Opinion ID: 1237019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Landscaping and Lighting Act.

Text: (1) The first issue in this case concerns the scope of improvements authorized under the Landscaping and Lighting Act. The city and its amici curiae contend the Act authorizes the imposition of assessments for the maintenance of existing parks. [9] Conversely, plaintiffs contend the Act permits assessments for the maintenance of only those parks constructed pursuant to the Act. The types of improvements authorized under the Act are delineated in section 22525. That section provides in pertinent part: `Improvement' means one or any combination of the following: [¶] (a) The installation or planting of landscaping. [¶] (b) The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities. [¶] (c) The installation or construction of public lighting facilities.... [¶] (e) The installation of park or recreational improvements, ... [¶] (f) The maintenance or servicing, or both, [ [10] ] of any of the foregoing.... (Italics added.) Plaintiffs contend that under section 22525, maintenance of a park is not an authorized improvement unless the park itself was installed pursuant to the Act. Relying on section 22525, subdivision (f), which specifies that one type of authorized improvement is the maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing, plaintiffs argue that every item which constitutes the foregoing is the installation of something, such as landscaping, statuary, fountains, ornamental structures, lights or parks. (Italics added.) We disagree with plaintiffs' strained reading of section 22525. That section expressly states that for purposes of the Act, improvement means one or any combination of the improvements listed in its various subdivisions. (Italics added.) In turn, section 22525, subdivision (f) specifies maintenance or servicing as one such improvement. Given the language of section 22525, it is reasonably apparent that maintenance and servicing are improvements in their own right and are not dependent upon an installation under the Act. Fairly read, section 22525, subdivision (f) provides that a permissible improvement for purposes of the Act includes the maintenance or servicing of any of the categories of physical improvements which are listed in the preceding subdivisions, regardless of whether such physical improvements are originally installed pursuant to the Act. While plaintiffs are unable to point to anything in the Act that casts doubt on our reading, we ascertain that one of its statutory provisions undermines theirs. Significantly, plaintiffs' attempt to construe section 22525 so as to disallow use of the Act for the formation of an assessment district to maintain physical improvements not initially installed pursuant to the Act is clearly at odds with section 22605, which explicitly allows local legislative bodies to flexibly utilize the Act to consolidate into a single assessment district any existing lighting, maintenance or tree planting districts that previously had been formed pursuant to other assessment schemes such as the Improvement Act of 1911 (commencing with § 5820) and the Tree Planting Act of 1931 (commencing with § 22000). (§ 22605, subd. (d)(2).) Finally, our construction of the Act effectuates the Legislature's intent that the Act provide[ ] an alternative procedure for making the improvements [t]herein authorized.... (§ 22502, italics added.) In this regard, legislative documents submitted by the city disclose that the underlying purpose of the Act was to offer a simplified alternative procedure to the cumbersome and complicated provisions of other assessment schemes such as the Improvement Act of 1911 (§ 5000 et seq.) and the Tree Planting Act of 1931 (§ 22000 et seq.). (Assem. Com. on Local Government analysis (May 25, 1972) of Assem. Bill No. 1268 (as amended May 8, 1972), at p. 1; see Sen. Local Government Com. staff analysis (undated) of Assem. Bill No. 1268 (as amended July 6, 1972), at p. 1.) Notably, these other acts authorize assessments for the maintenance of various landscaping and lighting improvements without reference to whether such improvements are initially financed and installed thereunder. [11] That being the case, our reading of section 22525 is better suited than plaintiffs' for advancing the Act's goal of providing an alternative to these other acts with respect to the maintenance, as well as the installation or construction, of certain designated landscaping and lighting improvements. We further note that our view is consistent with the Legislature's desire that the Act be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. (§ 22509.) Aside from their narrow reading of section 22525, plaintiffs identify nothing else contained in the Act or in its legislative history that supports their position. Accordingly, we conclude that the maintenance of an existing park is an improvement authorized under the Act.