CC - 1974-37 - Street Superintendents ReportRESOLUTION NO. 7_G'_.37'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC.IL OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE STREET
SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT- THEREIN
(MISSION DRIVE, NORTH SIDE, MUSCATEL TO IVAR)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS-
SECTION 1. In accordance with Section 5883 of the
Streets and Highways Code, the report of the Street Superintendent
with respect to the construction of improvements in the 8800 block
of Mission Drive between Muscatel Avenue and Ivar Avenue, and the
proposed assessment set forth therein is hereby confirmed.
SECTION 2. In the event that said assessment is not
paid within five (5) days from the date hereof, the Street Super-
intendent is directed to record a notice of lien in the office
of the County Recorder and turn over a notice of lien to the
Tax Collector for delivery to the County Auditor for entry on
the County assessment books opposite the descriptions of the
parcel concerned.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd- day of April,-
1974.
I~A OR OF TH C Y ROSEMEAD
ATTEST:
CITY OF
ROSEMEAD 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, Ca 91770. (288-6671)
A . 7y-3 77. z~, A
Michele & Antonette Macchia
8725 Steele Street
Rosemead, CA 91770
A/464-1.
This is to inform you of the costs involved in the improvements installed
on your frontage property:
- i
190 Cubic Yards of Excavation. . . . . C~ $3.00 = 5.70:00
108 Linear"Feet of Curb and Gutter . . . C~ 2.50 270.00
615 Square Feet of Sidewalk and Driveway .55 = 338.00 .
Approach
80 Tons of Type 1 AC Pavement . . . @ 9,00 = 720.00
40 Cubic Yards of Crushed Aggregate Base. 8.00 = 320.00
1 /~q cro
SUB TOTAL. $2L2-1-8-00-
25% of $2,218.00 for Engineering which includes:
5% for Survey
10% for Design
5% for Staking
5% for Inspection
SUB TOTAL. .
TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENTS = 2,773.00-
The yellow form enclosed is a notice of cost and date of Hearing to be
held by the City Council.'
Payment of the assessment must be made by APRIL 5, 1974
to avoid a lien being filed with the County Recorder as required by
the California Streets and Highways Code.
You will have thirty-one (31) days from the above date before interest
becomes applicable. After 31 days, interest will accrue at 2% per
month (6% per year).
If payment is not received by June 30, 1974, the entire amount plus
applicable interest will be included on your December 1974, and April
1975 tax bills as equal installments.
Any questions regarding the assessment should be directed to the
Public Works Department at the Rosemead City Hall - 288-6671, extension
57.
he Honorable Mayor
and Members
Rosemead City Council
Madame and Sirs:
March 29, 1974
Re: Special Assessment at
8857 Mission Drive
You have before you the matter of confirmation of assessments for
street work at 8857 Mission Drive, in the block between Ivar and Muscatel.
It would seem appropriate to review the history of this case.
Contact was first made with the owners to secure needed right-of-way
early in 1970. The owners at that time were Grant McFarland and Blanche
McFarland, husband and wife. The City's offer to compensate the McFarlands
for loss of the structure, with land dedication to be gratis, was declined.
We subsequently contacted Mr. Jesse B. Chapman, Senior Residential
Appraiser of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. Mr. Chapman then made
an appraisal of the land and improvements needed to be acquired. His
appraisal, dated May 8, 1970, and made as of April 30, 1970, assigned a
value of $3,500.
Later, Mr, and Mrs. Macchia acquired the property. When we learned
of the transfer, the right-of-way agent contacted them over a period of some
months. However, no satisfactory solution was found.
As the time for going to contract approached, it became necessary to
reach some conclusion. Therefore, preparation was made to invoke eminent
domain.
In condemnation matters, it is necessary that the qualified appraisal
used be less than a year old. We therefore had Mr. Chapman update the
appraisal to October 3, 1972. The value had increased, according to him,
to $5,000.
Mr. and Mrs. Macchia then had an appraisal made, of which we have a
copy. It assigned a value of $17,600. In my opinion and in the opinion of
Mr. Chapman, it is a very unrealistic document. It should be noted that
the attorneys later-employed by the Macchias did not choose to introduce
that appraisal in evidence.
This did give us a basis for making an offer in excess of our
appraiser's figure, subject to Council approval. I offered $7,200, with no
assessment for improvements.
By telephone, Mrs. Macchia declined my offer, but made a counter offer
of $10,000 and no assessment, take it or leave it. Our offer expired at
5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 9, 1973, and it was decided not to accept theirs.
An Order for Immediate Possession was secured, and the condemnation suit
filed.
Special Assessment at 8857 Mission Drive
Page Two
March 29, 1974
The Macchias secured the services of a well-known San Francisco
attorney. The reason for selecting a remote attorney is not clear to us,
but does not concern us. The choice was theirs.
Negotiations were carried on between the Assistant City Attorney and
an attorney representing the Macchias.
When Assistant City Attorney Brown received an offer to settle for
$7,150 he referred the offer to me. I asked whether it was conditioned upon
there being no special assessment for improvements, and received assurance
that there.was no such condition. We accepted the offer and the
transaction was completed.
An improvement district was then initiated, covering the north side
of Mission, Ivar to Muscatel. The Macchias were notified of the public
hearing on the matter. In a regular meeting the Council gave the order to
proceed.
In the acquisition of property, it has always been my personal objective
to pay exactly what it is worth - no more, and no less. If we pay too little,
the individual is being cheated. If we pay too much, all the rest of the
citizens are being cheated.
We suggest that it is not just desirable to have firm policies in
such areas of public activity - it is absolutely essential. To vary the
City's actions from person to person without sound reason is to deny equal
protection under law.
We do feel compassion for these absentee landlords, who received fair
value for their property. We also feel compassion for the dozens of resident
homeowners who freely gave the land needed for right-of-way.
CLG:jg
Respectfully submitted,
C. LELAND GUNN
yn 7Y""~/ MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 8, 1974 `
~s
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT AT 8855W MISSION DRIVE
On May 8, 1973, your honorable body authorized staff to order
installation of street improvements consisting of curb, gutter,
sidewalk and driveway approach, at the above address.
The property where installation of these improvements were made
did not dedicate the right-of-way necessary. Since Mission Drive is-a
major City street, the Council concurred that property owner should be
assessed for the entire cost of improvements.
Request you set your meeting of March 26, 1974, as time and
place for confirmation of assessments.
FGT: jg