Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2003FILE COPY PLANNING 04� July 22, 333 7-000 .' GovernmentSouth Coast Air Quality Management District d • .. 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 29325 E. Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 539-7030 during regular business hours. . _ .. requiresDiamond Bar person in need. - of special _ assistance or accommodation(s) .. • 11- 1 order ,f- tocommunicate ..._.,_ �u lllr "W" 0 Ij�lr P;a,: „ s; i,c;cing, eafing or _ ..._ The City of Diamond Dar uses recycle paper drinking in the ter;c;itorium and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Co scion PUBLICINPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. 'A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However. in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City. Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. �.: Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Communitv and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839®7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (909) 839.7030 email: info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.tls _., PLEDGELL I 1 ROLLC LL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice -Chairman ®an Nolan, Steve Nelson, Joe Ruzicka, and Jack Tanaka The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and a approved by r - motion. calendarbe removed from tj 9genda by -• of - Commission_ n •• �� r r. 1 ;� 1 1. _.` 1 1 s Sunday.(pursuant to Code Section 22.66.060(A)(3)) is a request to revise the hours o! operation from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Current hours of operation are Saturday and Project Address: 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7 (Lot 180, Tract 30578) Diamond 91765 "A Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Property Owner: Nathaniel Williams 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202 Buena Park, CA 90620 Applicant: Akbar Ali 8481 Holder Street Buena Park, CA 90620 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the Californi Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301 (a), the City has determin that this project is Categorically Exempt. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, Development Review No. 2001-04(2) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(2), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft Tesolutiat. 7.2 Development Review No. 2003-10 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 12,354 gross square feet including balconies, porch, covered patio, and four car garage, and a site retaining wall with a maximum exposed height of six feet. Project- Address: 2878 Crystal Ridge Road (Lot A, Tract 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner Diamond Bar West, LLC/Richard Gould Applicant: 3480 Torrance Blvd. #300 Torrance, CA 90503 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the Californ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15162(a), the City has determin that this project is consistent with the previously certified Environmental Impa Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map No. 47850. Further review is not required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission appo Development Review No. 2003-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approvi as listed within the draft resolution. 9.1 Home of the Month - Homeowner recognition program. 9.2 Public Hearinq_.�!ates for future prolqcts., x.16 A CITY COUNCIL MEETING w- W -Al ilk, 11,03 1 � .:" Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. 800 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park 22930 Golden Springs Dr. Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 700 p.m. AQMD/Govt. Center Hearing Board Roon 21865 E. Copley Drive Kwwaxejnoro'�-/ �- Monday, August 4, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar/Walnut Station 21695 E. Valley Boulevard, Walnut 1-4,10- 1 'Al =10" �'IQTRI*21*72 4-KOM# AQMG/6ovt.-Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 700 p.m. AQMD/Govt. Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, August 14, 2003 — 7:00 p.m. AOMD/Govt. Center Hearing Board Room 21865 E. Copley Drive File re lewp JOPY nd is ready for on= swnning Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quail Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Ba f� ,zliforiia 91765. I MM Present: Chairman Steve Tye; and Commissioners Joe Ruzicka and Jack Tanaka. li 1 1 111!1 11711IF111m; E" i Also present were: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Tye requested that Item 7. public hearin be heard prior to Item 5. , Old Business. I C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the June 24, 2003, minutes as corrected to show that C/Ruzicka led the Pledge of Allegiance. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. JULY 8,2003 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION EK a W-1*011 WHom 11 am -1 ;rll Lira d*16-mandi•:.ice space, and front porch to an existing two-story single-family residence of approximately 2,900 square feet. 0 Kamen Lai 2748 Valley Blvd. #K Rosemead, CA 91770 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission 2pproval of Development Review No. 2003-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of 2-pproval as listed within the resolution. &amen Lai, applicant, said he read staff's report and concurs with the recommended conditions. He thanked staff for their patience and assistance. C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Lai if he and the property owner understood the property maintenance provision of this resolution and how important it is that the property owner maintain the home in the appropriate manner. Mr. Lai responded that they understood and agreed with the maintenance portion of the resolution. The applicant submitted a landscape plan and irrigation plan. If staff seeks additional documentation, it will be provided. Chair/Tye asked how long the Wang's have owned the home to which Mr. Lai responded 13 years. Chair/Tye echoed Mr. Ruzicka's concern that the property did not appear to be properly maintained. Page 4 of staff's report requires landscape and irrigation installation prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. Is this home unoccupied during the remodel? JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano said that because of the substantial change it would need to be inoccupied during reconstruction. Mr. Lai concurred. NIVIVIT 111M •INTIM I I III I 12M�� 2-2= C/Ruzicka said that in view of the applicant's agreement that they would properly maintain the property and abide by the resolution, he moved approval of Development Review No. 2003-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tanaka seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, VC/Nolan 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5.1 Develop ent Code Amendment No. 2003-01 (pursuant to Code Section 22.44) is a request to amend the following Article/Sections of the Development Code. DCM/DeStefano explained that staff prepared a resolution for the Commission's consideration that incorporates . comments made during the last Planning Commission meeting. Staff is requesting that the signage component of the Code ,&-IfAv Wil W-WWWWOAV -W, "11 The Commission asked if the special meeting could be held on August 13 of August 20 in order for all Commissioners to be present. Accordingly, Commission consideration would be continued to the August 26 meeting. A �L L tICT8,2003 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISS1017 (a) Section 22.34.030 22.34.040 — Multi - Family Standards, Section 22.34.050 — Commercial Standards and Section 22.34.060 — Industrial Standards: Amendment relates to landscape maintenance standards for slopes. (b) Sections 22.36.050 and 22.36.080 - Exemptions from Sign Permits and Prohibited Signs: Amendment relates to the placement and size of election signs and signs in the public right-of-way. r kc) Section 22.42.130 - Radio and Television Antenna and Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities. Amendment relates to the number of telecommunications facilities on a parcel in residential zoning districts. fielIKHM uyqo 14 1qj1j�pjj[qj1K:6jffqj1tqjfq Oje of -a 11,A7 -10j&-1 11-111 tr-gatez-Win C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2003-01 (a) and (c) and continue consideration of 2003-01 (b) to August 26. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Tanaka commended staff on an excellent 4 th of July Celebration. It was the largest crowd he had seen at a "Concerts in the Park" event. The fireworks were fantastic. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that the City received a grant award in the amount of $84,338 from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The City applied for a grant entitled "Jobs Housing Balance Incentive Programs." The City was eligible for that program because it had an adopted, approved and certified by the state, Housing Element — thanks to the Planning Commission and the City Council. In spite of its title, the grant money can be used for any type of capital improvement program. The Community Services n JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Department applied for the money that will be used to make a number of improvements at Starshine Park, the small Neighborhood Park just north of Pathfinder Road. DCM/DeStefano also reported that late last week staff received a refinement to the plan for the Calvary Chapel/Citrus Valley property as well as, a first sketch of a possible housing development on the Citrus Valley site. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 750 p.m. 21mrST-7 MR MIMR-M, James DeStefano Attest: Chairman Steve Tye v • MI M RMFAEF.ul VE Development Review No. 2001-04(2) and Minor Variance • 2001-09(2) i '- •_ .� •" X11- E 2020 Brea CanyonRoad,.. 4 -• Bar (Parcel 1 of - r• 103 - Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa Monica, .1 I�IiITFTTITV "t T, •i._.1 - Property Owner, Nathaniel and Applicant,Akbar, requesti to the operating hours. The requestbased on information including:Reciprocal Parking . • • • • - • i• • .• �, • Ile. •. ••- f. i dated, April 28, 2003. The approved restaurant occupies 2,200 square feet, approximately 1,237.5 square feet for patrons and service area of 962.5 square feet. This equates to a needed 20 parking spaces per ^ Municipal Code. spaces could be used. The Minor Variance approval limited operating hours because the parking study's findings showed that at 11:45 a.m., 108 of the 130 spaces were occupied by the patrons of the existing businesses. Of the remaining 22 spaces, 20 were required for the restaurant leaving only two available spaces on this parcel to serve patrons of Buildings A and E VIVA 14MOMOM. ------------- towing— WIN Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 22.66.060(2), this application requires that the Planning Commission, the original review authority, to consider changes that were a part of the review authority's consideration. The change in operating hours applies. The Revised Application requests additional operating hours from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Municipal Code Section 22.30.050 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18, Condition No. 50), required a recorded Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of the restaurant's Certificate of Occupancy. The City has the recorded copy. e Heciproca 'ar ing and ccess Agreement includes tour parcels with five buildings.w a ro may park in any designated parking space from Pathfinder Road to the Chuck-e-Chee restaurant. However, proximity is factored in the revision analysis. Staff focused on Parcels 1 a 2 which contain Building's A, B, and E. Tenant's of Building E are closest to Pathfinder Road an include Shanghai Palace, S.P. A.R.C., the liquor store and other office and tutoring uses. Buildi Me A also on the same Parcel 1 as Building E includes International Deli, retail dancewear anle cleaners, office, and the restaurant uses. Parcel 2, Building B, to the north is all office use (se. aerial). Many parking spaces are behind Building's A and B, and fewer spaces are in the front these buildings. lvr_j I -IM I MWall R I NUR I Mot (ol V-77MW 11111112 111IM1111 le I I 7t -7*#77 0 Staff's analysis indicates that the Current mix of uses meets Municipal Code standards Without a Minor Variance approval requirement. The businesses require 133 spaces and 197 are provided. Updated SITE ANALYSIS FOR PARKIN% •0 FTEOUr, 4 e, CENTER nit Square Tenant Name Tenant UseDays & Hours of Parking # o Footage (Type of Operation Requirement Spaces usiness er sq. Al 1,000 DISCOVERY TRAVEL TRAVEL AGENT M -F 8:00 A.M.-5:30 P.M. 1/250 = 4 SAT 10:00 A.M.- 2:00 P.M. A2 1,200 DB DELICATESSEN DELI 10:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M. DAILY 1/75 - 700 SO. ' = 9 1/300 - 500 SO.' - 2 A3 1,200 PLAZA CLEANERS CLEANERS M -F 7:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. 1/400 - 400 SO.' = 1 SAT 9:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 1/1000 - 800 SQ.' = 1 A4 1,200 REALTY EXECUTIVES REAL ESTATE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 1/400 = 3 A5 1,200 DIAMOND DANCEWEAR RETAIL DANCE ATTIRE M -F 10:30 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. 1/250 = 5 SAT 10:00 A.M.- 4:00 P.M. A6 1,200 MERCURY INSURANCE OFFICE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 1/400 - 3 A7 2,200 HALAL TANDOORI RESTAURANT 11:30 A.M. -10:00 P.M. DAILY 1/75 -1,237.5 SQ. ' = 16.5 1/300 - 962.5 SQ. ' = 3.1 E101 3,838 SHANGHAI PALACE RESTAURANT 11:30 A.M. -10:00 P.M. DAILY 1/75 - 2,938 SO.' = 39 1/300 - 900 SQ.' = 3 E104 2,164 PLAZA DIAMOND LIQUOR RETAIL STORE M-TH 7:00 A.M. -11:00 P.M. 1/250 = 9 F -SUN 8:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. E106 4,805 S.P.A,R.C. PHYSICAL THERAPY M, W, F 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/250 = 19 T, TH. 9:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. SAT 8:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M. E210 3,566 DR. ROBIN ABARI DENTIST M,TU 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. 1/250 = 14 W -F 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. SAT 8:00 A.M.- 3:00 P.M. E230 1,325 DR. RON SALEM MEDICAL M -F 8:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. 1/250 = 5 SAT 9:00 A.M.- 2:00 P.M. E240 2,475 GREAT EXPECTATION TUTORING M -F 3:30 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. 1/200 = 12 E250 875 MARTIN C. EMO, CPA OFFICE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/400 = 2 E260* 1,847 SAT I SAT II TUTORING M -F 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/200 =1 9 SAT BY APPOINTMENT B 9,230 REAL ESTATE OFFICES OFFICE M -F 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/400 23 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES PER DEVELOPMENT CODE 183 TOTAL SPACES ON SITE 197 Includin handicap per Code AVAILABLE SPACES BASED ON MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS 14 supportsThis analysis t., Applicant's req_- -- discussion in Section 3 regarding. business in Building E, Suite 260. K -7 1 -1 01� .11111117IN Ir 1 v, An updated Parking Supply and Demand Study that includes Parcel 2, Building B, closest to the Application's suite also verifies parking availability for the operating hours' revision. Two days, a Friday and a Tuesday, were surveyed from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The Study indicates that 36 parking spaces were available to serve the businesses in Buildings A, B, and E. The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the April 18 Ih Parking Study and the comments are attached. The following is a synopsis: 1 Building E, Suite 260, was vacant at the time of the study. A new use without City approvals is in this suite. Staff included this use's parking requirement in the requirement analysis and found that adequate parking is available for the restaurant use and tutoring use. The City has notified the new tenant to obtain the necessary City approvals which would be a Zoning Clearance. 2. Building E, Suite 240, is also a tutoring use. Their parking requirement is 12 spaces whether they open at noon or at 3:30. The analysis shows that adequate parking is available on site. 3. The added areas included in the Parking Study (Building B) are "legal spaces covered by the shared parking agreement and are in close proximity to Suite A-7. All of the added parking areas, therefore, are legal parking spaces for the proposed project. 4. There are a number of restricted green curb spaces with times. These same spaces would be utilized by those who frequent the businesses and are counted in the analysis. The restrictions are assumed to be an issue to be resolved by the tenants and the property owner. The City's review focuses on the spaces versus parking demand. 5. Overall based on the information, the Parking Study shows that the parking demands of the current uses would be adequately served by the existing parking spaces, even if the restaurant were allowed to operate during the noon hours. This is based on the City requirements for evaluating parking supply versus demand. IN MINIMS I (Ie,1,TLGVIaXIeIs 7111 a ItIssla"11-URIFIM MU7,9711.7-Mc tlea Ing Flouce rras F 711MTVII�-e=� - M Vie site. 0 1. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public; as well as, its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and ,i. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution; 7. Aerial; 2. Application; 8. Exhibit "A", July 22,QUO3 3. Staff Report and Resolution 2UO1-18.June 12.2OO1; 4. Staff Report and Resolution 2OO1-24.July 18.2U01; 5. Sasaki Transportation Services comments; G. April 18'2DO3Parking Supply and Demand Study; 1 1 } b � • i it •_ _�' •� _.. �_, 6V-10 Mo 2. On June 12, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Development Review No. 2001 - 04Minor Variance No. 2001-09, and Categorical o and approved such per Planning Commission Resolution • 11 3. On 1 2001,the Planning Commission of - City of • i Bar conducted duly noticed public hearing on - ••ment Review No. 2001 14(l), Minor Variance No. 2001-09(l), and Categorical Exemption,i approved per Planning • • . Resolution No. Ii. 4. On July 8, 2003, 35 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other sites were posted in the .• • 2003, notificationo:. the public hearing for noticethis project was made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a display board with the public hearing posted at the site. 5. On July 10, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Application. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1rari M-- In* Milan NO- VMM MWOWWWRII 18OKKOIAt'"nom 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 41. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the approved project set forth in the Revised Application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The revised application relates to a previously approved Development Review No. 2001-04(l). This approval was for an intensification of use for a restaurant use in a retail suite at 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7 within an existing commercial shopping center with mixed uses of community retail and service. The project site is 4.73 acres. !11111111111111:11111ililill liiiijiiiiiiiiiil I ill the hours of operation for restaurant use as 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Office Professional (OP). The zoning designation for the project site is Community Commercial - Planned Development— Billboard Exclusion (C -2 -PD -BE). �c) Generally the following zones surround the project site: to the north, south and east are Open Space and SR -57; to the west is open space and Commercial Plan Development (CPD) Zone. (d) The Revised Application requests a revision of operating hours from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily. (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standardsof applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). Opening .e t or extended `- - does not change design and layout approved with Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2001-18 and 2001-24 for the Development Review and Minor Variance intensification of use. The design and layout of the approved and revised application is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's GeneralPlan and Design Guidelines. - Revisedlotq -0 The Application requests.•i 1 operating hours III a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. ' Reciprocal Parking r • Access Agreement approved by the City Attorney has been recorded. Per Municipal ••- Section22.30.040, r parking analysis • - adequate parking is available on parcels 1 and 2 which are within 300 feet of - subject property • -d in Municipal•• 22.30.050. This analysis indicates thatparking availability complies Further, a 2003 Parking Supply and Demand Study indicatesopen parking during the requested operating hours. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of 'neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. or pedestrian hazards. (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with z characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development K contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Desi Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. I 00911, M-W.R.",W �JL06L� M r "FIM, change the design and layout The design and layout of the approved h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. change the design and layout. The design and layout of the approved and revised application will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. A M feet of the subject property as noted in Municipal Code Secti 22.30.050. This analysis indicates that parking availability compli The approved application will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the approved project a n@ dj� a;t�#IicatLsln is Catdg#rfically. tr, rhd�gvitydl 67 if the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Sectio 1530 1 (a). i 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Revised Application subject to the following conditions: (a) Condition 5(a) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18, approved June 12, 2001, as amended by Condition 5(a) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-24, approved July 10, 2001, is amended to read as follows: Restaurant hours open to the public shall be between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., daily. n N 0 1 Y; I I NP) 11 F; I 10 a It a I I I I a to] liq W., I a 16 ra 11:11" 01 W.- Ry I I I I q 0 ;NO2 . - MEM 111!1!1 i ; Mine 10111; (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by cered mail to Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa Monica, CA 90703, Ali Akbar, 8481 Holder Street, Buena Park, CA 90620, and Gazala Kahn, 2896 Vista Ct., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF JULY, 2003, BY THA *LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M Steve Tye, Chairman 61 RN -M-61 W-- No nd Commission held on the 22 cl�y of July, 2003, by the following vote: X w Lp�L��01� B a 7 ITY OF DIAMOND A .` Division 21825 E. Copley Drive DiamondBar, . Phone (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 ■ ` f,_R r#1r 21l Name WILLIAMS, NATHANIEL AKBAR ® AL I (Last name first) (Last name first) Address -3099 Wilshere Blvd. 8481 Holder St. City Santa Monica NOEWW1210 •1. 1 r, A••r• � A11 11 By w • Date FOR CITY USE (Last name first) 2896 Vista Ct. -Djamand-ilax- 91765 .._._ ._..... • 1 • • An application fee in accordance with Section 22.44.040 of the Municipal Code must accoll �Ti �-,, -,, 7WAIW-K) ' effher a fiat fee or a deposit plus payment of the City's processing costs computed on an hourly basis. The applicable fee or deposit amount for this application is indicated above. If it is a deposit, the applicant shall pay any processing costs that exceed the amount of Consentthe deposit prior to issuance of the permit; if processing costs are less than the deposit, a refund will be paid. NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the City in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) of •., owner •r request.f the herein -described property and permit the applicant to Methis Print Name Williams Nathaniel (Ali record owners) 'Signed (All record owners) ®ate Cerfification of Applicant: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify underpenalty of perfury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name Akbar Ali (Applicant or Agent) Signed (Applicant or Agent) Location a .0 Bra � cin Rd �o A7 mr�nc3 Rar CA=� (Street address or tract and lot number) Previous Cases- Present Use of Site Restaurant Use applied for `Extend business hours (Monday thru Fridav 10 ®00 A M to 10000 P.M. City of Diamond Bar 21 825 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 To the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar Attention: Mr. Joe Ruzicka Mr. Jack Tanaka Mr Steven Thye Mr. Steve Nelson Mr. Dan Noland Dear Sirs, I am applying for extended hours of operation for my restaurant. As requested by the City I have completed another Parking Study including the expanded area based on the new recording all parcels (January 2002), included in the parking area. In addition, I would like to share with you the difficult situation I am faced with at this time. I am unable to keep up with the expenses without having enough hours to generate business revenues for my restaurant. I would like the commission to reconsider my request for staying operational for lunch during week days. As business owners and operators, we know how important it is to keep a business open to the maximum number of hours of the day in order to keep the business successful and also pay our bills. In today's economy, it is very essential to, not only work hard, but also stay open to the maximum hours in order to make ends meet. In my observation, and based on the two parking studies, there is plenty of parking available during lunch hour and the staff report, it has been determined that there is enough parking for the restaurant to remain open during week days for lunch. As a matter of fact, most of the people working in the building complex go away for lunch leaving the parking spaces available for customers who may come for lunch. Also, the Chinese Restaurant and the International Deli are allowed to stay open for lunch. Why should I be denied the right to open my restaurant for lunch? I would like to request to the planning commission to be fair in evaluating this situation and allow my business to stay open for lunch during weekdays. Sincerely, Ashiana Restaurant Ali Akbar] i Restaurant Owner 2020 South Brea Canyon Road, A®7, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Telephone: 909-396-0176 WRO, FAI-11061-1,M)W UP U0041 WROGUA�#�'__ �111 /krI-AI/4',W C-1- 7 "0 " FIX q_ - �___ 0 W Development Review No. 2001-04 and Minor Variance No. 2001-09 A request to modify an existing retail suite to a restaurant and to approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 16% in the number of required off- street parking spaces for the shopping center. 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7, Diamond Bar (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 10337) Monica, CA 90703 Akbar Ali, 8481 Holder Street, Buena Park, CE.1 90620 1 The property owner, Nathaniel Williams, and applicant, Akbar Ali, request to modify an existing retail suite to a restaurant at 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7. The shopping center is on Parcel 1 of four, Parcel Map 10337. The site plan shows four parcels, however, the other three are separate units. There is however, one owner for all four parcels at this time. Please note the attachment to the site plan. The request for a restaurant requires the approval of a Developmen"i Review for an intensification of use that is permitted in the Zone. There are no changes, expansion, or structural alterations to the existing structure. The applicant does not propose to provide alcoholic beverages, outdoor dining, and/or entertainment with this application. A Minor Variance approval is required for a decrease of 16% in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the shopping center on Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 10337. The use within the. center does not comply with current standards regarding off-street parking. The project site of Parcel 1 is approximately4.73 gross acres. existing retail shopping center of two buildings contains professional office, a restaurant and sandwich deli, mini -market, and retail services. The retail shopping center was processed and built using the Los Angeles County Development Standards. - project site has a General_ Professional (OP), Pursuato the General Plan, this land use designation provides for the establishment of office -bas working environments for general, professional, and administrative offices, as well as supp uses. The proposed project and use could be considered a support use and as such is consiste with the General Plan. right.The zoning designation for the project site is Community Commercial -Planned Development— Billboard Exclusion (C -2 -PD -BE). The C -2 -PD -BE zoning designation permits a restaurant use by •. - •'il.'i application is considered a - of land use. The existing requiresretail shopping center will be accommodating the operation of a proposed restaurant, which more `•%' • spaces than e former use. It is anticipated .„•. ^i; proposed generate more activity at the project site. Generally the following zones surround the project site: to the north, south and east are Open Space and SR -57; to the west is open space and Commercial Plan Development (CPD) Zone. e A _ F • � � _ �• �• • • �- � ii _,_` `.iii -_ i w.:, ��.1 � i" • • is - •,^ _ _ •' •^ _ ^•NO ..i. iot a Decrease of not more than 20%, in the number of requir�d off -s treet parking spaces. The application ^ • - . Hearing !f , er is the review authority. Pursuant • Development i•. Section 22.48.030, the highest i _ make final determination. Planning ,f• Commission highest authority. IN restaurant contains approximately 1,237.5 square feet of gross floor area for patrons (16.4 �_zpaces) and 962.5 square feet of gross floor area for service (3.2 spaces). As a result, a minimum *f 20 parking spaces is required for the proposed restaurant. The study shows that excess parking spaces are available to the existing businesses when th"9 proposed uses are factored into the equation. At 11:45 a.m., of the 130 spaces 108 are occupi by the existing businesses, leaving 22 spaces available. Of those 22 spaces, 20 are required f the restaurant leaving 2 available spaces on this site. I k WWI 1MI61 Ma RJAI UZZ-10111 MANICKIZIRWRIMM _41: MOT I The Public Works Division and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. There are no comments to note except for the requirement of building permits for the interior improvements and signage. 0 On May 29, 2001, 35 property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site were notified by mail. On June 1, 2001, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel VallgKILLUne and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other public places were posted within the vicinity of the application. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Q,<•:. Act (CEQA), the City has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15303(a). =0 �'101�"# U Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-04 arM. Minor Variance No. 2001-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. 1 . The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the cha racteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public; as well as, its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 0 I t W The property owner, Nathaniel Williams, and applicant, Akbar Ali, have filed an application for Development Review 2001-04 and Minor Variance No. 2001-09 for a property located at 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California as described in the title of thi_ •• • pplicatio 2. On May 29, 2001, 35 fpr._,. within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail. On June 1, 2001, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Dgqy_� newspapers and a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other public places were posted within the vicinity of the application. 3. On June 12, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. NOW, THEREFORE, it Js found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The rlanning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. A Mft Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a retail suite at 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7 within an existing commercial shopping center with mixed uses of community retail and service. The project site is 4.73 acres. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Office Professional (OP). The zoning designation for the project site is Community Commercial - Planned Development— Billboard Exclusion (C -2 -PD -BE). (c) Generally the following zones surround the project site: to the north, south and east are Open Space and SR -57; to the west is open space and Commercial Plan Development (CPD) Zone. (d) The Application is a request to modify an existing retail suite to a restaurant and to approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 16% in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the shopping center, (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). N Plan, this land use designation provides for the establishment u office -based working environments for general, professional, and administrative offices, as well as support uses. The proposed project is considered a service commercial use and as such could be considered a support use consistent with the General Plan. As there is no change to the site's exterior configuration, the current site's architectural style, construction materials and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. Therefore, the design and layout of the proposed project is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan and Design Guidelines. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The existing site of the proposed project is within the Community Commercial- Planned Development— Billboard Exclusion Zone (C -2 - PD -BE). The C -2 -PD -BE Zone permits a restaurant service. There is no change to the site's exterior configuration, and the current site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Code, or as required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. The site's existing architecture, construction materials, and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. The project site is adequately served by arterial roads, Brea Canyon Road and Pathfinder Road. Both are designed to provide an ingress/egress to the project site and to handle traffic created by this type of development. Therefore, the design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards, (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. There are no changes proposed in the architectural design of t existing retail shopping center at the project site. The site's curre, I architectural exterior design is consistent with the City's Developme Review standards and City Design Guidelines in that the project h an orderly and harmonious appearance to the existing structure CK, parking area and landscaping, and has an existing architecturi, design that is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. stated in Item (e) the proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan. I (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as wel-I as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. As referenced in the above findings, the project site's current exterior design is consistent with the applicable elements of the General Plan and development standards of the zone through its design, use of materials, colors and landscaping. The stucco and siding materials are low maintenance and long lasting. The variety of texture and color add to the design's good aesthetics. Therefore, the existing design of the proposed project continues to provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visng public as well as its nei,v-jhbors throuyhjood aesthetic use of materials, texture, that will remain aesthetically appealing and will 'retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Health Department, Fire Department, City permitsi and inspectiol are required for construction. These will ensure that the finish project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfar Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis w completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traff Engineer substantiating adequate parking spaces on-site for t current business uses and the proposed restaurant. I The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the Californi i I Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301 (a). M (k) There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or othet conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. This center was originally constructed under the Los Angeles County Code. Today's Development Code adopted in 1998 requires stricter parking requirements. New allowed uses with parking space deficiencies may be permitted provided that the new use can prove that adequate parking is available on site. A Minor Variance approval for a reduction of not more than 20% in the number of off-street parking spaces may be granted provided that a Shared Parking Analysis shows adequate parking for all uses based on- the businesses' staggered hours of operation. In this case a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject. site was Therefore, strict adherence to the regulation creates an unnecessa and non -self-created, hardship or unreasonable regulation that ma it obviously impractical to require compliance with the developme standards. 11 (1) Granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought. t] "firre 0 liar 0 other neighboring shopping centers in the same zoning district possess. (m) Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. R G& (n) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis w completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traff Engineer substantiating adequate parking spaces on-site for t Clurrent business uses and the proposed restaurant. The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the Californ Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 1530, 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, and floor plans collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated June 12, 2001, as submitted and as amended hereit. (b) The shopping center site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall XMIlm TTITT77 contractor 0757ea has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such q:-ervices. (d) The structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (e) Men's and Women's restrooms shall be provided if the restaurant establishment employs four or more employees at any given time. (f) The existing restroom shall meet current handicap accessibility requirements. (g) The restroom access doors shall be clearly marked with symbols. (h) One seating space in the restaurant patron area shall be provided for handicap use. 1i) The Applicant shall obtain approvals and comply with thd requirements of the Fire Department, Los Angeles County Business License Department, Los Angeles County Health Department, and City Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Divisions. The Applicant shall be in compliance with all requirements of said agencies at all times and receive all licenses, permits/inspection, and approvals prior to opening the restaurant. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the owner shall agree to a Shared Parking and Access Agreement with all four parcels of Parcel Map 10337. The Shared Parking and Access Agreement running with the land, approved by the city, shall be recorded by the owner, guaranteeing" the continued availability of shared parking prior to Certificate of Occupancy. (k) Employees of the restaurant shall utilize parking in the rear of the shopping center. Applicant shall have seating for no more than 38 patrons. 0 Regular hours of operation shall be between 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. Special event operating hours shall be reviewed and permittv--t by the Planning Division. (n) Prior to business opening, Applicant shall obtain City approvals and permits for signs. (o) Prior to business opening, Applicant shall obtain building permits for interior tenant improvements. (p) New rooftop venting and equipment visible from the street shall be screened. All venting or exterior equipment required for this project shall be at the rear of the building on the side of the freeway. All venting and equipment shall be screened, all shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. (q) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercise* (i.e., construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one - (1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City ir writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (r) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) _,a .cam filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (s) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Gam8 Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee, imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. Fill (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy o.this ' , by certified mail to#202, Santa Monica, CA 90703 and b;,` Ali, 8481 Holder -tsBuena Park, CA90620. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2001, BY THE *LANNING COMMISSIONTHE CITY OF DIAMONDis Bob Zirbes,Chairman 1, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced,.passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of June, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Nelson, Ku®, WC Ruzicka, Chair Zirbes NOES: ABSENT: Tye ABSTAIN: jI. ATTEST: V .� acne4DeS an®, Secretary STATF Or CALIPORNiA COUNTY OF LOS AN( SS CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1, LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK Or THE CITY Or DIAMOND BAR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY 01: PERJURY UNDFR THE LAWS OF TIIE S'I'A'1'li OIC ('AI.II,'OIZNIA'1'111? FORGOING TO III! A FULL TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF TIII1 ORWINAI, AS SAMI: APPEARS ON FILF IN MY OFFICE Ird WrrNI{SS W11FRT:OI:, I HAVE 111{RI,UNTO SI!T MY HAND AND AI'1 IX1?I)'t'lll'. SI?/�I/,.�I CITY I)I IANIOND RAR,'I'IIIS 42 % DAY o��I _ .20671 .YNDA BURGESS, CI'T'Y CI.I',I?K iIY 9 =Z Iflyw }y, .., z . :'. 4 / ', ` RK AMORKIT011 gmm (Parcel2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7, Diamond Bar •10337) Nathaniel Williams, 3029 - Blvd. 0_ , Santa • y, 90703 On - 12, 2001,the Planning Commission approved Development.- • 111.14 and Minor Variance No. 2001-09 to modify an existing retail suite to a restaurant and to approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 16% in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the shopping The approved restaurant occupy . 2,200 square foot -Approximately 1,237.5 square feet of gross floor area will be utilized for patrons and 962.5 square feet of gross floor area will be utilized for service area. The approved application makes only interior tenant improvements. No square footage• ' added • the restaurant structure and as a result, its ­xterior physical appearance will be - same. The current Parcel 1 site has 130 parking spaces. Per the Development Code, 155 spaces afa required to support the mix of uses. The conclusions of the Shared Parking Analysis reports wefd based on •ical Friday from11 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The peak -shared demand for parking noted •- - and p.m. • existing uses. 0 Based on the initial review,the study showed that excess parking spaces were available to th existing businesses when the proposed uses were factored into the equation. At 11:45 a.m., the 1 spaces 108 were occupied existing leaving 22 spacesavailable .•. the new use. Of those 22 spaces, 20 were required for the restaurant leaving two available spac li tWis site. daily.The Planning Commission determined that two available spaces were not adequate for tNz restaurant use during lunch time. To adequately serve all patrons and businesses of this center, the Commission and the Applicant agreed to the hours of operation from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The current Parcel 1 site has 130 parking spaces. Per the Development Code, 155 spaces are required to support the mix ouses.f The conclusions of the Shared based on a typical Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, it should be noted that many of the businesses on Parcel 1 are closed from Saturday afternoon until Monday morning. Therefore, - Applicant is making his requestfor - • the hours of operation • Saturday • Sunday. Per the attached analysis, in addition + the 21 spaces required for the restaurant use, 19 additionalspacesare available • n forthose .._• a businesses .. .. +•...... on Saturday after12:04, p.m. to Monday morning. N SITE INFORMATION MULTI TENANT UnitlSquare ITenantName Tenant Use 111ays & Hours of Parking 1# Of 1# lFootagel (Type of L,, This analysis supports the Applicant's request to open on Saturday and Sunday from 11:31 • 10:00 01 I Al 1,000 DISCOVERY TRAVEL TRAVEL AGENT M -F 8:00 A.M.-5:30 P.M. 1/250 = 4 SAT 10:00 A.M.- 2:00 P.M. A2 1,200 DB DELICATESSEN DELI 10:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M. DAILY 1/75 - 700 SQ.' = 9 1/300 - 500 SO.' = 2 A3 1,200 PLAZA CLEANERS CLEANERS M -F 7:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. 1/400 - 400 SQ.' = 1 SAT9:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 1/1000 - 800 SO.' = 1 A4 1,200 REALTY EXECUTIVES REAL ESTATE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 1/400 = 3 A5 1,200 DIAMOND DANCEWEAR RETAIL DANCE ATTIRE M -F 10:30 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. 1/250 = 5 SAT 10:00 A.M.- 4:00 P.M. A6 1,200 MERCURY INSURANCE OFFICE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 1/400 = 3 A7 2,200 HALAL TANDOORI RESTAURANT M -F 5:30 P.M. -10:00 P.M. 1/75 -1,237.5 SO.' — 16.5 1/300 - 962.5 SO.' = 3.1 E101 3,838 SHANGHAI PALACE RESTAURANT 11:30 A.M. -10:00 P.M. DAILY 1/75 - 2,938 SO.' = 39 1/300 - 900 SQ.' = 3 E104 2,164 PLAZA DIAMOND LIQUOR RETAIL STORE M-TH 7:00 A.M. -11:00 P.M. 1/250 = 9 F -SUN 8:00 A. M. -10:00 P. M. E106 4,805 S.P.A.R.C. PHYSICAL THERAPY M, W, F 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/250 = 19 T, TH. 9:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. SAT8:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M. E210 3,566 DR. ROBIN ABARI DENTIST M,TU 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. 1/250 = 14 W -F 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. SAT 8:00 A.M.- 3:00 P.M. E230 1,325 DR. RON SALEM MEDICAL M -F 8:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M. 1/250 = 5 SAT 9:00 A.M.- 2:00 P.M. E240 2,475 GREAT EXPECTATION TUTORING M -F 3:30 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. 1/200 = 12 E250 875 MARTIN C. EMO, CPA OFFICE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/400 = 2 E260 1,847 FOCUS ON CHINESE FAMILY OFFICE M -F 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/400 = 5 SAT BY APPOINTMENT TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES PER DEVELOPMENT CODE 155 I PARKING ALLOTMENT FOR BUSINESSES CLOSED SATURDAY AND SUNDAY FROM 12:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M. 44 TOTAL REQUIRED FOR SAT. & SUN. BUSINESSES ill TOTAL SPACES ON SITE 130 AVAILABLE SPACES 19' ''Note: The calculation of 19 available spaces is in addition to the 20 spaces required for the subject restaurant. This analysis supports the Applicant's request to open on Saturday and Sunday from 11:31 • 10:00 01 MKI MOTA CINKS pig Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15303(a). PC tv "YVT, and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(l), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. 1 . The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and. will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan; The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its 121 occupants and visiting public; as well as, its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Qr. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 1 . There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards; 2. Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the Variance is sought; 3. Granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 4. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and 5. The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prepared by: Linda Kay Smith Development Services Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Draft Resolution; 2. Letter from Applicant; 3. June 12, 2001 Planning Commission minutes; 4. June 12, 2001 staff report; 5. Exhibit "A", June 12, 2001. 0 » t> ««»� .� 2 ■ »#!\�2* - property owner,Nathaniel »n, applicant, * ,.. Ali, have -■ an Application foDevelopment Review No. 200-$4and Minor . No. 2001-09(l) , property located kl?■?| ■ ..\kn■n Road, Suite Diamond Bar, _,< Angeles County,California, as described in the title of Resolution. Hereinafter . this Resolution, .-:.,!» Development Revision, Minor »n<- Revision and CategoricalExemption ,- -,e as the "Revised Application." 2. On '!1? 2001,the Planning Commission of City ■°Diamond ■» conducted » duly noticed public hearing on Development Review No. 2001-04, Minor Variance No. §■.■, and CategoricalExemption,and approved such per Planning CommissionResolution No. \■$ 3. On June 26, ?■■' §° property owners within a 700 -foot radius of - project notifiedsite were by mail. e 2: 2001,notification of the public hearing for s project was provided in the <.� Gabriel.. Tribune and ., Inla nd Valley Daily Bulletinnewspapers and = notice .........,.. displayboard »: posted »the site an, displayed for at ©| ,_ ys #!a® the public hearing. Three other pubplaces posted within vicinity , Revised Application. k On July 10, 2001, the Planning Commission ,'h- City of Diamond $»r conducted, and concluded � , �■�<-, public hearing ■n Revised Application. .e.. . . THEREFORE, -» , ®\©$®/ :« found, determined :e Planning =# ,.:�! % Commission of the City of Diamond ■ ' as follows: ]. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all ofthe facts se! !\Rh in the Recitals, Part A,g!this Resolution are true and correct, . 1 herebydeterminesthe project •,.tifi -i. 2. The Planning fi- above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of t California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelin promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of Article I of Chapter 3, Titleof w Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines th having considered the record as a whole including the findings set fo below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into a conditioned upon the approved project set forth in the Revised Applicatio there is no evidence before this Planning Commission thatproje resourcesproposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild lif - or the• .. p•. which the wildlife depends. B- '•ii substantial evidence, this Planning Commission herebyrebuts presumption of _. Reviewthe California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The revised application relates to a previously approved Developme approvr was for • of • variance for use in a retail suite at 2020 Brea Canyon Road, existing commercial •ii • center with mixed uses of • mmunit retail r • service.The projectsite is t .73 acres. The previous approval per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18 included the hoursof operation Community(b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Office Professional (OP). The zoning designation for the project site is r r 'iDevelopment—••. •Exclusion . (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project south and east are -" Space west is open space and • i Plan PD • a. . Id) The Revised Application requests i revision hours General(e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the Plan,development design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area theme areas, specificplans, communityboulevards,or planned developments). projectThere is no change in the Revised Application to the . design and layout approved in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18 for the intensification of use on Saturday and Sunday. The design and layout of the approved r consistent with theI1 *- elements of Design Plan r .I I • a - of the proposed development will not interfe with the use d enjoyment neighboring existing or development,createhazards. There is 1 change in the Revised Application to the design layout approved in Planning Commission..1 1 1_ 00 existingthe intensification of use by opening the restaurant for extended hours on Saturday and Sunday. The design and layout of the approved project does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring or future development,and will notcreate traffic or pedestrian characteristics(g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the of the surrounding neighborhood r • will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. There is no change in the Revised Application to the architectural design -. Planning nd layout approved in an . ^ OF 9 (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through goodaesthetic`use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. There is no change in the Revised Application to the design and layout approved in Planning _/f the intensification of use of the existing retail suite. However, the number of required I parking spaces for the shopping center with hours of operation for the restaurant from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily due to the parking spaces provided on site of f businesses on The Revised Application requests additional operating hours from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, and to use the premises from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, for food preparationandthetakingof reservationsandcatering orders. parking analysis indicatesaddition 1 - 20 spaces required for the restaurant - there are an additional site .1 S, _unv� _ _ P. I.. ii" "• i I I .i _ i The proposed 1 • • be detrimental to the public safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements There is no change in the Revised Application to the design r ndlayout approved in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18 for the intensification of use of the existing retail suite. However, the Development Review and Minor Variance approved a decrease in the number of re the shopping center with hours of operation for the restaurant fromr 3i i I �� j I. f .1 . _ parking spaces provided i_ site of existing businesses on site. The Revised Application requests additional operating hours from w to 10p.m. on Saturday1 Sunday, 1 to use the premises from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, for food is"."I" and the taking of reservations and catering orders. r A parking analysis indicates ^ in addition i the 20 spaces required for the restaurant use, there are an additional - ,i. f. s` 19 spaces ..1r " availableon site for. Saturday1 ii f businesses are • ^f from Saturdayi1 I Monday morning. The approved project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. til - provisions /. the California• Quality Act i A specialThe environmental evaluation shows that the approved project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Ouality Act of 1970 (CEOA), Section 1530 1 (a). (k) There are • 'i . 1 to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or othet conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other'property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development stand. i Minor Variance No. 2001-09 was approved for a decrease in the rOMAI' 1JJUZC, 6AAi •` • I .I� i ... the shopping center hoursof operation ff 1... 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 I daily in order to allow the existing businesses •adequate parking. The Revised Application requests additional operating hours from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. • 1r andSunday, i to use the premises from 10:00a.m. to 5:30 p.m., MondayFriday, food preparation and the taking of reservations and catering orders. Many businesses in the shopping center are closed from 12:00 p.m. Saturday to Monday morning. Therefore, a revision to the intensification of use and the Minor Variance supported, and strict self-created, hardship or unreasonable regulation that make it obviously i _. require compliance development standards. (1) Granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights ;-possessed:by other prop.erty4, owners in the same vicinity, zoning district, and denied to the property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought. 5 Minor Variance2001-09 was approved for a decrease number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in the shopping center with hours I`operation I the restaurant 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily in order to allow the existing businesses o-. adequate at ic7" i The Revised Application 'i additional operating /. rs from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, and to use the premises from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, for parking analysis indicatesi .1 . to the 20 spaces required for the restaurant use, there are an additional 19 spaces available on district,• denied to the property owner for sought. Granting the Minor Variance consistent • any applicable specific plan. Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the Development Code standards. As stated in Item (e), the approved project and Revised Application are consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. proposed • f not be detrimental f the • f health, safety, convenience, r or welfare of the City. I i 1.� � .�_ I SIS �. r, .,i •- i �. spaces1 restaurant the shopping center with hours of operation I, - restaurant 'y -. r ..5:30 p. m. to 10:00 p. m. daily due to the parking spaces provided on site of existing businesses on site. - 0 The Revised Application -• _'" additional operating hours from 11:30 _r to III p. m. on Saturday and ... premises from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, for food preparation Is 60 -�. -i '_Ir i`` • ./ are closed from Saturday noon to Monday morning. Therefore, the Revised Application would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. (o) The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of • .. _ Environmental . • -- M X The environmental. evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Epursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Ouality Act of / t Section 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Revised Application subject to the following • • • , a) Condition 5(m) of Planning Commission Resolution No. • shall •"• as • •ws: Restaurant hours open to the public shall be between • and 10:00 p.m., •...•. • • •• i to 10:00 •.m. Saturday and Sunday. (b) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18, approved June 12, 11" shall remain in full force and effect -•as amended • •" Certify• the adoption of '- • and i Forthwith to Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa CA 90703, 1 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 1 i DAY OF JULY, 2001, BY TH" *LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. fob rbes, Chairman 7 I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10" day of July, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: V/C Ruzicka, Nelson, Kuo, Tye, Chair/Zirbes NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ,Jul 16 03 05:45a Sasaki Trans Serve (949)464-1178 p.2 TO; Linda Smith FROM: Steve Sasaki Z.0 SUBjEcT. Parking Study Review Update for the Proposed Midday Operations of the Aashiana Restaurant at 2020 Brea Canyon Road — Diamond Bar This memorandum provides an updated review of the "Parking Supply and Dernand Study For The Aashiana Restaurant and Plaza Diamond Bar" ("Parking Study") prepared by Joe C. Dyer, P.E. ("Dyer") dated April 28, 2003. The project is located at 2020 Brea Canyon Road in the City of Diamond Bar. City staff provided additional information and clarifications pertinent to our June 6, 2003 memorandwn regarding the submitted materials. This memorandum provides updated technical information that should be provided to the decision makers, in their consideration of this project. Update of Previous Comments: The updated information is presented below. The new information and updated comments generally related to the comment numbers contained in the June 6, 2003 memorandum. City staff noted that suite 260 in "Building E" requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet ("TSF) of building area resulting in a total of 9 spaces. This information was combined by City staff, with City Code requirements for the total project. It was shown that the Code required parking demands are satisfied by the total spaces at the project site. 2. We were informed that the "Great Expectations" use in suite 240 of "Building E" (that currently provides after school programs starting at 2:30 PM) would not be able to further impact the lunch peak (similar to the Aashiana restaurant) without further City approvals. City staff indicated the summer operations (7/1-8/30), therefore, should not impact the Aashiana request. 3. The added areas included in the Parking Study (expanded study area from a previous study 5/15/01 by Lin Consulting, Inc.) are "legal" spaces covered by a shared parking agreement. All of the added parking areas, therefore, are legal parking spaces for the proposed project, regardless of their location. 1171 I I . R Jul 16 03 05:46a Sasaki Trans Serve t9491464-1178 KIC 4. There are a number of parking spaces that could serve the project, that have particular parking restrictions (i.e., the spaces in area "AV, 8 spaces @ 20 minute", 2 disabled spaces, in area "A5" there are 6 spaces @ 15 minute", etc.) It is our understanding the property owner was not fully informed of the restrictions. Further, City staff indicated that the parking restrictions are not a part of the City calculations. The restrictions are therefore, assurned to be an issue to be resolved by the tenants and the property owner. The City review would focus on the spaces versus parking demand. *verall based on the supplemental information received from City staff, the ParkiM Study shows that the parking demands of the current uses would be adequately sery by the existing parking spaces, even if the restaurant were allowed to operate duri the noon hours. This conclusion is based on the City requirements for evaluati warking supply versus demand, and the supplemental information provided by Ci staff. We trust these supplemental comments will be of assistance to you and the City of Diamonf. Bar, in evaluating the impacts of the proposed project. if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cc: Milan L. Garrison, LDM Associates, Inc, SASAKI TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Aashiana Restaurant C:\STS\D Bor\2020 Brea Canyon, Aaslnana1doc Parking Study Review .... ub 04 T -P op sasak, l cans 5errv� DATA'. June 6, 2003-714 /% John FROM. Steve Sasaki SUBJECT: Review of Parking Study for the Proposed Midday Operations of the Anshiana Restaurant , ; at 2020 Brea Canyon Road ,,, A' Diamond Bar This memorandum provides a review of the "Parking Supply and Demand Study For The Aashiana Restaurant and Plaza Diamond Bar" ("Parking Study") preparcd by Joe C. Dyer, P.E. ("Dyer") dated April 28, 2003. This project is located at 2020 Brea Canyon Road in the City of Diamond Bar. Based on the submitted materials and a field review of the site, this memorandum identifies potential parking issues and concerns related to the proposed project. The project is understood to be a request for the existing Aashiana restaurant to serve lunches between 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM (Monday through Friday). This review focuses on the Parking Study requirements and the technical information that should be provided to the decision makers, in their consideration of this project. We have prepared the following comments for your consideration. Traffic Study Comments: The Parking Study must identify and consider the potential par ands related to any vacant suites within the project site. It was noted that su' e 2 "Building E" is presently vacant. It should be verified whether this (or any o er suite) was vacant at the time of the counts, and the propdr adjustments incorporated in a revised Parking Study. JThe "Great Expectations" use in suite 240 of `Building E" was noted to provide after jimand hool ro ams starting at 2:30 PM, which coincides with some of the peak parking counts documented in the Stud uring the summer (7/1®8/30), however, their programs are noted to begin at 8:00 AM and operate through 6:30PM. The parking counts were taken in April, which would not account for the summer parking demands. (The "Great Expectations" use is noted to have a "lunch break" in the summer, but it is not know if they could change their operations in the future, to include the lunch period). ®e) o P-0- BOX 5159 LAGUNA.EAti§) 376-66 13 ., 2 The current Parking Study demand count study areas were expanded from a previous study (5/15/01 by Lin Consulting, Inc.) to include additional parking areas. Essentially all of the added parking areas, however, are not conducive for use by the _ potential restaurant patrons. There should be information provided in the study that r -" clean describes ose ar ' i ie ut to l if an im acts (i.e., more difficult to find arkin , se park ✓� a,a:. farther, etc.) to the immediate study area will result�eople that arrive later need to ere are a number of parking spaces in close proximity to the project that have particu ns and must..be.identifi�d in the Parking Study. The spaces in area 66 9 Huta" and 2 disablearea not likely to be useful for meeting the restauran par s. Til area "A5" there are 6 spaces @ 6615 minute", S spaces designated for the existing Shanghai Palace restaurant and one disabled space (these spaces are also not likely to serve the proposed restaurant operations). In area "A7" there are 6 spaces labeled "Visitor" which indicates they are related to the businesses in building E. Given the specific delineation of parking spaces for the /,specific uses, it is likely there is a relatively high demand for parking in the area of the proposed restaurant. The study needs to be revised to identify these and any oth pertinent parking restrictions. Overall the Parking Study should be revised to address the parking deman.d/supply factors identified above. Eased on the data contained in the Parking Study and initial\ evaluations of the effects of these factors, it appears the proposed project would have impacts on the existing parking for the area near the restaurant. .p We trust these comments will be of assistance to you and the City of Diamond Ear, in evaluating the impacts of the proposed project. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1111111"1 F I'll I I I I � I I I 11111 If I gq;-�I�Iqllllj If 11 0, Prepared by: Joe C. Dyer, P.E. P. O. Box 334, Whittier, CA 90608-0334 (562) 233-6112 This is an update report of the parking study previously prepared by L,IN Consulting, Inc. dated May 15, 2001. The LIN study took into consideration the parking spaces around Building A and E within the Plaza Diamond Bar located at the northeast comer of Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road. This update study includes additional parking spaces around Building B within the plaza. In essence, parking area around Building A, Building B, and Building E was included in this study. This updated study attempts to demonstrate and document the actual parking utilization during the late morning and lunch hour parking demand and supply within Plaza Diamond Bar. Its result is intended to support the proposed change of the operating hours of the Aashiana Restaurant. The Aashiana Restaurant is located at the east end of Building A (2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A7) which is shown in the center of Exhibit A. Currently, the restaurant's. hours of operation are between 5:30 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The restaurant owners wish to expand the restaurant hours to serve lunches from 11:30 A.M to 2:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. All other conditions remain unchanged. Floor area of the restaurant is approximately 2,200 square feet. g - , 1 The parking supply and demand surveys were performed on two days of the week to obtain the most representative parking condition within the plaza. A Friday was chosen to represent the parking demand in the latter part of the week. The Tuesday survey represents a normal weekday parking demand. As suggested by City of Diamond Bar staff, the first parking survey was performed on a Friday (April 18, 2003 between 11:30 A.M. and 2:30 P.M.). The observations were summarized every 15 minutes and the numbers of vehicles parked in each survey area were counted. Digital pictures were taken to provide a visual display of the actual parking demand during the survey period. In addition, a second parking survey was performed on a Tuesday (April 22, 2003 between the hours of 11:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.). As shown on the Site Plan, the parking area immediately adjacent to the proposed restaurant is initially divided into 16 areas for observation purpose. These 16 areas provide a total of 197 parking spaces including 5 handicapped parking spaces. The availability of unused parking spaces during the survey period will be used to examine and compare with the parking demand generated from the project to determine the adequacy of parking. The results of the two parking surveys are shown in Table A and Table B. These data have been used to verify the availability of parking spaces during the three-hour survey periods. On day 1, Friday, April 18, 2003, there were at least 70 spaces available during the lunch period (11:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.). On day 2, Tuesday, April 22, 2003, there were at least 36 spaces vacant during the same lunch period. Parking demand for "Restaurant" is calculated based on its gross floor area in the "Diamond Bar Development Code " which requires one space for each 75 sq. ft. of gross floor area for patrons, plus one space for each 300 sq. ft. of service area, plus one space for each 100 sq. ft. of outdoor dinning area. The restaurant has 1237.5 sq. ft. of gross floor area for patrons, 962.5 sq. ft. of service area, and it does not have any outdoor dinning area. See Table C. Accordingly, the peak parking requirement for the lunch operation is 20 spaces. Considering the typical hourly accumulation pattern of restaurants, the parking demand of each time period is shown in Table D. Exhibit B illustrates the relationship between demand and supply of the project parking based on the survey results and analysis. It has shown that on day 1, the minimum surplus (supply minus demand) occurs at 1:30 P.M. when 70 spaces are available, where the project only demands 20 spaces. Similarly, on day 2, the minimum surplus of parking space was observed at 2:30 P.M. when 36 spaces were available. It should be noted that Aisles A-6 and A-7 (the nearest parking areas to the restaurant) were never fully occupied during the two-day survey period. Based on the code requirement and the result of this analysis, it is evident that adequate on-site parking has been provided. No additional parking spaces would be required for the proposed lunch service. The proposed change of the operating hours of Aashiana Restaurant will not result in shortage or any negative impacts to the parking supply within Plaza Diamond Bar. On the contrary, allowing the restaurant to operate during lunch hours would result in more efficient utilization of the parking facility. Prepared by: C. Al: 23 A2:16 fA14: A3:14 I A6:10 "Al Z:12 sic A8:2 A16:28 l A9:34 EXHIBIT A. SITE PLAN r LEGEND: NOTE: Al - A16 PARKING SURVEY AREA SURVEY AREA = 197 PARKING SPACES INCLUDING :2 - :34 DENOTES PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 5 HANDICAPPED PARKING. Location: AASHIANA RESTAURANT 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A7 DIAMOND BAR, CA Figure 2. refer to Exhibit C. Photo taken from location 4. April 22, 2003 SURVEYDAY 2: 04.22.2003 TABLE B. PARNW.G SIRVEY RESULTS ®gg(b) (c) = (b) - (i AASHIANA RESTAURANT Total Total Available 03 A14 A15 A16 Parked Space5t Snares 17 4 6 28 197 7 4 Number of Parked Vehicle Count per Survery�Area 6 4 Al A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 Alo Ail Al2 56 23 IS- 14 5 12 10 12 2 34 4 3 7 197 10 10 11 3 2 5 2 1 28 2 2 6- 117 11 10 10 3 3 5 12 1 27 2 2 7 28 9 11 11 5 8 7 12 1 29 2 2 5 5 10 14 10 4 9 8 5 1 24 2 2 6 4 12 12 9 5 4 6 5 0 18 2 2 7 13 8 8 4 4 8 3 0 15 2 2 6 10 9 7 2 1 3 2 0 21 1 3 7 8 9 8 3 2 5 4 0 30 1 3 7 9 10 8 1 3 7 6 0 30 1 3 7 9 11 10 3 3 4 10 1 33 3 3 6 11 14 14 4 3 2 12 1 30 3 3 7 13 15 13 5 2 2 11 1 32 3 3 7 17 15 14 5, 4 2 12 2 , 34 4 3 5 11 NOTE: The fewest number of availabfe spaces observed: 36 spaces at 2:30 PM 10CATION: AASHIANA RESTAURANT k 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A7 DIAMOND BAR, CA Figure 2. refer to Exhibit C. Photo taken from location 4. April 22, 2003 SURVEYDAY 2: 04.22.2003 ®gg(b) (c) = (b) - (i Total Total Available 03 A14 A15 A16 Parked Space5t Snares 17 4 6 28 197 7 4 4 23 130 197 67 6 4 3 23 129 197 68 11 2 4 22 141 197 56 17 3 4 24 143 197 54 16 3 4 27 132 197 65 16 4 5 25 123 197 74 17 4 4 26 117 197 80 17 4 5 28 134 197 63 17 4 5 28 139 197 58 17 4 5 27 149 197 48 16 4 5 27 156 197 41 16 4 5 23 155 197 42 14 4 4 22 161 197 36 LOCATIMIJ: AASHIANA RESTAURANT i BREA CANYON,w DIAMOND BAR, CA TABLE D. PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ANALYSIS (a) (b Itt:ONw`- April 22, 2003 12:10 P.M. b Accumulation ni Maximum Parking Available Parking Surplus P r y C +. , �- �-• fins Dem, rn , Doman r � � •�_ *. � • � • R . • 57 88 68 78 58 •�.. ' I 81 • 71 46 80 54 70 44 89 65 75 51 -. ,,, ..._._... ...0 74 74 • 11... _ 11 89 80 75 66 82 63 68 49 i 58 58 , 81 48 69 36 72 41 60 29 76 42 64 30 76 36 64 24 April 22, 2003 12:10 P.M. WE M EXHIBIT B. Parking Supply and Demand Chart I 50 7 117P. 'p. 0 off Time of Day Figure 4o refer to Exhibit C Photo taken from location 2. April 15, 200311:40 A.M. Figure 5. -refer to Exhibit C- Photo taken from location -1. April 15, 2003 11:45 A.M. Figure 6. refer to Exhibit C. Photo taken from location 2. April 15, 200312:30 P.M Figure -7. refer to Exhibit C. Photo taken from location 3. April 18, 200312:00 P.M. r 4 Figure S. refer to Exhibit C. Photo taken from location 4. April 22, 20031:00 P.M Figure 9. refer to Exhibit C Photo taken from location 5. April 18, 2003 1:00 P.M. '---r--- r'-------------__ V AASHIANA RESTAURANT 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A7 DIAMOND BAR, CA fa ®p o C3) AlO J--- - . 94 — — Ile/r,-,)FL� 10 :`ap IB La 2 n M ' ; Vrp-ojr-ct -5i j r. a . w lid+ ,}` f.� .4 __*V 11_ _ City of DiamondBar I ' N - COMMISSION StaffReport U � ' M �- - •• - ,• 11 -' 1 To construct• . • -residence approximately 12,354 gross square feet includin balconies, porch, four car garage, and a sit retaining wall with six e... maximum _ a •• ^# height Diamond Bar West, LLC, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, #300, Torrance, CA 90503 APPLICANT: Richard Gould, 3430 Torrance Boulevard, #300, Torrance, CA 90503 BACKGROUND: The property owner, Diamond Bar West, LLC, and Applicant, Richard Gould, request a Development Review approval to construct a two-story single-family residence of approximately 12,354 gross square feet including balconies, porch, four car garage, and a site retaining wall to a six feet maximum exposed height. The project's address is 2878 Crystal Ridge Road. Parcel A, Tract 47850, is a vacant lot (approximately .63 acres with a graded buildable pad (approximately .32 gross acres) in the 50 -lot subdivision adjacent to "The Country Estates" that the City Council approved June 6 1995. The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), Maximum 1 DU/AC and Single Family•- _o., ` 20,000 Square, Feet- "v -20,000). - • -ct's zoning. The project• ded by the ' 0111 iTflunicipal Code Section 22.48 requires the Planning Commission review and approval for new construction on a vacant lot. Also, Planning Commission Resolution 91-20, Condition No. 16, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-582 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 requires proposed residential dwelling units to be submitted i reviewpursuant current Municipal Code Standards. III The following is a comparison of the City's and tract map's approved development standards and the project's Dror)osed develODmett st!P*iOvrds: Development Stand; rtProject's Development Standards 'etl5­a`cRs structures: 1. Setbacks structures: FrontI yard -Varying from 25 t_. from .i,_.. yard- 25 _ •,.. front• •.•r feet ty property line line Side yards -1 0 feet& 15 feet minimum 0 Side yards- 10 feet and 15 feet to from buildable pad'sedge, and 40 .feet buildable •• and 15 feet- feeti between dwelling units to property lines. Complies with the minimum of 40 feet between dwelling units 1 Rear yard -25 feet from buildable pad's Rear yard—appx. 25 feet from buildable edge 2. Building - •ht: __pad's_edQe 2. BuildingHeight: Maximum 35 feet Two stories-approximatelv 33 feet Parking: Parking: Minimum two -car garage. Garage Four car garage 2 bays-10'Wx20.51, 2 dimension 10'x20' 4Site Coverage-Overalloff ; Site Coveraq,-f The proposed four car garage for this seven -bedroom structure meets the current code standard:minimum two -car its".•"" 20 feet by 20 feet. There are a total parking spaces. Staff anticipates adequate parking. off Is J • teff 2 concreteThe project's architectural features include: varying rooflines and projections at the streetscape; two story portico/entry with columns; balcony with French doors and precasi balusters at the front;quoins at the • i story corners;• and Exteriorstone exteriors at the front; and stucco window moldings for styling. These features add (,P,Yture and contrast. Exterior stucco Merlex, Viejo White, P12, off-white Columns/balusters Dunn Edwards, Phoenix Villa, #2750, white Fascia, trims, quoins Dunn Edwards, Travertine, SP 63, beige Exterior Stone Colorado, Carolina Rubble, Sandstone, cream Roof tile Eagle, Weathered Terracotta, #5532, terracofta Garage doors - To be submitted Driveway concrete - Design/color to be submitted with landscaping plans The proposed materials/colors board was compared with previously approved boards in the vicinity. Though many structures have a similar color palette, combinations of beige and off-white with terracotta roof, staff believes the selected materials and colors allow variation in the overall palette and textures when compared to the other approved project sites; therefore, provides a desirable environment for its occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors. •• r The proposed single-family• of • •.. - - first -story includes two-story entry/foyer, living room with fireplace, dining room, powder room, kitchen, dirty pantry, morning room, •reat •• room) bar, two bedrooms with bath and closet,r • the four,a•r second-storyincludes mezzanine area; libraryservice area; and reading area r open to the main floor;master bedroom with walk -in -ward robe, bath, fireplace, and sifting room; and four bedrooms all with adjoining bath andcloset;and • - of -.- bedrooms becomes a suite with a sep ' • - • • area. 11119-196111Y, MIN 9 MNNEE��� The buildable pad was created with the tract's original grading. No additional grading over 50 cubic yards is expected. A fine grade/drainage plan is required. The subject development is on the building pad. Special requirements are required fortht. building setback from any slopes (toe or top) per Section 18 of the California Building Code. 0 Retaining Wall The plans indicate a north slope retaining wall with no details. The buildable pad will be enlarged with a cut into the slope held by a retaining wall. It is an approval condition thal the retaining wall not -exceed a six feet maximum exposed height. The Building and Safety Division reviews wall plans and calculations. Previous applications have been approved on a case-by-case basis to extend the building pad. Review includes: the lot's easements; the wall's impact to surrounding properties; and the retaining wall's structural design including the height and whether it holds a cut or a fill. This extension is not in a Slope Drainage Maintenance Easement, the maximum six feet height is compatible with development standards, the wall holds a cut, and the wall is visible to the site's property owner. The finished retaining wall is required to be stucco to match the dwelling or slump stone. VIEW IMPACT The Crystal Ridge Road's terrain is hilly. Parcel A is at the tract's lower boundary line and at a lower elevation than its northerly neighbors are. By maintaining the allowed heighl requirements, the proposed residential structure allows the neighboring properties view corridors. IWi.,%g11K4ffJ,X= A landscape/irrigation plan was not submitted with this project's application. The applicanj is required to submit landscape/irrigation plans at a later date, reflecting the landscaping guidelines and restrictions set forth by Tract Map No. 47850 for the City's review and approval. In recently approved projects for this tract, the applicant was required to submit a landscape/irrigation plan delineating the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location, for City review and approval within 60 days of the project's final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy's issuance, with installation within six months. Driveway color 2-nd style will be incorporated in the landscape plan. n4 A "Buyers' Awareness Package" was approved for Tract 47850 and includes such items 1 . Information pertaining to geologic issues regarding the properties; 2- Wildlife corridors; 3. Oak and walnut preservation issues; 4. The existence and constrains pertaining to Significant Ecological Area No. 15 and Tonner Canyon; 5. Explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on use of the properties as necessary; 6. And, similar related matters. A program was instituted to include delivery of a copy of the "Buyers' Awareness Package" to each prospective purchaser. This program incorporated a signed receipt by the prospective purchaser verifying receipt of the Package and that the prospective purchaser read the information within the Package. This program also required that a copy of this receipt be forwarded to the City. To ensure the effectiveness of this program, it will be a nm M.RA .- FTAUD 91111912MAMMUT 0"i The Public Works Division and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their recommendations are a component of the draft resolution. On July 3, 2003, 63 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other sites were posted in theapplication's vicinity. On July 8, 2003, notification of the public hearing for this project was made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a display board with the public hearing notice was posted at the site. I 11 M Kfielf, 0 0 HIMM&MITMOM 0 MITIJIM".55, I . The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with theG enn Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines : I architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, communii plans, boulevards, or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use an enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with th characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance th harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, W General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for it occupants and visiting public; as well as, its neighbors through good aesthetic use c materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare c materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of thi California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ini ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Application; 3. Tree Statement; 4. Tract Map for Parcel A; 5. Tract 47850 Grading Plan; 6. Sample Covenant and Agreement; 7. Color Board; 8. Aerial; 9. Exhibit "A" ® site plan, floor plan, and elevations dated July 22, 2003. ON I V11,14-14";*141 VIA 1011 ill Z The property owner, Diamond Bar West, LLC, and applicant, Richard Gould, have filed an application for Development Review No. 2003-10, for a property located at 2878 Crystal Ridge Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On July 3, 2003, 63 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other sites were posted in the application's vicinity. On July 8, 2003, notification of the public hearing for this project was made in the.San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a display board with the public hearing notice was posted at the site. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is consistent with the previously certified Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48487 according to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162(a) of DRAFT ATTACHMENT I" Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations. No further environment review is necessary. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines thaT, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: r ,a) The project's address is 2878 Crystal Ridge Road. Parcel A, Tra 47850 (approximately .63 gross acres) is a vacant graded buildabi pad in the 50 -lot subdivision adjacent to "The Country Estates" th the City Council approved June 6, 1995. The nearly rectangul shaped lot has ascending slopes at the north and east sides. A sew and 30 feet utility easement are at the lot's front. The prope contains protected/preserved trees located outside of the buildabi pad and no activity will take place within five (5) feet •f.. tree's out drip line; therefore, no protective fencing is required. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), Maximum 1 DU/AC. Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot SizZI, 20,000 Square Feet (R-1-20,000) is the project's zoning. (d) The application is a request to construct a two-story, single-fami residence of approximately 12,354 gross square feet includi balconies, porch, four car garage, and a site retaining wall with a s feet maximum exposed height. 31 (e) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, -.-and architectural criteria for specialized 0 area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned 1 ,i relatedOriginally, Tract Map No. 47850 was submitted as a vesting tentative tract map. At that time, the City was operating under a draft General Plan. The General Plan was adopted on July 25, 1995. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 was approved on June 6, 1995. However, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 was designed at 25 percent below the maximum allowable density and has an overall average density of 1.49 dwelling units per acre which complies with the land use designation of Rural Residential (Maximum I DUIAC) identified in the adopted General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project complies with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies to maintaining the integrity is residential nei _.i` 1 I .i1 III and open space, the City's Design Guidelines. .e project is consisteTractMap's Development Standards. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible with the eclectic architectural style and design, materials, and colors of existing homes within the surrounding area. There is no specific or additional community planned development for the site. If) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. Tract Map No. 47850's Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2, certified by the City, addresses the design I layout 1" the neighborhood as well as the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The project site is an undeveloped lot within an approved tract designed for single-family homes. Crystal Ridge moi.• and access roadsWatercourse Drive, Steeplechase Lane, and Wagon Train Lane, adequately serve the project site. These private streets are designed to handle minimum traffic created by residential development. Therefore, the use of Ile -family residen _•e, not interfere with the ...e and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of ' surrounding -neighborhood and will 3. DRAFT ATTACHMENT maintain and enhance the orderly and attractive development s„• -..r._. contemplated i aiwe 22.48, the General Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The project's i. architectural features varying rooffines projections at the streetscape; two story porticolentry with columns; balcony with French doors and precast concrete balusters at the front; quoins at the structure's second story comers; stucco and stone exteriors at thefront; and stucco 1 • i • • styling. These colorfeatures add texture and contrast. The proposed materialslcolors board was compared with previously approved boards in the vicinity. Though many structures have a similar palette, combinations of beige and i,V r .r, overall r palette and texturescompared • other approved 'i project. } _ proposed 1i • consistent and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines.There is no applicable specificplan. Ih) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirabl - environment for its occupants • i visiting public, remainneighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and col that will aesthetically appealing. As referenced in the above findings, colors, materials, and textures proposed are complimentary to the existing homes within the area while offering variety and low levels of maintenance. Therefore, proposed project will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic of rtexture,i color that will remain aesthetically appealing. Additionally,+ Covenant r • Agreement required and runs with the land to single-family r (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public healt safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties improvements Structural plan check, City pen -nits, and inspections; soils report and Fire Department approvals, are required for construction. These 0 0 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1 " processes will ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). OM Om M-1 =1M[V111d U#*C U1 011,17turimutudl funurf, is necessary. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the followini •_• •t (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations, - and material s/colo rs board collectively labeled Exhibit "A" dated July 22, 2003 as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, and as amended herein. (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before construction begins, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's N DRAFT ATTACHMENT "I" requirements along the project site's perimeter. The fence shall remain at the buildable pad to ensure no construction equipment or debris of any kind is placed within the vegetated area until released by the Planning Division and the balance shall remain until the Building Offal approves its removal. Sanitation facilities shall be provided during construction. (d) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a fine grade/drainage plan shl be filed with the City's Public Works Division that has been approv by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. (e) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Final Grading certificate for the Parcel A of Tract 47850 shall be submitted to the Public Works Division for review •.p•• (f) Before the issuance of any City permits, erosion control plans shall be submitted for the City's review and approval. Measures shall be in place for construction started after September 15 through April 15. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporat- .••• t_ Best Management Practices (BMP's). Additionally, the Applicant shall obtain the necessary NPDES permits. 1g) If applicable, the applicant shall comply with Standard Urban StorU Water Mitigation Plan requirements to the satisfaction of the Ci Engineer. i (h) Drainage pattern shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Wor Division; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2 minimum slope. I (i) Driveway slope shall be shown on plans. The Building and Safety Division shall review retaining walls: (1) Retaining walls shall not be constructed of wood or woo* products; (2) Retaining walls shall be ornamental by using stucco ot decorative block; (3) Engineered calculations shall be submitted with retaining walls-, 6 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "'I" (4) Indicate retaining wall locations on grading plan with detail and delineate: (a) Top of wall; (b) Top of footing; (c) Finish Surface; (d) Structural calculations; and (5) Retaining walls exposed height shall not exceed six feet. k) The single-family structure shall meet the 2001 California Codes: Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the Electrical Code requirements. (1) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and exposure. (m) The single-family structure is located in "HIGH FIRE ZONE" and shal meet the following requirements of that fire zone: (1) All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class A"; tile roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; (2) All enclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls; (3) All openings into the attic, floor, and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch nor more than 1/2inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; (4) Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum Y2 inch screen. in) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. 111 311111111 1 A � '0 � 0 '76TURT MW I W121 1111FIll � 111 111711 (p) Building setback from any slope (top or toe) shall meet the requirements of Section 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. (q) Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review and approval. 9 Before Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the applicant h: s 11 su) to the City Planning Division written evidence indicating th Buyer Ir receipt of the "Buyers' Awareness Package". In the event no buy has purchased the property, then receipt is to be forwarded befo approval of future improvements (i.e. hardscapes, pool/spa, retaini walls, additional landscaping.) i (s) Applicant shall make application to the Walnut Valley Water Distri for Fire Flow as necessary and submit their approval to the Planni Division prior to the issuance of building permits. I (t) Within sixty days of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant sh berequired to submit a landscape/irrigation plan for the City's reviell, and approval. The plan shall reflect the guidelines set forth by Tra z 47850 and delineate the type of planting materials, color, si quantity and location. This plan shall be reviewed and app�oved the Planning Division. Landscape and irrigation shall be installe within six (6) months of the Certificate of Occupancy issuance. (u) Applicant shall submit a detailed driveway design including pattern, color, and landscaping for Planning Division review and approval. (v) Applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning; Building and Safety Division; and Public Works Division. (w) The single-family residence shall not be utilized in a manner thal creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single-family residence shall not be used fol commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (x) The owner shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement Maintain a Single Family Residence" on a City form. The covena must be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office prior to building permit issuance. ri 8 submittedDRAFT ATTACHMENT "l " (y) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one- (1) year extension may be approved when to the City in writing is least _ • , days .. prior •the expiration date. ...._ _ Planning Commission consider . ._ _ extension _ request ._ duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City ofDiamond Bar Municipal Code. (z) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) i filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permitteepays remaining City processing fees. the Department 5.•i • _ Fish .:- . • Game a.-_ _ '- and ..ode Section project, «.. then the grant'sapplicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission • i Certify • adoption of Resolution; • • (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Diamond Bar West, LLC, owner, and applicant, Richard Gould, at 3480 Torrance Boulevard, #300, Torrance, CA 90503. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY i 3, BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. g 9. DRAFT ATTACHMENT "'I" 1, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Name niamnnd Rar W LC (Last name first) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY �bND VEVE_,CNiizvivip�.� DEPARTMENT/Planning Division 21825 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phone (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 Richard Gould (Last name first) Address3480Torrance Bl. Ste. 300 same as owner City Torrance Phone( ) 10-540-3990 Pax( ) 310-316-7133 Phone Fax ( Phone ATTACHMENT "2 P t- 2o0 - 2) - Case Deposit 12000.00 Receipt # BY i Date Recd - 1lo FOR CITY USE (Last name first) An application fee in accordance with Section ee 22.44.040 of the Municipal Code must accompany this Application. The application fee is either a flat for a deposit plus payment of the City's processing costs computed on an hourly basis. The applicable fee orideposit amount for this application is indicated above. If it 19 a deposit, the applicant shall pay any processing costs that exceed the amount of the deposit prior to issuance of the permit; if processing costs are less than the deposa refund will be paid. NOTE: It is the a .pplicant's responsibility to notify the City in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach separate papssheet, if necessary, including names, laddresses, and signatures of members of rtnershi, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent of Owners: I certify that I am the owner of the herein -describe this request peHy and permit the applicant to rile Print Name (All record owners) DIAMOND IAMOND B R Signed Date 6"A 9/ i (All record owners) R-37V5ro. GOU1ff-,7`V—ice —7Pr-6—s. Certification of Applicant: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name Richard Gould (Applicant or Ag nt) Signed (Applicant or Age --Date— Location 2878 CRYSTAL RIDGE ROAD Tract 47850 Parcel A (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning R-1-20,000 —House Numbering Map/aerial Previous Cases n/a Present Use of Site Vacant Lot Use applied for New Single Family Residence Area,devoted to structures 23% % Landscaping/Open space 77 % Project Size/(gross square feet): 10,176 sf Lot Coverage 22.94 % Proposed density .(Units/Acres) Style; of Architecture Mediterranean Number of Floors Proposed 2 Slope of Roof 4:12 Grading If Yes, Quantity Cut Fill Import If Yes, Quantity Export If Yes, Quantity Retaining Walls Maximum Exposed Height Complete pages 3 and 4 Burden of Proof 2 ATTACHMENT ""N" The subj= Property contains no 0* walnut sycamore, willow, or na=,Ilzcd Califomia Pepper trms. The Subject property contains one or more r, sycamore, or n=Wiz,ed California Pepper Um. The applimt anticipates th&t no activiry (grading and/or construction) wiH take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper tree. (44plicantCs - nature) -2 Oyate) r, ! LT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT No. L 1 NCLUDIN; LOTS 38 THROUGH 44 INCLUSIVE TRACT N®. 47850 THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR �_CS ANGE_�S COUNTY. CAUFORMA ��pPRC DECENIOER 5. 19c -,'- r4'09'4 94'54'09'4 187 88' c I I;OM.! %EL TA APP_ LE I RADIUS LENCTH r! ; 0,0.1758" 300.00 1.57 I l`,'L!MBFR, DIREC%i0A' DISTANCE I 1 LI 1 !/ 82' 15'02"F s L2 nI 082703" W 30.00' I L PARCEL G m . Am_ 14 I! 4 x•00 00 E 30.00' 1 INDICATES REVISED LOT LINES 37 28,13J S.F. PARCEL -A INDICATES REVISED PARCEL DFSIGNATIOPI P.O.B. INDICATES POINT OF BEGINNING T. P.O. B. TP.O.B. PARCEL G N70'00'00" F s 25.39' 237.91 0 m`\ �c'k � W 1 z PARCEL °F° INS 0 36,81-8 S. F. N c o r' =' - o T.P.O.B. PARCELI f N 70'00 b0' E PORTION OF 294.05' — -ACCESS, UTI LIT� s 70'00'00" E _ 30 30' EASEMENT ; - ` 205.95' g 4® ® PARCEL' ti i 8E VACATED " 37, 638 S. F. ___-._ i o z -I-1 a - - - -- -- l T.P.O.B. PARCEL E' ....__._...__I_. o - I 9 . - .L PARCEL °A° z9. D5'--- - - _ _ �: 27, 705 S. F. P.O.B. PARCELS A & 81 ch N 194.13' 70'00'00" E I� 6)Rj �0Op•. n c, A C) o 4000�8�2b4-.X40,888 PARCEL °®° C4,• S.F. ` � T P.O.B. PARCEL D ,c' 3, PARCEL °R° 225.98'— tT-...---- �� a 45,457 S.F. ; rr, o PARCEL °C° 46,062 S, F. I I;OM.! %EL TA APP_ LE I RADIUS LENCTH r! ; 0,0.1758" 300.00 1.57 I l`,'L!MBFR, DIREC%i0A' DISTANCE I 1 LI 1 !/ 82' 15'02"F 30.00' L2 nI 082703" W 30.00' I L j 4!"175" ` 130.00 14 I! 4 x•00 00 E 30.00' 1 P.O.B. a= a5 40 1'r y� '00 ".R=250. DO ' L HUNSAKER & A550CIA TES SAN DIEGO, INC. LANN/NG - ENGINEERING - SURVEYING ® i 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET - SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 EXHIBIT "H �� 619J 558-4500 - FAX (619) 558-1414 R:\0072\0953\00'YLC05CI9G - SHEET 2 OF 2 D INDICATES PRIOR ACCESS, UTILITY & RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AND LOT LINES PER TRACT No. 47850 ------ INDICATES REVISED ACCESS, UTILITY & RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT — — INDICATES LOT LINES PER TRACT No. 47850 INDICATES REVISED LOT LINES 37 INDICATES LOT NUMBERS PER TRACT No. 47850 PARCEL -A INDICATES REVISED PARCEL DFSIGNATIOPI P.O.B. INDICATES POINT OF BEGINNING T. P.O. B. INDICATES iR!_!£ POINT OF BEGINNINr; HUNSAKER & A550CIA TES SAN DIEGO, INC. LANN/NG - ENGINEERING - SURVEYING ® i 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET - SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 EXHIBIT "H �� 619J 558-4500 - FAX (619) 558-1414 R:\0072\0953\00'YLC05CI9G - SHEET 2 OF 2 I, I �i to - _ ; r, ATTACHMENT "5 � "y��'---'_#-------- --. .. ._ - ... .-�-•---- ,�' rl �. _ ... - i I MND U'. Ilv tr isi 1 f/ iC�"�" •'•�=—•ice'° f �°�_,�^s t° ?�: I t ! \ � ®— `..j IN Pu pn AV toll JJ —96.9 10 H in r u , io-..er.:.u$,y ,,;..w•�.. �.,: a.wy«., ,... II..», tr n ` d' r ) -. t /loci #INDICATES PARCELS F=, ' CERTIFICATE OfCOIJIPLIANCERECO/�'D,'D 6—.Z/ -9S - ®f2#f■N\®/¥■/\� ■ Al:I=:E yj r.- III ■, ■z WHEN R»\ »$ k-@ City ,° Diamond Bar \|?§\\„ $ Copley Drive D \� ,.-»�■�, ■» . ..: .. .± ,., .�. . Above Line For Recorder's Use �.z,> c -,p. ƒ?S?»t»±2\?f/2#/22/ The undersigned he.,.c. that .t #:n< of - hereinafter described real property located at . . . . . . . the City of Diamond ■»r Countyof Los Angeles,State of California, commonly ow as: Legally described as LotTract 2■ No. Assessor: Book and Parcel . . . Number y ■ ,■ herebycovenant and agree for ourselves,. assigns, transferees and successors, with the City of ■ .2,n« $a(hereinafter that above described proper- be used single family residential purposes only, and that no portion of ,. property shallbe rented, leased or :,■ separate and apart from any. k, a■?,n< of the property,: This covenant and agreement . the land■ shallbe binding .■■n ourselves,. . owners, their, successors and ass ,..:., shall continue in ^®2 until»and unless approved otherwise ,. 2- City of Diamond ■ is specifically intended the benefits and burdens of ths covenant run withh- land. If the City is required to bring legal action to enforcec■.:.. shall be entitled to its attorney° --:_n, court costs. M a ti H 13-Y-1 ::. �*�M On this day of 11 before me the undersigned Notary Public n• for • State, personally i'. ^d personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose `eis/are•ri to the within instrument and acknowledged .• me that executed the same in authorized •r. i that by signature(s)on r person(s)or upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. • r • 'i9 r i P-12 Viejo White (A base) ' SP 63 TRAVERTINE Y 1 i SP 2750 PHOENIX VILLA Presented by - DIAMOND BAR WEST, LLC Style of Architecture: MEDITERRANEAN NAME NUMBER DESCRIPTION MANUFACT. LOCATION S, T LT;C7, VIEJO P-12 off white WHITE ROOF WEATHERED #5532 terracotta TERRACOTTA STONE CAROLINA RUBBLE Sandstone cream PA= —0 -PARCEL A 13 "1 WWII� Scale 1:6895 f �` ► moo, 9;1;;, Q Q 0 C4 D -y C J � � N �oco6a cxC4 R= 11 UK p � Z� 98 vn.a Www $ O f.a�d nod«� a a - O S.° NOTES: w vuv[� UPPER FLOOR PLAN I MR.., I ........ ------ ........ ........ ............... ...................... �ominimmom� 0 a 'NOR LIGHT SIDE ELEVAITION E-� REAR ELEVATION lolmomom.0"m ERONT EI_EUATION Cd 0 Project Meetings Schedule July 22 2003 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR C*141111 1111T-�L-P—APVPT PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECTS Case # PM Location PC 7/22/03 cc 8/5/03 PC 8/12/03 cc 8/19/03 PC 8/26/03 cc 9/2/03 AKBAR, ALI (Extend business hours) DR 2001-04(2) LKS/ LG 2020 BREA CYN #A7 PH DIAMOND BAR WEST LLC/GO[JLD (Single Family Residence) DR 2003-10 LKS 2878 CRYSTAL RIDGE PH GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AJL CITYWIDE x COLD STONE/KEN HAMILTON (Outdoor seating)) DR 2003-16/ MCUP 2003-11 LKS 1127 GRAND AVE. PH DOUGLAS, SUZETTE/CONTOURS EXPRESS (Women's Fitness Center) CUP 2003-04 LKS 968 N. DIAMOND BAR BL. PH MONTESSORI (Classroom addition) CUP 2000-03(1) LKS 23555 PALOMINO PH SPRINTIWVUSD (Cell Site) CUP 2003-03 LKS EASTGATE DRIVE (RESEVOIR) PH SUNMIN WON/IT'S A GRIND (Coffee Shop) DR 2003-12/ MCUP 2003-10 LKS 1221/1223 DIAMOND BAR BL PH DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2003-01 AIL CITY WIDE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Case # PM Location WINDMILL ESTATES (Single Family Residence) ADR 2003-10 LKS 3128 WINDMILL DR. PH KING, ANDREW (Single Family Residence) ADR 2003-09 LKS 24021 GOLDRUSH DR. (Tract 31977) PH PENDING PROJECTS Case # PM Location Status AMADOR, ADOLF (Single Family Residence - Reconstruction Due To Fire) ADR 2003-13 LG 22534 BIRDSEYE DR. PROCESSING DIAMOND BAR PROJECT CO. (Zone Change to C-3) I ZCA 2002-02, I A L11035-1035-1/2 BANNING WY I APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LEGEND PH = PUBLIC HEARING X = NOT A PUBLIC HEARING Project Nicefings Schedule July 22, 2003 ('Ok4N4[TNTTTV R, r)F711U:T nDW4CIAJ-P CTMITTfl�.o - --..a- ---------- MCI,, of 4•% 'F SUM, 9m: AU Ewa- "1 0 Ck 9-9 • NO% IN, IRM, LN't Illy Ll I • VMS 1 MININ # fol ki 13 Ir 1:t �1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On July 22, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting at the South Coast Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, Lorena Godinez declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On July 17, 2003, I posted a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on July 22, 2003, at the following location: South Coast Quality Management Heritage Park District Auditorium 2900 Brea Canyon Road 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 17, 2003, at Diamond Bar, California. gorenla Inez Community and Development Services Department g:\\aff"idavitposting. doc July 22, 2003 I work in the First Team Office on Brea Canyon Rd in Diamond Bar where the restaurant Ashiana is also located. Yes like every where, parking is always a problem, but we feel if the restaurant opens for lunch, the parking problem will not be any better or worse. Most people who will go to this restaurant would be those whose work place is in the plaza. For instance our office has over 50 agents and we all have our lunch either in the Chinese Restaurant or the Deli, which is walking distance to us. This restaurant will not only give us different choice in food but also will be a walking distance. Across the street from the plaza is another Real Estate Office and also a Mortgage Company and they also cross over for lunch in our plaza. Parking is NOT an issue since most of its customers will walk to the restaurant. I think it will be a win win situation for the restaurant and all the shop keepers and owners of the businesses in the plaza to benefit, from having the restaurant open for lunch. We need diversity and ethnicity in our beautiful city of Diamond Bar. Thank you. Sierely' A T Naznin Allo�o Realtor/Notary Public G3 Div.of Diamond Hills Investment, Inc. nn�� 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Ste Amo, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 l.`�,' • �.�t� tm (909) 860 2234 a (909) 860 1784 Fax e' i,110KIN 111111n Realty Executives of Diamond Ear does not agree with the idea of Aashiana Restaurant not able to conduct business during the lunch hour, and all the other businesses in the complex open during lunch. When all the businesses including Aashianna Restaurant are paying the same high rent, and specially, Aashianna Restaurant depends on the lunch business to be able to survive an be able to pay their monthly obligation. Parking should not be the issue, as I have nineteen (19) agents, and most of them are either in the field, during the hours of 12 noon till 7.00 P.M. (lunch hour) or they are out for lunch. Moreover, if parking was the problem, Aashiana Restaurant should not be penalized alone for this problem, as we all pay equally prorated rent and need to use the maximum hours of business to survive in today's economy. Thank you for you're_understanding and lets make a decision that does not put a burden on any individual business. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 909- 860-2234. usavvir, //�i Realt x utivesrnondB�, /,, =�U�NUrI ASIF G. MUSAVVIR President/ Broker ITY REALTY J 2020 Brea Canyon Roa REALTY ECUTIVES y d Suite A-4 DIAMOND Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Bus: (909) 860-2234 VM: (909) 396-9666 Ext. 232 Pgr: (909) 870-2838 Fax: (909) 860-1784 Independently Owned and operated - Div. o1 Diamond Hills Investment. Inc. REALTY ECUTIVES Plaza Diamond Bar ® 2040 Brea Canyon Rd. ® Suite. 210 ® Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-9000 ® (626) 961-2578 ® Fax(909)396-9300 http://www.drabari.com July 22, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: We do not object to Aashiana Restaurant being open at lunch time between 12-2 p.m. and after 5:30 p.m. during the week. OWN-VAII Very4ruly yours, Robin F. Abari, D.D.S. Progressive Orthodontic Treatment in a Caring Manner 0 N N 0 0 N T Lee's Review Learning Center - 2040 S. Brea Canyon Road E260 i Diamond Bar, CA 91765 To Whom It May Concern: We are sorry for any inconvenience, but Lee's Review condones the idea of Aashiana opening during lunch hours. From the hours of 12-2 rri, this institution is out for lunch, thus there should be no issue in terms of parking space. Most of the SAT students attending this institution do not drive; therefore parking doesn't become an issue with our business. I would like to support Aashiana's opening during lunch hours. Thank you for your cooperation. Lee's Review Jong Hoon Lee EES VIE LLLEARNING GENTEJR Specia%iming in SAT I & II J®NG HOON LEE ACADEMIC ADVISOR 2040 S. RREA CANYON RD. SUITE #E260 D I A MgY. --)8 AR CALI MNIA 91765 TEL: 909. 612. 5700 FAX: 909. 612. 5701 CEL: 626. 536. 2110 VOLUINTAKY HEqUkbT TU AJUDICU36TW� MAINNILNU UUMAUMIUN AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: TO: Planning Commission Secretary FROM:, Kffib� ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. NOTE: Y;'gnature An persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intended to assist the Chairman -in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission win have the opportunity and toensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS TJEOE PLANNING COMMISS, a ON AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: TO: Planning Commission Secretary /_57 leo4z &-'5?'Aqk6jV DATE: 2 -�_-63, SUBJECT: I would like to address the PlanWng Commission on the above stated item. Please have th"e' Commission Minutes reflect and ress my name addas printed above. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION M 7 r2- S AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: AAKda TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: -7- -2 -2- ffl, (� � �Q �-() �,, Z� ADDRESS: r �tq ORGANIZATION: K- ( W r C f)Cy L SUBJECT: . P P, I would like to address the. Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and toensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: FROM: ADDRESS: )6/ecw ORGANIZATION: 611110-lix"I I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intende t1 assist the Chairman in ensuring that all personng to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in t1e Minutes. I File rev' tby oil !�=/ and is rGSdy for woming