HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 90-069 PA 90-079 Imposing Traffic Impact Fee- Shamrock Ford RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 069
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 90-079,
SHAMROCK FORD AT 7499 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-067, the
Planning Commission has approved the Conditional Use Permit for the
expansion of the existing Shamrock Ford Auto Dealership; and by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-068, the Planning Commission has
approved the Site Development Review for a 5,060 square foot building
addition (hereafter "the proposed project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
said application including the adoption of this resolution on
November 5, November 19, and December 17, 1990; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; 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(e) of
the State CEQA Guidelines because the project will consist of a minor
addition to an existing structure involving negligible expansion of
the existing use ; 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, Condition No. 23 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 90-068 approving the Site Development Review requires the
developer to pay a traffic impact or 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
to Lee Thompson, Public Works Director from Gerri Langtry of TJKM,
which is attached hereto 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; and
WHEREAS, said report was available for public inspection and
review more than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find:
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 the attached report, 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 housing
needs as established in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
E. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used
to finance the public facilities identified in the attached report.
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 the report 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 the report 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 the attached report.
H. The attached report is a detailed analysis of how public
services will be affected by the proposed development, the existing
deficiencies 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.
/90079re6/df
- 2 -
• � r
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 the attached
report and Condition No. 23 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-
069 is hereby imposed, to be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits. The Commission finds that the attached report 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 the attached report and reasonable costs
of outside consultant studies related thereto;
2. To reimburse the City for the public facilities
described in the attached report, constructed by the City with
funds from other sources, unless the City funds were expended to
remedy existing deficiencies as identified in the attached report
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 the attached report 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 the attached
report and only for the purpose for which the fee was collected; and
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.
0. No later than June 30, 1991 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
/90079re6/df
- 3 -
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
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 sixty (60) days
following adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1990.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rafanelli
(/i1141)1
nnCmmissi Ch rperson
ATTEST:
Planning Dire tor
/90079re6/df
- 4 -
. *EC 05 '90 16:43 TJKM TP, W6F'ORTRTION CONSLILTANTSR �~ P•2
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
December 5,1990 DEC 0 5 1990
TO: Mr.Lee Thompson DUBLIN PLANNING
City of Dublin
FROM: Gerri Langtry
SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee for Shamrock Ford Auto Service
Expansion
This memo documents an analysis determining a traffic impact mitigation fee for
the proposed 5,060 square foot expansion of the auto service building at the
Shamrock Ford Dealership(PA 90-079). Shamrock Ford is located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road at
7749 Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin. The expansion will consist of
3,926 square feet of new service area(six new service bays)and 1,134 square feet of
increased parts storage space including a small office.
The addition of daily traffic due to future development in Dublin, including the
Shamrock Ford expansion,will require the widening of Dublin Boulevard from four
to six lanes between Donlon Way and Village Parkway. The total cost of the
planned widening is $1,410,500, based on the current City of Dublin Capital
Improvement Program. Approximately $679,593 will be funded by other revenue
sources. The remaining$730,907 is applicable to a traffic mitigation fee.
The impact fee for Dublin Boulevard improvements was based on the percent
increase in average daily traffic(ADT)that the project will contribute to that street.
Based on service record information provided by the applicant,it was estimated that
this automobile dealership can be expected to generate 17 daily vehicle trips per'
service bay. Therefore,the project expansion of six service bays can be expected to
generate 102 new daily vehicle trips. Auto service related trips are considered to be
primary trips with no pass-by trip reduction.
Future project trips were distributed to/from project driveways and the local street
system based on peak hour driveway counts conducted in October 1990 at Shamrock
Ford and on peak hour turning movement counts conducted at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. Existing p.m.peak turning movement
percentages from the counts were used to distribute future trips through the
intersection. Turning movement analysis is applicable to this study because of the
project's corner location. Also,median restrictions on Dublin Boulevard force some
project related trips to turn onto Amador Plaza Road to gain access to the project C G .t9
4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214,Pleasanton,California 94558•(415)463-0611
•• DEC 6S '9.0 16:44 TJKM Tr+P`46PORTRTION CONSULTANTSR _r- P.3
Mr.Lee Thompson -2- December 5,1990
site. or to make an outbound return trip. Thio aooumcd around-the-corner
distribution requires some project related trips to be counted on both Dublin
Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road.
Based on the intersection and driveways analyses,53 percent of future daily project
trips was distributed to Dublin Boulevard. This includes trips that turned at the
intersection. This resulted in a total of 54 new project trips per day on Dublin
Boulevard.
The existing (1990) average daily traffic (ADT) on Dublin Boulevard is
23,765 vehicle per day. Dublin Boulevard is projected to carry an additional
6,335 vehicles by the year 2010 with an ADT of 30,100 vehicles per day. Future
project trips equal 0.85 percent of the traffic increase(5416,335)and are subject to a
traffic mitigation fee equal to 0.85 percent of the cost to widen Dublin Boulevard
which is$6,212.
rhm
157-001