Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/2003'10 FILE 1Copy ,11 WK IN WE ORTITT11111 W 7®0 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA . Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Steve Tye Dan Nolan Steven Nelson Jack Tanaka 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 21825 E Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title // of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept. of Community & Development Services at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission PUBLIC INPUT 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. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community 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. ADA REQUIREMENTS 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. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS 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.us Next Resolution No. 2003-28 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 9, 2003 AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1 ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice -Chairman Dan Nolan, Steve Nelson and Jack Tanaka XMIM I W-4-11-il I �P [A i I Iiii I I'll!•#01W-3 This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any itern that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: August 26, 2003. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7.1 Development Review No. 2001-04(2) (pursuant to Code Section 22.66.060(A)(3)) is a request to revise the hours of operation for an existing restaurant "Aashiana Restaurant" from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Current hours of operation are 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. (Continued from July 22, 2003) Project Address: 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7 (Lot 180, Tract 30578) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 September 9, 2003 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Property Owner: Nathaniel Williams 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Applicant: Akbar Ali 8481 Holder Street Buena Park, CA 90620 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(a), the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 200-04(2), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CALTRANS MONTHLY Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING: Government Center/AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive AMERICA SPIRIT DAY: Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 7:00 a.m. Government Center/AQMD Patio Area 21865 E. Copley Drive TRAFFIC AND Thursday, September 11, 2003 — 7:00 p.m. TRANSPORTATION Government Ctr/AQMD Hearing Board Room COMMISSION MEETING: 21865 E. Copley Drive CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. Government Center/AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:00 p.m. MEETING: Government Center/AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive 10age 3 PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 7*00 p.m. Government Center/AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Government Ctr/AQMD Hearing Board Room 21865 E. Copley Drive Fil B �� Oln LZ D land 9s ready for scanning 0 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 26, 2003 1 Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. Commissioner Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Dan Nolan, and Commissioners Steve Nelson, Joe Ruzicka and Jack Tanaka. Also present: Ann Lungu, Associate Planner and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 12, 2003. 4.2 Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of August 13, 2003. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nelson seconded, to approve the consent calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following. Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, Nelson, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5.1 Development Code Amendment No. 2003-01 — Temporary (Election) Signs — (pursuant to Code Section 22.44) is a request to amend the following Article/Section of the Development Code. DRAFT AUUST 26, 2003 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ARTICLE III 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. AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning Commission adoption of the draft resolution. Chair/Tye reiterated the Commissions desire to remain with the current standard of 30 days. AssocP/Lungu referred to CA/Jenkins' recommendation that the courts determined that 30 days was unacceptable and 45 days was unacceptable. Therefore, 60 days was an acceptable amount of time. Chair/Tye agreed that CA/Jenkins recommended the aforementioned. However, the Planning Commission felt the existing code was defensible and did not support doubling the amount of time. VC/Nolan felt that 30 days was sufficient and that signage should not be allowed in the public right-of-way. C/Tanaka was not comfortable with a one -for -all regulation. He felt there were instances in which temporary signs should be permitted. C/Ruzicka agreed that political signs should not be left up too long. However, the City Attorney had a good point. Sixty days is not as intrusive as 120 days. Having run for the City Council he understood why individuals would want to have their signs in place for a longer period of time. C/Nelson agreed with C/Tanaka. He did not feel comfortable recommending no signs in the public right-of-way. He also agreed that signs in the public right-of-way is blight. As a compromise, if signs were allowed in the public right-of-way, he would definitely favor a 30 -day limit. In other words, leave the code as written. AUUST 26, 2003 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan opined that the City Attorney stated cities could not legislate content. Therefore, when you allow signs in the public right-of-way, you must allow all signs. He would prefer that no signs be allowed in the public right-of- way. Chair/Tye did not propose to do away with signs in the public right-of-way. In addition, if all signs were eliminated, he would want by -the -board code enforcement. For the good of the businesses in Diamond Bar he would not advocate banning signs in the public right-of-way. He felt that political signs in the public right-of-way were investments by candidates. He proposed leaving the code as currently written. VC/Nolan said that it made sense to him to have spontaneous monuments and real estate open house signs remain up for an appropriate period of time. In his opinion, limiting the amount of time for political signs levels the playing field. C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to direct staff to prepare a resolution leaving the Code as currently written. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 6. NEW BUSINESS: 7. 8. 9. 10. COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 11110M Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, Chair/Tye VC/Nolan None None SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As Listed As listed in the Agenda. As Listed AUUST 26, 2003 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 7:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Chairman Steve Tye MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Planning commissioners E"ONDRAR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION FROM: Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant DATE: September 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2001-04(2) F;1 �-, ; � ' � �-p At the July 22, 2003 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 9, 2003 and requested the Applicant to have another parking supply and demand study performed. The new study was done on Thursday, August 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. The use requires 20 parking spaces if the restaurant serves at full capacity. ® Parking Spaces Required/Proximity The shopping center has a recorded Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement which includes four parcels with five buildings. However, the parking analysis requires proximity parking. Only Parcels 1 and 2 are considered. Parking spaces are within 300 feet of the subject restaurant. There are 197 parking spaces and 183 are required for the mix of uses. Therefore, no Variance is required. Buildings A, B, and E are on these two parcels. There is parking behind Buildings A and B. In the front many spaces have green curb (15 minute). Building E's Tenants, Parcel 1, are closest to Pathfinder Road and include: ® Shanghai Palace ® S.P. A.R.C. ® Liquor store • Other office and tutoring uses Building A's Tenants, Parcel 1, include: ® International Deli ® Retail dance wear ® Cleaners ® Office ® Restaurant use Building B's Tenants, Parcel 2, are real estate offices Parking Supply and Demand Studies The parking supply and demand studies have been performed by independent Registered Traffic Engineers and have been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineers for method. The days of the counts are picked at random. The studies indicate that tenants do not necessarily stay on site for lunch. Thus, parking is open for Aashiana's lunch business. The studies count the vehicles parked in spaces every 15 minutes. The parking lot is divided into sections and the number of vehicles in each section is documented. Available spaces equal the total number of spaces minus the total of parked vehicles. On August 28, 2003 the fewest number of available spaces observed was 38 at 2:30 p.m. 'The lunch time proposed use with full capacity would require 20 spaces, which leaves 18 free parking spaces on Parcels 1 and 2. Further, staff eliminated the available spaces from the farthest areas on-site, specifically All, Al2, A13, and A14. The fewest number of available spaces observed was 32 at 12:00 p.m., which leaves 12 free parking spaces in the areas closest to the restaurant. These spaces are within walking distance to the businesses in Building A and the Aashianna Restaurant. Staff received a call from Peggy Guess, Diamond Dancewear, on Thursday, July 31, 2003, to inform staff that vehicles were parking double and parking in the red zone. On August 1, 2003, staff performed site visits, photographed the site, and counted available parking spaces. Staff's observations are as follows: 11:30 a.m. 41 available spaces 12:00 a.m. 38 available spaces 1:30 p.m. 44 available spaces 3:00 p.m. 49 available spaces (Staff observed vehicles parked in the red zone, however legal parking spaces were available.) The previous studies also indicate available parking spaces: April 18, 2003 - The fewest number of available spaces observed was 76 at 2:15 and 2:30 p.m. This was Good Friday. April 22, 2003 - The fewest number of available spaces observed was 36, at 2:30 p.m. May 11, 2001 - The fewest number of available spaces observed was 22 at 12:15 p.m. (The study was done only for Parcel 1 because a Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement was not recorded.) Z The current business hours for catering start at 10:00 a.m. Therefore, the request is to open at 10:00 a.m. and begin preparation. With this approval lunch will be served daily. 2 Staff has reviewed the submitted materials and visited the site many times. Though 2020 Brea Canyon, Aashiana Restaurant, has no parking in front of hisbusiness, the studies and observations indicate that parking is available on-site due to the variations in peak parking demand. A condition has been added to the Resolution that the owner/applicant install a sig * n on- site, "Parking In Rear," which should direct patrons to the rear of the center. Also, all tenants should advise their staff to park in the rear to free parking -in the front. F."F**TO]bMt#ZR1ZA "ei Staff -recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-04(2), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution; 2. August 28, 2003 Parking Supply and Demand Study; 3. July 22, 2003 Staff Report and Attachments; 4. Exhibit "A", July 22/September 9, 2003. 3 Fir-M-wi ATTACHMENT 1" A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2001- 04(2) AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15301 (a), A REQUEST FOR A REVISION OF OPERATING HOURS FOR A RESTAURANT IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. THE PROJECT SITE IS 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A-7, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. Recitals 1. The property owner, Nathaniel Williams, and applicant, Ali Akbar, have filed an Application for Development Review 2001-04(2) for a property located at 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review Revision and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Revised Application." 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- 04, 001-04, Minor Variance No. 2001-09, and Categorical Exemption, and approved such per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18. 3. On July 10, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Development Review No. 2001- 04(1), 001-04(l), Minor Variance No. 2001-09(1), and Categorical Exemption, and approved such per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-24. 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 application's vicinity. On July 11, 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. 5. On July 22, 2003, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Application and continued the item to September 9, 2003 at which time the hearing was concluded. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: DRAFT ATTACHMENT "'I 1 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 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. 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 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(1). 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. The previous approval per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-24 included 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. FA DRAFT ATTACHMENT "'I " (d) The Revised Application requests a revision of operating hours from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (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). Opening the restaurant for extended hours does not change the 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 General Plan and Design Guidelines. The Development Review and Minor Variance approvals decreased the number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in the shopping center and approved operating hours from 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. This approval was based upon parking spaces provided on Parcel 1. Without a recorded Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement, only Parcel 1's parking could be considered. The Revised Application requests additional operating hours from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. A Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement approved by the City Attorney has been recorded. Per Municipal Code Section 22.30.040, a parking analysis indicates adequate parking is available on parcels 1 and which are within 300 feet of the subject property as noted in Municipal Code Section 22.30.050. This analysis indicates that parking availability complies with Municipal Code requirements without a Minor Variance approval. Further, a 2003 Parking Supply and Demand Study indicates open 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. As stated in 4(e), opening the restaurant for extended hours does not change the design and layout. The design and layout of the approved and revised application do not interfere with the use and enjoyment of K, DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" 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. As stated in 4(e), opening the restaurant for extended hours does not change the design and layout The design and layout of the approved and revised application are 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. (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. As stated in 4(e), opening the restaurant for extended hours does not 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. Opening the restaurant for extended hours does not change the 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 General Plan and Design Guidelines. The Development Review and Minor Variance approvals decreased the number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in the shopping center and approved operating hours from 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. This approval was based upon parking 0 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" spaces provided on Parcel 1. Without a recorded Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement, only Parcel 1's parking could be considered. The Revised Application requests additional operating hours from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. A Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement approved by the City Attorney has been recorded. Per Municipal Code Section 22.30.040, a parking analysis indicates adequate parking is available on parcels 1 and which are within 300 feet of the subject property as noted in Municipal Code Section 22.30.050. This analysis indicates that parking availability complies with Municipal Code requirements without a Minor Variance approval. Further, a 2003 Parking Supply and Demand Study indicates open parking during the requested operating hours. 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. 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 and revised application is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(a). 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. (b) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18, approved June 12, 2001, shall remain in full force and effect except as amended herein. (c) The owner/applicant shall install a "Parking in Rear" sign in front of Building A. 5 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "l The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa Monica, CA 90403, and Ali Akbar, 8481 Holder Street, Buena Park, CA 90620, and Gazala Kahn, 2896 Vista Ct., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 9' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2003, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M- Steve Tye, 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 9th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: N James DeStefano, Secretary N. Joe V'W" T. %;. T. 0. ft-, WhWff, CA 3060&-0334 (562)W-GU2 September 2, 2003 Ms. Ghazala Khan, Principal GK and Associates 3333 Brea Canyon Road, Suite 120 Dlamond Bar, CA 91765 HE' Aashiana Restaurant: Parking Survey - Addendum Report Dear his. Khan; Per your direction, enclosed is the addendum report and results Of my August 213, 2003 parking survey conducted within the Diamond Bar Plaza. The result supported the findings of my previous Surveys dated 04/18/03 and 04/22/03. The data collected and Pictures taken further supported the proposed lunch time iperations of Aashiana Restaurant, From this additional data, I am convinced, based on my professional expertise, that the existing number of parking spaces within the Diamond Bar Plaza is more than adequate to support the proposed lunch operations of Aashiana Restaurant. Therefore, I conclude that there will be no significant negative impact to the parking demand of the Plaza. Conversely, it will result In a better usage of the existing parking facility, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to Work with you an this project. if you need additional Information or have any questions,. please feel free to call me. Sincerely, r--3 nE� C= C-- <= Joe C. Dyer,RCE, RTE on C.3 I -TI JCD;jd (0&V03AddandumANh[arwPmrwno) Enclosure Summary of Addendum Report Pursuant to the City of Diamond.Bar's request and GKA's direction, an additional field parking demand and supply survey was performed on Thursday, 'August 28, 2003, between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The result of this additional day parking survey further supports the findings made in my previous report dated 04/18/03 and 04/22/03. As depicted in Exhibit B and Table D, there are ample parking spaces available to accommodate the proposed operation of Aashiana Restaurant during the specified lunch period. Additional digital photographs were also taken during the survey to show the field conditions and parking demands within the plaza. It is evident that the parking supply exceeds its demand throughout the proposed lunch time of the restaurant's operations. At any given time during this lunch period, the data shows that there are more than 25 parking spaces available throughout the Diamond Bar Plaza. Currently, no shortage of parking spaces within the plaza has been identified, concluding that the current surplus of parking spaces within the plaza will support the proposed lunch operations of Aashiana Restaurant. N W I-- 0 - 0 yLL O z Q U a W m O N O M CV r cn O Q) N Cn N Q d L Im WE M p Q U N O N d N t- CD O to N O CO N M to Lf) Mv"IT to LO CDM'ct1rd CN it Q 06 C? O N M i' coo V h hhl�hhhhhhhhh h 0 .G O m m t- Oi 199 O O m O B) "" T P T T T T T T T T T T T T `W fC d CV In M to M LO O r 1- N m h m U)t4 o i rr -,tU-) nLo zr -q-M M U) M :r) CL r T r- r r r --- .Ta 00 T r in t!7 O O N m O O M M O co T"LO tV N N N N N N N r N N N N N PQ W O to to to to t *,r to to M to to It TQ q' M t M r N N N N N d' N M M M P r• (� m It to fl- h CD M rr h Cq h N N N d' f~ to d O �r M to CD CD L � T T M M N N N N M M N N M N M M J d O le I- V M M M N N M N c1 rl d Nr ui C z O O m er M O N M t- d r- m �r m m CD m W > d I... Ui U .0 00 Q CV r r N r r r r r r N N N N W W 'Ln V r•'A• Q Y Q Y h Q N rr N N N 0 0 0 N N N N t- N N �- r r r r r r r r r r r a. IL o- cn LLI — O co Q o mm Co m m M cD Ln M �.n M �,et W m J m 12 E r M m w t-- Cf) CD r- -,t Lo t-- M r O I" z to "Zr MtotoU')"TCnCnto�rd"Mto M a er T NM -,I- d r r N N O N M M M r T- r r r r- r r r CY G( CDcr T m In N M -,Zr M O - U -)M d' to r r r r r r T T r r' M N m m O m 0 h ti "IT rr d tl- h 0 r r N N r r r r r r Cy r r 0 E m LO 0LO OLn o,mnotnomo F O Q C M c! O r M cP O r M c} O r M N W I-- 0 - 0 yLL O z Q U a W m O N O M CV r cn O Q) N Cn N Q d L Im WE t` Q w cn Z z Q O �j 0 U W d n: z<z�m ¢=mo UinNQ_ 0 N V1 U) J Q Z O Z W O z Q J IL CL rN yV CL O W co LU w n } >Cl) } Ln N O N O CX) M N C>J M CD CO Cbl lC) to } >r` OC) M 4t �- O Q Q O. CD M O 1* V Cl)> N tri LO "T4t LO CO Cfl 4Y 4i' M N M N II C = m } CL D 00 CO r O LO 4r LO w w m O e4' -t h- r� ti f� t� ti CO 1t) CD CO CO CD tr D Cn L W co >} LC) N m N N ti Co O L1') O O CO ry Q LO LO M 'd' of LO LO CO w 4Y 4t �t M d CL ttf } Q V1 0 p) > Cy t` e0 CD et to O M Q OO T N CO $ > CD O Lo LO m r LO -,t4i- d m m t M ft{ � t0 Cf) `Q Q WQ Q T O O CD Q N O r N O CO > OD co co N CO co co Q Imo- co r` Imo- fl- Cl) `Cn xc c = 10 O O O O-,zr 4t t 'd' N N N N N T T T T T T r r T r T T r (� a. U E � c Q E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N t0 � c � 0 a) :v ;a o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-- o o o-� o o�� a V0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q O o 0 0 0 0 U') LO LO Ln ` n. r- rr` O CD m Ca co n a. (, ¢¢adCLaaa,C,aaaa IL C) Ln 0LD0000m0LO0LO0 U C? OTMd Or M41'OrCO ET T N N N N T T r r N N N X 0 C) 0 0 C) C) LO 0 U-) m CN C14 sooedS BUPVBd 11�9 q\11 VO cc N N N N N r�- O N N-' —4 < CL CL CL CL CL CL a- < 5 Z) co co 5 LLJ co Z z z z Lu < < < CL CL < rL IL 0 C) 0 0 C) C) LO 0 U-) m CN C14 sooedS BUPVBd 11�9 q\11 VO cc N N N N N r�- O N N-' Figure 9. August 28, 2003 2:07 P.M. Dia ®Jmd BarTlaza Pak• ~ - :. 4r• � _ :ice;_ .+ e�iq^)'''ros •1i,; i.y'n_YJ :rte• A.- Sp" -_' �• 'S ya .1 }' 1 4mf ia4t L4 "i^�- l�?tii`r `�5-.. nom, � _ 2020• r' 6'i �®� R®act Diamond Barg CA:91765.' ti R q Dai e p 18 -`2003 Day2n.A&H 224:200`:--^'�- pec -'—rte }- _ � - *'- ` � Sri.`,,, �.'°4!�W'•N 4�'� �r �r, .n s: ' y rik t a NO2'`�p''{Yh�+-k�..�? .. L'" - . SP fir. �. '•,,do- s .e _ All - 71 t • - , -fit 5: r. • %tom. - `� �:r - INTRODUCTION This is an update report of the parking study previously prepared by LIN 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 corner 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. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 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 Z. availability of unused parking spaces during the survey period will be used to examine 1-11) and compare with the parking demand generated from the project to determine the adequacy of parking. PARKING SURVEY RESULTS 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. 1 -2 IT, 1XI I A 0 a W 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 park -Ing 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. ADEQUACY OF PARKING 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 12 spaces. Similarly, on day 2, the minimum surplus of parking space was observed at 2:30 P.M. when 36 spaces were available, while the maximum demand is 20 spaces. 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. CONCLUSION 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: Joe C. Dyer RTE 1200 RCE 31626 PTOE r - m Ln H a > U) W O Z z Oz U � �M h Oyy ti z O 2 W O m N CD O �c 76 Q U p O M E O T M C: Y o C6 O A ;Q X LU O Q) D co tz M C.� m U — O O� r 0 0 OJ m N O r N CD CD ry m m m O O m m m m t- m h ti r - C6 > U) ... O y P -a p , tCl M m C� @1 G) C) C) @) M CL P T P T T T P P T P T T P P N ui KS d m m O h Cb O) O� In h CO to r r in t0 CO L `-� IL 00 --0 0 0— N T N N N 00 Ln N O 00 00 O O� O N Q) T N Q1 N r N N T LO P� M d' V' M to to M LC) ',t moi- M N N — N N r r N rte- CD CD eY m CD r M CD LII d I-- d' ch N co co 't of. rt et e1' M co N P M N N N N N N— r r N Cr) N N Q H Cl) -j L 0 P Q r r r 0 t- r r r r r N N N W F a+ C z W O a) Q 'e M v w h 0 c!' rt' CD CD N O O N N N — •- r r r r r N N N N N LLJ < 0 d t= W U < t- r 1- r O 0 0 0 r N N N N N w > �z �� �mmmmI- mmNC)—aN < L Q Z Q. - CD O 0 Q T V' tet' U) r Lo O h CO Lo CD r � r-- W m J to E ' r -,T co U) CD co -1' CD r' ei' U) LD co ,t z QLC) CO U') In U) ri' M CO et' IT V) Lf) U) et C'7 QT e9' � CD O N N N N N M O r N M r T T r T- r T T T CD T O N M N r N r O N r M eT N r r r f T r r T r r r T M N rr T T r r r r T T T cr cr 0- CL 11 a. a- a- E_ O b' CO O Lf) O L[) O LOO O LO O Lf) O j- C (� CL CO r! O �- M "i T eY O r M U r r T T T T r T T T N N N W O Z z Oz U � �M h Oyy ti z O 2 W O m N CD O �c 76 Q U p O M E O T M C: Y o C6 O A ;Q X LU O Q) D co tz LU O z N ca W M U t- O C.0 d' LO 'I O CO CO CSS r N CD N Co CD CD tC) Ln CD ti m CD Ln NT er It M N Q O N N �W LL R Cq O m r M N M t` ct' O O CD Ln r L4 0 M .N ct V' M N r M M d' Ln m CD �'�' F CL CL r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LO CC d' M d" Cf' zt Ln V' Ln to LO to M et e9' rY er N M M et e!' rh et' `7' eY Qi' et � tM- T r r T r r r r r r r T Cli cq � T H � W 1- O z < O ,- W O () M B -e M Cp tom- O et O to r O O M O N "Cr N N N N r r N M M M M M M w < O U) U 10 ui C7 > N N N N Lo Lo M N ". O S CC{ a, cn an d —( O Q O T Lo to t-- w m N M Lo h et N N N W d J -0 h z to MM Lo ,zr Ln,tNc+')rm ,TmLo C'7 QT O •- O O O tom- m O rt M "I' r r r r r r r r CD T O 07 'd' N O O O O •- d' LLQ LO r r T r r r r r r r N r r r r r r r r T as c tti Q Q a_ a a a. a n. a. n. a. a. E •` tCl Ou")OmouL oLnomcLoo ®- M r T r T r T LU O z N LOCATION: AASHIANA RESTAURANT 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A7 DIAMOND BAR, CA TABLE C. PROPOSED AREA SCHEDULE SOURCE: Floor plan as provided by the project owner LOCATION: AASHIANA RESTAURANT 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A7 DIAMOND BAR, CA TABLE D. PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ANALYSIS Time Period (a) Accumulation by Percentage (b) Maximum Demand (c) = (a) x (b) Parking Demand (d) Available Space (e) = (d) - (c) Parking Surplus SURVEY DAY SURVEY DAY 1 2 SURVEY DAY SURVEY DAY 1 2 11:30AM 50% 20 10 88 88 81 80 89 88 89 82 70 81 72 76 76 67 68 56 54 65 74 80 63 58 48 41 42 36 78 57 78 58 71 46 70 44 75 51 74 60 75 66 68 49 58 46 69 36 60 29 64 30 —.64 N- A 11:45 AM 50% 20 10 12:00 PM 50% 20 10 12:15 PM 50% 20 10 12:30 PM 70% 20 14 12:45 PM 70% 20 14 1:00 PM 70% 20 14 1:15 PM 70% 20 14 1:30 PM 60% 20 12 1:45 PM 60% 20 12 2:00 PM 60% 20 12 2:15 PM 60% 20 12 2:30 PM 60% 20 12 ME Figure 3. refer to Exhibit C. Photo taken from location 7. April 22, 2003 12:10 P.M. 0 C) C) 0 0 LO 0 Ul) 0 U') N CN sooeft 6UPPed Lo J -J Z IL IL D D Lli L) Co U) Z Z z uj IA .V IV IN, -;Zzl tn' 6z fA, q%b qb 0 C) C) 0 0 LO 0 Ul) 0 U') N CN sooeft 6UPPed r -i Kel K pig 0 T" City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: July 15, 2003 MEETING DATE: July 22, 2003 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 2001-04(2) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(2) APPLICATION REQUEST- To revise hours of operation PROPERTY LOCATION: 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7, Diamond Bar (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 10337) PROPERTY OWNER: Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa Monica, CA 90703 APPLICANT: Ali Akbar, 8481 Holder Street, Buena Park, CA 90620 The Property Owner, Nathaniel Williams, and Applicant, Ali Akbar, request a revision to the operating hours. The request is based on new information including: 1) Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder (subsequent to the Planning Commission's previous decisions); 2) A revised Site Analysis comparing Municipal Code parking requirements with the multi -tenant commercial center; and 3) A parking supply and demand study dated, April 28, 2003. On June 12, 2001 and July 10, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2001-04(1) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(1) for an intensification restaurant use and a decrease of required off-street parking spaces for the subject Parcel 1, Parcel Map 10337. 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 the Municipal Code. Parcel 1 has 130 spaces and it was determined that 155 were the Municipal Code requirement for the mix of uses in the original review. Without a Reciprocal Agreement, only Parcel 1's parking 1 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 The Planning Commission determined that two available spaces were not adequate for the 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. Monday through Friday, and 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. ANALYSIS: REVIEW AUTHORITY 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. REVISION 1. Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement 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. The Reciprocal Parking and Access Agreement includes four parcels with five buildings. Patrons may park in any designated parking space from Pathfinder Road to the Chuck -e -Cheese restaurant. However, proximity is factored in the revision analysis. Staff focused on Parcels 1 and 2 which contain Building's A, B, and E. Tenant's of Building E are closest to Pathfinder Road and include Shanghai Palace, S.P. A.R.C., the liquor store and other office and tutoring uses. Building A also on -the same Parcel 1 as Building E includes International Deli, retail dancewear and cleaners, office, and the restaurant uses. Parcel 2, Building B, to the north is all office use (see aerial). Many parking spaces are behind Building's A and B, and fewer spaces are in the front of these buildings. 2. Parking Comparison of Municipal Code Parking Requirements and Multi -tenant Centei A parking analysis per requirements as outlined in Municipal Code Section 22.30.040 indicates adequate parking is available on Parcels 1 and 2 within 300 feet of the subject property as noted in Municipal Code Section 22.30.050. To supplement the analysis a 2003 Parking Supply and Demand Study indicates open parking during the requested operating hours. 0 Staff's analysis indicates that the current mix of uses meets Municipal Code standards without a Minor Variance approval requirement. The businesses require 183 spaces and 197 are provided. Updated SITE ANALYSIS FOR PARKING 7/10/03 MULTI TENANT COMMERCIAL CENTER (Unit 1# Square ITenant Name (Footage Tenant Use (Type of Business) Days & Hours of Operation Parking Requirement (per sq. ft.) # 01 Spaces Al 1,000 DISCOVERY TRAVEL TRAVEL AGENT M -F 8:00 A.M.-5:30 P.M. 11250 = 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 1175 - 700 SO.' = 9 1/300 - 500 SQ.' 2 A3 1,200 PLAZA CLEANERS CLEANERS M -F 7:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. 1/400 - 400 SQ.' = I SAT9:00 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 1,2001 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 1175 - 1,237.5 SO. 16.5 1 1/300 - 962.5 SO.' = 3.1 E101 3.838 SHANGHAI PALACE RESTAURANT 11:30 A.M. -10:00 P.M. DAILY 1f75 - 2,938 SW = 39 F_ ir" - 900 so., = 3 1E104 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 4,8051S.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. JE210 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. i E 2 3 0 I 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. I E240 2.475 GREAT EXPECTATION TUTORING M -F 3:30 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. 1/200 = 12 Z-250 875 MARTIN C. EMO, CPA OFFICE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 1/400 =1 2 1 E260' 1,8471 SAT I SAT 11 TUTORING M -F 9:00 A.M. -5:00 P.M. 1/200 = 9 I ISAT BY APPOINTMENT E. 9,2301 REAL ESTATE OFFICES OFFICE I M -F 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 11/400 23 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES PER DEVELOPMENT CODE 183 TOTAL SPACES ON SITE (including handicap per Code) 197 AVAILABLE SPACES BASED ON MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS 14 i I This analysis supports the Applicant's request. *See discussion in Section 3 regarding new business in Building E, Suite 260. 0 .3. 2003 Parking Supply and Demand Study 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 13th 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. These analyses support the Applicant's request for the operating hour's revision from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Though the revision to the Minor Variance was advertised, it is no longer required since the site has adequate parking. per Municipal Code parking requirements. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: 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 application's vicinity. On July. 11, 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. 112 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). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-04(2), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. 2 3 9 kII 'Jil T' F "lil 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); 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 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 occupants and visiting public; as well as, its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 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 The proposed project 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. Application; 3. Staff Report and Resolution 2001-18, June 12, 2001; 4. Staff Report and Resolution 2001-24, July 10, 2001; S. Sasaki Transportation Services comments; 6. April 18, 2003 Parking Supply and Demand Study; -41 7. Aerial; 8. Exhibit "A", July 22, 2003. J Nam® WILLIAMS iVATkIAWIEL AKBAR, ALI (Lw nanta first) ( rye and) Addrew3099 Wilshire ' Blvd- 84Ll Holder St. Phone( )310-829_172 Applicant's Agent axe Gha ala (Last name first) 2896 Vista Ct. 174 ,t�mnnc3 Bao' 91765 gym( )909-595-1940 ext, 101 Fax( ) Fax( ) FEm( ) 90I -X951314 ?. • .: r;�_ 1 i ` n.� [. r�, ,. '<.. _: Y: � .:.3'rt�uF at!' u, -i Y ..,i '•F f ,r ix6. ,cu _ - . .. �•µ ,I �.:. -_! ��. J '.� �.. _ :",,G`I .. ._ ...` i.,F. i f=....L i_ . J- r.�{. ,fit... '- • 1. W 1 t' � " �. ' hr.' '•fx I t"' •' 7 %'� . r � _: � . � of .,at. NOTE.: It is the applicant's responWboity to noffy the Ci$y in Wftg of Mny dMge Uf t i MIved durmo fly processing of this case. (Attach s9pMM WML ffMcamry, btd of ffwmewt of partnerships, )o)nt venWres. and directors of tin.) Consent of Owners. I ceWfy that 1 am the 0WnW Of We h0r brad pmparW and parm om �p to file request Print Name Williar (All rec= awnM) Signed Dote (All record owners) Certification of Applicairt. 1, am hMEby COM& under of MW to i provided Is correct to the best ofit y k - Print Name or 3'rgned Ashiana Restaurant April 30, 2003 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 Restaurant Owner� 2020 South Brea Canyon Road, A-7, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Telephone: 909-396-0176 REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: _•. 8.1 June 5, 2001 June 12, 2001 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) Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa Monica, CA 90703 Akbar Ali, 8481 Holder Street, Buena Park, CA 90620 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 Development 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. 1 The project site of Parcel 1 is approximately 4.73 gross acres. The 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. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Office Professional (OP). Pursuant to the General Plan, this land use designation provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for general, professional, and administrative offices, as well as support uses. The proposed project and use could be considered a support use and as such is consistent with the General Plan. 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 right. However, the proposed application is considered an intensification of land use. The existing retail shopping center will be accommodating the operation of a proposed restaurant, which requires more parking spaces than the former use. itis anticipated the proposed restaurant will 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. ANALYSIS: REVIEW AUTHORITY This application requires Development Review approval by the Planning Commission per the City's Development Code, Section 22.48.020(A)(2), that states a Development Review approval is required for an application when a project involves a substantial change or intensification of land use (e.g. the conversion of an existing structure to a restaurant). Development Review is a discretionary review process, which allows the whole project area to be reviewed for possible improvements. The Planning Commission is the review authority. The Minor Variance is required pursuant to Development Code, Section 22.52.020(D) for a decrease of 16% in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the shopping center. Structures with parking space deficiencies may be permitted with a Minor Variance for a decrease of not more than 20%, in the number of required off-street parking spaces. The application requests 16%/ The Hearing Officer is the review authority. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030, permits shall be acted upon concurrently and the highest authority shall make final determination. In this case, the Planning Commission is the highe sk authority. 2 restaurant contains approximately 1,237.5 square feet of gross floor area for patrons (16.4 spaces) and 962.5 square feet of gross floor area for service (3.2 spaces). As a result, a minimum of 20 parking spaces is required for the proposed restaurant. The study shows that excess parking spaces are available to the existing businesses when the ,proposed uses are factored into the equation. At 11:45 a.m., of the 130 spaces 108 are occupied by the existing businesses, leaving 22 spaces available. Of those 22 spaces, 20 are required for the restaurant leaving 2 available spaces on this site. The parking analysis and approval letter from the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, support the, methodology and conclusion of the analysis that show excess parking on site. This supports a Minor Variance for reducing the required number of parking spaces for this shopping center by 25 spaces or 16%. Additionally, the plans show a total seating for 38 patrons. The conditions of approval and Minor Variance limit this approval to seating for 38 patrons as represented on plans. Additionally,though only Parcel 1 was studied, it is possible that patrons would park on Parcel 2 for businesses es in Building B. Building B is 8,868 square feet.. Real estate offices occupy 7,557 square feet requiring 19 spaces. A doctors office occupies 1,311 square feet requiring 5.2 spaces for a total of 25 spaces for Building B. Parcel B has approximately 40 spaces available which has an excess for an adjacent use. Staff has made a condition of approval that a shared parking and access agreement be available for the four parcels as discussed below. ® Parking/Parking Lot Area/Lighting Though there is minimal parking in the rear of the center, all employees of the various businesses should park at the rear of the buildings on all four parcels that are owned by the same owner, Nathaniel Williams. Staff has had conversations with the Management Company and apparently a shared parking and access agreement does not exist. Therefore, staff informed them that a Shared Parking and Access Agreement for all four parcels would be a condition of approval for this use based on preliminary analysis of parking for the businesses on all four parcels. Should the owner sell any of the parcels, this would anticipate future difficulties of parking. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the owner shall agree to a Shared Parking and Access Agreement with all four parcels of PM 10337 in writing to the City. The Shared Parking and Access Agreement running with the land of the four parcels and approved by the City, shall be recorded by the owner guaranteeing the continued availability of shared parking and access. ADDITIONAL REVIEW 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. 10010612091 4 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 Vallev Tribune 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 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). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-04 and 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 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 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). R REQUIRED .•' VARIANCE FINDINGS 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: �& 4 Linda" Kay Smit Development Services Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1. , Draft Resolution; 2. Applications and attachments; 3. Shared Parking Analysis, City Engineer concurrence; 4. Site Photos; 5. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, dated June 12, 2001. D: WORD-L1NDA\PLANCOMM\PROJECTS\DR 2001-04 2020 Brea ...,/REPORT DR 2001-04... PLANNING COMMISSION A. Recitals. 1. 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 this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, Minor Variance and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. On May 29, 2001, 35 property owners 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 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. 3. On June 12, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public. hearing on the Application. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1 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 ;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. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that. ha I ving 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: (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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (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). The project site, was established before the adoption of the City's General Plan. However, the proposed project complies with the elements of the adopted General Plan of July 25, 1995, which has a land use designation of Office Professional. Pursuant to the General F4 Plan, this land use designation provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for general, profession . al. 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 Plana 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 ng 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 the existing retail shopping center at the project site. The site's current architectural exterior design is consistent with the City's Development Review standards and City Design Guidelines in that the project has an orderly and harmonious appearance to the existing structures, ;el parking area and landscaping, and has an existing architectural design that is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. As stated in Item (e) the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan. (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. 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 visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color 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 permits; and inspections are required for construction. These 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. Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis was completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer substantiating adequate parking spaces on-site for the current business uses and the proposed restaurant. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEDA), Section 15301(a). 4 MINOR VARIANCE (k) 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. 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 prepared by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations on a typical Friday, with current Development Code parking standards and uses. The City's Traffic Engineer approved this Analysis. The analysis confirms that adequate parking spaces are provided on site for the current business uses and the proposed restaurant. Therefore, strict adherence to the regulation creates an unnecessary and non -self-created, hardship or unreasonable regulation that make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. 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. This center was originally constructed under the Los Angeles County Code. Diamond Bars Development Code has stricter requirements, yet allows for the process of a Minor Variance for a reduction of not more than 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces. Based on the analysis, the approval of the Minor Variance will not hinder the businesses in the shopping center that have varying hours of operation and uses. Therefore, without a Minor Variance approval, the applicant is denied the same enjoyment and privileges, which 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. Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the Development Code standards. As stated in Item (e), the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, granting. the Minor Variance is cons iste nt "with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (n) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Health Department, Fire Department, City permits, and inspections are required for construction. These 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. Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis was completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traffic, Engineer substantiating adequate parking spaces on-site for the current business uses and the proposed restaurant. (o) The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(a). 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 herein. (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 E., be the applicant's obligation to insure that I the waste. contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. .BUILDING AND SAFETY PLANNING (c) Plans shall meet all A-3-occupandy requirements. (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. The Applicant shall obtain approvals and Comply with the 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. (1) 1 Applicant shall have seating for no more than 38 patrons. 0 (m) 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 permitted 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 exercised (i.e., construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one - (1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in 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) have 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 Game 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 tee imposed because the project has more than a derninimis 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 shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and El (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd: #202, Santa Monica. CA 90703 and Akbar Ali, 6461 Holder Street. Buena Park, CA 90620. _ 01 F 0 By: _ 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 voter AYES: Nelson, Kuo, V/C Ruzicka, Chair Zirbes NOES: ASSENT: Tye ABSTAIN: ATTEST: dames ®eS fano, Secretary STATE of CALIFORNIA COUN'T'Y OF LOS ANGELES SS CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1. LYNDA BURGESS. CITY CURK OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND IIAR. DO HEREBY CFR'Pir:Y llNlmm PFNA1.::'Y OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OFT111-, SI*/VI* i OF CALIFORNIA TI11i FORGOING '1'O Illi A FULL. TRU1s AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AS SAME APPEARS ON VILE IN MY OFFICE IN WrI-NESS WIII:R1iO1', 1 IIAVV 111i111iUNTO SET MY IIANL) AND AF IAli1)'1'111: SE I '1'lIIi CITY OF AMOND IiAR. '1'1111 % DAY 6D1' _ .2Uv1 I YNDA 1IUItG1:SS, CITY CI.I:R1( AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: KNAff�� 8.1 July 5, 2001 July 10, 2001 Development Review No. 2001-04(1) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(1) APPLICATION REQUEST: A request for a revision of hours of operation. PROPERTY LOCATION: 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7, Diamond Bar (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 10337) PROPERTY OWNER: Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa Monica, CA 90703 APPLICANT: Akbar Ali, 8481 Holder Street, Buena Park, CA 90620 On June 12, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2001-04 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 center. The approved restaurant will occupy a 2,200 square foot retail suite. 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 will be added to the restaurant structure and as a result, its exterior physical appearance will be the same. The current Parcel 1 site has 130 parking spaces. Per the Development Code, 155 spaces are required to support the mix of uses. The conclusions of the Shared Parking Analysis reports were based on a typical Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The peak -shared demand for parking was noted between 11:45 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. for the existing uses. 0 Based on the initial review, the study showed that excess parking spaces were available to the existing businesses when the proposed uses were factored into. the equation. At 11:45 a.m., of the 130 spaces 108 were occupied by the existing businesses, leaving 22 spaces available for the new use. Of those 22 spaces, 20 were required for the restaurant I on this site. eaving two available spaces The Planning Commission determined that two available spaces were not adequate for the 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. daily. The hours of operation were established and approved as 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. The property owner, Nathaniel Williams, and applicant, Akbar Ali, are requesting a revision of hours of operation for the public from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Additionally, the Applicant requests to use the premises from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, for food preparation and the taking of reservations and catering orders. INMI4 REVIEW AUTHORITY Pursuant to Development Code Section 22-66.060(a)(3), this application requires review and approval by the Planning Commission. Any change to a specific consideration by the review authority, in this case the change in hours of operation, requires the review authority's approval. REVISION The current Parcel 1 site has 130 parking spaces. Per the Development Code, 155 spaces are required to support the mix of uses. The conclusions of the Shared Parking Analysis reports were 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. the Applicant is making his request for a revision in the hours of operation for Saturday and Sunday. Per the attached analysis, in addition to the 20 spaces required for the restaurant use, 19 additional spaces are available on site for those businesses that are open on Saturday after 12:00 p.m. to Monday morning. 2 SITE INFORMATION FOR PARKING MULTI TENANT COMMERCIAL CENTER Unit!Square ITenant Name ITenant Use Days & Hours of lParking I# of :# [Footage I(Type of 10peration (Requirement !Spaces (filer sti. ft.1 Al 1 1,000 DISCOVERY TRAVEL TRAVEL AGENT M -F 8:00 A.M.-5:30 P.M. 1/250 = 4 1 . SAT 10:00 A.M.- 2:00 P.M. A2 1,200 DB DELICATESSEN DELI 10:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M. DAILY 05 - 700 SO.' = 9 1/300 - 500 SQ. 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 SO.' = 1 1A4 1,200 REALTY EXECUTIVES REAL ESTATE M -F 8:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. 1/400 3 IA5 1,200 DIAMOND DANCEWEAR RETAIL DANCE ATTIRE M -F 10:30 AM. - 6:00 P.M. 11250 = 5 SAT 10:00 AM.- 4:00 P.M. iA6 1,200 MERCURY INSURANCE OFFICE M -F 8:00 AM. - 4:00 P.M. 1/400 3 1 A 2,200 HALAL TANDOORI RESTAURANT M -F 5:30 P.M. -10:00 P.M. 165 -1.2375 SO.' 16.51 1 1/300 - 9625 SO.' = 3.1 IE101 3.838 SHANGHAI PALACE RESTAURANT 11:30 AM. -10:00 P.M. DAILY 1175 - 2,938 SQ.' = 39 1/300 - 900 ST = 3 IE104 j 2.1641 PLAZA DIAMOND LIQUOR RETAIL STORE M-TH 7:00 AM. -11:00 P.M. 1/250 = 9 i F -SUN 8:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. IE106 j 4,8051S.P.A.R.C. PHYSICAL THERAPY M, W, F 8:00 AM. - 5:00 P.M. 11250 = 19 T, TH. 9:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. SAT 8:00 AM. -12:00 P.M. IE210 I 3.5661 DR. ROBIN ABARI DENTIST M,TU 9:00 AM. - 6:00 P.M. 11250 = 14 W -F 8:00 AM. - 5:00 P.M. SAT8:00 A.M.- 3:00 P.M. 1 E230 I 1.3251 DR. RON SALEM MEDICAL M -F 8:00 AM. - 9:00 P.M. 1/250 = 5 SAT9:00 A.M.- 2:00 P.M. IE240 i 2,4751 GREAT EXPECTATION TUTORING M -F 3:30 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. 1/200 = 12 IE250 j 8751 MARTIN C. EMO, CPA OFFICE M -F 8:00 AM. - 5:00 P.M. 1/400 = 2 I -E-260 j 1.8471 FOCUS ON CHINESE FAMILY OFFICE M -F 9:00 AM. - 5:00. P.M. 1/400 = 5 SAT BYAPPOINTMENT TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES PER DEVELOPMENT CODEJ 155 PARKING ALLOTMENT FOR BUSINESSES CLOSED SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. FROM 12:00 P.M. to 10:00 AM. 44 TOTAL REQUIRED FOR SAT. & SUN. BUSINESSES 111 TnTAI QPAr.;:Q r)M -cZrT;: AVAILABLE SPACES I 19*1 'Noie: Tne caiculation 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 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Additionally, the Applicant is requesting to use the premises from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, for food preparation and the taking of reservations and catering orders. Based on a typical retail use with a parking ratio of 1/250, this suite would normally utilize 9 spaces. Since the business is not open to the public during lunch on Monday through Friday, other tenants in the center are utilizing those parking spaces. The total number of employees for the restaurant is four. Even if all of the employees were on site during this time, only four of the nine spaces would be utilized. This still allots five spaces to the existing tenants that would normally be used by occupants of this suite. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request. On June 26, 2001, 35 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail. On June 29, 2001, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 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). WANEr.. M Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-04(1) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(1), 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; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its V2 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). 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. E, WORD-LINDMPLANCOMPROJECTS\DR 2001-04(1) 2020 Brea ...,/REPORT DR 2001-04(1)... 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-24 A,RFsbLlUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 2001-04(l), MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2001-09(1)7 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15301(a), A REQUEST FOR A REVISION OF HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A RESTAURANT IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. THE PROJECT SITE IS 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A-7, DIAMOND A. CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS The property owner, Nathaniel Williams, and applicant, Akbar Ali, have filed an Application for Development Review No. 2001-04(1) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(1) for a property located at 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review Revision, Minor Variance Revision and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Revised Application." 2. On June 12, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Development Review No.'2001-04, Minor Variance No. 2001-09, and Categorical Exemption, and approved such per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18. 3. On June 26, 2001, 35 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail. On June 29, 2001, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune 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 Revised Application. 4. On July 10, 2001, 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: 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 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 (CEOA) 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 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 and Minor Variance No. 2001-09. This approval was for an intensification of use and parking variance 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. The previous approval per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18 included the hours of operation for restaurant use as 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. (b) The General Plan Landi 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 hours of operation for the public from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Additionally, the Applicant requests to use the premises from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, for food preparation=. and the taking of reservations and catering orders: K DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (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). There 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 by opening the restaurant for extended hours on Saturday and Sunday. The design and layout of the approved project is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan and Design Guidelines. (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. There 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 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 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 is no change in the Revised Application to the architectural design and layout approved in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18 for the intensification of use by opening the restaurant for extended hour§ on Saturday and Sunday. The design and layout of the approved project is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the ham7onious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. (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. There is no change in the Revised Application to the design and layout approved in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-18 for the intensification of use of the existing retail suite. However, the Development Review and Minor Variance approved a decrease in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in 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 existing businesses on site. 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 5.730 p.m., Monday through Friday, for food preparation and the taking of reservations and catering orders. A parking analysis indicates that in addition to the 20 spaces required for the restaurant use, there are -an additional 19 spaces available on site for Saturday and Sunday since many of the existing businesses are closed from Saturday noon to Monday morning. Therefore, the design and layout of the approved project 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. 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. There 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 of the existing retail suite. However, the Development Review -and Minor Variance approved a decrease in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in 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 existing businesses on site. 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 preparation and the taking of reservations and catering orders. A parking analysis indicates that in addition to the 20 spaces required for the restaurant use, there are an additional 19 spaces available on site for Saturday and Sunday since many -of the existing businesses are closed from Saturday noon to 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. (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 is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEOA), Section 15301(a). MINOR VARIANCE (k) 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. Minor Variance No. 2001-09 was approved for a decrease in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in the shopping center with hours of operation for the restaurant from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily in order to allow the existing businesses on site adequate parking. 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 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 is supported, and strict adherence to the regulation would create an unnecessary and non - self -created, hardship or unreasonable regulation that make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. (1) Granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed,by other property -i owners in the same vicinity, zoning district, and den'ied to the. property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought. 5 Minor Variance No. 2001-09 was approved for a decrease in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in the shopping center with hours of operation for the restaurant from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily in order to allow the existing businesses on site adequate perking. 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 preparation and the taking of reservations and catering orders. A parking analysis indicates that in addition to the 20 spaces required for the restaurant use, there are an additional 19 spaces available on site for Saturday and Sunday since many of the existing businesses are closed from Saturday noon to Monday morning. Therefore, a revision to the Development Review and the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity, zoning district, and denied to the property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought. Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and 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. (n) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. There 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 Of the existing retail suite. However, the Development Review and Minor Variance approved a decrease in the number of required off-street parking spaces for the restaurant use in 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 existing businesses on site. 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 preparation and the taking of reservations and catering orders: A parking analysis indicates that in addition to the 20 spaces required for the restaurant use, there are an additional 19 spaces available on site for Saturday and Sunday since many of the existing businesses 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Ouality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(a). 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(m) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18 shall be revised as follows: Restaurant hours open to the public shall be between 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. (b) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-18, approved June 12, 2001, shall remain in full force and effect except as amended herein. The. Planning Commission shall: (, a .) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to Nathaniel Williams, 3029 Wilshire Blvd. #202, Santa Monica, CA 90703, and Akbar Ali, 8481 Holder Street, Buena Park, CA 90620. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 10t' DAY OF JULY, 2001, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. ----�ob Zii:—bei, �Charman- 7 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 10" day of July, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: V/C Ruzicka, Nelson, Kuo, Tye, Chair/Zirbes NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: UL/-/ Qarnes De§tef4no, Secretary n. .Jul ao UZ u;a: w ata Ana-naxa i ran5 awrwe c�mea� w¢54- A d iro Fo, SASAKI TRANSPORTATILON ACES 1 DATE: July 15; 2003 TO: Linda Smith FROM: Steve Sasaki SUBJECT: Parking Study Review Update for the Proposed Midday Operations of the Aaishiann Restaurant at 2020 Brea Canyon Road — Diamond Bar This memorandum provides an updated review of the "Parking Supply and Demand Study For The Aashiana Restaurant and Plaza Diamond Bar" ("Farling 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 memorandum 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 pamng space per 1,000 square feet C`TSM 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. We were informed that the "Great Expectations" use in suitc 240 of "Building E" (that currcntly provides after school programs starting at 2:30 PNS) would not be able to fiuther 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. 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. P.O. BOX 5159 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92M Q9aD 376-6613 4. There are a number of parking spaces that could serve the project, that have particular parking restrictions (i.e., the spaces in area "AU, g spaces @ "20 minute", 2 disabled spaces, in arca "A5" theses 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 paging restrictions are not a part of the City calculations. The restrictions are therefore, assumed to be an issue to be resolved by the tenants and the property owner. The City reeviow would focus on the spaces versus parking demand. 5. Overall based on the supplemental information received from City staff, the Parking Study shows that the parking demands of the current uses would be adequately served by the existing parking spaces, even if the restauxant were allowed to operate during the noon hours. This conclusion is based on the City requirements for evaluating parking supply versus demand, and the supplemental information provided by City staff. We trust these supplemental comments will be of assistance to you and the City of Diamond 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. SASAKY TRANSPORTATIO14 BERVIC S C:ISTS0 80 020 Brea Canyon, Aashtaaa2 sloc Aashlana Restaurant Paddng Study Review P. (�/'sit` U ;�i '.. ►1i1! l►,i. DATE:. June 6, 2003 TO: John Basin FROM. Steve Sasaki SUBJECT: Review Of Parking Study for the Proposed ,Midday Operations of the Anshiana Restaurant at 2020 Brea Canyon Road — Diamond Bar This memorandum provides a review of the "Parking Supply and .Demand Study For The Aashiana Restaurant and Plaza Diamond Bar" ("Parking Study") prepaxcd 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 Mated 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 p ands related to any vacant suites within the project site. It was noted that s ' e °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 proper adjustments incorporated in a revised Parking Study. 'The "Great Expectations" use in suite 240 of `Building E" was noted to provide after school pmmams starting at 2:30 PM, which coincides with some of the peak panting mand counts documented—in the 3tud� wring 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). 1 e) I'.C. BOX 5159 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 (949) 370-0013 2 The current Parking Study demand count study areas were study (5115/01 by Lin Consulting, Inc.) to include additional iivm a previous Essentially all of the added parking areas, however, are not conducive four use b' tile potential restaurant patrons. There should be information provided in the studv that clear! describes se t i f an im acts (i.e., more difficult to find arltin se farther, etc.) to the immediate study area will result.eople that arrive later need (o park, ere are a number of parking spaces in close proximity to the project that have =paa c#ipnand must be id wiifi�d in the Parking Study. The spacesin area s @ ` ute" and 2 disabl a the restauran11Dpar area a,,� nolle hely to be useful for meeting spaces designated for the existin Shane "15 minute , 5 >g � 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 specific uses, itis likely there is a relatively high demand for parking ing in the spaces rea of the proposed restaurant. The study needs to be revised to identify these and an oth pertinent parking restrictions. y Overall the Parking , 7 king Studd should be revised to address the parking demand/supp factors identified above. Based on the data contained in the ParkinIVg evaluations of the effects of these factors it a ng Study and initial\ impacts on the existing parking for the area near the restauran�os� project would have We trust these comments will be of assistance to you and the City of Diamond B evaluating the impacts of the proposed project. If you have an az'in please do not hesitate to contact me. y questions or comments, Parking Supply and Demand Study The A.ii shiana Restaurant and Plaza Diamond Bai 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, California 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 LIN Consultin;, 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 corner 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. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 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 suaaested 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 summanzed 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 . l6 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. PARKING SURVEY RESULTS 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 d y 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. 1, Wli_I� Parkin- = 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. ADEQt;ACI' OF PARKING Exhibt.t 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. CONCLUSION Based on the code requirement and the result of this analvsis, it is evident that adequate on-site parking has been provided. No additional panting 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: W No. 1200 Joe C. Dver RTE 1200 RCE 31626 %OF CAL PTOE WO d c- m d 0 z a a U c z H F•, x u� a w Q U a a q U) W D. C.7 a U rzi a a a x r - m ur r, u a a w � z � �.i H = H p H al � H a CQ 6L ~ VI h U W 9 5 aS c9 cn F+ m w a H H W y+ U z 4J HF 4� E' U c N A Q uj O CD CD 04 N — Cr) C14 'Cl4 04 ..r to u M,CO — CD M M MN CD — N (0;0 CM = m cc co co co OD CC) OD Go co I- co r- r- I r- > T Pte. -tcr C') N cn cn v -T cr qT Rr en cr) C-4 it 'r' C) CN C4 CN N C*4 04 — — — Cli (T) N N C1 o) L. CT) C) a) 0) Im 0) Im cy) 0) a) w a) cr) QQ r r r C) r r r P r r N CIJ CN Lu ui LU 0 0) AS 'V cn 'T CO P. CD "V V CD CC) N Co 0 N CN Cj r r r P r r r N C'4 C-4 N CNI > D V M a) = m M M M 0 fl- CO m F- M Lo _0 cn Cl) ui C) a) C) CN CN C4 CN C, CM — — a-- 0 0 CD C) CN C14 CN CN w co Lf) co 0) co CO 0) co 0) cli 0) r C%i cn z < �c z C\l — C%4 C14 P cr < < E T- CD Nr IRr LO U') LO LO U) Nr 4q cr) CN CN P A Q uj O CD 04 N — Cr) C14 'Cl4 04 ..r CM T Pte. -tcr C') N cn cn v -T cr qT Rr en cr) C-4 it 'r' C) CN C4 CN N C*4 04 — — — Cli (T) N N L. C) QQ r r r C) r r r P r r N CIJ CN Lu LU 0 0) AS 'V cn 'T CO P. CD "V V CD CC) N Co 0 N CN Cj r r r P r r r N C'4 C-4 N CNI > D cn Cl) ui 4) C, CM — — a-- 0 0 CD C) CN C14 CN CN w z < �c z cr < < E fD a tf) CL 0 (D < CD C) V '44' LO r- U') (D r- CC) LO CO I-- QT I, - uj to CD -i m < E < r z (o Lo (D CD T co f-- v u7 Lo to q. Z < U) M LO LO LO 'TT M M '-T Iq LO IX) LO 'Rt Cw ui m < CN w t-- (D CM N CV CN CN CN M C) cn Z 16 90 CD7 co N m CN , CN — C) Nm n CN m M — — — r— — — — — E Z 0 U) >- m C4 N CN LO m N0) M U -j C) CN UJ Z — — — z < 0 Z LU 0 m < < �L a- CL CL a. a- CL a- IL a- a. z E < u) c) w) 0 7� CD Lo C) Ul) 0 LO 1= 0 fn IL 25 m v 0 co 0 CN cq N - - 0 z =j A Q uj O CD CD 0 m = 0 1— m m a7'U') 'Q'n m m w 04 w to U) 0 r- m 0 m q -T QS CM 11 > U) Ci Ci W CD Q* - w w w w w w m w w m ci) CA in Lli 5 M d qr M m m qT to U') M 0 CL ICM N CJ N C4 N CN N CV CNI N 04 N 04 ca loo Vi CD LU 00) LU > 2,0 U) ui 4) = < > Z z < CL (n a. — W 0 < Ln E z 010 E CL Q9 m QT" -T v to v w w to m m v llq IT " m m IV v v IV v v q v I— LO W fl- w r-- r- I- w fl- I- Ln M 'V M In - C) C) M O N qr 141 CM - - - - C:) C> C) d C) CN to 0 E CN CL a) C,4 U') U') r— m w m M to rl- "Cr N N C14 ID en C\i C, -6 CL C14 n 'gr M M CV) C-4 v J3 0 m M LO QT MQ NMPMqr M M x LU OD 0 LD to C) 0 V, CN 00 0) Cr) C) T -q- U.) to ;3w M A'a E Z 0 < cl) O d 0 C*4 cn 0 co co 0) Tcr) I-- m LU Z 0) 3:1 < z < < m < < a a a a CL a- 5- a. a- a- 6- z W lul? C9:) con LO 0 LD C) LO g w 0 "': 0 lccD� 0 m -T C) � m C%j . . . �q C� 0 C) CM z j cm LOCATION: AASHIANA RESTAURANT 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A7 DIAMOND BAR, CA TABLE C. PROPOSED AREA SCHEDULE SOURCE: Floor plan as provided by the project owner LOCATION: AASHIANA RESTAURANT 2020 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE A7 DIAMOND BAR, CA TABLE D. PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ANALYSIS Time Period (a) Accumulation by Percentage (b) Maximum Demand (c) = (a) x (b) Parking. Demand (d) Available Spare (e) = (d) - (c) Parking Surplus SURVEY DAY SURVEY DAY 1 2 SURVEY DAY SURVEY DAY 1 2 11:30 AM 50% 20 10 88 88 81 80 89 88 89 82 70 81 72 76 76 67 68 56 54 65 74 80 63 58 48 41 42 36 78 78 71 70 75 74 75 68 58 69 60 64 64 57 58 46 44 51 60 66 49 46 36 29 30 24 11:45 AM 50% 20 10 12:00 PM 50% 20 10 12:15 PM 50% 20 10 12:30 PM 70% 20 14 12:45 PIA 70% 20 14 1:00 PM 70% 20 14 1:15 PM 70% 20 14 1:30 PM 60% 20 12 1:45 PM 60% 20 12 2:00 PM 60% 20 12 2:15 PM 60% 20 12 r-2:30 PM 60% 20 12 Figure 3. refer to Exhibit C. Photo taken from location 7. April 22, 2003 12:10 P.M. :224 ,e g 0 C) 0 0 0 LO cv CN saoudS BUIMJL'd rr) 10 LL) THS Si TT PLAN IS PROVIDES BY THE Ow4ER FOR PARKING S--UO� PURPOSE ONLY 0 M : I uj 11Q�, -t- : I oia! --T P-1- < ......... SURVEY AREA m 130 PARMC SPACES PICLUDWC 4 HANMC,%PM PAnMG. Al P":6 MC; SMVEY AREA of PAWING SPACES PROMED XH[ [T A Sr",'*E PLAN l C.. O O O o O O O o 0 U V U U U U U U U �O �q0 �0 y0 �0 �¢O 0 ¢O QO WH Hd� WH Hd� WH (ilE� WH WF WH WH WH 0 0 N O O O O O 0 O 0 0 OO 0 0 O 0 vZ¢ � U U za U Za U Z¢ U�+ Za U� Z� U - Za U� Z� Ua� Za qH qEO~,., qH qH qH Q0 QC) QH QF LLqq �qq wqq u qq �qq �qqq r. 4, qq wq u qq Zo Oo zo C7 zo Zo Zo ZO Zo z0 E" rT- H p•, H t3 Z<-0 z H w H w Z<0 H rl Z< —C7 E" - ¢C7 E" W <C7 E -I 4 U ¢0 UZ UZ Uz W U U UZ UZ �Z U 0 a� w a¢ 00 a w G o P4w U O a 0 Z as Z ¢ U 00 w cd � o a W N �" h q '" z � xwz N °° w N ^; o cn N o H U tY, N N r t N -1 N N �a 0 tiv a x i i -� 70 0 0 In ~ M � o � ^" In O o � O - M Mo I 4) U N tn O Cr p O Np., p M O �`� O O O N O O O O p 0 N O E p Q U d Q A cli Q 4 Q Q t Q U � O U y C w CIO Ca Hz W q ¢ b C7 cu W cu W v ami o 9 a¢.� p� pa Opp q o Od C7 C7 n E> E> E `� cn W a W ca W cz G, .-. .(U q•- w -o � .�- a E w 3 3.— 3-- 3-- H E z �_ En �/ M U U Z o U zO a q UQ ao aa"0 F¢ aO 40z WQ �� w Q W H M W 0� W p" F- r � ¢w ��xCCa as a u WpM QOO 0Z Wo 0� za" O a U� WU� U� O� U� qF.,v-, Za �EZd a a QO z0 00 �d 00 _wQ�A LT. ° Z0 00 H� w z Hp w ¢�i-u UZ Uu� UZ w0QZQ a aQ O�W ad �> U WH w Zow a �3 �� 0 3 0 co zh � Q z z� Z r z q a� .= z W Ct) H a oo w�u u. � F a 0 Q � Cl) �z0a Cw7 prn n O C) H o M ���00 o H N U U N N H N W (x N O N N ti o U N M Q\ N O ,-i O O O O O MO NO oc O O O p N N rt O M �`O N O O pO O tn OOO O OU N OU CN V aN t N U U ln� N Qz q (� N F Q z � L :n a� > h cn �U] (D i i o UO c UO E> o n V a M W aGi .. O o U� U b b ® E� E- o Eb p zr 3 ai i ti a" U ? �" ?� i Qa a y U — c W Z z z; (� �' Z> a S civ c� 2 u u rx �C �S z� �a Q aw w °' E- o q �• e� Qad) ccl) o O aQ, aQ 3- �' a-+ U n p p v, ca ti Z C7 q o �0 Z ~obo z� a ZWb aq aq `� Z u n w w Z O c Overs, Zti i wZ Za „� c a� z O U o s N'� N o tz1 w <CO W >W �w p o C7~ Z._ 0 0•�• o �., A �� W Nn` ��r�c� 0Ocn Urn G ci Rw 0.� < q q 51 . � Cli o �, q � u cl\ " � u aX . .e ,>. �,•r: lU ttr 4 , Lo, 1:ILIIl � : IIIIII IIIIIIII IIIII to , I ... ._•—p�.—.ypr:: �p��i yp _ Custdmer C® t 0Label •i-FJune 202 ..I ILIIII II �IIIII , I�IIIII I E4 -2. 4 771,34 US SIL ..t.. �g p LNITEDf"TESPOST,gLSERViCk Post Office7b p a a �^ _., PO ZIP Code Day of Dei(ve • ° • p o .. 7 $Wt Rate Envelope Delivery Attempt Time f ❑ • .s Ployee Signature . •. Date in ❑ Nmct ❑ Mo. Day ❑ AM ❑ PM I Postage Delivery Attempt Time :. Employee Signature Mo. Da Year ❑ 12 Noon ❑ 3 PM .. .. . J Time In Military �Retum Receipt Fee Ivory D ... "O ❑ PM .4. _ .: ErnPioyoe Signature AM 0❑2nd DaY. .. ❑ 3rd >... -.. � ... Weight z Inti Alpha CountryCode : COD Fee' Insurance Fee r. �- a 1 eat❑ .. 111 �t AM' ❑ PM lbs. oss. frk�t8it�tws (a lntiita� No Delivery .:., ; .. ,... .. Acceptance Clerk Initials Tpostage &Foos ❑Weokerid d '. ,1;:� ._ ❑ HoOny r ''t]T r lu V r[[t r 1 ,Y t gw r�Fu��. <1.'.fifti• ;c. 5±"rsd 1 �gratodwr c `t�' i,.: ' MEnton of PArMENr: ��yy f5 t y ^� �•., E.gxaaa Mai Co1>arato Md. Na. ' .n, y 1 Y L..tf � .: 1 1 I - •Pw�i 3a /vet. No a f i 7}11x. S7gnA4W ,}iG"'1 `1 $ •(PLEASE FROM PFifNT) FHONE (.T LP ",S?' a�i j!'i .TO pRIt7T) i A.(PLEASE r t EtotzE 1 ryy �{1 g-j•�% tt^^ L� gra �t „y U i A t1 r DI AA ON 0 SAk IP1.. Z:16✓� rV. ? o Y �<r:.,., r 's �Tr 6 F Ff ?J 1-bbra ;� ta:1.,, f � i Customer Copy I' . ; '- II III III iIIIIII I I III i II I III III IIIII IIIILIIIIII II II III_ -::.' ,ir ...',: .,.{tr,,. i•:,n. Label EXPRESS'..¢ a: , �. EV 258477125 US.�,g1 t:,f •p�1 .np.L1U ISF:k UNITEOSTGTESPOSTZILSEflih ®.'fi POSt iCe a®pqddreSSee O. .0 O •O .0 ,. PO ZIP Code Day of Delivery Flat Rate Envelope Delivery Attempt Time Employee Signeturo ❑ Nott ❑ Second Mo Day. ❑ AM ❑ PM Dale In Postage Delivery AttemTime ratu + . .' 'r. : •, ;;, t Employee P.r t b rr l tF"L'f 11) Litt. tl.�rr t , ' Year ❑ 12 N.❑3PM Day, :❑AIVI ❑PM ri ,;i't. Sign Mo. Da Ials t�hy t4 y }td 6° k'i Time In Milttary Return Receipt Fee Delivery Date ,. TirneI Employee 3lgnature ❑ J ❑AM PM ❑2nd Dar ❑sb Day Mo. D ❑AM ❑PM rr.r '`f-'•o� _ ,'1, Weight Int'1 Alpha Country Code COD Fee Insurance Fee x t J di¢t`c'w1k9Yz.f,�i::'_lkft'?.IFtik. .x t. a' �+.mY rr•r ,e >r n{l+<7r J l {ta i nr 9raG�1� t lw y,. t;7?i •)y ° rikr r�s'SF']' C 4 7ir'7 ' tC t f t t1 _ No Delivery ❑Weokontl❑ --Acceptance Clark Initials Total Postage & Fees Hon• day •P1 a ;fora,..'t?..;ft .a.7 ME1HODOPPArrnetrt: yN�{'� 4,L Express Mal Cafptxete PCU. No. . . X "i 17 20twt .. .. . .. 'FadetdPgetKy Acct No :. Posail SerNco PCU. Na. `a FROM: PLEASEPRINT) .909. 776 r y PHOtE PN PnoHE t ) ni �1 cryr ir4 )3i . C1TY GF 01A;!'9�..aaNQ BAR r 'i- e h k" v .231, �c1 �� ��} �.t � i�t a: 1j 2.1825 ' GOPLEY Uva , ��" /� r� � 5, 1. AM010 D PARC A -'417P � Cad � ' - ,wit ... r ' t �i4w+ L wd � � /�`^f 't^�•.•' L.� f ('i �w.'^n:: /1�,yf'�tl ('M t L tt !H1R I .El 1. f)igU t7'[81r I it 92�d Vr1 :f9ui •••� t,O r J n{l+<7r J l {ta i nr 9raG�1� t lw y,. t;7?i •)y ° rikr r�s'SF']' C 4 7ir'7 ' tC t f t t1 _ I IIL 77 _VIIIEXPRESSif: i EV 25b47?],117 us 77 ��AL,:- { o • . a e UNMEDST,r7TESPOSMLSERVIde PO 7JP Code Day of vory Deila • a _ ` ._f Flat Rate Envelope very Attempt Deli , ❑ Sa.ime ❑ Nnct cpnd - .. Date In - I MO. Day ❑ AM ❑ PM 111 Delivery Attempt Time Mo D Customer Cop Label 11-F June 2c Post Office%Addressef Employee a rear ❑ 72 Novi 3 PM . ,.. Time to - Mliiiruy .: • D tv Da ., �,.:N cryae atgnature . AM ..- . Return Receipt Fee el orq Date ❑ PM �:.. 1� AM ❑ PM ❑ 2M oay . _. >.... .;v Time " Employee Slgnahrre Weight. �.ardo .. f . In Pi Alpha Country Code COD Fee '::. Mo Dey ❑ AM ❑ PM } Insurance Fee .. - x44s— ysaiv. i I A Ibs. WAIV!<RDf,816� YVRE �jF'N" tyJ ,v iK' to µ O2S. �J 4 N Siyv N: r 1 t 1C 4 No Dalrvery .. ;,atdlWtwet +bgah>d•i4viap dell %"au*L�vaTdM AccePtanoo Cleric Initials Toth Postage & Fear { 5-�f Hapt{ttdelNat}1' d �n HRgicg+dnt Pty I' 1 c Y 1 py at�7P JudHest that ardclecan W idit W sc cWetr f In �i J t 1 ❑WookmW i METHOO OF PAYMENT -il ENrres MM Corporals Acct. No. FROWN: (PLEASE . �y �++� ,gyp 1:., ..�.: •Postm5ervire r' ` f•Prete - PHONE j_941 9. � 7.I%+}. '.r' �.� � � � , I �!a �,. TO: (PLEASE PNRTt1 .. :.,.. ( ..... ,.. PHONE t .. . CITY OF UI AM1N, D BAR 1! Fii 02 6. c u =J i ,: tl t`rt�i i kJJ' i 'l`;x P f47 �V {��4y Lyll;t3pj��{ NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On September 9, 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, Stella Marquez declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On September 5, 2003, I posted a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on September 9, 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 September 9, 2003, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community and Development Services Department g:\\affidavitposting. doc U ;ea'A v=s- 0 0 ± H �-1 'TTa..asi�T'r yah 1 b R.�fit LIN Consulting, Inc. F= ANALYSIS EX IE1T A AASHIANA RESTAURANT S1. E PLAN r _ � +i lei W a l' U) ,I /.. cz J l' 4vxyRew Yl� 3 «_Y a^^sr � S ...k"ii>.uilt±a tcta°Y+. f C G I. J m l (r1 I.i l (r1 s+n l (r1 1, J `! . O O Q i �ONmNrmNNQPPm'l N 00 O� p .0, w:n n1 N }.. I v � ® (0 Z n 3p'wa.ilLijena �.� > O rrsy a ��y�a `- �z MMNPFmmmmI-N �iSce Ln a cr) CZ noi O O Q i �ONmNrmNNQPPm'l N 00 O� p .0, U) n1 N }.. I v � ® (0 Z n L d > O U) a CL `- �z MMNPFmmmmI-N m aNNNNNNNNNNNNNN a cr) CZ noi %ftof o- ¢� F m�oh��^mmP rr u NhmFmmhmM1FhmM1hm aQ F or ;aMNNNNrvNMMMMMMM J 7 m C �PNNNNNNrrrMMMP �y .'�..�� Q i �ONmNrmNNQPPm'l N Pw O� p .0, I u +1�j�hhhFFhhhFhFhhh N }.. I O �F W W Ci 'a > O �mrMNMFPmmmmr � w E IL J+ �z MMNPFmmmmI-N m aNNNNNNNNNNNNNN a QmPMPPPmPmmmmmP NNMMNNMNMM O¢rci aPQPNMMPPPPQQPP gymv UN¢nQ ¢� F m�oh��^mmP rr u NhmFmmhmM1FhmM1hm aQ F or ;aMNNNNrvNMMMMMMM J 7 m C �PNNNNNNrrrMMMP ;= u¢MNNNNrrrrNNNNN' }g W 0 U¢ n FmPmmrOOMONV NNNNrrNMMMMMM Ca yy o. 4- =QNr.-r 2 rDODOD�-r riN i' =¢ 9hNNNNmMMNPm�N Qxa YQ M ad 06�mmFmmmMu'FPNNN� r r r 0 E �NMmmPPrNMMMNP. F Z� EQNMmmhmmFPmFM�-0 Z QmMMV1QNPNMrMQ m'N na^r0^Ommhmm���� amDo�a�mmm����� a o ¢¢aaaaaaaaaaa Q�r E—°2oQ�DmDmDmomwaorn M P o r M R F6¢�AN070 -NNN N h D p'�o N Q N mmmmmmem-m-m.m-�mmm 8q m �NNNNNNNNrNNNNN O� QED 0 fl N ON G a¢ Ci 'a 4 W F y Vl N F 0 za � w E J+ �z d y�U w � a Zal6m NNMMNNMNMM O¢rci m gymv UN¢nQ � N h D p'�o N 0 0 0 dnp V > N va E CD N mmmmmmem-m-m.m-�mmm �fI j NmNppNM1mOmm �Dlj m M P P m m m m P Q S k N m mm N M m O r h N m M1 m P?mmm'Q.M-�'INQ� NNmDNmODtt��iiMm m �NNNNNNNNrNNNNN QED mmmmmPQNmmmNP aPMPM�-NNNNNPNMM C " _ J+ ;QMMNN NNMMNNMNMM F m � «aPQPMMMNNMNQQPP UO OmPMONMFQPmQmmmm ;= u¢MNNNNrrrrNNNNN' N h D p'�o N 0 0 0 dnp V > N va E CD N mmmmmmem-m-m.m-�mmm �fI j NmNppNM1mOmm �Dlj m M P P m m m m P Q S k N m mm N M m O r h N m M1 m P?mmm'Q.M-�'INQ� NNmDNmODtt��iiMm m �NNNNNNNNrNNNNN QED mmmmmPQNmmmNP aPMPM�-NNNNNPNMM C " n yN ahNNNPhNPmPMmmm ;QMMNN NNMMNNMNMM F m � «aPQPMMMNNMNQQPP UO OmPMONMFQPmQmmmm ;= u¢MNNNNrrrrNNNNN' �N L�NrrNrrrrrrNNNNr Z¢ YQ M yQ`NNNDODN�N^r'Ni r r r EL 0 oQ mrn m m m m m m m m .MDQ `. ,. m� F EQNMmmhmmFPmFM�-0 Z amPMmmmPmmmQPmm a Q�r mmOmDFFPVQF^rN NrNrr.-.- ao+u¢¢aaaaa aaaaaa E G O fJ a lOOrt'Dl?O�ID'1 mq.rma EO 3 cz m00 qua LO o mamxa ° m O CL Q tiaaO UCY)) U) U ,pmn m `Q+ `etl m L— y dim o ® o app o m p_g_� Y m ® a� m a ® L- m ® Ile (gam c c ® C.) oma® 4-� ,gym 4� 0 CZ Diamond Dancewear 2020 Brea Canyon lade #A.5 Diamond Bar, CA. 91765 (909) 861-4.007 September 9, 2003 Dear Sirs, As I am unable to attend the Planning Commission Hearing, I am writing this letter to strongly object to extending the opening hours of the above mentioned property as requested by the applicant, Mr. Akbar Ali. I also object to this hearing as no notice was given either in letter form nor posted at the site location. It is my understanding that pursuant to State law, a notice must be given to the local property owners and the local businesses notifying them of this proposed hearing. Notice was sent to me in letter form when the proposed hearing was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2001, and I feel I should have been sent a letter notifying me of this meeting. As of Thursday, September 4, 2003, there was no agenda posted on the Diamond Bar Community website for the Planning Commission. I became aware of this meeting by chance by browsing the website Monday night, September 8, 2003. This appears to be another ploy to pass this proposal without proper notification to the many retailers and to the adjacent property owner who oppose this change in operating hours. When Mr. Ali was granted a variance to open his restaurant in 2001, he was aware of the major parking problem at the premises. He was granted this variance with the specific condition that he would not open at lunch so as to not add to the parking problem. This parking problem has not improved, in fact it may be worse since more businesses have moved in since July 2001. ac1) C-31 CJ C:)— cn City of Diamond Bar Community Development Services Department/Planning Division 21825 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Attention: Planning Commission cn C -n '1'' Reference: Development Review of 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A7, Diamond Bar, CA Dear Sirs, As I am unable to attend the Planning Commission Hearing, I am writing this letter to strongly object to extending the opening hours of the above mentioned property as requested by the applicant, Mr. Akbar Ali. I also object to this hearing as no notice was given either in letter form nor posted at the site location. It is my understanding that pursuant to State law, a notice must be given to the local property owners and the local businesses notifying them of this proposed hearing. Notice was sent to me in letter form when the proposed hearing was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2001, and I feel I should have been sent a letter notifying me of this meeting. As of Thursday, September 4, 2003, there was no agenda posted on the Diamond Bar Community website for the Planning Commission. I became aware of this meeting by chance by browsing the website Monday night, September 8, 2003. This appears to be another ploy to pass this proposal without proper notification to the many retailers and to the adjacent property owner who oppose this change in operating hours. When Mr. Ali was granted a variance to open his restaurant in 2001, he was aware of the major parking problem at the premises. He was granted this variance with the specific condition that he would not open at lunch so as to not add to the parking problem. This parking problem has not improved, in fact it may be worse since more businesses have moved in since July 2001. 2 There have been deceitful measures; parking surveys done on holidays, no notices given of meetings, and outright lies, at every step of this proposal by the restaurant owner and the City of Diamond Bar to pass this proposal. The bottom line is that the majority of the current retail owners do not want this proposal to pass. These same business owners have economically supported the City of Diamond Bar for 10, 15, and even 20 years. Does the Planning Commission want to run these retailers out of Diamond Bar? Please vote noon extending the restaurant hours as the problem that existed in 2001, still exists! Sincerely, Peggy Guess Diamond Dancewear 2020 Brea Canyon Rd. #A5 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner DATE: September 8, 2003 DIAMOND BAR CommuNiTy & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION SUBJECT: June 12, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes The above referenced minutes were requested by a Planning Commission member. The minutes contain a discussion related to a project (Development Review No. 2001- 04 001-04 (2)) on the September 9, 2003 Planning Commission agenda. If you have any question, do not hesitate to contact us at (909) 839-7030. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2001 Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Board Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Ruzicka. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Bob Zirbes; Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka; and Commissioners George Kuo; and Steve Nelson. Commissioner Steve Tye was excused. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda K. Smith, Development Services Assistant; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. r p�% 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo si -.onded, to approve the minutes for the regular May 22, 2001, meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Ruzicka, Kuo, Nelson, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. JUNE 12,2001 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSI .1 7. 13 Ll General Plan Conformity Report for FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program. DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a resolution finding that the FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program is in conformance with the General Plan. Following a brief question and answer session between Commissioners and DCM/DeStefano, VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 2001-12 finding that the Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Capital Improvement Program is in conformance with the General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: wmgq��� Kuo, Nelson, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes None Tye 8.1 Development Review No. 2001-04 and Minor Variance No. 2001 09 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(A)(2) and 22.52.020(D-)) is a request for an intensification of land use for the conversion of an existing retail suite in a commercial center to a restaurant and to permit a decrease of 1.6% in the number of required off-street parking spaces. PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7 (Lot 180, Tract 30578) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Nathaniel Williams 3029 Wilshire Boulevard #202 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Akbar Ali 8481 Holder Street Buena Park, CA 90620 JUNE 12, 2001 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-04 and Minor Variance No. 001-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. David Catlan, Real Estate Broker, C. B. Richard Ellis, Ontario, representing the applicant and owner, said he has handled the property off and on for about 12 years, and has been in charge of the leasing for the past two years. He supports the restaurant use in the center. Mr. Catlan indicated to C/Nelson that he visits the site frequently and has re,;eived no complaints or comments from any tenants he has represented over the years with regard to parking at the center. The parking is ih-common. Security personnel park their vehicles up against the fence facing the service road. Some competing centers within the City supply more parking, some supply less parking. To his knowledge, all centers comply with the code. Mr. Catlan responded to Chair/Zirbes that the property owner/applicant concurs with the conditions of approval for this project. The lease document discusses the reciprocal parking agreement, which prevents designated/allocated parking. In his opinion, the property owner would be willing to acknowledge the shared -parking agreement. Mr. Catlan indicated to C/Nelson that the previous occupant of this property was Century 21. He estimated that the office accommodated approximately 26-30 agents and 7-9 support staff. Peggy Guess, 2020 Brea Canyon road, #A5, Diamond Dance Wear, said rhe has been a tenant in the center for many years. She said the reason Century 21 left is lack of parking. There is not sufficient parking for this project. She dis -.greed that there is no parking problem in the center. Tenants have complained for seven years. She is also concerned that there are no fire walls in the buildings. When the building was reconstructed after a fire, no fire walls were included. She is very concerned about food odors penetrating the clothing in her store,' smoke fumes and fire potential of this project. Don Ferderer, Chino Hills, occupies the space directly adjacent to the proposed project location, 2020 Brea Canyon Road, #6. He has been there only about seven months. However, he believes parking is an issue at certain times. He is also concerned about fire hazard. I JUNE 12, 2001 . PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSI Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing. DSA/Smith clarified the parking study parameters. She reported that the applicant indicated to staff that he would be willing to remain closed during lunch time and request only the 5:30 p.m. until closing hours for operation. By today's standards, the development is under -parked. VC/Ruzicka said he has alw'ays been able to find a parking spot in the center. He asked if staff has received complaints from residents or tenants about this project. DSA/Smith said she has received only one letter. C/Kuo asked the applicant's rel iresentative why Century 21 moved out of the space to which he responded he does not know why they moved across the street. They took a smaller space and may have received a better lease rate. He would imagine that the parking demand would decrease in the center since Century 21 is no longer there. He reiterated the applicant's willingness to remain closed during lunch time and open in the evening only after most tenants have left the center. C/Nelson moved, VC/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Variance No. 2001-04, Minor Variance No. 2001-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution subject to amending the operating hours indicated in the first sentence of Condition (m), page 7, to read: "Regular hours of operation shall be between 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONEF 3: ABSENT: COMM ISSIONEF': ): Kuo, Nelson, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes None Tye Chairman Zirbes recused himse.` from discussion of Agenda Item No. 8.2 and left the dais. 8.2 Development Review No. 2001-06 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(A)(1)) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 12,513 gross square feet including balconies, porch, covered patio and four -car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2819 Water Course Drive (Lot 46, Tract 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JUNE 12, 2001 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMSSION PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 APPLICANT: Richard Gould ' 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar West, LLC, stated he concurs with staffs report and conditions of approval. VC/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, VC/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Kyo moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2001-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:, COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chairm, n Zirbes returned to the dias. Kuo, Nelson, VC/Ruzicka None Tye Chair/Zirbes (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.42.120 and 22.56) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 10,365 gross square feet including balconies, porch, covered patio and three -car garage. The Minor Conditional Use Permit approval is required to construct a second dwelling unit of approximately 956 square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2809 Water Course Drive (Lot 49, Tract 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JUNE 12, 2001 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSI, 1%102141:1:2:1� APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Shah 401 New Jersey Lane Placentia, CA 92870 S&W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 DSA/Smith presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Simon Shum, S&W Development, said that it is economically feasible to bu;ld a second residence on a $500,000 lot for use as a rental. 'The property owner intends to provide the second unit for family members. The applicant understands and concurs with the conditions of approval. He explained that this is a custom home designed exclusively for the owner. Mr. Shum explained to C/Nelson that there is no kitchen proposed in the drawings for this project. VC/Ruzicka said he is concerned about a second owner having a right to using the second unit as a rental. DSA/Smith explained that the State law as well as, the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, gives the right to rent a second unit to others including family members. Mr. Shah said there will be no kitchen in the guest home. Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved, VC/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2001-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution with the addition of a Condition to indicate that the guest house shall not have a kitchen. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JUNE 12, 2001 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye 9. PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMENTS: VC/Ruzicka reported that there is, a huge pothole at the comer of Mountain Laurel Way and Diamond Bar Boulevard turning off of. Diamond, Bar Boulevard right onto Mountain Laurel Way about 20 feet into the street. aamm��-�M 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. AssocP/Lungu stated that Diamond Bar Honda will be requesting an extension of time on their car wash facility project and other modifications. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Attest: -------------_ Chairman -------Chairman Bob Zirbes Respectfully Submitted, James'D—eStefano Deputy City Manager �ez� (-43 DON FERDERER INSURANCE AGENCY 2020 Brea Canyon Road a Suite A-6 a Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phone: 909-396-1198 e Fav 909-396-1447 Website: www.insuranceplacecentral.com September 9, 200' ) Planning Commission City of Diamond Bar 21825 E Copley Dr Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Aashiana Restaurant Dear Sirs, This is in regards to the agenda item # 7.1 on tonight's agenda: I would like to go on record as opposing the extension of the hours of operation of the restaurant. My only concern is the lack of parking availailability which has been addressed at previous meetings. n I feel that by having another restaurant open for business during normal lunch hours will create problems for customers of other business in this plaza. Please take this into consideration before making your final decision. ZSi ero ly Fer e�r-- Don Ferderor Insurance Agency CD C.n Diamond Bar International Delicatessen 2020 Brea Canyon Rd. #A2 Diamond Bar CA 91765 (909)861-3354 September 9, 2003 Attention: Planning Commission Dear Sirs, My name is Paul Park; I'm the owner of Diamond Bar Int'l Deli. As I'm unable to attend the Planning commission Hearing, I'm writing this letter. I do not agree with the parking survey claiming that we have adequate parking in the center. Yes, some days there are ample parking, but there are many more days that we have parking problems. Where my customers come in and comment that they had a difficult time finding space to park. If you let the restaurant open for lunch. Parking problem will become greater not only by the customers but also by the employees of the restaurant, who will be parking their cars on the lot. Than this center will become like many centers on the Diamond Bar Blvd i.e.; Ralph's shopping center, where during lunch time or other peak time no one can find parking space so they resort- to double parking and driving around looking for open spaces. C-) Double Parking and driving around looking for parking and not paying attention can b :n very dangerous both for the drivers and pedestrians. C=) If we consistently put our customers in this hazardous situation they may not return to patronize our businesses, this will definitely put a great burden on the tenants of our center, both financially and emotionally.:: Z - PCO So, please vote "no"on extending the restaurants hours. Ln Paul Park Diamond Bar International Deli 2020 Brea Canyon Rd. #A2 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COYAHSSIQ_N- --2 AGENDA HEM SUBJECT: —2,0__,� 0 ��- &1-12 TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: 0(-y )0 FROM: b al 5A LA -a P - ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: A �2-F(uE-� -5, -c- 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. <--Signatur6 NOTE: AR 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 to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. AGENDA ITEMSUBJECT: TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE - LRFROM: DRESS. (, ,AJ `l d fu) 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. L 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 WM have the opportu; nity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes.*