SR-506-003-08 (144)
.
e e 1/1
,
5P6- CJO 3-0 g "rrt 8 1980
Santa Monlca, California, March 27, 1980
TO: Mayor and Clty Counc1l
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: PubllC Hearlng on Assessment of Costs to Repair
Damaged Sldewalks, Driveways and Curbs SR-80-3
Introduction
This report 1S requestlng the C1ty Coune11 to hold a PubllC Hearing for the
assessment of costs to repa1r damaged sidewalks, driveways and curbs w1thin
the Clty of Santa Monlca and to adopt the attached Resolution confirming the
assessment of costs thereof.
Background
On March 11, 1980, the City Council set a Public Hearing for April 8, 1980,
on the assessment of costs to repalr damaged sidewalks, driveways and curbs
wlthin the City of Santa Monica. Individual letters statlng the cost of this
lIIlprovement were mailed to each property O\..mer on t1arch 20, 1980. Attached
15 the Resolution No. 5529 (C.C.S.) settlng the date of the Public Hearlng
(Item 6-D).
Reconmendatlon
It 1S recommended that the Council:
1. Open the PubllC Hearlng;
2. Close the Public Hearing and overrule any protests; and
3. Adopt the Resol ut ion confl rm; ng the assessment costs.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
Attachments: Resolution
Resolutlon No. 5529
Letter to Property Owners
Street Superlntendentls Report 7/1
APR 8 1980
.
, . e e
. SR-80-3
.
RESOLUTION NO. 5529
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
t10NICA APPROVING THE FILING OF REPORT OF WORK AND
SETTING A HEARING DATE FOR ANY PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS
TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS REGARD-
ING REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND CURBS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ~10NICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Superintendent of Streets has filed a report
of work pursuant to Division 7, Chapter 22, Sections 5600 and 5630 of the Streets
and Highways Code of the State of Cal1fornia, relat1ng to the construction of
certain improvements to sidewalks and driveways.
SECTION 2. That pursuant to Section 5600 et seq. of said code,
the City (ounc1l does hereby order and declare that on the 8th day of April,
1980, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, it w1ll hear and pass upon any
and all objections or protests to the report of work of the Superintendent of
Streets and the amount of the assessment assigned agalnst the real property
descrlbed in said report.
SECTION 3. That all protests or Objections must be in writing and
filed with the City Clerk on or before the ti~e set for hearing of protests and
objections.
SECTION 4. The Street Superintendent hereby 15 dlrected to mall
not1ces, in the manner and form prescribed by law, of the adoption of this
resolution to all persons ownlng real property affected by the sidewalk assess-
ment repa1r program, whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized
assessment roll for the city taxes or as known to the City Clerk.
\ e e
'L -
. .
.
SECTION 5. The Clty Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
resolutlon and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be ln full force and
effect.
Approveaas to Form:
--,'./ // -~------
/ ~-
'/'/1 /
, i / ~'
'--). ,
J ~.. /
City/Attorney --
f '
I ~
-2-
. .. e e
c :
,
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 11th DAY
OF I-Iarch ) l~ gO.
/r1~/fl1~
,1 r~l~R
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION)
No. 5529 ) WAS DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON
~Iarch 11 , 19q0 BY THE FOllOWING COUNCIL VOTE:
-
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Yannatta Goldway, Jennlngs, Reed,
Rhoden, Scott, van den Steenhoven,
Bambrlck ~
NOES: COUN.C I LMEI'-1BERS : .!'{one
ABSEnT: (OUNC 1 Lfv1H1BERS : None
ABSTAIN: COUNCI LI'-1EMBERS: :\one
.
ATTEST:
(h~~~,--
50" CLiRK
e e
CITY OF
S A N TA MO N I C A
CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY E;'-lGINEER March 20, 1980
1685 ~H.I'; STREET · 393-9975
S-\'\TA \IO,IC;\. CALIFOR'iI;\ 9Q4(J1 SR-80-3
-
SubJect: Removal and Replacement of PCC Sldewalk
Dear Property Owner:
You are hereby notif~ed that the City Council of the City of Santa Monica,
on the 8th day of April, 1980, at the hour of 7'30 p.m., in the Councll
Chambers in the Santa Monlca City Hall, 1685 Main Street, will hear and
pass upon a report by the Street Superintendent on the cost of the removal
and replacement of pce sidewalk as requlred by the Clty (ouncll under
Dlvlsion 7, Chapter 22, Sectlons 5600 to 5630 incluslve, of the Streets
and Highways Code of the State of California.
The total cost of the work at the above named location 1S S .
The proposed assessment is S , which is one half the total cost
of the work, and may be assessed by the City Council against said property
upon confirmatlon of the Street Superintendent's report.
The above assessment, if not paid within five (5) days after its confir-
mation on April 8, 1980, by the Council t shall constitute a lien against
the above property.
All protests or ObJections to the above work must be submitted In writing
and flled with the City Clerk on or before the time set for the hearlng.
Very truly yours,
~~
re;'Di az ~
Street Superlntendent
ED cls
- -- - -- ---- --~ -~- .. - - - -----~ -- -.-......--
. ~K-ClU-j
. e -
STREET SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
TO CITY COUNCIL
REPAIR OF DAMAGED SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, CURBS, AND/OR
REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS, PERFORMED UNDER PROVISIONS OF
DIVISION 7, CHAPTER 22, SECTIONS 5600 TO 5630, INCLUSIVE,
OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
(SR-80-3)
Pursuant to the provisions of Div1s1on 7, Chapter 22, Sections
5600 to 5630, inclusive, of the Streets and H1ghways Code of the State of
ealifo~nia, the followlng work was caused to be done by the Street Superintendent:
The removal and replacement of 7,176 square feet of pec concrete
on s i dewa 1 ks ;
The removal and replacement of 155 square feet of pee concrete on
dn veways; and
The removal and replacement of 13 lineal feet of Type A curb.
The total cost of the work was $8,151.00, based on the following charges:
Removal and replacement of:
PCC sldewalk . . . . . . . . . . . $3.00 / sq. ft.
pce driveway. . . . . . . . . . . $4.00 / sq. ft.
Type A curb . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00 / sq. ft.
The total proposed assessment lS $4,075.50, or 50 percent of the total cost.
The other 50 percent of the cost is being paid by the C1ty.
Reference is made to the attached sheets for a description of the
real property ln front of WhlCh the work has been done, the proposed assessment
-1-
~ ."... ---.....~~_...... ~ . . ~.,,~--------.,-=--......-- - ~-- ------- "-'1!0'7"_-_..--....-.
. SR-80-3
e e
agalnst each property, and a descriptlon of the work done in front of each
property.
-
rL-, ~ ~
S~et Superlntenden~
Filed with the City Clerk this I~ day 0 f "+,1''''' I L , 1980.
~~
.! ~I
.J ,!0i \ I&. ~
U~~ -~,;. (7 ,. ,-c /, ~. ' -
.I/-- ?, /-':1 City clerk;/~//./
-
=
-2-
-- - - -. - . . - - -.----- . ._u", - _ _.. ~~..,.;).k~~- U::IIl:I:::'-= :~_ - - -:"~-.....o::-_~____-_~,.,...
.
e e SR-80-3
1~
STREET SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT APR 8 f980
TO CITY COUNCIL
REPAIR OF DAMAGED SlDEWALKS~ DRIVEWAYS~ CURBS~ AND/OR
REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS~ PERFORMED UNDER PROVISIONS OF
DIVISION 7, CHAPTER 22~ SECTIONS 5600 TO 5630~ INCLUSIVE,
OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
(SR-80-3)
Pursuant to the provisions of Divislon 7, Chapter 22, Sections
5600 to 5630, inclusive, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
Californla~ the following work was caused to be done by the Street Superintendent:
The removal and replacement of 7,176 square feet of PCC concrete
on sldewalks;
The removal and replacement of 155 square feet of pee concrete on
driveways; and
The removal and replacement of 13 lineal feet of Type A curb.
The total cost of the work was $8,151.00, based on the following charges:
Removal and replacement of:
PCC sidewalk. . . . . . . . . . . $3.00 / sq. ft.
PCC drlveway . . . . . . . . . . . $4.00 / sq. ft.
Type A curb . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00 / sq. ft.
The total proposed assessment 1S $4,075.50, or 50 percent of the total cost.
The other 50 percent of the cost is being paid by the City.
Reference is made to the attached sheets for a descrlption of the
real property In front of WhlCh the work has been done, the proposed assessment
-1- 7~
APR 8 1980
.
e e SR-80-3
aga1nst each property, and a description of the work done 1n front of each
property.
~ L- .4 &!....,: -
S~et-Super1ntendenr-'
Filed w1th the City Clerk this !~ day of A-/.,("i L .- , 1980.
~ ~
.-f Li-
I '
:; ~ ~ V;iL /1 1........ z~ -
U-eccr -c;;~/ City Clerk _/ / -
.c; "7 ,"
. ~
-2-
,
r . e
~ . e (SR-80-3) 1/1
-'
. RESOLUTION NO. 5561
-
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU~CIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONIC~ CO~FIRMING THE REPORT OF THE SUPER-
I~TENDENT OF STREETS REGARDING REPAIRS TO DAMAGED
S IDE:.!ALKS, DR [VEllA YS AND CURBS (SR-80-3)
WHEREAS, the Street Super1ntendent of the Clty of Santa Mon1ca, pur-
suant to Sect10n 5600 to 5630 of the Streets and P.1ghways Code, co~nenced
proceedings to cause the reoa1r of damaged sldewa1ks, driveways and curbs
---
in the City of Santa Monica, and
~
W~EREAS, sixty (60) days after sa1d order was served, the work had
~
not been completed by the owners or persons in possession of the affected
.
p~ooerties, and the Super1ntendent of Streets caused the ~ork to be done; and
~'~H::REAS, tne SU;Jer1n"':endent o~ Streets dld file !,l/itrL_the City
Courell of the C1ty of SarJta l~ot11ca h1S reports of slIch \'Jork, and a heanng
t~ereon was called by Resolution NO,5529 (C.C.S.); and
-
U~EREAS, the City Council concucted a noticed hearing to conslder
any protests or obJe~t,ons to the Reports of the Work.
NOW, THEqEFORE, THE CITY COU~CIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DC,!:"S RESOLVE AS FOLLOHS:
SECTION 1. That the Report of Work of t~e Super1ntendent of
Streets heretofore flled and above descrlbed, be and the same 1S hereby
COnflrrled.
SECTIOr.J 2 That all of sald protests and obJectlOns of evel'Y
kInd and nature to the repaIrs or to the assessments and all appeals therefro~
to saId City Councl1 ce and the sar-e hereby are overruled and de~led.
.
-1-
- - - --
. e
, e
,",
<
L
. ~ ,
SECTION 3. That the cost of the repalrs, as set forth in sald
Report. shall be assessed against the properties herein descrlbed, which
prope~t'es front upon the ,~provement so constructed.
SECTION 4 That if such assessQent is not pald with,r the .
tl~e per7,tted by law the sarr.e shall const,tute a speclal assessment and
llen against tne pro~ert'es therein descrlbed, ,n tne awount set forth
in sald Re~ort, WhlCh l1en shall contlnue untll the assessment and all
interest thereon ,s pald,
SECTION 5. That if the assessment is not pa,d wlth,n the
t'~e per~lt~ed, the Clty Clerk shall deliver a Notlce of llen, slgned by
the Superlntendent of Streets) as provlded lr Sectlon 5626 of the Streets
-
and H19hways Code of the State of Californ,a, to the County Assessor and
Tax Collector, who, l~ accordance wlth appllcable law, shall collect sald
assessment, togetrer wIth all other taxes relatlng to such property.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certlfy~o the adoptlon
of thlS Resolution.
~
-
-
-2-
. e
. e
,
4
.~
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 8th DAY
OF :-\p1;'il } 1981 I
VPb-yJ - r~ .-'----
V~ r\1~~R ' ~ .
.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION}
r~O I 5561 } WAS DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON
..'\.pri18 J 193~ BY THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL VOTE:
-
lannatta Gold~ay, Jennlngs, Reed,
AYES: (OUNC I LMEr1BERS: Scott, Banbrlck
NOES: [OUNC I U'\El"'lBERS : Rhoden, Bambrlck
....
ABSEnT: (OUNC I L~iHmERS : \Jane
ABSTAIN: [OUNC I L~1Et'1BERS : l\one
.
ATTEST:
~
C1 TY CLERK
~ ~~... . _ ~_~A
. e e -, fJ
APR 8 1980
517 Lincoln Blvd.
SAlJTA MoracA Ca
90402
The Ci ty Clerk
Ci ty of Santa ~;:om_ca
1685 1~in Street
S";':'-l'l.. =.luiiIC.-& Ca 90401
Dear Sir:
The folloynng lS my reply to letter 3:'_80-3 from Street Supt.
=fren Diaz dated 20th 1illrch.
I protest the assessTIent of $227.50 Wh1Ch lS half of the total
cost of repalr of the sldewalk outslde ~ home at the above address
for the folleotllng reaS')lls:
(1) The G.ar~abe ';ras Gue to the deve~o:pment of the roots of a carob
tree (a notoriously shallow-rooted variety) Wh1Ch extended from the
trunk of the tree under the sldewalk causlng 1t ~o rlse.
( 2) ThJ.s was ohserveci at a very early stat;e when the damage was
inslgnlflcant and CQuid have been ~revented altogether li,at that
hme, the root :Cae. been cut through and removed,but to the best of
,:y lmm'f lec.ge , nothlng was done although I telephoned the street
department and reported the matter.
e 3) TL1S was approxlmately SlX years ago and in the mteriD., the
pro-DIem was reported repeatec.ly by me J.n the forI': of letters,r,aybe
three, telephone calls,a~ least six and personal visits to Clty 2all
on three occaSlons .I'.leanwhlle ,the pro bIen had reached an extreme Jy
dangerous stage "fl th an ent1.re corner of a concrete alock being broken
creatIng a large hole. ?eallsing that t l3 presented, defInite ~enace
to anyone using the sidewalk,especl~lly a blind ~erson or iurlng the
hours of darkness and that an expens~ve law suit for damages agamst
the Clty should an accident occur, I agaln urgently requested that some-
thm; be done to rectify the :-latter. A teI'1,!:>orary patchwork job 1vaS done
after a safety inspector callee, SSW the :iamage and the danger and, I
have n~ doubt, hastJ.ly ordered so~e l~~edlate action. The teI:1porary
~epair lasted on~y a n~tter of thr~e months vnen the contlnulng growth
of the roots further caused the sidewalk to rise and the hole to reappear.
~~ln a te~porary repalr was made ~~th an aShpalt type of ~aterial.
~ (4) L'1. view of the considerable 3JTlount of trouble I '..ent to to carry
out what I conslder to be a public duty m urgmg the repair to be done,
thus preventing possIb+e serlOUS Lnyury to an md~vidual sad resultant
cost to the city,2nd psrt1cul~rly In view of the fact that when the matter
was flrst repartee. the est~mated cost for the rep31r was $85.00 (even
that ~od(st a~ount I protested~~) I consider 1 t extremely unfan that I
should be helo resp~nslble for half the cost of the present-day repalr bill.
( 5) ~he tree responsible for the entlre problen is the property of the
CIty, gro";ing on C 1 ty -o..med ground and. d anagmg -;;ha t rrrus t sure ly be cons 1d-
ered & CltY-OiTIlsd s1iewalk ,,,(nch lS used not by ny fa'llly alone, but by j;he
general public. 7/1
APP. 8 Kr
; . .
-2-
( 6) Fin:::..lly, I an 76 years oi' age and. 1 L vlnp: no'l, on a flxed incol'1.e.
':'0 h<:cve to core up ","ith $227.50 under ?resent cl.rcUl"'st611ce8 would be
a deflnlte hardshJ.p ~d I feel th~t wlth the lnformatlon I have now
submItted to the r.e~bers of the City Council, symD~thetic conSlderatlon
'1','].11 be given to DY particular case.
I ~lgtt n3ntionthat during t~e re~air operstion,the drlver of one of ~he
heavy trucks pulled up on the apron of PlY arl veway causlIlg a blg crack
in the concrete. ~his ~as ~olnted out to the foreman of the repaJ.r group
b~t the dr~ver disc12lffied resDonsibllity although it was perfectly obv~ous
that the crack was qUite new (no ~lrt or \reeds In It) an:: to my certain
kno".:ledge ,vms not there Drlor to the repair work be ing done.
Yours faithfully,
/1{~v<J~
J .1~.C:fmLTl:i:::
- ~