Loading...
CC - Item 3B - Appeal of Design Review 05-132• • ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANDREW C. LAZZARETTO, CITY MANAGE DATE: MAY 29, 2007 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 05-132; ZONE VARIANCE 05-330 AND ZONE VARIANCE 06-340 - MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUMMARY As part of the entitlement process for the properties located at 8815-8855 Valley Boulevard, two conditions were placed on both the property owner of the shopping center (Bob Nguyen) and the owner of the Universal Bank structure (Eric Lee). The first condition required the two owners to submit an agreed upon parking lot striping plan for both parcels. The second condition required each owner to submit a written agreement that the adjacent property owner is allowed to develop their property according to the designs approved by the Planning Commission. On May 7, 2007, the Planning Commission denied a staff initiated recommendation to remove and modify the conditions of approval that were originally placed on the entitlement approvals for parking variances and design review applications for the properties located at 8815-8855 Valley Boulevard. On May 14, 2007 the City Clerk's office received a letter from a member of the City Council appealing the decision of the Planning Commission and requesting that a hearing take place before the full City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1) Delete condition 44 and 45 of PC Resolution 06-26 and condition 33 and 34 of PC Resolution 06-27. ANALYSIS Over the last three years, the two current properties owners (Bob Nguyen & Eric Lee) within the former Universal Square Shopping Center have failed to reach agreement on a joint redevelopment and renovation project for the existing structures, signage landscaping, fagades and parking lot improvements. This stalemate has been due to an issue concerning the rights to existing easements for parking and reciprocal access that was recorded many years ago when separate parcels were created under a single ownership of the Universal APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: 1-e City Council Report May 29, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Bank Corporation. IN On July 3, 2006 the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 06-26 and 06-27 which created new conditions of approval for each of the zone variance and design review entitlements granted by the Planning Commission. The variances allowed each owner to convert portions of their center to food related uses within a shopping center. In addition, a previous design review entitlement also allowed Mr. Lee to renovate the exterior of the Universal Bank structure. The conditions placed on the two properties by the Planning Commission read as follows: xx. This approval shall be of no force or effect unless and until applicant and the adjacent property owner agree upon a coordinated parking lot striping plan utilizing the site plan design submitted by the property owner of 8815-8845 E. Valley Boulevard under Design Review No. 05-132 which includes a 40-foot+ wide entryway design with landscape features. xx. This approval shall be of no force or effect unless and until the applicant/owner, by written agreement, allows the adjacent property to be developed and maintained in accordance with the land use approvals granted by the City of Rosemead to the adjacent property in Land Use Case No. Zone Variance 06-340. Staff now believes that those two conditions are now hindering the renovation project. Mr. Lee can move forward with his project if the two conditions are removed from the approvals. However, Mr. Nguyen is protesting the removal of these conditions, arguing that they are the linchpin which ensures that both renovation projects will move forward in a coordinated effort. In addition, Mr. Nguyen argued at the Planning Commission hearing that without an additional new building pad being constructed at the southwest corner of the parking lot, the remodel project would not be financially feasible. Bob Nguyen stated that the financial lenders will not provide a loan for the renovation of the center without the new additional leasable building square footage. One of the dilemmas that the City staff has faced over the last several weeks is that Mr. Nguyen and prospective new tenants for the shopping center have verbally presented conflicting requests. While new prospective restaurant tenants approach the City at the property owner's direction, Mr. Nguyen also continues to request that the vacant restaurant be demolished. The indecisiveness on the part of Mr. Nguyen, leads to continued confusion and is delaying the redevelopment of the major portion of the shopping center. Also of concern to the City is the lack of progress on the partially constructed dry storage/warehouse addition located at the rear of the grocery store. The building permit for the warehouse addition was issued on May 18, 2006 and progress remains slow. City Council Report May 29, 2007 Pace 3 of 3 LJ Staff believes that by removing the two conditions, each property owner will be able to move forward with their plans independently of the adjacent neighbor in the center. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item was noticed as a public hearing item. Submitted by: Jesse Duff Interim Community Development Director Prepared by: Brad Johnson Planning Services Administrator Attachment A: Appeal Letter Attachment B: Request for continuance letter, May 23, 2007 Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report, May 7, 2007 Attachment D: Site Plan MAYOR: JOHN THAN MAYOR PRO TEW JOHN NUNEZ COUNCILMEMBERS: MARGARET CLARK POLLY LOW GARY A. TAYLOR *0 May 10, 2007 Nina Castruita City Clerk 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 9 10 oseswad 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770, TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 SUBJECT: Appeal of Design Review 05-132; Zone Variance 05-330 & Zone Variance - Modifications This letter is to inform you that I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission of May 7, 2007 for modifications of Design Review 05-132; Zone Variance 05-330 and Zone Variance 06-340. The requests included City initiated modifications of conditions of approval and the site plan/elevation design for the Rosemead Shopping Center and Universal Bank located at 8815- 8855 E. Valley Boulevard. Please schedule this item for a public hearing at the next regular meeting of the City Council on May 29, 2007. Sincerely, John Nunez Mayor Pro-Tem EXHIBIT A 9 JOHN A. HENNING~ JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 125 N. SWEETZER AVENUE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048 TELEPHONE: (323) 655-6171 E-MAIL: jhenning@planninglawgroup.com May 23, 2007 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL City Council City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Re: Design Review 05-132, Zone Variances 05-330 and 06-340 (Modifications) (hearing date May 29, 2007) Honorable Council Members: As counsel for Mr. Ban ("Bob") Nguyen in the above-referenced matter, I request that the City Council continue the public hearing on this matter to allow Mr. Nguyen to adequately prepare his defense of the appeal. Presently I am scheduled forjury duty on the date of the hearing, and I have a major trial brief due in Los Angeles Superior Court on the same date. I am concerned that these obligations will preclude me from preparing adequately for the hearing, and will also make it difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at the hearing before the 6:30 scheduled time. We also request that the City Council deny the appeal and the staff-initiated request for modification of conditions of approval for the projects located at 8815 and 8855 East Valley Blvd. The proposed modifications would delete certain conditions that require Mr. Lee to agree to the project as proposed. By deleting these conditions, the City would squander its last opportunity to ensure that both Mr. Lee's project and Mr. Nguyen's project are completed, and would likely result in a new.restaurant surrounded by an aging and decaying center. The modification of these conditions would be so substantial as to constitute a new project, requiring new findings and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The resulting project would also violate the City's code requirement that covenanted parking be provided for Mr. Lee's use. For these reasons, we believe it is vulnerable to a legal challenge by Mr. Nguyen. EXHIBIT B • City Council May 23, 2007 Page 2 LI The subject conditions were adopted for two parallel and complementary development proposals at 8815-8855 East Valley Blvd, which were each approved by the City Planning Commission on July 3, 2006. The first proposal (ZV 06-340) was made by Mr. Eric Lee, and involved the conversion of 3,400 square feet on the first floor of his building from an office space into two restaurant spaces. The second proposal (DR 05-132 / ZV 05-330) was made by Mr. Nguyen, and involved the demolition of portions of the shopping center and the construction of new parking spaces, as well as a 9,000 square foot addition to the center, to be constructed on the southwest comer of the parking lot. This proposal would result in a net increase of 3,383 square feet of improvements, but it Would also have resulted in 45 new parking spaces in the center, far more than the 14 spaces the Code would normally require for a shopping center use of this size. The parking spaces to be created by Mr. Nguyen's proposal were described precisely on the site plan for the project. As that plan shows, under Mr. Nguyen's proposal, more parking would shift toward Mr. Lee's property, as the spaces displaced by the new addition on the southwest corner of the parking lot, furthest from Mr. Lee's property, would be offset replaced by 26 new parking spaces along the facade of the shopping center and immediately north of Mr. Lee's property. Each of the two projects required a parking variance. Mr. Nguyen's was necessary primarily because of the addition of 3,383 square feet of improvements to the center. Mr. Lee's was necessary because he was converting office space to restaurant space, which is a use that requires 150% more parking. (Under the City's code, restaurants require one space per 100 square feet, while office uses require one space per 250 square feet.) Of course, one of the City's primary concerns was the effect of the combined projects on parking. A traffic study prepared by Foust & Associates, the same traffic engineer hired by Mr. Lee, showed that with both projects implemented, the parking situation for the combined projects would actually be better than it would be if only Mr. Lee's project were constructed. This is because Mr. Nguyen's plan, although allowing a net increase of 3,383 square feet of improvements, would also have resulted in 45 new parking spaces in the center, far more than required under the Code, and would create 26 new parking spaces much closer to Mr. Lee's property. , However, there was one important hitch. Because Mr. Lee had a pre-existing private easement for parking on Mr. Nguyen's parking lot, Mr. Nguyen's plan required Mr. Lee to consent. Otherwise, Mr. Lee could sue Mr. Nguyen in court for burdening his easement. On June 19, 2006, the Planning Commission heard both proposals. We appeared at the hearing and argued that the Commission should place conditions on Mr. Lee's approval that would require him to allow Mr. Nguyen's development to proceed notwithstanding the easement. Over Mr. Lee's objection, the Commission adopted two conditions. One conditioned Mr. Lee's approval on agreeing to a coordinated parking lot striping plan that would utilize Mr. Nguyen's • 9 City Council May 23, 2007 Page 3 site plan, thereby accomplishing the 45 new parking spaces' The second condition simply required Mr. Lee,'"by written agreement, [to] "allow[] the adjacent property to be developed and maintained in accordance with the land use approvals granted by the City of Rosemead." (See ZV 06-340, conditions 33, 34.) Due to a desire for reciprocity, the Commission, on advice of the City Attorney, imposed similar conditions on Mr. Nguyen's project. (See DR 05-132, ZV- 05330, conditions 44, 45.) Pursuant to City policy, staff sent an affidavit accepting the conditions to both Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Lee. Mr. Nguyen promptly signed the affidavit. Mr. Lee did not. Without Mr. Lee's consent, neither owner could proceed, and the project remained unbuilt. The reason for Mr. Lee's refusal is simple. Mr. Lee wants to build his project and then block Mr. Nguuyen's project, so as to gain financial leverage over Mr. Nguyen. Accordingly, soon after the conditions were imposed by the Planning Commission, pressure mounted for staff to seek their deletion. Staff first proposed the deletion in November 2006. The Commission continued that request in January 2007. Subsequently, staff reintroduced the proposal before the Planning Commission, and added a new recommendation to delete the condition allowing Mr. Nguyen to construct the 9,000 square foot structure, and to require him to remodel and renovate the remainder of the center. This would leave Mr. Nguyen with only the right to rehabilitate the existing shopping center and to remove existing square footage to build more parking - something he has always had the right to do anyway. On May 7, 2007, the Commission voted 4 to 1 to deny these modifications. The Commission recognized that the City's interest is that both Mr. Lee's site and Mr. Nguyen's site should be developed concurrently and in a complementary way, and that, without the conditions, Mr. Nguyen's proposal to rehabilitate his portion of the existing center - which more than three times as large as Mr. Lee's property - would likely never be achieved. Indeed, the 9,000 square foot addition is the only source of additional revenue that would justify Mr. Nguyen rehabilitating the remainder of the center and removing more than 5,500 square feet of existing development to make way for 45 additional parking spaces. Furthermore, it is not enough merely for the Citv to approve the 9,000-foot addition. Mr. Nguyen cannot build the addition without Mr. I Lee's permission and the City is the only body that can require Mr. Lee to grant permission Therefore the City's approval of Mr. Lee's project must include a condition requiring him to consent to Mr. Nguyen's project. In support of the request to modify the permits, staff has indicated that the conditions requiring consent by Mr. Lee should be deleted because the owners have not been able to cooperate. However. because the project approvals have completely defined both projects and the necessary parking there is no need for the two owners to cooperate in order for both projects to go forward. All that is required is for Mr. Lee to agree in writing to the parking plan already approved by the City, and to consent to Mr. Nguyen's development of his project, which is also already approved. i City Council May 23, 2007 Page 4 Indeed, the reason Mr. Lee continues to refuse to agree to the combined projects has nothing to do with cooperation problems, or fairness, or any harm he would suffer. Rather, he believes the City may ultimately remove the conditions, thereby allowing him to build his project and precluding Mr. Nguyen from building anything. Tellingly, at the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Lee was asked directly by two planning commissioners why he was refusing to agree to Mr. Nguyen's project. Mr. Lee's response was "there is a whole list of reasons" and "we have our reasons," but he refused to say what the reasons were We believe that if the City Council holds firm in requiring Mr. Lee to consent to the combined development as a condition of building his restaurant, he will finally drop his opposition. Of course, the City's concern here should be primarily with good planning rather than litigation avoidance. However, with regard to the latter concern, we must respectfully disagree with staffs view that the requested action would be a mere exercise of the City's "police power authority" and, as such, immune from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other laws. To the contrary, these conditions were a primary foundation underlying key conclusions made by the Commission as part of its original approval of Mr. Lee's project, and their deletion would be the legal equivalent of approving a new and different project, one which would constitute a "project" requiring environmental review under CEQA. In addition, without the conditions, there is no factual ground for assuming that Mr. Nguyen will construct any of the improvements he has proposed. Therefore, the original approval would be stripped of any factual basis for numerous essential findings, both express and implied. These findings include, among others, the finding that parking would be sufficient to meet the project needs, and the finding that the project would pose no detriment to adjoining property. In particular, the intensified parking demand resulting from Mr. Lee's restaurant would overburden Mr. Nguyen's easement and would thereby hann Mr. Nguyen, making any finding of no detriment infirm as a matter of law. Deletion of the conditions would also directly violate the City's code. Mr. Lee's project relies on provision of parking on a separate lot without a recorded covenant by Mr. Nguyen promising to maintain such parking. (See Rosemead Municipal Code, chap. 17.84.120.) Without Mr. Nguyen's agreement to Mr. Lee's plan as contemplated in the subject conditions, this provision of the Code is not satisfied. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal. Very truly yours, D ~ ohn A. Henning, Jr. ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF.THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 07, 2007 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW 05-132, ZONE VARIANCE 05-330 aNn 7nNF VARIANCE 06-340 Summary: This is a City initiated modification of a previously approved site plan, elevations and conditions of approval that the Planning Commission approved on July 3, 2006. The proposed modification is to delete Condition 2, 44 and 45 of PC Resolution 06-26, condition 33 and 34 of PC Resolution 06-27. Additionally, the modifications propose to rescind the approved 9,009 square foot new retail structure at the southwest corner of Valley Blvd and Muscatel and allow exterior renovations to the existing vacant former Valley Grill restaurant building. The colors and materials to be utilized for renovating the former Valley Grill restaurant shall match the reminder of the approved fagade changes to the Shopping Center.. The subject property is located at 8815-8855 E.Valley Boulevard in the CBD-D; Central Business District - Design Overlay, Zoning District. Staff Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve deletion of condition 2, 44 and 45 of PC Resolution 06-26 and condition 3,3 and 34 of PC Resolution 06-27. 2. Rescind the approved 9,009 square foot new retail building proposed at the southwest corner of Valley and Muscatel to facilitate renovations of the Rosemead Shopping Center including the former valley grill restaurant. EXHIBIT C Planning Commission Meeting May 07, 2007 n_O A 3 Authorize the Planning Services Administrator or his designee to review and approve fagade changes/improvements to the currently vacant former Valley Grill restaurant which measures approximately 3,500 square feet, (located at 8801 E. Valley Blvd). The proposed modifications are due to the fact that the property owners cannot reach mutual agreement to share the parking lot, therefore, by deleting the original conditions ,of approval, project proponents will be able to proceed with property improvements. Environmental Determination: Staff has determined that the proposed modifications to the site plan. and conditions of approval for this project is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15321 (Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the..proposed actions are consistent with the City's police power authority. In addition, the-l3f6p6sed modifications meet the requirements of Section 15061(b) (3) of CEQA because it can certainly be seen that there is no possibility that such proposed modifications may have a significant effect on the environment. Municipal Code Requirements: Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) requires a precise plan for any improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, and exterior fagade or landscaping to be applied for and approved by the City of Rosemead. Analysis: Property History and Description It was staffs original intent to include conditions.44 and 45 of PC Resolution 06-26, condition 33 and 34 of PC. Resolution 06-27 to,guarantee that the two separate property owners would cooperate on a coordinated parking lot re-striping plan and agree to allow each other to move forward with their respective development plans for renovating their properties and associated buildings. Since the Planning Commission continued this item at its January 15, 2007 meeting, the two property owners have not agreed to the conditions of approval, development plan and joint parking lot improvement plan. Therefore, the Planning Department is initiating modifications to the original conditions of approval and site plan, to facilitate each property owner to precede with their respective development plans and maintain their properties independently in compliance with City of Rosemead Municipal Code. The following original conditionals of approval are recommended to be deleted by the Planning Commission. 0 Planning Commission Meeting May 07, 2007 Page 3 of 4 PC Resolution 06-26: i ;eR cGi3fer,4444g l d ekie te les than required that ~q a 2R9 zoned par,-el an era-fig stalls ega s PC Resolution 06-27: PF:a9ted-bY the C4 of pn,c;e qeael t9 the aGyaoent prepe43~ iP f 914d ( 'sE? Case Pig. Design ReWPIII 05 New conditions for PC Resolution 06-26 2. The applicant shall submit a new site plan without the new 9;009 square foot _ structure at the southwest portion of the parking field (southwest corner of Valley and Muscatel). 45. The applicant/developer shall remodel and renovate the exterior facades of the existing currently vacant former Valley Grill Restaurant to enhance its aesthetic Planning Commission Meeting May 07, 2007 Paoe 4 of 4 . value. The building shall be enhanced with finish colors and materials to match the reminder of the shopping center. The applicant shall also install new landscaping, irrigation, lighting, and parking lot re-striping subject to approval of the Planning Department. Conclusion: With deletion and modification of the above mentioned conditions of approval and site plan in place, staff believes that each property owner will complete the necessary improvements without having to go through the mutual property owners-agreement constraints. Furthermore, staff anticipates that by deleting these conditions it will encourage both property owners to make improvements within a shorter period of time. Public Notice Process This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' property owner public hearing notice and postings of the notice at the eight (8) public locations. Submitted by: George Agaba Senior Planner Exhibits: A. PC Resolutions 06-26 and 06-27 B. Site Plan PC RESOLUTION 06-26 A RESOLUTION OF TT3E PLANNING COMMISSION OF=PHE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 05-132 FOR EXTERIOR FACADE RENOVATIONS, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 9,00 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STRUCTURE AND ZONE VARIANCE 05-3 30 FOR A LEGAL, NON-CONFOR~~I 'G SHOPPING CENTER WITH LESS THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS; LOCATED AT 88I5-SS45 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DES'IGN' OVERLAY) ZONE (APN 5391-009-001). WHEREAS; on October 11; 2005; Bob Nguyen of Rosemead supermarket filed an application for a DesignReview for e>derior facade renovations including addition of a 9,009 square foot retail building and a Zone Variance for parkin for a legal non-conforming shopping center; 1~iHEP~EAS, tl]is property located at 5515-SS-:5 E. Valley Boulevard is located in the CBD- D (Ctntrai Business District wiih a Design Overlay) zone, ano WREREAS, Section 17.73.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS. Sections 65500 L'' 65900 of the California Government Code and section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead QunicilJal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve or den); design review apphcatlons; and WHEREAS, Section 17.72.030 of d]eRosemead Municipal Code (R.MC) states chat design review procedures shall be followed for all in]proverne.nis involving visible changes in font, texture, color, exterior facade or landscaping. Section 17.72.050 provides the criieria by which the Planning Commission may approve; approve'„-1th conditions, or deny an application: • The. plans indicate p open consideration for the relationship between the jDT0o0Sc6 Struchlre and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; • The plan for the proposed siructnre acid site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surroundlno propen.ies are protected agalnsi noise, V1Drations, and other iactoi"s which may have an adverse effect or) ine eivlroronent. and the manlier of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. • The proposed s'd-ucture or site development is trot, ll1 its exterl0r desLl] and 3ppeal'31]Ce, SO 3e variance with the appearance ' Of other existing building or Slte deVe101Jin1ents 117 the neighborhood as to cause ine naw,t of tree local enviroinnlent i0 materially depreciate in appearance and value. E3) f; mp? • • The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in tilt 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 o; immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which. .indicates building shape, size of 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 oilier 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 suee'ts. An applicant must obtain a variance in order to create a development that does not meet the minimum standards. Section ] 7. i 08.020 sets criteria required for granting such avarlance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a variance will not • Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; • Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; • Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan; and • That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed 'qy other properties ;n the viculny under identical zone classifications. WHEREAS. on .Tulle S, 2006, 55 notices were sent to piopert}, ownt"s'"liihin a 300-foot radius holm ih° subject property, 'In addition to notices posted in S public locauons; specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Design Review 05-132 and Zone Variance 05-330; and WHERE.AS, on June 19, 2006, the Planing Conznvission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and wriuen testimony relative to Design Review 03-132 and Zone Valiance 03-:;30; and HERBAS, the Rosemead Planning Coirrnlssioli has sufficiently considered all testimony presented 10 them in order to make the follow- determi;7atio;i. NOW THERE FORE) PE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of ihe City of Rosemead as fOllOw+s'. SECS 1. The Planning COMInissionHEaREB Class D ,TC~go ica]DErer uRor:uuriall1to a and Sect on li303(c)ofdieCalifornia and Zone V ariance 05-330 are classified as a Clas Section 15301 (a nd 1,5303(c of CE Section 15301 ( ) Elwirol mental Quzlity Act and ]GCaI envlroiunenial guidelines exempt projects thzt consist of lcat suchconln7ercial the 7tofourlT Viers of nev+; smal additions to existing Oinclud s and, not lim d to the7construcooloofu zonedpfor facilities or such use 7f not invohnng 000 square feet In floor area on sites Uuildi c services and necessary Publi stuaules substances where all as not e>:ceedulg 10: sensitive die use of sigliif cent amounts or , hazardot-s facilities are available and the surrounding area is not ellvuonmentall} acis SEC_ I O0 - Z. The Planning Conunission H ZFEo diFP~D e Cr it Da of C aut°F17t110Si.020 do exis-, to justif)' aPP10ving Design Review 05-] 3- of file. Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: 4. The Plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship Uetween -tile, proposed structure and site developments That exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; c Center. The ceieter s~d FINDING: The subject site is located in he Universal Squzre ShoPpm~ _oil,,, jje pro, includes the Post Office,] eri that al BanReraed maila]enance and exteriorcin]PuoeenlT s thattneed aeslg'n will e:~eance a cel upgrades. B. The p1217 f07 The proposed Structure and site develOp171B11t 171d]G2ie5 ihP 171aibra io \,,,1 and ment and surrounding proper les are Protected against noise, viUrations; and load lgi a the e17vironln el7t; end ,he marn7er of scree ling y have an adverse ihe proposed develop i reas. other mechanical factors e, which quiPnlent ma, irasll, storag ,-opel-0es FI DING: Siaffhas incorporated conditions designed to proieci the suil'o 7din p f 1]zve an adverse effect on the envirolunent. from noise; vioraiions and Other factors \a'llicil :nay C, Tht proposed sTructure or site development is not, in its exterir design and appearance.. e With the appearance Of OThel' exlSt. buildlieg Or Site deveiopmen:S in die v de+-rec:iaie m s0 al V2r1ffi1C appearance 7 i0 mateTl2 1, 1P1ehborhood al to cause the nature 1'e of 1-he lGCa1 el]\'irG7nneilt and -value. 'osed nevs' e?.ter for va+il] prov de a cohesive architectural sb'1e and color t'-oin the FINDING: Thepro? ~ 'leasing view heme. The new exterior renovations will also give an aestheucal7 p' .ol1:~ X1Stino appea'. ai]C.e 75 GllIIe77t1}'leading sc \%Jlll cOn ilnue t0 decline 717 3]7~Jea]'311ce. surrounding Stl'eet S)'Ste1775 ai10 aol aCBni 1]e7a.Orboods. The to 6epreciaii017 Of propel y values and l IlOt cornl1 lee td D. The proposed buildll]o 01 S'irUCiUre 75 711112rI110i]y \4Rthl the p\O'1 i° n oiaa' acent totla 016 1i'• t]le g_ellera-1 area; especially those MSia1]eeS V~'hele ~llllChli_s ar0 land llse, Or are it ()It Tile Clei7el'a] Pl;z7 as bel;lg ]J- - Of Tl]e Civ1G center Or In pllbllc Or eQllcal101131 within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise p1211 which indicates building shape, size or style. FTNDING: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the. City's General Plan in that it calls for the upgrading of commercial uses by illplei?renting architectural and design reviews of proposals for new projects. The proposers new exterior will provide a cohesive architec oral style and color scheme and an aesthetically pleasmg view front the civic center as well as other surrounding properties. The architectural upgrades include such featllLeS as stone accents, t0)NCrs and upgraded landscaping iluoughoui the property. 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 site is designated in the General Plan for Commercial and on the zoning slap, it is designated as CBD-D, Central Business District with a Design Overlay. Other than the required parking stalls which a variance was requested for, the architectural site plarming, floor plans and elevations sleet the standards of the City's zoning ordinance. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings; parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site fc'aiures indicate- that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of -tile Site oevelopmerII, such aS automobile and pedestnan cn"CUlaiion, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. - FINDLNG: Staff has worked extensively with the applicant to develop a plan that improves functional aspects like loading, tulloading and traffic circulation and also improves the appearance of the operation. SECTION 3. The, Piarming Con-unission HEREBY FINDS AND DETER\ iTNES that facts do exist to Justin! approvine Zone V ariance OS-330 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The project does not constitute a grant or special privilege ine.onsisient with the limitations upon other properties in the, vicinity.- FINDING: This is an existing shopping center that was developed with parking, stalls less than current standards. Sinlilai" requests have been granted to adjacent property mNiners \u6-Lhin the center ane the still-ounCing central business district. B. The a;oject will not be materially detrimen-tal to the public health or welfare or . injurious to tht property 01 nllpi"ovements in such Zone, 01" Vich-lity. FINDING: The newaddido;.la1 building area will not be. detrimental to the public health or elfai'e or 111)llr10 S LO the propel t)' Or lm proveinents in t11e vicinity. A iraftic/parking stud), was subnuued vdi'in the applications and the tli]G1r1gS Of this study have determined that ihei"e. will not be anv negative teaftic imijacts to the SUr_;oubdinc Streets 01 ' on Site jlarki112 lot areas. More pariCmg stalls will be available s'hen parking lot restriping is conlUleted. C. The project a'il] not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. FINDING: The proposed projeci is in accordance ~a'ith the General plan 'hick designates file site for Conunercia] uses. D. That because of special circumstances; the surd t;liforceme'lt of the code ~a'oul d es in the vlclnlty Under r ON pthei deprive the subiect property of p;l`lleoes enjoyed bl I1ppCrtl ider:tical zone classification. ante parking. FINDING: There are many shopping centers in the city that lack adeq 1 This proposal Is only adding an additional 4,000 square {eei Of retail floor area rantln an e>astind shopping center din, consists of aporoxinlately 102,000 square. feet. Theapplicanthasdeslgne a par lcins loi striping pla;l That adds an additional tN~'enp' plus Parking stn?ls 41e project to inchi6e above the number currently existing. Oil -132 to F ~PPROVESDesignRevlew05 a ction of a Ilea' 9 , 009 square foot retail 5> Cam' a. ThePlamlino Commissi constru HE& B~ center 'ih less than the ally' 'renovations of t?le exierior facade includin buiiding and Zone ,V a:'iallce 05-330 for a legal. non-confonlling s lpppul, nl ns listed in Exhibit attached inimullt number of required parkin- stalls; subject to conditio 17er°.ip and incol-porated herein by reference. . SEC_ TIOn_~ This resolution is theresuh of an action taken Ul't?le Plzuvliug Conunission on ]une 19, 2006: by the following YES: NO: gBSENT: vote: BREEN, HERREFA, KELTY LOPEZ and LOI NONE NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SEC_ TION i' . The secretary shall cent{y to ale adoption of this reso?ution and shat? transmit copies of same 10 the applicmit and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of July, 2006. Daniel Lopez, Chairman CERTIFICATION I hereby ceftiw that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Plaiuting Crnrunission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 3rd day of July, 2006, by the following vote: YES: KELTY, LOI, BREEN, HERRERA, LOPEZ N0: NONtE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Brad"Joiutson, Secretary Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2006 Pate 1 0`~ EXHIBIT "A1" DESIGN REVIEW 84E VALLEY E30ULLEVARD 05330; REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL July 3, 2006 Variance 05-330 is approved for exterior Design Review 05-132/Zone i facade renovations, including landscapng for the Rosemead Shopping Center, to be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "B", d elev dated January 10, 2006 and submitted coloreapVe~splzdnscmust be o-the material sample boards. Any revisions sby the planning Department. resubmitted for review and approval 2. Design Review 05-132/Zone Variance 05-3300 is approved for the demolition or 5,020 square 9fooJ°aquzse toot s restaurant atodbre locat d atahe the construction of a new southwest corner of the shopping center, in accordance with the plan Exhibit "Bdated January 10: th2006 in a and submitted hat is e I marked CBD elevations and material sample boards, v lthi property zoned parcel and is legal non-conf°nning due to less than required on site parking stalls. take of 3 Approval of Design Review 05-1321Zoe05-33 effect for any purpose until the applicant aware of and accepts all of the Rosemead an a fidavii stating that they are conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. , Design Review 05-132/Zone Variance 05-330 is approved for a one (1) e year period. P.pp-i3 shall make application for a building permit within n~onths six (6) months and complete the prol2rio within an expiration additional eitsix 'n (6 of hese or request an extensions 30 days p benchmark dates. Otherwise Design Revlev, 05 1321Zone Variance 0 330 shall become null and void. 5. There shall be no roof mounted equip Went extending above the parapet wall of the building. g , merchandise, outdoor tainers . There shall be no outdoor storage of con . vending machines, pallets or o'her products Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2006 Page 2 of 7. In the event of any administrative, legal or ee,uitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person, entity or organization challenging the validity of the project approvals to which these conditions attach or challenging the sufficiency of any environmental review, the Developer shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such challenge. Developer agrees that City may, at its sole option, tender the complete defense of any such third party challenge to the Developer, and upon acceptance of such tender by Developer, Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless City against any and all fees and costs arising out of the defense of such challenge, and shall control the defense. Should Developer refuse to accept such a tender by the City, City may defend such action or proceeding and if City so defends, Developer shall indemnify and hold City harmless from all a<iorneys' fees related to such defense. g. That the west facing exterior wall of the proposed new 9,009 square foot structure shall include a minimum of 51% clear window or door openings. Where possible, tenant spaces . on the new structure shall have. entrances/exits on both the east and west walls. The end cap units shall have corner entrances/exits. g That the end cap units shall incorporate a public, outdoor patio/dining area for customers to enjoy outdoor patio furniture 10. That the landscape and irrigation plan shall be re-submitted to the Design Review Commiitee for further retlnement and adjustments as recommended by the City's landscape architect. 11. That a six toot high, "green screen", (or similar) decorative iron fence system be installed along the west property line of the shopping center betv,,een the grocery store and the northerly property line and five-gallon vine containers be installed six feet on center. n northwest Zand northeast cornerrs of the shopping center for ingresslegress of delivery trucks. 13. That a detailed master signage program be submitted for reviev,, and approval of the Planning Commission. 14. That a parking lot lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Department that incorporates new, decorative light standards in the parking lot and building edges. Such lighting shall be designed to not spill ont, adjacent properiles or create lamp fixtures that face to the surrounding neighborhood. Planning commission Meeting July 3, 2006 Page 3 of 5 15,. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, Siate and local laws relative to the approved use including the,requirements of the Planning: Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 16. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable tees are paid in full. 17. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with 2 minimum charac`ier 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 Director of Planning prior to installation. 18. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 10. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Miionday- Saturday. No construction shall fake place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. 20. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 21. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to 'the Planning and Building Departments for review. 22. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, in`;pecied, and approved by appropriate department(s). 23. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all wor'r in or adjacent to the public right-of-way. 24. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the anal approval of the proposed construction. 25. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. H. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall be screened from view. 27. Window signage area shall be lirnited to a maximum 0- 16°o Of the 'Inds\v and door area. Applicant shall remove that signage which e>:ceeds in=- l 5% coverage area. Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2006 Pape A o; 5 28. 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 Department for review and approval. 29. Prior to the issuance of any additional ground floor occupancy permits or final approval of any tenant improvement permits , the existing 22 foot Non Universal Bank pylon/billboard style sign and support columns, adjacent to.Valley Boulevard shall be completely removed. 30. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti ree state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can . be called at (626) 307-0463 for assistance. 31, The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and. litter free state in accordance with Sections, 832.010-8.32.040 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. 32. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 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. 33. Prior to construction commencing, the contractor.. shall schedule a pre- development meeting with tine Planning Department staff to review the conditions of approval and construction plans.. 34. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or the initiation of revocation proceedings. 35. Any changes to the conditions of operation listed in this Exhibit "A" must be first approved by the Planning Commission through a modification application. 1) Remove all real estate and other temporary signs that do not have temporary permits issued by the Planning Department. 37. Remove all parking restriction signs on the property. 38. Renovate the. existing and create new trash enclosures to incorporate Plannino Commission Meeting July 3, 2006 Page of decorative walls, overhead trellis elements and solid steel doors. tion 39. A detailed landscape and irrioa f(Build Building shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior Irrigation plan shall include an. automatic sprinkler system and moisture sensors. for the City ile 40. that ensures regular weeding, ferttilizingnirrigation eep irtand replacement of unhealthy plant materials. Mantaln a valid maintenance agreement in nance fi perpetuity with qualified commercial landscape maintem). 41. _ Provide signed _ letter from landscape architect at completion of irrigation as all planti ng installation that ng moved I landd ape/i, gahon been installed in conformance with the final app Dian. 42.. That the new driveway configuration on Valley Boulevard remain the existing width and configuration 43, Violation of. the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. unless and until applicant a no 4!;. This approval shall rbef no force e°uPoea t coord n ted parking lot striping the adjacent property owner ope owner of 8815- plan utilizing the site plan design submitted by the p rope 8845 E. Valley Boulevard under Design Review No. 05 'i32 which ncludes a 40-foot+ wide entryway design vdith landscape features. , This approval shall be of no force or effect unless and until the 45 appllcantlowner, by written agreement, allows the adjacent property als developed and maintained in accordance with the land use app granted by the City of Rosemead to the adjacent property In Land Use Case No. ?one Variance 06-340. the 4g, To preserve the tranquility of nearby residents during cl~e~ oinOOeeping applicant shall sweep the parking lot pursuant to a par g plan to be submitted for review and approval by the City Planning Director. 0 PC RESOLUTION 06-27 A 1ESOLUTION OF THE, PLAIANING COMI\ZISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEA4EAD. COUNT)' OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A LEGAL; NON- APPROVING ZONE VARIANCE 06-340 FOR THE MINIMUM CONFORn'IING SHOPPING CENTER1y ITH LESS THAN NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS; LOCATED AT 8855 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT \\71TH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN 5391-009-002). cation \ Vana REAS, o o S1e Oo veion o` Office Space into rte ne e V arince ce to allow allow for a Zo the required parking for a legal non-coiifonnulg shopping center! NVIIERFAS, this property located at SS55 valley Boulevard is located in the CBD-D (Cenua] Business District with a Desist Overlay) zone; and \VI-IEREAS, Section 17.109 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC)Provides the purpose and criteria for a zone variance request; and fIuSOOpa & 6590 of th Coda u'dlori eatheiPlan ina conimision 1and 0 approve, \ViLERE 1SoseSections 1-1.72.050 of conditionally approve or deny design review applications; and zone difficulties, turui cessainardsl'ips, oyraiesults \ procP~EAS, benfollowed when Ro still cad 1\4uiIi by reason of a strict varianceprocedu,es shall all b inconsistent with the general purposes of the.zomng ardinulce occur b, mlerpreiaiion and enforcenlerlt of any provisions of the'ordinance. tet the An applicant must obtain a variance in order to create z devne~op ul1esuch a valiance oneor minimum stand ds. Section 17.105.020 sets criteria required for g g these criteria cannot be met, then the variance play not be granted. These criteria require that eranting such a variance will not: Consil iu ie a -Qiam of special privilege inconsistent with the limitat1ons. upon other properties in the vicinity; Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the proper[)' or improvements in such zone or vicinity; Adversely affect the comprehensive genera] plan; and • Thai leC2uS3 of S1J ecr al c1rCUill Stallces, She strict e-lfOrelllent of the GOde would t the Vicinity depr a he subject proper V of privileges enjoyed by other properties ul . raider identical zone classif, ca'soils \'gjEREAS, on .Tune 8, 2006, 58 notices were sent 10 property Owners. within a 300-foot radius from the subject property; in addition to notices posted in 8 public locations; specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Zone Variance 06-340; and W11 REAS, on June 19, 2006, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Zone Variance 06-3-.0; and WHEREAS, iheRosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, TaEP.EI'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED.by the Planiiing Commission of the City of . Rosemead as follows: SECTI:ON1. The PlammingCommission HEREBYDETER LNIFSZoneVariance06-340 is classified as a Class 1 and Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (e) and 15303(c) of CEQA. Section 15301 (e) and Section 15303(c) of the California Envtrontnental Quality Act and local enviromnental guidelines exempt projects that consist of additions to existing structures and the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, such commercial buildings not including but not limited, to the construction of up to four O 4 exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of sigpifica n. amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the suIIoundnlg area is n01 envirom-nentally sensitive SECTION' 2. The Plannina Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETER-M NES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone V ariance 0-340 accorditig to the Criteria of Chapter 17. 108.020 of the Rosemead Miunicipal Code as follows: A. The project does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. FINDING: This is an existing shopping center that teas developed with parking stalls less than cui ew standards. Similar requests have been granted to adjacent property owners within the, center and the district. E. The project will not be materially detrimental to the public health Or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. FINDING: The chan-e of tenant use will not be detrimental to tine public health or welfale or injurious 10 the proptity 01 inprovements in the vicmlly as evidenced in the a aT_T-lc/parkin£ study c.oinnleted by Austin Faust Traffic Engineers. C, The project will not aovcrsel'y affect tlhe compren elhsiV'e Geihera] Plail. 0 l?(NpING: The proposed project is in accordance With the General Plan which designates the site 'for Commercial use. D. That because of sueciz] circumstan ces, the strict enforcement of the code uoul d in the vicinity under ies deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by oti er Proper identical zone classification. FINDING: There are many shopping centers in 'Ile city that lack adequate parking. This proposal is not adding additional retail floor area, it is to convert existing officeUuilding square footage into food and drink that are currently Ueuig cdnducted outdoors and for additional storage. 340 SEC_ T~1O 4 o{1~e~Olp'Square f Col'si oots?errant space aBth oPROasE~ hZne oer of the first floor and allow the con` etsio pfloor arking stalls, Subjeocttooctond~itions irfirst 1;%90 squarefeet ohlessThanspace le mirirmun? numUer oftile shopping Centel listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by re erence. qECTI This resolution is he result of an action taken bytl?PlazuConunissionon June 19, 2006, by The, f0110N*'inQ vote: BREEN, HERREPA; KEL.TY, LOPEZ and LOI XES: N0: NONE, ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SECS' ( Tlie secretary shall certiry?o the adol,Uon of this1resolution and shall transnnt copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk s • PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ;rd day of July, 2005. COJ U Dani,I Lopez, Chairman. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foreaoina.is a true copy of a resolution adopted by th ~P06, bn the ofollo~ in~t of the of Rosemead a? its regular meeting, held on the 3 day of July, _0 y g City vote: YES: KELTY, LOI, BREEN, HERRERa, LOPEZ . N0: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Brad Johnson, Secretary EXHIBIT "A2" ZONE VARIANCE 06-340, 8855 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL June 19. 2006 1. Zone Variance 06-340 is approved for the conversion of existing office space on the first floor of the Universal bank building (southwest corner and west side) to food or drink tenants (1,790 sf) and a restaurant (2,600 sf) within a property that is a CBD zoned parcel and is legal. non-conforming due to less than required on- site parking stalls. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. 2. Approval of Zone Variance 06-340 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are aware of and accepts all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. Zone Variance 06-340 is approved for a six month period. Applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an extension 30 days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission. Otherwise Zone Variance 06-340 shall become null and void. 4. 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. 5. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person, entity or organization challenging the validity of the project approvals to which these conditions attach or challenging the sufficiency of any environmental review, the Developer shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such challenge. Developer agrees that City may, at its sole option, tender the complete defense of any such third party challenge to the Developer, and upon acceptance of% such tender by Developer, Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless City against any and all fees and costs. arising out of the defense of such challenge and shall control the defense. Should Developer refuse to accept such a tender by the City. City. may defend such action or proceeding and if. City so defends. Developer shall indemnify and hold City harmless from all attorneys' fees related to such defense. 6. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and 611 other applicable fees are paid in full. 7. 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 Director of Planning prior to installation. 8.. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. .9. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p':m. Monday Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. 10.. Planning staff shall have access to the subject propertyi at any. time during construction to monitor progress. 11. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the. Planning and Building Departments for review. 12. Occupancy will not-be granted until all improvements required by. this approval have been completed, -inspected,- and approved by the appropriate department(s). 13. Applicant shall, obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the . . public right-of-wav. 14. All. requirements . of. the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final.appro.val of the proposed construction. 15. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. i6. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall be screened from view. .17. VVindow 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. 18. Sians 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 Department for review and approval. 19. Prior to the issuance of any additional around floor occupancy permits or final approval of any tenant improvement permits ,the exists ngs22a oat higth Universal Bank pylon/billboard style sign and support Boulevard shall be completely removed. 20. The site shall be maintained in a oraffiti-free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 307-0463 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. Submit a: detailed lighting plan for the exterior of the building and adjacent 1 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,. 23. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall.be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 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. .24. Prior to construction commencing, the contractor shall schedule a pre- development meeting with the Planning Department staff to review the conditions of approval and construction plans. 25. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or the initiation of revocation proceedings. 26. Any changes to the conditions of operation listed in this Exhibit W. - ant be first approved by the Planning Commission through a modiflcation app 27. Renovate the existing trash enclosures to incorporate decorative walls, overhead trellis elements and solid steel doors. 28. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. The landscape/ Irrigation plan shall include an automatic sprinkler system and moisture sensors. 29. Provide a Iona term landscape maintenance agreement for the City file that ensures regular weeding,' fertilizing, irrigation repair and replacement of unhealthy plant materials. Maintain a valid maintenance agreement in perpetuity with qualified commercial landscape maintenance firm. 30. Provide signed letter from landscape architect at completion of landscape/irrigation installation that all planting materials and irrigation has been installed in conformance with the final approved landscape/irrigation plan. 31. Demolish masonry wall on the east side of the property and submit detail of,new. decorative wall to replace. 32. Sione monument sign shall include routed out, aluminum sheet metal background, with push through acrylic style individual letters not to exceed inch for major tenants and'/ inch for all others, with internal illumination. 33. This approval shall be of no force or effect unless and until applicant and the adjacent property owner agree upon a coordinated parking lot striping plan utilizing the site plan design submitted by the property owner of 8815-45 D. Valley Boulevard under Design Review No. 05-132 which includes a 40-foot + wide entryway design with landscape features. 34. - This approval shall be of no force or effect unless and until the applicant, by 11 written agreement, allows the adjacent property to be developed and maintained in accordance with the land use approvals granted by the City of Rosemead to the adjacent property in Land Use Case No. Design Review 05-132 & Zone Variance 05-330. Planning Commission Wieeiing July 3, 2006 Pace 1 of 4 EXHIBIT "A2" ZONE VARIANCE 06-340; 8855 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL July3 2006 1. Variance 06-340 is app roved for the conversion of existing omce Zone space on the first floor of the Universal oo building a (restaurant (2,600 and west side) to food or drink tenants (1, parcel and is legal non s~ within a property that is a and on-site zoned parking stalls. Any revisions conforming due to less than required approval by y the to- the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and Planning Department. 2_ Approval of Zone Variance 06-340 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating s all of the conditions set forth in the that they are aware of and accept letter of approval and this list of conditions. roved for a six month period. Applicant shall 1 Zone variance 06-340 Is app I extension make sttowards expirztfonaf from the proposed an ling Commiss onan Otherwise 30 days ys prior Zone Variance 06-340 shall become null acid void. , . The applicant shall comply w ith all Federal, ts State of and the Plalocalnnilawsng, q r Ba lid ng the approved use including the requiremen Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 5. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action or other challenging the proceeding instituted by any person, entity or or which these conditions validity of the project approvals to attach or challenging the sufficiency of any environmental review, the Developer shall cooperate with the city in the defense of any such. challenge. Developer agrees that City may, at its sole option, tender the complete challenge to the Developer, and upon defense of any such third party o y aen . der by st any Devel apler, Dseend costs arising 2outTof th~ shall acceptance aharmless such and hold defense of such challenge and shall control the defense. Should Developer refuse to accept such a tender the City, City may defend eveldPer. shall such action or proceeding and it City so o defends, D ndemnify and hold City harmless from all attorneys fees related to such Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2005 Paoe 2 of 4 defense. 6. 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. 7. 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 drivers level from the street. Materials, colors, location and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to installation. 8. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department a Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. g. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 P.M. Monday - Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. 10. Planning staff shall have access to the, subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 11. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 12. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). 13. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public right-of-way. 14. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. i5. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 16. Ail roof top appurtenances and equipment shall be screened from view. 17. Window signage area shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the window and door area. Applicant shall remove that slgnage which exceeds the 15% coverage area. Planning Commission Meeting July 3, 2006 Page 3 of 4 18. Signs shall comply with the sign program indicated in this report and that of Chapter 17.1104 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. A uniform signage program shall be developed and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 19. Prior to the issuance of any additional ground floor occupancy permits or final approval of any tenant improvement permits , the existing 22 foot high Universal Bank pylon/billboard style sign and support columns, adjacent to Valley Boulevard shall be completely removed. 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) 307-0463 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. 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. 23. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction.of the Planning Deparment. In accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the .Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such- stripirig shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 24. Prior to construction commencing, the contractor shall schedule a pre- development meeting with the 'Planning Department staff to review the conditions of approval and construction plans. 25. Violation of the conditions of approval may. result in citation and/or the initiation of revocation proceedings. 26. Any changes to the conditions of operation listed in this Exhibit "A" must be first approved by the Planning Commission through a n-odification application. 27. Renovate the existing trash enclosures to incorporate decorative walls, Planning Commission Meeung July 3, 2006 pp~P 4 of 4 overhead trellis elements and solid steel doors. 28. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. The landscape/ irrigation plan shall include an automatic sprinkler system and moisture sensors. 29. Provide a long term landscape maintenance agreement for the City file that ensures regular weeding, fertilizing, irrigation repair and replacement of unhealthy plant materials. Maintain a valid maintenance agreement in perpetuity with qualified commercial landscape maintenance firm. 30. Provide signed letter from landscape architect at completion of landscape/irrigation installation that all planting materials and irrigation has been installed in conformance with the final approved landscape/irrigation plan. 31. Demolish masonry wall on the east side of the property and submit detail of new decorative wall to replace. 32. Stone monument sign shall include routed out, aluminum sheet metal background, with push through acrylic style individual letters not to exceed '/z inch for major tenants and inch for all others, with internal illumination. ;3. This approval shall be of no force or effect unless and until applicant and the adjacent property owner agree upon a •coordinated parking lot striping Ian utilizing he site plan design submitted'by the prooerty owner of 8815- 45 E. Valley Boulevard under Design Review No. 05-132 which includes a 40-foot + wide entryway design with landscape features. 34, This approval shall be of no force or effect unless and until the applicant/owner, by written agreement, allows the adjacent property to be developed and maintained in accordance with the land use approvals granted by the City of Rosemead to the adjacent property in Land Use Case No. Design Review 05-132 & Zone Variance 05-330.