HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-07; City Council; 10352; PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF YMCA PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF CAMINO HILLS DRIVE. .
$
a -la * 2 3 4J ' 4-1 2 ad a r:m 3$4 6. wa, *da r: 0
-la, g; cdM -43 $3 3-d
a,g .?-is
% $4
$4c4 zF
me,
oh GU M
U .c Crz :E
k
aJu 4
wclcb
y UM h UP4
au 0-d 04 "U
$43 am aJm a, c)d
s ua, mu A rd
j r: UM @dG a, -4 0
-4
a,$4 :$
lClu 0 :a a,g 82 -l VI
so mr: A@d a,
kcl o*rl
go
5cd aE ug OaJ
sw Crc *h
&id % $2
sa, a,a a,?-io 3 y
uu ama *
sa, g :e
da, 0 Ma Okw a,u ua um LIGgQm om a, a*
VI M a0 :.:
3gN 3u
5 *e: Er: aJa, $4: US& a0 r: &lo
m+ : &Q!= VI% ma@' a0 32
@& 3M t;
a, Lcd$d
-la, a
-4 0 .rl M E
63U 3ws = *' oa, 0 F
a co zg
'3 b d=i '"0
3 0 0
UM
=: =:z
GI ipr C;nnLaww - AUCN~ILL
MTG. 11/7/89 PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF YMCA PROPERTY CITY 1
AB# jl )5 i TITLE DEPT.
LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL CITY 1 DEPT. U/M 24ND NORTH OF CAMINO HILLS DRIVE .-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct staff as the City Council deems appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 22, 1989, the City Council authorized staff negotiate the acquisition of the subject property with direction that the total price, including street improveme should not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,00 Accordingly, staff prepared an estimate of the cost of r improvements on the El Camino Real frontage and extended offer to purchase the YMCA property for the price of million dollars ($1,000,000) less the cost of r improvements.
The YMCA Board of Managers discussed the Cityls offer at th
September Board of Managers meeting and by letter dated Octo
11, 1989, rejected the City's offer to purchase the parc
Upon receipt of the October 11, 1989 letter, staff contac
the YMCA representative, Mr. John White, to determine if YMCA was willing to consider a price of less than one mill
dollars ($1,000,000) for the unimproved parcel. Mr. Wh
indicated that the Board of Managers had directed that a pr at or near the City's appraised value ($1,000,000) be attain
Further discussion revealed that the Board of Managers wo be willing to accept a price of $995,000 for the property.
YMCA counter offer together with the estimated costs of r
improvements ($543,000) would establish the total cost of parcel at approximately $1,500,000 or $500,000 in excess of Council's desired price.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider this sta
report, determine whether or not negotiations to acquire YMCA parcel should proceed and direct staff accordingly.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the acquisition could be made available f
under the definition of Parks, the acquisition could be fur
from Park-in-Lieu (PIL) fees in park district #l. Based on
current CIP, PIL area #1 has funds which are currer
earmarked for future park rehabilitation which could reallocated by the Council. If the property cannot n defined park needs PIL and other developer funds are available. This places the burden of funding acquisitior the general fund.
several sources. If the Council finds that this property fa
0 w
.L PAGE 2 OF AB# i ' i-
The general fund has an undesignated fund balance which
adequate to finance the purchase. However, two issues shc
be addressed prior to allocating funds. The Council several other projects competing for these funds which shc be considered in priority order. Also the expenditure of n
than $1 million of general fund money for an acquisition
this type requires voter approval (Proposition H).
Funds may also be available through the County's allocatior
1988 Park Bond funds. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) allocated to San Diego County for purchase of Resoi
Conservation Areas and Urban Canyons. Staff is advised t the County has received requests that far exceed the alloc;
amount, but the YMCA property may be eligible
consideration. Should the City Council desire to acquire
parcel staff will attempt to acquire funding from the Cour
although such funding may not be likely.
EXHIBITS:
1. August 22, 1989 Agenda Bill
2. Estimated improvement costs - El Camino Real YMCA front;
3. Letter from YMCA
4. Memorandum from the City Attorney dated November 8, 1
..
.. z 0
4
J Ei 2 3 0 0
6
nurNw WLL ur winLamnu -
DEP
bi m
AB# - TITLE: ACQUISITION OF YMCA PROPERTY LYING
MTQ.-- 8/15/89
DEPT.-- U/M
cin
cin
WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL
2WD NORTH OF CAMINO HILLS DRIVE
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct Staff as the City Council deems appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On April 25, 1989 staff reported to the City Council tl the YMCA intended to sell their property on El Camino Rt
and had offered the City the first opportunity to acqu.
the parcel- The YMCA estimated the value of the parcel
$1.1 million. The City Council determined that a potent municipal use for the property might exist and direcl
stlaff to obtain an appraisal of the property and return
Council for further consideration. Accordingly, st; contracted with the Lee C. Johnson Company of El Cajon an appraisal of the parcel. The appraiser has establisl the fair market value for the property at $1.0 million,
9% under the YMCA estimated price.
For the City to acquire the property requires environmen-
clearance and General Plan conformity to be determined
the Planning Commission. On July 5, 1989 the Plann Commission considered a staff recommendation for a Negat
Declaration and a finding of General Plan conformity
acquisition of the parcel. The Planning Commiss determined to continue the issue until September to give Northwest Quadrant Park Committee time to submit i
report. (see Exhibit 1).
Since the Councils' consideration of this matter in Apr
staff has learned that Kaufman and Broad, Kelly Ra developers, and the Carlsbad Unified School District h
identified the YMCA site as one of two potential sch sites. (see Exhibit 2). Of the two sites, the YMCA s is preferred by the developer while it appears that
District prefers the other site further north.
Finally, although there may be several potential munici uses for the site, staff has been unable to identify a fi
near term, need for the site. This property is not nee
to meet the park requirements of the Growth Management P1
Although there is no apparent near term use for the parc
thie Council may want to acquire the site for future use open space purposes, due to its location and vegetation
Since the Planning Commission will not act until Septem or later and since there is some potential for the par
EXHIBI
0 w ..
to be purchased for a school site, it would seem appropri to make a decision now as to whether to acquire the now not delay the YMCA further.
- FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the acquisition could be made available f
several sources. If the Council finds that this prope
falls under the definition of Parks, the acquisition co be funded from Park-in-Lieu (PIL) fees in park district
Based on the current CIP, PIL area #1 has funds which
currently earmarked for future park rehabilitation wh
meet defined park needs PIL and other developer funds not available. This places the burden of fund acquisition on the general fund.
The general fund has an undesignated fund balance which
adequate to finance the purchase. However, two iss should be addressed prior to allocating funds. The Coun has several other projects competing for these funds wh
should be considered in priority order. Also expenditure of more than $1 million of general fund mo for an acquisition of this type requires voter appro (Proposition H).
Funds may also be available through the County's allocat
of 1988 Park Bond funds. $10 million was allocated to
Diego County for purchase of Resource Conservation Areas
Urban Canyons. Staff is advised that the County received requests that far exceed the allocated amount,
thie YMCA property may be eligible for consideration. Sho th,e City Council desire to acquire the parcel staff w
at.tempt to acquire funding from the County, although s
funding may not be likely.
could be reallocated by the Council. If the property can
- EBXIBITS
1. Planning Commission Action
2. Letter from Kaufman and Broad
W PRELIMINuRY COST EST a
WORK
DWG. NO. DATE j
ZAl\/\INO EL=(- - 0 I DGEJ ch)G5i SrDc
3 I<GLLY Papmzrv (AP,\I 212 -050- 4~
1
Wiley-Fisk Form 11-2 EXHIBIT
w PRELIMINARY COST EST
WORK !
v --
DWG, NO, DATE 830-47 SHEET 2 I
\MINO ELZL - ~LDG~J Wr-7 h-2g
G E(aL\< ?F?OI?tRTY (‘4~13 2 I 2 -05 0 - 40
1
Wiley-Fisk Form 11-2
EXHIBIT
w +kL@. * &&-
gP.@
-.-
* - ?\ -3-
a GdGp >A?*$ -9
lc -.\ October 11, 1989
--Z-=-Z-' Mr. Ralph 'W. Anderson
Director Utilities and Maintenance Dept. City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, 5CA 92009-1519
RE: YMCA Property, El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
Dear Ralph:
Thank you :€or your letter dated Sept. 21, 1989 regarding the terx under which the City of Carlsbad would be interested in purchasir the fifteen acre YMCA site on El Camin0 Real. Your letter WE
discussed at our September Board of Managers meeting.
We recognize that the City Council had approved acquiring the YM( site, and had an appraisal done to establish a fair price for bot
parties. It is our understanding that the appraiser stated t€ evaluation at $1,000,000 based on an Itas is" condition. If t€
street improvements had been completed the appraisal would ha1 undoubtedly been considerably higher. Consequently, the Board ( Managers dlid not approve pursuing the transaction on the terI which you outlined. It was the decision of the Board that bast on our fiduciary responsibility, we cannot sell our site at whz would amount to less than 25% of appraised fair market value.
Our Board of Managers did authorize retaining O'Day Consultants 1 begin the process of a Tentative Map application for this sit(
Also, as ylou know, the school district, through Kaufmann and Broz has contacted us to discuss the purchase of the land as a schoc
district clould acquire this property for approximately 1/3 the co:
of another site they are considering. To ask the tax payers to pz this additional cost seems at best, wasteful.
Our YMCA would like to ask the City Council to:
site. If the City is not interested in the purchase, the schoc
A. market appraisal without improvements. Reconsider the purchase price of $1,000,000 based on fa:
EXHIBT
w w L. -
Mr. Ralph W. Anderson Page Two
B. If the City Council is not interested in purchasing tk
YMCA site at the appraised price, then to allow the schoc
district the option of purchasing the property withot
restricting the necessary land use designation.
C. If the City Council is not interested in purchasing tk
property at the appraised price, to expedite the processir
of our Tentative Map which will allow the YMCA to establi:
a better position for the sale of the property.
After your review of the enclosed comments, we will be anxious 1
discuss your further interest. Thank you very much for yo1 cooperation and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Se F John C. White
Chairman, Real Estate Committee
JW/ab
B1011052.LJW
cc: Frank Mannen, Asst. City Manager
Kathy Riggins, Executive Director, YMCA
EXH
, 0 e
November El, 1989
TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSITION H TO PROPOSED YMCA PROPER9
ACQUISITICIN
The City Council at your meeting of November 7, 1989 asked thj
office for written advise on the applicability of Chapter 1.24 c
the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Proposition H) to the proposc acquisition by the City of the YMCA property on El Camino Real.
The People of the City of Carlsbad, at the general municipi election of November 2, 1982, voted 6,949 to 4,470 to ado1
Proposition H which added Chapter 1.24 to the Carlsbad Municip? Code. Section 1.24.030 reads as follows:
"The City of Carlsbad shall make no real property acquisition and/or no improvement to real property the cost of which exceeds $1,000,000 in city funds...
(without the vote of the people) . . . . A project may not be separated into parts or phases as to avoid the effects of this ordinance".
The proponent's intent in submitting their measure was given : writing to the City Council on July 27, 1982. Their stated purpo: was to jojm with the Council to Itincrease citizen participation : the development of the city's capital improvement program". TI measure was intended to "place some constraints on the frt wheeling" the Council has been accustomed to in the "expenditui
from the hip" by insuring that capital budgets would 1
"constructed with deliberation and with careful consideration I
the consequences." Taken as a whole the presentation focused q preventing the Council from making "off budget" expenditu:
decisions in isolation, but rather require them to be made in tl
context of the five year capital improvement budget with fu: consideration of the long range costs and their impact on tl City's operating budget. This theme was carried through ai expressed in the purpose and intent Section 1.24.010 of tl ordinance.
After the election the Council received input from the Pacif Legal Foundation and others that Proposition H was illegal and t improper interference with the Council's responsibility under sta. law for the management of the City's fiscal affairs. The Counc also received a memorandum dated November 23, 1982 from the Ci.
Manager pointing out 11 separate significant questions I
alternative of a seeking declaratory relief in the courts on t: measure's legality. Section 5 of Proposition H as submitted by AI
of capital funds." ACT wished to stop the Council from %hootii
interpretation and implementation. The City Council rejected t!
a W
2
was put "word for wordv1 into Section 1.24.050 to empower th Council to "adopt reasonable guidelines to implement this ordinanc following notice and public hearing. VI Since the measure itsel charged the City Council with adoption of implementing guidelines the Council determined to save the measure by appointing a specia
committee in an attempt to honor the voters basic intent by solvir
the serious problems of interpretation and application. Mayor May Casler, was the chairman of the committee. The other members wer Council Member Ann Kulchin, Michael Straub, A. J. Skotnick (resigned prior to final report), Patrick OIDay, Margie Cool ar Allen Felcl.
The guidelines committee recognized early in their deliberatior that the prohibition in Section 1.24.030 against separating project I'j-nto parts or phases so as to avoid the effects of thj ordinance"' presented difficult problems of interpretation. Tk I1discussion paper" compiled by the Research and Analysis Group j January 1'983 at pages 13-16 emphasized that some projects ai broken into 1r independent segmentsn9 for legitimate reasons. Street
like Poinsettia Lane and parks like Stagecoach were two examplc
of projects exceeding $1 million which would be done in segment
without a vote. A series of meeting were held during the fir5
three mont.hs of 1983. After a duly noticed public hearing the Cit
for the interpretation and implementation of chapter 1.24. The include the following guidelines on phasing:
Council at. their meeting of April 5, 1983 adopted formal guidelinc
IISection 1.24.030 provides that a project may not be
separated into phases . . . to avoid the effects of this
ordinance. The section speaks to a determination of
subjective intent. There are a number of objective reasons for separating a project into phases including
availtable funding, environmental factors, construction
considerations, topographical features, coordinationwith surrounding developments, market conditions , the need to match project phasing with population increases or citizen demand. Unless it is reasonable apparent that
a project is being 'split1 to avoid a vote, legitimate phasing of a project of a project should be allowed. Before approving part of a project which may cost more than $1 million in City funds, the City Council shall
1.24.030. After a duly noticed public hearing the City Council shall make its decision by resolution which
includes specific findings on why the project is being phased and whether or not a vote is required."
deteirmine whether or not it is subject to Section
Although (questions remain as to the legality of Proposition H :
has been adopted as part of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and mu:
be followed until changed or invalidated. The guidelines adoptc pursuant 120 the authority of Section 1.24.050 must also be followc
0 0
3
until or unless they are modified by the Council after publi
hearings. The answer to the Council's question is in th guidelines. To make a judgement on the applicability of th guidelines some discussion of the facts of the YMCA acquisition i required.
Chapter 1.24 only applies if a project is supported by the generz
fund, federal general revenue sharing or other similar monies
That is, tax proceeds which are subject to the limitations c
Proposition 13 and the Gann initiative. The Council, i determining whether or not the costs exceeds $1,000,000, i
required by Section 1.24.040 to consider not only the purchas
price, but also the costs of improvements, "all preliminary studie and reports directly related to the acquisition or improvementu1 an finance costs. The Council's discussion of November 7, 198
indicated general fund money would be used. The appraised purchas
price is $995,000, therefore, the project could not be finance
requires the Council to include and consider the purchase price an financing costs in applying the vote requirement.
Staff reports that growth management's traffic circulatic standards will require El Camino Real to be constructed to ful
major arterial standards when certain traffic counts are met
Although the timing is not precise it appears certain that thoe improvements will be required prior to build out. It also appear that the City as the property owner would be responsible for it share of the improvements which include half a median, one trave lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, etc. The current staff estimat of the costs for improvements for the YMCA property is $534,000
Growth management and the standard for El Camino Real may be
"report directly relating to the improvement" of the propert
within Section 1.24.040. A fair argument can be made that sinc that potential liability is known, its cost must be considere
without exceeding the $1 million limit since Section 1.24.04
together with the purchase price.
It is possible the Council, because of the road improvemen
liability, would conclude that a vote is required. However, base on a staff discussion it also appears there may be legitimat
reasons why the acquisition and street improvements are separat
projects. For instance, assessment district financing may be use which is not "City funds" under the guidelines. It is als possible that funding decisions may be made to utilize othe sources such as Mello ROOS, traffic impact fees, etc. which ar also not subject to the vote requirement and it can be argued tha the road improvements are not certain since no one can say whe they might be required. It is, therefore, my opinion that if th Council wants to consider proceeding without a vote that unde Section 4 of the guidelines, the City Council is first required t set the matter to a duly noticed public hearing and then determin
whether or not the project is subject to the vote requirement. Th
City Council must make specific findings justifying a decision t
e e
4
phase the project and proceed without a vote which must b incorporated in a formal resolution.
Based on the above advice, the Council has the following options
1. If the Council is satisfied a Proposition H vote is required
I recommend that you:
(a) Direct the City Manager to negotiate an option agreemer
with the YMCA. The Council will want to know that if tk: measure is approved by the people that the property ca
spend the City funds necessary to hold the election. Tk option agreement should contain all the terms of tk purchase and provide that if the voters approve tk property will be acquired and if the voters do nc approve then the option will terminate.
be acquired for a specific price before committing t
(b) Direct the City Clerk to return with the appropriat
information on conducting the election which can k
considered with the results of item (a) in determinir
whether or not to call an election.
2. If the Council wishes to consider making a decision that
vote is not required then I recommend that, by motion, you:
(a) Set that matter to public hearing. Since ten days notic is required and a regular meeting will not be held c
hearing date is December 5, 1989.
November 28 (quadrant meeting) I the next availabl
(b) Consider asking the Clerk for the election informatic
and directing the Manager to ascertain whether or nc
the YMCA is willing to agree to an option as discuss<
above so the Council could know at the hearing wheth<
or not the property would be available if an election :
required.
After the hearing on December 5, 1989 the Council would, by motioi
indicate its intended decision, including proposed findings : support of that decision, and direct the City Attorney to retui on December 19, 1989 with the necessary resolution.
'\ 1 VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. \\.Li City Attorney
rmh