Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 92-031 PA 92-019 Imposing a traffic Impact Fee two pesos restaurant RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 92-019 TWO PESOS RESTAURANT AT 6568 VILLAGE PARKWAY WHEREAS, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-029, the Planning Commission has approved the Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a drive thru window onto the east building elevation, and by Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-030, the Planning Commission has approved the Site Development Review for the addition to the restaurant building and modifications to the parking lot configuration (hereafter "the proposed project"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on May 4, 1992; 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 a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-027). The project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, Conditions No. 2 and 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-030 approving the Site Development Review require the developer to pay a traffic impact 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 and Traffic Study dated June 21, 1991 from David Othling of TJKM, as amended by the Memorandum from Mehran Sepehri, dated May 4, 1992, which is attached hereto Attachment F-1 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 - r'N /1 A 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 F-1, 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 F-1. 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 F-1 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 F-1 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 F-1. - 2 - '\ H. The TJKM report (Attachment F-1) 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 F-1 and Conditions No. 2 and 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-030 is hereby imposed, to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. The Commission finds that Attachment F-1 is the "plan" required by Government Code Section 66007(b). 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 F-1 and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2. To reimburse the City for the public facilities described in Attachment F-1, constructed by the City with funds from other sources, unless the City funds were expended to remedy existing deficiencies as identified in Attachment F-1 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 F-1 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 F-1 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 Manager may develop rules and regulations for the effective implementation and administration of the traffic impact fee. - 3 - O. No later than August 30, 1992 and August 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, the capital facilities to be constructed, and other matters required by Government Code Section 66006(b). 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. The City Council shall review the report at a noticed public hearing. P. No later than five (5) years from the date of deposit of the fee in the Capital Improvement Fund, the City Council shall make the findings required by Government Code Section 66001(d) for any portion of the fee remaining unexpended or uncommitted. Q. The fees imposed herein shall be effective sixty (60) days following adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May, 1992. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Rafanelli and Zika NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner North Plannin Commission airperson ATTEST: lanning Di ector - 4 - JUN 2 4 1991 • DUBLIN PLANNING A fcgMEMORANDUM 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 L.._ Village ge Parkway curb cut. This will provide for a property line)to the Y IlAag.. 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.VIALNUTCREEK ATTACHMENT F 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 le while theI other addition,will ga idesod vehicow les exiting the adjacent property gaspumps. 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 e south carrows should enterline striping to so bnform drivers oe installed at f the beginningwo- traffic flow.d) of the 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 propertes to the orth and indicating south are parking on the site. Installing a sign 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 the proposes existing g restaurant. The existing building is cTurrrently vacant. r}Ths eapplicante a osna reduction. docustomer seating. traffic slight a2uL.C.:^n:^. 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 S1,439,136 (source: Dublin Five Year Capital Improvement Program: 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. Mr.David Choy /Th -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 3 e C tf CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM RECEIVED DATE: May 4, 1992 MA.i )Il? TO: David Choy, Associate Planner DUBLIN PLANNING FROM: Mehran Sepehri, Senior Civil Engineer /14,5, SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Fee Amendment PA 92-019 Two Pesos CUP/SDR This memo shall serve as an amendment to the Traffic Study prepared by TJKM, on June 21, 1991, which evaluated incremental increases in traffic due to the addition of a twenty-four (24) hour drive thru window (rather than a sixteen hour drive thru window as currently proposed by the Applicant) onto the existing restaurant located at 6568 Village Parkway. The Traffic Impact Fee was based on customer data, dated April 13, 1991, provided by the Applicant for an existing Two Pesos Restaurant located in Texas. Although the Applicant had originally planned on operating the drive thru window twenty-four (24) hours per day, the current proposal is to operate the drive thru window on a sixteen (16) hour schedule, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. I have calculated a new Traffic Impact Fee for the current proposal (PA 92-019) based on the above stated sixteen (16) hour schedule, instead of the full twenty-four (24) hours evaluated by TJKM. I used the same customer data provided by the Applicant, dated April 13, 1991, for the Two Pesos Restaurant located in Texas. The following is the new Traffic Impact Fee which should be imposed upon the proposed Two Pesos project, using the same methodology developed by TJKM in the Traffic Study dated June 21, 1991: Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. there were a total of 379 weekend customers who utilized the drive thru. This total was discounted by fifty-eight percent (58%) to arrive at an average weekday customer count of 220. Assuming one customer per vehicle and two trips per vehicle, the weekday trip rate for the drive thru equals 440. Thirty-three percent (33%) of these trips, or 145 trips, are assumed to be new trips attributable to the addition of the drive thru window. Sixty percent (60%) of these trips, or 87 trips, are attributable to Dublin Boulevard, between Donlon Way and Village Parkway. The 87 trip total translates to a 1.25 percent contribution, or $9,918.00, to the total improvement cost of the widening and restriping of Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Village Parkway. I recommend that this new Traffic Impact Fee be imposed on the current application PA 92-019. /tiffee2