HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-06-15; City Council; Minutes.rr
I I I I .,.- \ . '\ '\ '\
: Minutes cP: CITY GCLWCIL CR~~ULW Meeting) i ', '\ ' i Date of Meeting: June 15, 1555 i Name 8 '8, '. ' : Time of Meeting: 7: CS P. &Me : of '4 ', : Place of Meeting: Council Chambers I I Member :"""""~""""""""-""""""--"-""""""""""""""-~"~"""""~ : ;3OLL CALL was answered by Councilmen Dunne, Neis- i i wnder, Atkinson and Jardine. Councilman iigghes was i
! present at 7: 10 P. M. Also present were City Manager ; i Marnaux, City Attorney %ilson and City Clerk ,Warns.
b i CITY OF @P*zLSzm I 8 't, '. ''.
\"
I 0
I I I I t * : INVOCATION was offered by Councilman Jardine, !
I 4
I
I, A~EEGI ANCE to the Flag was given,
I APPRCVAL GF MINUTES:
I I Dunne i (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of June 1, 1965, were I Neiswendt ; approved as presented, : Atkinson
! i Jardine
I 8 I I I I I I
I I
I "
I
I i CCARESPONDENCE: !-
I & I I I I
I 8 : The Mayor acknowledged a letter from the City of Clare- i i mont addressed to the Mayor and City Council extending : ; an invitation to the members of the Council to view an ex-: i hibition of Dead Sea Scrolls, Sponsored by the Claremont ; : Graduate School and University Center and the Southern ! I t=alifornia school of TheOlOgJ7," June l2 through Ju1y '' '
! ! I
I
; 1965,
: The Mayor urged all members interested in this type of i i exhibition to attend.
i G.&AE CGMMUNICATI CNS:
i Nih. MA.&IO FCRTUNATI, stated he was in hopes Mr. : : Zydervelt would be present to speak in regards to the i I State facility that is proposed for the North County. A : i written report complied by a committee from the Chambe; ; of Commerce has been presented to each of the Council i : members, showing the benefits that would be derived $ i from this facility if it wcre located in the Carlsbad area. ! I The Chamber of Commerce feels this is a one shot oppor-: : tunity that would be beneficial to the Ctiy of Carlsbad. I i The City of Vista has gone on record as favoring this in- :
; stitution. I
: Cmn. Neiswender asked that the Council be given an op- ; !
i portunity to review this report before making any decisiott
i Nlayor iz.tkinson informed Mr. Fortunati the report was i ; very complete and the matter woudl be brought up later ; i in the meeting. 4 I
8 9 I I I I I - I I I
I I
I I
I I 1 I I
I I I I
I I
i ENGI NE E.dI NG:
I I
I
I I I 1 ! I i (a) A.lte:rnate Las Flores Dr. and Jefferson St. Freeway ; : Crosslngs and Interchange. k. proposed alternate plan in- I ; dlcating a four-lane road%-ay for the Jefferson Street i overpass and the surrounding area was presented. Mr. i : Thomton, Assistant Bngineer, informed the Council in I i reviewing the various interchanges and the proposals of ; : other access roads the staff feels it would be desirable to i : combine the two structures (Loas Flores and Jefferson) ; i into one structure and make it a four-fane roadway with I : interchange. The Jefferson Street interchange would be i ! located slightly to thz south. The staff saw gr-at merit i i in a four-lane roadway for Jefferson Street as eventually ; : it will be needed. It is usually several years after the i i need for additional roadway beIore the St ate takes action. ; : The Division of Xighway feels they could get the Govern- I i ment to go alo.t.r_g with. a four-lane for Jefferson Street at ; : the time of construction of the Freew8.y. The only objec- i i tion would be the Las Flores extensien, and the connec- : : tion with the proposed interchange.
"
I-" I I
a
I I * 3 1
* t b
I I k ',\' 8'
! I . ', 'N 8,
I '\ ' '
I '\ '. '
t : of 9J
; Member x! :"""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". 1 Cmn, Dunne asked if it would not be logical to have a four1
; lane roadway in Jefferson Street and two lanes for Las i
! Flores. The present structure keeps traffic moving on : ; Las Flores.
i Mr. Thornton stated the Government will be paying for 1 i 9;% of this structure. The Division of 3ighways feels : ; they could justify a four-lane roadway with interchange i i by doing away with the other two overpasses. There will ; : be a depressed area of approximately 23 feet at the east i i end of Jefferson Street. An assessment district has been:
I formed for the improvement of Je€ferson Street from Elm! I Avenue to the Jefferson Street overcrossing. This inn- : I provement will provide for 48' of improve roadway. I i Under the present plan the City would have to pay for the i i remainder of Jefferson Street. The alternate plan would i i provide for the improvement of approximately 1 / S of :
! Jefferson Street. I I
! Inquiry was made that if this alternate plan were approve4, i making Jefferson Street a 4-lane roadway, could tne City : i justify the improvement of Eas Flores, and the Engineer-!
! ing Department stated they felt they could.
i Cmn. Dunne inquired as to which plan would take the least i property? I I
I Mr. Thornton stated the present plan would; however, the:
I Division of Highways has not stated what they intend to do i I with the Pi estree property nor the extension of Pi0 Rco : ; Drive;
: After furtner consideration, by motion of tine Council it .. Neiswende i was agreed that this matter be deferred until a committee! Atkinson : composed of the Council has made a study of the various i Hughes i plans. : Jardine
! i (b) &eport on bid responses for Stratfozsd Lane, A. D. 1 - I : 1964. The Mwr reported the City Clerk invited bids i i me construction of street improvements for Stratford : i Lane in its entirety, as described in Sesolution No. 11 28 i ; and ordered by fiesolution No. 1151, and the Clerk was f i ordered to report to the Council the results of the bids I : at the next regular meeting after opening bids.
I The Clerk presented the affidavit of posting and publica- i i tion of Notice Inviting bids, I I
i By common consent the Notices were ordered filed.
i The Clerk advised the Council there were two bids re- I ; ceived, and the bids have been computed and summarized; i and that she would like to present her report of the bid- ;
1 ding by submitting to thz Council the summary sheet of i
I
1 I 'b, '.,'.., '
I 8 -2- i Name ',,'\t
I I I t
I I
0 I
I I I I I
t I
I 4 1
t L t I I
I t
I I I
I I
I
I * : Dunne !
1
1 I
I 1
I I
1 L I
I I
I I I I I
I I I I
i the bids received as follows: I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I Inland Paving $29, 373.83 I I
I Sim J. Yarris Co. 21,563.80 t
! The Mayor inquired of the Engineeriqg Department if the$ i had examined the proposals and computed the amount of : : the bids, and determined the low est responsible bidder? i
i The City Engineer announced he had examined the bids i I and found that the amounts as set forth in ti?- Clerk's re- ; ; port were correct and that tl~c lowest responsible bidder i i is Sim J. iIx.!rrj.~? Company, 5an Diego, California. The : : bid is 1.525 &ove the Ergineer's estim-i te. I I
I t I I t
I I b a I
1 I i I 1 I I I I I I 1 I t k
I \*
I I .'\ I I ! ',, '8, '% '.<
I , L '\
I '\ '\\ '
I -3- '\ '\
I I Name 't.
I I
I I f
I
I I
I : of ';
;"""""""""""""~"""""-""""""~""""""""""""""""""~- ; Member
i The City Engineer further reported the rights of way for i : this street are not yet completely acquired. Therefore, : i he recommended that after these rights of way are re- i
i solved, the City of Carlsbad award the contract to the low: I bidder, Sim J. Harris Company in the amomt of $27,563.: : 83.
; The City Attorney informed the Council Mr. Nordhall, : i one of the property owners affected by Stratford Lane im-: i provement, has objected to the City's appraisor's value. : : We have received an offer from Mr. Nordhall €or $3,50ii.i
: Department recommends that the Council zeject the offer.: i Mr. Nordhall had an appraisal made by the Carlsbad i : b2ealty Board. I I
! Cmn. Jardine asked why tile Carlsbad Kealty Board and i i the City's appraisor is at such disparity?
i The City Attorney informed the Council the man who has I : been doing the appraising for rights of way for the City ; i does tk appraising for rights of way for the County of i : San Diego." : Dunne i After further consideration, by motion of tl-e Council it : Atkinson ; was agreed this matter be held in abgyance. i dughes
I I Jardine
: (c) i3eport on bid responses €or Terramar Sewer District,:
I A. D, 2-1964. The Mayor announced the City Clerk in- i i vited bids for the construction of sanitary sewer system, I : including appurtenances, sewage pumping station, force ; i main system in Cannon Aoad, Carlsbad Blvd., Cerezo : : Drive, El Arbol Drive, Los irZobles Dr., Shore Dr., 1 I i Tierra del Oro St. and easements in public rights of way i : of Lot 17, Terramar Unit No. 1, Map No. 2696, Lot 8 ; i and 26, Tierra del Oro, Map KO. 3352 and portion of Lot i : 3, Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823, as described in ; i desolution 61 120 and ordered by Aesolution #I 141, and { : was ordered to report to the Council at the next regular : i meeting after opening bids. The Mayor requested the I : Clerk to present to the Council Affidavits of Notice as re-: i quired by itesolution #1141.
i The Clerk presented the Affidavits of Posting and Pablica: : tion of notice inviting bids. By common consent the
0
I 4 I I t I I
1 The City offered Mr. Nordhall $2,100. The Engineering i
I 8
I I
I I I I I I I
I .- . .. i Neiswend
I
I I I I
1 "
I 8 I
I i I
I I ! Council, approved the affidavits and ordered same filed, 1
I I I ! The Clerk advised the Comcil that up to the hour of 2: 232 i i o'ciock P.M. , June 14, 1965, two sealed bids were de- i : livered to her at her office. The bids have been com- I I i puted and summarized, and a summary sheet has been i : presented to each Council member. The bids received ; I were as follows:
I L. Castillo $242,779, '76 I
I Don Hubbard Cont. Co. 175,522.55 I
i The Mayor inquired of the City Engineer if he had sxamin,)- i fed the proposals and computed the amount of ithe bids, ancf : determined the lowest responsible bidder? f I
: The City Engineer announced he had examined the bids I i and found the amounts as set forth in the Clerk's report I I to be correct and &at the lowest responsible bidder is I ; Don Bubbard Contracting 20. This bid is 11.91 % above i ; the Engineer's estima'cz. The City Engineer Teeommend-: i ed that ths City of Sarlsbad accept the low bid of $175, 50q : 5C, as submitted ;by Don 4ubbard Ccntracting Company, ; : subject to rigbt of possession of easement,
I I I I 1 I
I
I I I
I + I I
I
I *
I I
I f
0
t I I I I
I f $ : '',, '*,I'.,,'.,
t I
I t c
I I
I
I I I 'x, '. '
i Name \\,
I ; of '3 t Member
I \ " I .'
# -4-
:"""""""""""-"""~.""""-"~""""""~""""""""""~""""""- i The City Attorney advised the Council the Streets and ; I Highway Code provides that in the event the bid exceeds i i 13% of the Engineer's estirnate, the Council may instruct:
! the City Clerk to notify the property owners as to thlz ! i amount of the bid, I ,
i Cmn. Neiswender stated he questioned some of the figure3 ! i. e., sewage pump station. It was his feeling perhaps : i there should be a consultation and an agreement could be i
t reached due to the fact there was such a difference in :
' '\
0
I
I I I I
i price.
I !
I i I I I i The Assistant Engineer informed the Council the former i : City Engineer engaged a private engineer for the design : i and estimate of this project. This was the figure used in I i the estimate. I I
i The City Manager stated tne only way this figure could ; : be changed would be by readvertising for bids.
1 Tie Council inquired of the Engineer as to whether he i
I I
I
I
I I I I I I I
i thought better bid proposals would be submitted if the pro?
I ject were readvertised? I I
; The A-ssistant Engineer stated they do not feel the bids i i would be any lower. There were 15 pick ups for bidding, i
i but only two responses were received. t I
D I
I I
% I I
I Cmn. Cunne stated in view of the Engineerrs recommen- i dation he felt the City should proceed in accordance with : the City Attorney's recommendation and the City Engik i neer's recommendation.
f i By motion of the Council the City Clerk was directed to i notify the property owners in the assessment district as ; to the 11.91% over the Engineer's estimate.
I I 8 I I
I t I 8 I
t I I i Dunne
i Neiswend I Atkinson i Hughes : Jardine
I
; The following resolution was presented in regards to the 1 ; award of contract:
I Resolution No. 1159. A &ESC.LUTICBN OF TEE CITY i
: A7VA.RDING CONTi3ACT PC3 ViOBK OX IMPLKVEN~EMT i i @RDE.R,ED BY i3ESCLUTIGN NO. 1141 OF SA.ID CITY i Dunne ; CCUNCIL, Assessment District No. 2-1964, was adopted! Neiswend i by title only and further rzading waived, subject to the i Atkinson
; City obtaining right of possession of the Harris property : Hughes I for easement purposes. : Jardine
I 1 I I I
I I
i EVFRCIL OF' THE CITY GF CARLSBA.13, ChLIFCRNIA, i
I I ! i PLANNING:
1 I
I 1 I I ! I (a) Xeport from Planning Commission concerning the i : granting of a Conditional Use Permit to allow overnight : i camping on property known as FOX'S Snug Elarbor. A I writtee read, I I I
i dated June 11, 1965, stating a thorough revisw of writ- : 1
i ten reports as well as Planning Commission and City : i Council deliberations nas been made, and based upon ad- i I ditional facts and objections brought forth by interested : I parties since the first hearing, the Planning Commission i i recommends that a conditiional use permit be granted al- : ; lowing overnight parking privileges subject to certain i
i conditions. ( A total of nine conditions were listed). I %
! Also attached to the written report was a minority report : i submitted by Commissioner Lamb requesting that addi- i I tional changes and conditions be added to the Commissionk ; report.
a I I
I * I
8 I I * I t 8 I
I I t 1 I I
I f' , \.\ ' I I 3, '\ ' ',, $ I I I I I ', +\
1 I '\ '. ' ! I \ '\ I I
I -5-
'. .x.
8 ! of '<
I Name 8,
I I : Member ~"""~"""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""""-----~~"-"--""--
i The Clerk presented a letter dated June 11, 1965, from i I Alfred and Annalynn Van.de Velde, protes'ting any- such :
i development in a restricted residential district.
i Mayor Atkinson stated the report still avoids the basic ! ; question "DO we want this type of development in Carlsbad!; I'
i Crnn. dughes stated the City has tried to help Mr. Fox. ! i According to the Flanning Corrmissionts recommendation 1 ; they want Mr. Fox to police the Lagoon. A.t this time we I i have not received the Planning Consultaat's harbor plan I ; nor the Master Flari for the City, therefore, he could not ; i go along with the recbmmendation of the Planning Commis+ ; sion at this time. I I
I Cmn. ';Jardine stated he would like to be heard on the other; i side of the matter in question. Wnat is the economic I I : benefit to the City? Cne of the main benefits and desir- : i able kommodities of the City of Carlsbad is the recreation i : value Carlsbad has to make available. From all the 4 I i studies he has made, and with all the restrictions that the i : Planning Commission has recommended, he is in favor of i i granting this conditional us e permit. I I
i Crnn, Dunne stated he admires Mr. Fox and he runs a I :real tight ship, however, he feels the City would be taking i i the wrong step at this time in granting this conditional f :use permit. I I
iAfter further consideration, by motion of the Council the i :following resolution was presented: t I
e I I I
I 4 I I
I I t I
4 I
I I I I
I I ' f I
I I 1 I jzesolutian NO. 1160. A AESCZUTIC~N CF TiiF CITY fziJnne jCCVNCIL CF TBE CITY CF CPii3LSE~ D XEVEdSING IXeiswender
jGLC!dDING CVE3lMIGdT CAMPMG AT FCX'S SNUG dAi3,- {I-IUgheS :PLANNING CCMMISSICNIS LZE'SCLUTICN NO. 393, EZ - :Atkinson
:Be&, was adopted by title only and further reading waived.:Jardine
:Tne reasons stated by the Council for granting the appeal : :were: (1) tihe Master Plan for the iiarbor and the City aas I ;not been completed; (2) the conditions as proposed would i !necessitate the policing of the lagoon to a greater extent; ; :and(?) the present use of the land is the best use for the I :present time. 1 I
INEk BUSINE.SS:
:(a) First reading of Crdinance #8X2, establishing minimu& :sidewalk requirements. The City Attorney presented a pro-i posedrainancc establishing minimum sidewalk require- ! Iments, which the Engineering Department had requested, :
$or the Council's consideration. I I
iCmn. Neiswender requested that a change be made in Sec- i :tion 1, changing "shall" to "may" be installed contiguous i :to the curb. This would make it mandatory. I I
:The City Manager pointed out that under Section 2 of the ; groposed ordinance an appeal can be made to the Council. i
:Mr. Thornton, Assistant Engineer, stated many property i bwners want contiguous sidewalks, as tiicy are taking care ; @f the parkways already. The City of San Diego is provid- i $ng for Contiguous sidewalks due to thr underground utility : bines and the necessity of acquiring easements. Oceansidz i Srecently prepared an ordinance r2gulatiag the planting in :
Parkways. I I
I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I
"
I I 1 I
I 8 I I I
I I I t
e
I I I I
I t
1 I I
!
I t I I
I
I I t
I I' , '8 '\ .\, '\
I I '\ \ '\
I -€- i Name '8, *
I : of " ', :""""""""""""""""""""""""-.".""""""""""""~""-"""""~ : Member
1 Mayor Atkinson informed the Council manbers the Councii !went on record as approving this plan some months ago, : :and this would be putting it in an ordinance form. I
i The following ordinance was presented for a first reading: 1
!Ordinance No. 8042. AN ORDINANCE GF' THE CITY OF jDunne :mRLSBF.D t ES€A.BLISHING MINIMUM SIDE;VS ALK RE - :Neiswende
! QUIREMEMTS, was given a first reading by title only and !Atkinson i further reading waived. t dughes i Jardine
! (b) First reading of Grdinance iir9179, amending Section 3; I or Grdinance #9140, regarding sidewalk requirements in !
! subdivisions. I I
1 The City Attorney informed the Council this proposed I ordinance would bring the subdivision. ordinance into i conformity with the previous ordinance.
:Ordinance No. 9179. AX ORDINANCE CF THE CITY OF iDunne !.aidLSBAD AMEhTING SECTION 3 CF CSDINANCE NC. :Neiswende i 9140 dEEGAi3DIMG SIDELFALK REQUISEME.MTS IN SUB- !Atkinson ; DIVISIONS, was given a first reading by title only and !Hughes i further reading waived. ; Jardine
i (c) First reading of Ordinance 93071, amending Section i : 65 of Ordinance $3005, regarding unlawful parking of i vehicles of peddlers, vendors, etc,
i The City Attorney stated this was requested by the Police ! :Department due to the problem of vendors coming into the I i parking lot and staying €or a long length of time, in the ; :area leased by the City from Mr. Ecke. I I
: Mayor Atkinson stated this was also by his request.
: The following ordinance was presented for a first reading: I
:Ordinance No. 3071. AN OL~DIMA.NCE CF THE CITY GF iDunne i CAi3LSBIID AMENDING SECTION 65 OF C3DINA.NCE NC. :Neiswende : 30G5 REGARDING UNLAWFUL PARMIMG CF VEHICLES !Atkinson I OF PEDDLEES, VENDOW, ETC., was given a first i 3ughes i reading by title only and further reading waived. I Jardine
I .x '
I \'
I 8 ', '8,''.
8 I
1 I
I
' ',
0
I I
t I 1
8 t i
I
8 t I 1
I I
1 I t I t t I I I I I I f I
I 8
I I
I I I I I 1 I 1 I
I I
I I I I I
I t I I
I I I I
I I i The Mayor inquired of the City Attorney if it would be :possible for a vendor to bid for a concession on City I property?
I The City Attorney informed the Council there are provi- ; sions in the State law that pr0vide.s for franchises. It i would have to be advertised.
I By motion of the Council the City Attorney was instructed : to advertise for bids for a live bait concession.
1 I
I I
I 8 I 1 I I I : The City Attorney informed the Council he would prepare i a Notice to Bidders for the Council's consideration at the : next meeting.
I
0
I :A. short recess was called at 8;40 I?. M. The meeting i reconvened at 8~50 P. M,
I I
1 I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 ; Dunne INeiswende :Atkins on ; Ldughes : Jardine
r -:-
I I 1
I I I I
I I I
I I
1 I t 1 I I I I + I I I * I I I 8
t
I I I
I I '\ -. .' ''
$ '\ " '
I
* I '\, ".:'.,
0
I 4
I 8' I .'
I -a- i Name '\,
I : of ~"""""""-""""""""~"""""""""""-""""""~-"""~""""""- : Member
:Location of State Institute. The Mayor informed Mr. 1 :Fortunati the Council would continue the discussion con- I kerning the location of the State Institute, ! !
s '*
I I
I
I I
I I :Mr. Fortunati informed the Council the location of this i !institute will come before the Legislature on June 18, 19651 :The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce sent a telegram i
\endorsing Carlsbad for the location, and the committee / :who worked on this report and the Chamber of Commerce ;
!would like to have the City Council endorse this location. i
i There are two sites in the vicinity of Carlsbad being con- i :sidered. Vista has gone on record as favoring a site in : :Vista, however, the Vista site will be excluded due to the i :requirement that the site be located not more than a 30 :
:minute drive from UCSD, as this is where a great deal of i iresearch will be done for the institution. The Committee ; :has been unable to find any objections to this institution. i
!The Mayor inquired of Mr. Fortunati if he were at liberty !
:located?
:Mr. Fortunati stated one site under consideration is near i Ithe Palomar Airport aoad East of El Carnino Real, and : :the other site is near the dragstrip, on property not I !suitable for residential purposes.
;Mr. Fortunati further stated the wards of this institution i
:will be between the ages of 18 to 25, and this will be their I
:first offense. A great deal of research will be done in I
f connection with this institution, therefore, the caliber of ; I the employees will be of a high type. It would be built I :to hold approximately 38W wards. 1 I
:Cmn. Hughes inquired as to whether the institution would i jhave maximum security?
!Mr. Fortunati informed the Council it was his understand- I iing there would be moderate security. I I
ICmn. Dunne inquired as to why Miramar, La Jolla, Poway: :and Torrey Pines Mesa turned it down if it were such a i :good thing. I I
:Mr. Fortunati stated he recently made a survey of the are2 :around Torrey Fines Mesa, due to the shortage of housing I
!for the university, and nearly all of the land is owned by : :developers. I I
I :After further consideration, Mayor Atkinson moved that i Ithe Council endorse the location of this institute in the :North County.
I I 1
I 1 I I
jto state where the proposed sites for Carlsbad were I I I 4 t I I
I I I
I
I I I 1 I
I I
I I
I I I I I
I I
1 t 1 I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I + I I
I :The motion failed for lack of a second motion.
I
!CITY ATTBdNE'Ib'S GEPORT:
I I I I I I I I I I I
:Claim for damages - Francis J. and Virginia 33. Fox. The i !City Attorney presented a verified claim from Francis Job$
:Fox and Virginia E. Fox, claiming damages in the amount ; :of $6, OOG. GO, due to ilydro Construction Company having i :failed and refused to complete said contract within the !time provided, and negligently and carelessly permitted [ :open ditches, holes, dumps and other matters during the ;
:latter part of 1965 and up to and including May of 1965,
1 0
I I I I I I t I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I 1 I
I f !
I . I ; '.\ ', '\\ '\
I I '\ '\ '\ '
I ', '\ ' i ' ', ". '.,
I : of 'e '.
I I
I I I '
I -8-
:"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-.."""""~"""""-". i Member
!during which time claimants customers were unable to i :reach claimants place of business. I I
:By motion of the Council the Claim was denied and refer- jDunne
ired to the City's insurance carrier. jNeiswende:
I atkinson
I :Jardine
:Agreement - re: Rater meter serving a1 Camino Mesa I :Subdivision. The City Attorney informed the Council the !
iCarlsbad Municipal tTiater District agreed to install a 8 1 :water meter to serve the subdivision known as El Camino i
[Mesa Subdivision. It was mutually agreed that the City ! :would pay CMWD for the meter on or before the commence: jment of construction of Unit No. 2 of El Camino Mesa Sub-: ;division or prior to March 8, 1966, in effect Kamar Con- i jstruction Co. will pay for this meter. The City Attorney : irequested authorization for the Mayor to execute the * !written agreement on behalf of the City of Carlsbad.
:By motion of the Council the Mayor was authorized to :Dunne !execute the agreement between the City of Carlsbad and INeiswende. :the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. +&inson
! i Name '\,
I
e
I I !
I I c I !Hughes
I (I I 1
"
1 1 I I I I
I I
I I I :3ughes
I
I I !Jardine
I I
!CITY NLPI.NA-GEA'S REPGRT:
I
I I I I !
iaequest for sewer refund agreement, Kamar Construction /
jCo., Inc. requests the City of Carlsbad to enter into a ;
!Sewer .&fund Agreement with their company for their ; :participation in the El Camino Sewer Project. The City 1 :Manager informed the Council this has been the practice i
:in the past, however due to a large area of undeveloped I :property, it is probable that this area will not be developed !in the next ten years, therefore, it is requested that the : :agreement be set up for a 15 year period. I I
!By motion of the Council it was agreed that an agreement iBunne :be entered into between the City of Carlsbad and Kamar :Neiswendej :Construction Co. for a sewer refund on a 15 year basis. $.tkinson
I
I I I
I I I i3UgheS
I I :Jardine
I I
I I
idequest for us e of 2Ioliday Fark - Carlsbad Chamber of i :Commerce. The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce desires i jthe use of Boliday Park, Sunday, July 4, 1965 for the I I
! ;annual Fourth of July picnic, I
I I !By motion of the Council the request was granted to the Bmne !Chamber of Commerce €or use of Zoliday Park on Sunday, jNeiswende1 :July I 4, 19G5. !Atkinson
I t t :Sughes
I I :Jardine
8 * I I 1 I 0 :Joint Powers Agreement - re: Serra 3egional Library :System. Tine Joint Fowers Agreement has been received : :and the staff recommends approval of the agreement. AlsG !authorization is needed for the City Manager to execute the:
:agreement on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. I I
I I l e :The following resolution was presented:
I I I I I I I I * I I 8 8 1 t I I I I
1 I I 8 I I I I I * I t I 1 t I I l a I I 1
% I I I I I I 1 I I ! -9-
I' ,.' 8 I * a I I
I
, 8, '\ '
8, \ '\ " ."
\' '\ '. ' . " i Name 't,'*
i ; of ';?
: Member i Resolution Eo. 1161. A dESCLUTIGN GF THE CITY . ~ i :""""""""""""""-""""""""""""""-"""""""""~"~"""""
:COUNCIL GF TElE CITY GF @Ad,LSBJ.D, APPROVING I i A.ND ACCEPTING THE JCINT P@T!ERS AGXEEMENT, I I
t WHIC~ ENABLES THE CITY OF CA~LSBPID ,TO BE A iDunne i PART OF TEE SERi3.A REGIGMAL LIPPi3ARY SYSTEM, : Neiswende
! AND AUTBOMZING THE CITY NIPaA.GE13 TO EXECUTE .iAtkinson I THE A@;YEEMENT GN BEilALF 8F TidB CITY 6F CARES$ Eugkres i BAD, was adopted by title only and further reading waived; Jardine
! I
t
0
i dequest for refund of business license fee. The City Cleri : informed the Council Mr. Theodore 13. iiomaine, repre- i i sentative of the Fuller Brush Co. in this area, applied : ;for a business license in April, and was informed at that I i time the Council was considering an ordinance prohibiting ; : solicitation upon private property. Mr. Romaine paid the i i fee required and asked that he be notified if the ordinance : :was adopted, as he would be unable to do business if he i I were not allowed to solicit. 1
! I I I i Mr. Romaine has requested that his business license be ! : refunded. I
! By motion of the Council it was agreed that Mr. Romaine jDunne
!
I 1 I I
I be refunded 111 12th~ of his business license fee. t Meisw ende;
I I i Aughes
I i Jardine
i Atkins on I I
I
I I I I I I : Cmn. Dunne invited all the members of the Council to i attend a special tour to view the progress of construction 1 i at the Encina 1;iiater Pollution Control Facility Monday, f :June 21, 1965 from 2:OO to 4: 33 F. M. I I
! Mayor Atkinson appoinlediCuuncilrnen Zughes and Jardine i i as a committee to study the sewer service charges. I
I Mayor htkinson also appointed Cmn. i2ughes to look into ; : the proposed State Institution and make a report back to i i the Council. t
~AUTBOKIZATIGN FOA PAYMENT CF EILLS AND RP?TI- !
I
1 I I
I ;
I I I I "
1 I
I I I
;- .> L 0f;L. :
I 9 I :Authorization was given for the payment of bills for the i
!general expenses in the amount of $89,972.58 and for the :Dunne : Water Department in the amount of $28,981.3 1 for the iNeiswende1 i period June 1, 1965 to June 15, 1965, 2s certified by the :Atkinson i Director of Finance and approved by the Auditing Commit-:Hughes
; tee. :Jardine
! aatification of the payroll was given for the first half of IDunne :June, 1965, in the amount of $18, 643.13 as certified by iNeiswender i the Girector of Finance and approved by the Auditing :Atkinson : Committee. :Hughes
! ADJGT-JL~NMENT:
I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9: 23 P, M, i
! ! ; Respectfully submitted,
I I I 1
I
I
I : I I I I I t
I I Jardine
I 4 I
I I I
I l 1 1 I 8 0 I I ET E, zq. ADA S i City Ckk
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I I t I I 1 I I I * * I I I I I I