Loading...
CC - 02-23-88_ APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATED " ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL RY FEBRUARY 23,1988 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Cleveland at 8:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers.of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Taylor. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Garth Hyde of the Church of the Nazarene. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland Absent: Councilman McDonald - Excused Councilman Imperial made the announcement that the City Manager and Councilman McDonald were in Sacramento to testify before the Senate-Local Government Committee opposing SB 1725 (Bergeson) on February 24, 1988. SB 1725 seeks to repeal the "no and low" property tax provisions passed by the Legislature last September. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 9, 1988 - REGULAR MEETING Councilman Taylor asked that the first paragraph on Page #2 be amended to read "Councilman Taylor stated that this resolution was to show support of the concept of improving the emergency call boxes. Mr. Taylor voted against the existing emergency funding being spent on general road repairs." Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked on Page #2 his statement in the fourth paragraph, the last sentence, be amended to read "....life saving devices and stated that this was a users fee." There being no objection it was MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the Minutes of February 9,1988, be approved as amended. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. A Proclamation was presented to students of the Fern Intermediate School for their participation in "Operation Teddy." This program provides support to AIDS victims. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Patti May, 9216 Ralph Street, requested that the City remove a tree from her parkway whose roots are causing blockage of her sewer lines. Ms. May stated that she had contacted City Hall but not received a satisfactory solution to this problem. Staff was directed to remove the tree and report back to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked that staff investigate the west side of Muscatel Avenue at Klingerman Street for root damage to the sidewalks. CC 2-23-88 Page #1 9 a B. Frank Delia, 3727 Temple City Boulevard, reiterated his objection to the $1.00 fee that will be charged for the repair and maintenance of the emergency call box system. Mr. Delia was also surprised to learn that the City of Rosemead does not receive a portion of the property taxes collected by Los Angeles County. C. Carlos Arroyo, 7340 Teresa Avenue, Vice-President of the Zapopan senior center, requested that the council consider the expansion or replacement of the Zapopan Center. Mr. Arroyo presented a petition from the other members. The users have outgrown the facilities. Councilman Imperial stated that the city Council has approved a new center for the southern portion of the City but has not as yet located a suitable site for this project. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch concurred with Mr. Imperial but stated the Council's reluctance to accept a site that would require condemnation of private property and the desire to find appropriate vacant land. Mr. Arroyo mentioned two possible locations; one at the corner of Graves and Del Mar, and the other across the street from that location. Councilman Taylor asked that staff be directed to investigate these locations and report back to the Council. "Councilman Imperial asked for an update on the status of the entire project. D. Claude Delgado, District Manager, Southern California Gas Company, gave a presentation in explanation of the recent increases in the consumer's natural gas bills. Mr. Delgado cited the California Public Utilities Commission regulations that the utility must work with. Mr. Delgado stated that SB 987 (Dills), if passed, would allow the removal of the two-tier billing system, including the "baseline structure," that is presently in effect. Passage of this legislation would allow the CPUC to have more flexibility in determining gas rates. Councilman Taylor asked what the current system would be replaced with if this bill was passed. Mr. Delgado stated that the additional flexibility would allow rates to be adjusted appropriately. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that each month'should have the same number of days which would help to stop drastic fluctuation in bills. Mr. Delgado stated that this was not feasible and southern California had experienced the coldest winter in ten years which was the culprit rather than an uneven number of days in a billing period. Councilman Imperial expressed concerns that the senior citizens and the handicapped would be given some kind of discount or special allowance. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked if under SB 987 there would be a modified tiered rate that favors those who use a lower number of therms during cold months. Mr. Delgado stated SB 987 would allow more flexibility in rate structuring but yes, those who conserve would still benefit from future rate structures. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked that staff investigate the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for the insulation of homes of the low-income and elderly. The Mayor thanked Mr. Delgado for his time and information and called a five-minute recess, after which the meeting was reconvened accordingly. CC 2-23-88 Page 42 III.LEGISLATION A. RESOLUTION NO. 88-11 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $165,952.18 NUMBERED 702-732; 21447 THROUGH 21558 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Resolution No. 88-11 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 88-12 - MDT 1149 STORM DRAIN TRANSFER TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR MAINTENANCE The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM DRAIN NO. 1149 IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that Resolution No. 88-12 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. RESOLUTION NO. 88-13 - MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PARTICIPATION IN THE WHITMORE ALLEY PROJECT The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PARTICIPATION IN THE WHITMORE ALLEY PROJECT CC 2-23-88 Page #3 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Resolution No. 88-13 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilman Imperial, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland No: Councilman Taylor Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked that the record show his "NO" vote reflect that while he is in favor of the project, it is his opinion that this should be funded by the City and not by the Redevelopment Agency. D. RESOLUTION NO. 88-14 - MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PARTICIPATION IN THE STREET AND TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS - WALNUT GROVE AVENUE/SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD/LANDIS VIEW LANE The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION IN THE STREET AND TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS - WALNUT GROVE AVENUE/SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD/LANDIS VIEW LANE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that Resolution No. 88-14 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. ORDINANCE NO. 620 - ADOPTING REGULATIONS CONCERNING FLAG LOTS IN THE R-2 ZONE - ADOPT The following ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 620 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING REGULATIONS CONCERNING FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE R-2 ZONE Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch expressed concerns that driveways would be used as part of the open space that is required with flag lots. Mr. Bruesch requested this be in the form of an amendment to the ordinance and asked if a public hearing would be required to accomplish this. Councilman Taylor suggested that the ordinance be adopted and the modification that Mr. Bruesch is asking for could be done at a future date after a public hearing has been conducted. CC 2-23-88 Page #4 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that ordinance No. 620 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Taylor, and Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked that the record show he abstained because of his desire to see the clause in the R-2 flag lot standard prohibiting the use of the required driveway leg as part of the required open space. F. ORDINANCE NO. 622 - NEWSRACK ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AB 711 (Condit) - ADOPT The following ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 622 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD REQUIRING THE USE OF "BLINDER RACKS" IN NEWSRACKS DISPLAYING MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Ordinance No. 622 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-A, CC-E, CC-F, CC-H PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-B INSTALLATION OF ADVANCE SCHOOL ADVISORY PLATES AND YELLOW CROSSWALK ON DOROTHY STREET AT DEL MAR AVENUE CC-C REQUEST BY COALITION FOR PET POPULATION CONTROL FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL OVERHEAD STREET BANNERS, MARCH 7-21, 1988 CC-D AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL TRAINING SEMINAR - LAKE ARROWHEAD - APRIL 29-30, 1988 CC-G APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP 45668 - 3114 MUSCATEL AVENUE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-A NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ON WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AT DRAYER LANE CC 2-23-88 Page #5 E Edward Wallin, 8546 E. Drayer Lane, project. Mr. Wallin stated that because hours the left turn lane is necessary to injuries. spoke in favor of this of heavy traffic during peak prevent accidents and Jose Gonzales, 8527 Drayer Lane, stated that because of near-miss accidents this left turn lane is vital for the safety of the residents. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked if in the future the minutes of the Traffic Commission would be included with any items regarding the Traffic Commission, especially when there is a difference between the Commission and staff's recommendation. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, stated that in the future a copy of the minutes would be provided. Mr. Wagner stated the opinion that the staff report explained the difference between the Traffic Commission's recommendation and the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, but that a copy of the minutes will be provided to the Council in the future. Councilman Imperial questioned staff's reluctance to support the Traffic Commission's recommendation. Mr. Wagner stated that staff is obligated to bring the same recommendation to the Council that was given to the Traffic Commission. Councilman Taylor stated that anytime there is a difference of opinion between the Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Commission, copies of the Commission minutes will be provided for the Council with their Agenda packets. Councilman Imperial concurred with Mr. Taylor and stated that the Council needs to be aware of how the Commission, which is appointed, and the Engineer, who is hired, reach the opinions expressed. Councilman Taylor asked that this item be returned to the Traffic Commission for further information and study. Mr. Taylor asked that this be returned to the Council in plan form with full details and distances. There being no objection, this item was deferred to the next meeting of the City Council. CC-E VIETNAM VETERAN'S MEMORIAL - APPROVAL`OFPLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS Councilman Imperial asked for the approximate time frame for the completion of this project. Jeff Stewart, Executive Assistant, stated that if there is no problem in acquiring the necessary granite, the project should be completed within two and one-half months. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that the council approve the plans and specifications and authorize staff to seek bids. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 2-23-88 Page #6 CC-F APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 18004 - 3114 MUSCATEL AVENUE Councilman Taylor asked about the provision for driveway repair since this is a flag lot. Normally, the driveway is retained under one ownership but maintenane costs are shared between the two owners. Gary Chicots, Planning Director, stated that there will be two different parcels of land and two different owners with a flag lot. Each owner is required to maintain the part of the driveway that they own. Councilman Taylor asked that staff be directed to draft an ordinance that would allow the City to repair the flag lot driveway and assess the cost in the same manner of the P-D zones. Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that this would not require an ordinance. It could be made a standard condition for acceptance. Councilman Taylor asked that staff be directed to draft an ordinance change to delineate responsibility for driveway repairs when flag lots are developed. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that the council accept Parcel map 18004 and direct the City Clerk to arrange for the recordation of the map. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-H APPROVAL OF 1988-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked for a breakdown of the monies spent and the proposed uses of CDBG funds and that monies be set aside for insulating homes of qualified applicants. Mark Fullerton, CDBG Coordinator, stated that expenditures for this year for Residential Rehabilitation - $200,000.00; Graffiti Removal - $12,000.00 which is basically half of the budget; Commercial Rehabilitation - $167,000.00; Planned Administration - `heeded to augment $45,000.00; and the contingency fund is used as _ these ongoing programs. Weatherization is included under the residential rehabilitation portion of the budget under the Handyman program. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that the council approve the proposed 1988-89 CDBG program, with any amendments, and authorize staff to submit this program to the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission for participation in the Urban County CDBG Program. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland No: None Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 2-23-88 Page #7 V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION A. TOKAI RESTAURANT - CONSIDERATION OF DANCE AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMITS THE FOLLOWING IS VERBATIM DIALOGUE: WAGNER: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You have before you a staff report concerning the Tokai Restaurant's dance and entertainment permits. We have Mr. Sun representing the property owner. SUN: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is John Sun, from the law offices of Sun, Louie, and Hehmann located at 3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, CA 90010. Our firm represents Tokai Japanese Restaurant. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We appeared on behalf of Tokai Restaurant in response to an accusation filed by the City Attorney, Mr. Robert Kress alleging certain charges and also asking the dance and entertainment license to be revoked. Pursuant to the City ordinance we filed the response to the accusation and a public hearing was held by the City Manager some time ago. At the end of the public hearing the City Manager made recommendation to the City Council recommending the license be revoked. Now, I would like to make certain response to the findings by the City Manager. The City is limited by the City ordinance to have a public hearing before a license may be revoked. The accusation must be filed and sent to the restaurant owner to give them proper notice and due process. In the public hearing, the only issues that may be considered are those accusations contained in the accusation, and nothing else. In the accusation filed by the City Attorney there were, I believe, three elements, two elements to be considered. One - if the owner of the restaurant, Mrs. Yen was willful in selling alcoholic beverages without a license. Two - Mr. Yen, who is the husband of Mrs. Yen, was present on the premises. And the City Attorney filed the accusation based on these two grounds. At the end of the public hearing, the City Attorney deleted the first accusation, that Mrs. Yen was selling alcoholic beverages willfully and knowingly. So, by deleting that accusation we have only one item to be considered - whether Mr. Yen was present on the premises or was he was managing or participating in the management of the restaurant. About one year ago a public hearing was held by the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Wagner, considering the application of the license filed by my client. At the end of that public hearing, Mr. Wagner recommended approval of the license, but before the public hearing Mr. Wagner recommended denial of the license. One of the conditions imposed is that Mr. Yen should not-participate in the management of the restaurant. IMPERIAL: Point of information. For what reason? SUN: We have no idea. That is what I would to inquire of Mr. Wagner as to why Mr. Yen was excluded from the restaurant. IMPERIAL: Can we answer that? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Question to the City Attorney. I don't have the answer, either. But is there possible violation of Mr. Yen's confidentiality, is there any information that we may not divulge, publicly. KRESS: Mr. Sun, do you represent Mr. Yen? SUN: No, I do not. KRESS: Is Mr. Yen present? SUN: Mr. Yen is not present. CC 2-23-88 Page #8 KRESS: well, I think Councilman Taylor raises an important point. I believe that you have copies of all the documents in this file and you were present at the time the IMPERIAL: Point of information. KRESS: Excuse me, if I could just continue this point to answer him. You were present at the hearing conducted in Mr. Wagner's office in which there were various documents from the Sheriff's Department received. I think you know the answer to the question that you are asking. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. CLEVELAND: I think Councilman Imperial has the floor. TAYLOR: Do you understand what Mr. Kress just stated? There must have been documents that you saw...can we divulge to this audience what those documents were? Now, you are an attorney, can we divulge those documents? IMPERIAL: Privacy act, Mr. Mayor, and that is the point I wanted to deal with. TAYLOR: Mr. Sun, can we divulge what those documents were? SUN: Yes sir. TAYLOR: All right, fine. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. To the City Attorney. Do we Mr. Yen's background or can the City Attorney give briefly on what kind of a situation would prohibit a part of that. A convicted felon, or what? What from being a part of that establishment, managemen case might be. have to get into us something Mr. Yen from being would prohibit him t, whatever the KRESS: My understanding in this matter is that the Sheriff's Department was simply unable to unqualifiably recommend that he be a part of the establishment. I believe there we'.e identification problems; no specific charges. It's not a background type problem in terms of specific charges, rather the Sheriff's Department felt that there was insufficient information that they could verify that would allow him to be a part of this establishment. Therefore, that condition was imposed, and if my recollection is correct, it was agreed to. So, I don't think we need to really further debate that. I suggest that Mr. Sun be given further opportunity to state his case and then I would have several remarks. SUN: Mr. City Attorney. I did have a chance to check with the Sheriff's Department previously and I believe the reason why Mr. Yen was excluded was based on wrong information. Now, I did not have a chance to review the Sheriff's files but I was told by the Sheriff's Department that they believe Mr. Yen was involved in certain accident and then fled the scene of the accident in violation of the vehicle code. If that is the reason, I would submit that this is not any crime of moral turpitude and should not be considered to exclude him from the premises. As a result of that information I then went to the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and ran a check on Mr. Yen's traffic record. There was no charge for fled from the scene of the accident. What happened is that Mr. Yen did not appear for a traffic ticket and he was additionally charged with failure to appear if he promised to appear on the traffic ticket. But that has been solved. The DMV record right now is clear. BRUESCH: At the hearing with the Assistant City Manager, did you agree to that stipulation that the owner's husband would not participate in the business? CC 2-23-88 Page #9 0 SUN: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think we can resolve this case without... BRUESCH: I want an answer, yes or no. Did you agree to the stipulation? SUN: Yes, we did. BRUESCH: Okay. SUN: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Now, after the City Attorney deleted the first accusation accusing Mrs. Yen of selling alcoholic beverages without a license the only issue left would be whether Mr. Yen was participating in the management of the restaurant. We submit Mr. Yen was not participating in any way regarding the management or operation of the restaurant. CLEVELAND: He was participating. SUN: Mrs. Yen, Mr. Mayor. At the public hearing there was no evidence submitted by anybody to establish that Mr. Yen was participating in the management of the restaurant. At that time there was a big party going on and we submitted an affidavit together with my brief to show that Mr. Yen was a guest at the party. Those present at the restaurant did not indicate that he was participating in the management of the restaurant. I believe the City Manager made one error in his findings. I believe it was his impression that Mr. Yen is excluded from the premises of the restaurant. In his finding he said Mr. Yen was present in the restaurant and that is why that is in violation of the conditions imposed. If you review the conditions imposed, Mr. Yen is not excluded from the premises of the restaurant, but enjoined from participating in the management of the restaurant. There was no evidence taken from the employees, cc workers, or any independent party to establish that Mr. Yen was managing or participating in the managing of the restaurant. Certain witnesses, one investigator from ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control), a Mr. Wong I believe, I questioned him - he testified - it's in my brief with page and line number noted. The agency's investigator went to the restaurant. At the door somebody came out - it was Mr. Yen. I asked Mr. Wong "Was Mr. Yen opening the door for you?" - Answer No. Just a coincidence. People coming and going at the same time. I asked Mr. Wong "Have you ever seen Mr. Yen greeting the customers, seat them, bring them menus? Did Mr. Yen ever come to the table and greet you and ask you how is everything or what a manager is supposed to do?" Mr. Wong said "No." The only time he saw Mr. Yen is at the door, when Mr. Yen was coming out and he was going in. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Sun. In that brief you'''ve"looked over that legal document that has all the testimony, have you not? SUN: Yes, sir. BRUESCH: Is it not true that two other people testified that as they entered the building, Mr. Yen directed them to a seat? SUN: Yes, sir. Let me address that. I believe there is a mistake of identity. When you review the transcript, I specifically asked Mr. Wong "Were you seated by Mr. Yen?" and he said "No." BRUESCH: At another time, did not those same witnesses say that Mr. Yen motioned to a waiter and after finding out that that waiter did not speak the particular language, motion to another waiter? SUN: No, it wasn't Mr. Yen. There were two investigators, a lady investigator and Mr. Wong. The lady investigator thought that Mr. Yen seated the party. I asked Mr. Wong specifically "Were you seated by Mr. Yen?" and the answer is very explicit, "No." So, there is a mistaken identity. Mr. Wong said the first time he saw Mr. Yen is when Mr. Yen was coming out the door. So, he had a good look at Mr. Yen. When he was seated by a gentleman at the table, I asked him very simply, "Was that Mr. Yen?" and the answer is "No." CC 2-23-88 Page #10 BRUESCH: But the other investigator said it was. SUN: The first lady said it was Mr. Yen. IMPERIAL: You know, Mr. Mayor, I am sitting here, listening to this, and I just wonder if I wasn't in violation of something this morning when I saw a man sitting at the counter, down further from me, and the waitress didn't see him so I motioned to her that she had a customer. I just wonder if I wasn't in violation of something. And I should have been prosecuted or something. That's what this conversation sounds like to me. What it boils down to, I think, is I have looked at this document, I've read it twice, and I've done a little research on my own. The first time that I heard of this Tokai Restaurant it was called the Gentlemen's Tea House. At that time, we had some concerned citizens in the community. I, myself, told the City Manager to go down there and see what this is all about and if there is a problem, let's do something with it. From the indication that I was getting I thought we had a house of ill repute down there or something happening with the dance floor. I was concerned. To make a long story short, I've been reading this document and putting some thought into it. I decided to put on some scroungy clothes, go down to what is now the Tokai Restaurant, walk in there, sit in the back, and wait for the waiter to come and talk to me. The waiter came in and asked me if I wanted juice or coffee and I drank a cup of coffee. While I was in there I observed a restaurant, or whatever you want to call it - a nightspot - that looked like it had $100,000 to $200,000 worth of improvements to it. I sat there and watched the crowd which at the time was between the ages of 45 and 65. Everybody was having a good time. No one was beating up on anyone. I would say the crowd was a comfortable 60 people in there. I'm asking myself what the problem is about. I understand that a license has been issued to this establishment and then pulled back. I think that was a problem, where there was a mistake, on the City's part. Based on this, I'm being told that this establishment decided to put some money into that restaurant, or whatever you want to call it at this point. They did it based on good faith. I feel there was a lack of communication. Based on that lack of communication, and what I had observed as nothing wrong, it's my feeling that we can hash this thing out all day long, whether Mr. Yen belonged in there or whether he didn't; or he stepped on a banana peel; or you name it. But, the fact remains, it looks like a legitimate business to me. I think this Council should consider leaving that permit active like it is right now, with stipulation. There are concerns in the community, I'm sure. I've seen nothing to be concerned about. I'm going to request later, after this item, that no more of these type of establishments, or restaurants, or what have you"come into the City, anyway that we can stop it. But the fact remains, we've got a vested interest in the business right now.. I think there was a mistake on the part of the City; a mistake on the part of the people; and hopefully we can come to some conclusion tonight. TAYLOR: Mr. Sun. I would like to ask Mrs. Yen some questions. Is there any problem with that? SUN: If you don't mind that I translate. TAYLOR: I don't mind that. What I'm puzzled about is in this interview, and it's interesting reading this, Mr. Wong, Mrs. Don, Mrs. Yen.... the night the Sheriff's Department came in, when the drinks were ordered, no one could understand each other. Mr. Yen could not communicate with the people sitting at the table who were speaking in Cantonese and Mandarin dialects. They could not communicate, is that correct? SUN: Councilman Taylor... TAYLOR: Excuse me. Let me finish, is that correct? They could not communicate when they were trying to buy beer. CC 2-23-88 Page #11 SUN: That is not correct. Councilman Taylor. The were not seated by Mr. Yen. It was another waiter, TAYLOR: Let me...you clarify this for me. On page paragraph (deposition document?) I believe it doesn question, this is for Mr. Kress. Correct me if I'm say on this page but on page 12 the question is put were seated with your partner, what happened next?" Kress making that statement? problem is they the first waiter. 13, first It say here, the wrong, it doesn't forth "After you Was that Mr. SUN: Yes, sir. TAYLOR: The answer, "To the best of my recollection, I recall Mr. Yen had requested our order. We attempted to order in Cantonese. Either he did not understand or was not able to. He apparently did not understand or was not able to understand what we were trying to order, so he had another waiter approach us and we had ordered or placed our order for two beers." Now, that is where I interpret that Mr. Yen was at the table after they walked in and they couldn't communicate. But then you get towards the end of this review and when the deputies were there and the alcoholic beverages, it goes into conversation back here what they said to each other. Now, nobody can speak English. SUN: That's the problem here. The first lady investigator mistook the identity of the waiter, the first waiter, as Mr. Yen. That's why when the second investigator, Mr. Wong, testified I asked him specifically who seated him at the table, was that Mr. Yen and the answer was no. BRUESCH: I agree with Mr. Imperial that we could knitpick and take this testimony piece by piece and word by word. I have a direct question for Mr. Sun. Under the present laws of the State, if I were to leave my house and my young adult son decided to have a party and at that party he served alcoholic beverages to minors, say for instance, and one of those minors were to get injured or even killed, what ultimate liability, who would have the ultimate liability for the administering of alcoholic beverages to those minors? SUN: Why, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem this is a legal question that may be... BRUESCH: Would it not be me? SUN: If I'm your defense lawyer, it won't be you, your honor. BRUESCH: But, I'm sorry, the way the courts are running I would say 99 chances out of a hundred it would be me. I-think it boils down to the fact that if such a private party is going on in an establishment, I don't care who is serving what, who is doing what, the ultimate responsibility rests with the business owner. SUN: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. That issue is moot right now because the City Attorney has deleted that particular section of the accusation from the accusation. BRUESCH: This is not a court of law. KRESS: May I be heard on that point because that is simply a misstatement. You made it in your brief and you made it here. The only part of the allegations that were deleted related to the owner of the business, Yu-Chun Yen, was present during the sale of alcoholic beverages to the investigators. At the time I filed the accusation, it was my understanding that she was present. As you know she is identified by driver's license identification at the end of the investigation report. I was under the mistaken impression that she was there for the entire incident. In fact, after the incident came down, she was called to the scene and ID'd at that time. There is no dispute, as I understand it, as to points 1, 2, and 3 of the accusation relating to the actual sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises. Is that correct? CC 2-23-88 Page 412 SUN: Mrs. Yen was not aware of the transaction. KRESS: That's your argument. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Point of information. Mr. Kress has read three items here. I would like him to read those items, please. KRESS: That is what I intended to do when I got the floor. (Mr. Kress is reading from exhibit "A" of the Accusation.) Item 1: On October 9, 1987, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control investigators made a purchase of alcoholic beverages at the premises know as the Tokai Gardens Restaurant, 8062 E. Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, California. The waiter who sold the investigators the alcoholic beverages was Wen-Chin Hu. The restaurant did not have any authority to sell or serve alcoholic beverages. This sale of alcoholic beverages constituted a violation of Business and Professions Code section 23300. Item 2: The Dance and Entertainment Permits issued by the City of Rosemead were issued after the applicant withdrew an application for an on-sale beer and wine public license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. These permits were issued with the express understanding that no alcoholic beverages were to be served, except in accordance with all applicable laws. The owner was required to reapply for dance and entertainment permits in the event of an application for an ABC license. Item 3: A specific condition of the issuance of the permits was that the business comply with the Sheriff's report dated March 12, 1987. That report specifically required "That applicant's husband, Tommy Yen, not participate in any manner in the operation of the business." On the night of October 9, 1987, Mr. Yen was present in the restaurant and actually greeted and seated the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control investigators. Number 4, which I did withdraw at the conclusion of the hearing, after the agreed evidence and the testimony of all the investigators indicated that Mrs. Yen was not present at the time of the sale, read: Item 4: The owner of the business, Yu-Chen Yen, was present during the sale of alcoholic beverages to the investigators. Again, that was not sustained and I withdrew.it. +A +K r. ' Item 5: Due to the seizure of the following alcoholic beverages, at the time of the incident on October 9, 1987, it is obvious that a "bar" was being stocked on the unlicensed premises: 1. (72) 12oz bottles Budweiser Brand Beer (Sealed) 2. (25) 750ml bottles Remy Martin Fine Champagne Cognac (Opened) 3. (4) 750m1 bottles Remy Martin Petite Fine Champagne Cognac (Opened) 4. (2) 500ml bottles Remy Martin Fine Cognac (Opened) 5. (2) 750ml bottles Hennessey Very Special Cognac (Opened) 6. (13) 750ml bottles Hennessey Cognac (Opened) 7. (14) 12oz bottles Budweiser Brand Beer (Sealed) That was the accusation. The thrust of what you're being asked to decide tonight is the level of culpability of the owner. CC 2-23-88 Page #13 • • KRESS: (Continued) She was not physically present. Evidence that you reviewed in the transcript will give you some information on which to base your decision as to whether or not ultimately the owner should be held responsible in some way. I have previously advised you that your options in this matter are essentially, three: do nothing; take some disciplinary action against the dance and entertainment permits, and that could range from suspension, placing the licensee on some sort of probation, those types of interim penalties; and finally, the possibility of consideration of revocation of the dance and entertainment permits. BRUESCH: That's what I was referring to. We can talk about the fine points of law and who said what and what said who. We could be here the rest of the night, but basically, as the City Attorney has eloquently stated, we're here to see what amount of knowledge the owner had of what was going on in her own business establishment. That's why I asked the question of Mr. Sun earlier on. It was my opinion that an owner of a business, especially the restaurant game, should know what is going on at all times. If a certain group of people come and want to rent it out, then she should have been there to watch out that violations were not made. I say this because we have just had a large discussion in a non-profit organization that I belong to of somebody wanting to borrow our liquor license so they could have a party. Our lawyer told us absolutely not because you'd have to be there at all times and if anything went wrong, you'd be blamed for it. I think this is just exactly the same thing. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I can understand where Mr. Bruesch is coming from. For instance, today I left my office, I had my teeth worked on, I came home in pain. If somebody messed up in my office, I'm responsible for it, that's a fact. I'm in charge of my office, okay? But let's be a little bit rational about this. If Mr. Bruesch left his classroom to go out to the toilet and two kids start beating up on each other, Mr. Bruesch would still be responsible, legally, whatever you want to call it. I think the point that we should be looking at is what action was taken once this was brought to the owner's attention. Did she say "To hell with you, City of Rosemead" and continue to march; or did she take some action? Do you sit here and find it impossible that she could not have know about this? That's the question in my mind. I just think we.... first of all somebody gets a permit; secondly, they put a lot of money into it. I think we ought to sit here and be rational and fair about this thing. I personally don't want any more of this type of establishment within the City of Rosemead. I'll make that a fact. That's a statement from me, but the fact remains also, that it's our job to decipher through this and find out where we're at and be fair to"people. There might have been a lack of communication. The gentleman offered to interpret for her. Did she understand what the law said? We talked about Mandarin and Cantonese. I don't speak Chinese but I have some knowledge of the language. You can find people who can talk Mandarin fluently that come from mainland China, or whatever, that can't understand Cantonese; you've got so many dialects. Let's stop whistling in the wind, I think and come down to bare facts, even though maybe legally she was wrong, maybe legally something happened that shouldn't. Then should we hold her responsible legally, yes - but should we give some consideration to the fact that maybe she didn't know what was happening in there. Is this the only business this lady has? Is that her job, to stay there constantly? SUN: Right now, she is. Mr. Mayor, members,of the Council. I would like to mention a few other points for your consideration. First, a complaint was filed by the District Attorney against my client, Mrs. Yen and the case was dismissed by the judge in the interests of justice. The final result was a hung jury - seven voted for acquittal and five for guilty. The judge after hearing all the evidence decided to dismiss the case in the interests of justice rather than retrying the case. CC 2-23-88 Page #14 • BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. At this time I'd like to suggest as Mr. Kress has directed us, we have to make some type of decision in this matter. I would like to suggest a short suspension period with a probationary period following whatever agreed to by this Council. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to address Mr. Bruesch on that item. I feel that I.... how much money is invested in this business? SUN: Before Mrs. Yen opened the restaurant it was a rundown building. Mrs. Yen came to the City Hall and applied for a license. She was issued a dance and entertainment license right away by the City Hall, without any public hearing and the business license. TAYLOR: Excuse me, Mr. Sun. You said Mrs. Yen came to City Hall and applied for a license? SUN: Yes. TAYLOR: Who was her interpreter at the time? SUN: I wasn't present. TAYLOR: You were not present? SUN: I was not. TAYLOR: Who was her interpreter at the time to fill out the application? SUN: May I inquire? TAYLOR: Yes, please do. SUN: Her secretary from her company. TAYLOR: Her secretary. Do you know who the application was taken out with at City Hall ...who she applied to? SUN: At the counter. TAYLOR: No, I mean Mr. Wagner who would...? WAGNER: Yes, Councilman Taylor. If I can address myself to the question. He is correct. The business license clerk issued a dance and entertainment permit; made a mistake; was-not aware at the time; and I take blame for it because I'm her supervisor. She issued a dance and entertainment permit without being fully aware of the requirement regarding an administrative hearing and Council approval. Once this was determined that this had been issued, then we notified the owners and went through the proper procedure. TAYLOR: All right. I'm going to ask this Council that because there is the possibility of a law suit here that this item be in the Minutes verbatim. Because we've got these transcripts here; this should be in the Minutes verbatim. I'm going to ask you Mr. Sun, a question to Mrs. Yen, if she was not on the premises that night who was the manager in charge that she appointed? SUN: I know that. It was... BRUESCH: Shouldn't he address the question to her and let her answer? SUN: Sure. (Translated from Mrs. Yen) It was a Mr. Tony Tan, last name T-A-N. TAYLOR: All right. Now, that is not in the report at all, as far as any...Did you see it in this report at all? Did that name ever come up? CC 2-23-88 Page #15 • • SUN: It is in the investigation report by the ABC. TAYLOR: It's in the....? SUN: Investigation report, not in the public hearing. TAYLOR: This eighty-eight page.... the name is not in there that I know of. SUN: Right. BRUESCH: Mr. Sun. IMPERIAL: Is Mr. Tan presently with the restaurant? SUN: Mr. Tan was fired the second day. TAYLOR: Excuse me. The second day from when? SUN: October 9, 1987. BRUESCH: On what grounds? SUN: On what grounds? BRUESCH: Because of this? SUN: Because of this incident. BRUESCH: Was the manager informed by Mrs. Yen not to allow alcoholic beverages to be served? SUN: After Mrs. Yen obtained the dance and entertainment permit after this lengthy hearing - it took close to one year - she told everybody the restaurant cannot sell liquor and if they want to sell liquor they have to reapply for a license. She instructed everybody not to sell liquor. That was her explicit instruction. Now, October 9th, after the incident happened, some waitress in the restaurant telephoned my client and she rushed down and found out this whole mess. The second day she confronted Tony Tan, the manager actually working that particular night, regarding the whole incident. Mr. Tan was fired on the spot. TAYLOR: Okay. That was two days? SUN: Second day. October 10th, I believe. TAYLOR: October 10th. Now, can you explain to me on October 7th, there were alcoholic beverages, correct me if I'm wrong, was there not beer sitting on another table when two other investigators were in the restaurant? SUN: I believe it is in the report, right. TAYLOR: Yes, it's in the report that on the 7th there were alcoholic beverages on the table and also on a Sunday, I believe in the report, that the investigator walked around to the back of the building to the trash bin and there were empty alcoholic beverage containers in the trash bin. SUN: The whole incident, the whole mess occurred because my client, Mrs. Yen, hired this Tony Tan. TAYLOR: Wait a minute. Tony's only been there two days. This is four days, 7, 8, 9, 10. SUN: Tony was fired on October 10th after the incident happened October 9th. CC 2-23-88 Page #16 • • TAYLOR: After two days on the job. SUN: No, no, no. TAYLOR: Didn't you say two days on the job? SUN: He was fired the second day after the incident. He was hired for approximately three months. TAYLOR: Okay. I'm sorry. SUN: Right after the restaurant was opened my client, because she is also running a manufacturing company, hired this Tony Tan to run this restaurant at night. She has to go home and take care of her two children. She has two very young children. All this incident happened without her knowledge. The first time she learned of this was on October 10th, October the 9th when somebody telephoned her and she rushed down to the restaurant. On October the 10th she confronted the manager and was told by the manager what had happened, the manager was fired on the spot. TAYLOR: Let me ask you something. Since Mrs. Yen was not aware of this and the possibility, not that it did exist, that anything could, be sold in the restaurant, then if that's the case, whether it be beer, alcohol, drugs. There was no knowledge of it, right? SUN: It is possible. But after the incident, after Tony Tan was fired, my client now takes an active participation and is more careful in the running of the establishment. Just for your information, Mr. Councilman, Tony Tan was also charged with the same offense - selling alcoholic beverages without a license - he did not appear for the hearing. He just ran away. What happened on October 10th when my client confronted Tony Tan regarding this incident, Tony admitted to her that he was doing that for his own profit. I believe it is for this reason that Tony Tan did not appear for the court hearing and risk the chance of being a fugitive. TAYLOR: Okay. There's a couple of other questions that I have as far as the bottles of liquor, as far as saying they were for the party. What puzzles me is why they were in the stock room of the restaurant, not accessible to the people having the party on the floor. SUN: We went into detail in the court hearing. The storeroom is in a back room in the ladies room. If you go into the ladies room you cannot even see it. It is like a closet in the.wall. It was hidden there. My position it was hidden there from my client. TAYLOR: By the people having the party or by this Tony? SUN: I would say by Tony because I cannot find Tony to ascertain the truth but-from what I got, my impression and from what Tony told my client on October 10th, I reached the conclusion it was Tony who was doing that. TAYLOR: Nobody's proved this though, you reached the conclusion. SUN: Right. I believe in the criminal court hearing the judge and the jury reached the same conclusion. BRUESCH: Mr. Sun. SUN: Yes, sir. BRUESCH: My call for a probationary period is not placing the blame on anyone. All I am saying is that as a business person, operating a business such as this under the laws of the State of California and the regulations set up by the County of Los Angeles and the City of Rosemead, it is ultimately the business owner's responsibility to know cc 2-23-88 Page #17 exactly what is going in their runs a manufacturing business things at once. 0 establishment. Your comment that she tells me that she is trying to do two SUN: Three things, be a mother, too. BRUESCH: Yes, be a mother, too. What I'm saying is in the probationary period she's going to have to, if she wants to maintain that restaurant, is going to have to pay a little more attention to who she hires and what goes on in that building. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. Can I ask a question, it might be a personal question, but how much has Mrs. Yen paid you so far for your services? Can you tell us that? SUN: Do I have to? IMPERIAL: Well, can I assume it would $20,000 to $30,000, so far? SUN: The jury trial lasted ten days. IMPERIAL: I'm getting at a point. The point is this - we want to take a license, lift a license for a period of six months from Mrs. Yen. I think, first of all, due to a mistake on her part, due to a mistake on the City's part which we admitted, we have two different areas of mistakes. Now, I think that Mrs. Yen has had to pay this gentleman some handsome money - the kind of money that I don't have. So, if anybody wants Mrs. Yen to learn a lesson I think she has already learned that lesson. She doesn't want to be paying this man anymore money. I think in view of what happened I would like to recommend that Mrs. Yen be given a probationary period, able to retain her license for at least a probationary period of six months, at a minimum to make sure that everything is fine down there; to make sure she understands in whatever dialect we need to use, whether it be Cantonese or Mandarin or what, that she has to tow the mark in what is expected of her and I think that would be a gracious decision on the part of the City. She already knows what it feels like. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I tend to disagree somewhat with the solution in the sense that it doesn't matter what type of agreement that is made with the City or with the owner, if it's money or if you spend enough money then the agreement doesn't mean anything so just waive whatever the agreement was. There's five different items that I think that Mrs. Yen for whatever reasons, if she is.not participating in the business, you just don't arbitrarily say "Well,, that's okay, we understand that." We're fortunate it didn't have`~drugs; we're fortunate that it wasn't prostitution; we're fortunate that a lot of things didn't happen, as a City. But, they all could have happened because of lack of management. If we give out an alcoholic beverage license and such, and, just get someone off the street to run the business or we'll have someone come in and run the business and let them do it on their own. This appears to be what happened if this Tony person was selling the beer and getting away with some of the things that were going on - stocking alcoholic beverages - and if Mrs. Yen was not aware of it, that's very poor management, not just management but a tremendous amount of liability involved. SUN: Mr. Taylor, I can assure you my client has learned her lesson. TAYLOR: I'm sure she has. But my the same token I don't think it's just right to say "Okay, she learned her lesson. Now, we'll just continue on our merry way." I'm not sure... CLEVELAND: We have a request here from another speaker; maybe she might be able to give you some enlightenment on some of the questions you are asking. CC 2-23-88 Page #18 • • TAYLOR: A couple of other things, Mr. Mayor. The occupancy rate - I don't remember what it was, but it was either 50 or 100. Mr. Kress. do you remember what the occupancy was...100 or 50 seated - the night of this investigation they estimated 150 to 200 people. Again, lack of management if there were too much of a crowd. SUN: Mr. Taylor, the number of the occupants that night was just a rough estimate. There was no head count and also because my client was not charged for violation... TAYLOR: Let's be fair about it. You're going on a lot of assumptions for your client because she wasn't participating in the business (that particular night), you want us to lean your way, which is understandable. Let's put some credibility into the report and kind of balance it out. If there were 150 or 200 people there, fine, that's what it says here. You weren't there. You're putting in your suppositions and you want us to accept your supposition for Mrs. Yen. I'm saying that the report states there was a violation of the occupancy rate. Again, management, your responsibility. We get into the bottles of liquor that were stored. Again, lack of proper management. Selling the alcoholic beverages - lack of proper management. These are the questions that I just can't say "Well, that's the way it goes. Let's just let business continue as usual." I think Mr. Bruesch has a valid comment as far as some type of action to be taken. Mr. Mayor, you said there was someone else? KRESS: Mr. Mayor. Of course, it is the Council's decision, but I don't really think this is a public hearing as such. You've had a hearing conducted and the attorneys have argued the evidence that was presented. It is now up to you to make a decision on the basis of that evidence. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I would like to propose at this time a three-month suspension of the license and a two-year probationary period. CLEVELAND: How much? BRUESCH: A three-month suspension of license and a two-year probationary period. TAYLOR: Probation is strictly the business will operate as usual but under supervision or guidance. SUN: May I inquire as during this three-month.suspension - you mean the restaurant has to close down for three months? TAYLOR: No, no. The entertainment license is suspended for ninety days. SUN: Mayor Pro Tem. Is it possible to make it shorter, then my client can use the period to close down the whole business for renovation? TAYLOR: Would you repeat that again? SUN: If we can make the suspension period of one month, my client can close down the whole establishment for one month and renovate and remodel the whole place. BRUESCH: I'll split the difference - six weeks. TAYLOR: I'm curious about the renovation. I thought a lot of money has been put into it and it's in good condition. CC 2-23-88 Page #19 11 i SUN: She's put in over $100,000 so far and because of this incident she is reluctant to put more money into the business. If I can assure her that if she obeys the law the City will let her operate the business and she is willing to obey the law, she is willing to put in more money to improve the restaurant. BRUESCH: I'll add to that recommendation. I'll go with six weeks. But I'll also add to that recommendation, in the two-year probationary period, should there be another occurrence of this type of activity - lack of management - that the entertainment permit would be pulled irrevocably. SUN: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Is Mr. Yen still allowed to go into the restaurant or is he excluded from the restaurant? I don't want to have any misunderstanding there. BRUESCH: I will refer that to our City Attorney. IMPERIAL: I'd like to know why he is going to be excluded, to begin with, because I don't understand this - why the man can't go in a restaurant. I just don't understand it. I can understand why there might be a reason he can't be a part of management but why he can't walk into an investment of his wife's. Unless she keeps a separate bank account where he has nothing to do with it, I don't understand this stuff. I also want to point out that ...I think we better make a lot of things clear because we're talking about someone now from another culture. We get it everyday in this City, where we have these people, from another culture, who come in here and think they can do things like they would back where they come from. our position should be where we should work with them. Teach them the American way of life, so to speak. I'm going to ask a question. I turned in a house where an individual made an illegal conversion - built a brand new room, bath, and what have you on his house. Are we going to put him out of his house saying "You're suspended from living in there for the next six - eight weeks?" Are we going to go to an illegal garage conversion and say "You're going to have to move out for six or eight weeks?" Is this a double standard? A gentleman who did not get a permit are we going to tear it down or are we going to work with him and tell him to get a permit. That's all I'm asking. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I think we're talking about a pre-arranged agreement which this business had agreed to. It has nothing to do with going in and finding out where someone made a mistake. It's one thing to make a mistake and it's another thing to violate a pre-conceived agreement, knowing what you're.supposed to do and through mismanagement or whatever to violate that' agreement or to not supervise or administer the agreement. IMPERIAL: If that was willingly violated, I can certainly agree with that but at this point that is just an assumption on your part, Mr. Taylor. BRUESCH: I sat through many meetings where landlords of different cultures, landlords who come in and buy property and then neglect it. I sat through those same meetings and heard the comment said over and over and over again, it is still your ultimate responsibility to take care of that property. I don't care if that person is Anglo, Chinese, Cantonese, Hispanic - that person is ultimately responsible for that piece of property. A businessman, no matter what culture they come from, is ultimately responsible for the running of his business. I resent the idea that it's because of any type of a cultural difference. A businessman goes into business full well knowing what the parameters of the regulations are that govern that business. It is incumbent on them to know what can be done in that business and what cannot be done. Ignorance of the law is no protection. CC 2-23-88 Page #20 TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I think that Mr. Bruesch's comment was made. At no time, to my knowledge, in any of this discussion has this Council made distinction as far as whether it be culture or nationality; it has nothing to do with that at all. The issues were the occupancy; the selling of alcoholic beverages; the stocking of alcoholic beverages on the premises; the management capability; the responsibility of being on the job in a management position. I think that's what we've stuck to the issue. That's the way it should be. If Mr. Bruesch made the motion for a six-week suspension I think that's a reasonable compromise going from three months and if you're going to have a renovation period of several weeks - I don't know what it will be - but I would agree with his motion and I'll second it for the matter of discussion and voting. BRUESCH: And the probationary period of two years? TAYLOR: Yes. KRESS: Might I just clarify the motion? My understanding is that the dance and entertainment permits will be suspended for a period of time of six weeks. I would suggest that we make it a condition of this since we've tied it to a possible renovation of the facilities to make sure that all parties understand that any renovation plans must be submitted to the Planning and Building and Safety Departments. We don't want any construction investment to take place without it being approved. Also, we're unaware at this time as to what renovation is being planned and that may in fact impact parking and other possible restrictions on the dance and entertainment permits themselves. You should be aware of that. SUN: Whatever improvements we make will conform to the zoning and City ordinances. KRESS: Fine. But again, they must be submitted in advance and as counsel I'm sure you understand that. SUN: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Can we have a definite date so that there's no misunderstanding between the parties? BRUESCH: April 1st. TAYLOR: For what? The beginning or the termination? The start of it, the commencement? BRUESCH: Yes, the start of it so they can get,their plans together. CLEVELAND: Do we have a motion? It was made and seconded. BRUESCH: To clarify the motion, Mr. Mayor, I would be in agreement with the idea the suspension of the license would begin on April 1, 1988 - that would give you approximately six weeks, five weeks to get your plans together, so your renovation can begin. SUN: Then the suspension period would be from April 1, 1988, through may 14, 1988. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the dance and entertainment permits be suspended for a period of six weeks commencing on April 1, 1988, followed by a two-year probationary period. Vote resulted: Yes: Councilman Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland No: Councilman Imperial Absent: Councilman McDonald Abstain: None CC 2-23-88 Page #21 IMPERIAL: Let the record show, verbatim, that my reason for not voting "YES" on this is because I think the punishment, so to speak, was too harsh. I think it was a dual responsibility here which should be shared by the City for the issuance of a license that shouldn't have been issued and by the sale of beer or whatever the case might be that shouldn't have been sold. Therefore, I would have voted for this if they would have allowed the people to continue. They could have done their renovation and done this, too. I think they would have tried to do a good job in view of what happened. I think the lady had, and this is verbatim, I think the lady has learned her lesson - about $20,000 worth, Mr. Attorney (reference to Mr. Sun). I'm not taking shots at you, now, but I'm saying that it's cost her money to go through all this. I think a probationary period of six months would have been adequate. That's my feeling. Thank you. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. A point of information for Mr. Imperial. You made the comment that the license should not have been issued? IMPERIAL: No. I made the comment that a license that was not supposed to have been issued was issued. We can make sure that's verbatim, okay? TAYLOR: You're speaking of which license? IMPERIAL: The license that the City initially issued these folks. The permit. TAYLOR: Then what was reissued? What is the license they have now that you're referring to? IMPERIAL: Well, first of all, we're saying the license should never have been issued. TAYLOR: Which license? IMPERIAL: The license they were issued. How many were they issued, Mr. Taylor? TAYLOR: That's what I'm trying to get clear because they do have a license, now. IMPERIAL: Yes, but I'm hearing that that should not have issued. TAYLOR: No, that was the comment you made. That's why I want it clarified. I'm glad they got that license because we voted to give it to them. IMPERIAL: Well, didn't Mr. Wagner just say, not too long ago, that his clerk never should have issued the dance permit? WAGNER: For the record, when it was the Gentlemen's Teahouse and it was opened without an occupancy permit and the owner came in and was given a dance and entertainment permit by mistake; by the business license clerk; who's under my supervision - so that means it was my mistake for letting the business license be issued. Once we found out, we let them know that the dance and entertainment permit was issued to them by mistake. TAYLOR: But that was corrected and reissued. WAGNER: That was corrected. TAYLOR: All right. Fine. IMPERIAL: Just like these people made a mistake and that was corrected. That's basically all I'm saying. Thank you. You made your vote, gentlemen. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE CC 2-23-88 Page #22 VII.MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH 1. Asked staff if the City files an IRS form 843 to get the refund on gasoline excise taxes. Susan Neely, Finance Director, stated the City does not pay the excise tax. B. COUNCILMAN TAYLOR 1. Asked staff to present an update to the Council on the status of the Rosemead Boys and Girls Club funding with regard to the three-year budgets that have been requested. C. COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL 1. Recommended that the Council support the policy of presenting all building projects to the Planning Commission prior to approval for review. Councilman Taylor stated that codes and ordinances have been designed for whatever project is being done and it would be an imposition to have every set of plans require Planning Commission approval. Mr. Taylor stated that if there is a problem, the City should consider the change or modification of its codes/ordinances. 2. Asked if the City Attorney was working on a moratorium for certain types of businesses. Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that he and the Planning Director were working on increased parking requirements for restaurants, take-out restaurants, and other businesses contained in "Mini-malls." This approach should alleviate concerns that have been expressed over these types of uses. Mr. Kress stated that this should be ready to present to the Planning Commission within the next two to three meetings. VIII.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Holly Knapp, 8367 E. Whitmore Street, gave a brief report on the We-Tip Conference. Ms. Knapp cited two areas of concern. First - the gang problem has been increased by the availability of automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Ms. Knapp.asked for Council support of legislation to limit these sales. "Second - that Rosemead ask We-Tip to hold the Conference here, next year. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 8, 1988, at 8:00 p.m. APPROVED: Respectfully submitted: &6 4MAOR&&-d'~ C ty Clerk CC 2-23-88 Page #23