Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-08-02; City Council; MinutesI -1 I' ,\' 8 I :CITY OF CARLSBAD iigjinutes of: CIT? COIJr!C%L (Regular Xeeting) i :Date of Meeting: Augbst 2, 1366 i Name '\,'x: :Time of Yeeting: ?:Oil P. Pi. : of '3 :Place of 1;Ieeting: Council Chambers : Member t~"~~i~""~""""~t-,",-,,"~~"~-"*"-~"""~~"~"""--"-----~~----"~-""-----"-- i L !ROLL CALL was a'nswred by Councilmen l.!ortWing, I :NeisNender, Atkinson, Dunne and Jardine. Also i !present were City Manager Mamaux, City Attorney i jWilson and City Clerk Adams. I * :INVOCATIOF was offered by Father Patterson of St. ! Ir Patri ck f s church. I I :ALLEGIANCE to the Flag was given. ;APPROVAL OF !1INUTES: ifqinnutes of the regular meeting of JUIY 19, 1966 i!!orthing :were approved as corrected. IHei smndel I :Atkinson I I ', '\,'.., '8, '\ ' 8 *' ', '\ ' , 8 'I .' I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I b I I I I I I I 4 I I I :Dunne I (Jardi ne ! ! ~CORRESPONDEPiCE: I I I !The Carlsbad Chamber of Cmmerce's Statement, :!!orthi ng :covering bills for the period July 5, to August iNeiswende1 j2, 1966, was accepted and authorization for pay- !Atkinson :ment in the amount of $960.00 was granted on Cmn. :Dunne iWeiswender's recommendation. !Jardine [Letter dated July 28, 1966, from Gerald and :Norma Bowers, Henry Uueste, Myra b!. Robinson, I I :Grace H. Cheadle, Ode11 Isaacs, Helen i.lachamer, ! :Mrs. Jesse L. Nilliken and James !$I. Covington, :concerning noise-making vehicles and the speeding i !of cars on city streets, was acknowledged by the i :Mayor. I I iAlso I a letter from Urs, Earie Krome !;issen, datedi ;July 27, 1966, concerning noise from motorcyc7es, i ;was acknowledged. I I :The Council recognized a letter from Donald A. /8riggs, Jr. and D. A. Briggs, Sr. , concerning an i toveral .drainage district financed under the :I911 Act proceedings, and the feasibility of the I jfull improvement of Park Drive. :Permission was granted to John Fox, onner and !operator of FOX'S Snug Harbor, to extend overnigh6 :privileges to a limited number of guests from the jb!orthing :Bel Aire Presbyterian Church on the \?leek-end of :Neiswender !August 13th and August 14th, as requested by :Atki nson :Rr. Fox in his letter dated August 1, 1966 addres-bunne !sed to the members of the City Council. jJardine I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I 1 I I * I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I !ORAL CQ~I~~IU~~ICATIOMS-; 4 * b 1 !PATRICK ZAtiLER, stated the City and himself are i jnot in agreement as far as a fair market apprais- I :a1 of his property. There was an article in the : ICarlsbad Journal that made him look like a :"meany" and it was his feeling the Carlsbad !Journal received their information from the City i :Manager. According to the article the fair market value is the City's appraisal of his pro- i tecty. The pre-trial date is set for August 23, ; t1'9.66.: He would agree to a stipulation, however, i ;he has not seen one that stated a fair market :value. Tke City and himself seem to be $2,000 i I I I I I 1 -e t- I I I I I I I I I I I 8 1 I I I I I ! 'e t 1 ! ". ".'\., '\. I I I ', %\,'\, I I '*, ', '1 I -2- I I Name '-,'%! I ; of *$ :--"""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I""""""" : Member i apart in figures. He stands to 1052 $2,900 and I I the City stands to lose $IO~,QOQ. I '. ' ' I I I I I I '(I I I I I I I I i The fiayor informed rlr. lahler he sat in on a : meeting where an offer wsis made, and the next i day he backed out from the offer. 1 URS. NUDEBUSH stated they do not feel the City ; I has come up with a fair appraisal for their pro- : i perty. The City's appraisor has newer been in i ; their house. She will not move out of her house I i ceive. I I I I I < I I I I I I I ; nnti 1 she knows exactly what she is going to re- i I ! I I I I :r - EKGINEERING: ! I I I I 1 i (a) Offer of street dedication by: 9andolph : Duke, Gordon Fellows and Edith Nary Dorothea I Ramsey. I I I I I I I ! 8 I I Grant deeds for the purpose cf street dedication korthing { in Chuparosa Fay were accepted by the Council )dei stvender ; from Randolph Duke, Sorcfon Fel7ows and Edith Rtkinson I Mary Dorothea Ranssy, and the City Clerk instructbunne 1 ed to record the same. pardine I ! * . i (b) Resolution 81291, accepting Stratford Lane i and Ckuparosa >!a:! for Public Street and right-of I way m. I i Resolution RO. I~F)I. A I?ESOLUTI~~M OF THE CITY : STRATFORD LAE A;-ID CHUPAHISA VF!Y FOR PuBtrr: i COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DEDICATIXG i STREET AND RfG&T OF \JAY PURPOSES, was adopted h!/ i title only and further reading waived, on I recommendation of the Engineering Department. I I t I -; ! 7 4 8 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 4 I I ! i (c) Request for v!aiver of street improvements - i re: Sloan il. Riaz. The Engineering Department : reported ilr. Diat has received a lot split on his I property, which is located at the far end of : Stratford Lane. He is requesting a Faiver of I street improvements for Laguna Drive. The Engi- ; neering Gepartment recommended the request grant- : ed due to the fact Laguna Drive is proposed as ! part of the Civic Center Site. : The request by Sloan ;:?. 3iaz for waiver of 1 street improvements and posting of bond, was i granted, subject to an agreement being entered : into for future street improvements in connection i with his property fronting on Laguna Drive. I I I i PLAb!NING: I I I (a) $$emorandurn from Planning Commission - re: : Laguna Riviera Subdivision and Temporary Real I Estate Offices and Signs. I I I I I I 4 1 I I e l I I I * I I I 8 I I 1 ! I I I I I I ti I I I I !4orthing *!ei swende Atki nson Dtrnne 3ardi ne !;,iorthi ng Mei swende Atkinson Dunne , Jardine I , I I I I I I I I I I I e l 8 1. I : (4ernorandum dated July 27, 1966 from the Planning i i Commission was presented, recommending that the ; : new proposed tentative subdivisian map for 8 i Laguna Riviera Subdivision showing lots 8,00n : foot and greater as a final solution. ! 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' ,%' 8 I , 8'. ' I 8, ', '\ '\ I '\ '\ '\ I I i I I I I ', '8, '\ I -3- i Name '8, 8: I ; of '3 I I I I 8 *< : Member I""""""""""""*"""""""""""""""""""""""""~""""""", i Also the Planning Commission agreed with 8 i the limitation of extensions on temporary real i : estate offices and temporary real estate signs i I to one year for each extension. b I I. Laguna Riviera Subdivision. i i TII~ new proposed map for Laguna Riviera Sukdivi- i : sion was presented for the Council's review. 1 I : The City Attorney informed the Council the tenta-i i tive map as xell as the reclassification and the : : precise plan for this development should all ha : i considered at one time. This inatter was referred I back to the P?anning Commission for a further re-; i port. The map, reclassification and precise plaq i are the sltme except with certain changes. I I i The Playor declared the ptrbl ic hearing open and I : requested the City Clerk to present the corres- i i pondence that had been received. f I i The Clerk presented letters from the following i i persons stating their ogposition to a reduction ; : in lot size from 10,OQQ sq. ft. to 8,000 sq. ft. i I I I I I lB3 I * I 0 t I I I t I 1 f : I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I t I I I I I I Charles R. and Alice Eymann, 4141 Skyline Rd. I Richard D. Cole, 4255 Skyline qoad I t Nrc. George !!i ndrum, 4238 Cl earvi ew I I Mrs. ',lard, Carlsbad, California I ; The i4ayor asked i? the applicant or his repre- i i sentative wished to speak? i YR. JE3RY ROiIBDTIS, representing Kamar Construct-! : ion Co., 325 Elm Avenue, informed the Council i i they have made a complete restudy of this subdi- : : vision. They have reduced the number of lots in i i the subdivision, increased the size of the lots I f and added additional land. They now have 174 I ; lots over 10,I)C)O sa. ft. and larger, where pre- i i vious?y they had 114 lotsi The park area consisqs : 4 acres and will be dedicated to the City a1 1 i i graded. The first unit will be the lower priced : : houses and the price range will be between i $20,500 and $23,000. As more units are developed, : Units 7, 8 and 9 will sell for $32,000, as these i i are prime lots with a view of the back country : i and Ocean. 8 I i i4r. Romhotis further stated they have employed i : an architect to design the homes, as this land i i lends itself to architectual beauty. t 8 I Drawings of the proposed homes were presented : : for the Council's review. Yr. RomSotis in- I i formed the Council they are requesting the flex- i i i bi lity to design the developnent as best as I I ; possible. I : The Wayor announced the Council would now hear : : from all persons who were opposed to the develop: i ment as presented. I I t I t I D I a 1 I f I i I I t I I I I 8 I * I I 1 I I I I l l 8 * I I I 8 I 1 I t I 8 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I .I . ... .. I ; 8, .\ '\ .\ I I '8 '\ '\ '\, I I '\ ', '\ I -4- I ," ,'\ I I I I I 8 '. . I I I ; Name \, \! I : of -4 I i Member i YR. JACK KUWTA, P. 0. sox 1095, Carlsbad, re- I : ferred to his letter of June 8, l?6F;9 ?::hick vas i i presented at the time the public hearing vas i held on the matter. ;:e inquired as to whether 04 ; not when there is a reduction in lot area if i this inaans a reduction in frontage? Also what ! : happens to the Frontage requirement if you go to i I an 8,000 sq. ft. lot - what \fill the frontage re-: i quiremcnt b2? i he City Planner stated the frontage requirement i I is 60' up to 10,000 sq. ft., and from 10,000 sq. : : ft. on up the frontage requirement is 75'. ! :Ir. Kubota stated in other words \when you reduce I i the size of the lot you are then reducing the : frontage. It was his opinion that where there i< i difficulties as to topography, the areas should i ! be isolated, and the City would be Par better ; i off to consider variances for these lots rather I i then reducing t5e zoning. i J. k!. C!.RRICHAEL, 4105 Skyline, stated he took i : the position of being opposed to the 8,00P sa. i i ft. zoning. We felt the Council did a very good : I job of setting do!;rn ground rules and Kamar 4 I i should have taken advantage of this. He would : ! like to see the Council send this back and reaui4e i a IO,OOO sq. ft. area. i AS there were n~ others persons desiring to speal<, \' 1 I ' 4 :""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""~""""""""""~". I I I * I 4 I I I 8 I I I I I I I * I I I I I 1 I I I I I I t * I I I I I i the public hearinq was declafed'closed at 7513 f i P . 1.1 . - I I I I 8 ! I i ?!layor Atkinson fnquired as to w17.7t will happen i i to the area that is not subdivided but is in- f cluded in the precise plan? I The C-lty Planner stated the entire subdivision i i is being presented as a precise plan. The five : I (5) large parcels are shown as one lot and they I i would have to come before the Planning Commissio6 ! and Council prior to being divided. 8 * i The Nayor asked if it was normal to reduce the i I lot frontage when you reduce the zoning? i The City Planner stated this was the normal pro- : i cedure rather than considering variances for thii I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I"ilany lots. ! I I I I I I I I : Cmn. Dunne stated in effect you may have some i IO,OOC sq. ft. lots that will not have 75' i frontage, and you have sone lots that are 8,00G i i sq. ft. that would have,.more than 75' frontage. I : Cnn. Jardine inquired as to whether there were i I some lots that are greater than 10,OOO sq. ft. : that do not have 75' frontage? i The Assistant Engineer informed the Council therd I are five lots on the cul-de-sac that are IO,~O~ : : sq. ft. lots that have less than 75' frontage. i I This happens quite often on a cul-de-sac. I I I 1 I 1 I I I I * I I c r I I I : I I I I I I I I v I ! f ! I I I I ! .I I I' l t, '\ .\. ',, - I I \, '\, '\ 8 I I .' I I \" I I 8, '\ ' I \ " I i Name '\,'Y I -5- I : of '3 I .! I i Member I ! I I I I ~"""""""""""""~""""~""""""""""""""""""""""""-"". I i Cmn. kiorthing informed the Council there were : Five lots mentioned in the resolutirzn indicating I i MY. Kl;bcta stated he was told that i<amar is ask- i i ing for 8,0011 sq. ft. for this subdivisfon; how- ! i everg he also undzrstands that there are some lots ! ' that exceed 10,000 sq. ft. that do not have ! : 75' frontzge. I I I T~S City Planner informed the Council all the i i lots wil? be zoned 8,000 sq. ft. with a precise I : plan. If any lot is changed once a precise plan i \ is adopted the developer would have to appear i : before the Council. I I ! Cmn. Dunne stated he felt the are3 in white shoula \ be eliminated, which includes the 5 large parcels:. i The City Planner further stated as the map no?! [ : stands only one house could be built on these I i -Five parcels. I ~mn. Dunne asked if this plan were changed, delet: i ing these five parcels, !~roulCf it have to go back ; t Commission consider deleting these parcels? i The City Planner stated the Planning Commission i : did take into consideration the deletion of these: i parcels; however, due to the fact they would !have to come before the Planning Commissicn and i I the City Council before they could divide these i i parcels , it was their fee1 ing the parcels would 1 : remain in the precisc plan. I I : Cmn. Dunne stated the plan as presented will trp i i grade the area. The Planning Commission has done: : considerable nork on this matter. However, he : i felt these parcels should be deleted. i Cmn. Jardine stated there were two ways this i matter could be resolved. Either 2ane this area ! ; as 10,000 sr!. ft. with the exception of these i I lots 9 or delete the five parcels. I I I I I 4 1 less than 75' frontage. * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : -to the Planning Commission? Also did the Planninb 1 I * I I I I I I I 1 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I ! i Mr. Rombotis i nforned the Council it v~as their I intention to appzar befcre the Council at such i time as the City has an ordinance for planned : unit development. : By motion of the Council it was agreed that the i matter be referred back to the Planning Commis- : sion for further study and report as to the i following alternatives: I I. That the five parcels be deleted from i the precise plan; or I 2. That all the lots be zoned R-1-10,000 i including the five parcels. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I.rorth i ng Fei svrender fitkinson purine Uardine I 4 I 1 I m . ! I 2. Temporary Real Estate Office and I I I I I I I signs. 1 i After reviewing tile memorandum from the Planning i : Commission in which they concurred with the find-: i ings of the City Council , the folloving resolu- : ! I tion and ordinance was presented: I I * I s i a I I I' , ' " '\ 1 I \, 'x ', 8, I I '\ '\ '\ I I f ". I I '\ b ' I ; I '\, '\, ' I -6- i Name ', '! : of .8i '< I i Member 4 t I t I"""""""~""--""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $ I * I I I i Resolution No, 1285. A RESQLUTION QF THE CITY I 1 I8GS AND DECISIOM RELATING TO TiIE PROPOSED AMEHD-: !)!orthing I AND SIGNS, was adopted by title only and further ! Dunne ' i reading vaived. i Jardi ne i Ordinance NO. 9186. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF I i CARLSBAD AMENDING SECTIOMS 1507 ADID 7508 9F : !!orthi ng I ES.TATE OFFICES AND SIGi\!S, was given a first read-: Atkinson ; ing by title only. I Dunne :COUWCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AF'dNOUNCING FIND- i I NENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 9060, SECTIONS 1507 A3D i P!ei swendc i 7508, IIEGARDING TE!s?PORARY REAL ESTATE OFFICES : Atkinson 4 + I I : QRDS!~iAI'1CE XO. 9060, REGARDIMG TEMPORARY REAL i Nei swende I I : Jardine & I I e i NEW BUS.T!!ESS: i The foll owing ordinances and resol uti on were ;Budget for ffscal year 1*66-57; I t I I I I I 1 I 1 I ; presented in accordance with the Preliminary 1 ! I I I t i (a) Ordinance Ro. 1096. AN ORDINANCE OF THE I I I I I : CITY OF CARLSSAD FIXING THE R!4fl111\.1T OF REVENUE ! FROM PROPERTY TAXES ?4€C€SSkRY TO SUPPORT THE i DEPARTRENTS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND FIXING ! : THE AMOUPiT OF REVENUE FROM PROPERTY TAXES NECES- i !dorthing : SARY TO PAY T!!E EQHDED INDEGTEDMESS OF THE "CXTY : Neiswende i OF CARLSBAD SEbIEF? DISTRICT NO. 2" FOR THE FISCAL !Atkinson i YEAR 1966-67, \:as adopted by title only and : Ounne : further reading waived. i Jardi ne I (b) Ordinance No. 1097. AN ORDINANCE OF THE i Vort h i nq ! CITY OF CARLSBAT! SETTING THE TAX RATE FOR THE i b!ei swenhe i CITY OF CARLSBAD AND THE "CITY OF CARLSBAD SEI.!ER :Atkinson : DISTRICT NO. 2" FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1966-C7, was i Dunne I adopted by title only and further reading naived.:Jardine I I I I I 1 I I I ! 1 I I i (c) Resolution Xo. 1293. A RESOLUTIOR OF THE i Worth i ng i CITY COUECIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, ADOPTING l Heiswende : THE SALARY PLAQE AQ!D t*!ORK CQt!BITIONS FOR THE CITY !Atkinson I adopted by title only and further reading waived.: Jardine i OF CARLSBAT) FOR THE 7966-67 FISCAL YEAR, was i Dunne ! I : (c) Downtown Street Lighting 9istrict - A. R. i 4-'1964- 1911 Act Proceedings. The City Attorney i jinformed the Council the bonding attorney has I I I I I i requested the fo1 I owing resol uti on regarhi ng i 9aiver of Investigation Proceedings for the : Downtown Street Lighting DSstrict: : Resolution 140. 1294. A RESOLUTION OF TEE CITY i COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD CORRECTING RESO- i : LUTZON NO. 1179 TO PROPERLY REFLECT ACTZOPI OF I i CITY CI)UMCIL REGARDI!!G 1dAfVER OF I!dVESPIGATION iMorthing i PROCEEDIHGS UNDER THE "SPECIAL ASSESSNEMT INVEST-: Mgiswendei : IGATION, LIPIITATIOM AND HAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF :Atkinson :1931", was adopted by title only and further : Dunne : reading waived. I Jardine : OLD BUSINESS: I : (a) Jack Y. Kubota - re: Apveal of request for i i zone change from Zone R-1 to Zone R--P of property! : located on the southerly side of Mnowles Avenue : i easterly on Pi0 Pic0 Drive. 1 * I I I $ I 8 t 8 I I I I I I * I I I I I i I t * I I I - I I I * $ I 8 '$ ! i I a * I I I -1 I I ' \.\ \' I 1 ''\ '\ ', '\\ I '., 8, '\\ I -7- i Name '8,'d I : of '* I : 1 $3 I ' '\ ' I '\ \ '8 I I I I I ! Member ;""""~""""""~"""~""""""~""~"""""""-~""""""~"-"-"""". ! I i $1~. JACK IIUEOTA, F. 0. BOX 1095, Carlsbad, state4 I this was an appeal that has been before the i Council since Decenber 7, 1965. The basic reasod : for the appeal vas the reasons given by the Plan-: : ning Commission in their Resolutisn #445 for I i denying their request for rezoning. They realir$ i that Mortuaries can be placed in an R-P Zoning, ; : howeverg they are concerned with a business offide. i The resolution alsa states there is sufficient i : R-P zoning in the City. In their opinion the : i reason the R-P toned area is not being used is ! 1 ienying the request were that the zone change : I would not be in concurrence with the General Pla? i and it would constitute spot zoning. I I I I I ?ue to the location, The other reasons given fod I t t I i Xr. Kubota stated he did not feel that Pi0 Pic0 i I Drive is an R-1-7500 area due to the Freeway. I I Some- property owners feel the property along i Pi0 Pic0 Dr. should be commercial. Also there i : was not one pers~n in the area that protested : I this rezoning. I I i Nayor Atkinson inquired as to the precise plan i : for his development. : Mr. Kubota stated he did not feel that a precise i i plan womlc! be beneficial at this time due to the: : street dedication that will be needed for the i 1 widening of the Freeway. As far as Knowles Ave. I i they would be willing to improve their share. I I i !layor Atkinson inquired as to vhcther it was : his intention? to use the present building for i i an office, and Eir. Kubota stated it uas for the : : present time. I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 t 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 I I I I I t I I I 1 I I I I B I I I t 1 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 I Cmn. Meiswender asked it if would not be we11 to I have a design presented for this area. He felt : this was the time to explore an architectual playi. Hr. Kubota stated the City might want to considea a concept for both sides of the Freeway - maybe I along the lincs of the Civic Center. I I ~rnn . Dunne pointed out the Council granted a i Tamarack and at ?io Pic0 and Elm Avenue. How- ; ever. he fe?t that a zone change should be accomplished by a precise pl&n;,. Mr. Kubota stated it is true the City wants to i focus along architectual control, however, he : did not Feel this one sector should be considereh. The City Planner informed the Council four mem- I bers of the Planning Comlnission voted unanimous-; ly to deny this request for the reasons stated i in their resolution. The Commission felt there : should be a precise plan for the area prior to I any zone change; there was adequate R-P and C ; zoning at the present time for an Engineering i office; the General Plan points out that office ; buildings should fringe on the commercial area,, i as this is not the type of business that needs ! the Freevjay access; cornmerciai and other uses i I I I I zone change to property at the intersection of 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I ', 8 '\ ' I I ." I I I I I I I I I I I I '\\ 't, ?, ", I I '\\ '8, ' 8 -8- i Name 8\,'i I ; of 'J I : Member ~""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""~""-~"--------"-- i could be allowed with a precise plan; and this I i would be spot zoning. Also if this is a proper : : use for this area, then the City s~noul~d decide -- i i what we want for the entire area along the Free- i \" I I I l a ! way. .) 1 I I I i 2r. Kubota fgrther stated one thing that should i I not be overlooked is the Fjaster Plan shows this i : area as R-1-7500. Uith four laness and soon i there will be eight fanes of traffic.. . in the t Freeway, is this the proper use for property I I I adjoining the Freeway? R-P zoning would not : bother the neighbors as none came forth to pro-: i test. The sooner the property owners along the i I Freeway can get started on a plan the sooner the : : City plan will be accomplished. In their opinion! i their request is reasonable. Unless the Council I : is in a position to take a forthright position : I then all of the goals for the Cit.y will be lost. i i !layor Atkinson stated it was his feelfng that i i dictate a change in zone for the area along Pi0 I f Pico, but he did not feel this was the time. i After further consideration, by notion of the : Vorthi ng :Council, the City Council approved the action I Nei swende i of the Planning Commission. : Atkiueson I I I I I I I * 1 I I I i there will be a time in the future vhere it will i I I I I I I I I I I I i Dunne I i Jardine f I I I i Cmn. Neiswender requested that the City Planner i i consider an architectual design for the area I I ; along the Freway. I The City Hanager pointed out that if you drive i 1 through San Clenente you will see the Freeway ; is landscaped and you do not see the structures. I I The portion of Freevay through Carlsbad will be : I landscaped. ! ! I I I I I I I I I 1 I I : CITY ATT0RWEY"S REPORT: ! 1 I I I I I :The City Attorney requested an executive session ! i called. i The Council adjourned to an adjoining room of i i the Chambers at 9:03 P.T;?. I I i ~l?e regular meeting of the Council reconvened at i : 9:24 P.M. I : Nayor Atkinson announced the purpose of the ex- i i ecutive session was to discussion possible liti- i : gation. I I :Appointment 1 to Library Euilding Committee, The i I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I : Nayor appointed Councilmen Horthing and Meiswendef- i to the Library Building Committee. I I l l e t I l I I I I I a I CITY YANAGER'S REPORT: I I I :The City Nanager recommended that a letter of :cornmendation be sent to the San Diego Gas 81 Elec-i i tric Company for their cooperation in helping I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 ,I * * , \\ '\ -8 '\ I I ', '\ ' I -9- i Name '\, ' I Member : """"" "" """"""_ * """""""""""""""" ""* """""; """"""_. I' 4 4 I I I 's '\,"8, ' I I of ' , I %\ ' ' ' 'I I # t $< I 8 8 I * 1 0 i to complete the Downtown Street ii9hting histricti I E4ayor Atkinson instructed the City Yanager to i : prepare a letter of commendation for the Nayor's ; i signature. .( I i Permission was granted to the Southern California! Morthing t Speedboat Club, Inc. to hold an Inboard Racing i Neiswendc i Regatta in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on Sunday, : Atkinson ; August 25, 1346, on recommendation of the City i Dunne i Wanager. : Jardine i Cmn. Dunne stated he noticed that signs are post-i i ed along Carlsbad Blvd. designating speed limit, : ! and felt perhaDs signs should be aosted in other ! : areas of the City. i The City Manager informed the Council they are I : malting a survey as to how other cities handle * i this problem, and a report will be made to the I : Counci 7. I * ! Cmn. Dunne requested the white lines f~r pedestrik i an crass walks along Cartsbad Boulevard. I I I Cnn. Dunne a150 announced that the speeding and i i traffic violatjons that were discussed by Cmn. : Neiswender and himself last meeting, he would I like to comment this Yras no reflection on the : Police Department. The Police Department has i always been very courteous and checked into any I :matter brought to their attention, * ! ! : Cmn. kJorthing inquired as to the letter from i Mr. ?,!inner presented last meeting concerning I : his receipt of payments due on 1911 Act Bonds i for Chestnut Avenue. i The City ?.?anager informed the Council he had not t i had a chance to make a definite check on the * I :matter.; however, one thing is that payment was i I not made until after authorization is given by ; : the Counci 1. * : The City Planager reported the Oceanside Bus i System is using Las Flores Drive no\: instead of i : Buena Vista Avenue, and they are also making a : i study of- rerouting their buses in Carlsbad. 1 I I I * I 8 * I I f I I i * * I I I * 1 * I I I 6 t I I I I * I I I I * * I I I 1 I 1 * I I I i 4 * I t t i * I * i Cnn, Jardine inquired as to the legality of ! i crossing the double line on Elm Avenue in order ; :to enter the Poinsettia1 Shopping Center. I I : The City Manager stated it was legal to cross a i i double line if there is a driveway for access. i Cmn. Neiswender stated he fe?t Jim's Bait shop i :has done an excellent job of policing the area ; ion the beach where he is leasing. I I 1 I t t * I i I I I I t * I I ! a. i Cmn. Neiswender also requested that the Engineer-; i I ing Department further study the intersection of : :Pine Avenue and Basswood Avenue. I I I * 8 I I i * * * * I * I I I I t * I ! 1 . * I I t I ,(. ** I I I I '\\. \ I I I ',, '\,'", '', - 10 - I '\\ '\\ 1 I i Name \, '! ; I 8 ', \ i ', \ '. I : of '3 I I I I I \' :"""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""*"""""-~""""""" i Member !The City fdanagei- reported this matter was on the i i1.ist for the next meeting of the Traffic Safety : : Commi ttee. I I * I 1 I I I 1 I 'AIJTklORIZP,TIO!I FOR PAYRENT OF GILLS AfJD RATIFICA- : k[ol%j OF PAYROLL: I I .- I I I I I jhthorization was given for the payment of hills I : ! for the general expenses of the City in the l :!arthi ng jaelount of $51,734.22 and for the Viater Departmenti~!eiswende :in the amount of $76,846.64, for the period {Atkinson :July 19, 7966 to August 2, 1966, as certified by IDunne :the Director of Finance and apnroved by the :Jardine i Atrdi ti ng Cornmi ttee. !Ratification of the payroll was given for the jIJorthing !second half of July, 7965, in the amount of ; P!ei svrende: :$22,764.73, as certified by the Director of !Atkinson ;Finance and approved by the Auditing Committee. :Dunne I I I I I I I I I I :Jardine I :ABJOURNNEfiT: 1- I I I I I i I :By proper notion the meeting was adjourr?ed at I I i 9: 42 P. i"4. I I I I I I I : Respectful ly submitted, I I I I I I I CI I ; i . f,f/&&&Z. ,:/; E L//2,eJfld A- I WMGA~?ET E. ADA!IS !City Clerk I I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 4 $ I I 1 1 I I I I I 8 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 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 I I I I t I I I I t I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 . I I I t I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 * I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I t I t I I I I I I I I I I .