay thank you any comments from the Assessor's Office the assessor did receive data last week uh we haven't had time to complete our review uh so we would like to request a Proviso in the event um there's anything missing within 30 days of today okay and is May 6th okay for both parties yes yes okay for us as well okay perfect we are um looking for a motion to postpone to May 6th with the provide so that any data requested by the assessor's office be
provided within 30 days of today so move second thank you thank you Miss CTO okay next item 21-11 1476 Neil gold we have Mr Gold by telephone please press star than six on your telephone keypad to unmute your telephone and that's going to be star than six to unmute okay I'm online all right good morning I'm online good morning thank you for having me you're welcome thank you for attending are you prepared to move forward today sir no I'm not I'm waiting for one document to come in from uh the at
torney that was preparing myh trust and U I have yet to receive it because something happened in his office okay okay any comments from the assessor's office uh the assessor agrees a continuances an order and we would request a data Proviso within 30 days of if we're going to May 6th okay are we okay with May 6th um is it can we push it out to June 10 if that's okay with all parties that's fine with the assessor okay looking for a motion to postpone to June 10th with the provice so that any data
requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days so move second uh I uh I agree sir thank you thank you very much thank you thank you I'm going to end the call thank you all right thank you have a good day all right next application 22-10 576 at LLC we have Adam tanky on Zoom for this item please unmute thank you Goodell good morning are you prepared to move forward we're doing good are you prepared to move forward today sir uh I am not I'm actually uh asking for hold on I got in m
y email here uh requesting an amendment to appeal the base value okay of this yes chair CIS um I did have a discussion M with Mr teny last week um he purchased or the LLC purchased the property September 7th 2021 um so this appeal is eligible to be amended to appeal that so the requested action before your board would be to approve the applicant's request to amend the application in section six to add the selection of box B2 which is a base value challenge for the September um 7th 2021 change in
ownership and so we would need your board's approval to make that Amendment okay do you have any comments from the Assessor's Office uh the amendment is fine with the assessor and we we haven't received any data so we would request a Proviso that it be provided within 30 days okay so we need a motion on the amendment and then we want to postpone it to different dates we need two motions correct so right now is just the amendment and then if your board approves then we'll talk about reset lookin
g for a motion to approve the amendment so move second thank you all right so that's approved uh so a continuance of at least 45 days is required for amendments so that's the May 6th or June 10th date uh depending on the preference of the parties either one is fine with the assessor yeah either is fine we've got the appraisal is done already so what whatever works for everybody's fine with may we do the May 6th okay looking for a motion to postpone to May 6 we need data the assessory requ the th
e appraisal was just emailed on Friday so okay so haven't read it yet right so do you want me to put the data provice in there okay please looking for motion to postpone to May 6 with the provice so that any data request would be provided within 30 days so move second all right thank you sir thank you okay next application 22-11 037 Judy Basera it's like we have have Doug Mei on Zoom for this item I'll allow him to unmute good morning Doug Mickey here good morning are you prepared to move forwar
d today sir uh I was advised by the assessor's office that they intended to continue this I think they're still working on their evaluation of the parent child exclusion claim okay any comments from the assessor's office uh the assessor agrees that a continuance as in order we are I'm looking at the prop 58 claim did we need data and we need data so we would like to add a Proviso and then do we have a date in mind May or June May 6 would be fine okay works on our side too okay great looking for
a motion to postpone to May 6 with the provis so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days so move second thank you all right okay next application 22-11 z57 Bloom Energy Corporation I believe we have Ronald gangl on Zoom for this item yes that's correct well good morning hi good morning are you prepared to move forward today sir uh no the applicant would request a continuance on this we had there's a multi multiple location type items and we got a couple of the
m resolved this one kind of snuck by so I think we have some information due to the assessor but we'd like to continue this to the June hearing date okay any comments from the assessor's office uh June is fine with the assessor we would request that the data be provided within 30 days of today okay all right looking for a motion to postpone to June 10th with the provide so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days of today so move I second all right thank you th
ank you okay next application 22-11 one33 Mesa verie Office Park we have Steve Griffin by telephone thank you Mr Griffin good morning good morning are you prepared to move forward today uh no sir we'd like to extend to uh May 6th okay any comments from the assessor's office uh May 6 is fine uh we would request a data Proviso we have um received some data but it was um past the deadline and so um we'll need a little bit more time to review that okay looking for a motion to postpone to May 6 with
the Proviso that any data request by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days of today so Mo I second thank you thank you Mr Griffin you're all set thank you board appreciate your help all right thank you next application 22-11 1282 hsre Oakmont cambrio LLC we can also talk about item 113 is the same property a slightly different owner um but they're both um the same property uh we have Brent buzzerk of Altis group on Zoom for this item thank you good morning hi good morning good morning
are you prepared to move forward today uh no we're going to ask the board if we can reschedule both of these it okay any comments from the assessor's office um the assessor hasn't received any data so we would request a Proviso and either date is fine okay do you have a date Mr buerk yeah we would prefer June 10th if it's okay with everybody that's fine okay looking for a motion to postpone to June 10th with the provide so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 d
ays of today so move I second thank you thank you all right thank you have a good day sir all right next application 22-11 336 bright Peninsula Road LLC we have Dylan Hoy of Paradigm Tax Group on Zoom for this item hello good morning everyone good morning are you prepared to move forward today I believe uh us and the owners are asking for a continuance um we believe that there's going to be an appraisal completed probably not in time for yeah not in time for the upcoming so we we'd like to exten
d it out to June 10th to provide further time for that uh appraisal to be completed okay um June 10th any comments from the assessor's office um June 10th is fine uh do you think that the appraisal will be available within the next 30 days probably that it's possible um but uh I I can't promise that I'll have it by you know the next available hearing date so I think June 10th is probably the best but I 30 days we should probably be able to have it by yeah okay um 30 days prior to the hearing dat
e could we do 45 days this is a pi is my understanding so it's a little bit more complex so if we could have um if we could do 45 days prior just to give us a little extra time okay okay looking for a motion to postpone to June 10th with the provice so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days of the hearing date 45 days of the hearing date thank you 45 days prior correct yes 45 days prior to the hearing date so move I second thank you thank you chair for effici
ency's sake I'm going to say let's skip item 16 16 for now and go to 117 okay all right um application 22-11 420 Northshore healthc LLC I Mr buzzerk is that you I don't see anyone else from Altus on the call any longer yes I'm making the appearance on behalf of Christian Tucker thank you okay are you prepared to move forward today on this one uh no sir we're actually going to request to have this rescheduled as well okay any comments from the assessor's office the assessor hasn't received any da
ta so we would request a Proviso that it be provided within 30 days and um June 6 or June 10th or May 6 is fine with the assessor okay is June 10th okay yeah June 10 work sorry June 10th works for us okay looking for a motion to postpone to June 10th with the provide so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days so move I second thank you all right thank you see okay application 22-11 1638 Robin steel we have Robin Steel on Zoom for this item thank you hi good mo
rning are you prepared to move forward today uh well I'd like to say yes but the answer is no uh the reason is that we are still disputing a second assessment that was applied to the H the home my mother passed away we inherited it we appealed the first assessment we moved it to an LLC and so we're working through those details with Brendan and Scott so we need a little more time to finish that okay any comments from the yes any comments from the assessor's office um it it's the Assessor's under
standing that there was an amendment needed to this application um although my notes don't indicate exact what the amendment was there's a lot of complications with the multi- transfers so the applicant needs to discuss with uh the assigned appraiser Scott Bradley a little more before we determine okay what amendments are necessary it's not as uh cut and dry as we would have hoped because of the LLC involvement um so the applicant's going to meet with Scott and Mr Bradley and then um Amendment m
ay be necessary at a later time but it this point there's too many unanswered questions to know for certain if if we're ready for that so okay well given that do do we want to meet on April 8th to discuss whether or not an amendment is necessary um because if an amendment is necessary then that would extend it out another 45 days so I don't want to push it out too far um so hopefully we can resolve it quickly does that work for the applicant well my only concern is that I feel like I'm bouncing
back and forth between Brendan and Scott to try and figure out what we need to do perhaps the three of us could jump on a call and come to some decision and then I would be okay with the April 8th time frame yeah um does that make sense I'll reach out to Mr Bradley and work out a time where we can all get on the phone together and and figure this out I appreciate it thank you so should we go for April 8th or should we wait till May 6th worst case scenario April 8th we do another extension but ho
pefully everything is clarified to where if an amendment is necessary it can be approved on April 8th okay I'm good with that I appreciate it thank you so we're going to postpone this to April 8th yeah I'm not sure if there's outstanding data the assessor requesting um there is but it depends because we don't know depends on on on whether or not we need to amend the application on what would be needed so um if we can just agree that April 8th will be a discussion on whether an amendment is neede
d I think we could just wait until then for any um data provisors and we'll be are you referring to the amendment to make the decision on the eth because I believe I've sent you pretty much all the paperwork that we have so is it just simply the amendment that we need to discuss on the eth is that what you're on on the eth yes and then and then we will discuss prior to with um Mr lakas and Mr Bradley okay that sounds good I'll wait to see the dates that work for you both you gentlemen and I'll I
'll make myself available so thank you okay so we're postponing this till April 8th with no data Proviso because it's not enough time correct okay all right looking for a motion to postpone till April 8th and this is just on the if there's a need for an amendment or not is that correct yeah basically it's going to be said there's there's a multiple transfers and llc's involved and so that's why it's right we tried to work with the to work it out but there's a lot of complications to do it over t
he last few days so I think it's basically going to be a status can they amend or not can they not amend and then where do we go from there okay so move a second thank thank you thank you everybody all right thank you Miss steel you're all set okay next application look we have two in a row um 22-11 1653 and 11654 um On The Rise Properties LLC yeah and also 2024 125 same applicant different year we have Carl Lindner of assessment canceling services on Zoom for this item thank you Mr Lindner uh g
ood morning everyone good morning members of the board are you prepared to move forward today um actually I just wanted to check in with the assessor here because it's my understanding that they made this correction back in October and nothing has been changed on my client's side as far as billing or refunds so I would love to get some clarification on that okay any comments from the assessor's office uh the assessor hasn't received any data on this case so I'm not um sure what change we're talk
ing about um but I would recommend um that the applicant reach out to Mr Phillips uh to discuss the case after the hearing today uh to to determine s up but we actually I mean we've already received a notice of assessment enrollment change uh it was a sales price issue that we cleared up with Mr Phillips and I'm just curious it looks like I have the notice from you guys I'm just curious as to why it's been five months in the bills haven't changed so that's not under the jurisdiction of this boar
d so if you've received notice of assessment role correction and are satisfied with those um assessments that would be as far as this board could take it any refund questions or under the jurisdiction of the county auditor controller and you'd have to discuss with their office any refund but that would uh not be within this board's jurisdiction to discuss the the refunds um if you want to um you can reach the auditor for refund status at AUD ptax ventura.org um and they can answer any refund que
stions you have um okay uh I would ask that uh to protect my client's rights I am a little paranoid a little bit I have to be honest uh if we could just postpone this hearing and then the second I see that it's been processed by the auditor I'll withdraw it okay um I I do know they are um probably not in issuing any refunds until June J so do we want to continue it to June just to be safe I'm acceptable to that and if I haven't gotten anything by then I'll just put in the paperwork so we don't h
ave to go through this again okay any comments from the assessor's office uh I'm I'm not sure what the disconnect is here um I would um still recommend the applicant reach out to Mr Phillips and we would still request a data Proviso um because I I I'm looking at Mr Phillips and he is um is not aware of the role correction that that the applicant is speaking of so we would request a data Proviso just in the event um there is still an outstanding issue uh under appeal okay thank you looking for a
motion to postpone to June 10th with the provid so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days so Mo I second thank you thank you Mr Linder you're all set all right thank you thank you okay next application 23-1 z13 Robert parum we have Mr pum on Zoom for this item uh please press star than six on your telephone keypad to unmute again star than six Mr perum thank you hello okay morning yes we can are you prepared to move forward today sir oh I am give me my phone
on this yes sir hello are you prepared to move forward today I am um okay do we have any comments from the assessor's office uh the assessor is not prepared to move forward today um we're still waiting on some data uh specifically repair costs um so we would request a continuance with a data Proviso that the data be provided within 30 days of today okay so then the May 10th that would be fine 6th I mean okay so do you understand that they're still waiting on a little bit of data from you sir um
I sent all I sent most of data but I'm going to be out of the country in May 10th I won't even be where there's phone reception okay what about June 10th would you be back till like the 20th well June 10th June 10th is fine with the assessor yeah okay that would be fine okay um we sent all that information I thought okay they still need a little bit of information from you we we did receive data on Sunday so we haven't had time to review okay so it may or may not be enough okay looking for a mot
ion to postpone to June 10th with the provice so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days so Mo I second that all right thank you so they'll be reaching out you for some data and then hopefully you guys can work this out before we get together in June thank you sir all right thank you have a great day next application 23-10 one7 Javed atami ROM no one has checked in for this item I do not believe if you're on Zoom for this item please press the raise hand butto
n participating by telephone please press star the nine if you're in person please come forward forward to the podium I do have some unidentified callers but no one is raising their [Music] hand um all right um all right seeing no one what do my notes say I called I also tried contacting the applicant last week and left uh two voice messages at each of their phone numbers received no response um so we have no um indication if they'd be here today T not or not recommendation is to deny due to lac
k of appearance I so move I second thank you and next application item 137 it's application 23-10 591 Dennis mcdermid I believe they're in person please come forward to the podium hi good morning good morning can you say your name for us please Dennis mcdermid all right are you prepared to move forward today uh no the assessor needs a little bit more time to process the claim if it's possible like to reschedule till May 6th any comments from the assessor's office um May 6 is fine um there is a P
rop 19 claim in process uh we would request a data provid Proviso in the event um there's any additional information we need to process the claim okay so we're looking for a motion to postpone to May 6th with the provisor that any data requested by the Assessor office be provided within 30 days so move I second all right thank you real real quick uh hold on just a second let me document that you said you're Mr McDermot correct yes sir okay and this case indicates you're represented by John Barlo
but he's not present today is that correct he's not present today okay on May 6 so normally it will be Mr Barlo that would attend the hearing so for May 6th if this is not resolved we'll Mr Barlo be available to present the case or are you going to present the case yourself Mr Barlo will be here he's leaving town but he'll be not till after the C not till after the okay I just wanted to make sure since it indicated somebody else was handling the case thank you for that then you're all set okay
thank you thank you okay next application 23-10 598 syano Garcia yes we have Mr Garcia by telephone please press star than six on your telephone keypad star than six on your telephone keypad um this uh no confirmation of appearance was received at least 30 days prior to today's hearing so Mr Garcia is required by your board's rules to request a reschedule to a later date and um provide data to the assessors so given that a reschedule is required um Mr Garcia I see you're by telephone so our date
s are going to be May 6th or June 10th did you have a preference between those two dates probably June 10 and then if you want to check any comments with the from the assessor's office um June 10th is fine if we could also request a data provis okay looking for a motion to postpone to June 10th with the provis so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days so move I second thank you real quick Mr Garcia since since you um did you get our prior Communications regar
ding today's hearing and the requirements to submit paperwork at least 30 days prior um no I was okay was not able to submit it on the prior to 2 21 days okay I just want to make sure I okay within the next 30 days you need to so you need to provide information to the assessor so make sure you reach out to them later this week to discuss um okay do you need any information on how to contact to the assessor uh yes okay you're G to give them a call at 805 654 2181 again that's 805 654 2181 and he
should speak with Miss mirez correct and ask for Audrey Ramirez she's the appraiser assigned to your case okay okay yeah you should have received some Communications so we just want to make sure you get those going forward since it doesn't look like you had got them oh okay thank you yeah I will right any any other questions before we let you go um no I think that's all right thank you have a good day I don't have any questions thank you very much all right thank you thank you chair CIS just wan
ted to make sure we close that communication gap no problem okay so next application is 23-10 636 Nia minini Bonino do we have anyone present for this item we had received some emails I'm going to recommend we Trail this we we received some emails uh indicating potential emergency but no further details um that was this morning so I need to follow up so I'd recommend we Trail this and come back to it at the end of the day okay no problem um item 143 application 23-10 779 ruy Heim we have Mr Heim
on Zoom for this item are you there yes I'm here thank you good morning are you prepared to move forward today sir good morning are you prepared Tove today no we're [Music] um I'm was expecting some stipulations to come in and uh so we need a postponement okay um any comments from the assessor's office um the assessor would request a data provider on this one okay and either dat is fine okay and then um Mr Heim do you have a date in mind either May 6th or June 10th uh May 6th is fine okay okay
we're looking for a motion to postpone excuse me uh Tony fro assessment board now you mentioned that you're expecting some stipulations in your mind has this case been resolved I I believe we've come to an agreement but uh I was speaking with Audrey Ramirez on Thursday of last week and uh she was going to send me the stipulation paperwork to sign and return uh but it hasn't come yet um she said she may not get it by today so request a continuance Audrey Ramirez with the assessor's office that is
correct we spoke on Thursday um I just needed a u confirmation of the date um that the hearing was going to be moved to we did receive data so we don't technically need the um data provis so it just was received late um so that's why we're requesting the continuance just to allow time um for him to receive the stipulation um approve it and get it back to our office so you don't need the provisor for additional information no we've already come to an agreement of value it just previously uh hadn
't received it we we got the information about um within the last week and a half or so okay thank you okay so we want to postpone it with no data Proviso with the Assumption you'll solve this okay looking for a motion to postpone to May 6th so move I second thank you my apologies for the confusion on that one it's okay all right all right um we're not quite ready for item 148 yet because I those haven't been routed to County Council yet but if you want to go to item 151 and approve the regular
stipulations those were routed to your board uh last uh Thursday for review and recommend action is to approve the stipulations did everyone have a chance to review them okay looking for motion to approve so move I second thank you uh Brendan Joe Phillips with the assessor yeah um we had Mr Bernett with item 149 come to our counter today I believe he wanted to speak about that item 149 149 okay is he there present yeah he's in the audience so go ahead and come forward um this is an agreement to
resolve the case but it has um it's here on my desk um we got it this morning hasn't been routed to the assessor I mean to the board's attorney or or the board yet um so while the rest of the hearings are going on today those will be routed um so uh please state your name and go ahead with your comments good morning board my name is James Bard Barbara berdette is my life partner okay good morning and then you had some comments for us or yes good morning well first of all I'd like to apologize fo
r my parents I was is even planning on being here for this um well uh we're having a little bit of a hard time uh coming to the fact that we think this assessment of the of the vessel that we own um or partially owned with the bank uh is quite Steep and uh we we feel it's not fair because it was assessed in 22 I bought it 19 I understand Co made everything go up and down as far as values of things but that seems like it's one-sided what happens to the individual where monetary things don't move
when you're on a fixed income it's it's extremely hard to to swallow the the assessment that we have to pay every year it's it's pretty steep and um I'm just appealing it to see if we can't get a a true uh assessment on the value of the vessel because it's I've looked on myself on the different websites and it seems like the the mean value is in mid-30s okay low low to mid-30s I've seen them low is like 25 to 40 for the used vessel of what I have and there's many configurations you can have on t
hese boats you can have them with or without the lounger without their fish tanks I mean Mr Bard can I stop you it sounds like you're getting into the details of your case so the board before it today has an agreement signed by miss berett that reduces the value for 2022 to $50,100 um that's going to be routed to the board shortly for their review I've just handed a copy to the board's councel um are you saying you no longer agree with the agreement that was signed to reduce it to ,200 yeah that
that was signed and scanned into the system and then last week I received an email saying well hey we have to have a printed copy well we we were out of town we got got back in town yesterday I printed it last night we discussed it and she says well if it is what it is it is but you know we we still don't agree with it but if we have to we have to that's just plain simple fact way it is but I I do have a her signed she's the one that filed for us okay I have her signed copy right here um I can
turn it in and lay down and take it but we don't agree with it it's it's just so to clarify and cany Council pres her signature on there is an agreement that that should be the value for 2022 so you're saying she signed it after she signed it she changed her mind well we discussed it excuse me we discussed it go either way before we get into that are you on title do yes sir I am you are on title I the primary purchaser of the boat so you you do have the right to to to represent the the case on t
he valuation as far as the the board goes you're under no durest to take that stipulation the session's offic has offered it to you you have to make that decision just right like any other court case is it worth my trouble to drop it 5,000 10,000 or maybe even get it higher that's yours and and um Miss Burnett's decision um I don't want an approve a stipulation that you really sort of feel you signed in duress but then you have to be willing to go ahead and present your case well excuse me I'm I
'm I may misspeak here but I do remember seeing an email that came through I wish I had a copy of it it seemed like that the boat was valued at from the board around 37 or 39,000 and then I see this one here for over 50 I'm going oh wait a minute what's what happened here again we're at this point we're not hearing the case right we're just trying to find out do you want to turn in that stipulation in which case every you go home or do you want to come back at a different time and you want to wi
thdraw that stipulation I mean that's all we can hear and do proove that stipulation or withdraw that stipulation I'd like to withdraw it at this time brandan is that possible that I assume that's possible um I don't so this hearing was actually scheduled for Jan anuary 22nd and they did not attend it was only rescheduled today for the original to come in so they should have attended on January 22nd but we need to defer to County Council um since there was already a signed agreement on any advic
e or if we need to Trail this till later the speaker at the podium has indicated that um they're rethinking the wisdom of entering into the stipulation and um I was handed a Xerox copy of the stipulation and I signed it before the full presentation today I think under the circumstances this matter should be continued to one further hearing to confirm one way or another with Miss Bernett if she's withdrawing her consent or if they wish you know and they wish to go forward with a litigated hearing
or if they wish to abide by the stipulation for the value at ,200 all right so based on County council's advice we would yeah it makes sense to yeah postpone it yeah if you want to hear it yeah absolutely um just out of curiosity what happens if one party agrees and the other party doesn't agree if they're both on title I would presume that both need to consent to a stipulation okay thank you okay so do we need to vacate that um with the stipulation how do has not approved it so I say your boar
d so the the action for your board was just because they didn't um ever turn in the original to approve the fact copy um otherwise this would have been closed back in January so no action by your board is required given County council's advice device it's just you're taking no action on the stipulation and I I sounds like you're um approving a continuance to a later date yeah if that's what if we want to not approve the stipulation then yeah then we go back to a continuance and then you could co
me in and plead your side so is there a date part particular date that would work better for you sir um I'm due to have s shoulder surgery tomorrow I'll be incapacitated for up to six weeks so if we could make it in I heard something another meeting in June is that possible June 10th yeah the options are on the screen so June 10th June please okay so we'll postpone this to June 10th does the assessor need any data or anything or it doesn't look like it um I'm I was looking in the folder the app
the assign appraiser is not here today um but I can see that obviously we had enough to do a stipulation um if we could add a data Proviso just in case there's anything else we would want if we were preparing for a hearing um okay uh we can let the applicant know in the next week if there's any additional information needed okay sounds good looking for a motion to postponed to June 10th with the provice so that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days so move I seco
nd thank you just just to just to clarify so that you come back I know this is a new procedure for you if you come back what we would be looking for and if you say it's not worth the 50,000 just like if you were trying to sell me the boat um here's the data I have to support my valuation these this boat sold or this is why I don't think you know sometimes when you're new to this you tend to sort of wander on oh it's got this it's got that we really need hard data and so that's my advice to any a
pplicant that comes in well the question I have um it was present Ed to me earlier that the value of the boat is being assessed not when I bought the boat but being assessed after the fact in so in 22 right so this appeal is not for your purchase price it's for the market value of the vessel as of January 1st 2022 so that's what you have to submit evidence for and you have the burden to show the market value of this vessel and what it would hypothetically back in2 January 1st 2022 okay that's by
I was ignorant to that fact of what I have to look for so thank you may I chime in yes um I think it might be beneficial the assigned appraiser is Mike gillinger he is out today um but Mr Vernon uh Joe Vernon in the back is also um very well versed in boat appraisal um I think it would be beneficial if you could speak to him um after the board makes their motion and and he'd be happy to go over um kind of the mechanics of of what we're looking at thank you okay well thank you to the board you a
ll have a good day okay did we have that seconded uh yeah that motion passed it's been rescheduled the June 10th with the applicant required to provide the assessor any additional data in the next 30 days who who has the burden of proof in in that it's a vessel so the applicant has to prove these assessor value is incorrect if if the applicant lives on that vessel does he is the burden shift it become owner occupied uh a question we'd had to address at the hearing they do not live on the vessel
they live in Newberry Park okay I can clarify I'm 100% disabled veteran okay if I lived on the boat we would have this conversation but we I don't I'm being totally honest about it you know so yeah okay thank you thank you thank you thank you okay so the item 116 back to where 116 is that Amazon Mr yeski if you want to come forward to the podium real quick uh good morning to The Honorable board good morning good morning are you prepared to move forward today I am okay and assessor's office are y
ou prepared to move forward today yes uh the assessor is prepared to move forward and our presentation should take about an hour okay and how long your presentation take I would assume about the same okay and um we when we talked last week you weren't sure are you requesting written findings of fact today uh I would like to yes okay so findings effect will be requested by the applicant um so if your board would like to take a break till 10:45 will get set up for this first yes and then do we als
o have there's another one we had trailed yeah uh I'll while this next hearing is going on I'll take care of our two outstanding items that were trailed um there's one of them is we got some emails about a potential emergency but lack of details so I'm going to follow up on that while we're hearing the first case and then the second one is another um non original stipulation that needs approval but um I haven't had time to review that or hand it to County Council yet so um we'll do that while th
e first hearing is ongoing and take care of those two items at the end of the day rather than 10:45 can we make that 102 1050 we need a little bathroom break okay yeah okay so we're going to adjourn for 10 minutes thank you all right thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay it is um 1055 and we are back on the record all right um I've handed out a copy of today's application um which is a supplemental assessment for the October 1st 2021 change in ownership um I'll c
larify this up front because it confused me at first the applicant is amazon.com Services LLC is Sean the applicant but the property owner for the change of ownership is conceala properties to LLC so it's been clarified Amazon is filing as a party affected uh which they're allowed to do if they were responsible for payment of the supplemental property taxes um because it was a purchase um and the purchase price is being challenged the applicant has the burden of proof and the applicant's exhibit
one has been submitted to the board um and sorry I'm just noticing uh Mr paan on the bottom of this exhibit it says uh confidential just to clarify everything presented to the board today is public record and is available to the public to review and copy upon inspections so um that confidential disclaimer there um will be um not considered I just want to make sure that was clear did you have any questions on that that's okay um so then we're good to go unless the board wanted overview from the
assessor yes board member fro yes just to clarify by U Amazon is is filing the appeal now is the ownership still in uh de's name or did it transfer after this to Amazon or so Bridget is an employee of Amazon so if you look at the on page three the notice of supplemental assessment you'll see that was issued to canila properties to LLC uh and so I don't know if the assessors got an answer to that question um as long as Amazon was responsible for payment of the taxes um for the supplemental they h
ave appeal rights as a party affected so um it wouldn't I just wonder if this was a case where somebody bought it and then sold it to Amazon or sold it to another entity or if they still own it I Mr panski and I apologize I'm probably mispronouncing I will dive into that U or I could explain it right now if you'd like sure why we got on our mind uh so we're a tenant in the building uh the property was uh purchased by an investor and uh the property taxes are paid by Amazon okay okay and then tha
t investor still owns the property that is correct so we don't we don't have any hidden second sales or something that we should be aware of um not not to my knowledge now okay thank you that's so I believe the applicant has a burden of proof is that correct that's what I've been told yes okay um does the assessor's office fond give us a short over um short brief or overview sure Zachary Clifford with the assessor's office uh the overview is the the nature of the appeals the applicant is disputi
ng that the sale price of 128 million on October 1st 2021 was fair market value at the time of transfer and we also conclude that Amazon is the uh is the affected party considering they pay the property tax so we're in agreement there uh the property is a 290,000 plus sare foot building with a 195,000 ft parking structure uh located on the corner of 118 in Madera Road uh the property is located on 43 and a half acres with a substantially less usable space um and it was formerly a corporate offic
e building and subsequently renovated to uh provide logistical support for the for Amazon or the tenant as an as a industrial building uh it was previously sold at oxygen for 16 million on May 5th [Music] 2020 and the then the buyer acquired a conditional use permit to change his Zing to uh to permit for warehouse and distribution uses and then it was in turn renovated and least and subsequently sold that's a general overview okay did you say 16 million or 60 million one 16 16 million okay I thi
nk we're all said um Mr pansy whenever you want to present your case all very good um again thank you for your uh time uh indeed the subject property uh is a uh 290,000 square foot um uh former office property that has been uh repurposed uh for uh as an industrial building um it's loc located at uh 400 National way just um on the North Boundary of uh SEI Valley um the ground floor of the property is is essentially has been converted to uh Warehouse use the upper level which formerly used to be o
ffice area uh right now is still vacant space it's blocked off uh it has been um uh for lack of a better word disabled uh it without a substantial investment it cannot function as as an office um I'll Point your attention to uh page two of the supporting documentation that's provided um uh just to give you um a little bit of history on this property um the property sold on five 2020 um for 16 million it was marketed as a um a a project to be uh re um redone and uh ultimately uh it sold for essen
tially land value um U the buyer did not uh uh um anticipate to revive the building uh to its current use or former use uh there's been a number of um multiple uh uses and um Redevelopment options presented uh none of them worked out uh subsequent to the first sale of 16 million uh Amazon and the former owner uh reached a consensus to extend the life of the building by repurposing the uh the ground floor from office to Warehouse uh and that has been done at a substantial cost uh additionally uh
there has been uh uh attachments made to the buildings uh particularly the canopy uh under which uh vehicles drive and that has been done in order to protect um the delivery drivers from uh weather elements whether it's sun or rain uh and protect the packages that that um um that are uh delivered from this property uh just to put things in perspective um uh this is uh what what is known as a last mile building and so Amazon throughout Amazon's logistical Network there are facilities known as a f
ulfillment center that's where items are stored uh packaged uh and shipped uh from the Fulfillment center uh packages are then uh taken to uh what's known as a sortation building where packages are sorted based on either the ZIP code or location where they will ultimately go and then um those packages then arrive to the subject property which is known as a delivery station and then from the delivery station they go to the ultimate customer address excuse me I didn't hear the the name of the buil
ding in between the Fulfillment center sortation sortation yeah sorting okay yeah so uh it is what it sounds like thank you yeah basically packages are sorted to optimize delivery uh routes um so if if packages are are going to SEI Valley everything's going to go to Semi Valley instead of surrounding areas that's to limit the number of vehicle uh vehicles on the road and and and uh and routes and so this building is what's known as Last Mile meaning the last building uh before the uh the product
or the uh delivery item um is is uh sorted before going to the uh to the customer's address or business address home home or business address um and so uh as such uh again from logistical perspective uh larger uh semi trucks come in uh with bigger shipments um inside of the building the the packages are further sorted to uh to be placed into bins uh approxim the size uh where each bin or one to two bins will fit into a delivery van and you may may have seen those on the road um and then those d
elivery Vans will will further take the item so that's that's the purpose and function of the building um uh there is not a there's a little bit of um Material Handling equipment uh inside the building um that that is so that uh employees don't carry boxes they're just uh unrollers um and then um and then there are self-propelled uh cages that that where packages are placed that we roll out to the delivery Vans um so that's what the property is uh used for and utilized and then so subsequently u
h to the first sale after the remodel uh the property sold for $128 million um and and that's that's the uh um the bigger question today before us whether $128 million represents uh fair market value of the real estate or fair market value of real estate and something else intangible value or the value of the lease and um based on the evidence provided based on the market data uh it is clearly um a case where in fact this is probably one of the better cases that I've seen where a a large substan
tial uh intangible value is attributable to the lease over and above the value of the underlying real estate as such on page two uh towards the bottom of the page there are um three approaches of value that were employed uh cost approach uh sales or Market approach and income approach uh the issues uh of concern to us is um the the lease so if you notice the properties sold for essentially land value for $16 million on 5 2020 and then just about a year later uh it sold for 12 that's a huge incre
ase in in in value and the way we were uh the former owner was able to achieve that is by uh agreeing to Amazon's terms of fast tracking the construction uh um and so uh in general enal Amazon pays um a premium to complete uh construction projects quickly because our ultimate goal is not investment in real estate but to uh deliver packages efficiently uh uh um shorten the delivery times uh minimize the um uh by minimizing the cost of delivery uh Etc and so we pay a premium in order for the real
estate to uh one uh function the way uh uh our uh logistical Network requires us to uh for um to optimally uh provide uh deliveries and um in this case uh it required a retrofit which is uh um an application for change of use from office to indust industrial and the actual work to be done in a in a very quick manner so that that was a premium that was uh uh paid in order to get that done um and so just just like I wrote uh down here on on on item number one the lease or the cost of the lease inc
ludes Fast Track retrofitting a former office building and adding a temporary temporary temporary Market improvements uh which is a large canopy we don't see um industrial buildings with large canopies very often um it also included uh demo former offices on the first floor uh page um and ultimately all that cost was added to the lease and then the lease rate was backed into based on that cost um and then uh the second issue that's quite important um the lease was then sold to an investor uh bas
ed on uh a number of factors well first of all all of Amazon leases sell for a premium uh because Amazon's considered tier one uh tenant uh the likelihood of of going dark is minimal and um and so that's that's uh impacting the uh um quality of the uh of the of the lease and the risk associated with the lease so if I may direct your attention to page three so this is uh again confirmation of uh when when the property sold in 2020 for6 million um it was then on page four and five um it was uh re
revalued at at the at the purchase price uh assuming that all value is attributable to uh the underlying real estate uh page six gives you a a regional map of where the property is located as I was saying at this kind of north of s Valley or just north of 118 freeway um again north of Thousand Oaks U page seven is a location map uh showing a a better or more precise location where the properties uh is located uh on page eight uh this is an aerial photograph of of the property um it's very diffic
ult to see it on this picture but um the topography on on this lot is very um for lack of a better word irregular um it sits on the top of a hill and much of the uh surrounding uh uh uh areas or areas surrounding the property uh outside of the parking areas um is is very steep and I'll I'll have some photographs um uh to to illustrate that um since the property was uh previously used as a as an office building um there is a parking structure a uh a four-story or three-story plus ground floor um
uh parking structure on the North uh portion of the lot that Maring structure is actually um it actually supports the building immediately north of the subject property that sits on a different lot it it's also I believe it's still occupied by Bank of America or or some other financial institution and uh currently uh um we as Amazon do not have right to utilize or um um or change uh this this parking lot um and and furthermore it supports um the overall economic unit of the adjacent or Northern
lot and we'll look at it um a little bit further down the road um page nine uh is is showing uh essentially a closer up view of of building footprint of of 147 1,650 square fet and then the second floor is a little bit less it has uh a number of skylights that kind of uh extend from ground floor all the way to the ceiling um and then the canopy to the left uh or um yeah to the left on the left hand side of the image that's the new item that's been added at approximately 24,000 square F feet and
then the parking garage is on the right hand side with a bridge uh for pedestrian Crossing um over to the building uh immediately to the North in this case it's to the right um page 10 uh shows uh two two items the first is the plat map on top uh the bottom is a site plan and this is a site the site plan illustrates uh an easement that neither Amazon nor any future uh user of the subject property would be able to uh uh easily uh utilize it all of that parking including the parking structure is f
or and attributable to the office building to the north and that is uh kind of shown in light uh dashed um section um kind of north of the of the image on page 11 again this is uh to illustrate the topographical uh or uh basically Topography of of the lot and as as you can see even the upper more or less level uh areas are not uh so level because the building sits on a on a sloping um on a sloping Hill on page 12 and I'll I'll go through a number of photographs um uh it's very important to notic
e uh certain details um as as I was leading to earlier the building sits on a on a sloping lot and for office P purposes uh this has been uh um mitigated by stairs um and you could see from the on the upper picture um towards the center uh approximately from the bottom of the stairs the uh um top of the stairs it's approximately 6 to 8 ft um uh tall and this this impacts uh utility of the property and or what we consider is necessary for for the building to um to optimally function uh further on
the bottom page of page 12 there is a um a retaining wall that supports uh Earth from um sliding down and that is approximately another U six feet in in height uh below uh below the stairs on page 13 uh this is um look looking North from the upper parking looking towards the canopy that was built and uh you could see that from the upper parking lot towards the canopy you can't drive straight down without uh substantial Earth Earth work uh there's a um and I'll I'll show that on in another pictu
re but there's a approximately 5 to six feet of of height difference uh between um the park the upper or the southern parking lot and where the building sits uh page 13 uh this is a picture from the freeway uh 118 looking uh East and um you you could basically see how how much higher the property sits you could barely see the building uh towards the right um third of the of the picture there's a little bit of a uh of this canopy that can be seen and that's uh approximately 8200 ft above uh freew
ay level um again page 14 uh for the same purposes illustrating the retaining wall uh to the access road and then uh on the bottom uh it shows uh um the change in elevation on the left hand side where the parking uh light uh uh parking upper southernmost parking lot is located versus where the property sits uh similar case uh is with um the parking garage uh on page 15 uh you could see the the three-story plus ground floor uh parking structure on the upper photographed and um again it sits on th
e slope and and uh there's only one uh access to the West portion of the of the parking uh again due to the sloping nature of of the lot and then this is further is Illustrated uh on the east side of the subject lot and uh from the East looking West um where the um this is looking from the office building that's adjacent to the uh East with the um pedestrian uh bridge and you could see that um there's substantial elevation um difference on page 16 um this is a view of um of the uh Northern uh pa
rking lot that has an access road um and again on the right hand side you could see a substantial approximately six feet uh six foot um at and it varies depending on where you stand uh but approximately six foot retaining wall uh which prevents the utility of the site um uh with with this um requirement excuse me I didn't catch it prevents the what of the site utility thank you on page 17 uh this is an interior view of the ground floor area uh this is where uh subject uh this is currently where
we utilize uh the building uh the upper picture shows uh warehouse storage area that's that's where packages are stored and and sorted um on page on the bottom page of 17 um I took this picture specifically to illust rate that um there are cross beams uh that that prevent uh uh again utility of the uh of the building uh or free flow of goods and you could see those kind of um at 45 degree or not 45 degree maybe 30° uh supporting beams of the upper level or floor uh and they're throughout the bui
lding which is which also limits utility of the space uh uh furthermore the clear height um uh for the ground floor is approximately uh 12 to 13 ft and then um in certain cases uh due to limitation and and U uh restrictive nature of the of the beams it is uh is closer to 10t clear height uh there's a little bit of uh uh office uh space and that could be SE seen on page 18 most of our um uh employees are out there in the warehouse space but there's uh the upper level uh I'm sorry the the um the o
ffice portion is used for uh a little bit of um administrative uh purposes but also for uh rest and and Leisure and you could see that with the ping pong table same thing on page on the bottom page of 18 that's a lunch uh break room also been converted from from Office Space to to a break room on page 20 uh this is uh an illustration of what the upper level or office areas uh look like uh essentially everything has been uh disabled uh all the electricity all the HVAC systems are nonfunctioning u
h uh we don't actively use the space uh it has been uh closed off and uh if if I'm not mistaken we don't have permits to use the space um furthermore to on page 21 uh the upper uh photograph again shows hallway with uh HVAC um uh tubes uh cut off uh there's wires hanging all over the place um on page 22 more of the same um and page 23 I've uh really made it into a point to show that the upper level is for lack of a better word uh nonfunctional at this point and would require substantial investme
nt to either retrofit or to uh of course the other alternative option is to increase uh ground floor uh clearance from 12T to to 24t and of course that that would also require an investment um we uh again for uh as I was uh stating earlier because uh when we um um when we need a new facility uh to operate we Fast Track uh anything and everything that's related to the business for our purposes and if we're not going to use the upper uh um level and if we don't need the greater clear height uh we'
re not going to spend the money nor the time to uh make it into a usable space and and that could be clearly seen in the pictures provided uh on page 24 this is actually U an estimated um uh usable area of the uh subject property as provided by the assessor's office and so the assessor's office has um U used software to to calculate the square footage of usable space um the subject lot is um 43 Acres or 1.8 million almost 1.9 million square feet the usable area or space that's not either sloping
or uh hard to get to or whatnot is approximately half of that uh or 948 th000 square feet according to the assessor's office uh this will be important down the road in order to estimate whether there's Surplus land or excess land or or what other value that we could add uh in addition to the value that's generated by the underlying improvements um on page 25 I apologize that you can't see it very well um um but um I I think the assessor with all du respect the assessors often off was very ambit
ious in estimating the usable area for a couple of reasons um a if you could see on the bottom um there's a little round um um structure and that is a water tank and uh the way the assessor calculated usable square footage is including that uh Access Road well uh we have to maintain there's this one water tank and there's another one further up the hill um we need to maintain and provide access uh free and clear unobstructed to the utility companies that that maintain those structures and and so
by um by including the road AIS along the um left or Western uh portion of this um um of this image it is uh essentially um that that would allow us to obstruct um access to to the water tanks and we can't do that and so in order um uh for the utility companies to have access to the water tank um we need to keep the road uh clear and as such we can't uh the only way that we can use it is by driving on it as well we can't use it for storage or other alternative uses um additionally I've uh um uh
with dashed lines kind of Squigly Dash lines uh shown um uh uh EX topography that that is added by the assessor as usable area and um by mere fact of steep slopes um it is not usable um and so I think when when we look when we look at other industrial properties a lot of them sit on fairly flat lots and every portion of the of the lot is is has the same utility in in our case um we don't and so it it had it pro gives an appearance of Greater um uh utility but it's it's glorified um um guarding
space um and so uh I go through the calc calculation of approximately um 10% um uh of that sloping area is is deducted which leaves us at um 9,600 Square ft of of usable land less the building is 290,000 square ft times 2.5 L to building ratio which is fairly typical uh for for industrial properties that excuse excuse me the acronym LTB could you tell me what that stands for LTB land to building ratio uh in other words there's two and a half times more land that's needed to support the the size
of the building and that's 725,000 Square ft which leaves us with excess L of approximately 75,000 square feet more or less but I think in the big picture uh this is not a um that important value indicator indicator but we want to account for it um also on page 25 on kind of the uh the North End there's a uh approximately 100t by 49t um uh also so uh so-called buildable area or usable area it's it's a flat area U that the assessor uh determined as as functional uh it's on page 26 the upper photo
graph is uh illustrating that that area um I frankly don't know how how maybe it could be used for parking uh I don't know if it could be used for uh uh building of another um uh structure uh but uh considering that the subject property was built in um 1984 and since 1984 U that piece of land has not been developed is an indicator of either uh inability to develop it or um the development is not financially feasible um on page 27 uh again this is to further illustrate uh the sloping nature of th
e lot and um either uh sub stantial investment would need to be made in order to retrofit the the whole the whole Lots utility or we need to uh uh discount uh that land that sloping land as not usable for any practical purposes all right so that kind of gives you an overview of the property uh the next on page 20 8 and several Pages down this is to uh focus on and support the cost approach these are uh land sales uh where you see on the map um where the uh Madera Road and Highway 18 cross to the
right of uh of that is where the subject property is located so these land sales are in very very close proximity uh to the subject property and so uh sale number one sold for um and you could you could see that on on the on the page under the section transaction details on the left hand side um it's sold for $3 million or approximately uh and I'll just round $13 a square foot in 2019 uh the next lot sold for $15 a square foot that's comparable number two uh comparable number three sold for 528
a square foot uh there was an assemblage of two lots so F uh three and four are um two lots that are adjacent and by com by finding the two Lots at 528 a sare foot and the next one of 885 a square foot um the individual was able to um uh erect a larger structure on both Lots so they they've assembled two lots together on page 37 uh sale number five uh great sale sold right before the data value um in the industrial land uh sold for 11 billion $1 million or 1942 a square foot sale number six uh
similarly sold for 1986 a square foot and looking at at all these sales including the subject properties sale of $16 million which essentially sold for land value as a Redevelopment project um it is reasonable to conclude land value for the usable area of the subject lot of $20 a square foot and that's what we use as as base L value for the cost approach uh on page 41 on page 41 so the next several Pages these are um printouts of Marshall and Swift cost approach manual and it uh um it illustrate
s uh by definition what what our property is which is industrial Warehouse on page 41 um uh the base cost for the building is $53.50 a square foot for Class C average concrete tilt up construction um uh then we also added uh parking structure on page 43 at $56 a square foot um uh the interior office space so the upper portion or second level of the subject property is added at 5650 square foot before adjustments and then for uh additional items such such as uh cooling uh so the base cost include
s heating we need to add for cooling at 575 a square foot uh We've also added uh uh sprinklers at a bu 94 a square foot and and um and the canopy that's uh kind of towards as you've seen Illustrated towards the more often it's on the left hand side of the image at 40 125 Square ft uh several adjustments are made for floor area perimeter uh on page 48 this is an adjustment for height Building height so the subject is 24 foot building uh yard Improvement so this this would be for asphalt and and c
oncrete and page 50 shows a typical life of of a of a building um the subject property is actually um it was built in 1984 and so as such uh the property is 37 years old so it was um very close to being at the end of its useful life and we could see that uh de facto by the fact that it originally sold for essentially land value um and this this table uh illustrates that a typical life is 45 years years old and I I think um well I don't think I know this for a fact uh um a lot of uh older propert
ies go through what's known as interm value meaning they cheater or they they they are on the edge of whether to extend that life by remodeling or improving the property or uh if the economics are right to demolish and build something new and that's that's known as interm value and that's where the the um the subject property uh in the Life spectrum of of of the cycle is located and then uh page page 50 I can't even read this 51 and 52 uh these are current and local multipliers so adjustments to
the cost manual for time and for uh location differences so Ventura county is 19% more expensive uh uh cost of construction and so we get to the summary of the cost approach on page 53 so everything that I went through uh from the cost manual is summarized here on this single page uh and so again distribution warehouse class SE uh Quality Concrete tilt up building um base cost is $51 a square foot we adjust it for a height of 24t and then we adjust for a per perimeter of the building uh which i
s 87 uh adjustment Factor uh gives us an adjusted cost index of 1.07 which we also adjust for the current and local multipliers so for time and for location and um as such uh the overall adjustment is 1.49 which we apply to $51 base cost that gives us an adjusted base rate of 8125 per square foot we apply the $81 to the base building area or the building footprint and that gives us Base building cost of 11.9 almost $12 million um in addition to that we apply the factors of cooling and sprinklers
um and then um and then we depreciate it based on on the on the mo on on the fact that most of the life has passed for this building um similarly uh we also add for um uh for asphalt parking um for concrete concrete is where the trucks um Park uh for the canopy and so if you notice here the effective age of canopy is one year because it's basically brand new and similarly on the right hand side depreciation associated with that is is very minimal um the parking structure that's that's um uh uti
lized by the adjacent property is added at depreciated cost of 8 and a half million and then we also add uh the cost of interior space the second level 142,000 foot office space at 5650 square foot uh frankly I I think this is generous considering what condition uh the space is located but um for the purposes of cost approach it's added at at 9 million and as such 22 million for the extra cost and the total cost of improvements of 41 million we also add um 10% for entrepreneurial incentive assum
ing uh the building is spec build and then we add the depreciated cost to the underlying land value which which is what I was referring to earlier 948 th000 Square ft according to the assessor is usable land at $20 a square foot according to the sales gives this indicated value of land of $18.9 million which is very similar to what the subject property sold for essentially land value just a year earlier at 16 million um and then we give a little bit of value or buck a square foot for the undevel
opable um Hillside which basically ser serves as buffer um and that's that's another million dollars essentially so approximately 19.9 million plus the depreciated cost of uh improvements gives us an indicated value by the cost approach of 65 million or approximately $224 based on 290,000 foot property the next uh approach to value is income approach um on page 54 um we've looked at uh seven uh uh properties that have um in in in the near fac facility that that had uh um asking rent including th
e subject property which is in in this case on page 55 is shown as number five and uh rentals 1 2 3 4 and six all come in at approximately $9 per square foot the only two properties with higher rents are number five which is the subject property and number seven which is also an Amazon building and the only reason that those two properties came in at a higher rent is because of this what what I alluded to earlier the extra uh premium that we pay to adjust the properties uh specific to our needs
and use and then that cost of construction is then added on to the to the uh Market rent uh and we back essentially we back into a lease rate so uh both number five and number seven are above Market rental rates um I'm not going to dive too deep into each individual rental property however remember the subject properties ground floor is approximately 12 foot clear Excuse me yes did you say I thought you said number five was was the subject property is is that page 58 you're talking about uh page
55 oh 55 okay you said I thought you said sale five okay I'm sorry it's rental lease lease comp okay number five and it's chronological top to bottom one through seven so we're talking about five and seven and you could visually see that uh 1 2 3 4 are in okay I was looking I was looking at your DET page page five of the of the with the pictures on them oh yeah yeah yeah okay so you're talking you're talking about page 56 then um so now I'm on page 56 okay so okay I'm sorry page 56 and so on se
veral Pages these provide additional details on the rentals uh against which the subject property competes and again as I've mentioned earlier the subject properties clear height is approximately 12 feet some spots it's it's even less than that so this rental number number one on page 56 136,000 ft building built in 1988 similar to the subject properties built age of 1984 has a rental rate of 780 on trip net basis and a ceiling height of 30 ft there's a big difference between 12 and 30 feet and
the rental rate is at 780 similarly 9:30 9 a square foot on page 57 202,000 foot building um this property was also built in 1988 it has a 24ot clear which is potentially something that the subject property may have uh but doesn't have currently due to the upper level um office Area Rental number three on page 50 8 again towards the bottom of the page this is a newer building uh built in 1994 255,000 foot building 30 foot clear $9 a square foot rental number four 888 again 26 foot clear built in
1993 and here's the subject property 1476 a square foot for a 13t clear building with at currently unusable upper level storage and it says that the building is built in 2021 that is erroneous that is incorrect the building is the same it was built 1984 uh uh but it was remodeled in uh by essentially clearing of the office area on the ground floor uh again 13t clear it says here uh my measurements indicated 12T clear either way it's a sizable difference um page 61 this is rental number six 9ft
triple net built in 1968 older building 20 foot clear $9 a square foot and Rental number seven which is also occupied by Amazon ceiling Heights for this building is 38 and A2 ft built in 1975 with the rental rate of 1140 um a square foot and again from from my experience this rental rate is also above Market because when we go into uh when we go into a facility we retrofit it to our use and that costs money and that's that money is not uh um fronted to us without a return so that extra cost of r
etrofitting is added on uh to the lease rate and that's that's why uh our leases are are higher than lease rates are higher than typical um the next several pages are uh sources for cap rates uh these are just studies so for La Warehouse approximately six and a half uh perc cap rate uh uh realy rates U couple of sources for um for LA County eight in the in the uh in the quarter for um on page 65 7 and a half um um cap rate uh surveyed uh surveyed rates of 4.75 um but most of the sources for cap
rates is is from the sales which we'll look at them shortly uh on page 67 uh this is a summary uh of what we just looked at uh with a number of sources for capitalization rate for for vacancy rates um uh for rental comps uh you could see lines uh 8 through 13 which is 14 which is what we just went through and down on the bottom on page 67 uh this uh these are the chosen or selected uh capital ization uh vacancy and Rental parameters and so for the purposes of valuing the subject property we esti
mate that the rent is $10 a square foot so even greater than than what most of the comps are saying um vacancy rate at 3% that's uh very minimal and on capitalization rate a four and a quarter uh rate and these parameters are then summarized in an income approach on page 68 so we take $10 a square foot Times 290,000 Square foot building we get 2.9 Million potent uh PGI potential gross income uh we make an adjustment for Market vacancy of 3% uh we are not even adjusting for uh credit loss uh we a
re making minor adjustment uh under on the expense for managing the asset of 2% and then replacement Reserves at 29 cents a square foot or another 3% overall a 5% uh expense ratio which is also very generous as such the noi net operating income comes in at 2.6 million 75 4,337 capitalized at 4.25% gives us an indicated value attributable to the economic unit of $ 62.9 million to that we also add uh uh excess land associated with the subject property of approximately 175,000 ft at $20 a square fo
ot which is $3.5 million and as such the indicated total value for the sub property by income approach is $ 66.4 million or $229 square foot uh the next and last approach to value is Market approach or comparable sales approach on page 69 uh this is showing where um where comparable sales are located but before we go dive into that I'd like to show an interesting parallel uh between comparable sales number four and five on page 69 four and five is a sale of the same property approximately one ye
ar apart it sold for 32 million or 105 dollars a square foot and then Amazon signed the lease and the property a year later sells for $29 a square foot on page uh comp number six and seven similar deal property sells for $130 a square foot Amazon signs a lease a year later the property sells for $29 a square foot the subject property sells for 16 million a year later it sells for $441 a square foot I uh chuckle when when I hear the increase clearly it's not the value of real estate that went up
it's real estate and something and that's the intangible value of the least fee interest I'll go through uh these sales uh on the I suppose on on the case by casee basis um on page 71 comp number one located at 450 American Street in SEI Valley which is right adjacent to the subject property it's an office building this property sold less than a year before the subject property sells it sells for $143 a square foot the subject property that's adjacent to it sells for 440 thou $440 a square foot
at one point these were essentially the same buildings and so intuition would tell me that hey we could all make a lot of money by purchasing this property for $143 a square foot and gutting it and making it into a a warehouse and and and and flipping it for $440 a square foot right not quiet a very particular tenant is is necessary in order for that to happen uh additional cost is necessary for that uh to occur by the way this this uh adjacent building uh is the property that's utilizing the mu
ltistory parking garage uh next to the on on the subject property lot all right well here's an industrial building on page 73 6,000 Condor Drive sold for $236 a square foot um built in 1988 same year as the subject property 203,000 Square ft sold just 2 months after the subject data value 12:15 2021 the next uh facility on page 76 in camaria uh two 2011 Flynn Road uh this property sold for um $170 a square foot it's an industrial building no different than the subject property this one sold for
5.4 cap rate Al bait not sounds like it wasn't as as a quality tenant as a as Amazon because cap rate is at 5.4% U the next several sales I'm not going to uh dive into each one of them but these are the ones that are sold and resold and are occupied by Amazon sale number four and five um again but even as or even with Amazon occupancy um the property sold for $29 a square foot as an industrial building page number 85 sale number six and seven it's the same proper proper sold and resold and with
Amazon as a tenant uh the property sold for $29 a square foot as well industrial building with 35t clear Heights greater clear Heights means greater storage capacity here's the subject property again um built in 1984 on page 91 um interestingly enough on page 92 so so the subject property sells for $128 million in the comment section under transaction notes on page 92 and I'll read it verbatim sale price was confirmed by the buyer sale prices compined uh comprised of the Hub as an industrial bui
lding totaling 290,000 s f feet sale price reported $128 square foot $128 million for $141 a square foot next sentence sale was an off-market transaction the property was never advertised it was never exposed to the market the mere definition of an arms length transaction requires for the property to be exposed to Market participants uh then it a subject property was fully e Amazon on Triple net basis through 2036 with 2% annual escalations first year performer rate indicates reported cap rate o
f 3.35% Amazon extensively renovated the property over the past year transforming the former corporate office of Bank of America to Ser as the e-commerce giant well that's maybe an overstatement but the renovations including added significant loading and Van staging areas as well as other charges last sentence the motivation for the buyer was their uple in a 1031 exch change the assessor requested that I dive deeper into this and we uh reached out to the landlord to to get further details on how
how what was the uh motivations for purchasing the property at this at this rate this is what the landlord told us uh they've sold the property that they've owned for many many years uh I believe it was Orange County anyways further away and and they they were facing a substantial capital gains tax so they they had a property in mind in order to uh roll over their capital gains however that sale that purchase did not work out as a result they started anxiously hunting uh Brokers for an investme
nt that would fit their criteria for an uple in a 1031 exchange so they would avoid this huge uh tax bill they found this property property that was never exposed to the market and they've committed to it and they they've made um they made the transaction work um in my my mind that's being under duress under duress by the taxing Authority they were facing several hundred million I'm sorry SE several dozen million dollar tax bill and so they they got into this property so that they would would be
able to push or or delay paying of capital gain tax on their prior sale I'll proceed further page 96 this is I know this is not really the time but before we skip this can you can you go back to your last two statements and yes sir and explain your position a little better because one hand you said this was an off Market sale yes wasn't on the market wasn't exposed to market then you say they had this property and so they went and they started looking through their they contacting their Brokers
let me rephrase that uh the property was off market so it was never exposed to the market a different P property the buyer sold an existing property and they had an engagement an arrangement I should say to transfer their capital gains in the 1031 from the S sold property to another property that sale never happened so the buyer started looking for brokers who could fit their investment criteria with the purchase and this was the property that they were able to to find so they you get on the ph
one you start Dialing for Dollars right and this property was being prepped to go to market but it was never exposed to Market if that make sense no further questions at this time okay thank you um page 96 uh comp number 10 uh this is an Amazon facility that also sold for $333 a square foot uh approximately 6 months before the sale of the subject um built in 197 5 with a 38t clear 38 and 1/2t clear and thus property also undergone some extensive Renovations in order to um for for the building to
work uh for our purposes for our uh logistical requirements page 99 609 Science Drive and more Park um 1988 built 135,000 ft building sold for 165 million for $122 a square foot um page 101 uh 1757 so this this is also I believe I believe this is an Amazon building as well but uh $245 a square foot um uh this is a essentially a brand new building built in 2020 for um with 21,000 sare fet this property sells or recapitalized at $245 a square foot um page 103 1800 Tapo Canyon Canyon broad uh this
is this is one of those properties that's similar to a subject property that was teetering on the edge of either Redevelopment or additional cash infusion to retrofit it at age of 39 subject properties ages 38 years old uh ultimately this property was de demolished but this this facility sold for $89 a sare foot and essentially land value at um at the time uh it was it was questionable whether the building would be retained or not uh ultimately the buyer chose to to demolish the the the buildin
g and lastly uh number 14 a sale of a 242,000 foot building built in 1995 $ 46.4 million $191 a square foot and this facility had 26 foot clear uh height and again I can't reiterate it enough but U greater the height greater storage capacity and and Industrial uh properties are valued uh in addition to and among other things the ability to store higher on page8 I've uh put together all of these uh uh sales um um that we just went through in the chart I've made several adjustments for time and da
te and condition um including sale number 8 and N which is the subject property subject property is not included in the uh estimating of of value but it's it also illustrates how um how extreme the sale of the subject property is relative to the rest of the market which again indicates an intangible value of a least fee interest in the real estate and uh for the sake of time I'm not going to go through each individual adjustment but after making the adjustments for the differences uh approximate
ly uh typical adjusted um typical adjusted um price is I'm sorry $26 a square foot times 290,000 squ foot building plus we we add for the potential even though we're making an adjustment already for the L to building ratio in in in the sales but just to be on the safe side we're also adding excess land at three and a half million which we calculated earlier which gives us an indicated value for the subject property of $ 63.3 million or2 $18 a square foot uh page 109 uh additional uh uh support f
or the for the cap rate last thing I want to talk about is the parking structure so the parking structure is least the three-story plus ground floor structure is leased for $1 to the property the adjacent which is the office building we don't have control control of it um this is Second Amendment um associated with that with that structure and on page on page 110 that shows that what it is and where it is and Etc uh on page 111 Section 3 subsection 3.1 3.11 it says Grant of parking and access ea
sement a Perpetual exclusive easement to access Park vehicles in other ways utilize maintain above ground parking structure Perpetual easement so property rights just went from the subject property to an adjacent building building with a Perpetual easement we don't have control of the of the parking structure and section 3.1.2 Perpetual exclusive easement parked no less than 132 passenger vehicles and otherwise parking related purposes Etc I'll skip all the exciting language um to page and this
has this has been recorded notorized and Etc uh for your visual appreciation on page 128 this is Exhibit C depiction of grand tour property parking structure in hard in hard hard uh black U dark line uh is outlined the four-story or three plus ground floor parking structure in addition to that there's two dashed lines that are to the left of that parking structure which is additional parking provided by this easement to the adjacent parking to to the adjacent uh uh property which frankly needs t
he parking because they operate uh an office building and their occupancy is is greater Office Buildings have greater occupancy on per square foot basis than industrial properties um and so the uh the utility or the use use of the subject lot is greatly diminished by this easement Perpetual is easement and by the access road to the water tanks that are on the uh I guess on the south or or on the left hand side if you're looking at at an image uh along the southern boundary of the property as suc
h and I'm looking right now on page 133 this is a summary of what we reviewed today the 1984 built 290,000 FT Property with warehouse space on the ground floor of 147,000 square ft an office portion of 142 2,000t that is currently in unusable condition as shown by the cost approach indicates a value of 65 million $224 a square foot sales or Market approach indicates a value of 63 million income approach indicates a value of 66 million for the benefit of doubt we reconcile everything at $66 milli
on or $227 a square foot and and we request the board to to recognize that there's value value in use that's different than value in exchange an investment value attrib attributable to the lease is something greater than the value of real estate alone and this is not just shown by the subject property it's clearly illustrated by a number of sales where Amazon is is a tenant there's there's value in having a long-term lease in place where your cost of constructions are reimbursed for um I forget
15 years 2038 um for for for a long duration so a property that was ready to be demolished we gave an infusion an additional life because it there's a value to the individual user Amazon but the market based on other uh comparable sales based on rental information does not value the same and that's that's that's the answer we need to uh to reflect today what is the market value of real estate not the intangible value associated with the lease are there any questions okay we'll get to that um tha
nk you very much right now is the chance for the the assessor's office to ask questions of your presentation okay could we possi at least okay Poss take I know do we want to do lunch and then have you ask questions and then have him can you present or is can I get together with the board for just a second yeah I mean just circle here together I do any uh I believe our questions will be extensive uh at least probably an hour yeah we okay we feel it's best if we take a lunch break right now and th
en if you guys want to prepare your questions on your lunch break that's okay and then when we come back from lunch break the assessor's office will ask questions of your presentation and then the the board will have a chance to ask questions of your presentation and then it's chance for them to present their case and then it switches then we all ask questions of them so what time do we want to come back do we need until is 1:15 okay or do you want until 1:30 it's got to be 1:30 because I've got
to walk home I got to walk okay okay then we're adjourned until 1:30 30 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e hey good afternoon it's 1:30 court is back in session and I believe we are about to hear the assessor's office questions of the applicant's presentation sorry uh Joe Phill
ips with the assessor's office I'll start off the questions real quick uh well first of all I just wanted to thank the board for the lunch break uh there is a significant amount of brand new information contained in here that we hadn't seen before uh so it did require just a little bit more research um the first question I want to ask uh was you are employed by Amazon is that correct that is correct okay and on the first page of your presentation it says presented by uh James pa pansi uh so you'
re the presenter today are you also the appraiser that performed the appraisal uh I put the information together yes you put it together so okay so you did the appraisal okay um and are you a licensed appraiser uh I'm licensed I'm a licensed appraiser in state of Washington in Oregon okay but not California no okay uh can you explain your qualifications that would allow you to perform appraisals in California well first of all I did not perform an appraisal I performed an evaluation of the subje
ct property for property tax purposes um I worked as an appraiser for uh 10 years uh for a regional firm in Washington State uh that uh included uh appraisals for um uh underwriting purposes for RightWay for uh estate for litigation uh that ranged from uh office retail industrial multif family special purpose properties um Etc okay you said this isn't an appraisal it's a valuation what's the difference um the primary difference is uh uh an appraisable an appraisal has to be uh usap compliant so
this is not usap compliant uh I I would need to go through every element of a uspap uh compliance process uh from top of my head I I don't believe so so your license in Washington and Oregon would require you to be usap compliant but no license in California requires you to be usap compliant so you set do you set aside usap when performing appraisals in California um you may not have heard me earlier I said I did not perform an appraisal you didn't perform this appraisal I didn't perform an appr
aisal I performed in valuation okay uh So based on your presentation today uh canilla properties 2 LLC purchased the property on October 1st 2021 is that correct I believe so okay and um they purchased it for 128 million uh based on your te testimony evidence today you're suggesting the actual value was 66 million uh so this uh this owner which is an investment owner they made a very uh pretty poor and uninformed decision buying at Double the actual Market market value no no then why did they pu
rchase it for almost double the market value different motivations so what can you expound on that uh uh there are different types of values out there in the real world for the purposes of property tax we we focus on a specific type of property value which is fair market value and the definition that the state has for that there's uh there's liquidation value there's investment value there's a plethora of other values that may uh be um uh may be impacting investor decisions so besides the real e
state value what other value did they gain when they purchased this property uh well I would have to speculate but Umi uh it is my understanding that uh two factors affecting their the value that they've acquired was um uh obviously real estate which is based on um Market evidence suggested by the evidence presented before the board uh second is uh the value associated with lease uh which is leas fee value uh part of it is cost reimbursement uh uh of the expenses incurred converting the property
part of it is the uh uh duration and durability of uh tier one tenant uh the other value uh that that the investor uh acquired by completing this this this deal is um not having to pay uh capital gains tax tax from their previous um um investment okay I think we're going to tackle a few more of those questions a little bit but I'll move on um I want to go to page 25 of your exhibit Okay so that 2.5 land to building ratio uh where's that coming from well uh really it's it's coming from uh my per
sonal experience uh seeing industrial properties in the market but also uh if we look and if I may direct your attention to page page 108 um these are comparable sales that were used and you could see kind of halfway down the middle of this chart what other properties what their lent to building ratios are um and they they range from as low as uh just over two to as high as uh um north of three uh but a typical ratio is um um again from my experiences to to about about two and a half um I think
what what recently we're um we're seeing is that ratio has been uh going up um but a lot of it also depends on the use of the property as well all right next question is going to be on page 28 okay um so these are your land sales that you're relying on to determine a land value for the cost approach correct that's right were any of these supplied to the assessor prior to today uh I don't know uh so um so I I I cut this uh valuation midpoint uh my primary uh pre uh my cooworker um uh retired and
she performed initial violation and I um caught it halfway so I don't know what was sent to the assessor's office or not um but I I I did not send this to the assessor's office [Music] so were you the one that compiled this list uh yes so if you compiled the list and you didn't send it to us so would the answer then be no it wasn't sent to us I I don't know what uh my former coworker would would have sent well if your former cooworker didn't compile the list how could they send this to us uh I l
ike I said I don't know what coworker uh had or had not sent before okay um so the other thing with this is it doesn't look like you did any sort of adjustment grid to these land sales of any kind no adjustments for differences in size location proximity to the freeway anything uh topography uh I have not made an adjustment grid for this um they're all really similar to to the subject in very close proximity so uh comps 1 through four they sold all in 2019 prior to covid is that correct uh that'
s what it says yeah so did uh Co have a positive negative any kind of effect on distribution centers or industrial properties in any way uh I don't know generally speaking I mean it's it's very uh jurisdictional uh generally speaking um uh Co did have a positive impact on on certain types of facilities with certain types of use uh so for example uh for Amazon which is part of the reason we uh expanded the network um that was that was um a major uh boost to our to the business um as people stayed
home they ordered online more and so we required more um uh uh resources to to provide the the service uh a lot of other facilities didn't um industrial facilities didn't didn't experience the same boost um um manufacturing that that utilizes industrial buildings uh R&D um also utilize industrial buildings that I haven't seen that um that uh that boost um um during Co uh also like I said it's it's very jurisdictional and so uh for Amazon where we had a significant presence um that um that didn'
t result in in a boost in in industrial properties uh in in locations where we uh needed to have a u uh faster delivery times then then yes that like we we paid significant premium to get into those properties so let's maybe get a little more specific if you were to compare comps one two 3 and four to our subject property a distribution center M uh should a time adjustment be warranted considering the effects Co had um certainly but um for one through four there may need to be um an adjustment m
ade my my primary uh weight was on on the last two comps uh comp number uh five and six um so both had U very um uh very SAR size and utility um and both sold around the same dollar per square foot basis so I don't uh frankly I don't know if that's necessary uh uh there's not been enough sales to uh to provide a paired sales uh uh adjustment um but I mean I I see a point generally they may need be a uh an adjustment for time of some sort it but also uh uh the adjustment for time is not uh unifor
m or consistent and so uh prior to co uh um values were fairly flat and only uh at the beginning of Co actually towards the maybe end of uh first quarter of Co that's when prices started to to increase substantially so it's it's not like prices were going up in a consistent matter they were fairly flat and then there was a spike towards the uh beginning of Co okay uh taking a closer look at comp number five M uh you familiar with that comp uh to the best of my abilities so that comp uh the state
that that land was in when it sold can you describe that can you elaborate on on your question sorry what was that can you elaborate on that question I don't know what you're asking um was it a flat graded law raw land Rolling Hills slopes flat you know those types of what are the descriptions of that property uh to my knowledge it was raw land um um that's that's the the extent that I am familiar okay would it likely require lots of grading to be equivalent to the subject property uh which par
t of subject property the usable part of the subject property um uh grading is always required for for development okay I guess what I want to point out is comp number five is Rolling Hills ungraded not level or flat or anything it's just basic raw land whereas you know comp number six appears to be graded level flat somewhat ready to be built upon so seems there to be a significant difference in the amount amount of stages of production to bring comp number five up to a usable State um yeah pos
sibly I mean I I think it depends on uh what what it is you want to build and um and any type of grading that's part of uh um cost of construction I mean we're we're we're evaluating evaluating or estimating value the raw land not raw land with with entitlements or grading completed Etc and so if I if you're implying that lot number six was uh flat didn't need additional grading uh well comparing to a subject property perhaps a downward adjustment to that price is needed so final question on the
se um are any of these land sales were they purchase with the intention of building a distribution center um I I don't know what the final intention is for for each individual investor um I I saw some of the comments here uh hold for development um down the road in investors uh purchase land for a myriad of reasons ultimately uh it may be for um uh for development but not necessarily immediate development okay I right I'm just asking if you knew just because this is the first time we've seen the
m so I wasn't able to do due diligence on each every single one here um let's see so moving on I want to start getting into the cost approach uh page 53 so my first question is going to reference page 42 and 53 on page 42 it shows you've selected um Class C average construction and you boxed 53.5 as the C according to Marshall and Swift uh and yet on page 53 you're showing you chose 51 uh which doesn't quite match so uh just curious why there's a difference there uh that that's a that's a mathem
atical error or input error it should be 5350 okay thank you um so that should be 5350 so my next question is going to be about depreciation um so I didn't see the depreciation tables in your exhibit here you got 22.22% can and I'm just trying to figure out where that's coming from uh that's based on the uh useful life of the building and the effective age effective age of 10 years is is uh estimated after the re remodel so I looked that up in Marshall and Swift and it says it should be 8% so I
don't know I'm just trying to figure out where the 22% is coming from uh it's a a straight line depreciation straight line depreciation one over the other okay so can you explain why you chose to use you're using Marshall and Swift costs and then applying a straight line depreciation insteading instead of using Marshall and Swift depreciation can you explain why for uh expediency can you elaborate on that I don't know what you mean uh it's a straightforward way of looking at at what um what rema
ining life uh in in the property is left and then one divide over the other uh generally uh especially on these older properties um uh I feel that that's more represent um Marshall and Swift is um it's pretty good at estimating depreciation um uh for newer properties um properties that have been remodeled it's it's much more challenging um so a lot of the longlived items in in the property are are still um with the property which is the walls the roof uh the the upper level um and so 22% seems m
ore more reasonable than than the 8% associated with the with the 10 10year um uh depreciation according to Marshall Swift so so you agree with Marshall and Swift costs when they determine those but when Marshall and Swift determines depreciation you feel you know better than them do you have I mean Marshall and Swift backs all of their information with market research according to their statements in their in their book do you have anything to show that 22% is a better estimate you have any Mar
ket data to show 22% we have we have a great estimate uh just a year ago when the property sold for land value and so by infusing a little bit of money into the property actually a lot of money there's uh uh additional life given to the building and so when the when Marshal Swift looks at what at at uh at construction right they assume in that depreciation table there's no ongoing maintenance or remodeled being made th this is not the case the the property essentially based on the sale it deprec
iated nearly 100% And so by infusing uh additional uh cash into the building um the remaining life has been extended so Marshall and Swift may have the great base costs they the resulting depreciation uh I think would be harder to uh to pinpoint so I'm not quite sure you answer my question so there's it sounds like you don't have Market evidence to support the 22% to overcome Marshall and Swift's 8% uh again a year ago the property was 100% depreciated sold for land value the there is no value i
n the building so the building was to be torn down completely unusable 100% depreciation means 100% unusable uh the term unusable is is misleading it was not uh financially feasible to uh retain it in the condition that it was at the time of sale let's rephrase it a different way are there aspects of the original building that Amazon did not have to rebuild oh yes so there is usable there is remaining economic life in that property prior to Amazon going in and making changes and hence the the he
nce the V the the concept of interim value you just said is 100% depreciated yet Amazon did not have to tear it down and rebuild so there is some econ economic life still left in that building by infusing uh uh cost remodel cost into it okay that kind of brings me to my next question you're relying on Marshall and Swift and everything um I'm curious it wasn't in your presentation but you mentioned a lot Amazon had to you just said pour a lot of money into the building Central what is that amount
I don't know how come you don't know I don't know okay let me jump in there Zachary Clifford with the assessor's office are you to tell me that you don't have access to the costs incurred by Amazon to build out that facility being as you're an employee of Amazon and representing them here at the hearing uh that's right so the uh de facto costs that were incurred were were by the seller of the property so when we um um we don't actually do the work ourselves right so when we uh uh agree to lease
a property we request the landlord to fit it to our specifications right and so the landlord estimates how much and what is needed in order to meet those specification and then they do it is that clearly stated in the Amazon lease no I don't know you don't know doesn't need to be it doesn't need to be no okay I can jump in here because it is an important part are you telling me that when they drew up the lease they had they're taking it at the tenants word how much they put because I assume wha
t they do is they say the base property leases for this much and then because would cost us this much uh we're going to add that to your lease they have no idea what that cost was it could have only been $10,000 and they'll accept oh well it cost us you must have some rough idea of how much it C they put into it it's been I mean it's been it's it's likely uh Millions um I don't know so I think you your own words were they put a lot into this so when you say a lot do you think it's 2 million 4 mi
llion 40 million 80 million so unfortunately I don't know the the because of a sale the prior um um landlord had this information I I don't have access to it so I can't speak to something that that I can't factually confirm but it's I mean um to gut an entire first floor that's an expensive Endeavor to add a 20 almost 5 24,000 square foot U canopy that's expensive um it adds up just for clarification so you your one of your statements you just made is that the owner did all of the remodel retrof
itting to prepare the space for Amazon yes so Amazon did not incur any of the costs just the prior owner developer whatever you want to call them that's your statement uh not directly not directly can you explain that also there there's a cost reimbursement agreement where you de developer um um May complete the work and then we reimburse the developer for the cost in this case we agree on a certain rate and then the de developer incurs the cost we don't doesn't matter to what it cost actual cos
t the developer to do it as long as it again meets our specifications okay so Amazon Amazon didn't do any building in there okay thank you um my next question is maybe just a clerical one um in your land valuation on page 53 it says commercial primary $20 a square foot is that meant to be industrial since this is an industrial property or are you valuing it that's meant to say commercially developable land meaning usable land okay thank you and then the next line buffer undevelopable Hillside la
nd a dollar per square foot yeah where's that coming from it's a nominal value I mean I think generally um uh Property Owners will will put a certain value to be a little bit to have a little Elbow Room from their neighbors um there's you know no one no one uh explicitly pays uh a certain dollar amount for for for buffer land but you know you have a little bit of privacy it's worth something and I I nomally placed it as at a dollar to recognize it okay but no Market evidence to support that all
right well if we want to talk about Market evidence a market evidence is likely zero did did you show any support for that or in your presentation no okay um let's see all right I think that will conclude my questions I'll turn it over to Zach here if you want to go ahead and uh go to the income approach believe that is your page let's start at uh 55 the lease comp 1 2900 North mad Road does does that have any industrial tenants or use I mean it's industrial building I don't are you saying indus
trial building doesn't have industrial use is that what you're asking our records indicate that it's 100% leased out as office space and so I'm puzzled that you would include that in your lease comp analysis and so can you confirm that there is industrial space in this lease comp that you're providing us as your lease comp one um I mean it's a factual question uh uh I don't know I believe it's industrial uh space um it's highly unlikely that it's U that it's office space since the building doesn
't have a whole lot of Windows to begin with regardless it was advertis as as um um as industrial space now um merely looking at uh asking rent uh generally asking rent for office space may be a little bit higher than this 780 a square foot that's is that a no you can't confirm that there's industrial use at that building uh I I I can confirm from public sources that this space was advertised as industrial use thank you if you'll move on to page 67 I'm sorry 67 67 67 m the source of your cap rat
e information was derived from primarily investor and Market surveys is that right no how else was your cap rate derived uh it was derived from the sales that were um um listed on page 108 uh halfway through the page I show what published cap rates are for industrial buildings and it's um it's harder to um sometimes it's hard to get cap rates on all of the um properties obviously but um they range from 3.7 5.4 4.25 3.7 uh 4.2 uh percent cap rates 10.1 on comp number one so the cap rate you settl
ed on was a accumulation of both the sales approach that you used and the market surveys right that's right okay speaking of cap rate information if you want to stay on page 108 um it sort of leads to my next question sale comp 12 currently has Amazon as a tenant wouldn't it be Ben official to provide us with the cap rate of that sale considering Amazon is the tenant and you do have access to the the lease and the net operating income wouldn't that be beneficial in your analysis um possibly ther
e's plenty of other cap rates right but that isn't that in the same city as seami Valley or isn't that in the same city as our subject prty wouldn't it be a relevant and very accurate cap rate indicator uh very accurate cap rate is is a misleading term I don't know what you mean by that would it be a reliable indicator of a cap rate information perhaps thank you re reliability uh so that cap rate would also um um in involve additional research uh um and trying to estimate how much uh extra uh pr
emium was being paid for the fact that it is Amazon uh but uh there are other Amazon uh sales that that have uh occurred on this list and those cap rates are provided so I don't know what you're what you're why are you why you're hyperfocusing on a single sale and and not uh uh paying attention to the other sales I'm focused on it because it was omitted that's why uh if you want to move on to page 68 okay uh The Heading of your income expense proforma yes can we agree that proforma cap rates sho
uld also be used considering that as the title of your income approach uh performer means market so yes market cap rates should be used okay great and just for the record one more time the lease rate that Amazon is paying is to compensate the prior owner for the the market lease of the building plus the attended improvements that were installed right right uh that is my that's your that's your argument right and in no records that you could locate is a division of the expenses incurred by the pr
ior owner and Amazon um is that your testimony today uh again none that I have seen uh it's it's possible if we dig deep enough um if we reach out to the prior owner uh it's possible to to get it um I I I don't have access to it okay if we want to move on to the sales comparison approach on page 108 we'll go ahead and start at sale comp one did this sale include any industrial space no this is uh this was an office building very similar um to the office building that the subject property was um
before the remodel now if you move to sale comp 8 which is a subject property it's the previous sale this did sell as a vacant office building right yes did it have you listed on here the building type officewarehouse did it have any warehouse space at the time of that transfer um to my knowledge it had um several Loading Docks but um nothing significant now so you would categorize that comp as misleading in your sales Grid at the least it's not misleading why would why is it misleading because
there was no warehouse space in there was factually no warehouse space in that salec um I should I should uh exchange the warehouse to office SL land value thank you and did this sale take place before or after the conditional use permit was before passed do you think that the highest and best use of that property changed when the zoning changed or the conditional use permit was passed well I don't know did zoning change well the zoning changed via conditional use permit so yes well conditional
use permit doesn't change zoning does conditional you use permit change the value of property it may is it your testimony that it didn't change the value of the sale comp 8 which would warrant an adjustment for that change um I've made an adjustment for that change it's 50% where at 50% under conditions of sale okay and how did you determine that 50% um it was a very uh rough estimate okay thank you Mr chair before we go on uh I believe there was just a correction made to the applicants exhibit
is that correct yes this this is submitted under uh oath and we had to make sure it's accurate should this end up in court for any reason so I just wanted to clarify if there was a correction can you specify for the record what page that was I believe that was the cost approach wasn't it yeah sorry there's been a few yeah so any correction we need to stop and make sure it's clarified on the record before we move on so there was it sounded like something just changed where you were changing it fr
om from office to something from office to land or uh on the grid yeah on page 108 sale comp number eight which is the sale of the subject property uh one two three uh under the sale price of 16 million there's a heading it's called uh officewarehouse okay and we're correcting that to something else and I believe off office land slash land okay the official copy for the record has been corrected office SL land did you on page 53 under the cost approach that was it perform yeah didn't you agree t
hat at the very top right hand corner the cost per square foot should be 5350 rather than rather than 51 that is correct you see that right um Brendon all right so page 53 got there and we're right the right hand column the very top under distribution warehouse cost it says 51 okay and uh applicant agrees that should be 53 50 50 and 50 cents 5350 yes okay the official record has been corrected thank you yeah I'll just ask if there are any others we just pause and make sure to correct that before
we proceed with question thank you okay thank you okay so if you want if we want to move along to uh sale comp 13 what page is that page 108 108 okay scen as this was what we know now is redeveloped into industrial land wouldn't this sale comp be more appropriate to be used in the land sale analysis that you had rather than in the improved sales analysis that you have uh that's a great question uh I think it's it's a matter of perspective obviously hindsight it's easier to analyze um at the tim
e of sale um it was a close call well let's go to that sale actually if you go to page sale comp are you talking about sale comp 13 13 okay if you go to page 104 and not that we are promoting the accuracy of co-star data but it does in it does in line with what actually happened on that property if you read the transaction notes on 10104 at the bottom the motivation of the buyer was to re redevelop the property by tearing down the existing building and construct a new building once the tenants v
acates at the end of the year and that's exactly what happened so hindsight is 2020 in this aspect we knew exactly what that sale was and it was a land sale and it also has has it on the banner sold for land value on page 104 and the previous page 103 so did the subject property at 60 million that sold for land value but got infused with so what I don't know whether the assessor was making a statement or or or a question um a lot of older properties like I said go through intern phase and intern
phase means uh you buy something that that that you think you're going to redevelop and then market dynamics change and and you you stick with the existing building sometimes Market swings to the uh positive and and your intentions change and that's the case with the subject property that could have been the case with comp number uh 13 uh in that case the the the buyer uh preceded with their original plan and so their their Theory to redevelop it came out to be true but um um when we're when we
're looking at real estate for older properties that's it's always there's always a level of uncertainty thank you I just have one more question yes sir on page 108 um I don't believe there are any adjustments made to any sale comparables for location is it your argument today that all these sales are equivalent in location when considering the logistical needs of the property and the Tenant and the location of the subject property adjacent to the 11 18 freeway with a almost dedicated on andof r
amp well again that's misleading it's not dedicated it's a public on I said an almost dedicated on an off I mean that's that's that's a are all these sales equivalent location like your sales grid would indicate so uh um there's not enough um uh uh supporting data to to um um to be able to extract locational differences um based on uh the rental information which takes into account um I think more more valuable aspects of the building than than just location such as clear height um um I think um
these properties are all in very comfortable locations um we could go on a Case by case basis to to make that judgment call uh from um if we take a step back and look at these uh uh comps as a collective set of of of of sales uh they're all in the same uh General vicinity uh uh of each other and in fact there's a a a map showing where these sales are located um they're all they the location is is very different I mean it's not it's not dozens of miles away is it your testimony that industrial s
pace does not value access to freeways and how quickly you can get on and off the freeway that's your testimony today that logistical space does not uh does not value those aspects to a property all of these properties have adequate access to real uh to freeways okay thank you any other questions from the assessor's office yeah just a couple more here um on that same page 108 sale comp 14 was that provided to the assessor prior to today um I don't know I did not provide it you did not provide it
okay I did not uh and then lastly the last line there says plus excess land value uh I you might have touched on it but I'm a little lost where was that coming from uh well so the concept of excess land is land not needed for uh uh uh typical operation of of a of a property and so it's excess land in theory its land could that can be subdivided and sold off right section versus Surplus land which is land that that cannot be subdivided and have a different uh economic use um so that land uh esti
mated excess land is based on um um just getting to it on the calcul calculation made on page 25 so there's 948 th000 square feet of usable land um less than less 10% for for uh land that that's not usable which is Hillside and and slope that's that was included in the Assessor's uh calculation of usable and and that's just my my U rough uh estimate I'm sorry not 10% 5% and then uh so that gives us 900,000 square feet of usable land less 290,000 foot building times approximately 2 and a half tim
es of land that the building needs so 2.5 land to building ratio which gives us 725,000 ft of land that's needed to support the existing building and so 900,000 minus 725 we get 175,000 of uh excess land 175,000 times $20 square foot we get three and a half million does that make sense so the your the excess land value is the same value as the usable land area is that right yes okay thank you I believe that I believe that concludes our questioning okay thank you very much does the board have any
questions of the applicants presentation I'll go first first or last I'm not sure which just a quick one and then get into some more detail when the property sold for 128 million was there bank loan or bank appraisal on that yes how much was the bank loan I don't know what the bank loan is but the bank um actually uh let me rephrase that uh I don't know if the there's there's an appraisal on the property I don't know if it's for um uh for Lending purposes or not you don't know what that apprais
al was how much you came in at uh I do in fact I have it right here you have that you have a copy of that appraisal can we ask to see that or is that beond be sort of an interesting information to see yeah that would have been nice evidence can we present that as evidence now the has had the appraisal so are you are you going to show that a later that will be part of our presentation okay okay okay the entire appraisal or just Snippets of it due to the value that is at um is in question here it
was important that we include the entire document for the the board to review it as as necessary than I just wanted to make sure logistic wise because otherwise we had to figure out how to get six copies of his full appra all right they have it to present then they've already covered that okay okay um and then do you have an opinion of the fair market value of the what the fair market rent for the parking structure should be not the $1 obviously that's not a fair market value rent for that struc
ture um that's that's a really hard one to figure out um I think this case it it's irrelevant because there's been a Perpetual easement given to the property across the street or across adjacent to it um so uh any I was goingon to say my understanding just so we're all on board is if you rent a property for below market rate and a dollar a square foot is is market rate you can't get away with not paying taxes otherwise I'd rent my house to my kids for a dollar a year in perpet and i' say you can
't value this it has no value well of course it doesn't because I've encumbered it so we need to look at what the fair market value am I yes am I correct on that with the assessor's office we're in agreement with you okay so again do you have an opinion of the fair market rent of the of the parking structure the value of the parking structure is already reflected in the value of the adjacent property that's utilizing the structure because the adjacent property in order to operate needs the extra
parking do you know do you know for sure that's true can we object to that that is um well one not true and also not part of the uh property that's under appeal today um he's talking about the value of an adjacent property miscar in it um and also it's not at issue today the subject is not the bank of am America building so no but I mean that structure should but it's it's an it's an important it's important it is an important question that let's say if it has a $5 million valuation it's alread
y being picked up on the other side then it should come out of this value if it's not being picked up on the other side then it should be picked up here we don't really don't know we know it's being used by the other side but we don't know where that valuation lines well and I could explain that so the only way that the adjacent property can attain the rent that they attain for the uh adjacent property is by utilizing the parking structure if the parking structure is no longer available to the p
roperty adjacent to the subject property then the rent that they would be able to attain would be lower because they wouldn't be able to accommodate number of people but 13 properties are valued at a certain time so let's say this property was valued prior to building that or the appraiser came along and said it had um valuation of 10 million but 5 million sits on the other parcel so they reduce that property by five we don't know there's a number of ways you can handle those no and I don't in f
act I don't know how how that was handled on the adjacent property but I I suspect again I don't know but I suspect the reason it was done this way instead of um making a lot line adjustment and and and at some point both landlords were the same and so I think to expedite to make things quick they've given them the the easement to use this portion of the lot and an easement I mean it's just like just like a utility easement at your house or I don't know folks that live next to high powered lines
right you may have a large lot that crosses underneath the the high powered lines but you can't use it I mean you could grow hay you could run around but you can't develop it that's the same concept here yes there's a there's a structure that physically sits on the subject lot but there can't do anything with it well the owner can't do it it has value it's just that the owner can't do it do anything with it right and that value is to the adjacent lot okay River a river you can't you do anything
you can't move it no it's different than a river it's a structure that's that's built so if I build a structure on your on your on your property you can't come along and say that's not my structure and then I go along and say well that's not on my property and so that structure never gets it has to be value to somebody I don't know who I have a structure on my property uh it's a it's utility I think yeah I think utilities are different because they're not they're not assessed the way a privatel
y owned structure but the concept is the same a utility company came onto my property the developer gave them an easement uh for portion of my property they put a Transformer on my property excuse me do you live in California no I don't and do the same property tax rules apply in California as they do where you reside well talking about property tax we're talking about uh appraisal Concepts well I think property tax rules hold on you need to ask the chair permission to reopen questioning you can
't just start asking questions so I apologize let's let's just stick strictly to presentation okay so the the the parking structure it adds value to the bank behind it and it hasn't none of these transfers have involved the parking structure it's been sort of removed from the equation in in all the transfer so let's just try to focus on the the buildings okay but maybe that's not appropriate well because we don't know about the evaluation that we know it's on sitting that's not the subject of of
this yeah we know it's on the subject property right we don't know for sure it's been valued in the other property unless the that's up to the other property and a different it's up to someone else to appeal not not this applicant let's sck to this it has no okay no use to this this property yeah it doesn't matter I don't believe well I think it has to be I'll take it a step further it has a detrimental use because we need to comply with them the other property owners tenants coming onto our pr
operty right and allowing them egress and entryway and exit points and and not obstructing so we can't use certain portions of of our property to to uh its ultimate uh potential right I mean I understand what you're saying I understand what the board is saying but in what in cost approach you use the parking lot right I think you did value the parking lot so maybe that was a mistake I don't believe so because I believe it's on your property it should be valued now whether you should send that yo
u she to send that bill to the to the bank is a different question I don't I don't have I'm not saying you have to pay that tax bill or whether it should be separated out but in one of your appraisals it is on your you did value you didn't don't value it on the income approach I mean that at the least it's inconsistent there's no income from it so well a dollar a dollar but that's again I I don't think we can look we're looking at Market you you don't want us to use the the actual income on for
the whole thing but you want us to use uh the actual income from the bank so I I think any potential income from the parking structure would be uh would be a captured audience because the way the the subject property is located I mean no one's going to park at the parking structure and walk across the street across the freeway right it's only to to that one uh tenant and so I suppose hypothetically if we I don't I don't even know if it's possible to uh unilaterally um uh cancel the easement okay
but let's go let's go on from the parking structure again for a minute and I and I have a and the board's going to hate me for this but I'll do it anyway um I have a philosophical question and it's one that's for you for this this moment and for the board when they present their case I'm going to call it the case of the disappearing leasehold Improvement and we're not going to use your subject because then it gets into all kinds of variables let's there's a case where you have 10 shell building
s okay did he present on this we no I want I want I want his opinion I want his opinion on on how you would handle these facts I'm just presenting this as a scenario because it's a little cleaner than they but it doesn't have to do with his presentation okay well let me put it just a different way there was a substantial portion of money put into the proper for the benef we don't know could it been 100,000 could it been 40,000 you say you don't have any idea for the benefit of the tenant correct
okay and under normal circumstances when a tenant puts in what are called leasehold improvements those are build to to the tenant so if they if the tenant had paid for this that they had paid 40 thou 40 million 80 million 60 milon they would have gotten a bill for that it would have different depreciation than the regular build but it's really to to suit their so if a bank goes into a shell they get lebled improvements for everything is inside that's separate from the from the chairs and so for
th but it's built out do you think the value of those since are reflected in the rent right correct I think you even said that right shouldn't those be added to a base Market rent otherwise the leasehold improvements are not going to get valued uh absolutely not the reason because well I shouldn't say that uh what is the value of those leasehold improvements to the market right they don't they have the bigger question is what what is market value of for property tax purpose of of anything right
of of the second level uh where the office portion is or or the canopy that's that's been built um Etc and that's what we're trying to figure out uh by our supporting documentation the assessors and and trying to reconcile uh those attributes that were added to the property what are they worth to the market not to the user not to the user because when really thirsty I'm going to pay $10 a bottle for a bottle water right at the airport I'm I'm never going to pay $10 for a bottle of water when I'm
next to a grocery store right because I know I could get it for fraction of the cost right so value to a user is very different than market value we trying to segregate that so the way Amazon value vales um um whether it's worth going into a facility or not is a completely different methodology than than a spec developer will will value a property a developer will look at their construction costs Trying to minimize it so they could optimize the rent meaning lower the rent so they could attract
as many potential users of the building as possible when Amazon looks at a facility we calculate how much are we going to save on gas because fewer vehicles are on the road how much are we going to shorten delivery times because now the products are closer to the customers etc etc and if the cost is less then the value going concern value added to to the company as a whole then it's worth going into a facility so the motivations are very different if uh so so are you does that mean essentially t
hat the valuation you have here is for somewhat of a shell building or or no the valuation is of the subject facility as is to the market to the a typical Market user not a specific user okay for a specific user the in other words value in use may be very different just like the investment value that the $128 million was paid for those that that investment value is very different than someone who would would get the the property in order to lease to rent out to to to Market participants someone
who doesn't have a huge capital gain Bill capital gains Bill uh motivating them to I think it's 60 or 90 days or or 90 and 180 4 it's a short period of time to identify and close in the property and toidentify mons there there you go uh but but but it's it's a and so when when you're facing uh a few dozen um million in in capital gains tax you're very motivated to to pay a premium so you don't have to pay that capital gains tax and this is so this happens to a lot of real estate properties just
not to this extreme this is this is a very drastic extreme where we had one motivated buyer and one motivated tenant to use a facility that to the rest of the market participants may not have the same value and we see that because look at all these other properties that have sold even the ones with Amazon as a tenant uh that have sold for significantly uh uh lower value well while you while you've mentioned uh this tax deferred exchange you said he he contacted a broker do you know how many bro
so at least one broker had this property at least one yeah at least do you know how many other Brokers had I mean apparently wasn't on MLS but do you know was it was the buyer uh from California yeah he was from California do you have any idea how many other Brokers might have known about this property for sale um no I I I didn't even ask but I'm sure it's I don't know he could have lucky and contacted the first one that and and gotten the deal could have dialed for dollars quite a bit um I don'
t know and then you mentioned that part of the um refurbishment cost although you didn't know the total cost was for fast tracking construction what what does that mean so fast tracking means um again most developers will minimize cost in order to optimize rent what that means is uh you know we could redo this room for let's say a million dollars and it's going to take us six months to do it but we have a hearing tomorrow or in three weeks and we need this done much faster right so we're going t
o pay a premium to get this we're going to get uh three uh three crews instead of one right we're going to not order uh supplies ahead of time we're going to go to the store and and and pay at the store sometimes even pay a premium to for for the products to be delivered faster that's fast tracking and that that comes at a cost again for us for Amazon fast tracking makes sense because on the tail end of it the business value that we extract from delivering products to the customers faster is is
greater than the cost incurred but Mo most most uh folks um most participants are not going to um exercise that they're they're going to say it's okay we could we could wait another six or eight months and just keep the cost down okay one final question is a small question but I didn't quite understand it on page 37 which is one of your com the property sold for a million or 11 million yeah and then down below it says 27,400 th000 private lender yeah what's that all about uh I don't know uh most
likely uh this so this is a land purchase um most likely what what happens is uh so this site uh uh was developed uh at some point um and so there was a greater loan uh um uh secured so the development could start so they they paid for the for the land and then the rest of the money was for uh grading and and developing the site okay plus whatever the the equity contribution that the buyer uh cont it too uh sometimes there there's another potential where um the loan is recorded against several
properties and and the loan that's recorded is one larger number but it's uh it's for several different properties and the loan uh the 11 million is only reflecting the sale price for one specific property I don't I don't know that those you did okay thank you thank you okay you have any questions I have a few I have a few um how come your report doesn't have to be usap compliant can you repeat that yeah how why does your report not have to be usap compliant because it's just that it's a report
it's not an appraisal appraisal is very specific uh document um uh I utilize the same methodology but I've not completed an appraisal per uh usap uh requirements okay um and and generally I mean that's that's what I have with the uh uh landlord's appraisal uh it'll have things like Regional uh write up and and locational write up and right they have a lot more information if it's not usound compliant why should we believe that it's credible if you haven't done all the work to make it an official
appraisal you've done like half the work and you picked a number but it's not usap compliant so is it credible well first of all that's up to you to determine whether it's credible or not uh i' I've definitely used uh the same principles uh appraisal principles or valuation principles uh that are uh used in the appraisal uh the only thing that I didn't do was was the um uh um uh additional verbiage or the write up that's associated with with an appraisal okay but you understand as appraisers if
we put our name next to a number and we have an appraisal license it's an appraisal and we have to keep a work file that's why I'm not acting as an appraiser I I advocate for the value of the property which is very different than than uh producing a an appraisal okay I have no further questions um number n page 19 um seemed to be skipped in my copy I didn't know if that was something that was just taken out of all the copies or if it was just missing uh yes I took that page out at that produced
um um joll up image and it wasn't valuable just uh two extra pictures that didn't make sense okay if there are no further questions I believe it's time for the assessors bre yep do a five- minute bathroom break yeah okay we'll return at 2:55 and then it'll be time for assessors to present their s o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e all right we are back in session and it's time to hear the assessor presentation assessors exhibit a a b c d [Applause] e f and g have been submitted and distributed to yo
ur board thank you we'll go ahead and U begin on page five of our exhibit a I think much of the other things have been put to bed and we'll start down at the Bold heading where the renovation began I think the board has a accurate portrayal of what the property looks like the renovation after the conditional use permit was granted included the first for renovation of state-of-the-art industrial tenant improvements as well as over 3,000 ft of supporting office space some of the improvements are l
isted there a new roof upgrade electrical parking lot improvements concrete asphalt Landscaping new new HVAC and mechanical systems interior exterior paint fire life systems and a 24,000 ft canopy uh the second floor of approximately 135 ft remained is partially demolished office space um additionally there's the parking structure it is a 195,000 plus sare foot parking structure at the it was built in 2003 it's always been assessed on this parcel and according to the Assessor's legal requirement
we are required to assess it to the parcel that it currently sets the leas was signed for $1 a month as indicated by the applicant and we do not consider this a market rate for this structure and there is some reference to property tax rule 8 on how we have to treat properties encumbered by a lease if you go to exhibit a there's an aerial photograph outlining where the struct where the main building is the canopy and the parking structure the red line indicates the parcel line on that same page
are some exterior photos of the building we were asked during our site visit to not photograph the interior of the building in any capacity and so those are not part of our presentation um but I believe the applicant has provided interior photos and we do not dispute with the applicant on the makeup of the interior of the building the three approaches to Value are used utilized in some fashion uh we heavily relied on the income approach primarily because it was purchased for an investment prope
rty and Market the market participants have spoken on uh how to best value this property uh first we've got to analyze the lease the subject lease started in 2021 in March it is a 15-year lease but with multiple ex extension options totaling 34 years almost 35 years 34 years and 11 months uh the lease clearly spells out that it's a lease tamson for 100% or the 100% of the building is leas Amazon and it's described as square feet uh with the exception of the parking structure and some minimal sit
e parking adjacent to the parking structure the base rent start at 350,000 a month or a121 a square foot or 4.2 annually um all operating expenses are to be paid by the tenant and this lease is considered a 100% triple net lease based on the Assessor's analysis at this time we would like to introduce our income value valuation we accepted the lease as Market lease it was negotiated between knowledgeable lesser and lesie and we will provide evidence to support our Market lease rate at a121 or 144
7 per year per square foot we reduce this amount for Market vacancy and expenses and also reserves uh these expenses and re reserves are considered minimal and I don't think that our estimate differs from the applicant in that way very much it is a 100% triple net lease and so there are very little expenses at an ownership level um the cap rate the inpl cap rate the transfer was reported at 3.35 and we agree with that in place cap rate um but the the current lease what we considered Market lease
did not address the parking structure in any way Amon the current tenant Amazon does not have access to that parking structure and but a prudent owner would expect a return on all value valuable components to the property and but due to the lack of lease data available to accurately value that lease using the income approach we decided to Value it using the cost approach similar to the applicant and add that additionally to the income approach DED from the market lease and if you go to page 10
there's an exert of our cost approach and the full details of in the support data will be gone over in exhibit B when we get there if you go to if you go to page 11 it's where the beginning of our sales comparison approach begins U we determined that because of the pro predominant use as an industrial building that was the most um likely use going forward and the most accurate way to portray the property when comparing it to other Market comparables as you can see here we used five sales all wit
hin the southern California area and considered um extremely comparable in most aspects of the property adjustments were made for location condition clear height and land to building ratio as discussed previously the subject property has a significant amount of Surplus land what we consider Surplus land and significant adjustments were made to address the Surplus land in the sales comparison approach and we will go through that a little more in the assessor Exhibit C although the sales compariso
n approach if we want to go to the reconcil on page 12 although the sales comparison approach was completed um the income approach is a vastly more accurate way to value a property in our opinion and that's what we did here we relied on the income approach to Value significantly more than the market approach our range of values ranged from 95 m800 to 129 850,000 now if we can go to exhibit B I'd like to go over some of the approaches to value that we used if you go to page two is our income anal
ysis similar to what we saw in the summary as stated before we reduce the effective gross income for vacancy and expenses and concluded the value of the property at 117 m950 th000 plus the additional cost of the parking structure at 11, 900,000 the parking structure on page three valuation uh we we conducted a valuation two different ways on the parking structure and the attached pedestrian bridge the first approach yielded an estimated cost of 11, 900,000 but additionally we have the historical
costs from 2003 and through Marshal Swift you can apply a historical cost multiplier and as indicated down in the remarks you can see that the cost would be 12541 so the estimated cost using current cost of 11, 900,000 was used my apologies page three of exhibit B page three and if I'm going too fast go ahead and speak up on P well that was a market indicator so uh not a market indicator we do have the historical cost from when it was built in 2003 what down there in the remarks uh the historic
al costs are reported 6, 327,00 in 2003 okay and so Marshall and Swift provides a comparative cost multiplier that we can apply to historical costs and that's what we did here in addition to conducting a at current cost cost valuation and depreciating the current costs and this was due because there is no there was no Market data available for leas parking structures it was the only adequate way we felt to Value the parking structure was to do it this way if you go to page four we provide a anal
ysis of tripl net industrial lease comparables including the subject with adjustments made for market conditions location clear height and the Landa building ratio considering the subject has a significant amount of surplus land and the subjects lease rate of $14 47 a square foot per year fell within that range and for that reason we accepted it as a market lease rate on page five is a location map of our lease comparables on page six we have a a market analysis that was done by co co Banker for
the fourth quarter of 2021 analyzing the industrial market for Los Angeles and more importantly ventur County as well we've highlighted some of the important areas that we used if you look at the SEI Valley area the reported vacancy rate was 0.22% which is considering the time of the transfer was the 2% vacancy that we used was an accurate amount it accounts for rent loss as well well not just vacancy as you can see the lease rate for industrial properties in SEI Valley was reported at a132 a s
quare foot um more broadly if you go down to the East Ventura that was highlighted it's still within line with the lease rate and the vacancy rate that we used for our income analysis if you go to page seven we have conducted a cap rate analysis of Industrial Sales that we've looked at with a range of 3.03% to 4.91% for industrial properties our in place reported cap rate for the subject property at 3.35 fits within that range and therefore we accepted it as a market cap rate additionally on pag
e eight these are Market surveys that are conducted I believe the applicant used similar Market surveys this is for a first tier Warehouse property with a going in cap rate of 3 point a going in cap rate range of 3.8 to 7 uh if you look down at the bottom of page8 the bottom left it reports the quarter four of 2021 these surveys are often done with the data from the previous quarter so I think it's important that we look at page nine as well this is the first first quarter data from 2022 which o
ften reports the the transactions that happened the previous quarter including our subject property and as you can see the cap rate range ranged from 3 to 7 perc uh for a first tier Warehouse which is what we consider the subject property to be and moving on to Exhibit C the sales comparison approach as stated previously we used five sales all Industrial Sales all with many similar uh attributes including uh tenet including tenant improvements the tenant has specific tenant improvements uh that
they like to have put in their buildings and we felt it most comparable to compare similar build outs to our subject property in addition to the sales that we used uh we also addressed the land to building ratio in the form of an adjustment for Surplus land our calculation based on the Surplus land was that the total usable land is 948 th000 F feet but we added 195,000 ft for the parking structure many times uh in any office or industrial any type of building you are required to have surface par
king for your employees the parking structure fits that requirement the am the employees that work at this facility if we are considering the parking structure as available like the assessor is obligated to without honoring non-market lease the employees are able to park in that parking structure freeing up significant amount of land for to be used either for um additional Industrial Development or to be leased out uh for industrial yard space which is also a very valuable um attribute to this p
roperty it is located adjacent to the 118 freeway and like we spoke about before it is has an almost almost dedicated on andof ramp to the property so for logistical purposes is extremely valuable and that can't be understated how valuable the land is that the current property sits on we made we made the conclusion that because of the the current office on the second floor typically offices are a more valuable component in industrial installation but because of the condition of those Ted improve
ments we considered it equivalent with no adjustments made uh other adjustments were made for location a sale one is located in a more densely populated Metro region with Superior access to Major ports and considered Superior in location uh all sales are considered Superior in clear height the subject has an unusual buildout in that it has 13t high ceilings and no sales that we could find have similar clear height sale two is right down the street from the subject property with similar access to
the free freway sale 3 is a new newer building and appropriately adjusted for age and condition and sale five was adjusted for economies of scale it was a 700,000 foot industrial building and obviously you would pay more per square foot for a smaller building traditionally and that's the reasoning behind that adjustment on page three we provide a location map of our industrial comparable sales and on page four and five four we outlined and provide the applicant with how we determine the usable
land land of the subject property as stated before we believe that the usable land is 948 th000 ft um but that does not include the 195,000 foot parking structure which we calculated as usable land for our valuation on page five We performed an analysis of typical industrial land to building ratios of many of the sales that are used in our Market approach as well as other industrial build buildings and we concluded the average landed building ratio to be 2.27 and that's the that's the needed squ
are footage of a of an industrial building um and so we performed an analysis to indicate that the Surplus land measured about 484 th000 Square ft now to value that Surplus Land We performed a land valuation of comparable land sales this was not added to the market approach it is only provided to to the board to support our significant adjustment for Surplus land made in the sales comparison approach we concluded that a value of $50 sare foot for this industrial land is adequate like stated prev
iously the subject is approved for industrial uses and logistical for logistical reasons is extremely valuable that can't be understated that the value of this property is in the conditional use permit change allowing for industrial uses if you look at our sales sale one was a industrial building that was shortly demolished and it sold for all land it is considered Superior in location it is located in close proximity to multiple major freeways and for industrial or logistical purposes it is it
is considered significantly Superior in location all the other sales are considered equivalent in location s comp 4 was used in the applicants sales comparison approach we chose to use it as a sale as a land sale because that's how but it is located away from the freeway and considered slightly inferior to the subject property on page seven is a location map of our Surplus land comparables and if we could move on to exhibit D this is the offering memorandum that was prepared for the sale of the
property by the seller it provides a detailed analysis of what the property is more importantly if you go to page three in the top left the investment highlights it shows that the building is 100% triple net lease to Amazon at current Mark at Market rents with 2% annual rent escalations I think that's an important distinction to make even the seller of the property believed that it was a market rent that Amazon was paying and there are some interior photos on the following pages as well as some
list of improvements that were made tended improvements that were made and some other Market highlights on the back page is a co-star report provided for review by the board and if we could move on to exhibit e this is the fee appraisal that was commissioned by the owners of the property not Amazon to secure financing we're not going to delve too much into this document we will only summarize it if you go to page six of this document under the value conclusions the fee appraiser apprais this as
a least fee property it is the with a value conclusion of 128 million it is the opinion of the assessor that because the property was recently leased the lease was recently negotiated prior to the transfer leasehold rights don't exist the leasehold rights and the fee simple rights are equivalent leas hold rights only exist when there is a benefit to the leas the Lessie and that is the only disagreement we really have with that market evaluation uh this is provided to be reviewed by the board in
the capacity they want we wanted to touch on the fee appraisal that it did exist that they did secure financing for the property um but the merits of the evaluation we don't necessarily stand behind we we have our own valuation um but we wanted to touch on that exhibit f is the subject's current lease and we can go ahead and start [Music] on addendum 11 we're still on the fee appraisal right no no sorry my apologies it is on the lease agreement exhibit F I skipped ahead and you want us to go to
the addendum on that if you go to addendum 11 what page is that on 28 that's right it shows the monthly rate which we agree that is a market rate additionally if you go to addendum 53 it provides a and I'll read it as it's written tenant Improvement allowance landlord will pay to tenant the sum of 2,922 200 square or $200 in a tenant Improvement allowance that's $10 a square foot based on our calculation and well within the mark Market to secure a tenant at $10 foot to pay for tenant improvement
s if you go to addendum 56 in the lease agreement it spells out what work is being done by the landlord there's nothing in that site work or in the building work would pop out as extremely expensive uh to the assessor's office to indicate some other something other than typical attended improvements to secure a long-term tenant and the following page is some preliminary work and based on how the lease is written it is our understanding that the preliminary scope of work is going to be done by th
e tenant which is Amazon and that is all we have for the lease agreement but it is attached for the board to review as well if you want to move on to exhibit F or exhibit G excuse me this is the parking lot lease and the revenue and Taxation code actually addresses this um in the assess in section 42.1 in the assessment of land the assessor shall consider the effect upon the value of any enforcable restrictions to which the use of the land may be subject subjected the restrictions shall include
but are not limited to all the following now if you go down this list a private deed restriction that's set forth by two related parties is not on this list so as far as we're concerned our job at the assessor's office is to value that parking structure on the lot that it sits because we are legally obligated to and unless there's a governing body or an agreement with a government agency that says hey you can't use this uh for this reason then we have to assess it on the property it sits and sec
ondly if you go on to page three is the parking lot lease or at least an excerpt of it and it spells out the lease rate that the applicant has stated of a dollar per month which we conclude is not a market lease so in conclusion the simplest way to Value this property is normally the best one uh the income approach was given the most weight it uses the subject own lease that was negotiated just prior to the transfer and represents the the least fee and the fee simple property rights the tenant l
eased the building at a market rate and that best represents how Market participants would view the proper property the reported 128 million sale price that was negotiated by very sophisticated Market participants was within the range of values and per property tax rule two was accepted as fair market value for the October 1st 2021 transfer we asked the assessment appeals board to sustain that value based on the evidence provided the only change that assessor recommends is an update to the alloc
ation with 47 million to the land and 81 million to the improvements based on the land appraisal provided within the documents thank you thank you does the applicant have any questions of the Assessor's presentation I do okay no problem now is your chance to ask if you'd like they had a whole lunch hour to prepare their questions if you want or 10 minutes you can request it okay you know a fairness you you know yeah well I can proceed okay have you completed an appraisal excuse me this is a ques
tion to the assessor I don't know who who would answer this but has the assessor's office completed an appraisal on this property yes in in accordance to the property tax rules that apply is it a usep compliant appraisal we are not bound by the confines of uspap this is for property tax purposes have you completed an appraisal of the real estate or have you completed an appraisal of least fee value we've completed the appraisal for the fee simple and least fee property rights both is there a dif
ference we because the property was leased just before the transfer we don't believe that there are any leasehold property we believe that they're equivalent was the property ever marketed for lease we could not find any marketing material for the lease so how do you know the the lease rate is at Market We performed a market analysis to indicate what the lease rate would be had it been marketed to the open market is that as you can as you can see in our income approach exhibit B okay uh let me s
ee here page four as an addition to that question the uh seller in their listing memorandum agreed it was a market lease as well well we don't know if that if that was the seller um why did you have to go so far as to Torance to find rental coms we believe that this property is uniquely situated and would be offered for lease for many different tenants uh primarily in the logistical space and it was important for us to look at all areas not just Torrance but all of Southern California for Market
participants that would look at this type of property at lease who's who's the tenant of the Torrance property I believe it's Amazon and the reason why we chose that sale comp is they did many of the similar tened improvements they built a canopy on that property they it was a former it was formerly used as a different type of property and retrofitted similar to our property and so we felt that it was extremely equivalent in terms of the tended improvements and the additional canopy space that
was put on so according to the to the cost approach canopy space was um canopy was valued how much think it was two and a half million we did not perform a cost approach on the canopy how did you come up with a clear height adjustment that was based on the Appraiser's experience and what the market would react to different clear Heights um the as the applicant alluded to the clear height was not a significant issue obviously because they leased the building out and although we made Market derive
d adjustments to the clear height I don't believe that the applicant uh has a has a position on clear height clearly by the lease that they least the leas for this building I'm sorry are are you referring to the Amazon's need for Clear height or the markets adjustment for the clear height both explain please Amazon is a large participant in the market and our job is to evaluate all the market participants including Amazon so so increasing clear height from 13 ft to 25 ft um warrants only a 10% a
djustment when you nearly double the the amount of storage space that is our opinion um I see you've also used um rental number three in more Park 6,000 condor that's also an Amazon facility right I'm sorry is that correct what was your question I apologize I was trying to find it in my presentation okay exhibit B uh page four uh third rental car uh comp is also an Amazon rental that's correct and so is rental number five correct um exhibit B page seven um you provide a list of cap rates uh the
first Caper provided who is the tenant for the property on Condor Drive yes Amazon what about for the property on Sky Park Drive Amazon but what about the property on Prairie Street Amazon what about the property on Mission Oaks bord Amazon were there no other sales with cap rates except for Amazon well considering we're looking at a property that is leased by Amazon we felt it most relevant to look at all the market participants uh you have to keep in mind that at the time when logistical relev
ant properties industrial properties were going up for Market there was an ex extreme expansion uh in logistical needs and Amazon was driving that those market conditions so like I stated previously for us to ignore Amazon as a market participant would not be doing our job it's our job to look at all Market exhib page two this is your sales comparison grid sale number one who's the tenant it it says right there it's Amazon okay sale number two who is the tenant can I just make this expeditious A
mazon's a tenant for all of the sale comparisons all the sale comps if I may I'd like to add um that one of the reasons for that is that these properties are of a caliber that would attract a tenant such as Amazon so the characteristics of a property that would attract a um a tenant like Amazon are very good and therefore it is appropriate to compare them to the subject property I didn't ask a question but thank you on page five of Exhibit C this is a lent to building ratio comparison is this a
statistically sound lent to building comparison ratio I'm sorry will you rephase that on page five yes you provide industrial lent to building areas ratios so to building area and you have seven comparables supposedly is this a statistically sound list of comparable lent to building ratios for the market I believe it gives a good representation of what is the required land to building ratio to operate an industrial facility and not very far off of year analysis either we just provided comparable
information not just a summary uh do you know who the tenants are in these set of comparables some are some of them are used in our sales approach yes but the I can't I can't speak to every tenant that was not part of the analysis the analysis was what is a typical land AB builing ratio for an industrial property clearly there's more than seven industrial properties in the immediate neighborhood I can't tell you the tenants of these individual properties although you can draw your own conclusio
ns based on the addresses and uh the comps we exhibit D there's a sale uh offering memorandum do you know if this offering memorandum was ever distributed to to the public no we cannot confirm that it was distributed to the public okay on page I'm sorry go ahead I might add though that the just because it wasn't distributed to the public doesn't mean it wasn't distributed to a small circle of potential investors on page eight of the exhibit D there is a a little bit of Statistics here for SEI Va
lley slm park on the right hand side it says base inventory 14 million square feet current vacancy 2.8% and then it says 2021 year-to-date net absorption what is that mean this is not a part of our analysis this was generated by the sellers what do you think it means how quickly properties get absorbed by the market and and how much right like I stated this is not part of our analysis this was an offering memo I think your question would be better relate to the seller of the property who commiss
ion this document it also says that asking rents are 83 cents square foot for industrial space so typical rental rates are 83 cents a square foot and yet the subject property at uh $14 a square foot is at Market how can the subject property be at a buck 20 a square foot while the rest of the market is at 83 cents a square foot again this this is a document that was furnished by the sellers well you provided it for a reason so you must rely on it and you think it's worthy well we we provided it w
e provided it in the capacity that it was a real two sale this was a marketing flyer that was produced and at least circulated to one other broker considering it sold uh but we don't know the full extent of who it was circulated to uh but I imagine they wouldn't put the work into a marketing flyer and circulate it just to one individual so ex follow up follow up to that real quick um we showed the market data that we're relying on for our lease this was not part of it and we don't know where thi
s 83 per square foot is coming from or the data they relied on exhibit simply to show that the property was listed exhibit D on the last page it shows that uh the buyer was motivated by 1031 exchange and you don't think there was any premium paid for for being for for that motivation as you've previously testified it many of the properties that are purchased like this the market participants are all many of them are involved in 10ed 31 exchanges and are motivated in that way so I think that woul
d be it would be part for the course for a 1031 exchange to be part of the transaction if the assessor were to eliminate every 1031 exchange that would probably cut the pool of comps in half if not more exhibit e uh the appraisal uh uh completed by the landlord for what is the purpose and function of the appraisal you would have to ask your landlord it from reading it my understanding it was to secure financing but I can't be I can't be 100 100% sure that's the only purpose of the appraisal fina
ncing uh what what is the reason you provided the appraisal full disclosure we wanted to provide the board with the entire picture of the property and all that went on with the October 1st 21 transfer on exhibit e appraisal in the on page 104 the appraiser used a rental rate of $28 a square foot do you think that's a reasonable rate for the subject property that is not the rate that we concluded for our value this is a separate appraisal included H for informational purposes and for the board to
review and what why is there why do you think this Appraiser for the for the purposes of financing distinguished between market value as is least fee and the go dark or fee simple as if vacant value I'm not sure you would have to ask the person that commissioned the fee appraisal I'm going the backtrack a little bit um uh exhibit a uh you mentioned the parking structure and then you've also mentioned there is no um market rate I presume you meant Market rental rate for the parking structure why
do you think that's the case I can't be sure it would my opinion would be that it would number one either there would be one possible tenant for that property and it is the adjacent parcel um but also it could provide an extremely amount of valuable parking space for the subject property and because of the lack of data that and that's what I'm asking why is there a lack of data because parking structures are typically not least at Market rates not least or not least at Market rates not least at
Market rates from what we could conclude okay um on page nine under the income approach you conclude that the subject rental rate is uh is a market rental rate but was the subject property ever advertised for rent not to our knowledge and that doesn't mean that it was not leased at Market rent um all right and last question how do you um reconcile the two sales of the subject property for 16 million and for 128 million I think we did a good job of reconciling that in our presentation the first
sale occurred as a vacant office building approved only for office use the second sale occurred after a conditional use permit was permitted or condition use permit was approved by the city council allowing for distribution warehouse uses in conjunction with significant capital in the terms of tended improvements being completed at the subject property and it being leased you just said there was significant Capital Improvements made but earlier you alluded to in your presentation that very minim
al Capital Improvements were made which one is it I don't think that's a that's an accurate portrayal of my testimony I think we had always indicated that there were significant improvements made to the property Renovations tended improvements I don't think that we said minimal we I don't believe we um testified that minimal improvements were made to clarify I believe you are confusing the prior owner's responsibility with the attendant improvements and Amazon's responsibility with tenant improv
ements I believe Mr Clifford's statement was that the owner's responsibility for the tenant improvements was somewhat minimal and the and Amazon's responsibility for tenant improvements was quite considerable thank you uh no further questions okay thank you does the board have any questions of the Assessor's presentation I have a couple questions go ahead so I just want to um get some further clarification on this clearance he adjustment and how you said it was by the experience of the appraiser
how is that give you a 10 or a 15% um amount to um be considered uh accurate well we used we used what action had taken place at the subject property the fact that they were able to secure a tenant with that clear height indicated to us that the market participants didn't value the clear height as significantly as we had we may have assumed otherwise even though there's nobody else that has one that's that low nothing that's correct if I can somewhat restate what he said um the tenant Amazon ba
sically had a build to suit situation they could have built whatever they wanted there for the most part and if you look at the work they did it's quite extensive they chose to leave a 13 roughly clear height so weighing that the assessor found that the tenant didn't find a high if they needed a higher clear height more in line with other the the other comparables then they would have done that they didn't therefore the adjustment was a praiser judgment and yeah 10 to 15% seemed to fit given the
fact that the tenant could have made a much higher clear height if they wanted to and they chose not to so we're trying to reflect what the market participants actually did okay and we're saying the difference in clear height yes that is significant for industrial properties but Amazon chose not to get that much higher clear height that they they could have so weighing the market participants we say that wasn't quite as important to the market participants as maybe we would have expected okay I
have one other question about the comp number uh number sale number one in the sales comparison on the location of the property in Carson and the location adjustment on that how did they and how did they determine on that one because Carson is right next to s Pedro which is right next to the shipping lanes which is right next to where everything is it seems like it would be a much more Superior than 20% and we indicated that there was a significant location adjustment made to that LE or to the
I'm sorry are we talking about the Torrance property or the yes I'm talking about the Torrance one because you mention I'm sorry I meant the one on in wait where did I there was one in Carson I thought but okay let's just it wasn't I was referring to that one the one in Torrance it's close by I mean Torrance is right next to the airport which is right and I think our our location adjustment that we applied to that reflects that difference in location okay that's it for me thank you do you have a
ny questions yes uh maybe I missed it here but your cost approach you did one on the on the parking structure you didn't do one for the building in general did you no we didn't feel that it was necessary Market participants don't typically use the cost approach and we didn't feel that it was relevant how do you feel about the $ 5360 that the applicant used one do you know does anybody know how much was spent on re renovating this building no one knows like a key fact here well it was it's import
ant to note that um the historical costs for those tened improvements were not reported to the assessor's office even though we inquired for those costs um both when the valuation what the original valuation for those tended improvements were made and through the appeal process they were not provided and and and there's a new facility in Ventura and I suppose there must be other uh facilities do you have any idea what those are costing per square foot I granted they're not one to one but it give
s us in in general or Amazon specific facilities um in general this this type of facility well for one the one inventur is in the same county um it's another big facility I mean if it sold for if it was built for 45 a sare foot that would tell me the 53 is accurate if it was built for $200 a square foot then that tells me that maybe Marshall and Swift doesn't uh doesn't have an accurate opinion of the the cost to build in California or in ventur County at least it would be difficult to shed ligh
t on that uh we our analysis didn't include the cost of other industrial buildings throughout the county okay that's fine sorry just just to follow up on that a little bit um if we had that information on those other properties I believe those would be protected under 441d so we likely wouldn't be able to share that regardless okay um yeah that's fine uh getting back to this coar I'm trying to get a better handle on what the heck this exactly was because it seems to bounce back between an offeri
ng just to the buyer and a general offering so it was commissioned some three or this particular documented is three months before the sale but I do know well let's start who who is new Mark is that is that a a large firm that deals in in in property over 50 million or whatever I mean are they normally just Brokers or if you go to exhibit a in my summary exhibit what exhibit a in my summary in the burden appr proof section three on page four down at the bottom of that uh Newark is a global comme
rcial real estate brokerage firm that the seller are hired to represent them we just don't know how many places this was sent to but this seems to be there there does anybody have any evidence that this isn't it says here if you're going to if you have a buyer on the pages it doesn't have a page number where it shows the the one next to the last talks about if you if you have a potential buyer you may be entitled to I'm paraphrasing a commission or not so this seem to be a document that's being
sent out not to me or to Brian because we don't have $128 million but does seem to be a document that's being sent out to people that have this type of capital to invest I mean am I wrong does anybody yeah so um a lot of times with commercial and Industrial properties there's offering memor memorandums and they get distributed to people they know and it's not necessary something you or I could look up on any kind of website unless they specifically list it on there uh I've seen for probably the
majority of the uh property types I've worked uh the the offering memorandums usually distributed to you know other firms they know potential buyers that they're aware of that sort of thing um sometimes these are uploaded to co-star and so maybe a larger audience can see the offering memorandums uh but this is kind of the typical way that I know of that these uh a lot of these types of properties are shared and the fee appraisal was done after the fact was in the documents that we're sent to you
this wasn't an all C or was this an all cash sale that they then finan after the fact or are they refinancing this do you know we're not sure about that that was not disclosed to us okay I think that's all I've got are you okay the auor there is a um on the page mark seven exhibit what it would be exhibit d d back to D again yeah there's on page seven of a little footnote number two in tiny print says as part of the conditional use permit Amazon does not utilize the second floor of the building
the second floor contains unimproved mezzanine space is that a restriction a governmental restriction then on being able to use the second floor that should be considered in the valuation the conditional use permit addresses it by indicating that Amazon or the tenant would have to um apply for permits to retrofit that space um and that's how the conditional use permit considers the second floor I did have one actually additional question the purchase price essentially doesn't include the garage
does it that's accurate thank you actually I don't think it's accurate why would you say that it's accurate let them explain it I mean I can explain it essentially when you're buying something and if you if you let's say there's two houses and I'm want to buy the property and one house is leased to somebody else for a dollar a year for ever I'm not going to pay any money for that isn't that essentially what well I'll State this the owner bought the fee simple property rights of the property so
in in correcting my previous statement we believe that the sale price did include the you're right I understand that bundle of Rights but one could make the argument that it didn't I mean if it had substantially more value we don't need to get into that okay I have a question on Exhibit C the sales approach page two um over on sale number five down and sale number five too fast to me for me Brian okay well start it again sale five is one of the larger buildings but it's still smaller than the su
bject and it has an upwards adjustment of 10% for building size in fact all of the sales are smaller this is just the largest sale and it has a upward adjustment I'm just curious why that's to account for the economy as a scale we believe that if when you buy a 700,000 foot industrial building a market participant would pay more for a smaller building okay I was look at the wrong numbers okay do that make sense I'm sorry did you did your question say that s five I mix up lot size and building si
ze oh okay because I usually see numbers to say GLA not GBA okay thank you I my houses are always smaller than this that's what I got conf sorry you could just strike that question um I don't believe I have any further questions before the board goes to closing statements I do have a technical clarification necessary that will uh determine uh just want to confirm assessor exhibit a page 12 you requesting the board adjust the percentage of how land and improvements are allocated on this property
correct that's correct okay and County Council just for your research and findings per State Board of Equalization I'm I'm sorry Mr vakas can you start over with summarizing the the correction because I was flipping pages and I right assessors exhibit a page 12 is requested you said exhibit a page 12 okay corre is is requesting an adjustment to the allocation uh the reason I'm asking is the application on Section six um does not have box G2 selected requesting an allocation adjustment so pursuan
t to California State Board of equalizations annotations 180 .7 and 1 90.8 the allocation can only be adjusted by your board should the applicant amend their application to include that uh unless Council finds um that the that that the boards can take jurisdiction over that without Amendment um so the question now that the assessors confirmed they requested allocation is to Amazon are you wishing to amend the application to include an allocation appeal so that the board could do so um or are you
objecting to the allocation adjustments so that's to a question to me yes um I I can't make an opinion on that yet I need to think through whether that's even reasonable could you please repeat oh I'm sorry I thought you were done do you want the annotations again that's what I was yeah it's 1 18.7 and 1 19.8 so in summary and this will be for Council to research further is that the allocation cannot be adjusted um unless it's properly identified in the appeal and that's only within the first f
our years of a base value being established so um if Amazon does not want to amend the application County Council will just have to research before the board makes their decision if they can take jurisdiction without uh application amend if the applicant agreed to Amendment it would be easy we can just add that but if the applicant isn't agreeing I think you're going to have to research it further okay okay and and so Amazon is not willing to request Amendment at this time corre I I don't know w
hat the ramifications are um I it would permanently establish the allocation of the property until construction or uh title changes subsequently so right now the it's allocated 14% to land value and 86% to structures so it would be allowing the board to adjust how the total is distributed no we we object to that um lend value comes in uh very close to what the assessed land value is uh I don't think it makes sense to change the allocation um not not to dive in back into the to the testimony the
assessor uh uh used very um creatively land sales that are significantly uh uh far away from the subject property rather than focusing on the sales that are in the immediate vicinity of the the subject property just to arrive at a very very high uh uh rental rate I'm sorry land uh value I that's a long-winded way of saying no just to be clear here let's say we to make it simple we take $10,000 off of this that's going to change the ratio somewhat so is it the ratio that has to say the same so yo
ur board can if they if the if the board does not have jurisdiction over allocation you only have jurisdiction over the total assess so we would just put the total and then the allocation the the percentage allocation would stay the same unless County Council determines you have jurisdiction to adjust the allocation without um the applicant amending their application okay yeah so typically the board only can adjust the total assessed value and and less allocations appeal so uh it's noted for Cou
nty Council I just wanted to bring it up in case it was agreeable and then we wouldn't have to look into it um sounds like it's not so and to the clerk I I was looking over your shoulder it looked like you were looking at a letter to the assessors if you were could you send me an email with that those are the legal annotations from the California State Board of Equalization annotation 1 180.7 and 1 190 1 19. 008 they cover the board's jurisdiction and allocations um if I may add it it also and I
haven't had time to verify this um there's also some information in the assessment appeals manual about the allocation of value within a correct total assessment um starting on page 51 um there's several other uh references to allocation in in the assessment appeals manual too so that that may be a good place to look as well thank you for that I didn't have much time to research I just knew that it wasn't checked on the application so we were going to have a procedural issue yeah the by very br
ief reading here it looks like it may be okay for supplemental assessments um so I just wanted to make sure that that was reviewed as well thank you chair for allowing that clarification that's all absolutely okay are there any more questions of the Assessor's presentation okay you get to read what was that I thought it was ready to go no no no got closing arguments okay so the assessor's office gets to make their closing statements first as we stated before in conclusion uh the simplest way to
Value the property is as it's currently leased and that's what the assessor's office has done here we didn't we portrayed the property as it sits we provided all the relevant documentation even documentation that the applicant may want the board to think doesn't exist but actually does exist I thought we went over and Beyond to to disclose everything that we had and more importantly arrive at a market value for the property um a market value that was negotiated by very knowledgeable buyers and s
ellers um you don't complete a $128 million transaction with your without your eyes wide open and I think that that's what occurred here I think that they purchased the full bundle of Rights the least fee and the fee simple rights and that's how we have articulated our presentation today and like I stated before we hope the board um takes in the evidence that we provided and confirms that the sale price of 128 million was fair market value at the time of the transfer and I just want to reiterate
a very key point in this and that's in our exhibit F the lease it's theendum 5 um the applicant explained and I tried my best to understand it sounds like his opinion was the current lease on the property was inflated due to construction costs and when he explained it my understanding was these were construction costs that needed to be paid back to the prior owner and that's the inflated lease rate I just wanted to point out this is not what the lease States the lease States in addendum 53 or a
ddendum five in multiple Pages the tenant Amazon did everything to get the conditional use permit they did all the permits all the plans and they did the majority of the work when it comes to Remodeling and retrofitting the space for their use the only things that the owner it was responsible for and it lists them quite clearly was on addendum 56 it was repairing the parking lot it was uh a new roof some Landscaping uh removing some generators removing mechanical equipment you know at l a bunch
of things here demolish H it literally the owner's responsibility was to repair some things make the roof new and then clear everything else out so the tenant could do what they wanted with the space addendum 57 shows the tenant did the remaining of the bulk work so that's just one thing I key point I really wanted to highlight because I think it's uh integral to the board's decision today um and with that I think the assessor is done thank you okay it's time for the applicants um closing statem
ents thank you I think that was a mischaracterization when um assessor's office stated that they've provided information that if the applicant wouldn't want the board to see that is not true uh and I don't know what information the assessor's office is referring to to begin with but uh all the information that was provided uh to the assessor's office um uh with the expectation to review and to value and to uh recognize that um there is a difference between fee simple value and least fee value va
lue in use to a particular user and value to the market as a whole what the assessor has done in their valuation was value what the property is worth to Amazon and this is clearly evident by the comparable sales that they've used not a single outside uh sale this would imply that only Amazon properties are selling there are no other industrial properties that are selling in so far as to go all the way to Torrance to to find yet another Amazon sale that is by definition at least fee or investment
value that they're valuing and that value of the fee simple because there's plenty of sales of other industrial buildings in in a nearby vicinity uh you saw that from the taxpayers information provided similarly with uh land value right within a mile of the subject property was was a handful of industrial uh lots that sold and and and at at the top end at 20 bucks a square foot but the assessor's office chose to go all the way to Silmar all the way to these remote locations just to find uh land
sales that would support their higher or inflated land value uh similarly with the with the rentals not quite as much they've put in a couple of rentals that are non Amazon but nonetheless Cherry Picked U uh uh rentals when other industrial properties in close proximity uh were uh uh were available for lease at a much reduced rate and so all that's to say that the assessor's office done a great job figuring out what a least fee value is uh but that's not the job or the focus of our presentation
today the focus is what the value of the real estate is to the market as a whole not just to Amazon and and that is so fundamental to to figuring out value of real estate just as I was alluding saying earlier a value of a bottle of water to me at an airport when I'm thirsty or in a desert when I'm it's very valuable but it's not as valuable when when I'm next to a grocery store and I don't want to drink of water right and so just because someone is paying a top dollar for for uh a specific prop
erty that doesn't mean that that's the market value of of that of of that uh real estate Amazon has a business case that that allows it to command and and and pay a premium in order to get the locations or or the properties that they want because uh because it's supported by the business um the rest of the market doesn't doesn't approach real estate in the same manner and and we see that by by both the the rentals and and the sales of other real estate uh that was not purchased by by by Amazon i
n fact the the paired sales one year apart what subject property is a great example 16 million just after you get a provisional which by the way the word provisional uh is specific to uh Amazon's use not to any industrial use only Amazon's use uh so if if another industrial user wants to utilize uh the facility they'll need to get yet another permit to use it as an industrial building but that's that's secondary um every uh uh there's a there's a principle of uh the the assumption is by the asse
ssor's office that the only potential user of the facility is is Amazon in fact the whole Marketplace is is just used by Amazon and that's that's what they valued and that's incorrect In fact the appraisal that was provided albate for financing purposes even the fear appraiser recognizes that there's a difference between there is a value in the lease and there's there's a going dark CLA I I would argue that the rental rate that he used at $28 a square foot is a little high uh both as indicated b
y the data provided by the assessor's office and the taxpayer but the appraiser recognizes there's a difference the assessor's office makes an assumption if it if if a rental rate if a lease was signed therefore it's at Market um and same thing with uh the purchase price of of the subject property $128 million there's nothing else in the anywhere close that's sold for that much in fact to the next closest uh dollar per square foot bases the assessor had to go all the way to to Torrance to to fin
d a sale well if uh if a user needs to use a facility that typically is very uh specific to a location there if I'm looking for a facility in seimi Valley I'm going to look at in the greater neighborhood of seimi Valle I'm not going to go to Torrance or LA or Riverside to to potentially uh have the same business case for those properties and and so that's that's not being adequately recognized lastly the assessor says there is no uh there's absolutely no and both buyer buyer and seller were um u
m they're institutional grade sellers uh uh participants and and therefore they they wouldn't be there's no possible way they'd be under duress well when you're under a time crunch in a large transaction that requires you to invest a 100 million plus dollars and there isn't a whole lot on the market you're you're under duress you you have a huge tax bill uh uh before you and in order to to not pay it you need to uh enter into a deal and and that's what the the the buyer committed to um but Mo mo
st most uh uh buyers that are not subject to those conditions they would uh they'd probably ask for much higher cap rate which is what we were trying to do at at a for for an a quarter cap rate in fact all the cap rates that the assessor used also Amazon cap rates the assessor doesn't recognize that a tier one tenant has any premium in the marketplace but in fact it's by the evidence provided by the taxpayer uh uh multiple all the M multiple uh sales included cap rates from a non-amazon uh buyer
s which are significantly higher so there is a premium there is there's a difference between least fee and fee simple there's a difference between value in use that Amazon is you uh uses the the facility or for the purpose and function versus a a typical B uh uh typical Market participant lastly uh the whole concept of oh well clear height is 13 ft and therefore Amazon used it therefore there's no uh substantive difference between a 13t clear and 24 or 35 foot clear as some of the comps had utte
rly ridiculous over the last 20 years building Heights and we see this in brand new construction building Heights have been increasing for the sole purpose of increas in cubage for storage purposes because it's easier to go up than across when you go across uh the ground floor uh a it's it cost of construction goes up and B it takes more time then uh you shrink the square uh ground uh footprint and you go higher uh you have shorter distance to travel from loading docks to the storage shelves and
going up and and that's been valuable I don't know how the assessor's office can say that with with a straight face and say that there's no difference in clear height just because one market participant rented it for rented a 13t clear uh High uh space we asked the board to recognize that those differences do exist and and and there are clearly evident in the information provided by the taxpayer that that least fee value uh is something greater than the fee simple value that is all okay thank y
ou very much I think at see at this time the board will take all of our evidence and proceed behind closed doors we will inform Brandon of our decision later today if we get that far and Brandon will inform both applicant and the assessor's office when we have it done it might take him a couple days or a little more I don't want to commit him to anything I know he's busy um so on that note I believe court is adjourned for the moment uh no wait we have one more yes but we're all done with the Ama
zon case so uh we a few have popped up so item 140 um this one we had trailed item 140 application 2310 636 um we had trailed because we had a nondescript email from the applicant um medical issues um based on that um they're agreeable they've requested to continue to May 6th they've agreed to provide the data to the assessor in the next 30 days um this was a no confirmation case so they had not previously confirmed appearance or reached out to the assessor um before making their uh medical cont
inuance request uh so at this time the requested action is to continue to May 6 2024 with the provisor that requested data be provided to the assessor in the next 30 days it is a um watercraft and they have been provided with the assigned Appraiser's contact information unless um so that's the requested action unless the assessor had comments no comments ISO move Perfect all right no I was waiting for brooked to shake her head no and I was go you were fast was there a second give me just a secon
d you're moving too fast for me to document that uh was that moved by board members CIS second by board member for now yep okay and no objections to that all right um item 145 through 147 your board had previously denied due to lack of appearance um I got some unfortunate um text messages regarding a severe medical situation um we've they provided sufficient proof that there's a issue here so the requested act um I also was able to um converse with the applicant um due to the medical circumstanc
es uh this one is would be recommended to continue to June 10th um and because of the ongoing medical situation they're agreeable to provide the assessor with the outstanding data at least 30 days prior um to that date um and this is another non-confirmed appearance that we did not hear about from until uh mid hearing today so requested action is to vacate the denial and continue to June 10th with data due 30 days prior unless the assessor had any comments no comments ISO move you got all right
sorry just documenting and clarify it was CIS the made the motion yeah and second by crop yeah okay thank you um okay final item on the agenda is 150 I think yes yes it is well and know 149 came back they've decided to agree the stipulation but we're going to save that for another date be since your board already continued it pending the objection so 150 was trailed um but there's um some issues with the submitted paperwork so um I think most likely the the admitted stipulation is invalid but we
haven't informed the applicant of that yet so I'm going to say let's continue item 150 one more time to May 6 pending resolution of the issues with the stipulation because the one that's signed uh cannot be approved um okay so I guess at this point it's just a request to continue item 150 to May 6 okay is so move second okay cool all right and now there's no other items of business for your board on today's agenda it all right court is adjourned e
Comments