CC - 05-25-950 6 APPROVED
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
S
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE S o13 -17
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL 13Y~_
APRIL 25, 1995
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor
Vasquez at 8:00 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 Dennis Alexander of the Church of the
Nazarene
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmembers Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern Clark, and
Mayor Vasquez
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 11, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING
There being no objection, approval of these Minutes was deferred to the next regular
meeting to allow for various corrections.
PRESENTATIONS TO OUTGOING MAYOR
Outgoing Mayor Bruesch received recognition for his past two years as Mayor for the
City of Rosemead from the following:
David Tierney representing Congressman Martinez; Charlene Hopper representing
Assemblywoman Diane Martinez; Rose Ibanez representing Supervisor Gloria Molina; David
Lau representing the Garvey School Board; Dave Sandell and Helen Archer representing the
El Monte Union High School District and the Board of Trustees; Captain Jon Englebretson
representing Sheriff Sherman Block; Roberta Trujillo representing Family Counselling Services
of the West San Gabriel Valley; Dr. Terry Gauk representing Asian Pacific Family Center;
Helen Archer representing Southern California Edison Company; Ray Gibbs representing San
Gabriel Valley Consortium; Assistant Fire Chief Marc McConnell representing Fire Chief P.
Michael Freeman; Anthony Robles representing the Rosemead Boys and Girls Club; Richard
Nichols representing the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce; Holly Knapp presented a "Take
Time for Children" button; Mel Ilomin representing Senator Hilda Solis, and Mayor Joe
Vasquez representing the City Council.
Councilmember Bruesch thanked everyone and expressed his appreciation for all the
support he received from staff as Mayor.
A five minute recess was called at 8:17 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened
accordingly.
1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead, asked whose responsibility is it to
clean up the street after an accident.
Frank Tripepi, City Manager responded that it is the responsibility of the tow truck
driver to pick up the debris and sweep the street.
Councilmember Taylor requested that a letter with copies to Council be sent to Freddie
Mac's Towing Service outlining their responsibilities as this problem has occurred before.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
CC 4-25-95
Page f#1
•
0
A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-03 - ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESS
ORDINANCE (NOTE: HEARING TO BE CONTINUED TO MAY 23, 1995)
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR
that the Public Hearing be opened and continued to the May 23, 1995 meeting. Vote
resulted:
Yes: Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
III. LEGISLATIVE
A. RESOLUTION NO. 95-21 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS
The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $538,248.48
NUMBERED 12710, 12712-12721, 12723 THROUGH 12845
Councilmember Imperial requested an explanation for the following checks: #20106,
#20184,#12783 and #12719.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARKthat
Resolution No. 95-21 be adopted. Vote resulted:
Yes: Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - (CC-A, CC-B, CC-C, CC-F, CC-G, AND CC4 REMOVED FOR
DISCUSSION)
CC-D PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN FRONT OF WILLIAMS SCHOOL AT ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD AND AT WALNUT GROVE AVENUE
CC-E INSTALL GUARDRAIL ON TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD AT OLNEY STREET
CC-H ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT - ROSEMEAD PARK CONCRETE RAMP
CC-J ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT - ROSEMEAD PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL
that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted:
Yes: Clark, Taylor
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain; None
Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC 4-25-95
Page #2
•
CC-A APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK
BIDS FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY AND STREET LIGHTING
IMPROVEMENTS ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS
CC-B COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE
ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR 1994/95 ASPHALT OVERLAY AND
STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
Councilmember Bruesch requested that CC-A and CC-13 be combined and discussed
together as they are the same project. Mr. Bruesch questioned the discrepancies in the
construction amount of $689,000 as listed on CC-A and $185,300 listed on CC-B.
Al Rodriguez, City Engineer, responded that CC-A is the estimated construction cost
only and CC-B includes the total project cost.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL
that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for
bids by the City Clerk (CC-A), and approved the agreement contingent upon approval by the
Rosemead School District (CC-B). 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 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON MARSHALL STREET AT ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD AND AT WALNUT GROVE AVENUE
Councilmember Bruesch asked if Caltrans will participate in the construction costs in
any way.
Al Rodriguez, City Engineer, responded that Caltrans will.
Councilmember Taylor asked if Caltrans will charge to review and approve the
engineering plans and documents if the City prepares the plans, and requested clarification
of the shared cost of $30,000 between the City and State for engineering design,
construction inspections and installation of the signal and with Caltrans preparing the plans,
specifications, and estimates.
Mr. Rodriguez responded that if the City is the lead agency and prepares the plans and
specifications, Caltrans will not charge to review the plans as Rosemead Boulevard is a State
Highway street, but, if Caltrans is the lead agency and prepares the plans and specifications
there will be a charge which would be submitted in a proposal form.
Councilmember Taylor asked if the $30,000 cost is a realistic figure.
Mr. Rodriguez responded that the figure is low.
Councilmember Taylor requested that this item be deferred to the next meeting for
clarification that the City does not get double billed regardless of who is the lead agency in
this project and for more information on the $30,000 shared cost.
CC-F INSTALL 4-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARSHALL STREET AND
ELLIS LANE
Councilmember Taylor explained that he requested the investigation because there are
accidents and near accidents, accidents weekly at that location and that intersection is a very
awkward one. Mr. Taylor stated that his son's car was totalled at that intersection last Fall,
City crews replaced the street signs and he then requested an accident report onwhich this
accident was not listed. Mr. Taylor requested that the minutes reflect that the figures in the
CC 4-25-95
Page #3
• •
accident history are misleading and more accidents or incidents occur there than is realized.
Mr. Taylor stated further that the "Stop" sign is necessary as that intersection is the neck of
a funnel for a six block area and while the area was being monitored for this traffic study by
Sheriff's Deputies, approximately 15 citations were issued within a few hours.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
that the City Council approve installation of "Stop" signs on Ellis Lane at Marshall Street with
appropriated limits lines and pavement markings and remove the two "Slow School Xing"
pavement markings and attendant signs on Ellis Lane north and south of Marshall Street.
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-G INSTALLTRUCK PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON GARVEY AVENUE AND
INSTALL-RED CURB AT 8659 GARVEY AVENUE
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked if this item will restrict the auto transport
trucks in the L.A. County Auto Auction area.
Joanne Itagaki, Deputy Traffic Engineer, responded that this recommendation is to
install signs identifying Section 3313 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as it relates to truck
parking restrictions on the streets unless they are loading or unloading and not specific to any
trucks other than 80" wide or more.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESH that
the City Council approve installation of street signs that state this restriction on Garvey
Avenue at each of the major intersections within the City limits (New Avenue, Del Mar
Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, Walnut Grove Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard) and install
red curb (approximately 80 feet) around the driveway approaches and fire hydrant at 8659
Garvey Avenue. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Clark, Taylor
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-1 IRRIGATION BID SPECIFICATIONS - DINSMOOR HERITAGE HOUSE
Councilmember Taylor stated that this is an elaborate irrigation system and asked staff
to recheck the necessity for such a system, and requested that this item be deferred to a later
meeting.
V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION
A. ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENTS FOR HIGHCLIFF STREET
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND PROJECT UPDATE
Councilmember Taylor noted that three property owners were opposed to donating
their property and wanted compensation and eight signed agreements were returned out of
fourteen owners. Mr. Taylor stated that disparity and unequitable conditions still exist and
pointed out various residences that would receive brick walls, wrought iron fencing, in some
cases, down the side yards whereby others would not receive anything, especially the
property at 7622 Highcliff, and that he could not support this item without giving the
residents an equal opportunity as to their options and information as to what their neighbors
are receiving.
CC 4-25-95
Page #4
•
Mayor Pro Tem Clark verified that these residents have donated their property to the
center of the street, which is a private street. Ms. Clark asked staff if the one property owner
that did not request any walls and gates has been met with since the last meeting and if the
intent of the meetings is to inform the neighbors of what everyone has been receiving so that
no one will be left out or uninformed.
Councilmember Bruesch asked the City Engineer if the property owners were informed
as to what their neighbors were receiving when the individual meetings were being conducted.
Mr. Rodriguez responded that neighbors were informed, typically, when a shared
sideyard wall was to be constructed and in most cases, the residents are already aware of
what others will be receiving.
Councilmember Taylor pointed out other properties where there were no requests for
items or additional items until the time of the document signing, and in one case still' in
negotiation, the owner originally requested a block wall to replace a chainlink fence but has
since requested a combination block wall/wrought iron fencing which means, as Mr. Taylor
stated further, that not all of the neighbors have been informed and once the project is
completed, some of them will feel cheated.
Councilmember Bruesch asked if a policy needs to be adopted where each homeowner
will have a list of items available?
Councilmember Imperial stated that the policy Mr. Bruesch mentioned is a policy of
honesty and not to "assume" that all of the neighbors have been informed of available items.
Councilmember Taylor stated that previously the acquisition policy was to pay the
owners for their properties and to replace existing fences or cut back retaining walls as
necessary, but a precedent is being set by going beyond the necessary street frontage repairs.
Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that this is a unique situation in that Highcliff
is a private street and staff is trying to respond to the various requests of the residents as to
whether they do or do not want the street improved or whether they want to donate or be
paid for their property. Mr. Tripepi recommended that Council table this item and return this
issue to the neighbors to hold a meeting amongst themselves and when they are, in
agreement, return to the City for construction of the project.
Councilmember Taylor agreed with the recommendation stating that that is how it
should have been handled without pitting neighbors against each other. Mr. Taylor asked if
appraisals have been done on the three properties that requested it.
Mr. Rodriguez responded that they have not as the cost of appraisals are expensive,
averaging about $4000 to $5000 per appraisal and they are currently in the final stages of
negotiations with those three owners.
Councilmember Taylor requested that one property be appraised in order to obtain a
uniform price on the homes.
Mayor Pro Tern Clark stated that there are only three holdouts and a decision needs
to be made as the residents of the public portion of Highcliff have been waiting for street
improvements a long time.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR
that staff return this issue to the residents of Highcliff Street and upon reaching an agreement
amongst themselves, return this item to the City for street reconstruction and to include an
appraisal of one property. Vote resulted:
Yes: Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
CC 4-25-95
Page #5
• 0
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
A five minute recess was called at 9:15 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened
accordingly.
B. LICENSE REVOCATION HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION FOR KISS KTV-
9159 VALLEY BOULEVARD
VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS:
MAYOR VASQUEZ: We'll begin that with discussion from the Councilmembers.
ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: If I may. You have a staff recommendation regarding this
matter that details the administrative hearing that has been conducted. Each member of the
Council has been given a copy of the verbatim transcript of that hearing. So this is the time
to receive the comments and argument, if any, from the business owners, their counsel and
counsel for the City. So if any of those persons wish to address this, and of course the
Council comments may either precede that or follow that argument.
VASQUEZ: O.K. I'm opening this up for discussion among the Councilmembers if they wish
to speak first.
COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Are we going to have public comment? I'd like to
hear what they say then we can have some more input rather than do it over again.
VASQUEZ: O.K., we'll do that. Go ahead, Sir. Please state your name and address.
ADAM LONDON: Mr. Mayor and the rest of the City Council. My name is Adam London, I
represent AMAX Joint Ventures doing business as NASA KTV. I am here with two of the
primary majority shareholders of the company, Miss Pei-Ju Wang as well as Yun Te-Chang.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Point of information. You're representing them as counsel or lawyer
or attorney?
LONDON: That's correct.
TAYLOR: All right, thank you.
LONDON: Knowing that each Councilmember has been provided with the transcript of the
administrative hearing that we had back in February. Instead of rehashing at this point that
information and the evidence that was taken at that hearing, I would ask for a brief moment
just to relate this particular case, which is here for your consideration, based on my own
personal experience. Formerly, I was a Prosecutor for the County of Los Angeles, as Deputy
District Attorney. In that capacity for over five years, I had responsibility for prosecuting
cases. During that time I was responsible for prosecuting some of the most serious crimes
in this county. In that experience that I had, I came across a lot of bad individuals. Also in
that time, I realized that on occasion, sometimes there were good peopled involved. The
reason that I bring this to each of your attention is that Miss Pei-Ju Wang and Mr. Yun-Te
Chang, who own over 99% of the stock in this company since December of 1994, are good
people. Between Miss Pei-Ju Wang and Mr. Yun-Te Chang, they have invested in their
personal monies in the amount of $135,000. As background, the way that each of these
individuals got involved is a little bit different with respect to one another. Miss Pei-Ju Wang
was an investor of a company of the AMAX Joint Venture formally doing business as KISS-
KTV back in June of 1991. That promissory note, which is one of the exhibits contained in
the transcript, says'that that loan of $65,000 was secured by Treasury Shares. I think we're
all familiar with respect to what Treasury Shares refer to in that it doesn't give anybody
power to make any decisions in a company--there's no voting rights. On the loan document
itself, it talks about the fact that they can't be transferred or anything done to it. A loan
document talks about it maturing sometime in June of 1994. It wasn't until December of
1994 that Miss Pei-Ju Wang after relentlessly trying to recoup some of her investment, some
of the $65,000 because she asked the previous owner, Mr. Gene Feng for the return,
something, to cover her losses and nothing had been done throughout the period from June
1991 through June of 1995. This continued until December of 1994, when as noted in the
CC 4-25-95
Page #6
• •
minutes of one of the specially called meetings, I believe in December of 1994, it was
expressed by then President and the sole stock holder at that time, Mr. Gene Fang, that Miss
Pei-Ju Wang wished to exercise some control in the company--a way that this individual might
be able to save some of that money, a way to recoup some of the 565,000 that she invested
in this company four years previously. At that time, according to the minutes, her shares, the
Treasury Shares, which were merely just a collateral to use against the $65,000 loan was
converted at that time into common stock. It was at that point in December of 1994 that
Miss Pei-Ju Wang first had any ability, any authority to call the "shots" so to speak as far as
the operation of this particular company. There is another individual, Katherine Wang, who
similarly back in June of 1991, invested or gave a loan to this company in the way as Miss
Pei-Ju Wang did. In December of 1994, at the same time that Pei-Ju Wang converted her
Treasury Shares into her common stock, Miss Katherine Wang alerted then President, Mr.
Gene Fang that she wished to convert her shares, Treasury Shares, the collateral to common
stock but that it was her intention to sell those. She was going to sell those to Mr. Yun-Te
Chang. Through the processes of an escrow agreement, those shares which were transferred
to common stock in December of 1994 were held by an escrow officer, which again is one
of the exhibits contained or attached to the transcript of the administrative hearing. That
escrow officer also took hold or charge of $70,000 of Mr. Yun-Te Chang. It was at that time
in December of 1994 that Mr. Yun-Te Chang became involved in this business. It was at that
time that he had the first opportunity to exercise any authority, any control with the
operations of this business. At that time, when Miss Pei-Ju Wang and Mr. Yun-Te Chang
took control of the company in December 1994, they did what responsible business owners
had to do. Through a special meeting they ousted the previous Directors of the company and
each of them became Directors of this company at that time. They ousted each of the
Officers of this company and they took control and they became Officers, Mr. Yun-Te Chang
as President and Miss Pei-Ju Wang as Treasurer or Chief Financial Officer. Currently, since
1994, December of 1994, Miss Pei-Ju Wang owns 4,999 shares of common stock. Mr. Yun-
Te Chang owns by way of $70,000, 4,999 shares of common stock. This total of 9998
shares of common stock combined between them is of the 10,000 shares which is
authorized. Mr. Gene Fang, who was the sole share holder because he had one stock, one
share of stock, from June of 1991 to 1994 of December at that point became an extremely
minority shareholder, one share of stock as compared to the overall percentage contained by
these two individuals. He was ousted as Director. He was ousted as President. He currently
has no control in this business. The reason that I broke into my analogy earlier and try to
relate it to my personal experience is I urge all of us to think about the fact that, as in my prior
experience, where not only does the punishment have to fit the crime, but the punishment has
to fit the person. These two individuals are good people. These two individuals have invested
hard earned money, $135,000. 1 urge, I urge each one of you to think about their
participation, when they became involved, and what, if any, violations of any Conditional Use
Permits, or Entertainment Permits, were violated since they've been in control. They are
trying to run this business the way a respectable business should be run. I ask that each of
you consider the most severest of sanctions, which would be revocation of the Entertainment
Permit. I would ask that you consider that as it relates to these two individuals and their
conduct and how they've performed since they've been in control. I thank each one of you.
VASQUEZ: O.K. Any questions from the Council?
COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH: I would like to reserve my questions until I hear everything
VASQUEZ: Yes sir, go ahead and identify yourself.
CARY REISMAN, CITY ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ATTORNEY: Good evening Mr. Mayor,
members of the Council. I'm Cary Reisman with the law firm of Wallin, Kress, Reisman and
Kranitz and I represented the City in the administrative proceedings below in regard to this
matter. I have some comments and some arguments that I'd like to make. I'd like to start
by stressing to the Council that this is a corporation. This is not a business operated by
individuals, it's not a partnership, it's a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity, just like
a person. If the business had been operated by John Doe, or any other individual, and that
business were ...there was an investment in the business, let's say Jane Doe invested $1000
in the business. Jane Doe got a certificate or whatever for her investment. She sold that
certificate to Thelma Roe. The fact remains that the business is still owned by John Doe.
That's what we have here. The corporation that always owned the business still owns the
CC 4-25-95
Page #7
business. I brought Volume One of "Ballentine and Sterling California Corporation Laws." It's
a basic legal book about a five or six volume set and this like any other corporation law book
describes what corporations are and what the purposes and what they do and at Section
23.05, just to give you a little background on corporations, it says... "assuming conformity
appropriate conformity with the requirements of law to avoid disregard of corporate entity,
etc., a corporation is a legal entity with all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its
business activities subject to any limitations contained in the Articles and to compliance with
other applicable laws" Skipping down a little..."As an entity, the corporation will have power
to acquire, own and use property, to enter into and enforce and be liable upon contracts, and
to sue and be sued in its own name. In the absence of specific restrictions, shares of the
corporation are freely transferrable," etc., etc. Through the volumes, Ballentine and Sterling,
as do all the other corporate law books, talk about how a properly formed corporation,
properly run corporation, protects the shareholders from liability through the actions of the
corporation because the so called "owners" the shareholders are not legal entities. The legal
entity is the corporation. The corporation owns it and just because the investors may change
or may differ, the corporation is responsible for its actions. It can be sued on those actions,
it can have its permits withheld or withdrawn as an entity. It doesn't matter who runs it. In
this case, the original investors in this corporation were Pei-Ju Wang and the predecessor and
in interest to Yun-Te Chang. Each had 49% of the shares of the corporation. The
predecessor of Yun-Te Chang was Katherine Wang and there was testimony by the
respondents to that affect or by the representatives of the respondents. The $135,000
investment, Pei-Ju Wang invested hers several years ago. She was issued Treasury Shares
for it. Those Treasury Shares came due in June of last year. She had the right to convert
those in June of last year. She testified at the hearing that she did convert those in June of
last year and although her attorney tried a few times, as you'll see in the hearing transcript,
to impeach her or keep her from so testifying, she testified on three separate occasions that .
that's what had happened. Apparently the paperwork didn't all get shuffled around until
December, but from June forward according to her testimony, she was the holder of common
stock shares in that corporation. It doesn't matter, as I've shown from Ballentine and Sterling
and, it's really what we call "Hornbook Law"...basic law. The corporation is responsible for
its actions, it doesn't matter who the shareholders are. It doesn't really matter who was in
control of the corporation at the time these actions took place. Let's talk about the actions
a little bit. This corporation has been here before. If the name sounds familiar, it should
because the Hearing Officer's decision mentions that there was Strike One and Strike Two.
I like to think of it more in terms of the 1991-92 proceedings were the 8th inning. And in the
8th inning, this corporation was brought before the Council on a violation of the hours of
operation. The Council imposed a 15 day suspension after appropriate hearings and so forth.
In 1994, a second accusation was brought before the Council and that's what I like to call the
9th inning. In the 9th inning, the bottom of the 9th, the top of the 9th the City Attorney
recommended that the right to operate be withdrawn. In other words at that time, not that
they be suspended, but they lose their license. There was a hearing. The Hearing Officer,
after taking testimony, recommended that they be given one more chance ...a tie game in the
bottom of the 9th...extra innings. The one more chance consisted of a suspension for 30
days. At the end of that 30 day period, the Business License Investigator from the Sheriff's
Office, Steve Willkomm, who is here tonight and who was available at the hearing, his
testimony was provided under stipulation. Mr. Willkomm met with the then operator. He
went over the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit as well as the Business License,
discussed it with them, gave them a copy of them, had them sign for them, and that was
shortly after the suspension period ended. It was the end of October. The suspension period
went through October of '94, October 1st. The meeting took place on October 28th and
"Exhibit A" is the signature for receipt of those conditions on October 28th. Five days later,
six days later, on November 3, 1994, 3 o'clock in the morning, the Sheriff's Department was
called out because of a fight and during the course of that investigation, the Deputies
determined that there was beer on the premises' again. Now I don't know if I mentioned it,
but the January accusation dealt with possession of beer on the premises and that was the
accusation, that was what the suspension was for. Here we go again. November 3rd, and
that's what I like to call Strike One... because on November 19, 1994, at 12:15 a.m., the
Sheriff's Department was called to the premises or conducted an inspection under authority
of the conditions which allowed for inspections, and at that time the investigators determined
that there was beer being consumed on the premises in violation of the conditions of approval.
Strike Two...on November 19, 1994, they also found that there was no licensed
entertainment manager on the premises as required, the guest register was incomplete as of
CC 4-25-95
Page #8
a number of dates, and those are listed in the recommended decision. There was a physical
change to the premises in that a wall had been constructed and had not been removed.
Those violations constitute Strike Two. And then we have Strike Three. December 4th, two
Deputy Sheriffs conducted an investigation. They observed, that again, beer was being
consumed on the premises. Now, this was not at all difficult to prove, none of this was
difficult to prove. Because at the hearing, page 123 of your transcript... "Mr. London: I agree
with Mr. Reisman in that the board would be well within their rights to revoke the license
which is the subject matter of this hearing." At the beginning of the hearing, page 21,
actually 20 and 21, Mr. London, attorney for the respondents... "I've already indicated without
exception as to each of the accusations, I'm not here to contest those accusations, so any
supporting documents which the City wishes to offer in support of the allegations I am
agreeable to and will not contest". So, everything I've said so far, basically, with regard to
violations, has been admitted, no proof was really needed. It was stipulated to at the hearing.
You can consider that in arriving at your determination. I've talked a little bit about the bona
fide good faith purchasers. Let me talk a little bit more. At the hearing when these same
arguments were made, I asked some questions of the so called new owners. I asked Mr.
Chang whether he investigated prior to buying... prior to investing the substantial amount of
money, to buy the shares of Katherine Wang ...did he investigate how his business was being
run? His reply was that he visited the business twice. I asked him whether he checked with
the Sheriff's to find out whether they were in compliance with the laws. He said he had not.
I asked him whether he had checked with the City to find out if they were in compliance with
the laws that apply to them. He said he had not. This is not a bona fide good faith purchaser
for value. This is somebody who went in with blinders on. If he can be believed that he
didn't know about the suspensions, if he can be believed that he went in as a good faith
purchaser and didn't know about any of this. It's not for this Council to sanction the blinders.
It's not for this Council to say, "You poor fellow." If he was stupid enough to fail to
investigate this business, to see whether it even had a right to exist, even had a right to
operate in Rosemead, then he kind of deserves what he bought. And, what he bought is the
right to operate from last December until, hopefully, 15 days from now. It's too bad he didn't
have Mr. London back then because I'm sure Mr. London wouldn't have let him do that. Mr.
London would have investigated before he let him purchase a business that already was in
extra innings or to use the terms of the Hearing Officer that it had two strikes. But, that's
what he bought. He steps into the shoes of Katherine Wang. Pei-Ju Wang invested in a bad
business several years ago, or at least a business that was run by perhaps a bad person. She
didn't do anything about it. Even if everything she testified to is believed, she didn't do
anything about it until it was too late. She had the right to take it over in June. If her lawyer
is to be believed, she didn't do anything about it until December. Finally, let's talk about "the
owners are "good" people". "The Council shouldn't take away the right to operate this
business because they're "good" people and their operating their business in a good manner".
At the hearing, I asked Mr. Chang whether he had corrected the violation with regard to the
construction changes of the physical premises. He testified that he had not. The changes
that were illegal from the inception, from the time they were made, had not been corrected.'
They were part of the accusation. He had knowledge of that from the time, at least that he
received the accusation, he still hadn't done anything to change that. So, at the time of the
hearing he admitted to one violation at least. It also came out during testimony that people
are playing cards upon the premises. Did he have a license to play cards? Did he have a
license as a card room as is required by the L.A. County Code, Sections 7.22.010 through
7.22.030 as made applicable in the City by the Municipal Code? No. Never applied for a
license. There was some question about whether the people were playing cards for money,
he said..."Well, there's money on the table but it was not changing hands", the implication
being that it was for tips. But it doesn't matter because under the County Ordinance, playing
cards, you need a license. They don't have one. The doors of the business are sometimes
left wide open during business hours--violations of the conditions, Condition No. 11. On other
occasions, the doors are locked and they're locked while people are inside. We had one of
the Sheriff's Deputies who testified that he went there, he had to pick up a mail box outside,
shout inside, get somebody's attention, convince them that they should open the door... while
the business was open. And this was that it was all locked up, another violation and that's
Condition No. 13. All that is as of the time of this hearing. There has been no evidence as
to whether they're complying since the hearing. Based upon information that I've been
informed of, I'm going to be back here with further proceedings. But, I'm not asking the
Council to consider that. I'm not asking the Council to suspend or rather to revoke the license
as a result of anything that I haven't brought here yet because, frankly, I want this to proceed
CC 4-25-95
Page M9
tonight. I am asking the Council to uphold the recommendation of the Hearing Officer to
adopt the findings and to revoke the Business License of KISS-KTV and to stay the
enforcement of the revocation for 15 days before they are required to close, that is wait 15
days and I think that's the ordinary route. I ask the Council to do that and I warn you that
I may be back.
BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. Due to the preponderance of evidence that has been presented, I
would move the recommendation.
COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL: I would second it, Mr. Mayor.
VASQUEZ: O.K. Calling for the vote.
Vote taken from voting slip:
Yes: Clark, Taylor, Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
END VERBATIM DIALOGUE
VI. STATUS REPORTS
A. 3362 GREENDALE AVENUE
No action was required on this item.
VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS
A. MAYOR'S COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS FOR 1995-96
No action was required on this item.
B. COUNCILMEMBER IMPERIAL
1. Referred to an article in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune regarding the element
of people patronizing coffee houses and the dim interior lighting of those establishments. Mr.
Imperial requested that City's Ordinance be changed as soon as possible whereby those
establishments would be well lit and the interiors visible from the parking lot or street.
2. Requested an update on the front yard ordinance regarding standards for
maximum coverage of front and side yard surface areas. Mr. Imperial was informed that this
item would be on the May 23, 1995 Council meeting.
C COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH
1 . Announced that on Wednesday, April 26th, the Youth Service Awards will be
held at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center.
2. Announced that on Thursday, April 27th, the San Gabriel Valley Strategic Plan
Meeting will be held from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the same Center.
3. Requested that tonight's meeting be adjourned in memory of the victims of the
bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.
D. COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR
1 . Noted various corrections and clarifications to the minutes of April 11, 1995.
CC 4-25-95
Page #10
E. MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK
1. Clarified the minutes of April 11, 1995.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Holly Knapp thanked the Council for approving the Traffic Commissions
recommendations and suggested that a letter be sent to the Mayor of Oklahoma City
expressing the Council's sympathy and condolences regarding the Oklahoma City bombing
on April 19, 1995.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further action at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
in memory of the victims of the Federal building bombing in Oklahoma City. The next regular
meeting is scheduled for May 9, 1995, at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: APPROVED:
City Clerk° FMYOR
CC 4-25-95
Page #11