Loading...
PC - Item 3B - Zone Variance 10-02 and Modification 10-04 at 9026 Valley BoulevardROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MARCH 19, 2012 SUBJECT: ZONE VARIANCE 10 -02 AND MODIFICATION 10 -04 9026 VALLEY BOULEVARD Summary Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc. (Fresh and Easy) has submitted applications for a Zone Variance and a Modification requesting to deviate from the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall that is required by Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Sections 17.12.090 and 17.84.130. RMC Section 17.84.130 requires the installation of a six -foot tall masonry wall where a parking area abuts property classified for residential uses. RMC Section 17.12.190 requires that a six -foot masonry wall be installed where a commercially zoned lot has a common lot line with a residentially zoned property. Based on these codes, the block wall would be required along the southern portion of the east property line where the subject property abuts a residential lot. All other block walls have been installed within the development and meet municipal code requirements. The modification request that is being sought by the applicant is not a request to modify the original project conditions of approval, but rather is a request that allows the Planning Commission to grant relief from the block wall requirement in accordance the provisions of RMC Section 17.12.190. Since the approval of a Zone Variance is required for relief of RMC Section 17.84.130, and the Zone Variance provisions impose more stringent approval regulations than those under RMC Section 17.12.190, the Zone Variance review regulations are being applied to both requests. The subject property is located at 9026 Valley Boulevard in the CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone. Environmental Determination Section 15304(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts projects consisting of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, such as new gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping. Section 15305(a) of CEQA exempts projects consisting of minor alterations to land use limitations, such as Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Paoe 2 of 16 minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. Accordingly, Modification 10 -04 and Zone Variance 10 -02 are classified as a Class 4 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15304(b) and Class 5 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15305(a) of CEQA. Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12 -06 with findings (Exhibit "A ") subject to the eleven (11) conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Property History and Description The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard. The site consists of one (1) parcel totaling approximately 78,555 square feet (1.8 acres). On July 6, 2009, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03 for the construction of the 13,969 square -foot Fresh and Easy with a retail beer and wine (Type 20) Alcohol Beverage Control license. The building construction has been completed. On August 5, 2010, Fresh and Easy submitted applications for a Zone Variance and Modification to the Planning Division requesting to deviate from the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall that is required by Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Sections 17.12.090 and 17.84.130. For reference, RMC Sections 17.84.130 and 17.12.190 state the following: RMC Section 17.84.130 states where parking area abuts property classified for R uses, it shall be separated therefrom by a solid masonry wall, six feet in height, provided the wall, from the front property line to a depth equal to the required front yard on the abutting R classified property, shall be forty -two (42) inches in height..". RMC Section 17.12.190 states that "any owner, lessee, occupant or agent constructing or causing the construction of any building, building addition, accessory building, or repairs estimated by the Building Department to have a value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or more upon any commercially used and zoned lot adjacent to property zoned and used for residential purposes shall construct a six -foot high masonry wall along the property line where the commercially zoned lot has a common or rear lot line with a residentially zoned property. Although, both provisions require the construction of a block wall, RMC Section 17.12.190 includes a provision that allows an applicant to obtain a modification from the Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 16 provisions of RMC Section 17.12.190 by filing a written request with the Planning Commission. For this reason, an approval of a modification application was sought in accordance with RMC Section 17.12.090, and a Zone Variance was sought to deviate from the requirements of Section 17.84.130. The Zone Variance and Modification applications were noticed for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on August 16, 2010. However, the Planning Division requested a continuance of the public hearing in order to give Fresh and Easy additional time to prove that permits could not be obtained to build the required wall. The Planning Commission Memo, the August 16, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and original project conditions of approval have been attached as Exhibits "C," "D," and "E" respectively. On September 7, 2010, the City of Rosemead Community Development Department made a minor modification to the conditions of the project and entered into a letter agreement with the business and property owner. The letter agreement required a monetary deposit of $59,211.10 and allowed Fresh and Easy Market to open their business prior to the construction of the block wall provided that they continued to make progress on either building the required block wall or obtaining a decision on applications for the Zone Variance and Modification from the Planning Commission. The deposit was intended to satisfy the cost of the City building the block wall, in the event that the applicant did not make progress on the terms of the agreement. West Elevation Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Paoe 4 of 16 Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map it is designated CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial South: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial East: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial West: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial Administrative Analvsis Since September 2010, Fresh and Easy has explored options to comply with RMC Sections 17.84.130 and 17.12.190, which require the construction of a six foot high masonry wall along the southern portion of the development site's east property line where it abuts a residential lot. However, the size and location of an existing AT &T easement located in the area where the block wall should be built, has made it difficult for the market to satisfy the municipal code requirements. On February 13, 2012, Fresh and Easy submitted a letter (attached as "Exhibit F ") requesting both a Zone Variance and Modification from the block wall requirement. While the Fresh and Easy is new construction, the masonry fence along the southern portion of the east property line is existing, and non - conforming due to height. The existing wall is 62 inches (5' -2 ") high. According to Fresh and Easy the four -foot wide AT &T (originally PacBell) telephone easement runs along the east property line, from north to south. The construction of a new masonry wall would require the relocation of the telephone easement and a buried telephone cable. Correspondence from AT &T, which is included as Attachment "J" in the letter submitted by Fresh and Easy under Exhibit "F" supports this conclusion. AT &T states that due .to the location of the cable, unrestricted access must be maintained. The store is also concerned that the construction of a new masonry wall may damage the existing light pole that is located along this property line. Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Paoe 5 of 16 Fresh and Easy also explored extending the height of the existing 5' -2" brick wall to six feet. However, according to Fresh and Easy's Structural Engineer, the existing structural foundation was found not to be structurally capable of carrying additional concrete masonry wall load. The Structural Engineers review is included as Attachment "F" in Fresh and Easy's letter. After reviewing both options, the applicant has indicated that neither option is feasible. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required block wall based on the special existing physical circumstances on the property, specifically the easement located along the east property line, between Fresh and Easy and the adjacent residential property. The intent of the Rosemead Municipal Code by requiring the construction of the six -foot masonry wall is to prevent impacts of noise, light, and glare on the adjacent residential property. The applicant is proposing to maintain and paint the existing 5' -2" brick wall and install new six feet high landscaping within the existing landscape planter adjacent to the wall to supplement the requirement. A landscape plan indicating the proposed screening has been attached as Exhibit "H ". As illustrated on the plans, the applicant is proposing to install thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig). This plant material is fast growing and the landscape plan indicates that the plant material will be six -feet in height when installed. The hedge should become fully established within 6 to 8 months. A Condition of Approval has been added to ensure that the hedge, once fully established, is maintained at a height of six -feet. Municipal Code Requirements Zone Variance Section 17.84.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires the installation of a six - foot high solid masonry wall where parking area abuts property classified for residential uses. The applicant is proposing to maintain and paint an existing 5' -2" brick wall and to supplement the required 6' -0" high masonry wall with new 6' -0" high landscaping. An applicant must obtain a Zone Variance in order to create a development that does not meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets criteria required for granting such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a variance will not: • Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; The applicant has attempted to meet the requirement of constructing a six -foot high masonry wall by exploring two options. The first option was to construct a new masonry wall along the common property line between the market and the adjacent residential property. However, the construction of a new six -foot masonry wall is not Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 6 of 16 feasible due to the size and location of an existing four -foot wide AT &T (originally PacBell) telephone easement, which runs north and south along the property line. The construction of a new masonry wall would require the relocation of the telephone easement and existing telephone cable. In addition, the construction of a new masonry wall presents the potential of damaging the existing light pole that is located along that property line. Fresh and Easy proposed extending the height of the existing 5' -2" brick wall to six - feet. According to Fresh and Easy's Structural Engineer, the existing structural foundation is found to be structurally not capable of supporting any additional concrete masonry wall load. Due to the location and size of the easement, which is a special existing physical circumstance on the subject property, strict enforcement of Section 17.84.130 causes hardship. Therefore, the approval of the application does not constitute a grant of special privilege to the property owner inconsistent from other properties in the neighborhood. • Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; Fresh and Easy has completed the construction stage of their project. The applicant is requesting relief from the six -foot high masonry wall requirement due to the special existing physical circumstances on the property, which is the location of a four -foot wide AT &T telephone easement along the east property line. To prevent impacts of noise, light, and glare on the adjacent residential property, the applicant is proposing to maintain and paint the existing 5' -2" brick wall located in this area, and supplement the requirement by installing thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located along the common property line between the market and the residential property. The installation of dense landscaping, in combination with the existing 5' -2" brick wall, will provide a substantial buffer to the adjacent residential property. • Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan; and The General Plan will not be adversely affected by the zone variance request. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as Commercial and the proposed project is consistent in all ways with the General Plan. In addition, the zone variance application requesting relief from the required six -foot high masonry wall will not, in anyway alter the use of the land. The applicant is proposing to maintain and paint the existing 5' -2" brick wall, and supplement the requirement by installing thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located along the subject property line to prevent impacts of noise, light, and glare on the adjacent residential Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 7 of 16 property. The plant material will be six -feet tall when planted, and the proposed hedge will be fully established within a period of six to eight months. 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. Due to the special existing physical circumstances that the four -foot wide AT &T telephone easement poses on the subject property, the applicant is unable to meet the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall along the common property line between the market and the adjacent residential property. The applicant has attempted to meet the requirement of constructing a 6' -0" high masonry wall by exploring two options. The first option was to construct a new masonry wall along the common property line between the market and the adjacent residential property. However, the construction of a new six -foot masonry wall is not feasible due to the size and location of an existing four -foot wide AT &T (originally PacBell) telephone easement, which runs north and south along the property line. The construction of a new masonry wall would require the relocation of the telephone easement and a telephone cable. In addition, the construction of a new masonry wall presents the potential of damaging the existing light pole that is located along that property line. Fresh and Easy proposed extending the height of the existing 5' -2" brick wall to six - feet. According to Fresh and Easy's Structural Engineer, the existing structural foundation is found not to be structurally capable of carrying any additional concrete masonry wall load. For these reasons, the applicant is proposing to maintain and paint the existing 5' -2" brick wall and to supplement the requirement by installing thirty-six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located in this area. The plant material will be six -feet tall when planted and the proposed hedge will be fully established within a period of six to eight months. Modification Section 17.12.190 of the Rosemead Municipal code requires that a six -foot masonry wall be installed where a commercially zoned lot has a common line with a residentially zoned property. The applicant is proposing to maintain and paint an existing 5' -2" brick wall and to install thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located along the southeast property line. Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 8 of 16 An applicant must obtain a Modification application to deviate from the six -foot masonry wall requirement. Section 17.12.190 sets the criteria required for granting a modification. The Planning Commission shall give the application for such modification an opportunity to be heard if he or she so desires, and thereafter may grant or deny the application for the modification, or may grant the same upon such conditions as the Planning Commission deems necessary for the preservation of the safety, health or property of the general public. Fresh and Easy has completed the construction stage of their project. The applicant is requesting to deviate from the six -foot high masonry wall requirement due to the special existing physical circumstances on the subject property, which is the four - foot wide AT &T telephone easement that runs north and south along the east property line. To prevent impacts of noise, light, and glare on the adjacent residential property, the applicant is proposing to maintain and paint an existing T -2" brick wall and install thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located along the subject property line. The plant material will be six -feet tall when planted and the proposed hedge will be fully established within a period of six to eight months. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, a 300 -foot property owner public hearing notice to fifty -nine (59) property owners, and posting of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted by: Lily Trinh Michelle Ramirez Assistant Planner Acting Community Deve opment Director A7:fl3i&3 A. Resolution 12 -06 B. Conditions of Approval C. Planning Commission Memo, dated August 16, 2010 D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated August 16, 2010 E. Original Project Conditions for DR 09 -04 and CUP 09 -03, dated July 6, 2009 F. Letter from Applicant G. Assessor's Parcel Map H. Landscape Plan EXHIBIT "A" Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Paae 9 of 16 PC RESOLUTION 12 -06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE VARIANCE 10 -02 AND MODIFICATION 10 -04 FOR THE RELIEF FROM ROSEMEAD MUNICIAPL CODE SECTIONS 17.12.190 AND 17.84.130 FOR DEVELOPMENT SITE LOCATED AT 9026 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD -D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 8954 - 001 -031). WHEREAS, on August 5, 2010, Fresh and Easy, Inc. submitted a Zone Variance and a Modification application requesting to deviate from the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall along the southeast property line; WHEREAS, this property located at 9026 Valley Boulevard is located in the CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the purpose and criteria for Zone Variance approval; Section 17.12.190 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria to modify from the construction of a six -foot high masonry wall; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Sections 17.108.020 and 17.12.190 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve or .deny zone variance and modification applications; and WHEREAS, Section 17.84.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires the installation of a six -foot solid masonry wall where parking area abuts property classified for residential uses; and WHEREAS, an applicant must obtain a Zone Variance in order to create a development that does not meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets criteria required for granting such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a variance will not: A. Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; B. Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; C.. Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan; and Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 10 of 16 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 classifications. WHEREAS, Section 17.12.190 of the Rosemead Municipal code requires that a six -foot masonry wall be installed where a commercially zoned lot has a common line with a residentially zoned property. Section 17.12.190 sets the criteria required for granting a modification; E. The Planning Commission shall give the application for such modification an opportunity to be heard if he or she so desires, and thereafter may grant or deny the application for the modification, or may grant the same upon such conditions as the Planning Commission deems necessary for the preservation of the safety, health or property of the general public. WHEREAS, on August 16, 2010, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, fifty -six (56) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations and onsite, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the special public hearing for Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04, and on March 9, 2012, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04; 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 Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 are classified as a Class 4 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15304(b) and Class 5 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15305(a) of CEQA guidelines. Section 15304(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts projects consisting of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, such as new gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping. Section 15305(a) of CEQA exempts projects consisting of Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 11 of 16 minor alterations to land use limitations, such as minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Variance 10 -02 in accordance with Section 17.108.020 et seq., of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; FINDING: The applicant has attempted to meet the requirement of constructing a six -foot high masonry wall by exploring two options. The first option was to construct a new masonry wall along the common property line between the market and the adjacent residential property. However, the construction of a new six -foot masonry wall is not feasible due to the size and location of an existing four -foot wide AT &T (originally PacBell) telephone easement, which runs north and south along the property line. The construction of a new masonry wall would require the relocation of the telephone easement and telephone cable. In addition, the construction of a new masonry wall presents the potential of damaging the existing light pole that is located along that property line. Fresh and Easy proposed extending the height of the existing 5' -2" brick wall to six -feet. According to Fresh and Easy's Structural Engineer, the existing structural foundation is found to be structurally not capable of supporting any additional concrete masonry wall load. Due to the location and size of the easement, which is a special existing physical circumstance on the subject property, strict enforcement of Section 17.84.130 causes hardship. Therefore, the approval of the application does not constitute a grant of special privilege to the property owner inconsistent from other properties in the neighborhood. B. Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; FINDING: Fresh and Easy has completed the construction stage of their project. The applicant is requesting relief from the six -foot high masonry wall requirement due to the special existing physical circumstances on the property, which is the location of a four -foot wide AT &T telephone easement along the east property line. To prevent impacts of noise, light, and glare on the adjacent residential property, the applicant is proposing to maintain and paint the existing 6-2" brick wall located in this area, and supplement the requirement by installing thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located along the common property line between the market and the residential property. The installation Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Paae 12 of 16 of dense landscaping, in combination with the existing 5-2" brick wall, will provide a substantial buffer to the adjacent residential property. C. Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan; and FINDING: The General Plan will not be adversely affected by the zone variance request. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as Commercial and the proposed project is consistent in all ways with the General Plan. In addition, the zone variance application requesting relief from the required six -foot high masonry wall will not in any way alter the use of the land. The applicant is proposing to maintain and paint the existing 5' -2" brick wall, and supplement the requirement by installing thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located along the subject property line to prevent impacts of noise, light, and glare on the adjacent residential property. The plant material will be six -feet tall when planted and the proposed hedge will be fully established within a period of six to eight months. 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 classifications. FINDING: Due to the special existing physical circumstances that the four -foot wide AT &T telephone easement poses on the subject property, the applicant is unable to meet the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall along the common property line between the market and the adjacent residential property. The applicant has attempted to meet the requirement of constructing a 6' -0" high masonry wall by exploring two options. The first option was to construct a new masonry wall along the common property line between the market and the adjacent residential property. However, the construction of a new six -foot masonry wall is not feasible due to the size and location of an existing four -foot wide AT &T (originally PacBell) telephone easement, which runs north and south along the property line. The construction of a new masonry wall would require the relocation of the telephone easement and a telephone cable. In addition, the construction of a new masonry wall presents the potential of damaging the existing light pole that is located along that property line. Fresh and Easy proposed extending the height of the existing 5' -2" brick wall to six -feet. According to Fresh and Easy's Structural Engineer, the existing structural foundation is found not to be structurally capable of carrying any additional concrete masonry wall load. For these reasons, the applicant is proposing to maintain and paint the existing 5' -2" brick wall and to supplement the requirement by installing thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located in this area. The plant material will be six -feet tall when planted and the proposed hedge will be fully established within a period of six to eight months. Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 13 of 16 SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 10 -04 in accordance with Section 17.12.190 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The Planning Commission shall give the application for such modification an opportunity to be heard if he or she so desires, and thereafter may grant or deny the application for the modification, or may grant the same upon such conditions as the Planning Commission deems necessary for the preservation of the safety, health or property of the general public. FINDING: Fresh and Easy has completed the construction stage of their project. The applicant is requesting to deviate from the six -foot high masonry wall requirement due to the special existing physical circumstances on the subject property, which is the four -foot wide AT &T telephone easement that runs north and south along the east property line. To prevent impacts of noise, light, and glare on the adjacent residential property, the applicant is proposing to maintain and paint an existing 5' -2" brick wall and install thirty -six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) within the existing landscape planter located along the subject property line. The plant material will be six -feet tall when planted, and the proposed hedge will be fully established within a period of six to eight months. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04, allowing Fresh and Easy Market to deviate from the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall along the portion of the property line that abuts the residential lot as required in Sections 17.84.130 and 17.12.190. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2012, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 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. Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Page 14 of 16 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2012. Nancy Eng, 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 19th day of March, 2012 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Michelle Ramirez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Paae 15 of 16 EXHIBIT "B" ZONE VARIANCE 10 -02 AND MODIFICATION 10 -04 9026 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 8954 - 001 -031) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL March 19, 2012 1. Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 shall be in compliance and remain in compliance with all Conditions of Approval for Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03, in addition to the Conditions of Approval for Zone Variance 10 -04 and Modification 10 -04. 2. Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 are approved to provide relief from Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.84.130 and 17.12.190. 3. Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 are approved for six (6) months from the Planning Commission approval date. 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 and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 have been 'unused, abandoned or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 4. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and /or approve minor modifications. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 5. Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 are 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 Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04. Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 2012 Paqe 16 of 16 6. 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. 7. Approval of Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 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 accept all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 8. 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. 9. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed within 30 days from the end of the 10 -day appeal period of Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04. 10. Thirty-six (36) 15- gallon Ficus Nitida hedges (also known as Indian Laurel Fig) shall be planted within the existing landscape planter located along the east property line, where the property line has a common boundary with the adjacent residential lot. Within the first 20 feet measured from the south property line (the depth equal to the required front yard setback on the abutting residential lot), the plant material shall be installed and maintained at a height not to exceed 42 inches. The landscape hedge shall be installed and maintained at a height of six - feet along all other portions of the planter. 11. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation of revocation proceedings. E M E 5 City of Rosemead p Memorandum - "wbPRIEO \959 To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners Submitted btan Wong, Community Development Director Date: August 16, 2010 RE: Request for Continuance of Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 The Planning Division is requesting that the public hearing for Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 be continued to September 20, 2010. Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc. submitted a Zone Variance and a Modification application on August 5, 2010, requesting to deviate from the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall along the southeast property line. Section 17.84.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires the installation of a six -foot solid masonry wall where parking area abuts property classified for residential uses. Section 17.12.190 of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires that a six -foot masonry wall be installed where a commercially zoned lot has a common line with a residentially zoned property. The applicant has indicated that the construction of a six -foot masonry wall is not possible due to an existing nine -foot wide sanitary sewer easement (recorded on July 7, 1970) and a four -foot wide telephone easement, which runs along the east property line: However, the applications are currently incomplete as further information is required to prove that permits cannot be obtained to build a six -foot masonry wall within the sewer and telephone easement. The continuance will allow the applicant to further research this matter. EXHIBIT C Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August16,2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Ruiz INVOCATION - Commissioner Hunter ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT — Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, and Ruiz, Vice- Chairwoman Eng, Chairman Alarcon ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Principal Planner Bermejo, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Comments and reminded the audience that the Wal -Mart item is not a Public Hearing item and if they wished to speak on that item when it is called, please fill out a speaker request form and give it to the Planning Secretary. He then asked if there, was anyone wishing to speak on any other item than what is on tonight's Agenda. None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - July 19, 2010 Vice - Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to APPROVE the Minutes of July 19, 2010, as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONE VARIANCE 10 -02 AND MODIFICATION 10.04 - Fresh and Easy Neighborhood EXHIBIT D Market, Inc., submitted a Zone Variance and a Modification application requesting to deviate from the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall along the southeast property line. Section 17.84.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires the installation of a six - foot solid masonry wall where parking area abuts property classified for residential uses. Section 17.12.190 of the Rosemead Municipal Code requires that a six -foot masonry wall be installed where a commercially zoned lot has a common line with a residentially zoned property. The subject. property is located at 9026 Valley Boulevard in the CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommended that the Planning Commission CONTINUE the public hearing for Zone Variance 10.02 and Modification 10.04 to the regular Planning Commission Meeting to be held on Monday, September 20, 2010. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONTINUE the public. hearing for Zone Variance 10 -02 and Modification 10 -04 to the regular Planning Commission Meeting to be held on Monday, September 20, 2010, due to the applications being incomplete as further information is required to prove permits cannot be obtained to build a six -foot masonry wall within the sewer and telephone easement. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he agrees with staff and would like to make a motion to continue this item to the regular Planning Commission Meeting to be held on Monday, September 20, 2010. City Attorney Murphy stated before anyone seconds, we would like the opportunity for public comment on [his item since was noticed for tonight, so anyone not able to make the Planning Commission Meeting to be held on Monday, September 20, 2010, may speak tonight and then we can have a motions for a second. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing. Susan Dang, a resident, stated that her residence is right across the street and she is strongly opposed to the Variance and is requesting that the wall be built for safety reasons as her home has been broken into in the past. Juan Nunez, a resident, stated that he does not want the Variance approved and feels the wall will protect the nearby residents from noise elements. He also made reference and comparisons to the Wal -Mart noise matter. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None City Attorney Murphy stated that we have a pending Motion to continue the Public Hearing until Monday, September 20, 2010. Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to CONTINUE the public hearing for Zone Variance 10.02 and Modification 10.04 to the regular Planning Commission Meeting to be held on Monday, September 20, 2010. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated there will be a Neighborhood Block Watch Meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at the 3100 block of Jackson Avenue and extended an invitation to the public. 6, MATTERS FROM STAFF A. Annual Wal -Mart Review of Conditions of Approval Principal Planner Bermejo presented a staff report. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff about the complaints that have been received regarding truck deliveries. He asked if they were Wal -Mart delivery trucks. Principal Planner Bermejo replied no, they are outside vendor trucks. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if the signage that is being proposed is to try to prevent trucks from entering where they should not. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes, directional signage is proposed. She also stated it would be placed several hundred feet before trucks approach the Wal -Mart site on Walnut Grove, both to the north and south of the site. Commissioner Ruiz stated that one of his concerns is that Rush Street is a truck route and if we place signs for delivery, it will not take care of the problem. He also recommended that this item go to the Traffic Commission for their review and consideration of eliminating Rush Street as a truck route. Chairman Alarcon invited the public to comment on this item and reminded them to please keep their comments to three minutes. Marlene Shinen stated that she would like give a brief history of Wal -Mart matters, She stated that she would like our neighborhood to be free of crime, litter, noise, and violations. She also commented that she does not support Wal -Mart ever operating 24 hours. She stated that she is concerned that Wal -Mart may operate 24 hours one day, because of a quote that was made by Wal -Mart Attorney, Mark Astrovich, in 2004 in which he said "I have to be forthright with you, to tell you that we cannot accept limitation on our operating hours. I just want to reinstate that I am clear with everyone; we cannot accept limitations on our operating hours. I really don't have anything else to say besides that." Marlene Shinen also expressed her concern over the monitoring of Wal- Mart's store operations and asked who is responsible for the monitoring. She mentioned that violations are not being enforced regarding shopping carts, truck deliveries, signage, and semi - truck overnight parking. Ms. Shinen discussed past problems with the enforcement of preventing shopping carts from leaving the property and semi - trucks sleeping overnight where signage prohibited such parking. She mentioned that she contacted Ray Rodriquez from Public Safety with photos and license plate numbers, and he showed her that he alerted 18 units, and that she also contacted past City Manager Oliver Chi, but violations still continued. She said that on one occasion an entire family of four boarded a semi -truck with their bedding, their packages from Wal- Mart, and they spent the night. She stated that Condition of Approval No. 31 prohibits trucks from making deliveries from Rush Street, but she sees trucks still use the Rush Street driveway. She mentioned that she approached Wal -Mart security and asked them if they had seen the trucks, and they said yes. She then said she went to tell Jorge, but Jorge and his assistant were in a meeting. She stated that the violations are a safety issue. She indicated that in the past there was no success in curtailing violations; sheriffs did not cite Wal -Mart, and Wal -Mart security did not enforce, and City officials refused to monitor. She then stated that one individual has been working effectively with Rosemead Safety, Temple City Sheriffs, and Wal -Mart authorities and is succeeding in curtailing Wal- Mart's violations of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. She thanked and showed her appreciation of Principal Planner Bermejo, Ms. Shinen then expressed that Wal -Mart is too big to require a close City watch and mentioned that the store manager needs to ensure compliancy so that they become a good neighbor. Chairman Alarcon reminded the audience that the Planning Commission is familiar with the history of Wal -Mart. Lydia Martinez, a resident, stated she lives across the street from Wal -Mart and that she is very unhappy living across from this box that creates noise constantly. She also stated that since Wal- Mart has come into their neighborhood there is a lot of noise from vehicular traffic, pedestrians, trucks, and air - conditioning units all the time. She stated that she is concerned with trash, shopping carts, and the safety of the neighborhood. She also stated that the enclosure is not going to help with the noise and if it blows up it will hurt someone and she feels the transformer should be underground. She stated there has been no consideration from Wal -Mart for the residents that live nearby and during construction they endured dust, noise, trucks and utilities being shut off. She also stated we need more protection because crime has increased in the area. She also stated that Wal -Mart needs to know about the people who live there and how the store and has made a big impact in the neighborhood. She stated she does not want this to become a 24 hour store. Juan Nunez, a resident, stated that some delivery trucks that are loading and unloading are using Delta Street as their route, and they are not suppose to according to the conditions of approval. He also stated thal the Sheriffs cannot be there 24 hours to stop them and suggested that residents can help by getting the truck license plate numbers and reporting them to the Sheriff's Department Chairman Alarcon stated that all this information will be taken into consideration. He also stated that if this goes to the Traffic Commission and if the Traffic Commission amends the truck route, it will still have to be enforced and our Chief of Police will have to have someone there enforcing it on a regular basis. Commissioner Ruiz clarified that what he meant is that every truck going through Rush Street technically has every legal right to go through there since it is a truck route. He also stated that once drivers make that right turn and they want to make that delivery they are going to do it. He explained to Mr. Nunez that it will be up to the Traffic Commission to decide if Rush Street should be a truck route and that is why he recommending that this goes to the Traffic Commission. He also stated that it is not Planning's scope to deal with traffic issues. Juan Nunez stated he is not talking about the truck route and stated truck drivers will deliver their goods any way they can. Commissioner Ruiz stated these vendors are not Wal -Mart trucks, and the only way to stop them from delivering is to stop Rush Street from being a truck route, which we will recommend to the Traffic Commission. Juan Nunez stated there is a state law or ordinance prohibiting the removal of shopping carts from shopping centers and asked staff why it is not being enforced. Chairman Alarcon replied that Code Enforcement should be called immediately if shopping carts are seen being taken off -site, so citations can be given. Brian Lewin, a resident, stated he is on the Traffic Commission and as a Traffic Commissioner he would be happy to consider the truck route issue. He also stated he would like to comment on the proposed signage, and said the proposed sign on Walnut Grove about 200 feet north of Rush on the west corner, states northbound on Walnut Grove and asked if it should be southbound. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that there will be signage for trucks going north bound from the 60 Freeway and south bound from the 10 Freeway. Brian Lewin, asked so there would be a sign prior to Rush Street for 10 Freeway traffic. He also stated the map indicates a sign on the corner of Rush Street and Delta Avenue and asked staff if this is correct. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that is correct. Brian Lewin, resident stated he feels this signage is too late because currently Rush Street is a truck route and once they are at the bottom of Delta Avenue at Rush Street they technically can go on Rush Street and the point is to keep them of Delta Avenue, where they are not suppose to be because it is not a truck route. Commissioner Ruiz stated that this is why he is recommending that this matter go to the Traffic Commission before all the signs are put up. He also stated that if trucks are going down Rush Street they will automatically be breaking the law if we make this a no truck route. He also stated that he recommends we put a hold on the signage issue and have the Traffic Commission review this first. Brian Lewin asked if the signage proposals will be put on hold and if they are then he has no further comments. Commissioner Ruiz replied yes Edward Randolph, property owner of 9956 Valley Boulevard, stated that a few years ago the City changed the zoning from M -1 to a C -1 zone. He also stated that he addressed the City Council a month or two ago to reconsider putting this back to an M -1 zone due to the fact it doesn't qualify for parking. He also named a few the surrounding types of businesses across the street and stated they are mostly M -1 businesses. He also stated he has had a vacancy for over two years and is having difficulty renting it out due to the zone change, He also stated he has had numerous businesses wanting to rent his building but they do not meet the requirements of the C- 1 zone. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time and requested that they consider changing it back to the M -1 zone. Mary Faras, a resident, stated she lives directly across the street from Wal -Mart. She also stated that her observations of Wal -Mart are the same that have been mentioned by Marlene Shinen and Lydia Martinez. She also stated that the neighborhood is not as it use to be, Wal -Mart has created lots of traffic,-a lot of trash, and a lot of noise. She also stated the noise is constant and she can hear the buzzing from her porch and the back of her home with the windows closed. She also stated that the streets are cleaned on Friday's and by Monday morning they need to be cleaned again due to the traffic, and pedestrians leaving trash. She also stated in regards to the Traffic on Delta Avenue, just north of Panda there is a sign that says, "No Trucks ", but at the entrance of the Panda there is a sign that says, "Deliveries ". She also stated that she has four dates of semi - trucks traveling north on Delta Avenue and on one of those incidents the truck turning into Panda, was backing into Panda. She stated then they go north on Delta Avenue and they turn left on Rush Street. She also stated these trucks are not labeled. Commissioner Ruiz asked Ms. Faras if the semi - trucks are going from the San Gabriel county line down to the San Bernardino Freeway and wanted to clarify if it was close to the border line. Mary Faras, replied she has never seen the trucks coming from Rush Street, she has only seen them going out to Rush Street. Commissioner Ruiz requested staff to contact Panda and send them a letter slating that trucks are not allowed on Delta Avenue. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that we should look at the Municipal Code first as there may be something in the Municipal Code that will allow them to deviate so many feet from a designated truck route to allow them to make a delivery. She also stated she believes this is an issue she reported once in the past and she will follow up on it. Mary Faris, asked Commissioner Ruiz if the speed limit is 40 miles per hour because this is a truck route. Commissioner Ruiz replied no, it is 40 miles because that is a standard speed limit for that particular width of street. Mary Faras, asked what about the school and all the traffic, Commissioner Ruiz replied during school hours the speed limit is 25, miles per hour. He also stated the speed limit has nothing to do with truck routes. Mary Faris, asked staff what is the purpose of the wall being built around the transformer. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that since 2007, Wal -Mart and the City has completed a total of six noise studies to find where the noise was coming from. She also stated the last noise study that was completed and it was done with the connection of Southern California Edison, pinpointed the noise to the transformer and associated equipment. She stated so therefore the sound wall is to mitigate the noise and resolve the noise issue. Mary Faris, asked where the sound tests were conducted. The Planning Commission discussed various locations that the test may have been taken from. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the representative for Wal -Mart is present and may be able to answer that question. Community Development Director Wong re- iterated that we may direct this question to the Wal- Mart Representative which is present. Commissioner Hunter stated that near the sound wall location there is a phone number that states if you have any questions please call. She also suggested that it may be a good idea to call. Chairman Alarcon invited the Wal -Mart Representative to the podium, Jennifer Guenther, representative of Wal -Mart, thanked the Planning Commission to allow her to speak this evening and stated she agrees with Marlene Shiner's comments in regards to Principal Planner Sheri Bermejo. She also stated Sheri has been very instrumental in working with the community and Wal -Mart to try to resolve these issues. She also stated specifically in regards to the sound wall, there were approximately ten different sound readings that were taken. She also stated these were done through a conjunction of test and some broad tests were taken initially to try to determine where the majority of the sound was coming from. She also stated we wanted to address any noise concerns at the second stories of the residential buildings. She also stated that sound tests were taken adjacent to the residences at a 25 ft. level to make sure we did an accurate reading. She also stated originally it was thought that the rooftop equipment or loading docks was creating the noise issues, so sound readings were done all along Delta Avenue, from the points near Rush Street all the way up approximately two blocks in, to see if noise was escaping over the sound wall of the refrigerant equipment. She also stated that the noise test discovered that it was a buzzing noise coming from the transformer that people were hearing. She also stated that it was thought that there was a problem with the transformer and that is why we had Southern California Edison involved. She stated that Edison came out and did a three stage test, which involved shutting down the transformer to the store, and what was discovered was that the transformer was not faulty but all the equipment together when it was turned on creates the buzzing sound and that buzzing sound at certain times of the day from various moisture factors and the quietness from the neighborhood did exceed the city's noise standards. She also stated Wal -Mart then .hired an engineer to come in to do a diagram of the sound wall and they did a noise analysis to ensure that the buzz would not simply bounce off and continue to hit the neighborhood, but it would go up'and actually mitigate the noise. She also stated the purpose of the sound wall is to mitigate the noise and hopefully resolve the problem once and for all. She also stated Wal -Mart is truly trying to be a good neighbor. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that this sound wall was proposed last November and construction has just began and asked Ms. Guenther why it is taking so long for the wall to get built. Jennifer Guenther replied that it was proposed last November and it was presented to the Planning Commission at that point and time, She also stated we had to make sure the engineering was correct and we had to make sure it would do the buffering that was required which took some time. She also stated Wal -Mart is a big corporation and it takes time to just work things through the process. She also replied that the wall should be completed by the end of this month. Jennifer Guenther, stated in regards to the truck monitoring, she has spoken with the store manager and he has contacted each of the vendors by telephone and in writing to ask them to no longer use Rush Street as it is a violation of the Conditions of Approval. She also stated that hopefully this resolves this issue as the letter was written sometime in July. She also stated there are no entrances on Delta Avenue so Wal -Mart vendors should not be using Delta Avenue. She also stated in regards to the signage that has been proposed, she understands it is on hold now, but she has contacted Wal -Mart headquarters and they are willing to pay for that signage if the City determines it is appropriate to be put in. She also stated Wal -Mart is willing to continue to work on any revealing action that is suggested by the City. She also stated in regards to shopping carts, there is a locking system that is in place at the Wal -Mart store and it should be functioning. She also stated that Wal -Mart has a company that patrols the neighborhood twice a week to ensure that shopping carts are picked up. She stated if shopping carts are a problem, hopefully the public will contact Principal Planner Bermejo and Ms. Bermejo can contact her and I will make sure that it is resolved quickly. She also stated she is willing to address any other issues that may come up and thanked the Planning Commission. Chairman Alarcon asked the Commissioners if they had any other comments or questions. Commissioner Hunter stated she would like to make a correction to page 13, number 50, it states tenant shall be responsible for cleaning graffiti on their building within 48 hours of notification and asked staff if it should be 24 hours. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that on our standard condition of approval today, it is 24 hours but when Wal -Mart had its operation approved it was 48 hours, so their condition of approval is 48 hours. She also stated that is how the City Council approved the Conditions of Approval in 2005. Commissioner Hunter replied thank you. Principal Planner Bermejo slated that an electronically mailed letter was sent to the Planning Division today from Mr. James Flournoy's with his comments regarding Wal -Mart's Annual Review. She also stated a copy has been given to each of the Planning Commissioners for their review. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that Condition of Approval Number 6, regarding the site facility security plan, states that Wal -Mart is in compliance. She also stated her only question is that residents have raised their concerns about crime in the area and she asked staff if there is anything in the security plans that will provide an update of revising as needed, to address crime issues that might come up in the store or area. Community Development Director Wong stated that Wal -Mart is responsible for on- site security not off -site security, but we will check with the Sheriffs Department to tract how many complaints or arrest are made in the general area and on -site. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she briefly remembers, or heard of an incident, this year of a lock down on the site itself. Marlene Shinen stated [hat someone paid to have all those signs put up, the Wal -Mart sign on Rush, the one on the north driveway, and said so according to Commissioner Ruiz stating that because it is a truck route, they don't have to obey those signs. Commissioner Ruiz clarified that a truck route allows the trucks to go through and if we didn't have that truck route there, then there would be no trucks, because then they would be in violation of the traffic laws. He also stated and that is why we need to eliminate this as a truck route. Marlene Shinen, stated that there are violations taking place and no one is enforcing them Chairman Alarcon stated that it has been noted that violations have been made and we need to contact Code Enforcement and the Sheriffs Department to address these violations. Lydia Martinez, a resident, asked staff if Wal -Mart will be planting new trees Chairman Alarcon replied that we do not have a plan for that yet, but Principal Planner Bermejo will address the following items, trucks, noise, and landscaping with Wal -Mart. He also stated the public are the ears and eyes of the City, and hopefully all of the issues discussed will be resolved. He also added that Jennifer Guenther, the representative of Wal -Mart, hopefully has been able to clarify and answer some of the concerns that have been mentioned. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, September 20, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., due to City Hall being closed on September 6, 2010 for the Labor Day Holiday. V� `l William Alarcon Chairman ATT T: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 10 DESIGN REVIEW 09 -04 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09 -03 9000 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 8954 - 001 -031) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL July 6, 2009 1. Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03 is approved for a the construction of a new 13,969 square foot Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market and a new Off -Sale beer and wine (Type 20) ABC license, to be developed in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C ", dated June 22, 2009. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building divisions for review. 3. Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03 is approved for one (1) year from the Planning Commission approval date. The applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use, or request an extension from the Planning Division within 30 days prior to expiration date. Otherwise Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03 shall become null and void. 4. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and /or approve minor modifications. 5. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 6. Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03 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 Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03. 7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or EXHIBIT E 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. 8. Approval of Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03 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 accept all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 City Planner, or his or her designee, prior to installation. 12. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division and the Planning Division shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, all school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance from the School District. 14. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. 15. The Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 16. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed within 30 days from the end of the 10 -day appeal period of Design Review 09 -04 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03. 17. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public right -of -way. 18. All utilities shall be placed underground including facilities and wires for the supply and distribution of electrical energy, telephone, cable television etc. The underground conversion of these utilities shall consider all future connections to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 19. The developer shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and Los Angeles County's SUSMP requirements with respect to planning and development of the site. 20. A "STOP" sign shall be clearly posted at all parking lot exits and it shall be unlawful for any motorist to fail to stop at such sign before leaving the parking lot. 21. Decorative paving shall be incorporated into all driveways and shall match the color of the existing. 22. A detailed elevation drawing shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval of the trash enclosure prior to submittal of construction drawings. All trash enclosures shall be of an integral part of the building design, and incorporate complementary colors and materials, including stone veneer. All trash enclosure doors shall be opaque, self - closing and self - latching. Each trash enclosure shall also accommodate both a trash bin and a recyclable bin. 23. The trash enclosure located along the east property line shall incorporate building design elements of the "Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market" building, and shall be fully enclosed. 24. The trash enclosure located along the west property line shall incorporate building design elements of the "Bank of the West" building, and shall have a wood stained decorative trellis top. The exterior finish of the enclosure shall incorporate stone veneer. 25: Adequate lighting shall be provided in the vehicle parking area. All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded on all sides, and that are directed away from adjacent properties. Wall packs shall be prohibited. Final light cut sheets shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 26. The proposed monument sign located at the northwest corner of the lot shall be low profile, and not exceed a height limit of 4' -0." 27. The drive -thru ATM proposed along the south property line shall match the existing " "Bank of the West "" building in colors and materials. 28. Electronic shopping cart wheel locks shall be installed on all shopping carts that are utilized on the site to contain all carts within the perimeter property lines of the commercial development. 29. All parking stalls that abut a shopping cart storage facility shall be 11' -0" wide. 30. A new 18" deep shield shall be installed on the existing light standard located along the southeast corner of the lot to prevent light from impacting the adjacent residential property. At no time shall light exceed 0.2 foot candle measured at the property line (Modified by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2009). 31. Signs shall comply with Chapter 17.104 of the Rosemead Municipal Code and the Commercial Revitalization Guidelines. Window signs shall not cover more than 15% of any window. All signage for the Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market shall be reviewed and approved prior to the Planning Division final inspection. 32. 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 prior to installation. 33. The applicant/developer shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment arid/or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum required clearance. 34. 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) 569 -2345 for assistance. 35. 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. 36. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 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. 37. The parking space markers shall be re- painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, including double striping, wheel stops and handicapped parking /markings. 38. At least two percent of the required parking shall be designated for handicap space pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22511.8. A letter by the property owner shall be given to the City for authorizing enforcement. 39. The developer /applicant shall provide bicycle racks. Bicycle racks shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 40. All open area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. 41. All awnings shall be periodically power washed and cleaned to eliminate dirt and grime. The awnings shall be cleaned at least twice in any calendar year. 42. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. - The existing landscaping along the west property line shall be renovated with new landscape materials. 43. A permanent maintenance program of all landscaping shall be provided to Planning Division insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement. Such maintenance program shall include but not limited to name of firm to maintain the site and landscaped areas, phone numbers, address, and contact person for the City to contact 24 hrs, 7 days a week in case of emergency. 44. The developer shall show all existing utilities and parkway trees within the public right -of -way prior to final approval of construction plans. 45. Decorative, colored, scored or stamped concrete shall be placed at all drive entrances and shall match the existing in color and design. 46. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 567, which requires the posting of a sign prohibiting consumption of alcoholic beverages adjacent to the premises within the parking lot and public sidewalks. Said signs are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 47. All requirements and appropriate licenses of the State of California and California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be complied with and maintained at all times. 48. The hours of operation shall be posted in the front window or door. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., daily. 49. The hours for delivery shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily (Modified by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2009). 50. Prior to construction commencing, the contractor shall schedule a pre - development meeting with the Planning Division staff to review the conditions of approval and construction plans. 51. No exterior vending machines shall be permitted. 52. A 24 -hour electronic surveillance system shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Sheriff's Department, which shall include surveillance of arrivals, departures, and parking areas from the store. It is the applicant's responsibility to keep electronic (tapes) copies of surveillance for a minimum of thirty (30) days. 53. Any outdoor storage associated with the use is expressly prohibited on the premises. 54. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation of revocation proceedings. 55. All delivery trucks are required to enter and exit the project site on Steele Street directly from Rosemead Boulevard. A "No Trucks Over 3 Tons" sign (R5 -2, R20D- 1(CA), minimum 24 "x24" sign dimension) shall be posted for eastbound vehicles on the south side of Steele Street at the easterly property line of the project site. In addition, another sign stating "All delivery trucks shall exit this property by turning right onto Steele Street to access Rosemead Boulevard, RMC 10.08.010A" (minimum 18 "x24" sign dimension) shall be posted at a visible location to all delivery truck drivers in the loading area of the project site (Added by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2009). E1�i�i�S 1v+U 3 L:: ARCHITECTS February I3, 2012.. Ives. SheriBerniejo Principal Planner .City of Rosemead 8838 East ValleyBoulevard Rosemead; CA 91770 k°e 9026 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 Courtney +Le 4rclxitectsP.rojectNo. 09012.04 Application. for Zone Variance and111odification .Dear Sheri, We would like to request for a relief from Sections 17.12.190 and 17.48.049 of the Rosemead Municipal Code thru an application of a Zone. Variance and Modification to the City of Rosemead, Pla3uung Commission. The applicant,. Fresh.& Easy Neighborhood Ma&ot;, Inc.., is. unable to build the iegtfired six feet high masonry wall between the commercially -zoned Fresh & Easy (Zone C13D -1)) lot and the adjacent residentially -zoned ('Lone R =1) and thus, a relief from. this Municipal Code requirement is soright,. Backaround` Fresh & Easy retail store building is located at the :northeast corner of the lot, right next to a commercial zone while a portion of the parking lot at the southeast corner is located right neat to a residentially - zoned lot. Per Rosemead .Municipal. Code Sections 17.12,190 and 17:48.090,. a 6- foot high. masonry wall is required to be constructed along property lines on, any parcel pf land abutting an,adjoiniag residential (R) or planned development (P -D) zone, and where the parking, of a.coaxuiiercial zone is next to a residential zone.. While the Vre5b A Easy'Neighborhood Market is a new construction,.tlie masonry fence alotig the Fresh & Easy rearpropertj line is existing, and found:non- conforming as is. Its 62 inches, (5 ft 2 i.n) high. For Fresh & Easy to comply to the current City of Rosemead .Municipal. code requirelnent of a 6-foot high, masonry wall between FresIl & Easy and the residential lot,, it. Will either, (1) extend the existing masonry wall to 6 feel height - - Or., {2) build 'a new masonry wall is replacement of the existing masonry Wall. It should also be noted that in the desire of Fresh &. Easy to build the required masonry wall in compliance to the municipal code requirement; an agreement between. the City of Rosemead and Fresh & Easy `a as settled .accompanied by a deposit, in the form of a Cash Bond of $ 59.2.1110 801 South M9yfllz�,ven,.e f gatpav:n_, CA 91016 JQlm P. LC, PNV4 L 6Uj275-6800 6'28j87&iW FAX mail@cour 1ne.y- 1mrchBe&.wm flu,6 s M, 0 ... bq. NA, WNW VG13535 EXHIBIT F Ads. Sheri Bmiej¢ CiFy.of ltosz4I)'ad, BlIdding c&- Sdfe(; -Pi.es.? X F-asv— Rosemead- CA ` .. 9026 E. 1'p1leh Bh d. �IWmaij, 13� 2012 t'a'rt al to.. allow the City of.Rosentead to build the 6 ft high maws y wall :in the event thaf Fresh & Easy is unable - to build the wall using the City's contractor, within W days if this variance is denied of Fresh. & Easy, or if Fresh &. Easy fails to complete the wall construction within 30 days from start of construction: Fulfillment of this agreement is contigent to the decision of the Planning: Commission on this variance. application. (See Attachment D.) Both options mentioned above will create an unreasonable hardship for Fresh &.,Easy to, build the Wall for the following reasons:: The existing rnasoury Wall, per our structural Engineer's inspection of the existing; strudiftal foundation, is found to Ibe structurally unstable to carry additional concrete masonry wall load. That is it is slightly leaning towards the Fresh & Easy side, and that it shows cracks on Some areas. With these findings, IKL Associates, but Structural Engineer;. does not advise, to bruld beyond the existinglheidt and have an additional load to this wall; especially on concrete masomy construction. (See;Attaclunen #s C.and F.) 2. There is. an existing 9 -foot wide- sanitary sewer easement (recorded on July 7;; 1970 as instrurnent no.. 2508) tight below the existing masonry fence; from north to south, of the property line,. A new masonry wall will require structural support — concrete foitnd'ation(footiiigs — tliat encroach into this easement. (See Attachment A.) Although, it was confirmed by the City -of "Rosemead Lngtiti eering Departinent. that this easement is abandoned; o—wncd and maintained by the City of Rosemead, the city rnay then allow Fresh & Easy to build over this easement, Dramlings of the proposed.masonry fence has been subnutted and reviewed to the City of Roscmdad as part of the application fay aBuilding Permit. (SeeAttanhments G and H.). 3. Above: the existing 9400t wide sanitary sewer easements is an existing AT &T (then PacBell). telephone easement :along; the property line above the- existing, sanitary sewer easement navi tioned in Item -(2) above that:needs to be relocated per recornrnendations by AT &T, Engineering Department.. (See Attaclment I.) 4, After the telepphonc easement has been moved, only then the new 6-ft high rrrasonry may be constructed. However a concern on. the existing light, pole along that. property line is considered by the same gencral'co11iract4r that it may be damaged by the construction of the masonryy fence and therefore, needs to be relocated as well.in the event that this is damaged, not to mention the risk of harming the nearby residences. (See Attachment 1.) Due to this special existing physical circumstances on this property, specifically along the property line separating the commercial zone from the residential zone, Fresh & Easy is unable to build the required 6-foot biglr masonry wall. in this regzrdt we would like, to request the Planning. Commissid n to giant Fresh. & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc. a relief front S,eclioris 17,12.190 and J 7.4,8;090 Of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code to allow the hon- conformiii- _ e .d7s. Sheri Nerniejp GO ofRoseniend, BvOlug & Sdfeo,- ` Fo-W? X Emy— Rpsemead. G1 9096 F. F611ey Blvd.. Feb rum }, 13, 2012 Agge.3 r fl masoirry wall to remain as allowed by Section 17.108020, and as described by. Section 17.1:2.060: Recomntendation: in'lieu of a. foot High masoiir,y wall, Fresh &,Easy proposes to-- 1. Maintain the existing.j -ft 24n high niasozuy wall by painting it on the Fresh & Easv side. Rosh & Easy shall not extend or increase this wall, nor use or occupy any portion of this wall for any purpose; I Provide additional, landscaping: to a.lteiolif of 6 feet, one foot from the existing "masonry wall and .maintain this landscaping w. . thi an. automatic irrigation systeiu. (See Attachments A and B:) 3_ Fresh & Easy shall register, the non - conforming use of the existing masonry wall declaring air affidavit filed to the City Clerk within six (6). months: of granting :of this variance: Findingsand Justifications: The request for the variance.from the requircinents of the City of Rosemead per Rosemead Municipal Code, do meet the provisions of Section 17.108.020, Prerequisite Conditions, as explained below: The property is so located that it abuts to only one (f) residential property; which is on, the southeast corner and that -this variance will only apply to this location on this property: The rest: of the perimeter of the property complies to all standards set forth by the Municipal Code. That is, provisions applicable to property facing E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, Steele_ Street, and abutting the commercial zone at .northeast corner, comply accordingly. Neither will the granting of such variance: be a special privilege: to Fresh & Easy as the existing masonry wall is atr:existing noti- conforming portion of the project. There are no activities witlpn the southeast corner; of the property that will, be detrimet tal to the Health and welfare of the residents on the residentially -zoned property. It must be noted that the property wall.next to Fresh & Easy is.; in fact,.5 ° -2' High, only 10 inches short of the required 6 feet height. Moreover, non re-i lieation of the: current. wall constuction ensures the neighbor that will not be disturbed by a construction directly next to his property, and neither will it pose a threat to. the already structurally unsound construction of, the fence and the possible damage of the existing light pole. It is :also foreseen that the parking lei on the residential side will not be too busy as the main entrance of the retail store is facnie northwest corner (front Bar k of West) and that the parkin­ at southeast is relatwcly fa7- from file inzri,ar cuhance. Thererore. more custcuaaers Its: Shad 33errngO, Oiy of Ruaenread. &wilding sC Salary "I Fuq h d- Easv— 2osenend. Cl e P026 L. I aIL) -Q1cd. Fgbracv), 13, 2012 rage 4 of J yvilt togicatlytend to park next the main entrance. 3, The property is so located that .public easements. benefiting by the surrounding eommurtity is' right 'along the Fresh & Easy property line -next to the residential zone which is not found, in. other properties. Frosh & Easy foutd:such a physical. situation a hindrance to comply to this requirement: of the City of Rosemead. 4. And lastly, that our recwmmendationwill not adversely affect the general plan as Fresh &- Easy will still build a 8 -ft .landscaped screening between the cotmnercial and residential zones. In this regard, we would like to request the Planning Commission to grant Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc. a relief from Sections 17.12.190.and 17.48.090 of tine City of Rosemead Municipal Code to allow Fresh &, Easy to enhance the existing landwapaig and maintain the existing masonry wall as allowed by Seefion 17.48.130. Sincerely, COURTNEY +I.E ARCHITECTS :TPnLe rin ei DIOL: AttachmentA -. Patlial Site Plan AttoblimentB - .Photo ofb -ft high. landscaping Attachment C- Photos of ilia existingmasonry wall AttochnientD- Agreehient and Casli Bond posted by Simac Construction, Inc. on September 7, 2016 Attachment J .- Email regarding the potholes done by the conf_racCor to obtain i.nforiitat oil on the foundation of the existing masonry wall Attnchi ientF - Email firoiit,XL Associate's ragarO.ing the unstable condition bfthe foundation of the existing masonry wall Attachment 0- Sheet SlA, EmtProperty Line Pence,' prepared by 7KL Associates' Attachment H'- Emmil City of Rosemead Planning and $agineeriing Departments, on comments on Sheet S 1,0 Attaehnnent.1- Entail from Shuae Construction, .tne, regarding concerns on building the inasornry iya II Attachment 7 - Email f oin AT &T denying, encroachment into thetelephon'e easement Attachment K - Excerpts. froth City of Rosemead Municipal Code, for Refeienw Only cc: LilyTrinll -City of Rosemead - SharonVelasquez -Courtney +Le Architects Ban Shearer - -Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market; hrc: Dustin Le-- Courtney +Le Architects Galen Lelano- Fresh'& Easy. Neighborhood Market, Inc- Fi:Ia SchuvIerJackson- -Fresh & Easy N e i L11 bo -hood Market. Inc. Neighborhood Market ramp building area �y landscaped area — landscaped area ing wall screening receiving loading dock electrical V enclosure existing underground – stormwater storage 3 -o m 3 N STEELE STREET area ZONE area COMMERCIAL ZONE _ EXISTING L.A. COUNTY SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, 6'x 9', PER INSTRUMENT 1800 — EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE EASEMENT, 4'x 4', PER INSTRUMENT 609 COMMERCIAL ZONE RESIDENTIAL ZONE \END , OF EXISTING BRICK FENCE HEIGHT = 3' -5" (measured from F &E side) RESIDENTIAL ZONE EXISTING BRICK FENCE, HEIGHT VARYING FROM 3-5" TO 4' -4 ", 126' -0" LONG EXISTING z w GARAGE � O a H U �- existing landscaped area 2 LL w o > ui w j existing landscaped area p fL existing shielded light pole EXISTING ONE- STOREY RESIDENCE END OF EXISTING BRICK FI HEIGHT= 4' -4" (me ;u F &E side) n ATTACHMENT A PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' -0" t elf i • *` •0 w {r'ti; � y , 1l il�r� fY. -, -its 09 -- �i�• - '°' p�i„'E' ��� nF r� �,�_ —'•— ,1 r " r" e' '• W-AM • *` •0 w {r'ti; � y , 1l il�r� fY. -, -its 09 -- �i�• - '°' p�i„'E' ��� nF r� �,�_ —'•— ,1 r " r" e' I D +1 1 If 2 F � `IS VY�y• � `' I Y V i a _ 12.02 09x9: Attachment D September 7, 2010 Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc. (Applicant) Attn: Ben Shearer 2120 Park Plaza El Segundo, CA 90245 Amsted Residuals, LLC Attn: David Gilmore 11911 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 350 Los Angeles, CA 90049 RE: Design Review 09 -03 and Conditional Use Permit 09 -03 Dear Mr. Shearer and Mr. Gilmore, Pursuant to our discussion on September 2, 2010, and pursuant to Conditions No. 4 and 5 of the above referenced Design Review (DR) and .Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP'), the Planning Division is making a minor modification to Condition No. 5 to allow you to deposit with the City the sum of $59,211.10 to meet the requirement that you construct a block wall on a portion of your property before the City issues a permit for the occupancy of the grocery store being constructed pursuant to the CUP. As discussed previously, you are in the process of applying for a variance to that requirement, and the deposit will satisfy the Planning Division that you have complied substantially with the Zoning Code requirement during the pendency of your application. Please note that the amount of the deposit is 30% greater than your anticipated cost for constructing the wall because of the near certainty that, if the City were to construct the wall, the City would have to use private contractors and would have to pay prevailing wage rates to those contractors. As we discussed, this minor modification is contingent both on the deposit of the agreed -upon sum and on your acquiescence to assign to the City any plans for the required block wall and to grant to the City a license to travel on and over your property and to construct the required block wall should (a) you not be successful in obtaining from the Planning Commission a variance which would LA 84813- 5860.1479 vl eliminate the block wall requirement and (b) you fail to timely commence or complete construction of the block wall. By countersianina this letter agreement you consent to allow City staff or City contractors to enter your property and construct the wall. In addition, you agree to indemnify, defend, release, and hold the City, and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and contractors harmless, upon the City's completion of wall construction, from and against any action, liability, loss, damage, entry, judgment, order, lien, and cost which arises out of, or Is in any way related to, the wall or the construction thereof. Timely commencement of the construction shall mean commencement within sixty (60) days after the final decision by the Planning Commission (or City Council should an appeal be taken by any party) denying the variance. Timely completion of construction shall mean completion within thirty (30) days of commencement. If the City is required to perform or contract for the construction of the wall, any unused portion of the deposit will be returned to you upon completion of construction. Should the Planning Commission (or City Council should an appeal be taken by any party) approve the variance, the City agrees to release the deposit back to you within thirty (30) days of the final decision on the variance. Please enclose the deposit and return with your countersigned copy of this letter agreement, Upon receipt, the Planning Division will process your occupancy permits. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Stan Wong Community Development Director FRESH & EAaY4EIGHBORHOOD MARKET, INC. 'X00 By: / - Fresh Q easy, AMSTED R DUAL , LLC G,/ By: f � � �� �'M✓ [title] LA 04813.586D -1479 v1 SIMAC CA LIC #486058 AZ UC #108925 CONSTRUCTION INC. NV uc # 40903 Y Lrr LIC 49E31057 &5501 September 2, 2010 Mr. Ben Shearer Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market 2120 Park Place, Suite 200 El Segundo, CA 90245 RE: 9026 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA Subject: CMU Block Screen Wall Ben; SIMAC Construction will erect an 8" CMU block screen wall at the property line separating the residences and Fresh & Easy Market @ Rosemead & Valley. Screen wall will meet City of Rosemead criteria of CMU block with stucco finish and wall cap. See attached SIMAC proposal in the amount of $45,547.00 Feel free to call should you have any questions or need additional information. Sinc rely, o Arias Project Manager Wineridge Place, Suite A / Escondido, CA 92029 / [760] 737 -2100 / FAX: (7601737-2110 Office 9/2/2010 1 SIMAC CONSTRUCTION, INC. - f F E Rosemead Screen Wall 9 -2 -2010 -'AiiolM S�rRt7c'nAr CONTRACTOR: CLIENT: DATE: ARCHITECT: PROJECT: PLANS: PRICING BREAKDOWN SIMAC Construction, Inc. 2067 Wineridge Place, Ste. A Escondido, CA 92029 Office (760) 737 -2100 Fox(760)737-2110 Fresh & Easy Attn: Ben Shearer 310 - 341 -1385 September. 2, 2(110 Courtney -Le Architects Monrovia, CA F & E Rosemead Screen Wall 9026 E Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA 91770 Site visit page 1 of 1 ALTERNATE: Optional; Apply waterproofing to wall: Add $1,701.00 Optional: Add french drain:Add $1323.00 STANDARD EXCLUSIONS: (Unless otherwise noted) Dewatering Building Permits & Fees Any Utility Company fees Monument And Tenant Signage Concrete Vapor Emissions Soils Testing Water Meter NIL; 01500 Supervision 1 LS $2,350.00 $2,350 02070 Selective Demolition 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500 Allowance: Demo existing brick wall and haul sway. 02480 Landscaping 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500 Allowance 04050 Masonry 1 LS $23,483.00 $23,483 Excavate, steel, CMU & backOH Included. Includes wall cap 09220 Stucco 1 LS $8,5D0.00 $8,500 Apply stucco to both sides of screen wall 09900 Painting 1 LS $840.00 $840 Paint CMU Both sides. 01110 OVERHEAD & PROFIT - $2,952.11 01300 INSURANCE $421.73 TOTAL PRICE $45,547 CLARIFICATIONS: This is a preliminary proposal. No details are available. Not sure where screen wall is to be placed. This proposal is based upon removing existing brick wall. Not sure what Impact this will have to resident. No relocating of U/G utilities factored in. This bid is good for 30 days. ALTERNATE: Optional; Apply waterproofing to wall: Add $1,701.00 Optional: Add french drain:Add $1323.00 STANDARD EXCLUSIONS: (Unless otherwise noted) Dewatering Building Permits & Fees Any Utility Company fees Monument And Tenant Signage Concrete Vapor Emissions Soils Testing Water Meter Cjil, t �G7Y� �y�p /n 31874 SIMAC CONSTRUMON, 1NC amevar'cmop ®.•.R. SEP d 7 2010 31874 Paa rraw FIL"bm-ThomndTwa Hw+dmd 8m andMovoom.- . 8107!7010 SS=11.10 •f PAY Dale A I MM 7 $ xe cnraROmmmmd. .. ... .. .. . _ .... .8 MOM OF M031674N 03222432481. SO 3010306a uneCK ?F ;sl tt i4, rosieo uwi un u, Hmouni ;oati,z».-i u 0 RRZ �7pT2 m m o OS324b0075 090920/0 4 ; • Hank of Yh¢ liesS >323100702< _ 0000000609009769 P004 ° a i uneCK ?F ;sl tt i4, rosieo uwi un u, Hmouni ;oati,z».-i u 0 ATTACHMENT E Sharon Velasquez From: msliffe <msliffe @simacgc.com> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:25 AM To: John Le; 'Tito Arias';'Ben.Shearer' Cc: Sharon Velasquez, Dustin Le; 'Kris Leonard'; File Subject: RE: Fresh & Easy - Rosemead - 01- example planter at Signal Hill Screen wall r_ __ "'--__ """"----"__' .AT &T CABLE SURVEY: ' r John ' There are two potholes, Pot hole #1 is on the north end, 85ft from the end of the wall. Picture N1 show the location and picture N2 show the hole. The depth of the footing is 11 inches below the CMU. The 2 q hole is 25 feet in from the end of , r the wall on the south side of the project. Picture S1 show the location and picture S2 show the hole. The depth of the footing on the south is only 9 inches below the CMU. There is a lip of 3 inches at both locations. We did not go onto the ; neighbor's side and dig to see what the footing looks like on that side of the wall. From: John Le [mallto: john _le @courtney- le- architects.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:49 PM To: msliffe; Tito Arias; Ben Shearer Cc: Sharon Velasquez; Dustin Le; Kris Leonard; File Subject: RE: Fresh & Easy - Rosemead - 01 - example planter at Signal Hill Screen wall What are the depth of the footing on picture #2, 3,and 4? All we seen was a guy with a smiley face ...:). What's up with that? ...:) Was you able to know the width of the existing footing? Are these potholes still open for us to site visit and view? JOHN P. LE - PRINCIPAL john—le@courtney-le-architects.com COURTNEY + LE ARCHITECTS 801 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, CA. 91016 Tel: (626) 275 6800 x12 Fax: (626) 275 6801 This email and any attached files are confidential and proprietary and should not be viewed or used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. From: msliffe [mailto:msliffe @simacgc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:06 PM To: Tito Arias'; 'Ben Shearer'; John Le (GMAIL Account) Cc: Sharon Velasquez; John Le; Dustin Le; 'Kris Leonard' Subject: RE: Fresh & Easy - Rosemead - 01 - example planter at Signal Hill Screen wall To All ,AT &T CABLE SURVEY :We pothole this morning two locations, one is 25 feet from the south the second was 85 feet from the north. The south went down 9 inches to the bottom of the footing. The north went down 11 inches. Note the footing is only 3 inches wider ; ,then the block on F &E side of wall. From: Tito Arias [mailto:oarias @simacgc.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:10 PM To: 'Ben Shearer'; 'John Le' Cc: 'Sharon Velasquez'; 'John Le'; 'Dustin Le'; 'Kris Leonard'; 'msliffe' Subject: RE: Fresh & Easy - Rosemead - 01 - example planter at Signal Hill Screen wall We will be onsite to pothole at 8 am Tito Arias, Project Manager Simac Construction, Inc. 2067 Wineridge Place, Suite A Escondido, Ca 92029 760- 737 -2100 760 - 737 -2110 Fax 858- 967 -9816 Cell From: Ben Shearer [ mailto :ben.shearer @freshandeasy.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:02 PM To: John Le; Tito Arias Cc: Sharon Velasquez; John Le; Dustin Le; Kris Leonard Subject: RE: Fresh & Easy - Rosemead - 01 - example planter at Signal Hill Screen wall It will be dug Thursday Ben Shearer Director of Construction Fresh & Easy 310 469 -3615 From: John Le [ mailto:johnle.arch @gmail.com]ar Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 5:39 PM To: Ben Shearer; Tito Arias Cc: Sharon Velasquez; John Le; Dustin Le; Kris Leonard Subject: Re: Fresh &Easy - Rosemead - 01 - example planter at Signal Hill Screen wall _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ;AT&T CABLE SURVEY: Ben ' We will need the GC to "pot hole" and expose a portion of the exiting wall footing so that our engineer can view the size of the existing footing. You may also need to engage a testing engineer (Salem ?) to X -Ray the wall to find out the size and spacing of the existing Rebar within the wall to assist our structural engineer in making his assessment. ; I am cc: Tito at Simac to save you a step and for his review and discuss with you. ------------------------------ - -------- ------------------------------- John P. Le + Principal Courtney + Le Architects 801 S. Myrtle Avenue Monrovia CA 91016 (626) 275 -6800 (636) 275 -6001 Fax POT HOLE TAKEN 85 -FT FROM END OF WALL (FROM STEELE STREET) AT &T CABLE IS 6 INCHES BELOW EXISTING MASONRY WALL POTHOLE TAKEN FROM END OF PROPERTY LINE (FROM STEELE STREET) Y P7- DEPTH OF FOOTING 15 11" BELOW THE EXISTING MASONRY WALL. ATTACHMENT F Sharon Velasquez From: Joseph K Leonard <jklassoc @verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 20113:32 PM To: Sharon Velasquez Cc: John Le Subject: Re: F &E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Screen wall 'STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S FINDINGS: ' ' Sharon, ' Not only should the wall carry no additional load -- The exising condition is not stable and should be rectified as described ' earlier in this thread. ; Kris L. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Sharon Velasquez To Ben Shearer ( ben.shearer(a)freshandeasv.com) Cc: Joseph K Leonard ; Tito Arias (oarias(a)simacoc.com) ; Mike Sliffe (msliffe(a)simacac.com) ; File ; John Le ; Edward Dv; Dustin Le Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:07 PM Subject: RE: F &E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Screen wall Ben, Per recommendation from Kris, structural engineer, below, the existing footing is inadequate for the 3 -ft high wall, and therefore cannot carry any additional wall. Please advise how we will proceed with the wall construction —new wall or use a screen wall per your attached email to Lily Trinh. Thank you. SHARON VELASQUEZ - PROJECT MANAGER sharon velasauez @courtnev -le- architects.com COURTNEY + LE ARCHITECTS 801 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, CA. 91016 Tel: (626) 275 6800 x22 Fax: (626) 275 6801 This email and any attached files are confidential and proprietary and should not be viewed or used by anyone who is not the onainal intended recipient. It you have received this email in srl.or, please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or on other sioraae mechanism From: Joseph K Leonard [mailto:jklassoc @ verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 3:51 PM To: msliffe; Sharon Velasquez Cc: Dustin Le; File; 'Ben Shearer'; John Le; 'Tito Arias' _ Subject»_Re:F &E 1445�Valley�Rosemead) Rosemead 03 :Screen wall _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S FINDINGS: Mike, , I hade a chance to walk the site myself about a week ago. The grade on the Fresh & Easy side of the wall is as much as 3 feet or more above the grade on the neighbor's side of the wall. The wall is only partially grouted at best and may be 1 , , `_______'________________'_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S FINDINGS: ungrouted. (See broken face shell on one of the photos you sent with your e- mail.) The footing width indicated on the sketch is inadequate for a 3 foot retaining condition. The grade should be reworked, the wall should be replaced, or a new wall should be built adjacent the existing wall. Kris L. ; ------ gina-- l M -ess--age - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- Ori- -- From: msliffe _.... To:'Joseoh K Leonard' ;'Sharon Velasauez' Cc:'Dustin Le' ;'File' ;'Ben Shearer' ;'John Le' ;'Tito Arias' Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:57 PM Subject: RE: F &E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Screen wall Please review. Mike Sliffe Simac Construction Project Superintend Fresh and Easy AHantic and 33i° (858) 864-3603 From: Joseph K Leonard [mailto:jklassoc @verizon.net] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:29 AM To: msliffe; 'Sharon Velasquez' Cc: 'Dustin Le'; 'File'; 'Ben Shearer'; 'John Le'; Tito Arias' Subject: Re: F&E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Screen wall Mike, Please refer to the sketch I sent out last week indicating the other items I need to analyze the wall. Kris L -- Original Message ------ From: msliffe To:'Sharon Velasquez' Cc:'Dustin Le' ;'Kris Leonard' ;'File' ;'Ben Shearer' ;'John Le' ;'Tito Arias' Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:02 AM Subject: RE: F &E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Screen wall The footing has 3 inches beyond the block on the F &E side. I assume that it is the same on the other side. Mike Sliffe Simac Construction Project Superintend Fresh and Easy Atlantic and 33'°' (858) 864 -3603 From: Sharon Velasquez [mailto:sharon_velasquez @courtney- le- architects.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:45 PM To: msliffe Cc: Dustin Le; Kris Leonard; File; Ben Shearer; John Le; Tito Arias Subject: F&E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Screen wall Mike, What are the width of the footings? co) 0 6 :P le UN . I� I ads is N L MA m9 gp: 3�3 a _Ep € . i iii z F1 d-n i>E R9 m 0 y y. ash p D, r_ o y @�� s €=�4 max§ 4 8 55 _g� t 9F 36 Jig a xe dyne = s➢ ,. ae q aR °", 3g sge g 2 . B� �s g ➢. s, �d egg ga �� =q s§ a E a 6 �� s Ee $�� Rq A; sA a pole 11151s e $ a. easq E a 5� PA all R5 ahEa 5°y € xg a €a Fff�HZ, lift EAST PROPERTY LINE FENCE> n IfN «n s4 ATTACHMENT H Sharon Velasquez From: Lily Trinh <Itrinh @cityofrosemead.org> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:54 AM To: Sharon Velasquez; John Le Cc: Sheri Bermejo; File; John Le; Dustin Le; Edward Dy Subject: RE: F &E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Wall Plans Attachments: F &E Wall Height.JPG __ i-'_'___----•----_____---'------------------------------------ ' CITY COMMENTS: ' , Hi Sharon, ' How are you? Attached, I've broken down the fence height requirements along the east property line. Please incorporate ; on the plans that the new block wall will consist of decorative block wall material with a decorative cap. The colors and materials should match the trash enclosure. Please give me a call if you have any questions. ' Thanks, ' Lily ---_'_'__------'_------___'__.--____--- --------- ------ "_-------- - -'' -- Lily Trinh Assistant Planner City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Phone: 626-569-2142 Fax: 626-307-9218 www.citvofrosemead.org From: Lily Trinh Sent: Monday, June 20, 20115:16 PM To: 'Sharon Velasquez'; John Le Cc: Sheri Bermejo; File; John Le; Dustin Le; Edward Dy Subject: RE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. CITY COMMENTS: , Hi Sharon, ' I'm still in the process of reviewing the plans, but I will get back to you as soon as I can. The Building Official has ; 1 approved the plans. , , . Thanks, ' Lily , Lily Trinh ' , ' Assistant Planner City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Phone: 626-569-2142 Fax: 626-307-9218 www.cilyofrosomead.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ �CITY COMMENTS: r Hi Lily: � I reviewed the preliminary plans you left for me and I have the following comments: , The existing telephone substructure is not shown properly on the plan or the cross - section provided, lacking dimensions ; and detail. Further, these folks need to "pothole" the telephone substructures in the field to determine the depth and ' ' precise location of the telephone facilities and show exactly how they are going to drain the sub drain shown in the detail ; provided. The folks at Fresh and Easy must also obtain a building department permit — this will require a plan check and review of the structural calculations provided with the preliminary plans. As a final point a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying must be employed to establish and monument the property line the proposed wall ,. will abut — this will likely require the filing of a record of survey with the County of los Angeles subject to my review and ' approval to ensure the accuracy of the proposed plan. The existing easement belonging to the telephone company must ; also be shown and dimensioned on the plan. ' Lou ------------ ------------ ____ __ __ _-___- -- ______ - - - ---- From: Lily Trinh Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 20114:59 PM To: Lou LeBlanc Cc: Sheri Bermejo Subject: RE: Fresh and Easy Wall Plans Silvia showed me your inbox, so I placed it in there and logged the item. Thanks, Lily Lily Trinh Assistant Planner City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Phone: 626- 569 -2142 Fax: 626-307-9218 www.citVofrosemead.org From: Lily Trinh Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 20115:55 PM To: Lou LeBlanc Cc: Sheri Bermejo Subject: Fresh and Easy Wall Plans Importance: High Hi Lou, I placed a copy of Fresh and Easy's wall proposal on your chair. Please give me your comments as soon as possible. Thanks, Lily Lily Trinh IDQ 01 W 110 it VALLEY 1� Q-1) tWiAC 328.83 t�rl- �i ATTACHMENT FROM LILY TRINH'S EMAIL DATED JUNE 24, 2011. 20-ft in length r., - -r POR 25 POR M B m ATTACHMENT I Sharon Velasquez From: Tito Arias <oarias @simacgc.com> Sent: Monday, August 01, 201111:46 AM To: Sharon Velasquez Cc: 'Ben Shearer'; File; John Le; Edward Dy;'Dmitriy, Redka' Subject: RE: F &E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Wall Plans -----•--------------------------------------------------------------- .CONTRACTOR'S COMMENTS: r , ' AI I, I have a number of concerns as to how this wall will be built. ' r 1. Is the intent to demo the existing residential wall up to the commercial property? ' r ' 2. Are we to remove all the trees along the existing wall on the residential side? 3. What happens with the existing light poles? Digging a 7'pier next to a light pole will compromise this pole. ; 4. Is this wall meant to be constructed on the F &E property side or will we be allowed to work on the residential ' side? � 5. If we are to work on the residential side the one house structure is approx. Z' in proximity of the new wall. ; 6. Drawing shows a gate of some sort at the end of the new wall, is this correct? ' ' Thanks ' Tito Arias, Project Manager ; Sitnac Construction, Inc. ' 2067 Wineridge Place, Suite A r Escondido, Ca 92029 ; 760- 737 -2100 ' 760 - 737 -2110 Fax ' ' 858- 967 -9816 Cell ---- ---------------------------------- From: Sharon Velasquez [mailto:Sharon Velasquez @courtney -le- architects.com] Sent: Monday, August 01,'2011 9:57 AM To: 'Tito Arias' Cc: 'Ben Shearer'; File; John Le; Edward Dy Subject: RE: F &E 1445 (Valley /Rosemead) Rosemead 03: Wall Plans Tito, The existing brick wall between F &E and commercial property is (e) to remain, provide stucco finish on F &E side, with' precast conc. cap; paint. Masonry wall between F &E and residential property is all new. Wall work will be on F &E side only except at wall returns. SHARON VELASQUEZ - PROJECT MANAGER shoron velasauez @courtney- le- orchitects.com COURTNEY + LE ARCHITECTS 801 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, CA. 91016 ATTACHMENT J Sharon Velasquez From: PEACE, SHEENA M (ATTPB) <sp3914 @att.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 20119:39 AM To: Sharon Velasquez, LIMAS, ANNA M (ATTPB) Cc: John Le; Edward Dy; Dustin Le; File Subject: RE: F &E 1445 Rosemead 03: MASONRY FENCE PACBELL EASEMENT ------------------------------- _ -------- _ -------- _ -------------------- :AT &T DENIAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ; Hi Sharon, 1 apologize for the delay. e The engineer has reviewed your plans and advised that if you are just adding a %" thick plaster coating to the west side ; of the wall. I can issue a conditional use permit. However, we cannot provide an encroachment permit to replace the existing wall. We have buried cable within the ; easement and we must maintain unrestricted access. Should you need to replace the wall, please contact our engineer, Anna Limas, to discuss the details and costs of moving our cable. Anna can be reached at 626 -570 -5314 or al3l84@att.com. ; i Thanks for your patience, Sheen Peace ; 'AT &T California ' ;Manager Right —of —Way i Phone: 626 - 308 -4992 isp3914 @att.com L -- -------- ----------------- From: Sharon Velasquez [mailto: Sharon — Velasquez @courtney- le- architects.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 20114:55 PM To: PEACE, SHEENA M (ATTPB) Cc: John Le; Edward Dy; Dustin Le; File Subject: RE: F &E 1445 Rosemead 03: MASONRY FENCE PACBELL EASEMENT Importance: High Sheena, Have not heard back from you regarding this project. Please give us an update on your review of fence plans. Thank you. SHARON VELASQUEZ - PROJECT MANAGER shciron—velosquez@courtney-le-orchitects.com COURTNEY + LE ARCHITECTS 801 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, CA. 91016 Tel: (626) 275 6800 x22 Fax: (626) 275 6801 SHARON VELASQUEZ - PROJECT MANAGER sharon velasquez @courtney- le- architects.com COURTNEY + LE ARCHITECTS 801 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, CA. 91016 Tel: (626) 275 6800 x22 Fax: (626) 275 6801 This email and any attached files are confidential and proprietary and should not be viewed or used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. :AT &T DENIAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS .From: RODRIGUEZ, ENRIQUE G (ATTPB) [mailto:er2921 @att.com] ; ,Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:49 PM ' :To: Sharon Velasquez; rick.rodriguez @att.com Cc: File; John Le; Dustin Le; Emerito Maulion Subject: RE: F &E 1445 (Valley/Rosemead) Rosemead 03: MASONRY FENCE PACBELL EASEMENT ; Hello Sharon, ' I received a response from our Engineering Department. We have a buried cable within our easement. ; According to our records, the cable was originally placed 1 foot from the property line. Of course, there is no ; guarantee on the exact location today. ' At this time, we must deny your request for an encroachment permit. Our cable is not in conduit, so we must ; maintain unrestricted access to our cable. If the City requires a wall, you will need to pothole to determine the exact location of our cable. If the wall can be designed so that we can maintain unrestricted access, I may be ' able to issue a conditional permit. We would have to review the wall plans first. Otherwise, you may need to r consider paying for us to relocate our cable. ; Please let me know if you have any questions. RICK RODRIGUEZ ; MANAGER - RIGHT OF WAY AT &T CALIFORNIA .LOS ANGELES Construction & Engineering ; 100 N. Stoneman Ave., Room 265 ; :Alhambra, CA 91801 -3521 :(626) 308 -4992 - Work (626) 576 -7167 - Fax ; :rick.rodriguez@att.com ----- -- ------------- - - - - --------------- -------------- Notice: This e -mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of AT &T, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at (626) 308 -4992 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. 10 ATTACHMENT K EXCERPTS FROM CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE 17.12.060 Nonconforming buildings and uses generally. The following regulations shall apply to all nonconforming buildings and structures or parts thereof and uses existing at the effective date of this title: A. Any such nonconforming building or structure may be continued and maintained provided there is no physical change other than necessary maintenance and repair in such building or structure except as otherwise provided in other sections of this title. B. Any such nonconforming use may be maintained and continued, provided there is no increase or enlargement of the area, space or volume occupied or devoted to such nonconforming use, except as otherwise provided in this title. C. Any part of a building, structure or land occupied by such a nonconforming use which is changed to or replaced by a use conforming to the provisions of this title shall not thereafter be used or occupied by a nonconforming use. D. Any part of a building, structure or land occupied by such a nonconforming use, which use is abandoned, shall not again be used or occupied for a nonconforming use. Any part of a building, structure or land occupied by such a nonconforming use, which use shall have ceased for a period of one year or more, shall not again be used or occupied for a nonconforming use. E. If no structural alterations are made, a nonconforming use of a building may be changed to another nonconforming use of a more restrictive classification, except as herein otherwise provided with respect to zone C -3. In zone C -3, if a lawfully existing building or structure is nonconforming because less than the required amount of parking is provided, the use of such building or structure may be changed on the conditions hereinafter provided, irrespective of such parking deficiency to one of the following uses only: 1. Bakery products shops; 2. Barber shops; 3. Beauty shops and manicure parlors; 4. Confectionery stores; 5. Dressmaking or millinery shops; 6. Drug stores; 7. Dry cleaning, pressing and laundry agencies, including spotting, sponging and pressing only; 8. Dry goods or notions stores; 9. Electric appliance stores and repairs; 10. Florist shops, greenhouses and flower nurseries; 11. Furniture stores; 12. Hardware stores; 13. Ice storage houses of not more than five -ton capacity; 14. Jewelry stores; 15. Meat markets or delicatessen stores; 16. Offices, business, or professional or public utility; 17. Photographic shops; 18. Radio and television stores; 19. Self service laundries; 20. Self service dry cleaning establishments; 21. Shoe stores or shoe repair shops; 22. Stationery and book stores; 23. Tailor, clothing or wearing apparel shops; 24. Libraries; 25. Police and fire stations; 26. Post offices; 27. Schools; 28. Telephone exchanges and communication equipment buildings. No such change of use may be made without compliance with the provisions of Chapter 17.84 with respect to improvement of such parking area as is afforded, unless the Modification Committee shall find that the required improvement is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. F. In all R zones, every nonconforming building or structure which was designed, arranged or intended for a use not permitted in the R zones, in the absence of a variance permitting such use of structure shall be completely removed or altered and converted to a conforming building, structure and use when such buildings or structures have reached, or may hereafter reach, the ages, computed from the date of wood or wood frame construction twenty -five (25) years, if of masonry construction forty (40) years. Provided, however, that this regulation shall not become operative until ten years from the effective date of this title, and except that this subsection shall not apply to lawfully existing public utility buildings and structures. G. Every nonconforming use of land (where no main building is involved) existing at the time this title becomes effective shall be discontinued within three years from the effective date of this title, except that this subsection shall not apply to public utility uses. H. Every nonconforming use of a conforming building or structure existing at the time this title becomes effective shall be discontinued within three years from the effective date of this title. I. Any sign, billboard, commercial advertising structure or statuary which is lawfully existing and maintained at the time this title becomes effective may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions hereof; provided, however, that no structural alterations are made thereto, and provided further that all such nonconforming signs, billboards, commercial advertising structures or statuary, and their supporting members, shall be completely removed from the premises not later than three years from the effective date of this title. J. The foregoing provisions of this section shall also apply to buildings, structures, land or uses which hereafter become nonconforming due to any reclassifications of zones under this title, or by reason of annexation of property to the city, provided, however, that where a period of years is specified in this section for the removal of nonconforming buildings, structures or uses, the period shall be computed from the date of such reclassification or change. 1. The reclassification of permitted storage and display associated with commercial uses as set forth in Sections 17.36.070, 17.44.070, 17.48.160 and 17.56.100, shall take effect on November 1, 1977, and all storage and display uses described in those sections shall be in conformity with the provisions contained therein on November 1, 1977. K. The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply so as to prevent the modernization, reconstruction or replacement of public utility buildings, structures, equipment and facilities where there is no change of use or increase in area of property so used. (Ord. 851 § 2 (part), 2007) 17.12.070 Registration of nonconforming buildings and uses. All nonconforming uses and nonconforming buildings existing in zones other than zones R -I and R -2 upon the effective date of this title shall, by the owners thereof or their agents, be declared in an affidavit filed with the City Clerk within six months after such date. Otherwise the right to maintain or continue such nonconforming use or building shall cease and terminate at the expiration of the six -month period. Such affidavit shall contain the following information: A. The legal description of the premises upon which the nonconforming use of building exists; B. The street address by which such premises are commonly known; C. The name and address of the owner or owners of such premises; D. The name and address of the occupant or tenant of such premises; E. The business or trade name, if any, under which the nonconforming use is conducted; F. A plot plan drawn to scale showing the location and dimensions of all buildings and structures located on the premises involved. (Ord. 851 § 2 (part), 2007) 17.12.190 Requirement for construction of a six -foot high masonry wall. The City Council finds that there are areas within the city where commercial zones abut residential zones and the construction of a block wall is necessary to protect such residential areas. Any owner, lessee, occupant or agent constructing or causing the construction of any building, building addition, accessory building, or repairs estimated by the Building Department to have a value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or more upon any commercially used and zoned lot adjacent to property zoned and used for residential purposes shall construct a six -foot high masonry wall along the property line where the commercially zoned lot has a common or rear lot line with a residentially zoned property. Any person desiring to obtain a modification from the provisions of this section may file with the Planning Commission a written application therefore, citing the reasons for such request. The Planning Commission shall give the application for such modification an opportunity to be heard if he or she so desires, and thereafter may grant or deny the application for the modification, or, may grant the same upon such conditions as the Planning Commission deems necessary for the preservation of the safety, health or property of the general public. Any interested person may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council by filing an appeal pursuant to Section 17.124.070 of this code. (Ord. 851 § 2 (part), 2007) 17.48 CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE 17.48.090 Fences and walls. A. Masonry walls, six feet high, are required along property lines on any parcel of land abutting an adjoining residential (R) or planned development (P -D) zone. B. Walls or fences located within ten feet of any public right -of -way shall not exceed a height of three feet. (Prior code § 9112.8) 17.48.120 Landscaping requirements. A. Three percent landscaping shall be required for each lot or parcel of land zoned CBD. B. All planting areas shall be separated from adjacent paving by six -inch minimum curb walls. C. All landscaped areas shall be permanently maintained and provided with a permanent irrigation or sprinkler system. D. Landscaping plans shall require prior approval of the Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of a building permit. (Prior code § 9112.11) 17.48.140 Nonconforming buildings and uses -- Registration. All nonconforming uses and nonconforming buildings existing upon the effective date of this title shall, by the owners thereof or their agents, be declared in an affidavit filed with the City Clerk within six months after such date, except for those areas previously zoned R (Residential). Otherwise, the right to maintain or continue such nonconforming use or building shall cease and terminate at the expiration of the six -month period. The affidavit shall contain the following information: A. The legal description of the premises upon which the nonconforming use of building exists; B. The street address by which such premises are commonly known; C. The name and address of the owner or owners of such premises; D. The name and address of the occupant or tenant of such premises; E. The business or trade name, if any, under which the nonconforming use is conducted; F. A plot plan drawn to scale showing the location and dimensions of all buildings and structures located on the premises involved; and G. Statement of the terms or a copy of existing lease or rental agreement. (Prior code § 9112.13) 17.108.010 Purpose. When practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of this title occur by reason of a strict interpretation and enforcement of any of the provisions of this title, the Planning Commission shall have authority, subject to the provisions of this title, under such conditions as it may determine to assure that the spirit and purposes of this title will be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. All acts of the Planning Commission or any city officers under the provisions of this chapter, shall be construed as administrative acts performed for the purpose of this title shall apply in special cases, as provided in this chapter, and shall not constitute amendments to the provisions of this title or the zoning map. (Prior code § 9170) 17.108.020 Prerequisite conditions. Variances may be granted when all the following circumstances are found to apply: A. That the variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; B. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located; C. That because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications; D. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. (Prior code § 917 1) EXHIBIT fFG" EXHIBIT G 8594 � i�i.t mis Timm sFAgCxxo pfflfFCfTlFassESSpq SNFfi R03A pF.eg/gggp -P/ Wllp'IYOf IOSANGEIES CpPYflIOMp� N �ta3� I BK I I I I I 5391 I f I e VALLEY n BLVD s j .._ m r r T r .• 351 T _ yTePM �'m ❑ I IZc ]724- w BKI i2 —5399, -y z5 z41 z51 cc M B X74 4 r I I I I I PG I I F I I I I I I i SITE EXHIBIT G