Metal Buildings Dent South El Monte’s Image

“You look at any town around here and try to be honest,” Councilman Greg Meis said, scanning the audience at a recent City Council meeting.

” . . . This is the junk heap.”

For one long moment, Meis’ words hung in the smoke-filled air of the council chambers, a painfully embarrassing acknowledgment by an elected official and 25-year resident that his is one of the worst looking cities in the San Gabriel Valley.

Meis’ remarks came at a recent council meeting during one of several debates in the past 18 months over the fate of 237 deteriorating corrugated metal industrial buildings scattered throughout the city’s three square miles. The buildings, many of them rusting and unpainted eyesores, line some of the town’s busiest thoroughfares.

Replacement Cost Unknown

City officials say they do not know how much it will cost to replace or renovate the metal buildings, but either way the expense to the owners undoubtedly will run into the millions of dollars.

The debate over the metal buildings, however, has posed a dilemma for city officials.

“They are trying to please the residential community by trying to upgrade the city, but on the other hand (they are) making an attempt not to run the businesses out of town,” said former Planning Director Nancy Owens.

Some observers say the council wishes the metal building issue would disappear like smog after a rain shower. But it won’t. The clock is winding down.

The council must deal with the problem by April, when a 1966 ordinance giving owners of metal buildings 20 years to demolish or replace the structures takes effect. This has forced a showdown between council members who want to fully enforce the ordinance and those who would compromise and allow property owners to only refurbish their buildings.

Majority Favor Leniency

So far, the majority of the council has taken the more lenient stand, which satisfies most business people. But the issue appears far from resolved. The five-member council is scheduled to consider the matter once again at its Feb. 13 meeting.

Meis, who plans to seek reelection in April and is in the minority on the council in advocating removal of the metal buildings, has been accused of playing politics with the issue.

It is indeed a thorny subject that veteran City Hall observers say exemplifies the time-honored central theme in local politics: business interests versus those of the town’s 17,300 residents. But the metal-building issue cuts deeper than campaign rhetoric, they say.

The debate goes to the heart of what might best be described as a civic identity crisis. The conflict touches on the city’s longstanding desire to shed its image as one of Southern California’s industrial low-rent districts and to invigorate a stagnant local economy. Sales tax revenue, which was about $2.7 million in fiscal 1984-85, is expected to be about the same this year, City Manager Raul Romero said.

The metal-building issue also stirs fear among some city officials that pressuring businesses to improve their appearance will lead to their departure or closure and a subsequent loss of sales tax revenue and jobs.

“Personally, I would like to see all those tin buildings go,” Councilman Albert Perez said in an interview last week. “On the other hand, I would have to live with myself that I may be putting some people out of work and putting a strain on the businesses.”

Meis, who served on the council that approved the 1966 measure, views the problem differently. “Someone always suffers,” Meis said. “If they have a viable business, they make the investment. I’m looking out for the city as a whole, the big picture. We have to upgrade or we’re going to die.”

Much Commercial Land

More than half the city is zoned for commercial, industrial and public use, and businessmen--through lobbying efforts by the 300-member South El Monte Business Council--have continued to impress upon the council their value as employers and tax revenue producers.

With low monthly rents, some below 30 cents a square foot, for metal buildings, South El Monte has become a haven for small enterprises just starting out or operating on a slim profit margin, several businessmen said. Virtually everyone agrees that the metal structures are unsightly, but businessmen and most council members contend that removing them would force some companies that could not afford to rebuild to move or close, which could damage the local economy.

“We are marginal and we hire (marginally trained) people,” George Barrett, owner of Harris Conveyor & Rentals Inc., said at a recent council meeting. “It’s not Silicon Valley.”

Barrett said in an interview that he could not afford to spend the estimated $400,000 to $500,000 it would cost to replace his 20,000-square-foot, metal-sided facility.

Viewed at Litmus Test

Residents, however, have urged the council for years to clean up the city’s image by tightening zoning laws and cracking down on violators. Some, including Meis, view the metal-building controversy as the litmus test on the issue.

“It’s about time we do something for the residents,” Meis said.

Although South El Monte has a reputation for a volatile political climate, the council’s recent debate over the metal-building issue has not attracted much attention in the community despite its importance to the city’s future.

Mayor John Gonzales said, “They (the residents) aren’t totally aware of what’s happening. It’s mostly been the business people because they’re the ones affected.”

Councilman Stanley Quintana said that when the council first began reviewing the metal-building ordinance in 1984, “There was a slight tiff between the people in the community and the business community.”

‘I Waited for 20 Years’

“The residents did speak out,” said Donna Rogers, a longtime community activist and chairman of the Recreation and Parks Commission. “But after listening to the City Council, we didn’t feel it (their opposition) was going to make that big a difference. I waited for 20 years (thinking) that the buildings were going to be torn down.”

Rogers believes that some compromise is necessary, but said she is concerned that some unsightly buildings will be allowed to remain.

Although most councilmen said they are inclined to be lenient and let property owners fix up metal buildings rather than remove them, the council’s efforts to change the old ordinance have become tangled in a confusing web of legislation.

On Jan. 23, Quintana introduced an amendment to the old ordinance that would allow the metal buildings to stand, but require walls visible from streets to be recovered with new, more attractive metal siding or with a non-metal material such as stucco. Wall sections hidden from the street would have to be painted to match the color of the new covering and exposed metal eaves would have to be concealed. The measure also would require owners to provide 75% of the parking space required by current zoning standards and to landscape frontage whenever possible. Councilmen Perez and Ignacio (Slim) Gracia joined Quintana in a 3-2 vote to introduce the amendment.

Two in Opposition

Meis and Gonzales opposed Quintana’s amendment, saying they prefer enforcing the old ordinance, although both men had backed previous compromises that would allow metal buildings to remain but require all of the structures to be totally recovered with more attractive materials.

“It’s long overdue, it’s been on the books a long time,” Gonzales said. “We don’t have any great commercial area in the city and quite possibly, the removal of some of these metal buildings might make it possible for (more) commercial development in the city.”

As it turned out, Quintana’s proposed amendment differed substantially from what his allies, Perez and Gracia, said they thought they had approved for introduction.

The amendment submitted by Quintana reads: “All portions of the building visible from a public street shall be either covered with a non-metal material or removed and replaced with (new) metal. . . . The portion of the building not visible from a public street . . . shall be coated with a material . . . in a color to match the portion of the building improved.”

One Vote Could Change

Perez and Gracia said in interviews last week that they believed Quintana’s measure called for total refurbishment of all metal buildings adjacent to the street, including walls not visible from the street, and the recovering of the portions of any other metal structures visible from the street. Perez, who represents the potential swing vote, said he would change his vote if that were not the case. “I believe there was a misunderstanding,” Gracia said.

Meis, Gonzales, Romero and City Atty. Steve Dorsey said their understanding of Quintana’s amendment was that it called only for modification of portions of buildings visible from the street. Quintana confirmed that interpretation in an interview last Monday.

However, after being informed the next day that there was confusion over his amendment and that Perez was considering changing his vote, Quintana said he had intended his amendment to require total refurbishment of front buildings and partial recovering of rear structures seen from the street.

Quintana said in a third interview that the other city officials--including Dorsey who was ordered to put the finishing touches on his proposal--had misinterpreted his remarks before the council. Quintana said his comments during the first interview on Monday had been misunderstood. He added that he had not read his own copy of his proposed amendment closely enough to realize it did not say what he thought it did. Quintana said the confusion arose from the fact that the council has considered several similar amendments, often borrowing language from previous versions.

Conflict Downplayed

Quintana downplayed the conflict and said the confusion can easily be cleared up at the next meeting. “It seems to me that the business people are getting a fair shake and the community will benefit from this,” he said.