2_Exhibits A & C - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2020-03 Page Two potentially increase vehicular trips and VMT, thereby reducing the number of customers walking or bicycling to "Pad B" and increasing fuel consumption from those trips and/or from idling vehicles waiting in the drive-through queueing lane. 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 and pedestrian-friendly streetscape look and feel. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission cannot make this finding. 2. Whether the plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable specific plan: "Pad B" has a General Plan Land Use designation of "Retail/Highway/Service Commercial; Business and Professional Offices." This land use designation allows for commercial uses; therefore, a restaurant on "Pad B," as proposed, would be consistent with this land use designation. "Pad B" is located on the south side of Rosewood Drive and is surrounded by commercial uses. A proposed restaurant at this location would be compatible with the surrounding uses. The General Plan requires a maximum FAR of 60%. Based on the proposed site plan, a future drive-through restaurant would be well below this maximum, at under 11% FAR. The proposed amendment would not therefore, in and of itself, conflict with these applicable General Plan land use policies. The location is not within a specific plan area. While the proposed restaurant conforms from a General Plan land use designation standpoint, in accordance with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 or AB 32) and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375 or SB 375) and the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan and the goals and strategies of the CAP, the City is also required to evaluate a proposal's potential impacts on Air Quality and GHG Emissions. These goals, policies, programs and strategies include: Land Use Element- Sustainability Program 2.1: Reduce the need for vehicular traffic by locating employment, residential, and service activities close together, and plan development so it is easily accessible by transit, bicycle, and on foot. f the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. 3 The day-night average sound level is the average noise level over a 24-hour period. PUD-89-06-08M, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Commission 13 of 15 sign revisions and/or conditions of approval. Some potential examples include: • The ordering speaker shall not be audible above the ambient noise levels beyond the property boundaries; and PUD-89-06-08M, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Commission 12 of 15 2 of 15