Loading...
CC & RCDC - Minutes 09-24-02APPROVED CITY OF ROS s -AD DATE_ zo Da' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING.,,, ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL AND ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 24, 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 Councilman Imperial The Invocation was delivered by Bante Chao Chu of the Los Angeles Buddhist Monastery. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Clark, Taylor, Imperial, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice- Chairman Vasquez, and Mayor/Chairman Bruesch Absent: None L 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 The Mayor opened the public hearing. Bill Crowe, City Manager/Executive Director, presented the suggested procedure for conducting the hearing and recommended that the public hearing should be continued to October 8, 2002 at 8:00 p.m. Steve Copenhaver, GRC Consultant, gave a brief slide presentation of the proposed amendment, which included the addition of two parcels and adjoining streets to Project Area 1, and reviewed the environmental documentation process. AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION ATTORNEY, THE FOLLOWING DIALOGUE WILL BE VERBATIM- COUNCILMAN/COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. The actual bottom line of this particular issue is a sign location at Charley Brown's. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN BRUESCH: In other words there is an existing sign there. STEVE COPENHAVER, GRC CONSULTANT: There is an existing sign that advertises the Motel 6. There's also a sign for Charley Brown's. Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page 91 TAYLOR: The reason we're doing this entire project is to put a new sign behind the Charley Brown's restaurant area. And that sign, correct me if I'm wrong, is it not on approximately 5' x 30' rectangular piece of property? So, for 5' x 30', that's what this is about. COPENHAVER: That's exactly correct. TAYLOR: Does this have to be contiguous with the Project Area No. I or is it a separate non-contiguous property? COPENHAVER: This does not have to be contiguous to meet the requirements of Redevelopment Law, and it can be separated by public highways and public facilities that meet the requirements of the Business and Professions Code. TAYLOR: So the notice that went out to the property owners, they received the notice showing the line going down Walnut Grove from the south end of the project to the Charley Brown's property. COPENHAVER: Yes, sir. That's correct. TAYLOR: But in effect, we're not doing that. COPENHAVER: There is a break in that line. On that scale of the map... TAYLOR: No. There's a break, period. COPENHAVER: Because of the City limit line. TAYLOR: Does it go from... the south end of the existing Project Area No. 1 is where now, the existing project? COPENHAVER: The existing project area (referring to Project Area No. 1 map on easel) stops approximately 700' north of where the City limit line crosses Walnut Grove. ft- TAYLOR: The City limit line is what ...Leybnrn? ....Drayer? COPENHAVER: There's just a one lot area that the County and City limit line come in and one parcel was excluded from the City of Rosemead. TAYLOR: Are you saying then that from Leyburn Drive to the red project area, that is not contiguous with the project, for this Amendment No. 4. COPENHAVER: If contiguous to you... TAYLOR: Means physically connecting. COPENHAVER: It is not physically connecting. Cdcdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page 42 TAYLOR: Because there's about a two-block area there that is not connected in anyway whatsoever COPENHAVER: That's correct. TAYLOR: O.K. The other photo shows the freeway looking at the tree hillside, if you want to put that back up then people can understand what I'm referring to (slide presentation). BRUESCH: As you're doing that, I want a little bit of clarification on Walnut Grove. That is a joint use street, is it not, that we share jurisdiction with the County. COPENHAVER: There is on the vast majority of that area, there is a curb area within the City of Rosemead. The remainder of it is with the County. BRUESCH: But we've always shared maintenance with the County on the street, am I not right, staff? So, literally even though we only have the curb, what we have been doing is spending City money to take care of that street and when complaints are made on that street, we went out and did the repairs except for the major reconstruction. We take care of the sweeping, right? DON WAGNER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: That's correct. But on projects such as slurry seal, we split the cost with the County. BRUESCH: I realize that, but what I'm trying to say is when the City was formed back in 1959, they wanted to have... it's very similar to how the City of Los Angeles was formed and wanted a section down in the harbor and have that sliver of land down the Harbor Freeway. It's the exact same type of thing. They wanted an area to the south there that they could develop commercially so they had that sliver of land that would connect it. Therefore, that one little section doesn't touch that sliver of land, but we have always maintained that street and it has been basically something that we've considered are part of our purview. I know the Sheriff's patrol that area too. Is that a true statement? WAGNER: Yes. TAYLOR: The Motel 6 sign, is that approximately where the new sign would go for Wal-Mart? COPENHAVER: That's where we believe it would go. TAYLOR: It's within a few feet of that location, from our previous drawing. COPENHAVER: That's correct. TAYLOR: I'm going through this procedure so that the audience has a better concept of what I object going on to... because some of that is their objection also. We're going to put a sign, roughly... do you know how tall that Motel 6 sign is, approximately. We're going to be 90' to 100' tall with the Wal-Mart sign? COPENHAVER: It's about 70' high. Cc/cdcitmtg:9-24-02 Page n3 TAYLOR: And the Wal-Mart sign is going to be 90' to 100'? COPENHAVER: The sign hasn't been designed, but conceptually, if we are unable... we would like to incorporate the Motel 6 sign into it if they are agreeable. If they are not, we can go up above the Motel 6 sign and put up to four panels on it. TAYLOR: When you say go up or above, my understanding that was that we're pouring an entirely new footing and sign structure. COPENHAVER: We would be. I'm not saying it would be on the same pole. It could be designed so it would have additional poles that would be on either side of that existing Motel 6 sign. Or, all of the signs could be reconfigured into one large sign. TAYLOR: In reality, the new Wal-Mart sign would be approximately 20' higher, double the height of that Motel 6 sign. COPENHAVER: It would not double the height of the Motel 6 sign, but it would be.... TAYLOR: That Motel 6 sign is what, approximately 16' tall? COPENHAVER: It is taller than that, the actual sign face you're talking about? TAYLOR: O.k., how tall is it? COPENHAVER: I don't have that number. It's something on the order of 20'. TAYLOR: If you look at the sign on that pole. Mr. Johnson, did you say it was 78' tall? BRAD JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR: It's approximately 70'. I think it's 60' off the ground.... TAYLOR: If you look at that sign, if it's 60' off that ground, 20' is 1/3 of that. That sign is no more than i/4 to 1 /3 of the height of that pole. BRUESCH: It will go a little bit above, in that scale, a little bit above the scene there. COPENHAVER: The sign face is larger that what you're imagining. TAYLOR: We're talking the height of it. I'm saying from the ground to the top of the sign it's 65' roughly. Our new sign, and clarification, if that's 65' from the top of the sign to the ground, that sign is one-quarter to one/third of the height of the pole, just looking at it and scaling it off. COPENHAVER: I would say that's approximately correct. TAYLOR: In general. We're going 25' taller that that. From 65' to 90' to 100'. So we're going to have a sign telescoping the height of that sign... when I say double, it's going to be another 20' to 25' above that. Cdcdcitmt9:9-24-02 Page P4 COPENHAVER: It could easily be another 25' tall. TAYLOR: And, this is just in generality of what we're going to get. COPENHAVER: The sign is not designed right now. But, we would anticipate that it would be taller than that existing sign. TAYLOR: We are authorizing now $250,000... is already proposed. COPENHAVER: You're anticipating a design. We don't have a design. We really don't have a cost on it. If we did build up the sign, if we did a major multi-tenant freeway sign, itprobably would be something on that order. TAYLOR: That's why we have those facts and figures as a guideline to what we're going to do. It is not hypothetical. It's a proposed possibility. COPENHAVER: That was our estimate. Most of the freeway signs that you see that cities have been involved in, in their auto centers and shopping center, most of them have come in around..... BRUESCH: To give you a scale on the same level as the Whittier Boulevard car signs as you go down the 605... TAYLOR: People don't have that in front of them. All we have is this right here. BRUESCH: But the point is, is if anybody's going southbound on the 605 freeway, they know that. Another one that would be similar, would be the one further down past the 91 at the Cerritos M Town Center. That sign is another one. We have a list of..Mr. Taylor, you got those pictures, a list of numerous of these types of signs that cities have erected for their... TAYLOR: In general, we're still talking about quarter of a million dollars that the City is going to pay for that sign. BRUESCH: And most of the other cities that have erected the signs have paid for them in that way. TAYLOR: But not all of the cities. BRUESCH: Not all. I'm not saying all, but most of them. COPENHAVER: I just want to exercise some caution. We don't know how it will be paid for, we hope to be able to sell the panels on the sign.- TAYLOR: We hope to? COPENHAVER: Yes. Cdcdcjt tg:9-24-02 Page g5 TAYLOR: Have we got a customer yet? COPENHAVER: We do not have a customer yet. TAYLOR: But, we are proposing to build that sign customer or no customer. Wal-Mart will be up there. COPENHAVER: If the Wal-Mart project is approved, we would anticipate they would be on the sign, yes. TAYLOR: As of right now, it could be one Wal-Mart sign if you don't have other takers. COPENHAVER: We have also talked to, for instance, Edison, they may wish to have a panel for public service notices. BRUESCH: May I interject. If we do not have takers for the sign, in other words, we do not have a business in Rosemead that so desire to advertise their services up on that sign, are we still going to build that sign whether we have the takers or not? COPENHAVER: We believe that the freeway oriented signing is pretty valuable. BRUESCH: I agree... COPENHAVER: I imagine if there is no user whatsoever, I would not want to build that freeway sign. TAYLOR: Let's go back to reality... if Wal-Mart said do it. BRUESCH: No. Mr. Taylor, you're incorrect in that... COPENHAVER: I just want to be careful ...I'm not trying to hide the fact that if Wal-Mart does apply, and we have not received an application from them, and if they do go through the public processes and the project is approved, we do desire from a staff prospective to have them up on that sign. TAYLOR: But in reality, this whole thing is here because of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart was the instigator. One of the pre-requirements was that we put the sign down there. COPENHAVER: I think we've also ...I'think that's very true ...I think we've also evolved to the point where we're considering doing a sign program on the I10 also. It may end up being a bigger program than what you're envisioning. TAYLOR: That's another can-of worms because Wal-Mart is saying to Rosemead, "You pay the quarter million dollars to build the sign". That's the first thing. The second thing is we start out paying $2,750 a month for that 5' by 30' piece of land which is not even the size of this desk. COPENHAVER: That's correct. Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page a6 20 TAYLOR: Then it escalates with a 3% inflation clause to $4575 a month after 10 years. So just for that sign, we take Rosemead taxpayers money and, we'll get in the balance o.k., Wal-Mart is bringing in tax dollars... but we don't do this for any other business on this scale. But anyway, it then goes to $4750 a month after 20 years, bringing it up to $750,000 for that 5' x 30' piece of land on a lease for the Wal-Mart sign. I know we talked about other companies coming in and wanting to put a sign up, but if they come in and we put more space... but Wal-Mart wants that large sign. The other thing that's interesting in this proposal, this is the first time that I've seen the words plural for signs. You mentioned we have to put more on the freeway. Are we going to pay for that as a City or is Wal-Mart going to pay for it? I don't mean to put you on the spot... COPENHAVER: I want the audience to understand too. We have not negotiated a deal with any tenant for space on that sign. That's a little bit different from what you stated. Right now we have not, and we do anticipate negotiating the maximum amount that we can for any sign panel that we generate, and that includes the Wal-Mart also. TAYLOR: We're both on the same track. Right now we have no other tenants but Wal-Mart, or tenants for signs is what I'm referring to. COPENHAVER: Right now we have no other. The only other that we've talked to is Edison. TAYLOR: The next thing, I use that word plural because there's going to be more signs coming up and one of them is going to be in that little triangle, Rosemead park area. It's got to be because people coming off of the freeway turn onto San Gabriel Boulevard and say, "I don't see a Wal-Mart, where do we go now?" They don't realize that is it 6/10` n of a mile from where they get off of the freeway down to Wal-Mart, and we couldn't put a sign big enough for them to see 6/10`s of a mile away. So as soon as they get to that little pull off on the freeway on to San Gabriel Boulevard, there's going to be another lighted sign there that says Wal- Mart. BRUESCH: Excuse me. How do you know that Mr. Taylor? TAYLOR: I'm going through the realistic standpoint that it's going to happen BRUESCH: I haven't even heard anything mentioned about that. TAYLOR: I know you haven't heard it. I'm talking to you about good business. Good business means there's going to be another sign because as they come up off the freeway off ramp and they look at San Gabriel Boulevard, they can't see that sign through the trees and the restaurant. I've been down there looking at it. You can't see those signs. So when they pull off the freeway and they look to the right and look to the left, over to the right is this beautiful little green park, and right there, and there's nothing to stop the City from putting a nice little lit up sign saying Wal-Mart. And they should if it's going to be a good project because you run all these people up on the hill, they can't see the sign, they can't see the Wal-Mart. So we have to help them get to the Wal-Mart. There's going to be another sign up there and we'll live to see it when it goes in. Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page 47 COPENHAVER: I believe that area needs a way-finding program and we need to be able to tell people how you get to which street because the intersection is confusing. I'm not sure you're correct on the configuration of the sign. BRUESCH: It's confusing getting off that freeway. COPENHAVER: It is. It would need signing definitely. TAYLOR: I'm speaking from a simple, realistic standpoint. Something's got to be there. My next thing is, are we as a City going to pay for that lighted up sign up nighttime when people pull off that freeway? I just want it in the back of our heads to know we're on the slippery slope. We're going to pay for the big one, we're going to pay for the freeway sign, we're going to pay for the off ramp sign. The reality of it is I don't like all this shading that's going on this. COPENHAVER: There's no shading, really. If Wal-Mart is approved by the City of Rosemead and it requires a great number of steps, we would anticipate that they be located on a sign that would be constructed above or around that Motel 6 sign. If Motel 6 wanted to maintain their existing sign and not combine on one larger sign, we probably would build around it as you're suggesting. In terms of the City owned property, I want to be very clear, we do anticipate having a way-finding program. We don't know what that sign would be. You're suggesting that it would be a Wal-Mart sign internally lit. I'm not sure if that's the case. That intersection would require additional signing to allow people to chose the direct path. TAYLOR: I'm sure it will. We'll just have to see what it comes down to. That's all I have right now, Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: Other comments from the Council before we open it up. I would like to before we open up the public hearing to defer to our Counsel to explain what occurred to make this an open meeting and whereby the Council is not able to make a decision tonight because of the noticing. WALLIN: The mail noticed everybody providing for a public hearing to be held tonight, 9/24. But the published newspaper notice didn't get into the newspaper in time. We are in.a position where we are going to have to continue this hearing from tonight to October 8'h. Those people that got noticed through the newspaper will also have an opportunity to come in and talk. However, anybody that is here tonight is free to make a presentation and you are all free to come back on the 8t' for further proceedings. This public hearing will be continued to October 8a'. Under the Redevelopment Law, when people raise written objections in the course of these hearings, before the Commission can act on the Redevelopment Plan, they have to provide written responses, adopt written responses, to any objects that you raise. To the extent you raise the objection, we do like them in writing. We will try to also respond to all oral objections when we put together that document so that the Commission or Council will try to answer every concern raised before they act on the consideration of the Redevelopment Plan. Just for the record, we have already received four written communications: September 24"' letter from Brady and Bevington, which was received yesterday. We received a letter yesterday from Mr. Perlin, who is the owner of the property which is affected. We received two more letters from Mr. Bevington today. So far we've received four letters, the Perlin letter being four and the BevingtonBrady letters. Cc1cdcjtm1g:9-24-02 Page u8 TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. A point of clarification. From what the City Attorney just stated, the written letters of support or opposition will go into the record. What happens to 50 people that standup tonight and give their name and address and they object to the project and whatever comments they may have. WALLIN: The law states that we are supposed to respond to written objections. However, we will try to respond to all objections whether they are received orally or in writing. TAYLOR: I appreciated that when you say we will try to. I believe that they should be in the record because when you put something down in writing that's one thing. A lot of people are not letter writers, but they'll come up here and voice their opinion, but in the record the way it's been stated, it's primarily the written word. BRUESCH: We will assure you, Mr. Taylor, that everyone that addresses this Council will be so noted in the minutes. The reason why...the State Redevelopment Law is very specific on public notices and that's why in each newspaper you get at your house, they have that section there because they are obligated by law to have that. The law states that you have to put a notice in a paper of general circulation and it must be 14 days before a hearing. We missed the cutoff for the particular newspaper that we use by two days. That's why, legally we needed to have this hearing remain open so that those people who only got the notice 12 days ago instead of 14 days ago, have adequate time to respond. So that is why we are going to leave the hearing open at the end and make our decision 14 days later so we can comply with State law. I have numerous people that have asked to speak. I would ask you to make your statements brief, 3 to 5 minutes, no more. The first one I have is Mr. Henry Lo, representing State Senator Gloria Romero. HENRY LO: Good evening, Mayor Bruesch and members of the Rosemead City Council. I've been . assigned on behalf of State Senator Gloria Romero to make a statement regarding Item No. 1. (Mr. Lo proceed to read a letter from Senator Romero opposing the Wal-Mart project. Such letter will be part of these minutes). BRUESCH: The next person I have is L.C. Bevington. Mr. Bevington. Mr. Bevington, I have to compliment you on your concise prose. So many time we get page after page of materials to read. You are very concise and I really appreciate that. L.C. BEVINGTON: Thank you. My name is Larr y Bevington. I live at 8372 Rush Street in Rosemead. My phone number of 626/572-9428. I represent four townhouse condominiums associations in south Rosemead, basically on San Gabriel and Walnut Grove. There are numerous individual homeowners that have attended our informational and organizational meeting. And directly according to your Planning Director, there are 3,000 households, which calculates to about 7500 persons who will be, have been noticed, and will be affected by this project. To save the time here tonight, we have filed two letters. One which was delivered to the City Clerk yesterday morning. The second one was just an outgrowth of the discussion at that time and which you should have received this evening. The project study concentrates on the erection of two freeway signs, and they say signs in there, so there should be no question about it. While all advertising signs are a blight on the area, these two signs are not the real project. The real project is to invite and produce added traffic into the area. "Traffic generates overcrowded streets, pollution, noise, trash and other undesirable products. These items have been deemed `less than significant' in the initial study. Based on a discussion that has taken place here tonight, and we've noticed how any competent consultant can consider Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page #9 any project that involves Wal-Mart as developing insignificant additions of traffic, noise, pollution, trash and tremendous losses in valuations of people around that area is insignificant. Significant, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The consultants in the initial study say these items are not significant. But they don't have to live there, they don't have to experience the congestion, the noise, the fumes, reduction in property values and way of life for 7500 people, which will be destroyed. Please review the two letters and take serious note of the contents. We will not support this project or any other project which will destroy our area to be imposed on us without resisting by research, comments, legal action and, if necessary political action. We do live in a political world and we all want to be aware of that. We appreciate the opportunity to be invited and noticed and to respond to this notice. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you, Mr. Bevington. I would now like to call Alfred Knight. ALFRED KNIGHT: I'll reserve my comments for the next meeting. BRUESCH: I have a request to speak from Betty Lacasella. BETTY LACASELLA: I wish to speak at the next meeting. BRUESCH: I have a request to speak from John E. Brady. JOHN BRADY: Good evening members of the Council. My name is John Brady, I live at 8337 E. Village Lane in Rosemead. I'm working very closely with Mr. Bevington. I'm the President of the Walnut Grove Village Homeowners Association. We have 169 units. I agree with every single word and written comments submitted by Mr. Bevington. We are in this for the long haul to make sure that the quality of our life does not decrease, that our property values, which are now increasing, do not start to decrease by Wal-Mart coming in. We are very pleased that the name Wal-Mart has come up, early in this discussion, so that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about, the issue is not.signs. It is about Wal-Mart. We have dedicated ourselves to working with you if at all possible, and we hope that this is the case. If not, then we will take all the steps that we listed and enumerate again, Mr. Bevington's letter to oppose this project. Several things came up tonight, first I would like to state that notification of these hearings and letting everyone know what is going on is crucial. We and Walnut Village, just to the left, were not notified, repeat not notified by mail in any way. No one in that Association received a single word of this meeting. The residents of Amberwood did. We would like to know, exactly what the State law says about notification. If anyone gets any closer to that project, that extension, I would like to know who it is. Our homeowners association is immediately to the west of it. There are at least two other associations immediately to the east of it. We are touched personally by it. If we have a situation where we have a "way-finding program", that reaches the height of absurdity in that we're not talking about one sign, we're talking about several signs. One can very easily, as a reasonably person, envision a flashing sign, "This Way to Wal-Mart". There is a Wal-Mart just re-opened only 10 minutes from that location. BRUESCH: Where is that? BRADY: That is in the City of Pico Rivera. It opened up on the 18a' of September. Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page #10 BRUESCH: What time of day can you reach Pico Rivers in 10 minutes? I've tried it. What time of day can you reach Pico Rivers in 10 minutes? BRADY: Anytime of day by taking Rosemead Boulevard. BRUESCH: I have. BRADY: Straight south and going to Paramount. I go to work that way each day, Sir. I'm a Tax Specialist with the State of California, and it takes me 10 minutes to get to that point each day. It takes me 10 minutes from that point coming home each night. I go surface routes because of the freeway not being very, very practical so I am probably as well versed in how long it takes to get to that location as anyone in this room. If anyone can envisage having a way-finding program for a Wal-Mart as being anything of a benefit to the City of Rosemead or to the 7500 residents, which is a conservative estimate, of being a positive thing to the City, I'd like to know what it is. There are several things which have come up in this discussion tonight. $250,000 which from the statements made, is going to be put upfront by the City of Rosemead. Wal-Mart has not, from what I have heard, agreed to do anything. In the opinion of the members of our Association, how does a something for nothing, maybe we will and maybe we won't... the $250,000 if it's spent and they decide to not come in here for whatever reason, then money which is not going to be very usefully spent. We're talking about increases in tax dollars. TAYLOR: Mr. Brady, excuse me. I need a point of clarification. If Wal-Mart, it's an interesting question he just placed before us, we are not going to build that sign unless Wal-Mart is coming to the City? Is that correct? I need a clarification. WALLIN: We do not have a lease on that property at this time, we have an option to lease which we can exercise when we determine that there is sufficient interest in going on the sign, whether it be Wal-Mart or anybody else. Certainly we are under no obligation to go forward with that lease at this time. TAYLOR: So we may not build that sign if Wal-Mart is not coming. Is that a fair assumption. WALLIN: Yes. BRADY: There was also a statement made in the initial introduction to the Council that the Motel 6 business would be incorporated, could possible be incorporated in that "if they are agreeable". The implication of that is who is "they"? I believe there is only one understanding of what "they" happens to be in this case and that's Wal-Mart. BRUESCH: No. We mean if Motel 6 is agreeable, "if they so chose". BRADY: I hear what you're saying, Sir, but I respectfully disagree with you on your interpretation of the language. BRUESCH: That's what has been in our minds all along. TAYLOR: Why would Motel 6, have an existing sign, take it down and put it over on the Wal-Mart sign, and start paying us. There's no logic to that. Why would Motel 6 take their sign down? Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page # I I BRUESCH: That's why we said, "if they so agree". TAYLOR: That's not smart business. BRADY: It appears to us that first there was a question from the Council of shadiness. The answer was "No, there's nothing shady about it". The answer from the Council back was "Yes, it is". Our Association, simply by not being notified... we found about this at the very last moment. We believe that this is a foregone conclusion. I was at a City Planning Commission meeting over a month ago and I personally discussed with the commissioners at that time Wal-Mart, letting them know that we had heard it was coming in - asked the question, was it coming in? The answer was, Yes, but it's not going to be until about two years. We expressed out objection at that time and the answer from,every single person... and the answer was "It's basically a done deal". And, we let them know at that time that we were prepared for a long-term battle on this if necessary. Finally.... COUNCILMEMBER/COMMISSIONER CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I have a question for staff. Mr. Bevington's letter states that 7500 people were noticed, and I'd like to know why Mr. Brady's were not. What were the boundaries, who was supposed to be noticed and who wasn't. WALLIN: Notices were mailed to everybody within the existing redevelopment project area and in the area to be added. If the condominium association is outside the project area, they would not have been mailed notices, but you would have the public notices published in the newspaper. BRADY: The City of Rosemead, as we saw from that map runs right along Walnut Grove and it goes down to the Montebello Towncenter, which incorporates one of two major tax revenue... the first one I'd like to mention is Robinson's May, and it goes down there. There is no reason to believe that business would not be siphoned off from them. But to answer your question, as to who got noticed, no one can get any closer to this then the Walnut Grove Village Homeowners Association. Once you step off the sidewalk, you're in our... CLARK: How did Amberwood you said Amberwood did get noticed? BRADY: Amberwood got noticed. TAYLOR: In all fairness, aren't they in the boundary though of the project? When you look at that red map over there, someone can point out where Rush Street is (referring to map on easel). There's a property to the west... it's in the area, it splits. His project is not because it's next door. For whatever fluky reason thirty years ago, that project... the boundaries were drawn and as Mr. Wallin said, the State law says all properties within the project area, so I can see how one got noticed and you didn't because the line went right down between the properties. Whether it's right or wrong, I'm not saying that. But that's the way the law is. If we did it for you, and to not be derogatory, then in fairness we should send it to everybody because we can't be selective and say those people aren't interested but you are so we'll give it to you. You understand what I'm trying to say in the sense that the law says send it to everyone in the project area. BRUESCH: It's a legal catch-22. Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page # 12 BRADY: That's exactly what it is. TAYLOR: That's why they weren't sent to you BRUESCH: We will make sure that you're notified of the next meetings. It was one of those things on both sides of the timing of the public notice and notification. We tried to do it by the letter of the law and we obviously failed in both cases because many affected people were not noticed even though we were following State law, and we can't have the adjudication of this issue tonight because of State law. We're trying to dot all of our is a cross all of our t's. BRADY: Since Mr. Bevington and I are going to be representing at least four associations and several other organizations as a master consortium in opposing this, would the City Council obligate themselves to make sure that all associations affected are noticed of the next meeting and any future meetings? BRUESCH: Yes. This is the first the first time I was aware that one section didn't. I was assuming that all four associations had. been notified and I'm glad you brought this up. TAYLOR: Point of clarification. That also applies to the association on top of the hill. They did not receive it. Is that correct? BRADY: That I'm not aware of. TAYLOR: I heard somebody say they didn't and the reason for that was that red section over there is what is required by law. Those on top of hill will be notified as the Mayor said now of whatever meetings we have, your association will be informed of. BRADY: Several other things ...we have a tremendous traffic problem. Where these items were mentioned as "insignificant" in the initial study. There is a tremendous traffic problem right now from normal automobiles, normal meaning non-16 wheelers. If in the afternoon, anytime from about 2 o'clock to through about 6 or 7 o'clock at night, one could go to Walnut Grove and look in either direction from Montebello Boulevard extending all the way to the first traffic light at Carrow's and across from Senator Romero's office, traffic is backed up all the way to Montebello Boulevard. Many times it takes 10 to 15 minutes to reach the first traffic light. Coming from the opposite direction, any vehicle getting off at San Gabriel Boulevard, unless there is a major reconstruction of that intersection, and that begets the question of who is going to pay for that, a 16 wheeler mixed up with all those vehicles is just a recipe for disaster. We have, right now, and the Sheriff s Department I'm certain can attest to this, situations where we have residents, people trafficking though the area going home, going to the businesses in the area, blocking traffic simply because we have three traffic lights in succession. They can't get through them. Many times they have to wait two or three times to get through the traffic lights. They block the intersections. They pull up and go three and four cars at a time at a red light. There have been more than a few accidents there. That deals strictly with San Gabriel. If one wants to come out onto Walnut Grove, we have a major enterprise simply from Countrywide and from Southern California Edison going to work in the morning and coming home from work in the afternoon. It is like a freeway on Walnut Grove. People have great difficulty in getting out into that road. If Wal-Mart goes in there, it is undeniably going to be much more congested both by vehicles delivering goods to them and by customers going to them. I can't envision any possible way that that road Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page a1 3) will be navigable. At least three associations won't be able to use in any practical manner, whatsoever, either San Gabriel or Walnut Grove. We will essentially be entrapped within our communities. The matter of noise and pollution, Wal-Mart has a policy of keeping lights on all night, encouraging recreational vehicles to use their pay services to stay. Amberwood right across the street from them would be the most affected by that. And likewise, whenever you have vehicles with large engines, such as diesels from 16 wheelers and campers, they're going to have changing of gears and that is an extreme noise problem. You can hear that from the 60 Freeway unless you shut your windows very good. And those people aren't even going up or down the hill. They're going to have to go up a fairly steep hill and down a fairly steep hill to get to the proposed redevelopment area. Another matter that has not been brought up is the, and I don't consider it an insignificant matter, there is apparently an earthquake fault lying right through the middle of the southern portion of that area on which Wal-Mart intends to be built. The recently published maps by the Engineers of the State of California, showing solid ground, areas of possible landslides, and areas of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. That entire area is listed as liquefaction. That is a hazard, which likewise I can't imagine them being willing to mitigate. The Sheriff's Department, we believe, and our association is going to... being of contract to the City of Rosemead, because of the increased traffic, noise, pollution and the number of people visiting that area, both desirable and undesirable, we would expect and demand that there be more patrols devoted to that area. That's additional funds which I haven't heard any monies, I haven't heard any discussion that talks about...I don't know how much a Sheriffs Deputy makes, but it's not inconsiderable. So we would expect more patrols through that area. That's all I have to say for tonight. Further objections will be put in writing. I do appreciate the Council listening to me. I look forward to working with you and answering your questions as we hope that you'll be able to answer ours. I'll finish up by saying emphatically, with no questions whatsoever, that there are at least four homeowners associations who have at least 90% of the residents, we know that simply from doing petitions, we have at least 90% of them signing petitions against this. We don't want Wal-Mart. That's the simplest way to put it. I thank you very much for your time. BRUESCH: Mr. Juan Nunez. JUAN NUNEZ: Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar. Well, I can't add very much more to what the people that have spoke before me. But, I would like to ask...I believe when you started with this project, the rental property for that sign was $2200. And I believe I heard it was going up to $2500, $2700 by now. I guess it's supply and demand. Did I hear that right? TAYLOR: It did go up $300 in six months. NUNEZ: As I said before, I don't think that the City should be paying for that sign in the first place. Because if these people are coming in to do business in the City, I think they should provide their own signage and not have the City. As I said before, when a man came into the City before to do business, they either had $10 and wanted to make $100 from that $10, they set a stall someplace and start selling. If they made it, they made it. If they didn't they closed shop and moved someplace else. But now that the cities are financing businesses to come in to the City, they can name their own price. They'll just stay here for a short length of time and then close shop and move someplace else where they can get a better deal. That's all I have to say on this. Thank you. The other thing is about eminent domain. This land on the map shows it's continuous from just south of Rush. They show it all the way to where.... Cc/cdg1mtg:9-24-02 Page K 14 BRUESCH: We already said that the curb makes it contiguous even though the street itself is not in Rosemead. NUNEZ: The bill that you can add by amendments to the Redevelopment Project, is it a good law or a bad law? And the Legislators can change that even though you don't get any increments or you cannot impose any eminent domain on it. Still, I don't think that... and the Legislators can change that at any time. At anytime they can change that. Thank you. BRUESCH: I would like to open the time for any comments for any members from the Council. TAYLOR: Do we have any more requests to speak? BRUESCH: I'm going to ask... there are a lot people in opposition to the sign. There are also a few people out there, I hope, that are in favor of bringing increased commercial development to the southern part of the City. Are there any people in favor of this project? Raise your hands. We've got many. FROM AUDIENCE: In favor of what? BRUESCH: Bringing in commercial, whether it be Wal-Mart or a 99 Cent store or whatever in the area. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. That's a wrong way to have a joint public hearing to ask. And I'm not criticizing the fact... it's a wrong way to run a public hearing. For the record, for people to be on the record, you asked for those in favor and 5 people raised their hands. If you asked for a showing of hands, put it in the record, 5 people raised their hands in favor of it. Now raise the hands of those that are opposed to this. BRUESCH: Mr. Taylor, just to tell you.... TAYLOR: In all fairness you asked the question, you have to go both ways. BRUESCH: Mr. Taylor. You didn't even give me a chance to finish my sentence. I was going to do that the next syllable. But you jumped right in there and I thank you for doing that. TAYLOR: Then finish it. BRUESCH: As I was going to say, the vast majority of the people here, and we have a full house, are in opposition to this. We do have 5 members of the audience that are in favor of this. TAYLOR: And I watched 35 against, roughly. BRUESCH: Our Chamber is here and they offered support. Let me just... Chamber President please. TAYLOR: While she is coming up, you do have other lists of people that are going to speak? BRUESCH: No. that was it. Cc1edcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page x 15 MARY JO MAXWELL, ROSEMEAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Good evening, Mr. Mayor/Councilmembers acting as the Redevelopment Agency. My Chamber President is here this evening, Mr. Ernie Ayala. I am Mary Jo Maxwell, I'm the Executive Director of the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce. As you know, the Rosemead Chamber, was originally founded in 1927 to promote the growth and development in this community. United with other businesses, professionals, industry, and non-profit organizations, the Chamber creates a strength of unity necessary to achieve what no businesses can accomplish alone. A business environment will enable all businesses to earn reasonable profits while providing Rosemead residents and businesses of Rosemead with a product and services they need. The positive impact of economic development is needed for the sales tax revenues to keep this City strong, modern, successful in moving into the 21 n century. Today our Chamber is strong and working together for a better Rosemead. The Rosemead Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the Amendment to Project Development No. 1. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you. Now the time for the advertisement. I hope that everyone in the audience knows and participates in Saturday's Chamber celebration on Valley Boulevard. Those on the south end of town, you need to come up and support our businesses. They're having a Chamber Jubilee. She (Mrs. Maxwell) just happens to have a bag of goodies here. We're having a car show, a taste of Rosemead, many of the Rosemead restaurants are going to be giving a taste of their wares. We have 5-star restaurants that are situated in our community. I hope that you'll all go out and support our businesses and give them your dollars that will help them and help Rosemead. Is there anyone on the Council who wants to make a comment a this time? TAYLOR: There's one thing that's been pointed out tonight and I didn't realize it or I forgot it. But, Senator Romero's office sits right over that interchange of San Gabriel and Walnut Grove and if anybody is going to oppose it and can see day-in and day-out, it's a very legitimate person to see it. And Mr. Brady, I agree with him wholeheartedly because I've been in that intersection and you talk about animosity between drivers. I see them blocking... you cannot get through the streets. You have to wait, because they're tired of waiting so that they block the red light. BRUESCH: And if you remember, you were on the Council as long as I was, that was the configuration that CalTrans almost imposed upon us off that freeway. We worked with them on that off ramp for years, for two or three years. That was the configuration that they came up with. TAYLOR: At that time it was a reasonable solution. Now things change and it's another problem. But, I want to point out that when I said that there's a lot of...the right word is, not clear, shady, discrepancy. If you... in the Environmental Impact Report, if you open that up, Mr. Johnson do you know which... on the Traffic Study, the last sentence of all of those sections where (it states), "there might be a minor concern". It states on the last sentence, "No further discussion of this item is necessary". That is added, it's a form letter and you can find that under the noise and traffic congestion. That's the last sentence in almost each one of those paragraphs, "No further study is..." , would you read it please. JOHNSON: "Further analysis of this issue is not recommended". TAYLOR: That's it... in its entirety, please. Cc/cdgtmtg:9-24-02 Paie a 1 6 JOHNSON: "Further analysis of this issue is not recommended". TAYLOR: That's usually the last sentence of most of those statements. Further analysis of that traffic intersection has got to be done. There's no question about it. We're skirting the issue by saying we will do it and Wal-Mart has to have an environmental impact report. Is that correct? WALLIN: Yes. Understand that when you prepare an environmental impact report for a project like the Wal-Mart project, you identify... you do a traffic study, you identify the mitigation measures that are necessary and impose them as conditions of the project. The placement of the sign there doesn't create the traffic problems and there is no way to deal with the mitigation measures for them. It's consideration and approval of a project which allows you to impose conditions to take care of the problems. TAYLOR: But, it's a forerunner that's going to bring that problem to the forefront. And that's why I say, when we're telling them no further discussion at this point is necessary, but we know it's coming in six months. WALLIN: It will be discussed in connection with any Wal=Mart application. TAYLOR: I think we're going to find one of the biggest objections, and even out of the State Senator's office, you can bet that's going to be there. BRUESCH: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I just wanted to say to the audience before we close this portion of the meeting that we are listening to you, but we are also have to listen to other constituencies within the City as Mr. Bevington and Mr. Brady talked about. It's all political... all politics is local. And there are a lot of people that have looked at our City over the years and seen the tax dollars go out of it. I can give you graphs and charts that show how much money that we do lose to our more aggressive neighbors. The fact of the matter is, two of those neighbors, El Monte and San Gabriel, it would be better to show South El Monte. South El Monte is one-third our size. It accrues three times the sales tax dollars per capita than we do. Our per capita, the sales dollars..., FROM AUDIENCE: What is the property value in South El Monte? BRUESCH: I don't know that. What I am giving you are figures that we receive on a daily basis. However, one of the things that we must also look at is the fact that we are 71' out of 89 cities in the County of Los Angeles in terms of per capita tax revenue. This is another thing we have to look at. We have areas in our City that are low income and the unemployment rate is nearly 10%. So that is another constituency that we have to look at. All this has to go into our decision making. Mr. Bevington. BEVINGTON: I think the honest thing to do here is to combine this project with the real project. You brought it out tonight. These signs are there at the request and instruction of Wal-Mart. The signs are going to include directions and an invitation to come off of here and go to Wal-Mart. Now why doesn't the City do the honest thing. Drop this idea, bring back a report on the whole Wal-Mart project and let us see honestly what is going to be done. This splitting of these two, into an innocuous things on some signs which are admitted by this whole Council, are the end of negotiations to come here. It was very dishonest to split that project off and see if you could sneak it past the people... cc/cdcjntg:9-24-02 Pages 17 BRUESCH: I resent that, Mr. Bevington. BEVINGTON: I assumed you were when I started my statement BRUESCH: You're accusing this Council of trying to sneak something past the constituency. We have never done that. BEVINGTON: Why doesn't this impact thing honestly approach... say that this sign is being built by the City for Wal-Mart, say that the traffic is going to be there and it's going to be Wal-Mart. This whole study you have at this moment is so full of challenges that the City is going to be kidding themselves if they go ahead with it this time. We have already organized. We're already setting up a war fund, we call it. And, if this thing goes ahead, we will challenge it in Court or wherever is necessary. Thank you. BRADY: Councilmembers. I'd like to address one other issue which the Mayor brought up about tax dollars. Again, I'd like to reiterate my qualifications to speak about tax dollars. I'm a tax compliance specialist with the State Board of Equalization. The State Board of Equalization administers all the taxing programs within the State of California except for the personal income tax. The major thing we do and the' major thing which I deal with is non-compliance with the sales and use tax laws of the State of California, which means that we deal with the sales tax as collected by businesses and remitted to the State. I % of those monies comeback to the cities. There is no city of South San Gabriel. It is not an incorporated city. So, to compare the City of Rosemead with an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County is not a fair comparison. The City of San Gabriel.... BRUESCH: I said South San Gabriel? I meant South El Monte. FROM THE AUDIENCE AND COUNCIL: He did say South El Monte BRADY: You said South San Gabriel, sir. FROM THE AUDIENCE: No, he said South El Monte. BRUESCH: I did say South El Monte, not South San Gabriel. BRADY: I beg to differ with you, sir. FROM THE AUDIENCE AGAIN: He said South El Monte. BRUESCH: I read it right here. I said South El Monte. TAYLOR: He made a reference to San Gabriel and then jumped to South El Monte of the tax that he was referring to. BRUESCH: The gentlemen over there asked what is the property value in South El Monte. caedejmng:9-24-02 Page # 18 BRADY: I remember that question. BRUESCH: I am fully aware that South San Gabriel is not a city. In fact there have been several attempts to have it annexed to various cities surrounding it, but they've resisted it. BRADY: One of the things which every city, as you correctly mentioned, tries to do is to try and get a big box operation going which rightly generates a lot of tax dollars. Wal-Mart being the "biggest big box" in the county, naturally will generate a lot of sales tax dollars. However, we have a brand new Target in this City which is also generating considerably more money than we had coming in from the now defunct Montgomery Wards. Over in Montebello Town Center we are going to have sales tax monies being drawn from those locations going into Wal-Mart. So the entire amount of money which Wal-Mart has been advertising, which I heard is in the neighborhood of $600,000 a year, those projections for a location that is mot immediate adjacent to a freeway, as almost all of Wal-Mart locations are, without having to spend an additional $250,000 to advertise where they are... it's not going to happen. What other reason would any one have to go down to that location except to go to a Wal-Mart. Around there.... BRUESCH: With your expertise then, you could allude to the fact that Toys R Us was lured away from our area, and Laidlaw's Harley Davidson who was lured away from our area by other cities, wouldn't that account to a tax loss? BRADY: We lost the Toys R Us, most certainly. Absolutely. BRUESCH: Toys R Us was $400,000 and Laidlaw's was nearly $200,000. BRADY- You were receiving that much money each year? CROWE: It was approximately $200,000. BRADY: I would agree with Mr. Bevington that the City is interested in making money. I think everyone in the City of Rosemead recognizes that the City does need more money. The location is about the most absurd, as far as generating business that I can envisage. It's a residential area, you have a school right across the street. There was a Bank of America just across the street, it's no longer there. That is not an area there is any business. BRUESCH: Where would you suggest a location. BRADY: Somewhere immediately adjacent to some freeway. I'm not an expert in City planning as to where that might happen. But, the City of Rosemead, especially along the 10 Freeway, certainly not along the 60, but along the 10, has considerable acreage. Whether, it would have to be eminent domain here or not, I don't know. If the City wants to have an operation like that, that would be my suggestion. BRUESCH: That's low-income housing. You advocate us using eminent domain for low-income housing? BRADY: As I said, I'm not an expert in city planning, but almost any location other than the one which is proposed. Cdcdcji tg:9-24-02 - Page #19 BRUESCH: Would you like to meet with me with a City map and point out some of these areas where we could put a commercial venture that might make up for the loss of the three or four large businesses. BRADY: You have a tremendous number of commercial developments along the south portion of the 10 Freeway if you take Rosemead Boulevard and go up to Valley, or you go to the 10 freeway right along Flair Drive, and that whole area in there... BRUESCH: That's not in Rosemead. That is in El Monte. BRADY: I'm absolutely positive that there are areas within in Rosemead. Yes, I'd be happy to meet with the City Council should you so desire to point out better areas where it could be. I don't have to find one. But, nevertheless, all of this money which is supposed to be coming in, I think you only need to look at the offset, and there are definite offsets. Thank you very much. BRUESCH: I'd like to call a recess at this time unless we have one more person. HELEN GUNTHER: Helen Gunther, 3654 Dubonnet, Rosemead. 'I think that I have lived in this City, in this area, longer than half of this audience back here. And, I would like to know why we people north have nothing to say what comes into our City. Everybody I talked to is wanting Wal-Mart in here. I have talked to more people in here than probably all of you have together and I think 7000 people is a small amount for Rosemead, and I know for a positive fact that this area over here on Flair Drive belongs in the City of El Monte. All of it, because I have lived here this long. And another thing I'd like to know. What are they going to do about the earthquake fault? Move it? Los Angeles County is in an earthquake fault from the mountains to the ocean. I happen to know that because I lived through the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. BRUESCH: Amberwood the condo association, you are directly over that fault also. GUNTHER: That is absolutely right. Traffic throughout our City is horrendous on all streets. They have to get out and look around and see what other people think besides themselves. I'm putting my hands, and always have, put my hands in the City Council's hand because I have seen nothing they have done wrong. Thank each and every one of you. END OF VERBATIM MINUTES. The Mayor called for a 5-minute recess and the meeting was reconvened accordingly at 9:35 p.m. IL ADJOURN ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room. There being no further comments, at 9:35 p.m., the joint Public Hearing was continued to October 8, 2002 at 8:00 p.m., and the regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council commenced. Cc/cdcjtr tg:9-24-02 Page #20 Respectfully submitted: City Clerk Commission S retary Cc/cdcjtmtg:9-24-02 Page #21 APPROVED: CAPITOL OFFICE STATE CAPITOL .ROOM 4062 SACRAMENTO. CA 95614 I Y I C # ~ # (916) 445 1418 ~ ~ ~ E ~ E 19161 445-0485 FAX DISTRICT OFFICE 1000 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD SENATOR SUITE 201 ROSEMEAD. C A 91 770~4351 GLORIA ROMERO 16261 312-28W 1626,312-2801 PAX TWENTY-FOURTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT ~ t 1 F ;1 * September 24, 2002 = The Honorable Bob Bruesch, Mayor Citv of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead. CA 91770 Dear Mayor Bruesch. COMMITTEES HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES HOUSING & COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIRMENT RULES TRANSPORTATION Because I am not here, I am requesting my Field Representative Henry Lo to read a statement on my behalf. Unfortunately, I am in New Mexico participating in a hearing by the California Select Committee on the Oversight of the University of California's Laboratories. Otherwise, I would be before you in person. I am writing this letter to the Rosemead City Council and the Redevelopment Agency to express my opposition to a proposal to extend the redevelopment area along Walnut Grove to the edge of the 60 Freeway. This proposal, purportedly intended to benefit the redevelopment area by the placement of signage that would face the freeway, would in reality only serve to benefit the planned development of a commercial project that is to include a Walmart Store. On behalf of constituents in and around the Walnut Grove area, I strenuously object to this. If approved, I will view this as a blatantly naked action by local officials to circumvent existing state laws that regulate the placement of signage and billboards. This action will seize a loophole in the law, which gives exemptions to the placement of signage in redevelopment areas that are contiguous to freeways. Earlier this year, I had a brief conversation with your lobbyist in Sacramento who raised with me the possibility of carrying freeway signage legislation. When I asked what type of business this sign benefits. your lobbyist replied it would assist a proposed Walmart. I responded that I wan not interested in assisting the City of Rosemead circumvent the law. It is my position that redevelopment funds should go towards improving the economic infrastructure in a community and should not be used to subsidize one corporation. Finally, I am opposed to bringing a Walmart to the City of Rosemead. The fact is for every Walmart store that opens, jobs are lost to the community, the tax base shrinks, the number of workers with healthcare benefit declines, and the number of workers eligible for welfare increases. I thank the City Council and Community Redevelopment Commission for hearing my comments and look forward to working with you on sound economic development for the City of Rosemead. Should you have any questions, you may contact me at (626) 312-2800. Sincerely, DR. GLORIA ROMERO State Senator. 24ih District GR: hl