The South El Monte City Planning Commission on July 22 continued a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit CUP25-05, a proposal to operate an automotive body shop with a spray booth in Unit D at 10628 Weaver Avenue, after several residents raised air‑quality and public‑health concerns and asked the commission for more information.

Staff planner Charlise Hernandez told commissioners the site is about 42,320 square feet, with the industrial building totaling roughly 19,975 square feet and the applicant’s tenant space about 5,680 square feet. Hernandez said the applicant met the city’s minimum parking requirement for the auto repair use and that the sitewide parking total is 36 spaces; the proposed business would use 19 spaces (16 outdoor, 3 indoor). Staff recommended adoption of Resolution No. 25‑06 to approve CUP25‑05 subject to standard conditions.

The staff presentation described project conditions that address public safety and air quality. Hernandez said the applicant must obtain and maintain a permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), install a clarifier to capture paint runoff, provide a spray‑booth filtration system, and follow building‑code requirements for fire sprinklers associated with spray booths. Hernandez also said the Building Division and LA County Sheriff’s Department had proposed standard safety and surveillance conditions.

During the hearing, commissioners asked several technical questions. One commissioner asked whether the spray booth requires fire sprinklers; staff replied that applicable building code requires sprinklers for spray booths. Commissioners also confirmed that the CUP conditions prohibit outdoor repair and outdoor storage of materials, require all work to be performed indoors, and limit hours of operation to 9 a.m.–5 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Residents and callers spoke in opposition or requested more information. Karina Ramirez, who said she lives at 10723 Weaver Avenue, said she and neighbors worry about “air quality and the potential hazards” from paint fumes and runoff and asked for clearer community information about the filtration and disposal systems. Nobi Hayashi, who said he lives across the street, said that even small leaks or fugitive emissions concern neighbors with asthma and young children. An online caller, Gloria Olmos, asked whether AQMD had reviewed the facility; staff said the applicant currently holds an active AQMD permit and that AQMD permit conditions were included among the conditions of approval.

The applicant (a representative who said he was acting for the owner) said no major interior or exterior construction was planned and that the business hoped to open by Sept. 1. The applicant described the spray‑booth monitoring system: a monitor indicates when filters reach the replacement threshold and the filters are removed by a licensed hazardous‑waste recycler or the equipment vendor. The applicant also said sanding and other preparatory work would occur inside an enclosed area separated by curtains and that the spray‑booth itself is an enclosed unit using commercial paints (PPG brand was mentioned).

Several speakers in the public record asked for documentary evidence. Commissioners and members of the public asked staff to provide the AQMD permit and related AQMD reports, documentation on clarifier operation and disposal, and more detail about how filter replacement is enforced and inspected.

Given the number of community questions and requests for the AQMD documentation and filtration specifics, the commission voted to continue the public hearing. A motion to continue passed unanimously: Chair Ortiz — yes; Vice Chair Barrera — yes; Commissioner Retamosa — yes; Commissioner Tang — yes. The motion and second were made from the dais (names of mover and seconder were not recorded on the audio). Staff said that if the item is continued they will include the AQMD documentation and more detailed descriptions of the filtration and monitoring equipment and will invite any available third parties to answer questions.

What’s next: The commission left the record open only insofar as staff will return with the requested AQMD materials and filtration details. Commissioners asked staff to provide the AQMD permit and reports as attachments and to coordinate whether an AQMD representative or additional technical experts can attend a future hearing so residents can ask follow‑up questions.

Residents and callers were told to report any onsite nuisance to AQMD and city code enforcement; staff said the city would pursue enforcement and would involve AQMD if a violation is alleged. The commission did not vote on adoption of Resolution No. 25‑06 at the July 22 meeting.