PC - Minutes 4-19-93CITY OF ROSEMEAD
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 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, Tarr, Troyer,
Pitzer
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of April.19", 1993.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner
Breen, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 5,
1993, as presented. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
4. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS - City
Attorney Stan 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 HEARING ITEMS
6. ZONE VARIANCE 93-253 - 9117 E. Garvey Avenue - Request from
David Shewmake and Eugene Kreslake to construct and operate a
spray paint 'booth closer than the minimum distance of 200 feet
from adjacent residential use (continued from 4-5-93).
Mr. Tarr presented the staff report with the recommendation to
approve.
The public hearing remained open.
Addressing the Commission in favor of the project were:
David Shewmake, 130 E. Walnut Street, Monrovia, one of the
owners of the property. Mr. Shewmake stated that the property
behind his property, #20 on the plot plan, is a vacant lot and
the closest structure on a property to the north is
approximately 240 feet away from•the proposed spray booth; that
Mrs. Oshita, who spoke in opposition during the last meeting,
[#37 on the property owner's list] cannot even see the spray
booth from her house and the distance is approximately 250 feet
away, and that there are many spray booths in operation in the
area.
Commissioner Ortiz referred to Mr. Shewmake's statement made
during the previous meeting that in the near future only
water-base paint would be allowed. Mr. Shewmake stated that he
was misinformed on the subject.
the limitations -have--caused-th-e bulldirig-tO tie vacdriC'-over
eleven months at a substantial financial loss to the owners; and
that the proper operation of the proposed spray booth will be
monitored and inspected by the AQMD.
Eugene Kreslake, 130 E. Walnut Street, Monrovia, co-owner of the
building, stated that the complaints heard from the opponents
during the last two meetings were based on past experiences with
previous tenants; that the neighbors would not have been
notified if there had been a possibility to place the spray
booth 200 feet away from residential property; that all safety
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 3.
regulations imposed by the AQMD, City, and Fire Department would
be adhered to, and that he hoped the people who spoke in
opposition, and the commission, would have understanding for the
situation.
Al Ortiz, with Reliable Spray Booth Company, 1518 Downey Avenue,
Paramount. Mr. Ortiz stated that his company installs spray
booths and is involved in the license process for the proposed
booth; that different cities have different regulations; that
nothing will be done prior to installation without approval of
the AQMD, of the Building & Safety Department, and the Fire
Department; that the AQMD is very strict and will assure that
the area is protected; and that safety measures are built into
the booth.
Commissioner Ortiz inquired if the installation of an
afterburner could eliminate harmful emission into the air by
100%. Mr. Ortiz replied that it depends on the work load and
that even the amount of paint allowed to be used per day for a
certain booth is controlled by the AQMD; that afterburners are
the best available control technology, and extremely expensive
for small operations; that the AQMD inspects regularly and
imposes fines after one warning, and that yearly fees are
charged.
There being no one else wishing to address the commission, the
public hearing was closed. Discussion by the Commission:
(VERBATIM at the request of Commissioner Ortiz).
ORTIZ: I reviewed all the
basically meeting, not mee
like to give the benefit
conditions first in regard
make a condition that we put
VOC.
information that we had and concerns and
Ling the requirements, I certainly would
of the doubt and I like to make some
to the VOC, if it is approved, I like to
the afterburner in it to get 100% on the
YOUNG: But he stated that that would run $120,000.
ORTIZ: Okay, how much is life worth sir?
YOUNG: Let's have the Commission Commissioner Lowrey?
LOWREY: I agree.
YOUNG: Commissioner Ruiz?
RUIZ: I would like to make a comment.
YOUNG: Yes, go ahead.
RUIZ: I think that one of the things here that we have to consider
is the, again, I'm very adament about the fact that there is a lot of
representation here from the community...
ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Wait just a minute now, wait just a minute now.
Commissioner Ruiz, go ahead.
RUIZ: There has been a lot of concern here for the safety and
welfare of the people of this community and also of their children
one of the conditions of requirement here is that the granting of
such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health
or welfare or injurious to the property improvements. One of the
things that I see is that we're not really concentrating on what the
issue is here, and again I want to reiterate what I just mentioned
before...
11
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 4.
0
YOUNG: Wait, wait, Commissioner Ruiz, we really have this change of
conditions
ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Wait, wait, wait, wait just a minute, really what I want is a
yes or no and you are welcome to make your comments but let's get
this condition regarding the afterburner, and Commissioner Lowrey is
in favor of it and I want to know whether you are in favor of it.
RUIZ: I would be in favor of it.
YOUNG: Okay. Commissioner Ortiz?
ORTIZ: Yes.
YOUNG: Commissioner Breen?
BREEN: I would be against putting in a $120,000 afterburner for one
or two cars a week.
YOUNG: All right, we have three that are in favor of it so that is a
condition now.
ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman?
YOUNG: Yes, Commissioner Ortiz.
ORTIZ: Basically a variance is, basically the spirit of purpose is
public safety and welfare and to secure the property of the residents
and commercial businesses and our responsibility is to look into and
review it and the granting of such a variance would be detrimental,
but basically what I'm looking at is putting a condition in if they
do have the appeal rights and I certainly want to have the conditions
in there in regards to insure that the integrity of the spirit of the
purpose of the Commission and the welfare that we do put in the
condition that to get VOC out one hundred percent, that's, my
rationale. I am not in favor of it and at this time I would like to
make a motion to deny it.
LOWREY: Second, Mr. Chairman.
YOUNG: We have a motion for denial....
PRICE: I have a
YOUNG: Go ahead, go ahead.
PRICE: It does not make a lot of sense to first impose a condition
that's financially infeasible and may even be infeasible in terms
of the size of the booth, and then going to deny it. I think that
you should deny it without that condition. I think it messes up the
record.
ORTIZ: Let me interject a little bit. Basically they have the
appeal right within ten days to appeal it and if this body has
consensus in stating that we are concerned, whatever concession we
make, our concern is the well-being of the community and basically by
putting this conditions, we put in conditions so that when the City
Council reviews it and sees that condition on there... and I
certainly would like to have all this verbatim Mr. Chairman, and
also I like to make it regarding to a condition
PRICE: If you are going to deny the application, then simply deny
it, that's all you do, and don't add conditions which are
economically and probably scientifically unfeasible. ,
LOWREY: Mr. Chairman?
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 5.
YOUNG: Commissioner Lowrey.
LOWREY: I wholeheartedly agree with commissioner Ortiz and I would
ask Counsel, in case this would go to the Council, cannot we we
have added conditions before and I cannot understand why we cannot
add a condition now.
PRICE: Well, because first of all the applicant has to agree to the
conditions. If you add conditions then you are going to approve an
application. You don't add conditions like this when you're going to
deny it because it makes absolutely no sense.
ORTIZ: We have done it in the past.
PRICE: No, don't add conditions when you deny, we only add
conditions when you
LOWREY: With due respect, counselor, we have done this in the past,
we have added conditions. If it is turned down here and it does go
to the Council, then we have these conditions and they can recognize
and they can see and they can enjoy the benefit of what we're...
WAGNER: If I can just interject a minute, you know, the City
Attorney is right, I mean you cannot make a condition on a matter and
then deny it, but maybe as a matter of record, if the Council, if
this applicant appeals to the City Council, that you make a
recommendation to the City Council that they consider adding this as
a condition, but you cannot add it as a condition, am I correct?
PRICE: Yes, let me explain this. When you add a condition, the
applicant has to agree to the condition that we add because... This
is purely an explanation of procedures, whenever you add a condition
to an application you are going to approve, the applicant has to
agree to the condition. And usually the applicant agrees because
that means the application. is going to be approved and it is clear in
the conditions themselves that the applicant has to agree to the
conditions, but no applicant is going to agree to a condition if even
after it is added the application is going to be denied. No
applicant is going to sign a notarized affidavit agreeing to these
conditions, so you don't add conditions. You only add conditions
if you look at point 2 of the conditions, it says: "the applicant
shall sign a notarized affidavit agreeing to these conditions within
ten days of approval." That means the purpose of conditions are
things that the applicant will approve of by the very nature, and if
you are not going to approve it, then the whole thing does not .
condition #2 never applies and therefore you cannot add things that
the applicant won't approve of and deny it, because the applicant is
supposed to accept the conditions.
LOWREY: Mr. Price, what you are saying then, if we go through
discussion by the commissioners and commissioner 11 says something
should be added, Commissioner #2 says something else should be added,
and you add that on to the conditions, and when you get down to the
final thing, we vote on it, and we vote it down, then these
conditions are erased?
PRICE: Well, those'conditions no longer have any effect, they do not
exist, because the application has been denied and therefore there is
nothing for the applicant to approve and so the conditions are
meaningless. Conditions are meaningless if you deny.
LOWREY: What do you mean, they are meaningless?
PRICE: Well they are if you deny the application, there is nothing
there, because the application has been denied there is nothing for
the applicant to agree to.
LOWREY: I understand what you are saying. Now what I would like you
to explain is, should we make a recommendation to the Council?
J
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 6
C\
J
PRICE: Deny the application and indicate that if the Council wants
to approve it, you would request that they consider these conditions.
LOWREY: And that would be on their agenda so they would be advised
of our feeling?
PRICE: Yes.
YOUNG: We have asked Olga to have this verbatim, I know,it's fun
typing it up,,but it's been asked for and I think it's appropriate...
Now, Commissioner Ortiz, then would you be willing to withdraw
Condition #16?
ORTIZ: Yes, I will.
YOUNG: Marv, would you be willing to withdraw your second too?
Well, okay, well, let's see the recommendation?
LOWREY: The recommendation too?
BREEN: Chairman?
YOUNG: Commissioner Breen?
BREEN: Mr. Chairman, if this goes forward to the city council, by
way, of a recommendation that they install a $120,000 afterburner, I
like the report to state that it is a split decision of this body
that they install this. It is not a unanimous decision.
YOUNG: Well, three is a majority, I'm afraid and it does not make
any difference what the other two think. Three is a majority and we
have to abide by that and I intend to abide by that. But now we do
have a motion, we did have a motion, we still have a motion and a
second still?
LOWREY: Yes.
YOUNG: Okay, so now we have a motion for denial?
LOWREY: Mr. Chairman, if I may before we vote, commissioner Ortiz,
is he putting that recommendation in with his motion?
ORTIZ: Yes I am. I like to make sure to make a recommendation that
we do advise to the City Council and relative the rationale for it,
it basically is to get 100% VOC elimitated from going into the
atmosphere and for the afterburner.
YOUNG: I'd like to just make a comment. I think that we probably
have the votes for denial. I'm going to vote a "no" for the denial
because I feel that the AQMD is as tough as anything you can imagine,
and they are not concerned as much about the neighbors as they are
about the people who are operating that spray booth and anybody in
the close vicinity and employees of whoever employs it and believe
you me, they are tough and if these things are approved by the AQMD,
I tell you there will be no emissions coming. You could sit on top
of that thing and breathe the air, it will probably be cleaner than
what you get in Rosemead any other place. But nevertheless, we do
have a motion...
ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman, you'd die if you did, you'd get uh
YOUNG: What?
ORTIZ: You'd die because
YOUNG: We have a motion, please vote.
ORTIZ: Rule 1401, and you know the reason. I am going to vote no.
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 7.
YOUNG: Okay, a "yes" vote, please, a yes vote
LOWREY: Mr. Chairman, you made a statement and
YOUNG: Well, now listen, I could make that statement and you guys
don't have to rebut me. You can sit there and vote "yes" that's all
you have to do, okay? Now, we have a motion. We have had plenty of
time for discussion now.
LOWREY: Point of order right now.
YOUNG: I'm chairman, we have a motion to vote.
LOWREY: Mr. Chairman, point of order. I would like to make a
statement.
YOUNG: All right, go ahead. Make a statement.
LOWREY: Now we had forty some signatures in here tonight; the
neighbors don't want it, they are infringing on the 200-foot radius
into a 170-foot radius and that's the reason for my "no" vote, and
that's what I want to make a point of.
YOUNG: All right, that's so noted. All right, we have a motion to
deny, a "yes" vote is for denial. Please vote.
BREEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like my "no" vote to be
explained in that I made hundreds of fire inspections. I was not a
chemist, but purely for fire 'I have gone through many, many spray
booths, cyclone systems, all kinds of systems of filtration. I think
the biggest hazard is any work done outside the booth. So my concern
is really I think we have no problem with the booth, just
anything outside of it.
YOUNG: All right, are there any other comments? Please vote.
END VERBATIM PART OF THE MINUTES
(MO) It was moved by commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner
Lowrey, to deny Zone Variance 93-253. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Ortiz
No: Young, Breen
7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23737 - 4242 Arica Avenue - Request from
John Sheng to subdivide an existing lot into two (2) parcels to
facilitate single-family home development.
Mr. Tarr presented the staff report with the recommendation to
approve.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was:
Engles Shen, engineer of the
Alhambra. Mr. Shen stated
straightforward and agreed
exception to Condition #10.
wait with the planned resu
utilities for the proposed two
project, 600 W. Main Street, #205,
that the project was small and
with all conditions with the
Mr. Shen requested that the City
rfacing of the street until the
homes are in.
Addressing the Commission in opposition of the project was:
Lewis Montante, 4228 Claudia Ave. Mr. Montante stated that the
area in question has been R1 since the tract was built in 1946;
that dividing one piece of property into two means an increased
burden on the taxpayers of Rosemead; increases the burden on the
schools, the utilities, the usage of sanitation, electricity and
water.
•
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 8.
11
Given an opportunity for rebuttal, Mr. Shen stated that there
will be school fees and other fees to be paid by the developer
to alleviate the impact on the system.
There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Discussion by the Commission:
Commissioner Lowrey stated that he was in favor of the project.
Commissioner Ortiz stated that the proposed subdivision met all
City requirements and that he was in favor of the project.
(MO) It was moved by commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner
Ortiz, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 23737. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-585 - 9322 E. Valley Boulevard -
Request from Delores Jane Denley to transfer an existing ABC
license for the on-site sale of beer at Beef Cellars.
Mr. Troyer presented the staff report with the recommendation to
approve.
Commissioner Ortiz stated that he had noticed graffiti on the
wall and possibly abandoned vehicles behind the establishment.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Addressing the Commission in favor of the project was:
Delores Denley, 12344 Magnolia, E1 Monte, applicant. Ms. Denley
stated that the parking lot is being used by people who work
next to her business, but that there are no abandoned cars.
There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner
Lowrey, to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-585. Vote
resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-587.- 9010 E. Garvey Avenue, Units A &
B - Request from Tat B. Cam to transfer an existing conditional
use permit to operate a sewing factory.
Mr. Lyons presented the staff report with the recommendation to
approve, with a correction of condition #4 which should read:
"The number of persons inside the tenant space shall not exceed
total 'building occupancy as determined by the Building
Department."
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was:
Tat B. Cam, 4439 1/2 Walnut Grove Avenue, applicant. Mr. Cam
confirmed that he understood the conditions and that he was in
agreement.
There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 9.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner
Breen, to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-587 subject to the
conditions as amended. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
The Chairman called for a short recess and reconvened the
meeting accordingly.
OTHER BUSINESS
10. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-206 - Request to continue
the sale of beer and wine at 8923 Mission Drive (Rose's Market).
Mr. Lyons presented the staff memorandum and recommended to
grant a . three-year extension based on the improvements made on
the property.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner
Ruiz, to extend Conditional Use Permit 80-206 for a period of
three (3) years.
Commissioner Lowrey suggested that the extension be for a
period of one (1) year, rather than three (3) years, based on
past problems.
There being no objection, the motion was changed to approval of
a one (1) year extension. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
11. PC RESOLUTION 93-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE 93-252 TO ALLOW A
ROOM ADDITION WHILE MAINTAINING A ONE-CAR GARAGE AT 4718 HALKETT
AVENUE.
12. PC RESOLUTION 93-19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-582 TO
CONTINUE OPERATION OF A KARAOKE (KTV) STUDIO DBA KISS KTV
LOCATED AT 9151 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD.
13. PC RESOLUTION 93-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-583 TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LARGER THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET
LOCATED AT 9046 GUESS STREET.
14. PC RESOLUTION 93-21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-586 TO
ESTABLISH A FASHION SCHOOL LOCATED AT 8811 E. GARVEY AVENUE,
#201 & 202.
Mr. Price presented the resolutions by title only.
(MO) It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner
Ortiz, to waive further reading and approve. Vote resulted:
Yes: Lowrey, Ruiz, Young, Breen, Ortiz
15. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter - None
16. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF
A. Mr. Tarr stated that the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality
Element Consortium has completed its preparation of the Air
Quality Element, which will be made available to the
Commission within the near future.
PC Minutes 4-19-93
page 10.
B. Mr. Lyons congratulated commissioner Ortiz on his
reappointment as a Planning Commissioner.
C. Commissioner Lowrey reported on an accumulation of yard sale
advertisements throughout the City.
D. Commissioner Ruiz reported on an incident he witnessed at
Rosemead Square in front of Tract Auto Parts of draining oil
all over the parking area.
E. Commissioner Ortiz announced that his wife Marie and he
became proud grandparents of a baby boy born on 4-12-93 to
Gina and Victor Huerta. Little Austin weighed in at 9
pounds, 7 ounces and 2 grams and was 21 inches long.
17. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission,
the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting will
take place on May 3, 1993.
J