Laserfiche WebLink
1. Whether the plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general <br /> welfare: <br /> The City Council finds the Project would not be in the best interests of the public health, <br /> safety, and general welfare due to potential Air Quality impacts and an increase in <br /> Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Specifically, the drive-through component of the <br /> proposed restaurant would reduce the City's ability to meet the stated goals of the <br /> General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP) which include measures to reduce <br /> greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging infill development that would increase <br /> walking and bicycle riding, minimize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and reduce fuel <br /> consumption. With a drive-through component, the Project would potentially increase <br /> vehicular trips and VMT, thereby reducing the number of customers walking or bicycling <br /> to "Pad B" and increasing fuel consumption from those trips and/or from idling vehicles <br /> waiting in the drive-through queueing lane. <br /> A traditional (non-drive-through) restaurant would also be more consistent with General <br /> Plan and CAP goals to encourage pedestrian-oriented development. For example, it <br /> could improve pedestrian-friendliness, by allowing additional space to be dedicated to <br /> pedestrian circulation and seating areas, and for more generous landscaping throughout <br /> "Pad B," along Rosewood Drive and along the adjacent driveway located immediately to <br /> the south side of"Pad B." Although alternative site plans without a drive-through have <br /> not been developed by the applicant, eliminating the need for a drive-through aisle may <br /> also open up other possible site plan configurations, such as a design that would orient <br /> the building closer to Rosewood Drive and the corner, versus being placed toward the <br /> center of"Pad B," presenting a more positive and pedestrian-friendly streetscape look <br /> and feel. <br /> Based on the foregoing, the City Council cannot make this finding. <br /> 2. Whether the plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable <br /> specific plan: <br /> "Pad B" has a General Plan Land Use designation of"Retail/Highway/Service <br /> Commercial; Business and Professional Offices." This land use designation allows for <br /> commercial uses; therefore, a restaurant on "Pad B," as proposed, would be consistent <br /> with this land use designation. "Pad B" is located on the south side of Rosewood Drive <br /> and is surrounded by commercial uses. A proposed restaurant at this location would be <br /> compatible with the surrounding uses. The General Plan requires a maximum FAR of <br /> 60%. Based on the proposed site plan, a future drive-through restaurant would be well <br /> below this maximum, at under 11% FAR. The Project would not therefore, in and of <br /> itself, conflict with these applicable General Plan land use policies. The location is not <br /> within a specific plan area. <br /> While the proposed restaurant conforms from a General Plan land use designation <br /> standpoint, in accordance with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill <br /> 32 or AB 32) and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 <br /> (Senate Bill 375 or SB 375) and the goals, policies. and programs of the General Plan <br /> and the goals and strategies of the CAP, the City is also required to evaluate a <br /> proposal's potential impacts on Air Quality and GHG Emissions. These goals, policies, <br /> programs and strategies include: <br />