The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 CUP 97-028DR 97-036 08-17-98 NO. 1 / ~/~ ,i ..... ' 8-17-98 Inter-Com 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 SUMMARY: Conditional ~Use Permit (CUP)97-028 and Design Review 97-036 are requests m 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 RedHill Avenu~ 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 Ju~ 20, J998 City Council Meeting, the Council appealed the Planning Commission's decision on the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review. 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 of the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission Report Which contains a complete discussion of the project is included in Attachment 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 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 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 & DF, ~'-036 August 17, 1998 Page 2 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 north of the proposed restaurant, with supplemental parking spaces located to the west. Parking for fast food 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 corner 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 approval of a Conditional Use Permit. SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The Ralphs Shopping center is located at the southwest corner 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 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 during a meeting on June 3, 1998, the applicant revised the plans in an effort to address residents' concerns. 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 the 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 with 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 & DR. August 17, 1998 Page 3 ~36 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 the 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 project. 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 deep-frying 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 concerns 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 turns 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 & DK ..,-036 August 17, 1998 Page 4 · (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. ~son - ' 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) CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENTA CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER JULY 13, 1998 SUANNE I. HONEY 14625 Red Hill Avenue Tustin, California 92780 Telephone (714) 259-8469 Facsimile (714) 259-1554 August 1, 1'998 Masroor A. Batla BATLA FOOD GROUP 8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1150 Irvine, California 92618 Jill Richter RICHTER FARMS TRUST 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150 Westminster, California 92683 In re: Proposed Burger King at 14601 Red Hill Avenue Dear Mr. Batla and Ms. Richter Please understand that I have no particular "beef' with Burger King, but I am very seriously opposed to having one in my "back yard". I mean that quite literally. This proposed Burger King is close enough to my property that it would be within back yard parameters of many homes. As a result of this drive-through restaurant that would attract noise, smell, litter and criminal elements, not to mention the very serious safety hazards for pedestrians, including small children, as well as other traffic hazards, I must fight this proposal. I know you are aware that we are fighting this in the City of Tustin. The purpose of this letter is to let you know that it is my intention to fight this issue in court should we not be successful at the City Council level. I intend to fight this in court in two respects. First I will fight the conditional-use permit in the normal manner. But you should also be aware that in the event this restaurant interferes with my peaceful enjoyment in the use of my property, I will bring nuisance suits in court. The reason I use the plural of the term "suits" is that I am allowed to re-file the same cause of action with a continuing nuisance. In essence, I am letting you know in advance that if this restaurant, as I anticipate, is a nuisance to me, I will be a nuisance to you. Please accept my apology in advance, this is not meant as a personal attack on you nor on Burger King. Having a drive-through fast-food restaurant this close to my home, in fact, to two of my bedroom windows, is just entirely unacceptable. Furthermore, my two young grandchildren live with us. I will not stand by and allow Burger King to jeopardize their safety. Yours truly, Suanne I. Honey ~ Tustin City Council CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT JULY 13, 1998 Report to the Planning Commission I,TEM #5 DATE' JULY 13, 1998 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-036 OWNER/ JILL RICHTER RICHTER FARMS TRUST 5505 GARDEN GROVE BLVD. #150 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 APPLICANT: MASROOR A. BATLA BATLA FOOD GROUP 8001 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, #1150 IRVINE, CA 92618 LOCATION- 14601 RED HILL AVENUE ZONING. CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING BANK BUILDING AND ESTABLISH A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU OPERATIONS WITHIN A COMMERCIAL CENTER. RECOMMENDATION , Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3594; and, . Approve Conditional Use Permit 97-028 and Design Review 97-036 by adopting Resolution No. 3595. Planning Commission Report CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 July 13, 1998 Page 2 INTRODUCTION 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. 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 building setback 52 feet from the southern edge of the center, which abuts the multiple family development. 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 applicant has proposed that the restaurant would be open daily from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Tustin City Code Sebtion 9233c(g) allows restaurants with drive-thru service in the C-2 zoning district, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This item was continued from the June. 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise their plans to address adjacent resident concems. 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 site (see Location Map). Ralphs and the other inline 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 the Ralphs and to the east across Walnut Avenue. DISCUSSION The discussion 'that follows includes analyses of the proposed site plan, parking/circulation, noise, and the landscaping/architecture. Parking and Circulation Access to restaurant parking is from existing driveway locations on Red Hill Avenue, which serve the center. Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation for the restaurant is expected to be less than what was generated by the bank. A slight ADT increase is expected during the AM peak hours, with a slightly larger decrease of PM peak hour trip generation. The majority of the trips generated for the restaurant will occur during the noon hours, when Red Hill Avenue is not carrying a peak load of traffic. Parking for the project is proposed primarily to the north of the proposed restaurant, with supplemental parking spaces located to the west. Parking for fast food restaurants is required at a rate of 1 space for every 3 seats; therefore, the proposed restaurant will require a minimum of 33 spaces. There are currently 273 parking spaces provided within Planning Commission Report CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 July 13, 1998 Page 3 the center. Based upon the original approvals for the center from 1969-1970, the building at 14601 Red Hill was allocated 20 parking spaces of the total provided, at a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area. The auto repair facility was calculated at a ratio of 1/500 square feet, and all other uses were calculated at the retail ratio of 1/200 square feet. Since that time, the Tustin City Code has been amended to calculate restaurant uses at the above ratio of 1 space for each 3 seats which has resulted in the center having a shortage of parking. The applicant is required to provide 13 additional parking spaces to accommodate their increase in required parking with a total of 286 for the center. The applicant has proposed to restripe portions of the parking lot to meet this requirement. As the existing parking lot striping throughout the center is in poor condition, Condition No. ,5.3 has been included requiring that the entire parking area be slurry sealed and restriped. 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 which will be approximately 12 feet in width, will direct vehicles south, then east where the pick-up windoW would be located, and exit on the southeast comer of the structUre. The applicant proposes to utilize a two-window ordering system, which has a menu board for ordering and separate windows for paying and food pick-up. The configuration of the drive-thru lane enables three vehicles to stack or queue in front of the menu board, and three additional vehicles to stack from the menu order board to the pick-up window. The pick-up window would be located on the south side of the building. Noise 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 and pickup 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, and radios. To determine the extent of potential noise impacts to the adjacent residential property, a noise study was prepared (Attachment B to Initial Study). The study determined that, as the site and landscaping are configured on the plans, the project is not anticipated to generate noise exceeding the standards of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. To address potential noise impacts, the applicant has proposed mounting the speakers in such a manner as to project sound away from the adjacent residences. To attenuate operational, noise impacts, the following revisions to the plans and conditions of approval have been included on the project: Hours of operation of the restaurant will be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m..on Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to Midnight on Friday and Saturday. The drive-thru operations will be further limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. · The drive aisle immediately north of the building will be reduced by three feet for a total width of 25 feet. The row of parking on the north side of the building, the Planning Commission Report CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 July 13, 1998 Page 4 building, and the drive-thru lane would be shifted three feet to the north. This, will allow' for a five to six foot wide planter island adjacent to the masonry block wall between th'e center and the adjacent multiple family residences which would be planted'with Italian Cypress or a comparable tree to provide additional screening for the residences. Four foot high walls approximately ten feet 'in length would be constructed at the southern edge of the drive-thru lane planter, directly opposite the pay and pickup windows. 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. SIGNS The City of Tustin Sign Code allows free-standing tenants within a commercial center to have one primary wall sign of a maximum of 75 square feet of sign area and up to two secondary signs of a maximum of 25 square feet of area each. The applicant is showing conceptual plans for three signs to be mounted on the north, south, and east elevations of the tower element. No dimensions are provided on the plans to determine conformance with the City's Sign Code. Condition 3.1 has been included requiring that all signage comply with the Tustin Sign Code. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN/LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE The architectural design'of the project is generally consistent with the design themes within the Center. The kitchen portion of the building is 21 feet in height and the dining · area is approximately 19 feet in height. The play area at the southern end of the building will have a tower element of approximately 26 feet in height. The building will be predominantly a light beige stucco plaster, similar in shading to the existing buildings within the center. A darker tan stucco will' be used for reveal/trim details. The tower element will have large, arched glass areas and column fascia elements at the building section corners. Deep cherry red tile accents will be placed upon the column elements. The building is proposed to have a predominantly fiat-roof with cornice moldings painted beige over the cooking area, a mansard roof element over the dining area with grey tile roofing material, and a Iow-rise pitched roof with a comice element over the play area tower. Tustin City Code Section 9233(B) allows a maximum building height of 50 feet within the C-2 Zone, and requires a minimum 10 foot side yard setback when the property abuts a residentially zoned parcel. The proposed project has a maximum building height Planning Commission Report CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 July 13, 1998 Page 5 of 26 feet, with the drive-thru aisle setback 28 ~ feet and the building setback 52 feet from the southem edge of the center. The building is proposed to be screened from the adjacent multiple family residential properties to the west by an existing masonry block wall that varies up to six feet eight inches in height from the shopping center's property. As noted eadier, a planter island is proposed adjacent to the wall. As there is a grade separation between the center and the adjacent residential development, the wall measures approximately two feet taller from the residential property. The plant palette includes maintaining the existing street trees along Red Hill Avenue and adding additional Texas Privet (Ligustrum) shrubbery to the planter island. The building and drive-thru ,lane is to be screened with a variety of shrubs, including Texas Privet, Heavenly Bamboo, Wheeler's Dwarf, and Pink Princesses. The .plante.r adjacent to the south property line of the center is proposed to include Italian Cypress or similar trees placed five feet on center to provide an effect screen. As part of the parking lot restriping, Condition 5.3 has been included requiring the applicant to install a minimum of three (3) "diamond" planters with trees to increase the amount of landscaping in the main parking area. The hardscaPe elements proposed are primarily concrete walkways. A trash enclosure is to be constructed adjacent to the drive-thru entrance, and a condition has been included requiring approval of the unit's size, location and configuration by Great Westem Reclamation. To limit the potential for accumulation of litter and odors associated with trash accumulation, Condition 2.12 has been included requiring trash receptacles be placed adjacent to all building exits in the dining and play areas. Extedor lighting for the project will consist of light standards mounted in the parking lot, and wall-mounted fixtures. The parking area lights are to be 19 foot tall standards with fixtures that project light directly downward, similar to the single fixture over the handicapped parking stalls in front of the Ralphs. Condition 4.3 has also been included requiring that all wall-mounted lighting consist of decorative fixtures that project light directly downward, and be subject to approval of the Community Development Department. In accordance with the City's Security Code, all lighting shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light coverage. To control odor and smoke/particulate emission, Condition 4.2 has been included requiring the aPplicant utilize Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on all cooking and exhaust equipment in accordance with AQMD standards. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Prior to the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, City staff received numerous phone calls from residents of the Tustin Greens Condominium complex to the south expressing concems over the proposed restaurant. Wdtten correspondence has also been received from a few residents and one of the Tustin Greens Association board members (see Attachment D). Specific concerns have included: Planning Commission Report CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 July 13, 1998 Page 6 . 2. 3. 4. The potential for the presence of grease .and charbroil odors The potential for trash accumulation within the complex Noise impacts from cars using the drive-thru at night Increased foot traffic through the Complex by non-residents The applicant met with the residents of the complex on June 3, 1998. In response, the applicant requested a continuance to address the residents' concems and revise the plans. To address many of the concems, the applicant has made the following revisions to their proposal: . . . The drive aisle north of the building has been reduced in size and the building has been shifted to the north to allow for a five to six foot planter island to be added along the south property line of the center. Italian Cypress or other similar trees and hedgerows will be planted there to further buffer sound and provide more vertical screening. Masonry buffer walls have been added to the landscape planter on the 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. The speakers associated with the menu board operation have been shifted and oriented away from the adjacent residential uses. The applicant has also prepared a noise study, based on the above revisions to their plans. Based on this site and landscaping configuration, 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 on a residential property at 50 dB(A) over a 30 minute cumulative pedod, dudng nighttime hoUrs. The standard increases to 65 dB(A) for a one minute cumulative period, during nighttime hours. The sound levels (for a one minute cumulative period) are anticipated to be 65 dB(A) at the masonry wail, and down to 45 dB(A) at the townhome closest to the project. ' Where appropria[e, conditions of approval have been included to incorporate the above- mentioned plan revisions, such as the landscaping. As previously mentioned, staff has included additional conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts. The applicant is required to comply with AQMD standards for smoke and odor generation from the cooking equipment. Conditions limiting the hours of operation of the restaurant and drive- thru will reduce glare and noise from evening drive-thru operations. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT In determining whether to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru facility., the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the establishment of the use requested would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the · Persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to .property and improvements in the neighborhood or general welfare of the City. Planning Commission Report CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 July 13, 1998 Page 7 If the use is operated as identified in the queuing study and noise 'study, the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Resolution of Approval, the proposed drive-through service should not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the persons working in the area of, and/or using the proposed use for the following reasons: 1) 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 from the drive-thru facility would be screened through the use of an existing masonry wall, and proposed site and landscaping improvements. 4) The hours of operation would be limited to 6:00 a.m. to11:00 p.m., Sunday to Thursday 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) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a $2,500 deposit with the City for the completion of a noise study evaluating the drive-thru operations and compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Director shall select a qualified noise consultant to prepare a noise analysis to demonstrate that the 'noise levels do not exceed the maximum noise levels allowed by the .City's Noise Ordinance. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation of the study, and implementation of any mitigation measures to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. D~niel Fox, Al~P Senior Planner BE:cup97028pcreport Attachments: A- Location Map B - Submitted Plans C- Negative Declaration D- 'Correspondence from Tustin Greens Residents E - Resolution Nos. 3594 and 3595 ATTACHMENTA LOCATION MAP LC, GATIO N MAP · < ? / / WALNUT 14521I: ~ I 145:22 14521 14562 14561 14562 .14581 . .. : 14602 . AVNEUE VILLA DE HACIENDA BRIARP/DODS 14501 14511 14521 14525 14531 14535 14541 · 14551 14561 14565 14571 14575 14581 14585 14591 14611 / 14612 , 1461, I 114612 ii 14621 : ~ | 14622 I,~1 : 146411 ~ i 14642 I 14651 ! !14652 14681:1"'i~'14682 [ ,4,,1 i i14682 ,o: I : ; 147 ; 14752 J 14731 I ~.._J .... 14621! !4622 14631 J ~ J 146..12 14641 · 14642 14651 i ~ i 14652 14681 I : 14682 I ~l 147~ 114722 L ~732 SYCAMORE A~NUE SAINT · CECIL 1,4 '$ 'r \ ATTACHMENT B SUBMITTED PLANS il q,T' ' T'"' ] T ~i!~: ---":.---- ...... -::[.=-/ ..... r--"-"-'-'-' ..... : ....... --'--:----.:=----.-::~ I :.--~ , - ,. 1'.'...,iq- ..... ~",:,~ ;-~ r.~':-~'.. i....,~ ' . .... ,!.t ~.._,,~, ..... ~ x.. "'"""l ",1 ,.... ,' "'"'" , '~ ~..~ ';' "~.' ..................... . "-- ~ .... .. ~ ..~ '. , , . -- " 4 :' 'l" '..'.-i" I'' l l: Ii ...."Y . ~1 ~ t,-,,+,,, + , ~+,,, / ,rJ t , , ,11. t~,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \ h / I,.-±l~ .... · ~ ,I-- t~ ...,,,...,, ~ : l ~,1, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.~:t, x I -~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--. ' l~ll ~ I .I I I I I I I I I I I ,1~ ,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,_, ~.1~,/ . I , , IF-I-' H. I , , , , , , i , ,I "~ ........... '"~=: Il?' 1.': , I ~ , ~ ~ ~!,-' I,I;'",',,',, ~D,-,'"I, I1,' / ~: ill ll llill',l;l;l;'~:.,.,:t~. /i I . I ~ I!i ;? -."~-:"'-. \ ~/ /'~.'/ · ',' : .' l, I' , I , , , , , I.I~ ~',,,,,~,,, ,',,,,-,, '~ !1~. ~.,, ...., ,,,,,,,,......~; .'-/ I-- t., , I , ~ ~ ,,rtl ~-"" -~-- 1, , Iii'-:-? IIIIII ' d' t'- ! ~ i [ --'- '~: I I -'L'~---I ",:'i~ ! , I,:,- If' . .... : ili - ,y' I ..... 1 ..... ; , I,,~ ,,,~,,, ~,G l',l Lt , I::', , '.,, ,-~ l,.. :--:~--J "'1 II Ii ,~' ~'I I l'"" I:,,',, I'I T b ',~.'.c 1! I, l il ,.~X~ -- '1 I ~] ~-, ,,, .... ,..... , , : i_ ~:,,',, i.-. I, "' · I I ' I i(~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I "'. -,,'__'.,- - ,, _ , ' ., .,.,'',,,,,,.,.,.h,,','. ' .'.,. ' i~iE ....................... ' ................. : ......... ~-'----~-- ~j j . j~! ~'l~ ' ,WALNUT AVENUE ' ' llilli i!iii ;;ii!i lii o l BK-2 ~ BURGER KING SYCAMORE AVENUE ~. ' I I I . I i , I , , I i , i I I I i I I I I i ~ I t~ ~ ............ I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ i '' ......................... '"111 iiIiiiir%~l - WALNUT A~UE ] IIlIIIIllIIi,.-I l', iIIiilIiijll~j I J It l BK-2500 (MODIFIED) $'I'UCCO .L I -iiI ~0 ~0 .o BURGER KING ___.._.~.__=:= ,~o.,u.^v~.,~ w~,u'r ^~. : !! ! ! t! BK'25 · ' RESTAURANT FOR: ('- ~.~. -~~ )~ BURGER KING 21" l - 27' o! --~> · -! .-. a .... BK-250~) {UOD~nED:) I BURGE KING= = ~ · " ® ® ® -'1 ITl Z C ITl ~1 ..-=~oo ~1 ~'L~~'h KING REDHILL AVE. & WALNUT AVE.. J StI.,CCO.~X't'~I~K3~ J 19J$?IN. ~. ..r G SYC^MIIR[ C ~/AL NI I'l ^VJr I,,lljl'- · ~1~'~'~) ~ BURGER KING ~ REDHILL AVE. & W/M. NUT AVE.. ?USTIN. CA. ATTACHMENTC NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3]05 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-036 ProjectLocation: · 14601 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Project Description: 'REMODELING OF A VACANT BANK INTO A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE- THRU SERVICE Project Proponent: MR. MASROOR BATLA, THE BATLA FOOD GROUP Lead Agency Contact Person: BRAD EVANSON Telephone: (714) 573-3118 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin~s procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: --1 That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorPorated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study Which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Depam_ment, City of Tustin.' The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins w. ith the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be eXtended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON Date MAY 15, 1998 NEGDEC.PM5 3704.A MONDAY JULY 13, 1998 l~t~b~th A. B insack Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (7J4) 573-3J 05 INITIAL STUDY Ae BACKGROUND Project Title: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-036 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: BRAD EVANSON Phone: (714) 573-3118 Project Location: 14601 RED HILL AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Project Sponsor's Name and Address: MASROOR A. BATLA BATLA FOOD GROUP 80011RVINE IRVINE, CA GeneralPlanDesignmion: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZoningDesign~ion: C-2 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CENTER DRIVE, STE. 1150 92618 Project Description: THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMODEL A VACANT BANK BUILDING INTO A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT FAST FoOD RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU LANE WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER. Surrounding Uses: North MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL East SINGLE FAMILY- RESIDENTIAL South MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL West MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Other public agencies whose approval is required: Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District City oflrvine City of Santa Aha Orange County EMA Other Be ENVIRONMENTA ?ACTORS POTENTIALL! FFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. 12 Land Use and Planning 12 Population and Housing 12 Geological Problems F! Water 12 Air Quality 12 Transportation & Circulation 12 Biological Resources [] Energy and Mineral Resources , [2] Hazards [] 'Noise 12 Public Services 12 Utilities and Service Systems ' 12'.Aesthetics CI Cultural Resources [] Recreation 12 Mandatory Findings of Significance Ce DETERMINATION: Oh the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the emqronment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although ~e proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in tiffs case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effeCt(s) on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,, and 2)'has been addressed bv mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a ,PotentiallY, Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant'Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i~ required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 12 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Ellt. pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EItL including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Fl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier' NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that arc' imposed upon the. proposed project. Date Tede MAY 15~ 1998 ASSISTANT PLANNER D. t ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Earlier analyses used: Available for review at: City of Tustin Community Development Department ' 1. LAND USE & PLANNING - l~:ould the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable em~ironmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the viciniB,? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION & HOUSING - Ibbuld the proposal: e a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing.housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction7 d) Seiche, tsunam/, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudllows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of land7 h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geolo~c or physical features? 4. WATER - Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff7 b) Exposure of peOple or property to water related hazards · such as flooding7 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)7 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body7 e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of Water movements7 Potentially · Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E3 0 0 0 O. Potentially Significant Unless giitigalion Incorporated Less than Significant Impact NoJmpact 0 0 0 0 0 E] E] E] 0 .[] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 f) Change in the quantity, of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY - Would the proposal: 6~ a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an e.,dsting or projected air quality violation? 'b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? TR:MNSPORTATION & CIRCULATION - Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) I-la?nrds to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency, access or access to nearby uses? d) Inmfficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? e) Hn?nrds or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative tmmportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Raft, waterborne or air traffic impacts7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - WouM the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY & MII~ERAL RESOURCES - WouM the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region? Potentially Significant Impact 9otentially Significant Unless 3ditigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No bnpact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. HAZARDS - Ibbuld the proposal im,olve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health haT-~rd or potential health haT_~rd? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: 11. 12. a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Ex-postire of people to severe noise levels? PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b)' Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other government services? UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the proposal result in a nked for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas7. b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks7 e) Store water drainage7 f) Solid,,~aste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTli~TICS - Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway7 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare7 Potentially Significant Impact Polenliallv Significant UnleSs J~iligation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact NoImpac! 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 .O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 14. CULTUR3~ RESOURCES - g'buld the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Have the potential to cause a p~,sical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? · d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION -. ~Vould the proposal: a) Increase th6 demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational oppommities? 16. NE4.NDATORY FINrDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce th6 habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaiaing levels, threaten to eIiminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory7 b) Does the project have the potential to ach/eve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed ia comaection with the eft'ex'ts of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future.projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Polenliallv Significant ?otenlially Unless Less than Significant .~iligalion Significant Impact ]ncorporaled Impacl No Impact Ee EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. INITSTUD. PM5 3702A ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 & DESIGN REVIEW 97-036 BURGER KING - 14601 RED HILL AVENUE *REVISED TO REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED AT THE JULY 13, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BACKGROUND The project site, an approximately 30,000 square foot parcel at the southem end of.a 5.75 acre commercial center, is located on the southwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The site is currently developed with a supermarket, a pizza restaurant, an auto service operation, and a variety of other in-line commercial uses. Surrounding uses to the site include single family residences to the east across Red Hill Avenue and multiple family residences to the south, west, and north. The proposed project includeS the demolition of an existing 4,.400 square foot vacant bank building and the construction of a new 4,000 square foot Burger King Restaurant. The restaurant includes an indoor play area, seating for ninety-nine patrons, and a drive-thru lane. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the drive-thru operations, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9233c(g). The new restaurant includes new exterior finishes, new landscaping, restriped and reconfigured parking, and a tower/atrium at the south end of the building to enclose the play area. A Design Review application is proposed for the above noted activities. . . LAND USE & PLANNING Item c - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated": Directly to the west of the project site is an existing multiple family residential development. Operation of the proposed restaurant and drive-thru lane could result in impacts to the adjacent residents regarding odors, noise, light/glare, and general aesthetics. Detailed discussion of the various potential impacts follows in the respective sections of this environmental review. Sources: Submitted Plans City of Tustin General Plan and Zoning Code Field observations Mitigation/Monitoring Required: See appropriate section(s) of this report for' individual mitigation measures. Items a,b,d,e - "No Impact": The.subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Community Commercial. The subject property is zoned Central Commercial (C-2). The proposed restaurant use is permitted. The drive-thru operations are allowed within the C-2 Zoning District, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project would not result in alterations of present land uses in the vicinity, nor does it conflict with the General Plan or applicable environmental policies. AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 2 . . Sources: Submitted Plans City of Tustin General Plan and Zoning Code Tustin Community Development Department Field observations Miti.qation/Monitorin,qRequired: None required. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a throuqh c - "No Impact": The proposed project is on a site within an existing retail/commercial center and is surrounded by commercial/retail uses within the center, and residential uses outside the center. The proposed development would not result in any direct increase in population in that no additional dwelling units would be created. This project is proposed to meet the needs of the existing residents and businesses of the community. The project would have no impact on the location, growth, distribution or density of the population in the surrounding area. Sources: Submitted Plans City of Tustin General Plan and Zoning Code Field observations Miti.qation/MonitorinqRequired: None Required. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items a, d, e and i - "No Impact": The site is relatively fiat in its topographical features. The proposed modifications to the site involve minor grading activity to demolish the existing improvements and prepare the site for the proposed new construction. The site will not be impacted by any landslides, seiche, tsunami, volcanic action, erosion, or subsidence since none of these geologic features are present on-site or in the vicinity. Items b, c, f through h - "Potentially Si.qnificant unless Mitiqation Incorporated": According to the City of Tustin General Plan there are no Alquist-Priolo zones on or near the site. However, the site is subject to seismic shaking as a result of the site's proximity to regional fault lines such as the Newport-lnglewood fault, as.is all of Southem California. Tustin is subject to expansive soils and liquefaction'due to the high ground water table in the area. However, common construction practices such as removal and recompaction of the site soil and remedial grading will mitigate any potential impacts from any existing expansive soils encountered. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans Tustin City Code AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 3 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Ac The applicant shall submit a soils report to the Building Division prepared within twelve (12) months prior to Building Permit Plan Check. B. The applicant shall submit grading plans identifying the scope of work at Building Permit Plan Check. In addition, all structures will be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. All work shall be done in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, Grading Code and Grading Manual as required by the Building Official. 4. WATER Items b throuqh i - "No Impact": The subject site is within an existing commercial and retail center, and is not located near any standing or moving bodies of water. As a result, the amount of surface water and direction of water movement will not change. Item a - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiqation Incorporated": As proposed, the surface areas of the project will drain into the existing storm drain system. It is not anticipated that this project will substantially contribute to the drainage flow. However, a Water Quality Management Plan administered by the City of Tustin and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be required to mitigate and minimize runoff into the storm drain system. Any water deposited into the sanitary sewer system for treatment shall be in compliance with the Orange County Sanitation District requirements. Source: Field Observations Tustin Community Development Department Tustin Public Works Department Orange County Sanitation District Orange County ,Health Care Agency Mitigation/Monitodnq: A. 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. AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 4 S. The site shall be designed so that all parking area surface run-off is directed to and picked up by the storm drain system. C. All grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Tustin's Building Division and the Public Works Department to confirm compliance with Drainage Area Management Plan and Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drains and On-Site Private Improvements prior to construction. D. All landscaping irrigation shall be designed to consistent with the City's Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines which includes the use of landscaping timing devices to ensure watering efficiency. E. The use of water conserving plumbing fixtures throughout the buildings should be considered by the applicant. 5. AIR QUALITY Items a and c - "No Impacts": The proposed project would not result in substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality, nor would it alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause any changes in climate, or create objectionable odors. Items b and d - "Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated": The construction of the new structures may result in short term pollutants such as dust particles which will be emitted into the air. Conditions of approval will be required for the project to minimize construction activity dust generated as part of this project. The deep frying of some menu items as well as the charbroiling of hamburgers could result in the creation of objectionable odors. A condition has been included-requiring the applicant install emission control devices' on all cooking and exhaust equipment, in accordance with AQMD standards. Sources: Submitted Plans Field Observations Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring Required: A: The site will be required to comply with grading plan approvals with regard to dust control, which requires the applicant to apply water to the site as specified in the Grading Code and Grading Manual. This will be monitored by the Building Division when construction commences. B. The applicant will be required to install emission control devices on all cooking and exhaust equipment that complies with Air Quality Management District standards for smoke, odor and particulate generation. AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 5 6. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Items a and d - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiqation Incorporated"; Items b,c,e-,q - "No Impact": The proposed Burger King restaurant is located on Red Hill Avenue between Sycamore Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Red Hill Avenue in this area is classified as a Major Arterial roadway on the City's Arterial Highway Plan and on the Orange County Transportation Authority Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). At its current configuration of four lanes, Red Hill Avenue .currently operates at Level of Service "D" during the AM and PM peak hours. The future plans for this section of Red Hill Avenue include widening to six lanes - its MPAH designation. In the future Red Hill Avenue will carry approximately 40,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume and will operate at Level of Service "C". The site, which previously accommodated a drive-thru bank business, is vacant. The proposed project will add approximately 1,054 new ^DT trips to this section of Red Hill Avenue. The proposed project will gene.rate 79 new trips in the AM peak hour and will reduce current trips by 91 in the PM peak hour. It has been determined that the additional AM peak hour trips and the overall ^DT can be accommodated on Red Hill Avenue without deteriorating the current or future planned traffic levels of service. The proposed project includes the reconstruction of a vacant, 4,400 square foot bank building with a drive-thru into a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru. Based on the Tustin City Code, a total of 20 parking spaces are allocated for the previous bank use. Based on the proposed seat count of 99, the required parking for the restaurant is 33 spaces. A restriping plan is proposed for the entire center, which increases the provided parking to accommodate the proposed use. Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements will need to be met at the drive aprons at the parking lot entrances. This will require construction of a minimum four (4) foot wide sidewalk behind the drive apron. The maximum cross slope of the sidewalk shall be two percent and the maximum ramp slope of the drive apron shall be ten percent. Dedication of additional right-of-way is necessary to accommodate the sidewalk construction. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin Community Development Department Tustin Public Works Department Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: A. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Engineering Division a ~separate 24" by 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, for all construction within the public right-of-way. In addition, a separate 24" by 36" reproducible construction traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation would be required. AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 6 . Bo The drive-thru lane 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. C. The applicant shall construct a minimum four (4) foot wide sidewalk behind the drive apron. The maximum cross slope of the sidewalk shall be two percent and the maximum ramp slope of the drive apron shall be ten percent. This will require dedication of additional right-of-way to accommodate the sidewalk construction. A legal description and sketch of the dedication area, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and/or California Licensed Land Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The configuration of the new drive aprons should be shown on the plot plan and landscape plan as this will have an impact on the planter areas adjacent to the drive aprons D. The applicant shall be required to pay applicable Transportation System Improvement Program, Benefit Area B Fees, based upon the current fee ' schedule in effect at the time building permits are issued. Eo Sight distances at each access driveway shall be reviewed for compliance with Orange County EMA Standard Plan 1117, when landscaping and improvement pans are prepared, including the existing perimeter block wall. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a-e - "No Impact": The subject site is located within an urban area and is developed within an existing commercial/retail center. The site is free from any unique, rare or endangered species of plant or animal life. There are several mature trees adjacent to Red Hill Avenue, which will be preserved on site. The proposed project will introduce new landscaping and specimen trees on to the site in conformance with the requirements of the City of Tustin's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. All landscaping will be designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. Source: Field Observations Proposed Development Plans Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 7 8. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Items. a and c - "No Impact": The proposed project will not conflict with any adopted conservation plans nor will it result in the loss of availability of known mineral resource. Item b - "Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated": The proposed project will result in the construction use of materials that are non-renewable. However, the use of non-renewable resources will be minimal given the scale of the project. The proposed project will not result in any "significant" change in the current use of energy given the scale of new development but will require the renewal of services since the site is vacant. The applicant should consult with the various utility companies which would provide service to the development to incorporate energy conserving systems and features into the project, Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with all provisions of Title 24 shall be required with regard to energy conservation prior to building permit issuance. 9. HAZARDS Items a, b, c and e - "No Impact": The proposed use will not create conditions that negatively affect human health. The proposed project will not result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans, etc.) Item d - "Potentially S~(~nificant unless Mitigation Incorporated": The proposal will not create any health hazards or expose people to existing sources of potential hazards. All mechanical and electrical equipment associated with the facility would comply with Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Sources: Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: All construction shall be in accordance with applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Such compliance shall be verified during the plan check process prior to the issuance of any building permits. All hazardous materials shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with all Orange County Health Care Agency - Environmental Health Division, and Orange County Fire Authority requirements. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 8 10. NOISE Item b - "No Impact": The proposed project will not expose persons to severe noise levels. The project is within an existing mixed-use commercial center, and the actual project site has been operated as a bank with a drive-thru lane. The amount of traffic generated by the project is minimal and will not add significantlyto the existing ambient noise. Item a -"Potentially Significant unless Mitiqation Incorporated": 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 and pickup 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 and radios. To determine the extent of potential noise impacts to the adjacent residential property, a noise study was prepared (Attachment B). The study determined that, as the site and landscaping are configured on the plans, the project is not anticipated to generate noise exceeding the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. To address potential noise impacts, the applicant has proposed mounting the speakers in such a manner as to project sound away from the adjacent residences. To further attenuate operational noise impacts, conditions of approval have been included on the project regarding operational hours, architecture, landscaping, and site layout. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Ao Hours of operation of the restaurant are to be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to Midnight on Fdday and Saturday. The drive-thru operations will be further limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. B. All noise generated by the proposed development (including mechanical equipment, construction, and operations of the drive-thru lane) shall be in accordance with the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance which would be enforced by the Community Development Department and the Police Department. Noise generation would be limited to a maximum of 60 dBA. C. 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 Department. AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 9 Do All constr, uction operations,, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, 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. Eo Deliveries to the restaurant shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Fo 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 project 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 the 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. S. 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. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a through e - "No Impact": It is not expected that the project would create significant demands for additional service on schools, parks, maintenance of public faCilities or other govemmental service. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None. Required. AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 10 12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a through g - "No Impact": The project site is located within an existing commercial area with all utilities available to the site. Sanitary sewer, storm drain and water capacities required for the project are existing and have been designed to accommodate commercial projects on this parcel, and are therefore adequate to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would not require the need for additional utilities to serve the site. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Mitigation/MonitoringRequired: None required. 13. AESTHETICS Item a "No Impact": The proposed project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. Items b and c - "Potentially Significant unless Mitiqation Incorporated": The proposed project site is located within an existing commercial/retail center at the southwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The center was approved in 1969 and constructed shortly thereafter, in a Iow-rising ranch style with Iow pitched roofs. Proposed development plans indicate a modified Spanish style architectural theme with stucco walls, fiat corniced roofs over the kitchen and dining areas, stucco columns and stone building accents. A tower element with a pitched gray-brown tile roof and arched glass areas is proposed at the eastern end of the building to enclose the play area. The proposed project will be required to provide adequate lighting, which would add new lighting into the area to serve its operations during business hours. Wall-mounted lighting will utilize decorative fixtures and be configured to minimize impacts to the adjacent multiple-family residences by projecting the illumination up and down the wall surfaces. Freestanding lighting will be designed to compliment the new structures, and will project lighting directly towards the ground. All new exterior lighting would comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance. Glare from vehicle headlights could result from night-time operations of the restaurant. To attenuate these impacts, conditions of approval have been included Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97:028 and DR 97-036 Page 11 MitiRation/MonitorinR Required: The applicant shall be required to plant dense hedgerows in the planter island on the south side of the drive-thru lane to limit glare from vehicle headlights. Further, the applicant shall be'required to construct four foot high walls approximately ten feet. in length along the south side of the drive-thru lane. The walls shall be placed directly across from the pay and pick-up windows to further block glare from vehicle headlights. The applicant shall provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. Wall mounted fixtures shall be decorative and directed at a 90 degree angle directly up or downward. Parking lot fixtures shall compliment the proposed development similar to the existing single fixture light standard adjacent to the handicapped parking stalls in front of the Ralphs store, and directed at a 90 degree angle directly toward the ground. All lighting shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Code. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a through d - "No Impact": The proposed project site is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor are there any identified cultural, historic or archaeological resources identified on or around the site. The project will have no impacts on cultural resources. Source: City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey Tustin Community Development Department Field Verification Submitted Plans Miti.qation/MonitorinqRequired: None Required. 15. RECREATION Items a and b - "No Impact": Since this project is a commercial development to provide support for residential neighborhoods, there are no impacts on recreation. The project is not located in proximity to recreational facilities and will have no impact on quality of recreation opportunities in the community. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Miti.qation/MonitoringRequired: None Required. AttachmentA - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 97-028 and DR 97-036 Page 12 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a-d - "No Impact": The project will not cause negative impacts to wiidlifehabitat, nor achieve any short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable, nor will the project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Source: As stated above Miti,qation/MonitoringRequired: As stated above. BE:cup97028negdec.doc ATTACHMENT- B ..- J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. John J. Van Houten, P.E. Consulting Engineer in Acoustics David L. Wieland Principal Consultant · Suite 108 · lrvine, CA 92606 · 714/476-0932 FAX 714/476-1023 June 24, 1998 (Revised: June 29, 1998) Project File 2786-98 Mr. Masroor A. Bafla Bafla Group of Companies 8001 Irvine Center Drive Suite 1150 Irvine, CA 92618 Subject: Noise Assessment, Burger King, Redh;ll and Walnut Avenues, City of Tustln Reference: Project Drawings Prepared by Engineering & Associates, Inc. (No 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 provided as a result of our work: NOISE STANDARDS The City of Tustin's noise ordinance spedfies 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 ~,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 may be generated at the · adjacent residence.is 65 dB(A). Refer to Appendix I for an explanation of the A-weighted measure of noise level. AMBIENT NOISE Refer to Figure 1 .for the location of the project site and Figure 2 for the 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 of the 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 B0 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 residential elevations. MENU BOARD LOUDSPEAKER Noise measurements have been obtained for a menu board loudspeaker at an existing restaurant. Because of the directional characteristics of loudspeaker noise, the measurements were taken at several angles as shown in Figure $. 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 ob~ned at an existing Burger King on Main Street in the City of Irvine. The levels measured were similar to those indicated in Figure $. Using the data provided in Figure S, it is estimated that the maximum noise level generated by the menu board loudspeaker will be 45 dB(A) at the nearest residential unit to the northwest. 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 45 dB(A) is 20 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 speaking. However, the noise levels indicated in Figure $ 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 restaurants, it is concluded that the noise produced by the menu board and driveway activity will be well below the dries' noise ordinance standards. 2 J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. anu~^v lnuleAA ! .. #,,OCtt4lt~ ~.' E~ APPENDIX I NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA APPENDIX I NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA A description of the character of a particular noise requires the following: · Amplitude and amplitude variation of the acoustics 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 scale 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. This weighting of sound energy corresponds approximately to the relative annoyance to human 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 traffic and other long term noise producing activities within and around the community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are aceompll.qhed by recording the values of the noise for a specified period of time. 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 near minimum A-leveL' Ninety percent of the time the A-level is greater than thi.~ value. The central tendency of the A-leveL This value is exceeded 50% of the time during the measurement period. The near 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 value. · II 1 40 1 30-- 120 - 110 -.. 100 - i 9O 80 70 60. 50. 40. ,30. 20. 1'0 O- Noise SOURC THRESHOLD OF PAIN SMALL AIRCRAFT OVERHEAD RIVETING MACHINE @ 80 TO 40 FEET TRAIN PASSING @ 50 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 OF AUDIBILITY FIGURE I-1. REPRESENTATIVE NOISE SOURCES AND SOUND LEVELS APPENDIX I! NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA TABLE I!-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT The 'following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise measurements: A-Weiqhted Noise Level - Analysis Precision Sound Level Meter, LDL 812 Acoustic Calibration Acoustic Calibrator, B&K Type 4230 (94 dB ~ 1000 Hz.) Table 11-2 Noise Survr Proposed Burger King S" Tustin I June 16, 1998 ,June 22, 1998 Time: 1500 to 1530 1530 to 1600 !2115 to 2130 2150 to Location: Block wall Block wall Block wall Block wall N Ln Ln Ln Ln I 2 67.8 68.7 59.4 60.5 8 65.7 65.2 58.3 58.3 25 62.0 61.5 55.3 49.7 50 59.9 57.7 49.7 62.0 9O 99 Leq i 61.6 62.8 53.7 53.7 Lmin 52.4 48.4 45.8 46.6 Lmax 70.5 72.3 62.0 61.3 Note: Ambient Ambient Ambient Ambient no jets one jet no jets one jet _ocation: Proposed site southwest of the comer of Redhill and Walnut, Tustin. At the nearest condo. unit location to the south Date: J May 27, 1997 Time, Noted Source Source of Noise: Traffic on.Redhill ~nd through the nearby driveways. ~LM Height: 5 feet LDL 812 -'] LDL870 Noise Monitor [~Fast ~ Slow Calibration 4230 C:~LOTSUITE 486t123~775-99~786 Atmospheric Condition Temp: 76 deg F Rel. Humidity: 40% Operator: ~Van Houten. J. J. Van Houten & Associates ATTACHMENT D CORRESPONDENCE FROM TUSTIN GREENS RESIDENTS GABRIELLE SAASTA 14707 REDHILL TUSTIN, CA 92780 RECEIvEo C OMMUNI TY DEVEL oP ,ENF 120 Newport Center Drive Suite 290 Newport ~ CA 92660 RE: PROPOSED BERGER KING AT REDHILL VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER Dear Ms. Newman: As a homeowner in the community of Tustin Green, Inc., I can't tell you how much I disapprove the installation of a fast food drive~hrough ~urant next to our property. The inherent problems of such an estn~ishment are obvious. I have m/ed in this home for twenty years and i have seen my property values increase, de:mase and just recently, begin to increase again. There is no doub~ that having a Berger King next door would drasticai~ affect the values we are trying to preserve. As a member of the Board of Directors, ! am sorely disappointed that your organization did not contact us earlier in order that you could address the Board to discuss the problems. Since we are across the street from two schools, we already suffer from illegal foc~ traffic and an abundance of trash being left by students. What would happen with a fast food restaurant in our neighborhood? The Board is also concerned wfth the increase of traffic on Redhiil (dght next to our driveway), the maintenance of the establishment, the definite possibility of more foot traffic through our community and many more probi~ that are unforeseen at this time. compa~ on 'May 19~ and ~ed to the Board. Most of us received this information on May 22, 1998. This is just TWO v~..,~.s before the hearing. Had we even considered supporting your restaurant, we would need to negotiate all of the above issues. However, there isnt enough time for a most of us have facies. We don't have the time for e~T~gency meefi~ especially when we aren~ given enough time to noUce the membership. Instead, we am mounting a campaign to fight the installation of this restaurant. We are in the process of notifying all 96 owners at Tustin Green, Inc. and requesting that they attend the hearing or make. telephone calls voidng disapproval of the project. Gabrielle Saasta ~" Cc: City of Tustin planning Commission ABSTR,,CT RECORDS SERVICL, sNC. 425 E. Htmtin~on Dr. Monr6via, Ca. 91016 626.930.0464 Fax: 626.930.0477 800.879.9991 FAX COVER SHEET From: Teresa Clark Direct Line: / / Compa~ay: Number of pages including cover sheet:'~ , Comment, s: DATE: ATTN: RE:: LOCATION: FROM: 6-7-98 Planning Commlsion · Proposed Burger King Redhili Ave. (~etween Sycamore & Walnut in the Ralph's Shopping Center) Ken & Kristl Henderson (Residents of Tustin Green) 14645 Redhlll Ave. I woulcl like to address my col~cems of any type of fast-food ~urant going in next door to my commul~ity, I m'n against this proposal because: NOISE POLLUTION SMELL POLL. UT/ON TRASH POLLUTION TRAFFIC POLLUTION Which will lead to: DEPRECIA T/ON OF: PROPERTY VALUES QUAL/TY OF I. JFE COMPROMISED INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGEST/ON ON REDHILL I am concerned because of the close proximity of a fast-food restaurant to a residential neighborhood, i ihappen to be one of the closest residents to the proposed fast-food ~urant & I can literally throw a rock at the ~3uilding. I don't think any one o1; you would like to have this type of business next door to your home. family & ilWpstment. Fast-food restaurant's profits, am based on volume. That is what I am against. I would not have an objectiop to some other type of restaurant or deli that did riot generate all the noise, ~11, trash & traffic that a fast. foocl restaurants volume wlli generate. I have worked in many different types of restaurants, Including fast-food & ! am fam~iarwith ali the items I have mentioned above &the negative impact it will liege on our community, I have lived in Tustin Greens for almost g yearn & have been a mem~r of the Homeowners Association fbr almost 8 year~ Our community has ~at experienced the same upwarcl movement in property values that the mst ~f ,,Tustin is going through right now. I am one of the many homeowners, that owe more on their loan, than the prope,rty: is worth & would have to take a loss on my investment, to move away. ! love living here & malty do not want to move. The Association is planning .on ~)encling approximately almost a quarter of a million dollars on a majo~,iface-lilt & exterior renovation, to In'crease the property values of the entire community. Building · fast-food re~t~'urant next door will negate any positive, movement we make. We are already in a border-line depre.._~-sed_ & high crime ama to begin wi{h, wa don't want to Increase that. We want to detract from that & make this a totter pl;~ce to live, i We Just don't see how putting in a fast-food restaurant can improve our quality of life. : i would also like reasonable flotirmetion, when something as impactful as a Burger King going in next door-~o~mes up. I was also Just Informed that ~his would not be discussed at the original meeting of June 8 & that it had bee~ sohecluled for June 22. I am not sure if I can attend the meeting, but would like my voice to be heard. : : · ldo appreciate anything youl can do to help me to better our community, by not approving the proposed E~.rger King ~ast-Food Restaurant. Let~make this a better place to livel I am certian that there is some other type ~f ~3usiness that can be as .pror~ble for the Ralph's 8hoppi~ Center that would also be sensitive & prof'~abie, for the neighloorhood. We wont Tustln Green & It's neighbom to be competitive In the marlmtplace. Please feel free to contact me al. work 714 ! 641 4868 ext 270 or at home 714 1258 - 033,7 TO: City of Tustin Plal g Commission FROM: Ron McPherson SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit June 8,1998 RECEi",/ - This is in response to the notice of public hearing concerning the COMMUNiT'¥ conditional use permit for the Burger King Restaurant at the Tustin Green Hou.sing complex on Red Hill Ave between WaLnut & Sycamore. The franchisee 'has the right to establish a retail business since it has been zoned for retail since about 1969. However, the residents in the community have the right to maintain the integrity &quaIity of the local environment. Therefore, it is imperative that we resist any attempt to approve the permit for a drive-thru facility only 50 feet from our homes because of the negative impact on the community. This established community of 32 years should .not be perceived by the city to be nothing more than a south Tusfin apartment complex ("down there") with an indiffe~:ent population that can simpiy relocate. This community consists of many long-term homeowners that have a vested interest in their property & wish to prevent further'deterioration of the surrounding area. We cannot concede to approval of the conditional use permit that will have a deleterious effect on our community for the following reasons: 1.-Exacerbation of the acute traffic hazards at the Tustin Green/Red Hill entry/exit point. a. It is not poskible to mitigate the conflicting traffic movement at this location which is already an extreme hazard; the engineering trip study of Red Hill should consider the obvious hazards inherent with the parallel entry/exit lanes for Tustin Green & the Plaza; review of Police incident reports will reveal the danger to the. heavy pedestrian traffic at this location. 2. Noise pollution from the speaker system cannot be alleviated by the projects' proposed landscaping or artificial barriers. 3. Trash disposal by the hordes of Thorman/Currie students that pass through the area daily cannot be controlled. 4. Cooking odors/fumes will incessantly permeate the area. 5. Operating hours until 1:00 a.m. will create constant police inter- vention to inhibit the congregation of noisy groups at the location. Approval of the permit would be a blatant disrespect for residents of Our community & a total disregard for our rights to a tranquil & trouble-free environment. The only acceptable alternative is a retail establishment without the drive-thru operation. Regards; Ron McPherson 14655 Red Hill Ave Tel 259-1261 RECEIVED Dear Council members and concerned parties, The ill-conceived plan to erect a fast food establishment in an area adjacent to the Tustin Green properties should not happen. Beyond the physical construction of the establishment, the traffic, vandalism, and overall concern for a better 'home" type environmem, the fact is, which of you Would condone this construction adjacent to your house? Which of you would like to measure the thirty feet fi,om my house to this establishment? I hope your decision is arrived at with care. Sma and Edna Jones 14631 Redhill Ave Tustin Ca To Tustin City Council: I live at 14623 Red Hill AvenUe, Tustin, California, in the association known as Tustin Green. I am opposed to having Burger King in the Ralph's shopping center for reasons associated with the enjoyment 'of my property, like noise and smell, as well as safety issues related to the increased traffic. Dated: July 13, 1998 To Tustin City Council: I live at 14635 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin, California, in the association known as Tustin Green. I am opposed to having Burger King in the Ralph's shopping center for reasons associated with the enjoyment of my property, like noise and smell, as well as safety issues related to the increased traffic. Dated: July 13, 1998 To Tustin City Council: I live at 14631 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin, California, in the association known as Tustin Green. I am opposed to having Burger King in the Ralph's shopping center for reasons associated with the enjoyment of my property, like noise and smell, as well as safety issues related to the increased traffic. Dated: July 13, 1998 May 26, 1998 To Whom it May Concern; It is may understanding that Burger King is ready to move into the old Wells Fargo Bank location on Redhill Ave. I am absolutely against this happening. I live in TUstin Greens, within spitting distance from this location. My bedroom, driveway and garage face this location. I do not appreciate a future of 24 hours of noise, the smell of heated grease in the air, additional trash in my yard, increased foot traffic on and around my property from loiters, increased car traffic, and this gives me great concern for the safety of my property and myself. In the 17 years that I have lived (and voted) here, I have witnessed the aftermath of too many accidents due to the traffic flow in and out of the shopping center and Tustin Greens. It seems just way too many drivers exiting the shopping center adhere to their own "left of way" rule vs the "right of 'way" law. · This addition traffic flow in and out of the center will just exacerbate the problem. The city of Tustin does not need another fast food restaurant, no less another Burger King within 2 miles of the one on NewPo.rt Blvd. I can promise you all that not only will I not do business with this Burger King, I will do everything I can to persuade anyone I know to not eat there. You know, I tell two friends and they tell two friends and so on. Also, I can assure everyone involved, that if my quality of life is disrupted, I will seek all legal means necessary to make it right and to restore my quality of life. J~ni~ Eason ~ . 1~ aedhill Ave. Tu~/din, California 92780 July 10, 1998 Planning Commission City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RECEIVED BCOMMUNIT. £LOPMENT Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing in regard to the proposed conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant in the Red Hill Village Shopping Center. My husband and I are the owners of a townhome at Tustin Green, which is adjacent to the 'proposed drive-through. This proposed fast-food drive-through restaurant is just in the wrong place - too close to a peaceful, established neighborhood, aggravating an already dangerous traffic situation. We are opposed to the conditional use permit for the following reasons: 1) 2) Drive-through noise will destroy the peacefulness of our community. I do not want to live the rest of my life to the constant refrain "May I take your order?. Yeah, uh, I'd like a Whopper and fdes and a small coke."l will hear that same question and answer an estimated 400 times per day, all day, most of the night. A bad traffic situation will get worse. The twin driveways from the shopping center and from Tustin Green which are on Red Hill are separated only by a Iow wall. This is a very dangerous ingress/egress. Getting in and out of our complex is a constant dodging game, for ddvers, cyclists and pedestrians, many of whom are children. A child on a bicycle was hit by a car there last week. Add 400 drivers a day to this hazardous traffic situation, all of whom are distracted by their Whoppers and fdes, and it is only a matter of time until a child is killed. 3) In addition to the safety issue cited above, those 400 distracted drivers exiting onto Red Hill creates even more of a nuisance for those of us who must use this exit as our main access to our homes. With the very heavy traffic on Red Hill and a steady stream of ddvers from the shopping center, ! frequently wait five minutes to pull out of my driveway in the morning. Add drive-through traffic and it will become impossible. 4) 5) There are almost no other fast food restaurants operating this close to residences in Tustin. My property values will plummet with the additional of a fast-food restaurant next door. The proposed Burger King will attract a flood of students from the middle school a block away. Good for the owner of the restaurant, very bad for the owner of a home between the two. Teenagers are the prime walk-in market for this restaurant, and they'll come and go through our complex. This will bring increased loitering, noise and vandalism. 6) The increased foot traffic through our complex will result in Burger King trash being deposited in our driveways, on our lawns, on our sidewalks. 7) The odor of frying oil will permeate our neighborhood. Ask yourself - would you want a fast food restaurant to open next door to your home? Yes, .in your neighborhood. The noise, the smell, the garbage, the traffic where your kids walk and plaY?. Of course not, and neither do I. JAMES CAMI~BELL JOANNA CAMPBELL 1425 .~/¢AMORE AVENUE TII.~i'IN, CALIFORNIA 92780 [71~] 258-8705 July 13, 1998 Tustin Planning Commission Tustin City Hall 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-028, Design Review No. 97-036 Proposed Drive-Thru, Fast Food Restaurant at 14601 Red Hill Avenue Dear CommiSsioners: I am a homeowner residing in Tustin Greens which is located adjacem to the proposed project and I am a practicing city planner with 10 years of experience. My wife and I are opposed to the proposed project as it will create several negative consequences to all residents of Tustin Greens. There are 96 residences in Tustin Green who will be directly and negatively impacted by the project if approved. I would have liked to prepare my comments earlier, but due to previous commitments, I was out of town. I realize that my comments are lengthy and I respectfully request that you review my comments below before taking action on the proposed project. In my professional opinion, the Negative Declaration is inadequate and the proposed project is incompatible with the abutting residential uses and the project should be denied. My specific concerns are as follows: o Land Use - A drive-thru, fast food restaurant is not comPatible with residential uses due to noise, odor and the hours of operation. Drive-thru, fast food restaurants are more appropriate in commercial or industrial areas or near freeways where they do not abut residential uses. The expanded hours of operation even if restricted somewhat permit a level of commercial activity that the adjacent residential properties do no experience. The increase in activity is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The site was formerly occupied by a bank which had "bankers hours" where limited impacts were experienced. A drive-thru., fast food restaurant would like to operate 24-hours, if it could, and even with extended hours from 6AM to Midnight as proposed, the operations would be disastrous to the peace of mind of Tustin Green residents. . Traffic - The initial study indicates that the projected traffic volumes can be accommodated by Red Hill Avenue. This may be true, but the initial study and staff report does not address traffic safety. No specific traffic study was prepared. The proposed restaurant is located near the only left turn access point from northbound Red Hill to the shopping center. Left tums from site and shopping center at the driveway are allowed as well with no restrictions. This left turn access (ingress and egress) is shared by Tustin Greens residents. When traffic volume is low on Red Hill, left tums are at this driveway are hazardous at best. During the AM and PM peak periods, left turns are almost impossible. Conditional Usc Permit No. Design Review No. 97-036 Page 2 of 3 . The initial study indicates 1,054 new average daily trips with 79 new trips during the AM and 91 new trips during the PM peak periods. Most of these new trips will use the congested driveway which will only exacerbate a hazardous condition as the driveway is the most convenient one to approach the Proposed restaurant. Currently there is a restriction of no left tums from north bound Red Hill between 6:30AM and 9:30AM which is not effective to mitigate the current hazardous vehicle movements nor the increased hazards created by additional slow moving left tums traffic if the project were approved. I request that the project be denied which will avoid the increased traffic safety impact altogether. If the city chooses to continue to evaluate the project, I suggest that the following mitigation measures be incorporated as conditions of approval and evaluated by an independent traffic engineer. The applicant shall close all the northbound left turn pocket on Red Hill and · construct a fully improved raised median. Left tums from northbound Red Hill shall be prohibited during the AM and PM peak periods~ Left' turn from the project site .and Tustin Greens be prohibited during the AM and PM peak periods. The planner handling this project indicated that the city traffic engineer does not think there is a significant traffic hazard, but no traffic study has been prepared by an independent qualified traffic engineer to verify this ."thought". There is no discussion or analysis of traffic safety in the initial study or staff report, but an expert "thought" does not always indicate a fact. I have lived at Tustin Greens for 6 years and I have used the driveway in question at all hours and have first hand experience of the hazardous traffic movements occurring each day. I came home last Saturday to find broken auto glass in the street at the driveway. I do not know the circumstances as to what happened, but where there is broken glass, there was an accident. Noise - The initial study references a noise study that relied upon noise measurements at an existing restaurant. The study only identifies loudspeaker operation as the noise source. The idling and maneuvering of vehicles and their stereos was not accounted for. The noise study indicates an expected noise level 45 dB(A) at the nearest residential unit, but the city noise ordinance requires that the noise measurement be measured at the residential property line which is far closer. This statement in the noise study may be an error, but if not, it indicates a significant flaw in the study. The noise study does not definitively indicate compliance with the noise ordinance. The mitigation measure to do an "after-the-fact" noise study is unacceptable as the impact would already be occurring and no potential mitigation measures are identified. The proposed site plan puts the order board at the 'furthermost point of the project which is closer to residential units. My first request is that the project by denied, but in the event that the city chooses to approve the project, I suggest that the entire building be pushed forward toward Red Hill. This would either eliminate the playland area or the drive aisle between the building and Red Hill. This simple change will increase the distance between the loudspeaker and the nearest residential units. The Conditional Use Permit No. Design Review No. 97-036 Page 3 of 3 mitigation measures limiting the hours of operation are not effective and too. permissive. I suggest that the drive-thru be closed between 9:00PM and 8:00AM, seven days a week if the project were approved at all. The new noises may or may not exceed applicable standards and may not be "significant" in a CEQA sense, but the new noises will be an annoyance to abutting residences currently not experienced. . Air Quality - The initial study relies on the South Coast Air Quality Management District standards to make a finding of no significant impact. This finding does not indicate what specific mitigation measures or operational standards will ensure less than significant air emissions and odors. Burger King, the' proposed restaurant operator, charbroils its food and I have seen Significant amounts of smoke and odors coming from other Burger King restaurants. Wind is variable and at times it does blow toward Tustin Greens as well as Tustin Meadows across from Red Hill Avenue. The smoke and especially the odor at our or residence would by unacceptable, inhibiting potential buyers and disrupting peace of mind. Odor is a marketing tool and Burger King understands this fact, but living with it will be disgusting. . Trespassing - Located to the south of Sycamore Avenue is Currie Middle School. Tustin Greens currently receives significant amounts of foot traffic from students cutting through the complex and we experience graffiti, vandalism and trash. The proposed fast food restaurant will be attractive to the students and Tustin Greens will see an increase in foot traffic which exacerbate these issues. We have attempted to install gates on this complex to increase security, but the Community Development Department denied past requests. Tustin Green property values will be negatively effected due to increased traffic. Tustin Greens is an older condominium complex which shows signs of aging. The homeowners association, of which I am a member of the Board of Directors, has recently embarked upon a restoration and painting project which we hope will preserve the value of our homes. The proposed project if approved will have a negative effect on our efforts and a negative effect property values and I urge the Planning Commission to deny the project. I have identified several issues that have not been adequately addressed in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, and I have identified several mitigation measures which might help, but I would suggest that the Commission decline to approve the negative declaration at this time. Again, if the Commission wishes to continue evaluating the project in the light of my concerns, I suggest that you direct further study and analysis including the preparation of a full traffic study by an independent, qualified traffic engineer. In closing, I respectfully request that the Planning CommisSion exercise its discretion and find the project incompatible with adjacent properties and deny the proposed project. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. · 1 S n ely, ,J ' (]ames Campbell & Jdanna Campbell CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 1998 ITEM # 1 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY .13, 1998 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kozak INVOCATION: Commissioner Davert ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Howard Mitzman, Chairman · Scott Browne Douglass Davert Steve Kozak Leslie Pontious Staff Present: Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Lois Bobak, Deputy City Atto.rney Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) No Public Concerns were expressed. CONSENT CALENDAR: IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. . (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER cONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE Planning Commission July 13, 1998 Page 3 utes Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Davert seconded, to.continue the public hearing to the August 10, 19'98 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Continued Public Hearinq Conditional Use Permit 98-013 a request to establish off-site alcoholic beverage sales (type 20: beer and wine) in conjunction with a service station and convenience store. The project is located at the northeast intersection of Edinger Avenue and Jamboree Plaza Drive within the Planned Community Industrial- Jamboree Plaza Planned Community DiStrict Regulations. APPLICANT: THE MERIDIAN GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: ROGER DE YOUNG FAMILY, L.P. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 98- 013 until the regularly scheduled meeting on August 10, 1998.' Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to continue the public hearing to the August 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-028 AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-036 a request to demolish an eXisting bank building and establish a 4,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru operations within a commercial center. The project is located at 14601 Red Hill Avenue within the Central Commercial (C-2) district. OWNER/ JILL' RICHTER APPLICANT: MASROOR A. BATLA · BATLA FOOD GROUP RECOMMENDATION . Approve the Environmental Determination for the prOject by adopting Resolution No. 3594; and, o , Approve Conditional Use Permit 97-028 and Design Review 97-036 by adopting Resolution No. 3595. Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner presented the subject report.. The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. Planning Commission Mi~ July 13, 1998 Page 4 Coralee Newman, applicant, complemented staff and stated agreement with all conditions except 8.1 preferring the drive-thru and the restaurant to have the same hours of operation. The Director noted that staff was given four letters from residence from the Tustin Green Association opposing the project due to noise, odor,, safety issues and increase in traffic. Gabrielle Saasta, 14707 Red Hill Avenue, stated her. concerns with noise, trash, trespassers and gang activity increasing. Commissioner Browne asked if the homeowner association had attempted to solicit desirable merchants for the location. James Campbell, 1425 Sycamore Avenue, stated his concem with land use compatibility, traffic, odor and trespassing also referenced additional mitigation measures suggested in his letter. Suanne Honey, 14625 Red Hill Avenue, stated her concem with accidents generated from the driveways. Ken Henderson, 14645 Red .Hill Avenue, stated his concem with noise and additional traffic. Cada Brame, 14641 Red Hill Avenuel stated her concern with traffic, noise and odor. Andy Schiller, Red Hill Avenue, stated his concem With noise from the loudspeaker and commercial and residentially zoned properties in close proximity. Frederick Honey, 14625 Red Hill Avenue, inquired if the noise study was done at night and noted several accidents by the driveways. Carole Wade, 14633 Red Hill Avenue, stated her concern with traffic safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and that children will loiter at the restaurant. - Larry_ Manley; 14651 Red Hill Avenue, stated his concem with odor and noise. Janis Eason, 14621 Red Hill Avenue, stated her concern for the safety of children walking in the area.. · Vicki Manley, 14651 Red Hill Avenue, stated her concem with traffic and the block Wall · obstructing view of children in the area. Jason Petrocic.h.., asked, for the minimum tree height being requested and stated his concern with dust from demolition of the existing building. Bob Zeis stated his concem with odor, safety and the possibility of Red Hill Avenue becoming a super street. Planning Commissior July 13, 1998 Page 5 utes Matt Nisson stated his support for improvement of the commercial center and noted that the block wall on his property effectively screens noise. Coralee Newman, applicant, stated that the two land uses have co-existed for many years; the noise study was done in the evening; fifteen gallon trees will be installed; and, stated that a catalytic converter will eliminate odor. Commissioner Browne asked the applicant if they had considered moving the property to the north. Masroor Batla, applicant, stated that the current bank building is about the same size as the restaurant and has an existing drive-thru pattern and he has not approached the property owner with the option of moving the bbiiding. Commissioner Davert stated that he has visited the site, read the correspondence and is excited about the economic renewal of the area and noted that the project does comply with the City's codes and standards. Commissioner Kozak stated his excitement for the revitalization of the area; noted that the properties have co-existed for many years; and suggested an additional order board with read-out function and raising the block wall to buffer noise. Commissioner Pontious noted that the applicant has endeavored to mitigate the residents' concems and in her experience, the fears projected are greater than the reality and supports the proposal. Chairman Mitzman stated his approval of the land-swap suggested by Commissioner Browne and noted that he can smell odors from the McDonalds on Bryan and Tustin Ranch Road. commissioner Browne inquired where the noise measurement was taken. Daniel Fox responded that the report does' not state conclusive!y where the measurement was done and staff could add a condition of approval.to require a more complete noise study. Commissioner Browne asked Doug Anderson, Traffic Engineer for clarification on points · raised during the hearing. Doug Anderson, stated that the decision to increase lanes on Red Hill Avenue has been deferred until the Eastern Transportation Corridor oPens; noted that Engineering does a pCeliminary assessment on projects to determine if an additional traffic study is warranted; and, noted that between 1993 and July 12~ there have been 15 accidents at this location and noted that the initial study should say "no significant impact" for ci~'culation. Commissioner Pontious asked for Mr. Anderson's opinion of diverting drive-thru traffic to the north. Planning Commission IV" July 13, 1998 Page 6 ~'es Doug Anderson responded that staff would be supportive of directing drive-thru traffic to the north. Commissioner Davert aSked if the property could be periodically monitored for accidents. 'Doug Anderson noted that the property could be monitored on a monthly basis. Commissioner Pontious asked if a condition could be added for dust suppression. The Director indicated that dust suppression techniques are required during demolition and construction. Commissioner Pontious asked if staff could revisit the Tustin Greens' request for gates. Doug Anderson responded that typically when gates are added to a property that is already developed there is a concern with vehicles backing up across sidewalks or into the public fight-of-way. The Director responded that staff would need to review the specific location. commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3594. item 6.a on checklist being changed to "Potentially significant - unless mitigation is incorporated". Motion carried 4-1. Chairman Mitzman was opposed. · . Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 97-028 and Design Review 97-036 by adopting Resolution No. 3595, amended as follows: Condition 5.7 to read: "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." Condition 4.15 added as follows: 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. Condition 6.2 added as follows: Ail 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 project 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. Planning Commission It' July 13,'1998 Page 7 9S Condition 8.1 changed to read: 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 Friday and Saturday. Motion carried 3-2. Chairman Mitzman and Commissioner Browne were opposed. The Public Hearing closed at 8:44 p.m. The appeal process was explained. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-010 a request for authorization to construct a major wireless communication facility at 550 West Sixth Street located within the Planned Industrial District (PM). APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: TUSTIN SELF STORAGE LIMITED . RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3601 Permit 98-010. denying Conditional Use Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner presented the subject report. The Public Hearing opened at 8:46 p.m. Barbara Saito, applicant, thanked staff, presented photos of facilities mentioned in staff report, stated that the project meets the City's ordinance and stated that three real trees could be added to the landscape. Chairman Mitzman inquired if the original request has changed to add three live trees. Barbara Saito responded that her proposal would be one stealth and 2 or 3 live trees. Commissioner Browne inquired if the applicant had gotten the property owner's approval for the additional trees.' · Barbara Saito stated that she had not but would not be able to continue with the project if the property owner did not approve. The Director noted that a phone call was received from Jeff Thompson, a resident who had concerns with visual intrusion. CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT D PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3595 RESOLUTION NO. 3595 14 l? 20 22 23 24 25 26 '27 28 29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97- 028. AND DESIGN REVIEW 97-036, 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: Ao Bo 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. 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)). Co 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: 1) 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. 6' l0 20 22 24 25 26 2? 29 Resolution No. 3595 Page 3 14. Development Guidelines and criteda as adopted 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). Go 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 with the Air Quality Sub-element. H. 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 ali radius type driveways are necessary for compliance with the requirements of ADA. II. 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 and 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)' 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to 'review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 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 Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 . 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 SUBMITTAL (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 wdting prior to any approval. (1) 2,3 The building shall comply in all respects with the Building Code, other related codes, City Ordinances, and state and federal laws and regulations. (3) 2.4 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided based on the number of occupants. SOURCE CODES (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 Exhibit A 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 se~:ond 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 fight-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 striping In addition, a 24" x 36" reproducible construction area traffic 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. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3595 Page 3 (5) 2.12 Complete the hazardous material qUestionnaire 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 shall 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) (3) 2.14 2.15 · Trash receptacles shall be placed inside every exit from the dining area and the p, lay area. All building locking devices added to the premises shall' meet those requirements as set forth in the Building Security Code. SIGNS (4) 3.1 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) (1) 4.3 4.4 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 All final colors and materials to be used shall be subject to review and approval by the .Community Development Department. All exterior 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.i0 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 exterior downspouts shall be permitted; all roof drainage shall utilize interior piping, but may have extedor outlets at base of building. (4) 4.11 Roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflow drainage. will not stain the walls. (4) 4.12 Indicate the location of all exterior mechanical equipment. Gas and electric meters shall either be enclosed within the building or boxed behind a screen wall designed to be consistent with the main building. (4) ' 4.13 A grading plan will be required based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark datum. (4) 4.14 (4) 4.15 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 customer~ north away from the southernmost drive entrance. Said extension shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 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 ali landscaping areas consistent with adopted. City of Tustin Landscaping and inigation 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, ExhibitA Resolution No. 3595 Page 5 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: A. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum of 8 feet on center when intended as screen planting. Bo· C. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center. 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 condition 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) 5.3 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) 5.4 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. (4) 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 All 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 EM,& Standard Plan 1117, when landscaping and improvement plans are prepared, including the existing perimeter block wall. Exhibit A 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 project 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 pdor 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. VVithin 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 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. (2) 6.5 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 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. (5) 7.2 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 Fd~lay and Saturday. • BILLIE WALLER 14637 Red Hill Avenue Tustin, California 92780 August 13, 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. ittintAc- 19N RECEIVED AUG 1 41998 ADMINISTRATION 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, AeleeL //(/ G / j, J Billie Waller • • JEFF ZOLDOS 14671 Red Hill Avenue Tustin, California 92780 August 13, 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: RECEIVED ADMINISTRATION We have interviewed people who live very close to chive- through fast-food restaurants and would request that the City Council members also interview these people to understand the impairment to the use and enjoyment of the use of their homes as a result of the noise, litter and safety issues related to drive- through restaurants. There is a Wendy's restaurant on it Street in Santa Ana right across the street from Albertson's. Immediately behind the Wendy's is an apartment complex. The noise, according to the residents, is from the loud souped -up cars, car radios, the speakers and bottles being broken in the parking lot. There is a Taco Bell on Newport Avenue with residents who live immediately behind the drive - through portion of the restaurant. Please visit with these residents to understand how the residents' quality of life has been affected as a result of the proximity to the drive- through restaurant. Sincerely, • • Mr and Mrs Jimmy 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 Tustin, California 92780 In re: Burger King on Red Hill Avenue Hearing: 8/17/98 Dear Mayor Salterelli and Members of Tustin City Council: 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 August 14, 1998 City of Tustin City Council Members 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 RECEIVED ADMINERRATIS 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 choose this city because of its lack of commercial development, the quietness, slow pace and rural - likeness. Since then this has changed I now find myself trying to protect my senses from being accosted by the noise and smelly addition of a fast food drive -thru restaurant within spitting distance of my home (My 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 again, the nay- sayers maybe right. I have witnessed an accelerated commercial growth 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 turning into barrios There 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 commission, that a fast food drive -thru would upgrade and enhance our neighborhood * ** I don' t think so * * *. And 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 demolition of the existing 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 get to look forward to hearing "May I take your order ", "do you wand fries with that ?" over and over and over, idling of car engines, the aggravating pounding 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 to get 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) The additional traffic flow in and out of the shopping center, coupled 1 • • with children walking to and from school will be a tragedy waiting 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 sio 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. Possibly 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 recycling 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 their cars. This is a fact, as I have asked friends that live near drive - thru's and one of their biggest complaints is the proliferation of trash This trash problem will make the wayward 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 city 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 resident and voter Janis Eason 14621 Redhill Ave. Tustin Ca 92780 2 • • August 1998 RECEIVED AUG 1 71998 ADMINISTRATION 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 kid\R -c \ 40'4 AUG -17 -98 17 00 FROM CarsonComDevDept ID 3108355749 PAGE 2/3 • James Campbell Joanna Campbell 1425 Sycamore Avenue Tustin, California 90745 (714) 258 -8705 August 17, 1998 Tustin City Council Tustin City Hall 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 • Re: 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 I am also a practicing city planner with 10 years of experience My wife and I 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 the 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 substitute 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 -17 -1999 17 15 3109355749 P 02 I. AUG -17 -9B 17 00 FROM CarsonComDevDept ID 3108355749 PAGE 3/3 Conditional Use Permit No - 028 Design Review No 97 -03 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 modern 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 familiar 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 corner 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, /iW C James Campbel AUG -17 -1998 17'15 3108355749 P 03