PC - Item 3C - Design Review 17-02 3940 Rosemead Boulevard Staff ReportROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: JULY 17, 2017
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 17-02
3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
Summary
Chinese Consumer. Yellow Pages has submitted an application for a Design Review to
re -face an existing free standing sign with a new double -sided LED display that would
flash a new slide every ten seconds. The project site is located at 3940 Rosemead
Boulevard, in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-0) zone. The
proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. Design
Review procedures shall be followed for all, improvements requiring a building permit or
visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fapade, or landscaping in a Design
Overlay Zone.
Environmental Determination
Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines exempts
projects consisting of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small
facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small
structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another
where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Design Review
17-02 proposes to install a small sign facility structure. Accordingly, Design Review 17-
02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303(a) of
California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the
Planning Commission DENY Design Review 17-03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 17-15
with findings (Exhibit "A").
Property History and Description
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and
Steele Street. The site consists of one parcel of land totaling approximately 40,050
square feet. According to Planning Division records, on May 15, 2000, the Planning
Commission approved Design Review 00-82 for exterior improvements to the subject
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Page 2 of 13
site. The exterior improvements included new signage, paint, and landscaping. On
October 21, 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Modification 13-05 to modify
Design Review 00-82 for exterior renovations to the main office building.
Front Elevation and Freestanding Sign (Existing)
Site and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning
map it is designated Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD/D-O) zone.
The site is surrounded by the following land uses:
North
General Plan:
Commercial
Zoning:
Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD -D-0)
Land Use:
Commercial
South
General Plan: High Density Residential and Low Density Residential
Zoning: Medium Multiple Residential (R-3) and Single Family Residential
(R-1)
Land Use: Residential
East
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1)
Land Use: Residential
West
General Plan:
Commercial
Zoning:
Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD/D-O)
Land Use:
Commercial
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Page 3 of 13
Administrative Analysis
Prior to the formal submittal of Design Review 17-02, staff spoke to the applicant's
representative (B.K. Signs Incorporated) numerous times over-the-counter. Staff had
expressed to B.K. Signs Incorporated that the proposed project may not meet the
required findings under Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.28.O2O(C),
because the proposed double -sided LED sign does not meet the requirements of RMC
17.116.O3O(B)(2) and 17.116.O5O(F). However, B.K. Signs Incorporated insisted that
the applicant wanted to submit a formal application.
As illustrated in Exhibit "B", the applicant is proposing to re -face an existing free
standing sign with a new double -sided LED display. The applicant is proposing four
slides with the intent to add additional slides in the future since the LED display is
programmable. The slides will consist of on-site displays of the applicant's products and
services. In addition, the applicant submitted a narrative and two studies pertaining to
digital signage and traffic safety which is included in Exhibit "B". The proposed project
would not increase the floor area of the existing building, reduce any parking spots, or
remove landscaping:
Staff has several concerns relating to the proposed double -sided LED Sign, related to
the illumination and flashing components of the sign. Per RMC Section 17.116.03O(B),
illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded, to prevent glare,
annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double -
sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to the public or
neighboring properties. As illustrated below, the south property line of the subject site
abuts an existing two-story apartment complex.
The proposed double -sided LED display would be visible from the windows of the north
elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double -sided LED sign is not
shielded and will flash a new slide every ten seconds, light will spill but onto the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Pape 4 of 13
surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. In
addition, because the proposed double -sided LED display is adjacent to the public -right-
of-way, the unshielded light will also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the
public -right-of-way.
Furthermore, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or
flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs.
While the proposed double -sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the
proposed double -sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds and is
not shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring
properties. The proposed double -sided LED display will affect the health, safety, and
welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex and pedestrians
utilizing the public -right -of way.
Correlation Between LED Signs and Traffic Hazards
Initially, staff was concerned about the double -sided LED display and how it would
affect traffic traveling along Rosemead Boulevard. However, after review from the City
Engineer and two of the City's Traffic Consultants, it was determined that the studies
pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct
correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards. The proposed plans
were also routed to CAL TRANS. However, they did not have any comments because
the proposed sign is on private property.
Municipal Code Requirements
Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building
permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping in a
Design Overlay Zone.
Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.28.020(C), provides the criteria by which the
Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an
application:
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.
Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the
record. The subject site is located within an established commercial corridor with
an apartment complex abutting the south property line. The plans for the
proposed double -sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been
taken in regards to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents living in the
neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is visible
from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed
double -sided LED sign is not shielded, therefore light will spill out onto
surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment
complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the proposed double -sided
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Paae 5 of 13
LED sign would be at a variance from the surrounding site developments
because there are no double- sided LED signs or other electronic or flashing
signs within the vicinity. The proposed double -sided LED sign would stand out
because it would be a lit screen rather than a front -lighted or internally -lighted
display sign; in addition the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and
attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign along
the commercial corridor.
B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner
in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on
the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash,
storage and loading areas.
Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the
record. While the applicant is only proposing to re -face an existing freestanding
sign, the plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign will have an adverse
effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line. The
proposed double -sided LED sign would be visible from the windows of the north
elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double -sided LED sign
is not shielded and will flash a new slide every ten seconds, light would spill out
onto the surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the
apartment complex.
G. 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.
Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the
record. No existing site developments or signs in this neighborhood use LED
lighting. Further, the proposed double -sided LED sign is visible from the
windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex. The
proposed double -sided LED sign is also not shielded, and therefore light will spill
out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the
apartment complex to the south of the subject site. 1n addition, the sign would
flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because itis unshielded
and brighter than any other sign in the surrounding neighborhood. As a result,
the proposed double -sided LED sign would cause the environment to materially
depreciate in value because the unshielded light will impact the rentalvalue of
the apartment complex and neighboring properties, and will cause material
depreciation in the value of such properties.
D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed
developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where
buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Page 6 of 13
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.
Staff's Recommendation: This finding is supported by evidence in the record.
The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land
reserved for public or educational use. There are currently no proposed
developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use
adjacent to the subject site, and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels
within a precise plan.
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; and
Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the
record. The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign are not in conformity
with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC). Per RMC Section
17.116.030(B), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to
prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The
proposed double -sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or
annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public -right-of-way or the residents
residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, per RMC Sections
17.116.030(B)(2) and 17,116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be
permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. The intent of RMC
Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F) is to promote the health, safety,
and welfare of the City and its residents. While the proposed double -sided LED
sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double -sided LED sign
does display a different slide every ten seconds. In addition, since the proposed
double -sided LED sign would not be shielded, the health, safety, and welfare of
the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex would be affected.
F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping,
luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been
given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile
and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view
of public streets.
Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the
record. The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign indicate that proper
consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the development when
viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and
vehicular traffic are inconclusive and there is no direct correlation between LED
signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed double -sided LED sign
would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public
streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and it is unshielded
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Page 7 of 13
and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed double -
sided LED sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing
in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public -right -of way.
Public Notice Process
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300 -foot radius public hearing notice to 46 property owners, publication in the
Rosemead Reader on July 6, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six public locations
and on the subject site.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Drv—/�— *-QL
Annie Lao Lily T. Valenzuela
Assistant Planner Interim Community Development Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-15
B. Site Plan, Floor Plan; and Elevations (Dated July 3, 2017)
C. Assessor Parcel Map (APN: 8594-008-039)
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Pace 8 of 13
EXHIBIT "A"
PC RESOLUTION 17-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 17-02, A REQUEST TO RE -FACE AN
EXISTING FREE STANDING SIGN WITH A NEW LED DISPLAY THAT
WOULD FLASH A NEW SLIDE EVERY TEN SECONDS. THE SUBJECT
SITE IS LOCATED AT 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD (APN: 8594-
008-039), IN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN
OVERLAY (CBD/D-O) ZONE.
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages submitted
a Design Review application requesting approval to re -face an existing free standing
sign with a new LED display that would flash a new slide every ten seconds located at
3940 Rosemead Boulevard;
WHEREAS, 3940 Rosemead Boulevard is located in the Central Business
District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-0) zoning district;
WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal. Code (RMC)
provides the criteria for a Design Review;
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning
Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications;
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2017, 46 notices were sent to property owners within a
300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead
Reader, and notices were posted in six public locations and on site, specifying the
availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for
Design Review 17-02;
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review
17-02; 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
July 97, 2017
Page 9 of 13
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Design
Review 17-02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section
15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15303(a) of the
California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of
construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures;
installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion
of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are
made in the exterior of the structure.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify denying Design Review 17-02, in accordance with Section
17.28.020(C) of the RMC 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: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The
subject site is located within an established commercial corridor with an apartment
complex abutting the south property linea The plans for the proposed double -sided LED
sign indicate that proper consideration has not been taken in regards to the health,
safety, and welfare of the residents living in the neighboring apartment complex. The
proposed double -sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of
the apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is not shielded, therefore
light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the
apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the proposed double -
sided LED sign would be at a variance from the surrounding site developments because
there are no LED signs or other electronic or flashing signs within the vicinity. The
proposed LED sign would stand out because it would be a lit screen rather than a front
lighted or internally -lighted display sign; in addition the sign would flash a new slide
every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any
other sign along the commercial corridor.
B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the
manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the
environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and
loading areas:
FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. While
the applicant is only proposing tore -face an existing freestanding sign, the plans for the
proposed double -sided LED sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment
complex abutting the south property line. The proposed double -sided LED sign would
be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the
proposed double -sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash anew slide every ten
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Page 10 of 13
seconds, light would spill out onto the surrounding properties and negatively impact the
residents of the apartment complex.
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: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. No
existing site developments or signs in this neighborhood use LED lighting. Further, the
proposed double -sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of
the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is also not
shielded, and therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively
impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In
addition, the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention
because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign in the surrounding
neighborhood. As a result, the proposed double -sided LED sign would cause the
environment to materially depreciate in value because the unshielded light will impact
the rental value of the apartment complex and neighboring properties, and will cause
material depreciation in the value of such properties.
D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed
developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings
are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic
Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land
included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style.
FINDING: This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject
property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or
educational use. There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general
area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site, and the subject
site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan.
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; and
FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans
for the proposed double -sided LED sign are not in conformity with the standards of the
RMC. Per RMC Section 17.116,030(8), illumination signs shall be located, and light
sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring
properties. The proposed double -sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare
or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public -right-of-way or the residents residing
in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2)
and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except
for time and temperature signs. The intent of RMC sections 17.116.030(8)(2) and
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Page 11 of 13
17.116.050(F) is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents.
While the proposed double -sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the
proposed double -sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds. In
addition, since the proposed double -sided LED sign would not be shielded, the health,
safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex
would be affected.
F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs,
landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has
been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile
and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of
public streets.
FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans
for the proposed double -sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been
given to the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. While
studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no
direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed
double -sided LED sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed
from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and it is
unshielded and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed
double -sided LED sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents
residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public -right -of way.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY DENIES approval of Design
Review 17-02 for a proposed re -face of an existing free standing sign with a new
double -sided LED display that would display a new slide every ten seconds.
SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten days after this
decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed
with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in
Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160,040 — Appeals of Decisions.
SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on July 17, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2017
Paoe 12 of 13
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, DENIED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2017.
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 17th day of July,
2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Lily T. Valenzuela, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke; Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Planning Commission Meeting
My 17, 2017
Page 13 of 13
8594
2001
N
LLI
---- j
r ,
m f
m
AVE
N
AYE
BK '
6
5390 w f
r
EXHIBIT "C"
TBACT
�Bm®
A'
}O
041 O
(D I O
I NO
IIIj
zO3¢ O
l
@1@
O3i ,5
I
@10
8288
]B I6
�®
°ro.®
MBIla
- I
I4
j :.GUESS ST
io
SUBJECT
SITE