Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 05-13 CC MIN27 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA May 13, 1975 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Morgan. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None. Administrative officials present: Bourcier, Campbell, Gerschler, Hoffland, McCabe, McLean. Mayor Morgan welcomed Mr. Austin's Sweetwater Adult High School Govern- ment class to the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION The meeting was opened with the pledge of allegiance to the flag led by City Manager Bourcier followed with invocation by the Rev. Ted Selgo, First Congregational Church. Mayor Morgan said there is an item on the agenda (No. 26) that a lot of people present are concerned about; they are concerned about what is going to be done about 28th and "J" 1911 Act (Assessment District No. 183, 28th Street, "J" Avenue and "I" Avenue); we have a 78% petition against it. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Camacho, to take this up at this time so that they will know what Council is going to do and they won't have to sit through a long meeting. Carried by unanimous vote. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, that this project be abandoned and all the reports to the City Manager for all the necessary steps. Carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Morgan stated the 1911 Act is aban- doned and Item 15 (recommendation by Street Tree and Parkway Committee at April 17 meeting that five California Pepper trees be replaced with five Bottle Brush trees in 1911 Act Improvement District No. 183) and Item 26 (recommendation of City Engineer that Council abandon 1911 Act Improvement District No. 183; copy of petition attached) are abandoned from now on unless we have another petition showing that the people change their minds and want it; this cannot be brought back for at least another year. EVELYN LANCASTER, 2700 "J" Avenue, was present and asked if this 1911 Act can be revised or repealed; to her it is a stran- gulating hold on people that want to build and improve on their property; it forces them not to vote against this if it comes up; say if a .person buil:ls on a room or an addition on his home and then a 1911 Act comes up he signs (a covenant that he will not protest) this 1911 Act; when he gets his building permit, it forbids him from protesting; and say he doesn't have the money for the additional expenses, he is strangled; it is wrong and unjust; we would like to see something done to revise it. Mayor Morgan said in National City a few years ago we did not have streets in very many places in National City, so we adopted an ordinance where if the people spend more than $2,500 on their home and they don't have a street, curbs and sidewalks, then it's up to them to get a defer- ral or put in their sidewalk or curbs; you have to start somewhere to get the streets in. Ms. Lancaster said what she was wondering is why we couldn't have an ordinance where when a person buys a piece of prop- erty or he builds on that property, if he couldn't be required then to put in his streets and his curbs, rather his curb and apron and drive- way instead of trying to strangle a person after they have been living in the property; some of the people there have signed this; they couldn't understand why some people did sign and why some people were not re- quired to sign; what is the legal technicality? Mayor Morgan said what happens when they get a waiver; they come in to the Building Dept. and say they want a waiver, that they don't want to put in the sidewalks and curbs; then they go over to the Planning Dept. and they recommend that Council waive it or not waive it; then all of that time .... he might refer to the Council because these fellows here and himself are the ones that say "well, we will defer it"; if they put up a good story, we usu- ally defer it, if they don't we will force them to put .... he thinks they should; when they spend $2,500 ..., in most cases they should put 5/13/75 28 in sidewalks. Ms. Lancaster said this law should be more available for people; they wanted to see this 1911 Act; they called the bto Libraryar and ee there is no copy available; to this day, they have not been the 1911 Act; people should be eligible to see these laws; these are our laws, they control us; we want to go along with them, but we do want to see them; we would like to know what the thing says; all they were told when they asked to see the% that there were three volumes. Ms. lanca$tr said there is nothing we can do to change this at our level? Mayor Morgan said what they would have to do to change this law would be to go to the State; the State is the one who passed the law. Ms.lancasler asked why can't they have these laws available through the Library where people could check them out and know what they are dealing with? City Attorney McLean said there is a tax -supported County Law Library in downtown San Diego, he also has the books in his office; if they would reach him, he would be happy to let them review the books. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, the minutes of the regular meeting of May 6, 1975 be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS The Mayor's proposed proclamation, "NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK," May 18- 24, 1975 was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, the proc- lamation be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. The Mayor's proposed proclamation, "COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF CHULA VISTA WEEK IN NATIONAL CITY", May 18-24, 1975 was presented. Moved by Camacl seconded by Reid, the proclamation be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A gentleman from the audience (who did not identify himself) inquired about the time Council started. Mayor Morgan said if he was interested in the hearing, that it would be held at 7:45 p.m. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, these resolutions be presented by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,774, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR JOINT USE OF CITY OF NATIONAL CITY FACILITIES (South Fay Judicial District)." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, Resolution No. 11,774 be adopted. There was discussion. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: Dalla. HEARINGS The ASSESSMENT HEARING for Assessment District No. 161 (loth Street, llth Street, 12th Street, "R" Avenue, Paradise Drive and Palm Avenue) was held at this time. (See pages 33 through 42) The HEARING to consider ZONE CHANGE from R-2 to R-4-P`D the vacant prop- erty located on the westerly side of "T" Avenue, adjacent to and south of the property at 420 "T" Avenue having about 410 feet of frontage on "T" Avenue and bounded on its southerly and westerly sides by I-805 freeway (2C-2-75) was held after the completion of the 1911 Act Improve- ment District No. 161 Assessment Hearing. (See page 42) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS (Continued) RESOLUTION NO. 11,775, "RESOLUTION DEFERRING REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLA- TION OF FULL WIDTH ALLEY PAVING AT 424 WEST 15TH STREET (John a Carty)." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, Resolution No. 11,775 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. 5/13/75 29 RESOLUTION NO. 11,776, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND DIRECTING THE RECORDING THEREOF (John B. & Eunice V. L. Carty)." Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 11,776 be_ adapte, ;. Carried by unanimous vote. Resolution No. 11,777, "A Resolution of the City of National City of Intention to Sell Real Property and Directing Publication of Notice to Bidders Inviting Bids for said Property (loth Street and "R" Avenue)." Moved Moved by Reid, Resolution No. 11,777 be adopted. Motion r lack of second. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Dalla, Resolution No. 11,777 be filed with no action. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Morgan. Nays: Reid. RESOLUTION NO. 11,778, "RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $3,000 FROM GENERAL FUND FOR ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PURSUANT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ROBERT B. CUMMINGS." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, Resolution No. 11,778 be adopted. Carried by unani- mous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,779, "RESOLUTION EXEMPTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLA- TION OF PERMANENT PAVING FOR ONE --HALF THE STREET WIDTH AT 1615 'L' AVENUE (Win. Hawken, Parcel #561-090-26)." Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, Resolution No. 11,779 be adopted. Mayor Morgan stated this is his son-in-law and he has no interest in the property. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid. Nays: None. Abstaining: Morgan. RESOLUTION NO. 11,780, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF ADDI- TIONAL FUNDS FROM ANTICIPATED BALANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 24TH STREET AND NEWELL." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 11,780 be adopted. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Morgan. Nays: Reid. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES Moved by Camacho, seconded by Dalla, these ordinances be presented for second reading by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. Ordinance No. 4/15/75-1, "An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 808 to Provide Specific Criteria and Regulatory Provisions for the Keeping of Bees." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, this ordinance be denied and no action taken on it. Carried by unanimous vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1463 (6/6/76-4), "AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 1328 AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 962, ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TO ADD PROVISIONS FOR A. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MAP AND TO ADOPT A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MAP." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, Ordinance No. 1463 W6/76-1) be adopted. Carried by the following vole, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid. Nays: Morgan. ORDINANCE NO. 1464 (5/6/?6--2), "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 962, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1315, NATIONAL CITY SIGN ORDINANCE, TO ALLOW POLITICAL SIGNS TO BE POSTED A MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS PRIOR TO AN ELECTION AND 14 DAYS FOLLOWING AN ELECTION; AND, TO ALLOW THAT A LAWFUL NONCON- FORMING 'ROOF MOUNTED' SIGN MAY BE STRUCTURALLY ALTERED TO REDUCE ITS SIZE AND/OR COPY AREA." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, Ordinance No. 1464 (4/6/74-a) be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1465 (5/4/75-a), "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 962, ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TO ADD THERETO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO ALLOW GYMNASIUMS, HEALTH AND ATHLETIC CLUBS, BODY-BUILD- ING STUDIOS, AND ANY OTHER SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT PROVIDING SERVICES WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE OF THE SAME GENERAL CHARACTER AS THE ABOVE MENTIONED SERVICE USES (A-4-75)." Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, Ordinance No. 1465 (,166-4) be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1466 ( 6/4/g4-4) , "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 962, ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TO ADD SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO ALLOW DOG OBEDIENCE TRAINING IN COMMERCIAL ZONES (A-6-75)." Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, Ordinance No. 1466 (6/6/?,,-4) be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. 5/13/75 30 REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY - None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Recommendation of the STREET TREE and PARKWAY COMMITTEE at the meeting held April 17, 1975 to replace five California Pepper trees with five Bottle Brush trees in 1911 Act Improvement District No. 183 ("I" Avenue, south of 23th Street) was taken care of earlier in the meeting. (See Page 27 Paragraph 5.) Report of City Manager on PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY regarding diagonal park- ing on various street locations (9 St., "A" Ave. to "E" Ave. [South Side onlyj, yes - 2, no - 2; 6 St., "G" Ave. to "I" Ave. [South Side onlyj, yes - 1, no - 05 5 St., "G" Ave. to "I" Ave. [North Side only], yes - 0, no - 1; "B" Ave., 0 St. to 12 St. [East Side onlyj, yes - 0, no - 1; "A" Ave., 9 St. to 12 St. LEast Side only], no response) was presented. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Pinson, me......92._al.„9-ontithe dia9onal parkin9 on everything that was recommended exce t 9 St. will be stopped at "5" Ave. and 5 St. stop for Diagonal parkin at "G" and no action be taken unless it is in conjunction with remarking the cenler line. (Amended motion.) Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Della, Pinson, Morgan. Nays: Reid. Recommendation of City Manager Bourcier that BID by Colonial Ford in the amount of $9,517.15 for one 5-ton dump truck be accepted and all other bids rejected memo from Director of Public Wor!,..s. recommending Colonial Ford bid be accepted (Colonial Ford 9,517.15 Courtesy Chevrolet Ceder $9,493.50; International Parvester $9,594.03) were presented. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Camacho, we let this contract to Courtesy Chevrolet as the lowest bid. Carried by unanimous vote. NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION by Ben L. and Teresa L. Gochnour and The Southland Corpora- tion, dba 7-Eleven Store, 2425 Sweetwater Road, for person -to -person transfer of OFF -SALE BEER AND '1INE LICENSE; Communication from Police Chief stating there appeared to be no grounds for protest of the appli- cation were presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, in favor of the application. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid. Nays: None. Thstaining: Morgan. Moved by Morgan, we authorize the City Manager to set up a meeting when the bids are ready with the people that are interested on bidding on automobiles and go over the bid with them and that we don't reauire a bond with the bid. City Attorney McLean said State law requires one. City Manager Bourcier said it isn't necessary to have a motion. The LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN #15-1975 was pre- sented. City Manager Bourcier said he would like to recommend that Council go on record of being opposed to AB26 which provides for compul- sory and binding arbitration for Police and Fire employeesand AB700 which provides for life -time tenure for peace officers. Moved byninson, seconded by Camacho, in favor of the Mana er's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. City Attorney McLean said he may be wrong about the bid bond; the stat- ute he was thinking of really refers to Public Works contracts, so he will check that. City Manager Bourcier said staff is working on a comprehensive purchasing ordinance that they hope to have to Council shortly which should clarify all of the procedures. City Treasurer/Finance Director's request for ratification of BILLS in the amount of $43,419.40 (warrants Nos. 51156 to 51221 and PAYROLL in the amount of $154,100.31 for a total of $202,520.21 was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, these bills be paid. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: None. Recommendations of Vice Mayor Dalla for establishment of POLICY GUIDE- LINES for presentation of resolutions and ordinances, (A. Prior to presentation of any ordinance or resolution not printed on agenda, 5/13/75 31 the City Attorney shall: [i explain why the item was not available or did not appear on the agenda, and L2] justify the necessity for immedi- ate action on the item; B. The Council must then, by unanimous vote, approve a motion to consider the ordinance or resolution. Following approval, the ordinance or resolution must be read by the attorney in its entirety. This procedure shall not apply to emergency ordinances.) were presented. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Reid, file this without action. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: Dalla. A ccmmunication from Police Liaison Officer L. J. Jacquot, NC Police Department, on behalf of the JUNIOR PATROL BOYS & GIRLS within National School District, requesting free use of the National City Municipal Swimming Fool as part of a combined picnic and swimming outing planned event sponsored by the National City Lion's Club and the National City Police Department; and Park and Recreation Director's recommendation of approval (Item 22) were presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, Item 22 be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Recommendations (Item 23) of City Manager Bourcier regarding use of ADULT CROSSING GUARDS for school crossings within the City (A. Chapter 0 of the State Traffic Manual, "School Crossing Protection" should be adopted as the basis of an official policy of the City; B. The City establish as policy, minimum qualifications for Adult Crossing Guards and operating policies, rules, and guidelines for school safety patrol and Adult Crossing Guard procedures; C. The City establish as policy an intent to have any future Adult Crossing Guard locations administered and finances within the regulations of Crossing Guard Maintenance Dis- tricts); and Report dated February 1975 by the Engineering Department were presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, the City Manager's recommendationa2/212._Lem B, & C. Carried by unanimous vote. The recommendation of City Engineer Hoffland that CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 (time extension request from contractor of 15 days due to time lost of inclement weather, net decrease of total contract $502.82) to LA SIESTA 1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 182 be approved was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Engineer's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. The recommendation (Item 25) of City Engineer Hoffland that improvements be accepted for LA SIESTA WAY, 18th Street to 20th Street, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 182 was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, that the recommendation by the c4y En ineer Item 25 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. The recommendation of City Engineer Hoffland that Council abandon 1911 Act Improvement District No. lea-sth Street, "J" Avenue and "I" Avenue and attaching petition was taken care of earlier in the meeting. (See Page 27, Paragraph 5.) The request of City Treasurer Kerr for permission to cancel various building permits (No. 1607 - 1612 inclusive) and sewer permit (No. 5981) issued to Consolidated Properties, and to cancel a business license (No. 4555) issued to Adesina Akinwanile was presented. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Pinson, iyLLL2rZL.._the r•easr.._'ELeau...ts14 Carried by unanimous vote. The request of City Manager Bourcier for Council to authorize expenditure of $500 from Revenue Sharing Funds to install hood and ventilation sys- tem for kiln in new Recreation Center; and memo from Parks and Recreation Director were presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, in favor of the City Manager's recommendation. In answer to the question if it was to be done by City crews and how long would it take, City Manager Bourcier said he could not answer the question; he would assume that City crews will do it. Carried by unanimous vote. REPORTS CITY MANAGER BOURCIER - None. 5/13/75 32 The Planning Department transmittals stating Item 29 - the Planning Commission recommended that application by TERRY RAKOV for zone vaEance to reduce minimum site area required for a service station from 15,000 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. to allow development of an automotive drive- thru lubrication and tune-up establishment at 1902 Highland Ave., be granted subject to condition that this property and the adjoining parcel under the same ownership shall be held as one as long as the use remains and if they should be sold separately, the use will be subject to revo- cation (ZC-3-75); and Item 30 - the Planning Commission recommended that application by Terry Rakov be approved, subject to 10 conditions, for Commercial Planned Development permit for development of automotive drive-thru lubrication and tune-up establishment at 1902 Highland Avenu4 were presented. Planning Director Gerschler said this involves a zone variance and planned development permit for the property at 19th and Highland Avenue where quick -service lubrication business is proposed; the Planning Commission recommends the proposal in both cases subject to conditions attached. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. The Planning Department transmittal stating the Planning Commission recommended that application for ZONE VARIANCE Z-4-75 by JACK M. DANFORD to (1) allow existing 6' high chain link fence to remain without view obscuring slats; and (2) allow existing 6' high chain link fence to re- main as existing without observing required 4' landscaped setback; and (3) not require that all areas of landscape be provided with permanent irrigation system at 339 W. 13th Street be approved subject to 5 condi- tions recommended by the Planning Department was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Planning Commission's recom- mendation. There was discussion of the elimination of the view-obstrudo ing slats as it is on nth Street, a major entrance to the City. Plan- ning Director Gerschler said that the applicant indicated that he was removing all the outdoor storage area and that it would be kept clean; if that were true, then the Code would not require the view -obscuring fencing; if it is cleaned up and sometime in the future it is used for an outdoor storage area that would be a new violation case where they would move for enforcement. There was further discussion. Mr. Gerschler said landscaping is required on the two street frontages in the 11/2 foot wide strip that runs from driveway to driveway; and he would be required to put in a screen -type landscaping that would grow to at least the height of the fence; whether or not it will be totally a screen is doubt- ful, but it will certainly partially obscure. Carried by unanimous votl The Planning Department transmittal stating the Planning Commission recommended that application by TRIPLE "A" SOUTH (Triple "A" Machine Shop, Inc.) be approved subject to 14 conditions listed by staff, for Conditional Use Permit authorizing development of boat yard and ship repair facility at 1301 West 24th Street was presented. Moved by PinsaN seconded by Camacho, in favor of the Planning Commission recommendation. There was discussion of the EIR where it talks about the number of em- ployees to be there and the number of parking spaces provided; Solar and other places in San Diego have private traffic control people help- ing direct traffic and that sort of thing; and if in future the volume of traffic at certain peak hours would require that this be done, who would be responsible. Planning Director Gerschler said this is all Port District property and the people who would be hampered by that sort of traffic congestion would be the people going onto the 24 Street Marine Terminal; he would assume that the Port District and the properly owners through their lease agreement would cover the point of the City and the Port District have an agreement for Police services that could be brought in to play, but he doubts that that would be necessary. There was further discussion. City Attorney McLean said if they are going to use City streets, we will maintain the streets down there; the is the City's function; ... if it is a Port District street, they are going to maintain it. Planning Director Gerschler requested before the vote is given; there was an Environmental Impact Report on this ... Carried by unanimous vote. City Attorney McLean suggested Council make a request by motion that acting on the recommendation of the Planning Commission the City Council had before it the Final Environmental Impact Report (which was prepared by the San Diego Unified Port District) and its contents were presented and considered before reaching your decisial Moved by Morgan, seconded by Camacho, that we approve the City Attorney's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. 5/13/75 33 The City Treasurer -Finance Director FINANCIAL STATEMENT for month ending April 30, 1975 was presented. Ordered filed by unanimous vote. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS VICE MAYOR DALLA said in keeping with the Council's action on Resolution No. 11,777... Moved by Dalla, that we include that particular piece of property on the list of suggested changes for the General Plan the next time it comes up. Motion died for lack of second. MAYOR MORGAN asked the Planning Director if he worked out the situation on 4 St. in regard to the retarded kids. Planning Director Gerschler said it would appear that the property owner who brought the complaint to them is changing his residence from one location to another and inquired whether or not they are going to be able to keep four or five retarded children in the new residence in a residential zone; our Zoning Ordinance, on research, appears to be out of step with the State law; the State law appears to have preempted our zoning ordinance insofar as requiring that not more than six retarded children be allowed in a residential zone as a residential use; Monday night they will ask the Planning Commission to make an interpretation to find the City law has in fact been preempted; that will answer this man's immediate problem; the State law being talked about is one that went into effect last year and it does indicate that a City may require Conditional Use Permits for such types of uses; they are going to suggest to the Planning Com- mission that they consider studying that issue for a hearing, develop that and submit a recommendation to the City Council on whether a Conditional Use Permit should be required, yes or no; they will look into all the reasons it should and shouldn't; in the meantime, this action that is approved Monday to interpret the ordinance will answer the man's request. MAYOR MORGAN asked City Attorney McLean about Mr. Mueller...when are we going to get that property on 24 St.; how does that work; when can we get him out of there. Mr. McLean said we can get him out by giving him a notice to terminate the lease which has in fact been done sometime ago; he can't tell the Mayor right now on memory when the notice was given...he would say it has been three or four months now since the notice to terminate their lease was given; the Redevelopment Agency staff has been dealing with him and trying to relocate him; he cannot say right now where it does stand. City Manager Bourcier said they were in to see Mr. Peterson this week and he (Mr. Bourcier) has directed Mr. Ballard to assist him in relocating in any way that we can. MAYOR MORGAN said he has received a request for $105; this $105 will bind and put in three different booklets all the flowers in San Diego County, Southern California, that were painted by Judge Harbison's mother; they could raise the money, the $105, but they would like the City to pay $105 and then it would be the City's and would be in the Library; there are 160 different pictures; this will be a beautiful display that we can use in the 200th Anniversary celebration next year. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Camacho, to appropriate $105 from the Library Fund (amended motion). City Manager Bourcier said Council controls the Library budget. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: Dalla. MAYOR MORGAN said a Mr. Jones donated a tree outside of the Library... Mr. Reid said 1722 Prospect... Mayor Morgan said and 18 Street; that is a beautiful tree and thanked Mr. Jones for donating that tree; that tree will grow up and be beautiful; if we had a tree like that in all the parkways in National City, they would be beautiful. HEARINGS (Assessment Hearing for ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 161, 10 St., 11 St., 12 St., Paradise Dr., and Palm Ave.) City Clerk Campbell stated protests were received from Jean and Paulette Mathieu, 3705 Texas St., San Diego; Mrs. William B. Vinzant, 1733 E. 11 St.,; Richard C. and Janice L. Hubbard, 2111 E. 11 St.; Ivan Kjorlien, 1631 E. 10 St.; John Wright, 1627 E. 10 St.; Keith Frolkey, 1635 E. 10 St.; W. W. Mc Daniel, 1641 E. 10 St.; Raymond and Betty Servatius, 2117 E. 11 St.; the Certificate of Publication and the Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Hearing on Assessment were on file. 5/13%75 34 Robert Onley, Assessment Engineer for the City of National City, affixed maps of the Assessment District as approved by the City Council to the bulletin board and stated the green line represented the exterior boundary of the District, the gray areas were the areas where improvements were constructed, the numbers within the lots were the assessment numbers, and the lots colored yellow represented the assessments which were protested (as the City Clerk just read); after the diagram was completed and after this legislative body noted the fulfillment of the contract, we proceeded to estimate upon the lots, or parcels of land, within the district as shown by the diagram, the benefits arising from such work, and according to previous direction by the legislative body, to be received by each lot or parcel of land; we assessed upon and against the lands the total amount of the costs and expenses of such work, minus the City's contribution; and in so doing, we assessed the sum upon the several parcels benefitted thereby in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each parcel. On request of the City Attorney, Mr. Orley described the work that was done within the assessment district: generally throughout the district curbs and gutters on each street, graded the streets and paved them ,.� with a base. The City Attorney inquired what percentage of costs being assessed was over the original estimate of the total work. Mr. Onley replied the City was allowed to go 10% over the previous estimated costs. The City Attorney asked what the total contract being assessed was versus the original estimate, was that 10% or what? Mr. Onley said the total contract was over by more than 10%. In answer to the question,was a greater amount assessed against the properties, Mr. Onley replied approximately 10%. City Attorney McLean asked if the assess- ments had gone beyond 10% of the total contract? not the individual assessments, but the total? Mr. Onley replied the total, no, sir. The City Attorney asked if there were any protests as to the nature and quality of the work. Mr. Onley read the protest signed by IVAN KJORLIEN (Assess. No. 100), JOHN WRIGHT (Assess. No. 99), KEITH FROLKEY (Assess. No. 101), and W. W. MCDANIEL (Assess. No. 102) in which they stated in part that the north side of 10 St. (where they live) had sidewalks, curbs and their half of the street was blacktopped at least 12 years ago; the blacktop contained cracks in need of repair; the only thing the contractor did for this side of the road was to spray a thin layer of road oil from the center of the street to the curb; although it made the road look nice temporarily, the foreman for the construction company told two of the neighbors the street was not finished and that a sealing coat of blacktop was to be put on; it was not; and they feel the job was not completed; they further protested the cost of $130.28 as a neighbor with the same frontage was being charged only $117.00; they did not object to paying just charges, but expected something of value for money paid. Mr. Onley said the proposed assessments for Assessment Nos. 99 through 104 were determined by using the original estimated assessments and adding the 10% increase approved by the City Council on May 7, 1954; the 10% increase was necessary due to price increases which occurred between the original estimate date and the date the contractor bid for the project. City Attorney McLean asked if the contractor did the work in front of those lots that the plans and specifications called for. Mr. Onley said sand and seal was what the contract called for and that was done; there is indication in the letter that blacktop was to be applied; the drawings did not call for it. 0 z DI STRICT ASSESSMENT Mr. Onley read the protest of RICHARD C. AND JANICE L. HUBBARD (Assess. No. 36) in which they stated in part that they were informed they would not be assessed more than 10% of the original estimate; the original estimate was $1,351.70, the final assessment was $1,750.59, almost 30% over the original; this is unfair. Mr. Onley also read the protest of RAYMOND AND BETTY SERVATIUS (Assess. No. 33) in which they stated in part that their final assessment was 30.7% over the original estimate and requested either satisfactory explanation or that their increase be reduced to that of other participants. Mr. Onley said that due to the method used in spreading the original estimated assessments against the properties an adjustment was necessary during the processing of the final assessment spread; a comparision of the properties with those fronting on 10 St. and abutting the rear area of the adjacent properties will show that the assessments as proposed are beneficial and equitable; 5/13%75 35 and he recommended the assessments as spread, be confirmed by the City Council. The City Attorney asked what comparison Mr. Onley was referring to. Mr. Onley said the two parcels we were concerned with are on 11 St. near Paradise Dr.; the reference in the letters was to parcels on 10 St. immediately to the rear of these two properties; Assessment No. 33 was for $1,640 and the assessed amount coincided with $1,673; Assessment 36 was for $10750 and Assessment 24 was $1,812. Mr. Onley continued, regardless of the depth of the property the amount of money that has to be assessed in any district would be the same amount of money, using the assessment method we have been using for several years. City Attorney McLean asked if the numerical amounts charged were comparable to similar lots in the neighborhood? Mr. Onley said they were. Mr. Onley read the protest of MRS. WILLIAM B. VINZANT (Assess. No. 84) in which she stated in part that she requested itemized copies of the estimate and final costs of her street improvements; in the charges in- cluded in the assessment were (1) 6" P.C.C. Drive ($136.03) and remove P.C.C. $7.37 - the only concrete removed from the property was old driveway apron; when she bought her home in 1957 curbs and driveways were in; at a later date new homes were built on the south side of 11 St. and when sidewalks, curbs and streets were finished her curbs were too low and were buried and the existing driveway apron was buried to the \c) new street level; it did not seem reasonable that she should be liable for the costs involved in tearing out the old driveway and the pouring of the new one and (2) remove fence - $10.92 - there was no fence on her property. Mr. Onley said in response to a letter on October 7, 1%4 a petition was presented to the City Council in regard to certain im- provements on 11 St.; the action as approved by the Council was to charge the owners for the paving, sidewalk work and driveway costs in an assessment; district costs for concrete removal and fence removal were also assessed, as beneficial to the properties within the district; when this took place in 1958, because of the proposed freeway we could 6 not do this project; the spreading of this assessment includes comments z of this arrangement; we went back and looked up the records and used that method and it is so written in the Council minutes; and that item charged for driveways is charged against the property; the same problem pexlains to all the properties on this side of this street (north side of 11 St.); they all have driveways except one; every property that had concrete work done in this district was charged for that work; they were all treated the same; there is no lot in this district that had concrete Alone in front of it or on it that was not charged for this work; in some cases where it went over 10% they were not charged for the amount - over 10%; no property was charged for any concrete work that was not done either on the property or in front of the property. Mr. Onley read the protest of JEAN AND PAULETTE MATHIEU (Assess. No. 8) which stated in part that they own a portion of unimproved land west of Paradise Dr. between 8 and 10 Sts., purchased as surplus land from Caltrans in 1971; the widening of Paradise Drive changed the topography and reduced the size of the property, diminishing their acreage by many square feet; the lot as changed has no value for building purposes with- out a lot of expenses they could not afford; the amount of $832.95 assessed is exhorbitant as the property diminished in value. Mr. Onley said the frontage and area size of the parcel adjacent to Paradise Mlle was not changed during the 1911 Act Proceedings; the subject property was originally assessed under state ownership and since the Mathieu's acquisition of the property a final assessment has been proposed of $832.95; because of the size and frontage of the parcel, he recommended that the assessment as spread be confirmed by the City Council; a drive- way, sidewalk and curbs were installed, the property goes back over 100' which is flat and driveable and gives access to that part of the property adjoining the freeway; we find the assessment is equitable and comparaUle to adjacent and neighboring assessments within the district. Mr. Onley stated the protests amounted to less than 5%; he visited each of the properties in the district prior to and after spreading the as- sessments; consideration was given to the zoning and use of the various lots within the district; the physical characteristics of each of the properties was noted; the cost of the work done was reasonably assessed in relationship to the benefits received by each of the lots within the 5/i3/75 DISTRICT ASSESSMENT 36 DISTRICT ASSESSMENT entire district and on individual streets; there were some manholes which caused them some problems and it is policy not to cross center lines; there were some streets where parts of the street were improved and some were not; if improvement of a street made access to properties better, then surely the properties were getting some benefit. In answer to a question about the cost of the contract and how much the City contributed, Mr. Onley said the incidentals were $57,450.58; the con- tract was $250,162.58, for a total of $307,613.16; the City contributed from the General Fund $61,793.82 and from the Gas Tax Fund $62,710.85, leaving a total of $184,108.69 to be assessed against the District; the percentage paid by the City for the entire project amounted to approx- imately 40%. Mr. Onley answered a question as to the method used for assessing the district, by saying the same method was used that has been used for the past twenty years; City Council said not to go over 10% and that is why the City contribution is so high. In answer to a ques- tion about the protests stating properties with the same frontage were assessed different amounts from neighboring properties, Mr. Onley said using Assess. No. 102 as an example, there was a manhole; on the bid there was a cost for raising and lowering manholes and it affected these lots; so assessments 101, 102, 103, and 104 were charged for re- moval of a manhole; assessment 99 did not get charged for that, these charges reflect a 10% increase. In answer to the question how many properties were pssessed an amount in excess of 10% increase, Mr. Onley said in some cases the amounts were over 10% because people had request- ed added driveways and the owner stated he was willing to go over 10%, conversely there were properties assessed less than an adddtional 10%. In answer to the question of whether or not there were significant dif- ferences in the assessments on the south and north sides of 10 St., Mr. Onley replied the north side properties were assessed about $130 and the south side about $1000; had the north side had the same amount of work done as the south side then the amounts would have been similar; but the people on the north side already had curbs and sidewalks and their half of the street had been permanently paved prior to the project. Mayor Morgan stated he had talked to the City Manager about the people on the north side of 10 St.; he realized their half of the street was not completed; the City Manager said that if the people on the north side of the street would unite in paying the City $300, City crews would be sent out to cover the half -street to the satisfaction of the people. RAYMOND SERVATIUS (Assess. No. 33) was present and said he had one of those odd pieces of property on 11 St.; he had been assessed more than 30% over the original estimate; he wanted the work done and was happy with it; in January 1974 he received the first notice that his assess- ment would be $1,255.33 and he was told by Mrs. Campbell that Council policy was not to exceed the estimate by more than 10%; last month he got a bill more than 30% over the estimate; he came down later and was shown where Council approved going over 10%; he talked to Mr. Ramsey in Engineering and he brought out the map and told him he was being assessed for the property behind him; I never heard of being assessed for someone else's piece of property; he asked why this wasn't on his estimate in the first place. Mr. Onley said Assessment 36 was on the roll in the amount of $1,680.85; if you take that original assessment and add 10% to it, it comes to $1,380.00 and that makes a difference of $260.00; the only thing he can think by just looking at it, is that if they just maybe missed it and missed two of there in a row. The City Attorney in- quired if he simply underestimated when making the original estimate. Mr. Onley replied yes. The City Attorney said his point was there wasn't any different work done between when your made the estimate and when you made the final assessment. Mr. Onley said there probably was...and that can make the vast difference. The City Attorney asked if the dif- ference between the estimate originally of an assessment of $1,250 and the final spread of the assessment at $1,640.00 was simply a matter of initial judgment versus final judgment after the work is done. Mr. Onley said yes. Mr. Servatius said he did have a change; they had curb where he wanted a driveway put in and he came down to the City and they changed that; he also paid Mr. Penick $75 to put an apron in on City property so he could run another driveway; he had already paid $135 for cement and had another driveway put in; he already landscaped between the side- walk and his property, the City property; it has all been taken care of; he has done everything he can and he has spent all the money he can; 5/13/f75 37 DISTRICT ASSESSMENT he can't see another $259.00, percentagewise. The City Attorney said he could comment on this; the Statute provides that the total district assessment shall not exceed the original estimate of the assessment by more than 10% the individual lot assessments may vary greater than that; in the past, the Council has taken a policy position that if in- dividual lot assessments go up more than 10% that the Council would not charge any greater difference than 10% against the owner; Council is not legally obligated to do that, but that has been a policy decision that has been made in the past; and this case simply demonstrates that when estimates are made they are the best judgment available at the time and now we are making a final spread after fact, the work is done and the prices are in; if you want to hold to a 10% increase, then you can di- rect the Engineer to assess this lot $1,380 which will be 10% over the original estimate; if you do not desire to continue that policy, the Council can simply confirm the assessment of $1,640.86; in other words, it's your option. In answer to the question on the number of these we have of this nature, Mr. Onley replied two. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the City pick up the difference, we are talkin about the Servatiuproperty and the property next door Assess. Nos. 36 and 33. City Attorney McLean asked Mr. Orley what the assessment would be on each of those lots if they held to a 10% increase. Mr. Onley said Assessment No. 33 would be approximately $1,380.00 and Assessment No. 36 would be approximately $1,487.00. The City Attorney restated the motion The Engineer of Work be directed to not assess assessment parcels 33 and 36 more than 10% above the original estimate which would result in assessments of approximately $1,380.00 on No. 33 and 1 487.00 on No. 36. Mr. Onley inquired about the $520 that has to be paid. The City Attor- ney said the City will have to pay that. Mr. Onley said that should be in the motion. Carried by unanimous vote. The City Attorney recom- mended the difference between the estimated assessment and the actual assessment on the work on these two lots be a part of the City's con- ' tribution. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the Ci tty Attorney s recommendation be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. J. T. BYRON (Assess No. 121) was present and said he was interested in the property at 1845 E. 12 St. which is the South Bay Bible Community Church, he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors, a non-profit corporation. The City Attorney requested Mr. Onley go over to the map and tell us what the dollars and cents amount of the assessment are. Mr. Orley complied and said $3,453.03; the property lies on the north side of 12 Street; the work that was done around that property for which it is being assessed is curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and two driveways; the lot is 100' by 166'. Mr. Byron said they had driveways in there and blacktop; they went to the expense of putting them in there and the City removed them and put superior ones in there; we are happy about the work they did, but the estimate is way off; $2,700.00 was about what the original estimate was and now they are charging us over $3,000.00 over 10%. Mr. Onley said he didn't know the original estimatc, all he had with him was the roll. He didn't look into it because a protest was not received. Mr. Byron said he didn't make formal protest, he waited until the meeting. The City Attorney said unfortunately, the original estimates are not something that go on the assessment roll so if we didn't receive a protest, there was no way the staff would know to research that particular lot and we can't tell you, now, the history of your assessment. Mr. Byron said he knows what it was, it was $2,750.00; he helped build that church and has been there very eminently working with the church for the betterment of that little community up there; if the City is going to make exception of these two other parcels they should make an exception now. The City Attorney asked what the final assessment was and Mr. Onley said it was $3,163.03. City Attor- ney McLean said once again, if the Council desires to hold to its policy of not increasing the assessment on an individual lot by more than 10% over the estimate, the Council can so direct the Engineer and where there is any amount of this assessment that is over the 10% it can be taken off the assessment and be added to the City contribut±orr, Council can make that as a policy decision without knowing what the numbers are. The Mayor suggested there be a motion; we have set a pol- icy and it has been the policy that the Council will not go over 10% on these; I think we should have a blanket motion that if there is anyone more than 10% over the estimate cost here that we should pick up that tab the same as we did the others. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Mayor's suggestion. 5/13%75 38 DISTRICT ASSESSMENT City Engineer Hoffland said there were several requests that we exceed the 10%. City Attorney McLean said the motion refers to an involuntary increase greater than 10% which is not related to additional work being done, that is how he understands the motion. The City Attorney restated the motion: The Council adopts the policy in this assessment district that they direct the Engineer of Work to enforce that no assessment against a _parcel will be greater than 10% over the original estimate unless there has been additional work done for that parcel. The City Attorney advised Mr. Byron that if, in fact, his assessment is over 10% it will be reduced. Carried by unanimous vote. MR. OTHA W. MARTIN (Assess. No. 127) 1802 E. 12 St., was present and said he did not make a formal protest; he was not in town; he is a Cap- tain of a tuna boat and he was out to sea; he was given the impression (now this was not in writing) that the blacktop asphalt for the width of the road would be somewhere about $225 a linear foot, the width of the road, from the City Engineer's office; he has 140' on E. 12 St. and he was billed $2,140.58 which is $152.80 per linear foot or for the total width $305.60; he wanted to know if that is correct. Mr. Onley said the assessment roll indicates that assessment No. 127 was $2,140.58; the work for which this property is being charged is grading and paving plus incidental expenses. The City Attorney said Mr. Martin made refer- ence to some unit prices. Mr. Onley said he had no knowledge of this. Mr. Martin said there were no improvements to the curbing or sidewalk. The City Attorney said that is what you are being charged for and the assessment you got is in fact what the Engineers intended to charge against you. MR. JOHN WRIGHT, 1627 E. 10 St. was present and said it was his under- standing that if the seven property owners on his street would get together and come up with $300 that you will.... The Mayor said this has been referred to the City Manager. Mr. Wright said all the Councilmen should look at this and forbid something like that to happen again be- cause it is a disgrace to leave a street like that; we definitely didn't get what we were charged for. It was explained that paving of his half of 10 St. was not included in the specifications. MRS. WILLIAM VINZANT, (Assess. No. 84) was present and said they are pro- testing the removal of the driveway apron and being charged for a new driveway apron; they had cement work done that they were not assessed for and that was their curbs; she was referred to the minutes of a meet- ing in October in 1958 and she read a portion of the minutes. She said Mr. Onley didn't answer her question about the removal of a fence; they were charged for removal of a fence, there is no fence on our property. Mr. Onley said the question of the fence was in the letter he read to the Council; district costs for concrete removal and fence removal were assessed when beneficial to the properties within the district; again we are talking about something done someplace else on that particular street, within the block; the concrete removal is the same; it was someplace in that area; it could have been some of her concrete, it could have been somebody elses'. The City Attorney asked if what was done was take the block in question and charge all the properties in that block their pro- rata share of the total cost of fence removal and concrete removal for the whole block because in your opinion they were equally benefitted from that work. Mr. Onley said yes, the removals benefitted the whole block, yes. Mrs. Vinzant asked about the charge for the new driveway apron. Mr. Onley said the driveway apron was installed. The City At- torney asked was it necessary to put the driveway apron in as a part of this project? Mr. Onley said, according to those minutes that she was reading from; it was stated that there is a difference in the pro- posed street and their driveway which would make it inaccessable for them to use. City Attorney McLean asked if the street design made it necessary to replace the driveways, including the driveway on this prop- erty. Mr. Onley replied yes. The City Attorney asked if this property was charged for the cost of its driveway. Mr. Onley replied yes, accord- ing to those minutes talked about in 1958. The City Attorney said regardless of 1958, when this job was done, was a driveway put in on this property and was this property charged for that driveway. Mr. Oxley said yes, it was installed and charged for. Mrs. Vinzant said this prop- erty already had a driveway that was taken out. The City Attorney said what Mr. Onley is saying is because of the design of the street as 5/13/75 39 approved by the City Council, the grades and so forth, it was necessary to take the old driveway out and put it back in so it would work right. Mrs. Vinzant was advised she was not charged for the curb. Mrs. Vinzant said in these same minutes (1958) there seems to be a contradictory statement; in one place it reads that additional driveway costs are to be charged to the owner and just before that it says these improvements are to be made at no expense to the property owners. Mr. Onley said she was reading from a letter that was written ... he underlined a copy of the minutes of the Council at that time; it does state, it does rec- ommend ... petition with additional driveway cost to be charged to the property owner with all the Council voting yes. Mrs. Vinzant said in those same minutes it says these improvements to be made at no expense to the property owners. Mr. Onley said the 1958 minutes ... Mr. Bird read a letter from the City Engineer; and he is reading to Council now what the City action really was. Mrs. Vinzant said her assessment was $1,290.81 (Assess. No. 84). The City Attorney asked if this lady was being charged for any work that was done in 1958? Mr. Onley said no. Mrs. Vinzant said there wasn't any work done then. The question ofwhat the 1958 minutes had to do with this assessment district was raised. Mrs. Vinzant said it seems to be a matter of inconsistancy; we were not charged for the curbs but there was a new one built; but we are being r.4 N.0 charged for driveway apron that was there, existing there before, and now torn out and rebuilt; now, we are not being charged for the curbs but we are for the driveway; why one and not the other. Mrs. Vinzant said the curbs were there and they built new ones, they were not charged for the new ones; but their driveway was there, it was buried, they are being charged for a new one. It was suggested they could have been charged for the curbs then; the City paid for the curbs there and the City picked up it in the $128,000 contribution. Mrs. Vinzant said that may well be but it isn't on their assessment; her assessment was not more than 10% over the estimate. DISTRICT ASSESSMENT KEITH FROLKEY (Assess. No. 101) in the amount of $130.28, was present and said he noticed a few inconsistencies during the meeting; and now you say lowering manholes and raising manholes are covered in it; districtwise basis, curbing, and fencing covered on a districtwise basis explained to the lady just here; you told her the fence removal was on the same street and told about ten minutes ago that parcels 100, 101, 2, 3, 4, & 5 were charged on the basis that a manhole was raised or lowered in that block; he doesn't remember a manhole there in the first place, is there one there? what they are complaining about is the fact that they have the...this is the letter about the road oil that was put in front of the place to make it better for the inspectors that came around; he has one question, when can this work be done if they do come up with the $300. City Manager Bourcier said they would do it as soon as possible. Mayor Morgan said Public Works will schedule it as soon as the money is in; the work will be scheduled and he doesn't know how long it will take but it won't be too long...if the money is in, they surely will get it in two weeks or a month at the latest. Mr. Frolkey asked if it would be the same quality of work the other side is. Mayor Morgan said that is right. Mr. Frolkey said and no hump in the middle? Mayor Morgan said no. BERNARDO HERNANDEZ, JR., (Assess. No. 49) was present and said he did not put in a protest; he is apprcaching the Council on a couple of questions; he lives at 2125 East 12 St., right around the corner from the traffic trap being put in there; when he bought that house four years ago, it had curbs, sidewalk, the whole works; he understands his neighbors across the street, there are three of them, also have curbs and sidewalks yet their assessment was about 50% less than his; his question is why should his assessment be that much greater than his three neighbors across the street. Mr. Onley said he is speaking about Assess. No. 49 which is on the lower side of 12 St.; this parcel was assessed for improvements on 12 St. plus benefit improvements on Paradise Drive, which is a Council policy; his reference was the parcel here (pointing on map) which has no benefit improvements on either end of any block so the assessment on the other, on the south side of 12 St. will be considerably less than the assessment on the north side of 12 St. It was explained that we don't assess across the street, but it goes from the north side around the corner and it has benefitted the property. Mr. Onley said he was, according to the diagram, assessed for grading and paving the street; he had his curb, gutter and sidewalk in. 5/13/75 40 Mr. Hernandez said okay, that constitutes about...the difference between his neighbors and him in relationship of the total cost; because his property was unimproved, he had to carry somebody else that wasn't, isn't that what we are saying; he doesn't have any com- plaints with the work that was done; the contractor happens to be a personal friend of his. Mayor Morgan said on the south side they had to bring the street in there and on the north side where there was a temporary street, they took it off, lifted it out, hauled it away, brought in the base, brought in the blacktop and everything and put it in front of his place. Mr. Hernandez said he knows, he just can't understand the differential; he is talking about...here he is, he went to a large expense...he paid for all that when he bought the property; forget about the neighbors; what he is talking about is when he bought that property, one of the stipulations was you had to have curb, side- walks, the whole thing four years ago; so he must have paid for that in the price of the house. He was asked if he paid for the sidewalk and curb. Mr. Hernandez said the contractor that worked on his house had to put them in; he had sidewalk and curb in front of his house; he was the only one on that whole side of the street that had it. Mr. Onley said Mr. Hernandez did not pay for sidewalk and curb. Mr. Hernandez said he has another question; in relation to the improve- ments...Paradise Valley Drive...he is sure they have heard some complaints about that corner there or do you know anything about it. City Engineer Hoffland asked if it was something about both the corner coming off of Plaza Blvd. and the sharp curve. Mr. Hernandez said it has become a race track. Mr. Hernandez was advised they have turned that over to the Traffic Safety Committee and it is hoped they will recommend a stop sign. Mr. Hernandez said it has already cost him a lot of money; he has had two cars destroyed in front of his house. IVAN O. KJORLIEN (Assess. No. 100), 1631 E. 10 St., was present and said his assessment was $130.28; this improvement was loth St., llth • St., 12th St., Palm Ave. and R Ave.; then the south side of llth St. Q • wasn't assessed anything because somebody said they weren't in the district; how...in the middle of what you are doing...how come it isn't in the district? Mr. Onley said Assess. No. 100 is on the north side of llth St.; his reference is to the south side of llth St.; the middle of this assessment diagram shows that there was work done and then the benefit area of this parcel on the north side of loth St.; in doing that, all the parcels on the north side of loth St. were included within the assessment district because it is described that any work done on that side of the street and possibly any work done at the two intersections will surely benefit the property that was on the street which either side is the same. Mr. Kjorlien was advised he was assessed for benefit from the work around the corner; it is the same thing here on Palm Ave.; you come in on the north side and we have a section that is paved and that is beneficial; then we have from R St. coming around there and then the reason for the difference from $117.00 to $130.00 was raising and lowering of that manhole. Mr. Kjorlien said he was assessed $130.00 for not doing anything and something was said about an additional $300.00 to fix it up; is that $300.00 between the seven pieces of property? Mayor Morgan said that is right; we don't care where it comes from; if you bring in $300.00, we will do the job. Mayor Morgan said he appreciated the school class for coming out tonight. FRANK C. KUHLOW (Assess. No. 85), 1741 E. llth St., was present and said he was not complaining about the assessment; at the intersection of 11 St. and R on the east side of the intersection for approximately 75' there is a low spot in the pavement about 4' out from the gutter; this has to fill up with water before any water leaves; after the water quits running, this low spot holds the water until it evaporates; also, the southwest corner of the intersection is also indented...a depression that holds water. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Reid, we instruct the Manager and the Engineer to check this, if it is a fault in the pave- ment that it will be fixed. Carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Kuhlow said that it was said that the property on the north side of 10 St. was assessed because it was a benefit area and included in that because you turn the corner; 11 St., Palm Ave. also have their corner improved on the south side, why wasn't llth assessed totally? Mr. Onley said one of the people in the audience just answered it, it is not in the district; the improvements on Palm Ave. were all paid for by the City out of Gas Tax 5/13/75 DISTRICT ASSESSMENT 41 Funds; we do not assess anybody back for improvements on Palm Ave., on loth or llth St. Mr. Kuhlow was advised that Palm Ave. is on the Select System and is paid by the gasoline taxes. Mr. Onley said there are certain streets in the City that we call Select Streets and there are also other streets where we can use Gas Tax Funds and Palm Ave. is one of the streets where we can do this. City Attorney McLean said the boundaries of the district were set by the City Council when the district assessment proceeding was originally created; it is too late now to change the boundaries of the assessment district; if in fact, you had any desire to change them, it is too late; the district bound- aries were fixed only in these proceedings and this hearing tonight cannot lead to a change in the district boundaries regardless of what you may want to do or now think is wise; that is over with; the only thing you have jurisdiction to do tonight is to consider the amount of the assessment and the method by which it has been spread across the district that was originally adopted which is described in the green boundaries. In answer to the question if it was necessary for a majority to approve going ahead with this 1911 Act, City Attorney McLean said either by the affirmative act of signing a petition or by silence upon receiving a notice of the City's intention to assess properties within the district to do this work; one or the other occurs.. r..i City Attorney McLean said the boundaries are known at the very begin- ning; this step that occurs in an assessment proceeding is a notification of property owners within the intended district of the proposal to do work and assess the properties within that district for the work; that's the first thing that happens and so an argument now that this district boundary should have been drawn in a different way...Council simply doesn't have power to change it at this point. There was dis- cussion in regard to when the boundaries might have been changed in the past. MRS. DONALD F. CHASE (Assess. No. 94), 1620 E. l0th St., was present 0 and asked why she was assessed $100 more than the woman next door when she has the same frontage, they did the same work. Mr. Onley said this is the thing; you cannot see on the drawing the water meters, removal items; there is no way of looking at the assessment diagram and saying that there is a reason for hers being $1,011 and that other one being $948; you can't tell by just looking at the diagram. Moved by Morgan, that we have her to come in and go down and talk to the Engineers downstairs where they have all the figures and maps and everything and get that cleared up, if that point can't be cleared up there...that extra work, we will have to pick it up as a City...that's a motion. Motion died for lack of second. Mrs. Chase said she has another thing; since they put in this new driveway and sidewalk and the whole bit; with all this rain that we have had, all the water and mud comes down from the hill down into her driveway; you can't walk into the driveway and there is all that water and mud going into the garage; she never had that problem before. Mr. Onley said mud washes off of the other properties...it's just the fact that it is a new street; there are little cut banks in the area and this is where the cross gutter is not at the intersection, it is back up the street a little ways; so the water has to go around the corner. In answer to the question if foliage would help eliminate the dirt and this sort of thing, Mr. Onley said you will never get rid of the dirt, it is going to come down the street in the gutter; hydraulically the dirt is dropping because something is happening there; it's something we should look at. Mrs. Chase said she had to shovel that dirt out of there. City Attorney McLean said the Engineer is going to go out and take a look at the property... Mrs. Chase said she talked with somebody at the Public Works office, she doesn't know who it was; he told her to put some bricks down there. Mayor Morgan asked City Manager Bourcier to see that that is taken care of. DI STRICT ASSESSMENT JOHN WRIGHT (Assess. No. 99) asked if they could get a letter out in regard to those seven properties so a couple of us can approach them and tell them that we want to gather some money up from them to get the street in The Mayor said yes, that would be fine. MRS. ZACARIAS ZARATE (Assess. No. 129) 1730 E. 12 St., was present and said she has the same complaint in regard to her home, about seven years ago she already had her driveway and curb; she would like to know how 5/13/7 5 42 they arrived at this figure charged to her. Mr. Onley said Assess. No. 129 is $745.20; here again we have a parcel that hadthe eaconcrete and ehim- provements already in and we graded the street, put in en put a blacktop on it. City Attorney McLean asked ifthe assessment ��on o this lady's property is for street work and not any concrete. r. Onley said it was only for street work. City Attorney McLean said she was not charged for any curb, gutter or sidewalk. It was explained b la,nedeto Mrs. Zarate that she was assessed for the street work, the street in front of her property, the grading and incidentals. Mrs. p�• Zarate said okay; her problem is when is it die and how is she going to pay it; how is this going to work out ... the payment. City Attorney McLean said she will have ten years to pay; she will get a bill from the City Treasurer of the principal and interest that is due and she will have a period of time after she gets the bills to pay the money H to the City Treasurer if she wants, in essence, to finance it; if you H finance it that way there is a very low interest rate, or if she wishes H she can come in and pay the total assessment in cash now. H asked when the payments would begin. Mr. Onley said the Council is not going to confirm the roll tonight because we have some things we have to do; when the roll is confirmed, the man who has bought the and bnds will come in and pick up the roll, he is going to send you a bill bill will come in about four or five days; and thirty days from the date on the bill you can pay all of it, or none of it, or any part of it; z whatever is left at the end of thirty days will automatically go to bond; and as Mr. McLean says, then the City Treasurer from there on will send you once a year a notice of the interest for half a year and once w a year she will send you interest for half a year and one tenth of the wunpaid principal; in the beginning, it would be about $90 a year, the last year will be about $72. City Attorney McLean recommended that the hearing be closed, that the matter be referred to the City Engineer for adjustments in the assessments as directed and that the assessment as finally made be returned to Council next week. Moved by Camacho, sec- onded by Pinson, in favor of the City Attorney's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. The HEARING to consider ZONE CHANGE from R-2 to R-4-PD the vacant prop- erty located on the westerly side of "T" Avenue adjacent to and south of the property at 420 "T" Avenue, having about 410 feet of frontage 05 on "T" Avenue and bounded on its southerly and westerlyCall3y freeway, (ZC-2-75) was held at this time. City Clerk,/stat d the Certif- icate of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Hearing are on file. Planning Director Gerschler said you have the Planning Commission's recommendation in favor of the proposal. No one was present in this regard. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Dalia, the public hearing be closed and that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be denied. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Morgan. Nays: Reid. Mayor Morgan called an Executive Session at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the meeting be closed. Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 9:56 p.m. CitJ Clerk ity of National City, California Th foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council of the City of N ional City at the regular meeting of y 27,�; 1975. i No Corrections 11 1 or,1. 9 as noted below Mayor, City,f National City, California 5/13/75