APPRAISAL
OF
CASA DE MONTEREY APARTMENTS
12301 STUDEBAKER ROAD
NORWALK, CALIFORNIA

KTR JOB NO. 7-7-06512A

Ms. Martha Long	November 28, 2006
General Partner
VMS National Properties JV
55 Beattie Place
Greenville, SC 29601

Re:	Casa De Monterey Apartments
	12301 Studebaker Road
	Norwalk, California

Dear Ms. Long:

At your request, KTR Valuation & Consulting Services, LLC has appraised the above referenced property. The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of the Fee Simple Estate of the subject property, free and clear of financing, as of November 18, 2006. The date of value corresponds to the date the subject property was most recently inspected by the appraiser.

The subject property consists of a 5.47± acre tract of land improved with a 144-unit garden-style apartment complex known as the Casa De Monterey Apartments. Construction of the improvements was reportedly completed in 1970. The structural improvements were observed to be in average physical condition and consist of two-story wood frame construction with stucco and wood trim exterior walls and flat roofs with built-up covers. Amenities common to all units include gas stoves, garbage disposals, wiring for cable TV, ceiling fans and mini-blinds. Select units are provided with dishwashers, patios and fenced yards. Community amenities include on-site management/leasing office, controlled access gates, two swimming pools, three laundry rooms, covered parking and playground. The Casa De Monterey Apartments contain 107,744 rentable square feet, which suggests an average unit size of 748 square feet.

The following report contains information considered relevant to the valuation of the property and the methods by which collected data have been analyzed in arriving at our value conclusion. Our analysis included an inspection of the premises, interviews with knowledgeable market participants, a review of historical income and expense statements, the current rent roll, and other relevant financial and market information. As an income-producing property, greatest reliance is placed upon the value derived through the Income Capitalization Approach, with support provided by the conclusion rendered through implementation of the Sales Comparison Approach.

This appraisal report has been prepared in order to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) for a Complete Appraisal in Summary Report format. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser’s opinion of value. Supporting documentation not presented herein has been retained in the appraiser’s file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated herein.

5477 Glen Lakes Drive, Suite 202, Dallas, TX 75231
t e l 214.363.3373 • f a x 214.369.4388
w w w . f i r s t a m . c o m

Ms. Martha Long
VMS National Properties JV
November 28, 2006
Page 2

The attached Summary Appraisal Report describes our investigation and analyses, together with Certification, Basic Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, upon which we have based our opinion that the market value of the Fee Simple Estate of the subject property, as of November 18, 2006, is:

EIGHTEEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($18,200,000)

It has been a pleasure to be of service to you. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions you may have regarding our assumptions, observations or conclusion.

Very truly yours,

KTR VALUATION & CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC
By:	William L. Corbin, MAI	By:	Steven J. Goldberg, MAI, CCIM
	Senior Managing Director		Senior Managing Director

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page i

CERTIFICATE OF VALUE

We, William L. Corbin, MAI and Steven J. Goldberg, MAI, certify that to the best of our knowledge and belief:

The statements of fact contained in this appraisal are true and correct.

The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject property of this appraisal, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.

Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event

Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

Charles K. Russell provided significant professional help in this appraisal assignment.

Charles Russell made a personal a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this appraisal. Neither William L. Corbin nor Steven J. Goldberg inspected the subject property.

This appraisal was not prepared in conjunction with a request for a specific value or a value within a given range or predicated upon loan approval.

We have the knowledge and experience necessary to perform this appraisal assignment and have previously appraised this type of property.

As of the date of this appraisal, William L. Corbin, MAI and Steven J. Goldberg, MAI, have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.

The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review its duly authorized representatives.

As of the date of this appraisal, William L. Corbin MAI is currently certified with the State of California Office of Real Estate Appraisers and is licensed as a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (AG025737) until February 27, 2007.

KTR VALUATION & CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC
By:	William L. Corbin, MAI	By:	Steven J. Goldberg, MAI, CCIM
	Senior Managing Director		Senior Managing Director

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page ii

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

This Appraisal Report is subject to underlying assumptions and limiting conditions qualifying the information contained in the Report as follows:

The valuation estimates apply only to the property specifically identified and described in the ensuing Report.

Information and data contained in the Report, although obtained from public record and other reliable sources and where possible, carefully checked by the Appraiser, are accepted as satisfactory evidence upon which rests the final expression of property value.

The Appraiser has made no legal survey nor has he commissioned one to be prepared and therefore, reference to a sketch, plat, diagram or previous survey appearing in the Report is only for the purpose of assisting the reader in visualizing the property.

It is assumed that all information known to the client and relative to the valuation have been accurately furnished and that there are no undisclosed leases, agreements, liens or other encumbrances affecting the use of the property.

Ownership and management are assumed to be competent and in responsible hands.

No responsibility beyond reasonableness is assumed for matters of a legal nature, whether existing or pending.

Information identified as being furnished or prepared by others is believed to be reliable but no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed.

The Appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, shall not be required to give testimony as an expert witness in any legal hearing or before any court of law unless justly and fairly compensated for such service.

By reason of the Purpose of the Appraisal or Function of the Report herein set forth, the value reported is only applicable to the Property Rights Appraised and the Appraisal Report should not be used for any other purpose.

Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the by-laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute.

Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. Any value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page iii

In arriving at the value set forth in this appraisal no consideration has been given to the effect of state, local or federal income and gains taxes or of occupancy, hotel, capital levy, gift, estate, succession, inheritance or similar taxes which may be imposed upon any owner, lessee, or mortgagee by reason of any sale, conveyance, transfer, leasing, hypothecation, mortgage, pledge or other disposition of the appraised property.

The appraiser was not provided architectural plans for the subject property, thus the square footage as indicated on the rent roll, marketing brochures, and unit mix provided by the client has been utilized. In the event this information is inaccurate, we reserve the right to modify this appraisal if so warranted.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page iv

SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page
Letter of Transmittal
Certificate of Value	i
Basic Assumptions and Limiting Conditions	ii
Subject Photograph	iv
Table of Contents	v
Executive Summary	1
Introduction and Premises of the Appraisal	2
Regional Overview	4
Neighborhood Overview	10
Site Analysis	12
Real Estate Taxes	13
Zoning	14
Description of Improvements	15
Apartment Market Overview	17
Economic Rent Analysis	21
Highest and Best Use	27
Valuation Procedure	28
Income Capitalization Approach	29
Sales Comparison Approach	34
Reconciliation and Final Value Conclusion	38

ADDENDA

Subject Photographs
Comparable Rental Photographs
Comparable Sales
Regional Location Map
Neighborhood Map
Comparable Rentals Map
Comparable Sales Map
Qualifications

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Property:	Casa De Monterey Apartments
Location:	12301 Studebaker Road, Norwalk, California
Assessors Parcel ID No:	8021-030-010 — Los Angeles County Assessor
Purpose of Appraisal:	To estimate the Market Value of the subject property as of the date of value.
Date of Value:	November 18, 2006
Date of Report:	November 28, 2006
Interest Appraised:	Fee Simple Estate
Description of Property:	The subject property consists of a 5.47± acre tract of land improved with a 144-unit garden-style apartment complex known as the Casa De Monterey Apartments. Construction of the improvements was reportedly completed in 1970. The Casa De Monterey Apartments contains 107,744 rentable square feet, which suggests an average unit size of 748 square feet.
Location:	The subject property is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Norwalk, along Studebaker Road, between Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway.
Zoning:	The subject site is zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family High Density Residential Zone) by the City of Norwalk. The intended use of land in this zoning district is multifamily residential development.
Flood Zone:	According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the property is located within Zone C, an area outside any special flood hazard areas as defined by FEMA.
Highest and Best Use:	Multifamily residential development.
Marketing Period:	Less than 12 months
Valuation Assumptions:

Average Market Rent (per Unit)	$	1,197
Market Vacancy/Credit Loss		7.0	%
Operating Expense Ratio		47	%
Net Operating Income	$	1,046,163
Overall Capitalization Rate		5.75	%

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 2

Final Estimate of Market Value, by Approach
Cost Approach:	N/A
Sales Comparison Approach:	$	18,400,000
Income Approach:	$	18,200,000
Final Estimate of Market Value:	$	18,200,000

INTRODUCTION AND PREMISES OF THE APPRAISAL

Scope of the Assignment	According to the Appraisal Institute’s Code of Professional Ethics and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, the scope of the appraisal is cited as “the extent of the process of collecting, confirming, and reporting data” included in an appraisal report. The scope of this appraisal employs all applicable appraisal techniques and constitutes a Complete Appraisal as defined by USPAP. The presentation of data, analyses and conclusions are presented in summary report format.
	The data included in this report has been researched from the subject property’s influencing market. County and City officials were interviewed regarding taxes, zoning requirements, flood zone information, demographic data, planned construction, recently completed developments, and other economic impacting events. Market participants, including real estate brokers and property managers, were consulted regarding market parameters and activity. Lenders as well as investor surveys were consulted regarding investment parameters. The Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization Approaches to value have been performed in estimating the Market Value of the subject. Sales utilized were confirmed with a principal or representative involved with the sale. Leasing agents for the competitive complexes were interviewed regarding property specific information. Supply and demand factors affecting the local market have been analyzed.
Purpose and Use of Appraisal	The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of the Fee Simple Estate of the subject property as of November 18, 2006. It is for the internal use of AIMCO to facilitate asset evaluation and to be utilized in conjunction with a planned transaction with the limited partners.
Property Rights Appraised	The property interest appraised is that of the Fee Simple Estate. A Fee Simple Estate is defined by The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Second Edition AIREA, as:
	“Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations of the four powers of government (eminent domain, escheat, police power and taxation)”.
Marketing Period	The value conclusion reported herein assumes a marketing period of less than one year. According to the Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey, 3rd Quarter 2006, indicates that apartment properties in the national market have an average marketing time of 5.58 months, generally similar to the

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 3

	average of 5.92 months reported one year ago. This estimate seems reasonable, given recent market activity in the influencing area and the profile of the subject property.
Property History	Property tax records indicate that VMS National Properties is the current owner of record. The current owner acquired title to the property on February 6, 1985. No details pertaining the conveyance were provided to the appraisers. No conveyances involving the subject property were noted within the three-year period preceding the effective date of value. To our knowledge there are no contracts of sale pending as of the date this report was prepared, nor are we aware that the property is listed for sale.
Most Likely Buyer	National and regional investors and large local investors typically purchase multifamily properties of this size in markets such as the subject.
Definition of Market Value	Market Value, as approved and adopted by the Appraisal Foundation in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice is as follows:
	“The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.
	Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
	1.     buyer and seller are typically motivated;
	2.     both parties are well-informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests;
	3.     a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
	4.     payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
	5.     the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.”

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 4

REGIONAL OVERVIEW

Introduction	Real estate values reflect the influence of four primary forces that motivate human activity; social trends, economic conditions, governmental policies and environmental factors. The purpose of the regional overview is to describe and analyze the area within which the interactions of the four major forces influence properties similar to the subject. This section will further analyze past trends for insight into possible future trends affecting the value of real estate.
Overview	The subject property is located in the Los Angeles MSA, within the city of Norwalk and approximately 17 miles southeast of the Los Angeles Central Business District. Los Angeles County, in which the subject is located, was the first to develop and has always been the largest of the five counties comprising the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (LAMA). Los Angeles County’s population is 3.5 times the size of Orange County’s, the second largest county in the LAMA. It is 1.5 times the size of the other four counties in the region combined.
Population	The urbanized central and southern portions of Los Angeles County are nearly fully developed. Only the northern portion of the county has significant developable land remaining for future growth. However, these areas are separated from the urbanized areas by natural barriers. Most of the future growth in Orange County is expected to occur in the southeastern part of the county where there are large undeveloped tracts of land. Growth in older parts of both counties will be primarily in -fill of vacant parcels and redevelopment of older properties.
	During the period between 1970 and 1980, the county’s population grew at an average annual compound rate of 0.60%. This was slow compared to Orange County’s rate of 3.13% during the same decade. This was due to Los Angeles County’s already large size and Orange County’s appeal as an alternative residential area. During the 1980s the pace accelerated in Los Angeles County to 1.68% annual compound growth, while Orange County’s slowed to 2.23%. Both counties’ populations increased at slower rates of 1.13% and 1.61% annually between 1990 and 2000. However, this slowed growth still equated to an average annual population increase of 105,180 persons per year in Los Angeles County and 41,784 persons per year in Orange County.
	The slowing of the population growth rates has resulted from the growing scarcity of available land for new development in both counties. Population trends are summarized in the following table showing historical population growth. While the figures in the table are tabulated by the U.S. Census, according to the California Department of Finance the January 2006 populations for Los Angeles and Orange counties were 10,245,572 and 3,072,336 respectively. The figures show 2006 population increases of 0.78% and 0.83%, respectively, for the two

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 5

counties, which have decreased since 2002, although slightly higher than 2005 figures.

LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTIES POPULATION

	Los Angeles County					Orange County
Year	Population		Ann. Rate # Chg.			Population		Ann. Cpnd. Rate
U.S. Census — (As of April 1)
1970		7,041,980		—			1,420,386		—
1980		7,477,400		0.60	%		1,932,921		3.13	%
1990		8,832,500		1.68	%		2,410,556		2.23	%
2000		9,884,300		1.13	%		2,828,400		1.61	%
California Department of Finance — (As of January 1)
1997		9,147,100					2,672,800
1998		9,225,800		0.86	%		2,724,500		1.93	%
1999		9,330,100		1.13	%		2,776,100		1.89	%
2000		9,487,400		1.69	%		2,829,800		1.93	%
2001		9,646,300		1.67	%		2,880,600		1.80	%
2002		9,817,400		1.77	%		2,930,500		1.73	%
2003		9,979,600		1.65	%		2,978,800		1.65	%
2004		10,103,000		1.24	%		3,017,300		1.29	%
2005		10,166,417		0.63	%		3,047,054		0.99	%
2006		10,245,572		0.78	%		3,072,336		0.83	%

Employment and Industry	The sheer size of the five-county Los Angeles Metropolitan Area economy is its most important asset. As a country, the area would reportedly be ranked 11th in the world in terms of productivity and accounts for over 5% of jobs and spending nationally. Job growth from 1994 through 1999 outpaced the national average and in 2001 the region had approximately 1.4 million more jobs than in 1993 when the region’s employment was at its lowest point in recession of the early 1990’s. The Los Angeles region’s recovery has been led by motion picture production, foreign trade, and gains in older manufacturing sectors such as apparel, textiles, furniture, and toys.
	At the beginning of 2001, the U.S. and California economies were generally viewed as having slipped into recession. The mild economic downturn was compounded by the 9-11-01 event. However, in its 2002- 2003 Economic Forecast & Industry Outlook for the Los Angeles Five - County Area, the Los Angeles Economic Development Council (LAEDC) forecasted the five-county region to be minimally impacted by the recession in 2002, with recovery for the region, the state and the nation beginning late 2002.
	Economic reality has caused economists to revise their projections regarding the characteristics of the recovery and its timing. During 2002 and 2003, the overall economy, nationally and in California, experienced a “jobless recovery”, a recovery fueled by low interest rates and consumer spending, with increasing corporate profits but no or minimal job growth.
	In its mid-year 2004-2005 Economic Forecast, the LAEDC projected total Los Angeles County non-farm employment to grow by just 1.0% in 2004, but projected this would increase to 1.6% growth in 2005. In its

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 6

mid-year 2005-2006 Economic Forecast, the LAEDC projected total Los Angeles non-farm employment to again grow by just 1.0% in 2004 or by 40,500 jobs in Los Angeles County in 2005, and projected this would increase to 1.1% growth in 2006. It also forecasted all five counties in the Southern California region to have positive job growth in 2005 and 2006 as follows: Los Angeles — 1.0% and 1.1%, San Bernardino- Riverside — 3.0% and 3.0%, Orange — 1.9% and 1.8%, and San Diego — 1.7% and 1.8%. Year-to-date October 2005, Los Angeles County has gained 14,400 job growth.

LAEDC reports “there is much hand wringing about the weak non-farm employment performance of Los Angeles County. For example, the 2005 estimated average is 4,033,800 jobs, compared with the 2001 average of 4,135,700 jobs, which would be fifteen years of no job growth. However, total civilian employment should average 4,670,800 jobs in 2005, compared with the 2001 average of 4,259,700 jobs. The 2005 average is a new high for the county in this indicator. Many analysts feel that the civilian employment survey is not as accurate as the non-farm establishment survey due to the small sample size, but more people are working as independent contractors or in other ways that do not get captured by the establishment survey. A good case can be made that Los Angeles County is on the leading edge of this trend. Examples include the motion picture/TV production industry, software development, and the independent truck drivers who work at the ports. Anecdotal information also indicates that manufacturing and small contractors are using independent contractors.”

The agency notes in its 2006-2007 Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook for California and Southern California that in Los Angles County, positive economic forces for the county include:

•     Continued modest job growth in Aerospace.

•     Strong growth continuing for International Trade with an increase of 12% in two-way trade passing through the local customs district.

•     Tourism will continue running at high levels.

•     Professional and business services will see continued strong demand.

•     The technology sector should hold at high levels.

•     Major project construction will support the construction industry.

Negative economic forces for the county will include:

•     The movie industry will be coping with run-away production, challenges to the existing business models (particularly related to cost control), as well as possible labor strife over the next few years.

•     A lack of quality industrial space available for industrial growth with the countywide vacancy rate in the range of 2%.

•     The continued lack of affordable housing.

•     A modest slowdown in new home building.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 7

•     Not much improvement in the state’s business environment, which has already cost the county jobs, most notably with the departure of Nissan North America headquarters out of state.

The agency is projecting a 0.9% net gain in jobs in 2006, with the county’s unemployment rate continuing at a low rate in the range of 5.3%. By comparison, the 2006 rate of 4.5% was the lowest for the county since 1988.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY HISTORICAL JOB GROWTH

Category	1997			1998			1999			2000			2001			2002			2003			2004			2005			Aug-06
Mining		3,600			36,000			3,500			3,600			3,800			3,800			3,800			4,000			4,100			3,900
Construction		113,700			126,600			131,300			137,300			138,000			134,800			136,900			141,000			149,100			155,800
Manufacturing		641,100			636,000			620,000			604,600			550,400			522,400			488,800			478,200			473,700			465,800
Trade/Trans/Util		779,400			787,800			805,300			817,300			806,000			809,600			798,600			802,500			808,000			798,100
Information		220,400			223,000			239,100			249,000			217,700			197,900			206,600			203,200			216,900			211,800
Financial Activities		221,100			224,000			223,800			219,900			231,800			237,100			242,400			245,000			246,700			247,700
Professional & Business		578,500			592,500			608,300			610,500			583,600			575,700			560,400			570,500			573,600			582,600
Education & Health		384,600			397,600			410,100			423,000			447,000			463,000			472,400			476,600			483,700			468,000
Leisure & Hospitality		329,500			335,100			339,800			350,000			348,700			356,900			367,700			372,400			383,500			391,500
Other Services		131,700			136,100			137,200			140,600			143,400			146,600			145,000			144,900			146,300			148,900
Government		542,000			556,600			580,800			591,100			610,300			612,600			595,500			584,800			587,000			563,200
Total		3,945,600			4,051,300			4,099,200			4,146,900			4,080,700			4,060,400			4,018,100			4,023,100			4,072,600			4,037,300
Change		—			105,700			47,900			47,700			-66,200			-20,300			-42,300			5,000			49,500			-35,300
Unemployment		6.0	%		6.0	%		5.3	%		5.3	%		6.3	%		6.4	%		6.3	%		6.0	%		5.1	%		5.1	%
California		5.8	%		5.5	%		4.7	%		4.7	%		6.2	%		6.7	%		6.3	%		5.7	%		5.1	%		4.9	%
U.S.		4.7	%		4.4	%		4.0	%		4.0	%		5.7	%		6.0	%		5.7	%		5.4	%		4.9	%		4.6	%

Source: CA Employment Development Department

The following table summarized the major employers in Los Angeles County, sorted in alphabetical order by company name.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 8

MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Employer Name	Location	Industry
Aerospace Corp.	El Segundo	Commercial Physical Research
American Honda Motor Con Inc.	Torrance	Automobile & Truck Broker
American Honda Motorcycle DIV	Torrance	Marketing Programs & Services
Amtrak	Los Angeles	Governmnet
California Institute of Technology	Pasadena	University
California State University	Long Beach	Recylcing Centers
Edison International	Rosemead	Utilities-Holding Company
Fox Films	Los Angeles	Television Station
Jet Propulsion Lab	Pasadena	Marketing Programs & Services
Kaiser Foundation Hospital	Los Angeles	Hospital
Kaiser Permanente	Los Angeles	Physicians & Surgeons
King Drew Medical Ctr.	Los Angeles	Hospital
Little CO of Mary Hospital	Torrance	Hospital
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co	Burbank	Aircraft Manufacturer
Long Beach Memorial Hospital	Long Beach	Hospital
Los Angeles County Medical Center	Los Angeles	Hospital
Memorial Rehabilitation Hospital	Long Beach	Rehabilitation Services
Six Flags	Valencia	Amusement Park
UCLA	Los Angeles	University
USC	Los Angeles	University
VA Greater Los Angeles	Los Angeles	Hospital
Walt Disney CO	Burbank	Motion Picture Producer & Studio
Westcoast	Carson	Marketing Programs & Services
Xerox Corp	El Segundo	Office Machiens NEC

Transportation	Transportation throughout Southern California is largely dependent on the private automobile, which is supplemented by local and county bus and rail services. One of the assets for Southern California, which has spurred its tremendous growth, has been its freeway system. The Southern California freeway system consists of 650 miles in six to twelve lanes of modern concrete roadways. The region is also well served with a modern system of surface streets.
	The LAMA is a classic example of the multiple nuclei theory of urbanization. Its formation into an urban conglomerate of multiple centers was facilitated by the proliferation of automobiles and the construction of numerous highways and interstate freeways. These are complemented by international and regional airports, the port facilities and rail lines conveniently situated throughout the region.
	While Los Angeles is served by all modes of transportation, the dominance of the highway system is evident. The basin is crisscrossed by interstate freeways connecting the area to all others areas of Southern California and the southwestern United States. Construction is on-going in the improvement of the system, with the expansion of the Orange County stretch of north-south Interstate 5 the current focus. In addition to the freeways, there is a large network of highways and thoroughfares providing surface road transport throughout the entire basin. The LAMA has become the transportation and distribution hub for the entire southwest U.S.
	Aside from the growing light-rail system, passenger and freight rail links are found throughout the Los Angeles-Orange County-San Diego area.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 9

	Connections provide service to other parts of the continental U.S. and Canada. The proximity of several international and regional airports and deep-water ports in the LAMA has been an important factor in the growth of international trade. Los Angeles International Airport is one of the busiest commercial airports in the United States. Twenty-three miles south of Downtown, the Los Angeles/Long Beach harbors provide sea transportation and cargo facilities, and combined represents the United State’s busiest port. Container volume continues to grow at these facilities. The proposed Alameda Corridor project, expected to be developed within a ten-year time span, will greatly improve access between the Los Angeles/Long Beach harbors and the railyards southeast of Downtown L.A. through a cooperative use of existing rail right-of- ways.
	Nonetheless, population growth within the region continues to burden the existing transportation infrastructure. The LAEDC reports that California’s budget problems will impact local governments, as will as transportation projects in the near term and as the region’s population continues to grow, the “transportation deficit” will worsen.
Foreign Trade	The combined Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach represent the largest man-made facilities on the West Coast providing break-bulk, dry- bulk, general containerized, and liquid cargo shipping. These, combined with the Los Angeles and Ontario international airports and the John Wayne airport, handle one of the highest levels of freight volume in the world. In 1993 the LAMA region passed New York in trade goods volume as the largest in the nation. Together, the ports account for about 25% of all U.S. water-based trade. The following table shows historical port volume by physical cargo units.

HISTORICAL PORT CARGO VOLUME
(IN TEUs -equivalent to one 20-foot cargo container)

Year	Port of Los Angeles		Port of Long Beach		Total Containers		% Chg.
1995		2,500,000		2,843,502		5,343,502
1996		2,600,000		3,067,334		5,667,334		6.1	%
1997		2,900,000		3,504,603		6,404,603		13.0	%
1998		3,300,000		4,097,689		7,397,689		15.5	%
1999		3,828,850		4,408,480		8,237,330		11.4	%
2000		4,879,428		4,600,787		9,480,215		15.1	%
2001		5,183,519		4,462,959		9,646,478		1.8	%
2002		6,105,863		4,524,038		10,629,901		10.2	%
2003		7,178,940		4,658,124		11,837,064		11.4	%
2004		7,385,227		5,703,832		13,089,059		10.6	%
2005		7,484,624		6,774,690		14,259,314		8.9	%

The total dollar volume of trade through the Los Angeles Customs District has increased in every year since 1979. Los Angeles passed New York to retake the lead in foreign trade volume for the nation. The top five trade centers in 2003 were Los Angeles ($214.3 billion), New York ($209.8 billion), Detroit ($ 179.3 billion), Laredo (114.3 billion), and New Orleans ($87.7 billion). Excluding the peak recessionary year of 2001, Los Angeles county ports have had double-digit trade increases

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 10

	in every year from 1997 forward, with the exception of 2005, which took a dip to 8.9%.
	The growth in foreign trade supports job gains in professional services (like construction, design, and engineering), financial services, wholesale trade, manufacturing, and tourism and entertainment, according the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy.
Conclusion	The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area’s diversity and strength have acted as a magnet in attracting in-migration which, coupled with a steady natural increase, have created the second largest population center in the country. A possible impediment to future growth in the developed areas of the region is the capacity of the infrastructure. In many areas it has stressed by sustained population and economic growth. Some improvements to these systems have now commenced planning or construction.
	Notwithstanding the above, most economic forecasts predict strong population and economic growth for the region over the next decade. The economic base of the region has changed and diversified since the onset of the last recession. Declining industries have been replaced with growth industries. This change has been facilitated by the strong entrepreneurial approach to problem solving which is the character of the region.

NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW

	The Appraisal of Real Estate defines a neighborhood as “a group of complimentary land uses”. A neighborhood should be distinguished from a district, which is defined as “a type of neighborhood that is characterized by homogenous land use”. A neighborhood will contain land uses complimentary to one another. For example, predominantly residential neighborhoods typically contain some commercial properties that provide services for local residents. The boundaries of a neighborhood can be physical such as a lake, stream or major highway or they may be less easily discernible such as changes in prevailing land use or occupant characteristics.
Location:	The subject property is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Norwalk, along Studebaker Road, between Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway. Norwalk is a city located in Los Angeles County, California.
	As of the 2000 census, the city of Norwalk had a total population of 103,298. It is located 17 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Like much of Southern California, Norwalk went from a predominantly agricultural area at the end of World War II to a well-developed suburb

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 11

	of Los Angeles. Due to an influx of immigration from Mexico and other nations, the diversity of the city has increased. In the 1990s, Norwalk gained a significant Asian population from families priced out of wealthier neighboring Cerritos and communities in Orange County.
	Norwalk has extensive freeway links. The Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) and San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605) intersect at its northern edge, while the Century Freeway (I-105) terminates at the San Gabriel River Freeway at the city’s western edge. The Artesia Freeway (CA/SR-91) runs just south of the city’s southern border. Imperial Highway (CA/SR- 90) and Firestone Boulevard (CA/SR-42), two major east-west routes in southern Los Angeles County, intersect in the northwestern part of the city.
	Situated in close proximity to both Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway; east/west thoroughfares, the subject property is accessible to neighborhood services and employment centers. The location of the subject property is rated as good.
Access:	Primary roadways in the neighborhood include the east/west traffic arteries of Florence Avenue, Firestone Boulevard, Imperial Highway, Rosecrans Avenue and IH 105, and the north/south traffic arteries of Bell Flower Road, IH 605, Studebaker Road, IH 5 and Pioneer Boulevard. All of the aforementioned east/west roadways provide direct access to Studebaker Road as well as IH 605 and IH 5. IH 5 is approximately one mile east of the subject property and IH 605 is just two blocks west of the subject. IH 105 is approximately two blocks south of the subject property. The well-managed network of infrastructure renders good access to and within the neighborhood.
	The subject neighborhood is accessible to neighborhood services and employment centers. Numerous recreational parks, lakes, rivers and golf courses are located within a short commute of the subject neighborhood. Commercial and retail uses, local businesses and area employers are abundant along the three Interstates and Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway. Travel time to downtown Los Angeles, approximately 17 miles northwest, is around 30 minutes. Public services, including schools and medical facilities, are in close proximity.
Land Use:	The subject neighborhood is a mature commercial and residential district. The area realized much of its growth in the mid 1960’s and early 1970s. Most of the apartments in the area were built in the 1970s. As the City of Norwalk has become densely populated, most of the land in the subject neighborhood has been developed. Approximately 95% of the land area is developed with limited land available to accommodate additional development. Multifamily, single-family and commercial development is prevalent along the primary roadways. Underutilized land in the form of public green belts, parks, athletic fields and railroad easements are in close proximity to the subject property and scattered throughout the

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 12

	neighborhood. The predominate land uses in the neighborhood are both commercial and residential in nature and consist of both single and multifamily developments.
Adjacent Land Uses:	South:    Multifamily
	North:    Construction company, railroad tracks and self-storage
	East:      Bicycle shop and seminary
	West:     Costco retail store and public park
New Construction:	Due to the mature nature of the neighborhood and limited availability of vacant land suitable for development, no new construction was noted in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Change in Current Use	The neighborhood can be classified as being in a mature stage of its life cycle as there is limited land available to accommodate new development. As a result of its good location in the City of Norwalk, the area is anticipated to remain a desirable commercial and residential location. No material change in existing land uses is anticipated.
Conclusion	The property is located in the northwestern portion of the city of Norwalk. The area is easily accessible from all parts of Norwalk as well as cities from beyond due to its proximity to three interstate freeways. As a result of its good location, the area has proven to be a desirable residential and commercial location. Employers are located in close proximity to the subject neighborhood. The presence of employers in the area as well as has enhanced the desirability of the neighborhood as a residential location. Area residents are offered a broad range of services and excellent access to other parts of Norwalk and greater Los Angeles area.

SITE ANALYSIS

Location	The subject property is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Norwalk, along Studebaker Road, between Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway.
Size	The site is irregular in shape and consists of a total land area of 5.47± acres.
Excess Land	None
Topography	Generally level and on grade with the bounding street of Studebaker Road
Site Improvements	The 5.47± acre site is improved with a 144-unit garden-style apartment community known as the Casa De Monterey Apartments. See Description of the Improvements section of this report for details concerning site improvements.
Street Improvements	Studebaker Road is a neighborhood collector street that is oriented in a north/south direction.
Desirability of Location	Good
Access to Major Arteries	Average
Access to Local Arteries	Average

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 13

Curb Appeal	Average
Ingress/Egress	Average — Adequate road frontage along a minor neighborhood collector street.
Visibility from Road	Average
Public Transportation	Average
Neighborhood Appearance	Average
Flood Zone Map	According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the property is located within Zone C, an area outside any special flood hazard areas as defined by FEMA.
Easements	The appraisers were not provided with a site survey or title documents that provide information on the existence of easements and encroachments. Other than typical utility easements, visual observation of the site did not reveal the existence of adverse easements or encroachments, however in the absence of a site survey and title documents, the appraiser makes no representation as to the presence of adverse easements or encroachments.
Soil Conditions	Visual observation does not indicate any surface or subsurface soil conditions that are unusual for the area. Based on our inspection, it appears that the soil is of adequate load bearing capacity to support the subject improvements. No major foundation cracks were visible upon inspection of the subject improvements that would indicate the subsoil conditions are not stable. No nuisances or hazards were noted.
Land Use Restrictions	The appraisers are unaware of any deed restrictions which may adversely affect the utility of the subject site; however, this is not a guarantee that such restrictions may exist. Therefore, it is recommended that a current title policy be obtained for the subject property which would disclose any land use restrictions which may exist.
Utilities	All municipal utilities (water and sewer) and private services (electric, gas, telephone) are available to the site.
Conclusion	The subject represents a desirable site for multifamily development.

REAL ESTATE TAXES

Assessor’s Parcel No:	8021-030-010 (Los Angeles County Assessor)
Effective tax rate	1.2784965 per $100 of assessed value
Equalization Rate	Assessed values for real property in Los Angeles County are based on 100% of the market value estimated for the property by the county assessor.
2005-2006 Assessed Value	$9,000,259
Tax Analysis:	The subject property is situated within the taxing jurisdictions of the City of Norwalk, Los Angeles County, Unified Schools, Community College, Flood Control, Metro Water District and a General Tax Levy. The Los Angeles County Property Appraiser assesses the property for all of the applicable taxing jurisdictions.
	The subject property is under the taxing jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The Proposition 13 Amendment to the California State

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 14

Constitution limits the maximum annual tax on real property to one percent of market value plus an additional sum to pay for bonded indebtedness on affected property. Per Proposition 13, properties are only reassessed upon sale or significant improvement. Between these events, the assessed value may be increased by a maximum of 2.0% per year. For the purposes of this report, the assessed value is based on an assumed sale at our concluded market value. Our estimates of property taxes used in the direct capitalization method assumes a sale of the subject property at our market value conclusion and the above effective tax rate.

Estimated Tax Liability

$230,000 (Concluded value of $18,200,000 multiplied by an approximate 1.28 effective tax rate)

ZONING

Zoning:	The site is zoned R-3 (Multiple-Family High Density Residential Zone) by the City of Norwalk.
Permitted Use	The intended use of land in the R-3 Zone is multifamily residential development. Other allowed uses include playgrounds and parks, churches, educational institutions, public service structures and mortuaries. The R-3 designation shall have a maximum density of 22 units per acre.
Maximum Height:	2.5 stories or 35 feet
Set Backs:	Front Yard — 15 feet
	Side yards — 3 feet
	Rear Yard — 20 feet
Area	Minimum of 5,000 square feet
Parking Requirements:	No requirement
Landscaping:	20% of the developed site.
Comments:	It appears as though the existing improvements represent a non- conforming use of the site with regard to zoning, in that its developed density exceeds the allowed density.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Page 15

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS

The subject improvements consist of a 144-unit garden-style apartment complex known as the Casa De Monterey Apartments. The following offers a description of the improvements.

KTR Site Inspector:	Charles K. Russell
Date of Inspection:	November 18, 2006
Property Contact:	Renee Correia — On-site Manager
Year Built:	1970
Number Units:	144
Configuration/Stories:	Garden-style complex, two-story residential structures
Net Rentable Area:	107,744 square feet
EXTERIOR
Foundations:	Reinforced concrete slabs, on grade
Frame:	Wood frame
Exterior Walls:	Stucco and wood siding
Roof:	Flat with a built-up cover
Doors and Windows:	Exterior entrance doors are solid core wood. Interior doors are hollow core wood. The windows are single-pane glass set in aluminum frames.
HVAC:	Interior wall mounted electric AC condensing units, heat provided by a gas-fired boiler system.
Plumbing:	Kitchens contain sink and disposal and dishwashers in select units. Bathrooms contain porcelain toilet and sink and combination fiberglass bathtub/shower insert. Hot water is provided by a central gas-fired boiler system.
Electrical:	Property is sub-metered for electric. Electricity is paid by the tenant.
Parking and Walkways:	The parking areas and internal roadways are asphalt paved. The streets and parking areas have concrete curbs. Walkways are concrete paved. There is adequate on-site parking provided.
INTERIOR
Walls and Ceilings:	Walls are painted sheetrock and the gypsum ceilings are covered with a sprayed-on textured surface.
Floors:	Interior floors are carpet over padding and sheet vinyl in living areas, carpet over padding in bedrooms and sheet vinyl in the kitchens and bathroom.
Kitchen Equipment:	Built-in wood cabinets with laminate counter tops and stainless steel sink. Appliances include a combination gas range/oven, exhaust fan, disposal and dishwasher in select units.
PROJECT AMENITIES
Security:	No
Swimming Pool:	Yes (2)
Fitness Center:	No
Clubroom:	No
Tennis Court:	No
Basketball Court:	No
On-site Management Office:	Yes
Laundry Room:	Yes (3)

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 16

Microwave:	No
Compactor:	No
Fireplace:	No
Ceiling Fans:	In living area
Cable TV:	Yes (prewire)
Balconies/Patios:	Yes
Perimeter Fencing:	Yes
Access Controlled Entry:	Yes
Other:	Covered parking, children’s playground

The following chart illustrates the property’s unit breakdown and size.

CASA DE MONTEREY APARTMENTS – UNIT MIX

Unit Type	No. of units		Size (SF)		Total (SF)
1BR/1BA		112		688		77,056
2BR/2BA		32		959		30,688
Totals/Average		144		748		107,744

CONDITION/MAINTENANCE

Overall Condition:	Average
Landscaping:	Average
Parking:	Adequate
Sidewalks/Curbs:	Average
Walls/Fences:	Average
Refuse Area:	Average
Basement:	N/A
Health Club:	N/A
Club Room:	N/A
Exterior Walls:	Average
Roofs:	Average
Stairs:	Average
Lobby/Hallways:	Average
Entry Doors:	Average
Patios/Balconies:	Average
Elevators:	N/A
Apartment Interiors:
Overall:	Average
Kitchen Equipment:	Average
Mechanical Equipment:	Average
Bathroom:	Average
Walls/Ceilings:	Average
Layout:	Average
Light and View Quality:	Average
Cosmetic Repairs:	Our physical inspection revealed that the subject property is in average condition.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 17

Deferred Maintenance:	No material elements of deferred maintenance were noted during the appraiser’s inspection of the property and on-site management reported none.
Comparability:	Similar to competing properties of the same vintage.
Observed Effective Age:	25 years (lower than the actual age of the improvements due to adequate upkeep and maintenance of the improvements)
Economic Life:	45 years (per Marshall Valuation Service Manuel)
Remaining Economic Life:	20 years
General Comments:	Based on our inspection, the subject property is considered to be of average quality construction and to be in average condition overall. It competes effectively with other properties of the same vintage.

APARTMENT MARKET OVERVIEW

The following apartment market analysis is designed to provide the reader an understanding of the Los Angeles area apartment market and its direct influence on the subject’s L.A. south market. The most recent source of data available to the appraisers was the “Hendricks & Partners Apartment Update 2006-Review”, the third quarter 2006 REALFACTS Apartment Vacancy/Rent Survey for the Los Angeles County apartment market and the “Apartment Research Report-October 2006”, prepared by Marcus & Millichap.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY APARTMENT MARKET

Overview

The Los Angeles apartment market was ranked 5th in the nation out of 37 markets nationally in 2005 and into 2006, down from rank No. 3 in 2004, and No. 2 in 2003, by Marcus & Millichap, a national brokerage firm specializing in apartment investment sales.

Most economic reports project that long-term job growth in the Los Angeles area should be in the range of 40,000 to 80,000 per year. The Los Angeles Economic Development Council reports a growth of 50,800 new jobs in the Los Angeles area over the year ending June 2006, equating to a gain of 1.3%. According to recent forecasts, trade and tourism are set for record years in 2006. The number of overnight visitors to the region is expected to hit an all-time high of 25.7 million, up 32% from 2005. The regions growth is fueling continued demand for apartments. However, a shortage of developable land, high land prices and rising construction costs are formidable challenges for developers. Generally, demand for one rental unit is generated by the creation of six jobs. Based on this ratio, demand for roughly 7,000 to 13,000 new units per year would be required to meet annual demand. Marcus & Millichap reports 5,000 to 6,000 units each year will be added in the foreseeable future. Of the 5,000 units completed in 2005, roughly one-third were luxury apartments built in the Downtown submarket. Completions will increase slightly this year, as developers deliver 5,100 units. While the total this year is up from 2005, it represents a minor 0.7% addition to existing apartment inventory. Clearly, 5,000 to 6,000 new apartment

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 18

units per year are not nearly enough to meet the demand created by the roughly 120,000 new residents to the county each year.

Home price appreciation moderated across the L.A. area in 2006 as affordability waned and interest rates began to tick up. Sales of existing homes fell 14% in the first half of the year compared to a year prior. For the year ending June 2006, the median home price gained a moderate 12%, down from the appreciation levels of more than 15% a year ago and nearly 32% in 2004. Although price appreciation has slowed, home purchases remain out of reach for many residents, expanding the renter pool and forcing many to remain in the rental market for the foreseeable future. Consequently, vacancy rates are expected to end the year at 3%, 10 basis points lower than the rate at the end of 2005. Tight market conditions are allowing owners to raise rents at an accelerated pace. By year end, the average asking rent is expected to reach $1,360 per month, up 6.7% from 2005, while the average effective rent posts a similar gain to $1,320 per month.

Approximately 1,700 units came online during the first half of 2006, with completions expected to accelerate in the second half of the year. In addition, roughly 15,000 units are in various stages of planning. There are currently 6,700 apartments under construction in Los Angeles County, with 3,400 units scheduled for completion by year end. The majority of new development is centered in downtown Los Angeles, with 2,000 units under development, accounting for almost 30% of total construction.

With construction and absorption keeping pace with one another, the average apartment vacancy rate is expected to end the year at 3%.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
APARTMENT MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Number of Complexes		539
Total Unit Inventory		127,512
Avg. Year Built		1978
Avg. No. Units Per Complex		236
Avg. Occupancy Rate		96.0	%
Avg. Rent/Unit/Month	$	1,559

Source: RealFacts, 4Q’05

The following table shows the historical apartment rent growth by unit type and total market occupancy rates for Los Angeles County.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 19

LOS ANGELES COUNTY HISTORICAL RENT AND OCCUPANCY TREND

																												4 Yr.
Unit Type	1998			1999			2000			2001			2002			2003			2004			2005			2006			Change
Studio	$	697		$	733		$	822		$	894		$	929		$	951		$	992		$	1,054		$	1,139			22.6	%
Jr. 1/1	$	670		$	713		$	813		$	879		$	1,010		$	1,116		$	1,163		$	1,188		$	1,248			23.6	%
1/1	$	840		$	894		$	1,008		$	1,087		$	1,135		$	1,186		$	1,240		$	1,305		$	1,395			22.9	%
2/1	$	787		$	834		$	919		$	1,029		$	1,103		$	1,148		$	1,205		$	1,262		$	1,332			20.8	%
2/2	$	1,095		$	1,145		$	1,281		$	1,401		$	1,456		$	1,530		$	1,597		$	1,688		$	1,794			23.2	%
2 TH	$	1,141		$	1,282		$	1,406		$	1,514		$	1,595		$	1,663		$	1,583		$	1,666		$	1,760			10.4	%
3/2	$	1,225		$	1,297		$	1,405		$	1,528		$	1,628		$	1,685		$	1,729		$	1,818		$	1,949			19.7	%
3 TH	$	1,601		$	1,787		$	1,996		$	2,118		$	2,152		$	2,083		$	2,056		$	2,319		$	2,361			9.7	%
Wtg. Avg.	$	938		$	995		$	1,110		$	1,205		$	1,268		$	1,327		$	1,382		$	1,465		$	1,559			22.9	%
Occupancy		96.3	%		97.3	%		97.5	%		96.4	%		95.4	%		95.3	%		95.2	%		95.9	%		96.0	%		0.8	%

Source: RealFacts

The data shows the consistent strength of the county apartment market with a high average occupancy over 95% for the last eight years. Rent growth also averaged a four year change of 22.9%

The following table shows the Los Angeles County trend in apartment rents and occupancy quarter-by-quarter over the last 24 months. This data gives a more detailed look at recent market trends. This data indicates the county apartment market vacancy has fallen in a narrow range from the third quarter of 2004 to the third quarter of 2006, and market rental rates have increased 8.4% over the last year.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECENT RENT AND OCCUPANCY TREND

																												Prev. Yr.
Unit Type	3Q ‘04			4Q ‘04			1Q ‘05			2Q ‘05			3Q ‘05			4Q ‘05			1Q ‘06			2Q ‘06			3Q ‘06			% Chg.
0/1	$	995		$	1,004		$	1,023		$	1,054		$	1,056		$	1,084		$	1,116		$	1,135		$	1,166			10.4	%
Jr. 1/1	$	1,175		$	1,143		$	1,149		$	1,184		$	1,209		$	1,211		$	1,233		$	1,233		$	1,280			5.8	%
1/1	$	1,252		$	1,265		$	1,277		$	1,297		$	1,313		$	1,335		$	1,362		$	1,393		$	1,430			8.9	%
2/1	$	1,218		$	1,221		$	1,231		$	1,256		$	1,274		$	1,287		$	1,320		$	1,324		$	1,353			6.2	%
2/2	$	1,613		$	1,629		$	1,656		$	1,667		$	1,696		$	1,733		$	1,756		$	1,789		$	1,835			8.2	%
2 TH	$	1,568		$	1,580		$	1,631		$	1,667		$	1,669		$	1,698		$	1,738		$	1,770		$	1,773			6.2	%
3/2	$	1,746		$	1,757		$	1,791		$	1,815		$	1,828		$	1,838		$	1,861		$	1,973		$	2,013			10.1	%
3 TH	$	2,009		$	2,017		$	2,320		$	2,341		$	2,288		$	2,325		$	2,371		$	2,362		$	2,350			2.7	%
Wtg. Avg.	$	1,392		$	1,407		$	1,435		$	1,455		$	1,472		$	1,498		$	1,525		$	1,556		$	1,595			8.4	%
Occupancy		95.2	%		95.8	%		95.3	%		95.5	%		96.7	%		95.9	%		96.0	%		95.7	%		96.2	%		-0.5	%

Source: RealFacts

The L.A. South market, in which the subject property resides, saw a lack of new rental product in the area, coupled with competition from home and condo sales, which pushed absorption into negative territory of minus 47 units in the second quarter of 2006, compared to net move-outs of 162 units one year ago.

No new units entered lease-up during the second quarter, as was the case a year ago. A 104-unit property is expected to begin construction before the end of the year in Downtown Long Beach. Other units have been proposed, but have yet to materialize.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 20

Multifamily permits, including rental and for-sale units, declined to 214 units in the second quarter from 290 units one year earlier. Most of the development activity in L.A. South is centered on for-sale condominium and town home development.

With condo conversions and positive absorption in the first quarter, the average apartment vacancy rate decreased from 4.4% in the second quarter of 2005 to 4.0% in the second quarter of 2006.

Rent growth increased to 4.8% for the year ended June 2006, compared to a gain of 6.8% a year ago.

L.A. SOUTH 2006 SECOND QUARTER VACANCY & RENT

							Avg. Rent			Avg. Rent			Avg. Rent		Avg. Rent
Submarket	Vacancy 2006			Vacancy 2005			Increase 2006			Increase 2005			2006		2005
Northern Cities		3.2	%		2.1	%		4.6	%		2.0	%	$	1,061	$	1,014
Whittier/La Mirada		1.3	%		3.7	%		6.6	%		8.3	%	$	1,195	$	1,121
Central Cities		2.6	%		3.7	%		6.7	%		5.0	%	$	1,220	$	1,144
Compton/Carson		3.5	%		4.4	%		2.0	%		7.6	%	$	926	$	907
Long Beach/ Lakewood		4.7	%		5.2	%		4.8	%		10.0	%	$	1,316	$	1,256
Peninsula/Harbor		6.1	%		6.4	%		1.2	%		2.0	%	$	1,659	$	1,640
San Gabriel Valley		4.1	%		4.1	%		5.0	%		6.1	%	$	1,268	$	1,207
Totals		4.0	%		4.4	%		4.8	%		6.8	%	$	1,274	$	1,216

Conclusion The overall Los Angeles area’s economy should continue to post solid employment and population growth over the coming years. The subject’s L.A. South market area seems to be at a similar level of occupancy but lower level of rent than the overall Los Angeles area. As demand and new construction in the L.A. South market continue to be on an equal par, occupancy is anticipated to remain high over the coming year. As occupancy levels continue to be high, concessions will likely continue to be nonexistent. The remainder of the Los Angeles area has seen an increase in apartment development, attempting to keep up with job and demand growth.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 21

ECONOMIC RENT ANALYSIS

Five competitive properties follow. They are located in the influencing area of the subject property and define the range of property type and rents available. The information regarding the rent comparables was obtained through physical inspections and interviews of rental agents and property managers. The rents commanded by competitive properties in the influencing area are utilized to determine the economic rent potential for the subject property.

Rent Comparable #1

Address:	Porto Bello Apartments
	10853 Firestone Boulevard.
	Norwalk, California
Number of Units:	104
Year Built:	1979
Description:	Garden-style apartments with two-story residential buildings. Stucco exterior walls, flat roofs with built-up covers and asphalt-paved parking area.
Amenities:	Apartment features include standard kitchen appliances, mini-blinds, patio/balcony and ceiling fans. Property features include swimming pools, internet access, laundry facility and on-site management.
Rental Data:

Unit Type	Size (SF)		Quoted Rent/Unit	Quoted Rent/SF
1BR/1BA		625	$1,075 (avg)	$	1.72
Totals/Average		625	$1,075 (avg)	$	1.72

Occupancy:	98%
Concessions:	No concessions at this time
Comments:	This property is located 1/4 mile northwest of the subject property. It is similar to the subject property in terms of location, age and physical characteristics.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 22

Rent Comparable #2

Address:	The Courtyards/Coral Gates
	12401 Studebaker Road
	Norwalk, California
Number of Units:	130 (not including three bedroom units)
Year Built:	1977
Description:	Garden-style apartments with two-story residential buildings. Stucco exterior walls, flat roofs with built-up covers and asphalt-paved parking area.
Amenities:	Apartment features include standard kitchen appliances, mini-blinds, patio/balcony and ceiling fans. Property features include swimming pools, fitness center, controlled access, laundry facility and on-site management.
Rental Data:

Unit Type	Size (SF)		Quoted Rent/Unit		Quoted Rent/SF
1BR/1BA		605	$	1,020	$	1.69
2BR/1BA		900	$	1,375	$	1.53
Totals/Average		753	$	1,198	$	1.61

Occupancy:	96%
Concessions:	No concessions at this time
Comments:	This property is adjacent south of the subject property. It is similar to the subject property in terms of location, age and physical characteristics.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 23

Rent Comparable #3

Address:	Park Regency Club
	10000 East Imperial Highway
	Downey, California
Number of Units:	460
Age:	1976
Description:	Garden-style apartments with three-story residential buildings. Stucco exterior walls, flat roofs with built-up covers and asphalt-paved parking area.
Amenities:	Apartment features include standard kitchen appliances, mini-blinds, patio/balcony and ceiling fans. Property features include swimming pools, spa, fitness center, business center, clubhouse and on-site management.
Rental Data:

Unit Type	Size (SF)		Quoted Rent/Unit		Quoted Rent/SF
1BR/1BA		640	$	1,065	$	1.66
2BR/2BA		900	$	1,580	$	1.76
Totals/Average		770	$	1,323	$	1.71

Occupancy:	97%
Concessions:	No concessions at this time
Comments:	This property is located approximately one mile southwest of the subject property. It is superior to the subject property in terms of amenities and physical characteristics.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 24

Rent Comparable #4

Address	Imperial Palms
	1717 Welch Street
	Norwalk, California
Number of Units:	64
Age:	1977
Description:	Garden-style apartments with three-story residential buildings. Stucco exterior walls, flat roofs with built-up covers and asphalt-paved parking area.
Amenities:	Apartment features include standard kitchen appliances, mini-blinds and ceiling fans. Property features include swimming pool, picnic area, playground area and laundry facility.
Rental Data:

Unit Type	Size (SF)		Quoted Rent/Unit		Quoted Rent/SF
1BR/1BA		650	$	985	$	1.51
Totals/Average		650	$	985	$	1.51

Occupancy:	98%
Concessions:	No concessions at this time
Comments:	This property is situated approximately 1/4 mile southeast of the subject property in a similar location along a heavily traveled roadway. It is rated as being inferior to the subject in terms of amenities and overall appearance.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 25

Rent Comparable #5

Address:	Villa Del Sol Apartments
	11217 Barnwall Street
	Norwalk, California
Number of Units:	116
Year Built:	1977
Description:	Garden-style apartments with three-story residential buildings. Stucco exterior walls, flat built-up roofs and asphalt-paved parking area.
Amenities:	Apartment features include standard kitchen appliances, mini-blinds and ceiling fans. Property features include swimming pool, controlled access, patio/balcony, covered parking and laundry facility.
Rental Data:

Unit Type	Size (SF)		Quoted Rent/Unit		Quoted Rent/SF
2BR/1.5BA		860	$	1,389	$	1.62
Totals/Average		860	$	1,389	$	1.62

Occupancy:	98%
Concessions:	No concessions at this time
Comments:	This property is situated two miles southeast of the subject property. It is similar to the subject property in terms of age and physical characteristics.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 26

ANALYSIS

The subject property is situated in a good Norwalk location along Studebaker Road, between Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway. It is competitive with other properties in terms of location, condition, amenities, and unit size. The tables below illustrate the comparables with the most similar floor plans in relation to the subject’s floor plans.

ONE-BEDROOM FLOOR PLANS

Comparable #	Unit Size (SF)		Rent/Month		Rent/SF
Subject		688	$	1,097	$	1.59
Porto Bello		625	$	1,075	$	1.72
The Courtyards		605	$	1,020	$	1.69
Park Regency Club		640	$	1,065	$	1.66
Imperial Palms		650	$	985	$	1.51

TWO-BEDROOM FLOOR PLANS

Comparable #	Unit Size (SF)		Rent/Month		Rent/SF
Subject		959	$	1,549	$	1.62
The Courtyards		900	$	1,375	$	1.53
Park Regency Club		900	$	1,580	$	1.76
Vista Del Sol		860	$	1,389	$	1.62

The subject is most similar to The Courtyards and Vista del Sol in terms of location, amenities and physical attributes and slightly inferior to Porto Bello and Park Regency Club. The Imperial Palms property is inferior in terms of amenities and overall appearance. In general, the subject’s rental rates should be aligned below the rents indicated by Porto Bello and Park Regency Club, above the rents indicated by Imperial Palms and generally similar to rents indicated by The Courtyards and Vista Del Sol.

As indicated above, the rent (on a per square foot basis) for the subject’s one-bedroom floor plans are within a tolerable variance of the range of rents illustrated by The Courtyards and the superior Park Regency Club. Its rental rate structure is appropriately aligned below the rent illustrated by the superior Porto Bello and above the inferior Imperial Palms property.

The quoted rents for the subject’s two-bedroom units are within a tolerable variance of the range of rents illustrated by The Courtyards and Vista Del Sol. Its rental rate structure is appropriately aligned below the rent illustrated by the superior Park Regency Club.

Based upon the rents illustrated by the competing properties and rent actually commanded by the subject property, the following rents will be processed as the property’s economic rent potential for valuation purposes. The following table summarizes the economic rent structure estimated for the subject property.

ECONOMIC RENT POTENTIAL-CASA DE MONTEREY APARTMENTS

			Size						Economic		Total
Unit Type	Mix		(SF)		Total Area		Economic Rent/Unit		Rent/SF		Rent
1BR/1BA		112		688		77,056	$	1,097	$	1.59	$	122,864
2BR/2BA		32		959		30,688	$	1,549	$	1.62	$	49,568
Totals/Average		144		748		107,744	$	1,197	$	1.60	$	172,432

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 27

HIGHEST AND BEST USE

According to the Third Edition of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, published by the Appraisal Institute, highest and best use is defined as:

“the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property; which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability”.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IF VACANT

Surrounding Land Uses	Equally divided between commercial, single-family and multi-family developments along Studebaker Drive, Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway. A multifamily development exists adjacent south of the subject site.
Physically Possible	The size and accessibility of the site would allow for most development. However, development intensity would be restricted by the subject property’s location, along Studebaker Road, a lightly traveled neighborhood collector street that can only handle a limited level of vehicular traffic. The majority of high intensity retail and commercial uses in the neighborhood are situated at major intersections. Given the site’s secondary location, high intensity retail use is not indicated. Of the potential legal uses, multifamily use would appear to be the most appropriate.
Legally Permissible	Multifamily use is the intended use of the site.
Financial Feasible	The determination of financial feasibility is dependent primarily on demand. The immediate market exhibits strong demand characteristics as evidenced by stable rental rates, high occupancy levels and the lack of rent concessions in competing apartment projects. New apartment construction is occurring in various areas throughout the Los Angeles area indicating that financial feasibility exists to warrant the cost of such construction. New apartment development is considered to be financially feasible at this time.
Conclusion	Based on the three criteria previously discussed, the maximally profitable use of the site would be multifamily residential development.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IMPROVED
Current Improvements	144-unit multifamily apartment complex. The existing improvements contribute significantly to overall property value indicating that the value of the improved property greatly exceeds the value of the site assuming it to be vacant.
Conclusion	Continued use of the existing improvements

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 28

VALUATION

There are three traditional approaches that can be employed in establishing Market Value. These approaches and their applicability to the valuation of the subject property are summarized as follows:

THE COST APPROACH

This method estimates the replacement or reproduction cost of the improvements, less the estimated depreciation (physical, functional, economic), plus the estimated market value of the land, in order to arrive at a final value indication. This approach is based on the premise that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of constructing a building of similar utility and condition.

The Cost Approach is a reliable indicator of value for: (a) new properties; (b) special use properties; and (c) properties where the cost of reproducing the improvement is easily and accurately quantified and there is no external or economic obsolescence. Due to the age of the improvements, they have incurred physical deterioration due to normal wear and usage. Given the inherent inaccuracies and subjectivity involved in estimating substantial degrees of physical deterioration, the cost approach is not considered a reliable, independent approach to value in this instance

THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH

Using this technique, the property value is indicated by comparing the subject to similar, nearby properties that have recently sold. Essentially, the procedure is to gather bona fide, recent arm’s length sales of comparable properties and compare the most important characteristics of the sales to the subject. Adjustments are then made to the comparable properties for differences such as terms of financing, date of sale, location, and physical characteristics.

Attaining data with a high degree of comparability is most important when this technique is utilized. The reliability is dependent upon the availability of comparable sales data, the verification of the sales data, the degree of comparability and extent of adjustment necessary for differences and the absence of nontypical conditions affecting the sales price. As numerous sales of properties similar to the subject have occurred in the Norwalk/Los Angeles area, this approach has been employed in the valuation process.

THE INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH

The Income Capitalization Approach is a process in which the anticipated flow of future benefits is capitalized into a value indication. The Income Capitalization Approach is widely applied in appraising income-producing properties. The reliability of this technique is dependent upon the reliability of the net income estimate and the capitalization rate. Since the subject is income producing realty and anticipated to continue to be so, this approach has been employed in the valuation of the Fee Simple Estate.

RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE

The final step in the Appraisal Process is the reconciliation of the value indicators into a single value estimate. In the reconciliation or correlation, the appraiser considers the relative applicability of each of the three approaches, examines the range between the value indications and places major emphasis on the approach that appears to produce the most reliable solution to the specific appraisal problem. The purpose of the appraisal, the type of property and the adequacy and reliability of the data are analyzed and appropriate weight is given to each of the approaches to value.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 29

INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH

Investment properties are normally valued in proportion to their ability to produce income; hence, an analysis of the property in terms of its ability to provide a sufficient net annual return on invested capital is an important means of valuing any asset. Value is estimated by deducting an appropriate vacancy and collection allowance and all applicable expenses from the anticipated gross annual income to arrive at a projected net operating income which is then capitalized at an interest rate, or investment yield, commensurate with the risk inherent in the ownership of the property. Such a conversion of projected income considers competitive returns offered by alternative investments.

There are two primary income capitalization methods: Direct Capitalization, which converts a single year’s net operating income into an indication of value and the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF), which estimates the present worth through the process of discounting the forecasted net income and the reversionary sale over the course of an anticipated investment period. The Direct Capitalization technique is employed in this analysis.

DIRECT CAPITALIZATION

The basic steps in the Direct Capitalization method are as follows:

1.	Calculate POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME from the dwelling units;
2.	Estimate VACANCY AND CREDIT LOSS to arrive at Effective Gross Income;
3.	Estimate OPERATING EXPENSES to arrive at the stabilized Net Operating Income;
4.	Develop the OVERALL CAPITALIZATION RATE;
5.	Divide NOI by the CAP RATE to arrive at VALUE.

Revenue: As presented in the Economic Rent Analysis section of this report, the monthly economic rent potential is estimated at $172,432. The annual gross rent potential estimated for the apartment units total $2,069,184

Loss to Lease: Loss to lease considers a loss in income due to leases in effect, whereby effective rental rates are lower than asking, or market, rental rates. As a percentage of the property’s gross rent potential, the historical loss to lease ranges from 3.4% in 2005, 6.9% in 2004 and 4.1% in 2003. Annualized 2006 loss to lease is 5.9%. Based on the previous history at the subject property, we have deducted a loss to lease expense of 5.0% of the potential gross income or $103,459.

Concessions: Rent concessions in the market are minimal or non existent at area apartments. Traditional apartment concessions consist of reduced or free rent over a portion of the lease term. As a percentage of the property’s gross rent potential, concessions amounted to 0.2% in 2003 and 2004, increasing to 0.9% in 2005. Concessions equate to 0.6% in 2006 on an annualized basis. For our analysis, concessions are projected at 0.5% of the estimated gross rent potential or $10,346.

Vacancy and Credit Loss: As of the date of inspection, the subject property was approximately 93% occupied. On site management indicated that the property generally maintains an occupancy in the mid 90% range. The properties identified as income comparables within the Economic Rent Analysis section of this report illustrate occupancy levels that range from 96% to 98%. The average occupancy of the income comparables surveyed equates to approximately 97%. Information presented in the Apartment Market Overview section of this report indicates that the average occupancy for properties within the Los

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 30

Angeles area is approximately 96%, an amount similar to the estimated average occupancy produced by primary comparables in the immediate area of the subject property.

As indicated in the Economic Rent Analysis section of this report, the quoted rent structure for the subject property seems to be market oriented based on a review of the comparable rentals in the area. It appears as though the subject’s occupancy level is lower than those levels realized by competing properties. According to on-site management, this is primarily due to the loss of occupied corporate units and not a result of its rent structure.

Historically, vacancy and credit loss at the subject property has been above the market standard. Vacancy and credit loss was 8.6% in 2003, 11.8% in 2004 and 11.0% in 2005. Annualized 2006 vacancy and credit loss is 6.3%. For our analysis, vacancy and credit loss will be inline with the property’s annualized 2006 figure.

Based on the subject’s Annualized 2006 numbers and current level of occupancy, tempered against the average occupancy reported by competing properties in the influencing area and occupancy level indicated for properties in the Los Angeles area, a vacancy factor of 6.0% is estimated for the subject property. In addition, a 1.0% allowance for credit loss is assessed. The combined vacancy and credit loss allowance equates to 7.0%.

Utility Income: Included in this category is the revenue received from tenants paying or reimbursing ownership for their share of water and sewer usage. Total utility income in 2003 was $52,829, increasing to $72,180 in 2004 and dropping to $61,055 in 2005. Annualized 2006 utility income is $69,661. Based on the historical and annualized utility income receipts, we have estimated Utility Income to be $68,400 or $475 per unit.

Other Income: Included within this category is the revenue received from such items as application fees, forfeited deposits, and late fees. As a percentage of the property’s gross rent potential, Other Income receipts range from 3.7% to 6.8%. Other income is annualized at 4.2% for 2006. Based on historical and annualized 2006 data, we have estimated Other Income to be approximately 4.3% of the gross rent potential or $86,400.

Expenses: In order to project expenses for valuation purposes, the expenses historically incurred in the operation of the subject property have been reviewed. The annualized expenses for 2006 have also been considered. Typical operating expenses for garden apartments in the Norwalk/Los Angeles area, as reported by IREM have been reviewed and analyzed. The following table summarizes the three-year operating history for the subject property and outlines the operating budget for the current year.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 31

SUMMARY OF OPERATING HISTORY — CASA DE MONTEREY APARTMENTS

	2003						2004						2005						Annualized 2006 (Thru October)
Item	Actual			Per Unit			Actual			Per Unit			Total			Per Unit			YTD			Annualized			Per Unit
Gross Rent Potential	$	1,648,672		$	11,449		$	1,782,242		$	12,377		$	1,827,868		$	12,694		$	1,698,271		$	2,037,925		$	14,152
Loss to Lease	($	67,360	)	($	468	)	($	123,480	)	($	858	)	($	61,986	)	($	430	)	($	100,752	)	($	120,902	)	($	840	)
Concessions	($	4,062	)	($	28	)	($	3,606	)	($	25	)	($	17,312	)	($	120	)	($	9,854	)	($	11,825	)	($	82	)
Vacancy/Credit Loss	($	141,597	)	($	983	)	($	210,837	)	($	1,464	)	($	200,732	)	($	1,394	)	($	107,525	)	($	129,030	)	($	896	)
Utility Income	$	52,829		$	367		$	72,180		$	501		$	61,055		$	424		$	58,051		$	69,661		$	484
Other Income	$	112,456		$	781		$	103,622		$	720		$	68,155		$	473		$	71,533		$	85,840		$	596
Effective Gross Income	$	1,600,938		$	11,118		$	1,620,121		$	11,251		$	1,677,048		$	11,646		$	1,609,724		$	1,931,669		$	13,414
Utilities	$	116,094		$	806		$	104,857		$	728		$	145,166		$	1,008		$	112,522		$	135,026		$	938
Repairs & Maintenance	$	138,942		$	965		$	187,788		$	1,304		$	174,947		$	1,215		$	129,668		$	155,602		$	1,081
Administrative	$	40,736		$	283		$	65,943		$	458		$	45,202		$	314		$	35,611		$	42,733		$	297
Marketing	$	44,444		$	309		$	52,833		$	367		$	54,594		$	379		$	62,138		$	74,566		$	518
Payroll	$	131,543		$	913		$	117,492		$	816		$	123,650		$	859		$	116,407		$	139,688		$	970
Management	$	68,568		$	476		$	71,255		$	495		$	75,688		$	526		$	68,568		$	82,282		$	571
Insurance	$	52,598		$	365		$	53,390		$	371		$	52,860		$	367		$	53,350		$	64,020		$	445
Real Estate Taxes	$	101,095		$	702		$	107,718		$	748		$	111,078		$	771		$	95,094		$	95,094		$	660
Total Expenses	$	694,020		$	4,820		$	761,276		$	5,287		$	783,185		$	5,439		$	673,358		$	808,030		$	5,611
Net Operating Income	$	906,918		$	6,298		$	858,845		$	5,964		$	893,863		$	6,207		$	936,366		$	1,123,639		$	7,803

Utilities	This expense covers the cost of electricity, water and sewer and gas usage for the property. The subject’s historical utilities expense ranges from a low of $728 per unit in 2004 to a high of $1,008 per unit in 2005. An amount equivalent to $938 per unit is reflected in annualized 2006. Based on historical expenditures, the annualized 2006 amount appears to be in line. Utilities are processed at $950 per unit or $136,800.
Repair & Maintenance:	This category includes general repair and maintenance items, contract services and turnover expenses. The subject’s historical repair and maintenance expense ranges from a low of $965 per unit in 2003 to a high of $1,304 per unit in 2004. An amount equivalent to $1,081 per unit is reflected in 2006 (Annualized). Review of operating expenses incurred by similar apartment properties in the Los Angeles area indicates that the subject’s rent repairs and maintenance expenditures are above typical market standards. Tempering the subject’s operating history by market standards, the repairs and maintenance expense is estimated at $1,000 per unit or $144,000.
Administrative	Office expenses, telephone, management unit expenses, computer maintenance and supplies, professional fees and miscellaneous expenses are covered in this category. The subject’s historical administrative expense ranges from a low of $283 per unit in 2003 to a high of $458 per unit in 2004. An amount equivalent to $297 per unit is reflected in 2006 (Annualized). Administrative expenses are projected at $300 per unit or $43,200.
Marketing	Included in this category are all newspaper and printed advertising, payments to locator services, leasing commissions, and resident referrals. The subject’s historical marketing expense ranges from a low of $309 per unit in 2003 to a high of $379 per unit in 2005. An amount

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 32

	equivalent to $518 per unit is annualized for 2006. Marketing expenses are projected at $375 per unit or $54,000.
Payroll:	This expense covers salaries, payroll taxes, and workers compensation insurance for on site management, leasing, and maintenance personnel. The subject’s historical payroll expense ranges from a low of $816 per unit in 2004 to a high of $913 per unit in 2003. An amount equivalent to $970 per unit is reflected in 2006 (Annualized). Payroll expenses are projected at $900 per unit or $129,600.
Management	A typical management fee on a property of this type is 3% to 5% of the effective gross income. The subject’s historical management fee has been based on an amount equivalent to approximately 4.3% of Effective Gross Income. A market-oriented fee of 4.0% is considered reasonable. Based on the preceding estimate of Effective Gross Income, the subject’s management fee is estimated to be $78,613, or $546 per unit.
Insurance	This expense item covers the building and includes fire, extended coverage, vehicle, and owner’s liability. The subject’s historical insurance expense ranges from a low of $365 per unit in 2003 to a high of $371 per unit in 2004. An amount equivalent to $445 per unit is reflected in 2006 (annualized). Insurance expenses are projected at $365 per unit or $52,560.
Taxes	As discussed in the Real Estate Tax section, the tax burden for the subject property is estimated at $230,000 or $1,597 per unit.
Reserves for Replacements	In addition to the repairs and maintenance expenditures, the property will incur annual capital expenditures to keep it in prime condition. A reserve category is typical for multifamily property; therefore we have included reserves as an additional budget item. Reserves for replacement for a property of this vintage typically range from $200 to $400 per unit. Given the age of the subject property, a reserve for replacement allowance aligned with the higher end of the range of $350 per unit or $50,400 is estimated for the subject property.

Net Operating Income: The Net Operating Income is that amount of the income remaining after paying all operating expenses. This affords the owner capital to satisfy debt service, if any, and provide a return on owner’s equity. We have estimated the NOI to be $1,046,163. The subject’s income and expense pro forma is summarized below.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 33

OPERATING PRO FORMA

Gross Potential Rent	$	2,069,184		$	14,369
Loss to Lease	($	103,459	)	($	718	)
Concessions	($	10,346	)	($	72	)
Vacancy/Credit Loss	($	144,843	)	($	1,006	)
Utility Income	$	68,400		$	475
Other Income	$	86,400		$	600
Effective Gross Income	$	1,965,336		$	13,648
Utilities	$	136,800		$	950
Repairs & Maintenance	$	144,000		$	1,000
Administrative	$	43,200		$	300
Marketing	$	54,000		$	375
Payroll	$	129,600		$	900
Management	$	78,613		$	546
Insurance	$	52,560		$	365
Real Estate Taxes	$	230,000		$	1,635
Reserves	$	50,400		$	350
Total Expenses	$	919,173		$	6,421
Net Operating Income	$	1,046,163		$	7,265

Capitalization: Capitalization rates express relationships between net income and total value. The rate employed must be consistent with and reflective of those rates currently employed by investors active in the market place.

In order to perform this analysis, estimates of an appropriate capitalization rate must be formed. By its nature this is a judgmental process, however, selected rates should approximate the investment perimeters expected to be employed by the most probable buyer for the subject property.

Several approaches are typically followed in selecting the investment parameters; review and analysis of alternative real estate and non-real estate investments; review and analysis of published real estate investor surveys; derivation of rates from empirical market data; and use of in-house experience with similar types of investments.

Most Probable Buyer	Considering the size and quality of the asset, the subject buyer would most likely attract national or regional investors.
Market Extraction	The following table summarizes the market derived overall rates. The sales are further detailed in the Sales Comparison Approach.

SUMMARY OF MARKET DERIVED OVERALL RATES

	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3	Sale 4	Sale 5
Name	Montrose Manor	Del Prado	Sonterra	Rosemead Garden	Tuscany Villa
Sale Date	Sept-06	Jun-06	Nov-05	Sept-05	Jul-05
Cap Rate (OAR)	5.8%	5.9%	5.4%	5.5%	5.6%

The sales exhibit overall rates that fall within a range from 5.4% to 5.9% and produce an average of 5.6%. The sales represent recent transactions of late 1960s to mid 1970s vintage apartment complexes that are generally similar to the subject property in terms of construction and physical characteristics. The comparable properties are situated in Los Angeles area locations that demonstrate generally similar demographic characteristics of the subject neighborhood. The capitalization rates

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 34

	indicated by the sales data are representative of an appropriate rate that would be applicable to the subject property. Based on the indicators exhibited by market data, a capitalization rate in the range of 5.5% to 6.0% or approximately 5.75% is suggested.
Survey of Investors	The most useful approach used to estimate an approximate rate of return required by the most probable buyer is to analyze the current investment parameters applied by institutional investors and advisors to real estate pension and portfolio funds when acquiring real estate. According to the Third Quarter 2006` Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey, prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers, capitalization rates for institutional grade apartment properties range from 4.25% to 8.00% with an average of 5.98%. According to the same survey, non-institutional grade properties exhibit a range of cap rates of 4.60% to 10.50% with an average of 7.12%. Capitalization rates in the Los Angeles area are generally aligned with the low end of the survey range and below the national average. The rates produced by the sales outlined above are appropriately aligned with the low end of the survey range.
Conclusion	The sales exhibit overall rates that range from 5.4% to 5.9% and produce an average of 5.6%. Based on the indicators exhibited by the sales data and confirmed through review of investor surveys, an appropriate cap rate for the subject property is concluded to be 5.75%.

Valuation: Capitalizing the estimated Net Operating Income of $1,046,163 by a 5.75% rate results in a value conclusion of $18,200,000, rounded ($1,046,163 NOI ÷ 5.75% OAR = $18,194,139).

Final Value:                                                                      $18,200,000

THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH

The Sales Comparison Approach is an estimate of value derived from a sales comparison with similar type properties. This method directly reflects the actions of buyers and sellers in the marketplace. Substitution is the underlying principle affecting the choice of buyers and sellers, and which implies that a prudent person will not pay more to buy a property than it would cost to buy a comparable substitute property. The price a typical purchaser pays is usually the result of a comparison process of various alternatives.

The sales data is analyzed and compared to the subject for such items as time, location, size, amenities and condition. Adjustments for differences are made where appropriate and so indicated by the market. The process develops an indication of what the selected comparables would have sold for had they possessed all the relevant physical and economic characteristics of the property being appraised. After analysis, the indicators derived are correlated into a value estimate based upon the quality of information obtained and the logical conclusions of the appraiser.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 35

The local market has been active in terms of investment sales of similar properties. Adequate sales exist to formulate a defensible value for the subject property via sales comparison. The following table is a summary of the comparable sales utilized in the valuation of the subject property.

SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE BUILDING SALES

Sale No.	1		2		3		4		5
Name	Montrose Manor		Del Prado		Sonterra		Rosemead Garden		Tuscany Villas
Location	2800 Montrose Ave		9150 Florence		15425 Sherman Way		7711 Rosemead Blvd		1159 N Conwell Ave
	Glendale, CA		Downey, CA		Van Nuys		Pico Rivera, Ca		Covina, CA
Sales Price		$12,000,000		$9,425,000		$22,500,000		$16,259,250		$37,156,875
Sale Date		20-Sep-2006		2-Jun-2006		3-Nov-2005		28-Sep-2005		5-Jul-2005
Year Built		1972		1969		1976		1975		1974
No. of Units		85		56		161		131		250
Net Rentable Area (SF)		64,235		80,006		113,758		96,371		275,705
Avg. Unit Size (SF)		756		1,429		707		736		1,103
Occupancy		97%		97%		97%		97%		97%
Price/SF		$186.81		$117.80		$197.79		$168.72		$134.77
Price/Unit		$141,176		$168,304		$139,752		$124,116		$148,628
Net Income		$696,043		$555,243		$1,212,857		$886,423		$2,086,000
NOI/SF		$10.84		$6.94		$10.66		$9.20		$7.57
NOI/Unit		$8,189		$9,915		$7,533		$6,767		$8,344
Cap Rate (OAR)		5.8%		5.9%		5.4%		5.5%		5.6%
EGIM		11.2		11.4		11.1		11.9		10.9
Expense Ratio (OER)		35%		33%		40%		35%		38%

Comparable #1: This is the September 2006 sale of an 85-unit apartment complex that is located in the City of Glendale, approximately 22 miles northwest of the subject property. The alternative location of the comparable property is rated as being superior to that of the subject property. Built in 1972, construction is wood frame with stucco and wood trim exterior and pitched roof with composition shingle cover. This property is situated on 1.4 acres. Amenities include swimming pool, fitness center, security parking and laundry facility. Unit amenities include standard kitchen appliances, central A/C, patio/balcony, mini-blinds and ceiling fans. The comparable’s average unit size of 756 square feet is similar to the subject’s 748 average square foot unit size.

In comparison to the subject, this property is generally similar to the subject property with the exception of its superior location. A downward adjustment will be made to the sales price per unit paid for this comparable for this factor.

Comparable #2: This is the June 2006 sale of a 56-unit apartment complex located approximately one and one-half miles northwest of the subject property, in the City of Downey. The alternative location of the comparable property is rated as being similar to that of the subject property. This property was developed in 1969. Construction is wood frame with stucco and wood trim exteriors and flat built-up roof. This property is situated on 1.7 acres. Apartment units include one, two and three-bedroom floor plans. Amenities include swimming pool, club house, fitness center, security entrance, spa and laundry facility. Unit amenities include standard kitchen appliances, patios/balconies, ceiling fans and mini-blinds. The comparable’s average unit size of 1,429 square feet is larger than the subject’s 748 average square foot unit size.

In comparison to the subject, this property has a similar location and similar amenities but is superior with regards to average unit size. A downward adjustment will be made to the sales price per unit paid for this comparable for superior unit size.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 36

Comparable #3: This is the November 2005 sale of a 161-unit apartment complex located in the City of Van Nuys, approximately 30 miles northwest of the subject property. The location of the comparable property is superior to that of the subject. This property was developed in 1976. Construction is wood frame with stucco and wood trim exteriors and pitched tile roof. This property is situated on 3.5 acres. Apartment units include one, two and three-bedroom floor plans. Amenities include swimming pool, security entrance, fitness center, spa and laundry facility. Unit amenities include standard kitchen appliances, patio/balcony, central A/C, mini-blinds and ceiling fans. The comparable’s average unit size of 707 square feet is similar to the subject’s 748 average square foot unit size.

In comparison to the subject, this property is generally similar to the subject property with the exception of its superior location. A downward adjustment will be made to the sales price per unit paid for this comparable for superior location.

Comparable #4: This is the September 2005 sale of a 131-unit apartment complex that is located in the City of Pico Rivera, approximately four miles north of the subject property. The alternative location of the comparable property is rated as being slightly inferior to that of the subject property. Built in 1975, construction is wood frame with stucco and wood trim exterior and pitched roof with composition shingle cover. This property is situated on 3.8 acres. Units include one and two-bedroom floor plans. Amenities include swimming pool, recreation room and tennis court. Unit amenities include standard kitchen appliances, patio/balcony, mini-blinds and ceiling fans. The comparable’s average unit size of 736 square feet is similar to the subject’s 748 average square foot unit size.

In comparison to the subject, this property is generally similar to the subject property with the exception of its inferior location. An upward adjustment will be made to the sales price per unit paid for this comparable for inferior location.

Comparable #5: This is the July 2005 sale of a comparable property located approximately 18 miles northeast of the subject property, in the City of Covina. The alternative location of the comparable property is rated as being slightly inferior to that of the subject. This property consists of a 250-unit apartment complex developed in 1974. Construction is wood frame with stucco and wood trim exteriors and flat roof. This property is situated on 7.9 acres. Apartment units include one, two and three-bedroom floor plans. Amenities include swimming pool, recreation room, spa, elevator, covered parking and laundry facility. Unit amenities include standard kitchen appliances, patios/balconies, ceiling fans, central a/c and mini-blinds. The comparable’s average unit size of 1,103 square feet is larger than the subject’s 748 average square foot unit size.

In comparison to the subject, this property has an inferior location but is superior with regards to amenities and average unit size. An upward adjustment will be made to the sales price per unit paid for this comparable for inferior location and downward adjustments for superior amenities and superior unit size.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 37

COMPARABLE SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID

Sale No.	1			2			3			4			5
Sales Price/Unit	$	141,176		$	168,304		$	139,752		$	124,116		$	148,628
Conditions of Sale		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
Adjusted Price	$	141,176		$	168,304		$	139,752		$	124,116		$	148,628
Time		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
Time Adjusted Price	$	141,176		$	168,304		$	139,752		$	124,116		$	148,628
Location		-10.0	%		0.0	%		-10.0	%		5.0	%		5.0	%
Age/Condition		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
Unit Size/Utility		0.0	%		-20.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		-10.0	%
Amenities		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		-10.0	%
Total Adjustments (%)		-10.0	%		-20.0	%		-10.0	%		5.0	%		-15.0	%
Adjusted Sale Price	$	127,058		$	134,643		$	125,777		$	130,322		$	126,334

Source: Adjustments by KTR.

The unadjusted sales prices range from $124,116 to $168,304 per unit. After adjustment, the comparable sales illustrate a range from $126,334 to $134,643 per unit with an average of $128,827 per unit. A few of the sales required minor adjustments for location as well as adjustment because of superior and inferior physical characteristics. Sales #1, #3 and #4, required the least amount of adjustment. Based on the adjustments considered and indicators exhibited by the sales data with primary emphasis placed on the Sales of #1, #3 and #4, a value of $126,000 per unit is estimated for the subject property. Application of the $126,000 per unit value indicator to the 144 units comprising the subject property results in a value estimate of $18,100,000, rounded.

$126,000   x   144 units   =    $18,144,000

EGIM ANALYSIS: The sales illustrate EGIMs that range from 10.9 to 11.9. Important in selecting an appropriate EGIM is the review of corresponding operating expenses. There is an inverse relationship which generally holds among EGIMs and operating expenses. Properties which have higher expense ratios typically sell for relatively less and therefore produce a lower EGIM. The operating expense ratios for the sales range from 33% to 40%.

In selecting an appropriate EGIM, consideration must be given to the operating expense ratio estimated for the subject. Based on the income and expenses estimated for the subject property in the Income Approach, the subject’s operating expense ratio is calculated at 47%. The subject’s expense ratio is above the high end of the range of ratios exhibited by the sales data, indicating that an appropriate EGIM is below the low end of the comparable range. In consideration of the preceding, an EGIM of 9.5 is concluded.

Based on the effective gross income of $1,965,336 estimated for the subject property, a value indication of $18,700,000 (rounded) is concluded.

$1,965,336    x    9.5   =    $18,670,692 or $18,700,000, rounded

CONCLUSION: The noted value indicators utilizing the sales price per unit and EGIM methods are $18,100,000 and $18,700,000. Due to the similarity of the resulting value indicators, relatively equal consideration was given to both techniques when concluding to a final value via the Sales Comparison Approach of $18,400,000.

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Page 38

As such, the Market Value of the subject property’s Fee Simple Interest via the Sales Comparison Approach is therefore estimated at:

Value via the Sales Comparison Approach                      $18,400,000

RECONCILIATION

Cost Approach		N/A
Income Capitalization Approach	$	18,200,000
Sales Comparison Approach	$	18,400,000

Income and Sales approaches to value were employed in the appraisal of the subject property. Buyers and sellers rarely rely on the Cost Approach to price commercial real estate. Furthermore, the age of the improvements and subjectivity involved in estimating substantial degrees of physical deterioration reduces the reliability of this approach. As such, a Cost Approach was not employed.

The value derived from the Income Capitalization Approach is well documented and market oriented. The local market is active in terms of investment sales of similar apartment complexes and sufficient sales data was available to develop a defensible value via the Sales Comparison Approach. The value derived through use of the Sales Comparison Approach supports the value concluded for the property via the Income Capitalization Approach. Due to the income producing nature of the subject property, the results of the Income Capitalization Approach are emphasized.

FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE                                    $18,200,000

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Addenda

ADDENDA

Casa De Monterey Apartments
Norwalk, California November 28, 2006
Addenda

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

VIEW OF PROPERTY FROM STUDEBAKER ROAD

VIEW OF MANAGEMENT/LEASING OFFICE

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

VIEW OF WALKWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS

VIEW OF TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATION

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

VIEW OF TYPICAL POOL

COVERED PARKING

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

VIEW OF PLAYGROUND

VIEW OF TYPICAL UNIT REAR YARD

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

COMPARABLE RENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

COMPARABLE #1

COMPARABLE #2

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

COMPARABLE #3

COMPARABLE #4

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

COMPARABLE #5

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

COMPARABLE SALES

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

NO
PHOTO
AVAILABLE

Improved Sale #1

Name:	Montrose Manor
Location:	2800 Montrose Avenue
	Glendale, CA
Date of Sale:	September 20, 2006
Grantor:	Montrose Apartments Investors LLC
Grantee:	Montrose Manor Apartments LLC
Consideration:	$12,000,000
Terms:	Cash to seller
Price/Unit:	$141,176
Price/SF:	$186.81

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #1 (Continued)

Economic Data:

Cash Equivalent Sale Price:	$	12,000,000
Net Rentable Area (SF):		64,235
Number of Units:		85
Average Unit Size (SF):		756
Occupancy		97	%
Year Built		1972
	Pro Forma			$/Unit			$/SF
Effective Gross Income	$	1,070,836		$	12,598		$	16.67
Expenses (including reserves)		(374,793	)		(4,409	)		(5.83	)
Net Operating Income	$	696,043		$	8,189		$	10.84
EGIM		11.2
OER (including reserves)		35	%
OAR		5.8	%

Comments: Three-story wood frame construction in average condition at time of sale.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #2

Name:	Del Prado Apartments
Location:	9150 Florence
	Downey, CA
Date of Sale:	June 2, 2006
Grantor:	William M Grant Trust
Grantee:	MC Del Prado LLC (et al )
Consideration:	$9,425,000
Terms:	Cash to seller
Price/Unit:	$168,304
Price/SF:	$117.80

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #2 (Continued)

Economic Data:

Cash Equivalent Sale Price:	$	9,425,000
Net Rentable Area (SF):		80,006
Number of Units:		56
Average Unit Size (SF):		1,429
Occupancy		97	%
Year Built		1969
	Pro Forma			$/Unit			$/SF
Effective Gross Income	$	824,494		$	14,723		$	10.31
Expenses (including reserves)		(269,251	)		(4,808	)		(3.37	)
Net Operating Income	$	555,243		$	9,915		$	6.94
EGIM		11.4
OER (including reserves)		33	%
OAR		5.9	%

Comments: Three-story wood frame construction.. Property was in average condition at the time of sale.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #3

Name:	Sonterra Apartments
Location:	15425 Sherman Way
	Van Nuys, CA
Date of Sale:	November 3, 2005
Grantor:	Aslan Sonterra I LLC
Grantee:	15425 Sherman Way LLC
Consideration:	$22,500,000
Terms:	Cash to seller
Price/Unit:	$139,752
Price/SF:	$197.79

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #3 (Continued)

Economic Data:

Cash Equivalent Sale Price:	$	22,500,000
Net Rentable Area (SF):		113,758
Number of Units:		161
Average Unit Size (SF):		707
Occupancy		97	%
Year Built		1976
	Pro Forma			$/Unit			$/SF
Effective Gross Income	$	2,022,206		$	12,560		$	17.78
Expenses (including reserves)		(809,349	)		(5,027	)		(7.11	)
Net Operating Income	$	1,212,857		$	7,533		$	10.66
EGIM		11.1
OER (including reserves)		40	%
OAR		5.4	%

Comments: Three-story wood frame construction.. Property was in average condition at the time of sale.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #4

Name:	Rosemead Garden Apartments
Location:	7711 Rosemead Boulevard
	Pico Rivera, CA
Date of Sale:	September 28, 2005
Grantor:	Rosemead Garden Associates, LLC
Grantee:	7711 Rosemead Blvd. LLC
Consideration:	$16,259,250
Terms:	Cash to seller
Price/Unit:	$124,116
Price/SF:	$168.72

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #4 (Continued)

Economic Data:

Cash Equivalent Sale Price:	$	16,259,250
Net Rentable Area (SF):		96,371
Number of Units:		131
Average Unit Size (SF):		736
Occupancy		97	%
Year Built		1975
	Pro Forma			$/Unit			$/SF
Effective Gross Income	$	1,358,365		$	10,369		$	14.10
Expenses (including reserves)		(471,942	)		(3,603	)		(4.90	)
Net Operating Income	$	886,423		$	6,766		$	9.20
EGIM		11.9
OER (including reserves)		35	%
OAR		5.5	%

Comments: Two-story wood frame construction in average condition at time of sale.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #5

Name:	Tuscany Villas
Location:	1159 N. Conwell Avenue
	Covina, CA
Date of Sale:	July 5, 2005
Grantor:	Transwestern JH Hallmark LLC
Grantee:	PPC Covina Apartments LLC
Consideration:	$37,156,875
Terms:	Cash to seller
Price/Unit:	$148,628
Price/SF:	$134.77

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

Improved Sale #5 (Continued)

Economic Data:

Cash Equivalent Sale Price:	$	37,156,875
Net Rentable Area (SF):		275,705
Number of Units:		250
Average Unit Size (SF):		1,103
Occupancy		97	%
Year Built		1974
	Pro Forma			$/Unit			$/SF
Effective Gross Income	$	3,379,232		$	13,517		$	12.26
Expenses (including reserves)		(1,293,232	)		(5,173	)		(4.69	)
Net Operating Income	$	2,086,000		$	8,344		$	7.57
EGIM		10.9
OER (including reserves)		38	%
OAR		5.6	%

Comments: Two-story wood frame construction. Property was in average condition at the time of sale.

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

NEIGHBORHOOD MAP

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

COMPARABLE RENTALS MAP

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

COMPARABLE SALES MAP

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

QUALIFICATIONS

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

WILLIAM L. CORBIN, MAI
SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR

WILLIAM CORBIN, MAI is Executive Vice President and manager of the Western Regional Office of KTR Valuation & Consulting Services, LLC, located at 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2210, Los Angeles, California 90067. His direct telephone number is 310/ 203-0699

Education

University of California at Los Angeles, 1977

Bachelor of Arts
Major in Economics

University of Southern California, 1980

Master of Business Administration
Concentration in Real Estate and Finance

Designations

MAI Member — Appraisal Institute

Licenses

California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
Arizona Certified General Real Estate Appraiser

Affiliations

National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF) designated representative
- Valuation sub-committee co-chairperson for Standardized Commercial Appraisal Report

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

WILLIAM L. CORBIN, MAI

Experience

Mr. Corbin began his career with an intensive education in real estate market analysis as a consultant with Robert Charles Lesser & Co. from 1980 to 1983. With RCLCo, he performed over 75 market supply and demand, economic feasibility, and strategic planning assignments for prominent regional and national clients. During this very active construction period, nationally, Mr. Corbin had the opportunity to visit and analyze commercial real estate market conditions is over 20 major metropolitan areas in the Western and Central U.S.

As a mortgage banker from 1983 to 1992, Mr. Corbin arranged a wide variety of financing structures with institutional lenders and equity investors, including permanent loans, construction loans, and joint ventures. In total with George Smith Financial Services/Grubb & Ellis and Center Financial Group, he worked with over 90 institutions and closed over 150 transactions totaling in excess of $700,000,000.

As an appraiser, Mr. Corbin has performed numerous current value narrative appraisals for national and regional institutional lenders and investors. His previous experience in commercial real estate finance gives him particular insight to the capital and investment markets and their impact on institutional real estate activity and values. He has performed a wide variety of appraisals of warehouse distribution buildings, industrial and business parks, office buildings, shopping centers, and apartments. He worked with Landauer Associates from 1992 to 1995, managing the Aetna Realty Investors account for western region property appraisals.

Currently with KTR ten years, Mr. Corbin is responsible for managing the Los Angeles regional office, developing and managing institutional accounts, as well as performing direct valuation work for those clients. He also heads KTR’s national pension fund valuation practice and is the firm’s designated representative to NCREIF, a national organization of pension fund advisors that creates and implements operational policy standards for the industry. Mr. Corbin is currently the chairperson for NCREIF’s valuation sub-committee that is contributing to developing a standardized commercial appraisal report in conjunction with the Appraisal Institute that will become the valuation industry standard.

In addition to professional experience, Mr. Corbin has served as a real estate course instructor and conference collaborator for UCLA Extension

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

WILLIAM L. CORBIN, MAI

Following is a list of representative clients Mr. Corbin has performed services for:

Clients — As Appraiser and Consultant

Aetna Realty Investors, Inc.	Massachusetts Mutual Life
Bechtel Corporation	McCullough Oil Properties
CALTRANS	Mobil Land Development
Catellus Corp.	Chevron Land Development
Philips, North America	Home Savings of America
KOAR Hotel Group	Safeway Stores
Copley Institutional Realty	Santa Anita Realty
Estate of James Campbell	Santa Fe Land Improvement Co.
Franklin Properties, Inc.	Taft Broadcasting Co.
Triton Energy Corp.	Comerica Bank
Union Oil/Moreland Development	Trammell Crow Company
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.	Bank of New York
Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.	Majestic Realty
Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corp.	Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
PNC Bank	Sakura Bank
CALSTRS	Newfield Enterprises
Heller Financial	J. P. Morgan Mortgage Capital
Chase Commercial Mortgage Banking	Lend Lease Mortgage Capital
Daiwa Securities America	Whitehall Fund II
Lennar Partners	AMB Institutional Realty Advisors
SSR Realty Advisors	TA Associates Realty
Douglas, Emmett Realty Advisors	LACERA
Dresdner Bank	Henderson Global Investors
Prudential Mortgage Capital	Prudential Insurance Company of America
TIAA-CREF	INVESCO
Principal Real Estate Investors	Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers
RREEF	Deutsche Bank
Eurohypo Bank

Clients — As Mortgage Banker

AEtna Life & Casualty	AFL-CIO Housing Trust
BALCOR	Bank of America
Citicorp REIG	Creative Artists Agency
Forest City Properties	General Electric Credit
Heller Financial Services	Hollywood Center Studios
Home Savings of America	Industrial Bank of Japan
MetroBank	Massachusetts Mutual Life
Principal Mutual Life	Security Pacific National Bank
Societe Generale	Textron Financial Services
U.S. Bancorp	Union Bank
William Morris Agency	DeAnza Group, Inc.
IBEW Pension Fund	Nationwide Life

STEVEN J. GOLDBERG, MAI, CCIM

Casa De Monterey Apartments	November 28, 2006
Norwalk, California	Addenda

SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR

STEVEN J. GOLDBERG is Manager of the Dallas Appraisal Division of KTR Valuation & Consulting Services, LLC. His responsibilities include staff supervision, appraisal management, maintaining product quality, marketing and client development. In his current capacity, Mr. Goldberg oversees all valuation assignments involving real estate assets located in the Southwest region.

Mr. Goldberg has over 23 years of nationwide experience in real estate valuation, investment analysis and evaluation consultation. He has performed appraisals throughout the United States and has extensive experience in most markets situated in the Southwest and Southeast regions of the country. Mr. Goldberg’s particular area of expertise is in the appraisal and analysis of multifamily apartment projects. In addition to his expertise in the multifamily market, Mr. Goldberg has extensive experience in the appraisal of other income-producing properties including office buildings, retail properties, lodging facilities, industrial properties and mixed-use projects.

Mr. Goldberg has performed marketability, consultation and feasibility reports, has served as an expert witness and has testified in various state and federal courts. These activities have been performed on behalf of real estate investors, life insurance companies, pension funds, investment banking firms, foreign and domestic financial institutions, mortgage bankers, conduit lenders, real estate advisors, law firms and governmental agencies.

Mr. Goldberg received his Bachelor of Business Administration Degree from the University of Texas in Austin, with major concentrations in both Finance and Real Estate/Urban Land Economics. He is a designated member of the Appraisal Institute and the Commercial Investment Real Estate Institute having been awarded the MAI designation in 1989 and the CCIM designation in 1994. He has attended numerous continuing education courses and has completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.

Mr. Goldberg is state certified as a General Real Estate Appraiser in Texas and Arizona. He is also a licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Texas. He is affiliated with the North Texas Commercial Association of Realtors, International Council of Shopping Centers and Mortgage Bankers Association.