SR-10-A (59)
,~
.
.
/ () ~ A-
.
.....
,
GS:SES:DB:jam:iipicolr
June 18, 1991
Santa Monica, California
INFORMATION ITEM
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
City Staff
SUBJECT:
Protests From Property Owners On Pico Boulevard
Regardlng Assessments For street Improvements
INTRODUCTION
ThlS report addresses the protests of certaln property owners on
Pica Boulevard between 28th Street and the East City limlts
regarding assessments for street improvements.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 1988, original Notices of Assessment was mailed to
property owners on Pico Boulevard between 28th street and the
East city limits.
In addition, coples of the Notice of
Assessment were posted along affected blocks of Pico Boulevard
and an advertisement was placed in the Evenlng Outlook. A public
hearlng '.vas held on February 23, 1988 at WhlCh tlme Councll
authorized
the
work
to
commence.
After
completion
of
construction the Notice of Filing of Assessment and Time of
Public Hearing was mailed to all affected property owners on May
24, 1991.
DISCUSSION
One affected property owner, Mr. Stein, has challenged the
legality of the procedures which were followed for this
assessment. A copy of his letter dated May 31, 1991 is attached
- 1 -
.
.
-,
~
for reference. The letter of protest makes several p01nts which
are herein responded to.
Mr. Stein alleges that no notice was given to affected property
owners. This allegation is not correct and a copy of the Notice
of Assessment which was mailed on February 8, 1988 to property
owners and posted along all affected blocks on pico Boulevard 1S
attached. Mr. stein also states that the need for the street
repa1rs was not physically obvious and that it was a "band aid"
Job. The reeonstruet1on of pico Boulevard was partially funded
as a Federal Aid Urban capital nnprovement proj eet and was a
major $250,000.00 resurfacing project. The need was obvious and
it was not a "band aid" job as alleged.
Mr. stein further states that there was no coordination of the
job with property owners and area bus1nesses. In fact, a Notice
of street Construction was mailed to property owners and
residents on May 26, 1989, prior to the start of construction,
informing them of the construction start date, the estimated
completion date and the nature of the improvements. A copy of
this notice is attached for your review.
Mr. stein alleges that no breakdown of costs were included 1n the
Notice. Contrary to this allegat1on, the Notice of Assessment
actually included the approximate total proJect cost, approximate
total amount to be assessed, and the cost per linear foot for
street resurfacing and gutter construction. The city Attorney
has reviewed the Notice and found it to be satisfactory.
- 2 -
,.
.
.
"-
,
Mr. Steln also protests the lnstallatlon of parklng meters along
P1CO Boulevard. These parking meters were installed well before
the street lmprovements were undertaken and are unrelated to this
assessment.
In addition, one owner has protested and solicited petitions of
protest from other property owners.
These protests are of a
general nature stating that they already pay taxes, being
assessed for improvements would be a double taxatlon especially
since non-adjacent property owners also benefit from the
improvement.
In response, ';...;hen Clty streets need repair, the
Clty needs to utl1ize all available sources for generatlng
needed revenue to finance the lmprovements .
All taxpayers pay
gas tax monles, but these funds are not sufflcient to make all
the needed improvements.
The Clty along with other citles
utilize the 1911 Improvement Act of the california streets and
Highways Code for the past 70 years to accompl ish this. The
protesters appear to not be aware that many other streets such as
LincOln, Santa Monica, Broadway, Colorado and wilshire Boulevard
are also partlally pald for by assessed property owners frontlng
those streets.
CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewlng this matter I staff believes that all
proper notification and assessment procedures were followed for
this street improvements assessment.
Prepared by: Stanley E. Scholl, Director of General Services
Dave Britton, Acting City Englneer
- 3 -
.
.
"
'ty
.~ \.
v
~
'.
~
Op
"-
SANTA
M(ONI(CA
1685 Mam Street
Santa Monica. CA 90401-3295
(213) 458-8211
Re: street Resurfacing and Gutter Construction on pico
between 28th street and East City Limits
This letter is legal notice as required by the Improvement Act of
1911 proceedings under which the above work will be done.
You are hereby notified that the city Council of the City of
Santa Monica, California, adopted Resolution No. 7545 (CCS) on
January 26, 1988, declaring its intention to resurface streets
and construct gutters on Pico between 28th street and East City
Limits, declaring the work to be of more than local ordinary
pUblic benefit, and that a portion of the expense thereof shall
be assessed upon a district. Commercial property owners will be
assessed approximately $9.50 per lineal foot for gutter
construction and $7.50 per lineal foot for street resurfacing.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE ASSESSED.
A public hearing regarding the proposed improvement will be held
at 7:30 PM, February 23, 1988, in the Council Chambers, City
Hall, 1685 Main street, Santa Monica, California 90401. All
protests regarding this matter must be filed in writing in the
Office of the City Clerk before said time, and all protests so
flIed will be considered by the city council at that time. Each
protest must contain a description of the property in which each
signer thereof is interested.
The total project cost is estimated to be approximately $250,000.
The amount to be assessed upon the district for this improvement
is approximately $47,075. Records available indicate you own
property in the above district. Requests for copies of the
Resolution of Intention which contain further particulars on this
assessment and all questions regarding the proposed improvement
may be directed to Jean Stanley Higbee in the Office of the
Director of General Services at 458-8721.
Date: February 8, 1988
,
.
C I T '1- -2}-
.
r
,~
b
CA. LI FOR).T I~.\
ANTA
MONICA
OFFICE OF THE CITI' ENGINEER
Ifi8S MAIN STREET 458-8721
SANTA MONlCA CALIF 90401-329~
Hay 26, 1989
NOTICE OF STREET CONSTRUCTION
Dear Owner, BUSlness Opera~cr, or ReSlden~:
The Clty of Santa Monlca has awarded a contract to Sully-Mlller
Contractl~g Company ~o rehaol1ltate P1CO Boulevard from 28th
Stree": to Cen":1.ne1a Avenue. Construction will start Tuesday,
May 30, 1989.
No park1.ng s1.gns
durlng the 'work.
w111 be posted from
Please observe them.
tl~e
to
time
as
:-leeded
Work w111 cons1.S~ of curb ra~ps at se1ec~ed locatlons, removal
and replacement of var10US asphalt and concrete sect1.ons of
pavement. There wlll be grlr.dlng of the asphalt to a depth of
one l.nch, leavlng a rough drlvlng surface unt1.1 the pavlng
operatlons are cCQpleted.
All work should be complete by July.
We antlclpate an lrnproved rldlng surface and a rnalntenance-free
roadway for :nany years to come. If you have any ques-':l.ons,
pleas~ contL R1Ck Ml1ls at (213} 458-8721-
Ve!?/ ::ruly / yours,
.~/ l ,/
... ~
/ /1 . / ----:
.... / ( (' ~:~---
~~e , P.E.
Clty Englneer
~
cc: R1Ck M111s, P.E.
Res~dent Eng~neer
DA:bat
.
\;\;i ~ c:. t ::::::..r .n . II
t '-'-'~',-,'I ('
!.-.-,-il .--(",~i
I ;'.J v2; '- I:..,J.I
/'
J - jl
;
t"""'\-, "_,-"r+...-...,,-
. . '.;'V:) L',J j
May 31, 1991
city Clerk
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90401-8211
"'-
, ""
..,
Re: Notice of Assessment No. 015
3325 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica
Gentlemen:
We are In recelpt of a NOTICE OF FILING OF ASSESSMENT for street
improvement work on pico Boulevard which was undertaken by the city
of Santa Monica ln 1990......more than one (1) year ago, without
any notice to or consultation with the affected property owners.
Now, more than one year after the fact, the City is attempting to
assess the property owners for the work done by the city without
representative support or denial by the same property owners.
The need for the street repair was not physically obvious from the
existing surface condition. The work was nothing more than a Itband
aidlt job as the surface was scarified and a new topping laid
without removing and repairing the subsurface. During the work,
there was no coordination of the job with the affected Pica
Boulevard businesses and most of us suffered terrible inconvenience
and disruption of our businesses. For the City to slap an
assessment after this unfair treatment is a manifestation of its
inability to govern.
Further, after completion of the street work, parking meters were
installed along the same stretch of improved street which affects
the businesses of all property owners and businesses along the
stretch of street being assessed. This is taxation without
representation as all of the businesses are affected by lack of
parking and by ticketed patrons who have defected to other
competing businesses.
Additionally, pursuant to the Code Section recited there is to be
included with the Notice of Assessment, a breakdown of the total
construction costs, the total area assessed, and the pro-rata share
of each parcel assessed. This was not executed as per the code
section so that this notice and hearlng is illegal.
1
3325 ?co 3cu 9''10(0 So~tG \~C()!(O Cd fone Q04C5 · EL :)!3) 87C-5411 · FAX (213)329- T7.j9
...
.
.
-;
'.
c~ty Clerk
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
May 31, 1991
THIS IS A
virtue of
to form an
notice, and
affected.
PROTEST. Even though you may hdve assessment rights by
powers of taxation, you do not have the preemptive rights
assessment district after you do the work without
without consent of the maJority of the property owners
Sincerely,
t /?
to'~~
Donald stein ~
DSjlwii
c!~ ~~ (/j
ti- dlrh-~lU/,
~~!.~.:: ~?~_~ ,f."
/tt~"u -1L4t .... .::c.
Cf/
CJ/
2