HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/09/16 Item 28 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 28
Meeting Date 9/16/86
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on the 1911 Block Act - Phase XVII Cash
Contract with proceedings pursuant to Chapter 27 of the
"Improvement Act of 1911"
Resolution /2 7?/ Making findings at public hearing
pursuant to Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer I
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerIl (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
The City Council at their meeting of August 5, 1986, adopted a map showing the
nature and location of certain public improvements and showing proposed
boundaries of 1911 Block Act-Phase XVII Cash Contract. Attached is a copy of
this map. In addition, City Council approved a resolution ordering the
installation of certain improvements within various blocks and instructing the
Superintendent of Streets to give notice and order the construction of said
improvement. Attached is a table identifying the parcels by assessment number
which gives a general description of the improvements to be installed, the
estimated total cost of the improvements, the estimated cost to be paid for by
the property owner, the estimated cost to be paid for by the City, an
indication that the property owner has commenced work on the public
improvements on his own, and identifying those properties which have protested
as of this date the formation of the assessment district. The City' s
participation in the cost of the improvements shall be in accordance with
Council Policy No. 505-01 .
RECOMMENDATION: That Council :
1 . Hold a public hearing on the 1911 Block Act-Phase XVII Cash Contract.
2. Approve a resolution making findings at the public hearing pursuant to
Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911 ."
3. Authorize staff to develop cleanup legislation to SB 2477 with the League
of California Cities.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In accordance with the previous Council actions in regard to the 1911 Block
Act-Phase XVII Cash Contract, each owner was notified to construct their
improvements. In addition, a copy of said notice was mailed postage pre-paid
to the owner thereof at his last known address as the same appears on the last
equalized assessment of the County. In addition, a copy of said notice was
posted on each of the properties in a conspicuous place. Also, a copy of the
proposed boundary map of the assessment district was filed in the office of
the County Recorder on the 6th day of August, 1986. Each owner was invited to
Page 2, Item 28
Meeting Date 9/16/86
a meeting prior to the design to discuss the 1911 Block Act proceedings and
the improvements required. Those who did not attend have been contacted by
phone or in person.
To date, no protests have been received and only one owner has chosen to
install their improvements themselves.
The public hearing is being held to receive any testimony and evidence
pertaining to the works of the improvements as proposed in the assessment
district. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council is requested to
adopt a resolution which makes the following findings:
1 . That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, has
instituted proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the
"Improvement Act of 1911" being Division 7 of the Streets and Highway Code
of the State of California for the construction of certain authorized
improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as 1911
Block Act-Phase XVII Cash Contract (hereinafter referred to as the
"Assessment District" ).
2. That notice has been given in the manner and form as required by law and
specifically Article II , Part 3, of Division 7 of the Streets and Highway
Code, and a Certificate of Compliance is on file in the office of the City
Clerk. (A copy of this certificate is attached. )
3. That a public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidence heard
relating to the works of improvement as proposed for the Assessment
District, and the legislative body is desirous at this time to proceed.
4. That all protests of every nature are hereby overruled and denied.
5. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause the
construction of the works and improvement in said Assessment District if
said construction is not commenced with sixty (60) days after notice is
given to the property owner to so cause the work to be done.
6. The works of the improvement shall be done and carried through and
financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act
of 1911" and for all particulars as to these proceedings, reference is
made to the Resolution ordering the installation of the public
improvements and instructing the Superintendent of Streets to give notice.
7. The works of improvement and project shall be financed pursuant to the
provisions of said Chapter 27, and bonds shall issue to represent unpaid
assessments in accordance with Division 7 of the Streets and Highway Code
of the State of California ("Improvement Act of 1911" ) to represent each
assessment of $150 or more remaining unpaid following the expiration of a
30-day cash collection period. Such bonds shall be issued and sold as
this legislative body directs and shall be dated following the expiration
of the cash payment period.
Page 3, Item 28
Meeting Date 9/1b/86
Report on Senate Bill 2477
Senate Bill 2477 was a modification to the 1911 Block Act restricting cities'
ability to construct missing improvements. Through the urging of the League
of Cities and the Cities of El Cajon and Chula Vista, the Bill was modified.
The 1911 Block Act of the California Streets and Highways Code was established
to allow cities to complete missing improvements on blocks where more than 50%
of the like improvements were previously installed. The Cities of El Cajon
and Chula Vista have used this Act for years, in fact, Chula Vista is now in
Phase XVII . The Act has been modified over the years to consider deferrals as
improvements being installed. So, in effect, if more than 50% of the
improvements were either installed or deferred, this Act would apply. Because
of a controversial project in El Cajon along Chase Avenue, the people in that
neighborhood formed a Homeowners Association and hired an attorney and
convinced Senator Ellis to introduce this Bill which is difficult to
understand, inequitable, and destroyed the intent of the original Block Act
Law.
El Cajon was improving a portion of Chase Avenue approximately 1 ,200 feet long
by installing curb, gutter, sidewalks, a parking lane and one thru lane of
traffic. They had gone through the regular assessment district process and
received a majority protest. Because they had deferrals along that route,
rather than call up the deferrals, they chose to use the Block Act process to
complete the improvements. As it turned out, there never was an overriding
4/5ths vote of the protest for even an Block Act project, but the residents
hired an attorney and drafted this legislation just to ensure they would not
have to pay for the improvements in front of their house, whether or not they
had agreed to by deferral agreements.
Senator Ellis then introduced SB 2477 which originally made the 1911 Block Act
inapplicable to properties on streets with more than two lanes of traffic or
on two lane collector streets with more than 70 percent of traffic generated
outside of the district. This appeared to be inequitable, since if a property
were on a local street or cul-de-sac street, it would be required to put in
one lane of pavement plus a parking lane, whereas, if it' s a single family
development on a collector street, it would not have to put in a travel lane.
Furthermore, on a collector street, if there is one lot in a block missing
improvements and that' s considered the district, that property will not
generate have 30% of the traffic on the street. So, in effect, all properties
along the collector street will not be required to put in a travel lane.
The bill was also amended to exempt property related improvements such as
curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and a parking lane. Therefore, even on
a collector street or arterial street, the City could require those types of
improvements to be installed. However, it further restricted the use of the
Act for parking lanes by stating that it truly had to be used for a parking
lane and could not be used for a bike lane or be red curbed, i .e. , for a
left-turn pocket. If a property, through this Act, did pay for a parking lane
and at later time parking was removed, then the City would have to pay to the
property owner the amount that he paid for the parking lane plus the prime
Page 4, Item 28
Meeting Date 9/16/86
interest rate plus 3%. The law neglected to state whether the period of the
interest payment would be from the time the improvements were installed or
from the time the parking was removed, which would be the most logical period
since the property owner would have had the use of the street for his own
parking previously. It was a last ditch effort by Chula Vista with the League
of Cities to allow the construction of parking lanes with the Act. Previous
to that, no pavement could be constructed on a collector or arterial street.
It is staff' s opinion that this Act is so confusing and inequitable that we
should work with our Legislator to submit a cleanup bill for the next session
of the Legislature.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will be awarding a cash contract at a future date
for construction of the required improvements for this Assessment District.
It is estimated that the total project cost will be about $102,400. The
City' s share is about $12,100.
SLH:fp/
WPC 2309E
y C,..incil of
Cnula vista, C&Iifornia
Dates .! .e - /A��