HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1974i
Pledge
Roll Call
City Staff
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 1974 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
Present: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,
Jesse Norris and Kenneth E. Schwartz
Absent: None
Present: J. H. Fitzpatrick, City'Clerk; R. D. Miller,
Administrative Officer; A. J. Shaw, Jr., City
Attorney; E. L. Rodgers, Chief of Police; Don
Sylvia, Fire Captain; Robert Strong, Planning
Director; D. F. Romero, City Engineer
I. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on
Resolution No. 2630 (1974 Series), a resolution of the Council of thl
City of San Luis Obispo fi.ndi_nq that a public nuisance may.exist
upon the premises at 319 Branch Street and ordering a public hearing
upon the same and the abatement thereof.
The alleged nuisance consisted of inoperable and unlicensed vehicles
(Volkswagen trucks and vans) on the property of Erwin Woelfle.
See Court Reporter's Transcript; dated August 5, 1974, for conduct
of the public hearing.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Brown the
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2642 (1974 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finding the
existence of a public nuisance and ordering the abatement thereof. .
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Norris, Graham, Brown, Gurnee and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance,
1 Section 9200.36, to reduce parking requirements for various outdoor
uses in the C -H zone.
Robert Strong, Planning Director, presented the recommendations of the
Planning Commission as.follows:
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 2
The Planning Commission took action to recommend to the '
City Council that Zoning Ordinance Section 9200.36 be amended
to require one space per 1,000 square fett for the first
10,000 square feet and one space per 5,000 square feet for
area in excess of 10,000 square feet for the following outdoor
sale uses in only the C -H district, except where Planning
Commission required additional off street parking pursuant
to use permit consideration. Uses include farm implements,
boats, lumber, plant nursery, building materials, etc.
The recommended reduction in
on a staff survey of similar
for these types of uses whic
requirement -of - one. space =par
of whether the use was large
appeared excessive.
parking requirements was based
cities' parking requirements
i revealed the City's current
q;500 square feet, regardless
or small, indoors or outdoors,
The change recommended would establish a reduced minimum
parking standard for these bulk sales'operations where
located in a C -H District, but each proposal would be
evaluated pursuant to use permit requirements. The revised
amendment did not alter the parking for permitted C -H uses
nor affect the requirements of the M zone as was previously
rejected by.the City Council.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open. ,
Arnold Volny spoke in support of the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance in regard to parking the C -H
District.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
The City Council discussed in detail exactly what the amendment proposed
by the Planning Commission would accomplish.
Robert Strong explained the studies made by the Planning Department 'i-n
making their recommendation to the Planning Commission.
On motion of Councilman.Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown the following
ordinance was introduced: ORDINANCE NO. 621 (1974 Series), an Ordinance
of the City of San Luis Obispo amending the Zoning Ordinance to reduce
parking requirements for various outdoor uses in.the C -H Zone.
Passed to print on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Br, own, Graham, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
3. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance
to permit development of substandard lots in a H zones.
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 3
Robert Strong, Planning Director, presented the recommendation of
the Planning Commission as follows:
The: Commission initiated a proposal to establish use
permit, rather than variance procedures, to control
development.of non - conforming lots. Pursuant to advice
received from the City Attorney with regard to mandatory
findings required for variance approval, certain non=
conforming lots appeared inequitably treated within the
existing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically,
- Section 9200.16 provided, a lot of less area or width
than required by zoning or subdivision regulations, may
be developed under the following conditions:
A. A lot with less than 50 feet of frontage may be
developed provided that.no adjoining lot had been in the
same ownership at any time since January 17, 1955.
B. Lots with frontages of 50 feet or more recorded before
January 17, 1955 may be developed.individually.regard-
less of ownership.
Robert Strong continued that throughout.odlder residential neighbor-
hoods, a prevalent subdivision pattern included lots typically 50
feet and less in width. Where such lots were individually owned,
pursuant to condition A, they were considered acceptable building -
sites without any City review or consideration of the difficulty of
1 complying with property development.standards, except by variance..
Lots with 50 feet or more frontage were considered more compatible
with current property development standards and logically can be
excluded from special development control,.pursuant to condition B.
The inequity °:existed when an individual acquired two,- three, or four
adjoining non - conforming lots with less than 50 feet: frontage in
which case the parcels were.merged into a single parcel which must
satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance if it is
resubdivided.
To remove this ingquity, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 9200.16c.1 be amended to read as follows:,
"A lot with less-:than 50'feet of frontage may be
developed, subject to use permit approval, except where
adjoining property in the same ownership, at any time
since January 17, 1955, enables a potential for
resubdivision into four or more conforming parcels."
The purpose for the contingent provision was to avoid including and
enabling substandard development of large acreage under single owner-
ship which had been previously subdivided (for example Terrace Hill).
It is recommended that the use permit control over such non- conforming
lot development be required to assure that substandard lot development
comply with all property development standards of the underlying
zoning except where use permit approval provided specific variation.
He continued that the Planning Commission further recommended that
Section 9200.17 F 2 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include
as item M, "Development of non - conforming lots, including variation
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 4
of property development standards, as may be approved by use permit."
This additional provision would delegate consideration of non - conforming
lot development to the Board of Adjustments rather than require Planning
Commission administration of use permit except where appealed.
In recognition that the proposed amendment would not enable development
of substandard lots without further consideration by the City pursuant
to use.permit, it was the opinion of the Commission that the proposed
amendment would not enable a change in land use or density, nor weaken
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, thus a negative E.I.R. declaration
had been issued.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the proposed
amendment.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
The City Council discussed the proposal in detail with Robert Strong as
to the effect that the proposed recommendation of the Planning Commission
would have on lots of record within the City Limits.
After discussion, the matter was continued on motion of Councilman Brown,
seconded by Councilman Graham for further staff input as to the effect
the proposed recommendation would have on City development. Motion
carried, all Ayes.
4. At this time the City Council considered the FINAL PASSAGE of
ORDINANCE No. 619, an ordinance amending the official zone map of the
City of San Luis'Obispo (to rezone 200 Higuera Street), zon+ngnthe property
at the northwest corner of South Street and Higuera Street from District
M (Industrial) to District C -H (Heavy Commercial).
Robert Strong, Planning Director, again reviewed for the City Council
the recommendation of the Planning Commission in rezoning the property.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the adoption of
the ordinance.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Norris Ordinance
No. 619 (1974.Series), an ordinance amending the official-zone map of the
City of San Luis Obispo, was introduced for final passage on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Norris, Brown, Graham and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 5
5. At this time the City Council considered the FINAL PASSAGE
of ORDINANCE NO. 620, an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo
revising and amending the Fire Zone Map.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Robert Strong, Planning Director, and Captain Don Sylvia of the Fire
Department,_presented recommendations of the staff for amending the
existing fire zone map.
No one appeared before the City Council for or against the proposal.
Mayor Schwartz . declared the public hearing closed.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded. by Councilman Graham,
Ordinance No. 620, (1974 Series), an ordinance of the City of San
Luis Obispo revising and amending the Fire Zone Map was introduced
for final passage on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Brown, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. At this time the City Council considered the discussion
of the working hours for Police Officers, continued from the July 15,
1974 City Council meeting.
' R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, submitted a report'to the City
Council regarding salaries and other benefits for Police Officers in
the City of San Luis Obispo, dated July 19, 1974.
E. L. Rodq& ;Chief of Police, submitted to the City Council a
lengthy report and memorandums from each of the Lieutenants; Sergeants
and three female dispatchers from the Police Department in attempting
to approximate the times that Police Officers were called out during
their lunch periods.
The Police Chief wished to remind the City Council that they have never
kept records of this type in the past because of the bookkeeping
problem involved. He also. submitted an evaluation by Captain Engl.ert
of all the various.memorandums.from personnel of-the Police Department.
It was the Police Chief's opinion that during . any particular month,
with full complement of personnel, that the men were interrupted
approximately 83 times per month. He felt this information was only
an approximation and estimation by all parties concerned.
He suggested that this matter be put off until January I, 1975, and
the Department would keep an accurate account as to the times officers
had their meal - breaks interrupted.
A. J. Shaw, City Attorney, stated there was no urgency for the City
Council to take action on this matter, as the new Federal Labor
Standards Act did not become effective for Police and Fire Safety
Officers until January I, 1975.
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 6
He further stated the Department of Labor, U. S. Government, would be
sending out their regulations on Safety Officers hopefully sometime in..
the month of September, which would establish guidelines on what
working hours were, including meal times and time off. He felt that
until the definitions had been received, as far as the Federal Government
was concerned, the City Council might be making decisions in a vacuum.
He.also suggested that the City Council should at least continue
consideration of this matter until after the annual California League
of Cities meeting held in October as he felt sure that this would be a
major conference discussion item. At that time the regulations would
have been released from the Department of Labor, and everyone would
be discussing the matter from a more informed point of view'.
Mayor Schwartz reviewed the options open to the City in dealing with .
the meal time report for Safety Personnel.
Officer Ed Martin, President, Police Officers' Association stated he
felt all Police Officers were on duty 24 hours per day, and particularly
during meal periods. He felt that anytime an officer was called away
from his meal time he should be paid for this time which was put in for
the safety of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo.
R. D. Miller, Administrative Officer, stated if the City had to pay for
the meal periods, then he felt all officers should eat at the Police
Department and not be allowed to leave the station for lunch or other
meal-,periods or on personal business as was allowed at the present time.
Councilman Gurnee stated he was in support of the Police Officers' 1
contention that meal times were on -duty times, and;he also fel.t they.should
be paid for any time spent in the service of the City.
Councilman Norris stated he was in support of the Police Officers being
off -duty for meals. He also supported continuing this matter until
after the League meeting so -that everyone would have full knowledge of
what was being discussed.
Councilman Brown stated he did not feel this was an urgency matter and it
could be continued until after the next League meeting.
Councilman Graham also agreed that this matter could be continued until
after- the rules and regulations had been reviewed from the Department-of
Labor an interpreted by the League of California Cities.
Mayor Schwartz felt the City Council should.make a decision on the matter
of working hours for Police Officers. He felt the City should continue
the present working conditions until after the regulations from.the
Department of Labor were received and interpreted by the League of
California Cities:
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Mayor Schwartz the matter
was continued until after the League meeting, and the Police Officers
would continue the existing work periods until that time. Motion
carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilman Norris, Mayor Schwartz and Counci -lman Brown
NOES: Councilmen Gurnee and Graham
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 7
9:00 P.M. Mayor Schwartz declared a recess.
9:15 P.M. The meeting reconvened with all Council Members present.
'
7. Continuation of the public hearing on the request of
Central California Communications Corporation (Cable TV) for a rate
increase in the monthly subscription rates (continued from July 15,
1974).
Arthur Hapgood, General Manager, Central California Communications
Corporation,.reviewed for the City Council the answer to the six
questions of the City Council at the public hearing held July 15,
1974, relative to the rate increase.
Question #1 was justification for. the high expenditure for micro-
wave improvements. Mr. Hapgood stated that there was an adequate
communication with the City Council as the CCCC was not intending to
spend $155,000 to increase microwave reception. The figure $1.55,000
in Exhibit 7 projected a capital expenditure for the San Luis Obispo
Cable System itself. This money would be spent to wreckout. and
replace many current amplifiers and other active and passive devices,
which was a program followed by CCCC's normal program of maintaining
its system up to date. This was also required under the Federal
Communication Commission rules and regulations." In Exhibit I of
their rate increase they did propose an overall incrase in microwave
tariffs to be paid to Microwave Transmission Corporation to add and
alter present microwave facilities primarily to increase reliability
of good signals from imported stations. The increase in microwave
'
costs would be an on -going cost item. They estimate that the increase
annually would be around $6,400.
Question #2 was the possibility of instituting program and channel
changes, etc,. Mr.. Hapgood stated the entire matter of channel changes
was more academic than practical since the F.C.C. now controlled 'all
importation of signals. Current signals in San Luis Obispo were
grandfathered in first in 1968 and again in March, 1972. Mr. Hapgood
then presented a letter from CCCC's Washington F.C.C. cable attorney's
office briefly outlining the inherent hazards in al.teri:ng signal
carriage. The matter of KQED vs KTVU also basically was academic
since there was only one leg of common carrier video microwave coming
south. Therefore, the Council had three choices (1) place KQED
full time, (2) put KTVU full time, or (3) continue to share the one
leg of microwave giving priority to KQED. He continued that this matter
was discussed on many previous` occasions by many previous Councils.
The previous Councils concluded they did not wish to become involved
in programming. It had consistently been the decision to share the
channel., leaving the pre- emption of KQED to the discretion of CCCC.
Examination would show that in actuality the frequency of pre-
emption was almost insignificant considering the total number of
hours broadcast by KQED, and a large segment of audience was served by
sports exclusively seen on KTVU. Also, by having access to KTVU it
would permit CCCC to fill that channel when KQED was off the air for
vacations;.and other reasons. .
Basically the decision was "Is Council going to deny sports enthusiasts
the highly exclusive sports coverage in order to halt the occasional
pre- emption of KQED programming ?" Such a decision meant Council was
indeed entering the area of program selection.
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 8
Question #3 was the possibility of a reduced monthly service charge .
for citizens over 60 years of age. Art Hapgood stated that CCCC must
be completely objective.in this matter, and objected to this suggestion
for the following reasons: ,
I. It was self - defeating. Many of the people on low
incomes in this community were under sixty, including
thousands of college students. Many young fami.lies
getting started were on low incomes. They.could right-
fully protest that rates were discriminatory.
2. It would create serious accounting problems.
3. The City did not require any other franchise holder to
function under such an unrealistic business practice;
indeed the City, itself, in water.charges:did not.
function under such a plan.
4. No such requirement was made of the garbage company.
5. Local businesses were not required to function under
such a fiscal program.
6. The P.U.C. did not require public utilities to .function
under such an unrealistic fiscal program.
7. CCCC.did not believe CAN rate was a fair way to
legislate social justice.
8. CCCC did not believe it could accept this suggestion. ,
Question #4 was the clarification of the definition of household and
commercial service outlets.'
Question #5 was discussion on consideration of initiating a service .
installation charge rather than present deposit and /or monthly service
rate increase. .
Andfinally, Question #6 was the impact on CCCC revenues if all domicile
residences were charged the $4.60 per month service fee, rather than the
$5.60 as proposed which would include all mobile home parks, apartments,
student dormitories., etc.
In conclusion, Mr. Hapgood stated on behalf of CCCC that before they
came to the City Council they had submitted a complete and carefully
prepared request for a rate modification, based on the needs of CCCC.
The City Staff was.provided: with complete financial.detail to substantiate
the proposed rate modification. The staff studied the entire proposal
and made its recommendations to the City Council that the, request was
reasonable and justified.
CCCC had answered the six points put
hearing on July 15, 1974, and they now
out by the Council at the public
requested that the City Council
take action on the
request based on
staff report, the CCCC presentation,
and the answers to
the six points in
Councilman Graham's motion of
J u l y 15', 1974.
City Council Minutes
August 5,.1974
Page 9
Woody Goulart, 3002 Bahia Court, San Luis Obispo, again presented
a suggestion to the City Council for a better allocation of channels
and programming for CCCC for..implementation before securing a rate
increase. His proposal.was to change various channels presently
brought into San Luis Obispo to guarantee more educational channels
for those interested.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
Maynard Marquardt, stated he was dissatisfied with.the present programming
on CATV. He did not feel that there would be any problem in having the
FCC change.to more channels to give more selection to.the - citizens
of San Luis Obi.spo. He.would not object to a rate increase for CCCC
if better programming were provided. He informed the City Council
that he was an.expert in rate. making before the FCC and he had many
years.experience winning battles for radio, before the Federal
Communications Commission, and he was sure that these changes as.
requested by himself. and Mr.. Goulart would be most happily done by
the FCC.
Susan Fisk appeared before the City .Council stating she felt cab9e
television.must do more than just carry-commercial stations. She felt
that many of the channels should be made available.for local public_
to have access so that local citizens could produce and put on shows
on the cable.
Frank Calvary agreed that educational programs must be required for
local citizens. He felt that a poll would show that citizens want
more educational and.less commercial stations.
Dink Hall.objected to the. quality of present .cable reception in the
City of San Luis Obispo particularly in his neghborhood.
Mr. Hapgood explained the complicated conditions in bringing cable
television into San Luis Obispo.by microwave and cable, and he would
send someone out to meet with Mr. Dink Hall to review his particular
problem.
Mickey Alexander asked if an installation fee could be added for each
new customer, rather than increasing the monthly charge. He felt
that if cable television would increase their programming, it would
also increase their customers.
Mayor Schwartz.then reviewed question #4.which was asked by the City
Council of CCCC defining households, domiciles, etc.
Mr. Hapgood.on behalf of CCCC stated if the City Council wished KQED
and KTVU both to be brought into San Luis Obispo in order to satisfy
the .sports enthusiasts and also the educational television people,
then CCCC would be most happy to apply for an additional microwave
leg from the Bay Area..to..their tower, but he wished to the City
Council. to know that from the time the appl.icat'ion was.filed_and
until the two channels.were brought in, it would take.almost a year,
which would include permit time'from the PCC, ordering from the
microwave company, and
the
actual
installation to carry the microwave.
Mayor-Schwartz declared
the
public
hearing closed.
Councilman Brown stated, after reviewing the record,.that.the request
by CCCC for a rate increase was justified, and he also felt that the
offer by CCCC to bring in two microwave stations from the Bay Area,
if possible, was a good compromise for the people of San Luis Obispo.
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 10
Councilman Graham stated he was in support. of the rate increase..
Also, he thanked CCCC -i'n' their offer to bring a new microwave leg
in from the Bay Area allowing KQED to be on full time.
Councilman Gurnee stated he was in support of the two'microwave legs
from the Bay Area into San Luis Obispo. He also felt that the
condition of the rate increase be that KQED not be pre- empted for any
reason while they were broadcasting.. He also felt that some pro-
vision should be made to lower rates to people over 60 years of
age. He concluded that CCCC merited some increase -in rate, but not
until a special rate was granted to senior citizens and.also.that all
domiciles be treated the same within the City' of San Luis Obispo.
Councilman Norris stated he was in support of the CCCC rate increase;'
he also felt the CCCC's offer be accepted in bringing in two microwave
legs from Bay Area to San Luis.Obispo so that the'full time KQED'and'.
KTVU channels would be delivered. He felt that a refundable deposit
was better than an installation charge.
Mayor Schwartz.felt that th
support CCCC's request. He
presenting information to t
felt.the City Council shoul
in one additional microwave
in order to carry both the
commercial channel.
rate increase was justified and he would
.felt that CCCC had.done a good job in
he Council.on'cable television. He also
d accept the proposal of'CCCC to.bring
channel from the San Francisco Bay Area
KQED, educational channel;.and KTVU,
i
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown the
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2643 (1974 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing
Central California Communications Corporation to =:increase the rates
permitted to.be.charged to cable television subscribers.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Norris, Brown, Graham, Gurnee and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. & 20. At th.is time
Assessment District for
San Luis Drive.
the City Council considered the formation of an
the widening of Johnson Avenue just east of
James T. Morton, Attorney for the Special Assessment District, reviewed
for the City Council the steps that would be required to initiate the
proceedings for an assessment district on the property owners involved
in the City widening. He reviewed for the Council's consideration the
resolution of. preliminary determination of intention; the resolution of
preliminary approval of engineer's report; a resolution appointing.time
and place of public hearing; a resolution.describing the proposed
boundaries of the assessment district;' and a resolution calling for
sealed proposals and fixing liquidated damages.
D. F. Romero, City Engineer, presented for the Council's consideration
the plans and specifications for.the San Luis Drive - Johnson Avenue
Street Widening Project, City Plan No. 2 -72, Select Street No. 161:
u
1
City Council Minutes,
August 5, 1974
Page 11
Estimated Cost - $126,000 of which $75,000 would be budgeted under
Gas Tax and additional monies under Select Road.
The Engineer then reviewed the timing for construction of the project
' for advertising, holding the public hearings, etc.
He concluded that if Plan "F" was not adopted by the City Council
tonight, the project should be held over for construction in the
Spring of 1975, due to the delays inherent in redesign and the
various committee approvals which would make this a winterproject
with great hazard to adjacent properties.
A. J. Shaw, City Attorney; then submitted forlthe City Counci.l's
information ,a chart designed to depict the advantages and disadvantages
of each of the preliminary plans developed to counteract the problem
caused by the embankment on the Bilodeau property in connection
with the widening of Johnson Avenue. He felt that Plan "F" was a
temporary solution, 10 to 15 years, which was unsatisfactory to all
concerned. He concluded that it would save a eucalyptus tree which
had grown to maturity during the.past 20.years and it would save
most of the existing shrubbery. There would be no Loss or detriment
to the property, and the appraiser estimated that the providing of
a retaining wall to this R -3 parcel increased the value of the
property by at least $20,000.
He continued that Plans "A" and "D" would require the taking of six
feet of property for the full width of the property. Since most of
the dense shrubbery was within the front 10 feet of the property,
Plan "A" would destroy almost as much shrubbery as Plan "D ". The
City appraiser had estimated that the benefit to the.property by
Plan "A" would exceed the damage caused to the property by several
thousand dollars. Although the appraiser had not made an estimate
of the damages and benefits of Plan "D ", the City Attorney believed
that he would also find a net dollar advantage to the property owner
under Plan: "D ".
He stated, that in an effort to avoid litigation, he had told the
property owner that either Plan' "A" or "D" would be recommended to
the City Council and the City pay the full cost of improvements without
off - setting the net economic benefit to the owner if the owner
would deed the property.without charge to the City.
Therefore,.he recommended to.the City Council two approaches in this
situation:
A. Adopt Plan "F" and assess the property owner for the
amount.of benefits accruing to the property as found in
special assessment proceedings; o.r
B. Proceed with either.Plan "A" or Plan "D ". If the
property owner refused to deed the property required
under either plan, the City should then proceed with
a combination of condemnation and special assessment
proceedings.
Councilman Graham then reviewed the various proposals with the City
Engineer.
Councilman Brown stated, after discussion, that he felt the City
should go with Plan "A" with cooperation of the property owner,
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 12
but without that cooperation then he felt that Plan "F" was the only
way for the City to go.
Councilman Gurnee stated he had no comment on this subject.
Councilman Norris stated he was in support of Plan "A" with the
property owner's cooperation, if not, then he would proceed with Plan "F ".
Murray Warden,-representing the property owner, stated.that they could
not comment on the proposals as presented, as -they still did not know
just what the City was proposing for their property. All these plans,
"A", "B "; "C ", etc. meant nothing to them as they had received no
information on them from the City.
The City Council discussed with the City Engineer and City Attorney the
estimated cost of the other plans for widening Johnson Avenue as
proposed.
Murray Warden again stated that he and his mother, the property owner,
had not received additional information for them to make an intelligent
decision on the City's proposal as it affected their property.
Mayor Schwartz stated he felt the City would be making a mistake in
accepting Plan "F ", and further felt that Plan "A" was too tragic.
He stated he would support Plan "D ", which he felt would be the fairest
to all concerned, and he felt that the City should proceed with
condemnation and street improvements.
Councilman-Graham stated that he too agreed with Plan "D" and was most '
appropriate to him if the property owner would.cooperate.
Councilman Gurnee agreed with Murray Warden that this improvement
would not benefit the Bilodeau property, but felt the only way to
settle this might be to go to court and let the court settle the.
matter of benefit either to the City or to the property owner.
Murray Warden again stated that as the property owners they have not
been convinced that there was any benefit to the property or to.the
property owners.
Councilman Gurnee stated that he would support proposal "F" with the
City paying full bill, and he did not feel there were any benefits to
the property owner. He urged that the City proceed with Plan "D" and
let the court decide benefits and cost.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Brown that the City
Council find that in public interest the City initiate condemnation
procedures and the City Engineer be directed to prepare plans for Johnson
Avenue widening under Plan "D" with replacement of shrubbery and all
trees and .that.Attorney Morton be directed to prepare the necessary
condemnation and special assessment documents. Motion carried on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Brown, Gurnee and Norris
NOES: Councilman Graham
ABSENT: None
1
1
City Counci.l Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 13
Due to the lateness of the hour, items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17,
18, 19,21, 22, 23, and 24 were continued to Tuesday., ..August 6,.
1974 at 12:10 P.M. Item.14 was continued to August 19, 1974;
item 16 was continued to August 12, 1974.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham the
following consent items were approved as recommended: C -1, C -2,
C -3, C -4, C -5, C -7, C -9, C -10, C- II,.0 -12, C -13, C -14, C -15, C -16,
C -18, C -19, C -21, C -22, C -25, C -26, C -27: Motion carried.
C -I The claims against the City of San Luis Obispo were
authorized payment subject to approval by the Administrative Officer.
C -2 The City Council Minutes of May 13; June 7, 10, 11, 14, 20
and 28, 1974 were approved as submitted.
C -3 The following contract pay estimates were approved:
Walter J. Schmid Est. #2 $2,286.00
RECREATION CENTER ADDITION
City Plan No. 27 -74
Walter Bros. Const..Co. Est. #1
POLICE CARPORT FACILITY EXT.
City Plan No. 28 -74
$7,400.25
C -4 The request from J. H. Maul, Architect for the community
building at Meadow Park, to amend.his contract to include complete
lighting.layout for street along park border in the bid package for
the community building, supported by a memorandum from William E.
Flory was approved as recommended by staff.
C -5 The Mayor was authorized to sign an Extension of Agreement
(Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment) to.cover
the peri.od of June 30, 1974 through June 30, 1976 from the Office
of Emergency Services.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham the
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2644 (1974 Series),
a resolution of the .Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving
the extension of the agreement with the California Office of Emergency
Services for the assignment of a fire pumper to the City's Fire
-err
Department and 'authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement.
Passed and adopted on.the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Norris, Graham, Gurnee and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -6 Communication from the City of Grover City asking support of
the City of San.Luis Obispo in their confrontation with the United
States Postal Service regarding curb -side delivery within that City,
involving postal boxes in public right -of -way, etc.
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 14
Councilman Norris stated he felt that the City of San Luis Obispo
should stay out of squabbles in neighboring cities in which they
had -no full knowledge of what was happening.
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Gurnee that
the communication be.received and filed. Motion lost on the following
roll call vote: -
AYES: Councilmen Norris and Gurnee
NOES: Councilmen Brown,.Graham and Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
On motion of -Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Brown that the
following resolution be introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2645 (1974 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo expressing
the City's support of the City of Grover City in its current contro -'
versy with the U. S. Postal Service.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Schwartz, Councilmen Brown and.Graham
NOES: Councilmen Gurnee and Norris
ABSENT: None
C -7 The communication from Mary M. Wagner, Real Estate Broker,
offering to sell the City the property at 1095 Orcutt Road, as a part
of the land acquisition for the Orcutt Road over /under crossing was
referred to staff for report.
C -8 Report.by Wayne Peterson, Assistant City Engineer, on
professional services at Edna Saddle Tank and again reiterating the .
staff's recommendation that Buena Engineering Incorporated be retained
for physical testing at the tank site as recommended to the City.
Council at the July 16 meeting.
Councilman.Norris objected to this recommendation stating that'he felt
it was wrong for the City to retain an out -of -town engineer to work on
a local project when the price and cost and experience would be
comparable. He felt that the City of San Luis Obispo should 'support
local firms; he felt that Central Coast Laboratories,`,rapresented by
Robert E. Williams would do the City a much better job than would be
done and has been done by Buena Engineering Inc. He .stated it was time
the City recognize there were competent firms within the community to
do.City work.
Councilman Norris moved that the physical testing, soil testing at
the Edna Saddle Tank Site be awarded to Central Coast Laboratories.
Motion lost for lack of a second.
D. F. Romero, upon question, stated that had the matter been left to
him, -he would have supported Central Coast Laboratories bid as he
felt they were competent, and he had used them many times in the past,
however, he pointed out that he had left this decision entirely in
I�
�J
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 15
Mr. Peterson's hands since Mr. Peterson is engineer in charge of the
project.
Wayne.Peterson, Assistant. City Engineer, felt that either company
would do a good job, but the recommendation for Buena Engineering
was based on the fact that they had worked with the City over the
past several months on.this particular project, and had done a
good job for the City and were very cooperative on this most
difficult project.
Councilman Graham stated he was in support of the staff's recommendation
to hire Buena Engineering.
David_Williamson,.Assistant City Administrator, stated he felt both
labs were competitive cost wise, professionally competent, and would
supply similar service to the City; but he felt the staff decision
was well.thought out and based on their recent experience with this
project, felt that Buena Engineering was more satisfactory.
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by. May or Schwartz that the
City Council accent the recommendation of the staff and. retain
Buena Engineering Inc. Motion carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES:. Councilmen Graham,.Brown and Gurnee and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Norris
ABSENT: None
C -9 The memorandum from David Williamson, Assistant Administrative
Off-i.cer, regarding proposal by Local Chapter of the California
Association of the Physically Handicapped was,refe.rred back -to CAPH
as per staff recommendation.
C -10 The memorandum-from Robert .Strong on.City logo and layout
for City letterhead, cards, envelopes, etc. was approved to move ahead.
C -II The Qu'arterly Report on Capital Improvement Program progress
was received as an informational item.
C -12 The memorandum from William Flory, Director-of Parks &
Recreation, reporting on conditions at Laguna Lake Golf Course
(continued from 7/15/74 - a letter from,Betty Y. Carpenter) was
received and filed.
C -13 The memorandum.from Wayne Peterson, Assistant City Engineer,
regarding status on the Penfield.& Smith contract for Engi.neering
Services for the Los Osos Valley Water Project was received and filed.
C -14 A COVENANT from Jack and Sybil Westerman, 690 Pasatiempo
Drive, for two foot high concrete block retaining wall adjacent to
six foot integral sidewalk was accepted and the Mayor was authorized
to record.
0-15 r Communication from Stewart Williams, Central California
Australian Shepherd Fanciers, requesting permission to use a public
address system in Santa Rosa Park on September:[, 1974 between 8:00 A.M.
and 5:.00 P.M. was approved subject-to control of the public address
system.
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 16
C -16 Communication from Peace and Freedom Party requesting
permission to use either Santa Rosa Park, Mitchell Park or Mission
Plaza on August 11, 1974 from'1:00 to 5:00 or 6:OO.P.M. to hold a
potluck picnic- political rally using.a public address system was 1
approved subject to control of public address system.
C -17 On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham
the EASEMENT from PG&E be accepted for Railroad Avenue but only upon
completion of the'improvements as required by the City.-
C -1.8 The Mayor was authorized to execute the following agree-
ments, and the Finance Department authorized to begin payments for
this fiscal year:
A. Social Service Coordinator. $11,000 /yr.
B. Grass Roots Two 16,340/yr'.
C. HOTLINE, INC. 1,200 /yr.
D.' Family Services Center 1,500 /yr.
C -19 Memorandums from the Fire Department and Building Department
regarding permission from Arnold Volny to begin construction of his
apartments on Mill Street before installation of second fire hydrant,
and memorandum from Assistant Administrative Officer regarding per-
mission to start construction in view of previous approval of precise
development plan was received and filed.
C -20 On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham
the following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2653 (9.974 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo requiring
sidewalk improvements on portions of varieus.streets in the Cit of San
Luis Obispo.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Graham, Gurnee, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
NOES.: None
ABSENT: None
C -21 On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham
the following ordinance was introduced: ORDINANCE NO. 622 (1974 Series),
an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing an amendment to
the contract between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Board of
Admi.nistration of the California Public Employees Retirement System.
Passed to print on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Graham, Gurnee, Norris and Mayor.Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C -22 Letter from the League of California Cities concerning Am1cus
Participation in the Petaluma Appeal was ordered received and filed.
7
1
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 17
C -23 Complaint by citizens in Oceanaire Mobile Home Park regarding
the rock band that holds practice sessions in a nearby carport was
continued to a public hearing on motion of Councilman Brown, seconded
by Councilman Graham on August 19, 1974.
C -24 On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Brown
the City Council denied the claim of Ray C. Skinner and referred it
to the insurance carrier. Motion carried.
C -25 The claim against the City of San Luis Obispo by Mrs. Neva
Silacci was denied and referred to the insurance:car-rier.
C -26 Claim against the City of San Luis Obispo from Raymond J.
Hearne claiming damages for tripping on sidewalk was denied and
referred to the insurance carrier.
C -27 Administrative Officer announced the following appointments
subject to a one -year probationary period:
Caren D. Agueda - Secretary, starting 8/5/74
Casey W. Allison - Water Supply Assistant, starting 8 /1/74
Samuel H. Mentemeier - Utility Plant Operator I, starting 8/1/74
Richard R. Veilleux - Janitor, starting 8/1/74
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE ITEMS
TC -1 74 -8 -.IC Traffic problem on Chorro Street -- Committee's
agreement to purchase radar equipment, not to
install stop signs on Chorro Street, revise speed
limit and reconsider setback lines on Chorro.
This item was continued until the second meeting in September, 1974.
TC -2 74 -8 -2T Recommend that 12 minute green zone in front of
890 Mill Street be removed..
TC -3 74 -8 -3T Recommend one -space loading zone on Nipomo north of
bus stop and in front of proposed restaurant and
that curbing between in and out driveway on
Higuera be painted red and that one car space east
of the easterly driveway be designated as a loading
zone.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham the
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO..2658 (1974 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Lui.s Obispo establishing
loading zones on Nipomo Street and Higuera Street; prohibiting parking
on Higuera Street and rescinding a 12 minute green zone on Mill Street.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Graham, Gurnee,- Norris and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 18
BIDS RECEIVED
B -1 City Clerk reported on the following bid received. for PORTABLE
LIQUID LEVEL RECORDERS. Bids opened July 30, 1974 at 2:30 P.M.
MANNING ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.
120 Du Bois. Street
Santa Cruz, CA
Item No. I
Furnish one (1). liquid level recording
instrument with a range of 0" to 30 ", $1,211.00
complete with specified equipment and
materials.
Item No. 2
Furnish two (2) liquid level recording
instruments each with a range of 0" to $2,182.00
1511, complete with specified equipment
and materials.
I tem No. 3
Furnish one (1) battery recharger $ 15.00
(controlled charge rate).
DEVIATIONS
None
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by'. Counci.l.man._Gr_aham.._th'at the
bid of Manning Environmental Corporation in the amount of $3,612.48
including tax be accepted. Motion carried, all Ayes.
B -2 City Clerk reported on the following bids received for
STREET RESURFACING PROJECT, City Plan No. 47 -74. Bids opened.July.30,
1974 at 2:00 P.M.
Engineer's Estimate
R. Burke Corp.
P.O. Box 957
San Luis Obispo
C. S. Const. Co.
180 South Dolliver
Pismo Beach
M. J. Hermreck, Inc.
P.O. Box 217
Nipomo
$139,252.50
125,082.00
127,351.00
129,394.60
Madonna Const. Co.
P.O. Box 910 132,173.20
San Luis Obispo
1
1
1
1
Sully Miller Contractors
3555 Vineyard Avenue
Oxnard
A. J. Diani Const. Co.
P.O. Box 636
Santa Maria;
City Council Minutes
August 5, 1974
Page 19
$133,961.00
139,980.00
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham the
low bid of R. Burke Construction be accepted in the amount of $125,082.00.
The City Council adjourned to Executive Session.
The City Council returned to open meeting and passed the following
motion and resolution dealing with Police salaries, etc.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham the
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2646 (1974 Series),
a. resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo terminating
1974 meet and confer sessions with the Police Officer's Association
and establishing a 1974 -75 pay schedule for members of the Police
Officers' Association.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Graham, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Gurnee
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham the
following resolution was introduced: RESOLUTION NO. 2648 (1974 Series),
a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing
the Administrative Officer, the City Clerk and the City Attorney to
defend the action filed by the Police Officers' Association.
Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Brown, Graham, Gurnee, Norris and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Brown the meeting
adjourned to 12:10 P.M. Tuesday, August 6, 1974.
APPROVED: November 4, 1974
F A RICK, CITY CLERK
1
It
HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF ERWIN WOELFLE
Monday, August 5, 1974
7:00 o'clock p.m.
Reported by: Roy L. Pina, CSR
Uj%1 INAL
PETRICK & PINA.
Official Corm Reporters
320 COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SAN-LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
543 -3079 544 -6352 '
I.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA-
IN THE 14ATTER OF ERWIN WOELFLE
Present: Kenneth Schwartz, Mayor
I•iyron Graham, Councilman
John Brown, Councilman
Jesse Norris, Councilman
T. Keith Gurnee, Councilman
Arthur J. Shaw, City Attorney
Monday, August 5, 1974
7:00 o'clock p.m.
Reported by: Roy L. Pina, CSR
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
C'
1
2
3
4
5
.6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: W& -.wi11 proceed with'item number one.
MR. FIRZPATRICK: The' pulk i& hearing on+resolution.num-
ber 2,630, 1974 series, a resolution ofahe-.City'Council of
San Luis Obispo finding that a public nuisance may exist
upon the premises at 319 Branch Street, and ordering a public
hearing upon the same and the abatement thereof.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Shaw, may I call upon you for the
procedure to be followed?
MR. SHAW: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I have placed before
the council the first two pages of the city's nuisance abate-
ment ordinance, and page 98, the Municipal Code which contains
Section 5200.19 of the Municipal Code entitled storage of
certain vehicles prohibited.
As the' council will recall,I.advised.the council in
the past that the courts.: were very strict as to procedure.
on nuisance abatement proceedings. Therefore I believe that
the witnesses should be sworn, We do have a court reporter
present to take the evidence.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: In pursuing the evidence, Mr. Shaw
would it be appropriate to open the meeting and ask for the
declaration'on the part of the city by the appropriate staff
people, and ask the person involved to.give his testimony?
MR. SHAW: I believe that is the proper procedure. If
the council would permit I would question the witnesses.
:.MAYOR SCHWARTZ: At this time I would like to open the
public hearing dealing with resolution 2630 to determine if
indeed a. public nuisance may exist on the premises.at 319
Branch Street.. I would call on Mr:_Shaw.;• ~.our'city attorney;
ROY.1.'PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543-3078 %44 -6362
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
to ask for the witnesses on behalf of the City.
MR. SHAW: Yes, Mr.. Mayor.'. If- the Council would look
at the first sheet in front of it, Section 4400.1 of,the
Municipal Code, Subsection' Two, it.say.s that'the Council may
abate a public nuisance, and the public nuisance may consist
of any premises.upon which there exists any condition, thing
or use in violation of any requirement or prohibition of.any
law ordinance or permit related to the condition maintenance
or use of said premises. At the conclusion of the hearings
'if you find that a public nuisn ace exists, the council would
have to find that this section was violated.
Referring to attached page 98 of the Municipal Code,
Section 5200.19, the particular section involved here is
very short and is stated as follows: "Storage or parking
of unlicensed vehicles or vehicles not in operating condition
for any period in excess of thirty days is prohibited. The
owner or person-in control of any private property shall keep
the premises :free of any such part or stored. vehicles, except
where permitted under the City zoning ordinance and pursuant
to a valid city business license."
In order to take care of that exception I would first
ask. the City's Planning Director, Mr. Robert Strong, be sworn.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Fitzpatrick will swear in the
witness.
ROBERT STRONG,
having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 54476352.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
EXAMINATION �BY MR.' SHAW
Q Mr. Strong, you Are:the °City "Planhin.g Director?
A That' is correct,..'!.
Q And you have had'occasion to.review and-determine
the zoning upon the property''in t-he •ci•ty.oknown as':. 319 Branch
Street?
A I have.
Q What is the zoning upon that property?
A It is'zoned R2, which is a residential district.
Q And under the City zoning ordinance is it permitted
for one to store or park unlicensed vehicles in an R2 district
A It is not. .
MR. SIiAW: There will be no other questions of this
witness. I would ask Officer"Ed Martin be sworn.
ED.MARTIN,
having been first duly sworn,
.testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY.MR_ -SHAW
Q Officer.Martin, are you familiar with the.property
known as 319 Branch Street in,the•City bf.San Luis Obispo? -
A Yes, I am.
Q And can you tell us who is the resident of said pro-
perty?
A Mr. Erwin Woelf le.
Q Diredtin.g.your attention to January, 1973, did you
have occasion to
..go to 319 Branch Street and have a discussion
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters.
543 -3078 ' . 544 -6352. ' ' I '
i
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with Mr. Woelfle or members of his family ?'
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q- And would you summarize that discussion.for the
Council, please?
A This originally began' on 9/1/72,. .: Tfi n, I ,was on
patrol. During that day I•was assigned..to'go "throughout the
residential district and attempt to look'fo'n'..vehicles which
appeared to be abandoned, unlicensed, and not in operating
condition, for the violations of the section which Mr. Shaw
just cited.
While in the 300 block of Branch Street, I observed
several of these vehicles which fit the description at the
address of 319 Branch Street. I have four photographs of
these vehicles which were seen at-that time. I returned to
that location -- excuse me. At that time I gave a form letter
to a son, Martin Woelfle, and he signed the copy of the letter
indicating he received a copy. I advised him of the statute
and requested him to remove his vehicles.
On 12/11/72, I contacted Mr. Woelfle in .person and
advised him of the violations in regard to his vehicles. I
requested that he again remove his vehicles.
On 1/15/73, on patrol again, I observed that these
same four vehicles were at that location. At that time three
photographs of the vehicles were taken indicating that they
were in an unused condition.
Q Would you describe those vehicles for the Council?
A These photographs show two Volkswagon, one.of which
is a pickup and van, a van combination, half pickup and half
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
n
�J
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
van, located in the front.portion.of the_house•and.in the:
driveway. Also the rear portion of the driveway there is a
van vehicle, and to the rear of the -..residence behind a fence
is another bus type vehicle, in ad srftdn,tl "Ed condition.
Q were those vehicles either licensed'or operative
at that time?
A Several of these ',Ivehi "oles had licenses on_them,
license plates, however, they we're not - licensed for that
particular year.
Q Were you able to determine the operating condition
of the vans?
A All of these vehicles in my opinion appeared to_be
unoperative and could-.not have been used at that time.
Q Officer Martin, I would show you two photographs .
dated July the 12th, '73: Do you recognize the scene portray
in that photograph?
A Yes, sir, I do. These are photographs taken by
Officer white. On that date at 11:05 in the morning it shows
four vehicles to the rear of that location, and the photo-
graphs were taken from South Street facing Branch Street.
it shows four Volkswa.gon vehicles.of the pickup and van type
at that location.
Q Do these appear to be the same vehicles you saw there
in January?
.A Yes, sir, they
Q Officer Martin, I would show you two more photographs
dated October,'1973. Do you recognize the scene portrayed
in those photographs?
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 5446352
- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.2g
7
A Yes, sir, I do. "
Q Would you `describe_ what you ;see?
A This shows the same four'Vehicles at the rear of the
address of._319 Branch Street, and taken from South Street,
and also shows -another van,type vehicle in the dr.iveway
of that location. The photograph is taken from the street
facing the residence.
Q Officer Martin,. I would -show you three more photo-
graphs dated .today, do you recognize. -the scene- portrayed in
..those photographs?
A Yes, sir, I do. These photographs were taken by
Sergeant Chelquist. It shows two of the four vehicles parked
in a row behind that residence. These photographs were taken
from South Street. A third vehicle which was part of this
has now been moved to a different location in the rear portion
of the driveway.
Q Those three vehicles depicted there, do they appear
to be the same vehicles which you first saw in September of
X72?
A Yes, sir:
MR. SHAW: I would ask they be received in evidence.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: The photographs will then be received
in evidence and shown in the record.
BY MR. SHAW: Q Officer Martin, would you examine the
photographs dated today and indicate whether or not the
vehicles appear to be operative?
A These photographs indicate that the vehicles have
not been operated due to the condition of the body.. One
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I
vehicle has the driver's side door removed, no headlights,
and the other vehicle shows no ;engine,ih the engine compartmen
MR. SHAW: No further questions.. That:concludes• the..
presentation of_the City..
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Are there any other points to be made
on behalf of the City,- or is.that the conclusion?
MR. SHAW: That is the'conclusion.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ : .Mr:. Woelfle r we' would. be pleased at
this time to hear any testimony -that" you would'.like- to offer
for the record..
MR. WOELFLE: I would like to have Officer Martin here.
13 phone?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: May I ask you to talk into the micro-
MR, T70ELPLE: I'll ask him some questions.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOELFLE
Q Officer Martin, what does the absence of headlights
and a door-- my.contention is that Mr. Shaw has been lying,
and has procurred- the.list of others to cause and create
litigation.
Now, I believe I understood'you to say that a car,
one of these items has headlights and a door missing?
A Yes, sir.
Q How does that create an inoperative car?
A In order for a vehicle to be licensed- -
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Talk into the microphone.
THE WITNESS: In order for a vehicle to be driven on
the streets it has to be licensed and properly equipped.' That
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6362
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vehicle would not be.properly equipped for registration and
licensing on the streets. If you were to drive it down the
road possibly you would be stopped by an officer and receive
a citation for this violation, equipment violation.
BY MR. WOELFLE: Q'.. Now,= you have given a,d scription
of what might constitute a street vehicle, but you are saying
that this thing is inoperative because of a.door and a head-
light missing?
A It appears that'way.
Q You are alleging it.to -be in violation of the Munici-
pal Code?
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Officer,erepea- t-your, last statement?
THE WITNESS: In order for this to be a violation
of the section which-Mr -. Shaw stated, it has to be inoperative
by means of being street legal, or the vehicle can be operated
on the street in a legal manner, and'equipment up to standards
of the State and. the Vehicle Code.
BY MR. P70ELFLEr Q To be a street legal vehicle, I
don't believe it cites that anywhere.
Officer Martin, you recently have been called a liar,
and I would like to point out that these are not vehicles.
I also contend that in the information presented to the Coun-
cil they.. are a series of lies. One of them concerning this
particular item, it says a possible method of abatement and
restoration to operable condition., The State also provides
that if you don't want to use a vehicle as a vehicle you junk
it.. Then it isn't a vehicle; it becomes an item of personal
property.
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 5446352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13-
14:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 �'l
' h
Officer Martin, you`also used the expression, !'Re-
quested." When you came' =to'my residence isn't it true that
I tried to tell you why I believed they'were legal,when'they
were vehicles?
A Which particular time ?' I'cane "to`your residence
several times.
Q The first one, I am talking about the badge thump-
ing incident. I think you said, "I say they are wrong."
A The first time I went to your-residence the only
person I contacted was your son.Marvin. I handed him the
letter requesting the vehicles be. removed.
Q My son was a minor at that time.
Now, I say that I am concerned with the time that
you first accosted me at my door, and I was aware of the
existence of this ordinance, and I attempted to explain to
you why I believe they were not in violation, or any alleged
violation, and there was a badge thumping incident, and you
said, "I say they are A llegal.
A I don'.t'redall that particular incident. I do recall
being at your residence. However, I don't believe _T. ever
thumped my badge at anyone or ever will thump my.-badge at
anyone.
Q But you can look at a picture and say that this is
a car that is in violation of a Municipal Code, you have this
uncanny skill?
A I can look at a vehicle and form an opinion as to
whether or not it is abandoned or inoperative, not licensed,
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Cou) -t Reporters '
543 -3078. 544- 6352..,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
and it is up to the Court to decide whether or not it is
in fact that way, or some other law making body.
Q Now, Officer Martin, I understand that the Municipal
Code bars the existence of inoperative or unlicensed vehicles
for a period in excess of thirty days:
A If that is correct.'
Q Isn't it true that-I called your attention to. the
fact these vehicles never, had' fie'eh on-the premises in'- excess
1 4
of thirty days?
A On the first original contact I. made with you I
gave you that particular amount'of time. This was a letter
requesting you to take further action.: From that point on
there is a.time period'-of approximately:four'or five months,
and the vehicles were not removed.- That was in' excess of
thirty days. -
Q And you have some particular method of determining
that they were there in excess of a period of thirty days?
A On routine patrol through the area I would normally
pass by that location, and at which time I could observe
whether the vehicles would appear to be moved or put in
legal condition for use on a State highway. You can also tell
by the amount of weeds, debris; spider webs, dirt on.the
vehicles, as to whether or not they had been used, or appeared
to.have been used.
Q 'My understanding was the vehicles had to be licensed
or inoperative. It didn't say street legal anywhere.
A In order for a vehicle to be licensed it has to be
street legal. It must have the -equipment required by the Stat
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
O/'fidal Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
X19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of California, which includes.registration, lights, engine,
things.like that.
Q Officer Martin, we had a private discussion, and you
were quite adamant about the possibility that you are not
a liar.
MR. SHAW:' That is argumentative.
.BY MR. WOELFLE: Q You,. are- quite-4strong.-in standing
there and going ahead and,saying whatever is necessary to,-fill
in whatever you like. ,
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I would like to•,interrupt at this
point. I would indicate to you'that'it is'the council that
must make the determination as to whether a.nuisance exists
or does not exists. -we hav6 "heard testimony'-from members of
the city staff indicating�why�in .their.Judgmerit a'nuisance does
exist.. I think it is incumbent upon you to try•to eonvince :.
us that there is..not reason' 'to believe"that a' nuisance exist
on these premises.
MR. WOELFLE:. Mr. Schwartz; you -Have heard the expression)
used, you have heard members testify, say the employees, as
to why a nuisance may exist, or the allegation was provided
by Mr. Shaw, and in-speaking with Officer Martin here, I am.
just using it to illustrate an incident of what they are
using to cause litigation. I will go a little further. Mr.
Shaw has used the Council and the police department for
a variety of purposes, and that includes harassment arrests,
searches, all.kinds of little things that are annoyances. I
have tried repeatedly to call the attention to the Council that)
they have hired a liar.
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
l 28
13
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Woelfle, if I may please, your
line of questioning suggest to me that you are contending
that the vehicles are licensed or they are operative. Are
they indeed licensed?
MR. WOELFLE: I am not contending they are licensed
or operative or even that they are vehicles. I am contending
that Mr. Shaw has made a statement, has presented to the
Council what seems to be facts,.and I am trying to establish
my methods by asking Officer- Marti =n, questions; and other
members. o
MR. GURNEE:. I was.:going to ask you, what do.you call
four Volkswagon parked in a vacant.lot?
MR. WOELFLE: I don't believe there are four. Volkswagons
parked in a vacant lot. I would say-if there were•<four
Volkswagons I would probably call them this::..
MR. GURNEE -.. What•'do•you believe is there'.?
T
MR. WOELFLE: There are two' -items of.personal property.
Now, I described the procedure—
MR. GURNEE: Is that item of personal property a
vehicle?
MR. WOELFLE: No.
MR. GURNEE: What is it? Is it a planter?
MR. WOELFLE: One of the items of personal property is
a work bench.
Mr. Gurnee,- a few minutes ago'I mentioned the dissent
that-has been going.on.. There are two alternatives to relieve
the violations of Municipal Code 5200.19, and I point out
that the State provides'that if an item is desired for a
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
non - vehicle use they can junk it. You go up and tell them
it is junk and it is no longer a car. It becomes an item
of personal property.
The resources of the City are entirely dedicated
to endless harassment. The door missing, I put in a complaint
and it took a half hour to get it taken down, and no action
has been taken, to my knowledge.
MR. GURNEE: Let me pursue that. You were talking
with Officer Martin, and you were contesting the fact that -
he says that these are inoperative•vehicles.',,.I assume your
argument is that thev are not inoperative vehicles; they
are operable? How do yo.u' reconcile that with your argument
that these Volkswagons are not vehicle's?
MR. WOELFLE: Time has•.changed. The picture I was
talking about today, I said those two items-were not vehicles.
Now, the one, the first 'one was a complete thing, it.is
operating either in Monterey County now or Oregon. I am not
sure where. That is one that Mr.-Jon Ecklund was trying to
get for a gift, the double"cab pickup. That has been sold.
Another one is licensed and operative, and the other two
have been rendered non - vehicles. There were four vehicles
there.
Now, in this process they had to search an inner
courtyard. I also told Mr. Shaw's representative that I want
to use these items, and that they would disappear from public
eye as soon as I was assured of the cessation of these.
harassment-'searches. I think you see, if a'photbgraph is
taken from the street at 7:00 a.m. Sunday morning, the search
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
is rather clearly a harassment search.
MR. GURNEE: We have 11:05 a.m.
MR. WOELFLE: I am talking about a'different search that
took place awhile back. That was.to.allege the second set
of violations.
MR. GURNEE: It is hard for me to reconcile that what
I am looking at are not a bunch of Volkswagon vans. It.is
hard for me to believe that a cat is.a dog or a dog is a cat.
It doesn't make any sense.
MR. WOELFLE: I said that the double cab pickup is
gone, it has been sold. The van, the one with the windows
all around --
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Would you' continue to speak in the
microphone for the purpose of the audience?
MR. WOELFLE: The double cab,pickup'that Mr. Ecklund
was trying to acquire has .been sold. —The one with•the windows
all around is licensed and operative.' It is not street legal.'
It has the rear reflectors, because I intended to change them,
and by Officer Martin's description that..makes it inoperative.
That is why I called him a liar when he said this vehicle
cannot be licensed unless it is complete and ready for street
operation. The taillights, the lenses are of a type I don't
like, and-I intend to replace them.
At this instance it is not street legal, but it is
licensed and operative. Officer Martin gave his expertise
how you can tell a'vehicle is unlicensed and inoperative,
but he can't see being called a liar.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I would like to ask the other members
ROY L. PINA & .ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
of the Council if there are some questions that they would
like to ask?
I would like to repeat, if I mav, is it your
contention that these items..that have been described as Volks-
wagon vehicles are not vehicles at the present?
MR. WOELFLE: To which picture are you referring?
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I am not going to refer to a picture,
I am going to refer to the condition that existed, or at
least I saw existed on these properties as of about 1:30
this afternoon?
MR. WOELFLE: What you saw at 1:30 this afternoon, the
two items in the picture, as.such.they.- are.not vehicles.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ:. What a'r'e' 'they?
MR. WOELFLE _The'one' that resembles'a pickup-was used
as a workbench in the inner courtyard screened by twelve
foot high bamboo, until the harassment started.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: What is the other one?
MR. T•70ELFLE: I want to grout plants in it.
Furthermore, I.'�use the expression lying to.cause
litigation, they are not at 319.Branch.Street.'�
14AYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Shaw,.do. you have:a question?
MR. SHAW: No. Mr. Mayor. After the Council finishes
taking testimony, it will proceed, if it so desires, under
Section 4400.8 on page 33
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: If I may, this is a public hearing on
the matter of whether the council should consider these vehicl
or objects as'a public. nuisance. Is there anyone in the
audience who is here to be heard on this item this evening?
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court.Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Let the record indicate that no one else appeared
for or against this question. Are there further questions
on the part of council?
Mr. Woelfle, I would ask you once again if you have
any statement that you would like to make to the Council
you may, and if not, I will close the meeting and ask for
the Council to make a determination.
MR. WOELFLE: The statement is, Officer Martin has indi-
cated that the length of time it has gone on, and -I have tried
to indicate the harassment and the practices. These items
are not even at 319 Branch Street. So it is my expression
of saying that he is lying to cause either litigation or heart
or harassments. The police department, they have gone
a little further. Last night about the foiirth.'.time I have
been stopped, and _agan,thep gp'with the` ordinance` far 'enough
to say- -last night I was-driving 1iome from .:a personal visit
in the neighborhood, about 12:30, 1:00�o'clock, something
like that, and the San Luis PQlice.Department stopped me,
stopped my vehicle and an open contai- ner'of =-
MAYOR SCHWARTZ:.'Excuse me. Are you contending that be:
stopped last night in your vehicle is connected with the
complaint that is presently before'•.tfie Council?
MR. WOELFLE: I believe it is part of the program of
harassment that has been practiced.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Were you issued7.a citation last night?
MR. WOELFLE: Yes:
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: What prompted the issuance of-the
citation? They didn't pick you out arbitrarily, did they?
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 644-6352
s
fl
1
1
ME
3
4
5
6
MR. WOELFLE: I drive a distinctive vehicle, it is
the only one.in existence. Do you doubt that it was arbi-
trary?
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: What you are contending is that as
a result of being- -
MR. WOELFLE: As a.result of disagreeing, daring to
7 I disagree.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C' 27
28
I
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: It is your contention that the city
officers believes.there is a nuisance that may exist on your
property, and that the vehicle should be removed because of
the interpretation of the ordinance by the city, and you have
taken exception to this and feel that they are not in opposi=
tion to the ordinance, and that as a continuation of this,
the city's action to get you to remove the vehicles that ar.e
there, you feel the;city._and__its officers have ,undertaken
some form of harassment,?,,
MR. WOELFLE: Yes.: Mr. Schwartz, the picture or the.
scene that you saw this afternoon was..outgrowth and direct
result of this harassment.-•
Mr. Gurnee, the one'item, 'it,is very much a work-
bench, and I have been using`it as.such. It'still.has
some stuff there that I ;or-iginally.h'ad_.on there, -but „it
hasn't been ripped off yet.',The•.i.tems,.particularly the
workbench, I seek to have in the inner courtyard and it will
be'obscured by.a twelve foot high bamboo fence. I have
pointed that out. I have used. the expression malicious
harassment, because the existence of this has been taken from
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Offieiat Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
the street, and yet they, at 7:00 a.m. Sunday morning have
continued this harassment. It doesn't take much skill to
conclude that something was wrong, or that this was not
necessary.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Anything further ?.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Mr. Mayor, the question to.the city
attorney, isn't it true that two old car bodies, even if
they were no longer interpreted to be vehicles in an R2
residential zone, can be very well a public nuisance?
MR. SHAW: Yes, that would be maintaining a junk yard
in a residential zone which.would also be a violation.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I would like to ask one of the city
officers to react to the question of the actual designation
of these premises of 319 Branch Street.
MR. SHAW: I believe what Mr. Woelfle is referring to
is the fact that the lot runs.all• the way through to South
Street, and I think he feels he has-frontage on South and
frontage on Branch "Street.: •Is that what you are saying?
MR. T709 LFLE: It is not that simple., I would like to
answer Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown, Mr. Shaw ^:has lied toithe Cour.t•to cause
an arrest. I realize that you asked him a question as an
attorney, and I am trying'.to call the. council.'`s - attention to
the fact that as an attorney, I'can indicate.that`he. has lied
for whatever purposes he chooses'to� have; Mr. Shaw, I do
have property.that runs from Branch to South Street.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: I don't believe you answered:,Mr.: Brown'
question.
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I` 23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNCILMAN BROWPd: Mr. Woelfle, I was asking Mr. Shaw
to give an.opinion on whether two old car bodies, whether they
call them vehicles or.not, could still be termed public
nuisances because of their looks. That was my question.
You nay comment on that, if you wish.
MR. WOELFLE: The one that resembles a pickup body,
it is a workbench, and it is out there to avoid the so- called
it was totally invisible from the street. I got tired of
having the heavy boots tromping all over the place.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: All right. I would like to ask one
more question of the staff.
Mr. Shaw, you indicated that the property has been
identified as 319 and continues from Branch Street to and
through to South Street. My request to either Mr. Fiztpatrick
or Mr. Strong, is this shown as one parcel of.land or it
is shown as two parcels?
MR. STRONG: I could check.the currect assessors roll.
I have checked the zoning, and regardless of its ownership,
it is the same through from- Branch to.South. I could review.
very quickly the parcels".
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Mr. Fitzpatrick, do you happen to re-
call it?
MR. FITZPATRICK: It is designated'as, lot :ll,'_ block 7,
and it is parcel or book three-;,'page 739,.parcel 3, by
the assessors map.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: It is shown'as one - parcel?
MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. WOELFLE: Mr. Schwartz, 319 is one parcel running
ROY L: PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 .
25
26
27
28
21
through Branch to South Lreet. However, I owned the..adja-
cent half of the next lo-t,`the..rear half of the.next parcel
too. Those cars are not on= -they are on'different•parceis
of land. It has no known address. the tax bill comes under
a different parcel number than the residence of 319 Branch.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: If there is no further information
to be presented, I am going to close the public portion
of the hearing and limit the discussion.
Is there anything in addition from the staff?
The record should indicate none.
I would ask the council if they would like to render
their comments• at..this time ?'
Mr. Shaw, you indicated a procedure?
MR. SHAW: Yes. Section 4400.8 begins after the
conclusion of hear ing. -the council, based upon the hearing,
determines whether or not a public nuisance exists upon. the
said premises. In the next paragraph it indicates that if
you do find a public nuisance, find sufficient cause to
require the abatement, the council may adopt a resolution
declaring the existence of said nuisance and order the
abatement of same within thirty days, or any other time
limit as the council may specify by the manner and means
specifically set forth in said resolution.
In relation to the time limit, if you adopt a resolu-
tion ordering abatement, I would suggest that forty days
be given for the abatement. The purpose of that is that the
very next section, 4400.9, gives Mr. Woelfle thirty days to
challenge your action in a court of law.. Thereafter he has no'
y
ROY•L..P.INA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
' 15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
b'
27
28
n
right tb challenge.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: May I then call on Councilman Gurnee
for any comments that you wish to make?
COUNCILMAN GURNEE: I think we have spent quite a bit
of time on this matter at other meetings, including this one.
I have looked at the property since 1973. They look like
vehicles to me, they look like a nuisance to me, and quite
simply I would say that I believe the council should pass a
resolution finding that a nuisance exists on this property.
MR. WOELFLE: Mr. Gurnee—
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: The meeting is now closed.
Councilman.Norris?
COUNCILMAN NORRIS: I think we should find a public
nuisance does exist. We have been told by the Planning
Director that it is illegal, we have been told by the police
department of these, vehicles at that address. It certainly
looks to me, based on photographs, and my view of the site,
they are in fact inoperative and-do create a public nuisance.
I don't think it really makes any difference whether
they are unlicensed or not. I' th nk 'for: 'the. betterment of
the city as a whole., they have.,to go.,.I would urge the.council
to adopt a resolutioii'finding a public nuisance does exist:
y
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Councilman Brown?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: Mr. Mayor,'I would agree with the
previous two councilmen, that there definitely is a'public
nuisance that does exist:. `- old..car'bodies constitute a nuisance
in my opinion. I think the appearance alone warrants the.:.•
abatement as a common nuisance...
..v. � aa.c� .s Au.7V VlA 1J'J0
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 5446352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Councilman Graham?
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: Personally it goes to the question
a point was brought up, we could make a determination, these
cars are not on 319 Branch Street, and would this give any
bearing to it?
MR. SHAW: Actually the only purpose of the address
is to identify where the property and problem exist. I
believe by Mr. Woelfle's own testimony, he owns the adjoining
lot, and you would find that that would create a merger of
-all these properties into one lot.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: That would not be a problem?
MR. SHAW: No.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: If you want to determine this to
be a car graveyard, that is one thing, but this isn't zoned
for that. I think it has been a nuisance, I would deem it
a nuisance and go for the resolution.
.MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Based on the evidence that was submitt
it seems to me that we need to make two separate distinctions
here. One, the contention of the city officers in interpretin
the ordinances of the city, that objects described'as vehicles
do indeed exist -on the property identified as 319 Branch .
Street, and I personally have viewed this property,on several
occasions over a year;,: •I .viewed: it -approxi.-nately at ' l :30 _this.
afternoon, and find two objects -that I referred to as VW type
van types located there. It seems to;me'that the interpretatio
of the ordinance has been identified by the staff,, and clearly
indicates in my judgment that these vehicles or objects are
parked contrary to the content.and_ meaning of the ordinance.
% -
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Regoriers
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
' 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to 27
28
24
I will therefore support the.ordinance of removing the n
and I would be supportive of a resolution to find that the
nuisance does exist and.should be abated within forty five
days.
The other item that is the contention of Mr. Woelfle,
that he has been unduly harassed.in the efforts of the city
to bring the abatement to pass, I think his contention, if
he wishes to pursue it, should go to the appropriate legal
jurisdictions..
I understand by the statements made by the council,
which appear to be all uniform, that we can have a motion to
support such a resolution.
MR. WOELFLE: May.•I interrupt?
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: No, you may not. You are out of order
at this time.
May I have a motion?
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: I would move that we resolve to
claim this to be a nuisance and abide by Section 4400 para-
graph S.
MAYOR- SCHWARTZ:. Are you suggesting that the council
do indeed adopt that resolution 2630?
MR. SHAW: Actually it would be a new resolution.
It would find the nuisance does exi'st'.' If the council so
desires to order the abatement thereof,it would indicate
the method of abatement.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: Under the forty five day term?
MR. SHAW: Yes, and the "removal of the vehicles.
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: That would be included'in my resolu-
ROY L.. PINA. & ASSOCIATES
Offieial Court Reporters
543 -3078. 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
tion.
COUNCILMAN BROWN: I second the motion.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: The motion has been resolved and.
seconded.
MR. SHAW: Since we have a record being made, if I
might ask the council, if this is their understanding of the
resolution, the finding that a public nuisance does exist, that
A.jthere::is� sufficient cause to require the abatement thereof,
and the council does order the abatement thereof within forty
five days, and such abatement should be by, removal of the
vehicles from the property or there restoration to licensed
and operable-condition, this should be part of it.
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Is there a second?
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM: Yes.
14IAYOR SCHWARTZ: Does council fully understand the
resolution? May we have a roll call?
MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Graham?
COUNCILMAN GRAHAM- I.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Brown?
COUNCILMAN BROWN: I.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Gurnee?
COUNCII24AN GURNEE: I.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Mr. Norris?
COUNCILMAN MORRIS: I.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Mavori- Schwartz?
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: Ik:
MR. SHAW: Prig more.thing, may the record reflect that
the seven photographs in evidence have . -been turned over to
ROY L. PINA: & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters'
54M078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the city clerk for safe keeping?
MAYOR SCHWARTZ: The record will so indicate.
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078' 544 -6352
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.12
13
14
. 15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. )
ss'.
County of San Luis Obispo )
I, ROY L. PINA, CSR, Official Reporter, State of
California, do hereby ce=ti`fy that the'foregoing 26 pages
comprise a full, true and.,corr,ect transcript.of the testi-
.
mony of the witnesses and.the proceedings had iW the within-
entitled matter,'recorded'by me by stenotypy 6n the day and
at the hour herein written, and thereafter transcribed under
my direction into typewriting.
Dated this day of 1974.
Roy L. eirp
Certified Shorthand,Reporter
ROY L. PINA & ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I Td' D E` X,
WITNESSES: Page
Martin, Ed 4..
8
Strong, Robert 3
EXAP.IINATION BY- Page
Shaw, Arthur J.' 3
4
Woelfle, Erwin 8
EXHIBITS: In Evidence Page
Photographs A 7
ROY L. •PINA & •ASSOCIATES
Official Court Reporters
543 -3078 544 -6352'