CC - 02-27-96• 0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
APPROVED
CITY F OSEMEAD
DATE
RY
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor
Vasquez at 8:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead, California.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilmember Bruesch
The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Ken Wong of the First Evangelical Church of
San Gabriel Valley
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmembers Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern Clark, and
Mayor Vasquez
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 1996, be approved'as submitted.
Vote resulted:
Yes:
Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
Clark
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
PRESENTATIONS:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Hugh Foutz, City Treasurer, announced that the Community Prayer Breakfast will be
held on April 20th at the Rosemead Community Center; and, on April 23-27, the Rosemead
Sister City Committee will be guests of our Sister City of Zapopan, Mexico.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
III. LEGISLATIVE
A. RESOLUTION NO. 96-06 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS
The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $569,969.13
NUMBERED 15660 THROUGH 15785
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL
that Resolution No. 96-06 be adopted. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
CC 02-27-96
Page N1
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS CC-B, CC-C, CC-D, CC-G, & CC-H REMOVED FOR
DISCUSSION)
CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PLANNING
CONFERENCE, MARCH 21-23, 1996, SOLVANG
CC-E APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP NO. 52002 - 7503-7527 HELLMAN AVENUE
CC-F ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MODIFICATIONS AT WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND MARSHALL STREET;
PROJECT 96-01
CC-1 AUTHORIZATION TO S U BMIT "QUESTIONNAIRE" (GRANT APPLICATION) FOR
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PARKS, BEACH AND RECREATION ACT OF 1996
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-13 DRAFT CITY POLICY FOR INSTALLING SPEED HUMPS
Councilmember Bruesch requested thatthe graphics of the automobile and speed hump
in,the draft be included in the final flyer.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR
that the Council approve the draft flyer and authorize staff to complete a final flyer for public
distribution. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-C INSTALL FLEXIBLE DELINEATORS - GARVEY AVENUE/SAN GABRIEL
BOULEVARD - DIAMOND SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
Mayor Pro Tern Clark stated that it would be less intrusive to post a "No Left Turn"
sign into Diamond Square from Garvey Avenue, with "turtle dots," instead of using the
flexible delineators.
Joanne Itagaki, Traffic Engineer, responded that a "No Left Turn" sign could be posted
on the Diamond Square side facing westbound left turning traffic.
Holly Knapp, Traffic Commissioner, stated that she favors the raised dots also as they
would discourage drivers from driving over them and also agrees that it is less intrusive.
Councilmember Imperial stated that the signs along with the raised dots and selective
enforcement would discourage drivers from turning left into the shopping center.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK that
the Council approve amending the recommendation to install a "No Left Turn" sign and "turtle
dots". Vote resulted:
CC 02-27-96
Page ill
Yes:
Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-D TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF NEW AVENUE
AND NEWMARK AVENUE, AND ENCINITA AVENUE AND MISSION DRIVE -
ENGINEERING PROPOSAL
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead, stated that the proposed signal would
block traffic.
Councilmember Taylor verified that the signal would be activated by a pedestrian
button and asked if the school had conducted any student crossing studies at that street.
Ms. Itagaki responded that the initial request came from the City of Monterey Park and
the school, as there are several pedestrians from Monterey Park crossing that street. Ms.
Itagaki continued that New Avenue will be the through street unless activated by the
pedestrian button or car at Newmark.
Mayor Pro Tern Clark asked why the signal is not placed at Fern Avenue instead,
another through street.
Ms. Itagaki answered that most of the students cross at Newmark and enter the school
from the back.
Councilmember Taylor requested that this item be deferred to the next meeting for
clarification to include a sketch of the school entrance, Fern Street, and houses on east side
of New Avenue by the school parking lot.
There being no objections, the Mayor deferred this item to the next meeting.
Mayor Vasquez reminded Council that the staff report also includes Encinita Avenue
and Mission Drive.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
that the Council amend the recommendation to exclude New Avenue and Newmark Avenue
and to approve the engineering proposal; direct staff to begin the preparation of the necessary
plans and specifications for the subject traffic signals; and direct staff to begin ordering the
traffic signal poles, cabinets, and controllers for Encinita Avenue and Mission Drive only. Vote
resulted:
Yes:
Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-G SIB 1590 (O'CONNELL) - CONCERNING THE PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISION REGARDING SANTA CLARA
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY V GUARDINO - SUPPORT
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated that this bill would take away the rights
of voters to vote on special taxes.
CC 02-27-96
Page #3
• by cities in good faith a0-ding to
Councilmember Bruesch responded that 1 590 wo not take the right away of any
taxpayers to vote on a tax. It would ensure that th ppli ation of this case is not retroactive
thereby nullifying any special and general taxes passe etween 1986 and now. Mr. Bruesch
continued that SB 1 590 seeks to clarify the matter by stating that the Guardino decision will
not apply to the validity of a new tax or increase, if challenged, if the tax was adopted prior
to December 14, 1995, the date of the Supreme Court decision.
Frank Tripepi, City Manager, added that SB 1590, based on Proposition 62, requires
that all taxes imposed must go to a vote of the people; however, it will be for all taxes
imposed or adopted after December 15, 1995.
Mr. Nunez stated that since Proposition 13 passed, many governments and agencies
did not allow voters to vote on levied taxes.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL
that the Council support SB 1 590 (O'Connell) and authorize the Mayor to send the appropriate
correspondence to the Legislature. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
Taylor
Absent:
None
Abstain:
Clark
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS:
COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. The reason I voted No on this particular item is
because it does nothing to correct. In other words, this allows all of these utility taxes that
were passed... it's not a "cease and desist" order. It is "grandfathering" in as of December,
whatever the date was, all of these cities that imposed these taxes are basically home scot-
free. If there was a provision that they would stop collecting these taxes until they are voted
on, I could agree with it. But, this lets them all off scot-free and I can't support that.
VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS.
CC-H REQUEST FOR SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR DEFERRED LOAN FOR 3919
TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD
Councilmember Taylor explained that he was concerned about other income relating
to the applicant, but received information tonight that the property has been Quit Claimed.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
that the Council consider and approve the attached documents and authorize the solicitation
of bids. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None,
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT CAFE BINH
MINH, 3365 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE
VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS:
CC 02-27-96
Page N4
• •
FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: This is for Cafe Binh Minh, located at 3365 Walnut Grove.
We have a letter from Mr. Joshua Kaplan representing the owner of Cafe Binh. He is asking
for reconsideration by the City Council of an Entertainment Permit application which w.as
denied on September 27, 1994. The concern by the Council and staff at that time was the
overflow parking problems on to nearby residential streets and, in fact, a full use of the
parking as the business exists at this time. Staff doesn't feel that the introduction of valet
parking really solves the problems that were expressed by the Council. This will merely take
the parking problem and move it out to the residential neighborhoods, which in our opinion,
would create a nuisance on the surrounding homes and residents in the area. This concludes
the staff report. The City Attorney may have something.
ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. I would recommend
that you treat this as a public hearing with our regular public hearing rules, first recognizing
the applicant or the applicant's spokesperson. Then all those in favor of the application. Then
any persons who are here in opposition to the application, finally, because the applicant has
the burden of proof. Before the Council makes its decision, I would request the decision on
this matter approving the permit or denying the permit, as part of your decision this evening,
that you direct staff to prepare a formal resolution and bring it back to your next regular
meeting. Thank you.
JUAN NUNEZ, 2702 DEL MAR, ROSEMEAD: Can I ask a question first? On a public hearing,
should you put it out to notice to people who live in the neighborhood?
COUNCILMEMBER GARY TAYLOR: This isn't an official
COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH: This is not an official one.
KRESS: It was sent to all the people that we noticed the last time around.
NUNEZ: Now, you're saying it can be heard as a public hearing and I don't know how many
people are here from the neighborhood that may want to come and give input.
KRESS: I understand we used the same notices.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Clarification. Are you saying that notices were mailed out for tonight's
meeting for this particular item.
DON WAGNER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Yes sir. What we did, on the advice of the
City Attorney, I took the list of addresses that we noticed for the original administrative
hearing in September of 1994. 1 took that same list and sent them a letter indicating that this
item was going to be discussed by the City Council.
TAYLOR: I have no problem discussing it. The confusion comes in the fact that if we mailed
them the letter, was that stating just the item, or was it a requirement for a public hearing.
TRIPEPI: There is no requirement for the public hearing, Mr. Taylor. What it was...these are
the same people that were notified as required by our administrative hearing process and since
this item is coming back before the Council at the applicant's request, we, again, as a
courtesy, notified those same people. So that, you have a group of folks that showed up at
the initial hearing, let's say, then the Council denied that particular permit. Those people feel
now that that takes care of the problem.
TAYLOR: The initial time on the agenda, was it a public hearing at that time?
TRIPEPI: No sir.
TAYLOR: All right. That clarifies it. It never was a public hearing, Juan. It was just a
courtesy that the people in the neighborhood that wanted to be notified were notified. And,
I understand from the way they just described it, the same list was used again. So, there was
no requirement for a public hearing from what I understand.
NUNEZ: I was just saying what Bob mentioned about
CC 02-27-96
Page #5
KRESS: My remarks were mainly intended to keep those in favor speaking in turn.
VASQUEZ: Can we have the spokesperson speak now.
JOSHUA KAPLAN: Thank you. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Joshua
Kaplan. I'm an attorney with an office in Beverly Hills and I represent the applicant. You have
received, I hope, some written communications from me in the past. Originally, the request
for reconsideration and an updated letter. Since we have made a written submittal, I will be
somewhat brief, probably surprisingly so I'm sure in light of your past experiences with
Counsel. As I have read the Rosemead Code, which guides us all in these proceedings, I am
left with a small bit of consternation as to the grounds upon which this was originally denied.
And, a large amount of consternation as to how staff can take the position recommending
that it be denied again. As I read your code, it appears to provide that informal entertainment,
such as karaoke, is to be decided with regard to an application for a permit. Under code
criteria that are set forth in Section 7.08.070, as I read that section, that establishes
essentially two criteria. One is whether the building meets the Health, Zoning, Fire and Safety
Requirements of the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. And, I don't believe
that there is any evidence that has been induced by anyone to show that this building does
not meet those requirements. I believe, in fact, that it does. And, we assert affirmatively that
it does, in fact, meet those requirements. Secondly, the code criteria requires that the
applicant not have made any knowingly false statement of material fact in his application. I
don't believe the applicant has made any such knowing, materially false statement. We assert
that he has not, and I don't believe that there is any evidence in this record to indicate that
he has. In my considered opinion, respectfully, that's the end of the inquiry. That means that
this permit should be granted. But, having a recognition that the Council previously expressed
some concern about parking and how that may impact the community; while, I do not, for one
moment, accede to the proposition that it is at all a relevant inquiry under your code
standards. Still, reserving my objections to that as a basis for denial, I think that we should
address it. I have taken a look at further portions of the code. And, as I read the parking
requirements in section 6203, that appears to require that the number of parking spaces for
this use equal one-quarter the number of persons that can be accommodated in the premises.
It has an occupancy level of 60 persons - that would require 15 parking spaces under the
code formula as I read it. The parking that is available at this center far exceeds 15 spaces.
There are 41 shared parking spaces in the lot that are available and I would submit that they
are substantially all, in fact, available. All 41, even though they are shared. To this use,
because the karaoke, of course, is limited in its hours to commence after 7:00 p.m., when
substantially all the other users of that small center are closed, so there would be 41 spaces
or thereabouts available for this use which is far in excess of what is needed. Also, too, I
note that in the conditions that have been proposed, there are some 18 of them now with
which we are in agreement, without exception. The Condition No. 10 requires a valet for
parking. Condition No. 6 requires a security guard to make sure that there are no adverse
impacts on the local community and I would think with the combination of those two
conditions and the other twelve that have been imposed, that it substantially, not
substantially, completely mitigate any potential adverse impact on the local community. I
think that parking is, indeed, more than sufficient. I would submit to you that based on the
imposition of these 18 conditions, in my opinion, it remains to be seen whether these
conditions, in fact, are going to strangle a small family business, economically, before it is
even born. I think this is almost strangling it in it's cradle. That remains to be seen. My
client feels they can economically actually survive with all of these conditions, what I think
are pretty onerous. But, if they can, it would seem to be very little question that imposing
these kinds of 18 conditions would certainly preclude any potential adverse impact from
parking or otherwise. We have limitation of hours, we have a specific duty on the part of this
applicant to preclude any kind of loitering, trash, graffiti, any kind of adverse impact on the
community that anyone could possibly conceive of. As a matter of fact, there is a condition
requiring that they actually act as the eyes and ears of the Sheriff's Department. If there is
misconduct, totally unrelated to them, not caused by them at all, within a 100' of their
premises, they are to report it. And they have an affirmative duty so to do. So, I think that
if you take a look carefully at all of these conditions and at the realities on the ground in that
center, there should be no concern about granting this. Obviously, in these situations, I am
sure all of us are experienced. I know in 25 years I've handled hundreds of these kinds of
cases. And generally speaking, where there are legitimate potential adverse impacts on the
quality of life by an applicant, local law enforcement is one of the first bodies to step forward
CC 02-27-96
Page #6
• •
with particularity to voice those concerns. What you have here is exactly the opposite. You
have a statement from law enforcement, but they have no opposition at all to this application.
They believe, apparently, my conversations with law enforcement disclose, they believe that
with the imposition of these conditions, there will be no adverse impact that they can perceive
- parking, traffic, criminal misconduct, or otherwise. So, I would submit to you that it is
really, I think, a complete basis of utter conjecture, without any evidence at all, to just
conclude that somehow or other this is going to have adverse implications on parking. I don't
think that is possible. I think it's unrealistic. We would submit to you and commend to you
a reconsideration of this application.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Point of information. On the property itself, how many business are
in there right now of different uses?
KAPLAN: You have the laundromat, you have the store, you have the business coffee shop
there...
TAYLOR: Wait... wait. You have a laundromat, a store, and what else?
IMPERIAL: You have the cafe and you have an empty store right next to it.
BRUESCH: It was an insurance or financial.....
TAYLOR: What space is this particular business going to occupy.
BRUESCH: Excuse me. It is already occupied.
TAYLOR: Wait a minute, clarification. Let's go back to the laundromat, let's go back to the
market. From what Mr. Kaplan said, after 7:00 p.m., those people will not need any parking
places and all 41 of them can be used by the karaoke. Do all those businesses close at 7:00
p.m.
TRIPEPI: The laundromat does not close at 7:00 p.m.
TAYLOR: What time does the grocery store close.
TRIPEPI: The little grocery store, liquor convenience store?
PETER LYONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: It doesn't sell any beer or wine - I assume 10:00 or
so.
TAYLOR: Wait a minute, clarification. Mr. Kaplan, why do you say after 7:00 p.m. - the
others don't have parking places.
KAPLAN: It was my understanding that substantially all the 41 spaces would be available.
BRUESCH: Your understanding is wrong.
TAYLOR: That's what I want to get clarified. I think it is wrong.
BRUESCH: It's absolutely wrong.
KAPLAN: OK. My understanding was that the convenience store, if I'm denominating it
correctly, was closed by 7:00 and only the Laundromat remained open and that there was no
one else there but us.
BRUESCH: No, it is not.
TAYLOR: You're not getting the right information somewhere then. What time is the store
open until?
BRUESCH: That is not true. The laundromat sometimes stays open until 1:00 or 2:00 o'clock
in the morning.
CC 02-27-96
Page #7
a •
MISS HOLLY: Like 11:00 to 12:00...
KAPLAN: No. No. We're talking about the other store, not you.
HOLLY: Stores, they close around 9:00.
IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor.
VASQUEZ: Miss, what is your name, can you identify yourself?
HOLLY: Miss Holly, I'm the owner's sister, and I work there, two years ...(tape unclear).
TRIPEPI: How late is that store open on weekends, Friday and Saturday nights?
HOLLY: The laundry is closing to 9:00, 9:30 and mini-market is about 9:00.
TRIPEPI: On Saturdays and Sundays?
BRUESCH: Excuse me. I'm sorry, but that is not true. That is absolutely not true. I have
been past that Laundromat and people have been washing at 1:00 o'clock in the morning.
HOLLY: Why don't you Council go down there and check for yourself then.
BRUESCH: I have.
TRIPEPI: We have.
IMPERIAL: And I have.
BRUESCH: I work right around the corner from that place.
TRIPEPI: The store is open until usually 10:00 p.m., Mr. Kaplan.
BRUESCH: The laundromat is open with...
HOLLY: 1:00 a.m.?
BRUESCH: Yes, it is.
HOLLY: The maximum is 9:00 p.m. The maximum because it now under new management.
IMPERIAL: I have driven through there and that's not right. Every time I've driven through,
and I make it a point, I've never seen you out there.
KAPLAN: I don't know when the last time any of you drove by there, but...
BRUESCH: Tonight, last night, the night before, the night before that.
KAPLAN: Well, tonight, Sir, it's only quarter to nine.
BRUESCH: No. I'm saying the last time... you asked, when was the last time. That place is
open until ...I went past there about 10:30 last night, it was open, the laundromat.
IMPERIAL: How often do you drive by there, Counselor?
KAPLAN: Sir. I haven't inspected this. I told you I'm informed that these were the hours.
BRUESCH: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. A business being born. My question is two.
How long have they operated already, staff, down there? The second question is, did they
not have a karaoke in there for a time period without a permit?
KAPLAN: Yes, they did.
CC 02-27-96
Page rib
LYONS: They've been open since '92, '93, couple years as a coffee shop. The second
question was how long did they have a karaoke...
BRUESCH: They had a karaoke without a permit for a while there - for about five or six
months. This business isn't born, it's not in it's infancy. It's probably well along into their
adolescent ages. The point of the matter was, are we ready to take...
VASQUEZ: We still have to hear from people that are in favor of this and those that are
opposed to it.
MARGARET CLARK, MAYOR PRO TEM: Mr. Mayor. I can make a point of clarification. The
verbatim minutes of September 27, 1994, the question was asked how long have they been
having the karaoke machines without a license. Mr. Willkomm replies, "I believe they have
been open as a cafe for approximately five to six months and have had the karaoke for
approximately four".
KAPLAN: So, the record is clear. I hope there's no misunderstanding that it ceased
CLARK: Yes. But, they were operating for four months without a license.
KAPLAN: I understand that.
CLARK: That was just brought up and I was just...
KAPLAN: I don't want the record to indicate that they had continued to do that without
permission.
VASQUEZ: Are there any others in favor? No. Can I have those that are opposed speak -
Juan Nunez.
JUAN NUNEZ, 2702 DEL MAR, ROSEMEAD: I am not opposed to them having a business.
What 1 am opposed to if it disturbs the health, safety, and welfare of the community there
with the noise, the music noise, and noise in the parking lot when the customers are
departing, that's what I'm concerned about. I don't live in the area so I really cannot patrol
that area, or I probably would just to find out what's going on. As I asked before, I don't
know if there is anybody here from that area speaking on the matter. Thank you.
HOLLY KNAPP, 6367 E. WHITMORE STREET, ROSEMEAD. I do live close by in the
neighborhood. I can understand Councilman Bruesch's concern because of the children. They
are in close proximity going to Willard School. My greater concern would be for the people
who go to the church, which is directly across the street on Walnut Grove. They might be
disturbed by after hours because they have their meetings in the evening and on Sunday
evenings. My concern is that when somebody opens up a business and states that it is going
to be a coffee shop, that it should remain a coffee shop. That to me is trying to prove
something else in addition to, and that makes me think that they already had those kind of
plans in mind ahead of time, and that, "we get a foot in the door and we open the door
wider". My husband frequents the store right next door. He's gone there late in the evening
to get his cigarettes. He comes home and says, "I don't like what I see there". Now, I'm not
going to elaborate on that because then it would be heresay. I feel uncomfortable with the
request so I am against it.
VASQUEZ: Thank you, Holly. Are there any others opposed? We now will have questions
from the Council.
KRESS: We'll declare the public participation portion closed.
TAYLOR: Does the applicant have any more to say though?
VASQUEZ: The public discussion is closed. Now the City Council can discuss this.
CC 02-27-96
Page #9
• •
BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. This is a pure case of a business that is operating... that two years
or year and a half ago, had a problem with parking and traffic. What I mean by a problem
with parking and traffic is that the overflow from the expanded purview of their business
affected the streets around there on both sides of Hellman and Rockhold. We got calls, I got
calls from people from all over there saying people were parked out front of their houses and
obstructing their driveways and other things. The second issue was the increased traffic
going in and out of that lot. It is a very, very touchy area there with the offramp from the
freeway and the left turn going northbound on Walnut Grove. When people use that left turn
pocket to begin a turn into the parking lot there, it causes a backup in traffic. That was
another problem that was alluded to by people in the neighborhood. I think that the
businesses, from what I see everyday is doing well without the karaoke. I see people going
in and out of there. But I did see a very major problem with overflow parking. To me valet
parking just changes the person who is doing the parking. Not where the parking is being
done. It doesn't change the fact that the expanded scope of the business will expand the
number of people going in and out of that lot and causing additional traffic problems.
VASQUEZ: Thank you, Bob.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Question to Mr. Lyons. How are the parking spaces allocated in that
center?
LYONS: They are all shared parking spaces. There is no restricted parking
TAYLOR: What is the formula, the square footage of what?
LYONS: The mini-market and the laundromat, which were approved quite some time ago, I
calculated 1 to 250. One parking space per 250 square feet. The coffee shop itself is based
on restaurant parking, which is 1 to 100, one parking space per 100 square feet.
TAYLOR: How many is that?
LYONS: Roughly, the square footage of this coffee shop is 900 to 1000 square feet. Take
that divided by 100, you get 9 spaces. The square footage of the mini-market and
laundromat, I don't have handy.
TAYLOR: Well, if you calculated the square footage for the restaurant or the coffee shop,
basically what you just said would require 10 spaces. So, extrapolating from that then, where
are the other 31 ? How are they divided up between the other 3 uses?
LYONS: Where are the parking spaces...
TAYLOR: They must have... in other words, is the whole center based on a square footage
of each use...
LYONS: We look at each use. In fact, right now there are two vacancies as we were talking
about earlier. When this tenant came in and wanted to lease this space, we calculated the
existing tenants that were there and based on, for example, the market at 1 to 250, that's
a standard retail calculation. The laundromat is also 1 to 250. And, we see if they can have
this type of use in there. After calculating the uses, they had sufficient parking for a coffee
shop which we consider a restaurant. It's our most restricted parking ratio of 1 to 100.
That's how we calculated it.
TAYLOR: The parking requirements are found where?
LYONS: In the Rosemead Zoning Code.
TAYLOR: All right. Question here on this Section that Mr. Kaplan referred to, "Section
7.09.070 sets forth two exclusive grounds for denial: First, that the building, structure,
equipment or location does not comply with all of the health, zoning, fire and safety
requirements or standards of the State of California or the County of Los Angeles. Second,
that the applicant has knowingly made a false or fraudulent statement of a material fact in his
application for a license.
CC 02-27-96
Page #10
• •
When the application was heretofore denied, there were no such findings against applicant.
In fact, the building, structure, equipment and location has complied with and met all health,
zoning, fire"...does it meet the zoning as far as the parking requirements?
LYONS: From our calculations it meets the parking and zoning requirements, Yes.
TAYLOR: For the one unit? In other words, all 41 spaces can be used for the karaoke
operation.
TRIPEPI: No.
TAYLOR: Well, wait a minute. I want to clarify it. To me, I'm reading this as it doesn't meet
the zoning requirements. The one occupancy cannot take the 41 spaces. Does that make
sense or am I wrong.
LYONS: You're correct. You're correct on the statements in the report.
TAYLOR: Does it meet the zoning requirements for parking standards for one use, for that
one use for karaoke?
LYONS: At 1 to 100 - there is sufficient parking for this specific use.
TAYLOR: Ten spaces for 41.
TRIPEPI: Yes. For the coffee shop.
TAYLOR: My point is the 10, so the other spaces have to be allocated for the other buildings.
TRIPEPI: And that includes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyons said two buildings which are currently
vacant.
TAYLOR: So, five uses. All I'm trying to get into reality is that we have some zoning
jurisdiction to allocate so many parking spaces per occupancy. I just want it cleared up that
this was not...I want to read another paragraph. "Premised on this sorry record, we are
forced to conclude that the denial herein was based upon racial animus rather than cognizable
or substantial evidence". How many karaoke facilities do we have in the City?
TRIPEPI: Off the top of my head, Mr. Taylor, I couldn't tell you. Steve, do you know how
many roughly?
STEVE WILLKOMM, BUSINESS LICENSE INVESTIGATOR: I would venture to say about eight.
TAYLOR: How many of them are Asian owned?
WILLKOMM: Virtually all of them.
TAYLOR: So, this statement in here,..... based upon racial animus", I take exception to that
and I find it offensive. We try to do the best job we can and we get insulted with
statements... "we are forced to conclude". Well, I think that's a mistake. And, again, I would
like these minutes verbatim to follow with the minutes that we had before. When we try to
do the best job we can and these kind of challenges come up that we're not trying to be
practical on this or do our job, I take exception to that.
IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I also take exception to that fact that this was determined to be
racially biased. I would like you to know that my wife is asian and I voted against this the last
time and I would continue to vote against this because I think you have an inadequate parking
area there. What you want to do is load up more parking in that lot and you've already taken
up most of that lot - every time I've been by. I take offensive of the fact and I want that to
go on the record verbatim that we on the Council who would not agree with this, would be
considered racist.
VASQUEZ: Would you like to make a motion, Jay, to move this?
CC 02-27-96
Page #11
IMPERIAL: I'll make a motion that we deny this request.
BRUESCH: Second.
Vote taken from voting slip:
Yes:
Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
KRESS: As I stated we'll bring this back at the next regular meeting for adoption of a
resolution.
END VERBATIM DIALOGUE.
VI. STATUS REPORTS - None
VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS
A. HIGHCLIFF STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS:
FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: This is at the request of Councilman Imperial that the
information be resubmitted to the Council and we have included all of the property owners
and the status of those negotiations for this particular street.
COUNCILMEMBER GARY TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. The reason that I oppose this, not putting
the street in, but I thought it was getting out of hand when people are using run-down broken
pavements, a dirt road section, and the City offers to go in and use the existing street and
fully improve that at no cost to those owners. It upgrades their property, it upgrades the City,
and we both win in that situation. But, it was getting out of hand as far as some of these can
be anywhere from 510,000 to $15,000 - the one property that ...the last one that came in,
there was about 280 lineal feet of slump stone wall, wrought iron fence, and three rolling
wrought iron gates. Some of the neighbors directly across the street, they were glad to get
the street improved. I don't know if they didn't know they could get these type of benefits
or what it was. But, I think it's terribly unfair. If they want to put in those fences, I'm not
objecting to that. But, we're not treating our residents equally or treating them the same.
I'm willing to go down there and condemn the two properties to put the street in because
we're not taking their homes, we're not taking their businesses. We're improving a street.
We're getting rid of a health hazard. To me, it was just getting out of hand to give away
these extra benefits when we were doing the project for their benefit to begin with.
COUNCILMEMBER JAY IMPERIAL: Mr. Taylor, is that a motion?
TAYLOR: What motion, Mr. Imperial?
IMPERIAL: To condemn those two pieces of property.
TAYLOR: No, because my understanding is we have a problem with at least three of the
properties that have ...the Council has accepted putting in wrought iron fences and slump
stone walls and there are two other properties that came back and I'm not sure of the status.
We did not approve the larger one, I believe, the 280'. That's when we put a stop to it. So,
I'm in favor of doing the street. But, all up and down that street, I just don't think it's fair to
use taxpayers money to benefit somebody that we're already giving them something for free.
COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. My question, of course is, how long do
we wait to do the job? We all are in agreement that the job has to be done. We all are in
agreement that it is a substandard street that needs improvement. I'm sure that the majority
of homeowners agree that it needs to be improved. What do we do? It seems to me right
now that we're between a rock and a hard place. We want to get the job done, but we have
CC 02-27-96
Page #12
a problem with giving away fences and retaining walls. I looked at this attachment and it
looks to me like there is a question on only two properties. The rest of them, all of the things
that were going to be given, were going to be given no matter what because that was part
of the project. If I'm reading the, attachment correctly, it says this would have been replaced
anyhow - this would have been part of the project anyhow. There's only two pieces of
property that are in question. Am I wrong in assuming that that is true, that all the
improvements that were offered the property owners that have been offered a settlement,
would have gone in no matter what, except for those two - 7634 and 7640. Is that true?
IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor.
TAYLOR: Wait, wait. Mr. Bruesch made some leading statement that I believe are not true
and I want staff to answer them.
FRED WICKMAN, CITY ENGINEER: Not all of the improvements would be required as part of
the project. In some cases a combination of...where some you might be referring to as the
block walls with the wrought iron, the base portion of that in many cases, in most cases,
would be required for a retaining wall.
TAYLOR: Excuse me. Clarification. How many need retaining walls? I walked that street
down there and they all do not need retaining walls. What about the entire south side of the
street? Any retaining walls required on the south side of the street?
WICKMAN: Yes
TAYLOR: Whereat.
WICKMAN: The first property off of Jackson
TAYLOR: I disagree with that. I took photographs of that whole area right there. He's got
a sloping lawn that goes to the street. It's got about foot and a half slope from the building
to the street. That's about 12' to 15' which is a gradual slope. He's the one that's getting
the 280 lineal feet on three sides of the property.
WICKMAN: The profile of the new street is changing somewhat to make everything work
with the drainage and everything. In some areas we're cutting the center line of the street.
In some areas we're filling the center line of the street. I'm basing the comments in here off
the plan profile of the plans we have done to date. In many cases the retaining wall would
actually be to hold the sidewalk area. In some places the lawn will actually be lower than our
proposed back and side lot. In many cases it will be, as in the first property, we'll probably
have to cut, I'm guessing, about a foot on the first property on the south side by Jackson.
TAYLOR: OK. There's curb and gutter on Jackson
WICKMAN: Yes, there is.
TAYLOR: Why are we putting slump stone fence on the Jackson side of that property?
WICKMAN: That was a negotiated item with the property owner. We are also doing work
along Jackson and it might have been my misunderstanding of the original direction of the
Council when we were initially negotiating the agreements. But, it was part of the property
negotiations in exchange for the right-of-way.
TAYLOR: The Council did not direct the negotiator to give them wrought iron fences and
slump stone. He negotiated settlements and then brings them back to the Council. Does that
make sense.
WICKMAN: That's correct, yes.
TAYLOR: We didn't tell him to go down there and give them wrought iron fences. That's the
one that set me off - 280 lineal feet on three sides of the property.
CC 02-27-96 .
Page #13
WICKMAN: It's not three sides of the property.
TAYLOR: Where is it going?
WICKMAN: Along Jackson and along the front edge of Highcliff.
TAYLOR: And then returns back down the property lines.
WICKMAN: No, those were denied. They were requested. What we did agree to...what the
agreement states, is that on their east property line they have an existing wooden fence, it's
a 6 foot fence and then it drops down to a 3 foot, we would be cutting that fence off of
where the new sidewalk and everything would go. We would have to match that anyway.
TAYLOR: Wait. Why couldn't it just be left a wood fence?
WICKMAN: It is going to be left a wood fence. But, instead of the 6 foot section that comes
out and it drops to 3 foot, the majority of that 3 foot would be demolished as part of the
street construction project. I think what the property owner requested, and what we had put
into the agreement and sent to Council, was that we would remove that remaining 3 foot
section and continue it with a 6 foot section on to the property line.
TAYLOR: OK. I'll go back down there tomorrow morning and look again to refresh my
memory why this ends up cutting a foot out when, basically, it drains down to the dirt right
now on the south side.
MAYOR PRO TEM MARGARET CLARK: If I can just make a comment. When they
reconstructed the street that I live on, in order to get it to drain properly, there was property
that previously did not have... it's not a retaining wall ...a slough wall. They did put a slough
wall in front of her property. That was necessary when they put the sidewalk in and all that.
So, it happens.
TAYLOR: That's normal. But, the wrought iron fence and rolling wrought iron gates...
CLARK: Well, you had asked why they would need the 1 foot and I'm just explaining that.
TAYLOR: If they need that, I'm not disputing it. It's a necessity there. But I think they've
gone overboard. This was the property where I said it could be $10,000 to $15,000,
depending on the estimates of what that fence would be. That's my objection. The rest of
it, any thing needed ...it would be the northeast corner, that property is 2 to 3 feet high, as
needing that much of a retaining wall. What happened, Bob, when we stopped the
proceeding on it, my understanding was that staff would contact the owners down there to
try to get it resolved - what we actually had to do as far as if it was possible to go ahead and
put the street in without all of these walls, slump walls and wrought iron fences. Some,of
these it states... you'll have one property with wrought iron and slump stone, the next
property gets nothing. And, they were glad to donate the property. I think it's just fair that
they all be treated the same and give them the street at no cost.
BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. The only thing I'm saying is I agree with Gary in that one piece of
property he keeps on going back to. But, I'm saying that in good faith, everybody else signed
up with this project and most, if not all the signed up property owners, the work would have
been done. I'm only reading the staff report and I can quote, "All stated conditions would
normally have been included in this project", 7616. "The project will require the construction
of a low (slough) retaining wall", 7622. "The existing wrought iron fence would have been
replaced on a retaining wall due to field conditions", 7628. It goes on and on like this. We're
looking at stopping a whole project because of one piece of property at the corner getting
something that somebody else didn't.
TAYLOR: No, no. It's not just the one property. There's three, I believe, that get the
wrought iron fences and the slump stone walls.
CC 02-27-96
Page #14
IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I've heard the word "fair" being used several times tonight. What
is fair, when one person gets a fence and the other isn't. Is it fair when that street looks like
hell because it's in disarray and we could clean it up and have it be something to be proud of
and the people could. be proud of. Or, are we going to sit here and fight about he got it and
I didn't. "My father is better looking than yours, my mother wears combat boots." Let's be
adults here and do something about this street. I make a motion we take care of that street.
BRUESCH: I'll second the motion.
IMPERIAL: The motion has been moved and seconded. I call for the vote, sir.
VASQUEZ: Please vote
CLARK: Mr. Mayor. What do you mean by take care of the street, are we allowed to do
eminent domain proceedings without a public hearing?
IMPERIAL: Continue with the project, do what we have to to clean up that street.
BRUESCH: The motion is then, and I seconded it, the motion is to continue with the project
and condemn the two pieces of property and get the job on the dime.
KRESS: You haven't had a public hearing on the resolution of necessity.
TAYLOR: Let them move. He's got a motion and a second, then we'll find out what they did.
I call for the question.
VASQUEZ: Please vote.
Vote taken from voting slip:
Yes: Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No: Clark, Taylor
Absent: None
Abstain: None
CLARK: Mr. Mayor. My vote No is not against the project. It's that you can't vote to
condemn property without a public hearing.
BRUESCH: OK. That's what was just mentioned to me. What basically we're asking is for
staff to bring this to the public hearing so we can continue the project.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like the Minutes verbatim on this discussion.
VASQUEZ: I would think from past experience that we see it here under Matters from
Officials, then it comes to a public hearing.
TAYLOR: It'll all come back. This was a moving motion.
KRESS: I think it needs to come back with some sort of a staff recommendation as to how
to deal with the properties in which there has been a negotiation and the Council has
expressed concern over those negotiations. Then you have at least two properties which they
say they want appraisal and they want just compensation. You may well have to have a
resolution of necessity and condemn those two parcels. What I think is a step prior to that
public hearing, you need a staff report with recommendations as to what to do with the
properties that are in limbo. `That would be my recommendation.
IMPERIAL: Then, let's do it, Mr. Mayor. Let us have this meeting in "limbo" because I wasn't
the first one that said condemnation, OK. Let's have this meeting verbatim. Because if we're
going to come back and bite anybody, I want to chew a little too. We're working on a street
right now that's been a mess for a long time and I would hate to be the people living on that
street and have to look at this everyday. We owe it to these people to do something, no
matter what you want to call it.
END VERBATIM DIALOGUE
CC 02-27-96
Page #15
4
0
B. LORICA STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
that the Council direct staff to schedule a public meeting with the property owners and obtain
a proposal for engineering right-of-way acquisition services for Council consideration. Vote
resulted:
Yes:
Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Juan Nunez, 2703 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated that the property owners on Highcliff
should pay for the wrought iron fences themselves.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further action at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
The next regular meeting will be held on March 12, 1996, at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Cit
APPROVED:
MAY CC 02-27-96
Page #16