Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves $884,006 commitment for 97‑foot pylon sign after contested public hearing
Summary
After a contested public hearing, South El Monte’s City Council adopted Resolution No. 26‑025 authorizing up to $884,006 in city funding for a 97‑foot pylon sign at Santa Anita Avenue; opponents raised fiscal and conflict‑of‑interest concerns and asked for postponement.
The South El Monte City Council on April 7 approved Resolution No. 26‑025 authorizing city funding toward a proposed 97‑foot pylon sign near State Route 60 at 1127–1223 Santa Anita Avenue, with a vote of 3‑2.
City staff said the project owner (the Santa Anita group) would contribute $250,000 and the city would provide the balance under a memorandum of understanding that secures city branding on the structure. In the staff presentation, the Economic Development Director described the selected design and said, "It is exactly 97 feet just to be technical on Santa Anita Avenue," noting minor changes to reduce cost and vandalism exposure. The staff recommendation asked the council to authorize funding not to exceed $884,006 and to approve the MOU and payment conditions.
Public commenters contested the financing and potential political ties. John Ventura, a resident who spoke during the public hearing, said, "Again, the city should not be paying for this pylon," and questioned whether the city would recover its investment quickly. Another speaker raised donations from the property owner to local political committees and urged recusal, saying it "smell[s] like what's on the bottom of my shoe." Industrial Properties' representative said the proposed agreement was still in draft and predicted the city would recoup its investment within five years.
Council discussion weighed the potential economic development and the risk of delaying a long‑vacant property against concerns from residents and business advocates who urged spending for small businesses instead. One councilmember argued the In‑N‑Out development would not proceed without timely city action and that delays risked losing the investment; another asked for more time to review the draft MOU and supporting exhibits. After further discussion, a motion to adopt the resolution passed 3‑2.
Council and staff said the MOU and exhibit schedules would be finalized with the city attorney and risk‑management review before execution; the council also noted that a draft MOU had been provided to the clerk and was available for review. The council did not publish a detailed reimbursement schedule in the hearing but staff said the agreement includes provisions for tenant signage revenue sharing to offset city costs.
Next steps: the city manager was authorized to negotiate and execute final documents in accordance with the resolution; staff indicated the legal language and performance exhibits would be finalized with the property owner’s counsel and returned to the clerk’s office.
