Loading...
CC - Item 4A - Public Hearing on Application for Modification 25-01 - 8855 Valley BoulevardROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 10, 2025 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION 25-01- 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD SUMMARY On March 22, 2022, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval for Modification 21-08 to renovate the building fagade of an existing commercial building into the Myriad Public Market food hall. The applicant, DC Universal, LLC, is now requesting an addition on the rooftop level with additional changes through Modification 25-01. The subject site is located at 8855 Valley Boulevard in the Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD/D-O) zone. A copy of the City Council Staff Report with attachments, City Council Meeting Minutes, and City Council Resolution No. 2022-19 can be found in Attachment `B", "C", and "D", respectively. DISCUSSION Through this Modification application (Modification 25-01), the applicant is proposing to add six enclosed tenant spaces, ranging from 172 s.f. to 1,119 s.f. on the rooftop level, resulting in an increase of 4,357 square feet to the overall building area, bringing the total floor area to 36,286 square feet. Additional proposed changes include the reconfiguration of various outdoor dining areas at both the ground and rooftop levels, the implementation of a new exterior color scheme, and a slight increase in the building's overall height from 49%11' to 52%11". The proposed changes are illustrated below and detailed in Attachment "B": Approved Front Elevation Proposed Front Elevation AGENDA ITEM 4.A City Council Meeting June 10, 2025 Page 2 of 3 The overall sleek and modern design of the building continues to take a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the commercial corridor. The food hall will provide an elevated atmosphere with an exceptional dining experience from 26+ diverse vendors/artisans. The project is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in summer 2026. Staff has verified that the addition and proposed changes would continue to comply with the City's applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code. In addition, the project would not impose additional parking to the shopping center as Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project that is located within a half -mile of public transit. The project site is located within a half -mile of public transit. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Per RMC Section 17.120.100(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.100], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), in the Design Overlay zone, Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior facade, or landscaping. On August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 03-110 for a facade renovation of the Universal Plaza building, which was appealed and upheld by the City Council on October 25, 2005. Alternatively, on March 22, 2022, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval for Modification 21-08 to renovate the facade of an existing commercial building. RMC Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. The findings required in Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(C) for a Design Review are contained in City Council Resolution 2025-28 (Attachment "A"). STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2025-28 (Attachment "A"); and 3. Determine that Modification 25-01 is exempt from Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. City Council Meeting June 10, 2025 Page 3 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT None. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Accordingly, Modification 25-01 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT Modification 25-01 is consistent with the Land Use and Zoning Goal of the City's 2030 Strategic Plan (Goal H) as the objective is to "one action is to "Create opportunities to establish a vibrant food hall that includes small, locally grown restaurants and communal spaces for customers to enjoy." Myriad Public Market is the City's first food hall. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to twenty-three (23) property owners, publication in the newspaper on May 29, 2025, postings of the notice at the five (5) public locations, and on the subject site. Prepared by: 34� Annie Lao, Senior Planner Submitted by: *—@Z— Lily Valenzuela, Director of Community Development Attachment A: City Council Resolution No. 2025-28 Attachment B: City Council Staff Report with Attachments (dated March 22, 2022) Attachment C: City Council Meeting Minutes (dated March 22, 2022) Attachment D: City Council Resolution No. 2022-19 (with Conditions of Approval) Attachment E: Architectural Plans Attachment A Resolution No. 2025-28 RESOLUTION 2025-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 25-01, A SECOND MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 03-110 FOR AN ADDITION ON THE ROOFTOP LEVEL OF THE BUILDING, RECONFIGURATION OF VARIOUS OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ON BOTH THE GROUND AND ROOFTOP LEVELS, IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEME, AND A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE BUILDING'S OVERALL HEIGHT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5391-009-002), IN THE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, DC Universal, LLC submitted a Modification Application (Modification 25-01) requesting an addition to the rooftop level, reconfiguration of various outdoor dining areas at both the ground and rooftop levels, implementation of a new exterior color scheme, and a slight increase in the building's overall height located at 8855 Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, 8855 Valley Boulevard is located in a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone; and WHEREAS, 17.28.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for authorizing changes to an approved project; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 03- 110 for a fagade renovation of the Universal Plaza building; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the appeal of Design Review 03-110 was presented to the City Council and after hearing all public and oral testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing to October 25, 2005; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved Design Review 03-110 for a fagade renovation of the Universal Plaza building; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution 2005-42 to approve Design Review 03-110; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21-08 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 22-01, making findings and determinations to approve Modification 21-08; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal to the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval for Modification 21-08 to renovate the fagade of an existing commercial building; and WHEREAS, Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code establishes the review authority for changes approved by the original review authority; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) and 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove design review applications; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2025, twenty-three (23) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public locations, on -site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for the appeal of Modification 25-01, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 25-01 and adopted City Council Resolution 2025-28, making findings and determinations to approve Modification 25-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 25-01 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15301 of CEQA exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Modification 25-01 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 25-01, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: 2 A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The proposed modification would add 4,357 square feet to the rooftop level, reconfigure various outdoor dining areas, implement a new exterior color scheme, and slightly increase in the building's overall height. The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The applicant continues to provide a building design that is sleek and modern with consideration to massing, colors and materials, and architectural features. In addition, the design incorporates high quality materials and will improve the aesthetics of the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. B. 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. FINDING: The project would add 4,357 square feet to the rooftop level to an existing commercial building that is currently under construction. All construction work is required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, a Construction Management Plan was approved by all City departments prior to the issuance of the building permits for Modification 25-01. Conditions of approval are incorporated that specifically addresses noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, trash enclosures, glazing of windows and materials, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The project would not cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value and consists of a modification to an approved fagade renovation from 2022. The overall design of the project continues to take a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the commercial corridor. 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 subject site is south of Muscatel Middle School, which is designated as Public Facilities in the General Plan and is not a part of the Civic Center. The project consists of a modification to an approved exterior renovation of an existing commercial building and would not modify the use or site configuration. The addition is on an existing rooftop level. The project is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, 3 exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors and would be in harmony with the developments within the vicinity of the project site. 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 proposed modification meets all of the code requirements for the CBD-D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The applicant continues to provide a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staffs determination, will modernize the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. 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: The project consists of a modification to an approved exterior renovation of an existing commercial building and includes an addition to the rooftop level, reconfiguration of various outdoor dining areas at both the ground and rooftop levels, implementation of a new exterior color scheme, and a slight increase in height. All improvements to the parking areas, existing trash enclosure, signs, landscaping, and lighting will continue to be properly considered through this modification. SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Modification 25-01, a modification to an approved exterior renovation of an existing commercial building and includes an addition to the rooftop level, reconfiguration of various outdoor dining areas at both the ground and rooftop levels, implementation of a new exterior color scheme, and a slight increase in height., subject to the Conditions of Approval. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk of the City of Rosemead shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its approval by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10t' day of June, 2025. Margaret Clark, Mayor 0 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Exhibits: A. Conditions of Approval B. Design Review 03-110 Conditions of Approval C. Modification 21-08 Conditions of Approval 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 2025-28, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10t` day of June, 2025, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT "A" (CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2025-28) MODIFICATION 25-01 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5391-009-002) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL JUNE 10, 2025 Modification 25-01 (Project) is approved as a second modification to Design Review 03- 110. The project includes an addition to the rooftop level of the existing Universal Plaza building which is currently undergoing exterior fagade renovations and various site improvements. Additionally, the project consists of the reconfiguration of various outdoor dining areas at both the ground and rooftop levels, implementation of a new exterior color scheme, and a slight increase in the building's overall height. The Project shall be developed in accordance with the plans marked as Attachment "B", dated May 26, 2025. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 2. All applicable Conditions of Approval from Design Review 03-110 and Modification 21- 08 will still apply. 3. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the City Council approval date. 4. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the City Council approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 6. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, or Public Works Department for review. 7. The on -site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day appeal period of Project. Vl 8. Modification 25-01 is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Modification 25-01. 9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 10. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved project, including the requirements of the Community Development (Planning and Building and Safety Division), Public Works, Fire, Sheriff, and Health Departments. 11. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any Federal holiday without prior approval by the City. 12. City staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 13. Any revised plans including, but not limited to the fence/wall, landscape and irrigation, trash enclosure, and construction management plan shall be submitted for City review and approval. 14. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 8 EXHIBIT "B" * * * On October 25, 2005, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval of Design Review 03-110 for a fagade renovation of the Universal Plaza building but denied Zone Variance 05-328. Subsequently, on November 22, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution 2005-42 for Design Review 03-110. * * * DESIGN REVIEW 03-110 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2005-42) NOVEMBER 22, 2005 1. 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 Planning 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 sf) 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. 3. 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 shall become null and void. 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 6 Planning prior to installation. 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 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 pylonibillboard 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. 10 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 construction 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 permits 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 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 11 maintenance 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 '/2 inch for major tenants and 'A 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. 12 EXHIBIT "C" MODIFICATION 21-08 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2022-19) MARCH 22, 2022 Modification 21-08 is approved as a modification to Design Review 03-110 for the approval of exterior fagade renovations and site improvements to the Universal Plaza building in the Universal Square shopping center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit `B", dated February 1, 2022, 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 Planning Department. 2. Project is approved for the elimination of Condition of Approval No. 24 of 03-110, which states: A separate Design Review will be required for the approval of landscape plans and proposed signage. 3. All applicable Conditions of Approval from Design Review 03-110 will still apply. 4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date. 5. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 6. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval. 7. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 8. The on -site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day appeal period of Project. 9. MOD 21-08 is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed 13 circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on MOD 21-08. 10. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 11. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved project, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Public Works, Fire, Sheriff, and Health Departments. 12. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any Federal holiday without prior approval by the City. 13. City staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 14. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening on the development plan prior to installation. 15. All property that is vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied: a. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain -link, lumber, masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self-supporting and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner. b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall be continuously maintained in good condition. c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. 14 16. All trash enclosures shall be designed to be an integral part of the overall project design, and utilize complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self -closing, and self -latching. Detailed elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal to the Building Division. 17. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 18. The use of mirrored and reflective glazing materials and glass is prohibited. 19. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Public Works Conditions of Approval 20. Copy all conditions of approval and the Planning decision letter onto all permit plan sets. 21. Submit project record drawings incorporating any approved delta revisions that occurred during construction. 22. The approved building address(s) shall be painted on the curb to the City's standard as required by the Public Works Inspector before the final inspection. 23. Comply with NPDES requirements. UTILITIES 24. All power, telephone, cable television, and all utilities to the project and adjacent to the project shall be installed and relocated underground unless impracticable to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee. 25. Any utilities that conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 15 Attachment B City Council Staff Report Dated March 22, 2022 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, ACTING CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 22, 2022 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF MODIFICATION 21-08 SUMMARY On February 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing of Modification 21-08 for an extensive exterior facade renovation of the existing Universal Plaza building, located at 8855 Valley Boulevard in the Central Business District with a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone. The applicant intends on converting the Universal Plaza building into a food hall. The only Planning Commission approval required by the City's code for the Applicant's project was a Design Review. All other aspects of the project were permitted under the Code. The Planning Commission approved the Design Review as permissible under the Code. On February 16, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer, representing 420 Boyd Street, LLC, the property owner of 8801-8845 Valley Boulevard. As a result, the public hearing for the appeal was scheduled for March 22, 2022 to be heard by City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Accordingly, Modification 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. DISCUSSION Property History and Description The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue and consists of one parcel totaling approximately 1.63 acres. While not associated with the Valley AGENDA ITEM 4.11 City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 9 Gateway Shopping Center (formally "Universal Square Shopping Center") located at 8815 Valley Boulevard, the subject site abuts the aforementioned shopping center and shares an access and parking easement. The site is currently developed with a commercial building totaling 32,660 square feet. The commercial building is currently occupied by several professional office uses in the basement and second story; however, the majority of the building is vacant. Per Planning Division records, several entitlements were approved by the Planning Commission and include Conditional Use Permits, Variances, and Design Reviews. On August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 03-110 for exterior fagade and landscaping renovations for the subject site. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution 05-41 with Conditions of Approval have been included as Attachments "E", "F", and "G", respectively. Southeast View (Existing) Project Description DC Universal, LLC submitted a Modification Application to amend amend Design Review 03- 110, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2005. Design Review 03- 110 was approved for a facade renovation of the Universal Plaza building. Modification 21-08 consists of an extensive exterior fagade renovation to the existing Universal Plaza building. As depicted in the architectural plans in Attachment "I" and the colored renderings on pages 3 and 4, the proposed fagade renovation consists of a mix of mid-century modern architecture with high -quality, contemporary elements. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the commercial corridor. City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 9 To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed facade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. In addition, site improvements, such as landscape maintenance will also be incorporated as part of the project. In order to alleviate bulk and mass and to create multi -story street -facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles, the applicant has proposed floor to ceiling windows, a green roof on the second floor, and a roof top bar area. To comply with the California Building Code for egress, a new stairwell tower is being proposed along Ivar Avenue. The stairwell tower will be constructed with the same high -quality materials to match the proposed facade renovation and will further alleviate the bulk and mass of the existing building by creating a break in the facade plane of the building. The new stairwell tower is not counted towards floor area, as it is exempt per the definition of floor area in Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.04.050. The applicant is also proposing interior tenant improvements, which would be administratively reviewed and approved by staff. The tenant improvements will accommodate the food hall and consist of 27 leasable areas that range from a 15 square foot kiosk to a 3,800 square foot unit, indoor and outdoor dining areas, and a rooftop deck. The proposed food hall is located within an existing shopping center as defined by RMC Section 17.04.050. A "Shopping Center" means a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-of-way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C-3, and CBD zones. Additional parking is not required for this modification since the existing shopping center use is being continued. A }Nil� .,�� Ili ��'��liih�pl'1•�:,,�. .���it/�,� pli gO J t �{ � �.giv 3-1) Rendering of Proposed Fagade Renovation City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Proposed Front Elevation (Along Valley Blvd.) APPEAL On February 16, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer, representing 420 Boyd Street, LLC, the property owner of 8801-8845 Valley Boulevard. A copy of the letter is attached as Attachment "H." Since the subject site is located in a Design Overlay zone, the project was subjected to design review procedures. Per RMC Section 17.28.020(A), "No building permit shall be issued for any building structure or other development of property or appurtenance thereto, on any propertyfor which a precise plan of design is required, until the precise plan of design covering the parcel or parcels to be so used shall be approved and adopted as herein provided. Design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes inform, texture, color, exterior facade or landscaping." On February 7, 2022, Modification 21-08 was approved by the Planning Commission for the extensive exterior fagade renovation. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution 22-01 with Conditions of Approval have been included as Attachments `B", "C", and "D", respectively. As detailed in the project description, Modification 21-08, the Planning Commission's decision was only based on the design of the building, becausenoother discretionary approvals are required for the project. The Planning Commission approved the exterior facade renovation with conditions based on the criteria set forth in RMC Section 17.28.020(C), in which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), in the Design Overlay zone, Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping. On August 15, 2005, the City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission approved Design Review 03-110 for a fagade renovation of the Universal Plaza building. RMC Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. Per RMC Section 17.120.110(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [Section 17.120.110], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [Chapter 17.120]. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; RECOMMENDED FINDING: The purpose of the proposed improvement is to modernize the building fagade. The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staff's determination, will improve the aesthetics of the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed facade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. 2. The plan for the proposed building 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; RECOMMENDED FINDING: The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. All construction work is required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, and the overall maintenance of the property. In addition, a condition of approval has been incorporated, requiring the trash enclosure to be improved and be an integral part of the overall project design. Furthermore, a condition of approval prohibits the use of mirrored or reflective glazing materials and glass. 3. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 6 of 9 neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; RECOMMENDED FINDING: The project would not cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. The proposed fagade renovation consists of a mix of mid-century modern architecture with high -quality, contemporary elements. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural -features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the commercial corridor. 4. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in 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; RECOMMENDED FINDING: The project site is located south of Muscatel Middle School, which is designated as Public Facilities in the General Plan, however, is not a part of the Civic Center. The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building and would not modify the use or site configuration. The proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. The project would be in harmony with the developments in land designated on the General Plan as Public Facilities, the Civic Center, and developments within the vicinity of the project site. 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 RECOMMENDED FINDING: The proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the CBD-D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staffs determination, will modernize the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. 6. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 7 of 9 both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. RECOMMENDED FINDING: The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building. As part of the project improvements, the applicant will improve the existing trash enclosure to be an integral part of the overall project design. In addition, all landscaping will also be improved. Furthermore, all future signage will be reviewed and approved by staff. APPEAL CONTENTIONS: The appeal contentions discussed in the appeal letter (Attachment H) do not include items which are part of the findings to be considered for a Design Review. The appellant's appeal basis, outlined below, is related to the future use of the building and is not related to the project request to modify the exterior facade of an existing commercial building. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 21-08. 1. Private Easements Agreement Modification 21-08 is a request for exterior renovations to an existing commercial building and does not have any relation to the private easements agreement. Although an existing private easements agreement does exist between the subject property and the appellant's property, the easements are related to access and parking within the shopping center and the City is not a party to that agreement. Therefore, the City may not consider this item as a part of its Design Review. 2. Substantial Impact on Parking and Parking Related Services Modification 21-08 is a request for exterior renovations to an existing commercial building and does not have any findings the City may consider related to the future use of the building and its impacts to parking. In addition, the future use of a food hall is located within an existing shopping center as defined by RMC Section 17.04.050. A "Shopping Center" means a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-of-way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C-3, and CBD zones. Additional parking is not required for this modification since the existing shopping center use is being continued. 3. Inadequate Loading Zones Modification 21-08 is a request for exterior renovations to an existing commercial building and does not have any findings the City may consider related to the future use of the building and its impacts to loading zones. City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 8 of 9 4. Inadequate Trash Areas Modification 21-08 is a request for exterior renovations to an existing commercial building and does not have any findings the City may consider related to the future use of the building and its impacts to the capacity of the trash area. For design purposes, a condition of approval was incorporated, requiring all trash enclosures to be an integral part of the overall project design and utilize complementary colors and materials. 5. Inadequate Measuring of Electric Meter and Water Meter Modification 21-08 is a request for exterior renovations to an existing commercial building and does not have any findings the City may consider related to the future use of the building and its impacts to the electricity or water usage. 6. Inadequate Consideration of Utilities, Maintenance Needs, Noise, and Smells. Modification 21-08 is a request for exterior renovations to an existing commercial building and does not have any findings the City may consider related to the operational needs of a future use. 7. Inadequate Attention to Construction Needs Conditions of approval have specifically addressed factors such as noise and construction hours. In addition, a Construction Management Plan will be submitted to the City during Building Plan Check, which will address construction related concerns for the exterior fagade renovation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 21-08 and adopt Resolution No. 2022-19 (Attachment "A"). FISCAL IMPACT None. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT Modification 21-08 is consistent is consistent with the Land Use and Zoning Goal of the City's 2030 Strategic Plan (Goal H) as the objective is to "one action is to "Create opportunities to establish a vibrant food hall that includes small, locally grown restaurants and communal spaces for customers to enjoy." The exterior fagade renovation is intended for a food hall. City Council Meeting March 22, 2022 Page 9 of 9 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to twenty-three (23) property owners, publication in the newspaper on March 10, 2022, postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations, and on the subject site. Prepared by: Annie Lao, Associate Planner Lily Valenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Submitted by: Ben Kim, ting City Manager Attachment A: City Council Resolution 2022-19 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report (dated February 7, 2022) Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes (dated February 7, 2022) Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-02 (with Conditions of Approval) Attachment E: Planning Commission Staff Report (dated August 15, 2005) Attachment F: Planning Commission Minutes (dated August 15, 2005) Attachment G: Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-41 Attachment H: Appeal Letter from the Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer Attachment I: Architectural Plans Attachment A City Council Resolution 2022-19 RESOLUTION 2022-19 AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION 21-08, AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 03- 110, BY MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND ELIMINATING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 24, ALLOWING FOR AN EXTERIOR FACADE RENOVATION AND THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, AND PERMITTING STAFF TO REVIEW FUTURE SIGNAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5391-009-002), IN THE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, DC Universal, LLC submitted a Modification Application (MOD 21-08) requesting to amend Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No. 1 for a proposed facade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage located at 8855 Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, 8855 Valley Boulevard is located in a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone; and WHEREAS,17.28.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for authorizing changes to an approved project; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) and 17.120.100 (C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove design review applications; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21-08 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 22-01, making findings and determinations to approve Modification021-08; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer, representing 420 Boyd Street, LLC, the property owner of 8801-8845 Valley Boulevard, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. WHEREAS, on March 10, 2022, forty-three (43) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on -site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for the appeal of Modification 21-08, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 22, 2022, to consider the appeal of Modification 21-08; and WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the appeal of Modification 21-08 and considered all public comments; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 21-08 is classified as a Class I Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15301 of CEQA exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 21-08, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The purpose of the proposed improvement is to modernize the building fagade. The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staff's determination, will improve the aesthetics of the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed fayade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth - tone colors. B. 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 2 other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. All construction work is required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, and the overall maintenance of the property. In addition, a condition of approval has been incorporated, requiring the trash enclosure to be improved and be an integral part of the overall project design. Furthermore, a condition of approval prohibits the use of mirrored or reflective glazing materials and glass. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The project would not cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. The proposed fagade renovation consists of a mix of mid- century modern architecture with high -quality, contemporary elements. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the commercial corridor. 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 project site is located south of Muscatel Middle School, which is designated as Public Facilities in the General Plan, however, is not a part of the Civic Center. The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building and would not modify the use or site configuration. The proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. The project would be in harmony with the developments in land designated on the General Plan as Public Facilities, the Civic Center, and developments within the vicinity of the project site. 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 proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the CBD-D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staff s determination, will modernize the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. 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: The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building. As part of the project improvements, the applicant will improve the existing trash enclosure to be an integral part of the overall project design. In addition, all landscaping will also be improved. Furthermore, all future signage will be reviewed and approved by staff. SECTION 3. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision to approve Modification 21-05, as adopted by Planning Commission Resolution 22-01, with Conditions of Approval outlined in Exhibit "A". SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022. ATTEST: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Exhibits: Polly Low, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney A. Planning Commission Resolution 22-01 (with Conditions of Approval) E EXHIBIT "A" PC Resolution 22-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSrEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-08, AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 03- 110, BY MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND ELIMINATING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 24, ALLOWING FOR A FACADE RENOVATION AND THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, AND PERMITTING STAFF TO REVIEW FUTURE SIGNAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 Valley Boulevard (APN. 5391-009-002), IN THE RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED - USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBDlRG-IkfiUDOID-0) ZONE. WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, CSC Universal, LLC submitted a Modification Application (MOLD 21-08) requesting to amend Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No. 1 for al proposed fagade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage located at 8855 Valley Boulevard; WHEREAS, 8850 Valley Boulevard is located in a Residential/Commercial Mixed - Use Development and Design Overlay (Cl3D/RG-MUD01D-O) zone; WHEREAS, Section 17.120.1OO(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for authorizing changes to an approved project; WHEREAS. Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny changes to developments or new uses authorized through a permit granted in compliance with the zoning code; WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, twenty-three (23) notices were seat to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject properly, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were postedin six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for MOLD 21-08; WHEREAS, on February 7. 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to MOD 21- 08; 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 1E The Planning Commission HERESY DETERMINES that MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15301 of CEQA exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines, SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving MOD 21-08, in accordance with 'Section 17,120,100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows; A. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.120.1OO(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.1001, or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. FINDING: Staff has verified that the proposed modification would be in compliance with all applicable sections of the Rosemead Zoning Code. The amendments to Design Review 03-110 would further enhance the appearance of the existing commercial and create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic alone Malley Boulevard. In addition, the proposed modification would stimulate economic activity along one of the City's largest commercial corridors and streamline site improvements such as landscaping and signage for future tenants. Furthermore, all applicable conditions of approval of Design Review 03-110 would apply. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES MOD 21-0a, an amendment to Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No. 1 for a proposed facade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is fled with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 —Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on February 7, 2022, by the following vote, 0 AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND UNG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE SECTION6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this V1 day of February, 2022. James Berry, Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 71" day of February, 2022 by the following vote; AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE LOPEZ, AND LING BenoKim, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: (Cane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT "A" (PC RESOLUTION 22-01) MODIFICATION 21.08 8855 VALLEY BLVD (A P'N : 5391-009-002) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL February 7, 2022 Modification 21-08 is approved as a modification to Design Review 03-110 for the approval of exterior facade renovations and site improvements to the Universal Plaza building in the Universal Square shopping center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "13" dated February 1, 2022, 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 Planning Department. 2. Project is approved for the elimination of Condition of Approval No. 24 of 03-110, which states; A separate Design Review will be required for the approval of landscape plans and proposed signage. 3. All applicable Conditions of Approval from Design Review 03-110 will still apply. 4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (1 U) days from the Planning Commission approval date. 5. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1 ) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. fi. The Planning Division hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval. 7. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 8, The on -site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day 8 appeal period of Project. g. MOD 21-08 is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on MOD 21-08. 10. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 11. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and Local laws relative to the approved project, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Public Works, Fire, Sheriff, and Health Departments. 12. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any Federal holiday without prior approval by the City. 13, City staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 14. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wail. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves. A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening on the development plan prior to installation. 15, All property that is vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied, 0 a_ The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain -link, lumber, masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self- supporting and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner. b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall be continuously maintained in good condition. c. Signs stating"PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. M All trash enclosures shall be designed, to be an integral part of the overall project design, and utilize complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self -closing, and self -latching. Detailed elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal to the Building Division. 17. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors_ 18. The use of mirrored and reflective glazing materials and glass is prohibited. 19. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Public Works Conditions of Approval 20, Copy all conditions of approval and the Planning decision letter onto all permit plan sets. 21. Submit project record drawings incorporating any approved delta revisions that occurred during construction. 22. The approved building address(s) shall be painted on the curb to the City's standard as required by the Public Works Inspector before the final inspection. 23. Comply with NPDE.S requirements. UTILITIES 24, All power, telephone, cable television, and all utilities to the project and adjacent to the project shall be installed and relocated underground unless impracticable to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee. 10 25, luny utilities that coriflEct with the development shall he relocated at the developer's expense. 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2021-66, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 12 Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report Dated February 7, 2022 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2022 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION 21-08 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD SUMMARY DC Universal, LLC has submitted a Modification Application (MOD 21-08) requesting to amend Design Review 03-110, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2005. Design Review 03-110 was approved for a facade renovation of the Universal Plaza building. MOD 21-08 consists of an extensive exterior and interior facade renovation to convert the existing building into a food hall. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.120.100(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.100], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120. The subject site is located at 8855 Valley Boulevard in the Central Business District with a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-0) zone. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Accordingly, MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 22-01 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE MOD 21-08, subject to the 25 conditions outlined in Attachment "A" attached hereto. Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2022 Page 2 of 14 PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue and consists of one parcel totaling approximately 1.63 acres. While not associated with the Valley Gateway Shopping Center (formally "Universal Square Shopping Center") located at 8815 Valley Boulevard, the subject site abuts the aforementioned shopping center and shares an access and parking easement. The site is currently developed with a commercial building totaling 32,66.0 square feet. The commercial building is currently occupied by several professional office uses in the basement and second story; however, the majority of the building is vacant. Per Planning Division records, several entitlements were approved by the Planning Commission and include Conditional Use Permits, Variances, and Design Reviews. On August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 03-110 for exterior fagade and landscaping renovations for the subject site. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Resolution with Conditions of Approval, and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2005, have been included as Exhibits "C", "D", and "E", respectively. Front Elevation (Existing) Site and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) and on the Zoning Map as Central Business District with a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC- MUDO/D-O) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses and zones: North General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) Zoning: CBD/RC-MUDO/D-0 Land Use: Shopping Center Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2022 Page 3 of 14 South General Plan Designation Zoning: Land Use: East General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: West General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: DISCUSSION Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O City Hall and Bank Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O Commercial Building and Single -Family Home Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) CBD/RC-M U DO/D-O Shopping Center The applicant is proposing to establish a unique food concept in the City. While the proposed food hall would be the first of its kind, they are certainly not new to food enthusiasts. A typical food hall includes a variety of different restaurant stalls, as well as, small retail spaces and communal dining areas. Rising real estate costs have also made it difficult to sustain a restaurant in today's economic climate. Rent for a small tenant space in a food hall would be more financially feasible, than paying rent in a large, standalone tenant space. Since most new businesses have a limited amount of resources and are looking for innovative ways to start their ventures, a food hall would be an ideal place to start. The restaurant industry is an important industry in the San Gabriel Valley as visitors from all over the world come to enjoy the plethora of unique cuisines the San Gabriel Valley has to offer. Per the City's 2030 Strategic Plan: Activation and Economy objective, Rosemead will support active and vibrant business corridors, create events to celebrate the city and its businesses, and cultivate destinations through public art, activities, and promotion to continue to draw visitors to the city. The proposed modification is in line with this objective as it will stimulate economic activity along the commercial corridor and attract visitors to the City. As such, the applicant has submitted a Modification Application to convert the existing commercial building into a food hall. The proposal includes extensive interior and exterior renovations to the existing Universal Plaza building, as well as rehabilitation of the existing trash enclosure, parking lot, and landscaping. Parking The proposed food hall is located within an existing shopping center as defined by Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.04.050. A "Shopping Center" means a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-of- way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C-3, and CBD zones. Additional parking is not required for this modification since the existing shopping center use is being continued. Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2022 Page 4 of 14 Design Review 03-110 was approved with 38 conditions of approval. The Conditions of Approval are attached to this staff report as Exhibit "D". A Modification to the existing Design Review is required for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping. Modification of Condition of Approval No. 1 — Fagade Renovation and Site Improvements Condition of Approval No 1 currently states: 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 approved by the Planning Department. The proposed modification will amend Condition of Approval No. 1 to state: Modification 21-08 is approved as a modification to Design Review 03-110 for the approval of exterior fagade renovations and site improvements to the Universal Plaza building in the Universal Square shopping center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "B", dated February 1, 2022, and submitted colored elevations and color and material sample boards. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approved by the Planning Department. As depicted in the architectural plans in Exhibit "B" and the colored renderings on page 5, the proposed fagade renovation consists of a mix of mid-century modern architecture with high -quality, contemporary elements. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. In addition, the rehabilitation of the existing landscape, parking, and trash enclosure will further enhance the pedestrian and vehicular realm. In order to alleviate bulk and mass and to create multi -story street -facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles, the applicant has proposed floor to ceiling windows, a green roof on the second floor, and a roof top bar area. To comply with the California Building Code for egress, a new stairwell tower is being proposed along Ivar Avenue. The stairwell tower will be constructed with the same high -quality materials to match the proposed facade renovation and will further alleviate the bulk and mass of the existing building by creating a break in the fagade plane of the building. The new stairwell tower is not counted towards floor area, as it is exempt per the definition of floor area in Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.04.050. In addition, to the exterior fagade renovations, the applicant is also proposing an interior tenant improvement. The tenant Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2022 Page 5 of 14 improvement will consist of the creation of 27 leasable areas that range from a 15 square foot kiosk to as large as a 3,800 square foot unit, indoor and outdoor dining areas, and a rooftop deck. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the commercial corridor. 3-D Rendering of Proposed Fagade Renovation Front Elevation (Along valley esiva) Elimination of Condition of Approval No. 24 To allow staff to administratively review and streamline future site improvements such as new landscaping and signage plans, the proposed modification will eliminate Condition of Approval No. 24, which states: Planning Commission Meeting February 7; 2022 Page 6 of 14 24.A separate Design Review will be required for the approval of landscape plans and proposed signage. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.120.100(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.100], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. Staff has verified that the proposed modification would be in compliance with all applicable sections of the Rosemead Zoning Code. The amendments to Design Review 03-110 would further enhance the appearance of the existing commercial and create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard. Per the City's 2030 Strategic Plan: Activation and Economy objective, Rosemead will support active and vibrant business corridors, create events to celebrate the city and its businesses, and cultivate destinations through public art, activities, and promotion to continue to draw visitors to the city. The proposed modification is in line with this objective as it will stimulate economic activity along the commercial corridor and attract visitors to the City. In addition, the proposed modification would streamline site improvements such as landscaping and signage for future tenants. Furthermore, all applicable conditions of approval of Design Review 03-110 would apply. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300-foot radius public hearing notice to twenty-three (23) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on January 27, 2022, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations. Prepared by: Annie Lao Associate Planner Reviewed by: K- Lily Valenzuela Planning & Economic Development Manager Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2022 Page 7 of 14 Submitted by: An\ o afleda City Manager EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 22-01 B. Architectural Plans, dated February 1, 2022 C. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 15, 2005 D. Planning Commission Resolution 05-41, dated September 19, 2005 E. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated August 15, 2005 Attachment C Planning Commission Minutes Dated February 7, 2022 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 7, 2022 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Berry at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Vice -Chair Leung INVOCATION — Commissioner Ung ROLL CALL — Commissioners Lopez, Ung, Vice -Chair Leung, and Chair Berry STAFF PRESENT — Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim, City Attorney Thuyen, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Lao, and Commission Liaison Huang 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no comments, Chair Berry opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION (MOD) 21.08 — DC Universal, LLC has submitted a Modification Application (MOD 21-08) requesting to amend Design Review 03-110, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2005. Design Review 03-110 was approved for a facade renovation of the Universal Plaza building. MOD 21-08 consists of an extensive exterior and interior facade renovation to convert the existing building into a food hall. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.120.100(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.100], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17,120. The subject site is located at 8855 Valley Boulevard in the Central Business District with a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-0) zone. PC RESOLUTION 22.01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-08, AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 03-110, BY MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND ELIMINATING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 24, ALLOWING FOR A FACADE RENOVATION AND THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, AND PERMITTING STAFF TO REVIEW FUTURE SIGNAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 Valley Boulevard (APN: 5391-009-002), IN THE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/RC-MUDO/D- 0) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 22-01 with findings, and approve Modification 21-08, subject to the 25 conditions. Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Berry opened the Public Hearing. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2022 Page 1 of 3 Commissioner Ung questioned if the stairwells are a new component to the design along with the material elevation changes. Applicant's Project Manager Leonard Chan stated that the stairwell on the exterior would be a new component to the design. He added, it was necessary for the egress. Chair Berry questioned if this is a restaurant use, Associate Planner Lao stated that it going to be a Food Hall, which has a combination of a multiple tenants. Chair Berry asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Chan reiterated that there will be one additional stairwell that will be added, and it will be located at the northwest comer. Chair Berry inquired if there is a rooftop garden. Property owner Eric Lee answered yes, it will be a garden area as well as a bar area. He added, he would be happy to answer any follow-up questions regarding the design, or the building layout. Chair Berry questioned if the bar area is for the Food Hall. Mr. Lee stated yes, that is correct. Chair Berry appreciates the applicant's efforts for putting in a rooftop to help with the beautification of the City. After reviewing the previous approved design changes, Commissioner Ung commented that this would look like a significant change with more modern design and believes it would be a great contribution/addition to the City. Chair Berry shares the same sentiments as Commissioner Ung. Seeing no additional questions, Chair Berry open the public testimony portion of the public hearing. He asked the audience if there was anyone who would like to speak on this matter. Seeing none, Chair Berry inquired if we received any written comments and if there are anyone online who would like to speak. Commissioner Liaison Huang responded that no written comment was received for this item, and there were no callers on the line who wished to speak. There being no public comment, Chair Berry closed the public comment period. Commissioner Lopez commented that this is very nice design and would add beauty to our City. Vice -Chair Leung added that he is happy to see this addition in the City. Seeing no additional questions from the Commission, Chair Berry requested for motion and a second. ACTION: Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Berry, to: Adopt Resolution No. 22-01 with findings, and approve Modification 21-08, subject to the 25 conditions. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 12.20-21 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Leung, to approve PC Minutes 12-20-21 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF None 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Vice -Chair Leung expressed that he is very excited for this project and thanked staff and the applicant for their hard work. Commissioner Ung wishes everyone a Happy Lunar New Year. Chair Berry is glad that everyone had a great holiday and new year. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Berry adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. ATTEST: /lan)e"s Berry Ljohair Ben Kim`_ Commissi " Secretary Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Attachment D Planning Commission Resolution 22-01 PC RESOLUTION 22-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-08, AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 03- 110, BY MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND ELIMINATING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 24, ALLOWING FOR A FAQADE RENOVATION AND THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, AND PERMITTING STAFF TO REVIEW FUTURE SIGNAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 Valley Boulevard (APN: 5391-009-002), IN THE RES[DENTIAL]COMMERCIAL MIXED - USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE. WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, DC Universal, LLC submitted a Modification Application (MOD 21-08) requesting to amend Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No. 1 for a proposed fagade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage located at 8855 Valley Boulevard; WHEREAS, 8855 Valley Boulevard is located in a Residential/Commercial Mixed - Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone; WHEREAS, Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for authorizing changes to an approved project; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny changes to developments or new uses authorized through a permit granted in compliance with the zoning code; WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, twenty-three (23) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for MOD 21-08; WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to MOD 21- 08; 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 that MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15301 of CEQA exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving MOD 21-08, in accordance with Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.120.100(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.100], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. FINDING: Staff has verified that the proposed modification would be in compliance with all applicable sections of the Rosemead Zoning Code. The amendments to Design Review 03-110 would further enhance the appearance of the existing commercial and create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard. In addition, the proposed modification would stimulate economic activity along one of the City's largest commercial corridors and streamline site improvements such as landscaping and signage for future tenants. Furthermore, all applicable conditions of approval of Design Review 03-110 would apply. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES MOD 21-08, an amendment to Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No. 1 for a proposed facade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 —Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on February 7, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND UNG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7t" day of February, 2022. James Berry, Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 7' day of February, 2022 by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND UNG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE :��E-- Ben' Kim, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT "A" (PC RESOLUTION 22-01) MODIFICATION 21-08 8855 VALLEY BLVD (APN: 5391-009-002) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL February 7, 2022 Modification 21-08 is approved as a modification to Design Review 03-110 for the approval of exterior facade renovations and site improvements to the Universal Plaza building in the Universal Square shopping center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit °B", dated February 1, 2022, 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 Planning Department. 2. Project is approved for the elimination of Condition of Approval No. 24 of 03-110, which states: A separate Design Review will be required for the approval of landscape plans and proposed signage. All applicable Conditions of Approval from Design Review 03-110 will still apply. 4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date. 5. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 6. The Planning Division hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval. 7. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 8. The on -site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day appeal period of Project. 9. MOD 21-08 is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on MOD 21-08. 10. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 11. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved project, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Public Works, Fire, Sheriff, and Health Departments. 12. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any Federal holiday without prior approval by the City. 13. City staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 14. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening on the development plan prior to installation. 15. All property that is vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied: a. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain -link, lumber, masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self- supporting and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner. b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall be continuously maintained in good condition. c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. 16. All trash enclosures shall be designed to be an integral part of the overall project design, and utilize complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self -closing, and self -latching. Detailed elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal to the Building Division. 17. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 18. The use of mirrored and reflective glazing materials and glass is prohibited. 19. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Public Works Conditions of Approval 20. Copy all conditions of approval and the Planning decision letter onto all permit plan sets. 21. Submit project record drawings incorporating any approved delta revisions that occurred during construction. 22. The approved building address(s) shall be painted on the curb to the City's standard as required by the Public Works Inspector before the final inspection. 23. Comply with NPDES requirements. UTILITIES 24. All power, telephone, cable television, and all utilities to the project and adjacent to the project shall be installed and relocated underground unless impracticable to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee. 25. Any utilities that conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. Attachment E Planning Commission Staff Report Dated August 15, 2005 staf ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2005 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR FACADE & LANDSCAPING RENOVATIONS, AND A PARIQNG 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 fagade 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 hearing 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 ofexisting structures or facilities not expanding existing uses. Accordingly, Design Review 03-110/Zone Variance05-328 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption 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 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 EMEAD PLANNING DEPARTMEN appearance and value. • The proposed building or shlicture 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 ofthe buildings and structures are involved; and • 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. Section 17.84.100(A) ofthe Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) requires aminimum 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 lawfiilly 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 Ail 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 avariance. Ifone 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 The subject property, includes aparcel 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 comer 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 through with their plans. Approximately three years ago, the ownership of the center sold to two different entities. Over the last three 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 tq 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 Planning Commission continued this item to allow staff to reconcile differences 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 CBD-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-1; Single -Family Residential Zoning: C-3; Medium Commercial R-2; Light Multi -Family Residential Land Use: Vacant restaurant and multi -family Land Use: Single-family residences and a school units SOUTI EA5T. General Plan: Public Facilities and Commercial General Plan: Commercial Zoning: CBD-D; Central Business District Zoning: C-3-D; Medium Commercial with a with a Design Overlay Design Overlay Land Use: City Government offices and a Land use: Retail/Pbarmacy financial institution 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 comer of Valley<Iyar 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 iucludes 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 mohifect 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 columns. 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 adj acpnt 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 bunt 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 inPinon by Canters. Especial to frame the windows. To add to the more contemporary design, a new metal -seam roof element will be constricted in a 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 fast -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 restaurant (2,600 sf) and a coffee/sandwich shop (1,790 sf). The remaining square footage of the bank willbe approximately 10,610 square feet. The second floor plan will remain 12,200 square feet of office space. Within the basement area of the stricture, 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. Parkiue 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 Universal 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 Bank building floor areas for each of the floors. FIGURE 1 Business S ware Footage Valley Grill• 3,570 Ralph's Market 27,000 Dou 's Liquor 2,000 Cleaners 1,600 Pho Pasteur Restaurant 2,500 Gift Shop 2,500 Amor Bakery 1,840 Beauty Zone 1,480 Beauty Zone 1,040 Pottery Store 12,606 US Post Office 10,220 Total 166,356 Frr,TMF 2 Business Square Footage Universal Bank Basement Floor 5,170 Universal Bank 1"Floor 15,330 Universal Bank2" Floor 12,160 Total 32,660 1. TOTAL OF BOTH CENTER AND BANK BUMDING - 99,016 The panting lot needs to be reconfigured to accommodate additional spaces for the parking demand for the site. The proposed parking lot configuration has desiguated 361 parking spaces for use. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum number of spaces for this square footage at 396 spaces (99,016sf / 250sf) 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 Pho 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 main 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 tows 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 aresult 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.. Landscaping The proposal includes a landscape. plan, which will enhance a major commercial comer property within the City's central business district. The plants will break up arty plain expanse of wall and provide shade and natural cooling. The landscape for the bank was once well maintained with terraced, lush fem 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 full of trash and miscellaneous equipment such as wheelbarrows and satellite dishes. Conclusion The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the band 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 bythe applicant, it appears that there will be sufficient available parking for the patrons of the 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 Phan/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 - Parldng & Traffic Study, dated May 25, 2005 Exhibit H - Letter fioni Postmaster,.dated July 21, 2005 Exhibit I - Letter firom Rosemead Shopping Center LLC, dated March 9, 2004 Exhibit 7 - Draft Tenant Sign Program, dated February 19, 2004 Attachment F Planning Commission Minutes Dated August 15, 2005 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: 1 2. 93 PRESENT: Chairman Loi, Commissioners Breen, Kelty and Lopez ABSENT: Commissioner Herrera EX OFFICIO: Johnson, Price, and Tone 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. 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. PUBLIC 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. Presentation: Plannine Director Johnson presented the staff report. Staff Recommendation: 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. Plannina 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 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. 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. 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, 9405, 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. D. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 026978 (EXTENSION) — 9308-9310 Valley Boulevard. Comsa N.S. Lew has submitted an application for Tentative Parcel Map 026978 to consolidate two (2) parcels into one parcel and make exterior fagade improvements to an existing building, located at 9308-9310 Valley Boulevard in the C-3 D; Medium Commercial within a Design Overlay zone. Presentation: Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report. Staff Recommendation: APPROVE- subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A" for one (1) year. Chairman Loi asked for questions from the Commissioners. None MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELTY to APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 026978 (EXTENSION), 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. E. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 060136 (EXTENSION) — 3050 Sullivan Avenue. Property owner Francis Tang is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into two parcels for the construction of two new single-family residences. The proposed project is located at 3050 Sullivan Avenue in the R-1; (Single Family Residential) zone. Presentation: Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report. Staff Recommendation: APPROVE- subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A" for one (1) year. Chairman Loi asked for questions from the Commissioners. None. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREEN to APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 060136 (EXTENSION), 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. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR —These items are considered to be routine actions that may be considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested parry may request an item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately. A. RESOLUTION 05-32 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1002, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH INCLUDES 3,330 (+/-) SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA WITH A THREE -CAR GARAGE, LOCATED AT 2517 JACKSON AVENUE IN THE R-2 (LIGHT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. (APN: 5285-010-023). B. RESOLUTION 05-33 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1006, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH INCLUDES 3,546 (+/-) SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA, LOCATED AT 3919 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD IN THE R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. (APN: 8593-002- 014). C. RESOLUTION 05-34 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1001, APPROVING A NEW TWO- STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WHICH WILL RESULT IN 2,976 +/- SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA WITH A THREE -CAR GARAGE, LOCATED AT 4905 NORTH EARLE AVENUE IN THE R-1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. (APN: 5372-014-028). D. RESOLUTION 05-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1015, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN UNMANNED WIRELESS MONOPALM, LOCATED AT 7421 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C3; MEDIUM COMMERCIAL ZONE, (APN: 5286-020- 026). E. RESOLUTION 05-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1018, FOR AN OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20) ABC LICENSE FOR THE C.K. ALTA DENA MARKET, LOCATED AT 8405 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) ZONE. (APN: 5288-005-030). F. RESOLUTION 05-37 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEME<AD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 05-122 FOR CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO A HAIR SALON AND ZONE VARIANCE 05-334 FOR A REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES; LOCATED AT 4012 LOMA AVENUE IN THE C3-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN 5391-014-002). G. RESOLUTION 05-38 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 054385 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL INTO SIX LOTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX NEW SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS; FOUR OF WHICH REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (04-971, 04-972, 04-973 AND 04-974) FOR EXCEEDING 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA AND ZONE VARIANCE 05-334 TO DEVIATE FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF UNITS FOR A FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 3047-3061 IVAR STREET IN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN 5289-011-025). Chairman Loi presented the resolutions by title only. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELTY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, to waive further reading and adopt said resolutions. Vote results: YES: BREEN, KELTY, LOPEZ and LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: HERRERA Chairman Loi declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE None 6. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF Planning Director Johnson noted that the Commission will not meet on September 5 due to the Labor Day holiday. The next meeting will be on September 19, 2005. 7. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. B WJ/sT Attachment G Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-41 P4C 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 FAQADE 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 1br 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 CB1)-1) (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 Sectiou 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning 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, tex tare, color, exterior fagade or landscaping. Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may app fivf�, approve with conditions, or deny an application: • The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed struotm•e 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 whicl I 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, rio 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. iii 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 wldcli indicates building shape, size or style. • The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and otbei applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and struci ides are involved; and • The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminKfie 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 meel 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-toot 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 Deign Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed rind advertised public hearing to receive oral and written 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 HEREBYDET'ERMINES Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 are entitled to a Class 1 and Class 3 Categorical Exemption' pursuar it 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 prop4 )sed 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. 'fhe proposed design will not change the overall character of the building configuration. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner inwhich rich 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 screeidng 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 appearai ice, 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 appear; iace 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 development:; oil 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, of are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building, shape, size or style. FINDING: The proposed proj ect 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 use:; by implementing architectural and design reviews of proposals for projects. The proposed new extF:iior will provide a clean, modem 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 Ovic 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 arr. 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: Staffhas 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 Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Variance 05-328 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.108.1 Q0 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 variance:; for minimum number of parking stalls. B. The project will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare of 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 fi Lmd 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 portion~ of the shopping center parking lot that have existing reciprocal parking agreements recorded ov 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 space;; that if devoted to the uses allowed by section 17.48.130(c), would be less conducive to the viablt-, operation of the shopping center than the proposed restaurant uses. Other restaurant uses withni 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 Commission 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 a new color scheme and Zone Variance 05-328 for change of land use with a legal, non -conforming shopping center with less than the minimum numbei- 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 Commissia i ou 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 tran::mh copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of September, 2005. G Duc Loi, Chairman CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Corrunissiou of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 19I' day of September, 2005, by the following vote: YES: ICELTY, LOI, BREEN, HERRERA, LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE / L 1 _ Brad Jobn on, Secretary EXHIBIT "A" DESIGN REVIEW 03-110/ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL August 15, 2005 1. 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 iii accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "B", dated August 4, 2005 and submitted cob fired elevations and color and material sample boards. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning 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 sf) and a restaurant (2,600 sf) within a property that is a CBD zoned parcel and is legal non -conforming doa to less than required on -site parking stalls. 3. 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 if ;t. 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 Departmeats. 6. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all I ilau 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 widtl i of 1/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, coins, location and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Director of PlamoinR prior to installation. 8. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shal I 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. Nu construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approva I by the City. W. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to o monitor progress. 11. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development pl ms 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 pullic. right-of-way. 14. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shal I be 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 151/6 of the window and door Hrea. Applicant shall remove that signage which exceeds the 15% coverage area. 18. Signs shall comply with the signprogram 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/billbi lard 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 wit hhi 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 Sect ion:, 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 ti ash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, andmaintained in a clean, .iafe, and sanitary condition. 22. Submit a detailed lighting plan for the exterior of the building and adjacent parking arras. 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 periodical) y 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 construction commencing, the contractor shall schedule a pre -development meet ing with the Planning Department staff to review the conditions of approval and constructiou 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 appro ved by the Planning Commission through a modification application. 28. Remove all real estate and other temporary signs that do not have temporary permit- is!][ led 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 trf!llis 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 autoniatic sprinkler system and moisture sensors. 33, Provide a long term landscape maintenance agreement for the City file that ensures repalai weeding, fertilizing, irrigation repair and replacement of unhealthy plant materials. Maintain a valid maintenance agreement in perpetuity with qualified commercial landsrntpe. maintenance 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 ill color with push through acrylic style individual letters not to exceed %2 inch for major tenant; and '/a inch for all others, with internal illumination. 3 T That the new driveway configuration on Valley Boulevard be widened to a minimum of':, 5' 0" by nan owing of the landscape planter on either side. 38. That the northerly most angled parking stall within the new row of parking be removed :mrl improved with landscape materials. Attachment H Appeal Letter from the Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer A Professional Corporation February 16, 2022 VIA E-MAIL FOLLOWED BY HAND DELIVERY City of Rosemead c/o Ms. Ericka Hernandez, CMC, City Cleric 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 ehernandez@cityofroset-nead.org 433 N. Camden Drive, Ste. 970 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 276-3600 Fax: (310) 276-4345 Email: mdfi•elaw@earthlii-l<.net RECEIVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD FEB 16 2022 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 22-01 ("CR 22-01") for Modification Application 21-08 ("MOD 21- 08") Dear Ms. Hernandez, Please be advised this law firm represents 420 Boyd Street, LLC, a California limited liability company (the "Client"). Our Client is the owner of the property located at 8801-8845 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead CA 91007 (the "Appellant Property" which is called the "Corporation Land" in the Easements Agreement, as defined below) which is located immediately adjacent to the property located at 8855 Valley Blvd., Rosemead CA 91007 (the "Applicant Property" which is called "Association Land" in the Easements Agreement, as defined below), and which is the subject of MOD 21-08 and the ensuing CR 22-01. At the Planning Commission held February 7, 2022, the owner of the Applicant Property submitted MOD 21-08 and the Planning Commission approved it pursuant to CR 22-01. This letter serves as our Client's formal appeal of MOD 21-08, on the basis of the following: 1. Easements Agreement - The Applicant Property and the Appellant Property have significant cross access and easements applicable between them, pursuant to that certain Agreement and Grant of Easements dated January 5, 1966 ("Easements Agreement"), attached herein to this letter for your convenience. There has been no modification of the Easements Agreement (including, without limitation, for example, the Parldng Area, associated driveway and landscaping areas, as described in the Easements Agreement). Therefore, any change to the Applicant Property has been and continues to be subject to the Easements Agreement. 2. Design Modification — The Planning Commission abused its discretion while allowing a design modification in failing to consider the following areas: (a) Substantial impact on parking and other parking related services - Given the number of new leasable spaces, which are considerably greater than the existing use, this will cause a substantial impact on parking, as well as use of the shared parking areas. While the appellant has no objection to the design modifications, we have great concern as to disruption caused by the modification, as there is no indication where workers will park, where multiple trucks will be located, nor do they address whether their portion of the shopping center will be able to handle all parking, loading for delivery trucks and customer parking, so as not to burden the remaining parking stalls contained in the shopping center parking lot, In addition, the Appellant Property parking lot is not intended to be the main parking lot for the Applicant Property. Further, if there is an overflow of customers and intensification of demand for parking and overall users, they will substantially impact the Appellant Property parking. Further, applicant does not provide any parking attendants or security to prevent parking and/or security issues. Finally, the applicant did not conduct a parking and traffic study, which is typically required in order to properly and thoroughly assess the impact such a project would have on parking and traffic, which such study also typically makes recommendations as to measures which can adequately address anticipated parking and traffic problems. (b) Inadequate loadingzones ones - The A-1 site plan and A-2 site plan provided by the applicant does not adequately address loading zones which are reasonably required in order to facilitate the operation of the properties. For example, the site plan highlights the fact that the one (1) small loading zone as provided is inadequate, as there should be more than this small loading zone. The reason one (1) small loading zone is not sufficient as there will be up to 27 users/lessees of the Applicant Property with significantly greater demands as well as approximately over 100+ new seating capacity as well as reasonably expected food pick up/delivery services, whereas at present, there is only one (1) user who has a limited loading use and does not have to coordinate usage of the loading area with other users. (c) Inadequate trash areas - The A-1 site plan and A-2 site plan provided by the applicant does not adequately address trash areas which are reasonably required in order to facilitate the operation of the properties. The reason the one (1) small trash area trash area is not sufficient is there will be up to 27 users/lessees of the Applicant Property as well as approximately over 100+ new seating capacity, whereas at present, there is only one (1) user who has a limited trash use as a single food operation. (d) Inadequate measuring, of electric measure and water meter - The A-1 site plan and A- 2 site plan provided by the applicant does not indicate whether the expected increase in electric and water usage will be separately metered so as to not be read as part of the existing joint metering system, which is a shared cost pursuant to the Easements Agreement. The Applicant should be required to implement measures to ensure that the costs of increased electric, water and other operational items will not be passed on to the Appellant Property owner. (e) Inadequate consideration of utilities, maintenance needs, noise and smells - The A-1 site plan and A-2 site plan provided by the applicant does not adequately address day-to-day operational needs associated with a food hall, such as increased seating capacity which could result in longer periods during which customers are on site with guests congregating outdoors, food service delivery cars, all causing noise, and which could adversely impact neighboring properties. In addition, those items which would typically be addressed in an environmental impact report are not addressed, which such study also typically makes recommendations as to measures which can adequately address anticipated needs pertaining to grease traps for cooking, increased sewer capacity, needs for increased lighting, increased outdoor maintenance such as sweeping, as well as the implications of anticipated noise and odors. .f) Inadequate attention to construction needs —Neither the application nor the A-1 site plan and A-2 site plan provided by the applicant adequately addresses the myriad of complications and needs which typically arise during construction. For example, construction workers parking areas, offloading of materials for construction, length of construction, noise impacts disturbing adjacent tenants — these are all typical considerations wluch remain unidentified and unaddressed. Based upon the short time -period between the agenda meeting and the due date for the submission of the appeal, we reserve the right to raise additional issues and concerns at the appeal hearing. Respectfully submitted on behalf of 420 Boyd Street, LLC, a California limited liability company, LAW OFFICES OF MURRAY D. FISCHER 1:11iRPaYr-1. Murray D. Fischer Enclosure: Easements Agreement RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS ' ANGELES CDUNT.1 CALIF• .� OF Los of FOR TITLE INSURANCE 6 TRUST CO. " a JAN 10 1966 AT 8 A.M. RAY E. LEE, County Records t S 'Bben Recorded Mail to PACIFIC HUTIIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. `N d 1137 Wilshire Boulevard Loa Angeles, California_• K2 f AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS J ' I ... •` e. FE �.i•1 .. t.x. i ', THIS AGREEMENT A]f D GRANT OF EASEMENTS made this 5th dray of Samar ] 966, between Universal Savings and Loan Association, a Y• g e` I Californiacorporation (hereinafter referred to as "Association"') and Universal a P C `_ Square, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"). W ITNESSETIi WHEREAS, Association`and Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Owners") are the owners of certain real property situated in the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, all as is more parti- cularly described and set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto, and' r 5j l WHEREAS, the Owners desire to provide for ingress and egress, for automobile parking area and private roadways customers, patrons,j Suppliere and employees of the owners, tenants and sub -tenants and canoes- sionaires, and public utilities, pursuant to a plan for general development of the property oa the plat attached hereto as -Exhibit ]Il ^� ^.' NOW THEREFORE, Owners do hereby agree as follows- m:•; 1 , Each of the owners does hereby grant to the other owner and to the respective assigns and successorstof such other owner, a non-exclusive casement over such of the real property of the granting owner; as lies within the area hereinafter described in this Paragraph 1. A. Association land: - That portion of Lot 3 it• Stock 4 of the Rosemead Tract in the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State -of California, as per me,p.Tecorded in book lZ page 194 p of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said ' described f'bllows; • county, as 1 �• i' . Beginning in the interse �po�tss the westerly line of the - easterly 25 feet of said loth` the northerly line of the southerly 17 fgetzof sai t• thence along said northerly -° ,d line south 87''39'0'! out, 175.40 feet to the true point,_sy of beginning; tlsen�et CiStinuing along said northerly line south 87' 39' 30" w st, 127, 00 feet; thence north 2' 20,1 30" west, 230. 93 fe9t; thence north 87' 391 30" east, 285.00 feet; thence south Z' z,9' 30" east, 47. 00 feet; thence South 87° 39' 30" west`158.00 feet; thence south 2' 20' 30" east, 183. 93 feet to the true point of beginning. i...c„------r.--T --- fin'-; -^-x'�-�'T: —• F':.; ,: �- _' � . ..` ..... .: - P7T�� ki y: . Order: QuickVlew_ Page 1 of 17 Requested By: , Printed: 6t1512020 4:12 PM Doc:19660110-912 _ , i.� t B. Corporation Land: L.. ' The southerly 280.feet (measured along the easterly and :•'°. ` westerly lines) of that portion of Lot 3 in Block 4 of the Rosemead Tract, in the City of Rosemead, County of•, �r Loa Angeles, State of California as per map recorded in book 12 page 194 of Maps, in the office of tlye county recorder of said county, described as follows:r s*` jj(11 ; Beginning at a point in the westerly line of said lot distant ' br thereon south 0° 59' 00" east, 110.00 feet from the north- ypp{, west corner of said lot; thence parallel with the northerly w ; line of said lot, north 87' 40' 08" east, 315. 19 feet to the f 6 easterly line of the west half of said lot; thence along said L•3. easterly line south 0' 58' 52" east, 37. 53 feet to the southerly line of the northerly 147, 53 feet of the east half of said lot; thence along said southerly line north 87' 40' 08" ; east, 290. 19 feet to the westerly line of the easterly 25 feet_.',,�,.F�`". of said lot; thence along said last mentioned westerly line, south 0' 58' 45" east, to a point distant northerly thereon 41 . 5 feet from the northerly line of the southerly 17 feet of said lot; thence southwesterly in a direct line to a point in said last mentioned northerly line distant westerly thereon 5 feet from said westerly line of the easterly 25 feet of �•"'n"' said lot; thence along said northerly line of the southerly 17, feet of said lot, south 87' 39' 30" west, 595. 33 feet to a point distant easterly thereon 5 feet from said westerly line, ' of said lot; thence northwesterly in a direct line to a point in said last mentioned westerly line distant northerly there-,. on 5 feet from said last mentioned northerly line; thence y , f along said westerly line of said lot, north 0' 591 00" west, 495. 10 feet to the point of beginning. •.:P;' }.'<±, EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly southeast corner of said land; thence along the southerly line of said land, south 87' 39' 30" wept, Z97. 00 feet; thence north 2' Z0I 30" west, 230, 93 feet; thence north 87' 39' 30" east, 307.49 feet to 1 g the easterly line of said land; thence along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said land, south 0' 58' 45" east, Z26. 00 feet, and south 43' 20' 23" west, 7.16 feet to the point of beginning. The area above described is sometimes hereinafter referred to as ' "Parking the Area", The easements granted in this paragraph 1 are for ingress, egress, the parking of motor vehicles for customers, patrons, suppliers and fI employees of the owner, 1'eseee, sub -lessee and concessionaires, road purposes and public utilities, all pursuant to a general plan for the develop- ment of the property, as per Exhibit 11 attached hereto. No charge shall be Order: QuickView_ Page 2 of 17 Requested By. , Printed: 6/15/2020 4:12 PM Doc: 19660110-912 h 'r made for the use of such area for automobile parking by any of the persona authorized to use the same pursuant to the provisions hereof; such area r�r shall be used for the purpose of providing free automobile parking ,facilities' ei !JJ pursuant to this agreement. 2. The easements and agreement granted herein are declared to be appurtenant to the real property of the owners ae described in Exhibit I 9. >•�' �. attached hereto, and to be for the benefit of the owners and occupants from t: time to time of any po-tion of said real property, and their customers, patrons and invitees., (?; 3. Each of the parties, expressly for itself and its assigns and suc- cessors, hereby covenants'and agrees with the other party expressly for the benefit of such other party and its assigns and successors, and.expressly '� J 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 Role purposes herein stated and that no building, structures or other obstructions shallbe erected thereon, except those on the plat attached hereto �L� 2: �sf' as Exhibit II, 4. Each of the owners expressly for itself, its assigns and successors, hereby covenants and agrees with the other owner and its'asei.gne and Fr successors that it will jointly maintain and repair the said "Parking Area" including the curbs, sidewalks, paving, lighting, fences, walls, landscaping and other parking facilities made and constructed thereon. Each, -owner- - expressly for itself, its assigns and successors hereby covenants and agrees f p that the coat of such maintenance and repair shall be borne and paid for by, the owners of their respective parcels of real property shown and described P P P P tY on Exhibit I attached hereto. h 5, The obligation of the parties to maintain the said parking areas in good condition and repair shall, without limiting the generality thereof, !� include the following: (a) Maintaining the surfaces in a level, smooth and evenly covered condition with the type of surfacing material originally ' installed or such substitute as shall in all respects be equal in ' quality, use and durability; " kk Doc; 19660110.912 tl (b) Removing all papers, debris, filth and refuse and wash- L. or thoroughly sweeping the areas to the,eictent reasonably i p' necessary to keep said areas in a net, clean>and orderly condition; ' (c) Placing, keeping in repair and replacing any necessary (t appropriate directiol signs, markers and lines; and operating, keeping in repair and replacing, when necessary, such.artificial ^�,i ; k'; lighting facilities as shall be reasonably required;f (d) Maintaining any perimeter walls in a good condition and 0,- state of repair;'; ' (e) Maintaining all landscaped areas, making such replace- ments of shru4,and other landscaping as is necessary, and I:r keeping said areas at all times adequately weeded and watered. r 6. The parties hereto agree jointly to maintain or cause to be maintained, for the mutual benefit and protection of themselves and their J. tenants or co -tenants, public liability insurance against claims for bodily -r injury, death, or property damage occurring in or about the property, such insurance to afford protection,•to-the limit of not lees than Two Hundreds^� 4'{ Thousand Dollars ($200, 000.00) in respecto bodily injury or death of one person and to the limit of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400600. 00) r in respect to any one accident and to the limit of not lose than Fifty,Thoueand Dollars ($50, 000.00) in respect toyproperty damage. Such insurance shall be primary and non-contributing with any other insurance, except' uto liabi- lity insurance carried by the'parties and their tenants, and shall be'excess over any auto liability insurance carried .by the parties and their tenants. 7. Each party hereto agrees to pay, prior to delinquency, all taxes and assessments pertaining to that part of the property owned by it. 8, In consideration of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company making'. a loan to the Corporation for the development of Corporation's ignd and which loan will be beneficial to Association, Association hereby expressly agrees for itself, assigns or successor that so long as Pacific Mutual Life lunurance Cbmpany hasanyinterest in the lands described ix\Exhibit I that it will not •� ko !1 1 - , n-r - Order: Quick View Page 4 of 17 Requested By. , Printed: 6/15/2020 4:12 K Doc:19660110-912 XV erect a building greater than three stories in height over that portion of Association landnot described in Paragraph 1 without providing additional parking facilities at a ratio of 2-1/2 square Feet of parking area for each square foot of building floor spice in excess of three stories. 9. In the event of any action between the Owners, assigns or sue- ' • cf censors hereto for the enforcement of any of the 'covenants of this agree- ment, the prevailing party in any such action shall also. be entitled to r, reasonable attorneys' fees. 14). Nothing herein contained shall be, deemed to be a gift or dedication p, , i' in any way of any portion of the Owners' properly to the public, or for any public purpose whatever. 11. This agreement maybe terminated, amended or�modifiod at any time by the written consent of all the parties then awning some right, title, " interest and estate in�,and to the real property described SnkExhibit I annexed S hereto, .I a (ra 1 active Owners hereto shall be covenants (Corporidoal `'•kenefit of•and bind the assigns I +� F STATE OF CALIFORNIA j �` . F' • COUNTY OF. Los An'1 es j 59' • I: , ..- aava6 tg , 1966 Oo Jbe[aeme. the uodecafewe?, . Netety Pub)le to and ter �`, eve executed D • ' I•' . ' State; peesoadly appeued IL A. Seker - �>.. lam" to me to be the vice —paid" and =Mk J Ai gobs • •; k. known to me Io ha Secretary of the torpmalm that trocoted the whwa m :*orerol, known to me to be +he permw who emoted the wkwo Indrumrat oo bA.H of the con, ion Ihrrem tamed, end + . . loknoirlodsed to me that eoeh oerperedoo es ka the e1Lwn w. ant por®en+ Io Its by-l-ee or a rem4-ti- bf In board IATION (1 It i ,. of dkoctma Katherine Rtwrnaltotis . 4. ' WIT75 my Nd end of5del wl. NCl'PRI OFFICE PRINCIPAL OFFlCE IN PRINCPVDLJIPAL 1 LOa ANOELE, COUNTY Oaident ' `•. etammiasion expire 7-20-68 . , Nams (Typed or Prluted).... retary :.:! a+IThl, en, fw eiNl aNadU ,aYl ... + i TO ,awe JIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA resident •- COUNTY OF Los Ameles } •e( On Jtknues9 0 1966 me, the Underdtmed, a NotaryFu6110 In and for Bold a resident , Stare, qre Mly appeued ��� y kooen to. me to be IIIprnidrnl%sod 1�'�k Je D1 Nato �r , known to ms to beyioe-P esW!1t.Nr .f +hhn e urtper.lk.p terewled the v11M. inttnmlen4 + .. 4C+ It— to ma Ie he the I— who he the M. - 1 Irotrummt n bah.]( of the earpondoe therein mooed, end ' M eck-Wedsed to me +hat soeh oorpor►rfeo enemed the within Indroloeet purauent to he hplm m a rraelnticl, of Ik bead , Katherine Rournallutls F oI dirwa., - NOTARY FUDLIC•CALIFORNIA '� I WLTNES d end meld eeeL PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN l LOS pNGFALS OOUN+Y .� Sf+n• O oa�.ssiun eaP s T- w1 it I;.: " �_� I I iA4 ' Nerve (Typed or Prtmed) -_ • r— Doc: 19860110-912 " C,'`a,.•'sf 1 1. . ,�;::'-•q_(;L�i 13.UPI,,,1.1:��.�>r$.i n':.pt'�u,�r:-.;r., !.:: .' ��,'.: I• .. ,.�• ',+� r V ,,' c�zt dt'd .w�..:: C•'rA' z,qi • ..-'.F•t-...-. .,4'�w YT.: �rA.l: $'Sn' � .�._.t.i �.;y ��3::'':/t.'}i:'is.' - (1., AU Aj. erect a building greater than three stories in height over that portion of a; " Association land not described in Paragraph I without providing additional i facilities at a ratio of 2-1/2 square feet of payling area for each i .. parking I square foot of building floor apace in excess of three stories. 9. In the event of,any action between the Owners, assigns or nue-f\ �'f censors hereto for the enforcement of any of the.covn i of this agree- : j, � Fes { ! Mont, the prevailing party in any such aeHon ,shall also be •entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. i 10. Noth'iag herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift `or dedication t' s in any way of any portion of the Owners' property the public, or for any _ I, public purpose whatever. f= r , .11. This agreement may be terminated, amended or.modified at, any time by the written, consent of all the parties then awning some ;fight, title, , interest and'estate in and to the'real property described in Exhibit I annexed hereto. I Z. The covenan�rf the respective Owners hereto shall be covenants'. running with the land and shalljnure to the benefit of -and bind the assigns ^ ? and successors of the respective Owners hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective Owners hereto have executed �4 this Agreement the day and year first above•written. O i UNIVERSAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 0 BY �eG Vice.. y Secretary i uxr Fv AL SQUARE p P , Odcat• 1 Y Vies President o J - .O Order; Quick%Aew Pape 8 of 17 Requested By: , Printed: 8MV2020 4:12 PM Doc:19660110-912 1. Property of the Association, That portion of Lot 3 in Block 4 ofthe Rosemead Tral:t, in the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map re- corded In book 12 page 194 of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the westerly line of said lot distant thereon south 0' 591 0011 east, 110.00 feet from the northwest comer of said lot; thence parall" with the northerly lineofsaid lot, north 87* 401 0811' east;* 315. 19 feet to the easterly line of the west half of said lot; thence along said easterly line south 0* 581 5211 east, 37.53 feet to the southerly line of the northerly 147.53 feet of the east half of said lot; thence along said southerly line north 87* 401 0611 east, 290.19 feet to We westerly line of the easterly 25 feet of said lot; thence along said last mentioned westerly line, south O1,-'S8' 451, east, to a point distant northerly thereon 6 feet from the no rly line of the southerly 17 feet of said'lot, thence south-, �_rect westerly in line to a point In said last mentioned northerly line. distant westerly therooi-rS fact from said westerly line of the easterly t 25 feet of said lot, -the true point of beginning; thence, along. said north- - V erly line of the southerly 17 feet of said lot, south 87' 391 $011 west, 297. 00 feet; thence north V ZO1'3011 west, 230. 93 feet, thence north 87* 391 3011 east,307.49 feet to th7e easterly line of said land; thence along the easterly and adiAheastarly lines of said land, south V 581 4511 east, 226, 00 feet, and south 43* ZOI 23" went, 7.16 feet to the point of beginning. Propo?Fty of the CoEporati6n! th R m d the City Of That Lot 3 in Block 4 Tract, portion of of a .060 ao A. I Rosemead, County of Lon Angeles, State of CaUp la, as per map re corded in back 12 page '194�of Maps, in the office iffltab county recorder of said county, described as follows-. Beginning at a point In the westerly line of said IoLdistant thereon south v 0* 591 001, east, 110.00 feet from the northwest corner of said lA; . thence parallel with the northerly line of maid lot, north 87' 401 0911 east, 315.19 feet to the easterly line of the west half of:.xaid let; thenc..? along.,'maid eastarlyLline south 0­581 5211 east, 37.53 fact to the souths�kv llne*% of the northerly 147.53 fact of the east half of saidjot; thence along said southerly line north 87' 401 0811 east, Z90. 19 feet the westerly line of last the easterly 25 feet of said lot, thence along said Iast mentioned westerly Brim, south 0* 581 45" east, to a point distant northerly thereon.5 feet from the northerly line of the southerly 17 feet of said lot;' thence so,;t�- westerly in a direct line to a point in said last mentioned northerly line distant westerly thereon 5 feet from said westerly line of the easterly 25 feet of said lot, thence along said northerly line of the southerly 17 foot of said lot, mouth: 87* 391 3011 west, 595. 33 feet toqL point distant jftdl I easterly thereon 5 feet from said westerly line of lot; thence north- westerly in a direct line to a point in said last mentioned westerly line distant northerly thereon S feet from said last mentioned northerly line, thence along said ,westerly line of said lot, north 0* 591�0011 west, 405. 10 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land' describa4ii as follows: Beginning at the most southerly southeast corner of said land, thence along the southerly line of said land, mouth 87* 391 3011 west 297.00 feet; thence north 2* 201 3011 want 230. 93 feet; thence north 871 391 3011 east 3.07.49 feet to the easterly line of said land; thence, along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said land. mcutix 0* 581 45" east 226.00 fact, and south 43' 201 ZV west 7.16 feet to the poW- of beginning. jJj EXHIBIT I Doc: 19660110-912 UOC: IytltiUI 1U-Ulz o a m p CY) C O 0 X 1 0 �. -D N (L2 (D 0 0 h a X i. 1'... CD U OW Q. °'�1Fi4�1l�IF,r�fh. N ' '0 1=L.�N"Y Itd[i C1aL.C.ULAT I� N `:+ 5, -r5.14 Sa ,1 A--T, r'"N7W..'a A(zab (1; 0.Lth: MG OV'lU0Af t! - A�4�2�?X. d^'n+) _ .. .._. _.... _ II, 12d.';4 ?• r. r F T4A*E— ROSLMEAD TK-ACT IN THE CITE( OF P..OSLM-E:AD ,-ATF- Of C•AL1F0trRN t:F4,• #.5 PE'XMAP &F-C-aR.D'ED' 1 N- tN ?'Fir- o:FP.I C-F- 0-F T44E co U r4I Y N.LC'O:.P DF-9, of �.Z'oTZ7► �.1`�►TD �S •fir �.7► C DRAWN rt .:i �• 'b'��T: *� t•, (�' �1GlJ� •� [i/•►v �7W0.l:l. K /X�. D . D • CHECKt[D •Y ?Yl. �.'14'r . u iI � o \ A • �i }. 1�aw h` 1�.4 �tZ 6s t�, titt'f vm + y 7 - '�•D arc :4j-27-f�� ti'�°.►�`s1�?�D�, ,,G�41�'Uf�+llti n.-I; Order: QuickView Page 11 of 17 Requested By: , Printed: 6/15/2020 4:12 P Doc: 19660110-912 'CtSE:pF1 A L P' 41 A b. T-T' . 4.4of - LO D(-U G STOR --.:: +_ V..'D , K l V L R_ 5•A 1- 5 ANV KG E.1 Ltd S S'N' .0 Apt— lExre, 'Vr P, U K I Y L ks A 5 Q• t I r«S _ as.o' e- FLOS13MEA1:1 I Si. MEAD F-P" o F r�Cr3arr31 � , � •s�-r�,�'� raw•.:` _ ::. ' .. . �_.• n. tr�na Pane 12 of 17 Requested By , Printed: 611512020 4:1 Doc: 19660110-912 Doc: 19660110-912 Doc: 19660110-912 Doc; 19660110-912 a _ . ' i .. . eta •�•' y • .�4NOW. 4 f-4 • a. tttt t 0 p ' 4'r1. • oNkt6' -A N f,s_.:.N �.R E b�.� :JSF:: •l��.V �� � ' � • �,�, L P• N A b E..7:,0. M A f�.. (2: ETA :� L>r..d.s��;Y �,cT 3 n. LO D iL-U G ST 0 F—E-•:_ C�.P-XSt VAT PALES• Order: QuickVew Page 17 of 17 Requested By: , Printed: 6116/2020 4:12 PM Doc:19660110-912 Transaction Code: 999 - Misc Need Revenue Product: misc Units Payment Method: CHECK Reference: #2709 Receipt Number: R00126854 Cashier Name: CITY HALL Terminal Number: 1 Receipt Date: 2/16/2022 5:19:38 PM Name: 420 Boyd Street, LLC/Law Off 0.00 Amount: 650.00 Total Balance Due: Amount: $650.00 Total Payment Received: Change: $650.00 $650.00 $650.00 $0.00 2/16/2022 5:21:23 PM Page 1 of 1 Attachment I Architectural Plans 0 ti O Z _ Q J v W Ow 2m W � �O J � a� L W W J Q O> V � 00 00 is L Itt ■t� t •1! i � - �I �1 7 g� l i��fir�lll'.p��3�'� ° 3 sNF p ;t1j!��'1 a[� 1 tl OLLL 6 tl3'4V3W3SOi!'!]Alll'd 9 A3A SS88 ON1130OW3H IVIO i3WWOO �s r O w N 73;2,#i�l t1 t`��`i�i}fl1��11�i(jlE{{�t (]A -IS A3��VA>¢�01� n V! 1 V Eli s ffi 3 4 E, iE a3 c k ' 63 g 3 - 99999 7 N . or Aga Lou: ~ g w a j g o z y 22 rQQ $ �+ pg4 �u qay q w 3 k s e e e e e] B a aa G. 9' E 5j9 23 R 9 9 9k E y� k c f4 E y % C u A S 3 E 0 8 8< < S _ s F� • o (n o U Q z o bb 9 .w� z x C d a o g UL 1qfl m � I �g U � CL I � of LU °m w Q d 0 4 e @ Q 9 gia!(�nR e � ys8� 9Y W3 4365g7 yy t gg d gy� SCE$ W egg€ usi IS E €0�39gr�_u"f `�`� y"4 ��ii 2 k YY yYkk'S tlk ���$�„�`pL�5pC5�gm co3 a<.i9`eY3smm�3$�33d$����s�oaW€i�9WsceiS ...€z�. ¢c3�`_=�=="ss:�s E ! p • H .• - m | - § &1!|\ ! 3 ! ma«'V3em,a, A311VA_, n3Qow a� Q� wwo a ,e i §| | G! .\ /u o § ® 9! -# f! . \ .! | ;� 0 ! If | § a!` ) w6 �0 � \, e.! \4` ) \ ` � • t © / � � \ / | /�� / \ � ! � � • o � f�c•`�It�1! t � - u 3 H {1fEi{�f`li OLLL6 tl3'OV3W3SOii 'd Al9 A3-lVA 9988 ONI'13GOW3UIVIO213WWOO m� 5 r v �iti !jtF•} j+j+i}}f„„ee��•t�/it {{ttjj 4A113 A311VA Fat ! •R � � W � r p tfitYti1F1:6.t}Ite�t9 Ii Yi0 a� `'sue 11 N 1 Q __3�o Jig 5?�x�x��xagEea€�a8��ia 2 u$$ I± N 3nv wu ino 3111 DIH3A 3l]I 3A 6 W Q, h AWN3 ��m QNtle1A8303d 1} p AkAN3 X Ntle1S303d AL1N3 NtlIL1S3U3d v v v frrA. , . � {, t 4 b aW 1 i I ^ _ ., t Z 5° y6 W N� 0 Sj {{ff ijij]] rrfi{ risr� p y gIL !! {11141 OLLL6 VO'4V3W3SMi 4A19 A311VA SS86 ON1-130OWMI-IVION3WWOO e js Yms� 41fj1`�j t jjr } � l�1j t ij 0AI8 X311bA = g 1 °u ■ 111111 � � t r�� \ .� '•' FA �"spuaGni— ,. o fi jet. jt ��i i i u z 3 fF;7l+I [[I`tt 'OAl9 9988 a 5 SW no {utj�y•{j#F4i1a2{ OLLL6 VJ'4'd3W3S021 A3�lVA ONIl30OW3a-1b10b3WW00Lit Q a N �;�±'4�FFFFFFz(j Rat � Vi o ? itBFlril .�f,i { 0/�78 A311t/A ! � Q W y • �"��' E B ip R� gg� 99� � e 3F t� qq� =2Q i6 �� mj $6• E�8 �i g� �G1 �S s a SO®$..- ��� o ® $. fi? ry 9 R9 y €O R • €O s f - - 4 g y a a I ---- -- i _ — Q I. �n------- i• free .gyp �qpo jc� `w • Z;e� W win z B y iai ubgSt ag 1 O ea I Qs t&Isis Q a-! 9 M-1 �. a ®A R ®®®• _ 4 k tt �xli A a� • p-----q--->p-(-?,j �€ yyy.��•j _gqppgqpp 'r' Ci �'V pbdn pbgd PWgE Ab4d pkgf_i�__ �A ' 1 'J � -0000 i � O , J •• R g���� c•1b ; bd ba bd bC btl �i" QQ$ . R q G �n 6 ! i �� A slim ®! --- -�--J r _Y 6si� x • 6i� � , , ...� F � j IS�� I ei -- - :3 D � ti,. 6 _ t�pp ��..•pp• � bmmrl,, pbpgCq pbpgdq }pM�q phgd �� _ � A i• - - '6 ob oA 6d bd bd tl! bd a 'F' r� R R pp � �Etl�'6S i 1 1 1 �•Y ��� d • 6 4 OLLL6VO'(1V3W3S0W(3Ale A311VA S;S92 -1v ON1130OW31d IOU3WWOO i aA-18 ATMVA 10 CV LU Lu 05 wa. X. 0 X.J ------- ----------- ----------- ---4--4 ------------- B Is ------ ------- T ---------- .10 I c-ld 0 0 0 (b k) o' g '° jt�#• t 1�� t t ' 1]46ri- { - g3 [t1 1 �ti'�tft� Q 7 c 9'" 1 �( L�,�� C'ii [ till FFFFjjT( OLLL6 VO'OV3W3SCd'4A18 A3llVA SS88 JNIl3OOW3N IVIO i3WWOO € J r a.a L m ekegS }{Fttti� tq�ljjjtiiEE{{ttjj QA181.3��bA C lac�F `> >u LL LU zO J J Z 5 as KE 0 o LL r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "o I I — ---1-J-------------- l! 10 II li I I o a� j i !$ •u 01000000 � I I I -- ------ -- — I -- -- --�------------- �• p� j i - - - I i Q.-Q I I 000, 00 fill o000 o----®--- -- T——T--- !i ® — — s -� 0- -0 1, 1. CL j. OLLL6 VO'Ob'3W3SOil 'OAl9 A311VA 9988 ON1130OW321 IVM13WWOO o Q a N T F m =8 �pt�4{lS; ;liflIF�fiii(�! c dnl8 A3�lbA a a=- 1 j:s E °o N C it� . yy i4 �� 3 s �1 =OLU xY J z 5 ae 0 0 o LL T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I gg I I I t I I I I � I maaa f\IJIF I � �j to orb I i I � I I I I orP I o000 0 0000o cl`O a— — — — — -- —moo — --- — — -- -- — — — -----� v -- -- -- — _ I -- - � I - I or_ ➢ a I o f ❑ tr� bTJ I O I;o I y��I I o lio /� •X 0 ilid R � of Ertl O la 5 I O § I i I I II I o I� I a ----- j aq 000-I ❑ RVffMT1JrP ❑ q I I I i i i i i i i � � x �3s ��{�fjrF��t�il?��f�l'I e � � � � z OLLL6 VO'4V31A3S08 GAIG A3-nV A 9988 9141130OW3N IVION31WWOO Q J 4 g cv) (MIGAT11 VA 0 1 C4 0 K j NLL i zO z LL 8 • LLz cy 1111116 As WO gg LOU, o ii • - c ■+f �t ei i' l{Ei1at {{��1 OLLl6 tlO A 9988 ON1334OWMIIVIOU3WWOO c ¢ m� g a E!t`ir i tj�„e {i{ OAIB A331VA k N �tyii�i i °u: O Q 2 ,O 5 8 W t0 0 S� �m W5 aV r .r.a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LE I I I I I i�-------L--------L--------1-----------4------------ ------ --- -J---- ------- I I I I I I I I I I I g"p I I I I I I I I I I o- - - --- -- - ---- -------- I �I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I o-— — — !-------- —---------- i-- — — — i —------- I I i i t § I I a i i g I MID i i I Q-- — — — ----------- Y I I I I I i I I I I I I I i i i i i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i i i i i .r.+a IL ijjjj `Si } o ¢ ;7 St[ !jI pp p ;7�1t;� OLLG6 tl0'Otl3W3S021 'OAl9 A3lIVA 9988 ONI13aOW3N IVION3WW03 Q 00 Q d m$e e� v Y � {Sf rr` 1!} iir�Esbiitl°] tjt@fll CMIS A3llb /� W § M p 9 �` »i�� C3 Y 11,2NMI ��yy`,,a Y i is k' OWN �� is c � y" �� �6� Y5 � `� � 3 teems rig �; ��y F �sf� �a E ^8 `E ✓i i i _ O F O F J J J J W z W z 5� COW? mN i i i N Q � I � Q I i i i i i I i i _ i i i i i i i i i i i •i_.� I I 5 i I ! I L I i I o - i 5 U 5 I I _ QI i y I I I i v I i - a o- i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i F i i i i i i i i i i i i i o �ii ` ei ��� S z a ° Asa'f,r,iis3s ° •;€del, tt!� OLLL6 VO'OV3W3SOa'OAIS A3llVA SS88 = Q O O r cE d " �; � a;i •I i}{� ONIl3aOW3N iVIaa3WWOa aAlB Jl311VA m� " i a ` w Cl) t�3aEF et , �ii� m w W s � clag ;,i� Y Z 0 a 0 J J J J W 2 4 W 2 4 W W m3 � „ coN I I I I I I I I I I ggqq I I I I I I I I i I i I fill a I - a I I O W Jy UZ Z O I W~� � > a F w M � I I I = I I m 5 I I I I ; IL L I 1s!�� 1 OLL{6 VO'OV3W3SOa'OAIS A3l1VA 9988 JNI�340W3a �`dadmw0o B m� 0 z z! QAl9 A317VA n a in w 1 Q ;. ti a 8 LLI p 4 s.� ■ ® I� ' 1 Iv__v a 11■ � Ila __ 90 O t�et3.f�i',a}i jEi[�ja � � PF OLLL6 VO'OV3W3SOa 'OAl8 A3llVA SS88 ONI13aOW3N IVIO 13WWOO � � o � ¢ m� m 0 r z Q e— a Y [t eStlf`� i iiE OATS A311` A o a€'t g3m $5gre>>d=g8 m �Es 3 U u3 8a LS �9� ��'i:s eN O ZO J J J J W 0 Ga- W Om , 7W� m3 70 mz„ x N Q Q I I I qgyy I gg�� I I I I I I I I, I I a qqyy a U � I V I aU) W aC 9 0 Jy Uz 2 a — =pg �W a c - - — - -- �- 5 m o- I I .| - sE . §$ #|$ me«±�em.a, __, || , �o ! o �LCN ,! ! /f ! q § ON,i �Qow� , i� �ww D /( oge�i�;sUn A \§ )§ \(0Of « Attachment C City Council Minutes Dated March 22, 2022 MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 2022 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Low at 6:04 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark, and Tang ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman and City Clerk Hernandez 1. CLOSED SESSION A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 City Attorney Richman announced the City Council would go into closed session and announced any reportable actions at the 7:00 p.m. regular meeting. Mayor Low recessed the closed session meeting at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened at 7:08 p.m. to open session. City Attorney Richman reported the City Council would return to closed session at the end of the regular meeting. 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Low at 7:08 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark, and Tang ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Low INVOCATION was led by Council Member Armenta STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, Director of Public Works Chung, Interim Finance Director Chamberlain, and City Clerk Hernandez Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 20 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Sue Yamamoto, Library Manager, announced the library's new schedule in addition to continuing sidewalk services. She elaborated on the library's story time session is on April 10'. She announced that on April 5", there will be first, second, and booster vaccinations readily available to the residents. Ms. Yamamoto stated the library will now be considered a tool lending service. The library will now have tools that the public can rent out as they would books. 3. PRESENTATIONS - None 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on Specific Plan Amendment 2 1 -01 and Zone Change 21-01 Del Mar Property, LLC has submitted entitlement applications requesting to amend the Zoning Map by changing the zone of 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue (APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010) from Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zone, for the development of a new residential/commercial mixed -use development. The project proposes the construction of a seven -story mixed -use development with 6,346 square feet of nonresidential (commercial) use on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live/work units and 45 are residential apartments. The project also proposes 147 parking spaces and 12,547 square feet of landscaping. The project also includes a text amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) for beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1008, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 21-01 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE OF 7539 & 7545 GARVEY AVENUE (APN NOS. 5286-022-009 AND 5286-022- 010) FROM GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (GSP) TO GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED - USE (GSP-MU) ZONE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GARVEY Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 20 AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PERMITTING SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS WITH A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO OBTAIN AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (AUP) FOR BEER/WINE SALES IN THE GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (GSP) AND GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED -USE (GSP-MU) ZONES; and 3. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022-18, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2 1 -01 AND ZONE CHANGE 21-01. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7539 & 7545 GARVEY AVENUE (APN NOS. 5286-022-009 AND 5286-022-010) City Attorney Richman stated that City staff requested Item 3A to be pulled and moved to the April 12, 2022, City Council agenda. She explained that staff received a letter and the CEQA consultant must review. Council Member Armenia requested to open for public comments related to Item 3A. Mayor Low opened the public hearing for public comments. There being no public comments, Mayor Low continued the public hearing to the next City Council meeting. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Armenta to postpone the public hearing on Specific Plan Amendment 2 1 -01 and Zone Change 21-01 to the April 12, 2022 City Council meeting agenda. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: ARMENTA, TANG, LOW, AND DANG; NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: CLARK Council Member Clark stated for the record she abstained due to her property's proximity to the project. B. Public Hearing on Appeal of Modification 21-08 On February 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing of Modification 21-08 for an extensive exterior facade renovation of the existing Universal Plaza building, located at 8855 Valley Boulevard in the Central Business District with a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone. The applicant intends on converting the Universal Plaza building into a food hall. The only Planning Commission approval required by the City's code for the Applicant's project was a Design Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Afeeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 20 Review. All other aspects of the project were permitted under the Code. The Planning Commission approved the Design Review as permissible under the Code. On February 16, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer, representing 420 Boyd Street, LLC, the property owner of 8801-8845 Valley Boulevard. As a result, the public hearing for the appeal was scheduled for March 22, 2022 to be heard by City Council. Recommendation: That the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 21-08 and adopt Resolution No. 2022-19, entitled: AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION 21-08, AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 03-110, BY MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND ELIMINATING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 24, ALLOWING FOR AN EXTERIOR FACADE RENOVATION AND THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, AND PERMITTING STAFF TO REVIEW FUTURE SIGNAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5391- 009-002), IN THE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/RC- MUDO/D-O) ZONE Associate Planner Lao explained the City Clerks department received an appeal letter on February 16, 2022 from the Law Office of Murry D. Fisher on behalf of 420 Boyd St. LLC, the property owner of 8801-8845 Valley Blvd relating to the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 21-08. Associate Planner Lao stated all the minimum code requirements were met for the project modification for residential/commercial mixed -use development and design overlay zone. Council Member Armenta asked what the reasons for the appeal were. Associate Planner Lao stated the reasons for the appeal was a private easement agreement between the property owners, impact of parking related services, inadequate loading zones, inadequate trash areas, measuring of electric meter and water meter, inadequate consideration of utilities, maintenance needs, smells, and inadequate attention to construction needs. Council Member Armenta clarified she asked for an explanation for transparency reasons, for anybody listening to the meeting via online can understand the item being discussed. Rosemead Citv Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 20 Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated he was a bit confused and thought the item was a design review item to the Planning Commission. Asked for clarification of the item. City Attorney Richman explained that the staff report does discuss the reason that the project is before the City Council from the Planning Commission, which was the discretionary approval that would be required in the code in the design review. There was a fagade improvement in the front. The other aspects of the projects are consistent with the code. Therefore, there is no need to go forward, except for the fact of the design component. The appellant lists several other things, not related to design review, for the basis of why they filed an appeal. The staff report notes the concerns the appellant is bringing forward, are not really within the purview of the City Council to reconsider for this particular review. Council Member Tang asked what the current uses of the property are and what businesses are in the Universal Bank build. Associate Planner Lao stated the current use of the property is a shopping center that include offices, retail and restaurants. There are currently offices in the building, but most are vacant, there is a medical lab and a closed down restaurant. Council Member Tang asked if within the design review, there were any changes. Associate Planner Lao answered the design review was for the fagade renovation; the use will remain the same as a shopping center use. Council Member Tang asked if the property owner can decide the use of the property. Associate Planner Lao answered yes, the property owner can choose what use they want on the property. Council Member Tang asked if there was no requirement of a ratio of each use such as 30 percent restaurant, 40 percent retail, etc. Associate Planner Lao answered no, there is no ratio requirement on use. Council Member Armenta asked if there will be any parameters on what floors will have specific uses. Associate Planner Lao replied there are no set rules on what floors require what uses. City Attorney Richman stated public comments should be heard and give the appellant an opportunity to speak and present their appeal. Council Member Clark asked when the additional letter to the appeal was received. City Clerk Hernandez replied that the second letter was submitted by the attorney of the appellant five minutes before the City Council meeting began. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 5 of 20 Mayor Low opened the public hearing for public comments. Judith Manouchehri, Appellant's Attorney, used a board as a visual to describe the property. She stated that her clients were not given proper notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission meeting to express their concerns. The concerns of her client include significant intensification of usage and the impact that it will have on her client and their tenants. She noted that the original development of the building was for bank use in the 1960's and not a food hall that will require substantial improvements to the building. If approved, there will be limited parking, parking of food delivery trucks on property, asked to limit the use of roof top for a restaurant, increase in traffic, late hours of operation and increase noise. If the project is approved, the City should request Mr. Lee the property owner of the building, to be given substantial conditions to mitigate the concerns addressed by the appellant. Attorney Manouchehri read for the record property owner, Allan Ta's comments expressing concern that the City was not requiring any investigating studies for the food hall. In addition, Mr. Ta indicated the project will create a lack of parking accommodation and requested the City Council reject the project. Lim Pam, business owner at Universal Shopping Center where the project area is being proposed, stated her concern was the food hall will have 27 vendors that will use the current parking. Victor Truon , Manager of Great Wall Supermarket, expressed the new project will take over the current parking spaces. Unidentified Speaker stated that her parents have a restaurant at the plaza which has very limited parking and are concerned with losing parking for their customers. Lines business owner at the plaza stated that her restaurant operates from 3pm until 9pm because there is no parking during the lunch hour. She said the new project with 27 food vendors will impact parking even more. There being no more comments, Mayor Low closed the public comments portion of the public hearing. Mayor Low asked if the overall project addresses the parking concerns brought by residents. City Manager Kim explained the application that went to the Planning Commission was strictly for the design review. Since the appellant submitted an appeal for the design review, the item was before the City Council to consider the design review application. Mayor Low asked for clarification if the concerns addressed apply to the appeal from the appellant. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 6 of 20 City Manager Kim answered the concerns do not apply to the appeal. Staff reviewed the project previously and it was determined that the project complies with the code requirements. Mayor Low stated if the project meets code regulations and a use can switch from commercial to restaurant use. City Manager Kim stated yes, there have been changes in use from other businesses that changed from commercial to restaurant at that plaza. Mayor Pro Tern Dang asked for the definition of parking at a shopping center. Associate Planner Lao read the code regulation for shopping centers stating that a Shopping Center meant a commercial site with two or more separate businesses, managed as a total entity, sharing common access circulation, signage, and pedestrian parking areas. So that a public right of way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1 and C-3 and CBD zones. Mayor Pro Tern Dang indicated the key take aways are that there is circulation, and you don't need to leave the property and then go into a separate drive where everything is already interconnected and it's free flowing. The change of use didn't trigger parking because the improvements were only fagade remodel. Since the property is a shopping center, any business can change its use from commercial, to retail and restaurant and vice versa. He further explained that the only reason the project went to the Planning Commission was because of the facade remodel, otherwise the project is code compliant. Lastly, stated that once plans are submitted the Building and Safety and Fire Department will also check the project to ensure its code compliant. City Attorney Richman stated the concerns were not from the findings of the design review. Council Member Armenta stated parking in the plaza has always been an issue. She emphasized how over utilized the parking lot is. She noted that the City has asked Boyd Street, LLC to clean up the property many times. Parking is an issue everywhere in the City. She noted that in the letter submitted by the attorney, it's requesting there be sufficient trash bin. Mrs. Armenta noted that she drove by on Muscatel Avenue and noticed the restaurant at the corner of the plaza had cardboard all over stacked against the wall. She added that she gets complaints from residents of foul smell and trash everywhere from the businesses in the plaza. She reiterated that the appellant was requesting the City to implement strict conditions, which she asked Boyd Street to also follow their own conditions. Council Member Clark stated her concerns involved parking and traffic. Council Member Tang stated that the use of the shopping plaza is not changing, the project is only a design review, The use is still a shopping center designated by the Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 7 of 20 Municipal Code that is a mix of anything, retail, restaurants, it could be whatever it wants. He stated he would like to see the property owners update their businesses to align with the vision of the City. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Tang and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Dang to uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 21-08 and adopt Resolution No. 2022-19. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None ABSTAINED: Clark Mayor Low recessed the meeting and reconvened back at 8:34 p.m. C. Public Hearing on Municipal Code Amendment 21-05 Municipal Code Amendment 21-05 (MCA 21-05) is a City initiated amendment to Title 17 ("Zoning") of the Rosemead Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.28.030(C)(4) and 17.30.040(E) permitting sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit ("AUP")for beer/wine sales in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Medium Commercial (C-3), Regional Commercial (C-4), Central Business District (CBD), and Residential/ Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay (RC-MUDO) zones, in place of a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). The amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business community and provide relief to those that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. The AUP is an administrative review by the Community Development Director, whereas the CUP is approved by the Planning Commission. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1009, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-05, AMENDING SECTIONS 17.28.030(C)(4) AND 17.30.040(E) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE, PERMITTING SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS WITH A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO OBTAIN AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT ("AUP") FOR BEER/WINE SALES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1), MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3), REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (C-4), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD), AND RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RC-MUDO) ZONES, IN PLACE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ("CUP") Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 8 of 20 Associate Planner Lao reported that the City initiated amendment of the Rosemead Municipal Code was being amended to permit sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit for beer/wine sales in the Neighborhood Commercial, Medium Commercial, Regional Commercial, Central Business District, and Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay zones. The amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business community and provide relief to those that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mayor Low opened the Public Comment period. Resident Allen asked the City Council to consider the impact Design Review 21-05 will have on the community and nearby school. There being no further comments, Mayor Low closed the Public Hearing public comments. Mayor Pro Tern Dang showed his support for MC 21-05. He stated this would be great for the City in making it more competitive against neighboring cities. He stated that restaurants will keep the economic engine going. He emphasized that the City would still have control over how restaurant operations are handled and carried out. Mayor Low agreed with what Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated, adding that any restrictions needed would still be in place. City Manager Kim stated that the Administrative Use Permit process is similar to the Conditional Use Permit process in that there is still noticing and public review taking place. However, the Administrative Use Permit process is done by the Community Development Director and not the Planning Commission. Council Member Clark asked if there was an appeal process that would take place if there was opposition. City Manager Kim replied yes, it can be appealed to the Planning Commission which can then go to the City Council. Council Member Armenta asked to take into consideration the types of spirits being served. She stated that in the City of San Gabriel there is a market that sells wine and beer, and a food court that are near two high schools and an elementary school within proximity. She stated she has yet to hear any issues. She urged City staff to ensure they look at how many licenses are being approved and the concentration of one location. Mayor Pro Tern Dang asked Associate Planner Lao if the ordinance applies to bars and liquor stores or accessory to a restaurant. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 9 of 20 Associate Planner Lao clarified it only applies to a "sit down restaurant" setting, a restaurant must be at least 1,000 square foot in size, and no fast-food restaurants. City Manager Kim clarified the permit is only for beer and wine, no hard liquors. Council Member Tang stated a customer will have to order food, not just beer and wine. City Manager Kim explained the intent for customers is to eat and have the option to order beer and wine. He reiterated that it is a sit-down restaurant setting, beer and wine can be sold, the restaurant must be at least 1,000 square feet or larger. The applicant will go through a similar process for a Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Tang asked what the cost difference to the applicant is when discussing Administrative Use Permit versus a Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Lao explained that the Conditional Use Permit application fee would be $1,985 and the Administrative Use Permit application fee would be $1,165. Council Member Tang asked what the timeline difference between the processing of an Administrative Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit or other impacts is. Associate Planner Lao explained that a Conditional use Permit does take longer because it goes to the Planning Commission, which only meet twice a month. An Administrative Use Permit process will go faster because it is reviewed and processed by City staff. The notice requirements are still the same for both processes. Council Member Tang asked how far in advance is the public given notice to voice their concerns before the Community Development Director makes a decision. Associate Planner Lao answered the noticing requirement is ten days. City Manager Kim added that the Administrative Use Permit process is streamlined administratively, while the Conditional Use Permit process is mandated by the Planning Commission which meets twice a month Commission. Council Member Tang stated that a Conditional Use Permit can take anywhere from two weeks to four weeks if a Planning Commission meeting is cancelled. Council Member Tang asked how the Planning Commission came up with the minimum of 1,000 square feet. Mayor Pro Tern Dang answered that the number was borrowed from the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. He noted that he and Council Member Ly took the average size of a restaurant. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 10 of 20 Mayor Low asked if the 1,000 square footage includes the dining and sitting area together. Mayor Pro Tern Dang answered it is the dining and kitchen area together. Council Member Tang said he is inclined to support the hearing process; however, he does like items to go before the Planning Commission because it gives assurance to residents to voiced their concerns. Mayor Pro Tern Dang asked City Manager Kim to explained how the appeal process will be for an Administrative Use Permit. City Manager Kim explained that there is a process for noticing and having a hearing with the Administrative Use Permit process which if appealed will go to the Planning Commission. Council Member Clark asked what the radius number is for notices being mailed out to residents. City Manager Kim replied the standard radius is 300 feet around the project. Council Member Tang stated that if the intent is to attract businesses into vacant spaces, how is the City going to promote this new Administrative Use Permit process. City Manager Kim stated there are developments happening to help promote businesses in the City. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Dang and seconded by Council Member Annenta to introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1009. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Armenta pulled Consent Calendar items D, E, F, and G. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Tang and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Dang to approve Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, and H, with the exception of D, E, F, and G. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None A. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2022-21 Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page I I of 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,463,561.92 CHECKS NUMBERED 110859 THROUGH NUMBER 110956, DRAFTS NUMBERED 5601 THROUGH NUMBER 5612 AND EFT NUMBERED 50981 THROUGH NUMBER 50993 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-2 1. B. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: That the City Council approve the regular meeting minutes of December 8, 2020. C. Display of the Vietnamese American Heritage and Freedom Flag with the United States of America Flag Along Valley Boulevard as a Symbol of Freedom and Democracy Every year, the Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles County request that the City Council support the Vietnamese American citizens of the Rosemead community by authorizing the display of the Vietnamese American Heritage and Freedom Flag along with the United States of America Flag, as a symbol of freedom and democracy, on Valley Boulevard from Saturday, April 23, 2022, through Sunday, May 1, 2022. The flags' display together is consistent with the United States Flag Code protocol. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the request of the Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles County to display the Vietnamese American Heritage and Freedom Flag side -by -side with the United States of America Flag along Valley Boulevard from April 23, 2022, through May 1, 2022, in accordance with the protocol specified in the United States Flag Code. D. Various Residential Street Resurfacing, FY 2021-22 - Project No. 21032 — Award of Construction Contract As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the Various Residential Street Resurfacing Project (Project). The Project consists of asphalt concrete cold mill and overlay, localized full depth asphalt concrete replacement at various locations (pothole repairs), traffic loop restoration, markings and striping at various locations Citywide. On March 9, 2022, the City performed a bid opening, and publicly opened four (4) sealed bids. After staff conducted a comprehensive bid analysis to determine the apparent lowest bid, the bid submitted by Onyx Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $927,000 is determined to be the lowest responsive bid. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 12 of 20 Council Member Armenta asked that staff ensure that the aesthetics of the project resurfacing look good. Council Member Tang asked if City staff could verify if there are upcoming road projects from utility companies that could be done first and then resurface the street. Public Works Director Chung explained that there is a street moratorium, which utility companies are not allowed to break into roads for four years after the completion of a City resurfacing project. If there was a break in a recent resurfaced road, it may be due to an emergency. He noted that notification letters will be sent to various utility companies to make them aware of street resurfacing withing the City. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Onyx Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $927,000. In addition, authorize an amount of $92,700 (10%) as a contingency to cover the cost of unforeseen construction expenses, for a total construction budget of $1,019,700. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-20 amending the City's Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP Budget to appropriate additional funds in the amount of $19,700 to increase funding for the Various Residential Street Resurfacing Project No. 21032, for a total Project budget of $1,019,700. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Council Member Clark to authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Onyx Paving Company, Inc. and adopt Resolution No. 2022-20. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None E. Approval of the Traffic Commission Recommendations for Traffic Improvements at the Intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Fern Avenue At the February 3, 2022, Traffic Commission Meeting, staff presented recommendations to improve the existing roadway conditions at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Fern Avenue. After discussion and presentation of the item, the Traffic Commission approved the staff recommendations for the area. Public Works Field Services staff will be able to complete all the recommended items. If necessary, additional materials and supplies may be purchased at a minimal expense to complete the recommended work, and staff would utilize the approved Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Traffic Signs and Markers available funds. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize approval for the following improvements at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Fern Avenue: 1. Repaint existing STOP pavement legend and stop bar for the west leg of Fern Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 13 of 20 2. Remove and replace existing 30"00" STOP sign in the west leg of Fern Avenue and Del Mar Avenue with a new 36"x36" STOP sign (R1-1). Install "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP" plaque (W44P) below new STOP sign. Per CAMUTCD Section 2C.59 guidelines the "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP" (W4-4P) plaque may be used in combination with a STOP sign when engineering judgment indicates that conditions are present that are causing or could cause drivers to misinterpret the intersection as an all -way stop. 4. Install vertical red retroreflective strip on the STOP signpost for enhanced visibility. 5. Install "School Crossing Ahead Signage" (SW24-3(CA)) on the north and south legs of Del Mar approaching the intersection. Red Curb Installation: Extend the existing red curb, on the west side of the north leg of Del Mar Avenue to 16' north of the crosswalk and install 10' of red curb on the east side of the south leg of Del Mar Avenue, north of the shark teeth. 7. Removal of Non -Conforming Signage: The existing non -conforming signage "WHEN FLASHING" plaque under the existing "School Speed 25 mph" sign should be removed and replaced with a new S4-2P plaque "WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT." Per CAMUTCD Section 713.16 reduced school speed limit ahead sign (S4-5, S4-5A). Council Member Armenta stated that Del Mar Avenue is seen as a speeding street. Furthermore, she and Council Member Clark attended a grand opening ceremony for an early head start program school on Del Mar Avenue. She noted that traffic calming measures are needed and thanked City staff for being proactive in the safety of pedestrians. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Council Member Clark to approve the traffic improvements at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Fern Avenue. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None F. Approval of the Traffic Commission Recommendations for Traffic Improvements at the Northwest Curb Ramp at The Intersection of Garvey Avenue and Bartlett Avenue At the February 3, 2022, Traffic Commission Meeting, staff presented recommendations to increase the visibility of the curb ramp located in the northwest corner of Garvey Avenue and Bartlett Avenue and to indicate that it is not a driveway and to deter vehicles from using it as such. After discussion and presentation of the item, the Traffic Commission approved the staff recommendations for the area. Public Works Field Services staff will be able to complete all the recommended items. If necessary, additional materials and supplies may be purchased at a minimal Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 14 of 20 expense to complete the recommended work, and staff would utilize the approved Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Traffic Signs and Markers available funds. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize approval for the following improvements for the curb ramp located in the northwest corner of Garvey Avenue and Bartlett Avenue: 1. Installation of approximately 16-feet of yellow handrail behind the curb ramp along the entire elevated step per Caltrans standards. 2. Installation of approximately 6-feet of red curb on the southwest side of the curb ramp apron, starting at the back of curb return to the end of slope of the ramp. 3. Installation of approximately 6-feet of red curb on the northeast side of the curb ramp apron, starting at the back of curb return to the end of slope of the ramp. G. Approval of the Traffic Commission Recommendations for Traffic Improvements at the Intersection of Mission Drive and Delta Avenue At the February 3, 2022, Traffic Commission Meeting, staff presented recommendations to improve the existing roadway conditions at the intersection of Mission Drive and Delta Avenue. After discussion and presentation of the item, the Traffic Commission approved the staff recommendations for the area. Public Works Field Services staff will be able to complete all the recommended items. If necessary, additional materials and supplies may be purchased at a minimal expense to complete the recommended work and staff would utilize the approved Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Traffic Signs and Markers available funds. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize approval for the following improvements at the intersection of Mission Drive and Delta Avenue: 1. Install yellow ladder striping for the existing crosswalks at Mission Drive and Delta Avenue on the west and north legs. 2. Install approximately 40-feet of red curb along the north side of Mission Drive. This red curb is recommended to provide a clear line of sight for any waiting pedestrians. The red curb should be installed between the curb return to the yield line. 3. Install approximately 20-feet of additional red curb along the south side of Mission Drive. Red curb is recommended to provide a clear line of sight for any waiting pedestrians. The existing red curb should be extended up to the driveway. Council Member Armenta asked to approve Items F and G together. She thanked Public Works Director Chung for taking the initiative and moving forward with projects that have been long standing items. Mayor Pro Tern Dang also thanked Public Works Director Chung for pushing projects forward and ensuring the safety of residents on the roads. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 15 of 20 ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Council Member Clark to approve Consent Calendar Items F and G. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None H. Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-22 Establishing Salary and Benefits for Part -Time Employees In addition to its' full-time staff, the City maintains a variety of employee classifications on a part-time or hourly basis. The employees in these positions work throughout the year, seasonally, or on a temporary basis and typically work no more than 1000 hours per fiscal year unless exempt from CalPERS requirements or assigned to one of the four 3/4-time positions. Resolution No. 2022-22 adjusts the salary steps for these Part -Time classifications effective March 22, 2022, revises the job title of the 3/4-time Preschool Teacher classification to Playschool Teacher, adds a new recruitment incentive pay for certain job classifications, and authorizes for additional step salary advancements within the salary ranges. There are no other changes to the Salaries and Benefits for Part -Time Employees resolution. Recommendation: that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-22 approving the aforementioned salary and benefits for Part -Time classifications effective March 22, 2022, and changing the job title of the 3/4-time Preschool Teacher classification to Playschool Teacher, 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. COVID-19 Update This is a recurring item that will be on the agenda to update the City Council on items related to COVID-19. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide further direction. City Manager Kim reported the County of LA Department of Health Order update was that masks are still required at all emergency and homeless shelters public transit, health care settings, long term care facilities and correctional and detention facilities. Masks, however, are strongly recommended, but not required for all persons regardless of vaccination status and other outdoor public settings and businesses. The City's current case count is 10,704 positive cases with total 184 deaths, 89% of Rosemead residents have had at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and however, 82% of Rosemead, Rosemead residents are fully vaccinated. The City of Rosemead in partnership with Mount Castle Marketing will provide COVID-19 testing sites until the end of May. Employees and the public are no longer required to wear masks at City facilities, only recommended. 7. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 16 of 20 A. Possible Support of Senate Bill 1040 (Rubio) Council Member Armenta requested the City Council discuss and provide direction regarding the California Department of Insurance requests for a letter of support for Senate Bill 1040, authored by Senator Susan Rubio. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide direction to City staff. Council Member Armenta reported that Senate Bill (SB) 1040 by Senator Rubio is to allow for restitution for consumers harmed by unlicensed sellers of insurance. This bill takes aim at those scams by authorizing the Insurance Commissioner to order unlicensed sellers of insurance to pay restitution to their victims. Currently the Commissioner does not have authority to order restitution for victims. Therefore, victims of fraud must file individual lawsuits to obtain restitution. The bill authorizes the Department of Insurance to seek a restitution order on behalf of victims. She urged the City Council to support SB 1040 by submitting a letter of support by Wednesday, March 23, 2020. Mayor Pro Tern Dang asked if scammers are out of state, will the state bill allow them to cross state lines and retrieve the fine. Council Member Armenta answered yes, only in states that are regulatory, which include Arkansas, Kentucky, Kansas, Maine, Virgina and West Virgina. Council Member Tang asked if the state lobbyist can look into SB 1040 to ensure the City is clear on its position. Mayor Low explained that the City Council can sign off on items if the City Council is all in favor of a bill. If anyone in the City Council is not in favor, they are free to send a letter to the state as an individual. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Clark and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dang to send a letter of support for Senate Bill 1040. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None B. Discussion of the Establishment of a Public Safety Commission During the February 8, 2022, City Council meeting, Mayor Polly Low requested staff to research ideas for establishing a Public Safety Commission. During the March 8, 2022, City Council meeting, Mayor Polly Low requested to agenize the item for discussion. Recommendation: That the City Council provide further direction on the following: 1. Purpose and duties of the Commission. 2. Provide a total number of members that will be a part of the Commission; and, Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 17 of 20 3. Provide direction for staff to prepare an Ordinance to establish a Public Safety Commission Senior Management Analyst Guerrero reported that City staff completed a survey of 16 neighboring cities, and 12 cities have established a public safety committee or commission. The committees serve in an advisory role and provide recommendations to the City Council relating to law enforcement, crime prevention and improving quality of life for the community. The Public Safety Commission may be tasked in partnership with temple sheriffs station personnel. The Commission may review complaints, concerns from residents and business community, crime incidents and trends, safety issues, emergency preparedness information, homeless encampment issues and recommendations, coordinate crime prevention and public awareness programs and events. Additionally, Chief of Police Shigo would like to bring back the six -week Community Academy as part of the commission's task and allow the commission to encourage the community to partake in this program. Council Member Clark suggested starting a Public Safety Commission as a committee before deciding on making it a commission. Mayor Low stated she would prefer to start a Public Safety Commission as a commission rather than a committee Council Member Armenta was in favor of a Public Safety Commission, it's much needed in the City. She emphasized that public safety is a top priority of the City. Mayor Low stated that in order to establish a commission, the City Council has to specify the purpose and responsibilities of the commission. Council Member Tang thanked Mayor Low for taking the lead in proposing a Public Safety Commission to look at what are the major issues, and ideas on how to address those issues. He asked that the Council address how the City and Temple Sheriff Station work together. Mayor Pro Tern Dang expressed support for establishing a Public Safety Commission and stated there is a Iot of work the commission could work on right away such as homelessness and emergency management. Council Member Clark stated the City Council should be involved in Public Safety matters. The City Council cannot take part in a commission, only if it's a committee. City Attorney Richman explained that when a legislative body is creating another legislative body, then it would need to be a separate legislative body. Unless the City Council wants to create a standing committee, they can be part of it. When an ordinance creates a commission, the City Council gives duties to the Commission. Council Member Clark stated that if it's a committee the City Council could participate just like the Public Safety Connections. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 18 of 20 City Attorney Richman stated that it's common for Council Members to participate on ad hoc committees or standing committees, but not in commissions bodies. Mayor Low reiterated that the City Council forms the commissions and asks them to discuss topics, address matters, and provide ideas to report back to the City Council. -Cm-icil Member Clark asked City Attorney Richman if there is a training put on by . the Sheriff's Department for the Commission, would that violate the Brown Act if the majority of commissioners or council attend. City Attorney Richman replied that since the meeting is not a City meeting, the Commission can attend a training or Academy being put by another agency without violating the Brown Act. Mayor Low made a motion to draft an ordinance. ACTION: Motion by Mayor Low and seconded by Mayor Pro Term Dang to direct staff to bring back a draft ordinance establishing a Public Safety Commission, duties, and responsibilities. Motion was carried out by roll call vote: AYES: Armenta, Tang, Low, and Dang; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: Clark C. Council Comments Council Member Armenta announced the Rosemead Park Walking Trail subcommittee would be hosting a public meeting about the walking trail and thanked Public Works Director Chung for his work on the project. Council Member Tang thanked Parks and Recreations Director Boecking for his work on the Youth and Government program. He also stated the Rosemead sign on the west bound on the 10-I freeway needs repairing. Mayor Pro Tern Dang announced that Wealth by Health is coming back and thanked them for their work. He asked to agendized for discussion Assembly Bill 1771 and to bring back the FiberCity item for further discussion and direction. Mayor Low adjourned the regular meeting at 9:58 p.m. and reconvened back to closed session at 9:58 p.m. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 19 of 20 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no reportable actions taken in closed session, Mayor Low adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk y APPROVED: Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022 Page 20 of 20 Attachment D Resolution No. 2022-19 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-19 AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION 21-08, AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 03- 110, BY MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND ELIMINATING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 24, ALLOWING FOR AN EXTERIOR FAI�ADE RENOVATION AND THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, AND PERMITTING STAFF TO REVIEW FUTURE SIGNAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5391-009-002), IN THE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, DC Universal, LLC submitted a Modification Application (MOD 21-08) requesting to amend Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No. 1 for a proposed fagade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage located at 8855 Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, 8855 Valley Boulevard is located in a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone; and WHEREAS, 17,28.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for authorizing changes to an approved project; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) and 17.120.100 (C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove design review applications; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21-08 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 22-01, making findings and determinations to approve Modification021-08; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Murray D. Fischer, representing 420 Boyd Street, LLC, the property owner of 8801-8845 Valley Boulevard, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. WHEREAS, on March 10, 2022, forty-three (43) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on -site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for the appeal of Modification 21-08, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 22, 2022, to consider the appeal of Modification 21-08; and WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the appeal of Modification 21-08 and considered all public comments; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15301 of CEQA exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment; or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 21-08, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The purpose of the proposed improvement is to modernize the building fagade. The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staff s determination, will improve the aesthetics of the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth - tone colors. B. 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. FINDING: The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. All construction work is required to comply with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, and the overall maintenance of the property. In addition, a condition of approval has been incorporated, requiring the trash enclosure to be improved and be an integral part of the overall project design. Furthermore, a condition of approval prohibits the use of mirrored or reflective glazing materials and glass. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The project would not cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. The proposed fagade renovation consists of a mix of mid- century modern architecture with high -quality, contemporary elements. The overall design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the commercial corridor. 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 project site is located south of Muscatel Middle School, which is designated as Public Facilities in the General Plan, however, is not a part of the Civic Center. The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building and would not modify the use or site configuration. The proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. The project would be in harmony with the developments in land designated on the General Plan as Public Facilities, the Civic Center, and developments within the vicinity of the project site. 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 proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the CBD-D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staff s determination, will modernize the prominent intersection and its relationship to the commercial district. To create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard, the proposed fagade renovation is enhanced with design elements which include concrete cement or glass fiber finished walls, exterior metal and wood panels, LED lights, and the utilization of contrasting earth -tone colors. 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: The project consists of exterior renovations to the existing commercial building. As part of the project improvements, the applicant will improve the existing trash enclosure to be an integral part of the overall project design. In addition, all landscaping will also be improved. Furthermore, all future signage will be reviewed and approved by staff. SECTION 3. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision to approve Modification 21-05, as adopted by Planning Commission Resolution 22-01, with Conditions of Approval outlined in Exhibit "A". SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of March, 2022. ATTEST: R chel H. Richman, eity Attorney Exhibits: ,i Poll"W1 yor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk A. Planning Commission Resolution 22-01 (with Conditions of Approval) 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) 1, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2022-19, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22"d day of March, 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: ARMENTA, DANG, LOW, TANG NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: CLARK /I /t Ericka Herhafidez, City'Clerk 5 EXHIBIT "A" PC Resolution 22-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-08, AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 03- 110, BY MODIFYING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND ELIMINATING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 24, ALLOWING FOR A FAQADE RENOVATION AND THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, AND PERMITTING STAFF TO REVIEW FUTURE SIGNAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8855 Valley Boulevard (APN: 5391-009-002), IN THE RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED - USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/RC-MUDO/D-O) ZONE. WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, DC Universal, LLC submitted a Modification Application (MOD 21-08) requesting to amend Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No. 1 for a proposed fagade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage located at 8855 Valley Boulevard; WHEREAS, 8855 Valley Boulevard is located in a Residential/Commercial Mixed - Use Development and Design Overlay (CBD/RC-MUDOlD-O) zone; WHEREAS, Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for authorizing changes to an approved project; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny changes to developments or new uses authorized through a permit granted in compliance with the zoning code; WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, twenty-three (23) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for MOD 21-08; WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to MOD 21- 08; 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 that MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15301 of CEQA exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, MOD 21-08 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving MOD 21-08, in accordance with Section 17.120100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.120.100(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.100], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. FINDING: Staff has verified that the proposed modification would be in compliance with all applicable sections of the Rosemead Zoning Code. The amendments to Design Review 03-110 would further enhance the appearance of the existing commercial and create visual interest for pedestrians and vehicular traffic along Valley Boulevard. In addition, the proposed modification would stimulate economic activity along one of the City's largest commercial corridors and streamline site improvements such as landscaping and signage for future tenants. Furthermore, all applicable conditions of approval of Design Review 03-110 would apply. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES MOD 21-08, an amendment to Design Review 03-110, by amending Condition of Approval No, 1 for a proposed facade renovation and eliminating Condition of Approval No. 24, allowing for the review of the proposed landscape plans concurrently with the proposed modification, and permitting staff to review future signage SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17,160.040 — Appeals of Decisions. SECTION S. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on February 7, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND UNG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 71 day of February, 2022. James Berry, Chair CERTIFICATION hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 7'h day of February, 2022 by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND LING NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Ben' Kim, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT "A" (PC RESOLUTION 22-01) MODIFICATION 21.08 8855 VALLEY BLVD (APN: 5391-009.002) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL February 7, 2022 Modification 21-08 is approved as a modification to Design Review 03-110 for the approval of exterior fagade renovations and site improvements to the Universal Plaza building in the Universal Square shopping center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit °B", dated February 1, 2022, 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 Planning Department. 2. Project is approved for the elimination of Condition of Approval No. 24 of 03-110, which states: A separate Design Review will be required for the approval of landscape plans and proposed signage. 3. All applicable Conditions of Approval from Design Review 03-110 will still apply. 4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that helshe is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 6. The Planning Division hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval. 7. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 8. The on -site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day appeal period of Project. 9, MOD 21-08 is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on MOD 21-08. 10. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 11. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved project, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Public Works, Fire, Sheriff, and Health Departments. 12. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any Federal holiday without prior approval by the City. 13, City staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 14, All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening on the development plan prior to installation. 15. All property that is vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied: 10 a. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain -link, lumber, masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self- supporting and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner. b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall be continuously maintained in good condition. c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. 16. All trash enclosures shall be designed to be an integral part of the overall project design, and utilize complementary colors and materials. All trash encicsures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self -closing, and self -latching. Detailed elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal to the Building Division. 17, A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and Irrigation plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 18. The use of mirrored and reflective glazing materials and glass is prohibited. 19. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Public Works Conditions of Approval 20, Copy all conditions of approval and the Planning decision letter onto all permit plan sets. 21, Submit project record drawings incorporating any approved delta revisions that occurred during construction. 22. The approved building address(s) shall be painted on the curb to the City's standard as required by the Public Works Inspector before the final inspection. 23. Comply with NPDES requirements. UTILITIES 24. All power, telephone, cable television, and all utilities to the project and adjacent to the project shall be installed and relocated underground unless impracticable to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee. 25, Any utilities that conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 11 Attachment E Architectural Plans 0 THE DUTIES OF THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD 1) OBSERVATION OF CLEARED AREAS AND BENCHES PREPARED TO RECEIVE FILL. 2) OBSERVATION OF THE REMOVAL OF ALL UNSUITABLE SOILS AND OTHER MATERIALS. 3) THE APPROVAL OF SOILS TO BE USED AS FILL MATERIAL. 4) THE INSPECTION OF PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIALS. 5) THE TESTING OF COMPLETED FILLS. 6) AND THE INSPECTION OR REVIEW OF DRAINAGE DEVICES. 7) SOILS ENGINEER SHALL OBSERVE ALL FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS. COMPACTION TEST SHALL NOT BE PERFORMED BY INDIVIDUALS OTHER THAN THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD AND APPROVED BY THE CITY BUILDING DIVISION. VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING 8855 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROS M AD CA 91770 CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-A NOTE THE FOLLOWING BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE PROTECTED BY FIRE INTUMESCENT PAINT COAT U.N.O. PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME EXCEPT (E)CONCRETE STRUCTURE (COLUMNS, GIRDERS, FLOORS AND 1 HR FIRE RATED (E)STEEL BEAMS BEARING WALLS (EXTERIOR & INTERIOR) FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBERS ROOF CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBER SEE INTUMESCENT PAINT SPEC @ 2/A9.50 SEE 1 HR FIRE RATED COAT MEMBER SCHEDULE @ A31A1.30 0 SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED FOR THE RATED COATINGS CAL -OSHA PERMIT NOTE: CONTRACTOR LISTED BELOW MUST PULL OUT CAL -OSHA FINAL PERMIT BEFORE STARTING THEIR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR 2. GRADING EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR 3. FRAMING CONTRACTOR 4. SCAFFOLD CONTRACTOR 5. DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR CONTACT CAL -OSHA OFFICE BELOW TO CONFIRM EXACT REQUIREMENT. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH, PHONE: (626) 239-0369 PERMIT SET CD 100% ADDENDUM 3 DK design workshop 05/26/2025 DEFERRED SUBMITTAL / SEPARATE PERMIT NOTE FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM, FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE SYSTEM TO BE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTORS. ALL TENANT IMPROVEMENT AND KIOSK TO BE SEPARATE PERMIT BY FUTURE TENANTS. FOLDING DOORS @ LEVEL 2 TO BE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTORS. ACM (ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL) PANEL EXTERIOR WALL / EXTERIOR CEILING FINISH TO BE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTORS. ELEVATORS WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTORS. STEEL STAIRWAY WILL BE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTORS. LIGHT POLES WILL BE A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTORS. STOREFRONT WINDOWS WILL BE A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTORS. nnwUTr% n nTnr!'S n ABBREVIATION SYMBOLS LEGEND GRAPHIC LEGEND VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE A.B. ANCHOR BOLT MATL MATERIAL SHEET No. � O A1.10 � ALUMINUM BATT INSULATION �j 5 REMODELING OF EXISTING 2 STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING W/BASEMENT A.C. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE MACH. MACHINE /t:'\ . s - TOTAL 36,286 F FLOOR AREA PER ZONING CODE TO BE REMODELED 0 A C AIR CONDITIONING MAX MAXIMUM / Sheet No. Sequence Sheet Type a .a o CONCRETE D PRECAST wo, t d T�n,pl.aty �,,,,.. ` ��lur, deli© Live Oak Park North E AND/OR A ERE A.C.T. ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE MECH MECHANICAL Discipline San GabriMedical center e Valley Monte c� © � w € - BUILDING SHELL ONLY. MULTIPLE RESTAURANT TENANTS TO BE LOCATED ACOUS. ACOUSTICAL MET MTL METAL / GLASS �(� GRAVEL O SanGabhet r INSIDE FOOD HALL IN FUTURE OCo Alhambra samscl°, ADJ. ADJACENT MFR MANUFACTURER SHEET NUMBER e r .,, i E ., 2 NEW EXIT STAIRCASES ARE TO BE ADDED A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR MISC MISCELLANEOUS i RIGID INSULATION � SAND y Vincent The HOmeDepot i� :.i�.,�..���• waoPark San Gabne7 _ STRUCTURES AND STAIRCASES ADDED TO THE EXISTING ROOF ALT. ALTERNATE MIN/MN MINIMUM © 88'55ValeyBlvd, © Valley Airport it AL ALUM ALUMINUM / MIR. MIRROR BRICK IN SECTION WOOD - SOLID . � Rosemead, CA91770EIMonteDMV© Delicious Food Corner .��. - OPEN -SIDE PATIOS 2 APPROX APPROXIMATE MISC. MISCELLANEOUS ARCH. ARCHITECT MNT MOUNT / MOUNTED CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT PLYWOOD BD BOARD M.O. MASONRY OPENING m El Monte BLDG BUILDING MTL METAL NORTH ARROW A <A EARTH BRICK Monterey Park r,-•�•- BLKG BLOCKING (N) NEW aa,r; ? a B.O. BY OTHERS N NORTH GYPSUM / PLASTER CULTURED STONE 1 C.A. CLEAR ANODIZED N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT CAB. CABINET NO / # NUMBER STEEL -M, EXTERIOR COMPOSITE PANEL CEM. CEMENT CER. CERAMIC NOM NOMINAL N.S.F.S. NEAR SIDE AND FAR SIDE GRID BUBBLES EXISTING GRID BUBBLES �, ' ) PEA GRAVEL CONTINUOUS BLOCKING , PROJECT PARTICIPANTS PROJECT DATA C.G. CORNER GUARD N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE C.J. CONTROL JOINT O/ OVER DETAIL TITLE DRAWING TITLE STONE BLOCKING C.L. CENTER LINE I OWNER SITE LOCATION: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 DC UNIVERSAL, LLC. O.C. ON CENTER CLG/CLNG CEILING View Name Al ELEVATION 1 ; 2" 1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = V-0" 1 = + + + + + CROSS DOTS ZONE: CBD (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT), D (DESIGN O.D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER + + + 14500 VALLEY BLVD, INDUSTRY, CA 91746 CLR CLEAR OPNG OPENING 1 (626)968-6917 OVERLAY), RC-MUDO (RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT DRAWING CALLOUT - DETAILCALLouT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) OPP OPPSITE DIAMONDS HOUNDSTOOTH COL. COLUMN O.R.D. OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN DRAWING TITLE DETAIL TITLE ARCHITECT APN: 5391-009-002 CONC. CONCRETE P.L./PLAM. PLASTIC LAMINATE - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _- DASH GRASS DK DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC. CONST CONSTRUCTION 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 LOT AREA (GROSS): 71,000 SF PLYWD PLYWOOD SCALE: 1 1/2" _ �'-o" (323)591-0432 CONT. CONTINUOUS o' s° 1' 2- 2'-8° LOT AREA (NET): 68,036 SF PNL PANEL CORR. CORRIDOR PNT PAINT GRAPHIC SCALE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER (E)GROSS FLOOR AREA: 32,660 SF CPT CARPET CODE PER ZONING CODE PR PAIR BASIS ENGINEERING C.T. CERAMIC TILE P.T. PRESSURE TREATED EXTERIOR SHEET ON INTERIOR SHEET ON A 3600 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1903, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: 36,286 SF C.W. COLD WATER ELEVATION WHICH ELEVATION WHICH (213)385-0080 PER ZONING CODE PS PIPE SHAFT OR DUCT SHAFT DTL/DET DETAIL CALLOUT y ELEVATION IS CALLOUT ELEVATION IS A301 ,I DRAWN DRAWN ALL PLANS AND WORK FOR THE PROJECT SHALL CONFIRM TO THE Q.T. QUARRY TILE g A601 D REQUIREMENT OF THE FOLLOWING CODES: MECHANICAL & PLUMBING ENGINEER FLOOR AREA RATIO: 53.33% OF NET LOT AREA DEMO DEMOLITION _ RAID RADIUS DIA DIAMETER MY ENGINEERING, INC. BUILDING FOOT: 18,989 SF R.D.L. ROOF DRAIN LEADER C CITY OF ROSEMEAD ZONING CODE 1543 W.GARVEY AVE. NORTH, SUITE 210, WEST COVINA, CA 91790 PRINT AREA DIM DIMENSION ELEVATION REFERENCE INTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE (626)337-1965 RD ROOF DRAIN DIN DOWN CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE LOT COVERAGE RATIO: 27.91 OF NET LOT AREA REC RECESSED BUILDING SECTION NUMBER BUILDING SECTION NUMBER 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (VOLUME 1 & 2) ELECTRICAL ENGINEER DWG DRAWING EA EACH RECT RECTANGLE SHEET ON WHICH - SHEET ON WHICH 2O19 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE M&S ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, INC. REF REFERENCE E.I.F.S. EXTERIOR INSULATION sECTION IS DRAWN sECTION IS DRAWN - VNEC) 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 4055 BLVD. #526 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 4055 WILSHIREILSHIR REINF REINFORCED/ING SIM SIM 1 s 3 USE: SHOPPING CENTER (NO CHANGE) AND FINISH SYSTEM A1o1 A�o� 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE E.J. EXPANSION JOINT REQ REQUIRED ; 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-A 2 SQLA, INC. RES RESILIENT ELEV ELEVATOR BUILDING SECTION REFERENCE WALL SECTION REFERENCE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE OCCUPANCY GROUP: A2 DETAIL SECTION NUMBER DETAIL SECTION NUMBER RM ROOM ELEC ELECTRICAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPPLEMENT REVISION RECORD JULY 1 2021 ' 2669 SATURN ST BREA CA 92821 (562)905-0800 BUILDING HEIGHT: 52'-1 1 " E.O. EDGE OF R.O. ROUGH OPENING SHEET ON WHICH SHEET ON WHICH E.O.S. EDGE OF SLAB S.C. SOLID CORE SECTION IS DRAWN SECTION IS DRAWN CIVIL ENGINEER NUMBER OF STORY: 2 STORY W/ 1 BASEMENT SCHED SCHEDULE EQ EQUAL SIM sIM ��� FIRE SPRINKLERS: BUILDING IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH FIRE STEWART DESIGN & ENGINEERING RE FOOT EXH EXHAUST A�oo� A10123535 PALOMINO DR., SUITE 303, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 RINKLER. THE PROPOSED BUILDING TO HAVE- SHT SQQU (909)301-1017 F(E) PA-13 FULLY SPRINKLED "BUILDING MUST BE (E)/EXIST. EXISTING UIPPED WITH A SUPERVISED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SIM SIMILAR EXP EXPANSION DETAIL SECTION REFERENCE DETAIL CALLOUT REFERENCE SYSTEM". FIRE SPRINKLER PERMIT TO BE DEFERRED S.O.G SLAB ON GRADE SOILS ENGINEER SUBMITTAL BY CONTRACTOR. Q NTS GEOTECHNICAL EXT EXTERIOR Room Name Room Name SPECS SPECIFICATIONS E.W. EACH WAY Room Name to 101 5319 UNIVERSITY DR. IRVINE, CA 92612 PARKING COUNT: 270 (NO CHANGE) SQ SQUARE t5°SF LEASABLE AREA TABLE (657)888-4608 F.D/FD FLOOR DRAIN ST STAIN 4°°sF LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,501 SF (8% OF NET LOT AREA) F.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHER STD STANDARD ROOM TAG W / ROOM NUMBER W / AREA TOPO MAP SURVEYOR UNIT SF NATURE OF BUSINESS: FOOD HALL F.E.C. FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET STG STAGGER TOP AND BOTTOM xx', 0000000 OPERATION STEWART DESIGN & ENGINEERING F.H.C. FIRE HOSE CABINET XX% LOCATION TENANT INTERIOR LEASE AREA OUTDOOR DINING AREA 23535 PALOMINO DR., SUITE 303, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 STL STEEL (909)301-1017 81 8101 1,123.00 FIN FINISH ST.STL. STAINLESS STEEL DOOR TAG WINDOW TAG EQUIPMENT TAG 8102 1,1S2.00 FL. FLOOR STS STAINLESS STEEL ELEVATION 499.00 F.O.B. FACE OF BRICK 20 R@ 71/2" � 8103 270.00 STOR STORAGE 11 101 3,800.00 F.O.F. FACE OF FINISH STR STRUCTURE WALL TAG STAIR TAG CEILING TAG FLOOR AREA TABLE 102 11065.00 494.00 103 994.00 625.00 F.O.S. FACE OF STUDS STRUCT STRUCTURAL 103M*" 301.00 F.R.P. FIBERGLASS REINFORCED S.S. SANITARY SEWER 11 000 1? B? w? C? FLOOR AREA PER ZONING CODE 104 314,00 PANEL UNIT: SF 105 316.00 SUSP SUSPENDED F.R.T. FIRE RETARDENT TREATED CASEWORK TAG FURNITURE TAG FINISH TAG 106 447.00 SYNTH SYNTHETIC F.S. FLOOR SINK T.O. TOP OF EL: +10'-0° ELEVATION ` LEVEL FLOOR AREA 107 1,102.00 800.00 108 287.00 ROOF 4,357 FT FEET LEVEL � Kiosk 1 90.00 T.O.S. TOP OF STEEL GA GAUGE T.O.P TOP OF PARAPET SPOT ELEVATION LEVEL HEADS Kiosk 2 15.00 GALV GALVANIZED TEL. TELEPHONE LEVEL 2 11,219 Kiosk 3 15.00 Klosk4 15.00 LEVEL 1 & MEZZANINE 14,595 GWB. GYPSUM WALL BOARD TEMP TEMPERED MATCHLINE SEE: 1 / A101 L2 201 1,457.00 GYP GYPSUM 202 526.00 T/THK THICKNESS MATCHLINE REFERENCE CENTERLINE TAG BASEMENT 6,115 H/HGT HEIGHT 203 755.00 GROSS FLOOR AREA 36,286 T.O.S. TOP OF SLAB i 204 636.00 HORIZ. HORIZONTAL (ZC) TYP TYPICAL 205 722.00 H R . HOUR U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE FLOW ARROW REFERENCE 206 750.00 I.D. INSIDE DIAMETER UTIL UTILITY 207 294.00 208 307.00 INCL INCLUDING V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD 209 185.00 INSUL INSULATION V.C.T. VINYL COMPOSITE TILE ROOF R01 1.047.00 480.00 INT INTERIOR VERT VERTICAL R02 693.00 643.00 R03 1,042.00 JAN JANITOR 310.00 V.W.C. VINYL COMPOSITION TILE 500.00 R04 1,119.00 JST. JOIST W/ WITH 183.00 R05 284.00 JT. JOINT - R06 172.00 W/0 WITHOUT K.S. KNEE SPACE SUB TOTAL 26 TENANTS, 21,295.00 4,734.00 WIN WINDOW L# LEVEL # ,KIOSKS TOTAL LEASEABLE AREA LAM. LAMINATE WD WOOD W.P. WATER PROOFING (INTERIOR+OUTDOOR DINING) 26,029.00 WT. WEIGHT •� 103M TO BE INCLUDED IN TENANT W.W.F. WELDED WIRE FABRIC DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as -built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL CD Z J W 0 O J �W/ O 00I.L � 0 J w a� >QJa J MJ U v W ; >" W ~ a W 00 LJ.I o °° w o J M wQ0LO0 00 > U 00 ti V COL PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q2 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET ® 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 05/26/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET NUMBER: G010 I I I W J V Z I (E)SHARED DRIVEWAY (E)TREE W AC PAV. TO REMOVE W J F 307 -7 -- - PROPERTY 1 = p ----------- - - - - ----------- ------------------------------- LINE W - - -- :■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ii■ PROPERTY ■■ �' �■■■ ■♦ LINE ,-- '--------- - -- :---- - 307.49 -- -------1-------------J-- -101 I _+_ � » 1 I -I 10', N HYDRANT ------------- 10"I -- 10 ■ - - '� - ----� (E TRASH E C L. STOP STOP , �' -- \ � � \'`---� I `--_/ I -- I � C , I � \`---� TO BE REH BILITATED -- ; F----� TO MATCH 1H E MAIN I : 1 1 I STOP STOP � BUILDING F CADE. SEE i . I I ~� I � NOTE 1. RE R WALL TO BE ADJUST TO 14AP CIT i _ ' -- -- F----� PROVIDE 3' ICLR TO I I - PAD SE THE CAPACI OR PAD (N)GREASE RELOCATED ? ---J _ INTERCEPTOR (E)GREASE J SEE SPEC INTERCEPTOR C } @P1.10 C + (E) D VE AY 2 AC AV. • EGRESS DASH LINE: N E IOR ELEC PNLS DTL E- ) -- ELEC TRANS ORMER ` PAD. SEE D L@E-10 WPC FINISHED DOOR 2ND F EXIT STAIR SEE INFO C (15)05" BOLLARDS STL FENCE H48" B I DING ABOVE 1 @E-10 ! ELEC TRANSFjORMER EGRESS PROTECTION. SEE DTL 1 F_ -- NEW CURB ONC -�- p» / O O O Z "\ : WALKWAY (9EE CIVIL "20 n 5 11 1 I -- _ ' \ - - i ii Q � --- 'i ------------------ -- --- - ---- -- --------------- --- - --- I J 20 O ■ STL FENCE �i42" 0 I..................................................� - �'� @ NEW CU B 00 -�2.64 I EGRESS I DOOR 20 i BUIL N NEW o / WPC ,I I EXIT STAIR -- � FINISHED , STL FENCE I PROPERTY » I LINE H48 I DASH LINE:-------- _ 0 L' i Z NEW SHADE ,--- \ / - I Q ' 2 W STRUCTURE = I BUI DIN j I a DASH LINE: 2ND FLOOR *� -- - - -- I W I ABOVE BUILDING a I I a I WPC I I . >7 N FINISHED W Q _ I . ------- _ STL FENCE H36" o I IO Q -- I (E)GREASE I TERCEPTOR i W - TO BE RELO ATED +_ t DASH LINE: 2ND FLOOR ABOVE W - I - DASH LINE: c", NEW SHADE i I STRUCTURE ;\ BUILDING _+ 1 WP'C ENTRY z Al Z I-+ I - -- , Q I - FINISHED'-----" :- ' I STL FENCE o H48 / 20" II U) H I Z _+_ � TRY W ---- a W iD Y ; (E)BUILDING F I W EXTERIOR _ a rrj WALL I DASH LINE: - NEW SHADE I STRUCTURE 1' 1 I -+ I i J BUILDIN 1 (N)GREASE �, � (ENTRY ' INTERCEPTOR _ Oo N I r_1 SEE SPEC- @P1.10 RAMP ; IT O - - PROPERTY CD U> - -- ���; � LINE I I , ---(E)BUILDING I PROPERTY 0 I EXTERIOR LINE O WALL BUILDIN G G o 0 0 0 ENTRY I I F '2 I 1 II 20 i -- RAMP 1dO1S 36 - - -' ENTRY L-- __'_--=---- --------�---- -GONG' FENCE _ _ ____ _ _ _PEDESTkI --------- �,- (E)BUILDING, EGRESS -DASH,-LINE:-, (E)BUILDING E H30';_WALL---------- (E) H30 WALL 289.31/F R (H33 -62) ENT Y __-_- -- 5.87�39'30" W. EXTERIOR ; Pt DESTF 714N DOOR 2ND; EXTERIOR 0 ( i LL _+_ ENTRY ABOVE -+- WALL VEHICLE VEHICLE I -+- I ' --- (E)GM 01 IT PROPERTY (E)FIRE � (E)SMH LINE HYDRANT O VALLEY BLVD N I (E)SDMH ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TYP: 5% MAX SLOPE IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL & O � 289'-3 1/2" 2% MAX CROSS S_LOP_E. NO STEPS ----------------------- - - - --� - - - OFF -ABRUPT CHANGES IN LEVEL EXCEEDING 1/2" ON THE PATH OF TRAVEL. SEE RAMP 2 DTL@A1 A5.81 ® Al SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 /16"=V-0" VALLEY BLVD --- ---- LEGENDS 0 EXISTING BUILDING & OUTDOOR LIGHTING NEW STAIRS 0 LANDSCAPE AREA TREE9g6E;1 DIAMETER ASPAHLT CONCRETE - PAVEMENT DRIVEWAY - NEW PAVEMENT SEE TYPICAL PATTERN „;= EXIT ACCESS ROUTE TO EXIT @6/A9.11 DISCHARGE FROM STAIR#3,4 NOTE 1. SEE TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS 12. "FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY" FORM @A 3 11 195/196 TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE 2. APPROVED BUILDING ADDRESS TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. 1 APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION 1 ALL FIR H RA S ALL SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED MEASURE 6" X 4" X 2-1/2", SO AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND BRASS OR BRONZE, CONFORMING LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET FRONTING TO AMERICAN WATER WORKS THE PROPERTY. THE NUMBERS ASSOCIATION STANDARD C503, OR SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR APPROVED EQUAL, AND SHALL BE BACKGROUND, BE ARABIC NUMERALS INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OR ALPHABET LETTERS, AND BE A THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH WITH A 0 FIRE DEPARTMENT MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5 REGULATION 8. I . F R CO 05 1 14. ALL REQUIRED PUBLIC FIRE 3. AN APPROVED KEY BOX, LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL 1037 SHALL HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED, BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY FIRE TESTED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO CODE 506. THE LOCATION OF EACH BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. FIRE KEY BOX SHALL BE DETERMINED BY CODE 501.4 THE FIRE INSPECTOR. 15. ELEVATORS, ESCALATORS AND 4. PROVIDE AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC MOVING WALKS SHALL COMPLY WITH FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS SET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN FORTH BY BUILDING CODE 903 AND BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 30 FIRE CODE 903. PLANS SHALL BE 16. ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SUBMITTED TO THE SPRINKLER PLAN WITH ONE OR MORE PASSENGER CHECK UNIT FOR REVIEW AND SERVICE ELEVATORS SHALL BE APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN (TYPE OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: ONE MEDICAL EMERGENCY SERVICE 'NFPA-13 FULLY SPRINKLED' PER ELEVATOR TO ALL LANDINGS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2, 903.3.1.3) 3002.4.1A THROUGH 3002.4.7A. 5. PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER BUILDING CODE 3002.4 REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE 17. THE MEANS OF EGRESS, AND EXIT DETERMINED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT DISCHARGE, SHALL BE ILLUMINATED FIELD INSPECTOR IN ACCORDANCE AT ANY TIME THE BUILDING IS WITH FIRE CODE 1002.1. OCCUPIED WITH A LIGHT INTENSITY 6. EGRESS DOORS SHALL BE READILY OF NOT LESS THAN 1 OPENABLE FROM THE EGRESS SIDE FOOT-CANDLE AT THE WALKING WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR SURFACE LEVEL. BUILDING CODE ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR 1008.2.1 EFFORT. BUILDING CODE 1008.1.9 18. A MANUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 7. COMPLY WITH POSTING OF ROOM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN GROUP A CAPACITY. FIRE CODE 1004.3 TITLE OCCUPANCIES HAVING AN 24, SECTION 1004.3. (SUBJECT TO OCCUPANT LOAD OF 300 OR MORE. 19 'THE POWER SUPPLY FOR MEANS Q OF EGRESS ILLUMINATION SHALL NORMALLY BE PROVIDED BY THE PREMISES'ELECTRICAL SUPPLY. IN THE EVENT OF POWER SUPPLY FAILURE, THE EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE POWER FOR A DURATION OF NOT LESS THAN 90 MINUTES AND SHALL CONSIST OF STORAGE BATTERIES, UNIT EQUIPMENT OR AN ON -SITE GENERATOR. BUILDING CODE 1008.3.4. 20. A READILY VISIBLE DURABLE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ON THE EGRESS SIDE ON OR ADJACENT TO THE DOOR STATING: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN THIS SPACE IS OCCUPIED. THE SIGN SHALL BE IN LETTERS 1 INCH HIGH ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. THE KEY -OPERATED LOCKING AN ASSEMBLY USE SHALL NOT DEVICE IS REVOKABLE BY THE FIRE EXCEED THE OCCUPANT LOAD AS CODE OFFICIAL FOR DUE CAUSE. DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIRE CODE 1010.1.9.4 TITLE 24 SECTION 1004.1, TABLE 1 1-2. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL FIRE FLOW CALCULATION CONSIST OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS: THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW CALCULATION: WALKING SURFACES WITH A RUNNING SLOPE NOT STEEPER -TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PER THE THAN 1:20, DOORWAYS, RAMPS, BUILDING CODE TYPE : VB CURB RAMPS EXCLUDING THE -F - LOW CALCULATION AREA FLARED SIDES, ELEVATORS, AND 7 43,976 SQ. FT PLATFORM LIFTS. ALL COMPONENTS - OW BASED ON THE OF AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL FIRE -FLOW CALCULATION AREA: 5,500 COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE GPM REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIREMENTS OF DIVISION 4. (MAXIMUM 50%): 2,750 GPM -TOTAL FIRE FLOW REQUIRED 2,750 GPM 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as -built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL \NOOSED AR-y C370 1 REN.0 31-27 F�F CA��FO J W 0 O Ed J �W/ O I.L m ti 0 J w a) > Q .J J MJ U v W ; W ~ Q W 00 W o J o_ w a 0 o 0 o a > PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q2 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET ® 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 05/26/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: Almill"10 N i CA of I I I I I I I 18'-0" 28'-1» VEHICLE IN/OUT 2 307.49' STOP STOP STOP 55 L� -- +\ 54 - 53 ------ 25'-0„ Q 52 00 z 1� 51 0 50 49 =48=- i ' r + I -1 47 46 45 N 0 Rio 44 % - oiz Q I ~ 43 - 42 =- 41 40 f VALE" ._Y40 142'-4" 28'-3 1 /2" - iX --- (15)STANDARD VEHICLE IN/OUT L-1---------1__ J- I ^ 0 -� �I STOP -- LL -- 11 I -, 5F67 8910 11 12 13 1415 1 2 3 4 (E)PA 5) 2 ­> STANDARD 5 HANDICAP 3, COMPACT 2 18'-0" 2 13'-4" 1 13'-4 13'- (3 STANDA D - 26 27 L I- o E_ a N 1 � 28 N �1V) 29 30 31 ( --, 32 `��-- TJ_'.. I i --- 33 O N 1 U -1 1 3 34 Ln .� of 1 C-) ® 35 W of 1 U o DRIVEWAY in 1 2 0 NIWZ >— P1 /-- L` J ® C N C TI IV z/-F3 24 23 J22 X' I I ---- -------------- _____ —__- _J e e e e 39 38 37 36 `N r (2)STA DAR;� dols Q _ I --- 289.31' VEHICLE s.87•VG'E -- -_ , --\ -- 1❑ 1❑ I _ OUT IN (♦ VALLEY BLVD DRIVEWAY I 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'- " to N (3 STANDA D �I01� 27'-0" (3)STANDARD 1An L � � 6 r -� -3 I 11 0 EXISTING BUILDING 0 LANDSCAPE AREA ASPAHLT CONCRETE PAVEMENT DRIVEWAY V..d •.I.H lI . NEW PAVEMENT • zw i^L�rDY } 1G H ! • �at.G�''le q .`J:. wa ►.x Co.*. rx3a►c.y. OUTDOOR LIGHTING [ems �..�w SW y..►i �"' coo.•.x. to y. -- w TREE, DIAMETER .LYY.fRP.►.. a NOTE '4 sy 1. THE EXISTING PARKING LOT WILL BE REHABILITATED AND RESTRIPED WITH IDENTICAL DELINEATION OF PARKING SPACES F2.ALL EXISTING HANDICAP PARKING BE UPGRADED PER CBC 11B, ISION 5E DETAILS OF HANDICAP PARKING (ACCESSIBLE PARKING) AND SIGNAGE SERVING THE BUILDING © 113 4 GO.40 1 iTE PLAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN LEGEND W Q Q HANDICAP PARKING SIGN A SEE SIGN DTL A @ 4/GO.40 SIGN SHOPPING CENTER SEEDSIGN DTRKB @ A2PARKING PLAN 3❑ AC EDTB� SCALE: N.T.S (REFERENCE ONLY) 3ARK1IN GSTALL AlPARKING PLAN SCALE: N.T.S (DIN DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as —built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED ARcy WOOS/���` O�G �-A �, o C 3 7 0 1 CP REN.0 -31-27 FOF CA�\F J W 0 O Ed J �W/ O I.L m ti 0 J w a� >Q JQ J MJ U v W ; >- W ~ Q W 00 W o °° w o_ J � oQ000 0 a > U 00 I.L V PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q2 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET ® 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 05/26/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: PARKING PLAN SHEET NUMBER: Almll 4 0 0 N 0 I co 0 I N rn 0 0 0 0 0 I r� I 0 N I N ff) 35'-O" 32'-O" 13'-O" 20'-0" 20'-0" 0 4 • • 0 I O PROPOSED A ol FLOOR PLAN LEVEL B1 i% I SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" WALL LEGEND (E)CONCRETE WALL TO BE REFINISHED PER FINISH SCHED. TYP U.N.O NEW CONCRETE WALL (E) CMU WALL (V.I.F) 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL (STC 50) 2HR FIRE RATED WALL (E) BUILDING WALL (V. 1. F) NEW METAL STUD WALL TENANT SPACE L SA L A NOT IN CONTRACT, TO Q BE SEPARATE PERMIT) PARTITION NOTE 1 1. SEE 7.20 FOR ALL PARTITION TYPE NOTE. 2. ALL INTERIOR PARTITION IS D1 U.N.O 3. KEY TAG LEGEND (SEE DTL 7.20 D1 TYPICAL PARTITION U.N.O DEMISING PARTITION D2 B/W TENANTS SHAFT WALL D3 2HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D4 1 HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D5 PIPE & DUCT 1 FURRING (INTERIOR WALL FINISH) FURRING (EXTERIOR WALL FINISH W/ R13 INSULATION) 96;8= CALCULATION0 OCC TYPE A-2 A-2 FLOOR AREA 131 4,393 SF L1 12,137 SF 131+1­1=16,530 SF (131 RESTROOM WILL COVER L1 AREA PER CPC 422.4.1) 16,530 SF/30 OCC FACTOR= 551 OCC 551/2 = 276 MEN 276 WOMEN MEN WATER CLOSET: 3 FOR 151-300 OCC URINALS: 2 FOR 201-300 LAVATORIES: 3 FOR 201-400 WOMEN WC: 6 FOR 201-300 LAV:4 FOR 201-400 DRINKING FOUNTAINS/FACILITIES 2 FOR 251-500 1 SERVICE SINK ALL REQUIRED # OF PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE PROVIDED (O.K) EXIT SIGN NOTE PROVIDE TACTILE EXIT SIGNS IN ALL LOCATIONS BELOW AS REQUIRED BY CBC SECTION 1013.4 AND SECTION 1 1 B-216.4.1. SEE TACTILE SIGN DETAILS @ 6/GO.40 AND ACCESSIBLE SIGN LOCATION @ 2/GO.40. 1. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR OR HALLWAY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT ROUTE" SIGN. 2. EACH GRADE -LEVEL EXIT DOOR SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT" SIGN. DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as —built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED AR�y W �G OO O � C370 1 � CP� REN.O -31-27 FOF CA��FO J W 0 O W J O W FZ 0 J w a) >Q JQ J MJ U v W ; W ~ Q W 00 W o J °° w o w Q O Lri a > PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET 02 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET A 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - 1ADDENDUM 2 05/26/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER: A2m10 �J 4 0 N 0 O O I N rn 0 0 N CV - - 0 A2 Al Al A4.11 A3.11 A4.1 l A B C D E F G 120 -0" 7'-0" A2 20'-0" 2 20'-0" 20'-011 „ 20'-0" A5.81 ---- - \ I I i I W 55 EXIT I I A6 0 1 0001 STAIR #4 � � A8.11 I JI I I OQADING I" ZOI�1. N 1 w Q I I r ---_1 --------- --------- - -----IF UP - 18' -4" 5..'SLOPE ❑ Oq �J LO � N ­RAMP N -, \ UP 4%SLOPE I I I � SUP , LOADING � I ' i � I UP 11 i i1S ii I I 132 i- - --- - - - - - N I I ! ! NORTH � 1S1 OUTD R DINING W/ ' ENTRY I I I D3 P , L J PATIO 02 i I DN` 1 1 1 KIOSK 1 REAR ELE ��- - I j F I D2 D2 I - - - - - - ENTRY "' RM ': STOR I TENANT -101m TENANT-105 TENANT-106 I I I I' / ♦ I I I I � �\ 1 HALL 124 I 121 I I 104 105 106 ! ---I- ------------ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 4_Exl - - - - -'------ ------ ------------- ------------+I-- 1 1026 I 132 STAI #1 � 121 I -E-LET � - - - - - - - - - - P E-STWLE - - - - - - - - - - - - - N SERVICE HA AY 1 o C J N♦ 122 -I 23 I 1 / A4I I �Tti i 7------ --------------------r---- A5.81 -- I 1 I I I I I I I I�I M L J L_J L_J L-J L J SELF -ORDER A9 HALLWAY 1 OI ' A8.10 KIOSKS A8.20 133 1 ; HALL � I I 322.78 1 H42'GLASS --------------- -----------I---- TENANT-102 a 137 GUARDRAIL TYP I 102 �- I / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COM ON g A3 SEATING I 1 E11 I 01 A8.12 1KIOSK 2 1 I A8.12 AREA _1 -1 A2 I I L-- EDP 1 A4.1 I -- -�� I AR 7 \ I I III I I I r------------ , I -------------- '\ I III I :KIOSK 3 TYP D5 I I I OTB ------ TENANT-108 ' TENANT-107 1 1 H42"GLASS 1 1KIOSI4 I GUARDRAIL 1 li I I I I AROUND 1 �' 1 1 ---------------�--------------' - - - - - - �/ THE OPE�IiNG---------�- L-- , I � Ili II 1 � � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I I I I I 1 j1 Ex$T CCES I 138E I li STAIR #5 I COMMON 1 Ili I SEATING AREA 1 rA3 rA8A3 A8 _1 -2 1 Al I I O 77 M Ili I A8.20 A8.10 136 I _ - - - - I i - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------- -- 1 it TENANT-103 - - - - -' TYPD3 HALLWAY 2 1 1I 103 0 i ��\ i I '. � ' I I I I(�) MEZZANINE 2 _ _ -- I 01 134I 101D 1, STf UCTURE SHALL I ELEV / I ; IR } I ________ _------------ ----- BE 1 HR RATED HALL I I 101B BYIINTUMESCENT F130 PAIiO . SEESPEC ---------- INFORMATION A9.50T I - - T I NNGW> 1 II BOARD- - ------i, t - - - - - - -- - -- - MAIN PATIO UP �-�-- -- ------ --- HALL 1 _ �- 131 + I; I F 1036 131 ; FOR TENANT 101, (E)WALL 1 - I STRUCTURE '1 HR RATED BY 1s , I INTUMESCE4 PAINT. SEE -- ---- -- I -- - - -------N SPEC @ 2/.9.50 OUTD00 --MI-N------- �T I• I DINING 1 NTR`( 0 / \I E E I 2 1 2 DN , j I I TEN' NT-101 I I I 1 _ 1 �I _ 1 I - --------- ' 11L r 22.78 RAM 2 EE RAMP ' D L @A1 /A5.81 UP I L- 2 1 1 I THE CODE COMPLIANCE OF I THE EXISTING TOILET I I r( FACILITY WILL BE VERIFIED 1 1 COURT BY FUTURE TENANT AT THE SEA ING AREA I UP I , r 1 TIME OF THE TENANT L1-3 , IMPROVEMENT PERMIT I I 4 Al Al A5.81 A3.10 UP P D4 W8'-6" EXIT STAIR #3 -------- I\ I AST I I I I I I 1 I I UUIDUUK ` DINING W/ PATIO 107 _ 1 1S6 Z PORrH I I --------------------- 1 DN DN 17'-6" 0 A3 A5.81 LO N LO N O 0 WALL LEGEND (E)CONCRETE WALL TO BE REFINISHED PER FINISH SCHED. TYP U.N.O NEW CONCRETE WALL (E) CMU WALL (V.I.F) 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL (STC 50) 2HR FIRE RATED WALL (E) BUILDING WALL V. 1. F) NEW METAL STUD WALL - - - - TENANT SPACE L SA L A NOT IN CONTRACT, TO Q BE SEPARATE PERMIT) PARTITION NOTE 1 1. SEE 7.20 FOR ALL PARTITION TYPE NOTE. 2. ALL INTERIOR PARTITION IS D1 U.N.O 3. KEY TAG LEGEND (SEE DTL 7.20 D1 TYPICAL PARTITION U.N.O DEMISING PARTITION D2 B/W TENANTS SHAFT WALL D3 2HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D4 1 HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D5 PIPE & DUCT 1 FURRING (INTERIOR WALL FINISH) FURRING (EXTERIOR WALL FINISH W/ R13 INSULATION) EXIT SIGN NOTE PROVIDE TACTILE EXIT SIGNS IN ALL LOCATIONS BELOW AS REQUIRED BY CBC SECTION 1013.4 AND SECTION 1 1 B-216.4.1. SEE TACTILE SIGN DETAILS @ 6/GO.40 AND ACCESSIBLE SIGN LOCATION @ 2/GO.40. 1. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR OR HALLWAY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT ROUTE" SIGN. 2. EACH GRADE -LEVEL EXIT DOOR SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT" SIGN. A , „ B 20 -0 04 O O DN i 0 II 0 CO TENANT-103M 0VB 103M Oj OL 331.28 0 21w - - - L1 MEZZ 0 16'-6" '-0" i FLOOR PLAN A2MEZZANINE @ LEVEL 1 SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" O A ol FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 i� I SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop, lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as -built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED ARcy W00�/���` O)G C370 1 LP REN.0 -31-27 FOF CA\�\FO J W 0 O J �W/ O I.L m ti >QJa J MJ U v W ; >- W ~ Q W 00 W o °° w o J � LQ Cl) W 00 a > U 00 W V PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET ® 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 05/26/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER: A2ml 1 A2 Al Al A4.11 A3.11 0.11 A B C D E F G 6'-8" 120'-0" 7'-0" 20$-0$$ 20'-0" 20$-0$$ 20'-0" �\20'-0" 20'-0" I I SIM 1 W 55" EXIT 1 A2 I SfF4 A7 SIM A4.20 00 1 1 A8.11 A4 I 1 A4.20 13' 5" 25'- " 1'- » 14'-0 1/2" 5'-0" 9'-1 1/2" N 1 I I I I m I I A1 1 -2 OUTDOOR 4 _l _________ / I \L____ i� A8.10 I SERVICE LEV 1 N __------ -- J VESTIBUL N IN I N.LC I - - - 222 I I I 1 118" TENANT 01 � ; • ly D2 201 I S AI #1 * I 223 TENAN -202 TENANT-203 TY Ell L ELEC I Iw N D5 20 203 RM I J I I E.J I�� \ „ 221 = SEE ENLARGED 8 i DN uP ` I D3 221 154x PLAN@A3/A8.1 1 o1A I I cLR SEE STIR DTL Ia ------------------------- - - - Fr f 3 L 1 -1 233 ----- @5/S-3.5 - L_J L_J SEE SPEC �l SELF -ORDER Al0 @5/A9.50 III KIOSKS A8.20 O AS 343.82 I I � A8.12 L2 F.F p 343.61 N L2 SLAB DZ �--------------.� HALL 1_ I I L__________J I i I i 234 W84" I J EXIT ACCESS -- - - - - - - - - -- I STAR #5 TENANT-207 - - - - - i- - - - - - - DN 207 A2 A4.10 o COMMON � � I I I ; I COMMON I I 1 SEATING AREA LOW I SEATING AREA TENANT-204 o L2 \ 1 BALCONY L2-3 204 I I 340.95 D2 233 2I .I LOW BALCONY ! I `,.. I N. I. C OTB I TENANT-208 - TYP - - - - - - - - -�PD5� - - - - - - - - - 2os - - - - - - - -- - - - D5 SIM I �, I D2 A4 I � I I II . I I A4.20 � �I �� L____________________J ---------------- q2 DP I (E)NO TOPING (E)NO TOPING O CONIC AREA. TO CONC AREA TO A3.11 I III _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � _ / BE RLLED wrrH ` BE Fli r m WITH O TOPPING COMMON TOPPING N I III HALL -- - qg S�ATII$G AREA L2-2 I J N.I.0 Al _ 235 I A8.20 A8.10 232 A4.10-- - ----- - D- 6 ------------- ---- --- ---------- ----- - - - - - - - TENANT-205TY 205 ELEV 1 TENANT-206 TENANT-209 HALL I ,'I Ll 206 209 1230 I:::LJ1i I 230 I ' I I 11 ------ --- 5--------`� ------ 0 A2 A5.61 MR. 1 ►��I 1 � O F �1 CORRIDOR I I I I I TYP SIM A2 A4 A4.20 A4.20 II I II I II 0 I 4 CLASS A FIRE RATING ROOFING 73'-2" 18' -4" J 225 I-------------- 1 W8'-6" EXIT STAIR #3 UPPER E4 I LOWR�E IF-11 I CD 1 I A3 CD C-) I I I N UP DN I D4TMP - I r-------------- l 2�A420S IM 2» --------------- CD CD CD o� �C ' =o CD U '-2 3' 9 1 2" S A4 IM A4.20 FOR TENANT-101, ALL NEWT & EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED BY INTUMESCENT PAINT. SEE SPEC @ 2/A9.50 60'-3" --------------- 44'-1" A2-71-7-7- - - 14'-3" N 0 0) W I I I I FAOI LN WE O A ol FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 i� I SCALE: 3/32"=V-0" WALL LEGEND (E)CONCRETE WALL TO BE REFINISHED PER FINISH SCHED. TYP U.N.O NEW CONCRETE WALL (E) CMU WALL (V.I.F) 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL (STC 50) 2HR FIRE RATED WALL (E) BUILDING WALL (V. 1. F) NEW METAL STUD WALL TENANT SPACE L SA L A NOT IN CONTRACT, TO Q BE SEPARATE PERMIT) PARTITION NOTE 1 1. SEE 7.20 FOR ALL PARTITION TYPE NOTE. 2. ALL INTERIOR PARTITION IS D1 U.N.O 3. KEY TAG LEGEND (SEE DTL 7.20 D1 TYPICAL PARTITION U.N.O DEMISING PARTITION D2 B/W TENANTS SHAFT WALL D3 2HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D4 1 HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D5 PIPE & DUCT 1 FURRING (INTERIOR WALL FINISH) FURRING (EXTERIOR WALL FINISH W/ R13 INSULATION) PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNTS CALCULATION PER CPC TABLE 422.1 FOR L2 RESTROOM AREA 0 OCC TYPE A-2 A-2 FLOOR AREA L2 11,375 SF ROOF 6,396 SF L2+ROOF=17,771 SF (L2 RESTROOM WILL COVER ROOF AREA PER CPC 422.4.1) 17,771 SF/30 OCC FACTOR= 593 OCC 593/2 = 297 MEN 297 WOMEN MEN WATER CLOSET: 3 FOR 151-300 OCC URINALS: 2 FOR 201-300 LAVATORIES: 3 FOR 201-400 WOMEN WC: 6 FOR 201-300 LAV:4 FOR 201-400 DRINKING FOUNTAINS/FACILITIES 2 FOR 251-500 1 SERVICE SINK ALL REQUIRED # OF PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE PROVIDED (O.K) EXIT SIGN NOTE PROVIDE TACTILE EXIT SIGNS IN ALL LOCATIONS BELOW AS REQUIRED BY CBC SECTION 1013.4 AND SECTION 1 1 B-216.4.1. SEE TACTILE SIGN DETAILS @ 6/GO.40 AND ACCESSIBLE SIGN LOCATION @ 2/GO.40. 1. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR OR HALLWAY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT ROUTE" SIGN. 2. EACH GRADE -LEVEL EXIT DOOR SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT" SIGN. DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (Dil and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as -built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED AR�y WO0 O C 3 7 0 1 FOF CA0FO J W 0 O J �W/ O I.L m ti 0 J w a) >Q.Q J v /J� U W Q ' >- Lu � Q LV 00 LV o J°° o w w Q O Lin�' a > PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q2 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET ® 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 05/26/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER: A2m12 I 4 0 N 11 O O 1 N lt O 0 O N A2 Al A4.11 A3.11 A B C D 6'-8" 120'-0" 20'-O" 1 120'-0" 20'-0„ 20'-0" Al A4.11 E F G 7'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 18'-4" J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- ------------------------------------------- ---- ------------------ A2 E.J ® - SEE ENLARGED I Al I A5.80 I ------- ---------------------- --------- PLAN@A4/A8.11 SEE STR DTL SEE SPEC --------- ----------------- --------------------3.5 -------- - EQUIPMENT SCREEN @5/A9 50 (SEE DTL A3/-) 4- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - I i� RO EQ IPM NTA IE�� ; �, 0 I ' L L ❑ �I lul ❑ - r--El ' 1 p 1 I RS3 -------------- ----�' I Si -------I -- i I-- - - E Irl - i i DN - - DN MECH I I m x ^ I FUTURE -, I H8' STOREFRONT j FENCE E _ _ _ _'_ _ _ N.I.0 I I 1 to W/GATE N �;''P I W 4" EXIT I - - - - MECH I �- -- - - ---- I T(P - I STAIR #1 I- - SERVICE - - I - - - -I 02 - 02 I- I W8'-6 I D4 - - - - 111111�G -� EXITS - Ic> TENANT-R01 01 I 5 J i i I #3 0 01 R01------I 10 0 I t - - - - - `I A5 FEN A11 ! FIXTURE I--1- A8.1i) 1 W/G E 8.20 i STOREFRONT I - - - - - - - - - - - I-------------------�-- I COMMON I NJI.0 01A ROOF ACCESS�, SEATING AREA 1 A7 1; WitI A4 MAIN STAIROTENANT-R028.12DNR 3 R02E 1I 3 8.20 R OF DECK ------- ------------------- ---3 7.2D I I II R OF SLAB I 101 I �q I U 101 II -------------- ' o -------------- III r 1 R05 I I Ld A2 I I WB li i I wcJ 1 y--- E1 I I W I t ST IR II I 05 + 4.10 I 11 I I OMMON /0 I;i OUTDOOR ; m 05 TENANT-R05 III I II I rn 05 ATING AREA 2 1 -i 04 I I I, DINING R05 IRoy i I ROOF, I I Ii I I EQUIPMENT 04 11 ii I 05 I I AREA, - - -- - -+ ---- ,- -- --j- -�- i -- - - - - - - T El 04 I g I I iII ---------------- --------�- i1I I1 COMMON I i 1I FWT�i RE------- .N1 - - ; RO6 1 1 SEATING AREA 3 ; STOREFRONT i I I 00 R� � I I I I I I r' R,3 I I I \ I 00�0000000�0000000�000000000 I I TENANT-R04 L_ , ____ L--------- 1 TE�ARt�R03----F------I---- I DINING 0 04 R04 Al I R03 -- ---' 4.10 I i \ RS2 - - - - -; tL-- �- -1-- 1---1 - - - - - - - - - - m D5 S TY� I I ® I- -FUTURE o 04 iD3 III I I D3 li P STOREFRONT 03 0 3 Ion FUTURE - ELEV I ; I DIN - - MECH N}I.0 1 ARRIV/�L III I STOREFRONT I , N.I.0 q PORCI� I LEC OUT�OOR R21 ' H8' DINI G R03 �I 3 03 03 03 III D3 W 0" E I FENCE ' D5 S 358.20 III I I ST W/GATE ------ 04 ROOF DEOK FIN -- -�-- - --t-- -L _--- --- - -- t..- - --- -�-I -fl -�- -- 04 - - - 04 - \ I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- -- --- --- -- - -1 - - 1 , - -A� A�0comm R 3 CO - - - - - -1- L--I-------_--- i_ __ _______ ------ __J i I A8.20 A8.10 SEATING ARE 82) OF DECK - I I 1 I I ------------� ' -L----------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------- ---- ----- LM 46'-9" 20'-0" 55'-0 1 /2" 1 1'-8 1 /2" � Al B C A3 D G HVAC EQUIPMENT FAUX A3.10 EQUP. p 1 1 - 8 -10 20 -0 20 -0 6 -2 1 - 8 -6 1/2 CR SUP ORT FENCE DTL @2/LC-4 I„I LANDSCAPE PLAN STL GUARDRAIL T. 0. PARAP ET J J l ^ , o ` I O (.0 ` I SEE FENCE ANCHOR BUILDING STRUCTURE DTL @4/S-3.5 ROOF EQUIPMENT PLAN A #2 CROSS SECTION SCALE: 1/2"=V-O" r-------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------• EQUIPMENT SCREEN I I I II El RO EQI IPM NT A ❑[f ❑i ❑ 0 [11 F1 El I� I` ---------- J DN MECH I ! I 1'4" 58'-0 1/2" ROOF EQUIPMENT AREA A2DETAIL PLAN SCALE: 3/32"=V-0" 0 I 0 0 N 0 0 A 1 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3/32"=V-0" O WALL LEGEND (E)CONCRETE WALL TO BE REFINISHED PER FINISH SCHED. TYP U.N.O '- NEW CONCRETE WALL (E) CMU WALL (V.I.F) 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL (STC 50) 2HR FIRE RATED WALL (E) BUILDING WALL (V. 1. F) NEW METAL STUD WALL TENANT SPACE L SA iL A NOT IN CONTRACT, TO Q BE SEPARATE PERMIT) PARTITION NOTE 1 1. SEE 7.20 FOR ALL PARTITION TYPE NOTE. 2. ALL INTERIOR PARTITION D1 U.N.O IS 3. KEY TAG LEGEND (SEE DTL 7.20 D1 TYPICAL PARTITION U.N.O DEMISING PARTITION D2 B/W TENANTS SHAFT WALL D3 2HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D4 1 HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D5 PIPE & DUCT 1 FURRING (INTERIOR WALL FINISH) FURRING (EXTERIOR WALL FINISH W/ R13 INSULATION) ROOF ASSEMBLY TYPE SEE TYPE DETAIL @ A7.20 R 1 TENANT/CENTER STAIR ROOF R2 ELEVATOR/EXIT STAIR ROOF R3 ROOF DECK TYPE V-A NOTE 1. ALL EXPOSED STL POSTS AND BEAMS OF SHADE STRUCTURES FOR BAR & COMMON SEATING AREA SHALL BE 1 HR FIRE RATED BY INTUMESCENT FIRE PROTECTION SPRAY COAT U.N.O. SEE SPEC SHEET @ 2/A9.50 2. SEE NON -EXPOSED 1 HR FIRE ,,ATED ROOF STRUCTURE DTL @ , R A7.20 EXIT SIGN NOTE PROVIDE TACTILE EXIT SIGNS IN ALL LOCATIONS BELOW AS REQUIRED BY CBC SECTION 1013.4 AND SECTION 1 1 B-216.4.1. SEE TACTILE SIGN DETAILS @ 6/GO.40 AND ACCESSIBLE SIGN LOCATION @ 2/GO.40. 1. EACH EXIT ACCESS DOOR FROM AN INTERIOR ROOM OR AREA TO A CORRIDOR OR HALLWAY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT ROUTE" SIGN. 2. EACH GRADE -LEVEL EXIT DOOR SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A TACTILE "EXIT" SIGN. DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as -built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED ARcy WO0�/���` O�G C370 1 3127 FOF CA��FO J W 0 O W J O W FZ 0 J w a� >QJa J MJ U v W ; >- W ti Q LU 00 LV o J °° w o w Q O Lid 00 a > U 00 PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET Al 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q2 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 06/23/23 PERMIT SET ® 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 05/26/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: ROOF PLAN SHEET NUMBER: A2m13 �J 4 0 0 N 0 O O I N rn 0 0 N A2 Al Al A4.11 A3.11 A4.1 l A B C D E F G 2'- " 120'-0" 7'-0T1 " 2C-O" 20'-0" 2C-O" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" BUILDING OUTLINE 3 1/2" 9'-0" 39'-6" 8'-2" BELOW 3'-0 1 2" 38'-6" 3'-4 9'-5" - ITr - SH DE SAILS 6'-4 1 2" 15'-7 1/2" 1 '-6" 372.7 R 2 368.20 0. S TEN NT ROOF ROOF CRICKET AREA BUILDING OUTLINE BELOW MTL DRIP EDGE - FLASHING ALL SIDES PER SPEC. TYP LO ca - W4" CONCEALED GUTTER A2 A4.10 DASH LINE:- BLDG EXTERIOR WALL BLW TYP Al A4.10 04 cD ❑ ROOF CRICKET - - -- AREA STAIR 1 T.O.Pi R,D- SUNS A E SAILS o I " R1 �r N N Cn 1,1_ » EXIT ELEV N ROOF OR » \ t "I STAIR#1 "1 375.70 24 -1 1/2 / o ROOF I P.R.T.O.P SER ICE N R60E- I MTL DRIP EDGE C° VALLEY I LOPE FLASHING ALL SIDES I----�27-- 1 C N P PER SPEC. TYP I 3 N TENANT F ---- - -- - - t �4"C1�EACED--- - I R.D GUTTER r- I O.S 367.45 R 2 359.53 !` CANOPY LOW EDGE SKYLIGHT LOW EDG 1 Q I O � / I I 61.2 MTL DRIP EDGE 3RIDG SKYLIGHT RIDGE 4_',_ CLASS A FLASHING ALL SIDE SKYLIGHT 2% ROOFING TY� PER SPEC. TYP A2 BLW SLOPE SEE SPEC DASH LINE: A4.47 370.2 I I 1 @7/A9.52 I BLDG EXTERIOR TENANT ROOF I �OOF �" 00 0 5'-�WALL BLW TYP 21'-0" -0 VALLEY N ------ -- - 2% - I -� 373.53 - - - -- - - - - c0 -� --- // --�- 1 1 ° 1 TENANT ROOF ------------� "I SLOPE " 367.7 1 N i TENANT ROOF I a_ t i R 1 TENANT iv CENTER STAIR ROOF 1 W4"CONCEALED I _J I " j ROOF I GUTTER i N TENANT I I ZPE ; 3L25TENANT RO� I N OF 1 FUTURE367.7 R 1 1 _J TENANT ROOF I I TENANT TENANT'S I I I I ROOF 1 EXHAUST ---------- I 0 -4-- FAN TYP - - - - -� I- - 5-�- - - �- %( ROOFING TYP 1 H3 --=- 0 1 35s.53 I SEE SPEC - 1 SCREEN I I SKYLIGHT LOW EDG - I @7/A9.52 TYP _ I R 1 361.2 1 r - - -� J SKYLIGHT RIDGE Ll of � TENANT SKYLIGHT % I I I O ROOF TENANT ROOF BLVJ 1 1'0-11 1 " 2M 366.7 I LOPE 1 � 1 1 - 6 TENANT ROOF I SLOPE 1Alk 373.53 - P.R.T.O.P GUEST " ------ 1 ROOF I `n - -+---1-- --�- - - - -- ---- - - - --I� - - -- --�- -VALLEY` - I 1 - - " I W4 N ROOF H3' 1 <O,o �Q 0 I CONCEALED w � VALLEY N --- SCREBN , F ��� I 1 GUTTER o TYP I b� _J 1 tLFVATOR N 2 - N IR 1 '� I j �EXiT�AIR R2 0 1 "I Q� #2 R00� _0---,-------- - I I _ - i-fi------------------ -- �- - - - ------ - - -- -- --- -mod--- 366.9 R. D - I OPY LOW EDG S TENATENA NT R00 I I I 2 -0" 21'-3" 8'-9' '-0' 11 1/2" C-O" 2" 4'' 11 1 2 " ' 10-1 1 241-0 1 " 32'-0" 25'-10" / / 5'-0 1/2" 3'-O» BUILDING DASH, LINE:- DASH LINE:- OUTLINE BLDG EXTERIOR BLDG EXTERIOR BELOW WALK BLW WALL LW TYP TYP R.D O.S 18' -4" R2 � EXIT STAIR #3 ROOF CLASS A ROOFING TYP SEE SPEC ❑ @7/A9.52 ROOF CRICKET AREA BUILDING OUTLINE BELOW --------------- MTL DRIP EDGE FLASHING ALL SIDES PER SPEC. TYP (DIN AlPENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3/32"=1 '-0" WALL LEGEND (E)CONCRETE WALL TO BE REFINISHED PER FINISH SCHED. TYP U.N.O '- NEW CONCRETE WALL (E) CMU WALL (V.I.F) 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL (STC 50) 2HR FIRE RATED WALL (E) BUILDING WALL (V. 1. F) NEW METAL STUD WALL TENANT SPACE L SA L A JNOT IN CONTRACT, TO BE SEPARATE PER PARTITION NOTE 1 1. SEE 7.20 FOR ALL PARTITION TYPE NOTE. 2. ALL INTERIOR PARTITION IS D1 U.N.O 3. KEY TAG LEGEND (SEE DTL 7.20 D1 TYPICAL PARTITION U.N.O DEMISING PARTITION D2 B/W TENANTS SHAFT WALL D3 2HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D4 1 HR FIRE RATE SHAFT WALL D5 PIPE & DUCT 1 FURRING (INTERIOR WALL FINISH) FURRING (EXTERIOR WALL FINISH W/ R13 INSULATION) ROOF NOTE 1. ABBREBIATION 1.1. R.D: ROOF DRAIN 1.2. O.S: OVERFLOW SCUPPER 2. ALL ROOF @ A2.14 TO BE CLASS A ROOFING U.N.O. SEE ROOFING SPEC @ 7/A9.52 3. ALL PARAPETS SHALL BE COVERED W/ 22 GA MTL COPING U.N.O. COLOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT/OWNER. 4. ALL TENANT ROOFS SHALL HAVE 22 GA MTL DRIP EDGE FLASHING U.N.O. COLOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT/ OWNER. 5. ALL ROOFS SHALL HAVE MIN 2% SLOPE TO THE EDGE OF THE ROOF (ROOF R1) OR TO THE ROOF DRAIN (ROOF R2 AND R3) IN ORDER TO DRAIN OUT ALL STORMWATER OR WATER. 6. ALL ROOF WATERPROOF SURFACES SHALL PASS THE WATER PONDING TEST BEFORE C OF 0.. 7. ALL TENANT ROOF ELEVATION INDICATED LOWEST EDGE OF THE ROOF SURFACE U.N.O ROOF ASSEMBLY TYPE SEE TYPE DETAIL @ A7.20 R 1 TENANT/CENTER STAIR ROOF R2 ELEVATOR/EXIT STAIR ROOF R3 ROOF DECK DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as -built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED ARcy \NO0�/���` O�G C370 1 CP REN.O 31-27 FOF CA\.\FO J W 0 O W J O W FZ 0 J w a� >QJQ J MJ U v W ; >- W Q LV 00 LV o °° w o J � w Q O Lri 00 a > U 00 PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q2 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 06/23/23 PERMIT SET ® 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 105/26/251 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 05/26/25 SHEET TITLE: PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN SHEET NUMBER: A2m14 A V w 0 0 (D 0 J m W a_ H (D w c� 0 J m I N 110 1 15'-10" 78'-4" 3'-4 1 2" 108'-5 1 /2" 7'-4 1/2" 9'-7 1 /2" 68'-8 1 /2" BALCONY CEILING (D (0 M (0 0 I 'nOgL GUARDRAIL TOP L I CY- iO 0 (0 L2 F.F CD 0)- -N SHADE: OPENING AREA BALCONY LINE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR SHADE: OPENING AREA BALCONY LINE MEASURED BY CAD CENTER LINE @ CORNER CENTER LINE @ CORNER MEASURED BY CAD BALCONY SOUTH UNIT: SF BALCONY TOTAL AREA: 1042.62 BALCONY OPENING AREA: 564.09 (54.1 %, OK) Ian' EGRESS BALCONY OPENING CALCULATION SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" BALCONY EAST 1 UNIT: SF BALCONY TOTAL AREA: 704.86 BALCONY OPENING AREA: 359.70 (51.03%, OK) A2 BUILDING ELELVATION EAST SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" P.R.T.O.P SERVICE P.R.T.O.P GUEST W1104i1 OIL 358.20 ROOF DECK FIN 357.20 ROOF SLAB 343.82 L2 F. F 343.61 341.45 T.O.P TENANT 101 OIL 322.78 L1 BUILDING ELELVATION A 1 SOUTH SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" CORRIDOR CENTER LINE @ CORNER SHADE: OPENING AREA MEASURED BY CAD BALCONY EAST 2 UNIT: SF BALCONY TOTAL AREA: 30.38 BALCONY OPENING AREA: 17.92 (58.99%, OK) NOTE 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGES DUE TO CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS AND/OR UNEXPECTED SITE CONDITIONS 2. ALL WINDOW GLASS TO BE IGU U.N.O. SEE T24 ENERGY CALCULATION FOR GLAZING PERFORMANCE SUCH AS U-FACTOR & SHGC VALUE. 3. ALL STEEL COAT SHALL BE POWDER COAT U.N.O 4. ALL PARAPET TO BE COVERED WITH METAL COPING TYP. U.N.O MATERIAL KEY FM-T-_11 ALUM. COMPOSITE MTL CLADDING PANEL W/ METALLIC SILVER COAT M17 ALUM. MTL TUBE W/ METALLIC SILVER COAT FM—T--31 ALUM. COMPOSITE MTL CLADDING PANEL W/ DARK GRAY COAT FG_L_-11 CLEAR IGU GLASS VISION GL-2 CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL SEE SPEC @ 6/A9.50 FC_N_-11 CONCRETE FINISH (CEMENT RENDERING OR GLASSFIBER-REINFORCED CONIC' PANEL) CN-2 EXPOSED CONIC' FINISH WD-1 RESIN PANEL WOOD LOOK FWD-2 WOOD PLASTIC COMPOSITE SIDING SW-1 (E)STL STOREFRONT WINDOW TO BE REPAINTED W/DARK GRAY FAW-1 ALUM. ANODIZED STOREFRONT WINDOW FAW-2 ALUM. ANODIZED BI-FOLDING DOOR PNT-1 EXTERIOR GRADE PAINT W/G RAY EQS-1 H6' BUSH EQUIPMENT SCREEN FL—C-_11 TRANSLUCENT COLOR POLYMER RESIN CASING W/LED LIGHTING BEHIND SG-1 STL GUARD DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as —built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED ARcy W 00 Irl. o�G REN.0 -31-27 F0F CP,0F J LU a O 0 LiJ.I J O m FZ 0 J w a� >Q-Q J MJ U v W ; >- Lu ~ a W 00 w J M °° W o w Q O Lid 00 a > U 00 W V PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET 0 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET Q2 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET A 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 02/14/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 02/14/25 SHEET TITLE: BUILDING ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER: A110 A3 D.SOUTH C.EAST TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" B.NORTH A.WEST 0'-0" LEVEL 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE 33'-11" 62'-6 1 /2" 11'-1" 10'-ill o 0) I 7' -4„ CORRIDOR SHADE. OPENING AREA BALCONY LINE CENTER LINE @ CORNER MEASURED BY CAD BALCONY NORTH UNIT: SF BALCONY TOTAL AREA: 562.77 BALCONY OPENING AREA: 299.55 (53.23%, OK) EGRESS BALCONY A4OPENING CALCULATION SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" BALCONY CEILING GUARDRAIL TOP OIL L2 F.F A2 Al NOTE 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGES DUE TO CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS AND/OR UNEXPECTED SITE CONDITIONS 2. ALL WINDOW GLASS TO BE IGU U.N.O. SEE T24 ENERGY CALCULATION FOR RVICE GLAZING PERFORMANCE SUCH AS U-FACTOR & EST SHGC VALUE. 3. ALL STEEL COAT SHALL BE POWDER COAT U.N.O 4. ALL PARAPET TO BE F COVERED WITH METAL COPING TYP. U.N.O FIN Audi BUILDING ELELVATION WEST SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" BUILDING ELELVATION NORTH SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" MATERIAL KEY FM—T-_11 ALUM. COMPOSITE MTL CLADDING PANEL W/ METALLIC SILVER COAT M17 ALUM. MTL TUBE W/ METALLIC SILVER COAT FM—T--31 ALUM. COMPOSITE MTL CLADDING PANEL W/ DARK GRAY COAT FG_L_-11 CLEAR IGU GLASS VISION FG-L--21 CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL SEE SPEC @ 6/A9.50 FC_N_-11 CONCRETE FINISH (CEMENT RENDERING OR GLASSFIBER-REINFORCED CONIC' PANEL) CN-2 EXPOSED CONIC' FINISH WD-1 RESIN PANEL WOOD LOOK FWD-2 WOOD PLASTIC COMPOSITE SIDING SW-1 (E)STL STOREFRONT WINDOW TO BE REPAINTED W/DARK GRAY FAW-1 ALUM. ANODIZED STOREFRONT WINDOW FAW-2 ALUM. ANODIZED BI-FOLDING DOOR PNT-1 EXTERIOR GRADE PAINT W/G RAY EQS-1 H6' BUSH EQUIPMENT SCREEN FL-C-_11 TRANSLUCENT COLOR POLYMER RESIN CASING W/LED LIGHTING BEHIND SG-1 STL GUARD DK design workshop 818 S BROADWAY #1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 TEL 323 591 0432 EMAIL INFO@DKDESIGNWORKSHOP.COM This and all other project documents and all ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are the registered property of DK design workshop,lnc (DK), and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as described in the contractual agreement between DK and Client. DK hereby gives formal notice that any such project document use, reproduction or modification (misuse) is not only unlawful but also automatically binds all parties involved with misuse to fully indemnify and defend DK and DK's Consultants to the maximum legal extent against all losses, demands, claims or liabilities arising directly or indirectly from project document misuse. Project documents describe design intent of work and are not a representation of as —built or existing conditions. DK and DK's consultants make no representations concerning the accuracy of documents and are not responsible for any discrepancies between project documents and the existing conditions. @ Copyright 2016 AHJ STAMP APPROVAL SED ARcy W o�G 00 Irl. REN.0 -31-27 F0F CP,0F J W 0 O 0 W J O m FZ 0 J w a� >Q�Q J MJ U v W ; >- Lu ~ a Ill � 00LU J M °° W o ii w Q O L00 a > U 00 W V PRINT RECORD: REV # DATE DESCRIPTION 06/13/22 PERMIT PLAN CHECK SET Al 01 /31 /23 CORRECTION SET 02 03/29/23 PERMIT SET 0 06/23/23 PERMIT SET A 09/18/23 PERMIT SET 10/27/23 BID SET 0 03/05/24 ADDENDUM 1 0 - ADDENDUM 2 02/14/25 ADDENDUM 3 PROJECT NAME: VALLEY BLVD COMMERCIAL REMODELING PROJECT SITE: 8855, 8877 VALLEY BLVD. ROSEMEAD CA 91770 DATE: DRAWN BY: 02/14/25 SHEET TITLE: BUILDING ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER: All 1