CC - 2017-37 - Denying Design Review 17-02 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 17-02, A REQUEST TO RE-IMAGE AN
EXISTING 15-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN FROM TWO
INDIVIDUAL DOUBLE-FACE CABINET SIGNS TO A DOUBLE-SIDED
SINGLE PANEL ELECTRONIC LED MESSAGE BOARD. THE SUBJECT
SITE IS LOCATED AT 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD IN THE
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/D-O)
ZONE(APN: 8594-008-039).
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages submitted a Design
Review application requesting to re-image an existing 15-foot tall freestanding sign from two
individual double-face cabinet signs to a double-sided single panel electronic LED message board,
located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, 3940 Rosemead Boulevard is located in a CBD/D-O zone; and
WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(A)(1) and 17.28.020(C)
provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Rosemead
Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(C) and authorizes the Planning Commission to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove Design Review applications; and
WHEREAS,on July 6, 2017, forty-six (46)notices were sent to property owners within a
300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations
and on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application,
plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 17-02;and
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, on July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead,
sufficiently considered all testimony and denied Design Review 17-02 and adopted Resolution 17-
15 making findings and determinations with regard to the denial; and
WHEREAS,on July 24, 2017, B.K. Signs Incorporated filed an appeal to the City Clerk's
office, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2017, forty-six (46)notices were sent to property owners within
a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six(6)public locations
1
and on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application,
plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for the appeal of Design Review 17-02; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2017, to
consider the appeal of Design Review 17-02; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them
in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF"[HE.CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY
FINDS, DECLARES.AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Design
Review 17-02 is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(6)(4) of the California Environmental Quality
Act guidelines. Section 15061(b)(4) exempts a project from the California Environmental Quality
Act if the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency.
SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do
exist to justify upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny Design Review 17-02 in
accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) 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 proposed
sign will not preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent areas (with a principal focus on
residential neighborhoods) and will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex
abutting the south property line, as the proposed sign would be visible from the windows of the
north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed sign would also be at variance from the
surrounding site developments, as electronic LED message boards have not been approved within
the vicinity. In addition, the changing of the display area every ten seconds, that changes the sign
to images of differing colors, which would result in a non-constant level of illumination, is
considered a flashing sign and RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2)and RMC 17.116.050(F)prohibits
flashing signs. Furthermore,the proposed sign has the potential of illuminating brighter than any
other sign along the commercial corridor.
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: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The plans for
the proposed sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south
property line as the electronic sign display arca would be visible from the windows of the north
elevation of the apartment complex. The changing of the display area every ten seconds, that
2
changes the sign to images of differing colors, which would result in a non-constant level of
illumination,is considered a flashing sign and will negatively impact the residents of the apartment
complex. Furthermore, the proposed sign is adjacent to the public right-of-way, which may also
negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public right-of-way.
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. The City has
not approved any electronic LED message boards within the vicinity. The proposed sign will not
preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent areas (with a principal focus on residential
neighborhoods), protect property values, and reduce traffic hazards caused by undue distraction.
In addition,the proposed sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring
apartment complex and would flash a new slide every ten seconds. The proposed sign has the
potential of illuminating brighter than the existing sign.As a result,the proposed sign would cause
the environment to materially depreciate in value, because the sign will impact the rental value of
the apartment complex and neighboring properties.
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: 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 sign are not in conformity with the standards of the 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. It is not clear how the illumination
from the proposed sign will 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, RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2), 17.116.050(A), and 17.116.050(F) prohibits blinking
signs, revolving signs, flashing signs, or signs that create a safety hazard to pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. The changing of the display area every ten seconds, that changes the sign to
3
images of differing colors,which would result in a non-constant level of illumination,is considered
a flashing sign,and therefore does not meet the standards of the RMC 17.116.030(B)(2)and RMC
17.116.050(F).
F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping,
luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to 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 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 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
would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed 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 City Council HEREBY DENIES the appeal of Design Review 17-02,
a request to re-image an existing 15-foot tall freestanding sign from two individual double-face
cabinet signs to a double-sided single panel electronic LED message board.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter
the same shall be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8h day of August, 2017.
Po I ly I Mayor'
APPROVED A 1TFFtIRM: ATTEST:
y /
�T ,t
=i2 t
Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marconohue,City Clerk
4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California,do hereby
certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2017-37, was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a special meeting thereof held on the 8111 day of
August,2017, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: ARMENIA, CLARK, LOW, LY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ALARCON
ABSTAIN: NONE
Marc •onohue, City Clerk
5