Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-06; City Council; 3213-1; CARILLO RANCH* 0 cmy OF CARLSBAD e I Initial: Dept . Hit. C. Atty. 3 4 Kg - ACELUDA BILL NO. - 33 (3 - - w DATE : January 6, 1975 - -I__ % - DEPARTMENT : City -- ?Tanager c. Mgr. Sz;lbjXX: CARRILLO RANCH - ~- I_ Statement of the Matter -- The amended Carrillo Ranch Master Plan Ordinance No. 9365 requirec that an 853 acre,which included the ranch house and accessory buildinys,be dedicated as prepayment for park-in-lieu fees to the City prior to approval of the first subdivision. The required appraisal has been made, placing a value of $107,500. on the improvenents in their present condition. However, because the improvements appraised will be of minimal value to the City a: of the park, and because it was recognized that some immediate re; would be required, a negotiated value of $97,500.00 has been agree between the City staff and the pro9erty owner. Exhibit A. Excerpts from “Leo Carrillo Ranch’’ aFpraisal B. Memo from Parks and Recreation Director dated October 30, 1975 C. Memo from Building Director dated. October 22, 1975 n Re o t to City Manager from. Planning Director dated 1-13-76 If the Council wishes to proceed,they should approve the negotiated improvement value of $97,500.00 and instruct the City Attorney to ?repare the necessary agreement with the developer and return with document for Council approval. Council action 1-8-76 The staff was instructed to return to the Council at the e date with a report indicating both the legal process that ’ required to change this requirement as well as a report ex the staff process that would go into developing informatio those hearings, so the Council could determine whether the! to set the matter for public hearing. It was moved that approval be given the negotiated appraisal value of Ranch House Properties at $97,500 and instruct the City Attorney to r with the necessary agreements with the developer to finalize the park arrangement. Recbmen8aLon l-20-76 l e EXCERPTS FROM APP ., APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATE We dc hereby certify that, except as otherwise ~;oted in this appraisal. report: ?-. We have no present or contemplated future in- terest in the real estate that is the subject of this ap2,raisal report. 2, We have no personal interesr, or bias with re- spect to the subject matter o€ this appraisal report or the parties involved. 3. To the best of our kno%ledge and belief, the statez~nts of iract contained in this ap9raisal report, KX~C~I. .crFiich the analysis, opinions and conclusions ex- pr~ssecl herein are based, are true and correct. 4. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting condi.ti0n.s affecting the analysis, opinioxrs an4 concLusions contained in this report. 5. This appraisal report has been aade in con- fomkty with and is subject to the requiranencs of the Cede 02 Professional Ethics and Standards of Frcsfcssioaal. Corrduct of the American Institute of Real Estate Ap- praisers of the National Association of Real Estete bards. 6. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analysis, conclusions and opionions concerning real s appraisal report. Zern/fl3&? :. Bill M. Brodbeck, Vic Pr-side:lt c Dated: Tfay 15, 1375 - 1- ROBERT M DODD AND ASSOCIATES INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS - CO~NSELOKS e 0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROFXRTY Subject property is improved as previously mentioned with an adobe ranch house and miscellaneous barns aEd cthsr structures. in 1939, however, the design and material used ar2 t-ypiczl .SF l4exlcan ranchos constructed in the early 1800'~~ The ranch house and gate house were constructed The main ranch house is 2,802 square feet in size 2nd is of adobe construction with plaster walls inside and out 2nd red Spanish tile roof. arc2 Spanish clay tile, and the ceili~lg is of ogen 32m ~ype construction throughout. The main house is threz separate structures connected by 919 square feet of covered acterior galleries. There are two baths and rhrez bedrooss i.n the house. Or,e of the bathrooms has a stall shover, slad the master bath has cerrmic tile floors and wairtsca~, and sunken cile tub. The primary heating for the di~iillzlg is provided by five fireplaces in various reoums. The snterlor floors In addition to the ranch house there is 21: zdcbe si-ilgle room with bath guest house approxiE1atel.y 2N feet south of the main house, a 928 square foot one bedrocjm gate house approximately l/4 mile north, swi-ming pool, kxik house , barn and other miscellaneous sheds and storage buildings. soil and is badly cracked and in ?om condLt-IcIi. gate hcuse, however, has Seen remodelzd and is in gc~d The guest house has suffered frgm exspansi.;~ Tk:2 -17- r \p" * ROBERT M DODO AND ASSOClATEZ INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS - COUN5ELORS .-__ e 0 t physical condition. The swimming pool, cabana, barn and r other structures have been neglected for several years and ere in fair to poor physical condition. Please refer to the plat of improvements in tk addendum oE this report and the photographs of subject property for visual refer- ence to location and condition of buildings, Yard improvements on the property consist of flag- stone court yard around the main house, stone walls, fountains, windmills, fish pond, and miscellaneous fencing. -18- c \--- ROBERT M DODD AND ASSOCIATES. INC. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS - COUNSELORS 0 a e COST APPROACH TO VALUE t 1 Land Valire -__-_--- Several salrs were discovered in the La Costa, Carls- bad neighborhood that were considered applicable to arrive at an indication of market value €or ;he subject site as though unimproved. Eight of these sales indiczce a range in value of from $6,293 to $lO,OOO per ~cre. The salss differ by coinparison toward subject for location, topo- graphy, and availability of public utilities. An April, 1974 sale of a 100 acre portion of the Carrillo Ranc:k: wa3 considered to be the most responsible indicator of value for the subject site. This parcel sold at the rate oE $8,500 per acre, and is very similar by comparison toward su5 j ect. It is our opinion, based on the preceding salzs ix- formation, that the market value for the subject five acr2 site as though unimproved, as of the date of appraisal, is estimated to be $42,500 which is at the rate of $8,500 per zcre. Improvement Value The following estimate of reproduction costs wer2 arrived at by the use of Marshall and Swift Ccst Handbook, ar:d after discussion with a local- contractor, Weir Bros. Construction, who specialize in adobe hom construction. -21- c? Y ROBERT M DODD AND ASSOCIATES, INC Y\ REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS - COUNS€LOR5 e e The ranch house, gate house, and bunk house are generally in good repair and deprechtion is estimated OF. CLTL ago-life basis to be approximately 40% of the re- p;-cductj.gr, cost new, Depreciation of the barn and other structures is estimated as observed by this appraiser as 2 lump sun. X;lz.in dwelling, 2802 s.f. @ $40.60 = $112,080 Gal leries 919 s.f. @ 6.00 = 5,514 Eunk house 229 s.f. @ 35.00 = 8,015 d Gate house 928 s.f. @ 35.CO = 32,480 Gate house gar., 336 s.f r @ 7.00 = 2,352 Covered porch 277 s.f. @ 6.00 = 1,662 Screened porch 152 s.f. @ 6.50 = h ? 183 T~cal reproduction cost new of resLdzntial structures $1b3,256 65,314 I DEpzeciation age-lif 2 of 40% Depreciated rsproduction cost of residzntial structures $ 97,972 Depreciated cost of: 3at Buildirrgs: stables Carport 903 s.f. - - 1,806 Storage and 660 728 tack room 220 s.f. 2,400 ' Laundry 364 s.f. Hay barn - - 1,000' Guest house 524 s.f. LIP- Barn and 3,720 s.f. = $ 9,300 - - - - - 1,200 s.f. - Total out buildings $ 15,8Y Yard Improvements : Pool - - I, 500 Cabana, 288 s.f. - - 72C: Flagstone court yard = $- 1,900 - Stone walls and planters - - 2,000 5,221 yard improvements - -- Total depreciated cost of -22- t ROSERT M DODD AND ASSOC!AIES INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS - COUNSCLORS \- .. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ e 0 Total derpeciated reproduction cost of inprovements 119,086 42,500 Land value, 5 acres @ $8,500 Indicated value of subject property by the Cost Approach $161,586 $161,000 Rounded to, say I_ I \ c -23- r ROBERT Y OODD AND ASSOCIATES. INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS ~ COUNSELORS \-- e 0 I MARKET AP3ilOACH 7 In a search for market transactionst0 us2 for com- i 1 parism toward subject to arri.ve at an indicatiorr of valtre by the market approach, two sales were discovered i J and several listings. One sale discovered is a 1973 sale > of the Buena Vista Rancho, together with the Buena Vista medical center and vacanc commercial land. The purchaser of this property reports a sales price of $150,000 was allocated to the ranch house and 2.25 acres of land. The improvement consist of a 3,000- square foot adobe restdence constructed in 1840 , a guest house, swiming pool, arid oLhcc yard improvements. The property is similar by comparison toward subject for type and qualicy of construztion, and inferior for condition. to have spent $40,000 in renovating and ro,modz!ling siace purchase. + The owner of Buena Vista reported The sale of the Buena Vista Rancho tends to support this appraiser's opinion of demand for this type of prcp- erty for residential use, as well as indicating markst value. This sold property is inferior by general compar- ison toward subject and tends to indicate the lower limit of value at approximately $140,000, Sale number two is located at 674 Pomelo Drive, Vlst and sold in January, 1975 for $132,000. The propsrty con- sists of- a 2,800 square foot, eleven year oid frarne and - 24- P & ROBERT M DOD3 AND ASSOCIATES INC REAL ESTATE APPR4tSERS - COUNSELORS f 0 i stucco dw2lling, a guest house and 11% acres of land. This ! scld property is sGmewhat similar by comparison for size of inproveznents, superior for land size, and inferior by com- pxison for quality and type of construction. Sale price, &er an upward adjustment for quality and a do-mward adjus inen'; for land area, Indicates a value for subject of approx ;ns.tel'j $140,000. 1.n our search for sales PTrs. Ha-yes, a descendent and current Owner of the Rancho kgua Hedionda was contzacted v This Yroperty was listed for sale and has since been tak.er, os'f tke market. Mrs. Hays stated that lif the house &rid 2.5 acres were offered for sale it would be at a price $195,000. It was reported that there had been a testativo, oflSer in the past for $200,000 for the house ard grounds. This property consists of a 3,500f square foot .adoh ranch house originally built in 1848 and renodelod in 1939. Thi- property is generally superior by camparison toward subJec except for" location and extra improvements. Altho-ilgh thls property has not sold, it is our opinior, that the infomat was pertinent and does tend to set. the upper limit of ;ralu Listing #I is located at 1739 FoGthill Drive, Vlstz, The property is a 33 year old adobe hone with a two bedrao guest house and miscellaneous sheds and corrals situatzd o a 15 acre parcel of land. This property is currently offered for sale for $170,000, and is considersd saperior by comparison toward subject for the size or' Chz parcel, -25- (G I YQ ROBERT M DODO AND ASSOCIATES INC REAL ESTATE Ar~n~rszns ~ COUNSELORS 0 0 I and inferior for quality of main structure. &;;or adjustment, Lndicatzs a value of approxlmately $150,000 for the subject property. This listing, Listing #Z is located at 2465 Catalina Avenue, Vista ad is currently offered for sale at $125,000.. The prop- e-rty consists of a 2,915 square foot, 46 year, old adobe hmsz ai7.d garage on a 1.4 acre parcel of Land. This property is similar by comparison toward subject for size ax? age, and-is inferior for lot size, quality, and extra imprcvernents . CORRELATION Ths cost: approach to value indicates a valu5 of $161.000 and the market approach indicates a range of from $140,000 tlo $150,000. The cost approach is gen- erally the weaker of the two approaches because oE the difficulty in accurately estimating accxed depreciacion. The market apprloach, however, employs the results of actual buyers and sellers and is therefore generally the most reliable indicator of market value. It 2s our opinion, based on che preceding analysis that the market value of the subject ~roperty, as of May 16, 1975, is estimated to be $150,000. It is also OLK c -26- ROBERT M DODD AND ASSOCIATES, INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS - COUNSELORS 1 7' 0 0 opinion that the market value of subject improvements as a marketable part of the whole property, is estimated to be $107,500. ONE HUNDRED SEVEN ThOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ROBERT M. DODD & ASSOCIATES, INC 3 $?ZK/+.JA &:&L,L cL .q&kvm hA2- ---.--- Robert M. Dodd, N.A.?. , S.R.E.A. .. Bill M. Brod.beck, 'Assocrate Dated: May 15, 1975 -27- 6 ROBERT M DODD AND ASSOCIATES INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISLRS - COUNhELORS 7' 0 0 M E V 0 R A N D U M TO : TEE CITY MANAGER FROM : Ed Johnson, Parks and Xecreation Director DATE : October 30, 1975 SUBJECT: YAINTENANCE COST OF CARRILLO RANCH I. Initial Clean-up Cost $4,370 11. Yearly Maintenance Estinate cost s17,301) A. Maintenance around. tkle ranch area orould include: 1. The immed.iate area around. the qate house. 2. The road leadins UD to the entrance. 3. Parkins area. 4. Barns and stable 5. Ranch house (main) includinq inside courtvard, fish Donti, North side of ranch house, around bun1 house, around pool and cabana. Cuest house including access to quest house via the Parking lot. 6. 1. Maintenance on the larger trees around. the ranch hou! will take a three man crew with boom truck, dump trui and chinper a~~roximatelv six to seven davs to trim, thin out, remove and chip trees on said nropertv. Cc Der day would be a~proximatelv $195 (labor and emin. ment) . Total would be a~~roximatelv S1,4c! 0. Cost of maintenance Der dav excludinq use of equipme1 such as shovels, truck, mowers, etc., would be $90 n( day for labor and annroximatelv 33 workincr da~7s, or ' man hours to set these areas back into a condition wl thev could be maintained on a reqular basis. Total i $2,970. 2. Entire project cost a~proxima-telv $4,370. E. Yearlv Maintenance 1. The 5 acre narcel of the Carrillo Rancho would c( sist of one nark caretaker who would live on slit( and maintain the qrounds includinq mowinq of anv lawns, trimminq and shanj-ns shrubs, waterinq, f e lizincr, spravinq for nests etc. The cost of a cl taker livinq on the ranch would he anDroxhatelv $9,000 Der vea-r plus a vehicle at annroxinatelv $2,000 per vear. Estimated total Sll,fl00. 2. A landscar>e crew would come in once a ~7eel. to he out in such areas as weedinq, Dlantins of new sh renovation of landscaped areas, haulinc; of trash out of the ranch. Cost of landscape crew would ' approximatelv $75 per week ecsualincr $3,900 ner 171 Fciuipment and chexicals at $l.,OOCl per Tear, Fst total 54,900. r" e 0 -2- 3. A vearly clean-up bv the tree crew would be performed at a cost of anproximatelv S1.,300 Per year. Initial Clean-up Coat s 4,370 Total approximately cost per vear 17,200 Thank you, @e Ed Jo nson, Director EJ:scf a 0 0 M E P! 0 R A PI D U PI *ro: CITY I!,ANAGER rp I? 0 Y : BUILDING DIRECTOR DRI E : OCTOBER 22, 1975 SUBJECT: CARKILLO RANCH A member of the Building Department observed the following requirements indicated toward attaining the highest and best use of the subject buildings. 1. tilay be classed as F-2 Occupancy as long as any assembly in any rooin is limited to less than 50 occupants. Uniform Building Code, 1101, Division 2. 2. The buildings may remain Type V-Non-Rated (for 8000 square feet and in Fire Zone #/3, U.B.C. Table 5-C. 3. One exit from any one room is a77 that -is necessary if the occupant load is maintained at less than 50 persons. U.6.C. Table 33-A. 4. Buildings should be made accessible for the handi- capped by providing the necessary ramps. U.B.C. Table 33-A. 5. Recommended Repai rs : Fire purposes) as long as the build.ing is ?ess than a. Remove and replace all rotton wood on roof projections, or at least treat the wood to stop the rot. b, buif ding. c. Replace porch post at southwest corner of main bui 1 ding. d. Locate and repair roof leak at main building. e. Repair deteriorating adobe wall sections. P,einforce fire place southwest corner of main NOTE: This review was a preliminary investigation. Cc of required reFairs observed may run bet5qeen $5, and Sl0,OOO. Additional work may be required af closer insoection, 0 MEMORANDUM 0 4 January 13, 1976 TO : CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CARRILLO RANCH PARK SITE The City Council on January 6, 1976 requested staff to prepare a report outlining the necessary steps which would allow the City to reconsider the acquisition of the Carrillo Ranch Park Site and improvements. There appears to be several options available to the City Council. As a minimum, these options should be reviewed for report and recc mendation by the Planning Commission. In the past, however, matte which were related to the acquisition and location of parks have also been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission who have in turn submitted their recommendations to the Planning Commissior and City Council for recommendation. Prior to specifically outlining the various options, a summary of past City Council actions which directly relate to the Master Plar and applicable Specific Plans are presented: 17 Oct. 1972 - City Council Ord. 9332 adopts zone change of Master Plan including Park Site. 4 Sept, 1973 - City Council Ord. 9365 adopts Master Plan Amendmenl to specifically define and provide for Park Site dedication and to set appraisal process for improve rnents as part of Park requirements. (Carrillo Estates) which requires Park Site dedical All of the above City Council actions were preceded by a recommenc forwarded by the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that prior to the finaling of the first tentati\ map, Specific Plan (Carrillo Estates), the park issue will have tc resolved since a condition of the Specific Plan required the dedic of the Park Site in accordance with the Master Plan. The Council should consider the following prior to reconsidering . acquisition of the Park Site. The City announced its intent to acquire the Park Site by adoptin! Master Plan for the Carrillo Ranch in 1972. Subsequent amendment: 4, 1973) and instructions regarding lease agreements and appraisa affirmed the City's intent to acquire. 6 Nov. 1974 - City Council Ord. 9408 adopts first Specific Plan January 13, 1976 0 Memo to City Manager re C c) rillo Ranc:h Park Sit I The Council's options (are: 1. Acquire the Park Site with the ranch house and outbuildings as provided in the Master Plan. 2. Acquire the Park Site without the identified improvements. Th alternative will necessitate an amendment to the Master Plan, General Plan and Specific Plan for Carrillo Estates, to redefi boundaries, amount of acreage and timing of dedication. at different locations within the Master Plan boundary to meet Master Plan conditions. This option will also require amendme to the Specific Plan (Carrillo Estates), Master Plan and Gener P1 an. If the Council proceeds with options two or three, as a minimum it be necessary to return the matter to the Planning Commission for r and recommendation. It is additionally recommended to be consiste with past policies with respect to Park Sites that the matter also reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and a recommendati from that body be forwarded. In doing so, the staff will spend a stantial amount of time re-evaluating new options and presenting t options to the reporting and recommending commissions. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contac office at your convenience. 3- Reject the identified Park Site and renegotiate other park lan .r- , F-1) -\ ,/-. 8' - Planning Director 1 DAA:mdp cc: Parks and Recreation Director -2-