2 - Laserfiche WebLink

compared to restaurants without drive-throughs'. Thus, fuel consumption from those trips and/or from idling vehicles waiting in the drive-through queue would also increase. A traditional (non-drive-through) restaurant would also be more consistent with General Plan and CAP goals to encourage pedestrian-oriented development. For example, it could improve pedestrian-friendliness, by allowing additional space to be dedicated to pedestrian circulation and seating areas, and for more generous landscaping throughout "Pad B," along Rosewood Drive and along the adjacent driveway located immediately to the south side of"Pad B." Although alternative site plans without a drive-through have not been developed by the applicant, eliminating the need for a drive-through aisle may also open up other possible site plan configurations, such as a design that would orient the building closer to Rosewood Drive and the corner, versus being placed toward the center of"Pad B," presenting a more positive streetscape look and feel. As stated above, the General Plan explicitly states development proposals should be encouraged to reduce mobile-source emissions and separate air pollution sensitive land uses from sources of air pollution. Staff has the discretion to require a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to be provided to assess impacts of a development proposal on these sensitive land uses or sensitive receptors if they are within 500 feet of the pollution source. In this instance, the residential uses to the east are approximately 490 feet away from "Pad B." In addition to the residential uses, other sensitive receptors within the area as identified by the General Plan include Valleycare Medical Center (approx. 700 feet to the southwest), Fairlands Elementary School (approx. 1800 feet to the southeast) and Kindercare Pleasanton (approx. 2000 feet to the northeast). Given the relatively small scale of the proposed restaurant and the fact the closest sensitive receptor is located just inside the 500 foot threshold necessary to require an HRA (most of the sensitive receptors are well outside of this threshold as noted), should the Planning Commission elect to support the drive-through component, staff is not recommending an HRA in this case. Potential Development Review Process The PMC requires Planning Commission review and approval of a CUP in all commercial districts for restaurants with a drive-through component. The CUP process allows the City to evaluate and place conditions to mitigate proposal impacts in areas such as land use consistency, traffic and circulation (including drive-through queueing), parking and noise. The PMC also requires all new improvements and structures in a PUD be subject to review and approval of a Design Review (DR) application. The PMC further states the Zoning Administrator (ZA) shall have authority over design issues where PUD conditions of approval specifically delegate decision making to the preexisting design review board. The ZA has the discretion to refer any DR application to the Planning Commission and/or the Planning Commission may appeal and call up any application acted upon by the ZA. Accordingly, should the Planning Commission elect to support the proposed restaurant with a drive-through component, staff recommends the applicant be required to submit subsequent CUP and DR applications to adequately identify and address any project impacts and remaining design issues. 1 40.19 trips/1,000 sq. ft. of area in the a.m. peak and 32.67 trips/1,000 sq. ft. of area in the p.m. peak versus 25.10 trips/1,000 sq. ft. of area in the a.m. peak and 28.34 trips/1,000 sq. ft. of area in the p.m. peak PUD-89-06-08M, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Commission 11 of 15 2 of 15