PC - Minutes 7-6-93CITY OF ROSEMEAD
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 6, 1993
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Chairman Young at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall,
8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lowrey
The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Breen
2. ROLL CALL - Present: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
Ex Officio: Wagner, Price, Lyons, Troyer,
Pitzer
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of June 21, 1993.
Approval of these minutes was deferred to the regular meeting of
July 19, 1993.
4. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS - City
Attorney Stanton Price explained the public hearing process and
the right to appeal decisions of the Planning Commission to the
City Council.
5. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH - The secretary administered the oath to
members of the audience wishing to speak.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. ZONE VARIANCE 93-257 - 4013 Temple City Boulevard - Request from
Earl Scheib of California, Inc. to establish an auto painting
business within the minimum 200 foot setback from residential
use.
Mr. Lyons presented the staff report with the recommendation to
approve.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
VERBATIM DIALOGE FOLLOWS:
YOUNG: Anybody who would like to speak in favor, please come
forward.
My name is PATTI MAUDE, my address is 3343 Callan Avenue, Long Beach,
and I represent Vera Maud, who is the property owner. We have worked
long and hard to get a lease on this property and we feel we have a
national tenant who will be an excellent tenant for the area, and
this particular tenant will bring a great improvement to the area
because it will provide a good industry for the area as it
complements the surrounding businesses; it will create jobs for the
local residents; it will bring sales tax to the City of Rosemead; and
will help eliminate the vacancies on Temple City Boulevard which will
help lease out additional buildings up and down the street. It will
help eliminate blight, and the national operator is one of the finest
that you could find for this area or for any area, and we hope that
you will agree with us and approve this variance. Thank you.
YOUNG: Are there any questions from Ms. Maud? Thank you. Anybody
else who would like to speak in favor?
My name is Noel Riginit, I am a Division Manager with Earl Scheib,
Inc. in the Los Angeles County. The Commission has a full agenda
here; I just like to make some comments on the staff report. The
~J
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 2.
company has been in existence since 1937 and operated in Los Angeles
for a great many years at a great number of locations. We are a
publicly held corporation, trader of American stock exchange and we
currently have 240 locations coast to coast and 38 in Canada and 2 in
Hawaii. I read the City of Rosemead staff report for the Planning
Commission, and the company very much is aware of the concerns of
everyone in terms of environmental impact and regulated use and good
use of the property. I just like to spell out something concerning
the size of our property and the control of it, excuse me, our
operation. Our conducting of business there will be strictly under
the Earl Scheib Company. We will be directly responsible, it is not
a sub-lease, it is not a franchise. Consequently, any questions that
will come up in the city or any governmental agencies would come
direct to us and would not be ignored. Secondly, the size of our
operation on a daily basis, it's relatively small compared to some of
the larger auto paint/body operations. We anticipate having only a
manager and three to four employees on a daily basis, Monday through
Friday, 7:30 to 6:00 and doing prep work and body work on three to
six cars a day, hardly any more than six a day. Obviously in the
slow months of the year, in the winter months, it could be less. So
we are not a major operation where there is all kinds of cars all
over the place. All improvements going in there as far as equipment
goes are new. We are basically a one-day service type of business.
We do no heavy collision work, we have no tow trucks, we hardly do
any insurance work, we hardly do any commercial work on over-size
vehicles. We do no custom work or spraying anything like that.
Basically just retail customers with normal cars. The cars stay in
the location at the most one or two days. When we go home in the
evening, all the cars are brought inside, the keys are locked up and
those that are necessary will go outside in the morning. By Company
policy, the hours of operation, as stated in the staff report, are
set, these are the same hours of operation all the way across the
country, 7:30 to 6:00 Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 12:00 on
Saturday. There will be no operational work being done in the
evenings, Sunday night, or any of that. Strictly daylight hours. We
intend to run a first class operation at the 4013 Rosemead location.
Obviously, the rules and requirements of all governmental agencies we
intend to follow: City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, EPA, Environmental Protection
Agency, at both the federal and state level, OSHA, Occupational
Safety and Health at both the state and federal level. We are
familiar with doing this, we have always done it, and Rosemead and
this operation will not be an exception. The property was posted for
lease. We first saw it in November and to my understanding it has
been vacant now going towards one year. We think we can do business
there and be successful. The Maude family has worked with us
dillegently on putting together terms and conditions. I believe that
it's the Maude's family expressed desire to have us as a tenant. We
obviously welcome entering in that arrangement and we sincerely asked
for approval from the City Planning Commission this evening. Thank
you very much.
YOUNG: Are there any questions?
RUIZ: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
YOUNG: Mr. Riginit?
RUIZ: Sir, you mentioned that you sort of down played the operation.
You said that there was only going to be about four employees and
that there was going to be some slow periods during the winter, and
in contrast to what Ms. Maude said, she said that there was going to
generate some jobs and also additional income for the city, which you
know which statement is correct?
RIGINIT: I believe as you begin a new operation, you intend to be a
success as far as you can there in terms of accommodating as many
vehicles as possible. At this time, based on our business in Los
Angeles with the current economic conditions, our average shops,
Covina for example, and Culver City and North Hollywood, are barely
•
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 3.
u
doing between five and six cars a day. The capabilities are
certainly there to do more; six or eight, but over the last five, or
six, or seven years, it has not been that way. But in those
locations, even though our business is reduced, we still provide I
believe extremely valuable service to the community in terms of
affordable paint jobs and body work.
ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Commissioner Ortiz?
ORTIZ: I have a question regarding to your coating. Is it going to
be clear coating or top coating?
RIGINIT: It's clear coat. It's
ORTIZ: That would be a 4.5 approximately per solvent, per gallon?
RIGINIT: Yes, we report to the AQMD as far as the exact VOC rating
and everything. We have that.
ORTIZ: Okay, on the VOC, what are you going to do for getting one
hundred percent of the solvent or VOC going into the atmosphere?
What are you going to do to reduce if you did get a
RIGINIT: All paint spraying as concerned VOC materials would be
conducted within a fully approved
ORTIZ: No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the
VOC going into the atmosphere, the solvent going into the atmosphere
a hundred percent, how are you going to control that?
RIGINIT: We will measure (inaudible).
ORTIZ: So, are you going to put an afterburner in there if you did
(inaudible) it?
RIGINIT: No. A spray booth is standard error
ORTIZ: So you are not going to control the solvent at all, the VOC
at all?
RIGINIT: Oh yes we are, because the AQMD will only allow us to use
so many per day on a daily basis.
ORTIZ: How many pounds is that per day?
RIGINIT: Excuse me?
ORTIZ: How many pounds per day?
RIGINIT: We don't know because
ORTIZ: You said ...I hate to...go ahead, I'm sorry.
RIGINIT: That information is still in process. Mr. Kirchen is
handling AQMD
My name is HAROLD KIRCHEN, with Kirchen Electric and Fire Protection
and my address is 15154 1/2 Paramount.
YOUNG: Would you spell your last name?
KIRCHEN: K-i-r-c-h-e-n. Okay, we filed for an AQMD permit for this
particular installation and they have been given an ID number and
also an engineer, his name is Milt Cohen with South Coast Air Quality
Management District, and they are going to permit a maximum amount of
coating in one day of five gallons. Of course they interpret the
poundage concerning the gallonage according to the type of paint
ORTIZ: That's under regulation 1151 or 1171?
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 4.
KIRCHEN: Let me see here, that would fall under . that would be
1151, yes. Yes, that's under 1151. Okay, they did grant them an
allowance of five gallons which they convert into pounds.
ORTIZ: My question was you are not going to have any controls over
the VOC going into the atmosphere.
KIRCHEN: The control of the VOC would be through two inch fiberglass
medium pad inside the spray booth on an exhaust filter planum and it
will be capturing up to 90% of the solids that get sprayed into the
air..
ORTIZ: Solids only.
KIRCHEN: Solids only, yes.
ORTIZ: No fumes, no solvent fumes?
KIRCHEN: No, no, not
ORTIZ: Okay, thank you.
YOUNG: Any more questions?
ORTIZ: That's all I have. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
YOUNG: Anybody else who would like to speak in favor? All right.
Not hearing any more, anybody who would like to speak in opposition?
DALE DENTON, 3026 N. Bartlett Avenue, Rosemead. Chairman and the
Planning Commission: This variance requested by Earl Scheib should
not be approved for the following reasons: The proposed spray booth
will be located as close as 50 feet to residential property. The
spray booth is also near a large number of houses within two hundred
feet called for in the ordinance. Most of the affected families have
small children and will be most affected by the daily breathing of
toxic fumes consisting lacquers, 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 paint fumes every day. Even the most modern
equipment can not stop paint fumes, blower noises and other negative
effects, especially on children and the elderly. No doubt a large
company such as Earl Scheib will paint a large volume of cars and
have more than one spray booth, will virtually compound the
problems. For years we were subjected to the noxious paint fumes,
noise of two spray booths on Garvey. Every day except Sunday, paint
odors, fumes, noxious smells were carried by the wind over the
surrounding residences. Six days a week surrounding residents had to
smell and breathe the paint fumes and endure the noise of two 36"
blowers pushing the paint fumes but of the stacks. There are
hundreds of other businesses that could go in at this address that
would not be harmful to the citizens of Rosemead. It seems to me
that Rosemead has become the spray booth capital of San Gabriel
Valley. Rosemead already has a number of large spray booths serving
the needs of our community. In fact, Garvey has only eight in about
three or four blocks. This variance would permit toxic substance to
pollute the air, neighboring homes, and would subject the city of
Rosemead to possible liability for damages by the affected
residents. This variance will open a pandora box by other similar
businesses who will also apply for a variance and expect the same
special treatment. To my knowledge, no other proposed spray booth
business has been granted a variance since this ordinance was enacted
four years ago. Earl Scheib's operation would be fifty feet from the
nearest residence, or fifty-six, whatever you say. Others,
previously seeking a variance, who were up to 180 feet on Muscatel
from the nearest residence, were denied. Rosemead City Ordinance No.
645, enacted July 25, 1989 states that spray booth operations shall
not be less than 200 feet from any property zoned or used for
residential purposes. Before the City can grant a variance, above
conditions must be met. Earl Scheib does not meet these conditions:
Condition 1. It shall not constitute a special privilege. Note,
•
PC Minutes 6-7-93
page 5.
•
however, no other business in four years has been granted a variance,
a spray booth variance. Condition B. The granting of this variance
must be detrimental, must not be detrimental to the public health or
welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Note
however, breathing paint fumes over a long term is injurious to
public health. The noise from the blower is constant nuisance. This
property does not possess any special circumstances to qualify it for
a variance. Other spray booth applications less than 200 feet of
residential useage have been denied, as should this one. In
conclusion, I strongly urge the Planning commission not to grant the
variances. Our business was next to two spray booths. Every day we
smelled the paint fumes. The fumes made it difficult to breathe and
the noise from the blowers created a constant nuisance. I do not
know of anyone who would elect to live next to these conditions. Put
yourselve in place of these residents. Would you vote "yes" to grant
the variance if you or your loved ones lived near a spray booth? I
urge you to keep the public health and welfare of the citizens as a
number one priority and vote "no" on this variance. I thank you. I
know all about spray booths. I have lived by them for two years.
They are the worst things. People get sick from them. All I have
had is complaints from people who live in this section that I rent to
older people, and I tell you they come to me and we have had
ambulences there taking people to hospitals on account of somebody
who wants a spray booth and God knows we got eight of them right down
on Garvey. Thank you.
YOUNG: Anybody else who would like to speak in opposition?
Name is JOSEPH WARREN, last name is spelled W-a-r-r-e-n. I commend
the councilmen for
PRICE: Could you give your address, please?
WARREN: 9610 Lorica Street, in Rosemead. I was saying, it's quite
refreshing to see that we are allowed prayer and God's divine
guidance in these matters that's gonna fix some peoples' lives. In
our particular case, being residents closely adjacent to this
facility, it will affect us healthwise, possibly the family impact
might be that all the cars that will be there, it will be more than
four employees, I'm sure, I don't think a company as large as Earl
Scheib would come in and (inaudible) their money and pay possibly
quite a bit of money for rent for a place if they are not going to
have a tremendous return. So therefore we are thinking that it's
going to be more than three or four cars a day. Once this variance
has been allowed, there's no telling what will go.
LOWREY: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, you know, this is a
business meeting and affects a lot of money and a lot of people's
businesses and things, and I think the gentleman in the audience and
the other one back there should at least remove their hats.
WARREN: Please forgive me for it. No intent of disrespect here. I
just had not combed my hair. I was in a big hurry.
YOUNG: All right, go ahead.
WARREN: Thank you for reminding, sir. As I was saying, no one is
missing the fact that there is a possibility of tremendous fire with
that many combustibles in a small space of that nature. The wind is
blowing that direction. That in itself might be of tremendous
consequence to us. There is mention of the business on the north
side, well, those particular cities, I think, that's Temple City.
That's not our problem. The one McGills there, that is a problem to
us because there's a great deal of fiberglass and toxics and a chance
of McGills being sued, but that's not our problem, because I think
that's located in E1 Monte. So we have been having a pretty clean
record here in this City of Rosemead. We love it here. We are not
able to just get out and live on Nob Hill. This is why we are
struggling here and living in this particular area until we can do
better. And it breaks my heart to think that because the adjacent
homes that are close by, most of them are owned by Mr. Maude.
There's no personal intent here, it's just these are facts, and so
• •
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 6.
consequently the place was vacant for a long time. It's going to be a
great deal of impact for them, possibly financially, to the Maude
family or to the Earl Scheibs, but I don't see why. They have had
ample opportunities to lease this out to somebody, some business of
some sort. There have to be a lot of other places around that are
just as accessible where there are no homes. There's an Earl Scheib
located on Valley Boulevard. I don't know what the impact is but I
don't see that many homes around. The fact that the property there
is going to be devaluated that much more because of the crime that's
going to be involved, breaking in cars and this type of things and
all, but the matter of fact is, if you want to sell a piece of
property or you live there and you have a paint booth next door to
you and so forth, as it is now it's not that bad, because they own
most of the properties there, the Maude family does. It makes me
wonder sometimes, is there any influence due to that. We know the
background of Mr. Maude and he was a very fine representative of the
city at one time, but I do urge you to use your good conscience in a
Christlike way and try to vote this variance out.
YOUNG: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak in
opposition?
Hi, my name is MAE WARREN, my address is 9606 Lorica Street in
Rosemead. I think that all of us, if we had a choice, would not want
to live on Lorica Street, but since we are doomed to be living there
at this point, we want to have the best environment that we can
possibly have. At this point it is not just a commercial area. It is
also a residential area. I have just been informed this evening that
one of our friends has come back with the report of three percent
lead in her child's blood. This concerns me. The McGill
corporation, which is not on the agenda for tonight, is putting out a
lot of fiberglass, we find it on our cars daily. We have to rinse it
off. That is going in our lungs. That concerns me. What also
concerns me is that because none of you have to live near that area
that you do not have to cope with this on a day to day basis and you
perhaps will never even drive by there - that you do not have to
recognize the problems we have to on a day to day survival basis. If
we were all to win the lottery, I'm sure we'd all relocate to San
Marino. We are not so fortunate as Dr. Maude to have owned all this
property and to have lived in a much better area, but until this is
considered a completely commercial area and the residents are no
longer living there, I feel that you have to give us and our children
the priority. We, the citizens are the future of this country. I
appreciate your listening. Thank you.
YOUNG: All right. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in
opposition? All right, seeing none, we'll give the spokesman for the
Maudes rebuttal. Who would like to speak in rebuttal?
Hi, DINO SAVANT, and my residence is 1000 E. San Jose, City of
Burbank.
YOUNG: Would you spell your last name?
S-a-v-a-n-t. I just want to make a quick rebuttal. I am the broker
on the property, representing the Maude family trust. There have
been a couple of comments that said we have had ample opportunities
to lease this building out to a variety of uses. This is not the
case. My company took this project on over a year ago and we came up
with a qualified tenant in Earl Scheib and it was the first one that
came about in a six-month period. We engaged in a proposal and
struck a deal finally. We feel that Earl Scheib is probably the best
scenario for this piece of property. We understand that we have
residential within 200 feet of the property, however, we have to keep
in mind what other industry that is zoned M1 or that can go into an
M1 use will go in there and not affect the neighbors next door. If
that's the case, then maybe we have non-conforming use in the
residential property next door. The entire surrounding area is also
M1 and I want to keep that in mind, and if that's the case and
somebody thinks that there is other industries or other possibilities
for companies to come into this piece of property and will do so in
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 7.
an immediate fashion,
Any questions?
•
I would like to speak to them. So, that's it.
YOUNG: Well, one question I had. Where this booth is located is
within a block wall building, am I correct?
SAVANT: Correct.
YOUNG: Whereas the ones that we were concerned about in the past,
the immediate past, were out in the open. Can someone with some
expertise give us some assurance that that's in a better situation
than it would be
My name is HAROLD KIRCHEN with Kirchen Electric and Fire Protection.
Yes, first of all this is a fully self-contained, fully enclosed
paint spray booth. It's for automobile industry. Some of the booths
that are existing on the particular area that we are discussing are
a couple of them might not be up to code, they might not even be
permitted, they might be bootlegged in. I assure you the spray booth
that we were planning on installing is already approved by L.A.
County Fire Department as a fully enclosed, contained spray booth,
all the data that it takes to are required to meet the
containment of the overspray paint that is, let's say installed
inside of the spray booth during painting procedures is all contained
up to 90 to 948 with the medium pads which we discussed earlier.
The booths that are existing on the outside, some of them are open
face spray booths which you don't have a closed, contained situation
which will allow a good 808 of your vapors outside into the open
atmosphere. This is what what you call a this spray booth is
under vacuum situation, it's under negative pressure or any openings
in the spray booth has to go through the arrestopads which will
completely contain up to, like I said, 948 of the overspray material.
YOUNG: Are there any questions?
ORTIZ: Yes. Mr. Chairman, in regards to medium pads, what type of
pads are those, are they moisture or
KIRCHEN: They are 2" x 2" x 20" fiberglass medium pads, approved for
this operation.
ORTIZ: And that controls the paint material only, not the VOC, not
the fumes. The fumes still you don't have
KIRCHEN: This is correct (two people speaking at the same time)
ORTIZ: Inside there is still release, correct?
KERCHEN: At this point AQMD does not require, only to recover the
solvents that are being sprayed in the spray booth. They do not
require unless you are going over a certain amount of poundage
ORTIZ: What is the poundage?
KIRCHEN: Thirty pounds a day, which is over 11 gallons a day. They
are alotted up to five gallons a day which is well within the AQMD
limits for paint spray in that operation. They are less than half of
their allowed allotment, okay. At this point, like I said, they do
not have any kind of means where you have to recover or isolate the
vapors only in the air, its only the paint solvents that are
(inaudible)... Do you have a question?
ORTIZ: No, not at this time.
YOUNG: All right, thank you. We'll close the public hearing and
open it to the Commission for discussion.
ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Commissioner Ortiz?
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page S.
ORTIZ: With the spirit and purpose of this Commission, I feel that's
the safety and welfare and the integrity of the City, my
recommendation is for denial, due to Ordinance 9114.1 uses provided
that any spray booth operating shall be not less than 200 feet from
residential purposes.
RUIZ: Is that a motion?
ORTIZ: That is a motion.
RUIZ: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Commissioner Ruiz?
RUIZ: I'm very impressed with the overal plans of the spray booth
and I'm sure that it meets all the criteria as far as the AQMD. It's
an elaborate plan. The spray system is very good, but still you have
to maintain the integrity of this Commission. I think that the first
and foremost My concern is for the welfare of the residents of
Rosemead and because I feel so strongly about this, no amount under
200 feet would satisfy me. Therefore, I second the motion to deny.
ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Commissioner Ortiz?
ORTIZ: Before we vote I sure would like to have all this verbatim.
If there is anything on this, I certainly would like to have a
request on that. Is that going to be feasible?
YOUNG: All right. So just this one public hearing item will be
verbatim?
ORTIZ: Yes sir.
BREEN: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Commissioner Breen?
BREEN: I merely wish to say that I have emphaty for the people that
do live, in this case, 56 feet away and I'm not at all concerned
about the fire hazard because of the sprinkler system. I am
concerned about the fumes and that will express my vote to deny the
passage.
LOWREY: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Commissioner Lowrey?
LOWREY: Mr. Chairman, I feel the same as the other commissioners do.
The environmental assessment on this and Item E. the change of dust,
ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the vicinity will certainly change. We
just turned one down a couple of weeks ago on Garvey Boulevard and it
was not anywhere near as close as this. This is fifty some feet away
from residential. And for that reason I don't like to see it go in
there. I think it will be a good use and be a good operation, but
really, it's just too close to the homes and for that reason I would
have to vote for denial also.
YOUNG: All right, gentlemen, we have a motion for denial of Zone
Variance 93-257. A "yes" vote is for denial.
It would be noted on the minutes that my abstention is from past
being the former tenant.
PRICE: "Former", so you don't have a conflict of interest though.
YOUNG: I don't have a conflict of interest.
END VERBATIM DISCUSSION
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 9.
Vote Resulted: Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Breen, Ortiz
Abstain: Young
7. ZONE VARIANCE 93-255 - 1255 San Gabriel Boulevard - Request from
Evergreen Baptist Church to extend the use of three (3)
temporary trailers beyond the one (1) year period allowed per
section 9121.32B.
Mr. Lyons presented the staff report with the recommendation to
approve a two-year extension.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was:
Cory Ishida, pastor of Evergreen Baptist Church, 8245 Garibaldi
Avenue, San Gabriel. Mr. Ishida stated agreement with the staff
proposal.
Commissioner Ortiz requested that the trailers be skirted and
that the space under the trailers not be used for storage.
There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Discussion by the Commission:
Commissioner Lowrey preferred to extend the use of the trailers
for one year at a time and requested that the Commission be
polled on the subject.
Commissioner Breen stated that the public schools have an almost
permanent use of temporary classroom trailers and that in view
of that situation, he was in favor of a two-year extension.
Commissioner Ortiz stated that school district follows different
rules. He was in favor of a one-year extension.
Commissioner Ruiz was in favor of a two year extension.
Commissioner Lowrey withdrew his request for one year.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner
Ruiz, to approve Zone Variance 93-255 for a period of two years.
Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 51299, ZONE CHANGE 93-195 & ZONE VARIANCE
93-254 - 3122 and 3134 Bartlett Avenue - Request from Alexander
Catania Development to change the underlying zoning from R1
(Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development) on a lot
less than the one-acre minimum size for such zoning in order to
construct a six-unit single-family housing tract.
Mr. Lyons presented the staff report, showed an artist rendering
of the project, and recommended approval with a proposed change
in condition #13 to ( lower sills no less than 66" above the
finished floor level
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Addressing the Commission in favor of the proposal were:
Michael Battaglia, project manager for Alexander Catania
Development, 1125 W. Foothill Boulevard, Azusa. Mr. Battaglia
gave background information on his company; stated that the
single-family units will typically be owner-occupied; that his
company went through a great deal of effort to save the oak
tree; that the project resembles existing developments in the
area, and that there is a possibility for removing the sump
pump.
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 10.
Rick Shroads, President of CivilTec Engineering, 855 W. Foothill
Boulevard, Monrovia. Mr. Schroads stated that there is a high
probability of not needing sump pumps for the project.
Commissioner Lowrey inquired how the drainage was proposed to
take place.
Mr. Shroads responded that the drainage would be reversed; that
the sides would be filled about 2 ft. in the rear and that the
sheet water would go down to the private driveway and on to
Bartlett into the street.
Commissioner Ortiz inquired if this would be within the existing
guidelines. Mr. Lyons stated that the project would be closely
monitored.
Dale Denton, 3026 N. Bartlett. Mr. Denton stated his opinion
that the project would be an improvement to the community.
Addressing the Commission in opposition to the project were:
Mrs. Arellano, 3136 Bartlett Avenue. Mrs. Arellano expressed
concern about the density of the project, the loss of privacy,
and the drainage that might affect her property.
Paul Hannosh, 8711 Lincove Lane. Mr. Hannosh expressed an
interest to work with the developer on the landscaping of the
project, and had contacted the developers on the subject.
There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, there
was opportunity for rebuttal.
Mike Battaglia referred to condition #13, which will mitigate
the problem of privacy; and stated that drainage to adjacent
properties is not allowed and will not take place.
The public hearing was closed.
Discussion by the commission:
Commission Ortiz expressed appreciation for the project and the
preservation of the oak tree, requested an arborist report
concerning the effects the development might have on the tree,
and for that reason was in favor of a continuance.
It satisfied Commissioner Ortiz and the other commissioners to
add the following condition: "The landscape plan for the
development shall take into consideration the code requirements
regarding the preservation, cutting, and removal of oak trees
pursuant to section 9131 of the RMC. .
The applicant stated agreement with the condition and stated
that he had fully cooperated with similar conditions in other
cities.
(MO) It was moved by commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner
Lowrey to approve Tentative Tract Map 51299, Zone Change 93-195,
and Zone Variance 93-254 with the amended conditions. Vote
resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
OTHER BUSINESS
9. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-488 - Request to continue
the on-site sale of beer and wine at 8748 Valley Boulevard (Anh
Hong Restaurant).
Mr. Troyer presented the staff memorandum and recommended a four
(4) year extension.
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 11.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner
Breen to extend Conditional Use Permit 89-488 for a period of
four (4) years, subject to conditions 1 through 9. Vote
resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
10. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-554 - Request to continue
the off-site sale of beer and wine at 3358 N. Del Mar Avenue
(M&M Market).
Mr. Troyer presented the staff memorandum and recommended a two
(2) year extension.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner
Lowrey, to extend Conditional Use Permit 92-554 for a period of
two (2) years subject to conditions 1 through 12. Vote
resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
11. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-409 - Request to continue
the off-site sale of alcoholic beverages at 8953 E. Valley
Boulevard (Deluxe Liquor).
Mr. Troyer presented the staff memorandum and recommended a
three (3) year extension.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner
Ortiz, to extend Conditional Use Permit 88-409 for a period of
three (3) years, subject to conditions 1 through 10.
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
12. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-551 - Request to continue
the on-site sale of beer and wine at 8158 E. Garvey Avenue, #A
(Shabu Shabu Restaurant).
Mr. Troyer presented the staff.memorandum and recommended a two
(2) year extension.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner
Ortiz, to extend Conditional Use Permit 92-551 for a period of
two (2) years. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
13. PC RESOLUTION 93-34 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
23780 FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PROPERTIES FOR
PURPOSES OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR A FUTURE
GARMENT MANUFACTURING BUSINESS LOCATED AT 2664 AND 2704 STINGLE
AVENUE.
14. PC RESOLUTION 93-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-591
ALLOWING THE TRANSFER OF AN EXISTING LIQUOR LICENSE AT 8150 E.
GARVEY AVENUE, SUITE 121, DBA T&T SUPERMARKET.
15. PC RESOLUTION 93-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE 93-256 TO CONSTRUCT
ROOM ADDITIONS AND WAIVE IN PART AN UPGRADE OF PARKING
FACILITIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2709-2711 PINE STREET.
Mr. Price presented the resolutions by title only.
(MO) It was moved by commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner
Ortiz, to waive further reading and adopt. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
PC Minutes 7-6-93
page 12.
16. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter - None
17. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF
A. Mr. Lyons announced the 7-7-93 Open House at the Zapopen
Center for the Angelus Avenue Senior Housing project.
B Commissioner Lowrey requested an inspection of Tony's Liquor
for excessive signage.
C. Commissioner Ortiz inquired about a new building located at
7422 Garvey, which seemed to exceed the heigth limit.
18. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next meeting will
take place on July 19, 1993, at 7:00 p.m.
i \
.I