Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of July 17, 2017Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 17, 2017 The regular Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Lopez in the Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION — Chair Lopez ROLL CALL— Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Tang, Vice -Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT— City Attorney Thuyen, Interim Community Planner Hanh, Assistant Planner Lao, and Administrative Ass ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE — REORGANIZATION - Interim Community Development Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng made a motion, Vote resulted in: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Interim to the i Directoryalenzuela, Associate Assistant nominations are now open for to nominate Commissioner Dang as Chair. with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and passed the gavel the Planning Commission and opened the nomination for Vice -Chair. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera nominate Commissioner Tang as Vice -Chair. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated motion passes with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and announced Commissioner Tang as Vice -Chair. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ►1[071: 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.04 — Kenneth Yong has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to increase the scope of an existing legal nonconforming beauty school (trade school use) at 8,531 Valley Boulevard. The project site is located in a Medium CommercialwithDesign Overlay (C -3/D-0) zone. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to increase the scope of an existing legal nonconforming trade school use within a Medium Commercial zone. PC RESOLUTION 17.13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATEOF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING` CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.04, PERMITTING AN INCREASE TO THE SCOPE OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING BEAUTY SCHOOL (TRADE SCHOOL USE) AT 8531 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5372-020.047), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C -3/D-0) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 13 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17.04, subject to the 25 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification of what exactly is the increase of the scope and if it is for the massage. Associate Planner Hanh replied the use previously was approved to include instruction for cosmetology, skin care, and manicure. He stated the request is to also provide instruction for massage therapy. Commissioner Eng asked if massage therapy is the increase in scope. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes Commissioner Eng asked if there is a licensing board for massage therapy. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if it is included in the conditions of approval that it is required to provide the appropriate board licensing. Associate Planner Hanh replied any state licensing required will need to be provided. Commissioner Eng asked if that is included in the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is included in Condition of Approval number 10 and read it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng asked if there are clinic areas also and if they will be providing services as well at this site. Associate Planner Hanh replied the clinic is located in front of the building off of the main entrance on Valley Boulevard and the class for massage is in Classroom F. Commissioner Eng stated for clarification and asked if services will be there so that the students may practice. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, but only in the front. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on what the applicant is exactly been obtained. Associate Planner Hanh replied that the applicant is requesting for the allow Commissioner Lopez asked if state licensing is required first. Associate Planner Hanh replied that question can be deferred to the applica Vice -Chair Tang asked what are the elements or qualities thaf make this prc Associate Planner Hanh replied today, if a person wanted to conditional use permit, but because the use was establist permit, they are considered alegal non-conforming;use. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the pi 5,400 square feet. Associate Planner Hanh replied Commissioner Herrera asked W Associate Planner Hanh replied Commissioner Lopez asked' if d come in. Associate Planner Hanh replied Vice -Chair Tang asked if there, they do, are they still categorize before has the required licensing massage therapy. nonconforming. school use they would have to obtain a ming code required a conditional use square footage at all, or is it still be in Classroom F; which is located in the rear of the building. will students be practicing on each other or will the public be able to it is the students but that question can be deferred to the applicant. -harge for their services at the school (cosmetology, skin -care, and etc.), and if a trade school. Associate Planner Hanh replied the question regarding fees may be deferred to the applicant. He replied the zoning code definition of trade school does not have verbiage regarding fees. Commissioner Herrera stated that the public can get haircuts at this facility at a low cost fee, so it may be possible this may happen for massages. Chair Dang asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Representative Patrick Yang addressed the haircut fees and stated there is a low cost fee, but he does not have details on massage therapy fees, or if it is available. He added he believes they have all the required licenses also for all the courses. Commissioner Lopez asked if they will be open to the public in regards to massage therapy. Representative Yang replied basically they will practice on the students, but he believes they will be open to the public also. Commissioner Eng asked currently what the maximum number of students is. Representative Yang replied there are 60 students. Commissioner Eng asked currently they have 60 students and if the same number of students will be maintained. Representative Yang replied yes. He explained they are requesting an extended location and if approved some of the students will be moved to that location. Commissioner Eng asked if the business parking lot on Walnut Grove Avenue, across the street from this trade school, is being leased by the school for parking. Representative Yang replied in the past they have and explained that they have been told by Planning to remove their sign 'Rosemead Beauty School Parking" and that they cannot use the parking lot. Commissioner Eng commented there is no extra parking. Vice -Chair Tang asked if students are still parking there even though the sign has been removed. Representative Yang replied currently he believes the students are still parking there. Vice -Chair Tang asked if they will continue to park there. Representative Yang replied yes. Vice -Chair Tang stated that the required parking spaces for students and staff are listed in the staff report and asked staff if parking spaces are accounted for visitors that utilize the services that are offered. Associate Planner Hanh replied according to the zoning code, the minimum requirement for trade schools only account for the employees and students. Vice -Chair Tang stated because this is a unique trade school where it is open to the public for the services they provide, he asked if a condition of approval should be added regarding the public, as any business institution that provides cosmetology services. Associate Planner Hanh asked for clarification. Vice -Chair Tang stated that parking is probably inadequate when it is only based on the calculations of employees and students, when you know there is surplus of students. Associate Planner Hanh replied that the Planning Commission may impose conditions of approval if they feel it is necessary. Vice -Chair Tang asked the applicant if they have adequate parking onsite plus offsite parking located on Walnut Grove. Representative Yang did not reply. Vice -Chair Tang stated that is what he would like to recommend. Associate Planner Hanh replied the applicant would have to apply for offsite parking. He added the site mentioned does not meet the requirement for offsite parking, because it is too far away and within the C-4 zone. Representative Yang asked if customers can park in the street. Commissioner Herrera commented that it does seem to change things when the school is selling their services. Vice -Chair Tang asked where customers currently park. Representative Yang replied his client is not present and approval, so they will stop the service if necessary. Vice -Chair Tang stated he does not want the operate and still have ample parking for the si Commissioner Lopez stated the fumitu then the students will not have anywhe this will open up the parking situation approval is needed to open the parking Vice -Chair Tang stated the not adequately address pa and their, driveways. He a it escalates to Commission add a condition of just wants their business to is going to eventually sell their' business, because it is up for sale, and k. He added it is not guaranteed the new owner will allow parking, so He stated that Vice -Chair Tang is recommending that a condition of e or open the parking to the beauty school for the community. ousinesses located in major corridors and because the zoning code does to some of these establishments, there is always this issue with parking ust get complaints on this issue and he would like to solve this parking t a neighbor may complain. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela clarified that during the investigation of this project by staff, it was identified that Rosemead Beauty School was parking behind the site of "Prim Furniture" without City approval. She added that staff then contacted Rosemead Beauty School to let them know that it does not meet the municipal code because it is mere than 500 feet and the code requires 300 feet. The applicant was then informed that they would not be able to. use that parking lot site and will not be able to continue to use that site as parking. Commissioner Eng asked where customers that use the services currently park Representative Yang replied they currently park in the parking lot adjacent to the school. Commissioner Eng asked staff in regards to trade schools, and when looking into parking standards, what would be a practical solution. Associate Planner Hanh replied the school could reduce the amount of students or employees, which would reduce the amount of the minimum requirement of parking for the site. He added the surplus amount could be used for customers. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated if the Planning Commission wishes, the beauty salon parking requirement is 1 per 250, so depending on the square footage of this student clinic area, staff can divide that up by 250, and reduce the number of students and employees that this beauty school has at this location. She added in regards to the surplus of students, maybe they can go to the next public hearing location. Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang which services besides haircuts are provided. Representative Yang replied he believes it is just haircuts. Commissioner Eng asked if all the other services will not be available to the public. Representative Yang replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the students will only be able to give haircuts. Representative Yang replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a clinic onsite for this and how big is it. Commissioner Herrera commented that there are also pedicure and manicure services offered to the public also. Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang if these services are also provided. Representative Yang replied not to his knowledge. He stated when he goes in there, he only sees the haircut sign. Commissioner Herrera commented that this is not complete. ; Commissioner Eng recommended looking at the square footage of the different clinic areas and maybe providing 1 or 2 parking spaces for customers. She stated that she is not sure how that would work out in terms of calculations. Associate Planner Hanh replied he would work out the calculations. City Attorney Thuyen referred to page 3 of the staff report and stated it appears that based on what is existing in the Municipal Code; this use does meet the minimum requirements for parking. He added that are if there are concerns in regards to parking, perhaps the Commission can consider continuing this item, so that staff may re- evaluate student ratios that may work or limit the use of the school to not provide services to the public. He stated to address the concern of additional or unexpected parking due to members of the public using these services, it seems additional information is needed, as to whether or not, this use and the proposal of providing services to the public will create additional parking issues that will require deviation from the municipal code requirements. Chair Dang stated that he is concerned about parking and the fact that certain patrons come in but the municipal code does not account for that particular service. He referred to page 3 of the staff report and stated it shows 60 students and 11 employees with a total of 71. He stated that is the all-time maximum number of people in the school and he does not know if there is a program where the instructors would work in shifts starting at different times. He stated theoretically, you would not have all 71 people in the building at one time, and recommended it be discussed with the owner to bring the schedule to staff and Associate Planner Hanh can work out the numbers. He stated the parking issue is at a mute point because they cannot foresee how the entire school is fully operated at one time. He added this is a recommendation to help clarify this parking situation. He asked the City Attorney what is needed to proceed with the determination of this item. City Attorney Thuyen stated this is one of the municipal code requirements and one of the requirements of this proposed conditional use permit and use. He stated if this is the sticking point then the proper thing to do is to continue this item to a date certain, perhaps to the next Planning Commission meeting. He added it looks like additional information needs to be gathered so that staff, the applicant, and the representative can address this issue for the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrees to continue this item so that staff can do additional research and come back to the Planning Commission with more information and asked if the Public Hearing still needs -to be continued. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the based on students verses its employees, so therefore, staff cannot their service patrons. She added staff is currently updating the ML considered to add additional parking for trade schools that pro_ _ Commission is comfortable with the number of students being lower there will be an additional 5 parking stalls, those 5 can go to the sen City Attorney Thuyen clarified his suggestion if the Planning C to approve this item then the proper course of action would be research, and find away to accommodate, or find the basis for Commission. Commissioner Eng stated the parking spaces employees are staffed, there will be the same item, who will be enforcing this. She recomm( parking spaces. Commissioner Lopez n and not delay this item. Chair Hanh Chair Dang re -iterated what Cor not allow a massage education added the project currently has they have, they should be able arrangement with Prim Furnitt Code. He recommended that decision. i1 iicpal Code ,currently states that parking is ;e the applicant -to provide parking spaces for )pal Code and through that process it can be services. She recommended if the Planning for example, if you dedicate 50 students, then patrons. on feels they are unable to make the findings me this item. He added then staff can do the r better address the concerns of the Planning nge and that regardless of how students and )aces. She asked from a practical enforceable is delayed it still will not change the number of to the scope: of this item, address what the applicant is requesting, be approved is the scope of the item. allows bicycle stalls to off -set required parking. 1-missioner Lopez just stated and to focus on the issue and the issue is to whether or at this site. He stated the floor area and number of students did not change. He nonconforming rights, which was granted awhile back and whatever vested rights to maintain it. He added the owner, for the sake of his business, made a private ire to facilitate his business and was not intended to circumvent the Municipal the Planning Commission put that into perspective and separate that from their Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang if someone wants to become a massage therapist are there currently schools in this area for that. Representative Yang replied not to his knowledge. Commissioner Eng asked if someone wants to become a massage therapist where would they go and asked staff if there are any massage schools locally in the area. Associate Planner Hanh replied not to his knowledge Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant conducted a market study to determine if there is a need for this type of training. Representative Yang replied yes, he thinks so. Commissioner Eng asked what the result of the study was or does he have that information. Representative Yang replied he does not have that information. Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrees with the discussion that the Planning Commission should focus on the applicant's proposal. He stated he does support the expansion on their scope of work, but he wants to make sure that the updates of the Municipal Code adequately address these types of trade schools that do provide services to the public. He added that he does foresee that there will be issues with parking because the current parking is not adequate, as the owner had to go out of his way to find another source of parking for his students, employees, and patrons. He stated now that the Prim Furniture location is not allowed to be used for parking, there will be some spillover into the streets and there should be an issue. He stated it may not incumbent the Planning Commission to tackle this issue this evening, but it is something that should be looked atfor approving projects like this. Commissioner Eng asked Representative Yang if he knows if other beauty schools have been offering this type of training as well as part of their programs. Representative Yang replied no. Commissioner Eng stated she understands they are requesting to increase the scope to include massage services and she is trying to see if trade schools are trying to provide another outlet for services currently out there. Chair Deng asked if the Municipal Code defines an ancillary use, for example if he has a beauty salon and there is a portion of the salon where he could sell shampoo and conditioners. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes and began to research it. Vice -Chair Tang stated while Associate Planner Hanh is researching this, the Planning Commission can look at the scope of what is being requested, and approve this today, but in regards to the parking situation, he asked staff if the Planning Commission can revisit this; without continuing this project. He asked what are their options and resources. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that the applicant does meet the Municipal Code, but in the future, for other establishments with this type of service use for the public, staff will look into parking requirements, and has noted that this has to be added for this type of use. Vice -Chair Tang asked if it would be able to be done specifically for this project Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied no, specifically for this project the applicant meets the parking requirement. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the Planning Commission is allowed to place a condition of approval on a project like this if they should ever decide to, because their trade school operates in a way that it's a public service that they will need to provide 5 parking spaces for their customers. He asked if the Planning Commission has that authority. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it has not been done like that in the past, but the City Attorney may address that question. City Attorney Thuyen clarified that this hearing is a granting of a permit and the Planning Commission's role would be to almost be like a judge and take the existing code as it exist now and see if the current facts justify granting the permit. He added right now, it seems the main concern is the parking and it does meet the minimum requirements. He stated if they would like to add additional conditions of approval that is not impossible. It is permitted as long as they can justify it by raising some type of special impact that is related to this land use and that would have to be mitigated and justified for that condition. He stated in general, in terms of suggestions for further studies on parking in the future that is something that staff can evaluate, but that is something more appropriate for a legislative role, and the creation of an ordinance, as opposed to a particular hearing item on whether to grant the permit. Associate Planner Hanh read, "An ancillary use is an activity on a property that is incidental and subordinate to the main use of the site". Chair Dang, asked if it gives a percentage and how is it determined. Associate Planner stated it is about 25%, but that is not in the Zoning Code. Chair Dang asked if that is an internal policy. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang asked if that is an ancillary use does ithave to be parked at an ancillary rate or it is parked at the main use rate. Associate Planner Hanh replied they look at the main use, which is the trade school, and the minimum requirements for that. Chair Dang commented that the topic of patrons coming in using that facility, the concern of the parking, the building is quite large, and even if the patrons come in and use about 25% of the square footage, they are still within the requirements of the Municipal Code. He stated he does agree that traffic is an issue, they should take a look at it, but he does not think it is fair for this particular project and they are still within the Municipal Code, even if they consider with all the patrons coming in. Commissioner Lopez stated he agrees. Chair Dang asked if there were any questions or comments from the Public None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion Commissioner Eng stated before a motion is made, for a point in discussion, as they all know there is a major influx in just the San Gabriel Valley itself of massage services. She stated unfortunately as part of this application there is not any information to educate the Planning Commission as to beauty schools providing this type of service and where massage therapist are getting schooling from. She commented she is not leaning one way or another, but she is concerned they do not have enough information for her to say yes or no, in terms of the scope, to increase the scope to include massage services. Chair Dang thanked Commissioner Eng and asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Tang, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-13 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17.04, subject to the 25 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: Eng and Herrera Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 3 Ayes, 0 Noes, 2 Abstained, and explained the 10 -day appeal process. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.06 — Kenneth Yong has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a satellite campus for the Rosemead Beauty School (trade school use) at 3505 Hart Avenue, Suite 124. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -31D-0) zone. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of: the existing commercial building. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish a trade school use within a Medium Commercial zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIAj APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.06, PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SATELLITE CAMPUS FOR THE ROSEMEAD BEAUTY SCHOOL (TRADE SCHOOL USE) AT 3505 HART AVENUE, SUITE 124 (APN: 8594.023.046), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C -31D-0) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 14 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17.06, subject to the 23 conditions. Chair Dang stated he will have to recuse himself from this item due to the fact he resides within the 300 square feet radius of this item and handed the gavel to Vice -Chair Tang. Vice -Chair Tang requested the staff report be presented. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Vice -Chair Tang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Lopez asked staff to explain what a satellite campus is and is everything going to be done through a computer instead of a class. Assistant Planner Lao replied no and explained that Rosemead Beauty School has a lot of students and they are looking to expand. She stated they are renting this suite located at 3503 Hart Avenue, and are offering the same services, however, this is not a customer service location, and solely instructional. Commissioner Eng asked what the square footage of Unit #124 is. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is 2,820 square feet. 10 Commissioner Eng asked if they are proposing to provide classes for cosmetology, skin care, manicuring, and massage therapy. She stated she does not have the site plan and asked if there will clinic type spaces in this area as well or is it purely training. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is purely instructional and the public cannot go in a get a haircut or a massage. Commissioner Eng asked so this is purely training. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated the parking standard for this item is based on the floor area of this shopping center. She stated there are a number of intense uses in the shopping center, such as restaurants, and schools may be a part of that because there is a conditional use permit. She asked currently under the municipal code how is it mitigated or adjusted for uses that are more intense than your typical, retail, office space that is 1 per 250. Assistant Planner Lao replied currently the shopping center is parked at 1 per 280 and since this is a beauty school that requires a conditional use permit, in addition to the 1 per 280, they also have calculated. for the number of students and employees. She stated the shopping center TGuirrently has a surplus of 197 spaces, the property management gave an additional 19 parking spaces, so there will still be an additional few hundred parking spaces in that shopping center. Vice -Chair Tang explained that what Commis' is over 100,000 square feet, there is 1 parking restaurant space. Interim Community De) identified as a shopping Vice -Chair Tang asked Commissioner Eng rep recommend that it be cl is proposing Assistant Planner Lao r City Attorney 7 opening any of Commissioner Eng center, the parking rule is 1 per', ,ommissioner Eng if that helped led yes. She referred to Cond irified that this site shall not havi asked the is trying to get to is, that the requirement is anything that 80 square feet, and asked what the requirement is if it is a does not specify use. If you are rl number 20 and stated she would like to clinic areas, unless that is what the applicant not to have any customer service at this location. if this may be clarified and if it would be appropriate. of Approval number 20 can be modified to address the concern of not s of the public and to allow the use for only instructional training. should be asked if they are acceptable to this clarification. Commissioner Herrera referred to Condition of Approval number 20 and asked if it already states that solely for the purpose. Commissioner Eng recommended that it is important to be clearer. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated a sentence can be added that states no services. 11 City Attorney Thuyen stated he can work on that language while the Planning Commission continues the hearing of this item. Vice -Chair Tang asked if this site is formally the Work Source Center. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Vice -Chair Tang stated one of the areas is a circuit room and asked if this is with a circuit board. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes, it is like a control panel where the electricity is. Vice -Chair Tang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Kenneth Yong stated his request is to move students to a new location to solve the parking issue. He added there will be a maximum of 50 students only for training and instruction purposes only. He stated there will be no public service and they will be open from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm (daytime classes only), and closed on weekends. He added they are only trying to minimize the parking concern. Commissioner Lopez asked what the current maximum amount of students located at the Rosemead Beauty School located on Valley Boulevard. Applicant Yong replied currently it is a little over70 students and they are trying to move some over. Commissioner Lopez asked if this other facility is not for new students or is he just moving some of the students. Applicant Yong replied it will be for both new and old students, but so far the current number of students is high, and in a few months some will be graduating, 90 the number will be less. He stated it is hard to control. Commissioner Lopez asked if the new location will have a maximum number of 50 students and if the existing location has a maximum of 70 students. Applicant Yong replied the new location will have a maximum of 50 or 45 students and at the old location, they will try to maintain a maximum of 60 students. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant is going to try to reduce the number of students at the old location. Applicant Yong replied yes. Vice -Chair Tang asked the applicant if they will want to eventually open the new facility to the public for services like the existing school. Applicant Yong replied no, this location will be for training, instruction, or teaching only. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the students wanted to get hands on training then the students would go to the existing school. Applicant Yong replied yes. Vice -Chair Tang asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None 12 Vice -Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. None Vice -Chair Tang asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 17-06 and Adopt Resolution 17-14 with the amendment to Condition of Approval number 20. Vice -Chair Tang asked City Attorney Thuyen for clarification on the Approval number 20. City Attorney Thuyen stated Commissioner Herrera has recommendation with the modification to Condition of Approti operation of the satellite campus for the Rosemead Beauty Sc of providing instruction and training, and may not be open for tl Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Comq with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17.06, made to Condition of Approval number 20 by the Planning C Vote resulted in: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Recuse: Interim ( Recuse. C. DESIGN REVIEW 174 Review to re -face an e: new slide every ten si Business District with floor area `of'the existi requiring a building pe, a Design Overlay zone Lopez, and Tang process. gua I for the amendment to Condition of motion to go ahead and adoptstaffs 20 which should be read as follows; "The school use) shall solely be for the purpose of any services to the general public. pez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-14 the 23 conditions. (Modification was on 7-17-17). motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 nese Consumer Yellow Pages has submitted an application for a Design free standing sign with a new double -sided LED display that would flash a . The project site is located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard, in the Central h Overlay (CBD/D-0) zone. The proposed project would not increase the Iding. Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior facade, or landscaping in 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 (CBDID-0) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission DENY Design Review 17.03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 13 17-15 with findings. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff. Vice -Chair Tang asked if there are any other sites where there are LED signs or other sites that have LED signs with rotating images every 10 seconds. Assistant Planner Lao replied not within the vicinity. She added Rosemead High School does have a sign, but it is under EI Monte School District, and the city does not have jurisdiction over it. Vice -Chair Tang asked if that sign is the same as they are referring to as an LED sign. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated the staff report states the applicant would like to start with 4 slides with the intent to add additional slides in the future. She asked staff if they know how many more slides they are planning to add or how is that determined. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant did not specify how many more and the applicant may address that question. Commissioner Eng asked where is the marque/sign located currently, what is the height of it, and is the height changing. Assistant Planner Lao replied the existing free-standing sign is not changing. The applicant is just re -facing the interior of it. Commissioner Eng commented that they are changing how the sign functions and they are not re -facing it. She asked what the height of the apartment is that is directly impacted by this project. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is two -stories, but she does not have information on the height measurement. Commissioner Eng stated the height of the sign is about 15 feet, but the screen looks to be about 8 feet 10 inches based on the rendering. She confirmed whether the information on the height of the apartment is available. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes that it is not available. Commissioner Eng asked if there are any other large lettering types of signs in the neighboring cities. Assistant Planner Lao replied there is a digital billboard in Temple City. Commissioner Eng stated she knows where that one is located and it is much higher and it does not abut a residential area. Vice -Chair Tang stated it does. Commissioner Eng stated this question may be for the applicant. She added currently the slide will change every 10 seconds and asked if the timing is changeable. 101 Chair Dang asked if there is a definition for re -facing in the Municipal Code. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the city sign code is outdated and that is something staff is working on. She replied that re -facing is not defined and is a policy that staff uses when an applicant comes in and wants to change the face of the sign, staff considers it a re -face. Chair Dang asked if the City Attorney would like to comment on that statement City Attorney Thuyen stated he did a brief review of the Municipal Code and he did not see an expressed definition for re -facing also, but as with all municipal codes the entity is entitled to a little bit 'ind_ifference on how to interpret their codes when there is not expressed definitions. He added this may be a term -expressed by staff that best captures what the proposed item is about. Chair Dang stated what he would consider re -facing would be like materials and size. He stated for example if you had a plexi -glass wall sign and if you replace the pexi-glass with a different message same material, same size that would be his definition of re -facing. He stated just looking at this proposal; 1) you are going from plexi -glass material to something that is illuminated LED technology, something that is quite different, 2) when you look at the Exhibit A.1, there are 4 colored pictures shown in the staff report, labeled A, B, C, and D. He added A`is the existing sign and there are two pieces to it (a square piece and a rectangular piece), so With that in mind when you look at B, C, and D they look like the sign has gotten bigger, two panes of the plastic acrylic signs has been replaced by one LED. He stated it looks to him like that sign is getting bigger,and for him it seems difficult to say it is a re- facing. He expressed that to him this seems like anew LED sign. Commissioner Eng stated she can understand his view, but the function is changing and to her that is the bigger point. She added it is not a matter of changing the paint, the background, or putting new verbiage, it is how the sign will be changing. Vice -Chair Tang stated given this is a new technology, they, can change slides anytime they want, and they don't just have to put their logo there, and may be used to advertise promotional advertising purposes. He asked if the Municipal Code adequately addresses that, and should the Planning Commission move forward and approve this, would anything stop them from advertising anything on the LED, and could they sell rights to use their LED signage for advertisinq promotional purposes. Assistant Planner Lao replied it was related to the applicant that no offsite advertising would be permitted in the sign or else it would be considered a billboard and those are not permitted in the City of Rosemead. Chair Dang stated he would like to add on to Vice -Chair Tang's comment that if you look at Exhibit "B", the same 4 graphics previously discussed, that is an advertisement for a law firm. He stated in a way they can say they are not advertising because they are showing a book, but at the same time if you look at the book they are advertising the law firm. He stated 7so =in a sense, they are advertising because he recognizes the law firm and if that particular picture was displayed he would think that would be an advertisement. Vice -Chair Tang stated it could be interpreted as an advertisement Chair Dang stated he echoes' Commissioner Eng's comment that there is a concern with the information and how it is displayed. He added what he said earlier was the zoning analysis and that this is not really a re -face but a brand new sign. He asked staff if this is not a re -face and is considered a brand new digital sign would this be considered an LED monument sign, would it have any nonconforming rights, and would there be any potential violations. 15 Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied even if the applicant proposes this as a new monument sign, the LED portion, and flashing of the sign where it changes every 10 seconds, to staff it still does not meet the sign code. Chair Dang asked if there were any nonconforming rights that the applicant can preserve if they were to say it was a re -face as oppose to a new sign. He asked if there is any particular nonconformance right to help shelter the grandfather rights to this. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied no. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments for staff None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Representatives for BK Signs, Brian Kanner and Adrian Castaneda, stated there is a misconception about LED signs and he understands some of the concerns the Planning Commission may have with offsite advertising, which is definitely not the intention here. He stated the intention here is to advertise their services and goods that they provide on their site. He added they are not trying to do something else. He stated electronic message signs seem to have an alum about them or the best analogy he can use is that if you would look at the earth and say it was still flat, today electronic message signs are not like the earth, they are not flat, they are able to be programed to address each and every one of their concerns. He added the term flashing has been stated and they do not like that term because they feel it does not meet the definition of flashing. He stated the messages do change but they do not flash by any legal means of the definition. He stated as far as brightness they have a regular lit sign and a LED sign in the corner (two actual signs were presented by BK Signs for comparisons and placed in the chamber) and they are able to program the LED sign to bring the brightness down so it is not brighter than the current sign. He explained as far as size constraints, and a re -face was mentioned, they do commonly re -face signs and they use different types of materials, unlike the current materials. He stated for example they will change out the plastic sign face and they use a vinyl material now. Here they are using LED and it is different and it is still not the same but what they call a re- face they are usually taking the existing facing of the sign, remove it, and put another type of face in it, be the same or different. He stated he heard a comment about the sign maybe changing the way it works, but no, it is the same intention it is there to advertise but it expands the ability to get a message out to the people in the city. He added they can just put lettering instead of a big bright picture and can be limited to just copy. He explained at that they can black out the background, so that the copy is dimly lit enough to be read, but not obnoxious and definitely not bothering neighbors and their windows. Representative Adrian Castaneda stated the term flashing is being referenced to staff, but even in the staff report it states it is not technically flashing and he requested that flashing not be used as a term or as animation because the image does come in -and -out. He reference to paperwork that defines everything and stated that staff has even said this is not a flashing sign nor does it blink. He stated it is important to illustrate that this sign does not flash nor does it blink to get people's attention but to convey a message is what is really important to this. He referred to the traffic safety for pedestrians and stated there is no proof that there are ever accidents where there are LED signs, and there is no study, and the staff report shows that it is inconclusive. He stated the terms that have been used are incorrect and they are there to educate and show what LED signs can do, they have put so many LED signs in residential areas and have not had any issues with staff. He stated conditions of approval can be added and the slide can be put up to 20 seconds, 15, seconds, 10 seconds, or anything that they are comfortable with, but flashing is usually coming in -and -out really quick. 16 Representative Brian Kanner stated another question that was asked was if there were any other programmable LED signs in neighboring cities, he said EI Monte has several and there is one right in front of their City Hall and their Civic Center. Commissioner Eng stated the applicant is proposing to start with 4 slides and they intend to add additional slides and the slides are just changing. She asked what is the maximum number of slides they can have in the size of the sign you have now, and how is it determined how many slides it can have. Representative Brian Kanner asked if she is asking what it is capable of or what is the applicant intending to do with it. Commissioner Eng stated she is asking both. Representative Brian Kanner replied it is like your computer, you are able to do a lot of things with it, and it is programmable. Commissioner Eng asked what he means by slides. Representative Brian Kanner replied slides would be what you see in the sample sign, it would be possibly a text or a photograph. He stated this is onsite advertising, so it would not be anything outside of services that they provide and or products that they provide on that site. Commissioner Eng asked if the timing of the slides: can be changed and is it programmable. Representative Brian Kanner replied yes, and if it is requested by the Planning Commission is can be increased to 20 seconds. Commissioner Eng asked if BK Signs is the vendor, and the applicant's business is to provide advertising, will the clients of the business be able to pay more to have their advertisement on this sign. Representative Brian Kanner replied no, and by legal definition that would be considered as offsite advertising. Commissloner Enq stated she would like to hear the applicant's response on this also. Vice-Zhair Tang stated BK Sign has mentioned that flash is not an appropriate word to describe this sign asked which word would be appropriate to describe their sign would it be illuminate. Representative Brian Kanner replied "changeable message" and explained that is the standard definition that is used by the industry. He added their industry has put a great deal of time with studies such as traffic because there a number of bad examples on the roadway and the sign industry does frown on them. He stated they are present to clear that up and show the City this is something they would like, enjoy, and see possibly more. Vice -Chair Tang stated he has a few questions for the applicant Chair Dang asked if the content displayed fully controlled by the applicant (Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages) and be changed at when they want, or is there an extra fee paid to BK Signs to change the message content. Representative Brian Kanner replied the applicant would have complete control. Chair Dang asked if the applicant would have to complete control of the illumination, intensity, and speed of the messaging. 17 Representative Brian Kanner replied that would be all in the program. Chair Dang asked if BK Sign can set the programming to a 20 second interval, if the Planning Commission requests this. He also asked if it can be programmed to be set at 20 second intervals and is there a feature that it be locked, and there is not access to it, so it may not be changed. Representative Brian Kanner replied yes, and explained the programmers may set it that way. He added BK Signs is the vendor and as the contractor they will build and install the signs, but for the electronic parts they outsource and they buy. Chair Dang asked if the programmers work for BK Signs or do they work for the Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages. Representative Brian Kanner replied no, they work for the LED Electronic Manufacturer. Representative Michael Ehrenberger from Leder USA stated they are the manufacturer of the LED switchboards. He added there are many manufacturers in the market, but they pride' themselves in being one of the finest. He stated they recently worked with the City of EI Monte and they have adopted a Billboard Ordinance and he worked with them for about 18 months on that project. He added recently the City has approved overlays to allow them and that is a different situation. He stated there is some expansion from the cities to take a look at this technology and they talked about re -facing it and polycarbonate was patented in the late 1800's, never commercialized until the 1950's, and didn't get into the sign industry until the late 60's. He stated what did they use before polycarbonate (which is plastic), they used wood and canvas, so technology does change. He added technology is changing and he said they have discussed with other cities the topic of the definition of re -face and they keep a generic because technology does change. He stated with that in mind polycarbonate may not be best source of signage 20 years from now, there may be others and this technology may be one of the leaders in this area. He stated that cities have worked very closely with the manufacturer and industry to assure that the product is used properly and within an area that is community friendly. He explained at one time they did not have brightness controls, or how often the timing changes, now they all do, and have unlimited timing, and what messaging can hold. He stated there are a lot of things that cities have asked from them as manufacturers to put into their technology to assure that it become community friendly. He added that brightness is what is the most critical and they are seeing it across the board where people do not want to see things blaring at night, so they now have photo cells where they actually dim the signs automatically and there are other ways of doing it also manually, like adjusting it down to 5 or 10 percent, compared the two technology's displayed, and stated one becomes brighter than the other. He stated that there have been a lot of studies done with LED technology and from a community perspective it has been a benefit, it has allowed amber alerts, emergency information, and you see them on the highways now. He stated over time technology has incorporated these signs to be a part of the community. Commissioner Eng asked Mr. Ehrenberger if he is the manufacturer of the programming, will the applicant have complete control of the settings such as the number of slides. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes, and it would be predicated on how many seconds they would ask them to hold. He stated they have a variety of different cities on how long to hold them. He added as part of transportation they have a 4 second hold on the highways and they have done extensive studies. He added EI Monte did a huge undertaking of environmental and study of that hold time and has accepted that 4% will not harm the environment or safety of the people traveling. He added other cities have said let's be cautious and eased into this and start off at 10 or 20 seconds. He added then over time if there is not an increase of accidents in that corner and not had one, then they will come back and request more seconds. Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates the change in technology and she understands that change is needed in time and will make things more functional. She added this project has had the Planning Commission start to think W about terms of how to facilitate this type of technology in the City of Rosemead but at the same time safeguard the residents. She commented the messages will be changing (even though it is not flashing), and even though the light can be dull, there are residents nearby so the light will still be there, and it will be noticeable. She stated in terms of traffic the report stated that in was inconclusive and she does not know what they are looking at. She expressed that she is concerned about the disturbance and nuisance of the changing light and sign. She expressed that there is a lot of traffic on Rosemead Boulevard and it is congested enough, so if the messaging is too fun or interesting she is concerned on how this may contribute to the traffic. She stated that she is not educated enough to appreciate how much of an impact this will be. Representative Michael Ehrenberger stated that is a very common experience when they are getting to know the technology. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Eng and the constant changing just that expression would have some alarms, but they are not doing constant changing. He added the changing, when you look at it, is not something that sticks out, it is a transition slide. He stated the more important thing is the brightness and if you change the brightness, which is what will catch people's eye more. He said for example, you have one slide and the next slide comes in brighter, or even has a little bit of flash to it, or a turn of the LED, or a change to it like movement, he stated they are not asking for that. He stated they are askingfor a static moment, for an ex amount of seconds, that would not be any different from their sample sign in the back of the room. He stated it would actually hold itself, so the two are equal except that in 10 seconds it will"have a different image on it He requested that the Planning Commission look at the signs in the back to see there is no difference other than the change of image every 15 seconds. Commissioner Eng asked if the screen on this type of sign not only displays text but it also can display pictures. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes. He added most cities prohibit videos and you will see those type in Las Vegas, but most cities have said no to that technology Wt static pictures and text have been acceptable, as long as there is no constant changing of movement within the LED's. Chair Dang stated the graphics can change and asked if there is a way to fade in the next graphic as opposed to a quick snap and a new graphic pops up. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied there are multiple' varieties of transitions. Chair Dang asked if fade-in be one of those options. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes. Chair Dang stated with the capability of fading in, it would seem to help alleviate the concern that there is a flashing type of situation! He stated if you fade-in it is sort of a graphic slowly overlaying on top of another. He expressed if you are not really paying attention a new graphic will not just pop up and surprise you and that is why he brought up if there is a fading option: Representative Michael Ehrenberger stated there is a fade-in functionality option for transition of slides. Chair Dang stated in comparing the images and signs that you have presented in the back of the room, they are all different images, and to compare apples to apples it would have been better to have the same image on all the signs including the LED. He asked if there were any further questions for this representative. None Chair Dang called the applicant to the podium. 19 Applicant Gordon Kao gave a narrative on why he is requesting this sign. He stated their business moved to the City of Rosemead in the year2001 and has had the same currentmonument sign since they have moved in. He explained they have had to repair the sign at least 30 times because has been subject to graffiti, homeless people sleeping there, and there have been a lot of other issues. He stated they started looking for solutions because this corner gets hit for graffiti all the time and homeless squatters. He stated when they started looking for other options in regards to try to deter them, one of the possible suggestions they were given was to a LED screen to have slides that change in terms of their company, and not to advertise them, but to make the area less desirable, so people will not squat there. He stated there is a misconception because they are an advertising company but the end goal for putting the LED screen there is for two main reasons: 1) deter homeless people from squatting there and 2) to make the City of Rosemead much better. He stated at the end of the day technology is changing and their company has been there since 2001 and they have always done their best to support the community as much as they can, they have been major donors, and their goal is to work with staff and the Planning Commission. He added they are open to any suggestions, willing to change the second intervals, and willing to work with staff. Vice -Chair Tang stated the applicant has answered his first question on intent behind this request and asked if they could still achieve their goals with a more illuminated sign. Applicant Gordon Kao replied the problem would be then that the sign would be very bright and then would affect the apartment building behind them. Chair Dang asked if that is the sign he currently has Applicant Gordon Kao replied the sign they currently have is barely illuminated and is dull as the one displayed. He stated when the spoke with the specialist they were told that that things that are constantly turning or technology like LED generally deters squatters from being around the general area, especially if there is new construction or remodeling around the area. Vice -Chair Tang stated what normally deters squatters when you see them is to call the City to report them. Applicant Gordon Kao replied they keep coming back Commissioner Eng stated it has been stated that the applicant will have control of the LED screen and this is an advertising company for the yellow pages. She asked if there are any plans moving forward, to offer or provide their customers to advertise on this message board. Applicant Gordon Kao replied no, they have no plans in the future to do so, and they are willing to work with the City to come up with any restrictions and to have open transparency for what they are planning to do with the screen. Commissioner Eng asked the purpose of their signage is to display their company name. Applicant Gordon Kao replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how this will change with this new technology. Applicant Gordon Kao replied their plan is once they are approved by the City, they will provide the final images that they will be using. He stated there is a concern that the phone book may have an actual advertisement on it or something else, but they are willing to work with staff on the final images and displays on the screens. Commissioner Eng stated that this technology has a lot more of capabilities. She added they would not be putting that type of investment to underutilize the technology. 1307 Applicant Gordon Kao replied that is correct and it would be like resurfacing their office, repainting the exterior of it, there is cost to it, but at the end of the day they like being here in the City of Rosemead, and would like to make the City much better. Commissioner Eng stated she thanks them for that and is considerate, but her concern is that it is a constant change, it is not a stationary message that the community is use to, and is a nuisance if you live by it. She added even though it can be slowed down the constant changing will make an impact and the Planning Commission is not caught up with this technology, they have not had the opportunity to see what can be mitigated with the visual impact. She stated one of the findings that need to be found is in regards to the harmony of the change to the rest of the area and it will definitely stand out. Eventually it will stand out down the line because the City will have to venture that way, but the City needs to be sensitive in how this progression will take place and at the same time minimize the impact. Vice -Chair Tang stated their business motto is selling and advertising in their yellow pages and asked how much is their business getting from a sign for this building. Applicant Gordon Kao replied they have looked through the numbers and it is not really worth it. Vice -Chair Tang asked if it is worth just knocking down that sign and placing the sign inside, where they are closer to their property, and will prevent the squatters. Applicant Gordon Kao replied the main goal as he squatters, because it is the year of 2017, and th; everyone is now moving in the direction of digital sign Vice -Chair Tang asked if they have considered updaii else, closer to their property as a secondary option. Applicant Gordon Kao replied at the moment no, they major changes to the property itself other than what e; up with the times and also deter the t occurring also in the near future as or moving the sign somewhere considered it, because they did not make plans to do iding a new area for the sign. Commissioner Eng asked how often they change their messages currently. Applicant Gordon Kao replied they -have not changed their message since 2001, and have just had it resurfaced herause of arafrifi vandalism. and eoos have been thrown at it. Vice -Chair Tang commented that installing an LED sign may not stop someone from spraying graffiti on it, or throwing eggs at it, or defacing it in anyway. Applicant Gordon Kao stated that the cost is less expensive to repair an LED screen. Vice -Chair Tang stated people spray graffiti on it because it is at ground level and is easy access, so regardless whether it's a sign or brick --wall, it will get tagged up because they want to. He expressed he does not see how changing it to a LED sign will might prevent someone from doing this. Applicant Gordon Kao replied that it is harder because an LED surface is not perfectly smooth, so if you were to tag on to it, it would not stay as much as a regular sign, because it has a crater type surface. He stated in closing, he would like to say they are willing to work with staff, open for transparency, so if comes down to the time delay, the actual artwork, or possibly giving the City access they are more than willing to discuss this. Resident Brian Lewin recommended that planting roses and bougainvillea can be effective deterrents to squatters and taggers. He stated thorns make people want to stay away and anti -graffiti coatings can also help in 21 terms of graffiti. He expressed that looking at both of the displayed signs, they both do not belong in the City, because you are still putting a 7' x 9' sign right next to the sidewalk, about 10 feet away from where cars are driving. He stated he reviewed the study information that has been discussed and he did not see anything that addressed the variations, visualization impacts, and distractions regarding the placement, angle, and proximity to the roadway. He added some of the samples cited were very small samples, so effectively you are talking about a 7' x 9' TV right next to the sidewalk. He stated it may only be showing pictures here and there but it is still a TV and a shining light aimed at the apartments. He added this may be dimmable but if you look at it, it is still an eyesore. He stated the nature of the illumination is different if you are viewing it up close and the distance from a billboard is one thing, but this sign is in your face, which is a different experience. He requested the Planning Commission consider this and that technology races ahead our ability to understand all of the impacts, proper uses, and ethical impacts of it. He added looking at that kind of thing, just because you can doesn't mean you should, and requested the Planning Commission consider that and that they do not set this precedent for their neighborhoods. Chair Dang asked if there any further comments or questions. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further comments or questions. Commissioner Lopez asked staff to define the word flashing verses the movement of the pictures. Assistant Planner Lao replied the Municipal Code does not define the word "flashing", however staff spoke with the City Attorney's office and through staffs interpretation because it changes every 10 seconds, although it is not flashing in the traditional sense, it is still changes, so it can be considered as flashing. Commissioner Lopez asked what it will take to not consider it flashing, is there a time limit such as 2 or 5 minutes. He stated he is not convinced of anything flashing other than the than the fact it is moving a picture. He stated brightness is something staff can work with the applicant and he needs to know the definition of flashing before the Planning Commission can move forward to say no to something and they need to understand what it really is. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the City Municipal Code does not define what flashing is. She added the City sign code is very outdated and one of the goals is to update code, which staff is currently working on. After speaking with the City Attorney's office, explaining that the sign would be changing every 10 seconds, staff was told yes, it would be considered as flashing. She recommended that the question be deferred to the City Attorney's office on what would be considered as non -flashing. CommissionerLopez agreed and explained he would not like to deny an item when he really does not understand what the concept of it is. He asked the City Attorney if this item should be continued until the definition of flashing is confirmed. City Attorney Thuyen recommended that this item be continued to further address the concerns of the Planning Commission on what is or isn't flashing and a motion to that effect can be made. He stated previously, comments made by staff were on whether or not there is a definition in the Municipal Code on what is blinking or flashing and staff has directly noted there is not. He stated just like the re -facing terminology, cities are entitled to implement their own reasonable interpretation of what is considered as undefined terms in their code. He stated the City Attorney's office did review staffs review and agreed that 10 second blinking would be a reasonable consideration as to whether or not this is blinking or flashing. He stated they are entitled to interpret the code accordingly and if the Planning Commission has concerns, would like to further revisit this concept, this can be continued, and provide additional information for the next Planning Commission meeting. 22 Commissioner Eng stated she is inclined to agree with staff in denying this item. She also encouraged staff to take up the applicants offer to work with the applicant in developing some guidelines, in which they would be able to have this type of sign in the City, and to be able to mitigate the impacts to Public Safety as well as to the residents. She stated she does not want the Planning Commission to put together a plan based on one project and would like to develop something that will be fair and be applicable city-wide. She stated she appreciates that this applicant has brought this project to the Planning Commission for consideration in that direction because the technology is here and they need to look into it. Vice -Chair Tang commented it is not necessarily about how Flashing is defined or rather that it is flashing every 10 or 20 seconds, to him it is about the illumination. He stated this sign is on ground level, 8 feet high, 7 feet wide, and it is illuminating. He added it will be bright, however way you see it and it can be dimmed, but when the sun goes down you will still see some kind of light. He stated his second concern is this is a big wall and it is easy for someone to want to tag it up. He added it is in a major corridor, it's a big wall, and it is a blank canvas for them. He encouraged staff that they work with the applicant instead of recommending a denial On this motion to see if they can find creative ways to support the applicants concerns with graffiti and squatters. He added that the Planning Commission and the City needs to support their business owners to address those types of nuances. He stated he is open to this type of technology but in terms of this technology being on the ground floor or 8 feet high at eye level, he would prefer it would be elevated much higher like the sample of Temple City,'which is not shining in your face; but looking up at it instead. Commissioner Herrera asked staff what is the h Assistant Planner Lao replied for free-standing': Chair Dang asked if that is for a monument sign Assistant Planner Lao replied it is far any standing sign. Chair Deng asked what the difference is Assistant Planner Lao replied a monum( is more eye level, and has a low profile. Chair Dang asked if the monument sign Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Interim Community Development Direct signs will be brought to the Planning Co. for businesses. feet. sign would be considered a free - n and a pole sign. nt sign has a decorative bottom made of natural materials such as stone and She stated a pole sign is basically a pole and it is elevated up. also be subjected to the 15 feet height. Valenzuela explained that it can go up to 15 feet, but typically monument nission, so that the Planning Commission may limit the height. Chair Dang asked if a pole sign proposed then it will not go before the Planning Commission. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it may, if staff feels it needs to, it would proceed as a Design Review. Chair Dang asked if it is mandatory to go before the Planning Commission if it is a monument sign. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that they have been taken if they are new proposals. 23 Chair Dang stated he walks by the Grocery Outlet and he has never noticed this Yellow Page sign. He stated he wants to mention this because he has lived here for 20 years. He stated if an LED sign is installed there, it will catch the eye a little more, it is something that is static, and the one thing that was not stated by the vendor was that with LED the graphics are much more detailed. He stated if they get a plexi -glass sign with detail they are going to pay for it and pay for it once, but if you get LED, you get the detailing and you will have it in multiple phases, so it economically more feasible for them. He stated because you have these fine details you are more able to catch their attention. He stated the second thing he would like to mention is that the business building is actually hidden behind the apartment and it makes every business sense to put the sign adjacent to Rosemead Boulevard, because that is a major thoroughfare and will get a lot more visibility that putting it on Steele Street. He stated he would not support putting it on Steele Street because that is a residential street. He stated the applicant also has mentioned the sign can be dimmed to 3 luminous, and asked what would that be considered to a candle, flashlight, or what is a 3 luminous. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied it is equal to 3 candle lights. Chair Dang asked if the LED panels can come with photo cells, so they will be placed every 3-5 feet, or whereas directly mounted to sense the 3 luminous. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied that is correct, the photo cell in the software can beadjusted to the City's requirement on luminous. He added each city has does have different 300 or 500 luminous and his personal experience is that the lower the light is, the better it is for visibility at night. Chair Dang stated that is true because if it is too bright you will tend to look away. He stated because they have photo cell that could give them the equivalency of 3 foot candles and foot candle means given 1 foot above ground level and asked if that is correct. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied yes. Chair Dang stated in terms of brightness it can be conditioned if the Planning Commission wishes, that they add a photo cell to restrict the intensity. Representative Michael Ehrenberger stated many cities do 'require that in their code Chair Dang stated if it is decided to go that route, then staff will be requested to look into that afterwards. He added in regards to the blinking every 10-20 seconds, perhaps what he suggested earlier about if they just fade-in, meaning for instance if someone just walks by, they wort even notice it changing. He stated it can be a 5 second fade and the second image will slowly take over the prior image, and that will take care of the sudden imagery. Representative Michael Ehrenberger replied that is possible, they can do that. Chair Dang addressed the concerns of brightness and sensitivity to the apartments and recommended talking to the applicant, if the City receives a complaint, that it is too bright from the adjacent apartment, even after the lighting has been limited to 3 foot candle, would the applicant be open to providing some trees and shrubbery to block the window and plant it on the other side of the parking lot. Applicant Gordon Kao replied yes, and reiterated that he is willing to work with the Planning Commission and staff. He stated at their own cost they are willing to be open to plant additional shrubbery or anything that would alleviate any possible nuances to the local apartment. 24 Chair Dang stated the applicant is showing due diligence in trying to reach out to the City to offer any support he can to the LED boards. He asked if the Planning Commission would be more comfortable deferring this item or would they like to make a motion to support the LED boards. Commissioner Eng stated her inclination would be to support staffs recommendation to deny. Chair Dang stated before a motion is made he would like to make clear if this motion will be to deny this item or to defer this. City Attorney Thuyen stated the procedure would be whatever motion is moved and -P be voted upon. Unless there is another motion above it, then that one becomes the o the Planning Commission can entertain the motion to adopt this as well, but someone motion to continue if they wish. Chair Dang asked Commissioner Eng what is her motion. Commissioner Eng stated her motion is to support staffs recommendation to deny this Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Tang, to DIENY Desi Resolution No. 17.15 with findings. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Interim Community D explained the 10 -day 4. UNFINISHED BU A. CONDITIONAL ecomes the standing motion to ne to be voted upon. He stated else did suggest superseding a Review 17.03 and ADOPT I the public hearing foi (vocational school use available, the Planning 02), as the motion to d taken witIf the initial vc continue this matter to present or [2] contim continue this matter to T 17.02 (DENIAL) - On May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered nditional_Use Permit 17.02, a request to establish a card dealer school 3518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110. After considering all testimony and facts emission took no action on the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP 17 - CUP 17.02 resulted in a vote of two ayes and two noes. Since no action was ;ity Attorney Murphy explained two options to the Planning Commission: [1] tare Planning Commission Meeting where five Planning Commissioners are D discuss the matter. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 2017. On June 19, 2017, the Planning Commission reconvened the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17.02. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny Conditional Use Permit 17.02. In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for the denial of Conditional Use Permit 17.02. PC RESOLUTION 17.10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.02, A REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 25 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #110 (APN: 5371.010.805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/13-0) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 17- 10 to deny Conditional Use Permit 17.02. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report and corrected the address in the subject line in the staff report. Commissioner Lopez stated the Planning Commission has met twice on this item and the recommendation for denial has been made. He stated he would like to motion in place for approve the Denial Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve Resolution No. 17.10 to deny Conditional Use Permit 17-02. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang` Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a 5 Ayes and 0 Noes vote and explained the 10 -day appeal process (barely audible). 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 6.19.17 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve the Minutes of 6-19-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela reminded the Planning Commission to complete and submit their Ethic's Training Certificate to the City Clerk's office. She also announced the date, time, and location of the following City's upcoming events; Concerts in the Park, the Community Area Watch Committee Meeting, and National Night Out. 26 7. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Vice -Chair Tang stated he would like to congratulate the Planning Commissioners that have been re -appointed. He also thanked the former Chair Lopez for his steadfast leadership this past year. He also thanked Chair Sean Dang and congratulated Interim Community Development Director Lily Valenzuela. Chair Dang stated he would like to thank the Planning Commission, he appreciates the nomination, the trust in him, and he will not let the Planning Commission down. Commissioner Herrera congratulated everyone. 8. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, August 7, 2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Sean Dang Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 27