SR-10-B (12)
GS:SES:AA:sdg:swhld184
Council Meeting: october 13, 1992
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 10-B
A-.';o /O"~
, l' f ,OCT 1 3 }OC7
Santa Mon1.ca, Ca 1. orn1.a ~..,;.
...
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to Item lOB
BACKGROUND
Staff received the attached letter of protest dated October 8, 1992
from Jose M. and Dulce M. Martinez regarding their property on 1719
Oak street. Staff researched the complaint, contacted Mr. Martinez,
and resolved the issue to Mr. Martinez's satisfaction.
RECOMMENDATION
city staff recommends revising the following attachments to the staff
report in order to reflect an adjustment to a clerical error:
a) List of Property Owners
Revise the Assessment for 1719 Oak street from $549.75 to $243.75.
b) street superintendent's Report
This address was inadvertently cited twice. The second citation
which was never issued but mistakenly used in the calculation
caused an error in the original staff report. Revise the street
Superintendent's Report to delete the phrase "removal and
replacement of 42 square feet of driveway at $7.50 per square
foot i 25 square feet sidewalk at $6.00 per square foot: and 14
linear feet of curb at $10.50 per lineal foot."
The total amount of revised assessments is $6,893.25.
IfDD -h
/d~4
OCT 1 3 r
- .. -...., -
..
JOSE & JULCE ~~TINEZ
'719 OAK STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
REC~J u -
"FFI"'''' ...,.... ~.
.~ _ LC L'~ "':
i i Y I"~ ~~
~ .,.....g-
OCT ~ '1 '9Q'"
...... ~ wi.
.! 0/08/92
"92 OCT -9 AlO :45
SANTA Mi'
Clty of Santa Monlca
General SerV:Lce
~alntenance Management Dlvlslon.
Dear Sl.rs,
Over two years ago we recelved a letter from your offlce regardl.ng the
repalr of the sldewalk l.n front of our property on 1719 Oak St. The
~otal cost, you stated, would be $487.50, of WhlCh we agreed to pay
$243.74 = ~ of the total cost.
when the work was flnally started l.n May 1992, ~he IlrSt portlon of
~he drlveway was broken by the machlne used In the removal of t~e old
sldewalk. No attempt was made to repalr It, and f~rthermore, when the
work was "flnlshed" there was a gap between the sldewalk and the drlve-
\-lay, a real jazard to anybody coml.ng lnto our property. ioJe called
your c=flces aD~ ~umplalned, ~ecause we couldn1t brlng the car lnt~
~he drlveway wlthout damaglng lts tlres. A person came to lnspect the
work done and decJded that we had to pay $500 to have the drlveway,that
your workers broke, repa~red and graded. F~nally the work was done after
weld pald $175.00 to a C~ty Representatlve.
Now we are told that we have to pay $549.75 ~nstead of the amount we
had agreed upon. May we know Why? How could the costs have lncreased
so much In less than two years elapsed between your letter ana tne
termlnatlcn of your work? . We accepted to share In the expenses of
repalrlng the sldewalk, even If we dld not plant the tree t~at broke It,
oecause we conslcered It our duty as good cltlzens and ~elghbors of
Santa Monlca Clty, but we also conslder thlS lncrease In the .lcostS"
abuslve ana ~ntolerable.
Slncerely yours,
~~J~~
fhone. ~ If.!i2--;2.~31
t9C'; M'~{V
~ ~ rJ../
~v./
~(".I/
1'1 ~tfJ "- I~-.e
OCT 1 3 1992
.............iI ___