HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-Public Works
~ c:J File NO.<:).01-327
CITY OF SAN BeRNARDINO - ReQUeST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE. Director
Subject:
Public hearing 9:00 a.m. and Resolution
ordering Annexation No.349 for the Annex-
ation of the territory generally located
North of Lynwood Dr.. East of Harrison St.
(LAFCO 2632)
Dept: Public Works /Engineering
Date: October 8. 1990
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
10/01/90
Authorization to proceed was given and Resolution No. 90-392.
determining the amount of tax transfer from County to City was
adopted.
Resolution No. 90-410. initiating proceedings and setting public
hearing was adopted.
09(17/90
Recommended motion:
That the public hearing to receive, consider and rule upon written
protests in the matter of annexation of the territory generally
located north of Lynwood drive, east of Harrison Street, south of
39th Street and west of Mountain Avenue, designated LAFCO 2632,
be continued to 11:00 a.m., Monday, November 5, 1990, in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
_1
cc:
Shauna Edwins. City Administrator
James Penman. City Attorney
Andv Green. Director of Finance
, ,
-
/Vl{
/'
/--"')
/
\- ,..,
\ /) , //;.
j'- T'0P~
Signature
;:
Contact person:
Les FOl{assy
Phone:
5334
Supporting data attached: staff Report,Resolution
Ward:
4,7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
S675.00
Source: (Acct. No.)
001-302-53007
(Acct. Description)
Filing Fees
'l 1 \
Finance: \.. '-, ,~
t\
,----
/ .
Council Notes:
f0
I
- 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -
o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
On September 17, 1990, authorization was given to proceed with the proposed annexation
of the area generally located North of Lynwood Drive, East of Harrison Street, South
of 39th Street and West of Mountain Avenue, as a result of a petition filed with the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) from residents within the proposed area.
At that hearing,
cransferred from
adopted.
Resolution No. 90-392, determining the amount of property tax to
the County to the City, if the annexation should succeed,
be
was
On September 28, 1990, LAFCO approved the annexation, and on October 1, 1990,
Resolution No. 90-410 was adopted, initiating proceedings for the annexation and
seLting a public hearing for October 25, 1990, relative to the proposed annexation.
The attached resolution, making a determination and ordering the annexation, should
be adopted only if protests are filed and received by less then 25% of the registered
\"OLerS residing in the area and less then 25% of the property owners owning less than
25% of the total assessed land value, within the proposed territory.
URGENCY CLAUSE: The public hearing was set by Resolution No. 90-410 adopted October 1,
1990 and must be heard on October 25, 1990.
10-08-90
-.
o
o
\
.... S. .".
.
~,
,
..:. :J7 ! (
~' ;{J~'/:\'l
/ . =
!~
.......0lrI 1 . I
I CA_:: I__~
I TIJ ..,.....
L
o
'0
!(\J
)II
H
..~
-1
W
o
-~ _WI' - .:....o'T ( ~--_. ~
.- 1: r --. . ~) r~, r.~:=-;~
. .~" . :i I:il / i~: '.~4';'
~ "~I ill ;: i 7/111 ~ I : ~ I :'1~~~
~ ~rWnr I:R; I ,:~ '", ,.'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ANNEXATION NO. 349, LAFCO 2632
"- EFFECTIVE DATE:
RESOLUTION NO.:
~
.
.
,
-
...
o
o
RE(
"S{
,,'-,-'."
~15 ;~.S:76
October 10; 1990
SUBJECT: LETTER OF PROTEST
TO: Rachel Krasney
City Clerk
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
Dear Rachel Krasney:
The purpose of this letter is to set forth our protest regarding
the proposed Annexation as set forth in 90-410.
We are home owners at:
3321 N. Erwin Avenue
San Bernardino, Ca. 92404
Our home is in the area of proposed annexation. We are perfectly
happy with the Sheriffs Department and the County Fire Fighting
Organization.
We can see no advantages in being annexed to the City. it will
have no affect on our insurance rates or any other financial
benefits. The arguments stated by Mayor Holcomb back in 1985 do
not hold water. The big advantage would be to the City as they
would collect the utility tax and in my opinion this is one of the
big reasons that Mayor Holcomb and the rest of the City Council wish
to see this annexation go forward.
We do not want anything to do with the City of San Bernardino.
So therefore we again state our opposition to the proposed annexation.
Sincerely,
THOMAS F. SULLIVAN- ,a~ ,~,{t/~
MARGARET SULLIVAN-9ft iL-<-J O-<-.A.:J ~ ~ ~
a,..--/ /~. /fjo
led !O ('t1(;
I
J-.Ar CO j. t,. .3.:G
6)