Loading...
CC & RCDC - Minutes 10-08-02NOT 07 ICIAL UN7%4 ADOPTED BY THE . ROSEMEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL AND ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OCTOBER 08, 2002 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Rosemead Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor /Chairman Bruesch 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 Clark The Invocation was delivered by Chaplain Judy Bever of the California Christian Home. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Clark, Taylor, Imperial, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice- Chairman Vasquez, and Mayor /Chairman Bruesch Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 —JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL AND ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MOTION BY COUNCILMAN /COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM/VICE- CHAIRMAN VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Rosemead Community Development Commission be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Imperial, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 —REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 24, 2002, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Imperial, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. MCDCIOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page 4 1 I. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL AND THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ON THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1, PROPOSED AMENDMENT 4 AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Peter Wallin, Commission Attorney, stated that this Joint Public Hearing was continued from September 22, 2002 to tonight for additional comments. Mr. Wallin presented the suggested procedure for conducting the hearing and explained that under the Redevelopment Law, the City Council cannot take any action tonight as all comments have to be reviewed and written responses prepared. Mr. Wallin continued that because of all the Requests to Speak, he recommends that the City Council defer any action until November 12, 2002. No action will be taken tonight or at the October 22, 2002 meeting. The Mayor opened the Joint Public Hearing. Steve Copenhaver, GRC Consultant, gave a slide presentation of the proposed amendment, which included the two parcels and adjoining streets to Project Area 1 and an explanation of Amendment No. 4. AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION ATTORNEY, THE FOLLOWING DIALOGUE WILL BE VERBATIM: MAYOR BRUESCH: There was a question at the last meeting, brought up about whether the parcel had to be contiguous or not. I know there's a big question on Walnut Grove, where our line actually lies. What is the legal, in California Redevelopment Law, what is the legal definition of contiguous or does it need to be contiguous if there is a connection between... PETER WALLIN, COMMISSION ATTORNEY: I'll do this from memory. A project area may contain non - contiguous areas. However, if the non - contiguous area is not blighted, which this one isn't, nobody is claiming Charley Brown's is blighted or the City parcel is blighted, then it has to be necessary for the effective redevelopment of the balance of the project. The basis here is that what we are doing is a provision of state law that allows redevelopment agencies to place signs on freeways advertising businesses within the project area. And that that type of advertising is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area. That's the legal basis. Based on that finding, which you would be making if you were to adopt the ordinance adopting these Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan, then you would have made the finding which allows us to include this area as a non - contiguous portion of the project area even though it is not blighted. BRUESCH: There is a question now, we've discovered that the exact eastern line of the boundary of the City might be in question... requires a study or to survey it. STEVE COPENHAVER, GRC CONSULTANT: North ofDrayer between Drayer and the southern portion of Project Area No. 1, we have a registered engineer and the City Engineer are researching that. It appears that it is either 8' to 10' on the west side of the street, which is probably the parkway width... is within the City of Rosemead. But, we will not know that until we research the original records for the City. CGCDCJOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page 42 BRUESCH: We'll need that information. What I'd like to do know is open the public portion of this and then we'll close the public portion and have our Councilmembers give their input and we will take a vote. We have been asked to read into the record comments... the City Attorney has those and will do so now. WALLIN: We have received several written comments on the Redevelopment Plan. Some are objections to the Redevelopment Plan and some are in support. I'll organize them that way. We received a letter dated Octobed 8, 2002, from Jose and Gloria Hinojos, this will be included in the record and it is in support of the Wal -Mart. We received an undated letter from Ernie Ayala in support of a Wal -Mart and Plan Amendment. We received a letter dated October 8, 2002, from First American Bank also in support; received a letter from Ted Young Sales Manager of the Doubletree Hotel in support of the Amendment; and we received a letter dated October 8' from Les and Julie Gentry in support. We received opposition from Alfred E. Knight in a memo dated October 7, 2002; September 30, 2002 letter from Mr. Bevington which includes some attachments and articles; a letter of October 3, 2002 from John Brady which also has a lot of attachments; a letter from the Amberwood Rosemead Home Owners Association... FROM AUDIENCE: Are these opposed? WALLIN: Yes. All the ones I am reading now are opposed... signed by L.C. Bevington on behalf of John Brady; a letter dated September 30, 2002, signed by L.C. Bevington on behalf of John Brady; a letter dated September 30 , 2002 signed by L.C. Bevington on behalf of John Brady; a letter dated September 30, 2002, signed by L.C. Bevington on behalf of John Brady; a letter dated September 30, 2002 signed by L.C. Bevington on behalf of John Brady; and then a letter dated October 1, 2002, signed by L.C. Bevington on behalf of John Brady; a letter dated October 8, 2002, signed by L.C. Bevington on behalf of John Brady also has attachments. MAYOR ROBERT BRUESCH: Many of those letters were addressed not to the City Council, they were just copies, they were addressed to other entities within the City. WALLIN: Finally I have a memorandum to Bill Crowe from Brad Johnson dated October 1, 2002, Brad Johnson being the Planning Director, and that concerns... it involves a transcript of a Planning Commission meeting which Mr. Brady referred to at the last Hearing. Those will all be included in the record. BRUESCH: Now, we have many, many who wish to address the Council. What I would ask everybody, first of all, if you have submitted these letters, please don't read them to us. If you have something more to say, then you are welcome to do so. Also, be brief. We're not like other cities, we don't have a time limit with a minute glass. But, we don't want someone coming up here and taking half an hour to make their statement or we'll be here until 2:00 in the morning. In fairness we had two people last week that wished to defer their statements to this meeting and I'm going to ask them to come up first because they did defer their time. I'd like to call up at this time Betty Lacasella... is Betty Lacasella here? She's 1186 Walnut Grove. Seeing that she is not here, the second one is Alfred Knight. Mr. Knight would you please come... MCDCJOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #3 COUNCILMAN GARY TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Before Mr. Knight speaks, I'd like something clarified for the record. A couple of weeks ago we received a memo stating that someone was getting a petition signed down on Rush and Delta? Did you see that notice? Did any other Councilmembers see that notice? COUNCILMEMBER CLARK: It was calling for a ... I saw a notice from people, I believe it was the Village Oaks, that wanted people to sign the petition. BRUESCH: I went over there at that time TAYLOR: What happened there now? Let's clarify it for the audience. BRUESCH: They were calling on people to sign the petition. TAYLOR: They were calling on people to sign the petition. I want it clear in the record... did the City receive that petition because it's not in any information that we have and I don't want an accusation... BRUESCH: I'll have to defer that question to staff. I've seen the petition being signed, but I did not see it... TAYLOR: I want it clear in the record that we did not receive it or did anybody in the audience present that to City Hall. There's a lady in the back. Would you come forward and clarify that. I just want it in the record clear that we didn't put it in the record accidentally or did we even receive it. DARRELYN: Yes. My name is Darelyn. I'm with Lordon Management. I'm the manager for Amberwood and Walnut Grove. I did come down several, I guess weeks ago, or days ago, and I dropped off petition that had approximately 250 names... TAYLOR: Excuse me. Would you make that statement again because I haven't seen that petition. You said you dropped it off. BRUESCH: Excuse me. We did get a petition, but that was about three weeks ago — before what you're talking about. We did not get any since then. TAYLOR: I didn't get it three weeks ago. I want the record clear. You say you dropped off... BRUESCH: Excuse me, Gary. We all got a copy of a petition with many names from all of the ... this is at least three weeks ago, if not longer. TAYLOR: Why isn't it in this packet for tonight? Mr. Crowe? I'm assuming that everybody had looked at it. Do you remember getting that petition? TAYLOR: No I don't. That's why I'm bringing this up BRUESCH: I clearly remember seeing that. MCDOOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page 94 TAYLOR: Why isn't it in this packet tonight? BRUESCH: I have no idea, but I clearly remember seeing it. All right, that what I want. TAYLOR: You brought that to City Hall for what purpose? DARELYN: I dropped this off to have it put into the record. TAYLOR: We don't have it tonight. Nobody's got it. DARELYN: I'm sorry, but... BRUESCH: Excuse me. I did have it. I had it in my hands. TAYLOR: It's not in the record, is the point I'm trying to make. DARELYN: I understand that. WALLIN: If Councilman Taylor wants that petition in the record, we'll include it in the record. TAYLOR: What was it for? WALLIN: It addressed a different question, whether or not Wal -Mart should go into town. It didn't address Amendment No. 4. COUNCILMAN JAY IMPERIAL: For the record, I received a copy of the petition. CLARK: I have a set of petitions from before. I'm not sure if it was the one... BRUESCH: Could you read the top of that and see if it's the one we received. DARELYN: Petition Protesting Wal -Mart. BRUESCH: That's the one we saw and it was more than three weeks ago that we got it. DARELYN: It could have been. BRUESCH: But, since then, I've been under the impression that another petition had been going around. DARELYN: It's the same petition to the best of my knowledge... that's going around. TAYLOR: It does pertain to this meeting. BRUESCH: Mr. Vasquez, did you get a copy of that? COUNCILMAN JOE VASQUEZ: I have it. MCDOOINT MTO: 10 -8 -02 Page #5 BRUESCH: Four people on this Council got that petition. I don't see how you could have been forgotten. TAYLOR: Why isn't it in the packet tonight? BRUESCH: The question was, did you get a copy of that petition when it was given. TAYLOR: If I would have gotten that petition, it would be in my packet right now... not asking why it's not in my packet, it I had it. BRUESCH: I can't understand why one person didn't get the petition and we knew it was all... TAYLOR: We just came out of a meeting where I had asked for something three weeks ago. You recall that. And I asked why I didn't get that when staff had it. So this is why I asked the question. I don't have it or I'd be reading it tonight. But, here's something when you say it pertains to something else. This comment from the Chamber of Commerce states, "We need Wal -Mart for the future of Rosemead ". That's in the packet tonight that was given to us. BRUESCH: Plus all the other things. TAYLOR: It's a related issue. That petition is a related issue, but it's not in the packet. BRUESCH: But it was delivered to us over three weeks ago. TAYLOR: Why isn't it in the packet? BRUESCH: We'll make it part of the packet. We're not trying to hide anything. I don't understand how you were the one person in this Council that did not get this. TAYLOR: If had it, it would be right here. BRUESCH: Three weeks ago you did not see it... four weeks ago when it was delivered? TAYLOR: I've got stuff here ... I'm going to ask for Mr. Ron Gay later on... he placed a call to me last Thursday. BRUESCH: Let's continue ... I'm sorry Mr. Knight, we got sidetracked a little. Come up Mr. Knight and make you statement. ALFRED KNIGHT: Good evening Councilmember. My name is Alfred Knight. I reside at 1134 Walnut Grove. I've been a resident there for more than 20 years. I was there when Edison had less then 500 employees. I was there before the Montebello Town Center was built. The Montebello Town Center is a prime example of good planning, excellent analysis. Traffic flow on the 60 Freeway to the Montebello Town Center, flows to the south side of the Freeway, whether they're going eastbound or westbound. Traffic through the residences flow to the north side. This is a good example of excellent planning with MCDOOINT MTG: 10 -8-02 Page n6 the community kept in mind so there will not be traffic problems. Both single and multi - family dwelling exist on the north side of the Freeway. The businesses are on the south side. Again, this is excellent planning. On Walnut Grove, the crux of this project, if I heard correctly last week, is underlined by the intent of Wal -Mart. And, that what came out to me at the last meeting. Being a resident and living there for the period of time that I have, I've seen what it was, I know what it is, and also know what the possibilities are for impact in the future. I've submitted a written report so I won't go into all of the details in that particular report. But, I would like to state what is there now and what the potential is for the future. First of all, we have Edison there. When I came Edison had 500, less that 500, now they have more than 3,000 employees there. And, that's on the north side of Walnut Grove and Rush Street. At this proposed site for Wal -Mart, there's also Countrywide Funding. Countywide Funding has been there for a year or two, I'm exactly sure, three. They have expanded to the point now where they have 1,300 employees there. There is not adequate parking for them. They are now parking on the street. They have leased additional parking at the old California Trust lot. Additionally, there is the Whittier Narrows Golf Course which is just to the east. All this traffic flows down Walnut Grove Avenue on a daily basis. These are now residents. There are people that are therefor either their leisure or for their work. They are people in transit everyday. These are not the residents. This proposal for the sign, I'll get back to what the issue is supposed to be, we did an environmental study, and I listed that in my written response, I won't go into that either. But, I want to go on record as saying that I'm in opposition to the conclusion that an Environmental Impact Study was not required. The sign is not the issue. That's not the intent. You can put a sign there and, yes, there's no environmental impact of you putting up a sign. But, that's not the intent. The intent is to bring additional traffic into that area. That traffic is an unknown total factor. But one thing we know for sure, it's going to increase the traffic level in that particular area and that will be a major problem. There is already no parking on Walnut Grove. There's Rice Elementary School there on Rush. At the end of Delta there's Don Bosco Tech. All of traffic feeds back into the freeway, or the majority of it does. This situation of creating a sign for the benefit of a commercial enterprise that will add untold traffic into that area is definitely going to be an environmental issue and a major concern for the community as you can see. So, therefore, I am in opposition to this particular sign because if it has any value, it's only value is to Wal -Mart and that's the main purpose as I see it. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you very much, sir. I'd like now to call State Senator Gloria Romero. Senator Gloria Romero. STATE SENATOR GLORIA ROMERO: Thank you. I will try to be brief. Mayor Bruesch, members of the Rosemead City Council, the Redevelopment Agency, constituents here, some I know, most I do not. I am here tonight to oppose the proposed extension of the redevelopment area that you have from its current boundaries to what you have proposed. I am pleased that you are delaying the action. However, that is not sufficient. I would urge you to completely reject the action. Let me go through briefly why. I must question why this proposal that you have to expand the redevelopment zone and especially along the lines by which it is being proposed is being done. As I heard your staff and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the original zone was developed in 1972, and correct me if I'm wrong, it hasn't been amended since. That's three decades, 30 years. Suddenly this year, there is a little blue line, like a little tail, a little appendix there coming out... and suddenly there is an urge to redevelop this. And, in the redevelopment, that gets us over to the 60 Freeway. If you take a look at that little blue line, the proposed redevelopment area, what's in it? It is, essentially, street. It's asphalt. What jobs are going to be created by extending the redevelopment zone to include a lot more asphalt? I don't know. It will include Charley Brown's COMMINT MTG: 10.8 -02 Page #7 Restaurant. Members, Charley Brown's restaurant right now is right across the street from my district office located in Rosemead. I frequently dine there. It's usually hopping at noon time. I would hardly call Charley Brown's a blighted area, in need of having this little area extended. So, I'm very puzzled as to why the lines as they are. Members, I will go ahead and just say what I believe and I believe what this action is is actually about, is an effort by this Agency to extend the redevelopment zone that currently exists in order to circumvent State law. Specially, Business and Professions Code 5273 and 5273.5. These are the Codes, as you know, which regulate signage along the freeways. But by extending the redevelopment zone, in the very peculiar manner which you have proposed, enables you to get around existing State law which was enacted to protect the public in California. And that is why I am here tonight. Ordinarily, I would not be here if you were just talking about a redevelopment zone. I would look forward to working with you. But, because I believe that this action tonight is not truly about economic development, ending economic blight, asphalt, Charley Brown's. I am here tonight because I think it is about circumventing existing State law, which I am sworn to uphold and protect and defend. I think it's wrong and I'm urging you to stop it. I believe as well, too, that at the end of the day which is talking about the sign tonight, but at the end of the day if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, this is about Wal -Mart. This is about trying to circumvent State law... this about trying to circumvent State law in order, and there's probably some concession somewhere that Wal -Mart wants you to give to build this little sign. I understand it's about $250,000 at taxpayers expense. That's a lot of money, members, as you know. I would urge you to use that $250,000 in other existing areas, Garvey, other areas of the zone to truly try to fight economic blight. Members, if I take a look at that funny little map, it reminds me of essentially what you get when you gerrymander a political district, how you try to draw a line, how somebody will try to draw a line in order to achieve the goal that is wanted, whether it is fair or it is right. We often talk about gerrymandering with respect to elections and political data. I believe this is an example of gerrymandering of a redevelopment project area. And, I believe that's wrong. I am here this evening to ask you to not go forward with this action, not only delay it, but end it ... to stop it. To stop the charade and the not so quiet secret that is out there. Recall I spoke with your lobbyist in Sacramento. And it was he, a long time ago, who told me this was about Wal -Mart. And as soon as I heard that, that's when I began to ask my district office to look into this. And to and behold, they ran into a whole lot of constituents who are not happy about this proposed action, and I don't blame them. Tonight, in addition to urging you to stop this project, to end it, especially using the guise of economic development when it is not. Wal -Mart is a very profitable, multi- national corporation that if it wants a sign, let them pay for it themselves and on their own property should they ever have property in the City of Wal -Mart, and I certainly hope not. In concluding, this is public discourse, so I am requesting from this Board, all documents, memos, communications between members of the Board, City Attorney, the consultants that you have, any written dialogue, including e-mail, which pertains to discussion about this proposed extension. My understanding is that this is public information and I am requesting this information under Government Code 6250, 6253, and 6252, and if you need more, I'll go back and find more by which to request this. I intend to work with the hundreds and hundreds and constituents who have contacted my office, who have participated in community meetings, who have signed the petition and I would, hopefully, get a copy of that petition as well, to urge you if you want to engage in economic development, let's do it the right way. Let's not hide, let's not pretend, let's be upfront and let's not gerrymander at taxpayers expense in order to do something that I believe this community doesn't want and is going to have, in the long -term, have an economic impact on this community. I look forward to working with you, truly, on economic development, but I cannot support you on this proposed action. I thank you. I'm going to depart because I have an early flight to catch in the morning. My staff will continue to monitor the meeting. Thank you very much. CC /CDCJOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page 48 BRUESCH: Chester Gee, 5214 Burton Avenue. CHESTER GEE: My name is Chester Gee, 5214 N. Burton Avenue in San Gabriel. I support the proposal for the Wal -Mart redevelopment. I really think in a day -to -day, we get into a lot of emotional issues and there's things that we always talk about in taking care of the job market. We have people out there looking for jobs. We have a corporate company that could be possibly herein Rosemead that provide positions for a lot of people that would also bring a lot of revenue into the City, which in turn would aid the citizens of Rosemead. I think that when we get into ... I think there's sacrifices that have to be made sometimes, and I know that the big thing that I've heard from people that I'm friends with, and I hope we're still friends after all this, I just know that there's going to be some traffic. I don't know what the impact is going to be exactly. I use the same streets, even though I'm in San Gabriel right on the border of Rosemead. I'm actually one of your neighbors and that it's a time that I think that... it's a tough issue and it's a lot of emotion. There's a lot people here involved in this, a lot of petitions, I understand are being signed. But, I think that if we're going to move forward, we have to make some sacrifices. Maybe this is one of the sacrifices. AT THIS POINT THERE ARE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE. BRUESCH: Wait. Listen. Everybody is going to be equally polite to everyone else, even if you disagree. Everyone has a right to be heard in this Chamber. I am not going to be putting up with people disagreeing out loud with somebody they don't agree with. If you want to say something, come up to the podium. Let's be polite. There's a lot of people out there that are opposed to this thing. There are a few people that are in favor of it. We're all Rosemead citizens, let's treat each other with equality. Go ahead Mr. Gee. GEE: That's all I have to say. Thank you. IMPERIAL: Mr. Lo, would you make sure I get a copy of the Senator's notes. BRUESCH: Mr. Ron Gay. RON GAY: Mr. Mayor, members of the Board. It's been a long time since I've seen you folks. For those in the crowd, in the audience, I ran a youth program for Rosemead for approximately six years, in which we did some great things. Bottom line, you haven't seen me here in about five, six years. The reason why I'm here is this. I'm adamantly opposed to Wal -Mart coming into our community. I feel we are going to do a great, great injustice to everybody in this community, especially our brand new Target that just opened up, which is a fabulous thing for them to come in and take over the Montgomery Wards. I do have a 16 year old son working there. Bottom line, Wal -Mart is not a good corporation. Multi- billion dollar corporation, asking the City of Rosemead for this money and whatever else they're asking. I have the utmost respect for all of you up here. I'm just telling you what's coming from inside here. Number one, Wal -Mart support child labor abuses for children. Over 80% of their goods comes from China where all these violations are present. Wal -Mart claims to be, especially at 9/11, "We're working with America ". I don't see American goods in that store, mainly imports. What are we doing for our own people here? Number two, and one of the biggest reasons why is they offer no health and welfare programs for their employees other than their top, top managers. That's a God given fact, so as our other CC/CDCIOINT MTG: 10 -8-02 Page #9 guests mentioned about opportunities, what opportunity is it to have ajob where you don't have insurance? You go the hospital and you're going to go to the County and guess who's going to pay for that? All of us. All taxpayers. So I see no benefit from Wal -Mart and I would urge you from my family all the way down and I'm sure most people in this audience, that we find something better for that territory. TAYLOR: Mr. Gay. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Gay called City Hall last Thursday, I believe, and left a message for me to call you. The reason I didn't call, and this is my policy on something that is controversial or it's a large issue for the City, in all the years that I've been on the Council and I've never met with you, you've never asked either. But, I want to make it clear that when I did it in the past when I was first on the Council, misunderstandings took place. People wanted to hear what they wanted to hear and then they would come to the Council and say something, and I'm not criticizing them now, but we have a misunderstanding even though they felt there might have been an agreement. So, the reason I didn't call you, my policy is that something like this, I want all five Councilmembers to hear the same thing, everybody discusses the same thing. This is no reflection on you. I want that understood because we have never talked. GAY: I have no problem with that. TAYLOR: That's been my policy because it's kind of like almost like an ambush situation, "Well, you said this you said that ", and believe me, it did happen, not with you, but many years back. And, I said my policy is that everybody will hear the same thing, discuss the same things and vote how they like, and . discuss what they want. So that's the reason I didn't call you. Did you have any specific questions as to... GAY: Basically, I've heard here ... this is such a hush hush deal and I've heard it from around about ways. From what I've heard, apparently, well, I don't even want to go down that road, we'll leave that one alone. I just wanted to do some fact finding. I did try to contact Mary Jo Maxwell from the Chamber of Commerce because I could not see them supporting this thing. What's it going to do to our little guys? Our little businesses that have been here that have lived here, that have put all of themselves into their businesses in the City. They're going to be gone. The market across the street, it'll be gone. Big Saver markets, all down the road. They're a cancer. Wal -Mart needs to be dealt with and I think we need to deal with them here. Thank you very much. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Gay, I couldn't catch you before you sat down. I'd like more information on the China issue and the child labor... and, I like to know, were these things brought out during the most Favored Nation Status that was given to China from the... the free trade issues with the Congress... most Favored Nation Status was given to China and I'd like to know the child labor issues came out during that or was there a ...., pardon me? GAY: There's kids working in these sweat shops. Look at all the heat that all the others that have come from the clothing lines. CLARK: I'd like information. See if you can get that to us, I'd be interested in that CC /CDCJOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page # 10 MARIE SALDIVAR: My name is Marie Saldivar, and I don't have a prepared speech, but I live right at the corner where Rush and Delta meet. My first concern is for the safety of all of our neighbors. I've written the City of Rosemead on a number of occasions expressing my concerns for the current traffic conditions. We have an elementary school that is right across the street and when I expressed my concern to the City, what I received was a very standard letter describing the difference between a bump and a hump. But the issue to safety was not addressed whatsoever. It was just a standard letter that was just, you know, sent to my attention, and I think that was just to appease me for writing a letter. Another of my concerns is, for... well again, it would just be for safety. But figuring there would be midnight deliveries, you have midnight delivery trucks going in and out, probably in the middle of the night, I don't know what the plans are for Wal -Mart, but I just know that I'm not happy about it and I want it to go on record to the Council opposing bringing Wal -Mart into our City. BRUESCH: Just to tell you that this Council has spent many hours discussing traffic around schools. I mean this is an on -going problem that just is almost insolvable because of the old concept of walking to school is now driving to school. You're right, there are a lot of traffic problems around our schools. SALIDVAR: I didn't get referred from the City to coordinate either with our association and then also pass it on to the Sheriff's Department. They said there was nothing they could do about it. I said what's the big problem with putting a Stop sign just to slow the traffic. Well, the letter went into... CLARK: Where did you want the Stop sign? SALIDVAR: Either right there where Angelus and Rush meet. Right where the school is. Because that's where most of the parents do the drop off and pick up. But, then also right there where Delta is because, I work, so I'm exiting from Delta or from one of the driveways in the Amberwood complex. BRUESCH: May I suggest, that I just got a call from a person on another school site asking for this Stop sign. The first step you have to go through is to write a letter to the Traffic Commission. They will study it. They will call you and they will have a meeting on that. Then they will recommend to us. SALDIVAR: Maybe that was my mistake because I included that issue but it was sent to the person who responded about the bumps and humps and decibels and how the noise would increase and all that stuff. IMPERIAL: When did you write this letter and when did you receive an answer? SALIDIVAR: I'd say about one year ago. That was the first letter that I wrote. I think I sent one, maybe about six months ago. IMPERIAL: O.K., so you sent two letters in the past year. BRUESCH: I would direct staff to contact you and we'll have it on our future Traffic Commission meeting. MARIO CORONA: My name is Mario Corona, 1805 Delta Avenue, Rosemead. First of all, I'd like to say that I'm pretty sure that everyone is well aware that Wal -Mart's records shows that whenever they open up a Wal -Mart, an awful lot of businesses go out of business. We have an awful lot of small CC /CDCJOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page N I I businesses here that have worked hard all their lives, and I don't think they deserve to be treated like this. Now, as far as the traffic is concerned, the first gentleman that spoke, here in the second row, said he wasn't sure about it. It's obvious that the traffic is not going to improve, so that's one thing to take into consideration. The other gentleman that spoke before, Mr. Gay, I think his name was mentioned about the child abuse laws that China practices. I don't have a record on me or I don't have pertinent facts, but I'm sure you are all aware this goes on daily. They even sell human parts. That's been reported in Time Magazine. So, I'm definitely opposed to Wal -Mart and I hope the rest of our group is too. Thank you. BRUESCH:, Mr. John Brady. JOHN BRADY: I'd to defer so that I'll be the last called. BRUESCH: Ms. Leona Weiser. LEONA WEISER: My name is Leona Weiser and I'm from Walnut Grove Village. Today, I really can't say too much, everyone has spoken so eloquently that all I could say is that I agree with everything that's been said except for the gentleman from San Gabriel. I'm definitely in opposition to any Wal -Mart opening up. Today I had an experience where I'm coming home from the gym in Montebello. On Walnut Grove I tried to get into my complex and I was held up because there was just like gridlock with the traffic. And, I thought, my god, if there was a Wal -Mart, what would happen with that. But, I faxed Senator Romero and she is so articulate and everything she has said I agree with. And, Mr. Gay, I agree with everything he's said. Wal -Mart has a reputation for being very unreasonable with their employees. And in fact, I read somewhere where they have insurance on their employees and if that employee should die, the family doesn't get the insurance, the money goes to Wal -Mart. They do not help their employees. They do not have health benefits. I do not want Wal -Mart. Pollution would be terrible from the traffic. Thank you. BRUESCH: Ms. Jill Itagaki. JILL ITAGAKI: Good evening. My name Jill Itagaki and I'm a resident of South San Gabriel, I live on Drayer Lane. I am here tonight to voice my opposition to the proposed billboards as well as the possibility of a Wal -Mart at the end of Delta Avenue. A couple of years ago, interested community members from South San Gabriel had the opportunity to dialogue with the representatives from the L.A. County Planning Commission. At that time we drew up a mission statement for our community. That mission statement expresses the desire to maintain a bedroom community without the intrusion of big businesses such as Wal -Mart. It prohibits large billboards constructed within the South San Gabriel community. At that time, a larger than usual billboard existed at the intersection of Potrero and Del Mar. Because of this document, I believe it has since been removed. This document is known as the South San Gabriel Land Use Zoning Background Report — Area 4. The proposed billboards, which are the topic of discussion today, although not within South San Gabriel's boundaries, will clearly impact us. The spirit of collaboration between South San Gabriel's elected officials and the Rosemead City Council regarding this project seems to be entirely lacking. Additionally to have conducted an Environmental Impact Survey which has missed paramount issues with, "No further discussion of this item is necessary", also fuels the issue to collaboration with Rosemead City officials and elected officials from its neighbors. The salvo for a civil war in Rosemead was sounded by the last paper from your September 24' Council meeting, which announced that resident's of the south would have to learn to live with the Wal -Mart in CGCDCJOINT MTO: 10 -8 -02 Page #12 their part of Rosemead. On September 25 I went to Warren's Educational Supply Store on Garvey Boulevard to learn that they were going out of business after 42 years of service to this community. Speaking to the manager of the store, I learned of her frustrations dealing with this Council. She stated that the Rosemead City Council doesn't care about businesses on Garvey. All they care about is Valley Boulevard. If Rosemead's City Redevelopment Plan does show a propensity for the north and neglects the south, I wonder if this could be fodder for audits of Federal grants to your City. Another concern is whether Wal -Mart, in developing this parcel of land, is going to apply for a Business Enterprise Zone Grant. To apply for a grant of this nature, usually requires the area to be a blighted zone. What does this state for South San Gabriel residents as a way of life? This project should not be decided by a possible $600,000 worth of sales tax revenue for Rosemead because I doubt anyone fully understands what the physical impact would be for all taxpayers within this vicinity. In conclusion I implore the City Council to reach an informed decision on behalf of all those who would be impacted. You can't place a price tag on a way of life. Thank you. BRUESCH: I have to take issue of one statement you made, Ms. Itagaki, about the neglect of Garvey Avenue. One of the issues that both Mrs. Clark and I, when we came on board, was to promote businesses on Garvey. We spent $3.5 million on improving Garvey Avenue. Now Garvey Avenue produces more tax dollars than Valley Boulevard does. So that is not true. That is absolutely not true that this City has neglected Garvey. In fact Garvey has had a renaissance of businesses. Why do you think we placed our new Community Center down there? So, that is totally erroneous. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I live one block off of Garvey in the southern part of the City, so I totally resent what that person said. If she ... I'm not blaming you, I'm just saying if she said that I'd like to talk to her because that's not true. It's a beautiful street... BRUESCH: I've been doing business there for a long, long time. I've done a lot of business there and every time I go in that store, she says the same thing to me. No matter what I tell her, that's her mind set. And, I'm sorry to say that that is a corporate decision to close down that store. It was not due to anything the City did. The corporation is constricting and they have stores all over, I think there's four or five stores, and they're making larger but fewer outlets. I know the situation very well because a good friend of mine worked there for years. Now, they're working out in West Covina. I really must disagree with that one point. We have not... ITAGAKI: I think you need to speak to all the other employees that are presently out of a job.... BRUESCH; But the point is we have...that was a corporate decision, it had nothing to do with the City. ITAGAKI: They seem to think you're involved. BRUESCH: That's erroneous I'm sorry to say. CLARK: I wish they would have come to us if they thought we could do something. BRUESCH: Mr. Larry Bevington. CC /CDCJOINT MTQ 10.8 -02 Page 013 LARRY C. BEVINGTON: The only problem with being several speakers down the list is ... we've had some very eloquent ones and they said a number of things that I have said. BRUESCH: They've set a high example, now you have to reach for it, right. BEVINGTON: I would like to say to the Councilwoman that some of the materials which I filed with the City, which the letter was read by the City Attorney, addresses the issues that Mr. Gay talked about. CLARK: I did see that and that's why I asked for more information. BEVINGTON: I think we can probably produce more information, but... BRUESCH: In each of your articles you gave us had maybe a sentence or two that alluded to them, but no corroborating evidence. BEVINGTON: Well, I agree. CLARK: I'm not doubting it. I just wish people would rise up and do something about the Chinese problem there. BEVINGTON: I would like to speak to a few things. One, this material was given to the City Clerk. The July 2002 Consumer's Report rates the six big box mega stores: Sears, Costco, Target, Sam's Club, Wal -Mart and K -Mart. Wal -Mart is rated consistently 5`" out of these 6. Product quality, value and problems, Wal -Mart is rated as average or next to the worst. While no big box store would be acceptable at the proposed site, why is Rosemead advancing one of the lowest rating big box stores? Two, and this was just a coincidence. Comics often reflect life. If you received the Los Angeles Times, read the comics. There is a comic strip called Crankshaft. The bus driver who regularly knocks over mailboxes. The one recent one comic strip, one of the mailbox owners is downtown and here is the dialogue: The customer, "You're closing ? ". The owner, "I'm afraid so, the big mega chains has squeezed our profit margins next to nothing ". Then it goes on to tell this fellow that, "When you quit buying new mailboxes, that was the crowning blow ", and their out of business. People come up to me and have spoken about this idea. And, again the material which I furnished to the City and Council spoke to that. I obtained a copy of the September 24` public hearing, and I want to congratulate the City Clerk and her office in doing an excellent verbatim copy. In those minutes, it is quite apparent that John Brady and I, John will speak later, were extremely direct in both written and oral materials. In our defense, let me remind the Council and Commission that the complete proposed project, not the current signs, if allowed to proceed will damage without measure, the property values and the way of life for John and myself and all the other property owners we represent. I'm going to para - phrase Winston Churchill who is one of my personal heroes and one of his greatest speeches, "We will fight you in the reports, in meetings, in hearings, the news media, the PTA, the school district, the Chamber of Commerce, the public area, the Courts, and if necessary, the political field ". We shall never surrender our property values or quality of life. Our position against added traffic, pollution, noise, trash, and all these other damaging elements, which would result from the sighting of Wal -Mart development in any residential area and especially in ours. Thank you. CC/CDCJOWT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page N 14 BRUESCH: Mr. Bevington: With your background in city government, in your experience with city government, have you ever been involved in a redevelopment project or redevelopment area? Did that ever include a big box or large commercial area. BEVINGTON: No. At the time I was fortunate enough to get out of city management. These big boxes were not the force they are today. It did cover a number of redevelopment ideas. Fortunately, they did not occur as this one is proposed in a residential area. It involved the ones along the freeway, in areas where there is already a commercial type development. So, I did not have the core experience of having to fight for something like this that is going to affect so many residential areas and people. BRUESCH: Thank you for that information. SALLY HARRIS: This is not on the subject of Wal -Mart. BRUESCH: I'm sorry. We'll call you later. Jewel Mehlman, JEWEL MEHLMAN: I would like to relinquish my time to John Brady, please. BRUESCH: Mr. Juan Nunez. JUAN,NUNEZ: Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar. I believe what I've heard here is just about what I've been telling you all the time that I've been here. About placing a sign, Wal -Mart and renting the property from along the Freeway for $2200 at the time that it was being talked about that I remember. The last time that I believe it was said, it would be $2700 a month, and I said it keeps going up because of the demand. I've heard tonight all the people that have been talking, they are better speakers than I am. What I can't see with this redevelopment, or this redevelopment Amendment No. 4 ... to Redevelopment No. 1, I mean, I cannot see... in other words, redevelopment can hopscotch across town anywhere they would like to with an amendment. . BRUESCH: Not necessarily. That's why I asked the question at the beginning of the meeting about can it be contiguous. Redevelopment Law as you heard tonight is unclear as what the definition of what contiguous means and for what purpose you have to have a contiguous parcel. It says... eludes to, you can have a non - contiguous parcel if it helps the economic development of the development of the redevelopment area. What the definition of economic well being of the redevelopment area is up to question. NUNEZ: Speaking about purpose. There will be other purposes along the line that you, as Council people here, or other Councilmembers, when you're gone or replaced, may find that they would want to amend the place in the east side or west side of town, or on the east side of railroad on the north side of town. By amendments... and I don't think... that's why I asked the other day, through the Legislature, they can be amended and they can change the whole game. BRUESCH: You realize, and you come to this Council many times with the statement about using redevelopment money to do projects outside the redevelopment area. That is, again, legal if it helps the economic development of the redevelopment area. Again, what does that mean? That's up to question, legal question. You see, both things are tied together ... the contiguousness of parcel, or the contiguousness COMMINT MTG: 10 -5 -02 page #15 of using money from the redevelopment area outside the redevelopment area. If it leads to economic involvement within the redevelopment area, it's illegal. But, again, as we all know, "legalese" definitions sometimes go by the wayside. NUNEZ: Well, I've objected before. I'm opposed to the way some of these big companies come in and approach you. BRUESCH: With a bandana over their mouth and the gun at our head, yessir NUNEZ: When they approach you, this company.... BRUESCH: We had a major company come here for a meeting and I can tell you, they wanted all the tax... not all the tax increment... all the sales tax and half the increment. Which would mean $3 million in ten years. NUNEZ: I'll buy that, and I've heard that about... BRUESCH: We're not the only ones. That's the game they play. NUNEZ: But, that seems to be the game in town, seems to be the game in every town there is. BRUESCH: Remember, Wal -Mart is not asking any of that. NUNEZ: You have the power to vote on it and to vote it down. Only you have the power. Thank you. We can come here and speak all we want, but only you have the power to vote it down and see through them. BRUESCH: Thank you Mr. Nunez. Robert G. Allard, Jr. Did I pronounce that right? ROBERT G. ALLARD, JR. Yes. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. I'm a resident of Rosemead, just recently purchased my house. I'm also a teacher, not in this community, but I am a teacher. I am very concerned about this large corporation opening up right in front of that school and the surrounding schools. I know as a teacher that I stand out there making sure my kids cross the crosswalk carefully. People do not follow the directions, they do not stop. It is a major concern that I have for our kids. BRUESCH: Careful, don't direct traffic because you become liable. That's the law. I know. ALLARD: On school property, then I have to. My other concern is, correct me if I'm wrong, Wal -Mart has a policy to allow,people to camp on their property, that they're allowed to use campers. But if that is the case, then there will be people coming in late at night, also being there in the morning. BRUESCH: Depends on the City's ordinances ALLARD: Okay. CC /CDCJOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #16 BRUESCH: Depends on the City where... some cities allow some and some cities do not ALLARD: If Rosemead does allow then we will have people camping there. Kids walking by. There's a possibility for things to go wrong is very much on my mind. Our kids, I plan on having kids some day, I plan on staying in Rosemead and I am very concerned about having my son or daughter to have to worry about the traffic, worry about the things that go on in world today. It is sad, and I deal with a lot of it. I want you to know, to go on record, that I expressed major concern with this proposed development. BRUESCH: I appreciate your comments, sir. Gail Tazawa. GAIL TAZAWA: I was going to speak, but so many people said the same thing, I won't take up the time BRUESCH: O.K. We'll register your opposition, you said you were opposed to it. Laimon Cheng LAIMON CHENG: Hi. I live over at 1080 San Gabriel Boulevard, also known as Walnut Grove Village. We've been here in Rosemead since 1987. The first we noticed about Walnut Grove is the street, how pretty it is right now, and it's been pretty for a long time. We would like to see that street remain that way. Since then, I mean since now, if Wal -Mart is to be one of our big stores to come to the neighborhood, the street will be no more. We can no longer take peaceful walks in our neighborhoods, and instead we'll have to be forced to contend with unwanted, troublesome issues, such as what everyone has mentioned so far. What I haven't heard until tonight, was the safety of the children across the street. Traffic, of course, we all know is going to come. We don't need a study impact to know that, I think. Noise pollution, endless night deliveries, ruining of small businesses and our neighborhood, declining in our property values, and the major concern is transients coming through, such as what the gentlemen just spoke of, of people camping out at Wal -Mart. We understand that also that the City of Rosemead is looking to keep our City well maintained with this revenue. However, we wonder how far the $600,000 will go. The City will have to pay for the Wal -Mart sign, which is $250,000 based on what we heard two weeks ago and the annual expense is around $35,000 to $50,000 a year. And that's projecting it going up every year. Also, with the traffic from Wal -Mart that will require more traffic patrol due to the high volume that is going to be in our City. Also the wear and tear of our streets, which will also cause extra maintenance or repairs. What's more, is the children from across that school on Rush. What if a child across that new development gets hit by a car or kidnapped, or one... how do you name an expense on that? Or how do you even answer a parent of that child? One lawsuit will wipe out the entire revenue. We want you to know that it isn't just Wal -Mart that we're against, it's the whole concept of having a big development like a Wal -Mart or any big boxes the other gentleman mentioned. Any huge store is not welcome because our streets simply cannot handle it, especially that neighborhood, or any small neighborhood like ours. So, going with the signage, I really like to request from the City to not to spend our $250,000 for any commercial traffic. They should pay for their own signs if anyone is to come to our place. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you very much. June Kizu. JUNE KIZU, 1188 C, WALNUT GROVE: Speaking from the audience: I'm here ... I'm going to protest Wal -Mart. CC /CDCJOINT MTO: 10 -M2 Page # 17 BRUESCH: That's your choice. I have a request to speak from just Mehlman. I don't have any first name or whether it's the last name or first name... Melhman MEHLMAN, 1055 N. WALNUT GROVE: Spoke from the audience: I'm going to pass, thank you. I don't have anything new to add. BRUESCH: Peter Zheng. PETER ZHENG: I'm speaking for the new group of people. I recently got married and I live in the Amberwood Rosemead community, right by the corner of Delta and Rush. Our concerns for being someone new who just got married and try and and want to buy a house right by an elementary school, which I did. And, now, big surprise, Wal -Mart is coming. What is that going to do to the community? It's going to be basically devastated what we have dreamed about, coming in looking for a safe place to raise kids and things like that. I feel that the traffic is really bad right in that area already, basically trying to make a left from Delta going to Rush Street is very bad in the morning. The afternoon coming back is a bad turn already, especially 3:00 or 2:30 when the kids are being picked up. There's s lot of traffic there. I feel like Edison already has a lot of employees. There's a lot of cars parked in the streets, and also the, another corporation, Panda Inn is moving next to the Countrywide area. There's going to be an increase in a lot of cars parked in the area. I'm really concerned about the whole redevelopment process that what you guys are trying to do. I feel that by adding this Wal -Mart here, it's going to eliminate a lot of small businesses being... the opportunity around the area is going to be very bad. Wal -Mart is like a totally different monster. It's not like a Target. It has, basically, it brings in from a larger radius of people coming into the area. You're going to have not just the general location, you're going to have people from maybe Cerritos, whatever it's coming in. I have seen the one in Industry. Every week it's totally congested by Azusa and the 60. Even right there, right on the corner of the freeway, just right there, it really creates all this problem. Can you imagine right in the middle or between the 60 and the 10 and all that residential area, I think it's going to a big problem that's going to cause a lot more traffic than what it is now. It would depreciate the value of the homes here. I don't think it's fair for the people to lose the value the of their home and suddenly... just recently the community feels that there is a gain in market and people gain in property value and now the Wal -Mart is debasing the value and their investment. That's what I want to say. I'm very opposed of the Wal -Mart issue. BRUESCH: I appreciate that. Thank you. Matthew Tsang. MATTHEW TSANG: Hello. My name is Matthew Tsang. I reside at 1144 Walnut Grove Avenue in Rosemead. Let it be known that I oppose the construction of a Wal -Mart on the corner of Rush Street and Walnut Grove Avenue. I find that the... that Walnut Grove Avenue, to the best of my ability has a 40 to 45 mph posted speed limit. I find that very dangerous, especially concerning the very close vicinity of an elementary school very close to that street. Therefore, I like to reiterate that I very much oppose the construction of a Wal -Mart store. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you, Mr. Tsang. Mary Jo Maxwell. MARY JO MAXWELL: Mary Jo Maxwell, Executive Director, Rosemead Chamber of Commerce. I will also keep my comments brief this evening. Good evening to the Mayor and the Council and members of the audience. It does require a strong united voice to influence change that will create a CCICDC101NT MTG 10 -8 -02 Page # 18 healthy environment for business growth that ensures economic vitality for the greater Rosemead area. As you know, dollars spent in the City of Rosemead generate sales tax revenue, which is critical to running a successful city government. The positive impact of economic development is needed for sales tax revenues to keep our City strong, modern and successful and moving into the 21' century. After 75 years the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce is a united business voice working together for a better Rosemead and strongly supports the Amendment to the Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 1. I would also like to add to this, that, yes, everyday, many hundreds if not thousands of Rosemead residents leave this City to spend their sales tax dollars in neighboring cities. Thus, a Wal -Mart or any large development, something will go in that property because it is zoned commercial, will also bring many people in to Rosemead that will spend their tax dollars or their sales dollars here in Rosemead, thus benefiting the City of Rosemead. I do have a copy of this for each of you. Again, thank you for your time. BRUESCH: Thank you. Orlando Rios. ORLANDO RIOS, 1834 ROSEBROOK LANE: Mayor, Council, people. I wish to address as a layman. By trade an educator, a teacher. By taxonomy, a Rosemead citizen. As for the proposed location of Wal- Mart,.I oppose it and it's positioning here in Rosemead, adamantly, for many reasons. I do have a strong concern for the area in which I live, Amberwood complex. It has not been the first time that the police, the Sheriff's Department and their helicopters have been through our complex to pursue people who are fleeing justice. I believe within my heart, that if we do place in the proposed area, it would increase crime. The reason why I say that is not with bias. You see, I used to work in Hacienda Heights before Wal -Mart was put in, during its placement and after its placement. I worked in place called Carousel Craftsman owned by Dorothy and Jim Sumner. They're a small chain, a store chain Craftsman places that operate very minimally, but they relied on the revenue of average citizens who wished to participate inside there own brand of services. However, since Wal -Mart came in, they took their business away, frankly. Now instead of four, they are down to two. But that's not what I brought up right now was a sense of security. There has been also a lot of reports in that area about problems such as this. This also extends into the policies in which Wal -Mart operates. You see the reason why I also brought in Dorothy and Jim Sumner in there because they a good honest working people who live in La Habra, who wish to add more to their city as well as other cities like Hacienda Heights. In doing so, they did not see Wal- Mart coming. When they did, it strongly impacted them, dramatically. So, I'm sorry, I've never spoken before a City Council before. In the end, they had to deal with the fact that Wal -Mart brought in all these services that they had, but a little bit more. It didn't just take from Dorothy and Jim. It took from the photo store next to them and a lot of services up and down Gale Avenue. In doing so, it prevented a lot of ordinary revenue that people go to. The familiar faces, the people that they're accustomed to and just turned it to Wal -Mart. And, Wal -Mart in all of its infinite wisdom, had its boom. But, roughly a few years later, it had its bang, and now it sits there. It doesn't sit unattended, it still gets business. But it's not as the way it was before. I wish to bring this to your attention because seeing Rosemead and being one of its citizens, I do not wish for this to happen to the good people over here in the City, nor the people who invest their time to set up a business, to seek the future, possibly you or your parents or any of your relatives have operated a business at one time or another and not understood the struggle that it takes to maintain an independent store. Wal -Mart will take this away. Another issue I wish to bring up and I do also concur on parking and on traffic and on safety for the school being an educator myself. But, my concern also goes to younger citizens who are here in the audience. I do see a good amount of people who are long -time residents and I do respect their views. But, I look to the future as with anything else, CGCDCIOINT MTG: 10 -M2 Page #19 and making sure that people have the opportunity to set up shop over here and have a fair chance of establishing a place they can call their own. Be a part of the City, be proud of it. Proud of paying taxes to a City they know will turn and help them out in a time of need. Councilmembers of Rosemead, I would like to also acknowledge the fact that our friend over here has made a thing about a sacrifice must be made. Indeed sacrifices must be made, but unfortunately, the sacrifices that he's going to give up will be at our, younger generations expense. Please consider us in your vote. Please consider the safety issues, the traffic issues and also the other issues as far as financial situations and the strip mining operations, the financial strip mining operations that Wal -Mart has come to be. Thank you. BRUESCH: Mr. Rios, I hope that you will not be absent from this hall. You are a very articulate speaker. Thank you. I have a wrong form, it's a Certificate of Attendance for Yvonne Fernandez. If all you want me to do is sign this and you can take it in, you can. But if you want to speak you can come up right now. Yvonne Fernandez. YVONNE FERNANDEZ: I'm just going to speak as a resident of Amberwood, Rosemead, and the problems that I've seen since '86 since I've been there. IMPERIAL: Can you speak up a little. FERNANDEZ: I just wanted to go on record.... BRUESCH: Could you give your address, please FERNANDEZ: 8382 E. Rush Street. There have been many problems on Rush Street, as well as Walnut Grove, as far as traffic, as far as police going up and down chasing cars, as far as trucks coming up and down the street. I used to take Walnut Grove to go to the gym and it would take me like five minutes to get there. It takes me approximately 12 to 15 minutes to get there now. Considering how much traffic that would arrive with Wal -Mart, a 5` rate, low -class store coming into the area, and I'm just concerned with the risk of people who are able to walk streets now, that will no longer happen. The risk of shopping carts being all over the streets and the interruption of transients and other people coming into the area. As far as all the Wal -Marts I've seen, there's been nothing but trash on the streets and pollution and noise and non - respect for residents. That's all I'd like to say. I oppose it. BRUESCH: Thank you very much. Mr. John Brady. We saved you for last JOHN BRADY: Thank you letting me be last, I appreciate it. Much of what I... members of the Council, thank you for letting me speak again. I spoke at the last meeting and much of what I had to say then, has been reinforced by the audience tonight. I'm just overwhelmed and gratified that they turned out as they did. At the last meeting, we had a semi vote taken of the number of people in favor of the proposition for redevelopment and there was a question asked, "How many are in favor ?" There were five. There was a call for a vote from a member of the City Council, I believe it was Councilman Taylor. BRUESCH: I remember it. That was before I had a chance to say that very same thing. I don't want you to think that I was going to ignore the other side. BRADY: I understand that, I understand that, sir. MCDOOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #20 BRUESCH: I want you to appreciate the fact that the comment was jumped in before I even had a chance to ask the other side. BRADY: The ratio last meeting, there were, we... we being those in opposition, counted 56 members in opposition to 5 in favor. That 10 to 1 ratio, I would contend tonight if we took a vote, would be far greater than 10 to 1. The issues which have been addressed tonight are common to all of us, noise, trash, pollution, the dissipation of good wage paying jobs. Just today there has been a contract signed by the Grocers and Clerks for Vons and Ralphs. That contract is a very good wage - paying contract. Those people would be in great danger of losing their jobs. It's very easy to envision Ralph's closing and Wal- Mart replacing them because Wal -Mart is known to put their food in the back of the store. Have that be a lose leader, make little or no profit on it to get people to come into a super Wal -Mart and purchase goods in the front of it. Wal -Mart is extremely smart. They are extremely well versed in how to get the traffic in. What they're not well versed in is public relations. We heard comments about what has happened in the City of Industry and Hacienda Heights as far as small stores closing. We talked about the increase in sales tax dollars, which are going to come into the City of Rosemead and how this is going to help us be not a blighted area. My contention is that should we have Wal -Mart come in, first it's going to destroy the residential neighborhood. The comment was made by one of the last speakers from the Chamber of Commerce that that area for redevelopment is, "A commercially zoned area ". That could very easily be changed by the City Council. You have the power to do that. You are a powerful group of people. That's why we have come out to address our concerns to you. You have the votes here tonight to do these things. If Wal -Mart comes in and these businesses close, which they invariable will based historically and empirically on data from Wal -Marts throughout the country, then what we're going to have is a blight throughout the entire business community of Rosemead. You're going to have empty stores, empty store fronts, people losing good paying jobs — for minimum wages, no security at Wal -Mart, extremely high turnover in the jobs there. As far as the number of people who actually leave the City of Rosemead to go shopping to go elsewhere, I would like to see figures on that as to how the numbers were developed. Traffic, pollution and noise, property values, crime, all of these are key issues for us. We're not surprised that the Chamber of Commerce is behind this. Let me restate that. I would like to rephrase that. The Chamber of Commerce supports this position. Naturally this is a pro- business organization. So we would expect the Chamber of Commerce to support this position. There is great concern about the way this entire thing has been handled as Councilman Taylor brought to the fore at the beginning of the last meeting. There have been numerous comments made, especially by Senator Romero, about how much of this has been, at least in her perception and my perception and the perception of many others of have spoken more eloquently than I, about this being kept in the dark, about all the effected communities and members not being fully informed. A specific example of that I'd like to let you know, at the last meeting I asked for a commitment of the City Council to make sure that all the effected residents in the adjacent areas were notified of the meeting. I was assured by the Council by counting nods that that would be so. Then I received on the 4' of October, notice of this meeting. The letter was mailed on the 2 a , and that is certainly not two weeks ago. Even after the meeting that we had the other day, that flyer which addressed this meeting said nothing about Wal -Mart even though everyone knew about it. To me, again, my perception, there is nothing but subterfuge and we're a community here where we need to work together. I could agree more with Senator Romero on that and the other people who have spoken here. You yourself, Mr. Mayor, said that, in your words, you said that the traffic was, "Almost intolerable traffic ". A comment was brought up about how there had been letters written to the City asking if something could be done. And, the perception as least from the receiver of the letter was, "Nothing could be done ". I'm not a person who takes a negative attitude. I'm a person who believe if it can be done and if it should be COMMINT MTG: 10 -8.02 Page #21 done, then it should be done and can be done. And if someone who has the power to do such as the City Council, if you do not do that, I feel that it's an injustice to these fine citizens sitting behind me. I'm so proud of them, I'll tell you I can just stand up and cheer. Most of them have never spoken in a public forum before. Many of them I know, many of them I do not know, but I feel that I know them in heart and in spirit now. I think that the City needs to do more work on this, a lot more work. But I don't think anymore work needs to be done beyond tonight. I think that what Mr. Bevington said at the last meeting, as he made the last presentation, he said, "Do what's right, Council, let's stop this now ", and he pounded on the lecturn. Senator Romero said in very similar words, let's not defer this meeting until November the 18 No one in this room was even aware there was even consideration for another meeting on November 18 , except perhaps the people in front of us. I certainly was not aware that there was going to be a deferral of any decisions. The people came here tonight because they wanted to express their opinion, either positively or negatively. We expected a vote. We still expect a vote. We would like to see this thing ended now. It's going to cost a lot of money, $250,000 at a minimum. You, Mr. Mayor, at the last meeting, said all politics is local. That's very, very true. Most of these people have never been involved in politics before. They're not political animals. I'm not a political animal. We prefer to keep it that way. But as Mr. Bevington said, we are prepared for the long haul, for the long fight. To that end, we have retained an attorney to represent all the associations. The attorney is very well versed in Wal- Mart. He has fought battles with Wal -Mart. Most of them he has won. We would prefer not to have the attorney enter the arena at all. We would prefer to have this solved among the citizens of Rosemead right here tonight and to have you do the right thing and vote against this outrageous proposal, which is nothing more than pure gerrymandering. We also would like the City to understand what it's boundaries are, and when I speak of boundaries, I'm speaking literally as to where are the City boundaries. There was a lot of questions. That really makes a City look like it doesn't do its homework and I know that... BRUESCH: Let me caution you. I've worked with three agencies outside the City. Two school districts and a City and everyone of them has had one of these questions before them, "Where is the line drawn ?" In the early days when they drew the lines, they did not do it carefully enough. A lot of entities around here, special districts, school districts, the like, upon occasion come to the fact that the line was drawn incorrectly, a local school district, whole blocks. All of a sudden they say that doesn't belong to us because the maps were drawn wrong. Then there's the question of ADA. This happens all the time. Maybe it's not us doing our homework right, or maybe it's the original map drawers doing a very shoddy job. We had an issue right beside our City Hall. The County did not know where their line was. Then when they found out that we were encroaching on their line, they wanted to charge us $250,000 for the use of that land. This thing with Walnut Grove, it is a surprise to me because I always assumed the line was in the middle of the street. But come to find out it could be the curb or could be either east or west of there. We are going to investigate that. It's done all the time. It's not giving you an excuse. BRADY: I understand that. Thank you very much. CLARK: Mr. Brady, may I ask you. You referred to something about, "Nothing can be done ". Can refresh... BRADY: That was in reference to the traffic. BRUESCH: Let me say what I said before. I serve on the Southern California Association of Governments and we have the traffic plan. We have to have a Congestion Management Plan and I refer CC /CDCIOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #22 to that as saying if we do not do something about the traffic region wide, we're going to have 2.6 million more people in our region, and about 1.7 million more cars because we don't have adequate public transit. Traffic is going to get bad no matter what unless we're willing to pay the price, that was what I was referring to. BRADY: I can appreciate that and agree with that 100 %. You have just presented an excellent argument for Wal -Mart not going in there. BRUESCH: Let me remind you that we are negotiating with MTA and Montebello to have public transit serve that area, extra public transit so that traffic will be mitigated. BRADY: I hear what you're saying, but the residents and people who spoken about... who actually live the traffic problems each day in San Gabriel and Walnut Grove and Rush live a nightmare. I mentioned that at the last meeting. It was taken seriously by some, and not so seriously by others. But that's why I asked to speak last because none of these people were prompted in this room by me to say anything. What they said came from their own experiences, their own feelings, their own beliefs. I could go through and I could repeat and repeat and repeat, but what we need to do if we need to have the City Council do the right thing. Not what's technically good for the City, but what is good for the citizens here. All these people out here are voters. We vote. Those who don't, may in the future. The comments, "This is the first time I've ever spoken in public ", there will probably be more. At the last meeting I said, "This is the first time I've been up here to speak on this issue ", and I recall saying, "You'll probably see me many more times ". I hope you never see me again. Because I hope that this is the end of it tonight. I would sincerely hope that all the Councilmembers listen to what's been said here tonight. If you would just listen to what's been said here tonight, you will know what to do and you'll do the right thing. I have faith in you that you will do that. If it does not come to that, as Mr. Bevington said, then we go to step two, or step three, all of which cost money and time and aggravation and bad feelings and in the end come down to as you said, "Everything's political ". At that point out come the voters at the polls. That's the last thing that I want to do is go out an organize a committee to vote against members of the City Council who really truly believe in this. Because I believe that there are enough people on the City Council, everyone of you have been on the Council for a long time, almost all of you. Most of you have been Mayor, most of you have been Mayor Pro Tem, so you're not a bunch of "newby's ". I've been with my association for 16 years, Mr. Bevington's been with his for many. There are many people in this room who moved to south Rosemead twenty and thirty years ago. They can very easily see the changes which are occurring, which are negative and impact their lives. I know the hour is late, I don't want to say anymore because that would just be into a repetitious process, they said it far better then I could say it. I urge you, as final plea, if nothing else, you always have at the end of a trial, this is really a trial, let's face it here. You guys already have sat here and you've heard testimony that's been presented and the overwhelming evidence presented by the testimony of these people out here is against this proposal. And all I would ask you to do is act as atrial ofjurors and listen to the voices out here. The supporters have had an equal opportunity to present their case as well they should. But, I don't believe there can be any doubt in the minds of any of the members of the Council tonight of the strength of the opposition to this development. And, I strongly, strongly, strongly, urge you to turn this thing down and to turn it down tonight. Let it be the end of it. I thank you for your time and your patience. I applaud everyone of you back here. Thank you so much. CC /CDCIOINT MTG: 10 -M2 Page #23 BRUESCH: I'm sorry, I did skip over... are you Mr. Johnson? Mr. Johnson, please. State your name and address. RAYMOND JOHNSON: My name is Raymond Johnson. I live at 26785 Camino Seco in Temecula. I'm here tonight representing James Weaver, Manuel Valenzuela and Larry Bevington- By training I have a Masters Degree in Planning. I'm a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I've been a land -use planner for the last 30 years and environmental planner for the last 10 years. I'm also a land -use and environmental attorney. This project is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent State Law, Business and Professional Code, clearly. I will speak on that in a moment, but let me address some of the technical aspects of the environmental documents that have been done. First of all, it's an improper segmenting of the project. You're looking at this little piece. You're not even looking at the sign proposed to be put on this piece of property. You're to look at the entirety of the proposed project, not segmented into little pieces. Each little piece doesn't have a significant impact. When you look at the impacts, you have to look not only at the direct impacts, but also the anticipated end direct impacts. You're bringing this in to a redevelopment area. Why are you doing that? Well, the only logical reason you're doing this is so you can put up a sign. What are the impacts of that sign? You're going to have significant visual impact as a result of that sign and that has not been addressed in the environmental documents. The intention of the sign, the purpose of the sign is to increase traffic for the Wal -Mart project. You can expect with the Wal -Mart project that you're going to be generating around 20,000 trips a day. And if you trying to increase traffic, what percent are you trying to do it? Maybe only 10 %, so that's another 2,000 trips a day. What are the environmental consequences of that? They can very significant and especially if you have current overcrowding problems there now in terms of delays. Similarly, with traffic comes increased air quality impacts, increased noise impacts. None of these were evaluated within the initial study and they should have been. This, I think, is inconsistent with the General Plan. It's probably inconsistent with the development code and also the redevelopment code. This is nothing more than an attempt to get around the Business and Professional Code, which prohibits offsite advertising signs. There is an exception provided within 5273 of the Business and Professional Code for redevelopment areas. If there are three criterias that are met. One, it must be contiguous. In other words, this blue area must be contiguous with the main redevelopment area where you are ... where the stores are that you're going to be advertising for. Secondly, the area where the signs are to go must have been a part of the original plan as adopted, the original Redevelopment Plan as adopted. This case, that's clearly not the case. The third thing is, even if you met the other two, any sign that can go in can only be there for a maximum for 10 years or until the redevelopment project is finished, whichever is sooner. At max you're only going to get 10 years use out of it, and it's probably going to take Wal -Mart probably 1 '/2 or 2 years by the time they get through with all the litigation to go through with it. You're probably going to have only eight years worth of use out of the sign. Is that a good expenditure of public funds? The environmental documents that went out had an inadequate project description in that it doesn't include the entire project. It only includes the creation of the amendment itself. It doesn't include the sign that's clearly anticipated as a part of it. The project description is deceptive in that the project description in the environmental documents list the purpose of this as to provide public improvements. It doesn't say anything about signs. The environmental documents say it provides public improvements. What public improvements are you providing? You're going to put streets in? You're going to put in sewers? Anything like that? No. The only thing you're putting in is a sign, which is not a public improvement. The findings I think that you have are inadequate. In the discussions of the economics of the process, there's no discussion of what this sign is going to cost or what impact it's going to have on the redevelopment project. There are some things about Wal -Mart that have been talked about. One of COMMINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #24 the things that's obvious is when their tax breaks end, they move to someplace that's going to give them a new tax break. What is the City or Redevelopment Agency going to do with a 240,000 square foot building when the tax breaks end and they move on. Increased tax revenue, I think, is largely a myth. It's not that Wal -Mart creates an urge for people to go out and buy. These people are already buying somewhere else. You're simply shifting tax revenue from one place to another. Wal -Mart used predatory pricing and the result of that, typically, is that the neighborhood businesses are forced out, and you end up then with the business going to Wal -Mart. To the extent that Wal -Mart does this by under cutting prices you actually may end up with a reduction in sales tax revenue because the goods that they're buying... that people are buying may be cheaper and therefore lower sales tax generated. The other thing that Wal -Mart has, and this particular case, they're proposing the super center, if you will, with a grocery store. The grocery store does not add any tax revenue because those are non taxable items. The impact of the grocery store is that it will drive existing local grocery stores out of business. When you drive the local grocery store out of business, that is going to result in any of the other businesses that happen to be in that strip center or area, suffering because there is no longer the traffic generated that they need for their business to survive. You end up with old shopping centers that are unused. You can only have so many senior centers or hobby lobbies or that type of thing. You end up creating more areas that you're going to have to redevelop as a result of it. It was interesting, you were talking about the Motel 6 sign being on the proposed sign, and I don't see how you can do that. Motel 6 property is not included within the redevelopment area, and it would be an off premises sign for Motel 6, which would not be allowed. It may be allowed there now because it's a current non - conforming use. But, if you replace that sign, they wouldn't be able to locate on that sign because they're not within the redevelopment area or part of that project. One of the other things that's sort of interesting with the problem with the question of where the boundary is. That creates some problems for you in terms of being able to do anything in the near future because there are very precise requirements as to how you have to go about adopting amendments to redevelopment plan. That includes very precise legal descriptions which must be advertised and circulated. That legal description is not valid because it extends outside the boundary of the City and outside the control of the City, and outside of the control of the Redevelopment Agency. The boundaries description is going to have to be corrected. You're going to have to go back and research and do all those steps over again. That's kind of a quick summary. The bottom line is, it doesn't. make sense. This little amendment is clearly to subsidize one of the largest company in the world. It's going to cause blight in the area that people don't need. In the larger sense, it doesn't make sense to use Wal -Mart as the anchor of this area that you want to redevelop. There are businesses that you can bring in there that would be compatible with other existing businesses which will end up with a real net increase in tax revenue and a positive benefit to the community, rather than draining revenue from small businesses and driving them out of business and creating blight. Thank you. BRUESCH: Mr. Johnson. I have a question, then I'm going to yield the floor to Mr. Imperial. This whole question of contiguity, I've read the law as you have. There are provisions in that law for non- contiguous parcels if it enhances the economic development of that... JOHNSON: That's true, but.... BRUESCH: Is it not true also that the ambiguity comes in what economic development of the redevelopment project area is really defined? CC/CDC101NT MTG: 10 -U2 Page #25 JOHNSON: Not really. Whether or not it's contiguous or not, doesn't have any bearing on Business and Professional Code. That only has a bearing on whether or not you need to do the findings of blight. In that case, that's not necessary. Business and Professional Code very specifically states, and I'll quote it if you like, "With consent of the redevelopment agency governing the project, be considered to be one on the premises anywhere within the limits of that project when all of the land is contiguous or separated only by a public highway or public facilities ". You can get away with part of the problems you have with this, the non - contiguous nature of it, in terms of determining blight. It doesn't help you the Business and Professional Code, which does require that it be contiguous. BRUESCH: So, you have mutually exclusivity of the laws, literally. JOHNSON: Sure. That happens all the time. BRUESCH: Just like disappearing lines happen all the time. JOHNSON: One code is related to how you go about justifying what you do with redevelopment. The other one is a very specific law which relates to what is permissible within the State of California in terms of outdoor advertising. It can certainly be more restrictive. And, it was intended, I think, to be more restrictive when it was passed. Outdoor advertising signs are not favored. I mean offsite, are not favored by the State of California. Clearly they were trying to restrict that. And you all are, basically, trying to get around it. I think that's wrong. BRUESCH: Mr. Imperial. IMPERIAL: You made mention of the fact that there are other businesses that we can put in there. Can you name some of these businesses? JOHNSON: I think that you could go with any number of potential retail stores that are not the mega stores. There are benefits to not having the mega store type of concept. In the environmental documents... talk about the subtlety, it refers to this as being a mini -mall. How you can conceivable think of this thing as being a mini -mall when as it's described in the documents is beyond belief. One of the problems with the superstores is that have a higher traffic generation, trip generation per thousand square feet then does a big box, say a Target without a grocery store, or a Wal -Mart even without a grocery store. The trip generation per thousand square feet is higher with that combination than it is for either one individually. So that if you had more standard retail uses, the trip generation per thousand square feet is going to be lower then your impact on surrounding streets is going to be lower. IMPERIAL: Can you name this type of store that we're talking about? I'm getting confused and I'm going to tell you why. I heard somebody stand up here and say that Ralph's, stores like Ralph's would be put out of business and these people have all the benefits. They don't have all the benefits. Only the full - time employees have the benefits. I know what I'm talking about too. I know that your association, you went to somebody that's a Union store, but the fact remains I know that if you're a non -full time employee you're not entitled to all the benefits... unless they were cheating my sons. JOHNSON: Bank of America doesn't pay benefits either because they're not full -time employees MCDCJOINT MTG: 10.8 -02 Page s26 IMPERIAL: I want to make sure I know what we're talking about here. Can you name any stores that will fit in that category? JOHNSON: I think any general retail store could work in there. A mall could work in there, a true mini- mal]. You got areas where you have some very successful, I've seen some very successful restaurant row type of businesses that cater toward restaurants. There are any number of businesses that could go there. It's just that when you happen to have the Wal -Mart itself, the superstore, it compounds the problem because of the higher trip generation per thousand square feet. We talked about the impacts on local grocery stores. I'm from Missouri and I've spent many years in Missouri until 1990. I saw my first superstore. Then it was called the Hypermart, probably 1985 or maybe a little earlier than that. What clearly does happen is when -these Hypermarts go in ... their first one was really a trip... it had like 72 checkout stands and the people working inside were on roller skates, it was that big. But what does happen is that grocery stores about within 3 miles of the super centers are very susceptible to going out of business. In fact, the State of Texas, you have major chains that are even pulling out of the State of Texas as the result of the incursion of Wal -Mart into that state. And I have seen in my own home town where the first Wal -Mart that went in was not a super store and when they moved out it, moved into the next one, it wasn't either. But when you get into the super store, then all of a sudden the neighborhood grocery stores start going away. And, when you lose that neighborhood grocery store, that's the anchor for that shopping center. That whole shopping center has tendency to fail or to go down as a result of that. It's a... it's not a simple thing. You have to look at the long term consequences of what you do. IMPERIAL: Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you very much, sir. We're going to close now the public portion and I'm going to open it up to comments from the City Council. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like one thing cleared up. The price of that sign, it's been stated that we don't have a price for the sign. But, in fact we were given information in our meetings that that sign would cost approximately $250,000. Is that correct? CROWE: The information we provided you via memo was from other communities, one particular community in Orange County just completed a sign. The information concerning the cost of the sign was derived from another community that recently put a freeway oriented sign in their city, and the price tag on that was $250,000 with let's say five or six panels. TAYLOR: Just making a clarification that was an estimated cost that we used for our discussions. CROWE: That's the one that seems to be floating around here. That was just for information only. TAYLOR: Keep in mind that Senator Romero's office wants all this information and we've got it in the files from the meetings. CROWE: Yes. I think Mr. Bevington's asked for a record search, too. TAYLOR: That is a statement of fact, and correct me if I'm not wrong, did we not use those figures for discussion purposes? CC /CDCJOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 page #27 CROWE: There was never any discussion about it. The memorandum... TAYLOR: We've got the documentation in a memorandum. CROWE: Yes. TAYLOR: I want that part cleared up. The other thing is that the people aren't really ... I don't think they realize... they're talking about the cost of a $250,000 sign. Do we not have a lease option with the owner of Charley Brown's. CROWE: Yes. TAYLOR: We paid how much for that? CROWE: $7500 for the lease option. TAYLOR: Until December of 2003 to give them a year and a half to work it out. We have an option and he has an option with a lease and that lease time is... he has ten years on the first option. CROWE: I believe so. TAYLOR: And then the second option to lease it for another ten years. CROWE: Yes. TAYLOR: Mr. Wallin wants to say something. WALLIN: It's not he that has that option. It's the City has the option to lease it for ten years. Then the City has the option to renew it. TAYLOR: The City has the option after the sign is up. The sign will be there physically. Is he going to, theoretically, allow the Wal -Mart sign to set on his property with no income from it? If the City says we're not going to renew it, what happens to that $250,000 sign? WALLIN: We would have the right to remove it. TAYLOR: We would have the right to remove it. That makes sense. We'll take down that $250,000 sign. But, the other point it, we have an option and it's all been worked out, cost payments starting at $2700 for the first month, and at the end of the 20 -year period, it's $4750 a month, coming to a total in that option or in our little diagram and charts we have, that comes to $750,000 to the property owner of Charley Brown's plus the $250,000. So, that's a $1 million cost to put that sign on the property. And, that's not right. The other businesses, we don't do that for them. I just want it clear, it's not just $250,000. CLARK: I need some clarification on this COMMINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #28 BRUESCH: I got lost in the logic. CLARK: We have no obligation at all. BRUESCH: Let's go back to ... the lease option, which is $7500. 'But the lease that the people, the business paid for their sign is a completely different thing. I think somewhere they got mixed up. TAYLOR: Who's responsible to pay that money to the owner of that property? CROWE: The City would be. BRUESCH: The $7500. TAYLOR' No, no, no. We're talking about the payments of $2750 a month. Who's responsible to pay that to the owner of Charley Brown's Restaurant. CROWE: The City. TAYLOR: That's clear. What's the misunderstanding? CROWE: I think Margaret's concern was if the project doesn't proceed, we're not going to spend that kind of money. The option is there for that period of time. If there were no development or we hadn't... no one else wanted to be on the sign that made it look halfway feasible, it would seem ludicrous to go through with it. TAYLOR: But, the whole intent is to go through with it. CLARK: But, what Mr. Copenhaver said last time was that there's no ... we're not obligated for anything If Wal -Mart came in, they would... some of the other signs on the thing could pay for it. That's my understanding. TAYLOR: We don't have any other signs right now. COPENHAVER: Let me try and... BRUESCH: We don't give them the signs, they rent the signs. TAYLOR: That's right. We don't even have somebody to come in and rent the sign now, it's Wal -Mart. And, Wal -Mart says the City pays for it. COPENHAVER: Mr. Mayor. I think I can clarify this. We have a payment for the option, to have the option to lease. If the City exercises the option to lease, we have to pay a ground lease payment to the property owner. That's who Mr. Taylor... CLARK: How much was the option? CC /CDCIOINT MTG: I0-8-02 Page s29 COPENHAVER: The option was the $7500. The ground lease payment starts off at... BRUESCH: A flat $7500? COPENHAVER: Yes. TAYLOR: Just an option? COPENHAVER: It's a onetime payment until December 2003. If the City exercises the option on the ground lease so that we could build a sign, we would have to pay the property owner a ground lease payment. That payment starts off, I believe we're saying $2700 tonight, but I believe it starts off at $2500. TAYLOR: No. It started out at $2200 as Mr. Nunez said. Then it jumped up to... it went up $300, and then it's up to $2750 the first month. That's the approximate range that it's at. WALLIN: You're including the cost of living increases. TAYLOR: No. The 3% cost -of- living is why it goes from $2750 to $4750 after 20 years. COPENHAVER: The ground lease payment, any ground lease, if you control property over a 20 year time, generally that escalates with the Consumer Price Index. TAYLOR: I would agree with that, but not for a 5' x 30'... COPENHAVER: If you added up the payments over 20 years, it you wanted to come up with a large number, you would do as you are doing, and add up the payments. If you're talking about paying future dollars, if you're talking about today's value of it, it would be less than $1 million depending on what you think... TAYLOR: The sign still stays the same, 5' x 30' on the ground and that's it. COPENHAVER: That's all that's required in order to build a sign that could support four panels. I'm arguing, you might not be in favor of the sign. TAYLOR: The bottom line is, you add up the 12 payments each month for 20 years, as it very specifically comes out to $750,000. COPENHAVER: No one is saying anything different. TAYLOR: That's the point I want to make. We have that liability. We don't have anybody else advertising signs. Not one other business: It's never been mentioned that there's another business that may go on there. CLARK: They did so last time. That did say that. MCDOOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page 00 TAYLOR: We're hoping. Who? Who is going on? COPENHAVER: We don't know. All the ground lease... don't try and read something there that is not there. All the ground lease says is that we can control this little piece of property to build a sign and the sign could contain up to four panels. And, we're not making any secret of it. If Wal -Mart does apply, and if the City Council in its deliberations, decides to approve Wal -Mart, approve the CUP, approve the subdivision map, approve and Environmental Impact Report, we hope that they would rent space on this sign from the City of Rosemead. We would want them on the sign. It would make for a stronger store. TAYLOR: When people or.businesses pay for the sign, that's to recoup the money for it. But, is Wal- Mart going to pay for that sign, those 20 years? COPENHAVER: We've not negotiated a number. TAYLOR: We've negotiated everything else with the property owner, how come Wal -Mart is left out? COPENHAVER: We've not negotiated any of that. I don't know why you... only on the option only, for the option to ground lease the sign. We've not approved the sign. We don't have a design for the sign. Therefore, we don't have a cost. TAYLOR: Why do we have the payment cost all figured out already? COPENHAVER: The payment cost at $2500 a month for a freeway oriented sign site, that is a very reasonable amount... is what our research indicated and we did talk to other cities, what they have experienced in terms of the cost of the sign on the freeway.and what other private companies pay for freeway signs, this is at or very close to the fair market value. You may not like the number. I wish it was lower also. But, it is very much representative of the fair market value. TAYLOR: O.K. We've got it in the record, that's what I wanted. CLARK: But, I need some clarification. In other words, the maximum starting would be the $250,000 COPENHAVER: That's the construction cost of the sign. We looked at two different freeway signs. Bill contacted one city and they built a large multi -panel sign, and it cost about $250,000. I have involved in another city that built a large multi -panel sign and it cost on the order of $250,000. That's why when people were asking how much would a sign possibly cost, we were estimating $250,000. CLARK: Would the City recoup any of that, or is that just out? COPENHAVER: That we don't know what we could recoup in terms of renting the panels on the signs. Hopefully we could recoup as much as the market will bear. We don't know what that is. I doubt that it would... it would be very hard for us to recover the entirety of the cost and the monthly payment unless we did have all of the panels used and we had strong companies on all of them. MCDCIOINT MTG: 10 -8-02 Page #3 1 TAYLOR: Let's go one step further now. What are the exclusions that the owner of Charley Brown's ground up there, what exclusions did he tell us that you cannot put on that sign? I believe there's three or four. WALLIN: Businesses that compete with the businesses on his property. TAYLOR: That's a restaurant isn't it? WALLIN: Restaurant business, Motel 6. TAYLOR: No restaurants can go on there. Can any hotels go on there? Motel 6, or can any other hotels go on that sign? What are the restrictions that he's put on there that we're going to find somebody that's big enough to rent that sign, to pay for it? COPENHAVER: The only thing that we can say... you're asking, that's the same question we don't even know if Wal -Mart is going to apply. We certainly don't know if after the public hearings on all of the application materials that they would have to submit, if the Council in their deliberation, is even going to approve it. We're talking here very hypothetical. You're asking questions I don't know the answer. TAYLOR: I know we don't know the answers. But we do know there's a lot of cost up front. COPENHAVER: We're not trying to hide that. That's why that memo indicated that a representative cost of a multi - panel, freeway orientated sign that is very tall, would be on the order of $250,000. I think that's as accurate as we can be at this point in time. WALLIN: Let me add to that. The only cost that the City is involved with at this time is $7500, which we paid for an option. We will know how much we will be able to get for the sign from Wal -Mart or any other user before it's ever asked to exercise the option. TAYLOR: Why do we have those dollar sign in that option agreement with the property owner? WALLIN: Why is the rent already fixed? For two reasons, that's what the property owner asked. And, staff determined and recommended to Council, that that was a reasonable, fair market value for that type of right. For example, I represented, 10 years ago, one client who paid $5,000 a month for the same right. The right to maintain an agency sign on a freeway. $5,000 a month, and we're paying less than that. BRUESCH: Could that change? 20 years? Let's open it up. Mr. Imperial. IMPERIAL: I have no further comments at this time. BRUESCH: Mr. Vasquez? COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ: None right now. BRUESCH: Mrs. Clark? CC /CDCIOINT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #32 CLARK: I have a question. Did Mr. Johnson leave? He was suggesting that other business could go in there. Mr. Johnson was suggesting other businesses other than Wal -Mart to go in there and I saw some people shaking their heads in the audience. Would those businesses advertise on the sign? Would that be at all possible? CROWE: It would be possible. But, we've got to come to you at some time to discuss this and give you some parameters of what... is there a certain sales tax generation threshold that by which you select someone for the sign, or whatever type of criteria that you would have to evaluate and approve. IMPERIAL: We're talking money. I can remember sitting here for a lot of years trying to get a grocery store on Valley Boulevard for many, many years. I want to tell you, nobody wants to hear it unless they come in and you pay them a lot of money and give them the land and what have you. We just had the McCoy thing where they were going to build a whole miniature city over there on Temple City Boulevard. And we were going to have three or four restaurants. We couldn't even get one on Walnut Grove because they want you to ... they want to come in and have you give them half the City to do it. So, we need to keep this in mind. That's what they're dealing with out there. If you can get that into the City, then they want some money. Otherwise, why go here? Go someplace else like West Covina or Alhambra where they have the available land. Let's keep everything in proper perspective. Thank you. BRUESCH: I'd like to say a couple of comments before we open it up for a motion. First of all, Mr. Brady is absolutely right when he stated that the taxes that are being taken off the sales are being spent in other areas. That's absolutely true. None of those tax dollars come to us to be used within our City. We are a contract city, extremely efficiently run. For years we have not, as all, and I say all of the other cities around us imposed a utility users tax. We don't even have a business license tax in Rosemead. We do not impose a City property tax. We do get property tax from the county, but we do not have a separate City property tax. What we have faced over the last couple of years is a restriction of our income. We live and breath on the sales tax and what the state gives us in their magnanimous way. We hold our collective breaths every legislative session for fear that we're going to lose another chunk of our state subventions, especially our Vehicle License Tax, which has been dwindling every year. Look around. El Monte, South El Monte, Alhambra, their redevelopment agencies assemble parcels, use eminent domain, usually displacing low- income housing with commercial ventures. This City has never done that. As long as I live and breath, it will never use redevelopment powers to condemn property and displace people from their homes. When you say, "Look at other areas ". The areas along the other freeway, 10, are generally low- income areas. I, for one, will not displace low- income people for a commercial venture. I cannot do that. In all conscience I cannot do that. But I look at areas between the 10 and 60 freeway and I see three, no, four census tracks that have almost 10% unemployment. Redevelopment was set up to promote economic revival in an area. We are in a business downturn. We need tax dollars. But more importantly, we need jobs. People are out of work. Those families that are our future, relies on it. Two young men came up here and said, "Think of the future of generations ". There is another side of the issue, and that is people who are living in substandard conditions without adequate jobs, the working poor who need jobs, need improved situations. We have to look at that constituency also. We have to look at the voiceless constituency that is out there eking out a meager living in order to try to survive in our economy. We have to look at those people. We cannot ignore them. I, for one, have heard everything you have said tonight. But, I also have heard the other side. Every school that I visit, and I'm a teacher and I go visit many schools, every time that I walk in to a school, they say, "Where's my Wal- Mart"? And, they say "my ". We want it now. CC /CDCJOINT MTG: 10 -5 -02 Page #33 MANY COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE AT THIS POINT. BRUESCH: Excuse me, I am not lying. Those of you in the audience who know me know that I do not... excuse me ... ifyou want to speak, fill out one of those forms and come up to the podium. We listened for 2 '/2 hours to what you had to say. Excuse me, I have the right to speak my mind also. If you disagree with me, so be it. The point is that this City is looking for a way to revive our economy in a very, very poor economic situation. We are, as a nation, more so in our Southern California area, going through a change in economy from heavy industry to service oriented. Some of the sections in our area have done a lot better in assuming the new role of service oriented industry, they call it. But, what has happened is in the general area, the western San Gabriel Valley, the train has always passed Rosemead by. It always has passed us by. We do not have the type of development that is keeping our families here. They have to move in order to afford housing. They have to move out 40 to 50 miles. In order to get a job, they have to go elsewhere. So these are the things that we have to think about also. Now, I'm not here to argue philosophies against one particular commercial entity as opposed to another. But, I want you to appreciate the struggles that your Council is going through on a daily basis, trying to provide the services to our community at the lowest cost we can. We have state and federal laws and programs that are pushing us toward various things that are going to be very costly. Traffic mitigation for one. Increased public transit, increased low -cost housing. There is a great push now to promote increased low - cost housing. We have a quota between now and 2020 to provide 750 additional housing structures within Rosemead. That is our quota we have to meet. About one third of them have to be super low - income, about a quarter of them have to be. These are all the things that we have to do and I want you to appreciate the fact that we do a... on a daily basis, we're inundated with the various requirements that we face with the state, federal and county regulations and programs. We need to take in what was said tonight. And, I asked some specific legal questions that I need to have answered in terms of state law on contiguity, where our line is along Walnut Grove. We have to find that out. Where we're at with other possible developments within our City. We have reports coming in the next couple of weeks on two proposed development of commercial nature within two areas in the northern part of the City. All of this has to go into our consideration. I am honestly not prepared to make a decision tonight. I would open this up to a motion from anybody on the Council. WALLIN: Mr. Mayor. May I point out that under state law, we're not allowed to consider adoption of the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan until after the Council has considered responses to each objections received here tonight and the previous meeting. Thus, staff's recommendation is that this is to be put over until the meeting of November 12 so that we can prepare responses for your consideration. You're not allowed under state law to adopt an Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan even if there was a motion to do so. We have to put it off. BRUESCH: I noticed numerous notes on both sides of me. I have notes also and I know Mrs. Clark has taken notes. We need time to consider all the arguments. One thing I must say, at the beginning of the meeting, except for a few little problems, the demeanor of this audience has been not only calm, cool and collected, but very articulate. I appreciate the fact that you people have stated your case in such a manner. As I said when we had a little problem at the beginning, we are all citizens of Rosemead, we are all looking for what is best for our community. I hope you appreciate the amount of information that your Council has to consider in coming to a conclusion on this issue and give us the benefit of getting information and Freedom of Information Act, what we get you get. Mr. Bevington, you're going to be able to get everything we receive in terms of answers to the questions, and so will the State Senator. MCDOOiNT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page #34 BEVINGTON: I'd like to add three comments. Thank you to the City Manager for recognizing the fact that in the material we submitted, we asked for the same... WALLIN: The public hearing has been closed. The Council does have the ability to re -open it if the majority of the Council wishes to re -open it. But, right now the public hearing is closed. BRUESCH: I have one Request also ... I will re -open the hearing and allow Mr. Bevington and Mr. Wang to make comments because I have a request from Mr. Wang. BEVINGTON: We have, in our written material, asked for the same request that the State Senator asked for, and that's for copies of all materials, meetings, discussions, submittals that have taken place in connection with this whole operation, and particularly the Wal -Mart. This should not be hidden. I appreciate the fact that it was brought out, I'm sure that helped out. Second thing is, I hope you will take recognition, and we will talk to our attorney about submitting items if it is necessary to clarify that. I hope you will take full cognizance of the fact that there are a number of problems you recognized a minute ago that have to be resolved that may force this whole thing back to ground zero — start all over again. Because, the matter... the legal matters which he raised. BRUESCH: With your background, Mr. Bevington, you heard what I said about other cities and the way they use their redevelopment powers, and you've lived here in our community for, what, 18 years now? BEVINGTON: 27 years. BRUESCH: 27 years. Has the City of Rosemead every used their redevelopment powers in that same way? BEVINGTON: I've never been affected like I have on this project. I do not know BRUESCH: Have we ever condemned property using redevelopment powers? BEVINGTON: I don't have any idea. BRUESCH: We have not. You've been in cities that have. TAYLOR: I'll answer the question for you. I was on the Council before you were. They condemned the homes down on Pine Street and Garvey. Does any of the staff know that? They did condemn homes down there, but none of us were on the Council. That's why we're here because we changed it. All of those Councilmembers were put out of office. But, they did do it. BRUESCH: You are correct. That was 30 years ago. BEVINGTON: The Mayor has spoken about not taking over, destroying, condemning low - income housing. He did not make any comments not destroying the living standards and the effect on property values and everything is inevitably that is going to be destroyed by this action. IMPERIAL: Houses will not be taken under this redevelopment process. CC /CDCIOINT MTG: 10 -M2 Page #35 BEVINGTON: Are you going to pay me the $50,000 my property value is going to go down from that traffic, the noise, and everything that occurs around there. We have asked for... IMPERIAL: Wait a minute. Let's not get excited. I just made a comment that under this redevelopment project area, no houses will be taken. BEVINGTON: I wish you would come and take mine. If this project goes through, my property value is going to die, badly, terribly. BRADY (FROM THE AUDIENCE): Mr. Bevington has the right to speak. He was even asked to speak. We just got a lecture from the Mayor, an unsolicited one. I thought we had a civil conversation going here with everyone expressing their views. Then, your whole demeanor, I believe that, excuse me... (Mr. Brady then speaks with Mr. Bevington) ... the whole thing was giving everyone out here a lecture on the entire City of Rosemead. I think that most of us are aware that, Yes, there are people who live in areas that are blighted. People who do not make as good of a living or have as high a property values are there in South Rosemead. But, Mr. Bevington has a most salient point in that if you're going to try and equalize our property values with those of other... BRUESCH: No. BRADY: That was my impression. I object strongly to the lectorial tone that you came across with. I'm an ex- college professor so I'm well aware of what a lecture is. You lectured us without any opportunity to respond, and I do not think that is proper for you as the Mayor, you are one vote on this Council and you do not represent all the people on this Council. BRUESCH: And, I stated that, this is my personal opinion. BRADY: One vote, sir. BRUESCH: I carefully stated that I saying my own personal opinion. I said that at the very beginning. BRADY: You have a captive audience out here. And, that is demeaning to your position to treat the people out here that way. And, whenever people object to your comments, for you to break out your gavel and tell them the shut -up, for a matter of discourse. BRUESCH: Mr. James Wang. JAMES WANG: Good evening, Mayor and City Councilmembers, City Attorney. I just want to speak a few words because time is up, too late. I've been in Rosemead on Garvey Avenue in this business for over 20 years. Earlier one lady said Garvey Avenue is not too good, or not too nice or whatever. I feel Garvey does a very good job and very nice. Second, I come here not on behalf of Wal -Mart or against Wal -Mart or against or support. In our Rosemead City, on Rush and Walnut Grove, we need commercial, some other, if not Wal -Mart some other, for example Costco or some other big like a big business come over here to support more tax. CC /CDCJOfNT MTG: 10 -8 -02 Page s36 IMPERIAL: Jimmy. What we're trying to put out also, is everything is not where it's supposed to be in Rosemead. For example, I hate to go down Valley Boulevard because there's eight furniture stores in one block. WANG: I'm happy with Garvey. I've been on Garvey over 20 years, in the business on Garvey, so I'm very happy. No complaints, very nice. IMPERIAL: I moved into this City in 1960. I've been here for 42 years in the same house. It's not the same Valley Boulevard I remember when I first moved on — where you used to be able to walk down the street and shop. All we're saying in reality is this. When you get eight furniture stores in one block, then you've got too many of one thing and none of them are making a living and it's stopping from anything else coming in. That's why we have to look at the whole situation and say what do we do to fix it? TAYLOR: Excuse me, is it Mr. Yang. WANG: Wang. TAYLOR: You're in favor of the K -Mart; I mean Wal -Mart? WANG: I'm on Garvey. TAYLOR: Are you in favor of the Wal -Mart store? WANG: No, I'm not in favor. I just come here to make more business, big business come here. because if Rosemead we need TAYLOR: We need more business in Rosemead. Are you in favor of the Wal -Mart coming to Rosemead? WANG: It will come. Any big company will come. TAYLOR: But, are you in favor of it? WANG: I don't understand. TAYLOR: Do you want Wal -Mart to come? WANG: If they want to come, that's good too. TAYLOR: It will be good? We're just trying to get clear who is opposed and who is for. WANG: So many people against it. I was thinking maybe how about wait until everybody reaction. (Next sentence is undecipherable). Some maybe about 50 -50 against or... how about 60 something, let them vote. MCDCJOINT MTO: 10 -8-02 Page #37 WANG: So many people - against it. I was thinking maybe how about wait until everybody reaction. (Next sentence is undecipherable). Some maybe about 50 -50 against or ... how about 60 something, let them vote. TAYLOR: I was just trying to clear up an issue. I don't know if Mr. Imperial thought you were opposed to the Wal -Mart or you're in favor. IMPERIAL: I was just bringing out the point that we have problems in our business district on Valley Bouelvard. It's not spectacular like we thought ... like it used to be when -I moved imhere. What I'm saying in reality, is I look forward to the time when people can walk down our boulevards and have some place to go in and shop. But, they're not going to be going into eight furniture stores. That's the point I was trying to make. We need to look at bringing more into the community. BRUESCH: Thank you Mr. Wang. We now close the public hearing. I will ask my colleagues to give me direction as to what they wish to do. TAYLOR: I think the City Attorney gave it to us. BRUESCH: We legally need to have the time for them to respond to these issues and questions. This is part of state law. We cannot make a decision without responding first. I would not like to make that decision anyhow without getting more information on the issues I brought up. We will ask staff to come back on November 12 with the responses to everybody's comments here. I would like now to declare a 5- minute recess for a break. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Clarification. The Agency Attorney had the minutes verbatim last time, are they going to be this time? END OF VERBATIM MINUTES. The Mayor called for a 5- minute recess and the meeting was reconvened accordingly at 10:45 p.m. U. ADJOURN ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. There being no further comments, the joint Public Hearing was adjourned at 11:01 p.m., and the regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council commenced Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: City Clerk Agency Secretary CC /CDCJOWT MTG: 10 -M2 Page #3 8 MAYOR CHAIRMAN