Loading...
CC - 08-24-93y 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 24, 1993 APPROVED CITY OF ROSEI%IEAD DATE RY c -P The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Bruesch at 8:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez. The Invocation was delivered by City Treasurer Foutz. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez, and Mayor Bruesch Absent: Councilmember McDonald - Excused Mayor Bruesch noted that Councilmember McDonald was in Iowa as a part of the Red Cross effort to aid flood victims in the midwest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 27, 1993 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 1993, be approved as clarified. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said.motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 10, 1993 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 10, 1993, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: Bruesch The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Bruesch stated that he had abstained his vote because he had not been present at the meeting of August 10, 1993. PRESENTATIONS: A Resolution was presented by the City Council to Rafael Castro in recognition of his pursuit of academic excellence and personal achievement. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. The City Clerk then administered the oath to all those persons wishing to address the Council on any public hearing item. A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM EARL SCHEIB OF CALIFORNIA, INC. TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO PAINTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE MINIMUM 200-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL USE AT 4013 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD. CC 8-24-93 Page #1 Planning Director Peter Lyons presented the staff report with the recommendation to grant this appeal subject to certain conditions. The Mayor opened the public hearing. VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: BRUESCH: At this time I would like to call on the appellants to have their first speaker come and then we will call in order those people who are in favor, then we will close that part of the hearing and then we will call on all those who are against the appeal. So, will the appellant come forward? ...State your name and address for the record. RIGINIT: My name is Mal Riginit, I'm with Earl Scheib Inc. but I think before I speak Vera Maude, the property owner, has requested to speak. MAUDE: Mr. Mayor, members of Rosemead City Council. My name is Vera Maude, M-A-U-D-E. I reside at 9146 E. DeAdalena Street, Rosemead. I am the owner of property located at 4013 Temple City Boulevard, Rosemead. About 40 years my late husband started his business at 9639 E. Valley Boulevard. This property was zoned M-1, a requirement for his particular business at that time. Over the years we watched the scene change drastically into what was to become the City of Rosemead. Through the years owners of homes in the surrounding area moved out for different reasons such as buying a home, transfer of jobs, etc. As these properties became available we were able to buy them, piece by piece. We were aware that the houses were non-conforming for the area. However, we were not into buying residential property. Our plan then, and still is, to remove these non-conforming houses and develop this to its zoning use, light manufacturing. However, the wheels of progress move very slowly at times with the down economy and the strict standards set by environmentalists. Some rebuttal, without malice, to the previous Planning Commission meeting. The ordinance passed requiring a certain setback from residences - was this given to those most vocal or was any consideration given to density of houses or zoning? I know a City has its powers and these are needed but what the use of the citizens' land? Questions asked several times about the 100% BOC - it is my understanding these requirements are set by AQMD. How much of these impurities do we get from the cars and buses in our daily living? How can a person who lives at least two miles from the site in question, who seemed instrumental in getting such an ordinance passed, get only two persons to speak in his favor? And they are at least 300-400 feet away. No one within the 200-foot radius was interested enough to even be at the hearing. I'm sure they were notified. From the letter read stating to so many ambulance calls to the trailer park, were many of these problems perhaps just the normal aging process and not from the paint fumes? As to the influence of the Maude family - no, we are not seeking preferential treatment, just some clarification. It is my understanding the requirements of this particular business has been met for the L.A. County Fire Department and the AQMD, along with some heavy revenue put into the project under the premise that a permit would be obtainable. Coming away from the Planning Commission meeting left me with the feeling that they came to the meeting with a closed mind and were just going through the formalities. I hope you will review this with an open mind. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you, Mrs. Maude. We have... ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: See if he... BRUESCH: Yeah. Would you like to come back up and mention...I have quite a few Requests to Speak but they don't say whether they're for or against and after this gentleman finishes what I'm going to do is make two stacks, those for and those against. And I'll go with fors first then proceed with the against. Okay? Please proceed. RIGINIT: Okay. My name is Mal Riginit, spelled R-I-G-I-N-I-T. My address is 473 Gilwood Avenue, in the City of La Puente. I'm a Division Manager in Los Angeles County for Earl Scheib Auto Painting. CC 8-24-93 Page #2 0 0 RIGINIT CONTINUES: As Vera said we come to the meeting, City Council meeting, this evening on appeal from the Planning Commission's vote not to let us conduct business in the City of Rosemead. We're talking about a considerable amount of money here and I know there's a lot of emotion that occurred on the Planning commission but just at point in time we have something close to $12,000 already directly out in blueprints and the proposed lease between Mrs. Maude and the Earl Scheib company over the term of the lease is going to run considerably over half a million dollars, so we come here on a business this evening and we hope that the City Council and everyone could focus strictly on the issues. I think in going over the minutes of the Planning commission meeting I would have to agree with Vera that as we walked out of there we did not feel we had a chance; as we came in everyone had their mind made up. I know from Mr. Denton's long prepared statement that it didn't matter what I said because I spoke first and in reading his prepared statement, it was just like it fell on deaf ears so I appear back here again this evening particularly to counter his arguments that Earl Scheib is not a reputable company, that we're not to be trusted, and I think this is fortunately in the minutes which were entered verbatim at Mr. Ortiz's request on July the 6th. If I might for a second on the minutes from the July 6th meeting, on some testimony from... on Page 4 we said we're going to only have one spray booth and yet according to Mr. Denton we're not to be trusted, we're going to do a large volume of business and we're going to have more than one spray booth. Rosemead, I quote from Mr. Denton, already has a large number of spray booths serving our community. To my knowledge no other spray booth business has been granted variances, etc., cancer causing agents, this despite our having approval from Air Quality Management District and I have a gentleman here who's an air pollution control expert who will testify on any questions that might be forthcoming from the City Council in this respect. We are not a dangerous business, we are not an irresponsible business, we have never done business in the City of Rosemead before so in order just to promise or to speak how we're .going to conduct ourselves I would like to through a small photo brochure here and I think each of the City Councilmembers have one and if you bear with me I'll just go through this and indicate some of the locations we have been in Los Angeles and for how long. On the first page is a picture of our location in Covina, 1656 Covina Road. We've been there since 1965, almost 30 years. The location is attractive, signs are well maintained, some landscaping. Our Covina landlord is Mr. John Ferraro, a member of the L.A. City Council and I have a letter in support that he sent me indicating we are good tenants. We've at this location a long time. On the next page is our new construction which just opened in March in Hollywood. As you can tell from the appearance of the building, it's a brand new structure, very pleasing, not a lot of over-signage, glass blocks, ornamental iron, landscaping,. As we go in these locations on leases even with existing buildings... we've at this location since 1967, that's a long time. The next page over ...this is our location in Whittier. Standard signage, attractive, not run down, we've been there since 1975. And if you look at the attachments, for example in Whittier, just on June 16th, recently, we just spent $400 to paint signs. On the page right next to it is the location up in Van Nuys... we've been there a long, long time also, like almost 30 years. our landlord in Van Nuys is Galpin Ford. So, as I go through these the length of time we've been at the locations along with the pictures showing how we keep our property and the type of people we rent from certainly would counter the opposition's characterization of the company as being somebody irresponsible that doesn't know what they're doing. We've been in the business a long time and we operate above board. The next page, says Lincoln Boulevard, this is the Santa Monica location. Also in this arrangement here with the Seavers trust family, we're in partnerships with many of our landlords. He was going to foot the demolition costs and we're going to foot the parking costs, painting and everything. So, as we come into these locations, no matter which city, including Rosemead, we just don't come in to take something from the community and give nothing back. Practically from day one we're entering in with our landlords on agreements just like in Rosemead. Vera and the company have agreed and beyond the costs we've already put expended something like $35,000-40,000, shared costs. We do this in CC 8-24-93 Page #3 RIGINIT CONTINUES: practically all the locations we come into because we don't like to operate in the locations that do not look good. The next location is one we're getting ready to open in the City of Reseda... it was in terrible condition when we located, a previous auto body shop had been there ...we went to the City of Los Angeles and they said normally we weren't going to let anybody in there anymore but since it's you guys, if you do this, we'll let you in but when they told us what we had to do we almost had to shake our heads... $45,000 in improvements and landscaping, pavement repair, trees on City parkways, even repairing the curb. This property was very run down. And on this particular property you can see in the middle picture you can see condominiums just across the alley, probably less than 56 feet away and yet because of our operation or AQMD approval we got conditional use and no problem. I think we've got $44,000 in expenses just going through the permit process, the owner and Earl Scheib are going to split this as it stands to this point, $32,000. As it escalates up probably closer to $45,000, it's about a 50-50 split. So, once again I reiterate, we come into the communities, we give something back to the communities,. we invest in the communities. BRUESCH: Mr. Riginit. Point of information. In this picture of the Reseda project, the corner shot. Where is your spray booth located? RIGINIT: Our spray booth in this case is outside. BRUESCH: Outside? What side of the picture? RIGINIT: okay, on the top picture, see where it say auto body? The yellow sign? If you look just directly in back of that, it's right there. It's about in the center of the property. This was an existing spray booth but AQMD approved. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to ask if you've had any complaints from the residents of the condominiums? RIGINIT: No, we haven't because when we appeared at the conditional use hearing City of Los Angeles which normally is held downtown which is very difficult it wasn't. It was held up there in the Valley I think on VanOwen. Not one single person came to complain from across there. In fact, from I believe Darryl Fisher who is the zoning administrator, I think he indicated that they were kind of glad to see us coming in there because we're reputable because a body shop like was here before just got out of hand. So nobody appeared. CLARK: Was there already a paint spray booth there? Were they operating one? RIGINIT: There was one but it had been vacant for about four months. The property belongs to the Planer trust family in Arizona but Dr. Planer's sister used to be a long-time resident of Reseda and it's very difficult working with a property because the condition it was in... if you see the painting that's on the Earl Scheib markings it's on the buildings already. When we took over this property.and got access to it it was terrible, graffiti all over the thing. So, we immediately painted all the buildings white, even as we were going through conditional use process. We had no assurances we were going to get it and yet our own money in advance we painted all this. A good amount of this is chain-link fence, all that's coming down, ornamental wrought iron is going up, ivy being planted all over the place. It was one of the conditions to get in there. We just needed a little help and the landlord and the company split the costs 50-50. City said fine. We hope to open this one very soon. The next picture over we're looking at the location that we're proposing to lease from Vera Maude, 4013 Temple City Boulevard. It's a spacious building. Our standard building at other locations is only about 4500 to 5000 square feet but it's clear-span rectangular, no obstructing posts or anything. This building here has almost 7000 square feet and as you can tell a whole lot of easy access doors for moving vehicles around. We can practically operate in this building even with people picking up their cars and you can't really pick them up in the rain, you could do everything inside of there. People could drive in and after they're painted they could be stored inside and normally after they're painted we have to get them out because of the dust in the work areas. CC 8-24-93 Page #4 0 • BRUESCH: Mr. Riginit, is this a fairly accurate depiction of the piece of property (Mr. Bruesch is referring to a rough drawing that had been placed on the board in the Council Chambers) and the placement of the booth? RIGINIT: Yes. BRUESCH: Could you in your presentation explain why the booth cannot be put at the lower end, the south end of the ell? RIGINIT: Yes, because... PETER LYONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: If I may real quick what I've got here. This is Valley Boulevard and this is Temple City Boulevard heading to the north and there's a lube shop here on the corner on that northwest corner and then the next property is the subject property. They are proposing the rear over here the rear side of the warehouse. You drive in, drive back and there's a large roll up door here and you drive in and out and then adjacent to it is the Lorica subdivision with the private street This is where they're proposing. BRUESCH: But why is the booth not located at the southern end of the ell? RIGINIT: Mr. Mayor. Because on getting LA County Fire approval if I might... this configuration right here which is like a long rectangle, the size of the brand new spray booth has to go into something proportionally square-footage. In other words this is bigger than this. The standard size of the spray booth has to have... 3500 square feet and... BRUESCH: This represents the two large doors on your upper picture there. RIGINIT: Well, there's two doors here, two overhead doors. BRUESCH: Then the two smaller doors represent the smaller ell. RIGINIT: Okay. The door furtherest on the right as you're looking at the picture is just one of...along the frontage here there's five overhead doors. There's two right here, there's one right here and another right here, one here, and two here. So, in this section right here there's two overhead doors. BRUESCH: Another question then I have is what would have to be done to the other section of the ell to make it meet the fire requirements for the booth? Because if you moved that booth to that end you would be almost 200 feet from the nearest property. RIGINIT: It would still not be far enough, am I correct? LYONS: Yes, that's correct. We looked at this in the very beginning if I may Mayor to try to find a location in the existing structure where they could split the spray booth and still be 200 feet from the closest residential home. There really is no spot on the subject property to do that. If they were to put it over here it would still be within 200 feet of quite a few of the first three houses here so... BRUESCH: But it would not be 50 feet from the nearest house. It would be more like 150. LYONS: The spray booth would not be 59 feet, it would be roughly 150-160. BRUESCH: And the exhaust from your collectors could be vented out toward Valley Boulevard rather than toward the air. RIGINIT: The stipulation that we locate the spray booth came from the LA... CC 8-24-93 Page #5 0 0 BRUESCH: See my question is is have you investigated what could be done to that building to move that spray booth to that leading edge, the ell edge, the southern edge of that building? You said you were willing to put $44,000 into this piece of property. Well, maybe for $44,000 you can improve that building there where it would move it away from the residences. RIGINIT: Well, this would be my speaking going away from our original plan as submitted because it does call for that position. There's two ways to do this. You could either there's a wall, a block wall separating this ell here, this is all block wall here. You come over to here we would have to get Fire Department approval. OFF MICROPHONE: The rule on that Mr. Riginit is that the reason why the booth is selected in that area is the booth cannot take up any more than 10% of a particular-room. This is covered by the Fire Department and AQMD. BRUESCH: If you removed the walls... AUDIENCE: It's a load bearing wall. AUDIENCE: Each one of these buildings were independently erected, adjacent to the next one. They're connected. If you take the wall down they're going to have to do some major reconstruction. RIGINIT: It'd be easier, Mr. Mayor, if is that as spray booth comes through the room, elbow it down and have it turn up here, you'd be serving the same function basically because if you're talking about air emissions. CLARK: You mean the exhaust pipe? RIGINIT: We did that in Hollywood. BRUESCH: Have you asked a structural engineer what would have to be done to that building to move the spray booth to that end?...To anybody...I noticed... Identify yourself, please... and will you identify yourself also since you made some comments? AUDIENCE: My name is Stuart Maude. The original building was a concrete block building built in the lower left hand corner of this drawing. The rest of the building was added onto that building so if you remove the wall there's a partition running this way through the lower part of the ell, that's the original block wall, if that wall's removed there's nothing holding the rest of the building up. That's the basic structure for the whole building. Everything else was added onto that. BRUESCH: Would there be a possibility of moving that western wall back to accommodate ...?...The western wall, the inside of the ell... MAUDE: Okay. The original building is like right through here, okay? That's concrete block. This was originally a steel beam and frame addition on, it burned, it was rebuilt and it cannot free stand without this block wall. These block walls cannot be moved. There's nothing... that's all there is to the building. This maybe freestanding but that's the subject area that you're talking about to move. I know this is a fire wall here so that these basically function as two separate fire units for the fire department. BRUESCH: So, that is the only place in that building that that booth can be? MAUDE: Yes, because you can't move the interior walls because of the square-footage requirement. These rooms are too small for the 10% requirement. And the walls can't be moved. BRUESCH: That answers my question. Please continue. CC 8-24-93 Page #6 RIGINIT: Most of the $44,000 that we're anticipating spending in here is the entire building will be sprinkled with automatic sprinkler system. On entering into a new business on auto body repair what is new construction certainly most of the municipal jurisdictions require it but coming into existing building sometimes it's only the spray booth's required. We came into this arrangement with Vera and I think practically within two'or three days after coming to the Rosemead City Planning Department we said we're going to sprinkle the building, the entire building. This is before any question came up about we didn't even know about Lorica or the zoning next door. Just to show the City and to show everyone and Vera's sharing the cost. As I've said before we come into communities to invest, we go into partnerships a great many times with the landlord. As you can see here there's a lot of overhead doors, we're improving the bathrooms from one to two, that will help the health and safety features of the building, there's a supply room firerated by the Fire Department already approved and as you'll see on the bottom picture, it already has a kind of protective foil on the ceiling but still despite that, elaborate automatic sprinkler system is going in through the entire building and has already been approved by the San Luis County fire, for the building and the spray booth. CLARK: I wanted to ask can you explain a little bit more about directing the exhaust out toward Valley Boulevard. You said you did it that way in another City. RIGINIT: We did that in Hollywood. Mr. Charles Diep... AUDIENCE: My name is Charles Diep, spelled D-I-E-P. If I may at a later time when I testify I will show that it's actually better for the spray booth to be there to the residences because the exhaust will actually miss these residences because of the height of the building as well as the height of the stack so if I may I'd like to testify on that later on when Mr. Riginit is finished. CLARK: Okay. But my question was directing the pipe out. BRUESCH: You asked to follow Mr. Riginit anyhow but Mrs. Clark is asking a specific question. What about directing the flow of the... AUDIENCE: My name is Buster Kirchen, I live at 11822 St. Marks Street in Garden Grove. K-I-R-C-H-E-N. In respect to your question what they do is they take the ducting work above the ceiling or above the roof of the building, they put a 90 degree elbow on it and extend the ducting a distance away from the property to where the point of fume dispersion from the stack would be considered footage away enough from the property. CLARK: But they wouldn't extend it...Mr. Bruesch was asking to relocate the booth and that can't be done obviously. KIRCHEN: Correct. CLARK: But if the exhaust pipe was emitting the fumes at the place where the... if you moved the spray booth so it was 160 feet I believe Mr. Lyons said... KIRCHEN: Yes, extending the duct. CLARK: So the fumes... the pipe is actually coming out of the building at 160 feet away from residences. Is that feasible? KIRCHEN: Yes, that's feasible. At that point we could do that, yes. DIEP: Even if we move or redirect the exhaust to the side of the building, the prevailing wind is from this side, your emissions will still move this way, so actually it's better for us to keep the spray booth where it is and the fumes or the emissions because it's exhausted from a higher stack it will actually miss these residences. So, the closer to the residences it is the better it is for them. CC 8-24-93 Page #7 0 CLARK: But I'm not asking that the spray booth be moved, I'm just asking the feasibility of having the pipe as far away as possible. DIEP: That's what I meant. It's actually more feasible that the stack be closer to the residences that further away because then the fumes will have a tendency to come down. CLARK: I see. If you have it straight up it's going to up higher. DIEP: Correct. So, it's actually better for the stack to locate where it is proposed. CLARK: Is your stack at the maximum height allowable by law? If it was higher would that help at all? KIRCHEN: At this point it's at 6 feet extended above the roof. DIEP: It's the highest building in the neighborhood. BRUESCH: is there any legal regulation that would not permit you to raise that stack higher? I was saying this is similar to a problem they had on a waste energy project down in City of Commerce. The height of the stack was critical to where the plume of the fumes were going to go and they had to juggle the figures up and down until they found the exact level that would miss the residential area which was in this case about four blocks away. KIRCHEN: The height of this stack is 26 feet ...ground up, 26 feet point of dispersion. Any one of the particular properties in question probably aren't any higher than ten feet. Single story buildings. BRUESCH: Do you have any further testimony? Those who are in favor? Mr. Diep, do you have some more information? RIGINIT: If I may just finish here briefly then I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Diep because the amount of dissipation once it comes out of there, actually I believe he's going to have some figures here to show with an enclosed system like we have, a brand new big spray booth, less I believe than 2 percent of so-called kems and voc are not going to be contained, it's less than 2 percent. I just have a minute here before I finish here. The next page over after the Rosemead pictures are from down on Garvey Boulevard [Avenue] because Mr. Denton was complaining that a lot of them...I think basically...they're not all the City of Rosemead, I started from East LA, just drove all the way home, I usually come home that way a lot of times, I think as you look at the two pages what's evident here is there's a certain amount of congestion, not enough working space. However, these businessmen, auto body shop owners there, they can only spend what they can afford and if they're legal I'm not one to cry blow the whistle or anything, I'm sure they're legal. One thing we don't do is a number of these pictures, body shops, they have cars for sale. We don't do that. Strictly prohibited. Those premises are only for painting customers' automobiles not for selling private cars and making money on the side. I think also here to you have some indications of work being done outside. I turn the page, there's some cars for sale, I don't know if they belong to the auto shop. You're a paint shop and you borrow some space across the street and park the cars and put a sign on them. We don't do that, Earl Scheib doesn't. The very last picture is a picture of Lorica. I was out there with Vera on Saturday standing looking west looking straight down Lorica and I think in the testimony of Mrs. Warren that she'd like to get out of there, it's hard making it there because I think you can see from the street there's a problem with parking control. I think as far as fire risk with the ways the cars are positioned in the photo, as far as fire risk, if a fire engine had to make it down to a house on fire at the end of the block, you'd have that problem, probably more fire risk in that than from us. But I can feel for what she's saying. She has kids and everything and her own testimony verbatim in the minutes she'd like to be able someday to get out of there. I don't know if she meant to characterize us or Mrs. Maude as someone even though it's verbatim living in San Marino or Nob Hill. I live in the City of La Puente. Mrs. Maude lives in the City of Rosemead. We're not rich. CC 8-24-93 Page #8 BRUESCH: Mr. Riginit. In conclusion I have one question and maybe other council people have questions also .II You said that this is the first shop that Earl Scheib has had in Rdsemead but is it not true that Earl Scheib had up until about fifteen years ago a long-standing shop on Valley Boulevard just west of San Gabriel Boulevard? RIGINIT: I believe we did. BRUESCH: What happened to that shop? RIGINIT: I don't know. I only came down here in 1977, 78. BRUESCH: Did not that building burn down, not once but twice? RIGINIT: I don't know. BRUESCH: I lived right next to it and it did. RIGINIT: I don't dispute it. BRUESCH: Any concluding statements? If not, we'll proceed to Mr. Diep. RIGINIT: I think we'd a value to the community. Come here certainly on our appeal, no malice towards anyone and obviously we abide by our last opportunity here. We'd love to do business here in the City of Rosemead. BRUESCH: Mr. Diep. DIEP: Thank you. Good evening members of the Council, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for allowing me to speak before you tonight. My name is Charles Diep, spelled D-I-E-P and I live on 2532 N. Bartlett Avenue in the City of Rosemead. I'm a senior engineer from Air Quality Consultants. It's a local environmental consulting firm based at one time in the City of South E1 Monte. That has assisted regulators, the Air Quality Management District, and industries to meet local air quality goals for the last 15 years. My background is in chemistry and chemical engineering and I have worked for the company for the last five years. I'm a Certified Environmental Auditor and a Certified Air Emission Permit Processor by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. I was requested here tonight to testify before you on the matter of air quality associated with the proposed Earl Scheib facility on 4013 Temple City Boulevard. I have read the minutes from the Planning commission hearing on this matter and there were several concerns raised at the last hearing that I hope to clarify tonight. Before I move forward there is a handout that I will be referring and there's copies here if anybody wishes to look at them and I believe you each received a copy of that. The first point that I would like.to make is that the emissions proposed for this facility be considered insignificant. You can refer to the first page of the handout. Facility as proposed and has been permitted for one gallon usage of acrylic enamel, that's non-metallic; two gallons of metallic acrylic enamel; and one gallon of clear acrylic enamel. Solvent content of these paints as stated on the third column of this chart which we obtained from the materials sheet of these paints. With this information the average daily emissions was calculated to be 17 pounds. Similarly, the facility as proposed and has been permitted for a maximum daily emission of 21 pounds. That's shown on the last column. Now how significant is this quantity of emissions? The one refers to the Air Quality Management District's New Source Review Guidelines, that is the guideline that they use to qualify new facilities into our four counties. From this guideline in 1978 the emissions for a new facility was limited to 250 pounds per day; 1982, 150 pounds; 1985, 75 pounds and as of September 28, 1990, the limit was set at 30 pounds per day. But for the Earl Scheib situation that number is adjusted to 34 pounds because they do not operate 7 days a week. From this it is clear that the South Coast Air Quality Management District only wants clean facilities to come into the basin and the proposed facility meets the Agency's criteria. If one looks at what is considered a significant project under the CC 8-24-93 Page #9 DIEP CONTINUES: California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, for many years a project was considered to have significant emissions it it's greater than 140 pounds a day. Today it's technically set at 55 pounds a day. And finally since there were some concerns raised at the last hearing that the proposed Earl Scheib facility will another MC Gills which is a corporation situated in the immediate vicinity of the residents and the proposed facility. Well I have researched and found that the reported emissions for this facility in 1989 to be at a daily average of 1,377 pounds a day. The proposed Earl Scheib facility will have less than 2 percent of this emissions. Additionally the emissions from the MC Gill corporation is from a fiberglass operation which emits styrenes that have a strong odor and that is a listed air toxic under the SCAQMD rules. Based on these figures we find that the proposed emissions from this facility will be insignificant. The second point I'd like to make tonight is that it appears that the significance of having an air quality or air emission permit from the District has been overlooked or understated. On the second page I have outlined the various aspects associated with the AQMD permit. First, the emissions from the proposed facility will be capped. Any increase in the finishing capacity will required modification of the permit and public review. Second, being permitted by the District the facility will be subject to rigorous inspections versus a facility that has not gone through the permitting process. BRUESCH: How often? DIEP: At the minimum twice a year. And more often if nuisance complaints occur. Third, since the facility was issued a AQMD permit it suggests that the permit review engineer has determined that the operation will pose no potential nuisance to the neighbors; that there will no visible particulate emissions; that there will be no significant solvent emissions and that the emissions will be well dispersed and not affect the neighbors; that there will be no air toxic substances will be used, no lead, no chromium, no cadmium, no list of 300 list of substances that the District monitors and no longer permits for use by new facilities; and that the facility will be using control technology or BACT. For this facility it means the use of a totally enclosed spray booth to prevent fugitive emissions from escaping. It means the facility will be using high volume low pressure spray guns to minimize the amount of paint needed to be used, that's high transfer efficiency; and finally, that the facility has to use the lowest solvent containing paints under their rule, that would be 51 and that the facility will be using or utilizing best operating practice. Again, the District will constantly inspecting the facility on their operating practice. Another aspect of the permit means that the particulate emissions will be controlled by greater than 98% and again this small amount of solvent emissions will be well dispersed and not affect the neighbors. Last but not least, should there be any nuisance once the facility is in operation it's permit is subject to nuisance complaints at which an inspector will verify the conditions and an executive officer of the SCAQMD will be required at the facility to mitigate the cause the problem. The third and final point that I'd like to make tonight and have made that briefly just now, is the phenomenon of dispersion with respect to the distance to the receptor. Because virtually all of the small amount of solvent used is spray booth we vent it through the stack on the roof. The emissions as illustrated on that third page is such that is will miss the residents in the vicinity especially those that are closest to the facility. And whatever the smells the paint solvents will be at an ultra low concentration since the ventilation rate at that spray booth will be approximately 17,000 cubic feet per minute. In summary then the proposed Earl Scheib facility is not going to be another MC Gill. The emissions from this facility will be insignificant. The facility has undergone rigorous permit review and should be given the opportunity to demonstrate a clean operation. As neighbors we still have the right to bring forward a nuisance complaint to the SCAQMD if the facility does not comply in the future. And finally the solvents that will be used, the dispersion characteristics of the spray booth will not present a threat to the safety and health of the children nearby nor the residents in that vicinity. Based on these findings I respectfully request the Council CC 8-24-93 Page #10 i • DIEP CONTINUES: to provide Earl Scheib facility the chance to operate and grant this facility a zone variance. This concludes my testimony. Thank you for your attention. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have. BRUESCH: Mr. Diep I will repose my question. If that stack is raised, the dispersion rate in the immediate area is lessened and the dispersion is spread to a greater distance, is that not so? DIEP: Correct. What it does is that it doubles the dilution capacity. If you raise it by a foot it diminishes the concentration by twice. If you raise it by two feet it dilutes the concentration by four times. BRUESCH: The prevailing wind in that area is from the southwest, no, from the... DIEP: From the south. And the height of the stack is adequate. It's 26 feet, actually very high. The vicinity most of the houses are from 10-12 feet high. The building itself is already 20 feet high, stack is another six feet high. BRUESCH: In your knowledge does the moisture content of the air or the humidity become a factor in the dispersion of the pollutants? DIEP: Not the humidity but the temperature of the air and here in southern California that's the typical dispersion characteristic that you will find. BRUESCH: The hotter the air... DIEP: The better it is. BRUESCH: ...it is further or closer? DIEP: The hotter the air the better it disperses. It dilutes, it has a tendency to evaporate or raise to a higher altitude. BRUESCH: So, during the winter months it would be more close to the ground. DIEP: The bottom line will not change, the upper line will change. You'll see a smaller plume instead of a larger plume but your baseline level stays approximately the same because of the height of the building and the height of the stack. BRUESCH: And at what distance does that lower line begin to dip down and affect the properties? DIEP: It would be at approximately 500 meters which... BRUESCH: 1500 feet. DIEP: ...a long distance. We have done a lot of air modeling and typically the nearest residences are not affected by the dispersion plume. The concentration that it's coming out of the stack really there should not be a problem whatsoever. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask about carcinogens. I believe that was brought up before. DIEP: I have reviewed the materials of the paint that will be proposed to be used and none of it contains any carcinogens or what they consider hazardous pollutants. It won't adversely affect the health of anybody who works with it. CLARK: So, we're talking basically just the fumes then? The smell? DIEP: If anything it will be a nuisance. If they are subject to smells it would be a nuisance it would not be a health hazard but in this case nuisance is not expected from this proposed operation. CC 8-24-93 Page #11 E • BRUESCH: Are any of the chemicals that are listed on Prop. 168, the listing of toxics? r CLARK: 65. DIEP: It's Prop. 65, yes. There are probably two that would be on the list and it's not that the... the list is set up very conservatively and to allow the monitor the substances that are being used. They're not necessarily cancer causing or adversely or they're not hazardous. BRUESCH: But they are labeled toxic. DIEP: What we like to do is call it they would be listed under Prop. 65 and the facility will provide adequate warning to that effect. If you walk into a restaurant you will find that the warning is also there because certain chemicals exist in very small concentrations and Prop. 65 does not exempt any level of the chemicals that you find in your raw materials, in your food, in your drinks. BRUESCH: Any further questions from Council? Thank you Mr. Diep for your testimony. Are there any other people in the audience in favor of this appeal? Immediately following we will go to those opposed to the appeal. AUDIENCE: My name is Buster Kirchen, with Kirchen Electric and Fire Protection Systems. I would be the contractor that would be installing the fire sprinklers in the building. I heard that you mention Mr. Mayor that the previous Earl Scheib at the location you were discussing had burned down twice. This we're going to prevent by installing a full wet sprinkler automatic fire sprinkler system. The building itself will be covered at 130 square feet per head. There's a 104 heads installed in the building separately from the spray booth. The spray booth will be covered at a 90 square feet per head which is the maximum density flow that you could put on any system covered in the NFPA. BRUESCH: May I ask a question? Gary, have you had buildings installed with sprinkler systems like that? Is that the best? TAYLOR: That's typically what he's describing is normal. KIRCHEN: The spray booth falls under an extra hazard occupancy which you design according to and the building itself would be designed as an ordinary hazard. Again, our system has been approved by the LA Fire Department for both the spray booth and the building and the spray booth itself is considered its own separate system because of the change of occupancies for the hazard of what you're covering. It has its own operational valve, has its own alarm, has everything in technical terms for fire sprinklers. It is top of the line stuff. You can't cover it any heavier. Your density's going to be .45 per square foot inside the spray booth; .30 per square foot inside the building. If you got four heads go off at once, get a snorkel because you're going to get wet. It will flood either the spray booth or the building. These heads operate independently from one another. They're spaced in according to NFPA to where you don't have what is called cold soldering or one head would chill the other head to where it would not ignite and go off. Again, it was approved by LA Fire Department and in the spray booth business which is most of my business and it's fire sprinkler, for most of the major spray booth companies in southern California, I've worked for just about all of them and we install the same thing. This is basically what is required by the Fire Department to install the spray booth. You cannot get a permit without installing some form of full fire protection. If there's no sprinklers in the building, use dry chem. But the sprinkler, they've requested the full building to change occupancy to sprinkler the whole building and as such we changed for the spray booth. That's what I have to offer. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you sir. Again, is there any more testimony in favor of? If there's no objection, we'll take those with children first. CC 8-24-93 Page #12 • • AUDIENCE: My name is Martha Guanko, G-U-A-N-K-O. I live on 9647 Lorica. I'm against the Earl Scheib. I'm a recent resident to the neighborhood but I'm really against it. Myself I have asthma. I have three kids of my own. I'm totally against it. I really don't want that kind ...my kids in that kind of environment. There's enough factories on that... in that... around our residences. We don't need no more. AUDIENCE: My name is Samantha Stevenson. S-T-E-V-E-N-S-O-N. I live at 9620 Lorica. I'm against the Earl Scheib. My daughter has bad asthma. I'm also representing my mom, she lives at 4043 N. Temple City Boulevard. She has very bad cancer and doesn't need to add to it. And we have enough factories and she's got enough problems, we all have enough problems there. We don't need another industrial thing there. Thank you. AUDIENCE: My name is Joseph Warren. I reside at 9610 Lorica Street. That's spelled W-A-R-R-E-N. I'm so proud of Rosemead especially with the family thing and I'm not here speaking in behalf of anything but this new franchise, families and children. I have not a dime none of the rest of us here have a dime to gain by this going in or not going in and I'm not speaking against economics or final situations it's just that when I see people coming in here and speaking in this behalf they have so many material things such as finances, there's more in life besides a dollar bill and we have to vote for this thing of a heart. We spoke here about the EPA system of downgrading and so forth. That's true. But many years ago cigarette smoking was a fine thing to do. We had lead in our paints and our children was dying from it and we didn't even know about it. We spoke about MC Gills as if two wrongs can make a right. Yeah, that's next on the agenda without a doubt as long as I'm alive and breathing we're going to get the proper people to see to it that something is done. This constant things in the air hear about that too but it doesn't make it right also. We talk about the paint that's being used and I don't know if there's lead or not but there should be somebody to monitor how much paint is being used everyday in these paint shops and he speaks about acrylic enamel. I'm sure they're going to be using polyurethane because that's and they're in business to make money and that's extremely deadly paint to use. And also the mixtures and you add to that is quite different. All I'm saying to you is that what is the City of Rosemead going to gain? I do realize that the Maudes family and I'm not against Earl Scheib or the Maudes family or anyone else, I'm just for what is best for the people involved. And I think it would be very simple for them since they own most of the adjoining properties there if they're really deadset on doing it to tear down the houses. You can't have it both ways. You can rent those things out for a certain price to the tenants or you can tear the houses down and make that all commercial if you want to do that because I think you own all those properties along there anyway. But my thoughts are that overall what is it going to do? It's going to bring a lot of jobs in, it's going to bring more congestion in, there's going to be more traffic through the area. I don't know. I just think you vote for the dictations of your heart and see our point of view if possible. We thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you Mr. Warren. Are there any more parents with children? AUDIENCE: My name is Lisa Alvarez. A-L-V-A-R-E-Z. And I also have two kids and live at 9635 Lorica which is directly across from it and my concern too is for the health reasons. We've already got enough factories there and my daughter has already been tested for lead and has lead in her body from the factories that are around it now and my concern is my kids. I don't need to be smelling any of the fumes or having any problems arising later on with my kids and that's why I'm here. Thank you. BRUESCH: Now, with your permission I'll go to the people who live on Lorica who have not spoken yet. I have a request from Mr. Dodge. CC 8-24-93 Page #13 0 0 AUDIENCE: My name is Ed Dodge. I live at 9617 Lorica. It's D-O-D-G-E. I'm a grandfather of six children and if they don't reside on the street they're on the street every weekend and as far as the Fire Department coming up our street, he seems to make it up there real well and it seems to me over on the street called Hazard there's a lot of manufacturers and they seem to put off a lot of toxic fumes. You're right the wind does blow kind of like east to west and I just feel that the Earl Scheib's on the corner would cause just a little bit more and I believe we have quite a bit there now. That's all I have to say. Thank you BRUESCH: I have a Request to Speak from....I have a Request to Speak from Mr. Craig Denton. AUDIENCE: Craig Denton, 3026 Bartlett, Rosemead. Spelled D-E-N-T-O-N. Honorable Mayor and members of the Rosemead City Council. The variance requested by Earl Scheib should not be approved for the following reasons. According to the drawings in the Planning Department the actual spray booth will be located on the northern most end of the property closest to all the surrounding residents. It also shows the spray booth to be only 17 feet from a resident's property line. The spray booth is also near a large number of homes within the 200-foot called for in the ordinance. Most of the affected families have small children who will be the most affected by the daily breathing toxic paint fumes consisting of lacquers and thinners. These substances are potential cancer causing agents. Prevailing winds from the south will spread the paint fumes over the surrounding residents who will be forced to breathe the paint fumes over 10 hours a day in the operation of the Earl Scheib. Even the most modern equipment cannot stop paint fumes, blower noise and their negative effects especially on children and the elderly. No doubt a large company such as Earl Scheib will paint a large volume of cars compared to other small painting businesses up and down Garvey. For years we were subject to the noxious paint fumes and blower noise from spray paint booths right next to us. Every day except Sunday paint odors, fumes and or noxious smells were carried by the wind over the surrounding residents. Six days a week the surrounding residents had to smell and breathe the paint fumes and endure the noise from the 36-inch blowers pushing the paint fumes out the stack. By the way they had the latest equipment approved by AQMD. There are hundreds of other businesses that could go in at that address that would not be harmful to the citizens of Rosemead. It seems that Rosemead has become the spray booth capital of the San Gabriel valley. Rosemead already has a large number of spray paint booths to serve the needs of the community. If not for Ordinance No. 645 limiting spray booths to 200 feet from residential usage we would have 8 spray booths within a radius of one block from us. If this ordinance is approved it will open a Pandora's box by other similar businesses who will also apply for a variance and expect the same special treatment. No other proposed spray paint booth has been granted a variance since this ordinance was enacted four years ago. Others previously seeking a variance who up to 180 from the nearest resident were denied. Rosemead City Ordinance No. 645 enacted July 25, 1989, states that spray booth operation shall be not less than 200 feet from any property zoned or used for residential purposes. Before the City can grant a variance these prerequisite conditions must be met. Earl Scheib does not meet these conditions. Condition A, it shall not constitute a special privilege. Note however no other spray paint business in four years has been granted a variance. Condition B, the granting of the variance must not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Note however breathing paint fumes over the long term is injurious to public health and welfare. The noise from the blowers will be a constant nuisance to the surrounding residents. This spray paint booth operation will be detrimental to surrounding property owners and lower their property values. As Planning Commissioners Ortiz and Ruiz stated at the July 6, 1993 meeting, their primary concern should be for the welfare of the residents and to uphold the integrity of the City which is previously denied all other variances under 200 feet minimum. The Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to deny Earl Scheib's request for a variance. Planning Commissioner Lowrey argued CC 8-24-93 Page #14 0 • DENTON CONTINUES: stating that dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors produced from the Earl Scheib operation are just too close to the homes. I would like to add to Commissioner Lowrey's rationale the fact that the M-1 zoning requirement of the City of Rosemead, Section 9114.1 subsection D uses permitted provides other similar enterprises or businesses which do not produce, cause or emit any fumes, odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise or vibration which are or may be detrimental to properties in the neighborhood or to the welfare of the occupants. This Condition C, this property does not possess any special circumstances to quality it for a variance. Since July, 1989, all other spray paint booth applications less than 200 feet of residential usage have been denied as should this one which is only 17 feet to a resident's property line. In conclusion I urge the Rosemead City Council not to grant this variance. Our business was next to spray paint booths and every day we had to endure the paint fumes. The fumes make it difficult to breathe and there was the constant noise. I do not know of anyone who would elect to live next to these conditions. Put yourself in the place of these residents. Would you vote grant the variance if you or your loved ones lived near to a spray paint booth? Considering the health risks to the residents including children and the potential liability to the City I do not see any reason why the City Council would approve the variance for the spray paint booth. I urge you to keep the public health and welfare of the citizens of Rosemead as your number one priority and vote no on this variance. Thank you. BRUESCH: Mr. Dale Denton. AUDIENCE: Dale Denton, 3026 N. Bartlett, Rosemead. Mayor and the City Council. Yes gentlemen I have lived by a spray booth for two whole years and I know exactly what they're like. There's times I had to leave my own business and I couldn't stay down there because the fumes from the spray booth coming out of the,top of the building and they also put an extension on it they come out they put a 9-foot extension on top of it put it way up. It didn't help any it just let longer dropping that's all and the people couldn't stand it. They said they come to me what are we going to do. This making up sick. We gotta do something. It's giving us a headache, toxic fumes, cancer causing elements, benzene, paint thinners, when they start these blowers up to clean the thing out man the fumes come out of there and you better head for cover. And then you hear the operator say the very operation of a spray booth says we have the very best there is, this spray booth and I'm talking about was brand new, new buildings, two new big block buildings, cement all around the grounds and the spray booth put in. Everything was new. And I'd call the AQMD at 10 o'clock in the morning, they finally got out there at 4:30 and then they go around to the spray booth operations and they'd ask the operator have you cleaned the filters, oh yes, they're clean or maybe they looked at them, I don't know. I saw them there. So then they'd come over to my place and they'd say well we talked to the operator of the spray booth and he says that the filters are all clean. Well I think all the filters do is keep out the mist but far as the fumes forget it. So I said to the AQMD supervisor what about the toxic fumes coming from the spray booth? Oh he says there's nothing we can do about that. He says that smell and those fumes we can't do anything so the buffer zone whether it's Earl Scheib or who it is the buffer zone of 200 feet should be left in place. Earl Scheib I'm not against him or anything like that but why should he be granted a variance of 50 feet or 17 feet that I see it out there from across the drive even if it's 56 feet what they say it is why should he be granted a variance when you folks have turned down one that was 180 feet, you turned down one that was 135 feet which I want to congratulate you for. It's real good. Now here Earl Scheib he wants to put one in 56 feet. Well gentlemen 56 feet from a residence is like putting a spray booth in your backyard. From where you're sitting out to the lobby is about 56 feet. Would you want a spray booth pumping that stuff in on you 8 hours a day? I wouldn't. And also there's a liability there. Now a spray booth that was put in at 8623 Garvey. It's in the back of those facilities there, it's not too old, at the rear of the facilities and this spray booth is dumping toxic fumes and all that crap in on this yard back there and there's three children in CC 8-24-93 Page #15 0 DENTON CONTINUES: this yard. They had their play things there, they had their slide, so the house they lived in is 3031 Burton and it's still there and the spray booth is still there but that big tube that's sticks up and then they angled it they have turned it away a little bit but they still get the spray booth smell. So at the time this spray booth was built there was three children living at this location, all their equipment in the back yard. Well, I thought the other day I went down and talked to the neighbors and I thought I'd talk to them. They have moved out a few years ago, no one knows where they've gone to but I talked to one person that would come over there to see somebody I don't know what her name was but she I got talking to her and she said it is alleged that one of the children has cancer so I think it's time that our City Council of Rosemead shall keep the enforcement of the 200 feet buffer zone between spray paint booths and residents. In closing I think it's up to the City Council to see that our children which is affected most the public, senior citizens have fresh air to breathe not spray paint cancer causing elements. San Gabriel valley air quality is not good at the best, weather man usually says bad air or first stage alerts everyday I see that. So I'm asking you...we have a lot of spray booths down there and the AQMD I've had them come out there and I've had two years of it and I know what it is. It's awful and if you don't think so if you put a spray booth right out here and let it pump that stuff in here on you 8 hours a day you'll think different too. Thank you. BRUESCH: Are there any other people wishing to speak against the appellant? ...At this time we now offer the appellant a chance for brief rebuttal. RIGINIT: I think in response to Mr. Denton, the two Dentons and their testimony I think one question that's been brought up that we come here for a variance and I believe the variance process is correct in this case because the zoning of the property is M-1. I think originally as it stands right now we have residences and we have M-1 businesses co-existing within the zone. I think Vera Maude has rights and the company has rights as to pursue our belief that we should go in there and operate safely which we tried to demonstrate with technical evidence and testimony. We don't have stories to tell. If you granted us permission that would not constitute special privilege. Somewhere along the line I guess a body shop's going to come along and maybe you'll approve one and no matter which one you approve I guess the cry would be special privilege. We have no control over that. As to who can go into that place if we're not permitted to operate there, testimony is any number of 2-3-400 different people could go in there but it's been vacant for a year. Convenience store, 99 cent store, something like that, a T-shirt shop? That building is built for it looks like automotive and belongs to Vera Maude and she'd like to derive some revenue off it. I don't believe it's been demonstrated here this evening by any concrete testimony or evidence that we are unsafe, that our operation would be unsafe. On the contrary Rosemead staff report, AQMD, Fire Department, everything was submitted in writing, all the different agencies and jurisdictions tend to support us at least in that direction, until we're proven guilty. All we have is the opportunity to ask you for a chance to see if I believe we can operate it correctly. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you, sir. I will now declare the public portion of this hearing at a close. A 3-minute recess was called at this time and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. BRUESCH: I would like to call the meeting back to order. I will start the Council deliberations with my immediate left, Mrs. Clark would you like to...? CLARK: Yes, I want to have a point of clarification from the Planning Director. The opposition made the statement that there have been no variances granted within the four-year period since the ordinance was passed and I'd like to know how many were applied for because I don't believe that this Council has had any come to it. I know there might have been to the Planning commission but... CC 8-24-93 Page #16 PETER LYONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: This ordinance was approved in July of 1989. I know of two prior to this. One was just this spring. It was somewhat different in that the residential uses within that 200 feet were legal conforming zoned R-1 properties. It was R-1 zoned property that the City's General Plan calls for and that area will continue to be R-1 for many, many years. There was one quite a bit prior to that, I'm not sure what year it was, and that was also very similar in that there were R-1 residential properties, legal conforming residentially zoned properties within the 200 feet. What differentiates this application from those prior two is that the residential uses within 200 feet are non-conforming uses, they are zoned and General Planned for industrial use and that was one of the major differences between these prior two. CLARK: And also I'd like to know if any of these and also the ones that are existing were in enclosed buildings or were they out, free standing? LYONS: The most immediate item variance request this past spring was a proposed spray booth that would be outside. It was going to be a spray booth and the work would be done within that booth but the booth itself was proposed to be outside any structures. And this current one as you well know is proposed to be within an existing warehouse. CLARK: And the ones that were mentioned on Garvey that were obnoxious to live next to purportedly, were they enclosed in buildings or were they just the booth? LYONS: That was back before I was here. I'm not quite that familiar with some of them back in the 189 and that period right after the ordinance was approved but some of the existing booths that created the reasoning for this ordinance back in 189 that Mr. Denton referred to some of those are outside booths, some of them are not I don't think as up to date as this proposal is. CLARK: I just wanted information. Are we making opinions now? BRUESCH: You can make your statement and I'll give the opportunity to each person. CLARK: I've really wrestled with this issue and the problem that I have with denying this is that and I do feel for the residents and it's a problem but what bothers me is that this zone has since the City incorporated has always been M-1 and so we're really it's not like we're coming into a residential area that's legally zoned that way and saying we're going to put something in here that's different. It's actually the opposite. We're allowing the residences to be there but it's not the proper zone that's intended. So I really have a problem with telling a business that it can't perform a function in a zone that is legal. And the other thing that I have is that traditionally there's a lot of people out there who feel that the AQMD is over regulatory on businesses and there's even a couple of bills in Sacramento which probably won't go anywhere but to even abolish the AQMD and so I kind of have a problem with saying that if the AQMD has approved this that we I think if anything they overkill rather than underkill so I am frankly in favor of approving this project with the stipulation that the exhaust pipe be extended as far as possible away from the residents. And that would be as though we were moving the booth over to there which is not feasible if the exhaust pipe were 160 feet from the residences and as high as is feasible. I think that would mitigate some of the problems that have been proposed. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the project. BRUESCH: There's motion that we approve... CLARK: But I don't know if you want... TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Go ahead and finish your discussion and then she can make the motion if she so chooses. BRUESCH: For purposes of discussion is there a second for that motion? CC 8-24-93 Page #17 TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Let's go ahead and discuss it and then we'll play games with what we're going to do...Because I would make the motion not to approve it. So I mean what do you want to do?...Anyway Earl Scheib definitely has the right to come in and put in a paint shop but we have an ordinance that was put into effect for a very specific reason and that being the obnoxious fumes and the problems that was created for the residents of the City and that's the only leg we have to stand on. If that wasn't here this wouldn't be before us. The sad part about is we talk about the legal rights of the property for the proper zoning and we talk about the non-conforming houses that are around it. This gets down to being a human issue. You people that live in the area it's almost you are not legal. You don't have the rights of a resident because you're living in an M-1 zone. Do you understand what the discussion is all about? It's an M-1 zone you don't have the legal rights of residents as the residents have down on Garvey because they're in the R-1 zone and that upsets me in the sense that we would be discussing this is a human issue. You are breathing the fumes not the M-1 zone so it's disturbing to me to talk about the legal rights of the land and it's upsetting from that standpoint. It's been commented that there are many many other uses that could go in there. As a matter of fact has any other issues been proposed for this property in the 8 or 10 months that it's been vacant? Has anything come to the Planning Commission Mr. Lyons? LYONS: I don't recall any proposals and we could ask the owners of the property if they've received but I don't... TAYLOR: It's kind of an irrelevant question because it is open for many other uses. Earl Scheib, is a nationally known company. I have no bones to pick with them.' My issue is the fact that the people living there are going to be subjected to these fumes and Mr. Bruesch you're absolutely right in the sense that in cold weather those fumes will go to the north side of the building and drop down. That's just a given fact. In warm weather they'll absolutely continue to rise, when the wind blows it's a good condition but if it's foggy days, stagnant days, you're going to have air problems up there. I don't know what percentage but you're going to have them. So that's the reason I can't vote for it because we have an ordinance and just because the other people the couple that was referred to came to the City and applied for it and it was voted down and says no you're in a residential area or close to it you can't do it so I just can't vote for it for that one reason alone that we're treating these people different than the other people should be treated. BRUESCH: Mr. Vasquez. VASQUEZ: I respect for Margaret for voting yes on this. I mean she hasn't voted yet but and I respect Mr. Taylor's feelings for what he just commented and I wrote notes down and I do question everything that you said about that it will cause cancer what have you because I believe Earl Scheib has perfected in the many years of body shops have been working on cars but what does bother me is like Mr. Taylor said is the human nature involving this and we have the tough decisions to make up here and I would go along with Mr. Taylor. I will not vote for this and it's nothing against Earl Scheib it's just I think if I lived on your street I would be annoyed with the smell that would come along and that's the way I feel right now. And it's a tough decision because I believe in the business community, they need help, they need to grow, it brings in revenue for the City for us the residents but then again I've got to weigh both sides and make the tough decision. BRUESCH: I like Councilwoman Clark have wrestled with this for about three days, since I've read it over and credibility on both sides. I believe it was Mr. Hammond who said well you can't have it both ways, you can't have residential and manufacturing and keep the both and I also agree that with one of the comments one of the residents and well we don't want to live there but we can't afford moving right now but on the other hand if the property owner did change that to manufacturing, everybody would have to move anyhow and that is certainly an option in the near future of the family. I think the major thing that I have is having lived next to Earl Scheib's and CC 8-24-93 Page #18 0 r BRUESCH CONTINUES: having the explosion wake me up in the middle of the night. I hate to say this but that does affect my feelings of this type of a facility that close to residential neighborhoods. It may be unfounded with your new sprinkling system but still it is a memory in my estimation and I spent two or three hours that night watching the homes back of that property which were at least 150 feet being saved by five fire companies and that one memory has made me come to the decision that I have to go with the residents. So, I would entertain... TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. It is a tough decision and I had a car painted at Earl Scheib's. I have no complaints against the company it's be can't have a double standard and that's the only basis that I have to make my vote on is that these residents are entitled to the protection of the ordinance that we have. It's not an easy vote. I'd like to see it go in but I can't vote for it and I'll make the motion that we deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission. VASQUEZ: I'll second it. BRUESCH: Is there any further discussion? TAYLOR: I'd like this in the minutes verbatim. The first one was in verbatim with the Planning commission so the record's complete. BRUESCH: If there's no further discussion, the vote is a yes means denial of the appeal. Please vote. Vote taken from voting slip: Yes: Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: Clark ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: We'll prepare a resolution and bring that back at your next meeting for formal adoption but that will be the decision of the Council. END VERBATIM DISCUSSION. Mayor Bruesch noted that this had been a difficult decision to make. Councilmember Clark asked the record to show that "The comment was made that we need to protect the integrity of the City and I feel that we need to uphold our zoning and that's the basis of my vote." In deference to those in the audience, the following items were taken out of order. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-B AND CC-D REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY KIEN AND MENG QUAN dba HONEYCOMB TAVERN CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ANNUAL SEMINAR IN SAN DIEGO, SEPTEMBER 24-26, 1993 CC-E APPROVAL OF NPDES PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 8-24-93 Page #19 0 CC-B REQUEST FOR RED CURB ON PINE STREET (NEWMARK/GARVEY) Marty Ritchie, 2709 Pine Street, stated there is insufficient parking in the area and asked for the installation of red curb in addition to the No Parking signs already posted. Henry Gebhardt, 2705 Pine Street, stated the parking problem is tremendous and asked for a Tow-Away Zone in addition to the signs and red curb. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council approve the installation of red curbing on Pine Street between Newmark and Garvey Avenues. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Bruesch requested that staff check parking regulations for any new supermarket. CC-D CHANGE ORDER FOR VARIOUS RESURFACING PROJECT, DeADALENA STREET Staff requested that this item be sent out to bid. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council authorize staff to seek bids to replace the asphalt concrete driveways with concrete and direct staff to write a letter to the residents informing them of this decision. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. At this point the Council returned to the regular order of the agenda. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED B. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE ROSEMEAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ANGELUS AVENUE SENIOR CENTER, A 50-UNIT LOW-INCOME SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING COMPLEX TO BE LOCATED AT 2417-55 ANGELUS AVENUE, ROSEMEAD. THE PROPOSED CENTER WILL REQUIRE SEVERAL VARIATIONS FROM THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING BUILDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING The Mayor opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 736 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2417-2455 ANGELUS AVENUE, ROSEMEAD (DA 83-1) MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Ordinance No. 736 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: CC 8-24-93 Page #20 Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilmember Taylor requested that the record show "My no vote was cast previously on this particular item in relation to the size of the project and the overcrowding that will take place on this project." III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 93-44 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $828,514.21 NUMBERED 6937 THROUGH 7103 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that Resolution No. 93-44 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. ORDINANCE NO. 737 - AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 729 REGARDING THE CITY'S TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES - INTRODUCE The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 737 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65089 AND 65089.3 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Ordinance No. 737 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION - None VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MEMBERSHIP IN 710 FREEWAY COALITION After some discussion, this item was deferred to the next regular meeting for additional information including a map of the proposed route. CC 8-24-93 Page #21 • 0 VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 14, 1993, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Cit& Clerk CC 8-24-93 Page #22