SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  ☒                             Filed by a party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

Tejon Ranch Co.

(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

Post Office Box 1000

Tejon Ranch, California 93243

March 28, 2018

Dear Stockholder:

You are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Tejon Ranch Co. (the “Company”) on Tuesday, May 8, 2018, at 10:30 A.M., Pacific Time, at the Balboa Bay Resort, 1221 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California 92663. Your Board of Directors and management look forward to greeting those stockholders who are able to attend. If you are planning to attend the meeting in person you will need to present proof that you own shares of the Company, such as a government-issued photo identification and a proxy card or voting instruction form with your name on it.

The Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement, which contain information concerning the business to be transacted at the meeting, appear in the following pages.

It is important that your shares be represented and voted at the meeting, whether or not you plan to attend. Please vote on the enclosed proxy at your earliest convenience.

Your interest and participation in the affairs of the Company are greatly appreciated.

TEJON RANCH CO.

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

on

May 8, 2018

The Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Tejon Ranch Co. (the “Company” or “Tejon” or referred to as “we”, “us”, “our” or words of similar import in this Proxy Statement) will be held at the Balboa Bay Resort, 1221 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, 92663 on Tuesday, May 8, 2018, at 10:30 A.M., Pacific Time, for the following purposes:

The nominees of the Board of Directors of the Company for election at the meeting are Geoffrey L. Stack and Michael H. Winer.

The Board of Directors of the Company recommends that you vote (i) “FOR” the election of each of the nominees; (ii) “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP; and (iii) “FOR” the approval of named executive officer compensation.

The Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on March 9, 2018 as the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting.

Your attention is directed to the accompanying Proxy Statement. To ensure that your shares are represented at the meeting, please date, sign, and mail the enclosed proxy card, for which a return envelope is provided, or vote your proxy by telephone or the Internet, the instructions for which are provided on the enclosed proxy card.

Please note that if your shares are held by a broker, bank, or other holder of record, your broker, bank or other holder of record will NOT be able to vote your shares with respect to Proposal 1 or Proposal 3 unless you provide them with directions on how to vote. We strongly encourage you to return the voting instruction form provided by your broker, bank, or other holder of record or utilize your broker’s telephone or Internet voting if available and exercise your right to vote as a stockholder.

Tejon Ranch, California

March 28, 2018

PLEASE MARK YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON THE ENCLOSED PROXY, SIGN AND DATE THE PROXY, AND RETURN IT IN THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE. ALTERNATIVELY, PLEASE VOTE YOUR PROXY BY TELEPHONE OR THE INTERNET. PLEASE VOTE YOUR PROXY EVEN IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING. IF YOU ATTEND THE MEETING AND WISH TO DO SO, YOU MAY VOTE YOUR SHARES IN PERSON EVEN IF YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED YOUR PROXY.

Table of Contents of the Proxy Statement

TEJON RANCH CO.

Post Office Box 1000

Tejon Ranch, California 93243

PROXY STATEMENT

Annual Meeting of Stockholders

May 8, 2018

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders To Be Held on May 8, 2018

The Proxy Statement and accompanying Annual Report to Stockholders and Annual Report on Form 10-K are available at www.tejonranch.com or at http://materials.proxyvote.com/879080

This Proxy Statement is being furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Company for use at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 8, 2018 (the “2018 Annual Meeting”).

It is anticipated that the mailing of this Proxy Statement and accompanying form of Proxy to stockholders will begin on or about March  30, 2018.

SOLICITATION OF PROXIES

At the meeting, the stockholders of the Company will be asked to vote on the following matters: (1) the election of the two directors named in this Proxy Statement, (2) the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2017, (3) an advisory vote to approve executive compensation, and (4) such other business as may properly come before the meeting. The Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) is asking for your proxy for use at the 2018 Annual Meeting. Although management does not know of any other matter to be acted upon at the meeting, shares represented by valid proxies will be voted by the persons named on the proxy in accordance with their best judgment with respect to any other matters which may properly come before the meeting.

The costs for this proxy solicitation will be paid by the Company. Following the mailing of this Proxy Statement, directors, officers, and regular employees of the Company may solicit proxies by mail, telephone, e-mail, or in person; such persons will receive no additional compensation for such services. Brokerage houses and other nominees, fiduciaries and custodians nominally holding shares of record will be requested to forward proxy soliciting material to the beneficial owners of such shares and will be reimbursed by the Company for their charges and expenses in connection therewith at the rates approved by the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”).

RECORD DATE AND VOTING

General Information

Holders of shares of the Company’s Common Stock, par value $0.50 (the “Common Stock”) of record at the close of business on March 9, 2018 (the “Record Date”) are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the meeting. There were 25,908,039 shares of Common Stock outstanding on the Record Date. Each stockholder is entitled to one vote for each share of Common Stock held as of the Record Date on all matters presented at the 2018 Annual Meeting other than the election of directors. Each stockholder may appoint only one proxy holder or representative to attend the meeting on his or her behalf. A stockholder of record giving a proxy may revoke it at any time before it is voted by filing with the Company’s Secretary a written notice of revocation or by submitting a later-dated proxy via the Internet, by telephone, or by mail. Unless a proxy is revoked, shares represented by a

1

proxy will be voted in accordance with the voting instructions on the proxy, and on matters for which no voting instructions are given, shares will be voted “FOR” the election of each nominee and “FOR” Proposals 2 and 3. If you hold shares in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other holder of record, you must follow the instructions of your broker, bank, or other holder of record to change or revoke your voting instructions.

Broker Non-Votes

If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other holder of record, you are considered to be the “beneficial owner” of those shares. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to instruct your broker, bank, or other holder of record how to vote your shares. If you do not provide instructions, your broker, bank or other holder of record will not have the discretion to vote with respect to certain matters and your shares will constitute “broker non-votes” with respect to those matters. A “broker non-vote” occurs when a nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner does not vote on a particular proposal because the nominee does not have discretionary voting power for that particular item and has not received instructions from the beneficial owner. Specifically, your broker, bank, or other holder of record will not have the discretion to vote with respect to Proposal 1 or Proposal 3, but will have discretion to vote on Proposal 2. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to follow the voting instructions on the materials you receive.

Quorum

The holders of record of a majority of the Common Stock entitled to vote at the 2018 Annual Meeting must be present at the 2018 Annual Meeting, either in person or by proxy, in order for there to be a quorum at the 2018 Annual Meeting. Shares of Common Stock with respect to which the holders are present in person at the 2018 Annual Meeting but not voting, and shares of Common Stock for which we have received proxies but with respect to which the holders of the shares have abstained, will be counted as present at the 2018 Annual Meeting for the purpose of determining whether or not a quorum exists. Broker non-votes will also be counted as present for the purpose of determining whether a quorum exists. Stockholders cannot abstain in the election of directors, but they can withhold authority. Stockholders who withhold authority will be considered present for purposes of determining a quorum.

Voting Requirements

For Proposal 1 (election of directors), the two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of affirmative votes at the 2018 Annual Meeting (also referred to as a plurality) will be elected as directors. Stockholders will be able to cumulate their vote in the election of directors. Cumulative voting means that each stockholder is entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of directors to be elected multiplied by the number of shares he or she holds. These votes may be cast for one nominee or distributed among two or more nominees. To exercise the right to cumulate votes, a stockholder must provide written instructions on the proxy card stating how the stockholder wishes to have his or her votes distributed. Withheld votes and broker non-votes will not be counted as participating in the voting and will therefore have no effect for purposes of Proposal 1.

Approval of Proposal 2 (the ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm) will require the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of Common Stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the 2018 Annual Meeting. Abstentions will be counted as present and will thus have the effect of a vote against Proposal 2.

Approval of Proposal 3 (the advisory vote to approve executive compensation) will require the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of Common Stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the 2018 Annual Meeting. Abstentions will be counted as present and will thus have the effect of a vote against Proposal 3. Broker non-votes will not be counted as participating in the voting and will therefore have no effect for purposes of Proposal 3.

2

Pursuant to Delaware corporate law, the actions contemplated to be taken at the 2018 Annual Meeting do not create appraisal or dissenters’ rights.

Proxy Summary

2017 Performance Highlights

In determining 2017 compensation for our named executive officers, “NEOs”, the Compensation Committee of the Board considered the contributions of each of our executive officers to the Company’s strategy related to revenue, cash management, continued expansion of Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, and moving our residential development projects through the mapping and entitlement process. The Compensation Committee considered these items with a particular emphasis on the following areas:

3

2017 Compensation Summary

Our 2017 compensation program reflects our pay-for-performance philosophy. The short-term incentives paid to all our executives were well below target, ranging from 57%—70% of target. Adjusted EBITDA and adjusted revenue, the metrics used for purposes of our short-term incentives, declined from the previous year due to the declines in revenue as described above.

Three-year milestone grants were provided to our NEOs for the 2017-2019 plan cycle. These grants link compensation opportunities to strategic performance objectives important to the Company for the next three years. Milestone grants are awarded once every three years, which reflects the long-term nature of our business plan. Additional details on these grants are provided on page 45.

For the 2015-2017 three-year milestone grants, the goal for cumulative cash from operations was $32,292,000, and goal achievement was 118% of the target objective, with actual cash from operations of $38,197,000. These grants vested and were delivered in March after approval by the Compensation Committee.

Our CEO was granted a supplemental performance incentive in 2015, a portion of which was eligible to vest over a two-year period ending on December 31, 2017, based on our performance relative to two components. The award opportunity was based in part on an increase in revenue of Tejon Ranch Commerce Center-East. The performance incentive was paid out at maximum for this component due to a 96.6% increase in revenue from the properties. A second component of the performance incentive was our total stockholder return (‘TSR’) compared

4

to our peer group. Based on our TSR performance relative to our peers over the performance period, no incentive was paid for the TSR component of the supplemental performance incentive, further demonstrating alignment with stockholders.

The realized pay for our executive team in 2017 was 30% below the value realized in 2016.

Stockholder Engagement

At our 2017 Annual Meeting, our stockholders expressed support for our executive compensation program, with 60.5% of stockholders casting votes in favor of the advisory vote proposal. Our stockholder outreach efforts are summarized below:

Our responses to investor feedback are provided on page 24.

Our Compensation Discussion and Analysis is on pages 20 to 49, and our Summary Compensation Table and other compensation tables are on pages 50 to 59.

3-year CEO Average SCT Pay vs. Realized $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $23,328 $1,642,740 $587,862 $584,722 -21% $23,328 [VALUE] $587,862 $584,722 $1 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 3-Year Total SCT Pay 3-Year Total Realized Pay Salary Value of Shares Vested Cash Incentives Paid All Other Compensation Value of Equity Granted

5

PROPOSAL 1

THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The Board currently consists of nine directors divided into three classes based upon when their terms expire. The terms of three current directors (Class I) will expire at the 2018 Annual Meeting, the terms of three current directors (Class II) will expire at the 2019 Annual Meeting, and the terms of three current directors (Class III) will expire at the 2020 Annual Meeting. The regular term of each director expires at the third Annual Meeting following the Annual Meeting at which that director was elected, so that each director serves a three-year term, although directors continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified, unless the authorized number of directors has been decreased.

The nominees of the Board for election at the 2018 Annual Meeting to serve as Class I Directors are Geoffrey L. Stack and Michael H. Winer, both are presently directors. Frederick C. Tuomi who has served as a Class I Director since 2014, informed the Board that he did not intend to stand for reelection at the 2018 Annual Meeting and as such was not nominated to stand for reelection.

Nominations of persons for election to the Board by stockholders must be made pursuant to timely notice in writing to the Secretary of the Company pursuant to and contained the information required by the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws. See “Stockholder Proposals for 2019 Annual Meeting” for additional information on the procedure for stockholder nominations.

Except as noted below, each proxy solicited by and on behalf of the Board will be voted “FOR” the election of the nominees named above (unless such authority is withheld as provided in the proxy), and unless otherwise instructed, one-third of the votes to which the stockholder is entitled will be cast for each of the nominees. All of the nominees of the Board have consented to being named in this Proxy Statement and to serve if elected. In the event that any one or more of the nominees shall become unable to serve or for good cause refuse to serve as director (an event which is not anticipated), the proxy holders will vote for substitute nominees in their discretion. If one or more persons other than those named below as nominees for the 2018 Annual Meeting are nominated as candidates for director by persons other than the Board, the enclosed proxy may be voted in favor of any one or more of said nominees of the Board and in such order of preference as the proxy holders may determine in their discretion.

Brokers do not have discretion to vote on this proposal without your instruction. Therefore, if you are a beneficial owner and you do not instruct your broker how to vote on this proposal, your shares will not be voted on this proposal.

THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” EACH OF THE

NOMINEES NAMED ABOVE FOR ELECTION AS A DIRECTOR.

6

PROPOSAL 2

THE RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee has selected Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2018. Services provided to the Company and its subsidiaries by Ernst & Young LLP in fiscal years 2017 and 2016 are described below. Additional information regarding the Audit Committee is provided in the Report of the Audit Committee below.

Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP are expected to be present at the 2018 Annual Meeting and will have an opportunity to make a statement if they wish and will be available to respond to appropriate questions from stockholders.

Stockholder Ratification of the Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

We are asking our stockholders to ratify the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm. Although ratification is not required by our certificate of incorporation, bylaws or otherwise, the Board is submitting the selection of Ernst & Young LLP to our stockholders for ratification as a matter of good corporate practice. In the event that stockholders do not ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP, the appointment may be reconsidered by the Audit Committee and the Board. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee may, in its discretion, select a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Ernst & Young LLP served as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ended December 31, 2017 and was selected by the Audit Committee to serve in that capacity for the fiscal year 2018.

Audit Fees. The aggregate fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP for professional services rendered for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 and for the reviews of the financial statements included in the Company’s Forms 10-Q for the year ended December 31, 2017 were $615,800. The aggregate fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP for professional services rendered for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 and for the reviews of the financial statements included in the Company’s Forms 10-Q for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $548,579.

Audit-Related Fees. The aggregate fees billed for assurance and related services by Ernst & Young LLP that were reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Company’s financial statements, including fees for the performance of audits and attest services not required by statute or regulations; audits of the Company’s employee benefit plans; due diligence activities related to investments; and accounting consultations about the application of generally accepted accounting principles to proposed transactions (collectively, the “Audit-Related Fees”), for the year ended December 31, 2017 were $56,500. The Audit-Related Fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $38,341.

Tax Fees. The aggregate fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP for tax compliance, advice, and planning services for the year ended December 31, 2017 were $102,126. The aggregate fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP for tax compliance, advice and planning services for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $106,685. All fees billed for both 2017 and 2016 were solely related to compliance and planning services for tax return preparation.

7

All Other Fees. Ernst & Young LLP did not bill for any services other than those listed above for the years ended December 31, 2017 or December 31, 2016.

The Audit Committee Charter requires that the Audit Committee pre-approve all services performed by the Company’s outside auditor. To fulfill this requirement, Ernst & Young LLP provides a proposal to the Audit Committee for all services it proposes to provide, and the Audit Committee then takes such action on the proposal as it deems advisable. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, 100% of the services provided by Ernst & Young LLP were pre-approved by the Audit Committee.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS THE COMPANY’S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018.

8

PROPOSAL 3

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

In accordance with Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, (the “Exchange Act”), we are asking stockholders to approve on an advisory basis the compensation paid to the Company’s NEOs, as disclosed in this Proxy Statement on pages 20 to 59.

The Board recommends that stockholders vote to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to the Company’s NEOs as described in this Proxy Statement, for the following reasons.

Sound Program Design

We design our executive officers’ compensation programs to attract, motivate, and retain the key executives who drive our success and industry leadership while considering individual and Company performance and alignment with the interest of long-term stockholders. We achieve our objectives through compensation that:

Best Practices in Executive Compensation

Some of our leading practices include

Variable Compensation Fixed 29.3% Variable 70.7% 23.4% 18.9% 9.5% 18.9% Annual Incentive Performance Milestone Grants Performance Grants—Operating Cash Time-Based Grants

9

The advisory proposal, commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” proposal, is not binding on the Board. Although the voting results are not binding, the Board will review and consider them when evaluating our executive compensation program.

The Board has adopted a policy of holding an advisory vote on executive compensation every year, and unless the Board modifies its policy, we expect that, after the 2018 Annual Meeting, the next advisory vote on the compensation of our NEOs will take place at our 2019 Annual Meeting.

Brokers do not have discretion to vote on this proposal without your instruction. Therefore, if you are a beneficial owner and you do not instruct your broker how to vote on this proposal, your shares will not be voted on this proposal.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE COMPANY’S NEOS AS DISCLOSED ON PAGES 20 TO 59 IN THE PROXY STATEMENT.

10

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Consideration of Director Nominees

The Board believes the Board, as a whole, should possess the requisite combination of skills, professional experience, and diversity of backgrounds to oversee the Company’s business. The Board also believes that each individual director should possess certain attributes, as discussed below. Accordingly, the Board and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the “Nominating Committee”) consider the qualifications of directors and director candidates individually as well as in the broader context of the Board’s overall composition and the Company’s current and future needs.

The Nominating Committee is responsible for selecting nominees for election to the Board. In considering candidates for the Board, the Nominating Committee evaluates the entirety of each candidate’s credentials, attributes, and other factors (as described in greater detail in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines), but does not have any specific minimum qualifications that a nominee must meet. However, the Nominating Committee seeks as directors, individuals with substantial management experience who possess the highest personal values, judgment, and integrity; an understanding of the environment in which the Company does business; and diverse experience with the key business, financial, and other challenges that the Company faces. In addition, in considering the nomination of existing directors, the Nominating Committee takes into consideration (i) each director’s contribution to the Board; (ii) any material change in the director’s employment or responsibilities with any other organization; (iii) the director’s ability to attend meetings and fully participate in the activities of the Board and the committees of the Board on which the director serves; (iv) whether the director has developed any relationships with the Company or another organization, or other circumstances that may have arisen, that might make it inappropriate for the director to continue serving on the Board; and (v) the director’s age and length of service on the Board.

Because the Nominating Committee recognizes that a diversity of viewpoints and practical experiences can enhance the effectiveness of the Board, as part of its evaluation of each candidate, the Nominating Committee takes into account how each candidate’s background, experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills may complement, supplement, or duplicate those of other prospective candidates. The Nominating Committee reviews its effectiveness in balancing these considerations when assessing the composition of the Board, which as discussed below is one of the committee’s responsibilities.

Based on the parameters described above, the Board has determined that the directors standing for reelection and the remaining members of the Board have the qualifications, experience, and attributes appropriate for a director of the Company. As reflected below, each director has a varied background in the real estate industry, finance, and/or agriculture. These are all areas that are integral to the strategy, operations, and successful oversight of the Company.

Board Composition and Leadership Structure

The Board is grouped into three classes: (1) Class I Directors, whose terms will expire at the 2018 Annual Meeting; (2) Class II Directors, whose terms will expire at the 2019 Annual Meeting; and (3) Class III Directors, whose terms will expire at the 2020 Annual Meeting. The Board currently consists of nine directors. The Board’s leadership is structured so that the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer are separate positions. The Chairman of the Board is also an independent director. The Board believes that this structure is appropriate for our Company and our stockholders at this time because it provides an additional layer of oversight to management and management’s activities and allows the Board to act independently of management.

Director Qualifications and Biographical Information

The Nominating Committee considered the character, experience, qualifications and skills of each director, including the current director nominees, when determining whether each should serve as a director of the Company. In keeping with its stated criteria for director nominees described in the section entitled

11

“Consideration of Director Nominees” above, the Nominating Committee determined that each director, including the current director nominees, has substantial management experience, exhibits the highest personal values, judgment, and integrity, and possesses an understanding of the environment in which the Company does business and diverse experience with the key business, financial, and other challenges that the Company faces. Each director is or has been a leader in his respective field and brings diverse talents and perspectives to the Board. The Nominating Committee also considered the experience and qualifications outlined below in the biographical information for each director, including the current director nominees, as well as other public company board service.

The Nominating Committee noted the following particular attributes and qualities it considers when evaluating director nominees. The Nominating Committee believes that nominees with business and strategic management experience gained from service as a chief executive officer or similar position is a critical leadership component to Board service. The Nominating Committee also seeks nominees with backgrounds in finance, banking, economics, and the securities and financial markets, in order to have directors who can assess and evaluate the Company’s financial and competitive position. The Nominating Committee emphasizes familiarity with the real estate and agricultural industries, and considers customer perspectives to be important when evaluating director nominees. Although the directors listed below each possess a number of these attributes, the Nominating Committee considered the specific areas noted below for each director when determining which of the director’s qualifications best suit the needs of the Company and qualify them to serve as a director of the Company.

The following table sets forth information regarding the nominees for Class I Directors as well as the Class II and Class III Directors.

12

13

14

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MATTERS

The Board has determined that all directors, except Mr. Bielli, are “independent” under the listing standards of the NYSE and the Company’s categorical criteria used to determine whether a director is independent (the “Independence Standards”). The Independence Standards are set forth in Attachment A to the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Corporate Governance Guidelines”), and a copy of the Independence Standards is attached as Appendix A to this Proxy Statement. Thus, the Board determined that the following directors are independent: Robert A. Alter, Steven A. Betts, Anthony L. Leggio, Norman J. Metcalfe, Geoffrey L. Stack, Daniel R. Tisch, Frederick C. Tuomi, and Michael H. Winer. In addition, the Board also determined that John L. Goolsby, who served as a director through May 2017, was independent during the time he served as a director. Also, in making its independence determinations, the Board reviewed additional information provided by the directors and the Company with regard to any business or personal activities or associations as they may relate to the Company and the Company’s management. The Board considered this information in the context of the NYSE’s objective listing standards, the Independence Standards, and for directors serving on committees, the additional standards established for members of audit committees and compensation committees. In reaching a determination on these directors’ independence, the Board considered that neither the directors nor their immediate family members have within the past three years had any direct or indirect business or professional relationships with the Company other than in their capacity as directors.

The Board’s independence determinations included a review of business dealings at companies where the directors serve as directors or outside consultants, all of which were ordinary course business transactions. The Board also performs a review of the Company’s charitable contributions to any organization where a director serves as an executive officer and found no contributions in excess of the Independence Standards.

The independent directors of the Board meet regularly in executive sessions outside the presence of management. As Chairman of the Board, Mr. Metcalfe presides over these executive sessions.

During 2017, there were five meetings of the Board. During 2017, all directors attended 75% or more of the aggregate total of such meetings of the Board and committees of the Board on which they served.

The Company’s policy is that all directors are expected to attend every annual stockholders meeting in person. All directors attended the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Company.

15

COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD

Standing committees of the Board include the Executive, Audit, Compensation, Investment Policy, Real Estate, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. The current members of the standing committees are set forth below:

Committee Chair		Committee Member

During 2017, there were no meetings of the Executive Committee, five of the Audit Committee, four of the Compensation Committee, three meetings of the Real Estate Committee, two meetings of the Nominating and Governance Committee, and no meetings of the Investment Policy Committee. The major functions of each of these committees, including their role in oversight of risks that could affect the Company, are described briefly below.

Each year, the Board performs a self-evaluation to assess its effectiveness and the participation of each board member, in addition, on an annual basis, the Audit Committee, Real Estate Committee, Compensation Committee, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee all perform self-evaluations to measure their effectiveness.

The Executive Committee

Except for certain powers that, under Delaware law, may be exercised only by the full Board, or which, under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or the NYSE, may only be exercised by committees composed solely of independent directors, the Executive Committee may exercise all powers and authority of the Board in the management of the business and affairs of the Company.

The Audit Committee

The Audit Committee represents and assists the Board in fulfilling the Board’s oversight responsibility relating to (i) the accounting, reporting, and financial practices of the Company and its subsidiaries, including the integrity of the Company’s financial statements; (ii) the surveillance of administration and financial controls and the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; (iii) the independent auditor’s qualifications and independence; and (iv) the performance of the Company’s internal audit function and the Company’s independent auditor. In addition, the Audit Committee is directly responsible for the retention, compensation and oversight of the independent auditor and approves all audit and non-audit services the independent auditor performs. It also reviews and discusses the Company’s policies with respect to risk assessment and risk management. The Audit Committee reports regularly to the full Board with respect to its activities. The Audit

16

Committee is governed by a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. The Audit Committee’s current charter is available on the Company’s web-site, www.tejonranch.com, in the Corporate Governance section of the Investor Relations webpage, and is available in print form upon request to the Corporate Secretary, P.O. Box 1000, Tejon Ranch, California 93243.

The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is independent under the listing standards of the NYSE and under the Company’s Independence Standards, and that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate and meets the requirements for audit committee membership set forth in Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act. The Board has further found that Mr. Leggio qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” for the purposes of Item 407(d) (5) of Regulation S-K, and has “accounting or related financial management expertise” as described in the listing standards of the NYSE.

The Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee oversees the Company’s overall compensation structure, policies, and programs, and it assesses whether the Company’s compensation structure establishes appropriate incentives for management and employees. It also reviews and approves corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of top managerial and executive officers, evaluates their performance in light of those goals and objectives, and makes recommendations regarding their compensation. It administers and makes recommendations to the Board with respect to the Company’s incentive compensation and equity-based compensation plans and grants of awards thereunder. It also reviews and recommends to the Board the design of other benefit plans, employment agreements, and severance arrangements for top managerial and executive officers. The Compensation Committee oversees the assessment of the risks related to the Company’s compensation policies and programs applicable to officers and employees, reviews the results of this assessment, and also assesses the results of the Company’s most recent advisory vote on executive compensation. It approves, amends, or modifies the terms of any compensation or benefit plan that does not require stockholder approval, if delegated to the Committee by the Board. It reviews and recommends changes for the compensation of directors, and it reviews succession plans relating to positions held by senior executive officers. It reports regularly to the Board with respect to its activities.

The Compensation Committee is governed by a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. The Compensation Committee’s current charter is available on the Company’s web-site, www.tejonranch.com, in the Corporate Governance section of the Investor Relations webpage, and is available in print form upon request to the Corporate Secretary, P.O. Box 1000, Tejon Ranch, California 93243. The Compensation Committee is authorized to delegate to a subcommittee consisting of not less than two members of the Compensation Committee the responsibility to review specific issues, meet with management on behalf of the committee regarding such issues, and prepare recommendations for reports or review by the Committee. The Board has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee is independent under the listing standards of the NYSE for directors and compensation committee members and under the Company’s Independence Standards.

The CEO does not participate in the Compensation Committee’s deliberations with regard to his own compensation. At the Compensation Committee’s request, the CEO reviews with the Compensation Committee the performance of the other executive officers, but no other executive officers have any input in executive compensation decisions. The Compensation Committee gives substantial weight to the CEO’s evaluations and recommendations, because he is particularly able to assess the other executive officers’ performance and contributions to the Company.

During 2017, the Compensation Committee retained the POE Group to advise the Committee on marketplace trends in executive compensation, analyze companies for peer company identification for the benchmarking of NEO compensation and NEO compensation decisions. POE consults with the Compensation Committee about its recommendations to the Board on Chief Executive Officer and other NEOs compensation. The decision to engage an outside compensation consultant was not recommended by management. POE Group was used throughout 2017. POE Group did not provide any other services to the Company in 2017, and its fees

17

were $32,450 for the year. The Compensation Committee has reviewed an assessment of any potential conflicts of interest raised by POE Group’s work for the Compensation Committee, which assessment considered the following six factors: (i) the provision of other services to the Company by POE Group; (ii) the amount of fees received from the Company by POE Group, as a percentage of POE Group’s total revenue; (iii) the policies and procedures of POE Group that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationship of the POE Group consultant with a member of the Compensation Committee; (v) any Company stock owned by the POE Group consultants; and (vi) any business or personal relationship of the POE Group consultant or POE Group with any of the Company’s executive officers. The Committee concluded that there are no such conflicts of interest.

The Real Estate Committee

The Real Estate Committee provides oversight, guidance and strategic input into management plans and operations for development and entitlement of Company land, and it provides a review function to management regarding major decision points within the Company’s development projects. It reviews and either approves or recommends to the Board appropriate action on significant proposed real estate transactions and development pro formas and budgets. The Real Estate Committee also consults with the Company’s Chief Executive Officer with regard to recruitment and employment of senior real estate executives. It reports regularly to the full Board with respect to its meetings. The Real Estate Committee’s current charter is available on the Company’s web-site, www.tejonranch.com, in the Corporate Governance section of the Investor Relations webpage, and is available in print form upon request to the Corporate Secretary, P.O. Box 1000, Tejon Ranch, California 93243.

The Investment Policy Committee

The Investment Policy Committee reviews policies and activities related to the investment of the Company’s cash assets and works in coordination with the Real Estate Committee. It receives and reviews the marketable securities investment policy and data regarding marketable security investments and recommends approval of the Company’s investment security policy to the Board.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating Committee is charged with assessing existing directors to determine whether to recommend them for reelection to the Board, identifying and recruiting potential new directors, establishing a procedure for consideration of candidates for director positions recommended by stockholders, and recommending candidates to be nominated by the Board or elected by the Board as necessary to fill vacancies and newly created directorships. It also reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding the structure, composition, and functioning of the Board and its committees, and evaluates and recommends changes to the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Nominating Committee also annually reviews the independence of all directors and evaluates the Board’s performance.

The Board has determined that each member of the Nominating Committee is independent under the listing standards of the NYSE and under the Company’s Independence Standards. The Nominating Committee is governed by a written charter adopted and approved by the Board. The Nominating Committee’s current charter is available on the Company’s web-site, www.tejonranch.com, in the Corporate Governance section of the Investor Relations webpage, and is available in print form upon request to the Corporate Secretary, P.O. Box 1000, Tejon Ranch, California 93243.

The Nominating Committee is pleased to consider any properly submitted recommendations of director candidates from stockholders. Stockholders may recommend a candidate for consideration by the Nominating Committee by sending written notice addressed to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair, c/o Corporate Secretary, P.O. Box 1000, Tejon Ranch, California 93243. The Nominating Committee does not evaluate candidates differently based on who has made the recommendation. Stockholders may also nominate persons for election to the Board by providing timely notice in writing to the Secretary of the Company pursuant

18

to the procedures set forth in the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws. See “Stockholder Proposals for 2019 Annual Meeting” for additional information on the procedure for stockholder nominations.

The Nominating Committee has the authority under its charter to hire and pay a fee to outside counsel, experts, or other advisors to assist in the process of identifying and evaluating candidates. No such outside advisors were used during 2017, and, accordingly, no fees were paid to such advisors during 2017. Past practice has been for the Nominating Committee to seek recommendations for new directors from current directors, the Chief Executive Officer, and outside advisors.

CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

The Board has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which is applicable to all directors, officers, and employees. It also has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines to guide its own operations. Both documents (including Attachment A to the Corporate Governance Guidelines, which constitutes the Company’s Independence Standards) are available on the Company’s web-site, www.tejonranch.com, in the Corporate Governance section of the Investor Relations webpage, and are available in print form upon request to the Corporate Secretary, P.O. Box 1000, Tejon Ranch, California 93243.

SUCCESSION PLANNING

The Board, with the assistance of the Compensation Committee, oversees succession plans for the Chief Executive Officer and other senior executive officers. These plans relate both to succession in emergency situations and longer-term succession. As set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines and Compensation Committee Charter, the Compensation Committee reviews the Company’s succession planning for senior executive officers at least annually. The Chief Executive Officer also provides the Board with input regarding these matters.

BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT

The full Board oversees the Company’s risk management process. The Board oversees a Company-wide approach to risk management, designed to enhance stockholder value, support the achievement of strategic objectives, and improve long-term organizational performance. The full Board determines the appropriate level of risk for the Company generally, assesses the specific risks faced by the Company, and reviews the steps taken by management to manage those risks. The full Board’s involvement in setting the Company’s business strategy facilitates these assessments and reviews, culminating in the development of a strategic plan that reflects both the Board’s and management’s consensus as to appropriate levels of risk and the appropriate measures to manage those risks. The full Board assesses risk throughout the enterprise, focusing on risks arising out of various aspects of the Company’s strategic plan and the implementation of that plan, including financial, legal/compliance, operational/strategic, and compensation risks. In addition to discussing risk with the full Board, the independent directors discuss risk management during executive sessions without management present.

While the full Board maintains the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, its committees oversee risk in certain specified areas. In particular, the Audit Committee focuses on financial risk, including internal controls, and discusses the Company’s risk profile with the Company’s internal auditors. The Audit Committee also reviews potential violations of the Company’s Code of Ethics and related corporate policies. The Compensation Committee periodically reviews compensation practices and policies to determine whether they encourage excessive risk-taking. Finally, the Nominating Committee manages the independence of directors and evaluates potential new Board nominees. Pursuant to the Board’s instruction, management regularly reports on applicable risks to the relevant committee or the full Board, as appropriate, and additional review or reporting on risks is conducted as needed or as requested by the Board and its committees.

The Compensation Committee has also reviewed the design and operation of the Company’s compensation structures and policies as they pertain to risk and has determined that the Company’s compensation programs do not create or encourage the taking of risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

19

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) provides a detailed description of the objectives and principles of our executive compensation programs. It explains how compensation decisions are linked to performance as compared to Company performance and stockholder interests. The NEOs, for the 2017 fiscal year are as follows.

Executive Summary

Our executive compensation program aligns with our strong pay-for-performance philosophy and ties a substantial portion of executive compensation to the achievement of annual and long-term strategic objectives directly linked to the creation of stockholder value. The objectives of our executive compensation program are to (i) drive performance against critical strategic goals designed to create long-term stockholder value and (ii) pay our executives at a level and in a manner that ensures Tejon Ranch is capable of attracting, motivating, and retaining top executive talent. We design our compensation programs to support our commitment to performance. On average at target goal achievement, 75% or more of an NEO’s compensation will vary based on our company performance and the achievement of long-term real estate development performance milestones. Our real estate performance milestones are tied to a variety of factors such as planning and design, achievement of land entitlements, successful defense of litigation against our entitlements, development of projects, and finally sales and leasing within the projects.

Our primary business objective is to maximize long-term stockholder value through the monetization of our land-based assets. This is accomplished by moving our assets up the value creation chain through the entitlement process, the mapping process, development, and ultimately to sales and leasing. A key element of our strategy is to provide entitled land for large scale residential and mixed-use real state communities to serve the growing population of Southern and Central California. We are currently engaged in commercial sales and leasing at our fully operational commercial/industrial center Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, or TRCC, and are in the mapping

Variable Compensation Fixed 29.3% Variable 70.7% 23.4% 18.9% 9.5% 18.9% Annual Incentive Performance Milestone Grants Performance Grants—Operating Cash Time-Based Grants

20

process and entitlement process for our three major residential mixed-use master planned communities Centennial, Grapevine, and Mountain Village. All of these efforts are supported by diverse revenue streams generated from other operations, including farming, mineral resources, and our various joint ventures.

Currently our revenues are derived principally from commodity based businesses such as farming, and mineral resources including water sales, as well as commercial real estate. Our long-term business plan is for our commercial and residential real estate assets to produce the vast majority of our revenues. The time involved to develop real estate assets in California through the entitlement stage to development is a many year process. Therefore, the value of our company and ultimate realization of its asset value will not occur until future years.

The skill, knowledge, and experience required of our senior management in the early period of large scale residential and mixed-use real estate communities is significant. Only with highly talented executives managing early stage development, will our assets realize their potential and our stockholders realize the desired return on their investment.

The chart below is a continuum of the real estate development process highlighting each project’s current status and key milestones to be met in moving through the real estate development process in California. The real estate development process may be subject to delays arising from California’s complex regulatory structure and litigation environment.

Our long-term and short-term performance incentive plans are designed to reward the NEOs for success in moving projects forward along the above continuum. The progress is often measured based on milestone related goals rather than typical financial measures used by many companies. Success in achieving these performance objectives is critical to the creation of value within our land assets. Due to the long-term nature of the real estate development process in California the increase in value of land within our projects is not immediately recognized in stock market value largely due to the timing of revenue generation, which does not begin to occur until the execution phase of development operations.

Grapevine Create a Development Plan Prepare Environmental Impact Report Obtain Project Approval from County Board of Supervisors Detailed Maps / Engineering Level Designs for: Lot layouts Grading Amenities & Infrastructure, including Sewer & Water systems ENTITLEMENT STATE & FEDERAL PERMITS TRACTS / FINAL MAPS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS TRCC OPERATIONS Obtain Necessary Permits from: State Department of Fish and Wildlife Regional Water Quality Control Board US Army Corps of Engineers Obtain Permitting to Commence Construction Centennial Mountain Village

21

2017 Company Highlights

22

Company Performance 2017

Declines in total revenue and net income during 2017 led to EBITDA and total revenues, the annual corporate incentive bonus quantitative metrics, being below the target goal levels for 2017 and also below 2016 actuals. These metrics are discussed below under “Annual Performance-Based Incentives.” Revenue and operating profit goals for commercial/industrial real estate were also below the target goal level. The NEOs met the 2015 rolling three-year cash flow objectives at 118% of the target award level. The rolling three-year cash flow metric is described in the equity compensation section. The grants associated with the 2015 three-year cash flow metric were paid out during March 2018. The number of stock units that vested in 2018 is identified in the footnotes to the Outstanding Equity Awards at 2017 Fiscal Year-End table that begins on page 53.

23

Pay-for- Performance

Consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy, Company performance in 2017, as well as over the 2015-2017 period, directly impacted payouts for 2017, as follows:

Consideration of Say-on-Pay Results and Stockholder Feedback

At our 2017 Annual Meeting, our stockholders expressed support for our executive compensation program, with 60.5% of stockholders casting votes in favor of the advisory vote proposal. Stockholder engagement is an important process and our directors and management recognize the benefits that come from this dialogue. We engage with stockholders throughout the year in order to:

24

We provide stockholders and prospective stockholders with many opportunities to provide feedback to our Board and management through one-on-one meetings and telephone calls. Throughout the year we have met with investors representing over 40% of shares outstanding. The feedback we received related to our business plans and compensation programs are presented below.

2018 – The Year Ahead

The Company believes 2018 will be a challenging year in terms of the accomplishment of corporate objectives. The 2017-2018 winter weather has brought warmer temperatures than normal, which could possibly impact 2018 farm crop production and contribute to the challenges of accomplishing corporate revenue objectives. There is also the potential for a decline in farm crop prices, especially almonds and pistachios. A potential positive for 2018, is that we expect water sales to increase over 2017 as a result of below normal rain and snow levels within the state and many counties in the state, including Kern County have again been designated as being in a drought condition. Our successes may also come from the approval of the specific plan for our Centennial development, formal approval of a new Foreign Trade Zone designation for TRCC, and the leasing of buildings within TRCC.

General Objectives and Compensation Philosophy

The compensation program for our NEOs is designed to align management’s incentives with the long-term interests of our stockholders and to be competitive with comparable employers. Our compensation philosophy recognizes the value of rewarding our NEOs for their past performance and motivating them to continue to excel in the future. The Compensation Committee has developed and maintains a compensation program that rewards superior performance and seeks to encourage actions that drive our business strategy. Our compensation strategy is to provide a competitive opportunity for senior executives, taking into account their total compensation packages, which include a combination of base salary, an annual cash-based incentive bonus, and long-term performance-based and time-based equity awards. At the NEO level, a significate portion of our incentive compensation arrangements are designed to reward the achievement of long-term milestone objectives related to real estate development that are measurable and instrumental to our success. This will drive the creation of value, as well as the achievement of year-to-year operating performance goals.

Overall Compensation Plan Design and Core Tenets

The compensation policies developed by the Compensation Committee are based on the philosophy that compensation should reflect both financial and operational performance of the Company, the success of the

25

Company in achieving real estate development milestones, and the individual performance of each executive. The Compensation Committee also believes that long-term incentives should be a significant factor in determining compensation, particularly because the business of real estate development, including obtaining complex entitlement approvals, managing the litigation process, completing development, and many of the other actions and decisions of our NEOs requires an extended time horizon before the Company realizes a tangible financial benefit. The following core tenets inform the design of our compensation plan.

The principles of our pay philosophy influence the design and administration of our executive compensation programs. The Compensation Committee uses several components of pay that are linked to both our long-term and short-term performance in the executive compensation programs, including long-term incentives, annual cash incentives, base pay, and benefits. The chart below illustrates the linkage between the vehicles of pay we use and our pay principles.

26

Our Executive Compensation Best Practices

The Role of the Compensation Committee in Setting Compensation

The Compensation Committee of the Board approves all compensation and awards to senior management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the other NEOs. The Compensation Committee independently reviews and establishes the compensation levels of the Chief Executive Officer; it also reviews the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and discusses his performance with him. At the beginning of the year, the Chief Executive Officer works with the Compensation Committee to establish his goals and objectives to be evaluated throughout the year. For the remaining executive officers, the Chief Executive Officer makes recommendations as to compensation levels, including grants of equity awards, for final approval by the Compensation Committee.

The Role of the Compensation Consultant

In accordance with its Charter, the Compensation Committee has the sole authority to retain and terminate independent consultants on matters of executive compensation and benefits, including sole authority to approve the consultant’s fees and other retention terms. The Compensation Committee also has the authority to obtain advice and assistance for internal and external legal, accounting, or other advisors. The Compensation Committee utilizes the POE Group, Inc. as its compensation consultant. The POE Group reports directly to the Compensation Committee. The POE Group was not engaged to perform any additional services beyond its support of the Compensation Committee.

27

In reviewing conflicts of interest, our Compensation Committee considered the following six factors with respect to the POE Group:

Upon consideration of these factors, our Compensation Committee concluded that the engagement of the POE Group did not present any conflicts of interest.

In connection with its engagement by the Compensation Committee, the POE Group has:

The POE Group has worked with compensation committees and senior management teams in real estate development companies for over fifteen years.

Compensation Risk Assessment

As part of its risk assessment process, the Compensation Committee reviewed material elements of executive and non-executive employee compensation. The Compensation Committee concluded these policies and practices do not create risk that is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The structure of our compensation program for NEOs does not incentivize unnecessary or excessive risk-taking. The base salary component of compensation does not encourage risk taking because it is a fixed amount. The incentive plan awards have the following risk limiting characteristics:

28

2017 Executive Compensation Plan Developments

Our annual incentive compensation plan (“AICP”) has four primary performance measures:

The specific weight attached to each performance measure is dependent on each NEO’s responsibilities. Corporate goals have a greater weight than divisional goals for all positions, which encourages mutual accountability among the executive team.

Our long-term incentive plan (“LTIP”) consists of three equity delivery vehicles:

29

The Compensation Committee believes that long-term performance award design reflects the value creation process inherent in large-scale land development by first identifying projects, securing complex entitlements, managing litigation, mapping projects, and then developing the projects to maximize financial returns. Please refer to earlier graphic describing the land entitlement and development process within California.

Pay Mix Analysis

The target mix of total direct compensation elements for our NEOs, as a percentage of total compensation, is set forth in the table below. The first set of exhibits illustrates the three-year direct compensation target selected by the Compensation Committee. We show a three-year period to account for the granting of project milestone equity performance grants that occurs once every three years. A project milestone grant was most recently made in March 2017. For comparison purposes, the second set of exhibits shows the 2015 – 2017 actual direct compensation granted pay mix. The actual to target direct comparison shows that we are in line with the three-year target and that the CEO’s long-term equity portion has increased as a percentage of his total direct compensation. This increase in the CEO’s long-term equity compensation is consistent with the intent of the Compensation Committee to have a greater percentage of pay tied to equity performance milestones.

CEO PAY MIX 3-YR TARGET Long-Term Equity, 50% Salary, 25% Variable Cash, 25% OTHER NEO PAY MIX 3-YR TARGET Long-Term Equity, 45% Salary, 33% Variable Cash, 22%

30

In comparison to the above three-year target pay mix the actual granted pay mix is shown in the chart and table below:

Realized vs. Summary Compensation Table Pay

The Summary Compensation Table (“SCT”) summarizes executive pay but does not account for the final payout of performance shares, if any, or the impact of changes to stock price on the value of restricted stock. Since the majority of awards under the Company’s LTIP do not fully vest until after three years, it can be difficult to assess the link between pay and performance by reviewing the SCT alone. For this reason, we also consider realized pay. Realized pay demonstrates the actual impact on executive pay of changes in our share price during the performance period, as well as the payout of performance shares. Shares of restricted stock that vest during the applicable time period are valued at the date of vesting, and performance shares, if any, are valued at the date of payout.

CEO PAY MIX 3-YR ACTUAL Long-Term Equity, 58% Salary, 21% Variable Cash, 21% OTHER NEO PAY MIX 3-YR ACTUAL Long-Term Equity, 52% Salary, 31% Variable Cash, 17%

31

Realized vs. Summary Compensation Table Pay for the CEO: 2015 through 2017

The graph below illustrates three-year average SCT (“SCT Pay”) total compensation compared to three-year average realized total compensation for our CEO for the 2015-2017 period. The graph illustrates no differences between the comparisons for salary, cash incentives, or other annual compensation. However, the difference between long-term compensation values is significant, and the amount realized from the vesting of shares is considerably less than the value of equity grants reported in the SCT.

3-year CEO Average SCT Pay vs. Realized $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $23,328 $1,642,740 $587,862 $584,722 -21% $23,328 [VALUE] $587,862 $584,722 3-Year Total SCT Pay 3-Year Total Realized Pay Salary Value of Shares Vested Cash Incentives Paid All Other Compensation Value of Equity Granted

32

Realized vs. Summary Compensation Table Pay for NEOs (other than the CEO): 2015 through 2017

Average NEO realized compensation over the three-year period ended December 31, 2017 was significantly lower than SCT Pay over the same period. Again, the difference between long-term compensation values is significant, and the amount realized from the vesting of shares is considerably less than the value of equity grants reported in the SCT.

3-year Average NEO SCT Pay vs. Realized $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 $129,404 $399,044 $186,470 $251,410 -20% $129,404 $205,599 $186,470 $251,410 3-Year Average SCT Pay 3-Year Average Realized Pay Salary Value of Shares Vested Cash Incentives Paid All Other Compensation Value of Equity Granted

33

CEO Compensation vs. TSR: 2012 through 2017

The chart below compares the five-year change in CEO SCT pay and the change in value of $100 invested in the Company (indexed total stock return, or TSR). CEO compensation has increased over the period, while the change in value of the $100 investment has decreased over the period. CEO compensation in 2014 and 2017 was higher than in other years due to three-year performance milestone grants being awarded during those years, and 2016 compensation increased as a result of supplemental performance milestone award grants that have measurement periods at the end of 2017 and 2019. The 2014 and 2017 milestone grants, which comprised a significant portion of long-term compensation, represented long-term pay opportunity for 2014 – 2016 and 2017 – 2019.

CEO Total Compensation $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 Indexed TSR CEO Total Compensation Indexed TSR Linear (CEO Total Compensation) Linear (Indexed TSR)

34

CEO Realized Pay vs. TSR: 2012 through 2017

The Compensation Committee continues to emphasize our pay-for-performance philosophy, and considers the relationship between realized pay and TSR. The decline in value realized by our CEO demonstrates the strong link between pay actually delivered and stockholder returns. The chart below compares the five-year change in our CEO’s realized compensation and the change in value of $100 invested in the Company (indexed total stock return, or TSR). While the change in value of the $100 investment decreased over the period, CEO realized compensation also decreased, demonstrating strong alignment between TSR and CEO pay actually realized.

Note: Pay values in 2012 and 2013 are for our previous CEO, Robert Stine. Pay value for 2014-2017 are for our current CEO, Gregory Bielli.

Market Comparison Review – 2017 Peer Group

Although the Compensation Committee does not believe that it is appropriate to establish compensation levels based solely on market comparisons or industry practices, the Committee believes that information regarding pay practices at other companies is useful in three respects. First, marketplace information is one of the many factors that the Compensation Committee considers in assessing the reasonableness of compensation. Second, it recognizes that our compensation practices must be generally competitive for executive talent in the real estate, land development, and agriculture industries and the market overall. Third, it recognizes that marketplace information reflects emerging and changing components and forms of compensation. While the Compensation Committee considers peer compensation levels and practices when making its compensation decisions, it does not target compensation at any particular point within a range established by a comparison of the financial performance or compensation levels of our peer companies.

In 2016, the Compensation Committee, with guidance from our independent compensation consultant, the POE Group, reviewed companies for inclusion in our 2017 peer group. The goal was to identify companies that are engaged in real estate development activities and are appropriate for comparison purposes based on revenues and market capitalization. The Compensation Committee compared NEOs’ total compensation against the peer group when evaluating 2017 compensation. In comparison to the peer group, TRC CEO pay is at the top of the rankings as a result of 2017 performance milestone grants as described in the Equity Compensation section beginning on page 44. The performance milestone grants at TRC differ from peers because the business model causes the need to incent executives long-term to identify projects, secure entitlements, permit, map approvals,

CEO Realized Pay $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 Indexed TSR CEO Realized Pay Indexed TSR Linear ( CEO Realized Pay) Linear (Indexed TSR)

35

and project implementation of real estate holdings. Long-term payouts, once achieved, sometimes lead to a perceived misalignment between pay and performance because the actual benefits are not seen until years after. This differs from other real estate companies that are able to have a much quicker turn around in profit.

Note in the table below that TRC’s revenue is below the majority of the peer group, but market capitalization is at the peer group median. The Compensation Committee believes that market capitalization is a more appropriate criterion for comparison to peer companies, considering that our primary assets are under development and are not yet producing their projected revenues. The peer companies have monetized their majority of their real estate assets and are comparatively producing greater revenues as a percentage of market capitalization.

The 2017 peer group data is shown below. The related comparison statistics are based on 2016 financial data which was relied on by the Compensation Committee in approving the 2017 peer group.

Peer Company Data Comparison

36

Elements of Compensation

The Compensation Committee seeks to create a compensation plan that is balanced in its use of short-term and long-term compensation elements in order to align management’s incentives with the long-term interests of our stockholders. In developing the compensation plan, the Compensation Committee seeks to be aware of changing economic and industry conditions, as well as changing compensation trends. To achieve these objectives, the plan uses a variety of compensation elements as described below.

Base Salaries

When establishing base salaries, the Compensation Committee takes into account each NEO’s performance of his role and responsibilities and, to the extent useful, the range of compensation of comparable executives in our peer group. The Compensation Committee believes that compensation objectives are effectively met when a majority of an executive’s compensation is composed of performance-based bonuses and long-term incentive compensation, rather than fixed compensation such as base salaries. We believe that having the overall compensation emphasis on long-term equity incentives instead of short-term fixed compensation better aligns management with stockholders.

37

The Compensation Committee approved the following 2016 and 2017 base salaries for our NEOs.

The Compensation Committee determined at the end of 2016 to provide Mr. Bielli with an increase in base salary for 2017. The Compensation Committee approved the increase in light of the following considerations: a comparison of CEO salaries in the peer group, recognition of Mr. Bielli’s leadership and contribution to our long-term goals related to land entitlement and master planned community development, the general experience of the Compensation Committee’s members in our industry, the Company’s current stage within the land development process, the current economic environment, the status of the current real estate industry and market, and how these factors impact current compensation levels.

When granting the salary increases for 2017 for the other NEOs, the Compensation Committee, along with the Chief Executive Officer, performed an annual review of each of the other NEOs’ salaries and evaluated changes to base salary. This review considered several factors, including peer group information, the market for similar job functions, the economic environment, and the general experience of the Compensation Committee members.

In December 2017, the Compensation Committee determined that for 2018, our Chief Executive Officer’s salary would remain at $625,000 and the base salaries of the other NEOs would be increased by 0% to 3% for 2018. The exception being Mr. Lyda who received at 5.1% increase due to the addition of new job responsibilities. In determining the 2018 salary levels, the Compensation Committee evaluated overall Company performance, peer group information, base salary compensation in relation to total compensation, and information from the POE Group, our compensation consultant.

Annual Performance-Based Incentive

Tejon’s practice is to award annual incentive bonuses based upon the achievement of performance objectives established at the beginning of each year. At least 50% of the annual incentive bonus for each NEO is based upon adjusted total company revenues and adjusted EBITDA. At least 20% to 30% of the annual incentive bonus for each NEO is tied to corporate short-term objectives that are defined and measurable. The remaining 20% to 30% of the annual incentive is tied to divisional revenues and earnings and identified individual objectives that the Compensation Committee believes are important for the particular NEO to focus on in the context of achieving the Company’s short-term goals and generating revenue and EBITDA. Annual incentive bonuses are paid in cash.

The attainment of each year’s quantitative financial goals for each of the NEOs is uncertain and is dependent upon factors such as real estate sales and leasing programs, the timing of entitlement activities for our developments, and the uncertainty inherent in our farming and mineral operations due to the commodity nature of the products we produce and the fact that we do not know the ultimate price we will receive for our products each year. The achievement of individual objectives tied to land entitlement, development, and conservation efforts is highly dependent on working with groups outside of the Company, such as government agencies, local county planning departments, and environmental resource groups, all of which make the timing of achieving specific steps in the process very complicated. Accordingly, goal achievement under the annual bonus plan is not guaranteed.

38

The following chart provides the performance level weightings for the Chief Executive Officer and the other NEOs.

Generally, the Chief Executive Officer’s individual objectives are tied to land entitlement, public outreach in support of entitlement, and development and conservation goals as well as operational, strategic planning, and staffing objectives. The individual objectives for the other NEOs are generally related to land entitlement, development, and operational goals that support the achievement of corporate entitlement and development goals. The Compensation Committee, after taking into account the Chief Executive Officer’s recommendations, sets the specific weighting for the individual objectives of each NEO at 15% to 20% of the total annual bonus opportunity. This judgment is based on the relative importance of a specific objective in moving the Company forward in achieving its long-term goals and objectives, and also each NEO’s direct role in achieving such objective.

The annual incentive plan is structured and bonus levels are determined based upon the level of achievement of threshold, target, and maximum performance of quantitative and qualitative objectives. If achievement of a performance objective is below threshold, no incentive bonus is earned for that objective, and if achievement is greater than maximum, the maximum bonus level is earned. The Chief Executive Officer and the other NEOs have different cash incentive opportunity levels (expressed as a percentage of base salary) for achievement at the threshold, target, and maximum levels. These percentage levels are in line with information provided by the POE Group, a compensation consulting group reporting to the Compensation Committee.

39

The target percentage levels are outlined below.

Quantitative Financial Goal – Corporate

Because the achievement of entitlements and the beginning of development for our real estate projects is a very important long-term goal, and because Tejon does not generate significant revenue at this time, its short-term objectives, both quantitative and qualitative, are tied to metrics that are critical for the accomplishment of long-term goals. For our annual incentive, two corporate budgeted financial goals are considered: adjusted EBITDA and adjusted total corporate revenue. Total adjusted corporate revenue includes revenue from operations, gross sales of investment property, other income, and equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures. Our definition of adjusted EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and non-cash stock compensation. We believe this is a more accurate measurement of the cash used in the operations of the Company. Adjusted EBITDA is being used with adjusted total revenue because at this stage in the Company’s business, adjusted EBITDA provides a better indicator of management’s creation of operating cash, which is critical to the funding of our entitlement and development efforts, since the Company has significant non-cash expenses each year. The following table outlines adjusted EBITDA and adjusted total revenue results for 2017. Adjusted EBITDA for compensation purposes includes only company specific operations and not the add back of our share of unconsolidated joint venture depreciation, amortization and interest expense. Therefore, this number does not agree to the numbers shown in the 2017 Annual Report and Form 10-K, Non-GAAP measures.

These performance measurement numbers are determined based on calculations within the Company’s 2017 business plan and operating budget. The Compensation Committee uses data from each year’s annual budget because it is a reflection of what the Company believes will happen in the coming year based on an analysis of the commodity markets we operate in, anticipated weather patterns that impact our agricultural operations, and sales/leasing activity within TRCC. Our operating budgets we believe are a better predictor of each year’s revenue creation compared to prior year actual numbers, because our forecasting process attempts to pick up trends in the commodity markets we operate in that may not be reflected in the prior year actual numbers.

40

Using prior year numbers as a target level for comparison to the next year can unfairly benefit or hurt plan participants due to the nature of commodity markets. As you see above the target goal numbers and the 2017 actual numbers are not significantly different. The budgeted target goal for 2017 is less than the prior year actuals due largely to the sale in 2016 of investment real estate that resulted in the receipt of $4,700,000 in proceeds. The 2017 actual results are significantly below target goal numbers and prior year numbers due to the unfavorable variances described earlier in this section on page 23. The tables below reflect actual achievement shown in the format used by the Company internally to measure NEOs performance compared to the approved 2017 operating budget.

Quantitative Financial Goal – Division

The following are the division financial results for the Executive Vice President, Real Estate.

In the setting of quantitative division goals each year, we develop target goals through our annual budgeting process. We believe these are realistically attainable goals and that maximum achievement levels will be difficult to attain without significant effort and development of new business opportunities. As an example, the 2017 commercial real estate budget included a forecasted lot sale within TRCC that was not achieved, which was the primary factor in the unfavorable variance when comparing actual revenue and net income goals to target.

Short-Term Objectives – Corporate

Annual short-term milestone corporate objectives are generally those items identified each year that are critical to successfully moving forward the Company’s long-term objectives related to land entitlement and development within our four development projects.

41

For 2017 the short-term objectives were as follows:

Individual Performance Objectives

In addition to the quantitative goals described above, the Chief Executive Officer’s annual incentive bonus in 2017 was based upon the achievement of individual performance objectives proposed by the Chief Executive Officer and agreed upon and approved by the Compensation Committee. These objectives are tied to business development and organizational goals that move the Company forward in achieving its long-term objectives, including the achievement of strategic milestones related to land development and entitlement efforts that the Compensation Committee and the Board believe to be critical to the achievement of the Company’s long-term business plan. Individual goals for 2017 specifically related to leading and directing a ranch-wide strategy to facilitate future successful entitlement of our development projects, overseeing an outreach strategy to build support for our entitlement programs in Los Angeles County and Kern County, obtaining tentative tract map approval in Kern County for the Mountain Village master planned community, completion of an equity offering, overseeing succession plans for key departments, and overseeing a cost control program that included a rightsizing initiative. Based on a successful rights offering, completion of the response phase of the environmental impact report for the Centennial project, and a reduction in operating costs for the year, the Compensation Committee determined that the Chief Executive Officer individual performance was at a level above target achievement but below maximum achievement.

The other NEOs have more diverse individual performance goals than the Chief Executive Officer. These goals are generally tied to individual areas of responsibility, which focus on both short-term and long-term goals (including improving operational efficiencies and achieving short-term milestones and other goals with respect to the Company’s long-term business strategy related to land entitlement, development, and conservation). Generally, the qualitative goals covered:

42

The Chief Executive Officer and the Compensation Committee evaluate the success of the NEOs (other than the Chief Executive Officer) in meeting their individual performance objectives, with final approval provided by the Compensation Committee. The Chief Executive Officer and the Compensation Committee note whether each objective was accomplished in the time frame designated and if the outcome achieved was as specified in the original objective.

43

2017 Performance Achievement

The following chart provides a breakdown of 2017 annual incentive award measurement by performance measurement category and the total 2017 incentive award as a percentage of salary. Final award measurement for the NEOs reflect actual results. The award measurement percentage for each NEO for each category varies this year from zero to a number between threshold and maximum achievement.

Equity Compensation

The Compensation Committee believes that the long-term value of the Company will be driven by the execution of its long-term strategies. Accordingly, Tejon uses long-term equity incentives to align senior management’s interests with stockholders’ interests. The Compensation Committee believes that management should own stock and that teamwork among the management group is important in meeting business goals.

44

Therefore, long-term milestone incentives are goal-based, with common performance measures for all participants to encourage teamwork.

At the end of 2016, the Board of the Company, on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, approved the 2017-2019 performance milestone measurement objectives that will be used to measure the vesting of performance milestone grants. The objectives are:

Shares were granted in March 2017 with a target vesting date of December 2019. Maximum award achievement is 150% of target and occurs if performance objectives are achieved ten months prior to target date. Threshold award achievement is 50% of target and occurs if objectives are achieved no more than ten months after the target vesting date. The following table identifies the target value and target shares granted:

45

When granting three-year cash flow performance shares, the Company’s practice is to determine annually a dollar amount of equity compensation to be provided, and to grant a number of performance shares that have a fair market value equal to that amount on the date of grant. Vesting of these annual grants is tied to the achievement of a rolling three-year cash metric. The rolling three-year cash metric is budgeted cash provided from operations. For 2017, the dollar amount attributed to performance shares for the Chief Executive Officer was $500,000, and for the other NEOs it ranged from $100,000 to $184,000, depending on the importance of each NEO’s input to the successful achievement of the goal. The level of the target dollar amount for each NEO is based on a report from the POE Group that recommended long-term compensation goals for each position. The shares granted are expensed based on the closing price of the stock on grant date.

The annual performance shares are tied to the achievement of the rolling three-year cash flow metric, described above. This performance metric was selected by the Compensation Committee as a measurement of management’s ability to create operating cash over an extended period at a time when cash demands will be high and net income will not be significant. For 2017, this cash flow measure covers the years 2017 through 2019 and has a cumulative cash from operations target of $28,251,000. The Company believes that achievement of this target level of performance will require significant effort and is dependent on the continued absorption of land at Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, improvement in oil and mineral revenues, maintenance of farm revenues at current levels, sales of water, and progress with respect to pre-development activities at Mountain Village and entitlement activities at Centennial and Grapevine. Please refer to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 for additional information regarding entitlement and development activities. This target assumes we are moving forward in a positive manner with respect to our development projects. These grants vest after three years. The number of shares to be received is determined by the extent of performance achievement and can range from zero shares to the maximum award amount, which is 150% of the target award.

For the 2015 – 2017 period, the goal for cumulative cash from operations was $32,292,000. For the 2015 – 2017 period, goal achievement was 118% of the target objective, with actual cash from operations at $38,197,000. These grants, which are referenced in footnote 2 to the Outstanding Equity Awards at 2017 Fiscal Year-End table that begins on page 53, vested and were delivered in early March after approval by the Compensation Committee.

Actual shares earned in respect of 2015-2017 three-year cash flow performance shares are as follows:

See the 2017 Grants of Plan Based Awards Table on page 52 for the number of shares granted to each NEO for the 2017-2019 rolling three-year period. The table below summarizes the outstanding (as of the end of 2017) cash flow performance share measurement goals.

46

During 2017, the Compensation Committee granted time-vested restricted stock to the NEOs. This element is seen as a balance to the strong performance orientation of both the LTIP and the annual incentive program, with the objective of retaining our executive team. The dollar value attributed to these shares is one-half the annual performance share grant. For 2017, the dollar amount for the Chief Executive Officer was $250,000, and for the other NEOs it ranged from $50,000 to $92,000.

CEO Supplemental Long-Term Performance Stock Grant

As discussed in further detail in last year’s proxy statement, the Board of Directors approved a supplemental performance stock grant in 2016. Potential awards are based on the achievement of specific performance goals with measurement periods of two years and four years. This supplemental incentive opportunity was provided outside our standard compensation plans and therefore does not recur regularly. The purpose of the supplemental grant was to increase our CEO’s stock ownership opportunity, by achieving performance results, and encourage his retention with the Company.

There are two award opportunities in the grant; the first vested in 2017 and the second potentially vests in 2019. Each opportunity has quantifiable performance metrics associated with our business plans and relative TSR compared to our peer group.

The first opportunity, which partially vested and was settled in 2017, was eligible to vest based on two components. The first component was increasing the revenue of Tejon Ranch Commerce Center East. The performance incentive was paid out at maximum due to a 96.6% increase in revenue from the properties. The second performance component was the Company’s TSR compared to the peer group during the two-year period. This part of the 2017 supplemental grant was not earned as the Company’s TSR was below the 51^st percentile of the peer group, which was the performance threshold.

Benefits and Perquisites

Retirement Plans

The Compensation Committee believes that retirement programs are important to the Company, as they contribute to the Company’s ability to be competitive with its peers. For many of our employees, including the Chief Financial Officer, and one of our Executive Vice Presidents of Real Estate Tejon provides a pension plan and a 401(k) plan. In addition, the Company provides the Chief Financial Officer a supplemental executive retirement plan, or SERP. Based on their hiring dates, the Chief Executive Officer, an Executive Vice President of Real Estate, and our Senior Vice President and General Counsel are not included in the pension plan or SERP, which were frozen for entrance as of February 1, 2007, but are included in the 401(k) plan. During 2017, both the pension plan and SERP were frozen as to the accrual of future benefits.

The NEOs may elect to defer cash- and equity-based compensation payable to them pursuant to the Company’s deferred compensation plan. This plan is designed to allow for retirement savings above the limits imposed by the IRS for 401(k) plans on an income tax-deferred basis. Cash amounts deferred into the plan are held in accounts with values indexed to the performance of selected mutual funds. Stock awards deferred into the plan can be converted to cash or kept in the Company’s stock. All participants to date have only deferred stock awards and have maintained stock in the plan. The Company does not provide a match on executive deferrals under the deferred compensation plan.

Change in Control Benefits

The Compensation Committee believes that stockholders’ interests will be best served if the interests of executive management are aligned with them, and that providing management with change in control benefits supports that objective by focusing executives on stockholder interests when considering strategic alternatives.

47

Except for accelerated vesting of equity awards, available to all NEOs, pursuant to our equity compensation plan, change in control benefits, as provided in a severance agreement with selected NEOs, are only provided upon a termination of employment without cause or a resignation for good reason in connection with a change in control. Please refer to the Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control table on page 57 of this Proxy Statement for a more detailed description and an estimate of value of these benefits. None of the agreements with our NEOs or other compensation plans or arrangements provide for a gross-up payment or reimbursement for excise taxes that could be imposed on the executives.

In addition to the foregoing change in control severance benefits, the NEOs who participate in the pension plan and SERP will also continue to be entitled to benefits under any existing pension plan and SERP as determined in accordance with the terms of those plans.

Separation or Severance Benefits

In some circumstances, the Compensation Committee believes it is in the Company’s best interest to provide a severance benefit in order to provide a smooth transition period for the Company when an executive leaves, even if the Company does not have a contractual obligation to provide a separation package. Separation benefits in the form of salary continuation and health benefits may be provided to departing executives on a case-by-case basis. These benefits have historically endured for approximately one year.

Unless the Compensation Committee determines otherwise, if an NEO’s employment with the Company is terminated for any reason, including death or disability, prior to vesting of all or any part of a restricted stock award or performance unit award, the NEO will forfeit to the Company the portion of the award that has not vested.

Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits

The Compensation Committee reviews annually the perquisites that NEOs receive. The primary benefits for the NEOs are Company vehicles and related maintenance. In addition, the Chief Executive Officer receives additional life insurance in excess of the insurance that is part of the Company’s broad-based life insurance policy. This additional insurance supplement is necessary to provide the same three-time salary benefit that other employees receive. These benefits are provided to attract and retain highly qualified executives, and because executives often place a higher value on these benefits relative to cost to the Company as compared to increases in cash compensation. In addition, the automobile benefit is provided to executives as well as other Company employees because the Company’s location and the size of the Company’s property necessitate extensive car travel.

Senior management also participates in the Company’s other benefit plans on the same terms as other employees. These plans include medical, dental, and life insurance.

Other Compensation Practices and Policies

Clawback Policy

The Company has a policy requiring a fixed course of action with respect to compensation adjustments following restatements of our financial statements. In the event that our Board determines there has been a restatement due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, the Board will review all incentive payments that were made to executive officers and all performance-based equity awards granted to executive officers that were vested in each case, on the basis of having met or exceeded such performance targets in grants or awards made during the three full fiscal years prior to the filing of the Current Report on Form 8-K announcing the restatement.

48

If such payments and/or vesting would have been lower had they been calculated based on such restated results, the Board will, to the extent permitted by governing law, seek to recoup for the benefit of the Company’s stockholders such payments to and/or equity awards held by executive officers who are found personally responsible for the material restatement, as determined by the Board, by requiring such executive officers to pay such amounts to the Company by set-off, by reducing future compensation, or by such other means or combination of means as the Board determines to be appropriate.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

The Company’s stock retention guidelines are as follows:

All NEOs are expected to make reasonably steady progress toward these ownership guidelines each year. The Chief Executive Officer has through 2018 to meet the guidelines, the Executive Vice Presidents of Real Estate have until 2020, and the Senior Vice President General Counsel has through 2021 to reach their guidelines, based on their participation dates in 2015 and 2016. The Chief Financial Officer has met the stock ownership guidelines. The Compensation Committee reviews such progress annually. Since these guidelines are not a contractual basis for remaining in the employment of the Company, the success or lack of success in meeting the guidelines will be evaluated by the Compensation Committee and reflected in each NEO’s annual review for that year.

Securities Trading Policy

The Company has a policy that prohibits executive officers and directors from trading in Company stock while in the possession of nonpublic information. Executive officers and directors are also prohibited from trading in options, puts, calls, or other derivative instruments related to the Company’s stock. They are also prohibited from purchasing stock on margin, borrowing against the Company’s stock held in a margin account, or pledging stock as collateral for a loan.

Tax Considerations

For 2017 and prior years, Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a $1 million limit on the deductibility of compensation paid to certain executive officers of public companies, unless the compensation meets certain requirements for “performance-based” compensation. Changes to the tax laws that became effective for the Company as of January 1, 2018 are anticipated to have an impact on Section 162(m) deductibility for the Company going forward. In determining executive compensation, the Compensation Committee considers, among other factors, the possible tax consequences to the Company and to the executives. However, tax consequences, including but not limited to tax deductibility by the Company, are subject to many factors (such as changes in the tax laws and regulations or interpretations thereof and the timing and nature of various decisions by executives regarding options and other rights) that are beyond our control. In addition, the Compensation Committee continues to believe that it is important for us to retain maximum flexibility in designing compensation programs that meet our stated objectives. For these reasons, although the Compensation Committee will continue to consider tax deductibility as one of the factors in determining executive compensation, it will not necessarily limit compensation to those levels or types of compensation that will be deductible.

49

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

Directors Betts, Leggio, Metcalfe, Stack, and Tuomi served on the Compensation Committee during 2017. No member of the Compensation Committee is or has been an officer or employee of the Company, or has had any relationship with the Company requiring disclosure under Item 404 of Regulation S-K.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and discussed that Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based on its review and discussions with management, the Compensation Committee recommended to our Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s 2018 Proxy Statement and incorporated by reference into the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. This report is provided by the following independent directors, who comprised the Compensation Committee for 2017.

Steven A. Betts (Chairman),

Anthony L. Leggio,

Norman J. Metcalfe,

Geoffrey L. Stack,

Frederick C. Tuomi

Fiscal Year 2017 Summary Compensation Table

The following table summarizes the total compensation awarded to, earned by, or paid to each of the NEOs for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015.

50