Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 91-038 Resolution Imposing Traffic Impact Fee Two Pesos Restaurant / • • RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 91-026 TWO PESOS RESTAURANT AT 6568 VILLAGE PARKWAY WHEREAS, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-036, the Planning Commission has approved the Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the existing restaurant use, the drive thru and the outdoor seating area, and by Planning Commission Resolution No. 91- 037, the Planning Commission has approved the Site Development Review for the addition to the restaurant building and construction of interior, exterior and on-site improvements (hereafter "the proposed project"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on August 5, 1991; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law for purposes of considering adoption of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 (a)(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project will consist of minor additions to an existing private structure; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-037 approving the Site Development Review requires the developer to pay a traffic impact mitigation fee to be used for traffic facility improvements; and WHEREAS, a report setting forth the impacts of the proposed development on traffic through the year 2010, has been prepared by TJKM, along with an analysis of the need of the public facilities and improvements required by future development consisting of a memorandum dated June 21, 1991 from David Othling of TJKM, which is attached hereto Attachment D1 and incorporated herein (referred to herein as "the report"); and WHEREAS, said report sets forth the relationship between the proposed development, the needed facilities and the estimated costs of the facilities. - 1 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. The purpose of the said traffic impact fee is to mitigate the traffic impacts caused by the proposed development by construction of certain public facilities. B. The public facilities to be constructed with the traffic impact fee (referred to herein as "the public facilities") are identified in Attachment D1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. The traffic impact fee is needed in order to finance the public facilities and to pay for the proposed development's fair share of the construction of the improvements and will be used for these purposes. D. The Commission finds the fee to be consistent with the General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the City's downtown commercial needs as established in the Land Use Plan component of the Downtown Specific Plan. E. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities identified in Attachment Dl. F. After considering the report prepared by TJKM and the testimony received at this public hearing, the Commission approves and adopts said report, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the proposed development will generate additional demands on municipal services. G. The report and the testimony establish: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities designated in Attachment D1 and the impacts of the proposed development for which the corresponding fee is charged; 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the proposed development for which the fee is charged; 3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the proposed development on which the fee is imposed; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in Attachment D1 are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by future developments will not exceed the total costs of constructing the public facilities identified in Attachment Dl. - 2 - H. The TJKM report (Attachment D1) is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by the proposed development, and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and those deficiencies. The calculations and assumptions in the report can reasonably be applied to the proposed development. I. The method of allocation of the traffic impact fee to the proposed development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the proposed development's burden on, and benefit from the facilities to be funded by the fee. J. A traffic impact fee in the amount set forth in Attachment Dl and Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-037 is hereby imposed, to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. The Commission finds that Attachment D1 is the "plan" required by Government Code Section 53077.5. K. The traffic impact fee shall be placed in the Capital Improvement Fund and shall be segregated in separate and special accounts as provided herein and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account, shall be used for the following purposes: 1. To pay for design and construction of the public facilities described in Attachment D1 and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2. To reimburse the City for the public facilities described in Attachment D1, constructed by the City with funds from other sources, unless the City funds were expended to remedy existing deficiencies as identified in Attachment D1 or were obtained from grants or gifts; and 3. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the traffic impact fee program. L. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be deposited into deposit accounts for the improvement projects identified in Attachment D1 and identified by developer or development being charged. M. Fees in the Capital Improvement Fund, and interest thereon, shall be expended only for those facilities listed in Attachment D1 and only for the purpose for which the fee was collected; and 1. The standards upon which the needs for facilities are based are the standards of the City. The City has undertaken an extensive capital improvement program to implement these standards and the City will remedy existing deficiencies without using proceeds of the traffic impact fee. N. The City effective implementationManager and aadministration y develop sofn the etraffic nimpacttfee. - 3 - O. No later than June 30, 1992 and June 30 of each year thereafter, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City Council identifying the balance of fees in the improvement projects' deposit account, the facilities constructed and the capital facilities to be constructed. In preparing the report, the City Manager shall adjust the estimated cost of the public improvements in accordance with the Engineering Construction Cost Index as published by Engineering News Record for the elapsed time period from the previous July 1 or the date that the cost estimate was developed. The annual report shall also include a review of the administrative charge; and 1. The City Council shall review the report at a noticed public hearing and shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. P. The fees imposed herein shall be effective 60 days following adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, North, Rafanelli and Zika NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Burnham //h tRiw2 Planning CommiChairperson ATTEST: Planning it ctor - 4 - RECEIVED n JUN 2;1991 DUBLIN PLANNING 0.,t27 MEMORANDUM June 21,1991 TO: David Choy,Dublin Planning FROM: David Othling SUBJECT: Two Pesos Restaurant Site Plan Review and Impact Fee Study This memorandum documents a site plan review and traffic impact fee determination for the Two Pesos Mexican restaurant(PA 91-026)proposed at the vacant Pizza Depot site at 6568 Village Parkway,in the City of Dublin. The study is based on the revised Site Plan dated June 10,1991 and a June 18 site visit. The project, located in the southwest quadrant of the signalized intersection of Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard,will have access to Village Parkway at one existing full-access driveway. Vehicles purchasing gas only from the adjacent car wash to the north exit through the site via a one-way driveway along the north property line. Site Plan Review The following issues should be addressed prior to the approval of the site Conditional Use Permit: 1. The access driveway should be widened to 35 feet at the property line and the north end of the driveway apron should accommodate a five foot flair as measured from the new north driveway edge of curb (at the property line)to the Village Parkway curb cut. This will provide for a smoother ingress of vehicles from southbound Village Parkway while increasing the effective spacing between entering and exiting vehicles. 2. The parking space next to the drive-thru exit should be eliminated to improve visibility between vehicles exiting the drive-thru and vehicles entering from Village Parkway. 3. Consideration should be given to moving the new trash enclosure to the north and rotating it to face the site access driveway to provide adequate room for the maneuvering of a trash truck. 4. The four northmost parking spaces next to the drive-thru aisle should be eliminated. The five northmost parking spaces along the west property line should also be eliminated or designated as employee parking only. 4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214,Pleasanton,California 94588-2754•(415)463-0611•FAX(415)463-3690 PLEASANTON•SACRAMENTO•FRESNO•WALNUT CREEK A1TACIDINT D-I PAGES OFaa . r1 /1 Mr.David Choy -2- June 21,1991 Four or more vehicles stacking back from the menu board during peak drive-thru periods will block access to these spaces. 5. Solid yellow pavement striping should be installed at the entrance to the drive-thru. The striping should consist of two radii, one of which will guide vehicles to the drive-thru aisle,while the other will guide vehicles exiting the adjacent property gas pumps. In addition, a solid yellow centerline stripe should be placed at least 15 feet west of the parking spaces next to the drive-thru aisle. The centerline stripe should extend south from the radii to the drive-thru exit. One set of white pavement arrows should also be installed at the beginning (south end) of the centerline striping to inform drivers of the two-way traffic flow. The centerline striping will create a 15-foot wide drive-thru stacking aisle which is needed to provide an adequate turning radius for passenger vehicles entering the drive-thru aisle. To accommodate this stacking aisle,the parking bay along the west property line should be moved at least 2 feet to the west. This will allow for a 13-foot drive aisle for vehicles exiting the adjacent property and on-site parking maneuvers. A passenger vehicle turning template is attached to help with the redesign of this area of the parking lot. 6. A loading zone is not indicated on the plan. The location needs to be accessible to the delivery vehicles without causing significant conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians. 7. It appears that employees from the adjacent properties to the north and south are parking on the site. Installing a sign indicating customer parking only at the site entrance plus red curb and a sign along the exit driveway should discourage non-customer use of site parking. Traffic Impact Fee Determination The project entails the interior remodeling and exterior modification of the existing restaurant. The existing building is currently vacant. The applicant proposes a slight reduction in customer seating. The traffic impacts due to customers dining on-site are expected to be similar to those of the previous use. The main traffic impacts and the focus of this study are the 24-hour operation of a new drive-thru window. The addition of new traffic due to the drive-thru window, plus other new development traffic,would require that Dublin Boulevard be widened from four to six through lanes between Village Parkway and Donlon Way at a total cost of $1,439,136 (source: Dublin Five Year Capital Improvement Program: 1991 - 92 Update). Approximately $648,447 has already been funded, so the difference of $790,689 is applicable to a traffic impact fee. Dublin Boulevard has been projected to carry an average of about 30,700 vehicles per day(vpd)in the vicinity if the site in the Year 2005 (source: Dublin General Plan). The existing(1990)average vpd on this road segment is 23,765. Thus, the increase is 6,935 vpd over existing volumes. PAGE Li.OF • 'Mr.David Choy -3- June 21,1991 • Sales and customer data from an existing Two Pesos restaurant,at the intersection of Wilcrest and Westheimer in Houston,Texas,was provided by the applicant. A 24-hour drive-thru total of 521 customers on Saturday,April 13, 1991 is indicated. Weekday customer totals were not provided,but the data does indicate that sales on an average weekday(an average of Tuesday,Wednesday,and Thursday sales)are 58 percent of Saturday sales. Therefore, on weekdays, the drive-thru can be expected to contribute 58 percent of the number of Saturday customers, or 303. Assuming one vehicle per customer(or total sale)and two trips per vehicle(in and out)yields 606 new vehicle trips per day generated by the drive-thru. Thirty-three percent or 200 of the new drive-thru vehicle trips can be expected to be primary or diverted trips,discounting 67 percent assumed to be already passing by the site and impacting Dublin Boulevard. Sixty percent or 120 of these trips are assumed to be on Dublin Boulevard between Village Parkway and Donlon Way. The other 40 percent or 80 vehicles would be oriented to Village Parkway and do not significantly impact other transportation improvement projects subject to an impact fee. The 120 new project vehicle trips added to Dublin Boulevard equal 1.73 percent of the additional new development traffic. Therefore,the project applicant should be required to contribute 1.73 percent of the improvement costs,or$13,679. dm Attachment cc: Lee Thompson 157-054 PAGE a°O OF a