PC - 2017-15 - 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 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:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Design
Review 17-02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section
1
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 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 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 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.
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
2
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(6), 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(6)(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(6)(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,
3
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: ENG, HERRERA, TANG
NOES: DANG, LOPEZ
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of t is resolution and shall
transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City lerk.
PASSED, DENIED, and ADOPTED this 17'h day of July, 017
1 ' ' 4
CSean Dang, Chair
2
4
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 17'h day of July,
2017 by the following vote:
AYES: ENG, HERRERA, TANG
NOES: DANG, LOPEZ
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Lil . Valenzuela, Secretary
APPROVED - TO FORM:
Ka e Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
5