Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3190; Rancho Santa Fe Road La Costa Meadows; Rancho Santa Fe Road La Costa Meadows; 2002-09-01- APPRAISAL REVIEW - FOUR PARCELS RANCHO SANTA FE RD & LA COSTA MEADOWS DR CARLSBAD, CA APPRAISED FOR Carrie Loya-Smalley Senior Civil Engineer CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 DATE QF VALUE September 1,2002 DATE OF REVIEW January 31, 2003 - REVIEWED BY ^ Anderson & Brabant, Inc. •m 353 West Ninth Avenue Escondido, Califomia 92025 File No. 2003-016 ANDERSON S BRABANT, INC. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 353 W. NINTH AVENUE ESCONDIDO. CALIFORNIA 92025-5032 TELEPHONE {760) 741-4146 FAX (760) lA I -I 049 January 31, 2003 Carrie Loya-Smalley Senior Civil Engineer CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Appraisal Review: Four Parcels Rancho Santa Fe Rd & La Costa Meadows Dr Carlsbad CA Dear Ms. Loya-Smalley: As requested, I have compieted a review of an appraisal report prepared for the City of Carlsbad relating to the above-referenced properties located in Carlsbad, Califomia. This review is intended to comply with the requirements of Standard 3 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). In addition, this review will address compliance with Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appraisal guideiines and requirements. Within that framework, the following is a summary of pertinent comments, opinions and conclusions resulting from this review. Identification of the Client The client is the City ofCarlsbad. Intended Use and Users of the Review Report The intended use of this appraisal review is to assist in the determination that the appraisal conclusions are appropriate and that the appraisal conforms to USPAP and Caltrans appraisal guidelines. The intended users of this review are the City of Carlsbad and Hendrickson Appraisal Company, Incorporated. Purpose of the Review Assignment The purpose ofthis review is only to develop an opinion as to the quality ofthe appraisal report and to determine compliance with USPAP and Caltrans appraisal guidelines. The purpose ofthe review does not include forming independent opinions of value for the parcels appraised. Ms. Carrie Loya-Smalley CITY OF CARLSBAD January 31, 2003 Page 2 Identification ofthe Report The appraisal report reviewed was prepared by Hendrickson Appraisal Company, Incorporated (Ted Hendrickson, MAI and Edward Beaver) and is dated September 15, 2002. The report is identified as a Summary Report and the appraisal process is identified as "fiilly complete". The effective date of value is September 1, 2002. Identification of the Appraised Propertv The appraised properties include four identified larger parcels as Usted below. 1) Smith Parcel: An approximate 1.52-acre parcel of land improved with an industrial buiiding on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, south of La Costa Meadows Dr. and owned by Robert L. Smith, et al. The site is identified as Ix)t 1 of Rancho Santa Fe hidustrial Park. APN 223-030-46. 2) La Costa Meadows Parcel: An approximate 10.43-acre parcel of land improved with multiple buildings on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, between Mefrose Dr. and La Costa Meadows Dr. and owned by La Costa Meadows Industrial Center, Ltd. The site is identified as Parcels A & B of Parcel Map 12104 in the City of San Marcos. APN 223-030-62 & 63. 3) Brookfield Parcel: An approximate 70.86-acre parcel of iand unproved as a park/open space on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road and owned by Brookfield University Commons, Inc. The site is identified as Portions of Lot 6-1 ofTract 371, City ofSan Marcos per Map No. 13156. APN 223-031-31. 4) Oliver Parcel: An approximate 0.855-acre parcel of vacant iand on the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Rd., at La Costa Meadows Dr. and owned by Pasquaie Oliver, et al. The site is identified as Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 10179 in the City of Carlsbad. APN 223-030-56. Interest Appraised The appraisal purports to address the value of the fee sunple interest of the land component only in the appraised properties. In addition permanent and temporary easement interests are appraised for certain parcels. ^ Effective Date of Value and Report n The valuation date is September 1, 2002, and tiie date of tiie report is September 15, 2002. •m Effective Date of Review This review report is set forth as of January 31, 2003. Anderson & Brabant, Inc. S Ms. Cairie Loya-Smalley CKY OF CARLSBAD January 31, 2003 Page 3 Scope of the Review Process In developing this review, we have undertaken the foiiowing tasks: 1. Read the appraisal report 2. Conducted an onsite inspection of the appraised properties. 3. Inspected all comparable data. It is noted that I have previously inspected certain data and those properties were not reinspected for this assignment. 4. Verified the accuracy of certain factual data contained in the report. 5. Checked all calculations contained in the report. Completeness of the Report As stated in the appraisal, it was the intent of the appraisers to prepare a complete appraisal in a summary report format under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of USPAP. The report generally conforms to the appropriate standards and guidelines. The report includes one section tiiat contains general information pertinent to all parcels addressed in the appraisal and foiir separate sections in which the description and analysis of the individual parcels are addressed. The report addresses tiie land component only of tiie appraised properties. The following information was not included in the appraisal. 1) Project description: This would include a general description of all construction associated with the proposed project and specific constmction detaiis impacting the appraised properties. Information specific to the appraised properties should include a description of the appraised property conditions afl;er completion of constmction. In addition, the report makes reference to the City of San Marcos Melrose Drive project and its possible mitigating affects. The report should also mclude a description ofthe Mefrose Drive project, mclusive ofproject timing and status. 2) The individual parcel appraisals included information on current zoning but did not mclude General Plan classifications for tiie parcels appraised. Appropriateness of Appraisal Methods and Techniques The appraisal methodologies and techniques, as utilized m this appraisal are generally appropriate and properly developed and apphed, except as noted. 1) Caltrans guidelines for rounding states tiiat value conclusions between $1,000 and $100,000 are to be rounded to the nearest $100. Improper rounding was applied to Smitii (pages 24 & 25), La Costa Meadows (pages 21 & 22), Brookfield (j)age 24) and' Oliver (page 17). 2) On page 9 of tiie infroduction section, the Present Value Factor is discussed. The calculated factor is based on payment for 19 periods (months), deferred 9 periods and assumes beguining tiie TCE on June 1, 2003. That calculation would only be appropriate if payment were made as ofthe date of value. If payment is made after Anderson & Brabant, Inc. S m S Ms. Carrie Loya-SmaUey CITY OF CARLSBAD January 31,2003 Page 4 tiiat date, tiie applied discount factor of 17.38 will result in an underpayment of compensation for the Temporary Constmction Easements for the Oliver, La Costa Meadows and Brookfield parcels. Adequacy and Relevance of Data and Adjustment Process The market data presented m tiie appraisal include tiiirteen sales, eight of which (Land Sale Nos. 1-8) are zoned for mdustrial use and were tiie bases for analyzing two of tiie parcels. Four of tiie data (Land Sale Nos. 9-13) have residential or open space classifications. The data were considered to be relevant and adequate. For each of the appraised properties, the appraisers have analyzed the market data ui relation to tiie subject by using a qualitative adjusfrnent process as typified by tiie grid on page 17 of tiie Smith parcel appraisal. It is Caltrans policy to use a quantitative adjustment process utihzing eitiier percentage or dollar adjustments. An exception to tiiis is allowed m some cases; however, the appraiser must explam and fiilly justify why a qualitative adjustment process is appropriate. In this appraisal, a quantitative adjustment process should have been utilized. Appropriateness & Reasonableness of Analysis, Opinions & Conclnsions The appraisers employed valuation techniques tiiat are commonly used by tiie fridustry in analyzmg the specific property types. The opinions and conclusions are reasonable and appropriate for tiie parcels and mterests appraised, with tiie exceptions as noted in tiie preceding sections and with the followfrig exceptions. Smith Parcel: 1) The permanent Vallecitos Water District (VWD) easement was valued at 50% of tiie value of the underiying fee interest. An area of tiie TCE falls witiifri tiie area of tiie VWD easement near the north and west property lines. The value of the TCE is based on 100% of tiie fee interest; however, tiie portion of tiie TCE that lies within tiie permanent VWD easement area should be valued based on tiie remaining 50% interest of tiie underlying fee to reflect tiie dfrninished value of tiiat area as encumbered. 2) Severance Damages due to TCE: On page 24 in tiie last paragraph tiie issue of potential damages due to tiie TCE is addressed. However, witiiout a complete description ofthe project, it is unclear how access will be mafritained to tiie front parking lot during the period of the TCE. There is a reference to tiie City of San Marcos Mefrose Drive project tiiat does not appear to be pertinent to this parcel, hi addition, there was a reference to an interior driveway "which provides access to tiie parkfrig lot in front"; however, it appears tiiat tiie curb cuts from the rear and front parking lots to Rancho Santa Fe Road couid be obstmcted by the TCE. The onsite inspection of tiie property indicated tiiat tiiere is some customer/client use of tiie Anderson & Brabant, Inc. Ms. Cairie Loya-Smalley CITY OF CARLSBAD January 31,2003 Page 5 front parking area and the loss of or restricted use of this area may impact the tenants' use of the property. La Costa Meadows Parcel: 1) Severance Damages due to TCE: On page 22 in the last paragraph tiie issue of potential damages due to the TCE is addressed. However, witiiout a complete description of the project, it is unclear how access will be maintained to property during the period of the TCE. There is a reference to the City of San Marcos Mefrose Drive project and a description ofthat project, along with project status and timing, should be included. Brookfield Parcel: 1) Easements/Encumbrances: As described on page 5 ofthe parcel appraisal, the subject -is encumbered with a number of easements. One easement is for county highway purposes and it encumbers the westerly 30 feet ofthe subject. On page 21, tiiat area (stated to be 0.31 acres) is excluded from tiie area ofthe subject to which value is assigned. An explanation of tiie basis of tiie calculation for that area is required as the area appears to actually be in excess of 0.4 acres based on tiie plat provided. Furthermore, based on the exhibit on page 11, additional area is encumbered by an easement for County highway purposes per deed recorded April 7, 1966 as file No. 58549 and per Map 13156. These areas should also be excluded from tiie area to which value is assigned. This is significant because tiie areas fall within the area of acquisition. 2) The permanent Vallecitos Water District (VWD) easement was valued at 50% ofthe value ofthe underlying fee friterest. The VWD easement falls witiiin a portion of tiie area of the TCE. The value of tiie TCE is based on 100% of tiie fee interest; however, the portion ofthe TCE tiiat hes within tiie permanent VWD easement area should be valued based on the remainmg 50% mterest of tiie underlying fee to reflect the diminished value of that area as encimibered. Oliver Parcel: 1) Sfreet Improvements: The subject fronts on Rancho Santa Fe Road as stated in the appraisal. The appraisal makes no mention of frontage on Questhaven Road that abuts the property to the west. To satisfy tiie reader, tiie status of Questhaven and tiie potential for sfreet vacation should be addressed. 2) The selected comparable data have potential for mitigation use (Sale Nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13) or high quality open space and mitigation use (Sale No. 11). The concluded Highest and Best Use of the subject is open space. The mitigation potential of tiie subject property, if any, was not discussed in tiie appraisal. The subject appears to be m a remnant remainder parcel from prior right of way acquisitions and does not appear m . — Anderson & Brabant, Inc. m •m Ms. Carrie Loya-Smalley CITY OF CARLSBAD January 31, 2003 Page 6 to have any uidependent use potential. The status of adjacent Questhaven Road appears to be relevant in the potential use of the subject property for open space or mitigation ptirposes. Conclusion Witii tiie exceptions noted, tiie report conforms to USPAP and Calfrans guidelines. However, the values for the Smith and Brookfield parcels may change slightly due to tiie issues discussed in tiie previous sections. The correction of these items, or a satisfactory response that justifies tiie freatment of these issues in tiiis report, will result in an acceptable appraisal. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC. Gilbert F Kunkel, MAI State Certification No. AG002101 Attachments: Appraisers Certification Appraiser Qualifications Anderson & Brabant, Inc. •m Attachments Anderson & Brabant, Inc. Ms. Carrie Loya-Smalley CITY OF CARLSBAD January 31,2003 Page 7 APPRAISERS' CERTIFICATION I do hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief... 1. The facts and data reported by the review appraiser and used in the review process are tme and correct. 2. The analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are liinited only by the assimiptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and I have no personai interest with respect to the parties involved with this assignment. 4. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assigrmient. 5. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent on developing or reporting predetermined resuhs. 6. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resuiting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in this review or from its use. 7. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and tliis review report was prepared in conformity with the Uniforms Standards of Professionai Appraisal Practice. 8. I personally inspected the exterior of the subject properties. 9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons sigrung this review report. January 31.2003 Gilbert F. Kunkel, MAI Date State Certification No. AG002101 Anderson & Brabant, Inc. OTJALmCATIONS OF THE APPRAISER GBbertF. Kunkel. MAI ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC. 353 West Kmth Avenue Escondido, CA 9202S (760)741-4146 X 313 L Resident of San Diego County since 1946 n. Educational Background: A. Graduate of the University of Califomia at Riverside with a degree in Economics in 1968 B. Prafessional Education Completed: 1. Appraisal Institute a. Single Family Appraisal - Course Vm, 1974 b. frivestment Analysis - Course VI, 1975 c. Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation - Course 2-2,1983 d. Valuation and Report Writing, 1984 e. Standards of Prafessional Practice, 1985 f. Standards of Prafessional Practice, PartB, 1993 2. 3. Society of Real Estate Appraisers: a. Real Estate Appraisal - Course 101,1974 b. Real Estate Appraisal - Course 201,1974 Seminars (Partial List) Valuation of Lease Interests - Part 1, 2/89 frivestment Analysis, 2/89 Subdivision Analysis, 2/89 Lotus 1-2-3 Templates, 9/89 Apartment Seminar, 4/90 Standards of Prof. Practice Update, 6/90 Litigation Seminar, 12/90,11/93, 11/95 Appraisal Regulation, 5/91 Condemnation Valuation, 11/92 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, 3/93 Apartment Appraisal, 9/93 Subdivision Analysis, 9/93 Real Estaie Forecast 9/93 Accrued Depreciation, 11/93 Understanding Lunited Appraisals, 7/94 Fair Lending and the Appraiser, 9/94 Partial Acquisition Appraisal, 9/94 Easement Valuation, 3/95 Federal Laws & Regulations, 3/96 Changing Ntoikets and New Research Metiiods, 7/96 Apartment Seminar Update, 10/97 San Diego Retail Property, 3/98 Loss Prevention, 3/98 Appraisal of Partial Interests, 6/98 Technical Inspection of Real Estate, 8/98 Market Trends in So. California, 8/98 Mock Assessment Appeal, 8/98 Valuation of Detrimental Cond., 9/98 Annual Litigation Seminar, 11/98 fritemet Search Strategies for Real Estate Appraiser, 12/98 Standards of Prof. Practice Part C, 12/98 Land Development Seminar, 3/99 IIL Professional Affiliations: A. Member, Appraisal Institute, MAI B. Member, Intemationai Right of Way Association C. State ofCalifornia Conimunity College, Limited Service Credential D. Member, Appraisal Institute Admissions Committee E. Member, Appraisal Institute Review and Connseiii^ Comimttee F. Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (AG002101) Qffice of Real Estate Appraisers, State of Califomia Anderson & Brabant, Inc. Qualifications of the Appraiser - Gilbert F. Kunkel, MAI Page 2 of 3 IV. Teaching Experience: Palomar College, San Marcos, Califomia - "Real Estate Appraisal" V, Appraisal Experience: Owner - Anderson & Brabant Inc., Since 1990 Associate - Anderson & Brabant Inc., 1979 - 1990 Vice President and Appraisal Nfanager - Financial Appraisals, Inc., 1977 - 1979 Staff Appraiser - Financial Appraisals, Inc., 1972 - 1977 Assistant Right of Way Agent California Division ofHighways, 1968 - 1971 VL Expert Witness: Superior Court, San Diego County Banknq)tcy Court of U.S. District Court Southem District vn. Types of Appraisals: Residential; Single-Family, Residential Subdivision, Condominiums, Apartments, Mobile Home Parks, Existing and Proposed Properties Commercial: Qffice Buildings, Shopping Centers, Medical Offices, Existing and Proposed Industrial: Existing and Proposed Vacant Land: fridustrial. Commercial, Residential, and Rural Agricultural: Avocado and Citrus Groves Other: Leaseholds, Fractional Interest Easements, Partial Acquisitions VOL Partial List of Appraisal Clients: Govemment Agencies and Municipalities Califomia Department ofTransportation CityofCarlsbad Cityof Chula Vista City of Encinitas City of Escondido City of Laguna Mquel City of Oceanside City of SanDiego City of San Marcos Cityof Vista Carisbad Municipal Water District Carlsbad Unified School District Escondido Elementary School District Escondido Union Hi^ Schooi District Metropolitan Transit Development Board North Counly Transit Distria Olivenhain Municipal Water District Poway Unified School Districts Law Firms David Boss Carlyle & McDonough Daley & Heft Best Best and Kreiger M£)ougal & Associates McDougal, Love, Eckis and Smith Foley & Lardner Glenn, Wri^t Jacobs, & SheU David Wilkerson Franzel, Share, Robbins, Caplan & Bloom Pillsbury, ^Ni^son & Sutro Singer & Crawford White & Bright Michael Pines Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District United States Postal Service Valley Center Municipai Water District Anderson &. Brabant, Inc. Qualifications of the Appraiser - Gilbert F, Kunkel, MAI Page 3 of 3 Banks/Savings & Loans Bank of America Bank of San Diego Bank ofthe West Califomia Commerce Bank Citicorp City National Bank Continental Bank Downey Savings Fallbrook National Bank First International Bank Ffrst interstate Bank Ffrst Republic Bank Grossmont Bank Independence Bank Palomar Savings & Loan Pomona First Federal Bank & Trust Scripps Bank Union Bank U.S. Bancorp WeUs Fargo Bank Others Argonaut Realty (General Motors) Casino Really Caltras Con:q)any Chicago TiUe CIBC Oppenheimer Circle K Stores FEDCO First American Titie Insurance Company Fluidmaster Corporation Fraser Engineering Otay Ranch Development Pactel Cellular Palomar YMCA RepubHc Realty Mortgage Corporation Retiaw Enterprises SL Paul Titie Insurance Company The Festival Compames William Lyon Ifomes TechbUt Constraction QuatificaQons. GFK 01/00 Anderson & Brabant, Inc.