Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 09-28 CC MIN174 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Morgan. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan. Absent: None. Administrative officials present: Ballard, Campbell, Gerschler, McCabe, McLean, Sr. Civil Engineer Pachon. SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION The meeting was opened with salute to the flag led by City Manager McCabe followed with invocation by the Rev. Michael Hanson, Paradise Valley Seventh-Day Adventist Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, the minutes of the regular meeting of September 21, 1982 be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. PRESENTATION PAUL PETERSON (Attorney representing Santa Fe) was present and spoke of a proposed convention center on Lane Field (Port District property), saying two prime sites being considered are the old Navy Field and Lane Field; the Lane Field location would be more beneficial to the general public and generate more income because of its location in the heart of the City. Mr. Peterson continued, the Mayor of San Diego has appointed a task force to study this, and asked Council to encourage its Port Representative to consider the Lane Field site. Discussion. Mayor Morgan said Council would look into this. PROCLAMATION Mayor Morgan's proposed Proclamation of "LIONS WHITE CANE DAYS - October 1 and 2, 1982" was read. Moved by Dalia, seconded by Waters, in favor of this Proclamation. Carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Morgan presented the Proclamation to Vince Reynolds. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS The Continued Public Hearing on the SUSPENSION of BUSINESS LICENSE of WE LEND MORE, INC. and NATIONAL CITY PAWNBROKERS AND JEWELRY was held at this time. City Attorney McLean said the business licenses of the two businesses were in essence revoked by the Chief of Police, and the owners have appealed the Chief's decision; the City's Ordinance provides that Council will have a hearing on such appeal at which time the positions of the business owner and Chief of Police are to be presented in writing; Council is then to make its decision within 30 days, either upholding the Chief, overruling the Chief, or modifying his decision. The City Attorney continued, the business owners have submitted a variety of written documents (transcripts of depositions, declarations of various persons, the statements of their attorney, and a statement of their investigator filed late today), and the position of the Police Dept. is reflected in the collection of reports filed with the Council, together with some relatively recent further reports from the Chief of Detectives. The City Attorney said Sgt. Furr, N.C.P.D. was present and if there were questions of him other than clarification of what he submitted in writing, he should be asked the question and be allowed to provide a written report; Gloria McLean (who attended the depositions) was present and could answer questions relative to them. For about an hour, GERSHIN GREENBLATT, 2404 Broadway, 9/28/82 175 San Diego (Attorney for the business owners) spoke, Council asked questions, etc. This is fully covered in verbatim transcript (Document No. 67927). There was consensus the hearing be continued and the Chief of Police be present. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Waters, the hearing be continued for two weeks. Carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Morgan called a recess at 8:10 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan. Absent: None. The Public Hearing on APPEAL of Planning Commission DENIAL of ZONE VARIANCE Z-6-82, at 105 East 8th St. (Applicant is requesting zone variance to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages after 12:00 midnight as an incidental use at McDini's Restaurant, located at the NE corner of 8th St. and 'A' Ave.; applicant has referenced a number of existing businesses in the vicinity that sell alcoholic beverages after 12:00 midnight and which are classified as lawful non -conforming; the Planning Commission denied this application without prejudice for the reason that evidence and testimony presented to the Planning Commission failed to support a finding that special circumstances exist that justify the granting of zone variance in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 65906, Gov. Code, State of Calif.; Planning Commission denial without prejudice will allow the applicant to refile their application without waiting the one year period as otherwise required by Sec. 18.116.150 NCMC; staff concurs with the Planning Commission's denial of this application) was called at this time. The City Clerk reported a request had been received for a 4-week continuance. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, this hearing be continued to October 26, 1982. Carried by unanimous vote. The Public Hearing on EXTENSION of INTERIM ORDINANCE 1776 PROHIBITING the APPROVAL or ISSUANCE of PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, ZONE CHANGES and BUILDING PERMITS of THREE or MORE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (This Ordinance was adopted on June 1, 1982 as a means to prevent the approval of development applications that if approved would be contrary to the City's updated General Plan; the Planning Commission will begin public hearings on the Plan on October 11, 1982; adoption by Council is expected by January, 1983; to accomodate this schedule, it is recommended that the interim Ordinance be extended to January 30, 1983; staff recommends the Ordinance be extended to January 30, 1983) was held at this time. Planning Director Gerschler reported staff recommends approval of this extension. No one was present to speak in this regard. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Van Deventer, the Public Hearing be closed, and the extension be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS Moved by Camacho, seconded by Van Deventer, the Resolutions be presented by title only. Catried by unanimous vote. Resolution No. 13,899, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND (2965 Ridgeway Drive, Van Deventer)." Moved by Waters, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 13,899 be adopted. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Waters, Morgan. Nays: None. Abstaining: Van Deventer. Resolution No. 13,900, "Resolution amending Resolution No, 13,796 to delete condition 3." Discussion. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 13,900 be held over one week. Carried by unanimous vote. 9/28/82 176 Resolution No. 13,901, "RESOLUTION ABANDONING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (Harbison Ave., 20th St. to 24th St.), ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 210." Moved by Waters, seconded by Dalla, Resolution No. 13,901 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Resolution No. 13,902, "Resolution abandoning proposed improvement project (Van Ness Ave., 24th St. to Leonard St.), Assessment District No. 200." Moved by Waters, seconded by Van Deventer, Resolution No. 13,902 be held over one week. Carried by unanimous vote. NEW BUSINESS The City Treasurer/Finance Director's request for RATIFICATION of WARRANT REGISTER NO. 12, dated September 28, 1982, in the amount of $70,774.63 (Warrants Nos. 77504 through 77558 [voided 77501, 02, 03]), and CERTIFICATION of PAYROLL for the period ending September 15, 1982, in the amount of $238,227.46, was presented. Moved by Waters, seconded by Camacho, the bills be paid and warrants drawn. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan. Nays: None. The application for ON -SALE BEER and WINE LICENSE, Type 41, of San Diego Pizza Number One, Inc., Thomas Feliman, Dir./Pres., Howard Kooper, Sec./Treas., Martin Meyers, V.P./Asst. Sec., John Engel, Asst. Sec., dba GODFATHER'S PIZZA, 3800 block Sweetwater Rd., NW corner SW & Rio Dr. (Police Dept. states no objections; Planning Dept. recommends this application be protested for the following reasons: 1. Property proposed for use is presently vacant and unimproved; zoning is Tourist -Commercial; 2. The proposed use may require issuance of a Conditional Use Permit; 3. The use is proposed within a future shopping center, development of which may require a zone change in addition to issuance of a Planned Development Permit; Building Dept. concurs with the Planning Department's objections) was presented. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Van Deventer, this license be protested on the basis of staff's recommendations. Carried by unanimous vote. The CLAIM for DAMAGES of THOMAS TUCKER and BRENDA SMITH, resulting from an incident on June 17, 1982, and filed with the City Clerk on September 22, 1982, was presented. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Camacho, this claim be denied and referred to the City Attorney. Carried by unanimous vote. The Director, Public Works' PROPOSAL for City POLICY on TEMPORARY STREET and ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS (At the present time, there is no City policy on installation of temporary pavements for streets and alleys; this proposal will establish such a policy, providing for temporary paving of streets or alleys by City forces if abutting property owners pay for materials used; there are some conditions applicable, particularly one requiring full payment for future 1911 or 1913 Act permanent pavements; staff recommends approval) was presented. Director of Public Works Williams was present and said this policy refers to temporary streets only; when it becomes necessary to put in a permanent street, property owners will be liable for their full share of a 1911 Act; at the time the temporary street is installed, property owners will be required to sign a Covenant Running With the Land, agreeing not to protest a future 1911 Act; streets and alleys to be done will be a full block area, and property owners will pay for all materials used; temporary street installations could last 5-20 years. Discussion. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Waters, in favor of staff's recommendation, including, second requests for temporary streets or alleys will require Council approval, and all property owners be required to sign a Covenant not to protest a future 1911 Act. Carried by unanimous vote. 9/28/82 177 The request for replacement DRAPES for KIMBALL COMMUNITY BUILDING (Replacement of the back drapes on the stage at the Kimball Community Bldg. has been requested; the front curtain was replaced recently and is in good condition; drapes are required to be fireproof and consist of two - 12' x 20', two 12' x 15', two 12' x 6' and three 3' x 30' draperies; estimated replacement cost is $3,000; as a concurrent necessity, the window drapes throughout the building are in very poor condition and should also be replaced at the following estimated costs; main hall drapes - eight 6' panels - $1,000, entry foyer drapes [various] - $3,500, annex drapes [various] - $2,500; funds are available in general fund unbudgeted reserves) was presented. Moved by Waters, seconded by Camacho, the City Manager be instructed to buy and install new draperies for the entire building at a cost of $10,000. Discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. The City Manager's REPORT on YOUTH EMPLOYMENT (At the September 7 Council meeting, Councilman Waters requested a report regarding employment of youth in the City for specific projects, i.e. weeding and clean-up of City rights -of -way and parkways; the City currently employs youths through the Police Youth Diversion Program and the MAAC program; the City could go beyond these programs and directly employ youths for specific projects such as Mr. Waters has suggested [i.e. 10 youths @ $3.35/hour, 600 project hours = $2,010; direct employment is no'%. specifically budgeted; if Council wishes to pursue a direct employment youth employment project, a Council adopted budget allocation would be required) was presented. Discussion. SUZANNE HARRIS (representing MAAC), 635 Mission Ct., Chula Vista, was present and said MAAC has maintenance workers available who could do this work. Discussion. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Camacho, this be held over for two weeks, and the Cit Manager be directed to contact various agencies (MAAC, 'Y', schools, ht nd determine which agency would be best for this project. Carried by unanimous vote. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The request of MAAC for FUNDS for their 1982 CHRISTMAS FESTIVAL was presented. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Dalla, the City allot $250 for the MAAC Christmas Festival. Carried by unanimous vote. OTHER BUSINESS CITY MANAGER The City Manager's report on "WELCOME TO NATIONAL CITY" sign structures was presented. Discussion re type of sign, and putting signs at various entrances to the City. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, this be referred back to the City Manager to investigate signs from several sources and bring back a report. Further discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. CITY ATTORNEY - No report. OTHER STAFF - No report. MAYOR Mayor Morgan spoke of Civic Center Drive, from I-5 to Highland Ave., requesting Council consideration. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Morgan, staff be authorized to study this and set for Public Hearing. Discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. Mayor Morgan suggested hiring a public relations person to counteract bad press; the press only prints the negative things about the City; many good things have happened in the City and he will continue to work for more, but we need good public relations to let the public know of the accomplishments. Moved by Van Deventer, seconded by Waters, this be referred to the City Manager to obtain proposals. Discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. 9/28/82 178 Mayor Morgan said he will work to bring in motels, hotels, shopping centers, or whatever he feels is best for downtown National City; he is not actively working on it at present because it is premature, but when the time is right, he will work for whatever is best for the City. CITY COUNCIL Councilman Waters reported calls are coming in from people who have been told their property (between I-5 and I-805) will be condemned as part of the downtown redevelopment; the only area the City is going to work on is 8th and National City Blvd., and he suggested Council members talk to as many people as possible about this; he does not mind a fair fight, but people are saying Council is condemning everybody's property and this is not so. Councilman Van Deventer said he would like the City Manager to look into the TIP program. Mayor Morgan asked the City Manager to check it out. Councilman Waters announced that the City Clerk's office will until 12:00 midnight on October 4 for registration of voters. Mayor Morgan called a recess at 8:59 p.m. for CDC and housing Council reconvened at 9:07 p.m. be open meetings. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan. Absent: None. Mayor Morgan called an Executive Session re litigation at 9:08 p.m. Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Van Deventer, Waters, Morgan. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Camacho, seconded by Waters, the meeting be adjourned to 4:00 p.m., October 5, 1982. Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 9:31 p.m. The foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council at their regular meeting of October 5, 1982. Corrections CITY OF NATION orrections OR CITY, CALIFORNIA 9/28/82 City Clerk: Under Public Hearings, Item one, continued public hearing on suspension of business license of "tCe Lend More, Inc. and National City Pawnbrokers and Jewelry. City Attorney: Your honor, the business licenses of the two businesses in question were in essence revoked by the Chief of Police for violation of various lazes regarding the operation of pawnshops in the City. The owners have appealed the decision of the Chief of Police. Our Ordinance regarding pawnshops provides that the Council will have a hearing on such an appeal at which time the positions of the two interested parties, the business owner and the Chief of Police, are to be presented in writing and the Council is then] within 30 days of the hearing, to make its decision upholding the Chief of Police, overruling the Chief of Police or modifying his decision.From the last noticed public hearing until tonight, the business owners have submitted a variety of written documents, including the transcripts of depositins,the declarations of various persons, and the statements of their attorney. The position of the Police Dept. has been reflected in the collection of reports that were filed with the City Council, together with some relatively recent further reports from the Chief of Detectives. Sgt. Furr is here tonight Just this afternoon late we received some further papers from the Vogel Copies were given to the Police Dept., and if any further written response is warranted, that it would be forthcoming prior to the Council making its decision. On the other hand, if the Council does not desire to have any further response from the Police Dept. to the latest filing of this afternoon, which was just distributed to you by the City Clerk, then that's up to the Council. The attorney for the property_owner is here, and undoubtedly wants to summarize or state the appellant's position, although, there won't be any further evidence presented that I know of, and there won't be oral testimonies since our proceeding doesn't call for that, Sgt. Furr is here if you have questions. If you're gonna go into anything other than simply a clarification of what he's already submitted in writing, then I suggest you ask him the question, and let him provide a written report, since that's what our rules call for. Gloria is here who attended the depositions. If you have any questions about them, she can answer those questions. Otherwise, I think probably she has nothing further to say. And perhaps you'd like to hear from the property owner and Verbatim extract from the Minutes of meeting on 9/28/82 Re: suspension of business license of We Lend More, Inc. and National City Pawnbrokers and Jewelry -2- City' Attorney: decide from then whether you're gonna make a decision tonight or at (cont'd.) Mayor: some future date. Waters: I would like to - for someone who is qualified to enlighten me what took place in the court - short and sweet, not in detail. I read a lot of it, but, what was the final decision of the judge in general about this issue? City Attorney: Well, I can answer that, and I will since I think it bears on the validity of our hearing. I don't believe that the Council should be influenced one way or the other as to what may or may not have happened in court. The question is, whether the decision of the Chief of.Police regarding the license is a correct one based on the evidence that is now before you. And.... Waters: We had that same evidence months and months and months ago. City Attorney: You know that. Waters: , , ,what the courts were doing. City Attorney: No, I'm sorry. That's not quite correct. The Police have had this case for some period of time, and they have done with it those things that the law provides. What's before you tonight is the question of the action of the Chief of Police in taking away the pawnshop licenses owned by the Vogels. That is what's before you tonight, whether or not his decision in that regard is correct, supported by the evidence. The Vogels have a position which is that the decision of the Chief of Police is not supported by the evidence, and that's what you must decide, and I think before you go too far, that you should let the property owners' attorney state their case for them. And it's in writing as far as what the evidence is and what that evidence means, what weight you attach to it. Which report you believe, and which statement you believe is up to you. That's your judgment to make. I'd suggest you hear from the property owners' attorney first. That question of George's - Here it seems like the courts would not make a decision on it now and it's up to us to make a decision. Is that the proper function for us? City Attorney: Your decision is on the license. That is a completely separate, different decision from anything the court was confronted with. Mayor: Well is the lifting of the license the same thing as the courts ? City Attorney: I can't speak to what happened as to what influenced what happened at the court, and I'm suggesting to you that it's simply not relevant. - 3- ' Greenblatt: I'm Gershin Greenblatt, and my address is 2404 Broadway, San Diego, California, and I represent the licensees, one of whom is present in this courtroom. His name is David Vogel. Would you stand Mr. Vogel? And there is another licensee whose name is Maurice Steinman who's a financial partner in the business. Waters: Is this in the same business? Greenblatt: Same business. Waters: Same store? Greenblatt: It's called We Lend More, Inc. It's a company that owns two pawnshops in this City. One pawnshop is called We Lend More. That's the pAwnshop where the robbery took place. Waters: Down here at Greenblatt: Right here on 8th. Waters: National City Blvd. Greenblatt: And the other one is National City Pawnbrokers, which is on National City Blvd. Van Deventer,:- and Plaza Greenblatt: and Plaza. One is on 8th and one Waters: Two different locations. Greenblatt: Two different locations. Camacho: Owned by the same people. Greenblatt: The same people. Maurice Steinman an avid Vogel. Waters: But aren't we talking about the place it happened? Are we gonna talk about them both? Greenblatt: Well this action, as I understand it, is to suspend the licenses for both stores. Waters: For both of them. Is that right? ????? Yes. Greenblatt: Go ahead. Waters: I just want to make sure I know where I'm at here. Greenblatt: OK. To answer a few questions that I heard before, who are the parties in the proceedings? The parties are Maurice Steinman ancEDavid Vogel. The question that is before you is whether or not to uphold`` -- a suspension by the Police Chief of both stores. Now what you had asked before, Mr. Waters, I was the attorney for all three Vogels in the criminal proceedings. David Vogel, and his wife Yvette Vogel, and his son, Mark Vogel, and Yvette Vogel and Mark Vogel are both here. Would you please stand? - were also charged in the case. The case charged conspiracy to embezzle approximately 300 items of jewelry from Greenblatt: (Cont'd.) -4- customers of the pawnshop. The theory behind the criminal case was that a legitimate robbery had taken place at the pawnshop, that the police upon interrogating the robber believed him when he said he had only taken about 15 items of jewelry, that the police felt, due to Mrs. Vogel's demeanor within an hour following the robbery, that she was in the process of setting up a false insurance claim by overreactir to thj obbery. They therefore asked the family to prepare detailed inventory of all the pawned items that were stolen, keeping in mind that there are two types of items kept in the store - pawned items, lay -a -way items, and owned items. Owned items meaning items that are purchased outright by the pawnshop, lay -a -way items meaning items that the pawnshop owns that it holds on lay -a -way for customers who can't afford to buy it, and pawned items, items the pawnshop holds as security or collateral for loans that it makes to customers. A list Was submitted containing 266 numbers of pawn tickets which they had determined through their inventory had apparently been stolen by the robber. When the police arrested the robber, and when they believed him when he said he'd only taken 15 items, they felt that the Vogels were trying to lay an insurance claim of approximately 250 items that were supposedly stcden that weren't. They then searched at a future time. They determined from looking at pictures in the safe that some items that appeared on the list, two or three, could clearly be seen in the picture. This further aroused their suspicion as to how they could appear on the list if they were in the safe. They eventually, about two weeks after the robbery, went to the pawnshop and searched it entirely, and they found in numerical order, in this drawer here, where the envelope should have been, twenty envelopes that were apparently counted as stolen, but were still there. They confronted the Vogels with this fact. Sgt. Furr accused them of trying to steal from their customers, threatened them with going to the IRS, told them that he wanted them to return whatever items they had. They re -checked their inventory, they re -checked the safe, and they located 5 items of undetermined origin which they turned over to him. Of those 5 items, 3 of them were identified as also having been reported stolen on the list that was handed to the Police. Now that's a very general summary of what the criminal case was about. The criminal case depended on Melvin Goins coming to court and testifying that he told the Police the truth that he didn't take as many items. When it turned out that Melvin Goins recanted and told the District Attorney -5- Greenblatt: that in fact he did take all the items that the Vogels had said, the (Cont'd.) criminal case basically dissolved. In answer to your question sir, a conference was had with Judge Greer, Michael Greer of the Superior Court, and a decision was made by thDistrict Attorney's office,,the court and by Yvette Vogel to enter into a negotiated settlement of the criminal case. The negotiated settlement was as follows: charges were dropped against Mark Vogel and against David Vogel. she was permitted to plead no contest to possession of a silver-plated plate ostensibiy belonging to the United States Navy which had been found in the store at the time of the search and which was not involved in the supposed embezzlement case. she did so upon the Judge's representation that she would receive probation, there would be no jail time, the matter would be reduced to a misdemeanor and eventually dropped. she did so out of concern for her family and because the trial would have probably taken a great deal of time. I think it's important to note that she is not a party to this proceeding. The notice of suspension which was served upon the Vogels this past July was served only upon David Vogel and only upon Maurice Steinman. And the reason for this was because she had previously withdrawn from the license and from a position of ownership, or from a position of being on the Board of Directors of the company prior to entering into the disposition in the court. She executed letters of resignation. These were forwarded to the Police Dept., were forwarded to the attorney who incorporated the business. Duly authorized Board of Directors meeting was held incorporating her action ex post facto or . ,That's what happened on the criminal case. Now Mr. McLean, with all respect, has mentioned the fact that there is no evidence. There is evidence. ti:e have tried to present as much evidence as we can. I trust that the Council has previously received the depositions. Mayor: tie read those. Greenblatt: Ue. want the opportunity to present this case in oral testimony. Now the Ordinances which apparently govern this proceeding state that the Council shall make its decision based upon the written reports from the Police Chief and written submissions from the parties, and I have quarreled with that for the simple reason that the cases don't permit that as I read them and as they have been cited in the brief that I filed. There are two cases right on point involving two cities in Calif. where similar actions were attempted without sworn testimony Greenblatt: (Cont'd.) -b- and without an opportunity by the people making the decision to judge the credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses. The case in point, the one that I cited there, had to do with a wrecking business where the Police Chief did what they did in this case and issued police reports and statements to the City Council detailing what it felt were illegal activities and the matter was decided based upon those and based upon the written submissions of the licensees and the courts threw it out. The same thing happened with respect to the used car business in another case, both of which are cited here. And the reason why we wish for a hearing is not only because the law seems to require one, but because we believe that if you will ask Mrs. Vogel questions, if you will ask Mr. Vogel questions, if you will ask Mark Vogel questions, you will be able to better judge their credibility and their demeanor. I personally would like to ask Sgt. Furr a lot of questions. For example, he indicated in his report that Mr. Goins was willing to take a polygraph test. Well, why wasn't the polygraph test ever done? Mr. Goins wouldn't have passed the polygraph test, based on the statement he made. In fact when he discussed this matter with us, as recently as 3 days ago, he said he was never asked to take a polygraph test. And I think it's important to find out the answers to these things because it was upon the assumption that he was telling the truth that the whole criminal prosecution began and that this whole license proceeding began. Once that assumption turned out to be unfounded, this case has an entirely different picture. What it amounts to is people did their best job of trying to list some 300 items as stolen and were mistaken, as to 23 of them. It's not a great deal of mistake. It would be a great mistake if all the items were never stolen, but if all the items were stolen, and if you believe what they say concerning the disarray,in the safe, the difficulty in making the inventory, the trauma of having to go to the store the day following the robbery, and do this, then you will understand why it was possible, in fact probable, considering the way they did the inventory, that these mistakes were made and that these mistakes later turned out to be related to the customer; after all, customers came in, they asked about their item, they'd look at the inventory report they had given to the police, the employees would say "apparently it's been stolen". The inventory was wrong. In essence, some of those people were told the wrong thing, but it wasn't Greenblatt: (Cont'd.) -7- intentional. So as a first order of business, it's been our request throughout for an oral hearing, for a hearing when - of course we're all here, and we're prepared to present evidence. Secondly, there's a question of proceedure. This was addressed in the brief and has to do with, again, with all due respect, whether you do have the authority, under the new State law, to conduct this hearing. Up until January, 1981, pawnshops were regulated individually by municipalities throughout; the state. This caused a great degree of problems because the pawn slips from National City might look different from those from San Diego, might look different from those from Chula Vista Each one would require different information. As a consequence, it made it difficult for law enforcement to review the pawn slips and determine if any of the property was stolen. After all, that's what their job is. Pawnshops have to make the pawn slips available within 24 hours to the police so that they can check the pawn slips, and run serial numbers and whatever to see if any property taken by the pawn shop is stolen. The legislature recognized this and in 1981 passed laws purporting to supersede all local Ordinances in this regard. The law is very clear. The legislature preceded the law with a preamble saying that it was meant tosupersede local laws in order to create uniformity throughout the jurisdictions. And under the State law, there is only two grounds to suspend a license. One is if a licensee is convicted of a crime involving stolen property, and it's submitted that didn't happen in this case. The parties involved here, Maurice Steimman and David Vogel, neither of them fit that description. And the second ground is a violation of the State Penal Code. Now what this proceeding attempts to do is to suspend these licenses for violatingthe National City Ordinance. And it's been our contention with due respect, not intimating that you shouldn't have that authority, but that this authority has been superseded by State law, and that you may not act to suspend a license under the State law for violation of a local ordinance because the State law supersedes that and says it's only for violations of the State law. Mayor: (to City Attorney) i] you agree with that? City Attorney: I think we ought to let him have his say. Greenblatt: And then finally our ontention i� as Mr. McLean stated, that we have stated many of the facts in our written briefs. We would submit that based upon the facts that we have stated that there really is no -8- Greenblatt: illegal conduct that occurred here. There really aren't any grounds (Cont'd.) for the suspension. I would like to apoligize for filing my investigative report late this afternoon. Unfortunately, because of the high holidays, I was not in town for the last week or so, and I didn't have a chance to meet with my investigator, who is also present, Mr. Sob Gilmore, if you could stand up. These matters are being broug] to the Council's attention because in the last portion of the presentation by the Police Dept., there are a series of pawn tickets attached to it. The implication is that on top of everything else that they have alleged, their manner of doing business is shoddy and the -pawn tickets are not descriptive of the items of jewelry which they purport to describe. To show the other side so to speak, we've tried to interview a number of customers whose items were stolen in the store, accidentally and unintentionally reported as stolen, or not stolen altogether, and we've reached a concensus concerning their honesty and their method of doing business. Of particular interest is the fact that some of these people have been told ,bySgt. Furr upon picking up their property not to go back to the pawnshop because the pawnshop is crooked etc, and etc,, and yet still go back and still do business. The reason why this is being mentioned is pawn shops are kind of unique. Mrs. Lindley, in her depositbn, put her finger on it. She says "When I need. $100 or $200, I have no bank I' can go to. No one's going to loan me money. All I have is my jewelry to take to someone who trusts me." And these pawnshops-- National City Pawnbrokers and We Lend More have done considerable business with steady customers, people who come in three, four times a year with the same item of jewelry. They borrow $100, they redeem it in 6 months, they repawn it right away. They depend on the personal knowledge of the pawnshop operators of them in order to get a decent amount of money for what they've submitted. Uaters: I saw quite a few of the same names in these log books. Greenblatt: Yes. That log book is an older one. It's not the cerrent log book. paters: I noticed the names are a continuation of Greenblatt: ;ell they're in alphabetical and for example, we had depositions in this matter, and it kind of interested me that Mrs. McLean didn't ask any of the witnesses any questions about the facts of the case. The intent seemed to be simply to establish that Mrs. Vogel was still -9- • Greenblatt: working in the store and, of course/she is. She knows these (Cont'd.) customers, these customers know her, and they know that she might give them a little bit more for their item than it's worth simply because she knows they're gonna pay the money back rather than leave, the item in pawn. So I apoligize for having provided this at the last moment and I agree with Mr. McLean with regards to permitting the Police Dept. to make further response if they want to interview these people and submit something about ghat they said to them, as long as I've had a chance to see it. So basically, without asking leave to continue my arguments after we've heard fr.m Mr. McLean, that is our position, that we should be entitled to an actual hearing - maybe not now, at some time when it's more convenient if not now, and that one way or another, it's submitted that under the law, the State law Which preempts the local law, the license can't be suspended, there's no jurisdiction, and even if there were, there's no grounds because neither of the two licensees who are parties to this proceeding were convicted of anything. Thank you. Mayor: City Attorney: Could I ask a question? Was "Mrs. Vogel ever a licensee? Greenblatt: Yes she was. She was a licensee up until -the application for the A license for We Lend More, which was issued in 1980 and 1981 was issued to her and she was a licensee up until-- it is our feeling up until her request given by letter both to the other members of the Board of Directors, to the Police Chief and to the Attorney General's office in Sacramento who issued the license, that as of that time, she was no longer a licensee. City Attorney: Uas any other motive - you mentioned that the reason that she was apparently motivated to step forward and in some fashion, admit guilt where none in fact existed. You mentioned that she did that to spare her family some sort of comfort and expense. Is any of her motive in that regard in any way related to attempting to prevent action against the license by virtue of her admitted misconduct? Or did I read your paper? Greenblatt: You read my papers correctly. City Attorney: That was one of her motives. Greenblatt: As Counsel for them, I tried to ensure.... City Attorney: Just stick with m;y, question. Greenblatt: I'm gonna City Attorney: Wasn't that one of her motives? to insulate the license from a punitive action? Greenblatt: No, her motive - you can ask her. Don't ask me. _ City Attorney: I read these papers. I thought that's what you said. Greenblatt: Her motive was to compromise the case to spare her family the hardship of all three of them having to attend to what the District Attorney said might be a 1-2 month trial, given the fact that they wanted to subpoena everybody whose property had been stolen or allegedly stolen from the pawnshop to establish numerous victims. I wol4ld add this; that I certainly, as Counsel, and the court and the District Attorney were very cognizant of the impact of the court case upon license proceedings. City Attorney: Somewhere I--- just tell me If I'm wrong because I words in your mouth, but I'd swear that somewhere read a statement, perhaps by you, that one of the Vogel resigned her position and in essence, took insulate the license from punitive action. Greenblatt; I would divide that. Resigned her position, yes. City Attorney: Let me ask you this question. It is an abstract legal problem. Suppose that the far7t that it were true that all three licensees guilty of on the license were / conduct, for which the license was in jeopardy„ is it you position that the act of one of the three wrongdoers, in resigning from the license and taking the blame for the misconduct would bind a regulatory jurisdiction from taking action against the license on the face of the facts. Greenblatt: If this Council were to believe that David Vogel was guilty of these crimes and were to make such a finding, then it wouldn't make a difference what happened to Yvette Vogel's case. If the State law didn't don't want to put in your papers, I reasons that Mrs. the blame was to apply, but because I submit the State law does apply, and therefore it's only upon the conviction-- conviction it says licensee for a crime involving stolen property. J allegation without conviction, that someone who is guilty of stolen property wouldn't be sufficient under the State law. City Attorney: Ignoring the State law, we're just staying with the motion. you agree with me then that if, in fact, the two of three licensees that did not accept responsibility in court are demonstrated in the minds of the Council from the facts, would be implicated in participating in the of a that mere City Attorney: misconduct, but they cannot escape the consequences of an action (Cont'd.) against their license because one of the three resigned. Greenblatt: Oh I think they can because the law says that they,.. City Attorney: Ignoring the State law, just staying with the concept that simply by resigning, they're off. You don't have a case. Greenblatt: Well, under your local ordinance which says that a:license can be suspended for any violation of the ordinance or for the unlawful conducting of business, I suppose that could include any kind of misconduct, and if that answers your questionut again, it's our position that it was because of this disparity between your law and the State law, and disparity amongst various municipalities that they went ahead and they enacted this State law. It changed everything. Matter of fact, I'll give you an example. City Attorney: Excuse me. If you're right, then what the facts are here really don't make any difference, because indeed we can't point to anybody and say they were convicted of a felony. Greenblatt: Well this is my position. City Attorney: You really don't have to concern yourself with the facts here. Greenblatt: Well sir, I do. City Attorney: You've made it clear that the State law says we can't take action. Greenblatt: I do because you have and the City has by instituting these proceedings following the resolution of a criminal case, in essence saying that no matter what the State law says, no matter the fact that the only remaining licensees have not been convicted, we are still gonna notice them to come in. I have to defend this as best I can. I don't think that these depositions are an adequate substitute for sworn testimony. City Attorney: They're sworn in. Greenblatt: They are sworn, but they aren't taken in front of a person who can judge their demeanor and they certainly weren't cross-examined by your wife. City Attorney: They were taken by you. Greenblatt: They were taken by me, and they were taken for the purpose of inviting you to cross-examine them to test their credibility because that's how the truth comes out. I think it's helpful that you have these depositions because you will not accept any testimony the way I read the Ordinance. City Attorney: Is it a fair statement to say you took your own clients' deposition under oath and that was certainly an opportunity for them to put their best foot forward, especially since they weren't cross-examined? Greenblatt: Well it wasn't my intention to not have that cross-examination. Waters: ????? Greenblatt: As it worked out, it was short and sweet. It consisted mainly of me asking them what happened and Mrs. McLean asking very little. I wasn't... City Attorney: One other question along those lines and I'll be done. Is there any other fact regardless of the demeanor of the witnesses, is there any fact that now comes to mind that you haven't got before the Council i in the form of a deposition of your witness statements? Greenblatt: The only additional facts would be a more complete statement from Sgt. Furr. City Attorney: A more complete statement. Greenblatt: Well I have a number of questions as to what had happened. Well I think City Attorney: You've got everything forward now that you know about? Greenblatt: No. City Attorney: Other than cross-examining Furr? Greenblatt: No. I have additional - I'd like the opportunity when Mr. Goins finally gets to prison of subpoenaing him out of th rison to have him complete his statement. I think that in between - with my declaration and Mr. Gilmore's declaration, we have a pretty good picture about what has happened but not a complete picture. I think that with the exception of the additional evidence from Mr. Goins and with the exception of being able to cross-examine Mr. Furr, the only other thing that I would ask that you consider is I may not have asked my clients every question that could have been asked. ) you have indicated that I might even have a motive not to. Well I'm not trying to hide my clients from anything. With additional evidence, would want the Council to consider is your questions - the hard ones - of my cleint, like how was it that Mark Vogel found these 5 items in the safe the morning after the police supposedly searched the entire safe and didn't find them? Camacho: Did he immediately upon finding them - did he get incontact with the Police Dept.? Immediately after finding them? Greenblatt:. Yes he did. Camacho: Did he? Greenblatt: I think that Sgt. Furr's report... -13- Camacho: Did he also, immediately when he found the Navy plate, somebody's bringing in a silver plate to hock - you found it and still it was Navy property, right? Greenblatt: What happened on that... Camacho: Hey, wait a minute. Uasn't the person questioned? Where did you get this? Greenblatt: Yes. Camacho: Yet he gave him some money. He hocked it, right? Greenblatt: What happened on that instance, Mr. Camacho, I don't mean to interrupt you, but the Navy was called and the Navy said they had no way of determining whether it was legitimately acquired' surplus or illegitimately acquired. Waters: Who called the Navy? Greenblatt: The pawnshop did. Waters: OK Greenblatt: The pawnshop called the Navy and the Navy told them that they couldn't tell one way or another. That plate remained in the pawnshop for a large period of time; I think it was in excess of a year if I'm not mistaken, simply because they weren't too sure based even on what the Navy had said what disposition to make of it. They didn't want to be in a position of selling it to someone, then having someone get arrested for it being stolen. On the other hand, it wasn't stolen. And if that raises the question, ":ell then how could she admit to something that wasn't true?", the answer is People vs ?,est. Those of us like myself that practice extensively criminal law, we're sort of used to the concept of plea bargaining and when people on the outside look in, thegwonder what happened. And the concept of plea bargaining has evolved to a kind of anomaly at this point. The law now permits a person to admit guilt of a crime that they couldn't legally have committed or couldn't, under the evidence, have corrthitted, in order to avoid.the risk of conviction for themself or someone else for some other crime, and the court permits a person, when in certain cases, to plead no contest or to plead guilty without stating that they had committed a particular crime. In other words just . e Waters: One person came forward and admitted some type of guilt to take the full blame and step aside out of the Board of Directorship. That's the way I understand it. And the rest of them, when this was in court, they were not found guilty. Greenblatt: The charges were dismissed. - Graters: The ones that we're talking about now that still have, or hope to have, their business license maintained, that were not found.guilty by the judge. Greenblatt: That's correct. Waters: OK. I want to get that clear. McLean: No. That's not true. No trial was held in the criminal .case. HOrbnit labor under that misalfrehension. I consider what happened.... Waters: When -I get his side... City Attorney: To be irrelevant about it... Gratersv I want to ask your side. McLean Graters: Just a minute. You guys can play back and forth here, but when I make a decision, I want to know what's going on. City Attorney: There's no trial. You re missing the point. There was no trial and no decision by any judge or any jury as to who was guilty or not guilty An arrangement was made1,over which the City has no control, between the District Attorney and the property owners' attorney as to a disposition of this case for whatever reasons they then had. We were not a party in this. Waters: tell, when the District Attorney makes those kinds of decisions, they usually don't have enough evidence to proceed. City Attorney: I wouldn't agree with that statement. Waters: You wouldn't? City Attorney: No. Waters: Well that's what I hear from you guys all the time. City Attorney: You don't hear that from me. Waters: I mean I'm not taking sides either way. City Attorney: I'm not either, but I'm telling you there is nothing to be learned from a deal that was made between a Deputy District Attorney, a defense, lawyer and a judge to get rid of a case that's estimated to take one month or two months to try for whatever motives motivated those people at that time. It is not a decision of guilt or innocence. That's clear. Waters: OK Van Deventer: Mr. McLean, one thing I'd like to follow up with that I think is very clear to most of us sitting up here is that she, Mrs. Vogel, was a Van'Deventer: partner during the time of the involvement of the case when the (Cont'd.) robbery occurred. She was on the license and she did do part of the inventory in the book that we looked at where all the changes were mad( in the book. Am I correct? City Attorney: Yes. I should ask one other thing here because there's been so many papers filed, but'Sgt. Furr filed a last report here concerning a search of the safe, in which, just to summarize it, it seems as if the physical facts that the Police found are irreconcilable with your clients' statement that there was a bookkeeping error. Have you had a response to this report? I know you've seen it. Greenblatt: I've seen - the report today essentially reiterates what had previously been stated in the reports, which is that the Police searched the safe to their knowledge thoroughly,knew what they were looking for and didn't find it. City Attorney: Right. Greenblatt: OK. Now we've determined a few things. We've presented you,,,. City Attorney: Why then did Mr. Vogel, Mark Vogel, after the Police demanded that they produce the stolen property the next day somehow found it? Greenblatt: It's not somehow. The way it happened, sir, is detailed in the deposition. Camacho: It fell over something, huh? Greenblatt: What happened is and if 'you'll look at the latest report, you'll see that we specifically asked Mr. Goins three days ago if there were any empty envelopes that he got and he said yes there were some empty envelopes. What had ::happened apparently was some of these items, these 5 items that were found at the bottom of the safe had slipped in between envelopes. When the inventory was conducted and everything was laid out, Mark Vogel came to the store after he Charger/Buffalo football game on that Sunday, he found his parents with all the jewelry from the safe laying on the counter with the book that you have in front of them checking through it and trying to pull one item from another, and he asked his mother what the 5 items were and she said they had no tags, "We don't know who they belong to. They were found interspersed outside of envelopes with the other envelopes." He took them and put them aside in the bottom steel drawer of the safe where they remained until December 3 in the morning when, after his parents came back from the polip station and told him that Sgt. Furr said they were crooks and he was gonna turn them in to the IRS, all because Mrs. Solis had come in and said that she wanted Greenblatt: (Cont'd.) -16 her item, and there was a picture of it. He says well why don't you n chekc those five items? Now he had put them there, they hadn't put them there and they didn't know they were there, nor did Beverly know that they were there when Solis came into the store that day. City Attorney: The point is this, if I correctly understand what you're saying. ti.heri Sgt. Furr,in his report, said he searched that area you're referring to and the jewelry wasn't there, then Mr. Mark Vogel says it was, Furr is just wrong. Greenblatt: Well I don't know what area he referred to. I notice that he said he searched two drawers. Now there are two drawers on top and there's onE drawer on the bottom. City Attorney: Assume he searched from top to bottom. Greenblatt: That'•s why I want to cross-examine him, because Mr. Beverly who was here saw him search, or Hanson, and says that they opened the bottom then drawer, went through about half of it ands closed it and didn't look in the back of it. City Attorney: Oh. Greenblatt: Now City Attorney: So I am correct in your position that as to that search, Sgt. Furr is wrong? Greenblatt: Yes he is. ??? OK Greenblatt: I'd like to answer one thing that was brought up previously which is what is the motive behind the disposition? Now you may think it's irrelevant, but the fact of the matter is that upon Goins coming forwar and telling the District Attorney the truth, as reasonable men, they realized that there's no case here. The whole case depended on the assumption that 300 items were attempted to be embezzled and because of the large amount of the embezzlement and the inexpertise of the embezzlers, they fouled up and got caught as to 23 of the items. That sounded good, and that was a creditable theory, as long as you had the robber say "I didn't take anywhere near that." As soon as it became apparent that he would not so testify, it was a question of isn't it reasonable that people who are-.- have had 300 items stolen might make some legitimate mistakes as to some of them. Remember that those 20 items that were found in the safe, they weren't concealed. They were in their original envelopes right in the order where they should have been in the drawer and the question that weighed heavily -17 Greenblatt and I know this cause I talked to the istrict Attorney, and I talked (Cont'd.) to the judge, on their minds, was what motive would there be to do thi and how could it have been done? Why would anybody try and steal something and then leave it in the safe? City Attorney: One reason is that they don't expect the Police to come back. Greenblatt: I admit and that's the reason why we're here today, but... City Attorney: Indeed, the second search was totally unexpected and made without a warrant on demand. Greenblatt: But was made with consent. City Attorney: Oh ,no, I know, but in other words, the Police came back and said we want to search... Greenblatt: And the comers freely conented. Sgt. Furr came prepared to cite all kinds of authority for his authority to search and Mrs. Vogel said, "Go ahead. We have nothing to hide." Now we have also checked with the alarm company, who keeps records, and their records indicate that the store was not opened until the morning when Mark Vogel and Robert Beverly, who's also here, the manager of the store, opened it and went directly to the safe. Now they had left the store, gone to the Police Dept., been accused of this business, and then gone directly home. Now it's kind of interesting to me that no search warrant was ever issued for the house, the car. In fact when the search occurred, it was almost two weeks after the robbery, and yet the items that were supposed to have been embezzled were still there. Why would they be there two weeks after the search? Mayor: Without a search warrant. Greenblatt: Without a search warrant. It was a consensual search. Certainly we had opportunity in the courts to argue that the search was not consensual and if you'll look at the records, you'll find that no such argument was ever made. It was always the position of my client that they really did nothing wrong, that they made some legitimate mistakes, that because of the lies told by tie robber to the police, which they were compelled to believe, the thing got out of hand, and then when the truth simmered down, already the ball became rolling too much and too far and couldn't be stopped. And again, I realize it's getting late, and I realize there are other people here, but we would still renew our request for a hearing at which time we can present the testimony of Mrs. Vogel and of Mark and of Mr. Beverly -13- Greenblatt for you to judge their credibility to see that they're telling you (Cont'd.) the truth. Mayor: I~'Ir. Attorney, is it proper to just set up a day, a special day for this if that's where you want to go? Ci.:y Attorney: Our Ordinance says that the matter is to be submitted on written presentation and that's what's happened. If the Council wants to hold another hearing, I mean I guess that's up to you. Mayor: ell a special day or something. City Attorney: ...required by our Ordinance, that's all I can tell you. Canacho: Either we uphold the Police Dept. or we don't, right? City Attorney: There's two points here. One is do you wish to hear oral testimony or are you desirous of resolving the case based on the written materials that are submitted, the reports, the depositions, the pawn book and the like. That's question number one. If for some reason you want to hear oral testimony, then indeed we'll have to set up some other time and place to go forward with that and I think you're looking at two, three, four days. If you're going down that road, you're gonna have to hear all. Van Deventer: I personally do not want to go through a public hearing. I've read this thing from top to bottom, I've looked at the book, I've heard all the papers come in and I'm willing to make a determination at this time. - Greenblatt: Might I just say something? You made the comment before about - I don't know whether you said alterations or something about the book. That book belongs to Mrs. Vogel, she's the one who kept it. She is the one who can explain to you each and every mark in it. There are a lot of alterations and corrections. There are a lot of whiteovers in the book. This is because it's the only book, because initially they marked checks next to certain names when they thought that they were stolen property. At some point in time later when the police, or as the police would tell hem "?rye have a picture of that item." these things were changed. To assume differences from the book without giving her the opportunity to explain on a mark by mark basis what they mean, since she put them in there, I think is important. Waters: Mr. City Attorney, when this first happened, the Chief of Police, if I remember correctly, recommended suspension of the license at that time And.I was of the opinion then this thing would proceed on into court. You know: And after the court got through with it, I would make my determination on the grounds whether they were found guilty or not, which would make it very simple. I mean if they were found guilty, Waters (Cont'd.) -19- I'd have no qualms at all removing anybody's license, because I don't want anybody that does things out of the way in my neighborhood, in the town. But here in this case, now, we have where it gets down to the City Attorney, or the District Attorney's office, they sit down and talk over all the evidence like they always do on anything, and decide whether this thing should go to trial or whether it shouldn't. But they have evidence and so forth. That's routine, it seems to me. It's what I've always been told and observed. So in this case, they didn't proceed that way. They decided to make some type of a deal. It wasn't serious enough or whatever it may be. So then it codes back here ;and then the Chief of Police is still proceeding to do exactly what he had recommended when it first started a year ago or whenever it was. So, I'd like to hear from them, from the Police • .these there, why, in a case where they found people were not found guilty you know? And so I've been informed that they're not. I'd like to hear why they'd like to still proceed, to push this for removal of the license. I'd like to hear that side of it. Then I'll be all through. I can make a decision. City Attorney: Why the police care/about it Waters; Yeah, why they're so really found guilty City Attorney: Well the Chief isn't Waters: in other words? persistent now despite these people have not been by the judge or whatever. here tonight_ Yeah, but his representative that does the ramrodding here would know. City Attorney: I really don't think that that's fair to the Chief. I think that if... Waters: City Attorney: Waters: City Attorney: W at er s : City Attorney: Fair? chat do you mean fair? If indeed this is the case that the Chief of Police thinks it s hould be pursued, and it's obvious that that is his opinion, I would suggest that we get him here and he can explain to you face to face why he thinks this is important. Well I kind of go along with the Mayor there. It wouldn't hurt to have this as a special item. We hold lots of meetings at 3-4 in the afternoon, for certain items. And maybe have an hour or two discussion on this whole thing. It's important to any individual that's gonna lose their livlihood. At least give them a fair shake. Oh absolutely, I want to give everybody a fair shake. I'm not saying you're gonna come out of this. If you want the Chief, we'll have the Chief be present whenever you want him here to explain td you why he suspended the license, what -20- City Attorney: factors and motives led him to that. (Cont'd.) Waters: After the case, after this decision is made now. City Attorney: Right, we can have the Chief do that. Mayor: I'd make a motion we contine this hearing for two weeks. City Attorney: For how long, Mayor? Mayor: Two weeks. City Attorney: Fine. Waters: I'll second that. Or how about next week at 4e00? Mayor: In the evening. Waters: Oh; OK. Waters: I'll second that. • Mayor:q Further discussion. Clerk: Carried by unanimous vote.