HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-Public Works
-
-
- REQU~- FoR'COuNCIL . AC'I'~
CtTeOF SAN BERNARDI to
Dept:
Public Works {Engineering
UC'D. -AO.Aonj--
l'fT'I!':' vrr '"
1S8S JlJN 28 PM 4: 07
10:00 A.M. Protest Hearing : Assessment
District No. 990 (Highland and Arden Area
Security and Maintenance District)
From:
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Director
Date:
June 26, 1969
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
03-13-69 --- Authorization to proceed was given
06-16-69 --- Resolution of Intention No.69-216 was adopted, which sets a
public hearing date of July 17, 1969 for proposed Assessment
District
Recommended motion:
That the protests, if any, be overruled, the hearing be closed, and find and
determine that the public convenience and necessity require the proposed
,security and maintenance in the Highland and Arden Area, and that the
Special Assessment, Investigation and Limitation Act of 1931 shall not apply
(4/5ths roll call vote is required).
! Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administrator
Andy Green, Director of Finance
Contact person:
Les Fogassy
Phone:
5334
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Ward:
7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $ 2,500
Source: (Acct. No,) 251-665-53925 (Tax Bill Assessment)
Acct, Oescri tion Assessme
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item No
/4
-
ci~ 'OF SAN BERNARDIIG>> - REQUQT FOR COUNCIL ~
STAFF REPORT
The proposed Assessment District is a result of a City initiated action to reduce
crime and blight in the area.
On June 19, 1989, Resolution of Intention No. 89-216 was passed. which set, up the
protest hearing date of July 17, 1989. As required by Chapter 12.90 of the
Municipal Code, the portions of the streets within the proposed district were posted
by the Real Property Section on June 28, 1989; a notice of improvellent was mailed
to each of the property owners in the proposed district; and on June 28, 1985, the
Resolution of Intention was published in the Sun Newspaper.
We recommend that the protests, if any, be overruled, the hearing be closed. and find
and detemine that the public convenience and necessity require the proposed security
and maintenance in the Highland and Arden Area.
6-26-89
75-0264
J. !b. 4- .&.
.
il~'~ ", ,
I J'
l;j 'it I i ~I
'mm, 'I r\ I,
hf~f ~ r
~~ ~ih'! S-
'il) .I~ ~ .'
o.
~;s 1-a \ ; !
!.."o:! .,~ I)
i li!!.II~~ , I
~ ".'-,"! e
~. t
r;! ~ ~ ; I !I ~ ~ \.,
fIll! I' P .! -~
d
~ H~ 1 Ii
..~ .
,SS'_ 3nN3^"~rN30~"~--'
L. ~ 1
~ g J
I ~
III
J~
l
J;
B~.iS:u.... 1:W__ 31~H.in~-r~"-~
,r
o
~ ~~
~ ~-~-
i ') II,os
~ I ..
o
LLI
~zL
L ~ :~ :z: [
o .~ I-
2 III '" 8 II ~
I: a -'I 11>_
t;! ~ (
~ 'I ~ ~
~ ~i ~ ~
15 I II; [
i ~ "l
~ I ~
ct .. i L~
u - u
! % c:t
~I \ (:
-~ ,,,'
I
(
.inIUS
NO.ill'te..no
~
U
<l:
II::
~
.inll.lS
A 3'NI>I :>..
o
z
al
m
CD
~
H311.iS
e..O:>M3N
~
~11
I
,01
~
~
I
i
I
Ii
.. -'.
..
:;
..
i
..
il
.
i
.
...
-z~
"
c
II
.
-
v
o
o
~ \c) \c\':J\
\0 ~ ~ ewv--.J Gs~ ~i
I \r-Jc ~ ~ D d-\O~ rAc-~
Im~ 00A.st. ~ . ~~-d-\ to .
. .~~~~~
v...- ~
)
w~~~
-
~~. W-'< 6-a~ ~
.I!..~~~a--O
~Q~~~~~
. ~~ )
cv~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
~~~~
oG~~~~
- ~,~~ ~)~
~)~ ~~~~
. ~ -. .
. . ~-
- ~
_~ ~ o-c-~
~~~.'A.o~
0..
N~~8-_~ LP ~
Fb.~V-f' . ~\\
I w~~~ ~~~~
~~~-F~
~ ~ ~~.~,~-_ w~ iQ=-J. ~
~. /'~V~ ~_~
~~~~~
~/':" J' I ~
o
.
(/;;)
JI .~ l - l
1...
0 0 0 ~)
~~~~~~
tj~~ ~/~~
..~.-t -to~~~~
!'~ QJn- B'C>- ~ ^"'-
~ ' .
!i ~~ ~ ~ ~~
!i 133v~ ~~~
I
i~~~~~'
~
Dcll.A
~
o
o
o
o
17 July 1989
City Clerk
ftECEIVED.-GITY rLERf(
San Bernardino CA
1.
Protest against the proposed
'89 JlL 17 A 8 :21
(special)
assessment district
as outlined in your 28 June 1989 letter.
Properties represented:
2123 McKinley
2141 McKinley
Owners: Keith E. Reno
John W. Sventy
James J. Machuta
Rachel K. Machuta
2. Proposed assessment includes costs to cover alley lights,
additional street sweeping, signs, and security patrol. We
are in agreement with the lighting and street sweeping, but
opposed to the security patrol.
2. It is our understanding that the major cost is incurred
for the security patrol.
Security patrol is of no additional
value to the coverage provided by our capable San Bernardino
Police Department, when the property is occupied. Vacant property
presents additional security problem, but as small property
owners who cannot afford to operate with long term vacancies,
the additional cost of providing security for vacant units should
be provided, as required, by the individual owners.
(Electronic
surveillance might be more cost effective.) From our standpoint,
the alley lighting, which a large percentage of owners now pro-
vide, has been significantly instrumental in decreasing vandalism
("";l/)
o
.
o
o
()
..
and burglary.
Additionally, the lighting permits after dark
repairs in a safer environment. Tenants have commented favorably
toward the lighting, but find little benefit in the assistance
that additional (private
security patrols provide over the
"911" service.
4. We, therefore, oppose the additional financial burden for
security patrols to our already tight cash flow.
Tenants would
also be opposed to rent increases to cover these costs.
~4?-
FI.~~" RENO
~~ENTY
~s . ~I.,f
~Lc~//~
CHEL K. MACHUTA
......... c.. .,c.'Wu
1400 EDGEHILL RD. ..
IAN IlERNARDINO. OA lI240II
2