Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC - Item 2A - Design Review 03-110 Appeal Universal Bank
0 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: f ~ L CROWE, CITY MANAGERQ DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2005 • RE: DESIGN REVIEW 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328; APPEAL UNIVERSAL BANK - 8855 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD BACKGROUND The owner of the Rosemead Shopping Center, Mr. Bob Nguyen, has filed an appeal of the design review and zone variance applications that were approved by the Planning Commission at the August 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Commission unanimously approved the proposed building renovations and a variance for parking considerations as they relate to a legal non- conforming property, currently occupied by Universal Bank. Mr. Nguyen's property surrounds that parcel. Staff has been working with both property owners over the last three years to reach a mutually agreed upon renovation plan for both properties. An agreement has not been reached and the two separate property owners have continued to file separate entitlement applications in lieu of a joint application. This is a continued public hearing item from the City Council meeting of October 11, 2005. The applicant, Mr. Eric Lee has proposed a project that would renovate the existing Universal Bank structure and the surrounding landscape and hardscape surfaces. In addition, Mr. Lee is requesting the conversion of two existing, vacant office spaces into a sit-down restaurant and a coffeelsandwich shop. The disagreement between the two property owners now seems to center around the interpretation of the existing reciprocal access and parking covenant recorded on the properties. C',0 U MCI.L AGFE DA O C T 2 2005 1 TEM 9r:o. ,,1-T-A • Staff supports the Universal Bank renovation project design, with slight modifications to the angled parking lane design. Due to the lack of coordination between the two property owners, staff will bring forward, at a later date, a public hearing item on Mr. Nguyen's application as they have plans to expand the leasable area of the existing shopping center. On October 20, 2005 the City facilitated a meeting between both property owners and their legal counsel. The meeting was held to determine whether there was any consensus on moving forward with either or both renovation plans in a coordinated effort. Attached is a copy of a continuance request by Mr. Nguyen. During the meeting with the City, Mr. Lee refused to grant a continuance of the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision of approval of DESIGN REVIEW 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328. Attachments: A. Letter from Kevin Ennis, dated October 20, 2005 B. Letter from Bob Nguyen, dated October 19, 2005 0 0 RECEIVED ftiN RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON OCT 2 0 2005 VNIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue, 4oth Floor, Los Angeles, Califomia 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078 October 20, 2005 RICHARD RICHARDS (1916-1988) GLENN R. WATSON (RETIRED) HARRY L GERSHON (RETIRED) Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council STEVEN L DORSEY City of Rosemead MITCHELL E.ABBOTT 8838 E. Valley Blvd. GREGORY W. STEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE Rosemead, California 91770 WILLIAM B. RUDELL QUINN M.BARROW CAROL W. LYNCH GREG ORYM. KUNERT )IMIMBO BO THOMAS M Reference: Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 - 8855 East Valley ROBERT C. CI. 000N STEVEN H. KAUFMANN DC Universal GARY E. GANS JOHN 1. HARRIS KEVIN G. ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS Dear Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council: MICHAEL ESTRADA LAURENCE 5. WIENER STEVEN R. ORR B. TILDEN KIM SASKIA T ASAMURA This letter supplements our prior letter dated October 5, 2005, and our comments . KAYS ER O. SLIME THORSON PETER M 2005, so as to provide additional responses made at the public hearing on October 11 . JAMES L MARKMAN CRAIG A. STEELE , to several assertions made by the appellant with regard to Mr. Lee's application. We T. PETER PIERCE TEREN R. BO LISA BOND D LISA lso want to respond to the suggestion made by one or two councilmembers that Mr. JAN ET E. COLESON ROXANNE M M 0XA DI AZ Lee's application should be remanded back down to the Planning Commission or the . . JIM G. GRAYSON ROY A. CLARKE City Council hearing deferred until Mr. Nguyen,s second expansion application is WILLIAM P. CURLEY 111 YOSHISA MICHAEL F . processed by the City. We will start with the issue of the option of further delay so as N DANN ER DAMN ER REGINA MARGUERITE P. 8ATTERSBY AMY GREYSON o provide concurrent review of Mr. Nguyen's and Mr. Lee's applications. DEBORAH R. HAKMAN D. CRAIG FOX ROBERT H. PITTMAN PAULA GUTIERREZ BAEZA 1. Potential Delay in Action on Mr. Lee's Application in Order to Allow TERESA HO-URANO OWEN P. GROSS Concurrent Action with Mr. Nguyen's Second Expansion Application. JIM R. KARPIAK ALEXANDER ABBE MICHAEL P. COYNE DIANA K. CHUANG I S As we stated at the hearing, Mr. Lee has waited nearly two years to have his PATR CK K. BO KO DANIEL R. GARCIA EZRA I• REINSTEIN application processed and approved. His application was filed on September 22, SOMALI SARKAR)ANDIAL DAVID M. SNOW 2003, and finally approved by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2005. As you LOLLY A. ENRIQUEZ G. INDER KHALSA E G URT well understand Mr. Lee is entitled to have his application acted upon in a reasonably . MC HY BRUC MATTHEW B. FINNIGAN GINETTA L GIOVINCD prompt period of time. More specifically, the time for the City to act on the TR ISHA ORTIZ CAN DICE K. LEE application was sixty days once the application was deemed complete and it was MARICELA E. MARROQUiN BRIAN D. MABEE found to be categorically exempt from CEQA. Despite these protections, Mr. Lee has MARK LCLAMKEN waited patiently and worked diligently with staff to prepare and revise site plans, SAYRE WEAVER WILLIAM K. KRAMER renderings, and obtained three traffic and parking studies for his proposed project. BRUCE W. GALLOWAY NORMAN A. DUPONT The first parking study showed how many spaces were available during different SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE times of the day. The second was requested to show where the empty spaces in the `1 TELEPHONE 415.421.8484 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE lot were actually located. The third was requested to show parking calculations after TELEPHONE 714.990.0901 the new Asian supermarket had opened. During the pendency of Mr. Lee's application, a later-filed application by the other owner of property in the shopping center (Mr. Nguyen) was filed on May 10, 2005, and approved by the City on July 18, 2005, before Mr. Lee's application was set for RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON• ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council October 20, 2005 Page 2 hearing. Mr. Nguyen's application sought and obtained approval of a 3,438 square foot expansion to his building and what was effectively at least a nine-space parking variance (13 spaces required for the building addition, less the four added to the site plan). Mr. Lee did not appeal Mr. Nguyen's application, did not threaten lawsuits, and did not insist that Mr. Nguyen's application be delayed until action of the City on his own application. Mr. Lee's deference was based, in part, on the assumption that if the City was not going to tie the timing of approval of Mr. Nguyen's application to his own, that the City would not seek to do the same with Mr. Lee's long-pending application. When Mr. Lee's application was finally presented to the Planning Commission and the Commission heard the arguments of Mr. Nguyen's representatives, the Planning Commission recognized that it was not appropriate to delay Mr. Lee's applications any further and approved them. Thereafter, Mr. Nguyen's representatives filed the pending appeal. Mr. Nguyen appears to want the City to deny Mr. Lee's application and instead approve Mr. Nguyen's second expansion project that has not even been finalized by the applicant or studied by staff. Mr. Nguyen's representatives also threatened a lawsuit against Mr. Lee and the City if Mr. Lee's application is approved, in an apparent attempt to intimidate the City from approving Mr. Lee's application. In the midst of these efforts, a councilmember mentioned at the October 11, 2005 public hearing that it was appropriate to delay Mr. Lee's application further so that Mr. Nguyen's application (his second in one year) can be finalized and acted upon by the City concurrently with Mr. Lee's application. Clearly, any applicant in Mr. Lee's position would be frustrated and troubled by these series of events. As a result, Mr. Lee does not believe the delays in processing his application are appropriate and does not agree with the proposal to delay further action on his application and tie it together with Mr. Nguyen's application. Mr. Lee has several reasons for this position. First, as indicated above, Mr. Lee has waited more than a reasonable period of time and more than is allowed by law to obtain City decisions in connection with his plans to renovate his building. Second, Mr. Lee has already seen his application fall behind Mr. Nguyen's first expansion project even though Mr. Lee's application had been on file over 18 months prior to Mr. Nguyen's application. Third, during the two-year period that Mr. Lee's application has been on file, Mr. Nguyen has had sufficient time to make his proposal and submit his plans for his second expansion. Fourth, the City • RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON* NTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROF E55IONAL CORPORATION Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council October 20, 2005 Page 3 has sufficient factual and legal basis to approve Mr. Lee's application, as has already been determined by City staff, the Planning Commission and as supported by three parking studies and other reports. Fifth, a referral back to the Planning Commission, or an indefinite continuance in the appeal hearing, provides no assurance to Mr. Lee that Mr. Nguyen's application will be fully submitted, deemed complete, evaluated and acted upon within any given period of time. What if parking and traffic studies are required for Mr. Nguyen's project? How long will those take? Will Mr. Nguyen ask for continuances or delays, as he has apparently done in the context of this appeal hearing? Lastly, if the City sought to have concurrent action on any expansion plans for buildings in the center, then is it fair for the City not to have required that concurrent action when it acted to approve Mr. Nguyen's first expansion plan, but to now shift approaches and impose that burden and delay on Mr. Lee? To do so now impacts only Mr. Lee at this point and is unfair and inconsistent with the City's actions taken with respect to Mr. Nguyen. Instead, it is both workable and fair to separate the City's actions on the applications and allow Mr. Lee to make the needed renovations and improvements on his separate property, independent of the actions or inactions of his neighbor. Mr. Lee has shown that he can add parking on his side of the property and provided parking studies that show more than sufficient and available parking to accommodate his proposed plans. As discussed more fully later in this letter, Mr. Lee can make these improvements within the limitations of the Easement Agreement without going onto Mr. Nguyen's property. Accordingly, Mr. Lee seeks the City's review and action on his application and does not want to consent to a waiver of the Permit Streamlining Act so as to allow Mr. Lee's application to be remanded back to the Commission for further consideration, if and when Mr. Nguyen decides to move forward with his second application. Linking the two projects together gives no assurance to Mr. Lee that he will be able to renovate his building in any reasonable period of time, if at all, whereas separating the actions provides a fair and level playing field to both applicants for each to proceed when ready and as warranted by the facts. 2. Mr. Lee's Proposed Parking Lot Improvements are not Prohibited by the Parking Lot Agreement Easement. Much discussion was made by the appellant's representatives that the parking lot reconfiguration that Mr. Lee seeks in order to obtain more parking on his own side of the property line is not permitted by the recorded parking lot Easement Agreement. There is nothing in that Easement Agreement that precludes one property owner from reconfiguring the parking layout or drive isles that exist on their own side of the • RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON16 ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council October 20, 2005 Page 4 property so as to make more parking spaces. Mr. Lee's proposal retains a drive isle perpendicular to Valley Boulevard into the parking lot. The four-lane drive isle is proposed to be reduced to two lanes so as to provide more parking. This will not impair Mr. Nguyen's access to his property or the use of the parking lot. Rather, it will allow for additional parking for the benefit of both property owners. Furthermore, the existing four-lane drive isle presents a potential safety risk to drivers because some drivers believe that it is a two-way drive isle on each side of the landscaped island and therefore drive down the wrong side of the isle into oncoming lanes of traffic. For this reason, City staff suggested that this problem be corrected when the plans were first presented back in 2003 and Mr. Lee's proposal addresses and resolves that problem, while creating more parking for both properties. 3. Mr. Nguyen's Request to Construct a Building in the Parking Lot is not Permitted by the Parking Easement between the Two Property Owners. In contrast to the reconfiguration of a driveway isle in the parking lot, there is a clear and direct ban on the construction of additional buildings within the parking easement area as provided in the following excerpt from the Easement Agreement: "Each of the parties, expressly for itself and its assigns and successors, hereby covenants and agrees with the other party expressly for the benefit of such other party and its assigns and successors, and expressly for the benefit of the real property owned by such party and described in Exhibit I that the property described in paragraph 1 hereof shall be used for the sole purposes herein stated and that no building, structures or other obstructions shall be erected thereon, except those on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit II." (Section 3 of "Agreement and Grant of Easements," dated January 5, 1966 and recorded on January 10, 1966) Emphasis added. A building is not shown on the plat where Mr. Nguyen seeks to build his new building in the middle of the parking lot. This area is clearly and unequivocally designated for parking for the benefit of both properties. Given this clear prohibition, why should the City wait for Mr. Nguyen to complete his application and for the City to act on it if the underlying project is not permitted by deed restrictions on the property? Is Mr. Nguyen seeking to have the City use its land use approval powers and procedures so as to extract an amendment to that Easement for the benefit of Mr. RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFE55IONAL CORPORATION Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council October 20, 2005 Page 5 Nguyen's property and project? Clearly, the City would not want to take sides in what is a private contractual matter between the two property owners by using its land use approval powers and procedures so as to favor one side over the other in that dispute. 4. Mr. Lee's Application Should be Approved whether or not Mr. Nguyen Decides to Provide a Greater Number of Parking Spaces on his Property. At the hearing, the appellant asserted that the parking layout plan that Mr. Lee submitted shows parking spaces that either don't currently exist or cannot be constructed in compliance with City standards on Mr. Nguyen's side of the property. First, Mr. Lee has informed us that his traffic and parking consultant hand counted all of the spaces at the time the parking lot surveys were done and plans were submitted. Mr. Lee noted that after that occurred, Mr. Nguyen had his side of the parking lot re- slurried and then new parking space lines affixed to the pavement. Mr. Lee believes that as a part of that re-slurring process, the number of striped spaces may have been reduced. If so, Mr. Lee cannot be responsible for actions apparently taken by Mr. Nguyen to reduce the number of parking spaces from those which previously existed when Mr. Nguyen restriped his side of the parking lot. Second, the plans that Mr. Nguyen submitted in connection with his first expansion project apparently showed as many as 18 more parking spaces than the City had counted in the field. This is based on the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration of Mr. Nguyen's project. Mr. Nguyen's project was approved with those additional spaces shown on his plans. Therefore, Mr. Lee should be able to rely upon that prior City action and approval as Mr. Nguyen is now required to provide the 18 additional parking spaces that Mr. Nguyen indicated would be provided on his property. We will submit additional information at the continued hearing as to what the City's approved plans for Mr. Nguyen's first expansion showed in terms of parking spaces in the front of his building. Third, the parking studies provided to the City show that any added spaces on Mr. Nguyen's side of the property are not needed to ensure adequate parking at any time of the day or night for all uses in the shopping center. Therefore, sufficiency of available parking is not dependant on additional parking efficiencies on Mr. Nguyen's side of the property anyway. Fourth, Mr. Lee has no intention of going onto Mr. Nguyen's side of the property to unilaterally make changes to Mr. Nguyen's side of the parking lot. If Mr. Nguyen • RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHOA ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFE55IONAL CORPORATION Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council October 20, 2005 Page 6 does not choose to make changes to his parking lot to provide additional spaces, Mr. Lee has no intention of making those changes himself. We will present further information regarding the validity of Mr. Lee's plans and the number of parking spaces shown as part of our presentation and the presentation of Mr. Lee's traffic and parking engineer at the public hearing. Mr. Lee's Project Approvals will Transform this Prominent and Important Property in the City's Central Business District and Bring Other Benefits to the Community What is getting lost in the discussion of Mr. Lee's application are the significant benefits to the community that will occur if Mr. Lee's applications are approved. The Universal Bank Building is a prominent building in the central portion of the City's Central Business District. These approvals will result in the long-need renovation of this building. The existing purple and teal building with its bland and outdated design will be transformed with a sophisticated and updated architectural design that utilizes a rich golden exterior color, incorporates high quality materials and details, provides pedestrian amenities and functionality, and incorporates much improved landscape treatments. In addition, an unsightly and prominent billboard-size pole sign will be removed despite state law protections afforded owners of on-premise pole signs. Altogether, the renovation plan will transform the property, improve surrounding property values and benefit the surrounding commercial corridor. Furthermore, the new businesses that will occupy portions of the first floor, unlike the bank use, will bring not only business license taxes but also sales taxes to the City (under state law, banks are exempt from the payment of local business license taxes and bank uses do not generate sales tax) so as to help pay for local public services. In summary, the project is a benefit to the shopping center, an improvement to the commercial corridor, and will contribute to the community's general welfare while at the same time that it addresses all applicable planning, engineering, safety and other considerations. We appreciate your favorable consideration of these issues, an end to the unfortunate delays, and look forward to the City's approval of Mr. Lee's application and the improvements Mr. Lee seeks to bring to downtown Rosemead. • RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON• ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council October 20, 2005 Page 7 If you or your staff have any questions or if we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to ask us at the continued hearing. Very truly yours, Kevin G. Ennis cc: Eric Lee, DC Universal Peter Wallin, City Attorney's Office Brad Johnson, Planning Director 12521.0003 856265.1 • • f Rosemead Shopping Center, LLC P.O. Box 350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 From the Desk of Bob Nguyen October 19, 2005 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of Rosemead City Council: I am writing to you regarding the appeal of Universal Bank's plans and I urge everybody in helping us to resolve this matter. I would like to encourage everybody to contribute any opinions, suggestions, ideas or advice in order for both parties to meet the requirements of City of Rosemead. 1 am confident if both parties are able to work together in resolving their differences, it will benefit the City of Rosemead in many ways. Than Best Bob • • TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS - ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROSEMEAD SHOPPING CENTER, LLC DATE: October 20, 2005 RE: APPEAL UNIVERSAL BANK - 8855 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD For the last two years, the City of Rosemead has worked with both parties, Mr. Eric Lee and Mr. Bob Nguyen regarding each renovation projects but no agreement has been made. On prior occasions, Mr. Bob Nguyen has taken the liberty to present to Mr. Eric Lee renovation plans for his review and opinion. The first plans cause for demolition of a restaurant (Valley Grill) and construction of 19,000 sq. feet. The meeting to submit the first plans to Mr. Eric Lee was assisted by the City of Rosemead. The second plans submitted to Mr. Eric Lee for his initial review and opinions, cause for demolition of a restaurant (Valley Grill) and construction of 12,000 sq. feet. We received no response from Mr. Eric Lee on said plans. We strongly believe if the parties do not reach a mutual agreement on the renovation projects, both parties will suffer delays and incur further expenses. As a result, it is in the best interest of both parties to settle all differences in order to make Rosemead Shopping Center and DC Universal LLC, a great place to shop for the residents of the City of Rosemead. On October 5, 2005, Mr. Bob Nguyen has submitted his final plans to the City of Rosemead. Mr. Bob Nguyen' plans call for demolition of a building of 4,350 sq. feet (Valley Grill) and removal of front fagade of 1,520 sq. feet (Square Yard) which totals 5,870 sq. feet in property reduction; and construction of only 9,000 sq. feet building. The demolition is being done to increase parking spaces in the shopping center and to change the visual appearance of the shopping. This renovation project by Mr. Bob Nguyen provides (41) forty-one additional parking spaces. In addition, construction of a new building at the corner has gained the attraction of Starbucks, Wells Fargo Bank and HiTek (television and audio store). We are currently discussing with other nationally known franchises about their interest in the new building. We are confident that the plans submitted by Mr. Bob Nguyen will satisfy all the requirements of the City of Rosemead Planning Department after the City of Rosemead have time to review them. We hope the City of Rosemead will allow us (60) sixty days extension in order for us to work together with Mr. Eric Lee. • Rosemead Shopping Center New Parking Requitement Analysis Parking credit - ' 1. Fxisting restaurant to be removed 4,350 sq. ft. 100 = +43.5(Space) 2. Existing fabric shop to bo removed area 1,520 sq. ft. / 250 = + 6 (Space) 3. New additional parking stalls : + 41 (Space) 4. Existing parking stalls to be removed for new Bldg. Site - 20 (Space) Total Parking credit: 43.5 + 6 + 41- 20 = 70.5 (Space) New additional commercial Bldg. parking requirement analysis Retail: 5,000 sq. ft. /250 = 20 (Space) Restaurant: 4,009 sq. ft. / 100 = 40 (Space) Total parking requirement: 60 (Space) Parking credit - Parking requirement = 70.5 - 60 = 10.5 (Space) Providing 10 extra spaces LAW OFFICES C 1 LL AN D BALDW 1 N. LLP JOHN M. CARMACK KIRK S. MACDONALD 130 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD DANA R. COREY SUITE 405 GLENDALE. CALIFORNIA 91203 SAMUEL S. GILL (1912-1965) ERNEST R. BALDWIN (1925-1996) August 24, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE & MESSENGER City of Rosemead Attention: City Council Members and City Clerk 8838 East Valley Boulevard P.O. Box 399 Rosemead, CA 91770 Re: Appeal from Decision of Planning Department At Public Hearing of August 15, 2005 - Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 Dear City Council Members and City Clerk: TELEPHONES (323) 245-3131 (818) 500-7755 (310) 558-1 115 FACSIMILE (818) 242-4305 W W W.G ILLANDBALDWIN.COM This office represents Mr. Ban ("Bob") Nguyen, an owner of commercial property located at 8815 East Valley Boulevard, commonly known as Universal Square Shopping Center. This property abuts commercial property owned by Eric Lee located at 8855 East Valley Boulevard. On August 15, 2005, the City of Rosemead Planning Department held a public hearing on various matters, amongst which is a request by Mr. Lee to convert a portion of existing office space located at 8855 East Valley Boulevard into a restaurant and coffee shop/sandwich shop. This request is known as Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05- 328. Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 was approved by the City of Rosemead Planning Department on August 15, 2005. This letter shall serve as notice to the City of Rosemead City Council Members and the City Clerk that Mr. Nguyen chooses to appeal the approval by the City of Rosemead Planning Department of Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328. This appeal is based on the fact that the City of Rosemead Planning Department failed to follow Sections 17.72.030, 17.72.050, and 17.108.020 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code. The City of Rosemead Planning Department also erroneously proceeded on the assumption that Mr. Lee's plans are a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). This is not a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuantto Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality EXHIBIT A • City of Rosemead Attention: City Council Members and City Clerk August 24, 2005 Page 2 Act. Lastly, Mr. Lee's plans include expanding the parking lot capacity on Mr. Nguyen's property. Mr. Nguyen has not granted any such rights to Mr. Lee, and therefore, the majority of the additional parking spaces contemplated by this plan are an illusion. As a result of the City of Rosemead's failure to adhere to its own Municipal Codes, CEQA, and Mr. Nguyen's real property rights, Mr. Lee's plans fail to: 1. Indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; 2. Be in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area,; 3. Be in conformity with the standards of the RMC and CEQA; and 4. Indicate that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development. In addition, this variance does not meet with applicable RMC because: 1. It constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and 2. It is injurious to the property in the immediate vicinity. In conformance with this appeal, enclosed please find Gill and Baldwin check number 5778 in the amount of $337.50, which Mr. Brad Johnson represented was the filing fee for this appeal. Please let me know when this appeal may be heard before the City Council Members. f i~-,J C.p t2 ~ f~ ~ I Sincerely n T~4-4A Dan a . Corey DRC:jo Encl. cc: Mr. Bob Nguyen (w/o encl.) JANguyen\Lee\Letters\City Clerk 08-22-05.wpd • 0 fti►'tj RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON VNI ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue, 4oth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078 RICHARD October 5, 2005 GLENN R. WATSON (RETIRED) Mayor Jay Imperial and Members of the City Council HARRY L. GERSHON (RETIRED) City of Rosemead DAROLD D, PIEPER 8838 East Valley Boulevard STEVEN L DORSEY WILLIAM L STRAUSZ Rosemead California 91770 MITCHELL E. ABDOTT GREGORY W. STEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE WILLIAM B. RVDELL QUINN M BARROW RROW Reference: Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 - 8855 East Valley . CAROL W. LYNCH GREGORY M. KUNF0.T Boulevard - Applications by Mr. Eric Lee on behalf of DC Universal THOMAS M.IIMBO ROBERT C. CECCON STEVEN H. KAUFMANN GARY E. GALAS JOHN 1 HARR IS Dear Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council: KEVIN G. ENN IS ROBIN D. HARRIS MICHAEL LAURENCEHCE S. . WIENER WIENER We represent Mr. Eric Lee of D.C. Universal, LLC, the owner of the Universal Bank STEVEN R. ORR B. TILDE" KIM Building located at 8855 East Valley Boulevard at the northwest corner of Valley SASKIA T. ASAMURA KAY THORSO THORSON PETER M M Boulevard and Ivar Avenue. This letter is submitted to provide additional . . TAMES MEELLS S CRAIG A. . ST STEE background in support of the application and to respond to the appeal filed by Mr. T. PETER PIERCE TERENCE R. BOLA Dana Corey on behalf his client, Mr. Ban "Bob" Nguyen. LISA BOND IANET E. COLESON ROXANNE M. DIAZ TIM G. `C"ARD ROY A. CLARKE S Proposed Improvements and Applications WILLIAM P- CURLEY III MICHAEL F. YOSHISA REGINA N. DANNER MARGUERITE P. BATTERS BY DC Universal seeks to refurbish and remodel the exterior of the Universal Bank AMY GREY5 ON DEBORAH R. HAKMAN D CRAIG FOX Building and has applied for Design Review approval for improvements to the . ROBERT H. PITY MAN PAULA GUTIERREZ BAEZA exterior fagade, landscaping and patio areas on the property. This property has been TERESA HO•URAN0 OWEN P. GROSS in need of repair and refurbishment for some time and DC Universal is looking JIM R. KARPIAK EVAN 1. McGINLEY ALFXANOER OERAB ABBE forward to completely renovating and upgrading the exterior of the building with a MICHAEL PIE OA. LEE YNE contemporary and high quality design that will significantly enhance this important DIANA K. CHUANG PATRICK K. BOBKO corner property. In connection with this application, DC Universal seeks to convert DANIEL R. GARCIA EZRA I. REINSTEIN IULILT E COX two small portions of existing but unused office space on the first floor of the . SOMALI SARKAR )AN L DAVID D M. . $N O OW building into a restaurant and a coffee/sandwich shop. G. INDER KHALSA BRUCE G. McCARTHY MATTHEW B. FINNIGAN GINETTA L GIOYINCO TR SHA ORT In connection with this application, DC Universal has applied for a Zone Variance to I IZ CANDICE MARK K. LEE LEE MARICELA E. . MARR ermit a change in use from office to restaurant for two portions (2,600 sq. ft. and BRIAN D. MABEE 1,790 sq. ft.) of the existing 15,000 square foot first floor of the Universal Bank OF COUNSEL MARK L LAMKEN Building. To address any potential parking impacts this change may cause, the traffic SAYRE WEAVER WILLIAM K. KRAMER BRUCE W GALLOWAY LOWAY engineering firm of Austin Foust Associatesf Inc., assessed the parking needs of the . SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE uses in the entire shopping center and the amount of available parking lot spaces at TELEPHONE 415.421.8484 peak operating periods, on several occasions. Austin Foust concluded that there is a ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE TELEPHONE 714.990.0901 surplus of 62 parking spaces over the parking spaces actually needed for the development. With the creation of one additional drive isle side of parking on DC Universal's Property, there will be more than enough parking spaces to satisfy the parking demand for the entire shopping center. RICHARDS I WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council October 5, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Ban "Bob" Nguyen, the appellant in this matter, is the owner of the other building in the same shopping center development. Both DC Universal's building and Mr. Nguyen's building are located on their own separate parcels of land but share a common parking lot pursuant to a reciprocal parking and access easement agreement. Earlier this year, Mr. Nguyen, applied for and obtained from the City Design Review Approval and a Zone Variance to permit the expansion of his shopping center building to allow for a 3,600 square foot warehouse addition to the rear of the shopping center for one of his tenants, the Rosemead Market. On August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission approved DC Universal's Design Review and Zone Variance applications. On August 24, 2005, the adjoining property owner, Mr. Nguyen, appealed that decision to the City Council by way of a letter submitted to the City by his attorney Mr. Dana Corey. Responses to Appeal Letter from Mr. Nguyen's Attorney Mr. Nguyen's attorney asserts three grounds for his appeal: (i) City has not made sufficient findings to grant the Design Review and Zone Variance applications; (ii) the applications should be subjected to additional environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act; and (iii) some of the added parking spaces proposed by DC Universal involve restriping a portion of the parking lot that is located on Mr. Nguyen's property. Mr. Nguyen has not given permission to DC Universal to make those parking lot changes. We take each of these arguments in turn. A. Substantial Evidence Exists in the Record to Support the City's Decision to Approve the Design Review Application The staff report for the Planning Commission meeting recited the requirements of all three sections of the Municipal Code mentioned by Mr. Corey. Those sections are 17.72.030 (improvements to buildings are subject to Design Review Approval); 17.72.050 (criteria for granting or denying a Design Review application); and 17.108.020 (criteria for granting a variance). The report then goes on to indicate what type of fagade and landscaping improvements are proposed, how those improvements are consistent with the General Plan, are aesthetically pleasing, and how the grant of the variance will not create an undue hardship on the rest of the shopping center. Sufficient facts and evidence exist in the Planning Commission's record to support the approval of the Design Review Application as follows: 0 0 RICHARDS WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council October 5, 2005 Page 3 (1) The proposed plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. The proposed plans provide for a proper physical relationship between the Universal Bank Building and surrounding developments because the location and shape of the building is not changing as a result of the proposed modifications. Existing site separations between adjoining properties and uses will remain as they presently exist. The proposed restaurant uses will be placed within the existing building and oriented toward the front and sides of the building adjacent to the Ivar Avenue and Valley Boulevard sides of the property. The plans provide for a redesigned facade of the Universal Bank Building and new landscaping improvements around the entire perimeter of the site. These improvements will transform the appearance of the building so as to be more compatible with more modem and upgraded buildings to the east and south of the site. Perimeter landscaped areas and walls will also be replaced or refurbished so as to be more consistent with surrounding landscaped areas on other neighboring developments. (2) The plan for the remodeled building provides enhancements and protections for adjacent properties against noise, vibrations, and other factors and provides for screening of mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. The plans call for the remodel of the exterior facade of an existing building and the conversion of a portion of the first floor from office to restaurant use. Conditions are imposed that protect adjacent properties from noise and vibrations that arise during construction by limiting construction hours and requiring compliance with all local Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Department laws (Planning Commission Conditions Nos. 5, 9 and 10.) Additional conditions are imposed to require screening of all rooftop appurtenances and equipment (Planning Commission Condition No. 18), and the renovation of the existing trash enclosure to incorporate decorative walls, overhead trellis elements and steel doors (Planning Commission Condition No. 31). In addition, other conditions impose property maintenance standards, require that exterior lights are directed away from adjacent properties, that graffiti is immediately removed, amount of signage is limited, and that a dilapidated masonry wall along the Ivar Avenue side of the property be removed and replaced. All of these requirements will have a positive impact on surrounding properties and ensure that adjacent properties will not be negatively affected by the proposed project. (3) The proposed exterior design is not at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings in the neighborhood so as to cause a depreciation in the appearance or value of the neighborhood. The proposed plans provide for a refurbished building with a contemporary and upgraded facade. High-quality building materials are proposed, including steel trowel finished plaster and Belgium Castle stone veneers for accent treatments. The color of the building will be changed • 0 RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council October 5, 2005 Page 4 from the current purple and pink color scheme to a burnt orange color which will be more compatible with the earth tones found in use on the exterior of surrounding buildings. New decorative features will be added such as pre-cast columns, plastered molding, roof cornice details, canvas awnings, and a copper roof element at the restaurant entrance point. All of these improvements will enhance the quality and value of the subject site and have a positive effect on the value of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. (4) The remodeled building will be in harmony with developments in the general area, including buildings in the Civic Center. The proposed remodeled building is located across the street from the Rosemead City Hall and near several other bank buildings. The proposed changes to the exterior will incorporate colors, design elements and other features that will be compatible with the earth tones of the City Hall and the darker colors utilized on neighboring bank buildings. (5) The remodeled building will be in conformity with the locational and appearance standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The existing and proposed uses of the building are commercial uses which are consistent with the "Commercial" General Plan designation for the site. These uses are also consistent with the Central Business District zone designation of the site, which zoning designation permits banks, offices, and restaurants, among other uses. Conditions have been imposed on the project to ensure that the standards in the Code regarding the appearance of the building area are complied with, including, but not limited to, landscaping maintenance standards, signage limitations, trash enclosure requirements, and roof- top equipment screening. (Planning Commission Conditions 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35). (6) The site plan and the design of the building, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicate that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, as well as the visual effect of the development when viewed from public streets. Functional improvements are proposed on the site that include parking lot improvements that provide as many as 22 additional parking spaces on DC Universal's property. Pedestrian on-site pathways will be reconstructed with improved pavement and significant new landscaping improvements will be made around the entire perimeter of the building. Visual improvements are also made to the front of the building, with additional architectural elements such as pre-cast columns, cornice treatments, and a copper roof entrance point. These improvements, together with the removal of the large pole sign at the front of the property and repainting the building with a color more compatible to surrounding development, will improve the visual effect of the development when viewed from surrounding properties and streets. 0 RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council October 5, 2005 Page 5 B. Substantial Evidence Exists in the Record to Support the City's Decision to Approve the Zone Variance Application The staff report provided the criteria for granting a zone variance. The staff report also included an extensive discussion of the parking requirements for the subject property and the reasons why a variance to those requirements is wan-anted in this case. Sufficient facts and evidence exist in the Planning Commission's record to support the approval of the Zone Variance from the parking standards for the reasons explained below: (1) The granting of this variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. First, the granting of this variance will allow for a conversion of only a small amount of existing square footage in the Universal Bank Building from office to restaurant. Based on the parking studies prepared by Austin Foust Associates, Inc, the parking demand that will be generated by the proposed conversion of uses is more than off-set by the existing surplus of parking spaces in the shopping center parking lot during peak parking demand periods and by the reconfiguration of a driveway isle on DC Universal's side of the property which will provide for up to an additional 22 parking stalls. Second, this variance is not permitting the expansion of the footprint of the existing building. This contrasts to a parking variance approved by the City just this year in connection with a 3,600 square foot expansion of the rear of the Rosemead Market within the shopping center development that is owned by Mr. Nguyen, the appellant in this matter. In that earlier matter, the variance permitted an increase in the overall footprint of the shopping center and allowed the expanded area to be located in an area previously used as a loading dock and driveway isle. The granting of the Zone Variance for DC Universal is a modest request compared to the request already sought and granted to the appellant, because it does not expand the footprint of the Universal Bank Building and adds parking spaces to the property. (2) The granting of the Zone Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity. The parking studies by Austin Foust Associates, Inc., analyzed the uses in the shopping center and the peak parking demands from those uses. Based on those studies, there is a surplus of parking spaces available in the shopping center, and with the addition of up to 22 additional parking spaces on the Universal Bank side of the property, the study concluded that there will be more than enough parking spaces to accommodate the proposed uses. Consequently, the proposed Parking Variance will not be materially detrimental to the City and will not adversely affect surrounding properties. 0 RICHARDS WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AI LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council October 5, 2005 Page 6 (3) The proposed uses will not adversely affect the City's comprehensive General Plan, The proposed uses are consistent with the Commercial designation of the property as specified in the Rosemead General Plan and are uses permitted by the Central Business District zoning designation for the property. The proposed variance will facilitate the rehabilitation of the existing building, upgrade the property, improve this prominent comer property in the City's Central Business Core, and bring additional tax-generating uses to the City. (4) The strict enforcement of the Code would, because of special circumstances, deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The failure of the City to grant this variance would be inconsistent with the privileges granted to the abutting property owner whose uses share the same parking lot with the uses in the Universal Bank Building. As stated previously, the City approved a parking variance this year in connection with a 3,600 square foot expansion of the rear of the Rosemead Market within the shopping center development that is owned by Mr. Nguyen, the appellant in this matter. In that earlier matter, the variance permitted an increase in the overall footprint of the shopping center and allowed the expanded area to be located in an area previously used as a loading dock and driveway isle. The granting of the Zone Variance for DC Universal is a modest request compared to the request already sought and granted to the appellant, because it does not expand the footprint of the Universal Bank Building and adds parking spaces to the property. C. Additional Environmental Review is Not Required for DC Universal's Applications Mr. Corey asserts, without factual or analytical support, that the actions contemplated by the Design Review and Zoning Variance Applications are not exempt from CEQA because the actions were not within the scope of CEQA's Class 1 Categorical Exemption. A Class 1 Categorical Exemption applies to projects that involve the repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public or private structures and involving negligible or no expansion of an existing use. DC Universal's applications are within the scope of both the Class 1 Categorical Exemption and the Class 3 Categorical Exemption. First, the proposed remodeling work constitutes the repair and minor alternation to an existing building. There is no expansion in the size or footprint of the existing building. (Class 1 Exemption - Section 15301). The Class 3 Categorical Exemption applies to construction of a building or the conversion of an existing building in an urbanized area where the constructed or converted area is less than 10,000 square feet, the use of a significant amount of • • RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council October 5, 2005 Page 7 hazardous substances is not anticipated, all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. The proposed remodeling project and the conversion of two small existing office areas to restaurant spaces does not exceed the 10,000 square foot maximum, there are no hazardous substances anticipated in the use, the public infrastructure surrounding the site already exists, and the building is located in the City's Central Business Core and not in an environmentally sensitive area. In addition to the application of these two Categorical Exemptions, there is no substantial evidence that the project will create a potentially significant impact on the environment. D. DC Universal's Plans are Independent of whether or not Mr. Nguyen Decides to Restripe his Portion of the Parking Lot to Provide for Greater Parking Efficiencies. Mr. Corey asserts that DC Universal's plans show several parking spaces on Mr. Nguyen's side of the parking lot that do not currently exist along certain drive isles, and that in the absence of those spaces, DC Universal's plans will have a greater impact on parking than previously considered. First, DC Universal believes that all of the parking spaces shown on the parking lot site plan prepared by DC Universal's parking consultant last year and submitted to the City at that time, existed prior to the slung seal and restriping of the parking lot that Mr. Nguyen completed earlier this year. Notwithstanding that point, if that parking lot site plan is no longer accurate, DC Universal will have the plan corrected. Regardless of whether the few parking spaces at the end of certain drive isles do or do not exist, Mr. Nguyen, DC Universal and the City would all benefit if Mr. Nguyen modified the location and width of some of the parking spaces to accommodate a few more parking spaces on his side of the parking lot. The plan provided by DC Universal's traffic engineer obviously shows that additional parking spaces can be created in the parking lot without much effort. We would hope that Mr. Nguyen would make these changes for his benefit and for others. However, even if he does not, DC Universal is prepared to change a driveway isle on its side of the parking lot and add up to 22 additional parking spaces to the shopping center parking lot. These additional parking spaces, together with the existing surplus number of parking spaces documented in the parking study, show that there will be more than enough parking spaces to accommodate the conversion of uses proposed by DC Universal. Therefore, there are enough parking spaces in the entire center to accommodate all the uses whether or not Mr. Nguyen chooses to obtain additional • • RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Imperial and Members of the City Council October 5, 2005 Page 8 parking efficiencies on his side of the parking lot. For these reasons, DC Universal's application should be approved regardless of whether those additional spaces on Mr. Nguyen's side of the parking lot are provided by Mr. Nguyen or not. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and to approve Design Review Application No. 03-110 and Zone Variance Application No. 05-328. Very truly yours, / _ Kevin G. Ennis cc: Eric Lee, D.C. Universal, LLC Peter Wallin, Deputy City Attorney Brad Johnson, Director of Planning 838438.1 08/15/2026 11:17 62-631467 US POST4L SERVICE August 13, 2005 From: Tenants' at Rosemead Shopping Center 8801 - 8845 E Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA. 91770 To: Honorable Chairman, Mr. Brad Johnson and Members of the Rosemead Planning Commission PAGE 02' Dear Honorable Chairman, Mr. Brad Johnson and Members of the Rosemead Planning Commision: We are all tenants conducting businesses located within the Rosemead Shopping Center and have gathered in unity today to undeniably object to the proposed projects by Mr. Eric Lee c/o D.C. Universal . LLC Mr. Lee proposes to convert office spaces into two (2) restaurants approximately 4,400sq ft. with two (2) additional sit down patio areas. The Universal Bank area alone already lacks available parking spaces and with new elaborate plans for two (2) restaurant with two (2) additional sit down patios, this will further create problems with excess traffic and inadequate parking which will definitely overflow onto the parking areas for our patrons. Rosemead Shopping Center already has existing restaurant; Pho Pasteur and an existing non- operating restaurant Valley Grill, with plans for renovation and shall be active in the very near future. If Mr. Lee's project is approved, our businesses will decline due to the lack of available parking spaces for our patrons and we, along with our employees and their respective families will be financially affected as well. We all ask for your understanding and cooperation in giving this projects further evaluation. Thank you, Tenants' at Rosemead Shopping Center /7 Rosemead Supermaket U.S. Post Office Pho Pasteur Restaurant Universal Cleaners Doug's Liquor z r-~ 99 ¢ Giftshop Pottery Store Amor Bakery Beauty Zone Salon Beauty Zone Supplies T XuTR LOCKSMITH IT B • • CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 15, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Loi at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. Commissioner Loi led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Lopez delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Loi, Commissioners Breen, Kelty and Lopez ABSENT: Commissioner Herrera EX OFFICIO: Johnson, Price, and Tone 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of August 1, 2005 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELTY, SECONDED BY COMMISSONER LOPEZ, that the minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 1, 2005, be APPROVED as submitted. Vote results: YES: BREEN, KELTY, LOI and LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: HERRERA Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 2. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: City Attorney Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. 3. P1113LIC HEARING: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1014 - 3324 - 3326 Del Mar Avenue. Tin Hsin Ko has submitted Conditional Use Permit to construct a 2,000± retail building to be developed in accordance with the guidelines for mini-malls and other similar developments, located at 3324 - 3326 Del Mar Avenue in the C-3; Medium Commercial zone. EXHIBIT C • Presentation: Staff Recommendation: Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report. APPROVE- subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A" for one (1) year Chairman Loi called for questions from the Commissioners. None. Applicant(s): In the audience. Chairman Loi opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application. Kamen Lai, 8748 East Valley Boulevard, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has no objections to the conditions of approval. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Loi closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELTY to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 05-1014, subject to conditions listed in "Exhibit A". Vote results: YES: BREEN, KELTY, LOI AND LOPEZ NO, NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: HERRERA Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1016 - 9129 Valley Boulevard. Feng Mei has submitted an application for the establishment of a martial arts school, located at 9129 Valley Boulevard, in the CBD-D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone. Presentation: Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report. Staff Recommendation: APPROVE- subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A" for six (6) months. Chairman Loi asked for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Kelty asked about the condition of the building since it is sixty years old. Planning Director Johnson said that the building meets standards and has been recently repainted and a new sign will be added. Applicant(s): In the audience. Chairman Loi opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application. Feng Mei, 309 N. Nicholson Avenue, #7, Monterey Park, listed his qualifications as a martial arts instructor and offered to answer any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Mei expected to add students eventually. Mr. Mei replied that since the lessons were private he would not expect to have more than one student at a time. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Loi closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELTY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREEN to APPROVE Conditional Use permit 05-1015, subject to conditions listed in "Exhibit All. Vote results: YES: BREEN, KELTY, LOI and LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: HERRERA Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. DESIGN REVIEW 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 - 8855 East Valley Boulevard. Eric H. Lee c/o D.C. Universal, LLC has submitted an application for a Design Review for exterior fagade renovations, including landscaping, located at 8855 E. Valley Boulevard in the CBD-D; Central Business District with a Design Overlay zone. The applicant has also submitted a variance application for the conversion of existing office space into restaurant and coffee shop use. Presentation: Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report and described a letter from other tenants of the shopping center expressing opposition to the project and another letter from Mr. Bob Nguyen asking for a sixty day continuance. Staff Recommendation: APPROVE- subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A" for one (1) year. 0 Chairman Loi asked for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Kelty asked if there was a parking problem between the two different property owners of the shopping center. Planning Director Johnson described the reciprocal parking agreement in effect at the center. Commissioner Kelty also questioned Condition Number 33 which requires removal of parking lot signs. Planning Director Johnson said that condition may be reconsidered. Applicant(s): In the audience. Chairman Loi opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application. Kevin Ennis, 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, of Richard, Watson & Gresham, represented the applicant stated that the applicant agrees to the conditions of approval and offered to answer any questions. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Dana Corey, of Gill and Baldwin, 130 N. Grand Avenue, #405, Glendale, stated his client's opposition to the project because of several parking issues which he described. Mr. Corey stated that his client is asking for a sixty day continuance to develop an alternate plan that would be agreeable to both parties. Chairman Loi invited the applicant to RESPOND TO THE OPPOSITION. Kevin Ennis, representing the applicant, said that Mr. Lee's project has already been delayed for two years and no agreement has been reached. He also noted that if additional changes are required they can be made at a later date. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Loi closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BREEN to DENY Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328, failed for lack of a second. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELTY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, to APPROVE Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328, subject to conditions listed in "Exhibit A". Vote results: YES: BREEN, KELTY, LOPEZ AND LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: HERRERA Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. EXHIBIT D • . RESUME JOE E. FOUST, Principal Education B.S. in Civil Engineering M.S. in Transportation Registration Traffic Engineer: CA #854 Civil Engineer. CA #20258 Organizations Institute of Transportation Engineers Orange County Traffic Engineers Council, Chairman-1979 Experience Mr. Foust is co-founder of Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA), and prior to establishment of the firm, 20 years ago, was the principal owner of JEF Engineering. Mr. Foust has designed and directed the preparation of plans for many traffic engineering projects, including traffic signal installation. He has also prepared studies and reports covering a wide range of traffic engineering activities such as impact studies of highway improvement, impacts of proposed development, traffic operations studies, channelization and signing studies, and computerized traffic control systems, as well as performing traffic signal system studies. Formerly, Mr. Foust was the head of the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Division for the City of Santa Ana, a position held for over five years. While with Santa Ana, he was involved in a variety of transportation projects including creation of the OCTD Multi-modal terminal in the downtown area. Prior to Santa Ana, he held the position of Project Manager/Traffic Engineer for VTN Consulting Engineers and Caltrans. In these positions, he developed experience in all aspects of traffic engineering from design through and including fiscal management. Local/regional work includes active participation in the area of operations, design, transportation planning, and local/regional funding institutions. Mr. Foust is a past member and Chairman of the Orange County Transportation Agency's Technical Advisory Committee, as well as Southern California Association of Governments Transportation and Utilities Committee. • • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DESIGN Mr. Foust has extensive experience in preparation of traffic signal/striping and work area traffic control plans, having directly designed or supervised over 2,000 new installations and modifications. Mr. Foust has been heavily involved in several different FHWA funding programs, including the current ISTEA. This experience includes preparation of applications during calls for projects up to and including preparation of final Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) complying with FHWA and Caltrans requirements. The various programs Mr. Foust has participated in are Traffic Operations Programs to Improve Capacity and Safety, Hazard Elimination and Safety. Intelligent Vehicle Systems, Motorist Information Systems and Surveillance, and Pavement and Roadway Rehabilitation, among others. COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC FLOW SIMULATION Mr. Foust has considerable knowledge and experience with computerized traffic flow simulation including use of TRANSYT and SYNCHRO computer models. He routinely utilizes these models for both optimization of signal timing and as an analytical tool. As Project Manager, he utilized TRANSYT-7F to analyze computer runs in the performance of traffic signal Management and CORSIM (coordination and surveillance) projects for several cities. TRAFFIC STUDIES Mr. Foust has extensive experience in the preparation of EIR/Negative Declaration of traffic circulation and transportation planning studies. These studies involve TSM/Transit options, parking management, residential traffic control, and the integration of operational traffic engineering with regional travel modeling and forecasting. Examples of recently completed studies include: • Mission Viejo Hospital Traffic Study, Mission Viejo • Gateway Redevelopment Area Traffic Study, Laguna Niguel • Spadra Lane Residential Traffic Control Study, Mission Viejo • Michelson Drive Residential Traffic Control Study, Irvine, • Transportation Assessment Fee Feasibility Study, Palm Springs • Peninsula Center Office Parking Management Program, Rolling Hills Estates 0 • Palos Verdes Parking and Circulation Study, Rancho Palos Verdes • South Coast Plaza Area Transportation Study, Joint Effort: OCTA, OCTD, City of Costa Mesa and City of Santa Ana • Santa Ana/Orange Neighborhood Preservation Plan, Santa Ana/Orange • High Flow Arterial Concept Feasibility Study, OCTA • Ocean Front Boardwalk Feasibility Study, Newport Beach • University Drive Extension Deletion Study, Orange County • Spring-Walnut MPAH Realignment Study, City of Orange • PCH-Del Prado One-Way Couplet Study, Dana Point E M E • O 7 a a ~"OAPOa.t~"'~ • staf epor ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FRONI: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2005 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR FACADE & LANDSCAPING RENOVATIONS, AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8855 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE Project Description Eric H. Lee c/o D.C. Universal, LLC has submitted an application for a Design Review for exterior fa4ade renovations, including landscaping and patio improvements, located at 8855 E. Valley Boulevard in the CBD-D; Central Business District with a Design Overlay zone. The applicant has also submitted a variance application for the conversion of existing office space into restaurant and coffee shop/sandwich shop use. Public Notice On August 4, 2005, twenty-six (26) written notices of this public liearing were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. Environmental Analysis Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local environmental guidelines exempt projects that consist of alterations, maintenance, or repair of existing structures or facilities not expanding existing uses. Accordingly, Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exennption pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA. Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements involving visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior facade or landscaping. Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application: • The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the nnanner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in EXHIBIT E OSEMEAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT/ 0 • appearance and value. The proposed building or stricture is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. The proposed development is in confornlty with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved: and • The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, sighs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. Section 17.84. l 00(A) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) requires a minimum of one parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of combined gross floor space. Section 17.48.130 (C) of the RMC states that if a lawfully existing building or structure is non-conforming only because less than the required amount of parking is provided, the use of such building or structure may be changed, irrespective of the parking deficiencies, to one of the following uses, including but not limited to: Accountant Art Studio Auditor Barber & beauty shop Business consultant Chiropractor Employment agency Fabric & yardage store Florist Hobby shop Insurance agency Interior decorating shop Paint store Photography studio Podiatrist Real estate broker Travel agency An applicant must obtain a variance in order to create a development that does not meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets criteria required for granting such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a variance will not: • Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; • Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; • Adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan; and • That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. Property History and Description "rile subject property, includes a parcel of land with an area of 70,336 square feet or 1.61 acres. This lot and building has historically been used as the Universal Bank and ancillary office uses that are leased out to other tenants. On October 22, 1958 permits were issued for the construction of a 3,775 square-foot office building. On October 25, 1965, a 30,000 square-foot addition was added to the existing office use to be used as a savings and loan financial institution. The subject site is located on the southeast corner of the Universal Square shopping center, however is a separate lot of record from the remainder of the center. It is located on the north side of Valley Boulevard between • • Muscatel and Ivar Avenues. The majority of the Universal Square shopping center was constructed in 1966. The subject site is currently developed with a combination of retail, food, government, service and professional office uses. Several Conditional use permits were issued over the last thirty-nine years including on-sale and off- sale alcohol licenses for the grocery store, liquor store and restaurants within the center. Two design review applications were also processed over the last ten to twelve years to renovate the exterior of the center, however the previous property owners never followed tlu-ough with their plans. Approximately three years ago, the ownership of the center sold to two different entities. Over the last tlu-ee years, City Staff has met regularly with the two parties that own the separate parcels and recommended a combined renovation/design review application for the entire center. The owners of the two properties have not been able to come to a mutual agreement on a renovation design theme that would include each of their desires for their individual parcels. A public hearing for this item was scheduled in March of 2004, however the Plarming Commission continued this item to allow staff to reconcile di fferences between the two property owners to come up with an agreed upon remodeling effort for the center. Attached as an exhibit is the opposition letter staff received opposing the project at that time. Site Analysis The site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map, it is designated ('BD-D (Central Business District a with Design Overlay). The site is surrounded by the following land uses: NORTH: WEST: General Plan: Public Facilities General Plan: Commercial Zoning: R-I; Single-Family Residential Zoning: C-3; Medium Commercial R-2; Light Multi-Familv Residential Land Use: Vacant restaurant and multi-family Land Use: Single-family residences and a school units SOUTH: EAST: General Plan: Public Facilities and Commercial General Plan: Commercial Zoning: CBD-D; Central Business District Zoning: C-3-1); Medium Connnercial with a with a Design Overlay Design Overlay Land Use: ('ilv 6ovenunew offices and a Land use: Retail/Pharmacy finauicial inSiiiution Administrative Analysis The applicant is proposing to renovate the exterior of the existing Universal Bank and the interior of the existing offices. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to update the look of the building, replace the landscaping and create an overall modernization of the entire property. In addition to the exterior modifications, one portion of the existing vacant office space on the ground floor will be converted into a coffee/sandwich shop and the other vacant ground floor space located at the corner of Valley/lvar is proposed as a restaurant tenant space. The property owner is negotiating with prospective tenants and has not secured any letters of interest or signed any leases to date. Site Plan This proposal includes new open patio and deck areas over the existing open terraced landscape slope along the west side of the structure and new courtyard areas along the south and east side of the structure. The landscape architect has proposed decorative colored, scored concrete within the patio areas and has also created new decorative pedestrian entries to these areas with arched trellis' to be covered in flowering vines. The areas immediately east and west of the ground floor building area will be improved with new concrete decking and pedestrian walkways that include decorative open beam trellis roof coverings and pre-cast concrete colunuis. New fountains will be installed at the west parking lot entry and the courtyard along Ivar Avenue. A fish pond with a waterfall is proposed along Ivar Avenue immediately south of Valley Boulevard adjacent to the main entrance and outdoor waiting area of the restaurant. • • Elevations The proposed design will change the character of the building to a more contemporary design. The exterior stucco of the building will be removed and the wall surfaces will be replastered with a smooth plaster finish with a steel trowel finish and the plaster will be painted with a faux finish that is burnt orange in color, that has a distressed finish look. Belgium Castle stone veneer in Dakota Brown will be installed for added richness and visual appeal at the restaurant main entrance and along the trash enclosure area to the west of the entrance. A one-inch aluminum channel is embedded into the plaster as a reveal. New decorative features of the building include new metal guardrails along the second-story open walkways and precast columns in Pinon by Cantera Especial to frame the windows. To add to the more contemporarydesign, anew metal-seam roof element will be constricted Ina complimentary copper finish around the new circular restaurant entryway. New parapet walls with plastered molding provides more architectural detail to the roof cornice detail of the building. Canvas awnings have been added over the first-story entry doors of the businesses which will be dark green in color. Floor Plan The first floor plan consists of the existing Universal Bank and vacant office spaces which together occupy approximately 15,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing that the two existing vacant office areas be converted to food and drink uses, including a sit down Japanese style Bar-B-Q resstaurant (2,600 so and a coffee/sandwich shop (1,790 so. The remaining square footage of the bank will be approximately 10,610 square feet. The second floor phut will remain 12,200 square feet of office space. Within the basement area of the structure, there is one tenant that occupies 2,300 square feet and the remaining area is currently under construction to convert the space into storage areas. This work was begun without the appropriate building permits and is currently under a stop work order from the building department. Plans were recently submitted to legalize and complete this work. Parking and Circulation Although the original shopping center was designed with a total of 328 parking stalls, throughout both properties, there are only approximately 310 usable spaces, nine of which are handicap accessible spaces. This 310 usable spaces is due to the fact that some of the tenants have altered areas of the parking lot at the rear. All of the businesses in the Universal Square shopping center, including the Universal Bank are part of a shared parking agreement, which allows reciprocal use of all parking stalls, with the exception of the stalls located between the rear of the structures and the Muscatel Middle School property. The actual Utuvcrsal Bank parcel has only 58 spaces and with the proposed narrowing of the drive aisle and added row of parking the parcel could be re-designed to provide 81 stalls. However, staff has added a condition that the northern most angled stall be eliminated and replaced with additional landscape planter area to prevent that vehicle location from allowing backup into the east/west drive aisle. Figure 1 shows the existing uses of the Universal Square shopping center, not associated with the Universal Bank. Indicated are the square footages of each existing use. Figure 2 shows existing Universal Batik building floor areas for each of the floors. FIGURE 1 Business Square Footage Valle Grill 3,570 Ralph's Market 27,000 Doug's Liquor 2,000 Cleaners 1,600 Pilo Pasteur Restaurant 2,500 Gift Shop 2,500 Amor Bake 1,840 Beauty Zone 1,480 Beauty Zone 1,040 Potterv Store 12,606 US Post Office 10,220 Total 66,356 • FIGURE 2 Business Square Footage Universal Bank Basement Floor 5,170 Universal Bank I" Floor 15,330 Universal Bank 2"` Floor 12,160 Total 32,660 TOTAL OF BOTH CENTER AND BANK BUILDING - 99,016 The parking lot needs to be reconfigured to accommodate additional spaces for the parking demand for the site. The proposed parking lot configuration has designated 361 parking spaces for use. The zoning ordinance requires a ruinimum number of spaces for this square footage at 396 spaces (99,016sf / 250so This re-design would be thirty-five spaces short of the minimum number of spaces required. Staff has also had concerns with this existing parking configuration as many of the spaces provided are located at the rear of the center and remain un-accessible to the public. Two of the business operations have fenced off outdoor areas and removed parking stalls. The post office has fenced off twenty-one spaces which is utilized for delivery truck storage and the Pilo Pasteur Restaurant has fenced off an outdoor area which has eliminated spaces, in violation of the Rosemead Zoning Ordinance. There are a total of six driveways that allow access to this center. Valley Boulevard provides two vehicular ingress/egress paths on the south; Ivar Avenue provides street access on the east (north and south of the post office) and Muscatel Avenue provides street access on the west (north and south of the vacant Valley Grill Restaurant). Valley Boulevard is classified as a major arterial and Ivar and Muscatel Avenues are collector streets respectively, according to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The main Valley Boulevard driveway entrance was re-designed by reducing the width of the existing plain entrance along Valley from a four lane wide drive aisle (47'-0") to a two-lane wide drive aisle (24'-4"). The existing post office mail boxes located along this realigned driveway have been eliminated. The applicant is proposing to relocate the mail drop box to a location south of the post office entryway, between the two rows of parking. The office space that is being created from the bank space does not impact the parking because the calculation is the same. On the other hand, the proposed restaurant use does pose an issue for future parking demand. As a result of staff's concerns the applicant contracted with a parking consultant and provided the City with a traffic/parking study which is attached to this report. Landscapinp, The proposal includes a landscape plan, which will enhance a major commercial corner property within the City's central business district. The plants will break up any plain expanse of wall and provide shade and natural cooling. Tile landscape for the bank was once well maintained with terraced, lush fern gardens, trees and shrubs. Currently, much of the vegetation has been removed and the areas where it existed are either overgrown with weeds or are complete devoid of vegetation. This lack of maintenance has attracted a host of nuisance problems to the site. The vacant landscaped areas are also frill of trash and miscellaneous equipment such as wheelbarrows and satellite dishes. Conclusion The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that it calls for the upgrading of commercial uses by implementing architectural and design reviews of proposals for new projects. The proposed new exterior will provide a more contemporary architectural style and color scheme. The new exterior renovations will also give an aesthetically pleasing view from Valley Boulevard as well as other surrounding streets and properties. With the results of the parking study that was completed by the applicant, it appears that there will be sufficient available parking for the patrons ofthe proposed restaurant uses that will not create an undue hardship to the center. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission. APPROVE Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 for a period of one (1) year, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A". • ATTACHMENTS: • Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Site Plan/ Floor Plan/Elevations/Landscape Plans Exhibit C - Zoning Map Exhibit D - General Plan Map Exhibit E - Assessor Parcel Map Exhibit F - Application, filed October 23, 2003 Exhibit G - Parking & Traffic Study, dated May 25, 2005 Exhibit H - Letter from Postmaster, dated July 21, 2005 Exhibit I - Letter from Rosemead Shopping Center LLC, dated March 9, 2004 Exhibit J - Draft Tenant Sign Program, dated February 19, 2004 EXHIBIT "A" DESIGN REVIEW 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL August 15, 2005 Design Review 03-110 is approved for exterior facade renovations, including landscaping for the Universal Bank building in the Universal Square shopping center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "B", dated August 4, 2005 and submitted colored elevations and color and material sample boards. Any revisions to the approved plans mast be resubmitted for review and approval by the Plamning Department. 2. Zone Variance 05-328 is approved for the conversion of existing office space on the first floor of the Universal bank building to a coffee/sandwich shop (1,790 so and a restaurant (2,600 so within a property that is a CBD zoned parcel and is legal non-confonning due to less than required on-site parking stalls. Approval of Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are aware of and accepts all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 4. Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 is approved for a one (1) year period. Applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an extension 30 days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission. Otherwise Design Review 03- 110/Zone Variance 05-328 shall become null and void. 5. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 6. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full. 7. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 1/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to installation. 9. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 10. The hours of construction shall be linnited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday - Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. 11. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 12. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 13. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). 15. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public right-of-way. 16. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be E complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 15. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 18. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall be screened from view. 19. Window signage area shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the window and door area. Applicant shall remove that signage which exceeds the 15% coverage area. 20. Signs shall comply with the sign program indicated in this report and that of Chapter 17.104 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. A uniform signage program shall be developed and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 21. Prior to the issuance of any additional ground floor occupancy permits or final approval of any tenant improvement permits , the existing 22 foot high Universal Bank pylon/billboard style sign and support colunuls, adjacent to Valley Boulevard shall be completely removed. 22. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-11our, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 307-0463 for assistance. 23. The site steal l be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010-8.32.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, uispected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 24. Submit a detailed lighting plan for the exterior of the building and adjacent parking areas. Adequate lighting shall be provided in the vehicle parking area. All exterior lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties and shielded on all sides. 25. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. In accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 27. A separate Design Review will be required for the approval of landscape plans and proposed signage. 28. Prior to construction commencing, the contractor shall schedule a pre-development meeting with the Planning Department staff to review the conditions of approval and construction plans. 29. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or the initiation of revocation proceedings. 31. Any changes to the conditions of operation listed in this Exhibit "A" must be first approved by the Planning Commission through a modification application. 32. Remove all real estate and other temporary signs that do not have temporary permits issued by the Planning Department. 33. Remove all parking restriction signs on the property. 36. Future tenants, which have a higher demand for parking, must submit a restiping plan and/or apply for a parking variance. A parking study and /or traffic study may be required. 31. Renovate the existing trash enclosures to incorporate decorative walls, overhead trellis elements and solid steel doors. 32. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance o1'Building Permits. The landscape/ irrigation plan shall include an automatic sprinkler system and moisture sensors. 33. Provide a long term landscape maintenance agreement for the City file that ensures regular weeding, fertilizing, irrigation repair and replacement of unhealthy plant materials. Maintain a valid maintenance agreement in perpetuity with qualified commercial landscape inaintcnance firm. 34. Provide signed letter from landscape architect at completion of landscape/irrigation installation that all planting materials and irrigation has been installed in conformance with the final approved landscape/irrigation plan. 35. Demolish masonry wall on the east side of the property and submit detail of new decorative wall to replace. 36. Stone monument sign shall include routed out, aluminum sheet metal background, gray in color with push through acrylic style individual letters not to exceed 1/2 inch for major tenants and 1/4 inch for all others, with internal illumination. 37. That the new driveway configuration on Valley Boulevard be widened to a minimum of 25'- 0" by narrowing of the landscape planter on either side. 38. That the northerly most angled parking stall within the new row of parking be removed and improved with landscape materials. r ` { FL Ci _ 11 ~ ~ i f •I~ I , ~4ri [~~~t,plf ~ ~"°'i, LIJ 1 'c-lei )`1R.1 kj,.,.y It' 7. yi, I..1 iL: .,s( y` ~rn~ lfi~.([i16.~1)' 1r` ;'1 ► r,~.,V,.~„( I -y ~II1 , /'r r I ,,,,~.1'•~ts :1:1~L.. Y' ' ~rr~~''91 Tyq T':s::~'t[7lil'J',i'~R~6d l'{ 111.~u', r •/l mnuRfm! tWWa144IIdlnat4 r V. ~ l !1 / r~ r / ~ I ,i~"'-,'~J TL 1~,6. V ~1 f ~,,,~'lyrr • ~ r-1 4 4 ~5, C I~ ~II'~I~BIE41 .,p-~^qn~ .~'rr~il~~~'~~ C;',;~~,. .1•~~~lyd~+t.l~,~ki~'r~©~(~y>>s~l~,~ lid. i „y'l~y "'~'r~'In ~~r~l•~, ~ ~1~ 1:~~'~~le elht`r~~~~y i j(i~~~l,~;, ~1~~ •~~~„I~~t 1 `l pe a``e 11~i 1 t,1i~"!L ,I H• s E4 •Y ,,~f"~=.i L!' 1~]~` l" a tt , 11~ -m; i r y , r ry t it ~p II'f' 'J 1....--- - l ST 4300 Y C3 LAY': r !E8 RC 1 `_.:6 w EL F AV x w I I. r'- U' .R 'nJ ` -top S Tr3 F. t F d ' DE. A r_.~...ujr / µU 9CATEl. ._Y JR ri NEW g K' I1. T 1, [ rps {T~i tv Tfllc ,ii, a rt ~ im ,r.r~ a unn ii IU of j5- 1: 0- 'PD D 1I1,i 4 R! z ~ u ,EP4 A Ra ~xy,~rr c SJ ~VVI loon ~z4 i Low Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Uoe: Residential/Commercial D 0 c U oc~ Commercial J , J J J J , _ J J J J 1 J J J . Public Facilities PLANNING AREA Q111a Valley Blvd. jp S rm ® r FIGURE LU-2 Land Use Policy Planning Area 2 v/-- T- _ a City of Rosemead General 1'lara TES Marshall St. >an Bernadino Fwy. 0 W) UdA ~-x111aiT p w 5391 9 2001 u z 7 r SCALE i" . loo c Z JQ M IVAR - - T k' k.c5 15 M y b y O Q W ~ V~ 12 13 14 fo ~ es 15 i40 ~~yzls ° • '%c6S 3b16 10 ~g 3217 O „ scHaac r 4:S 11,3 its, 0 z „`ol 20 0 „ W a0 V 30 C5 if LLJ 21 22 23 sa S ~l MUSCATEL CU) o CODE 8216 12828 12830 FOR PP= . 'T SE"E. 5350 • IE L ,p 12 W F Z Li ED u Ih n I ~ercllel Iw 0.50=k.cY/790'O' I 0 ~ 1---:.rriD90 SGNDD? q~„ S.C5T3PC. r.71 sic. 3 Po, 0 1.0e,Ft -12828 AVE ° 7 M101 l I ADO 0 J d B 02.15 0 g$►-5 AVE. i 12 828 7u1/B 7s,=-3os8o/ 7e 07t6 IeG7i3 2oor°r~soooioci-c. BK h 5390 F- ASSESSOP'S WAP LQ k ROSEMEAD M. B..12- 194 -195 TRACT ND.-4771- M. 3. 97 - 1- 2 E F } UJ pJ rao DESIGN REVIEW A!'PLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) CITY OF ROSEHEJW, PLANNING DEPARTHErr 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: `L ~/l ~7-~(r(~. ~~+5~6DlQ.sc.L~ 1 l DATE: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/ PROJECT: VV/~ G~ C w IknhlV~,l~ K,~1111tt11V~ 0/ki?rove" s'C44 (-~r c.-L v ElCI-'s f i YtA ~ v,( d~ i ~ti, , t ll E .1 c(i v~ rr ~~~~ll (un l(I-r- Ao--V ~~s 1~►-~`t~~~~z r nnnn / n(-CWas e-A ~v, n cc , L r-. C/6 Address the following statements in the space provided below. Please type or print on a separate sheet if necessary. 1. Describe materials, color, and any other architectural aspects of the project. MMe, Sec 2. Describe the features that the proposed design has included to minimize impacts on surrounding property. FVqj() 14 3. Describe the landscaping/irrigation proposed. TIEIde" ,sec. A 61t Ln.L-,-~ 'q 4. Describe any mechanical egvi_prnent and visual screening methods. T~ e ."se- 'see- /4 S. Descrive location, height, size, and lighting of signs ~(c.,Lse L tv A. SIGNATURE: DATE: FEE $ 390 Initial Study! $ 300 (if applicable) FL-DR EXN/BlT F • DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT A'1 TACll11IEN'r A • The design of the building will be similar to that of the shopping center on South St. in Cerritos. The structure will have a contemporary look. Three different, but complementing tones will be use to accentuate different areas of the building. Stone tiles will be used at the base of the walls for the entire building. Thin aluminum trenches will be used to create a grid like affect on plain walls w/o windows. Some areas will have large windows with aluminum frame. 2. The design for the existing building has been the same for about 50 years. All the features of the new design will only positively affect the surrounding property. The size of the building is to remain the same, while the visual aesthetics of the building will be improved dramatically. Blue-gray tint of existing building will be replaced with brighter earth tone colors that will add life to the neighborhood. 3. Fei Huang of Famous Garden Landscape Architecture and Planning will be creating a completely new landscape design for the new building. All plants with the exception of large trees will be removed and replaced with brighter plants that will better suit the new look of the building. A water feature with running water will be proposed for the front of the building. The irrigation system for the building will be completely new. 4. All HVAC, restaurant ranges, oven exhaust, and other equipment exhaust will be vented out the roof. The will be no equipment visible at eye level from the exterior of the building. 5. We propose that the restaurant have its name on the Valley Blvd. side approximately 2' in height, or whatever city regulations dictate. The deli will have its name on the Valley Blvd and parking lot side approximately 2' in height, or whatever city regulations dictate. Existing signage will be reconfigured to display the names of the bank, deli, and restaurant. • • GEN -'.TW, INFORMATION FORM (2) CITT OF ROSF.MEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLET BOULRVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (618) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: g$~ G• ~flt i)ld- KOC 1'►l-fj C( 6 DATE: r ?7 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: )l 1 L lL' pro C Z LOT SIZE: 7( ~ ~~J Sq I FAF'N: _ 'LONE: GEN. PLAN: PROJECT/BUSINESS NAME: It1 `1, CA L-t- C HOURS OF OPERATION: IVL- 140. OF EMPLOYEES: PROJECT DETAILS: (type or print on separate sheet if more space is needed):,(( F` Existing use: say\"k 1 PkRc-S gf: T-711-00 to be demolished: sf to remain: 'I-L70 SJ E* sf Proposed use: additional sf: total sf: 7-~/7'0 S .d"height: C► F k Building sf/'broken down by intended use and number of structures or du: , e.E A4i,&t,, r-q c~,j B Parking calculation (show -1/parking ratio/number required & provided): Se- e A (+,d ,Y1ti~ 13 Lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped percentage: APPLICANT/SUBDIVIDER: C, ['tytl ~r e•~.~ CJ- L G C Address: Phone: BUSINESS OWNER(S): ~ fes AKAKfi Address: ((I.1 ~~C Z.• V~~If,Lt 9VC\11fiS~ruy C1 Phone: ~~Z1C~~ 4'O l {7 PROPERTY Ow17ER: Address: Phone- REPRESENTATIVE architect engineer, SAC `a~~ SS QC~C\~-~! Address: b Art&vk~a, CA Phone: (V~'~) 821 `11 WI I herel4Y certify that the above is correct to the best of my knowledge. Applicant's signature: ~ y4e---- Date: C~ "O 3 Print Name: C DO NOT WRITE BELOW TUIS LINE APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: CASE(S): S~vx,- t, - 140(S) : DATE: FEE: FL/INFOSFi • GENERAL INFORMA'T'ION FORM APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT ATTACHMENT B u Building sf broken down by intended use and number of structure or du: 101 10,610 sq.ft. Bank 102 1,790 sq.ft. Delicatessen 103 2,600 sq.ft. Restaurant 201 540 sq.ft. Offices 202 600 sq.ft. Offices 203 2,100 sq.fl. Offices 204/205 2,632 sq.11. Offices 206 1,450 sq, ft. Offices 207 1,388 sq.ft. Offices BI 600 sq.ft. Offices B2 1,641 sq. ft. Off ices Parking calculation (show sf / parking ratio / number required and provided: a) Valley Grill Coffee Shop 3,650 sq.ft. b) Ralphs Market 21,950 sq. fl. c) Doug's Liquor 1,350 sq.ft. d) Cleaners 1,100 sq. f1. e) Pho Pasteur Restaurant 2,550 sq.ft. f) Jeans's Hallmark Shop 1,350 sq.ft. g) Amor Bakery 1,150 sq.ft. h) Acupuncture and Herb 1,150 sq.ft. i) Barber Salon 800 sq.fl. j) Home Fabric Store 2,000 sq.t. k) U.S. Post Office 10,750 sq.fl. 1) Lock Smith 100 sq. ft. m) Universal Batik First floor 15,000 sq.ft. (including proposed restaurants 1,790 sq.ft. and 2,600 sq.ft.) Second floor 12,200 sq.ft. TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: 75,100 sq.ft. PROPOSED NEW OPEN PATIOS AT NEW RESTAURANTS: 2,360 sq.fl. + 380 sq.fl. + 910 sq.ft. = 3,650 sq.ft. • PARKING TABULATION: a) Standard Stalls 284 b) Compact Stalls 29 c) Handicap Stalls 13 TOTAL EXISTING STALLS 326 PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PART XXII. 9122.0 C.1 75,100 sq. fl. / 250 = 300.4 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED = 301 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED = 321 Lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped percentage: • Remains Unchanged. 0 EUVTRONKENTAL ASSESSMKNT FORM (3) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VAT-LET BOULEVARD ROSEMEiAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: BsSS Z. /ill 014 ► VLJ- R%C YAV1 ,-J ' O DATE: 2 L DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: TeA61-((Fd- ►yL~rDVL')+t~ IIpp ftC 'tin ~ L~.~~~ ~ ~C. ~LtiD ~Llk• ~ ( l~f~ 1. Surrounding land uses of the site: north L r` south east " li L~ ( f' ~t Vu~ ~C 1 L TIi Z west ~l1Gt ( 1til(il~ ~1 2. Could the request, if oranted, have an effect on any of the items listed ~At below? Answer yes or no in space provided. a. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas to public lands or roads. Q.S b. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project-. Q- c. Change in plant or animal life. d. Increase of solid waste or litter. e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. d. Increase of solid waste or litter. e. Chanqe in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. d f. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. T g. Change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. K h. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10% or more. Y71_ i. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. j. Projected change in demand for City services, (police, fire, water, p~~ sewage, etc.). NO k. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. If yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet. sr.e. G~1Y1~ 3. Number of trees on the site: - No. of oak trees: L1 Number of trees to be removed: Number of oak trees to be removed. If oak trees are to be removed, please refer to RMC Sec. 9131 about permit procedures. 4. Are there any known cultural, historical, archeological or any other thVir mflontal k9p@dts of the project Bite and auriounding arena that the Planning Department should be aware of? 1V6 if yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet. SIGNATURE: DATE: FL/ENVIRON • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT ATTACHMENT C • b. The character of the general area of the project will be improved from its current situation. The building was poorly maintained before we took control of the building. We plan to remodel the exterior of the building and landscaping to improve the appearance of the general area. Animal life will not be changed in any way. Brush and growth that has not been properly tended to previously, will be removed and replaced with new plants. d. The areas used for the proposed restaurant and delicatessen was not being used previously. The addition of the two new businesses will generate an additional amount of waste that is common to that type of business. c. There will be no introduction of dust, ash, smoke, or fumes to the vicinity. The restaurant will will have a full service kitchen that will at times emit smells common to that type of business. The delicatessen will bake its own bread and might emit a baked bread smell. Grease that is used in cooking will be stored in fireproof barrels and disposed of properly. The grease will not be a dangcr to the business or its surrounding neighbors. j. No additional police or fire services will be needed due to the project. The two additional businesses proposed for the previously unused portion of the building will, however, require more water and sewage allocation that is conunon with this type of business. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT (4) CI'T'Y OF ROSFKRAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY UOULFVAJW ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 The applicant, not the representative, should read this sheet and then sign and notarize signature it bottom: Dear Applicant: You are advised 140T to obtain property, or to clear the land, or final approval of your application. be AT YOUR OWN RISK. Do not assume approved until you are officially City of Rosemead. NOTICE any loans or loan conunitments on the subject do anything whatsoever that is dependent on Anything you do before final approval will that your case will be, or has been finally notified of such decision IN WRITING by the Final approval requires favorable action by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Further, final approval alone may not be enough. READ the notice of decision and the RESOLUTION of the Planning commission or City council on which the decision is based. It is necessary that you comply with ALL the conditions of approval set forth herein before the final approval takes effect. Sincerely, PETER LYONS Director of Planning City of Rosemead ---------------------c---------i-l------------------------------------------------- Site Address: ,s V J ~/°~f - VilDate: 10 4~ 3 Description of Request/Project: l r;~ "1 ~VV( ) tt--/12✓c' AFFIDAVIT City of Rosemead ) County of Los Angeles) State of California ) I /We, V e-c hereby certify that I/we am/are the applicant(s) involved in this request, and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and,,belief. signed: Print Name(s) : Flailing Address, 0L ` ` Q tl MVC'\ Plibne: l' ` City/State/Zip: '.-A1r"- a V~ LI 0 Q 6 Date: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of b , l J• LEONS23--To NOTARY FU IC COmmiMlion 9 1364680 z Nofary Public - California z` Los /Angeles County FL/AFFIDAVIT My Corrrn. Expires Jul 24 , 2006 PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (5) CITY OF ROSKKFAD, PLANNING DEPAR-MENT 8838 VALI-EY BOULEVARD ROSRHRAD, CA 91770 (BIB) 2ee-6671 SITE ADDRESS: S- , Vyil II E'u'.f.4e DATE: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: .&I't-tti."('4 AFFIDAVIT City of Rosemead ) County of Los Angeles) State of California ) I/We, V I&- J" , t c cz_ , hereby certify that I/we am/are the owner(s) of the property involved in this request, and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. Signed: Print Name(s): r 'V1 Mailing Address: Ve ffl&' r(LJ Phone: (bJ~'OCf 17 f / ~/f { , J r 7 City/State/Zip: Date: 73 day of y L-77 Subscribed and sworn to before me Lhis a~ NOTTRY PUB LEON SZETO Commission R. 1364880 z i Notary Public - California i Los Angeles County My Comm. Fxpires Jul 24,2 006 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - DO NOT WHITE BELOW THIS LINE Filed with Qa©a No,t on the day of 19 FL/AFFIDAVIT 9 0 ig~~AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOC/AYES, INC. T R A F F I C E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705-7827 TELEPHONE (714) 667.0496 FAX (714) 667.7952 I1iL+'NI012ANDUM E-mail: mail @austintoust.com TO: Mr. Eric Lee, Project Manager DC Universal, LLC ~~OFiSS/pN FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E. 40 F~UgIF~ No. DATE: June 18, 2004 * 6-30,06 FIE SU13JI;CT: PARKING AND TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ROSEAI1:AD SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT DC Universal is planning to reoccupy a 2,600 square foot space within the existing building at 8855 Valley Boulevard in Rosemead, with a sit-dovvii restaurant. This proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that, in turn, necessitates a parking and traffic study be completed. This memo reports on the results of that analysis. PARKING ANALYSIS Observations of peak noontime parking demand were conducted at the existing shopping center. These observations were conducted for two days, for both weekdays and weekends. The result of these observations (see Appendix for actual data) indicates an absolute maximum of 274 vehicles parked at any one time. The site is providing 334 total parking spaces, leaving a total of 60 unused spaces. This peak parking demand occurred at 1:00 PM on a Saturday which roughly corresponds with the lunchtime activity at the restaurant. The City's parking code requires 20 spaces per thousand square feet of restaurant or 52 spaces for the 2,600 sf restaurant. The existing surplus of 60 spaces more than satisfies this demand. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A capacity analysis using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology as required by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was conducted for the existing and existing-plus-project conditions. The analysis was conducted during the noon time and PM peak hour periods. Noon was substituted for the usual AM since, for this restaurant, noon is critical and the restaurant does not open until 10:00 AM. The existing conditions are based upon 2004 traffic counts. The project trip generation is based on ITE's Trip 917001 mm.doc EXHIBIT G • • Generation Manual 7i1' Edition. The trip distribution assigns 70 percent of the restaurant traffic to Valley Boulevard and 20 percent to Ivar Avenue and 10 percent to Muscatel Avenue as illustrated in Figure 1. The results of the analysis are shows in the following table. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Existing Existing - Project Location Noon PM Noon PM Valle Blvd & Ivar .660 .777 .663 .777 Valley Blvd & Muscatel .581 .708 .582 .710 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Access to the restaurant site is via three driveways - one each on Valley Boulevard, Ivar Avenue. and Muscatel Avenue. The distribution of the project trips, 70 percent to Valley Boulevard and 20 percent to Ivar Avenue and 10 percent to Muscatel Avenue, ensure that none of the driveways is over capacity. Similarly, the internal circulation within the parking lot provides easy and convenient access to all the parking spaces as well as the three entrances. The driveways are all situated such that they are located the maximum distance from the existing signalized intersections, thereby minimizing any interference with the traffic flow and/or traffic queues at the adjacent intersection. The restaurant will be in operation about 12 hours each day (10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days a week), but the worst case traffic conditions - noon and the evening dinner hour period, have been evaluated and determined to be within an acceptable level of service. CONCLUSION In summary, it is concluded that the unused 60 parking spaces currently available at the 8855 Valley Boulevard is more than adequate to meet the City code requirement of 52 spaces. In addition, with respect to traffic generation, the project's forecasted peak hour volume of 19 vehicles per hour (vph) is not expected to cause any significant impact to the adjacent signalized intersections of Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue or Valley Boulevard and Muscatel Avenue.. 917001 mm.doc • • Z~ Q v IZ r r u ZOr t fr} (1) %0, Q H ~1b;11 (1) %0 L t CIO F N CU ~ S Y NQ ~ 3 q = a Y a-n 3 a b U7 . I In '7 r~ s• ui n cri Lu J ['7 Q 3 ..ra ~I dv Ln L n f~ ~-(I) ~s 731visnw U I U N] b~ Ln r-) V) O o zx 0 a ~0. 7O Q 0 C O P4 G. u a 0 3 N h Q Q E... p U U U u t O a c: n u u •~i tj b0 m u 0 0 ~r _ rn 0 L A M c M v x A 9 E u o [4 E-~ • APPENDIX L 917001 mm. doc • • Rosmead Deli SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 2.6 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF QUALITY RESTAURANT AVERAGE RATE STANDARD DEVIATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR DR-WAY VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 89.95 36.81 1.00 234 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 0.81 0.93 1.00 2 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 5.02 0.00 1.00 13 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 2.47 0.00 1.00 6 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 7.49 4.89 1.00 19 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 94.36 34.42 1.00 245 PK HR ENTER 6.38 0.00 1.00 17 PK HR EXIT 4.44 0.00 1.00 12 PK HR TOTAL 10.82 4.38 1.00 28 SUNDAY 2-WAY VOL 72.16 32.35 1.00 188 PK HR ENTER 5.28 0.00 1.00 14 PK HR EXIT 3.10 0.00 1.00 8 PK HR TOTAL 8.38 3.88 1.00 22 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Gener ation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Ivar L Valley Blvd Noon Count Date: Existing+Project PH Count Date: Existing+Project Noon Pk Hr : 12:15-1:15 PM Peak Hour: 5-6P Analyst: TDS Agency: Rosmead No. of Noon Pk Hr PH Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NB Left 0 0 92 {.0571' 80 1.0501' NB Thru 1 1600 77 .148 105 .162 NB Right 0 0 66 74 SB Left 0 0 62 48 SB Thru 1 1600 104 .146' 138 .151' SB Right 0 0 10 56 ED Left 1 1600 45 .028' 37 .023 EB Thru 2 3200 935 .305 1358 .443' EB Right 0 0 41 60 WB Left 1 1600 16 .04B 53 .033' WB Thru 2 3200 1038 .330' 814 .260 WB Right 0 0 17 19 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios .563 .677 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .100 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .663 .777 Level of Service B C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .10 C .B0 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIO14 Intersection: Muscatel I Valley Blvd Noon Count Date: 4/29/04 PM Count Date: 5/04/04 Noon Pk Hr : 11:45-12:45 PM Peak Hour: 4:30-5:30P Analyst: TDS Agency: Rosmead 0 No. of Noon Pk Hr PM Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NB Left 0 0 68 12 1 .0451' NB Thru 1 1600 111 .130' 132 .149 NB Right 0 0 29 35 SB Left 0 0 16 0101' 24 SB Thru 1 1600 86 .093 1B6 .162' SB Right 0 0 41 49 EB Left 1 1600 66 .043' 82 .051 EB Thru 2 3200 B26 .274 1071 .365' EB Right 0 0 52 97 WB Left 1 1600 35 .022 51 .036* WB Thru 2 3200 93B .298' 691 .225 WB Right 0 0 1S 28 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 1') .481 .608 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .1D0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .581 .708 Level of Service A C LOS Max imum ICU A .60 B .70 C .80 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a u INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Muscatel i Valley Blvd Noon Count Date: Existing+Project PM Count Date: Existing+Project Noon Pk Hr : 11:45-12:45 PM Peak Hour: 4:30-5:30P Analyst: TDS Agency: Rosmead No. of Noon Pk Hr PM Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NB Left 0 0 68 72 1.045)' NB Thru 1 1600 112 .131' 133 .150 NB Right 0 0 29 35 SB Left 0 D 16 1.010)' 24 SB Thru 1 1600 86 .093 186 .162' SB Right 0 0 47 49 EB Left 1 1600 68 .043' B2 .051 EB Thru 2 3200 831 .276 1076 .367• EB Right 0 0 52 97 WB Left 1 1600 35 .022 57 .036' WB Thru 2 3200 940 .298' 693 .225 WB Right 0 0 15 28 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios f'1 .482 .610 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .100 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .582 .110 Level of Service A C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .70 C .80 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a 0 • TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS NIS ST : IVAR AVE ENV ST: VALLEY BLVD CITY: ROSEMEAD PERIOD NORTHBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR LANES: 0 1 0 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND SL ST SR EL ET ER 0 1 0 1 2 0 FILENAME: 0443002N DATE: 6115104 DAY: TUESDAY WESTBOUND WL WT WR 1 2 0 11:00 AM 13 11 14 12 25 10 10 182 6 13 181 7 484 15 AM 22 21 13 11 17 9 3 147 9 9 168 6 435 30 AM 29 12 18 9 12 11 6 204 9 20 248 3 581 45 AM 30 23 22 8 18 19 8 231 24 10 271 9 673 12:00 PM 12 13 9 17 20 27 8 146 4 19 194 3 472 15 PM 21 26 25 19 35 32 14 297 13 31 353 6 872 30 PM 19 15 6 13 20 20 9 189 6 18 221 4 540 45 PM 30 18 20 13 21 8 11 236 12 20 252 5 646 1:00 PM 22 17 17 17 27 10 11 211 10 7 207 2 558 15 PM 17 13 16 15 31 21 14 209 11 12 216 2 577 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1215 PM VOLUMES= 92 76 68 COMMENTS: 62 103 70 45 933 41 76 1033 17 2616 • TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST: IVAR AVE FILENAME: 0443002P E/W ST: VALLEY BLVD DATE: 6/15/04 CITY: ROSEMEAD DAY: TUESDAY PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4:00 PM 27 19 21 30 18 26 16 307 12 16 256 5 753 15 PM 17 22 16 11 22 12 10 284 8 15 204 7 628 30 PM 17 36 10 5 47 22 9 356 10 15 219 8 754 45 PM 21 37 14 16 40 17 8 239 10 14 184 4 604 5:00 PM 18 14 18 22 21 13 11 308 18 24 211 4 682 15 PM 21 30 23 15 34 17 6 373 14 11 186 4 734 30 PM 14 32 18 7 35 12 10 384 17 10 224 4 767 45 PM 27 28 15 4 47 14 10 291 11 8 188 7 650 PEAK HOUR BEG INS AT: 1700 PM VOLUMES= 80 104 74 48 137 56 37 1356 60 53 809 19 2833 COMMENTS: TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, IN C SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST : E/W ST: CITY: PERIOD BEGINS MUSCATEL AVE VALLEY BLVD ROSEMEAD NORTHBOUND NL NT NR OUTHBOU14D SL ST SR ASTBOUND EL ET ER FILEIJAME: 0443001N DATE: 4/29/04 DAY: THURSDAY WESTBOUND WL WT WR otal LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 11:00 AM 13 21 11 5 23 12 13 167 16 12 178 7 478 15 AM 13 10 5 4 21 18 14 171 18 10 159 2 445 30 AM 14 29 14 3 20 5 14 157 21 5 215 2 499 45 AM 12 38 10 4 18 13 15 195 16 5 222 4 552 12:00 PM 17 31 6 5 27 9 15 200 9 12 264 3 598 15 PM 18 16 11 4 21 14 20 201 8 7 208 4 532 30 PM 21 26 2 3 20 11 18 230 19 11 244 4 609 45 PM 17 19 10 4 17 13 20 164 15 8 162 8 457 1:00 PM 6 16 7 6 21 19 26 258 17 8 194 6 584 15 PM 14 16 12 8 22 11 15 219 12 9 180 6 524 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1145 AM VOLUMES= 68 111 29 COMMENTS: 16 86 47 68 826 52 35 938 15 2291 • • TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST : MUSCATEL AVE EM/ ST: VALLEY BLVD CITY: ROSEMEAD PERIOD NORTHBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR OUTHBOUND SL ST SR ASTBOUND EL ET ER FILENAME: 0443001P DATE: 5/04/04 DAY: TUESDAY WESTBOUND WL WT WR otal LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4:00 PM 12 28 10 10 30 12 20 282 30 8 179 4 625 15 PM 23 28 9 4 26 12 17 251 18 18 167 6 579 30 PM 20 32 5 8 54 10 17 283 23 13 183 5 653 45 PM 15 33 10 5 42 16 25 258 23 16 176 9 628 5:00 PM 20 38 4 7 50 10 24 279 26 12 179 8 657 15 PM 17 29 16 4 40 13 16 251 25 16 153 6 586 30 PM 31 39 5 7 34 8 18 261 20 6 166 6 601 45 PM 14 39 8 6 32 8 24 279 19 7 180 6 622 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1630 PM VOLUMES = 72 132 35 24 186 49 82 1071 97 57 691 28 2524 COMMENTS: • • r i• i '•i 1 r ~ ~ 1t {r . r W lilt 1 -1 F-.; ill 0 -F -)Hi.. -3 ~11-v 711 i i 3- i i e! or J - G. 1 1-4 11 } a? I f I vl' • i 47r47,L11S7ZN-A011S,r ASSOCIAMS, INC. T R A F F I C E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92705-7627 NIENIORANDUNI TO: Mr. Eric Lee, Project Manager DC Universal, LLC PROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E. DATE: February 18, 2005 Revised May 25, 2005 SUBJECT: PARKING AND TRAT{ FIC S'T'UDY FOR ROSEi1IFAD SIT-I)OWN RE'S'TAURANT pf 09 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 E-mail: mail@austinfoust.com RG ri y y D MAY 3 1 2005 DC Universal is proposing to reoccupy a 2,600 square foot space within the existing building at 8855 Valley Boulevard in Rosemead with a sit-down restaurant. An existing 1,280 square foot patio will also be used for seating. In addition, the entire parking lot is being redesigned and reconstructed to increase the number of spaces from 336 to 358, an increase of 22 spaces. This proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that, in turn, necessitates a parking and traffic study be completed. This memo reports on the results of that analysis. PARKING ANALYSIS The project site is in a Central Business District (CBD) zone. The proposed project shares parking with the adjacent parcel developed for retail use; therefore, the two parcels constitute one shopping center. Square footage for the two parcels is summarized in Table 1 and is based on field survey information provided by D.C. Universal, LLC and a site plan from Tuan Pham, representing the shopping center. Parking requirements for a shopping center in a CBD zone are one space per 250 square feet of building area. Based on the Rosemead Municipal Code parking requirements, the entire shopping center (93,074 square feet) requires 372 spaces. The entire shopping center provides a total of 336 spaces, 36 fewer spaces than required by the Municipal Code, but the project will remodel the lot to increase the total to 358 spaces - only 14 spaces less than the code requires. Under these circumstances, the Municipal Code allows land use changes on the site to only low parking intensity uses, of which restaurant does not qualify. The proposed restaurant consists of 2,600 square feet within the building and another 1,280 square foot patio for a total of'3,880 square feet. The Municipal Code requires one parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant space. The proposed restaurant requires 39 spaces, of which I 1 spaces (2,600 sf x 1 sp/250 sf = I 1 sp) are currently accounted for in the existing parking requirement for the entire site. ,G 917001 mm 10 doc • i ldg Table 1 ROSEMEAD SHOPPING CENTER LAND USE Use TSF A Coffee Shop 4,350 B Super Market 22,930 C Liquor 1,900 D Cleaners 1,515 E Restaurant 3,600 F Gift Shop 2,115 G Bakery 1,600 H/I Acupuncture/Hair Salon 1,800 J Fabric Store 12,760 K Post Office 10,750 L Bank 29,628 M Locksmith 126 TOTAL EIX4 917001 mm I0.doc i 0 Therefore, the proposed project results in an increase of 28 spaces for a total of 400 spaces required by the entire shopping center site. Observations of peak noontime parking demand were conducted at the existing shopping center. These observations were conducted for two days, for both weekdays and weekends. The result of these observations (see Appendix for actual data) indicates an absolute maximum of 274 vehicles parked at any one time. The site is providing 336 total parking spaces, leaving a total of 62 unused spaces. This peak parking demand occurred at 1:00 PM on a Saturday, which roughly corresponds with the lunchtime activity at the restaurant. After the initial two-day parking count was completed in May 2004, a subsequent count was conducted in July 2004 on the peak day (Saturday) and again in May 2005 (see Appendix) within the parking zones most closely associated with the southeast quadrant of the site where the proposed restaurant will be located. The overall result was that fewer total parked cars were observed on the entire site in July (213 vehicles in July compared with 274 vehicles previously counted in May). However, detailed examination of the parking zone where the restaurant is to be located (Zone 3) shows that 53 of the 57 available spaces are utilized during the noontime. In the evening this parking zone (Zone 3) is less than half full. Similarly, Zone 2, situated inunediately west of Zone 3, is also heavily used (79 of 83 spaces are occupied) during lunchtime. This isolated high parking concentration, while the remainder of the entire lot has numerous vacant spaces, is due to the post office located next to the proposed restaurant site and which has no parking immediately adjacent thereto. In summary, it is concluded that sufficient surplus parking exists in the entire parking lot to accommodate the 45 spaces required by the proposed restaurant. During the lunchtime, there will be a scarcity of parking immediately adjacent to the restaurant site, however employees and other non-patrons will be required to park in remote areas where surplus parking is available. During the evening there will be more than ample parking convenient to the restaurant. During noontime, restaurant patrons will either park further away and walk or more likely simply wait for a space to open up from the high turnover rate and short duration of the many post office customers. The City's parking code requires ten spaces per thousand square feet or 39 spaces for the proposed 3,880 square feet of restaurant. The existing surplus of 62 spaces in the shopping center parking lot, combined with the added 22 spaces provided by remodeling the existing parking configuration, more than satisfies this demand. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A capacity analysis using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology as required by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was conducted for the existing and existing-plus-project conditions. The analysis was conducted during the noon time and PM peak hour periods. Noon was substituted for the usual AM peak hour since, for this restaurant, noon is critical and the restaurant does not open until 10:00 AM. The existing conditions are based upon 2004 traffic counts. The project trip generation is based on ITE's Trip Generation Manual 7'h Edition. Based on ITE trip rates, the proposed restaurant will generate 29 trips during the noon and PM peak periods. The trip distribution assigns 70 percent of the restaurant traffic to Valley Boulevard, 20 percent to Ivar Avenue, and 10 percent to Muscatel Avenue as illustrated in Figure 1. The results of the analysis are shown in the following table. 917001 mm I O.da: 0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Existing Existing + Project Location Noon Pbl Noon PNI Valley Blvd & Ivar .660 .777 .663 .777 Valley Blvd & Muscatel .581 .708 .58? .710 917001 mm 10.doc 0 • ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Access to the restaurant site is via three driveways - one each on Valley Boulevard, Ivar Avenue, and Muscatel Avenue. The distribution of the project trips, 70 percent to Valley Boulevard and 20 percent to Ivar Avenue and 10 percent to Muscatel Avenue, ensure that none of the driveways is over capacity. Similarly, the internal circulation within the parking lot provides easy and convenient access to all the parking spaces as well as the three entrances. The driveways are all situated such that they are located the maximum distance from the existing signalized intersections, thereby minimizing any interference with the traffic flow and/or traffic queues at the adjacent intersection. The restaurant will be in operation about 12 hours each day (10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days a week), but the worst case traffic conditions - noon and the evening dinner hour period, have been evaluated and determined to be within an acceptable level of service. CONCLUSION In summary, it is concluded that the unused 62 parking spaces currently available at the shopping center at 8855 Valley Boulevard plus an increase of 22 more spaces provided by remolding the existing lot is more than adequate to meet the Rosemead Municipal Code requirement of 39 spaces for the proposed restaurant. In addition, with respect to traffic generation, the project's forecasted peak hour volume of 29 vehicles per hour (vph) is not expected to cause any significant impact to the adjacent signalized intersections of Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue or Valley Boulevard and Muscatel Avenue. 917001 mm I O.doc • • APPENDIX • 0 z~ ~a O > O zx O CU 0 p Ag O n Lr z _ M %o t t (z) %ot _ ddnl (z) %ot-z M %ol-• t o o .A 00 r ~ ~ ~ n N ~g M N r \ ~nr ~ } ~ a7 se M I ~sr z 0 M 0 J m S- Nl W J } J v u M c c ti tc 0 N u7 M 61 t YS- r (6a u) 7GS-► I X17 U 'C A v ~ . o .o r I~ II 0 ^ - - II c 3 c 0 y O .5 Q In r. a u 0 0 Q~ a u ~ ~ u u ~H • 0 APPENDIX • • A ,AUST/NFOUSTASSOC/ALES, /NC. T R A F F I C E N G I N E £ R I N G A N D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N N I N G 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705-7827 MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Lee, DC Universal, LLC FROM: Joe Foust, P.E. DATE: May 16, 2005 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 E-mail: mail@auslinioust.com E-mailed Only SUBJECT: ROSEMEAD SHOPPING CENTER - SATURDAY PARKING RECOUNT INTRODUCTION Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) conducted parking counts of the Rosemead Shopping Center on two Saturdays in May and July of 2004 when the major anchor store was a Ralph's grocery store. Since then Ralph's has been closed and converted to an Asian market and the City has requested an updated Saturday parking count. AFA conducted that recount on April 30, 2005 from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM and again on May 14, 2005. The results are summarized herein. ANALYSIS The original May 2004 parking count subdivided the center into only two zones, which combined the front main parking lots with the rear area delivery/employee parking areas. The July 2004 parking count broke the parking into six zones - tlu-ee in the front and three in the rear. Since it is recognized that virtually all the customer parking occurs in front of the buildings, the April 2005 recount concentrated on only the front parking lots. Zone 1 is in front of the Asian market and Zone 2 in front of the post office. The May 14, 2005 included the front parking lots (i.e., Zones 1 and 2) as well as the entire rear area parking. The results of this front parking lot is summarized as follows: 917001 mm9.duc 0 0 Saturday 7/31/04 Parking Counts Saturday 4/30/05 Parking Counts Saturday 5/14/05 Parkin Counts Time Zone 1 Zone 2 Total Zone 1 Zone 2 Total Total Zone 1Zone 2 Zone3* Zones 1&2 10:00 AM - - - 74 35 109 89 40 58 129 11:00 AM 81 49 130 99 41 140 82 47 63 129 Noon 98 52 150 113 49 162 124 47 62 171 1:00 PM 111 50 161 125 51 176 112 41 63 153 2:00 PM 79 54 133 114 36 150 118 36 60 154 3:00 PM - - - 108 45 153 103 40 60 143 4:00 PNI 64 29 93 112 26 138 97 32 58 129 5:00 PM 56 26 82 98 19 117 91 22 50 113 Total Spaces 168 57 225 168 57 225 168 57 73 298 *Zone 3 is rear area parking Review of these results reveals that the Saturday parking counts before and after (i.e., July 2004 versus April 2005 and May 2005) after reuse of the Ralph's store by an Asian market are somewhat higher in the after case. The peak after parking total is 176 occupied spaces (i.e., 78 percent of the total 225 spaces available) compared with a total of 161 (72 percent) previously. On a second Saturday the peak parking count was 171, slightly less than the 176 peak parking on the Saturday in April 2005. CONCLUSION A recount of the cutTent parking with that reported as existing in AFA's February 2005 Parking and Traffic Study reveals 15 more cars parked in the front parking zones than was the case with the Ralph's grocery. However, the peak occupancy of this prime customer parking area remains only 78 percent utilized, even during the peak period on Saturdays (i.e., 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM). 917001min9.doc 0 0 Rosemead Sit-Down Restaurant Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 3.9 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of Quality Restaurant January 24, 2005 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 89.95 36.81 1.00 351 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.81 0.93 1.00 3 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 5.02 0.00 1.00 20 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 2.47 0.00 1.00 10 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 7.49 4.89 1.00 29 Saturday 2-Way Volume 94.36 34.42 1.00 368 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 6.38 0.00 1.00 25 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 4.44 0.00 1.00 17 Saturday Peak Hour Total 10.82 4.38 1.00 42 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transpo rtation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRMS 0 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, 10 SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST: EM/ ST: CITY: PERIOD BEGINS IVAR AVE VALLEY BLVD ROSEMEAD NORTHBOUND NL NT NR OUTHBOUND SL ST SR ASTBOUND EL ET ER FILENAME: 0443002N DATE: 6/15/04 DAY: TUESDAY WESTBOUND WL WT WR otal LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 11:00 AM 13 11 14 12 25 10 10 182 6 13 181 7 484 15 AM 22 21 13 11 17 9 3 147 9 9 168 6 435 30 AM 29 12 18 9 12 11 6 204 9 20 248 3 581 45 AM 30 23 22 8 18 19 8 231 24 10 271 9 673 12:00 PM 12 13 9 17 20 27 8 146 4 19 194 3 472 15 PM 21 26 25 19 35 32 14 297 13 31 353 6 872 30 PM 19 15 6 13 20 20 9 189 6 18 221 4 540 45 PM 30 18 20 13 21 8 11 236 12 20 252 5 646 1:00 PM 22 17 17 17 27 10 11 211 10 7 207 2 558 15 PM 17 13 16 15 31 21 14 209 11 12 216 2 577 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1215 PM VOLUMES= 92 COMMENTS: 76 68 62 103 70 45 933 41 76 1033 17 2616 0 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, 10 SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST : IVAR AVE E/W ST: VALLEY BLVD CITY: ROSEMEAD FILENAME: 0443002P DATE: 6/15/04 DAY: TUESDAY PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BEGINS NIL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4:00 PM 27 19 21 30 18 26 16 307 12 16 256 5 753 15 PM 17 22 16 11 22 12 10 284 8 15 204 7 628 30 PM 17 36 10 5 47 22 9 356 10 15 219 8 754 45 PM 21 37 14 16 40 17 8 239 10 14 184 4 604 5:00 PM 18 14 18 22 21 13 11 308 18 24 211 4 682 15 PM 21 30 23 15 34 17 6 373 14 11 186 4 734 30 PM 14 32 18 7 35 12 10 384 17 10 224 4 767 45 PM 27 28 15 4 47 14 10 291 11 8 188 7 650 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1700 PM VOLUMES = 80 104 74 48 137 56 37 1356 60 53 809 19 2833 COMMENTS: 0 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES,O SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST : MUSCATEL AVE E/W ST: VALLEY BLVD CITY: ROSEMEAD PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND BEGINS HL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 FILENAME: 0443001N DATE: 4/29/04 DAY: THURSDAY WESTBOUND WL WT WR 1 2 0 Tots 11:00 AM 13 21 11 5 23 12 13 167 16 12 178 7 478 15 AM 13 10 5 4 21 18 14 171 18 10 159 2 445 30 AM 14 29 14 3 20 5 14 157 21 5 215 2 499 45 AM 12 38 10 4 18 13 15 195 16 5 222 4 552 12:00 PM 17 31 6 5 27 9 15 200 9 12 264 3 598 15 PM 18 16 11 4 21 14 20 201 8 7 208 4 532 30 PM 21 26 2 3 20 11 18 230 19 11 244 4 609, 45 PM 17 19 10 4 17 13 20 164 15 8 162 8 457 1:00 PM 6 16 7 6 21 19 26 258 17 8 194 6 584 15 PM 14 16 12 8 22 11 15 219 12 9 180 6 524 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1145 PM VOLUMES= 68 111 29 COMMENTS: 16 86 47 68 826 52 35 938 15 2291 • TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR. TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S ST : MUSCATEL AVE E/W ST: VALLEY BLVD CITY: ROSEMEAD PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER FILENAME: 0443001P DATE: 5/04/04 DAY: TUESDAY WESTBOUND WL WT WR Tot; LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4:00 PM 12 28 10 10 30 12 20 282 30 8 179 4 625 15 PM 23 28 9 4 26 12 17 251 18 18 167 6 579 30 PM 20 32 5 8 54 10 17 283 23 13 183 5 653 45 PM 15 33 10 5 42 16 25 258 23 16 176 9 628 5:00 PM 20 38 4 7 50 10 24 279 26 12 179 8 657 15 PM 17 29 16 4 40 13 16 251 25 16 153 6 586 30 PM 31 39 5 7 34 8 18 261 20 6 166 6 601 45 PM 14 39 8 6 32 8 24 279 19 7 180 6 622 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1630 PM VOLUMES= 72 132 35 24 186 49 82 1071 97 57 691 28 2524 COMMENTS: TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. PARKING STUDY LOCATION: SHOPPING CENTER ON VALLEY BLVD FILENAME: 04430PK1 BTN MUSCATEL AVE & IVAR AVE DATE: 5114/04 CITY: ROSEMEAD DAY: FRIDAY Time ZONES ZONES Period Beginning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL SPACES: 229 105 334 6:00 AM :30 AM 7:00 AM :30 AM 8:00 AM :30 AM 9:00 AM :30 AM 10:00 AM :30 AM 11:00 AM 142 45 187 :30 AM 166 45 211 12:00 PM 185 44 229 :30 PM 180 44 224 1:00 PM 185 45 230 :30 PM 152 45 197 2:00 PM :30 PM 3:00 PM :30 PM 4:00 PM :30 PM 115 44 159 5:00 PM 114 40 154 :30 PM 110 38 148 6:00 PM 104 39 143 :30 PM 75 36 111 7:00 PM 92 36 128 :30 PM 8:00 PM :30 PM 9:00 PM :30 PM COMMENTS: TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. PARKING STUDY LOCATION: SHOPPING CENTER ON VALLEY BLVD STN MUSCATEL AVE 8 IVAR AVE CITY: ROSEMEAD FILENAME: 04430PK2 DATE: 5/15104 DAY: SATURDAY Time Period Beginning 1 ZONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ZONES 9 10 11 12 TOTAL SPACES: 229 105 334 6:00 AM :30 AM 7:00 AM :30 AM 8:00 AM :30 AM 9:00 AM :30 AM 10:00 AM :30 AM 11:00 AM 157 92 249 :30 AM 163 90 253 12:00 PM 164 89 253 :30 PM 178 91 269 1:00 PM 182 92 274 :30 PM 142 91 233 2:00 PM :30 PM 3:00 PM :30 PM 4:00 PM :30 PM 107 85 192 5:00 PM 109 70 179 :30 PM 83 67 150 6:00 PM 82 67 149 :30 PM 161 87 248 7:00 PM 147 88 235 :30 PM 8:00 PM :30 PM 9:00 PM :30 PM COMMENTS: TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. PARKI NG STUDY LOCATION: SHOPPING CENTER ON VALLEY BLVD FILENAME: 07416PK1 BTN MUSCATEL AVE & IVAR AVE DATE: 7/31104 CITY: ROSEMEAD DAY: SATURDAY Time ZONES ZONES Period Beginning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL SPACES: 86 82 57 41 19 18 303 6:00 AM :30 AM 7:00 AM :30 AM 8:00 AM :30 AM 9:00 AM :30 AM 10:00 AM :30 AM 11:00 AM 21 60 49 17 20 7 174 :30 AM 26 60 51 18 18 6 179 12:00 PM 26 72 52 17 18 7 192 :30 PM 39 79 53 17 17 8 213 1:00 PM 35 76 50 17 16 8 202 :30 PM 28 76 49 17 18 8 196 2:00 PM 25 54 40 18 17 6 160 :30 PM 3:00 PM :30 PM 4:00 PM :30 PM 28 36 29 15 11 4 123 5:00 PM 21 35 26 15 8 5 110 :30 PM 20 36 21 11 5 6 99 6:00 PM 13 38 23 10 4 7 95 :30 PM 25 43 19 10 5 6 108 7.00 PM 24 52 19 9 3 7 114 :30 PM 8:00 PM :30 PM 9:00 PM :30 PM COMMENTS: ~1 M1^^P S. 1. F~iN `•Er UeLKn L: G ~IYL1s `N'9. ."!Y'M ~ LW's><'TY" .Tr^.:J, ~k ~S :'JRE` : C~~L•6`a d- fl~ NJ W ~ / I 1 I 11 i ~ i 7 ll Y n. A~J ' 1 1'. Y . MA l ~ 1• rl r r.. }i ~.i~l . - ~ . • j l W .M V 71 . . I I 1 tl I■ 1y y1 . wY. I I ~ wu:T•~..1... ~r . u' 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 ~-1J- U• w. 1• ~r w w /r ~r . ...-.y. •i~i rlr .L•\ r V~~• I~aw~.. q yYl 1M1~~. y 1 :x: 7 LEE P7 fZ h~q. k: I . n• 13f: 'r " 1 ~i ~ T J -A c h I I I. I 1-'~ ~ Iq 1 _ WE PLAN c l a q' ~ F • 1 .y s 1-0 UA LIf k t-. 0 INTERSECTIOU CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Ivar & Valley Blvd AM Count Date: 6/15/04 PM Count Date: 6/15/04 AH Peak Hour: 12:15-1:15 PH Peak Hour: 5-6P Analyst: TDS Agency: Rosmead No. of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C MB Left 0 0 92 (.057)* 00 (.050)* MB Thru 1 1600 76 .148 104 .161 NB Right 0 0 68 74 SB Left 0 0 62 40 SB Thru 1 1600 103 .147* 137 .151' SB Right 0 0 70 56 EB Left 1 1600 45 .028* 37 .023 EB Thru 2 3200 933 .304 1356 .443* E8 Right 0 0 41 60 WB Left 1 1600 76 .048 53 .033* WB Thru 2 3200 1033 .328* 809 1259 WB Right 0 0 17 19 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios .560 .677 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .100 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .660 .777 Level of Service B C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .70 C .80 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Ivar i Valley Blvd AM Count Date; 6/15/04 PM Count Date: Existing:Prjl AM Peak Hour; 12;15-1;15 PM Peak flour: 5-6F Analyst: TDS Agency; Rosmead 0 No. of A14 Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NB Left 0 0 92 (.0571+ 80 0501{ 11B Thru 1 1600 18 .148 106 .162 NB Right 0 0 68 74 SB Left 0 0 62 48 SB Thru 1 1600 104 .148* 138 .1511 SB Right 0 0 70 56 EB Left 1 1600 45 .028* 37 .023 EB Thru 2 3200 935 .305 1358 .4431 EB Right 0 0 41 60 WB left 1 1600 16 .04B 53 .033* WB Thru 2 3200 1040 .3301 816 .260 WB Right 0 0 17 19 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios .563 .677 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .100 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .663 .777 Level of Service B C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .70 C .80 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a 0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Ivar F Valley Blvd A14 Count Date: 6/15/04 PH Count Date: Exist ing+Prjl+Prj2 AM Peak Hour: 12:15-1:15 PH Peak Hour: 5-6P Analyst: TDS Agency: Rosmead No. of AM Peak Hour PH Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C HB Left 0 0 92 1.0571' 80 1.0501- NB Thru 1 1600 80 .150 108 .164 NB Right 0 0 68 74 SB Left 0 0 62 40 SB Thru 1 1600 103 ,147- 141 .153* SB Right 0 0 70 56 EB Left 1 1600 45 .0281 37 .023 EB Thru 2 3200 946 .308 1369 .447* EB Right 0 0 41 60 WB Left 1 1600 76 .048 53 033* WB Thru 2 3200 1046 .332* 822 .263 WB Right 0 0 17 19 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios .564 .683 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .100 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .661 .783 Level of Service B C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .70 C .80 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Muscatel & Valley Blvd AN Count Date: 4/29/04 P14 Count Date: 5/04/04 PA Peak Hour: 11:45-12:45 PM Peak Hour: 4:30-5:30P Analyst: TD5 Agency; Rosmead 0 No. of AN Peak Hour Phi P_ak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NB Left 0 0 68 72 045)' NB Thru 1 1600 111 .130k 132 .149 NB Right 0 0 29 35 SB Left 0 0 16 1 .010)+ 24 SB Thru 1 1600 86 .093 186 .162+ SB Right 0 0 47 49 EB Left 1 1600 68 .043' 82 .051 EB Thru 2 3200 826 .274 1071 .365' EB Right 0 0 52 97 WB Left 1 1600 35 .022 51 .036 WB Thru 2 3200 938 .298' 691 .225 WB Right 0 0 15 28 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios .481 .608 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .100 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .591 .708 Level of Service A C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .70 C .80 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Muscatel E Valley Blvd AM Count Date: 4/29/04 PH Count Date: Existing+Prjl AM Peak Hour: 11:45-12:45 PM Peak Hour: 4:30-5:30P Analyst: TDS Agency: Rosmead • No. of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NB Left 0 0 68 72 1.0451; NB Thru 1 1600 112 .1311 133 .150 NB Bight 0 0 29 35 SB Left 0 0 16 1.010)* 24 SB Thru 1 1600 86 .093 186 .162* SB Bight 0 0 47 49 EB Left 1 1600 68 .0431 K .051 EB Thru 2 3200 833 .276 1078 .367* EB Right 0 0 52 97 WB Left 1 1600 35 .022 57 .036* WB Thru 2 3100 941 .298' 694 .225 11B Right 0 0 15 28 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios .462 1610 Adjustment for Lost Time .100 .100 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .582 .710 Level of Service A C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .10 C .80 0 .90 E 1.00 F n/a • • INURSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Intersection: Muscatel E Valley Blvd AM Count Date: 4/29/04 PH Count Date: Exist ing*Prjl+Prj2 AM Peak Hour: 11:15-12:45 PM Peak Hour: 4:30-5:30P Analyst: TDS Agency: Rosmead 110, of AM Peak [lour PH Peak Hour Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NB Left 0 0 68 72 1.04511 NB Thru 1 1600 113 .131' 134 .151 11B Right 0 0 29 35 SB Left 0 0 16 1.010)+ 24 SB Thru 1 1600 88 .094 188 .163' SB Right 0 0 47 49 EB Left 1 1600 68 .043' 82 .051 EB Thru 2 3200 839 .278 1084 .369* EB Right 0 0 52 97 WB Left 1 1600 35 .022 57 .036' WB Thru 2 3200 951 .3024 704 .229 WB Right 0 0 15 28 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios .486 .613 Adjustient for Lost Time .100 .100 INTBRSBCTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .586 .713 Level of Service A C LOS Maximum ICU A .60 B .70 C .80 D .90 E 1.00 F n/a r78/rl4%20 5 12:37 17146677952 ~JISTIN-FOUST 0 J;J r4VALISTIMA011STA"OCIAMS /NC. T R A r r I c r N D I N E E R I N O A No T A A NS P OR TA r f o N P L A N N I NO 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705.7627 NIENIORANDU-NI TO: Mr. Eric Lee, Project Manager DC Universal, LLC FROM: Joe E. Foust, P,E. DATE: May 25, 2005 Rcvi.,cd August 4, 2005 PAGE ©2 RECEIVED AUG - 4 2005 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0406 FAX (714) 697.7952 E-mall: mail 0austintoust.com SUBJECT: PARKING AND TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ROSENTEAD SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT AND COFFEE SHOP DC Universal is proposing to reoccupy a 2.600 square foot space within the existing building at 8855 Valley Boulevard in Rosemead with a sit-down restaurant. In addition, all existing 1,790 square foot area will also be used for a coffee shop. The entire parking lot is being redesigned and reconstructed to increase the number of spaces from 336 to 361, an increase of 25 spaces. This proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that. in turn, necessitates a parking and traffic study be completed. This memo reports on the results of that analysis. PARKING ANALYSIS The project site is in a Central Business District (0313) zone. The proposed project shares parking with the adjacent parcel developed for retail use; therefore, the two parceLc constitute one shopping center. Square footage for the two parcels is summarized in Table I and is based on field survey information provided by D.C. Universal. LLC and a site plan from Tuan Pham, representing the shopping center. Parking requirements for a shopping center in a CBD zone are one space per 250 square feel. of building area. Based on the Roscmead Municipal Code parking requirements, the entire shopping center (88,414 square feet) requires 354 spaces, The entire shopping center provides a total of 336 spaces. 18 fewer spaces than required by the Municipal Code, but the project will remodel the lot to increase the total to 361 spaces - seven more than the code requires. Under these circumstances, the Municipal Code allows land use changes on the site to only low parking intensity uses, of which restaurant does not qualify. The two proposed restaurants consist of 2.600 square feet within the building and another 1,790 square foot coffee shop for a total of 4,390 square feet. The Municipal Code requires one parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant space for a total of 44 spaces, of which 17 spaces (4,390 sf x 1 sp/250 of = 17 sp) arc currently accounted for in the existing parking requirement for the entire site. V 17001 mml l ,duc RECEIVED TIME AUG. 4. 1:43PM 08/04!2005 12:3r 17146 7952 AUSTIN-FOUS. PAGE 03 ldg 'Cable 1 ROSEMEAD SHOPPING CENTER LAND USE Use TSF A Coffee Shop 3,570 B Supcr Markct 23,012 C Liquor 2.000 D Cleaners 1,600 E Restaurant 3,586 F Gift Shup 2,500 G A akery 1.540 H/1 AcupunctureLHair Salon 2.520 J Fabric Store 12,606 K Post Offiec 10,220 L Bank 24.960 TOTAL W14 917001 mm 11 drk RECEIVED TIME AUG. 4. 1:43PM 08/04/2005 12:37 171466 ?952 A1JS1'IN-F01_6T• PAGE 04 Observations of peak noontime parking demand were conducted at the existing shopping center- These observations were conducted for two days, for both weekdays and weekends. The result of these observations (see Appendix for actual data) indicates an absolute maximum of 274 vehicles parked at any one time. The site was, at the time of the counts, providing 3:16 total parking spaces, leaving a total of 62 unused spaces. This peak parking demand occurred at 1:00 PM on a Saturday, which roughly corresponds with the lunchtime activity at the restaurant. After the initial two-day parking count was completed in May 2004, a subsequent count was conducted in July 2004 on the peak day (Saturday) and again in May 2005 (see Appendix) within the parking zones most closely associated with the southcaset quadrant of the site where the proposed restaurant will be located. Tire overall result was that fewer total parked cars were observed on the entire site in July (213 vehicles in July compared with 274 vehicles previously counted in May). However. detailed examination of the parking zone where the restaurant is to be located (Zone 3) shows that 53 of the 57 available space- arc utilized during the noontime. In the evening this parking zone (Zone 3) is less than half full. Similarly, Zone 2, situated immediately west of Zone 3, is also heavily used (79 of 83 spaces arc occupied) during lunchtime. This isolated high parking concentration, while the remainder of the entire lot has numerous vacant spaces, is due to the post office located next to the proposed restaurant cite and which has no parking immediately adiacent thereto. In summary, it is concluded that sufficient surplus parking exists in the entire parking lot to accommodate the 44 spaces required by the proposed restaurants. During the lunchtime, there will be it scarcity of parking immediately adjacent to the restaurant site, however emplovees and other non-patrons will be required to park in remote areas where surplus parking is available- During the evening there will be more than ample parking convenient to the restaurants. During noontime, restaurant patrons will either park further away and walk or more likely simply wait for a space to open up from the high turnover rate and short duration of the many post office customers. The City's parking code requires 10 spaces per thousand square feet or 44 spaces for the proposed 4,390 square feel of restaurant. The existing surplus of 62 spaces in the shopping center parking lot, combined with the added 25 space:; provided by remodeling the existing parking configuration, (bringing the total available spaces to 361) more than satisfies this demand. TKAFFTC ANALYSIS A capacity analysis using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology as required by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (Cl\.IP) was conducted for the existing and existing-plus-project conditions. The analysis was conducted during the noon time and PM peak hour periods, Noon was substituted for the usual. AM peak hour since, for this restaurant, noon is critical and the restaurant does not open until 10:00 AM. The existing conditions are based upon 2004 traffic counts. The project trip generation is based on ITE's Trip Generation Manual 7"' Edition. Based on ITB trip rates, the proposed restaurant will generate 29 trips during the noon and PM peak periods. The trip distribution assigns 70 percent of the restaurant traffic to Valley Boulevard, 20 percent to Ivar Avenue. and 10 percent to Muscatel Avenue as illustrated in Figure 1. The results of the analysis are shown in the following table. 917001 mm 11.duc RECEIVED TIME AUG. 4. 1:43PM m C7 m m 0 m D C c W N 4- 5% :10% ~ N n o L5x (neg.) J 5x (seq.) D'HY 3 DWY 2 toz i)s toy i)Z k, u-) DNY I • , ' z2 1, v » 11 M a5 u Vr7 fT u ~ N x+00 Y I (7) f +-35X (7) 35%% (7) t VALLEY BLVD 3s7- 7) -r 357. (3) i i 35% N 35 0 n 0 5% 10% w z L Q > i.egend Fgsre 1 XX% = Projw Distribution Percntagt PROJECTTRIP DIM-P,-D TION AND VO LUMES (YY) = Project Trips (Noon mW PM Peak Hours) L-11 co m A N m UI N N W J A Q~ cn J LD cn N D L co z to •1 D m m Rosemead Slt-Dawn Restaurant J Austin-Faust Aisocialet, Inc to Tfa>$L Study 91770Imm7Fgl,dwg 08/04/2005 12:37 17147952 AUSTIN-FOUSip PAGE 06 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Exlstin , Existing Project Locatiou Noon PM Noon PAI Valle Blvd & Ivar _060 .777 .663 .777 Valley Blvd & Muscatel .581 .708 .582 .710 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Access to the restaurant site is via three driveways - one each on Valley Boulevard, Ivar Avenue, and Muscatel Avenue. The distribution of the pro ' iect trips. 70 percent to Valley Boulevard and 20 percent t.o ivar.Avenue and 10 percent to Muscatel Avenue, ensure that none of the driveways is over capacity. Similarly, the internal circulation within the parking lot provides easy and convenient access to all the parking spaces as well as the three entrances. The driveways are all situated such that they are located the maximum distance from the existing signalized intersections, thereby minimizing any interference with the traffic flow and/or traffic queues at the adjacent intersection. The restaurant will be in operation about 12 hours each day (10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days a week), but the worst case traffic conditions - noon and the evening dinner hour period, have been evaluated and determined to be within an acceptable level of service. CONCLUSION In summary, it is concluded that the unused 62 parking spaces currently available at the shopping center at 8855 Valley Boulevard plus an increase of 25 more spaces provided by remolding the existing lot is more than adequate to meet the Rosemead Municipal Code requirement of 44 spaces for the proposed restaurant. In addition, with respect to traffic generation, the pro.icct's forecasted peak hour volume of 29 vehicles per hour (vph) is not expected to cause any significant impact to the adjacent signalized intersections of Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue or Valley Boulevard and Muscatel Avenue. 017001 mm I I doc RECEIVED TIME AUG. 4. 1:43PM 08/04/2005 12: 37 1714 7952 AUSTIN-FI_ILG ' PAGE fl 7 APPENDIX RECEIVED TIME AUG. 4, 1:43PM 08/04/2065 12:37 17145952 A1231- I14-FOU-ST PAGE 09 AUSMAOLISTASSOCUrES, INC. T R A F F I C C N O l N E E R I N G A AID T R A N s P on r A T I O N PL A N N I N G 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705-7827 MLM.0RANDUM TO. Eric Lee, DC Universal, LLC FROM: Joe Foust, P.E. DATE: May 16, 2005 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 E-mall: mallgaustinfoust. com E-mailed Only SUBJECT: ROSEMEAD SHOPPING CENTER - SATURDAY PARKING RECOUNT INTRODUCTION Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) conducted parking counts of the Rosemead Shopping Center on two Saturdays in May and Jul), of 2004 when the major anchor store was a Ralph's grocery store. Since then Ralph's has been closed and converted to an Asian market and the City has requested an updated Saturday parking count. AFA conducted that recount on April 30, 2005 from 10:00 A.M. until 5:00 PNI and again on May 14, 2005. The results are summarized herein. ANALYSIS The original May 2004 parking count subdivided the center into only two zones, which combined the front main parking lots with the rear area delivery/employee parking areas. The July 2004 parking count broke the parking into six zones - three in the front and three in the rear. Since it is recognized that virtually all the customer parking occurs in front of the buildings, the April 2005 recount concentrated on only the front parking lots. Zone 1 is in front of the Asian market and Zone 2 in front of the post office. The May 14, 2005 included the fi•ont parking lots (i.e., Zones 1 and 2) as well as the entire rear area parking. The results of this front parking lot is summarized as follows: 917001 mmMoc RECEIVED TIME AUG. 4. 1:43°M ,18/04/2005 12:37 171,16677952 .,I-UT IN-FC-UST PAGE 09 • Saturday 7/31/04 Parkin Counts Saturday 4/30/05 Parkin g Counts Saturday 5114105 Parking Counts Time Zone I Zone 2 Total Zone 1 Zone 2 Total Total Zone 1Z.one 2 Zone3* Zones 1&2 10:00 AM - - - 74 35 109 89 40 53 129 11:00 AM 81 49 130 99 41 140 82 47 63 129 Noon 98 52 150 113 49 162 124 47 62 171 1:00 PM 111 50 1.61. 125 51 176 112 41 63 153 2:00 PM 79 54 133 114 36 150 118 36 60 154 3:0-OP M - - - 108 45 153 103 40 60 143 4:00 PT-f 64 29 93 112 26 138 97 32 58 129 5:00 P1\-1 56 26 82 98 19 117 91 22 50 113 Total Spaces 168 57 225 168 57 225 168 57 73 298 "Zone 3 is rear area parking Review of these results reveals that the Saturday parking counts before and after (i.e., July 2004 versus April 2005 and May 2005) after reuse of the Ralph's store by an Asian market are somewhat higher in the after case. The peak after parking total is 176 occupied space (i.e., 78 percent of the total 225 spaces available) compared with a total of 161 (72 percent) previously. On a second Saturday the peak parking count was 171, slightly less than the 176 peak parking on the Saturday in April 2005. CONCLUSION A recount of the current parking with that reported as existing in AFA's February 2005 Parking and Traffic Study reveals 15 more cars parked in the front parking zones than was the case with the Ralph's grocery, However, the peak occupancy of this prime customer parking area remains only 78 percent utilized, even during the peak period on Saturdays (i.e., 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM). 917001 mm9.dac RECEIVED TIME AUG. 4. 1:43PM • 0 POSTMASTER ROSEMEAD POST OFFICE 40, UNITED STATES POST13L SERVICE July 21, 2005 Brad Johnson Planning Director City Of Rosemead Rosemead CA 91770 Dear Brad; This is to confirm that I have approved the relocation of the Collection Boxes to the island across the the Post Office due to the proposed parking lot revision. I feel that this new location will serve the public better and also will make it easier for the Postal Service to service the boxes. If you have any question or concerns, please contact me at 626-286-3041. Sincerely, Rosemead Post Office file EXHIBIT H J ROSEMEAD SHOPPING CENTER, LLC. P. O. Box 2460, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone (562) 430-6193 - Par (562)431-7044 March 09, 2004 Planning Department 8838 E Valley Blvd - P.O. Box 399 Rosemead, CA 91770 Attn: Brandi M Jones, Assistant Planner Dear Jones: We have received a "Public Hearing" notice for this up coming Monday, March 15, 2004 regarding case number "Design Review 03 - 110 - Eric H Lee dba DC Universal, LLC. We, Managing Members of the Rosemead Shopping Center, LLC have received, reviewed the proposed plan submitted by the Mr. Eric H Lee, thus, we will not be able to support the proposed plan. The proposed plan submitted to use our land to support DC Universal, LLC's renovation plan to convert its usage from an Office Building into proposed Restaurant use. This will not only adversely affect the value of our property, it will also affect our near future renovation plan as well. However, we would welcome and consider working with Mr. Eric H Lee to put together a renovation plan that would benefit both properties. Based on the adverse effects, we are strongly opposing the proposed renovation plan submitted for hearing this up coming Monday, March 15, 2004. We intend to strictly enforce the provision of the parking agreement and any recorded covenant to assure that our legal rights are protected. Best R-egards, B'ttn Van Nguyen, Managing Member Rosemead Shopping Center, LLC C. c. Bradford W Johnson Director of Planning EXHIBIT I 0 DC Universal LLC TENANT SIGN PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The purpose of this sign program is to ensure the design and production of quality signage which reflects the integrity of the architecture and the intent of the Owner (DC Universal LLC) and the city of Rosemead of this center. This sign program has been developed to communicate the particular parameters each tenant is to follow so their individual store signage will be effective and also compliment the project as a whole. Performance will be strictly enforced and any non-conforming signs to disapproved signs must be brought into conformance at the expense of the tenant. The program establishes maximum and minimum letter sizes, sign area allowances, location, color allowance,etc., for each sign type which is subject to the sole discretionary approval of the Owner and its' Management Company (hereafter referred to as "Landlord"), within the context of this tenant sign program. In addition to this sign program, all signs are limited tot he requirements of the City of Rosemead sign ordinance. APPROVAL PROCEDURE 1. All tenant signs installed or displayed on the premises of (shopping center name) must have prior written approval by the Landlord and an approved building permit by the City of Rosemead. 2. Each tenant, or its' representative, must submit three (3) sets of professionally executed drawings which meet the City or Rosemead submittal standards, tot the Landlord for approval. Signage approval must first be obtained from the Landlord prior to submittal to the City of Rosemead. 3.The aesthetic characteristics of the signs: eg. Placement, size, proportion, color, texture, illumination, and graphics are subject to the discretionary approval of the Landlord, within the context of this sign program. If the submittal is not approved, the tenant must submit revised plans until Landlord approval is obtained. 4. Upon written approval by the Landlord, the tenant is responsible for submitting the plans for permit approval. All city permits for signs shall be obtained and paid for by the tenant or tenant's representative prior to fabrication and installation with a copy of said permit provided to the Landlord. page 1 2116 Seaman Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733 626.258.2977 ;s't l! tt ~C f- EXHIBIT J DC Universal LLC TENANT SIGN PROGRAM SIGN TYPE SCHEDULE Ground Mounted: 1. Shopping Center I.D. Sign Exterior Mounted. 1. Major Tenant I.D./ Storefront 2. Minor Tenant I.D. / Storefront 3. Store Number 4. Entry Window Signage GENERAL SIGN CRITERIA 1.Tenant signage shall include only the business name as shown on business license, and established logo symbol. Auxiliary graphic elements will be allowed only upon the discretionary approval of the Landlord and the City of Rosemead. 2. Maintenance of each sign is the responsibility of the tenant who erected and installed it. Letter forms or letter faces and the electrical supply to illuminated each which requires repair, will be replace or repaired within ten(10) days of written notice by the Landlord. if the signage problem is not rectified within said ten (10) day period, the Landlord will have the right to repair the sign at the tenant's expense. 3. Signs will be free of all labels and manufacture's advertising with the exception of code requirement. 4. As a general rule, tenant signs are to be located visually centered, horizontally and vertically, within the fascia (sign band) above their leasehold. 5. Cooperative tenant seasonal promotional signing will be permitted only upon review and approval of the Landlord and the City of Rosemead. 6.The tenant will be completely responsible for the operation of its sign contractor and will indemnify, defend,and hold harmless the Landlord, property manager and their agents from damages or liabilities resulting from its contractors work. Tenant will also provide the Landlord with adequate evidence of tenants' sign contractor's insurance coverage naming the Landlord (DC Universal LLC) and property manager as additional named insured. 7. Tenant will immediately remove all signs representing a discontinued business or service. 8. Immediately upon removal of any sign by tenant, any damage to the building fascia of sign area will be repaired by the tenant, or by the owner at the tenant's expense. Repair work to be completed within ten(10) day period upon sign removal. page 2 2116 Seaman Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733 626.258.2977 • DC Universal LLC TENANT SIGN PROGRAM C PROHIBITED SIGNS The following signs are prohibited: 1. Roof mounted signs 2. Signs painted directly on the wall 3. Flashing, animated or rotating signs. 4. Portable signs, vehicle or trailer mounted signs. 5.Tethered balloons or other inflatable, pennant, streamers, or flags (except national or government flags as approved by the Landlord) 6.Temporary signs may not be displayed on any building or in the parking area. 7. [canners except as permitted for temporary signs, by the Landlord and the City of Rosemead. 8. Not with standing the foregoing, all signs displayed with Landlord's prior approval whether; temporary signs, banners, or the like - must be professionally prepared. STOREFRONT SIGNS Tenant signs shall be imaginative and graphically designed. Additionally, signs shall be compatible with and complementary to adjacent and facing storefronts. Each tenant must submit a sign design to Landlord for an approval. All storefront signs must comply with city of Rosemead building code. (Refer to the page "Fabrication & Installation Standards"for production standards) SHOPPING CENTER I.D. Refer to the design drawing contained within this sign program designated as Sign Type "Shopping Center I.D." for fabrication standards, maximum area allowance, letter height, letter style, and color. (refer to the page "Fabrication & Installation Standards" for production standards) STORE NUMBER 1.Tenant shall install a tenant store number at each tenant front entry. These numbers must be in vinyl machine-cut numbers, six inches (6") in height utilizing the project typestyle (Helvetica Medium). The numbers are to be installed per the layout as stipulated in this sign program. (see design drawing, page ) Fee's page 3 2116 Seaman Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733 626.258.2977 DC Universal LLC TENANT SIGN PROGRAM ENTRY WINDOW SIGNAGE 1. Each tenant is allowed one (1) information sign at the entry to their store. The copy for the sign is limited to pertinent business information such as :store hours, telephone numbers, emergency information, charge cards honored, or other business instructions. Sign shall be approved by the Landlord. 2.This sign is to be white vinyl machine-cut copy in Helvetica Medium typestyle, applied to the store window adjacent to the entry door. 3.The maximum area allowed for this sign is three square feet (3 sq.ft.) and the maximum letter height must not exceed two inches (2") Refer to the design drawing contained within this sign program designated as Sign Type "Entry Window Signage" DESIGN STANDARD Volta Bold ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOIPQRSaTUVWXHZ Helvetica Medium ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPORSTUVWXYZ abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz 0123456759!0#$%&() Goudy Heavyface ABCDEFGrHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz 01Z3456789!@P#$%&* bee's page 4 2116 Seaman Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733 626.258.2977 t T- F, DC Universal LLC TENANT SIGN PROGRAM FABRICATION & INSTALLATION STANDARD 1.Contractors installing signs are to be State Registered Contractors with their license in good standing, must hold a current city business license, and must maintain minimum comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single lirnit of not less than $1,000,000, workers compensation coverage, and any other coverage required by the Landlord at the time work is performed. 2. All tenant signs are to be illurninated signs which are connected to the tenant's individual electrical service by an assigned J-box which must be controlled by a dedicated time clock, and have a disconnect means (switch) within visual proximity of the sign, all paid for by the tenant. 3. All signs and installations of the sign must conform to the appropriate building and electrical codes (U.L., N.E.C.- latest edition, etc.). The tenant and the sign contractor will obtain and pay for any and all pert-nits required. 4. In no case will there be any exposed electrical raceways, conduit, transformers, junction boxes, conductors, or crossovers. Letter fastening will be finished in a manner consistent with quality fabrication practices and clips are to be concealed and to be galvanized, stainless steel, aluminum, brass or bronze. The installation will be approved by the Landlord. 5.Tenant storefront identification signs are to be individually mounted channel letters with acrylic face. Any other types of signs may be considered on a case by case basis, upon the discretionary approval of the Landlord and by the City of Rosemead, 6. Channel letter and logo forms are to be fabricated from minimum 24 gauge sheet metal or.063 aluminum formed into a channel configuration with a five inch (5") return. Each letter must have a minimum of two (2)1/4' seep holes for drainage of water. The inside of the letters and logo form are to be painted white. Returns to be bronze to match the window mullion color or as approved by the Landlord. Letter and log faces are to be fabricated from 1/8" (minimum) acrylic and be attached to the metal return with 3A" trim cap. Internal illumination to be 30 mil-amp (minimum) neon tubing lighting, sufficient to provide even lighting, manufactured, labeled and installed in accordinance with U.L/ (underwriters Laboratory). 7.Tenant and/or tenant's sign contractor shall not, in the course of sign installation or removal, damage any of the building exterior or structure. Tenant will be held fully responsible for all costs incurred to repair and damage, at the sole discretion of the Landlord. 8. All penetration of the exterior fascia are to be sealed watertight, then painted to match the existing fascia and building color. 9. Color: Acrylic Faces: White (Aristech #7328) Yellow (Aristech #2016) Red (Aristech #2793) Green (Aristech #2108) Blue (Aristech #2114) Letter returns are to be bronze to match the window mullion color, or as approved by the Landlord. Trimcap colors to be bronze or black. Alternate trimcap colors which match the letter face color may only be used upon the discretionary approval of the Landlord. page 5 2116 Seaman Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733 626.258.2977 19'-0" 0 u> • 0 DC Universal LLC TENANT SIGN PROGRAM ;~ye'. .r~i~I r~Y ~ Xr.._,1 JC- - _ L 5'-0" Lee's W-1 0 4 1 I I r . 1 Z ZTI' y I~ t A 1:. i- 1_ r 5'-0" 0 io stone monument to match building page 6 2116 Seaman Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733 626.258.2977 0 0 PC RESOLUTION 05-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 03-110 FOR EXTERIOR FAIrADE RENOVATIONS, INCLUDING CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE INTO TWO RESTAURANT SPACES TOTALING 4,390 SQUARE FEET AND ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 CONVERSION OF LAND USE WITHIN A CENTER FROM COMMERCIAL BANK TO COMMERCIAL FOOD ESTABLISHEMENT FOR A LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING SHOPPING CENTER WITH LESS THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS; LOCATED AT 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN 5391-009-002). WHEREAS, on October 23, 2003, Eric Lee of DC Universal, LLC, filed an application for a Design Review for exterior fagade renovations including the conversion of existing vacant office space into restaurant use; WHEREAS, this property located at 8855 Valley Boulevard is located in the CBD-D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planviing Commission to approve, conditionally approve or deny design review applications; and WHEREAS, Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements involving visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade or landscaping. Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. • The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; • The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. • The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. • The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and EXHIBIT F • • The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. An applicant must obtain a variance in order to create a development that does not meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets criteria required for granting such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a variance will not: • Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; • Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; • Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan; and • That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. WHEREAS, on August 4, 2005, 26 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in 8 public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and 1ATitten testimony relative to Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 are entitled to a Class 1 and Class 3 Categorical Exemption' pursuant to Section 15301 (e) and 15303(c) of CEQA. Section 15301 (e) and Section 15303(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act and local environmental guidelines exempt projects that consist of additions to existing structures and the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including but not limited to the construction of up to four (4) such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 03-110 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: The subject site is located within the Universal Square Shopping Center. The center includes the Post Office, Universal Bank Building, additional retail and commercial uses. The proposed design will not change the overall character of the building configuration. B. Tile plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: Staff has incorporated conditions designed to protect the surrounding properties from noise. vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment. Storage areas for trash and mechanical areas have been adequately screened. C. The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The proposed new exterior will provide a new architectural style and color scheme. The new exterior renovations will also give an aesthetically pleasing view from Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue as well as other surrounding properties. Landscaping, signage, and building facades will be upgraded to a modern design theme. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. FINDING: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that it calls for the upgrading of commercial uses by implementing architectural and design reviews of proposals for projects. The proposed new exterior will provide a clean. modern architectural style and color scheme and an aesthetically pleasing view from Valley Boulevard as well as other surrounding properties. The project is adjacent to the Civic Center area and the architectural treatments in the design have incorporated stone veneer, water fountain and pond features, extensive new landscaping treatments and a variety of architectural details including trellis systems, new hardscape and outdoor patio areas. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. FINDING: The site is designated in the General Plan for Commercial and on the zoning map, it is designated as CBD-D, Central Business District with a Design Overlay. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: Staff has worked extensively with the applicant to develop a plan that improves functional aspects like loading, unloading and traffic circulation and also improves the appearance of the operation. SECTION 3. The Planning Conunission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Variance 05-328 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The project does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. FINDING: Other restaurant uses within the CBD zone have similarily been granted variances for minimum number of parking stalls. • • B. The project will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. FINDING: A traffic and parking study was completed by a registered traffic engineering firm that analyzed peak hour parking demands with and without the office area conversion and found that there will be sufficient parking space available to customers and employees within the re- configured existing parking lot areas. This includes a re-design of the main entry along Valley Boulevard to add an additional row of angled stalls within this area. These areas include portions of the shopping center parking lot that have existing reciprocal parking agreements recorded on the deeds to the properties. C. The project will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. FINDING: The proposed project is in accordance with the General Plan which designates the site for Commercial use. Restaurant and coffee shop uses are consistent with commercial land uses D. That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classification. FINDING: The existing shopping center as built has surplus leasable tenant spaces that if devoted to the uses allowed by section 17.48.130(c), would be less conducive to the viable operation of the shopping center than the proposed restaurant uses. Other restaurant uses within the CBD zone have similarily been granted variances for minimum number of parking stalls. By restriping and reconfiguring the parking areas in accordance with the approved plans, the property owner has met parking requirements to the extent economically feasible given the existing layout of the shopping center as constructed. SECTION 4. The Planning Conunission HEREBY APPROVES Design Review 03-110 and to allow exterior renovations of the exterior building fagade, new landscaping materials and the addition of water fountains, trellis' and anew color scheme and Zone Variance 05-328 for change of land use with a legal, non-conforming shopping center with less than the minimum number of required parking stalls, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2005, by the following vote: YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOPEZ and LOI NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of saine to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of September, 2005. G Duc Loi, Chairman t • • CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Plaiming Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 19'x' day of September, 2005, by the following vote: YES: KELTY, LOL BREEN, HERRERA, LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Brad Johnson, Secretary • 0 EXHIBIT "A" DESIGN REIVIENV 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL August 15. 2005 Design Review 03-110 is approved for exterior fagade renovations, including landscaping for the Universal Bank building in the Universal Square shopping center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "B", dated August 4, 2005 and submitted colored elevations and color and material sample boards. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Plamung Department. 2. Zone Variance 05-328 is approved for the conversion of existing office space on the first floor of the Universal bank building to a coffee/sandwicli shop (1,790 so and a restaurant (2,600 sf) within a property that is a CBD zoned parcel and is legal non-conforming due to less than required on-site parking stalls. Approval of Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are a, vare of and accepts all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance 05-328 is approved for a one (1) year period. Applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an extension 30 days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission. Otherwise Design Review 03- 110/Zone Variance 05-328 shall become null and void. 5. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 6. Building permits will not be issued in corinection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full. 7. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 1/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to installation. 8. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 9. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday - Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. 10. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 11. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 12. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). 13. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public right-of-way. 14. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be • 0 complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 15. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 16. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall be screened from view. 17. Window signage area shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the window and door area. Applicant shall remove that signage which exceeds the 15% coverage area. 18. Signs shall comply with the sign program indicated in this report and that of Chapter 17.104 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. A uniform signage program shall be developed and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 19. Prior to the issuance of any additional ground floor occupancy permits or final approval of any tenant improvement permits , the existing 22 foot high Universal Bank: pylon/billboard style sign and support columns, adjacent to Valley Boulevard shall be completely removed. 20. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 307-0463 for assistance. 21. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010-8.32.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 22. Submit a detailed lighting plan for the exterior of the building and adjacent parking areas. Adequate lighting shall be provided in the vehicle parking area. All exterior lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties and shielded on all sides. 23. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. In accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 24. A separate Design Review will be required for the approval of landscape plans and proposed signage. 25. Prior to constriction commencing, the contractor shall schedule a pre-development meeting with the Planning Department staff to review the conditions of approval and construction plans. 26. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or the initiation of revocation proceedings. 27. Any changes to the conditions of operation listed in this Exhibit "A" must be first approved by the Planning Commission through a modification application. 28. Remove all real estate and other temporary signs that do not have temporary pen-nits issued by the Planning Department. 29. Remove all parking restriction signs on the property. 30. Future tenants, which have a higher demand for parking, must submit a restiping plan and/or apply for a parking variance. A parking study and /or traffic study may be required. 31. Renovate the existing trash enclosures to incorporate decorative walls, overhead trellis • 0 elements and solid steel doors. 32. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. The landscape/ irrigation plan shall include an automatic sprinkler system and moisture sensors. 33. Provide a long term landscape maintenance agreement for the City file that ensures regular weeding, fertilizing, irrigation repair and replacement of unhealthy plant materials. Maintain a valid maintenance agreement in perpetuity with qualified commercial landscape nlalniCnCUICC 11171. 34. Provide signed letter from landscape architect at completion of landscape/irrigation installation that all planting materials and irrigation has been installed in conformance with the final approved landscape/irrigation plan. 35. Demolish masonry wall on the east side of the property and submit detail of new decorative wall to replace. 36. Stone monument sign shall include routed out, aluminum sheet metal background, gray in color with push through acrylic style individual letters not to exceed '/2 inch for major tenants and '/4 inch for all others, with internal illumination. 37. That the new driveway configuration on Valley Boulevard be widened to a minimum of 25'- 0" by narrowing of the landscape planter on either side. 38. That the northerly most angled parking stall within the new row of parking be removed and improved with landscape materials. ~ 0 • `w 4 LU IQ V1 i I I I I I I ITFMI I ITFTI 11 I7q-- LEGBDS C..7 • unro owe e.. ro leros e L e e ~I~~I VALLEY BLVD. ,-W PROPOSED SITE PLAN a M'- Q I yQy~ I _ 0 G PROJECT NAME uar Veu[r b;a"►lu atG aaLONO AOORWI aa6L V,alL+aw. PROJECT ADDRESS, ;neeew, u m PAAKM ANALYSIS EXSETM PARICM ,t.OUe A!A RIG r.uran wiuwc+ axntn evn uua .an Nx omrn e".ea"" eaNC e,cu ae,,m wM1 au ,mr aAA txron r,usAn .n+aa, rt OCT 5 2005 NEW PARWG ANALYSIS .rK.o ~auwl ;v+uaA p vain awl • ae•loo e"na ;.r "L" p vwn a;u uum; m w pNaY e~nn;ou,a+ ..,m p awora ~a~naa ~a e ,ma ~Awu+~ PweeAZ w w I'd A t., 66P d IF ffE vu% a n,ar • ~ u ~ 'r4 ' ~oC p l ul ! ~ cu ~ u W Z W o V LL = V Z o o J~ W ~ mW W W ~ a a V J W f U1 ui 2 NW N 2 W a m0 NCC F W w y O DATE qf.sl. a, R"a w :«aT d~o n s»an pTT~ rTITFMTITTT-FFI TI 1i I 0 0 ~u d J W d ,,nn fi FIT VI LEGENDS GY10 PLD6,P IR,D~S C..7 Xrrrre Diex w. ro is+of I d I ~ i j Lo A PROJECT NAM W, rA YrRIr rar■■ pRDrO APpflPI PROJECT ADDREM Ka■■AD, u in■ PARKNG ANKYM EXSrrM PARKNG Rm■ a4 I<♦[i ~uWm KCIMrI ■W~„~ e~Da •w wn r [.rn unverw 6MR 0100 M.W Mn OL ImK rL oa,o nr.na yf .~**Drt it OCT - 52005 NEW PARKNG ANALYSIS N■rW WDA,gI ~yy~A o~A„X.~.AE„D,~■IDV r~W CD rKU io wsa r~r ®w PtGa Wutnr r.r]P Q Ytl„ ~ LDDA,pI r•14 m rAplD as Lcuna r., o ,OAK ~MRW D■rBp[i r~44 L 00. ~6K`ti (E)MARKET 23.313 S.F. (E)SHOPS (E)FABRIC SHOP FAC TO REMO !520 50 FT. (E)POST OFFICE L 11 I-fLLLLL] =~Lfl VALLEY BLVD. PLAN p•r■ Y4/4WANx[ o-awor W Z W cc U 0 U. 0 c I.Z J~ z m W a a, 0 0 40 U) ~ = w f NW N O K f' m 2 a m¢ W f cW C W N O )c ,.,LE DA,c -1 wr7 Q° or rvms