HomeMy WebLinkAbout49-
'0
o
March 31, 1992
City Of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, Calif 92418
RECEIVFnn ell v '~L~F~
'92 APR -8 1\ 9 :57
To Whom It May Concern;
I read your proposed street inprovement. In a time when people are unable to pay their
bills you want to tax them for a street median and parkways that will not improve their
life style. This is just another example of poor city management. Instead of increasing
taxes you should be working on ways to reduce their taxes. I talked with some of the
residences in the area and many had no idea of this tax increase.
My letter is to request that you discontinue this proposed city inprovement.
I own a home in this area only because my grandmother received so little from our great
county that she was unable to pay her house payment. I purchased the home and let her
live there rent free so she would not lose her home. This area is full of old people who
own their homes and due to their income have been forced to stay there. I would guess
all city officicals parents live in a nice neighbor where its safe to walk the streets. Why
don't you improve police service to these people so they can feel safe at night.
That would make more since than building a median and parkways. Have you people lost
touch with the people of San Bernardino.
Parcel #135-144-02 at 255 E Kingman St
Sincerely,
Re:soki',ot../ ~O Cf.1- 8-1
~
Ron Lampley
c
o
o
;BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 2nd day of March, 1992, the Mayor and Common
Council of the City of San Bernardino duly passed a Resolution of Intention to
form an assessment district to recover costs and to order work within the area of
Waterman Avenue between Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway within said
City, to be improved in the following manner, to wit:
The installation and maintenance of landscaping, appurtenances and related
facilities in the median strips and parkways of Waterman Avenue generally between
Baseline Street and the Interstate 10 Freeway, and the administration thereof.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the total estimated cost of said proposed
improvements is $ 299,679.00 for the first year. The estimated cost for a single
family residence is $ 62.68 for construction, and $ 32.43 for maintenance (a
total of $ 95.11) for property adjacent to Waterman Avenue, and $ 31.34/$ 16.21
(a total of $ 47.55) for property not .adjacent to Waterman Avenue; ;the
construction assessment will terminate after five (5) years.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any and all persons having any objections to the
said proposed district or improvements may, after first filing a written protest
appear before the Mayor and Common Council of said City on the 6th day of April,
1992, at the hour of 10:00 A.M. at the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "D"
street, in said City and show cause why said district and improvements should not
be formed and carried.out in accordance with said Resolution of Intention.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that at any time not later than the hour of 10:00 A.M. on
the 6th day of April, 1992, any owner of property liable to be assessed for said
improvement may make written protest against the proposed improvement or against
the extent of the district to be assessed, or both. Such protest must be in
writing and must contain a description of the property in which each signer
thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and be delivered and
filed with the City Clerk of said City not later than the hour hereinabove set
for hearing.
Reference is hereby made to said Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81,
passed on the date aforesaid, for further particulars.
If any further information is required, please contact Ms. Kelley Poole in the
Real Property Section of the Department of Public Works, City Hall, 300 North
"D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418. Phone No. (714) 384-5111.
DATE: March 10, 1992
RACHEL KRASNEY
City Clerk
l,1
~~tf) w 0
rT1 ~ ~ - . ~ .....;t-
~. ('\ g:>
'5-" ~
~~rQ~_1'
o c - ~
C -0 "" ...0 ~ .
71::::. -
....w cf) ~ ~ C/k
-rr- (t, Ifl ~ _\
-0 ~c:: ~
Q--> 0 ~
\ "t.
o(l
'-
~ 'f~f=> '"
~ ~ r-f
~~~l;'
(' - .:t-"
~
'.
,-
-.J
.l'~
-~
:.c:
. 'f
'-
..
...,
'-
'Jot
,.p
N
."
~.
Speakers opposed
to A.D. 00 from 4/6/92 Council Meeting 0
Dennis Johnson
Diane Valverde
424 San Felipe Rd
888-3824
Vernon Ward
230 E. Hill Dr.
882-5008
Morris N. Smith
501 S. Waterman
300 E. Baseline
Claremont 91711
714 626-8680
Sylvia Ramos
426 San Felipe Rd
889-7258
David Schultz
SB Assn of Realtors
James Stocker
108 N. Waterman
Oleta Whipple
376 San Felipe
885-2376
Donna Stocker
108 N. Waterman
Ellis Cohen
401 S. Waterman
450 N. Waterman
381-4509
Ed Lewis
Olive & Waterman
864-0852
Bob Cantu
362 N. 110" St.
representing 2 people
Pauline Johnson
462 San Felipe Rd.
Martina Easley
Valley Truck Farms
995 Foisy
381-5944
Bev Hornel
1385 Waterman
889-6317
John Moore
San Jacinto
820-6560
Robert Ronnel
407 E. 9th St.
889-6800
Steve Marutson
7th & Waterman
Willie Brue
1063 S. Lincoln
1163 S. Lincoln?
Bel Galvan
279 E. Kingman
884-8543
Mc Cray
976 S. Lincoln
889-9595
Gary robbins
523 E. San Jacinto
889-8720
Tanya Morehead
935 S. Lincoln
Daniel Green
540 Pioneer
885-7952
John Urbanclave?
John Clay?
Dick Stevens (Stephen?)
s. Waterman
649-651 s. Waterman
Frank Hernandez
129 S. Allen
Bessie Garrett
225 E. Dumas
885-7193
William Halloway
685 Valley View
683 Valley View?
889-4829
Edna Rhoades
1186 Amos
Ivory Baker
404 E. Central
885-5501
Rev. of St. Mark Missionary Baptist Church
259 E. Central
885-2919
Joe Bonadiman
250 Lena Rd
-
." ......
"'..,
,~-
~
."
.~
i#11 .-(?~ ~-
i · D~ ~ - ~~ /..-"....t. ~
rft1 0 t;P =- c" t) /{ ~ - ~ ~ ^ CJ9-f?
+toyY\~ LU\l\b...'( O~ wI ~ ~ .IU I' (!tJsr
. /hA..tu. J tZ A..e~ uls=r
.~~-
f../O/ O. CV~~
f./ ~ () 11. tv ~"..-" , ~
o ( ~ ..0'>'-"1\
/J YCl"'\ ;(1(..
. v/~ ~ ~
lff/; v ~~ l-~ RGt
-IfDrn<e.1 -; _ ~S> -OWv\",-y <')(. ,
6 /~.uJ ~ V lfe) A-t.-U--.J - ~^'r.
13R5" W~~- ~: _ ~ ~
0fr~4.- /Lil~ ,
, ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ <;t6 ..IP~~
'-fo 7 t, q-l1t 5-1' ~ a.dLri-IJ ~ ()
l>3~_~/500 :jlj(l~+' AD
· ~ YY\4.r'^--tS0..5 tjtJo / ~
7 fA or VJdvv?~ (tht.-n-J IF ;tL *
'v ~ eo,>.) -"" /Jro
----
.~AJ~ _
001 S, Cu~
30Q E ~
~<1I\1IJ
i
i
f"\\'\)
i (,:')(,'9>Iol>o
i
I
~~~. -
10K' /1. w~
}~I- 450,
S?>9 -(oj I
.
~ dMA.L'- I~
hA.LL ~+ - ~_
OR; ~ - ~. c..C;, (f r
h~~,
~i~~
~) ~ -Iv = fk.
? )+ '( 0"'0'1'1 flU;v
~()/~
~ -aud-
~ i,e" ~-
~ -;f-itJ- ~
l4 d-u '.
~~ ~I-
" ,q. ..
..~-"-- -~ --_._y.~--_. -,--~~,~""""-",,,,^~,"""'."-
.~"".' -,
,",--"- -'.---
_+G
vcr /!",C"~I)
~l~J
"l___,
.;171 L-~~
_~"t>~--'i'>5"4rJ,
===--'-=~r---=--=-t\ 0 r-Jr A~ '1V ~- -
o
tf.L)~ - ~..o~
t .' - --
t::%:-~~----
~ .,. ~ jf..:......~. ~e.. ,~
~ ~~JL
+o!/ ~
-.--.-----r--
!
-~~ - -----~~r___
,
~---~--_.._-~_.+----------_.._._-~._._~--~_._~-~._.
,
---~-+-~~ ~ - ~) ,-
I. . {::.~ -- d-fff~ e~ ~
~_==~-~l-~l.3;--i~~ FM:; (JA~ ~JC ~ -
i 1/6~-1,'l?;j
_____=-~I_ ~ _ ~=~ -_~~;:_~ ~k--
_m____l____5!/IL_Q}~-~~_________ _ ___ ifl';'~_ -r__E-r'1~-
: _ ' ~ hUJ
_~____+_____~J'iS~---- f ?./-~':..-~--
._____ ' Oi~-Q~ \0 I~-D~ 'd.f,/>t~
--' -----.-1------. --~-------------~-------- -~---~--- -
_____ Ie qA~k ~ - ~ ~
_ : I~ s.,_~___ ~,;I- &<. 'TiJ-t I?~
.. ______+_____~.::]Qc~( ~_.L":._A L?----'--____~~
~,.. T-~-----.----------------- ---..-- _.__n_______________________
I
-------- --+--~-------------- ------------~~--~ ~--...------~-
___ _ -i.i!)~~--~-~ - ~ ~e..___
. _~~~~~~~tl~-=~~ . = ~~%.""'J'-_
---------r--'"h'D'l'-Iia:l..9-----C"~ ('''',,' /1.), ---~--~ --------
-_~_~;.n ~~-=- ~- - r;jj; -/. ~~::..:
-- -- -- ~-- -tLo-1-i:~~~-----~ --.rg-~~~-- -
__ _____un: ___ _ - - -~-____r;-~-~I--------l-1M- Af.~_______ - ~~-
--- ----1 -~da------ -'T---:."'.'~~-------- ---- --- ----un ~------
- u_ ,0__ - ---~~---~-~;L- ~ A~-t ?/~
--.---~--lJ-w- .---------- ~ ~-- ~-
_________ ....___~~5t_.1?_L~Y--_______________.__u____
,
,
,
-----.-'.-. ------- ------,---- ~--------_.. --._-----_.._----_._-_._.~~. -----~-_._----_.__.-
+--------..--._~--_._----_._'-----_.._---_._-_._._-_.__._._--------- _..,,----
". -' ....
-.
J
-.. -~_~ D~ ~ 51-e.ve1'';;..J;J~
- ~------i~q, C9 5" 1___ '5 , ~ (..-t U "'.1-
!.~~
id.;2..5 C J;~
~g-5' -: 7 R.E
-~- !. ~~ kA()~
//Pb ~
;- I
! c\
tv, C, I It" P ,.('" O-{l- .
____ ! ~ fu. S~I. M,,<~ '1\i':';Ji"~c.r~Q"~':>-t C'r-.\J.\"r..I\
------,- .2sr~, ~ (~) offo':><>J.
i ' '1/6(;;!CUfl_____
i · ~ .k--rr__,>~ - tf.4t1O/UJ / '.- t-;; ~
------~---.- I -r-~-~-----------c-----~~~----_ur__~
: ~5'o ~ R^-. ~ 10M
. ... ... ----'--- ~---=- . ..- ~~~--
==__=--:;._JJ~ ;:~ lk .9-7: :"q; (z:;;:-'
~.~-.....-..l______ 'If(7,-- -? ~l) f . 0qf~"-v~__
, , k.
,) ;\..' ::.J-.. (2,. :
'" \- -\ .",.
\ \
-----..n-----T~-7;;i~4- ... ~:J~--;-
-...--.---:-----..-- _.___n .__
--~...~.--_L_..s_~ t{s.5n._,~S-._~ ~ "JJ_~.l>
KbA~
~~=__--r-~=--~ - ~-h ~._~~-~~~.-
- --.~-._--__---.l~r_!l-,-J&~~_.
-----_-.J_____ -:5~e,2 S,\- o~!L .____
-~ --
-f-~ ~ -4~-
'ti')1o:>n & .__
\;
----.-..--------------,--.-.________ _n_.__
-~-~--._-~-_._._-
--------+--'-.~Dh-- C~ t\A .. ,
, .' ... ~/' '.1-
--..--.-.---+---~~~"--_JL_'.._L\~:::, .
-- .---.-r-.-J~'2..t.l2.-t+d:'c~7-.~- ~ e ~ ( ) :<-
,
_._-----_.-.__._._--.-_....~--_._--_._---._---------_.-..._--~---_..._-~----
-----------_._._--------_.~.,.._---~._--
;2<""~~'!!'~#_'Wo/.;'r"\<R,%"'P/;'-'''?~~''''.'''_F"_'!:i':.''''~-~IW'-.'- -,
:~
!
-'
~~.
1
--''''......".".....
,-..
....... -'...
t;
- I
I ,ff qt {!~
.~(',..
. ~~~~^-~~
. ~'oq,,1')S~ ~
O~ ,'OS"tl l" A, O~
o ~ ~~ \ - .~ ~ ~
37~ ~-;:::r ~ ~
~~5'~3~~ ~
O~(JoSQi,
~
ZA ~
g&t./ - 0 'f,'S? (j d
~. q. /A.;~
~
fYl~ ~
'-1/ ~ ~ck-
~q~ 'fois'f
!.~~ ~
(j' ~~
-~
-
;- tlJv/ll/.l
D J .? 0 ~Q"
1 I
5ZS/-S-Q I.J LJ I
~.-h tu~
~.?.o-~5c,.'U
o ffo.:>ecl
.. {p~ .~
/-9 GJ. 5, LI"Cc\n
. 1 Il~ 5, LI'H..I^
.
tJ1 V 5,
'b '6 ~, 9 S '\5
"'fCl.Y\ yo... hr. .
(1/~ Irl~.,
f::;;? :>, ~c. .o/~.
Y e..-"~ 0' "?>"'~ \
\(
-,~~
;.u, -'t- ~
.l-e~.-t..L ?ta ~
- ~-;V-J-
~~~
~ ~ In'- M,
o~
-:So 1\"
~dLvj -
C \~t ;0\:""/
; .
~
I~ Home Lumber Co~
OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
P.O. Box 6305 . San Bernardino, Call1ornla 92412-6305 . (714)381-1171
4-06-92
Home Lumber Company is in opposition to the landscape
maintenance district #8 for Waterman Ave. We have
the following parcels:
1. 281-021-02
2. 281-021-05
3. 281-021-06
4. 281-021-25
5. 281-021-27
6. 281-021-28
7. 281-021-03
8. 281-021-04
9. 281-021-23
10. 281-021-48
These parcels are approximately 60 acres.
Dennis L. Johnson
./
qr1 q
o 0
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Mayor and Common Council:
Re: Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
Sincerely,
~ If,..'t I, -__ V
If /.f 1
o
o
Cot4HllH tflltHClL OffiCE
CtTtOf SAHSERIlARilINO
199Z APR -6 AM ((): 18
Donna Kinnear
12775 Mission Dr.
Yucaipa, CA 92399
March 29, 1992
San Bernardino City Council
Dear Councilmembers,
I understand that on the 6th of April you will be voting on
whether or not to approve a measure to tax land parcels adjoining
Waterman Avenue to provide landscaping for meridians on that
street. I would like you to know that I oppose this measure.
First of all, no-one consulted me on whether or not I wanted the
meridians (which, by the way, are already in place). I do not
want them.
Secondly, I oppose this measure because of the cost involved in
having meridians both short and long term. In the short term,
there is installation and upkeep of these meridians. In the long
term there is the increased maintenance of the surrounding street
surface which will be damaged by water seepage into the compacted
earth below the pavement. With concrete surfacing in meridians
this damage does not occur.
Thirdly, I oppose having these planted meridians in place because
of liability. Many years ago, I was on a jury. This jury had
the responsibility to decide whether the City of San Bernardino
was at least partially responsible for a death. One of the
reasons the city was accused was trees planted in the meridian
obscured the view of traffic making left turns. The suit was
upheld by the jury and cost San Bernardino millions of dollars.
It doesn't appear that this city has learned anything in the
intervening years.,I am opposed to this because I"m not anxious
to pay for another lawsuit out of my taxes.
Finally, I am opposed to this assessment district because the
only information on cost listed was for a small single family
residence. What will it cost commercial property? How was this
amount arrived at? How long will the maintenance assessment be
in place for? If it is permanent, don"t you think you should
have informed the landholders in this area of the possibility of
this assessment before you installed these meridians.
~CerelY'
Donna L
"
.
o
o
JOSEPH
E.
BONADIMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULT
N G
E N G
NEE R S
......E. EIoI"...",P. E. 1003'- 1SIC
a.t. F. Ban.::I",*"L" 1MB'- 1888'
CeIHlratIng DO: GoIlHB v..rs
SeMng Ou' Glut NBtionI
April 3, 1992
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attention: Rachel Krasney, city Clerk
Dear Mrs. Krasney,
This letter will serve as a protest as the owners of property
located at 250 So. Lena Road, San Bernardino, Assessor Parcel
Number 279-321-62.
This protest is not on the proposed project but rather one the way
the project is being handled. A project of this type is usually
initiated by property owners so as to improve their initiated by
the city to improve the city's image as one sees it when driving
down Waterman Avenue. Waterman Avenue is heavily used by
non-residents as well as residents of the city of San Bernardino,
and is presently a functional road. The landscaping that this
improvement district proposes would not only increase the
aesthetics of that portion of the city but would increase the
values of those properties that front on Waterman Avenue.
When doing a benefit spread on properties that are proposed for an
assessment district, one has to assess the value of the given
project to the property being assessed. Therefore, if our property
is assessed at an arbitrary value of 1 on a scale of 10, one being
the lowest, the properties fronting Waterman Avenue should be
valued at 10. In other words for every dollar that our property
would be assessed, a similar property on Waterman Avenue should be
assessed $10. We do not see this or a ratio similar to this being
proposed for this project.
Also, when one looks at the boundary lines there are some obvious
discrepancies in what properties are included and what properties
are excluded. If the city wishes to improve Waterman Avenue, it
seems that properties that the city feels they cannot assess --
that should be in the district -- should be paid for by the city.
The concept of the city trying to beautify itself is certainly a
noble one and one that we applaud, however, it appears to us that
this district was not completely thought out. If the city wishes
to use this mechanism for this type of project, it seems that some
CI.,IL ENGINE-ERING SOFTWlcRE
2!G; .. LENII: fI). . MIlILIG ADDFEIS: p.o. BOX 58D2 UN SERNICAOINO.. ct "'12
D EVE LOP MEN T
""41 - . FIIX ""41 _"72'ff t/ 1
o
o
program should be worked out that would make it equitable for
everybody. The city itself will benefit from the beautification of
Waterman Avenue as much as our property, thereby, again, suggesting
the city should carry a reasonable part of the improvement cost.
We feel that a more fair and equitable arrangement would be that
the city would come up with a plan that would include the entire
city and thereby spreading costs of any improvement such as
Waterman Avenue, throughout the total population and in so doing
making these type of developments more equitable.
Sincerely,
7JE. Bona' a
~~Bonadi
& Associates, Inc.
JCB/bv
[270,O)L232
CIv.IL ENGINEERING IOFTW.tRE DEv.ELOPMENT
.... .. lSlt In . _ JOOOREII: PAIlCllO.... UN -.. CAt ...,. l\'1"l __ . .AX l\'141 301-'721
0'"
. .
. '. .
.:......'O".~,...........
......,. ". ......-..'
".>> ~ "-.: -;- <: .... -. ,'.
. '.,' . ,". .'
, . "-~ . ..,' - .".." . '.
.... .
. .',
TO THE MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL:
,..:.,
.
_. .n _ __ ...
"'I
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the inclusion of our propertv in
the formation of assessment district -to recover costs and to order work
within the area of Waterman Avenue, between Baseline Street and Interstate
10 Freeway.
NAME
A R 55
u ~. tp/~.)a.tul('... 4~..l'
R
9':i'
<i?~P
-s
.9;;'1-0 lr
3 /6~t:r/
C
------v
o.
.. -c-..
.', .', "-.' '.
',' .....
. .'. ~ -' -.
. .' . .
TO THE MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL:
..-"'"
"'~. . .. - - - -
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the inclusion of our property in
the formation of assessment district -to recover costs and to order work
within the area of Waterman Avenue, between Baseline Street and Interstate
10 Freeway.
-...--1.--------- ---- ... -------
-~~----~'--I-._----~-_.._---_... ~._---
I
c9BS: ~);J/
~
, '
,- ., .
; ~ . '" '.. ~;'~ :'. ...':: .
- -", . ~'.:: ;,' . '. . '
';-, -.
O . , . "
,,' :-:: ,u,"'<
"'0.':>"';>':' ,
~ ;. ~
.
TO THE MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL:
,. ,'.'
. ,- .
-.- .
~. , ,
, ......'
-, ... - -- -.+-
We. the undersiqn~d. stronqly oppose the 1nclusion of our property in
the formation of assessment district -to recover costs and to order work
, within the area of Waterman Avenue. between Baseline Street and Interstate
10 Freeway.
~
3-
5~{b.J:?
3/ b-7:.
Q/J-<.D
R
3?f' cJ t;')
.g.-r.J ~ :> ~r-
3-
7?ao/
~ff',S-8'9 7 ~-
~)f? 'f
-
-0-
'5 -
8'1'-s-.
c:::>
n
. '..
l\.>__,.. .
':'0- .0 ,.-:,.~--:_. . ..!_ ._
. I'~
TO THE MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL:
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the inclusion of our property in
the formation of assessment district -to recover costs and to order work
within the area of Waterman Avenue, between Baseline Street and Interstate
10 Freeway.
DATE NAME ADDRESS p~mll= NUMBIOR
..>-17 r.1rt:h1/-j{II,! J n LuC4/! 2'W l;'ST-vQ{lj-if& .4ul/.. ~ fl-.c 8't'''l12Qr
'f)MfJ ~ / ~~~~f,.MJ~- ~ X$, ;?ff'J"'i'),s~
3-/7-'t ,({p~nf.. :;7UPl/v,rv-::/' 1<<'3-71- 4/./L~ d $'S ~ PV 'lFi/f977?t1
l \-1'75~tt/l I !/J,r,rl.J7J7.C7 :;) J 9 t~ k~/~ .-if- /.~ (J/7 ~S"{j~Y6'
~'17"; . JfAfhlllf'i;.'o. '17/ ~!/K.I~' A-' ~f. ~&-"fri!"1
"1-ll-1:5 __c\';l\..'nIM{l1j~,. J71 ~. kt.J M, n~~' fj,~'I-'iJ'l1-
J-(7--<O 'II. I. ~ f).A/ ~ 2 $/1 {-fI,.,:" Ij). Afi{/ ~
.I- 1'/-;22. n- b' -7 PII/hAh k2s9 c 1;,1&' ~ S~ N :7.2 ~'jLJC.?
3-/1l, ~ft A'. - ,~) I.., ')/1 ,">....;L ,-)7' s.n /l&J Q $'<;<'- ~ 7';?Y
3-/'1-9'2 7ltt_)/Ir:.'C~~". 53/1~,. A/~. JJl'; /./f,(!'~.2~~.rP"7'-/6/tJ
'3","-..u /, J. . ~ ..' 0 () /.,~ J ,,2.. '~JI <:., /All - - <:"1"': <;' 11.1' (i 2.1, A V r~P/.,,4l7 6
:2-b", (' J_ '" 9! ~-_ ~ "< 7 /)~. A-L/ hi yj( ~ ?YK(.., C7' '?~
~----(fqf,~~ -.f( _t':. ~'70 ~<o ,-K1L.LEf4.! ~ (is. ~~'bh't'?O
~ JC14 7 ~ '.( ~ OJ. ':z!};L l~rJ.l~ ;J LJJ c5J l!!il:7r.. -::-;
J Ii; f r1& ~ 77 / /' ~ //0 7 ~::..~J1.. -~..."9 F$ ~ J! J /) 9 7/-
JJ~;~I;t h A ~ "J~~~a. 4?Jn ~ ", -'..-'::rn /;1 .),";,!'J ~<J-~5g~
,31..170. /l JJ?n l'\ ffo.~#n-5( J/2/~ JJh#7~ j ~~ a-j sX. ~~-7;?5t
,?~;ll-r. '~;(~~h/~:04#(~~ _ 'It"?j'du. K~ )t'~/!. f /5 n~ '-4'<1
, ~.,. L1 A1~ - . ; 7!: '-r~ oJ.. , : ,'U, l- / i_~ r ~~. ~ /,;.. L b ti. c; B . <:tn-"t[7, I
32 7 '~(J.-Vl- ... ~~ "'"'- P:.J", ,./;' S' '/1 ~Y.l/- "1"1-;;''-'
<:J...z,7 I~.-J /Jib 1 JA~ 7!7 .IJ '?J(f~, 'iJ A. '10 -..-I J(/O~Epp. 7,Cl.~"c.b I .
J . ~. . /':i'? /'./ ., __ _ /..- /. r7 A ^
..:i;'-28 ....t'/-x ~H.c-JA LL,c.., /. 5/'u F;~/704 /u/' 5..J'\ _7P..6~~
J':2-P 'Ad. 'p; ~.~ ~VJ ~6.2 /)A_'" ,:k'b.;,.:, /Y ~ o"';7~,;2t1fS1;b
2/2'1: IJ,#W j ~~t-Jj)(,/ 0 ..<FJ1, -MA1 -:j.[)~/i70 e,/ q,.t:; ~J?X' 2J?j;q
3/d.:'l t ~_ 1;,J/vP'" I I" ,) ~;)H-' S~ 1', )" L fJ;, 3;/) ~ J'&(,,~o~
3_'2/1 /'hWNII'n I R /' Joll./r / '3236 ) (,}"/l,::J 0 j J ~ ~O 1581/-7557-
3/~ '13: 1u1",,:#'c:t...-ji;i,~.{.rJ :3e)A~ .:f1Z~~/;2 :X<1.J?3r/7 \
3-3v 'OJ. ~ 'A! b, -- . O.L. ...10) .If ~ ~ r!L,;~ ~ IkI rlt'f 2YS.7f
!-.9f/ (l;J,..o,-Q 11_ ',,__ f:.. /7L .J'7/.. c-~ ) A.'J';", ral ~-.:JS7t..
JI...t.f-'J?!!fLf(.<fA~f1P.9A ).J..I'!/A'_AA J.P/h, LAA A~ 8'<6:5 tJ "833
30
~
... ~.~
~..
,:)
April 3, 1992
Rachel Krasney
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, Ca 92418
Dear Ms. KrasneYi
LD. Property:
1894 Commercenter West
114 & 118 Airport Dr.
We strongly object to adding any improvements that are not
covered by our paid taxes. Operate within your budget.
If you do not have surplus funds, don't plant flowers or build
a median strip. Use paint instead. It is cheaper.
Sincerely,
Boyce Jones
BJ/tt
-0 ;;0
en
N '"
'11
= -
-0 r't
:::J <J
!J ")
-0 ':'-)
~
W en
-n
-..l
Boyce D. Jones, CPM@
1801. F Parkcourt Place, Suite 201A. Santa Ana. California 92701 . (714) 972-1227
.
o
o
Y CLERI'
'\1'7 roc> -6 AS :33
,L.
April 3, 1992
City of San Bernardino
Ms. Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81
Dear Ms. Krasney:
I currently own three properties in the area of the proposed
assessment district for the abovementioned Resolution. I would like
you to accept this as my formal protest against said proposition.
The property in which I reside, and one that is used as a rental, are
not directly affected by Waterman Avenue. My third property is
approximately one block from the proposed improvement area.
I feel that there will be a definite impact on others as I would have
to shift these assesed costs for improvements to my renters. Both
rental properties are used by "low-income" families who can barely
afford the rent as it stands. I'm sure that this option is being
considered by many of the property owners in the proposed area, as
there are many rental propterties involved.
!The area being assessed is traveled primarily by Riverside, Orange
County and Los Angeles area residents arriving from Interstate 10 to
attend work. The proposed improvements would do nothing to beautify
the "low income" area adjacent to Waterman Avenue. Traveling that
particular stretch of road takes you through some of San Bernardino's
most unattractive areas and providing landscaping in the median strips
will not alleviate this problem.
For the above stated reasons, I hereby submit my protest to Resolution
No. 92-81 for the proposed improvements to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline and Interstate 10.
Sincerely,
~7.~
Ms. Barbara Curran
549 E. San Jacinto Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
.",.,,,,J.,~,,,,,~)A_v,,,,,.~~...l,)!J '.~' "":"4~1,~,.J,';~~;::~.J"~'1':";"'7,,"4,,,,,,,"',- ......J .
:0
"-;"
~ .
..,.,<
; ~.
'!~
~. . ~
f'" .... - ,,": I'
'-", RECORDING REQUESTED BY
:'
'J'.'
~I
..,
}"
i'r
!;~
HUTTON, ADAMS. & FORTHUN
"
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
The Law Firm of
HUTTON, ADAMS & FORTHUN
655 North La Cadena Drive
Colton, California 92324
~, J
~~.o;'
.~.'~
'.'
t~:
r,~
:,~i
tl
,.i::'
"" ;.~
~:',L)
""";4~.,.",,,,.~-:-
o
)
)
)
)
I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
(SPA~E
t;J-033822
HECOfi/)ED IN
,;rF1Cr~.! nrf:ORI::'
~
~
N
N
1983 FEB ! () P~I 12 it e
/4:0 I
'.' I, ).,' U:' ..1 ". .. , "
".t. '_ .j,.,'\: d. "jj:
CO.. C,\L1r
ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER"S USE
AFFIDAVIT - DEATH OF LIFE TENANT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
,
COUNTY OF SAN aE~NARDINO
I'"
I'~#":'
",,: :~i
)~
..
.' .~:
'U
.~
';1
. ..~
i..:t,l
....1
"J
:i.j,:;
"'''''1
'J
;',
)
) ss
)
BARBA~ CURRAN, of legal age, being first duly sworn,
deposes and says:
That she is the survivor grantee of the remainder
interest in the life estate herein-mentioned.
That JENNI~ SNYDER, the 6ecedent mentioned in the
attached certified copy of , Certificate o~ Death, is the same
person as JENNIE' SNYDER named as the grantor in that certain
Grant Deed dated'Dec~mber 22.1970, recorded as Instrument
No. 529 on January' '19, (19'Zl;' 'ih Book 7594, Page 490, of
Official Records.of San Bernardino eounty, California,
covering the followtng described property situated in the
County of San Bernardino, State of California:
.~~
#:.~\~
~.)
. "
. ,
Lot 46, of the DAIMWOOD SUBDIVISION,
as per plat recorded in Book 23 of
Ma?s, Page 72, records of said County.
"'jl
. .
Reserving to grantor a life estate
in the use, occupancy and possession
of the realty and in the rents,
issues, and profits thereof during
her lifetime.
'f
1
", .~
. ,
',-.j
':'j
"~1
'-,i.
f~
::;J
(Improved property known as 244 E.
llt~ Street, San Bernardino, CA)
DATED:l10'"llli ",}
,
..
3 19t~
,
IJ-..~~ ~ A~A_""
BARBARA CURRAN
l'I':A1
w
[;
,
E
Owing the tract of land described in 0
Title Policy No. 17oE?93
;','
',,'
"" (~ll i..: ":
,
'.,
5.
. . ; . "- ! ~ "
.-~E.v ;';:C' :.1
construct!
inqui"y o'f'
)JiIJ!L~' ('L:;.". ;'!',' ,.. t,: " "}i
Any giH'en.;,j ,<,.1;\1 ;H";:;: ":" ;,-;:.,; i:
of :::aid lar'~; for :'1:il,' bl!.:d1~1l!
i ~) t! r, t. .c: ~ 1 f) '..
"1-' 1~.(1(1 DY h
i'.crr('(~ .'
;:~. nght8, dH~"
'i'~ rictin~. re~u!:-,
.~:(i_' thf!"';~C!l. .
5
It,:
,
'~jd 1Ilf.li :,'J.
\" ,-
..:.; ,
if."h IjHj ,',.
';..- 1)'[tl,
ii':' lCZ~Ol'~_:-'
! .;::<..1 lfi ~:,;T,
:_\1" ,It:
;;.~l('V UJ
STIPULATIONS
, , .' 'h~'- "-',~'''h~ ~'."
, ' ,',. TU , '1 This plat is furnished for,information, It is'~P1;\1Piie4"Ji'Jl'Tr data
' ~'::~U:'\.~R f~whiCh. we,,lielii!1ui to Be 'accurate. but no'liabilitytffls'sumed'by this
Cl.AI.,. ., ",,"f~ft1t f,;, '''lidf!'- " "UT'i"1, .r <...~ f.. ~_'
j~'l, I. ltlge/l,l'r 'II"ltb .eomnany.as to toe correctness of such nata.
I, t ;l~J 'hall ~rm' J 1~'i'fi"7.:- ('f 'J ''1,~\ """l.o),jo.r '.' f';(olll'!. .. III'" .
'(.\'a.ll.oll~ "f tb.. COmv '~"l"~" " '") J,l'..". .' ""........."'". K![j'J' " , TO In-' ,
"'..j (.h".reuf t:1..\~. '_ re l _~ "
,-' PIONE&R T,11L~,INSUJVoNCE AND TRUST COM~ANY
;q.~'\. i (Ill' ~/ ~'tl. .. ",
~".""l" (!II' ,]..,'~ IW: !""'IJr_ ......!1:101. ",'! ",~ \~"",;'oi.u~ ....1; VOl
r~.'v"~"al ;"-"~", j,.' ~ .j:u......~~ ,.,.,.;,.: b, 'je ,......", 'J(;; "r au, of
;".. "'llljf; .-": :l~:rr.~ "10"1 '1I"''''"'r... '( ......~ m..'h'!>l WI'
rtWJ] , tn n.. ;.,.,CI",., ~:. ;.'1<1 t" 1.;.~ Ins<.Lrf'd; ,", d~l''('l.. :'''tl' ''''''4.r':I,t.n'~. (l'r
on.,,: nlll1!"fS t'h'4'\.tj .'r N'-~llmlll( r..:bilO!Cl.l;~I' h' tlli' ,". ~~!. '-'fl'l"I'lJI.
J.!r.)~. I'nCll:ubf>l,n"M, or .>::,,:, ""!'..,, "l\-ah~' ,,~ "Utf..!'>. ".-...: 'h'_~'n::
~~;~'J 11'0<' (Or Ibm,'Ill!; ,,~ I" 'L~":'h. ~i":l", .....'U1l'.,'..~... , "J:~ lb~
>\~. ,..e ,1..l.. "t Ih.h poll.:; ;<..,'! :.:n.);", t" 'i;~ i.r'_~'._' i'; ',,,.....),
ni~h,,:. ~, .lIt dat~ of (bi" J"" ~'c. ,~~;..
~"-~;.: ", Int..r....t In"Ill\'c I,~' ",: !"~:"'.. ." 'I''''~ '.'
:',OIl'...tll1attn.....:-'-!h..,,2J_." ,~j... .-,..-' "
'"'':1.''"." or Ih1, :l<'l:i:'\, _ ,:. . . '. ...
ill~:t[..: <<tu.ll bP :<..o-u.l~' ~ ... '.., ;;t....... .
~,... 'r"" ,,,' .ltlll:l"';/ ~....to. . .
;-.r'-I!:'Vllt ." ~
...f.:'...... "'."_
".,"~'"
.
,-
.......--,-.
...\, ..'
"'>~ '
.
"'11L-'-
.~._"'. 'i"
"<-f"
t~, >,
......
,.....
" :
<:'~-t\':",
...-.dc.",,,,, :.If
"1',~ 0( u:.- Cla:l~
~':~"~
"
....1'.-,.
"lr:/'
.
~ ,_.
,-'" -":.'~ .' 'I; ro. ,.....,
.~ y~_ .. .:IUl~.t
U',
j'
J
1
'. .- : '. .,. CEO ",;,.~..~ ,_ .:,
t. . .t. l ".~I."... I" W:l" :(">-..
J'..-;I>"..n_ ., 1-1' eiFD Jtl~......~ L...."
..,.;tmi 11~1.D1l. (" ~!..;", "'~'
I,,'t,,~'.-' ~~ '00 noUh' ~;;,I: 'f! 11
"',." :'~:1', ~~;,'lJ be -nel"i'.JI
('I L-;snrllf,. ...",1 f'f>'
'1"';1"-'1. mar I... lJ"""':,,",'en' .'._
;"..r-n-. UJIU",... ..i:
'. :.r'OJl"{'III..,
'~"'llllf the ri,nt "j .c- ,"
,:. 'htl\"ln. Ilnd Inrm;
h ~..j.l'(>~! l\'bml"rer tt'(j','ll'.~'
" "':\~"-,' II: ~nY iN<'h ...:ii..,u (', ' .
I:"{"':llll,witn_'~"tltl.;
~:tm~ .,.1 lu """h ID!U'.~,,' \
"~n,' ltI.!.il r..ifll~"" r!lt' :.... (.
I", . ",....."';..!! [0 a"t1 I.....r.'...,..
, '~11~_ ~'I,...h ..", ~, n."
',,; 1>e ';- I"''ll!t;l,!l!" '-.IlI,,'.,I'
'-. ~.1'" [" ~1,_, ."'u~l :"'7.1"'.
W;d m:lV Il.. lOIn"..,;
~, ~..-..
";'';;''ter.!.I';~' ~ -"~~,.
n.>,,"_ II" n"l'l' v ..... ,,;,__,,~ ~
4.-" II,,,. '''''''''.,..~_ l1r.:""ee t,.,........., n,
2- :<:~ thli' elalm or 1Il1' IU~"".(1 ""1_ t,
.L \"10 fallu!'l!: Tlae cQmJl.'o.' n,f .~h,~ll It..!' I. ~
,.", ,~ 1'~'lCCt'dlrll{ ~t un ItrlY Ol'ler ....!. ,..";~
"1 ']t'r:," !~,~~f)~~'r,.II~:,;~!;, ~~ ;'~''''l~J;; ,
.. S ., ~.,;::::;:::~~!l::~fl;~l:r,~.;~;~.~~~.:~~~;'.~ .
t: '_~'r:l."'.ny lI,,, UIMU'>'1 .n1U'" ~" '
~. .,:' ~rr~"'li:l' l('l~Jfm,'1.. A....,.n". _.,,-
. .'-! !l'll'!IIl,-(,J>I; ...'..',"':t"J "'_.
, ,'....,....- .m' '" '\"
-"', 1"-' ~" In. ',r~,'" , V-.~p..":..
...., atto:,f1jl")'-~ rl!<" l,. .
r,.l h', ::\<Jj,,;'O)',.;i
,,,,,.,-.' T'!', ,
\,.)
-,'
01, .
. --,._-_._------~-
E1UhROGA.T'-} "
UPON f'4'11>-:;;.,
OR SEre Ht';,""
"
. /l:~:''' ,.C;~;;~~~
';J ~ . ,,-,:.. r' ,,' " _.
,,,,' P?~':",~'.,i-', 0,;.'
f;" .,.YO ~rl!,..<.I . ..
.J'.... ...",'~ ,'n ana ..... ~":'.'
'~""t"':k'" I"hl',ii ~l;. ,.....'
. \. _1' '~l '.'Ist:-
: ~h;o ;r.
'n'..l."., In :._
.'I;~."~ f~~'
""J ",-'hr:~
"'HlU'''. I."
or....
~".; .,
(~''',
r.;,'
'~~,;: '"
::..,
,-,
(oJ'
.
"~:
""(1. ..
'~'_oc~.
". '~~T.~' .
.~ -,
...-~ 'I,,! cotll"'!':
r"-,lh~ by .".
,I b,' mor~P-j!o
~~.. 1Arl....\Aot.Io_
~....~.
"'__~' lo<ol:
>".' ~...os.
,-:~\rt
...,-'..........,
.',,,....
.
~.f ,..~~...
1'l!I....
'lc~:_" '....'
j~t.~ ..;.~~r~;~
""".:"
..~ ".. .~.
~;~.
~(-'~
'to<1d.....
:,,'.~
u-'''',.
....'.-f',.,k.'..'"
1/1....
';". :-i.
'.-'.1;
,;':>a.;'. Jl\;;.j' '-" I" J.'--f'..sln."lI'
, , .1: ....iII:~ ;'~'i;"- " ~,rh.. ':-.t.,l'I',:
"..,,'{, .)~ t>r :'..... t~('mi.~r:~ I~; ,,' !" .~~. .rod
.,: ..... ::..- !b~ :..,...;-... '.' i, Ih '_HI-r.'_,
A'.i'"":':";."'mi','n, 'J"=I"" 1.':-;"
~.- IU,-J~~ tl:J.- :., H~ in l!" i''''''''
'~-'. ,; /".,; ~: tJ.~ ,,-->. ",., ('",.'s .....,.'h
'n.I;"nfl('.....'... ,...'JIL.b.ll:',
. 0of.. ., '"-,'1,,, t ~:' .
p~: I "j.II'!J'. ('0( I..IV>
.~..., t:l(rtI:. tI,..
j'~.ym"Dt m..,- ,~
,1" ''''-ll' ,'r >,.-"
-t4.-...
'.......' ,V-;
,.....
" ,It . '4'1'0; ~."':';.: 'I.. ,
.:''''ll.....~ ~'.' ~d ;.'.e -:'OZ"L
;';'!."1. nM 'lJ:J,--., f'vrnm,'r,,'
I nca"r,rt"O~:otDlen!.
"-':;."
",~ lib ,..
ipl ~7 '"..
I),;....
~,'..y,..
l~s.....
tc.>.>
~i',:" '
~ ....' Jf<"
..H ".~
('/),r",."
..
I"
;5
',",,'
.,'
~
'.
,'~' ',",'
...Nln,t....l j"
~ ./1>OlllJ'....r
'm.H'" :~,~ 1;'L't'~;
Ul l'IlIl"...l "".
. ., l'''nm.:. rt~.
,n.:.' j"",.i"
"
r-f ti'l l~h'." '''.
,,' In+"'~, ":'r..,
"'l"r,~' .....~
"1__"', "-1
.......
j~.-~.. ;. . '..'" ".
. .:~,,' ~ r ~
'r:.
''''T. .
t: .~lr'r
(':... :. '.~"'~.(I! ."1.
Ih:.~~.'r.r;'. '1IIlJ' :,''l.~ ~h,,-'
,. rO-' ~",.-h '-u-l!<l ,.~t.".k!
,,':,.... rw:!. 'lltn"1'f'f
f'e,' l' th..11 o'l~, :.,
:;.~.;,
'.'~~"
!-""".'f
..' r wal'<<t
<.\..tiac:l......
.,....-.J.r~ld.ttt. 11..
'1', nl"'I"'''~
---.-~_._------
~...'
,',.
~"~,
7~"'C~<!jT
i:ii/.
.il' ESTATE OF
~ ~'........),;~. ~ '~4 __~ _ --
ELIJAH C.
C~
o
/-'"
/
CASE NUMSER
SPR 51565
ATTACHMENT NO: 2
(IN DECEDENTS' EST A rES. ATTACHMENTS MUST CONFORM TO PROSA TE CODE 601
REGARDING COMMUNITY AND SEPARATE PROPERTY)
PAGE..1 . OF. 1.. TOTAL PAGES
(ADD PAGES AS REQUIRED)
Itsm No. Description
-\Real Property located in the County of San Ber-
nardino, State of California, described as
follows:
Appraised value
S
Lot 9, Block 2, TRACT No. 1846, GIFFORD PARK,
as per plat recorded in Book 26 of Maps, pages
67 and 68, records of said County.
( More commonly known as 567 E. San Jacinto,
San Bernardino, CA) ·
$ 28,000.00
2. REal Property located in the County of San
Bernardino, State of California, described as
follows:
That portion of the East half of Lot 9, Block
46 of the 20 acre survey of the Rancho San Ber-
nardino, in the County of San Bernardino, State
of California, as per plat recorded in Book 7 of
Maps, page 2, lying South of the center line of
San Jacinto Street as said street is shown on
and extended Westerly from the Map of Tract 1846,
recorded in Book 26 of Maps, pages 67 and 68,
except therefrom that portion containing 1/4 acre
more or less, and included within the circular
race track lying on the East side of sa~d land.
( More commonly known as 549 E. San Jacinto,
San Bernardino, CA)
$130,000.00
3.Furn~ture and furnishings located at 549 E.
Sa~ Jacinto, San Bernardino, CA
$
500.00
4.Promissory note executed by Cecil C. Curran
and William H. Curran in favor of decedent in
1980, assumed by Currans Rubbish Disposal, Inc.
on July 1, 1982.
Balance Due
$46,625.25
.
TOTfJ. for Attachment No. "2":
$205,125.25
Form Approved by lhe
Jude'" Counc" ot Cahforn~
Eneeh",e January ,. 1916
INVENTORY AND APPRAISEMENT (ATTACHMENT)
Probe "11,
600-605, 764.
1550. 1901
en",::.:n
ll> 0"'......
= o. rt
'<l
b:l2:i:d
I'D 0 ~ 0
11 11 n H'a
::I.... i:J"
P,::rl'Dtn
>1 to"' ll>
"" = ::I
.....t:;j~
::I = >1 b:l
o ll>"
.. en CO 11
....::1 ::I
n>1"ll>
P> .. '<l >1
... ""
.... .....
n::s
'" ..... 0
N ....
.... '<l
o
0> n
to"'
..
>1
l<"
o
en",::':
ll> ...."'.
::I ",.
b:ll"lb:l
.. . ll>
>1 >1
::sene'
ll> ll> ll>
>1 ::I >1
"" ll>
.....<-<
::Ill> n
on"
. ..... >1
::s ...
n....ll>
P> 0 ::I
en
....
"'...
N"
......
0....
0>
p;:
.
.
o
o
RECE!\t''].-Ci'' '~I.:r.r
April 3, 1992
'92 APR -6 A 8 :34
City of San Bernardino
Ms, Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81
Dear Ms. Krasney:
My wife and myself are property owners in the proposed assessment
district for the abovementioned Resolution. We are hereby filing a
formal protest against said proposition.
The area being assessed is traveled primarily by Riverside, Orange
County and Los Angeles area residents arriving from Interstate 10 to
attend work. The proposed improvements would do nothing to beautify
the "low income" area adjacent to Waterman Avenue. Traveling that
particular stretch of road takes you through some of San Bernardino's
most unattractive areas and providing landscaping in the median strips
will not alleviate this problem.
My wife and myself subside on a fixed income. My wife also requires
full-time medical as she is not ambulatory, this streches our budget
to it's breaking point. This "small" addition would create a hardship
for us. Further, I feel that my property will not derive any benefits
from these proposed improvements and, therefore; should not be made to
bear the cost.
For the above stated reasons, we hereby submit protest to Resolution
No. 92-81 for the proposed improvements to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline and Interstate 10.
Sincerely,
Pk ~ttfs
& Mrs. Ken Peterson /(V( ~
E. San Jacinto Street ~/ r~
Bernardino, CA 92408
Mr.
563
San
~ _ _: J ..~_'.',<~ '.
.',.,' r~,?A,.
o
o
---Il"'('C).J1~~1 ~9~1 by
fli(ST CENTCNNi,\L TITLE CO.
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND. UNLESS
OTHE.RWlSE SHOWN BEl "W. MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO:
STREET
AOORESS
['
N"ME .
Kenneth Peterson
Shirley Peterson
563 San Jacinto
. CITY. S B d' C
STATE L an ernar 1no, a.
z..
l
80-052054
RECORDED tH omcmt RECORDS
f[B 29 \981), AT 8 A.Nr.
S~N BERNARDiNO COUNT'(, CAUf.
Title Order No. ..se4.30oom-n.... Escrow No. .....2{}9.]:...oooooo...
'"
_I 3.00
B
GRANT DEED
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s)
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is$ 23.65
~ computed on full value of property conveyed, or
o computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, and
I8l Parcel No ~ AD - 0 if;;l. - 0 I Code Are-
o Unincorporated Area City ofS flAJ ReRN A/J:::J , N '0
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
HUGH M. JONES, who acquired title as HUGH JUNIOR JONES
.
hereby GRANT(S) to
KENNETH PETERSON and SHIRLEY PETERSON
husband and wife as joint tenants
the following described real pl'operty in the
County of
San Bernardino
, State of California:
Lot 46 of Tract Number 2505 as per plat recorded in
Book 36 of Maps, at Page 1, Records of Said County.
c
c:
C
~.'!
,.-
o
Ct.I"':;:
~ '" >1
::s w.
b:lt'l'"
..
>1 :;:
::s Ct.I >1
~ ~ en
>1 ::s.
.,.
'" <-. l":
::s ~ ..
o n ::s
. '"
::S'<l
nl"t..
>Ol"t
..
Ct.I>1
I"ten
"'>10
N"::S
"'..
Ol"t
'"
,
I
I
j
1
I
I
\
r
I
I
I
I
Ct.IW13::n
In 0 of.....
=:s o. f"'t
'<
b:lZl<l
I'D 0 Cb 0
t1 t1 n H'l
::s I"t 0-
!:b=:r'I'Den
>1 ..... ~
.,.: ::s
,"t:Ii"l
::s : >1 b:l
o ~..
.. en CD t1
I"t ::s ::s
nt1 I'D In
>.. '< >1
... .,.
I"t '"
n::s
'" '" 0
N I"t
'" '<
o
'" n
.....
..
>1
I<'
I
"The Master Craftsmanship You Deserve"
. .
---
Carpet Sales & Installatione CarpetCI .RECE~ ""I FFr'
Furniture Cleaning & Reupholstery e Drapery c~~~~~ & Sales
889-2689 793-7215 351-1019"'2 nDQ_
San Bernardino Redlands Riverside';; ,\i t, 1 P12 :03
649 So. Waterman . San Bernardino. CA 92408
DATE~~?/
.199L
~~/4~4~
;~ ~~~Af
AJucd;,j4 A/~ ~ ~
11J~^-- ~_ .~ ~~__
~;/~/~~~
u:u~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ tM.Ae.pJ_
p~...-I - t>:2 fJ"Oo '2../0 fXIO 0
{) ). $-a 0 ?- In-! 000
C; ). &00 ;;1/1 ~ 000
~~~
~~
-~
tI?/t/ ~~
~~
------
~
--.
o
o
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECE!V":!' : v C!J~ I'
Mayor and Common COuncil:
Re:
'07 APR -3 A9 :41
Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81""
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
feceive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior cit~z s on limited income.
/} --1 Sincerely,
1\:'( J, ~
>.~(, () j /
".-7 }A Ii J r.....--->....--r/) Ai>
./ / OJ / 'JilVTl /"" f/VV
J-c.-L./' .
rj-<{ ~ S ~)~ j/? vl-
.
.
~AMES w. STOCK~
108 N. WATERMAN. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
PHONE: (714) 381.5589
USED FORKLIFTS
Ap rill, 1992 REC~~EI"'SrAtIP(Iil~~IR
Ms. Kelley Poole
Real Property Section
Department of Public Works
Ci ty Hall
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
(Ph 384-5111 )
'92 APR -3 A9 :38
My name is James W Stocker - I operate a business
at 108 N Waterman Ave. and I wish to strongly protest
the formation of assessment district No. 92-81.
I wish to speak before the Mayor and Common Council
on the 6th day of April, 1992 - 10:00 a.m. at the
Council Chambers, City Hall.
Att'n City Clerk
RACHEL KRASNEY
;O:::l>o
ort
nrt
~~
(1)~
;/
-, .....
~o -l
cn-<
~
(1)(""')
o<r
rn
:::0
;0::
en\.N(""')1::l3
oO....(1)cn
~ ort-o .
0<0
~:z -,;0::
(1)ozrt(1)
-,-,03.......
~ rt.......(1).......
0~.......~(1)
-, c-t'<
0.1::l
.... 0-0
~ en -+.0
ort 0
.. ...., ""Tj""'"
(1) C(1)
(""')(1) 0-
ort .......:::0
....(1)
no
<.D .......
N ~
.l=" 0-0
..... -,-,
00 7<' 0
cn-o
(1)
-,
rt
0<
en
(1)
n
rt
...,
o
~
..
o
.
CIl
~-
\i!'a6~
3ze
el' 11
e:::;: ~
=' a <
0" .
. ...
(')= ~
~~ ~
:-")0 r:
-0< ..
N"
~.
00
o
c
RECF!Vq' <"~or '( r'!. F~/
'92 APR -2 P1 :17
March 31, 1992
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino CA 92418
Dear Mayor and Common Council,
As a property owner of parcel # 136 412 06 of the valley
truck farms nineteen ninety five (1995) and a owner of
othe~arcels in the assessment district, I strongly object
to the assessment that you and the Common Council plan to
levy on my property for the beautification of Waterman Avenue.
I think that the beautification should take place, but the
funds should come from one of the followings:
1. The Redevolopement Funds.
2. Monies that were received for the Special
Impact Area or Block Grants.
3. Let the whole City of San Bernardino
help beautify Waterman Avenue, since it is
used by almost every resident of San
Bernardino, and thousands of other people
that donlt live in our city.
I sincerely hope the Mayor and the Common Council will not
add another burden on the people of this great city during
this deep recession.
Yours truly,
~mIJ~
Vernon M. Ward
o
Robert. L. Baker
My L. Baker 0
404 Cent.mI Avenue
&n Bermrdino. CA <n408
,
AprIl 1, 1992
RECEIVCi"'! "II Y cr E~(
'92 APR -3 A 8 :30
Mayor Bob Holcomb and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Regarding: Resolution of Intention - Resolution Number 92-81
Dear Mayor and Common Council:
I received the attached notice, postmarked March 10, 1992, pertaining to asseSsment on
our property for Resolution Number 92-81. "I STRONGLY PROTEST"II
I do not understand, or agree with your intention to penalize people owning property In
a specific area only, (namely Baseline North to Interstate 10 South, and adjacent
properties both East and West of Waterman) for an Improvement which will be used by
Ilil residents In San Bernardino.
This assessment Is as ridiculous and unfair as our being annexed to the City of San
bernardlno for twenty (20) years, paying sewage bills eveN slnole month and NOT BEING
ftRlF TO USE THE SYSTEM.
I suppose your Justification for our having to pay the monthly sewage bill Is that we, until
recently were "EXPOSED" to the sewage treatment plant's odor whenever the wind
direction changed. Let me assure you that your Implied reasoning for charging residents
of adjacent areas at Illustrated In your proposes Assessment District Boundary Map
number 1000 for a major access route for the City of San Bernardino Is just as baseless
as our paying a bill for something our home has never used.
My husband and I are both retired and on a fixed Income plus, supporting two
grandchildren. Now, we are being singled out for an added expenditure for something
all the citizens of San Bernardino and adjacent cities will use. This Is Incredibly unfair.
I plan to be present at the Council Chambers for the 10:00 A.M. meeting, April 6, 1992.
I plan to lodge a verbal protest In addition to this written one. It's not fair and I strongly
protest Resolution Number 92-81.
~~f~
Ro L. Baker
~-f$~
CC: Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
Sun Telegram, Editor
o
o
300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 9241B
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 2nd day of March, 1992, the Mayor and Common
Council of the City of San Bernardino duly passed a Resolution of Intention to
form an assessment district to recover costs and to order work within the area of
Waterman Avenue between Baseline street and Interstate 10 Freeway within said
City, to be improved in the following manner, to wit:
The installation and maintenance of landscaping, appurtenances and related
facilities in the median strips and parkways of Waterman Avenue generally between
Baseline Street and the Interstate 10 Freeway, and the administration thereof.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the total estimated cost of said proposed
improvements is S 299,679.00 for the first year. The estimated cost for a single
family residence is S 62.68 for construction, and S 32.43 for maintenance (a
total of S 95.11) for property adjacent to Waterman Avenue, and S 31.34/$ 16.21
(a total of S 47.55) for property not adjacent to Waterman Avenue; the
construction assessment will terminate after five (5) years.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any and all persons having any objections to the
said proposed district or improvements may, after first filing a written protest
appear before the Mayor and Common Council of said City on the 6th day of April,
1992, at the hour of 10:00 A.M. at the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "0"
Street, in said City and show cause why said district and improvements should not
be formed and carried out in accordance with said Resolution of Intention.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that at any time not later than the hour of 10:00 A.M. on
the 6th day of April, 1992, any owner of property liable to be assessed for said
improvement may make written protest against the proposed improvement or against
the extent of the district to be assessed, or both. Such protest must be in
writing and must contain a description of the property in which each signer
thereof is interested, sufficient to identIfy the sam"" and be delivered and
filed with the City Clerk of said City not later than the hour hereinabove set
for hearing.
Reference is hereby made to said Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81,
passed on the date aforesaid, for further particulars.
If any further information is required, please contact Ms. Kelley Poole in the
Real Property Section of the Oepartment of Public Works, City Hall, 300 North
"0" Street. San Bernardino, Cal Hornia 92418. Phone No. (714) 384-5111.
OAT~: March 10, 1992
RACHEL KRASNEY
City Clerk
o
o
L...
~
K'~( ..,
8
Q
o
z
a.
<(
:9!
~ I
lil!l~
~ m.1
~t;~1
a..a:~1
.... II
U) I
is 1I
....
Z
~
~
U)
~
._.___ _-co
U)
<(
1:1I'~I~i,
8d ,.
"I' ' g
fi':'I~~
lil':i ~,,~
! -i .~~.
'1,,)111.1
!f!ff ~i
1'111 II!
JUid .)
B
o
o
E3
E3
o
lot]
~
::J[j
E3
l'.'
J~~~
---'nl I'
"P
II
.
II ~~
l~i!1
llU B
~!s eg
;,'U
~
.-
I
,
I
i
I
f
I I
I I
I
J .1
I ! I
I & i
.. h
I i'l
~ I I
:::J
c
~~I
. .
c
I ~
! '.
. t.
:.
~ I
fi
"
.}
I_
!
!
"
DONALD G. CANNAN. D. D.'
2039 . "0" St.. Suite 101 .'_
SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA - 92405
--
CONALD G. CANNAN. D.D.S.
203D NORTH D STREET. SUITE 101
SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 924015
TELEPHONE: 714-882.2SJiS9
March 26, 1992
Ms. Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
30u North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Ms. Krasney:
As owner of lots l36~422~03, 280~192~05,
136-421-02 and 136~43l~10 in the proposed
assessment district for the beautification
of Waterman Avenue, I am in opposition to
being included in such a district.
I don't even feel that beautification as
planned on Waterman Avenue is needed. The
street improvement now being made should
suffice. If the business and property
owners of property facing Waterman, wish
it,so be it, but any other property should
be left out.
If using Mayor Holcomb's reasoning when
replying to Councilman Hernandez' query,
relatin~L to tBon-adjoining properties, that
the peoPle ~joining will be driving, walking
or using:: thED\bus on Waterman Avenue, then
let all~the~ity pay for same.
c r-
N
"'"
"'"
=
c
'-
-,
Yours very truly,
Lu
'->
Lu
a::
~
.Afl~~#--
Donald G. Cannan, D.D.S.
DGC:pd
r-lJ~S~P~V; CE l
I OFFIC!~{)R I
I . 992 D~~:1ES
rk
.
o
o
~
r
RECEIVFr 0" Y CB ,;
March 20, 1992
'92 MAR 25 P 2 :04
Rachel Krasney
City Clerk
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81
Dear Ms. Krasney:
This letter is being sent to protest the assessment district being
proposed for a landscape corridor along Waterman Avenue. We own a
single family residence located at 259 East 11th Street, Assessor's
Parcel Number 0140-121-09-0000.
While we applaud efforts to beautify the City of San Bernardino we
do not think this is the time to do so. The crime problem in this
area is so bad that we must provide a monitored alarm system for
the tenant in the home. The trees and bushes planted will not
change these social problems. Let's clean up the city's real
problems first. Additionally, with the current economic conditions
we are all facing, it seems ludicrous to ask property owners to pay
out additional money for such a superfluous project.
We therefore want to register our formal protest of the assessment
district.
Rhonda Jane Pfeiffer
10377 Emerson Road, # 207
Phelan, CA 92371-5135
.
.'
~~~f1
~ aqUir
.0
,
o
..
~
P
~f~
~t
~...
::::~
~
'''','('~
,<"'1)". "'l..:;'t, '\
c...,' ".;:
,'" ,-:\
j):<- \.1 :",':.1
0; .3 :~~;!
~;:u r i
.,. "\ I
'It, p2,\, i
fI';:;::'"
~ ,_." '.
;:::.. :: - ,~;;
. '_.'.
l i ~~ ~:'.;;
II' " .", "
I C' ," ,
I' ".. ','
\i,1 ,~ '.. ~ '
1\ ~_.. ~
,'. c:
,\\ "'I
'tt
l-_,~
I
o
o
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECEI\Jf-n- r!"!' ('IEFr
Mayor and Common Council:
Re:
'Q7 f,PR -6 A 7 :47
Resolution of Intention, Resolu~ion No. 92-81
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
~~Mk~
~~lo &.f\J"'~
6~.~QaL\o~
-!l ~q _,f:;J c:; <:;
JJ ~ A"
o 0
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECE,\'cn- "" v 1'1 cr','
I ,-. I, '," ,"1
-;' ~ ~
Mayor and Common Council:
Re: Resolution of Intention, Resolution'~.A~=~lA7:47
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
Sincerely,
~I~a,
;L. . 3 J,rv!fd..~ ~^'- &,
J ~~/
ffdno d.. Q /
tj J-ICiJ>'
l'
MINI-SPACE,INC.
CORPORATE OFFICE
401 S. Waterman P.O. Box 946, San Ilem8rdno, CaIIllmIa 92402 (714) ~Em\l\:!)'(':': y r,\,EFr
'92 ~PR -3 P2 :50
March 31, 1992
Ms. Rachel Krasney
City Clerk
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
RE. Waterman Avenue
Landscaping Assessment
AP#. 136-391-31
Dear Ms. Krasney.
Please be advised that we are OPPOSED to the formation of a
landscaping assessment district along Waterman Avenue.
The assessment would place an unnecessary financial burden on
our property.
ours,
Ellis L. Cohen
President
ELC/pf
. .
o
00
.....
<;j'
N
())
J
-
+' .
(!) <ll
(!) U
+'
Ul -
o
= C
t=1 -.-1
rl~= '0
(!) l-I..c l-I
..c (!) +' <ll
U rl l-I C
<ll U 0 ~
~ Z Il1
:>,
. +' 0
00".-1 0 ~
~ U (Y) Ul
:>,
(!)
C
00
<ll
l-I
~
!
..
. C
U U
. !; t
In-
~.il
- ..
~cic:
...:rZ
o
o
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECEI\Ji-"r)-C!1 v C! EFi'
Mayor and Common Council:
Re:
Resolution of Intention, Resolution No:9~2-~~ -3 A9 :41
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
d;;:y,
(j)~, .
.L7 c; ~ ~ ~ /{lq/
.L/ ~;;2, $'C( /1 :1-~ ~
jU,r./;
fYi-J'IJl(
o
o
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECEiVf!) e'l Y r'!EFi'
Mayor and Common Council:
Re:
'92 A
Resolution of Intention, Resolution Nd~R9~&i7:47
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Feripe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
Sincerely,
C;~ ~W~
~~'t'- 55~'
4()(P e SJt\"; r:5.t-/fJ,F" /!O-
o 0
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECEI'I'VI--r,': 'i CLEf.-
Mayor and Common Council:
Re: Resolution of Intention, Resolutio~2NohPR9~8~7:47
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still-waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
n_:h:..J &,,~oJ
mts ~P'-'- .
.E7i. SOA-' .#~
5Q.I.J 4g1J-~
~fi5- ;:31("
Sincerely,
o 0
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECEIVP). '."1 v :'!F~r'
Mayor and Common Council:
Re: Resolution of Intention, Resolution'9ifo.AP~2"4nA 7 :47
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
Sincerely,
II!~Af~.
38'0,g~ ~~ ~L
~f4-7!)57
o 0
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECE!\n:n-nY CIHr.
Mayor and Common Council:
Re: Resolution of Intention, Resoi~i~ Ri. P912~1
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3.
It is ironic to ask the propert~ owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included i~ this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.
4.
Sincerely,
31f?SM>~kJ) ~tJ~
rf g6-~3 J 17
t
..
o
o
'April 1, 1992
R E('E,,,/cq :"1 v 1~1 p;i
. ,J I;' . '.,': '_;.._.1',
Mayor and Common Council
city of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
Re: Resolution of Intention - Resolution No. 92-81
.92 APR -6 A 7 :49
Gentlemen:
This letter is in strong protest to the formation of the Special
District to tAx single-family dwelling property owners to pay for
the upgrading of Waterman Avenue from Baseline South to the san
Bernardino Fre_ay. The objection is based on several points which
include the following:
1. The assessment district targets those property owners
within a small area surrounding this district. The project area
boundaries are not uniform and appear to include a greater number
of residential homes. Waterman Avenue is traversed by more than
residents of the adjacent area. Many residents, business owners and
motorist utilize the area, why, then are the local owners being
taxed? It is a "city" project - not a neighborhood project.
2. The Waterman Avenue area north of Baseline Street to
Highland is equally in extreme need of upgrading. The streets are
in disrepair; there has been no landscaping or other appurtenances
installed. Why is this area not included in your proposed
assessment district plan for upgrading alSO? A greater area
project should be implemented so that renovations are simultaneous,
thus avoiding the need to re-tax residental property owners again
under the guise of needed upgrading.
You provide financial assistance to business owners but forget
that the single family property owners are ttle bulk of your
community. Their tax load should be lightened rather than further
burdened with ill-planned projects. Federal and State tax dollars
can be obtained via the city Redevelopment Agency. Their
involvement must be included to assure that our federal and state
tax dollars are used to promote a project that will benefit more
than just residents of this district.
4. If this assessment district is approved, it is
recommended that city employees perform the work rather than
contracting out the work for thousands of dollars to private
arohiteotural and general contraotors. In reading about the City'S
dismal financial straits, a project of this sort can be used to
continue to employ residents of the City and further stimulate the
local economy. Historically, the City has sought outside
contraotors to do the work and hundreds of thousands of dollars
.....
o
o
Mayor and Common Council
Page 2
April I, 1992
have been lost to the local community because of funds not being
spent locally.
5. As a private property owner, the property we own is a
single-dwelling family rental property located at 263 E. Orange
street, San Bernardino, CalifoJ;'nia. I believe your proposed
assessment of $47.55 per year for five years (our portion since we
are not adjacent to Waterman Avenue) is completely out of order.
In the last few years the City has assessed an annual fee for
improvement of the blight condition (approximately $60 a year),
increased the refuse and sewer charges (approximately $360 a year),
and now the proposed increase. The present fair market value of
monthly rental on our property and the monthly upkeep prohibits any
further expenses. We are not in a money-making situation, but
merely keeping our heads above water.
It is our belief that much, much more is presently needed to attack
the city's current dilemma. Landscaping the medians merely "band-
aids", once again, the problems. our city is unsafe at any given
time of the day or night. The real problems must be faced in
continuing to oust or resolve the problems of drugs, gangs,
panhandlers, homeless people. It is then that we can make lasting
impovements that will attract and keep a better caliber of
residents and businesses to improve the economy.
Oue to our work schedule, we are unable to attend the Council
meeting on April 6, 1992 at 10:00 a.m. It is requested that the
present Resolution be tabled to an evening forum therefore allowing
the working class to attend and express our strong views on this
Resolution.
In conclusion, we urge you to tap the SBRDA for funds to accomplish
the proposed renovations without continually over taxing the
single-family property owners. Until such time as a better plan is
implemented, we oppose and strongly object to the proposed
Resolution.
Your further comments or assistance in addressing our concerns are
solicited and appreciated.
cc: Rachel Mendoza Krasney
tnW 0 0:;::
III 01-"1-'0 Ul
::sortrt.
'<'<
lllZ :tI
(1)OOOlll
11 11 1'1...... 0
::s rt (1)::r
lll::rtnl1(1)
11 1ll:>;'1-'
P-O::s
1-'0
::stnlll
ort(1)
.1111
(1) ::s
O(1)lll
III rt 11
. P-
I-"
::s
o
\0
'"
~
I-'
(l)
.
:;::
(1)
::s
P-
O
N
III
~
III
tIl
::s
(1)
'<
o
:<I"''''
.... wO
I>> ....:z:
I-' N
".:E::>'
o . t'
t'J
:<IN
(l 0 .
I>> III
. II> '"
( :<I
100:>'
",O:Z:
WPol'l
....
O'Im:>'
".:Z:
o
:3:
:>'
~
..
,
o
o
RECEI\!c:n._~ir v l'lt~i:
'92 APR -6 A 8 :33
April 3, 1992
City of San Bernardino
Ms. Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81
Dear Ms. Krasney:
My wife and myself are property owners in the proposed assessment
district for the abovementioned Resolution. We are hereby filing a
formal protest against said proposition.
My brother and I were owners of a business in this same area for many
years. The City of San Bernardino did not assist us in improving the
conditions of the surrounding area then and, in fact, fought us on
many issues such as street lighting, trash disposal and sewer charges.
The area being assessed is traveled primarily by Riverside, Orange
County and Los Angeles area residents arriving from Interstate 10 to
attend work. The proposed improvements would do nothing to beautify
the "low income" area adjacent to Waterman Avenue. Traveling that
particular stretch of road takes you through some of San Bernardino's
most unattractive areas and providing landscaping in the median strips
will not alleviate this problem.
For the above stated reasons, we hereby submit protest to Resolution
No. 92-81 for the proposed improvements to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline and Interstate 10.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. William
517 E. San Jacinto
Zdi21~ 0, CA
.0'
.0.....
Recorded at the request of
...........-..............................-.........-....................................
Return to
................'Nilli.am...R.....CUr.r.an.........................
................517....E.....San...Jac.i.nto....~t............
San Beraatdino,~Ca
......................................nn...............................................
Documeolarytransfertax $... HONE..................
o Computed 00 full value of property conveyed, or
o Computed on full value less liens and encumbrances
remaining thereon at time of sale.
Bllrnature of declarant or aaeut determia.lq tax-Arm name
cftuit ~laim Dttb
WiLLIAM H. OURRAN, a married man who acquired Title as
WILLIk~ rl. CURRAN, an unmarried man.
do
quit claim unto
NILLIM~ H.,CU}RAN AND DOROTHY J. CURRAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS JOINT TENANTS
all that real property situate in the City of San Bernardino
County of San Bernardino
State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL NO.1: That portion of the east t of lot 9, block 46, of the 20-ACRE
SURVEY of the RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, as per plat recorded in
book 7 of Maps, page 2, records of said County, described as
follows: .
BEGINNING at a point 218 feet west from the east line of said
lot 9, said point being on the westerly extension of the center
line of San Jacinto Street, as shown on map of Tract No.
1846, as recorded in book 26 of Maps, pages 67 ! 68, records
of said County,said point being the northwest corner of the
property co~veyed to Gary L. Robbins and JoAnn M. Robbins,
husband and wife, asjoint tenants, by deed recorded
November 16,1957, in book 6925, page 602, Official Records;
thence '~outh ISO feet I "..thegce'!1.1Jeet~g7] feet~rtbeD_6e ~ nart\l 150
fee:ll-"'u.tl1el-tGsfedy eX'l1endnn2'ciI'f! ,ne center line of said
San Jacinto street; thence east 97 feet to the point of
beldnm.JlE.
..,
o
"'<.n;':
I>> ........
::I "'0
t>lt'l:o:l
.. . ...
... ....
::I"'....
l>>1>>...
~::I~
...<-<
::I I>> n
on"
. ......
::I ...
nnl>>
>0::1
'"
n
"'...
"'..
~..
On
00
",,,,;.:n
Sb om...
l:S o. "
'<
%,g:~o
... ... n ...
::In::T
l>> ::T" '"
... ....1>>
~ = ::I
[:;~~t>l
o 1>>"
.. tn Q:I 11
n ::I ::I
n..... I>>
~(l),,< t1
... ~
n ...
'" n::l
'" ... 0
~ n
o '<
00
n
....
..
...
l'<"
o
o
RECEIVe')'!:'''''1 -r.
~!- f' i\
'92 APR -6 118 :34
April 3, 1992
City of San Bernardino
Ms. Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81
Dear Ms. Krasney:
My wife and myself are property owners in the proposed assessment
district for the abovementioned Resolution. We are hereby filing a
formal protest against said proposition.
The area being assessed is traveled primarily by Riverside, Orange
County and Los Angeles area residents arriving from Interstate 10 to
attend work. The proposed improvements would do nothing to beautify
the "low income" area adjacent to Waterman Avenue. Traveling that
particular stretch of road takes you through some of San Bernardino's
most unattractive areas and providing landscaping in the median strips
will not alleviate this problem.
Further, I feel that my property will not derive any benefits from
these proposed improvements and, therefore; I should not be made to
bear the cost. Recently, I contacted the City in regards to the
'Wrecking Yards that are in operation directly across from my
home,asking them for code enforcement for the height of fencing
required of these businesses. Nothing has been accomplished, and this
has a direct impact on the street on which I reside. My property was
also. taxed, after becoming part of the City, for curbs and gutters; we
still reside on dirt road, but have not made protest for those obvious
exclusions.
For the above stated reasons, we hereby submit protest to Resolution
No. 92-81 for the proposed improvements to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline and Interstate 10.
Sincerely,
htf?~
523 E. San Jacinto Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(714) 884-7902
o
O.
ACCOMMODATION DESCRIPTION B-2l
November 13, 1967
T.I.&T.CO.
PARCEL NO.1:
I
j
I
j
I
That portion of the East half of Lot 9, Block ~6. of the
20-Acre Survey of the RA1JCHO SAN BERNARDINO, in the
County of San Bernardino. State of California, as per
map recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page 2. records of said
County. described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point 1~6 feet West from the East line of
said Lot 9, said point being on the Westerly extension
of the center line of San Jacinto Street as shown on
Hap of Tract l8~6, as recorded in Book 26 of Haps, pages
67 and 68. records of said County, thence South ISO feet;
thence West 72 feet; thence North ISO feet to the Westerly
extension of the center line of said San Jacinto Street;
thence East 72 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL NO.2:
~
I
1
I
I
1
I
!
Ii
A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and
across that portion of said Lot 9, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the center line of San Jacinto
Street, said point being on the East line of said Lot 9;
thence South 30 feet along the Ea~t line of said Lot 9;
thence West 1~6 feet; thence North 30 feet to a point
on the Westerly extension of the center line of San Jacinto
Street; thence East 1~6 feet to the point of beginning.
Approved:
!
i
I
'j
/'la. AL . -
MIKE HOWES
En~ineering Department
NOT~: - This description was written without the benefit
Of a search of title and may not conform to boundary lines
of record.
gp
",,,,!lI::n
I>> om......
l=' o. rt
'4
t:ll!Z:'"
(0 0 OJ 0
t1 t1 n I-h
=,rt::T
I>>::T"'"
ti ....1>>
l>o: ='
.....t:j~
=' : ti t:ll
01>>"
.. tI) O':t t1
rt =' ='
nt1 ft) lD
>- .. '4 ti
... l>o
rt .....
n='
.....0
rt
'4
n
....
..
ti
p;"
'"
N
....
.....
ex>
,-..---
-"
e' .~
o
o
Darry Plotkin
11819 Firestone Bl.
Norwalk, CA 90650
March 17, 1992
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Property Assessors' district boundary map 1000
Attn: Kelley Poole
I have seen more cheats, liars and frauds in public office than I
have in business. Again your city wishes to find another way to
take my property away using the words "for the common good".
I am opposed to your assessments in this district and I am making
a written protest against this assessment.
You are probably a very nice person and I'm sorry that you have to
work for such a money grabbing machine.
I'm sure with all the assessments taking place that eventually you
will foreclose and steal my property away from me, or my family
after I am dead and cannot do anything about it.
Sincerely,
~.
Dorry
Parch 19, 1992
,-..
'-"
-'
-
Dear Sir and Common Council:
.
Ref: Resolution of Intention
Resolution No# 92-81
A.s owner of property liable to be assessed, I oppose the proposed
irnnrovements and the extent of the district to be assessed.
Parcel: #1
The north 186 feet of the east 50 feet of the west 425.35 feet of
lot 11, Block 43, Rancho San Bernardino ,in The County of San
Bernardino State of California, as per map recored in book 7, page
2 of maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county.
Parcel }2
The westerly 200.92 feet, more or less of those portions of lots 11
and 12, in block Lf3 of Rancho San Bernardino, in the County of
San Bernardino State of Calif, as per map recorded in book 7, nage
2 of naps in the office of the County of recoed of said County
San Bernardino.
~~7!!
Robert Long
Lf07 East 9th. t
San Bernardino Ca 92410
,~ C>
U.j If)
( 0
,.. ;;;:
c 8:l
c- "'"
~ '=
-, =>=
-~
l..L:
U ~
Lu
0::
o
(/j ~::<l
III 5"
~. -...J
'-' t-l
tdtUo
<D1ll::S,
Ii<JlCJ1:l
::Set
III
Ii 'I)
o.et
I-'"::r
::s
OUl
et
o
.
III
'I)
[\)
. " J:
,:..
o
::
Ul\...l 00
III 01-'"1-"
::SOetet
~.~
td .~
<DOOO
Ii Ii f-fJi-'t
::Set <D
:>> ::r Ul Ii
. Ii Ill?<'
0. =::s
1-"
::Sl:lltd
o <D
=Ii
o ::s
III Ullll
et.Ii
'1)'10.
[\)<D 1-"
.t:"<D '3
.....eto
OJ
.
-
.
~ ....-,.-.; '"
' .' \".' ,." <;'-. '-~
I y' '<"':.,;.:,,\ ~
,.., " '<~~
(,;; 0 ,,';. \
,,3': -<.-' ," ~
""., - "j
'\ ',', ,. ,~?;.
\'. " ""0/
''',.::~.".
~:;--!
,. I ':
Iii! t
,
"
, .'~ ~-.J
t""..~
i
l
l
f
;f
I
j
1
IJI
(
~
o
o
~rZ-~
tlc;~ .
--
-
- ..~........~,
\
\
\
, \
\\ '1
\..d'
t
I
I
:, --'L..
. . ') Y' L' .../ !. / y'
. 17;)1'/, /L-/"'f'. . ~"t.- c..o -' .
I 1""1. r.1 /r_/~.)/".,-
1" ,OMI-.,"}6,~ ~t>V/Y....,........
~.! '-'9
. ".... i,.." '_,,~- '- /-1.
... _ / ...... J ~
. ')':f4i.'IES'
~...... . .
; ,,'
Ie
,-'~/7' ~
'j. ,I 'J>~'
'-"
~ /.--;:-k'f"':,'
~ f' /
4<-~P'~t')'?
..... "<""
V
, ..
\....-~ , C~'P' du l./l 92 Lf .:.. 1
..,
\
r, .-,.' . ~
; ~--'::-.J ;',_.>> [j"/'{ b,:'\/
" ",..
92-%7
-- __.=/2i-i:-tts -= :<S ,"-.' /i:, E- ,') .J./. 6 V 0 i.:.J.L': .:) P )l . ! i ~ , .} . r
___-F_ tD};~_ i;J L.- .'< l? J.r"r F!' 6 p-'= b-) b fl J-r. 1"'-.1/)j ct '\U/j ~
--.-. 6t:=- .:r.~<! L't:b, r- I).",' !l_.__J~~~ G(~:f;^;c. WO-R<;; G, /0 UO'7I-'J(
....J..t. -4()...%' HP!='_Jh~_EL~t>j'j..EftFJf.~ __-E-XG ,::^/ (,,)EL;:::A-~C;-
.- -. J!fNI)_ ~ods+J'k-NLlz.s..-:: __.~__._ ._
no --;..:I-./fMad.56 C{~l.'.-1:E.c:. !j.~ i 'l--B:~<<.1l ;9..$..MaJ_~.
----fE'"-d.ti"L"''}./ E!!~~_ n/hj2.....&I./JfE}.d..ALR_....J.T._MJ<t.~Y --1'.2./:__
. _n Cv 2.. 12i? W;v.S?>e LV.~.- TA~_.M. /?'~ .LN'JJS. jl/LE~t+....M.. v _
. I _ ' , -r-:-
W/EiZ.__W 41;<.1'<'1-. 1-f,2----&..sC.U..6A"'&-~\:&~j&'_c._G'.JLM(~
. . / I I --1-:7
_u.____ fl.r;UJR.n.. ~~J:Cjf~6.~...cfi-57.Wfi= t~--:ilj-r~k). nM'f,!=<2.._~
-.---..t-?/l/d ..:Ij./SJ,) {{'p~'Cf..~A". .?iCJ&._ir(C; ilflf.)---lIJIL_ 6'"b1.~_._
I . ,,', -/f'- <:l
n.--'li)l.~:;:'7:2.-A,l y:m.Jw.N;::I{.~____.6iJSI;_gM J)ygJ{_-S.___
- .-.. /}:l.//)_n_Tli}' . .72___jl::E.iL5g,{1 6 i2 C-;'d 1Z?_~4-t,.. ... .... .. _._
-., no. ;Z;. dti./L7--11;;,~1.;/2.r...-=/f~i.;)AS-lt;c,j.{E )~ JYrL'i.. ..At'ld
---.--A tf-€/}-.d ... .. 4r;1'<_ i",r/'f'ilL"tLbVC UNB-5bE70 .
---0,)~ilir:....-i:fIJ-ILdj.J.-_ 2l/J/)';..!-(i? w.~ V'..=,tf ,J: -*,1 u~iki./;;.c;.__
-.7b,:f".sf"-.~1--1/ _,4-:~r';en c1:f.~/f.~l /3';.// ~:? Cr.v/i.f-- >>:1-. Z'~u/Jl5__.
~ ., . .
n__::-"-\,l C i_,--';I;,t: u "92<:;!f-Y6'!i){&lJ, /f.!,L . riFt. 'fl/:'~.JfX-'mn.. ._
,(~k)fHd)"$ A/fI. /Y:~t)}J/'c;_,;f/ij4X~ S;;'~[)i.F<1-5 ,/JAE. ...
___.flitJe-. TIlRdj;1) ~(.JZ ,; e ,)d- .:A=.~j.I(ct.r/ ftLre!Jg-<;e:--s
u l1i?F CL-,,<;[;/:.r.~r _"'//('; u~G:>N'e"~Yj5- H %~l;' y_ /N' 'u
_un :Y2l?S'..!i/?f7E 'ji(j "C;i Jilt'Z- fllv.P.B5:Trc{;;' r. (.n __
..____n~.C.. tv/s H . 't-~___..c:'.?'kfj:,'_':' . 2...._::65. L;:.C:U,Uj.cl' k -fiM,W'C-" ..
.._/!f}LL b..__---~.m n.._~d1Lyj(_\.:',':J, ._.__ ....--~-----._.__..n u ..
'S),1/I'F.Kt-~(.r~d.., --~-~I'==---
o
-
.,
\ )
~
" I
..-
€J:t8 a-oS":l. - / /
~~ ffCtl;L
753 U~ ()~
~ 8' ' ~d.v G.....Q
)
y;r.~03-'
'I I
I I
" I
I)
~I
,~ I
70 C!:J1 ~
f?7M R~~,
" ~ /?1,A--S OJ" O~ i3o-ltLLc ~ ~
n,~ ,y?JS"S, /c3~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:;~. ~1; ~~~ :.I4~{fb~--m.5-
4) ~ faea.. tJn r.4.J.-'~ :to ~ \l-- ~ ti=l!eI~. ~ d....,
4) ~ J ~ b7'- ~ ~..6f..K. ~ ar-
C) ~~~. ~~<JC/~".lIe,.i1~,
..l)
4)
j,)
( )
l)
4 '
.
, ~':J~ ~
~~~
~ Ght.e M 1;t.~~
)
-I
U
~.)
,.;)
Ii)
Ii)
I,J:)
..
lit
..
.
CD
4:>
..
.
.
.
.
c
c
:)
?:J
~ rrt
G
c:J
::<: <:
,-,
~ -~~
~ ,
..
.<
:;I:> '.
-.I
.> n
"TJ
V1 -.
.,..
...
1~~I"i
1 --,.' ~ ~
I 1,1': ........ \
\ n8lPl~W 100
t,~. ~.
. \
t na!:h~ ~ c.'),
1 !.~~C ~{
~
:j ~~ ~
r-~ ~ \f)
~ ~ ""
!I
i.~
ca~t.J
.!I ;-.;
g;.!
.",,1
i~~
.
,
o
I
I
RECE\\JtJ
'92 !'\fl' 2.4
r~t;
c.
william L. Huntley
P.O. Box 166
Tie Siding, WY 82084
,-
~o -rA
March 17, 1992
Ms. Rachel Krasney
City Clerk
City Hall
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Waterman Improvement District
Dear Ms. Rachel Krasney:
As the leas~of approximately five acres on Waterman Avenue (Block
between 6th and 7th streets), I hereby ask that you reconsider the
boundaries of the district. While I agree to the formation of a
district for this improvement, I feel the boundaries are absolutely
ridiculous.
It is obvious the benefits accrue to an equal distance on both
sides of Waterman Avenue. Take a look at your maps of the proposed
boundaries. It looks like a jig-saw puzzle. My opinion is that
it would not stand in the light of judicial review.
My recommendation would be to re-draw the boundaries now, rather
than take the chance of a costly judicial review that in the end
would arrive at that conclusion.
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion.
Respectfully,
~d..,c..//L ~'" /
william L. Huntley
WLH/tl
-
-
~
~
-
t:
-
-
-
~
:.....
-
(l)VJ(")(")::<:
I>> 0 I-I'~' CO
:;lortrt.
'<'<
tPZ :;d
<D 0 ::ti (") III
t1 t1 I>> ]-In
:;lrt.....<D:;l"
1>>::TI--'-t1ro
'1 ?;".....
p.. =
..... t:1 \'<l
:;l = '1
o III
. (I) (Il
rt :;l
(")'1 <D
><D '<
<D
rt
-.0
N
".
.....
00
"..
-
o~ ~
ffi r
(Jl i>
2 ,,3:
z liir
~~::J:.
~9g~
OCllmc
j;~!l!c
Z-":DZ
"",,.0
","'z>
~ O::J:
'" ::J:c:
... Z
~ ~
'" r
'" m
-<
l=
l/l
"
o
(Jl
~
C>
m
.....
,-..
'-
.....-,
I
~
r
~
f ,
_.
,
'-
,
.
.
REI;r.IJEO.-CIr ' E
'92 MAR 24 A9:C', dt/ 01~r~
.4J~ IJ?~~~~~
~~ /la" f~h?81 ~ ~
r"l~,-/- ~ a ~ -f#(fl. ~
~~
~. td ~ P:< ~ ;(:.,,{
~~~~~-.
f) AIl.L1 . r d tJ?'l/L, ~
~frJC? " ; 7wtr)~,~
~~ C' ~%~
'If; F B. l ~M12-1 --Ih. . ~
~~~~ ' .~~.
~~/~ -
.~ ~I r:I2 ~ ,}f-~
k.~ ~,~#~
~ d~u~.. ~~~~
~~~Ma-~
a....A_.:.~ ~5~.
,,--v-7 ~~ ~ . ~
~O/n ~~~
--.5~J
;OJrid 1tJ~
r~.:tr .;Iff/) - J5)-~ 7'
~
~\0
~.
~
,.
o
~-o f
e~ '
,~~ I
::l~ ~
.~~
~O~
lSix
~;!i.C:
"'~r-
ilJrri
,
~
. ~~I
",' ":}'~'
., '"
(0- \J Z
(0 -:.':' "J:.O
\'.'; 'J
~:c'-:r' '
.~~ 1
,
, S\l
.' "''1
~u~ , . 1
r'l i i '\
I 'i.!
, ~.r
~
CITY OF SAN BERNA~DINO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
ABATEMENT SECTION
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
(714) 384-5045
RECE'VC[',^!y '~I_'F'"
NOTICE TO CLEAN PREMISES
And NOTICE OF REGROWTH
'92 I1Il.R 30 P 2 :08
RE: PARCEL 0280 151 25
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TRACT NO 2980 PET
ER HELDS SUB LOT 16 EX S 340
(1 ~ n FT AND EX W 60 FT E 115 FT
U-M.l.tu'U r>J. ~ J g,,, / { N 120YFT THEREOF AND EX ST41
Bv virtue of the weed abatement rules and regulatIons of the City of San Bernardino. asn-sjf~ MUniCipal Code Chapter 8.27, you are hereby
notified to remove from your property, which is described above, any and all of the items described below which constitute or may constitute a
public nuisance so that the removal thArenf i!ll ",,~r.Mc;~r,! to rrt\tAr.t thp he~ft,", and S'!fety 01 tho inh::bit<:nt~, of Sill:::! C;ty:
HALL, J Q
1013 EAST G ST
LAS VEGAS NV 89106
[K] Weeds and Grass
g] Tumbleweeds
~ All Debris and
t!J Combustible Materials
o Other ISee Below}
~
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 8.27.040 of ttls San RArn.Arrtino Municipal Code that the Public Services Director of the City of San Bernardino
" ~. ~_f\.I^+;..... __ __ .... , u......___.. ....- --' -
e/-!rom the desk of
~ HELEN M. HALL
C.-~aU c'#a f)!1l/1~
LJ.)L eMf ~tJJjt;h ~, Cu~
Wu-f~tt~~~
p~ ~j ~/-uJ-m~
IE ~h-~ lif)Jqt p+~
M it 1M. ~~ iiJ~ .
11LJ~ 10 #M Jmf~1:;
(JJu- -?&1'~ iD P ttif GU.L,
) CJ-~~~ l
/~ jI~
30~ JJ- 4ndLj (Y.MU3~ /
{).u, 0Ju.- ~ t1-wM.w tJj.;J ~d
f~ &.:faM-eJ OJiOj5l.t6
fJ~ ~~,'c1ftad ~
;)qtO!1t
Sf< /J1lIrk kB/of I" rr~8 [I'D
-rr {;Md E; W t,6rr i 1/5: r1
IV j{)ol1;r ~antA Ej. ilJl./
Wt- oIfur~ ~ ~ k '
d-7nf/~t:I~/IdJJ-(~...>
You are hereby urged to perform the abatement work indicated within t" .__..n. .. ..... ,............, ,.. flU' ",c-GlltI'U
and the nuisance abated within this time, the City will have the work done to abate the nuisance and will assess the costs thereof as a tax lien
against the property. No hearings are conducted on Notices of Regrowth.
ABA TEMENT COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
17141 384,5045
ABATEMENT MUST BE COMPLETED
WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE BELOW:
09/09/91
DATE:
.
CITY OF SAN BERN~INO
DEPARTMENT OF Quc SERVICES
ABATEMENT SECTION
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5045
RECEIVi=D.
,~,y ('FFIi
NOTICE TO CLEAN PREMISES
And NOTICE OF REGROWTH
'92 MAR 30 P 2 :06
RE: PARCEL 0280 151 25
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TRACT NO 2980 PET
ER HELDS SUB LOT 16 EX S 340
(1 ~. FT AND EX W 60 FT EllS FT
~"'~ ~l~"A'!..t N 120YFT THEREOF AND EX ST41
By virtue of the weed abatement rules and regulations of the City of San Bernardino, san-BP'~ Municipal Code Chapter 8.27, you are hereby
notified to remove from your property. which is described above. any and all of the items described below which constitute or may constitute a
public nuisance so that the removal thp.renf is Mr.p.!':l<::;;:lry to protp.r.t thp he;:::olth end s?fety of the inh::::bit:::::"Jtz of 3iJid City:
HALL, J Q
1013 EAST G ST
LAS VEGAS NV 89106
[K] Weeds and Grass
g] Tumbleweeds
IVl All Debris and
~ Combustible Materials
D Other (See Below)
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 8.27.040 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code that the Public Services Director of the City of San Bernardino
has determined that a nuisance exists on or abutting the property described in this Notice or on the parkway thereof, The nuisance consists of one
or more of the following: weeds, sagebrush, chaparral, brush, dry vegetation or vegetation which attains such extensive growth as to become a
fire menace when dry, poison oak or ivy or other plants which are noxious or dangerous, dry grass, stubble, brush, deadwood, dead or diseased
trees, dead or dry palm fronds, fences in disrepair or broken, litter, flammable material which creates a fire hazard, containers, abandoned asphalt
or concrete, rubble or waste materials. You must abate or remove this nuisance within ten (10) days of the date of this notice; otherwise it will
be removed and abated by the City of San Bernardino, in which case the cost for such removal will be assessed upon the property from which,
or abutting the property from which, said nuisance is removed, and such costs will constitute a tax lien on such lots or land until paid.
Any person objecting to this determination of a nuisance or to the proposed removal and abatement of said nuisance, may file a written protest
with the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days from the date of this Notice. The City Clerk shall transmit such protests promptly to the Board of
Building Commissioners of San Bernardino.
Notice is further given that said protest shall be heard before the Board of Building Commissioners in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 North
"0" Street, San Bernardino, California, on the first Friday of the next month after the date of this notice at 9:00 in the morning. If a timely protest
has been filed, you or your agent may appear at said hearing and be heard and may present and hear evidence concerning the proposed abatement.
The Public Services Director has also determined that the property described in this Notice supports the growth of weeds, dead or dry palm fronds
and dry grass which are seasonal and recurrent nuisances that must also be removed and abated hereafter from time to time. Notice of regrowth
of this nuisance during this calendar yea~.~wiU &e given without further hearing. Failure to abate such recurring conditions will result in the City abating
such nuisance, in which case the coaf Of ~ removal shall constitute a tax lien upon the property described in this Notice until paid. The efficient
and economicai conlrnl of such seas.r:-.I ~.,rent nuisances ma\- ~cqLlirc pn:>vE..,tative chs!'!"?!:al c x"!tr:J1 of s'Jcb weeds, weed seeds, af"lrl W~f'd
seedlings, and the City may require preventative ch~mk;:ll cont..,,1 ,::1 sed,: f!'.::::::r.::es.
D If checked here, then the following Notice of Regrowth applies instead:
A "Notice to Clean Premises," as stated above, was previously mailed to you, declaring a nuisance on the above property. That Notice, which required
removal or abatement of such nuisance, also declared that substantial regrowth must be abated. The above property was recently inspected, and
the removal of any or all of the following items is required at this time:
D Weeds and Grass
D Tumbleweeds
D Other
You are hereby urged to perform the abatement work indicated within ten (10) days from the date of this Notice. If the property is not cleaned
and the nuisance abated within this time, the City will have the work done to abate the nuisance and will assess the costs thereof as a tax lien
against the property. No hearings are conducted on Notices of Regrowth.
ABATEMENT COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
171413B4-5045
ABATEMENT MUST BE COMPLETED
WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE BELOW:
09/09/91
DATE:
.---------- .
. ~
~~~~
~ C) $
~ r.?> 4\
~ ~
l~- r
~
~
~
~
""
~
80: Z d OS ~~\l 26.
'~"i ,W.'O'.,iBJ3l:l
.
'-~.
CD......."'" ..."
,.;tp> 0 po .~,
... ell.... Z .....
o ",m
..< '"
mZ
... 0
. .
"'..
. :<
"'.
z......
m:"""
<m
. m
...
E
.
,
~
.~ ."...
.
o . rIFP"
I?ECEIVFD..C! ry,.,
'92 Mrr 27 A 9 :35
.
,
'e/) ~
~/ .
.~~~.
~~
~[j
~
,
~
~
~
~~~
/'~.
~~~
Jt~
~f~
~,~
-':"-
.
TOI Cit; Clerk-Rachel KrasrO
, City of San Bernardino, Ca.
Orch 18,1992
In Reference to I Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 92-81
Dear Ms. Krasney-City Clerk
We are writting to protest the proposed assessment fee for improvements to
Waterman Avenue, and strongly object to our property being included in the
formation of an assessment district.
The proposed improvements will do nothing to increase the value of oyr
property, therefore we feel it is a totally unfair tax (or fee as you are
calling it) for us to be billed for improving someone elses property.
We are unable to attend the April 6,1992 in Council Chambers meeting in
city hall, but wish our letter of protest be entered into the records of
the April 6,1992 Council meeting.
We are co-owners with 50% ownership each. Woodson D. Swan and John R.
Lanigan Our property is a vacant lot, located on the South-East corner
of Santa Fe and Valley View. You will find a complete description of
our property attached to this letter.
/
rR;t~v
Jxe,
? it Rc..(L
D /... 80 () b"3 } 0
11\ No
hJ 6.5
2S0S
0., {foRD
CDNS/bC,,"
\Ci
N
f-r JJ 100 f.-r
::<:
"'"
;0
N
6- rr ..IV
~
w
(it
\..oJ
I .-- i]
)....0 J .::J
J 0 fr IJ I~ fr jlllt!(tOF
;:Q
m
o
m
<:
'Ti
.::;J
,
.,
.-
-.<
- )
,
m
7)
-
'I ...J';-
0 :l) eN r-
~ -
0 N\ :s
~ . '--'"
;J '"
o ~
r. b
..,
~ -
~
~ ~
.....,
~
'\
j,1 L...J \:) D
c - ...
:s -r- -\
I:>~ -.......:::
V:> ~ '" (0
.... T:>
~ ~ -
:> I">
J' ~ ...
"' ?\
~(::) s
~ ~
0 >c.::.
C:-::l "'I ::t> I
p5 ;s \'>
~ ~
~'"
:; r
0
~ ::::r
>-' A
-\:. :;.
-- '"
<:x;,. ~
""
--
(?~J. Le 0
. ~ HlY fE'DR fl,F
r;O~e 0 ~ [.1'1 UP'
V~J wit'- oJ tL ,v-o-U,'
fe/fi/a....e! A~' 'I~
z-J:tOII1?(' . ~.;I
f/ '1M..7..n! 'f z.; 'i (;,
I'J;;-:a ~ h 2.D I I? 9 z.
RE(,FI' 'cr' ,~ I Y r' =r:,
A " t l-a,cl<';) d./7eljat;"vt? tJrJf.e CtJ ~('mCJO~.t
a 55//)3 a.. ~)( t:>1. tL 'r:f2. ~iARri5 ~ :03 tJ- .;. is
c?.nd s;'ovU /7('t fre I/seJ t-j 1/'1' el, t'P )ah L5ern......t!/flO - t- '
. Th P cd! i.J Ft'r{nlhf aM~S sinn,; ellS f'rld /t-# Jb 11L?laLf'4~
CI>.<<l !n""Z.-Ihfehal1(e 1l2.hISCQ;/~9)~)1'>t 1t/a'lp)-/n~nMf' h/iZ~,- p,a'3"J.,n'
:!:" hI' Bv~l0Ia1P 10 fiul'li J( a.,jt~'f,t ~ ;;d tt fa '3 '3 Pc! Of? a L-2..cK ;I
2.- h.'? a.1II"(' &'c,fe.
T h.p (JW t'---... of j~ ) /U--(}I"u,..." I lal1,l, l:~ J/,.P ;:L9:; f': '!> /nJJ....r tlll)/nd /(""~
ml/sr ;)-pj~'d J-~v ~tti;1/ f.-e}tu ~r.. a//tJ.Aftt ~ sP/>(/In9 (( ).('1/("'''
fl ~ ,h',-v tpcj- , 0.-,.) ?J~.t!f' a. J"C'l-IP1tllYl -riff; f"'()}e~, t ti.P CI7 cLf>>-k.
t'J,.R fa'/. M./)t5SlnJJ wif/'tf ~ ~6> ufldAf1'k; Jk /J)a...;t>/
tv>...J (0 rn me.... C C vne~ 1.
{j.J:,~ 1)1a.J.p~t/'f}, ?::>8''f 5()2.6,) I:"" !ii R..,.JI PIU'.It~ ..JJl.....7~
o~}J'l fuite. 1~'t'~/1~ fld/ ;;rt/ /7J-R 1)ec/ d~-cdth7 tb t?><II l.P-o/rJ 1(1'0 ~ P/
thJJ ~i.f;,:J-.<.-?0W (v.J!f)-t:f~.JJl" fi.p (04JJS nvJ a-,,/th -01':7t"1" (Pm"""",-
Co/;,tlC/L CC'/lItI }444 ~;. ftl/t- j,/ Jeu.CUf ~J~ ('''>1-Cl~ tL ec;~
(OfJhctL ~! /U~ tt 1,)~-a..7iv" b/~ ;~f..w'; f!t1.v~ J,-,. PitV~
11 jJ,p (LMJj.~;??"'/- 1(1 /U~. at.}l: t--IJ. '/J.L T. ~ 7;(j
jJ;/~ !(~ fvfJ1e,P//38L/- '5111, ..... ~ RJ.Jl /<<;TW",? ~ c /11R
-j/7ai{ VWl) >-?t~, t i4 1W1 0''-'1 /U-,-;'r ~ rJit, 1J.'
d Jot /7...0 I a/CV I(!dlt~ t2vr, (p(JIty'~ WI LLw ~~/(eJ a.f 9'.> r f-/{/f'
~.p?,'rs ftl.-...:/h.;z,t{-z. /vI l7>-atnf.fI1Mce/YPIn IItNrM./t1 (P'57,H'Ih~
~,;;'",:l 10 !f~''0 .
ThoR ">"'-/Y1J '3/3.e.- )tlf" ~ ~ 11'd1i~ 6vt il> lie aSge~Slnel1;'-
/tsfIUJ wJj7 /Ie 'h.uJaf"'!H, f 1A.ph t;&,ZQ,kj~?"'" V?g~/8"7;- ;A'J.p fl:'-sI
It,c !1. oRa)- s,
?J7J) 7/,(1 J....nllf/c.Jlhfa.HI,tllt?'IlIt'tlJ~ %fJd~PfIU.LM~ f~fv)-.ku4.
fJJ2-QQ'&79 ~ I-e (e/~
'tAw fl4R hu p&-,w ctuu.'n I,^ It 1 /,#, t ,Sp,o wiAJ'v. J./ .
O'h " ~ "..(' a.~ 'jRI/11>1
F' OWl /ndry,
f~~ 0 0
'(/Lit) l71a1 h )&"",1/ ~~ ~rf t&~ ~ ttn' if? z.~ )zvt ~ 1;'~,1
it)IP ~ j~ ~ If/t:1t~ t'k/P /{IiI/ /1tll k t~. ~
U<R ,/;cru.l(I ~ o/;~ ti C~-U'7...&-.fl tPflM1. Lt~ M~ nrl" ~'tp
IJ..tJ/J ~l~r4. fax .
k'Mf (~ t>'p I'M,f.:iJ ItJ ptll.,frct'3hs.t(M ~ ~ I7'r<II
.
r!.tP<~Wl7'
~{/~
rr 5, o/ttf Lot i4 c.!- 10 'to t 1050 I)lt/ZZ! tf~-, j}I h Izo I t>.~
tvoJi;>'}~" rj k'o'k! t?t tJLivp 't.-9. [{/I'~ 1I1akl$.'~ OU' o/-&L,~~ .
o
.
'"
~ :u -. t:: i
) l: !'(i ,
~ O::....!
- t::t:..{,1l1
t}~......'tj
I 00 u'
~ ....., !
I c: ~:
h," t.,' '
.
Oc
-
;t
'It-
, ;(i"',< '~~ ~
I 0" 2' \
I ~ a::
I :: ::E <( ,,, ..
; \0 ll. ::i 0)' ,~
,~ ~!!l" ~
lb. ,-1t-6'.'],,\~c,1, G;1 ~ ~
I ~=..% I ~ J., < ~
~~Q
r:~~ r~
~(j r"\jJ
..sl
':1-
rf\
~;
~~
(~~~
~~::;
"'(~~
~O<:>;.
IJ\J~-
o
fJ8,,~
o
The BUc!3ine&fJ Printer for the Inland Empire
RECE!V!-D r.rr ':'![(. I'
'92 MP.R 27 A 9 :34
March 24, 1992
city Clerk
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: Proposed Wateraan Avenue Landsoape , construotion xaintenanoe
Rachel Krasney,
I am in receipt of a letter sent out by your office on March 10,
1992 regarding the above mentioned proposed project.
AS a business and property owner in the immediate area of this
proposed project I see this as long over due hurdle for the growth
of the community as well as for the City of San Bernardino.
The proposed assessments for this project seem a fair price for
property owners to pay for enrichment of our community.
Sincerely,
ITY PRINTING
John Szukala
Owner
JJSjdlm
433 South Watermen Avenue, Suite H. San Bernardino, California 92408. (714) 88&-9091 . 1 (800) 237-9451 . FAX (714) 88&-5196
'-
fll,...iT,
~- QuaJilyPrin{inO
433 South Waterman Avenue, Suite H . San Bernardino, California 92408
~'-
- .
:I:> Ull>Jnn
-j :bOHH
-j 20-1-1
111 -<-<
Z rnz
- -j 11100n
H ::::O::O""TJr
- 0 Z-j 111
Z :bI(f);o
:;u :I:>^
0 =Z
HD
:;u Z =rn
- :I:> 0 111
- n . Ul:;u
:r: -jZ
111 n:;U:I:>
r :I:>111:;U
1110
- ^ -jH
:;u 'D:;UZ
:I:> tV 0
Ul .I>-
Z ~
111 0
-<
.~~
- 'J'.,'
...... N \;""
(0 0) "0 ('I
to 3: __ _:.,
,~l'" S... .~;'
;"J ,':'
(.'1 .,..\r')
.-' '>ZC ':."
pqp:
lj
if
,~
l
i
-
I
I
1
t
I
o
o
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RECEIVFfV'i; v Ci_EFi'
Mayor and Common Council:
Re:
Resolution of Intention,
Resoluti~ tM~ ~_~~ :41
We as property owners on San Felipe Road, San Bernardino protest
being included in the Resolution of Intention for an Assessment
to recover cost for improvement made to Waterman Avenue between
Baseline Street and Interstate 10 Freeway for the following
reasons:
1. Waterman Avenue is a main through street which all the
public and property owners in this city have access to
use. The cost should be shared by everyone living in
this city if an assessment is implemented.
2. San Felipe Road is an adjacent street to Waterman Avenue
in need of the basic street services that have been
denied, ignored or both for years. Since San Felipe
Road became a part of the City of San Bernardino it has
been a continuous battle to receive services and street
repairs that most resident streets automatically
receive. We must call and request:
a. Street cleaner services, street light repair
and replacements.
b. Repave and black top to street, requested three
years ago, still waiting.
c. City assistance to make vacant lot landowners,
Pine Tree and Arbor apartment owners,
continuously keep their properties cleared of
debris, junk furniture etc., which is an
eyesore to our street.
d. Curbs and gutters, which we were willing to pay
for.
3. It is ironic to ask the property owners and taxpayers on
San Felipe Road to be included in this formation of
assessment district when our basic street services and
repairs have not been fulfilled
4. The majority of the property owners on San Felipe Road
are senior citizens on limited income.~ ~ ~
SinCerely,~~/~
If? / ~ 1-+R4
fJ rf-ff5-06-33
.
.
o
o
<
_ _______ _ {ft;~_(?~_hJ)",,/~~/_':L'iJJ P (J () ()
q,hAL! ~ / q q Al_ ____
REGF!\"-''"'''
E~i--___.__ .~-- ------
---_.- ..-- --- --- ~-_._--_.. ----_.,',-.- ---..------------.--- - ..- -------------_...._---_.----~-
_____ ___ 'z1~tY/J.I!A-->.Lt,-~i/-y<J-~~-~-v-j-.J~tB.fA~~6 A9 :l6
_______ _ {LL'!2~,,{J_~ ---- ------------ _ --------------
"':!::_ c8~_~_~-'I2-.V"-':U r______ -----
.-----.---------..---. ---- - ---.-....--------.-----
I
-------------- -------.-. ------- -- --_._- -- -- ---- .--- -- - -
II
___ :1b:;_~"",-_'0-'.!-._ ~~-'1-~t..~~ fL_~ ,;.-!-.'
!
---- ---un-moot ---------- ----. - -- ----- -.---- ----- - - --- -- -------
_ _ ___ __ _ _ V ~XQ.~ ~.J:b&.~~'1-~~-~~T-- - -- - ----
,___________[~~-~")P.9.?-~ 'fl--- ___u__ ---------------
[.----------- _ _ ---- -- ---- _ ----------------- ----- -- - ----
,_ _ __ ___ ~~~.L4-~-~-~#~<<'h<~L~ ----
1__ __fn~~w~-~~--~-/~-..w-.u.~-~- -~----
l__________~. ___________ _u_ n__ -- -- _ --------- _ --- --- - __d' -- - - -------- -- - ----- ---- - -----
1_ --- - ~~~-~~L-h~~~-~-~r-~-~------
I ________~~-~::-4 r-:::=~/,,::<t--.~-:::--~--- _n_ ------
i- n___ - m_118~_~ - _u_~- -- ----- - --1'- - __-<MW'__~__~- L> -----
I
i -- """I>'JR.A:h'Y>!Y~-~'- ---
:] - ---- .. - .
.,
,
1
j -
,
I
I -
I
I
,
i
i
r-----
,
tl~_ _~ ..w,~_~ ho<2_ _'10. 4- ~~~..Ji..~~~L----
..24-4_~_~ :JIi.--""t-~...w ~"YW :J.4,,_~ .-....,..j~-~ ~- ~----
h~~_J:1;vw. _ _____ __n _ --- - -- - -- ----
_____. ____ _..._n________._____________.__ -- ----- ,-------- ------- -
I--
I
i
l
,
..9)._;...)~>", ~;Pf lJ.Av.u.Jn..).~~~~'h~'~H'
=~+rv&~'M'u#'~ un - - _u__
..9~_~_..:.&_nAI<AMl_~
'..~4~~.
~ ~~_~___u______
.
rn----
d3' a....,;fl .
__~__._.~u
_u_________~--- ---- --- --
d.# -tJ j2' ,
u_vr~ _ L~m______
.~-.-~ .:- ----r- ~---- - 0---- _:_~_n_ -- - -- ~-O - -- --~--':-:+-+-l
-- -~:1t_~iii~=:HA~Qg; Jt~D-_n~orimo~-:nrbU.leLl:. ---~: ~----~~-------jlJ.--iJ:=r:-
: -lhdfll;lt---~AIJ-\'q~~M.O;~{>- -- - -- - --~-;: '1--,.---1-.
__ -1IJ~~T-!-lt- - '\0">_ __ _ ~ - - - --- -, ---- --- l-i- , -
I +-__" _: _~ ~_ __ _~ _, ,___ _ . -- _ ---- -- ---- REC5~IV_'~,- I 't~fl-! -
; -~+ J-~-- 1-0";0 ,-- TO' - ~- -'{ - - X T'E: T - -- - -f~R -~ ~9-~fl6-i
-~--~st~~i-n~~!3€illf:~~!;;- ~N- i~ - G:RW~ ~--~'
_ _rr~J:l1r~--lDi~ stR.EET :1"_ L..!ve Ot.,),_WH!eH,~-..s ., '
, t 1 ' . .
:"~AI.,4e:Y- ,VL€.W A\lE"bJLl6,. J:.s . SLtS.sr~JJOAR.PANOT .
. LH.'" -- . .' E .
. J__;.BT___t__l)'lQ./N1'AitJW ,..WITtLVE.R'teOOR D-M1N.fl61-I-j---~..
.~_~. -r-t::.! _fB.. OQYC~S - 1+_ ne,..YDDl.E ,OR JHOJiLL J..liIlE. ,tt"~I~~1a\
J3 ___iF~jl____wjOE _QWn_A.OO,f'g;rJ..,Q~&----,€AJ.6.8-Y_ TlmE':_~___:
n___ 1_II_L~g8-.tNS.- n'_ . __ n . _un . __n niL.--i-n-'..
~ I i I I : i i i ;
,'_ +11i,nl----j- ---f------ . . ' ,- . --- -------' n n -- 4 ,ulm, .
~_ _ '.__:__I-~-I-nf2S:&B"tf'f10~ OF llti:SeJ~.b_,...P,"J.(_JS__eFtB.ecJ...1 +-t-~--
__ -L__IS!Y_mS,~E-.s_...... _ n________ ._n .'._n._ .. -" - on . --I--J.--
n_'. ~_J_:_j___ 'nO~J()~5.l:l.1QOO()---------------- -. -----,- n"--r-----
-~~-.-t~_:~t-T~~-__-_g-~~~%%~;~-~%g~-n n_ -- -' .- ---n-_'_:__
. ___.1-__ _,..
-~-. -_..--.- _._.-_._-.._-....~.---..-!"'.._----
.--. -,-----. .- - ~ _.-
- -+...---.
- . . '..1-...- ~ .--
-1-.-..-
...-_~_____lik ,+~~'lj/~Q, n:m
_1083 ,lkllt.'i_0:lftO'm .n'
8~n()QWAI.J>J~T~:-. ._m,m
QA'+tJ6
,
,----r.----
- .-.-.--.... ,.- --...-- -----_..'- -~-_._._._..-._-.
i
, .
.- ;----1- -.c --....
-. - --- - -. -... ..- -- -. .. - -. ., -_. -~. --.. -..
,
---~- --+----L.-1--m~. -.+---.-...-
.,_____l U'+_
- -.. - ..- - ---~ . --; .-. . --... - -
- . _d__'. ~ ._ ,. -.. - -
! I '
, ' ,
, . .
.j----
I
'- - ~ - ~
....._,_._. , . i
.c
,
-f'
, i
. ,
;...- -,..
.--.. .. .. - r- .
-:. -- ,--+ r
m _j_
.,
,
o
o
"
April 3, 1992
RFCF'\lC~,J"'ry 1',1 ", ~','
I _ _.' ,., ,t, ,,', '_'."'" r
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 9 :46
Re: Parcel (s) /3' -J./,;//':"t76
Local: -,;h~/tff~- f/~~7~
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
k&~
Property Owner
.y /11 f-z.--
Property Owner
mmo
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECEI\lCI!J"rv r~LEF"
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 9 :46
Re: Parcel(s) /3t---+,zz-tJ'7
/3~ -~Z7-or
Local:
..:h~/~,,f- )-"~~;r~ .
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
.
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
Property Owner
Property Owner
mmo
o
o
~~ ?/olJ~ St"
~ ~'tt.. ,,,,,"-
April 3, 1992 ,
RECE!'VCr,,',! y ,ilH,"
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
./
'92 ,~PR -6 A 9 :46
Re: Parcel (s) O~<J()17;'o/"()oC>t>
Loca 1 :
~o4
.
';)/ O^I.fJ ~ r- sf..
I
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. rMy Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for m~ny years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new 9rowth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and hi9hways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
,,- " ...
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment. of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
D.~ ~d
Property Owner
1?~ 7rl~
Property Owner
mmo
..
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECE!\!PH~'li '~I EPi':
Mayor and Common Co~ncil
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 9 :46
Re: Parcel(s) /3~~f''?~P7
Local: ;J/l~ /4 t?'5 j'~ ~,..t:.'7~
I am writin9 to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my properiy's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibilitj as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that al)ow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. it is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
~m':Yfr4
r~y ner
4 (,(9"Y
Property Owner
mmo
o
o
.
April 3, 1992
RECE\\!~:i")._(" '. : (iFFi'
'92 APR -6 A 9 :46
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Parcel (s) /"':ftt-t/.1 :J.-tl/
Local :"",,1d'.d-/Y~.5 k'1:r-~h~~
I am writing to protest the a~sessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existin9 residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
.
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Dur property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
t ~Jv.-<-
rope;'}y Owner . h r _
bt? ,,;>>~->H-~
Property Owner
mmo
/
DAVID L. SHANE
4618 TAM O'SHANTER DRIVE
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362
RFr' fei ",
.('i',()' ('l..Ef;r<
April 3, 199;92 APr7 -6 A 9 :54
Ms. Rachel Krasney
City Clerk
300 North "0" Street
San Bernadino, CA 92418
Re: Waterman Avenue
Landscaping Assessment
AP#: 135-143-12
Dear Ms. Krasney:
Please be advised that we are OPPOSED to
the formation of a landscaping assessment
district along Waterman Avenue.
The assessment would place an unnecessary
financial burden on our property. We have
nearly completed our small building project,
and City mandated costs and fees have already
made this proj ect questionable from an
economic standpoint.
In the Los Angeles Times today it was
reported that the loss of jobs was six times
greater than previously believed. If you
continue to impose costs and fees on the
commercial sector, more enterprises will look
elsewhere for their locations.
Very truly yours,
~4/~
DAVID L. SHANE
DLSjjs
1
, I.... ..... ".
/ ?"
..k~k{. .
~~ ..~...
'/1Ij",-}~U#Ki&HI~4'Vf~~
dlMf~+~4'I!~Md!
~ ;f/I/"#~bI';j1~~ ~mdk~ /f
,lIttE#IIiIt~~em~~$WbI/ Ht~ /~
~~.acI"'~Ifl4'''>M..G#~1fItMIiiir....
W~ ~f1J:1M #I~ ' .1#4iI~hlb
~~ ~dIII/~l!~ ~~ ;t/lf!.wd~
.fifJd !w!~1vt"~/!#~1;~;', ,Ji;$UItt 9tH/!
1~1f1tff1!~'~,4~~4i"'l //tIP
A#4 Jt,!hIflml~ 1t4!t~#f1ti /k. ~/h~~
@t/4I!/"'tuit)$I:Itf~:(1II1J~~1hf. >;,;~
Yt(ttf Afff/It.I!i/! 4J/~~itlHt4. ~.
, ~ ~1
~~" :. ~ / ~~~"'~~~
, 0- I"
cO
( .-
0:
t~ :?
L0
~ ~
0::
~~~)-J .A ( Le'C/{ s 0
2- SOIl /$.dtk JJ i/t'}tLarJ a ~z. 3'i6
"2r~ /1; 1'19z
rr h (l/'1) ~(p~ 08 ~-z
1l.M/?&j fl~ ~ V2~~~ ~70-;#yfi-l~~~,
~: ~~~~~ /!R~ ~ 9Z-J-/7;?ttt,.JZ.,iff2..
~du:xJ ztrJ;rvj;nPf/ I~
J U./M'iY /It't /tIa/lf ~ ~ y ~,~~ It-d a tad~;...
tb cp,.;& f/R~ ;I",&(,d,~.A If fa,.. ./?jY~ f7'y~
)..U1wh..CP"~~ ~"!~t YcJ~ ~.&~ fM( ;~~f
/J!Iy ~JI t~ t() tx. th ~ :/01{1,'0 Y' f- t/I~
fn -d ~ W~C~,. ~ 1'vJ>~ Lei,"> 1M ~ v-..QK/T5
N1Q (rYI., W~
f d H4 "",- ,,;,gJ A- d cA-J Z, ,de J
afl!<Ue0J ~ ~ /(,- d eM rut~:..P ~+ 14 J
U Vv$ (;.e^,~ ~""-,
, (j3Jj C0Yt ~ ~ C'U;"M4 i ffz-~ ~ tll~ I
M tk ~ &tdw' ,.u~ ~ (of:)/?'-&... tt ~ i i/at_U:~
~ ~a;>wvP r; a. 51 ~ lIU't: {ntt /JoJd/c{an5itdfJi't'~-a,Jb~
w ~o (lCt ~ tfp iacran~,
c!) l(k~ tk CJJiz to,~ ~ t~ !Pa-IF~ OW' ao Y t4.
projw~ W 1{~~t:I..) Ik<to-/(Ff?.-IC"fCf-IC 7C 1!"z/Jt !t'a~i4><-4.{Lw
~fn
A. D /O(!)()
t~~) () ;pv,'~
.
LICENSE NO.
74600 A, B & C Z1
INCORPORATED
1942
ONADIMA
MCCain Inc.
Engineers. Contractors
OFFICE
280 SOUTH LENA ROAD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
TELEPHONE (714) 885.3435
TELECOPIER (714) 889-3706
YARD
635 TENNIS COURT LANE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
March 13, 1992
POST OFFICE BOX 6444
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. 92412.6345
city of San Bernardino
300 North "D"S treet
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
Dear Ms. Krasney:
AI
'" en
N (:-..
."
~ -'I
:-i::;"
AJ .-'
.... , ,
0"-
-0 -,
~
(n -.....1
<1
U1
Attention: Rachel Krasney
City Clerk
Reference: proposed Assessment District
Boundary Map No. 1000
This is to serve as an official protest concerning the above
referenced assessment.
I understand the assessment is for landscaping Waterman Avenue
from Baseline to Interstate 10. Why aren't the boundaries equal
on both sides of Waterman Avenue. It seems that you are
discriminating against city owners on the east side of Waterman
Avenue.
You say the estimate cost is $299,679.00 for the first year.
What is the estimate cost from thereafter. Our office is shown
in red, on the enclosed boundary map. Our address is 280 South
Lena Road. I do not understand why we are landscaping streets
when we should be maintaining the streets we already have. Lena
Road is in dire need of repair. It is checker-board from one
end to the other.
When we landscape something, we need to maintain it forever. For
instance, constant trimming, water, spraying, fertilizing, etc.
Landscaping Waterman Avenue does not benefit us in any way. If
our property was adjacent to Waterman Avenue, the landscaping and
the new road would probably increase the value and make a nice
entrance to San Bernardino from the freeway. But it is about
time the city realizes it is taxing people out of San Bernardino.
Please advise me as to what the cost will be after the first year
and every year thereafter.
Very truly yours,
,~.#
William W. Bonadiman
President
WWB:jw
enc. A__~...._~ L.. A__..__~
AII.RlCA PIIOG..... THROUGH COIIITRUCTION ~ ..., ~
~ ~ I ~~
tt...l ".,
0 <( ~ ~ i!
0 fi~i~
Q It! u
0 Z ~ e~
~ i ~c
Z I z
I&.;"'c'"
a. o i ~i
<[ ~ ~I
~ >0: ..J
t-f
I ,- r ul!:
~
.. ~
<[ i ~
o~L D
~ III
~C[qU I
@p-~I l
a:()
a.ii:d
~ u I
en . !
- I I
0 ..
i I
~ I
Z ! .1
~ p'
~ .,
G 51
en Ih
~ om c::-
en I !-I
en ~ I I
<[
I:fl'f .~I
";, ,':1
"p . ~ E~
'I I' .,
II '"I~~ ~ ~ ~ RECBVED
,'j"l' .
d,i!~~. ~ ! ~. ~
u .
!. MAR 13 1992
'1'-1=1 ~ ~ I
I Ii.' OJ
i'IMp ,. BONADIMAN
E'
.,
'"
gUiwi !I I}
h
'''IlIJ
ADIMAN
MCCain Inc.
Engineers. Contractors
posr OI'FICE BOX 6444
SAN BERNARDINO, CAUF 92412
CIlwn)>o
)>oOHt-3
ZOt-3t-3
><:Z
t::I:1Z ..
t>Joo
::t1::t1"J::t1
Zt-3 )>0
)>oO::CIln
::t1 )>00::
o = Z t>J
HO t<
Z = tll
o t>J:>;i
- CIl::t1::t1
t-3Z)>o
n::t1)>oCll
)>ot>J::t1Z
. t>JO t>J
t-3H><:
Z-
'" 0
'" n
... H
..... t-3
00 ><:
n
t<
t>J
::t1
:>;i
'"
m 0
l~~. ~
" 0
'"
iiI ;::
)>
5' z
-i" 0. ;::
~"'ti:"
.~ ~ ~'; ';A
\ J~: " .'
'to /,-.,';'< ..' ""J
~"
o
LlfJ2l)-C~
. """I
"<41
~ Auf I ;1'lfO
.
Ms>. Kelley Poole
Real Property Section of the Department of the Public Worka
Ci ty Hall
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
March 12, 1992
-Re:Resobution No. 92-81.
Dear Ms Poole:
I think it is nice that they are trying to make the city nicel:.
Naybe too li t tle too 1 ate.
I think the cost iso a bit high to poor people w.ho own homea. lorn.
are older people who own homes on a limi ted income and some
people are the working poor. Could other money be used, like
gas tax or other sources?
Maybe you could spread the cost over a wider area of the city.
A nicer waterman wenue makes the whole city of San Bernardino
look better.
ThankSq;r.
:7 k1/uJ
c~
Thorn as COy
272 East Olive Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92410-37}}
.
o :>
.
St. paul.Af,.ican met~oJi:Jt Gpi:Jcopal C~U,.c~
1355 WEST 21st STREET · SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92411
PHONE (714) 887-1718 - CHURCH · (714) 887-6RtttKMr~Rr' "I ~iJ~
RT. REV. VINTON R. ANDERSON, Presidi", Bislwp DR. EDW AJID P. WILLIAMS, Pr.sidi", Elder
REV. CHARLES BROOKS, Pastor 92 I~AR 20 P 2 : 19
March 18, 1992
Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino CA 92418
Dear Ms. Krasney:
This letter is in response to your letter, dated March 10,
1992, pertaining to Resolution #92-81. The third paragraph states,
"... and $31.34/$ 16.21 (a total of $ 47.55) for property not
adjacent to Waterman Avenue; the construction assessment will ter-
minate after five (5) years."
St. Paul A.M.E. Church owns a parcel of vacant land approxi-
mately 1/2 or more miles away for Waterman Avenue and the proposed
improvements will not increase the value of our parcel. Moreover,
only those who will benefit from the property along Waterman Avenue
are property owners. Your notice also recommends landscape improve-
ments should be assessed.
I highly recommend churches/Non-profit Agencies in t e area
referred to in your letter stated above and Resolution 92 81 be
exempted from recommended assessments.
Thanks for your cooperation.
God Our Father
Christ Our Redeemer
Man Our Brother
_ "4:',-,;
'.
,
..
i .~
,
i
I
I
L~~ ,_ ~_.._:
."
i''\
t
~.- \
...""l _~'1
f
;
..I<:
i-l
Q) (Xl
.-l .-l
U 0 ....
I': N
:>'-.-1 +' en
+,'OQ)
-.-I i-l Q)
UI1li-l~
I':+'U
. i-l Ul
:>, Q) 0
Q)~ I':
I': Cl -.-I
<Il 1':' '0
I1lI1l i-l
i-lUl..c:11l
::<: +'1':
....i-li-l
.-lOOQ)
Q) Z~
..c::>,
0+'01':
11l'.-IO I1l
Il::UMUl
(c-
~
,,;.
~ "
i
--...~----.,- w
~
~ i
~
~~~
~e~
~~~
~~~
,,:g~
~~r::l
~~
~ ~
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECEI\'FnJ~r!; CL i=Fr
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :58
Re: parcel{s)
~\
Local: //)/5' ~
,
~L
~IIJ_
I am writing to protest the a~sessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment. of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the loma
linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
i~ ,.fiA/~
P operty Owner
Property Owner
mmo
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECEFn'i
v rLE~!
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :58
Re: Parcel (s)
Local:
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that allow and deem legal the payment'of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses,I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
P operty Owner
mmo
.
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECEI'F, " Y i~!Eh r
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :58
Re: Parcel (s)
L 0 c a 1: 3 ~5 k,. (!.errtuJ Av f'A'I u..1.J
I am writin9 to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenu'e~
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my.property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the'establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment'of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Lorna
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community; In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
,S1~'~:' 1 n-1L-
~/{ Ii W~
roperty Owner
Property Owner
mmo
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECEI\<IP..r,!f' ,'UJr
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North 'Do Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :59
Re: Parcel(s)
Local: 11({' ~ 4t. .~~M/l44
I am writin9 to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person enterIng the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment-of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
UA
wner ('vh<-o)
),..U-..- ~~
roperty Owner (!;-~)
Sincerely,
mmo
o
o
375 E. Central Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Aprll 3, 1992
Mayor and Common'Council
City of San Bernardino
CHy Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'.\
RECEI'JITIJ'!'f\ !'I. ;or. I"
c
'92 . APR -6 AS:59
. (' ~ ..-
, .. -:.,
Re: Parcel 0280-131-16-0-000
Local:
375 E. Central Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92408
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usua11y established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
o
o
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is' a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that allow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need f~r improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the loma
linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make .Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no Jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
(fJ::e;; ,
Oscar W. erstreet
Property Owner
~t~O~@~i~ r
Property Owner.
OWO/mmo
(
o
o
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
376 Norman Road
San Bernardino, CA 92408
April R~eEI~P~?"!:r i'! FFr
'92 P,PR -6 A 8 :58
Re: Parcels 0136-412-21
0136-412-18
0136-412-19
0136-412-20
0280-141-01
0280-141-10
0280-141-11
local: 376 Norman Road, San Bernardino, CA 92408
I am writin9 to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the 9uidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existin9 residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowin9 improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
o
o
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and"yet they pay no assessment fee!
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that allow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brDught about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers. .
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
SinCerelY~cJ ~~
Myrtle L. Overstreet
Property Owner
MLO/mmo
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECE"Jfil" 1"1" Gi~f:I(
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :59
Re: Parcel (s)
Local: :588~, f~Jffvz.l k '3M... &-'vldA~~
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when p.vperty is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment'of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the loma
linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
1h~ . ~~
prope~ 0 ner (-1>>w)
i~z:.
Property Ow ~}
mmo
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECEi\/c.n :.,.! rLEF,'
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :59
Re: Parcel (s)
Local: ~ 1d1j '51-. ~11. '&.-~
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment. of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
Id0./;;/i<
Property er (M;...6)
~~~ f~
Property Owner ~~.)
mmo
261 through 279
San Bernardino,
01~4040000
01:JlJl.l.4050000
0135144060000
0135144070000
0135143170000
0135143180000
East Kingman Street
CA 92410
-
Re: Parcels No.
....,;
RECE!VU)
October
(' I v 1'1 r:r;..
,,1'1
4, 1992
'92 APR -6 A 9 :25
Mayor and Common Council of San Bernardino
300 North D. Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Mayor and Members of the Common Council:
We wish to protest against the passage of your pending
Resolution No. 92-81.
This resolution would form an Assessment District for maintainance
of landscapes and facilities on Waterman.Avenue.
It is unfair to have property owners subsidizing services for which
users should pay. Residents and businesses of San Bernardino and
surrounding cities use Waterman Avenue more than,,,we1;do.
Our home and low-income rentals are a half block away from Waterman.
We rarely travel Waterman because it is hard to get on from East
Kingman. The traffic is too heavy.
It is discriminatory to force at random some homeowner's to pay
and others to be exempt.
IT IS UNFAIR TO HAVE PROPERTY OWNER'S SUBSIDIZING SERVICE FOR WHICH
USERS SHOULD PAY.
Why don't you make
who use it pay for
..
Waterman Avenue " A Toll Road, and let people
it.
Sincerely,
~I? ):L1t~//rdJ
t(Lov ~ ~~
0 "
0 ......
" 0
:l
rt
'< i<l
..
0 "
~ ::r
<1> <1>
... ~
l'I"
~
...
.. en w g,~
01 .. 0
:l :l 0 '<
<1> eno
'< te Z .. ...
. <1> 0 :l
... ... :>:
:l rt teo
.. ::r<1> ~
... ... "
l>ot:l:l 0
..... .. 3
:l ... C-
O en l>o
rt .....
... :l :l
0 <1> 0 '"
:>- <1>
rt 0
0
'" ~
N
.po 0
f-O :l
CO
0
0
"
:l
"
...
~
0
en N .. c..,
.. ..... :l 0
:l '" l>o ::r
:l
te Mte
<1> .. <1> '"
... 01 ... ..
:l rt :l rt
.. ..... ...
... ~ " ...
l>o ... <1> "
"':l l'I"
:lQQ te
o 3 <1> '"
.. ~ ..
:l ~ ~
0 <1> ~
:>- en ..
rt "'<
"'... .. ..
N<1> ~:l
.po <1> ~
f-Ort ..
0 <
..
:l
~'
o
o
RECel'I':C; ", r'i ,'I c-,
. L!I,~!'-~....;:. :__~r'
'92 APR -6 A 8 :50
April 2, 1992
CTIY OF SAN BEllNARDOO
300 North "11' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Reso1uticn of Intenticn, Reso1uticn No 92-81
Gent1€!11!Il:
As _ ___ of ".:,,!""- ly liable to be assesSErl 1anlscaping median strips an:! parlGiays of
Waternan Avenue between Baseline an:! no Freeway, I wish to register a protest against the proposed
~ an:! lll'Pinst the extent of the district to be assesSErl.
We are the taxpayers ..m paid the cost in the first place, that yoo are :recx:JVI!ring by additicna1
taxes. If the ",.lL..,JCe to the city of San Bernardino is to be a cre:lit to AlL of the city, tren AlL
of the city slntld be taxed an:! rot just adjacent properties. The "L"I"'Lty I have interest in is
Mill an:! Waternan, flCUt:Msst =. (SOl Sooth Waternan). The nmian strip is a cooble curb, approx.
100 Ft. of traffic hazard. I do rot think the p.lblic tlu:'ough-'Ways are better served by cantirua1
b1ockage-detoors in order to do IIIlintenance.
IA1e to the present recessicn, "':v!,,,,- If va1U!s are looered. fkJw U1e yoo serving us by increasing
taxes for 5alEthing that is rot necessm:y1
Sincerely,
~kwv~~"
o
I~
..~
j
.
-
~ ~ ~
~ ~ Iil
~ . ~
~ i i
\0 ~ g
~
~
.
o (Ptd '~<J
My par6el numbers are:~028002109000~~280-131-12, 13,14)
RECEI\icn r:1r y rl.tf;,
4/3/92
'92 APR -6 A 8 :50
Dear Rachel Krasney,
I strongly object to havina taxes raised for improvements
on Waterman Ave. between Baseline and Interstate 10 Freeway.
It is my understanding that business in the area is down, and
further taxation costs would have to be passed on to the tenants
by the owners. The mayor and city council must be out of touch
with the realities of our very depressed economy to be raising
taxes at this time for frivolous improvements.
Any moneys spent in San Bernardino should be spent on safety
tn our streets, shopping malls, and most of all our neighborhoods.
Until our streets and neighborhoods can be made safe and attract
working class people, virtually no business will come into this
community.
I am including a picture of two homes with graffiti on them as
pictured in the Sun Newspaper. These two homes happen to be located
across the street from my personal residence. We have been
awakened by
gunshots, shootings in the street etc.. Gangs are
~ (.83)
I am ~three years old and refuse to be driven
everywhere.
out. Do you think that I want my money spent on my wife and my
personal safety or for beautiful but unsafe steets? Wake-up city
government to what our problems really are. Incidently, the
graffiti in the picture was reported to police by our neighbors
and they were told that there was no money to clean it up.
mIL ~ M"....L fU"i- 5" J("I
Sincerely,
~
1:Lt.? .../..,~....... ~. s:g
0280-131-12 /3 '4 14.40-54
I , ~*b:J..g-{)OJ.I.9~
LEONARD PINE
1267 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92405
11____ _,
"01....1.1.1","....",..1..11.1.",,11 '.1.".111
- -
~
~
rIJ.
It
l=
~
rIJ.
=
,.
QJ
o
.-.
;:;k "
QJ ;,
C:,S.
o
.:
o
,
<Jl
.
~
f-
a:
w
:;
~ . ~
o ~
~ ~
~ ~ I
U5
z I
'"
t--
'"
~I
'"
E
o
.c
"
'"
c
o
"
c
'"
~
'"
c
o
"
'"
E
-iii
"-
;:
'"
C3
~"
~~~~
~ ~~ ('
~ k k ~
l <[~
~ij~~
)J
~ ~
.
'....,J
}
~u
i~
J~~
~
~
"<:.
ll.
~
I~
C,/)
f'T1
)>
N'
r1
I
.
o
o
375 E. Central Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92408
April 3, 1992
_ ,....'.1 V t'\ i=~f"
RECE\V~iI, ' -
"92 ~pp -6 A 8 :56
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Parcels 0136-412-21
0136-412-18
0136-412-19
0136-412-20
0280-141-01
0280-141-10
0280-141-11
Local: 375 E. Central Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92408
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility,of the
existing residential property owners of this area td pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy int~ such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
o
o
I believe the proposed assessment district. No. 1000, is. a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person ente.ring the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that allow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
Cfty has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make ~aterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
~lY'
Oscar (J~
Property Owner
,
/) ~~Z:<jr
~~te G. ~rstreet
Property Owner
OWO/mmo
.
o
o
540 Pioneer Street
San Bernardino. CA 92408
Apr ilRECf!\~Jt9_~I! 'I~LEFr
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A8 :56
Re: Parcels 0280172090000
0280172080000
0280162150000
Local: 540 Pioneer Street. San Bernardino. CA 92408
Formerly: 24336 Pioneer Street. San Bernardino. CA 92408
I am writin9 to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 1. 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First. I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has. therefore. suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property. new homes to
be built. and new growth. beautification. or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second. improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they. therefore. should buy into such a
program. Again. it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third. it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore. responsible for payment of fees. I
believe the proposed assessment district. No. 1000. is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure. in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
.
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District.. I further demand written proof of
statutes that allow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business. and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a ~oll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
~~rf!: -B~
Property Owner
ECG/mmo
..1'".... ...
o
o
540 Pioneer Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
April 3 1992
R~CEI",:r' "'0,' ('I r:r
t,i Y ",'- , :,Lt,:r<t~
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Parcels 0280172090000
0280172080000
0280162150000
'92 APR -6 A 8 :55
Local: 540 Pioneer Street, San Bernardino, CA 92408
Formerly: 24336 Pioneer Street, San Bernardino, CA 92408
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second. improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees. I
believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
. order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make .Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
Essie C. Green
Property Owner
,~vJ.~ , /? ~ > A-
ECG/mmo ~ti. ~ ~ l. ' /~ ~
"
~ .~. "",- "-.C^ i.......
o
o
374 Norman Road
San Bernardino, CA 92408
April 3, 1992
RfW\'ICnur:!!\ CIEFi
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
.
'92 APR -6 A 8 :57
Re: Parcels 0136-412-21
0136-412-18
0136-412-19
0136-412-20
0280-141-01
0280-141-10
0280-141-11
Local: 374 Norman Road, San Bernardino, CA 92408
I am writin9 to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the 9uidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue. '
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existin9 residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
o
o
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that allow and deem legal the payment of assessment
~ees levied against resi~ents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and.
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
,
.
o
o
April 3, 1992
RE('F"/C:> J',', \'1 Fr.
. .J~.! \I '.. :,..:' ;,,'" .. ... '.. ..:' r
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :57
I am writin9 to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the 9uidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment-of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
~AKJa.- iff<
Property wner
Property Owner
mmo
-.
o
o
267 E. Central Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 9240B
April 3, 1992
RECE!V<7~, f',r y 'UP;
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Parcels 0136-412-21
0136-412-18
0136-412-19
0136-412-20
0280-141-01.
0280-141-10
0280-141-11
"92 APR -6 A 8 :57
Local: 267 E. Central Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92408
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
--
o
o
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that allow and deem legal the payment of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
Lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the Loma
Linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
Crty has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us,. property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blig~ted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements 1n a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
s~~cerely, ), . j_:- /)
~(}{I{) ver~~~/l~j/ --
Property wner
GLO/mmo
o
o
April 3, 1992
R..... CEI"f-n r.'" ."1 -~
t: .. Y',I-; II r : . J:Y I"
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 A 8 :58
Re: Parcel (s)
Local: j<7l<k 'Pi,.-')fI1..t' 5P, <...f .
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment"of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the loma
linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this c~mmunity. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whosr property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will be ome
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this communi y as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low i come,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
T/YYI ~;JL ?~o/
Property Owner
-E,
Property Owner
mmo
April 3, 1992
RECEIVfn!)"1 Y'\E~'
'w. APR -6 A 8 :58
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Parcel (s)
Local: i..?'i L-\ ?\O)I...l.E-!-~ S+_
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
businesses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
. -
o
o
April 3, 1992
RECE1\1~'n-r"! I-F'
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
'92 APR -6 11.8:57
Re: Parcel (s)
Local: /t?6 Pm~~~.e~ J;B:,,' C..o-L,
I am writing to protest the assessment proposed by the City
Council under the guidelines outlined in Proposed Assessment
District Boundary Map No. 1000 passed by a Resolution of
Intention on March 2, 1992. My home is located within this
proposed assessment district as a single family residence
not situated on Waterman Avenue.
First, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the
existing residential property owners of this area to pay for
improvements on Waterman Avenue. My Property and the area
in which I live has been in a "hold" pattern for many years
because the City was permitting Norton Air Force Base to
expand. My property has, therefore, suffered from the City
disallowing improvements to property, new homes to
be built, and new growth, beautification, or economic growth
in the area to flourish which resulted in drastic reduction
of my property's value and the value of my home.
Second, improvements to streets and highways generally is
made by the developer when property is developed. In addition,
busineSses or property owners located directly on the
thoroughfare are the primary benefactors of such
improvements and they, therefore, should buy into such a
program. Again, it is not my responsibility as a resident
to pay for improvements to Waterman Avenue.
Third, it is my understanding that an assessment district is
usually established so that a group or limited number of
people are the direct benefactors of such improvements
and are therefore, responsible for payment of fees.
I believe the proposed assessment district, No. 1000, is a
misuse of Assessment District procedure, in as much as any
person entering the City by way of Waterman Avenue has use
of this roadway and yet they pay no assessment fee!
o
o
I demand a public rationale regarding the establishment of
this Assessment District. I further demand written proof of
statutes that alJow and deem legal the payment'of assessment
fees levied against residents for improvements on a public
thoroughfare.
Fourth, any need for improvement has been brought about by
the City's approval to permit the commercial, business, and
residential expansion and development in the Hospitality
lane area and the increase in traffic coming from the loma
linda, Grand Terrace, Colton, Redlands, Reche Canyon and
Highland areas where many new homes have been built. The
City has made Waterman Avenue a major thoroughfare for all
traffic and not just for the benefit of this community. In
order for the City to recover their costs and expenses, I
propose they make Waterman Avenue a toll road so everyone
helps to bear the cost, not just this community. It is
unfair to assess us, property poor people, whose property
has suffered from a deliberate and planned lack of
development. Our property has become blighted and unsightly
as the result of the city disallowing improvements.
Furthermore, other city residents do not get saddled with
paying for improvements that should be financed by tax
dollars and/or developers.
I protest this assessment and ask that the Mayor and Council
look for other ways to pay for these improvements in a more
equitable manner. In addition, no jobs will become
available to persons in this community as a result of this
assessment district. It will merely raise taxes and add
taxes unfairly to the residents in this community as one
segment of the City, particularly in this low income,
blighted area.
Sincerely,
~/dU
Property Owner
Property Owner
mmo
, ~ ~ - tJ
~ \ - - t~ ~ J ~ ~
~n r f. f~-1~~~ "
:- '~ ~ ,,-
.~:!Ii 't l t ~l fl ')-~- '.
I r ;!; ~ -' . "' '. ~
rl' , ~ , '- ' ~
, Ih I ,t r ~ -\ ' ~ 'l ~ _ '~
!:rs ~r~, \
- ,~~' ,.,
'{ ~ t ~ ~~. ~,
t ~~ !-', ~- lOr>
~ ,( '~1-. L '
t (f
_( I
'. t ..'
.\ .1": ' . I ~.:. .
, ~.' .
, .' . .... .
. ,.'
I . . .'~ . ~.... ,'~ ' , ..., '
.. . t ~
!' .{ \... .~.. ~ ~ .~ ... . .l . .
.. , . .. . .'.... i"", ~ f .
.~~ Cf)~~.J
,~ r ~ .~ ~ · ~ -
l
.
~~tf
~ *. '?-...~----
~. t I..:.)
~~"
- [ ~
-0l~
- (' ~
~d ~
" <: '
r '
- \l
f...\) ~
J~ ~ "'
i"" j-.,
I-
I DQ (:A --z
-~. %'
~.~
~
o
. ,~ ~
" .'i'. 11
/i'~ ;
(_ c, . ·
;:;~: .\. r
~'" ' ".' I
't'- . :r
".-
"
~
I
, '
~"~':l--
r1'~' '
f..... I
L."" 'Ill
t
~ j.
,.
,
.
-
Of
. .. "~"'. ....... , , .
. , .
. .' 0."" "~ , ,'~'~...- ;-~'.~:"-:'~-,'>':'::': :'.Q:}~~.~ ;;'~:';;,;':::',!;\~.\~.:!f~>:::""_ "
.; . .- ~ . J...
TO THE MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL:
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the inclusion of our property in
the fo~io~f assessment district -to recover costs and to order work
within t~ a~ of Waterman Avenue, between Baseline Street and Jnt~state
, 'D m
10 Freew<l,y. 0\ N Co.
c::: :-n
(
a
N
~
=:;;::
::0
~,
'.J
N
o .'")
, ,
gJZ'
J!jA-~ g,,~
L/-cJd.- SetV'\. Fell Pe 12
4- Cj,J.. S QI"\ h (I P. 12 a.
5/S' ;t./~NJ-,,J
IgtC~
~:..,:...::.. '~:'. "'~'~' ....... :.0: :....:>:~':': '.~>\:~:'~>>"~' :....,,::.;0::--.;,-:;: ~;;~:",:,,;:<'(}':::. '.. :>"" . '.'
'.,' -."
. -..-
- .. . -. -- -- -
TO THE MAYOR , COMMON COUNCIL:
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the inclusion of our property in
the formation of assessment district -to recover costs and to order work
within the area of Waterman Avenue, between Baseline Street and Interstate
10 Freeway.
DATE
NAME
R
1/
;J -1'~"7
~6()~
0-e-
~
n~ <[;tJo'i!
gg9~') ?
<
c;.
-
y Yf- 2.31-.('
~5"'VJS"~
g;-flf.5:i
S7