HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-03-01; City Council; Minutesi CITY GF CAlEtLSBAD : Minutes of: City Council I ', '\ '\ ',,',\> i Date of Meeting: March 1, 1 OGO i ~a me '..'+&., \, $$
@ Time of Meeting: 7: 00 P, M, ! of 1- ,Placg af,Mset&~ - ,CAwcU,Chmbgrs_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - * - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - .. - - - .) - .. - - - - - - , - - : Member \@@& 4
: -*,, '\\ '\\ =, .\, '\
I , % , ', '\ '\ 2: I
.+,Q, '.?&%,+&$ ,
1 :!!I
I
I t ! ltQLL CALL was answered by Councilmen Grober, ; Sonneman, Ledgerwood, McPherson and La Aoche. Also{ / present were City Manager Slater and City Attorney Haye!.
1 I
I
;i;;
I:::
:::I :::I
11
:!!I I I i INVOCATION was offered by Councilman Grober. ;;'I
1 11
$ l:l8
*!!I
I I I 1. ;I:: 1 APPaOVAL OF MINUTES:
I
: I + !
ai::
!!*I
:::I
I I a, The minutes of the regular meeting of the City : Grober i 1 ii
I I : McPherson i : i x!
I i La Roche ; :x: $
i Council held on February 16, 1960, were approved as. ! Sonneman :xi i X: i presented, i Ledgerwood! i : $
I
t
I I ,:!I i CORRESPONDENCE
I i There was no written correspondence,
I 03AL COMMUNICATIONS
i MR. FRED MQNETT was present and stated that on : February 11 , 1960, he went to the City Hall to get a i permit to build a garage, At that time he presented a : sketched plan of the garage and it was approved by the i Building Inspector, He paid for the permit, and was : issued a permit at that time. Subsequently he put in the i forms for the foundation. Also two Atlas Fence gates : were installed, When he called for an inspection of the i forms he was informed by the Building Inspector he : could not proceed with the building as he did not have a i 20* set back from the street. He asked what could be
I done, as he has put out considerable money, The City i Manager informed the Council that he knew nothing of ! this matter until this time, and with the consent Of the ; Council he would investigate this matter. Be asked that i Mr. Monett come to his office and he would see what : could be worked out,
I i
1 I
1 I i PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - 7: 30 P, M,
I I :"I I 1 1:::
I I i:::
I I ]I:! IIIt
I ;:I; ! l!!l
t : I I I I I I I I t t 4 1 I 1 I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I k I I I 1 I 8 t I t t b t
I I I I I 4 l a. Carlsbad Blvd. Sewers - 1911 Act Proceedings. i ! Assessment District #5-1959. I k
i The City Attorney advised the Council that due to the i i fact that two members of the Council were not present ; : at the last meeting when the facts were presented in this i i matter, the entire procedure would have to be reheard, i
I $ :
I : : i The Mayor announced this was the time and place fixed i : by the City Council for hearing objections or protests on ; i the proposed Work, or the extent of the assessment I district, or on the proposed grades under the Besolution i i of Intention No. 624, providing for the construction of : : sanitary sewers and appurtenances, and appurtenant world i in Carlsbad Blvd. from Chinquapin Ave, to Hemlock Ave.; : Also Chinquapin Ave, , Sequoia Ave, , Tamarack Ave. , : \ Etedwood Ave. and Hemlock Ave. from Carlsbad Blvd, i ! to Garfield Street. I !
I I
'i:;
:;:I i:::
1:::
;::e ;:$ ;::i ;:i: ::;:
:;I: i:;: 4:;
:;:t i:ii
kt 1';:
1:;: I' !!:I :;:I ::;; :;:: :;::
1:;
::!I
:a#:
*I
Ii;'
I I:
::fa
1I:I
::I: ::i: :i:i I*
-91,
::;I ::;:
:;a: :;:: i;:: :::: !I
I? I *;;I
:If1
1:;:
!:;I 1:
1:;:
:;I: :::: ;;:; ;:::
;::a
@ 8 *'
:it: 11::
:!I:
I I ;;it ! The Clerk presented the affidavits of publication, raailingi Grober i i Ii : and posting. By motion of the Council the affidavits were: Sonneman : ;x: x! i approved and ordered filed, : Ledgerwood: ; i X
I : McPherson i x; : 4
iLaRoche : 1 i3 :I:; ;:::
;;*a
I I: I :I I I 1;::
1 The Mayor requested the Clerk to read all protests that i : had been filed, The Clerk presented the following i written protests: 1
! :#I! i Letter dated December 28, 1950 from Orville C, Jeffers,; ; 155 Chinquapin Ave, * protesting the cost of construction, ; i and pointing out that in all previous projects where : pumping stations have been necessary, the City has i participated; also the pedestrian wa2k.vay that would be :
I I & 4 8
I I I I
$ i
i;;i
;:If
;::;
'8::
:::I
I;#: :;:: :I!: i;:;
I t
I I 8 t
4
-2 - I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""""~"-~" I
I : constructed at the west end of Chinquapin Ave; and re- i i quested clarification of the status of the most westerly : : lot on the south side of Chinquapin Ave, , as he was m- i I formed this lot is not a part of Sewer District #2, and :
f must pay its full share of the cost of the present sewer i i project. 1 I I I 1 I The Council was informed that at the meeting of January 1 : 5, 1960, this fetter vas read and discussed, and the last ; i two items in Mr. Jeffers' letter had been clarified at that I
! time. The only item before them at this time was the : ! coat of the project and the request for City participation i
t in the pumping station. I I * 1 I
-, * 8 8 '' ',, =, '%, ', '. '8
.-
8, 's \, \ 8 8'2 ' ',
', '.$A\ '+%8
'.$.oc.\&,+ yye '.%gi&,'\ 'q
$i
' ;::: :f
Member ,o~s\.&
'*I; ."""""""-""-"-
11 ('I1 'I:;
:;'I ;;:;
:#,I l:ll
11
4;; :::: :::'
I;#: ;:::
f:::
:::I
:#I,
11
I;::
I,!$
I i Letter dated February 11, 1960 from Orville C, Jeffers, i i in which he discussed the separation of the State Park i I Beach from this proposed sewer district, and its method : : of acceptance to the City Sewer System, claiming this as I I one of the main factors for City participation in this
f proposed pumping station.
i A petition was presented signed by resident property i owners in the area, in which they petitioned the City to ! : participate in the cost of the pumping plant and appurt- i i enant installation to the extent of 50% and set forth : certain reasons to justify this request for City participa- i i tion, The following names were affixed to the petition: i
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1
I I
I I I I
0'
i Orville C. Jeffers Frank Novak
i Mrs. Sally So Tico P. F, Valentine i Josephine F, Kellett Henry C. Sauer : Guiseppe Angello Robert J. Becker i i C. B. Ledgerwood James E. Farrell : i Bertha Gillingham Helen McConnaughayi : Harry M. Ealker Edward C. Mitchell i i Ida L, Walker Ernest J. Litchfield : : Vere Goff Estelle G. Cumrning I i W. H[. Syme Van A, Norman : Thelma L. Virgil
: For further particulars said petition is on file in the i office of the City Clerk.
I The Council was informed that identical petitions were i : filed by non-resident property owners, and that the i following names were affixed to the petitions:
i Major R, Rix Nessa L. aobusson i 1 J. H, Higman Grace Moore : J. W. Crilly Preston B, Griffing, i Jr. i Alva Finley Lenora A, Griffing : ; Irene P. Duro Lucian F. Rarnley I i Edity VI:. Lyman Ruth McNevin : Harold Lister
: For further particulars said petitions are on file in the i i office of the City Clerk,
i After hearing all written protests, the Mayor asked if ! : thercwere any persons, or their representatives, who I i had faed written protests, that wanted to be heard?
I I I 4 I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I
I 1 I 1
I I I I I I I I t
I I
I I * 1 I I I 1 I
I 4 1 I I 1
* I I I 9 i MR, OLZVILLE JEFFERS was present and stated he did i : not know that the entire proceedings would have to be I reheard, therefore, he had not asked the other property i : owners to be present. The signatures on the petitions i I represent 80% of the property owners in the area. The :
I State Beach is one of the greatest offenders in this matterj i as they were not required to pay a connection fee at the : : time they connected to the sewer facilities. I I
I 1
I I I I 1 !
1i.I
))'I
:;;I 1:
;::: ;::;
;::I If':
,I:; :;:: l;lt
:;:: ::;;
:::I
::,;
:;Is
:I:: :::; 4:: ::!*
II
::;i
ii;;
;:I;
:::: a$ ;:It I
I*!! ::::
i;::
It
Itat II:I
::It
;;
:#&I :::; :::I
l';t ;: t
1:: i::; ;::;
::*t :;:: ::I: ::I! :::; i::; i i :' :::; :::; :::; ii:;
:I:; :I:: ;:I!
;::I ::;:
18;:
$1: I!:: :::; ;f *fl*
:;I1
:I::
114:
'I
'1)
l!!I 1.') ;::: :Ii:
;:I:
;::I i.: I I
1::: :;:: ::::
$8:: ;::; :!::
:11;
11:
I I 1.9
1 I
I I I s:;:
I I :I@:
I I I ;I::
I I i ,:::
I :I::
I
\\ ,-, \ . - I
I
I 1 \, ', ' '\ '$ '8
I -3- ' '.Q.
I ; of >,3+.0 \ ~~"""""""~,""""""""~""""~"""""""~"~-"~"~."""~"""""""""""". : Member ,o o'pp
I I *, ',X",, 't, '\,", 2
i
I I i N a me "\, '\@,,,'\,, .*,
I I \?$@&+\;?
I ! :!?; l 0; : The Mayor asked if there were any oral protests or I :(#I I :ii: 1 objections. There were no oral protests or objections, i Ill1 I ;It:
I 4:; i There being no other persons preserit desiring to be I :I;: : heard on the hatter, the Mayor asked the Engineer of i ::;a i Work to please advise the City Council what per cent !,I;
I :;i; : of the total area to ,be assessed for the improvement was : i::: i represented by written protests or objections filed with i I:;; 11:
1 the City Clerk. I ::+I
I I I ;:I: 3 The Engineer :of: Work reported that written protests and i ll:@ :it: : objections had been filed with the City Clerk by the s t :::I i owners of 0% of the total area to be assessed for the im- I ::;;
: provernent, as he did not consider the petitions a protest, : ::*I ;::I j but a request for participation by the City to pay half the i '1:: :::: : cost of the pumping station, I 1 11
I :;i:
I *ll
I
t
I
I
@I
! I !I,! : Discussion was given by the Council as to the City parti- i i cipating in the cost of the pumping station, The City
f Manager stated that he had pointed out at the previous i i meeting that if the Council chose to participate in this i : project there were no funds available. It was also sug- f i gested that the Council provide funds in the next budget I : for this project, however, this Council cannot bind I I i another Council,
i Cmn. La doche stated that none of this property in this : i area is. for sale, which would indicate this is very valuablk ; property. Why should the rest of the property owners in ; i the City have to contribute to this project? Personally, ! : he did not feel they should. I I
! Due to the fact that the City is unable to participate in i i the project at this time, the question was raised as to i ; whether or not the property owners wish to proceed with ; i the project,
I NIB, ORVILLE JEFFEBS made the statement to the : Council that he had been approached by a number of the ! i property owners who definitely wished to proceed with I I the construction of the sewers.
I I
I I 1 I I I I
I I I 1
I
I I 1 I
I
I I I I I !
:;fi i::;
1::: :;:: :(I1
:ill :::;
!;:a
1:;: !:;I /;: +:
1:::
::I:
'1 i:
:I 1:::
t;:: i:::
1:::
::I:
$81
1::: ::::
1::: ::ii i::; :::;
1:;l J;): ;:::
I!!:
11
11
:'I;
I By proper declaration by the Mayor the hearing was : closed at 8: 25 P. M. I I ::I: I I:::
I I lo;*
4 ;: : The City Attorney presented the following resolutions for i /:;
1 the Council*s review: I :::i
I (I1
I I I ::;I t:;: i Res. #629. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL iGrober : ; :xi : DF TEE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, MAKING~Sonnemm ! :xixi i FINDINGS AND OVE&i%ULING PROTESTS AND OB- illedgerwoodi : ! ; I JECTIONS, was adopted by title only, and further read- ; NIcPherson : : ; x: i ing waived, :La Roche !x i i xi
I :I#; ! aes, #630, A 3ESGLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL i :::;
; OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, OXDEBING THE 1 :::;
i CQNSTltUCTION OF CERTAIN STREET IMPitOVE- I :::: :Grober i i ;x: : MENTS AND ORDERING POSTING AND PUBLICATION jsonneman l :X:X~ ! OF NOTICES INVITING SE2lLED PROPOSALS 08 !Ledgerwood i i i ; I BIDS, was adopted by title only, and further reading lMcPherson :x i ;x! : waived. !La Roche : ; $x:
i Res. #63t. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL : ;IIt
i g ?EIAT CERTAIN STREET ROZK BE DONE UNDE@Sonneman :x: !xi i THE DIRECTKIN AND TO THE SATISFACTIUN OF l :Ledgerwood ; i i ; i THE ENGINEER OF WOBK, was adopted by title only :McPherson : ; ; xi ; and further reading waived. !La 8oche i $;X:
i PLANNING:
I i':~ I
I
I
I I
I I
8;: ::,I HE CITY OF CAitLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DfRECTjGrober i i :xi
# 1 I 1 I :;4: * 1:;:
I 1 :;'
l a. Reconsideration of Mr. Koylls request for re- I ;1::
I I 1 ;::;
I I I :::I + I 1: I 4:;
I ::I!
I
I 1
I
I
1'1:
I
I I I I
I
I t!';
I ..-
I r
I \, ', 8 ', *\ *% t t I + -4 - ', ' , x"
', '\,"', '\,", '% ' 3'
t I 1 Name ', '\$\ '%,"&x
! : of '.$$?&, ,O,?h '\ 2 I r9r CP d
l i Member .p." ,o@,F(? ' 4 '4'': :""~"~"""""""""~""""""""""".."""""""-""""-~""""""."""""",
! I I I ai : classification of certain property,
: This matter had been continued from the previous meet- i
I I I I I
i ing due to a request by the applicant, A memorandum i I from the Planning Commission was reviewed wherein ; i they stated that after considerable deliberation, it was i 1 their opinion that their former position was well taken : \ and that the zone change should be denied. They pointed i { out that a committee of the Planning Commission is : working on a plan for the development of the entire area, i i in view of the fact that there has never been an overall : : plan submitted. They further stated that in the opinion i i of some of the members of the Cornmission that if this : : zone change were granted, it would have been possible foe i the property to be built upon without conforming to the ; : Subdivision Ordinance, and that such a development might! i not be desirable,
i Cwn, Sonneman stated that this particular request is
i definite; there has been no other plan submitted as yet, I i It has been processed and gone through the regular : channels and should be given the consideration it is en- i i titled to. In addition to this request a Resolution of
i Intention was adopted to rezone the northly two parcels ! i with a depth of 200 feet. There are certainly building i I regulations that would have to be complied with, and I I : she did not feel that anyone would be stupid enough to i build without sufficient parking area.
i Cm, La Roche stated that if this rezone were granted : : you would be putting multiple units in an area that is not i I adaptable. This man may have the highest standards, i : but he could certainly sell the property to someone that ; I would not have such high standards,
! Commissioner Stringer informed the Council that the i i City has three land use ordinances. The Commission : : has directed a fetter sent to Mr. Gordon Whitnall to try 5 i and clarify this matter. The Commission has never I $ : denied Mr. Koyl his request, but has pleaded with the i i applicant to present a plan. I I
i Mr. Don Holly, representative for Mr. Koyl, stated that ; ; Mr. Kh~yl revised his original plan, and has requested I i only the front 200' of his property rezoned. Mr. Koyl is :
f stuck with a piece of property that he cannot develop. He i i would like to have an 3-3 zoning on the front part of his : I property which would not interfere with any plan for "M" i : zone on the rear of the property, and the adjoining proper1 : ties, The ordinance as it now stands does not require a ; i precise plan. Usually there is a buffer zoning between i I "M" zoning and R-1 zoning. $ I
i Cfwn, Sonneman stated she could not see any substantial i : foundation for rejecting this use. There is plenty of area! 1 to the rear if the pro erty owners wish to have their : properties zones "M There has never been any plan i i submitted for the area to the rear, After all, the I I : Planning Commission is just a subsidiary of the Council. i
: Cwn. Sonneman moved that the decision of the Planning i i Commission be overruled. The motion died for lack of : : a second. !
I I
I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I I 1
t I I I 1
I I
I 1
I I I
I I I
R * I
I I
i:li
I 11
1::: I:;:
4:: :::; i::; :::; :;:: ;:f1 ;:,; ;:
:;#I
:;a1 ::;:
:1*1 1::; ::::
,:@I ::::
:SI ti4 i:ii
,Ill 1,; 8 I
11;:
!ll.
:I11
&I
$1
11
;'I;
1*11
4 '1
::::
11'1 4;; :::;
:;*I I:!!
;::I :::; 1;
:;:: :ill
1:::
;:I; ;;:' :I:: 1: :;::
:I:: ;y: ;: :; ,!i!
41
-1ti I:;;
I::: ;::I :::: iy: ;::;
::;r
181;
.!or i;:j ;I:: 11
l;ls
1;1*
Bt i:::
:;::
:I!:
$1:
$81 I:!: :I:: ::::
I*:; !::! ;ai'
:fa1
1:;;
;::; ;::: ::I; ;: ::ii *(I
Ill: ;:::
:::I
$1:
I!::
l*(I
e: I I iii: ;: :*
I : :x; i Cmn, La i3oche moved that Kes. if'635- be adopted, denying 181: ; the appeal for reclassification of certain properties from jCrmber J Zone d- 1 to Zone 8- 3, and that the decision of the :someman i i i ;x ; Planning Commission be sustained. Seconded by Cmn, iLedgcrwoodi : ; :x i McPherson. The resolution was adopted by title only ; McPherson : ;xixi : and further reading waived. i La Roche !xi :x:
t I I I I I I :;;I 11::
I $4
I I 1:: I I I I :::;
I :::I
I ::I:
I I I
I
1
1 I I I r If::
I I -\ ' 4 I I I I I
, \\ '\ *\ -., '
I t8, \\ ',, '\, '8 '8 3 *
8 '.,& '\ '\?&
.?d?is\ 9' $':! ~""~""""""""""""""~"""""""""""-"---""------"-:--"--"-"-"---- """
-5- , \\ 8,, '
I I i N a me '*\,$$$,, '\,, x$!+,
I I : of
i Member ,9$3,'&? ::!; t I 4 I Oi : ENGINEEMNG: I I I I
a. Skyline - Clearview Sewers - 1911 Act - Assess, i I District E3-1958.
! The Council was informed that the Engineer of Work had 1 i filed his assessment with the City Clerk, and it was now i ; necessary for the Corncil to direct the Clerk to give i notice to the property owners and of the time and place i ; of hearing. The following resolution was presented for : i the Cou~~cil's review:
I I I I I I
I t
I I I I 1 I I
;jii
:@I1
4;:
:I::
2;tt
SI:! t::; ::;l
:SI: :::I ::;I t:::
ii::
-.I
I;:$
I:;1
'11;
I,!I i Res. $633. A RESOLUTJ[ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL jGrober : ; j$
i OF FILING OF ASSESSMENT AND OF TEZE TIME AND: Ledgenvoodj 1 : x i PLACE GF HEARING THEREOF, was adopted by title McPherson : :xi xi ; only, and further reading waived. !La Roche / i :x:
I I -CITY OF CARLSBAD, DIilECTIMG NOTICE :Someman :x: : x! 11
t I I.! I I 1 I I b. Wilson Street Sewers - 191 1 Act. Assess. Disk i t #2-1950. I I I I I t I i The Council was informed that the Engineer of Work had : ; also filed his assessment on the above project with the i : City Clerk, and it was now necessary for the Council to : i direct the Clerk to give notice to the property owners and i i of the time and place of hearing, The following resolutioq : was presented'for the Councilrs review: I I I I I
.I :::I :I;!
::;I
'I(( SI.!
11;; i:::
I;;*
::I:
It;; !::: :::+
::,:
::!I
::::
: Bes, #634. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CC.UNCEL iGrober ! OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, DIrZECTING NOTICE :Someman : i ; xi i OF FILING OF ASSESSMENT AND OF THE TIME I Ledgerwood! ! : x: : AND PLACE CF HEALRING THEREOF, was adopted by :McPherson :x: I xi i title only, and further reading waived, !La aoche ; Ix:x;
I I 11;'
1- f : ixi
I I !ll! i CITY ATTOitNEY'S REPOST:
! The City Attorney advised the Council she had just re- i 1 turned from Dallas, Texas, where she attended -the In- : : stitute of City Attorneys on Eminent Domain. There we& i 28 states represented. She received valuable information: : in reference to condemnation suits.
i Water bond issue, The City Attorney requested the : Council to adopt a resolution endorsing the Feather aiver i i Water bond issue; the City of San Diego and other cities ; : in the area have, as well as the San Diego Chamber of : i Commerce and the local Chamber of Commerce, A brief! : resume was presented setting forth the need for this I i issue. The City Manager stated that he felt the Council i : should definitely get more information on the matter I I before they endorse such an issue, as this is a political ! : issue. The City Attorney stated she felt this was a non- i i partisan issue, as this matter has been presented by thret : Governors of the State, however, she would be very happy: i to present more facts for the Council to review, It was i 1 agreed that the City Attorney make available more facts ; i for the Council to review.
I I I I I I
* I 1
I 1
I I
I I I
!:;i
I:,$ :;;I
::;a ::I;
:::I i::;
;:ll :#*I
1:: ::;:
411(
:;I :!;i ;;::
:::I ::;:
111: $81 ,;:: ::::
:it:
:::: ::;:
ii;: ::
"I !jij 11
l:;l ::*:
::!:
I I i Green River Ordinance, At a previous meeting a draft of:
1 k Green River Crdinance was presented to the Council for: ! discussion. The Council requested certain deletions, and: i the ordinance has been redone according to their instruc- : ; tions. The Council reviewed the ordinance, and after i
I discussion by the Council the following ordinance was t : given a first reading: I I
i Ordinance No. 6032. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING i I pE?zk% O%ANSIENT VENDORS OF METtCHANI
i DISE IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFOBNIA; I 8 I
a; t I
* LE&S, HAM KERS, ITINERANT I
I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I
:"I 14: ::::
1::;
:::I !::I
1::; I::: :::; ::::
1::; i::; ;::;
1::; :::; i::: :i:' ;' l ; :
i::: l:l:
I!:: 1 ;ya
I 4 :; I I It',
I I :I::
4
I I
I -,, 8, ', ', -. '
1 I I I
I
I
I -6- , '\ 8, '\ %8 '\ '\, 3
8 i N a me \, \%, '8,88&\
I I ; of '~&&, yt+ '$L.O 8 9' +: :"""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""-""-""""""~""""""."""""~. '1
'\, '8, ', 8 \ '
I i Member $if@,$,$?
I 1*!1 I I 81 I DECLARIhG IT TO BE A NUISANCE FOR THOSE : ENGAGING IN SUCH PU&SUiTS TO'GO IN OR UPON i i PaI'VATE lRESIDENCES WITHOUT HAVING BEEN : Grober i i ;x;
t itE@JESTED OtZ INVITED TG DO SO; PROVIDING : I Someman i :x; x: \ PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION HEREOF; 333- :Ledgerwood I : 8 : i PEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HESE- : l McPherson i i 1 i : WT8, was given a first reading. : La itoche i x; ; xi i Extrg Territprial use of City Equipment. The Council i 81 11
:;I1
; was Advised that due to her absence from the City she ; t:;;
i was unable to prepare her report on this matter, but t 1)11 I I'll i would have it available at the nexk meeting. 1 l:Iz 1 I :I::
I!lt
I I :i::
:;;I
1:::
I
1 I
{I
I 1 I I I,!# i CITY MANAGER'S REPCRT
f
I 1 I ;ii; 41
I :Ill I I::! I The City Manager advised the Council he had attended i :::I i the three day meeting of the City Managers in San Diego i )rl( :Ill
; and had found it to be very fruitful. All cities seem to : 1::; !I:: \ have the same problem - how to obtain more revenue i I:;& : without raising the property taxes, 1 I ii::
I I :'I i Civil Defense meeting, The Mayor and the City Manager .I I1I: ;:VI
1::: i attended a meeting in San Diego regarding a County-wide i I Civil Defense plan, A request was made to hve a I t:;:
I t::: i County-wide report made on this matter, The Board of i ;;'I : Supervisors have accepted the plan and a summary has ' : I I:
I I :;a1 I I :II 11 i Cmn, McPherson asked if any attempt is being made to I $4 11
f rehabilitate any of the streets. The Council was advised : 1::: 1, that the Engineering Department is working on a street i ,:I: i deficiency report, and a list of the streets that have been I *1;1
:;Ii
; sewered, The Public Works have not been able to work ; 11;:
:;I: i on any of the streets due to the rain. I I :I::
I I I :I:: i PAYMENT OF BILLS AND itATIFICATION OF I I 1;;:
: PAYfiGLL: 1 1 ;::;
4 I I t iii:
: Authorization was given for the payment of bills for the i I::;
1;;1 i general expenses of the City in the amount of $3,604.84, :Grober i i !* : and the Water Department in the amount of $858.18, from; Sonneman :x; ; d i February 16, 1960 to March 1, 1960, as certified by the I Ledgerwood: i i 2 : Director of Finance and approved by the Auditing Corn- : McPherson i :x; $ I mittee., i La aoche i i i 5
i Ratification of the payroll was given for the second half i Grober ::::
: of February, 1960, in the amount of $12,825.16, as : Sonneman l :x: x: I certified by the Director o€ Finance and approved by the :Ledgerwood! i i X i Auditing Committee. :La Roche I : ; xi * :'at i ADJOUPZNMANET: I I:::
I I ;::I
1 8 1::: 1 By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 908 I?, M,: :::: I:;;
I I 1 :::I
I I :;::
*I
I I It
I been sent to all the cities in the County for their study. i iii;
I
I
1
I
I I I 1 i : 14
I I I
1 *
I i I
; ilespectfully submitted, i -2q7QQr/Z Leo-/ 6-62"
f MAitGA' ET E, ADAMS i Deputy City Clerk
r 1 I I I
I )(-I I I I :I:;
1 I ::I:
I 1 ::I:
I I :I::
I I ;::: I ;:::
I I I I ::;: $1;
*!!I I l @I I ti;:
('I1
I I ::::
I I ::;:
I i:::
I I :;::
1 I :;:I
I I I :I!:
I 1 $1:
: t iiii
I ::I;
I ;::;
I I iii:
I I ::I:
I I q :;::
I I
I I ,:'I
I
1
I
I
1
I I I I I I I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
t
8
I
I
1
I ('1
1. @I