HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-01-17; City Council; Minutes..?? "
I 1 x, .., .I *' i CITY OF CAfiLSBAD i Date of Meeting 3amary 17, 1961 i Minutes of: City Council i Name '\ ',@ '.,''$$. : Time of Meeting: 7:OO P. M. I of "&&, '. 'P.8, : Place of Meeting: Council Chambers i Member ,a@&?$ :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~"""""""-~"""""""""""-~"
I I ill i ROLL CALL was answered by Councilmen Guevara, : Bierce, Sonneman, McPherson and La Roche. Also i /::; i present were City Manager Slater and City Attorney Hayefs,
i ALLEGIANCE to the Flag was given by the Council. I I14
i I :;I*
4 I , 1: r WVQCATION was offered by Mayor Sonneman.
i APPROVAL OF MINUTES
t I , ., ', , ', '+, 6
I I ', '.,"., 'q, 8, '.,
I ', 8, 'b, \ ' \' t '. I '\. \'
B +%',o, $.,$?P'
t I 1;t:: I:::;
4 I I I !;;;
I I ::;: I
i 1::
I I '4 ;I I
I I :; ;,!
$ a. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeti* Guevara ; ; !x:
I i Sonneman : ; :x;
I : McPherson i jx;x ;
I I i La Roche ; ; :xi
I C I ::I;
l 1 a I ::;I
l a. Prudential Overall Supply - re: Relief on
181; ; ' l,l
; business license fee. Letter dated January 9, 1961 l*;l , from: ii:; i Prudential Overall Supply, protesting the action of the i $41 i City Council in enacting an ordinance approximately two : lt:1 18;:
; years past raising their license fee to $100.00 from $12. GO, +: i and also this matter had been brought to the attention of : :::I
1::
: the City Attorney last year. It was pointed out to the i Council the reason the fee was raised was due to protests i : by the local merchants, requesting the Council to give the: :a
:::;
i local merchants protection. The City Attorney informed i 1::;
; the Council she had checked with the League of California: :::;
i Cities as to the fees for businesses from outside the city i i::; ::ii : delivering inside the city and these fees are not out of line: ;: i The City Manager was instructed to inform the Prudential: '8:; ;::: : Overall Supply that the concensus of the Council was they : ;;'*
i would have to abide by the present ordinance. I I *:;: I :#I:
f I 8 I :i::
I b. 'C. R. and Beverly E. Morris - ,re: Water lin$ :::; : easements. Letter dated January 12, 1961 from C. R. : i::; I and Beverly E. Morris requesting the Council to have a : '::;
::;t i water line removed that runs diagonally across the )?rope+- :;;: ; ty they own, approximately 2872 Highland Dr. a or have I l1 : the property condemned by the City and purchased for the : iiii
i exclusive use of the Water Department. Due to this wate4 ;#I: ::i; i line and the fact that the city has an easement for this line ;:I* : it is impossible for them to obtain a building permit. Mri ;;If
i Morris was present and was asked by the Council if he : ;:ii
: were aware there was an easement across this property I :I;:
i at the time they purchased the property. Mr. Morris I :;I:
: informed the Council they were aware of an easement but i ;:ii
{ did not know it was located diagonally across the property:
;;'I
1'1
; Also this property is zoned R-1 but they are not allowed i :I:: ;::: I to build on 'the property. The City Attorney advised the : :i':: : Council the city was not responsible or liable; it would be i ;:;; i very costly to move this line, however, if he wished to : :::: : pay for the line, being moved the city would perhaps permi) 1:'l i the line to be moved. Mr. Morris stated this had been i ::i:
411:
i discussed by them, and they did not feel they should have : ;:I1
i to pay €or a new line; also the taxes had tripled on the i :I:: ;::; i property this past year. The City Attorney stated that if : $81
: they could not use the property to build on they could appl$ :;:I
i to the County Assessor's office for a reduction in their : ;I:;
: assessment, and if they do not grant relief he could then i ;::I
1:;l
i appear before the Board of Supervisors, who act as the : :;tl
: Board of Equalization on such matters as this. t I :;ti
I I :::;
I It was the concensus of the Council there was nothing they!
;I:)
I'll I could do on this matter. I ;::;
0 I:: : 1
I I' I :::i i OUL COMMUNICATIONS: I I i:;:
I I 1l1 i MR. GEISSINGER, one of the owners of Las Flores Flacd, i:;i
i subdivision, stated he had appeared before the Council : ; : ;L
$ ;::I
1 I I ;::
a I I 1;;:
I I I** I ::I
4;;1
I
I
I I
I :;'I
I 1 ;I:: l;'4
: of January 3, 1961 was given as presented. : Bierce ix; :xi
I I
I I
I *
I I
i CORRESFC/NDENCE I b I;*;
i I
a l I
I I :i;/
I I
st
1'1
0 I'
I I
I
l
I
.,
4 I 1 I ?
4 \, x*% b 8'
I s, '\ '\ '\"\\'\\ r
I I ',,'\, '\\ *, \, '\
I -5; - $ I \ '\ ', ', '\ '*
I ! Na me ', '\$\ \,"%\ ',$$& '\ ~,J%\
I +$gp\9J,.$,~ :""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~"~"""""""""""-." : Member ,O\Q,.P\~\~
I ;::#, ;;
I 1 I
I I
I
? I
'\ \ \ ', ' '\
B t of , \-@'
I 4 I i previously on the matter of the San Diego Gas & Electric : :;::~ : CO. placing ut%lity poles at the rear of the property in the i : easements provided for., and at that time he was informed: i that the City Attorney would contact the San Diego Gas & i !I:::
i Electric Co. regarding this matter. I I I;!;
I ,III i The City Attorney informed the Council our ordinance i ;::;
1::: : does provide far easements across the rear of the proper: ; ; ": i ty for utility poles; however, the San Diego Gas & ElectriQ 9;:
f Cp. are closely controlled by the Public Utility Commis- ; ::;:
: sion. In discussing this case with the Gas & Electric Co. : pi:
i it is their feelisg , that due to the fact that the surrounding ; :::i
:;I1 i properties have lhes in front it would serve the entire I ::;a : area better by having the lines for this subdivision along ; ii:: I the front of the property; also it is their duty to complete i ::ii : projects in the most economical manner, I I ii:: '*I)
I 11)1 : Discussion was given as to whether or not provisions in i i our ordinances are such that they cannot be enforced.
i Mr. Geissinser stated he felt the City was in serious i trouble if they have ordinances that cannot be enforced; i
I however, astime is of the essence on his project, they I i are not going to fight this any longer and the Gas & Elec- ; : tric can put the poles where they see fit.
: ENGINEERING:
i::: ;it:
;i::
I: t
1 1
;I*
SI
8 I
I :;::
t I :::I
I I 1: I I ::;I
I I ;i::
iiii
:a' 1;;:
9 I I;;:
I I !I::
I 1 I :;:I
l a. Grand Avenue Improvement Plans - Ocean i :::; :ii:
8::
I:::
I;::
I:+
It
4
'1:;
::;:
I I
t
I
I I
I$
I Street westerly. The Assistant Engineer presented the i ;et1
i plans for the egtension of Grand Am. west of Ocean St. : ::;: : The Engineering Department asked if the Council wished i !:I: : to have the developer enter into an improvement agree- ; :;x i ment with the city for this improvement, or have them i ::I' i just put up the necessary performance bonds and labor : :::; : and material bonds. The City Attorney recommended { i that an improvement agreement be entered into between : :!;; : the parties. By motion of the Council the improvement i i plans for the extension of Grand Ave. westerly of Ocean ! Guevara : :x! x: : St. were approved, which included a 6" rise in steps as i Bierce :x: ;x: i indicated on the plans, and the owners required to enter ; Sonneman I : ;xi : into an improvement agreement with the City in accord- i McPherson, ; :x: i ance with the requirements of the subdividers. ! La Roche : : !xi
I II
1 ::a:
i tive interpretation of Ordinance No. 7020, relating to : :::': i sewer charges. Letter dated January 13, 1961 from I Jack Y, Kubota, Engineer for Donabob developers of i Village Homes Unit #3, requesting consideration of an :
f appeal over the administrative interpretation of Brdinanc4 ;::: i No, 7020, relating to charges made for connection of lots i :::: : within a subdivision to a sewer line. The City Attorney 1 i informed the Council this matter had been discussed pred- :I:: i ously at a meeting and it is her opinion that the subdivide< ;:::
: should be required to pay the front line costs on Chestnut i ;::;
;;'I I Ave., even though only one house is connected directly to ; .:I: ; the Chestnut line; the rest of the houses are connected i :::I
I from the line running through the cul-de-sac within the ; i::: :::I : subdivision, which line has to connect to the main line i 1:;: i on Chestnut Ave. Mr. Kubota was present and stated he : :;I:
: was aware of previous subdivisions that were treated in i ;I::
i the manner requested by them, wherein only the lots I ;::I
: connected directly to the main line were charged the front! :I:: :;i: ; line costs, and corner lots and subdivision street opening$ ;:4
I were excluded from sewer main line costs, It was the i 1:: i decision of the Council to abide by the City Attorney's : ::;;
:@It : opinion. Mr. Kubota requested a copy of the City Attornep's :il: ;I1# I opinion. I 1:::
I I I I i:::
I I 11:'
I I 1 I 1:::
I I @#I;
I I I I {:::
I 1 I ::;:
:'
I I I
I
I b, Village Homes Unit #3 - Appeal of administra-: i:::
:::i :I::
II':
I I I ;::I ::::
I I
111
m1 1111
8
I
I &
I I 181
! l!l;
L.
I I I ; 8, '% .,\ '\ '\ -, 8
I I 4
'<, '\\\ '\\ ',,'\, '\\
I I t, ',,'.,, '.\ \' ' f N a me '\\, ''$8, '\yd' ; of \+&??>\ ' '?+,\
i i Member ',*$&,+,.$+, ~"""""""""""""""""""""~""""~""""".."~""""~~"-"""""-----""---". ,o 'g \.P$?',O
I I I xi:: -1 : PLANMKBTG: I #:I::
I I ::si;
I 3, Vacation of Garfield Street between Beech and ! :I:;*
"". /I;: i Cedar Ave. Le&r dated September 14, 1960 from * I *:II' :I::: i Henry Mafzrs hvestments, Inc., requesting the vacation i :ai:: 11 ; of Garfield Street between Cedar and Beech Streets was : 1::;; i reviewed for the Council. Memorandum from the Plannink ::;;:
t Commission in which they stated this matter had been dis.: :::I:
::I:: I cussed at their regular meeting of December 13, 1960 and! i:;;: : also at their regular meeting of January 10, 1961 b No : ,::I: i recommendation was made by the Planning Commission. i ::I:,
:I::: : It was the feel.ing of the majority of the members of the ; 11'1:
f;::l I Council tb City should not give up any right-of-way. Cmb. :;tit : Bierce stated he felt a compromise could be worked out; . . 'I:#: ::;:: i the pattern was set years ago; the street stops at the sout$ ::I:: : for one block and then continues for one block. ! Mr. Kay Kalicka, representing Henry Mayers Investment,! ; Inc., stated this was not a dedicated street; the property : ti::: i owners own the underlying property in fee and the City : ;:i': : has an easement €or street right-of-way purposes. It wa4 Guevara 5 i :XI ; i their feeling an alley would serve the public better. After! Bierce ; : : :xi
f further discussion by the Council, by motion of the Counci$ Sonneman ! i !xi ; i it was agreed that the street not be vacated and that it re- I McPherso4 I x:x: : : main as a 60' street. : La Roche : 8 !x: :
: A short recess was called at 8:55 P. M, The meeting \ i reconvened at 9: 10 P. M. I b *:I1
\ * '\ I
+ I I '. '
I I
I
.. -3 .- , ' '\
B :I I I-
I I
I hi
I l1
1 I pi::
I ::;;: i:;:: 11
:;
I f I f ::I:: ::;::
I I pi!
I I 1 ::::I
I b. Extension of Hoover Street, and swimming I iii:; 1:
i area on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Memorandum from : III'I I the Planning Commission requesting the Council to give ! - +:; lit
I consideration to the extension of Eoover Street down to i 1;:;:
; the lagoon, and to a swimming area being provided. Maydr ;I1 I
1::::
i Sonneman stated this matter had been discussed previously 1&1)1
:I#:# ! at the Council meetings, and if the City can get a long - ; :::I:
$1:: i term lease she felt it would be wise to have Hoover Street: d!;: ; improved, As to the swimming area we would have to i ::;I: i investigate the possibility of leasing some frontage on the i $1::
'I::: : lagoon. Mayor Sonneman suggested that the matter of the; :::I, i extension of Hoover Street be referred to the Public Work! ::;:;
::I:; : Cornrnis sion. I :i:::
I I I ::p; : W-ATER DEPARTMENT: 8 I ::I*
"1::
I I I ::;::
l a, Water Bond Sale issue. The City Attorney i ;I:;: 11 i informed the Gouncil that Ychwabacher & Co., Financial ;:I1 I .Consultants for the sale of the bonds, have informed the i : City they are now in a position to call for bids on the sale i ::;: Ill: i of the water bonds. The date of February 7, 1961 has i ::ti ; been set for the opening of the bids. O'Melveny & Myers,! ;::; i attorneys for the bond issue, have prepared tlre necessary: ;I;1 ; documents for the sale, and she would like to present the i i following resolutions for the Councilts consideration and : :::: : adoption: I I I;::
i fiesolution No. 71 1. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
; AUTEOHZING THE ISSUANCE OF $300,000 WATER- : Guevara :XI !xi I WOKKS itEVENUE BONDS OF SA3D CITY AND PRO- i Bierce ; jx:x: : VIDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FQnZ THE : Sonneman : : !xi i ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS, was adopted by title only i McPherson! : :x; I and further reading waived. : La Roche ; i ;x:
: Resolution No. 712, RESOLUTTOE OF THE CITY ! mCJL OF TE CITY OF CAitESBAD, CALIFORNIA; Guevara * ix:x\ i DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE : Bierce : INVITING SEALED PROFOSALS FOB $300,000 WATER: Sonneman i I :x; I WORKS REVENUE BONDS, was adopted by title only and: McPberson jx; i xi : further reading waived. : La Roche ; : :x;
I
I I I
I
I
I
I 118
I8 :ii:
$1:
1::;
I I ::ii
1 I :I'
I OUMCiL OF THE CITY OF CARLSEAD, CALIFORNIA, : :i I::;
1 I
I
I
0 I I I :11: I 1 ;::;
;::e
I ; ;xi
I I :i::
I I :;::
I I I :;:;
:I
I I
I
I
I
I
4
I ::::
el I , .,,* ,.. I I , \, '\, '\ '\ '\ I t . \'
I '\\\'
I -4 "
cl
I I I I 'b. '\. ',. '. '.,'\.
I i Name '\ '\$!A,, ' '@\, : of ..&&y?$,,
I ! t/iernSer ?$+g+@
I \, ', ', ',, '+\
I
I I I B :""""""""""""""~"""""""""""-~~""""~~"""".""-~"""""""".."~"" **I;
I I I : Resoluticn No, 71 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY I Guevara i ; !xi :;'I
i W-iTIL OF THX CITY OF CAEtLSBAD, CALIFOIZNIA~ Bierce F; :x:
i APPROVING QFFICIAL STATEMENT, was adopted by ; Sonneman * I ;x; i title only asci Px-ther reading waived, : McPherson \ !x:.!
I I i I La Roche : 1 :xi
: Cmn. Siercc? stated $n reviewing the Official Statement i \ of the bond sale he did nct see any mention of a filter plant. (31)
! The Council was informed they are not bound by the pro- : I;*&
i posed rehabilitation and construction as listed in the
i statem.cnt,
: MEW- BUSXXTESS:
I
1 I :ill ::;:
\:::
I :::;
I I ::::
I :I::
1 flll
I :;rl
l a* Discussion of sewer revolving fund. The City : I ;i::
i Manager informed the Council that in accordance with i ::::
i Ordinance No, 7020, Section 8, the $50.00 capital contri-: ;;I1
; bution charge is placed in the Sanitary Bond and Interest i I:;I
::I: : Redemption Fuad. As the bonds cannot be paid off in 1 * 11 I :I:: i advance it is felt the lo$ tax levy is sufficient to take care: :It1 i of the payments; therefore, it is recommended that the : l!:l
: future capital contributions in the amount of $50.00 be i It,:
:'I1
i placed in the Sewer Line Revolving Fund. Some of the ;
;::: ::I: : members of the audience objected to these funds being i I# I
\ used for sewer extension lines. The question was raised : :I::
:::I
t that if we have sufficient funds to pay for the bond recempk I 1:
i tion, why do we continue charging the $50, QO? It was : 1:;; iii: i pointed out that the property owners who live on the west i ::I: : side of the freeway have an additional lo$ tax levy than : I::: : those living outside the district on the east side of the ! ;::I i freeway, therefore, it was felt those connecting to the i 1::: :::I : sewer line who reside east of the freeway should contri- ; i bute $50.00 as their fair share. Cmn. Eierce moved that!
:::: i:::
1 these funds. be used. for sewers only. The City Attorney : :::: i stated she felt the Council should decide whether or not. 1 i they want the funds put in the Sewer Line Revolving Fund : ::I: :::: : or a Sewer Revolving Fund. She is in receipt of the Joint i 1::: I Powers Agreement, which she will review under her re- : :I ::::
; port, and there will be funds needed at various times if I :; :;:: i this agreement is approved. 1 !:I: I Cmn. Bierce withdrew his motion. I I .: ; ;
I ::::
I ;:I8 i It was agreed that the funds be placed in a Sewer Revolvink I 1;;: ;it: i Fund. 1 * # i: I 1; 1 ::I;
i informed there were four additional items the staff would i :::: I like to have added to the previous policy approved by the : :::;
: Council relating to water service charges, which the 1 1 :::: i Council had all received copies of. After reviewing the : :::;
; items it was the Council's feeling that the item "When i ::::
i smaller meters are to be exchanged €or a larger meter, : :K;
t no credit will be given for the smaller meter in computing i:::
; the cost of the larger meter", should be changed to read ; ;:::
: "When smaller meters are to be exchanged for a larger i 1::;
1 meter, a credit of $25.00 will be given for the smaller : :;;;
: meter". The additional items were approved, and the i :;'I :;:; i City Attorney was instructed to prepare an ordinance for : :I::
; the next meeting to include the policy previously adopted, i 1:;; :::; i together with -the additional items as corrected. :::;
1 t I I !::I ;::I :::I
;:: II
I I I::
4 I I I ;::
I t ::I
I I :::
I 11
+ 1 ;I;;
I I I I
I '(I(
I 1 81
I(((
11
I I I
11
I *t
#I
$1
Ill
I I
I
I
b
'I
I
1
I
I I 1 b. Additional water charges. The Council was i 14
*88:
IllI
.I
@)I(
I I I
I I I C. First reading of Ordinance No. 3043, amend- i i ing Ordinance No, 3025, allowing the use of boats without: 1::; : mufflers for special events. At the previous meeting the I ::; i City Attorney was instructed to prepare an amendment : :la
181 : to Ordinance No. 3025, allowing the use of bosts without i i mufflers for specid events. The following ordinance was: :ii ; presented for the Council's rsvievf:
I I 1'1
I
I I
I I I I I I I 1 :I;
!I1
5..
I I' , , ., X,' ' I 1
I I I I ', '\\ '\\ \ . ' , '\ '\ 10
I I I I '\\ '\ '\ '\\'.,'\\ 4 -5- I '\, '\, '\\ ',, ' ',
I * : Name ', '\$$, \,,'%$,
I : of '\$.\%, \ '+A @,e, .p'.,+:*+
I : Member $I'Q,+~\<<
I I I I ;:;i;
\'
I
I I D ~~"""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""~-~"-~""--------"--------"--'
Itl(l I Ordinsnce No, 3043. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ; pi:! i o&5-c2zgmB-mAxENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3025, i Guevara ; \x! 3 : : SECTZON 2, SUBSECTION (c) ALLOWING BOATS : Bierce i i : q i ! WITEOUT A MUFFLXNG DEVICE WITH A SPECIAL : Soraeman : I : xl ; ; PERMIT FRQM THE CITY COUNCIL FIRST OBTAINEb, McPhersonI i i 4 ; I was given a first reading. i La Roche :xi i X: ;
I I !I,!# I ; OLD BUSINESS:
I I
I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I a, Discussion of Library Board of Trustees. I I The members of the Council were informed the Naa$or i i had appointed a committee to meet with the Librar? Corn-: i mission at their meeting of January 9, 1961, The Mayor i : gave a resume of the discussion at that meeting, and I I i pointed out to the Council the various powers of a Board i : of Trustees, wherein the City would have very little juris; i diction over the Board of Trustees. Also the Mayor statep
I she had attended a Mayor's meeting in San Diego yesterdagr i and this subject was discussed, and it seemed that all the i : cities were against this plan. It seems to be a question ; i of one having more power than the other; however, she i
I did not feel this was the intent of the present Library i Commission. The City Attorney stated sne had worked i : with the Library Commission prior to the meeting of I I i January 9th, and had prepared a draft of a proposed
! ordinance for the Commission and the Council to review. : I After discussing this ordinance with the Commission and i
I the Committee at the meeting of January 9th, she felt ! i she could draft an alternative ordinance which might be i : satisfactory to all concerned. Mrs. Hayes was instructecj : to prepare an alternative ordinance and present it to the : : Library Commission and to the Council for study, !
I I
I I
I
4 I I : CITY ATTOXNEY'S SEPORT: I I I I I I I
:::!I llt;l ::::1
:iII; :;;I;
:;1:1
:::I'
:;*I1
:;SI
::#I ::;;
:;I1
l;lB :::;
:;PI ::::
1::: I~~I
I::&
:::; I:;:
IIIl
::a1
4:;
;::: ;;h ,::: 1;:: ;I::
1::; i;::
::;; 11;;
::;a
'81; :::!
*I
11'
IN
111
@I
'I
I '1
11
I 1%
:ii;
I 81
i Joint Powers Agreement. The Council was informed two! : copies of the proposed joint powers agreement had been : I received and she has requested additional copies for the i : staff and Council members. The agreement was reviewed i briefly, and a map showing the proposed route and trans- i : mission lines, pumping stations, treatment plant and out-: i fall. Also precentage of cost figures for the two areas i i was presented. Mrs. Hayes suggested that a copy of this : ; agreement be given to the City Engineer to study and that i i he meet with the Engineer of the County. I I I I I I 4 i Negotiations for lease of surface waters of the Lagoon. i : The Council was advised that she met with the officials ! " ~- i of the San Diego Gas and Electric Co., namely Mr. Owen$, : Mr. Devore, and the attorney for the Gas & Electric Co. ,: i Mr. Forward. Under the present lease either party has I : the right to terminate the lease upon notice at any time. : i The lease was a five year lease which terminates March i : 31, 1962, and may be continued on a year-to-year basis; : I therefore, the City has no assurance that their rights to i : the surface waters of the lagoon will continue.
i The San Diego Gas & Electric Company's primary interest I in the use of the water is for cooling purposes for their : : steam plants. They are having problems in the South Bay! I area at the present time because of warm water.
i The officials at the meeting were very receptive to a : long term lease with the City. They are willing to lease 1 1 the middle lagoon and the upper lagoon. Also ivk. Owens I
i and Mr. Devore wish to lease 50 feet along the south shore i of the upper lagoon. Mr. Forward had no objection to i : the lease of this 50 foot wide area, hut in the past Mr. ; i Noble has expressed his opposition to allowing any recre-I : ational use by the general public of this area, Tlere I i would be no access by land to reach this 50 foot strip in i
I I I 5 I
1 I
1 I I I I 8 * 0
8 I I b
I I
I I t
:ii: ::::
1::: ::si
;::I
18;:
::I: ;:::
:;:'
::I:
;: i:::
$11
t:;;
:::I
1;11
#I*! ;~i' :::i ;:::
;:'I :::: 1::
!{'a
tl:: I::: :;:; II
::I; I::; i::: ;:::
l:dl
;I:# 1'1
11;:
$1: :::; :i::
*.I1 ;::: ;::;
,:I1
;h::
;;I1 0;:
$1: ;:::
1::: i:::
1::: :;I: :::: ::::
'1:;
:!!I
4'
L1
I I' . \..
I I ',, '\\ '\\ ', ' ' I I. , ., , ','\,'*\ PP
I I k, \\ '\ \\ ' '
I -6 - \\ ', '\, , \ '+,
* $ i Na me '\, ''$>\ \\,8t%A,
I ; of '\$.\$&, '\ '?A &.);@, ' +::,
I : Member ,fp ;9?\9;\gj$-$, ~"""""""""""""""""""""~""~"""""""""""""~~"""""""-""---"--- \d +@..e ,. G
I I ::;i:
I};::
;;$:I
It1!: ::ii:
$*I8; It ::i::
t,,;1
#"I: ::;I:
41::; SI
*l:ll !,,:I
I I :::;: I1III
111 I,,,:
1":; lh
;,::I
l::al ltl:;
:::;I
11:;:
1 I
I I
I
I
I B I I : ayq event, md it would be accessible only by boat. The : i City At'wmcy pointed out to the officials that the City i : wished +,o secure a lease for a long time which could not : i be ca.nce?led by either party merely by whim. The City \ : alsG wished thz right to sublease the surface areas of ; i the lagmn in connection with the development of private i
1 lands OE the north shore. Mr. Forward felt that a lease : i could. ?.x; negotiated which would be for a term of 25 to i : 30 years, which could be cancelled only by necessity, I the necessity was tobe clearly spelled out in the lease i : agreement. One exception given was the need to dredge 1 i out the lagoon should a flood from the land side fill the : : lagoon with dirt and debris,
lIIIl i All the officials at the meeting were willing to allow the i 2::: : City to sublet the surface water or any portion thereof ; ;kt:; i with the company's written consent, The company has i ::'~1
(Ill
; already been working with the potential subdividers of : ll:*l ;I,:, i Pirates Cove. They would prefer the ultimate lease with I :;::I
; the developers to be a sublease from the City of Carlsbad: I1l )*I :I,:,
::'I: I I ,,:,I
! Mr. Owens, Mr. Devore, and Mr, Forward were to I I ::+:; I *II i meet with Mr. Noble on January 18, 1961. It was hoped I :i::;
: that a new lease could be negotiated before January 23, : ::I::
i 1961, when Mr. Noble, Mr, Owens and Mr. Forward i ::::: i:::: : were all going to be out of the county for some time. I I :ic:i
I I "1:: i Ma, WOODS, representative of the Kimberly Investment ! :; 11::: i Co., . who are the prospective purchasers and developers i :I::'
: of Pirates Cove, stated they had had several meetings : ;::::
i::lt :: i with the officials of the San Diego Gas 82 Electric Co,, I I : but have deferred any further meetings until they could : ;;pi
i meet with the City Attorney of Carlsbad. Mr, Woods i ;;I:# I:::: : further stated their company is prepared to spend approx: I:: i imately $5,000,000 in developing their property. They i :L:;
; have picked up additional property in the area of the +II
I I I It :t; i Pirates Cove, I I I 4::; 'I
I I i;::: i MR. EWAED stated he had been interested in the develog- 4;; : ment of the lagoon for many years, and felt the City I I i::I i Attorney should be highly complimented on her negotia- I : tions with the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Also : I he felt this development would be a great step forward [ ::i: I in the future of Carlsbad. I I ifI:
I I ii:; i Ma, WOODS stated he would like to request that the City: I:::I
: Council give favorable consideration to a sublease for the: :::I,
; surface waters abutting their properties. I I ;J:;
1 1:'
I I ::;;I i MR. WOODS was informed that every consideration waul? :;i;: : be given to them but that each case would have to be I :I:;; i decided upon its merits when presented, I I I ;:!:
8 I ::;: i CITY MANAGEPC'S REPORT: I I :::;
I I r I i:::
i A letter from the City of Oceanside thanking the Carlsbadi ,I11 :::;
i Fire Department and extending their appreciation for this : :;s[ i city's cooperation in assisting them in a recent fire. I I I:;;
* I :::I i There is a bill being introdueed in the Assembly relating i :I::
: to fair employment practices, to make it unlawful for an : ,:::
: employer to refuse to hire or employ any person because i ::a:
;l:l i of race, religious creed, color, national origin, or I I I:'; ::i: : ancestry of any person, except where based upon security! :;I' i regulations, or upon applicable laws of the State of Cali- : 1 1: ;::: : fornia pre'cluding employment of persons who are not I i citizens of the United States or of this State. Also a bill : i:::
:;:I ! is being introduced relating to meetings of legislative I I ::;: 1: i body of a local agency requiring all meetings to be open i :;i: ; and public, even if no action is to be taken,. hs'c m-erely ; ::a: : discussion. :I:: ; ; ; 1.
I I!!;
41
I J I 11 I I I I
Ill
1 I
4
I
b
it:: :::;
1:::
I 11
ll#@l
t
*
$ I
I
I I
I*
I)
811
I
'I
I I I I I I I t I I I 4;: :I
-
I I I I I
I I I
I I
t ',\.,*" , \\ 8, 'x '\ %, ', '\
I I ', '\ \\ ', y.,
t I ~a me \\, \?$;\ \\, \3.)~
1 of '+ ..?.;x \\'?;$:!,
I '\$;:$':?,, -yL,&..(&
I i Member \:o' i$;.p,p .$;&
I I ;::*I : TL.e i-ii~ectc~ of Finance would like to attend a meeting in i :::::
a ,.'"33c,(,7,^ ; f'i bC...--,.3 C&Zfornia, for the Directors of Finance on I I :::;:
: F&rusr~y 2- 3, and 4th, and he has requested permission: :,,Ii :I::: i to attend tkis meeting, By common consent of the Council 1::1:
I the S;ir~-ctor of Finance was given authorization to attend : :::;:
:;i:t i this rnc.el-;i.ng. I I I ::p:
I ' "I&: : Salary j!::.creases. At the last meeting of the Council the I i::::
i City Manager was instructed to present a list of names of: e;:*l
:.I I : I i ail the employees 2nd their salaries who did not receive i 4:::
i"t;
i an increase in salary last July, This list was presented : ::::, i to the Council. The Council was informed the State De- i 'I :;::I I
: partment of Employment was contacted as to prevailing I pl:: ;::I: i wages in the area on a non-union basis and Hughes Air- i ::::: i craft Company was contacted. A letter from the repre- i ::p: ; sentative of the local State Employment office was pre- ; *'I#:
i sented wherein he stated other jobs in the area were not I ::;:I
1:;a:
t comparable with city jobs; also the Marine personnel and i i their wives tend to lower the salary scale in this area. I :::,I ;:
: Mr, Slater further stated he had spent approximately ; ::I:: 'I
i three hours with the Personnel Manager of 13ugheS k-ir.7 : ;L;1
f craft discussing comparable positions, however, due to i ::p: I the diversification of requirements for municipal govern-: iii;i
i ment jobs and the job requirements in private industry, : ;:!l; I the two cannot be actually compared. Cmn. Guevara 1 :I:::
I stated the only salaries he would be willing to increase ; :I:::
a::ll 1 were those of the laborers. It was the decision of the i *'I::
: Council they would not be in favor of a 5 percent increase: !:!;I
::I;: i for all the employees, and it was the feeling of the major! :::::
t ity of the members that the salaries of the city were as : a:;,: i high as others in the area. The City Manager requested i :::1; iiii; II : the Council to have a firm come in and make position : i classifications, however, it was felt this was not necessaty. ())I; ::::;
I I I I ::::I I RATIFICATION OF BILLS AND PAYROLL: 1 I ;:I*; 1:;l
I ;;;;: ! Ratification of the bills was given for the general expense6 Guevara :x: i $ ~ i of the City in the amount of $46, 379.73 and the Water : Bierce : :x:q 1
; Department in the amount of $1,932.54, from January i Sonneman i i ! xf ' i 3, 1961 to January 17, 1961, as certified by the Director 1 McPhersoni : i $ : of Finance and approved by the Auditing Committee. ; La Roche I i I A
i i3atification of the payroll was given for the first half ! Guevara : ; l i of Zanuary, 1981, in the amount of $1 3,6 1 3,00, as I Bierce ; : ii I certified by the Director of Finance and approved by the : Sonneman : i : xl
; Auditing Committee, i McPhersoni xi i 2
I "I- I '\\ '\\\'', "., \\\' .\ 12 ' \>\ \
I I B 1 ("""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""-"-"""--- -1
I
' 'I
11) i
I #I* I
8 """
$1
;:::I
1 Ill
1111
I'
I *
I I 1 ,*I: 1 : : ;i
I
I 1
I ; La Roche I :x: $
I I I :::: I ADJOURNMENT: I :*I1 $1
1 Ill: 1 I 1:;1 1 By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P. M. I:::
ltl;
I I I :I;;
I I :;I8
I :a::
I I I $11
I ::::
i 4::
I Ill) I I I :::;
I ::::
1 I :I::
I I :I:: I :!:;
I I i:::
I I 1:::
I I :,I:
I I I sli: 18
I :i::
1 I l:;l
I I ::I:
I I :I:: I I;::
I ;;\;
I
I
1 I
I I
I I
11 i Respectfully submitted,
I
i I
I I
I ; -j7&2,IL.f K&;$ c vu , 1, ,q : &&fl& ; I I I :; :: I!
; m2%%GA':RET E. ADAMS i Deputy City Clerk I
I
I
1
I I I < I
I I I
I I I I
i
I
I I I a
I
I
I
I
I I I 1: I ;::; I;*
I I I I I :::: I!::
t I
I I I 11
I
1
I I