HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-11-07; City Council; Minutes3 i CITY OF CAHLSBAIJ
i Date of Meeting: Novembbr 7, 1961 i Name.'". *%, 8. \8 'd a : T-e of Meeting: ' 7:OO P. M, : Of " .G @8 I Place of Meeting Council Chambers : Member @@,*-@ c (~C"r""r"""""""""~"""""""*~""""~""""""-*""~~~""~"-"""-""-"-,". i 6OLL CALL was answered by Councilmen Guevara, ; Bierce; La Roche, Sonneman and McPherson. Also 4:;e B , I present ,I were City Manager Slater and City Attorney Ha ye$* i:::: :::;:
t i ALLMfIANCE to tfie Flag was given.
I I 111: i INVOCATION was offered by Councilwoman Sonnernan. i
i APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
; 1961, were approved as submitted. ; Bierce ; ; :* I
, . . ", -8 . I .' ; *, '+, 8.J '
8 '<."8 ' 136 : mutes df: CITY COUNCIL. (Regular meeting) i " ', ' \
*8 b, '. 8, '8 *.
'89%. )'$*$
t :;: :.: !:::I
I 1::;;
I I ;::I; :::;; !::;;
I I i:::; ':;;I
e I l iii" :I
I (a) The minutes of the regular meeting of October 171 Guevara ; I : xi j
e I i La Roche i i I$ I
e I ; Sonneman :x: if
e
*
e e
I e I
* e:'
t
I ; McPherson: : x: 3
e t )@I I I ::!I i CORRESPONDENCE:
I
I ;;;I
e.::
I * ! ;;'I
i The Mayor informed the Council he had received a request i to proclaim the week of November 13th to 19th as US0 Pal ; Week. With the consent of the Council the Mayor pro- i i claimed the week of November 13th to 19th as US0 Pal i : Week. I 1
i The Mayor further stated he had received a request to i i proclaim the week of November 13th to 19th as Youth . ; : Appreciation-Week, and Thursday, November 16th as i i Youth Appreciation Day. Kith the consent of the Council : ; the Mayor proclaimed the week of November 13th to 19th i i as Youth Appreciation Week, and Thursday, November 161t : 1961, as Youth Appreciation Day. * e
I t 4
4 ! 1
i'01 4:: ::::
:I ,+:
;I::
1::; t:;; i:::
e;;@
;@I; ::::
,111
1::: ::;:
::a:
@I:;
:;I' ;;:: ::::
!e:!
e@
I I (a) Chief Administrative Officer - San Diego County i i;c i re: Support of House Resolution No. 284 - Welfare ex- i I::: ; emption homes' for the aged. Letter dated October 31, ;
4 61 from the San Diego Smty Chief.Administrative ! ;; i Office, atating that SF Diego .assessed property owned i ,e!; : by certain life care homes for the aged.: This was done I i on the assumption that these homes were of a luxury f ;.p
e :e ii ; nature and offered a standard care which disqualifies the* ;:*I i from the welfare exemption, Under the present law the ; ;y:
; City of Carlsbad lost tax revenues of approximately i $3,100. A House Resolution No. 284 calling for a study i I;*!
: of the exemptions has been introduced and a hearing will i 11;: ::I: i be held on November 21, 1961 in Los Angeles. The San ; i:;; : Diego Board of Eupervisors has directed the Chief Ad- i :i:: i ministrator to contact the City of Carlsbad requesting : : their support of H. 8. 284. Also they asked that the City i Gyevara ; : i q ::::
i request action from the League of California Cities. By : -Bierce : :x: d : motion of the Council it was agreed that the Council sup- i La Roche i i i 1 I port H. 8. 284, and that the League of California Cities : Sonneman :xi , @%I t i be requested to give their support of this resolution. i McPhersqn: : i q
I ! !*e!
,I:;
l;;l
:I@; I
,! : : '
e e ;I:' e;::
e1
*I
I I e (b) Letter dated October 13, 1961 from Jack Y. I a i Kubota, Engineer for Donabob, stating they had previous! i iy asked for relief as to front footage charge for sewer :
t line in the Village Homes Unit #3 Subdivision, . They i asked that this matter be reviewed again by the Council I : at the meeting of October 17, 1961. e
I e
i t !
b I I e I I e 8
e e I
9
e i
i::
a:; ;'I ::: ;:: :::
e:: ::: !:: 4
I : JACK KUBOTA, stated it is their understanding that it i 1: i was the City Attorneyvs conclusion that they should pay : i: i the entjre front footage charge for the entire length of the! ;:
; subdivision. He asked the Counci!, if it was their inter- : *: :: : pretation that they pay €or that portion of q dedicated 1 :; i street, which is 50 feet in width. . I I :e t I) ;:
i'
0
e ! r!
:: :' ;:
1: :* ;t
1: :; :; :; i It was pointed out that the. sewer,line was already install-: : ed on Chestnut Avenue, and. the subdivider was charged i i $4.00 per front foot, and if the street had not been in- ; : stalled they'would have been charged the fuU length of I
;::; :::; ,I;* :;::
!;I! i the subdivisim. e @I
I e ;;e:
I ::!:
I#(@
.b h;;I
I
4 t 4 I
4
I
e # :e
1 I ! ::;: 18 '!I:
; .",h' I : I '\ '\\ '. ', ', '. 1
s I I
'8. '.,",, '. , '\,'*, 131'
I i N a me ', X\@& '*, ''6, I '. +\o-, '\\ 'f+', 8 i Of ',?$@,g\,,$&
-2 i ", ', " '\ '\ '*
t
I I i I B;
t Member *$3@&?&
;rr"i"r""""r:~r"""""""r"""~~"~~"~~""""""----"--"-"-~~----"-""~--"----"-~--
I MR. WATSON, the subdivider, was present and stated i ; he felt that some of these policies had been in effect for i ; 8 or 10 years and should be reconsidered. Also some of : : the subdivision requirements. (a4 I
4 I El I Mayor La Roche informed Mr. Watson that it was the : t::1 i intention of the staff and Council to review the ordinances: : and policies. i After considerable discussion by the Council, by motion i Guevara k I :x! ; of the Council it was agreed that the request for relief i Bierce : :xixi i of the front footage charges be denied and that the sub- i La Roche ; : :x: ; divider be charged $4.00 per front foot for the entire ; Sonneman : ; ; XJ i length of the subdivision. : McPherson i : :x:
:;'I
! Letter dated October 26, 1961, from Barbara Winter re- : :I::
i questing the Council to adopt an ordinance allowing a I "I : conditional use permit on Assessor's parcels 9A and 8, i :::I
i Page 1 35 of the Assessor's Book, to enable the construc-i :':i
$1 : tion of a wooden building 26' x 40' for use as a shop for ; :::i i maintaining, repairs and sales of motors, boats and I ;:El
,*11
: accessories. This property adjoins Mr. and Mrs. Fox's i 1::
:::I i property, which has a conditional use permit, and will be: :::: : set back parallel to the existing structures on their propeb- :;I1 ;,:: i ty. I I 111:
1:;:
t I i;:; I The City Attorney recommended that the applicant be noti! :I:! 11' i fied to make apdication for a conditional use permit. I I :::; ;:I: I Ma. PAUL E CKE stated he wrote the letter for his I :;I:
: daughter's signature. He has leased the property to Mr. i ;*:a
1::: r Fox, and they are attempting to build a structure so that i :11: : Mr. Fox will bve a place to work under cover. They ; ::i':
i would like to expedite this matter if possible, I I 1 ;:I$
I I :::' I It was the decision of the Council that the Council would i ;::; ; adopt a resolution of intention to amend Ordinance No. ; :::' i 9060, to allow a conditional use permit. The following i *a: ii:: : resolution was presented by the City Attorney for the t
I,O I Council's consideration: I 1 i::: :I
l I a ii:i
{ Resolution No. 781. AEESULUTION OF INTENTION OF i 1:::
: THE CITY COUNCIL STATING THEIii INTENTLON TO : ::;I i AMEND OHDlNANCE NO. 9060, TO ALLOW A I ;:::
: SPECIAL USE PEitMIT ON ASSESSOR'S PAgCELS 9A i Guevara : !xi4 i AND 8, PAGE 135 OF ASSESSOR'S BOOK, AND : Bierce ;x! I x i REFEAiiING THE MATTEK TO THE CARLSBAD PLAN!- La Roche ; i ! 4 ; NING COMMISSION FOR HEARING, was adopted by title: Sonneman : : i X i only and further reading waived. ; McPhersoni : ; 4
I a t ::e:
I (d) Carlsbad Union School District - re: Crossing : ;::: i ard for Las Flores Overpass. Letter dated October 31,; :::I
I:*: ii:: i that the City Councik authorize the hiring of a crossing : :::: i guard to be stationed at the Las Flores overpass during i :I:: i those times when children are going to and coming from : 1;;4 i;;: i the Buena Vista School. The Police Department has I ;: :i : assigned a patrolman to the overpass at such times as an i ;i:' I officer can be spared from his other duties. I I ;: I ;: * 1 ;::: ! It was the concensus of some of the members of the Coundil I:!; : it would be more economical to hire a crossing guard thaq :,:: i to take a policeman away from his duties. ;:::
1;;l i MRS. ELEANOR PMME, President of the Buena Vista 1 ;:tl
1:: : Safety Committee, was present and read a letter from ; ;;,e
:;$I ;: I the Safety Committee requesting the Council to reconside$ : this matter and setting forth their reasons €or requesting ; !+
i a crossing guard. t ;:#I
1:;:
I I :#I; I l a;,, 8 I :I:'
I I 114 4 I ::I:
I I ::tt I I 1:
i:::
:;;: ::{!
I I I;::
I I i::;
::;;
I :::;
I :::I i 1 ::;:
I;;#
11
11
I * I I 1 :;::
i:;; I * (c) Barbara Winter - re: Conditional Use Permit. i 11
I
I
t I 1 t I
1 I :hi
,
Ill
$1
9 1
I %SI, stating they would like to reiterate their request i 11
I
11
I1O
I I
I *
I I
I I
I I I I :;!:
I ! ,!!I
1 i I
,-. -, .- " '., ', * '\ '.
I -3- 4 : N a me '\,, '.$X ",'x&.
j,,,,,"~~,,,"",.,"""""~~~"""~""~""""---"-."-*.-------""-:--------"-*"---------~-- ; Member \%@\&?.J
I
I I I '\' .;+, y*J 3 [
1 .&+' '\ *f+',
6 i of fic@'&?*
I ', ', ., '\ '* s
11.. I I B :**I i By motion of the douncil it was agreed, tiai a. ,crossing i Guevara ! ixi + i guard bt employed for the Lqs Flores eroftsihg at the : BierCe !xi I x; ; usual pdy scale for crossing guards. 1 LaRoche i ; ;xi
-I
I 1 I i Sonnernan : i ;x;
I ! McPherson: : ! x! I
i I I I I i i i
I I
I (e) E. A. Urbanski - re: City participation in a 1 I sewer line extesisio$ Letter dated October 30, 1961, ; 'from Edward A. Usanski, stating he was &he owner of i i a 70' foot lot on the east side of Highland Drive, between i : Oak Avenue and Elmwood. The sewer now ends 105 feet ; i north of !his notth lot line. To extend the sewer line to i : his south lot boundry would require a manhole and 175 ; i feet of 8 inch sewer tile costing nearly $1,200, The area i : is too smao for a 191 1 act district, and would cost more ; i money than he could pay or be required to pay, as there I : would be other properties that would benefit from his I I I sewer line. He requested the city to participate in this i : cost.
i Cwn. Sonneman asked if this sewer line would be designed ; to benefit the property on the west side of Highland? I I
i The Engineer informed the Council that if the property i i owners build according to the minimum set-back require-! : ment this line would be sufficient. Also it was pointed ; i out that the other property owners had not been contacted,: : and that in the past the city has only participated up to I : 25% of the cost. r The Harrison property on the west side of Highland was i : discussed as it would benefit by this line. It was the I I i decision of the Council that Mr. Harrison be contacted i : to see if he would be willing to participate in this project. : i Cwn. Sonneman stated she would contact Mr. Harrison. 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 (f) Kamar Construction Co. I
b I I I I I (1) Request for sewer refund agreement. I ! Letter dated October 3, 1961. from Kamar Construction : i Co., Inc., was presenied, wherein they request reimbursb- i ment contracts for sewers installed by them relative to : ; Tamarack Manor Subdivision and Valley Manor subdivisio4. : The City Manager informed the Council they were entitled: ! to refund agreements on both subdivisions. By motion of i i the Council it was agreed that a refund agreement be : entered into between the subdivider and the city, and the i : City Attorney be instructed to prepare said agreements : i for execution. I I
* (2) Subdivision requirements. Mr. Kalicka was i
I I
I I I I I i present and informed the Council his firm had three : tentative subdivision they had been working on with the I I Engineering Department. According to a policy adopted i : by the Council they will be required to put in alleys in : i these subdivisions due to the fact that the properties front i i on a major street. This policy would certainly work a : ! hardship on the subdivider for the reason that in one in- I : stance it would deprive them of one lot, which is valued : I at approximately $4,000, the cost per lot would be approxf : imately $150.00 to $200.00 for the improvement of the : i alley, and it would necessitate redesigning their floor i I plan of the houses, which would certainly be a consider- :
1 able cost. Also it would cut down the depth of the lot. Hi$ firm has bought up odd shape parcels and tried to piece : : them together. They wish to appeal to the Conncil for \ I relief by eliminating these alleys. i Maps of the areas in question w-ere presented for the : Council's review. The location of the three subdivision !
I I
ai
I I I I I
i maps were:
I 8 I I I I I I I
;
I I I 8 I I I I I I I I !
'i;;
:*#I b:'! ::ii :::; i:::
*:;t
;:I:
1:::
11:;
;:+I
I:,,
:;VI
:;SI
:::I :::i i::; :I::
4;:: i::: 4;;
:::I
I II
18
11
11
)))I
11(1
*( I
it,! ::ii
;:SI ::;; i:::
I:)* i::;
I@&(
11
,Ill I!!# :i:: ; :.: 1 ;::: ;::; i::: :i;i
;;#I
:I;: :::: :::: :::: :::: I;::
::SI it::
11;; ::;:
::;I :::i
la':
8'4: e*
:I11
111 11
11
Fi'I
iiii
:l*l
:all
1:;:
$11
1::: :ii: :::i ;::: ;::: I:::
:::I :::I ::::
::;: 'I I;
$4 ;:ii
;:&I 81
;I;: I:#' ;:::
;:I: :::; ;::: ;::: ;:iJ
1;;1
,I:*
i: ':
III: ;:I: ::::
l:!l
0*4 11
:(I
1;*1
Ill:
I I I
i " , 8, -\ '\ ', -\
I I * , \; , * '
I I r I '\\ '., '\ ", '+,13 CJ
I I -4- i Name '."\%, *,,*+\
# 1 : of '\$$*.$+, \\ \*,
I I
' , " ', \\ \ '.
I ' '$k
: Member .f&'@8$Q\\c ~"","",""""~""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""~""""""""-"""~"
I I :!!I
',b 80 \ 9'49%
1 8 I 1. Property located East of Highland, West of Park : 1 Drive and South of the Jr. High School property. 4 1 I !
I I I 2. Property located south of Magnolia, east of 1
I 3. Property located on the north half of the block i
i Valley and west of Park Drive. I + I I I I I I I i bounded by Pi0 Pic0 Drive, Tamarack Ave. and Adams ! : Street. I I
: Mr. Kalicka further pointed out there is a competative : i buyers market and they have to compete with other sub- i : divisions in the surrounding areas, 4 I
1
I I I
I I 1 !
:i;: I;::
I!::
i:::
;;'I !is:
:Is:
t:!a iii:
1; ': :::: ::;I I::: :::; {!x:
;;I: ;::; I 11
*! 11 i After considerable discussion by the Council, by.motion i Cuevara ; : '; ix ; of the Council it was agreed that the alley be eliminated i Bierce :x: :x: i on Item #2 above (known as the Appel property), but that i La Roche I ;x i 4 ; Items # 1 and #3 above be required to have alleys. ; Sonneman : ; I 1%
;'I
6 I I : McPhersoni ! ; !x
I I 1 ;:::
: Mr. Kalicka suggested that the Subdivision Ordinance : 1;4* i No. 9050 be reviewed by the Council. It was the concensGs :*::
i of the Council that perhaps the ordinance should be reviewt- ;:::
1:;l : ed. I 1 ::;:
I 1(8I
I I I ::;: !'I I ! i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
I
I t 8 !
'li;
:!:: :;'I
I There were no oral communications. 9 I ;::: I ;::I
a !:If I l
: PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4
I I 8 !
i:;i :;::
I I
-VIa
I (a) Resolution of Intention of the Planning Commis- i :;:I i sion requesting reclassification of certain properties on i i!ii : Grand Avenue between Hope and 101 Freeway, from Zone ; I::: i it-1 to Zone 3-3, for the purpose of acting as a buffer i i:;; 1:
: strip between B-1 and C-2 properties. I I ::::
i ! !::: 1 t i The Clerk certified as to proper notice having been given.: : Also that no written protests had been received. 8
i Resolution No. 225 of the Planning Commission was pre- i i sented wherein they recommended reclassification of this : : property as it would act as a buffer strip between R-1 and! i C-2 zoning, that a considerable amount of the property i ; under consideration is already being used for multiple : i residential purposes, and that the property is better : adapted to 8-3 zoning.
: The Mayor declared the public hearing open and asked if : i there were any persons present desiring to speak in favor! i of this rezoning. There were no persons desiring to I I ; speak. The Mayor then asked if there were any persons i : desiring to speak in opposition to this reclassification. ; i As there were no persons desiring to speak the Mayor de: i dared the hearing closed at 7: 34 P. M.
I I
I I 8
I I I I I I I I
I l a I I ! i After consideration by the Council the City Attorney : presented the following resolution for the Councilfs re- i I 4
i::i :::: :';:
$Il ::::
;::I I*o ;::i 4:;
::;I :;;:
::I: ;;:: i;:: 4::
;:I; ;::;
;;*I
1::: :::: ;::: i:::
::::
(I'I
'b 8:;
:!:: i;:i
!II!
:;/ I#;:
i view: i ;ai'
I ! I!*:
I
I I ;:::
i Besolution No. 778. &ESOLUTION OF THE CITY 1 :;;I
i COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAiUSBAD, ANNOUNCm :::i
i FINDINGS AND DECISIQN REGARDING CHANGE OF i Guevara ; : :x: ;:::
: ZONE CLASSIFICATIQPJ OF CE&.TAIN DESIGNATED : Bierce F: :xi i PSOPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FBOM ZONq La aoche n I :x; ; R-1 TO ZONE R-3, was adopted by title only and further: Someman : ; ; I
$1,
1 reading waived. i McPherson : !x :xi
I ! :!::
0
1 i The following ordinance was. also presented for the Counc@'s :i:: ;::: ; review: 1 I
8
I I I ;:::
l I I a ii::
I l 1 1::: a I :;::
I * I i:::
I I I it;:
I 1: !I#! 1'
# I I
I I
I I
I
8 I I l a I 1
-5-
I 1 I I I I I I I I I
I I :"""""""""""""""""""""""~"-""""-""""""""*~-
I I ! Ordinance No. 9124. AN ORDIMAN@& OF THE CITY i I OF ' CAI3LSBAD AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9066, ' :
i ZONE €3-1 TO ZONE R-3, IN :THE CJJT OF CABLS- i ; BAD, was given a first reaqng by the Council. I I
: CHANGING CERTAIN DESIGNA~ED PROPEBTY ,FROM i
I I
.- , '\ .\, -x, ', '. '., ', b 8, 'x 'b
x, '.,'\., \., 'x,'*, 14'
'.&& ', q!',
Of *?$$+,$&.$+
Na mex ', ',$& '\\ '.&x
,.,%x'
Member ,o 8@\,p9 kJ ,"""""""""""~"
:!!I
Gueara : !xi x! Bierce !XI i q LB Roche : ; ;xi Sonneman : : I ; McPherson: : i %
I*Il
::.
I 1 I I (b) Resolution ,of Intentiori:bf the Planning Cbmhis- i i sion requesting ark Amendmqn%:.;tq the Master Street Plan 1 i bbe4 ; Pi0 Pic0 Drive and Highlarid,D$$ye ,from a Secondary I I i street to a local s,treet; and des@n@ting8* LaS Flore,s Drive i : as a secondary street for, a distaoce of approxima!eq i 350' northerly pf the intersection of Highlahd Drive zith ' i : Buena Vista Avenue,
I I
I I I 1 i The Clerk certified as to proper notice having been given! I Also that ho written protests had been received. I I
i Resolutiod No. 226 of the Planning Commission was pre- i
i sented in which they recommended an amendment to the i i Master Street Plan changing the designation of certain : : streets in the City of Carlsbad. t I
i The Mayor declared the public hearing open and asked if i ; there were any persons present desiring to speak in I I I favor of this amendment. There were no person present i ; desiring to speak, The Mayor then asked if there were : i any persons present desiring to speak in opposition to i : this amendment. f I
i MA. PATSKE asked if this amendment is approved how ! : would this affect his property? He would certainly be i i unable to sell his property. I I
i The City Attorney stated that any ultimate buyer would : : certainly hesitate buying under such a condition; however,: i it does not prevent any improvement on the property, nor: t would it affect the value of the property. I I
: MB. PATSKE further stated that no one would purchase i i this property and he would be paying taxes on property i i he could not use. He has had plans to build on this 8 I : property. Should he go ahead and build and tnen charge I I the city more money? It was his understanding that I I : other properties have been deleted from a precise plan. i
i Mr. Patske was informed that two properties were re- I i moved from the civic center precise pl2n due to the fact ; : there were no immediate plans for that particular area; I ! however, due to the pressure being put on this project : : this does have a high priority. I
: The City Engineer stated that within 60 days the city I should have definite information as to cost, plans and ! : property acquisition necessary.
i As there were no other persons desiring to be heard the i ; hearing was declared closed at 7: 53 P. M. I I
i After consideration by the Council, the City Attorney ; i presented the following resolution for the Councills 1 I : review: I I
I I I I
I 1 I t
I I I I
I I I I I
I 1 I I
I I I I
I I 1 I 1 I 1
I I I I
1 I
+ I I I I
I 1
11; ::; ::; ::; :I: ::; ::: ::; I:; :I: ::!
I I I I I I t I I I I I I I 4 I I I t I I I I ti!:
::I, 4:; :::;
::;I I::;
;;I1
1::
:I 1:::
;::I
1: ::!I bi;: i:::
j::; ::;; ;::: :;::
:I:: ;:I:
,!!I I:;: :I;: $::
:e:: :I:;
4::;
:I:: ;:#I :::: *I
:;;I ::::
::I: :I:: :::: :;:;
;a:: :::; ::I:
:I:: :it'
"I
l!l; :i:'
1:;: i:::
1:;1 i:;:
11*: :::;
I!lI :i:: :::: I;::
11;;
:;;I
!I.! ; ;" :: I::: i:::
1!!r
1;;;
:;:I
;tll
0;:
::I:
::!I
; Resolution No. 779, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ; Guevara : i xi f4 i ?X2UNCIL-~Cll?T~ CiTY OF CARLSBAD, ANNOUNCING; Bierce :XI : 3 i FINDINGS AND DECISION RELATING TO THE PBO- : La i3oche I ; i + : POSED AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAI);I,Sonneman : i i 4 i was adopted by title only and further reading waived,. : McPherson: ; i +
I I :;!!
4"l
I i The City Attorney announced that she would have an : ordinance prepared for the next regular meeting amend- : i ing the Master Street Plan. 1 I
I I 1
I I l 8 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
i::: ::;: *(I ::;; ::;: ::;: i::: ;:::
.I
1::l
4 I : I ',, -\, ',, ", 8, '.
I
t
,\\\"
I ',, '8, '\8 '*, ","% 1 41
# -6- I Name 8, '*\ 8 ''3.
1 : of ' '\$+,9J,4* 0 4. \. +$+, '\,, 'P&,
:""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""-""*""""~~"""""""" f Member ,d.~.,ebp,,d
I \, " ', ',, " ",
b c
!
#";--l -"" *-
I @l,!l i FINANCE: !
t I I I
:;i;l
'81'; !l,!l
I I
I
1 (a} Eureka Place Assessment. The City Maqager i i;jii
i advised t~~~~-~-e-~~-were-assessrnents due ob the ; t1,;1
::;a: : Eureka Place Sewer District for properties owned by the i :It:; ; : :i; I I city in the amount of $2,727.95, apd he would like author: Guevara ; : :%; : : ization to pay this amount. By motion of the Council the : Bierce I* 1 :xjx: i t City Manager was given authorization tb pay the assess- i La Aoche i i :xi : : nleats for the Eureka Place Sewers for property owned : Sonneman k : ;x: : i by the City in the amount of $2,727.95. i McPhersoni I ;x: 1: ;
I letter was receivdd from the San Diego County Traffic ; ::::: : Safety Council requesting an allocation of funds during i 1# 11
I 1961-62 to assist thle Traffic Safety Council in its prograrri Guevara !x ; :xi ; ;:I1
; of accident prevention. The Council was informed that i Bierce *I I previously the City has allocated $25.00. By motion of : La doche I : ;x; : : the Council it was agreed that the allocation of $25.00 to i Sonneman : I x:x: ! i the Traffic Safety Council be allowed. : McPherson i ; :xi :
I ;:::I i LIBiEAiZY:
I I !::!I
I I
1 I :::::
9 (b) Traffic Safety Council - request for funds. A i i:;::
1::::
$1 I :xi , i
I I I ::::': I**()
I I I
I
I ;;#;I
: informed the Council the previous method of a lease- I I :!:I: i purchase agreement is illegal. However, the purchase of/. ;I::: : property can still be accomplished by an agreement, whe*- ;::::
i by the property is divided into parcels and one parcel can i :::::
i be purchased and the remaining parcels held by way of an ; ::I::
;l;;l I option. The offer to Mrs. Vaughn was $32,500. The I I ::::: i committee went to the Library Board of Trustees and I ::::i
1 asked them to pay off the trust deed of record. They hav$ ::::;
;:I I accumulated $8,000.00 for a building fund. By motion ; :;::: 1::: : they agreed to pay the $8,000.00 from their building fund,! :;:!I i but requested that title be vested in the name of the I I :;::.; ; Library Board of Trustees, and that this $8,000.00 be I :;I:: 1,:' i repaid within a designated time by the City. It was point-: ;I::: : ed out that the Council previously indicated their willing- i *;'I;
i ness to contribute $9,000.00 toward the purchase of the : I:::: 1:
i Vaughn property, 1 1 :ii::
I By motion of the Council it was agreed that the Council i : accept the $8,000.00 with thanks, that the $8,000.00 be : i applied towards the purchase of the first parcel of the i ;*#VI
; Vaughn property, that the title be vested in the name of i i:iii 11 i the Library Board of Trustees, that the Council so state : ;:::: : their intention at this time to replace this $8,000.00 to i Guevara ; !x: xi 1 i the Board of Library Trustees within a period of three : Bierce {x: !x! ; : years, and that the Council further place in the Library i La Roche i I ;x: : i Board of Trustees trust fund any monies budgeted in the : Sonneman : i ;xi i : annual library budget designated as buildings. i McPherson: ; i xi, i
# 1 Is( i NEB BUSINESS:
I t (a) Report of Council Committee. .The City Manager! :I:;:
1111
:;+
i:;::
1;;:: ::;::
4::::
, I
I' b I * 1 ::a:: ; I' ;
I I t # !;l;l
I (a) Chamber of Commerce A. reement. The Council!. :li;:
i was inforEG!"Zn-~ag%Temen€XtX e "Fer of Commerce ::i:i : for the fiscal year 1961-62 had been prepared, and that i 1;;::
i authorization for the City Manager to execute this agree- : Gueyara ; :xi xi ; ::I:;
: ment was needed. By motion of the Council the City i Bierce ;xi !x: ; i Manager was authorized to execute the agreement betweed La Roche I : ;xi ; : the City of Carlsbad and the Chamber of Commerce for i Sonneman : i i x: : I' I the fiscal year 1961-62, on behalf of the City Qf Carlsbad.: McPhersoni : ;xi :
I 1 r:' ,!:
I
1
"-. ;:
1
0
I I I (13) Termination of lease on City parking lot. A I I ;:;: I::: ::;:
;:I:
I notice of termination of lease for the City parking lot has I ::;: i been received from the owner, to be effective November ; : 30, 1961. The Council was informed the City h,as been i i paying $30.00 per month for this property. The owners : Guevara l ,I:& ;x;xi ; have indicated they are willing to negotiate a lease on a i B,ierce :X: Ik :X; i month-to-month basis at .$loo. 00 per month. l?y motion ; la Roche : ; : $ ; of the Council it was agreed that the offer of $100.00 per : Someman i i i x; : month for renewal of a lease be declined. .!' ' MaPhersolf ; ;xi
i I I I I I I I 1 I
t I 3 i.; * I I ,I::
I I ;::a
s ;; II I I ,I::
! !I&! @I1
I I' I I I I I' ;<
I I I I I I I t I I I 1 I I I I ., $' * I I I i I
4 4 I' I . ,,. I I \\ ', '\ , ' '
I 'y+ .O" i of 'Q$+,.g\,,$*
I I 1 I v, '\,',\', '\'*
I -7 - I ', ', '\ , '\ ",'*"',~ *, b , 4 2
t i Ham0 '. "3,. '.,-y++,
.-"""""""""""""""""""""""""-~""""""""""","""""""""""-~ i I Member \$$@,*$;$
I
I
! 'I,.
I B ing ! (c) First read! ,of Ordinapgp ,#6632, ; amehkhng the i Uniform Local Sales arid Us,e Tax Qrdinapce:. hn ordi-
! nance amending the local sales and use tak ordinance,
I. !
j Ordinance N0.~602f, has been.grepared. The following : ordinance was presented for the Council's review:
I
i Ordinande No, 6032. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ENDING THE UNIFORM LOCAL 6 ! 2G$YitA$EATMAx ORDINANCE, was given a first i reading by the Council.
I I I 1
1 I I I I 1 I : I I
4 I I I I ! Guevara
i Bierce ; La Roche i Sonneman ; NlcPher son
I I i (d) Adoption of Ordinance No. 3048, relating to i kennels and licensing of dogs. -City Attorney pre- i i sented the following ordinance, and informed the Council f
t this is an emergency ordinance in order to conform to the!
i County ,ordinance:
I ? I
I 1 I
I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I 6 I I I I t F
I 1 I 1 4
I t
::: ::;
:f: :::
1;; ::; i::
I ;I :x: XI
; :x: : ;x:
4 i x: i :x!
.,
+Il 11
11
$8
t:! :;i;
11
:::I :::\ :::; ;I:: ;:;:
?ll! : I ii : Ordinance No. 3048. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ! Guevara i -ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3015 AND: Bierce + !xi : 3046 OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, RELATING TO ; La Roche : : ;x; i KENNELS AND LICENSING OF DOGS, was read in full i Sonneman : :xixi I and adopted. : WPherson I : :x;
! OLD BUSINESS:
k I i : ix!
+'I I I 1 I::;
I :I' 1 #:I:
I
I I I I *I:1
!#I! i (a) Second reading of Ordinance No. 9122, amending i
; Ordinance No. 9060, changing certain property from Zone: i k'-P to Zone C-2. The following ordinance was presented: : for a second reading: I I t I I 1
:;;; ::;:
:;I: ;;:; ::i:
I$$) !#I! t : Ordinance No. 9122. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY i lll; i Guevara ; jx:x: : CHANGING CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY FROM ; Bierce 5r ; !xi i ZONE R-P TO ZONE C-2, IN THE CITY OF : La Roche i i :x: I CARLSBAD, was adopted by title only and further reading i Sonneman : : ~XI ! waived. : McPherson : I !x;
I : :is!
i;:i
I I I CARLSBAD AMLNDING ORDINANCE NO. 9060,
1 t I (b) Second reading of Ordinance No. 91 23, amending i : Ordinance No. 9060, changing certain property from
i presented for a secondl'reading:
* I izzs i
I 6 I I I
'ci' :::: I:::
1::: ::;;
::;I
I I ,I !*I! i 0 rdinance No. 9123. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY O$ Guevara i ixiXi i CARLSBAD AMENDING ORDINANCE NU. 9060, CHANGbBierce 8 I :x;
i ING CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY FROM ZONE : La Rache ; : , 1 R-3 TO ZONE C-2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was: Sonneman ; ; : : I adopted by title only and further reading waived. ; I NdcPherson :x: :x!
: (c) Report on properties on Roosevelt Street. At the : 1 previous mee€ing of the Gouncil, the Gouncil requested i III: :that properties unfit for habitation be checked and that : i the property owners be notified. The City Manager pre- i I sented a copy of a letter that had been sent to Mrs. Ells- ; :worth, who owns property on Roosevelt Street that is ! presently being rented.
*I : : \xi
I I :::I 1p: I:!:
::i:
::I: ::::
1:;:
I I ::I;
I I ::;:
t :::I
I I
I 4 !SI! i The Building Inspector was present and informed the : Council these buildings had been checked that Mrs. Ells- ! i worth is renting and they are unfit for human habitation. : i In order to bring them up to a minimum standard it would; : require a replacement in excess of 50% of the structures. i
: The Building Inspector was asked if .this was the only : i property owner that was given notice. The Council was i ; informed that two other letters were sent out at the same i i time and the property owners have agreed their proper- : : ties were unfit for human habitation. There will no doubt! i be,other letters sent.
I I
I I
I I I 0
4. i I
'1;;
!:;I
:;I/ 11 lil' 1; ;I:; 1 ::;
;;i ::I
;#I
4:: ::: :.. ; ;
:;; *I1
;#I
I:#
!I! I I 1. 'ai : pAmD ELLSWORTH stated the city has given his mothe&
1 : !I,
::: : :. ;
I I a I I '
t
I &
I I .- . 8 ?
*I I i::
1;'
!a!
I t !
;:;
!!I
; -\ , . b '\ -8, -', 'c * I I I t
I
I
I I '~\'\'\'~.\ . '\ \' ', '+g
I \ Na me '\, .$. \, ,$I,
:~"""""""""""""""""""""""-~"""""""""""~"-;""""~"""""""-~- : Member ,dd@\.cn+G
I -8- I '., ',' ', '\ '\ ' I \ b' ' %,& '\ '.a
8 f of '$o'$, '\ $2
r '.$q&$&+ d
I :!*I ! 30 days notice. This is her only means of support. He ; I is a-ainee in advertising at the prespnt time. He read ; : an, article that was printed in the Car'lsb@d Jourijal be- ; i garding his mother's property. Mr. ;EllBworth further :
f stated he felt it was very unfai,r to ask his mother to ad- i i just her life in 30 day& We are pl~dni~g to take these : : buildings down but he did not feel tliat 30 days whs suffi- i I cient time.
I
I $
I !
i;'
;I::
1::;
:Ill :t::
I;1#
51:;
881,
;::I
*:I: :;:: ::I:
91;; !!e, a -;f - i After considkrcible discuspion by the Council, by motion i Guevara 1 : : $ ; l1
i of the Council ;it was agreed that Mrs: Ellsworth be given: Bierce i i ! 2 : six months tim& in which to renovate or bring the proper! La Roche i i I 4 i ty up to building code requirements. : Sonneman :x: 8 A
:;!I
I k I i McPhersoni !x! i
! I I
11
! The City Attorney stated she would like to suggest that i i the properties be posted to show they are unsafe for b I : human habitation. I I I * 1 !
ai;:
:'!I
;*1:
:ii:
:;::
?I!r i CITY ATTOBNEY'S REPOaT I I ;:;I
! I!!: I
1 ;I::
i South Coast Asphalt Co. lawsuits. The second action has: i been dismissed by the attorneys, and the first lawsuit had : been appealed. I
: Do Ordinance. The Council was informed that the City i
: excessive barking of dogs. The Judge ruled that the ownqr I either get rid of the dogs, move, or keep the dogs quiet. : i The owner was also fined $25.00. I
i Bond election for sewer bonds. The Gouty Couns&l has i : employed Q'Melveny & Myers. Mrs. Hayes stated she : I took the liberty of writing to O'Melveny & Myers request4 : ing they prepare the necessary documents for their em- i i ployment and the calling of an election, and asked that : : the documents be ready for the next regular meeting of I I the Council. I I
[ Condemnation of certain properties €or drainage purposei.
I The City Attorney informed the Council it is necessary to; i condemn certain properties for drainage purposes along : : the Buena Vista Creek area, and she has prepared the i i following document for their review:
1 I
I I I
lKg"---- ; ttorney prosecuted a case for the City in regards to I
I I
1 t I
I
I.
I I I I I
I !
+if'
:st1 l;{l
::!I
::;I I::: :::;
,:'I pi:
It 8:*:
,I:, :::: ;* 8
I:!:
!ll! ;I** I::: :pi 1;::
:I:: :::;
f::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :I:: 4:;
::;I
:$I:
I;;: :!!:
:ii:
i i3esolution No. 780. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY i Guevara i $ i 4
I FOR DaINAGE PURPOSES, was adopted by title only : Sonneman : i ; 3 : and further reading waived. : McPhersod : : $
+ OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAL~LSBAD, AUTHOR- : Bierce !x: I* i IZING CONDEMNATION OF CE~ZTAIN PROPERTIES I La Roche : : i f
1 ! .!I. I I I I
t I 8
: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
t The Mayor and Councilmen have been invited to ride in I i the Oceanside-Carlsbad Junior College parade this Sat- : : urday. The members all stated they had previous en- i i gagements and would not be able to participate. I
I Christmas tree site. The City Manager informed the :
1 Council that Suburban Gas Company has been contacted i ; and they are in hopes of having something worked out sooQ.
i Sewer bond election. The County would like to hold the : i bond election on the 16th day of January, 1962. If pos- : ; sible the City would like to hold the election simultaniousi : ly with their election. The County registrar of voters ; i will handle the election for the City of Carlsbad.
I t
I I
I I 1 I
I
I I
Dl
* I
I I I
I I I i bater Pollution Control Board. The City Manager in- : : Tormed the Council he appeared before the Water Polu- I i tion Control Board and they have indicated they would f
I 1 1 I I I I I I # I
I I I t 8 I I & !
-11- :::i
:::I :::i I:::
;::I
1:;: ::;: :;;:
I1 1)
!ll! i::; ;I:'
1:;: :;:: ::::,
::I:'
:I::;
;::I,
;;I:'
II::
::I:;
::I:
11::
:;st
:;:I I#::
1::: ;::: ;:;: ;:ii
$1:
~::r'
*1:1
;a 11
:!!t
- .. t I I
I 1 t I
I I .*, '\\ '\\ '\, -', ',
I : N a me ', '\$, 'b, '\a
I i M e m be r ,o +p;.,- o;?::
;::tl 1:
I I -9 - I I "., '\ '8.),;,"+,1 % \ \ \' !g
,I 1 I , '~*;$ii.. '\\ *$A, .9/ 4
I
I B
;"""~""""""""~"""""~""""""~"""~""~~-"-""""-";"--"~--"------""----~--~ i give the city an extension of time until their first meeting [ i:,::: ; in January, 1962, and by that time w Et should know the i i:;;; $'I
: results: of the election. I I ::;:: :: Public Law #560. An agreement hs Geen redeived for i i these funds, and approval of the agreefnent and authoriza-i
i tion for the Mayor's signature is necessary. The follclw- : i ing resolution was presented for the Cduncil's review:
i I pesoiution No, 182. A 43ESOLUTION OF THE CITY i~uevara : : :x:
!AN .AGREEMENT FQlz PUBLIC WORKS PLAN PRE- :La itoche 3 ; t k:
i PARATION, was adopted by title only and further reading i Sonneman ; l :x I i waiited. I IvIcPherson ; !x k :
t 1 Ill 'I 1 I !SI!
I I @I::; ::I:.
I:::
1y;
I::!
I I ::::
i UNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF CA~ELSBAD APPROVING i~ierce k i :xi
:*8l
I;;#
4 ;: I I t I
i Street improvement refund agreements. An inquiry was i I made as to the feasibility of street improvement refund : : agreements where subdividers or individuals have im- I I ! proved streets that would benefit other property owners : : in the immediate area. The City Manager asked the I 1 : council to give €his matter consideration, and the matter I 3 would be brought UP at some future date. k I
; Cwn, Sonneman stated she felt an ordinance chould be i prepared regarding vacations for city employees.
i Mayor La Etoche inquired as to what is happening in re- i : gards to the Used Car lot. I
I Inquiry was also made as to whether or not the Council i I Committee had met with the Viirens in regards to the sale I' i of their property. 4 #
! Cwn. Sonneman inquired about two barricades in front of i i her property as tu how long they would be there. The City!
i Manager stated he would check into the matter. 1 I
: Discussion was given as to the opening of Chinquapin Ave. : I between Garfield Street and Carlsbad Blvd. The Council I I was informed that a plan had been made for this opening ', : and the property owners adjacent to the property were not I 1 in favor of this opening.
I I
L I I t I I
I I I t I
z I I
1 I I I
1 I I 1 I
I I I < I
"c; ::;;
1 :; ::Is
4:18 ::;: ;;::
I:'#
:I83 ::::
1:;1
I tl
$1
I..! 1- ,I;: ::::
1:::
:!!I ,'*I iiii
11:;
::!I ;ti;
1:;1 :;;: ::::
It 1:;:
:t I1 ;:::
:::; *'I:
41' $1;: ::!: )-.'I ;::I :::I :::I ;::; ;ii:
i1.1:
Il'.I ! 1 II 1 ! RATIFZCATION OF BILLS AND PAYROLL:
I Ratification of the bills was given for the general expenses! i of the city in the amount of $20,265.74, and for the Water : Guevara + i 3 : Department in the amount of $9,823.21, for the period i Bierce ; :x$ \ October 17, 1961 to November 7, 1961, as certified by :La Roche i 1 F : the Director of Finance and approved by the Auditing Corn4 S<zaneman : : ;x i mittee. : McPherson I : 3
i Ratification of the payroll was given for the second half I Guevara ; i XS I of October, 1961, in the amount of $14,799.14, as certi- :Bierce : b i>
; fied by the Director of Finance and approved by the :La itoche I : 3
i Auditing Committee. : Sonneman i ; t
i I :::
1::
* 1 -_- ."" .._" "" - "_". -. -.. "..__".__ - ' I 1 i4; !I:
I I I I :\:
I)
I(
f IMcPherson :xi I I I I I 4
I 4 I I
! ADJOURNMENT:
i B~ proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p- Mi
I I 4
I # ! m !yp@& I & f.QZ!?!j%id
i Respectfully submitted, I I
I *.
I J
i I I I I I t 1 I f + ! i Deputy City Clerk 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 4 I I I 4 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I * I I I I I I * t I 1
:I*
1;; I:: ::;
$1
I:; I: ;: ;:
;: :: i: ;: ;: :: ::
1: ::
18'
(I'
I:!
I'
I#
If I'
I'