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 .