2_Exhibits A & C - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2020-03 Page Five 5. Whether streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed and located in such manner to complement the natural terrain and landscape: "Pad B" is in a developed area of the City, within a previously developed shopping center. Development of this site would not involve the extension of any new public streets. "Pad B" is flat and thus any future redevelopment, whether the proposed project or an alternative proposal, such as a restaurant without a drive through, would not require extensive grading and would not contrast unfavorably with the natural terrain. 6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design of the plan: "Pad B" currently provides adequate access for police, fire, and other emergency vehicles. The proposed restaurant would be equipped with automatic fire suppression systems (sprinklers). Structures would be required to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, Fire Code, other applicable City codes, and State of California energy and accessibility requirements. Site specific soils analyses would be conducted in conjunction with the building permit review. Thus, approval of the amendment would not preclude adequate safety measures from being included in a future plan or project. 7. Whether the plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District: In 1989, a PUD rezone and development plan (PUD-89-6) application was approved for Phase III of the Rose Pavilion Shopping Center which included a condition of approval to allow for a 5,000 square-foot-restaurant on "Pad B." The PUD approval explicitly prohibited a drive-through restaurant on "Pad B." In 1992, the PUD development plan was modified (PUD-89-6-4M) to allow for the construction of the current oil change facility on "Pad B." The action to approve PUD-89-6-4M did not remove the condition of approval prohibiting a drive- through restaurant on "Pad B." Accordingly, the condition of approval from PUD-89-6 would still be applicable to "Pad B" and a drive-through restaurant is not currently permitted or conditionally permitted. Given the Air Quality and GHG Emissions concerns stated above, the Planning Commission does not support eliminating the condition of approval prohibiting a drive-through restaurant on "Pad B." Accordingly, with this condition of approval still applicable, the Planning Commission cannot make this finding. Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby recommends the following to the City Council: a. Find the proposed PUD Major Modification inconsistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan and the goals and strategies of the Climate Action Plan; and b. Deny PUD-89-06-08M, based on the findings stated above. the proposed restaurant properly takes into account environmental characteristics of"Pad B." dential, 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