1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2J1 4 Mrs. Audrey A. Konetsky, 1509 Sierra St., (Por. Lot 7, Block E - Assessment #43) reported she had received a clear title insurance policy to this property as the original assessment had been paid, and protested the respread adding an additional assessment to her property. Attorney for the District, C. W. Lebsack, reviewed how assessments had been levied previous to 1.964 against parcels, with owners as previously shown on the tax rolls at that time, and property since sold by a resubdivision of the original parcels would still carry the additional assessment on the full parcels. City Clerk reported that Mr. Wilson had been advised personally as to the fact that parcel was subdivided after the assessment district was formed and the additional assessment is still required to be levied against the entire original parcel. Attorney for the District stated assessments now being considered at this hearing had been set by the court after full consideration and affects the same parcels even if they had been subdivided and sold during the interim. Council questioned further possibilities of new property owners in this District contacting original owners of parcels for a readjustment of purchase price or compromise on any addi- tional assessment to compensate for any additional levy being made; or, in case of statements made concerning receipt of clear title, if recourse could be had from title companies issuing such policies, when in fact title had not been clear with the assessment district not closed and suit pending through the courts. Attorney further reviewed court proceedings which had been caused by a suit against the District claiming assessment spread had not been equitable partially due to considerations which had been given for earlier donations of land. A writ of mandate -had been issued by the Superior Court for the respread now being considered, which in some cases lowered the previous assessment and raised others. He stated the total cost of the improvements was unchanged, but that the court-ordered respread of assessments reversed the City's practice of giving credit for r -o -w donated as a condition of a subdivision or similar application. Council discussed further any possibility of relieving the burden of additional costs incurred to owners of property purchased since assessment district was formed. Mr. Nicholas Marcelli, 695 -5th Ave., owner of Por. Lot 14, Assessment #9, protested street planning and dedication of land made by him which now prevented full development of property. He particularly protested placement of a fire hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac preventing full use of his property. -' Mr. Marcelli was advised of the original planning proposed for streets in this area to intersect Woodside Road, preventing cul-de-sacs, but which had been disapproved by the State Division of Highways. Mr. Marcelli also asked that he be given a report on the _ computation of costs for spreading of this Assessment. After further discussion on inability of Council to alleviate problems to new owners of property in this District, Councilman Petersen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Rosselli. Sell V