Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/09/2001
PLANNIN(`°"°� COMMISSION 7®0 P.Me South Coast Air Quality Man ' agement District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Steve Nelson Bob Zirbes George Kuo Joe Ruzicka Steve Tye 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 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title I/ 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) 396-5676 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) 396-5676 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE General Agendas (909) 396-5676 email: info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Tuesday, January 9, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Next Resolution No. 2001-01 1. ROLL CALL: CONMSSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka, and Steve Tye. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item 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. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 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: December 12, 2000. 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-4, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 99-9 Originally approved on August 10, 1999, to allow for the operation of a restaurant with outdoor dining, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and entertainment (i.e., dancing with a DJ, Karaoke, guitarist, folk singer, and comedy nights) at the location referenced below. In accordance with Condition No. 50) of Resolution No. 99-19, a periodic review of the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to assure compliance with conditions of approval gAntelMagenda\jan9 01.doc January 9, 2001 Page 2 Planning Commission and to consider whether to modify, add conditions as necessary, or revoke the permit. Municipal Code Section 22.76.020 authorizes the City to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider modification or revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. (Continued from December 12, 2000.) Project Under Review: Platinum Restaurant 245 Gentle Springs Lane (Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 15547) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: SX Diamond Bar 259 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Chris Pierce 245 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15321(a)(2), the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft resolution as presented or as such resolution may be modified to clearly elaborate the Commission's determination. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 _Conditional Use Permit No 2000-02, and Development Review No. 2000-20 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.020, 22.42.130 G, and 22.48.020) are requests to co - locate a telecommunications facility on an existing monopole approved on January 25, 1993, by Conditional Use Permit No. 92-11. The request also includes an equipment cabinet, utility pedestal and concrete pad for both. (Continued from November 28, 2000.) Project Address: Diamond Bar High School 21400 Pathfinder Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 January 9, 2001 Page 3 Planning Commission Property Owner: Walnut Valley Unified School District - 880 South Lemon Avenue Walnut, CA 91789 Applicant: Metricom, Inc. 1460 East 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(b), the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt. Recommendation: Staff and the applicant request that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to its regular meeting on January 23, 2001. 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(l), and Minor Variance No. 2000-19 (Pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.010, 22.48.020(A)(2), and 22.52.020 (D)) A request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09, Development Review No. 1998-11, and to approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. (Continued from November 14, 2000.) Project Address: 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: J. Coleman Travis Trust C/O: Glacier Peak Management Services, Inc. 7955 Dunbrook Road, Suite A San Diego, CA 92126 Applicant: Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt pursuant Section 15301(e) of Article 19 of Chapter 3 of Title 14 the California Code of Regulations. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. January 9, 2001 Page 4 Planning Commission 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000=08 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2000-22 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58, 22.56 and 22.68.030D) is a request to modify an existing retail suite to a shared space for Kendo Martial Arts Studio and an Interior Design Studio, and to approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a decrease in the number of required off-street- parking spaces for the legal non -conforming shopping center. Project Address: Property Owner: Applicant: 1403 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JHC Investment, LLC 3530 Wilshire Boulevard, #1440 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Kevin Kim 1410 S. Stonecrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a) the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-08 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8.2 Development Review No 2000-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000- 21 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020 and 22.68.030(B)) is a request to construct an addition of approximately 13,572 square feet to an existing two-story Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility of approximately 12,193 square feet for a total structure of approximately 25,765 square feet. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for expansion to a legal non -conforming structure. Project Address: 1041 South Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: Verizon One Verizon Way Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 January 9, 2001 Page 5 Planning Commission 9. 10. 11. Applicant: TDM Architects, Inc., 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90041 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration review period began December 15, 2000, and ended January 3, 2001. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000- 21, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. PLANNING COMIVIISSION COMMENTS: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: HOLIDAY TREE RECYCLING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COIVMSSION MEETING: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 26, 2000 through January 13, 2001 Curbside Pickup Thursday, January 11, 2001— 7:00 p.m. AQMD Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, January 16, 2001— 6:30 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive January 9, 2001 Page 6 Planning Commission JOINT MEETING OF CITY Tuesday, January 23, 20016:00 p.m. COUNCIL AND (Tentative) PLANNING COMMISSION Re: Community Senior Center Project AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION: JOINT MEETING OF PARKS AND RECREATION AND TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE: (Discussion of Trails Master Plan) COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE: (Discussion of Trails Master Plan) HOME COMPOST WORKSHOP: (Call (909) 396-5671 to reserve seat. Deadline: one week prior to event.) Tuesday, January 23, 2001 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, January 25, 2001 — 6:00 p.m. AQMD Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, January 25, 2001 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, February 1, 2001 7:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. AQMD Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, February 3, 2001 10:00 a.m. — Noon Heritage Park Community Center 2900 S. Brea Canyon Road Saturday, February 3, 2001, and Saturday, March 3, 2001 10:00 a.m. to Noon Heritage Park, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. January 9, 2001 Page 7 Planning Commission HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. 1300 Block Bridge Gate Drive (Gateway Corporate Center) MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, -California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruzicka. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Tye, and Joe Ruzicka. Absent: Chairman Steve Nelson. Also Present: David Meyer, Planning Consultant, Robert Pittman, Assistant City Attorney, Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1* Minutes of the November 14, and 28, 2000, meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of November 14, and 28, 2000, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Tye, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5.1 Final Entry Gate Details for Tract No. 52267. On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2000-02 subject to the review of the final entry gate details. The applicant requests approval of the final entry gate details as shown on Exhibit "A" dated December 12, 2000. DECEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: 700 Block of Diamond Bar Boulevard East side of Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Pulte Home Corporation APPLICANT: 18401 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, CA 92612 DSA/Joe presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed final entry gate details as shown on Exhibit "A" dated December 12, 2000. Mr. Wright stated that the project conditions state that the traffic signal must be installed and operational prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit. The entry and traffic signal are proposed to be constructed at about the same time. It is likely that the gates will remain open until the project is sold out. He indicated that the applicant has addressed the Commission's goals and concerns with respect to the gate design. Mr. Wright responded to VC/Zirbes that only the front entry will be accessible via remote control. The back entrance is for emergency access only. Dave Erickson, 24008 Highcrest Drive, asked why pedestrian gates are provided at the emergency exit. DSA/Joe stated that the original approval for the development has a condition that the secondary access gate is for emergency purposes only. The Commission may wish to consider whether the pedestrian access is appropriate for an emergency access gate. Mr. Wright indicated that Pulte feels the pedestrian gate at the back entrance would provide access to Pantera Park and Pantera School. The nearest home is approximately 150 to 200 feet from the emergency access. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the proposed final entry gate details as shown on Exhibit "A" dated December 12, 2000. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes None Chair/Nelson COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONER& DECEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 5.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-4 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 99-9 originally approved on August 20, 1999, to allow for the operation of a restaurant with outdoor dining, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and entertainment (i.e., dancing with a DJ, Karaoke, guitarist, folk singer, and comedy nights) at the location referenced below. In accordance with Condition No. 50) of Resolution No. 99-19, a periodic review of the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to assure compliance with conditions of approval and to consider whether to modify, add conditions as necessary, or revoke the permit. Municipal Code Section 22.76.020 authorizes the City to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider modification or revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. (Continued from November 28, 2000.) PROJECT UNDER REVIEW: Platinum Restaurant 245 Gentle Springs Lane (Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 15547) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: SX Diamond Bar 259 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chris Pierce 245 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the adoption of draft Resolution No. 2000 -XX and direct staff as appropriate. Patrick Munoz, speaking on behalf of the applicant, spoke about the differences between his proposed resolution and staff's proposed resolution. Vince Galloway, 300 S. Prospectors Road, said he would be inclined to accept staff's version of the resolution. Jeff Koontz, Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce, said it would appear that it may be more beneficial from a business point of view to go forward with the applicant's resolution as long as it is not detrimental to the City. DECEMBER rri PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. a 8. Following discussion, C/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to continue this matter to January 9, 2001, in order to allow staff and the Planning Commissioners ample opportunity to review the applicant's version of the proposed resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson NEW BUSINESS: None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Development Review No. 2000-15 (pursuant to Code Section 2.48) is a request to construct a two- story, single-family residence, of approximately 9,471 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, and a three -car, 1,546 square foot garage. Additionally, the request includes an accessory gazebo structure containing approximately 400 square feet under roof. PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 1819 Derringer Lane (Tract No. 24046, Lot 2) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Hardip Gill 100 Stagecoach Circle West Covina, CA 91791 Chary Dagam 100 Regal Canyon Drive Walnut, CA 91789 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony in this matter and continue the public hearing for Development Review No. 2000-15 to January 23, 2001, allowing further time for the applicant to revise their grading plan. VC/Zirbes opened the public hearing. There was no on present who wished to speak on this matter. DECEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to continue public hearing for Development Review No. 2000-15 to January 23, 2001. Motion carried by Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 8.2 Development Review No. 2000-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-21 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020 and 22.68.030(B)) is a request to construct an addition of approximately 7,174 square feet to an existing two-story public utility telephone switching facility of approximately 9,223 square feet. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for expansion to a legal non- conforming structure. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1041 South Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Verizon One Verizon Way Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 TDM Architects, Inc. 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90041 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the project be re -advertised for the January 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting and that Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 be amended to reflect the appropriate square footage. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to direct staff to re -advertise the project for the January 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting and that Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 be amended to reflect the appropriate square footage. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes None Chair/Nelson. COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DECEMBER 12, 2000 8.3 Development Review No. 2000-08/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-14 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence, of approximately 16,192 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, and a five -car garage. Additionally, the request includes a tennis court and an enclosed swimming pool. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct a detached, 1,000 square feet, two-bedroom guest house. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 Z0 "_ was] NVA z K 1 1626 Derringer Lane (Tract No. 24046, Lot 20) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Razgo Lee and Pao Chin Tu Lee 22125 Birdseye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Leslie Lippich Architects 4768 Park Granada, Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the Resolution. Leslie Lippich, Architect, presented a revised rendering which indicates that the Porte Cochere has been moved back about 15 feet to create a larger setback and is no longer a drive -under area. This modification tends to reduce the massive appearance of the front entrance. He indicated 'to VC/Zirbes that he and the property owner read staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval. VC/Zirbes opened the public hearing. Justin Ko said he is the architect for 1606 Derringer Lane, owned by Mr. Lin. Mr. Ko presented a copy of Mr. Lin's letter addressed to the homeowners association which outlined several concerns which included security fencing, water and height of the proposed structure. PC/Meyer explained that with respect to diversion of the water on the adjoining property at 1606 Derringer Lane, this property is required by Conditional (1) to comply with the grading requirements of the City's adopted Building Code which states that water cannot be diverted onto an adjoining property. The security fencing with respect to grading will be installed as part of the DECEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION pedestrian protection requirements of the Building Code. The City's Development Code allows a maximum height of 35 feet above finished grade with which the proposed dwelling unit complies. Staff's assessment of this project is that it would not impact the existing views from the surrounding properties. Mr. Lippich stated that both properties were graded together. Alterations to Mr. Lin's property by Mr. Lin was to divert some of the water off of his property. When construction is completed, there will be subsurface drainage and a masonry wall on the property line. During construction, the entire project will be fenced. Great effort was taken to ensure that this structure fit into the envelope by stepping the building back and down to follow the downhill slope. VC/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved to approve Development Review No. 2000-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. VC/Zirbes asked that Condition (g) on page 5 be amended as follows: That "maid's quarters" be replaced with "secondary unit" for consistency and that Condition (h) be added (with all remaining conditions renumbered) to read as follows: "The garage area in the secondary unit shall not be altered in any way in the future." C/Ruzicka modified his motion to include VC/Zirbes' recommendations. C/Kuo seconded the modified motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes None Chair/Nelson 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Tye asked if there is some way to accommodate a business owner or homeowner so that public hearing signs do not impair their living and business quality. He believes that when signs remain at a location for an extended period of time they lose their effectiveness. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future nroiects - as noted. DECEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Vice Chairman, Bob Zirbes AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: January 9, 2001 City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 5.1 January 3, 2001 CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-4 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 99-9 Periodic Review of the operation of a restaurant with on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, entertainment, and outdoor dining. PROJECT LOCATION: Platinum Restaurant 245 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: SX Diamond Bar 259 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar,CA 91765 APPLICANT: Ms. Chris Pierce 245 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission at its meeting of November 28, 2000, closed the public hearing concerning this project and directed staff to prepare a resolution setting forth finding and conditions that would compel the applicant to address certain issues of concern. The City Attorney's Office has prepared a draft resolution for consideration. The staff has identified the following items of concern expressed by the Planning Commission. I. PARKING: The Platinum restaurant generates a demand for off-street parking that impacts the surrounding property owners and businesses. Therefore, the applicant shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide written authorization that it has access to at least 220 parking spaces for its patrons after 10:00 PM of each and every business day. . a. Of the required 222 parking spaces at least 192 shall be located on the subject property. 1 b. Written authorization shall be provided to the City that specifies that the patrons have access to at least 30 off-site parking spaces. 2. Because all of the property designated as the private street (Gentle Springs Lane) is not owned by the subject property owner and because it is posted to prohibit on -street parking, it shall not be considered as an alternative for providing the required off-site parking facilities. 3. The applicant is involved in litigation with the property owner regarding the restaurant's ability to access the existing 270 on-site parking spaces. In the event that the current litigation is resolved and the applicant is found, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that it does not have the authority to,utilize at least 192 of the existing 270 spaces, the off-street parking requirement for the restaurant shall revert to a total of 96 spaces. The City shall then hold a public hearing to solicit information as to alternative methods of meeting the restaurant's demand for off-street parking facilities. II. NOISE: The Platinum restaurant generates noise that impacts the surrounding property owners and businesses. Therefore, the applicant shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The exterior doors of the subject premises shall remain closed so as to prevent noise intrusion that negatively impacts the surrounding property owners, businesses and their tenants or residents, in accordance with the City's noise standards. 2. The applicant shall, post signs requesting the cooperation and consideration of its patrons in an attempt to reduce the noise levels that may impact the surrounding property owners, businesses and their tenants or residents. 3. The applicant shall provide adequate security personnel to insure compliance with the City's noise regulations by their patrons. III. TRASH AND DEBRIS: The. City has been advised that trash and debris has been deposited on surrounding parcels of land. The allegation has been made that such trash and debris has been generated by patrons of the Platinum restaurant. The applicant shall be subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall provide adequate personnel to remove trash and debris from the subject property and the surrounding parcels of land that are utilized by its patrons. 2. The subject property and the surrounding parcels of land shall be cleared of all trash and debris by 9:00 a.m. of each and every day. IV. SECURITY: The City has been advised that there is inadequate security personnel provided by the Platinum restaurant to properly control the activity of its patrons that negatively impact the surrounding property owners and businesses and their tenants and residents. The Planning Commission may wish to specify number and types of security measures and personnel that shall be provided by the Platinum restaurant during its hours of operation. At its meeting of December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission directed the staff to work with the applicant in an effort to resolve their objections to the staff's recommended draft resolution. The City Attorney's Office has been in contact with the applicant's representative. The applicant indicated to the Planning Commission that there was not objection to the proposed conditions of approval. However, they objected to the findings of fact as stated in the draft resolution. 2 ANALYSIS: The necessity of declaring the Commission's findings is established by the City's Development Code (Section 22.58.040). The staff has reviewed the findings of fact with the City Attorney's Office. The attached draft resolution represents the staff's understanding of the Planning Commission's concerns and direction. The Planning Commission is encouraged to discuss the content of the resolution to determine if it adequately addresses the issues of concern. The public hearing regarding this item has been closed. Additional testimony should not be taken unless the hearing is readvertised. The Commission during its deliberation may seek information and clarification that will assist it in reaching a conclusion. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft resolution as presented or as such resolution may be modified to clearly elaborate the Commission's determination. Prepared by: LDM Associates, Planning Consultant Attachments: Draft Resolution PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAKING PERMIT NIO. 99 04 AND INGS RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-09 AND MODIFYING ITS PRIOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-04 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-09 TO ALLOW ENTERTAINMENT, OUTDOOR DINING, AND THE SALE AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE PLATINUM RESTAURANT AND NIGHT CLUB LOCATED AT 245 GENTLE SPRINGS LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA THE PLANNING COMMISSION- OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On August 10, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 99-19 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 99-04 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 99-09 to allow entertainment, outdoor dining, and the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at an existing restaurant facility located at 245' Gentle Springs Lane, Diamond Bar, California, subject to conditions. The restaurant, known as the Platinum Restaurant and Night Club, is owned and operated by Platinum Financial Systems, Inc. Section 2. - On October 10, 2000, a periodic review of CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99-09 was scheduled before the Planning Commission pursuant to the authority granted by Section 22.76.020 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code and the provisions set forth in condition 50) of Resolution 99-19. Section 3. In accordance with the provisions of Section 22.76.020 of the DBMC, a public hearing was duly noticed as follows: (1) on September 28, 2000, a legal notice was published in the 2 San Gabriel Valley Tribune and in The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers; O on September .25 , 2000, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 25 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site; and (3) a notice of the public hearing was posted in three public places in compliance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Section 4. On October 10, 2000, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this matter at its regular meeting and continued said hearing to its regular meeting on November 28, 2000. All members of the public wishing to speak on this matter, including representatives of the Business Operator, were afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission received approximately 10 hours of testimony, both oral and written, during the public hearing process. After due deliberation, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing on November 28, 2000. 11393\0001\636214.2 -1- Section 5. In accordance with Section 22.76.020(B)(1) the Planning Commission finds: 1. Circumstances have been changed by the Business Operator to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original approval of CUP 99-04 and MCUP_99-09 can no longer be made in an affirmative manner and the public health, safety and welfare require modificationofthe original -approval. -Specifically; -the, Planning Commission finds substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the Business Operator has intensified the use of the property beyond the level which was presented, to and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution 99-19. The night club operations, which potentially generate a greater demand for parking than the restaurant operations., comprise a substantially larger 'portion of the business activities of the Platinum than originally presented in the Business Operators 1999 application. The parking provided on-site is inadequate to satisfy the higher demand generated by the night club use. Evidence was presented to the Planning Commission to document the parking demand, including the use of adjacent businesses parking, the heavy use of on -street parking, and the parking study conducted by LDM Associates. 2. Testimony was provided, both orally and in writing, that documented the potential adverse noise impacts the night club operations may impose on adjacent residential uses. In particular, some residents of the 'Fall Creek Condominiums testified that there are significant noise impacts from the night club operations at their properties, including testimony that noise from the night club caused the residents walls to vibrate, awoke them at all hours of the night, and forced them to abandon their bedrooms and sleep elsewhere to escape the noise. 3. Evidence was introduced, both through oral testimony and pictorial evidence, demonstrating that the trash pick-up measures implemented by the Business Owner may be inadequate to address the need generated by the use. Public testimony was provided that empty bottles and other debris generated by patrons of the Platinum is regularly found along Gentle Springs Lane. The adverse impacts from trash are incompatible with adjacent land uses and detrimental to the public health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity. 4. In light of the substantial evidence in the record, the Planning Commission can no longer find that the Platinum is compatible with adjacent land uses (Finding 4(i) in Resolution 99- 19) or that the Platinum is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity (Finding 40) in Resolution 99-19) without the .implementation of the additional measures set forth herein to mitigate the Platinum impacts on adjacent land uses. The Planning Commission finds that the additional measures set forth in Section 6 herein are necessary to ensure that the Platinum is compatible with adjacent land uses and not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 5. The Planning Commission further finds that with the imposition and implementation of the measures set forth in Section 6 herein the Planning Commission can make each of the 11393\0001\636214.2 -2- !..'" findings contained in the Resolution 99-19, the original approval of CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99-09, in an affirmative manner. Section 6. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby modifies its prior approval of CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99-09 by adding the following operating conditions: 1. Parking. The Business Operator shall provide a minimum of 96 parking spaces on-site prior to 10:00 p.m. when the Platinum operates primarily as a restaurant. After 10:00 p.m. when the Platinum operates primarily as a night club, the Business Operator shall provide a minimum of 222 parking spaces. The 222 parking spaces shall be provided as follows: 192 parking spaces shall be provided on-site with the remaining 30 parking spaces provided off-site. The Planning Commission recognizes that a portion of the 192 on-site parking spaces are located on the parcel occupied by the Best Western Hotel and acknowledges that there is an on-going dispute between the hotel and the Platinum over the use of those spaces. By virtue of a preliminary injunction granted on October _, 2000, the Business Operator has a legal right to use a portion of the on-site parking spaces located on the hotel parcel. If a court of competent jurisdiction subsequently lifts the preliminary injunction and determines that the hotel has no legal obligation to make those parking spaces available to the Platinum, the on-site parking requirement for the Platinum shall revert to 96 spaces. 2:Noise Miti ag tion. The Business Operator shall post signs of at least 12" x 18" at exits to the restaurant and night club and within all parking areas, requesting patrons to respect residents of nearby residential neighborhoods by being quiet when leaving the restaurant and night club. 3. Noise Miti ag_tion. The Business Operator shall post a sign in a clear and conspicuous location, listing a phone number at which a responsible party may be contacted during all open hours of the establishment to address any concerns of the community regarding activities and noise in the restaurant. Said contact persons name and phone number shall also be available through the restaurant staff at all times. 4.Noise Miti ag tion. The Business Operator shall not permit any public nuisance in the outdoor dining area, including but not limited to, unruly behavior by patrons, which may contribute to noise impacts on adjacent land uses. 5. Noise Miti action. No amplified sound or music shall be permitted in the outdoor dining area at any time. 6. Noise Miti agy tion. The doors to the outdoor dining area shall be kept closed at all times to minimize any noise impacts on adjacent land uses. 7.Noise Miti ag tion. The Business Operator shall instruct its security personnel to regularly patrol the parking lot and Gentle Springs Lane to control the.noise level of patrons in the parking areas and to ensure that patrons respect residents of nearby residential neighborhoods by being quiet when arriving at and leaving the restaurant and night club. 11393\0001\636214.2 -3- 8. Trash Pick -Un. The Business Operator shall implement a more aggressive trash pick-up program to collect the trash generated by Platinum patrons both at on-site and immediately adjacent off-site locations, including but not limited to conducting trash sweeps after closing and during daylight hours, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager. Section .7. All other conditions of approval contained in Resolution 99-19 shall remain in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2001.` BY: Steve Nelson, Chairman ATTEST: I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar at a duly noticed regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on' the 9`� day of January 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: James DeStefano, Secretary 11393\0001\636214.2 -4- { 8. Trash Pick -Un. The Business Operator shall implement a more aggressive trash pick-up program to collect the trash generated by Platinum patrons both at on-site and immediately adjacent off-site locations, including but not limited to conducting trash sweeps after closing and during daylight hours, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager. Section .7. All other conditions of approval contained in Resolution 99-19 shall remain in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2001.` BY: Steve Nelson, Chairman ATTEST: I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar at a duly noticed regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on' the 9`� day of January 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: James DeStefano, Secretary 11393\0001\636214.2 -4- City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1 REPORT DATE: January 3, 2001 MEETING DATE: January 9, 2001 "CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, and Development Review No. 2000-20 APPLICATION REQUEST: Approval of plans to connect a three (3) panel antenna to an existing 60 foot high monopole and construct a 12' x 12' concrete slab upon which to mount a five-foot high 9 - square foot equipment cabinet and associated utility meter. PROJECT LOCATION• Diamond Bar Nigh School 21400 Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Metricom Inc. 1460 East 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 PROPERTY OWNER: Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 South Lemon Ave. Walnut, CA 91789 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission at its meeting on November 28, 2000, continued this public hearing item to the regular meeting of January 9, 2001, in order for the applicant to provide additional information regarding methods of reducing the visual impact of the proposed project. The applicant is revising the submitted plans to meet concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the appearance of the cellular antenna. The applicant has requested that this item be continued to -the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2001. Staff and the applicant request that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to its regular meeting on January 23, 2001. Prepared by: - LDM Associates, Planning Consultant Attachment: Correspondence from Metricom requesting a continuance. F4 the global leader IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING iOl S. First Street, Suite 202 Burbank, CA 91502 (818) 953-3040 (818) 953-3049 David Meyer City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mr. Meyer, As you know, I apeared before the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission on November 28 , 2000 to present CUP No. 2000-02 and Development Review No. 2000-20, and our hearing was continued to January 9th, 2001. As we discussed earlier today, I would like to formally request a continuance to the January 2,3d2001 Planning Commission hearing date. Should you have any questions . I can be reached at (818) 953-3040 Ext. 126. Thank you. Sincerely, Keyur Mistry Zoning Specialist WFI / Metricom 9805 Scranton Road, #100, San Diego, CA 92121 Tel.: (619) 824-2929 9 Fax: (619) 824-2928 City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.2 REPORT DATE: January 3, 2001 January 9; 2001 MEETING DATE: . CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1) and Minor Variance No. 2000- 19 ST: APPLICATION REQUEA request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 • and Development Review No. 1998-11 and to review and approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required on-site parking spaces to accommodate seating for twelve at Togo's. PROPERTY LOCATION• 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 12738), Diamond Bar, CA PROPERTY OWNER: J. Coleman Travis Trust 7955 Dunbrook Road, #A San Diego, CA 92126 APPLICANT: Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC D.b.a. Togo's 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUMMARY: The subject request has been continued from the November 14, 2000 Planning Commission ssiometing late t This was agreed upon by the Applicant to allow the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren S analyze e theparking study data dated November 12, 2000, from the .Applicant's Traffic Engineer, Linscott, Law and Greenspan. The Applicant requests to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09 and Development Review No. 98-11, require the property owner to obtain a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent shopping 1 center. The property owners have been unable to obtain such an agreement. Also, the Applicant is requesting an intensification of use from a take-out delicatessen to restaurant providing seating for ten at Togo's. This request also requires revision to the previous Conditional Use Permit and Development Review, even though there are no changes, expansion, or structural alterations to this existing legal non -conforming structure. The original project was processed in 1998 prior to the adoption of today's Development Code. The parking requirements for that project based on the Los Angeles County Code effective at that time required a total of 49 on-site parking spaces with a mix of compact and standard sizes. The square footage of the suites at that time did not include the Togo's. However, the square footage for that unit was included in the 1/250 parking ratio since it was then a part of both Cathay Bank and the Hollywood Video. However, subsequently, the reconfiguration of the interior tenant improvements from the original approval provided for a fourth use with the same parking ratio as retail, that being the Togo's take-out delicatessen. The 1,119 square feet of Togo's reduced the size of the Hollywood Video and the Cathay Bank and provided revised suites with varying square footages as shown in the table below (Parking Requirements). The parking requirements for today's code do not allow compact spaces and dimensions for parking stalls for commercial uses are 9 feet wide by 19 feet in length with driving aisles larger than currently on site. Therefore, the current shopping center parking lot is considered legal nonconforming. The parking spaces required with the requested uses per today's code are 52 spaces. PARKING REQUIREMENTS .Tenant Original CUP/DR Approval Parking Diamond Bar's .Development Code Requirements (LA Count Code) effective December 1998 Hollywood Video Retail Retail 1 parking space/250 sq. ft. 1 parking space/ 250 sq. ft. of gross sales area 5092 square feet 5000 total square feet 4209 square feet of gross sales area Requires 20 spaces Requires 17 spaces Cathay Bank Bank Banks 1 parking space/250 sq. ft. 1 parking space/300 sq. ft. of gross floor area 3918 square feet 2500 square feet Requires 16 spaces Requires 8 spaces Starbucks Restaurant & Outdoor Dining Fast Food Restaurant & Outdoor 1 parking space for every 3 occupants Dining 350 square feet is devoted to dinning 1 parking space/100 sq. ft. of gross with 15 square feet per occupant floor area 350/15=23 occupants. 1400 square feet Requires 8 spaces Requires 14 spaces 200 square feet is devoted to outdoor 200 square feet dining 200/15=20 occupants. outdoor dining Requires 5 spaces Requires 2 spaces 2 Togo's Included in Cathay Bank & Fast Food Restaurant & Outdoor Hollywood Video square tl footageoe11 Dining space/100 sq. ft. of gross calculations at 1/250 gross floor area see above 1119 square feet Re wires 11 maces —___4 Total 49 S aces Total 52 s aces ® Legal Non -conforming Status The present site is considered a legal nonconforming site because it does not meet the requirements as set forth in the present Development Code. Per the Development. e o 2 68.03 tD(2)(c)),standaa nonconforming structure, rendered nonconforming due to lack of compliance regarding off-street parking; may undergo changes if the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. Should the parking study warrant fewer parking spaces, the approval process could be done with a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Initially,the Applicant requested a Minor Variance for a Variance of 20% deviation; thesuggestwthe um site and by this process, from 52 to 42 spaces. However, the investigations and parking anysis ene uses can accommodate fewer spaces (36) and that the center might be better served if svehicles were widku s to conform to today's width requirements of 9 feet. Both Engineers concur that t the larger paces ardareas encroach. i and SUV's) do not use the substandard spaces and those that do use the nto adjacent spaces or effectively preclude use of the adjacent spaces because other drivers choose not to park beside them. Therefore, the Minor Variance application is not being processed. The Planning Commission can make -this approval with the changes to the original Conditional Use Permit as noted above. Though a Shared Parking Analysis was not done with the original approval that head 37 spaces on the site - 1. Itis noted in the staff plan, the site -plan was revised to include 42 spaces as shown on Exhibit A , pag report that theoretically the parking for the site at 37 spaces could support the uses based on a staggering of hours of operation for the various business uses in the center. The following is a tion of t ehours Parking of operation for those businesses currently on-site. These times were considBred in the Analysis Reports and conclusions. • ' Hours of Operation Da s Hollywood Video Starbucks To o's 10:00 am -9:00 in. Cathay Bank 9:00 am -5:00 .m. Monda-Thursda 10:00am-12:00 am 5:30 am -11 .m. 5:30 am -12 am 10:00 am -10:00 .m. 9:00 am -6:00 .m. rida F rich 10:0 am -12:00 am 10:00am-12:00 am 6:00 am -12 am 10:00 am -10:00 .m. 10:00 am -2:00 a c,,,,finv 10:00am-12:00 am 6:00 am -11 D.M. 10.00.am-8:0O m. Closed 3 ® Shared Parking Analysis/Study Attached are the following Shared Parking Analysis Reports (Attachment "2"): 1. Warren Siecke comments and recommendations dated December 20, 2000; 2. Linscott, Law & Greenspan response to Planning Commission and Report for Shared Parking Analysis dated December 19, 2000; 3. Linscott, Law & Greenspan response dated November 12, 2000 presented to the Commission with verbal comments from Warren Siecke dated November 15, 2000;. 4. Warren Siecke comments dated November 8, 2000 regarding November 8, 2000 response from Lindscott, Law & Greenspan; 5. Linscott, Law & Greenspan response dated.November 8, 2000 regarding November 6, 2000 Warren Siecke comments; 6. Warren Siecke comments dated November 6, 2000 regarding November 2, 2000 Additional Shared Parking Analysis; 7. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Additional Shared Parking Analysis data for site at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard dated November 2, 2000; 8. Warren Siecke comments dated October 2, 2000 regarding September 25, 2000 Lindscott, Law & Greenspan response; 9. Linscott, Law & Greenspan response dated September 25, 2000 regarding September 20, 2000 Warren Siecke Comments; 10. Warren Siecke comments dated September 20, 2000 regarding January 31, 2000 Shared Parking Analysis report; 11. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Shared Parking Analysis dated January 31, 2000. The conclusions of these reports are based on a typical Friday. The peak -shared demand for parking is expected to be 36 spaces with tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at the Togo's. It is further recommended that the parking lot be re -striped to provide parking space dimensions that meet or exceed the current code requirements of 9 feet by 19 feet and that the 8 feet 11 inches width proposed at the westerly parking area meet the intent of the code. Both Engineers concur that the larger vehicles (pickups and SUVs) do not use the substandard spaces and those that do use the substandard areas encroach into adjacent spaces or effectively preclude use of the adjacent spaces because other drivers choose not to park beside them. It is recommended that the striping be removed rather than painted over with black paint. The new black surface and fresh striping would draw attention to the new layout thereby encouraging customers to park on site. Additionally, the spaces that had been marked specifically for the Cathay Bank were confusing to customers of the subject center. These markings have been removed by the owner, however, the conditions of approval that no curb markings for specific businesses be put on site, so that the parking spaces should be for the entire center's use. As stated previously, in order for a legal nonconforming site to add to the uses the traffic study must support the uses and define the required number of parking spaces. 4 • Additional Conditional Use Permit Requirements ed The Planning Division has received service requests over the past ythe sar ite has only one exterior trr this site. These ash unsightliness of trash and debris on-site and landscaping care. Currently, well as enclosure. It will be a revised condition of approval that the container each in emptied ront of Togo's s entrap having additional trash receptacles with ash trays placed on the sidewalk another near the Starbucks. The owner has complied with this request by the Planning Division and there are trash receptacles on-site as conditioned with this approval. It should be noted that the site's complaints have reduced over the last few months.-The ons s -T w p rotpwrth ownership has maintained the site with weeded landscape, and a larger trash placed commercial hauling daily, except Sunday. operatinal standards and Additionally, a condition of approval will be added to the resolution codes.regarding Cond�ional Use Permit is ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable f aproval occurs, the Panning subject to periodic review: If non-compliance with conditions � opal conditions may bel added. Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit and additional op NOTICE OF PUBLICBEARING: On Seed by tember 25, 2000, 36 property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project sbune and the were a In and P mail. On September 29, 2000,, this item was advertised in the San GabrielVallev n Vallev Daily Bulletin newspapers and a notice of public hearing on a di nbliay bo aces were was post d within ed at the site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three otherp P the vicinity of the application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act QA) the California Environmental determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to guidelines Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(e). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission amend Conditional Use Permitached reso Ment Review No. 1998=11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed thin the att REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject -zoning district with the approval Co dittion ual Use ipal Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code a Code. consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 2. The proposed use is 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. 5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,' - convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS: 1. 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); 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). REQUIRED MINOR 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 viewed in compliance with the provisions of the California 5. The proposed entitlement has been re Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prepared by: Linda Kay Smith' ` Development Services Assistant ATTACHMEN'T'S: 1. Draft Resolution; 2. Shared Parking Analysis Reports, co 3. correspondence, conclusion; 3. Previous Staff reports with previous9, 2001. 4. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, dated January D:WORD-LINDA\PLANCOMM\PROJECTS\CUP 1998-09(1) 1193 DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/010901 REP CUP 1998-09(1)... 7 A. PLANNING COMMISSION/`0VRP" RESOLUTION NO. 2001-xx 4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-09(01), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-11(1) AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, A REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-09 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-11 AND TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES TO ACCOMODATE ON-SITE SEATING FOR TOGO'S LOCATED AT 1193 DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD (PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 12738) DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. Recitals 1. The property owner, J. Coleman Trust, and applicant, Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, have filed an application to amend Conditional Use permit No. 98-09 and Development Review No. 98-11, herein referred to as Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09(1) and Development Review No. 98-11(1), for a property located at 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar,' Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution.. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit, Development Review revision, and Categorical Exemption, shall be referred to as the "Revised Application." 2. On October 1 13, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 98-9 and Development Review No. 98-11 and approved such per Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. 3 On September 25, 2000, thirty-six property owners within a 500 -foot radius'of the project site were notified by mail. on September 29, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was made 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 sites were posted within the vicinity of the,.application. 4. on October 10, Commission of noticed public 2000 and November 14, 2000, the Planning the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly hearing on the Revised, Application and 03 Im continued the public hearing. to January 9, 2001,'4&n concluded the public hearing on January 9, 2001. 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(e) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence,this Planning commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California'Code of Regulations. 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09 and Development Review No. 98-11. This approval was to construct a 5,029 square foot addition to an existing 5,380 square foot one-story commercial building at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 12738), Diamond Bar, CA. The project site is approximately 28,594 square feet at the corner of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, adjacent to (not a part of) a retail shopping center identified as Diamond Bar Town Center. Hollywood Video, Starbucks Coffee, Cathay Bank and Togo's Delicatessen currently occupy the project site. K 47 t� The previous approval, Condition 5.(d), Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21, stated that additional uses based on occupancy shall not be permitted without a revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit. Curr i Currently, Togo's is a take out delicatessen and the addition of seating is considered a restaurant, an intensification of use. Therefore, the request is subject to both the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review revision. Additionally, the previous approval, Condition 5.(c), planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21, required the owners to obtain a reciprocal with the adjacent shopping. parking agreement center. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.030D(2)(c), the Applicant has had prepared by a licensed traffic engineer and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, a Shared Parking Analysis- based on site observations that and Development Code parking standards and uses, substantiates the request to remove Condition 5.(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared. Parking Analysis also substantiates the enlargement and . the reduction of required on-site parking spaces established by the City's Development Code for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. (b) The General Plan Ld Use designaion is General 1 (C). The apnroject site istzoned Unlimited Commercial commercial,(C-3). (c) Generally/ the following zones surround the subject is the Unlimited north and west site: to the Multiple Res idenc e -Minimum, Lot Size -8, 000 square Feet -25 Units Per Acre (R -3-8,000-25U) Zone and to the south and east is the Unlimited Commercial (C- 3) Zone. (d) The revised application is a request to amend the Conditional Use Permit No. 98-9 and Development Review No. 98-11 by removing Condition 5.(c) of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21 that required the owner to obtain -a Reciprocal Parking Agreement with the adjacent shopping center. It also is a request to decrease the number of required off-street parking spaces to 36 and -sto intensification of use of on site approve an 3 seating of tables and chairs for a to4'-. seat�i-ny, of ten at Togo's. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (e) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. Pursuant to Table 2-6, Allowed Uses 'and Permit Requirements :for Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts, of the Development Code, a restaurant is permitted in the C-3 Zone. The request to add seating to the Togo's delicatessen is an intensification of an approved use. Therefore, it is subject to revision of both the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review. The request for reduction in the required number of parking spaces and enlarging them to comply with Development Standards in today's Code, has been substantiated by a Shared Parking Analysis, approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke. Both the Applicant's and the City's Traffic Engineer concur that the larger vehicles (pickups and SW's) do not use the substandard spaces and those that do use the substandard areas encroach into adjacent spaces or effectively preclude use of the adjacent spaces because other drivers choose not to park beside them. As conditioned, the proposed uses will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Municipal Code. (f) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C). Pursuant to the General Plan, this land use designation provides for regional, freeway oriented, and/or community retail and service commercial uses. The proposed project is -considered a retail commercial use and as such is consistent with the General Plan. As there is no change to the site's exterior configuration, the current site's architectural style, construction materials and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. A Shared Parking Analysis for the 0 stantiated the enlargement�,�--tfid subject site has sub the reduction of required parking spaces per the. City's Development Code pursuant to Section 22.68.030D(2)(c). Therefore, the design and layout of the proposed project is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan. Additionally, a specific plan, does not exist for the project site. The design, location, .,size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and. future land uses in the vicinity. The proposed uses are within an existing legal non- conforming commercial center process by the City.Of Diamond Bar and approved per Planning Resolution No. 98-21. The parking requirements do not meet the current Diamond Bar Development Code for the proposed intensification of use of a restaurant. Also, the approved Resolution No. 98-21, Condition 5..(d), requires, revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit for additional uses. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.030D(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. in this case a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site was prepared'by a registered I traffic engineer based on site observations and Development Code parking standards and uses. This Analysis was approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, and determined the required on-site parking spaces at 36 for the addition of tables and chairs . for a total seating of ten at Togo's. There are no changes, expansion, or structural ng legal non -conforming to this existing posed structure. The existing site of the pro(C-3) project is within the Unlimited Commercial Zone. The site's- existing architecture, construction materials, and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. The operating characteristics will be compatible with the existing and future 'land .uses in the vicinity as conditioned through the 5 Conditional process. Use Permit and ry Devel Zn,,t,: ,./kev4ew (h) The subject site is physically suitable for the tyte and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility- with adjoining- -land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. As referenced in Item (g) above, the proposed project involves, the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared, Parking Analysis was completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, and determined the required on-site parking spac'es at 36 for the addition of tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at Togo's. (i) Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. Though this is an existing facility needing no construction permits or additional Business License - applications, the Shared Parking Analysis Reports and the operational conditions listed within this resolution will ensure that the facility will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, of the City. (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 proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the N. � guidelines of the California EnvironmenMbaI Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(e). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (k) The design and layout o .. f the proposed development eis consistent with the General Pln, developmnt standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for u specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). The proposed project complies with the elements of the adopted General Plan of July 25, 1995, which has a land use designation of General Commercial (C). As referenced in Item (9) above, the proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical -appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis was completed for the subject site and approved by the city's Traffic Engineer Warren Siecke, and determined the required on-site parking spaces at 36 for the addition of tables and chairs ten at Togo's. There is no for a total seating of community planned specific or additional development for the site. (1) 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 project s . ite was previously approved by the. Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the IN commercial center in which the use `is located except for the parking requirements. Althbugh this is an . existing development, the proposed project• would be permitted with the appropriate approvals.%. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed -use. Pursuant -to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis was completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, and determined the required on-site parking spaces at 36 for, the addition of tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at Togo's. The developed property is not expected to unreasonably 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 the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structureor the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be -permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis was completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, and determined the required on-site parking spaces at 36 for the addition of tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at Togo's. The existing project's architectural design is compatible with the businesses in the area and is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and as amended the Development Code. There is not applicable specific plan. ff, of the proposed development wiijprovide (n) The design for its occupants -and. a desirable environment its neighbors, through visiting public, as well as good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. The project site was previously approved by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at the Togo'.s restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the, use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center. in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. Pursuant to the Development Code a Shared Parking Analysis was completed for the subject site and approved by the City's Traffic Engineerl Warren Siecke, and determined the required on-site parking spaces at 36 for the addition of tables and chairs for a total seating of ten at Togo's. As amended herein, the site's parking lot will be redone to accommodate larger spaces and new striping. Therefore, the revisions are not expected to unreasonably interfere with the. use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create. traffic or pedestrian hazards. (o) 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.. Though this is an existing facility needing no construction permits or additional Business License applications, the Shared Parking ' Analysis Reports and the operational conditions listed.within this resolution will ensure that the facility will not be detrimental -to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, of the City. (p) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 14 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(e). 5.* Based upon the --findings and -conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a). The project shal ' 1 substantially conform to site plan, floor plan, and Revised Re -striping Plan collectively labeled as Exhibit "All dated January 9, 2001, as submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission. (b) Prior to installing tables and chairs at the Togo's site, a revised parking plan shall be submitted to the. Planning Division for review and approval by the City's -Traffic Engineer to include 36 spaces. Parking space dimensions shall meet or exceed the current code requirements of 9 feet x 19 feet and that the 8 feet x 11 inches width proposed at the westerly parking area meet the intent of the code. (c) Prior to installing tables.and chairs at the Togo's site, the parking lot shall be re -surfaced to remove striping rather than paint over, and re - striped to the revised approved plan. (d) Curb markings for specific businesses on-site shall be removed and remain free of restrictions to parking except for ADA requirements. (e) After parking lot resurfacing and re -striping, Togo's shall be allowed tables and chairs for a total seating of ten for indoor restaurant use. (f) All on-site trash containers shall be emptied daily-, except on Sunday for the large commercial unit behind the trash enclosure. (g) Three additional trash receptacles with ashtrays shall be placed on the sidewalk, one each in front of Togo's entrances and another near the Starbucks. (h) Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.76.020, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to .periodical review by the Planning Commission. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional IM Use permit and additional operational conditions maybe added or revoked. (i) Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-11. shall be retained in its entirety excepting Condition 5-(c), which is null and void and as amended herein. (j) 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 I at least 60 days prior to the expiration . dateThe Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the I city of Diamond Bar Development Code. (k) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (i.f 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. (1) 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 fee imposed. because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also Pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the DO-oartment determines to be owed. 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 J. Coleman Trust, 7955 Dunbrook Road, #A, San Diego, CA 92126 and 11 Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th OF JANUARY 2001, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a,regular.meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of January, 2001, by the following vote: ATTEST: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: James DeStefano, Secretary D: WORD-LINDA/PLANCOMM/PROJECTS/CUP 98-09(1)-/RESO CUP 1998-09(1) 1193- 01K ATTACHMENT " 2" CUP 98-09(1), DR 98-110) JANUARY 9, 2001 TO: Linda Smith Ffom Waren Siecke Re: Togo's Parking Study 1 have reviewed the shared parking study Prepared by Unscott, Law and Greenspan (LLG) and their memo dated December 19, 2000. I am satisfied with the stud mond and methodology and I addifion oo2-seat tables lusion that 36 parking spaces will adequately serve the ekisbng parking de I strongly recommend that the parking lot be restnped to provide parking space dimensions that meet or exceed the the 6'-11° width proposed by LLG for spaces in the westerly current code. requirements (9' x 19'). In my opinion, preclude maximum parking. area meets the intent of the code. Thethatcurrenti irregular and substandard vehicle di bio dy pdwps and SWs) utilization. My observation at this location revealed that many drivers of larger vehicles (pa will not use the substandard spaces. Those that do use the substandard areas encroach into adjacent spaces or effectively preclude use of the adjacent spaces because other drivers choose not to parte beside them. With the high proportion of large vehicles on the road today, the available parking area in lots with substandard spaces is not used effectively. I believe the conversion to standard space dimensions will result m less °spillover° parking from this site to Jack In The Box and the other adjacent properties. I also recommend that the existing striping be removed rather than painted over with black paint. if isnot removed, the blade paint will wear off over time. The resultant mbdureof old and new stripes will be confusing to drivers. It would be desirable to resurface the lot before restriping. The new black surface and fresh striping would draw attention to the new layout thereby encouraging customers to park on site. please call me if you need more information. Obw%090 122000 9 Page 1 MEMORANDUM E N G I N E E R S 234 East Colorado Bork ad, Suite 400 Pasadena, California 91101-2212 Tel 626.796.2322 Fax 626.792.0441 E-mail gmeaespanoigengineers.coerl Date: December 19, 2000 To: (1) Linda Smith, City of Diamond Bar (2) Warren Siecke, Warren Siecke & Associates _ From: Jack Greenspan g Sul>,ject: TOGO's Diamond Bar Shared Parking Analysis Fax No.: (1) 909.861.3117 No. Pages: 3 Hard Copy: No c (2) 714.779.1644 ori This memorandum presents our conclusions relative to the amount of indoor seating which can be permitted in the existing TOGO'S without exceeding the on-site shared parking supply. The existing TOGO's contains approximately 1,270 square feet and proposes to provide 6 - 2 seat tables. Shared Parking Methodolog' The shared parking analysis contained in our letter report of January 31, 2000, was based on the City of Diamond Bar Code parking requirement. For the TOGO's, we used the fast food - restaurarn & outdoor dining requirement of one parking space per 100 square feet (10 spaces per 1,000 square feet), which reflects take-out with seating. This peak requirement was then adjusted to account for the hourly variation in demand using hourly parking adjustment factors developed from study of an existing busy TOGO's with seating located in East Pasadena at 3405 Foothill Boulevard. Hourly parking adjustment factors for the 3 other on-site uses (Cathay Bank, Starbucks, and Hollywood Video) were developed in a similar manner. TOGO'S Fast Pasadena Stating The TOGO's shared parking analysis is based on study of the existing TOGO'S in East Pasadena. This TOGO's is approximately 1,800 square feet in size and is located in a shopping center on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sierra Madre Villa Avenue. Parking is shared with other adjacent on-site uses. There are 19 - 2 seat tables indoors (38 seats) and 9 - 4 seat outdoor tables (36 seats), for a total 74 seats. TOGO'S Diamond Bar Shared Parking Analysis The January 31, 2000, shared parking analysis reflected the overall parking requirement with indoor seating in TOGO's. The shared parking analysis was based on the current City Code requirement of one space per 100 square feet, adjusted to reflect the hourly variation in parking demand. based on study of an existing TOGO's with seating that shares parking with adjacent uses. Atotal requirement for 32 shared parking spaces was projected at that time. TOGO's December 19 2000 Page 2 E N G I N E E R S Sharvd Parking Survey Analysis of the results of the Friday, October 27, 2000, shared parking survey of existing uses (including the existing TOGO's) was presented in our letter report of November 2, 2000. Based on observations ofTOGO's customer off-site parking, and the number ofvehicles observed parked on- site, existing shared parking has been projected to be 31 spaces. Revised Shared IParking Demand We now project a shared parldng demand of 37 spaces. This is based on a revised shared parking demand analysis which reflects the above 31 space adstmg demand (without seating), and the added parking demand of 6 spaces that could be expected to be generated by the proposed 6 - 2 seat tables at one space per table. Parking Supply versus Demnd Our recent survey shows that there are a total of 42 legal non -conforming parking spaces on-site. Mirth a projected shared parking demand of 37 spac.es and a supply of 42 spaces, a surplus of 5 spaces can be expected. Parking Re -striping Re -striping the existing legal non -conforming parking to conform to the existirig City Code will reduce the parking supply by 6 spaces to a total of 36 parking spaces (see attached sketch plan). This would result in a 1 space shortfall when compared to the projected 37 space demand based on the shared parking survey (with 6-2 seat tables in. TOGO's). Number of TOGO's Tables Based on the above, the re -striped parking supply of36 on-site spaces will provide sufficient parking for 5 - 2 seat tables in TOGO's. C: Lyda H& 909.860.7993 0tros_F=WIffa9J& wrD 0 0 JACK-IN-THE-BOX 7 �aq 7 SPACES vy. EXUMG �--------------.._... 2HC-•--------- EXISTING 12 8-1° ---v"'= II nH R H I p 9' PE 10 -B' ( I I EXISTING 14 0 7 -r L RESTRIPE 12 4DV-11° I ( ; EXISTING 14 V-1® RESTRIPE 12 9'-5° i v I i •� TOGO'S CATHAY BANK HOLLYWOOD VIDEO STARBUCKS GRAND AVENUE P EXISTING 42 SPACES RESTRIPE 36 SPACES UNSCOTT G REENSPAN �LV POTENTIAL. RESTRIPING E N G I N E E R S NOT TO BOALE TOWS. CKAMOND EAR MEMORANDUM °pp Nov 13 P uNSCOTT,'LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 234 East Colorado Boulevard, suite 400 Pasadena, C Anomia 91101-2212 l.C'Yt✓ttiLC:.+�.1 t'r-� 'M• Tel 626.796.2322 Fax 626.792.o941 E•mall greenspan@iigengineem mom Date: November 12, 2000 To: (1) Linda Smith, City of Diamond Bar (2) Warren Siecke, Warren Siecke & Associates From: Jack Greenspan Subjech TOGO'S Diamond Bar Shand Parking Analysis Fax No.: (1) 909.861.3117 No, Pages: 2 Hard Copy: No (2) 714.779.1644 This memorandum presents our conclusions relative to the questions regarding the applicability of the shared parking analysis contained in our letter report of January 31, 2000, to the TOGO's Diamond Bar with 6 tables (12 seats), and the Friday, October 27, 2000 shared parking survey. Shared Parking Methodology The ;hared parking analysis contained in the letter report of January 31, 2000, was based on the City of Diamond Bar Code parking regrur+emerrt. For the TOGO'S, we used the fast food - restaurant & outdoor dirupg requirement of one parking space per 100 square fat (10 spaces per 1,000 square feet), which reflects take-out with seating. This peak requirement was then adjusted to account for the hourly variation in demand using hourly parking adjustment factors developed from study of an existing busy TOGO's with seating looted in East Pasadena at 3405 Foothill Boulevard. Hourly parking adjustment factors for the 3 other on-site uses (Cathay Bank, Starbucks, and Hollywood Video) were developed in a similar manner. TOGO's East Pasadena Seating .The TOGO's shaved parking analysis is based on study of the existing TOGO's in East Pasadena. This TOGO's is approximately 1,800 square feet in size and is located in a shopping center on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sierra Madre Villa Avenue. Parking is shared with other adjacent on-site uses. There are 19 tables with 2 seats each indoors (38 seats) and 9 outdoor tables with 4 seats each (36 seats), for a total 74 seats. TOGO'S Diamond Bar Shared g Analysis The January 31, 2000, shared parking analysis did reflect the overall parking requirement with indoor seating in TOGO'S, since it is based on the current City Code requirement of one space per 100 squame feet, adjusted to reflect the hourly variation in parking demand based on study of an existing TOGO'S with seating that shares parking with adjacent uses. A total requirement for 32 shared parking spaces was projected at that time. LINSCOTT, LAS/ & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TOGO's November 12, 2000 Page 2 Shared Patting Survey Analysis of the results of the Friday, October 27, 2000, shared parking survey of existing uses (including the existing TOGO's) was presented in our letter report ofNovember 2, 2000. Based on observations of TOGO'S customer off-site parking, and the number of vehicles observed parked on- site, existing sheared parking has been projected to be 31 spaces. Actual parking usage (with no TOGO'S seating) appears to be slightly greater thea the Jamiwy 31, 2000 projection (with TOGO's seating). Assuming that all ofthe 6 proposed indoor tables are occupied atone vehicle per table, the potential shared parking deaamnd would be 37 spaces or 5 e �ro�ed Parking Supply versals Demo d Our recent non-conformin - a projected shared parking demand of 37 spaces and a supply of 42 spaces, a surplus of 5 spacm .. parking to conform to the existing City Code will reduce the parking supply by 7 Spaces to a total of 35 parkdna sAaces. This would r t in a 2 Space shortfall when CO to ptoiected demand based en the _ r►Ar no survey. On this basis, 4. of the 6 proposed 2 seat tables would be sunwrt by the re-atrined nnrEnv Parking Monhoaing Assuming that 4- 2 seat tables are permitted instead of the proposed 6-2 seat tables, and the parking re -striped to Code, we recommend consideration of another parking survey to be undertaken on a .Friday 90 days after the re -sniping to determine if cumber of tables can be increased. c: lards "nu 9n9 vAn 'won / .1 i if Tn• hmda smut, From: Warren SKKim Fax: PaM: 1 Phone: Date: November 8, 2000 Re: Togo's Parking Study CC: e comments: I talked to Jack Greenspan of Lhscatt, law & Greenspan today regarding my 11/6100 comments on their parking study report. We discussed my comment on Page 2, par. 5. He explained that the 11 vehicles parked at Jack4n4he-Box included Moth their customers and Togo's. I suggested he may wish to change the 13.2% which represents the parking distribution over the entire study period to 17% which represents the distribution in the peak hour (12:30 to 1:30). This would result in a forecast demand of 33 spaces and still less than the 35 available. He said he would be prepared to discus that if it comes up in the hearing. I also pointed out an error in the last paragraph on page 2. The denominator of the formula should be 1.000 —0.132." Lastly, we disc * ed ue of "sit dawn' usage. He told me his client told him "this is not an issue.' Based on my discussion with So Joe, Id him I am sure it is. Obarrogo pkg stdy 3 �` �J"'v „'`� `✓V� " FAX COVER PAGE Ni1i E N G I N E E R S EI�TGINEERS & pl-�►NNE1� "�1'�C' T�'NSPORTATIO�. PARKING '^" R r Costa Mesa 714.641.1.587 234 But Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 ` San Diego 619.299.3090 Pa:adena, California 91101 Phone: 626.796.2322 Fax: 626.792.0941 F,tr.ail:pasade0a@Ugcn8ineers.c0m Date: 1 i i! lime: From: Project: tj n2 NIOiID Job No. l VOZq i $ P�zlres: Z TO THE FOLLOWING: Name: W A'R ga-N 5 1 tm46i , Company: Recipient No: Fax No. "7 Nene. Ll" A S A4 VM Company: CA" DT Dl• Pam 13A'N Ftjx No. l ocl - SG 1-'311 Recipient No. 7. Name:.06-13 pA�v- L ' Company: TV GoS Recipient No: � Fax No. 4?A-6b 3 -1-040 Name: t-''�17 A OVL7r Fux No. g oq- Bros -O .a 53 Company: Recipient No:. 4 Name: ComPany' Recipient No: Fix. No. MESSAGE l by e hidLutt j ,� 'i .4J& CJ~4eho V17'n 1I )M P%VLVft TW, S, nK wwA 4ov A voosn sTj6yk,40r���y�/•y/�t■�/"� lw ocky r w� �L v vL�S r *wk �j A -T AI.1� • l tje •''jr` (®_ _ I k&0 (�oR fwk.A Wee V vt.6TRoT P j1t'6k-vw l'h" tr R�8v�S8YJ oj% f `cJrwq4151 f*JS A D t PW4L'rS A -f~ip P CAkvz �.N nL&&Vf-j c,MWKA,"4W Wt"Ylitc, gVM" 0 Y" N%A-t•:r-v y� -mak Av%* oW) rLMIE CAS -w ^4 0'% vM) ,vc. pwo�, pA tw 141 DOW b l w�" ISSUE sib, ' VrIt,A.► - �� c�'- Fran: yyarren Siacke Linda Srn th Fax: Oahe: Nowa T%w 6.2000 Phare: Fie: Togo s Panting Swdy CC: ® commenter I have rC Wwed the pardting study Prepared by MG and famed to me on November 2. 2000- i have the following comments: Page 2, per. 4 - The widths of the parldrg spaces' are noted ss'on average.- This implies #W some of the spaces mus! widths. This would praricte further jusiific�on for restriping to curn:►M code iM �Lirem� ntsa 1==a #0 the narrow s�.s may contribute to the amount of otd:site p oc cum. on-site and 11 periced at the Jack4n VwBm Page 2, Par. 6 — it is noted that at 2'00 P.M., ttrere were 27 vehicles d rn the next paragraph that results site. This indicates to me that the peak demand fnrthr aI is 3 9nd that the aft dation in a prvjec�ed i man_d�31 is not meaningful. Sdnce ogo�do not have a right to use the Jack0l'the� M Parianp' it should not be assumed that ttase faciitnGs came used to mxt theirdemand• es data on the e6s" uses, , it does not address the effect on . panting aysilab�ty that the The study INOVid however, wig be more ccStomem- In addition, the sfi-down► proposed -!9 —60W testaarratrtyse_�have. Presumabld►, thane customers vie stay to gerthen the anent ` w."- customers. This wrfil c niftute to the need for more Parking because the turnover rate of Parking space occupancy will decease- In summary, I am nota wkh the wndusion that 31 spaces are adequate- I do concur with the need to reso" the panting area to euln" code requirements. NOV Z cn,�� ENGINEERS EIONEERS-& • _7RAFRC" AIX)N, PARKNG 234 East Colorado Blvd, Suite 400 o Pasadena. California 91101 Phone: 626796-2322 a Fax: 626702 -Mi November 2, 2000 Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises 251 South San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, California 91733 Subject: Shared Parking Survey - TOGO's at 1195 Diamond Bar. Boulevard In response to questions posed by City of Diamond Bar staff, we have conducted a survey of actual parking operations at the TOGO's located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard. The parking survey was conducted on Friday, October 27, 2000, over a seven hour period between the hours of 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM Existing Conditions The TOGO's is located in the northwest corner of the 1195 Building, with doors on both the north side and west side of the building (SeeExhlbit I at the rear of this letter). On-site parking totaling 42 parking spaces is provided along the north side of the 1195 Building (14 spaces), and in a parking bay on the west side of the 1195 Building (28 spaces). The 14 spaces on the north side of the budding consists of 6 spaces marked for Cathay Bank, 6 shared spaces for all tenets in the 1195 Building, and 2 handicapped spaces. These on-site spaces are separated from 14 Jack-in-the-Box parking spaces by a drive aisle, and appear to the general public to be a single parking area shared between the 1195 Building and Jack-in-the-Box. On the west side of the 1195 Building, the 28 spaces consist of 14 shared spaces adjacent to the building on the east side of the drive aisle and 14 shared marked compact spaces on the west side of the drive aisle. Survey Methodology The parking survey was conducted on a Friday, a recognized day of peak activity and the same day of the week on which the off-site parking surveys contained in our January 31, 2000 letter report were made. A total of seven parking areas were surveyed, throe on-site, three at Jack-in-the-Box, and one' `other". Customers exiting the TOGO's doors on the north side of the 1195 Building, and on the west side of the 1195 Building during the seven hour survey period were observed and their parking local ion noted. Walk-ins were noted as "other". The observations were totaled every 15 minutes. Al that same time the number of vehicles parked in each survey area was also noted. PhilipM.linscaa. P.E (Ret► And M. Creesapan, RE wRiarn A taw, P.E. (Ree) Paul%.wlansoe, P.E. loin P. Keating, RE David S. Shender, P.E. Costa Mesa - 714 64145a7 q San Diego - 619 299-3090 a las Vegas - 702 451-1920 0 An LGZWB Conepany Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises November 2, 2000 Page Two Parking Survey Results Table A (at the rear of this letter) presents the parking locations of the TOGO's customers observed during the seven hour survey period, and Table B the number of vehicles parked in each survey area everyl5 minutes over that same period. In the key lunch hour, the TOGO's customer peak was observed to be between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM (time ending 12:45 PM to time ending 1:30 PM), during which a total of 54 TOGO'S customers were observed. Of that numbs, 41(75.9 percent) were parked on-site (39 in the shared spaces and 2 in the spaces marked for Cathay Bank). A total of 9 TOGO's customers (16.7 percent)were observed to park in the adjacent Jack in -the -Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. however, from cxamination of Table B it can be determined that during that same hour there were a number of vacant spaces available on-site. On-site parking utilization vaned from 38 percent occupancy (26 vacant spaces) to 57 percent occupancy (18 vacant spaces) during the same period when 9 TOGO's customers were observed to patio across the aisle in spaces which to the general public appear to be shared between the 1195 Building (TOGO's) and Jack-in-the-Box. Affect of Puking Dimensions In response to staff comments regarding parking dimensions, we have measured the width of the mgmg on-site parking spaces. The marked compact spaces are T-7" wide on average and the other spaces (with the exception of the 2 handicapped spaces) are 8'-1" on average. The current City of Diamond Bar Code calls for 9'-0" parking spacewidth and does not provide for compact parking. Re - striping the on-site parking to meet. the current Code will result in a total of 35 parking spaces (an estimated loss of 7 spaces). On -Site Shared Parking Supply versus Demand It has been noted by staff that the width of the existing parking spaces may be a factor in the amount of parking that occurs at Jack-in-the-Box. From Table A, it can be seen that 23 TOGO's customers (13.2 percent) parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Examination of Table B shows the 15 minute peak utilization of parking on-site at the 1195 Building (shown as -TOGO's On -Win Table B) to beat 2:00 PM (time ending 2:00 PM) with 27 vehicles parked on-site. At that same time a total of 11 vehicles are shown parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side ofthe drive aisle. Assuming that the percent ofJack-in-the-Box parking generated bythe other on-site uses is similar to the percent of TOGO's parkers in the Jack-in-the-Box parking, the total existing on-site peak demand can be projected. On this basis, we project at)tal on-site demand (TOGO'S, Hollywood Video, Starbucks, and Cathay Bank) of 31,spaces [27/(100.00-13.2) — 31]. With an on-site Code dimensioned parking supply of 35 spaces, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet projected demand with a 4 space surplus for contingencies. Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises November 2, 2000 Page Three E N G I N E E R S Condusions • Observations of TOGO's customers over a seven hour period on a Friday show that 23 TOGO's customers (13.2 percent) parked on the opposite side ofthe drive aisle on the north side of the 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard budding. • Parking space dimensions not withstanding, to the general public the parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle appears to be part of a single parking area shared between the 1195 Budding (TOGO'S) and Jack-in-the-Box • During the peak lunch hour, 9 TOGO's customers were observed.to park in the Jack -in -the Box parking, while at the same time 18 to 26 existing on-site parking spaces were vacant. • Re -striping existing on-site parking to meet the existing City of Diamond Bar Code would reduce the numberof parking spaces from 42 packing spaces to a total of35 standard spaces (no compact spaces allowed by Code). • Assunungthatthepercento0ackin-the•Boxparking generated by other on-siteuseis similar to the percent of TOGO's parkers observed at Jack in -the -Box, total on-site parking demand is projected to be 31 parking spaces. This is consistent with the shared parking demand of32 parking spaces projected in our January 31, 2000 letter report. • With a supply of 35 parking spaces after re -striping to Code, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet the projected 31 parking space demand with 4 surplus spaces. We welcome the opportunity to be of service. Should there be any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call me at 626.796.2322 or to e-mail me at greengmn@HMgineers.com. Vert/ truly yours, l inscott, IIAw & Greenspan, Engineers Ck�YVL P. . Greenspan, rincipal o:VM-FLW"WFD �o JACK-IN-THE-BOX o DRM THRU 0 JKCK4 .Tt�eaaoc o ao -� Mac (D CATHAY TOGO'S BANK cCn • z 1195 DIAMOND BAR BLVD - a i HOLLYWOOD O VID STAR BUCKS GRAND AVENUE ®- TOTAL t OF PA"G SPACE 1 LiNSC®TT SITE LOCATION Leel!► �.. �p GREENSPANtCl.� Too=ENGINEERS • N�YTO BCALE E N G r N E E R 5 Table A OBSERVED PARKING LOCATIONS TOGO`s, Diamond Bar Friday, October 27, 2000 ozr�-�000 TIME ENDING AT 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11.45 AM CATHAY BANK 0 0 1 OBSERVED PARKING LOCATION OF TOGO'S CUSTOMERS dACK4N• TOGO'S THE -BOX OTHER ON-SITE 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 7 TOTAL 3 1 8 12 00 PM 12:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 4 10 4 12:30 PM 12:45 PM1 0 2 0 1 2 6 8 8 12 1:00 PM 1:15 PM -.0 0 2 0 3 1 14 5 16 1:30 PM 1 3 1 12 17 1:45 PM 1 1 0 9 11 2:00 PM 1 0 0 6 7 2:15 PM 0 1 0 3 4 1 0 1 4 6 0 0 1 0 1 M315PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 2 9 13 3:30 PM 0 0 2 2 4 3:45 PM 1 1 2 3 7 4:00 PM 0 1 0 1 2 4:15 PM 0 1 3 3 7 4:30 PM 1 0 0 3 4 4:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 5:00 PM 0 1 0 1 2 5:15 PM 0 2 0 2 4 5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 6:00 PM TOTAL 0 8 1 0 23 16 4 127 5 174 111 Designated bank parking Spates (6) at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard. 121 Includes Hollywood Video and Starbucks Coffee at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard ENGINE•.EitS Table B SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION TOGVS, Diamond Bar Friday, October 2T, 2000 [11 Cathay Bank parking (Northside o 195 Diamond Bar Boulevard). [2) Shared parking (Norftide esW de of 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard). [3] Shared parking (W . ENGINEERS & PLANNERS a TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 234 East Colorado Blvd, Suite 400 a Pasadena, California 91101 - Phone: 626.796-2322 a Fax: 626 792-0941 January 31, 2000 Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises 251 South San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, California `91733 Subject: Shared Parking Analysis- TOGO'S at 119 Diamond Bar Boulevard Dear Mr. Parker: Pursuant to your request, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, has prepared the following shared parking analysis to determine if the proposed TOGO's can be added to the three uses that have been approved for the 10,200 square foot building located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City of Diamond Bar, Califomia. Shared Parking Conclusions It has been determined that the existing parking associated with the building located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard will satisfy the project peak parking demand for TOGO's as well as the peak parking demand for the three existing uses. This conclusion is based on a shared parking analysis for a typical Friday. The peak shared demand for parking on a typical Friday is expected to be 32 spaces upon full occupancy of the building. Thus, the existing parking supply of 43 spaces exceeds the peak shared demand for parking. Project Description The site, located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City of Diamond Bar, is proposed to contain four commercial tenants within a total combined floor area of approximately 10,200 square feet (SF). There are,currently three tenants located within this building. The City of Diamond Bar will permit the proposed TOGO'S to be the fourth tenant, based on the results of a shared parking analysis which shows that the existing on-site supply of 43 parking spaces will meet the projected shared parking requirement. The existing building tenants include a Starbucks Coffee with approximately 1,400 SF ofbuilding floor area, a Hollywood Video with approximately 5,000 SF of building floor area, and a Cathay Bank with approximately 2,530 SF of building floor area. The. proposed TOGO's will contain approximately 1,270 SF of building floor area. Philip M. Linscott, P.E. (Ret.( lack M. Greenspan, P.E. William A. Law, P.E. (Ret.i Paul W. Wilkinson,*rE. John P. Keating, P.E. David S. Shender, P.E. Costa Mesa - 714 641-1587 a San Diego - 619 299-3090 a Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 8 An LG2WB Company Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises January 31, 2000 Page Two E N G I N E E R S City Code Parking Requirement The existing City of Diamond Bar Development Code parking requirements were utilized to determine the number of parking spaces required to be provided. The City Code parking requirements are displayed in Table 1 at the rear of this letter. As shown in Table 1, based on the City Code parking requirements, a total of 55 parking spaces are required when the TOGO's is added to the three existing uses in the building. Shared Parking Analysis Methodology The shared parking analysis is based on information contained in Shared Parking which was published by ULI-The Urban Land Institute in 1983. The shared parking analysis methodology is used to determine peak parking demand for a combination of uses that can share the same parking spaces. The shared parking analysis accounts for hourly variations in parking demand, while the City Code parking requirements sum the peak parking demand for each use to determine the required number of parking spaces. The shared parking analysis methodology reflects actual experience, since it recognizes the fluctuations in parking demand over time for different types of uses. The parking demand hourly variation factors found in Shared Parking are not applicable to the proposed project since the data is for a larger mix of general retail uses and thus does not reflect the specific combination of uses that are located at this small single building site. Therefore, new counts to determine hourly variations in parking demand, were performed for each use that exists or is planned for the building. The counts were performed on a Friday as shown in Table 2. The results of the parking counts are summarized in Table 3. The data was recorded continuously and then summarized into 15 minute segments. The physical count data was then converted into a percent of the maximum number of parked vehicles. As highlighted in Table 3, peak parking at Starbucks Coffee is at 1:15 PM. Peak parking at Hollywood Video is at 7:45 PM, and the peak at Cathay Bank is at 3:00 PM. The peak at the TOGO's is at12:15 PM. Additionally, the percent of parked vehicles is charted against the time of day on Exhibits 1 2 3 and 4 for the Starbucks Coffee, Hollywood Video, Cathay Bank, and TOGO'S, respectively. TOGO's Shared Parking Analysis The shared parking analysis for the proposed TOGO's addition was prepared for a typical Friday. The hourly variations from Table 3 were incorporated into the shared parking analysis. The results are displayed in Table 4 and shown graphically on Exhibit 5. As shown in Table 4 and on Exhibit 5, the peak parking demand for the -building with the TOGO's added, on a typical Friday, occurs at both 12:45 PM and at 1:00 PM when 32 parking spaces are shown to be required. The existing parking supply for the site is 43 parking spaces. Therefore, based on the shared parking analysis, the existing parking supply is sufficient to meet the peak parking requirement with a surplus of 11 parking spaces. Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises January 31, 2000 Page Three E N G I N E R S We welcome the opportunity to prepare this shared parking analysis. Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 626.796.2322 or to e-mail me at greenspan@llgengineers.com. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers J Q"e enspan, P.E. P MSH/JMG Amchmcnts O:UOB FILEt29181REPORTM-2918V2.WPD E N G I N E E R S Table 1 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, [1] TOGO's, Diamond Bar 31 -Jan -2000 PARKING NUMBER OF RATE REQUIRED MERCHANT SIZE (SPACE PER SF) SPACES Starbucks Coffee 1,400 SF 1/100 14 Hollywood Video 5,000 SF 1/250 20 Cathay Bank 2,530 SF 1/3008 TOGO's 1,270 SF 1/100 13 . TOTAL 10,200 SF 55 [1) Source: City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Section 22.30.040 E N G I N E E R S Table 2 DATA COLLECTION CHARACTERISTICS TOGO's, Diamond Bar 31 -Jan -2000 [1] Hollywood Video opens at 10:00 AM. [2] Cathay Bank closes at 6:00 PM. [3] TOGO's opens at 10:00 AM. NUMBER OF DATE TIME MERCHANT LOCATION OF COUNT OF COUNT Starbucks Coffee' Fair Oaks Ave. and 01/14/2000 8:00AM-8:00PM California Blvd., Pasadena Hollywood Video [1] Fair Oaks Ave. and 01/14/2000 9:OOAM-$:OOPM California Blvd., Pasadena Cathay Bank [2] Newmark Ave. and 01/21/2000 8:OOAM-7:OOPM Atlantic Blvd., Monterev Park TOGO's [3] Halstead St. north of 01/21/2000 9:OOAM-8:OOPM Foothiil Blvd. Pasadena [1] Hollywood Video opens at 10:00 AM. [2] Cathay Bank closes at 6:00 PM. [3] TOGO's opens at 10:00 AM. M 0 1 Table 4 i FRIDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] E N G I N E E R S TOGO's, Diamond Bar. 37 -Jan -2000 — --------- [21 [2) n2 (2) [41 LAND USE STARBUCKS H.WOOD VIDEO CATHAY BANK TOGO'S SHARED PARKING SURPLUS SIZE 1.40 KSF 5.60 —KSF 2.53 KSF 1.27 KSF PARKING -RATE 10.00 /SSF 31 4.00 fKSF [31 3.33 /KSF [31 10.00 1KSF r3 PARKING DEMAND OR DEFICIENCY GROSS SPACES 14 SPACES 20 SPACES 8 SPACES 13 SPACES — "rl. OF 0 OF % OF # OF % # OF % .#OF TIME OF DAY PEAK SPACES PEAK SPACES PEAK SPACES PEAK SPACES 8:00 AM 59%8 0 8% 1 0 9 34 .:.0..3 . . . . . . . . . 8:3'0 AM 4% 10 21% 2 12.. 2 31 9:00 AM 72% 10 0% 0 50% 4 22% 3 17 26 –' -- ..... '? 9:30 AM 62% 9 0% 0 65% 5 i 25% 3 17 26 9""W= Own "M N�w WIM �Ww MM =Ww :Wn mtzm 10:00M'.. 64% 9 4% 1 73% 6 22% 3 .19 24 I Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:30 .. . AM 67% 9 9% 2 i 82% 1•. . 7 22% 3 21 22 11:00 AM 72% 10 9% 2 95% 8 34% 4 24 19 ^ J 11:30AM 77% 11 11% 2 86% 7 41% 5 25 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOON 72% 10 7% 1 76% 6 91% 12 29 14 wa • 12:30 PM 72% :i 86% 7 78% 10 29 14 ~ 7MTwi� 777M777 1:00 PM 90% 13 9% 2 82% 7 75% 10 32 11 ....... . . . . . . . . . 3 1:30 PM.. 92% 13 20% 4 94% a 47% 6 31 12 ga. 2:OD PM 85% 1 13% 3 73% 6 34% 4 25 is N.? N M... 2:30 PM 80% 11 16% 3 86% 7 28% 4 25 Is 100 PM 67% 9 13% 3 100% 8 38% 5 25 18 ..... < 3:30 PM Jr 64% 9 22% 4 87% 7 J 28% 4 24 19 4:00 PM 56% 8 33% 7 82% 7 31% 4 26 17 4:30 PM 64% 9 31% VzNNNPi 6 81% 6 6% 1 22 21 wnlg 5:00 PM 39% 5 36% 7 69% 6 6% 1 19 24 J 5:30 PM 15% 2 33% 7 48% 4 13% 2 is 28 R 8" n 6:00 PM 150/0 2 49% 10 31% 2 13% 2 16 27 ^ 6:30 PM 13% 2 60% 12 5% 0 9% 1 is 28 r iir •i 0:2 7:00 PM 13% 2 73% 15 J 5% 0 16% 2 19 . 24 7:30 PM 18% 3 71% 14 0 6% 1 18 25 JJJ X, 8:00 PM 18% 3 76% i'5 0 16% ".4 2 R. 20 23 PARKING NEED WITH SHARED USE 32 SPACES PARKING NEED WITHOUT SHARED USE 55 SPACES. 10:49 ^M NOTES: 11) Based on methodologies presented in 'Shared Parking,* ULI-The Urban Land Institute, 1983. (2) Based on weekday hourly parking accumulation percentages from studies by LLG. (3) Based on the City of Diamond Bar Development Code parking requirements. [4) Based on a parking supply of 43 spaces. IR co co CY ssl*148A Po)ljed jo;ueojad < LO Lu � Z;Q IR co co CY ssl*148A Po)ljed jo;ueojad C C Or d O O co CL 0 0 ti. n. 0 0 io a 0 0 Q iri DR u. d g. a 0 n LU a O O a �m m � o O w M � 14 F- v CL N o J o d ii E x=n t1J a z OLL o LL Q d CLLL o CM 0 > 'o Z Q W 'o o c W IL a 0 0 �L O 0 of 0 (D o' 0 0 0 o 0 6o o 0 a 0 o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N O o GO C O r coO taD a Cc) SOID148A PO)IJed 10 IUO*Jsd 0 0 c+� N W Z u a 0 0 do a 0 0 ti a 0 O t0 a � o 0 Q ori O I a. O IL 00 W 22 H e >- : a. m6 o Zm o M O� R P G M .. O 0 O CV E l0 ~ ui a Y E 3 az a U. Y O m o ci zQ LU 0. o W CL Q • 0 o 0 Q 0 0 Gi Q OR O O Cl O O O O O A O O O O O O O O (D O O O O O O O O Cl co O ImW0 'co r U) IVMN C OO S813148A PONJud 10 4u83Jad o co is n. LL 0 ui ccl Z 0 03 0 O cj E W V1 OZ a. oLL Z 0 lu o LU CL o. ci co CD C) Go CD Ln v cr) C%j SOID140A PO)IM 10 'd 4UGDJGd O O 9013140A peed ;o jagwnN rn a 0 0 m v ea CL a _ to 0 o CO) ti ii A a a 0 CL 0 iscm W CL 0 1` 0 0 a = C 0. ?- Q N o p X v W W 0 w a � o o m m p� Anc a o .. d E °LU o N S a m W p 4 O zo a � i" o Q a p W z O ,Q O Z N 0 0 a 0 0 0 g bcci G a CD 0 a CO) t� N N -• .M- O tf) O Go 9013140A peed ;o jagwnN rn d v ea CL to CO) ii A a CL W 1` 0 a = C N X W 9013140A peed ;o jagwnN ATTACHMENT "Y' CUP 98-09(1). DR 98-110) JANUARY 9, 2001 INTEROFFICE IIIAMObII.1 BAR MEMORANDUM CONr.MUNrrY &DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant , DATE: November 9, 2000 SUBJECT: Public Conditional DevelopmeRevw No. 1998-11)and Minor Variance No. 200(19 The subject applications were brought-. before the Planning Commission on October 10, 2000. At that time the Applicant requested a continuance so that they might prepare more information on the shared parking analysis to support their request for seating at the Togo's at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard. To date Staff has not received the approvals necessary from the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke. The reports provided to staff and Mr. Siecke are attached. Staff has had conversations with the Applicant's engineer and faxed the previous staff report for clarification as to the City's requirements. As stated in the previous staff report (attached), in order to approve a Minor Variance and for the subject legal nonconforming site to add to the uses, the 19998 Development Code states that if the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more a parking study must be prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. A parking study looks at the all the businesses on site, the hours of operation, the site's parking requirements and design, and makes a determination based on the data. A professional engineer performs the study. Staff spoke with the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, today. He has not approved the traffic studies to date. In order to do this, the data from the January study included in the previous report should be compared with the data obtained by studying the subject site to make the determination of the parking for Togo's with seating vs. the Togo's current use. Therefore, staff offers these options to the Planning Commission: 1. Open the public hearing, received public testimony and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval; or 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: 1. October 10, 2000 staff report; 2. November 8, Warren Siecke comments to the November 8, 2000 correction; 3. November 8, 2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan fax letter and correction; 4. November 6, 2000, Warren Siecke response to November 2, 2000 Traffic Study; 5. November 2, 2000, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan fax and traffic study. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASEIFILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: SUMMARY: ATTACHMENT "1' CUP 98-09(1). DR 98-11(1),MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 7.2 City of Diamond Bar COMMISSION Staff Report October 5, 2000 October 10, 2000 Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1) and Minor Variance No. 2000-19 A request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 and Development Review No. 1998-11 and to review and approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off- street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 12738), Diamond Bar, CA J. Coleman Travis Trust 7955 Dunbrook Road, #A San Diego, CA 92126 Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC D.b.a. Togo's 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Pursuant to Development Code Sections 22.58.010, 2248.020(A)(2), and 22.52.020(D), the property owner, J. Coleman Travis Trust, and applicant, Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, -request to amend, Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 and Development Review No. 1998-11, and to review and approve a Minor Variance No. 2000- 19 for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. Since the 1998 approval for 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard project, each suite has been assigned an individual address, hence the 1193 address for Togo's. 1 The applicants have requested a continuance of this project until October 24, 2000 to allow the applicant's traffic engineer to further study the subject site and support their applications. At this time, the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, is unable to adequately review the parking analysis without additional data. The project site is approximately 28, 594 square feet and contains an existing 10,490 gross square feet shopping center with mixed uses of retail and service. The Planning Commission approved per Resolution 98-21 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for remodeling an existing building in 1998. The shopping center is adjacent (not a part of) to the Diamond Bar Towne Center at the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The current application requires an amendment to the previous approvals. Applications for a Conditional Use Permit are reviewed for the location, design, configuration and potential impacts to ensure that the proposed use will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Applications that intensify a land use (e.g. the conversion of an existing structure to a restaurant) require Development Review. Currently, the Togo's is a delicatessen with no seating. The parldng requirements for this use are the same as retail, a use that meets the intent of the previous approval. When seating is added, the use becomes a restaurant and parking requirements for the use increase. The present site is considered a legal nonconforming site because it does not meet the requirements as set forth in the present Development Code. The parking requirements for this site were reviewed with the previous approvals, and conditions placed on the center. Therefore, the applicant's request a Minor Variance in the parking requirements for the center of 20 percent, the maximum allowed by the Minor Variance approval process. Specifics of the above are discussed below in the analysis section. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C). Pursuant to the General Plan, this land use designation provides for regional, freeway oriented, and/or community retail and service commercial uses. The proposed project is considered a retail and service commercial use and as such is consistent with the General Plan. The zoning designation for the project site is Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE). Generally, the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north and west is the Unlimited Multiple Residence -Minimum Lot Size -8,000 square feet -25 units per acre (R -3-8000-25U) Zone; and to the south and east is the Unlimited Commercial (C-3 Zone. ANALYSIS: REVIEW AUTHORITY This application requires amendment approval by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Development Review per the City's Development Code, Sections 22.58.010 and 22.48.020(A)(2), and the previous Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. Additionally, this application requests a Minor Variance for a decrease osi Otani the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating at the Togo's re the h Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030, permits shall aCommissionris the highestd au h lnest h V. authority shall make final determination. In this case, the Planning CONDMONAL USE PE WITIDEVELOPMENT REVIEW reviews. Conditional Applications for Conditional Use Perini andel Develo pment fgu at on and potential impacts to ensure that the Use Permits are reviewed for the location,design proposed use will protect the public health, safety and welfare. T a Planning ion mission approvedNo. 1 Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 on October 13,1998 per P ged not be A conditional of approval, 5(d), requires any additional uses based on ni ispanuestingcy lto change theuse without a revision to the approved�anan otnherefore is subjecditional Use �o amending both then Conditional Use Pernut'and from a delicatessen to a res the Development Review. ® Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures r those New construction projects take into account the revised Development Codode e yet do not comply . However, with he products that were developed legally before the adoption of the eve) Code, y current standards, their status becomes legal nonconforming: Per Development Code Section 22.68.030(D) a nonconforming structure, rendered nonconforming due to lack of compliance with current standards regarding off-street parking, may undergo changes in compliance with Section 22.68.030(B) for changes, expansion, or structural alterations. In this case there are no changes, expansion or structural alterations to the shopping center or the suite within the shopping center. Therefore the shopping center structure maintains its legal nonconforming status with a conforming use. Furthermore, Section 22.68.030(D)(2)(c.) states that the approval of a Conditional Use Permit is not required if the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. As stated previously, the amendment of the Conditional Use Permit is a condition use will brevioe discus approval h for the shopping center and is therefore required. The parking for this additional the Minor Variance and Parking Study analysis. • Development Standards The parking for the original Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval was based on the Los Angeles County Code using occupancy and square footage (see tables below). The approved site plan allowed for 37 spaces of both compact and standard sizes ranging from a width of 7.5 feet to 8 feet and a length of 15 to 18 feet respectively. Per the Los Angeles County'Code requirement and the plans submitted a total of 49 spaces were required to support the uses as described. The staff report describes that theoretically the parking for the site at 37 spaces could support the uses based on the staggering of hours of operation for the various business and uses in the center. However,` per the Resolution's condition of K approval, 5(c), the owner at the time of permit was to have obtained a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent shopping center. The basis of the reciprocal parking agreement was to support the uses as described below: 1998 Approval Retail Restaurant s& Outdoor Dining 1 parking space/250 sq. ft. - -1- -parking- space for every 3 occupants Hollywood Video 5700 square feet Requires23 spaces Cathay Bank 2809 square, feet Requires 11 spaces Starbucks 350 square feet is devoted to dinning with 15 square feet per occupant 350/15=23 occupants. Requires 8 spaces 300 square feet is devoted to outdoor dining 300/15=20 occupants. Requires 7 spaces Total 49 Spaces 34 spaces 15 spaces In February 1999 the previous center owner submitted a revised parking plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. He was unable to obtain a reciprocal parking agreement from the adjacent shopping center owners. The revised plan redesigned the parking lot with a mix of compact and standards spaces by removing some planters, eliminating 100 square feet of outdoor dining, and reconfiguring the interior space with the revised tenant improvements, again pointing out the staggered business hours of operation. This is the parking plan currently on site. The following table is a breakdown of the requirements for that plan: 1999 Approved Plan Retail Restaurant & (Outdoor Dining 1 parking space/250 sq. ft. 1 parking space for every 3 occupants Hollywood Video 5092 square feet Requires 20 spaces Cathay Bank 3918 square feet Requires 16 spaces . Starbucks 350 square feet is devoted to dinning with 15 square feet per occupant 350/15=23 occupants. Requires 8 spaces 200 square feet is devoted to outdoor dining 200/15=20 occupants. Requires 5 spaces Total 49 Spaces 36 spaces 13 spaces 4 The City of Diamond Bar adopted today's Development Code in December 1998. The parking requirements l uses are 9 for today's code do not allow compact spaces and dimensions currenitl� onlls te.rTherefore�athe current feet wide by 19' feet in length with driving aisles larger thanhe actual reconfiguration of the shopping center parking lot is considered legal nonconforminreg�elss aces as shown in the table interior tenant improvements from the building permits req parking p below: Diamond Retail Banks 1 space/ Fast Food Restaurant & Delicatessens 1 parking space/ P g p Bar's Development 1 parking space/ 250 sq. ft. of gross parking ft. of ss fly_ �0 Outdoor Dining 1 ping space/ 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area Code adopted sates area area 100 sq. ft. of gross December floor area 1998 Hollywood 5000 total square feet Video 4209 square feet of gross sales area Re uires 17 s aces . Cathay Bank 2500 square feet R uires 8 s aces 1400 square feet Starbucks Requires 14 spaces 200 square feet outdoor dining Starbucks R uires 2 s aces 1119 square feet Togo's Requires 4 space Tota145 17 spaces 8 spaces 16 spaces P 4 spaces Spaces With regard to the proposed restaurant use within the current shopping center, staff has reviewed the project for the land use to its relationship with surrounding uses and zones. As stated in the ba 1grC)nd, the hregionalt site is consistent with the General. Plan land use designation of General Co mmercifreeway oriented, and/or community service commercial use. Additionally, the use is permitted in the Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) zone. The Building and Safety Division has reviewed the subject plans for occupancy. . The arra as a ropno�sed by Togo's conform to occupancy and placement. There are no deficiencies tot S g The following agencies are required to review, approve and/or license this application. The list includes but s Hess License is not limited to the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Department. Review, approval and licensing is a conditional of approval before seating is allowed. 5 ® Landscaping The project site contains existing landscaping. A site visit indicates that the landscaping is in a reasonably good condition. The plants are green and free of weeds. The new management has been working on the site recently. Therefore, the applicant will not be required to provide additional landscape improvements as part of this project's conditions of approval. ® Additional Conditional Use Permit Requirements The Planning Division has received service requests over the past year for this site. These include unsightliness of trash and debris on-site and landscaping care. Currently, the site has only one exterior trash container. It will be a revised conditional of approval that the container be emptied daily, cardboard boxes be broken down, as well as to have additional trash receptacles with ash trays placed on the sidewalk one each in front of Togo's entrances and another near the Starbucks. It should be noted that the site has recently changed ownership. It is currently owned by J. Coleman Travis Trust and is represented by Glacier Peak Management Services, Inc. of San Diego. The site has recently been cleaned, landscaping weeded, and a larger trash container placed on-site with daily, except Sunday, commercial hauling. MINOR VARIANCE -PARKING As noted above, the use requires additional parking and therefore a Minor Variance is requested for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. As a legal nonconforming site, the 1998 Development Code states that if the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more a parking study must be prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. A parking study looks at the businesses, the hours of operation, the site's parking requirements and design, and makes a determination based on the data. A professional engineer performs the study. As noted previously, a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent property owners, namely Jack-in-the- Box, is a viable solution. However, neither owner has been able to obtain such an agreement. Therefore, the applicants have provided a traffic study analysis. ® Development Code Parking Standards for Revised Uses The requested use and the existing uses parking requirements are noted in the table below. There are 52 parking spaces required for the requested uses per the current Development Code. 1.1 Diamond Bar's Development Code adopted December 1998 Hollywood' Video Cathay Bank Starbucks Togo's Total 52 Spaces Retail 1 parking space/ 250 sq. ft. of gross sales area 5000 total square feet 4209 square feet of gross sales area Requires 17 spaces 17 spaces ® Hours of Operation Banks 1 parking space/ 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area 2500 square feet Requires .8 spaces 8 spaces Das Hollvwood Video Starbucks Monda -Thursda 10:00am-12:00 am 5:30 am -11 in. Frida 10:00am-12:00 am 5:30 am -12 am Saturda 10:00am-12:00 am 6:00 am -12 am c„nrta., I 10:00am-12:00 am 6:00 am -11 .m. Parking Study Fast Food Restaurant & Outdoor Dining 1 parking space/ 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area 1400 square feet Requires 14 spaces 200 square feet outdoor dining Requires 2 spaces 1119 square feet _Requires 11 space 27 spaces i Togo'sMCatha Bank10:00am-9m-5:0010:00 am -1m-6:0010:00 am-1am-2:0010:00 am -d Parking Analyis. As required by today's Development Code, the applicant's have demandhad fore oreparking isexpect d to bes32 The conclusion is based on a typical Friday. The peak sharedspaces upon full occupancy of the building which according to the report allows 11 spaces open on the erformed in January 2000 on similar sites in other cities. existing site that has 43 spaces. This study was p As stated in the correspondence, this choice of studying off-site locations was because on-site business uses were relatively new and the hourly parking ratio pattern would be different than for a mature business. However, the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, has reviewed the project information and data and has not approved the said report. His October 2, 2000 memo is attached. Basically, he notes that the spaces marked specifically for the Cathay Bank are confusing to customers of the subject center. These markings 7 should be removed and spaces should be for the entire center's use. Additionally, more data is required to support the findings in the analysis for the Diamond Bar site. As stated previously, in order for a legal nonconforming site to add to the uses the traffic study must support the uses and define the required number of parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant's are requesting a continuance to allow their traffic engineer, Linscott, Law and Greenspan, to perform an on-site shared parking analysis. The Public Works Division and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. The Building Official has reviewed the subject plans and found that the submitted plans already conform to building standards. Additionally, a condition will be added to the resolution of approval regarding operational standards and to ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable codes. Basically, the Conditional Use Permit is subject to periodical review. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit and additional operational conditions may be added. NOTICE OF PUBLIC FEARING: On September 25, 2000, 36 property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project site were notified by mail. On September 29, 2000, this item was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the 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 15301(e). The Planning Commission has several options: 1. Grant the applicant's request for a two week continuance in order to gather additional information to support the Minor Variance application; 2. Open the public hearing, received public testimony and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval; or 3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. 8 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: 1. TheP roposed use is allowed within the subject -zoning district with the approval ond11tionalhe Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and al Code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applli abl u e arec compatible with the ef 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the p p existing and future land uses in the vicinity. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. 5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. compliance with the provisions of the California 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS: 1. 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); 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). 0 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). 1 Prepared by: ✓y"C''��_ Linda Kay S ' Development Services Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applications; 2. Traffic Safety Study and correspondence; 3. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, dated October 10, 2000. _ D:WORD-LINDAU'LANCOMM\PROIECiMCUP 1998-09(1) 1193 Diamond Bar Boutevatd/REPCUP 1998-09(1)... 10 dy/[ti/200� 13:13 biy� >>� ,,�,.„,acr. rc,r. ,•,c �.• ^.._ -- - OF DL+LMOND BAR caur - N. 60 EtART11QrNT 216 p • �R Copley Drfvo Suitt 190 Deposit S • (909)3965676 fr" (9M)epl•II117 Receipt/ �ARtAIYCE APPLICATION by Darr Rtec'd Xword Owwe AlIfAimat Applieaat'e AjeW • �, �gLelea® Travis Trust Peak Management��'�, Inc - its ager ..ase rual Glacier Pbrook Road, Suitek spy San Diego, Ca 92126 858-578-3220 x12 Phu$( J NOTE: It Is d e e: tee oodlj, '® I Of IIN'1�kvoh--1 do -r ® ^•..{tj QI �'' ��eA dkuows W joist vwdwft. Aar ;� Ceauar~• l turQyjv jam 40 OWMP r "tacit hyre,rt7 ®wt WnWit iic gPPII�U m �k[r .+• Si600d (ticIn"woa Due T ed reet ra d w beu Vxw ANI 4 -the 1od.. j,,. ' :. ?&I NSM arson, Glacier Peak Management. Services, Enc. • A1wq as ag-"P'Sr S. Coleman Travis Trust and Sliced AMos A. Travis, Trustee 9/26/00 (Appficainor t�s®t adrse. y dt+a � lot I �ffit�aaer--•----._ uxonits apprnd f` LTIC-198-808 Jee puotre T a 40 AI T O eg I = I T DD 92 des u 4 citt, of Diamond Bar 861-31I7 do IN crrywaiAMOPD RAR DrPARTME"Or CQMMlTwM&DrVXLOpMMW5zRVlCU Moaning Divbwo By 21660 & CApWy Drivo Saw 190, R-. CA 91765 D;PR. ; ed (9Wp%-5676 FcK(909)361-3117 I FM crry CNOMMU USE PEWff APPLICAT)oN T ws J rus .6kets.. Tna 6-0 !a PA- L969- 1410 4-M wft� I "A L lRb 2:cj LILs COV Mrs y 3dL-re.M— ej (.9 lof—ux—g NOTE It is tha appriGaWs"Opoulair, %sea* &$ city in p MUM ®t aw Obaw araw piw� &C as ROM Sipe rW-T 7a cewwwofion. 4 AW OaAr*w4 Avaby do* Mdff beg of MV A* --&*P. hove= hint Nme :Rm (AppliamcwAgpi sipw WO WzFJFpawjOA %A MI pARKER, HOLT.DOYL YLC DIBlAOG / TO 1193 S. Diamond BarBGS Diamond Bar, September 25, 2000 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Arra: T•TNDA SMITH . 21660 E. Copley Drivc, Suite 0190 Diamond Bar. CA. 91765-4177 Request is hereby made to withdraw the Major Variance for outside seating at this time and to proceed only with the minor request for indoor seating to aceonunodate a maximum of twelve (12) persons. Attached find layout of seating pattern. if you desire any farther information, pleasaAontact me at (�09) 218-8039. Thank you, • � ' • � } '� iii-�-. - • '�ti. ROBERTI. PARKER Manager CF: DIANE 1VERSEN GLACLER PEAK MGMT. SVC. INC. 7955 Dunbrook Road Suite A San Diego, CA. 92126 Phone: (858) 575-3220 Ext. 12 Fax: (858) 578-4853 TOWS 1193 S. ommond Bar Wvd Diwmnd Bw! C& 91765-2204 cffy OF oiAmOND BAR ccmmw* & Dgwebmwd Semam Dept 216M East CopheY DfWQ. SUNG 190 Dimffbww w CA, 917854177 ATTOMON: LhWa Snft Request aWkMW for to 6"W4 be wrMued UN BR order Mat we may submit addftnW daft to suppad re I 797-TIMENE 7-, .. I I ......,..../. ........ 7-/ CITY DL�14fOND BAR .r. _ CObtML Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTbtENT FPL 11 S 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)8E1-3117 B CipW B VARIANCE APPLICATION ��� Date Recd Record Owner Applicant Applicant's Agent Name (Last name brat) IA name )/ % (bast name fust) Address PQt- �i—I Ol.� le 3 J- t a• 4• �3a It- ' VA bm�-09C Phone( ) Ptrooa(l U& Phone( ) NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Comm w ty Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved daring the processing of this case, (Attach separate shed, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent: I eer## that 1 on the owner of the herein described property and permit the applleant to file this request. Cer ed / Dateowners) Wftcation: 1, the undersigned; heieby cenIft under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. _ Print Name (Applicant or Agent) Signed Date .(Applicant or Agent) Location (Street address or tn►at and lot number) , between And (Steed) (Suva) Zoning HNM Project Size (gross acres) Project Density Previous Cases 'Present Use of Site Use applied for _ CO; DEVELOPM.Nf DEPARTRMNT ° F'PL 9 -- 21660 E. Co le Drive Suite 190 Deposit S (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 By DEVELOPMZNT REVIEW APPLICATION Date Rcc'd Record • "er Applicant Applicant's Agent Namer4 ..,� amt name first) (Last name Ewg) (Last namc-fmt) Addmas a� NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Commtmity DevelopmW Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Much a separate sheet, if necessary, inehaiing names, addressea, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent: I cen* that 1 am the owner o the herein described property and permit the app ' nt to fire this request. Signedr Date (All rd owners) Certification: I, the renderstgned, hereby Wn* carder penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is eorred to the best of my knowledge. I -Jl_ ,An 1/_ s l (All-Ame—ant or Agent) Date Signed (Ar-lic= or Arent) Location (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning IiNM Previous Cases Present Use of Site Use applied for - • O� To: Linda Smith From: Warren► Siecke Fax: page& r Phone: Door ocbber Z MW Re: Togo's Restaurrrd CC' ® comments: Based on our discussion this morning and the g2S letter from Jack Greenspan at Linscatt, Law & Greenspan, I have a better understanding of the issues involved with this project The rationale presented by Mr. Greenspan for studying other sites is understandable given that it was done in December, 1999 when Starbucks and Hollywood Video were newly opened and Cathay Bank was undergoing tenant improvements The data LLG obtained probably was the "best available" at that time. However, nearly a year has passed and the current occupants have an established clientele. At this time, it is possible to obtain data that reflects actual conditions at the site. My observations during the noon hour today revealed that several customers of Togo's parked oft -site in the spaces along the south and east sides of Jack In The Box Even though spaces were available on the project site, several Togo's customers chose to park on the Jack In The Box site. A possible explanation for this is that the Jack In The Box parking spaces appear to be wider than some of the Togo's spaces. Another factor is that sic of the spaces on the north side of the bank are marked as 'Cathay Bank' With this additional information, I now believe it would be appropriate to conduct a Shared Parting Analysis on the Diamond Bar site. The following considerations should be included in the analysis: Project customers and employees who are parking on adjacent properties. The added impact of Ionger term occupancy of the parking spaces for customers to eat in the restaurant in addition to the present take-out operation. Possibly the *Pasadena data° canoe factored to the current 'Diamond Bar' data to forecast this impact An evaluation of the size of the parking spaces as they relate to current code requirements and to the propensity for customers to park elsewhere. • ATK)K PAWC 234 East Cookwalo ®Md. Suits 400 ® PamdemI6 Glibrnisr 91101 Phone: 626 (96.2322 m Fax 626 7924941 September 25, 2004 his. Linda Smith Project Plaaner City of Diamond Bar 2166OEastCopleyDcive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91756-4177 Subject: TOGO's Shared Parking is - 119 S Diamond Bar Boulevard Based on our telephone confdrame of"&tewith City Traffic Engineer W understand that there is a questionthe "cc of off-site locations at which the parking surveys, upon which our shared parking WAWS Oflanuary 31, 2400 was band, were conducted Our field review of the project site in late December,1999, indicated that the on-site business uses were relatively new, and in our opinion, not yet settled into the houri can be expected once the businesses mature, At the time of tine field � gin �Mdo pattern which the Starf�tcks Coffee and the Hollywood Video were news o December,1999, undergoing tenant improvements. y > and the Cathay Bank space was We therefore„ decided to conduct parking survey$ ofthe same business uses at similar locations where the uses themselves had been open for some time. Two of the selected sites were in mature site with both a buoy Starbucks Coffee and Hollywood Pasadena a location. We also selected a Ca mod Video, and a busy Togo's at another area tiry Hoak site al they Park which has it's own parking Iat n con119chrsion, it is our Bou evan. that the sites rd selected are representative of each of the business uses at the subject site oace�the and re8eet the hourly parking ratio pattern which can be a xxted businesses mature. h P-LWAJ AM* at P.E WUMMA-loo; P.EGtmU Pi DP.A t)erid S. . P.E Cases A,1=4 - 714 641-iS87 o gen per. 619 299.7090 ®Laf V egss . 702 451.1920 m An LC2t}Va CA np,ny E N G I N E E R S ENGWORS St BANNERS a TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATiOm PARIONG 234 Eau Colorado Blvd, Suite 400. a Pasadena, California 91101 Phone: 626 796-2322 a Fac 626 792.0941 Jant.ary 31, 2000 Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises 251 South San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, California 91733 Subject: Shared Parking Analysis - TOGO's at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard Dear Mr. Parker. Pursuant to your request, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, has prepared the following shared parking analysis to determine if the proposed TOGO's can be added to the three uses that have been approved for the 10,200 square foot building located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City of Diamond Bar, California. Shared Parking Conclusions It has been determined that the existing parking associated with the building located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard will satisfy the project peak, parking demand for TOGO's as well as the peak parking demand for the three existing uses. This conclusion is based on a shared parking analysis for a typical Friday. The peak shared demand for parking on a typical Friday is expected to br. 32 spaces upon full occupancy of the building. Thus, the existing parking supply of 43 spaces exceeds the peak shared demand for parking. Project Description The site; located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City of Diamond Bar, is proposed to contain four commercial tenants within a total combined floor area of approximately 10,200 square feet ,;SF). There are. currently three tenants located within this building. The City of Diamond Bar will permit the proposed TOGO's to be the fourth tenant, basad on the results of a shared parking analysis which shows that the existing on-site supply of 43 parking spaces will meet the projected shared parking requirement The existing building tenants include a Starbucks Coffee with approximately 1,400 SF ofbuilding floor area, a Hollywood Video with approximately 5,000 SF of building floor area, and a Cathay Bank with approximately 2,530 SF of building floor area. The proposed TOGO'S will contain approximately 1,270 SF of building floor area. MlipM tis P.E.1Ret► lace M.1;Meaapaa PA %1KAM k taw, P E. (Ret` Paw W. P.E. loon P ►eadna P.E. David S. She+�dar. P E. Costa Mesa - 714 641.1587 a San Diego - 619 299.3090 a las Vftn - 702 451-1920 0 M lr]"W8 Company MEMORANDUM LINSCOTT, LAW & GREE�ISPAN, ENGINEERS 234 Inst Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 Pasadena, Carfornia 41101-2201 TeL 626.746.2322 Fax 626.7"92.0941 E -mall greenspa nQllgengineemcorn Dain: January 31, 2000 To: (1) Bob Parker (2) Jacob Khakshouri From: Jack Greenspan Subject: TOOO's Shared Parking Analysis Fax No.: (1) 909.305.0599 No. Pages: 13 Hard Copy: Yes in mail (2) 310.826.9626 Dear Bob and Jacob: Attar;hed is the completed TOGO's Shared Parking Analysis. The results of the analysis show that 32 parking spaces are required, which is 11 spaces less than provided. If there are any questions regarding the Shared Parking Analysis please feel free to call me. Best Regards.... Jock Greenspan ovoa jaaWuu+,awi.%" To: ' Linda Smith From: Wamen Siedw Fax: : i Re: Togo's Parking Study CC: ® Co ' I have reviewed the subject study prepared by lire, law & Greenspan. I agree with the overall study format and concept, However, 1 question the rationale for gathering data from a Stadxd('s and Hollywood Video in Pasadena and a Cathay Bark in Monterey Park when these edst in the Diamond Bar site under consideration. It seems to me a study of the parldng characteristics at Diamond Bar would be more representative than application of data from another site. With regard to Togo's, I agree it would be desirable to have parking data from another store that has •sitdown' facilities. That data could be overlaid on the data for the other three existing uses to forecast the overall parldrig demands. 6 E N G I N E E 8 s Ms. Linda Smith City of Diamond Bar September 25, 2000 Page Two We welcome the oPPort'mitY to submit this letter. Should there be any fiuther questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours. Linscott, IAA & Greenspan, Zn ginew J U pan, P.E. c: Asir. Bth Partner, TOGO'S Mr. Wanes S=icr, Pa FIXQN 2wm.M. Mr. Bob PAcr Parker Family Franchises January 31, 2000 Page Two F V . 7 1 N City Code Parking Requirement The existing City of Diamond Bar Development Code parking requirements were utilized to determine the number of parking spaces required to be provid:d. The City Code parking requirements are displayed in Table at the tear of this letter. As shown in Table 1, based on the City Code parking requirements, a total of SS parking spaces are required when the TOGO'S is added to the three existing uses in the building. Shared Parking Analysis Methodology The shared parking analysis is based on information contained in Shared Parking which was published by ULI-The Urban Land Institute in 1983. The shared parking analysis methodology is used to determine peak parking demand for a combination of uses that can share the same parking spat es. The shared parking analysis accounts for hourly variations in parking demand, while the City Code parking requirameats sum the peak parkingdemar►d for each use to determine the required nurrber of parking spaces. The shared' parking analysis methodology reflects actual experience, since it recognizes the fluctuations in parking demand over time for different types of uses. The parking demand hourly variation factors found in Shared Parking are not applicable to the proposed project since the data is for a larger mix of general retail uses and thus does not reflect the Spec ific combination of uses that are located at this small single building site. Therefore, new counts to d:tetmine hourly variations in parldng demand, were performed for each use that exists or is planned for the building. The counts were performed on a Friday as shown in Table 2. The results of the parking counts are summarized in Table 3. The data was recorded continuously and then summarized intol5 minute segments. The physical count data was then converted into a percent of the maximum number of parked vehicles. As highlighted in Table 3, peak parking at Starbucks Coffee is at 1:15 PM. Peak parking at Hollywood Video is at 7:45 PM, and the peak at Cadtay Bank is at 3:00 PM. The peak at the TOGO'S is atl2:15 PM. Additionally, the percent of parked vehicles is charted against the time of day on Exhibits 1.2.3. and 4 for the Starbucks Coffee, Hol: ywood Video, Cathay Bank, and TOGO's. respectively. TOGO's Shared Parking Analysis The shared parking analysis for the proposed TOGO'S addition was prepared for a typical Friday. The hourly variations from Table 3 were incorporated into the shared parking analysis. The results are displayed in Table 4 and shown graphically on FZbLbit 5. As shown in Table 4 and on exhibit 5. the peak parting demand for the building with the TOGO'S add4 on a typical Friday, occurs at both 12:45 PM and at 1:00 PM when 32 parking spaces are shown to be required. The existing parking supply for the site is 43 parking spaces. Therefore, based on the shared parking analysis, the existing parking supply is sufficient to meet the peak park ing requirement with a surplus of 11 parking spaces. Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises January 31, 2000 cNcINieRs Page Three We welcome the opporomity to prepare this shared parking analysis. Should there be any questions, please.do not hesitate to call me at 626.796-2322 or to e-mail me at greenspan@tlaengineers.com. Ver., truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineer ijWM. Gr, par, P.E. cipal nrsrvndca . O.W8FVLMII MOVA-sIfrswM E N t; I N EER S Table 1 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS [1] TOGO's, Diamond Bar 31-Jan-20oa MERCHANT SIZE PARKING NUMBER OF RATE REQUIRED (SPACE PER SF) SPACES Starbucks Coffee 1,400 SF 1/100 14 Hollywood Video 5,000 SF 1,250 11300 20 i 8 Cathay Bank 2,530 SF TOGO's 1,270 SF 1/100 13 TOTAL 10,200 SF 55 (1 j Source: City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Section 22.30.040 LINscorr C;REfKSRAN Table 2 Diamond Bar .31 -Jan -20W [1) Hollywood Video opens at 10.00 AM. (2) Cathay Bank doses at 6:00 PM. [31 TOGO's opens at 10:00 AM. f, I_INSCOTT LAX -11 &. GREENSPAN Table 3 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION (1) TOGO's, Diamond Bar 31.Jen•2�0 NU ER OF PARKED VEIN41ES P R TIME PER: D ENDING TARBUCKS PERCENT H.WOOD PERCENT CATHAY. PERCENT PERCENT OF TOTAL AT COFFEE OF TOTAL VIDEO i OF TOTAL BANK ! OF TOTAL TOGO'S 8'C0 AM 23 58. 736 - - 5 8.05% 8 15 AM 24 61.54°A - - 5 8.06% 8-20 W'. 29 74.35% - - 13 20.97% - BAS AM 30 1 76.9296 - - 22 35.48% 9:00 Ah! 28 71.79% 0 0.00% 31 1 50.00% 7 _ 21.889. 9:15 AM 2461.54% 0 0.00% 36 58.069. 7 21.E89. 930 AM 24 51.54% 0 0.00% 40 6452 w 8 25.00% 9:45 AM 26 6857% 2 4.44'X. 42 67.7496 6 18'5% 10:00 AM 25 64.10% 2 4.44% 45 72M% 7 21 88% 10:15 AM 29 • 4.36% 2 4.44% 50 80.6596. 8 25.00► 10:30 AM 26 66.87% 4 8.8 1 8226% 7 21.88% 10:45 541 26 66.67% 4 SAS% 30 96.77% 9 29.13% 11:00 AM 28 71.78% 4 829% 59 95.16% 11 34.38% 11:15 AM 31 79.499E 5 1L1176 49 79.03% 10 3125% 11:J' O AM 30 76.92% 5 11.11% 53 85.48% 13 40.63% 11:45 AM 29 74.36% 4 8.89% 48 77.42°.6 19_ 59.3690 1200 PM 28 71.79% 3 6.87% 47 75.81.5 29 90.133% 12:15 PM 28 71.79% 2 4.44% 48 77.42••E 32 1�OA054 12:3 _PM 28 71.7$96 4 6.69% 53 85.48•.+ 25 78.13% 12:45 PM 33 84.62% 5 11.11% 56 90.32.5 27 84.38% 1.03 PM 35 89.74% 4 8.89% 51 82.26% 24 75.00% 1:15 PM 39 100.00% 3 6.67% 54 87.10% 15 40.85% 1:30 Phij 36 92.31'1. 9 1 20.00% 58 93.55% 15 48.85% 1:45 PM 35 89.7496 T 15.58% 51 82.28•/. 13 1 40.63% 2:00 PM 33 i 84.829. a13.33% 45 7258% 11 34.39% 2.15 PM 33 84.62% 6 13.33%_ 6S 88.71% 12 37.50% 2:30 PM 31 79A9% 7 15.56% b3 85.48% 9 28.13% 2:45 PM 37 t 94.87% 8 17.78% 1 56 90.32% 7 21.88% 3:00 M 26 1 66.67% 6 13.33% 5 12 37.50% 3:1 PM 26 1 65.67% a 17.78% 61 • 21.88% 3:30 PM 25 1 64.10% 10 2222% 54 87.10% 9 28.13% 3:45 Ph1 25 1 64.10% 11 24.44% 58 93.55!' 11 34.38% 4:00 PM 22 1 56.41% 15 1 .33% 51 82.28% 10 31.25% 4:15 PM 21 53.85% 15 33.33% 53 85A8% 7 21.88% 4:30 PM 25 64.10% 14 1 31.11% 50 80.659: 2 8.25% 4:45 PM 21 53.85% 12 i 28.WT# 60 i 80.6696 2 6.25% 5:00 PM 15 .38.46% 15 35.56% 43 89.35% 2 625% 5:15 PM .. 11 28.21% 16 35.56% 34 54.84% 2 625% 5:30 PM 6 15.35% 15 33.33% 30 1 48.39% 4 12.50% 5:45 PM 10 2b.64% _ 30 65.67% 28 45.16% 3 9.38% 6:00 PAA1 6 15.38% 22 48.899E 15 30.6594 • 4 12.50% 6:15 PM 1 6 _ 15.38 % 20 i 44.44% 4 6.45% 3 9.38% 6:30 PM 1 5 12.82% 27 1 63.00% 3 484% 3 9.38% 6:45 PIM 1 5 12.82% 29 64.44'16 3 484% 3 _1 9.38% 700 PM1 5 12.82% 33 73.33% 3 4.84% 5 15.639• 7:15 A 5 12.82% 21 60.00% - i - d _ 12.5091 7:30 PM 7 1 17.95%32 71.11% - - 2 1 6.25% 7:45 PM 1 7 17.95% 45 1 100.00% - - 3 1 8:00 PtA 1 7 1 17 9596 34 75. - 5 1 15.63% (1J Studies conducted on /M�4t2000 at Starbu:ks Coffee and Holl wood Video on the comer of Fair Oaks Ave. and California Blvd. In Pasadena, and 1211000 at Cathay Bank on the comer of Newmark Ave. and A lantle Blvd. in Montemy Park and Togo's on Halstead St. north of Foothl; Blvd. in Pasadena. Tabled [ i N E E R s FRIDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS (1j TOGO'a, Diamond Bar [1) Basad on rrssthodab ON prasoated in *Shared ParkkW UU•The Urban Lend Institute. 190. [� Basad On rveokd y hovny Pwttg arxunttdsdon perwntapes tram ssudlaa by I.I.G. (3, Based an this Cky of Do nand Bar Dorebyrn@nt Code partW regWtudlestb (4j Bandana paae�tnp supply of43 spate CL i � � o i to Z c CL C4 U.o 00 C-4 Z LU CA dt st ax cc $01'3148A PD)lJcd;O IUDDJD.d ® g o wd 2 m Al NPti 44 ul .e Zo IL � U. Oa t - Z w_ w d a 8 c; 1 ! � i � o o I 1 1 CL O� g i Z m O� I a o S n iii off, E t'l Z , m Z S 8 ® CL I I i� I at 19- a . o e am g g S Op o O S SS S- O S S COIO N p G7 Y�9 K N C O GMO!4*A P64jed to;ua*J®d O LL O a Pd Z m On t� g a_= K = o SLI e w Z 8 ® b �g LU v W CL o5 � � g .g S � S 8 0 ,ppyo 8 A H C p C sa�a�y®q Pe3tied do au®*i®d coo Z —9 .c ju i -j )go uj z W � i i �. do i O SOP14®A pfflyed jo joqiunN ATTR \1ENT -2" CUP 96-X9(1), DR 98-11(1), MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 r To: Linda Smith From: Waren Siecke Fax: Pages: 1 Phone: Re: Togo's Parking Study CC: ® Comments: I talked to Jack Greenspan of Linscott, Law & Greenspan today regarding my 11/6100 comments on their parking study report. We discussed my comment on Page 2, par. 5. He explained that the 11 vehicles parked at Jack-in-the-Box included both their customers and Togo's. I suggested he may wish to change the 13.2% which represents the parking distribution over the entire study period to 17% which represents the distribution in the peak hour (12:30 to 1:30). This would result in a forecast demand of 33 spaces and still less than the 35 available. He said he would be prepared to discuss that if d comes up in the hearing. I also pointed out an error in the last paragraph on page 2. The denominator of the formula should be "1.000 -0.132." Lastly, we discushe ue of "sit down" usage. He told me his client told him "this is not an issue." Based on my discussion with So Joe, Id himII am sure it is. Qbarlogo pkg stcy 3 ATT. 3MENT CUP 98-090). DR 98-11(D. M V 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 FAX COVER t E N G I V E E R S ENGDMM & PLANNERS - TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING r 234 :East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 tlU : Costa Mesa 714.641.1587 Pa:udena, California 91101 San Diego 619:299.3090 Phone: 626.796.2322 Fax: 626.792.0941 Err.ail:pasadena@Ugengineers.com FAX MULTIPLE MESSAGE COVER SHEET Dam: 1 S �( Time: From: f �rc"k G�eal-O A'� P"oect: �'S IAMWD i Job No. 'o Rages: l Ll ll7l. I' 11-.-. WS 'A N.�.me: W kP)ZG-" 'S j C�Zt Company: Fax No. "1 j +- -I"'11- W ++ Recipient No: J Nurse. Ll" A S Md11q Company. CA" UT bAY+1-1'S> 15A'R Fax No. 90R - SG 1- -511`j Recipient No: 7- Name:.06-D PAS4-4-5" . Company: TV 005 Recipient No: 2 Fc -,lx No. 4� A -- S b 3 _7,0 40 Name: 4-''17 R �� Company. P Y•OW S Recipient No: �» Fax. No. 010q-566-1953 Name: Company: Fax No. Recipient No: MESSAGE z b1 tLur1rr� 1�`s .4J& C'v^Afv%0 PA -11AV VeMV0'o AW/4--'01 s, tom& wPe3 A bu%,c WA -i %3?" ft VV*GLe rffivl&eD A -T , W- %'Ux (V"v 045 N VM (t +%VM pAKatf "ft0V%1Rj5j-rjb(IS AwD CVWZ4&- is a 1'�f o &►&kott i►� �K.6%L'1^ r'i, GAIL%A-1'N- A4 Y*6 6qWm Ole t'Y\++17 L� 1 i k a'►''`l FUS t_6tvv''sit c>� r L^11E C.AILA-1 as E% IS VN}� r� 6'►'+�U� pA ib�rT�g�r GtlYvtJ btw�+�" lfAVT-ftISST,l,.co u ) I N% Gvrd,� (rte. e7��,�,�..� Mr. Bob Parker so Parker Family Franchises November 2, 2000 Page Two E N C I N E E R 5 Parking Survey Results Table A (at the rear of this letter) presents the parking locations of the TOGO's customers observed during the seven hour survey period, and Table B the number of vehicles parked in each survey area everyl5 minutes over that same period. In the key lunch hour, the TOGO's customer peak was observed to be between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM (time ending 12:45 PM to time ending 1:30 PM), during which a total of 54 TOGO'S customers were observed. Of that number, 41(75.9 percent) were parked on-site (39 in the shamed spaces and 2 in the spaces marked for Cathay Bank). A total of 9 TOGO's customers (16.7 percent)were observed to park in the adjacent Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. However, from examination of Table B it can be determined that during that same hour there were a number of vacant spaces available on-site. On-site parking utilization varied from 38 percent occupancy (26 vacant spaces) to 57 percent occupancy (18 vacant spaces) during the same period when 9 TOGO's customers were observed to park across the aisle in spaces which to the general public appear to be shared between the 1195 Building (TOGO's) and Jack-in-the-Box. Affect of Parking Dimensions In response to staff comments regarding parking dimensions, we have measured the width of the existing on-site parking spaces. The marked compact spaces are 7-7" wide on average and the other spaces (with the excerption of the 2 handicapped spaces) are 8'-1" on average. The current City of Diamond Bar Code calls far 9'-0" parking space width and does not provide for compact parking. Re - striping the on-site parking to meet the current Code will result in a total of 35 parking spaces (an estimated loss of 7 spaces). On -Site Shared Parking Supply versus Demand It has been noted by staff that the width of the existing parking spaces may be a factor in the amount of parking that occurs at Jack-in-the-Box. From Table A, it can be seers that 23 TOGO'S customers (13.2 percent) parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Examination of Table B shows the 15 minute peak utilization of parking on-site at the 1195 Building (shown as "TOGO'S On -Site''' in Table B) to be at 2:00 PM (time ending 2:00 PM) with 27 vehicles parked on-site. At that same time a total of 11 vehicles (both project and Jack-in-the-Box customers) are shown parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Assuming that the percent of Jack-in-the-Box parking generated by the other on-site uses is similar to the percent of TOGO'S parkers in the Jack-in-the-Box parking, the total existing on-site peak demand can be projected. On this basis, we project a total on-site demand (TOGO's, Hollywood Video, Starbucks, and Cathay Bank) of 31 spaces [27/(1.000- 0.132) = 27/0.868 = 31 ]. With an on-site Code dimensioned parking supply of 35 spaces, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet projected demand with a 4 space surplus for contingencies. -1.. ATTACLI-LNT " 4"1vIV 2000-19 CUP 98-09(1), DR 98-11(1). NOVEMBER 14, 2000 To: Linda Smith Fnorn: Warren S*cke Fax: paw: Phone: 02: November 6.2000 Of. 4., CC: • Comments: I have reviewed the parking study prepared by U_G and faxed to me on November 2, 2000. 1 have the following comments: Page 2, per. 4 — The widths of the parking spaces are noted as `on average-' This implies that some of the spaces must be smaller than the measured substandard widths. This would provide further justification for netriping to current code requirements. I concur with their suggestion that the na rm spaces may contribute to the amount of onsite parking that occurs. Page 2. par. 5 — it is noted that at 200 P.M., there were 27 vehicles parked on-site and 11 parted at the Jack -in -the -Boot site. This indicates to me that the peak demand for he are ie 38 -and that the calartation in the next paragraph that results in a projected dernand_oL31 is rot meaningful. S og0 s does not have a right to use the Jade -in -the -Box Parking, it should not be assumed that Vase faciiGes canoe used to meet their demand. The study provides data on the erosting uses, however, It does not address the effect on parking availabft that the proposed "sit down* restauranLuse _witl_have. Presumably, there will be more customers. in addition, the S"Own customers win stay longerthan the current take-out' customers. This will contribute to the need for more parking because the turnover rate of parking space occupancy will decrease. in summary, I am not comfortable with the conclusion that 31 spaces are adequate. i do concur with the need to nesbipe the parking areas to current code requirements. Ob~ PW OdY NOV 7 2000 ATTACHMENT "5" CUP 98-09(1). DR 98-11(1). MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 FAX COVER PAGE P.��,. - TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARI .23L. East Colorado 101-ulevard, Suite 400 Costa Mesa 714.641.1587 'o Pasadena, CaNto M91101 San Diego 619.299.3090 Phote: 626.79623 Fax: 626.792.0941 Em.al.-pasadena@llgenginem.com I zlw t 6 w -v -I;-o 9 A FUT) of!":cu:1 Daze: 2 00 Time-, From: Project: T%0 1 A M ONO 13 LI& Job No. / 0Mq I Paves: '7 T(I'l THE FOLLOWING: Name: WVZ)76J flt5-0k.& Company: WAlvjt� I I I.M444 a Ass ar.,, Fax No. 1 � - -71 q - 1(0 44, Recipient No: I Name: Nr7A 5 T-1, I I -H Company. Cl r%t 6-F DI h rk%07A.D RA -K Fin - No. �'001- DW -311-7 Recipient No: Nome: C-013 PoOtIZVLAM Company. PAkAv*u-I C -%T Fin - No. c o Qi - 5 b5 - 7.O +o Recipient No: Nome: I-'-tr)A 14t(L-f Company. Fax No. 9 oq - Noo -"I Recipient No: 4 - Name: Company: - Fax No. Recipient No: MESSAGE VP(KjC'lvl0 �'C-TTCK wvro- 10 j M E N G I N E E R S ENGINEERS & RANNER.+` - 7RAFFC, U,gp49MAMON, PAWING 234 East Colorado Blvd, Suite 400 - Pasadena, Caliiomia 91101 Phone: 626796-2322 - Fax: 626 792-0941 November 2, 2000 Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises 251 South San Dimas Carryon Road San Dimas, California 91733 Subject: Shared Parking Survey - TOGO's at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard Dear Mr. Parker. In response to questions posed by City of Diamond Bar staff, we have conducted a survey of actual parking operations at the TOGO's located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard. The parking survey was conducted on Friday, October 27, 2000, over a seven hour period between the hours of 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Existing Conditions The TOGO's is located in the northwest corner of the 1195 Building, with doors on both the north side and west side of the building (See Exhibit 1 at the rear of this letter). On-site parking totaling 42 parking spaces is provided along the north side ofthe 1195 Building (14 spaces), and in a parking bay on the west side of the 1195 Building (28 spaces). The 14 spaces on the north side of the building consists of 6 spaces marked for Cathay Bank, 6 shared spaces for all tenants in the 1195 Building, and 2 handicapped spaces. These on-site spaces are separated from 14 Jack-in-the-Box parking spaces by a drive aisle, and appear to the general public to be a single parking area shared between the 1195 Building and Jack-in-the-Box_ On the west side of the 1195 Building, the 28 spaces consist of 14 shared spaces adjacent to the building on the east side of the drive aisle and 14 shared marked compact spaces on the west side of the drive aisle. Survey Methodology The parking survey was conducted on a Friday, a recognized day of peak activity and the same day of the week on which the off-site parking surveys contained in our January 31, 2000 letter report were made. A total of seven parking areas were surveyed, three on-site, three at Jack-in-the-Box, and one "other". Customers exiting the TOGO'S doors on the north side of the 1195 Building, and on the west side of the 1195 Building during the seven hour survey period were observed and their parking local ion noted. Walk-ins were noted as "other". The observations were totaled every 15 minutes. At that same time the number of vehicles parked in each survey area was also noted. PhilipM. Linscatl, P.E IReU lack M. Ckee span, P.E. William A. Law, P.E. (Rett Paul V6. Wilkinson, P.E. ►cin P Keatim P.E. David 5. Shesder. P.E. Costa Mesa - 714 641-1587 - San Diego - 619 299-3090 - Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 ■ An LG2W8 Company E N G I N E i R 5 Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises November 2, 2000 Page Two Parking Survey Results Table A (at the rear ofthis letter) presents the parking locations of the TOGO's customers observed during the seven hour survey period, and Table B the number of vehicles parked in each survey area every 15 minutes over that same period. In the key lunch hour, the TOGO's customer peak was observed to be between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM (time ending 12:45 PM to time ending 1:30 PK, during which a total of 54 TOGO's customers were observed Of that number, 41(75.9 percent) were parked on-site (39 in the shared spaces and 2 in the spaces marked for Cathay Bank). A total of 9 TOGO's customers (16.7 percent)were observed to park in the adjacent Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. However, from examination of Table B it can be determined that during that same hour there were a number of vacant spaces available on-site. On-site parking utilization varied from 38 percent occupancy (26 vacant spaces) to 57 percent occupancy (18 vacant spaces) during the same period when 9 TOGO's customers were observed to park across the aisle in spaces which to the general public appear to be shared between the 1195 Building (TOGO'S) and Jack-in-the-Box. Affect of Parking (Dimensions In response to staff comments regarding parking dimensions, we have measured the width of the existing on-site parking spaces. The marked compact spaces are 7-7" wide on average and the other spacers (with the exception of the 2 handicapped spaces) are 8'-1" on average. The current City of Diamond Bar Code calls for 9'-0" parking space width and does not provide for compact parking. Re - striping the on-site parking to meet the current Code will result in a total of 35 parking spaces (an estimated loss of 7 spaces). On -Site Shared Parking Supply versus Demand It has been noted by staffthat the width of the existing parking spaces may be a factor in the amount of parking that occurs at Jack-in-the-Box. From Table A, it can be seen that 23 TOGO's customers (13.2 percent) parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Examination of Table B shows the 15 minute peak uffimtion of parking on-site at the 1195 Building (shown as "TOGO's On -Site" in Table B) to be at 2:00 PM (time ending 2:00 Pho with 27 vehicles parked on-site. Af that same time a total of 11 vehicles are shown parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Assuming that the percent of Jack-in-the-Box parking generated bythe other on-site uses is simr3ar to the percent of TOGO's packers in the Jack-in-the-Box parking, the total existing on-site peak demand can be projected. On this basis, we project a total on-site demand (TOGO's, Hollywood Video, Starbucks, and Cathay Bank) of 31 spaces [271(100.00-13.2) a 31]. With an on-site Code dimensioned parking supply of 3 5 spaces, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet projected demand with a 4 space surplus for contingencies. Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises November 2, 2000 Page Three E N G I N E E R 5 Conclusions. • Observations of TOGO's customers over a seven hour period on a Friday show that 23 TOGO's customers (13.2 percent) parked on the opposite side of the drive aisle on the north side of the 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard building. • parking space dimensions not withstanding, to the general public the parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle appears to be pari of a single parking area shared between the 1195 Building (TOGO's) and Jack-in-the-Box. • During the peak lunch hour, 9 TOGO's customers were observed to park in the Jack -in -the Box parking, while at the same time 18 to 26 wasting on-site parking spaces were vacant. • Re -striping existing on-site parking to meet the existing City of Diamond Bar Code would reduce the number of parking spaces from 42 pariang spaces to a total of 35 standard spaces (no compact spaces allowed by Code). • Assuming that the percent ofJack in -the -Box parking generated by other on-site use is similar to the percent of TOGO's parkers observed at Jack-in-the-Box, total on-site parking demand is projected to be 31 parking spaces. This is consistent with the shared parking demand of32 parking spaces projected in our January 31, 2000 letter report. • With a supply of 35 parking spaces after re -striping to Code, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet the projected 31 parking space demand with 4 surplus spaces.... We welcome the opportunity to be of service. Should there be any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call me at 626.796.2322 or to e-mail me at greenspan@llgengineers.com. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers cM Gueenspauu, P. . rincipal ova MrUM5VMV\W -WM JACK—IN—THE—BOX sTcmamm Q amO n� TOGO'S CATHAY i BANK Q' 1195 DMOND BAR BLVD. i HOLLYWOOD VIDEO STARBUCKS GRAND AVENUE LAW ►; GLREeNS• AN FNGINEERS MCI E N G I N E•E R 5 Table A OBSERVED PARKING LOCATIONS TOGO's, Diamond Bar Friday, October 27, 2000 oz-r�-zoon TIME ENDING AT CATHAY BANK 1 OBSERVED PARKING LOCATION OF TOGO'S CUSTOMERS JACKdN• TOGO'S THE -BOX OTHER ONSITE TOTAL 11:15 AM 0 1 0 2 3 11.30 AM 0 0 0 1 1 11.45 AM 1 0 0 7 8 1200 PM 0 0 1 9 10 12:15 PM 0 0 0 4 4 4 12:30 PM 0 2 0 6 B 12:45 PM 1 1 2 8 12 1:00 PM -0 2 0 14 16 1:15 PM 0 3 1 5 9 1:30 PM 1 3 1 12.- 17 1:45 PM 1 1 0 9 11 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 3 7 4 2:30 PM 1 0 1 4 6 2145 PM 0 0 1 0 1 3:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 3:15 PM 0 2 2 9 13 3:30 PM 0 0 2 2 4 3:45 PM 1 1 2 3 7 4.00 PM 0 1 0 1 2 4:15 PM 0 1 3 3 7 4:30 PM 1 0 0 3 4 4:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 5:00 PM 0 1 0 1 2 5:15 PM 0 2 0 2 4 5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 6:00 PM 0 1 0 4 5 TOTAL 8 23 16 1 127 174 [1[ Designated bank parking spaces (6) at 1195 Diamond Bar_Boulevard. 121 Includes Hollywood Video and Starbucks Coffee at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard E N G I N E E R S Table B . SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION__ TOGO's, Diamond Bar Friday, October 27, 2000 TIME ENDING AT JACK -IN- THE 5 SP. JACK -IN- THE• 3OX 9 SP. NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED JACK4N- TOGO'S [1] TOGO'S [2] BOX OPPOSITE ON-SITE GO' ITE ON-SITE TOS 6 SP. a SP. 14 SP. TOGO'S [3) ON-SITE 28 SP. OTHER/ WALK-IN 4 SP. 1-15 AM 1 3 2 2 10 10 1 1':30 AM 1 3 1 4 4 8 10 1 1-45 AM 1 1 1 0 10 11 2 12:00 PM 2 2 2 2 11 9 2 12:15 PM 3 3 3 1 13 12 2 12:30 PM 3 3 2 4 12 11 2 12:45 PM 2 3 2 5 10 9 1 1:00 PM 1 3 2 5 12 14 1 1:15PM 2 3 2 5 13 17 2 1:30 PM 3 3 3 4 14 16 ' 1 1:45 PM 3 3 3 1 13 18 1 2:00 PM 1 4 3 5 11 19 2 2:15 PM 1 3 3 3 10 16 2 2:30 PM 0 3 1 0 11 15 1 2:45 PM 0 3 2 2 13 20 1 3:00 PM 0 3 3 5 12 15 0 3:15 PM 0 3 2 4 11 12 0 3:30 PM 0 1 3 5 7 14 0 3A5 PM 0 1 2 4 9 13 0 4:00 PM 0 1 4 3 10 13 1 4:15 PM 0 1 4 4 7 10 1 4:30 PM 0 2 1 3 6 13 0 4:45 PM 0 3 1 2 6 19 1 5:00 PM 0 4 2 1 6 19 1 5:15 PM 0 2 1 2 7 18 1 5:30 PM 0 2 2 1 10 22 0 5:45 PM 0 2 1 1 819 0 6:00 PM 2 4 8 16 0 TOTAL ]4E 1 82 278 410 -- [1) Cathay Bank parking (Northside o 195 Diamond Bear Boulevard). 121 Shared Parking (Northside of 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard). (3) Shared panting (Westside of 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard). a� �. E) �sl io x r•r`ws. a xu+ovxtco reeuim nem diw� ('l Foo 4 G) cn ] a' F fi� K .rno zLL Jim L— �� a E3 �Q �El 14 f d-- cn m Iwo wa- to J p 0 •j( ISSEN DEVELOPING ISSEN DEVELOPING DWAON1403-D DIAMOND BAR BL -* td LZ hai w +umolom awes 14MDa44G DIAMOND BAR, CA Few ;FUS 41 G N, Ll n • z © Q m a A-A C F c�cG'e� cE'1)FT M1 N't C^�519 " y n® 41 h � o DEVELOPING dl: Id LZ a M SEN DEVELOPING ISSEN N 1403-D DIAMOND BAR BL 140 o. MAMONoDARM OtWONDMMCn . DIAMOND BAR, CA '."Uld . _:auo TEL:iBBB)980.BBB0 FnxaBOB)eeo-ooBT City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA NUMBER: 1.2-1 REPORT DATE: December 21, 2000 MEETING DATE: January 9, 2001 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 2000-21 and Minor Conditional' Use Permit No. 2000-21 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to construct a two-story addition of approximately 13,572 square feet to an existing two-story legal nonconforming Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility of approximately 12,193 square feet PROPERTY LOCATION: 1041 South Grand Avenue (Lot 12 of Tract No. 40972) PROPERTY OWNER: Verizon One Verizon Way Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 APPLICANT• TDM Architects, Inc. 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90041 BACKGROUND: The owner, Verizon, and applicant, TDM Architects, Inc., are requesting approvals for Development Review No. 2000-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-21 to construct an addition of 13,572 square feet to an existing two-story legal nonconforming Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility of approximately 12,193 square feet. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for expansion to a legal nonconforming structure. The project situs address is 1041 South Grand Avenue. The intended use is to house additional Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). The project site is approximately 1.07 acres. It is a commercial development located on the southeast corner of Grand Avenue at Montefino Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 12,193 square foot, two-story legal non -conforming telephone switching facility building. It is legal nonconforming due to the front setback. Parking is provided on-site and access to the commercial development is provided off Montefino Avenue. The proposed two-story expansion adds approximately 13,572 square feet to the existing structure but does not modify the existing architectural style. Pursuant to the City's parking requirement, it is required that the proposed project provides 24 parking spaces and the plans indicate 26 with the proposed parking lot expansion. Hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and the site is manned with 3-5 employees. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the facility is not manned. The project site is zoned Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C=3=BE). The -General Plan Land Use designation is Office Professional (OP). Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: To the north is R-3-8000 and R-1-8000 residential zone; to the northeast is the C -3 -BE zone; and to the northwest and south is the RPD -8000 residential zone. ANALYSIS: REVIEW AUTHORITY/APPLICATIONS The City's Development Code also establishes a Development Review process. The purpose of this process is to establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion of high aesthetic and functional standards to compliment and add to the economic, physical, and social character of the City. The process will also ensure that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living, working, or shopping environment and attracts the interest of residents, workers, shoppers and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design. Pursuant to the Development Code Section 22.48.020(a), an application for Development Review is required for commercial, industrial, and institutional development, which involves the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction of a structure. Therefore, the proposed project, an enlarged building for Public Utility Telephone switching facility, which involves the issuance of a building permit requires Development Review. Development Review is also within the Planning Commission's review authority. Also, this application requires Minor Conditional Use Permit approval by the Hearing Officer, in this case the Planning Commission is the review authority, pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.030 for expansion to a legal nonconforming structure. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030, permits shall be acted upon concurrently and the highest review authority shall make final determination. In this case, the Planning Commission is the highest review authority for all applications. ® Development Standards The following is a comparison of the City's required development standards and the project's proposed development standards: 2 Standards SETBACKS: SETBACKS: Front - 10 feet landscaped for building Front — Existing structure remaining at 9* feet closest point. New structure is 19 feet. Sides - 10 feet minimum building setback on street Street side 11 feet 4 inches. 0 setback otherwise side and 0 feet otherwise. Rear - 10 feet where abuts a residential district. Rear- Structure is 126 feet. BUILDING HEIGHT: BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 feet with various ro'ections u to 1S feet 32.5 feet, two stories RETAINING WALL: RETAINING WALL: 6 feet exposed height. Plans do not indicate wall height at parking lot, however a site visit indicates walls will not exceed maximum 6 feet allowed by the Development Code and conditions of F.A.R.: Floor area ratio — l PARKING: Rear Setback: 10 district. F.A.R.: Floor Area Ratio - .32 PARKING: feet where abut a residential Rear setback for parking lot is 36 feet. Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility uses Warehouse/storage Facility requirement @ 1 space for each 1,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet plus 1 space for each 2,000 square feet thereafter and 1 space for each 400 square feet of office space. 5 feet interior dimension for tree planters throughout parking lot. One tree for every 8 spaces. Standard parking stall dimensions: 9 ft. by 19 ft. (including 2 ft. bumper overhang) with 26 ft. wide drive aisles. 32,794 total square feet 1 space for 400 square feet office 20 spaces up to 20, 000 square feet 3 spaces for 5,765 square feet remaining 24 required spaces, 26 provided on site Three planters required. Two planters provided one meets interior dimension, other is 4 feet interior dimension. Trees along back slope of new parking area can apply. Standard parking stall dimensions: 9 ft. by 19 ft. (including 2 ft. bumper overhang) with 25 ft:** wide drive aisles. *The above analysis indicates that the proposed commercial structure requires a Minor Conditional Use Permit application as stated above. **The proposed project landscaping in the parking lot and drive aisle width are also exceptions to the Development Code Standards. The conditions of approval require the applicant to submit a landscape plan to include planters and- trees at the edge of the new parking lot area and to revise the parking lot to include 26 feet drive aisles. Since exterior lighting is not addressed in this set of plans, a condition of approval requires -'the. applicant to submit a parking lot and exterior lighting plan/study consistent with the City of Diamond Bar's Development Code Section 22.16.050 to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any City Permits. ® Architectural Features and Colors The proposed project's architectural design is compatible with the existing structure and is identified in the application and plans as Aztec. It is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. The project's architectural features include the use flat roof and tile trim and stucco exterior. The color is changing to a gray and off white per the Exhibit color board and per the attached rendering. - The roof is generally flat, with minimum slope for adequate drainage. The roof -mounted equipment (air conditioning chillers, etc.) is hidden behind roof parapet, not to be visible from surrounding streets, driveways, or adjacent buildings on a horizontal sight line. The screen will be constructed of sound proofing materials to comply with the Diamond Bar Development Code for noise. The construction materials are complimentafy to the building and integrated to the architectural design. The roof -mounted equipment is for cooling the equipment stored in the building. ® Floor Plans The interior of the structure is designed for equipment. Attached are pictures that show the current use and the expansion would house more of the same plus additional DSL equipment to meet new demands for -the technology. On the second floor there is an area noted as "collocation area." Staff asked the Applicant to explain the use of this area and their explanation is attached. Basically, this area is available for other carriers to house their facility without 'building new facilities. These competitors include ATT, Sprints, MCI, etc. ® Noise As noted above in the discussion of the roof mounted equipment, this facility requires noise barriers. There is an existing generator on site. However, a larger generator will be required and noise barriers for this generator will be required per today's noise standards, Chapter 22.28 of the 1998 Development Code. The project site is located adjacent to Grand Avenue, a major arterial. The project application and the noise specs submitted indicate that the Remote Cooling Radiators will emit 89 dBA at a 23 -foot distance. The project will have conditions as per the noise engineers and City requirements that noise does not emit from the building. The project has soundproofing for the generator and sound walls around the roof mounted cooling equipment to meet the criteria in the Diamond Bar Development Code for residential areas of 45 dBA for nighttime and 50 dBA for daytime. The City's noise standards consider daytime as 7:00 am to 10:00 p.m. and nighttime from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. As stated the proposed expansion will be required to comply with the City's noise standards. 4 SITE WORK The grading, drainage, and retaining walls necessary for the improvements will be reviewed and permitted by the Public Works Division. The Public Works Division has reviewed the proposed site plan and their comments are contained in the conditions of approval. • Soil Report The Applicant will submit a soils report for the proposed improvements to be reviewed and approved by the City. The soils report will reference the suitability of the retaining walls to withstand pressure of the retained soils and proposed development. Also, as required by the Building and Safety Division, it will include the underground fuel storage tank noted on the site plan. ® Grading and Drainage A grading plan will be required for this project including drainage. The project site plan proposes that much of the lot is to remain as is at the rear with the trees and slope. The construction takes place in the current parking lot. ® Retaining Walls The plans call for new retaining walls in the .rear for the expansion of the parking lot. No details have been submitted. The Development Code allows walls with a maximum exposed height of six feet and a site visit indicates the walls will not exceed this maximum. It is anticipated they will be 3-4 feet. Retaining walls will be required to be ornamental by using stucco to match the building or decorative block in the conditions of approval. ® Underground Fuel Storage Tank There is currently an underground fuel storage tank on site. The application notes that a bigger tank will be required with a capacity of 12,000 gallons. A separate permit will be required for this process with review and approval by the City's permit process including review and approval by both the City's Building and Safety Division, but also Fire Department. Per the Building and Safety Division, a Phase One Environmental Soils report shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the underground storage tank. Applicant is required to follow regulations for the storage of hazardous materials pursuant to the Uniform Building Code Section 307 for Group H Occupancy. LANDSCAPING No landscape plan was submitted for review and approval with this project's application, but planting areas are noted on the site plan. The minimum requirement for landscape in the C-3 Zone is 15%. The site plan indicates 32% landscape coverage. It is a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be designed per the Development Code standards in Chapter 22.24. Additionally, this plan is required to have trees and shrubs to screen the height of the building on the street side and to add tree planters as discussed with the parking lot above. Additionally, it will be required that the landscaping/irrigation be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection or the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any walls, etc. that may be proposed within the setback shall not be in the streets' dedicated easement; or, shall any such structure or plant material proposed within the front setback exceed a maximum height of 42 inches. On November 20, and on December 12, 2000, 177 property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project site were notified by mail and a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed for at least 20 days before the public hearing. On November 22, 2000 notification of the public hearing for this project was made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland ValleDaily Bulletin newspapers. However, the original building square footage was advertised incorrectly and therefore on December 15, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was re -advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Three other sites 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 a Negative Declaration is required for this project. According to Section 15070, Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period began December 15, 2000 and ended January 3, 2001. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-21, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-21, Negative Declaration No. 2000-07, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. 1ORK41151,145MR�M 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, 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); 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; 6 3. The architectural design of the proposed development 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 thorough 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). REQUIRED NONCONFROMING STRUCTURES FINDINGS: The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming: 1. Incompatible with other structures in the neighborhood; 2. Inconsistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan; 3.' A restriction to the eventual/future compliance with the applicable regulations of this Development Code; 4. Detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood; and 5. Detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. REQUIRED MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code; 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints; 6 5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located, and; 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Prepared by: -• ��^-��� ••i%. Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant Attachments: 1. Draft resolution; 2. Draft Negative Declaration No. 2000-07; 3. Applications; 4. Tree Preservation Statement; 5. Interior photos; 6. Letter regarding project, dated October 4, 2000; 7. Letter regarding co -location, dated November 13, 2000; 8. Noise Control Report, dated November 9, 2000 and letter dated November 10, 2000; 9. Rendering; 10. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, roof plan, elevations. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-xc HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE L: A RESOLUTION OF T CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2000-21, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-21, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2000-07, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 13,572 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY LEGAL NONCONFORMING PUBLIC UTILITY TELEPHONE SWITCHING FACILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 12,193 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 25,765 SQUARE FEET. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1041 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE (LOT 12 OF TRACT NO. 40972), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, Verizon, and applicant, TDM Architects, Inc., have filed an application for Development Review No. 2000-21, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-21 and Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 for a property located at 1041 South Grand Avenue (Lot 12 of Tract No. 40972), Diamond Bar, California. Hereinafter, in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, Minor Conditional Use Permit, and Negative Declaration shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. On November 20, and on December 12, 2000, 177 property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project site were notified by mail and a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed for at least 20 days before the public hearing. On December 15, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on January 9, 2000 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 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically fin k -.".t ' zCU%1_ all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A. "-bf. this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Initial Study review and Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 have been prepared by the City of Diamond—Bar in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder,_ pursuant to Section 15070. Furthermore, Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. The Negative Declaration review period began December 1*5, 2000 and ended January 3, 2001. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before the 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 wild life 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 parcel at 1041 South Grand .Avenue, (Lot 12 of Tract No. 40972) Diamond Bar, CA. It is a developed commercial project site located on the southeast corner of Grand Avenue at Montefino Avenue and is appro:kimately 1.07 acres. It is shaped irregularly, wider at the rear. The site is currently developed with a 12,193 square foot, two- story legal non -conforming telephone switching facility building. It is legal nonconforming due to the front setback. Parking is provided on-site and access to the commercial development is provided off Montefino Avenue. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (OP). Pursuant.to the General Plan, this land use designation provides 2 r. the establishment of office -based wo;-Jf 31-g environments for general, professional/ administrative office uses, as well as support uses. Additionally, development within the OP designation will maintain a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.00. (c) The project site is within Unlimited Commercial - Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) Zone. This zoning designation permits general office uses and Public Utility Facilities. (d) Generally, the following 'zones surround the subject site: To the north IM R-3-8000 and R-1-8000 residential zone; to the northeast is the C -3 -BE zone; and to the northwest and south is the RPD -8000 residential zone. (e) The application request is to construct an addition of approximately 13,572 square feet to an existing legal nonconforming, 12,193 square feet, two-story Public utility Telephone Switching Facility. The proposed expansion adds square footage to the existing structure but does not modify the existing architectural style or change the use from that existing. MATROMFM��� (f) 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 special areas (e.g. theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments). The existing 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 Professional office (OP) The proposed project enlarges an existing Public Utility Telephone Switching facility.- The General Plan Professional office (OP) 'land use designation is for an office based working environment for general offices as well as support uses. The design and layout of the proposed development will be consistent with the existing developed site. The proposed structure complies with the City's General 3 Plan objectives and strategies related to commercial properties. The structures and placement parcel conform to the site coverage, setback, - and height criteria of the Diamond Bar Development C� with approved application for the Minor Conditional Use Permit. There is no specific or additional community planned development for the site. (g) The design of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The proposed project is within Unlimited Commercial - Billboard Exclusion (C-3- , BE) Zone, which permits the proposed expansion of the Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility use. The existing use was reviewed and approved with the original 'approval processed by Los Angeles County. Though the proposed project enlarges the existing facility, its use is for an expansion of equipment. Generally, the facility's hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. when the site is manned with 3-5 employees. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the facility is not manned. The expanded structure and use are not expected to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (h) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Chapter, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The proposed project will be consistent and compatible with the architectural design and materials of the existing structure that was originally reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County. The colors have been changed and are compatible with surrounding development. The architectural style is. Aztec with- materials, textures and colors that complement this style. Therefore, the proposed expansion will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the City's Development Review requirements and General Plan. 0 There is no specific development for the ill rovide or additional site. comm unity`planned The design of the proposed development - &I a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing. A project colors /materials board has been provided. The colors, materials, and textures proposed are complimentary to the existing homes and commercial properties within the area while offering vari-ety. As referenced in the above findings, the proposed project will provide a de . sirable 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. (j) The proposed development 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. Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution. Additionally, the proposed project is required to comply with the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, Fire Department, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and State of California requirements. The referenced agencies' involvement will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (k) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration - 5 review period began December 15, 2000 an nded January 3, 2001. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES (1) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruc- tion, relocation or structural alteration of .the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming incompatible with other structures in the neighborhood. The proposed project is an addition of approximately 13,572 square feet at the side and -rear of the existing structure, adding space for more Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) and/or telephone switching equipment. The existing structure's architectural design is compatible with the architectural style of homes and commercial properties in the vicinity and is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code. The materials and colors are c6mpatible. (m) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruc- tion, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming inconsistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The project site, currently developed with a two- story, legal nonconforming, Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility, was established before the adoption of the City's General Plan. The adopted General Plan of July 25, 1995 has a land use designation of Professional Office (OP) for the project site. By not encroaching further into the setbacks than the comparable portions of the existing structure, the proposed project complies with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies related to commercial projects. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies, City Design Guidelines, and with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit the City's Development Code. There is no applicable specific plan. (n) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruc- tion, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming a restriction to the 6 eventual/future compliance with the regulations of this Development Code. appficable` The existing parcel was approved by Tract Map No. 40972, Lot 12 as 1.07 acres. The existing structure was completed with Building Permit No. 4983 and Certificate of occupancy 'was issued December 15, 1982. This was processed with the Los Angeles County Code meeting the required setbacks of that Code. The current Diamond Bar Development Code requires the front setback to be 10 feet. The application is considered a nonconforming structure. This is defined as any parcel or structure that was legally created or constructed prior to the November 3, 1998 adoption of the current Diamond Bar Development Code, and which does not conform to current code provisions /.standards prescribed for the zoning district in which the use is located. The front setback of 9 feet is nonconforming. The proposed project conforms to the applicable provisions of this Development Code relating to nonconforming structures and changes to or expansion thereof. Namely, the exterior limits of the conversion/ remodel do not exceed the applicable height limit or encroach further into the setbacks than the comparable portions of the existing structure. (o) The addition, enlargement, extension, -reconstruc- tion, relocation or structural alteration 'of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood.. As 'stated in Item 4 (e)- (j), the addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, re -location or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. (p) The addition, enlargdment, extension, reconstruc- tion, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. 7 AS stated in Item 4 (e) -(j), the 'addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, re-loc4�ion or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (q) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. The proposed use is allowed in the C -3 -BE Zone. The existing use is a Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility. The application is an addition of approximately 13,572 square feet at the side and rear of the existing structure. The existing structure is considered nonconforming. The granting of the permit will allow the applicant expansion of the structure and will not encroach further into the setbacks than the comparable portions of the existing structure. The proposed application complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code. (r) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. As stated in Item 4(e), the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and there is no applicable specific plan.. (s) The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. As stated in Item 4(f), the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. (t) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. As stated in Items 4(e) -(j), the addition'. O.f additional square footage to the existing Public Utility Telephone switching Facility that does not,,' encroach further into the setbacks than the comparable portions of the existing structure, is suitable for the type -and density/ intensity of use, access, utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints. (u) Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. As stated in Item 4(j), granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. (v) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration review period began December 15, 2000 and ended January 3., 2001. 5. Based onthefindings and conclusions set forth above the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform ' to site plan, floor plan, roof plan, elevations, and colors/materials board collectively labeled as.' .Exhibit "A" and dated January 9, 2001, as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, as amended herein. (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation -.of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of',.,al'l trash, debris, and refuse, whether during "or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste - from- residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before construction begins, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's requirements along the project site's perimeter. Thi's fencing shall remain until the Building official approves its removal. - (d) The Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. (e) Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a landscape/irrigation plan delineating the type planting materials, color, size, quantity and location, for review and approval by the City. The revised plans shall include trees and shrubs, in addition to those shown on the site plan, to soften the structure's height at the street side yard and to include planters and trees at the edge of the new parking lot area. (f) Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a revised parking lot layout to include 26 feet drive aisles. (g) The landscaping/ irrigation shall be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy issuance. Any walls, etc. that may be proposed within the front setback shall not encroach into street's dedicated easement or exceed a maximum 42 inches in height. (h) A grading and retaining wall plan review and approval shall be required in accordance with the City's Public Works requirements. The following 10 shall be delineated on the grading and retaining wall plan: 1. Cut and fill quantities and earthwork calculations and export location; 2. All flow lines, finished surfaces, and finished grades; 3. Proper drainage with detailed sketches; 4. Proposed and existing grades; 5. Sign/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer and geologist; (i.e. Flood 6. Clearly delineate all easements Hazard Area and Recreation Easements); 7. Retaining walls shall not be constructed of wood or wood products; 8. Retaining walls shall be required to be ornamental by using stucco or decorative block; 9. Engineered calculations shall be submitted with retaining walls (APWA Standard is not applicable) 10. indicate retaining wall locations on grading plan with standard detail and delineate: (a) Top of wall; (b) Top of footing; (c) Finish Surface; (d) Structural calculations; and (e) 'Retaining walls exposed height shall not exceed six feet; 11. All grading shall be subject to Development Code Sections 22.16.030 (Air Emissions) and Section 22.28 (Noise); 12. Erosion Control plan shall be submitted for permits issued October I to April 15. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (Bmp,$). Additionally, the applicant shall obtain the necessary NPDES permits; 13. Hydrology calculations showing capacity of proposed drainage devices as well as existing drainage structures on site shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Division. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the Public Works Division, the applicant shall submit a soils report, for the City's review and approval, incorporating the scope of the proposed development in the review and analysis. The soils report shall also incorporate a Phase One Environmental analysis 11 for the underground storage tank change -out for the.. Building and Safety Division and building permit. (j) The proposed project shall comply with noise standards set forth in the City's Development Code, Chapter 22.28, adopted in 1998, and the project shall not exceed noise decimal readings of 45 dBA for nighttime periods (10.:00 p..m. to 7:00 a.m.) and 50 dBA for daytime periods (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) for all uses and equipment. (k) The roof -mounted equipment shall be hidden behind roof parapet, not to be visible from surrounding streets, driveways, or "?adjacent buildings on a Ii0r*izontal sight line. The screen will be constructed of sound proofing materials to comply with the Diamond Bar Development Code, Chapter 22.28 for noise. (1) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan/study for the Planning Division's review and approval. (m) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final detail of the trash/recycle bin enclosure for the Planning Division's review and approval. This shall include placement for a recycle bin. (n) The structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (o) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "C" exposure. (p) Applicant shall comply with new State Handicap Accessibility Regulations (i.e. van parking, shortest route to accessible entrance, shortest pedestrian route to the closest pedestrian entrance, restrooms, ramps, etc.).. One handicap -van parking space is required. (q) Prior to issuance of any City permits, applicant shall submit plans to Los Angeles County Fire Department for their review and approval. 12 (r) Applicant shall follow regulations of hazardous materials pursuant Building Code Section 307 for Group for the storage to the Uniform H occupancy. (s) This grant is valid for two years and shall be exercised within that period or this grant shall expire. A one-year extension of time may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Interim City Manager may consider the extension request at duly_ noticedpublic hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (t) 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 of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Furthermore, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays the remaining city processing fees. (u) 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 $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a'deminimus impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the .'Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to: Verizon, One Verizon Way, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 and TDM Architects, Inc., 930 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90041. 13 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF JANUARY 2001-,.- BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Interim City Manager, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of January 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BY: James DeStefano, Secretary 14 %-1i l UX L1A1v1V11AA✓ 1+z-xkll COMMU Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT —... 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 • -+ (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 '�.� �•�,� - , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Record Owner Applicant Name - V ERI ZotJ (Last name first) Address OJLIE VePJ?24 WAY City Tv SAKI D OAKS zip 9 r3 G• 2 . . Phone( ) MR. WED TOFNLMA4 (Last name feat) yNE t/ER17-om1 r,JA`t' 14, lPoSAAID OA4& 9 I'.>(c2- Phone$oS) 379 - 189 0 FPL # - " - Deposit $ Receipt+ By:1 Date Rec'd Applicant's Agent TDM A xNti'EcTs � �t-j (Last name fust) q$0 C0�09*Do IVSD �i ooh I Phone(323) 2 S'¢ - 92oD NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. - (Attach a separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and dircctors of corporations.) Consent: I certify that I am th� dp p the h vin described property and permit the applicant to file this request. CE Signed "Irl. ,u.e - - Date % -L - CTL ' owners) �e'f�QE SE�vT/dc Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name Tjp i l ,gdZc H IT 1Er-JC,, II4C ({4wWASW-Iio�tG (Applicant or Ag n Signed Date `i 2 (Applicant or Agen)) Location Iv41 S. GRAA/P AyF, �IAMon1p 75,g2 (Str+eet address or tract and lot number) Zoning l ;7 IqF Previous Cases N1A �+t 111 tf .�' i/ l • Present Use of Site TiE LE-CommVI IICATio.-%S Use applied for PA11IL014ey &WAAIS1.9m jroR, 1.0CA L eDSL" Syzyic.ES ,y co r= ,JJ-. _SOI. & D or JoWT 5'tz. .:OZTY a1E XTM)E:FWGcimJ Ore (VER!?.oapEr- I%la L.A. Co. f/IZ45 ST, -TOA/ �.o ° tjE2 ,. of SoV-fq gOMT Or WAY of gMAID AVO- WUg ltm FEF-? J1V w1g'fN . Area devoted to structures !(o $ 3q7 SF (32°/) Landscaping/Open space 3ifjg2,7 SF (16,958Sf' (32X) / /S I.AtiI09CAPJN41 Project Sine 251765, Lot Coverage 32 !o Proposed density 1 UNIT • CH//tl �1(/ S .^ (Units/Acres) Style of Architecture /�9/pl' 41 7;K4� A Z� GS S l Y1.E Number of Floors Proposed Z Slope of Roof E4 AT Grading' yE`.� If yes, Quantity 20Z W. YD Cut YES - Fill Import if yes, Quantity — Export ye. 5. If yes, Quantity ZO Z Cil, YD, Rcomd (>Amen (Lout A=ic fim* TDMAR,-HITECTS PAGE 02 Lor �-,17 CMOFDIAY*fONDIIAFL ])UARTMNT or COMMUNETY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES planciat Division 21660 E Copley Phvc SWe 190, Ehanumd Bar, CA 91765 014; Reed (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 msk Cm. I= CONOITIOW USE PERMIT APPUCATION AppHout Aft,- —19- JWc AI&V Pb4#i1'4*-" 0-40 mft fast) oewzpd air ::Aiw,#1 fee -7Y A7c, cim poriv-4p 4*1q, Cq Zip 2 - Kole ax Fax NOTE � It is rite app h,;a= "% --r-Ousibilm to notify the C Pfwe-3-jLDg ul LbAs ca%e 11Y in wlritWg cfBuoy cbMeof 1bcpL*D :pAaSin.:�--vwin eddgtbc (AtU.-b SerAml,- spat if cl inu corperanon, dug names. addresmas, and sipahm of Menbft Orprw-do0cia, -cu -.1c'. and dirwm or cern th /n thh e v�%"err 4afthe dcsaxWPrvp&1Y andimmil IAC Ron I Mariott u� a, 'no R an nner 8031191 -Pr P't Dmsc— CerriJ b941 QJ m-.' kw,wtedee. Y ry shat the inr0"11460a. . Oapek p,'*jd,,f it eanad to dire NUT Name 1A)C. �W*014100S '64,W,4 r, 7-ol, Date ,,-fAppb-^An! or Agejt (%RW address or batt and lot 4=bc) Ham Numbering M.P;,.-11L:.21 lit/ Pre -taus casr-j Prcscal Use 0'.. Sim -CO"?,4fllAli 409 71 OA -IJ Use oppLed for City of Diamond Bar CONDMONAL USE PERMrT Project Size (gross acres) /. t ACgr'S Previous Cases Present Use of Site _ 9a C P J IMs1N rvAf3 for iGGfK. A/a/+/ (Oi✓/�R°M/Ny Page Twc Project Density `�'� 31 -7 AC465) Domestic Water Source i5 rN14 CompanyMistrict X l 1,11d?„ Method of Sewage Disposal L f IS/L/JG Sanitation District ,E%11 "'Pri Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES ✓ NO Amount 93✓. Yrs (Show necessary grading design on site pian or tent. map) r' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BURDEN of PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the sitisfactioillPf the Planning Commission, the following facts: (answers must be full & complete) i_. A. That the requested use at the location propose wM not: 1. Adversely affect the bealth, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or 1)' rking is the surrounding AMA, or v5� rti �Ma,�s rpt= 5A•MQ 2. Be matcrialiy detrimental to the use, enjoytaent or valuation of property of otbx tr persons located in the vicinity of the site, orfe�,� Mg epsrIPA bri►cc,ay 40ases $,J►tut Gt�urPN�'r so Ls '/,!6 ,tij�W Ronn�•�, raw srnc �s�r+dF 3. jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public �tealth, sa!�ity or general w'cttaro. S.1rrro riiE S,vlycrl EGW P /N DE 1�t �dil.�✓�!� 'tk��, JEo1A�v, E.JD B. That tate proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the var&, walls, l ces, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title22, or as!�¢ otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. TIFt for rs !. i AC44-3 ASD ririE fpefPRr�✓1' /S oAy /b/ 39?(a�/L AtRe C. That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as to c traffic such use would generate, and r �q(. A6 T,f a . !a/ IW E 2. By other public or private service facilities as ate requited. 1VW 7b Elft f~ 7 %�K'f' r#f filet U'rie> IS Ale »v6uc „ ya,�.ar c lidlGE wiu ,WrE di�� Residential: Total Units Bachelor 1 B,�ydreo Total Pkg. Cov. Pk Uncov. Pkg. Project Size: Lot Coverage: Density: Maximum Height: No. of floors: _ Non-residential: ZS, 7bS 1 A116 ABouf Sq. A. aces No. of Bldgs. Occupant Load' P kind and quantity of tG epptp 1756 WALL. 2 Bdrm. & larger Footage rule taxi'ag B1N4'D,Ri6 Barden ofProof - Page 1 Parking: Total Standard CompactI.1' Handicsp Landscaping: Sq. fat 93 Gd. Ya (� Grading: Y N— Ifyes, Quint*: . Cut: Fill: Import: Y N ✓ Ifyes, Quantity:. Export: Y J Ifyes, Quantity 93 - 0, Occupant Load as calcuLawd by the Building do Safety Division is required for all dining, take-out orl :03embly use, churches. health clubs, theaters, etc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lot(s)lparoel(s) "rff 'r"" CAM OAV e5e,& 00( PI&O V971!12JAJ fooPm-ly' .4,113 Z.,4.- Co. tolgg: S'42jr ):r _ 1gNA 0, 1 AW 0,f OAY 'Of .4ile. . -h� - - /00 fW7r /A/ �46r- '107,7S- t. Area devoted to structures l6. 3,17 $f LAndscaping/Open spaccc LAVJP-SCA� 144 .11& t f5v SF Residential Project:__and i j (gross arra) (No. of lots) iTi I /I •Z ocas Proposed density (UnitstAcres) Parking Standard Compact Handicapped TOW Required Provided 70 ZS * . Conditional Use Per, Ot Burden o6roof - Pop 2 ^<Y-pc 0 TREE PRESERVATION STATEMENT The subject property contains no oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper trees. [ ] The subject property contains one or more oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper trees. The applicant anticipates that no activity (grading and/orconstruction) will take place within five (S) feet of the outer dripline of any oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper tree. [ ] The subject property contains one or more oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper trees. The applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within rive (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper tree. A Tree Permit has been or will be applied for prior to any activity taking place on the property. (Ap icant's Signa e; D:WORD-LINDAWORMS\TREE STATEMENT 9 2� ori -- (Date) w WEI Ear/ I A . Ac - A TDM ARCHITE CTS INC. TEGTMEYER, DEPANIAN & MILLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 930 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90041 (323) 254-9200 FAX (323) 254-9511 www.TDMARCH.COM November 13, 2000 Ms. Linda Smith Development Services Assistant 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 It was a pleasure to have met you this morning. As discussed, in regards to the collocation areas, here is the written statement of what I attempted to explain to you this morning. A few years ago, FCC deregulated the way the local telephone companies operate. What this means is that an existing telephone must provide any available spaces in their facility to accommodate their competitors space needs. Some of these competitors including ATT, Northpoint, Sprints, Covad, MCI, Rhythms, Advance Telecom, Allegiance, Arrival, DSL, MGC, New Edge, etc.... can now lease an area, either inside their own cage or have it cageless, and tap into the. main frame of the host phone company to provide their own service, this process is termed as "collocation." Due to FCC's requirements, we are required to reserve some areas designated as "collocation" space. This area will be open until there is a request from these vendors. Those caged divisions shown on the second floor plan as submitted are proposed only, the actual number of cages installed will be in response to the requests. Currently there are six requests for the Diamond Bar "Central Office." I hope this will help clarify the collocation area. Regards, _--- oward Hong, A oc. AIA Project Manager File: F/Depanian/GTFJCollocations/Diamond Bar/Planning2.doc �a AM TEGTMEXER, DEPA (323) 254-9200 FAX i October Ms. Son; Develops 21660 E. Diamond Here is Grand A, 11 !. I i AR C HITE CTSi-:'JINC. MAN & MILLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 930 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeteie: California 90041 333) 254-9511 gc.H.C.C)h7 , 2000 a Joe I tent Services Assistant Copley Drive Suite 190 Bar, CA 91765 brief synopsis of what we are proposing for the Verizon (formallyGTI; facility on e. in the City of Diamond Bar. ,:i The purpose for this building addition is to add Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) equip' hent to this site in order to provide DSL services to the local community. The demand for this s-liirvice by the community has been increase beyond the existing building capacity. Per the cw��tent rate of growth the service are can not be accommodated not only by DSL but additional tel, hone lines beyond 2 01. Due to the increase in building square footage, there will be additionaj. errand for mechanical cooling and emergency power back-up for the new and proposed s), tems. The mechanical upgrade will include replacing the chiller units, air handlers and a raak iator. The added emergency power will be facilitated by a larger generator which in turn W 1 require a larger un erground diesel fuel storage tank. The new generator and fuel tank will jp� located in the same proximity of the existing. The upgrade of these components will increOp a the noise level of the building, however, provisions are being made to provide sound anuation to mitigate the noise level to meet the zoning code. Although noise mitigation will q F part of the design, i should be pointed out that with the exception of periodic testing, th I emergency generatorwill not be in. operation unless there is a commercial power failure. ;.,These tests generally last no longer than one hour and are conducted during normal businessp�1hours. All mechani.c at units will be screened from public view. We arc a so requesting a parking variance for this site. The building is essentially a0 equipment warehou e with only three to four employees stationed at the building. Periodi tally, during unch hot irs, there is a possibility of additional four to five field service employees tI4t will make use of th break room. This is basically the numbers of employees that will be in Igie facility at any one t me. ! ail I hope tis will assist you and the panel to understand what we are trying to acr;aeve at this facility. you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me � (323) 254- 9200. a Sincerely 'Howard Hong, LZIA Project Manager sa File: F/Depa iwvCiT&Cgilnc•arinits/Diamttnd aar/Piantting.dvr C1i Y NOV ► J � g ..; November 9, 2000 TDM 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90041 Attention: Mr. Howard Hong Veneklasen Associates 171 i Sixtee Santa Mon:ca. CA 9: 16.3i045, Fax: 310.396?__-* Subject: Noise Control Report — Emergency Generator and Roof Top Mechanical Equipment Verizon — Diamond Bar, California Dear Mr. Hong: This report sets out the results of an acoustical analysis performed for the emergency generator facility and the rooftop mechanical room and equipment for Verizon's facility at Diamond Bar, California. The objective of the study was to determine the extent of noise control treatment required to comply with the City of Diamond Bar Noise Ordinance. 1.0 Noise Ordinance . The City of Diamond Bar Noise Ordinance (copy enclosed in the Appendix) specifies a limit on noise levels due to such installations. The limit for residential locations is 45 dBA for nighttime periods and 50 dBA for daytime periods.�'„:.c: • ', y X 2.0 Analysis The major noise sources associated with the emergency generator system are the engine casing noise (which typically determines the size of the soundtraps), the radiator fan noise,'the engine exhaust noise, and breakout through the doors. In this analysis it is aisumed that the engine will be test run during daytime periods. 2.1 Engine Exhaust The engine exhaust must be provided with a "critical class" type muffler. This muffler should have a minimum DIL (Dynamic Insertion Loss) as specified in the enclosed specification in the Appendix. 2.2 Intake Air Silencer All intake silencers must have the minimum DIL as specified in the enclosed Silencer Schedule in the Appendix. 2.3 Air Exhaust Fan Duct The air exhaust ducts (12" x 12") must be internally lined with 1" duct liner board. The roof mounted exhaust fans will be provided with sound traps as specified by mechanical engineer. 2.4 The Generator Room The walls and/or ceiling area of the generator room must be provided with 2" thick "Tectum" with gC:Z0 mn ,,._ �nia_detail (see enclosed cut sheets). Alternatively 2" thick fiberglass sheets (2 pcf) may be substituted. speci ica ion > a _ c e m e ppendi 2.5 Generator Room Exterior Door The exterior double door.must be a sound rated door with a minimum STC ratins of 4?. A specification for this door is enclosed. 2.6 Vibration Control of vibration will be the responsibility of the generator supplier. A minimum static deflection of 1 inch is recommended. 3.0 Remote Cooling Radiators Noise from the remote radiator must not exceed 89 dBA at a distance of 23 feet from the center of the radiator (measured under "free field", i.e. hemispherical radiation conditions. The barrier wall around must be soun�ane absorbing panels with a mi ' hei ht of 3 feet above the heht of radiatar—IAC Moduline ystem egular Noise Shield — catalog cut enclosed) is recommended for this application. These panels. may also be installed on the walls. 4.0 Chiller Area and Air Handler Room 4.1 The Chiller Area The walls of this area must be rovide the same jyVe of sound absorbing panels as specified in 3.0 above. The barrier wall must beat least 3 feet above the eig o)f the - 4.2 The Air Handling Room 4.2.1 The ceiling area of this room must be provided with sound absorbing material per enclosed specification. 4.2.2 The louvers on the two.walls of this room must be acoustic type. Cut sheets for this equipment is enclosed. If you have any questions concerning this information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Veneklasen sociates, Inc. ooshang Khosrovani, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Associate am. g:\dm\verizon\liamond bar\00hk.001 November 10, 2000 TDM 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90041 Attention: Mr. Howard Hong Subject: Addendum to Noise Control Report — Air Mandling Units Verizon — Diamond Bar, California Dear Mr_ Hong: rencWzsen AssocLates 17 � 15«tee:,, s -re -e: 5w—a Mo7ca CA 9N_ - Tel 3:0.45,%17,33 Fac 3: C396.3424 We reviewed the specifications, noise data and the layout of the two roof mounted air handling units which will be located near the chillers. The walls around these units must be provided with sound absorbing e (specifications submitted in the original report) and must extend at least 3 feet above the height o e walls. If you have any questions concerning this information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Veneldasen ' tes, Inc. , ooshang Khosrovani, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Associate HK:dv g:udnAvaixoa`Aiammd bs\OObLWZ Specification for Air -Intake Silencers SECTION DUCT SILENCERS (SOUND TRAPS) PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 DESCRIPTION A. System 1. Furnish and install duct silencers of the types and sizes shown on the drawings and/or listed in the schedule. 2. Transitions and support or suspension systems are not included. 1.02 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Criteria 1. The Dynamic Insertion Loss (DIL) shall meet or exceed the values given in the table below. 2. The static pressure drop shall not exceed the value given in the table below. 3. The self -noise shall not exceed the values given in the table below. B. Performance data relating to DIL, static pressure drop and self -noise shall be obtained in accordance with ASTM standard E477-90. 1.03 SUBMITTALS A. Catalog cuts and data sheets on the specific sound traps utilized. B. An itemized list showing the specific sound trap utilized, its size, pressure drop at required CFM, certified test data on Dynamic Insertion Loss, Self -Noise Power Levels and Aerodynamic Performance for Reverse and Forward Flow test conditions. Test data shall be for a standard product. All rating tests shall be conducted in an independent laboratory and shall utilize the same silencer. See paragraph 1.02.B. C. Copies of the independent laboratory test reports for the silencers being submitted. 1.04 CURRENTLY ACCEPTABLE TESTING LABORATORIES: A. Riverbank Acoustical Laboratories, Geneva, Illinois B. ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc., Cortland, New York PART 2 -PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME Duct Silencers (Sound Traps) STATE, CITY _ XXXX-1 A. Outer casings and interior construction. Outer casings of rectangular sound traps shall be made of 22 gauge galvanized steel in accordance with ASHRAE guide recommended construction for high pressure rectangular ductwork. Seams shall be lock formed and mastic filled. Outer casings of tubular sound traps shall be made of galvanized steel in accordance -with ASHRAE guide recommended construction for high pressure rectangular ductwork. Seams shall be lock formed and mastic filled. Outer casings of tubular sound traps shall be made of galvanized steel in the following gauges: LOW PRESSURE DROP Outside Dia., In. Metal Gauge HIGH PRESSURE DROP Outside Dia., In. Metal Gauge 12-22 24 20-28 20 24-34 22 30-44 18 36-48 20 >44 16 >48 18 Interior partitions for rectangular sound traps shall be made of not less than 26 gauge galvanized perforated steel. Interior construction of tubular sound traps shall be compatible with the outside casings. Airtight construction shall be provided by use of a duct sealing compound on the job site. Material and labor furnished by a contractor. Sound traps shall not fail structurally when subjected to a differential air pressure of 8 in. w. g. inside to outside of casing. B. Standard silencers. Filler material shall be of inorganic mineral or glass fiber of a density sufficient to obtain the specified acoustic performance and be packed under not less than 5% compression to eliminate voids due to vibration and -settling. Material shall be inert, vermin and moisture proof. The filler material shall be faced with glass cloth, or similar material, to prevent fiber erosion without degrading acoustical performance. Combustion rating for the silencer acoustic fill shall be not less than the following when tested in accordance with ASTM -E-84, NFPA Standard 255 or UL No. 723: Flamespread Classification - 25 Smoke Development Rating - 0 Fuel Contribution - 20 C. Silencers with fiber protection membrane. PROJECT NAME Duct Silencers (Sound Traps) STATE, CITY XXXX-2 Filler material shall be of inorganic mineral or glass fiber of a density sufficient to obtain the specified acoustic performance and be packed under not less than 5% compression to eliminate voids due to vibration and settling. Material shall be inert, vermin and moisture proof. Filler material shall be totally encapsulated and sealed with polyethylene, mylar or tedlar film of an approximate thickness of 1.5 mils. The encapsulated filler material shall be separated from the interior perforated baffles by means of a non-combustible, erosion resistant, factory installed, acoustic stand-off.' It shall not be acceptable to omit the acoustic stand-off and to try to compensate for its absence by means of corrugated baffle faces. D. Special silencers with no acoustical fill. No acoustical fill material: glass fiber, mineral wool, foam, etc., are not permitted. 2. Insertion loss provided by broadly dined resonators and impedance membranes. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 Install in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to obtain the published acoustical and air flow performance. 3.02 Locate as shown in the drawings. 3.03 Orient the internal sound trap baffles (splitters) as follows for rectangular silencers: A. Sound trap baffles should be oriented so as to be parallel to the plane of the turn if the sound trap is located in a position less than 3 duct diameters in distance from the elbow. The duct diameter shall be based upon the maximum duct cross sectional dimension of the sound trap. B. If the sound trap is located greater than 3 duct diameters away from an elbow, the orientation is not critical. 3.04 Locate no rectangular or circular sound attenuators within one duct diameter from elbows, fan suction or discharge openings takeoffs, etc., unless indicated on the drawings and/or approved by the consultant. -END OF SECTION- GASPECS.MAS\HVA0DUCTS11.-l.doc PROJECT NAME Duct Silencers (Sound Traps) STATE, CITY _ XXXX-3 C_. Type S Oulet•Duct Silencers have been rated with procedures certified in accordance with applicable portions of ASTM E 477. All Dynamic Insertion. Loss and Self -Noise Acoustic Performance Data were ob- tained in IAC's Aero -Acoustic Laboratory using the duct -to -room reverberant test facility with air flowing through the silencers. • Forward Flow (+) occurs when noise. and air travel In the same direction, as In a typical supply or fan discharge system. • Reverse Flow (—) occurs when noise and air travel in opposite directions, as in a typical return or fan intake system. For other IAC Rectangular Silencers and Tubular Conic•FiowT Silencers, see Application Manual. Use SNAP FORM for System Noise Analysis Procedures and PRESS FORM for cost optimization and Pick- ing the Right Energy Saving Silencer. HOW TO DESIGNATE TYPE S QUIET -DUCT MODELS AND SIZES I� L EXAMPLE: w \lel Model [� 24 18]� Lj Length, L Type Width, W Height, H (Feet) S (Inches) (inches) TABLE 1 DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS OF S SILENCER MODULES Nominal W, In. • •:6 6 6 12 .12 .12 12 12 12 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 36 36 36 '36 Length; H, In,w; -.12 •24. .36 12 18 '24 30 -36 421-48 •18 30 361 -421 -AP. 24 30 36 42F256 '3 feet Wt, ib 22 35 49 33 43 52 62 74 83 93 71 86 102 117 132 142 162 182 204 5 feet Wt, Ib 40 63 87 56 73 89 107 125 141 158 121 147 173 204 230 249 284 319 355 7feet Wt, lb 55 88 122 78 102125 150 176 199 226 170 207 243 288 325 — — —10feet Wt, lb 77 123 171 111 155 177 212 250 — — 241 293 345 405 — — — — — NOTE: (—) indicates size not available as standard. TABLE 11 DYNAMIC INSERTION LOSS (DIL) RATINGS: FORWARD (+)IREVERSE (-) FLOW NOTE: All DIL and' Self•Noise Acoustic Performance Data were obtained In IACs AerO•ACOuStiC Lanoratory using me oucvwauu , my facility with air /lowing through the silencers. See reverse side for Sell -Noise and Aerodynamic Data. ALSO SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR NOTE ON WHEN DILs EXCEED 50 dB R i,. ACOUSTICS ;O i. Octave Band 1. ' 2 3 ;' . A 5 6 7 ^=8 63 125 250 `x500 1K 2K 4K: ASK? ;'.:Fiz Sllencer.Face Velocity;. Dynamic Insertion Loss, dB 'Moiiel Number. 'fpm -2000 7 14 21 31 37 33 24 13 3S -1000 7 13 17 30 36 33 26 28 13 17 +1000 7 12 16 28 35 35 +2000 6 10 15 25 34 35 28 17 -2000 11 23 26 44 48 44 37 22 5S -1000 11 21 25 43 47 44 39 22 26 +1000 8 18 24 40 45 46 41 +2000 7 16 22 38 45 46 41 26 -2000 12 24 38 48 53 46 42 30 - 1000 12 23 37 46 51 48 44 30 7S +1000 10 20 35 45 50 48 45 34 + 2000 9 17 34 44• 49 49 45 35 -2000 13 25 43 54 55 53 49 42 - 1000 13 26 42 52 55 53 51 42 10S +1000 13 23 42 52 55 53 51 45 +2000 12 18 41 52 1 55 53 51 48 NOTE: All DIL and' Self•Noise Acoustic Performance Data were obtained In IACs AerO•ACOuStiC Lanoratory using me oucvwauu , my facility with air /lowing through the silencers. See reverse side for Sell -Noise and Aerodynamic Data. ALSO SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR NOTE ON WHEN DILs EXCEED 50 dB R i,. ACOUSTICS ;O i. BULLETIN 1.0301.4 - TABLE III AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE DATA OF S SILENCER MODULES SDS 1.2 ys al Data hys t.jOctave'Band' . HZ ... . .. . Statle.Pirdssb(a Drop, l.w.g.". 6 -. 3" 1125 1250:1500:1 1K] 2K,j 4K' :BK: M Numb e, r, `t3 ft X0.05.;` r0.10 -0.15. .;0.20? -022 0.30 '0.40;0.50;:. A60." `:0 75 '* 040; 1.1.25,i. :Nominal - -' -2000 :�Zs f 1 "0.06'. AIT '28`:.�- -0.111., 4 b.22,.� '0. 043 J0.44 .55 0.66 . -0 1.38 ;1.10''} _:i4 61 ...Sit -;-7W 7i 0.06 % 1'0.30 :0.36 .0.48'� 0:40y. -�O_ 2 ...J.201 -0.7 -.,0.90� o.50 x Fa&ia�Area* j Q.,ft .4.07 :0.20.', fll)J7�,.- A34 A.46 0.54 .0.68 0.80.; ,1.001`f •�1.36:11 1.70 Vn.) t (sqf 57 �-;f"-Alrflow' I M #'C ~ 6x 12 0.5 60 185 265 325 370 415 455 525 590 645 720 840 930- 6 x 24 1.0 CL 370 525 645 740 830 91.0 1050 1175 1290 1440 1660 1860 6 x36 1'.5 0 555 790 970 1110 1245 1365 1575 1765 1935 2160 2490 2790 12 x 12a 66 .370-* .;.525:.;.525:=64-5 57 _,_�740! :',830,; :010.: 110-50 7175: 129 0. 1440: '1660 1860 12 x 18 61 63 555 790 970 1110 i245 1365 1575 1765 1935 2160 2490 2790 12 x 24 2.0 5 740 1050 1290 1480 1660 1820 2100 2350 2580 2880 3220 3720 12 x 30 2.5 925 1315 1615 1850 2075 2275 2625 2940 3225 3600 4250 4650 12 x 36 3.0 61 1110 1580 1940 2220 2490 2730 3150 3530 3870 4320 4980 5580 12 x 42 3.5 CL 1295 1840 2260 2590 2900 3190 3675 4115 4515 5040 5615 6515 12 x 48 4.0 V 1480 2100 2580 2960 • 3320 3640 4200 4700 5160 5760 6640 7440 24 x18 3.0 1110 1580 1940 2220 2490 2730 3150 3530 3870 4320 4980 5580 24 x 24 4.0 M 1480 2100 2580 2960 3320 3640 4200 4700 5160 5760 6640 7440 24 x 30 5.01850 (4 2630 3230 3700 4150 4550 5250 5880 6450 7200 8300 9300 24 x 36 6.0 1 2220 3150 3870 4440 4980 5460 6300 7050 7740 8640 9960 11150 24 x 42 7.0 2590 3675 4515 5175 5800 6375 7350 8225 9025 10075 11625 13025 24 x 48 8.0 (1) 0 2960 4200 5160 5920 6640 7280 8400 9400 10300 11500 113300 114900 1 36 x 30 36 36 7.5 9.0 2775 3945 4845 5550 6225 6825 7875 8820 9675 10800 112450 13950 x 36 x 42 10.5 3330 4730 5810 6660 7470 8190 9450 10600 1160 12950. 114950 16750 36 48 12.0 3885 5525 6775 7775 8725 9550 11025 12350 135500 15125 117425 19525 x 4440, -0 1 77401 8880 1 9960 10900 112600 14100 15500 17300 119900 22300 NOTE 1: For module availability see Table 1, NOTE 2: Alrflow ratings for the 12 In. x 12 in. size, shown with blue overprint, represent both cfm per 3q It and silencer face Velocities in fpm. A useful concept in selecting multiple module silencers. NOTE 3: The tabulated air flow Is In elm based upon tests conducted In the IAC Research & Development Laboratory Facilities In accordance with applicable AMCA, ASME, and ADC Airflow Test Codes. Thesecodes require specified lengths of straight duct both upstream and downstream for'the test specimen. The downstream measurements are r a made far enough downstream to include "static regain". Therefore. It silencers are Installed Immediately before or after elbows, or transitions, or at the Intake or discharge of the system, sufficient allowance to compensate for these factors must be Included when calculating the operating static pressure loss through the silencer. These conditions can add from 112 to several velocity heads, depending on specific conditions. All acoustic and aerodynamic data obtained on 24 In. x 24 In. production units. TABLE IV SELF -NOISE POWER LEVELS, dB re: 10-12 WATTS TABLE V FACE AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Add or subtract from PI&L values above Quiet -Du t.jOctave'Band' . HZ ... . .. . -_f i2.i; 3 =.A 6 -. 3" 1125 1250:1500:1 1K] 2K,j 4K' :BK: M Numb e, r, Face" 'Ve'lo, ':Velocity; pM.. bi I f - N o I POWs se..,... f.,Leveli;AB* ~ meters per second (m/s) -2000 68 62 61 66 61 64 67 66 32T -1500 62 57 57 61 59 61 60 55 S All -1000 - 750 - 500 54 48 40 51 46 40 50 46 39 51 46 36 54 52 47 56 53 48 52 45 37 40 29 120 Sizes + 500 36 29 35 30 31 35 22 (20 + 750 47 41' 42 40 40 43 33 22 +1000 55 49 49 47 46 49 42 32 +1500 66 61 56 57 55 57 53 46 +2000 1 74 1 69 1 63 64 61 63 62 56 TABLE V FACE AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Add or subtract from PI&L values above Quiet -Du CONVERSIONS ey To Obtain elm ....... 4.719 x 10-4 cubic meters Per second (Asec) fpm.,..... 0=508 meters per second (m/s) -1 25.4 Facesq f 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32T 647128 square meters (m2) PWI-Adjustment.-�.,.4 .1 0.4535 F Factor; dB,*.----.,`**'!*.:' GI -6 1-3 1 0 .1+3 1+6 1+91+12 1+151 'For Intermediate lace areas, interpolate to nearest whole number. WHEN DIL REQUIREMENTS EXCEED 50 dB • Noise flanking around the silencer or along duct silencer walls may limit actual performance to approximately 50 dB Dynamic Insertion Loss for many systems. • Self -Noise interference should be checked out especially for systems with high noise reduction requirements. • Specially designed silencers and full-scale or scale -model testing are available for applications requiring silencing in excess of 50 dB or other unusual requirements. • Call your local IAC Representative for details. Multiply CONVERSIONS ey To Obtain elm ....... 4.719 x 10-4 cubic meters Per second (Asec) fpm.,..... 0=508 meters per second (m/s) in......... 25.4 millimeters (mm) - I•w.g ....... 249.1 Newtons per square meter (N/m2) 11 ......... 0.3048 meters (m) It2 ........ 0.0929 square meters (m2) Ib......... 0.4535 kilogram (kg) OIL, Sell -Noise, and Airflow Data CERTIFIED In accordance with ASTM E-477 We reserve the fight to improve design and specifications without notice at any time. AVAILABLE UPON REOUEST* Specially designed silencers and full-scale or model testing for unusual applications. A, FE 0 0 11 Tectum Cutsheet and Glass Fiber Specification YL - VJ-11 MIS tett . tj1 ACOUSTICAL WALLS AND CEILINGS/TECTUM' Table of Contents Page Flexible—easy to use SOUND ABSORPTION BLOCKS . I PP/PRODUCT PRESENTATION AANUFACTURER .................2 PRODUCT PRESENTATION ........2 CODE ACCEPTABILITY ............ 2 FEATURES AND GENERAL PRODUCT INFORMATION .......... 2 USES, APPLICATIONS.............3 Ceilings 3 Designer Series ................ Sound Absorption Tables/Ceilings ................. 3 Hanging Baffles .................. 3 Sound Absorption , 3 Table/Baffles.................. Acousti-Tough 4 Ceiling System .................. Multi-plane Ceiling 5 Panels ........-•--••• SPECIFICATIONS 5, 8 Ceilings ....................... 7, 8 Walls ................. Sound Blocks 7, 8 Sound Baffles ............ TECTUM INTERIOR WALL PANELS .................... 6 Sound Absorption 6 Table .................. Wall Mounting 6 Details ...................... Sound Blocks Sound Absorption Table/ Sound Blocks................6 Mounting Details ...............6 OTHER TECTUM PRODUCTS LISTED WITH SWEETS ............ 8 AR/MANUFACTURER PP/PRODUCT PRESENTATION Tectum is composed of aspen wood fibers bonded with an exclusive Inor. ganic hydraulic cement binder, and is formed in a continuous process under heat and pressure. Physical character- istics usually obtained only with a com bination of several separate building materials are combined in Tectum: in- sulation, excellent sound absorption, a decorative textured interior finish, all in a structurally strong yet lightweight product and with a flame spread of less than 25. CODE ACCEPTABILITY Surface Burning Characteristics Classification (ASTM E84) Flame Fuel Smoke: Finish Spread Contributed Developed Painted Unpainted 1s 0 0. (unfelted) CODE LISTINGS 1. New York City Board of Standard and Appeals. Calendar No. 391.52 -SM. 2. Complies with Federal Specification SS•S-118B. Class A. 3. Underwriters' Laboratories Label Service. (when specified and ordered) 4. Southern Building Code Congress Report No. 8507. 5. International Conlerence of Building Officials Report No. 1116. 6 Building Officials Conlerence of America see BOCA research report No. 84.43. FEATU(1ES Reduces Noise—NRC up to 1.00 Class A/Class I Interior finish Durability—Tough, abuse resistant 2 • Economica Tectum Sound Absorption Blocks are • Can be field painted—for best results Te lrn Sou l Sound Control Units ap- plied use an alkali -stable tial latex base lied to wall areas. Developed to con - paint spray applied, (approximately tprol reverberant sound, they are used 300 square feet per gallon). to meet a variety of problems requiring • Nationwide distribution—local stocks improved noise reduction, and often • Proven performance—over 30 years the architect and acoustical consultants • Easy to install new dimensions in specifying for sound • There is no asbestos, nor has there control. In areas of hard usage, such ever been any asbestos used in as turn s especially the ally htough suitable. ace of Tec - Tectum. - Tectum Ceiling Panels are also avail- able in metric sizes LIMITATIONS Tectum acoustical panels can, be used over swimming pools and in open con- struction such as breezeways and open garages. However, they should not be installed where they will come in direct contact with water or condensa- tion. Reveal edge panels (Tonico or Multi -Plane) should not be used for these purposes. One -inch thick panels over 233/4"x 473/4" size should not be used where the rel- ative humidity will exceed 85%. Panels thicker than 1" are not restricted by humidity conditions. In all cases, the plenum must provide cross -ventilation to prevent condensa- tion. The ventilation recommendation of the current edition of the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, and guide and Data Book should be followed. TECTUM INTERIOR CEILING PANELS PRODUCT PRESENTATION Tectum is a unique high impact wood fiber product lending a singular texture beauty with multiple functions. Tectum panels offer a wide range of sizes; light reflection up to .70, up to 1.00 NRC; is lightweight but tough, can be easily cut, shaped with standard woodworking tools, and installed. It can be field painted to coordinate with any color scheme, yet comes ei- ther in its own beautiful natural finish or factory painted white, delivered ready for installation. Long edges may be beveled or square. TECTUAA INTERIOR WALL PANELS PPIPRODUCT PRESENTATION Low cost Tectum wall panels provide both sound control and durable insula- tion in a single material, and can be applied to furring or existing walls with construction adhesive and me- chanical systems. Flame spread of 25 or less under the ASTM E84 test method qualifies Tectum to be rated Class A as defined under Federal Specification SS -S-1188. INSTALLATION Tectum Sound Absorption Blocks can be fastened mechanically with TSB Clips. Blocks are not designed to be butted. Space blocks at 24" or 32" D.C. for best results. DIMENSIONS 3"x15'/2'x15'/2" with beveled edges. TECTUM FULL -SPAN CORRIDOR PANELS A True Linear Look—Tectum Full -Span Corridor Panels are designed specifi- cally for corridor ceilings in schools and other buildings. Tectum's resistance to impact and abrasion offer a durability for such heavily used areas not found in other acoustical materials. Panels are completely accessible for con- cealed services. Used with standard grid suspension components, Full -Span Panels are compatible with either lay -in or surface mounted light fixtures. Panel finish is either unpainted (reflectance .60) or painted white (reflectance .70). Design should provide plenum head- room for tilting panels into position. Spacing of grid hangers should be based on recommendations of the grid system manufacturer. DESIGN DIMENSIONS Actual Size I Weight { 1•x23'/+' Face Rabbeted 1.63 ;lbs.,i 29'/: x96' Io 144' Two Long Sides pst.�Y%':�! D. I ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS/'T'ECT U UAJUSES, APPLICATIONS CEILINGS Tectum panels combined ruggedness with beauty. With standard grid, tonico multiplane or Designer Series panels, the designer can create a variety of three dimensional patterns. A minimum of 6" plenum clearance -is required. Standard Lay -In Ceiling Panels are also available in lengths from 49" to 144". Tolerances: Width and length, plus zero. minus W. over 4' lengths is plus '/e'-'/:. Thickness: plus Vis' minus '/o' average thickness 911,,% Designer Series Ceiling Panels DESIGNER SERIES CEILING PANELS Nominal Thickness 1', 1'h' .::•I Actual Width 233/.: Actual Length 233/4', 4r/4. 953/4' Available in natural or factory painted while. For additional information, write Tectum Inc. and ask for Marketing Bulletin M-32. Designer Series Plus 09500' BuyLine TECTUM CEILING TILE DIMENSIONS Panel 250 Actual 1000 Approx. Weight Type Thickness Sizes Edge IbsJsq.tt. Standard 1'. 1'h', 2' 233/: x23'/. , 473/.' Square 1.63, 2.53. 3.3 2' Face to Face 1'h' 473/: x473/: Square 2.53 Tonico 1" , 233/4-433/`-, 4731+' Face 1.63 .93 .45 A-86-95 Rabbeted 5.1G 7.21 1'h' 473/4'x,173/" Face 2.53 Rabbeted E-400 Multi -Plane 1', 2' 233/4"x233/: Face 1.63, 3.3, 4.35 ,94 2'h', 3- A-86-94 Rabbeted 5.07 Designer 1', 1'h' 233/: x233/: Face 2.5 473/4'. 713/4% 953/: Rabbeted E400 Designer 1', 11h' 233/4 x233/: Face 2.4 Plus .50 A-86.93 Rabbeted .._............ SOUND ABSORPTION Mounting E -400 -Test specimen mounted with an air space behind it. The number designates the distance in mm from the exposed face of the test specimen to the test surface. (Formerly Mountinq #71. Description li 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 NRC Test No. 1' Lay In 2'x2' RAL -A86 -too 1.62 1.35 2.36 3.81 4.76 6.54 2' Face to Face 1" RAL -A86.99 Painted E-400 .40 ,42 .35 .48 .60 .93 .45 A-86-95 1" Tonico 2'x2' 5.1G 7.21 Painted E-400 .37 ,43 .34 .45 .58 ,94 .45 A-86-94 1'h' Designer 2'x2' Painted E400 .44 1 .47 .36 1 .51 .71 1 1.06 .50 A-86.93 1'h' Designer Plus 2'2' Painted E-400 .35 ,42 .39 .51 .72 1.05 .50 A-86-92 2" C•2 2'x2' Painted E-400 .43 .50 .42 .62 .86 1.04 .60 A-86-91- 3' C-3 2'x2' Painted E•400 .70 .50 .52 .76 .92 1.16 .70 A•86.90 1' Lay In 2'x2' Painted 6" Fiberglass Backing E-400 1.01 ,89 1.06 .97 .93 1.13 .95 A•86.96 1' Tonico 2'x2' Painted 6' Fiberglass Backing E-400 1.14 1.01 1.06 .94 .93 1.12 1.00 A-86.97 DESIGNER SERIES PLUS CEILING PANELS Nominal Thickness HANGING BAFFLES Nominal Dimensions Thickness Width Length 1' 4', 6', 8', 10' 1'h" 113/4% 233/: 4'. 6'. 8', 10' 2" 1 1 4'. 6', 8', 10' Availabie in natural or lactory painted white -both sides. For atdatonal information, write Tectum Inc. and ask for Marketing Bulletin M-8. SOUND ABSORPTION TABLE 1 ECTUPA SOUND BAFFLES (1"x233/4"x473/" Units) Sa'bins Per Unit 1', 1'h' Actual Width 233/,' Actual Length _ 250 Available in natural or factory painted white. For additional in1wrnalion, write Tectum Inc., and ask hr Markelin;i Bulletin M•32. RAL -A86 -too HANGING BAFFLES Nominal Dimensions Thickness Width Length 1' 4', 6', 8', 10' 1'h" 113/4% 233/: 4'. 6'. 8', 10' 2" 1 1 4'. 6', 8', 10' Availabie in natural or lactory painted white -both sides. For atdatonal information, write Tectum Inc. and ask for Marketing Bulletin M-8. SOUND ABSORPTION TABLE 1 ECTUPA SOUND BAFFLES (1"x233/4"x473/" Units) Sa'bins Per Unit Description Thickness Test No. 125 _ 250 500 1000 2000 4000 1' Face to Face 1- RAL -A86 -too 1.62 1.35 2.36 3.81 4.76 6.54 2' Face to Face 1" RAL -A86.99 .95 1.63 2.32 3.92 5.18 7.27 3' Face to Face 1" RAL -A86.98 1.01 1.44 2.32 4.05 5.1G 7.21 q TECTUM ACOUSTI-TOUGH® CEILING SYSTEM N.R.C. up to 1.0 233hx4r/a Light Reflectance .70 Painted T,h- 23/4x23'/4 EXPOSED GRID SUSPENSION 23',',114r/'- 23,/ All manufacturers—must be minimum, Class A Flame Spread r4 3 intermediate; duty grid. 11/2" height with square bulb main runners, and cross tees. THE TECTUM KEEP CLIP The Keep Clip is designed for areas that receive everyday use and abuse. It's called the Keep Clip because that's what it does; it keeps ceiling panels in place, and intact. At the same time, the grid accessory component permits 100 percent access to the plenum. THE TECTUM TEN YEAR WARRANTY Registered Limited Ten Year Written Warranty Certificate. FIGURE TWO 2'x2' Grid wan Ata.. Runnan IMain Runner, 4' Cross Tee and 2' Cross Tee z cwsl Note: Main Runners and Cross Tees to be I'll- hIg` The numerous Keep Clip features allow it to meet wide-ranging needs. FIGURE ONE 2'x4' Grid TECTUM ACOUSTI-TOUGH' ;EILING SYSTEM The Tectum ACOUSTI-TOUGH Ceiling •Recreational facilities—to prevent balls from dislodging ceiling WIN swnro� ForC*"Ps �n wuaara+ System is a suspended acoustical ceil- for multi- errant panels. KKV CJ.as 7 a 4• 1 ing specifically designed purpose rooms and gymnasiums. the only hard sur- - Exterior applications—shopping cen- ters, canopies, soffits, tunnels, and Tectum panels are faced, durable, panels which can take re- parking ramps. , ppElated blows from basketballs, volley- . Unsupervised corridors, locker rooms to minimize mainte- , bails and soccer balls without cracking and other areas or breaking. The Tectum Keep Clip holds the Tectum ceiling panels in nance. To address varied requirements, the ; �—---}--+ place. The clip is especially important Keep Clip is available in two sizes, Rama„„ for the automatic repositioning of pan- accommodating lay -in panels from one Lgnt els and saves maintenance time and inch to two inches thick. F'ature money in areas with high ceilings. The Tectum ACOUSTI-TOUGH Ceiling Sys- Features include plating to minimize rust and promote use nhigh=humidity tem is used in schools and universities' areas, as well as rounded corners to gymnasiums, churches and health prevent gouging the back of panels. t clubs. The system permits a Limited Ten Written Warrant Warranty against panels g P When combined with Tectum ceiling panels, the system will provide the P N+c k Year durability required to meet most -1---- cracking or breaking.' situations. Ma"Aw~s *Trademark of Tectum Inc. installation of the clip is simple. And_ afterward, ceiling aesthetics are not af- _ _ _ __ _ Dashed line Indicates Ceiling continuation STANDARD TECTUM fected because the Keep Clip is invisi- WALL L_ OGLE CHANNEL MOLDING CEILING PANELS ble from below. The product is patented under U.S. MOLDING Features Actual suets 23'/x23°/ patent number 3,834,106. N.R.C. up to 1.0 233hx4r/a Light Reflectance .70 Painted T,h- 23/4x23'/4 EXPOSED GRID SUSPENSION 23',',114r/'- 23,/ All manufacturers—must be minimum, Class A Flame Spread r4 3 intermediate; duty grid. 11/2" height with square bulb main runners, and cross tees. THE TECTUM KEEP CLIP The Keep Clip is designed for areas that receive everyday use and abuse. It's called the Keep Clip because that's what it does; it keeps ceiling panels in place, and intact. At the same time, the grid accessory component permits 100 percent access to the plenum. THE TECTUM TEN YEAR WARRANTY Registered Limited Ten Year Written Warranty Certificate. FIGURE TWO 2'x2' Grid wan Ata.. Runnan IMain Runner, 4' Cross Tee and 2' Cross Tee z cwsl Note: Main Runners and Cross Tees to be I'll- hIg` MM ACOUSTICAL CEILINGSfrECTUMe 09s001TEC BuyLine 1437 "`' •"'v� ; TSR'ECHNICAL SUPPORT 2.1.5 TECTUM CEILING PANELS T SPECIFICATIONS (DESIGNER SERIES PLUS) PART 1: GENERAL Panels shall be 1" or 11/2 thick, See page 8 of this catalog)(nominal). 1.1 Finish shall be natural or painted SCOPE See page 8 this ( P 9 white. catalog) Dimensions shall be 2'x2', (nomi- -PART 2: PRODUCTSnal). 2.1.6 TECTUM CEILING PANELS 2.1 MATERIALS (FULL SPAN) 2.1.1 Panels shall be _ thick, (nomi- Panels shall be 1", 11/2' or 2" thick, (nominal). nal). Finish shall be natural or painted Panels shall.be natural or painted white. white. Dimensions shall be 2'xB', 2'x9', Dimensions shall be either 2'x2' or 2'x10' or 2'x12', (nominal). 2'x4'. (Nominal) Panels shall be rabbeted on the Panels shall be square on all four long side with square ends. sides. 2.1.7 TECTUM ACOUSTI•TOUGH 2.1.2 TECTUM CEILING PANELS CEILING SYSTEM Ceiling and Wall Panels (TONICO) The Acoustical panels shall be nom - Panels shall be 1" or 11/2" thick. School Gymnasium Finish shall be natural or painted inal 2'x2' or 2'x4' nominal, 1", 11/2" or 2" nominal Tectum white. ACOUSTI-TOUGH panels as manu- Dimensions shall be either 2'x2' or factured by Tectum. 2'x4', (nominal). The acoustical panels shall conform Panels shall be rabbeted on all four to Federal Specification SS -S-1 18B sides. for Class "A" flame spread 0-25. 2.1.3 TECTUM CEILING PANELS Units shall have a noise reduction (MULTIPLANE) ' coefficient of _ and a light reflec- Panels shall be 1", 2", 21/2" or 3" tante designation of LR 4 natural (natural), thick, (nominal). LR 2 (factory painted). = = Finish shall be natural or painted 1'/i" & 2" thick panels must be back white. rabbeted. Tectum Multi-plane Ceiling Panels Scandinavian Shop Shaumburg, IL Dimensions shall be either 2'x2' or 2'x4' or 2.5'x5', (nominal). Panels shall be rabbeted on all four sides. Depth of the rabbet to be deter- mined by thickness of panel. 2.1 .4 TECTUM CEILING PANELS (DESIGNER SERIES) Panels shall be 1" and 1'/2' thick, (nominal). Finish shall be natural or painted white. Dimensions shall be 2'x2', 2'x4' or 2'x8', (nominal). Panels shall be rabbeted on all four sides. PART 3 EXECUTION (Continued on page 8) MULTI -.PLANE CEILING PANELS 1" thick 1" thick; rabbeted 2" thick, rabbeted ",.2'/z" thick; rabbeted lay -in edge depth "hi' edge depth 17/16" depth 11 1A .. I1 1.75 R=3.50 R=4.32 3" thick; rabbeted edge depth 27/,c' R = 5.25 TECTUM INTERIOR /ALL PANELS UUSES, APPLICATIONS interior Wall Panels are tough, durable, acoustical material, with NRC's of up to 1.00. They are available in various thicknesses, widths, and lengths. ACOUSTICAL -CEILINGS/TECTUM TECTUM INTERIOR PANEL DIMENSIONS' WALL, Test No. 125 250 500 WL 2000 ness Width length psf Bevel or 1', 23'•'i 6'-12' In 1.63, square long 1'h", 31'Yi one loot 2.53, edges with 2' 47V4 Increments 3.5. square ends .81 .98 .45 .80 ; 1" C•40 PRODUCT PRESENTATION 'Tolerance width and length. plus zero, minus %': over 8' length is +%*, - /:. Thickness: plus 1M. Interior Wall Panels are available in 1", minus 1/a. average thickness Via. 11/2" and 2" thickness (nominal) with SOUND ABSORPTION WALLS square edges or long edge beveled. Widths of 232/4", 310/4" or 47'/4" (actual) are available. 11/2" and 2" is also avail- able with T&G edges for interlocking continuous paneling. (Widths of 221/2, 303/4" or 461/2" (actual) only for T&G sides). The ends of the panels must be field fitted or covered with a batten strip when butted together. For vertical Installation studs should be spaced 230/4" O.C. LIGHT REFLECTANCE Typical range: LR 4 (natural .60), LR 2 (painted .70). MOUNTING DETAILS Thickness Mounting Test No. 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 NRC c 1• A RAL -A86.43 . .06 .13 .24 .45 .82 .64 .40.- 40.-D-20 1' D -20 C-20 RAL-AB6.44 RAL -A86.49 .07 .16 .15 .43 .36 1.0o .65 1.05 .71 .79 .81 .98 .45 .80 ; 1" C•40 RAL -A66-50 .32 .70 1.09 .93 .76 .94 :85 1'h' A RAL -A86-42 .07 .22 .48 .82 .64 .96 .55 1'/x' 0-20 RAL-AB6-45 15• .26 .62 .83 .70 .91 .60. 1'fe' C-20 RAL-AB6-48 24 .57 1.17 .87 .93 .67 •.90 1,h- C-40 RAL -A86.51 .40 .84 1.18 .84 .94 .88 .95 2' A RAL -ABB -41 .15 .26 .62 .94.64 .92 .60 2• D•20 RAL -A86-46 .15 .36 .74 .82 .82 .92 .70 . 2" C-20 RAL -A86-47 .24 .67 1.14 .87 1.06 .96 .95 " 2• C•40 RAL -A86.52 .42 . .89 1.19 .85 1.08 .94 1.00 SOUND ABSORPTION Mountings may vary due to a number of circumstances and requirements. For additional fastening details, write to Tectum Inc., P.O. Box 920, Newark, OH 43055 for Technical Bulletin T-33. OCF 1" 703 Fiberglas 1 x Furring Strips 24" LBeveled Edge Tectum .Wall Panel - - Beveled Edge Tectum Wall Panel MTG. A - Laid directly against wall surf ac MTG. C-20 - Laid on 0/4" furring strips SOUND BLOCK DETAILS Developed to control reverberant sound. Not recommended for installation where they will come in contact with water. PP/PRODUCT PRESENTATION Dimensions are 3"x15'/2"051/2" (nomi- nal) with beveled edges. Sound blocks are not designed to be butted. Recommended spacing of 24" or 32" ox. i T OCF 21/2" (R-8) Noise barrier batts -; 2 x Furring strips 24" O.C. 1 x Furring strips .;`.., LBeveled Edge Tectum . . Wall Panel MTG. C-40 -Laid on Ile- furring le , furring strips 24" O.C. I�i I Li I 0 o e r SOUND ABSORPTION TABLE TECTUM SOUND BLOCKS escription Thickness Test No. 125 250 24- O.C. 3" RAL -MG -89 .36 .53 32' O.C. 3" RAL -A86-88 .45 .71 WN L -Beveled Edge Tectum•; � Wall Panel MTG. D-20 - Laid on 3/4' . , •:j':, furring strips, ra- .......... Imu" Soumo ASSOASMG MA4t Al- Sabins Per Unit 500 1 1000 200�4OOO.. 1.81 2.65 271.87 2.94 2.9 0 ACOUSTICAL WALLS/T CT $ 095=TEC ' BuyLine 1437 WALLS Where any kind of activity within an enclosed space pro- duces undesirable noise levels, Tectum Interior Wall Panels offer an effective, permanent and attractive solution. While Tectum Panels are usually specified as part of new construc- tion, they are also used effectively for sound treatment in ex- isting buildings. Up to 1.00 NRC can be achieved. Tough, low cost Tectum Panels provide sound control and durability in a single material. Tectum Panels are rugged, lightweight and easy to handle. Tectum Roof Deck and Wall Treatment Cavitt, McKnight Royal Middle School Weymouth Archs. Brookshire, TX ochool Entranceway TS/TECHNICAL SUPPORT SPECIFICATIONS PART 1: GENERAL (See page 8 of this catalog) 1.1 SCOPE PART 2: PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS 2.1.1 TECTUM INTERIOR WALL—— PANELS Panels shall be 1", 1'/z" or 2" thick, (nominal). The edges shall be either square or beveled square. Finish shall be natural or painted white. Widths shall be 2', 4' or 32" with lengths of 4', 7', 8', 9', 10' or 12'. (nominal). 2.1.2 TECTUM INTERIOR WALL PANELS (See wall and partition panels). Panels shall be 11/2" or 2" thick, (nominal). Panels shall have tongue & groove sides and square ends. Finish shall be natural or painted white. Widths shall be 303/4" or 461/2" with lengths of 8', 9', 10', 11' or 12' (nominal). 2.1.3.TECTUM SOUND BLOCKS Finish shall be natural or painted white. Sound blocks shall be beveled on all four sides. Dimensions shall be 3"x15'1"x15'/z", (nominal). 2.2.1 TECTUM SOUND BAFFLES Panels shall be 1 ", 11/2" or 2" thick, (nominal). Edges shall be square or beveled - beveled edges bottom only. Widths shall be 233/," or 473/." with lengths of 4', 6', 8', 10' or 12' (nominal). Finished product shall be natural or painted white both sides. PART 3 (continued on page 8) ACOUSTICAL WALLS AND CEILINGS/TECTUM£ SOD DESIGN PRACTICES I acoustical panels shall conform to t:ederal Specification SS -S-1188. The panels shall be Class A, Flame Spread. One inch thick panels over 2'x4' in size should not be used where the relative humidities will exceed 85%. Panels thicker than'1" are not restricted by humidity conditions.. In all places, the plenum must provide cross ventilation to prevent condensa- tion. Factory painted or job painted panels are recommendedfor maximum color retention. All plastering, concrete and terazzo work, (including grinding), shall be complete and dry. All windows and doors shall be in place and glazed. The heating system shall be Installed and operating where necessary to maintain proper conditions before, dur- ing and after the acoustical work is in progress. Formed or precast concrete or gypsum are similar to roof deck and should be fairly dry and a space between decks and suspended acoustical ceilings ade- quately vented. Where light from fixtures, cove lights or high windows strike the surface at a shallow angle, even slight unevenness of joints may result in an unsatisfactory ipearance. Under such conditions, •;vel materials shall be used in prefer - Ice to square edge material and in- stalled with considerable care. A minimum of 6" plenum clearance is required in an exposed grid application. SUGGESTED SPECIFICATIONS PART 1: GENERAL 1.1 SCOPE The work consists of furnishing all tabor, materials, accessories and equipment necessary to cover all areas shown on the drawings and specified herein with Tectum panels. The Acoustical system shall be in- stalled only by an approved acousti- cal contractor. The acoustical contractor shall fur- nish all labor, materials and equip- ment necessary for the complete acoustical installation as shown in the drawings and as specified. For more detailed information, write Tectum Inc., P.O. Box 920, .,Newark, Ohio 43055. 1.2 DELIVERY & STORAGE Store this product in a dry place. Do not place in contact with the floors or walls. Ceiling panel packages must be protected against marnng, soil or damage during storage and installation. Cover the bottom of tiles with moisture proof materials and allow for circulation under cover to prevent condensation. WARNING: Tectum acoustical pan- els are interior acoustical products and as all other acoustical products, must not be subjected to water. PART PRODUCTS For information on: Tectum ceiling panels, see page 5. Tectum wall panels, see page 7. Tectum sound blocks, see page 7. Tectum baffles, see page 3. Tectum Acousti-Tough® Ceiling System@, see page 4 OUR LOCAL TECTUM REPRESENTATIVE IN YOUR AREA IS: TEC-vUMM,,_11M e 105S. Sixth Street- • P.O. Box 920 Newark, OH 43055 - (614) 345-9691 PART 3 EXECUTION 3.1 INSTALLATION Panels and suspension systems shall be installed in the pattern shown on the drawings and in ac- cordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer. Grid systems shall be true, straight and level with the border units of the grid. Acoustical materials can be installed by various methods including screw or nail application or -on a mechani- cal suspension (exposed grid appli- cation). The application method de- pends on the type of the or panels used in the construction of the structural ceiling system. Installation of the acoustical material shall not be made when the building is excessively cold and damp or hot and dry. Temperature and humidity conditions closely approximating the interior conditions which will exist when a building is occupied should be maintained before, during and after installation. Ceiling suspension systems are to be installed according to ASTM 636- 76 standard practice for installation of metal ceiling suspension systems for acoustical tele and lay in panels. Additional technical information and design details on the use of Tectum Wall & Ceiling Panels is available and may be obtained by contacting Tectum Inc., P.O. Box 920, Newark, OH 43055. -OTHER CATALOGS IN SWEET'S ::CATALOG FILE -Tectum Acoustical Roof Deck & Form `Systems. See Sweets Section 035001TEC BuyLine 1436 :7. :Fa6ri-Tough@ Wall Panels -See Sweet's Section 09500/TED BuyLine 2053 PRINTED IN U.S.A. :J 1.01 PRODUCTS A. Material Description The rigid insulation board supplied in the thickness as indicated on the drawings shall be inorganic glass fiber material with a minimum density of 2 lbs/ft' and with a noirerosive coating on the face. The material shall be provided in a minimum size of 24 in. by 48 in. unless larger sizes are more suitable for the application. The material shall be Johns Manville Coated Insul-Shield Black, Owens-Corning Aeroflex Duct Liner, or approved equal. Material shall be free of all logos or other markings with the face finish continuous black in color and the core material gray/black in color. B. Acoustical Requirements 1. Applicable Standards and Test Conditions All acoustical measurements shall be performed in accordance with ASTM C-423 And shall be made in mounting Type A in accordance with ASTM E-795. 2. Sound Absorption Coefficient Requirements The sound absorption provided by the material shall meet or exceed the values tabulated below: Thickness (in.)Frequency, Hz. 125 250 500 1000 2000 1 .05 .25 2 .20 .50 2.01 INSTALLATION 4000 .50 .70 .80 .95 .80 .95 .95 .95 A. Attach to walls and ceiling surfaces by mechanical fasteners. Tile fasteners shall be constructed so that no sharp points or edges shall protrude through the acoustical material. Protective end caps shall be utilized over spindle fasteners. The fasteners shall be Gemco insulation hangers or approved equal, with aluminum domed cap (unpainted aluminum standard; color available on special order) as distributed by Western Welding Systems (310/806-5660). B. According to manufacturer's written instructions 3.01 SUBMITTALS Submit samples and copies of acoustical laboratory test reports. Cut Sheets for Acoustic Louvers --mom IME STANDARD of S,.,E., IND ..PSTRIAL A architectural noise control ventilation ventilation louvers decorative facades equipment screens . weather shields noise barriers silencers housings jac acoustical • • i.�Uuf . control noise ... permit airflow 0 Noishield� Louver cooling tower inlet screen/noise barrier. Note how "clean" lines, color, ana miterea corners pro- vide attractive, uncluttered appearance architecturally compatible with the surroundings. certified erformance with an unmatched arra acoustic and aerodynamic p Y of important features' RUGGED ALL -STEEL GALVANIZED CONSTRUCTION. STAINLESS STEEL, ALUMINUM -OTHER MATERIALS ALSO AVAILABLE. 2 INERT, VERMINPROOF, WEATHER -RATED NONCOMBUSTIBLE ACOUSTIC FILL. AIRFOIL SHAPED SPLITTER -BLADE FOR MAXIMUM NOISE REDUCTION WITH 3 MINIMUM- PRESSURE DROP. 4 PERFORATED SPLITTER UNDERSIDE FOR SOUND ABSORPTION. 5 WEATHER STOP INHIBITS RAINISNOW ENTRY, 6 ONLY 12 IN. 1305 mm) DEEP. 7 AVAILABLE IN A VARIETY OF DURABLE, A7RACTIVE FINISHES. 8 MODULAR SIZES (SEE PAGE 5) ENABLE ASSEMBLY OF RECTILINEAR LOUVER WALLS" OF ALMOST ANY SIZE. 9 SPLITTER -BLADE ORIENTATION BLOCKS HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT, THEREBY ENHANCING BOTH AESTHETICS AND ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE. 10 112 IN. 113 mm) DETACHABLE GALVANIZED BIRD SCREEN FURNISHED AS STAN. DARD ON BACK SIDE OF LOUVER. r" .m is .PP"asucation...in any simi-i-, The IAC Noishield° louver is a multi-purpose louver used to permit the flow of air while shielding the environment from noise. Noishield louvers are available in two models and 66 standard modular sizes to --meet a wide range of performance requirements where space is limited and architectural standards of appearance must be met. typical uses include • FRESH AIR INTAKES FOR VENTILATION SYSTEMS D NOISE BARRIERS ❑ MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENS OR PENTHOUSES 0 PROCESS AIR INTAKES • CORRIDOR RETURN AIR INTAKES O CROSS TALK SILENCERS O COOLING TOWER INLET SILENCERS OR SCREENS ®®®in a variety colors and finishec.- Noishield louvers can be provided in primed or unprimed galvanized steel or mill finish aluminum for field painting. In addi tion, they can be furnished in a range of architectural colors and gloss levels in any the the following finishes. IAC engineer., can provide you with details on any of these options. ❑ AUTOMOTIVE QUALITY PHENOLIC PAINT O ANODIZED ALUMINUM O VINYL COATED STEEL O STAINLESS STEEL IN -A RANGE OF SURFACE FINISHES O FLUOROPOLYMER, VINYL, POLYURETHANE AND OTHER PAINTS WITH SUPERIOR WEATHERABILITY Noishield louvers provide decorative protection against weather and forced entry for air intakes and discharges. .,r ii.�ry.7"'^ �� 33'-•.X• � �'"•''�' 'c "� ''r .�p^v' r' i'�i ice" - ,,., SK""--�=•-�� �d."'r'�``+z f.�G•r^!r - � ��j, �'#;'" t�'+'F''.�ryif""d� . r ' . 4 iir-- �.x 1 „1a. •'••-ate-':}'���ai _ �+F_�.�'r •`".� h-»'.'_ !.r �4.i � �`•r=i Sic -} 3... ,�,,,.� � ..e• ,;,�„ �1 .. 7 ."9 Ci '�-.- � lt`-.�3Y.•4�,`�'+�• + :•.e--.• �-._` �'"� ��s: a�..s.. .-.�- •� .i � � '.:��.� 'f•�..1. 'Scae •'.-+�8'e.£'t a:.�.ri *` ...1tz '.S. �Y•y: •y r 71, a Ara Hove To Specify Noishield Louvers Furnish and install Noishield Louver(s) as manufac- tured by Industrial Acoustics Company. Outer casings shall be of 16 gauge (1.613 mm) galvanized steel. Louver baffles shall'bb of airfoil configuration and be made of 22 gauge (0.8534 mm) galvanized steel. They shall be packed with inert, vermin and moisture proof ..mineral fiber, and provide the -acoustical performance as indicated in. Table --Il. Louvers shall have finish with color. Static pressure drop of louvers shall not exceed i.w.g. ( Pa) at a face velocity of fpm (__ m/s) for Model R and fpm L�_ m/s1. for Model I.P. Fill in appropriate values. Manufacturer shall submit cer- tified data from one laboratory substantiating both the specified acoustic and aerodynamic performance. Simplified Selection Procedure Louvers are rated in the IAC aeroacoustic laboratory in accordance with ASTM Stan dard E90-75 and other applicable test standards. To analyze specific louver applications, ask for IAC SNAP 11 (Bulletin 1.0503) Tn,s Systemic Noise Analysis Procedure enables you to evaluate the effects of me acoustical environment in which the source is located and to determine louver mode. and size selection. _._ Module Sizes -fdoishield Lauver.Madel . Model Width in. (mm) . :. Module Height .' in. Imm) Model R -Optimum acoustical 24, 36, or 48 12 to 144 in 12 in. increments performance vAth normal (610, 914 or 12191 (305 to 3658 in 305 mm increments) pressure drop 215305 11.091 (1.551 375 11.911 430 12.181 460 12.441 Model LP -Normal acoustigl 24, 36, or 48 14 to 140 in 14 in.increments performance with minimum (610, 914 or 1219 1356 to 3556 in 356 mm increments) pressure drop 1 660 1 760 NOTE* Width and height dimensions are nominal Final assemblies (Mit pe Uq intv.q mml Jess tnan nominal Static Pressure Drop, i. Noishield -. Louver Model Model R Model LP 0.05 10.10 112.41 1 124.91 10.15 10.20 1 131.4) 10.25 (49.8) 1 (62.3) 0.30 1 174.71. 1 0.40 (99.6) Face Velocity, fpm 215305 11.091 (1.551 375 11.911 430 12.181 460 12.441 525 (2.611 610 (3.101 270 380 465 1 540 1 600 1 660 1 760 11.37) 111.931 112.36) (12.141( 13.0511 13.351( 13.861 w.g. We) Table II -Transmission Loss (T.L.) - Defined as the ratio, in decibels, of acoustic energy transmited through the louver to that in- cident upon it. Octave Band Center 1 0.60 1 0.75 1.0 1.25 5 10.50 1124.51 1149.51 1186.81 1249.11 1311.4) Table Imes) 500 Aerodynamic 675 1 745 1 830 1 960 1070 Performance 13.431 13.781 14.22! 14.881 15.441 9 Table II -Transmission Loss (T.L.) - Defined as the ratio, in decibels, of acoustic energy transmited through the louver to that in- cident upon it. Octave Band Center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Frequency, Hz. 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K BK Model R 5 7 11 12 13 14 12 9 Model LP 4 1 5 1 8 9 12 9 7 6 1340 14.321 114.70! I (5.28! ( 6.1001 I 16-811 Table III -Noise Reduction (N.R.) - The free -field noise reduction of a louver is the difference, in decibels, between the sounc pressure level on the noise source side of the louver and the measured outdoors on the side of louver away from the noise source Octave Band Center 1 2 3 45 3 250 6 7 B Frequency, Hz. 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K Model R 11 13 17 18 19 20 18 15 Model LP 10 11 14 15 18 15 13 12 'fol MODEL LP Attenuation.' SUBTRACT the following from above decibel values in each octave band. DEDUCT ....................... 1 1 -2 1 3 1 3 1 1 5 1 5 1 3 Table IV Attenuation (Source PWL re: 10-12 Watts) Combines the Noishield Louver's transmission with the reduction of sound energy as a function of distance from the noise source. (Type R attenuation tabulated. correct for Type LP as noted). NOTE: Additional attenuation can be realized from room or plenum absorption characteristics. For detailed method of calculation, refer to IAC Bulletin 1.0503. Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 1 1 63 2 125 3 250 4 500 5 1K 6 2K 7 4K 8 8K Distance from Noishield louver ft In 10 3.05 23 25 29 30 31 32 30 27 50 15.24 37 39 43 44 45 46 44 41 100 30.40 43 45 .49 50 51 52 50 47 200 60.86 49 51 55 56 57 58 56 53 500 152.40 57 59 63 64 65 66 64 61 1000 304.80 63 65 1 69 1 70 71 1 72 1 70 67 'fol MODEL LP Attenuation.' SUBTRACT the following from above decibel values in each octave band. DEDUCT ....................... 1 1 -2 1 3 1 3 1 1 5 1 5 1 3 Table IV Attenuation (Source PWL re: 10-12 Watts) Combines the Noishield Louver's transmission with the reduction of sound energy as a function of distance from the noise source. (Type R attenuation tabulated. correct for Type LP as noted). NOTE: Additional attenuation can be realized from room or plenum absorption characteristics. For detailed method of calculation, refer to IAC Bulletin 1.0503. SlimshxlVd QUIET•VENTLOUVER ....the compact silencerAouver that's only four inches 02 mm) deep typical uses IAIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT m features o EASY TO INSTALL O LOW PRESSURE DROP D COMBINATION SILENCER AND LOUVER ❑ RUGGED GALVANIZED STEEL CONSTRUCTION o STAINLESS STEEL AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE O GOOD NOISE REDUCTION CHARACTERISTICS IN ALL OCTAVE BANDS — 9 dB REDUCTION IN SPEECH FREQUENCIES ❑ 18 MODULAR SIZES CAN BE READILY ASSEMBLED INTO RECTILINEAR LOUVER "BANKS" OF VIRTUALLY ANY SIZE ❑ CHOICE OF SEVERAL DURABLE FINISHES IN A VARIETY OF ATTRACTIVE COLORS tree Page 31 ❑ IAC's AEROACOUSTIC LABORATORY WILL DEVELOP SILMSHIELD TO YOUR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ❑ RETURN AIR AND SUPPLY SYSTEMS ❑ VENTILATION OPENINGS ❑ FANS ❑ CROSS -TALK SILENCERS ❑ COOLING TOWERS ❑ HOSPITALS ❑ KITCHEN AND BATHROOM VENT SHAFTS ❑ LIBRARIES ❑ HOTELS AND MOTELS o RECORDING AND BROADCASTING STUDIOS o COMPUTERS ❑ BOILER ROOMS ❑ AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT ❑ EQUIPMENT ROOMS ❑ CONFERENCE ROOMS INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ❑ DIESEL GENERATOR SETS o NOISE BARRIERS o TRACTORS ❑ MARINE OR PROPULSION FANIS ❑ ELECTf3 C MOTORS O AIR COOLERS ❑ MACHINERY ENCLOSURES ❑ TRUCKS AND BUSES o PUMPS ❑ GAS TURBINES ❑ LOCOMOTIVES ❑ BULLDOZERS ❑ OIL COOLERS ❑ TRANSFORMER BARRIERS o AIR COMPRESSORS ❑ DIESEL POWERED VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ❑ INDUSTRIAL COOLING TOWERS C m How to Specify Slimshield Quiet -Vent Louvers Furnish and install Slimshield Lowers (s) as manufac- tured by Industrial Acoustics Company. Outer casings and splitter blades shall be of 22 gauge (0.8534 mm) galvanized steel, louvers shall be packed with inert, vermin and moisture proof mineral fiber and provide the acoustical performance as indicated in Table VI. Louvers shall have finish with color. Static pressure drop shall not exceed i.w.g. IPal at a face velocity of fpm (`_ m/s). /Fill in appropriate values]. Manufacturer shall submit data from one laboratory substantiating both the specified acoustic and aerodynamic performance. Simplified Selection Procedure Ask for SNAP 11(IA^ Bulletin 1.0503) for Systemic Noise Analysis Procedure whcc� ca - be used in sizing and selecting Slimshield louvers. Note: For applications with face velocity greater than 400 fpm (2.03 m/s), consult fac- tory to check that Slimshield Louver self -noise is not excessive. ' . Standard Slimshield Module Sizes Width Height Width Height Width Height in. Imm) in. . mm in. Imm) in. mm in. (mm) in. mm 174.7) 8 203 Aerodynamic 8 203 8 203 16 406 Performance 16 .406 404 16 406 12 24 610 24 24 610 36 24 610 (3051 32 813 16101 32 813 (914) 32 813 40 1016 40 1016 `' 40 101E 48 1219 1 48 1219 4 48 1 1219 NOTES.• 1. largef module sires ovaWle on request. ?. Consul facrery for struuurol requirements of modulo banks Static Pressure Drop, i.w.g. (Pal 0.05 1 0.10 0.15 1137.4)1149.81 1 0.20 0.25 10.30 1 0.40 1 0.50 10.600.75 1:0 TABLE V Slimshield 112.41 124.91 (62.3! 174.7) 199.61 1124.51 1149.51 1186.81(249.1f Aerodynamic Quiet -Vent Face Velocity, fpm (m/s) Performance Louvers 202 285 350 404 452 495 571 639 700 785 904 11.03) (1.451 (1,78) 12.051 (2.30) 12.511 (2.90) 13.25) 13.561 13.991 14.59) '7°Jii� 'f 'fir 4 iix''� ✓� `' Octave Band 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TABLE VI Center Frequency, Hz 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K Acoustic Transmission Loss, dB 5 4 5 6 9 13 14 13 Performance Free Field Noise Reduction, dB 11 10 11 12 15 19 20 19 Slimshield Quiet -Vent Louvers can be installed in walls and doors for air transfer or -cross -talk silencers. Also, in plenum or machinery enclosures, or as an integral intake silencer and weather louver on mechanical equipment. J T Tt, . T o -+ ]� .a `wss tt '7°Jii� 'f 'fir 4 iix''� ✓� `' 1 1 1 1 f F+ • Special Air Handling Systema - Custom engineered 24,000 cfm air - handling system Including silencers, filters, coils, vaneaxial fan and acoustic plenum under test in IAC's 10,000 cu It reverberation room. SystgmJs designed to meet consultant's NC 35 criterion for each floor of a fifty-stDry'building. The reverberation room Is part of IAC's Aero - acoustic Laboratory which Includes closed loop wind tunnel for establishing DIL, self -noise, and pressure drop ratings of full-scale silencers, and other HVAC system components. Bulletin 1.0003 Quiet -Flow Fan' Plenums — Acoustically designed panels isolate fan noise from adjacent areas and control fan noise in the air stream, in ad- dition they provide excellent thermal insulation. Bulletin 1.0201 Conic -Flow Silencers — Control noise of axial -flow fans in 1110th the duct length required for lined duct. Allow efficient air flow in both high-pressure and low- velocity systems. 18 standard sizes. Bulletin 1.0301 'Energy Saver' Conic -Flow Silencer Tail Cones — For any size IAC Conic -Flow Silencer. Decreases silencer pressure drop and cuts silencer energy consumption operating costs by as much as 33% with no change in acoustic characteristics and no increase in duct length re- quirements. Bulletin SDS 14 I`; ;:AQ. AD 0; S11E6.1 OPTIONAL 7'•Cr, 64S TAIL CONE •. r~'`r; rlOw '4C y SNAP Form — IAC's Systemic Noise Analysis .Procedure for determining acoustical requirements of HVAC systems. For Duct Silencers .......................... Bulletin 1.0110 For Noishield Louvers ........................ Buletin 1.0504 PRESS Form — System for Picking the Right Energy Saving Silencer permits Quiet -Duct'- and Conic -Flow"- Silencers to be selected on the basis of energy consumption operating costs as well as final costs. Illustrates how substantial savings can be realized. Bulletin 1.0113 c ou • tn' r, 040 430 0 30 •� a cc ` L20 Type ES compared to �\ 20 S .— W Type S with same ES ••••• >R 10 e4flow, face velocity. 10 end length. a • z 0 63 125250500 IK 2K 4K 8K 3 5 7 1 FREQUENCY, Ht LENGTH, FT ACOUSTICAL EFFICIENCY ENERGY SAVINGS Type Es 'Energy Saver' Silencer — For many years, IAC Type S Quiet - Duct Silencers have been the industry standard for maximum noise 1 reduction with minimum length. Type Es 'Energy Saver' Rectangular Silencers provide the same high level of acoustic performance com- bined with a marked decrease In energy consumption. Bulletin SDS 12 y�I MODEL A � IF 0 RID— MODEL 4 J 0 UJ 14.1 .. ... - Lit OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Ill Am ist¢ pedmnance of two of the many ULTRA -PALS Packless S4encers develDped by IAC. Quiet -Duct Silencers — Are engineered units with proved acoustical efficiency in at- tenuating fan noise. Easily fitted Into existing systems. Sizes for practically every application. Bulletin 1.0301 Ultra•Palem Packless Silencers - IAC's all -steel reactive silencers use no acoustic fill of any kind. Readily cleaned with steam, hot water, chemical solutions andlor vacuumed. Ideal for electronic equipment assembly, pharma- ceutical, food and dairy manu. facturing, clean room or pro- cess applications, hospital op. erating rooms, and research fa- cilities. Bulletin SDS 21 :* Copyright 1931, last reprinled March 1984 by INDUSTRIAL ACOUSTICS, COMPANY 116D COMMERCE AVENUE BRONX, NEW YORK 10462 PHONE: 212-931.8000 TELEX: 12.5880 Gorden Grove, CA 92643 10971 Garden Grove Blvd. Phone: 714-636.5440 Telex: 18.3841 Staines, Mlddiesey., England Central Trading Estate Phone: *Staines 56251 Telex: 101-25.51.8 055 NIedefkruChiefl, Germany Phone: 02163-9431, 8432 Telex: 652261 iacn d TECHNICAL REPRESENTATION IN PRINCIPAL CITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD YOUR IAC REPRESENTATIVE Primed in U.S A How To Specify Noishield Louvers Furnish and install Noishield Louver(s) as manufac- tured by Industrial Acoustics Company. Outer casings shall be of 16 gauge 111.613 mm) galvanized steel. Lower baffles shall be of airfoil configuration and be made of 22 gauge (0.8534 mm) galvanized steel. They shall be packed with inert, vermin and moisture proof mineral fiber, and provide the acoustical performance as indicated in Table 11. Louvers shall have finish with color. Static pressure drop of louvers shall not exceed i.w.g. I_ Pal at a face velocity of fpm 1 m/s) for Model R and fpm (_ m/s) for Model I.P. Fill in appropriate values. Manufacturer shall submit cer- tified data from one laboratory substantiating both the specified acoustic and aerodynamic performance. Noishield s Louver Model -� Model R Model LP 0.05 112.41 10.10 124.91 Model R -Optimum acoustical performance with normal 215305 11.091 (1.55) 270 380 (1.37) 111.93) Simplified Selection Procedure Louvers are rated in the IAC aeroacousrrc laboratory in accordance with ASTM Stan lard E9045 and other applicable test standards To analyze specific louver applications. ask for IAC SNAP II (Bulletin 1.0503) Th s Systemic Noise Analysis Procedure enables you to evaluate the effects or the acoustical environment to which the source is located and to determine louver mode' and Size selection Module Sizes Noishield Louver Model Model Width in. Imm) Module Height in. Imm) Model R -Optimum acoustical performance with normal Y4, 36, or 46 12 to 144 in 12 in. increments pressure drop 1610, 914 or 12191 1305 to 3658 in 305 mm increments) Model LP -Normal apoustical performance with minimum 24, 36, or 46 14 to 140 in 14 in.increments pressure drop 1610, 914 or 1219 1356 to 3556 in 356 mm increments) NOTP Width,and height dimensions afe nominal fina` assembhes will be 1/4 in. 16.4 mm) less than, nominal. . certified performahce da,, Table 11 -Transmission Loss (T.L.) - Defined as the ratio, in decigets. of acoustic energy transmited through the louver to that in- cident upon if Octave Band Center 1 Static Pressure Drop, i.w.g. (Pal 3 4 5 6 7 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.50 0�O.751.0 2K 4K 1.25 Moder R 137.41 149.8) 162.31 174.1) 199.61 1124.51.49.11 12 9 (311.4) Table 5 8 Face Velocity, fpm (m/sl 9 7 6 50 Aerodynamic 52 50 47 200 60.96 49 51 55 56 57 375 430 480 525 610 675 745 830 96U 1070 Performance 11.911 (2.18) (2.441 12.671 (3.101 13.431 (3.78) (4.221 14.88) 15.441 70 1 465 540 600 660 760 850 925 1040 1200 1340 (2.361 12.74) (3.05) (3.35) 13.861 14.32) 14.70) (5.28) (6.10) (6.81) Table 11 -Transmission Loss (T.L.) - Defined as the ratio, in decigets. of acoustic energy transmited through the louver to that in- cident upon if Octave Band Center 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B Frequency, Hz. 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K Moder R 5 7 11 12 13 14 12 9 Model LP 4 5 8 9 12 9 7 6 Table 111 -Noise Reduction (N.R.) - The free -field noise reduction of a louver is the difference. in decibels, between the sound pressure level on the noise source side of the louver and that measured outdoors on the side of louver away from the noise source. Octave Band Center 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Frequency, Hz. 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K Model R 11 1317 30 18 19 20 1815 Model LP 10 11 14 15 18 15 13 12 I Octave Rand rancor rronnonru f.f, Distance from Noishield louver 1 63 2 125 3 250 4 500 56 1K 2K 7 4K 6 8Y, t; m 10 3.05 23 25 29 30 31 32 30 27 50 15.24 37 39 43 44 45 46 44 41 100 30.48 43 45 49 50 51 52 50 47 200 60.96 49 51 55 56 57 58 56 53 00 152.40 57 59 63 64 65 66 64 61 1000 304.60 63 65 69 70 71 72 70 1 67 'for MOD: L LP Attenuation: SUBTRACT the following from abovedecibel values in each octave band. DEDUCT 1 2 .3 3 1 5 1 5 3 Table IV Attenuation (Source PWL re: 10-12 Watts) Combines the Noishield Louver's transmission with the reduction of sound energy as a function of distance from the noise source. (Type R attenuation tabulated, correct for Type LP as noted). NOTE: Additional attenuation can be realized from room or plenum absorption characteristics For detailed method of calculation. refer to IAC Bulletin 1.0503. for new construction Moduline and renovation Several -factors must be considered for the control of the acoustical environment in any building: noise propagation and flanking paths; transmission loss characteristics of walls, ceilings, and floors; compatibility of windows and doors; the noise control of HVAC systems; hardware and trim. Other considerations include fire ratings, aesthetics, structural integrity, and the ability to Meet specifica- tions at minimum cost. Moduline's complete range of pre-engineered components and IAC full service capabilities ensure that the architect and engineer can lay out a building for maximum efficiency and economy while fully protecting against noise and/or fire. attractive appearance Available in a variety of colors and finishet, Moduline components can be provided in primed or unprimed galvanized steel, finish painted, or coated with vinyl or fluoropolymer films for superior wear resistance in a range of architectural colors and gloss levels. fire and blast ratings Optional Fire -Noise -Lock -0 Panels and Doors and . U.L. certified for 1 -hour and 1'/2 -hour ratings. Moduline structures and doors can also be provided to withstand 1 psi (6895N/M2) blast load. All doors remain operable after blast. large sizes or special designs Moduline Walls have been built to heights of over 40 ft. (12m) with standard and special doors, windows, wind pressure relief devices and other components. For unusual - applications, appl ications, the IAC engineering and R&D team is avail- able to develop and test custom designs and hardware. weight and space savingE Moduline walls are only 4 in. (I 02mm) thick yet provide the sound conditioning required with as little as''/, the weight of 6 in. (1 52mm) acoustic block. Moduline there- fore means savings in foundation costs, and less space for walls results in more space for the user. Ideal for ex- isting building which may have floor loading limitations. barrier -free access Single- or double -leaf Noise -Lock -0 Doors are acousti- cally compatible with Moduline wall panels. Choice of no -sill swinging doors, manual or automatic sliding doors. Optional access plugs, quickly removable panels or movable TrackwalIG panel systems offer ad- ditional accessibility. Moduline Doors are provided complete with builders' hardware as specified, including power operated sliding door mechanisms; magnetic seals, astragals, and cam - lift hinges for swinging doors; -pressure tested strikes and latches for blast doors; and U.L. classified devices for fire -rated doors. full visibility Double -glazed Noise -Lock® Windows stop the noise, but not the View. Can be incorporated into any Moduline Panel or Door. cost savings Moduline structures are competitively priced and designed to meet a wide range of performance require- ments. Also, Moduline demountable structures qualify - for maximum investment tax credit as well as tax savings associated with accelerated depreciation. Permanent construction materials such as concrete., dry wall, and acoustic masonry units do not qualify for these significant savings. Consult with tax or financial -ad- visors on the specifics of each application. 1 acoustic -rated, field proven laboratory modul i n ff performancl certified noise control Moduline panels and doors are rated for sound transmission loss tions of sound -absorption coefficients4in 13 IAC's and C Aero Acoustic laboratory in accordance with applicable ASTM Specifications E 90,E , is The built-in high sound absorption of MonulModuGneponents ensures that reverberant sound provides space, weight and cost sav ngsb. Mod Pne minimized, resulting in greater noise reductio thus offers major advantages over conventional masonry materials. in the speech Noise reduction ratings of typical Moduline enclosures range between 34 dB and 71 d6 interference frequency (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) octave bands. MODULINE HAS HIGHER SOUND ABSORPTION THAN OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS 1.0 0.95 MODULINE 0.9 0.8 0.7 z 0 0.6 U. 0.55 U. ACOUSTIC BLOCK 0 0.5 z 0 0.4 0 Lu 0.3 UJ 0 0.2 z 0.1 0.1 WOOD 0.05 PLASTER OR PAINTED CONCRETE • Observation/Control Rooms • Radio, TV, Recording Studios • Educational Study Rooms Speech and Hearing Clinics Security Areas • Correctional Facilities • Conference Rooms • Equipment Penthouses • Music Practice Rooms MODULINE FOR HIGHER TRANSMISSION LOSS WITH LESS WEIGHT AND SPACE ...for a broad range of applications • Cooling Tower Enclosures • Reverberation Control • Soundproof Partitions • Machinery Enclosures • Factory Offices • Sound Barriers • Pulpits • Detention Cells • Quiet Rooms • ouality-Control Rooms • Test Environments • Production Test Rooms • Acoustic/Thermal Plenums • Transformer Stations • Communications Centers • Pump Houses • Wastewater Plant Buildings ...... use the IAC Moduline Building Block System for any structure requiring noise control. r THICKNESS WEIGHT STC CONSTRUCTION I In. (mm) I Ib/tt2 (kg/m2) Plaster/Gypsum 4 (102) I 14.4 Vol 39 IAC Noishield 4 (102) I 8-0(39) 40 Hollow Masonry Block, I 6.9(175) 32.0 (156) 45 Plastered Both Sides IAC Noise -Lock 1 4 (102) 9.5(46) 44 IAC Noise -Lock 11 and 4 (102) 10.5 (51) 45 Fre-Noise-Lock IAC Trackwali 4 (102) ( 10.0 (49) 46-51 Solid Concrete, Painted 4 (102) 37.0 (181 47 Acoustic Block, Painted 6 (152) 30.0 (146) 48 IAC Super -Noise -Lock 4 (102) 15.0(73 48 Solid Concrete 12 (305) 150.0 (732) .5353 Solid Concrete, Painted I 6.5(165) 55.0 (269) 55 V, in. Gypsum Board, 1 Side IAC Noishieid Hard 4 (102) 9.5(45) 56 IAC Noise -Lock N Hard ( 4 (102) 1 11.3(55 62 ...for a broad range of applications • Cooling Tower Enclosures • Reverberation Control • Soundproof Partitions • Machinery Enclosures • Factory Offices • Sound Barriers • Pulpits • Detention Cells • Quiet Rooms • ouality-Control Rooms • Test Environments • Production Test Rooms • Acoustic/Thermal Plenums • Transformer Stations • Communications Centers • Pump Houses • Wastewater Plant Buildings ...... use the IAC Moduline Building Block System for any structure requiring noise control. r moduU^ne specifications This specification covers the requirements for a building 2. Fnameosha structure consisting of IAC; Moduline panels and components tion applications, as shown on the drawings and as manufactured by Industdal cealed fasteners. Acoustics Company, 118OCommerce Avenue, Bronx, New 3.Acoustic Ge Panel Construction and Design 1. VVoU. Ceiling, and Floor Panels shall bg4 in. (102rnn) thick and fabricated of steel face sheets, framing members, and internal reinforcements welded -and riveted together to form a rugged metal -sheathed panel. Each panel shall.be damped and filled with sound retardant and absorbing materials that are inert, mildew- resistant, verminproof, hydrophobic, and incombustible. 2. Connecting Panel Joiners for stationary panels shall be fabricated on one length ofnoU/omned steel designed and sized to prevent noise leakage while acoustically and struc- 1una||yjoininD the panels. Steel hondvvana and'trim shall be provided asnecessary. 3. Fire -Rated Panels shall bear |obelWth Listing Mark of Underwriters Laboratory (UL) certifying that construction has been fire rated for SO minutes with fire facing sound absorptive surfaces and for OOminutes with fire facing nonabsorptive surfaces. 4.Windows shall bainstalled inpanels and shall consist of two (2) independently suppodod layers of in. (476nnrn) safety glass separated byanair space containing desiccant to prevent (ogging, and framed in acoustically tight rubber seals that provide vibration isolated suspension from the psne|skuciure. 5. Dennoun1obiU1y.The structure shall bedesigned to permil. disassembly vrithout deformation ordamage 1ocom- ponents. Reassembly shall beaccomplished vvithouiloss o/ acoustic or structural integrity and without requiring any replaoenoertpanu. Noise-LockaDoons l. Door Leaves -shall ba2Ain. (63.5mn) thi,-;kand fabxi- caled of steel face sheets and internal reinforcements. Face sheets shall be attached or structurally joined only at �e�innoio,Leaves shall be designed and filled wi*,h oouud' rutardao\ and absorptive materials that are ioerli, nni|dem- ~~' � acoustical renovation Moduline components are ideal to., improving the acoustics of an ex. isting space either with noise -rated partitions, doors and windows, or ith -FoilTM or Varitone TM _ cladding. wwDULINsmRITONsPANELS ATTACHED TO WALLS AND CEILING TURNED HIGHLY REVERBERANT ROOM INTO SPACE SUITABLE FOR MUSIC PRACTICE ^rTHE UNIVERSITY wrTENNESSEE ArCHATTANOOGA. Ubevveldedatma oonnhuobon renova- optional split frame design shall have con- eda.SkjesandheodofdoorondfmanleshaU edeofoe|f-a|igning.magnetic, compression seals. In closed position, acoustic labydnth shall be cre ed and door held in place by magnetic force of perimeter seals at head and jambs. Bottom of door leaf shall contain contin- uous seal, activated by gravity action of cam hinge, that compresses against floor as door is closed. Raised eills and threshold drop seals Vill not be permitted. 4 ' Hardware. Two (2) IAC Cam -Lift butt type hinges, fin- ished in US 26D satin chrome,- shall be supplied with each door leaf'. Manufacturer shall provide test data showing that hinges of identical design have been cycled a minimum of 125,000 times while supporting a door leaf weighing at least 350Nb(159ko). Latches and other hardware shall not berequired 10 achieve an acoustic seal. All specified buhddna^ hardware ho|| be factory fitted and installed. 5. Fire (optional). Fire - rated door and frame assemblies shall bofurnished with UL label tor clear openings up 305nmnA Larger sizes shall befurnished with UL Certification Report. Fire -rated doors eho|| utilize IAC; fire-resistant compression rnachoniorna. Blast -pressure -rated doors, when apeoified, shall withstand a static pressure of 1 psi (6895N/nf) and remain operable after blast. Acoustic Performance Manufacturer shall furnish certified sound -transmission - to.. ss ound'tronsnnaakon'to.ss an� sound -absorption test daia, per 1heschedule, and tninon000ustioa||abor toryvi\hmnavarbendionroomo/ at least 10.000P (J83m3)volume and satisfying applicable portions of ASTM 8paui** 'cations E 90. C 423. and E 413 (inert transmission loss and sound absorption requirements from page 3.). Warranty Aoo:sUc Panels and Components shall be guaranteed again -s-1 defects in workmanship and materials for one (1) year f'oo'date cfshipment. Cutsheet for Sound Absorbing Panels BULLETIN 6.0513.1, AML Ic I I ludulil I and renovation • e'D lor w construction INDUSTRY e INSTITUTIONS - HEALTH CARE - SCHOOLS - UTILITIES o OFFICES architect: County Engineering Department owner. Palm Beach County Main Detention Center application: Varitone Correction Modules Gz• m .w�..- 'ter •�� � -'/ - A architect: Albert Kahn, Inc. owner: General Motors Corp. application: Automotive Test Cells and Silencers architect: The Austin Company owner. Columbus Dispatch application: Newspaper Printing Ouiet Rooms architect: MBA/Architects-and Planners owner. Phillip Morris Inc. y application: Integrated Acoustic Ceiling a± �, 7•; .x?;: 'r�;`�1: •• <" .;,•; ; architect: Smith, Henchman 8 Grylis 7.- '`' : �+ } • : ��'- ` owner: Ford Motor Company .:.. ... 'r:_ . • , _....,_ application: Blast-Reliet 1Na!:s,1'Jendov,s, and Doors „,moauiine, building desigi .Moduline is a system of field proven and laboratory - tested modular components ideally suited for the con- struction of a large variety of acoustically treated spaces from simple offices to complex multi -story structures. Al basic components — including wall and roof panels, doors, windows, and built-in silenced ventila- tion systems — integrate readily with each other to form a versatile, building block system which saves cost, weight, and space. 50110 SOUND I aid O--ABSORPTIVEIII, .,�'- l� SIDE SIDEl.;t,:. SOUND ABSORPTIVE INSULATION 1 IACD H•JOINER s: Rollformed from a single length of steel, the IAC H -Joiner is strong enough to give Moduline structures loading strength of more than 50 pst (2394 Nfm2), which permits roof storage and provides high wind load resistance. Moduline structures install without complication and can be enlarged or disassembled for relocation. POOR FRAME ACOUSTIC SEAL FLUSH'S `-ACOUSTIC DOOR SEAL LEAF BUILDING FLOORACOUSTIC uiW11111111”SEAL HEAD, JAMB, AND BOTTOM SEAL FOR FLUSH DOORS RUBBER MOLDING i..........� -=SICCAN�i D `-SAFErr� GGLASS WINDOW SEAL CORNER JOINER WALL PANEL CORNER JOINT PANEL - FLOOR - CHANNEL f BUILDING - FLOOR ' WALL PANEL TO BUILDING FLOOR JOINT ._.... .__._.......,, , .. ,r. •., vjr)(M•,Tr4IAI ACOU;.1ICS rOM14'i.!1'/ It "I". vL APRON ROOF PANEL SIDE WALL TO ROOF PANEL JOINT v- as easy .a . s A Select the basic panel system which best meets your design criteria. Prepare drawings showing overall sizes and locations of functional components such as doors, windows, and special access openings. Specify basic -panel and door system,ventila- tion, structural, and other requirements. Contact IAC for estimates and the answer to any ques- tions. We will be pleased to assist with special details and specifications. d panel types and five basic panel configurations CONFIGURATION 118 25 1 35 4552 51 55 57 1 46 1 10 Noise -Lock I, 11, PHYSICAL ACOUSTICAL Qi3RTiABSOIN ONE SIDE. SOLID BOTH SIDES BOTH SIDES, SOLID CENTER UNBACKED ABSORPTIVE UNBACKED ABSORPTIVEAND CHARACTERISTICS. SOLID OTHER SIDE STC STC: 51 to 62 SEPTUM PANEL NRC: 0.95 PANEL NRC:0.95 t.04 (1.100) O...a Super -Noise -Lock STC:37 54 1 63 1 62 1 68 1 48 1 15 Noise -Foil, Varitonec NOISHIELD R GULAR STANDARD MODULINE 1, FIRE -NOISE -LOCK -LOC SU?c"R-NOISE•LOCK, NOISHIELD HARD, NOISE -LOCK II & IV HARD, NOISHIELD SEPTUM NOISE -FOIL VARITONE PANELS TRACKWALL. , TRACKWALL VAULT and GEMINI Noishield Hard 122 1 33 1 45 1 52 STANDARD THICKNESS a in. (102mm) 4 in. (102mm) and 2In. (51 mm) MAX PANEL WIDTH 48 in. (1219mm) 1 18 in. (457mm) MAX PANEL HEIGHT 158 in. (4267mm) 1 144 in. (3658mm) THERMAL INSULATION SOUND ABSORPTIVE- FILL DOUBLES AS THERMAL INSULATOR U = 0.07 Btu/hr/ft2QF (0.4 Watt/m2/°C) sound transmission, loss, dB Octave Band, Hz 163 11251250 500 I 1 K 12K 14K 18K No! Mill Noise -Lock 1 125 27 1 31 1 41 1 51 1 60 165 1 6E Noise -Lock 11 and Fre-Noise Lock (27 30 132 41 50 59 1 67 171 sound absorption coefficients iTCj wni Octave Band, Hz i 125 ( 250 (500 11K 12K ( 4K 18K NRC 37 1 9--:)�Noishield Regu 43 1 10.5 lar and 10.89.1.2011.1611.0911.0111.031 40 8Trackwail Regular 0.93 0.95 44 1 9.5 Noishieid Septum 0.5010.68 1.0311.05 1.00 0.991 - (1.10) 45 10.5 1 95 Trackwali Regulara 118 25 1 35 4552 51 55 57 1 46 1 10 Noise -Lock I, 11, Noise -Lock Door 22 27 41 46 50 52 54 56 1 49 1 7.3 Fre-Noise•Lock and Sup_r Noise -Lock, 0.94 1.19 1.t1 1.06 1.03 1.03 t.04 (1.100) O...a Super -Noise -Lock 131 1 34 1 35 1 44 54 1 63 1 62 1 68 1 48 1 15 Noise -Foil, Varitonec � Trackwail Hardt 131 138 1 43 1 48 53 1 53 1 58 59 ( 5t 1 10 Noishield Hard 122 1 33 1 45 1 52 58 68 1 75 65 1 56 1 9.5 tJoishield and Trackwail Vault 134 39 1 46 1 56 62 1 59 60 1 64 1 57. 15.5 Regular with 0.55.0.991.09 0.97 0.95 0.90 L0.9 Noise -Lock III 20 ,36 51 68 75 83 84 73 1 59 1 11 fill protection and spacer 1 Noise Lock II Hard 124 40 ' 50,1 57 65 73 1 80 78 61 12 Noise -Lock 111 10.49 j 0.3710.8310.95 1 0.99 1 1'.00 (- ( 0.60 Noise -Lock IV Hard 21 30 50 60 73 79 1 80 71 1 62 1 11.3 Noise Varitoned 10.--510.6511.2011.2111.0710.921 1 0.95 Gemini Regular 134 148 156 169 75 82 861 76 1 70 1 21 -Foil, - aAbsorptive one side bSolid both sides c4 in. (102mm) thick d2 in. (51mrn)•thick eMuttipiy low2 by 4.882 to obtain kg/m2 NOTES: STC - Sound Transmission Class. S:ng? number decibel rating, per ASTM E 413, of transmission loss, properties of a pani:ion. NRC - Noise Reduction Coefficient. Arithmetic average (to nearest muhiple of 0.05) of sound absorption coefficients in octave bands centered at 250 Hz. 500 HZ, 1 KHz, and 9KHv rt frh Le to --t., th- - 11 rv)i --h f- mfl -,c C.. --A -a-:-- n n= ......•..... -A architect: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill owner: Crocker Bank application: Air Handling Units y architect: OdeVBurke, ArChilect/Planners owner. Indiana University application: Music Practice Rooms A architect: Shepley-Bulfinch-Richardson-Abbott, Inc. owner. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center application: Audiometric Test Suites consultant: The Victor Group owner: Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. application: Broadcast Studios INDUSTRIAL ACOUSTICS. COMPANY is the foremost designer and manufacturer of noise control equipment and has been so engaged exclusively since "1949. Thousands of IAC acoustic structures and silencing systems are in use throughout the world. Most likely we have standard products or previously worked out solutions for your requirements. If not, our engineering and R&D departments have a proven record of solving special problems. INDUSTRIAL ACOUSTICS ANY COMPANY SINCE 79;,9 — LEADERS IN t-.'O,'S-c CONTROL EfNIGINEERING. PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM GERMANY soril %14EC- j*. 60 coi.u.�Enr-E AVE: 1 ESTATE I.jIDD, D-41 J72 I�--:)=R11R0CHTEN : E'RONX 1"-� V" YUR.K I -.,Lr PRONE 171[:7 8.31.60Y: _E, �Mc) in;7b4145r, 2�i PHONE (:.,1163) 6431 : FAX: (021-3:80618 .-AX TELEX.'. 25516 F AX 17 1b) 6E.- 11 3F IN PRINCIPAL CITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TECHNICAL REPRESENTATION PRINTED IN U s 11 \Ij BULLETIN 8.0502.3 MDS 111'9.1'' Supersedes MDS 1180.0 MODULINEO PANEL FILL PROTECTION Th' purpose of fill protection is to prevent the acoustical thin sheet reduces the absorption of the panel. Placement absorbent insulation from being exposed to and saturated of an open- mesh spacer between the protection material and with either solid- particles or liquid droplets, (i -e dust -or- - -the-perforated- face sheet will assure the -performance of -the oil spray). Protection of the acoustical fill is accomplished panel's absorption characteristics as indicated on MDS 1110, by placing a thin, waterproof sheet between the perforated 1111, and 1112. Transmission Loss Data is-rrot affected by'tF�e metal face sheet and the acoustical fill. The insertion of the use of fill protection. TYPES OF FILL PROTECTION *ACOUSTIC FILL LINED ACOUSTIC FILL - LINED WITH SPACER SOLID - FACE SHEET SII k_E,81 PERFORATED FACE SHEET ACOUSTIC FILL - WRAPPED ACOUSTIC FILL — WRAPPED WITH SPACER NOTE SEE MDS 1110. 1111, and 1112 FOR ABSORPTION DATA 2 SOLID FACE SHEET HEAT SEALED BAG PERFORATED FACE SHEET ACOUSTIC FILL — HEAT SEALED BAG -PERFORATED FACE.. f, SHEEiT -SPACER . I ( - 111 a .. . .. . ACOUSTIC FILL — H AT SEALED BAG WITH SPACER i CONDITIONS FOR PROPER APP IC 071 OF ' DIFFERENT TYPES OF FILL PROTECTION TYPE CONDITIONS i USE IN CONDITIONS WHERE THERE IS LINER LIGHT DUST OR INTERMITTENT APPLIC- LINER W/SPACER ATIOK. AND CARRY-OVER OF NOW FLAMMABLE LIOU10. WRAPPED USE IN CONDITIONS OF HEAVY DUST WRAPPED W/SPACER AND MODERATE APPLICATION OF NON. FLAMMABLE LIQUID. BAGGED INEATSEALEO) USE IN CONDITIONS WHERE THERE tS BAGGEO(HEATSFALED) PRESENCE OF FLAMMABLE LIOUIO OR WITH SPACER DUST AND ALL APPLICATIONS WHERE FILL IS EXPQSED TO WEATHER. 'OPYRIGHT 1973 IN 11 TRIAL ACOUSTICS COIL VY ® PRONX, NEW YORK m STAINES, MIDDLESEX, ENGLAND PRINTED IN U.S.A. , Specifications for Sound Rated Steel Doors SECTION STEEL SOUND CONTROL DOORS (STC42) PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 WORK INCLUDED A. This section includes the furnishing and installation of all metal sound retardant doors and frames and adjusting of all acoustical seals as scheduled on the drawings and specified herein. 1. Include sound retardant fire doors as'scheduled. 2. Provide complete assemblies, including door, frame and seats. 3. Supervision by door manufacturer of adjusting acoustical seals. 1.02 RELATED WORK SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE A. Grouting of Frames B. Other Hollow Metal Work C. Finish Hardware D. Glazing E. Finish Painting 1.03 ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURERS A. The doors shall be manufactured by a company that has regularly specialized in the manufacture of metal sound retardant doors for a period of at least ten (10) years. B. A specific product or material manufactured by any of the following listed manufacturers is "Acceptable" (not "approved") only if the specific product or material can demonstrate exact compliance with the Contract Documents. Other manufacturer's must be approved in writing prior to bidding by the projects's Acoustical Consultant. Industrial Acoustic Company (714) 892-6022 Krieger Steel Products Company (562) 695-0645 Overly Manufacturing Company (909) 677-5688 1.04 ACOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE A. All assemblies shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 42. B. The sound transmission loss of the door assembly shall be certified by a test report from an independent acoustical testing laboratory. The test method shall meet ASTM E90 for the PROJECT _ Steel Sound Control Doors (STC42) Citv_ State Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions. The test date shall not be older than ten (10) years from the project bid date. C. The door shall be fully operable at the time of test and shall be opened and closed several times prior to measurement. The test shall be on the exact door/frame/seal assembly that is to be supplied for the project. It shall be tested as a complete assembly. A test for the door and a separate test for the acoustical seals is not acceptable. 1.05 SUBMITTALS A. At least 10 days prior to bid submittal, test reports from an independent acoustical laboratory and complete shop drawings of the door, seals and frames shall be available for review by the Architect. B. Prior to start of fabrication provide the following for approval by the Architect: Acoustical test reports from an independent acoustical testing laboratory * as specified below. The acoustical testing laboratory shall have been accredited by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under -the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) for this test procedure. 2. Manufacturer's detailed specifications including installation instructions. Shop drawings showing door, door frames, head and jamb seals and door bottom construction. Also show frame and door sizes and types as scheduled and detailed. 4. Manufacturer's written instructions for adjusting sound seals. 1.06 GUARANTEE A. All material furnished under this section shall be guaranteed free from defects in workmanship and material for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 DOOR CONSTRUCTION A. All sound control doors shall be 1-3/4" thick, constructed of steel faces internally braced and reinforced with acoustical packing in the core. The hinge side of the door shall have a chamfered door edge to avoid pinching or other distortion of the seal from any action of the door. 2.02 DOOR FRAME A. Frames shall be fabricated from minimum 14 gauge steel with the corners mitered, welded and ground smooth. 2.03 DOOR SEALS A. All head and jamb seals shall be a magnetic stop in a fully adjustable retainer assembly. PROJECT Steel Sound Control Doors (STC -42) City, State XXXX-2 B. On pairs of doors provide magnetic astragal seals in a fully adjustable retainer assembly, that maintains the specified STC rating. C. The door bottom shall be a full mortised type and shall close the entire gap between the door and the floor. Where doors with standard hinges are specified, the door bottom shall be an automatic type with tubular neoprene and glass fiber core. Where doors with cam lift hinges are specified, the door bottom shall be a sponge neoprene type. The door bottom shall assure a continuous, positive, reliable seal at the floor with minimum friction, drag and roll of the assembly on the floor. 2.04 THRESHOLDS A. Thresholds shall be a solid, smooth material to assure a continuous and complete seal with the door bottom. B. The size of the threshold shall be approved by the door manufacturer for the type of door specified. C. Raised sills shall not be permitted. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 GENERAL A. Coordinate installation with work of other trades. B. Level subfloor and threshold so that they contact a straightedge- for the length of the threshold. C. Doors and frames shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's written instructions. Frames shall be securely anchored to the floor and held plumb and square by the wall construction. D. Area inside frame shall be grouted solid full height of jambs and across head with "Gypsolite" manufactured by Gold Bond or "Structo-lite" by U.S. Gypsum, or equal. Where split frames occur, each side of the frame shall be grouted separately taking care not to "bridge" the sections of the walls or frames together. E. After the assembly has been built into the walls and all finish hardware installed, all operating parts shall be adjusted for smooth operation and continuous contact between perimeter seals and adjoining surfaces. Adjusting of acoustical seals shall be personally. supervised by an authorized representative of the door manufacturer. All costs associated with this supervision shall be borne by the door manufacturer. 3:02 SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS A. The seals shall be installed so that they are in contact with the entire length of the jambs and head. B. No gaps shall occur at the joint between the head and jamb seals. PROJECT Steel Sound Control Doors (STC42) r;ri, c«..«e C. The door bottom shall be adjusted so that the seal is in full contact with the floor surface. Under no circumstances shall the downward force exerted by the drop seal against the floor cause binding at the head. If this occurs and cannot be corrected, the entire installation shall be replaced as required at no additional cost to the Owner. D. Do not paint doors with acrylic paint. Preferably use oil base paint or alternately use alk -yd base (synthetic oil paint) and allow to dry a minimum of 72 hours before closing door. -END OF SECTION- g:\specs.mas\doom\steel\stc 42.02 June 26, 1997 PROJECT Steel Sound Control Doors (STC -42) City, State _ XXXX-4 'SGA/(ppR�� or j969 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2000-07 for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2000-21 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-21 1041 S. GRAND AVENUE (LOT 12, TRACT NO. 40972) DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA 91765 By City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DRAFT Environmental Finding Initial Study (Environmental Information and Environmental Checklist) November 20, 2000 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2000-07 for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2000-21 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-21 1041 S. GRAND AVENUE (LOT 12, TRACT NO. 40972) DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA 91765 Environmental Checklist Form for Initial Study Part 1 Background Project Description and Location November 20, 2000 OF. �) DIAl�I01�TD BARCITY OF • x=ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR INITIAL STUDY Pursuant to Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act §15063 (f), this form, along with the Environmental Information Form completed by the applicant, meets the requirements for an Initial Study. This form is comprised of five parts: Part 1 Background Part 2 Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Part 3 Determination Part 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Part 5 Discussion of Environmental Impacts PARTl-BACKGROUND 1. City Project Number: Development Review No. 2000-21 Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-21 2. Project Address/Location: 1041 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 3. Date of Environmental Information Form submittal: November 20, 2000 4. Applicant: TDM Architects, Inc. Address: 930 Colorado Boulevard City/State/Zip: Los Angeles, CA 90041 Phone: (323) 254-9200 Fax: (323) 254-9511 5. Property Owner: Verizon Address: One Verizon Way City/State/Zip: Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Phone: 6. Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar Contact: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant Address: 21660E Copley Drive, Suite 190 City/State/Zip: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phone: (909) 396-5676 Fax: (909) 861-3117 7. General Plan Designation: Professional Office (OP) FAR between .25 and 1.00. $. Zoning: Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) Zone. 9. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). The project site is approximately 1 acre. - It is a commercial development located on the southeast corner of Grand Avenue at Montefino Avenue and zoned Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE). The site is currently developed with a 12,193 square foot, two-story legal nonconforming telephone switching facility building. It is legal nonconforming due to the front setback. Parking is provided on-site and access to the commercial development is provided off Montefmo Avenue. The proposed expansion adds approximatley 13,572 square foot to the existing structure for additional equipment for the telephone switching, but does not modify the existing architectural style. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, Development Review is required by the Planning Commission and a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for changes to, expansion of a legal nonconforming structure. Pursuant to the City's parking requirement, it is required that the proposed project provide 26 parking spaces and the plans indicate 26 with the proposed parking lot expansion. Hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and the site is manned with 3-5 employees. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the facility is not manned. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Existing development and zones surrounding the project site are as follows: To the north is R-3-8000 and R-1-8000 residential zone; to the northeast is the C -3 - BE zone; and to the northwest and south is the RPD -8000 residential zone. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): None. 12. List City of Diamond Bar related applications for this project that must be processed simultaneously: Listed above in Item No. 1 13. List prior projects for this parcel: PP31321 and PP31654 - original approval for the 12,193 square foot telephone switching facility structure processed and approved by Los Angeles County Unlimited Planning the restaurant, processed and approved by Los Angeles County Regional Planning. 2 PACOIMA RESEDA `C ovw�n� Yliwet.G�Fl41tf ae1�� 0•r 2 MORE TAR7JNA SH GLENDALE PASADENA CREMONT x GENCINO AKS CMON COVINA U VERNE ~ UPUND� ,n ,• ,s MONTCWR w HILLS LY WEST COVINA POMONA 'f` °"A *i HOLLYWOOD. MONTEREY PARK ONTARIO -WW, LA CULVER ,• CITY WALK w INDUSTRY se CHINO so djONI " s p1C0 MARTHA NIVERA ND BA DEL REY WHITTIERtagAMM +s M ,� LYNWOOD ING DOWNEY SP�RVAIGS d BREA v YORBA EL SEGUNDO' NO LINDA GARDENA COMPTON BELLFLOWER PLACEN1111 of s, n FULLERTON n CORONA PACIFIC LOQ, NANEW OCEAN + PARK i „• s SAN L'" >aEAL SANTAANA PEDRO� la�¢sr a BEACH FOUNTAKd mANG I HUNTINGTON VALLEY Y BEACH awrtca CMOS A IRVINE t DIAMOND BAR PACIFIC NBT OCEAN AREAFREEWAY MAP LAGUNA BEACH 9 MISSION VIE.10 Nu,i,.tCE OF PUBLIC HEARING City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar. CA 91765 TO: Property Owners within a 500 -foot radius of subject site FROM: City of Diamond Bar, Planning Commission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to State law, that a public hearing will be held by the. Planning Commission to determine whether or not the subject request shall be approved under the provisions of State law and the City of Diamond Bar Development Code as follows: DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday, January 9, 2001, 7:00 P.M. (or as soon thereafter that the matter can be heard) PLACE OF HEARING: South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21.865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2000-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000- 21 REQUEST: Development Review No. 2000-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No 2000- 21 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020 and 22.68.030(B)) is a request to construct an addition of approximately 13,572 square feet to an existing two- story Public Utility Telephone Switching Facility of approximately 12,193 square feet for a total structure of approximately 25.765 square feet. The Minor Conditional, Use Permit is required for expansion to a legal non -conforming structure. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1041 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PROPERTY OWNER: Verizon, One Verizon Way, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 APPLICANT: TDM Architects, Inc., 930 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90041 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration review period begins December 15, 2000 and ends January 3, 2001. Published in: San Gabriel Valley Tribune: December 15, 2000 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin: December 15, 2000 If you are unable to attend the public hearing, but wish to send . written comments, please write to the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department/Planning Division at the address given below. To preview case materials or for further information on this subject, please contact the Planning Division at (909) 396-5676. If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. CASE MATERIALS are available for review between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the City of Diamond Bar Department of Community and Development Services, Planning Division, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 D: WORD-LINDA/PLANCOMM/PROJECTS/DR 00.21 ID41 GRANDircvised MAILER 121500 AREA MAP: (not to scale) T North Subject Site BAV ONVUE) *N z a N to CO C" C) Cd z0 OM rc z LU < > CD w0 O c I U- — -Z— 'OCo = U) -0.0 Cf3 U) Kd —tw - IB Cl)91 w LU 11, MON z C-) ui (DUl) LL U- u (7) 0=>< -jc)<-4 crpzoa:0 =OM=l LL! <( -< 0 L) Cff __j 0 CO ==;Cn 0 =m—z o go mu I U. 8 ra-ma.6 LL LLJ Ul) LL ul CY) =Z< -JO z ED < p= ri rr • Lij < < IMSm Jim CO O)o =M -z o e 00 8 w 9 U Z W '�fn �—I LLUj Fd Z C ui ~' W6 W� u cli co 'P T Y N O --� ; CD ---- i . • LU 0 Z 2 gg R � R , g pg'E I I �Ep _ULL n :mit LL W (7) 0=>< cc Q < 0 zoU._j w¢a< CD U CC mop¢ Jim 0 00 T Q Q 0 e A ate, W= Q I V .� Z I N n ' Z Z ° Lu wra I w. �~ wj CV _M --- < Y pQ A > Cf) w Z C s r : U0 LL! ! f G2 Zp<O W -< �4 (i �L�(� QZ=c 0 c m Cl 0 00 Q T Q 0 9 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2000-07 for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2000-21 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-21 1041 S. GRAND AVENUE (LOT 12, TRACT NO. 40972) DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA 91765 Part 2 -Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Part 3 -Determination Part 4 -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts November 20, 2000 PART 2 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1. Land Use and Planning 9. Hazards 2. Population and Housing 10. Noise 3. Geologic Problems 11. Public Services 4. Water 12. Utilities & Service Systems 5. Air Quality 13. Aesthetics 6. Transportation/ Circulation 14. Cultural Resources 7. Biological Resources 15. Recreation 8. Energy & Mineral 16. Mandatory Findings Resources of Significance 3 PART 3 - DETERMINATION To be completed by Lead Agency On the basis of this initial evaluation: Project Number: DR 2000-21, MCUP 2000-21 I find that the proposed project COULD-- NOT have a- significant. effect on the. environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ __ X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the' environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" OR "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. November 20, 2000 Sign reg - Date Linda Kay Smith Printed Name 4 PART 4 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced and effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures form Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With 5 Mitigation Measures Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impact (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluation each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. C.1 for •' 1maw 1 • 111 ILYA 11 •' • • • 111 1041 S. GRAND AVENUE (LOT 12, TRACT NO. 40972) DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA 91765 Part 5- Discussion of Environmental Impacts November 20, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 1 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Conflict with General Plan designation or zoning? Source #s: General Plan, p. I-27; City of Diamond Development Code, Title 22, p. IIA 7, 22. b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project: Source #s: General Plan, pg. III -10 et seq. c. Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? Source #s: General Plan, p. I-27, Fig. 2; City of Diamond Development Code, p. II -7, 22; Project application. d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, impacts from incompatible land uses)? Source #s: MEA, II -E-1-16. e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Source #s: Project site plan, City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p II -15-18; General Plan, p. I-1 et Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated No Impact - a. The project site is located within the General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (OP). Pursuant to the General Plan, this land use designation provides the establishment of office -based working environments for general, professional, and administrative office uses, as well as sups uses. Additionally, development within the OP designation will maintain a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.00. The proposed project, is an expansion of a telephone switching facility currently in use and consistent with the General Plan. The project site is located within the Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) Zone. Within this ¢one, the City's Development Code allows for a variety of land uses by right; and the telephone switching facility is allowed by right. The land use will be allowed in the C -3 -BE Zone with the approval of the Planning Commission and b. The City does not have a specific environmental, habitat conservation plan, or natural community plan for this project site. Additionally, this project site has been developed since the early 1980's within an urban area. The request expands the square footage of the existing telephone switching facility structure and adds more equipment, but is consistent with the existing structure. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan's land use designation for the project site. The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA requirements and found to have no significant effect on the c. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development that is a telephone switching facility structure. The project request is to expand the building and use. Therefore, as an existing commercial development, the proposed project will not be incompatible with existing land uses within t vicinity. There are no agricultural resources or operations within the vicinity of the project. e. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development with a General Plan designation Professional Office (OP) and zoned for Unlimitet Commercial, and is currently a telephone switching facility. The project request is to expand the building and use. Therefore, as an existing commercial development, the proposed project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the:.. : project: - .. a. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Source #s: X 1990 Census of Population and Housing; MEA, p. II -1-19. b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Source #s: 1990 Census X of Population and Housing; MEA, p.11-1-19. c. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Source #s: 1990 Census of Population and X Housing; MEA, p. II -1-19; General Plan, p. I-1 et seq., p. II- I et seg.-, proiect site plan. Existing Conditions - a. The proposed project is within an existing commercial project in the Unlimited Commercial Zone and Professional Office General Plan designation. As such, it will not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. b. The proposed project is to expand an existing telephone switching facility within an existing commercial development. Of the 3-5 employees, some employees may live in Diamond Bar and others may live in the surrounding area. As a result, it is not expected that the proposed project will induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. by extension of roads/other infrastructure). c. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development. As such, it is not expected to displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Wouid 6e'._1*,' 3 project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a. Fault rupture? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV-2,3, Fig. IV- 1; MEA, p. II-B-B; State of California Seismic Hazard X b. Zones, 8117198. Seismic ground shaking? Source #s: MEA, p. II-B-14, p. I1- B-10, Fig. 11-B-5; State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, X 8/17/98; Los Angeles County building permits. c. Seiche (water tanks, reservoirs)? Source #s: Walnut Valley X Water District Map 1996. d. Landslides or mudflows? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV-3, Fig. IV-1; MEA, p. II-B-3, Fig. II-B-2; State of California X Seismic Hazard Zones 8/17/98. changes in topography or unstable soil conditions e. JErosion, from excavation, grading, or fill? Source #s: General Plan, X p. IV-3, Fig. IV-1; Project application/plans. f. Subsidence of the land? Source #s: MEA, p. II-B-16; Project X application/plans. g. Expansive soils? Source #s: MEA, p. II-B-16; Project X a li ation/ lan . h. Unique geologic or physical features? Source #s: MEA, Fig. II-A-1; project application/ plans; City's Public Works X Division. Existing Conditions - a. No portion of the City has been identified as in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The closest fault is the Diamond Bar Fault, which is described as a "small inactive local fault". Historically, there is no record of any earthquake with an epicenter in Diamond Bar or its Sphere of Influence, and no significant movement has ever been recorded for the Diamond Bar fault. The Whittier-Elsinore fault lies approximately five miles from the project site and has been active in historic times. Three faults with the greatest potential for activity are located in excess of 20 miles from the proposed project site. Therefore, likelihood of fault rupture is limited. c. The closest reservoir is the Ridgeline Reservoir, approximately 3/4 miles, by direct route, in a northwesterly direction. If Seiche occurs, it will not affect the project site. Additionally, the project is not located near any volcanic mountain regions. There are no large bodies of water in close proximity to the project site. b. - g. The proposed project lies within Zone 1, or Relative Ground Response Low (RGRI). It is an existing commercial development built in the early 1980's. The existing telephone switching facility structure was permitted and constructed with appropriate inspections under the applicable codes at that time; and met with the requirements of that code. The proposed project's improvements will meet the construction codes that are currently in effect. Additionally, the project is not located near any volcanic mountain regions. There are no large bodies of water in close proximity to the project site. Therefore, it is ndt expected that the proposed projec will result in or expose people to potential impacts involving strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, on- or off-site landslides, soil erosion or loss of top soil, lateral spreading, subsidence, expansive soil or collapse. h. It is not anticipated that any unique geologic or physical features exist on the project site. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 4 WATER. Would the project result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar Public Works/Engineering Division; Project X application/plans. b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV-4 Fig. IV-2; X Fema Flood Panel No. 0650430980 B. Zone C. 12/2/80. c. Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Source #s: MEA, p. II-C-3.4. Fig. II-C-1. X d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Source #s: MEA, p. II-C-3, 4, Fig. II-C-1; Project application. X e. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements? Source #s: MEA, p. 11-C-3.4, Fig. II-C-1; City X of Diamond Bar Public Works Division; proiect site Man. - f. Changes in the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Source #s: MEA, p. II- X C-3, 4, Fig. II-C-1; project's site/grading plans. g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar Public Works Division; project site X lan. h. Impacts to groundwater quality? Source #a: MEA, p. II-P-3- 8. X i, Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Source #s: X MEA, p. II-P-3-8. j. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place with 100-year flood hazard area structures, which X would impede or redirect flood flows? Source #s: General Plan, P. IVA Fig. IV-2, MEA, p. II-C-1 et seq. Existing Conditions - a. The project site is an existing commercial development built in the early 19801s. The requested project expands the existing telephone switching facility structure within existing paved parking lot area and it is consistent with the existing structure. The project site is zoned Unlimited Commercial and the General Plan designation is Professional Office. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to change the absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff. b. The project site is not located within a flood hazard area and adequate drainage devices are existing and will be part of the approval from the Public Works Division. Additionally, dams and levees are not located within the project area or the City of Diamond Bar. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam failure. c., d., e. No surface water body exists within the vicinity of the project. The closest surface water is the Carbon Canyon Dam, approximately 21/2 miles from the project; this site does not however drain into this basin. Therefore, no impacts related to surface water features, quality, or flow will affect the project site. f. It is not expected that the project will result in a change of groundwater quality, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of ground water recharge ability. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the recharge of groundwater because of the reduction in pervious surfaces. g. & h. The proposed project will not effect the direction or rate of flow of groundwater due to conditions described above (a through f). Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 5 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Source #s: SCAQMD Air X Quality Handbook; Project application/plans. b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Source #s: MEA, X p. II-F-8-10, Fig. H-F-3; Project application/plans. c. Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which X exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Source #s: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook; Project application/plans. d. Create objectionable odors? Source #s: Project application/plans. X Existing Conditions - a.- d. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development. The project expands the structure and use of telephone switching facility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; create objectionable odors; violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 6' TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a. An increase in vehicle trips which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (I.e. result in substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at X intersections) Source #s: Project application/plans. b. Substantially increase hazards due to design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Source #s: Project application/plans; X City Public Works Division. c. Inadequate emergency access? Source #s: Multihazard Functional Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992; General Plan, p. X V-1: Project application/ Tans. d. Inadequate parking capacity on-site? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Title 22, p: III-91 et. seq.; X Project application/plans. e. Exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? Source #s: Project application/plans; City of Diamond Bar X Public Works Division; Ordinance No. 01 (1993) Congestion iManaL,ement Plan. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnabouts, bicycle racks)? Source #s: Project application/plans; General Plan, p. V-22; X Ordinance No. 01 (1993) Congestion Management Plan. g. Change in rail, water, or air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risk? Source #s: MEA, p. II-T-36; X Project application/plans. Existing Conditions - a: c., e.-g. The proposed project is the expansion of a commercial structure for telephone switching facilities. The proposed project increases the square footage for more switching equipment manned by the same number of employees. Therefore, it is not anticipated th the proposed project will substantially increase traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; nor will it substantially increase hazards due to design features, inadequate emergency access; exceed individually or cumulatively a level of servic standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation; nor will the project change rail, water, or air traffic patterns including either and increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risk d. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, it is required that the proposed structure provide adequate parking spaces and this has been met. Therefore, adequate parking is and will be provided on-site. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.- Would the 7 project::. :. . .a. Substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of X Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III -11; Project application/plans/site visit. b. Substantial adverse effect on and riparian habitat, federally.. protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 clean Water Act, or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife X Services? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III - 11; Diamond Bar Development Code, p.1II-149 et. seq.; Project application/plans/site visit. c. A conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source #s: MEA, p. II -13-1-8; General Plan, p. X III -11; Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149 et. seq.. d. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat X conservation plan? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. I-15-16, III -11; Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149-150. e. Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8 & 18; Project application/plans. Existing Conditions - a. -e. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development that was approved and constructed in the early 1980's. As a result, the site does not contain species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or region plan, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services or riparian habitat and federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 Clean Water Act, or other sensitive natural communities. The project site does not contain trees that require protection and or preservation as described in the City's Development Code. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ENERGY ANDMINERAL RESOURCES..: $ Would the project: a. with adopted energy conservation plans? Source JConflict #s: General Plan, p. III-15; Uniform Building Code, 1998. X b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Source #s: MEA, p. H-S-1, et. seq.; Uniform g Building Code, 1998. c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be the future value to the region and the residents of the State? Source #s: MEA, p. H-B-17; Project R application. Existing Conditions - a.-c. The proposed project's expansion is on a buildable pad and minimal grading will be required. The improvements will be required to comply with the 1998 Uniform Building Code design and construction standards and the State Energy Code, thereby conforming to the City's energy conservation standards. The project site will not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resources recovery site delineation within the General Plan, specific plan or other land use plan because there are no significant, concentration mineral resources in Diamond Bar at this time. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 9 HAZARDS. would the.project; .... __ . a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material; or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous X materials into the environment? Source #s: MEA, p. II-M-1; Project application/plans; General Plan, p. IV-1 et seq.; Uniform Building Code 1998, Section 307. b. Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? Source #s: Multihazard Functional Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Source #s: Walnut X Valley Unified School District; Pomona Unified School District; City of Diamond Bar House Numbering Map. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant X hazard to the public or the environment? Source #s: MEA, p II-M-1 et seq. e. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where X residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources #s: MEA p. II-K-1 -, Project application/plans Existing Conditions - a. Pursuant to the application, the proposed project contains underground storage tanks for fuel already on-site and there will be a changeout of the tank to a larger size. The proposed project is required to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements, Section 307, for Group H Occupancies. Group H Occupancies shall include buildings or structures, or portions thereof, that involve the manufacturing, processing, generation, or storage of materials that constitute a high fire, explosion, or health hazard. Therefore, the risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances is significantly reduced. b. It is not expected that the proposed project will impair the implementation of or physically interfere with the City's adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. c. The project site is located one-half mile plus from an existing school. There are no schools proposed closer than one-half mile fro the project site. Additionally, with circumstances as referenced in Item a. above, it is not expected that the proposed project will emi hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5, and as a result will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. The proposed project is in an urbanized area and not adjacent to areas where the possibility for wildland fires exist or near wetlands. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 10- NOISE. Would the pioject result in:.." a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? Source #s: Project application/plans; Noise Report, dated-November X 9, 2000; General Plan, p. IV-15; MEA, p. II-G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Title 22, p. III-81-90. b. A substantial permanent increase or temporary or periodic is ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Source #s: Project application; Noise Report dated November 9,2000; General Plan, p. IV- X 15; MEA, p. II-G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Develo ment Code Title 22 P. III-81-90. Existing Conditions - a.-b. The project site is located adjacent to Grand Avenue, a major arterial. The project application and the noise specs submitted indicate that the Remote Cooling Radiators will emit 89 dBA at a 23-foot distance. The project will have conditions as per the noise engineers and City requirements that noise does not emit from the building. The project has sound proofing for the generator and sound walls around the roof mounted cooling equipment, to meet the criteria in the Diamond Bar Development Code for residential areas of 45 dBA for nighttime and 50 dBA for daytime. The City's noise standards consider daytime as 7:00 am to 10:00 p.m. and nighttime from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. As stated the proposed expansion will be required to comply with the City's noise standards. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant leo Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the.project have an effect upon, or 11 result in a need fornew or altered government services, in any of the following areas: a. Fire Protection? Source #s: General Plan, p. VI -3; Project Application. X b. Police Protections? Source #s: General Plan, p. VI -3; Project Application. X c. Schools? Source #s: MEA, p. II -0-1; Project Application. X d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Source #s: General Plan, p. X V1-2• Project Annlication. e. Other governmental services? Source #s: General Plan, p. VI -1 et seq.; Project Application. X Existing Conditions - a. -b. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development that has been and will continue to receive services from the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff Departments. The Fire Department will review the project with the permitting process. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need of new or physically altered governmental facilities. c. The proposed project is located within the Walnut Valley Unified School District. However, the project is a commercial use with approximately 3-5 employees who may or may not live in Diamond Bar. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have a significant impact on the Walnut Valley Unified School District. d. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development that is a telephone switching facility structure. The project request is to expand the building and use. Roads and all public facilities are existing. As a result, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have a significant impact on existing public facilities and their maintenance; nor it is expect that the proposed project will cause the creation of new public facilities. e. No other specific governmental services have been identified that may be impacted by the proposed project. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project 12 result in a need for new systems or.supplies;.or: substantialalterations to the following utilities: _ a. Power or natural gas? Source #s: MEA, p. II-Q-1 et. seq.; General Plan, p. I- 18, VI-2; Project application/plans. h b. Communication systems? Source #s: MEA, p. II-Q-I et. seq.; General Plan, p. X I-18, VI-2; Pro'ect application/plans. c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Source #s: MEA, p. II-Q-1 et seq.; General Plan, p. I-18, VI-2; Project application/plans. X d. Sewer or septic tanks? Source #s: MEA, p. H-Q-1 et. seq.; General Plan, p. I- 18, VI-2; Project application/plans. X e. Storm water drainage? Source #s: General Plan, p. I-18, VI-2; Project X application/plans. f. Solid waste disposal? Source #s: General Plan, p. I-18, VI-2; Project X application/plans; NPDES requirements. g. Local or regional water supplies? Source #s: General Plan, p. I-18, VI-2; Project application/plans. X Existing Conditions - a., b., c., e., f., g. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development that is a telephone switching facility structure. The project request is to expand the building and use. Therefore, as an existing commercial development, the proposed project will not be incompatible with existing land uses within the vicinity. The proposed project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB; nor result in the alteration o existing facilities or cause the construction of new facilities for gas, water treatment or distribution facilities, storm drain facilities, solid waste disposal, or water supplies. Though the project is to create more communication systems, the expansion of the existing structure does not result in the need for more communication systems. d. It is required that the proposed project comply with NPDES requirements and obtain and Industrial Waste permit. Potentially ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Significant Unless Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 13 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a• Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista or damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock out croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic X highway? Source #s: General Plan, p. III-10; Project application/plans. b. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Source #s: General Plan, p. III-10; City of Diamond Bar's Development Code, p. IV-11- X 16; City Design Guidelines; Project application/ plans. c. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Source #s: City of Diamond Bar's Development Code, p. IV- Existing'Conditions - a.-c. The proposed project is within an existing commercial development. The project relates to the expansion of an existing telephone switching facility. In the early 1980's, Los Angeles County Regional Planning processed the commercial development. The current application request expands the use and the structure but is consistent with the current physical appearance of the existing structure. The architectural style, colors, materials are compatible with the surrounding area and other commercial developments within Diamond Bar. Being an existing development, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. By maintaining the height requirements of the Diamond Bar Development Code it is not anticipated this will adversely affect existing properties view corridor. Additionally, the project area is not considered a scenic vista or near a scenic vista; nor are there trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on-site or within the surroundins area. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIIg®NMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would tlie.project: a. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological _. resource or site or unique geologic features? Source #s: X MEA, p. II -H-1 et seq. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the'significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5. Source #s X MEA, p. II -H-1 et seq. c. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in 15064.5? Source #s: MEA, X d. Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Source #s: MEA, p. II- X H-1 et seq. e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Source #s: MEA, p. II -H-1 et seq. X Existing Conditions - a. The project is within an existing commercial development that was constructed in the early 1980's and is a telephone switching facility structure. The project request is to expand the building and use. Additionally, there are no paleontological sites identified within the City Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will disturb paleontological resources. b. The project is within an existing commercial development that was constructed in the early 1980's and is a telephone switching facility structure. The project request is to expand the building and use. Additionally, there are no archaeological sites identified within the City. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources. c. The project is within an existing commercial development that was constructed in the early 1980's and is a telephone switching facility structure. The project request is to expand the building and use. No historical sites have been identified within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will not affect historical resources. d. -e. The project is within an existing commercial development that was constructed in the early 1980's and is a telephone switching facility structure. The project request is to expand the building and use. No unique ethnic cultural values, religious or sacred uses are located within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have the potential to create adverse impacts on said resources. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 15 RECREATION. Would the project: a. Increase the demand use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be X accelerated? Source #s: General Plan, p. II -1 et seq.; Project application. b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? Source #s: General Plan, p. II -1 et seq.; Project application. Existing Conditions - a. -b. The project is the expansion of an existing commercial development that was constructed in the early 1980's. The proposed project relates to a telephone switching facility expansion. It is anticipated the expansion will have the same amount of 3-5 employees, up to four each shift, 24 hours a day. It is unknown if the employees live in Diamond Bar or the surrounding communities. However, due to the number as existing currently, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities to the extent that deterioration of such facilities would occur; nor that the expansion of such facilities would occur, thereby causing an adverse physical effect on the environment. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL AL ISSU S Significant Unless Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated MANDATORY FINDINGS OF 16 SIGNIFICANCE . ., .. . a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining level, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of X a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre- history? b. the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to . IDoes the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of X past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the affects of probable future projects) d. the, project have environmental effects, which will jDoes cause substantial adverse effects on human beings; either X directly or indirectly? Existing Conditions - a.-d. As referenced in the above findings, the project is within an existing commercial development that was constructed in the early 1980's. As such, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a population drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the ranged of a rare. or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or pre-history. As reference in the above findings, the proposed project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. As a result of the referenced findings, the proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. f� pr C) 0 0 0=m H 0 CD [ ffi Z •—Pi wa . c> z m� • • Q- o m -� m Q m i. m j N��o 1`y Z •P 0 m00 e -I m T m W+ -` to C g 8 CD N 10 n m 9p, r —I ?J CO N =" -0 y n= V II N m C") rn m ti c�va rn N aE rMOZ n a iS W N W II n O Z � HT1 -nn --nn -nn --n ^NN 'mn N tV — zDor X o CNJi W �. D 27 rn -"'n m -r> a)n to fT1 Z l � ( � �`�� h V•�•' �''`''�'""' \t/ -♦'ate-"` �(! 1 O \ b,S 0 IQfli� 1, � �� / "'tom-� J _ � y ..� �•3. ;�. _ KtwaaM v, C0 M rt O O Zn D mr v /• : S Z:• > D :-I: 1 ED :0:::::::i::'::::::::::; , co i Zi::i:tii::iiiiti't::ti:::ri: \ i N -+ c I Ri 1 W Ln o CD s 4 :;. 1 0 z N. GRAND AVE e a 0 C) > Z P. ca — C) -= z C3 > 0 CC) C— �> OXG)C.) P > m 0 Z M 0 :q —:I> Z�Or- 5; =0 (D M -n -n -4 CDCJ Cil m CA3 0) rl) pmn om 09 I' FM—W7 ME --10 Om =z C < > U) M z N 0 z co CA) m M m o 90 z "o -n 00 0 z (5 M! 9 CA N. M ilk' or -sib m 0 0 In IM I :01 05 m 0 0 ,n m 0 rn m z 0 1z -n 0 C -n E") 0 u 5.- z QIP Z :01 05 m 0 0 ,n m 0 rn m z 0 C FF-- F v_ o 00 Q J cn— >OZD f7='�G7 a D r m 0 __j oz -gyp =105> 5 } D<r 82 31 j �t ❑0000 :, � � �_ - ❑000e {{ ❑000e �. ��� � __ 0 CO z Zm ❑0000: 37 ❑000e - T p N - mO m� utnun m = � ---- �� o ooc m 0000� l = m � a I:alln MA n g � z n W s mu CA) F, mcz ii 9 m < m 0 z 0000c o < > z F, mcz ii 9 m < m 0 z m uo T > 0() 4 g CD X, o N. :5. > co 0-3 z Fo m M -- — CD . z C) CD 0 w cl 0 If 0CD E3 o-3 (n 9 5 C.. r z '0 BOO CD > 0 A CD > 0 ; 'A 0 0 — 0-3 M 0 0 D = z co') = > 9� cv, 0 ? \0 \0 t -j CD 0 C:) N) 0 0 al C.5 C� C) CD C) 0 0 N 0 00 O LIM cn t� L40 En L40 cn tj LA NN C) t -j00 0 C) U) 9 I ; 0() 4 g C." CD v ti 3 m o z 0 cr 92 ~ CD O 2 o> Y z CD G x 0 t7 x w CD r :: r ;o a: x 0 R° cn M C� a Z Z v�dt7 • Cn Z aG 0 r a � � o �, o a r s , cn g, . n °; tzi b o vdz G x w z co o CS1 rA M cin CD O r Z y CDccnn b� E3 z '� m CD � w a m o � o' a y o' a y 5 ' V G � /+ 1r 1 O QO 00 p O CD S Q Q Q O Q CO O, d N -- p - 00 () a ►- N tJ N N `yy-Cj d to _N SI- O 00 Cn N y do 00 0 0 a m m by to z z cn o d tz r 0 0 z z 0 0 0 0 0 o x x cn W cn cn w d d CACA I m v ti 3 m o z 0 cr 92 G4 ��jprll F cm - F L T A. LLr T 4 �-L L, r �Ll V�- WR.n. A T T 0 R N E' 'f S A T L A VV A P—T%fr'I :P INCA %;D;.NC PkrjFE!,51C1\AL COP. PO ., 11 UN! L11 nti;Ur• bQLc%-^KL3. tt),;FZ-.FFNTN .-.C�A, L A L IF ORN I It U:k-L:-j ALL MAIL Tt,o PC)%-. -,FFI(, F KJ; 1950"'0. 714-41-510.5 FAC-,!roIJLF Darct Diu; (7!4) 662-4628 E -ma,! p.-nun=Lkruzan corn January 5, 2001 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Diamond Bar 21660 Exist Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: . Platinum Restaurant and :'nightclub Gentlemen. am �viitijig with respect TO the resolution you will be considering at your meeting on Tuesday evening. z'You will recall at the last Planning Commission meeting• relating to this matter, we provided an alternative resolution for your adoption. Since you did not have time to full), consider our ahernawve resolution, the matter was continued to Tuesday evening. - There are nui I nerous significant reasons why we believe our proposed resolution should be adopted ratlierthan the one prepared by staff. These reasons are briefly summarized below: N Your Original. CbTeCTIOn was for staff to work- with our client to prepare a mutually - acceptable resolution that accomplished your desires with respect to amended parking, noise and litter MIT1843011 Measure. Unfortunately, we were not provided a meaningful opportunay to comment on the resolution proposed by staff. Rather, the resolution was faxed to us at approximately 3:00 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon with a coversheet.indicating our comments were required by the end of business than day. This did not allow sufficient time for our office to provide meaningful comments. Hence, the staff resolution does not meet your specific direction in that it does not reflect the combined efforts of staff and our client. 3,,4i02vnst--Juvi 149316 0., 401:05.01 .dr-u�-i . Uc:oGFr rrCC-Cb niY i -# JTAN uTUCKERS + U11—Y1 n . . n .. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Linuary 5, ?001 Page 2 You will recall •one of the concerns the night of the pabean ng heang which prevented the adoption of a rC5oltitioi] at that time was the vagueness of the noise and litter -related mitigation measures. The reason the matter was initially continued was to enable staff to work with our client to devise specific mitigation measures to address your concerns. The resolution proposed by staff continues to be vague in various areas. In contrast, the mitigation measures contained in our proposed resolution are very specific and (we are advised by the City Attorney) are acceptable io staff. As you asc aware, we are engaged in ongoing liti;!ation with the landlord of our client's premises. We believe the language of the staff resolution can be interpreted as suggesting public nuisance -type conditions actually existed at our client's premises. We cannot consent to findings that might be interpreted in this fashion as they potentially could have a detrimental impact in connection with the ongoing litigaiion with our client's landlord. Our proposed resolution eliminates' the troubling language, yet provides the City with the mitigation measures it desires. Indeed, because it is more specific, our proposed resolution has "more teeth" in it. it is our client's sincere desire to �kork with you, and the City staff. As explained in the past meetings, we do not believe the additional mitigation measures are warranted, nor do we believe you have the legal authoriry to impose them. Nevertheless, we have offered to waive our lcsal rights to object to the conditions in order to be good corporate citizens and to demonstrate our desire to work cooperatively with the City. We are so concerned by the possible interpretations of the. language contained in staffs proposed resolution that we will have no alternative other than to appeal the City Council, and a court if necessary, should it be adopted. We believe the City's financial and staff resources would be unnecessarily utilized under such circumstances considering the Planning Commission's specific desires and intent will be just as equally implemented through the use of the resolution we have proposed. We respectfully request your consideration of the resolution we have proposed and ask that you adopt it in order that this matter may be put to rest. We point out that the City's goals will be fully met through the adoption of our proposed resolution. fn contrast, if our concerns relating to the language of the staff resolution prove valid, the City's goals may inadvertently be 3s4,u2u�ec-uuL1: i-+93 U O: rX1i,W+U1 JTL\N �j CKERS Honorable Chain-nan and Members of the Planning Commission January 5, 2001 Page 3 thwaned in that our client may be found in breech of its lease in the ongoing litigation with its landlord and hence forced out of business. Very truly yours, RUTA-N &'MCK-ER, LLP A. Patkck Mkfioz APM:caho cc Jill Pierce CIM's Pierce 1 $4 'U" 205 ', 6-0001 1;93 10 GI b01:05.01 VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSIOI's AGENDA I'T'EM * SUBJECT: 1112^C'�eki1G1. A}��b?.i�l� I YY V TO: PIarIIIiIIg Commission Secretary DATE: FROM: '�Ca ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: t� . SUBJECT: COy-L ' 61FRI cziar-- I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes, TDM ARCHITECTS INC. DIRAN DEPANIAN AIA P CIPAL TEGTMEYER, DEPANIAN & MILLER ARCHITECTS INC. 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles, Calif. 90041 (323) 254-9200 FAX (323) 254-9511 TDM ARCHITECTS HOWARD HONG TEGTMEYER, DEPANIAN & MILLER ARCHITECTS 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles, Calif. 90041 (213) 254-9200 FAX (213) 254 9511 WIM0111UL'We .11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING Vd P.�e-)X-ei'bjV1 afil STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR .. On January 9, 2001, at 7:00 P.M., the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular meetip4at th%jS,9A—Coa§,t, Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, '10imondiBar, C - Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. 1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar, Community and Development Services Department. On January 5, 2001, 1 posted copies of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on January 23, 2001, at the following location: City Hall South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21660 E. Copley Drive 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 January 5, 2001, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community and Developme Services Dept. gA\affidavitposdng.doc 11