HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 PublicFacilitiesFee
.
e:..
.' .
1:..-
SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
File # D~[2]lQJ-~[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 12, 1996
EXIDBITS ATTACHED:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Public Facilities Fee. Report
Prepared by: Diane Iowart, Parks & Community Services Director
A. February 13, 1996 City Council Agenda Statement (no exhibits)
B. Summary of Meeting Comments
C. Correspondence from Mackay & Somps
D. Correspondence from Ruggeri Jensen and Associates
E. Correspondence from Kaufman & Broad
F. Correspondence from Trumark Homes
G. Summary of Responses to Correspondence
H. Resolution Establishing A Public Facilities Fee F.or Future
Developments Within The City Of Dublin, including the
following exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Land Use Map
Public Facilities Fee Justification Study prepared
by Recht Hausrath & Associates (March, J 995)
Fee Schedule
Exhibit C:
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 1)
(to be available at Council meeting) 2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
General Plan
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Library Planning Task Force Report
Civic Center Programming Document
RECOMMENDATION:
~,
~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
I. Open Public Hearing
2. Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
3. Question Staff and the public
3. Close Public Hearing and deliberate
4. Adopt Resolution Establishing Public Facilities Fee
Cost offacilities to serve growth are estimated to be $84.8 million
l' !..
As directed, Staff met with representatives of the development community to further discuss th~ir
concerns related to the imposition of the public facilities fee. Representative~ of the principal landowners
in Eastern Dublin were in attendance at the meeting as well as representatives from the proposed Schaefer
Ranch development project and the Building Industry Association (BIA). A summary of the concern.-:-':,.
discussed at the meeting as well as Staffs response to the concerns are attached in Exhibit B. ",':'"
Correspondence that was received related to the Public Facilities Fee is attached in Exhibits C - F and ',' .
Exhibit G contains a summary of the responses to the correspondence.
In light of the concerns expressed by the development community to the Public Facilities Fee, Staff has
prepared the following information for the City Council's consideration.
Consisten~ With Planning Documents
IlProviding for the recreation needs of the Eastern Dublin community is as important to establishing
and maintaining a higl, quality of life as are the residential, commercial and employment policies set
forth in this plan. Recreation is essential to the development of a balanced, healthy living
environment. Providing recreationalfacilities and opportunities within Eastern Dublin will enhance
the character and image of the area and enhance the quality of life for future residents." (Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, Page 32)
liThe parks system is an essential component of a city's image. It is a visible reflection of community
pride. To create a community with landscaped pathways, well-designed parks, and attractive public
buildings requires careful long-range planning and guidelines. By planning for a Ilvillage green" in
the urban area where workers enjoy their lunch or parkways along w/tich commuters can walk and
bicycle, Dublin is creating a community not a suburb. The Dublin population can then derive
pleasure from community amenities each day. The park system becomes an integral part of their
lives." (parks and Recreation Master Plan, Page 35)
~e parks and community fac~ities which ~ the subje~t of the Public Fac~lities ~ee Justification. Study ..~."
WIll enhance the character and Image of the CIty of Dub 1m, enhance the qualIty ofhfe for future reSIdents, : .";::
and enhance the marketability of the area to future businesses and residents. The proposed facilities are
consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan and other related studies. Provision of these facilities IS critical to the implementation of the
goals and policies contained in these documents.
Burden on E~jsting Facilities
liThe future development of Eastern Dublin represents both an opportunity and a challenge. An area
more than twice the size of the existing city with the potential to more than double the current
population, Eastern Dublin requires careful planning to ensure the development of a healthy, high
quality community that relates wen to its setting and the existing city. With a community of this size,
it is essential that all aspects of community life be incorporated so that the planning area can be as
self-sufficient and self-sustaining as possible, and not be a drain on the rest tl.( the cit)1 or adjoining
communities." (Eastern DubOn Specific Plan, Page 23)
The current park and community facilities within the City of Dublin are reaching maximum capacity. In
order that new development not place a burden on existing facilities it is essential to provide adequate
park and community facilities to serve the new residents. For example, the Dublin Sports Grounds, which
is the City's only major sports complex, is utilized 100% of the available hours by Dublin Little League
and Dublin United Soccer League. These programs are designed for Dublin youth only and will be unable
to absorb the additional youth associated with the foreseen growth. The Dublin Swim Center is also
unable to absorb the needs that: will result from additional residents. The Center is programmed at it's
maximum potential during the SUnimer months and often times patrons have to be turned away from swim
lessons and recreational swimming due to lack of space. Selected recreational programs at the Shannon .
Community Center too have reached their limits and cannot be expanded to meet the anticipated growth "...
unless additional facilities are provided in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area
If adequate facilities are not provided for resident.\; in Eastern Dublin those new residents will place a
burden on existin~ Dublin park and recreational facilities.
i,
.
. Purpose of Public Facilities Fee
"Given the lack of City funding, responsibility to provide capital improvements falls to the developer.
In general, developers provide items like streets, sewers, and parks in order to make habitable tI,e
houses that they will build and selL Developers typically front the cost of the infrastructure and then
include these costs in the price of the homes sold." (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Page 147)
The purpose of the public facilities fee is to fInance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts
caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin. The Public Facilities Fee
JustifIcation Study documents the amount and cost of new public facilities for city services required to
serve new development and detennines the public facilities fees that new development should pay to fund
its fair share of those facilities needs.
The following table identifies the facilities needed to serve new development as well as the cost to fund
those facilities.
.';
Community Parks 113.9 acres Land ($25.969,000) $41,232,000
Improvements ($15.263,000)
Neighborhood Parks 48.5 acres Land ($14,550,000) $22,232,000
Improvements ($7,682,000)
Community Buildings 60,200 s.t. $12,060,000
Aquatic Center $2,100,000
Libraries . , 25,200 s.t. Improvements ($4.939,000) $6,777,000
Volumes ($1,838,000)
Civic Center 6,380 s.t. Improvements ($370.000) $445,000
Parking lot ($75.000)
TOTAL $84.846,000
Amount of Fee
The total amount of the public facilities fee varies according to land use type. Citywide fees per
residential unit are $5,331 (6 or fewer dwelling units per acre) and $3,332 (6.1 or more dwelling units per
acre). Eastern Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center
which bring the fees to $7,735 to $4,834 for the respective unit types. Commercial/industrial facilities
fees per 1,000 square feet range from $387 for industrial to $877 for office space. Commercial
development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a small portion of the proposed aquatic center, bringing
the range of impacts for this part of the City to $392 to $889 per 1,000 square feet for
commercial/industrial uses.
Probably the largest component of the public facilities fee is the estimated cost to acquire park land which
amounts to 48% of the fee. For those prqpel"Q' owners who have sufficient park land on their property to
dedicate in accordance with the law. the total out of pocket fee paid to the City (pccludil\i dedicated land)
would be $4.029 per unit for land desi&J1ated at 0.6 units per acre. and $2.51 g per unit for land desi&J1ated
at 6.1 units and above per acre. However, not all park land can be acquired through dedication. The fee
must be calculated so that sufficient monies are collected to p\U'Chase the land which cannot be acquired
e' by dedication. The cost of park land purchased by the City will depend on the underlying or adjacent
. ;1 zoning of each site acquired. For the most part, park acreage is located in or adjacent to medium density
"~ : or, medium high density residential zones. The corresponding land value is estimated in the range or
$250,000 to $350,000 per acre for this level of development. An estimated average land value of
$300,000 per acre is applied to neighborhood park acquisitionS.
~
. .
Two of the three community parks locations are adjacent to medium and medium-high residential zones,
however the community park in the northerly area is in a rural residential zone, and is likely to have a land
value lower than parks in the other parts of the planning area. Rural residential land currently has a valuee:-.-
of about $12,000 per acre. Averaging the land values results in an assumed per acre cost of $228,000 for ,',_ '_
community park acquisitions. These hiih land values are the result of ieneral plan and specific plan land .
use desi2l1ations other than ajpicultural for the bulk of the Eastern Dublin area.
The park land component of the public facilities fee could be lowered if landowners entered into
agreements with the City to allow the City to acquire the park land at lower land values that these
estimated values. For example in the City of Brentwood the park land fee is based on land valued at
$50,000 per acre. If this amount was used for park land acquisition in Dublin the fee for land designated
at 0-6 units per acre would be reduced from $7,735 to $4,688 per unit, and for land designated at 6.1 units
and above per acre it would reduce the fee from $4,835 to $2,918 per unit.
The public facilities fee also takes into account that the City will construct the parks and community
facilities. The portion of the fee related to park improvements could be further reduced if the facilities
were constructed by developers. Developers have estimated the reduction at 20% to 40%. For example,
the net total fee if the City permitted developers to construct parks only would range from $7,317.$6,898
per unit for land designated 0.6 units per acre, and $4,573.$4,311 per unit for land designated 6.1 units
and above per acre depending upon the amount of savings realized through developer construction. The
implementing ordinance for the public facilities fee (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78) contemplates
credits for developer construction of public facilities. This will be addressed during the development of
the administrative guidelines.
Fee Comparison
..--
It has been suggested that the development fees in Dublin are excessive and are not competitive with the
neighboring communities. Staffs response is that Dublin needs to provide adequate parks and community
facilities in order to remain competitive with the neighboring communities.
In looking at the total amount of development fees assessed to new development in Dublin, it should be
noted that there are a number of fees which the City has no control over (school fees, sewer and water
fees, etc.). Should the park and community facilities be reduced, resulting in a lower public facilities fee,
in order to make the total amount of development fees more palatable?
Staff attempted to prepare a comparison of development fees in neighboring communities but found that it
is like comparing "apples to oranges". No two communities use the same method of funding
infrastructure and the total costs vary according to the level of development occurring in the community.
Many communities use a combination of fees, assessment districts, Mello-Roos special taxes and
development agreements to fund infrastructure.
Based on the fee comparison done by Kaufman & Broad (Exhibit D) the fees for parks and community
facilities range from a low of $2,336 per single family dwelling unit in Livermore to a high of $6,959 per
single family dwelling unit in Pleasanton. However, these fees are not representative of the total cost to
developers for parks and community facilities. Staff has found that many communities condition
development for park and community facilities in excess of the "Quimby Act" requirements. For
example, developers in the Dougherty Valley were conditioned through a development agreement to
provide improved parks at a standard of 6.5 acres per 1000. In addition, the developers must construct an
11,600 s.f. library, a 24,000 s.f. community center, a 10,000 s.f. senior center, a police substation and a
corporation yard. A public facilities fee of $1,410 per unit will be assessed on development in the
Dougherty Valley. It is apparent that the cost per unit of funding parks and public facilities in Dougherty
e:-.
','
e.
':'. -':
.:j
-,'
.::;
Valley will be higher than Eastern Dublin given the above requirements. Developers in the Sycamore
Valley area of Danville were conditioned to participate in an area wide assessment district which included
the construction of major roadway improvements along Camino Tassajara, a new fIre station and a
substantial portion of the development costs for Sycamore Valley Community Park and Tassajara Park.
This funding was far in excess of normal Quimby Act requirements normally required of the projects.
Given that the Doullherty Valley is one of the main competitors for residential development to Eastern
Dublin. Staff believes that the proposed Dublin Public Facilities Impact Fee is competitive with similar
areas undertakin~ infrastructure for maior 2fowth.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the purpose of the public facilities fee is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the
impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin. As shown in the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
other related studies, future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the
need for the facilities that are the subject of the Public Facilities Fee Justific,ation Study.
The Public Facilities Fee Justification Study establishes the following:
. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the impacts of the types
of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of
Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential and non-residential - will generate persons who live,
work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for the
facilities;
. That there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use (to pay for the constroction of the
facilities) and the type of development for which the fee is charged in that all development in the City
of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential and non-residential - generates or contributes to the
need for the facilities; ,
. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or
portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin in that the fee
is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses,
the total amount it will cost to construct the facilities, and the percentage by which development
within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the facilities;
. That the cost estimates set forth in the study and master plan are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing the facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not
exceed the projected costs of constructing the facilities;
. The method of allocation of the fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasonable
relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit :from, the facilities to be funded by the fee,
in that the fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees each particular
development will generate.
It should be noted that the adoption of a public facilities fee which is applicable to properties within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will not preclude developers from picking and choosing from the
various financing options available to them. Developers are required to prepare Financing Plans which
are to be part of the Development Agreement. The Financing Plan is the vehicle for a developer to
propose the "mix" of financing options available to him so that the property is not overburdened with
assessments and/or special taxes. Fox example, a developer could propose that the City establish an
assessment district to generate the money for the public facilities fee. The City would receive the money
up front and the developer (and future owners) would pay the annual assessments.
Following adoption of the public facilities fee, administrative guidelines will be prepared which will assist
Staff in implementing the Public Facilities Fee Program. These guidelines will address issues such as the
imposition of fees on mixed use development projects, the use of fee credits, and the relationship between ..
the fee's land use categories and the City's zoning designations. The administrative guidelines will also _ "
address financial, accounting, and compliance issues such as integration with the City's capital . .'
improvement program. The administrative guidelines will be brought before the City Council for
adoption at a later date.
Further, it is recommended that the City undertake annual and longer~term (perhaps five-year) reviews of
the public facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation. The longer-
term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as growth forecasts,
development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land costs. Such reviews will help
attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing needs.
Government Code section 65913.2 requires the Council to consider the effect of a resolution such as this
with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. This resolution is one step in
the implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which contemplates close to 13,906 dwelling
units at buildout, which will have a beneficial effect on the housing needs of the region.
Adoption of the public facilities fee is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and will implement those plans. The Parks and Community Services Commission has reviewed
and approved the Public Facilities Fee in concept. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council
conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution establishing a public facilities fee. ,
.'"
, ..'
. . . ..
.;
. .
CITY CLERK
File # m[2][OJ-[2J[ll]
.'~\-
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 13,1996
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Public Facilities Fee
Report Prepared by: Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Services
Director
EXIllBITS ATTACHED:
Resolution Establishing A Public Facilities Fee For Future
Developments Within The City Of Dublin, including the following
exhibits:
(11; .
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Land Use Map
Public Facilities Fee Justification Study prepared by
Recht Hausrath & Associates (December 20, 1995)
Fee Schedule
Exhibit C:
.'Y::'-
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 1) General Plan
(to be available at Council meeting) 2) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
3) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
4) Parks & Recreation Master Plan
5) Library Planning Task Force Report
6) Civic Center Programming Document
RECOMMENDATION: -)/ 1. Open Public Hearing
~' 2. Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
3. Question Staff and the public
3. Close Public Hearing and deliberate
4. Adopt Resolution Establishing Public Facilities Fee
Cost offacilities to serve growth are estimated to be $84.8 million
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION : The City Council adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78
creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee. The purpose of
the Public Facilities Fee is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future
developments in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin. Such facilities include the following:
completion of the Civic Center office space; construction of a new library and expansion of the existing
library; relocation and expansion of the existing senior center; acquisition and construction of
neighborhood and community parks and community buildings (including a community theater, a
community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center).
e': '-~-,-----------------------------------------------------------------
d':-::,-. COPIES TO:
ITEM NO...b4-
F:/p u bracre/cc213ph.d oc
EXHIBIT A
BACKGROUND
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan (SP) were adopted by the
City in 1993. The GP A outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres within the Cit.' ..
eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 milli"
square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development. The SP provides more speci 1.
detailed goals, policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within the GP A area
nearest to the City.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by the City in July of 1994. The Master Plan
provides direction for addressing the long-term recreational needs of the City and its changing
population through the next twenty years. The plan envisions a 330-acre park system at build-out
of the City based on a standard of 5 acres of park land per 1000 residents. In order to accomplish
this goal, the plan calls for tbe acquisition and development of aD additional 258.5 acres of park
land within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area. This includes a 56::t acre City Park,
an 80::t acre Sports Park, a 46::t acre Community Park and approximately 74 acres of Neighborhood
Parks/Squares. Additionally, the master plan calls for the development of the following
community facilities: a 28,000::t sq. ft. Community Center; a 35,OOO::t sq. ft. Recreation Center; a
16,000::t sq. ft. Community Theatre; a 6,OOO::t sq. ft. Senior Center; and an Aquatic Center.
It is City policy that no General Fund monies may be used to provide infrastructure for new development.
Thus, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment contains a policy that new development pay for
infrastructure necessary to accommodate the development (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C). The EaStern
Dublin Specific Plan contains a similar policy (policy 10-1, page 151). The Parks and Recreation Master
Plan also contains goals and guiding policies relating to the implementation of fimding sources to acquire,
develop, operate and maintain recreational facilities (Goal 5).
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE JUSTIFICATION S1VDY
e'-.'
'.
In January of 1995, the City Council authorized the preparation of a study by Recht Hausrath &
Associates to establish a Public Facilities Fee Program for the City of Dublin. The results of the study are
contained in the attached Public Facilities Fee Justification Study (Exhibit A). The facilities which are the
subject of this study are parks, community and recreational facilities,libraries, and the Civic Center. The
study documents the amount and cost of new public facilities for city services required to serve new
development and determines the public facilities fees that new development should pay to fimd its fair
share of those facilities needs.
The design of the City's public facilities fee program followed a four-step process: (1) selecting a time
period and projecting new development; (2) determining facility servIce areas and identifying facilities to
accommodate new development; (3) estimating facilities costs; and (4) determining alternative funding
sources, including an appropriate and equitable means to allocate costs among new development. Each of
the four steps is summarized below.
New Development Projections
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required to serve
growth. For the purpose of this study, development pJ;ojections included the residents and employees
projected for the City's Eastern Extended Planning Area and projected growth in the existing area of the
City. No growth for the City's Western Extended Planning Area was included at this time. Projections
are for build-out oftbe ~ity .(estimated to occur about 2025) and include the addition of 32,530 residents e> '.,
and 28,000 employees CItywide. .' ...
Facilities Requirements
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires the adoption of
standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for city infrastructure. The new facilities
:.'...~ ' "', that de:elopment m~ fun~ are then calculated according to. these standar.ds ~d projected service
i " populatIon growth, WIth reSIdents used as a measure for the Impacts of reSIdentIal development and
. employees used as a measure for non-residential development.
Facilities needed to accommodate new development include (1) neighborhood and community parks
(based on the standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act and adopted in the
City's existing park dedication ordinance), (2) community and recreation facilities including relocation
and expansion of the existing senior center, a community theater, a recreation center and an aquatic center,
(3) library improvements including an expansion of the exiting building plus a new branch in Eastern
Dublin, and (4) completion of the unimproved areas of the Civic Center.
Facilities Costs
Cost of facilities to serve growth are estimated to be $84.8 million. As part of the study, careful review
was given to determine which facilities and costs should appropriately be funded by a public facilities fee.
Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy existing deficiencies (to benefit the existing population) and
those which provide additional capacity (to benefit growtlt) were allocated according to the shares that
benefit each group. ' ,
Facilities Cost Allocation
Allocation of cost is done on the basis of service population. Service population is calculated by adding to
resident population a portion of employees. The weight assigned to employees is designed to reflect the
.:}, ,: proportion of employee relative to resident demand for a particular facility.
Though facilities needs are allocated based on service population, e.g., cost per resident or cost per
employee, fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g., fee per dwelling unit or
fee per square foot of building space. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of
facilities required to accommodate a particular type of development.
PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM
Chapter ill through Chapter VI of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study describe the public
facilities owned by the City, the requirements to serve growth, and ne:w facilities costs. Each chapter also
establishes a service population measurement which reflects the relative demand of residents and
employees. Costs of facilities are then allocated to new development on the basis of service population.
A brief summary of each chapter follows.
Neighborhood and Community Parks (Chapter III) ,
Dublin's park standard draws the distinction between neighborhood and community parks. The overall
5.0 acres per 1,000 residents park standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5 acres and
community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
includes approximately 258.5 acres of neighborhood and community parks. - .. However, the new
development demand for neighborhood and community parks is estimated to be 162.4 acres. Of this
.' amount, 48.5 acres is the neighborhood park demand, applied only to Eastern Dublin, and 113.9 is the
<,':, community park demand, applied citywide. Land costs total $40.5 million for both neighborhood and
community parks, and the cost of improvements add another $22.9 million for a total of $63.5 million.
The service population for neighborhood parks applies to Eastern Dublin residential growth .only.
Community park service population applies citywide and equals residents plus 15 percent of employees.
Costs for neighborhood parks total $688 per resident, including both land and improvements. Community
park costs total $1,124 per resident and $168 per employee, including both land and improvements. Ta~'
III.6 of the Study shows the calculation of neighborhood and community park costs allocated to reside~
and Table III.7 shows the calculation of community park costs allocated to employees.
As noted previously, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) includes approximately 258.5
acres of neighborhood and community parks. Of this amount, the Public Facilities Fee will fund
acquisition and development of approximately 162.4 acres for a total of $63.5 million. Consequently, if
the total park acreage as identified in the GP A is going to be built, there will be a funding shortfall of
approximately $37.4 million which will need to be funded through alternate funding sources.
Cl?mmunity and Recreation Facilities (Chapter IV)
As the City grows in size, there are plans to add five more community and recreation facilities. These
include another community center, a recreation center, a community theater, another aquatic center and a
senior center to replace the existing one. Excluding the aquatic centers, community buildings citywide are
proposed to total 103,178 square feet by build-out (based on a facility standard of 1.78 square feet per
person). The new development demand for community building space is estimated to be 60,300 square
feet. The total cost of community buildings to serve growth is $12.06 million. The projected cost of an
additional aquatic center to serve the added population in eastern Dublin is $2.1 million.
The service population for community buildings equals residents plus 5 percent of employees.
Community building costs are allocated to both residential and commercial/industrial growth citywide.
Community building costs total $356 per resident and $18 per employee. The aquatic center costs ~~,-::
assigned to Eastern Dublin only and total $63 per resident and $3 per employee. Table IV.5 of the Stu~,:,:,
shows the calculation for community buildings and aquatic centers to residents and employees.
As noted previously, community buildings are proposed to total 103,178 square feet by build-out of the
City. Of this amount, the Public Facilities Fee will fund 60,300 square feet for a total of $12.06 million.
Consequently, if the total square footage of community buildings are to be built, there will be a funding
shortfall of approximately $4.9 million which will need to be funded through alternate funding sources.
Libraries (Chapter 11
Library services are provided to Dublin residents by the Alameda County Library System with partial
funding from the City of Dublin. Proposed library improvements include the expansion of the current
15,000 square foot library by 7,000 square feet and-the construction of an additional 20,000 square foot
library in Eastern Dublin. The new development demand for libraries is projected to 'be 25,200 square
feet of building space and 73,500 volumes (based on a per person standard of 0.6'5 square feet of library
building space 1.90 volumes). The total cost of libraries, including volumes, to serve growth is
$6,777,000.
The service population for libraries equals residents plus 22 percent of employees. Library costs are
allocated to both residential and commercial/industrial growth citywide. Library costs total $175 per
resident and $39 per employee. Table V.6 of the Study shows the calculation for library costs to residents
and employees. .'<_,
As noted previously, proposed library improvements total 27,000 square feet. Of this amount, the Public
Facilities Fee will fund 25,200 square feet for a total of $6,777,000. Consequently, if the total square
footage for libraries is to be built, there will be a funding shortfall of approximately $352,800 which will
need to be funded through alternate funding sources.
Civic Center (Chapter VI)
The Dublin Civic Center building was sized to accommodate an estimated resident population of 40,000
in the year 2005 and totals 53,000 square feet. Not all of this space is presently utilized. Proposed
'.,,"" . improvements include the completion of 4,580 square feet of administrative space, renovations to the
. . .... 1,800 square feet of the police wing, and renovations to the Police Department's secured parking lot. The
total cost of Civic Center improvements associated with growth is $445,000.
The service population for the Civic Center equals residents plus 25 percent of employees. Civic Center
costs are allocated to both residential and commercial/industrial growth citywide. Civic Center costs total
$11 per resident and $3 per employee. Table VI.3 of the Study shows the calculation for Civic Center
costs to residents and employees.
As noted previously, the Civic Center Was sized to accommodate an estimated resident population of
40,000. Currently it is difficult to estimate the types of additional building space that will be needed to
serve the population once it exceeds 40,000. Consequently, it will be necessary to conduct a needs
analysis at some point in the future which would include an update to the public facilities fee to fund
additional office space to serve the increased population.
&m~ry~C~~ .
The following table swnmarizes the cost of facilities to serve growth. The costs are further divided into
two groups. First are those applied citywide. Certain facilities, namely community parks, community
building, libraries and the Civic Center, are regarded as expansions of citywide systems which benefit
both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin. These costs can therefore be applied to new development,
whether in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborhood parks and the aquatic center in Eastern
.~;",!,;, DU?lin are designed to serve growth in.that area only. Since these facilities have a local area of benefit,
. ,..::. theIr costs are allocated to Eastern Dublm only.
Summary of Cos~ To Serve Growth
Costs to Serve Growth Cost per Resident Cost per Employee
Citywide
Community Parks, Land $25,969,000 $708 $106
Community Parks, Improvements 15,263,000 416 62
Community Buildings 12,060,000 356 18
Libraries 6,777,000 175 39
Civic Center 445.000 11 .3.
Total $60,514,000 $1,666 $228
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $14,550,000 $450 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements .7,682,000 238 0
Aquatic Center 2.100.000 .63. .3.
Total $24,332,000 $751 $3
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $60,514,000 $1,666 - $228
Eastern Dublin .Costs 24.332.000 ill .3.
Total $84,846,000 $2,417 $231
e.,
. .,
Costs per resident and employee are extended to land use types as shov.'Il in the table on the folloWing
page. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling lUlit and employment density is
expressed as square feet of building space per employee. Occupant densities for residential land uses are
as follows: single family - 3.2 persons per residential unit; multiple family - 2.0 persons per residentica.
unit. Occupant densities for non-residential land uses are as follows: commercial uses - 505 square fee'"
per employee; office uses - 260 square feet per employee; and industrial uses - 590 square feet per
employee. It should be noted that public agencies are exempt from paying development impact fees, thus,
the development and the corresponding employment is excluded from the fee analysis.
Impact Fee By Land Use
Residential, Commercial and Industrial,
Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1,000 Square Feet
Single Family Multiple Family Commercial Office Industrial
Citywide
CommlUlity Parks, Land $2,266 $1,416 $210 $408 $180
Community Parks, 1,331 832 123 238 105
Improvements
Community Buildings 1,139 712 36 69 31
Libraries 560 350 77 150 66
Civic Center .ll 22- Q 11 j,
Total . $5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $1,440 $900 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, 762 476 0 0 0
Improvements
Aquatic Center 2Q2 ill Q .u ~
Total $2,404 $1,502 $6 $12 $5
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Costs 2.4D.1 UQ2 Q 12 j,
Total $7,735 $4,834 $458 $889 $392
.....
, , ,
~ . . . -
Program Implementation
The actual implementation and administration of the public facilities fee program will involve adopting
new procedures, training personnel, tracking facility. costs and accounting for fee revenues. In addition,
Staff will be frequently confronted with particular - situations in which the program's criteria must be
interpreted and special judgments rendered. Thus, following adoption of the public facilities fee, Recht
Hausrath & Associates will be preparing administrative guidelines which will assist Staff in implementing
the Public Facilities Fee Program. These guidelines will address issues such as the imposition of fees on
mixed use development projects, the use of fee credits, and the relationship between the fee's land use
categories and the City's zoning designations. The administrative guidelines will also address financial,
accounting, and compliance issues such as integration with the City's capital improvement program. The
administrative guidelines will be brought before the City Council for adoption at a later date.
e:,(
.. ..;-.
e..,
Further, it is recommended that the City tmdertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of
the public facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation. The longer-
" term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as growth forecasts,
development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land costs. Such reviews will help
attune long-range public facilities fmancing to the City's changing needs.
Relationship Between Public Facilities Fee Progra'!2 and Quimby Ordinance
The City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28) based on the Quimby Act
(Government Code Section 66477) regarding dedication of park land by new development. The
ordinance's provisions are applicable only when land is subdivided for residential development. At that
time, the City may require the land owner to either dedicate land for park purposes or pay an in-lieu fee
instead. The amount of land dedicated or fee paid is based on the estimated residential population of the
proposed development and provision of park land equal to the City's standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000
population.
As proposed, the City would implement the park facilities fee documented in the study in conjunction
with the existing Quimby Act ordinance. While Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are imposed
when land is subdivided, public facilities fees are imposed later in the deyelopment process, when
building permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already been charged with a Quimby
park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the park land component of the public facilities fee would then be
deducted. Examples to illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications, and Quimby deductions will
be applied in different parts of the City are contained in Table Vll.3 of the Study.
._j' ':, CONCLUSION
As stated previously, the purpose of the public facilities fee is to finance municipal public facilities to
reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin. As shown in
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. the Parks and Recreation Master Plan,
and other related studies, future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the
need for the facilities that are the subject of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study.
The Public Facilities Fee Justification Study establishes the following:
,~ ::.::.....
· That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the impacts of the types
of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of
Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential ahd non-residential - will generate persons who live,
work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for the
facilities;
· That there is a reasonable relationship between,the fee's use (to pay for the construction of the
facilities) and the type of development for which the fee is charged in that all development in the City
of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential and non-residential - generates or contributes to the
need for the facilities;'
· That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or
portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin in that the fee
is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses,
the total amount it will cost to construct the facilities, and the percentage by which development
within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the facilities;
.
· That the cost estimates set forth in the study and master plan are reasonable cost estimat~s for
constructing the facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not
exceed the projected costs of constructing the facilities;
· The method of allocation of the fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasona.:
relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the facilities to be funded by the fee, ':'
in that the fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees each particular
development will generate.
It should be noted that the adoption of a public facilities fee which is applicable to properties within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will not preclude developers from picking and choosing from the
various financing options available to them. Developers are required to prepare Financing Plans which
are to be part of the Development Agreement. The Financing Plan is the vehicle for a developer to
propose the "mix" of financing options available to him so that the property is not overburdened with
assessments and/or special taxes. Fox example, a developer could propose that the City establish an
assessment district to generate the money for the public facilities fee. The City would receive the money
up front and the developer (and future owners) would pay the annual assessments.
Government Code section 65913.2 requires the Council to consider the effect of a resolution such as this
with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. lbis resolution is one step in
the implementation of the Eastern 'Dublin Specific Plan which contemplates close to 13,906 dwelling
units at buildout, which will have a beneficial effect on the housing needs of the region.
Adoption of the public facilities fee is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The Parks and Community Services Commission has reviewed and approved the Public Facilitie_
Fee in concept. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and ado~
the resolution establishing a public facilities fee. ' '
e,:"
.";-'
I.'
I .
,
....
. :.
.2
SUMMARY OF MEETING COMMENTS
Public Facilities Fee
February 29. 1996
Attendance
Diane Lowart - Parks & Community Services Director, City of Dublin
Eddie Peabody - Community Development Director, City of Dublin
Elizabeth H. Silver - City Attorney, City of Dublin
Sam Junkins - Consultant, Recht Hausrath & Associates
Pat Cashman - Alameda County
Stuart Cook - Alameda County
F. Croak
Dave Chadbourne - Jennifer Lin Property
Bob Harris - Jennifer Un Property
John Donahue - Pao Un Property
Steve Hicks - Kaufman & Broad
Jim Parsons - PIA Design
Rob Yohai - Schaefer Ranch
Marti Steinbank - Building Industry Association
Comments/Issues
1.
Standards used to calculate neighborhood and community park acreage for new development The BIA
representative indicated that he believed the City could not support a standard of 5.0 acres per thousand
population. He also indicated that he believed the City was applying a higher standard for parks in
Eastern Dublin because school district joint use facilities are not included in calculating the need for parks
in Eastern Dublin.
The City's "Quimby Acr ordinance (Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code) was adopted pursuant to
Government Code section 66477 (the "Quimby Acn. Chapter 9.28 finds that the public health, safety
and welfare require five acres of parks for each 1000 persons. Section 66477 sets the basic standard at
three acres per 1000 population but authorizes a city to adopt a standard up to five acres per 1000 based
on the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area. At the time Chapter 9.28 was adopted,
the City's existing neighborhood and community park area justified the five acre per 1000 standard. Since
then, several developments have paid fees in lieu of dedicating park land, the result of which has been
that the current ratio is slightly below five acres per 1000. The in lieu fees have been used to make
improvements to school district facilities so they are available for park use. There is no requirement in the
Quimby Act that a city recalculate its adopted standard after it has been adopted. Staff believes,
therefore, that the City's adopted standard is legally valid.
The second issue deals with how the City elects to provide park and recreational facilities to its residents.
Due to limitations on the availability of vacant land for park purposes in the City, the Council has elected to
provide recreational facilities in part through the use of a Joint Use Agreement with the Dublin Unified
School District. However, the Council has chosen not to use school district facilities to achieve the five
acre standard in yet-to-be-developed areas of the City to the east and west. (See Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, p. 23 and p. 24 which is based on the "assumption that the City of Dublin does not wish to be
required to utilize school property to achieve the minimum park acreage standards" and includes a goal
that encourages school facilities but states "do not consider these lands as an area credited towards
meeting park acreage standards.") How the City chooses to provide the five acres of park and
recreational lands per 1 000 is a legislative decision for the City Council. If the Council wishes to change
this policy I it may do so by amending the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Methodology to allocate park costs to non-residential development. The use of the Pleasanton Recreation
and Sports Survey to calculate park use by employees and the use of the Santa Clara Library Study to
calculate library use by employees was questioned. In particular, Ruggeri-Jensen and Associates,
representing the Pao Lin property in Eastern Dublin, posed questions regarding some of the fundamental
EXHIBIT B
assumptions of the Fee Justification Study and whether the two studies accurately reflected conditions
within the City of Dublin and the proposed land uses with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
i
i
I
I ,
I
The legislation authorizing the impact fees calculated in this Fee Justification Study, AS 1600, permits ...... .
allocation of facilities costs to residential as well as commercial and industrial land uses, provided a .' .
reasonable relationship between growth and facilities demand is provided. Staff and the consultant
believe that the two studies provide additional justification for the assumptions made regarding employee
use of parks and libraries, and that the methodology used in the two studies is applicable to Dublin given
the similar demographics and proximity to Eastern Dublin. (See Exhibit F. Responses to Comments 2.1
and 2.2 for additional information.)
3.
Total Amount of the Fee. The consensus of those in attendance was that the amount of the public
facilities fee is prohibitive and, combined with the other fees being imposed on new development, makes it
financially infeasible for development to proceed.
It is City policy that no General Fund monies may be used to provide infrastructure for new development.
Through the adoption of the Eastem Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, and other related documents, the City has established standards for development of the
facilities addressed in the Fee Justification Study. The recommended public facilities fee is new
development's share for acquisition and construction of these facilities. In order to reduce the fee, the City
Council would need to amend the documents which established the facility standards. It should be
noted, however, that the adopted standards are representative of the community's desire for high
quality and sufficient recreation and community facilities.
With regard to the amount of the fee in combination with other development fees, Staff is compiling
information related to development fees in other communities and will present the information to the City
Council at the meeting.
4.
Responsibility for Construction of Facilities. The fact that the Study does not specifically address the
option of the developer constructing the facilities directly and then receiving a credit for those costs
against the public facilities fee was of some cOncern, particulariy when it was pointed out that private
developers can otten times construct facilities for 20% to 40% less than a public agency.
....
.:1
Staff noted that the implementing ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78) contemplates such
credits and made it clear that the option of developers constructing facilities for credit against the public
facilities fee would be addressed during the development of the administrative guidelines.
5. Funding shortfalls related to both the existina deficiency within the existin~ City and the new facilities in
Eastern Dublin which will not be funded by the public facilities fee. There was concern that the present
standard in the City Is lower than the standard anticipated in the future for certain facilities, namely
community parks, community buildings and library space. Also there was concern that the amount of
parkland identified in the Eastern Dublin General Plan exceeded the standard of 5 acres per 1000 based
on the projected population of the City.
As stated in the Fee Justification Study, new development cannot be expected to contribute funds to
correct existing deficiencies. In order to maintain equity in the public facilities fee program, the City must
COrrect existing deficiencies and fund these costs from sources other than exactions imposed on new
development. This shortfall may be funded out of general revenues or other sources dedicated to capital
improvements, such as a bond measure or a special tax. Staff indicated that the Council has not yet
addressed the issue of how to fund the shortfall.
The funding shortfall for new facilities in Eastern Dublin can be approached in two ways: the City can
either elect to fund the shortfall through alternate funding sources or reduce the size of, or eliminate,
certain parks and community buildings. If the total park acreage identified in Eastern Dublin is reduced,
the property would then be available for additional residential or non-residential development.
e>
Further, it was noted that the public facilities fee could be adopted without the City Council taking action on
how to address the funding shortfall.
e'
e:'-I
.
.ACIAY & sImps
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING LAND SURVEYING
RECEIVED
FE89 1996
CITY Of DUBLIN
February 9,1996
16034-0
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Public Facilities Fee Tustification Study
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
On behalf of our client, Jennifer Lin, we have reviewed the City's Public Facilities Fee
Justification Study prepared for the City by Recht Hausrath & Associates. This letter
contains our comments and questions along with those of other members of the Un
Design Team. Our intention is for these comments to be constructive but also candid.
In a,ddition, we have not had an opportunity to comparatively evaluate the City's
proposed fees against those currently in place for similar facilities in other jurisdictions.
Let me preface our remarks by saying that the public facilities fee figures for Eastern
Dublin of $7735 for single family units and $4834 for multiple family units are over
$2000 per unit higher than we had estimated in our preliminary site development cost
estimate for Dublin Ranch- Phase 1. Additionally our calculation did not include an
affordable housing in-lieu fee. Based on our initial cost figures, total development-
related fees amount to over 48% of total site development costs. With the public
facilities fee proposed by the Study and the yet to be adopted affordable housing in-lieu
fee that percentage will be higher still. Not surprisingly many of our comments have to
do with the magnitude of the proposed public facilities fee and how it might potentially
be lowered.
Probably the major factor which could effect the fee is the standards which are
employed to calculate required neighborhood and community park acreage for new
development. The City's standard for the former is 1.5 acres per 1000 population and
for the latter 3.5 acres. Using those figures the Study calculates that new development
needs to provide 162.4 acres of neighborhood and community parks at an estimated "
cost of $63,464,000 (land and improvements). It calculates the existing City has 115
acres of such parks and that based on the 5 acre per thousand standard, there is a
deficiency of 3.31 acres of neighborhood and community park land. Thirty six of those
115 acres are school playfields, however, the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan
doesn't count school playfields as satisfying the City's park requirements for new
development. Therefore, a higher standard is being required for future development. If
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3355 PHONE (510) 225.0690 FAX (510) 225-0698
OFFICES: FAIRFIELD PLEASANTON ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE
EXHIBIT C
Richard Ambrose
February 9, 1996
page 2 of 4
.
I:
school playfields could be substituted for 31 % of the required park land in Eastern
Dublin as is the case in the existing City, the cost for these facilities would be reduced
by almost $20 million.
There are other examples of disparities in park and recreation standards between the
existing City and future development which we feel need further consideration. In
particular, other such items in the Study include the following:
· Table 2 on page 17 of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates future
development is expected to provide ballfields, basketball courts, soccer fields,
tennis courts, etc. at a standard approximately 20% to 500% greater than that
which occurs in the existing City. AI~o, with regard to recreational facilities, will
the proposed aquatic center in Eastern Dublin have more or better amenities than
the existing aquatic center? If so, this is another example of disparity in
standards.
· The Study calls for a separate 20,000 square foot library to be built in Eastern
Dublin and a 7000 square foot addition to the existing Dublin library. This
amounts to 42,000 square feet of library facilities for a build out population of
56,190~ By comparison, Pleasanton's library was constructed for an ultimate
population of 75,000. It was originally designed at 38,000 square feet but reduced
to 30,000 because of lack of funding. Livermore's three libraries total 24,800 .
square feet and serve a population of over 63,000. It seems to us the expansion __ '
being proposed for Dublin is too optimistic. We realize it was recommended by
the City's Library Planning Task Force, however, we feel that 0.75 square feet of
floor space per capita is excessive and not necessary for an efficiently functioning
community library system.
· On page ll-7 the Study defines single family as all types of detached housing and
multiple family as any attached housing. Single family is assumed to contain 3.2
persons per unit and multiple family 2.0. All of the Medium Density residential
units in Dublin Ranch- Phase 1 will probably be detached housing and, therefore,
all of those units are slated to pay the $7735 public facilities fee. We know from
recent studies which have been done to justify school mitigation fees in the Tri-
Valley area that all units in this density range (6 to 14 du/ac) don't all generate
3.2 persons per unit. Therefore, builders of Medium Density units (and there will
be almost 5000 such units in Eastern Dublin) will likely be penalized in many
instances. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Table 2A, page 13) and
Specific Plan (Table 4.2, page 31) both use a figure of 3.2 only for single family
units. All other density categories, including Medium Density, are assumed to
generate 2.0 persons per unit. We suggest the Study is not consistent with these
two documents.
.'
: e.:
I :
, '
Richard Ambrose
February 9, 1996
page 3 of 4
. With respect to page III-B, second paragraph, a more detailed listing of items
included in park costs in addition to "landscaping, equipment, utility fees and
frontage improvements" needs to be provided. Also, it is not clear whether items
such as site preparation, grading, fencing, parking, design fees, etc. are also
included and, if so, what costs are allocated to them.
. Based on the park facilities costs in Table 3 (page ix) and the improvement costs
per acre outlined in Table III.S (page ill-B), it appears that the total dollar amount
($63M) allocated for parks would only translate into 162.4 acres of new park
facilities. The Specific Plan Land Use Map indicates a total of 25B acres of park
facilities planned for East Dublin. How this shortfall is to be approached needs
to be addressed further.
. The $200 per square foot cost figure for community buildings and the $196 per
square foot figure for libraries both seem high and should be documented
further.
.:.,
. The last sentence on page VII-1 says: "Employees are allocated only a small
portion of the aquatic center and none of the neighborhood parks..." What about
neighborhood squares which are near/adjacent to non-residential uses? It is
likely that these conveniently located neighborhood facilities will receive some
employee usage.
. The third paragraph on page VII-3 states that fees listed in this report apply only
to facility costs and that program administration, justification studies, update
and staff time may be further added. How would these costs be collected and at
what point in the development process would this occur?
. How will Schaefer Ranch and other Western Dublin projects fit into this process?
Will fees have to be recalculated each time a new project is approved in that
area?
e,
" '
. The Study does not specifically address the option of the developer constructing
the facilities directly and then receiving a credit for those costs against their fee.
No method to reimburse developers for parks built in this manner is addressed.
. Appendix A of the Study summarizes the existing deficiencies in parks and
public buildings and calculates what it would cost to eliminate those deficiencies.
For community buildings the figure is $4,840,000. However, in arriving at this
number it appears the existing city was given credit for the 6600 square foot
senior center which is leased space. A new 12,000 square foot center is going to
be built, therefore, the "Existing Acres or Sq. Ft." line in Table A-1 should be
12,178 !ather than 18,778, the "Existing Standard" line should be 0.51 rather than
0.78 and the "Total Cost" line should be $6,160,000 rather than $4,840,000. This is
an added cost; it wouldn't be subtracted from the new development total.
Richard Ambrose
February 9. 1996
page 4 of 4
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's proposed Public Facilities Fee
Justification Study and for your consideration of our conunents and questions.
Sincerely,
~w.~
David Chadbourne
cc: T. Fairfield
M. Inderbitzen
R. Harris
R. Andrade
e',
, '
e'"
e,
e',
, .
e:,,:)
e~"
Ruggeri -
J A~.;~~}.~!~~.,,,,,.," ..,,~~.,'"~
fP\ r? rr.:J f;J, " n D n ,r:J 1'1
PUlllJ .. I! I l'
lUj '-- .rl
I ni FE B 1 2 1996 ~J I i
I'" ; I;
UDG-G1.:J~J0
~~mF.~_.~~~*MM~~___~_____
February 12, 1996
Diane Lowart
Parks and Community Services Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Proposed City ofDublin.Pu~lic Facilities.Fee
Dear. Ms. Lowart
The attached memo was prepared by Mr. Chuck Teller of Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), who
reviewed the "Public Facilities Fee Justification Study". EPS was retained by Allwin Development, who
represents the Pao Lin property within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. As you can see from their
memo, EPS has some questions regarding some of the fundamental assumptions of the Fee Justification
Study.
Although the proposed public facilities fee will be implemented on a citywide basis, it is important to
note that the majority of new development in the forese~able future will be occurring in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area. We feel that the fee methodology does not accurately reflect conditions within
the City of Dublin, and more importantly, does not accurately assess the proposed land uses within the
Eastern Dublin Specific area. '
We hope that you and your staff and con~ultants will review the attached memo and make the
appropriate changes to both the justification study and proposed fee.
Thank you for your consideration in, this matter.
Sincerely,
,r_O-
Attachment: Memo to Diane Lowart from Economic and Planning Systems dated February 9, 1996
cc:
Kenny Wan, Allwin Development
6601 Owens Drive. Suite 155 ·
(510) 227w9100 · FAX (510) 227.9300
EXH IBIT D
FEB-09-1995 16;24 FROM ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYS.
10
2279300 P.02/03
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS
. LAni E~o"omi(l . Real Emue · l'ubli( FinAnce
MEMORANDUM
To; Diane Lowart, City of Dublin Parks & CommunitY Services Director
I.:c: Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager
Kenny Wan, Allwin Development
John Donahoe, Ruggeri-Jensen
From: Chuck Teller and Teifion Rice-Evans
Subject Review of Oty of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study; EPS #6020
Date: February 9,1996
Our client, Kennv Wan of Allwin Development Company, requested that we review the
methodology u~d in the City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study. nus'
memorandum summarizes our review of the of the Fee Study. Based on our review, we
believe that the allocation of costs fur parks and other facilities is. not based on a supp~rtable
rational nexus. Overall, we believe that the allocation of costs to'commercial, office, and
industrial uses is too high. The following are items of concern:
ALLOCATION OF COSTS
The methodology used to. allocate park costs to non-residential development is flawed.
This results in a cost allo('ation to non-residential development that is too high andean
not be supported through a rational nexus.
The Fee Study bases the share of employee park use on a 1992 E.Ps report entitled "~ysis
of Pleasanton Recreation and Sports Survey." The BPS report analyzes Oty of Pleasartton
employees use of parks and compares resident employee t1Se to non-resident employee use.
The survey looks only at a ams.et of the park users (employees) and does not consid~park
use by residents not employed in the City of Pleasanton or non~residents not'emplo~ in
the City of Pleasanton. The Fee Study uses the 1992 BPS report to estimate the park usage
of residents in Dublin by subtracting the frequency of use of non~resident emplo~ from
the frequency of use of resident employees (see page il-5). This is an inappropriate use of
the Pleasanton Survey and does not provide an accurate or supportable estimate of park
usage of Dublin residents.
In order to estimate employee's share of park use, one needs to estimate the total n'WIlher of
park users and calculate the share of users that are non-resident employees. This requires a
survey of all park users in the City, not just employees. While !:he Fee Study:recrs that
1815 FOlJll.,;"H S'l'RtE'l'. SI.'ITE B Jl,P.)(~LEY. C.Ul'ORNlA 94710-1910 fA-X' 510-841-9208 PHONl: 510-841-91'0
SA<;~"""''''''O 0'''':1: ;:AX: '16-649.2070 I'HO"", ']6-60.8010
IP3.
.
.
;..
I '
e'
.:
. FE3-09~1996 16:25 FROM ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYS.
TO
Diane Lowart
City of Dublin
2279300 P.03/03
February 9, 1996
;Page 2
resident park usage is generated by retirees, self-employed, homemakers, and youth; the
factor used to adjust the park usage projection for these population groups is not supp,orted
by any evidence. Furthermore, the propemity of park usage by employees is a functiqn of
the quality of the parks and recreation programs. If a City provides a high level of parks
and recreation programs, they are likely to have higher usage by local employees. For
example, in the 1992 Pleasanton Survey, we found that the weekend use of the pa:tks ~y ,
non-resident employees was almost as high as the weekday use. Finally, the use of parks
by employees may also vary based on the type and size of.firms in the community. These
factors must be considered in this Shldy. We believe that the Fee Study does not provide
sufficient evidence to support the "conservative employee weight of 15 percent." !
Employee use of libraries may be over-estimated.
The use of libraries by employees will depend upon the type of development and Inix: of
industries in the area. Applying factors developed for use categories in Santa dara cbunty
to the future uses in the City of Dublin may over-estimate employee use of libraries. The
Fee Study uses the 'benefit units" derived from the Santa Clara Study to estimate libr~
usage in Dublin. The business activities in Santa Clara are sufficiently differentfrotn those
in Dublin so as to call into question the appropriateness of using the Santa Oan Study's
benefit units. Furthermore, the Fee Study uses the number of calls to the business reference
desk and the number of staff employed to answer business reference questions to :support
the share of usage by employees. This is inconclusive as reference desk related cOsts are
representative of overall library costs. More evidence needs to be provided to sUPPOr!:
factors used.
The,fee structure proposed for residential uses imposes a hig~ burden on mu1ti-~ly
units.
Fees on residential developments are imposed on a per unit basis, and consequen~y place a
higher burden on lower priced units. Fee schedules for other cities inc01porate a ~-fee
structure so the disproportionately large burden placed on multi-family development;.
especially low-mcome housing multi-family development is reduced. Cities su~ as Santa
Rosa, Fairfield, and 1:lenicia use a tier-fee based on the density of development. The ~ty
categories correspond to the categories set forth in Specific or General Plans. '
: :
FlJOI/ol!M..OClC
TOTAL P.03
KAU F MAN ~ BROAD
February 22, 1996
RECEIVED
FEB 23 1996 .'
CITY Or OU8L1N
Mr. Guy Houston
7080 Donlan Way, Suite 208
Dublin, CA 94568
VIA TELECOPY: 510-828-]]95
Re: Capital Facilities Fee
Dear Mayor:
Attached is a break-down of fees charged by some nearby cities which correspond to
Dublin's proposed Capital Facilities Fee. Please note that this break~down is not an exact
apples-to-apples comparison, and I cannot guarantee that I am 100% accurate. However,
I did make a good faith attempt to objectively compare fees between jurisdictions.
The average fee among the four cities listed is $3,953.75 per single-family detached
house. Dublin's proposed Capital Facilities Fee is currently proposed to be $7,735, more
than $3,781.25 above the four city average.
e"
, ,
- ,
Of course, development in the four comparison cities undoubtedly will be on a much
smaller scale than East Dublin, thus requiring less infrastructure. I recognize that East
Dublin development will be required to pay above "average" impact fees. Nevertheless,
the order of magnitude is simply too large. I urge the Dublin City Council to establish
spending priorities and reduce this fee to a more reasonable level.
By copy hereof, I am requesting that Eddie Peabody include a copy of this letter in the
Staff Report for the next Council meeting where this issue is on the agenda.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
"1 ~7'
/./&-1... ~
Matt Koart,
Vice President - Land Acquisitions
cc:
Richard Ambrose /"
Eddie Peabody
.
~
F: \for4 \ worddocs\eastdub\houston I
"AU fM
_\1-'0 ":"\11\' ":ANY\1N rl,~CE SUIT
EXHIBIT E
IFORNIA,INC,
is) Tfl $IO,6bb,..bo FAX, 51(1 "',, 71)7
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE COMPARISON
..
Multifamily Sine;le Familv
DANVILLE
Park dedication Fee
$2,880 $2,880
TO'DJL, FEE
S2.88D $2.8811
SAN RAMON
Park Dedication Fee (Varies based on land value)
Beautification/Cultural Fee (.001 x Const. Cost)
$2,100
, $110
$3,500
$140
TOTAL FEE
S2.210
$3.640
PLEASANTON
Park Dedication Fee
Public Needs Fee
.:1 Capital Facilities Fee
$2,919
$750
$2,200
$4,009
$750
$2,200
TOT-4L FEE.
S5.8~9
$6.959
LIVERMORE
Park Dedication Fee
$2,236
$2,336
$2.336
:{{)TAL FEE
S2.236
.
~
I-
i
Trumark
Homes
,,~,
..:--~\ \
\',\ \
'\
~ '\~~u \_\.
\'~\ 0 ~~~~ ~ ",_
\ '\ ~~~ ~,
~~...::.....---
....
..
February 28, 1996
Ms. Diane Lowan
Parks & Community Services Director
City of Dublin
P.O.Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
RE: Proposed Public Facilities Fee
Dear Ms. Lowan:
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about the proposed Public Facilities Fee on the phone
two weeks ago. We appreciate your diligent work to make the City of Dublin a great community to
live in, and can appreciate the difficult task of balancing dreams for the future with the realities of e,\
costs.
There are two issues I would like to bring to the forefront for discussion. First, we feel the
proposed increase in fees to construct facilities in the East Dublin Specific Plan area should be
borne by those propeny owners who will directly benefit from those improvements. We have
found that other cities maintain separate fee rates for infill projects and create new fee structures for
a specific plan area. The rational of mixing infill areas with a new proposed area under the same
study is somewhat confusing to us.
Secondly, a large increase in fees is difficult for a development ill process to absorb and still be
financially feasible. The East Dublin landowners have anticipated a new fee schedule as part of
their annexation. However, we are an infill development that has been in the City approval process
for over a year now. We have invested in the land based upon the fee schedules the City gave to
us for our development at that time. To impose the proposed fee increases (Public Facilities Fee,
School Fee increase, Affordable Housing Fee) all at once may jeopardize the financial feasibility of
inftll developments in progress. Some municipalities have recognized this burden, and have
imposed their new fees on a graduated scale over a three to four year period. This allows the
developments in process to adjust to the increase in fees over a period of time with sufficient
warning. e,
6375 CLARK AVE:-':UE . SUITE 105 . DUBLI!\:, CA 94568 . (5]0) 829-7140 . FAX (5]0) 829-7]44
EXHIBIT F
Ie
I
I
I
I
.:_,
Ie,;
I know your task is difficult, and so is ours, as we try to balance the need for City improvements,
[mandaI feasibility of development, and the need to keep the cost of housing down. I would look
forward to discussing these issues with you at your earliest convenience.
Michael Maples
P.S. Please place us on the notification list. We were not notified about these proposed fees or the
public hearings even though we are currently processing a development in the City.
cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director
Trumark
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO CORRESPONDENCE
Public Facilities Fee
RESPONSE TO DAVID CHADBOURNE. MACKAY & SOMPS (FEBRUARY 9. 1996)
1.1 Comment: Parkland Standard: Probably the major factor which could affect the fee is the standards which
are employed to calculate required neighborhood and community park acreage for new development. The City's
standard for the former is 1.5 acres per 1000 population and the latter 3.5 acres. Using those figures the Study
calculates that new development needs to provide 162.4 acres of neighborhood and community parks at an
estimated cost of $63,464,000 (land and improvements). It calculates the existing City has 115 acres of such
parks and that based on the 5 acres per thousand standard, there is a deficiency of 3.31 acres of neighborhood
and community park land. Thirty six of those 115 acres are school playfields, however, the Dublin Parks and
Recreation Master Plan doesn't count school playfields as satisfying the City's park requirements for new
development. Therefore, a higher standard is being required for future development. If school playfields could be
substituted for 31% of the required park land in Eastern Dublin as is the case in the existing City, the cost for these
facilities would be reduced by almost $20 million.
.
Response to Comment 1.1: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was based on the assumption that the City
~ f1Q1 wish to be required to utilize school property to achieve the minimum park acreage standards. The main
drawbacks of utilizing school property for park sites are as follows: 1) the sites are only available during non-
school hours; and 2) availability during non-school hours can be further constrained depending on the needs of the
school for extracurricular activities. Within the existing City, the City has entered into an agreement with the Dublin
Unified School District for joint use of school playgrounds to increase the availability of park land. Although, it
would be preferable to develop more parks in the existing City on non-school land, the City is constrained by the
absence of suitable sites, and must settle for the joint school sites to achieve the desired park acreage standards.
This situation does not occur in Eastern Dublin given the amount of unimproved land. It should also be noted that
a large pari of the $1 M r that was used for schoof improvements administered under the joint use agreement .
between the City and the School District was paid by developers in the form of in-lieu fees. _':,'::.
With regard to the deficiency of 3.31 acres, this can be attributed to 1) the discrepancy between actual number of
residents and the projected numbers under the City's Quimby Act ordinance, and 2) the inclusion of two projects,
Donlan Canyon and Hansen Ranch, in the current population which have paid in-lieu fees rather than dedicating
land.
Further, a higher standard is not being required for future development, rather, the City Council has decided not to
provide parks in Eastern Dublin through joint use agreements. The standard is still 5 acres per 1000 population;
the difference between Eastern Dublin and the existing City is bmf. the parks will be provided.
1.2 Comment: Sports Standards: (1) Table 2 on page 17 of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates
future development is expected to provide ballfields, basketball courts, soccer fields, tennis courts, etc. at a
standard approximately 20% to 500% greater than that which occurs in the existing City. (2) Also, with regard to
recreational facilities, will the proposed aquatic center in Eastern Dublin have more or better amenities than the
existing aquatic center? If so, this is another example of disparity in standards.
Response to Comment 1.2: (1) The sports standards contained on Table 2 of the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan reflect the current very high demand for organized youth and adult sports programs. The adoption of the
park standards for community parks (3.5 acres per 1000) will allow the City to provide the greatest number of
facilities to meet the anticipated demand, however the overall park acreage standard of 5 acres per 1000 is the
same in existing Dublin as in Eastern Dublin. The standards for sports facilities could be met with the park
acreage identified in Eastern Dublin, but the actual amenities included in each park will be determined at the time
that the park is developed; community input will be incorporated throughout the design phase. Also, as population
growth and community needs are more precisely defined, the facility standards will also be refined and
development priorities identified. (2) The City's current aquatic center contains a free-form pool with a diving area, .
racing area, shallow area and tot pool. The bathhouse contains an office area, changing areas and showers. The , ' ,
proposed aquatic center for Eastern Dublin, based on the standard for aquatic centers contained in the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, calls for a 25 meter by 25 yard pool with a shallow water "L" and a tot wading pool, along
with a bathhouse.
EXHIBIT G
ie:
I
I
e
e"
,',
1.3 Comment: Library Standards: The Study calls for a separate 20,000 square foot library to be built in
Eastern Dublin and a 7000 square foot addition to the existing Dublin.library. This amounts to 42,000 square feet
of library facilities for a buildout population of 56,190, By comparison, Pleasanton's library was constructed for an
ultimate population of 75,000. It was originally designed at 38,000 square feet but reduced to 30,000 because of
lack of funding. Livermore's three libraries total 24,800 square feet and serve a population of over 63,000. It
seems to us the expansion being proposed for Dublin is too optimistic. We realize it was recommended by the
City's Library Planning Task Force, however, we feel that 0.75 square feet of floor space per capita is excessive
and not necessary for an efficiently functioning community library system.
ResDonse to Comment 1.3: The Study is based on a standard of 0.65 square feet of floor space per capita
(which includes 22% of employees) not 0.75 square feet. The Library Planning Task Force recommendations
were based on a projected build-out population of 77,100 (excluding employees) and a standard of 0.55 square
feet of floor space per capita (which was the Alameda County Library Standard at the time). Given the revised
growth projections, consideration may need to be given to reducing the size of the library in Eastern Dublin.
1.4 Comment: Housing Densities: On page 11-7 the Study defines single family as all types of detached
housing and multiple family as any attached housing. Single family is assumed to contain 3.2 persons per unit and
multiple family 2.0. All of the Medium Density residential units in Dublin Ranch- Phase 1 will probably be detached
housing and, therefore, all of those units are slated to pay the $7735 public facilities fee. We know from recent
studies which have been done to justify school mitigation fees in the Tri-Valley area that all units in this density
range (4-14 du/ac) don't all generate 3.2 persons per unit. Therefore, builders of Medium Density units (and there
will be almost 500 such units in Eastern Dublin) will likely be penalized in many instances. The Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment (Table 2A, page 13) and Specific Plan (Table 4.2, page 31) both use a figure of 3.2 only
for single family units. All other density categories, including Medium Density, are assumed to generate 2.0
persons per unit. We suggest the Study is not consistent with these two documents.
ReSDonse to Comment 1.4: The definitions contained in the Study for single family and multiple family will be
revised to reflect land use categories in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: i.e. single family refers to detached
housing of 0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre (assumed household size of 3.2 persons per unit); multiple
family refers to single family detached and attached units and multi-family units of 6.1 to 14.0 units per gross
residential acre (assumed household size of 2.0 persons per unit), as well as apartment, condominium and
townhouse development of 14.1 to 25.1 or more units per gross residential acre (assumed household size of 2.0
persons per unit).
1.5 Comment: Park Costs: With respect to page 11I-8, second paragraph, a more detailed listing of items
included in park costs in addition to "landscaping, equipment, utility fees and frontage improvements. needs to be
provided. Also, it is not clear whether items such as site preparation, grading, fencing, parking, design fees, etc.
are also included and, if so, what costs are allocated to them.
Response to Comment 1.5: The park development costs are all inclusive and include: 1) design, inspection,
permits and fees; 2) site work and landscaping (site preparation & clearing, grading, drainage, irrigation, lawn,
trees, etc.); 3) walkways, park furniture and lighting; and 4) recreational facilities (sports fields/courts, play areas,
etc.).
1.6 Comment: Funding Shortfalls: Based on the park facilities costs in Table 3 (page ix) and the improvement
costs per acre outlined in Table 111.5 (page 11I-8), it appears that the total dollar amount ($63M) allocated for parks
would only translate into 162.4 acres of new park facilities. The Specific Plan Land Use Map indicates a total of
258 acres of park facilities planned for East Dublin. How this shortfall is to be approached needs to be addressed
further.
ReSDonse to Comment 1.6: The shortfall can be approached in two ways: the City can either elect to fund the
shortfall through alternate funding sources or reduce the size of, or eliminate, certain parks and community
buildings. If the total park acreage identified in Eastern Dublin is reduced, the property would then be available for
additional residential or non-residential development.
1.7 Comment: Cost for Community Buildings/Libraries: The $200 per square foot cost figure for community
buildings and the $196 per square foot figure for libraries both seem high and should be documented further.
ReSDonse to Comment 1.7: The $200 per square foot cost figure for community buildings was recommended by
the consultant for the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and is based on the experience of the consultant
on similar public buildings; the cost is reflected in 1994 dollars. An example of a public building that was recentiy
constructed is the County Animal Shelter at a cost of $224 per square foot. The cost estimate for community
buildings in San Ramon's Dougherty Valley range from $185 per square foot to $223 per square foot. The $196
per square foot figure for libraries is based on the actual cost of the Albany Library, the most recently completed e
library in the Alameda County Library system. , '
1.8 Comment: Employee Allocation of Neiahborhood Squares: The last sentence on page VII-1 says:
"employees are allocated only a small portion of the aquatic center and none of the neighborhood parks..." What
about neighborhood squares which are near/adjacent to non-residential uses? It is likely that these conveniently
located neighborhood facilities will receive some employee usage.
Response to Comment 1.8: The definition for Neighborhood Squares contained in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan is as follows: "Neighborhood Squares provide specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or
limited population or special interest group such as young children or senior citizens. The Neighborhood Square is
a scaled-down version of the Neighborhood Park, with an average size of 3 acres and located in high density
residential urban areas where a green pocket is the central focus of the neighborhood". Employee use of these
areas will be negligible.
1.9 Comment: Program Administration Costs: The third paragraph on page VII-3 states that fees listed in this
report apply only to facilities costs and the program administration, justification studies, update and staff time may
be further added. How would these costs be collected and at what point in the development process would this
occur?
ResDonse to Comment 1.9: The proposed fee currently includes adequate funds to cover the cost of the
justification study, development of administrative guidelines, and program administration during the first year. If,
after the first year, it is determined that the cost to administer the fee program exceeds the revenue generated by
the fee, the fee will be revised and brought before the City Council for consideration.
1.10 Comment: Schaefer RanchlWestern Dublin: How will Schaefer Ranch and other Western Dublin projects e, ',:,:
fit into this process? Will fees have to be recalculated each time a new project is approved in that area?
Response to Comment 1.10: Growth projections used in the study exclude any potential for development of the
unincorporated areas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. If Schaefer Ranch and additional Western
Dublin projects are approved the fee will need to be recalculated. The fee will also be reviewed annually to verify
that the assumptions on which the fees are based remain generally applicable; adjustments will also be made for
inflation.
1.11 Comment: ResDonsibility for Construction of Facilities: The Study does not specifically address the
option of the developer constructing the facilities directly and then receiving a credit for those costs against their
fee. No method to reimburse developers for parks built in this manner is addressed.
ResDonse to Comment 1.11: Following adoption of the fee, administrative guidelines will be prepared which will
address issues such as the use of fee credits and the developers role in constructing facilities.
1.12 Comment: Existing Deficiencies: Appendix A of the Study summarizes the existing deficiencies in parks
and public buildings and calculates what it would cost to eliminate those deficiencies. For community buildings the
figure is $4,840,000. However, in arriving at this number it appears the existing city was given credit for the 6600
square foot senior center which is leased space. A new 12,000 square foot center is going to be built, therefore,
the "Existing Acres or Sq. Ft." line in Table A-1 should be 12,178 rather than 18,778, the "Existing Standard" line
should be 0.51 rather than 0.78 and the "Total Cost" line should be $6,160,000 rather than $4,840,000. This is an
added cost; it wouldn't be subtracted from the new development total.
Response to Comment 1.12: Table A-1 does not reflect existing development's 6,600 square foot share of the
new senior center, though this is stated in the text. It could, however, be included in Table A-1 as suggested.
RESPONSE TO JOHN DONAHOE. SENIOR PLANNER. RUGGERI..JENSEN AND ASSOCIA rES {FEBRUARY e,:
12. 199~'
2.1 Comment: Methodology to Allocate Park Costs to Non-Residential Development: The Fee Study
bases the share of employee park use on a 1992 EPS report entitled "Analysis of Pleasanton Recreation and
..
, .
Sports Survey." The EPS report analyzes City of Pleasanton employees use of parks and compares resident
employee use to non-resident employee use, (1) The survey looks only at a ~ of the park users (employees)
and does not consider park use by a) residents not employed in the City of Pleasanton or b) non-residents not
employed in the City of Pleasanton. (2) The Fee Study uses the 1992 EPS report to estimate the park usage of
residents in Dublin by subtracting the frequency of use of non~resident employees from the frequency of use of
resident employees (see page 11-5). This is an inappropriate use of the Pleasanton Survey and does not provide
an accurate or supportable estimate of park usage of Dublin residents.
In order to estimate employee's share of park use, one needs to estimate the total number of park users and
calculate the share of users that are non-resident employees, This requires a survey of all park users in the City,
not just employees. While the Fee Study recognizes that resident park usage is generated by retirees, self-
employed, homemakers and youth; the factor used to adjust the park usage projection for these population groups
is not supported by any evidence. Furthermore, the propensity of park usage by employees is a function of the
quality of the parks and recreation programs. (3) If a City provides a high level of park and recreation programs,
they are likely to have higher usage by local employees. For example, in the 1992 Pleasanton Survey, we found
that the weekend use of the parks by non-resident employees was almost as high as the weekday use. (4)
Finally, the use of parks by employees may also vary based on the type and size of firms in the community.
These factors must be considered in this Study. We believe that the Fee Study does not provide sufficient
evidence to support the "conservative employee weight of 15 percent."
ReSDonse to Comment 2.1: (1a) By using the Pleasanton Recreation and Sports Survey the report sought to
measure two sources of park demand: Resident and Employee. The analysis split the survey results into
household-related park use and employee-related park use by comparing resident and non-resident employee
demand. This should be a reasonable estimate given that the resident-employees response included all park use,
both in the their roles as residents and employees. It was assumed that non-resident employee's residential park
use would take place in their own community, such that their park use in community of employment represented
employment related use. The difference, therefore should measure workplace related demand only. (1b) There
is no measurement for non-resident use of Dublin parks. Since both neighborhood and community parks, not
regional parks, are being considered, it is appropriate to consider only local demand, whether from residents or
employees.
.'"
(2) By subtracting out the employee-related component of resident-employee demand, the residual is thus
residential related demand. The report recognizes that non-employees have higher park use. This is why
neighborhood park costs are entirely allocated to residential. That is also why the employee/resident demand was
reduced by nearly half, from 28 percent indicated from the Pleasanton survey to 15 percent used in the report.
(3) If a City provides a high level of parks and recreation programs, weekend use by employees can be almost as
high as weekday use. The report suggests that to a large extent weekend use by non-resident employees due to
the exposure of these employees to the workday community's program through their daytime presence.
Weekend use by non-resident employees also includes weekend employee-related functions such as company
picnics. In this case the employee use would be conservative in that it excludes guests and family members that
typically attend company functions with the individual employees.
(4) Since the business parks in Pleasanton and those proposed for Eastem Dublin are 1) located near each other,
2) of similar scale, and 3) of the same local real estate market, the assumption was made that the two would be
comparable in size and types of firms. Further, this similarity would seem to indicate that Pleasanton may be a
better comparable for Eastern Dublin, than a sample of park use in the existing part of Existing Dublin.
Comparison of all park costs allocated to residential and non-residential land uses:
$58.9M or 93% to 32,530 Residents
$ 4.7M or 7% to 28,000 Employees
$63.6M
.:,
2.2 Comment: Employee use of Libraries: (1) The use of libraries by employees will depend upon the type of
development and mix of industries in the area. Applying factors developed for use categories in Santa Clara
County to the future uses in the City of Dublin may over-estimate employee use of libraries. The Fee Study uses
the "benefit units" derived from the Santa Clara Study to estimate library usage in Dublin. The business activities
in Santa Clara are sufficiently different from those in Dublin so as to call into question the appropriateness of using
the Santa Clara Study's benefit units. (2) Furthermore the Fee Study uses the number of calls to the business
reference desk and the number of staff employed to answer business reference questions to support the share of
usage by employees. This is inconclusive as reference desk related costs are representative of overall library
costs, More evidence needs to be provided to support factors used.
ResDonse to Comment 2.2: (1) The Santa Clara study showed use by industry, which was translated into land
use categories. Applying the land use characteristics to Eastern Dublin permitted the results to reflect the mix of
uses unique to the Specific Plan Area. Note that the Santa Clara study's emphasis was on business and
residential related use rather than the total impacts of non-residential land uses on library. It thus excludes
personal use of libraries in the community of employment for non-resident employees. Stated differently, library
choice is partly determined by convenience. Some non-resident employees will choose to use Eastern Dublin
Libraries because it is close to work.
e
(2) The business desk figures are used to corroborate the employee weight calculated from the Santa Clara
SUNey data.
Comparison of all library costs allocated to residential and non-residential land uses:
$5.69M or 84% to 32,530 Residents
$1.09M or 16% to 28,000 Employees
$6.78M
2.3 Comment: Fee Structure on Multi-family Units: Fees on residential developments are imposed on a per
unit basis, and consequently place a higher burden' on lower priced units. Fee schedules for other cities
incorporate a tiered-fee structure so the disproportionately large burden placed on multi-family development,
especially low-income housing multi-family development is reduced. Cities such as Santa Rosa, Fairfield, and
Benicia use a tier-fee based on the density of development. The density categories correspond to the categories
set forth in Specific or General Plans.
Response to Comment 2.3: The definitions contained in the Study for single family and multiple family will be e
revised to reflect land use categories and densities in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see response to comment
1.4 above).
RESPONSE TO MATT KOART. VICE PRESIDENT - LAND ACQUISITIONS. KAUFMAN & BROAD.
(FEBRUARY 22. 1996'
3.1 Comment: Fee Comparison: The average fee among the four cities listed is $3,953.75 per single-family
detached house. Dublin's proposed Capital Facilities Fee is currently proposed to be $7,735, more than $3,781.25
above the four city average.
Response to Comment 3.1: City Staff is also doing a sUNey of development fees; the information will be
presented to the City Council at the March 12, 1996 meeting.
RESPONSE TO MIKE MAPLES. TRUMARK HOMES. (FEBRUARY 28. 199~
4.1 Comment: Fee Increases to Construct Facilities in Eastern Dublin: We feel the proposed increase in fee
to construct facilities in the East Dublin Specific Plan area should be borne by those property owners who will
directly benefit from those improvements.
Response to Comment 4.1: The study summarizes the cost of facilities to seNe growth citywide. The costs are
further divided into two groups. First are those applied citywide. Certain facilities, namely community parks,
community buildings, libraries and the civic center, are regarded as expansions of citywide systems which benefit
both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin. These costs can therefore be applied to new development, whether
in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborhood parks and the aquatic center in Eastern Dublin are
designed to seNe growth in that area only. Since these facilities have a local area of benefit, their costs are
allocated to Eastern Dublin only. e'
4.2 Comment: Fee Increases for a Development in Process: A large increase in fees is difficult for a
development in process to absorb and still be financially feasible. The East Dublin landowners have anticipated a
new fee schedule as part of their annexation. However, we are an infill development that has been in the City
approval process over a year now. We have invested in the land based upon the fee schedules the City gave to
e:
I.
e
.-,
us for our development at that time. To impose the proposed fee increases (Public Facilities Fee, School Fee
increase, Affordable Housing Fee) all at once may jeopardize the financial feasibility of infill developments in
progress.
ReSDonse to Comment 4.2: The implementing ordinance for the Public Facilities Fee was adopted by the City
Council in December of 1994 (over 14 months ago). The Public Facilities Fee Justification Study was authorized
by the City Council in January of 1995. The Trumark Homes General Plan Amendment Study was authorized by
the City Council in July of 1995. Growth projections used in the study excluded any potential for development of
the infill area under consideration by Trumark Homes. If the Trumark Homes General Plan Amendment is
approved the fee will need to be recalculated.
03/05/96 16:45
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101Z34567
Page Z of 15
RESOLUTION NO. _-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE CIIY Of DUBLIN
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin
Municipal Code Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and
c11arging a Public Pacilities Fee ("Pee") to pay for municipally owned public facilities
within "Eastem Dublin" and within the jurisdictionallirnits of the City of Dublin
(cxcluding areas within Eastcm Dublin) ; and
WHEREAS, the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GP A") and Specific
Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres
within the City's eastem sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling
units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action
prugrdIIlS [or appruxim.aLdy 3313 acres wilhin Ute GPA area nearesL Lo Ute CiLy; and
1
EXHIBIT H
.
.""
")
.
03/05/96 16:46
..,
I ",
, ,
I .
I
.'
"-\
..;
e-
0.'-.
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101234567
Page 3 of 15
WHEREAS, the GPA and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land
Use Map contained in the GPA (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area
shown on the Land Use Map as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for
the GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993
hy Resolution No. 5 1-9:~, and two Addenda elated May 4, 1995 and August 22, 1994
("Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan ("Master Plan") was adopted
by the Council on July 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 77-94;
WHEREAS, Ule Cily has approved a Library PlaIUling Task Force Reporl,
("LibraIY Report") dated Aplil 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Progranuning Document
("Civic Center Report") dated November 1986;
WHEREAS, the Master Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and
Addenda describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the SP,
including completion of City office space, construction of a library, acquisition and
c:onstnlC:tion of parks and community facilities;
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain municipal public
facilities would be constructed and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay
its proportionate share of such facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Cowlcil adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program:
:Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which
2
03/05/96 16:46
15101234567
Page 4 of 15
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
I
I
I
I
I :
I
I
includes mitigation measures to assure that development within Eastem Dublin pays its
proportionate share of municipal public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts caused
by development within Eastem Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and
Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public
f::lcilitit':s in tht': City of Duhlin and F..astt':rn Duhlin through tht': yt':::IT 202.'5, ::Ind c.ontain
an analysis of the need for new mwlicipal public facilities required by future
development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, a detailed comprehensive study of the impacts of contemplated
futw-e development on existing public facilities in Dublin through the year 2025, along
with an analysis of the need of new public facilities and improvements required by
future developments, prepared by Recht Hausrath & Associates, dated December
entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" (Exhibit B hereto,
referred to herein as the "study"); and
WHEREAS, the study sets forth the relationship between contemplated future
development, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements; and
WHEREAS the study was available for public inspection and review for ten (10)
days prior to this public hearing; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Ule CiLy COUllm fInds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hel-eafter "Fee" ) is to fmance
municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the
3
e
e:,'
.::'
-,
I,
I
i ,13/05/96 16: 46
.
;e.,
1:-
j:
e-
.
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101234567
Page 5 of 15
City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin. Such facilities, which are specifically described
in the study, include the following: completion of the Civic Center office space;
construction of a new library and expansion of the existing library; relocation and
expansion of the existing senior center; acquisition and construction of neighborhood
and community parks and community buildings (including a community theater, a
C':ommllnity C':e:nte:r, a recreation C':e:nte:r and an aquatic: C':e:nte:r). The: pllhlic: faciHtie:s
described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities".
B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to fmance the
Facilities.
C. After considering tlle study, the testimony received at tllis noticed public
hearing, the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Master Plan, the Library Report,
the Civic Center Report, the CPA, the SP, the EIR and Addcnda, and all
correspondence received (hereafter "record") the Council approves and adopts said
study, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the future development in
the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the Facilities and
the facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Master Plan, the Library
Report, the Civic Center Report, the CPA and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within Eastern
Dublin is within the scope of the EIR and Addenda. The Facilities were all identified in
Ule EIR as necessary Lo accoJIunodaLe uevelopmenL in EasLenl Dublin. TIle iInpacLs of
such development, including the Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level
in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no substantial changes in
4
1'03/05/96 16:'6
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101234567
Page 6 of 15
I.
"
the projections of future development as identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in
I;
j
I
i
I
the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance
so as to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation
measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review under
CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such Facilities are approved. It is not
feasihle to provide project spedfic: e.nvironme.ntal revie.w of the. Fadlitie.s R.t this stage., as
they will be implemented over at least a 30~year period and specific details as to their
timing, construction and precise location are not presently known.
E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of
Dubllil (excluding Eastern Dublin) is to obtain fWlds for capital projects necessalY to
maintain service within the existing selVice areas; that the City currently provides
neighborhood and conununity park services, conununity and recreation facilities
selVices, and civie center services; that the City and the Alameda County Library
System currently provide library setvices; that the public facilities fee will be used to
maintain current selVice levels; and that existing deficiency costs are not included in the
fee, As such, the fee as it relates to development within the City (excluding .Eastern
Dublin) is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code ~
21080(b)(8)(D)).
F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI ~
7 of l..he CaliIonria ConstitutioIl.
5
e
e:
e,.
1l3/0S/96 16:46
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101234S67
Page 7 of IS
:e"
..,:-
e,
The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is
G.
charged in that new development in the City of Dublin and in Eastem Dublin -- both
residential and non.residential .. will generate persons who live, work and/or shop in
Duhlin and Easte.m Duhlin ;md who ge.ne.rate or c:ontrihute. to the. ne.e.d for the.
Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to
pay for the construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee
is charged in that all development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin -- both
residential and non~residential .. generates or contributes to the need for the Pacilities;
and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
Fee and the cost of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the
City of Dublin and in Eastem Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the nwnber
of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it
will cost to construct the Facilities, and the percentage by which development within the
City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study and Master Plan are
reasonable cosL esumaLes for conslrucung the Facilities, and Ute Fees expecled Lo be
generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the
Facilities; and
6
03/05/96 16:46
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101234567
Page B of 15
i
I
I
j ,
I
I
I
i
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development
bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit
from, the Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the
number of residents or employees each particular development will generate.
H. The study is a detailed analysis of how public sexvices will be affected by
de.ve.1opme.nt in the. City of Duhlin and in F.aste.m Duhlin, the. e.xisting de.fic.ie.nde.s and
the public facilities required to accommodate that development and those deficiencies.
i .
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOL VB as
follows:
1.
Defmitions
a. "Conunercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for facilities
for the purchase and sale of conunodities and services and the sales, servicing,
installation, and repair of such conunodities and services and other space uses incidental
to these activities. Commercial land uses include but are not limited to: apparel and
clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings and
loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores;
eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise
sLores; hardware Slares; home funlishings and llnprovemenL cenLers; hoLel!moLe!s;
laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; selvice stations; shopping centers; supennarkets;
and theaters.
7
.'
..'::.,
,";
.,:
B/0S/96 16: 46
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
ISH11234S67
Page 9 of 15
e'1
e,';,;
e,;
--" .:
b.
"Development" shall mean the constnIction, alteration or addition
of any building or stmcture within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin.
c. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the "General Plan
Amendment Study Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting
the property designated as "Future Study Area/Agriculture."
d. "Facilitie:s" shall include: those: municipal puhlic. facilitie:s as are
described in the Study and as described in the Master Plan, the Library Report, the
Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Facilities" shall also include comparable
alternative facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region
necessitate construction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Cowlcil
later determines (I) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within
the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin and the need for the alternative facilities
(2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the Study, and (3)
that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new development's fair and
proportionate share of the alternative facilities.
e. "lndustrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for the
manufacture, production, assembly, and processing of conswner goods and other space
u~e::> lllUUe:.llW Lv Ille:~e: cu..uv iLie:~. I.lluu.:;l1ial ks..llU u:>e::> lllwuue: ouL cue: .llvL li..&lule:u Lv.
assembly; concrete and asphalt batclling plants; contractor's storage yards; fabrication;
lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stocl.-yards and sexvice yards; printing; processing;
warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy conunercial uses.
8
j
t B3/B5/96 16:46
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
151B1234567
Page IB of 15
f.
"Multiple Family" shall mean any dwelling unit as defined in the
I,
"
Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City, which is constructed on property
designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more units per acre.
g. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general
hUl>ine.1>1> offic:t':I>, me.dic.al and pmft':l>l>ional offke.l>, adminim-rative or headquarters offkel>
for large wholesaling or manufacturing operations, and research and development and
other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include but are not
limited to: administrative headquarters; business park; finance offices; insurance offices;
legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and office buildings; professional
and administrative offices; professional associations; real estate offices; research and
development and travel agencies.
h. "Single Family" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed
or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer
units per acre.
2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed.
a. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each
Single Family and Multiple Family residential unit within the city of Dublin and within
Easlenl Dublin no laler lllanllle dale of fmal in~pecLion for llle wuL.
9
.
e::
.
B/B5/96 16: 46
e'.
e:"-
"
e,
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
l5lB1234567
Page 11 of 15
b.
A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or
structures within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin by the date that the
building pennit is issued for construction of such building or structure.
c. Any use of land which is not included in the defmition of
"Commercial," "Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Planning Director to one
of the. three. c.ate:gorie.s, maintaining as muc.h c.onsistf':ncy as possihle. with the. cie.finitions
of such terms.
3. Amount of Fee.
The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto
and incorporated herein. Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a
separate fee.
4. Excmptions From Fcc.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
(1) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except
to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single
family residential unit or another unit is added to an
existing multi-family residential unit;
(2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential
structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided
that Ule building penniL for recoIlslIUcLioIl is obtained
within one year after the building was destroyed or
demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction
10
i3/B5/96'"16 : 46 ..
FrOm: EliiabethH.Silvlir
15101234567"
Pa~je 1Z"tif 15"'
inr.rr.asr.s thr. square footagr. ofthr. stmC".ture fifty pr.1\.r.nt or
more.
(3) Any replacement or reconsttuction of an existing non~
residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished
provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is
ohtaine:d within one: ye::n afte:r the: huilding was de:st,mye:d
or demolished.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the
Capilal Project Fund. Separd.le and 1>pecial accowlls wilhin the Capital Project FWld
shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any inten:st ealnings on each
account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land
acquisition and construction of the Facilities and reasonable
costs of outside consultant studies related thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the
City with funds from othr:r sourcr:s including funds from
other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained
from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for
the Facilities.
11
......
. .
e'.
,-j
.,
.:.:
,
il3/il5/96 16:46
I....
I . .
j ,'.' .'-.'
I
.....
. .
.:
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
Page 13 of 15
l5lil1234567
(3)
To reimburse developers who have designed and
constructed Facilities which are oversized with
supplemental size, length. or capacity; and
(4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development
and ongoing administration of the Fee program.
h. Fe.e.s in t.he.se. ac.COllnt.s shall he. e.xpe.nde.d only for the. Fac:i1itie.s and
only for the pwpose for which the Fee was collected.
6. Standards
The standards upon which the needs for the Facilities are based are the
standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan,
the Master Plan, the Library Report, the Civic Center Report, the GPA, SP, ErR, and
Addenda.
7. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for
the City Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance
of fees in each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council
shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the
approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to
be fmanced wilh the Fee. The esLimaleu cosLs shall be adjusleu in acconlance wilh
appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the
12
03/05/96 16:46
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101234567
Page 14 of 15
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.
8. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the Council in
reliance on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct fUrther study
and ;malysis to de.te.rmine. whe.the.r the. Fe.e. should he. Tf"vise.d. Wlte.n additional
information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to detennine that the
amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Dublin
and within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the
fllldings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GPA, SP, Master
Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report and General Plan, as well as increases due to
inflation and increased construction costs.
9. Administrative Guidelines.
The Council may, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to
provide procedures for calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other
administrative aspects of the ree,
10. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in
Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of
lhe resolution.
13
.
.~,.,
.~,
I
113/05(96 16: 46
'.:,
I '
I
, I
II
I '
I
"
I I ~
I
I: .
II:
II:
.\
e':
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
15101234567
Page 15 of 15
11.
Severability .
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are
severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this
resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or
provisions shall be and continue to be fUlly eflective, and the Fee shall be fUlly effective
e.xce.pt. as t.o that. compone.nt. thM has he.e.n judge.d to he. invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _ day of January, 1996, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CI .ER K
EHS;rja
J:\WPD\MNRSW\114\RESOL\5O\F'ACIUTI.96
14
(') co , ~
~ m C\I
m \U .' f'
(1) u u 0 ~ "- ,t
.... $ ~ cu .. ," ~ i,
<s:: u u . I
'" ~ 0 '" +' . . ,
O'l ~ 0 <U >. ;);'<:;.;,;;,/ 4
\J) ~ ~ ,<<I <d
C N '<t ;:0,
J, 6 >..
.- ;! rb u ", .,~' ,.~ ".ol.: 1._:, ~
c: N .- 2 ;I(~iii
c: ClI (J) " o'
~ ill 5 >.. C !
.~ ~ i5 "0 x '"
Co u "0 ~ :0 ClI ClI t
'" 0 0 ~, Gl .e -< ' "
~ Iii ~ 'r:: lL ..c: ..c: .n a. lti I
"0 'in (]I Z U ::I c: '" Z..
'0 g; UJ 0 U :::l c: ,CC:Z- ~.....
Q) c: oR (J) U) a. .Q a. 0 tT I.- ClI
0 I.- a. 0
" U ClI ClI ;:;. .jg 0 .n >.. ..c: 0 -~ iii ?: 0 U) :g iii i": E, .2 ;;.......!'\l
0- E 0 :J I.- 01 0 .1Il x' 'r: -E u <((J) ] ~" f~
c: ClI X 'iij c'...... q. '" .- ..c: ClI 0 a; 1Il ..
u E ::r: 0 0> I.- ~ fa lii
ex: 0 g' lti >.. ..c: c .~ 0> U E II) .... :J 0 0 0 b .-: iii",..:.:'
Q) 0 "" .2' 0> U - 'f: ... (J) ...... ClI "'E.oo 0 ClI II) W,_,
c ~ n. VI VI .- ..J ClI J? a. ..c-E '" U b ~5~a: :";"'.': :1:
.... ~ U 0 J: 0 VI co E 0 a: ~ '.",'".\
c: c: ClI .~ ..c: 1':- E .91 0 a. (J) ....
oS! .~ U Iii 1Il E E III CI> :;:, (J) ClI .2' .0 <<'l (J) E 0 oill'O I- ..J' .,
.~ 0 0 a: a. ...... iij c:t ,- 0 ClI .D Iii '0 ~COliiTI 'jll;r:
:c.. w .;;J .2 g "") ::r: VI UUZ..c c '"
..J ..c: - ..L. Z 'c: ClI C/)' CJ i 1.~, - . ~IU
CI) <( 01 :J ..J ..c: U U ;e. ~ ::sl .D X 01 CI> CI> ClI '0 - c: CI> e
- t: '@ "0 <( .91 ClI CI> 0 !tli1)@)@)<ID ~@@<ID~ a. ... 0 ~ .... 0 ClI a.
(\] ... ~ "C G z .& i= ::r: ::sl ::a ..J a: l1J 0 ;n' i= U t- (I)" (I)
"" Q) C a: z (J) <( ::r ';:. ....
a> .... 0 l1J ......
Q) ::a~~ID ig~GB~ U fit' ~.5 ( I . I I ~
C.(I) 'Z OJ ::a ;i,; .:-: :J t~t ~ ;.:." :i'~~ U ~ <(.~. I
a> (\] co J - t I W'C-~ 0( L~
"111 :i a> o ;"; .... :> ......' ~D ) Q; I 1 I
-oJ u iHi :.:. h."o I J 4 I
a. o" , ~ .: " ()
.'
.;1.
J---..._....--...._-~11
;---------------, --1 I;
I, ~ L..--..-..... i \
"
'LlJ ;1
i 0:
, <(
I
,.--..-..----------__...-.1
, >-
\ 0
, :J
\ ~
,
\ w
, 0:
\ ~
'. ::>
i\o LL
"'-,0
v,\"
O\~
~\3
~'4.
~\
,
\
w
-0:
~
I-
-I'
=>
o
0:
CJ
<{
(/)
Q)
.....
u
<(
m
("j (/) ......
"<t" Q) :>.
,...... '- .0
C\j U (/)
<( 0
.....
--
.'
Y.'i:;",;:,: '
, .
."
..
a,
,....,
c
....... 0
c 'iij
o VI
'in a
VI VI
0'6
.a ClI
j
$ a.
~ E
~ 8
o ....
U.!2
.2 x
';( ~
~ g:
;QJ3
3: <(
.......a.
::1 <(
CIllI-fj
g5 --
,... 3:
1l.l..1::
tJJ. CI>
~ ]i
:fr: 8
__ U
WI .!;
F. '0
~.~
.~ ~
C':;) Gl
"\'.:) "t)
Q) CI>
E lii
.!!!i
0.,
.c Gl
>. ~
0"5
T' .g
2! 0>
.~ <(
~ ~
0.<
1:~
>.. :::l
E ii5
Iii ~
.~ ;i!
E .9
E t:
o 1Il
U >
iii 8
lii 0
c: Fa
03:
* *
*
.~
cdl ze/i!"
CITY OF DUBLIN
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
Prepared for:
The City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Urban Economists
1212 Broadway
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 839-8383
FAX 839-8415
March 7, 1996
...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SITUATION
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS . .
FACILITIES COST. .
FEE LEVELS
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES. . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV
. . .. IV
. . . . . . V
...... VI
. . . . . . . .. VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION. ........... . . . . . . . . .. ......
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA .....
FEE DETERI\1INATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I-I
1-2
. . . . . .. 1-3
CHAPTER II
NeW DEVELOPf'v'lENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . .
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS. .
POPULATION AND EMPLOyrvfENT . . . . . . . . .
. . II-I
. II-2
. . . . II-5
CHAPTER III
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FACILITY ST AATDARDS AND NEEDS
PARK COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . III - 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III -6
. . . . .. ..................... 1II-9
CHAPTER IV
COl\1MUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES.
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS . . .
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . IV-l
. . . . . . IV-2
. . . . . . . . . . . IV-5
CHAPTER V
LIB RA.RIES
EXISTING i\ND PROPOSED FACILITIES . . . . . .
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT NEEDS. . . .
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . V-I
. . . V-2
. . . V-5
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
II
....
DlIhlin F(f(;i/ities Fee Stlld\"
Tahle of Contents
CHAPTER VI
CIVIC CENTER
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . .
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . .
. VI-I
. . . . VI-2
CHAPTER VII
CALCULATION OF FEES AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
SUMMARY OF COSTS . . . . . .. ......
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE. . . . . . . .
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND
QUIMB Y ORDINANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4
VII-I
VII - 2
VII-3
APPEND IX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES
. . . . . . A-I
. A-2
Rech/ Hallsra/h & Associates
III
...
EXECUTIVE SlJl\11\1ARY
SITUA TION
The City of Dublin is planning for extensive grO\vth in its Eastern Extended Planning area. Part of
this planning involves provision of public facilities to assure an adequate level of public services.
This report documents the capital expansions planned by the City of Dublin through its build-out
around year 2025. It sets forih the basis for measuring facilities standards and applies the costs of
the required expansions to determine the facilities impact associated with new development.
Although the emphasis is on Eastern Dublin, the growth projections include an allowance for
additional development in the existing portions of the City, so that the fees may be applied
citywide.
It is anticipated that Dublin will rely primarily on the authority to levy fees specified in AB 1600,
although park requirements could be established under the Quimby Act. Costs of new
development are assigned to residential and commercial and industrial land uses according to
occupant densities to arrive at fee levels by land use type. In situations where an existing
deficiency exists in a particular facility, costs to cure the deficiencies are estimated as well.
Existing deficiency costs are not included in the public facilities fee and will be funded separately
by the City.
Tables accompanying this summary are located at the end of the text.
DEVELOPlVIENT I>RO.JECTIONS
Development in Eastern Dublin is expected to add 13,836 new dwelling units and 9.74 million
square feet of commercial and industrial space through build-out This excludes any expansions
of County facilities. Existing areas of the City are expected to grow by a comparatively small
amount, 103 dwelling units and 692,000 commercial and industrial square feet. Applying
occupant densities, new development will add 32,530 residents and 28,000 employees citywide.
This represents a 137 percent increase in the resident population and a 280 percent increase in
employment over existing levels. Growth projections used in this study exclude any potential for
unincorporated areas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
IV
Duhlin FOe/lilies Fee SltfL(\'
l:.-~'(e(.'/I/ive S/ll17l17my
Residents and employees are used as the basis for facilities demand. Residents and employees are
combined into a service population measurement, calculated as residents plus a fraction of
employees. Service population is determined separately for each facility according to estimated
employee use, and is used to assign facilities cost to new development by type of space. Table 1,
at the end of this summary, shows existing and proposed land uses. Population and employment
are shown in Table 2
FACILITIES COST
Costs of facilities to serve gro\vth are shown in Table 3. For the facilities covered under the fee
program, cost of grO\vth \vill total $84 8 million
The neighborhood and community parks requirements are based on the standard of5.0 acres per
1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act and adopted in the City's existing park dedication
ordinance. The land component may be dedicated or satisfied in the form of an in-lieu fee,
depending on the circumstances of individual projects Neighborhood park costs are included in
the calculation of the fee for Eastern Dublin only because those parks would only benefit that
area, not the citywide service population
Community and recreation facilities include several expansions located in Eastern Dublin.
Proposed projects include a relocation and expansion of the existing senior center, a community
theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center. For the senior center the
costs shown refer only to the net increase in size over the existing building.
Proposed library improvements include an expansion of the existing building plus a new branch in
Eastern Dublin, including volumes
The Dublin Civic Center houses administrative offices and the police department. The building
was designed to accommodate activity commensurate with an estimated resident service
population of 40,000 in the year 2005. Eventually, growth will require finishing certain areas
currently used as storage and renovation of portions of the Police wing
Rech/ Hallsruth & Ass()ciotes
v
a..
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Surnmm)'
FEE LEVELS
Table 4 summarizes resulting impact fee levels by land use. Facilities costs of growth have been
allocated to individual land uses according to residents per dwelling unit and employees per
1,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space. The majority of fees would be levied
citywide because they would fund facilities with citywide benefit. Neighborhood parks and the
aquatic center have a local benefit, so fees for these facilities are applied to that area in Eastern
Dublin only.
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
For a public facilities fee program to be equitable, new development should not be charged for a
higher standard of facilities than is provided to other parts of the commlll1ity. To do so would
impose the burden of remedying existing deficiencies onto new development. In the case of
community parks, community buildings and libraries the facilities standard at build-out will
exceed that presently available. The City of Dublin must therefore provide a portion of the
funding for these facilities from sources other than impact fees to recognize the benefit existing
land uses will receive from an improved level of service. Table 5 shows the cost to remedy
existing deficiencies, estimated at $7.754 million.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
vi
..
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
Table 1
Development Projections
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 52 3,846 3,898
Multiple Family Q 9,990 9,990
Total 52 13,836 13,888
Remainder of City
Single Family 5,275 23 5,298
Multiple Family 2.868 80 2.948
Total 8,143 103 8,246
Dublin Citywide
Single Family 5,327 3,869 9,196
Multiple Family 2.868 10.070 12.938
Total 8,195 13,939 22,134
COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL (1,000 Sq.Ft.)
Eastern Dublin
Commercial 0 4,415 4,415
Office 0 3,952 3,952
Industrial Q 1.370 1370
Total 0 9,737 9,737
Remainder of City
Commercial 1,818 455 2,273
Office 962 208 1,170
Industrial 783 29 812
Total 3,563 692 4,255
Dublin Citywide
Commercial 1,818 4,870 6,688
Office 962 4,160 5,122
Industrial 783 1399 2.182
Total 3,563 10,429 13,992
Source: State Department of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (1-7-94); Recht
Hausrath & Associates.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
vii
..
Dllh/ill Facilities Fee StlfL(r
Execlltive SIIt11t11my
Table 2
Summary of Resident and Employee Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTS
Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460
Rest of City 23,500 230 23,730
City Total 23,660 32,530 56,190
EMPLOYEES
Eastern Dublin 0 26,200 26,200
Rest of City 10,000 1,800 I 1.800
City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000
Source: City of Dublin. J'-~asl('m j)/lhlill .')!J('cljic PIal/ (J-7-9..f); Recht Hausruth & Associates
Recht Hallsrath & AssociU/es
VIII
~
Duhlin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
Table 3
Facilities Costs of Growth
:>ublin Facilities Fee Study
I _~ I Costs of Growth I
Citywide J $25,969,000
Community Parks, Land
Community pJks, Improvements 15,263,000
Community BJildings 12,060,000
Libraries I 6,777,000
Civic Center I 445.000
Total $60,514,000
I
Eastern Dublin bnlY
Neighborhood farks, Land $14,550,000
Neighborhood arks, Improvements 7,682,000
Aquatic Center 2.1 00,000
Total $24,332,000
Total Costs orG t'owth
Citywide Costs $60,514,000
Eastern Dublin ~osts 24.332,000
Total $84,846,000
Source: City of Dub I n; Recht Hausrath &. Associates.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
ix
~
~
l:1;)
~
~
.....
Table 4
Fee by Land Use Type
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~
~
~
-..
~
R<>
~
t.,
t.,
C>
r";:.
t:j.
.....
l:1;)
v,
Residential, Commercial and Industrial, Fee per 1,000 Square
Fee per Dwelling Unit Feet
Single Multiple
Family Family Commercial Oftice Industrial
CitYl'\ide
Community Parks, Land $2,266 $1,416 $210 $408 $180
Community Parks, Improvements 1,331 832 123 238 105
Community Buildings 1,139 712 36 69 31
Libraries 560 350 77 150 66
Civic. Center 35 22 -<i 12 .5.
Total $5,33 1 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Onl}'
Neighborhood Parks, Land $1,440 $900 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 762 476 0 0 0
Aquatic Center 202 126 Q 12 5-
Total $2,404 $1,502 $6 $12 $5
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Costs 2.404 1.502 ---1i 12 5-
Total $7,735 $4,834 $458 $889 $392
Source: Recht Haus-rath & Associates
~
tJ
:::
~
.......
S.
~
n
-.
--.
-.
.....
(i)'
""
~
Ct.
;(l
.,..
~.~
~
;..;
Ct.
~
...
....
-.
..:;
IV
~
....
....
~
~
I:'::
,~
~
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
Table 5
SlU11Ulary of Existing Deficit
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Parks
Community Buildings
Libraries
Total
$1,199,000
6,200,000
3~5.000
$7,754,000
Annually, 1995-2025
$258,500
Source: Recht Hansrath & Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
xi
~
CHAPTER]
INTRODUCTION
City facilities provide services for the benefit of city residents, businesses, and employees. As this
service population increases, so does the demand for city facilities. As developers build new
homes and commercial/industrial buildings, the City must provide corresponding amounts of new
facilities to serve this development, that is, unless existing residents are to experience a decline in
the standard of facilities that they had previously enjoyed. Moreover, newer cities such as Dublin
often have deficient standards for existing facilities. In this case, the City is choosing to expand its
facilities above standards that currently exist. This policy will allow the City to accommodate both
existing and new development at the levels of service it desires.
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the amount and cost of new public facilities for city services required (1)
to serve new development through the year 2025 and, (2) to correct existing deficiencies. In
addition, this report determines the public facilities fees, or impact fees, that new development
should pay to fund its fair share of those facilities needs The report documents the maximum
justified level of those fees.
This introductory chapter to the Public Facilities Fee Justification study summarizes the fee
program under the following topics:
. Public Facilities Financing in California
. Fee Determination
. Facilities Costs and Fee Schedules
. Program Implementation
The introduction is intended to provide a general understanding of the concepts and methodology
used to design public facilities fees. The second chapter sets forth projections of new
development. Each succeeding chapter contains a detailed analysis of the specific costs and
assumptions involved in the calculation of the costs for a facility type, namely parks, community
and recreational facilities, libraries, and civic center. The final chapter uses the facilities costs to
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
1-1
~
Dlfhlin Focil,tlL's Fee :";tll((r
Chapter 1
determine fee levels. Appendix A calculates the cost of existing deficiencies which the City must
fund through means other than impact fees
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
Several events during the past 20 years have steadily undercut the financial capacity of local
governments to build infrastructure passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond initiatives,
and severe reductions in federal and state assistance Since Proposition 13, property taxes have
been inadequate to fund capital needs, and for many cities have been insufficient for on-going
operations and maintenance expenses to maintain levels of service
As a longer-term response, most cities and counties are shifting the burden of financing the capital
costs of additional infrastructure to accommodate new development from tax revenues and
general obligation bonds to that development This shift has primarily been accomplished through
the imposition of public facilities fees, also know as development impact fees. Some fee programs
address only a few specific facilities, such as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal
fee programs are comprehensive, requiring developers to pay for all additions to municipal
facilities needed to accommodate new development The facilities which are the subject of this
analysis are (l) parks, (2) community and recreational facilities, (3) libraries, and (4) the Civic
Center. Financing of other facilities is addressed by the City separately.
As a result of wide-spread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature passed
AB 1600 adding Government Code sections 66000 et seq. which lay ground rules for imposition
and on-going administration of fees The law, which became effective in January 1989, requires
local governments to document that a reasonable relationship exists between new development,
the fee, and the facilities built to accommodate that development. The legal requirements restrict
how local governments may impose and use public facilities fees. In general, the law requires that
the fee amount be sufficient only to fund the additional facilities required to serve new growth.
It is important to distinguish between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees must
conform to the conditions imposed by AB 1600 and case law, and are used exclusively to fund the
capital costs of new facilities. As long as fees comply with these restrictions, they only require
action by the elected governing board of a city or county to be imposed. Taxes, on the other
hand, may be used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and most tax increases
must be approved by the voters. Consequently, it is critical in the documentation for any public
1-2
Recht Hallsrath & Associutes
..
Duhlin Facilities Fee St/l((1'
('hapler /
facilities fee program to demonstrate that the fee is not greater than the cost of facilities to
accommodate new development to avoid being challenged as a tax This study serves that
purpose
FEE DETERl\1INA TION
The design of the City's public facilities fee program followed a four-step process: (I) selecting a
time period and projecting new development, (2) determining facility service areas, and identifYing
facilities to accommodate new development, (3) estimating facilities costs, and (4) determining
alternative funding sources, including an appropriate and equitable means to allocate costs among
nev./ development
Nell' Development Prrdections
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required
to serve growth. The F,astem f)"hlill (Jeneral Flun Amendmelll and the Eastern DlIhlin 5;pec(/ic
Plan (Jan 7, 1994) lists new development, residents and employees projected for the City's
Eastern Extended Planning Area The City has provided additional information on growth in the
existing area of the City which also will be subject to impact fees. No growth for the City's
\Vestern Extended Planning Area is included at this time. Projections are for build-out of the City
which is estimated to occur about 2025.
Facilities Requirements
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires the
adoption of standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for city infrastructure.
Standards are often stated in terms of a city's amount of facilities per capita (e.g., acres of park
land per capita) The new facilities that development must fund are then calculated according to
these standards and projected service population growth, with residents used as a measure for the
impacts of residential development and employees used as a measure for non-residential
development
In the case of parks, the facilities requirement is determined by applying a park land standard
consistent with the Quimby Act legislation enabling park land dedication by new development.
The amount of parks needed is therefore a function of the level of growth. For the remaining
/-3
Recht Hallsralh & Associates
...
])lIh/ill Facilities Fee Stlf(~l'
Chapter 1
facilities the City has proposed specific improvements to accommodate its build-out population.
In these cases the facilities standards are calculated for the build-out year and are used as the basis
to assign costs to the new and existing service populations
The City can adopt its own reasonable standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the present
levels of service provided to the existing population. However, new development cannot be held
accountable for higher standards than the current population is willing to provide for itself. Thus,
if existing facilities are below the standard chosen as a basis for fees, the City must use alternative
funds to expand these facilities to the same standard. This is called correcting an existing
defIciency NeVi development cannot be asked to cure an existing deficiency
Facilities Costs
The City of Dublin has provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the
year 2025. We gave careful review to the determination as to which facilities and costs were
appropriately funded by a public facilities fee. Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy
existing deficiencies (to benefit the existing population) and those which provide additional
capacity (to benefit growth) were allocated according to the shares that benefit each group.
Facilities Cost Allocation
Allocation of cost is done on the basis of service population. This method is often used to
determine impacts of residential and commerciallindustrialland uses, recognizing that both
residents and businesses place demands on public facilities Service population is calculated by
adding to resident population a ponion of employees The weight assigned to employees is
designed to reflect the proportion of employee relative to resident demand for a particular facility.
Each facility considered in this study uses a different employee weight.
Though facilities needs are allocated based on service population, e.g., cost per resident or cost
per employee, fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g., fee per
dwelling unit or fee per square foot of building space. Thus, the final step distributes total
facilities costs among land use categories based on the population or employment density of each
category. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities required to
accommodate a paIiicular type of development
/-4
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
..
CHAPTER II
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents estimates of growth anticipated in the City of Dublin during the next 30
years, 1995 through 2025. The amount and cost of new public facilities bears a relationship to the
number of new residents and employees resulting from new development because growth
contributes to the demand for public services. In this manner, projections of growth provide a
basis for estimates in subsequent chapters of the public facilities needed to accommodate that
development.
The projections presented here for Eastern Dublin are taken from the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated January 7, 1994. The plan
specified different land uses, expressed in terms of acres and numbers of dwelling units or square
feet of commerciaVindustrial building space based on allowable development densities.
Population and employment projections can then be derived from these estimates of dwelling units
and building space. The City also has provided estimates of existing and potential development
within the existing areas of Dublin. Although remaining opportunities for growth are limited,
inclusion of existing Dublin permits the fees calculated here to be applied citywide. Three
additional issues must be considered in regard to the development projections:
· The public facilities fee program is a financing plan for capital investments that has
a life expectancy of at least several decades. This suggests that the time horizon
for the program should correspond to the anticipated build-out of the City, which
in this case is 30 years based on existing land use designations. Given the long
time horizon, however, we recommend that the City periodically review the
facilities costs and standards, and revise the fee levels accordingly.
· The City's present intention is that certain areas contiguous to its current
boundaries eventually will be assumed within its municipal jurisdiction through
periodic annexations. This a normal process for a city in a growing region such as
the Tri- Valley area. Eventually, all of the Eastern Dublin planning area will be
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-1
..
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter 11
annexed to the City. The projections assume only that the areas specified on the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Land Use Map (Fig. 213) excluding the
future study area, will be annexed. Although Doolan Canyon is reviewed in the
General Plan Amendment, it is regarded as a future study area with no present
plans for annexation.
· Development potential of the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area is excluded
from the projections used in this report.
Although projection of new development is a prerequisite for establishing a public facilities fee
program, the exact timing and final amount of that development generally does not have a
significant effect on the calculated fee. New and expanded facilities and fee revenues accrue in
parallel with the pace of new development. For example, to the extent that these projections
overestimate the actual amount of development, fewer public facilities than estimated here will be
needed to accommodate that development. Fewer fee revenues will have accrued to the City to
fund those facilities as well. Thus, the general relationship between new development and need
for facilities remains relatively constant.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The Tri.Valley region has been one of the fastest growing areas in northern California. One of the
last large areas of developable land within the San Francisco Bay Area, the Tri- Valley region is a
desirable location, particularly due to its position along two major interstate highways. Within the
Tri-Valley region, extensive development is projected to occur in Eastern Dublin, as this is the
next large tract of developable land in the progression of growth eastward along 1-580.
Table II. 1 presents estimates of dwelling units and commercial/industrial building square feet for
1994, and projects growth to the year 2025. Existing and future development is shown for
Eastern Dublin, the remainder of the City, and the two areas combined. The projections are
disaggregated in this manner because certain elements of the facilities fee program may apply to
only a portion of the City.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-2
...
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table IT.I
Development Projections
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 52 3,846 3,898
Multiple Family Q 9.990 9.990
Total 52 13,836 13,888
Remainder of City
Single Family 5,275 23 5,298
Multiple Family 2.868 80 2.948
Total 8,143 103 8,246
Dublin Citywide
Single Family 5,327 3,869 9,196
Multiple Family 2.868 10.070 12.938
Total 8,195 13,939 22,134
COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL (1,000 Sq.Ft.)
Eastern Dublin
Conunercial 0 4,415 4,415
Office 0 3,952 3,952
Industrial Q 1.370 1.370
Total 0 9,737 9,737
Remainder of City
Conunercial 1,818 455 2,273
Office 962 208 1,170
Industrial 783 29 812
Total 3,563 692 4,255
Dublin Citywide
Conunercial 1,818 4,870 6,688
Office 962 4,160 5,122
Industrial 783 1.399 2.182
Total 3,563 10,429 13,992
Source: S~i~ent of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; Eastern Dublin
Sveci IC Plan (1-7-94); Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Eastern Dublin is presently undeveloped. Most of the land area is at this time used for livestock
grazing and agriculture, with only about 52 existing rural residences. Dwellings in the existing
City currently total 7,700 units. For the purposes of fee calculations, the number of existing
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-3
..
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter 11
residences shown in the table has been increased by 443 units to include the Hansen Ranch and
Donlan Canyon projects. The Hansen Ranch project was approved under a development
agreement and is not subject to the fee program. The Donlan Canyon project is anticipated to pull
building permits before the fee is effective but occupancy will be after the fee is effective.
Residents of the recently approved homes will be users of existing facilities, and are accordingly
included in the existing facilities service population. Existing units, including those in Eastern
Dublin plus approved homes, brings the total to 8,195 units. The 1994 dwelling unit estimate is
from the California Department of Finance. City records show that no significant development
occurred during 1994, such that the 1994 figures can be still regarded as current.
According to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, residential development in Eastern
Dublin is projected to add 13,836 units. Over half of these are in the single family and medium
density categories with average densities ranging from four to ten units per acre. Residences of
other densities are planned as well, including 10 acre ranchettes, and high density (35 units per
acre) multiple family complexes. Development in the remainder of the City will be limited to 103
units. This figure refers to units not approved as part of the Hansen Ranch and Donlan Canyon
projects mentioned above.
Commercial and industrial space in the existing City presently totals 3,563,000 square feet,
roughly half of which is retail. This figure is based on a commercial and industrial inventory
prepared in 1994. A small amount of employee space associated with County facilities exists in
Eastern Dublin, but is excluded for the purposes of the fee analysis The majority of commercial
and industrial development potential exists in Eastern Dublin, where 9,737,000 square feet are
proposed. In the remaining City 692,000 potential square feet remain unbuilt, but the
predominant use will be commercial.
Not shown in Table II. 1 are roughly 1.1 million square feet of public and semi-public land uses
proposed for Eastern Dublin. Most of this applies to proposed Alameda County facilities
including offices, jail expansion, corporation yard and animal shelter. Public agencies are exempt
from paying development impact fees, thus, the development and the corresponding employment
is excluded from the fee analysis. The City is party to an agreement with the County of Alameda
Recht Hausrath & Associates
1I-4
~
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter 1/
(dated May 4, 1993) regarding the City's right to control land uses on property owned by the
County or its Surplus Property Authority. Under that agreement, if any of the property is used by
governmental agencies other than the County, such use will be subject to the City's land use
regulations, which would include the public facilities fee. In the event any such property is
proposed for use by governmental agencies other than the County, the City will include such uses
and corresponding employment in the fee analysis.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Cost of public facilities are allocated to new development on the basis of service population.
Calculated separately for each facility, service population is a measure combining residents and
employees to recognize that both residential and commercial land uses contribute to the demand
for public facilities. As a basis for the service population figures presented for each facility in later
chapters, the employment and population projected for Dublin, and Eastern Dublin in particular,
are calculated here.
:1
The amount of population and employment growth can be estimated using occupant density
factors. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling unit and employment
density is expressed as square feet of building space per employee. Both residential and
commercial/industrial density factors are listed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and are used
here for consistency. Occupant densities are summarized in Table II.2. The numbers shown
represent averages across the potential tenants of the type of space indicated, and include
vacanCIes.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-5
-
. -< Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Appendix A
Table A.2
Summary of Existing De.ficit
Dublin Fac.mties Fe,e Study
Community Parks
Community Buildings
Libraries
Total
$1,199,000
6,200,000
355:000
$7,754,000
Annually, 1995-2025
$258,500
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
A-4
Recht Hausrath & Associates
J-
i
Dublin Facilities Fee StU(ZV
Chapter 11
Table B.2
Occupant Densities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Occupant Density I
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family 3.2 Persons/Unit
Multiple Family 2.0
COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL
Commercial 505 Sq .ft./Emp I oyee
Office 260
Industrial 590
Source: State Department of Finance; City ofDublini Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment; Eastern Dublin Spect/ic Plan (1-7-94); Recht Hausratb &
Associates.
Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Table 2A; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Table II.3 summarizes the population and employment estimates. Current population is 23,660
residents. This includes residents within the existing City limits plus about 160 residents of the
unincorporated planning area. Proposed residential development citywide is expected to add
another 32,530 l'esidents, for a build-out population of 56,190. Existing employment is
estimated by City staff to be around 10,000. Development citywide will add roughly 28,000. By
build-out, employment is thus estimated at 38,000. Again, this excludes any employment
associated with the proposed County facilities.
Recht Hausrafh & Associates
Il..6
..
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table 11.3
Summary of Resident and Employee Gro-wth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Gro\\1h 2025 I
RESIDENTS
Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460
Rest of City 23,500 2.lQ 23.730
City Total 23,660 32,530 56,190
EMPLOYEES
Eastern Dublin 0 26,200 26,200
Rest of City 1 O~OQQ LMQ 11 ,800
City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000
Source: City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
DEFINITIONS AND TERMS
As used herein, residential land uses are defined as follows: single family shall mean. a dwelling
unit as defined in the Unifom1 Building Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is
constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer
units per acre; multiple family shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform Building
Code CUBe), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be constructed on
property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more units per acre.
Commercial land uses are defined as those uses ofland for facilities for the buying and selling of
commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities
and services and other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include
but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores;
banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discOlu1t stores and centers; dry
cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; fumiture stores and outlets; general
merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishing and improvement centers; hotels/motels;
Recht Hausrarh & Associates
11-7
"".
Duhlin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter 11
laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and
theaters.
Office lal1d uses are defined as those uses of land for general business offices, medical and
professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesaling or
manufacturing operations, and research and development and other space uses incidental to these
activities. Office land use.s include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business
park; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services oft1ces; offices
and office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real
estate offices; research and development; and travel agencies.
Industrial land uses are defined as those uses of land for the manufacttu'e, production, assembly,
and processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial
land uses include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants;
contractor's storage yards; fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and
service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy
commercial uses.
For a use that is not listed above, the Plalming Director -will determine which of these categories
the use fits under taking into consideration the existing definitions and the land use.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-8
..
CHAPTER III
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES
The City of Dublin owns II parks totaling ] 65 acres Of this amount, 79 acres are classified as
active parkland, while the remaining 86 acres are classified as open space. Active parkland is
further categorized as neighborhood parks or community parks. Neighborhood parks are
typically five to seven acres and are developed to provide space for improvement in relaxation,
play and informal recreation activities in a specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units.
The park improvements are oriented toward the individual recreational needs of the neighborhood
in which it is located Community parks are typically in excess of five acres and offer a variety of
recreational opportunities that attract a wide range of local age groups and interests. The park
improvements are oriented to\vard facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience
of all citizens and attract a broad spectrum of user groups.
Existing facilities are shown in Table IIlI. The City of Dublin has entered into an agreement with
the Dublin Unified School District for joint use of school playgrounds to increase the availability
of park land Although the City would prefer to develop more parks in existing areas, it is
constrained by the absence of suitable sites, and must settle for the joint school sites to achieve its
desired standards. The availability of school sites during non-school hours adds another 36 acres
to the park availability for a total of 115 acres of active parkland.
The City of Dublin recently completed its Parks and Recreation Master Plan to establish policies
for parks and community facilites expansions to serve growth Similarly, the Eastern Dublin
5fJec[fic Plall and the Eastern Dublin Genera! Flail Amendme/lt (GPA) call for development of
several parks These range from neighborhood squares of two or three acres to larger community
parks upwards of 100 acres Sizes and locations of the parks have been proposed within the GP A
and currently total 2585 acres. The exact amount of park acreage will be determined as Eastern
Dublin develops. If less acreage is needed than anticipated, the community park in the northerly
section of the planning area may be reduced in size. The land surrounding this park is designated
for rural residential, such that a reduction in the park size would not translate into a measurable
increase in urban development.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
111-1
Ie<
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter III
Table ID.l
Existing Parks
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Park Acreage I
Community Parks
Dougherty Hills* 4.00
Dublin Sports Grounds / Civic Center 35.00
Dublin Swim Center 3.00
Heritage Center 5.00
Senior Center 0.25
Shannon Park 10.00
Total 57.25
Neighborhood Parks
Alamo Creek 8.00
Dolan Park 5.00
Kolb Park 5.00
Mape Park 3.00
Stagecoach Park 0.75
Total 21.75
SchoollPark Facilities
Dublin Elementary 9
Dublin High School 4
Fredriksen Elementary 4
Murray Elementary 7
Nielsen Elementary 6
Wells Middle School Q
Total 36
Total Existing Parks 115
"'Includes only developable acreage for active park use.
Source: City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan; Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan
Recht Hausrath & Associates
III-2
DlIb/in Faci/itjes Fee Study
Chapter III
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Park planning is guided by the Quimby Act, which sets forth a legislated park land standard to be
applied to new development. The City further regards the Quimby Act standard of 5.0 acres per
1,000 population as its target for providing parks to existing developed areas Compared with the
existing population of23,660 residents, including the 160 existing residents of Eastern Dublin, the
existing park ratio is 4.86 acres per 1,000 residents, including shared school sites. (Although the
adopted standard is 5.0 acres per 1,000 population, the actual current ratio is slightly less due to
two factors: (a) the discrepancy between actual numbers of residents and the projected numbers
under the City's Quimby Act ordinance, Dub/ill Municipal Code Chapter 9.28, and (b) the
inclusion of two projects, Donlan Canyon and Hansen Ranch, in the current population which
have paid in-lieu fees rather than donating land.) Over time the City expects to acquire additional
park land beyond what is necessary for new development to bring the inventory of parks
associated with the existing population up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Costs to resolve the
existing deficiency are addressed in Appendix A.
Dublin's park standard draws the distinction between neighborhood and community parks. The
overall 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents park standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1. 5
acres and community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population, as specified in the City (?fDub/in
Parks & Recreathm Master Plan. Table III.2 shows the new development demand for
neighborhood and community parks. Only Eastern Dublin's projected population is applied to
neighborhood parks, excluding the small amount of development anticipated elsewhere in the
City. Given the local service area of neighborhood parks, the need is best considered by subarea,
rather than on a citywide basis. For Eastern Dublin the neighborhood park demand is estimated at
48.5 acres Community parks, on the other hand, serve the entire City due to their size and
amenities. Accordingly, citywide growth indicates a total need of 113.9 community park acres.
Fee calculations later in this report follow a similar division. The costs for neighborhood parks
calculated in this report apply to Eastern Dublin only, but the community park fee may be charged
citywide. For a further description of the facility standards for neighborhood and community
parks, refer to the Parks and Recreathm Master Plan.
Resident population is used to determine the required park acreage, consistent with the standards
legislated under the Quimby Act. The benefit of community parks, however, also extends to the
employee population. Lunch hour visits and company recreation activities are two examples of
lII-3
Recht Hausrath & Assocjates
."
nllh/ill FucilillL'S Fe/! Stlld\'
Chapter //1
business-related park demand The legislation authorizing the impact fees calculated in this study,
AB 1600, permits allocation of facilities costs to residential as well as commercial and industrial
land uses, provided a reasonable relationship between growth and facilities demand is provided.
Accordingly, a portion of the park costs are allocated to commercial and industrial land uses as
well as residential units The service population method of cost allocation is used for community
parks in much the same way as it is applied throughout this study. The concept of service
population recognizes the relative levels of demand by both residents and employees, and is
calculated as population plus a percent of employees. By changing the employee weights, the
cost allocation to commercial and industrial land uses can be adjusted according to the demand
specific to a particular facility type
Table IlI.2
New Development Park Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Acres per
1,000 Acres
Population Residents Need ed
Neii!;hborhood (Eastern 32,300 1.5 48.5
Dublin Only)
Community (Citywide) 32,530 3.5 113.9
Total 162.4
Source: City or Dublm, l:'as/em /)1Ih/ill (iellero/F/all .-lfllelldll/elll; EaSlern Dllhlill
,"/h'cijic Flail (1-7-')4): Recht Hallsrath & Associates.
Park use by employees was addressed in a 1992 survey of persons employed in nearby
Pleasanton.] The survey presented estimates of resident and non-resident employee park visits per
week, thus offering an indication of hovv' local residency affects employee park use. Visits
measured include \veekly totals for workdays, evenings and weekends. The results indicate that
resident employees make 0.656 park visits per week. Non-resident employees make 0.145
Economic Planning Systems, .-JII(I/vsis o(/he Cif)' o(P1e(l.wlI/olI Recreatioll alld ,"I)or/s !'lllrvey, June
I')')}
Rech/ Hallsra/h & Associutes
111--1
..).
Dllhli/l Facilities Fee S!i((~r
Chapter flJ
weekly park visits. These visits are assumed here to represent purely workplace related park
use. The difference beT\\.een the two groups is 0.511 visits per week, and is further assumed
to represent residential demand. If applied to projected growth, 32,530 residents and 28,000
employees, the indicated weekly demand is 16,600 resident and 4,060 employee park visits per
week, as indicated below.
Residell/
Demand
0.511 Weekll' J'isits ..,,.., c..,o J) . J
. ;< -'L,.'.' \esluents =
Resident
16,600 FVeekly Visits
EmploYlllL'llt
Demond
o ]45 H'eek~r J"isits
, 28,000 Fmployees = 4,060 Week}' J'i.~its
Fmplo) 'ee
If the survey data were directly applied, employee use would account for roughly 20 to 25
percent of total demand. However, the indicated range underestimates the park demand of
non-employed residents. Extension of the estimated resident employee demand to other adult
residents implies similar use by the retired, self-employed and full-time homemakers, as well
as youth. As a group, these residents are likely to have more leisure time, and are likely to
visit parks more frequently than full-time employees. Therefore, an employee weight lower
than 20 percent is appropriate for allocating community park costs between residents and
employees. In light of the survey results and its emphasis on employees, a more conservative
employee weight of 15 percent is used in this analysis to estimate community park service
population. These calculations are shown in Table Ill. 3 , and result in a community service
park service population of 36,700 persons. This relationship is applied later to allocate
community park costs between residents and employees.
Recht Halfsrath & A,uociates
111-5
.
DlIh/ilJ Facilities Fee StllL(1'
('hapter III
Table 111.3
Community Park Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Service
Residents Employees Population ( I)
New Development 32,530 28,000 36,700
( I) l'0I11Il111I1ll\ purks scn.lce: populution cquals rcsidcnts plus 15'1., o!" cmplm'ecs.
Source:: Rechl Hausr:lIh 8.: Associates
PARK COSTS
The goal of the fee program is to provide sufficient funds to acquire and improve the park
acreage needed. However, the exact amount of fee proceeds required is difficult to project
accurately at this time. Park land can be secured through either dedication or acquisition.
Where large developments are concerned, the land owners can deed portions of development
sites to the City according to the park standards. For smaller developments where it is not
practical to dedicate a park site, it is typical for land owners to pay an in-lieu fee which the
City uses to acquire land elsewhere. Both arrangements are currently implemented under the
City's Quimby Act ordinance, and will apply to Eastern Dublin as well. The amount of park
fees paid and the amount of land acquired will therefore depend on the actual use of
acquisitions versus dedications. This, in turn, will be largely a function of ownership patterns
at the time subdivision maps are filed, with dispersed ownership corresponding to increased
reliance on in-lieu fees.
Cost of park land purchased by the City will depend on the underlying or adjacent zoning of
each site acquired. If lanel \'alues were uniform throughout the planning area, the proportions
of acquired and dedicated acreage would not affect the level of the park land fees. In Eastern
Dublin, however, the proposed parks are located in areas of differing development potential
and corresponding land values. The cost of park acquisitions is therefore dependent on the
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
IIl-6
..
Dllh/ill Facilities Fee Stlld\'
Chapter III
specific location of the land actually acquired by the City. For the most part, park acreage is
located in or adjacent to medium density or medium high density residential zones. Average
residential densities would be roughly 10 to 20 units per acre, with a corresponding land value
in the range of $250,000 to $350,000 per acre for this level of development. An estimated
average land value of $300,000 per acre is used here to apply to neighborhood park
acquisitions.
Two of three community parks locations (including the city park shown in the Specific Plan)
are located adjacent to medium and medium-high residential zones. The community park in
the northerly area is in a rural residential zone, and is likely to have a land value lower than
parks in the other parts of the planning area. Rural residential land currently has a value of
about $12,000 per acre. For the purposes of fee determination, the community park land cost
is calculated as though all acreage is acquired rather than dedicated. This assumption is made
to insure adequate funding of park land, though the resulting average land cost may be slightly
lower if a significant portion of the land is dedicated. Conversely, a reduction in the size of
the northerly community park could increase the acquisition cost as relatively fewer acres of
rural residential land are used to meet the park demand. Table IIIA shows the community
park costs. The three proposed community parks total 183 acres. Of this, 46 acres represent
the northerly community park in the rural residential zone. Averaging the land values results
in a per acre cost of $228,000. This value is applied to the community park acreage required
for new development as well as that purchased to remedy the existing deficiency.
Table fIlA
Community Park Land Cost
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Community Cost per I
Park Acres Acre
Medium to High Density 137 $300,000
Rural Residential 46 12.000
T otallA verage 183 $228,000
Source. !:"OS{('/"II nllhlill .\/)"ci/ic 1'1011: I~cchl ]-Iausralh & ^ssociates
1II-7
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
..
Dllhlill Facilities Fee .','tllell'
('hapta III
Land values presentee! here were obtained from conversations with local real estate
professionals, and are used for the purpose of fee estimation. Actual values would be obtained
by a formal appraisal at the time of acquisition. Significant changes in land use designations,
actual development densities, park locations, and the proportions of land acquired rather than
dedicated also may affect the per acre costs. The City should expect to adjust the fees
periodically to reflect land price appreciation and actual costs of acquisition.
Table III.5 presents the park cost calculation. Park acreage amounts are those required for
neighborhood parks to serve Eastern Dublin and community parks to serve the citywide
projected growth based on application of the service standards. Land values follow from the
forgoing discussion. Park development costs represent landscaping, equipment, utility fees
and frontage improvements. Land costs total $40.5 million for both neighborhood and
community parks Improvements are based on cost estimates fi.lrnj~hed by the City of Dublin, and
add another $22.9 million for a total of $63.5 million. Again, this excludes any neighborhood
parks needed to serve development outside of Eastern Dublin, or any costs to raise the existing
park standard.
Table 111.5
Park Costs
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Neighborhood Community
Parks( I ) Parks Total
Land
Acres Required 48.5 113.9
Land Cost per Acre $300,000 $228,000
Total Land Cost $14,550,000 $25,969,000 $40,519,000
Improvements
Acres Required 48.5 113.9
Improvement Cost per Acre $158,400 $134,000
Total Improvement Cost $7,682,000 $15,263,000 $22,945,000
Total P:lrk Cost $22,232,000 $41,232,000 $63,464,000
([) NeighhorhooJ parks 10 serw Eastern Dublin only.
Source: CilY of Dllhlll1: Rechl J-bllsmth 8: Associales
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
IlI-8
..
, '4
/)11 h/ill Fuci Ii ties Fee Stlld\'
('hup!er Iff
COST ALLOCATION
Table III.6 shows the calculation of park costs allocated to residents. The costs are detailed
for land and imprO\'ements for both neighborhood and community parks. Again, different
service populations are used for neighborhood and community parks. For neighborhood parks
only the resident population of Eastern Dublin is used, and the neighborhood park costs
calculated here would be applied to the residential uses in the Eastern Dublin planning area
only. The community park costs applies to both residential and commercial/industrial growth
citywide. Further, the City may utilize both Quimby Act land dedications and AB] 600
development impact fees to provide park facilities. The division of park elements will allow
land and improvements to be pro\'ided under separate programs.
Costs for neighborhood parks total $688 per person, including both land and improvements.
Community park costs are $] ,124 per person. Considering the total park cost for residential
development in Eastern Dublin, the cost is $1,8J2 per resident if both neighborhood and
community parks are added together.
Recht Hallsra/h & Associa!es
fII-9
"
..
!J/(hlin Facilities Fce Stlldr
Land
Land Cost
Service Population ( I )
Cost per Person
Improvements
Improvement Costs
Service Population (I)
Fee Cost Person
Total Cost per Resident
Chapter III
Table 111.6
Park Costs per Resident
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Neighborhood
Parks
Community
Parks
Total
$14,550,000
32,300
$450
$25,969,000
36,700
$708
$1,158
$7,682,000 $15,263,000
32,300 36,700
$238 $416 $654
$688 $1,124 $1,812
(I) Ne\\. dl'h'!,'plllent sen.iee populatiDn. NeighhDrhoDd park sef\'iee pDpulalion applies to
Easlcm Duhlm resIdential grO\\.th Dnly. Community park senice P"Pulation applies
cit\wlde .md equals residents plus 15 percent or employees.
Sourcc: Cit\ oC Duhlin: Recht Hausrath & Associates
Community park costs are also allocated to commercial and industrial land uses according to
employment. Table III.I applies the 15 percent employee weight to the per resident
community park costs presented in Table III.6. Combining land and improvements, the per
resident costs are $1,124. Community parks per employee costs are thus $168.
Recht Hallsra/h & Associates
lll-J()
\
DlIhlill Focilillcs Fee ,)'tl/i(r
Chapter //J
Table 111.7
Community Park Cost per Employee
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Cost per Employee Cost per
Person Wei!.!:ht Employee
Land $708 15% $106
Improvements 416 15% 62
Total $1,124 $168
Source: ]\L'Chl ] lausmlh & Associates
Recht Halfsrath & Associo/{'s
111-/ /
CHAPTER IV
COl\1MUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
The City of Dublin currently operates three community facilities: a community center, a senior
center and an aquatic center, all located in the developed portion of the City. As the City grows
in size, it plans to add five more facilities. These include another community center, a recreation
center, a community theater, another aquatic center and a senior center to replace the existing
Table IV.l
Existing and Proposed Community and Recreation Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Building I
Square Feet
Existing Facilities
Community Center 12,178
Senior Center 6,600
Aquatic Center -NA-
Total 18,778
Proposed Facilities
Community Center 28,000
Recreation Center 35,000
Community Theater 16,000
Senior Center ( I ) 5,400
Aquatic Center -NA-
Total 84,400
Build-out Total ]03,178
(I) Existing senior center is to be replaced with the
proposeu new l~lcility totaling 12,O(J(I square feet.
Space shown is nel aJJiti'HL
Source: L'il \. or Dublin ['lIrk IInd Nl'Crl'lIIion MIISIl'/' ['/11/1.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
IV-J
.
Dllhlill FaCilities Fee Stlld\'
Chapter IV
one. At present, the City of Dublin's senior center is located in a leased surplus school building.
Eventually the lease will be allowed to expire, and the senior center will be moved to a new, larger
building owned by the City. For a further description of these facilities, refer to the Parks and
Recreation Master Plall.
Building space is summarized in the top portion of Table 1\1.1. Together, the existing community
and senior center buildings total 18,778 square feet of building space, excluding the aquatic
center. Proposed facilities are shown in the bottom pOliion of the table. To reflect the
replacement of the existing senior center, only the net increase is shown for the proposed senior
center. The proposed senior center is planned to be 12,000 square feet in size, or 5,400 square
feet more than the existing facility it is to replace. Excluding the aquatic centers, community
buildings citywide are proposed to total 103,178 square feet by build-out.
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Cost calculations for community buildings and the aquatic center are handled separately A
cityvvide perspective is taken for allocation of community buildings costs to new development.
Activities taking place at a paliicular building can benetit residents and employees cityvvide,
regardless of the specific location of their place of residence or employment. On the other hand,
like the neighborhood parks discussed in the previous chapter, the new aquatic center's area of
benefit is assumed to be Eastern Dublin only.
The service population for community centers is calculated to equal residents plus 5 percent of
employees. Recht Hausrath & Associates has found in other cities that it is not uncommon for
local businesses to make use of community buildings for business gathering as well as company
recreation events. No local survey data was available to determine employee use by businesses,
however. Accordingly, a conservative employee allocation is used here. Table 1\1.2 shows
service population for the existing city growth from new development and build-out. New
development is t1.lrther separated into Eastern Dublin and the remainder of the City. As noted,
community buildings serve residents and employees citywide, whereas the new aquatic center will
be of benefit to Eastern Dublin only
Rech/ Hallsra/h & A.uocia/es
IV-2
DlIhli/l FCTcilities Fee Stl1(~1'
Chapter JV
Table IV.2
Community Centers Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Residents
Service
Employees Population( I )
Existing
23,660
10,000
24,200
New Development
Eastern Dublin
Remainder of City
Total
Build-out Total
32,300 26,200 33,600
230 1,800 300
32,530 28,000 33,900
56,190 38,000 58,100
(l) Community Centers seryice population equals residents plus 5'Y.. of employees.
Source: City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
Table IV3 details the calculations of community buildings service standard and demand for
facilities allocated to new development. For the purposes of cost calculations the community
buildings are combined. Preliminary construction costs per square foot are projected to be the
same for the theater, community, recreation, and senior centers. Therefore, facilities costs can be
allocated to new development without considering the service standard for each facility type
separately.
Once the Parks alld Recreatio/l !l1uster J)lull is implemented, the City will have constructed
community buildings totaling to 84,400 square feet, net of the existing senior center Including
existing buildings, community facilities will total] 03,178 square feet as shown in the top half of
Table IV3. Compared with the citywide projected service population of 58,1 00 persons, the
facility standard is estimated to be 1.78 square feet per person by build-out. Facility requirements
to serve growth are shown in the bottom half of Table IV.3. Applying the build-out service
standard to the 33,900- person service population growth indicates a demand for 60,300 square
feet of community building space arising from new development.
Recht Hal1srafh & Associotes
JV-3
DuM!1l FClu/itin Fcc Studl"
Chapter IV
Table IV.3
Community Buildings Service Standards and New Development Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Service Standard
Community Building Sq Ft.
Build-out Service Population ( ] )
Service Standard
103,178
58,100
I. 78
SqFL
Persons
Sq.FL per Person
New Development Facility Demand
Service Population Growth ( I )
Service Standard
Requirement to Serve Growth
33,900
I. 78
60,300
Persons
Sq.Ft. per Person
Sq.FL
( I ) Comll1Ul11t\ CCl1lcrs SLTYleC PllPulatilln cquals reslJenls plus 5'l';, of cmployees.
Sourn:: City or Duhlin; Recht H~lllsrath & Associates
The total cost of community facilities to serve growth is calculated in Table IVA. Construction of
community buildings is estimated to cost $200 per square foot. For the 60,300 square feet
required to serve growth, the cost to new development is $12.06 million for community buildings.
As mentioned above, the City of Dublin also proposes to construct an additional aquatic center to
serve the added population in Eastern Dublin. The new center is projected to cost $2.1 million,
and is allocated entirely to the new development in Eastern Dublin. Combining community
buildings with the aquatic center results in a community facilities cost of 14.16 million.
IV--I
Recht Ha/lsrath & Assocwtes
Dlfhlill Fou/it/es Fee Stlfd\"
Chapter If'
Table IVA
Community and Recreation Facilities Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Buildings Cost
Requirement to Serve Growth
Cost per Square Foot
Facilities Cost
60,300
$200
$12,060,000
Aquatic Cente." Cost
$2, I 00,000
Total Facilities Cost
$14,160,000
(I) COll1nllll1lt\ Centers serYlee population equals resiJents
plus 5% or employees.
Sourcc: City of Duhlin: Rccht Hausrath & Associatcs
COST ALLOCATION
Table IV5 allocates the cost impacts for community buildings and aquatic centers to residents and
employees. The community buildings cost of $1206 million allocated to new residents equals
$356 per person, based on the citywide growth in service population. In calculating service
population for community centers, residents are weighted at 100 percent and employees are
weighted at 5 percent to reflect the use of community facilities by persons employed locally. The
cost per employee is $18. The aquatic center costs are assigned to Eastern Dublin only and total
$21 million. Applied to the Eastern Dublin service population growth of 33,600, this equals a
per resident cost of $63, and a per employee cost of $3.
Recht Halfsrath & Associotes
IV-5
Dllhli/l Facilities Fee ,\'tlld\'
Chapter IV
Table IV.5
Community Facilities Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Commul1lty
Buildings Aquatic Center
(Citywide) (Eastern Dublin Only)
Cost per Resident
Total Cost $12,060,000 $2, 100,000
Service Population Growth ( I ) 33,900 33 ,600
Cost Per Resident $356 $63
Cost per Employee
Employee Weight 5% 5%
Cost per Employee $18 $3
(J) Community l'entt:rs slTyice population equals residents plus 5'% or employees.
Source: Cit\ of Duhlin: Recht Hausralh & Associates
Recht Hallsrath & AS.\{)ciotes
IV-6
CHAPTER V
LIBRARIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Library services are provided to Dublin residents by the Alameda County Library System with
partial funding from the City of Dublin. The current 15,OOO-square-foot library opened in 1979
and was financed by General Obligation Bonds. The site of the Library is owned by the CotU1ty
and is leased to the nonprofit Alameda County/Dublin Library Corporation. The Corporation
owns the building and leases it to the County in exchange for annual rent payments which are
used to retire the bonds. When the bonds are completely paid off ill 1999, the title will vest with
the County.
Existing and proposed library facilities are summarized in Table V.I. The existing Dublin
library building is 15,000 square feet in size and contains 83,000 volwnes. An expansion of
Table V.I
Library Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Building I
Sq.Ft. Volumes
Existing 15,000 83,000
Proposed
Expansion of Existing 7,000 0
Eastern Dublin Library 20.000 40.000
Total 27,000 40,000
Build-out Total 42,000 123,000
Source: City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
Recht Hausrctfh & Associates
V-I
Dllh/ill Facilities Fee St/l((l'
Chapter V
anticipated at this time There will also be a new library constructed in Eastern Dublin. The
existing facility will continue to operate as the main library and house the majority of the volumes
maintained in the City As with the existing libral)', the new building wil] be constructed and
stocked using local nll1ds and will be operated by the Alameda County Library System. The new
library is proposed to be 20,000 square feet and contain 40,000 volumes. For a nII1her
description of these facilities, refer to the Lihrw)' PIOllllillX Task f(Jr(:e Report (April 1993).
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NE\V DEVELOPlVIENT NEEDS
A citywide approach is used to calculate facility standards and allocate library costs, recognizing
that Dublin libraries function as part of a regional system. Allocation of library costs to new
development is done on the basis of citywide service population. The build-out population is used
as the basis for determining library service standards so that the same standards will be applied to
both existing and new development.
Information is available to indicate the relative benefit of library use for residents and employees.
In a recent study, the Santa Clara County Library System conducted a benefit analysis to provide
a basis for county service area library assessments. Table V.2 extends the Santa Clara analysis to
this study. "Benefit units" in the table refer to the measurements used in the Santa Clara analysis,
and are expressed here per resident or employee. Except for retail, the land use categories in the
Santa Clara study differ from those used here. The ones shown in the table have been assigned to
relate business activities to types of space The calculations in the table estimate total library
benefit, and determine the portion received by businesses to be 22 percent of residential demand.
The employee weight for libraI)' services based on the Santa Clara study is supported by the
observations reported for the Fremont main library. At the Alameda County Library's main
facility in Fremont, 33 percent of the reference staff is assigned to the business reference desk.
Also, business desk reference questions amount to 20 percent of the library's total.
Recht Hallsrath & A.\:mciutes
V-2
DlIb/ill Facilities Fee ,\'tll(.(l'
Taulr V.2
Resident and Employee Library Benefits
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Benefit Units
per Resident
or Employee
Build-out
Residents
or Employees
Resid en tinl (1)
0.300
56,190
COIllIllCI"Cial & Indllst.-ial
Commercial
Otlice (2)
Industrial (3)
Total
0.104
0.107
0.067
13,200
19,700
5,100
38,000
Chapter V
Total
Benefit
Units
Relative to
Residential
16,900
100%
1,400
2,100
300
3,800
22%
1) Benelils per resident repn:sents an ,1\wage or single amllllulliple 1;lInil~' UllltS.
2) The non-retail business category rrOll1 Ihe Sanla Clara stud~' is applied 10 olliee uses.
3) The transportation and utilities ca\cg.or~. liolll Ihe S,lIlla Clara study IS applied to induslrialuses.
Source: Sanla Clara COUllt~. I.lhr,IIY 11"II<'/il. /s.H'sslllelll. IlIull'S/Y. I\ceht Ilausrath & ^ssO\;ialcs.
The service population for libraries is shown in Table Y.3. Employees are weighted at 22 percent
to reflect the approximate library demand attributable to local businesses. By year 2025, library
service population is projected to total 64,600 persons citywide.
Recht Hallsrath (~ Associates
V-3
DlIhlill FC/I..:illlies Fee Stlld\'
Chapta V
Table V.3
Library Service Population, 2025
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
, Residents Employees Total (l) I
Existing 23,660 10,000 25,900
New development 32,530 28,000 38,700
Total 56,190 38,000 64,600
( I) I ,ihrary senlee p"pulati"n equals residents plus 22'1., "r employees.
Source: Cit \. oj" Duhlin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
Table VA. shows the calculation oflibrary service standards and the demand for facilities
allocated to new development The improvements planned would bring the libraries serving
Dublin to a total of 42,000 building square feet and 123,000 volumes. Compared with the build-
out population of 64,600 persons, including residents and weighted employees, the per person
standards are projected to be 0.65 square feet oflibrary building space and 1.90 volumes. New
development is projected to add 38,700 persons. As shown in the bottom halfofthe table, the
resulting demand associated with growth equals 25,200 square feet of building space and 73,500
volumes.
Recht Ha/fsrath & Associates
V-4
Dlfhlin Facilities Fee ,\'t/l(ZI'
Chapter V
Table VA
Library Service Standards
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Buildings
~
Volumes
Senrice Standar-d
Sq.Ft or Volumes
Build-out Sen'ice Population ( I)
Service Standard
42,000
64,600
0.65 Sq.Ft per
Person
123,000
64,600
1.90 Volumes per
Person
New Development Facility Demand
Service Population Growth
Service Standard
Requirements to Serve Growth
38,700
0.65
25,200 SqFL
38,700
1.90
73,500 Volumes
(1) Lihrary sen'ice population equals residents plus 22'1., of employees.
Source: Citl. oj" Dublin: Recht Hausr:llh & Associates
Cost of the library requirements to sen1e growth are shown in Table V.5. Building construction
per square foot is estimated at $196. This amount is an average based on $212.50 per square foot
for the 20,000-square-foot new library and $150 per square foot for the 7,000-square-foot
existing library expansion Applied to the overall 25,200 square feet required results in a cost of
$4,939,000 for new development Volumes average $25 each. All costs were supplied by the
City of Dublin The 73,500 volumes needed to serve growth will cost $1,838,000. Combined,
the cost oflibrary facilities to accommodate growth is $6,777,000.
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
V-5
DlIh/ill Faulilles Fee Stlld\"
Chapter 1"
Table V.5
Library Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Lihl"ary Buildings
Square Feet Required
Cost per Square Foot (I)
Building Cost
25,200
$196
$4,939,000
Volumes
V olumes Required
Cost per Volume
V olume Cost
73,500
$25
$1,838,000
Lihrary Total Cost
$6,777,000
(I) Cost per square {(lot IS \\ eighted a\.erage or the proposed
expansIOn or the eXIsting lihrary and the ne\\ Eastem Duhlin
lihrary. Costs include rumishings.
Source: City or Duhlin: Recht J-Iausrath &. Associates
COST ALLOCATION
Table V.6 shows the cost allocation to new residents and employees. The total $6.78 million cost
for buildings and volumes allocated to new residents equals $175 per person, based on the library
service population as calculated Employees are weighted at 22 percent to reflect business use of
libraries, with a resulting cost per employee of$39.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
V-6
DlIh/ill Facililies Fel.! Su/(/I'
('hapter V
Tahle V.6
Library Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Fee per Resident
Total Cost
Service Population Growth ( I )
Fee Per Resident
$6,777,000
38,700
$175
Fee per Employee
Employee Weight
Fee per Employee
22%
$39
(I) Lihrary s(;:rnce p'lpuJalion \\.(;:ig.hts residents al 100
percent and emplowes at 22 p(;:rcenL
Source: Cil \. of Dublin: Recht Hausrath & Associates
V-7
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
CHAPTER VI
CIVIC CENTER
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Following incorporation in 1982, the City of Dublin leased commercial space for government
operations. Later, the City acquired a site for city offices and carried through with the completion
of what is now the City of Dublin Civic Center. Police, administrative offices and council
chamber are housed in the complex.
Existing and proposed administrative space is shown in Table VI. I. As described in the Civic
Center Programming Document approved by the City Council in November 1986, the Civic
Center building was sized to accommodate an estimated resident population of 40,000 in the year
2005 and totals 53,000 square feet Not all of this space is presently utilized. Administrative
space of 4,580 square feet remains unimproved and is presently used for storage. The
unimproved administrative space will be finished to accommodate the incremental demand for
administrative services.
Table VI. 1
Civic Center Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Building
Square Feet
Cost per
Square
Foot
Total Cost
Existing Space (1)
53,000
-NA-
-NA-
Proposed Improvements
Administrative Wing
Police Wing
Parking Lot
Total
4,580
1,800
$58.00
$5800
$265,600
104,400
$75,000
$445,000
(1) Existing space figure incluues unimproved area in auministrative and police wings.
Source: City of Existing space tigure incluues unimproveu area in auministrative wing.
Recht HO/fsroth (\' Assocrutes
n-J
Chapter VI
Dlfh/ill Fw.:i/ities Fee Stud\'
New development will be charged only for the costs of the additional improvements required to
serve growth. These are also shown in Table VI. I. Improvements to the administrative wing are
estimated to cost $58.00 per square foot for a total of$265,600 In addition to improving the
remainder of the administrative wing, renovations to the police wing are anticipated as well to
serve a growing level of police activities. Police wing renovations will apply to 1,800 square feet
of the department's space and will cost $58.00 per square foot for a total of$104,400. Also,
renovations to the Police Department's secured parking lot are needed at a cost of$75,000.
Total cost of Civic Center improvements associated with growth is 445,000. Unit cost estimates
were supplied by the City of Dublin.
COST ALLOCATION
Costs of the Civic Center improvements associated with growth are allocated to new development
on a service population basis. Service population of growth is shown in Table V1.2. For the
purposes of allocating Civic Center costs between residential and commercial and industrial land
uses, employees are assigned a weight of 25 percent to reflect business demand on police and
administrative activities The 25 percent allocation is a professional standard used in fee
documentation and reflects relative hours of business activity
Table VI.2
Civic Center Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Service
Residents Employees Population
New development
32,530
28,000
39,500
(I) Ci\.ic Center seryice popululion equals resiJenls plus 25'% or
employees.
Source: City of Duhlin; Recht Hausrath & Associales
Civic Center costs are allocated to service population in Table VI3 Civic Center costs of
$445,000 spread across the 39,500 person service population results in a cost of $11 per person.
With residents weighted at 100 percent the fee per resident is also $11 per person. Employees are
weighted at 25 percent resulting in a cost of $3 per employee
VI-2
Recht Hallsrath c\' Associates
DlIhlill Facilities Fee Stl/c(r
('hap/a l7
Table VI.3
Civic Center Cost per Person
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Facilities Cost (J)
New Development Service Population (2)
Cost per Resident
$445,000
39,500
$11
Employee Weight
Cost per Employee
25%
$3
(I) Includes rcno\.,llions or admmistwtin: and police wings
(2) CI\'ic Center serncc popu!.Jtion equals residents plus 25'1., or
employees.
Source: Cil\" of Duhlin; Rechl Hausrath & Associates
Rech/ Hallsra/h & Associa/l!s
~7-3
CHAPTER VII
CALCULA TION OF FEES AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENT A TION
Chapter III through Chapter VI described public facilities owned by the City of Dublin, the
requirements to serve growth, and new facilities costs. Each chapter also established a service
population measurement reflecting the relative demand of residents and employees. Costs of
facilities were then allocated to new development on the basis of service population. These costs,
in turn, form the basis for the public facilities fees subject to adoption by the Dublin City Council.
This chapter reviews facilities costs to accommodate growth, summarizes per resident and per
employee costs, and calculates the public facilities fees on new development necessary to fully
fund those costs.
SUl\fl\1.ARY OF COSTS
Table VII.l summarizes the cost of facilities to serve growth. The costs are further divided into
two groups. First are those applied citywide. Certain facilities, namely community parks,
community buildings, libraries and the civic center, are regarded as expansions of citywide
systems which benefit both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin These costs can therefore be
applied to new development, whether in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborhood
parks and the Eastern Dublin aquatic center are designed to serve growth in that area only. Since
these facilities have a local area of benefit, their costs are allocated to Eastern Dublin only.
Costs allocated citywide are estimated to total $60.5 million These amount to $1,666 per
resident and $228 per employee Specific to Eastern Dublin, neighborhood park and aquatic
center costs total $243 million. Corresponding allocations are $751 per resident and $3 per
employee, and would be added to the citywide costs Employees are allocated only a small
portion of the aquatic center and none of the neighborhood parks, explaining the small per
employee cost for Eastern Dublin only.
T/7J-l
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter I'Il
Table VII.!
Summary of Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Costs to Cost per Cost per
Serve Growth Resident Employee
Citywide
Community Parks, Land $25,969,000 $708 $106
Community Parks, Improvements 15,263,000 416 62
Community Buildings 12,060,000 356 18
Libraries 6,777,000 175 39
Civic Center 445.000 11 1
Total $60,514,000 $1,666 $228
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $14,550,000 $450 0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 7,682,000 238 0
Aquatic Center 2.100.000 63 1
Total $24,332,000 $751 $3
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $60,514,000 $1 ,666 $228
Eastern Dublin Costs 24.332,000 751 "
..t
Total $84,846,000 $2,417 $231
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE
Costs per resident and employee are extended to land use types in Table VII.3. Occupant
densities, persons per residential unit or employees per 1,000 square feet, are shown in the top
row. TIlese are applied to the per resident and per employee costs for each facility category to
arrive at the fee per dwelling unit or 1,000 square feet of commercial/industrial space.
Citywide fees per unit are $5,331 for single family and $3,332 for multiple family units. Eastern
Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center which
Recht HaHsrath & Associates
VH-2
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter HI
bring the fees to $7~735 and $4,834 for the respective unit types. New residential development in
the. existing City would also be responsible for neighborhood park mitigations, though these
would be done separately under the City's Quimby Act ordinance (see discussion at end of
chapter) .
CommerciaIlindustrial facilities fees would be proportional to occupant density, with industrial
the lowest and office the highest. Citywide, facilities fees per 1,000 square feet range :from $387
for industrial to $877 for office space. Development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a
small portion of the proposed aquatic center, bringing the range of impacts for this part of the
City to $392 to $889 per l~OOO square feet for commercial/industrial uses.
The potential fee revenues from new development would total $84.901 million. Total facilities
costs allocated to new development are $84.846 million. The small difference ($S5~000)
between the projected revenues and the costs will be used to offset the cost of the justification
studies and the administrative guidelines, and staff time devoted to fee collection. Further, the
exact amount of fees collected will depend on the exact amount of park land dedicated as
opposed to acquired through dedication.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend that the City undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of its
facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation.
The longer-term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as
growth forecasts, development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land
costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing
needs.
The actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will involve
adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facility costs and accounting for fee
revenues. In addition, City staff will be frequently confronted with particular situations in which
they must interpret the program's criteria and render special judgments. The City may adopt
administrative guidelines to provide staff and the development community with guidance
regarding ongoing operation of the program. The guidelines would assist in maintaining
consistent standards regardless of City personnel turnover or updates to the fee program.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
VII-3
. Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter Vll
The City anticipates that the public facilities fees will be collected at time of building pemlit
issuance for commercial and industrial development, and at the time of occupancy for residential
development. Once the City has adopted a capital improvement program for all the facilities
addressed, the fees will be collected at the time of building pennit. Fees will only be collected
on developed land if the existing structures are being expanded or otherwise modified to allow
more intense use of the property than its land use designation at the time of payment of any
previous fees.
Fee revenues for each type offac.ility will be collected in a separate trust accoUllt, and interest
earned on fund balances will be credited to that account. Funds will be transferred from that
account to specific accounts for construction as needed to finance the facilities required to serve
new development. The City anticipates using its five-year capital improvement program to
indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities to be funded by the public facilities fees.
For those funds unexpended or uncommitted after five years, the City should demonstrate a
reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged, otherwise
the City shall return the fees to the current ovvners at the time of refund (Government Code
Section 60001 (4) (e)).
RELA TIONSIDP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES
FEE PROGRAM AND QUIMBY ORDINANCE
As discussed in Chapter III (page III.6), the City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal
Code Chapter 9.28) based on the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) regarding
dedication of park land by new development. The ordinance's provisions are applicable only
when land is subdivided for residential development. At that time, the City may require the land
owner to either dedicate land for park services or pay an in-lieu fee instead. The amount of land
dedicated or fee paid is based on the estimated residential population ofthe proposed
development and provision of park land equal to the City's standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000
population.
The City would implement the park facilities fee documented in this study in conjunction with
the existing Quimby Act ordinance. While Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are
imposed when land is subdivided, public facilities fees are imposed later in the development
process, when building pemlits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already been
Recht Hausl'ath & Associates
V11-4
Dublin Facilitie's Fee Study
Chaptet' VII
charged with a Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the City would need to dednct the
park land component from the total public facilities fee shown in Table VII-2.
This deduction to the public facilities fee for land subject to the Quimby Act ordinance would be
equal to the land component of the parks fee only, not the park improvement component (see
Table VII-2). The Quimby Act ordinance is based only on the park land requirements of new
development, not the cost of park improvements, so the deduction only equals the former and not
the latter. For development of Eastern DubIin. the Quimby deduction would equal the sum of the
community and neighborhood park land fees. In the remainder of the City, the deduction would
equal only the community park land fee because the neighborhood park fee is not applied outside
of Eastern Dublin.
Some examples illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications, and Quimby deductions
would be applied in different parts of the City under different options to pay in-lieu fees or
dedicate land. Three scenarios are shown Table VII.2 for a single family residence. The first
two scenarios pertain to Eastern Dublin. In the first, the developer elects to dedicate land for all
park acreage, and only pays fees for the park development costs. In the second scenario, the
developer does not dedicate land, but pays the in-lieu fee. The third scenario would apply to the
existing portions of the City. Here, the City' s Quimby Act ordinance would apply to the
neighborhood park requirements, and the developer would either dedicate land or pay the in-lieu
fee under that requirement. Impact fees would be charged only for community parks.
Table VII.3 shows sample fee calculations for single and multiple family residences in Eastern
Dublin and the infill areas. When calculating fees, cost impacts for all facilities are added
together to arrive at the total charges. If land has been or will be dedicated, the value of the land
dedicated will be applied as a credit to arrive at a net fee amount due. Note that neighborhood
parks in-lieu fees levied under the Quimby Act apply only to the infill areas. Thus, in calculating
the facilities impact fees levied under Government Code Section 66000, the neighborhood park
component is excluded for infiU areas.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
T'l1-5
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter VlI
Table VII.2
Park Impact Fee per Single Family Residence
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Eastern Dublin Development
Dedicate Park Pay Park Land Infill
Land In~Lieu Fees Develooment
Community Park Land I $0 $2,266 $2,266
Commtulity Park Improvements 1,331 1,331 1,331
Neighborhood Park Land1 0 1,440 -NA-
Neighborhood Park Improvements .m 762 -NA-
Total $2,093 $5,799 $3,597
IAssumes the amount of the Quimby Act fee per Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 is equal to the public
facilities fee.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
J;11-6
Duhlin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter VII
Eastern Dublin Eastern Dublin rntill Development lnfill
Single Family Unit Multi Family Unit Single Family Unit Development
Multi Family Unit
Community Parks, Lalld $2,266 $1,416 $2,266 $1,416
Community Parks, 1.331 832 1,331 832
Improvements
Community Buildings 1,139 712 1,139 712
Libraries 560 350 560 350
Civic Center 35 22 35 22
Neighborhood Parks, Land 1,440 900 0 0
Neighborhood Parks,
Improvements 762 476 0 0
Aquatic Center 202 126 0 0
Total Fees Due $7,735 $4,834 $5,331 $3,332
Dedicate Park Land
Community Parks, Land <2,266> <1,4l6> <2,266> <1,416>
Neighborhood Parks, Land <1,440> <900> <0> <0>
Total Fees Due $4,029 $2,518 $3,065 $1,916
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associatos.
Table VII.3
Example Fee Calculations Including Park Dedication
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Recht Hausrath & Associates
VII-7
""
!-;.
......
t
D:l
::0-
~
()
~
....
Table VIlA
Impact Fee by Land Use
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~
~
t"l
i:i
....
;:;.
Residential Land Uses Commercial and Industrial Land Uses
Cost per Unit] Cost per 1,000 Square Feet
C{)st per Single Multiple Cost per
Resident Family Family Employee Commercial Office Industrial
Occupant Density 2 3.2 2.0 505 260 590
Cityl\Tide
Community Parks, Land $708 $2,266 $1.416 $106 $210 $408 $180
C.omrnunity Parks, Improvements 416 1.33 I 832 62 123 238 105
Community Buildings 356 1,139 712 18 36 69 31
Libraries 175 560 350 39 77 150 66
Civic Center 11 35 22 1 Q 12 .i
Total $1,666 $5,331 $3,332 $228 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Onl}T
Neighborhood Parks. Land $450 $1,440 $900 0 0 0 0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 238 762 476 0 0 0 0
Aquatic Center 63 202 126 3- ~ 12 ~
Total $751 $2,404 $1,502 $3 $6 $12 $5
Eastern Dublin Total
Citp".\oide Costs $1,666 $5,331 $3,332 228 452 877 387
Eastern Dublin Costs ill 2.404 1,502 3- ~ 12 ~
Total 52,417 $7,735 $4,834 $231 $458 $889 $392
(1) Single family shall mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units per
acre. MuJtipJe family shall mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 Of more
units per acre.
2) Occupant density in terms of persons per residential units or square f<<:t per emplo}'ee.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
~
~
t"l
V,
o
n
5"
....
(1)
v,
,.
~
.....
~
......
s.
~
n
;:::;.
......
....
~.
t"l
"1:-
(';).
(';)
~
~
~
Q
....,.
>B
-..
(';)
~
~
......
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION
Calculation of public facilities costs to serve growth and corresponding fee levels has been
predicated on certain assumptions about facilities standards State statutes governing public
facilities fees ((Jovemmellt Code Section 66000 et seq) and related case law require that fees be
based on standards applied uniformly to both new and existing development when the facillities
built benefit both For the City of Dublin, the present standard is lower than the standard
anticipated in the future for certain facilities. To charge new development for a standard higher
than the present requires a commitment to bring facilities serving existing development up to the
same levels, ie., to correct an existing deficiency. Otherwise, the City would effectively shift
funding of an existing deficiency to new development paying the fees.
This appendix identities the existing deficiencies implied by the service standards used in this
report. Three areas of facilities will need existing deficiencies corrected. The City of Dublin is
currently below the desired standard for community parks, community buildings and library space.
Library volumes per person is currently above the anticipated standard, and the civic center is
adequate to support existing municipal activities with minor improvements.
To maintain equity in its public facilities fee program, the City must correct existing deficiencies
and fund these costs from sources other than exactions, including fees, imposed on new
development. Typically, the share of facilities costs associated with erasing deficiencies are
funded out of general revenues or other sources dedicated to capital improvements. Where large
projects are concerned, these are often tlnanced through revenue bonds or certificates of
particiation.
Recht Halfsra/h & Associates
A-I
. Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Appendix A
CALCULA TION OF DEFICIENCIES
Table A.1 details calculation of the existing deficiencies for the facilities requiring expansion to
serve existing development at the standards projected by build-out. The facility measures refer
to acres of parks and building square feet for community buildings and libraries. Service
standards are in terms of acres per 1,000 residents and building square feet for person (service
population) for community buildings and libraries. Standards are based on different measures of
service population for the respective facilities. Park requirements are in tenus of 1,000 residents
to be consistent with the Quimby Act requirements. Community and library buildings service
standards are based on a service population that includes a weighted employment to reflect
business use of each type of facility.
Table A.I
Existing Deficiencies
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Library
Community Parks Buildings Buildings
Calculation of Deficit
Existing Acres or Sq.Ft. 115 12,178 15,000
Service Population (1) 23,660 24,200 25,900
Existing Standard 4.86 0.50 0.58
Desired Standard j,.QQ 1.78 ~
Deficit from Standard 0.14 1.28 0.07
Required to Cure Deficit
Deficit from Standard 0.14 1.28 0.07
Service Population 23,660 24,200 25,900
Acres or Sq.Ft. Required 3.31 31,000 1,813
Cost per Acre or Sq.Ft. .$.362,000 ~ li2Q
Total Cost $1,199,000 $6,200,000 $355,000
(1) Community buildings and libraries service populations include employees weighted at 5% and 22'l-'o,
respectively.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
A-2
.,
Dublin Facilities Pee Study
Appendix A
Existing park land falls short of the 5.0 acres per 1,000 resident standard allowed under the
Quimby Act. Additional park acreage can therefore be acquired to bring the park acreage
associated with the existing population in line with the standard applied to growth. The existing
park standard amounts to 4.86 acres per 1,000 residents, or 0.14 acres per 1,000 short of the
standard. Existing resident population is 23,660, including 160 residents of the Eastern Dublin,
indicating an additional need of3.31 acres. Costs are shown to be $362;000 per acre; including
land at $228,000 plus improvement at $134,000. The park deficiency totals $1.199 million.
As development proceeds in Eastem Dublin, the City plans to considerably expand comm.unity
facilities. At present community buildings total 18,778 square feet. The proposed build-out total
is 103.178 square feet. Compared with the existing service population of 24;200, the existing
standard for community buildings is 0.50 square feet per person. The proposed standard is 1.78
square feet per person, indicating an existing deficiency is thus 1.28 square foot per person. An
additional 31,000 square feet are needed to bring the facilities associated with existing
development up to the standard anticipated by build-out. Community facilities are estimated to
average $200 per square foot. Cost of the deficienc.y is thus $6.2 million. This includes costs
associated with replacing the square footage of the current senior center when the school building
lease is terminated. Aquatic centers are excluded from any calculation of an existing deficiency.
The existing aquatic center has a service area of the existing City and the proposed facility will
serve Eastern Dublin.
Library standards are expressed in terms of building square feet. As noted above, the existing
standard for volumes is above the projected build-out standard; no deficit in volumes exists. The
existing Dublin Library totals 15,000 square feet in size. Service population is 25,900, including
the allowance for employee use. The existing standard is thus 0.58 square feet per person. After
the proposed expansion of the existing library and construction of another branch in Eastern
Dublin, the building standard will be 0.65 square feet per person. At present the standard is 0.07
square feet per person short, indicating a need for 1,813 square feet to be allocated to existing
development. At the library cost of $196 per square foot, the deficit amounts to $355,000.
Table A.2 stunmarized the existing deficit for the three public facilities. Combined, the City
must secure funding for $7.754 million in improvements during the period tlu'ough year 2025.
On an annual basis over 30 years this amounts to $258,500 in constant dollars to be funded from
sources other than fees or exactions imposed on new development.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
A-3
eo:.
.:~.
.:
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~
~]
:::>Cf.l
~1~
~....:lCl)
>,v
.0 ....
4) .~
:Qa>:-:;:
C'4 ~ ~
~-tLl
8,.s
~-@
Q
11
'" u
u tM.
t3 ~
"0 50
Ri CI:l
.J Q
~ &
'"
:;:I
~
"'C
Ii
-;
.g
~
u
tI.>
~
::J
"'C
fa
.J
i;
i
~
~
<; 0
'5 0\
'" II')
::I
-0
.s
'0 V") ...... \D <nl t--.
OOOt""l\O QO
......- H)
6"} "-'
8 0
E ~
o
co 00 0\ oNlr--
Ot""l\OVj.....<ft-
vN ...... gO
l>":l- "-'
t
c.,
]i :g
~ lI"l
j
Of""l\Or--\OIN
-Nt""ll' V'l
t"l- 'lit
~ "-'
V!
8
~ u
c.,~
.... 0
"'-
OPo
us
t.tl
\0 N co 0'1 r<"ll gO
0\0......(") N
z;; ~
u >. 0
-a-- t
'.o'~ ("'.l
:;; r.,
";.. "';'-
'8 "'"
::J
U
c.,
....
'"
o
U
\OMMONl'""
.......(")-V"lNrt';
~.. 00 t--. /"f') r+"'J..
- ~
(fi 6F.t
2b "!
01).- l"f"l
.51 ~
tf.l~
\0 - 0'1 0 1.1"I1 -C
\O/"f')M\OMH)
MM-V") tfl
M".....:......" lfi
~ (,":t
t;...
~.&
~.-
8~
OO\D\DVj.--.r'='
O-v")l"-o_l~
I-~t'<)...... ~
liR .,
too(
(,":t
OOvt/lf'l
(oF,t
OO~~
6F.t
00\0/\0
(A
OOrl'llM
6F.t
O\O~N
01- 0
0'I"<:j- lO
~ ...
-
~
Ot"l~..".
'<:t\O 0
vr--N~
d t:f
000 MI_
t.nM\Oll("j
"<:tN to--
fA 6F.t
... ~
U 0
f;l.E
~...
'2 0
::s....
re
~.g
~g;
\CIS
~la
p..~
~G
f~
]~
5.$
01
.sl
.S '2j
"d"'C
.!:l
,tJ
"'Cf;l.
€5
"'"8
2'n
~2
0; ~
......~lI'l"E8 oS
~..O~~.8 i
l(') N t--. t:.s ~
i4 6F.t ~ IS Q.
U-o 1$
UIlI <:::
\D~t--~n ..,
\Dl.t"'l-'::f! Iii
\D 'l!'... t: ::s
" ... 0 s::I t:r
~ ~"28 VI
n '" !;
~ ~U l!l
tl .S
~.- ::s
8~ ill
'.;:1
'~'e j
"5= ~
i:! .~
'~l &
~i ( M
! ~ "- 'g
1IS';i ~ ~
la -;j IS "'I;
~e .!:l ~
~C! .: i
~ ~ . '&; ~
,e..eo ~ ij ::r:
l~ii"i j
.., 8..J;l, -
.....elllJ e ,.;! 8 R
tnM90 l:
........ _::I
..... ri JS
r-- V'lIN
00 0\
f""l M
6F.t
r-- Nlt:I\
I-,.....<fQO
00 QO
ff)
N 1.0100
~ ~
6F.t
OCrl'll_
~ ~
V;)
N~"'"
/"f')Off'i
M gO
rf'i'...... .....
i.4 &,
~
~ c::
..... v
c ~
~ ~
6 ] ~
1 a~ ~]
~l301) b~lf.l~ ";; ~
.. ~.5 ,.:..Il ~ ~ ~
N !J~:E C~a ~ u
.~ ~~] J:l~:;~ =!1cl
~ g.,c.._ ... ;:::00- =lS:'::::
a> .cb~ 3 -=ooB "QU-@
o .~ .~ 'a l:: = ..t:l -= U = f=1
~ i ~ ~ ~.~ ~ 3 e ~ ! .~ :5 ~ j B i
~ .e. 0 _8 g ~ :E ~ ~ .~.~ g. r.: ~ .~ ~ r:
8 .- () u U ....:l () l:ll Z :z; 0( ; U o:.l
au rilil ~
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Chapter VII
Vll-8