HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969 09-23 CC MIN165
biiourE,S GF THE REGULAR ;M ZTI'1G C3 THE CITY COUNCIL
CF THE CITY OF i'ATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
September 23, 195s
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was
called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mice Mayor Reid.
ROLL CALL
Council members ?resent: Camacho, Colburn, Hogue, Reid. Absent: Morgan.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS present: McLean, Minogue, Civil Engineer Associate
Onley, Osburn, Stockman, Watts.
SALUTE TO FLAG AND INVOCATION
The meeting was opened with salute to the Flag led by City Manager Osburn
followed with invocation by Harry G. Moskwa, Reader, First Church of Christ
Scientist.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Camacho, seconded by Hogue, the minutes of the regular meeting of
September 15, 196S be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent:
Morgan.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
COUNCILMAN HOGUE said he had tried for a year to have a sidewalk installed
in front of the Alpha Beta market on the east side cf Harbison north of
Plaza. Moved by Hogue, seconded by Colburn, the City Manager inform this
gentleman if he doesn't get this sidewalk in within 60 days the Council will
take into consideration putting in a block act to have the sidewalk put in.
City Manager Osburn said the owner had been contacted by the City at vari-
ous times and he agreed to install the sidewalk b.:t has not yet done it.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
COUNCILMAN COLaURH suggested a letter of congratulation be sent to National
City resident, Warren Chambers, on his appointment as Deputy County Coroner.
Vice Mayor Reid requested the City Manager tc take care of this.
COUNCILMAN CAMAC O inquired what was being one tc acquire the parcels of
land for the National City Municipal Golf Course. City Manager Osburn re-
plied they had given the rights of way tc the gentleman in the redevelop-
ment act; he is now familiarizing himself with the location, appraisals,
etc.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
JOHN MACEVICZ, Principal, Granger Junior Nigh School, was present and re-
quested the Council to consider the resolution presented to them at the
September 15 meeting (Sweetwater Union High School District resolution ask-
ing the City Council to support them in a bone: election October 7, 1969).
Councilman Colburn stated he was not in favor of the bond issue at this
time; the rapid growth rate is such that it is unfair to tax citizens who
are already paying so much; we find sometimes we are being taxed for facil-
ities for people in new developments who have not been in the town one year.
The proposed PROCLAMATION of "ANNUAL LIONS CLUB CANE DAYS" (October 3-4,
1969) was read. Moved by Hogue, seconded by Camacho, the proclamation be
approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan. LEW LONG, PRESI-
DENT, NATIONAL CITY LIONS CLUB, Chula Vista, was present and asked to sell
the first white cane tc Vice Mayor Reid. Dan Stewart, Lions Club member,
was also present and assisted in selling canes to the Council members and.
City department heads. Councilman Hogue stated people should not be allow-
ed to solicit money from the Council during meetings.
The proposed PRCCLAMATICN of "FIRE PRE'JENTICid WEE:." (October 5-11, 1965)
was read. Moved by Colburn, seconded by Hogue, the proclamation be approv-
ed. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
;/23/6g
150
L. T. DERR, OWNER, SAL3 CITY SWAP MEET, was present and said at the request
of his attorney, Mr. 3radshaw, he was making two requests: (1) when the
Council arrives at Agenda Item "Adoption of Ordinances" pertaining to the
swap meet, the ordinance be read aloud; (2) to read into the minutes a
letter from Mr. Bradshaw to City Manager Osourn: "dated September 23, 1963.
I received a copy of the proposed ordinance regulating the swap meet this
date. Due to...prior commitments which would make it impossible for me to
appear before the Council to argue this matter before October 7, 1569...
I would ask that this matter for the second reading of the said proposed
ordinance be deferred until the date of October 7."
MRRS. ROBERT RICHARDS, 1411 E. 16th Street, was present and said at the last
meeting Council discussed raising the speed limits en some City streets to
35 m.p.h.; there are some sections which should not be raised: on Plaza
Boulevard at the shopping center; the one that concerned her most was 16th
Street; it is a street of many rentals and homes with small children. Mrs.
Richards submitted a petition with 31 signatures: "We, the undersigned
families, wish to go on record as objecting to a 31: m.p.h. speed limit on
16th Street between L Avenue and Palm Avenue.'
J. H. JENXINS, 1414 J Street, was present and said in regard to the trans-
fer of on sale beer license at 841 National, he was told by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control 3oard a protest has to either be withdrawn or left stand-
ing; it couldn't be left subject to conditions; unless Council withdrew
their protest it would go to a hearing. Councilman Colburn said with the
City Attorney's approval, they could withdraw the protest and make an agree-
ment if the building was not brought up to standard no business license
would be issued. City Attorney McLean said he talked last week to Mr. Jakel,
of the Alcoholic 3everage Control Board; he explained the Council wanted tc
guarantee the remodeling of the building according to the plans shown to
the Council and the Council would not withdraw its protest until that was
accomplished; Mr. Jakel said that was fine; they would simply hold the
application for the license transfer until the remodeling was completed at
which time the Council could withdraw its pretest and they would issue the
license; nothing further has been heard from Mr. Jakel concerning this
matter. Mr. Jenkins said the building should have been completed a month
ago but he ran into difficulties with his contractor and would have to get
another contractor to finish the job; his money was tied up with the first
contractor and he may have tc get some kind of financing; it is difficult
to get financing when there is a cloud over the license; he wanted the pro-
test withdrawn. Councilman Colburn inquired if the Council protested the
issuance of a license to Floyd Hicks (Melody Club) and. Thomas Groeschel
(Mustang). City Attorney McLean said the City had an agreement with them
which grew out of the City's condemnation action. Councilman Camacho read
the September 2 motion: The City Attorney be requested to notify the A3C
the City will remove the protest with the stipulation the remodeling of the
building be adhered to and only put back on if it wasn't at any time before
the opening day of business." City Attorney [McLean said they could not do
that; they have to either protest or take it oaf; if they wanted to condi-
tion this on a City business license that Mr. Jenkins will promise to com-
ply with his remodeling plans, they could uo it that way. Moved by Colburn,
seconded by Camacho, the City Attorney's office be authorized to draw the
new stipulation regarding Mr. Jenkins' business license and the protest on
the beer license transfer be withdrawn. Councilman Colburn asked if when
the City Attorney wrote this up and it was signed and everything was legal
would it have to come back to the Council. City Attorney McLean said he
would prepare a memorandum for Mr. Jenkins tc sign promising to remodel his
premises prior to opening according to the plans submitted; the plans are
on file in the Department of Building and Housing. Carried by the follow-
ing vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Colburn, Hogue. Nays: Reid. Absent:
Morgan.
THCMAS RUIZ, 2204 E. 4th Street, was present and requested the Council to
look into a situation involving Pop Warner Football at E1 Toyon ?ark.
Councilman Camacho asked what the problem was. Mr. Ruiz replied it per-
9/23/6,
167
tained to the program, the governing body, and abuse of the field, etc.;
there are laws such as no parking down in the lower field but everytime he
turned around he saw dozens of cars there. vice i'aycr Reid asked that the
City Manager and Mr. Maley check into this and give a report to Council.
Councilman Hogue said they would have to be careful as they had a pretty
good program there and they shouldn't disrupt it because someone was dis-
satisfied or something like that. George Zuniga, 1619 3eta Street, was
present and said he has two boys eligible to play with Pop Warner but he
kept them out this year because of a lot of things he didn't like; a couple
days ago 10 of them were playing on Beta Street and he asked them to play
in El Toyon Park; now he wanted to know who had a right to run the boys off
of the City park. Vice Mayor Reid asked Mr. Zuniga to give his name and
address to City Manager Osburn and it would be checked out.
VICE MAYOR REID presented a "Key to the City" to Miss Debbie Ray in recog-
nition of her achievements which brought credit to National City. The Vice
Mayor asked the parents of Miss Ray, present in the audience, to stand up
and be recognized.
The ASSESSMENT HEARING ON THE 1911 ACT Ii,i':aC EMEN . OF I, J, L, 20TH, 22ND,
24TH STREETS, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 153, was held at this time. City
Clerk Minogue stated the Certificates of Funlication and Mailing Notices of
the hearing were on file; six letters of protest were received from Lester
J. Cramer, 1015 E. 24th Street; C. X. Carter, 233: L Avenue; Mr. & Mrs.
Paul F. Pallas, 2105 K Avenue; Mrs. :nose L. Santos, 1723 J Avenue; L. T.
and Ellen B. Gottschall, 2019 J Avenue; and Mr. & Mrs. Harry Kunishima,
1618 I Avenue; a pretest petition was also received signed by nine persons:
Rose O'Keefe, 2020 J Avenue; Cynthia E. 3arfie.d, 1:15 I Avenue; Velma
Gilliland, 1905 I Avenue; Nettie C. Stidham, 1;20 J Avenue, L. T. & Ellen
B. Gottschall, 201: J Avenue; Mr. & Mrs. W. L. Mackey, 2014 K Avenue; L:r.
& Mrs. C. W. Rasmussen, 2025 I Avenue, Mr. & Mrs. S. N. Laverents, 1928-30
J Avenue; and Mr. & Mrs. Ernest E. Chavez, 1S17 I Avenue. Civil Engineer
Associate Cnley stated the protest constituted 10.065. Mrs. Ellen Gottschall,
2019 J Avenue, was present and said she was not against street improvements
and was proud of what had been done; the people who signed the petition
were a minority of the district, people who live off the street that was
improved, did not vote on the improvement and had no say in it and were in-
cluded; in her research and reading she found that in order to be included.
a street must be cf more than local or ordinary public benefit; there are
10 people in the category of being off the street with no frontage and of
the 10 people she had signatures; this is a protest for 20th Street from
I Avenue to L Avenge; it deadends at Highland and L; the inequities of the
assessment are outstanding. Mrs. Gottschall said she understood assessment
was not by frontage anymore, however, it is said an excessive frontage must
be considered; Mrs. Gottschall cited Sections 5343, 5367, 5550 cf the Streets
and Highways Code; this is the one that takes place after the job is com-
pleted: "immedia:tely after its completion the diagram will be delivered
to the Superintendent cf Streets which shall immediately after the contrac-
tor has fulfilled his contract to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of
Streets, or the legislative body on appeal, ,proceed to estimate upon the
lot of parcels of land within the assessment district as shown by the dia-
gram the benefits arising from such work and is be received by each such
lot or parcel of land. He shall assess upon and against the lands in the
assessment district the total amount of the costs and expenses of such work
and in so doing shall assess the total s-um upon the several lots or parcels
of land within the assessment district benefited thereby in proportion to
the estimated benefits to be received by each of the several lots or par-
cels of land;" it continually says "in proportion to benefits;" in the new
way in which they no longer assess frontage it says: "The Improvement Act
of 1911...formerly permitted frontage assessment and in 1963 Legislature
removed all reference to frontage assessment from that act; at the present
time assessments are spread over the district in accordance with the bene-
fit each lot receives from the improvement; the benefit each lot receives
may be determined by considering many factors such as frontage, topography
9/23/69
168
and to a much less extent, current usage an. zoning; this method of assess-
ment has proven to be the most flexible and egwitable method relying as it
does solely on the criteria of benefit." Mrs. Gcttschall said assessments
are based on benefit and the benefit for people around the corner should
not be the same benefit percentage as for tiie people who are on the street;
she is assessed exactly the same as people who live on the improved street;
she is to pay for the south half of 20th Street; she will pay 33.7 or 400;
there are others who are paying even more; there are others who are paying
505 and more; certainly frontage has to be considered; there is a definite
remedy; there is always something that can be done if it is not right and
is not fair. Mrs. Gottschall said she coed cite many examples of inequi-
ties but would not as she felt they were ail familiar with the map and
assessments and can see them for themselves; this has been a very hard
thing to fight; the district is formed of :many different sections that are
not near each other; it is hard when you are in the minority; on 24th Street
their assessments are very little but she understood they only paid for
their sidewalks, etc. and the City did the rest of it; L Avenue is one of
the larger sections and she understood a large part of it was paid for by
gasoline tax, although how L Avenue could be considered a public thorough-
fare, she could/let understand; these are the largest sections and are
naturally not going to protest; she could quote many assessments on L
Avenue of lots much larger than hers paying under $100.00, some of them
less than 1/4 or 1/5 of her assessment. Mrs. Gottschall said her street
was paved and improved in 1964 and paid for in June of 1365; around the
corner on 20th in the middle of the block there are assessments less than
$25.00; this is around the corner from her. Councilman Colburn stated L
Avenue and 24th Streets had been dedicated, paved streets at one time years
and years ago; it was only a center strip but they had paid for it; it was
really a re -improved street; it is considered a through street; according
to one comment made by Mrs. Gottschall she had some comparisons. Mrs.
Gottschall said she was just mentioning L and 24th; her contention was in e
district composed of sections and L is one of the sections, 24th is one and
they are two of the largest, which actually the property owners in their
section become the majority and therefore, they are naturally in favor of
the improvement; there was another one that was only a one -block deal that
led nowhere to some apartments and they wanted it paved; she could under-
stand it as she would be too, but she was saying it still leaves the other
section of this district with no say-so whatsoever because you are a minor-
ity before you are started. Mrs. Gottschall said her first appeal before
the Council was a petition for the section from I to K on 20th to withdraw
from the district which was proper and did have 8.35 of the property owners
on 20th and on J except two property owners; it was a proper petition to
withdraw from the district; there was an over-all total of 115 protest;
she believed a minority had the right to oe heard. Councilman Hogue asked
if she was implying the people who face the street that is improved and she
was a half -block away and not on the street, she was paying the same amount
as the people facing the street. Mrs. Gottschall replied she was paying
exactly the sane amount; she was paying 405. Councilman Hogue said he knew
they go back 1/2 bloc': on each side of the street in property; it seemed to
him on 16tn Street it came back this way on Earle Drive but the farther
away it carve back from 15th Street, the less amount those people paid and
the closer it got to loth Street, the larger anoint of money you paid; the
people along 15th Street paid the highest percent and gradually as you go
back they paid less and asked Civil Engineer Associate Onley if this was
correct. irir. Onley replied it was not; this assessment they are talking
about now was just like every assessment they had done since 1963 and so
far as he was concerned they were not going to change it; just as sure as
they do, they will have reassessments one after another; Mrs. Gottschall
quoted from the decision handed by Mr. Schriver who is an attorney at law
and who is an authority on this and in quoting this she used the very ex-
pressions he (Onley) used; you have to recognize frontage, of course, but
State Law says any property owner is responsible for his own curb, sidewalk
and driveway, so they use the frontage; when the district was set up by
this Council they determined it would be a district assessment and it would
go back far enough to cover the cost of all people who would benefit from
9/23/69
15:
the district and it was determined some time agc that you go half way to
the next major street to do this; on 15th Street they went clear to 14th
Street because 12th Street was the next major street through on one side and
on the other side they go half a block; the same thing has been done here;
this is what Mrs. Gottschall is saying; we've gone a whole block going one
way and the other way only about one-half a block; her assessment on her
side of the street was exactly the same as the assessment on the other side
of the street; this is true because her assessment is on one side of the
center line and the other people's is on the other side of the center line.
Mrs. Gottschall said she has a 50' frontage on J Avenue one-half block away
and going back 115'; next to her is a 75' lot that goes on the corner and
around for 115'; in other words, they have 115' of frontage on this street
that is improved, coming around J for 75' frontage and then her 50'; she is
supposed to have two 25' lots by 115'; they have 3; if this is divided (as
Mr. Onley told her) into fifths, they are paying 3/5 and she is paying 2/5
which is 40)7; brat there is a big exception when they have 115' frontage on
the street; she has read numerous things and it constantly refers to "in
proportion to the benefit;" she has found many definitions and many case
histories. Mr. Cnley said he understood this; he researches these things
himself; it is just that the only way Mrs. Gottschall can get to the back
of her property is to go down the alley and the only way to go down there
is to go down 20th Street. Ars. Gottschall asked what he meant; her pro-
perty faces on J Avenue; she had never been to her property by the alley;
there is an alley that goes through from 20th to 21st Streets but she dces
not use the alley; in fact, it is completely fenced off; there is an alley
there but the wording is definite, "this is in proportion and in accordance
with the benefit each lot receives on the improvement;" her lot was def-
initely not receiving the benefit around the corner that they do. City
Attorney .McLean said he would tell the Council what he thinks the law is;
Question No. 1 is whether or not this lady's property is benefited by the
construction of the street improvement and apparently it is admitted that
her property has benefited; the second question is what part of the cost
should be levied against her property; the Code says the portion of the
cost should be apportioned to her property as she has received benefit from
the improvement; the decision as to how much benefit her property will re-
ceive from these improvements in relationship to other lots is a matter of
judgment; it is a matter of discretion; there are no black and white guide-
lines and no formula under State law that says you can apply a mathematical
system to it; it is up to the engineers to devise and apply consistently
some reasonable method of apportioning benefits tc the lots; beyond that it
is simply a matter of the Council's judgment. Councilman Colburn said when
he first was on the Council they had frontage foot; then the law became
effective which the Council did not vote on bi,t we are a General Law City
and we are included and this is how we operate; he argued the value of who
assesses this benefit; if Mr. Onley isn't here and he is replaced by some-
one else that individual might have a difference in his opinion of value;
the home as it is used now could have a aifferent value as it might have
been six months ago cr a year or six months in the future or if it was an
apartment house or something with 20 people running in and out instead of
one family running in and cut; it is a shame the streets have gotten in
such a condition that the owner of each piece of property has not had to
pay for his street when the property was first improved; he would rather see
it go back to the street frontage assessment; the Council could refer this
to the City Attorney and if it goes to Court, let the Court make the de-
cision; it might establish a precedent to operate under from now on. Mrs.
Gottschall said when it was taken off frontage it was to be determined by
benefit and by benefit received; it says so clearly that frontage was to be
used and it is a very clear deal that the people who live on the street
naturally get more benefits than someone around the corner; she did not
know why Mr. Onley thought she went to her property on 20th St.; she had
not been on 20th St. bdt one time to drive down it tc look at it after it
was paved. Mr. Onley pointed to the map on display; he said they would
have to remember he was looking at a map with no houses or fences on it; it
represented only a piece of land. Councilman Colburn asked how they arrive
at benefit. Mr. Onley replied the map shows blue areas which is what every-
S/23/69
170
body uses; the only people who benefit from the cdrhs and sidewalks are the
people who are adjacent to it; the only think spread over the whole district
is the paving of the street. Councilman Co -:ouzo said what he meant was how
was Mrs. Gettschall's benefit established. Onley said because Mrs.
Gottschall owned 40% of this piece of improvement that lies on that side of
the center line (Mr. Onley is continuing to point out areas on the map.).
Councilman Colburn inquired if her assessment was just 40% of the street
cost. Mr. Onley said that was right; by another token, if this street had
been improved at the time this was done there would be very little differ-
ence in the assessment; this would have been added to it. Mrs. Gottschall
said she was paying more than either one of the other people; the man on
the corner has a 69' frontage on this street and 75' around the corner; his
total cost is two hundred and some dollars; she was paying $379.00; this
hardly seems fair; the next house on the street in the center of that block
is paying $316.00; she was paying $387.00 or $339.00, and that completes
that half of block; those two people are paying around $267.00 and $316.00
and she was paying $389.00; she was paying more than either of the other
people on the street with their total of 115' frontage on the street;
everything she could find continues to say "in proportion to the benefits
received;" it even says when you take away the usage (it doesn't say you
can't use the word "frontage"; it just says it can no longer be a frontage
assessment)...it still says that in considering your assessment that you
have to take in frontage and a few other things that leave us cut pretty
far. Councilman Colburn inquired how Mr. Onley arrived at the 40c Mrs.
Gottschall wouldbe paying. Mr. Onley replied she owns 40% of the area
here. Councilman Colburn inquired why they use the magic number of 15 of
percent owned. Mr. Onley replied it was easier to use. Councilman Colburn
inquired what if Mrs. Gottschall owned 50' of the total area. Mr. Onley
replied she would pay 507.; of the cost of the improvement. Councilman Col -
burn said the point she was trying to make and he agreed with her, was why
should she pay half of the cost of the street that her benefit was not 1005
use but was a partial benefit. Mrs. Gottschall went to the map on the
board and said the law says in order to go aror.iid the corner it must be of
more than local or ordinary public benefit; those who get the most use from
the improvement are the ones supposed to pay; this is only a four block
area; it deacends at Highland and L and the olock from Highland tc I wa.s
removed by the Council. Mrs. Gottschall pointed cut various parcels cn the
map and their assessments. Councilman Colburn inquired if it would be
possible to have the costs imposed on the map and net just listed but
written on the snap so the Council could review the assessments per proper-
ties; if that would be possible, he would with the City Attorney's permiss-
ion move this hearing be laid over. Moved oy Colburn, the hearing be laid
over until further study could be made by the Council as to the assessments
pertaining to each lot October 14, 8:00 ?.m. 3i11 Horgan, 2206 L Avenue,
was present and thanked the previous speaker for data and information he
didn't know; he hadn't had time to look into the situation; his property
was on the corner of L and 22nd. Mr. Horgan went to the map and pointed
out several parcels (100') with assessments of five Hundred and something;
he had 50' x 100' without sidewalk for $555.00 which did not seem proper
and fair; originally they were told they would have the road, curbs, getters
and sidewalks; his property drops down the cliff probably 10' - 12'; the
City just slashed it off there and there is no access there and it is a
mess of weeds and gopher holes; the sidewalks were not put in; he doesn't
use the road so he has 50' x 100' without sidewalks and pays $555.00; he
hoped this would be laid over until later so the Council can look into it.
Mr. Horgan said next to his property was that of Mrs. Elizabeth Roth and he
was acting as Conservator; she has lived in this home since 1925 and has
paid thousands cf dollars for taxes over the years; she is now 86 years old
and in the hospital; she hasn't been out of her home for months; she was
sick in bed, practically dying; they put in her sidewalks, driveway, curbs
and improvements; she doesn't have a car and can't get out; she now has a
bill for $683.00; he inquired how this 86 year old lady was going to pay.
Councilman Colbarn said he was sympathetic with Mrs. Roth's condition;
possibly because of her condition the property should be turned over to an
executor or someone so the improvements could ce made so the rest of the
City will benefit; in the last few years there have been many streets put
c/23/6g
171
in under protest and under a very similar situation; it is an assessment
against the property and the value has to be there or the law wouldn't allow
them to assess it; this is how they do it although sometimes it may seem a
little cruel. Mr. Horgan said the City Attorney mentioned benefits should
be based upon the use and benefit derived; she couldn't get out on her pro-
perty; she couldn't derive any benefit whatsoever from the pavement on 22nd
Street, at least not to the tune of $683.00; he inquired if there was some
way to postpone this assessment until such time as she may die or the pro-
perty is sold. City Attorney McLean replied the assessment is spread over
a ten-year period and 10 equal annual installments are due to whoever buys
1911 Act improvement bonds; maybe a contractor will buy them and maybe a
private investor will buy them; they bear interest; if she doesn't make the
payments the bonds become delinquent and then it becomes the right of the
bondholder to foreclose against the property; the only way to postpone the
payment would be by private arragnement between her and the bondholder, who-
ever that may be. Walter Mackey, 2014 X Avenue, was present and said since
the assessment was originally made, they have upped his about 11% which he
didn't think was right (Mr. Mackey went tc the soap on the board); he said
he was paying for over 50% of the cost of the street on this side; he has 2
lots and one foot; was he going to benefit more than 50% more than this per-
son (pointing to the map). Councilman Colburn inquired if his property was
larger. Mr. Mackey said he owned two lots one foot larger than Mrs. Gott-
schall's. Councilman Colburn inquired if his property was larger in square
footage than the property he was referring to. Mr. Onley replied it was
identical; our map shows his property is 622' wide which is two lots and a
half lot. Mr. Mackey said according to the County he owns two lots and one
foot; he thought it was wrong and he didn't care what anyone else says. Mr.
Mackey told Mrs. Gottschall he had the authority to sign for the loth pro-
perty owner on the petition. Ernest E. Chavez, 1917 I Avenue, was present
and said he was in agreement with everything said up to now; he was apprec-
iative of the efforts of Mrs. Gottschall because she has gone to a lot of
work; the reason she has done this was not for the hundred or two hundred
dollars but she feels there is an injustice here and he felt so also; if he
understood the gentleman from the City Engineer's office, he was very re-
luctant to do anything about it because all of the charts are all made up;
if there is an injustice done the City should do something about it. Jack
L. Ogden, 912 E. 16th Street, was present and said he believed these people
were right because he had the same deal; he was paying $290.00 and there
was no way he could benefit by the pavement any more than the rest of these
fellows here. Moved by Colburn, seconded by Camacho, the hearing be con-
tinued to October 14 at the regular Council meeting, 8:00 p.m. Councilman
Colburn asked that the Engineering Department be directed to indicate on
the map the different properties and the total assessed values so the Coun-
cil can drop by the Engineering Department and look at the map. Carried by
unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
Moved by Hogue, seconded by Colburn, the following resolutions be read by
title. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
RESOLUTION NO. S934, "RESOLUTION URGING THE REPEAL C THE WIERGENCY DETEN-
TION ACT." Moved by Camacho, seconded by Hogue, the Resolution be adopted.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
RESOLUTION NO. :935, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND EXPENDI-
TURE (Addition to Public Library and Public Works Yard)." Moved by Colburn,
seconded by Camacho, the Resolution be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote.
Absent: Morgan.
RESOLUTION I:0. 336, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND EXPENDI-
TURE (Urban ;3eawtification - El Toyon Park)." Moved by Camacho, seconded.
by Hogue, the Resolution be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent:
Morgan.
9/23/6
172
RESOLUTION NO. 9337, "A RESOLUTION DETERMINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUB-
LIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITli OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC STREET ACROSS CERTAIN
DESCRIBED LAND IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, COUNTY CF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; AND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, COId7ENIENCE AND NECESSITY DEMAND
THE ACQUISITION OF FEE TITLE TO SAID PROPERTY TO BE USED BY SAID CITY FOR
SAID PURPOSE; AND DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TO
ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS; COMMENCE AN ACTION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CCUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING SAID PROPERTY (19th Street)." Moved
by Colburn, seconded by Hogue, the Resolution be adopted. Carried by unan-
imous vote. Absent: Morgan.
RESOLUTION NO. 3933, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UN-
INHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED 'DUCKPOND ANNEXATION' TO THE CITY OF NATIONAL
CITY (CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 35310.1)." Moved by Hogue, second-
ed by Colburn, the Resolution be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Ab-
sent: Morgan.
RESOLUTION NO. 3939, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY (7th
Street - Danielsen)." Moved by Hogue, seconded by Colburn, the Resolution
be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: IM%;organ.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE NO. , "An ordinance of the City of National City, California.,
amending Ordinance No. 1209 establishing procedures for the inspection,
analysis and disposal of industrial liquid wastes," was presented for first
reading. Moved by Hogue, seconded by Colburn, the first reading of the
ordinance be by title. Carried by unanimous vote./ The title was read.
Absent: Morgan.
CITY ATTORNEY McLEAN stated there was one ordinance listed for adoption
("An ordinance of the City of National City, California establishing reg-
ulations for the conduct of swap meets") which was the matter referred to
earlier by Mr. Derr and whose attorney requested be delayed to October 7.
Councilman Hogue- inquired the reason for the request. City Attorney McLean
said in the draft of the ordinance the fee for the swap meet operator is
$5,000.00; :r. Derr told him after Council meeting it was his opinion that
was not the intention of the Council. Councilman Hogue stated that was
also his opinion. City Attorney McLean said he told Mr. Derr if that was
the case he was certain the Council would correct the matter when it was
presented to them; he did not know if Mr. Derr has any other objections.
Councilman Camacho said he was under the impression Mr. Derr was satisfied
with the $4500.00 fee; he thought he made the motion to accept that as the
fee. Moved by Hogue, seconded by Camacho, we adopt this ordinance with the
fee set at $4500.00 a. year instead of $5,000.00. Councilman Camacho in-
quired if Mr. Bradshaw just wanted to discuss the license fee. Mr. L. T.
Derr said no; they both thought the fee would automatically be corrected
after he spoke to Mr. McLean and the Mayor at the last meeting; when Mr.
Bradshaw received his copy of this ordinance today, he phoned him and said
there were several things he wanted to discuss prior to the ordinance being
adopted; this was the reason for his sending the letter asking for the de-
lay on the second reading. Mr. Derr said he was not at the meetings Mr.
Bradshaw attended in working this out but his contention was there were
fees in the ordinance which were not a part of the arrangement in the meet-
ings. Councilman Colburn asked if they changed the $5,000.00 figure to
$4,500.00, could they have the first reading tonight and second reading at
the next meeting. City Attorney McLean stated that was right; someone has
made a motion the fee be set at $4500.00; if the Council votes on that mo-
tion he codl.d write it in by pen and leave the title as it stands corrected;
the fee for the operator will be $4500.00; it will be a first reading.
Councilman Colburn inquired if a motion was needed to call it a first read-
ing. City Attorney McLean replied they would not. Vice Mayor Reid said
the motion was made but who seconded it. City Attorney McLean said he
thought Councilman Camacho did. Motion to adopt the ordinance with the fee
set at $4500.00 a year instead of $5,000.00 carried by unanimous vote.
9/23/69
173
Absent: Morgan.
ORDINANCE NO. "An ordinance cf the City cf National City, California
establishing regulations for the conduct of swap meets," was presented for
first reading. Moved by Colburn, seconded:. oy Camacho, the first reading of
the ordinance be by title. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
The title was read.
REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney McLean said he submitted a written report.
APPROVAL OF (1) SILLS ACID (2) PAYROLL
BILLS AUDITED iEY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE were presented:
3encral Fund $21,875.71
Traffic Safety 2,513.07
Park 179.33
Gas Tax No. 210e 25,4;4.44
Special Street 3.63
Sewer 488.57
Total Tt0,554.95
Moved by Camacho, seconded by Hogue, these bills be paid and warrants drawn.
Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Colburn, Hogue,
Reid. Nays: Hone. Absent: Morgan.
PAYROLL AUDITED 3Y THE FINANCE COMMITTEE in the amount of $91,3;6.20 was
presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Colburn, these bills be paid.
Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Colburn, Hogue,
Reid. Nays: None. Absent: Morgan.
NEW BUSINESS
A communication from SHELL OIL COMPANY read.est-_ng relief from the City's
demand of dedication of a 10' right of way on Division Street and the rec-
ommendations of the City Engineer and Director of Planning (attached to the
Agenda), were presented. Moved by Hogue, seconded by Camacho, the recommen-
dations of the City :Tanner and City Engineer be approved. Councilman Col -
burn asked if their recommendation was to go ahead without consideration cf
the Shell Cil Company's request. City Attorney McLean replied the landlord
has the power to give a dedication. Councilman Colburn said they indicate
the landlord said he wo•ildn't give the dedication; what they are trying to
establish is they are going to remodel and the City is going to get that
section of the street widened; if we stick to this then there is no remodel-
ing until... City Attorney McLean said until the, work out something with
their landlord so they can proceed. Herb Stathes, 3511 Camino Del Ric, rep-
resenting Shell Oil Co., was present and said his company was trying to work
out an arrangement with, the property owner whereby he would guarantee when
it comes time tc dedicate or to widen Division Street he will guarantee he
will dedicate the necessary property for the widening of the street; he
asked this be continued until such time as they can work out the arrange-
ments with the property owner. Councilman Colburn said if they approve the
recommendation it will be referred back tc the Planner, so it will be in
this status cf decision and negotiations, etc. Fir. Stathes said Mr. Gilbert
Fritz has agreed he will give the City a letter stating he will make the
necessary dedication when it comes time to widen Division Street. Motion
to approve the recommendations of the City Planner and City Engineer carried
by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
A communication from the CITY CLERK, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, enclosing their
resolution urging the extension cf Tidelands Avenue south of National City's
marine terminal development to the intersection of Tidelands Avenue and
State Route 54, was presented. Moved by Hogue, seconded by Camacho, the
communication be filed. Councilman Colburn inquired why Tidelands Avenue
would not go through. City Manager Osburn replied he would bring a map to
the next Council meeting showing the interchange on Interstate 5 and possib-
ly some future developments in the area he wasn't previously aware of.
9/23/65
174
Vice Mayor Rei,°: instructed the City Manager to put this back on the Agenda.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Moran.
A communication from the CITY MANAGER requesting permission to call for bias
on Plaza Boulevard from Highland to Hoover Avenue, was presented. Moved by
Hogue, seconded by Camacho, the City Manager's recommendation be approved.
Councilman Colburn said going down to Hoover leaves a couple blocks that
will not be widened. City Manager Osburn saic that was correct; they would
try to add them when they come off the freeway. Carried by unanimous vote.
Absent: Morgan.
A request of the CHIEF OF POLICE for approval to solicit bids for 10 new
police vehicles and the City Manager's recommendation of approval, were
presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Colburn, the City Manager's rec-
ommendation be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
A communication from the PERSONNEL CLERK outlining steps to be taken by
employees in close contact with former temporary employee found to have
active tuberculosis, was presented. Moved by rogue, seconded by Camacho,
the communication be filed. Councilman Colburn saic this was an example of
what he referred to in the budget session when he spoke in favor of the
possibility of at least emergency employees having an annual physical.
Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Communications from RAYMCND D. HAAS, GENERAL CONTTRACTOR, requesting a 60-
calendar day extension for completion of the Library alterations and addi-
tions and from JAMES W. BIRD, A.I.A., BIRD, FUJIMCTC & FISH A.I.A. ARCHI-
TECTS, recommending approval, were presented. Moved by Hogue, seconded by
Colburn, the extension be permitted. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent:
Morgan.
A communication from the CITY MANAGER filing seven items with the City
Clerk (No Council Action Necessary), was presented: (1) Letter from San
Diego County Water Authority dated August 31, 1359 reporting Authority op-
erations for the month of August; (2) Minutes of the regular meeting of the
Board of Directors of the South Bay Irrigation District, dated September 2,
1969; (3) Letter from San Diego County Water Authority, 2750 Fourth Avenue,
San Diego, California, dated September 3, 1:59, enclosing tabulations show-
ing changes in quantity of water stcred in San Vicente Reservoir as of
August 31, 1�69; average monthly water deliveries in c.f.s. by Authority tc
member agencies for fiscal year 155:-70 through August 31, 1969; and tabu-
lation entitled. Water Production of Member Agencies - By months for fiscal
year 1968-69, separating production of local and imported water; (4) Cover
letter from Allen T. Archer Co., Los Angeles, California, enclosing amender:
Certificate of Insurance covering Lee R. Moore, dba Diamond Cab Company,
Automobile Liability Insurance, Policy Nos. SA 3101;0 and XEL 000921, Re-
serve Insurance Co.; (5) Certificate of Insurance from Wilshire Insurance
Cc., Los Angeles, California, insuring William L. Sale, DBA Radio Cab
Company, 2504 C Street, San Diego, California, Policy No. CV 30 83 03; (6)
Memorandum of Insurance from Reserve Insurance Cum::2ny, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, covering Bolden State Rodeo, Inc., Flying U Rodeo, Jay Spear Rodeo
and Andy Jaurequi, 10539 De Soto Ave., Chatsworth, California, Policy XGA
000432; (7) Certificate of Insurance from 7an Nuys Insurance Agency, Inc.,
14545 Sylvan St., Jan Nuys, California, insuring International Travel &
Trailer Clubs of America, Inc., 15904 Strathern Street, Suite 6, Van Nuys,
California, Policy Ne. 71 C 204224 re rally tc be held in Kimball Park,
National City, September 18, 19 and 20, 1959.
REPORTS
CITY MANAGER 0SBURi•I stated they agreed at the staff level with Mr. Foaner
regarding a right of way dedication for Grove Avenue and 14th Street in
the vicinity of the freeway; Greve Avenue is tc oe developed by gas tax
money and there would be a portion of property on 14th Street we should
pick up the "tab" on for development; it's about 30' to SO' long; he will
be giving us roughly a half -acre of land for us ta!;ing two easements off
9/23/6'
175
the corner of his property; we will get the right of way required by the
State to come across Plaza Boulevard on the east side of Freeway 805; he
recommended they approve this agreement and they would have the document
next week. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Hogue, the City Manager's recommen-
dation be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
The PLANNING COMMISSION'S recommendation of approval of the tentative sub-
division map and application for a Residential Planned Unit Development Per-
mit for Delgado Terrace subject to eighteen conditions, was presented.
Moved by Hogue, seconded by Camacho, the Planner's recommendation be approv-
ed. Carried by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
The CITY TREASURER'S Financial Statement for the month ended August 31,
1969, was presented. Ordered filed by unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan.
Moved by Camacho, seconded by Hogue, the meeting be closed. Carried by
unanimous vote. Absent: Morgan. The meeting closed at 9:34 p.m.
City Clerk
City o National City, lif.
The foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council of National City
at the regular meeting of October 7, 1969.
No corrections
Correction as noted below.
Mayof, Cikty�.' aionai City, California
9/23/69