Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-06-08; City Council; Minutes* , . .'. . I i ',, -8, '\ ', i CITY OF CAi!LSGAB 3 '\ "\ !Date of iieeting: June 8, 1966 '\ '\ 7:oo P.i4. I Name '8, ' :Time of ileeting: Counci 7 Chambers : of " ', i PI ace of ~~32ti ng : ! Member : Pii nutas of: CITY COiJldCIL (Adjourned Rehul ar)., '\;\ : I""""""""""I-""""""""""""~""""""""""""""-"""""""- t I I I i ROLL CALL wasn answered by Councilmen Weiswender,; :Atkjnscn, 9unne and Jardine. Also present were : i City Hanager t-iamaux, City Attorney bdilson and I I I I I I I 4 t Ci ty Clerk Adaats. ! TH~!OCATfLIE was offered by Councilman Neiswendet-s i I I I I I VP 1- I 1 I 1 krPR2VA.L OF F:IIIJilTES: I ! I i (a> i4inutes of the regular meeting held Hay 17, INeiswendt : 1966, were approved as corrected. i Atlci n~on I I Dunne 1 I Jardi ne I I I ! I I : CORRESPOP4DEMCE : ! I I I I I I I (a) The P4ayor recognized a letter from the Girl : :Scouts extending their thanks and appreciation I i to the City of Carlsbad's Employees kssociiation : ! for the contribution made towards the vests they i :will be wearing when they are in k,:ashington, D.C.: ! They \.:ill be leaving from Oceanside by tPain ion June 16, 1965, ar,d they asked that the citizeni : Prorn Carlsbad be at the train depot to see them ; i (b) Letter dated May 31, 1966, from Sidney A. : Fuller, was presented, stating he had received ani : official notice from the Building Inspector, I requesting 'chat he remove a lamb from his properti :at 3015 Valley Street. This is his daughter's i :4-H project and will be disposed of at the Del ; iClar Fair or the Escondido Fair. i4r. Fuller re- i :quested that he be given a reasonable extension : I of time to handle the matter. I I ! By motion of the Council it was agreed that Jr. INeiswende /Fuller be given an extension of time to dispose !Atkinson I of the lamb until after the Fairs, L Dunne ! I I i off. I I l I I I I D I 1 I * I 1 1 i Jardi ne I I i ORAL CO8i*lUNICATIOF4S: I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I a I I ;.;! p, . ROBERT KRONEWYER, stated he was an attorney i .. 1 from San Diego, and was appearing on behalf of : :i..ir. Geier, President, of the Yellow Cab Company I jof Oceanside, concerning the application submit- : : tcd by the Avocado Cab Company at the last Council jmeetfng. Due to an unfortunate set of circum- I I :stances he was cut of town and i4r. Uieier spoke I i in opposition to the application. At that: time : :he asked for a continuance of the heariRg but I I the Council felt it should be heard. i t4r. Kronenmyer asked that the Council give furthe! jconsidcration to the Yellow Cab Company's service; !The primary concern is adequate cab serwice to I ithe community. The question is whether there is ; i enoughi:business for two cab companies. If: there i lis not sufficient business for two companies : it will hurt the service and the community. The i i Yellova Cab Company has been in business for 25 : :years in this area. The headquarters of the corn-! ipany is in Oceanside, ~e met Iglr. Geier at; the I I jcab stand in Oceanside and they rode a cab to ithe City Wall Annex in Carlsbad, which took three: !minutes. One of the main points that was brcught: 1 I 1 I * I I I c I I # I I * I I I ? ! * I I I ! I 1 I t I' \\ '\ 't, '%* I I I ~ 3 .% I 4 I + I I '8, ".,'8, 4 i Name \\ I : of ?, ~"""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""~-""l"-""--"" I Msrnber !out at the hearing was that the Avocado cab corn- i !p?r!y would mai ntai 'rl an office i n Carl sbad. In i ;some of the infomiation sent to him by the City i :Attorney it ~isted 11 pieces of equipment. AII I :of this equjpment would not be available l;o the f !C:-ity of Car'lsbad. Solne of the equipment 'Fisted I ia~e limosine aEd are ca~iig~tt~kn"just for C. Pe?Bliton. iidr, Bo~kout, opJEnar of the Avocado Cab Company 1s : :not wor!<ji~g at this business full time. fie is I i;n the tiarine Corp, and if he were sent to Viet : !!dm the business would suffer. Nr. Geier works i jfuli tinre at the business, and he wished to con- : Itinue a hjyh level of business. I I I Frog tht. i9l'nertes of the Council it does not show ! ithat the City i;'ianager's office has checked this : :applica$ion. In San Diego this is checked out i !by the City i'fanager's office. There was no show-: :?jaag nade as to the service being given by the I 1 i\(r.~ :ov cab 1:ornpany; tl?ere 113s been n~ indication i i 2s to how many permits Avocado Cab Company can : thavct. Yellow Cab Company has three at this time. I i The thing that impresses him with the Ye1 low Cab : :Co. is tile k4gh standard of requirements for the ! I ci~ivers. There was no statement in the app1 icatiin ia,s to the distance of the flag drop. If the Couni :cil would examine the application they would find: :thzt ~ellow Cab CO. is giving service at a lower i :rate than the Avocado Cab Co. Further, the state: jment attached to the application does not show i :a sufficient amount cf insurance. Ih closing i4~. Kronenmyer stated according to the! i City Attorney there is no provision in the ordi- I : nance for recourse by the Yellow Cab Co. Howeverj :he would like the Council to give this matter I I :further consideration. iCmn, Dunne asked if the Yellow Cab Co. serves Vista : as we71 as Ocsanside and Carlsbad? il4r. Kroneninyer informed the Council they did. 1 Cmn. DLBE?;~~ stated in other words there are two : i cab companies serving the three areas. I I ~CLIM. Neiswender stated the remarks made and out- i : 'I ined by Mr. Kronenmyer are important factors, !which the people should be made aware of. The ! :deficiencies pointed out will come out in time. i ! ! i Cmn. Jardinc stated he felt it might be well for i : the City Attorney to make note of the points 1 brought out by ilr. Kronenmyer and make a report i : to the Council. : fgU3LTC IIEARINCS: I I 8, , ', \ '\ - I \' I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I I s I 0 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c I I I : (a) Appeal of the decision of the Planning Cornmis: jsion in denXing a request for reduction in lot : : width from 60 feet and reduction in lot area on : i Parcles A, B sated between : i Stratford Lane and Knowles Ave. 9 Easterly sf Pi0 i *- :Pic0 Dr. Appei2ant: Joseph J. Hhitfield. I I i The EIijayor annoui?ced th-is was the ,time and place : i fixed by the City Council to hear all persons de-: ; siring to speak in regard to the above appeal, I "- I "" "_ I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I k I I t' I I \\ ', ., '\ I * I I X\ '.\' '\ I I '\ \ '. I # \' ', 8% t -3- I i Name \\, 8' I : Qf '3 ~""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""""-""---""",-------"----- ; The Clerk presented the Affidavit of Publication i i and the Council ordered the same filed. I The City Clerk informed the Council the follwring! E correspondence had been received: * 1 i Letter dated Hay 19, 1965, fu'om Donald H. Holly, i : *. Licensed Land Stirveyors stated he was represent- i Il'ariance, in which he requested certain reductionb : in lot frontage and area for a proposed Lot Split: i ckl a parcel of land lying between Knowles Ave. a I and StraLfo:*d Lane. The application was denied i i tay the Planning Commission, and the primary rea- i i son for denial was the staff and the Planning i : Commission felt f4r. \$hitfield could secure addi- ; i t5onal property from his neighbor on the Yest, : E'irs. Hunt, enabling him to provide the legal size! i lots. XI-. Holly urged that the Council consider i : the application as originally presented, setting : i Forth several reasons the variance should be I I I granted. I I i Letter dated May 27, 1966, from Rabco Land Cor- i :p:,rsticjn, 2937 Hadison Street, stating they op- 't i posed any reduction in lot width or lot area in : ! Chis neighborhood, as they are presently c:onstrucb- i i ng two hones which wi 11 sell for $21,900 and : $24,903 and also have property in escrow ctn the i i north side of Stratford Lane to build a home for i :a client which will cost $25,500. i:?v. Greg Losa ; i is building a house on this street that is. valued! ;at a minimum of $28,000. I I ; Mayor Atkinson announced the Council would hear i i from the applellanl or anyone wishing to speak i :in favor of this variance application. * 1 i i4Re DOR HOLLY stated he was representing the applf- i cant and the letter stated their position. dr. : : Whitfield cannot develop the property as the City! !has proposed. There are deviations from standard! :size lots and one is coming up tonight, request- : i ing lots between 7000 and 8000. He did not feel i i the tlsquest: filade by k!r. Elrhitfield was unreasanabl8, !i4ia. Don Schoell, City Planner, presented a plat 1 :map of 8r. tlhitfield's property, shwing the pro-! iperty divided into four parcels, A, 3, C. and D, i tas proposed by the owner. t I :Can. Jardine asked if the parcel with the exist- i jing structure was undersized, and r"4r. Holly r stated it was. iCrnn. ilunne slated the width of the lots is sub- i : s tcinrlard. I I :Mr. Holly stated they are approximately 53 feet. i :M2. IdHITFIULD str?ted his family and himself oper-I i ated the Whitfield Pantry for a number of years, t :a variance for a ?ot split to buj14 a house on i :Lot D for his father, and the area was less then : i7500 sq. feet. Since his fsther passed away this! :has been an excellent rental. He is the on1.y pro+ iperty owner on Stratford Lane thzt had to give i I I I 8 \\ I I I tj i Member a 4 I I I 1 i I I I ; 'iq 14r, !!:hitfield who has made application for a ! I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I e I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 8 I I t & i !Pr.i~r co th.ts request for a lot split he received: t I I I 1 I I I I I ! I I I' ! I ', \. '\ I I I ',, '\,"\, ", I I I '\ '\\ '\ I I I b 1 I -4- I -t - I Name '*x, ' '\ ; of " ', I 8 )"""-""""""""~""""""-"""""""""""""""""""~""""""" : Member I t I : land on Isotih sides of the street for street pur- i : posess consisting of approximately 5,500 sq. ft. ; ; street opening, and he feels he is being taken. : : It is impossible for him to purchase property : i from ~rs. ~unt, the adjoining property owner. HE! : wo~Id certainly rather have two houses on small i i lots -than a commercial enterprise. ~n closing : : i!lr, !::hitfield assured the Council he would not i i build" anything that was substandard. i Tho :%,?;.layor asked if there wBrc any persons desir- : i j~g Lo speak-in..opposition to the appeal. I I !I i "~e ZISO lost some 0% his avocado trees due to t~ils I 1 I I I I 1 I I 0 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I ! I I As there were no persons desiring to speak, the i Mayor declared the Public Hearing t'losed 43t ' I I 7: 52 P. 3. I I The City Planner reported to the Council the original property was split in !.larch of 1357 intQ two lots, one lot, Parce'l I), being 6,940 sq. IL. ; and the other lot 22,490 sq. ft. after the seve-i rence by Stratford Lane. This property vJas sp?it administratively and Parcel D was not a i legal size lot, It should have gone before the i Counci'l. The original drawing for Stratford 1 I Lane was presented, which t.las prepared in order i to come up wi til the necessary funds for enginee- : ring costs, showing i4r. !,.!hiEfield's property I divided into 4 parcels. Later a lot stud,y was ! made by the Planning Commission and indications i were made as to the properties that could be split. It was proposed in this study that this i property be split into 3 parcels. By spliting : this property into 3 parcels there wi 11 stiI 1 i be a substandard lot; however, it may be imanda- i tory to approve this lot. His recommendation : quest to split the property into 4 parcels. The ; P1a.nning Commission did deny the request, and i suggested that the owner purchase additional pro+ perty from the adjoining property owner, 'which i would give 7,500 sq. feet for two lots and one : would have 15,000 sq. feet. I I i42. JACK KUBOTA, 3800 Skyline Road, stated he i was concerned with the conduct of this hearing. I We owns property two lots away from this property. The City was the agent for all the work on Stratf ford Lane. This is the second property o'wn2r : on Stratford Lane that has come before the Councfl with a problem. This street project represents : a kind sf a subdivision. There is no overhead i lighting prouids-d for this street. We is a pro-: poneni of LI.lt-, Whitfield and feels he should be i given consideration. I I I t I I 4 I I I I to the Planning Commission was to deny the re- i I I 1 I ! 8r. Lon Holly stated he presented the other pro-: i perty owner and he was tuaned dovrn on a qualifie$ I basis, They were not turned down because of the: I I I I I I I I 1 t a I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I width of thc property. The City bianag2r informed the Council thla corn- i ment made by ?4r0 Kubota in regards to overhead i utilities is d6e to the Street Opening Act. I t This petition was circulat.cd over two years ago,: prior to the ordinance requirenent. As it !::as t necessary to state in the petition the exact improvement to be made, ai:d this item was omitte!!, the City could not require overhead fight'ing. 1 < I I I I 1 i I t I I I I I I' I , '.\ ' , ?a. \ ' ; ? I 1 , - .> = .. ', \ I I ', 8 'x I 9, '\ ' I .' I Name '\\ ' '\ 8 1 I ! of '. I""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""".""""""~""""""- : Member e; I *. ; The Council indicated they would not be ir! faausr : .a : of reducing the lot viidth. 4 1 I I i P,fter further consideration the following resoluj i tion was preseilted: 4- i Resolution Ro. 5272. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY : : COUNCIL GF THE CITY OF CARLSSAD, MAKING FIb!DIl"dGS :Pieiswend& i AN5 DECISION AND DENYING THE APPEAL FOR PI VARE- :Atkinson I A24CE ON PZOPERTY LOCATED SET11EEN STRATFORD LANE iDunne : AFlD KP4OijEES AVENUE, was adopted by title only :Jardi ne f and further reading waived, I ! ! 1 Cmn. Drr:?ne stated the reasons for denying the ! t appeal were as follows: I 1 I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I 1. Lack of proper frontage; and I I I 2. It would downgrade the entire area. : I I 1 I : 'The City Attopney'itiformed the Cduncil Items :(B)l i (c) and Item (a) under Planning should all be ; : considered at one time as they all concern the i I development of Laguna Riviera Subdivision. I I i (b) Reclassification of certain property located : I- OR the Nesterly side of €1 Camino Real, Easterly i' ; from Park Dr. from Zone R-A-lO,OCO to R-1-7,000 : i and larger sq. ft. lots. Applicants: Karnar I I ; Construction Co. I f I I I I I 1 I i (c) Precise Plan on property located on the I Uesterly side of El Camino Real , Easterly from i : Park Drive. , I I - 1 I I I t I I I and I I I I I I I I I I I : Lentative map of Laguna Riviera Subdivision - i located on the Idesterly side of El Camino Real, i ; Eas-teri.\t from Park Dr. Subdivider: Kamar ; Constrg.c>ion Co. I I I I 1 I- I I I I i The Clerk presented the Affidavits of Publicatioi : on the proposed reclassification and for the Prc: i cise Plan, and the Council ordered the same filed. i The City Clerk presented the following correspon: i ehced development: I I i Letter dated June 23, 1966, from f4r-s. Helen M. : Bendelow, 4213 Sunnyhill Dr., stating it 'was her: i understanding some people are still against pro-: i gress in this area, and she could see nothing i : against building beautiful homes. There are I I i some persons protesting who are business people i I ?:id .i ~i rea I .i t$ w~u? d gain from new farni lies ... mobr- : i ing into the area. As of nows Sunnyhill #and 1 1 : Clearview ~a'll not be through streets, the pro- ; i posed lot sizes are adequate and wi 11 not detract ; from the area. I I I I 0 i dsnce from persons in favor of. the above-refer- i I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I : Letters of protest were presented fren til!? folio$- i ing perscrns, on the grounds that the reduction : : sf lot size would reduce the value of property i ! !n tlhe Highlands, the develnpaent will not add : I beauty to the City, it would cause a conjested i t; $ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! -6- I' .' ; '\\'\\ '8, '\ I I I I 8, '\ ' '\ \ '4 i Name '\," ; of ': \' \' '' I I 8 ~""""""""""-""~~"""""-""""""-""""""-"""-""-l---""""". i Member jeyesore, augment future zone changes and jis in- i I consistent with good planning: $ I t I A. Garfolo, JP.~ N.9. 4155 Skyline Rd.t ! idrs. Prances A. Varbrough 4265 Sunnyhil'l : I Clarence A. Halm 4083 Sunnybill { I William E. Iiorehouse 4014 Skyline Rd.; I I Rose and G.W. kiade 4050 Sunnyhill i I George and Aary i4lerkle 4225 Sur-tnyhill I I Edith tl. and Norman S. I I Cathcart P.O. Box 554 I I I i4rs. A4 ice Eymann 4140 SkyTine Rd.: I Richard G. Cole P.O. Box 144 I I Gertrude E. Lockwood 4073 Skyline Rd. i I Dr. and 8rs. Edward A. I I I Ri chards 4033 Skyline Rd.: I 2lrs. Ri ta blJi ndrum 4230 Clearview i I I Gaiser 3784 Skyline Rd. i I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I Hr. and idrs. James 31. I I I I I :The i'hyor declared the pub1 i c hearing open and 1 ii:lR. JERRY ROi';lBOTIS, stated he was represenWng i jKamar Construction Co. , and they feel that. they i :1have one of the finest planned communities. They: jhave spent many hours with the City's Engineering: !Department and Planning Department, as we1 1 as : :with the Veterans Administration and Federal I I :Housing Administration. They have oriented the : !lots as to view and topography; have provided for! jschool area and four acres for park area. blr. :Rombotis pointed out the park area was provided I :previous to the Park Ordinance being adopted. I I :This development conforms to all the requirements I :of the ?laster Plan. There is an average of 3.4 i :lots per acre, excluding streets. If you include; ithe park area they have an excess of 10,000 Isq. feet per lot. In developing this plan they ! !have taken many factors into consideration. It id ;their feeling this development will help the city; :aesthetically and monetarilly. I !E\ nap of the proposed development was presented i :showing the density and lot sizes. Mr. Rombotis : :pointed out Kelly Road will meet El Camino Real i !and Park Drive will connect to the existing Park : :Drive. I I :Mayor Atkinson inquired as to the distance-.:betweei ithe closest house in the Highlands and the sub- I :division. t I iAr. Rombotis stated there is 600 feet between :the closest house and 800 feet between the near- i jest 7,000 sq. ft. lot. I I Iklr.. Rsmbotis further stated they have proplosed ! :91 t-~ovnes for the 7,000 sq. ft. and larger lots, i !lo0 homes for the 8,000 to 10,000 and 114 homes I :for lots in excess 07 10,000 sq. feet. :Cmn. Dunne asked how this compared with Falcon i jHi?ls Subdivision, and Mr. Rombotis pointed out i :the majority of homes are built on 7,500 sq. ft. I !lots, with a buffer along Bass~ood Avenue of i9,OOO sq. ft. and over. These hones se?? be-tueen! i$ZO,OOO and $30,00C. They propose to build this : iasked if the developer wished to speak? ! I I I 1 I I I 4 I I I 0 I I I I I I I t I I 1 I 8 I I I I 1 I 4 I t1 I I I I 1 I * I I I ! I I I' * 1 I '\ '\,"\, ", I I I '\ \\\'\\ * I '\ ' ' I ! " I ' ', ' I I I I ! -7- ' .. \ Name '\, '1 I of 'J I I 8 )"""""""""""""-"~""""""""""""""""""-"""-~""""""" : Member :deve?&pment in 9 units. They nil1 have a density : !of 3.4 to tile acres and the Idaster Plan calls fori !a density of 3 to 7 homes per acre. jThe i4ayor announced the Council would hear from ft la11 persons desiring to speak in opposition to : :this matter. t I it'lR. CIIA3LES €WANki9 4140 Skyline, read a letter i{ !opposition of the development, and stressing the : :"Future of Carlsbad as a Place to Live". I !;I!?. J.H. CAWiICI-IAEL, 4135 Skyline, stated he bvoulcf !like to point out the affect this zone change ;would have. Kamar will get more money by reduc- i ling these lots and creating more lots. By reduc- i jing the 3.4 per acre to 3.8 per acre there would ; ;be no need for a zone change. Plr. Rombotis point: :ed out there were 91 lots in the 7,000 sq. ft. $ jcatagorie. If this zone change were not allowed i :these lots would be divided into 68, 10,0010 sq. ; jft. lots. They speak of park dedication. This i !area in under power lines and is not suitable for; :residential development. Kamar stated they have i Ispent ccnsiderable time with the staff. Tihe City: :has ignored the citizens in the Highlands. The i jquestion of an alternate route for Tamarack-Kamar : :has evidently considered the extension of 'Tarnaracg Itrrrough this area. They will not give an answer i ;on this natter. tilaybe the Council can come up : :!,vi th one. $!R. RSCIiOlRD D. COLES 4'150 Skyline Rd, stated he : jhoped "Le Council wou7d take into consideration i :the seriousness of this matter. He would 'like to i :point out that I4r. Ronlbotis may get an average : :out cF any given number. I I ?X. JOHN dALLETT, 3920 Skyline Rd., stated tonight/ ihe witnessed a Jittle rnan trying to deteriate a i Ilittle area, and you the Council denied this man. : !You are now considering a large area. If tihe fsause is good for the goose it is good for the I !gander. I 1 I I IAR. JACK KUMOTA, 3800 Skyline Rd., presented a jletter requesting consideration for the denial of i :the application for rezoning, and that the pro- i !posed subdivision and precise plan be rejected, : :or action uithheld until a definite routing has i * I 1 + I I I I 1 I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I * I 1 I I I I I I e jbeen established for Tamarack Ave. 1 I 4 I I I I I I jiiWS. RITA WINDRU41, 4230 Clearview, asked fo'r a ;clarification of Kelly Drive, and if this was a i :limited access road. It was her feeling there i tshould be consideration given to a main road to : ithe Itarbor. ibIr. Jerry Rombotis presented his rebuttal. The i !park and school site is not under the power line. ; :This line will be moved as shown on the top of th4 :map and will run thru Lot 311. i4r. ifrigg's pro- : :perty is zoned 7,500 and not 10,000 sq. ft. Kelly i :Drive will go around the upper lagoon. Park Dr. : :will be 63 feet, and Hillside R. is 60'. This i !type of planning is what DiciJFi has been talking i labout - a precise plan for a large area. I I I ! I I I I I I s I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I' I I I t , \ '\ '\ I I I '\\ y,, \, I '\. '\ '\ I I I l 0 1 -8- I -. ' ' '\ i Name '8, 8 : of '1 \. I : Member 3 :"""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""~"""""-"- :The ijayor declared the public hearing closed at ! :9:25 P.i'4. I I iCrnn. Jardine stated the Council directed a study i :made of alternate proposals for a major feeder. i !From Lhc Scach to Highland Dr. Tamarack is a majot :street. >le asked for a study of alternate routes i :for a major streei east of Highland Dr, I idr. Don Sckoell stated the staff, DWJbl and the ! !Planning Commission made a study of an alternate i ; route for Tamarack and they could not come up I !with any other route than the one proposed in thei :General Plan. i! meeting was held by the Planning: !Commission last Friday, and at that time no re- i i commendation was made. i A study map was prcsented by the City Planner ; :showing proposed streets. He informed the Council lithis map was only the staff recommendation and ; : the Planning Commission has not made their re- 1 i commendation, There are three major streets :P!orth and South - The Freeway, El Camino Real and: !Kelly Dr. Tamarack goes from 102' to 54' up to i iI-lighland Drive. Elm Ave. and Tamarack Rve. will ; I extend to the back area East of El Camins Real, 1 !They recommend three streets East and Liest, Elm ; ; Ave, 9 Tamarack Aye., Agua Hedionda, and ev'enluall$ ! Palomar Road. i t4r. ~choc11 furtiler stated ttle staff fe1 t that ini : the event there was a .major 'street in the I !vicinity of Tanlarack Avenue, it would necessitate! i three collector streets. The cost of constructiog ifor an? 34' street other than the Birch Street jalighnment brould run exceedingly high due do the i : grade and topography. i Itlayor Atkinson stated he was in accord with Cmn. : !Jardine in t!lat there should be a major street i : through to El Camino somewhere in this area. i Wr. Carmichael informed the Council he ws.1E:s with I jhis children and the dog from his home to El I I ICa~ino. He was sure he could find an alternate I i route. I I i The City blanager pointed out Tamarack Ave. from ! :Highland Dr. through the Highlands to El Camino I i Real would be a 60' street with 48' of pavement. : :Mayor Atkinson@.slated he still felt there should : :be a major street from Highland Drive through to r : El Canino in this area. : The City bianagcr informed the Counci f the staff i ifeels there should be three collectors if there : :is not going to be a major street in this area. I !The Planning Commission had not made their re- 1 I i commendation as yet. !bl!l. DONALD BRIGGS stated the Planner an6 [ir, i;lamabx I injected words when the Council made their notion;l i last meeting concerning Tamarack Ave. i.1~. Schoel] ;stated the cost would be exhorbitant to construct: jtkese local streets. rne extension of Tamaraclc : :has been discussed many times and fie could not i ;see no reason for bringing up a "dead horse1' agaiP. I 4 I I I i I d I i t I I I 8 t r I 1 I I I I I I I I I I # I I I t I I I I I I 6 I I I I e S I I I I # I 1 t I I I I I 1 I I I * : I "I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I t I 1 4 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 6 k I I -9- I' , \\ '\ .*, '\ I ', '8, '%, '' I '\ ." ' ' t 8, '\ s i Name '\,'\! : of 'i? I I ! 1 The City Planner informed the Council the facts i 1 concerning the collector streets recommended bit i I the staff are being prepared. i After further consideration by the Council ., by i ! motion of the Council it was agreed that the I i Public Hearing be reopened and that the matter i Neiswendc : be continued until June 21 9 1966, in order to I Atki nson !I?ave the report froin the Planning Conmission i Dunne i concerning alternate routes for a major street IJapdine : in the area. 1 I i ENGINEERIflG: 8; i Member ("""~"""""""""""""""""""""""~""""~.."""""-~~"""""" I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I ! i (a) Agreement between City of Carlstad and Buenai :Sanitation District - Sewer capacity. The Council I was informed the City is purchasing capacity in i i the Suena line that runs along Pa1ornar.Airport i t Road, The City had the option of buying the capa- i city, outright or paying approximately $5,00 per ! jyear, and the comlnittec chose the latter. One of: ithe prclvisions in the agreement is that within i I five years the City is required to install a I I I metering devi ce. I Cmn. DGnne stated he found the agreement t.o be in! i order and recommended that it be approved. i 3y motion of the Council the Agreement between th$?Neiswende I City of Carlsbad and the Buena Sanitation DistrictAtkinson i was approved and the Mayor authorized the agree- !Dunne i n~ent 00 behalf of the City of Carlsbad. : Jardi ne I I I I I t I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I i PLANNI I"\,1G : ! I 1 I ! (a) Tentative map of Laguna Qiviera Subdivision ; i- located on the liesterly side of El Camiflo,! t Easterly from Park Drive. Subdivider: KamK 8 I :Construction Co. This matter was deferred due to! I the fact it was being considered in connection ; !with the Precise Plan and Reclassification re- i :quested by Kamar Construction Co. I k : NE\;/ BUSINESS : t 4 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I ! (a) Tentative map of Laguna Qiviera Subdivision ; i- located on the liesterly side of El Camiflo,! t Easterly from Park Drive. Subdivider: KamK 8 I :Construction Co. This matter was deferred due to! I the fact it was beinq considered in connection ! t !with the Precise Plan and Reclassification re- i :quested by Kamar Construction Co. I k : NE\;/ BUSINESS : 4 I I I I I I 1 0 i i (a) Res. #127Gi, designating the intersection of i : Don&a Drive and Basswood Ave. as a stop inter- t jsection. The following resolution was presented i ! for Consideration. I I I Resolution No. 1276. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY i I COUKCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, DESIGNATIP!G I I i THE INTEESECTIOM OF DOiiNA DR. AND BASSWOOD AYE, : !AS A STOP INTERSECTION, AFID REQUIRING TRAFFIC ! i TO STOP Oil DOMA DRIVE. i It was moved by Cnn. Jardine and seconded by Cmn.; :Dunne that Resolution X1276 be adopted. The I I follwing CfiscussioR was had concerning the :resolution as proposed: i Cmn. Jardine asked if the Traffic Safety Committep! !had taken into consideration a four-way stop at i ithis intersection rather than a two-way stop. I !This is an idea7 spot for speeding on Basswood Ave. I I I 1 I I * I I I I L I I I * I t I I :: I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I k ! I I 4' I ! b. ', ', 3 8 8 .\ '8 I I I I I I I t ! * 70 - : of '< * .- I ', 8, '\ I ', b 't i Name '8. I I b' \' ', I 8 :""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-. : Member !The City Manager informed the Council this; inter- i !section is at the point of a grade. It was the : I I ;Traffic Safety Cornhittee's feeling that a four- i !way stop would cause accidents by cars stopping I :at this point. I I iCnn. Meiswender stated he could not go along with! :the resolution as proposed, as lie did not feel : ithe stop on Donna Drive would stop the speeding ; :on Basswood Ave. lie suggested that the Nayor I Iapp0in-t a member of the Council to the Traffic ; :Safety Conmi ttee. I I :Cmn. Bunne inquired as to whether or not there I jhad been an actual police study made as to the ; :speeding on SassvJood Ave. I I :?he City fvlanager presented a report mads by the i IPol.ice Department showing a check of vehicles jtraveling from :donroe Ave. to Seacrest. ii3ayor Atkinson stated he did not feel that stop i :signs sh~~ld be utilized for control of speeding i jtraffic. There were stop signs installed at I I :the intersections of Ocean St. however, this was i i due to the fact Ocean st. is so narrow. AS to i :th2 appointment of one rnernber of the Council to ; Ith~ Traffic Safety Committee he did not feel this t :was necessary. I I iCrnn, Dunne suggested that perhaps when a Council ! :member is interested in a particular problem that i jthey be notified as to when the Traffic Safety : : Committee wi 11 meet. I I i By notion of the Council it was agreed that the jNeiswende \previous motion made by Cmn. Jardine be rescindediAtkinson :and that the matter be continued for two weeks. ;Dunne 8 :Jardine !OLD BUSEi4ESS: I I t I I I 1 I t I I t t I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I l e I 1 I I I I ! :(a> Second reading of Ordinance srU7034, consenlini jto establishment of a portion of El Camino Real ; jnance was presented for a second reading. I I ;as a part of Coun,$y Highway, The follovling ordi- i 0 I I I I I I I :Ordinance 7034. AN ORDIiJANCE OF THE CITY iCO'JMCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD CONSEMTIPIG TG IlYei swende !ESTABLISHMENT OF A PCIRTION OF EL CAHIMB REAL AS A IAtkinson :PART OF THE COUNTY fiIGtit.JAY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, tBunne ;was given a second reading by title only and !Jardine ! adopted. 1 I I I I i CITY ATTORPtEY ' S REPORT: ! I 8 I I I . :Stipulation and Agreement - re: Library Plans. ! :The City Attorney informed the CounciJ an agree- i jment has been prepared in regards to the contract: :with Robert Melvin as to his fees and to charges I jrequired by moving the site of tire Library. The : :first part of the agreement is to elimiilate the I ifirm of Tanner, I3arquard.t: and Associates, as b!r. I 1 :ilelvin is no longer with that firm. They \vi11 be i' :paid the sum of $17,719.00 no^ owing the firm, I I :and this will cancel the original contract. The ! t; I I I 1 I I I I I I I I t I s I I 4 I I ! I I I I I I I I I 9 I - 11 - '\ > '\ ', I I \\ '\ ' . I , \'\ ' I ', '8, '\ I ', \. '% I i Name \\, st ; of '3 ' -\ I # ~"""""""""""""""""""~..""""""~""""""""-"---l-""-----"" I Member i second agreement i s wi th Robert Piel vi n 9 Archi tect i ;to revise plans for the Library to be constructed; fori the new site. The City Attorney pointed out i :the fees are the same as the original contract, ; :i.e., 2% of the construction costs and $221.50 perf :hour TOY' addi tianal documents. I I j~he ~ounci~ inquired as to the cost of revising I i the p7 ans. ibir. Melvin was present and stated he has estimated ithe cost to be approximately $3,000. I I I i3y motion of the Council the ?dayor was authorized iijeiswende !to execute the Stipulation and the Agreement on :Atkinson :behalf of the City of Carlsbad. :I)unne I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I :Jardine I * 8 t I I I t 1 ?lrdinancc - re: House moving. The Counci 1 was in- : I :formed the Building Inspector has requested the : !ordinance as submitted for the Coucil's consider- i :ation. :Cmn. ilunne stated this does not provide for old : \structures that are being moved. There was an i jold hocse moved to the corner of Oak over a year : :ago and nothing has been done to the structure ye$. :After further consideration it was agreed that i jthis inatter be held over for txo weeks of study. i :Request for an ordinance Lo control junk. The :Building Inspector has also requested an ordinance! !prepared similar to the one adopted by San Diego. i :The City CounciJ instructed the City Attorney to i iprepare the ordinance far their Consideration at 1 ithe next regular meeting. 8 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I 1 ii I I I I !CITY T4AtdAGER'S REPORT: I I I b I I I !Request for use of Holiday Park. The Gem amd #in- i !era1 Society have requested the use of Hol,iday i :Park on Saturday, June 25, 1966. I I :By motion of the Counci 1 it was agreed that the heiswendev irequest be granted for the use or" Holiday Park :Atkinson Ion Saturday, June 25, 1966. :Dunne :Designating Santa Fe Deport as a Historfca:I~BuiId-~ jing. The Committee fcr the Depot has requested i :that the Depot be designated as a historical I $ui Idin9 3 to allow them to have re-wi ri ng done VJi jh !the use of non-metalic, flexible wiring, instead ; !of the metal Lube required by the Electrical Code.! I I I I 0 I I I ;Jardine I I I 1 I I I B $3~ common consent of the Council it was agreed tha!t ithe Santa Fe Depot be designated as a Historical : :Building and that permission be granted to use i $on-metalic, flexible wiring instead of the metal ; :tube. l 0 t I ! I isan Diego Regional \later Quality Control Board - i :re: Rescinding cease and desist orders. On Nay I :17, 1966, the San Diego Regional tJater Quality I 1 1 I * 1 I $ I t 4 I I I I I I I I I I " I I I I '\\\\ : '8, '\' 'x 8, I '\ '\ ' 1 I x, '. '*, I \ '. ' I \ .. I i ~a me .\\,"I I -12 - ; of '4 ! 4 I 8; :"""""""""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""~~""-"""-- 8 Member :Control Board adopted Resolution 66-11 and 66-13,I :rescinding cease and desist orders agai.nst the ; i City of Carlsbad and waste discharge requirements: :for the City's now defunct sewage treatment plant; :idr. Dennis A, O'Leary, Executive Officer of the i :Board, stated the Board commended the City for : !providing an effective areaswide system of waste i :collection, treatment and disposal. I I !Pa.rks and Recreation Commission - Pe: Granting o( ifease to Girl's Club in Holiday Pakk. The Parks ; :and Recreation Commission have recommended that : ithe Girl's Clnb be granted a leascl for lad in ! jlloliday Park for use in building a club houses I :the precise amount of land and placement to be i !determined at a later date. In granting this :lease they also recommended that a condition be : jset that any facilities be available in unused tilie ifor adult recreation and other activities that ; !would be compatible with Girl's Club Activities. i !By motion of the Council it was agreed that the iNeiswende' ! Counci 1 i ndica.te thei r wi 11 ingness -:to work wi th :Atki nson :tile Girl 's Club as to the leasing of land in iDunne i Hol i day Park. jJardine I I I I I I I i 9 I I 1 I I I I 1. I I !The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company - re: i :Permission to park mobile equipment trailer. The: ;Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company have re- ; ;quested that they be granted pmrission to park a! !mobile central office equipment trailer on their I :property at 3368 Hardine Street, as they plan - : !certain modification work during a-period betwe& i !June 24, 1966 and approximately September 'I, 19661 !By common consent it was agreed that the Pacific i !Telephone and Telegraph Company be granted per- i :!nission to park their mobile trailer on their I :property for the period requested. !Fox's Snug Harbor - re: Request for overnight pri: :vileges during Fourth of July Holiday. By letter: Ijune 7, 1966, Fox's snug Harbor have requested : :that they be permitted to extend overnight pri- i :vi leges Lo a limited number of guests over the i :Fourth of July Holiday. I I ;BY motion Of the Council it was agreed thak FOX'S !Neiswendeu !Snug Harbor be granted permission to extend over- jAtkinson :night privileges to a limited number of guests :Dunne :over the Fourth of July Holiday. IJardi ne :North Coast Y.F.I.c.c,. - re: Request for waiver of i :.Fees. The tdorih Coast Y.M.C.R. is planning to do i :some construction, plumbing and sewer hook-up Y I :work in the area of the Aquatic Park, and they i Iflave requested a waiver of fees and permit costs : :for the work to be done. 1 !By motion of the Council it was agreed that; a17 :Neiswender !permit fees and any other building fees be waived :Atkinson :in connectfon with the building program of the iDunne jNorth Coast Y.M.C.A. :Jardine iCmn. Jardine stated he abstained as he is a membe; I I 1 I I $ I a I I I I 0 I I I 4 t I I I I I I I I I t; I !of the Y.SI.C.A. committee. ! I I , ! I I I 1 I I .I .c 1 I I I I I I - 13 - I ',\'\" '\ . . ', I I I I x '\ '\ '\ I 8' '\, '\ I ', 8, '\ i Name '\\ '\d i of '\i 1 Member 8 ~""~""""~""~""""""""""""""~"""""""-~""-""-""""--"""~ t I :Cmn. Dunne stated Mrs. Johnson had called his at- i Itention to the dumping area back of A and R Plumb-! ling Csnlpany on the East side of the rai'lroad I 4 !tracks. iCnn. t!eiswender stated he was concerned v,riith park4 !ins on substandard streets. The City requires th< :developer to provide off-street parking and the 1 !parking areas are not being used. He suggested i :that "Ed0 Parking" be a1 lowed between the hours of : 12:OO A.i?. and 4:OO A.M. The two places brought : ito his attention are the :4orth end of Ocean Streed ;and Monroe Street a cross from the High School. i !During the time the High School holds games this : :becomes a problem. In low density areas this I jproblem usually takes care of itself. It is in ! :the high density areas this becomes a problem. I I :AUTI-JOkIZATION FOR PAWENT OF BILLS AFID RATI'FICA- I ITION OF PAYROLL: I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ! 0 : I I !Authorization was given for the payment of bills i :for the General Expenses of the City in the amoung !amount of $45,548.74 for the period May 17, 1966 atkinson ;to June 8, 1966, as certified by the Director of iDunne !Finance and approved by the Auditing Committee. gardine IRati Pi cation of the payroll was given for the hei swender :second half of Zay, 1966, in the amount of #tki nson :$22,407.33, as certified by the Director of Dilnne :Finance and approved by the Auditing Committee. 3ardine :of t $197,704.82 and for the Water Department: in theMeiswender I I I I I I I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I * :ADJOUR%IdENT: I I !i3y proper motion %he meating was adjourned at )?aspectfully submitted, :lo: 45 P.M. I I 1 1 ;/z77~+%4#7/%- ! t ,I c Y ~//&&>~ /f" hARGA&f E . ADAMS iCi ty C1 erk I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 8 I t I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I s I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 8 I 8 I I I 1 I ! I I I I I I I # I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * t I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 I I I . 8 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I t 1 I I 9 # 1 !