HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 03-12 CC MINBook 65/Page 158
3/12/85
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
March 12, 1985
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Mayor Waters.
ROLL CALL
Council members present: Cooper, Dalla, VanDeventer, Waters. Absent: Morgan.
Administrative officials present: Bolint, Campbell, Eiser, McCabe, Post, Stafford.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION
The meeting was opened with salute to the flag led by City Manager McCabe,
followed with invocation by the Rev. Michael Hanson, Paradise Valley Seventh Day
Adventist Church.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Cooper, seconded by VanDeventer, the minutes of the regular meeting of
March 5, 1985 be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
PROCLAMATION
Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla, the Proclamation be read by title only.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
"WOMEN OF ACHIEVEMENT" Week, April 1 through April 5, 1985. Moved by
VanDeventer, seconded by Cooper, the proclamation be approved. Carried by
unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
GREG BEATTY, Dir. National City Boys Club, was present to request assistance from
Council on a United Way program for indigent families; housing in the South Bay area
is needed for short periods of time; motels with kitchen facilities would be ideal;
United Way has funding for this; he is requesting Council to use their prestige to
obtain cooperation from motels within the next ten to fourteen days, otherwise they
will have to look elsewhere. Moved by Dalla, seconded by VanDeventer, this be
referred to staff to see if it is consistent wi th existing ordinances. Discussion.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The public hearing on APPEAL of the Planning Commission's approval of
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1984-34 to allow the sale of beer and wine as an
incidental use to a bona fide public eating place at 1231 Highland Avenue, Applicant
Hsiu Lan Chou (...applicant proposes to add the sale of beer and wine, Type 41
License, to an existing Chinese restaurant located on the east side of Highland
Avenue between 12th and 13th Streets and having total floor area of 2698 sq. ft. and
off—street parking at rear of building; the Police Dept. has expressed no objection to
the issuance of this license provided the conditions imposed on the previous owner
continue to be in effect; combined zoning and General Plan designation is Com mercial
General; the restaurant has been extensively remodeled, particularly the interior and
presents a very desirable dining atmosphere; staff has observed no evidence of intent
to operate a bar or cocktail lounge...) was held at this time. The City Clerk
reported the Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing were on file. No one
was present to speak in this regard. Moved by Cooper, seconded by VanDeventer, the
public hearing be closed and Planning Com mission and Police Department
recommendations be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
The public hearing on APPEAL of Planning Commission approval of CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 1984-35 to allow the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with a bona
fide public eating place at 916 East 8th Street, Suites 1 and 2 (...applicant proposes
to add the sale of beer and wine, Type 41 License, as an incidental use to his
existing restaurant; premises contain a total area of 2080 sq. ft. and is located within
the Highland View Shopping Center, west side of 8th Street east of Highland Ave.;
hours of operation are not presently regulated; Police Dept. recom mended approval of
the permit be conditioned upon the business closing at 10:00 p.m. and sale of alcohol
be incidental to sale of food...) was held at this time. The City Clerk reported the
Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing were on file. No one was present
to speak in this regard. Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Cooper, the public
hearing be closed and Planning Commission and Police Department recom mendations
be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
1.
_y •
Book 65/Page 159(R)
3/12/85
The public hearing on the ASSESSMENT ROLL for 1911 Act IMPROVEMENT of
Assessment District No. 222, 22nd Street from Prospect St. to Euclid Avenue was
held at this time. The City Clerk reported the Certificate of Publication and
Affidavit of Mailing were on file and letters of protest were received from:
2132 Euclid Avenue. ROBERT E. ONLEY, Staff Assistant, was present and displayed
a map of the exterior boundaries of District No. 222. Mr. Onley explained that the
map was of the exterior boundaries and showed the improvements to 22nd Street,
Prospect St. on the West and Euclid Avenue on the East; the dark line is the
boundary and the enhanced numbers are the assessment numbers on the lots; the
improvements included grading and paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk and sewer line
and laterals. Mr. Onley continued the total incidental costs were $11,709.00;
construction costs $72,244.88; total project costs $83,953.88; less a City contribution
of $38,854.88; for a total to be assessed of $45,099.00. Mr. Onley said he did assess
the total sum of $45,099.00 upon the several lots, portions of lots and parcels of land
in said Assessment District benefited thereby, to —wit: upon each respectively, in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said lots, portions of
lots, pieces or parcels of land, the separate assessments. Mr. Onley reported this is
a project where 75% of the area (by property owners) petitioned to take the project
for construction; this is allowed by Code, after the contract was awarded, the Code
then directs the Street Superintendent to get the contract signed; the owners provided
bonds, signed the agreement, constructed the project; the Public Works inspector
accepted the work by letter to the City Engineer; the City Engineer turned the
completed project over to the Street Superintendent. SEVE RINO LaROYA,
2209 East 22nd St., was present and said he did not know how he could address the
Council, he had written a letter (See Exhibit "A" attached); he was protesting the
amount of money which was more than he was told originally. Mr. Onley explained
that any increase in the amount of an assessment up to 20% was legal; the increase
in Mr. LaRoya's assessment was an increase of 4.8%, or $546.00. Mr. LaRoya said he
does not have much income and needed some relief; he understood the developer was
going to take 100% of the incidental expenses and his (LaRoya's) assessment included
$370.00 for bonds. Mr. Onley explained that the $370 bond charge to cover ten years
of servicing the bonds could not be assumed by anyone other than the person being
assessed for a given parcel; the developer was being assessed for the bonds against
his properties as benefit costs. ALFONSO HERNANDEZ, 2132 Euclid Avenue, was
present and insisted that his letter of protest be read in full into the record. The
City Clerk read his letter (See Exhibit "B" attached). Mr. Hernandez claimed not to
object to the cost of the assessment to him, but did object to the size of the City's
contribution which appeared to benefit the developer. Discussion. Mr. Onley
answered the following questions posed by the City Attorney: Was it your finding the
work was beneficial in a good and substantial manner? (Yes.) Was any of the work
illegally performed? (No. We did have the Council approve a change order.) Was the
assessment and diagram correct? (Yes. Only one parcel became four as a result of
a lot split which became final before the work proceeded.) No one else was present
to be heard. Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla, the public hearing be closed,
all protests over —ruled, and the assessment confirmed. Carried, by the following vote,
to —wit: Ayes: Dalla, VanDeventer, Waters. Nays: Cooper. Absent: Morgan.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla, the Resolutions be presented by title only.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Resolution No. 14,573, "RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT (22nd Street —
Prospect Street to Euclid Avenue, Assessment District No. 222)" Moved by
Van Deventer, seconded by Dalla, Resolution No. 14,573 be adopted. Carried by
unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Resolution No. 14,574, "RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT (Improvement of
Chlorine Handling Facility, Engineering Specification No. 952.)" Moved by Cooper,
seconded by Van Deventer, Resolution No. 14,574 be adopted. Carried by unanimous
vote. Absent: Morgan.
Resolution No. 14,575, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND R. W. BECK AND
ASSOCIATES FOR APPRAISAL OF STREET LIGHTING PROPERTY OF SAN DIEGO
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY." Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla,
Resolution No. 14,575 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Vice Mayor Waters called a five minute recess at 8:20 p.m. City Council reconvened
at 8:26 p.m.
Book 65/Page 159
3/12/85
The public hearing on the ASSESSMENT ROLL for 1911 Act IMPROVEMENT of
Assessm ent District No. 222, 22nd Street from Prospect St. to Euclid Avenue was
held at this time. The City Clerk reported the Certificate of Publication and
Affidavit of Mailing were on file and letters of protest were received from:
2132 Euclid Avenue. ROBERT E. ONLEY, Staff Assistant, was present and displayed
a map of the exterior boundaries of District No. 222. Mr. Onley explained that the
map was of the exterior boundaries and showed the improvements to 22nd Street,
Prospect St. on the West and Euclid Avenue on the East; the dark line is the
boundary and the enhanced numbers are the assessment numbers on the lots; the
improvements included grading and paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk and sewer line
and laterals. Mr. Onley continued the total incidental costs were $II,709.00;
construction costs $72,244.88; total project costs $83,953.88; less a City contribution
of $38,854.88; for a total to be assessed of $45,099.00. Mr. Onley said he did assess
the total sum of $45,099.00 upon the several lots, portions of lots and parcels of land
in said Assessment District benefited thereby, to —wit: upon each respectively, in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said lots, portions of
lots, pieces or parcels of land, the separate assessments. Mr. Onley reported this is
a project where 75% of the area (by property owners) petitioned to take the project
for construction; this is allowed by Code, after the contract was awarded, the Code
then directs the Street Superintendent to get the contract signed; the owners provided
bonds, signed the agreement, constructed the project; the Public Works inspector
accepted the work by letter to the City Engineer; the City Engineer turned the
completed project over to the Street Superintendent. SEVE RINO LaROYA,
2209 East 22nd St., was present and said he did not know how he could address the
Council, he had written a letter (See Exhibit "A" attached); he was protesting the
amount of money which was more than he was told originally. Mr. Onley explained
that any increase in the amount of an assessment up to 20% was legal; the increase
in Mr. LaRoya's assessment was an increase of 4.8%, or $546.00. Mr. LaRoya said he
does not have much income and needed some relief; he understood the developer was
going to take 100% of the incidental expenses and his (LaRoya's) assessment included
$370.00 for bonds. Mr. Onley explained that the $370 bond charge to cover ten years
of servicing the bonds could not be assumed by anyone other than the person being
assessed for a given parcel; the developer was being assessed for the bonds against
his properties as benefit costs. ALFONSO HERNANDEZ, 2132 Euclid Avenue, was
present and insisted that his letter of protest be read in full into the record. The
City Clerk read his letter (See Exhibit "B" attached). Mr. Hernandez claimed not to
object to the cost of the assessment to him, but did object to the size of the City's
contribution which appeared to benefit the developer. Discussion. Mr. Onley
answered the following questions posed by the City Attorney: Was it your finding the
work was beneficial in a good and substantial manner? (Yes.) Was any of the work
illegally performed? (No. We did have the Council approve a change order.) Was the
assessment and diagram correct? (Yes. Only one parcel became four as a result of
a lot split which became final before the work proceeded.) No one else was present
to be heard. Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla, the public hearing be closed,
all protests over —ruled, and the assessment confirmed. Carried by unanimous vote.
Absent: Morgan.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla, the Resolutions be presented by title only.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Resolution No. 14,573, "RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT (22nd Street —
Prospect Street to Euclid Avenue, Assessment District No. 222)" Moved by
Van Deventer, seconded by Dalla, Resolution No. 14,573 be adopted. Carried by
unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Resolution No. 14,574, "RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT (Improvement of
Chlorine Handling Facility, Engineering Specification No. 952.)" Moved by Cooper,
seconded by Van Deventer, Resolution No. 14,574 be adopted. Carried by unanimous
vote. Absent: Morgan.
Resolution No. 14,575, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND R. W. BECK AND
ASSOCIATES FOR APPRAISAL OF STREET LIGHTING PROPERTY OF SAN DIEGO
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY." Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla,
Resolution No. 14,575 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Vice Mayor Waters called a five minute recess at 8:20 p.m. City Council reconvened
at 8:26 p.m.
Book 65/Page 160
3/12/85
ROLL CALL
Council members present: Cooper, Dalla, VanDeventer, Waters. Absent: Morgan.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION (FIRST READING)
Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Cooper, the Ordinances be presented by title
only. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
"Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1831 amending Title 17 (Subdivisions) and Title 18
(Zoning) of the National City Municipal Code to establish fees and to allow for the
periodic update of fees and repealing Ordinance No. 1845."
The Finance Director's request for RATIFICATION of WARRANT REGISTER NO. 36,
dated 3/5/85, in the amount of $168,649.55 (Warrants Nos. 86867 through 86946), and
CERTIFICATION of PAYROLL for the period ending 2/28/85, in the amount of
$282,209.67 was presented. Moved by Waters, seconded by Dalla, the bills be paid
and warrants drawn. Carried, by the following vote, to —wit: Ayes: Cooper, Dalla,
VanDeventer, Waters. Nays: None. Absent: Morgan.
The APPLICATION for PERSON TRANSFER of OFF —SALE BEVERAGE LICENSE (Type
21) of ADZ H. PUTRUS, dba HIGHLAND BEVERAGE, 2111 Highland Avenue, was
presented. Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Dalla, the application be approved.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
The City Manager's recommendation of approval of the proposed agreement for
REFUNDING OF LEASE REVENUE BONDS as outlined in the letter of March 7, 1985,
of L. WILLIAM HUCK, STONE & YOUNGBERG (...it appears the City could save
approximately $790,000.00 over the next 12 years through an advance refunding of the
Parking Authority's 1982 Lease Revenue Bonds...) was presented. Moved by Dalla,
seconded by Cooper, we approve the agreem ent with the underwriter and bond
counsel. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan. Councilman Dalla said staff,
especially City Manager McCabe, should be commended. The City Manager
introduced Bill Huck who was present in the audience.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The request of OREMEN AND ASSOCIATES (architects for BAY PLAZA, south side
of Plaza Boulevard in the vicinity of "L" Avenue) for APPROVAL of CHANGE from
CRIB WALLS as approved in conjunction with Planned Development Permit, PD-4-84,
to PERMANENT SHORING WALLS due to OSHA slope requirements (...they state
that to maintain the OSHA slope along their east property line required cutting into
the adjacent property; and to maintain the slope adjacent to "L" Avenue extension
will require the removal of an existing water main which the Sweetwater Authority
will not allow them to do; in lieu of the approved concrete block retaining wall and
crib walls, they propose to install permanent shoring walls that are constructed of
treated wood which will be installed vertically to eliminate the necessity of a slope;
the City Engineer has expressed concern over the technical aspects of the permanent
shoring wall; the Planning Dept. is concerned about the visual impact; in considering
the planned developm ent for this project was the type, height, location and visual
impact of retaining walls; the Planning Commission was assured of the use of crib
walls with integrated landscape on the higher slopes; the wall adjacent to "L" Avenue
extension along the east property line will reach a maximum height of about 18 ft; it
appears to staff that they did not allow adequate space for the installation of these
walls...) was presented. Planning Director Post said it was up to Council to
determine if the permanent shoring walls were within the intent of the original
application and the planned development permit. DAN BIGGS, Biggs Engineering,
2727 Hoover Avenue, was present, representing the proponent and said this proposal
was made to the City by the architect of the project but since he (the architect)
felt it was more of an engineering matter, he asked him (Dan Biggs) to address
Council. (Mr. Biggs distributed some written material to Council.) Mr. Biggs said
the terrain rises quickly to the east and west of the subject property; since approval
of the PD, they have found that crib walls are not practical; the slope reaches a
height that crib wall people indicate should be three levels deep; some of the walls
would require the third level; in addition, as construction was started, it appeared
that even though they had soil tests; it was found that deletorious matter was
present; also it is very probable that if crib walls were built as proposed they would
have to be back eight feet; crib walls are a "Lincoln Log" affair; it is a sort of re—
inforced dirt wall; when combining the over —excavation or back cut, if we go back 11-
1/2 ft., the wall thickness plus the eight ft. CaIOSHA says can rise three ft. and no
higher; when we do all these things, we find our back wall is off our property;
therefore, he was suggesting it is infeasible to build the crib wall as originally
proposed; what is being proposed is shoring; it can be designed to be permanent; it is
Book 65/Page 161
3/12/85
nothing new; it has been used extensively in San Diego; approaching the Del Mar race
track you will see permanent shoring walls at the office building on top of the knoll;
you will also see it to the rear of Trevallyan Oldsmobile in Mission Valley; they use
steel vertical supports. (Mr. Biggs distributed other material to Council.) Mr. Biggs
continued what is being proposed is that this material be selected carefully and be
designed by a structural engineer; he would like to give Council a letter from
Anderson Drilling Company who will be installing this wall and they assure that the
life of this wall would be fifty years —the life of the steel even longer; he would ask
Council to consider that; and lastly, would ask Council to consider the wall along the
eastern boundary at the rear of the of the buildings and we are talking about walls
that when the buildings are completed will be out of public sight except for that
portion on Plaza Boulevard; we are not simply proposing to put up wooden retaining
walls but we want to go one step further and propose they be covered with wire
lattice material; some kind of welded wire that vines can grow on; we are trying to
make this cure before landscaping; however, it would be ready for it before then; if
we are not able to satisfy Council with this wall, it would be a severe hardship;
buildings might have to be moved. Planning Director Post said the land is vacant
now; moving the buildings around would not be a great problem and probably could be
done without another hearing. Mr. Biggs said we have already deeded the easements
to the water district; the building plans are all approved as they are; all of the
drawings would bave to be adjusted. Dir. of Building and Safety Reid said the
building plans are not yet approved. Councilman Van Deventer said without knowing
the total footage of the walls, he personally would like to see our staff, especially
engineering staff and Mr. Post, talk with people who have done this kind of project
and see what has happened in a given period of time; it needs to be thoroughly
checked out; areas that would be difficult would be the west side; trying to make a
determination tonight would be very difficult. Vice Mayor Waters suggested laying it
over to the next meeting. Dan Biggs said that would stop construction. Vice Mayor
Waters said we could make the decision right now and it might not be favorable.
Councilman Dalla said he was ready to go tonight. Councilman VanDeventer said he
would be more comfortable on this situation if he had time to digest the information
given. Councilman Cooper said he had property adjoining this project and could not
say anything. Councilman Dalla said if we are going to wait a week and then do not
approve the change, the project will be held up even longer; we would probably do
well to vote now. Councilman VanDeventer said if there were guarantees, he would
have no problem but at this point he had doubts; no one sitting up here is a
landscape architect. Vice Mayor Waters said there are residential properties on the
side that would face the residential area. Mr. Biggs said the top of the permanent
shoring would only come to the level of the ground at the top of the hill adjoining
the residential properties —maybe one foot over, it varies from four ft. to over
twenty ft. Councilman Van Deventer said by shifting the buildings around, what
happens to the parcel map already approved. Moved by Dalla, seconded by
VanDeventer, to continue this item for one week and Mr. Biggs provide whatever
additional information he has. Carl --, Hazard Co., was present and asked if
Council could release some of the other permits so the work could go forward, for
instance, the underground utilities? Vice Mayor Waters asked if we say it has to be
crib wall where would you be? Carl answered what Mr. Biggs was saying is the
base of the wall will not change; we would have to come up with a method to keep
from encroaching on neighboring property; we have installed the permanent shoring.
Councilman Van Deventer asked City Engineer Stafford what his feelings were. City
Engineer Stafford said at this point he did not feel they have made a convincing
case; he would like to see written com ments and would like to see the soils tests; he
would like to see more detailed sketches of the project; obviously it would need a lot
more docum entation on the longevity. Vice Mayor Waters asked if they could
proceed with anything else. City Engineer Stafford said the storm drain plans have
been checked and corrections made; they could probably start with the storm drain;
come in and get it signed off. Councilman VanDeventer said we do not want to hold
you up either; but you could be gone tomorrow and we are still here. Vice Mayor
Waters asked if they wanted to incorporate the City Engineer's comments in the
motion. Councilman Dal la said that would not be necessary. Carl said they
could work on the storm drain and the underground utilities. Councilman Cooper said
he would like to step down and speak as a citizen. Councilman Cooper left his seat
and addressed Council from the podium, saying he Iived at 1313 "N" Avenue; he
would like to hear them tell him what the walls be be like on "L" Avenue because
that is what he is going to have to look at; he would like to know the tensile
strength; he would like to know the size of the timbers they would be using; Mr.
Biggs was talking 10x10 but now he is saying 4x6. Councilman Cooper returned to
his seat. Motion carried by the following vote, to —wit: Ayes: Dalla, VanDeventer,
Waters. Nays: None. Abstaining: Cooper. Absent: Morgan.
Book 65/Page 162
3/12/85
The request of the SWEETWATER KIWANIS CLUB for a TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
to have a CARNIVAL with booths and rides March 14-17, 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.,
Plaza Bonita Mall parking lot (3030 Plaza Bonita Road) for the purpose of raising
funds for various charitable activities sponsored by the Club and their request for
waiver of the $2,500 clean—up bond, $50.00 inspection fee and $25.00 per day license
fee per Ordinance No. 1227 was presented. The recommendation of the Director of
Building and Safety was to approve subject to conditions of Fire Department and that
they contact the County Health Dept. prior to opening. Moved by Cooper, seconded
by Waters, in favor of the Kiwanis Club request. Carried by unanimous vote.
Absent: Morgan.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Report of Examination of the National City Transit Fund and the Red Cross
Wheels Fund by the State Controller's office was presented. Ordered filed by
unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
CITY MANAGER
No report.
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney reported he had distributed a memo regarding the real property at
29th and "A"; he had been asked to report on this after the February 26 meeting;
basically, there is not much to report: he had talked to Interim City Attorney Tobin
who said he had been trying to reach Mr. Stanley on the telephone since February 26
but had not been able to reach him; the property can be declared surplus and sold;
he (Mr. Eiser) has also tried to reach Mr. Stanley to ask to see any documentration
he might have but has been unsuccessful. Vice Mayor Waters said we have a
situation here where a man has fenced in a piece of property. Moved by
Van Deventer, seconded by Dal la, the property should be declared surplus and sold.
Vice Mayor Waters asked if the City Attorney should be instructed to proceed —what
was the worth of that property when in use fenced —and take action against the
adjacent property owner. Councilman Dalla asked if we should wait until the
property is sold. City Attorney Eiser said his next question would be to determine
the status of the property now; he understands there was some personal property
there but it has been moved; one pertinent thing to do would be to check with the
title company and see if they would be willing to provide title insurance.
Councilman Cooper said he did not understand who gave this man permission to fence
this property; the man on the other side attempted to fence a dog run and the City
told him to remove it; that fence should come down before we declare this surplus.
Councilman Dalla said the motion should be clarified: "the property be declared
surplus, staff investigate the status of the property and the fence be removed before
this property is put up for sale." Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
OTHER STAFF
No report.
MAYOR
Vice Mayor Waters read a letter from State Senator Wadie Deddeh regarding the
outstanding job the Police Chief and Police Department are doing.
CITY COUNCIL
Councilman Van Deventer spoke of Senate Bills 1201 and 1202 which were introduced
by Senator Ellis which would make the position of Port Commissioner elective rather
than appointive. Discussion. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Dalla, Council
oppose these bills by sending letters and telegrams and asking the other cities to do
the same. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Councilman Dalla said he would refer to Council for review over the next week the
matter of the intersection of 14th and Highland and if it is appropriate for this
intersection to have a "Right Turn Only" sign. Mr. Dalla asked the members of
Council to drive by there during the week, so action could be taken next week.
Councilman Cooper said there is a continuing problem in the City with cars parked
too long; cars parked two weeks or two months; we have ordinances limiting parking
to 72 hours; he talked to Police Chief Hart and he said that they are developing a
program for the west side; we are going to have to have another three—wheeler so we
can mark these cars and get them towed out; if we are not going to enforce the
ordinance, let's take it off the books; maybe next week we can talk about it. Moved
by Cooper, seconded by Waters, this be referred to the budget com mittee. Carried
by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Book 65/Page 163
3/12/85
Vice Mayor Waters declared the meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
CITY CLER;,K(
The foregoing minutes were approved at the regular meeting of 3//q/17_
Corrections No corrections
CIT
OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT "A"
Book 65/Page 164
3/12/85
R E C I '.r
CITY
ni�" y r i t j`j :;; '85.
CITY OF t.t-i i,r,,;t_ Ir Y
The National City Coui cii
12'13 ::ations1 City 917d.
'rational Cit-r, Ca. 922050
Gentlemen:
2202--22nd St.
National City, Ca. 92050
:•:arch 11, 1985
7e requested some relief on this project before because .'re are on a li-
mited income and could not afford the big expense. '.7e understood that we,
nropel=ty owners, would_.be notified again before the final cost of the project
was to be approved. This was never done.
Our first proposed estimated assessment cost was 811,388.00.' 7'Ie were not
given the opportunity to ask for relief on this amount. Now my.proposed as-
sessment is 811, 93L .00 an increase of 5L 6.00. ';e feel that we should be given
the ooport.anity to ask for some relief of this new proposed assessment.
The proposed estimated cost of two sewer laterals was 8750.00 each, now
the cost is 31930.73 each an increase of 1180.73 dollars each for a total of
3,861.46 increase. le do not understand such an increase. The City did not
fully informed us of the total cost of the contractors bid before the work
began.
77e understood that the developer of Parcel No. 2 was to bear 100 of the
incidental costs, but now we are being assessed a329.00 for Bond Costs which
is an incidental cost.
For the information of the City Council in 1960 when we requested a permit
to build our present home, we were informed that a ner:.t coulA not be issued
bafr,re we give or convey 21 feet of our property to the City of National City
for 22nd street. Once again, we were not informed that a sewer line could have
been installed at that time, if we had requested. If this had been done, a
large amount of money could have been saved for every body.
In 1974 I believe, we requested a sewer line. We were informed that we
had to nay all the cost. We were not able to afford the cost.
Yours truly,
u>
`1-1747.t
Severino IaRoya
i`agdalene LaRoya
EXHIBIT "B" Book 65/Page 165
3/12/85
To the City•Council of National City:
March 11, 1985
As the Administrator of the testate of Elena C. Hernandez and
guardian of her heirs (minors) property, that being Assessox's
Parcel I:o. 561-400-26, the corner lot bordered by Euclid and
22nd Street, which is Assess no. 3, hereby submit an ap2eal._to
the City Council on the Notice of Assessment of Assessor Yit; is-
trict 222, on my proposed asssessment.
o c?
-71
The appeal is based on the following reasons:- z .,v
1. I have previously•.voiced my objection and pro estzto ,
certain actions and portions of the wort to be pe_rformCd 22nd
Street Prospect Street to Euclid, which in my opinicZ2waR n:5t
taken into consideration before work on this project: wars improved
to proceed. I, again reiterate my main objection that a developer
should rvt be permitted to shift some of the cost of the required
improvements to the taxpayers and residents of National City.
A. As stated in Paragraph E. of the National City
Engineering Staff Report of May 1983, the main purpose of the
petitioned improvement was to install improvements for a proposed
•parcel map, delay the expense of up -first costs, and spread the
costs of the improvements over a ten year period on the four (4)
proposed lots in Parcel 2.
B. In tat same Staff Report, it was noted that the
proposed water main was not included in the District but was re-
quired for development of Parcel 2. The estimated cost of the fire
hydrant was to be {,}3, 495. Recommendation No. 4 recommended that
the City bear this expense. I objected to this re commendation
on the basis that the taxpayers should not have to bear this ex-
pense. This cost is row stated as an incidental expense of 13400
and to be paid by the City. Since the developer was to bear all
of the incidental costs as stated in the City Council meeting of
May 10, 1933, should not this expense then be assessed against
Parcel TE4'o instead of the taxpayers. If the reason for the City
having to bear this expense is because the City Council approved
recommendation no. 4 by closing the Public Hearing then why was
recommendation No. 8 of the Staff Report not compi"led with before
the v;ork was ordered to proceed.
C. Although there were unfavoralie comments against
this project, the City Council closed the Public Hearing on May
10, 1983 and directed the work to proceed. Subsequently the affected
property owners were not giien the opportunity to comment on the
project before the project was let out for sealed bids rsrrhen the
sealed bids were publically opened in July 1984. `!hicl� the point
why once the Resolution of Intention No. 14,003 was adopted, (whic�z
the property owners were not informed when it came before the Coun-
cil for approval)and the First Public Ilearing of April 26, 1983,
which called for a Second Public Hearing on June 14, 1983, a Staff
Report was expedited and put on the agenda for the May 10, 1983
Council meeting but subsequently the project was put on the back -
burner until the project was let out for sealed bids on June 11,
1934, a period of over one year from the time the work was directed
to proceed. The seconcc point is if the estimated cost o the pro-
ject was changedand some new items were acdea, were not the property
owners to have an opportunity to comment -on these changes.
D. Initially, the estimated cost of the project was
173,771.00 including incidental expenses as stated in the Resolu-
tion of Intention Ido.14 003 of March 3, 1983 of which the City's
contribution was to be V3,000 but the estimated cost was in fact
r85,332.00 including incidental expenses. Subsequently because
of objections, the water main portion was removed and the sewer
line cost shifted tolhe City. The revised constructnn cost in-
corporating the Staff recommendations was row estimated to $56,122
including incidental expenses, the City's contrbution 113,123(
of which 111523 estimated cost of sewer line, final cost of sewer
line 521,80 .19). My point is what was the estimated cost of
construction when the project was let out for bads, since the
accepted bid was 171,713.63, thereby causing a difference of U2,
652.63 between the estimated cost of 149,961 in the Staff report.
The City' s contribution is row 38, 854.88) oW ;6, 394 is incidental
expenses. It is my opinion that the best interests of the commun-
ity as a whole have
EXHIBIT "B" Cont'd Book 65/Page 166
3/12/85
2. I have stated before that I do not obtain any direct
benefit from this project because of the 10 foot retainer wall,
there is no frontage on this side of the property. I don't have
a view of the Curb or part of the street, although I do ensure
that it is kept clean and decent looking. I don't even park c:P_.ny
car on 22nd s trreet because of this obstructbn. If the City can
contribute 21,802 for a sewer line, of which the major benefactor
is a developer, why can't it contribute; a larger amount for the
street improvement which serves the community as a whole. It is
my understanding that this street inioro v ement bras also required
because it is a major fire route because of the new fire station,
•ere again the community is receiving the benefit.
3. Since the completion of the project, which took about
four months and the recent small rains; the debris that now accu-
mulates -in the strret,_curb and cross -drain, in my opinion has
increased due to the improper work on the street and curb.
4. I do not know the methods on the assessing, but an analy-
sis of the available information in my opinion containSsome
irregularities.
5. On my proposed_.assessment of $6776, on its cost breakdown,
a portion of the cost is 5329 for bond cost. At the May 10, 1983
Public Hearing, the'City Attorney stated that all of the incidential
cost was to be paid by the developer, since the bond cost is an in-
cidental cost, why am I now being assessed this expense.
6. If Assess No. 2 is now in the District; why is it only be-
ing assessed 1148. Assess No. 2 essentially gets as much benefit
as Assessmit No. 3 or more because it gets the benefit of the lot
split.
For the aboiie stated reasons, in my opinion, I feel that I would be
dealt an injustice if the proposed assessment is approved. I, there-
recuest that the City Council give consideration to my appeal. As
a taxpayer, I believe that one has a right to be assessed and I do
not object to -an assessment but due to all the circumstances in-
volved in this project, I respecfully request the City Council
to continue this Public Hearing until all the circumstances con-
cerning this project have been thoroughly researched and the answers
to a lot of unanswered questions are provided. Thank you.
NJOLA_
ZCw
Alfonso Hernandez