Assessor challenges River Park land sale, seeks $14.32 million enrollment; buyer cites $9 million contract

The Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board heard competing valuations May 18 over land sold for $9 million that closed Feb. 3, 2023, in the River Park area. The buyer and an appraisal submitted for financing argued the $9 million contract reflected market expectations; the county assessor urged the board to enroll $14.32 million based on sales‑comparison analysis and adjustments for higher construction and parking‑structure costs.

Jonathan Cornelius, representing the buyer and seller presentations during city entitlement hearings, told the board the property entered a purchase agreement in January 2019 and closed in February 2023 for a $9 million sales price. He said the buyer negotiated the price in 2019 with the expectation of entitlements and higher‑density development to follow and supplied an appraisal dated Nov. 26, 2022, prepared for financing. Cornelius said the parties negotiated in reliance on development economics and that market evidence — including three nearby land sales the buyer submitted — supports the purchaser’s position.

The assessor disputed that the sale necessarily reflected fair market value for the board’s valuation date. The assessor’s appraisal witness explained the county’s approach: use a dollar‑per‑unit sales comparison (the unit being the entitled apartment), adjust comparables for the subject’s higher density and for the significant cost of the subject’s required parking structure, and weight the closest‑in‑time, lowest‑adjustment comparables most heavily. “Following these determinations, the assessor applied a weighting that results in a weighted average of $43,000 per unit, giving us a value conclusion of $14.32 million,” the assessor stated in their presentation.

The hearing turned on timing and evidence. Assessor witnesses pressed the buyer on whether the property had been listed at the time of the 2019 contract, on broker involvement and closing paperwork, and on the precise timing of entitlements. The buyer and his witnesses said the property had been marketed, the buyer paid a premium above the listing because entitlements and development cost risk were expected, and an appraisal prepared for financing reflected the buyer’s view of value.

A significant procedural dispute complicated the hearing: the assessor told the board that the copy of the Cushman & Wakefield appraisal provided to county counsel and the assessor lacked roughly half the pages; the assessor said those pages might include the appraiser’s full dollar‑per‑unit analysis. The buyer’s team said the appraisal had been provided to the board and redacted some income projections as proprietary. The lack of the appraisal’s complete record was raised repeatedly on the record.

Both sides also debated which unit of comparison best reflects market behavior for entitled multifamily land: the county favored dollar‑per‑unit (price per entitled apartment), while the buyer’s team presented arguments and comparables that included price‑per‑square‑foot measures and a financing appraisal conclusion. The assessor said the differences between type‑three (mid‑rise) structural and parking costs and the subject’s higher density justified material upward adjustments to lower‑density comparables; the buyer argued the sales and an independent loan appraisal supported the $9 million exchange.

The board did not announce a decision in the hearing transcript. Members asked detailed questions about listing materials, broker commissions, entitlement timing, and the omitted pages of the appraisal, and directed parties that the board may request additional documentary evidence before issuing a written determination. The board indicated it would take the record under consideration and that a written decision would follow.

What happens next: the board will review the full record (and any additional materials the parties file or the board subpoenas) and issue a written determination. If the board sustains the assessor, the parcel would be enrolled at the higher value for the Feb. 3, 2023 lien date; if the buyer prevails, the $9 million sale price could be accepted as the basic value.