HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 CUP 97-028 DR97-036 09-08-98DATE:
NO. 1
9-8-98
Inter-Com
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
97-028 & DESIGN REVIEW 97-036
SUMMARY: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-028 and Design Review 97-036 are requests to
demolish a vacant 4,400 square foot bank building and construct a 3,900 square foot fast food
restaurant with drive-thru service within the Ralphs Center at 14601 Red Hill Avenue. The property is
located within the Central Commercial (C-2) Zoning District. On July 13, 1998, the Planning
Commission approved CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036. At the July 20, 1998 City Council Meeting, the
Council appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the Conditional Use Permit and Design
Review. At the August 17, 1998 City Council meeting,'the applicant requested a continuance of the
public hearing to allow an opportunity to address public concerns raised at the meeting.
Applicant: Masroor Batla, Batla Food Group
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council take action as deemed appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant paid the application fees associated with the processing of these permits.
BACKGROUND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to demolish a vacant 4,400 square foot bank building and construct a
Burger King fast-food restaurant with an indoor playland and drive-thru facility on the 30,000
square foot site in the southwest corner of the Ralphs Center. A total of 60 seats are proposed for
the main dining area and 39 seats are proposed for use in conjunction with the 1,200 square foot
enclosed play area, for a total of 99 seats. The entrance to the drive-thru facility is proposed from
an exclusive drive-thru lane on the west side of the proposed restaurant. The drive-thru lane is
proposed to be approximately 12 feet wide and will direct vehicles south, then east where the pick-
up window would be located. Vehicles would then exit the lane at the southeast corner of the
structure. The drive-thru aisle is shown to be setback 28 ¼ feet and the main building is setback
52 feet from the southern edge of the center, which abuts the Tustin Greens multiple family
development.
City Council Report
Continued Appeal of CUP 9,
September 8, 1998
Page 2
, & DR 97-036
During the August 17, 1998 City Council meeting, public testimony was heard from the residents of
the Tustin Greens Townhouse Complex. As part of their presentation to the Council, the residents
had prepared photo-boards and a noise study to provide support for their position that a fast food
restaurant would cause significant impacts to their residential development. The applicant
requested a continuance of the public hearing to review the residents' materials and prepare a
response.
A copy of the August 17, 1998 City Council report is included as Attachment A. A copy of the
meeting minutes is included as Attachment B. Planning Commission Resolution 3595 is included
as Attachment C. The presentation materials and correspondence received at the August 17
meeting have been included as Attachment D. The July 13, 1998 Planning Commission staff
report includes a complete description of the project and was previously provided to the Council on
August 17, 1998. Additional copies of the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission report are available
upon request.
DISCUSSION
Applicant Response
The applicants will provide the Council with their response to the public testimony at the
September 8, 1998 meeting. It is anticipated that alternative site plans will be presented
as part of their response. The alternative site plans were not available at the time of report
preparation, nor have they been fully evaluated by staff.
The applicants have clarified the data presented in the noise analysis. The author of the noise
analysis, J.J. Van Houten, has prepared a revision to the noise study which clarifies the sound
levels that would be produced by the operation of the menu board system (Attachment E). Since
the restaurant has not been constructed, Mr. Van Houten took operational measurements from
other fast food restaurants with similar drive-thru operations. Those figures were then applied to
the configuration of the proposed restaurant to generate estimated noise levels. The report states
that the measurements were taken during the quieter night-time hours to determine the noise
levels that would be produced by the menu board system, as opposed to during a period of higher
ambient noise levels which would tend to drown out operational noise of the menu board. Based
on the figures generated at the sample locations, noise generated by the menu board system is
estimated to be 51 dB(A) at the nearest residential property line (a distance from the menu board
of approximately 50 feet). At any one period of time, the City's Noise Ordinance (TCC Section
4614) allows a maximum sound generation of 65 dB(A).
As mitigation monitoring measures, the Planning Commission included Condition No. 6.2 that
requires an additional noise analysis be prepared based upon the final working drawings; and,
Condition No. 6.3 was included to require a noise study to be completed, at the applicant's
expense, after completion of the project.
City Council Report
Continued Appeal of CUP 97-.
September 8, 1998
Page 3
J, DR 97-036
City Response
TRAFFIC
During the August 17 meeting, a concern from residents was noted regarding staff's interpretation
of the severity of traffic impacts (i.e. safety issues were too severe to be mitigated). The City's
Traffic Engineer considered the existing volume of traffic on Red Hill Avenue, the anticipated future
traffic volume on Red Hill Avenue, and the standard trip generation numbers for fast food
restaurants..From these' it was determined that Red Hill Avenue could safely accommodate the
increased traffic that a fast food restaurant would generate. Accident data collected by the City for
the stretch of Red Hill Avenue in front of the center and the Tustin Greens community was also
analyzed. Taking the number of reported accidents along that portion of Red Hill Avenue and
factoring in the current traffic volumes and potential increase for a fast food restaurant, it' was
determined that traffic-related impacts were slight enough to be able to be mitigated. Said
mitigation measures have been noted on the submitted plans, in the Negative Declaration, and as
Conditions of Approval for the project. In particular, Conditions 4.14 and 5.7 were added to
Resolution No. 3595 by the Planning Commission at the meeting to address the public concerns as
identified below.
· (4.14) Exits from the drive-thru lane are limited to left turns into the parking area only. This
limits the amount of additional traffic using the driveway adjacent to the residential property.
· (5.7) This condition requires driveway sightlines to comply with Orange County standards,
including the block wall along the south property line.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Concerns were also noted as to the environmental documentation prepared by staff and
compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to the June 8, 1998
Planning Commission meeting, staff prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA. At the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, it
was noted during the public hearing that the environmental checklist contained an error; a box was
checked in the "Traffic" section noting that there were no significant traffic safety impacts. The
"Explanation of Impacts" attachment did note the potentially significant impacts that existed, and
the mitigation measures proposed to mitigate those potential impacts. As such, when the Planning
Commission certified the Mitigated Negative Declaration, it was noted that the clerical error would
be corrected in the final document. No changes were needed nor made to the body or content of
the document; merely the impact heading was corrected.
CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES
The following options are available to the City Council:
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and direct staff to prepare a resolution of
approval, including any additional conditions as deemed appropriate;
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial; or,
3. Request that staff review the modified or alternate site plan for consideration.
City Council Report
Continued Appeal of CUP ~
September 8, 1998
Page 4
8 & DR 97-036
In the event that the City Council wishes to act on option 1 or 2 above, staff would be prepared to
return with appropriate resolutions for consideration at the September 21, 1998 meeting. However,
should the Council desire to consider an alternative site plan, additional staff time for review and
analysis and issuance of a revised initial study with an opportunity for public comment on the
environmental determination for the revised project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA would
be required (Option 3). The City Council has the discretion to revise or modify the original decision
of the Planning Commission, or to remand the alternative site plan .back to the Planning
Commission for further proceedings before the matter is rescheduled for Council consideration.
Given the community issues, staff believes that it would be appropriate to refer the matter back to
the Planning Commission if the Council desires to pursue Option 3.
As-s~nt ,~nnn¢ ~'
BE:Cup97028ccreportcontinue.doc
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
Attachment:
A - City Council Report from August 17, 1998
B - August 17, 1998 City Council Minutes
C- Planning Commission Resolution No. 3595
D - Presentation Materials and Correspondence from Residents - August 17, 1998
E - Revised Noise Study
ATTACHMENTA
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AUGUST 17, 1998
-'"' DATE: AUGUST 17, 1998
TO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
· WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 & DESIGN REVIEW 97-036
S031MARY: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 97-028 and Design Re~,iew 97-036 are requests to
demolish a vacant 4,400 square foot bani,' building and construct a 3,900 square foot fast food
restaurant widt drive-thru service within the Ralphs Center .az' 14601 Red HiII Avenue. The properO, is
located within the Central Commercial (C-2) Zoning District. On July ]3, 2998, the Plannbtg
Commission approved CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036. At the Jul), 20, 2998 Cio, Council Meeting, the
Council appealed ate Planning 'Cormnission's decision on the ConditionaI Use Permit and Design
Re¥ie},: Applicant: Masroor Batla, Batla Food Group
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council take action as deemed appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 13, 1998 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this application. The
Commission certified the Negative Declaration by adopting Resolution No. 3594 and conditionally
approved, the project by adopting Resolution No. 3595. A copy (~f the July'13, 1998 Planning
Commission Report which contains a complete discussion of the project is included in A~achment
.'B. A copy of the meeting minutes is included in Attachment C.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant paid the application fees associated with the processing of these permits.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to demolish a vacant 4,400 square foot bank building and construct a
Burger King fast-food restaurant with an indoor playland and drive-thru facility on the 30,000
square foot site in the southwest comer of the Ralphs Center. A total of 60 seats are proposed for
the main dining area and 39 seats are proposed for use in conjunction with the 1,200 square foot
enclosed play area, for a total of 99 seats. The building is proposed to be setback 51 feet from
Red Hill Avenue, and occupy approximately the same footprint as the existing vacant bank
building. The drive-thru aisle is shown to be setback 28 ¼ feet and the main building is setback 52
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 97-028
August 17, 1998
Page 2
~, 97-036
feet from the southern edge of the center, which abuts the Tustin Greens multiple family
development, .. -
Access to restaurant parking is from existing driveway locations on Red Hill Avenue, which serve
the center. Parking for the project is proposed primarily to the nod'~h of the proposed restaurant,
with supplemental parking spaces located to the west. Parking for fast foo8 restaurants is required
at a rate of 1 space for every 3 seats; therefore, the proposed restaurant will require a minimum of
33 spaces. The entrance to the drive-thru facility is proposed from an exclusive drive-thru lane on
the west side of the proposed restaurant. The drive-thru lane is proposed to be approximately 12
feet wide and will direct vehicles south, then east where the pick-up window would be located.
Vehicles would then exit the lane at the southeast comer of the structure.
Tustin City Code Section 9233a(1)(j) permits restaurants by right in the C-2 zoning district. TCC
section 9233c(g) allows drive-thru operations for permitted uses in the C-2 zoning district, subject
to alsproval of a Conditional Use Permit.
SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The Ralphs Shopping center is located at the southwest comer of Red Hill and Walnut Avenues.
The restaurant site is located adjacent to Red Hill Avenue in the southeast comer of the center
(see Location Map). Ralphs and the other in-line tenants are located to the west of the proposed
restaurant, and a Chevron service station is located to the north. A multiple family residential
development is located to the south and a' single family residential development is located to the
east across Red Hill Avenue. Additional multiple family residences are located to the west behind ..:.'i.':.'::.
·
the Ralphs and to the north across Walnut Avenue. ..
RESIDENT CONCERNS
Prior to the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with residents of the
Tustin Greens Townhouse Complex. in response to the issues raised dudng a meeting on June 3,
1998, the applicant revised the plans in an effort to address residents' concems. Revisions from
the original submittal that were presented to the Planning Commission on July 13th include:
.
The drive aisle north of.the building was reduced in size~and the bUilding was shifted five
feet to the north to allow for a planter island to be added along the south property line of the
center. Italian Cypress or other similar trees and hedgerows are to be planted in the
planter island to buffer sound and provide more vertical screening.
,
Three to four foot high masonry buffer walls have been added to the landscape planter on
th® south side of the drive-thru lane, directly opposite from the. pay and pick-up windows.
Dense hedgerows are also to be planted within the planter island.
The speakers associated wit~ the menu board operation have been relocated and oriented
towards the existing retail building..
.
The applicant prepared a noise study, based on the above revisions to their plans. The
report concluded that the project is not anticipated to exceed the standards contained within
the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance (Tustin City Code Section 4614). The Noise Ordinance
sets the standard for commercial noise including speech, music, or other "impact" noise on
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 97-028
August 17, 1998
Page 3
97-036
a residential property at 45 dB(A) over a 30 minute cumulative period and 65 dB(A) at any
one period of time, during nighttime hours. The sound levels (at any one time) are
anticipated to be 65 dB(A) at the masonry wall on thie .property line, and down to 45 dB(A)
at the townhome closest to the project.
At the Planning Commission public hearing held On July 13, 1998, verbal testimony was received
from thirteen individuals who spoke in opposition to the project, and one individual who spoke in
favor of the projec[. Generally, the concerns were as follows:
Noise - The residents expressed concerns over the noise levels generated by fast food drive-
thru.operations in that there is not enough separation between the Tustin Greens residences .
and the project site to prevent the noise from becoming a nuisance.
Odor- The residents expressed concerns that the charbroiling of hamburgers, the deepfrying
of foods, and the general accumulation of refuse would create objectionable odors directly
adjacent to their complex.
Trespassing - The Tustin Greens Complex is not a gated community,, and it has a church and
two schools in its vicinity. The residents have expressed concerns that the amount of non-
resident foot traffic, litter and vandalism within the complex would increase drastically.
Traffic Safety - The southernmost driveway for the center is separated from the northernmost
driveway of the residential complex by a masonry block wall. Left-in and left-out tums from the
complex and the shopping center are served by the same island cut on Red Hill Avenue. The
residents are concerned that the increased traffic would be hazardous to the residents that
make use of that ingress/egress.point.
· Property Values - The residents expressed concems that a fast food restaurant in such a
close proximity to their homes would adversely affect their property values..
The person who spoke in favor of the project felt that the sound walls would do an adequate job of
bUffering the sound, and noted that new construction could help revitalize and clean up the rest of
the center.
Conditions 4.'14, 4.15, 6.2, and 8.3 were added by the Planning Commission at the meeting to
address the public concerns as identified below.
(4.14) Exits from the drive-thru lane are limited to left tums into the parking area only. This
limits the amount of additional traffic using the driveway adjacent to the residential property.
· (4.15) A menu preview board with a read-back feature is to be used with the menu speaker
system. This would limit excessive vocal interaction between customers and employees.
· (5.7) This condition requires driveway sightlines to comply with Orange County standards,
including the block wall along the south property line.
· (6.2) A final noise analysis shall be prepared based on working drawings to determine
compliance with the City's noise ordinance.
City Council Report
Appeal of CUP 97-028
August 17, 1998
Page 4
97-036
· (8.3) Deliveries to the restaurant are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m., to
minimize truck operational noise.
CITY COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES
The following options are available to the City Council:
· Uphold the Planning Commission's decision, and direct staff to prepare a resolution of
approval;
· Direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the request.
Based upon the Council's direction, it would be appropriate to continue the item to the September
8, 1998 meeting so that staff can prepare the appropriate resolutions for consideration.
Bradley J. E--~l'Cson
Assistant Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director, Community Development
BE:Cup97028ccreport. doc
Attachment:
A - Correspondence received after the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting
B - Planning Commission Report from July 13, 1998 With Attachments
C - Planning Commission Minutes from July 13, 1998
D - Planning Commission Resolution No. 3595
E- Site Plan (in Council packet)
Z
C
I I
I I
l
I
'i
WALNUT AVENUE
·
J
~0:0 (MODIFIED
.~ltO~ CCNTCr~ sr112 ~
· I:I~"'T'AURANT FOR:
.~ K~N(~ EEDHILL AVE. & WN. NUT AVE.
--' TUSTIN, CA.
SYCAMORE
I
i
I
.. ~
-~ I
AVENUE",.
,
IIIii111111
II
iii1 ii i I
I I I I I I I I I I I IIi ~."I
I i I I I I I ~ I I I I ''
i I I I I I I i I I I I I I.',4
I ~ i ! .~.. i , , , i..i_1 . i. ~ .. I-
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I i I'-I
· - , ~ , , , , , , , , , r,~
i i i ' { ii i i i i i .t. il
I
WALNUT A~UE
, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 1~.1
IIIII IIIII17
illI. IIll.l_l..l_I..I._
II:
·
BK-2500 (MODIFIED)
sz.ucco
,
I
-C .
-'1
/i
~Z
BK-2506 (MODIFIED) J ! (,~~) ! tlllllt BURGER KING
~~"~ I I -~--~--- I ~ ~St~N ~.
~TUCCt")
fqt~'llqr I;~ I! ?il (:1 AA fit' W I I
~..~~_.~ ~ BURGER KING
C: BK-2500 (:MODIFIED~ I (,~'.i~) I---,BURGER KING
I ~-:. I ?.~.~, .,,..u.,,v,,.. w,,.,,~,,~..
SllJCCOc~m. ~?/~aEXTERK3RS JJ ~J ~ TUSTIN, CA.
UAURAIIT FOR:
BURGER KING
REDHILL AVE. & WALNUT AVE.
TU$'flN. CA.
' ~ N 50'00'51'
/
REDHILL AVE. & WALNUT AVE..
TUSTIN. CA.
~lr O
I
I
I
_ I f
SYCAMURE
AVFHLIL
.,
~VAL NI I'l AVr. NL.Ir
RESTAURANT FOR:
TUSTIN, CA.
ATTACHMENT B
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 17, 1998
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 8-17-98
Council/speaker discussion followed regarding the playing age category
older. --
years and
Mayor Saltarelli and Mayor Pro Tem Worley wished the team lu(
PACIFIC BELL COMMUNITY RECOGNITION (Not
_,
PRESENTATION
national finals.
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK
OFFICERS MARK BLACK AND
(MADD) RECOGNITION OF POLICE
~RIGHT
Barbara Taylor and Bill Nes: Orange County Chapter, explained that each year
MADD recognized top offi~ each police department who arrested 25-50, 50-75, or 75-
100 drunk drivers one year period. Awards were presented to Officer Mark Black
who arrested 27 rivers, and Officer Bob Wright who arrested 39 drunk drivers.
Officer Bob
thanked MADD for the recognition.
Mayor
the
.~lli thanked MADD for honoring the police officers; noted the Council's pride in
;' work; the necessity to fight drunk driving; and he congratulated Officers Black
ht for receiving the awards.
INPUT- None
APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-036
(APPLICANT: MASROOR BATLA, BATLA FOOD GROUP)
Dan Fox, Senior Planner, reported that the applicant was proposing to demolish a vacant
bank building and construct a 4,000 square foot Burger King restaurant in the Ralphs
shopping center at Walnut and Red Hill Avenues; the facility would contain a drive-thru
service, indoor play land, and approximately 99 seats; on July :[3, 1998, the Planning
Commission approved the project; Council appealed the item at their .luly 20, :[998
meeting; the applicant had been working with the adjacent residents to address their
concerns; and residents in the area were primarily concerned about noise, odor,
i:mspassing, traffic safety, and decline in property values.
Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director, stated staff had received six letters
from residents in opposition to the project subsequent to agenda distribution.
Council/staff discussion followed regarding the drive-thru circulation; speaker board
placement; and limitations on hours of operation and deliveries.
Mayor Saltarelli opened the Public Hearing at 7:28 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 8-17-98
The following members of the audience spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit 97-
028 and Design Review 97-036 and presented Council with project graphics/hand outs:
Ken Henderson, Tustin Green Homeowners Association
Kristi Henderson, 14645 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin
Sue Ann Honey, 14625 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin
Vicki Manley, 14651 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin
.lanis Eas'on, 14621 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin
Aly Rousey, 14625 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin
Don Crowl, 14632 Westfall Road, Tustin (read letter signed by Tustin Meadows
homeowners)
]]ames Campbell, 1425 Sycamore Avenue, Tustin
Debora Compean, 1034 W. Maple Avenue, Orange
The following member of the audience spoke regarding the need to revitalize the Ralphs
Center and in favor of Conditional Use Permit 97-028 and Design Review 97-036:
Matt Nisson, 14462 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin
Mayor Saltarelli recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:29 p.m.
The following member of the audience requested to continue this item in order to review
materials submitted by the speakers:
Coralee' Newman, Government Solutions (applicant)
· It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Doyle, to continue this item to the September 8,
1998 Council meeting.
Motion carried 5-0.
t-99 TAX
Mayor Saltarelli reported this item was the second of
the proposed trash fees on the 1998/99 tax roll
were $12.54 per month, a 3% increase
earings required to place
rates for residential units
Mayor Saltarelli opened the Pub lg at 8:35 p.m. There were no speakers on the
subject and the Public ~closed.
Council/staff
last year's ra
)llowed regarding commercial rates had been increased 3% from
It was Thomas, seconded by Worley, to adopt the following Resolution No.' 98-
72 placing assessments for solid waste collection on the tax roll for fiscal year 1998-99:
ATTACHMENTC
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 3595
RESOLUTION NO. 3595
14
20
24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-
..~
028 AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-0361 AUTHORIZING THE
CONVERSION OF A VACANT BANK BUILDING INTO A FAST
FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE WITHIN AN
EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER AT 14601 RED HILL
AVENUE.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A.
That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 97-028 and
Design Review 97-036 was filed by Masroor Batla of the Batla Food
Group on behalf of the property owners to request authorization for
the conversion of a vacant 4,400 square foot bank building into a
4,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru service within
an existing commercial center located at 14601 Red Hill Avenue,
more specifically described as Assessor's Parcel No. 432-171-10.
B.
That the proposed use is allowed within the C-2 Central
Commercial District, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(TCC Section 9233(C)(g)).
C.
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on June 8, 1998 and continued to July 13, 1998 by the
Planning Commission.
Do
That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the uses
applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare
of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and
improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the
general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following
findings:
!)
On-site traffic concerns would be mitigated throUgh the
separation of the drive-thru aisle from the on-site parking
and the use of informational signs.
2)
Since the location of this site within the center is set back
from the primary public access drives, the project will not
impact the circulation system.
3)
As conditioned, light/glare and noise the drive-thru facility
would be screened through the use of an existing masonry
wall and planter row of hedges.
10
20
2!
22
24
26
Resolution No. 3595
Page 2
4)
The hours of operation would be limited to 6:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m., Sunday tO'-'Fhursday and 6:00 a.m. to 12
midnight, Friday and Saturday. The drive-thru lane itself
would be further limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. Sunday to Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Friday and Saturday.
5)
A noise study shall be prepared to determine that the
operation of the restaurant, including the drive-thru and
intercom ordering speaker system would comply with the
City Noise Ordinance.
Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal' Code, the
Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and
general appearance of Design Review 97-036, as conditioned, will
not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the
present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a
whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at
least the following items:
o
.
.
Height, bulk and area of buildings.
Setbacks and site planning.
Exterior materials and colors.
.
o
o
Type and pitch of roofs.
Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings.
Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and
television antennae.
.
.
Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation.
Location, height and standards of exterior illumination.
.
Location and appearance of equipment located outside of
an enclosed structure.
'10.
11.
Location and method of refuse storage°
Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing
structures in the neighborhood.
12.
Appearance and deSign .relationship of proposed structures
.to existing structures and possible future structures in the
neighborhood and Public thoroughfares.
13. Proposed signage.
6-
l0
14
20
2!
2,?
Resolution No. 3595
Page 3
14.
Development Guidelines '~nd criteria as ~dopted by the City
Council.
F~
A Negative DeclaratiOn has been prepared and certified for this
project in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
O.
Ho
That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air
Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has
been determined to be consistent witl~ the Air Quality Sub-element.
That the project has been reviewed for compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and it has been determined
that dedications of right-of-way at the drive apron and all radius type
driveways are necessary for compliance with the requirements of
ADA.
!1.
The Planning Commission hereby approves conditional Use Permit 97-028 '
and Design Review 97-036 to authorize the conversion of a vacant bank
building into a 4,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru service
within an existing commercial center located at 14601 Red Hill Avenue,
subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a
regular meeting on the 13th day of July, 1998.
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3595
was duly passed ~nd adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 13th day of July, 1998.
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 97-036.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO, 3595
GENERAL
(1) 1.1
The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the
project date stamped July 13, 1998 on file with the Community Development
Department, as herein modified, or unless otherwiSe indicated, as .modified by the
Cbmmunity Development Director in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director
may also approve subsequent minor'modifications to plans during plan check if
such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code or other
,applicable regulations.
(1)
(1)
1.2
(1) 1.4
Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit 'shall be
complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for tl~e project, subject
to review and approval by the Community Development Department.
The subject project approval shall become null and void unless 'permits for the
proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within
eighteen (18) months' of the date of.this Exhibit. Time extensions may be'
considered if a written request is received by the Community Development
Departmentwithin thirty (30) days prior to expiration.
Approval of CUP '97-028 and DR 97-036 is contingent upon the applicant and
property owners signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form
as established by the Community Development Department.
(1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and
liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project.
. .
PLAN SUBMI'i-rAL
(1) 2.1
At building plan check, submit four (4) sets of plans, two sets of soils reports,
structural and energy calculations, specifications and acoustical report. Electrical,
mechanical and plumbing plans shall be included. Grading plans, signage plans
shall be submitted separately.
(1)
2.2
All grading, drainage, vegetation and circulation shall comply with the City of Tustin
Grading Manual. All street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting and storm
drains shall comply with on-site improvement standards. Any deviations shall be
brought to the. attention of the Building Official and request for approval shall be
submitted in writing prior to any approval.
(1)
2.3
(3) 2.4
The building shall comply in all respects with the Building Code, other related
codes, City Ordinances, and state and federal laws and regulations.
Mechanical ventilation shall be provided based on the number of occupants.
SOURCE CODES
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
STANDARD CONDITION
CEQA MITIGATION
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S
DESIGN REVIEW
EXCEPTIONS
(5)
(6)
(7)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
EQUIREMENTS
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
PC/CC POLICY
ExhibitA
Resolution No. 3595
Page 2
(4) 2.5
(4) 2.6
(3) 2.7
(2) 2.8
(4) 2.9
(4) 2.10
(5) 2.11
Additional right-of-way is required at the second driveway from the westem
property line. This shall be adequate for the. construction of a new sidewalk
adjacent to the drive apron per City Standards to meet accessibility requirements.
A legal description and sketch of the dedication area, as prepared by a California
Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall be provided, along with
a copy of the vesting on the property. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way,
an Encroachment Permit must be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the
Public Works Department.
,
Construction or replacement of all missing or damaged public improvements
adjacent to this development will be required. A separate 24"x 36" street
improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, will be
required. Said plan shall show all existing public improvements along with all new
construction to include but not be limited to the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Curb and gutter
Sidewalk/curb ramps
Drive aprons (meeting current Federal ADA requirements)
Underground utility connections
Signing and stdping
In addition, a 24" x 36" reproducible construction area tra~c control plan, as
prepared, by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced
in this type of plan preparation will be required.
ProVide complete details for accessible paths of travel throughout._ the site,
including pedestrian circulation from public right-of-way to the buildings and
throughout the new structures. The tenant space, parking spaces, entrances to
the building, path of travel from the parking area to the building, and sanitary
facilities shall be accessible to persons with disabilities.
The applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public
Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically
identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control
predictable pollutant run-Off. This WQMP shall identify: the structural and
non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMPs whenever
they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance
responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association,
lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs.
The site will be designed so that all parking area surface run-off is directed to and
picked up by the storm drain system.
The use of water conserving plumbing fixtures throughout the buildings should be
considered by the applicant.
Prior to submittal to Building plan check, the plans shall be designed to provide that
all drive approaches meet current federal ADA requirements.
ExhibilA
ReSolution No. 3595
Page 3 ,
(5) 2.12
Complete the hazardous material questionnair'~ and the air quality questionnaire
and submit to Building Division and the proper agencies, if the answer to any of
the questions is "yes", clearances from the Hazardous Material Disclosure Office
and from the Air Quality Management District sh'ail be submitted to the Building
Division prior to approval.
(5)
2.13 Trash enclosures shall comply with Great'Western Reclamation and City of Tustin
standards.
(4)
2.14 Trash receptacles shall be placed inside every exit from the dining area and the
p, lay area..
(3)
2.15 All building locking devices added to the premises shall meet those requirements
as set forth in the Building Security Code.
SIGNS
(4)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, complete sign plans shall' be
submitted which address all proposed wall, directional, and address signs. The
sign plans shall include dimensions, materials, colors, and method of illumination.
The design, size, location, installation and maintenance of said signs shall be in
compliance with the Tustin Sign Code.
SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS
(4) 4.1
(2)(5) 4.2
Provide exact details for exterior doors and window types on construction plans.
All cooking and exhaust equipment shall utilize Best Available Control Techniques
in accordance with Air Quality Management District standards to minimize smoke,
odor and particulate emissions.
(4)
4.3
All mechanical' and electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and
decoratively screened. The screen shall be considered as an element of the
overall design of the project and shall either blend with the architectural design of
the building or be integrated into the landscape design
(1)
4.4
Ail final colors and materials to be used shall be subject to review and approval by
the Community Development Department. All extedor treatments shall be
coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and clearly noted on
submitted construction plans and elevations.
(4) 4.5
Provide plans and details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study
showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of all proposed
fixtures.' The fixtures proposed shall be modified to be decorative in design and
consistent with the architecture of the building. Wall mounted fixtures shall be
directed at a 90 degree angle directly upward or downward. Parking area lights
shall be on a 19 foot tall pole and project light directly downward, similar to the
single fixture over the handicapped parking stalls in front of the Ralphs. All lighting
shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of light coverage, in
accordance with the City's Security Code.
(4) 4.6 All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3595
Page 4
(1) 4.7
(1) 4.8
(4) 4.9
(4) 4.10
(4) 4.11
Note On final plans that a six-foot-high chain link fence shall be installed around the
site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along
the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles.
Exterior elevations of the building shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be
located on the roof of the building and equipment heights. The building parapet
shall be an integral part of the building design, and shall screen all roof mounted
equipment. All roof-mounted equipment and vents shall be a minimum of six
inches below the top of the parapet.
A, II roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building.
No extedor downspouts shall be permitted; all roof drainage shall utilize interior
piping, but may have exterior outlets at base of building.
Roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflow drainage
will not stain the walls.
(4)
(4) '
4.12
4.13
Indicate the location of all exterior mechanical equipment. Gas and electdc meters
shall either be enclosed within the building or boxed behind a screen wall designed
to be consistent with the main building.
A grading plan will be required based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench
mark datum. '
(4)
4.14
The drive-thru lane exit shall be limited to left turn only. The planter island and
landscaping south of. the drive-thru lane shall be extended eastward
approximately 25 feet, maintaining the 12 foot drive aisle width, terminating in a
radius tip to direct drive-thru customers north away from the southernmost drive
entrance. Said extension shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
(4) 4.15
A preview board shall be installed prior to the menu board/speaker. The menu
board shall have a read back feature. Details of the menu board system shall be
subject to final approval of the Community Development Director during plan
check.
LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS
(1) 5.1
The applicant shall submit for plan check complete detailed landscaping and
irrigation plans for all landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tustin
Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements and consistent with the
landscaping concept plan. Said .plans shall be consistent with the existing
landscaping within the center.
The applicant shall provide a summary table applying indexing identification to plant
materials in their actual location. The plant table shall list botanical and common
names, siZes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials proposed.
Show planting and berming details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation
plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices (screened from
view from right-of-way and on-site by shrubs), pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and
coverage. Details for all equipment shall be provided. The plans shall show all
property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas,
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 3595
Paged
right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, existing landscaping and walls
and proposed new wall locations. The Department of Community Development
may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing or
quantity. Note on plans that adequacy of coverage of landscaping and irrigation
materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of
Community Development.
(7)
5.2
The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following
requirements:
Ao
Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum
of 8 feet on centerwhen intended as screen planting.
B. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center.
Co
When 1 gallon plant sizes are used, the spacing may vary according to
materials used.
D.
Ail plant materials shall be installed in a healthy, vigorous c°ndition typical
to the species and landscaping must be maintained in a neat and healthy
condition. This will include but not be limited to trimming, mowing,
weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement of
diseased or dead plants.
(6)
Applicant shall restripe the parking lot(s) for the center in substantial conformance
with the approved plans dated July 13, 1998. The entire parking surface for the
center shall be slurry sealed and restriped to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Department. A minimum of three (3) diamond-shaped planter
islands shall be installed in the center of the double-row of parking immediately
north of the building. The planters shall be fully irrigated and shall be planted with
Italian Cypress or other similar trees.
(4)
(4)
5°5
The planter island adjacent to the masonry wall shall be planted with Italian
Cypress planted five feet on center, or other similar trees as approved by the
Community Development Department.
Six (6) inch continuous concrete curbing shall be used through the parking lot,
landscaped areas and adjacent to sidewalks, except where required to satisfy
handicap access requirements.
(4)
5.6
Ail vehicle headlight glare shall be adequately screened from view. Plans and
sections shall be provided to demonstrate adequate screening, subject to review
and approval of the Community Development Department during building plan
check.
(4)
5.7
Sight distances at each access driveway shall be reviewed for compliance with
Orange County EMA Standard Plan 1117, when landscaping and improvement
plans are prepared, including the existing perimeter block wall.
ExhibitA
Resolution No. 3595
Page 6
NOISE
(5) 6.'1
All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials
and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance
and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on'Saturday, unless
otherwise determined by the Building Official.
(5)
6.2
All uses and operations on the site shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.
Speakers used in conjunction with the menu board shall be oriented so as to
p,roject sound away from the adjacent residential development. A final noise
analysis shall be prepared based on the final working drawings to determine
compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Said noise analysis shall be reviewed
· and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of
building permits. The height of the two sound walls shall be reviewed and
evaluated as part of the noise analysis, and raised to the maximum height feasible
to achieve noise mitigation.
(2)
6.3
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a
$2,500 deposit with the City for the completion of a noise study evaluating the
drive-thru operations and compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Within
thirty (30) days of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community
Development Director shall select a qualified noise consultant to prepare a noise
analysis to demonstrate that the noise levels do not exceed the maximum noise
levels allowed by the City's Noise Ordinance. The applicant shall be responsible
for all costs associated with the preparation of the study, and implementation of
any mitigation measures to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.
(5)
6.4
(2) 6.5
Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of
the Building Official.
All exterior mechanical equipment, including 'air conditioners, ice makers, exhaust
fans, refrigeration, condensers, etc. shall have a Sound Rating of 50 dBA at 50 feet
or less.
FIRE AUTHORITY
(5) 7.1
(5) 7.2
Prior to the approval of a site development/use permit, or the issuance of any
building permits, the applicant shall submit plans for review and approval of the
Fire Chief. The applicant shall include information on the plans required by the
Fire Chief. Contact the Orange County Fire Authority Plans Review Section at
(714) 744-0403 for the Fire Safety Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans.
Prior to installation, plans for an approved fire-suppression system for the
protection of commercial-type cooking equipment shall be submitted to the Fire
chief for review and approval.
USE RESTRICTIONS
Hours of operation of the restaurant and drive thru lane shall be limited to 6:00
a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to Midnight on Fdday
and Saturday..
ExhibitA
Resolution No. 3595
Page 7
(1) 8.2
FEES
The owners shall be responsible for the daily maintenance and up-keep of the
facility, including but not limited to trash removal, painting, graffiti removal and
maintenance of improvements to ensure that the facilities are maintained in a neat
and attractive manner.. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of a complaint
being transmitted by the City to the property owner. Failure to maintain said
structures and adjacent facilities will be grounds for City enforcement of its
Property Maintenance Ordinance, including nuisance abatement procedures.
Deliveries to the restaurant shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.
(1)
(5)
9.1
Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable
fees, including but not limited to the following. Payment shall be required based
upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change.
Ao
Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development
Department based on the most current schedule.
Bo
Sewer connection fees to the Orange County Sanitation District. The
current fee is $472 per 1,000 square feet (minimum $2,360).. This fee will
apply to any additional building area over the square footage of the existing
bank building.
C,
Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees t° the
Community Development Department based upon the most current
schedule.
D,
Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area "B"
fees in the amount of $3.31 per square foot of additional building area over
the square footage of the existing bank building.
Eo
Major thoroughfare and bridge fees in the amount of $2.96 per square foot
of additional building area over the square footage of the existing bank
building.
(1)
(5)
9,2
Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall
deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK
~ayable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00 (thirty-eight dollars) to
enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project.
If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the
Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of
limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination
under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be
significantly lengthened.
ATTACHMENT D
PRESENTATION MATERIALS
TUSTIN GREENS RESIDENTS
AUGUST 17, 1998
BILLIE WALLER
14637 Red Hill Avenue
Tustin, California 92780
August 13, 1998
_ RECEIVED
AUdi ,~ I~j8
__A, MINISTRATION
Mayor Salterelli and
Members of Tustin City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
In re:" Burger Kibe' on R-ed Hill Avenue. ~'
Hearing: 8/17/98
Dear Mayor Salterelli and Members of Tustin City Council:
I have done a rough count of fast-food restaurants in Tustin. There are in excess of 22 fast-
food restaurants. Does Tustin really need .yet another one of these restaurants? Fast-food
restaurants and liquor stores multiply in economically deprived communities. Tustin has
always been a caliber above that type of community. It used to have prestige. It is
incumbent upon the City Council to keep up the standards of the community, thus keeping
up all of our property values as well as the tax dollars that come into the community.
Another fast-food restaurant will deter from that. You don't see this many fast-food
restaurants in Newport Beach, even though it is larger geographically and has many more
citizens.
Please help keep Tustin the family-oriented bedroom community it Was designed to be.
Yours truly,
Billie Waller
JEFF ZOLDO$
14~71 ~ HiII Avenue
Tustin, California 92780
August 13, 1998
"-';:9
ADMINISTRA iON
Mayor Salterdli and
Members of rustin City Council
.300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
ln re:
Buyer King on Red Hill Avenue
Hearing: 8/17/.08
Dear Mayor Salterdli and Members of Tustin City CounciL'
We have inta'~iewed pwpk who live very close ta chive-through fast-food restaurants and would request that
the City Council members also interview these pwple ta understand the impairment ta the use and enjoyment
of the use of their homes as a result of the noise, liner and safety issues related to &fi,e-through restaurants.
There .is a Wendy's restaurant on IZ~ Street in Santa Arm fight across the street ]eom Albertson's.
Immediately behind the Wendy's is an apartment complex. The noise, according to the residents, is ]eom the
loud souped-up cars, car radios, the speakers and battles bdng broken in the parking bt.
There is a Taco Bell on Newport Avenue with residents who live immediately behiM t~ dive-through porn'on
· °ffthe restaurant.
Please visit with these residents to understand haw the residents' quality of lijCe has been affected as a result
of the proximity to the chive-through restaurant.
Sincerely,
and M~s . J~ ~y De Guzman
1395 Sycamore Ave.
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 258-7928
August 11, 1998
Mayor Salterelli and
Members of Tustin City Council
300 Centennial Way
TustJn, California 92780
In re: Burger Kin.q on Red Hill Avenue
Hearing: 8/17/98
Dear Mayor Salterelli and Members of Tustin City Council:
RECEIVED
iAUG i 4 1998i
A MINISTRATION
·
This Burger King is designed to attract children. They have meals designed for
children. They have an enclosed play area specifically with children in mind. A fast-
food restaurant within walking distance to three elementary schools (Thorman, Nelson,
Beswick) one middle school (Curry) and one Catholic school (a total of five schools)
with the attractions to children will increase the children's use of that center. With cars
attempting to obtain access to the center from the left turn lane northbound Red Hill,
oftentimes at a fast speed to avoid southbound traffic, with the wall dividing Tustin
Greens from the center and'obstructing views, with the shared driveway with Tustin
·
Green and with the increased traffic because of Burger King is like mixing oil with
water. One day a child will be killed or seriously injured. This tragedy will lie at the feet
of this City Council. Each one of you who vote in favor of this project will be personally
responsible for tempting the hand of this potentially terrible fate.
This center is the wrong location for the construction of a fast-food drive-through
restaurant. It is not safe for our children. Please seriously consider these issues and
vote against Burger King.
Yours truly,
· // ' L/
August. 14, 1998
City of Tustin
City Co uncil Members
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: Conditional use permit 97-028 and Design review 97-036
Dear Council Members,
I have resided in Tustin since the late 60's. I chcese this
cits: kecause of its lack of commercial development, the quietness,
slow Dace and rural-likeness. Since then this has changed. I now
find myself trying to protect m~ senses from being accosted by the
noise and smelly addition of a fast food drive-thru restaurant
within spittinq distance of my home. (~¥ bedroom faces this location).
I have been told that the Council cares more about filling
the city coffers with business tax revenues than its citizens
quality of life. This disheartens me. But, then a~ain, the
nav-sayers maybe right. I have witnessed an accelerated cOmmercial
¢~r~wth and development throughout Tustin. I do not see the revenues
derived from this being used to enhance police protection or
encourage urban renewal in this area that I live.. My old
neighborhood is now being over ran by the street gang, Pasadena
Street Varrio Locos. Apartment developments turninq into barrios.
Ther% was a time when gang activity was unheard of in Tustin.
At the Planning. Commission hearing of July 13th, i came
away with the message, from the com.~ission, that a fast food drive-thru
would upgrade and eD~ance our neighborhood. *** I don't think so ***.
~d if this is the mind set of our public servants, heaven help us all.
I absolutely do not want a fast food drive-thru
next to my home. The dem. olition' of the existinq bank building
and construction of a new building, alone, will cause an --
unbearable level of noise and dust. .Once this drive-thru is in place
I ~then qet to look forward to hearinq "Ma¥ I take your order",
"do you wand fries with that?" over and over and over, idling of
car engines, the aggravating poun~in¢3 of vehicle boom boxes, car
horns and tire screeching, let alone the continues unnerving of
the noise thoughout the day. Those of us who have jobs, value our
sleep as do our children.
The reason this type of business is coined "fast food"
is because the customer is in a hurry. In a hurry t¢ ~et to
work on time (but stop and' get coffee 'and roll on the way), in
a hurry to get home after work (and pick-up dinner). _~e
additional traffic flow in and out of the shopDinq center, coupled
with children walking ~o and from school will be a tragedu3 %-~aiting
to happen.
This addition to the shopping center will not necessarily bring
additional business to the other stores in the center. People
use a drive-thru to obtain their food because they do not want
to get out of their cars. This will take business from the Pizza Hut,
divert shopping trips to Ralphs deli and Redhill Liquor, thus
eliminating additional impulse purchases in those businesses.
Possiblv the only business that will benefit from this drive-thru
will be the gas station. In addition these businesses have had their
hands tied by their landlord. I have been told that they have all
received a letter from the landlord indicating that if they
participate in the protest of the drive-thru and that drive-thru
operation did not come to be. the landlord would be forced to
raise their rents. Tenets have been asked to sign an agreement
to that fact. Is this not extortion? Is not extortion illegal?
And now I would-like to address the trash issue. A fast food
will facilitate a large trash burden for the neighborhood. The
restaurant will need almost daily trash pick-up, adding to the
noise factor. The trash bins alone will attract rats and raccoons
(we have several mated pairs in the neighborhood). Here in
Tustin Greens we have battled and won a tremendous rat problem.
(This is a matter of record at the Orange County Vector Control).
The smelly, muck seeping trash bins will attract these varmint back.
The addition of a recylcing center, several years ago, to the center
has almost eliminated bottles and cans laying around the streets of
the neighborhood. Now the city wants to eliminate the recyclinq
center on a bunch of bogus charges. This will bring back cans
and bottles being strewn about and with an addition of a drive thru
restaurant, its thoughtless patrons will be flinging paper trash out
of th.eir cars. This is a fact, as I have asked friends that live
near drive-thru's, and one of their big~'est complaints is the
proliferation of trash. This trash problem will make the
wa~ward shopping cart issue moot.
And finally, I feel Tustin has more that their share of
fast food drive-thru's. As a matter of fact. there are so many,
already, maybe the cit%7 should change their motto from "The
city of trees" to "The city of fast food".
I can not urge you all enough to reject conditional
use permit 97-028 and Design review 97-036.
Tustin resi~.ent and voter
Janis Eason ,--~ ~
1 46 21 Redh il 1 Ave.< /r ~/~ A~.~
Tustin. Ca. 92780 ~'a-~~_ /
,,
RECEIVED
ADMINISTRATION
August 1998
TO:
FROM:
MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE sHoPPING CENTER
Subject:
Proposed Burger King
Redhill/Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear city Council Members:
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
F\DATA\CCMLTR. 607
games Campbell
Joanna Campbell
425 Sycamore ,4 venue
Tustin, California 90745
(714) 258-8705
August 17, 1998
Tustin City Council
Tustin City Hall
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-028, Design Review No. 97-036
PrOpoSed Drive-Thru, Fast Food Restaurant proposed at 14601 Red Hill Avenue
Mayor and Councilmembers:
I am a homeowner residing in Tustin Greens which as you know is located adjacent to the
proposed project and ! am also a practicing city planner with 10 years of experience. My wife
and [ are opposed to the proposed project as it is incompatible with the adjacent residential use:
I urge you to deny the project as it will create several negative impacts which are increased
noise, air quality emissions, odor emissions and traffic hazards. I especially feel that traffic
increases will cause increased hazards at the shared driveway with Tustin Greens which has not
be properly evaluated. The general increases commercial activity till 1:00 PM will be
unbearable and drive prospective homeowners away from Tustin Greens. I am most concerned
with the improper adoption 'of the mitigated negative declaration without'adequate public
comment.
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3594 which declared the mitigated negative
declaration as adequate without proper public comment required pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, a new potentially significant impact was
identified during the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting - traffic hazards. At.the
direction from staff, the Planning Commission modified th~ Initial Study regarding traffic
changing a response from "no impact" to "potentially .significant unless mitigation
incorporated" and developed a related mitigation measure. This was done without mandatory
public review. The public nor the applicant was allowed to comment on the revised mitigated
negative declaration. Any change to the environmental document requires re-circulation of the
document for public comment. CEQA only allows the lead agency, the City of Tustin, to
waive re-circulation if an alternative or substitute mitigation measure is applied where the
subsfitme mitigation measure is equivalent or more effective in mitigation or avoiding a
potential impact. In the case of this project, the potential impact was identified after the hearing
was closed during Commission deliberations. The public had no ability to comment on the
revised mitigated negative declaration.
The City Council should not permit the flawed mitigated negative declaration to stand. I would
like the project denied, but if the City Council chooses to further consider the project, a traffic
RUG-l?-199@ 17:15 310S355749 -- P.B2
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-028
Design Review No. 97-036
August 17, 1998
Page 2
study focusing on traffic generation and circulation safety should be completed and the
mitigated negative declaration properly revised, at a minimum. The public must be involved in
this process.
Several of the Planning Commissioner's indicated that the project will provide economic
development benefits to the shopping center and community. I disagree as the long term health
of the shopping center rests solely with Ralph's and the property owner. The existing
supermarket is small for a modem Ralph's grocery store and I know for a fact that they would
need additional area to accommodate the current Ralph's store concept. I am fhmiliar with the
needs of Ralph's as I am evaluating two modernization proposals as we speak. The presence of
a Burger King will have no effect upon a decision by Ralph's to modernize if they do not have
the space, architectural control and lease rates. The economic development benefit will be
negligent for the community and is not contingent with the approval of the proposed project as
Ralph's and the property owner control the destiny of the center.
The net effect of the Burger King will be to increase traffic volumes, traffic hazards, noise,
odors at the expense of area residents, especially Tustin Green residents. The Chairman of the
Planning Commission put it best when he said that you don't put the houses next to the a
project like this - the houses might not sell. I hope we can agree that we would not plan it this
way when starting from scratch. The fact that a vacant drive-thru bank building should be
converted so we can have some use of the property should not outweigh the concerns of the
area residents. Re-use of the vacant bank building should be encouraged, but a more sensitive
and less impacting land use choice should be sought.
I suggest an alternative location for the project. Just south of the UNOCAL service station near
the Stater Brother at the comer of Nisson and Red Hill is a vacant restaurant. This site has
been vacant longer than the bank and is located near the freeway and further from residences
that the proposed project..This site should not be dismissed by the city as an alternative
location based upon the applicant's desires or lack of control. I offer this alternative location
not only from a concerned resident's perspective, but from the perspective of practicing
planner attempting to offer objective advice regarding a better choice for the community. I
have stressed the term choice several times to emphasize that land use decisions are difficult in
the best of times when we have to weigh different choices and their effect. I urge the City
Council to find a better choice for this location. I chose Tustin Greens based upon affordability
and its surroundings 6 years ago. I would not have purchased my home if there was a Burger
King there and I see my property value diminishing as I attempt to sell my home today.
Sincerely,
~UG-17-1998 17:15 g10~3557~9 P.03
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re:
PropOsed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
aboat and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
business in our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re~
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned .
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
business in our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
August 3, 1998
c,4.
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re~
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to itfform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
Lq addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider yom' position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
busi.acs~ ia our ba(;kyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re~
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
business in our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re:
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer'without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements~such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for tl'fis type of use." We' do not want this type of
business in our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re~
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
aboUt and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
..
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear - a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type ofuse." We do not want this type of
business in our bac.k'yards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed. :
Sincerely, / / (~_ .
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re:
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really third( that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this Will
improve the ~ea? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. it will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, ".,. a need and a detnand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
busi~ess ia our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Clint & Anita Adams
14622 Westfall Road
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 544-7054
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re.'
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear - a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... aneed and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
business in our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re:
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements~such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
business in our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
Don & Liz Crowl
14632 Westfall Road
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 734-0552
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re~
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear - a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
business in our backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
August 3, 1998
City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re:
Proposed Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue, Tustin
This letter is to inform you that as homeowners in Tustin Meadows, we are concerned
about and strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recent decision approving the
conditional use permit for the above-referenced site.
It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to achieve the highest and best use for a
site, and not accept the first offer without considering the negative impact such a business
would have on the community.
We do not need nor want yet another fast-food restaurant in our residential neighborhood.
It is not conducive to the area and will only serve to attract unwanted elements such as
traffic problems, increased litter in Centennial Park, gang activity, noise, and air
pollution.
In addition, we take exception to our neighborhood being declared, "a depressed area."
Do you really think that by allowing another fast-food restaurant to be built that this will
improve the area? A fast-food restaurant is not the answer to bring a neighborhood back
to life. It will only serve to accelerate that which you claim to fear- a depressed area.
Please reconsider your position on this issue. There is not, as Commissioner Davert
stated, "... a need and a demand for this type of use." We do not want this type of
busir~ess in out' backyards, and we will boycott any such business that you allow to be
constructed.
Sincerely,
TUSTIN GREEN
HOMEOWNERS
Appeal
Burger King with Drive-thru
Conditional Use Permit 97-028 & Design Review 97-036
City Cotmcil Regular Meeting
City of Tustin
August 17,1998
Thomas R. Saltarelli
Mayor
AGENDA
lw
Greeting- Ken Henderson (registered voter)
14645 Redhill Ave
A. Thomas Saltarelli, Mayor
B. Tracy Wills Worley, Mayor Pro Tem
C. Mike Doyle, Councilmember
D. Jim Potts, Councilmember
E. Jeffery M. Thomas, Councilmember
2~
Background A. Tustin Green is a PUD (Private use dwelling) that was
built prior to the Ralph's Shopping Center
B. Tustin Green consists of 96 Units
3. We believe that this'site is attractive to' potentially any type of
commercial business
4. The Tustin Green Homeowners have developed a presentation
for the City Council. It is our intent to show that a Conditional
Use Permit for the drive-thru facility would be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals & general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of the use, also it will be injurious &
detrimental to property & improvements in the neighborhood or
general welfare of the city.
5. We believe these issues can not be mitigated, therefore the
preperation of an Environmental Impact Report should be
required.
6~
Petition circulated
1. Signed by 68 residents
7. Introduction of Presenters
A. Photographs - Kristi Henderson (registered voter)
B. Noise - Sue Ann Honey (registered voter)
C. OdOr- Vicki Manley (registered voter)
D. Traffic- Janis Eason (registered voter)
E. Safety- Aly Rousey (registered voter)
Photographs - Presented by Kristi Henderson
A. Board rtl
1. This photo was taken from across Redhill Ave.
2. Tustin Green is 35' - 3" from block wall
3. Illustrates the close proximity of Residential &
Commercial'property
4. Illustrates the driveways are adjacent
B. Board #2
1. B - This photo was taken from 14641 Redhill
2. B - Illustrates how close the drive-thru will be to a
residential area
C. Board #3
1. A- These photos were taken from across Redhill
Ave. & I have pasted them toghter to give you a
panaramic view
2. B ' This photo was taken from 14621 Redhill
3. C - This photo was taken from 14631 Redhill
4. Both B & C - Illustrates how close the drive-thru
will be to a residential area
5. D - Map of Tustin Green in relation to the
Ralph's Shopping Center,~with the areas
highlighted where the photographs were taken
6. E - This photo was taken from the Golden Shear
in the Ralph's Shopping Center
7. F - This photo was taken from the SW comer of
the existing bank
8. Both E & F - Illustrates how close the second
story bedroom windows will be to the drive-thru
9. F - Illustrates the block wall at different heights
De
Board # 4. 1. A & B - These photos were taken from the SE
comer of the existing bank
2. Both A & B - Illustrates how close the second
story bedroom windows will be to the drive-thru
3. A- Illustrates the block wall at different heights
Board # 5
1. Map of Tustin Green in relation to the
Burger King with drive-thru
2. Illustrates the different heights of the block wall
from the North side
F~
Board # 6
1. A- B - C - Photos of-the existing Burger King on
Main St. in the city of Irvine where the
loudspeaker measurement was obtained
2. A - B - C - Illustrates that the Ralph's Shopping
Center Site & the Main St. site are not comparable
sites for the noise study
3. A- B - C - Illustrates the open area to a flood
control channel at the drive-thru
4. A- B - C - Illustrates no residential units near
a drive-thru
Gt
Board ti 7
1. A- This photo was taken from the City sidewalk
in front of the bank looking South towards the
entrance'& exit of the Ralph's Shopping Center
parking lot
2. B - This photo was taken from the_City sidewalk
at 14621 Redhill looking North towards the
entrance & exit of the Ralph's Shopping Center
parking lot
3. A & B - Illustrates potential automobile &
pedestrian safety hazard
4: C - This photo was taken from the North-bound
left hand mm lane on Redhill Ave.
5. C - Illustrates the difficulty of Northbound traffic
entering Tustin Greens or the Ralph's Shopping
Center parking lot
9. Noise - Presented by Sue Ann Honey
A. The City of Tustin noise ordinance specifies that the
noise level generated by commercial activity such as the
proposed menu board loudspeaker & vehicle movement may
not exceed 50 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than
thirty (30) minutes in any hour when measured at a
residential property line. This is the standard for nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) activities. If the noise consists of
speech the standard is reduced by 5dB. Thus, for the
proposed menu board loudspeaker, the nighttime standard is
45dB(A) at the residential property line. This standard is
increased to allow higher noise levels for shorter periods of
time. The maximum noise level that may be generated at the
adjacent residence is 65dB(A).
B. Per Attachment A- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
(pg. 8) The drive-thru operation will require the use of a
loudspeaker' system for receiving food orders at the menu
board. This activity along with the customer interaction at
the pay & pick-up windows has the potential to create noise
impacts on the adjacent residential properties. Further,
customers waiting in the drive-thru lane also have a tendency
to increase noise levels with idling vehicles & radios. The
noise study only pertains to the menu board loudspeaker &
not any outside noise
C. Refer to Board # 8 The noise from the menu board
loudspeaker- Per the 1st Noise Study- Fig. 3 The diagram
shows 64dB(A) at the block wall, which is one dB(A) below
what the Tustin noise ordinance states is the allowed
standard. Looking closely at Fig. 3, it appears that the
decible reading is 66 dB(A)& was changed to 64 dB(A) to
fall within one below the ordinance.
D. The noise from the drive-thru (hours 6:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m.- Sunday thru Thursday) will interfere with children's
sleep, which will effect thier attention to school work & other
activities
E. The noise from the additional automobiles at the
drive-thru with the proposed ADT (Average Daily Traffic)
increasing by 1054 every day to the Burger King.
F. The drive-thru is designed to accomidate 6 cars stacked at
any given time. There is no noise report stating the dB(A)
reading of 6 cars idling with their radios playing.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT BY FREDERICK J. HONEY
FREDERICK J. HONEY
14625 Red Hill Avenue
Tustin, California 92780
Telephone: (714) 259-8469
Facsimile: (714) 2~9-15~4
August 16, 1998
Mayor Salterelli and
Members of Tustin City Council
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
In re: Burger King on Red Hill Avenue, Hearing: 8/17/98
Dear Mayor Salterelli and Members of Tustin City Council:
I am an electronics engineer by education, training and experience. I hold a BS in electronics and an
MBA. I have worked for MTI for 14 years. MTI is a company which manufactures electrical noise
suppression filters. The measurement of noise is an integral part of my work at MTI. As part of my
employment at MTI, I use many kinds of noise measuring devices and am thus very familiar with
measuring noise levels.
The instrument used to determine the enclosed findings (Enclosure 1) is a Model 451 Sound Level
Meter ANSI type S3A from Scott Instrument Laboratories as described in Enclosure II.
Our conclusions concur with the findings presented by J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc. project
file 2786-98 dated June 24, 1998, revised June 29, 1998 (Enclosure III).
It should be noted that the measurements reported in the J. J. Van Houten study were conducted on
a Monday and a Thursday. The findings of our study were conducted on a Friday and Saturday.
Inasmuch as Monday through Thursday are typically less active on a progressive scale, it is natural
to note the findings in our study reflect higher levels that those indicated in the J. J. Van Houten
study. As such, each study corroborates the other.
Of particular note were noise findings from inside an adjacent town home. The J. J. Van Houten
report correctly describes interior home noise as "Noisy Residence, Interior" at 45dB(A) [J. J. Van
Houten Report, Figure I-1.]. A test vehicle positioned in the drive-through area of the old Wells
Fargo Bank building in the presence of a loud automobile radio registered 55dB(A) in a young child's
upstairs bedroom, 50dB(A) inside the patio between the townhouse structure and the garage
structure, and 75dB(A) at the Tustin Green property line. The J. J. Van Houten report sets forth the
City of Tustin's noise ordinance correctly, "the noise level generated by a commercial activity, such
as the proposed menu board loudspeaker and vehicle movement may not exceed 50 dB(A) for a
cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour when measured at a residential
property line." [J. J. Van Houten report, Page 1.]
Mayor Salterelli and
Members of Tustin City Council
In re: Burger King on Red Hill Avenue
Hearing: 8/17/98
August 16, 1998
Page 2
The J. J. Van Houten study concludes that speaker-box operation of a drive-through restaurant will
operate within community standards of noise limits. It does not address the other sources of noise
commensurate with the operation ora fast-food drive-through restaurant such as customer interaction
at the menu board and pay and pickup windows, loud vehicle engines and exhaust systems, loud auto
stereo systems, and delivery trucks and garbage trucks which will visit the business on an almost daily
basis.
By visiting several local fast-food drive-through restaurant operations, we have attempted to come
to a conclusion which realistically portrays the significance of the noise impact on residences in close
proximity to 'the proposed Burger King project site. Most of the sites studied were measured at a
distance of 20 feet which is the distance from the proposed drive-through to the Tustin Green
property line. For comparative purposes, one site was measured at a distance of 40 feet.
Although Burger King has stated their intention to mitigate potential noise problems by erecting
various landscape and structural designs, while these attempts will produce some beneficial impact,
it ,;,/ill i~ot have a significant impact due to the close proximity of residential homes.
The maximum levels on a Monday [62.0 dB(A)] are predicably lower than the maximum levels on
a Friday and Saturday [90dB(A)]. Furthermore, it should be noted that the late-night study was
conducted on a Monday night (June 22, 1998, 2115-2220) and the Thursday study was late afternoon
(June 18, 1998, 1500-1600). The J. J. Van Houten report states, "the potential impact of the
loudspeaker operation will be more significant during the quieter nighttime hours, ambient traffic
noise was measured during a late night period." [J. J. Van Houten report, Page 2.] However, it
should be noted that the nighttime study was performed on Monday night, the predicably quietest
night of the week, both in terms of ambient noise as well as customer visits. Therefore, it would be
safe to assume that the noise at the property line for the Tustin Green complex will never be at or
below Tustin's noise ordinance levels since the lowest noise recorded by any study was 45.SdB(A).
[J. J. Van Houten report, Table 1I-2.]
Yours t~ruly, /-
Frederick J. Honey
encs.
ENCLOSURE I
ENCLOSURE I
August 14, 1998 (Friday Evening) - 10:11 p.m. through 10:27 p.m.
Jack in the Box, comer of Newport & El Camino Real in, Tustin
Readings taken = 40 feet from speaker box in drive through portion of restaurant
Total of 55 readings taken:
Ambient Level:
Mean Peak Level:
Maximum Level:
65
76.38 dB(A)
dS(A)
August 15, 1998 (Saturday Evening)-
Burger King, Larwin Square, Tustin - 8:00 p.m. through 8:05 p.m.
Total of 27 readings taken
Readings taken - 20 feet from speaker box in drive through portion of restaurant
A~nbient Level:
Mean Peak Level:
Maximum Level:
63 dB(A)
70.93 dB(A)
90 dB(A)
.
Wendy's Hamburgers, 17th Street, Santa Ana- 8:18 p.m. through 8:21 p.m.
Total of 16 readings taken
Readings taken = 20 feet from speaker box in drive through portion of restaurant
Ambient Level:
Mean Peak Level:
Maximum Level:
62 dB(A)
69.4 dB(A)
90 dB(A)
,
Burger King, Main Street, Irvine- 8:35 p.m. through 8:40 p.m.
Total of 6 readings taken
Readings taken = 20 feet from speaker box in drive through portion of restaurant
Ambient Level:
Mean Peak Level:
Maximum Level:
60 dB(A)
63.3 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
,
Cai' with'loud radio in drive through existing portion of old Wells Fargo Bank
9:00 p.m. Mean Peak Level
Ambient Level: 65 dB(A)
75 dB(A) on Townhome side of wall
55 dB(A) in Townhome interior
ENCLOSURE II
ENCLOSURE H
NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
The following equipment was used tO obtain the noise measurements:
A-Weighted Noise Level - Analysis
Scott Instrument Laboratories Model 451 Sound Level Meter
ANSI type S3A
Specifications:
ANSI Standard
Sound Level Range
Frequency Range
Weighting
Microphone
Amplifier
Environmental
S1.4-1971 Type S3A
45 - 130 dB(A)
25 - 8000 Hz
"A" Weighting - fixed
Ceramic-fixed
All-silicon solid state
-10° to +50°C, 0 - 95% R.H.
Acoustic calibration perfbrmed by Scott Instrument Laboratories Model 457 calibrated to 106dB.
;ft~ calibration is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
ENCLOSURE III
['2-
J;-J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I. Van Houten, P.E.
Engineer in Acoustics
,-'David L. Wieland
F Principal Con.mltant
June 24:, 1998
('Revised: June 29, 1998)
Project File 2786-98
Mr. Masroor A~ Bat. la
Bada Group of Companies
8001 Irvine Center Drive
Suite 1150
Irvinc, CA 92618
Subject:
Noise Assessment, Burger
l~eclb;ll a. nd Walnut Avenues, City °fTustin
Reference:
Project Drawings Prepared by Engineering & .~sociates,
Inc. (No date)
Dear Mr. Bar]az
Noise measurements have been obtained and analysis has been performed
to assess thc impact of Lhe menu board loudspeaker and vehicle
movement noise levels on the adjacent residential area. The following
assessment is provided as a result of our work:
NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Tustin's noise ordinance specifies that the noise level
generated by a commercial activity, such as the proposed menu board
loudspeaker and vehicle movement may not exceed 50 dB(A) for a
cumulative period of more ~an thirty (30) minutes in any hour when
measured at a residential property line. This is the standard for nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) activities. If the noise comSsts of speech the
standard is reduced by 5 dB. Thus, for the proposed menu board
loudspeaker, the'nighttime standard is 45 dB(A) at the residential property
line. This standard is increased to allow higher noise levels for shorter
periods of time. The maximum noise level that may be generated at the
adjacent residence.is 65 dB(A). Refer to Appendix I for_an..cxpl _a:nati.on of
the A-weighted measure of noise level.
AMBIENT NOISE
·
rfl Richter A v,nu'e
Suite 108
· It-vine, CA 92606
- 714/476-0932
.
· ' FAX 7~4/476-1023
Refer to Figure 1-for thc locadon of thc project site and Figure 2 for thc
site location in relation to the adjacent residential units. The residential
.__
units are buffered from the existing driveway noise by a wall. Since the potential impact
loudspeaker operation will be more significant during the quieter nighttime hours, ambient
traffic noise was measured during a late night period. The measurements are provided in
Appendix II are summarized as follows:
* L50 is the noise level exceeded 30 minutes in thc hour;, Lmax is the ma,,dmum noise
level measured.
These are the nighttime ambient tmi~c noise levels that are typical of those experienced at
second floor residential elevations.
MENU BOARD LOUDSPEAKER
Noise measurements have been obtained for a menu board loudspeaker at an existing
restaurant. Bec. arise of the directional characteristics of loudspeaker noise, the measurements
were taken at several angles as shown in Figure $. A~s shown in th~ figure,' the highest noise
levels occur directly in front of the loudspeaker, with the quietest noise levels occurring to the
rear. In addition, a loudspeaker noise measurement was obtained at an existing Burger King on
M~in Street in the City of Irvine.. The levels measured were similar to those indicated in
Figure 3.
Using the data provided in Figure 3, it is estimated that the maximum noise level generated by
the menu board loudspeaker will be ~5 dB(A) at the nearest residential unit to the nordawest. At
the nearest units to the west the maximum noise level from the loudspeaker operation is
estimated to be less than 40 dB(A). It is noted that the maximum noise level of ~5 dB(A) is 20
dB(.-5) less than the cities' maximum noise level stand~d of 65 dB(A).
It should be noted that there is a great deal of variability in the noise level generated by the
loudspeaker operation, depending on who is spealdng. However, the noise levels indicated in
Figure S are the highest that were measured at the existing restaurants. It is expected that the
average maximum noise level will be lower than these values.
CONCLUSION
Based on measurements of menu board loudspeaker noise levels at existing restaum_nts, it is
concluded that the noise produced by the menu board and driveway activity will'be v¢~ll b-elc~ ....
thc cities' noise ordinance standards.
2
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
anue^v lnul~-/~
~ mmmL
~ ~ '<
i-mi iiii] iifLl 'r- '~i
'cTA V ? '71H ~7.7.. ~"
·
APPENDE( I
NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA
A description of the character of a particular noise requires the following:
Amplitude and ~mplitudc variation of the acoustics wave,
· Frequency (pitch) content of the w~ve motion, ~ud .
·
· Duration of the noise.
The scale of'meaSUrement that is most useful in cowm-nity noise measurement is the A-
wei~ted sound pressure level, commonly called the A-level or dB(A). It is measured in
decibels to provide a scale with the range and characteristics most consistent with that of
people's hearing ability.
A-Weighted Sound Level
T° estab~h the A-weighed level, the acoustic signal is der .e~ed by the microphone and
then filtered, heavily weighting those portions of the noise which are most ~nnoying to
individuals. Thi~ wei~ting of sound energy corresponds approximately to the reladve
annoyance to h, man senses of noise experienced at various frequencies. The A-weighted
· sound pressure levels of a few typical sources of noise experienced by people within the
general vicinity of the subject project are indicated in Figure I-1.
The A-wei~dated sound level of traffic and other long term noise producing activities with~u
and around the comm-nky varies considerably with time. Measurements of this var54ng
noise level are aeeompl~hed by recording the values of the noise' for a specified period of
time. An analysis of these record{ng~ yields the A-level values for noise that are useful in
assessing the potential annoyance of the disturbzuce. For the purposes of this study, the
follo~ng values have been used:
I~ - The ng2.r minlm~m A-leveL Ninety percent of the vlme the A-level is
greater than this Value.. .......................................
I~ - The central tendency of the A-leveL This value is exceeded 50% of
the time during the measurement period.
The ne.,~.max~m-m A-leveL This value is a measure of the long-term
~nnoya.uce of the noise. Ten percent of the time the A-level is
greater than this value. .__
.o
140 ~
NOISE SOURCE
130 ·
120.
110
lO0.
90.
80--
7O
60--
50-
--
40-
30.
2O
1'0
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
SMALL AIRCRAP-[' OVERHEAD
RIVETING MACHINE @ 30 TO 40 FEET
TRAIN PASSING @ 60 FEET
AUTOMOBILE HORN @ ,.50 FEET
NOISY STENOGRAPHIC ROOM
AVERAGE CONVERSATION ~ 3 FEET
NOISY OFFICE
NOISY RESIDENCE, INTERIOR
QUIET.OFFICE
VOICE- WHISPER @ 3 FEET
OUTDOOR IN RURAL AREA
O- THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY
FIGURE i-1. REPRESENTATIVE NOISE SOURCES .AND souN-J3 LEVELS
I I I II I I
.
TABLE I!-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
The 'following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise measurements:
A-Weighted Noise Level - Analysis
Precision Sound I~vel Meter, T.DL 812
Acoustic Calibration
Acoustic Calibrator, B&K Type 4230 (94 dB ~ 1000 Hz.)
,le II-2 Noise S~,rvey - Proposed Burger Kinq Site, Tustin
~ June 18, 1998 , l June 22, 1998
~.~F'~me: 1500 to 1530 1530 to 1600 Z115 to Z130i2150 to ~:~)
2 67.8 68.7 59.4 60.5
,
8 65.7 ! 65.2 58.3 58.3
25 62.0 .i 61.5 55.3 I 49.7
I I
I
Lmin
Lmax
52.4
70.5
48.4
72.3
45.8 I 46.6
62.0 I 61.3
N ore: ~u'nbient Ambient Ambient Ambient
no jets one jet no jets one jet
Location:
Proposed site southwest of the
comer of Redhill and Walnut,
Tustin. At the nearest condo.
unit location to the south
I ate: d May 27, 1997
me, Noted
Source
Source of Noise: Traffic on Redhill
and through the' nearby driveways.
SLM Height: 5 feet
Noise Monitor
LDL 812
LDL 870
F'~Fast
Slow
Calibration
B & K 4230
C.'ALOTSUITE 48o-'ti Z3~,~aaa'~.775-.g9~2786
J. J. Van Houten & Associates
/
.......... Atmospheric Cc~ndition .... 1
Temp: 76 deg F Rel. Humidity: 40%
Operator:. ,.,Van Houten.
Odor- Presented by Vicki Manley
A. Odor from char-broiled cooking
1. Refer to Board #2 A (highlighted portion)
Tustin News 7-16-98 Article by George Stewart
"Public Relations Specialist Coralee Newman
pointed out that the project is within city code & no
variances were proposed. She said catalytic converters
would eliminate the burger smell."
"But MitTman reminded the commission that the
same thing was said when Tustin Ranch residents
protested a McDonald's restaurant in their
neighborhood."
"You can smell it there & it's farther away from
the homes than this is." Mitzman said.
B. Odor from the trash
1. Attract flies & other pests
C. Prime Time Live - Channel 7 (Wednesday August 12th)
1. Rats & Disease
11.
Traffic - Presented by Janis Eason
A. Refer to Board//3 - Photo A
1. Congestion at the adjacent driveways due to
additional drive-thru traffic
B. Refer to Board #7 - Photos A & B
1. Increased potential for pedestrian accidents
C. Refer to Board #7 - Photo C
1. North bound traffic will have to be re-routed along
the block wall to do any business in the Ralph's
Shopping Center complex
2. Potentially this can increase the noise significantly
enough along the wall to above 65 dB(A)'s
12. Safety- Presented by Aly Rousey
4--'
A. With the addition of 1,054 cars per day, this increases the
potential for more traffic, pedestrian & bicycle accidents
B. The children attending the 3 schools located on Sycamore
Ave., will walk on the sidewalk right in front of the
Burger King which creates a potential for more accidents
13. Conclusion
Condition~! use F nit 97-028 and Design
97-036
._.
We Residents of Tustin Greens are opposed to the proposed Burger King
with drive thru being built at 14601 Redhill for the following reasons.
.
Noise pollution which will change the quality Of life for many Tustin
Greens residents.
.
Odor pollution from thrash and charbroil cooking.
,
Unsafe traffic flow at the south exit/entrance of the 14601 Redhill
commercial property.
!
Print name//i.' Address Signature . .
',~,_-4;/,'-C: ..L_ ,:C~:'z._.
.. ,. , .~ ~ ., , , 7:/"~ J,/ '
,. t%... : ,
· . ';;%--.
. , , [,.'
Conditional use ~mit 97-028 and Desig~ ~view 97-036
..
We Residents of Tustin Greens are opposed to the proposed Burger King
with drive thru being built at 14601 Redhill for the following reasons.
,
Noise pollution which will change the quality of life for many Tustin
Greens residents.
.
Odor pollution from thrash and charbroil cooking.
o
Unsafe traffic flow at the south exit/entrance of the 14601 Redhill
commercial property.
Print name Address Signature
Conditional use F
uit 97-028 and Design l
jew 97-036
. .
We Residents of Tustin Greens are opposed to the proposed Burger King
with drive thru being built at 14601 Redhill for the following reasons.
.
Noise pollution which will change the quality of life for many Tustin
Greens residents.
.
Odor pollution from trash and charbroil cooking.
.
Unsafe traffic flow at the south exit/entrance of the 14601 Redhill
commercial property.
Prim name Address Signature
10. I-4R."vbgES. 1,4tg.~
~onditional us(
:rmit 97-028 and Desig
eview 97-036
We Residents of Tustin Greens are opposed to the proposed Burger King
with drive thru being built at 14601 Redtfill for the following reasons:
.
Noise pollution which will change the quality of life for many Tustin
Greens residents.
.
Odor pollution from trash and charbroil cooking.
o
Unsafe traffic flow at the south exit/entrance of the 14601 Redhill
commercial property.
Print name
Address
iq6 q7 ..P, ,,. ) ,/4,',//
Signature
· _
13.
14.
15.
Conditional use ~, ~i~ 97-028 ~md Design~,~ iew 97-036
We Residents of Tustin Greens are opposed to the proposed Burger King
with drive thru being built at 14601 Redhill f6r the following reasons.
,
Noise pollution which will change the quality of life for many Tustin
Greens residents.
..
Odor pollution from trash and charbroil cooking.
.
Unsafe traffic flow at the south exit/entrance of the 14601 Redhill
commercial property.
Print name Address Signature
.
o
.
10.
11.
12
13.
14.
15.
,26
Conditional use rmit 97-028 and Desig~ ~view 97-036
._.
We Residents of Tustin Greens are opposed to the proposed Burger King
with drive thru being built at 14601 Redhill for the following reasons.
le
Noise pollution which will change the quality of life for many Tustin
Greens residents.
2. Odor pollution from trash and charbroil cooking.
,
Unsafe traffic flow at the south exit/entrance of the 14601 Redhill
commercial property.
Print name Address Signature
.
.
,
I0.
II.
12
13.
14.
15.
14535
14541
14551
14561
14565
14571
14575
14581 o
145D5
TUSTIN
5REENS.
.446o~
14621
...... I I II m m i m II I I I I m
_
Ltl
-~rA
0
NI
[l
.... ~ o,~,~ ~
i
!
.._
A V£.
m mmmmmm~.~-
m mm,~,~mmmmm~
~,j -
mm-
m
'he REAL Tustin Paper~
~ITY, CALIFORNIA 92780.
i i
Residents
lose the
burger
battle
i~/GEORGE $1L~
i"tte ~ News
A'South Tustin condo group put
up a whopper of a fight Monday
night, but they lost the battle of
the Burger King in a split vote of
the city Planning Commission.
The residents of Tustin Greens
were left with seven days to ap-
peal the commission's approval
of a conditional use permit to re-
place a vacant Wells Fargo Bank
branch at the Ralphs Center at
14601 Red Hill Ave. with a drive-
in, fast-food franchise.
The 30,000-square-foot site is in
the southwest comer of the cen-
ter, adjacent to the Tustin.
Greens complex, 30-feet awaY_-
More than a'd6i~h'residents of
Tustin Greens protested the pro-,
ject at the public hearing. They
complained that children .would
cut through their property to get
to the Burger King; the restau-
rant would attract gang activity;
the drive-thru would create noise
and cause traffic safety prob-.
lems; the constant odor of broil,-,
ii~g--b~e~ would permeate
their neighborhood; and all this
would reduce the value of their
property.
"It's ~ sell-out of the privacy of
the 100 residents," said Tustin
Greens homeowner Andy Schil-
ler. "We don't want to be aban-
doned.''
· Atiother neighbor, Janis Ea-' .
son, called for a boycott of the
restaurant if it opened. '-
''It's just the right time to say
'no' to Burger King," said Larxlt.
Manley.
- .
But city staff recommended
the project and the majority of _
the commission agreed that the
demolition and replacement of '
the long-vacant bank would be ,
the first step in the revitalization'
of what they .perceive as a de--
pressed area. It has been a long
time since anyone-wanted to in~.
vest development of the area.
"All of these impacts can be .
mitigated sufficiently," said
Commisioner Doug Davert. "I'm
excited about this project. There
is a need and a demand for this
type of use. Investment is conta-
· gious and will spill over into oth-
er properties in the area."
Commissioner Leslie Pontious
agreed, "The fears are much ,.
greater than the reality that hap- '
pens."
But Chairman Howard Mitz-
man and Commissioner Scott'
Browne disagreed. ·
MiVzman, a land developer;.
himself, said, "I would never:
consider putting fast food this '~
close to residential proPerty." -~
Public relations specialist Cor-
Please see BURGER Page 8
·
.3 .3 ' '
..... :~,.~.L~.;~ ,~L,~, , .a ~ ~,,,.-/~.~,~A0~-~.~:,.~,,'~ .... =.:.,, ~.,,,;- .-.... ~ ..... ~ ...... ~,'.,, ~.. ..... ' . ·
FROM 1
alee Newman pointed out that
the project is within city Code
and no variances were proposed.
She said catalytic converters
would eliminate the burger
smell.
·
But Mitzman reminded the
commission that the same thing
was said when Tustin Ranch res-
restaurant~:~/~':th~i~!'.,-/fi~ighbo~.~:~af~ty~*-'a:~'previe~ menu board
hood,,..:,,~.,.~.~.,~-.: ,,-:.,,;.;.:.::>~....-...:...,,~,~,,~ . wg'.t!!._d be _added !o the drive-thru
i "Y6u can smeU ~t ther.e and.Ws ;~ li~'e; a fin~ nmse ~_~{jdy:would be
farther'?'/~'V)ai/i. ~'iiiith'e,'.:; hO/n'~,? Aide t'6'"fii:~i~:~qt "~IffOrmS
After" n~!u-iy!.'tw'6' hoii/-S'~:of ~d~/-]i~it'.e~_l. 2t_6~ be.".~,~ s)ihh':-.-7 and 6
bate, the. CO~..S~. f,~ .ajl~.a'~}~::"b:fii:;?~al;,~:~/~ru, hOurs
proved the'~onditlbilid-~-s~' ~5~i' ~'[~nf~'._~'~/t~iil..th. e.: i:~Suiurant
mit'by a 3-2'split; with th~ foll~4~' h°'~i~0f 6 a.~'~'-~; tlJ~!'P~ifi'~"Sunday
ing conditi0n~i i' the~:: ~_'V!~:~:;!:. 't~o~6~h'"ST~sai:~:i~i:a,~i~':m. to
exit Would ~ ~ik?i0 i~ff-tii'i~t- nii~i~ht" Frid~5~d Ski{iii-day:
· .. ::,.::..~..:';,."&~,,,.~c~:c~'~'*:i.;&~,~:.:.~;':':.':7,:t'~ ~,.:,-;,'~>.~q~'~_.~.,~.',-~ ?~,,~Vl-~".i.h~'..:;~,.~ ,::,,'~
ATTACHMENT E
REVISED NOISE STUDY
.,o ,.50 9d~47~!023 J J VAN NOUTEN g z~ P,~SE 32
~hn J. Van Idouten, P.E.
~nsuitinll Engineer ia Acousttcs
June 24, 1998
(Revised: August 19, 1998)
Project File 2786-98
3320 E. Chapman Ave.
#323
Orange. C4 92869
9-!9./4 76- 0932
FIX 949/476.1023
Mr. Masroor A. Batla
Batla Group of Companies
8001 Ir'vine Center Drive
Suite 1150
Irvine, CA 92618
Subject:
Noise A~se~srnent, Burger King,
Redhill and Walnut Avenues, City of' Tustin
Reference:
Project Drawings Prepared by Engineering & Associates,
Inc. O'o date)
Dear Mr. Batla:
Noise measurements have been obtained and analysis has been performed
to assess the impact of the menu board loudspeaker and vehicle
movement noise leVels on the adjacent residential area. The following
assessment is prox4ded as a result of our work:
NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Tustin's noise ordinance specifies that the noise level
generated by a commercial activity, such as the proposed menu board
loudspeaker and vehicle movement may not exceed 50 dB(A) for a
cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour when
measured at a residential property line. This is the standard for nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) activities. If the noise consists of speech the
standard is reduced by 5 dB. Thus, for the proposed menu board
loudspeaker, the nighttime standard is 4-5 dB(A) at the residential property
line. This standard is increased to allow higher noise levels for shorter
periods of time. The maximum noise level that ma3' be generated at the
adjacent residence is 65 dB(A). Refer to Appendix I for an explanation of
the A-weighted me~sure of noise level.
AMBIENT NOISE
Refer tO Fig~-e 1 for the location of the project site and FigUre 2 for the
site location in relation to the adjacent residential units. The residential
0~/!9/19~8 17'58 9494751823 J j VAN HOUTEN g A PAGE 83
units are buffered from the existing driveway nois. e by a wall. Since the potential'impact of the
loudspeaker operation MIl be more significant during the quieter nighttime hours, ambient
traffic noise was measured during a late night period. The measurements are provided in
Appendix II are summarized aa follows:
* LS0 is the noise level exceeded 30 minutes in the hour; Lmax is the maximum noise
level measured.
These are the nighttime ambient traffic noise levels that are typical of those experienced at
second floor rcsidcnfiaJ elevations.
MENU BOARD LOUDSPEAKER
Noise measurements have been obthned for a menu board loudspeaker at an existing'
restaurant. Because of the directional characteri.,tics of loudspeaker noise, the measurements
were taken at several angles as shown in Figure 3. As shown in the figure, the highest noise
levels occur directly in front of the loudspeaker, with the quietest noise levels occurring to the
rear. In addition, a loudspeaker noise measurement was obtained at an existing Burger King on
Main Street in the City of Ir,fine. The levels measured were similar to those indicated in
Figure 3.
Using the data provided in Figure 3, it is estimated that the maximum noise level generated by
the menu board loudspeaker will be 51 dB(A) at the nearest property line to the southwest. At
the nearest unit to the southwest the maximum noise level {'rom the loudspeaker operation i~
estimated to be less than 45 dB(A). It is noted that the maximum noise level of 51 dB(A) is I q
dB(A) less than the cities' maximum noise level standard of 65 dB(A).
it should be noted that there is a great deal of variability in the noise level generated by the
loudspeaker operation, depending on who is speaki. 'ng. However, the noise levels indicated in
Flgure 3 are the highest that were measured at the existing restaurants. It is expected that the
average maximum noise level will be lower than these values.
CONCLUSION
B~ed on measurements of menu board loudspeaker noise levels at existing restaurants, it is
concluded that the noise produced by the menu board and driveway activity will be well below
the cities' noise ordinance standards.
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
e~/la/lega '7-=~e 74~476ie23 j j vz~,4 NOUT[I',4 8. & ~.~SE
If you require any additional information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 't76.0932.
Very truly, yours,
j.J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INCl.
--.
/,~.j. V,~,-to~,t~r,, ~,.~.
//Consulti~ Engineer in Acoustics
mJs:C: \lut u~\~o~M~'ord pro \ PI~OjF~7I'$ \27 ? 5-~9\~ 7 e6r2.l~.p
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
g~/19/1998 !7'58 ~47~1923 J J V~N HOUTEN & A F~G~ 85
enue^v lnul-.M
\ /
\ /
/\
,
AVE.
17'58 $4~7~1823 J J V~tq HOUTEN g 4 PaGE 87
\
~/19/i~SS 17'5D 949~761623 j J VaN HOUTEN g a PaGE
APPENDIX I
NOl$~ EVALUATION CRITERIA
A description of the character of a pan/c~lar no/se requires the following:
· Amplitude and ~mplitude vaxiation of ~¢ acoustic~ wave,
· 'Frequency (pitch) content of the wave motion, and
· Duration of the noise.
The scale of measurement that is most useful in community noise measurement is' the A-
weighted sound pressure level, commonly called the A-level or dB(A).' It is measured in
decibels to provide a sc.~le with the range and characteristics most consistent with that of
people's hearing ability.
A-Weighted Sound Level
To establish the A-weighted level, the acoustic signal is detected by the microphone and
then filtered, heavily weighting those portions of the noise which are most annoying to
individuals. 'I'hJs weighting of sound energy corresponds approximately to the relative
annoyance to humsm senses of noise experienced at Various frequencies. The A-weighted
sound pressure levels of a few typical sources of noise experienced by people within the
general vicinity of. the subject project are indicated in Figure I-1.
The A-weighted sound level of'tra~c and other long term no/~e producing activities
and around the cOmm-nity var/es considerably with time. Measurements of this varying
noise level are accompl~hed by recording the values of the noise for a specified period of
t/me. An analysis of these recordings yields the A-level values for nOise that are useful in
assessing the potential annoyance of the disturbance. For the purposes of this study, the
following values have been used:
The neax m;n;m~_~m A-leveL Ninety percent of the time the A-level is
greater than this value.
The central tendency of the A-level. This value is exceeded 50% of
the time during the measurement period.
The ne~ maximum A-level. This value is a measure of the long-term
annoyance of the noise. Ten percent of the time the A.level is
greater than this v~lue.
8~/!~/1~8 ~:5~ ~4547E1823 3 3 VAN HOUTEN ~ a PAGE
Z
140--
130--
110--
1OO--
90,
,80--
7'0.
60
60-
,....
40--
;30 --
2.0--
10--
O-
NOISE SOURCE
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
SMALL AIRCRAFT OVERHEAD
RIVETING MACHINE (il 30 TO 40 FEET
TRAIN PASSING @ 60 FEET
AUTOMOBILE HORN @ ,50 FEET
NOISY STENOGRAPHIC ROOM
AVERAGE CONVERSATION (] ,3 FEET
NOISY OFFICE
NOISY RESIDENCE, INTERIOR ·
QUIET OFFICE
VOICE - WHISPER (~ ;3 FEET
OUTDOOR IN RURAL AREA
THRESHOLD Oi= AUDIBILITY
FIGURE I 1. REPRESENTATIVE NOISE SOURCES AND SOUND LEVELS
APPENDIX II
NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
~/19/i~98 !7:58 54S476ie23 J J VaN HOUTEN & a PaGE 12
Table il-2
Noise Survey - Proposed Burger King Site, Tustin
Ii __
[June 11, ~1~ -'~ - Jun, 22, 1t91
Time: 115ootg31830 153oto1~:)0 211~21~ 21~22~
L~lon: Bilk ~11 Block ~11 Blo~ ~11 Block ~11
,
N Ln Ln Ln Ln
I I II II
,,
25 .. {~2.0 {~1.5 55.$ 49.7
,.
50 59.9 57.7 49.7 6;2.0
,,
, ,
l Leq t 61.$ 62.8 53.7 53.7
Lmaxt 70.5 72.3 62.0 61.3
,,,
Note: Ambient Ambient Aml~tent Ambient
no j~, one jet ' no jet~ one jet
Location:
Proposed site southwest of the
comer of Redhill and Walnut,
TuBtJn. At the nearest condo.
unit location to the south
Date: JMay27, 1997
Time, Noted
,,
Source
Source of Noise: Traffic on Redhill
and through the nearby driveways.
SLM Height: 5 feet
Noise Monitor
LDL 812
~-~ LDL 870
l--~Fast ~ Slow
Calibration
B& K4230
C.'%LOT~.lrf~. 41~123~27'3'~-1~7U
Atmoepherto Condition
Tamp: 76 deg F Rel. HumiditT: 40%
Operator: Van Houten
J. J. Van Houten & Associates
• •
To Dan Fox /]hL�/
From C Newman,
Date September 2, 1998
RE Burger King
If these can make it into packet would be helpful
This includes pro - petitions, letter from property manager,
and response to citizens by JJ Van Houten
I will verbally present a rebuttal at Council meeting
Will call you in am about process
RECEIVED
CEP 0 3 Es
COMMUNjTY DEVELOPMENT
BY
(ilINTERPA•IC
ASSET MANAGEMENT
Property Management
ACCREDITED
MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION
Real Estate Brokerage Real Estate Consulting
August 14, 1998
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
RE Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 97 -028
and Design Review 97 -036
New Burger King
14601 Redhill Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Council Members
We represent the owners of the shopping center where the Burger
King proposes to locate We are writing this letter in support of
Burger King's approval by the City Council
As you know, the shopping center is an older property, and the
owners would like to upgrade it to a more modern look In fact, it
is the owner's goal to proceed with renovation of the site in the
near future As part of the conditions of approval, the owner has
agreed to completely resurface the parking lot and to provide new
landscaping in the form of three;new specimen -sized Magnolia trees
Additionally, in our desire to demonstrate our commitment to
continuing with the site enhancement, we are willing to provide
three more large Magnolia trees to the parking lot and to upgrade
the landscaping along the center's Redhill frontage
In this regard, we felt it was important for the City Council to
understand that the new Burger King will be the stimulus that is
needed for future upgrade of the property If the Burger King is
rejected, the property will have fewer resources for improvement
This will also have further negative impact on the other merchants
and future leasing to higher quality tenants as well
We have worked closely with the applicant to try and mitigate any
concerns of neighbors who are closest to the site We believe that
all of their concerns have been adequately addressed We hope you
will affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the site by
denying the appeal and approving Burger King's conditional use
permit
Thank you for considering our comments
Sincerely,
INTERPACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT
William E Garrett, Jr , CPM
President
WEG /ee
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
5505 Garden Grove Blvd. Suite 150 Westminster CA 92683 (714) 891 -8804 Fax (714) 892 1397
225 West Hospitality Ln Suite 200 San Bernardino CA 92408 (800) 714 -0200
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME PARPRA TOFTE
16671 MONTEGO WAY
ADDRESS T[ISTIN. CkL. 92780
THE PROPOSED BURGER KING WILL BE AN ASSET TO, NOT ONLY THE CENTER
BUT TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN THE BUILDING WILL BE SMALLER THEN THE
EXISTING BANK AND WILL BE DONE IN GOOD TASTE IT WILL BRING
MUCH NEEDED TRAFFIC INTO THE CENTER FOR THE SURVIVING BUSINESSES
IT WILL ALSO GIVE THE OWNERS OF THE CENTER THE INCENTIVE TO RE-
MODEL, WHICH WILL ENHANCE NOT ONLY THE CENTER, BUT ALSO THE
CITY OF TUSTIN
THANK YOU,
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
BARBRA TOFTE (AUG 13, 98)
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
gUEEN N//( QUAD- vy,v4
�s�iN 9 ?7g0
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
4
t7 (/4,4z c
1a ' 7 o 7,il d
X,(/I f ,
7 /& %iel
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
J&ttu P s�,t c k
722A/4 C E Su ,z xjc A(S-rie-
ADDRESS /44 7/ nviexty 60000 LN
Tus 71/21.1 Gsi 9012-o
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
• •
August 1998
TO. MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject' Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR 607
/e/ &t//0p7
/7/ L,?/ / /A/ i 413
T� %� (/ 927��
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill/Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
:ward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
I-7 18 -A PiCffODa,
TuTn -7 80
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
bran \\le,
\U U () wC \n j+ l01
C, n .Ganyn
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
/o 2_ 21, ( 2 a6/1
6572-- -._ ('4- °-? 780
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
m,-sr&»
G'
/// Gog4 S,il �-‘t-
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
a8 h'i at �n 1,-i
J k
@V G a 1 &b
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
It m 4 It 714 P )6S'd
(,5f ( & Jf%- { Atif, 4.60
�U•1i`A/ (74 P�7W
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject* Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR 607
2`t3� \
C c c\2'1C(n
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR 607
Re7MpnCi Kt SS d/1/
Pa I Se wGltr,\at e
79- 5 4; j c4 u) (1 TO
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS. /1 j93— 1�/a'- /2P247b'
F \DATA \CCMLTR 607
-2 74
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
c
/Usbiv (7/9 99; 7f?
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
)4v��
I3SO
-
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
-ward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR 607
py..er yj,ri
/36 V/
�, _ Cec q L7%
•
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
(a r6CA A u\ ,,\ C c 9
C C ¶ L7
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCML7R 607
-/71Q < O/ZEAk;I
/ 6 irAvo
T if (l I^-)
•
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
z /f (/o O2
• •
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger t<ing
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME.
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR 607
August 1998
•
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
N {5 c ijwf
C€
•
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
k';( A stc)? i,i,)a-
ll/ \fin C/7. q; D
•
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
• Jei fi m 71461
R-3, _TA" A/An-
aiteMit, CA 9 10
\r�
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
1U (Joel -1
Lt OZ (oo a{c 0�
TOs I ti
•
August 1998
TO MEMBERS OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM CUSTOMERS OF REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
Subject Proposed Burger King
Redhill /Walnut
Tustin, CA
Dear City Council Members
As customers of the Redhill Village Shopping Center, we are looking
forward to the opening of the new Burger King Restaurant
NAME
ADDRESS
F \DATA \CCMLTR.607
it)-404 )17 674,6
/36q( �t; cl
6\ e 9 2WO 7
4E
John I. Van Houten, P.E.
Consulting Engineer in Aco,sntr
OE.. Chapman Av
N'23
Orangc. CA 92869
949/476-0932
FAX 949/176.10:3
:c =ai=1Z
J 'A -CU-EN. g = = 1.3E 02
1
J J VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC
August 28, 1998
Mr Masroor 4. Batla
Batla Group of Companies
8001 Irvine Center Drive
Suite 1150
Irvine, CA 92618
Subject.
Reference
Project Fike2786.98
Response to Comments, Burger King,
Redhill and Walnut Avenues, City of Tustin
Noise Assessment, Burger King, City of Tustin, J J \ an
Houten and Associates, Inc. June 24 1998 'Re'-,sed
Aug.:s: 19, 1998'
Dear Mr Batla.
The attached enclosure provides our response to the comments and
concerns of Sue Ann Honey and Fredenck 5 Honey as received with your
FAX dated August 19 1998
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me
at (714) 476 -0932
Very truly yours,
J I 'v AN HOUTEN & ASSOCI.• ES, INC.
John J Aga! Houten, P E.
e5 / Li 1ESE
c SC-E e_3
J 2 .., HZL'TEN rzA3E e3
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
•
Noise Assessment: Burger King, 'Walnut and Redhill Avenues, Tustin
The following responses are provided for each of the comments:
Sue Ann Honey
9.ugc Ki,g, T•_ru%
Pm; t Fite No 22786 -98
Augut 28, 1998
Bern B Idling vehicles will not generate noise levels which are greater or even approach
the noise generated by traffic entering and leaving the shopping center driveways With regards
to loud auto radios their is a State law regarding such noise and noise control. As a practical
matter drivers would need to turn radio s down to order at the menu board. Hence, they may
keep the volume low or off for the remainder of their time within the drive through.
It_emm c Please note that the value reported in Figure 3 was measured at a distance of 25
feet. The property line distance is 50 feet. However had the value of 66 dB(A) at 25 feet been
used as indicated in the comment, the level at the property line would be 61 dB(A) Please note,
this would be a level of 88 dB(A) at three feet, well above the level needed to communicate with
the Burger King patrons. The value used to project the. maximum noise level to the residential
property line was 75 dB(A) at a distance of three feet. At 50 feet, the distance to the property
line, the level will be 51 dB(A). At the nearest home, a distance of 100 feet, .he maximum level
of the menu board loudspeaker will be 45 dB(A).
ern D The maximum noise level intrusion into a home (distance 100 feet) will be no
greater then 35 dB(A). This assumes a 10 dB reduction through opened windows. This level s
well below sleep interference noise levels.
Item E The drive through noise v.1! not increase the bacKground noise level by a
significant amount. The existing noise revel is generated by a number of sources; traffic on
Redhill Avenue, vehicle movements enterng and leaving the shopping center and aircraft
operations into the John Wayne Airport.
Item F Please refer to Bern B
Frederick ilonev
Customer Noise
People will be facing toward the menu board and will be within the:r vehicle.
Their voice levels will be less than the loudspeaker communication level. Our estimates for tne
back radiation from the menu board loudspeaker are: 75 dB(A) maximum noise level at three
feet, 51 dB(A) at the property line and 45 dB(A) at the nearest home. Please recall that the
nighttime maximum no:se level standard is 65 dB(A).
J J VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES INC
es, z. /i :Sc _=S4iE 623
Loud Vehicle
Please refer to Item B in the previous section.
•
CA =
Burger king. Tustin
Project Fite No 2786 -98
August 28, 1998
Truck Delivery and Trash Collection
Vehicle deliveries and trash collection will occur on the north side of the Burger
King building. The building will act as a buffer for noise propagation toward the residential
locations to the south. The noise experienced from these vehicles will be minimal, particularly in
comparison to vehicle movements on the driveways entering and leaving the shopping center and
traffic on Redhill Avenue.
Background Noise Levels
The objective of the ambient no:se measurement is to assess the value of the
existing lowest or near lowest background sounds. This will occur when traffic on Redhill
Avenue is very low and few or no vehicles are entering or leaving the shopping center With
regards to the traffic on Redhill Avenue, the quite periods occur when the vehicles are stopped at
the intersection and no additional movements are occurring on the arterial near the residential
tract. Hence, it is expected that the minimum noise level will be less than the 45 8 dB(A)
measured. However the conditions which could cause lower levels did not occur during our
measurement period or when on the site observing the traffic and aircraft flight activity These
lower levels are possible for a few mmutes during each hour later in the evening. Intrusion into
the residential locations to the south ma+, occur during these quiet periods. As ,indicated in the
noise assessment report, the value used to project the maximum noise level to the residential
property line was 75 dB(A) at a distance of three feet, kt 50 feet, the distance to the property
line, the level will be 51 dB(A). At the nearest home, a distance of 100 feet, the maximum level
of the menu board loudspeaker will be 45 dB(A).
Noise Measurements (Enclosure I)
Referring to the mein peak levels reported in Mr Honey's Enclosure I, the level of about 70
dB(A) at 20 feet relates to 86 dB(A) at three feet. This is and upper limit for a loud menu board
speaker projecting directly toward the patron. The Burger Ring menu board levels should be
maintained at no greater than 78 dB(A) at three feet in the direction of the patron This will
generate a rear projection of 75 dB(A) at three feet As indicated in the no:se assessment report,
the value used to project the maximum noise level to the residential property line was 75 dB(A) at
a distance of three feet. At 50 feet, the distance to the property line, the level will be 51 dB(A)
At the nearest home, a distance of 100 feet, the maximum level of the menu board loudspeaker
will be 45 dB(A).
Enclosure I cites maximum levels of 90 dB(A) at 20 feet This would relate to a level of 106
dB(A) at three feet and is considered an excessive level of noise for a menu board loudspeaker
J J VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES INC