HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-06-21; City Council; MinutesL ** I 8' 1 I z ', 'I8 *\ ' :CITY OF CARLSBAD t %., ', ' '. '\ '* '*,
i Date of /{eeting: June 21, 1966 I Name *<, *! iTizile of ijrceting: 7:OQ P. M. : of '4
1 :"""~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""~ Pl ace of Zeeti ng: Counci 1 Chambers : Member
i ROLL CALL wzs answered by Councilmen tdeisvfender, i !Atkinson, Dunne and Jardine. Also present were : :City iBai?ager fiiamaux, City Attorney !:li lson and I I i Ci ty Clerk Adants,
: f;1i nutes of: CITY COUNCIL (Regular !)seating) -, \*,\, ts
: $ I
I 4
# ! I I i ItIVOCATION was offered by i4ayor Atkinson,
IALLEGXAdCE to the Flag VJ~S given,
I 4 t
I I * I
1 I
I I I APP2UVAt. OF E4INUTES: 6 1 t I I I t !(a) idlinutes of the regular meeting held June 7, iNeiswcndel If966, were approved as presented. :Atkinson
I :Jardi ne
/(b) Ilinutes of the Adjourned regular meeting he14 :June 8, 1966, were approved as presented, ii.!eiswender
1' I I jaunne
I 4
I
1 I :Atkinson
I :Jardf ne
I I iDunne
I
I I
I e # I I 1 I
i CORRESPQNDE!~iCE:
i (a) Letter dated June 16, 1966, frorn th2 Ccean- i :side Four Wheelers, Inc., was presented, request-: : ing that they be permitted to park approximately i !twelve caaping trailers on private property lo- : :cated at 956 Tamarack Avenue on the veek-end of i
iTke City i-lznager informed the Council the staff ! :recommends that the request be denied. I I
:By motion of the Council the request made by the :Heiswendel !Oceanside Four \.!heelers, Inc. was denied. :Atkinson
I 8
:Ata~~tlst C;-7, 19G6, t
I i
I I
I I
I
I I I !Dunne
I t IJardi ne
I ; I
!Mayor Atkinson presented a letter of resignation ; :from Dr. Duane iialker from the Library Board of : !Trustees, because of commitments in his work. iNeiswender
I :Atkinson
!By motion of the Council the resignatton of Dr. IDunne !Walker was accepted with regret, and the City : Jardi ne fklanager instructed to send a letter of appreciatidn.
:A letter was also presented by the ?layor from the: :Library Board of Trustees, recommending that ltrs. 1 :Sfilliam Baldwin be appointed to fill the unexpire4 i term of Dr. tjalker.
ildith the consent of the Council Mrs. kJilliam 3aldi :win was appointed to the Library Board of Trustee; :to fill th@ unexpired terrr: of Dr. Walker. t
1 ORAL CQE,?i.lISi?!ICBTIO~~S 2 !
IHR. DAVID THOMPSON, stated he was president of ti14 ;Citizens Inter-racial Committee. During the first: :two years of its existence it f1a.s been funded by : !the City of San Diego. The Citizens Inter-racial !
i Cornmi ttee is a Human Relations organization and ai inon-profit corporation. This year they are asking :for $52,000 to carty out their work. The Crty ; !of San Diego is conrniting $32,000. They Tcel that :between S .05 and $ .lo pcr poprrlati'on is a fair :
I I I
I I
I I
I I I
* I *
I 1 1
I I I
4
I
I I I
1 8 *
I 8 i *
t
1 I 9 8 I I I I
I I !
-2-
4% 1 '\ ', .-, '\\
I '\ '\\ ' '
1 . '* I '\ '\ ' , . '! i Name '8,''' ; of 'e
I
I \'
I 8 ~""""""-""""""""""""""""""""~""~""""""""'""""""" I Member 1 1 I t b
b 0 1
i est-inate of cost, therefore, they arc askiilg I *fiat the Cl'ty cf Carlsbad contribute between
r
i $CIjC.OL? a2d $1,200.00 fur their shars. This or-i I sanization was active in establishing ti3e Ocean- I I s4de-c2drlsbad Human Relations organization. If i ! .f. 1 .., , , A,,# do not receive contributions from cities ;
t uts si de cf the City of San Diego% they are going i r to 65 pwhibited from operating in other cities.:
i 2syoy. ktkl;~son informed Mr. Thompson it viould be: I iiposs2s;e for the Council to digest this matter! ; at this t.-iEe9 and requested that he send the i ~ounc?~ information on this organization and the: : Cour,cil ucu'id give this matter futher considera-: i tion.
I I
I
P 1 h. I
I I
I I I
I I i FtiBLIC HEP,RIMES:
I
I I I I I I (a> (Continued) Reclassification of certain pro-j I perty located on the I!esterly side of El Cac~ino ; : Real, Easterly from Park Dr., from Zone R-A-lO,-i i 000 to R-l-7,COrJ and larger sq. ft. 'lots. * 1 : Applicants: Lmar Construction Co.
i he ;:izyor announced this matter tilaS conticluect I i froin the adjourned regular meeting of June 8, I I
I 1966, au;d asked that the Clerk przsent any correi : I SpQi?defiCe that had been received since June 8, ;
[ The City Clerk presented the correspondence frm; : the fo?loGving persons favoring the reduction i in lot size and the development of the Lagunsl i : iii vi era deve? opment:
+
I I I
t &
I 1966. I I I I I I
I I
1 I 1 I I
I I t I
I I
I
I 1
I
I I
I
I I
t Adolf F. Lassen and 4500 Park Drive i
I Steve M. and Emma R. I
I Salsen 4422 Park 3r. I
1 Allan 9. Kelly Carlsbad I
I )'j 16 . (1 q 8;: i:; rs . 0 . 9; .
t Hesselbacher 'l8i15 '4onterey Rd. :
I So. Pasadena 1
I
I
I I
I I 1
.I
I 8 Robert Phipps (Telegram) (Ql,irner of property i
I I adjacent to subjsct i
I
I I property I
I Dale A? 7 red 4590 Cove Drive 1
I
I *
I 1 I * I
Janss Corporation by I I
I
I he fo1Ioctling correspondence was presented I'D : i opposition to the reduction in lot size from ?O,+ : coo SCj. ft. to 7,000 SQ. ft.: t I I
I I I # I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I I 1
4 1
I I
I Gordon A. Johnston I
I J~ne E. Johi?ston I
I Bradf'ord A. Johnston I
I i?osr?nary Johnston I
I X ys . D~rothy Johnson 897 Oak Wve. I
I Donald F. Pres-t I 4220 Clearview ;
I AYS. FP~,YICPS J. HOU~S 2nd I
I \;,!iIiiam i-;. Houts 4043 Sunnyhil1 I
I Jay F. i-ioffman I
1 A petition was presonted cmt;ining 267 siynatur@s ; protzst-ing the. rzquest by Kcmar for Laguaa Rivi-: i era for reciassification of lot size from i9,OOOi
t
I t
I I I 1 t I I
I 1 I t I I $
idaryon D. Hoffman and
I I + I 1 1 I f I I
8 I 1 I I I 1 I I I
k
I t I
I 4 I
I I I I I 1- I I I 8 I I : I I I
I I 4
1 I
I 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 I t
I
1 I I I I * I I I 1 I I I 1 t I
I I I I I I I I
I 1
I I 9 I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I
I
1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I t
I t I I t l a
I 1 I I I I I !
1 I
I I I
I I i I I I I s I I I I I I
! I I I t I I t 4
I 1 I !
"3"
; " '\ .*, ',
I '\ ', '*' I '* ', 8,
; of *$
; . '8, ', ' '\
I ' '\ i Name '8, '!
: Member ."~""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""'"""""""
I
t~ 7,000 sq. ft., as it would devaluate their i
velopment of the City of Carlsbad. I I
A petition containing 292 signatures was also i presented recommending that the Laguna Riviera : Subdivision Le approved for the following reason$:
I. It is imperative that the first sub- division adhere to the Master Plan;
2. That it complies in its entirety with i the densities outlined in the ilaster Plan; 3. The City needs more local neighborhood i parks and school sites, as incorporated in the I Laguna Riviera Subdivision; and I I 4. The taxpayers of the entire City should! be taken into consideration as to the routing :
of Tamarack Ave., rather than a selected few. I I
The byor declared the public hearing open, and I antlounced the Council would hear from all pe:*son# kjho wished to present additional evidence con- : cerning this matter.
JERRY RONBOTIS stated he would like to discuss i the caliber of houses to be built in this deve- ; lopnent. The houses in Unit #1 will sell betweet
$20,000 Lo $27,000. They are A.I.A. designed. : In the later uni'tswith view lots the price range: will be from $22,000 to $23,000 to a high of a 1
$30,i100. They have completed 297 houses in the i City of Carlsbad and they have only four houses i with "For Sale" signs on them at the present I I
time. This type of planning reflects the think-!
ing in the ;,laster Plan by DPiJi4. This develop- : ment has been planned according to the density. i Of the six property owners whose property adjoin$ this prop~~ty, five were in favor of this develob- ment. They have spent over six months working : on this subdivision, which represents many long i hours w-ith the City staff. The Planning Commiss-: ion gave a G to 1 vote in favor of this planned i
property and be detrimental to the planned de- I
1 I
I U * 4 I I I
I I
I I I
I I 1 I
devi&-/ oynent. I I
J* ii. CARl4ICHAEL asked if the staff would be malting additional reports? ~f so, they would i 1 i ice to make their remarks after the staff gave i thei r reports. I I
Playor Atki nson. jnforned i.!r., CarmS chael there would be no additional repcrts from the staff : unless the Council requested certain information;
JACK KUBCTA stzted he noticed on the Agenda a ! memorandum under Planning concerning the i
Tamarack Extcnsion, t~qetker with the tentative :
map of the Laguna Riviera subdivision, and asked! if this matter had been discussed yet?
8r. Kubota ~2s iriformed this matter had not
I
I t I
I I I I I
I
1 1 I I I I ! been discussad. . 8 I I .
ijjr. KUSO~~I then requested clarification as to i whether Kelly Drive will have Siriiited access? i Also if Unit #l lots will ha~e access other I I
than Kelly Drive? I l a I I I I I I I I I I
b I ', \ .\ ', '
I I I t \ 8,' . * I 8%. '\ '\, ',
1 ', '\ '
* -4- i Name 'b,'Q ; of '5 x!
~"""""~~""~"""~"""~"""""~""""~"-""-"~"~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ! Member
i DOQMD BRIGGS, JR. 1 informed the Council he : wou1 d 1 i Ice to bring out a few points. According i i to the crdfnance it is mandatory that 84' collec-: : tors have alleys and access. This is a mediam i \ to high dsnsity area. In his opinion Park Drive ; i shouId be an 04' cafIectar. \!fith the high den- J I sjty growth anticipated in this area Park Drive t i should be an 84' collector. The Planning Cormis-i : sion went against the Council's decision of keep-: I ing Tamarack a local street through the Highlands)
I If this subdivision is approved as proposed it I I wi7 7 be the fast chaniz to have an 84' collector :
! in this area. T.he school site would not be a I contrary argument.
i 3.83. CARKICHAEL stated he supported bir. Brigg's ! i comments as to a major street. A large number i
;of names supporting this subdivision were in the : jsubdivision that blocked the extension of Chest- i : nut.* . The Council requested a study of al- i ternate routes for a major street. The staff, : 9tfJN and the Planner all supported the plan for a{
bo~or street, UP until last week they found it ; 1 very necessary io have a major street - now there!
f does not Seem to be a need. He imagined it was : i because of the development before the C~uncil eo-: :night that changed the Council's thinking. He ; i objected to maximizing their profits and miniEiz-i :ing his profits. The Laguna Riviera area is the : i ideal location for a major street. [vir. Carmickaet :asked that the approval of this subdivision be : jtl:ithheld until a major street has been resolved. i
i CHARLES 6-'WWnl remarked that essentially this : hearing was to decide the zoning for this develop: jment, howeverg it seems to have gone to the dis- ; cussi ion of roads. tte was..nat against Kamar as th@y :have their good points. The Sattirday Evefiing J I :Post magazine has run two articles called "The i
; itape of the Lan4". In his opinion this was a I I
:newspapers about the landslides, houses sliding ;
!down hjlls3 etc. in Bever'iy Hills and the Councili
jshould take these factors into consideration be- ; ;fore approgigg this Subdivision. J b
:The City Manager stated he took exception to the I \remarks about the iandslides in Beverly Mills as i :he worked on the storm drains in that area and : :there have been no landslides to his knowledge. i
ji4fiNSE ARCHER stated he lived on Sunnyhill Drive, i :and has seen the development in this area for the: jpnst eleven years. He objected to the reduction I :of lot size Prom 50,090 to 7,000 sq. ft. I t
:L?RS. RITA WItJGRhti4, 4230 Clearview, pointed out ;
IPlanning Comm7"ssion no correspondence was intro- i Iduced frc:% the FebrurPry meeting. The people were ; jnot notified when it came before the Planning ;Commission the last time. She asked the Commis- i jsion to continue the matter but she was denied. i :They voted 6 to 1 in favor of the request. ".r, t I iRombotis stated that 5 out of 6 of the adjoining i :property owners were in favor. of this development.: !It was her understanding that the adjoining pro- i
I I \'\
I \"
I
I 1 I I
81
I I I 1
I I 1 I I I
I I I
l I I I I
I I I I * I
lg~~d example of the article. 1Je have read in the I ;
I I I I
I I I I
I t 1 I 1
I %i;t at the time this matter was heard Before the i
I I
$1
I I I I I I I I I t I I $ I I
I I !
I 2% , \.,' 4 8, ', ' '\
8 I , "\ ' I I 8. '\ '\ a ,
I t ' \ $, ! -5- '., '.,
I I Name \\, \' I I I I I
I I 8
: Qf '2 \, i Member ,"""""""""~""~"""""""~"~"""""""""---"---------------"-----"
a c i perties M~W 271 undevel~ped lands. The Citjf has! I a Hater Plan and a Zoning Ordinance and decisions i should be made accordi nGly. t I
!JERRY ROi4BOTIS pointed o~t that DMJPI recommended .i i Park Drive as a 68' street. A statement was made! ;that one of the-ir subdivisions blocked extension :
jof Chestnut Ave. The grade at this point ran 1
!nut Ave. when El Camino Mesa subdivision was de- I :velsped. Ftartt-re~, %he lots fronting on Kelly Dr.: !are landlocked by the steep hill in back and by i I tfie po~r lines. The access has to be from #ellyl i Dri \le I I
:As there v;et" no other persons desi ring to speakp i
ithe public hearing was declared closed at 9:23 P.!!.
jhlayor AtkinsQn stated from his point of view he I
:had not seen enough reasons to cut do~n the size : jof the lots in the subdivision fro3 IO,OOO to 73-: :DOC sq. ft. ~hcy have offered a development a~ond i the 1 ines of a planned community, and they have i :sffered 3 ?ark site.
1Cmn. Jardi ne stated they are presented vji th an : :opportunity for a first rate pjanned community. i :The Counci? is faced with a difficult situation a4d :a difficult decision. In vien 0.F the alternative3
jthat are presented at this time he felt they
lshouid consider the development of the highest :
I t 1 I
:from 15* to 18'. ?duch thOLiCJht Was given to Chest$
I I I i
I I I t
I I I I I
I
1 t I
I tYW. 4 I I 1 I
ii,?ay~r Atkinson stated this ;vas not !lis idea of i
ia planned community. It takes more than a park : :site and school site, and the school site uill i jhave to be purchased.
jCign. Jardine pointed out the Council has spent I :considerable timecgoing over the location. In : jsome instances a 10,000 sq. ft. 1st may not be i :feasl'blc. I f
:Cmn. Ounr~e stated zone changes are dictated by I Irreed. The economics do dictate the size sf the i :lot. The topography in this area is difficult
!and lot sizes will have to be adjusted. f-Iowever9 i
;Crnn. Sardine in that 10,000 sq. ft. should be the;
jminfmum Tot size unless there is a topography
:COKI~~ tier:.
iifaysr Atkkinson pointed out that if this pfan were i jadoptec! it would necessitate reducing 30% of the i :lot sizes and in his opinion this was too much. ;
:6nil?. Fieiswender stated he asked thtit this matter i :be continued in order that he could have an opporj Itunity *Lo look over the area. He took pictures : !from an airplane and late:- he went over the area. i !The pictures were taken at his exp::;:,". He asked :
I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I
iRe ~oul d have to go along with Playor Atkinson and 1
1 I I I I I 8 1 I
I I I I
ithat- idr. Osburn 3. a1 lewd to SI>OW I;.bese pictures.!
:After showing the pi~tures, Can. !{eiss.sender fur- i jther stated he WES not. sure the developer could :
~se?? aIt of the lots ii~ tfrey were IO,OOO sq. ft. ! s I f
I I
1
I I I 1 I I I t
I I I I I I 1 $ I !
I I , , 8, .\ \\ I t '\ \\ '. '
I '\\ '\ '8
I x. \\ 8t
I'
I I I
I
I I I I I I
-6- I i Name '8,~
X\ \\
: of '(
I 8 ~""""""""""""""""""""~""""""~""""*".""~"~~""~"~""~. : Member
I 9 I I !It was his opinion there are certain areas that i i are going to have to be modified. He was not sa-: Itisf.ied that lO,OO6 sq. ft. lots will be the 1 I
:After further consideration Cmn. Jardine stated i : he felt the Council WOUI~ have to deny the zoning! i request.
iumw nor that 7,000 sq. ft. is the answer. I I
4 I 1 I
I 8
1 I i The following resolutions were presented for i consi deration:
I 8 I I I i I I ! i Resolutian lo. 1273. A RESOLUTIODI OF THE CITY I
I Cl)Uf5'CIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, iMI<ING FI?iDIRGS,i i STATING THEIR INTENTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR 1 ; A ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LdCATED ON THE MSTERLY: !SIDE OF EL CWi,.lIldO REAL, EASTERLY FR3i4 PARK BRIVE,:bieiswend~ : AND REFERRING THE SIATTER BACK TO THE PLANt4IPlG i Atkinson i COEMSSXON FCR REPORT, was adopted by title only : Dunne i and Further reading waived. i Jardine
I The -60170wi~g reasons were given in stating the i ; Council's .intention to deny the request for zone i
e I
I I
i change: 1 I
I I. -eke lot sizes were not sufficient; and i
t I 2. It would depreciate the adjoining pro- i
I I I I $
I
8
I
I
I
I I pe rti es . 1
I I i Resolution >Io. 1274. P, RESOLUTIOCI OF THE CITY : COUfiCIL OF Ti!E CITY OF CARLSBAD DENYING THE f Eeiswende
t I f
i PRECISE PLAM FOR THE LAGUNA RIVIERA DEVELOPl4ENT, i Atkinson i was adopted by title only and further reading I Dunne ; waived. f Jardine
I I I i Resolution Ho. 1275. A HESOLUTION,OF THE CITY 1 Bieiswende ; COUNCIL OF THE CiTY QF CARLSBAD REdECTING THE : Atkinson i TENTATIVE MAP OF LAGUiiA RIVIERA SUGDIVISION, : Dunne i wds adopted by title only and further reading i Jardine : vai vecl. I I
I Cmn. Jardine proposed that the following rnernor- i I andlam be sent to the Planning Commission:
i ~ke applicant's precise plan as presented is i acceptable in general r-.,ith the exception of lot I ; size. The following changes should apply:
1 I. All present designed lots 10,OC)O sq. ft:. i 2nd above shall remain; I I
I 2. All lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. shoul~ I be IO,OQO sq. ft. except where extreme topography; i and good sufficient reason requires a smaller loti : site, and in such a case no lot shal1,be less i than 8,500 sq. ft; and
I I
I I
I I
I 8 I 1 I I I
I I I
I 1 I 1 I
I
I I I 1 I
I $ 3. Sucn justification shall be acceptable i 1 by tBhe Planjiing Commission fw presentation to ! : the Council. I
; The ].layor stated he did not feel the Council i should commit themselves to any sins lesser than ! : 10,000 sq. ft. unless there 1:s a gcsd and suffi- i i cient reason. t I
i Cmn. Dunne stated tie felt the Planning Commission! I should have guide linss.
I 1 1 I 1 I I I s I I I I
I I I
I I
I I l a I b I I I 1
i 1 $ r t I 1 I !
I I I
I' \ "\'
I '. \ \
I I I \\ '\\ '., '\,
I t I t 1 I I
1
-7- I , I ''\ '8,.8\
'\ '\ i Name \\, x : of '1 \.
4 8 :""""""""""""""""""""-""~"~""""""""""-""-~"""""~"- : Member
i ~mn. Neiswender stated he felt the Planning corn- i i mjssion should have guide lines. He is not sure: ; that it will be feasible to sell all thes2 lots I i at 10,000 sq. ft. I I
i After further discusston it was agreed that the heiswende : memorandum propased by Cmn. Jardine be sent to !Atkinson I the Pl anni ng Ccmmissi on. :Dunne
I I !Jardine
I
$ I I
1 I
4 I
I
I I
I 1 I I 1 i (c) (Continued from meeting of 3ec. 7, 1~5).
I Apnea1 of the decision of the Plannina Comrnissiod
i deiyytng the reclassification-of certain property T ! : located on the Southerly si de of I<nsdes Awe., i I Easterly ora Pi0 Pic0 Dr., from Zone R-1-7.5 to : I Zone R-P. Applicant: Jack Y. Kubota and Patriciia
. " ~ "~ """".
1 -~--~- ; 2. Eubota. Mayor Atkinson announced the Counci1 : ; has not received comments from the Planning Cm- i i missiGn that they had requested concerning zoning : along Pio Pic0 Drive. He talked with iYr. KLabota i i and he is vi1 ling to have the matter off calendauf : until these comments are received. * I i The City Attorney informed the Council the matte{ : can be taken off calendar until such time as the i : Council requests the matter placed on the agenda.:
I I I
I I
I I : ENSI!JEERIMG:
1
I I I t I
i (a) Petition for the street opening and st-reet i
I improvement of James Dr. from Buevla Vista !:jay 'co b I i its terminus in ~ot 11, \,iilsonia Tract. Proposed
I Assessment District $3-1966 - 1971 Act Proceed- r i ings.
i The City Clark presented a petition signed by : : 70.7 % of the property ovrners in the area of the i i property subject to assessment for tile proposed : : improvements. 8 1
i A schematic plan of the proposed dis.trict was i
; presented for review. A written report was pre- I I senteci to the Council from the Engineering De- : ; partment, describing the proposed improvements i i and statirrg the street opening dedi'catiqn 1.5 to : ; be sixty (60) feet in nidth with a fifty (50) i i foot minimum radius cul-de-sac. It was also I I : noted that the petition waives investigation pro:
: Streets and Highways Code. As of this date they i i have collected 70% of the preliminary engineer- ; : ing special deposit monies of those signing the J i peti ti on.
i The Eng-ineering Department recommended that thc i i 191 1 Act proceedings be initiated for the for- i ; nation of the proposed district and that the i firm of Tanner, Harquardt and Associates of : Escondido, be engaged for a17 engineering servic$s i except construction inspection and legal pro- 1 I : ceedings.
I During the discussion by the Council it was i noted this proposed street opening would be a i i 1200' cul-de-sac. Inquiry !f;:as made as to t/l& i
I through street rather than a cul-de-sac. I t
I -
s I I I * I I
I 1
I I
I ; ceedings as required by Division Four of the I I
I I 1
I I I
I
I I 8 k t
I I
I I I I I I I I 8 *-
I ! street being opened through Lot 11 9 making it a i
* I 1 I I I I I I t I * r 1 I 1 t I
9 I I t I 8 1 I I I I I
i I
-8-
I' I \\ ', .X8 '\ , ', *\ 8, '
I \'\ I \, '\ '\
i Name '8, * ' '\
: of '<
I
I 8'
! Member 8 i"""""""""""--"""-"~"--""""""""""""""""""""~"""""~
I I I i The Engineering Department informed the Council ! : the property owner did not wish to have his pro-! i pcrty divided for street purposes as there was :
i an existing structure on the property. 1.
i Can. Jardine inquired as to whether this would i
I create substandard lots?
i The City Yanager informed the Council the positidn I the staff is to have the petition approved and a:
t person appointed to handle the proceedings. Rft{r I the plans are prepared they wi 11 no doubt answer: : many of the questions. 1 I
i ~mn. Pjeiswender stated he felt that 1200' was to I I long for a cul-de-sac. He felt the street : should be a th~ough street.
i Cmn. Dunne recommended that the matter be held 1 : in abeyance until some alternate plans are sub- i i mitted. I I
I
1 I I
I I I I 1
s I
I I
1 I
s I I I I I I 1 I
I t
I I
I ; I3y motion of the Council the matter was continuedNziswEnde I
I for further study as to the alignment of the !Atkinson i street. :9unne
i (b) Approval of Final ;lap of Sandalwood Dale i ; subdivision. The Final Yiap of Sandalwood Dale i i subdivision was presented by the Engineering I I
; 3cpartment. The improvement plans are now being: i checked. The owners are anxious to have the map: : approved subject to the approval of the improve- i 1 ment plans. I I
i By motion of the Council the Final i4ap of San- !
i to the approval of the Improvement Plans by i title Engineering Department, to include drainage. i
I I I IJardfne
I t I
I I
I I . I dalwood Dale Subdivision was approved, subject i
I I
I I
I I I (c) Resolution I 1278, authorizing execution of; I
: pipe line license reqarding Madison Street, et i : I- a1 improvement. The City Attorney informed the ; : Council it was necessary to apply for a pipe lirjq! i license from the A. f. d S. F. Raifroad Company :
I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
4 I 8 I t I I + I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I
j
I I I I I I I I I I I
s
I I I I b I I I I I I I
for the improvement of ?ladison Strest, et ai - I project. This has been received from the rail- ; road company and authorization from the Council i is needed for the Mayor to execute the document.: Thc fol1 owi ng resol uti on was presented: I t I 4
Resolution fdo.1278. A RESQLUTIOIi OF THE CITY COUPJCIL OF TWE CITY OF CARLSBAD AUTHORIZING : bIeiswende, EXECUTION OF PIPE LINE LICENSE REGARDING MPIi3IS3M!Atki nson
I I I
STREET INPROVEMEKT, was adopted by ti tle only i Duirr;e and further reading waived. : J a r4 i n 2
(ci) Accepting the vmrk for Agua ffediontia Sel;~ i
Unit #z. 3he ei ty EKgineer informed the Council I the work has been completed for kgua Hediona Sewer Unit #2, and recommended that the vrork be accept; ed by the Council . I I
By motion of the Council the work far Rgua I I Hedionda Sewer Unit 02. was accepted as recom- i mended by the City Engineer. I I
I I -
I I i
I I t I I I 6 1 L
I !
I I I I I I
I' , '\ '\\ '\ ',
I '8 \ '8 I 8" I I '\ '\ 8?
! -9- ! '. \\, ; Name 't, ' : of '<
:""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""--""""-""-""""~. i Member
f ilEU BUSINESS:
.,
I
I I I 8 8 I I 9
I I I 1 I I I
I ! i (a) Resolution 57279, designating ths intersec- I ; tion of Donna 3r. and Basswood Aye. as a four- ; i way stop intersection. The City Xanager reported; : after further study the Traffic Safety Coirrmittee I
i ir@Co~lTi@?l~ : . - __......_._ ded that the intersection OF @onna Dr. i
; and Bassvood Ave. be a four-?Jay stop intersec'cio$ i and that the foI'lot.:ing resolution had been pre- ,
; 'pared for the Council's tonsil_.__._.._ ..
I I I
TiPPa 711 nn: I
1
'-Resolution GO. 1279. A RESOLUT~ON OF THE CITY !
I COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DESIGNATIIiG THE ji"ieiswettde i INTERSECTIOf4 OF D3:dIIA DRIVE AN0 E3dSSiJOOD AVENUE :Atkinson
t AS A FOUR-!,IAY STOP INTERSECTION, was adopted by jDunne I title only and further reading waived. :Jardi ne
i (is) First reading Ordinance #5039, regulating i I accumulation of junk. The City Attorney informed i i the Counci 1 this ordinance was yequested by i?r. i i Osburi?, Building Inspector, as he has had pro- :
i blems regulating some of the items listed in thei r proposed ordinance.
: Cmn. Dunne stated in reviewing the proposed ordi; ; nance he felt item (b) (1 } of Section 3 concerFa- i i ing Accumulation of Junk - Regulations, should : i be deleted as he felt this item was too restric- i
; tive.
! )he fOllO\;JinfJ ordinance G!as presented for a first I readi ng : I t
I I 1
I I I I I
4 I
I I I I I
I I
I r*
, I I i Ordinance ;lo. 5039. AX OXDI~JAI\ICE OF THE CITY I~~eiswende
; COUHCIL 3F THE CITY OF CARLSBAD REGULATIr!G ACCUt1:Atkinson : ULATI0F.I OF JUi.lK, was given a first reading by :Dunne 1 title only and further reading waived. i Jardi ne
i (c) Bid opening for purchase of City owned lots. i i The city Clerk reported that a legal notice had i
f been placed in the Carlsbad Journal for bids on 1
f the sale of the six City o'vsned lots. As of I i this date no bids had Seen received.
I
I I
I I I I
l 8
I I I 1 I I * I
I 1 i P L A 1; i;l I il G : I
s
I I I !
I 1 8 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 I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I !a) demorandurn from the Planning Commission - I i
'4 re; Extension of Tamarack Avenue. A memorandum 1 dated June 15, 1966 from the P'lanning Commission! was presented concerning possible a1 ternate so'lu: tions for the extension of Tamarack Extension. i It was their opinion that the traffic problems I
of the area could best be solved by extending ; Tamarack as a 68 foot right-of-way from Par!: Dr. i to Birch St; that it be extended through the I t present Birch St. right-of-way as a 63 foot right- o-f-way by eliminating the planted areas on each ; side of the street so as to maintain a uniform i traveled roadway; that Tamarack cross Skyline Rd: by means of a grade separation so that Skyline i bridges Tamarack, if practicable; and that Tama-: rack thereafter extend to €1 Camino Rea7 as a 68: foot right-of-way. The alignment of the above ; described street should be as shown ~n the DMJU i report. It war; their feeling .t!:;:t both Hillside!
I I I I I
I * I
I t t 1
I' \, '\ , '\.. . '\,
'\ '\ '
I - 76 - i Name '\, '
I : of ': \ Member
I I .\ I I ' '* '%\ ', I I I I I I
I
I I I )""""-""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-
1 I I
' '\
8 i and Park Drives should connect through the pro- !
i posed Laguna Riviera Subdivision as shown on i their proposed tentative subdivision map as GS I : foot rights-of-way. 1 I
I 8
4 I I : ~mn. ~unne stated comments Rave been made that J i Park Dr. should be an 84' street. He did not : feel that Park Dr. should b.e an 64' street. I This woufd cause a bottle neck. The extension i
1 of Tamarack through 2irch St. is something in : i the future, however it Should show on the map. i
i i:iayor Atkinscan stated if you look one step fur- i i ther to the completion of Kelly and Agua kiediondd
I streets that the vdidths as recommended by the i i Planning Commission far Park and Hillside tjrive :
I will be sufficient. The people in this area I I
1 will be better off if thesa streets are kept as f : the Planning Commission has recommended. I I
i Cmn. Jardine stated if you propose these streets i : as 84' streets you are talking about 6,300 feet i ! of roadway. The likelihood of these streets : serving persons other than those living in the i i area is questionable, and the cost of the addi- : : tional width would be intolerable to the rest i i of tile citizenry in the community. ~t was his i
i feeling that Tamarack should be kept as a 60' I I i street through the highlands to Tamarack, and :
i from Skyline Rd. to El Camino Real it should be I i 68'.
i Gmn. ideiswender stated he felt Tamarack should I i be a normal City street.
; Cmn. Dunne further stated from the statements ! ! made From the members of the Council he felt if i i the portion of the memorandum i.e. "'chat Tamaracl: ; cross Skyline by means of a grade separation so i i that Skyline bridges Tamarack", were deleted, : that the Council agrees with the recommendation i i 02 the Planning Commission.
i By motion of the Council it was agreed that the I : Council approve the proposal made by the Plan- :Meisvend i ning Commission except for the portion if that !atkinson i Tamarack cross Slcylfne by means of a grade se- :i3unne : paration SI! that Skyline bridges Tamarack". IJarditle
i Donald Eriggs Jr. stated the Council voted to i i keclp Tamarack as a local street. He did not : knowu how the PiinUtes of the meeting read.
1 1 9 I 4
I I I I
I
I I I I
I 1
I I I I I # I
I 1 1 I I I
I I
I I I I I
I I
# I I
I I I 1 I I I
s
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 I I I I I I I I 1 * I I I I I I 1
I CITY ATTORNEY ' S REPORT: I I I
A suit was filed by Sim J. Harris Co. concerning i the validity of the 1911 Act Proceedings for Madison Street, et al. The City Attorney asked i khat he be authorized to accept service.
By common consent of the Council the C-r'ty Attor- i ney was authorized to accept service in connec- ; tion with the Sim J. Harris Co. suit.
I I
I I I 1 I
I 1 I I I I I I 1 I $ I * I I t I I I I 1 !
I I' , 8 .\ ', I I
1 1 I I '., "\ ',, ',
I '. '. '.
8
I I I - tl - I "\ " '.
I i Name '-, Y
I ; of \=!
I I Member
~"""""""""""""""""""""""~".""""-""-"""---"-l---"---"-"-
:Proposed ordinance regarding moving, salvaging or i :wrecking of buildincss. At the previous meeting of; (the Council the City Attorney reported the Build- : jing Inspector had requested that an ordinance be i !adopted concerning moving, salvaging or wrecking : :of buildings, a8d the City Attorney was instructed
lation. I I
P ' ', I
I
I
I I I I
$Q draft an ordinance for the Council's consider- t !
t I I I
:Ordinance No. 8045 was presented for consideratiod.
hir. Osburn, Suilding Inspector, stated there have! !been comments made concerning a house being moved i :onto Stratford Lane. After the City purchased : (Ithe Poole property, the neighbor across the stree4 :purchased the house on the property and moved it i ionto Stratford Lane. Under the provisions of this : !new ordinance before a house could be moved, the : :owner would have to post bond and the matter would \have to go before the Planning Commission to see i !if it is compatible with the other buildings in :
ithe area. It may be that perhaps this ordinance, i !if adopted, could be rectroactive. Mr. Osburn * 1 :quoted a section from the proposed ordinance
[pertaining to buildings that have been moved .to 1 :lots and then not brought up to City standards. ;
!After further consideration by the Council Cmn. i IDunne suggested that this matter be deferred until: (the next meeting of the Council for further study.:
:CITY fSAI\?AGER'S REPORT:
:The City Manager reported resolutions will be jpresented at the next regular meeting for the :Council's consideration concerning traffic safety i jrnatters, as recommended by the Traffic Safety * 1 IComFni ttee. I I
iCmn. Ideiswender asked that HcDougal Sanitation : ICo. be contacted to have covers made for the I jcoll ection trucks.
I ! iThe City Hanager reported Mr. HcDougal is in the i :process of acquiring new trucks that will be * !covered.
!Contract for Auditor. In the City !-lanager's writ- i jten report addressed to the Council, he recommend-: led that the firm of Carroll and Beutley, Associ- ; jates, Certified Public Accountants, be, once agaiin :retained as auditor for the City and that the:;-City: $+lanager be authorized to sign the contract for i :fiscal year 1966-67. The fee for this service is : i$2,700.00, which includes $1,400.00 for the Mater i !Department. It was pointed out the fee is $100.03 :more than the fiscal year 1965-56, but well within! !the range for such servi ces. I 1
:By motion of the Counci 7 it was agreed that the i
:contract with the firm of Carroll and Bentley, ~Associates, be renewed for the fiscal year 1966- ! :67, and the City Yanager authorized to execute i Ithe contract on behalf of the City of CarJsba.d. i
$mn. Dunne requested that a revue be made for a i :stop sign at the intersection of Jefferson Street ; !and Las F'lores Drive.
I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I l a I I 1 1 I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I t
I 1 1 f I I
I I
I I
1 $
I , t s I I I
I 1 I I I I I I
I 1 I I I * ! I
,4 I I' .\ I I I '\\'\, \'\ \\
I I ', ', ''
I - 12 - i Name '\, '
! 8 of '.1 \ Member
i AUTHOWIZATIOhl FOP, PAYMENT OF BILLS AND RATIFICA- i
I I ' '\ \
I 1 I I
', 8 ' ' '\
I
I
~"""""L"""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""~ t
I
I I
i TION OF PAYROLL:
i Authorization was given for the payment of bi 11s ! I for the General Expenses of the City in the arnoutjt i of $92,337.69 and for th2 iJater Department in :Neiswende ; the amount of $18,856.80, from June 8, 3966 to :Atkinson i June 21, 19C6, as ccitified by The Director of :Dunne
! Finance and approved by the Auditing Committee. !Jardine
i Ratification of the payroll was given for tine I fi rst half of June, 1966, in the amount of i $21,346.87, as certified by the Director of : Finance and approved by the Auditing Committee. i
I I 1 I I I
I I
I I I b I I I # I I
I t
I I i ADJOURNMENT:
I
!
4
I I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned to I i Thursday, June 30, 1966, at 7:30 P.14. to dis- i cuss the Preliminary Budget for the fiscal year i
8 1966-67.
1 I
I I I !
*
I 1 I I Respectfully submitted,
I 1 I
+-Jfp&gA& x @LAd.
i i3 .RG ET E. ADAM 1 Ci ty-"C1 erk
I
I
I
I
I I , I \
I I I I I
t
1 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 t 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 t !
I
!
I I I I 1 I t I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I r 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 1 I I I I I f I I I I I I t I I * I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I t I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I