PC - Item 3A - Modification 13-06 at 8508-8522 Valley BoulevardROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: JANUARY 21, 2014
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION 13 -06
8508 -8522 VALLEY BOULEVARD
Summary
Gerard Ngo has submitted a Modification application requesting to modify Design
Review 03 -112 (Modification), to permit 20,000 square feet of restaurant and fast food
uses and 10,000 square feet of retail and office uses within the commercial shopping
center, located at 8508 -8522 Valley Boulevard in the C -31D (Medium Commercial with a
Design Overlay) zone.
Environmental Determination:
Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts
projects that consist of inspections to check for the performance of an operation, or for
quality, health or safety of a project. Accordingly, Modification 13 -06 is classified as a
Class 9 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15309 of CEQA guidelines.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the
Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14 -02 with findings (Exhibit "A ") and
APPROVE Modification 13 -06, subject to the thirty -four (34) conditions outlined in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and contingent upon the Los Angeles County Fire
Department's approval of the project.
Property History and Description
The subject site totals approximately 2.58 acres, which is located under the Southern
California Edison right -of -way on the south side of Valley Boulevard. On October 18,
2004, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 03 -112 for the construction of
three (3) commercial buildings, consisting of 27,000 square feet of office use and 3,000
square feet of office /retail use. A site plan has been attached as Exhibit "C ". On August
4, 2008, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) to
eliminate the requirement for a reciprocal access and parking agreement with the
adjacent Empire Shopping Center and to permit 15,000 square feet of restaurant and
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 2 of 14
fast food uses and 15,000 square feet of retail use within the commercial shopping
center. The building construction was completed in 2009.
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning
map it is designated C -31D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The site
is surrounded by the following land uses:
North:
General Plan: Public Facilities and City of San Gabriel
Zoning: P (Automobile Parking), O -S (Open Space), and City of San Gabriel
Land Use: Plant Nursery and City of San Gabriel
South:
General Plan:
Public Facilities
Zoning:
O -S (Open Space)
Land Use:
Plant Nursery
East:
General Plan: Commercial and Low Density Residential
Zoning: P (Automobile Parking) and P -D (Planned Development)
Land Use: Parking and Residences
West:
General Plan: Commercial and Low Density Residential
Zoning: C -31D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) and
R -1 (Single - Family Residential)
Land Use: Commercial and Residential
Administrative Analysis
The applicant is requesting to modify Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) to
incorporate an additional 5,000 square feet of restaurant use within the shopping center.
The purpose of this modification is to allow the existing Shaanxi Gourmet restaurant to
expand their restaurant from units 101 and 102 into units 103 through 105.
Staff has carefully reviewed the applicant's request to verify that the proposed
development would remain in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, if this condition of approval was modified. According to the Rosemead Municipal
Code (RMC), a shopping center is defined as a single parcel of land with two or more
uses and situated within the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. Furthermore, RMC
Section 17.84.100(C) requires one (1) parking space for each two hundred fifty (250)
square feet of combined gross floor area if the total combined floor space of all
structures on the parcel is one hundred thousand (100, 000) square feet or less of floor
area. Based on this definition and these parking requirements, the center would provide
an adequate number parking spaces onsite. Thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of
shopping center gross floor area requires one hundred twenty (120) parking spaces.
The subject commercial shopping center will provide, ninety-one (91) standard parking
stalls, including six (6) handicapped accessible stalls, and twenty -nine (29) compact
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 3 of 14
stalls.
As indicated in the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 4, 2008 (attached
as Exhibit "D "), a traffic study was completed by Katz, Okitsu and Associates on July 14,
2004, which analyzed the original project as a shopping center. For this reason, the
City's Traffic Consultant determined that no further traffic analysis is required.
To ensure that the proposed additional square footage of restaurant use would not
impact trash facilities within the development, staff has added a condition of approval
requiring that the City's trash service provider confirm that the existing trash enclosures
can accommodate twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of restaurant and fast food
uses and ten thousand (10,000) square feet of retail use.
As a result of the applicant's request for this modification, completion of the building
construction, and changes in City standards and policies subsequent to the original
approval, the conditions of approval have been revised to more accurately reflect both
the nature of the project and the City's requirements for its construction and use.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department — Regulation #27
On May 23, 2007, the City received a letter from the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department (attached as Exhibit "E ") denying the construction of the shopping center
under the Southern California Edison right -of -way due to Regulation No. 27. According
to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Regulation No. 27 prohibits new
permanent structures from being constructed within the utility easement underneath
high voltage transmission lines. On July 29, 2007, the City's previous City Manager
issued the building permits for the construction of the shopping center. No formal
approval was issued by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. For that reason,
the Rosemead Building and Safety Division required fire reviews by a reputable outside
fire consultant to ensure that the project was in compliance with all other Fire
Department standards.
In 2008, while the building was under construction, the applicant submitted Design
Review 03 -112 (Modification) to incorporate 15,000 square feet of restaurant and fast
food uses and 15,000 square feet of retail use within the commercial shopping center.
At that time, the fire department issued a comment letter, which disapproved the
applicant's request due to Regulation No. 27 (attached as Exhibit "F "). Although the
County of Los Angeles Fire Department did not approve the request, the Planning
Commission approved Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) on August 4, 2008. On
August 18, 2008, the City received a letter of appeal from representatives of the County
of Los Angeles Fire Department (known as LA County Firefighters Local 1014)
(attached as Exhibit "G "), however, the appeal did not meet the appeal deadline,
therefore, was invalid (please see Exhibit "H ").
On February 10, 2010, the previous Community Development Director wrote a letter to
the County of Los Angele Fire Department (attached as Exhibit "I "), requesting that they
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 4 of 14
rescind their order not to conduct any plan reviews or inspection services for the
structures in the shopping center. On March 3, 2010, the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department responded to the City's letter denying the request due to Regulation No. 27
(attached as Exhibit "J ").
It is important that the County of Los Angeles Fire Department conduct plan reviews
and inspection services for all structures within the City. For these reasons, it is
recommended that the approval of this project is contingent upon the County of Los
Angeles Fire Department's approval.
Municipal Code Requirements
Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review
procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible
changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping.
Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a design review application:
• The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the
proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for
the general neighborhood;
There are multiple commercial retail and restaurant uses in the vicinity of the
project center. The shopping center was constructed in 2009 and will remain in
conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code, with the
modification to incorporate an additional 5,000 square feet of restaurant use.
• The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in
which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on
the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash,
storage and loading areas;
The shopping center was constructed in 2009 and will remain in conformity with
the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. The
construction of the shopping center was completed in 2009. Conditions of
approval specifically address factors such as construction hours, screening of
mechanical equipment, landscaping, and the overall maintenance of the
property.
• The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and
appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site
developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local
environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value;
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 5 of 14
The proposed project will not cause the nature of the local environment to
materially depreciate in appearance and value. The project only relates to the
use of the buildings. The applicant is only requesting to incorporate an additional
5,000 square feet within the existing shopping center.
• The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed
developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where
buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part
of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately
adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape,
size, or style;
The property is not part of the Civic Center plan, precise plan, or land reserved
for public or educational use. The project only relates to the use of the buildings.
• The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and
other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the
buildings and structures are involved; and
The proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the
C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone, and all applicable
referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
• The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping,
luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been
given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile
and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view
of public streets.
The project only relates to the use of the buildings. The site plan and design of
the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site
features will remain as the shopping was constructed in 2009.
Public Notice Process
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to ninety -three (93) property owners,
publication in the Rosemead Reader on January 9, 2014, and postings of the notice at
the five (5) public locations and on the subject site.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 6 of 14
Prepared by Submitted by:
Lily Trinh Michelle Ramirez
Associate Planner Community Development Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Resolution 14 -02
B. Revised Conditions of Approval
C. Site Plan
D. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, dated August 4, 2008
E. County of Los Angeles Fire Department Letter to Previous City Manager
F. County of Los Angeles Fire Department Comment Letter to Design Review 03 -112 (Modification)
G. Appeal Request from LA County Firefighters Local 1014
H. City's Response Letter to Appeal Request
I. Letter to County of Los Angeles Fire Department from Previous Community Development Director
J. County of Los Angeles Fire Department Response Letter
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 7 of 14
EXHIBIT "A"
PC RESOLUTION 14 -02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING MODIFICATION 13 -06, TO MODIFY DESIGN REVIEW 03-
112 (MODIFICATION) TO PERMIT 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RESTAURANT AND FAST FOOD USES AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET
OF RETAIL USE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER
LOCATED AT 8508 -8522 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APNS: 5371 - 010 -803
AND 805).
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2013, Gerard Ngo, filed a Modification application to
modify Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) to permit 20,000 square feet of restaurant
and fast food uses and 10,000 square feet of retail use within the commercial shopping
center, located at 8508 -8522 Valley Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, 8508 -8522 Valley Boulevard is located in the C -3D (Medium
Commercial with Design Overlay) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC)
provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning
Commission to approve, conditionally approve or deny design review applications; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2014, ninety -three (93) notices were sent to property
owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted
in five (5) public locations and on -site, specifying the availability of the application, plus
the date, time and location of the public hearing for Modification 13 -06; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to
Modification 13 -06; 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:
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 8 of 14
SECTION 1 . The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that
Modification 13 -06 is classified as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section
15309 of CEQA guidelines. Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) guidelines exempts projects that consist of inspections to check for the
performance of an operation, or for quality, health or safety of a project.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 13 -06 in accordance with Section
17.72.030 et seq., of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the
proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the
general neighborhood;
FINDING: There are multiple commercial retail and restaurant uses in the vicinity
of the project center. The shopping center was constructed in 2009 and will remain in
conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code, with the modification to
incorporate an additional 5,000 square feet of restaurant use.
B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the
manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the
environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and
loading areas.
FINDING: The shopping center was constructed in 2009 and will remain in
conformity with the timeframe and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise
Ordinance. The construction of the shopping center was completed in 2009.
Conditions of approval specifically address factors such as construction hours,
screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, and the overall maintenance of the
property.
C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and
appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site
developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to
materially depreciate in appearance and value;
FINDING: The proposed project will not cause the nature of the local
environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. The project only relates
to the use of the buildings. The applicant is only requesting to incorporate an additional
5,000 square feet within the existing shopping center.
D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed
developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings
are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 9 of 14
Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land
included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style.
FINDING: The property is not part of the Civic Center plan, precise plan, or land
reserved for public or educational use. The project only relates to the use of the
buildings.
E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code
and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the
buildings and structures are involved.
FINDING: The proposed development meets all of the minimum code
requirements for the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone, and all
applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs,
landscaping, luminaries, and other site feature indicates that proper consideration has
been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile
and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of
public streets.
FINDING: The project only relates to the use of the buildings. The site plan
and design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other
site features will remain as the shopping was constructed in 2009.
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Modification 13-
06, to permit 20,000 square feet of restaurant and fast food uses and 10,000 square
feet of retail and office uses within the commercial shopping center, subject to
conditions listed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4 . This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this
decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed
with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in
Article IX - Planning and Zoning of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
SECTION 5 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on January 21, 2014, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 10 of 14
SECTION 6 . The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21 day of January, 2014.
Diana Herrera, 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 21S day of
January, 2014 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Michelle Ramirez, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Paqe 11 of 14
EXHIBIT "B"
MODIFICATION 13 -06
ORIGINALLY DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MODIFICATION)
8508 -8522 VALLEY BOULEVARD
(APNs: 5371- 010 -803 and 805)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Modification 13 -06 is approved for the construction of a shopping center totaling
30,000 square feet, and consisting of 20,000 square feet of restaurant and fast
food uses and 10,000 square feet of retail use to be developed in accordance
with the plans marked Exhibit "C ", dated July 28, 2008, contingent upon County
of Los Angeles Fire Department's approval, which approval is required to be
proven via a written document presented to the Planning Division prior to any
exercise of the Modification. 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. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make
and /or approve minor modifications.
4. Modification 13 -06 is granted or approved with the City, its Planning Commission,
and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to
modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed
circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the
modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use,
or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation
of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its
Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any
permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any
violations of the conditions imposed on Modification 13 -06.
5. 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.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 12 of 14
6. Approval of Modification 13 -06 shall not take effect for any purpose until the
applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that
he /she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the
letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the Planning
Commission approval date.
7. Modification 13 -06 is approved for a one (1) year period from the date of
adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 14 -02. The applicant shall obtain
County of Los Angeles Fire Department approval of its revised operations and
shall initiate the proposed use or request an extension from the Planning
Commission 30 days prior to expiration. Otherwise Modification 13 -06 shall
become null and void.
8. 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.
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 Planning Division, 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. Planning and Building and Safety Division staff shall have access to the subject
property at any time during construction to monitor progress.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 13 of 14
16. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval
have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate
department(s).
17. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the
public right -of -way.
18. All utilities (with the exception of the existing transmission lines) 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 City.
19. Window signage area shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the window and
door area. Applicant shall remove that signage which exceeds the 15%
coverage area.
20. 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.
21. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state in accordance
with Sections 8.32.010 - 8.32.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which
pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage,
rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate
trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be
regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary
condition.
22. 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 the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls
shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and
orderly manner.
23. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from
view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Such equipment shall not
exceed the height of the parapet wall.
24. 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.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2014
Page 14 of 14
25. Signs shall comply with the shopping center's uniform sign program and the
Rosemead Municipal Code. All signs shall be submitted to the Planning Division
for review and approval.
26. Adequate lighting shall be provided in the vehicle parking area at all times. All
exterior lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties and shielded on
all sides.
27. Windows shall be treated with anti - etching film to provide protection from
property damage.
28. All attached trash enclosures on -site shall be fully enclosed, the walls shall have
a smooth stucco finish, and the color shall be comparable to that of the main
structure. All trash enclosures shall also have opaque steel self - closing and self -
latching doors. All trash enclosures shall be locked at close of business daily.
29. If at any future time a reciprocal access agreement for vehicles or pedestrians is
pursued with the adjacent Empire Shopping Center, a parking analysis shall be
conducted. Any future connection shall be constructed without the loss of any
on -site parking spaces.
30. Forty (40) feet of red curb shall be painted west of the project driveway and
twenty (20) feet of red curb shall be painted east of the project driveway.
31. A Southern California Edison representative must approve all subsequent
Business License applications, prior to submittal to the City.
32. The applicant shall work with the City's trash service provider to ensure that the
existing trash facilities within the development will accommodate twenty
thousand (20,000) square feet of restaurant and fast food uses and ten thousand
(10,000) square feet of retail use. If not, the applicant shall be required to
provide improvements to the trash facilities as recommended by the City's trash
service provider.
33. The hours for delivery shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to Saturday.
No delivery shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior
approval by the City.
34. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation of
revocation proceedings.
i
EXHIBIT " C"
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2008
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MODIFICATION)
8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD
Summary
Gerard Ngo has submitted an application to modify the conditions of approval of Design
Review 03 -112 to eliminate the requirement for a reciprocal access and parking
agreement with the adjacent Empire Shopping Center and to permit 15,000 square feet of
restaurant and fast food uses and 15,000 square feet of retail use within the commercial
center currently under construction, located at 8518 Valley Boulevard in the C3 -D
(Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone.
Environmental Determination:
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local
environmental guidelines exempt "in -fill development projects" where the proposed
development occurs within city limits on a site measuring no more than five (5) acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses, meeting applicable General Plan and Zoning
regulations. Accordingly, Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) is classified as a Class
32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of CEQA guidelines.
Municipal Code Requirements
Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review
procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible
changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade or landscaping.
Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may
approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application:
• The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the
proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for
the general neighborhood;
• The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner
EXHIBIT "D"
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Paae 2 of 18
in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on
the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash,
storage and loading areas.
The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and
appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site
developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local
environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value.
• The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed
developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where
buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part
of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately
adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape,
size or style.
• The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and
other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the
buildings and structures are involved; and
• The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping,
luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been
given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile
and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view
of public streets.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design Review 03 -112
(Modification) for a period of one (1) year and adopt Resolution 08 -19, subject to
conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
Property History and Description
The subject site consists of three (3) individual parcels of land totaling approximately
112,263 square feet (2.58 acres), which is located under the Southern California Edison
right -of -way on the south side of Valley Boulevard. On June 13, 2000, the Rosemead
City Council approved Zone Change 00 -212, General Plan Amendment 00 -02 and
Conditional Use Permit 00 -794, which changed the General Plan land use designation
from Public Facilities to Commercial and the zoning classification from A -1 (Light
Agricultural) to C3 -D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone for the
development of an auto sales dealership, New Century Auto Mall, which has since been
demolished. On October 18, 2004, the Planning Commission approved Design Review
03 -112 for the construction of three (3) commercial buildings, consisting of 27,000
square feet of office use and 3,000 square feet of office /retail use. This project is
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Paoe 3 of 18
currently under construction, and the Building Department estimates the project will be
completed by fall of 2008.
North Elevation
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning
map it is designated C3 -D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The site
is surrounded by the following land uses:
North:
General Plan:
Public Facilities
Zoning:
A -1 (Light Agricultural)
Land Use:
Plant Nursery
South:
General Plan:
Public Facilities
Zoning:
A -1 (Light Agricultural)
Land Use:
Plant Nursery
East:
General Plan:
Commercial
Zoning:
C3 -D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) and
R -1 (Single - Family Residential)
Land Use:
Empire Shopping Center and Residences
West:
General Plan:
Commercial and Low Density Residential
Zoning:
A -1 (Light Agricultural) and PD (Planned Development)
Land Use:
Flood Control Channel and Residences
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Paae 4 of 18
Administrative Analysis
The applicant is requesting to modify Design Review 03 -112 by eliminating conditions of
approval numbers 29 and 30 from the originally approved project. As approved by the
Rosemead Planning Commission on October 18, 2004, condition of approval number
29 states that no portion of any building shall be converted to a restaurant or fast food
use of any kind due to parking restrictions. Condition of approval number 30 requires
that a reciprocal access and parking agreement shall be prepared and recorded by the
applicant prior to the final Planning inspection. The purpose of eliminating condition
number 29 is to allow up to 15,000 square feet of floor area to be used for restaurant
and fast food uses, and up to 15,000 square feet of floor area to be used for retail use
within the commercial center. The purpose of eliminating condition of approval number
30 is discussed below. The following table provides a breakdown of the proposed uses
within each building.
Table A
Proposed Uses within the Commercial Center
Building
Retail /Office
Area (s.f.)
Restaurant/Fast Food Area
(s.f.)
Total Building Area
(s.f.)
A
9,405
3,015
12,420
B
6,348
8,732
15,080
C
2,500
2,500
Total
15,753
14,247
30,000
Staff has carefully reviewed the applicant's request to verify that the proposed
development would remain in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, if these conditions of approval were eliminated. The modified site plan was also
checked to make sure that functional aspects of the site development, such as
automobile and pedestrian circulation, parking, and trash facilities, would not be
impacted by the proposed intensification of the commercial center's use.
Elimination of Condition of Approval #29 and Parking Analysis
According to the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC), a shopping center is defined as a
single parcel of land with two or more uses and situated within the C -3 (Medium
Commercial) zone. Furthermore, RMC Section 17.84.100(C) requires one (1) parking
space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of combined gross floor area if the
total combined floor space of all structures on the parcel is one hundred thousand
(100,000) square feet or less of floor area. Based on this definition and these parking
requirements, the center would provide an adequate number parking spaces onsite.
Thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of shopping center gross floor area requires one
hundred twenty (120) parking spaces. The subject commercial center will provide,
ninety -one (91) standard parking stalls, including six (6) handicapped accessible stalls,
and twenty -nine (29) compact stalls.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 5 of 18
On July 14, 2004, Katz, Okitsu and Associates completed a traffic study for the existing
development. The study analyzed the original project as a thirty -two thousand eight
hundred ninety (32,890) square -foot shopping center, even though the applicant had
indicated that ninety (90) percent of the development was planned for office uses. The
study concluded that the project would not have any significant traffic impacts to the
intersections analyzed, which were Valley Boulevard at Walnut Grove Avenue and
Walnut Grove Avenue at Marshall Street. In addition to these intersections, analysis
was also conducted of general operations at the project site driveway on Valley
Boulevard.
During the review of the applicant's current requests, staff consulted with the City's
Deputy Traffic Engineer. Since the original project was reviewed as a shopping center,
the Deputy Traffic Engineer has concluded that no further traffic analysis is required.
Since the development is being constructed over three (3) existing individual parcels of
land, staff has added a condition of approval requiring Southern California Edison to
record a covenant and agreement to hold all three (3) parcels as one. This covenant
would prevent the individual parcels from within the development from being sold
separately in the future without adequate parking facilities.
Improvements to Trash Facilities to Support Proposed Uses
To ensure that the proposed intensification of the commercial center's use would not
impact trash facilities within the development, staff consulted with the City's trash
service provider, Consolidated Disposal Service. Since the original development only
proposed two single trash enclosures on the south end of the site, additional trash
enclosures were required to accommodate fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of
restaurant and fast food uses and fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of retail use.
For this reason the applicant proposes to modify the architectural plans to incorporate a
total of three (3) additional trash enclosures, as well as increase the size of the existing
enclosures to accommodate larger bins. One new attached enclosure is proposed on
the south side of Building "B" and two (2) new enclosures are proposed within the
interior of Buildings "A" and "B." The interior enclosures will be accessible from the east
side, or rear, of the buildings. These modifications are the only exterior building
modifications proposed to the original approved plans. As shown on the site plan,
labeled Exhibit "C ", the additional trash enclosures will not impact the exterior design of
the buildings, the parking areas, nor landscaped areas approved for the original
development. Furthermore, the additional trash enclosures will be fully enclosed and
not visible from the public right -of -way.
Elimination of Condition of Approval #30 and Site Circulation Analysis
There are multiple commercial properties with retail and restaurant uses in the vicinity of
the project site, which includes the adjacent Empire Shopping Center located to the
west of the subject commercial center. When the original project was submitted in
2003, the project developer considered negotiating a reciprocal access and parking
agreement with the Empire Shopping Center. The traffic study, which was completed
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 6 of 18
for the existing project, states that the purpose of the agreement was to connect the two
parking lots. This connection would have allowed direct vehicle access between the
sites for those visiting businesses at both centers, without the need to make turns onto
and off of Valley Boulevard.
The traffic study clearly indicates that the idea for this agreement originated from the
developer. Staff has verified that it was never a mitigation measure required by the
traffic study. The applicant has indicated that several unsuccessful attempts have been
made to negotiate this agreement with the property owner of Empire Shopping Center.
Although having such a connection between the two centers would be beneficial, the
Planning Division supports the need to eliminate this condition of approval, as it is not
feasible if both property owners are not in agreement. In place of the connection for the
reciprocal access, the site plan has been modified to incorporate additional landscaping
surrounding a transformer.
Furthermore, the City's Deputy Traffic Engineer has analyzed the project and also
supports the request to eliminate this requirement. However, to improve site distance
for vehicles entering and exiting the site, a condition of approval has been added to
require parking restrictions (red curb) on Valley Boulevard. Lastly, a condition of
approval has been added to require a parking study if at any time in the future a
reciprocal access agreement for vehicles and pedestrians is pursued with the Empire
Shopping Center.
Comments from Reviewing Agencies
Copies of the modified plans have been distributed to various public and utility agencies
for their review. Responding agencies have made their comments, which are on file. At
this stage, the utility companies have not issued significant requirements. However, the
Los Angeles County Fire Department issued a notice that they will not approve the
applicant's request due to Regulation #27. According to the Los Angeles County Fire
Department, Regulation #27 prohibits new permanent structures from being constructed
within the utility easement underneath high voltage transmission lines. However, it must
be noted that the Fire Department never approved the original project, which is currently
under construction. The City Manager issued the building permits on July 19, 2008,
after receiving direct authorization from the City Council. However, although no formal
approval was issued by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the Rosemead
Building and Safety Division required fire reviews by a reputable outside fire consultant
to ensure that the project was in compliance with all other Fire Department standards.
A condition of approval has been included to require additional fire reviews for any new
tenant improvements within the commercial center. The property owner will be
responsible for the fire review process, as the City should not pay the fee that will be
required by the consultant.
Conclusion
As stated previously, there are several commercial retail and restaurant uses in the
vicinity of the project center. The proposed shopping center will be in harmony with
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 7 of 18
these existing developments. Furthermore, the development will remain in conformity
with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code, with the elimination of conditions
of approval numbers 29 and 30. The minor building modifications proposed to
accommodate additional trash enclosures, will not affect architectural design, which was
approved by the Planning Commission on October 18, 2004. The commercial center is
currently under construction, and staff has performed several site visits to check on the
construction process. Staff is confident that the new shopping center will be in line with
contemporary commercial buildings currently found in the immediate vicinity and at
other commercial centers in this region.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300 -foot property owner public hearing notice, and postings of the notice at
the five (5) public locations and on the subject site.
Prepared by:
Sheri Be met
Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Matt Everling
City Planner
EXHIBITS:
A. Resolution 08 -19
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Site Plan /Floor Plan /Elevations /Landscape Plan
D. Assessor Parcel Map (APNs: 5371 - 010 -800, 801, 803)
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 8 of 18
EXHIBIT "A"
PC RESOLUTION 08 -19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MODIFICATION), TO MODIFY
THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ELIMINATE THE
REQUIREMENT FOR A RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND PARKING
AGREEMENT WITH THE ADJACENT EMPIRE SHOPPING CENTER
AND TO PERMIT 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND FAST
FOOD USES AND 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USE WITHIN
THE COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 8518 VALLEY
BOULEVARD (APNS: 5371-010-800,5371-010-801,5371-010-803).
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2008, Gerard Ngo, filed an application to modify the
conditions of approval of Design Review 03 -112 to eliminate the requirement for a
reciprocal access and parking agreement with the adjacent Empire Shopping Center
and to permit 15,000 square feet of restaurant and fast food uses and 15,000 square
feet of retail use within a commercial center currently under construction, located at
8518 Valley Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, 8518 Valley Boulevard is located in the C -3D (Medium Commercial
with Design Overlay) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC)
provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning
Commission to approve, conditionally approve or deny design review applications; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2008, ninety -four (94) notices were sent to property
owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted
in five (5) public locations and on -site, specifying the availability of the application, plus
the date, time and location of the public hearing for Design Review 03 -112
(Modification); and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design
Review 03 -112 (Modification); and
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Paae 9 of 18
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 Design
Review 03 -112 (Modification) is classified as a Class 32 Categorical Exemption
pursuant to Section 15332 (b) of CEQA guidelines. Section 15332(b) of the California
Environmental Quality Act and local environmental guidelines exempt "in -fill
development projects" where the proposed development occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by urban areas.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) in
accordance with Section 17.72.030 et seq., of the Rosemead Municipal Code as
follows:
A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the
proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the
general neighborhood;
FINDING: There are multiple commercial retail and restaurant uses in the vicinity
of the project center, including the adjacent Empire Shopping Center. The proposed
shopping center will be in harmony with these existing developments. Furthermore, the
development will remain in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, with the elimination of conditions of approval number 29 and 30. Thirty thousand
square feet of shopping center gross floor area requires one hundred twenty (120)
parking spaces, and one hundred and twenty (120) spaces will be provided. Although a
reciprocal access and parking agreement will not be created with the adjacent Empire
Shopping Center, a traffic study completed by Katz, Okitsu & Associates on July 14,
2004, when the original project was under review indicates that adequate site access
from Valley Boulevard will be provided.
B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the
manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the
environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and
loading areas.
FINDING: On October 18, 2004, the Planning Commission approved Design
Review 03 -112 for the construction of three (3) commercial buildings, consisting of
30,000 square feet of gross floor area. Only minor building modifications are proposed
with the elimination of conditions of approval number 29 and 30, which include the
construction of three additional trash enclosures and the enlargement of two original
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 10 of 18
trash enclosures on the site. The trash enclosures have been designed to be fully
enclosed and will incorporate decorative design features. There are existing Southern
California Edison high- tension power lines, which will remain and not be altered. This
development will not adversely affect surrounding properties.
C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and
appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site
developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to
materially depreciate in appearance and value;
FINDING: The elimination of conditions of approval number 29 and 30 will not
affect the overall building design that was approved by the Rosemead Planning
Commission on October 18, 2004. The commercial center is currently under
construction, and staff has performed several site visits to check on the construction
process. Since the new trash enclosures will be fully enclosed and not visible from the
public right -of -way, the shopping center will continue to be in line with contemporary
commercial buildings found currently in the immediate vicinity. and with other
commercial centers in this region.
D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed
developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings
are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic
Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land
included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style.
FINDING: The approved design will create a development that is aesthetically
pleasing and enhances land values and employment opportunities in the general area.
The project has a variety of earth tones and brown tones for the exterior, stone veneer,
ceramic mosaic tile accents, molding as well as a Spanish clay tile roof. These design
elements along with the contemporary architectural style will give the final product a
very rich look which will set a standard for higher quality projects along Valley Boulevard
and in the City in general. Lastly, the property is not part of the Civic Center Plan,
precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use.
E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code
and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the
buildings and structures are involved.
FINDING: This proposed development meets all of the minimum code
requirements for the C3 -D (Medium Commercial with Design Overlay) zone, and all
applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs,
landscaping, luminaries, and other site feature indicates that proper consideration has
been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Paqe 11 of 18
and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of
public streets.
FINDING: This development provides the required parking for a shopping
center, which is conveniently located adjacent to units it serves. Since the development
will exist over three individual parcels, a condition of approval will require Southern
California Edison to record a covenant and agreement to hold all three (3) individual
parcels as one. This covenant will prevent the parcels from being sold separately
without adequate parking facilities. Although condition of approval number 30, which
requires a reciprocal access and parking agreement with the adjacent Empire Shopping
Center, is being eliminated, a condition of approval has been added to require parking
restrictions on Valley Boulevard in order to improve site distance for vehicles entering
and exiting the site. Lastly, additional trash enclosures have been incorporated into the
development to serve the needs of a 30,000 square -foot shopping center. These
enclosures will not be visible from the public right -of -way, and will be fully enclosed so
as not to impact the neighboring residences to the east. This modification application
will not affect any portion of the buildings that are visible from the public right -of -way,
which were approved by the Planning Commission on October 18, 2004. This project
will greatly improve the view from Valley Boulevard.
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Design Review
03 -112 (Modification), to eliminate the requirement for a reciprocal access and parking
agreement with the adjacent Empire Shopping Center and to permit 15,000 square feet
of restaurant and fast food uses and 15,000 square feet of retail use within the
commercial center located at 8518 Valley Boulevard, subject to conditions listed in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4 . This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this
decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed
with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in
Article IX - Planning and Zoning of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
SECTION 5 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on August 4, 2008, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Paqe 12 of 18
SECTION 6 . The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 4 th day of August, 2008.
Daniel Lopez, Chairman
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 4 th day of
August, 2008 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Matt Everling, Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Paae 13 of 18
EXHIBIT "B"
DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MODIFICATION)
8518VALLEY BOULEVARD
(APNs: 5371 - 010 -800, 801, 803)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
August 4, 2008
1. Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) is approved for the construction of a
shopping center totaling 30,000 square feet, and consisting of 15,000
square feet of restaurant and fast food uses and 15,000 square feet of retail
use to be developed in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C, dated
July 28, 2008. 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. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make
and /or approve minor modifications.
4. Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) 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 03 -112 (Modification).
5. 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.
6. Approval of Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) shall not take effect for
any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 14 of 18
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.
7. Design Review 03 -112 (Modification) is approved for a one (1) year period.
The applicant shall initiate the proposed use, or request an extension 30
days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission. Otherwise Design
Review 03 -112 (Modification) shall become null and void.
8. 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.
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 114 ", 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 Unified 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. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this
approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate
department(s).
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Pape 15 of 18
17. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the
public right -of -way.
18. All utilities (with the exception of the existing transmission lines) 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 City Planner.
19. Window signage area shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the window
and door area. Applicant shall remove that signage which exceeds the 15%
coverage area.
20. 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.
21. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state in
accordance with Sections 8.32.010 - 8.32.040 of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal
of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored
in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and
garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained
in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition.
22. 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.
23. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division
for review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. The
landscape/ irrigation plan shall include an automatic sprinkler system and
moisture sensors and shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
24. 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.
25. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be
screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Such
equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 16 of 18
26. Signs shall comply with the sign program indicated in this report and
that of Chapter 17.104 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. A uniform
signage program shall be developed and submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of the final
Certificate of Occupancy.
27. Submit a detailed lighting plan for the exterior of the building and
adjacent parking areas. Adequate lighting shall be provided in the
vehicle parking area. All exterior lighting shall be directed away from
adjacent properties and shielded on all sides.
28. Windows shall be treated with anti - etching film to provide protection
from property damage.
29. All attached trash enclosures on -site shall be fully enclosed, the walls
shall have a smooth stucco finish, and the color shall be comparable
to that of the main structure. All trash enclosures shall also have
opaque steel self- closing doors.
30. If at any future time a reciprocal access agreement for vehicles or
pedestrians is pursued with the adjacent Empire Shopping Center, a
parking analysis shall be conducted. Any future connection shall be
constructed without the loss of any on -site parking spaces.
31. Forty (40) feet of red curb shall be painted . west of the project driveway
and twenty (20) feet of red curb shall be painted east of the project
driveway.
32. A Southern California Edison representative must approve all
subsequent Occupancy Permit applications, prior to submittal to the
Planning Division.
33. Any changes to the conditions of operation listed in this Exhibit "B"
must be first approved by the Planning Commission through a
modification application.
34. 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 City Planner shall approve said screening prior
to installation.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 17 of 18
35. If the new trash enclosure, measuring 9'X9' -3 ", located along the south
side of Building "B," is not able to be installed at the proposed
location due to the existing location of exterior mechanical equipment,
then a the new trash enclosure of the same size shall be installed
within the building shell of tenant space labeled B -B, B -9 or B -10.
36. Fire reviews for all new tenant improvements within the commercial
center shall be completed by Ralph Jensen & Associates, as required
by the Building and Safety Division, at the expense of the applicant.
37. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, a covenant
and agreement to hold all three (3) parcels as one shall be prepared by
Southern California Edison, approved by the City Planner and City
Engineer, and recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office.
38. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and /or initiation
of revocation proceedings.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 2008
Page 18 of 18
EXHIBIT "DI
5371 10 2001
/
I alp
� a
I
I
azz Ja
I
'
/66.65 333.0/
60
I
s
r
I
li9'J
mnc
tl B F 7
� J
tl a Q
13
O Q
a WHI w SP E EgWG
PINES PLIPi
�O
p
/ce ��3pN
3 Itpp
a38. /J
/E l�
; n O
i
m B O y
2R���4,q
IY.
i
53"/2
O
�C�C
E ( Ba - Rt
"g
-
tl
/.tef fy3
Al
`>
_ /
SUBJECT SITE
.
O 12029 9213
9
-
LICENSED
SURVEYORS
MAP
7
L.S.
30 -2 -12
-
CODE
1
FEB 0 9 ZOOt
WR YRZ. /.SSMi. SG-
'
4
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 4, 2008
CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in Room 8 at Rosemead Community Recreation Center at 3936
N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead.
Commissioner Cam led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Lopez delivered the invocation.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice - Chairman Kunioka, and Chairman Lopez, Commissioner Vuu,
Commissioner Cam
ABSENT: None
EX OFFICIO: Everling, Lockwood, Agaba, Bermejo, Trinh and Yin
1. PRESENTATION
A. Oath of office — Ronald Gay
B. City Planner Matt Everling stated on the second Public Hearing item there some minor
changes to the Conditions of Approval and we can make copies available. They are
Conditions 8 and Condition 31.
2. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS:
Attorney Yin explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning
Commission decisions to the City Council.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Lopez asked if anyone Would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step
forward.
See None
4. CONSENT CALENDAR — These items are considered to be routine actions that may be
considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an
item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 1 of 19
A. Approval of Minutes — July 7, 2008
Vice — Chairman Kunioka had corrections on pages 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.
Attorney Yin had corrections on pages, 5 and 7.
Chairman Lopez asked for a motion for approval of the other items on the Consent Calendar.
MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU, TO
WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR.
Vote results: Approved with corrections to minutes.
YES: CAM, GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08 -04 — 8837 VALLEY BLVD - Chau Minh Pham and Lien
Pham have submitted an application requesting approval to obtain a new on -sale Type 41
ABC license serving beer and wine in conjunction with a bona -fide sit -down restaurant
with a seating capacity for 150 people located at 8837 Valley Blvd in the CBD -D (Central
Business District) Zone with a Design Overlay. (George Agaba, Associate Planner)
PC RESOLUTION 08 -17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08 -04, FOR A NEW ON -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC
LICENSE FOR THIEN AN B07 MON RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 8837 VALLEY BOULEVARD,
IN THE CBD -D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE.
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE
Conditional Use Permit 08 -04 and ADOPT Resolution 08 -17 subject to the conditions
outlined in Exhibit "B ". This entitlement shall be contingent upon the privileges being
utilized within six (6) months from the effective Planning Commission approval date.
Presentation: George Agaba
Associate Planner Agaba stated that applicant was present to answer questions.
Chairman Lopez asked if there were any questions for staff.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 2 of 19
Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if there was sufficient parking. If there is a shortage of
parking and if complaints were to come in would we be able to modify the conditional use
permit and require that parking be added? Would that be in our scope of authority?
Associate Planner Agaba replied yes he thinks so but other options should also be looked at
and it is within the power of Planning Commission.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka thanked Mr. Agaba.
Chairman Lopez asked if there were any other questions for staff.
Roland Rodriquez, 8267 Artson Street, a local realtor and resident questioned if there will be
enough handicapped and 15 to 20 minute take -out parking.
Associate Planner Agaba replied there are 9 existing handicapped parking spaces and stated
he believes that the Building Division regulates the handicapped parking spaces.
City Planner Everling stated the Building Division regulates and makes sure there are, enough
adequate handicapped parking spaces. As far as the 15 -20 minute take -out parking, that is
usually between the tenant and landlord and they would have to submit something to the
Planning Division based on number of parking spaces.
Chairman Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of this project.
See None
Chairman Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak against this project.
See None
Chairman Lopez stated at this time we will open for Public Comments.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated there are some spelling errors. Condition 7 on page 19 the
word review is missing the "w" and on page 20, Condition 15 the word emptying is missing
the "y ". He also questioned why the wording of the conditions in this project were different
from the next project we would be discussing and why they were not consistent and why they
were not exactly the same for everybody. Have we changed from the past few years?
City Planner Everling stated some of the differences. We now have standard conditions of
approval, whereas others that have been approved in the past may have been worded
differently.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he had 2 items he would like to discuss. Condition 11, page
19 referring to signs and that the wording was not the same as the next project and
questioned the difference.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 3 of 19
City Planner Everling stated that Condition 11 talked about alcohol beverage advertisement.
It allows for alcohol beverage advertisement. The other prohibits it. City Planner Everling
questioned Associate Planner George Agaba if this an ordinance or does ABC prohibit that?
Associate Planner Agaba stated it was an ordinance and most of the wording came from the
ordinance.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated the percentage stays the same but the other stated that you
couldn't have any alcoholic beverage signs.
City Planner Everling stated the code only talks about the 15% coverage.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he was curious why this one did not have a Letter Rating and
the next project did.
City Planner Everling stated we now have standard conditions that we put in.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he was satisfied and would like to move to approval.
Commissioner Vuu stated he has a question on condition 9 regarding the hours of operation.
Is this Friday through Sunday?
Associate Planner Agaba stated the hours of operation are Monday — Thursday 3:30 -11:00
p.m. and Friday — Sunday they are 11:00 a.m. -11:00 p.m.
Chairman Lopez questioned how the restaurant will eliminate or contain the trash due to
previous complaints of the smell from the school nearby.
Applicant and owner Lien Pham, 8837 Valley Blvd., stated trash is bagged, tied, and put in
locked trash containers each evening. Trash disposal is picked up 3 times a week.
Chairman Lopez thanked the applicant and explained that there were some issues due to the
restaurant hours operating while school is open.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated we should add this to the conditions and specify what needs to
done with trash.
City Planner Everling stated we can do that, we can specify that trash needs to be bagged,
tied, locked, and picked up 3 times a week.
Commissioner Vuu stated there was an inconsistency between a condition placed on this
project and the one placed on the next project which is the Health /Grading one.
City Planner Everling stated this condition comes from the L.A. County Department of Health
Services and it is a law. This is a requirement whether it is a condition or not.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting.: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 4 of 19
Attorney Yin stated that with regard to the last sentence of Condition 8, last sentence he
would advise deleting the words 'recorded tapes or CDs" and substitute the words with
"surveillance recordings" to allow for innovations in technology.
Chairman Lopez stated any other questions.
See None
MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU TO
APPROVE
Vote results:
YES: CAM, GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
B. CONDITIONAL USE PER MIT 99 -787 (MOD) — 7540 GARVEY AVE. - Kelvin and Sam
Wong of The King Palace Restaurant have submitted an application to modify the
conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 99 -787 by modifying the hours of
operation from 11:00 am to 1:00 am to 7:00am to 1:00 am, located at 7540 Garvey
Avenue in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. (Lily Trinh, Assistant Planner)
PC RESOLUTION 08 -18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE MODIFICATION OF ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -787, TO MODIFY THE HOURS OF OPERATION. THE
KING PALACE RESTAURANT IS LOCATED AT 7540 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE C -3
(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE.
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE the
modification of Conditional Use Permit 99 -787 application for a period of six (6) months,
subject to conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A ".
Presentation: Lily Trinh
Assistant Planner Trinh stated the restaurant owners are present to answer any questions.
Chairman Lopez asked if there were any questions for staff from the Commissioners.
Attorney Yin stated he had a question on Resolution, bottom of section 2 on page 8. Mr. Yin
asked if we could delete the words "an entertainment business from the City Council' and
change to "without prior approval of the City'.
Chairman Lopez questioned if the restaurant is approved to sell • alcohol at 7:00 in the
morning.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 5 of 19
City Planner Everling stated the restaurant already has the right to sell alcohol pursuant to the
Use Permit, but the Commission has the authority to limit the hours to sell alcohol. He also
stated he did not feel it was the applicant's intention to serve alcohol at 7:00 a.m.
Assistant Planner Trinh stated Dim Sum menu includes Chinese tea early in the morning.
Chairman Lopez stated he would not like doors opened that early to sell alcohol.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he was told it was a standard condition and you could serve
alcohol at 7:00 in the morning.
Commissioners discussed the early hours of selling alcohol and as long as they have the
authority to change the hours of selling alcohol they are satisfied.
Chairman Lopez stated are there any questions from the public for applicant.
See None
Chairman Lopez stated anyone wishing to speak in approval of this project.
Jim Flournoy, a resident, 8655 Landis View, wanted to clarify that with regard to Karaoke
uses, when we talk about the "City" having to approve Karaoke uses, do we mean staff.
Attorney Yin stated "duly authorized city legislative body ".
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated that the language suggests you need a special entertainment
license to do Karaoke, and then you had to come to the City for City Council to approve it.
Assistant Planner Trinh stated an ordinance that requires that City Council would have to
approve Karaoke.
Attorney Yin stated lets just write it as "duly authorized city legislative body ".
Chairman Lopez stated are there any other questions in approval of this project.
See None
Chairman Lopez stated at this time is there anyone wishing to speak against this project
please do so now.
See None
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated on Condition 27 he would like the wording changed to the
same as the previous project. On Condition 11 Vice - Chairman Kunioka would like language
changed or taken out entirely.
City Planner Everling stated do you mean remove the language past 1:00 a.m
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 6 of 19
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated yes as long as it is 10 hours.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated on page 12, Condition 28, is it common that we would specify
a number of seats?
Assistant Planner Trinh stated that was a condition from the original approval.
City Planner Everling stated it relates to parking.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he wasn't sure if it was related to parking or restaurant serving
alcohol.
City Planner Everling suggested omitting the word "Maintain" and added the word "Limit"
instead.
Vice - Chairman Kuniko stated he just wants to make sure the restaurant remains a restaurant
and not a night club or bar.
Commissioner Gay stated that he would like to make sure if we get complaints of alcohol
being served at 7:00 a.m. the City would reinvestigate.
Commissioner Vuu stated he had a question for the applicant or owner: will this restaurant
have wedding. banquets?
Owner of restaurant replied no; dining room only.
Commissioner Vuu stated that he notices most wedding banquets tend to have Karaoke.
Owner of restaurant stated it is dining only.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he noticed there is a Bridal Room.
Assistant Planner Trinh stated it is really a storage room or office.
Chairman Lopez asked if there were any more questions.
See None
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VUU, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GAY TO
APPROVE
Vote results:
YES: CAM, GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 7 of 19
C. DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MOD) - 8518 VALLEY BLVD - Gerard Ngo has submitted an
application to modify the conditions of approval of Design Review 03 -112 to eliminate the
requirement for a reciprocal access and parking agreement with the adjacent Empire
Shopping Center, and to permit 15,000 square feet of restaurant and fast food use and
15,000 square feet of retail and office use within the previously approved commercial
center currently under construction, located at 8518 Valley Boulevard in the C3 -D
(Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. (Sheri Bermejo, Senior Planner)
PC RESOLUTION 08 -19 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MODIFICATION), TO MODIFY THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A
RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE ADJACENT EMPIRE
SHOPPING CENTER AND TO PERMIT 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND
FAST FOOD USES AND 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USE WITHIN THE
COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APNS: 5371 -010-
800,5371 -010- 801,5371- 010 -803).
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design
Review 03 -112 (Modification) for a period of six (6) months and adopt Resolution 08 -19,
subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
Presentation: Sheri Bermejo
Senior Planner Bermejo stated that the Architect was present to answer any questions
Chairman Lopez stated he has one question: How do we get away with City Council
approving a project without the Fire Departments approval?
Senior Planner Bermejo stated originally when the project went to Planning Commission the
Los Angeles County Fire Department was working with staff and doing reviews. The Fire
Department reviewed the project and marked it "reviewed ". Early on when the project was
submitted to the Planning Division there was never any major indication that the project was
not going to be approved. There were several meetings and discussions and the item was
discussed on several occasions with City Council. The City came to a decision that since the
applicant submitted an application, the applicant met the requirements when the project was
submitted and the building was in conformance to the Uniform Building Code because the
project was submitted prior to the initiation or the effective date of Regulation Number 27.
Because of this the City Manager decided to issue the Building Permit.
Chairman Lopez asked if the Fire Chief reviewed and approved the project.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated no, the project was stamped "reviewed" for the Building and
Safety Division. To make sure it was reviewed against the Fire Department's regulations, the
project was reviewed as required by the City of Rosemead by an outside reputable fire
consultant who reviewed the project up to the standards of the Fire Department to make sure
it met those standards.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 8 of 19
Vice - Chairman Kunioka asked is there a county or state law that requires Fire Department
approval?
Senior Planner Bermejo stated the Los Angeles County Fire Department sets regulations and
it is up to each of the local agencies that contracts with them to adopt those regulations. The
City of Rosemead eventually adopted Regulation Number 27; however this project was
approved and began its review process prior to the adoption. The City Manager has
indicated that on a going forward basis no further projects would be permitted in the City of
Rosemead within the Edison power line easement.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka asked generally speaking for projects that do not have prior Fire
Department approval what was the disposition of those projects?
Attorney Yin stated that the City 's Special Land Use Attorney had an opportunity to submit
comments on this project and what Associate Planner Bermejo is trying to point out is that
Regulation 27 was adopted in 2006 and the approval for this project were made in 2004. The
applicant arguably might assert that he or she has a right in the approval prior to adoption of
Regulation 27.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka had two more questions; one: is it safe, and; second: is there legal
liability if there is no approval from the Fire Department? If there was to be some sort of
event at this location is the City protected from the rules of solid immunity?
Attorney Yin replied that with regard to the question of the City's liability in approving or not
approving the project, the City was generally immune from liability if its approval or
disapproval was in good faith. Attorney Yin will research this topic more thoroughly if directed
by the Commission to do so.
Chairman Lopez stated any other question
Commissioner Gay stated he would like to add something. Within these high tension power
corridors he is currently working on a project (Park) where the "Old Duck Farm" located by
the 605 Freeway included new high tension wires which will be 250 feet above ground, and
yet they will still be able to build this park and it will still be open to the public.
Commissioner Vuu stated he has the same question as Vice - Chairman Kunioka: Is the City
liable if Fire Department did not approve?
Attorney Yin stated the Land Use Attorney had no negative comments about this but Attorney
Yin would be happy to undertake further review and analysis if directed by the Commissioner.
Attorney Yin also referred to Regulation 27 and that based on information from Staff it was
not in existence when the project was initially approved by the Planning Commission in 2004.
Future Projects in the City of Rosemead will not be approved without Fire Department
approval.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated this project is nearly complete. Regulation 27 focuses on new
structures.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 9 of 19
Chairman Lopez stated that the question was on how it was approved.
Attorney Yin stated the Constitution of California delegates to the City ultimate authority over
"police power" functions which include the regulation of health and safety within the City.
That, for example, is the general authorization which allows us to regulate zoning and
approve conditional uses. So the City appears to have has ultimate authority here, not the
Fire Department. The City has however generally delegates authority to regulate the
approval of conditions relating to fire safety to the County Fire Department. In our municipal
code we have delegated authority to the L.A. County Fire Department, but ultimately, the City
of Rosemead has final say because of the Constitution of the State of California.
Commissioner Gay stated as far as liability issues, what if the project gets stopped? What
would the legal ramifications to the City be and the property owners?
Attorney Yin stated that is an issue that the City Attorney in conjunction with the Land Use
Attorney would have to analyze further if directed to do so and should be discussed in a
closed session meeting since it pertains to specific potential litigation matters.
Chairman Lopez stated we will now open to the public and applicant. Please state name and
address.
Simon Lee, Architect of project, 140 West Valley, Suite14, San Gabriel, stated all the
conditions of approval recommended by staff are acceptable and they will fully conform.
Project is almost complete; they started in 2002 and explained the processes they have had
to go through. Simon Lee has diligently worked with Staff.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he did not find this information in the plans: How tall is the
wall between the east elevations of the building and the houses that are directly to the east?
Simon Lee, Architect stated the wall is 22 feet.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he didn't see any conditions on deliveries.
Simon Lee, Architect replied whatever the standard City time is.
Vice- Chairman Kunioka questioned if there was a standard City Condition?
Senior Planner Bermejo stated there was not but we could add that.
Vice- Chairman Kunioka stated let's definitely add that.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated does the back side have access directly to Valley as well.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated that the site has only one area for ingress egress and that is
located along Valley Boulevard. Map was illustrated to Commission.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated that deliveries would not be made behind Hidden Pines.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 10 of 19
Senior Planner Bermejo replied no.
Chairman Lopez asked if there were any other questions and stated that Attorney Yin had
further comment on liability issues.
Attorney Yin responded to questions from the Commissioners regarding potential liability for
the City with regard to approval or denial of the entitlement application. Attorney Yin
indicated that if the Commissioners wished he could specifically research the question of
whether the City has any potential liability regarding its approval of any specific project
application. Attorney Yin stated that in general, all actions against the City or a public
employee acting within the scope of his or her employment seeking money or damages must
follow the procedures set forth in the Tort Claims Act. The Tort Claims Act limits municipal
liability by providing that liability is subject to any public entity immunity provided by statute.
Statutory immunities include, but are not limited to, the following exemptions. There is a
statutory immunity pursuant to Government Code section 818.2 relating to the adoption or
failure to adopt an enactment or by failure to enforce a law; as well as an immunity under
Government Code section 818.4 related to the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of
or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or
similar authorization. Other immunities exist under the law, if the City Attorney can and will
research this issue further if directed to do so.
Chairman Lopez stated anyone else wishing to speak may come up and do so.
Brian Lewin, 9501 Ralph Street, a resident stated that he thought at one time an issue came
up at the Empire Center about on sale liquor licenses and there being a saturation of them in
the census tract. What would adding 15,000 square feet of restaurant space to that census
tract could do to effect the possible on sale liquor license issue?
City Planner Everling replied we review each request on a case by case basis.
Resident Brian Lewin stated he felt this may be problematic, and also questioned if the
dumpsters will be self locking.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated they will be self - closing and self - latching.
Resident Brian Lewin questioned if they have locks.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated they can put locks on them, but the idea behind self closing
and self latching is so you do not have to rely on a person closing them. They will
automatically close.
Resident Brian Lewin requested that the Commission add a couple of requirements. One: add
locks to the dumpster lids, and require that all trash enclosures be locked at night. Second, he
would like to know if non porous coverings, overhead coverings, are included as a Condition.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated that all trash enclosures proposed will be fully contained within
the building structure or they will have a solid roof.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 11 of 19
Resident Brian Lewin stated they are basically for storm water, and thanked the Staff for
answering his questions.
Chairman Lopez asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this project.
Robert Badillo, 9202 Adalena, a resident stated his concern is traffic and parking. Mr. Badillo,
feels there is not enough parking and people will be parking in the residential area.
Chairman Lopez stated it looked like there was adequate parking.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated according to municipal code the site does provide sufficient
parking.
Chairman Lopez stated the parking requirements have been met.
Commissioner Cam asked if Mr. Robert Badillo wanted to make a public comment concerning
issues outside of this agenda item.
City Planner Matt Everling questioned is it this project or a city wide project.
Commissioner Cam replied it was a city wide project.
Jim Flournoy, 8655 Landis View, a resident stated the rules in effect 27 has nothing to do with
it. Everything is on a case by case basis in good faith and the rules that were in existence at
the time which were the plans go for approval to the Fire Department. You have two different
things the building plans and the approval of the project in general. This was delegated to the
Fire Department, it was submitted, reviewed, and never approved by the Fire Department and
there is a letter in the file to that effect as far as the overall project. The City then decided to
approve this on their own and proposed an ordinance to do this. The ordinance did not pass,
but the City Manager changed about this time. Jim Flournoy stated that the ordinance did not
pass so the City Manager did not have the authority to issue Building Permits. Jim Flournoy
also stated that the issuance of building permits was illegal. The Fire Department will have to
come out and inspect this and Jim Flournoy would like to see this taken care of as soon as
possible so we can issue a Certificate of Occupancy on the project with those things
attached.
City Planner Everling stated the Fire Department did do an inspection and signed off on the
framing of the building.
Jim Flournoy stated he did not know about that and we are talking about the project in
general.
City Planner Everling stated that his understanding was similar to Senior Planner Bermejo's
understanding of the case history of the project. From the outset, the fire department did sign
off on the project and approved the changes to make it non combustible but then at the last
minute the Fire Marshal decided not to sign off on it.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 12 of 19
Jim Flournoy stated the Fire Marshal is the one that needs to approve it and it was never
approved.
City Planner Everling stated the building plans were reviewed by the Fire Department.
Jim Flournoy stated they were reviewed a lot but never approved.
City Planner Everling stated they were approved by Edison.
Jim Flournoy stated Edison does not sign off on fire department.
City Planner Everling stated in reference to what Attorney Yin stated earlier that the City
ultimately has the power to approve this project.
Jim Flournoy stated if they approved the ordinance but the ordinance wasn't approved.
Jim Flournoy was asked which ordinance and he replied the one that allowed the City
Manager to sign off on projects in lieu of the Fire Department.
City Planner Everling stated he was not aware of this ordinance.
Jim Flournoy stated this was before Matt Everling was employed here.
Jim Flournoy stated if we are not going to have reciprocal parking he would like to see if we
could get a bust out gate somewhere for fire access.
City Planner Everling stated that there is already a gate there. They are Edison's gates and
there is an easement there.
Jim Flournoy stated the City's General Plan proposes a biking /hiking trail along this Edison
easement and Jim Flournoy would like to see that the trail is not blocked off by the project.
Chairman Lopez stated all there is on this easement is a gate is there access?
City Planner Matt Everling stated it will be gated.
Jim Flournoy stated we need to look into how this will affect the existing General Plan. Jim
Flournoy also wants to know where oil and grease will be disposed of, and will the air
conditioners be on the roof or the ground.
City Planner Everling stated there will be grease traps and the air conditioners are behind the
parapet walls where they can't be seen and have already been approved.
Jim Flournoy stated he has a copy of a geotechnical report that was done on the site next
door down the street and there was one on this project too. Mr. Flournoy does not know if the
city building official got a copy, but as far as he knows we are still not in compliance. Jim
Flournoy does not think the paperwork has been signed to hire the geotechnical report
reviewer to finish up these reviews.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 13 of 19
City Planner Everling stated they have not been signed yet
Jim Flournoy stated he would like to see conditions in compliance with Sections 110 thru 113
with the city building code and in compliance with the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act.
City Planner Everling stated that those are sections of the building code and they are already
law and there is no reason to add those to the conditions of approval as the law is already
there.
Jim Flournoy stated that let's make sure they know it's there. Is this project compliant with
the new Southern California Edison guidelines for tenants as far as restaurant use vs. office
use? Those are the things Mr. Flournoy would like to see the Commission look into.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated that she would like to respond to the Southern Edison issue
we have been working with them on this project because they are the property owners and
they did have to submit a signed affidavit stating they are in approval of the project.
Jim Flournoy stated his question was if this project was in compliance with their new
guidelines for tenants or did they do some waivers.
City Planner Everling read Condition 32 on page 16
Jim Flournoy stated he wants to see the delta on what Edison wants on new projects and
what we are doing here. Jim would like to see what is waived.
City Planner Everling stated that is part of there application process, that gets signed off
before it gets to the Planning Division.
Jim Flournoy stated he wants to know what is getting signed off.
City Planner Everling stated why do we need to know?
Jim Flournoy asked if it was a big deal or not.
City Planner Everling stated it's Edison's issue.
Jim Flournoy stated it is also the City's issue what if vapors get up there and start a fire and
that drops the fire lines down. How far away is the current practice, or has it changed. Jim
Flournoy wants to make sure they are alright with restaurants and things like that. Would
they allow that on New, you know they wouldn't allow it on current project.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated that the current relation is nothing, currently nothing will be
built there. Delta is something verses nothing.
Jim Flournoy stated that he was surprised that Edison was not there to explain that.
Commissioner Gay stated if Edison had a problem with it they would be here.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 14 of 19
Jim Flournoy stated it will be expensive to fix later.
Chairman Lopez asked if we will move on now, due to not having the answers to what Mr.
Flournoy is addressing.
Chairman Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak against this project.
Samuel Wu, 8450 Valley, a resident stated he represented a group of neighbors or
neighborhood businesses. They have concerns of additional restaurant uses that the
Commission is considering of approving. Mr. Wu presented a petition with about 15
businesses that had signed the petition to the Commission stating that they are strongly
against any restaurant uses for this project.
City Planner Everling stated are any of these restaurant owners?
Samuel Wu stated yes most of them.
Samuel Wu stated the there were 4 simple reasons why they were against this project.
1. Too much traffic on Valley Blvd.
2. There is not enough restaurant parking in the surrounding area.
3. Too much noise and disturbance.
4. Too many restaurants in the surrounding'/ mile.
Attorney Yin stated that if anyone wanted to look at the petition we would make copies
available.
Chairman Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak against this project.
See None
Chairman Lopez stated Commissioners do we have any other questions for staff.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned Condition 29 and parking restrictions. If this project meets
the code what is the restriction?
Senior Planner Bermejo stated she went through the previous staff report and resolution and
tried to figure out why that condition was in there. Senior Planner Bermejo stated she feels it
may have been an oversight or typo. In the past Edison was hesitant in approving restaurant
usage and fast food usage on that site. The original staff report and resolution stated those
concerns, but recently she spoke with Edison and they no longer have those issues or
concerns.
Chairman Lopez stated any other questions. We need a motion for approval.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 15 of 19
Vice - Chairman Kunioka would like a few changes, one is delivery time and access which
seems to be understood but to be clear that deliveries and access will not be from the back it
will be in the front. The time of deliveries should not be after 10:00 p.m.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated we have some time conditions for construction the hours are
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated for deliveries it probably is more restrictive or the same time.
Most deliveries probably come during the daytime. Vice- Chairman Kunioka would like
restrictions on deliveries which include holidays and no deliveries on Sundays.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated that deliveries should be limited to Monday through Saturday
from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and no deliveries on Sundays or any federal holiday.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated do we want to tell them they need to lock the dumpsters.
City Planner Everling stated in Condition 29 that Sheri added dumpsters will be self - latching
and self - closing and the bins shall be locked at night.
Commissioner Vuu stated will there be a manager on site to make sure dumpsters will be
locked?
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated that will be one of the conditions of approval.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he is not sure we want to add language on the geotechnical
report. Has it changed at all since 2004 or is it the same regulations that would've applied.
City Planner Everling stated it is the same regulations, it just recently changed and added the
Geo 1 Condition and he has concerns adding a condition such as that to a modification permit
as opposed to the original application.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated are we satisfied with legal advice?
City Planner Everling stated that after their meetings with Attorney Joe Montes, the other City
Attorney has had no negative comments about this project.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated is it the case or not the case that the City Council directed the
City Manager to issue the building permit or not?
Senior Planner Bermejo stated she believes it was not an official authorization.
Jim Flournoy stated he feels that Attorney Yin should look into it.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated to clarify what she just said, she is not sure if it actually went
to vote as a public hearing item.
City Planner Everling stated it may have been under direction of City Council behind closed
session.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 16 of 19
Attorney Yin stated we were entering the territory of speculation and hearsay. Let's stick to
facts.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated the report on page 6 the date must be wrong since it is dated
"2008 ".
Senior Planner Bermejo stated it was a typo it should be "2007"
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated when they did the traffic study for a shopping center there is
no consideration about the composition or the type of things that will be in that shopping
center is it simply based on the square footage?
Senior Planner Bermejo stated the definition in the traffic study also talks about the mixture of
fast foods, take out type uses, retail uses, and also throws in a gasoline station that is not
attached to the buildings but is on the site.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated the report talks like they considered this as a shopping center
did they consider this with the mixture of uses.
Senior Planner Bermejo stated they did including the gas station.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VUU, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ TO APPROVE
Vote results:
YES: CAM, GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS
See None
7. MATTERS FROM THE CITY PLANNER AND STAFF
Robert Caudillo, 9202 De Adalena St., a resident stated with all this development he can see
there will be more traffic. Mr. Caudillo is going to talk about the development in the residential
area, there are mini mansions and parking is getting really hard. Parking is really bad, there
are times he has to park in front of his daughter's house 3 or 4 houses down the street. There
are times there are 3 or 4 cars parked in front of his home. There are a lot of people who are
jumping on people due to not being able to park in front of their homes. Mr. Caudillo
expressed concerns with people not moving their cars and leaving trash. The building division
is letting people build and his neighbor is building a 1500 ft. guest house and what happened
to the 5 ft. easement? This house is right next to the wall. There was a shack and it was torn
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 17 of 19
down and started they started fresh. What is the definition of a guest house? It seems like it
is going to be permanent dwelling.
City Planner Everling stated you are allowed to build a guest house if you are in the R -1 Zone
and the maximum is 800 square feet or 30 percent of your existing home whichever is less.
City Planner Everling stated that we can research the project for Mr. Caudillo.
Robert Caudillo stated he has lost his privacy and that his wife called the City to see if the
guest house could be built. Mr. Caudillo also stated that his wife received a sassy response
on the phone from the City.
Attorney Yin stated that we appreciate that you brought this forward to us and if you are
contending that the adjacent property is not in compliance with code we will verify this and if it
is not in compliance to code they may have a code enforcement action. City staff will look
into the issue and see if they are in violation.
Mr. & Mrs. Caudillo stated their concerns of parking, renting out of the guest house, is it
allowed, a burglary in the neighborhood that was not recorded, sewer problems, and maybe
passing an ordinance with no street parking.
Attorney Yin stated City Staff will investigate and try to resolve their issues.
City Planner Everling stated he wanted to give an update of General Plan, he passed out an
updated CD with our draft General Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report for your
reading. City Planner Everling also requested if we could hold a special Planning
Commission Meeting for Monday, September 29 to specifically look at the General Plan.
Staff would like a recommendation at this meeting for both the draft General Plan and draft
Environmental Impact Report to report to the City Council.
Chairman Lopez questioned before our regular meeting or right after our regular meeting?
City Planner Everling replied it would be a special meeting on Monday, September 29th just
for the General Plan with no other items. It would be in addition to our two regularly
scheduled meetings.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated will there be a public hearing then.
City Planner Everling replied yes there has to be. Staff is wanting to get your support in
having the special meeting so if there is any other resources you may need from City Planner
Everling to complete your review of the General Plan and the EIR he would be happy to
provide them for you or if you want to set up a time and come over and meet with City
Planner Everling to go over issues and questions you might have over either documents he
would be happy to do that. Hopefully the Commission feels comfortable with both documents
and moving forward, staff will move for adoption at the City Council Hearing of October 14
In conversation with our Land Use Attorney, our existing General Plan was approved under a
Resolution as opposed to an ordinance. Only one public hearing by the council is required.
There will not be two public hearings unless Council wants it to be, but legally because of the
existing General Plan which was adopted back in 1987 and was adopted under resolution
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 18 of 19
that gives us the authority to do the same here.
Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he likes the idea of special meeting it will help because it will
be time consuming.
City Planner Everling stated is there an earlier time that the Commission would like to start as
opposed to 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Lopez stated he is good for 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners all agreed to have meeting at 6:00 p.m.
City Planner Everling stated he will have a meal for Commissioners and staff at 5:30 prior to
the meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:03 p.m.
MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ TO
ADJOURN UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
ME /RL
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, August 4, 2008
Page 19 of 19
May X4 07 10:02a David Hernandez 323- 260 -5088 p.2
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063 -3294
(323) 881 -2401
P. MICHAEL FREEMAN
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
May 23, 2007
Andrew Lazzaretto, City Manager
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Dear Mr. Lazzaretto:
8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD
In response to your letter dated May 2, 2007 regarding the proposed new construction
project at the above address, the Fire Department has denied the project.
As you know, the Department has been working with Southern California Edison to
research and develop a contingency plan to de- energize High - Voltage Transmission
Lines in the case of an emergency. After reviewing the recommendations of several
consultants and multiple meetings with Southern California Edison, I have determined
that the High - Voltage Transmission Lines cannot be de- energized in sufficient time to
provide a margin of safety for the public and firefighting personnel. Therefore, projects
submitted for high intensity development underneath the High - Voltage Transmission
Lines cannot satisfy the requirement of an approved fire protection plan. This has been
a difficult decision and I have given the various factors a great deal of thought.
Historically, electric utility companies have set internal policies allowing only low
intensity use of the property located within the utility easements underneath and
adjacent to High - Voltage Transmission Lines. The fire and building codes are
performance based and do not address the proposed high intensity use of building
construction in the utility'easement. Therefore, the Fire Department has developed
Regulation 27 (attached) addressing secondary land use underneath High - Voltage
Transmission Lines.
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:
AGOURA HILLS
CALABASAS
DIAMOND BAR
HIDDEN HILLS
LA MIRADA
MALIBU
POMONA
SIGNAL HILL
ARTESIA
CARSON
DUARTE
HUNTINGTON PARK
LA RUENTE
MAYWDOC
RANCHO PALOS VERD_S
SOUTH EL MONT£
AZUSA
CERRITOS
EL MONTE
INDUSTRY
LAKEWOOD
NORWAL(
ROLLING HILLS
SOUTH GATE
BALDWIN PARK
CLAREMONT
GARDEN.A
INGLEWOOD
LANCASTER
PALMDALE
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
?ELL
COMMERCE
GLENDORA
IRWINDALE
LAWNDALE
PALOS VERDES ESTATES
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT
@ELL GARDENS
COVINA
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA CANACA FLINTRIDGE
LOMITA
PARAMOUNT
SAN DIMAS
WEST HOLLYWOOD
BELLFLDWER.
CUDAHY
HAWTHORNE
LA HABRA
LYNWOOD
PICO RIVERA
SANTA CLARITA
WESTLAKE VILLAS
BRADBURY
'NHITTIER
EXHIBIT "E"
May 24 07 10:02a David Hernandez 323- 260 -5088 p.3
Andrew Lazaretto, City Manager
May 23, 2007
Page 2
Thank you for your patience as careful evaluation of research provided by
internal/external sources, and multiple meetings with stakeholders and industry experts,
has been very time consuming, but essential in the decision- making process.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at
(323) 881 -2401.
PMF:sp
Enclosure
DATE: 06 -25 -2008
ATTENTION: PLANNING SECTION
C` JNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
5823 Rickenbacker Road
Commerce, Califomia 90040
CITY: Rosemead
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MODIFICATION)
LOCATION: 8515 Valley Boulevard
❑ The Fire Department has no additional requirements for this permit.
NOT
APPROVED
N N9E P�7�-U�N�IIT� �� d °
❑ The required fire flow for this development is _ gallons per minute for _hours. The water mains in the street
fronting this property must be capable of delivering this flow at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure.
❑ Install _ Public and/or _ On -site and/or 1 Upgrade 6" X 4" X 2 1/2" fire hydrants, conforming to AW WA
Standard C503 -75 or approved. equal. All installations must meet Fire Department specifications. Fire hydrant
systems must be installed in accordance with the Utility Manual of Ordinance 7834 and all installations must be
inspected and flow tested prior to final approval.
❑ Location:
❑ Access:
® Comments: THIS PROJECT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.
*PER LACoFD, REGULATION # 27: NO NEW PERMANENT STRUCTURES SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE UTILITY EASEMENT UNDERNEATH HIGH VOLTAGE
TRANSMISSION LINES.
THIS PROJECT IS NOT CLEAR FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
Fire Protection facilities; including access, must be provided prior to and during construction. Should any questions arise
regarding this matter, please feel free to call our office @ (323) 8904243.
Inspector: a � S
City.CUP 9/00
Land Development Unit — Fire Prevention Division — (323) 890 -4243, Fax (323) 890 -4169
EXHIBIT "F"
Thursday August 1fd�2008
Gloria Molleda
City of Rosemead — Clerk Clerk
8838 E Valley BLVD
Rosemead, CA 91770
Enclosed please find $300 as a deposit toward any fees for our appeal
Lewis R Currier
Director — LA County Firefighters Local 1014
3460 Fletcher Ave
El Monte, CA. 91731
RE: Appeal of the revision or issuance of the CUP for 8518 E Valley BLVD
Dear City Clerk,
I would like to appeal the decision of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission to
issue or revise the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 8518 Valley BLVD. Design
Review # 03 -112 (modification). Resolution 08 -19 from the planning Commission
meeting on August 4, 2008.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Sincerely;
(s)
Lewis Currier
Director — Local 1014
(310) 925 -2588 Cell
EXHIBIT "G"
'v
I�
August 21, 2008
P mcad
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569 -2106
FAX (626) 307 -9218
Lewis R. Currier
Director —LA County Firefighters Local 1014
3460 Fletcher Avenue
El Monte, CA 91731
Dear Mr. Currier,
On Thursday, August 14, 2008, I received an email from you stating you would like to
appeal a decision made by the City of Rosemead's Planning Commission regarding
property on 8518 Valley Boulevard. As I had previously responded,.your appeal is not in
conformance with the City of Rosemead's Municipal Code, therefore making it invalid.
The deadline for this request was August 14, 2008.
On Monday, August 18, 2008, staff discovered an envelope with your letter and $300 in
cash on the City hall's counter. Due to the above mentioned reasons, I am hereby
returning your request and a check in the amount of $300. :
If you have.any questions please feel free to contact my office at (626) 569 -2171.
Sincerely,
Glona Molleda
City Clerk .
City of Rosemead
pmolled4@cityofrosemead.org
Enclosed: Email sent August 14, 2008
Check No. 059761 in the amount of $300 -
Copy of your original letter
EXHIBIT "H"
MAYOR:
MARGARET CLARK
MAYOR PRO TEM:
GARY TAYLOR
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SANDRAARMENTA
POLLY LOW
STEVEN LY
February 10, 2010
Pose mead
6838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569 -2100
FAX (626) 307 -9218
P. Michael Freeman
Fire Chief
Forest & Fire Warden
1320 North Eastern Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90063 -3294
Subject: Fire Department Services
8518 Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA
Dear Chief Freeman:
First by way of introduction my name is Stan Wong, and I became the new
Community Development Director for the City of Rosemead on January 4, 2010.
In doing my initial review of our Departments procedures and policies, I reviewed
the approval and permitting history for the recently completed commercial center
at 8518 Valley Boulevard.
It is my understanding, as stated in your May 23, 2007, letter to former City
Manager Andrew Lazzaretto, that due to the location of the buildings under the
Southern California Edison High - Voltage Transmission Lines the buildings are
not in compliance with your department's Regulation Number 27. As part of our
review and subsequent approval of this project the City did retain a third party
consultant, Rolf Jensen and Associates, to perform an independent review of the
project for compliance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. In addition, the
County Fire Department was also kind enough to do a courtesy review for, but
not approval of, code compliance of the proposed project on July 17, 2007. The
purpose of this courtesy review was to confirm that the proposed project was in
compliance with the Fire Code except for Regulation No. 27.
The City of Rosemead did issue the building permits for the shell buildings on
July 17, 2007. In lieu of Fire Department review of the fire sprinkler systems for
the buildings, we also required that the owner obtain a review and approval from.
one of the Los Angeles County third party fire sprinkler plan review consultants
EXHIBIT "1"
for the fire sprinkler system. In addition, the City also required rough inspection
and final inspection by an independent third party Fire code consultant. The City
did subsequently final and approve the shell buildings on February 17, 2009.
Since that approval, the City has continued to require approval and /or inspection
by third party consultants for tenant improvements, including fire sprinkler
modifications and certificates of occupancy for new tenants or businesses.
As you are aware that this is the only project in the City that requires this third
party review and approval in lieu of Fire Department approval, I would very much
like to end this special procedure and obtain Fire Department review of both
future tenant improvements and occupancy approvals.
Assistant Fire Chief Mark Nelson and Plan Check Engineer Jim Bailey of your
staff joined me in a phone conference on February 2, 2010, to discuss our
request. They advised us that the Department is still under a directive from you to
provide no plan review or inspection services for these buildings. During our
phone conference they suggested that we submit a letter to you requesting the
lifting of this directive.
On behalf of the City of Rosemead, and in consideration of the measures the City
has taken to ensure Fire Code compliance for these buildings thus far, I
respectfully request you rescind this order and allow the owners of these
buildings and future tenants to apply for and receive plan review, approval, field
inspections and certificate of occupancy approvals from your Department
Pending your consideration and response, we have advised the owners and
tenants of these buildings to continue with the process of retaining independent
consultants to perform these reviews and approvals. However, we do hope to
end this third party process as soon as possible.
As always, we look forward to our continued relationship and the excellent
service by your Department and Staff. If you need any further information or
clarification regarding this request please contact me directly at (626) 569 -2100.
Respectfully submitted,
&o
Community Development Director
COUNTY OF LOS ANGEi.ES
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063 -3294
(323) 881 -2401
P. MICHAEL FREEMAN
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
March 3, 2010
Mr. Stan Wong, Director
Rosemead Community Development
P.O. Box 399
Rosemead, CA 91770
Dear Mr. Wong,
This is in response to your letter dated February 10, 2010, in which you requested, on behalf of
the City of Rosemead, that the County of Los Angeles Fire Department rescind the order not to
- conduct any plan reviews or inspection services for the structures that were built under the high
voltage power lines located at 8515 Rosemead Boulevard.
As you stated in your letter, the City of Rosemead elected to grant building permits for the
structures located at this address, and accepted private third party plan review approvals in lieu
of Fire Department approval process.
Per the County of Los.Angeles Fire Code, Regulation 27, the buildings erected at 8515 do not
meet the Fire Department's requirements, and continue to pose a threat to the life safety of .
civilians and firefighters. Until this threat to life safety is adequately mitigated, the County of Los
Angeles Fire Department is not in a position to rescind the previous direction pertaining to the
buildings located at 8515 Rosemead Boulevard.
The Fire Department's relationship with the City of Rosemead is important to me, and it is With
-great regret that I cannot grant your request.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Assistant Fire Chief Mark Nelson at
323 - 890 -4144.
Very truly yours,
P. MICHAEL FREE AN
PMF:mn
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:
AGOURA HILLS
CALABASAS
DIAMOND BAR
HIDDEN HILLS
LA MIRADA
MALIBU
POMONA
SIGNAL HILL
ARTESIA
CARSON
DUARTE
HUNTINGTON PARK
LA PUENTE
MAYWOOD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SOUTH EL MONTE
AZUSA
CERRITOS
EL MONTE
INDUSTRY
LAKEWOOD
NORWALK
ROLLING HILLS
SOUTH GATE
BALDWIN PARK
CLAREMONT
GARDENA
INGLEWOOD
LANCASTER
PALMDALE
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
BELL
COMMERCE
GLENDORA
IRWINDALE
LAWNDALE
PALOS VERDESESTATES
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT
BELL GARDENS
COVINA
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA CANADA FUNTRIDOE
LOMITA
PARAMOUNT
SAN DIMAS
WESTHOLLYWOOD
SELLFLOWER
CUDANY
HAWTHORNE
LAHABRA
LYNWOOD
NCO RIVERA
SANTA CLARITA
WESTLAKEVILIAGE
BRADBURY
-
WHITTIER
EXHIBIT 6 !I
be: Richardson
Nelson
Bryant
Iacono
Bailey
Enriquez
BUS 10 -029 Response to Stan Wong V4.doo