HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 PublicFacilitiesFee
"f
CITY CLERK
File # "
.::
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUN'CIL MEETING DATE:' February 1.8, 1996
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Public Facilities Fee
Report Prepared by: Diane Lowart, ~arks:'& Community Services
Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Resolution Establishing A Public' Facilities Fee For Future
Developments Within The City .Of I)ublin, including the following
exhibits:
~;
Exhibit A: Land Use" Map
Exhibit B: Public Facilities Fee Justification Study prepared by
Recht Hausrath& Associates (December 20, 1995)
Exhibit C: Fee Schedule
'.\
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 1) ~mmPUm
(to be available at Council meeting) 2) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
3) Eastern Dublin Specific Ph1n
4) Parks & Recreation Master Plan
5) Library Planning TaskForce Report
6) Civic Centef Programming Documen,t
RECOMMENDATION: - \/1. OpenPublicHearing
~ 2. Receive Staff presentation and publlc~$timony
3. Question Staff and the public
3. Close Public Hearing and deliberate
4. Adopt Resolution Establishing Public FaciU1ies Fee
Cost of facilities to serve growth are estimated,to 1)e$84.8 million
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DES~RIPTlON .. : . The ~ity qoUJiciladop~ Dubl~ 'M~~ipa1 :Code Chapter 7.78
creating ~d ~~lishing ~e authonty for ~POS1Dg ~d ch8:r~ ,a Pubbc F~ties F~. The pmpose of
the PubbcFacilities Fee 18 to finattce m\UUClpa:I public facilIties to, reduce tbe-:ittlpacts caused by future
developments in the City of Dublin andih Eastern Dublin.. Such facilities-include the following:
completion of the Civic Center office space; construction of a new .1lbrary $1(i.expa.nsion of the existing
library; relocation and expansion of the existing senior center; aequisitionand" construction of
neighborhood and community parks and community: buildings (including' a community theater, a
community center, a recreation center and an aquatic cot1tet)." ,
BACKGROUND
The ,Eastern Dublin O.~, Plan Amendtnent (OP A) and Specific Plan (SP) were adopted by the
City in 1993. The .OPAoutl~esfutute land u~es for approximately .4176 ~cres within the C:itr's ,
eastern sphere of Influence mcluding approXImately 13,906 dwellmg umts and 9.737 mllbon., ';
square feet of commercial, office,., and industrial development. The SP provides more specific .
detailed goals, policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acreS within the GPA area
nearest to the City. '
The Parks and Recreation Master ~Ian was adopted by the City in July of 1994. The Master Plan
provides direction for addressing tb~ long..term, recreational needs of the City and itschangiJ1g
populati~n through the next twentyye,;u:s. The plan envisions a 33~..acre park system at build~ut
of the CIty based on a standard otSaCi"e$ofpart land per 1000 reSIdents. In order to accompbsh
this loal, the plan calls fotthe acquisition at).d development of an additional 258.5 acresofpatk-
land.within theEastem Dublin General Plan Amendment area. This includes a 56:t acre City Park,
an 80:1: aCt. Spotts Park, a 46t,acr~ Co~unityParkand approximately 74 acres ofNeigbbothood
ParkslSQ,uaros.. Additionally",~::.~ter,pl~ calls for the development of ~e following
community facIlities:' a 28,OOO:tsC{! .ft.eommumty Center; a 35,000:1: sq. ft. 'Recreation Center; a
16,000:1: sq. ft. Community Theatre; a 6,000:1: sq. ft. Senior Center; and an Aquatic Center.
It is City policy that no General Fundmonies:ntaybe' used to provide infrastructure. for new development
Thus, the E8stem ,Dublin General Plan Amendment contains a policy that new development pay for
~MCeSsary,to accommodate the development (2.1.4, Implementing Policy" C). The Eastern
DublinspeoifiePJb~ntain$a simi14fpOlicy (policy 1()"1, page 151). The Parks and Recreation Master
PbuudsocontAins,go.1s'8Jtd guidiJ1gpPIicies telsting to the implementation offtmding sources to acquire,
develOp, operate aJld..Uiaintain recreational :facilities (Goal 5).
PUJqJC FAqu..17'1F3FEE~1'IoNS'/lJ)JY .:;)
In JantlatyOf";1995; the City Co~il;-8uthmzed the preparation ofa study by Recht Hausrath & .:;:
Associates,tbiestablish a.Publio F~Fee Propnn:for the City of Dublin. The results of the study are '
contained in the attached Public Facilities.Fee Justification Study (Exhibit A). The facilities whioh are the
subject of this Study arc parks,coJJ1lJliliaUty aDd rc:ereational facilities, libraries, and the CivicCenter..The
study documents ,the 8m.Ol_t .na" ,Cb8t of:aewpublit ftiCilities for city services required to serve new
developm.ent aad~.detet1)1tries,tliepub1ic'faciUtiesfees that ,new development should pay to fund its lair
slUtte of thosefaefiities needs.
The desipofthe City'spubiic facilities fee program. followed a four..step process: (1) selecting a time
perioda4prqectingJlCW development; (2) deterinining facility servIce areas and identifying facilities to
aocommOdate,'pew dcYelo~t;(3) esthnatit:Igfac:ilities costs; and (4) determining aIternativefittlaing
sources, including an.app~t~.aud equitable mearisto allocate costs among new development. .Bach. of
the fotlr$teps iS~':belOw.. . -.' "A , '
.. . , ,
NeH11Jne19pment Prt;JedUJlI8
Projections of new deVelOptlletnt ptovtde1tJ,e basisfotprt)jections of additional fw:iIities required to serve
growth. For the purpose of:tbis stUdy, devcelqppteDtprc>jections included the residents,and employees
projected for the CitY's Eastern ExjeDdedMtuu1iii~and ,projected growth in the existing area of the
City~ No growth for the City's WesteDt'~ded PI~ 'Areawas included at this time." PrpjeetlonS
are for':build..outofthe.,City(tstim~~tri"ocour about 2025) an,i'illclUdethe ,addition of 32;S30'fc$idmts
and~&,ooa :.employees citywide.' , , '
I.."J,
...,
" , ... ~
, w~~.~!
Facilities Requirements
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve neW development reqp,ircs, the adoption, of
standards. These standards establish roinimum levels of service for city infrastrUcture. The new facilities
. that development must fund are then calculated according to these standards and proj~ted 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.
Facilities needed to accommodate new development include (1) ncjghborhood 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 cen~ and an aquatic center,
(3) library improvements including an expansion of the exiting building plus anew 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 bya public facilities fee.
Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy existing deficiencies (to benefit cthe,exItdnI population) and
those which provide additional capacity (to benefit growth) were allocated acco....c.tOthe .res 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 m through Chapter VI of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study describe the public
facilities owned by the City, the requirements to serve growth, and JlC)V 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 fiew development on the basis of service population.
A brief summary of each chapter follows.
Neighborhood and Community Parks (Chapter III) ,
DubUn's park standard draws the distinction between neighborhood and conununity parks. The overall
5.0 acres per 1,000 residents park standard is split between neighboxhood parks at 1.5 acres and
community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population. 1'heEastem Dublin General Plan Amendment
includes approximately 258.5 acres of neighborhoodandcon:ununity ~- ~However, the new
development denumd for neighborhood and community parks is estimated 'lObe 162.4 acres. Of this
.Aamount, 48.5 acres is the neighborhood park demBDd, applied only to EastemDub~ 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 tOt a total of $63.5 million.
.
The service population for neighborhood parks applies to Eastern Dublin residential growth only.
Conununity, park, service population applies citywide and equals residents plus 1 S percent of employees.
Costs. for neightiorhObCl parks total $688 per resident, including both land Uld improvements. Community
park costs total $1,124 per resident ~d $168~ employee, including ~oth land and improvements~ !apl.'~;:':~,
m.6 of the Study shows the Calculation ofnClghborhood and commumty park costs allocated to resldents..~,
'and Table Ill.7 shows the calculation ofcommumty Park costs .allocated to employees.
As noted previously, the Easter.r:t Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) includes approxhnately258.5
acres of neighborhood and ,conununity parks. Of this amount, the Public Facilities Fee willfimd
acqu1'sitioni~l\nd development of approximately 162.4 acres for a total of $63.5 million. Co~uent1y, if
the t01aI:park acreage as identified in the GPA is going to be built, there will be a funding shottfall of
approxima~ $37.4mfllionwhich ~ need to bcfundedthrough alternate funding sources.
."~ .
Ct!lII1Itulil(yadJlecreation FacillJies(Chapterm ,
As theCityarows in size, there are plans to add five more community and recreation facilities. These
include another comrnunitycenter. a .recreation center, a community theater, another aquatic center and a
semorcentettQ xcplace the existing OllC. Excluding the aqllatic centers. community buildings. citywide are
propoSed to total103~178 square feet by build-qitt (based on a facility standard of 1.78 square;;feot per
person). ,1)e new~e.opment demand fOf eoriununity building space is estimated to be 60,300 square
feet.T.tltr:;tOtaiCOBt. of community buildings to serve growth is $12.06 million. The projected cost of an
additicmal aqu3tic ccmter' to serve the added population in eastern Dublin is .$2.1 million.
Tho. sc=rviee p()pulaticm for community buildings equals residents plus 5 percent oferriployees.
Community buildingeo.sts are alI0caie4 to both (residential and commercial/industrial growth citywide.
Co~unity buildin,COs,mtotalS3S6,per resident and $18 pet'employee. The aquatic center costs are .:":> "
asSIgned to'~, Dublin.only and tc>tel $63 per resident and $3 per employee. Table IV.S of the Study"; ."
showstbe calq_()nfor,comm~bUi1dmgs and aquatic centers to residents and employees.
As noted ~viO'QSIY. community buudiiaas are proposed to total 103,178 square feet by build-outofthe
. City. Ofihisamount,the PubUc FaeilitiellFee will fUnd 60,300 square feet for a to1al of$12.06 nilllion.
Consequently, if the total ~uare fQ9tage of community buildings arc to be built, there will be a fUnding
shortfall of apptoJdmatelyS4;9millionwhich willneedtobe funded through, alternate funding sources.
Libt'ilriis (CII/IptIlr 'J?, '., " .
Libraty..setVices are provided to Dublin residents by the Alameda County Library Syste~ withpattial
1\mding1io~. the City ,of DUblin..Proposed librari improvements include the expansion of the,cummt
lS.OOO~,f()Q~ library by 7,000 square feet an4'the construction of au additional 20,000 square"foot.
library in EastetnDublin. Thebew developmOnt demand for IibrariC$ is projected to. be 25,200 square
feet of building ~and 73,SOOvQIUttltS ,(based on a per:~ standard of 0.6.5 square feet of library
building space1.90volwnes).ThetotaI cost of lib~ ,including volumes, to servegrowtb it'
$6,771,000.. ., '
. ,
The serVi<<; >population for libraries equats ~, pluS 22 percent of employees. Library costs.are
allocated tObothtefiaenija1'.d;~~aVind~ 'arowtl1 citywide. Library costs tota1<$17S 'per ,
resident and $39 per employoe. Tab"'V~6ofthe,Studyshb'WS,1he'ca1c_on for library costs to teSidents
and employees.' ,..:; ....:._.
~~" .. .'::..:.
As noted previously, proposed ~improvements to1al 27,000 square feet. Of this amount, the. Public.
FaciliticSFee Will fund 2S~OO square ,feet for a t~ of $6,777,000. Consequently, if the total square
footage fo~ li})raries,JS tobebWlt, .tWB Will be ,8 fUridingshortfaJl of approximately $352,800 which will
need to befundoddttoUghaltemate1\mciiq soUrces.
Civic Center (Chapter VI)
The Dublin Civic Center building was sized to accommodate an estimated resic1em population of 40,000
in the year 2005 and totals 53,000 square feet. Not all of this space is pnssently utilized. Proposed
..~ improvements include the completion of 4,580 square feet of adminis13.1Itive :~renovations to the
, 1,800 square feet of the police wing, and renovations to the Police Department's secund'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 mnploy~. Civic Center
costs are allocated to both residential and commerciaVmdustrial growth cityWide. ,Cmc 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 esti~.ed resident population of
40,000. Currently it is difficult to estimate the types of additional buildiDgspacethat 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.
SU1lt1tUl1'J' Of Costs "
The following table summarizes the cost of facilities to serve growth. The ,costs ,ate, f\Jrtlier diVided into
two groups. First are those applied citywide. Certain facili~es, namely commuuity patks, community
building, libraries and the Civic Center, ate regarded as expansions of citywide sYstems which benefit
both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin. These costs can therefore be'appUed,'to new development,
whether in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborbood parks and the aquatic center in Eastern
... Dublin are designed to serve growth in that area only. Since these faci,lities have a local area of benefit,
" ,I their costs are allocated to Eastern Dublin only. .
Summary ojCosts ToStne Growth,
. Costs to Serve Growth, Cost' RtSidcJit Cost per Employee
Citywide
Comr.nunity Parks, Land 525,969,000 $708 $106
Community Parks, Improvements 15,263,000 416 62
Community Buildings 12,060,000 356 18
Libraries 6,771,000 175. 39
Civic Center 44S~OOO 11 .1
Total $60,SI4~OOO $1,666 ' 5228
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land 514,550,000 ,$450 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements .7,682,000 238 0
Aquatic Center 2,1~QPQ , e. .1
Total S24,3~2,OOO .. .$751 53
Eastern Dublin Total
ii_ "
Citywide ,Costs $~,514,000 $1'666 ., $228
. " " .
Eastern Dublin CoSts 24.33;l.OOO :lS1 3-
' .
Total 584,846,000 $2;417 $231
.
Costs per resident and employee are extended to land U$e types as shown in, the table on the folloWing
page. Residential densitY is measured mterms of residents, per dweWngunit and employment density is
expressed as square feet ofbuildingspaoeper employee. Occupant densities for residentia118J1dU$OS~'vel; ,
as follows: single family.. 3.2 pe",stii'l8~r resldential unit; mUltiple family ..2..0 peraom per,estdMtJal.,,:,.
unit. OccUpantden&ities for non..resiclentialland uses are as follows: COJDmetclal uses .. 505 sfJUlJre feet ' . ,
pe, employee: office uses.. 260sqllllN .feet per employeejand industrial uses ... 590, square feet per
employee. It should'be noted that public agencies IU'e exempt from paying development httpactfees, thus,
the development and the conespond.ing ennployment is exeluded from the fee analysis. " ,
ltirpllCt F_BylAntl'Use
CityWide
Cot$n1H1ity' Parks"Ls1id
Commumty' Parb
, ,
ImpI9vements
ConununityBWlc:iiDgs
Librarl~" ",', ' '
CiVic Center
Total
Eaten Dublill Oldy'
Neighborlx>o<l"P~ 'Lat1d'
NeighborhoOl;~.,' ,
~~~:':',,,,,
Tofal ' ,,',' , , ,
Eastern DubUla 1'0_.
CitywideCasts "
Eastern DtibliDCo$ts.. ,"
~ , ~ 'I . .
Total
'Residcbtia1, Commercial ancUndustri.81, ,,',
Peeper. Unit Feepet' 1,000 S uareFeet
J\fultq)le. Family Comtnercial' InI~1 "
,'.'.' ,',
$2,266 $1,416 $210 $408' $180
1,331 832 123 238 105
1,139 712 36 69 .' 31'
560 350 77 150 ",66
II 22 Q .u .. .S-
. ~ , . SS,331 . $3,332 $452 $877 '$3'$7
..
$:1,440 ' $900 $0 $0 SO . '"
762 476 0 0 0 .j''>
2D1 , , ,)J6 ~ .u. ~"
$2,404 $1;502 $6 $12 $S
"
$5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 '$387.
~ UQ2. n 12 ' ;,S
"." , $7, TJ,S " $4,834 $458 $889; $392;,
Pro ' 1""~'"
fI'lIIIJ, "-"-''''1, "
The 4ctual iinplenientatlonand administra1iol1'of'th~ptJblic :tacilitiesfee program. will involve:~
n,ew procedures, trairiing'personnel, tractUts'1aCili:tY.,cqstsand accounting for fee revenues. In additiQD,
Staff will befreQuentIyobftftontedWith' p8rtiCular'"~ons in which the program's critcriam~ "~
intetpretld andO:~i~~Thus, 'fo1i~:;adoption.of thepub1ic facilities fee, Iicbt
Hausrath "Associatei;'wiIl,~be pr9~ ~ve guide~ which will assist Staff in impleritorttitlt ,;'
the Public Facilities Fc:eProgram. ThesegWdeUn.,swill address issuessucli as the imposition of feeS()u'
mixed, use dcve1epJnentptojects,thJU$ept:::r.'<LUCUts,.and the relationship between the fee's ~:.
categories and the City'sZOhing desi~ _..8dministtative guidelines will al$o ~s tiDaDCl.t." ,',
, . .' '. '," '~ ~ ~\" I' 1,.. . , I . 1.\ "
accounting,andcomp1i8DCe issues sucJ:t;,.t~citionwith thcCity's ~ improvememprop1llJ1. ,The
administrativeguidelina:wU1 be boougbt:lietore'the at,::C9uneil;fot:&doptionat a laterd$e. '
. ~.' . .
. ,".
, .'
0" '".
"'.' '~ ;'" "
.. .
, ..,' ..\~;:~.~, I
.:': ", .' ~ ',.
,/ .
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 'vCrlfythat the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments n,r'inflation. The longer-
", . term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions sucb as growth forecasts,
',: .,' development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, itdlAtion" and lane:! costs. 'Stich reviews will help
attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's clvtngingrie$is.' ' . "
Relationship Between Public Facilities Fee Progrll!ll and Quimby Ordinance
The City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal Coile Chapter 9.28) ,based on the ,Quimby Act
(Government Code Section (6477) regarding dedication of park land by new development The
ordinance's provisions are applicable only when land is subdivided for'f$iden:tia:l development. At that
time, the City may require the land owner to either dedicate land for patk p~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 tho City's sbmdard.of 5.0 acres per 1,000
population.
As proposed, the City would implement the park facilities fee docUJXlented inthe~yq.. conjunction
with the existing Quimby Act ordinance. While Quimby park landdedicationorin-lieU~ are imposed
when land is subdivide4, public facilities fees are imposed. later in the'.~~i'i3"rocess, when
building permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already'. ~edWith a Quimby
park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the park land component of the publfcr.cllitiesfee 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 Tahle vn.3 of the Study. "
:. 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,EastemDublin. 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 F~ 1ustificatiQJJStudy.
The Public Facilities Fee 1ustification 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 chetged in that new development in the City of
Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential abdnon-residential - will, ,generate, persons who live,
work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and' who, generate or corttribute to the need for the
facilities;
. That there is a reasonable relationship between.the fee's use (to pay for tbeconst:J;\lCtion of the
facilities) and the type of development for which the fee, is charged in that a1:1 development in the City
of Dublin and in Eastem Dublin - both residential'andnon..residential- generates or contributes to the
need for the facilities;" ..
. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the, fee ana the DQSt of the facilities or
portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin, and in Eaatem Dublin in,that the fee
/." is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses,
the total amoWlt 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 C$tifQ"tes set. forth, in the study andQl8Ster plan are reasonable cost estinuites for
cODStrilctblg" thefaciJ:ities. 'and,tbe fees expected to be. ,generated by future development will not
exceed the' prOjectedr~ of constructing the facilities; , ,
· 1bemethod of,~onoftlJe fee to a particular development bears a fair and ~<:,',
relationship to ',eioh developmeut's ~,on, and benefit &om, the facilities to be funded by the f'ee,..r.y:"
in that' the fee is calculated: ~ on the ,number of residents or employeescaeh 'PattiCUlAr .
develoPJD*nt wiD g~erate. '
\ . :..' -1/ , . ,~ . , ,"
It should bellOted that the a40ptib11;~f a pPblicfacilities fee ,which is applicable to propertioswi1'hiD the
~;pulljhi,s~ific Plan~.area"WiU not precludedevelc>~ from picking and ehoosma ,,1tom",the
vaii(ius6mmd~ :optic)u ay8i1aWc to them. Developers are required toprtpare FinllnMqg PI4ns wbid:t
aretO'~,iP8l't,f:itb~ ~opneut Agreement 'The 'Financing Plan is the vehicle fQt adeveloper'to
pr~pose the~"Of 1i~diw,o~~~av8.ilalJ.Ie to ,bhn so that the propettyis not overbutdened With
asiesSli1tDts"$1dfOr ~'"ta:Ites. .Fox~p~ a,developer could propose that the City ,eStabliSh..
assessment district to generate the money' for the public ,facilities fee. The City would receive the'IllODeY ,"
,lIP. fi:ont'~d1e,developer (and future owners) would pay the mmual assessments.
GOvef~~~e,,~On6s913~2 reqUires'tJ.1e,'CQUttcn to ~ider the effect of aresol~tion_.:tIUs
with ~tO~ho~;,;llCCds of~e,regibnm:whi,ch the City is located;, This resolution is o. *p in
the,in1pl~*Fot1:oftbe~,Publin'8pecific Plan wbicheontemplatesclose to 13,906 dMUing'
units at buiIdo1u:, .WhiCh.'\1riU'ha'Ve' a'benoficUll'e1fect' on the, housing needs of the region.
, ,
,',' ,,), \.,,', .,
Ad4ption oftheJktblitfacilltfesfeeis ~stent wi41the General Plan and the Eastern DubIinSpe9mc
Plan. 'The Parks and COmmunity Services Commission has reviewed and approved the Public Facilities
Feeinoo~1'1terefore, sbnfrecomraends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt ".:':.~:::'
the rcso1utio~~Ushing a publiefacl1i1ies fee. , :. :'
. '
,
" ..
. '.! ,.
,'l,
. '."",
.'i~ ; " '
< .~ .
, .'\::
. ~ '.. . \,' . ~ -.":
. ,:,' .- ~ '. .
.
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 CIlY 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 charging a Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") to pay for municipally owned public
.::,' facilities within "Eastern Dublin" and within the jurisdictional limits of the City of
Dublin (excluding areas within Eastern Dublin) ; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and
Specific Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GP A outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres
within the City's eastern 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
programs for approximately 3313 acres within the GP A area nearest to the City; and
.':,
." .'
I
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 Cmmcil on May 10,
1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993 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 COlUlcil on July 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 77.94;
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Library Planning Task Force Report,
("Library Report") dated April 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming Document
..,'
.:.1
("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, constniction of a library,
acquisition and construction of parl<.s 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
.
2
.:~
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No, 53-93
which includes mitigation measures to assure that development within Eastern
Dublin pays its proportionate share of municipal public facilities necessary to mitigate
impacts caused by development within Eastern 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 facilities in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin through the year 2025, and
contain an analysis of the need for new municipal public facilities required by future
development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
.'j
.'
WHEREAS, a detailed comprehensive study of the impacts of contemplated
future 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 F~cilities 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
3
FINDINGS
.'
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "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, 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
community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center). The public facilities
described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "facilities". .'
B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance
the Facilities.
C. After considering the study, the testimony received at this noticed
public hearing, the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Master Plan, the Library
Report, the Civic Center Report, the GPA, the SP, the ErR and Addenda, 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 GPA and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. .
4
.'::
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 the EIR as necessary to accommodate development in Eastern Dublin. The
impacts 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 the projections of future development as identified in the EIR,
no substantial changes in 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
e:: any such Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific
environmental review of the Facilities at 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
Dublin (excluding Eastern Dublin) is to obtain funds for'capital projects necessary to
maintain service within the existing service areas; that the City currently provides
neighborhood and community park services, community and recreation facilities
services, and civic center services; that the City and the Alameda County library
System currently provide library services; that the public facilities fee will be used to
e~ maintain current service levels; and that existing deficiency costs are not included in
5
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 the California Constitution.
G. 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 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; 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
Facilities; 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 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 ._
6
.
.-
...,
, "
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 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; and
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 seIVices will be affected by
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin, the existing deficiencies
and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and those
deficiencies.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE
as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
." constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for facilities
7
for the purchase and sale 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; discount stores and centers; dry
cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets;
general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and improvement
centers; hotel/motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations;
shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters.
b. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition
of any building or structure 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. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities 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 Council
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 .
8
.
.
.':
.':
.
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. "Industrial" 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 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.
f. "Multiple Family" shall mean any dwelling unit which is
constructed as attached housing, including apartments, townhomes and duplexes.
g. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation 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 uses
include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business park; finance
offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and
9
office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real
e
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
as detached housing.
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 Eastern Dublin no later than the date of final inspection for the unit.
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
.'.,.,.
I ./
building permit is issued for construction of such building or structure.
c. Any use of land which is not included in the definition of
"Commercial," "Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Planning Director to
one of the three categories, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the
deflnitions 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.
e:
10
."
,',
4.
Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
(I) 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 the building permit for
reconstruction is obtained within one year after the
.'
. .\
building was destroyed or demolished unless the
replacement or reconstruction increases the square
footage of the structure fifty percent or more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-
residential structure that has been destroyed or
demolished provided that the building permit for new
-
reconstruction is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the
.:~ Capital Project Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund
I I
shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each
account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes:
(I) 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 other sources 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.
(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.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Facilities
and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
12
e>
.'
"
e.:
.;
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 Ubrary Report, the Civic Center Report, the GPA, SP,
EIR, 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 financed with the Fee, The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with
appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the
purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a
reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
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 analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional
. information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the
,e:
13
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 findings 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 Fee.
10. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in e:,
Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of
the resolution.
II . S everabili ty.
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 effective, and the Fee shall be fully
effective except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid.
.
14
.'...
..
.:"
"
e:,
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _ day of,
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ArrEST:
CITY CLERIC
EHS:rja
J :\WPD\MNRSW\114\RESOL\50\FAC!LITI.96
1996, by the following
MAYOR
IS
(') a) , ".
ro 0) (\/
0) Gl " f'
,
<V u u 0 ~ ... "
.... ro ~ III ",' , ~ i.
<( u ~ u 0 III .- \
III $ 4
~ 0 QI >.
C'l \0 ~ .Q: III ;};"',:'}: I <d
c: C'\/ '<T ~,
,}, ~ ;g >. I' ..... .'
tb '0 ,', .~!~.~. '.~ ~ ~.~. 6
c: C'\/ .- .- 2 ::. ~.il'.'!"il~i't~;1
" Q) '" ..
t: .... en :".~/.:t'I'''?;''')'~~:' ..
~ ro .a >. C ;~~l~~Wi! I
'e s -0 ~ '"
a. a u -0 J.1 QI Q)
Q) III 2 0 i'!, a. Q) -8 < Z." ',. t
E lil i:: 'C ..c; .0 .... I
'0 'u; OJ Z u. u U ::I C III III " .";
!5 '0 :;; w J.l en a. ,Q a. '0 ::I .... C CCz ];, ~.....
IV .... c a. en 0 tT 0 Ql
Ql (I) III .g i':'..c g '~ iti ,~ 0 l/) i':' E 2 ~..iIFt.~
'0 U E 0 :b- 'l:I 0 ,(I) 1: :2 Qi <en ~,f.]
e 0- 1Il ~ '~ c'....... q.. III ,21..c 1Il .... ~. C "0 .... W 1Il
"0 E :a 0 1Il .... ~ Iii Iii
< 0 ~. >. ..c C ,?; 1Il SJ ,_ E :c u en u :J 0 U 0 01 b Wn,/'..ta
Q) 0 "" ,2' :2 ...J E 01 .... en ...... 01 E .0 0 en 'W l-
e 0 n. III 1Il III a. ..c ~ III U .... ~5!Lli: ,-'~' :t~
..... ~ B u 0 C :c 0 c III m 01 E ,2 ..c; J.? tc E ,21 a. en .... " "'1
co 'OJ ,U m 01 E E Q) 01 => If) c!2' .0 -.!l :b- 0 01 en E 0 o ro' u I-..J' " 'jail:
,0:: '~ 0 0 a: a. ........9.! ::I' ~ C3 u Z .0 i6 ti ~mQ;!Q
W ~ .2 u W ..., J: 11'I ..c; C III 'C CJ) 'Ill;: 1 ::' ' ,
...J ..c; ...J ~ '0 3:, m ..L. '= .>t!. !Jl Q) 01 Z .!!l .. S! ~IU
f/) ~ 01 .g ::2; .0 2 - C QI
- t: '@ .:( 01 (I) .... ~ ~)(5) ~ <ID ~@@(l)~ a. .=, Q 0 ...001 a.
0 ::I .:(
(0 "'" ;:l "0 u Z .& 1= J: ::2; ::E ..J tc W 0 en I- U /-en<.:)en
\00 IV c: tc Z l/) :s :)a:', ....
......
IV .... C C1l w ig~GB~ u J I <C (I), Ii
c'(/) 'Z ::2;~~ID :J ~;~~ ~ ~~~'~ t I f
01 ::2; Hii ':.: '4 ~ I
ro" ~. ::.~:i :~:~~ } ~ - .
IV m m " . W'C'~ <
:5 IV o ...' " ~~~r . I ,
C)~ u 1m :::: ~ "" ,.:~~ : G J t , I
.J CL I
"
.,'.
rMM_MM-'MM_MM_M__, _r-....--M-'l1
III <( L..--....--.... \\
II
I LlJ ;1
i a:
I <(
I
,..--...-.......-..----....--..__...---J
I >-
\ 0
\ ::)
\ ~
\
\ LlJ
\ 0:
\ ~
\ ::)
i1~ LL
~,.....
8~
~,i
i\
\
\ ,
\\?5~" "T"---"
\ ~ \ i
I
I I
I
I
I
I
w (I)
'0: Q)
...
::> (.)
<(
I- 0>
-" e<:i (I) ,..,...
::J '<:t Q) >-
,...... ... .0
0 C\J c.> VI
~ 0
...
0:
CD
<(
--
--
.:" "..
,.tJ., .
:~.~,i.~.\, ':; ~
, '
, .
.
.
.
......
c
...... 0
c 'iij
o III
'u; a
a.a
~ 2
III .!!!
_ a.
.!!! E
a. 0
E u
8 .2
l5 -
- ><
QI
~ -;;;
- 1Il
:013
::: .:(
......a.
~ .:(
llfIl-5
~ -i
~..
0.1.. -
m. m
~ -:-~
0:
'f.J'
'_~ u
:ii. ,I;
F:.~
~~ c
~ 'E
:r, 2!
L"J 01
'':I -0
1Il e
c 01
c ..c
..!!! ~
a.
.0 III
:>-, 2
0'5
1') ,g
2 01
,~ .:(
E iii
1Il QI
0:<
Q, >.
.0'0
>. :J
1\I -
E en
- Q)
,~ ~
lii u.
E 0
E -
o t:
(.) ~
- C
ro 0
Q) U
C'S
c;~
* *
*
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
(S 10) 839-8383
FAX 839-8415
December 20, 1995
~s
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SITUATION
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS . ,
FACILITIES COST. , . , , . , . . , . . . . . ,
FEE LEVELS ,..... ' . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES - . . .
IV
IV
......_....._...........V
_................... _. VI
--..-..-..-..-,.-..-.............-. ~
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . - . . - , . - . . - . , - . . - I-I
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA . - - . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . - 1-2
FEE DETERMINATION _. _ , . . . . _ , . _ , . _ . . _ . . - -..... - . . . ' . . . . . ' . . . - .. 1-3
CHAPTER II
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION, . . , . . . ' , . .
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS. . .
POPULA TION AND EMPLOYMENT . . . .
. _ , . _ . . _ . . _ , _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . ' . . _ II-I
. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2
. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . _ . II-5
CHAPTER III
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . ' . _ . .. ...... - . . - . . - . . . . . . - . . . IIl-1
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS _.....,..'. - . . - . . - . . . . . . . . - . . - . . III-3
PARK COSTS . . _ . . ' , . . . . , _ . . _ . . ' . . ' . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . 1II-6
COST ALLOCATION. . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . _ . . - . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . IIl-9
CHAPTER IV
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ..' _ _. -.. -. -.. -... -.. -.. -. IV-I
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . , . - , . . . . - . . - . . - - . . - IV-2
COST ALLOCATION. . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . - . . . . . . . . . . , . . - . . . . . . . . . . IV-5
CHAPTER V
LIBRARIES
EXISTING :\ND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . - . . - . . - . . . . V-I
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT NEEDS. . . - . . . . . . - . . - V-2
COST ALLOCATION _, . _ . . . . _ _.. _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . ' . - . . . . . - . . - . . . . . - - . . V-5
Recht Ha7lsrath & Assoc;;ates
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIhlill Facilities Fee Stln(1'
TaMe (?( Contents
CHAPTER VI
CIVIC CENTER
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . - . . . . , . - ,
COST ALLOCATION. - . . -. , - . . .. - .. .. , . . .. . .
.. .. VI-l
_ . _ . VI-2
CHAPTER VII
CALCULATION OF FEES AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENT A TION
SUJ\1J\1AR Y OF COSTS . . . . . . . , . . . . . ., .,. - . . . . . . . . ' VII-l
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE. ' . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . - . . . - . .. VII-2
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION....... _.. _... ......'... -,..'" VlI-3
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND
QUIMBY ORDINANCE. . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . .
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES
. . - . . - . . -. -.. - . . . - . . . . . .
_ _ . . A-I
. _ . . A-2
. . . . . . . . - . . - . . - . . . - . .
Recht Ha7lsrath & Associates
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SlJl\1l\1ARY
SITUA TION
The City of Dublin is planning for extensive growth 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 forth 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.
DEVELOP1\IENT PROJECTIONS
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 Hallsrath & Associates
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Duhlin Facilities Fee Stll(~.l'
Executive SlIJ11J11G1Y
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 t~lcilities 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 growth are shown in Table 3 For the facilities covered under the fee
program, cost of growth will total $84.8 million
The neighborhood and cOl1lmunityparks requirements are 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. 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 oftices 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.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L!
Duhlin Facilities Fee Stlld)'
!:~'(eclltive Summary
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 community. 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 $6.394 million.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
VI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
Table 1
Development Projections
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
1994 Growth 2025
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 ~ 2.948
Total 8,143 103 8,246
Dublin Citywide
Single Family 5,327 3,869 9,196
Multiple Family ~ 10.070 ~
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 J...lZQ 1.370
Total 0 9,737 9,737
Remainder of City
Commercial 1,818 455 2,273
Office 962 208 1,170
Industrial 783 z.2. ill
Total 3,563 692 4,255
Dublin Citywide
Commercial 1,818 4,870 6,688
Office 962 4,160 5,122
Industrial 783 U22. llR
Total 3,563 10,429 13,992
Source: State Dep8rtment ofFinanoe; City ofDubI~ Eastern Dubli" Ge""ral Plan Amendme"t, Eastern Dubll" Spec/j1c Pia" (1-7-94); Roehl
Hausrath &. Auociatcs.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
vii
I
Dublill Facilitil!s Fee S'tl/((I' ExeclItive SUnTnTm)l
I
I
I
I
I
I T1,ble 2
I Summary of Resident and Employee Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
i I
RESIDENTS
Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460
I Rest of City 23,500 230 23,730
City Total 23,660 32,530 56,190
I EMPLOYEES
Eastern Dublin 0 26,200 26,200
Rest of City 10,000 1.800 11.800
I City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000
Source: Cit\' of Dublin. Eastcrn /)/11>1;11 ,""flcd/ic 1'1(/1/ (1-7-9./): Rcchtl-lUll~ruth & A~~ociutes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht Hausrath & Associates VIII
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Duhlin Facilities Fee StllJy
Table 3
Facilities Costs of Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total
East Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
Aquatic Center
Total
Total Costs of Gr'owth
Citywide Costs
East Dublin Costs
Total
Source: Cit\' or Dublin: Recht Huusruth & Associutes.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
ExeclItil'e SlIl1ll1lOl}'
Costs of Growth I
$25,969,000
15,263,000
12,060,000
6,777,000
445,000
$60,514,000
$14,550,000
7,682,000
2,1 00,000
$24,332,000
$60,514,000
24,332.000
$84,846,000
ix
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
! 0; e II) - \0 11)1 I' e 0 11)1 II) I'II)IN
'fj ooOM\O 00 ~ ~ 00 0'\
~ - - M M M
.g ~ ~ ~ ~
g. oS
rn
0
8"
.....
~ ~ 00 00 0'\ 0 NIl' 00 NIN I' NIO'\
OM\OII)-l' ~ -- 1'-00
-vN - 00 ~ 00 00
J! ~ ~ ~ ~
0;"
.~
] 0; o M \0 I' \01 N o 0 \01 \0 N \0100
1 'g -NMI' II) ~ ~ II) II)
0; u ~- ~ ~ ~
J ~
u
.,g~ \0 N N 0 NI N o \0 \01 N N ~~-v
c.'~ _M_II)NM OI'NO MO M
>-. ',;1 '<:t~ 00 I' M M~ O'\'<:t-II) Mlt'loo
'8 ~t>. ~ ~ M~ - '<:t~
lU"O - M -
c...a :> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~tI) " till
].5
S ~l
'liI'~~
~ ;J ~ ... Cl ~.e \0 - 0'\ 0 It'll - o N NI-v _ ~~It'l
.... ""'C ..... ~ ~ \OMM\OMM '<:t\OOO MOM
,.Cl=S C. .5 '5 NM-It'l M -vI'N-V M-Vl'
~ tIS. 8 rnt>. N~ -~ -~ .n _~ N~ II)~ N l'~
....:l ~ (fl (fl (fl ~ (fl (fl
~~ t>.
lU~
lU.!:J
~ ='
0
Recht Hausrath & Associates
v.l
5
5
;>
"0 e
a s- v.l
....:l_ ~
v.l~ v.l~:.a
~~-
~ ;'3
~~~
~~~ ~
'2 '2'2 v.l 5
i ~ ~ ~'5 ~ ]
~ E E E .....- 0
,t> 0 0 0:S.~ E-<
.... U U U ....:l U
U
v.l
5
~
"0 e
= c..
:!.E
Ji ~~
....;;
-~~....
= "0 "0 lU
000....
005
.S! -e -e u
- 0 0
,.Cl .D ..Q .,g ";j
~~~(lSo
.....- =' L..o
..... lU lU 0" L'
;zz<
~
v.l
c; 1;)
~~8
L' 0 =
=U:=
:=lU.D
~~6'3
Q ~1;; 0
..... ,-:: . ~ ~
;u~
~
~
'8
'"
<
dd
~
~
:c
~
j
x
I
DIIh/ill Fl/Cilities Fee St/l(~\' E\-eclItive SIII11/J1at)/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Table 5
Summary of Existing Deficit
I Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Parks $ 1 , 199,000
I Community Buildings 4,840,000
Libraries 355,000
Total $6,394,000
I Annually, 1995-2025 $213,100
I Source: Rechl Hausflllh & Associales
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht HOllsralh & Associates xi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER I
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
1-1
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DIIh/ill Facilities Fee Stl/((I'
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 cOllnties 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, sllch as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal
fee programs are comprehensive, requiring developers to pay for aU additions to municipal
facilities needed to accommodate new development. The facilities which are the subject of this
analysis are (1) 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 dowment 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 nmd 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
Recht Hallsrath & Associutcs
/-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Duhlin Facilities Fee St/IL(I'
('hapter /
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 DETERIVIINA 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
new development.
New Development Prrdections
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required
to serve growth. The Eastertl !Juhlin (;eneral Plan AmellJmellt and the EaSfertl Duhlin .\jJec!fic
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
Western 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 ofa 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 amoun~ of parks needed is therefore a function of the level of growth. For the remaining
Recht Ha/lsrath & Associates
/-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
])1Ih1ill Facilities Fee Stlf(/J'
Chapter J
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 New 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 pOl1ion 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 particular type of development.
Recht Hallsrafh ct- Associates
/-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 tenns of acres and numbers of dwelling units or square
feet of commercial/industrial 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 nonnal 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
II-J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter 1/
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 developabIe 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 ofthe City.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
1/-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table 11.1
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 ~
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 lJ1Q
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 1.399 2.182
Total 3,563 10,429 13,992
Source: State Department of Finance; City ofOublm; EQ8/ern Dubli" GBMral Plan A",end",e",., EQ8/ern Dubli"
S1JBCtfic Pia" (1-7-94); Recht H8ustl1th &: Aaociates.
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
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,
rougWy 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 9,131,000 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 n.l are rougWy 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
/I-4
Recht Hausrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
(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.
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 11.2. The numbers shown
represent averages across the potential tenants of the type of space indicated, and include
vacanCIes.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-5
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table ll.2
Occupant Densities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Occupant Density
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
Multiple Familyl
3.2 Persons/Unit
2.0
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRlAL
Commercial
Office
Industrial
505 Sq.Ft./Employee
260
590
Source: State Department of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment; Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (1.7-94); Recht Hausrath &
Associates.
Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Table 2A; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Table n.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 residents, 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 Hausrath & Associates
II-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table 11.3
Summary of Resident and Employee Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
1994 Growth 2025
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 1 1.800
City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000
Source: City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
DEFINmONS AND TERMS
As used herein, residential land uses are defined as follows: single family refers to all types of
detached housing; multiple family refers to attached housing types, including apartments,
townhomes, and duplexes. Non~residentialland uses are defined below.
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; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug
stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise
stores; hardware stores; home furnishing and improvement centers; hotels/motels; laundromats;
liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters.
Office land 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.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
II-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter //
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.
Industrial land uses are defined as those uses ofland for the manufacture, 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 Planning Director will determine which of these categories
the use fits under taking into consideration the existing definitions and the land use.
//-8
Recht Hausrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER III
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES
The City of Dublin owns II parks totaling 165 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 oflocal age groups and interests. The park
improvements are oriented toward 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 Ill. I. 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
Spec(jic Plall and the Eastem Dublin General Plall AmellJmellf (GP A) 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 258.5 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
llI-l
Recht Hallsrafh & Associates
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study Chapter III
I
I
I Table IILl
Existing Parks
I Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Park Acreage
I Community Parks
Dougherty Hills. 4.00
Dublin Sports Grounds / Civic Center 35.00
I Dublin Swim Center 3.00
Heritage Center 5.00
I Senior Center 0.25
Shannon Park 10.00
Total 57.25
I Neighborhood Parks
Alamo Creek 8.00
I Dolan Park 5.00
Kolb Park 5.00
Mape Park 3.00
I Stagecoach Park 0.75
i Total 21.75
I SchooI/Park Facilities
Dublin Elementary 9
Dublin High School 4
I Fredriksen Elementary 4
Murray Elementary 7
Nielsen Elementary 6
I Wells Middle School 2
Total 36
I Total Existing Parks 115
.Includes only developable acreage for active park use.
I Source: City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan; Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan
I
I
I Recht Hausrath & Associates III-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter 111
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 of 23,660 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 (?fDublin
Parks & Recreation 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 Recreation 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
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
111-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D/lh/ill Facilities Fee St/l((1'
( 'hapter J l!
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 \vay 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 111.2
New Development Park Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Population
Acres per
1,000
Residents
Acres
Needed
Neighborhood (Eastern
Dublin Only)
32,300
1.5
48.5
Community (Citywide)
32,530
3.5
113.9
Total
162.4
Source: City or Dublin, 1~'lIs11!1'J/ f)/lhlill Gellaull'/lIlI .-lll/el/(tll/elll: E'uSlenl nuhlin
.'i/led/ic I'tllll (1-7 -l)~): Recht H(lusf(lth & Associ(ltes.
Park use by employees was addressed in a 1992 survey of persons employed in nearby
PIeasanton. I The survey presented estimates of resident and non-resident employee park visits per
week, thus offering an indication of how local residency affects employee park use. Visits
measured include weekly 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 Pl(lnning. Systems, A,I/(drsis (!!'t!te Cif)' ojPlellsulllOlIl<ec/,euliolllll/(/.)/w/,ts Su/'vey, June
19Y2
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
111-../
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIh/ill Facilities Fee Stl/(..(I'
Chapter III
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.
Resident 0.511 Weekl\} "isits "'? c"'O fJ ',1 16600 TP kl U'
. = J X -'_,.U \estuents = , n1ee y y [sits
Demalld I<esidellt
Employment _ O. 145 Week~r f,'isits
!Jemand - x 28,000 Employees == 4,060 Weeky l'isits
Fmplnyee
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 III.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 Hallsrath & Associates
111-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Duhlin FaciliNes Fee StllL(r
('hapter 11/
Table 111.3
Community Park Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Residents
Employees
Service
Population (I)
New Development
32,530
28,000
36,700
( I) C<lll1lllul1i\y parks S<:I'\'I<.T p<lpul<ltiol1 <:quals r<:sid<:l1\S plus 15'V., or t:l1lploy<:cs,
Source: Recht Hausralh & Associ,IIC'S
P ARK 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 land values 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
11/-6
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f)1Ih1ill Facilities Fee .\'t/f((I'
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 IlIA 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 111.4
Community Park Land Cost
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community
Park Acres
Cost per
Acre
Medium to High Density
Rural Residential
Total/Average
137
46
183
$300,000
12,000
$228,000
Sourcc: /:'US/('I'II /)lIhlill ,\/)('d/h' J'hm: Rccht ]'lallsrath & ^ssociales
JII-7
Recht HOllsrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f)/fblill Facilities Fee Stln~r
Chapta III
Land values presented 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 I1I.S 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 furnished 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 1115
Park Costs
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Neighborhood
Parks( I )
Community
Parks
Total
Land
Acres Required
Land Cost per Acre
Total Land Cost
113.9
$228.000
$25,969,000
48.5
$300,000
$14,550,000
$40,519,000
Improvements
Acres Required
Improvement Cost per Acre
Total Improvement Cost
113.9
$134,000
$15,263,000
48.5
$158.400
$7,682,000
$22,945,000
Total Park Cost
$22,232,000
$41,232,000
$63,464,000
(I) Neighhorhood parks to scrn; Eastem Duhlin only.
Source: City of Duhlin: Rccht I.JuuSntlh 8:: Associates
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
III -8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dlfhlill Facilities Fee Stm(1'
('hapter III
COST ALLOCATION
Table III.6 shows the calculation of park costs allocated to residents. The costs are detailed
for land and improvements 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 provided 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 $] ,8] 2 per resident if both neighborhood and
community parks are added together.
Recht Halfsrath & Associati!s
11/-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIhlill F'clci!ities Fee ,\'t/l((l'
Chapter III
Tahle 111.6
Park Costs per Resident
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Neighborhood Community
Parks Parks Total
Land
Land Cost $14,550,000 $25,969,000
Service Population ( I ) 31.300 36,700
Cost per Person $450 $708 $1,158
I III pl'o\'emen ts
Improvement Costs $7,682,000 $15,163,000
Service Population (I) 32.300 36,700
Fee Cost Person $238 $416 $654
Total Cost pel' Resident $688 $1,124 $1,812
(1) Nc\\' de\'dol'lll\:lll s\:f\'ic\: pOl'1I1lllioll. NeighhorhooJ purk Sl;:f\.jcc pOpll\Ulioll upplil;:s to
Euslelll Duhlill n:silkllliu\ gnl\\'lh olll~', Commullily purk seryi.::c l'opululioll upplics
cily\\'ide und cqlluls rcsidcllls pills 15 pcr,::clll or employees.
Source: Cil\' of Duhlin; R,'chl HUllsrath & Associales
Community park costs are also allocated to commercial and industrial land uses according to
employment. Table III.7 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 Hallsrath & Associates
IJl-IO
I DlIhlill Facilities Ft.:e Stl/((r Chapter /II
I
Table 111.7
I Community Park Cost per Employee
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Cost per Employee Cost per
Person Wei~ht Employee
I Land $708 15% $106
Improvements 416 15% 62
Total $1,124 $168
I
Snurct: Rccht I I:nlsrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht Ha/lsrath & Associutc!s 1/I-1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER IV
COMMUNITY 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, a\llocated 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,1
Existing and Proposed Community and Recreation Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Building I
Square Feet .
Existing Facilities
Community Center
Senior Center
Aquatic Center
Total
12,178
6,600
-NA-
18,778
Proposed Facilities
Community Center
Recreation Center
Community Theater
Senior Center (1 )
Aquatic Center
Total
28,000
35,000
16,000
5,400
-NA-
84,400
Build-out Total
103,178
(I) Exisling senior cenh:r is \0 be repluced with Iht:
propost:d nt:\\' fucility \oluling 12,000 squure ft:d.
Spuce shown is net uJdilioll,
SOllln': Cit \' or Duhlin/'(/rk (/11t1 geCTmliol1 M(lSler 1'/(111.
IV-J
Recht Hausrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIhlin Facilities Fee Stl/(!I'
Chapter /V
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 Plan.
Building space is summarized in the top portion of Table IV I. 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 pOl1ion 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
citywide perspective is taken for allocation of community buildings costs to new development.
Activities taking place at a particular building can benetit residents and employees citywide,
regardless of the specific location of their place ofresidence 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 IY.2 shows
service population for the existing city growth from new development and build-out. New
development is further 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.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
/V-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIhlin Facilities Fee 5;tlldy
Chapter IV
Table IV.2
Community Centers Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Residents
Service
Emplovees Population( I )
Existing
23,660
10,000
24,200
New Development
Eastern Dublin
Remainder of City
Total
32,300 26,200 33,600
230 1.800 300
32,530 28,000 33,900
56,190 38,000 58,100
Build-out Total
(1) Community Ct:Iltcrs sen.jce populatioIl equals n:siJcnts plus 5'y" of emplo~'ees.
Source: Cit\' of Dublin: Recht Hausrath & Associates
Table IV.3 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 and Recreatiof/ Muster Flail 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 103,178 square feet as shown in the top half of
Table IV. 3 . Compared with the citywide projected service population of 58, 100 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 Hausrath & Associates
IV-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l)llhlill Facilities Fee SI1{(~)'
('hapter IV
Table IV.3
Community Buildings Service Standards and New Development Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Service Standard
Community Building SqFt,
Build-out Service Population ( I )
Service Standard
103,178
58,100
1.78
SqFI
Persons
Sq.FI per Person
New Development Facility Demand
Service Population Growth ( I )
Service Standard
Requirement to Serve Growth
33,900
1.78
60,300
Persons
Sq. Ft. per Person
SqFI.
( I) Comlllunit\ Centers sC!,\'lec P"Pulalion equa Is rcsiJcnls plus )'1., or employees.
Source: ('il\' or Dublin: Rl'cht H;lusralh & Assodales
The total cost of community facilities to serve growth is calculated in Table IV.4. 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 Hallsrath & Assoc;;utes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D/lhlin Facilitll.!.\' Fee Stl/(!I'
('hapter IV
Table IV.4
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 Center Cost
$2, I 00,000
Total Facilities Cost
$14,160,000
ll) Comlllunity l\:nll:rS sl:r\'il:c population equals rl:siJenls
plus S"Y"~ or l:lllplo~'cl:S.
Source: Citl' of Dublin; Recht Hausralh & Associates
COST ALLOCATION
Table IV.S allocates the cost impacts for community buildings and aquatic centers to residents and
employees. The community buildings cost of $12 06 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
$2.1 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 Ha/lsrafh & Associates
IV-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIhlill Facilities Fee S/l/(~I'
Table IV.5
Community Facilities Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Commul1lty
Buildings
(Citywide)
Cost per Resident
Total Cost
Service Population Growth ( I )
Cost Per Resident
Cost per Employee
Employee Weight
Cost per Employee
Chapter IV
Aquatic Center
(Eastern Dublin Only)
$12,060,000
33,900
$356
5%
$18
(I) C'onul1unity l\:nl<:r'; ,;<:n'je<: PllPulation <:quals r<:siJenls plus s'y" or ~mplll~'ccs.
Source: Ci1\' or Dublin; R('chi Hausrath & Associates
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
$2, 100,000
33,600
$63
5%
$3
IV-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 15,000-square-foot library opened in 1979
and was financed by General Obligation Bonds. The site of the Library is owned by the County
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 in 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 volumes. An expansion of 7,000 square
feet is proposed for the existing facility, though no corresponding increase in volumes is
Table V.l
Library Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Building
Sq.Ft.
Volume, I
Existing
15,000
83,000
Proposed
Expansion of Existing
East Dublin Library
Total
7,000
20,000
27,000
o
40.000
40,000
Build-out Total
42,000
123,000
Source: City or Dublin: Recht Hausrath & Associules
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
V-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIhlin Facilities Fee Stlldy
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 hOllse the majority of the volumes
maintained in the City As \vith the existing library, the new building will be constructed and
stocked using local funds 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 further
description of these facilities, refer to the Uhrm)' Planning Task Force Report (April 1993).
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NE\V DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
A cityv,ride 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 library 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 Hal/srath & Associates
V-2
I D/fblin Facilities Fee StllL(r Chapter V
I
1 TalJll'V.2
Resident and Employee Library Benetits
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Benefit Units Build-out Total
per Resident Residents Benefit Relative to
I' or Employee or Employees Units Residential
I Residcntinl (I) 0.300 56,190 16,900 100%
Co III III cl'ci a I & IlIllust1'ial
1 Commercial 0,104 13,200 1,400
Ot1ice (2) 0.107 19,700 2,100
Industrial (3) 0.067 5,100 300
I 1 Total 38,000 3,800 22%
! ,
I 1) Bcnclils per resident repn.:s..:IllS an aWWg,..: or sing,k allllmultipk I;nllil~' units,
I 2) The non-rcluil business ealL'g,ory from lh..: Sallla l'liml slud~' is applied 10 olliee uses.
J) The IrUllsportaliolllllld lIIilili..:s eak!!-"ry frlllll IlK' Santa l'1,lra sludy is appli..:d hI induslrialus..:s,
.
I Source: Sanla Cliu'u ClInnl\. I ,ihrar\' 1f<'1I<,/il.I.U('HIII,'III,IIItI!I's;s: R..:chll.liIllsrath & Assllciates.
I
I 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht Ha/fsrath & Associates V-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f)/lh/ill Fix:ilities Fee .'\'tllc(r
('hapter V
Tahle V.3
Library Service Population, 2025
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
\ Residents Employees Total (I) I
Existing 23,660 10,000 25,900
New development 32,530 28.000 38,700
Total 56,190 38,000 64,600
(I) l.ihrar.. sCf\'icc popula\ion ..:quals rcsiJcn\s plus 22'10, of cmployees.
Source; Cil\' of Duhlin: Rl'dll Hausralh & Assol'iml's
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 buiId-
out population of 64,600 persons, including residents and weighted employees, the per person
standards are projected to be 0,65 square feet of library building space and 1.90 volumes. New
development is projected to add 38,700 persons. As shown in the bottom half of the table, the
resulting demand associated with growth equals 25,200 square feet of building space and 73,500
volumes.
V-4
Recht HOllsrath & Associotes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D/lhlill Facilities Fee Stl{(~r
Chapter V
T.lble V.4
Library Service Standards
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Buildings Volumes I
Senrice Standard
Sq.Ft. or Volumes 42,000 123,000
Build-out Service Population ( I ) 64,600 64,600
Service Standard 0.65 Sq.FI. per 190 V oJ limes per
I '<.:rson Person
New Development Facility Demand
Service Population Growth 38,700 38,700
Service Standard 0.65 1.90
Requirements to Serve Growth 25,200 Sq.Ft. 73,500 V o!umes
(I) Library sCITice population cqtwls rcsiJcnls plus 22'% of employees.
Source: Cil\' of Dublin: Recht Hausralh & Associalt's
Cost of the library requirements to serve 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 Ha7lsrath & Associates
V-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dllh/ill Facilities Fee .";tl1l(l'
Table V,5
Library Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Lilll"ary Buildings
Square Feet Required
Cost per Square Foot (I)
Building Cost
Volumes
Volumes Required
Cost per Volume
V olume Cost
Library Total Cost
('hapter V
25,200
$196
$4,939,000
73,500
$25
$1,838,000
$6,777,000
(1) Cost p.:r squur.: tilot is \\.:ig.hted a\'erag.e or the proposed
expansion or the existing library and the l)l::\\' Eastem Dublin
library. (:osts include rumishings.
Source: City or Dublin: Recht J-1ausruth & Associutes
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 Ha/lsrath & Associates
V-6
I DlIblin Facilities fi:(' ''''tllL(1' ('hapter V
I Table V.6
I Library Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Fee per Resident
Total Cost $6,777,000
I Service Population Growth ( I ) 38.700
Fee Per Resident $175
I Fee per Employee
Employee Weight 22%
Fee per Employee $39
I t I ) Libwry sen'ice popululion weighls residenls ul 100
percenl ,Illd employees ul 22 percen\.
I Sou rce : Cil\' of Dublin; Rechl Hausrath & Associales
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht Ha1fsrath &- Associates V-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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. 1. As described in the Civic
Center Programming Document approved by the City Council in November 1986, the Civic
Center building was sized 10 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
$58.00
$265,600
104,400
$75,000
$445,000
(I) Existing space tigure includes unimpnwed urea in adminislrati\'e und police wings.
Source: City of Existing space tigure includes unimpfO\'ed area in administmti\'e winp..
Recht Halfsrath & Associatt.!,"
VI-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dlfhlil1 FClcilities Fee StllJy
Chapter VI
New development will be charged only for the costs of the additional improvements required to
serve growth These are also shown in Table VI, 1. 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. Seryice 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
t I) Ci\'ie Center ser\'iee populution equllls resiJents plus 25";', of
employees.
Source: City of Duhlin; Recht H,IUSr:lIh & Associates
Civic Center costs are allocated to service population in Table V1.3. 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
V/-2
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
I
Duh/iJ/ Facilities Fee Stlldy Chapter VI
I
Table VI.3
I Civic Center Cost per Person
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Facilities Cost (I) $445,000
New Development Service Population (2) 39.500
I Cost per Resident $11
Employee Weight 25%
I Cost per Employee $3
I ( I ) Indud<:s r<:nO\'allons or aJminislWliw and polic<: wings.
(2) Ci\'ic C<:nler s<:r\'ice population equals resiJ<:nls plus 25'1., or
<:1l1plo~.<:"'s,
I Source: Cil\' oj" Dublin: Recht HaUsrnlh & Associnlcs
, I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht Hausrath & Associates VI-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER VII
CALCULA TION OF FEES AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
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 retlecting 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.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Table VII. 1 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 $24.3 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.
Recht Hausrath &- Associates
VIl-l
I
Duhlill Facilities Fee Stl/(I.y Chapter VII
I
I Table VII, I
Summary of Costs to Serve Growth
I Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Costs to Cost per Cost per
I.. Serve Growth Resident Employee
Citywide
Community Parks, Land $25,969,000 $708 $106
I Community Parks, Improvements 15,263,000 416 62
Community Buildings 12,060,000 356 18
Libraries 6,777,000 175 39
I Civic Center 445.000 11 ....
J.
Total $60,514,000 $1, 666 $228
I East Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $14,550,000 $450 0"
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 7,682,000 238 0
I Aquatic Center 2,100,000 63 1
Total $24,332,000 $751 $3
I East Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $60,514,000 $1, 666 $228.
I East Dublin Costs 24.332.000 751 J.
Total $84,846,000 $2,417 $231
i I Source: Rechl Hausralh & Associale~
,
I
I COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE
I Costs per resident and employee are extended to land use types in Table VII.3. Occupant
I densities, persons per residential unit or employees per 1,000 square feet, are shown in the top
row. These 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.
I
Citywide fees per unit are $5,331 for single family and $3,332 for multiple family units. Eastern
I Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center which
I Recht Hal1srath & Associates VII-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter VII
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 1,000 square feet for commercialfmdustrial uses.
Fees calculated in this report apply directly to the cost of facilities. The City may further add the
costs of administering the fee program, including the costs of justification studies, periodic
updates and staff time devoted to fee collection.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend that the City undertake annual and longer.tenn (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-tenn 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 personneI, 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.
The City anticipates that the public facilities fees will be collected at time of building permit
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
VII.3
Recht Hausrath & Associates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Duh/in Facifities Fee Stll(~1'
Chapter VII
addressed, the fees will be collected at the time of building permit 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 of facility will be collected in a separate trust account, 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 owners at the time of refund ((]overnmelll Code
Section 60001 (4)(e)).
RELATIONSHIP BET\VEEN PARK FACILITIES
FEE PROGRAl\1 AND QUIl\1BY ORDINANCE
As discussed in Chapter III (page III ,6), the City has adopted an ordinance (Dubfill MlIllicipaf
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 ofland
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.
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 permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel ofland has already been charged with a
Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the City would need to deduct 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
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
/17/--1
I
I
I
I
I..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D/lh/in Facilities Fee .\'tlli-~I'
('hapter VII
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 Dublin, 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 VI!.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 intill areas Thus, in calculating the facilities
impact fees levied under (jol'emlllent Code Section 66000, the neighborhood park component is
excluded for infill areas.
Recht HOllsrath & Associates
1"11-5
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D/lhlin Facilities Fee Stl/((I'
Chapter nJ
Table VIl.2
Park Impact Fee per Single Family Residence
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Eastern Dublin Development
Dedicate Park Pay Park Land Infill
Community Park LandI $0 $2,266 $2,266
Community Park Improvements 1,331 1,331 1,331
Neighborhood Park Landi 0 1,440 -NA-
Neighborhood Park Improvements 762 762 -NA-
Total $2,093 $5,799 $3,597
I Assumes the"umou111 or the (,,>uill1h~' Act Ice per.\ t/lllicipa/ Cnd" Ch(lpler 9.28 is equ(l1 to the puhlic
tacilities fee.
Source: Recht H(lusruth & Associ:ltes
Recht Hausrath & Associates
f
V/I-6
I DlIhlin Facilities Fee Stll(~l' Chapter VII
I
I T11ble Vn.3
I Example Fee Calculations Including Park Dedication
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
.
I
Lash:rn Dublin Lastell1 Dublin In1'ill De\'dopment [nrill D~\'dopment
I :--iingk hllni!\ llnit Multi Fmni!\' lJnit Single Famil\' Unit Multi Fmnil\' Unit
I Community Parks. Land $2.2(,(, $1.-11(, $2,2(,(, $1,416
Conu11lmity Parks, Impro\'em~'nts 1,:;:;1 X:>2 1):>1 832
I Conununity Buildings 1,139 712 1,139 712
Libraries 5(,0 350 560 350
I Ci\'ic Cc:nter :>5 22 35 22
N~ighborhood I'arks, I.and 1...j..jO l)()O 0 0
:
: I N~ighhorh(l(ld Parks.
Impro\'em~nts 762 ..j7(i 0 0
Aquatic Center 202 126 0 0
I Total Fees Due S7,735 S",83-1 S5,331 $3,332
Dedicate Park Land
I COITU11Unity Parks, Land <2.2(,(,> <IAI6> <2,266> <1,416>
Neighhorhood Parks. Lund <I.-I..j()> <l)()()> <0> <0>
Total Fees Due $-1,029 $2,518 S3,065 $1,916
I
S""fe~: Roeht l-Iml<fnth & ..\.""ei,IIC'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht HOllsrath & As.\'()ciutes V71-7
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~~
<I.la
::>tI)
"0
... fa 8
t::L."~ ~
;> >-. :3
.0 .-
~u~
"Q ~.-
. ~ ~
E-4t)~
aSji
Q...o
.5 :::l
Q
~
'" ~
~
:J i
] VJ
o
1 ~.
] g,
1 ~
iil
'g
~
u
iil
'~
.g
'r;;
~
g,~
1il..9
80,
J3
u >- -.
wi ''!
.S:a M
VJ~
~l
~'r;;
u~
1 ~
:9
o 11"\ - \0 11"\1 r--
OOOM\O oc
;;- ~
8 ~
8 N
00 00 0\ 0 NI r--
OM\OII"\-r--
vN - GO
~ (,19
iil ~
"I ~
u
o M \0 t"- \01 N
-NMt"- V)
N- ...
~ (,19
\0 N 00 0\ MI GO
O\O-M N
_ N
~ (,19
\0 N N 0 NI N
-M-II"\N('I")
v~ 00 t"- M ~
~
-
~
\0 - 0\ 0 11"\1 .....
\OMM\OM('I")
N~M~-~II"\ ~
N-- V)
~ (,19
00 \0 \0 11"\ -I IooC>
O_II"\t"--1ooC>
t"-VM- IooC>
~ ..
.-
(,19
o 0 11"\1 V)
(,19
00 NIN
- .....
(,19
o 0 \01 IooC>
(,19
o 0 MI~
o \0 \01 N
Ot"-NC
O\v-V)
~ ..
.-
(,19
ON NI"lI'
v\OO=
vt"-N"lI'
.....: N
~ (,19
o 00 MI .-
II"\M\OV)
~N t;
<I.l
5
~
"0 8
c:: Q..
;3.5
t"- II"\IN
00 0'\
M ('I")
(,19
rti
u
i
t"- NI 0\ ...,
t"--OC-g
00 GO..
(,19 0=
~ '" ~ i
Chapter VII
f
;.
00 MI - tlD
~ a~
'73
.8
~
N N~'" bl)
~ ~ ~ .$
M~-.;g
~ (,I9,.C
lB
_v~V) 2.2:
M 0 ('I") ; ~
MVr-- "'u
II"\~ N r: I!! n
~ (,I9J!j5.
~Ji
11"\ MI GO '8-1
t"-\o('I")o=
_ N_
~ (,19 U
i5.lI'.I
.~ 6
'En
~'~
J(~
g~
,.C ....
"8~
il
~ ~ ~
i~ '~
=a ~ :
,g... -B
~'i ~
2.... ~
~ ~... ...
tl -5
~ 8. ~
~~
<I.l
-=
e
~
"0 e
c:: Q..
j..s ~ rA<I.l~
<I.l~ <I.l~.Ei ~ JlIll <I.l
M ~~:g ~<<S la c; th
.e ;;;; 'S = ~ ~.... - <I.l 0
~ ~~l:Q .... O-g"8~ ~Su
~ ~.e-~ ~ =..8..8u~ =uji
~ '13 '8'8 <I.l c:: ::........ :: ~.o
_~3:::l:::l~U~-"Qoou-"Q"O:::l-
5i "'Cl e e E'c .5 = ~ ~ '';:: .5 =.~ Q .5
Q..'!-"'EeEe,u=~bObO~=~ -=
Boo o:5!.E E-4 .., 'CiS'CiS C" E-4 ..,.... ; E-4
u .... U U U ~ U = Z Z ..( = U ~
ou fi;;l fi;;l
Recht Hausrath & Associates
~,.e. 0
.g-'~ N
-:... ~~
'E ,..:;
~ ;:,
;:J ts
0,
] 8
~~ i
c~ VJ
VII-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODlJCTION
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 (Go)'emmellt ('oJe 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 [acillities
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, i.e., to correct an existing deficiency. Otherwise, the City would effectively shift
funding of an existing deficiency to new development paying the fees,
This appendix identifies 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 financed through revenue bonds or certificates of
particiation.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
A-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DlIhlill Facilities Fee SI1/(~1'
Appendix A
CALCtJLA TION OF DEFICIENCIES
Table A I 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 terms 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. lIS 18,778 15,000
Service Population (I ) 23,660 24,200 25,900
Existing Standard 4.86 0.78 0.58
Desired Standard 5.00 1.78 0.65
Deficit from Standard 0.14 1.00 0.07
Required to Cure Deficit
Deficit from Standard 0.14 100 0.07
Service Population 23,660 24,200 25,900
Acres or Sq.Ft. Required 3.31 24,200 1,813
Cost per Acre or Sq. Ft. $362.000 $200 $196
Total Cost $1 , I 99,000 $4,840,000 $355,000
(I) Community buildings unu lihr,lril:s sl:f\'il:l: l'oj1111utiollS illdlld~ l:mployees weighted at 5'Y., unu 22%.
rcspccli\'c1y.
Source: Recht Huusrath & Associates
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
A-2
I
I
I
1
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f)lIh1in Facilities Fee ......t/f((I'
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 of 3 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 Eastern Dublin, the City plans to considerably expand community
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 of24,200, the existing
standard for community buildings is 0.78 square feet per person, The proposed standard is 1.78
square feet per person, indicating an existing deficiency is thus 1.00 square foot per person. An
additional 24,200 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 deficiency is thus $4.84 million. This excludes any
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 A2 summarized the existing deficit for the three public facilities. Combined, the City must
secure funding for $6.394 million in improvements during the period through year 2025. On an
annual basis this amounts to $213, 100 in constant dollars to be funded from sources other than
fees or exactions imposed on new development.
Recht HOllsrath & Associates
A-3
I
Dlfhlill Faci/itil!s Fee Stlf(~1' Appendix A
I
Table A.2
I Summary of Existing Deficit
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Community Parks $ I , 1 99,000
Community Buildings 4,840,000
I Libraries 355.000
Total $6,394,000
I Annually, 1995-1025 $213,100
SOUfec: Rcelll Hausf<1lh & Associlllt:s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Recht Hausrath & Associates A--I
.':
.'"
"
.
~
.'
>.
Q)'"O
." ='
;:J....
'"OCI)
'Of' ~ 8
=L-~ ~
> >. ~
.0 ,-
4.l Q) .-:=
:Ecu::::
= ~ ~
f-c....1J;.,
c.> c:
o;d ._
0..-
~.g
Cl
rJ
'"
~
]
...:l
"'to
..E
~
"0
.E
]
al
"I
u
~
::>
"d
~
:3
E
~
"Iii
~
'g
(..l.,
~
en
o
8_
ti
0.
~
o
U
.13
~
~
~
o
U
EXHIBIT C
~ ~
:5
o 11"'I - \0 11"'I1 t""-
OOQt'l\O 00
&;- ~
U 0
u \0
b'3 N
o
00 00 01 0 NI t""-
o t'l \0 11"'I - t""-
<o:TN - co
~ ~
al 11"'I
.g f;:
~
o
U
o t'l \0 r-... \01 M
-Nt'lr-... ln
N - 'Of'
~ ~
t U
o.~
..... 0
"'-
00.
uS
t.t.l
\0 N 00 01 t'll 00
O\O-t'l M
- M
~ V:t
U>-.O
]-] ~
~(..l.,
~ ~ ~ f;: ~I ~
"<o:T~OO t""- t'l t"')
ti
-
~
U>-'N
Ob:a
.s:; t'l
en(..l.,
II"'II~
t'l t"')
t"')
..
ln
~
\0-010
\Ot'lt'l\O
Nt'l-II"'I
N~ -~ -~
~
tiE
o.u
t;:E
o :a
utG
gg~~~::I~
r-...<o:Tt'l- ~
~ -
V:t
OOll"'llln
(;')
00 NIM
- -
(;')
o 0 \01 \0
V:t
o 0 t'll t"')
V:t
g ~ ~IS
OI<o:T-lf'L
IOI't _
V:t
ON
<o:T \0
'<:t~r-...
-
fA
Nj'<:t
00
N '<:t
M
fA
l'II"'IIM
00 Q\
t'l ~
~
]-
r-... NI Q\ ~
r-...-co"O
00 ~ (;
I
N \0100
11"'I ln
<o:T ...,.
V:t
I
1O
00 t'll - tlO
N t"').s
N MOB
V:t.fi
.S
l
N N~"'"
t'lOC")
t'l 11"'I CO
M.-4...,f
vt V:t
- ...,.~ln
t'lOC")
t'l-.::rt""-
V')~N r:
fA V:t
~ ~I~
- N
fA V:t
."
d
Q)
E
Q)
;>
'"0 8
c: 0.
:Ls bh .,,~ .,,~
c: ~-t:
... .,,- ." ~ :.a o;d o;d ."
>-. ~~=-= ~~~ ''is t::
~- o;d o;d =' = ~.... ." 0
'C;; ~ ~ 1=0 .... 0 -g -g.... ~ t:: U
c: >.>.>-. Q) 0 c: "Os::
Q) ........ oW" .... = .J::..8 U = U .....
Cl '2 '2'2 ." s:: ;:........ U :.:: Q):C
..... Cl,) =' =' =' Q)Uu-..o 0 0 o-..o"O::s
s:: "0 E E E.c = = 1S :@'J:l= =.~ Cl
a.'~ E E E e. 0 e A 00 00 ~ ~ Q .....
8 .t> 0 0 o:9.iE f-l .... .u'u C" f-l .... '.... ~
o ._ U U U .....:l U ; Z z -< ; u ~
ou ~ ~
o 00 t'll _
V') t'l \0 ln
-.::r N I:-
~ V;I
."
....
c:
U
E
Q)
"0 e
c: 0.
j.s
tlO
.5
]
]8
0>-.
~.s
1O0.
B5
~8.
e~
.b~
.s e
~g.
-a'"
:=6
::l:l
~.~
tlO_
.!3.~
~ 5
,.8;g
"0'"
~e
B~
~ a
"00
~[
~'O
~8
BE
t.e
<;:;.i::'
e...
~~
- .B I:l
.f! C) a.
o -::l
~ ~8
'""' '""'
....M
'-' '-'
"
III
2
ell
.8
III
-<
~
..s
e
a
:i!
i
0::
~
o
en
EXHIBIT C