sr-021374-7a m-, _~ ~~
-~~-,~~~
Santa Monica, ~Calrfo~~,~ ~a~. ~`~
3anuary 3, 197 ~ ` ;~~~~~~ ~~.
a'
.. ,.
l f -~-
To: Mayor end Gi~y Council ~,a~7 a~a~3'~"~ ~
~
F ~
r~~YSS ar~g~ %33 i~;.
~'A{3M: Ca,ty Attorney ~;s~~ ~~~~~'s c~~a~.
a
~~
~~~ r73.8~~. __
'~"" SL~3JECT: Farcal log Stewart:~traet hidening, C. Curtin ~iitchells
~' k`ull Fake Aquisitic~n Zn~tead of Part -3`ak,4 Acquisition
IDSTItOL1UCTIOti :
,;
The City Council has aut~orizecl the taking of a portioh
of t2`ie abcsve~'X°eferes_zced property for right-of-way i3a connectaon.
with the Stewart :Street- wiciennga ~:?arious problems hays arzsezs
in tlxe attempt tG implement ti~is authority. .This report to the
Council seeks the aut_~SOxity to take the entire prcperty now
designated as Parcel 14s rather than the,previcusly designated
p6~°'~1,On ~f. Stg{dh property.
sac~~RO~mrD
-This parcel is located at 2802 Kansas Avenue and 2f117-
2014 Stewart Street in Santa Monicaa The Citg Y:ad proposed to
take some eleven hundred ninety two (1,192) square feet of land
from the nroper~y to allow suffioi.ent right-of-vray for,tlae
widening of Stewart Street,:
The riitiai`aggraisal of the subject. property allowed
Thx°ee Thousand-Five Hundred Seventy Six ($3,576.04) Dollars
for land value (1,192 square feet}. This airounts to approximately
Three (53.40} Dcllars per sauare foct of lard.
Because .the proooszd right-of-vray extends through a
portion of the buildings on the lot, severance damages were.
allowed in addition
to land payment. The amour_t of saverarc~
-1-
,..
_damages was established at Nine Thausand Four Hundred Fifty Twa
{$9,452.00) Dollars. Additionally, because certain imgrovements
would also be .taken with the land, the amount of Qne'Thausand
Eighty Two:($1,8$2.00) Dollars was established as compensation
:~
for; a~npro*re?aents. T::e total appraised val;:ation of the. parcel
was £'ourteen Thousand One Hundred Ten {$14,110.00} Dollars.
~'he imgrovemezats ct~~rently located on the subject
property eonsist `~£ two ane~°st~sry frame and stuoco duplexes htai?t
in 1939, and a five-car garage. at is the:; nature of these
improvements, anr3 their state ~f s~aintenance which has created
the difficult problems in successfully negotiating a partial
taki~sg of the sui?ject property. gince the time o£ the agprasalc
extensive negotiation has been conducted between this officeF
Mr. Mitchall, the owner.:: of the subject property, and his attorneys.:.-,,..
In making the appraisal, the appraiser, Leonard and.
smith Associates,. had.ariginally anticipated that the City would
reconstruct a concrete'wail and concrete steps, and that the
owner would relocate the stucco duplexes to a position fartheg
back-from the proposed"~°ight-~~-way than ~khey are presest2y ~ .
located. 'The appraiser::.. also.anti~ip$ted that the property awa~er
would remodel hid garage, utilizing=funds received as severazsee
damages after the taking and -the construction.
The lOCatian of the duplexes and the. garage is such
that, if relocation is not una°ertaken, it would be necessary
to destroy the useability of at least one duplex unit and to
ubstantially reduce another :in size. The problem is further
complicated by the fact that in the after condition, the new
-2-
'.
" _.
:
sidewalk would pass directly beneath 'the front door of each of
the duplex units and would not allow for any setback or green
area.
In caxztemplatian of these problems, Nir. TMFitchell at
or_e time suggested that the City might consider for=going ±he
payment of severance damages end performing the relocatian work
or contracting fay; the relaca~.ion Mork on its own. upon
investigation of this ~ugg~stion, the City discovered-.that there
might be a grew"maaay ~rableaae attendant upon any attempt td.
reldcate the dup~~x stacturesa"
Since"these straact~sres were built in 1439, there is
a substantial posss~bility that any :attempt to lift them from their
foundations and-move them might so weaken the structure as to
.cause it to callapse® Secondly, it would be necessary to rebuild"
the faundation for the structures and to remove part cf the
faundation whicta presently exists. A preliminary bid was sought
from Y7ilson brothers Building Contractors,. located in the City
of `Santa Monioa and they estimated that the cost of relocatian
of ..the frare and stucoo building together with the rer~,aval and
relocation of a garage ~rrall vrould cost approximately Fifteen
Thousand fight Fi~nndred Four ($i5,£t~?.00} Dollars. From this
estimate it appears that the estimates of severance damages
which was contained in the City's appraisal may have been law.
St may also be that the estimate of the value of the improvements,
-estimated at Sixteen Thousand {$16,000.00} Dollars, may haves
been-substantially-higher than their-actual worth.
If the City were to endeavor to relocate the duplexes,
_3_
__
there would:be a question of .liability in .the event of a collapse,
especially if the City were-the contractor with regard~:.to such
work.
During negotiation, it was also discovered that some
cf the facli ties Io=~atad on `h_ N~°operty Niouid hasle tQ be
upgraded ~,n order to c~nforlCi t12a°Ya w~.th present code requirem~nta-.
These faci7.ities i~aolu~e tie electric facilities and the heatang.
facilities: which do not at t~s~ present time appear to conforms
to the requireane~t~ of-.the ~a~ta pica Municipal Codee
H7laatev coux~e of action is finally undertaken wits
regard to parcel 'Z~, there will ue an additional burden upon ~s
City. to relocate at least two of tha tenants presently Iivinc~
on the subject property. Sf reloca:~ion of the buildings was to
occur, all four tenants woulei need to be at Least tempcsraril
relocated. if tie building Caere to'remain after the takings 'i~
is possible that only one of these tenants would require per~c~zser ~ .
relocation. If the City wero to acquire the entire property.:.
and demolish tlse eacisting ~tructures,~all four tenants :would;
probably need to 'be r~l~cate~;a~zzently.:
The siaiest solution to the problem would be to
proceed with an action in condemnation, and either settle the
action according to the te:~ts of the City or take the xaatter `y
to trial in the hope of receiving a favorable jury aeasrd ancl.
then demand that the property owner relocate his structures sa
thattheg would not interfere with the proposed right-of-way
of the City. This would be in connection with a partial taking
of the property ,...and the property .owner would be entitled to
-4_
compensation for all the severance .damages involved. This
solution, however, would not necessarily be satisfactory to the
owner, might be irery costly t® him,'and is not in keeping with
the'atte~apts of this office ~~ negotiate xgasonable settlements
of 'these types o~ matters.
For tha,s reason, ant bearang in tii.nd the original
appraisal ~f the`subje~t proprtlr w~aich indicated that.-:the total
property should .he varied at the su?n of Thirty Six Thozasand
Three F%undred f$~6,~00>'00) Rollers, ,this office has zaade a
tentative affor to ~°ie 'propeity ;awazer to purchase the entire .
pax~vel aid to pad 'tk*erefgr tie sux~ of Forty Five Thausand
($45,000.00} Dolars. This ~ieuld mean that the city would tame
title to the enters seven t_~aousand five hundred and ninety twa
{7,552) square feet of property which is Pa.reel l5. This
solution would present the City with the groblem of relocating
all. four tenants permanently. ~uch revocation is mandated by
the terms and provisions of the ~x•aithewaite Act, Government
Code §7260:-and fallowing. TFe maxianum liability under the
Hrath$waite Act `for relocation of tenants is equal to a sum of
Four Thousand {$x,000.00) Dollars per tenant. plus moving expenses..
However,`this maximum amount can only be'gaid if the tenantsF
upon reiocaticn,`purchase a house and place Two Thousand {$2,OOtf)
Dollars of their own money as a down payment on such house. St
is not anticipated that the maximum benefits provided far in the
- zct will need to be utilized ie this acquisition, but it is
pointed out that the expense to the City may be as high as
approximately Twenty.Thousand {$20,000) Dollars r_ addition to
-5-
would recoup Thirty Two Thousand. ($32,000.00) Dollars of its
expenditure in purchasing the entire property.: fihus, if the
estimate of 3ix~y Five Thousand d$65,000.00) Dollars is correct,
the--City eaauld be,makxaq a net expenditure of same Thirty Three
TheLSand (533,000.00) DoS.lars. In `all nrobabilty, phis aet
expenditure. would be c~,aser to Twenty Five Thousand (.S25,OOt}.00}
Dollars tYaa~a to ~'hirtyThree. Thousa~id ($33,000.00) Da2lars.
~.I,TEFN~T3 ~O.IaiJ~l''?D~i ~ m
1> T3x first solv~tion is: to proceed to trial on t)ae
partial tilting arad to pay whatever award is Made by the 3ury,
acquire title to the necessary xight-of-way, and require Mr.
a~iitdhell to make-any necessary arrangemeixts with regard to
relocation of the structures-on the.; property so as nat to ix~terfe~~ ;
with the City's xight-of-wa~o This alternative would probably
cast the.-City in the neighborhoad of Fifteen to Twenty;Thausana
($1'5,000 to $20P000} Aollars and the City would acquire ane
tY~esusand cne huxidred .ninety twa (1,392} sguare feet afland. It
would not completely solve the problem with regard to possible
relocation liabilities 'of the City ifor one or twa tenants):"and
this problem might increase the cost to the City by the sum 4f
Two to Four Thousand ($2,000 to $4,000) Dollars. This alternative:
would not be the most favorable to the property owner, 1~s.
Mitchell. It is estimated. that the total cost to the'City of
this alternative would be approximately .Twenty Two Thousand -
($22,000.00) Do3lars.
2. The second alternative would be to settle the
-7-
e~
Twenty Thousand .:::($20,0-00.00) Dollars.
Additionaiiy under this alternative, the Gty might
incur tixe sorts of relocation of sine or two tenants temporarily
while constructi4a is goring or, arsd perhaps the -relocation of
on_a" p=_?nranently, The estimat2~ most o£ t!zis relocation. would
be in an aanount 9£ Two to Tizree ~'housand ($2,000 to $3,000) i3allarsa
Therefore,`the eaitire.e~ost of this method raf settlement would be
a~aprexim~tely T~a~raty 5'ive Tiao~sand ($25, 000.00) Dollars.
~m Thn ttraa,rd a3,te*-s~ative is essentially a combination
- ~f-t3s~ firms a~~e~on~altera~a~tive-..~ Zt vassuld require settleinent_t ._
o£ the matter ratiaer than trial in court. The City would pay
~. Nfitohc7l for a pa~tigi t~~ing caf t?ze land involved (i, i92 - .. ~ ';
square feet) and all damages:involved and Mr. Mitchell would tlaert
contract fear the 'necessary sa®~;~ to-be done. The cost to the
City would be the amount of the lard payment with improvements
and the amount ®£ severance damages, and will probably 'be in the
neighborhood o£ F'i£teesi to Twenty Thousand ($15,000 to $20,000)
Pollens. Additia~aally`there would 'be relocation costs in-
approximately Tws~ to Three Thousand.. ($2,000 or $3,000) Bollars
as in altexnataves one and twd.
The prt~blem with this alternative is tine problem of
negotiating this 'type of settlement, including attempting to -~
coardinate the desires of Mr. Mitchell and the City as to the
..proper"right-of-way and the. problems involved in havr_g the
property owner attempt to relocate his buildings in a manner
which would bz compatible with the proposed right-of-way.
4. The fourth alternative is to, purchase the entire
_~9-
~ r
to the City would be approximately Sixty Five Thousand ($65,.400}
Dollars. This figure would represent a price of approximately
Eight Dollars acid Fi~~~ ($8.5.4} Ceazts per square foot 'far the
entire property including relocation benefits. Without relocation
benefits the unit. cost`of the auisitionof the property and
improvements would be dust under Sid E$6.00) Dollars per squaw
font.
`Aside fzom l.aar~iting the City's liability and affording .
a desira~ile.sett~e~ent to Dorm: ~Sitchell, the property ownerr s
alternati~ae allows-thy; City ~o xet~in ttte additional six tho~z~a:.~
four hundred y6,~00} ~~uare feet arsd to yell itat perhaps Six
t$6o04} De~llars`per aware fcot whsch would mean the Gity would -
realize Forty-Five Thousand Five I~undred 'Eifty.Two ($45,552...00}
Dollars on the gale of the excess land. :Deducted fromvthe maximur~~^i
figure of Sixty Five ~'housand ($65,'000} Dollars, the coat to the
City would be approximately Twenty Thousand ($20,000} Dollars
overall. Of course, if relocation 'does nat cost Twenty Thousand .
($2Q,000}:Dollare, butcosts only Five or Ten Thousand f$5,040 ar °,
$1QF000} Dollare,the tcatal cast to the City of-this alternative
would be less then that of any of the other three alternatives
ire that the cosh would be cut to 'approximately Ten to Fifteen
Thousand .($10,000 to $15,00d} Dollars for the entire taking.`
RECOMi+~NDATION:
Because of the problems involved in attempting to work
out a partial taking of the property, and the likelihood that
-.the costs might be minimized by the use of the fourth alternative,`
and because the property owner is`satisfied with the fourth
-11-