Loading...
08/05/1974i 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'