HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-08-16; City Council; MinutesI I' ,,* 1%. I I
b 8, '\,",, '\,'\,'', : CITY OF CARLSEAD I I 'x, '\, '\ \\, ',.*,I Q13 fj i Date of Meeting: August 16, 1960 I I ',, ', \\ ', '\ x : Mkutes of: City Council 1 Name '\ , '&, '\, '+js. i Time of Meeting: ?:00 P, M. ; of x\+&$+, 'x, 3,'
0: '.@+,T&4*
I ;;1:~ ! ROLL CALL was answered by Councilmen Guevara, I :II:~ ; Bierce, Sonneman and NlcPherson. Also present were I 4:; : City Manager Slater and City Attorney Hayes. ::p
I :#I: I I 1::I:
1 I::: i INVOCAYiON was offered by Mayor Sonnenxm. I I :;a:
i"~~~ca_sf"eet- - -C9F"-Gh"b?-C~.. ~.- - ..- -" - - -I" - - - - - . - .. .. - .-l- 1 "I Pdernber "- -" "_ -"" ,oy..pp~ ' I"""- I
I
1 I
I I I I I ::;;;
1 I i::;~
I 8. The minutes of the adjourned meeting of July 284 Guemra ; !xi x: i
I I Sonneman t : :xi :
I I i McPhersoni I i 5 i
I b. The minutes of the replar meeting of August 2, i Guevara : ; i x: ;
I i Sonneman : ; :x: I
I I : McPhersoni :x:xi :
I I :::;I
I I :I:;:
I ::;::
I a. Letter dated August 5, 1960 from Frank Gibson,; iii:; ! member of the Board of Supervisors, stating that at their i :;;:I i meeting of August 2, 1960, the establishment of a tempor; :::;:
f ary steering committee was approved for the proposed I l@l: i:::; i county-wide Civil Defense and Disaster Organization. Md, :i:': ; Gibson asked that each city appoint a rnercber of its city ; 1 *:I i Council to serve on the steering coTi:xl:ittee, and at such I I::::
I::#: : time as an appointment has be=; made, to notify him of i ;+e l:li: I the city's representative. ~y common consent Cmn. I I$~l; :;::; ! Bierce was appointed tn the steering committee to repre- i ;(::I i sent the City of Carlsbad. The City Manager was instruct- ;I:': ;i:;: ; ed to notify Mr. Gi.?son of the appointment. 1 I
I I :I::: : . b. Letter dated August 4, 1960 from Richard I I :::;;
I :;'I; i Housman, stating he drove his car into a @ewer transmit-: i:::: : tal line wl?_ich was under construction, and in view of the ; ;:::I It::;
; constnt ction, he submitted a claim for damages as reprey ::Il:
/ and the matter i-eferred to the insurance carrier. I 1 *I
@I
! APPR@Vh7-, OF MINITTES: :PI,'
" I:II~
i 1963, were approved as presented, : Bierce :xi :x: i
I ::11:
'Oil i 1960,. were approved as presented. : Bierce !x; ; xi ;
I I I I 1
I I
I
I + 1 I
I
I I
I I 181; I CBRR@SPONDEXCE:
I t
I'
(111
I s
i fact the;.e were no barricades or advanced warning of the i I:!;!
i sented by the attached bills in the amount of $13.50. By : i:: $1 : motion of the Council the claim was denied by the Council I ::;*, 11:;
:'::;
I I I I t:;::
I C. Letter dated August 11, 1960 from the Carlsbad i i::::
I:':; i Union School District stating that previously they had gong; :;::: : on record requesting that for the protection of the young i ;l:'l
1:::: i children of the community, curbs and sidewalks be re- : !:I;;
1 quired in all new subdivisions. They would like to recorn: 1::::
j mend at this time the Council consider putting curbs and : i:;:; : sidewalks on Magnolia Ave. and Buena Vista Ave. for the : :::I: i safety of the children attending those schools. The CSy ; :::;:
: ltlanager recommended this matter be referred to the i :::I: ;;:I: i staff for study. By common consent the matter was re- : ;::f: : €erred to the City staff for study. I I I@;:;
I I I :'I:; l;'ll
I d. Letter dated August 11, 1960 .?Torn the Carlsbad I ;e:;,
; Chamber of Commerce cornmendii;g the Council on their i ;:::: ;::;I i recent action relative to the North Coastal San Eiego I I 10 ;::il ; County Sewerage Survey 5y A. M. Rawn. The Zoard, I I 1:::: i through their sewerage committee, approves the plan : ;**#I :::;: : and will be happy to assist in working for its acceptance, i :I:;: i By c0mr.m conwri; the letter was ordered filed. ;I:::
I ::::i
I e. Setter dated August 1, 1960 from Pike Hodge : I1 ::::; i:::;
;::It
I I
I I I
I
I I I I I I t 1 B 11
: of the San Diego School. of Anti-Communism, addressed i i to the 637ucil, rewesting the Cowil to direct their I I ,:$'I i attention to the San Diego Anti-Communism School that i $::: ::; ; is be% presented in cooperation with the Christian Anti- : i:;:; : Communism Committee. He asked that the Council I I I@;!;
: from the City offices and sponsor their registration fee. ; i;::: i seriously consider sending as many people as possible I ::I 1:;::
i The City Manager recommended that a member of the : $1;
I I I iii:; :h:;
I I I I p:::
I I t I I $1
I I 1 ::I::
I I I I 1:'
I *
1 I I
I I D I 1 I I I 1 - " Dl
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 I I I I 1 f I
I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
1
I I I 4 I I I I I t I t I I 1 1 I I I I
I I I
i $ 1 I 1 I I I 8 I I I $
I I I I I I I I I * I I 1 I I I 4 I I I I I
I i t I
I
8
2 L I
I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I f Di I
1 I
4 I 6 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 1
I '\ \, '8 ', b8 *\
I I '\, '. '8 '\, '+, 10 9
I I \,,","., '\ \, '\
i Name 8\\,4,c&\ \, .?A ; of "0 "L.0 \+, \4' ' q:3 +',
-2- I *, ', \, '\, 8 ', '.$,, ', '\%\
! Member ,$j'@,$kO&,
I 'IIII :::I: .~""*""""""l~,"-""""""""""~"""~~"""-""""""""~"""-"-""-"-~-"-~-:"
Pol ice De?artment be allowed to ati:end. It w2.s the de- i
cision of the Council that one member of the 2olice De :
partment be allowed to attend at least one .day to see if i$
woold be beneficial and worth while. I I
The Mr,or stated that she would like to proclaim :
i .- week of August 21, 1960 to August 27, 1960 as 1 1
Freedom Week. I
ORAL CO"NICAT1ONS:
MR. FAUL SWIRSKY, stated he was the attorney for the Carlibad
MunScipal Wzter District, and sane time ago the City Atto4ney
appeared before their board and requested a reduction in the
water rates to the City. At that time the City Attorney <as
informed thrt at the time the budget was being cdnsideredlthss
matter would be taken up. In going over the budget it is!
feasible to adjust the water rates. They are willing to i
reduce gross cost to the City by 5%. However, there is a:
problem in the design of the City water system. They pro:
posed that the City install five regulatory water meters ;
on their lines. Also if the City could use more Coloradoj
River water a reduction in cost could be made. t I
It was tne decision of the Council that a committee, consist-
ing of the City Manager, City Attorney and the Finance i
Director meet with the representatives of the Municipal :
Water District to discuss this matter further and rEport i
back to the Council.
JACK KUBoTh stated that ?Le Presidznir of the Carlsbad
Lions Club, Don Hol!;~, asked that he appear in behalf i
oli the Lions C:I.!FJ in regards to the trees that are to be i
rrxwed on rilestnut Avenue. They thought it appro- :
c- late that these trees be moved to the Tri-City Hospital i
property; they of the Lions Club are willing to do this :
work, and would 1 ike to have the approval of the Council i
to remove these trees to the Tri City Hospital. The I I
City Attorney informed the Council it would be up to
the contractor, and he would have to ask his permission. ;
JOHN McWIG stated the Rotary Club had the same id&, and !
they would like some for the city, high school and Tri-Ci4y
Hospital. I I
I I I
I 1 I I I I I
I I
I I I I * I I
I I ;
1 I
1 I
PUBLIC HEARINGS: -. I I I I I l am Appeal of the decision of the Planning Comissiori granting a request far a variance - reduction of front ya<d
from 20 feet to 2 feet; reduction of rear yard from 20 Met
to no rear yard; and the increase of the side yards from i
10 feet to 15 feet on property lying on the west side of i
Jefferson St, between Las Flores Dr., and the Freeway; I I
said appeal being made by Iva Pi. Grober.
The Clerk presented the Affidavit of Publication, and sta$ed
that proper notices had been mailed :o all property owierd
within the area.
The application was reviewed by the Clerk wherein Donald i
Bziggs, Jr. recufsted reduction of front yard from 20 feet:
to 2 feat; rduction of rear yard from 20 feet to no rea4
y J and the increase of the side yards from 10 feet to 14
feet, on a portion of Tract No. 2, Laguna Mesa Tracts. :
It was pointed out that this variance was requested for i
three (all adjoining) lots. s I
The Clerk was requested to present a&l written correspondGce on this matter. T'ne following correspondence wes present+;
1 I I I I
I I
I I
I I
1
I I I I I
I I
I
1
I" 1:;:i
;;I:*
::;I*
$1,': :::::
::iii
81i'i ::;:;
:VI;; ;:4l
::':I lib:
la!l:
:&I 4
11;;;
I:'::
I,:,, tu:; iL::
:tL;I 4::;
;;;:I i:;r; :::I: ;:::: :i::: I:!;:
::I::
;;:;I ;:::I
1::::
:::I1
I;'::
11;
!l:!l ;I;;<
l;8I: i:::; ;:::;
I:::; ::i::
::/I i::':
9:::: ::::: ::: :: i::::
1:;:: ::;:: :!;!;
'I:;: ::p: ::::: i!::!
:l;::
$/I
I;':: ;:I::
;;I:: 811
4 ;I:
':*:I i::;:
:::a:
;:a::
1;:;;
;;;I1
;!I:;
;,::I
;:l;I
I'iI;
:::I: ;::I:
1;11; ::;i;
I::I; ::;:: I:;:'
/I::
$14' ;:::I
111 ::::i
4l;:' 1111)
::I::
;::I:
::I:: I;':;
:;!:I
:I,:: :::;i
I::;, i:::: ,::;, ii::: ; : I I ,,:
*: r' I + ,: 1 : ; <,I
/::; ::;:;
::1:1
::i:; I:
(SI
8 '1;
I I I I 1 I I t
I I I f : B 1 I. " ' I I I 1 I
I
I 1 I 1 I
I 1
1 I 1 I I
I
i
I I t I I I I I L
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I 1 I
I i
I
1 .\ ' ,.' ' * - ., 8' b, ', '. '*
I I ', '\ ', '8,'"''.3 1 0
~?$@,&,$$+,
."""""-""~i"*""""""""""""""""""""*;".""~"""""""""""""""", f Member ,o.~\,&\,o
;:I;: :I:
I
-3 - I 88 ', ' \ t
; of
I ;:I;*
Letter dated May 20, 1960, from George T; McDonald, 2363 i
Jefferson, urging the Planning Comission to give favorabik :::;I
consideration to the application, as the improvement of ; :::I 1:
,:;I: this property would certainly help progress and the beauti) :;;;:
fication of our city, # I ::: I:
I ::ti:
\' \,,", . \ ' \ .' i Name ', ,$& '','$&
',$$38, '\ '!!.A'
I
Letter dated May 21, 1960 from the applicant to the CIty I
Ccanittee or Police Department as to what effect this 1 I
variance would have on traffic in that area.
The reply from the Chief of Police stated that an investi:
gation had been made and it is his opinion that no hazard :
would be created by the proposed variance. I I
Petition dated May 23, 1960, containing two signatures, ii
which they protested the granting of this variance for th$
following reasons: (1) The setback of two feet violates;
any past rezoning in regard to setbacks on main thoroughfsreq;
(2) When Jefferson Street is widened the hazard to any honles
built in this area would be serious; p3) T!:ere would be ai
hazard of curve approach to occupants of dwellings; (4) Tee
dwelling on adjoining property was built several years ag4
under Count9,jurisdiction; and (5) The present street usa$e
does not designate the true street and could be misleadin4
to future purchasers.
XI :.lan:'ser, requesting an opinion from the City Traffic Safetb
I I I
I r
.I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I * 1
a
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I 1 I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I 1 I I !
1
I I I 1 I
I I I
D 1 1 I 4 I I I
1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i
I
I
A petition identical to the above-Eentioned petition, dated
May 23, 1960 contained two signatures of members of the i
Buena Vista Lagoon Assn. 1 + I
I I Letter from D.R, Dinius, urging the granting of this variilnce,
as his property is within three hundred feet south of thii
property and on the same side of Lhe street, proper develfp-
nent 05 this property wiil greatly improve the view from ;
his Lhree building sites, proper improvement will greatly:
benefit the community of Carlsbad as a whole, and all cosfs
02 future improvements on Jefferson Street in this area will
be reduced proportionately to present owners by including;
this four hundred foot frontage, regulations prohibit :
building on this property at the present time, and the type
of constmuction necessary to develop this area will be ani
interesting and beautifying addition to the entire comun$ty.
Res. No. 161 of the Planning Comission was read wherein ;
they denied the variance of said property,
Letter dated June 1, 1960 addressed to the City Manager i
from Donald A, Briggs, Jr., appealing the decision of the:
Planning Commission in denying his application for setback
variances on Jefferson Street.
Letter dated June 17, 1960 from lva Me Grober, addressed :
to the City Manager, objecting to the granting of this I
requested variance for the following reasons: (1) The set;
back of two feet violates any past rczor.ing in regard to i
setbacks on main thoroughfares; (2) In the widening of .X
Jefferson St., the hazard 'io any homes built in this area!
would be serious; (3j There is a hazard of curve apprcach
to occupants of dwellings in this area; (4) The present street usage does no: designate the true street and could be misb
leading to fsture purchasers; and (5) the dwelling on the! ;. t;
adjoiving property was hilt several years ago under County
juri.sdictioa, end the zoning at that time was different J
from our City zonin g. f I
Letter dated June 18, 1960 from the Buena Vista Lagoon :
Association addressed to the City Council, stating they ! objected to the granting of this variance. I I
I I I
1 I I I I
I f * I 1
t $ 9
I
I
6 8 *
v I I 1 I I
:1-11
I::;: I;::; ::::I
#I;;;
::,:I
:;;I,
::!I: I8
I" I;*;: :;::; i;::;
1:::; i::::
1:::: i:;:: :!I:: I:: I: ;::::
11;; I::;;
';::I ;:$; ;'I
e::;, 1s :I:::
:;:I;
;: :@;:;
*I!;; ;:
::I:; It!:; ;:i:; ;:::: :::::
a::t; :;;:: :::;, la f:::: :::I! :::;: i:::: :i!:: !;::; i::::
1::::
81;;; :!::I
:;I 1,;::
*'I:: ii::;
/!:I:
;I::: ;::::
I:;!:
"'1; :;;;; :::;: i::::
,l:1l ,tl:I $f': :;:::
:IB:: It ;::@: , ::;a It(
:I;:;
le';;
*::;I :::;:
::'I: ::::: ;;:::
;:I ::,I: ii:::
;I:*:
1:::; !::I: i::::
:':I;
::;I,
I 1; i::::
1:::: :I::;
I'
1I:'l
I*
11 'I
l;Il
11
I(
1111
ii:!:
!I8!l
I I I I i
I I I I
I I I I I" I I I I I B
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I ,
I , i I I I I I I I I I :
I I & 1 : 4 I I + I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I :
I 1 I + 1 1 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 t I I 6 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I t I I I I I t I L I I I I
I I I I I I
;
I I # * B I t I I I 6 I I I I I : I I I I I I I * I 1 I I I I 4 I r I I I I
-4..
f '\ '\ 'X
I \\ \\ '\ I ', \ ' I ..' I \' ! \l i Name '\
Letter dated June 19, 1965 from Geo. T. McDonald, addresskc! of
objectb:rs:to the improvement af this property was given ;
the first chance to purchase this land and refused, and fklt
it unjust that they should take steps to oppose Mr. Briggp
from bzautifying the community; another objector came to:
him personally a few years ago with a petition for a vaidpnce
to builci a new home, which petition for a variance he glaply
signed. This property was sold and purchased in good faigh
ana he personally cannot see why Mr. Briggs should not be
allowed tkis variance. Also he could see no way in whic4
:.',is variance could be detrimental to any future plans ofl the
Audubon Society. I I
Letter dated June 20, 1960, from Bette M. Carpenter, Y;eal+$
re: Property appraisal, addressed to Donald A. Briggs, Jt.,
concerning the property in question, in which they state4
it was the opinion of their office the value of this prop'ertn
without relief from present setback regulations, is of l{ttle
or no value. With adequate relief, such as is now being !
requested, the fair market value of these lots would be i
from $7,000 to $10,000. They also stated that a number :
of buyers would consider purchasing this property if seteacks
were comparable with other water front properties.
Memorandum dated June 22, 1960 from the office of the Ci!y
Manager addressed to:theiCarlsbad City Planning Commiss%on,
stating that at the regular meeting of the City Council, I
a public hearing was held to consider the appeal of Mr. :
Donald A. Briggs, Jr. in which the Planning Commission d4n-
ied his request for a variance, and it was the Council's I decision that the Planning Commission be notified that ij
is their intention to grslnt the appeal, due to the folio$-
ing reasons: (1) Similar variances have been granted on :
other beach front properties; (2) A pattern xas set by :
the County; (3) There is a definite pattern set by topog4aph-
ical conditions that exist in the City; and (4) This progerty
is located on the outside radius of the curve on Jeffers4n
St., therefore, a dwelling could not cause any additional:
tmffic hazard. Also the Council requested that in reco4sider-
ing the matter that the Planning Cmission consider the:
additional tax revenue that properties such as this would
bring I I
The Council was informed that in order to have this matt$
reconsidered by the Planning Commission, a new hearing wqs
set, due to the fact that a new Planning Commission was I
presiding. I I
Letter dated July 19, 1960 addressed to the Planning i
Commission from Milton R. Farnharm, Registered Civil
Engineer, in which he stated he had been asked by Mr. Dodald
Briggs, Jr. to make a study of ti00 feet of property betw4en the intersection of Las Flores Drive and Freeway 101 on She
westerly side of Jefferson Street, and have found the uncjer-
lying geologicd strata to be suitable for construction qf
a residence such as Mr. Briggs's model home design; the i
features of the model are fast becoming cmon and presedt
a minimum of design and engineering, with a maximum of i
effect and over-all eye appeal. He further stated this ;
plan was the only feasible and economical manner in whic6
to use the land in question. 4 I
Res. NO, 170 of the Planning Commission was presented gr+t-
ing a variance on property described as portion of Tract;
No. 2, Laguna Mesa Tracts according to Map thereof No. 1719
of the City of Carlsbad. I I
Letter dated July 26, 1960 addressed to rhe City Council i
from Iva M. Brober, appealing the decision of the Plannit$g
Commission in granting the above variance. 1 1
.,~Q,~~~,Pfaaa~,~~~-~~~~~~-~~a~~~~~- _r~at-clne-0_4-~-~e-marrC-~- -!!!!?!?-.
I I
I
$ I 1 a
I I I
I +
I I
1 t I
I
I The Mayor announced that the public hearing was open, and:. that the appellant, or her representative, would have the:
I 1 I I I I I 1
I
\*' '\ ', '. , \X'
8, '\ \\,\\,
'\ 't, \\'\ '..'&! 1 'q&, '\ "8 '~$\c$., \\ '%\\ \?& \o \ +,$+ t%@,+.p \,e
::I:: ;'I
:::I: ;::;: :::
::I:#
!:It:
:;:I: i::;:
$1:; ::::: ::: iiii: I:
:;'I1
:;;I&
11;
:;I::
1II'I
;;1;1
11:
"""""""" 'I
11:
$1
$11
:)I
::::: ::;:; iiiii !;;;I ;:;:I
;::;; 4;
';:'I :;4; ::ii: ::::I
;::;I I;;::
::;::
::I:: i;::; 1:: ::I:' ::: :: ::jj; !I;::
8 $s:l ,'I
,::I: ;u:; :i!:: ::::I
:;1:1 ::iii
::I;: Ill
!::;; ::::: :' :ii:: :&i:
l 1:; ;:I::
:::I: iii:; ::;I:
::':I
:I;;; ;I It::;
;:::I ::::I ill;; i:'
:;I 'I
:d;I ::d;
1:;:; :::;i :::
::'I; ;1
::::I
,I:*, ::"I
;I:::
::::I
:;::I Ii'I!
::I;;
;(::I
:::ai
1:::; ::;!~
;III~ ;::I,
1:tl~
;,::I
;;:a~ ;;;:I ;I::: $4
::it
1':
:,,:I
1:;1;
11:
4I:l
)11*1
::
I I t I I I I I
I I I 1
I- Di
I I I t
$ I 1 I I 8 t I I I I
1 * I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I
2 I 1 t I 1 I I I I * I I I I I I I I I e l I I I I 4 I I I I I I I
I f i I * I I I I I 1 I I 1 I f I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I & 1 I 1
I t 1 L I I I 1 I I I I I I I + I I I 1 I I
I Di i
i I I I t I I I
I
I I 1
I 1 1 I t I I I I I !
I 8, \', 8 \'
I ,, \\'
I '. ' ' I \ ', '8, ', '\,'\,
I \\ ', '8, '\ ', '\ 1 p 2 I 8, ', ' '\ '\ '* I '.$& '\\ '.&\
I of "?d%, $,,J+p,
-5.. I
i N a me "\, ,+\,o,, 8, *$ip.r\,
i Member \$f@.&?$j
""""""I"""""-"""""""""- """"~"""""""""""__-,,,"""""".,"~
I :a;tl
first change to speak. 4 1 ::I!! 1:'
I 1;':
1
I !l,!l
MR. FIXED H, LUTW, 241 Olive Drive, stated that he w2s an i
Attorney at Law, and was representing the appellant. Mr. I Grober wac. c~lled out of the City on a business trip and ;
before ?'ne left, they had gone over this matter very thor:ugh
1Y I 8 I I
IV," :.-% T,qlth presented a petition signed by property owners i
in the area, which was dated April, 1959, opposing a lot I
split, and the City Attorney advised the Council this doc+
ment was in connection with a previous request by Mr, Bridgs
for a lot split, I t
I I I Mr. Luth stated that through information and belief, Mr. f
Briggs does not own all this property. Mr. Briggs was as$ed
if he owned all the property and he stated he did, At on8
time one of the lots was deeded to Mr. Kentner, but since!
has been transferred back into his name, Mr. Luth furthe&
stated the Council should consider if the improvements woGld
be benefidial to the City or if they would be detrimental:
to the public welfare. As far as the zoning is concerned;
Mr. Briggs has not complied with the zoning ordinance. Tte
property owners in the area believe this type of improve-:
ment would be injurious to the general welfare of the Comf
munity, Section 1802 of Article 18 of the Zoning Brdinanee
was reviewed, which section sets forth the required showibg
for variances. I 1 I I
::::;
;;I:# ::p:
::;I'
11*:: :::I:
:;:I;
:;I;#
::'I:
;;PI If1
lltl;
::::I
1:::: i::::
1:::: ::!!'
11)
*I1
'j'l, i::::
1:;; i:;:;
::#:I
*::I: :@#;I
:::I:
1:;:; p;::
1:::;
1::::
:::I:
::::I 11
;L;I :'I ;::4
;;::I
:bl;l 8':
!:::f
;!#:I
l:llf
Mr, Briggs owns three lots and there are 5 other lots adjbin- ;11;0
ing these lots. Xf this variance is granted then Che othbr
property owners would be entitled to the sqe privilege, ; ;:::I
and this would certainly create a great traffic hazard. i l;'l;
*8;l
Ordinances Ere made for the protection of property owners:
,!!I!
I::;: 4::;
::I::
I I 11:;:
I The property otmers believe that the improvements as conrb-
pl.eted by him are in direct violation of Article 18, Sect3on
i801, Sub. Div. 3-4. Mr. Luth asked that the Council vislalb
1500 to 2000 feet of property on Jefferson St., with 2- i
foot set-back line, all located on a sharp curve, all havfjng
garages on the street level, 2 feet from the street line.:
Entry to these garages would have to be made from Jeffersbn
Street - this would certainly create a traffic hazard. i
Zoning ordinances are made for all of our citizens and prbp-
erty owners, They have a right to rely on them. Invest;
ments are made, properties are purchased in full relianc4
that such ordinances will not be changed without good caqse.
The request made by Mr. Briggs is certainly a radical chabge in zoning and would change the comprehensive general pia*.
Mr. Luth further asked that the Council give seriouB cons$des
ation to the curve approach to the property in question. :
Mr. Luth pointed out the traffic problem when Jefferson :
St. is widened, future improvements on Vista Way, i.e. i
9hopping Center,PQdevelopment oE the Eucalyptus Grove'nedr
Vista Way. Jefferson Street is the main thoroughfare fr+
Carlsbad to Vista Way. A traffic count was made by Mr. dnd
Mrs. Grober during the busy hours of the day and one car i
per minute passes their hwle during these hours,
Article 18, Section 1801 was again referleed to by Mr.
Luth, pointing out that the sole purpose of a variance i
shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance shalf:
be granted which would have the effect of granting a spe4ial
privilege not shared by other property owners. Mr. Luth :
informed the Council a friend, who is an architect and b4ild-
er was kind enough to core down and look over the propcrtiy
in question, and it was his opinion that nothing could bq built on this property which would blend in wjth the exislt- ing homes - only Cliff Dweller type homes ccruld be constx$xted;
I I I
I I I I 1 I I
F I I 4
t I I I t
;p;i ::I:: i::::
1;;:; :::;; ::::: ;::;;
1:::; ::::: :;: If ;i:::
1:::: i:i$
I:::,
;at+;
$:;I
;::I:
:It::
,:;:a
;::I' :I::; *:
!I111 i;:i;
tt'l:
l:;ll
;tl;l
104;
;::I:
:;I:: lf*l
:::::
;I:::'
I::&:: :;;:::
1 1;;;
;;:;1;
;l;l:l
I;@:*: :;I::; ;;!;;; :;;:;; :;:::; ::I::: iIlii!
;l:l
l:;::l t:
:t4;:
;:!:;I
;::;q ::I::: :!::::
;: 1:;:: ; 1' I
B
B
I I I .I
I I I I I I I 1 I +-""
I I I
4 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 8 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 3 I I + I f I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I 1 I I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I t I i I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I
I I I I t I 1 i ,I
I I i I i 4 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
1 '\ \, '\
I ', \ '.
I \' . 3.
I .'
-76- I c I ' i Name \
! Of
.""""""""""""""""""""""""" : Member
I L garages rx~ld have to be on the street; level; there are i
9 lots facing Jefferson St. covering approximately 15C;O ;
feet <all on a distinct curve), which would result in a &$
great traffic hazard; the rear of these houses would of $P
necessity be two or more stories high and would not add to
the btauty of the neighborhood; and there would be no. frgnt
yard, no rear yard, therefore, there would be no lawn, shrub%
: . .wers and trees, which add so much tao any surroundings;
Mr. Luth asked that the Council reverse the decision of the '
Planning Commission and deny the variance granted Mr, Br$ggs,
due to the type of improvement that could be built on thk
property which would be detrimental to the city and detr:-
mental to the owners of property in the vicinity. * I
Mr. Luth presented a copy of a letter from the Union Titie
Insurance Company of San Diego, dated March 5, 1959, add?ess-
ed to Mr. Grober, regarding the vacation of Road Survey No.
135, stated that on June 28, 1948 the Board of Supervis4s
of San Diego County passed a resolution closing Road Suqey
No. 135 and Carlsbed Road to vehicular traffic only and :in
issuing any policy of title insurance on properties aff+t-
ed by the closing of said road, they would mke sure thqt
the road has only been closed to vehicular traffic. An Fb-
stract of the resolution by the Board of Supervisors clqsing
the road to vehicular traffic was attached to the lette:.
Also presented was a copy of a letter from the County St.$-
veyor an8 Road Commissioner's office in San Diego, dated
March 1.3, 1959, addressed to G.A. Grober, staring in 1948
Road Survey No. 135 on Map No 1719 of Laguna Mesa Tract$, was closed to vehicular traffic OR~;J and not vacated and
abandoned to public use. Since that time the road has tleen
annerzd to the City of Carlsbad and the County has no f4rther
jurisdiction over the same; therefore, if the adjacent:
property owners want the road vacated, it will be necesiary
'io petition the City Council of the City of Carlsbad. i
Mr. Luth further stated that at the previous hearing by I
the Council on this matter, it was the feeling of some gf
the members that in granting this variance, in order thgt
the property be improved, it would mean more revenue toithe
City through taxation, He did not feel that the amountlof
revenue to the City should enter into this matter. The ;
question is, is Mr. Briggs in violatior. of the ordinanct.
A meeting was held by the various property owners in the
area, and this proposed building was discussed; the oniy
thing they could think of was '*Cliff DwellersP8 homes. 41so
if the Council permits garages on the street level, the3
will be creating a t@Frankenstein". This variance tJould:
be detrimental to the City of Carlsbad and to the safeti
of the people. I I
A letter from P.S. Allen, 5099 Shore Drive, dated August 15,
1960, was presented by Mr. Luth, wherein Mr. Allen statid
he wished to protest the granting of a variance request:by
Mr. Donald Briggs, Jr. He is financially interested in: the
properzy directly across Jefferson Street; a 2' front set
back would cause a traffic hazard, due to the curved robd
and the street being a heavily traveled thoroughfare; :
sewers have been installed 2nd paid for by the neighboring
property omers, and no one could collect from Mr. Brigbs
no:.?. If the variance were granted, it would certainly aown
grade the neighboring property. I I
-.
I I
I I
I 1
1 I
I I
4 I
Mr. Luth presented pictures of the front and rear of this
pwerty. In closing Mr. Luth asked that the Council cpn-
sider the 1500 feet of garages that would be built on tpe street level if this variance were granted. I 1
I I 4 I 1 I 4 I I + I I
I
... , "
b, ', \\\'\\ , '\ '8, '\ '\ 2 13
, '\$A, \\, \'&,
'.,+"\O\ \\ '?A, \?b?$, .'\,&?$+ $9@\+\p,o.
I::$:
:!I:# :;i:!
::If: ;:;::
::,:a '1;
:::'I
1:::;
:I::@
::I::
;:*!I :ie:; :I1
:I::;
:::;; I:::: ::ii;
:::I, ::;I: i;:::
:I1 (11 :ii;i ::::I ;:::: ilp;
1;tl;
:(::I i!:;;
:;Ill
;::
:::;: ii;:;
11 ::;:I
:::;: 11
\, '\ \, ', '\
"""""""". ;*lit
l;'l el1
611
:,,It
'I
;::'I
:I,:: /::*
;;,:I
1:::: 11 #
;::;: ;;-: :::
!I::;
/I!; :::
;:::I
I:;:; ::*
!:l1t
::;:i ::; ,:iii ;: ::;;;
I::;
::/I
1:;::
::I:: I:::: ::;i: ;I::;
41;;:
::/I ;I:!:
::;:I
1';11
::I:! :::;; I::':
1::::
!;I::
I I::
1:'
::ti: :: 4;
a Ii:
':,,I i::;:
:a::; ::I:: la:l, ;:
:&I 1::: ;:;:'
,,I::
$11: *:+
:;'I:
lt:;l 11
:I;:;
::I:, :;pi ;:I::
1:;:;
:;;:I
llll;
:,a1,
:*I
ll.l!
B
D
l 4 I t I I t t I I I I I I 1- I I I t
I I I I I I I I I < I I I I I I
$ I 1 I I
I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 4 t
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I i I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t 1 I I I I I I
I I I
I I I L
1 L
I I I I i I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I
I I 1 I
il I
I
$ I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I .,\- I \' I '\ \ 't I \' I \' I I 8
' \,
-7 - , i Name ' ; of
i Member ..""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~"""""-
w,s. MABEL MARTIN read a statement in which she ob jetted ;
to the varizince requested by Mr. Briggs on his Jefferson ;
Street prr,y?rty for the following reasons: (1) Ordinance :
No. 9060 adopted by the City Council, Article 1 wqs establiskl
to promote among other things an orderly, planned use of lbd Her belief was that the Article was written and intended i
to protect the individuals who built within the requirements
of t"is ordinmce. The taxpayers who own, and have develoied
the land across the road fromMr. Briggs proposed building:
sir;es3 are well within all of these requirements. They wopld
not have put the money they have in their homes, had they i
thought that some day all of these ordinam requirements :
could be cast aside to allow such building sites; no one i
would have become interested in this Cliff if their homes :
were not: already there. One of the Planning Commissionersi
remarked at the meeting of July 12th Oqlets get on with thib
the man has his money tied up in the land and wants to stakt:
buildingfl. What about the individuals who have real monieis
tied up in their land and homes and not just a down Paymen$
on them. Mr. Briggs did not buy Ocean frontage, nor beach:
property, and least of all a building site. He knew this i
when he bought it. In closing Nrs. Martin asked that the :
Council give them the protection they are entitled to und+
this ordinance, and deny this front set back variance.
MR. L. E. BUCKLNGHAM, stated he owned property at the corder
of Las Flores and Jefferson, and the property owners want i
a fair opinion on this matter. So far it has not looked do honest . I 1
As there ::ere no further protests or objections regisLere4,
the Mayor announced that the Council would hear from the i
appellee or his representative. 1 I
MR. PAML S. SWZnSKY stared he was an Attorney at Law and i
was representing Mr. Briggs. There has been no new evide<ce
presented that was not presented at the previous hearing.;
erty to use. This variance is to be used in a particular;
instance where it is necessary for a person to carry out i
the use of the land. In Ma.y the matter was denied by the :
Planning Cornmission. Mr. Briggs appealed the decision of ithe
Planning Commission and a hearing was held by the Council:
The Council was required to refer the matter back to the i
Planning Commission in accordance with the ordinance, as i
it w4s the intention of the Council to grant this variancq.
In the meantime a new Planning Conjmission was appointed, dnd
the matter had to be reheard by the new Planning Conanissiin,
and it was their decision to grant the variance. He furttier
pointed out there is proof in file as to any traffic probjem.
This street is a secondary street; there is a statement id
writing stating in effect that the granting of this variatjce
would not create a traffic problem. Mr. Swirsky asked thd
Council to give weight to the opinion from the Chief of P4lice.
Mr. Briggs presented a model of the building he intends t9
erect on the property. This project is engineeringly fea; sible. This variance should be granted so that the propetty
can be developed. The appellants have given no reason fos not grantlng this variance except that they do not want t$e-
property developed. This is the very sane problem you hays on the beach front property. The resm for granting thit
variance is that it is good eccnomical planning. Mr. Swiqsky
pointed out the four reasons the Council gave for grant in$
the appeal of Mr. Briggs at the previous hearing, which were
set forth in a memorandum sent to the Planning C&nmissionjas
fol:ows: (1) Similar variances have been granted on other;
beach front properties; (2) ,A. pattern was set by the Coun4y;
(3) There is a definite pattern set by topographical cond$tims
that exist in the City; and (4) This property is located ; on the outside radius of the curve on Jeff.erson St. , ther{-
for@, a dwelling would not cause any additional traffic haza&
I I I 1 I
I I
I I
-1, ALL~ 3 reason for requesting this variance is to put the pro$-
I I I I I I I
1 I
x..
L \ \' \ "
',' \ t
8''
'8' '8, '*,"'\ 1 1 4
'\,+ .O', '\\ '%;,, '%%\9\,$@ '.@@,+e ',d ::;i! ::: 18 ::p: I:;':
!:4t
1;;: :;::: ::;I #I
;;el; :;!;:
*,,:I
:I 1;;:;
::I:;
'1::l ::I :i
:::I,
*I,;,
::;I: I:::: 81
4::l
;;PI;
'I::; :::I: iiil:
$41 ::::: 1:::
i!:;: :;':i
:::11 ;::;;
::::I ;.: : : i
I11l1
;!I:; ;v 11:::
iii:: '1:
;:::: ;:,:I
1::11 :::i: i:::: ':;;! :I ::: !!pi ::;:; 'I
i:::: #I
;;:ll
1:::; 1::;:
;:I:; :iii: ::pi ::;::
::::: ::;;; i$:: ii:;:
11 :::i;
::::I ;::;: ;::;: :::I:
/$; ;:;I:
;:I1
,*I;:
:;;I:
1::;: 1:::: :::I: ;ii::
11,:; :;:I: I:::: ;:;::
:ti:;
::I;:
1::;: iii:;
::a:: :':::* ill
1; 1: :d::
::I:; :;x:;
;::I; ::::;
!::f:
8 "?&, '\ '%' \ '\ '\ ', '\
""""""""<
I:,
IIbII
I:#
::Ill
I1
,1111
1:tl;
;tlll
B
I I I I I
I
I
I
I I I" I 1 I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I a t I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I 1
I I I 1 I I t I I I I 4 I I I I I 1 I I I I 4
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
a
1 Bi I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I
; " '\ '
1 ', '\ I , 8 '\ '', ","\
! Na me 'b, '\@ ',,'?$?+,
\\ \ ',, '.,'\\'\,
8 \' ' \\PI5
"""-"-""--"",,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,""~~""""""""""""~.""~~"""~""""~"""~~"~ i Member .$9@\$\p,o.
' ,.'
I
I -8- ', '\ '\, \, '\ '\
I of $jqi&, ',bd\9'4'* '\ ,*'
'I I I MR. LUTH stated Jefferson Street is a main thoroughfare. i VI1 :ii
This is not beach property, this is City property. If we : i1)i,
::!!I
allow this variance on Mr. Brigg's three lots the adjoinik
properties will have the same privilege, and you will havd
1500 to 2000 feet of garages, with a single story in fron4
and 1 1/2 story in rear. With cars going in and out of I
garages it would definitely create a traffic problem. I 1
The Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 8:40 P.M. i
Cm. McPherson Stated it was not clear to him as to the f4ont
footage that was owned by Briggs.
Mr.Briggs informed the Council he owns 400 feet fronting \
on Jefferson Street, making a total of three lots. He is:
requesting this reduction in set back in order to have a ;
circular drive.
Mayor Sonneman asked about the street vacation of the stret
at the rear of the property. She pointed out this street;
was closed to vehicular traffic only.
Mr. Briggs stnted he has title in fee to the center line {f
this street; however, this variance does not include any:
portion of this street.
I I
8 I
1 I 4 I I
I I I I 1
I I 1 f I
I 1 :
1 The question of the depth of the lot was raised, and Mr. :
Briggs stated there is approximately 35 feet to the propedty
lines A sketch of the property 1 ines was presented for th4
Council's review.
Cmn. Guevara asked if there was an area for children to play.
Cmn. McPherson stated he could not understand the real estate
people stating that without this variance this property hid
no value, but that if the property were granted a varianct
they would be worth approximately $10,0001 I I
Mr. Briggs stated this was ture - without a variance he wiuld
not be able to build.
Mayor Sonneman asked to see the letter previously presentfd
by Mr. Xuth from the Union Title fnsurance and Trust Compgny
dated March 5, 1959, addressed to Mr. Grober, regarding t$e
closing of the road to vehicular traffic only, wherein they
stated they would make sure that the road would show closgd
to any vehicular traffic in issuing any policy of title iosur-
ance on properties affected. The Mayor asked that this l+tter
be made a part of the records. 8
The City Attorney presented the policy of title insurance:
issued to Mr. Briggs, and advised the Council that Mr. Brjggs
has title in fee to this road, subject to said road easement,
Mayor Sonneman stated she felt the problem before the Coubcil
was in regards to the requirements for granting a variance,
The City Attorney reviewed the ordinance for the Council.;
Cmn. Bierce stated that he did not see that anything new :
had been brought out tonight at this hearing that had not: been
brought 0u.t at the previous hearing. Cmn. Bierce moved +at
a resolution be adopted denying the appeal. The motion dfed for lack of a second.
Cmn BHerce stated there had been a great deal of pressure! brought on the Council and individuals in regards to this:
matter, and he did not approve of it. I I
Mayor Sonneman stated she did not understand what he meant
by this statement, as we have had a new Planning Commissi+n since this matter was first heard. I I
I I 1 I I
I I
I I
I I l e l
I I
I I
t I 1
L I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I
11;;;
:;:;I
:::I: :;I:; i::;: 81
#::*I
:I;:;
;:#:I
1:::;
:;'Il :;::;
::;a* ::ii; I: :' ))'I' iiiii
4::l :::;:
::;I:
:;I::
;1::1 ::;:I
'::I:
:I::: :a111
::I:; llat;
f1 1;:;
:!1 ::i :;!;I
:I #;;::
:::i: :;;
:;:I# It
'It:: i::;:
I;;*: :;;::
:;I:;
::::I ;;i:i
:::j; ::;,, 81 4;:; 81 ::;i; :I:;: i;::; ::!I: ::pi I::;: ;;i:i !!:::
;; It I 1:'
,I:::
$'I:
t:!;: i:::: ;::ti
;:::I ;::;: ;::I: :;;:: I;:':; ;::q
:::I ;:;I:
4:; I:
;I,:: ::'I:
I:,, :*l:l :I:::
:I::; ;:I:: ::::: :::I; :i::; :;;::
::::I I1 it::: ;I::: ::!:I ;:::; ::ri:
1::;: I* :;i:: I::::
1;1:1
;I;::
11
@ll:l
lIlo
'l:dl
(!!I!
I + I I I 1 I I * I . I I 1 B 1- I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I
I I 1 1 r I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I 1 I t
f
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I t I I I I I
I I I I
I I 4 I I I I 4 I t I I I I I I 1 I I Dj
I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I 8 I I I I 1 I I I I
; '.\'\.*\ ',*',",
4 ., 8, '\, ' ' ' I I \\\'\\ '\, '\ ', '\,"\,J \ 16 / N a me \,, x*$, \\, ''6. ; *f <+c&, '\ '@
',$*.,q>,;%& """-"--"""""-"""""""""---""""""""""""""~"~""""~""""~""~,"" ! Me rn ber ,o ',o .pq \,d,
1 \' '
,\\'\'
-9-
I '68 I
!I l!l I Cmn. McPherson stated he was not present at the hearing oft
June 21st, bllt at no time has he been in favor of granting:
a 2 foot "ariance. I I I I 1 Hayor Sonr.man stated that if we grant this variance we might
as well >urn our ordinance. Also there would be an uilimiked
traffic hazard. This property is not comparable to any behch
pro;-crty, therefore, she is not in favor of the granting OF
this variance, MiyarSonneman moved that the decision of t?
City Council be contrary to the decision of the Planning ;
Comission, and that the matter be referred back to the klb-
ning Commission, requesting a further report, and that th$s
Body by resolution following the report of the Planning :
Commission of if the Planning Commission fails to report 4ith-
in 40 days, announce its finding and decision denying the I
granting of the variance and upholding the appeal for the :
following reasons: I I I
I I (1) The granting of this variance would be contrary to a$l
the setback requirements of Ordinance No. 9060. I I
(2) A precedent would be set for all the remaining PrOPe$-
ties on the street; and 1
I I I
I I
;:it; I:: 18
I:, 1;:
I::,:
:h::
Il,!I +1;;1
Ill 811
!:;I:
;:
::i:; 11::
;:#:I
I*:;; i1::; ;:;::
:*I:;
:;:;I
:I:#:
::':I
ll;l:
I;:; i:::;
I# $4:
1;;:: ::;::
81
11*!1 I)', ;;::!
:ai::
;!*;I 4;:;
1;;:; ::;::
:)I
fl.!l I (3) When Jefferson Street is improved to its full right i Guw ara ; lxjx; i
of way width, a definite traffic hazard will be created. : Bierce i ; ; ;x; I Sonneman :x! :x : i
k short recess WES declared at 9: 15 2.M. The meeting : McPherson i i :x: :
recor,vened at 9:33 P.M. I I @I:&:
isi:~
I t ::::;
!l#!l b. spreading the assessment on Carlsbad Blvd. -
Asses. District 85-1959. The Mayor announced the hour of
7;30 U.M. having arrived this was the time and place fixe
for the hearing of protests, objections or appeals in res
pect of the assessment proceedings, and work under and pu
suant to Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 624, and
the. Lmprovement Act of 1911. The Clerk presented the aff
davits of publication, mailing and posting,
I I I I { * i
1 1
I I I
'I~:I
:::I; :;ti:
I I:;::
::;I, 81
;&I:;
" ;::;;
'::ai r:;i:
::'I;
.- ii;;:
!Ij!l I By mot ion of the Council the affidavits were approved and [ Guevera ::::; I ; #x: ; ordered filed, ; B i erce I ;x:x: ; I Sonneman i i i xi i
The Clerk advised the Council that up to the hour of 7:30:McPherson i x; ;xi ;
P.M. he had received no written protests. I I ::'I:
I I :;;Il 1::;
The Mayor asked if there were any persons who wished to i !:;Il 4;
make an oral protest, There were no oral protests. I I 8I;l
I I I::':
There being no persons desiring to be heard the Attorney ! ;:::I ;:::: presented the following resolution for the CouncilQ s reviiw, :::I:
I I 1:;::
Res, 11678. A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY i ;llll sll;f 1;:;: OF CARLSBAD OVERRULING ALL PROTESTS ON THE ASSESSMENT, : 1::::
CONFIPNING THE ASSESSPiENT AAND CONFIRMING THE REGI.LARITY I Guevera : : x: x: ;
OF PRCCEEDINGS for Assessment District No, 5-1959, was adbpb Bierce l::al ; ; I x: :
ed by title only and further reading wzived. : Sonneman I ; i XI ; : McPherson ; xi ;x: i ENGINEERING: I 9:::; I $II
I
I
! !::!I I a, Valley Street Sewers - 1911 %ct Proceedings, ;
At the previous meeting discussion was given as to the appoint-
ment oi' the Engineer of Wok for this project. The City !
Manager staced he had received some bids, and he recornmenfled
that Xr. Clyde L, Jenken be appointed as Engineer of WBrki
for this prvject. I I
me following resolutions were presented for the Council';
I I I
I I
I I I I I + I I I I I I t 1 I I ..
,11:1
l!!l!
I::;:
1-11' ::'I:
I:+
::I:; i::;: ;:i:; :::::
:::'I ::I:;
1:;:; iii:: ::i::
:;;:I
I It:
1:::; ::;:; :::;;
sl*f;
I..
B
9 I t I I I I
I I
8
I
I -1 0-
:"""""""""""-""-"""""""""""""-
I review:
I I
1
I' l \, '\ .\, '\ '. '*\
I \"
I 8, \ '\ '\ '\ 8 I \, '\ ', 8 8 '
; Member ~$'@,'&~,o~
I I 'X,'*\,', '\\'~\'\\\ 11 7
i of 4$&y,;.&.& t92
1 I i::;;
I I ;;:;I
i Name '\,,$$$,),, * '&\ ,p>,
._"""""""_"""""""""""""""". 'Ilil I
I ll!:: I I IG:: li i::
:I;::
1 ?REPARATION OF THE ENGINEERING DOCLlfilENTS, ASSESSiENT DIAGk$4S, Guevera :x ; :x : I
::::;
i ASSESSNENT ROLL AND MP~RRANT: DESIGNATING THE ENGINEER OF W~RK Bierce : ix :x I : ; TO S!-?ERVISE ?.LL WORK: APPOINTING ENGINEER OF WORK AS THE : Sonnemart ; /xi ; i SUI:ER?:NTENDENT OF STREETS AND FIXING CCi-ciirENSATION FOR SEXVICES McPhersbn : ix ; :
! for Assessment District No. 2-1960, was adopted by title I ::,;I i only and further reading waived. I I ::I;:
I I I :::':
i Res. 8474. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY i 11:i:
1"1: ::: : OF CARLSBAD DIKECTING iREPAIiATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICAg-. : Guevera I ; :x : : I TIONS AND DESIGNATING ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS, Assessmen$ Bierce !x 1 Sr i i : District No. 2-1960, was adopted by title only and fuzther: Sonneman I i k i : \ reading waived. i McPherson ; !x i 5 i
i RES. 41673. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CFTY : : OF CARLSBXD APPOINTING PERSON TO ACT AS EljGINEER OF WORK, I 1:;;: i DESIGNATING ENGINEER OF WORK AS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOii :
II
I I
81
I I I 5 I :::e:
I be Chestnut Ave. Improvement - 1911 Act- Proceeding$, ;:I:: I;:''
1: ::: :;::' 1:
1 I ::I::
I : The Attorney informed the Council at the time this proceedtng i was started Mr. Clyde L. Jenken was City Engineer. Howevet, :,:I: : it is her understanding from the City Manager that Hr. Jenben i will complete the project for 1% of the total contract priie, I Ill I and a resolution has been prepared under those terms. The: ;::;:
: Council agreed this was a satisfactory figure. The follow+ pi::
1 ing resolution-.was presented for the Council's review:
i 1- Res. f676. A RESOLUTION OF TMZ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITi :q:i :I ; OF Ct?RLS3AD, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 651 OF THE CITY OF 1 Guevera b i i + : I1
i CARLSBAD, CONT'INUING TEE AYPOIIJT1.IENT OF EKGINEEP, AND X43JDXNGBierce ; i 4 X: i I COXPENSATION, was adopted by title only and further readink Sonneman i ; ; $ i
f waived. t McPherson ; i I T ;
;;:::
I I1:I
I I ::It:
* I I I ::!!; t 2- P.eport of bid opening for Chestnut Ave. Improvement. i i The Clerk informed the Council that seven (7) bids were ref f ceived for the improvement of Chestnut Ave., and a summary! i sheet was submitted as follows:
i Lowe & Watson $55,196.16 : S i lverberger 60,520.87 : Sully-Miller 58,858.95 i Hazard 74,791.70 : Darwin Trans. 66,737.10 ; Melbourne 68,482 . 90
; Golden 62,931.84
I I Gas Tax Proi.
1
L I 1 4 1911 act
46,-972.59
45,736.60
52.493.20
48,536.30 I I
55,022.11
46,536.94 I I
$439274.55 I I
1 I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I 1 ; One bid was received from Thorpe for I I i sidewalks and curbs 49,589.00 I I I
:ll!; :I
$1::
18:::
::I:; :I:;,
1::::
;:'I: +:::; i:!;: ::I::
1:::;
:'*Il ::I::
::(:I SI!;! 11
;lI1l
!l,!l ::;!; ::I:: :;!!:
I I 'I I I ::ii; i The low bid submitted was from Lowe and Watson and the i :;;:; : following resolution was presented awarding the contract : :;p; i to Lowe and Watson of San Bernardino. I I:: II I ,SI:(
I I ;:ll; i RES. Ji679. A KESOLUTIG&I OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY i a8::l I::;/ : OF CARLSBi9, CALIFOKNIA, AWARDING COXTKPCT FOR WORK OR : Guevera : ixix: ~ ! fP/IPROVE@iENT BY RESOLUTION NO. 660 of said City COUNCIL for i Bierce l :x: :xi
! Assessment District No. 1-1960 was adopted by title only i Sonneman : : !x; fi and further reading waived. ; McPherson a' 8 : ;x:
I 1
I I !t*. I I \ By common consent the contract was awarded to Lowe and :
i Watson for the Gas Tax project in the amount of $55,196.16 i D I I I I I l e. Improvement of Grand Avenue westerly of Ocean St; i The City Manager informed the Council this matter was 4 I I placed on the agenda for the last meetin+however, the i ; partties concerned +equestod thc matter deferred until they; I could meet with the staff. A meeting was held with the st4ff ; namely: (1) That the applicant be denied the improvement : I as proposed; (2) The applicant be requested to improve I ; Grand A,e. frsm Ocean Street West, according to the City's :
; SpecifZGation; and (3) That the applicant redesign the I
1 I I
1 i I
I
#
I
I I I
1 I I !
.I ::;I
:::: ::;: :I;: I::: i::: :if;
:I 1:;:
;;:: I::: ;; I1 4;; :::; ::;: ::::
iir;
'81
II*l
1:
$11
!SI!
I I I I I I I I I I I , I I"" Di ! I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 8 I I * I f I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I 4 t I I I 1 I
I I I I
f I 1 I I t I I i I
I I I I * I I D I I I I I I I I I 1
I I 1 1 I e I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I !
, . ,- \..
f
\, \'\ \ \'
I .\ '.\ \., '.,'..'x.
-il- s I "',~',,~","\,''8~8~ 1 3 i N a me 'b, '\@, "\,"?&, ; of '."o.$+, '. \$$.. : Member """"""""""~"~~""""""""~""""""~-"--""-"""~~""--------"----"---~---~ ,o .,d...?'$?',O '
I
'\*$&;9J#.rt \ (h'
I ;:!I: I projedt to allow for parking within the lot area. I I :f'" I:I
1 I:!!! I I Cmn. Bicrce stated he would like to abstain from all :
discussion and voting. I I
DONALD ERESSELHAUS stated he was representing Mr. Edward$*
as he is the engineer on the project. Mr. Dresselhaus !
presented a plan of the proposed project. Mr. Edwards' i
lot is situated next to Grand Avenue. Their thinking i
was to improve Grqnd Avenue. Their plan and request is:
that Grend Avenue be developed in accordance with the i requirements of the City of Carlsbad and in complete ;
compliance. He asked that the Council forget the origi4al
plan presented and consider the plan before them at thiS
time, and grant the request in accordance with Item P2 i
of the report for the improvement of Grand Ave,
Mayor Sonneman s tated there were several matters to be;
considered. This would make quite a steep street; also:
the set back should be considered. Mr. Dresselhaus stated
Mr. Edwards has already received a variance for the i
property. Mayor Sonneman further stqted that a 40 foot:
street is a substandard street, and some day she an i
visions a pier at the end of '3rand Ave., also she was :
concerned with the traffic congestion and turn around. i
The Assistant City Engineer stated that in the design of
the street it would probably be a 33 foot roadway, and i he would like to limit the grade to a 20% grade. Dis- ;
cussion was given as to the turn around at the West end: of Grand, The assistant engineer stated he felt it i
would be feasible; hoxever, he suggested that signs be i postcd stating Wot a Through Street'#. I I
Mayor Sonneman stated she was fearful of vehicles using!
this street and felt it would definitely be a traffic i
hazard ,
Mr. Dresselhaus pointed out there were several streets I
in La Jolla that are designed such as this street woufdjbe
and have been used successfully €or several years.
By motion of the Council the applicant was granted
permission to improve Grand Avenue from Ocean Street i
west, according to the City's specifications at his own!
expense. I I
The City Attorney stated she would like the minutes to i
reflect that at the meeting with the staff the owner I
stated he would be willing to construct steps at the enb
of the street for access to the beach, and also take caFe
of the drainage problem. I I
I I
I I I I I
I 8
1 I
I * t I I
I I I L I I 1
I I
I I
ai;:;
Ill
:::,i ::
::'I:
bl!!l .a
;::I: I::
i:I;l ::::I ::::;
':::I ::p:
;:I:: :;::I :;:::
;I::: ::::;
4::i
:;'I;
*l;;l I::;:
I:!!:
)I(
'I;', ::,:I pi:;
::I:: ::;:I *I
;:I:: 4::
!::;I 4::: i::::
;:;a8 Ill
1;::;
:::I:
::I(: I:* :::i: i::::
:;p; 4::; ;#I
1:;:: :;::I ;:::I :::;; I:::;
::::I
::: :. ; :;I:;
:;::;
;6l;; ;:::I ::::I
:!;:I
:;:I
1;:: :;I:
;;:I
t;;i
11:
1; 18
*I
;ls*l
It
IIIIl
::I"
:!I4; :i:
,:Ill 'I;
Ill'l
'It:
;I I4
!1I! Cmn Guevara was granted permission to leave at 10:35 P&. ;* ;::I
I ,!I I
d. Request for reduction of front foot sewer li+
costs - Mulqueen. At the previous meeting Mr. C.R.
Helton appeared on behalf of bk. Mulqueen and requested:
I I
a reduction of front foot sewer line costs due to the i
shape of the lot and the fact there were no sewers on ;
Garfield Street. He was granted sermission from the r
Army and Navy Academy to cannect to their sewer lateral:. At thar time the Gouncii deferrad the matter to this i
tine in order for the Caunoil members to inspect the ;
property. The assistant engineer presented a drawing i
cf the property, and explained to the Council how he ;
arrived at the billing, Discussion was given as to i
the past policy on such properties, and it was the feel&-
ing Of some of the members of the Council that if this 1 reduction were allowed there would be others in the ;
City requesting reimbursements. Cmm. PicPherson stated I
he talked to Mr. Mulqueen who informed him that he was i
I I I I I I I
I"l :::: ;::: :::; ;:I; 4:;
::*I
1;;: ::*I
::;: ::;: :::: :I;: ::;I ;: It
!I,* ;:
1:;: ::I: :::: ::I: ;::I
1';1 ii;:
l;lN 1: ::!I
i;ii
' ', '., * *.
I I , ' ' '\ '\\'\\
I I
'\\'\\ ", '\\ \\ ',
I f of
I I
I
I
I
I
I I I -121 \" \\ '\\ ',, '\\ '\,'\ 119
1 1 N a me \'., *'$, x\\ '+\
I I qFh '4'$, '\ sq,,
, \ '8
I BI : Member ,o'@\~~S~,O~ ~"",,~,,"""""""~"",,,,,""~"""~""""""~"-"""""""-~"""-""""""""~""
'?@o * 9'4% 8 .p
1 a sick man and wanted to have the house complete. 15 i ;I8:; tI I
I he is requi9rS.d to pay on the 80 foot basis he would not ! :t: 1: ; protest. It was agreed that due to the fact the City I $;:! : does ha-le sri ordlnance fixing the amount to be charged, i 11111 ! and Mr. v-Alqueen has stated he would not protest if he i @;;ll
: were r?t,ared to pay the full amount, the request for ::::I i reduction of the front foot cost was denied,
I :::;:
::::;
:::i:
1;:;:
; for gas tax funds. The City Manager advised the Councim i ::I:; 'r a memorandum agreement and a resolution adopting the i I::;: : budget and approving agreement had been received front I :;;:; i the Division oE Highways. The following resohtian @I,:,
I ;;Il; i was presented. i I faill
1 I :::;;
: Res, $677. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE clm : ::;::
:::I; i OF c)&~sBi.D, ADOPTING THE 1960-61 budget AtD APPROVING i :::i; i THE MEPIORANDW AGREEMENT, was adopted by t3tle only and i ::,:I
I further reading waived. :::::
I 1 I :::,l 1:
:::Il
f. Policy on sewer fater:l installation, The I I :;::; j Assistant Engineer asked that a clarification be made i ;::;;
; on the pomicy regarding sewer laterzl installations. # I lii:: i In referring to the minutes wherein it was agreed that : /I;;
: the City would install the sewer laterals ili 3s W$-,-CleZi :::I: ! as to:.iaheCher the.,City.:woDid,do all the work. We i I ;3,;1
:::e: : have received requests from property owners and subdi- : I;':; i viders requesting the inst71 lation of the sewer laterals !by contracto: : ' i : : at the time the sewer main is knstalled. Mr. Thornton ; 1:::; i stated the pGblic WOY~S department has enough to do with$ :::::
p;'l : out doing til of the sewer laterals, and felt the city : $4: i should gc, along with these requests. The Finance Directtr :::
: stated trhe CiSy is purchasing a backhoe, and the budget ; I:;:: i reflects che revenue received from these installations I ((1'1 ;:)*a : made b:. the city . The City Manager informed the Council i 1:ii
f he did not feel there would be enough of these requests i i:::; : to m&e a great deal of difference in the revenue received i by the City, By motion of the Council it was agreed that Bierce ; ixIX: ; i::;:
; the subdivider or cash sewer extent ion participants can, ; Sonneman f : ;x i ; I at the time the sewer main is laid, have the contractor i McPherson ixi i~i i 1 : put in the sewer laterals. I
i PARKS AND RECREATION:
? I I I I ::;I :;I;!
I I L I
I I
t e, Division of,Highways: Memorandum agreement i :;*I:
It
I
I I I
I
I I
:ii;;
I
ik:;
@:::I
I I I ::*I:! ;l:;l:
I I I I ;::1:1 lsl:l
;!;st
I a. Request for tree removal on Juniper Street. i 1:t:: :;::: I 8 I I
I I
I
1:
i The Counci 1 was informed a request had been made to have i :;:i: : three trees removed on Juniper Street, The request had ; ::::I 11 1 been referred to the Tree Committee of the Parks and / i;;:; ; Recreation Cotnmission for study. The committee reconmended 1:;:: / the removal of the trees but requested the trees be repldcid i:::;
I by appropriate trees. It was pointed outthese trees wer$ i located in the center of the street, and this request ha4 :::I:;
t been made in connection with the storm drain project. : ;a $;;;;I I1
: Mr. McKaig, Chairman of the Parks end Recreation Comiss#o~ i was Present and stated that El:. l-e:aley and Mr. Maerkle i :::::: I had approved the removal of the trees and he would go ! ;::::: i along with their recornlendation, however, it is his ; understandi-&g it will cost approximately $6000.00 to hav4 ::*::; i the trees removed, and he disliked sI;ending that mount 8 ! in one :-.lac 3. !
: The Cit.' bnager was requested to call for bids for the :
I removal of the trees, and report back at the next meeting! ; of the Council,
j _NEW BUSINESS:
::i::
I I I ::;::: ;SI :;;::I 1:
I 1:::;: :*;I
I:8;:,
I 1
I
;::;I, 'I ;:I;!;
;:;:I, 'I;
18:;i;
s i;::;;
f :;::::
I I I:!:::
I I ,I;:::
1 I I ;: 1::::
I a- Proposed sign ordinance. The Council requested! i:l 1::;; I1
:;;l'l
I 1 I ::::;: l;l
::::i:
P I 1 I ;:;::: -l,!l!
II
I I I
I I I Di 1:;I:l
:;I;#;
I I
I I
I I i this matter deferred until the next meeting of the Counci).
I b- Qrdinance NO. 1069 - Fixing amount of Revenue i !:'::I:
I to support City departments and pay bond of Sewer District ::a:::
I I
I
' I. h 1 TF~. - 19W-61, I
! e- .:.-,&-
I I I
I I I I
I I
I
1- Bi
I , I
I 1 I I I
I
1 I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
, I 1 I I I I I I
I' , \ '\ '\ *\ .\ I k8 '8 ', 8 8 ' I I I I I
\ ', ', '\ '\\'\\
',\\X \,, '8, ',, '\ 8* '\ 128
: of '*$,B,\ ~Odes\~~,+$$ '\\ ,p,
8, 8, '\ ',. : 3- i N a me '\ '?& ', '?+,
""""'~""""~"""""""""""""~""""~"~"""""""~~~~""~""""","""""" I Member '$'$f~~~f '498
! !::!: 412 - 1940-61. I I I I I,;;! i!1is I t Discussion was given to a tax increase for the City. I
Cmn. Biezc'ce stat~d that streets have been an issue for i
severe: ;r:ars. We have never had a Capital Improvement ;
E7:rtd and felt this was a good time to start, From all i
indications the people are in favor of street improvements;
The City Ksnager has indicated previously that a tax could! be allowed for the acquisition, maintenance and improve- :
ment of pu5lic parks or boulevards, At the meeting in I
Berkely it was pointed out $hat the City of Fresno has :
an agreement with the schools to use their land for re- i
creational purposes and they have made the improvements. I
He felt the City should consider this means at some future!
date. I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I ? I I I I I I
1 I I I I I b 4 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 t
I
I I I I I t r I 1
I 1 I I t * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bi
I I I I
1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I
I I Mayor Sonneman asked if they felt the City should consider:
a tax increase at this the due to the fact the City has :
just recently had a reassessment of all property, Also i
if the Council considers a 10 cent tax increase, what woulfl
::he revenue be? The Council was informed this would bring:
62 additional $30,000 revenue. I I
I I I Bierce suggested a 10 cent tax increase for Lhe im?rov@rX?r2r:
of stree@ and 10 cent for recreation-?? purposes. Cmn. i
HBcPherson stated he would not go doc2 with a 20 cent I I
tax increase. Bierce then suggested a compromise of 15 i
cent tax increase. I
After c msideraPle cxscussion, .. by motioh of the Council it:
was agr;ed thpt t?.e Final Budget for the year 1960-61
be adoptzd with the additional $45,000 revenue for cspital:
irnprovetcmt expenditures. I
The follwoing ordinances were presented for the Council's I
review: I I
Ordinance do . 1069. AN ORDIP?ANCE OF THE CITY OF CAELSBAD!
FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE FWM PROPERTY TAXES NZCESSARY:
TO SUPPOKT THE DEPAEYDIENTS OF THE CITY GF CARLSBAD AND :
FIXING TEE AMOUNT OF REVENUE FROM PROi'ERTY TAXES NECESSARY! TO PAY THE BOI\!DED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE 'CITY OF CARISBAD :
SEWER DISTRICT NO. 2QQ FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1960-61, was I
read in full and adopted. I I
Ordinance No. 1070. AN OEDIPIANCE OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD i
"CITY OF CARLSBI?D SEWER DISTRICT NO 2'8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR: 1960-41, was read in full and adopted. I I
c, Res. #/680. Adopting salary plan. The fc'.lt&ng ; resolution was presented for the Council's approval, set- i
ting forth the salary plan for the fise.31 year 1960-61: ;
Res. #680. A RESOLUTION OF TEE CZLY COUNCIL OF THE CITY i
OF CARLSBAD ADOPTING THE Si LAgY PLAN ANG WOM CONDITIONS i FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAT ?GK THE 1960-61 FISCAL YEAR, was :
adoptec by title only and further reading waived. I *
I 1 I
I I I
1 I I
I I
I I I
SETTING THE TAX RATE FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAI) AND THE I I
i I I
I 1
1 I I I I I I I I I I
Report .. W,D. Cannon:
At a previous meeting of the Council Mr. Cannon offered :
to assis the Council in laating a suitable parcel of land i
for the pmposed sewer plant. Mr. Cannon was present and ;
presented : map of an area located in the south part of i
the city limits, consisting of approximately 17 acres; I
however, with the relocation of the 101 freeway there waul$ be only about 11 1/2 acres. The party who awns the prop- : erty has the property in escrow; if the city is interest&
in this property he might be able to exchange the property!
-._
I I I
I I I I I
I.'l. I'll; :::::
@::I1
:;::I
;::ll ::
;::I:
t:;::
:*l;l
*::I:
:$I::
;;:I
::;I:
1;:
:::I:
::::I
IIl:i I:::,
l!4!
;SI
i;:~;
::I" ;;q
::Itl '*I ;:::; ::!::
8'':: ::i:: ::::; li;::
41 I1$!
!l'!l ;l.'l
:8l;l
1::::
!;:'I I::
:I:*:
:;::a :; :I: j:::; ;:,:: :I
::!I; ::r:i !:I:;
;::;I
;;:I 1:
I:;I: ::::: :I:!: i;;:;
:;I:$
;::I' ::
Bierce :x: !x; i
Sonneman : ; :xi ;
McPhersonj ixIx: i I::!:
:::'I
IIII: ;::I: Bierce :xi :x: : Sonneman i ; ;x: :
McPhersoni jx jx: 8; ;
;tl;l ;:::: 4::: i:::: :ii::
:::I:
1::;: :;p:
Bierce i ixIx: :
Sonnemani : :x: :
McPhersoQxi !x: 8: ;
;9t;t
i:!!: VI I::;: :ilG
j:o:n
1::::
:;;:I I:::;
1';:: ::::: ::;:; ;: 1;:::
:#:;I ;I::: :i::i ::ii:
!::;I
::'I;
:I 1:;:; i::
,!I!
1 #
I I .< I
5 8,\.,8" ,\'
I
I
I 8, '\ ', \ t '
I '\ '\ '\ '\ \
I I of
I '\, ',, '8, '\, "\"\
I I , ' \ '\ '\\'\\ 122
I i N a me ', '-9 ', '\?% '.,@%, '\ *PA
I b,$Q&&,&F& 1"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~""""-"""""""~"" I Member ,n.,o\p$\,O\.
I I ;::;: ::i:i ::;:;
!:t:l
+
I 1
1. ;4- '8.
Di I for other property but the city would have to let the ownei ; know immediately, l'he owner is asking $6,000 per acre. Mb : Cannon was the ?iced by the Council for his efforts, and was! I::I: ! informed th? ,ouncil would take this matter under consider+ #I!!:
::I:I
I : ation,
I I I : CITY ATTDRNEY'S REPORT:
I I
I I I I I I I I I I : The City Attorney advised the Council she had prepared a i i reso1u:i;n prohibiting vehicular traffic on Elm Ave. and ; : Grand Ave. west of Ocean Street, but due to the fact ther4 i was not a quorum present she asked that the matter be de- : : ferred until the next meeting,
i Weed Abatement program - Res. #681m A hearin g was sched< i uled for this meeting relative to the weed abatement progrk3
1 however, the city forces were unable to get all the prop- I i erties posted in tine, therefore, it was necessary to adoplt : a new resolution setting another date for the hearing. : i The following resolution was presented for the Councilts i
I I I I I I
4i;;i
::;I:
;;I:#
:I:;:
:i:l:
!I:!: ;;ai; ;;+ :ii:; 1:
::::: ::;::
:;I:' ::;!:
::;'I ;/::
1:::; :;::I :;:::
:;::a
;I::: ;::::
l!Il! i approval : I :!::I
I
I I I ::I!: j Res. 1681 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DECURId
i XUISANCE AND DESCRIBING SUCH PROPERTY; ORDERING THE PUBLf4
f WORKS DERECTOR TO ABATE SUCH MUISAXCES, SETTING TPiE AND i Bierce i i x: x; i I PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ; Sonneman : ; i xi ; I ABATEMENT, was adopted by title only and further reading 1 McPherson :XI :X: i
:;i;:
I;;@;
11
i WEEDS AND TR4SH UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO BE: A PUBLIC : i::::
::;;:
i waived.
i State Beaches r-:d Parks. The Council was informed there : : are no funds -.spropriated for the Carlsbbd area €or the i I state beach in the 1960-61 budget.
1 1 1 I I
1 I
r I I I I
I ! i C ITY MAXAGER * S REPORT :
I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I 1 a I I $ I
I t $ !
'a';:
;:;;I ;:::: :;::: 11
:I,:: ;::;: ;::::
l!!l! jii::
;41:4
I!'I! The Council was informed the City has an opportunity to : ;;:;;
purchese 9 Ferguson Tractor on a lease-purchase agreement i
for a 10 month period. It would require a down payment :
of $538.00. The public Works is in need of this equipmen$. Bierce : I xix: I
By motion of the Council the City Manager was authorized i Sonneman : : :X: :
to negotiate for the purch;se of this Ferguson Tractor. ; McPherson /x! !x: ; I:
I l,!l
:ti:: ::::: 1::::
I I I I Sewer Ser§ice Charge. The churches hwe requested a
reduction in their sewer service charge, as the toilets 1
are only used one day a week. After discussion by the ;
Council it was their decision the charge should remain as: - : is,
I
j PAWiENT OF BILLS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL:
I I
I I : I I I I 8 I f
'ti;:
:I 1:::: :::::
;:::I
1;:::
!(I!( ;:pi
1::
!::!I
1:::; ::$! 81
! Authorization was given for the payment of bills for the i i::i: i period August 2, 1960 to August 16, 1960, general expense! Bierce ; jx:x: : I,',;
i in the amount of $4,029.78 and the Sater Department $7,20993, Sonneman: : !x: : i as certified by the Director of Finance and approved by I McPhersoni x! :xi :
t the AuQiting Committee. I I ::;I, I:
I Ratificar'ton of the payroll was given for the first half f I ::: ; or'kugust 1960, in the amount of $13,208.06, as cn-rtifiedi Bierce ; :xixi : i By'''$&el:E?ir~ot ::.,of$ginarie:e ..gnd,apptgved..tq the*.Audit&u&j. : Sonn-n i : ;XI : ; Committee. i McPherson: x: :x! /
I 1:
t 1 .. I I 1 i;':;
a;" ....." ::I;:
I
I ..
I Bi I &BJomPEg~$"k. : :: *- - , I I :::I:
::::,
a it(::
t I I ;:;:; ::'::
I
; By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 12:27 A.M. i ::lt: ;!a
I l!:!l
I I
I
1
! I
I I I I t
I I I * I I I * ; RespectEully submitted, I * I
I I.
I : ;wc/yi, &,-id U@&&++l [-/7%&5) j : ,&/A/. %, n. A HA, l+ f -, &A ! I
:;:i:
l*ll;l ::\!: : 1: :Il I::::
:!::I
:I:;:
1::::
!:I, ::;
l:al;
)c
122
B Cmn. Bierce requested a correction made in the Minutes, of August 16, 1960, Page 12, Paragraph. 4,. to- show three affirmative votes,
Also .on Pzge 13, Paragraph 3, line 4, Cmn. Bierce requested the name Cmn, Bierce changed to Cmn, McPherson. Mayor Sonneman requested that the following statement by her be inserted Mayor Sonneman stated
that she would go along with a 15C tax increase.
On Page l.3, Paragraph 5, line 3, Cmn. .Bierce requested the words "capital improvement expenditures'' changed to "Street projects",'
11
B