SR-507-000 (34)
. -~ J - ~
r . ~ . r
. - :'. .
r -~ 7.A
50 ?--o 00 fEB 11 1986
GS:SES:JS:ct
Councl.! Meeting: February 11, 1986 Santa Monlca, Call.fornl.a
TO: io1.ayor and Cl.ty Councl.l
FROM: Cl.ty Staff
SUBJECT: Hold Publl.c Hearl.ng on Proposed Street L1ghtl.ng
Dl.strlct on 9th, 12th and Prlnceton Streets between
vhlshlre and Santa Monl.ca Boulevards; Yale and Harvard
Streets between Santa Monlca and Colorado Boulevards;
Hlll Street between 23rd and --25 th Streets; 22nd Street
between Pl.CO Boulevard and Pearl Street; 31st Street
between Pearl Street and Ocean Park Boulevard; and
Franklln Street from vhlshlre Boulevard to the
Northerly Clty llmlts.
Introductlon
Thl.s report requests the City Councll to hold a publlC hearlng to
determlne the convenlence and necesslty of street llgnts and to
order the work on 9th, 12th and Princeton Streets between
Wllshl.re and Santa Monlca Boulevards; Yale and Harvard Streets
between Santa Monlca and Colorado Boulevards; H1Il Street between
23rd and 25th Streets: 22nd Street between PlCO Boulevard and
Pearl Street; 31st Street between Pearl Street and Ocean Park
Boulevard; and Franklln Street from 1hlshlre Boulevard to the
Northerly Clty llmlts.
Background
On January 14, 1986, staff presented street llght petltlons for
the above streets wlth tne requlslte number of resl.dents'
sl.gnatures to the Clty Councll. The petltlons were revl.ewed and
approved by the Rent Control Board staff. The Clty Councll
accepted the petltl.OnS and adopted Resolutlon No. 7141 (CCS)
settlng a publlC hearlng for tne purpose of determlning whether
publlC convenlence and necesslty requlre the constructlon of
7-A
fE8 11 1986
" .. . .
street 1lgbtIo~nd declarIng l.ts IntentIon to construct street
lIghtIng and appurtenant work.
The resolutIon set a publIC hearl.ng for February 11, 1986, at
whl.ch tIme any interested party may address the proposed work or
Improvements. NotIces of PublIC Hearing were mal.led to each
property owner and posted on each street In the manner prescrIbed
by State law on January 27, 1986. A lIst of property owners wIll
be avaIlable for reVIew In the CounCIl Chambers at the tIme of
the publIC hearIng. Also, notlces were posted near mall boxes on
mUltI-famIly bUIldIngs to Inform tenants of the publlC hearIng.
Bud~et/Flnanc~al Impact
The estlmated cost for thlS streetllght dlstrlct is approxlll\ately
$484,820. The Clty.S portIon is approx1mately $242,410.
At thIS tl.me, appropriatIon authority In the amount of
$234,034.09 IS available 1n Account No's. 01-770-453-000-902
($42,402.59) and 01-770-453-000-903 ($191,631.50) . However,
staff IS recommendIng that the CIty CounCIl award a contract at
thlS Councll meetlng (Item 6N) to construct another streetlight
dlstrlct and $83,775.00 15 proposed to be encumbered from these
accounts. 'Therefore, $150,259.09 wIll be avaIlable for thIS
proJect. At the t1me of the award of contract for th1s d1strict,
staff will request approxlmately $92,150.91 be appropriated to
construct the streetlights.
- - -- - - ~- --~- -- - -- ---- -- -
~ -. . .
Recommendatlon
It l5 recommended that the Clty Councll:
l. Open the publlc hearlng on tne convenlence and
necesslty and the Resolutlon of Intentlon;
2. Close the publ~c hearlng and acknowledge any
protests: and
3. Adopt the attached resolutlon f~ndl.ng that the
publl.c convenl.ence and necessl.ty require the constructlon and
ordering the work.
Prepared by: Stanley E. Scholl, Dl.rector of General Servlces
Jean Stanley, Adminl.strative Analyst
Attachments: Resolution
Letter to Property Owners
Informatl.on Sheet
------- - - -----
--------------------------------------~--------~---------
-
~~ .~;J - , / .."
. _ ~.. L'
.
- ~
519-:1---000 Kr. c. H. Davenport
1306 A Prlnceton st.
Santa Mon.lca, Calif. , '0404
February 10, 1ge6 (213)828-2003
Mr. Morgan Flsher
1306 C Princeton st.
San ta Moni ca, Callf. , 90404
Subject I My Financ1al Problem wlth the new Street L1ght Proppeal
on Princeton St. at Arizona Ave. as the situation stands
at this momento
Dear Mr. Fisherl
On my calculator a $1,000.00 lien to pay for Hew street Llghts
on Princeton st. at Arizona Ave. grows into Sl,658.i>a at 12% interest
,
with 11 annual payments of $150&00 each and a remainder of $8.63.
That is an enormous amount of money, in my budget, when compared
to the cost our neighbors must bear. That does not include any
other benefits or operational con6ideratlons that may be more
important to 1306 Prlnceton st. at Arizona AV80 and the City at large.
When you include Federal, St ate, County and City taxes or
aaeeasments with the extraneous burdens in the collection and
payment of that money, your rent must go u, no less than ~20.00
for each and every month in the next 11 full ypara. I may need that
full aIlount of time and all the help I can obtaln to pay off the
indebtneas our ne1ghbors will be plac1ng upon th18 corner property
for those new street lights we really do not need.
I feel that we already have adequate 11ght to read a newspaper
in the rear yard of this cor.ner. I'm sure one or two new llghts
in the middle of eaoh block could be flnanced mOre directly by those
parcels that really benefit. Honestly, it m~ be found that this
corner should Buffer no assessment whatever for any "lmprovement"
that may be accomplished in this project.
SIN.cERELY
/.
y ,
/ /' ';>( ~ . -t' '" / ,
, .' L' ) C t
lIr. C.! 1t. venport
Exhibit 3/3 ,
-
~ J>-- .....:----- . 1..,*
i' -.Y~ ( .. { , -' [, ;
v .
0:.- . .-' . FEB 11 1986
, l- ~ ....... I
K... v!:--' , "-.' '.-
r,- ~".
Jt- ~! J ~ Mr. C. R. Pavenport
. 1306 A Princeton St.
Santa Monlca, Callf. , 9040.4-
'86 FEB " ';l' February 11, 1'86 (213)828-2003
P 4 :JL Clty of Santa Monlca, l6~5 Main St., Santa Monica, Cal., 9ClOl.
All Members of the ~~yASoJ~~ii: Mayor Reed, Epstlen, Jennlngs,
R. Katz, A. Katz, Conn, Za.ne
Copy to: Clty Clerk Ann Shore (for coordlnantion - item 7A thlS
evenings agenda of the CIty Councll)(copy gIven Clty Council)
(make copIes for): City Manager John Jallll,
CIty Atty. Robert M. Meyers, Il1r. Gen. Svcs. Stanley E. Sc hrn 11
~nd coordinator Jean Stanley, All members of the Rert .oard.
SubJect Item 7 A or the Ccuncll Agenda for this evenIng - Strept LIghts.
Gentlepersons z
This is to protest the cost, and the proposed dIstrIbutIon of that
cost, for new street lIghts we don't need In the 1200-1300 blocks cf
Princeton st. at the 2600-2700 lloc<s of Arizona Ave. Reference
could be made to my protest 1n letter December 20, 1~f35 or: the sarr.e
project and the suggestion for a better more unlform method of assessme~t.
I don't recall having any response fr~m any respons~ble City Offlclal
except for what may be mentioned below.
The detall that I may attach in this letter IS based on the best
est irrJatea I have available and may change slightly as new facts and
fIgures are conflrwed. However, there certalnly are several ways thp
Council and CIty Admlnistration can deal WIth this problem - if they are
so moved and ~otivated. The assessment for street llghts in our area
is certainly not gOIng to be falr and equitable in a realIstic sense of
the word. The assessment 18 very dIstorted In several aspects as lt
~s lIroposed for all property owners and as 1 t vnll apply to, for, and by
any tenants or renters that become involved.
In that connection, as near as I can get the feeling of the neighborhood
from any contact I have been able to establlsh on the Issue. there are no
_ no - established property owners (wlth one or two exceptIoDs probably) -
out of 40 or 50 ~n our area - who favor the installation of any new lights
In this four block area. Property owners really don't see the need for
any change this drastic. They probably would be perfectly WIlling to
inatall the~r own lights where necessary - If they felt ~t were cost effective.
Property owners, as a group, certainly have more concerns and more questions
about the cost than any tenant I have been able to talk to on the subject.
Sure, you have pet~tion8 before you, WhICh you w~ll not show to me,
Your staff has refused to show me and deferred to the C~ty Atty. (fat
chance there). In any event, r feal that these petItlor.S SImply represent
a large number of tenants that outnumber pro~erty owners, would abuse their
strength in numbers at moat any cost, and who, when asked by some unkn.wn
stranger circulating the pet:l.tion "if they wanted street lights" sir.ply
s~gned WIthout thlnking of any cost attached thereto. I suggest, and
strongly urge, a plebicite of property owners In the dlstrlct _ down rs
only please - to see If they are really willlng and able to pay tRe cost
of this so-called !t.mprovement".
- 1 - 7~A-
FfB 11 ;986
".. . ~ . .
More specifically, I have been told by CIty Hall Staff that my
assesement could b@ as much as SI,OOO.OO or more - due - all due
and payable wi thin 30 days after completion - of course - unless I
find a way of absorbing the 12% interest charges that could bring the
total cost up to $1,658.58 or more over the next 11 or 12 years.
That ia a lot of money for lights we don I t need on ~ small comer Iota
totalling 10,600 sq. ft. of mostly raw Ian..
As for the future, the attitude of the City on future land use
and the penalties for any development to the standards of the area
are not very encouraging. Sellout and I would simply have to replace
at a higher tax base under the rules of pronositlon 13. Unlike most
tenants, tenants such as those who probably signed this petItion you
have before you, a property owner cannot pick up and walk away from
his property very easily. I'm stuck with two buildings - a garage
duplex you will not recognize for the vacancy therein o. the assessment
of Capital Improvement Sur-Charges - for services not used - on my
water bill - - and an antique on the corner or the old house I rent to
one good single tenant.
Is 1t really fair to charge that one s~ngle tenant, another single
person, a very dedicated tenant of modest maanB , the full cost of
this 11,000.00 assessment plus interest for the extended payment schedule?
That was Buggested by General ServIces Director, stan Scholl, OLe day.
1111 bet our venerated Rent ioard .ould frown on that for the full cost
that I'll be subjected to - if they had the po_er. Fortunately, our ren t
law provides some rel~ef for an owner occupied triplex. Unfortunately,
I must reckon w1th the market place and cope with these assessments, taxes,
and restrictions as realistically as I can.
Our Director of General Services, Stan Scholl, did assure me, in one
or two recent phone conversatioD8, that he would, that he did, seek the
answer to a couple of questIons on the light assessment.
Question 1. Could a corner be granted relief from the side yard
assessment (82.60 per Slde Foot in this case) where everyone is assessed
by the Front Foot?
Isn't that double taxation without pro?er representation? Nhy should
a ('orner lot, especially with less denslty and fewer occupants~ pay more
than any interior lot up or down the street? - It may be tradit10n that
may apply to single family homes but in a multiple residentlal neighborhood
there really are no special benefits from the l1ghts in the street of the
area for a corner lot. As for the street Itself, we all have equal
access, including the general publ~c at large, and should b~ wil12ng to
pay equal. shares, not more, for that benefit. There are abuses,
e.cess parking by locals, dogs ~ l~tter - you name 1t - that WIll only
be amplified by additional llghting. Is it really worth the cost?
As a matter of fact, for thlS project on PriLceton you w~ll be removing
corner lights that are already in place if I understand the plan correctly.
Then, you will be installing new lights o€ the same style and intensity
on their own separate standards in and nearer the middle of the block.
Units in the middle of the block will be recieving mostJof the light
"imprOV8ment~" if that be necessary, with a lower assessment than and
at the expense of, the~r neighbors on the corner who must pay a d~uble
assessment. The council should take a long look at this aspect of the
problem and change the rules to fit present day conditions so thht
everyone pays more equa.lly their share of the cost for any light "J..mprovement".
- 2 -
-~- ---
~. - . .
Questicn 2. Could the Southern California Ed~son Co. add a coat
factor to the~r periodic Dill~ng statements for each household to help
pay for these new lights?
That, or any of several forms of b11l~ng each and every household unit,
would at least spread the cost out more evenly to the people who really
benefit the most from any change in our street lighting program.
Why should we cont~nue the obsolete process of assessing property
owners to the excluS10n of tran5~ent renters and tenants for many of
these proJects. Everyone benefIts - I guess. Everyone should pay
directly. Assessing an owner by the Front Foot (and Side Foot if exposed
to a side street) 18 obsolete in areas so varried 1n development as
our multiDl~ residentIal areas. You can have one, tflO, or three un1ta
next door to ten or twenty. loth represent d1fferent characters,of
~nve8t~ent and th~ straln they may or may not put on the resources of
the ccrnmunity. The smaller property developments should certainly
be exempt fro~ some assess~ents and taxes beyord their fair ahare.
Why make the property o.ner the wip~1ng boy for your new po11cy of
recognizing renters and tenants for their right to pet1t1on for these
lightlng 1mprovements - w1th no real responsibility for p~ent?
F1nal approvalJ where property taxes or assessments are concerned, shou1l.d
rema~n w~th the property owners affected. Afte r all, property o'llmere
are the only ones responsible for f1nal payment.
Pass through prOVIsions are flne~ but, they are faulty. They can
be avoided in BO many ways and certa1nly are not fair and equal.
Why should the occupant of a lcrge residentlal complex pay only a
dollar or a few cents a month when the owner of a small homeJ duplex,
or triplex must pay 10 or 20 times that amount with little or no chance
of sharing that cost w~th anyone?
I should edit this and reduce it all to a few sentences you might
be more likely to get ~n your packet and read this evening - read to
yourselves at least. Time is runn~ng out. I'll have to bring tbis to
you as ~s If I am going to get ~t to you in tIme to do any good.
I hone you can see so~e of the effect this sort~of thlng is havlng
on the small under~mproved property owner - Just tr,ylng the best he can
to survive - A.nd lOlHl1g hope with the condl. tl.Or.s yOl.: and other governmert
bodl~8 contlnually lmccse upon hlm. We neserve a better break than
we are ge t t H'g.
I'll try to come before you thIS evening, for whatever that two or
three IDl.nutes may be worth. Please give some of the thoughts I have
trled to express here~n Some cons1deratlon. I thlnk you have aome
other comIDUn1cat1ons on this same subJect that should cause you to
recors~der and review the matter in a 11ttle more depth than usual.
Reduce my cost to an equal cost with everyone else in the neifhborhood
and I might change my m~nd. Jut, as ~t stands now, I cannot approve
of any light1ng assessment for PrInceton and Arizona and must resi t
nth every hber in my body. ;----
Pt. . 'f ~i
roper Y Leacr1pt1on: C ' ./(
/ . /'lJ t?~
M/! &267 Pg. ooe Parcel 023 C.'~venpor
Serra VIsta Helghts Extens10n Lots 23 and 2.(.
-3-
-----
...... ~ . .
February 11, 1,tl6
THREE OF SEVERAL VARIATIONS ON
ASSESSMENT VALUES FOR STREET LIGHTING
Description Amount
1. Jy Street Address - 1306 Pr~nceton.
125 Ft. @ '6.50 per Front Foot
on Princeton = ,e12.50 - as confirmed -
~5 Ft. @ $2.60 per Side Foot
on Arizona "" $221.00 = Total of $1,033.50
. --- -
2. Jy Legal Description - on ArlZ0na Ave.
e5 Ft. @ 16.50 per Front Foot = $552.50 01 if allowed as
on Arizona f!l.ven below -
125 Ft. @ 12.60 per Slde Foot = $;25.0,9 = Total of _tell~~_
-- ------
< .1_, 3. Jy occupied households that benefit. ("1/~.
I" .7' Two of three units occupied @ $110.00 each = Total qf ~220~O~ :iJi~ /F~ (:-
/)" ~ ....' -
*** The SIlO cost per unit was determined in a phone conversatl.on wlth
Jean Stanley on 2-10-e6. It is an estimate. It is an estimate of the
- - --
cost per household unit for the lightlng project proposed in the 1200-
1300 blocks of Princeton at 2600-2100 Arizona Ave.. There is 2500 lin.
feet on both sides of these two streets. That area contalns 150 house-
hold units. The most recent contract prlce for a light~ng proJect of
this sort came to $6.60 for each Front Foot. Therefore, the proportional
cost of this project or. Princeton and Ar~zona should be $16,500.00
(16.60 x 2500). Devide that cost by the number ~f households in the
area ($16,500.00 . 150) to get the cost of an average household or $110.00.
To be real honest and fair about the situat10n you should devide
by the number of residents served by those households and reduce the
cost even further for a single person - property owner or tenant.
.
Property Description for ..hidl Ya1~tc~~:!_ Nro_ _~~~.P~"!~ }~h~_uld appl:f. -,( -J. ~
- ~ - - - - _~ __ - - ___ ~ __ - __ - __ n_ _ __
X/I 4267 Pg. ooe Parcel 023 Yr es Seq Nr 000 Pay Key 2
Serra Vista Helghts Extens10n Lots 23 and 24 Davenport
Prepared by: /
.....- ." /
ft.' /, -
i / 1 F -{J!t' /
, )i e' 'tL L l ", .
, ,r~' -;\ R. 'avenport
1306 A Pr~Lceton St.
1/3 Santa MonJ.ca, Cal. , 5l 0,( 04
Exhiblt (213) 82e-2003
--.-.---- ----~ -~
~
. . . .
/'
/ Fe b III c.. r:r 1'.J. j e IHI
PRO?ERTY T~~X A~JES0~ ;-~_~jT L~ ~\ r1-~~.\f~~!.,/t~ 1,;~rr13'AI1EL'
For 'I'ne Cost 01 Nt'w S' n" ~ Iei ~~nta ;"1.
l~t;C j")rlnceton .st. ';;; ,~.r.1.r-'n<l AVtJ_y ~~oU. (~~i..
l~ginini IIlJ.. tlal Anr,u.il :r~nJl ;'. ~nrj u. v ;.:. _ ..
Year Jalance In' t 1 a 1 .i:ia.l all! 'c: It: t,-. r.... ,t
rd..Yfilf'~lt -\t L2..{
1 .;1.nC0.JU $l~/I.l);' SIJ:,O..V: S~rj2.{>j
2 "j~I...(:O 1../'..' 'I} GQ,cI.,Cn) ;;j....<L~
3 5 G S , 2 ~ l~' 1. IJ (i 74 8 , ~ <I ,c) -; . ,~
.c 8~[''Q03 lLi()"t('~! (.~1[L..D~ .cL:::.~iCI
5 nC..r/3 1 >0.0'J G~'O..~J i 1 L.4;
6 6'l~.06 1:'j.0~) ').4:,.V, '':,.L
7 61O.~7 15000(; ~L0.-41 ','-'..:L
. 515.7) l~U.QU 36~~73 4~.~~
, ~O,~61 1~O.00 2),.61 ~l.l~
10 7..30.77 1':;000(, 11,0.n h.':C.
11 1:)7.66 l')(J~i)0 7.66 .G,)
12 ~.58 ~.',h ~:J;) ...'j.,
-~~ ---~ ~~---
Grand Total.3 .Ge. $l,b~'~ojr~ .~i0 :;.6')t:...5~
i're purf' d by I
.
Mr. ~;. Jl. r'avl.;'nport
lYl( l.. Pru.cetr;n '.)".
SiLIi.t~ !.~onica, ea., ~{J4l.)l
(' lA) .-0,,_ "','1" .
,~_ ,5,,;._ L~_
Exhibit 2/3
~ --I .,-- .
k-w. ~{-tJ - . <f L< ;~,. -L. I:~_ ,:-.te"i 7-'~
i..,.; I iL-.:
r'TV -. -:."
. i. . FE! 11 '"
- -
"86 FEB 11 P 4 :3L
SAN1 A MGt'h.~, ~..:i.i...I;
from the desk of
./
, d?o~~ 'bingm.an I ~
........
I
d/ 'i \ ~ 1 'SA
ki . . /J /f~
0'
~ ~
~
~/
~-
."':. .1.:. ~
.-- . .
>,.
2}
~
.
-
~ )
.
(5 (--~ < 6lf ~t'" (q)
~ f-'
~u./ ~~~U/
+-~, -.+' J /OZ 3-
;.. . .'J," , . "~-: > .?A~
-4- 7~4
FEe 1 1 tl)lI~
. /244 ~~--J--vvL S~-c.
5~-fC<. F71~.) C4 904'oc(
en
~ ~
-- ~
r~ ~ /7-86 -~
~ ~ - ~.:~
?: _"'::__Jf"'-.
c- eo _}2:~
-.. ~ ;.
:- a --. I . ~ Or
-
rl1s ~ 141, s;:lt~) ~"-J etuiL )--~ -
b ' < ,
- -.
0 -
a..f-J f> ~ ~>/~ 7JAchtt ~ .h:-
er
jCtJ8S- M~ S,.j--U2ifl ~
[; CtA-1.~ i/lILCM..t~ ~.J Cf4 9 D <:.{ 0 I
'-rluo A ~ .M.- OL (VI 1!Tk.- ( a.(J w...--r- R.a ~f-I <M. JJ '" "Wi I
. %~ p<9--l-h~ =~J s.+.-uu.:-t ~/'d~ eM +~ \'Z.OCl
b,l"'M:- '2) "P~=~ [;~-r. ~~ "<- fAo~i ~ .
i LB-+s r ~ ~ t (p ~ l/lP..<!-i tfl? 8c..f~7 o.-e.D ru-/-eJ/
&ta- 1240 ~ /2-4cf . ~<:.e.~ S-f-tJu-?-.
'1k w.ocb.r<<-+.;,.,.. ~ -H..... pf,d'tM ~oc.e~ ~/1:,D
C'di!Lc! ~~ . It; ~ ct1.l, ~i:r ~
V\~i- ~~"F"~ O~/JV<~,k u ~o"of~J 1)
..<r,/.4 n51- ofio-wvkJ< ov <L~ - ~ ..;f..;:; CC<.€JL ~
~ 0d k:tl )'1''''- tJ f<vtfWl is w l..o}.tV-e.. LV.0.. \M.e. ~
tuJ! ~ -I-k. crGL~ cg ..u0'C<.~)~<.-t ~~ukts
. \V~ COsT ~ VlO-{-.~ :d.,0) \'IQ.Ad h btN' lwocf ~
~Ant/.df~. Bo-r/< J iF~~ q~ CV'L ~ ~
. ftp~ Bt:J.6. &~ . ()-r~ ~ ~ uJtw
7--A
~::!l 1. 1 m6
. . .....
...
.
/2e4LdP ~ ~ hlock ~ ~ ~ ~if4-
t~ .h~ ~ ~c/' C< ~/Jjo
~ ~/~i'CU4-C /p dfOfe..- -rftcc{- ~ rare-
au oM. r~c1 ~C-~ ./rfh~ cJ' -r~~,
~ ~ ~ hCJYJt.#~ / CUtc/ ~ t::P-eC/.u?tO ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, C}rt9~~
~ qdp'~/ 0(1tE- -c~ -r~ ~ S
~-t ~'fs C?t --rk /hc4 A4 -4() --rl<a:.'?-..ffeC/
do 4fo-t-~ 4ht~PrnP:? tbJlai ~ '-/&</"':!~~
&>tq $-la'YJOT ~~k ...;k-..ee.O}f~ C'on-g
~~OA.e,/ ~/*cl;_~~t.jl 9n d><L- C~.
--tUg. ~ -t:-ae~7 ab.aa.:r VL-~p'-yL /,L/AoSlZ ~
.-4ncrn-rlJf; ~~ Ad. ~~OD ;/'cM1 C< .s:oc..~
~ ~d:-, tZ?t~ c:efiC -r-k ~/c/Y ~~
9- /&n~w ~ ~~ t?~~v7~ cV~
n&/tR f wJu2.k. --=- P"<~ r -1J ~"-7 ~d~
r?/~. ~ UI~ <./4>~J w.wt"~rd>>< ?
~~1 t!a4IL- ,'d-~a-L-{'~ Zm--t Jr'ClAhf6
Ao ~ rc/ ~ w~ (fCl4'f- n~ k,,#<",,-
<4 @u-+'1 ~ {fo~ 'fIvt~~,. eta ~
't;oc> ? Ii 1f /J/om CM4,fl Po/' ~a.1..~ !<roQd ""
tJ2~/~cc:hY- tv /t-iA- ~I.e ~d' ~ t .
.~ ~is ~ CUrL ~~c/ Cf4 ax-P" ell
- - ----
P/-16~ 2c5{ 3
- . . .
~..
. ~rxL- ,tL!/Th.- ~J1 r~ /tJ:M~
So +i.L +/,~:-",j"'<''''J ;J~. a ~ d...d<vu---- cos-r-
act'd!ecf ~ (>-;/ ~ tUt'hA-7 ...e~~ 17~~
No:-JU..J c~tf1 .k- fv'-~ f?"""'- ~ .f.-='i-k..",. TO
C-?-i--e ~ ~~ <2~ J!tCL~~ ~~
a<L ~-r~ C<<2- vA~ ?uA.4--OU<:> ~ c.~cf
~lt&U.", - a.c.r* wl-rfL d.fflv~ ("(n1/'o~
-I-r- g &>~~ . aW~~o CL ~
L--C~' ~ Ne6/1t""1 /1""" c4.CVHje/f0
200, 00 ~~~ ~g-,"",,7'i~ ~
C'o~~_ au</' /?Hc;Y 4-f'&n-z? C<<:J- ~~.J:GV 8
. (joo ~ ~CUJ-~~/~,q. cd~/
fwo 'I"~.P w-'-& /;J~~~ /Cjt% - Yk ~
uldfgro ~ {]~ c:oIkea<PI- 20;:2 C#t&-/hL
-t:~ d y-k/~4M<<(J~~~~-
to a-r~fia~=.s-r-~~ r~ff'
'-1k ~-t7(MCJ~ /7J ,4~Adh~ )W ~
-ch~ ~ ~ y-4>lF&J-k~ ~/v--e
~ - dd CuA ~J 'fk~
4- . Ox <fiu:o h/&JcK- ria. ~~~t{
r~~~~f1~~,~~a'a a~~
C#I1uUAA.~ g #U()"--r ~&?-/l~ rd'&q1J .6tp~.
. ctd'~/ ~~-t -v{t.ifct-- A<>- .-&k ~~ 4o.kw-
:fI Wtk~ --4<1D. ~ V:~ va?.-L)"2> 4Le fmtJ
~~-r~~..
. . -
.
-
~
az a ~tJ :;Pct/l ~cd..T C9x- I~. b/ccL.
9, ~ 4~MGt{ac~-/e/ w/'r-h- ;LAc> dcdf
"P".J~ .&//-6n;'f;;- ~ ~~ J2.-JN;Jn-/$ ("tM~
Who tp=<-ks em. -tk 4- ~ +Ie .e~ Acuud.-,
if j::-, _c/ tfU{);1'; 'I'lL ~~ ,i.dtMcJ '~~
d WD b~ un. ~ ~Ot/le. /l~ /occ".--,I'ecf.
nt W~ Mv,E: A)oL() ~t:nl Q,i'~l4-oL<i.-
~~t:-r ~<(W~ ''1 on ~7J~E.
an/~' ~tUW cod ~ h~_ a---
4eaMrl\futv-,r-' ~ y/..e ~ ~-f /L) #~
~ /-l~-r flj4k. a+ y/.UJ ~T ~-I-~
~ CUVl.. ~cJc.Uz-"J y~ a-t..e ~ ;;::;;;~ .
f-:~- ~/~. cdP'Jk ~~
~ ~ ~ block.. ~O-rA I/Je-/~ cpu/
~L:-wa~ ~(li'-e- +~rre&/ ~ r.om-~
,& Cl/Lea. t7Y ~tJ. !i/.at 4 r/ud- ~j:~ _
~-/l~ 04-. OL/-ldz- T:!l 7;."c ('oQl -t>~ c4v.c-e
if>:: ~ r:f~ ~ .Pd? 5) d&~T.d-.
7'k. /9 ~ .--;?r2{f~ ~ .A2-. ct'"d: f/"'-€..
'lk-fr UHcI "'- ~ r;t: h=<- 4_~ (l~
(CMt-/~oxe e~ ~ t.Jh.~~Cl~r .
W00f.vw C<McF c&'/tU-5 to &r-e~ 01t ~~J
h~ c.--c/ r~~cis ---tf..e(f ~ It~rz--,
~7 dQrgkt- !t~ 9 w=u.1r1 ~:J ·
//U?ioit ~ 10 ./l.eClc:F C[ ;:J-hd':;--- ~cd
. ..,... ... .. . Patte "3~
, .
~
. />4~ YI.e ~I adt'cd7~ 74 ~oi/ AIJh::fs
/U~ ci',zC! f~ ~
~tn.- -I'~ .6/od=-,d 'ke::JA--J'~fd.- a->t?- CVYL
fty~/p..g -r~k.e-L -c-4~-t ~ PlOt ~~
C1r~d ~..-J~ ~r~ ./0
dt'r4-L ~iec/ ra-xc.<r /2Pd~.7Z> ~
f/..~7 MLU R/O! .hK~()v-e +k ~." ;;l ~
4vea-~ Fffl-- '-f-1t94.L cjJ ~;<;ft-1~ ~h-am~
~C?1--;~ h~ +M- C1os-r ~ qcl!ci/ m 'fIt-L
~ c;(/Yld -f'Le ~ w dtr }12' ~t fcadlJn
. lYL.- -t clU.
t/~(J JJu (j~
{liwL ft6~ ~
&: rf1 J-r (1')
~~ ~~~~ 0/
.
----
-"- --'
-!:"(. - " . - -< <: ' ~~IJ
... " .)--t...._- /. ,)- 1~A-
. c' . J
I -
fH 11 1911&
J~~. 5, 1936
he: I ~~~-'~~10~ f 1 -~ts
no;:; [,-- ..l",:"c; "_ -'-~ 0 '1;'.L.L
Irec81ved a let :.er In reg~'rd 1;0 the
1nst2lletlon of 11Jhts on 22rra E'treet
tet~een fleo ~lva. end ~e~rl streets.
I c~n 't see ~he~e ~hev wl1l t8 pny good
to tIle re~iden tE' v'n.en the trees 'PIe c-
tlcp11y CO:C8 ~o~etDer from oath sides
of the street. The trees 8re t~pt
Is r":::-~e. If you t00~ the tl~e Gnd
crove dOV:Cl the etreet you could see
hov' ckrk it is oecsu2e of them. fr}1ejr
2re not trlrr~ed 8nd tillS 12 v;l1y the
street is 20 d:Tl->:. ~bpt good wlll the
llghts do us vnen. the trees block out
the ll&"llt?
If the trees v'ere ~81nt21ned properly
it v;oulen 't De derk on the stI'eet.
I'Linnie hLl:::1kow
2~37 2?nd Street
~ ~_E'_ntE. ~Qi?llC~~, Cp 9G4C5
-- -- ~- ~ 8?
-; CJ '.-
~ '"Tl -- ----~
......- '",
~ S} -11,-
--; ~--
c -<~~-] ..
? I . ,
c -.J - -
1- r-"-'.:':.;::;, - -
:b q
< -"
N'~fy (?) \Q ~
:r - -
,. N
"" A
s~~~. 0. J
hD f. 7-4
p: Il ~ 1 llJ1l&
,WA6>:' -,. '7~ 'C. ,. ,,- ;. .~. df'<i-~:;'" <['::1:/.'<"'" "-t=""" -t:' > ..~.- . 7.;--
_ <' . . ;-,".. . .-, - .~ ~~.' -. - ~ _ ~..- . - . . +~ '" ..- -. '. - . ~. ...r...",~~' '. ..... ~"" - .
. +' >. - .'h, ,> ". .... . " '" . -';_'~. ~~- ~. '-.- ,.,.~ ~""''t.~
--. . . - -, tJ--" -, - .. '1J~ . -' i,_'..' ~ ~. '~ .
~ . .
FH 1 1 !936
Honorable C~ty Councll of the Clty of Santa Monica:
Recently. a petltlon was submltted to'the city of
Santa Monica requesting the installation of street 11ghti~_.c;
01:1 :'ra ~.: __:.n ~t. between Llpton ~t. and the northern clty
11rnlts In accordance with the State of California Improvement
Act of 1911.
Of a possible 43 properties represented on this
stretch of Franklin st.. 29 signatures of property owners
or tenants were obtained on this petition~ This would give
the appearance that 67% of this neighborbooG desired the
street lighting improvements-
Upon further investigation. it was determined that
many property owners or tenants did not totally understand
the consequences of their signatures or simply have changed
thel.r minds. Ev-idence of these facts is expressed by a
newer and counter petition whiCh is attached. \0 property
owners or tenants who originally favored the proposed
lighting improvements subsequently signed the newest petition
opposed to such improvements. This means that now, out of
43 involved properties, only \'9 owners or tenants f a vcr the
improved street lighting on Franklin st. north of Lipton St.
This ~s less than ~~ % of the involved properties. There-
fore if established city pOlicy is to be followed, there is
an insufficient number of property owners or tenants
requesting lighting improvements.
Representing the opponents of improved street
llghting on N. Franklin st., we therefore pr~test further
consideration of these improvements and ask that the
Honorable city Council reject such a request at their
meeting of February 11, 1986
d4 ~~
Edfe("Bright ./
~~? Frank1i~t.~,
-, .:-
, , r - , ---.......
--'1i l--!<_____ .... ~ -t \...---~
\ Jl . --~ ~;J' . . --
-F anco Erspamer '. V' ') .
February 4. 1986 1022 Franklin st. > ~ ~
('n
~ .
p- -n --
rn
- co
C ':
1 .~
c- cr-
.
-0
~ N ,
: N
cc
ApI) ill 7-14-
,.~..: -; j. '}II
- 0.< i'f,-~~~<-;;' ~'~"'1"- -. 'I"'~aJ r'-:'f""'.t'"~~- V-1"'_"'-~~-"'...;;-'J",. ~V-'~--"':"<':<*'-' "" -,.'" - v '5':- ". >"')'.' '"
~--~;. ~~!"~ ~<~~~~-"4..l",., <;P""~~'I.,'i"'F,... > ~,-v~-.r;,:~);....., ~ .-~'7~ ,;if~"^'^-~ -".._.>~,~~-",'?'-, ~ ~ ~ .n!".~-""" ...--? -"'''-. :.:- -"'~~' ,_.~
%' " ~" ~~~. ... . ...,...
~~ I'--~_:~ + ''''' - ~~. -'- -'-' __ J - - . ~ .,
- -' ~
~ ~ '<-~ - '" - ~ .:_< j.:. -- :..:~..( . .
,#j. " ~ : __J~ ....' .-, - ~- -. .
r
- .. ... ~- - --- , - -- - _v : ,
- . c ~..-:.. ~) -~{ r" .t:. J-~ ~ ~ J-=-
~ - - ~- -
-;- . - /'IicJIJ-..ot:. ~ --.,r. ._,~ i..:_~. , '- '- .... ,;'.
- ~- - ~ . . -- -.... .:...
- - - ,..- ~
J' ~- -./
1= ~ r t....- ..... !j :'~t ~ '? ., -.. ~_... -: ' " -
- -- ,- - -
~ ~"'-....I'" 'v -_ ~... ~.rf.. ~ "'t " -
'- - - - . ~ t " .J .~ ""';_-.L. , - -
. 0.- .L ~ '1'':'''' L"-"""-..l.- r.l....~__ ~:J -. L. . " . -_"""!. _...:C ....! -,
^ --~-... - -
~ ~ ... ~ -j:-JL0;i;. -.It.... ~_ ...s..!. : .;,....1 , --"
....~ ~~-....J _ __ ~ ...--t'7..j y' ~ . '.- - ? -
....- ~ --:.. ~ ~-#!IcJ-....~ ~ :....~ -'_~ .... - . - ~-
-- - -
-= -'- - ~ ~ , - .' _ ~. ..u \: ~3j':- ' -. ,. . . -~ --' ~ ~ ,~U'_
J _ . - -..: ..... - ... --.- ~
-~ , 'Lh -- -=-~ -~~_. ~.: -; - _-l- ~::.~ -. - ~. .. . ~~ ~, - .
- - .., -.. - ">.- :''".1' - ..... - "-
... - ~.j" -.., ~ .... .- _.. J~ > -=-- ~ - '. ". , t-:; -=- (~ -,
- - - .~~
-- - .... L.:'" , -- .J-:~ i.;- ~ - --' , :.. :".J ~ ....1(~__ ---~-... ' . -....~~...I
- + - . )_1"'-)':.)~: ___ ;... 0- ~..._......... -~"';.:<..:~ .f....: ,;>i..; - """"" ~
...~ '_-; .....~ I... ~ i..~'" I..J -:. ...; ~:... ~ -. '-!..}. . _ _ r: -1"':::' ~.... ~ "1....... <-I "-to., - - .:-. -'-
" t ...".,,~ - -
"\_u~ _ ..:...::' --' .-. ~ --~ ".. ... "_" 1._':;t':->-,,-- ""..,'" i: j" i:~' _:: "t -~ , -::.,,-1~l-~ - ~
..), ~-< ..;. :::-..... .' .~ ."
.' ~ -, " -- - .
J:. ...... ......i. - , C.:1\..~
- - - ~ ..... ~-l - ,.- ~~ <: ..:.--'-~- ~ ---- ~ . - ~ ~ - -'''-- '- + ~_ .... r
....':. [- . , ...7~~...- - .::: :f"..J' .c=-:-.!...;C :~'t ," .- r . J......._.-..:_ ...~..... :... I
- - - ..":.... ~. .- ,- -
"- -...- .~ . __-~ .r1~ '-.,. . ~f '" - ': . ;..i J.. '.ii~ L .c -. .( L...... A ~ C-<- :::~_"'o- 'j. -:-. E_" - - "-- -l- L )-~ _
,~
- ~-..~__ --!c.3 ...."-~ .' .! -_-.,~'" , '--'
-, H " ,...~..., - - ~ . --
-- - <~ ..;. -'-~ ~--- i -t ~ '-- - < ~ :: Iv . ....'-.,j :.:... .....""'...----'.....
.- . ~ - - -
u to i. '!<-_::' ~ -:- . - -I (.1 '" -~". ...J::" T: ~~f _ ' - .
-........; "':.... ......~-.. -'-'. - .~ _......~_:;... ---'-~.....__1-........!_
- ~~ -..- ol- -;.;. _>:', ....'t. -. r~_-r~~'L. --i~::. -'~ ....:.-..J. ~ --~ ::;,;:.J;:-- -:f~;:~_
-- - - r~ ...J. \-L.." L .: ~r~ ...}......:. " .;: - .-...."'.,.~~ - 0 . -~.)" r --
~- . .
-- ~-~ ~_ _j.......:-i......-:J:"" ~ ~_. ~ . -, -'- - - .i.,.L. =- ~-
. - -..... -- -~ .... ^'- :t ........... "..~ -L-<" - , . - -
c , J ,....1""i_ ::-:::":-..d.1II - - -.,,- ~ -, - -
..... "-" " J ~r-'L~~' _ - ~ - ......" ..,,:- - -, - ~'i. ';'-=-~-..c':..-
- - .. , - .. .
-. ...-- . - , - - , ~ ~ t...- ~ ~ ~_i_"_... .'- - - - ., .,,-
-f , t I ~ -...... .......~ .... , , -
~ -~ ' - ... , -" :
-~. "-- ..;:;..._....~
~ ~:: ,
< ~ --
~S---"ll . ~".....: ~~"-=-., '- "':"-..- " - ~~-.";-... --,";:: ..-"
- L. - .~ -- ~--
.'~... ~..:... .}< ~ ;:-"'J.::. :c -:
... 1.. .LL;...:t _ .:. L I" ,'.
- .... +- - - -
-<'". -!~ ~ ~ -,. . - <
--t
-.----1.. ;:... ~ L .- <
, ~ .; " - . -
t
'4-....-:; ~ "
,." -' - "'. '-:. ~-"- ~;:~>
..~~ ~~~ ',,- ...... ~'"
'.,.
.
~
',. . .
We, the undersigned, wish to express our position to the
-Honorable City Council of the city of Santa Monicaa
1) We do not agree to the insta1lation of more
street lighting on Fran~in St. between Lipton
and the Northerly City Limits. ~ ~
z ~,~
- ~....
2) We do not agree to pay for such a proposed l> -n '':-:>::;~i-'
-~ rr"t -, _
c.-: t:O -< c-.' ..
i . r
nstall.at1on. :;.,~ ck'-' -
( -.
3) If we signed a petition to the contrary, we ~ -0 -~
N c,
withdraw our name from said petition. ~ ~
Name Address Da te
/YI~ ~ 9'0 A,".kl,... ~f :a./,!a'
'~,.l ~, 5.....14 i"toklt.. (A 90'fo3
6f1~'./I,''''J, "or Fr,>>k/,-,,~.t.. 2/1/r/'j.
51~~ ~OS~~\~ '(t~~~ill S~. f2(1-/8'b
Ja:-/, J~ (J -~~. <( 'L- , .-~ c. . :I--,.s, r~
~(j '--A J/J./ f? _ h .rJ j /. ,..... J
m-Mtl-/~//f-VIHld~4 60 C/!C&tjt/~ CJ/ .;;2 ~3? "~~
.7/!Alt I/JifIJ/?.ElJ lfJFkA- ZS-eJ f ~# ::. /- , 7j~~ ::-0
Cu.:t^w.~ ~~~l6'~ DO~ !-UlV.. '{\'J. 't st '" ~ (~6
;r"i rIv.' fill Ii' - f/ iJ ~L ~~ ~ ~ - /5/rv
t ,....J ..,,-/./ . I~r r 2f ;., ~...P
W", . ' ~~~" fl' ;;3!se
I\. I ,1 l L\ Ul, ~l~ )1;. ?-{~ (rlo
Va;v.\ ) tWv-. V) \~ " ,.t l "-
t aq;~ ~4tk.' ft/ 0 f~f L f\ cJ..~1 ~'Y~
. J' .__ ADD rl> 7-.4
.-
-i ! /' ~ ..,:- ~ i ..i , ~ >
mm111981
REALTOR ·
R EALTORS <c"
I
Homes . ResidentIal Income . Commercial * Industrial .. Property Management * Insurance
January 31~ 1986.
Ann Shore
Clty Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monlca~ CA 90401
RE: Assessment Letter of January 27, 1986
1449 and 1451 Prlnceton Street, Santa Monica 90404
Dear Ms. Shore:
This letter is to protest the intentlon to construct Clty
lights on the above street and to assess the property for the
costs. There are lights on the property and additional li.ghts
are not necessary, in my opinlon.
Sincerely,
~(L ~~~v..'
Philip Mandanici
Owner
PM/oJl
t~ t!
~?' t ~ k~ (9)
1
ff-r.euL (j
~ 0/
A/J D f(J 7--- A-
~t~ 1. i 1986
2802 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD . SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 . PHONE 828-7525 829-4757
. rr .. ,...... _
~,.. '. J / ,
...",
r,
~- Xr- >-r"'-..-<------,l:::__ ~ ~
~ ~- L
-- ~:; / ~ / D~ ,..-4.:1./ If D~"" 7,,4
/" _ ~~ :J / -' 9? (. ~':J' ffB 1 1 ,g\t5
.I ~._" r:- -.T-
L-~1 -/. ~
, - -.... ~ ~
. /.. ...L -"- r-Y! H-V'-"K4- r? " J'.. /'.. '
~ i/I!' r- \".- ~/.-s..""7'<-_
/' j /
/1 r" - ~;<~."" A~r- _
'.. .,J /,.~... ~~ (~"-- ~j G9'?-
/'
/ - i
,'/~ ;-,-7 . " _
~ ";-"''-''-> u
i. , ~ "--v "'.___-__
IF ~ .7) j ~
(...~*'Lof ' - ../, _ J..
f <--"'...-,,""- ,
fr,,' ;);r- ..... "'. 'i
,; ...e..~. " tA- ......u-,/~ : "'Y~_ _L~,-- ,t~--.< ~7r r j :1 / U
/~--;-rr---~""'~#~ ~'r 7// )
Ql ~ ~ -' '/
_/...?~ &-~ r~U~--r __~I W --t..- A ~ <t- 6~~
J ,-" --+ A , _. L .' -;, . t'7 -# _/
~ -" V ''--:'''-L tr'1' ? <) 'Y-...": _ '--ea~ .~~---;
~ t-"L~........ '7 "'-,(,. - ' 7'
1:- ,
--<-A-_.cL -;-',y 7 ...t..a....-.:-_,
/ .
,<L. '. ( L<" , - --/~d:;{
. -,::'I-v A,-- ~J J--'Y-I _ --i- L ..,/t.L"f- ;;e; h..-t., - -7 ' ~"--
. ,Y .
~~ }- _ ,--"" ~. {.: - -J---~ .... --;:t-
Yn"'"-f""tiA""- f ~ WV-Lt<~~ ...-p-rl /~~ k-'..A...<:. ~'T.- -"""'-0
!. } -
~ -. --" ~ . r A" "
....-{..-~ '? ?~- A.. -'--"')....-L-<""1 -~ .....&'LL-.;.. ~~.__-:::- c<..-1 ~/....~-(.. 2..-'__
Y .f I':,
..-.. ,j t) ..;......
,-.....L...,,- " . j ^ ) . , _
.^"'.- '-i.:... ---4.'.~-'l-. ~ ~-r~)_ ,r.:V~.: .L :t-.::---_ J.r--l(, _
. ......1' .; I ~
. iI. ~ _.L ; ~_7 I J"""; . ~ ; '7 . '" . -".~ ,21
~ I -r77-- .........-.--...::- ..-r-~..A------f ~t-._~ ~ ~4~ r- /~~../ If ~.I--- r- '"" - ~
'')1 r P -I'
:::-,~ ~fJ,.& t)-' rlr:.....u. 6--1'"> -;;~ .~l ,) I) J,..... v~___
" -- - ~
I ~
q .t . ~~ ~ ~....- ~
.J ~;...'-<..- (L(~--i- ""::;~,-t-L- .-(j-,-,"~ ~il..,.e.~7~<---i -:J..........r Il~ ~/"""".J....
. f
--IrA.. ..r---...... ...Jv.).. -1_ - j < . ;. ...-,,---.!.j."J ~_---,f--.. ~ ~ ~-"_
.... ~ ~ --~"'~ ~- ...........:........ e:;. '-'""^"~~ E.i-P~-.-r .-;"-...--__, -..,... U--./"lr
. ^ ,[.....v.>-
i ..........'"--"-. . .~. ~~- /. v I! .) -4-. I
.; ...Ac-- ....--t'.--h.~ ,v--' f J, ~---< "c-......_ ~-,. .~,. /. ---L-......
.... eo. _ ~u../_ ......_____.__ ... . .'
~ A' i .' -/' '- -r ~
/--..:- ~ ..-v<-<'- -Y,-~~-i- ;.b--"<-,r' 0.....----...____'" ,...-l-r.> ;~-----...-<'..r7 ~ _~~
I" . ~- ~ F~ ~ Ch
~{...-hLv- a",.-........ -P-4' ......yl "'-v--- J.-r---{-6 -< '. ,~. '-r.t-<...---~J ~1~ __-r /- """-'
f if / l
~ ~.-- il.......
/. .i- - nL .., J . I ( . 0--.. 'I
'-"'<. /. .?I\~..... ~ 2... ~ .AVJ , ....--'"-<- q>..-....-Y ./''''-''-~~ po ~_' I..-_______~ c...7~~ ~
/~ -::=-k--r"-~ ~ ./'/J..~ -}.:-.... .z;J:;;.-' J. eu~ ~ ~ d'Y- I~/ ;2/ I
-' I>"'" 4 .... ; .. I __
6-:; ;J. 111. )/~ .,i.ft:;;Tb-l'1-- 2 2. ~.z- y ?~----l' ~.--u., L~ ~ t!-~:vL
AU' 1,.~~,
;> - i' - -. J~~/ ~K.'
'-1f- .'j.., ./~. ~~.~ c.r ~ Py./[j;.;;./ I'r- tL..u.-v ~;J{.. h J . .Jf
- I!~' t'et? 1.' +- ~- _~./ _ _ . / '-J ~ ti..)I'-r~..L
- - , '~ ~-,...r:~ ~ '-- L.......~-Z f ,.
RIJD -n J-A-
"~tB i I Iill<"
~ -'- J'Jt>
r' ; ~ _ ~
.". .~ - ",.f! U7- ",-"' c,""; ADO TO 7-~
. .~'-_,-"~: ~ Hn 111l\Ql
;.. ~.;::u~E:;:; .-F --I; ~:::i:,:::~ F. .:a"C':' . fT '-:"l" .~:=-F~::: ~~ ,-
rrry :":L :-_;~~i...
BE 116 ITS -6 AlO:14
SANl A jtiUi~' 'J:\, ,;< '- .
CO_J"VElL BAN<:~I'
COVMERCIA"_ REAL ESTATE SE"IVICES
9858 'N"lS~IRE 30UlEVA"IJ
BE'IE~lv HillS CALlFOf'NIA 90218
February 4, 1986
Hs Ann M Shore
Office of the City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Hain Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
RE Resolution #7141 (CCS) Adopted January 14th, 1986
Dear Hs Shore:
As the owner of 2527 31st Street in Santa Monica, California,
and because my wife and I have been out of the country for
several weeks the end of last year, I expect or fully request
that the streetlights are placed on our street in such a
manner that there will be no glare coming into our livlng area
in the front of our home. We have an alarm system on our hOIDe
and feel chat our security would not be increased because of
streetlights on our street
Revertheless, we will go along with the previous decision of
our neighbors', but hope the lights are placed away from our
home and at locations along the street in front of people's
homes who desire to have the streetlights put in (signed the
initial petition) Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
~~jl
Stanley U Gerlach, Jr
(213) 550-2662
S~\iG j In
cc. Linda B Gerlach
'(. &:tz Lr- (1~ All/) f6 7-A
~ ~ '-.i.J FEB 11 1986
, -
"
'. . - CITY' 7~/i-
SAN1A MONICA
C~.\LIFO Ri\Lc\
CITY CLERK 1685 \1aor Street, S2.n:3. \1on'cJ., Cal:fcrniJ 90.1.01 (2131393-9975
February 10, 1986
County Assessor
4909 Overland Avenue
Culver Clty, Callfornla
GentleIilen:
Please be advlsed that we have been not:.rled that
yIr. a:ld yIr 5 . John E. Carr, llsted on the Assessor's
Rolls as owners of 2337 Rlll Street, are deceased,
and t~e new owner lS Mr. Garc Mardlrosslan. Please
see the attached CO?y of a letter from ~rs. ALL c e ~),_ .
Cropley, sister of the deceasec..
Tb.lS 1.5 se:lt for your lnforoatlon.
S1.D.cerely,
/j lA/^ ydA
~ Jh"
. ~ / v
Ann )'I.. Shore
Cltv Clerk
~ -
At tacJ:lmerr t
,...~ . Jean Sta:-I.ley, General Servl.ces ~epartment
.... '-' .
(re Agenda I~em 7-A, street L:lgr_ts
~eet1.ng of February 11, 1986)
--
'-~?~.- ~{;2lL€ it. Cl.&r~ t~ - - - ~- .
t30 l3./1..~'d-v~'i:i.. ZJ/v-eYIL.
/eJo/w 0~ C:~--*~I /
me /'IJ / rv IV V ILl:- ~ I
1~rCJ.tq7J~g ___
I
I /1 J FJ}
: U1/1/1/1. rn . ~u:J-/Le, I
I
i . (J '--rfn .
I ..), " ..... I .,'" ..-
C j'- J -f-. ~ {.. . {...'l,. L...CrJ. '-~ c <:.-<..
( fA..,_ u{/ ... - ~ J
G 'J ,") _ -- J ~ (~ /- 1-
/ h 0..) ~YLCi.-L,,-A... J/t./~.J2-2/1- /
0'> -~.-A/1 '
j 0 aA...~~Cb (/ yU-v'--<...CJ.'<::0) .
1 .' C.J aA'j r~'--{.'-<'" 'i' 0 '-It) I,
'. rOe",w'...;n..l.. Jefi_(/l,.Ci'-$~;d: U
~ U __ rr ~7
_ . ~ _ _!.~ '7~ .:::;-:, ,,_ /
VC 2--Z--<''--<-'--e...~-- i/1 _" /.) I '~<7',. -.. ---:-::.--
_ "f-" ~. i ~0 I /0 fro _' co ~ . -.... ,., -~ ~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA - Ii i, ..VJ..:;~~ ~~, ~.~,\ ------=:::_
~ j"'_ ';."'rl....1 ~1 ... ~
1085 0iIAIN STREET r- ~l ~ -- _____
Sl\}..;TA :VfO:\ICA, C\LIFORNL4.. 90401 . /, , ',). 2.7 ..;~.;. ~ r ~. -: ------
~ (J~ --- { .' (C ,.~ /- -~_..---.-,.-
. ....l- I) ............./. ! _ I '- :Q':!f- ~'"'Li.~-.::
I . vLl-lii.A..[iA....'YI.. J;...t,.'.:.,-h rY!1 c:::r//L.iZ""biL <:....- .,..... -~---~-....-
j GE::\ER\L SERVICES DEPARTYIK\T . - -=---:::::: - ,- --
If' "Z ~
~ il 1 I ~ /~ j/ /? _/ J """'-l 1
: /. 11;' John E. Carr Y:r<:.=, ,~{,.Lt/,-- "i(? '- (j..;L.'~V',-"U/'u:' A:;;rz;...... _
/1 J~ ~ ,I, ' --:-':- ~ a ,; --t. ;:;" . I-"~'~ 7- -- < '7'-'1, '--+-:-;-l~-
I j.U( 1'~":"-:C-'':t.t..V ;'i..'c.-'....J ~~-{ k~ -----. '_,111. ~L 1 7'O_J ;'1, D,;:/\L /80
. f" ...... ...... ~.... -0:. ~"?" . ~J.-......- -...-,...- . ..~ I ~.. . III
; /,1. "'f'i-2.5 3 I H .1.1.1 ;:l;: r;;e t, ~.N-l--Il- -{- 'x ;<.1\ '1::.;... [11- i'lL t... HL<UKl:.S,J
')0110-a/1/D: ,ff1a.Ur..:./:....25>5<-evv_l, Santa l-1on~;:a, CA: ~~~I~I\.i, .,. ,_."~_~ _
} ~ ,_ ,_ ' ; . ., ~ < I ---.'.'f}Cid....1L LL' H r..rrl- rr-rrr-1i"'rl\!!: ll'r.;
l I --....- .. -), - /
l/'-' &<...1: -;fo f"L-C-v-J Ttw- 6Pt, yU!:'~' (/ L-{ -t ~-:o.' -e (...~",::i:C'~ ~ 7;) ]"1ri"1 ':fit" )TLL&:-.....:,JHy7T2n-f"~~~ / --
/1., hi - " ~'/" '~--i-_/--' I ,n. '
-"'>L...(J _j... . '7 _, -;' I .. . V .'... :>- - r' - -'1 " -.--I - /':' _ '.,' i ,- - : ~
~ _ --iX...t:.z; ....... ___;; '"^:l'--f "'-V--___'U / c .............. -'- r ~ . ,...ru '-''-'~_ '- ,2:0 L~~_' )/'L ., ;04- >:..- J L.-(.. ~-: /!,.- !'<J<.- '-
.-fJ 1:' \.r... J /', I ~ v' ! J' ~ 1 ..
Olio, L! :no'v-y rYl-e"V~/:""q )u..r.vL- t.- '-'... :1.';' ..,v1_"-(..'1.-<; --::::;-- f.~L. ..'-. '-c 1J.Y1. :!.0"Z...l-0 l>-L-::~./:a( '7.. o~
. .. 1 / (J. eo. '? '7 :..- ' ,.^ .~ .' - If, -, ------ A
. "'<"4 '-'-I$. a r:.~.:./.,....~ a 5[/ O-v(;./Yi...-L~",- ~'-/r"X ".J J / ! --:-1.. {,~. .,f:..-i.,. t....?.L (,.-'-' ~ C\./lA.. . LA.~ ,/ YUTV(.../'
~ " t i . -r:--' r- .) r, /', J
I' h /) ~ / ." , .' t.' J J.;-y; !....-1 J irt.-';,.. ;. r~t-L..e.. / ,rv 7 . ~ ; -I / ~, / / L-~ F'+' C<-<..-I.
~ w~{,.(....~.....f...""'-- l..{ v L.' I" Y ..; -"i- 1__________....-0::. _--0::... ~~, -l..J'i'J /
.J " ( . .... - ;/';':)v
t , ,':u .. 1/ '--"'J ,..-r 1"(1'" 'I,,-f , <7 I :~;. . ~ f_<_
.~ ....~LL, r)} / I -' .~:~~~ ...? "-'-,;:.....--::-/;:.....l:.",,~....
. . crAF
.
SANTA MONICA
C-,--\LIFO RNIA
CITY CLERK 1685 Ma'n SIFeeI, Santa MO'llca, (.ill ;forr;a 90401 !213"i 393-9975
January 27, 1986
This letter is legal notlce as ~ e q ui red by the 1911 Improvement Act
proceedlngs under which streetllghts are to be constructed OIl 9t h ,
12t h and Prlnceton Streets between 'Ih1shLre and Santa Monlca
Boulevards; Yale and Harvard Streets between San t a Monlca dnd Colorado
Boulevards; Hill Street between 23rd and 25th Streets; 22nd Street
between Pico Boulevard and Pearl Street; 31st Street between Pearl
Street and Ocean Park Boulevard; and Fr an kll n Street from Wllshire
Bo ul e var d to the Northerly Ci ty 11mits.
You are hereby notifled that the C~ty Council of the Clty of Santa
Monl.ca, Call.fornla, adopted Res 01 ut 1 on No. 7141 (GCS) on January 14,
1986, declaring its intentl.on to construct street l~ghting and
appurtenant work in the above named are a, determl.nl.ng that bonds be
issued to represent the cost therefor, declaring the wor k to be of
more than local ordl.nary public beneflt, and t bat the expense thereof
shall be assessed upon a distrl.ct.
A public hearing regardl.ng the proposed improvement will be held at
7 : 3 0 pm, February 11 , 1986, in the Counc~l Chambers, City Hall , 1685
Main Street, Santa Monica. All protests regardl.ng this matter must be
flIed in writing in the Offlce of the C1ty Clerk be for e said time, and
all protests so filed w1ll be considered by the C1ty Council at that
tlme. Each protest must contain a descrlptl.on of the property in
which each signer thereof is ~nterested.
The total pro] ect cost is estimated to be approximately $484,820. The
amount to be assessed upon the d~strict for this improvement 1S
approximately $242,410. Records available indicate you own property
in the above d1strict. Re q ue s t s for copies of the Resolut1on of
Intentl.on whl.ch contal.n further particulars on thl s assessment and all
questions regardlng the proposed lmprovement may be directed to Jean
Stanley in the Office of General Servlces at 458-8221.
- S1ncerely,
~ 'fJ; ~'Cc
Ann M. Shore
City Clerk
AMS :JS :ak
Enclosure: Information Sheet for Pass-through of Costs
c c : General Services
. . .
~
..
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911
ASSESSMENT PAYMENT PROCEDURES
Through the State of CalifornIa Improvement Act of 1911, It 15
p055~b1e for a maJorIty of tne property owners of a neIghborhood
to obtaIn Improvements such as street lightIng. The Act prOVIdes
that the costs of the Improvements such as survey~ng, preparIng
plans, constructIon costs, preparing CounCll resolutIons,
advertiSIng, inspection and preparlng the assessment and bonds
may be assessed to the property owner.
The CIty Council.s past POlICY was to Inltlate a street llghtlng
dIstrIct If 60% of the property owners petitioned for street -
lights. Under new procedures adopted by the CIty Council and the
Rent Control Board, tenants also may petItion for street lights.
In th~s ~nstance, the pet~tlon must be SIgned by 60% of tne
resldents In a street lIghtIng d~strict.
The CIty Council presently assesses property owners one-half the
cost of InstallIng the street llghtlng. The C~ty pays the
remalnder of the cost. In addItIon, the City presently pays all
maIntenance costs and the cost of the energy to lIght the street
lights. By action of the CIty Council and Rent Control Board,
when tenants Circulate the petition, the property owner may pass
through the cost to the tenants over a 10 year perIod WIth each
unit on a property paying the same cost. In most Instances,
monthly charges wl1l be less than $2.00 per apartment unit.
THERE IS NO CHARGE TO EITHER PROPERTY OwNERS OR TENANrS UNTIL THE
STREET LIGHTS ARE INSTALLED AND WORKING.
The Improvement Act prOVides that the property owner may pay the
assessment:
1. By Cash. Cash payments may be made WIthin 30 days after
the assessment IS confIrmed. After 30 days, cash
payments ~ay stlll ce made but luterest must be chaL~ed.
OR
-
2. By Installment Payments. Payments may be made 1n 10
annual installments plus interest WhICh IS bIlled seml-
annually. The unpa1d balance may be paid at any time an
Interest payment ~s due.
FinanCIal aId for low-to-moderate income property owners and
tenants IS avaIlable. To qualify for aSSIstance, a short
applicat~on form must be completed after the street lights are
Installed. For further informat~on, contact the Office of
Communlty and EconomIC Servlces at 458-8701.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS STREET LIGHTING PETITION,
CONTACT JEAN SrANLEY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES A'r
458-8221.
------ -
,- ~- y~ -! ./ / ./
. - , - - ~rl.F
....
.
SANTA ~1 0 NI CA
C~\LIFOI~^L\
CITY CLERK 1685 \h:n Street. San~a MOr"C1, C.:.llfor~d"- 90-1-0; {213.393-99"75
January 27, 1986
Th~s letter is legal not~ce as requlred by the 1911 Improvement Act
proceedings under ;.lh~ch streetllghts are to be constructed on 9th,
1 2t h and Prl.uceton Streets bet'Heen \hlsh1re and Silut"l ~-lo 111. c a
BoulevarJs; Yale and Harvard Streets between Santa Mon1.ca dnd Color'ido
Boulevards; Hill Street between 23rd and 25th Streets; 22nd Street
between Pico BOulevdrd and Pe.lrl Street; 31st Street bct...ee, P02 a r L
Street and r) c e an Park Boulevard; and Fr an kl1. n Street from W1.1sh~re
Boulevard to the Northerly C1 t Y l~mlts.
You are: het"eby natif1.ed that the Clty Counc~l of the City of Santa
Mau1.ca, Call.for"1l3. ad 0 p t e d Re<;olut~on No. 7141 (CGS) on Jac:.uary 14,
1986, declariag lts intentlon to construct street ll;sht~rrg and
appurtenant 'Hork 1!l the above named area, deten:nnl."lg that bo ad s be
issued to represent the cost theref0r. declar1.n~ the work to be of
mora than local ordl.nary publ1.c benef1.t, and t ha t the expense thereof
shall be assessed upon a dl.st.l:"1.ct.
A publ1.c hear~ng regardl.ng t l1e proposed improve'llent wl.li be held ,1 t
7 : 30 pm, February 11 , 1986, In the COUDCll Ghar.lbers. City Ha 11 , 16K3
~1a I. n Street, Sar.t a Bonl.ca. All protests regard1.ng t hI. S matter mU::lt be
flled ~n '.....T 1. t 1. n g 1:1 the aff1.ce of the Ci ty Clerk be for e sal.d t1.I:J.e, 'lnd
all protests so hIed :.,1111 be cons~dered by the Cl. t Y Cou:J.cl.l at thar.:
tlme. Each protest must. conta1n a descrl.pt~on of the property J..n
wh~ c h each signer thereof 15 interested.
The total proJect cost is estimated to be approxi:::tately $484,820. The
amount to be assessed upon the dl.strict fat" thlS l.mprovenent 15
approx~mately $242,410. Records ava~lable 1nd~c.ate you own property
1n the above dl.strict. Requests for caples of the Re sol u t ~ 'J n of
Inr:entlo'l wh;.. \.... ~~ ....0at..al.~ fur t l! e ~ p~rt.::jculars on r:h~s assessment and all
quest~ons regarding the proposed 1mprOVe'1lent Llay be dl.rected to Jean
Stanley 1n the Offlce of General SerVlces at 458-8221 .
S1ncerely,
;/-.., /'\ '/
i 1)7 ;J/ut rr
f .....,
~~ I ..
Ann H. Shore
C1.ty Cl e r k
MiS :JS :ak
Enclosure: Information Sheet for Pass-through of Costs
cc : Generdl Servlces
. ,
- ~
. .
-
Mr. c. R. Dz..vf'nport
1306 A PZOH'CE'trm St.
S~.:-""' ~ Monica, ~....l. . get OJ
Df'c. ~::Jt 1 q~ (21;)q2J3-~GO;
J
City of Santa Monica
If~5 Main st.
Sant~ Monica. Cc.l., 701101
A. At'tns ~!.[~;;'or Chrit::tine E. R('ec.
b. Specld.l Copy Tos City itan<C.t';€ r J 0 Ln J 2.1111. .
c. Special Copy To l .:r b: . Gen. .svcs. St<:.nle,y F. Sctoll <-.TIc' coor,; lnztor
Jean Stanley_
Co "iea To. Counci Ipersons l W. Jer'n:!.nis, :t.:vic E.pEtlo'in, Herb€:r't Kz.tz,.
Alan Katz, J,,_1lee Cor..n, J)ennui Z..,ne ,I ....,... ,
\~~L to re$FOnd;.
Copy for J City lIanq-er .TorJl Jo.:lili ([~Oll' about a re~> ~ON:le _ ~hone CL sCf-~th1n~).
Copy fOTI City AAtty. Jl'obert M. Meyers (I have c cJI'l'acion..,:.te nt~d). c
Copy To. City Clerk Ann Shore ....t.... ----....."' -"1 / fl) --:-k.- / A;?
(for coon; ~nat~oIlf;/V u.-{"/ f':7~fh-f~,'-\ fl<<~'" _.!X4~ <zcMw'
Ie&r City Fathersl /,-;Lo;'~? <7/;;;~"t-.7 CI/U.r -~~
With reference to Par. t1 in the att<-che~ (Footnote 1 ~~A 5, 1~-1':-lj'5)
the public hearl~G or Strer t Li, t,tB in the 1~CG-1300 bloc~b of Pri:c€tcn St.
at AIi:z.or.a Ave. on Thurscay 12-19-~5 l'ta~" ... travisty ~f ju~tic€ t01.<:llJ
unfair for' a sr.:hll property O"fner Df "'l8dn' t ::lE.,lns. I . ~s ejectei bacily by
fellow propt!rty owners ."ho ~id Hot hnlc "'1y po~nt of VHn. 01' C ! :::..ide::.' tr.e
cost of the project that iE involv~d.
A SUFFP~tion hes been MaAe by one af iliY nEl~hbor& (rho f<;.v:.)rs t:-.6.e hg-'l ts -
I ~cn.t) th&t ~rouerty aEEe?Er.er.ts be d;~ \'f" ~n favor of in~lvl~u~l ~a~thly
~urch~r~PB on ~ur liCht bills. This ' . fc i 1(;\" t'1t ~...?t+'f'rn .1."'1 .cse~"
, 0.1..1,'-' <:)11
our wG.-te-r bills.
ry chcrfinr an €'lcu~lly e:c;...ll ...;;ount,)fi ec: 0:1 j.'l'-t{ r d," thf> ~1: 1. t t..::.. t :neter
serves - all ten,_r.t~ or O';lrn~r~ ',;.--;1.., Ie. ~E.:Y co;r.F<....r"blf> equ.~l 2"1:;:) nt_ €...cn ;;'ontil
for the ben~f:.ts they Ray or n~y r.ot recipvp- f!."D~1 t.t..e&e n(>~~ ~tr~ € t llt,hts
alone Prirceton iiIl1 Ari2'onE' or r-'r.y otht'Y 2rE" 01 tLl.S nc, ture.
I wou13 ~pprpci,tp B responBib~~ ~r.$~~r by ~ll of thl:: <"bove CA. , .J;., ,. )
"'-'.
yt un early d~te. .
Secondly, Anev-er Nr. 1 i- tne It:tter 1":"01. St,.nlf'Y 'i:". Scho 11 (L;-ll-GS).
Gen. rervtcf'r", uncf>rSCOrp5 the dis, tin 01 C' · Polic,r or; V?co.nt U'ni ~s.
4.0 Yu'
That is the policy beinf followed on tte c'.~ ~ € S'~TJen t fer EtrtE~ Ll~ht~ _
unlf'sS a change is iffiple~er.t~d ~t the h~~hc~t level of C1ty G~V~l~~~ct.
Agaul - A rer-pons~ble ans~er is cue, oVf>r{iue, on bot~ is[UP6 - ~O~.
nE..SPECTrUi.Lr F _.-
, . ,
"'"-" -/ -" .
~r. 5. p. 1:-&Vel~"pori:'
ft.S.V.P. NOW 21~ :.:t;;~-2J03 -
~ (' , Iii("~ (1)
-; j'..L-
-5J..'?4;--u/ S?U/tL0 v)
,t4.i &,~?;t/ !!~ (5)
/. .bruary 11., 1986 7-~
, , fE8 11 a
To: :'~ ~orable City Council 0'1
the City of Santa l-lonica en ~
~ 0-;:';
~ Ruth V. Bryant - ".......-n,..--
~ .,., ~ --r~ ~
~ ~-r'
.-T 3' -< <"": ~
~' i."~-"'~
Proposed .treet lighting between Pico B1vri. and Pearl St. c - ---"'- ~
.- - ;.-:.r ~-
-- on 22nd. street f ~""- i:-:
:t-- "'0 .. ---- - - . -
..- < -~~
r ~ .- ,
J" ..
I de not a.j5~e to the p:reposed lighting on 22nd St.:reet in Santa Monica. ~
de not agree to pay for it.. for the following reasons:
1. The proposed lights will do much to destroy the beautiful natural
look of our neighborhood, bringing concrete posts and steel to cut
along our now beautiful tree-lined street tha.t is so natural. in
appearance and a. delight :for neighborhcod 11 ving.
2. Residents c:f ether streets with trees who have had lighting installed
have told me, "The lighting did not do what we expected, because cf
the trees," and I ha.ve observed the darkness when driving on these
streets at night. I do not believe the lighting wj]l be effective
in our area.
3. The majority of the people on our block to whom I ha.ve spoken have
many fundamental questions as yet unanswered about the proposed
lighti'1g. and need more ~izne to get answers to these questions.
They are concerned about:
a. Exactly what i. the cost? They are being asked to make
an intelligent decision without a clear cost in mind.
Some residents believed that the city bore the entire ccst.
b. Who bears the burden of this expense if people can't pay?
IJ: it is the city, is that the rest cf us, the taxpayers?
c. We have round out :from the Bureau of Crime Prevention in
Santa Monica that thus far no studies have been made
regarding crime and street lighting in Santa Monica. We
'WOuld like to know the statistics before agreeing to the
proposed lighting.
d. What arrangements wculd be made for keeping the position
of an existing light so that a resident does net eni up
paying for something they alrea.dy have serving well.
e. Some people signed for street lighting and then moved a.way.
In addition, there are three houses now fer sale on the
block.
f. It was perceived by seme that the lighting was for the
sidewalks as well as the street, and fer all oJ: 22nd street,
not just fer one block. Another misconception.
We need more time to consider thul proposal. 7-,4-
"f.y ,;:<r ~ ---- f1:B 11 '986
Respectfully submitted.: ,(.(.-1, ~ ~<L/~,;.,L;> '-'
1...- ~ 4C A"t _ CS..J Ruth V. 1:l1"'Y"ant. a.:lY' d;jt. Santa l1onica, CA.
~ .;.lE~r..c::
. '" . (J .
,.....)L~7. "-- ~L~~ SC --t..p-e _~ )
. .'~,
",
, '~...--
--- - -- ..
c - ~ J
~ ,
, , - .
-- ~
, ~~
-~
~ -~ ,J - ~
c- "_ ~ ~ ~ - - s:.s.
- -" ,
- ~
- - ,,-
~
- -
-~
-- "-" -
~
-'-
"~
- ,-
~
- -
- - -" -
o _ ~ ~ ~
0
~- --
.
.
- ~
c
- - -
~ --
. ---
;- - - -
- -
.
~ --
.
~ ,
~
0
- -
, "
,-
::,. <
- -
. 7--.4--
'If-.....-ft~..I" . .
p:p, 1 1 1986
FE;-j r:m, ,'f) r--'F_CETf-- ~.~~!'IES F R()l~l ?POP()SE L
......------........--
~ \~~~,;L_lt,i'.I ~ l~-\ ()_l STFEET ~ 1 CHTS 0:\ f./) ~
)>
z C...:;r
/' ?~\"J S Tl< 1::;]: -l- G ,~- ::hT c:;, ?JC0 & p~ i\R=~ sr -I --:; =- ~~
1 _ l> '"'"
3" GJ =<r :.
IJF.! r i :' 10": PREP,;:-".?L~) _ P,t.}CLST 1 ~- ~i [J C -
, . . -
- - -
c , ,
...- -0
-
( ~
-, w
~
c
,one ~...... L.~i-=-hc-:,,(l r(::~rlrd lr~~ !-- j.~~;. I)IOPOs(~d ID'3tAl'dL1Grt or 11qr,t'L-;
en --.?..--. St .b~. t\}ef3r" ~:c...o b ".-d. 2nd p(==-~ r 1 5 l. 'cS submItLed LG t.p,-;
~_L.. _
. " ;' ~: t,. C\.'L'Y'.C: 1 tr-,e C 1 t ... (.) 1 Sar:t.,; ~'k""rLl :~?, f01 ltle ITleet-
1-:" l~jDr.~~.:" t) T
lTn ( , f FeLlllar\i J 1 tho It...di6~
~)b j ('Ie r L'C\ t~)8 ll~ S ta .i2l1;)T1 or s t reE::-t -L lqt,t 11'9 Or[ ...-,...--... . ~"';L ~e-
LLnQ
t'c'f~e-) ~} -1::" () :':hd. 0- -:lpat~J.. Sl. fut t :he foLjo"~~ng '-2aSO[- s
~ :tie (~erlS L t\.-- r Ll;x' FICl..;S t..tep..:.: Ule ~~t.T~S'L t ;"~lll tv.; t ,=, ~ -'-O~-:
, f~. r ~)j1
, >
ful ' ,- of" tl-,t-, I.reposed 1 f1S ~.a ~ec llc}-,~s_
Jc~:')e-r l t
2 Tbe pr09o.:';e< l.;..9h I~S ar'..~ S7RLr:r ~ I r;l-rrS, not sldp-\:'dlk ~ ~ '.Jr~ LE-...
'1es(~ } J -:,;11':.s "1 -;, 11 g:--"; t ti,e si.::_reet ['i(Jt the hQmes or tl-e ~~j(:'-\"a.J k
l~ l ~ ~
3 i ~.. (? 01 ~glri..-; 1 r.e t~ 1 i":...L ()[L f 0, the ,;,rol""-.osed 1 nf.. t.Cii ~ at-I ()Y~ (-", -:::
..'.L
]ll] }~ t ~ ( '~'r " r"'d i'~ O'''-<:'~I ber 30th 1 9R~. Slnce t}18 Siqro10g at tr"tE=-
.)rlqlll31- ~)t-'t -:. t _,)11 1..; -: t~ nelqi1hars ~ ~') a. \: ~~ tclke(: to b~' 1 ] e\'e Lhp) ar ':,
(Jet t 1 r;9 l'qhts tb2~ \";1-'. l 1. ~ <jht tf-e s:;..de-~-:dlk and hOPles 2Ylr'ctit=..J
he' ~ 1. <.;vc:::. ~L",l L .~ oL" ':'lgrts "'-'"x t<.'~l 0 f r CY"fl Plea BJ'./G. tr, O(-=e.-ju I)r=~l~~-'", Sl\.d.~
LL
-3.T":.Jt "8-- d 1',: ,. '-. t ~eeiT' ~...(J "-"-P2~..:Z{::" ~~t-ia l I[;e]' \:'ouJ a h -1 \:~~ f(- ~cav for
ti--p l~ghts
\.}f~ nt'ea n".Jre "(.,'1.,:. t..) ::~ t 1J.~y r-)-- - ..... rro]c:_r
. - \.....~ 1 L ...;:
;hc. ;-(~1.l ~~ll.}r-' IS ~e~l'(~ Cl! c:;u12t~)d ~A :F(~se la.rk'-D
7~~
I.- :-.) ~ .:. i,:;t~
.l~~.~. .
~e, the undersIgned, vlsh to express ou~ posltJOn ~o the
Honorable CIty CouncIl of ~he Cl~V of Santa Monlca, regardIng Che
proposed stree~ l~ghtlDg O~ 22nd s~. be~veen FICO Blvd. and
Pearl St
1 he de no'c aqr'sp \''1:-h the r;rcposed Installatlon of sL'eet
11ghtlWJ.
2. h'e do no::: agree Lo pay for SHCn. a proposecl lrlst:allatlcn
3 It ~e slgned ~he r;etltlon requestIng lIghtIng, ~e ~l~hdra~
ou~ names from zhe saId Pptltlon.
'l,C"l f' /) .J
/1...- "-/J ... ,o. Iv' t. - ,
&. Iv 1 4~~~L q Lck~~_ _ J-~-;.? ,:).~ :to- .,:- _ _ _ __ __
...;J;J 'f- 'f-
--??'c/Y'- 2 ~~f~_~~_'~*7_.___
~" ~ ><-1/) ') 07/;/J 22l/9 :2:J.wi /Jf:.
-:- [/-9 b j---tfr't~t'fta jrtd~S-L(1fSc 3'-j 90) 8
\L ,~ 9
-rr ~ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _
5. ______ 10.
,jr Tr-:.e ::ollcVH"C! ~eoDle lA.ho slqned the ()r191na~ ~::>et:ltLCm no .:JJf1,;er
- '
r2Siac Ofi ?2nd. St.
O'\r ~E,t- t"-, L::~n1m"'~
1---- jlLJ L- -.....- 1_::::::. 0;:..1-
~r'" \ar.cy Uhi. tIn~:tor,
" I . -. 1-
:3 ' c>'. ~c.. ~l'"
.._ _...L........~ ~ __ ~J).
.,
, (f/t!' &J ~~ .(1/ .
,,;y-;.~ ~7 cr /
---- - . . 7-~
-.....
HB 11 1986
V) ~
~
1306-C Princeton Street :z
-1 O:;r-
Santa Monica :P- -n ~;~----
California 90404 3:; rn ~
CD -
February 10, 1986 C -..t.l;'_
-
C - --"- ---
-
C~ty Counc11 Re: Street lights on Pr1nceton Streetoo
(
City of Santa Monica between W1lshire and Santa ~onica~
1685 ~a1n Street boulevards ~
0:
Santa Mon1ca
Cah fornie 90401
Dear Sirs:
I am 8 tenant at 1306 Princeton Street. Y have lived at this
address for eleven year8.
There are two p01nts that concern me about the question of
street light8 for Princeton Street.
The firet has to do w1th how opinion in the ne1ghborhood was
gathered. People wers simply 1nvited to 81gn a pet~t1on. Th1s 1S B
haphazard procedure, 8S attested to by the fact that I waS never asked.
There was never e vote. People weren1t g1ven the opportun1ty to say yes
or no. They were only 1nvited to express an op1n1on favoring the street
11..ght8. Those opposed to the improvement have not had their opinion
recorded in a comparable form. They have been ignored except for those
1nd1vidual8 who have gone to the trouble of mak1ng an ind1vidual protest,
wh1ch 16 more cumbersome and time-consuming that putt1ng your name on
a pet1tion. In v~ew of the way that only a favorable op1n1on was gathered,
with none invited to d1ssent, 15 1..t reasonable for the city to feel that
there 18 suff1cient bas1s to go forward w1th the project?
The second p01nt of concern has to do w1th the method of assess-
ment. If my understand1ng is correct, 1t w1l1 be done by d1v1ding the
lineal feet per parcel by the number of dwelling un1ts on the parcel. Th15
will result in an uneven d1str1but1on of the burden among the res1dents.
And an uneven d1stribut10n 15 an unfair one.
The problem lies in the nature of our ne1ghborhood, where there
1S a range in density per lot from single-fam11y residences to relatively
high-dens1ty apartment buildings. In a more homogeneous ne1ghborhood,
such as one conS1st1ng of all single-family residences on standard-s1zed
lots, or one consist1ng of two-story apartment buildings, the number of
households per lot would be much more un1form. Because thE lots are about
the same size, and the number of households per lot about the same, the
assessment per household would be about the same. The burden would be
distr1buted more Or less evenly among households, and benef1ts and burdens
would be in proportion.
Not so on Pr1nceton Street. Owing to the w~de range in density
of households per lot, th1S method 1f implemented here would produce
ine~uitable results. Some households will be getting what amounts to a
+'ree r1de, and others will be faced with a very heavy burden, many t1mes
that of a ne1ghbor. The apartment bu~ld1ng at 1320 Pr1nceton occup1es
four lots W1t~ a total l1neal front footage of 160 feet. The charge for
th1s footage w1ll be d1str1buted a~ong more than twenty apartments. Each
apart~ent w111 be charged for less tha, 81ght 11neal feet. At 1255 Pr1nceton,
the cbarge for 100 frontage feet w111 be d~str1buted among twel~e apartMents.
f~i1i6
- - -
, . .
.. -- ~ ' -
-2-
In that build1ng eac~ household w11l be liable for s11ghtly more than
e1ght lineal feet. The lot immed1ately to the north, 1243 Princeton,
is occup~ed, I believe. by a 5~~gle-fam1ly dwelling. This one household
will be charged for the ent1re frontage of 50 feet, while on the adJacent
parcel the charge per household will be about one-sixth as much.
The instance of the parcel owned by my landlord is even more
extreme. He has 125 feet of front footage and 85 feet of s1de footage.
He has only one tenant, myself. Not by any imaginable standard is it
fS1r that only two households should have to d~v1de th1s burden between
them. But the likely course of events is more extreme stillt because
the parcel 1S owner-occupied and has three units or less, I am not under
rent control. My landlord has no obl~gation to share the burden equally
w~th me. He has explained to me that I will have to pay all of it myself.
One household, m1ne, will be liable for 125 front feet and 85 s1de feet.
And I am a renter, B member of that class of res~dents whose welfare the
counc11 says ~t wants to pay part1cular attent1cn to.
If street lights are 1nstalled, presumably property values w111
go up. My landlord w11l get the benef~t, but a renter will have pS1d for
it.. I cannot f1nd fault with my landlord's thinking as he does. Who wants
tp pay a bill when it can be passed on to someone else?
The question is fairness and how to ach~eve it. I gather that
the city council interprets the pet1tion as a Buff~cient gauge of ne1ghbor-
hood opinion to justify going forward with the proJect. As I have tried
to point out, I feel a pet1tion is much too casual a procedure on which
to base such an expensive proJect, because it doesn't permit anyone to
say DS. How can the city feel reassured it is reepond1ng to ne~ghborhood
needs if it doesn't also know how many people are aga1nst the project?
And in a mixed-density neighborhood such as ours. an act10n that is
implemented in response to a petition but paid for on the bes~s of lineal
feet per household will, BS I have tr1ed to show, distribute the burden
among residents inequitably.
A mixed-density ne1ghborhood 15 a special case. The city should
be eager to demonstrate its will~ngnesB to gather op~nion in the neighborhood
on a basis that is syatemat1C and thorough, and will produce a result that
satief1es aome zeasonable standard of fairness. I am all for residents
making 8 case by means of a pet~tion. But that should be only the beginning
of the process. I hope the city will avoid giving the appearance that you
are seizing on the petition to show that you respond to vocal citizens, even
at the expense of other, perhaps more numerous, people whose op1nions have
not been so11cited 1n a comparable way. The way for the city to persuade
the residents of Princeton Street of its fS1r-m1ndedness and its 1nterest
~n the op1nion of all concerned, 1S to conduct a vote in the distr1ct.
This way, everyone who will be presented w1th a b1ll will have the chance
to say yes or no in the same forum at the same t1me. Under such a procedure
no one 1n the district could say that the dec1sion for or egainst was
arrived at unfairly.
How to conduct the vote fa1rly? As Jean Stanley expla1ned to me,
the c~ty cannot alter the assessment procedure, S1nce 1t ~s determ1ned by
state law. The solution is to modify the voting procedure, such that votes
w~ll be we1ghted in proportion to what people will be l1able for. Such a
procedure would achieve a result that in a ne1ghborhood of homogeneous dens~ty
. . .
. - ~
-3-
would occur automat~cally. As I have tr~ed to suggest, that is a fa~r
standard. 5uch a procedure 1S necessary to obta~n equitable results ~n
a m~xed-den5~ty ne~ghborhood.
The way to we1ght the votes is on the baS1s on lineal feet,
exactly the same way that the law requires the assessments to be made.
For example, on a lot with f1ve un~ts and 50 frontage feet, each household
casts one vote, and each vote is equ~valent to 10 frontage feet. And 50
1t would go, by household per parcel, far the ent~re d~strict. A s1mp1e
maJority of lineal feet for or aga~nst would dec1de the quest1on. Lots
w1th 5~de footage would have that footage discounted, 1n order to reflect
the lower assessment on it.
As 1 understand 1t, the C1ty has taken the unusual and 1nnovat~ve
step of allow1ng renters to c1rculate pet~t~ons for ~mprovements, a prJ..vilege
formerly reserved for property-owners. In a oB1ghborhood of renters where
the build~ngs are B1m1lar and the density per parcel about un~form, the
city1s usual way of d1str1buting the assessments would not be unfa~r. Eut
the parcels on Pr1nceton Street are of w1dely varY1ng density. It J.S a
spec1al case, and the c1ty should be sensitive to this fact. If the c~ ty
extends to renters the r~ght to pet~tiDn for improvements, ~t should equally
be On guard against anfairness that might result, such as wide d1sparity
1n essess~ents per household, and ~t 3hould respond with procedural checks
and bala~ce9 that are equally innovat~ve.
5ince the manner of f1xing assessments is determined by law, it
is the method of gathering op1n1on that needs to be modJ.fied if the city
wants to maintain a standard of fairness. A pet1tion S1gned by 1ndividual
tenants is a way to call attent10n to a problem, but I wonder to what extent
it can be taken as a vote. But in fact not even a vote by all res~dents ~n
the d1strict should serve as an indicator, QW1ng to the quest~on of m~xed-
densJ.ty and unequal assessments per household. The solution is a weJ.ghted
vote. I have suggested one form of such a vote. There must be others, of
varYlng degrees of fairness. I urge the c1ty to consider this and other
solwtions as guides for ~t6 dBc~slon.
51ncerely yours, H-~J hLr-
IY1 /)' PJ tl/U
~10rgan H. Flsher
.' c &f ~~ (9)
--Y'J _ ~-C~~ 0 J
- - -