SR-10-A
St,lI'N.IIt ~ r
-"0
/ f:).., A-
AUG
c1 J09"
.L .,J.t.
GS:SES:LR:pam/PH6SUP.word.engine
Council Meeting: August 4, 1992
Santa Monica, California
SUPPLEMENTAL TO ITEM lO-A
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT:
Deferral of the Public Hearing for the Streetlight
Installation on Arizona Avenue Between Franklin
street and Centinela Avenue
INTRODUCTION
staff requests to defer the public hearing for the proposed
installation of streetlights on Arizona Avenue between Franklin
street and centinela Avenue.
BACKGROUND
This report is in response to a complaint received from a
property owner on Arizona Avenue between Frankl in Street and
centinela Avenue regarding the valld1ty of the streetlighting
petition signed by the residents of that street.
City policy is to accept petitions from property owners or
residents of any property that have front and/or side footage on
the block requesting the streetllghts.
At least 60% of the
resldents or property owners of a block have to sign the petition
to initiate the streetlight installatlon.
staff reviewed the
petition and determined that it follows City policy and past
practices and 15 a valid petition.
J""i4I.",,.~, ,.. /1lJ-4.
- 1 -
flUS
" '9(';~
"j !";iL
DISCUSSION
During the analysis of the petition staff determlned that the
proposed assessment for these streetlights was unusual and
inequitable,
The current City policy for spreading of assessment is to assess
residential property owners 50% of the streetlightlng cost per
linear foot for front footage and 20% for side footage, with the
City paying the balance. An example of a property that would be
assessed 50% is a lot that has a front yard along the street
proposed for streetl ighting. An example of a property that
would be assessed 20% for side footage is a corner lot with
streetlighting along the side yard and no streetlighting along
the front yard. In most cases, a property owner assessed for
side footage receives a smaller share of the assessments than a
property assessed for front footage.
As a result of this policy and the fact that only two of the six
effected properties have Arizona Avenue addresses, 67% of the
property owners of the block "lOuld pay only 20% of the costs,
while the remaining 33% would pay 50% of the costs even though
they have relatively small lots. This creates a heavier burden
on the two Arlzona Avenue property owners.
Staff is currently studying dlfferent methods of spreading the
assessment in order to reduce the burden on the two Arizona
Avenue property owners and spread the assessment more equitably.
- 2 -
In addition, the same complainant is opposed to this streetlight
project due to the possibility of excess illumination on their
property and another property. Staff is studying the possibility
of changing the location of the streetlights to reduce the
lighting impact on those propertles.
A public hearing will be held at a later date to discuss the new
proposed spread of assessments for Arizona Avenue.
property
owners affected by this action will be notified by mail of the
new date and time of the public hearing.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests to defer the pUblic hearing for installation of
streetlights for Arizona Avenue between Franklin street and
centinela Avenue.
Prepared by: stan scholl, Director of General Services
Tony Antich, city Engineer
Attachment: Street Diagram
Property Owners List
- 3 -