Conflicts of Interest and Noticing Issues - 11-14-2020

I've debated posting this e-mail chain, but I think it's important to get this information out there. I'm sure Carlee didn't realize there was a conflict of interest, but I do believe one exists. Things move on regardless and I have received no updates since this e-mail exchange on November 3rd. The noticing issue discussed was corrected by the City, but NO ONE responded back to me to let me know it had been corrected and there was a new date. Instead, City officials are in the local newspaper portrayed as noble and "wanting to do things right" when if the issue hadn't been brought up, things would be progressing in violation of the Unified Development Code. Why doesn't the City follow the book? It's their book. They wrote it! It's a pretty good book... They should know what's in THEIR book. Why can't I get an e-mail or call back to tell me when a concern has been addressed?

-----------------

On Nov 3, 2020, at 7:22 AM, Samuel Richmond <samuel.o.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:

Good morning,

I attended the meeting held in Oak Ridge last night in which Councilman Andrews attended. I mentioned an issue I had with the rezoning noticing that needs to be addressed. On page 2-9 of the UDC in section C-2-b it is stated that notice of the proposed amendment and of the proposed place and time of the hearing shall be published at least three time in the official journal and at least 10 days shall elapse between the first publication and the date of the hearing. After the sign issue was addressed and the rezoning request had to start over in Planning & Zoning, the first date an advertisement could have been, and was made, was October 27, 2020. There is no way to have 10 days lapse between the 27th and the scheduled date of the Planning and Zoning meeting on November 5th. This issue needs to be removed from the November 5th agenda, and noticed properly to be on the next scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in December.

I will also note that it is also required by the UDC and by the State of Louisiana open meeting laws to publish a schedule of public meetings and I have been unable to locate a schedule of such for the Planning & Zoning Commission. The UDC also states that a schedule of application deadline dates is to be published each calendar year and I am also unable to find that schedule. I know in the past these were put on the City's for ease of access by all, but are currently not there.

The second issue that I brought up was a recent revelation that was made while I was researching property owners and interests around the airport. I discovered that there is a parcel or property at the corner of Vinyard and Morris Road with a large orange building on it. 46608 Morris Road is the address, and the parcel number is 4670906. This parcel was recently acquired by BIG ORANGE BUILDING LLC of which Frederic Gonzales, Carlee White Gonzales's husband, and another individual are the members according to the LA Secretary of State's website. After further investigation, I discovered another entity by the name of FLYBY DAIQUIRI & PACKAGE LIQUOR LLC showing the same domicile address and members. Investigation of the Tangipahoa Parish Clerk's conveyances shows the transfer of ownership took place on October 9, 2020. In light of this, please note that LA RS 42:1112 which covers the LA Code of Governmental Ethics states that no public servant may take part in a transaction that may result in an economic gain to the public servant, or any member of their immediate family. Furthermore, it states that an elected official must disclose the conflict before deliberations on the topic and the elected official must recuse themselves in any vote. I feel that a business owned by Councilwoman Gonzales's husband, especially one selling alcoholic beverages and packaged liquor, would benefit greatly with placement one of the two thoroughfares leading to a potentially large development being proposed if the rezoning goes through. One could also argue that the purchase of this location and pursuit of opening a business there was guided by information garnered through a position as an elected official before the general public would know about it. Mrs. Gonzales must recuse herself from voting on this issue. I have attached a summary document of the LA Governmental Code of Ethics for your review.

Sincerely,
Sammy Richmond
(985) 351-1840

-----------------

On Nov 3, 2020, at 9:23 AM, Samuel Richmond <samuel.o.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:

As a follow up about my last remark in this email. Please pay attention to my wording where I say “one could argue”. I have no reason to believe that the establishment of a business by Ryan Gonzales and his partner at 46608 Morris Road was done with any information of the Medline development. “One” in this case could be anyone in the general public. I bring it up because others surely will. Please do not take anything in my email as an attempt to drag anyone through the mud. It is simply a request that attention be paid to following Louisiana statutes regarding governmental ethics. I hope this clarifies my stance on the subject, however I still very strongly Carlee should recuse herself from voting on the rezoning.

-Sammy

-----------------

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:35 PM Carlee Gonzales <gonzales_cw@hammond.org> wrote:

I wanted to respond to the 2nd point.

My husband signed a purchase agreement for that property on August 6th. It was accepted by the sellers on August 10th. That PA provided for a closing date of Oct. 9th. Said date was, in fact, the closing date for the purchase of the property by Big Orange Building, LLC, which is a LA LLC. My husband has an ownership interest in that LLC.

On August 11, 2020 I filed Big Orange Building, LLC with the LA Secretary of State and it was accepted on August 12th. I obtained the EIN for Big Orange Building, LLC on August 12, 2020.

On August 14, 2020 I filed Fly By Daiquiri & Package Liquor, LLC with the LA Secretary of State and it was accepted on August 14th. I obtained the EIN for that business on August 14, 2020. My husband is a part owner of this business as well.

On September 2, 2020 I learned about Medline looking at Hammond after St. Tammany Parish fell through. This information had nothing to do with the building purchase or the business planned by my husband and his business partner.

It does not appear that I have time to receive a formal opinion of the ethics board. I intend to call tomorrow to seek any informal guidance or direction to other similar issues. Further, I'll research it myself. At this time and until I'm told otherwise, I don't agree that there is a conflict which would require me to recuse myself from the vote on this matter.

Carlee

Carlee White Gonzales
City Council Representative - District 2
OFFICE: 985-277-5610
EMAIL: gonzales_cw@hammond.org

-----------------

On Nov 3, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Samuel Richmond <samuel.o.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:

Carlee,

I will not refute anything in your response, and don't wish to venture into any deliberation about dates of your husband's actions or prior knowledge of the Medline development. I'm not claiming any impropriety with your husband's business dealings and your position on the Council. I will stand by my demand for you to recuse yourself on any amendment or item brought to the Hammond City Council for a vote that would grant his business an additional economic gain through the increased traffic generated as a direct result of a large development like this one or any other whether it be residential, commercial, industrial or institutional in nature. I see that the Board of Ethics has a provision to seek an "emergency opinion" in cases where the need of their opinion may be time sensitive. Seeing as the schedule for this item reaching the Hammond City Council puts it before the Board of Ethics would be able to present an opinion based on their published submission deadline of 9/24/2020 for their November 5, 2020 meeting and 10/22/2020 for their December 3, 2020 meeting, I would request that you please ask them to invoke their "emergency opinion" course of action. I would also request that you follow up with all of us attached to this e-mail with updates on your request as you learn of them yourself all the way through receiving an opinion from the Board of Ethics.

To everyone else attached to this e-mail,
I would still like a comment or response about what is going to be done regarding the noticing issue that I have raised.

Sincerely,
Sammy Richmond

-----------------

On Nov 4, 2020, at 9:04 AM, Kip Andrews <andrews_kd@hammond.org> wrote:

Andre, please advise on the rezoning noticing in the email below.

Links:

Summary of the Louisiana Ethics Code (Louisiana Board of Ethics)

A Contradictory "Master Plan" - 11-10-2020

Much attention is being brought to the impacts to things like drainage, traffic, noise, light pollution, etc. with the proposed Medline development and associated rezoning. One thing that has been brought up, but not directly addressed by any of our local elected officials is the contradiction taking place between the City of Hammond officials and the City of Hammond's Master Plan. The Master Plan was created and approved in 2011 to guide the future growth of Hammond and aid in the creation of the Unified Development Code that was enacted in 2014. Our appointed Planning and Zoning Commissioners as well our elected officials in favor of the rezoning seem to keep reiterating that "The master plan says the proposed property is supposed to be for industrial use."

I'm here to tell you that this statement couldn't be further from the truth.

I've selected some pages from the City's Master plan, attached at the bottom of this post, to illustrate my point. For full transparency, I'll also include a link to the entire Master Plan.

A Future Land Use map is included to guide city planning officials to how land should be developed in the future. The City of Hammond's plan was developed with a ton of community input through several work sessions where the public was invited to share their input about how they wanted to see their City develop. The Master Plan was created with this input along with other standards and techniques utilized by planning experts and approved by the City Council.

The image FLUM01 (page 2.18 of the master plan) describes that the Future Land Use Map was based on the City's Zoning Map in 2009 and essentially is the new basis for landowner expectations. I'm a relatively new landowner in the Oak Ridge neighborhood, but this map is something I consulted before I purchased my property to verify what potential developments could come to the vacant parcels close by. It's common sense that someone would want to protect their investment from things that would negatively affect their property values, and this Master Plan is supposed to give landowners necessary information to aid in these decisions.

The image FLUM02 (page 2.19 of the master plan) shows the Master Plan's "Future Land Use Map". This page pretty much speaks for itself. You can see the proposed Medline site that Roundtable Investments is attempting to rezone is shown as "Low Density Residential" for its future land use designation.

The image FLUM03 (page 2.22 of the master plan) shows policies created to guide land use going forward. The highlighted policies back up argument that changing the zoning of an area to one that is incompatible with the surrounding should not take plan. It also creates a policy that says areas not zoned to comply with the Future Land Use Map should be rezoned. Policy 2.5.5 ties it all up with a bow by simply stating that the Future Land Use Map should be used to guide land use, development and infrastructure decisions.

This is all FACT and public record. Why are those that are supposed to be enforcing the Master Plan at the very least ignoring it and in some cases stating the exact opposite of what it says? Why isn't anyone correcting the false claim Medline is making in their announcements to the press, the community, and in their marketing on their own website they created for the project?

City of Hammond, LA Comprehensive Master Plan: http://www.hammond.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/masterplan.pdf

Images:

FLUM01

Letter to the Hammond City Council - 10-20-2020

Dear Council,

With respect for your valuable time, please accept this e-mail as our formal opposition to the proposed Medline distribution center. I (Sammy) spent almost 12 years working for the City and have attended many council meetings. I know how long and drawn out they can get with everyone standing up to argue the same points over and over again. We figured an e-mail was a better way of making our points known without consuming valuable time at your meeting. We were unfortunately unable to attend the informational meeting due to prior engagements.

Any development in Hammond and Tangipahoa Parish is a great thing. You all know that a strong local economy is necessary for our area to remain great and get better. Any business that wants to bring jobs here should be welcome, BUT we should not push aside our way of life or devalue the things we have worked hard for or that we enjoy for a single enterprise. It would be great to have Medline here, but just like they seek the help of groups like Louisiana Economic Development, local government, and our tax dollars by way of grants, they should also show that they want to be good members of our community by finding a location that will suit their needs, not negatively impact drainage, traffic, public infrastructure, or especially residential areas that have been in place for decades and that are at this time desirable places to live. Let us not sell ourselves short.

Please review the image file attached to this e-mail and allow me to explain its significance. The image named "LANDUSE" is a view of the Hammond Airport and surrounding areas, both inside and outside the city limits. The blue lines are tax parcel boundaries I downloaded from the Tangipahoa Parish GIS system and overlaid onto the map in my own GIS software. I analyzed the parcels surrounding the borders of the airport and shaded the ones with residential development green so that they would stand out. The shapes filled with blue are properties owned by the City of Hammond. Everything else is either undeveloped, commercial, or industrial in use. I also added a rectangle (hot pink) onto the proposed site. This representation of the proposed warehouse is to scale and it represents an area of 600,000 square feet. Finally, I dropped some placeholders over some other notable points of interest due to their size; Intralox off of Hwy 190 East and Entergy's warehouse, bill processing, and supply yard on Pride Drive. I would have liked to review the City's zoning information, but the online GIS map on the City's website has been down and unusable for over a week now, at least.

After viewing the image, I would like to argue that the entire northeast corner bordering the airport and extending south down the airport's east side is almost entirely developed by residential properties as evidenced by the green shading on the image. There are many arguments being made such as "It's called Industrial Park Road... of course you would put industrial development there". Some would also say "No one has said anything about Industrial development next to these neighborhoods before." These arguments and those like it are simply false logic. I don't know the exact reason the road was named Industrial Park Road, but I presume it was to help lead trucks to the small industrial park to the north of the Airport and the two small operations where Relogistics and Targa are presently in the days before GPSs existed by using a name that was descriptive of where the trucks needed to go. Also, the industrial park on Conrad Anderson Drive was developed when the property it is on was outside of the City Limits and was only annexed into the City in 2002 (Ord. 02-2896 C.S.). As everyone knows, the Parish has no zoning regulations so it was super easy to put an industrial development that close to existing residential areas due to the lack of regulations. Luckily, it is small and creates very little noise and extra traffic. Regardless, the properties along Vinyard Road and to the east of the drainage canal that runs along Industrial Park Road are clearly residential land use barring the golf course which could be considered "green space". It would make sense to keep the property in question as a residential zone of one type or another for the foreseeable future and to urge low density residential development on it. Should this rezoning be allowed, the effects on my property and its value and hundreds of others in this area will be devastating.

Also, please consider that the proposed distribution center will be larger than the Mercedes-Benz Superdome when viewed from above. See attached image named "SUPERDOME". The Superdome's roof (the round white part) is approximately 440,000 square feet. What is being proposed is as ludicrous as putting a building the size of the Superdome into a residential neighborhood. The effects on the surrounding drainage will be devastating. This includes the Hammond Airport which I know has had drainage issues before if not currently, and the City will likely need to appropriate more to drainage improvements there if the proposed development comes to fruition. It was also argued that a housing development would cause some of the same issues as a warehouse, and it could. However, it is at the City's discretion to allow a 300 home subdivision, which we would be opposed to, or a 40-60 home subdivision, which would be more reasonable for the area, just like it is at your discretion to vote against the rezoning.

My last and most critical argument involves the City's Comprehensive Master Plan. I vividly remember seeing this document take shape through its approval in 2011. When I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding the current rezoning issue, one of the alleged facts that was repeated was that the Master Plan said to limit residential growth around the Airport and also that they had to follow the plan. The master plan does in fact state that residential growth should be limited around the Airport in the summary area at the beginning of the Land Use section and the same paragraph appears again in the Housing section, but there is no in-depth discussion at all about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for that area of the city. Those paragraphs by themselves do not reflect the entirety of the plan. The majority of the document focuses mostly on downtown, major commercial thoroughfares, older residential areas like Hyper-Cate and the Iowa Addition, and basic infrastructure throughout the City. Reading the document in its entirety reveals a totally different impression about what is recommended for the property to be rezoned and accepted by the City Council at the time as well. Notably, on page 2.19 of the Master Plan there is a Future Land Use Map which very clearly illustrates the proposed industrial site property should actually be utilized as "Low Density Residential". This is contradictory to the text from the Master Plan that is being continually recirculated by those in favor of the project and approving the rezoning. Further, if you look on page 6.8 there is a topographical map showing the elevation disparity of the areas to the east and the south of the development. These areas already have issues with flooding and covering 40 acres with concrete or other hard substrates is going to further tax the ability of the lower lands around it to properly drain. Page 7.3 also contains a map that supports the attached "LANDUSE" image that I created as well. Please don't make the same mistake the Planning and Zoning Commission has made by glossing over this additional information that is also a part of the Master Plan. I am sure the original intention of the plan was to limit FURTHER ZONING of property to residential, not zoning on property that was already in place, and arguably already planned as a residential development that has since grown stagnant. Should residential zoning be limited on the remaining property to the north, west, or south sides of the Airport that isn't in a majority residential area? Absolutely! Those areas are already largely undeveloped, commercial, or industrial anyway. The plan is cautioning against things like putting a 500 house development on the Dameron Estate property (perfect site for Medline, by the way) off of Airport Road, not building low density residential right next to existing low density residential. Consider this... There is a reason the proposed loop road to connect University Avenue to Airport Road is to get there by way of Pride Drive and NOT Vinyard Road. It's because the majority of industrial development around the airport is going to be on undeveloped land to the south along Airport Road and the existing large warehouses with the most traffic are already on the west side of the Airport on Pride Drive. Pride Drive also has a nice red light at the intersection which Industrial Park Road does not have and doesn't seem like it is ever going to get.

There are other great sites in the area. See attached image "TEDF". These are just a small snapshot of what is listed on the Tangipahoa Economic Development Foundation's website. Certainly one of these more suitable sites can be fast tracked with the help of the State, Parish and City to meet the needs of Medline.

There are other great points that can be made, but I will leave those for others to make. I know this is a big decision for all of you. There are hundreds of people anxiously hoping that this rezoning is not allowed. Please do what is right for those of us that have chosen this area of Hammond to call home. If there is more I can do to help you arrive at your decision, please feel free to call anytime to discuss further. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service.