HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-12-05; City Council; Minutes*. 1.5.0 I 1% , 8, '\ t ' ' i CITY OF CA~LSBAD ; Minutes of; CflrY COUNCIL (aegular Meeting) i
I
I 1 'x, '.,'\,, \ ' ', ', 8, '\
', \ ' , ' '. s ', ', -, \ '+,,*.,
{Date of Meeting: December 5, 1961 ! Time of Meeting: 1:OO P. M. ; of : Plake of Meeting: Council ClzArnbers : Mercber \%'.co',,pp,c ~""""",".",""~~"""~~"""""""""""""""""~""""~~"~"""~""""~~""". I RCPLL CALL was answered by Couxcilmen Guevara, : Bierce, La Roche, Sonneman and McPherson. Also I present were City Manager Slater and City Attorney Hayes;
i ALLEGIANCE to the Flag was. given.
I INVOCATION was offered by Councilman Guevara.
/ APPXWAL OF MINUTES:
! 21, 1961, were approved as presented. ; Bierce it:+
f Name s, - '\, .,& '. 'q!$,
Dl 'y% 0, '8, '%>, ~?L\?b* q2,.$+
I L i:"' 1:::
I I :;4: ;I::(
I ;::;:
I :::I; If
I k ::::: $1
I I ;:::;
I I I ;;::I
I I :::II
I I 1 p;:; :;I:;
I (a) The minctes of the regular meeting of November i Guevara f :X: X: I
I : La Roche ; : ; x; 1
I I i Sonneman ;XI i X: j
t I ; McPherson; I Ill :xi
I
t::,:
;,I:,
I I(
I I 1
I 1 I
I
I 11;
t I
I
I I#
I
I
Ill
I
1 I t ;::! I : CORRESPONDENCE:
I
% I I ::ii
I t ::+I I.!#
I I I (a) Margaret S. Crump - re: Property clean up - i i Las Flores and Tuttle. Letter dated'November 27. 1961 i
::;: :;::
',I
:!I1 i addressed to the City of Carlsbad, commending the City i ;::; ; for their clean-up campaign, however, a tremendous job i !:;: :::: i remains to be done. A deplorable condition exists near : :::; ; the corner of Las Flores and Tuttle. This area is cover-i ill #;I: ; ed with junk iron and decayed wood. I I 11;; 1 I I ;:;I ; I I-: : The Mayor requested that a letter of thanks be sent to ; I:'1 i Mrs. Crump and that notice be given to the respective i :;la 1%
i property owners to clean up their property. I :::;
! :::I
I I
I '1
I I I
)111
I!*; I 1 (b) Alice K. Amundsen - re: Claim for sewer stop- i i page damage. Letters dated November -- : i November g5, 1961, from Mrs. Alice H. Amundsen were i : presented, regarding sewerage stoppage, which she clair& i was caused by roots from the large trees near her proper!- : ty located on City property. The plumbers who cleared ! I the line stated both stoppages were caused from roots in : ; the line on City property. The first bill was for $26.00, I i which work was done on November 14, 1961, and the : second bill was for $9.00, which work was dope on Novee i ber 18, 1961. Mrs. Amundsen requested she be reimburted : these amounts. (Correction - see Page 8) I I
; The City Manager informed the Council Mrs. Amundsen i i was in to see him. She asked that the Eucalyptus tree i : located on the south side of Oak Ave. east of the alley ; I between Jefferson and Harding be removed. Mrs. Amundb : sen was requested to make an application to the Parks an4 i Recreation Commission for removal of the tree. The !
1 Parks and Recreation Commission reported back and they! i do not recommend removal of the tree at the present time/ : They suggested planting nine new trees in proper places : i with the possibility of removing the above tree in the t future. The City Manager recommended that in the futur4 i funds be set aside in the budget for removal of trees where i they are causing damage such as this. This particular : : tree is a good size tree and will cost approximately $250 i
i to remove. In cases where the City has to expend man- ; I power to take care of these stoppages he felt the trees i i should be removed.
I I
I * I I I
I t
I I t
;;'I
11;; ::::
:'I1 :::; 4;;
i::; ;:::
I:::
::;I !::i ;::: ::i:
:::; :It:
!:!!
iiii
:;;:
:I:: ;:;:
,:*I
:I:: :::; :;i:
1:: I::: ;::: ::::
:::a
11;: 1::;
;;ll
:;ti
::;: i:::
1;::
I@ :::i
1:)
I(II 11
*I
I)*(
!i;! 0; I : Mayor La Roche pointed out the County charges for the i : removal of any trees; perhaps the City should cooperate . i I with the property owner in the removal of any trees : causing damage that are on city property.
4 I I I I I 1 I
i::i ::::
$11 l;:'
:;I1 ::;:
(8'1
1:
!$I! i By motion of the Council th.e claim was denied and the i Guevara 4 ; !xi i matter referred to the insurance carrier. : Bierce 1) 1 : :xi
I : La itoche : ; :x:
I 1 i Sonnernan :x; ;xi
I I : McPherson; !xi :
I I :::i
I I
'lr
I I
I ! I ::!!
0
I I I I ''8' \' I I ', * '. I I \' 4 $ " I 1 \ ', I \
I -2- t I ; Name '
4 : of :"-""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""*"""""""~~-"""""- i Member
: The City Manager suggested that a study be made of this i i matter. After considerable discushion it was agreed that : ; the matter be re€erred to the City Manager for further i i study as to what other cities are doihg in this regard.
I
I I
I
t I I
l
I I
a
I I I I I (c) R, L. Watson Construction CO. * re: 191 1 Act i I proceedings - Pi0 Pic0 Dr., Tamarack Ave., Adams i i Street and Chinquapin Ave. Letter dated November 29, : : 1961, from R. L. Watson, stating his company-has been i i working on this project since last March, and have con- : : tacted 95% of all of the interested parties. There is a i i percentage of individual home owners who do not live in ; ; Carlsbad and they have been contacted by letter. He I 1 i pointed out that of €he approximate 6,000 lineal feet of : : frontage, there is a 10-acre block surrounded by Tamar- i i ack, Adams , Chinquapin and Pi0 Pic0 that is owned by : i two property owners. One owner lives out of town and th4 ; other has property in escrow. This, together with the ; ; amount of frontage on Pi0 Pico, bordered on the side of i i the freeway and the other by the Catholic school, makes : : this a real problem. The City Engineer has recommend- i i ed city participation. If the city participates in Pi0 Pico, : i and the future of the 10-acre parcel is resolved by the i ; two owners, there should be sufficient signatures for a i
i 1911 Act proceedings. L I
i The City Manager informed the Council, a report on this i : matter would be brought up under "Engineering" later on i \ the Agenda. 6 I
! December 1, 1961 from the Carlsbad Realty Board statin4 i the Board discussed realty signs in the City of Carlsbad. ; : A few years ago the Board eliminated the usage of realty i i signs with the Board's jurisdiction. However, after a : : trial period of two ye.ars, the idea was given up due to I i (1) under the existing City ordinances, there was no way : : of controlling out of town Sealtors from placing their signb i on property within their jurisdiction, and also no way of : ; controlling home owner signs; (2) Realtors outside the i i Boards' jurisdiction were not required to purchase a : "Business License" or maintain a business office, there- i i fore placing the local Realtors at a disadvantage. The ; t Board is in full agreement with the idea of eliminating dl:. i signs on property within the City, inctuding Sealtors, : Homeowners and contractor's signs.
i The Mayor stated he did not feel that the City could elimif i nate homeowners from placing signs on their property. ; i If our ordinance does not protect the local Realtors it i i should..
i The City Manager stated he contacted the League of Cali-: i fornia Cities in regards to sign ordinances of other cities4 I Some of the ordinances were reviewed by the City Managek.
I After considerable discussion it was agreed that the City :
i Attorney prepare an ordinance for the Council's considerf i ation, prohibiting any real estate signs thrmghout the Civ, i as well as "for rent or lease" signs and "Open House" : : signs by Realtors. i. MAX EWALD was present ard stated if the Council wish+ i to do away with real estate signs, that is fine, but did not; : feel that outside Realtors should be allowed to place signs: i on property in the City - they want to have everyone on : : an equal basis.
i O&AL COMMTJNICATP?ONS
i MR. THORTON, one of the City Employees, requested :
! !
I I
I I
I I I
I I
I (dl Carlsbad Zealty Board - re: Signs. Letter dated:
I I
I I I I * I I 1
I I ; I I I I
t I 1 P
I I 1 8 I
t t I I I 1 # t * I I t I
I I I I I
, ' *' %\.
\, ', '\,'\\ 15
$, '\ '*, y., \.,& '*, ',Q, ''.$$+, ", x?>. 'QL'6, +,$. --% .@@,+g i:'; ;::: I:;:
;:'I
1::; ::;;
,I:; i::: :I!: ;I I
1:; iii; :;i:
:I,' 4:;
::I:
;;4 :::: ii'' 14 ;;
:@I: ;::; ;:- 11
1:: ::::
:;:I i:::
1:;; ii::
. ''
"""""""
'I
(:'I SI
11
)(I,
:'
l;lI
*I
:::J
Ill
;:'J
:'
l4::
:;if I::J
:::I
:;SI :::; ::;; ::;;
:#;I !!;I
;;a1 ::at ::
1::: i::: 4:; ;::I
::II $1: ::;: :; 1,': I:!: :::I I::: I:::
3:::
::;I
11 :;::
;I:: :I:: :;:: I:!) :i:: :;I: i::: ::::
1:::
#:I:
:;I* :::: :;;:
:;:: ::I,
;I:;
1::; ::;: ::;:
:::I
1::; :::; :;:: :;::
:;:I :;::
11
((81
:lal iii;
*ll
ti;:
It
!!I!
I I I ', \, -\ \ ' .\
I I ' 8 '\ \, ', ', I I '\ 'i I I \\ \\,'\, " ', -\ '\ 15 1 1 1
29, I , \ '\ '\ '\ v \\ 8' '\ \ \ ',
i I I Name ',,'\$* '\,'*?x
I .4&*, '\ $$, : of '\?&.y,$%,&q
:::: i;;:
I 0; i Member $'Q.*\O\ ,",",""","""~""~""""""""""""""."""~"""~"""""""""""-"-~-~--~-~
i the Council to delay any actfdn ori the adopth of the pro- i
i posed vacation ordiriance for City dmployees. He asked : I::: i that a committee be appointed from the Council to work i !::I I with a Committee of City employees to see what other ; llt!
l:;t
; cities are giving. I i::i
1 I 1: :; i Mayor La fioche stated this City is a business and he is i :I::
,:at i sure the City Manager will agree that the majority of i :::: ; businesses adhere to two weeks vacation. 1 ;;SI
l:'I
1 ;I:: i It was suggested this matter be deferred until later under i l'# i Item #9 "New Business'' on the Agenda. I ii::
I I *I I I ;::: i MAX EWALD inquired as to what is being done in regardi 1:ti :;::
; to the request made by Mr. Urbanski for a sewer exten- i 91:;
:::a i sion line on Highland Drive. I :: ;.t
1 ::I 1: i The City Manager stated Cwn. Sonneman previously state4 1:;;
: she would contact one of the property owners, namely, : :ti; i::: i Mr. Harrison, to see if he wished to participate in the i ;I:; : project at this time. 1 I t I I :::: ,:a1
: Cwn. Sonnema stated she was unable to contact Mr. 4 I ::I: i Harrison, but talked with Mrs. Harrison. Mrs. Harriso$ 1:;:
: is willing to go along with this proposed extension, how- : :::\
i ever, before they commit themselves, they would like to i :;:I 1:
I know how this is to be financed, what the cost would be : ;::;
i for the extension, what the lateral cost would be and the i ;!;;
i location of the laterals on the lot. 1 1 it:; 111
1 I ::;I : MR. EWALD stated he felt this was a case where the :';:
\ Revolving fund could be used. This is within the 200' re- I ;;I:
;I:: : quirement, and this area is too small for a 1911 Act pro- ; :I!: \ ceedings. The City will get back more than they will I I I::: i participate in this project. 1 I I iir1 4;;
: The City Manager stated he would give the information to i :I;: i Mrs. Harrison that she has requested.
i By motion of the Council authorization was given for the : Guevara I : :xi : use of the Sewer Revolving Fund for the sewer extension I Bierce : !x!.; i on Highland Drive as requested by Mr. Urbanski. i La Roche : I :x: i Sonneman :x; !xi
,. I 'I I I
I I
I #I
I 'I
'I
I I *
-*
1
I I
I I
11
i I
I I I
1
I ;: 1
I 1;;:
I I I I I+ It
! ;:
I
I I 4
I i McPherson ; i :xi
! Cmn. Bierce pointed out that our neighboring city require! iiii
: connection to the sewer within 100 feet. Our ordinance : i;::
41:; i requirement is within 200 feet. BY common consent it i :I;: i was agreed that the ordinance be amended to require sewer ::;:
1 connection within 100 feet. I ii::
:::I
i The Mayor declared a short recess at 8:00 P. M. The i i:!:
i meeting reconvened at 8:14 P. M. I ;::I
I ::i;
: ;itt i PLANNING: I ;::;
t I 1:::
I (a) Tentative subdivision map of Valley Manor. * iii:
: The tentative map of Valley Manor subdivision was pre- i is; I sented for the Council's review. 8 :;)I I I I: I:, i Resolution No. 230 of the Planning Commission was read i :lli i wherein the Planning Commission recommended approval i ;:ll
1::
; of the tentative map subject to certain conditions and I :;SI I :I:: i restrictions. L ;i::
! After consideration by the Council the following resolutio4 :ii: i was presented for the Councilrs consideration: ;#I;
lit1
'*Il 1 :r:l
l 4:;
I :111 I l!!l
I I
I 1 I
I 1
II
I I I
I
I
I I
II
et
I
I I
I I
I l a I
I I I I ;:I, :;
I I ::ii
1 I I :::: III)
I I ::;;
I 2 5 I
4 I I 1
I I
I
I 1
I I 9
I
I
I
.
* 1 '\\.,\'. I I ,*
I I '\ '\ '\\ '\\ ', '\
I I 8, '\ ', '\, 't,",
i of '*$g$$,, 'x, '%;,
I : Member \%@.+e\.' '\& K3 \ 4 \,+'$ ~"""""""""""""""~""""""""""~""""""-""""";"""-------"-----------
I I '11; I I ::;I I Resolution No. 786.. A HESOLUTION OF THE CITY i Guevara :'I l :X; 4 : CoUNCfL QF Tf-fE CITY OF CA8LSBA.D APPBOVhG : Bierce
: adopted by title only and further reading vlraivedi i- Sonneman :xi i x:
i ENGINEENNG: I :'I1
e I I I
8' I I
I
t t 4 *
'\\ '\, '\, ', , ',\'\\ 2 5 I
t -4- ! N2 me ', '.$&, ', '?&
I TH33 TENTATIVE MAP OF VALLEY MANOR, was i La Roche iil t : I I :x ; xi
I
I I ; McPhersoni ; :x:
I I 1:::
I I I ::::
I I :;;I
I (a) Health Officer,'s ,report and ,Enginkerfs report fori :I;:
I
1
I
I St?Wdr assessment district - Pi0 Pic& Tamarack, Adamsi ii:: i and ,Chinquapin sewer. At the previous meeting of the : :I:: +I : Council the Health Officer's opinion was requested. The i ii;; i City Manager presented the opinion which read as follows:: ii:: 11
4 I l:Il
t November 28, 1961 I :;:;
1 :;I:
I :::I
I The Honorable City Council of Carlsbad I ;i
I I P. 0. Box 265 1 I:;;
I Carlsbad, California I 'I
:;::
I I I ::;;
I Attention: Mr. Lowell A. Rathbun I :I:;
I I ::VI
I 1 City Engineer I I I::: SI I ir:;
I Gentlemen: I < 4:tt
I I I i::;
I ;;a1 :::;
I I ;:*I
I 1 I i:::
1 I understand that proceedings under the Improvement ; I Act of 191 1, Division .7 of the Streets and Highways Code ; i:;;
; of the State of California, are Contemplated €or the con- f :;i: 1 struction of sanitary sewers, as shown on said plans. I i /fi
;La i am familiar with the territory served by the proposed ; llll it:: i sewer system on said plans and specifications. Said terri; l:1l
i tory is in dire need of sanitary sewers, aDd the public i :;::
:I:: i health requires that sanitary sewers be constructed to ; 4:: I serve it. This letter is submitted pursuant to Section i i::; ; 2808 of said Code. I I :!;I
I I I 11::
I I I ::f:
I I find and recommend as follows: I SI
::I:
I 1 I :::I
I 2. That the construction of sanitary sewers, as show; ;;it
I on said plans and in accordance with said specifi- i !!:I
I cations, is necessary as a health measure. I It;'
:;::
I t ::I:
I I 2. That .proceedings for the construction of said sani; :;;I :I:: ;:
1 I I I:!
I I If::
I 3. That proceedings for the construction of said sanif 1::: * tary sewers under the Improvement Act of 1911 f :::: Act of 191 1 are necessary as a health measure. [ :::: :'I1
I I 1:;t i 4. That 1, 2 and 3 above are necessary as a health I #Ii;
::'I
I measure. 1 1 I:;:
I I I 1:::
1 I :VI:
I t Very truly yours, I $11 1::
I I i::: ::::
I /SI J. €3. Askew, M. D. i :::;
I Health Officer of the City : :::: 1:;:
t of Carlsbad 1 ::::
I ::i;
:27.2/ 3%. If the City participated it would bring the per- i :;$I
I I 1 I it:' 1:
I I I
I
I I I I
2
I
I
I
I 1 I
I I I 1
I
I I
I
I
I
i I, the undersigned Health Officer of the City of Carls: ,ti: ; bad, California, am familiar with the plans designated for: l;ll i sewers in Assessment District 2-1961 as indicated on the i :;:: 11 : Carlsbad City Engineer's plan. I I :::;
I 11
1'1
I I
1 I
I I
1 $81:
I 1
1
I I
I
4 I tary sewers are necessary as a health measure. i
I
I
I I I I
I
I
I I
I I I I
I I I
I
I e .I
I t : JBA: W: cs % I :::: 11
!The City Engineer informed the Council his department ; :::I :had reviewed their computation of the percentage of sig- i ;!I: !natures on the ' petition and the actual percentage was I I :::; 1::
icentage up 10%. There have been no changes in the sign- ! :;:I Ill: Xng of the petition. I I :;::
1 I ;*:I
1
I I *,I
. .
t I' I I
l \\ ', '\ '\ '. '\
t I \' \\,\'\ '\ ' ' \ ' ",\\' 15 i
I -5- I '\\ , ', '\*"",
'\ ',, 8, \\ \ '
I i N a me x,, '+$&\ \. %X # ; of .$',O' '\ +% '?$+?$+9>\;q
~"""""~"""""""""""""~""""""~"""~~"~""-""""~~;"-""--"-"~- i Member ,o~.,o..cnp ,"""-"-
I 11;: fIl
1 I * I
I
I *
I Di I 1;s; i After consideration by the Comcil, by motion of the i Gtievara l ; :xi
I Council the matter was referred to the City Attorney'k : Bierce k i !xi i Office for preparatioh of the necessary docburhents under : La Roche ; :x:x: i the 191 1 Act proceeding& i Sonneman i i :xi
I
I L
I : JJcPherson i f ;x:
1 i The City Attorney Pointed out that if the City chooses to ! I participate.iri this project they can do so any time during i ; the proceedings.
I
I I
I I
I I
I (b) Elm Avenue extension progress report. At the : : previous meeting the City Engineer was instructed to
i The City Engineer informed the Council he had contacted i : Mr. Srnilev and he informod him he had been looking for :
I i contact Mr. Smiley regarding the purchase of his propertyl. I
~ ~" -" """""_ "A*.& i a site but 6as been unable' to find i"J __-
I under $5,000. Mr. Smileyrs Dropertv nnvthing comparabh i
i approximate valuation of the property is between $3500 and : $4000. At 5:OO P. M. todav he came in and stated he would
I I "U is 50 x 350'. -The :
Also he would like tb 3A " +A 1"- "U" 1
i be willing to have a comparable site. l ; have from the City the expenses involve, am bu AUcUl LU~U.. ~ i i mitments for this property.
I After consideration by the Council it was agreed that the i : City Engineer work with Mr. Emiley to see if a compara- ! i ble lot can be purchased that is suitable to Mr. Smiley. ;
I NEW BUSINESS: 1
v ~-- """ ---
I I
1 I I 4
I t 1 1
8 I 4 I I I t
1
I (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1076, amending i t Ordinance No. 1005 changing number of days vacation & i allowed City Employees. The present ordinance No. 1005 't i allows an employee 1 1/4 days per month vacation. The : ; City Attorney was instructed to prepare an ordinance, 1
I vacation for employees after one year's service. The CiQ
I Attorney presented the proposed ordinance 2nd it was read: i in full.
i Cwn. Sonneman stated she would like to propose the follow; I ing vacation schedule:
I
I amending ordinance No. 1005, which would allow two week$ 4
1 I
I I
I
t 1, I 1 * I I 1 I I I
I I I I I *
I I
1 I I
1 years service - 1 week vacation.
6 years and over - 3 weeks vacation. v
)The Mayor stated the employees were given three week's i i vacation this year without the Councilrs knowledge until i :after it had been promised. The employees are not under ; :contract and are free to leave at any time they wish. The I !City of Carlsbad tries to operate as a business, but it i !is not a profit making business. We have no product to i :'sell. There is no sense in trying to load the taxpayers, ; :we have to be reasonable. The Unions are finding this i :out; they are pricing themselves out of jobs. The Council : jis ready to discuss this matter and if there is any way of i :working this matter out, the Council is certainly willing : ito give this their best judgment. 1
iCmn. McPherson addressed the Mayor and stated he had i :made a statement that the Council did not know the City : :employees were given three week's vacation. This was i :in the ordinance and he does not feel the City Manager had : jto inform the Council as it his duty to carry out the pro- i jvisions of all ordinances. f
2 through 5 years service - 2 weeks vacation. I
I I
I I I
9
0
t I
1 I & ;Mayor La Roche stated the general practice is two weeks. ; I
I 4 I
:The Mayor stated he would like 'io hear from some of the \ {employees. 1
1 I I I I
* I I I *
! !
I.'$ ::::
;;I1
I,!:
i:ii
11
:;,I
11:;
::@I i:::
::;; 1,:
:::;
::a1 ::::
:::I ::;: :I:;
:::I :::: ::::
:::: ti:
:::I I::;
$b
1:: ::;;
::*I
;1:1 :i:i ::i;
:II: :::;
1:;; ::;; i::: i:::
1::: ;:j: :: 1:;
I!!,
.'I
@I
;; ;,:i
11(1
'11
l;;l ; 1 It :::i
I:Il
:I;; ;:::
;::I ;:':
I I :I ::;; '1:
::*I ;; I;:
I: ii:;
:I:: ;::: :::;
1:;:
:::I :pi I:!:
III: ;::; ;I:: ;::;
;::;
:::I
1;:: ;:ii
1::; I:::
;::I
1:;:
:;I: i:i:
1:::
;b!:
I;*# :;::
:I::
;::I
;q
:I
:t
It!#
Of1
tI1 !Ill
.I
-. ,.
I I
I I I
I
1 #
I' , \', 8 '*
I I I '\ ", \,\ 'X, \ '\\=\ -' 15: i
I 'b, 'k, '.\ ', y,, I
I -6 - '\, '\ ', '8 x ', : N a m 8 \\, x%%. '&, "S-
i Member $%'@,$-e
I ;;;; i Cmn. McPherson stated.he wouldlike to have the. Mayor i :::i : appoint -a committee from the Cotulcit to meet with some : ::;:
IllI i of the employees and make a report back to the Council. : t:;: I I i:II 11
i Considerable discussion was had by the Council members! :ii:
t and the City employees as to vacations and salaries, and i ::;i
::;a i the relationship of salaries with the cost of living. The : ::i; ; employees.who spoke were, Robert Hardin, Fire Chief, i ;: I i Jack Osuna, Fire Captain, Gary Gordon, Charles Hoch- : :;:I ;;
i bruckener, Lowell Rathbun, City Engineer and Alex :I I
t I()( I Wolencbuck. '' I I ::@I ;It1
I I ; :': i After discussion by the Council members, by motion of i ::::
i the Council it was agreed that an ordinance be prepared ; :;::
:8I $1 i to allow the following vacation schedule: t Guevara ; i xi 4
I ; Bierce s I :x
I 1 years service - 5 working days I;,
Oi i Of 839 \o', '\ '$3' .?&&, ;.,q
l"""""""~""""""""~""""-"""""""-"""""""""~~"""""""-~""""-
I 11
I 1
I +St
1
I I
I
I I
i La Roche i i : ix
I 2 through 5 years service - 10 wotking days ; Sonneman ;x; i 5
I I 6 years and thereafter - 15 working days : McPherson: i i I$
::I:
:;I:
1;;:
c :I:;
1 I :if:
I :I;:
::;:
I I :*I' i It was also agreed that the amendment to the ordinance i 1:; i should include that no accumulative vacation time be allo4- ::;I ; ed, unless by administrative request, and that if a holidai i falls within a vacation period that additional time be allow:- : ed the employee. 1 '11
i A short recess was called at 1O:OO P. M. The meeting i :;I1 : reconvened at 10: 10 P. M. I I ;;;: 1I;l
i OLD BUSINESS: 1111
:tI:
(a) Agreement for the purchase of the Aleatha W. i Guevara !xi ; xf i Vaughn property. The agreement was presented for the i Bierce ; :x$ i Council's review. A€ter.discussion by motion of the : La Roche i : ; d : Council authorization was given for the Mayor to execute i Sonnernan ; I i 2 i the document on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. :. McFhersoni : ; 4
I :*+I $11 \ The City Manager requested authority to expend from the i ;::: : contingency fund the sum of $9,340.22 to be applied towar$s I::: i the purchase of the Vaughn property. The Library fund ; ;;I1 ;: : will provide $8,000 towards this first purchase. The Citi $1: i Manager stated this agreement was given to the Library ! 11;;
I Board of Trustees who indicated on the agreement an i ::;I VI I addition they wished to have made. This proposed changq $11; : was presented to the City Attorney who stated that any ; i stipulation in the contract as suggested by the Library I ;#:' ! Board of Trustees was not a part of this agreement and ; Guevara i i xi 2 ; therefore was not necessary. By motion of the Council i Bierce !xi ; 4 i the amount of $9,340.22 was authorized expended from ; La Boche : I i 16 ; the contingency fund towards the purchase of the Vaughn I Sonnernan I : ; 4 : property. : McPherson: i i 3
I :;:I
I (b) Second reading of Ordinance No. 1075, ordering,: :::3 11'
! calling, providing for and giving notice of a special 4 :;:I i election. The f collowing ordinance was presented for a i ;#I;
: second reading by the Council: I :::I
I r I+ I I 1 ;;:;
I I .Ordinance "CA-RLslB No. 1015. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY i ;:I/
I AD; " '~LIFORMA, ORDERING, CALLING, : $1; ! PiEOVIDING FOR AND GTVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAG :I;: i ELECTIQN TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF CALZLSBAD I:;\ : ON THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 1962, FOR THE i :;;I i PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED : Guevara i i I 2 I VOTERS OF SAID CITY A P80POSITIQN TO INCUR i Bierce :xi I; 1 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY SAID CITY FOR A : La Roche : ; i 4 ; CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT, was adopted [ Sonneman : i i X i by title only and further reading waived. i McPherso4 :x; 1
I I I ;;I1 *I
1 (c) Sewer bond election - authorizing certain of its : ;::: J members to file a written argument for a city measure.. i :::: i The City AttQrney stated the Counci- :I::
I;Il
: sent arguments in favor of the sewer bonds, and she tI1I
I *;ti : wn11ld like authorization from tha fh1nAl t* file written !
;I3*
I!:;
I
It '
I I
I I
I 1 I I I I 1 I I 6 t
::I:;
I t
I*
ii::
i::; :I1:
I I I
1
('It
I
I
,
r
V
I 1 ' ',\.""
I -7- I ', 8 \ ', '., \ I \, " '\ " '\ ',
I I I I
I I
\, ', 8 ', '\ '\ I
I + 8, \\,'',, '\, '\,'',, 7.3
I I I N a me '\ '%& \\, '+$$, $$?@>,+>,$q
I 1 i;::
I :I:;
I I I :la: ::::
:C L OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA^ Bierce :x; jx: i AOUEEwmG CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE : La Roche i i p! i A WRITTEN ARGUNLENT FOR A CITY MEASURE, was i Sonneman l : :X;
I I 1 I ::I:
I 1 :::;
I 181 I 3 lit: :;ii :::: I:::
t I I +::; I i:::
I I + :;q
:I:# ;:::
$
1 :xi
I I ::I:
I I of '*,+ 0' ' I 0; I Member $%W\.P$)\ ~~"""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"--"--~----"---""-----~----~-~
I arguments for the city measure. The following resolu- I :Ill i tion was presented for the Council's consideration: I:;&
: Etesolution No. 787. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY : Guevara ; ;x: x:
11
1
I I I
: adopted by title only and further reading waived. i McPherson: ; :x:
! CITY ATTOSNEY'S EEPOfeT. 1 City vs. Wight condemnation suit. The City Attorney re- : : ported on the progress of the condemnation suit of the ; : Wight property. December 11, 1961, there will be a i ii:; i hearing to determine the issue of necessity. I I :Ill 11
i CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
! Purchase of Vault door. The City Manager requested that! i 'ne be authorized to expend from the contingency fund an i Guevara { !x !xi t. amouht of $550.00 for the purpose of purchasing a new : Bierce '1 b :x: i vault door. By proper motion the City Manager was i La Roche l t : authorized to expend $550.00 from the contingency fund ; Sonnernan 1 x; ;x; i for the purpose of purchasing a Vault door. i McPherson : 1 :xi
i Christmas tree site. The City Manager read a letter fro4 :::; I3:l ; the Suburban Gas Company wherein they indicated the City: ::;I I could use the property for beautification improvements as I ::I: 11 : long as they were the cwners of the property, but would : I::: i not deed nor lease the property to the City. 4 ;:::
I I 1 :t::
I I '::: i Improvement of Harding, Jefferson and State Street. I L ::;I
! Discussion was given as to the improvement of Harding, : :;I:
I Jefferson and State Street. After considerable discussion i iiii
; the City Manager requested authority of the Council to have I:::
i the Engineering Department circulate a petition for the 1 f::; I::: : improvement of Harding, Jefferson and State Street. By I :;si i common consent of the Council it was agreed that the I 11;;
: Engineering Department initiate a program to circulate ; :;::
i a petition for the improvement of these streets. I ;:I:
a ;:I:
i Park Drive sewers. The City Engineer reported this 3 $1' : matter had been discussed previously. Four of the eight : 1;: :;;;
!-property owners have paid their share and it is on deposit.! 1::; : The City Engineer asked that the City participate in the ; ::1: : project from the Sewer Revolving Fund, as the other four i $'I , ; :.: : parcels will eventually have to participate and this area i '1:;
i is in need of sewers. It was pointed out it would cost I ti; i approximately $550.00 per lot, including service laterals. i ,111 :::I : By motion of the Council it was agreed that the authoriza- : 1::: i tion be given for expenditure from the Sewer Revolving I :;'I ; Fund for this project. I ::!I I 1 It
I I li;; 1 RATIFICATION OF BILLS AND PAYROLL: 1 I ::I$
I I I ;;ll
t I 1:;: i Ratification of the bills was given for the general expenses: :::I i of the City in the amount of $10,685.51, and for the Water i Guevara k ! i x: I#,:
; DepaPtment in the amount of $47,920.44, for the period ; Bierce : :x:x': !November 21, 1961 to December 5, 1961, as certified by I La Roche j i :x: i the Director of Finance and approved by the Auditing Corn: Sonneman ; : ;x! i mittee. i McPherson 1 : :x:
: Ratification of the payroll was given for the second half i Guevara : :x !x: :II,
i of November, 1961, in the amount of $14,628.92, as ; Bierce ; ; :xi I certified by the Director of Finance and approved by the i La Roche ; i :x: i Auditing Committee. : Sonneman : : :xi
I
I
I I
I
11
11 t
81
I I I I :::;
I ;::I
1'11
(11
'I
a. I. I 1 ::I:
I 1 I i McPherson !x\ !x;
I I 4 I i:::
I I 1 4 i:::
t 8 $11 11
I I I $81 11
, I t !X!
I I
I I ,:ti I I 1'
I
I L # I"
.c
D
e
t I I I I
I' 1 ., '\ .\\ '\ '\ .\ \' YF.'? I '\,\\\ \\\ '\, ' \ I I I , ,, '+\ k 5 1
I i N a me \\, '?& \8, '.%&
I I Member \@@.&x, :""""~"""""""""""""""~"~""""""~""""""""""""""""""*""."~"
I I 'a I; i ADJOUnZNMENT: 1 :;@I
I i:ii
I I I;'! i By proper knotibn the meeting was adjourned at 10: 55 p. &d. 1;;i
I ::::
I ;;ti
I ::::
I i;:: ii::
8 I 1:: I :::;
,/" I t;Il
1 ::::
1 ::It
1 I ;: ::
I ;::I
I 1:;:
I I;::
I I :::I
I I ::I:
: Correction on Page I: The Council requested a correctio$ :::;
I in the minutes on Page 1, under Correspondence, item (b): i::;
: commencing with the sentence "The first. bill was for $26. QO. "
:i::
I 11 i which correction is to read as follows: III + I I;#:
I I :;It
i "Mrs. Amundsen presented a bill in the amount of $9.00 ! :::: I:;: : for work done on November 18, 1961, and asked that she ! 1::: i be reimbursed this amount". 1 :Ill ::i:
I ;: I
I I ,:::
t I ;1:t I I &lll I I I;*:
I I 11;; I :::I
& I ::;i
a I if::
I I ::;:
I I ::;;
I I :I
I -8- I \ ', '\ ', '\, , ', i '\ '
I I
I 1 I i of \\,$,'%\, '?d%\ '., qJ,#+ .f+\
I
I I I 11
I I J I I I I
I
I I 11
1 1 i Respectfully submitted, 1 I i;':
I I Il.1
11
I I
I I
/a+ 4,:w +g I L/<?G&& * ill)-
laat I. . I I I I I
I
ARET E. ADAMS i&G :::; at
i Deputy City Clerk
I I 1 I I P I I I
I I
I I
1:: 1
I
I
l a I 81 I 1:;4
I
I
I 1
I I i
I
+
I
I 1 I I I iiiI
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 :111
I I I ''i; 4::
I I
I I ;:I l::i
I 8 I ;;:a 1:
I ix:
I I :ii;
I I ::;:
I i:::
I :::a
I I Ill:
I $'I
1:::
I I ::;;
1 I
I I
I I
I
I
I
;
I I *
I I I
I 1 1 1
I I
I I
* I I 1;:: i::: I 1
I I
I
I t #I
I I I :;;: &,)I
I I I i$i
I 1 I ::;;
t l is;
I
I I I I 11
I I '*I(
I ::::
1 I:::
1 I l:ll
I I :::;
I ir::
I ::::
I ::::
I ::::
I 1: :; I ;:I
; ;: I I ii::
at;: :; 1
I I :I:: I I I:##
1 I ::I: I * 41'8
I * ::;:
I 4 I ::I: I It
I I I
I I
I
f 1
1 + I I I I + I I I I 9 I I
I I I I
I
I t
1
a
I 11
I fl:d I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
t I:!I