SR-102296-7B
78
PCD CPD.DM PF
f \ppd\share\ccreport\wllssup
Council MeetIng October 22, 1996
OCT 2 2 1996
Santa MonIca, Cahfornla
TO Mayor and City Council
FROM City Staff
SUBJECT Supplemental Staff Report for Appeal 95-016 of Planning Commission
Approval of Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP 95-016) and Variance
ApplicatIon (VAR 95-033) to Allow the Late-Night Operation of the Drive-Up
Window In the Jack-In-the-Box Restaurant Located at 2423 WIlshIre
Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
This staff report IS a supplemental to the April 23, 1996 staff report regarding the Appeal
of CUP 95-016 and Variance 95-033 to allow the late night operation of the drive up
Window at the Jack-In-the-Box restaurant located at 2423 Wilshire Boulevard
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 1995, the Planning CommiSSion approved With conditions a Conditional
Use Permit applrcatron (CUP 95-016) to allow the operatron of a dnve-up Window In the
Jack-In-the-Box Restaurant located at 2423 Wilshire Boulevard between the hours of
10 ODpm to 12 DOam on Friday and Saturday nights In a concurrent action, the Planning
CommiSSion approved With conditions a Variance application (VAR 95-033) to allow for
the construction of an acoustical sound wall a maximum of fourteen (14) feet In height to
reduce the nOise Impacts of the late-night operations of the drive-up Window The
applicant, Foodmaker, Inc, appealed the Planning CommISSion determinations to the City
1
78
OCT 2 2 1996
Council Their appeal IS based on the grounds that the nOise Impacts of the operation of
the dnve-up window could be fully mitigated to a level In compliance with the standards of
the City's NOise Ordinance and, therefore, the dnve-up Window should be allowed to
operate from 10 OOpm to 7 DDam In addition, Foodmaker, Inc appealed several conditions
of approval including the requIrement for a on-site security person to mOnitor drive-up
window activIties between 1 D ODpm to 12 DDam Friday and Saturday nights
The City Council conducted a public heanng on the appeals on Apnl 23, 1996 and heard
testImony from the appellant, an attorney representing the appellant and the public
Including many of the adjacent neighbors FollOWing the public testimony, the Council
closed the publIc heanng and contmued theIr delIberatIons untIl this date
As part of the applicant's Conditional Use PermJt application, a nOJse study prepared by
Hans GirOUX & Associates was submItted that evaluated and measured the level of nOise
assocIated With the eXisting drive-up Window GIroUX & Associates concluded that an
acoustlcal sound wall could reduce the nOise Impacts to a level which complied With the
City's NOise Ordinance To verify and confirm the conclUSion of the appellant's nOise
consultant, Mestre Greve Associates was asked by the City to analyze and revIew the
applicant's nOise study for consistency and compliance WIth the City's NOise Ordinance
This staff report provIdes Council With the results of that analYSIS
2
ANALYSIS OF GIROUX & ASSOCIATES NOISE STUDY
The GiroUX & Associates study was conducted for the appellant to measure the late-mght
nOise Impacts of the operatIon of the dnve-up window, to assess the nOise Impacts for
compliance or non-compliance with the City's NOise Ordinance and to recommend
mitigation measures to bnng the nOise Impacts Into compliance If necessary Since the
Apnl 23, 1996 City Council heanng, City staff has asked Mestre Greve Associates, the
City's nOIse consultants, to review the GiroUX study In Its entirety and to venfy the
analytical methodology used In the study, Its consistency with the City's NOIse Ordinance
and the study's conclUSIons that the mitigation measures proposed by the appelfant (silent
speaker ordenng system and acoustical sound wall) Will mitigate the nOIse Impacts from
the drive-through In addItIon, the City's consultant, Mestre Greve, was asked to evaluate
the effectiveness of the follOWing condition of approval
Condition #14 "The acoustical sound wall shall be a contiguous structure
Without gaps between supporting steel tubing and glass panels a minimum
thickness of 0 5 Inches or plastiC panels a minimum thickness 0 75 Inches
and shall attenuate the nOIse Impacts of the drive-up Window operation to a
nOise level not to exceed fifty (50) dBA at the adjacent reSidential property"
MESTRE GREVE REVIEW
Methodology, FlndlnQs & ConclUSions
Mestre Greve reviewed the methodology used by the applicant/appellant's consultant,
GIroux & Associates, and determIned that It IS not consistent WIth the methodology outlined
In the City's NOise Ordinance The NOise Ordinance diVides the City Into the three zones
for the purpose of measunng nOise Impacts -- Zone 1 (Residential), Zone II (Commercial)
and Zone III (Industnal) and sets standards for acceptable nOIse levels which vary by time
3
of day and day of the week These extenor nOise standards are measured as the "Noise
Equivalent Level" (Leq) and cannot be exceeded for a cumulative penod of fifteen (15)
minutes In any thirty (30) minute penod Additionally, the NOise Ordinance states that one
shall not generate a nOise that will exceed "a maximum Instantaneous nOIse level equal
to the value of the nOise standard plus 20dBA at any tIme and for any penod of tIme" This
IS also known as the Lmax standard Therefore, the nOise standards as specified In the
NOise Ordinance for residential areas are 60 dBA Leq (80dBA Lmax) dUring daytime hours
and 50 dBA Leq (70dBA Lmax) dUring mghttlme hours The daytime hours are 700 a m -
1000 P m Monday through Fnday and 8 00 a m to 1000 p m Saturday and Sunday The
nighttime hours are 1000 P m to 700 a m Monday through Fnday and 1000 P m to 8 00
a m Saturday and Sunday Additionally, the NOIse Ordinance contains a provIsIon
whereby these levels shall be reduced 5 dBA for Impulse or sImple tone nOises, or for
musIc or speech
Instead of uSing the Leq standard at 15-mlnute Intervals to determine compliance with the
Norse Ordinance durrng each 15-mrnute Interval, Grroux & AssocIates averaged the nOIse
levels In the alley over the entire period of time that they conducted their analysIs resulting
In an average nOise level after 10 00 P m of 55dBA They then applied the Lmax standard
In the NOise Ordinance of 20dBA to analyze compliance with the NOise Ordinance at
75dBA and not the mghttlme standard of 70dBA contained In the NOise Ordinance The
City's consultant, Mestre Greve, has Indicated that this method does not accurately
present all that IS occurnng within the nOise environment and that It would have been more
4
accurate to follow the methodology In the NOise Ordinance by measuring the difference
between a) the Leq for the ambient nOise with the drive-through window closed and b)
the Leq for the ambient nOise with the drive-through window open at 15-mlnute Intervals
If the nOise levels dUring each 15-mlnute Interval under scenario (b) were greater than
those under scenario (a), then the Jack-In-the-Box would be In violation of the City's NOise
Ordinance The City's consultant believes that although the analysIs was not conducted
In a manner consistent with the City's NOise Ordinance, the eight (8) nOise level recordings
associated with the dnve-through contained In the Giroux & ASSOCiates report which
exceed 70dBA violate the City's NOIse Ordinance standards
AnalysIs of Proposed Mitigation Measures
Although Mestre Greve concluded that the methodology used by the applicant/appellant's
consultant. Giroux & ASSOCiates. was flawed In terms of consistency with the NOise
Ordinance methodology, they believe that a general understanding of the nOise
environment around Jack-In-The-Box can be made and an evaluation of the effectiveness
of the acoustlcal sound wall and silent speaker ordering & confirmation system can be
drawn from the analysIs that was completed
The Giroux report concludes that the acoustical sound wall and silent-speaker ordering
and confirmation system will mitigate "a very high percentage of any perceived nOise
nUisance" from the dnve-up window operation The City's consultant belIeves that given
ItS location and deSign, the acoustical sound wall could be effective In mitigating nOise
t::
...J
Impacts from vehicles stopped at the silent-speaker ordering and confirmation station,
however, nOise from vehIcles (such as musIc, passengers, auto engines) entenng the
dnve-up aisle from the alley and driveway and from those vehicles proceeding away from
the sound wall and ordering station to the pick-up window could not be mitigated by the
sound wall because the nOise events occur a distance away from the sound wall
City staff also asked Mestre Greve to analyze whether the proposed acoustical sound wall
would mitigate nOise Impacts from the drive-up operation on the second floor of adjacent
reSidences Mestre Greve bell eves that the sound wall would be effective In mItigating
nOise to the second floor units from vehIcles stopped at the ordenng and confirmation
station However, the acoustical sound wall Will not be effective In redUCing the nOise
Impacts from vehicles entering the drive-up aisle from the alley and driveway and from
vehicles leaving the ordenng station and proceeding to the pick-up window because they
occur away from the location of the sound wall ThiS IS especially true given the elevation
of the second floor of the residentIal Units
At the last public hearing, Council expressed concern that nOise occurnng In the adjacent
alley would reverberate Into the residential units as a result of the Installation of the
acoustical sound wall Mestre Greve does not believe that any Significant reverberation of
sound from the alley would occur
Mestre Greve concludes that the Silent speaker ordering and confirmation system Will work
r
o
to reduce the nOise Impacts assocIated with the speaker box at the ordenng station The
acoustical sound wall could also reduce the nOise Impacts associated with the patrons and
vehicles located at the ordenng station However, Mestre Greve does not believe that the
nOise Impacts from vehicles entering the dnve-up aisle from the alley and dnveway and
from those vehicles proceeding to the pick-up window Will be affected by the acoustIcal
sound wall as deSCribed before
Analvsls of Recommended Condition of Aoproval
City staff asked Mestre Greve to comment on the follOWing condition of approval
recommended by staff
l'The acoustical sound wall shall be a contiguous structure without gaps between
supporting steel tubing and glass panels a minimum thickness of 0 5 Inches or
plastiC panels a minimum thickness 0 75 Inches and shall attenuate the nOise
Impacts of the dnve-up Window operation to a nOise level not to exceed fifty (50)
dBA at the adjacent reSidential property II
Staff was concerned about the effectiveness ofthe acoustical sound wall In redUCing the
nOIse Impacts of the dnve-up Window to fifty (50) dBA or less at the adjacent residential
property According to Mestre Greve, the proposed speCifications for the sound wall as
contained In the ConditIon of Approval are adequate to produce a sound wall capable of
redUCIng the nOIse Impacts of patrons and vehIcles at the ordering statIon, but they stress
that the nOIse levels of actiVities of the drrve-up window operation which are outSide thiS
area (vehicles In the parking lot. vehicles entenng from the alley, vehicles proceeding to
the pIck-up Window) Will not be Impacted by the acoustical sound wall Therefore, the
...,
I
sound wall cannot be relied upon to reduce nOise levels of gll activities associated with the
dnve-up window operation In addition. the City's consultant has concluded, from the nOIse
recordings In the Giroux report. that the ambient median nOise level IS greater than fifty
(50) dBA It IS not possible for the sound wall to reduce the nOise Impacts of the dnve-up
Window operation to a level below the ambient nOise level Therefore. recognizing that the
sound wall would be effective In reducing many (but not all) of these nOIse Impacts, staff
recommends that the Condition of Approval be modified as follows
"The acoustical sound waff shaff be a contiguous structure Without gaps between
supporting steel tubing and glass panels a minimum thickness of 0 5 Inches or
plastiC panels a minimum thickness of 0 75 Inches to attenuate the nOise Impacts
of the dnve up window operation"
CONCLUSION
While It IS clear that the methodology used In the Giroux study does not comply With the
methodology outlined In the City's NOIse Ordinance, the analYSIS does support a
conclUSion that the proposed mitIgation measures can mitigate some nOise Impacts
associated With the dnve-up Window operation The mitigatIOn measures, however, cannot
fully mitigate all nOise associated With the dnve-up Window operation Therefore, staff
continues to recommend, as outlined In the Apnl23rd CounCil staff report, that the dnve-up
Window component of the fast-food restaurant be closed between 10 00 pm and 7 00 am
Sunday through Thursday and between 12 00 am and 7 00 am Fridays and Saturdays to
enable the adjacent reSidents to enJoy a more qUiet night of sleep, free from the nOIse
Impacts of the drive-up Window operation
8
RECOMMENDATION
It IS recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the determination of
the Planning Commission based upon the Findings and Conditions contained In the Apnl
23, 1996 staff report with the modificatIOn to condition #14 as noted above
Prepared by
Suzanne Frick, Director
David Martin. Acting Senior Planner
Paul Foley, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning DIvIsion
Attachment
A
B
Letter from Mestre Greve
April 23, 1996 CIty CouncIl staff report
9
A TT ACHMENT A
CHY Of- SANTA MON!CA
CfTY PL ANNfNG Iprrl .
"95 ref 14 All:43
~
Mestre Greve Associates
May 6, 1996
Mr. Paul Foley
Clty of Santa MOnIca
Pohcy and Planmng AnalYSIS
1685 Mam Street
P.O. Box 2200
Santa Montca, CA 90407 - 2200
Subject: Review of the Giroux & Associates Noise Report for the Jack-in-the-Box
Restaurant, 2423 Wilshire Blvd. dated November 1, 1995.
Dear Mr. Foley,
ThIS letter report present... the fmulIlgs of our reVlew of the Hans GIroux & AssoCiates n01 se
repon dated November l, 1995 that wa ~ prepared on behalf of the owner~ of the Jack-m-the-
Box Restaurant located at 2423 WIlshIre Boulevard a<., part of an apphcanon for a CondlOonal
Use Pen11lt (CUP) and wIll be refened to as the "Jack-m-the Box nOl~e repon" throughout the
remamder of thlS reView The report was conducted to measure the late-mght nOlse events of
the dnve-up WIndow operatIon of the restaUlant, and to assess the nOIse events for complIance
or non-comphance wIth the Cay's NOIse Ordmance. and recommend n1mganon measures to
reduce the nOIse Impacts If needed
la - Methodology
The analysis methodology utIhzed In the Jack-m-the Box nOlse report was not conSIstent with
the reqmrements contall1ed m the City of Santa MOnIca NOI~e Ordmance, Chapter 4.12,
"NOIse" The CIty of Santa MOUled's NOIse Ordlllance SectIon 4 12050 "Extenor N01~e
Standards" are In terms of NOise EqUIvalent Level (Leq) However, the Jack-m-the-Box nOIse
report mterpreted the standard nOIse levels as bel11g the medIan nOIse level or the nOIse level
exceeded 50 percent of the tIme (L5D)
Typically, the Leq nOlSe leveb for a given 15-m1l111te penod WIll be approximately 1 to 2 dBA
higher than the medIan nOIse level for the same measurement penod However, thIS depends
on the nature of the nOIse level fluctuatIon pattern dunng the measurement penod and therefore,
there IS no dlIect conelauoll between the two nOise levels. It]s also stated m the nOIse
Oldmance that one shall not gener.tte a 1l01~e that WIll exceed .( A maXImum m~tantaneous nOise
280 Newport Center Drive, SUite 230 · Newport Beach. CA 92660 . (714) 760-0891 . Fax (714) 760-1928
level equal to the value of the nOlse standard plus 20 dBA at any Hme and for any period of
hme
Therefore, the nOIse standards as speCIfIed in the CIty of Santa Manica NOlse Ordmance for
reSIdentIal areas are 60 dBA Leq (80 dBA Lmax) dunng dayume hours and 50 dBA Leq (70
dBA Lmax) dunng mghttIille hours. The daytIme hours are speCIfied as 7 a.ill to lOp m. for
Monday through Fnday and 8 a m to 10 p m for Saturday and Sunday The mghttime hours
are speCIfIed as 10 p m. to 7 a.m the followwg day for Monday through Fnday and 10 p.m. to
8 a m. the followmg day for Saturday and Sunday In addmon, these nOlse levels shall be
reduced by 5 dBA for Impulse or SImple tone nOIses, or for mU~IC or speech Fmally, If the
ambIent nOIse level exceeds the Leq nOI~e standards, then the ambIent nOIse level will be the
Leq nOIse standard
Ib . Findings
To determme comphance of the Jack-m-the-Box restaurant nOIse WIth the CIty of Santa
Momca's Noise Ordmance, both the nOIse eqUlvalentlevel (Leq) standard and the maXImum
nOIse level (Lmax) measured at the sIte mu~t be compared to the nOIse ordmance standards for
Leq and Lmax, respectIvely. The nOlse ordmance state~ that the mghmme Leq nOIse standard
level IS 50 dBA and that the mghmme Lmax nOIse standard IS 20 dBA above the Leq standard,
whIch means that the mghttlme Lmax standard IS 70 dBA It IS also stated 1ll the NOIse
Ordmance Sechon 4 12 050 Extenor nOIse ~tandards - (b). "If the ambIent nOIse level exceeds
the allowable extenor nOIse level ~tandard, the ambIent nOIse level ~hall be the standard" ThIS
last condItIOn IS mtended to apply to [he Leq nOIse standard level only and not to the Lmax
nOIse standmd level. FOJ example, if It \vere dder mmed that the ambIent Leq nOise level at the
SHe was 55 dBA, [hen the mghttIme nOl,>e ,>rand,rrd levels would be mcreased to an Leq of 55
dBA to reflect the Increased ambIentllOlSe levels, but the Lmax nOIse standard level would still
be 70 dBA.
The fmdmgs contamed 1ll the Jack-In-the-Box nOl~e report will be discussed mdIvidually
below
· The Jack-m-the-Box nOlse report ao;;sume~ that the rughtnme Lmax nOise standard IS 75
dBA which was denved by addmg 20 dBA to the ambIent Leq of 55 dBA. ThIS use of a 75
dBA Lmax nOlse standard doe~ not conform to the standards comallled In the nOise ordmance
The mghttlme nOIse standard for Lmax IS 70 dBA Lmax per the reqUirements of Secnon
412 lIsn lC) (2) 0fthe Cay ot Santa MOlllca NOl:::'C Ormnance
· The Jack-m-the-Box nOIse report doeo;; not determme comphance of the restaurant WIth the
Leq n01~e standard m the nOIse ordlllance statmg that It IS too dIfficult to separate the nOIse
attnbutable to the Jack-m-the-Box restaurant wah the ambIent nOise that does not contam any
nOIse from the Jack-m-the-Box restaurant Instead, the nOIse report determmes complIance
smclly on the Lmax ~tandard The City of Santa MOl11ca's nOIse ordmance standards 10 terms
ofLeq and Lmax nOIse levels must botb be used to deterrmne compliance
. The report shows exceedance of the 70 dBA Lmax nOIse standard by as much as 11 dBA
cau~ed by nOIse sources Jelated to the JJ.ck-m~the-Box re~tJ.urant Although the methodology
used 1n the Jack-m-the-Box nOlse Iepon does not use an Lmax nOIse standard of 70 dBA, but
Instead, uses an Lmax nOJ!>e standm d of 75 dBA, the nOIse events JdenufIed as bemg VIOlatIons
of the nOlse ordmance remam vahd
· \Ve do not know If or by how much the Leq standard IS exceeded SInce the Leq nOIse levels
were not recorded dunng the nOlse measurements. However, It can be seen m Table 1 that the
ambIent medIan nOIse level (LSD) currently exceeds 50 dBA and that It would be fau to assume
that the correspondlllg ambIent Leq nOIse level for each of the medIan nOIse levels listed III
Table 1 would most lIkely have been approxImately I to 2 dBA hIgher. Therefore, If the
ambIent medIan nOIse levels exceeded 50 dBA, than the ambIent Leq would also have
exceeded 50 dBA WhICh is the C1ty's Leq noise standard WhICh means that the increased
ambIent Leq nOIse level should be used as the new Leq standard
· For determmmg complIance WIth the ambIent Leq nOIse standard, the ambIent Leq nOIse
levels without contnbutmg nOIse from the Jack-m-the-Box restaurant should be compared
with the ambIent Leq nOIse leveh with comnbunng nOIse from the Jack-m-the-Box restaurant.
If the ambl~nt Leq nOl<;e ~evels 't'l'ith ~fJe Jack-l'l-!he-Box n01~e l~ !!featerrhan the ambIent Leq
nOlse levels 'with the Jack-m-the-Box nOIse, than the Jack-In-the-Box restaurant would be In
vlOlanon of the Leq nOlse standard contamed In the Cny of Santa Momca's NOIse Orchnance
OtherWIse, they would be ill complIance WIth the Leq nOIse standard
· The report recommends a sound bamer that would block lIne-of-SIte from the cars at the fast
food ordenng speaker to the upstaIrs re~Idence across the alley Although thIS proposed sound
barner may mmgate the speaker and car nOIse whIle the vehIcle IS stopped at or located very
near the speaker box, thIS proposed sound barner w1l1 not mmgate the cars entenng from the
alley and proceedmg down the dnveway to the pIck-up wmdow as well a~ the cars leavlllg the
pIck-up wmdow In addmon, car horn~, people t:.l.lkmg/shoutmg, loud steleos, or loud car~ 111
the parkmg lot area V..111 not be mItigated by the proposed sound barner
· Some of the measurement data presented 1Il the Jack-m-the-Box report are referenced to
speCIfIc measurement locanons However, the median nOlse level data presented at the bottom
of page 2 are not ldennfied as to where these values were measured
Ie - Conclusions
WhIle we belIeve that the barner WIll be effectIve for those VehIcle'l stopped at the ~peaker box,
sounds from vehIcles entenngfrom the alley and proceedmg to the pIck-up wmdow WIll not be
affected by the proposed barner Normal car Idle dud slow ~peed travel WIll probably not be a
probiem The potennai proo!em tl1at the OaUle! wilt nOI address IS 10ud car stereO nOIse or loud
passenger nOIse from the vehIcles whIle the vehlcle~ are 111 these exposed areas.
Although 11 IS belIeved that measurements should have been made at the second floor
reSIdence, the average nOIse level data proVIded m Table 1 suggests that the ambIent nOIse
levels exceed the 50 dBA Leq n01se standard Thel efore, the Cny reqmrements for nOIse levels
should be that the nOIse levels at the reslden(e~ not exceed 50 dBA Leq for any IS-minute
penod or not exceed the amblem Leq If It 1" the case \vhere the amblentLeq exceeds 50 dBA
Leq In addlhon, at no tlme shall any nOl~e on the Jack-m-the-Box property exceed an
Instantaneous nOlse level of70 dBALmax as measured u,>mg A-weIghtmg and slow response.
2 . Effectiveness of Proposed ~litigation Measures
There IS msuffIcIent data m the Jack-m-the-Box nOIse report to determme If the proposed
barner and relocated sIlent fast-food ordenng ~ystem WIll fully mltlgate the nOIse Impacts of
the drive-through operatIon to meet the reqlllrements of the CIty's nOIse ordmance. In
parncular, the nOIse from vehIcles that are not stOpped or near the speaker box are of concern
For example, the report IdentIfIed two Lmax vIOlanons that were c..allsed by car horns in the
parkmg lot (Table 4) The proposed bamer WIll not affect ~uch nOIses. Therefore, even WIth
the barner m place, one can expect vlOlauons of the nOIse ordmance. The potentIal rmnganons
of noise sources not located behmd the proposed bamer rehe~ solely on a secunty guard who
must ensure that car stereos do not VIolate the nOIse lImIts, and that customers do not use horns
or loud actIOns m VIOlatIOn of the nOlse ordmance The questIon that anses then IS how wIll the
secunty guard know when a car stereo IS too loud?
3 - Effectivenes.; of Prcpo~ed Sound "'al! at Mitigating Vehidcs Entering and Exiting
the Drive-Through
See response number 2 above
4 - Effectiveness of the Proposed Sound 'Vall at Protecting the Second Floor
Condominium Units from Noise at the Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant.
See response number 2 above
There was no conclUSIve eVIdence of the effectIvene'\" of the proposed barner m mItigating the
nOlse from the Jack-In-the-Box dnve-thlOugh and parkll1g lot at even the fust floor
condommlUm UUlts The second floor condommmm UUlts are mOle dIfficult to mmgate do [0
the Increased elevatIon Therelore, If then; 'vVa~ m"ufficIent dat.t to conclude the effectIveness of
the propo~ed barner to mmgate nOI~e at the fIr"t tloor unns, than the same can be saId for the
second floor unItS It IS expected that the nOIse from the alley bemg reflected back to the
COndOmInIUm unItS due to the proposed barner WIll be an In''lgmficant amount
5 - Condition of Approval in the Conditional Use Permit
The condltIons of approval as wnttcn IS fme However, the glass/plastIc panel thIcknesses
seem to be conservatIve In our expenence. a 3/8 mch thIck plate glass or a 5/8 mch duck
1,.r ..., 1 ~Il-i..c-:: '1~,.-...... '.. - ~ n 'JuIo' ........,.....! J.~ , .......-. :o.~.:..+ - .....1P-'t1Q,-r ........~....... (14. "'~"-r" ...
p!eAIbh'~~ ...S ;)~Hl""'''''H[ ror d I1Ul",C Dan .", I . ''-' i~"'J pal ,,11 I\; L\: 1 LV .h.."."..... .) .1 SIll rd....e el1:-th) or
3 5 pound~ per square foot and that there are no opemng~ or crack"
Summary
GIven the fact that measurements done In the lack-Jn-the-Box nOl<.,ereport do not conform to
the nOIse ordmance methodology and that the nOIse study does not address nOIse throughout
the dnve-thfOugh lane, It IS lmpOS~lbk (Q make a deflIlluve statement that the proposed
mltlgatIOfi WIll ensure complIance wIth the nOIse ordlllance It IS our estImate that the
mlUgatlOfi is not adequate, and unles~ valid data are presented to the contrary, we cannot concur
WIth any findlng~ of complIance WIth the CIty's nOIse ordmance
If you have any quesnon~ or comments, plea~e do not hesnate to call
Smcerely,
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
---/~r- ~~
Henry Moon
Engmeer
ATTACHM'RNT B