|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton Planning Commission gave initial support last month to two proposed projects requiring modifications to existing city regulations, going against the recommendations of city staff in the process.
Commissioners voted on Jan. 22 in favor of the concept of modifying a condition for the Rose Pavilion that prohibits a drive-thru on “Pad B” in Phase III of the site — to accommodate a planned Taco Bell drive-thru in the place of the Oil Changer building.
The commission also indicated support that night for a landowner’s request to modify the North Sycamore Specific Plan to subdivide 990 Sycamore Road into five lots, while the specific plan as written only allows a three-lot subdivision maximum.
Both items are due to return to the commission for final consideration at future meetings. Ultimately, each item would need to head to the City Council as well for final approval.
Taco Bell in Rose Pavilion
Jinglebells LLC, through its consultant Marks Architects, seeks permission to build a new Taco Bell restaurant with a drive-thru in the Rose Pavilion at the location where Oil Changer currently operates at 4210 Rosewood Drive
But in order to do that, the company would need the city to remove a condition of approval imposed on the Rose Pavilion Phase III planned-unit development (PUD) 30 years ago that prohibits operating a drive-thru at that location.
The tenant spot eyed for the proposed Taco Bell is in the shopping center on the west side of Rosewood Drive near the Santa Rita Road intersection. It’s next to the Goodyear tire center and near the Restoration Hardware Outlet and CVS Pharmacy.
City staff recommended denial of the request based on the original direction from the City Council in 1989 to add a specific condition barring a drive-thru in that area of Rose Pavilion. Ellen Clark, the city’s community development director, also noted that drive-thrus tend to “have higher trip generation, thus more traffic and higher emissions, and contribute to less pedestrian-oriented environments than a non-drive-thru restaurant.”
But the Planning Commission disagreed at the Jan. 22 meeting, supporting the applicant’s request in part because the rest of the Rose Pavilion, as well as most other properties in the area, allow drive-thru restaurants, according to Clark.
“The Planning Commission noted the rationale for the City Council having imposed the condition at the time the PUD was approved was unclear but appeared to have been intended to limit the use of ‘Pad B’ to a ’50s-style diner’ restaurant use that never materialized; and the restriction on drive-thru uses at this sole location was anomalous,” according to Eric Luchini, city associate planner.
The commission voted 5-0 to give initial support to the proposed modification on Jan. 22. Commissioner Herb Ritter was absent for the meeting, so commission alternate Brandon Pace was elevated to a full voting seat.
City staff is scheduled to return with an updated resolution for consideration at this Wednesday night’s commission meeting (Feb. 12). The PUD major modification request would then head to the City Council for a final decision, likely in March if advanced by the commission, according to Clark.
The future Taco Bell drive-thru would still need to receive a conditional use-permit and design review approval from the city in the future when plans are completed — assuming PUD modification passes.
Sycamore Road subdivision
The Bringhurst family is looking for city approval to amend the North Sycamore Specific Plan and PUD plan to allow for a five-lot subdivision at their 3.28-acre property at 990 Sycamore Road, located near where Sycamore Road intersects with Alisal Street. The proposal would create five lots overall, for four new houses and one lot with the existing house.
The specific plan allows for only three lots currently, so city staff recommended denial of the property owners’ request to retain consistency with the original plan approvals, according to Clark.
The commission sided with the landowner in concept at the Jan. 22 hearing.
Clark said the commissioners reasoned “that allowing three lots on the north part of the site (each approximately 15,000 square feet) would be compatible with the current character of other lots and homes already along Sycamore Creek Way; and the lotting pattern (two approximately one-acre lots) on the south side of the parcel, would be similar to/consistent with a PUD for the same site, that had been approved in the past.”
She said the commission still thought work needed to be done to ensure the two homes on the south portion of the site retained a more rural character along Sycamore Road.
“The applicant was asked to revise their plans to reduce the size of the home on Lot 1, and increase setbacks; and, an increased amenity contribution to support pedestrian and bike improvements in the area was also requested,” according to Clark.
There was no formal vote taken, but the three commissioners at the dais were unanimous in a straw poll in favor of the five-lot concept, according to Clark. Commissioners Jack Balch and Greg O’Connor recused themselves due to conflicts of interest, while Ritter was still absent.
The proposal would return to the commission for formal action once the revisions are made, at a yet-undetermined future date. This project would require final approval by the City Council as well.
-
Map of Rose Pavilion Phase III shows where the Taco Bell would be located in relation to the rest of the shopping center. (Image courtesy of city of Pleasanton) -
A closeup of the site plan for the proposed Taco Bell with drive-thru. (Image courtesy of city of Pleasanton) -
Site map outlines the current, single lot at 990 Sycamore Road. The landowners want to split the 3.28-acre property up into five lots. (Image courtesy of city of Pleasanton) -
Initial lot subdivision plan for 990 Sycamore Road. (Image courtesy of city of Pleasanton) -
The Taco Bell project would be located here at 4210 Rosewood Drive. (Photo by Jeremy Walsh) -
Early design concepts for the proposed Taco Bell. City officials would need to sign off on the final design in the future — assuming the PUD modification request is granted. (Image courtesy of city of Pleasanton)
Matt Sullivan, we need you!
Don’t we already have drive through Taco Bell near Home Depot? Why increase traffic near Trader Joe’s ?
Build it! the taco bell in rose pavilllion is old and dated. new taco bell with drive thru, im all in! maybe we wil luck out and it will be a TB cantina.
And shooting at Taco Bell in Livermore. There is a negligence from council and planning commission from Santa Rita City entrance to Valley Ave. Glad most of council will be gone soon.
When the history of Pleasanton is written, I think they will be more kind to the planning decisions made in 1989 than the ones made in 2020.
Oh yes, whenever I stop by the autozone I always say to myself, “you know what we need here? A TacoBell that I can drive through after I get my antifreeze, oil and filters
/s
I haven’t been to Taco Bell anywhere in well over 30 years and don’t ever plan to. Is this really the best the city council can come up with? Pathetic!
Oil change places are going to fade away just like gas stations as more and more EV’s come into play. Great use of the obsolete support structure of a fading internal combustion engine industry without having to wreck out an entire building. I’m sure we shall and should see more of these buildings being converted into drive thru restaurants of all types. Oil change services just aren’t needed like they use to be for many reasons. Brilliant repurposing.
Brilliant? If Pleasanton allows, sorry, invites traffic from off freeway into a pedestrian friendly area, according to General Plan, then our PUD conditional use permits are worthless. Next will be SpeeDee by Raleys…and/or low and be hold, a fast track will be in the works for removing Las Positas Interchange status from current General Plan…depending on out come of Johnson Drive.
Are there no limits how many modifications from GP are allowed…?
Oh, Golly, Gee! Another junk food chain! Just what Pleasanton needs! The smell of that recycled grease used to deep fry those factory created monstrosities! Thanks Pleasanton commission. It is so nice to smell these places every time I get off the freeway!
Build it and we will come!! Give me some nacho fries and a Spicy bean burrito!!
hey guys, there is a taco bell across st. it old and need to be updated. Im sure the plan will be to close this. they are putting in a nice new store and investing in community. if you have not been in a while go to the tone by HD, just remodeled, very nice inside. Nicer than a Habit burger or In and Out.
Yo Quiero Taco Bell! if we are lucky they will allow ax throwing too.
Just when you thought it was okay to go back to Trader Joe’s again, they’re gonna screw it up with more cars until its the same as the old TJ location. I guess it’s back to plan B for me…swinging by Trader Joe’s in Livermore during my Costco run.
The city council sold out Pleasanton two decades ago. It has become over developed and overly commercialized. Adding another Taco Bell is hardly what the community needs as adding more housing. The general plan has lead to to much traffic and congestion to a once quiet and small town. Don’t go through with the Costco and don’t allow Taco Bell. It’s time to freeze developers dreams of a Semi Valley North. The valley is a overcrowded and crime loving place that was a great place to grow up but it has disappeared.
lets freeze all new businesses that wants to open in Pleasanton, its the american way!
Yo quiero Taco Bell. Or not. I’m always amused that it’s named after it’s founder. It’s as if Amazon were named Book Bezos.
This is an awfully high number of Taco Bells for a city who probably doesn’t eat it much and for an interstate where nearly no one is going to be pulling off for one. The owners are free to let another Taco Bell in…but they had better be prepared for it closing, and we’re left with a Taco Shell, empty.
Rarely do developers ever lose.
Grumpy “This is an awfully high number of Taco Bells for a city who probably doesn’t eat it much”
there are 2 i know of. for 60,000+ thats not a High number. this one will replace the one in Rose Pav. near the cigar shop that no one complains about (just saying.)
also these guys put a little research into this, they are not going to spend Millions to tear down and rebuild a building because no one goes there lol. they do economic studies to see if their business will be profitable. Let me buy you Chalupa for lunch, you might become a regular, apparently like the a lot of people in Pleasanton.
I actually like Taco Bell. It’s not Mexican food, just as Round Table (another favorite) is not Italian. It’s a part of the unique evolution of American cuisine in Los Angeles that established the fast food movement.
I’ve just often been the only person in the Taco Bells here. When they closed the one by Raley’s, I figured it made sense. Just like when the Carl’s Jrs closed. They do research at a high level, but once the franchise is granted, they usually let them do their best. So I think you’re wrong that the fact that there are two now is proof that there will be two in a few years.
But feel free to send me a chalupa.
What a great place for a Taco Bell. The current one next to the Panda Express is pretty bad.
To the people objecting to Taco Bell because of “growth” and “developers” — Seriously?
With almost 6700 viewers on this topic, tends to indicate a high interest in this possible new Taco Bell.
I patronized the Taco Bell near JC Penny’s at Stoneridge Mall couple times a year, it suddenly closed about year ago or so. When on the road I have visited Taco Bell in Newark, Manteca, all near my customer locations.
I like the soft Taco with the beef, sauce, cheese and lettuce, tasty, for less than $1.50 each.
I find it strange the large number of people posting that seem to beleive that the City of Pleasanton like goes out and sells these properties or something (for example “Is this really the best the city council can come up with?”). Its almost like they beleive that Pleasanton called Taco Bell and asked them to build. Are people really that stupid or are they just poor communicators.
Whether I go to Taco Bell or not, I find it hard to find fault with approving this decision. I guess I’m not sure on the “no drive-thru” thing as the CVS has a drive through. But I don’t know the code that well, so maybe there is a difference.
can’t believe people eat that crap.
6700 views speaks to the validity, the quality and the patrons.
6700 views may indicate the amount of interest. Quality is really a matter of taste, or opinion. I wouldn’t touch that food with a ten foot pole.
Good to know the illegals we give drivers license will have an easier time getting a taco after or before the run someone over. One question how will the drivers who dont speak English know it’s a drive through
@Wow,
Seriously?
Taco Bell is inexpensive, which isn’t the case for some fast food. Adults and kids will be there. When I ate fast food I liked Taco Bell.
@WOW
I wouldn’t speak too about illegals and their lack of English knowledge, if I used your punctuation.