HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 PublicSemiFacGPASP
CITY C L ER K
. File # D~[g]~-~[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 18, 2002
PA 02-017, Public/Semi-Public Facilities General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendment Study Status Report
Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager and Pierce f'..L/
Macdonald, Associate Planner ~
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
/'/.I,ry/' .. 2.
/'\f/l/~. 3.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
Background:
Public/Semi-Public Facilities General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study
Receive staff report and public testimony
Question Staff and the public
Give Staff direction on:
a. 'Whether any of the alternatives (Alternatives 1 - 5) listed
in the Study should be refined and implemented;
b. 'Whether Alternative 6 - the formation of a Task Force to
make a recommendation on a new policy should be
implemented; or
c. Whether the City Council has other direction they would
like Staff to pursue
None at this time.
In March 2002 the City Council adopted the FY2002-2003 Goals and Objectives. The Goals and
Objectives contained a new high priority goal to develop a policy and/or ordinance to accommodate more
community facilities in the City.
On May 21, 2002, City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment
Study to examine the need for Public/Semi-Public Facilities (PSPF) and, if appropriate, to increase the
areas available for PSPF in new development. .
In general, PSPF are public buildings, such as schools, government buildings and libraries, and semi-
public buildings, such as religious institutions, clubhouses and meeting halls. In developing the attached
Public/Semi Public Facilities General Plan and Specific Plan Study (the Study), Staff identified uses, such
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
In-House Distribution
T.
ITEM NO.
as religious institutions, clubhouses, and meeting halls, that were not studied in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) and Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGP A). The Study [Attachment 1]
describes these uses in greater detail than other land uses. The Study is summarized below.
The Study:
The work program for preparing the Study included:
" Review existing documents and policies to document what were the existing regulations relating to
the issue. .
" Consultation with experts in the field of Urban Planning, including academic institutions and
research foundations.
. Research of the policies for Public/Semi-Public Facilities in other jurisdictions in California.
. Review of Dublin's existing pattern of development, future trends, and the regulatory and market
conditions of current development.
Existing Documents and Policies
The City's current policies on the provision of Community Facilities, of which "Public/Semi-Public
Facilities" is one type, are il11plemented through the General Plan, specific plans, zoning ordinance and
planned development (PD) zoning districts in the City. While the General Plan and specific plans provide
a vision for the City, the zoning ordinance and PD zoning districts provide the regulations on whether a
use is a permitted, conditionallypermitted or prohibited. The Study describes how public and semi-public
land uses are implemented at the present time in the City within the context of all Community Facilities.
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The General Plan provides specific policies for the Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Extended
Planning Area, which were generally divided 'by Dougherty Road. The Community Facilities Land Use
Designation in the General Plan includes land uses such as governmentbuildings, religious institutions
and schools and ParkslRecreation facilities. In general, the Land Use Classification for Public/Semi-
Public sites in central Dublin (referred to as the Primary Planning Area in the Study - the area west of
Dougherty Road) identifies existing facilities, not planned facilities.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently designates 97.8 acres ofland for Public/Semi-Public Facilities.
In the Specific Plan, there are provisions for public uses, such as police stations, fire stations, utilities,
post offices, and a library. Although there are no written goals, policies or action programs for semi-public
uses, the Summary for Community Services and Facilities, Section 3.7, states the intent of the Specific
Plan as follows:
"Planning for community services is informed by three general objectives: 1) the provision of
community services will proceed concurrently with development; 2) development will not lead to
an overburdening of existing services or municipal finances; and 3) current service standards will
be maintained or improved."
Zoning Ordinance and PD Zoning Districts
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides for public and semi-public uses through the category of
"Community Facility". Community Facilities are allowed in all zoning districts in central Dublin with
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
2
In the area of Dublin covered by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Community Facilities are allowed with
Conditional Use Permits in most planned development districts (all development in the Specific Plan Area
are developed through planned development districts).
Consultation with Experts in Field of Urban Planning
Staff found that the need for Public Facilities, such as City office buildings, County facilities, fire stations
and post offices, may be anticipated as a population grows. The experts contacted by Staff did not have a
standard or rule that could be used to anticipate the future needs for Semi-Public Facilities. The
consensus of opinion was that the need for non-governmental services was dependent on the character of
an individual community.
Consultation with Other Jurisdictions in California
In addition, Staff found that most cities in California did not have policies to plan for the need for
Public/Semi-Public Facilities. However, one city, Chula Vista, had established "Community Purpose
Facility" zoning regulations for their planned community districts. Under Chula Vista's regulations, a total
of 1.39 acres of net usable land per population of 1,000 must be designated Community Purpose Facilities
(CPF) in any planned community. Community Purpose Facility is described below:
"Community Purpose Facility" means a structure or site for childcare, certain nonprofit assembly
or recreation purposes, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a planned community.
Typical uses include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other similar organizations; social and human
services such as Alcoholics Anonymous, services for homeless, services for military personnel
during the holidays, senior or childcare and recreation, and worship, spiritual growth and
development and teaching of traditional family values; and recreational ball fields."
The Chula Vista CPF regulations have since changed to include some interim uses and some HOA
facilities subject to specific standards, as of January 28,2003.
Methodology
Based on the policy direction in relation to the provision of Community Services and Facilities in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, quoted above, Staff determined that the best way to begin a discussion
about Dublin's future needs was to review Dublin's existing services. Staff prepared an inventory of the
existing Semi-Public Facilities, as defined in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in central
Dublin.
Staff categorized the predominant type of non-governmental, Semi-Public Facility in central Dublin (the
Primary Planning Area) as "Places of Assembly." Religious institutions, meeting halls, a performing arts
theatre, and similar uses were included in the Places of Assembly category.
Staff's research indicated that based on the City's population as of January 1, 2002, the City of Dublin had
1.19 acres ofland for Semi-Public Facilities per population of 1,000. Under this possible benchmark, the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area would need 32.24 additional useable acres ofland designated
Public/Semi-Public Facilities to serve semi-public uses.
Lastly, the Study found that the discussion ofthe City's needs for Semi-Public Facilities should
acknowledge the different regulatory and market conditions under which property owners currently must
build, as compared to the historic growth ofthe City of Dublin.
3
Alternatives for Policy Development:
The Study reviewed five different directions that the City could take. The advantages and disadvantages
of the different alternatives are described in a chart included in the Study [Technical Appendix 4]. The
alternatives are summarized below:
1. No Change Alternative. This alternative would result in no changes to the EDSP and General
Plan at this point in time. This would allow the development of Community Facilities similar to
the method that they developed in central Dublin. As noted above, in central Dublin, these uses
are generally allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts. In the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area, within the planned development zoning districts they are generally allowed in
all areas with a Conditional Use Permit.
This alternative would not require any action by City Council or any Staff time to implement.
2. Add Places of Assembly as a Land Use Category. This alternative would result in amending the
EDSP and General Plan to define Places of Assembly within Public/Semi-Public Facilities
designation and describe the qualities of Places of Assembly uses and facilities. These could
include parcel sizes, use types, appropriate locations, and other features. This alternative would
include adding a policy to encourage Places of Assembly in buffer areas between residential and
commercial districts, in commercial districts and in mixed-use districts. The policy could function
in a manner similar to the City's public art policy. The Dublin Public Art Policy, Resolution 121-
97, states "City Council has determined that it is in the best interests ofthe City of Dublin to
encourage the design of development projects to include creative visual artwork into public
buildings and public spaces ofthe community." In a similar manner, Staff would work with each
developer to implement the provisions of the Places of Assembly Policy to locate sites within
proposed projects. A list of proposed Places of Assembly types is included in the Study
[Technical Appendix 5].
Staff estimates that this alternative would require between four and six months of additional
staff time and public input.
3. Re-Designate School Sites. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) has indicated that there
maybe an excess of 81.6 acres of School land in the EDSP/GPA area based on current student
projections. This alternative would amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
provide policies so that a School site would have underlying Public/Semi-Public Facilities land
use, if it is determined to be unnecessary for use by DUSD. This alternative would also clarify the
intent of the Schools classification regarding private schools.
Staff estimates that this alternative would require between six and eight months of additional
staff time and public input.
4. City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would increase the acreage ofland
designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities at appropriate locations in the EDSP/GP A with a
City-initiated General Plan Amendment. Some lands are currently subject to development
agreements. A map of properties under existing and expired development agreements is included
in the appendix ofthe Study [Technical Appendix 3]. With City Council direction, City Staff
would convene a task force to determine the appropriate amount of land needed for PSPF to serve
new development, the best locations for the facilities, and the equitable share ofPSPF designated
land among the involved property owners. City Staff would facilitate meetings with interested
members of the public and property owners. City Staff would conduct the appropriate level of
environmental review.
4
Staff estimates that this alternative would require between twelve and eighteen months of
additional staff time and public input.
5. Developer-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would establish a policy to
provide for increased acreage designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities use whenever a
developer-initiated General Plan Amendment application is submitted to the City. Staff would
assist City Council to develop criteria for total acreage, location requirements, types of uses,
design standards and performance standards. Acreage could be allotted by the property owner's
percentage share ofthe projected population growth. According to the Study, central Dublin
provides 1.19 acres ofland per 1,000 residents. The City Council may determine that a different
proportion ofland to population is more appropriate to new development based on the different
regulatory and market conditions in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Staff estimates that this alternative would require approximately 6 months to develop the
policy and implementation would require additional staff time and public input on an ongoing,
case-by-case basis.
Public Review:
Staff notified interested parties ofthe availability of this Study and encouraged their comments.
Additionally, Staffmet with several members of the development community to discuss the Study,
findings and alternatives.
Comments from the development community concentrated primarily on the assumptions that were made
in the Study. The assumptions are important in that they form the basis for the data collection ofthe
Study as well as the ultimate basis for the findings. Unfortunately, since there are no industry standards
on how to measure need for this type of use, one could modify the assumptions in many ways that would
ultimately change the data in the needs analysis.
Members of the development community also expressed the following additional concerns (Staff s
comments, if appropriate, follow in italics):
. The Study's review of central Dublin's public semi-public acreages and the assumption that the
same per capita acreages could be applied to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area are
unsubstantiated.
As discussed above, the calculations of central Dublin's public and semi-public uses are intended
to provide base information that can be used to begin a dialog on the issue. If the City Council
desires to choose one of the alternatives that utilize an acreage per population basis, the Council
has the ability to determine any standard that they find is appropriate.
. It is possible that the need for these types of uses could be met by existing City and existing
regional facilities, and this Study did not provide a way of measuring this possibility.
Staff does not believe that there is a way of measuring this possibility. There is no industry
standard for the various uses. Staff's decision to apply existing conditions to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area was based on the policy in the Specific Plan noted above, and the assumption
that the City culture would continue to develop in a similar fashion if sites are provided.
. That there was no survey conducted of public/semi-public types of uses to see ifthose
organizations believed there was a need for more locations.
5
Staff did not believe that this type of survey would be a measure of demand. It is likely that there
are organizations that would like to locate in Dublin. Therefore, the survey would not measure
those who cannot locate in Dublin due to lack of space available or other reasons.
. Pre-existing requirements and/or goals of various governmental agencies have already restricted
the net usable acreage for many landowners.
Staff agrees this is an issue and discusses it in the Study.
. Many public and semi-public uses are not necessarily compatible with residential uses. For this
reason most zoning districts subject these types of uses to conditional use permits. This traditional
approach to the implementation of public/semi-public uses seems to balance market
demand/conditions with public need and public sensitivity to certain public/semi-public facilities.
No response.
. Ifthe City determines to rezone sites for Public/Semi-Public Facilities it should also perform a
fiscal analysis to ensure that the rezoning of the sites will not compromise the fiscal feasibility of
the Specific Plan Area.
The alternatives identified do not include how the final policy will be developed. Staff would have
a fiscal analysis performed if this were an issue with the selected alternative.
. Various concerns were expressed regarding the alternatives. It was suggested that the alternatives
were not fully described or analyzed as to how policies would be written and/or implemented.
No response.
New Alternative (Alternative No.6):
'While meeting with the various members ofthe development community it was suggested that it might be
appropriate to form a task force comprised of members of the development community, Staff and two City
Council members to work on solutions or a policy that would accomplish City Council goals, as well as
consider the development community's concerns. Therefore, Staffis proposing that this alternative be
added as Alternative No.6. This Alternative would extend the time period before a policy could be
developed; however, it would provide an opportunity to explore other development issues that may not
have been identified in the Study and work out a solution that would be acceptable to the City and the
development community.
Conclusion:
The attached Study methodology was based on policies in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan under
Community Facilities. There are no industry standards for preparing such a Study. The Study suggests
that one way of determining need in the Specific Plan Area is to use base information from central Dublin.
If the City Council desires to select an alternative that uses an acreage to population ratio for development
of a policy, the Council may develop any standard that they find is appropriate.
Staff has suggested several alternatives within the Study. Additionally, as a result of meetings with the
development community, a new alternative is also suggested. While this new alternative may extend the
6
period of time before a policy is implemented, the resulting policy may be more acceptable to the City and
the development community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and public testimony, question staff and
the public and give Staff direction on: (1) Whether any ofthe alternatives (Alternatives 1 - 5) listed in the
Study should be refined and implemented; (2) Whether Alternative 6 - the formation of a Task Force to
make a recommendation on a new policy should be implemented; or (3) Whether the City Council has
other direction they would like Staff to pursue.
7
. Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study
City of Dublin Community Development Department
PA02-017, January 7, 2003
/ 1~4' .h5
r
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
;J or5 b::3
Page 1
II. Current Policies for Parks, Schools and Other Community Facilities Page 2
III. Implementation of Current Policies for Community Facilities
IV. Status of Community Facilities under Current Policies
V. Status Findings
VI. Status Summary
VII. Policy Alternatives
VIII. Conclusion
Technical Appendices
1. Semi-Public Facility Inventory
2. Dublin Unified School District Facility Needs
3. Annual Review of Development Agreements
4. Alternatives Table
5. Places of Assembly Facility Types
Page 4
Page 5
Page 11
Page 14
Page 14
Page 15
"'7 t:J / -;;':'
::; G7'~ >e;:;-.::.J
()
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study
January 7,2003
1. Introduction:
On May 21, 2002, City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study to evaluate the sufficiency of Public/Semi-Public Facilities (PSPF) land uses and, if
appropriate, to increase the areas available for PSPF in new development.
This Study reviews City policy provisions for Community Facilities in Dublin. The report also
identifies the particular needs of Semi-Public Facilities.
In Dublin, Community Facilities are identified as Parks, Schools and Public/Semi-Public Facilities.
Community Facilities, as organized in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and in the Primary
Planning Area (PP A), can be outlined as shown in Table 0.1 below:
Table 0.1, Organization of Community Facilities
I
V
~ arkslRecreatio~
Community Facilities
I
V
!Public/Semi-Public Facilities (EDSP)\
I I
V V
ISchools I !Public/Semi-Public Facilities I
I I
V V
!public I ISemi-Publicl
I
V
~ublic/Semi-Public Facilities (PP A)I
I I
V V
~ublic I ISemi-Publi~
To most readers of this Study, Parks and Schools are readily identified. However, Public/Semi-Public
Facilities are more generally defined. Public/Semi-Public Facilities can include public uses such as
libraries, City office buildings, public agency facilities, post offices, fire stations, BART, public
utilities, and semi-public uses such as churches, theatres, community centers, hospitals, and other non-
governmental, non-commercial uses. Semi-public uses share the following characteristics:
I. local base
2. community-serving activities
3. not-for-profit purpose
4. open to the public
This Study reviews current General Plan and Specific Plan goals and policies, and reports on the
adequacy of Community Facilities policies and, more specifically, the sufficiency ofPSPF land uses
within the City. In conclusion, the Study discusses alternatives for amending the General Plan and
Specific Plan to improve the City's ability to provide sites for PSPF.
I/d~3
y D
II. Current Policies for Parks, Schools and Others Community Facilities:
City of Dublin General Plan
First adopted in 1985, the General Plan is a blue print for development of the City and outlines the
location, size and types of development that is to occur within the City. Included within this outline is
the Community Facilities land use designation. Community Facilities include: Public/Semi-Public
Facilities, which include government buildings, religious institutions and schools; and
Parks/Recreation facilities. The General Plan provides policies for continued development and
expansion of different types of Community FacilitiesJ. The General Plan provided specific policies for
the Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Extended Planning Area, which were generally divided by
Dougherty Road.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
In 1994, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGP A). The amendment
was adopted concurrently with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The amendment changed the General
Plan to make both documents consistent with each other. It added new land use classifications and
updated Dublin's land use map. The amendment did not add specific policies for Community
Facilities. However, the Introduction of the amendment, Section 1.4, summarized the City's goal for
growth into the areas to the east:
"(T)he Eastern Extended Planning Area represents a unique opportunity and challenge to plan a
distinctive, well-balanced community that complements the existing city. The extension of Dublin
Boulevard will be the physical link that connects the eastern planning area with the rest of Dublin,
but the variety of development projected for eastern Dublin is seen as an opportunity to enhance
the residential, employment, retail, recreation, and cultural character of the entire city."
Lastly, while maintaining separate policies for the areas identified as the Primary Planning Area and
the Eastern Extended Planning Area in the General Plan, the amendment added new land use
classifications for the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The definition for Public/Semi-Public Facilities
was as follows:
Public/Semi-Public (Maximum .50 Floor Area Ratio). This designation identifies areas where
governmental or institutional type uses are anticipated. Such uses include public buildings such as
schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post
offices; fire stations; and utilities. Semi-public uses such as churches, theatres, community centers,
and hospitals are also permitted in this designation. Parks are not included under this designation.
The designation generally applies to parcels of land owned by a public entity or government
agency.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin SpeciJEic Plan (EDSP) laid out policies for Community Facilities for the Eastern
Extended Planning Area in finer detail than the General Plan. The Specific Plan addressed Parks,
1 The General Plan provisions for Parks are located in the Land Use and Circulation: Parks and Open Space Section, 3.0.
General Plan provisions for Schools and Utilities are located in the Land Use and Circulation Section: Schools, Public
Lands and Utilities Element, 4.0. Provisions for emergency preparedness and fire are established in Environmental
Resources Management Section: Seismic Safety and Safety Element. There are three provisions for semi-public facilities:
1) 1.8 General Plan Map description states that requests for approval of churches or other semi-public facilities typically
appropriate to the adjoining uses are not to be considered inconsistent with the General Plan; Table 1.1 identifies specific
semi-public facilities; and the Noise Element, 9.0, establishes noise levels appropriate for schools and churches.
2
~ C>3 ~3
Schools and Public/Semi-Public Facilities under both the Land Use Element, 4.0, and the Community
Services and Facilities Element, 8.0.
Parks
The stated goal for recreation in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area was "to develop a
comprehensive, integrated park and recreational open space system designed to meet the diverse needs
of the City of Dublin." There are polices to direct development of parks and recreation2 and there are
action program points which clarify and focus action under the policies3. The EDSP designated 241.5
acres ofland as Parks.
Schools
The goal in the Specific Plan for Schools was "to provide school facilities adequate to meet the
community's need for quality education." There are policies to direct development of School sites4 and
there are action program points which clarify and focus action under the policies5.
In contrast to the General Plan's list of Public/Semi-Public Facilities which included 167.95 acres of
public and private schools6, the Land Use classification in the Specific Plan separated Schools from the
Public/Semi-Public Facilities designation? The EDSP, as amended, designated 132.1 acres8 of
Schools. In addition, the Schools classification in the EDSP includes private schools in the Land Use
Chapter but excludes them in the Summary Chapter.
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
There are goals, policies and action programs for the remaining services and facilities studied in the
Specific Plan9. There are provisions for public uses, such as police stations, fire stations, utilities, post
offices, and a library. The Specific Plan, as amended, designated 97.8 acres ofland for Public/Semi-
Public Facilities. Although there are no written goals, policies or action programs for semi-public uses,
the Summary for Community Services and Facilities, Section 3.7, stated the intent of the Specific Plan
as follows:
"Planning for community services is informed by three general objectives: 1) the provision of
community services will proceed concurrently with development; 2) development will not lead to
an overburdening of existing services or municipal finances; and 3) current service standards will
be maintained or improved."
2 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policies 4-28, 4-29 and 4-30, for Section 4.7 Recreation.
3 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program: Recreation, Program 4M, 4N, 40, and 4P.
4 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policies 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, for Section 8.1 Schools.
5 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program: Schools, Program 8A, 8B, and 8e.
6 An analysis of Schools is included in this report as Tables 0.2 and 0.2A. Staff inventoried a total of 170.31 acres of public
and private school in the Primary Planning Area, which includes 2.36 acres of pre-schools not identified in the General
Plan.
7 Schools are a Public/Semi-Public Facility in the General Plan.
8 Later amendments to EDSP include: 11.8 acres of School designated land was removed from Dublin Ranch Area C with
approval ofPD 96-039; 21.4 acres ofland were removed from Greenbriar project with approval ofPD 98-062 and PD 97-
040; 4.4 acres were added to Dublin Ranch Area E with approval ofPD 96-039; and 5 acres were added to General Plan
Eastern Extended Planning Area in Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) area.
9 Community Services and Facilities Element, Sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5
3
o c:rf b3
III. Implementation of Current Policies for Community Facilities:
Parks
General Plan and Specific Plan goals for Parks are implemented through facilitation of the City's Parks
and Community Services Department, which maintains park facilities and administers the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the locations of existing and new
park facilities. Parks are developed through dedications of land, pursuant to the Quimby Act,
Government Code section 66477, and through a Public Facility Fee exacted from new development.
Schools
General Plan and Specific Plan goals for Schools are implemented through cooperation with the
Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The General Plan Land Use Map designates the locations of
existing and new school sites. Schools are maintained and expanded through a combination offunds
from property tax, sales tax, bonds and State funds and school expansion is funded through School
Impact Fees exacted from new development, pursuant to the Sterling Act, as amended, Government
Code 65995.
Private schools are allowed in any district with either Conditional Use Permit or Planned Development
reVlew processes.
Public/Semi Public Facilities
Implementation of General Plan and Specific Plan goals for Public/Semi Public Facilities is
accomplished in several ways. There are different means of implementation for public facilities
compared to semi-public facilities.
Public Facilities
The General Plan Land Use Map designated the locations of existing public facilities and new public
facilities, under the Public/Semi-Public Facility designation. Public Facilities, such as the Civic Center,
are maintained through monies from the General Fund and other government funds. Establishment
and expansion of City of Dublin public facilities necessary to serve new development is funded
through a combination of monies including the Public Facilities Fee exacted from new development.
Public Facilities are allowed in any land use designation and government agencies are generally not
subject to zoning regulations and procedures.
Within the EDSP area, the Land Use Map designates 97.8 acres ofland as Public/Semi-Public
Facilities. At the same time, the map and Specific Plan attribute 90.8 acres of that total to the Planning
Subarea titled "County Center." The intent of the County Center is to accommodate a variety of public,
government-related uses10 to serve all of Alameda County, such as the Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center. The site of the remaining 7 acres of Public/Semi- Public Facilities is identified for public uses
and semi-public usesl1.
Semi-Public Facilities
The General Plan Land Use Map designates the location of specific existing semi-public facilities. The
intended location of new semi-public facilities is not shown on the land use map. The majority of
10 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Section 4.9.9 County Center Land Use Concept
1 1 The EIR for the Specific Plan suggests this site for a library and a post office. However, the Specific Plan describes the
intent of the "Town Center - Commercial" subarea as providing a variety of community services (Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, Section 4.9.2)
4
IJ vb b-3
Public/Semi~Public Facility land is intended for public uses. As explained in the Public Facilities
section above, the land specifically identified for semi-public uses, 7 acres designated Public/Semi-
Public Facilities, is also intended for public uses. In addition, Semi-Public Facilities are subject to
zoning controls in the Gene:ral Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan12. Semi-Public Facilities are
not maintained by government agencies.
IV. Status of Community Facilities under Current Policies:
Parks
All new development is reviewed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The City continues to review and update the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan13.
Schools
The Dublin Unified School District recently issued a School Facility Needs Analysis, dated August
2002, which found that earlier school attendance projections used in the EDSP/GPAwere
overestimated14. The Facility Needs Analysis is attached as Appendix 2. According to the School
District's analysis, there may be lands designated as School that are unnecessary to the School District
to meet demand for new facilities. The excess land totals 81.6 acres in the EDSP/GP A area.
This Study reviewed the total land used for the existing public and private schools in the Primary
Planning Area and in the EDSP /GP A Area. Valley Christian Center and Quarry Lane School are the
largest private schools in the City15. Existing public and private schools, including pre-schools, inthe
Primary Planning Area tota1170.31 acres. Existing Public and Private Schools in the EDSP tota125.07
acres. This analysis is included in Tables 0.2 and 0.3, below.
12 A semi-public use would be allowed in all districts in the Primary Planning Area with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
issued by the Dublin Planning Commission. A semi-public use would be allowed in the EDSP/GP A area as a Stage I
Planned Development adopted by City Council. In addition, a semi-public use would be allowed with a CUP issued by the
Dublin Planning Commission within an established Planned Development area.
13 City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, July 1994
14 On October 9,2002, the Dublin Unified School District Board of Trustees approved the current Facility Needs Analysis.
IS Private Schools, such as St. Raymond's, that are a component of a larger religious Assembly Use, are included in the
analysis of Places of Assembly in Dublin.
5
q d9 ti,3
o D
Type Example Number Average Combined
Acreage Acreage
Public Element.ary Nielson 5 11.02 55.08
Dublin
Murray
Frederiksen
School District
Middle Wells/ Valley 1 18.05 18.05
Continuation
High Dublin High 1 44.65 44.65
School
Sub- Total 117.78
Private Preschool16 Montessori Plus 5 .47 2.36
Little Kids Learning
Center
Kindercare
Tots University
My Space to Grow
Special Easter Seals - - -
Needs KaleidoscopeJ7
All Grades Valley Christian 1 50.17 SO.17
Center
Sub- Total 52.53
Total Public and Private 170.31
Table 0.2, Primary Planning Area Schools
Table 0.3, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GP A Schools
Type Example Number Average Combined
Acreage Acreage
Public Elementary I Dougherty 1 10 10
Sub-Total 10
Private All Grades FUarry Lane 1 15.07 15.07
Sub- Total 15.07
Total Public and Private 25.07
16 Does not include Fountainhead Montessori, at 6901 York Dr., which leases space in the former Cronin School from
DUSD for 115 students because this facility is included in the inventory of public schools under the WellsNalley
Continuation entry.
17 Easter Seals Kaleidoscope leases space from DUSD at the 5.09 acre School District site, included in the inventory of
public schools.
6
9~
Existin2 Facilities and New Facilities
The Dublin Unified School District manages existing School resources and determines the need for
new facilities generated by residential development.
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
This Study reviewed the total land used for Public/Semi-Public Facilities in the Primary Planning Area
and land designated Public/Semi-Public Facilities in the EDSP area. The total land currently developed
with Public/Semi-Public Facilities in the Primary Planning Area is approximately 71 acres and the land
designated in the EDSP area is 97.8 acres. The charts titled Table 1 and Table 2, describe the
inventory.
Table 1, Primary Planning Area Public/Semi-Public Facilities without Schools18
Type Example Number Average Combined
Acrea2e Acreage
Government Civic Center, DSRSD, Post 3 5.65 .16.95
Services Office
Fire Station 7494 Donohue 1 .34 .34
Meeting Hall Local Union 595 IBEW 1 ]9 1 1
Library 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. 1 2.0 2.0
Religious vanous I 920 2.82 25.38
Institution
BART vanous 2 12.38 24.75
Live Theatre Dublin Theatre Co. 1 .33 .33
Hospital nla
Total 70.75
Table 2, EDSP/GPA Public/Semi-Public Facilities Land
Area Public-Semi-Public Facility Acreage
Land Use Map
! Dublin Ranch Area F 3.9 I
Dublin Ranch Area G 3.1
Alameda County Center 90.8
Remaining EDSP/GPA Planning Area 0
Total 97.8
J8 Schools are excluded from the inventory because they are not included in the PSPF category in the EDSP.
19 Meeting halls do not include a possible E Clampus Vitus meeting hall because it is a private club, not open to the public.
It does not include organizations that meet in restaurants, such as the Lions Club.
20 This number of religious institutions does not include one church that is a temporary use within a commercial zone, one
church that meets in the City's community park, or several churches which may be operating in Dublin without City
permits. In addition, this classification does not include Valley Christian Center because VCC is included in the discussion
of private schools. .
7
16~
Semi-Public Facilities
Semi-Public Facilities are facilities which are not funded or controlled by government agencies. In
Table 1, four types of facilities in the Primary Planning Area are strictly semi-public. They are Meeting
Hall, Religious Institution, Live Theatre and Hospital. When Public Facilities are removed from the
inventory, the inventory of Semi-Public Facilities in the Primary Planning Area totals 26.71 acres. The
Semi-Public Facilities inventory is shown in Table 3. There are two existing Semi-Public Facilities in
the Eastern Extended Planning Area as shown in Table 4.
Type Example Number Average Combined Average Combined
Acreage Acreage Square Square
Foota2e Foota2e
Meeting Local Union 595 1 1 1 16,218 16,218
HaHl7 IBEW
Religious vanous 92l 2.82 25.38 21,736.66 195,630
Institution
.
Live Theatre Dublin Theatre 1 .33 .33 2,520 2,520
Co.
Hospital n/a - - - - -
Total 11 2.428 26.71 19,488 214,368
Table 3, Primary Planning Area Semi-Public Facilities
Type Example Number Average Combined Average Combined
Acreage Acreage Square Square
Footage Footage
Animal Tri-Valley SPCA 1 2.37 2.37 22,400 22,40022
Shelter
Community AutoNatiol1 1 .11 .1123 864 864
Room
Total 2 1.24 2.48 11,632 23,264
Table 4, EDSP/GPA Area Semi-Public Facilities
Assemblv Use
Except for the Hospital use and the Animal Shelter, the Semi-Public Facilities in the chart above can
be categorized as Places of Assembll4. Assembly uses are characterized by large interior spaces that
allow large and medium-size groups to assemble together for community purposes. Places of
21 This inventory does not include Valley Christian Center (VCC). VCC is included in the analysis of schools. The detailed
inventory of Semi-Public Facilities is included as Appendix 1.
22 Tri-Valley SPCA leases land from Alameda County for $1 per year and may provide some services for the County's
animal shelter.
23 As part of the AutoNation complex, the community room totals 864 square feet, plus 3,060 for 17 parking spaces, and
918 square feet for aisles, driveways, and other improvements.
24 Hospitals are currently not established in the City.
8
JI e6 b3
Assembly can be studied together because they require similar siting criteria and have similar
environmental impacts, as follows.
Assembly Criteria and Impacts
Places of Assembiy in the Primary Planning Area, west of Dougherty Road, have the following
characteristics:
1. Places of Assembly require average parcel sizes in the range of .33 to 2.82 acres each and a
floor area of between 2,520 and 21,737 square feet each to provide appropriate land for various
use types. Average parcel sizes are described in the Places of Assembly Table, included as
Attachment 1.
2. Existing Places of Assembly are located near, or as a part of, residential development.
3. Places of Assembly can be associated with noise, nighttime illumination, heavy vehicle traffic
and parking, and wide-ranging hours of operation.
4. Project design must provide adequate traffic and circulation systems to support large
assemblies of people. Places of Assembly sites must be on or near major arterials and
collectors. Traffic systems must minimize conflict with residential neighborhoods.
5. Existing Places of Assembly have sites that are relatively flat without excessive topographic
and/or enviroinnental constraints. Places of Assembly need large areas for interior meeting
space and for parking and traffic and circulation constraints.
Existin2 Facilities
As shown in the Table 5 below, the Study divided the total amount ofland and gross floor area of
existing Semi-Public Facilities by the current population estimate as of January 1, 2002, minus group
quarters and minus the population ofthe EDSP/GP A area. The pro rata share is 1.19 acres ofland per
1,000 residents and 9,525 square feet of floor area per 1,000 residents. The ratio ofland available to a
Semi-Public Facility in the EDSP/GPA area is 1.43 acres ofland per 1,000 residents, for the 5,736
current residents.
Table 5, Per Capita Ratio for Semi-Public Facilities
EXISTING
Area Existing Places of Population Ratio Acreage /
Assembly Land / Space Floor Area
Primary Planning Area 26.71 acres I 22,506 Dublin .1.19 acres per 1,000
,
I residents as of residents
(Area West of January 1,200225
Dougherty Road) I 214,368 square feet 9,525 square feet per
1,000 residents
EDSP/GP A Area 8.2426 acres 5,736 Dublin 1.43 acres per 1,000
(Area East of Dougherty residents as of
Road) 23,264 square feet January 1,2002 4,056 square feet per
I 1,000
25 Department of Finance, Official State Estimates as of January L 2002: City/County Population and Housing Estimates,
Excluding Group Quarters and City Estimate for Population ofEDSP/GPA Area, as of January 1,2002
26 This number represents the 7 acres ofPSPF designated land and the 1.24 acres ofland used by the SPCA and the
AutoNation Conununity Room.
9
JI'} f' /-:ti
I (/'\ '1) ~
What is the Correct Standard for Dublin?
The current inventory of semi-public uses in Dublin suggests that 1,000 residents require 1.19 .acres of
land for religious institutions, meeting halls, and theatres. However, Staff is not aware of a regional or
national standard for these uses27. Staff found one city that has established a policy for semi-public
uses. The City of Chula Vista requires 1.39 acres ofland per I ,000 residents in planned development
communities for "Community Purpose Facilities" in addition to park and open space dedication. These
facilities are defined as the following:
"Community Purpose Facility" means a structure or site for childcare, certain nonprofit
assembly or recreation purposes, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a
planned community. Typical uses include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other similar
organizations; social and human services such as Alcoholics Anonymous, services for
homeless, services for military personnel during the holidays, senior or childcare and
recreation, and worship, spiritual growth and development and teaching of traditional
family values; and recreational ball fields?S
The amount of land that should be reserved for semi-public uses for Dublin is a standard that
can only be determined by the community. The standard is based on the goals, values, and
vision for the area that is WIder development, and not a determined national or state-accepted
average. The standard may be more or less than 1.19 acres per 1,000 residents, based on the
conditions and issues that must be balanced with the provision of semi-public services. Factors
include the current regulatory and market conditions that shape development. These conditions
are described in the Analysis of Differences, in Section VI. The remainder of the Study uses
1.19 acres per 1,000 residents as a starting point for a discussion of the issues.
New Facilities at Build Out
The current population projection for the EDSP/GP A is 34,018 residents. lfthe standard of 1.19 acres
per 1,000 residents, shown above, was applied to future development, a population ofthis size would
require 40.48 acres ofland, 324,021 square feet of floor area, or a combination ofland and floor area
dedicated to Places of Assembly. There are currently 8.24 acres ofland appropriate for semi-public
uses in the EDSP/GP A. Under the expected population growth, the Study estimates that in addition to
the 8.24 acres provided, the City would need 32.24 acres ofland, 300,757 square feet of floor area, or a
combination of both.
The projected population for the Primary Planning Area is 25,849 residents. This area would ultimately
need land and facility space of30.76 acres and 246,212 square feet (or an additional 4.05 acres ofland
and 31,844 square feet of Jl]oor area). This analysis is described in the chart, titled Table 6.
27 City Staffcontacted u.e. Berkeley, the University of Virginia, Calthorpe and Associates, The Polis Center, The Hartford
Institute and other organizations that study the needs of communities and land use policy. None of the organizations
questioned for the Study were aware of a per capita standard for semi-public uses.
28 Section 19.04.055 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. In Chu1a Vista, Community Purpose Facility (CPF) does not
include City Parks. Recreation ball fields must be for non-profit organizations and cannot be more then 25% of the total
land dedicated for CPF, section 19.48.025.
10
/"'2.. -f/"J,
,.:..; c/o 0..-:.'
Area Existing Population Per Capita Ratio Total Total
Places of Projections Acreage / Floor Projected Projected
Assembly Area Acreage Floor
Land / Space Area
Primary 26.71 acres , 25,84929 11.19 acres per 1,000 30.76 acres 246,212
Planning Area Dublin residents square feet
(West of 214,368 square Residents
Dougherty) feet 9,525 square feet per
1,000 residents
EDSP/GP A 8.24 acres30 34,01831 1.19 acres per 1,000 40.48 acres 324,021
Area Dublin residents square feet
23,264 square Residents
(East of feet 9,525 square feet per
Dougherty) 1,000 residents
Table 6, Projected Demand for Places of Assembly
BUILD OUT
V. Status Findings:
~
The Cityhas the Park and Recreation Master Plan, adopted in 1994, that addresses park facilities. The
Master Plan identified existing Park resources and established policies to meet the demand related to
develoPJ1:?ent, including facility financing and operating methods. The Master Plan uses a standard that
was developed from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A). The existing park acreages
and the designated Park sites in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are under review as part ofthe update
of the Master Plan, which will be completed by early 2003.
Schools
As evaluated by the Dublin Unified School District in the School Facility Needs Analysis, dated
August 2002, there is currently no deficit of school sites, and there may be excess school sites totaling
81.6 acres in theEDSP/GPA area. DUSD anticipates a total of three elementary schools and one
middle school to serve the EDSP area. DUSb analysis does not include the demand for Private
Schools or pre-s.chools in the EDSP. Existing Private Schools in the Primary Planning Area total 52.53
acres. Existing Private Schools in the EDSP total 15.07 acres. There could be a difference between the
Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area in the City's ability to provide
appropriate sites for independent, private schools.
Public Facilities
Currently, there is no deficit in land available for public uses in either the Primary Planning Area or the
EDSP/GP A Area. There are 90.8 acres of land designated Public/Semi-Public Facility in the Eastern
. Dublin Specific Plan that are intended for public, government-related land uses. There are
approximately 44 acres ofland currently used by public uses in the Primary Planning Area. Public
29 City of Dublin Community Development Department
30 Includes 7 acres ofland designated PSPF outside the County Center subarea and the 1.24 acres ofland used by the SPCA
and the AutoNation Community Room. Within the EDSP/GP A all land designated Public/Semi-Public Facility have
established provisions for public facilities. Semi-public uses would compete with public uses for development at these sites.
3\ City of Dublin Community Development Department
11
Facilities are allowed in any land use designation and government agencies are not subject to some
zoning regulations and procedures.
;1 15 b3
Semi-Public Facilities
There is a significant difference in the land available for Semi-Public Facilities, in general, and Places
of Assembly, in particular, in the EDSP area as compared to the PP A. There is a greater level of
service for Meeting Halls, Live Theatres and Religious Institutions in the Primary Planning Area than
the City may be able to provide under current conditions in the EDSP Area.
At build out, there could be a difference of 32.24 acres of land and 300,757 square feet of floor area in
the EDSP area compared with the current level of service in the Primary Planning Area, using a
standard of 1.19 acres per 1,000 residents.
At build out, there could be a demand for additional 4.05 acres of land or 31,844 square feet of floor
area in the Primary Planning Area. This demand could be satisfied with. expansion of floor area of
existing facilities32.
There is a greater level of service for Meeting Halls, Live Theatres and Religious Institutions in the
Primary Planning Area than may be able to be provided under current conditions in the EDSP Area.
The reasons for the difference are discussed below.
Analvsis of Differences
There are two primary reasons why there are differences in the City's ability to provide sites for Semi-
Public Facilities in the area west of Dougherty Road as compared to the area east of Dougherty: 1) City
Policy and 2) Market Forces.
City Policy
The Study identified several policies that impact the successful siting of new facilities:
. The General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan make few provisions for Semi-Public
Facilities. Chapter 8.0 ofthe EDSP/GP A, titled Community Services and Facilities, contains
descriptions and action programs for public utilities, postal service and library, including the
suggestion that a post office and library be located in the Town Center of Dublin Ranch Areas
F and G. However, there are no provisions for religious institutions, performing arts theatres,
meeting halls or other Places of Assembly in this chapter. Applicants and City Staff look to
these provisions when reviewing an application for consistency with the EDSP/GP A. In
addition, the definition of Public/Semi-Public Facilities has different meanings, one in the
General Plan and another in the EDSP.
. General Plan Land Use Map designations influence the market value by regulating the type of
development that is allowed and the expected yield to a developer or property owner. Land.
designated residential or commercial is too expensive for lease or purchase by Semi-Public
Facilities.
32 The eleven existing facilities would need to expand their facilities by 2,895 square feet, .37 acres, or a combination of the
two, on average.
12
IS 63
. Land is developed in the EDSP area with Planned Development Zoning. Unless the Semi-
Public Facility is a component ofthe Planned Development project, the subsequent subdivision
design, architecture and traffic system are not necessarily appropriate for a semi-public use.
. The EDSP separated the Public Semi.Public Facilities category into two distinct land uses:
Schools and Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Although there is a possible excess of School land,
an EDSP and General Plan amendment would be required to use School land for other
Public/Semi-Public Facilities.
Market Forces
Market forces create challenges to providing locations for Semi-Public Facilities in the following
ways:
. There is a scarcity of available land in the Primary Planning Area, west of Dougherty Road.
The area has established land uses and is ]fearing build out. The high demand for land and the
existing scarcity of vacant land significantly increases the value of land.
. In the EDSP Area, land with residential land use designations sells for approximately $20 to
$40 per square foot, and land with commercial land use designations sells for approximately
$15 to $30 a square foot. Land designated for commercial and residential land use may be too
expensive for purchase or lease by semi-public facility organizations.
. Although a Semi-Public Facility is allowed in most PD districts with a Conditional Use Permit,
residential development in the EDSP Area has produced dense residential neighborhoods with
small lot sizes that are not appropriate locations for Semi-Public Facilities.
. As a result of changes in legislation since the Primary Planning Area was developed, non-
developed areas ofthe City within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have more stringent
environmental laws that restrict in many instances the development yield of land. This has a
market effect on the ability of potential semi-public uses to obtain sites. Organizations desiring
to establish a Semi.-Public Facility cannot afford to pay as much for land with these
environmental restrictions as commercial and residential uses.
13
Ib 15 (,3
VI. Status Summary:
This Study identifies a difference between the areas west of Dougherty Road and east of Dougherty
Road in the City's ability to provide appropriate sites for Semi-Public Facilities to serve the growing
residential population. The Study considers how to establish a standard for the ratio of Semi-Public
Facilities to residents. No standard exists nationally or regionally and Staff is aware of only one city
that has a standard for Sew-Public Facilities. The standard for Dublin would be individual to Dublin
based on Dublin's goals, values, and vision.
The Study recognizes that the undeveloped portions ofthe City of Dublin, mainly in the EDSP area,
are under very different market and policy conditions than the conditions under which the Primary
Planning Area developed and grew in population.
The Study examined the policy framework for the provision of semi-public services to residents. There
are three general objectives in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment to guide the provision of
Public/Semi-Public Facilities, which are:
1) the provision of community services will proceed concurrently with development;
2) development will not lead to an overburdening of existing services or municipal finances;
3) current service standards will be maintained or improved.
Today, Dublin has a distinct, family-oriented character. The EDSP area represents a unique
opportunity and challenge to plan a distinctive, well-balanced community that complements the
existing City. To do so, the City and the development community can work together to address the
issue of appropriate sites for Semi-Public Facilities. Staff reviewed several alternatives to accomplish
this goal, cliscussed below.
VII. Policy Alternatives:
Based on existing facilities, their characteristics and the potential constraints to development of Semi-
Public Facilities, including Places of Assembly, this study has prepared different options for amending
the EDSP and General Plan. These different options or alternatives are listed below and described in
detail on the attached Alternatives Table, included as Appendix 4.
Staff considered the following amendments or combination of amendments to the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
1. No Change Alternative. This alternative would result in no changes to the EDSP and General
Plan at this point in time.
2. Add Places of Assembly as a Land Use Category. This alternative would result in amending
the EDSP and General Plan to define Places of Assembly within Public/Semi-Public Facilities
designation and describe the qualities of Places of Assembly uses and facilities. These could
include parcel sizes, use types, appropriate locations, and other features. This alternative would
include adding a policy to encourage Places of Assembly in buffer areas between residential
and commercial districts, in commercial districts and in mixed-use districts. The policy could
function in a manner similar to the City's public art policy. A list of proposed Places of
Assembly types is included as Attachment 5.
14
/i} 06 tj
3. Re-Designate School Sites. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) has indicated that
there may be an excess of 81.6 acres of School land in the EDSP/GP A area based on current
student projections. This alternative would amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to provide policies so that a School site has underlying Public/Semi-Public
Facilities land use, if it is determined to be unnecessary for use by DUSD. This alternative
would also clarify the intent ofthe Schools classification regarding private schools.
4. City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would increase the acreage of
land designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities at appropriate locations in the EDSP/GP A
with a City-initiated General Plan Amendment. Some lands are currently subject to
development agreements33. A map of properties under existing and expired development
agreements is included with Appendix 3. With City Council direction, City Staff would
convene a task force to determine the appropriate amount of land needed for PSPF to serve new
development, the best locations for the facilities, and the equitable share ofPSPF designated
land among the involved property owners. City Staff would facilitate meetings with interested
members of the public and property owners. City Staff would supervise the appropriate level of
environmental review.
5. Developer-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would establish a policy to
provide for increased acreage designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities use whenever a
developer-i~itiated General Plan Amendment application is submitted to the City. Acreage
would be allotted by the property owner's percentage share ofthe projected population growth.
VIII. Conclusion:
This Study identifies a difference in the City's ability to satisfy the demand that may be created with
the growth of residential population in the EDSP /GP A area, compared to the current ratio of facilities
to residents in the Primary Planning Area. The Study recommends that Council review alternatives to
City policy to anticipate the needs of the new residents in the EDSP area.
33 Requirements of preexisting development agreements, for example the Master Development Agreement with the Lin
Family for Dublin Ranch, specifically "lock in" the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations as
of the date of the development agreement and until the agreement terminates. The Master Development Agreement does
not preclude the City Council from amending the EDSP/GP A. However, ifthe EDSP/GP A were amended to redesignate
land within Dublin Ranch for use as a Place of Assembly, the amendment would not apply during the Master Development
Agreement's term. Nonetheless, if the City Council chose to amend the EDSP/GP A, it would effectively provide the
developer with two choices during the term of the development agreement: (a) develop in accordance with the "locked in"
general and specific plan land use designations or (b) propose development consistent with the amended land use
designations. After the expiration of the development agreement, development would have to be consistent with the
amended land use designations. Land that is currently under Development Agreements is listed and mapped in Appendix 3.
15
<) ~~ / ".A
J,t) Q{) ro~
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, P A 02-017
January 7, 2003
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
i~Public Facility Inventory
Sem
Appendix 1
Technical
E ....
tn
III
III ...
Z 0
III 0 =It
.a- u..
III III tn
Q) III '0 Q)
c f! 1i) III .... C
III Q) III :.i
III "0 f! Q) 0- .... :::l ....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,9; :
75
-
75
16,218
-
16,218
50-300
Hall/Offices
6250 Villa
Local Union 595 IBEW
L
AVERAGE
50
-
50
2,520
-
2,520
0.33
-
0.33
80
Theatre
6620 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Theatre Co.*
AVERAGE
111
82
168
104
17
74
256
19
235
-
118
1184
14,214
11,910
18,215
16,937
5,648
23708
40,000
4,128
60,870
-
21737
217,367
2
2.56
3
2.83
0.6
2.47
2.5
0.34
9.08
-
2.82
25.38
50-300
50-300
50-300
50-300
50-300
50-300
300+
50-300
50-300
Church and School
Church
Church
Church and School
Church
Church and School
Church
Church
Church and School
7557 Amador Valley
7485 Village Parkway
8203 Village Parkway
7421 Amarillo Road
11873 Dublin Blvd
8850 Davona Drive
6444 Sierra Court
6325 Sierra Court
11555 Shannon Avenue
Resurrection Lutheran Church and Infant Car
Parkway Baptist
Church of Jesus Christ
John Knox Church and Pre-schoollDaycare
Dublin Christian Church
St Phillips Lutheran Church and Pre-school
Crosswinds Church*
Tri-Valley Unity Church*
S1. Raymonds Church and School
AVERAGE**
"'--
~
\J\
0'\.
lt~
improvements.
Average
Total
* Total of lease space, required parking, landscaping and 30% of parking for aisles and other
**Valley Christian Center (VCC) is included in the analysis of schools
District Facility Needs
o
(Add capacity of 654
students to Dublin
High)
25.3
1
Dublin Unified School
in Area F, 20 acres
owned by Dublin Land Co., 3.3 acres
owned by Chang Lin, 104 acres
owned by Chang Lin, .6 acres
Appendix 2,
Technical
pa
1 parcel
1 parcel
1 parcel
High School
1 site provided in
EDSP
24.5
Fallon Village Site
Portion of Area F
1
Incomplete site in Fallon
Village
1
= 25.3 acres
1 parcel in Area F, 30 acres
1 parcel in Fallon Village. 14.5 acres
Total
A portion of 30-acre site
in Area F
Junior High
School
1 complete site
provided in
EDSP and a
portion of a site,
14.5 acres
8
Fallon Village
Wallis
Area AlEDPO
31
3
3
Total = 44.5 acres
parcel in Fallon Village, 10.6 acres
parcel in Wallis, 11.8 acres
parcel in Area A, 4.4 acres
parcel in EDPO, 5.0 acres
parcel in Area F, lOA acres
parcel Dougherty School, 10.5 acres
parcel Green School, 9.98 net acres
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Elementary
School
6 sites provided
in EDSP
81.6
5
-.
4
= 62.68 acres
Total
~i
\)
~
20-acre minimum for junior high schools, and 50-acre minimum for high
Total
*Based on State standards of 10-acre minimum for elementary schools
schools.
DUBLIN SCHUULS~~6J
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO:
FROM:
Board of Trustees
Gene Turner
DATE:
October 9, 2002
RE:
Public Hearing - 8:00 P.M. - On Approval of School Facility Needs Analysis dated
August, 2002, and Resolution No. 2002/03-07 to Implement Level 2 Fees
on Residential Construction and Level 1 Fees on Commercialllndustrial Construction
as Justified irf the School Facility Needs Analysis
BACKGROUND;
The School Fadlity Needs Analysis approved by the Board of Trustees on October 11, 2000 which
was revised in August, 2001 and again in August, 2002, provides justification for the Dublin Unified
School District to administer Level 2 fees on residential construction. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65995.5, Level 2 fees may exceed the Level 1 fees on residential construction currently set
by the State Allocation Board at $2.14. The School Facility Needs Analysis justifies an increase in
Level 2 fees to the rate of $6.76 per square foot of new residential construction. The Level 2 fee can
only apply to new residential construction that is not under mitigation contract with the District.
In addition, the appendix to the School Facility Needs Analysis justifies the new maximum Level 1 fee
for commercial/industrial construction of $0.34 per square foot.
The Level 1 commerdal/industrial and Level 2 residential fees take effect immediately upon adoption
and is effective for a period of one year.
FINANCIAL:
There are no costs associated with this item.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Board is asked to conduct a public hearing on School FaciUty Needs Analysis and School
Mitigation Fees at 8:00 p.m.
GT:lb
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 200Z
DUBLIN PLANNING
Da1
SCHOOL FACILITyNEEIJS ANALYSIS
FOR
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
~~ .
August 2002
Final
Shilts Consultants, Inc. (SCI)
2300 Boynton Ave., Suite 201
Fairfield, CA 94533
(707) 426-5016
Jrfl- 0;( 6,3'
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
c7?; c;76 63
I. SUMMA R Y ............... .............. ............. .......... ........ ....................... ............. .... ................................. 2
II. D I STRI CT PROFILES ............................................................................................................ ...... 6
A. DISTRICT PROFILES. ................................ ............. ....... ................................ ..... ............ ................ ..... 6
B. ENROLLMENTS ....... ...... .......... ............. ........ ............. ....... ......... ........ ....... ..................................... ..... 8
III. SCH 00 L CAP A CITIES ........................................................................................................ ....... 9
IV.
A.
B.
C.
D.
.E.
V.
F.
P R OJE CTIONS AND D EMOGRAPHI CS ................................................................................ 13
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT ..... ............. .... ....... ........................... ................................................ ..... 13
YIELD FACTORS .. ......................... ....................... .................. ........ ............................................. ..... 16
ENROLLMENTS FRO!vI NEW HOUSING .......................................:................................................ ...... 17
UNHOUSED ENROLLMENTS .................. ...................... ... ................ ........ ....................................... .... 18
NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA ......................................................................................... ...... 19
ALLOW ABLE COST AND FEES ............................................................................................. 20
TOT AL COST OF NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES PER NEW HOME ........................................................... 22
VI. SCHOOL FACILITY PLANS ANI> OTHER LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES ..................... 24
A. DUBLIN SCHOOL FACILITY PLANS' ..................................................................................................24
B. OTHER LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES AND POTENTIAL COST OFFSETS ............................................... 24
VII. LE VEL 3 FEE ELIGIBILITY .................................................................................................... 26
A. LEVEL 3 FEES ...... ............... .... ........ ..... ..................... ........ ............... ......... ........ .......... ................ ..... 26
VIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION OF NEEDS ANALYSIS AND LEVEL 2 OR LEVEL
3 FE ES ... ....................... ................ .......... ........ ............. ................ .......... .... ....................... ............. 27
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 28
X. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL FEE JUSTIFICAZTION ..................................................... 29
A. SUMMARy...................................... ............. ..................................... ....................... .... ..... ............... 29
B. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FEES..... .......... .... ........ ..... ...................... .... ....... ..... .................. .... .......... 29
C. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FEE JUSTIFICATION .............................................................................. 30
D. CONCLUSIONS........................... ....... .........................,..... .... ...............................................".............. 33
-1-
Dublin Unified School District
Schoo! Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
1. SUMMARY
This School Facility Needs Analysis. (Analysis) was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of Senate Bill 50, Chapter 407; Statues 1998, (hereinafter "Chapter
407/98" or "SB 50") which became effective on November 4, 1998 after voters in
California supported Proposition lA. The purpose of this Analysis is to evaluate the
need for and amount of mitigation fees allowed for new residential construction,
pursuant to Chapter 407/98 for the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD).
Chapter 407/98 essentially authorizes qualifying school districts to levy three different
levels of developer fees. These three levels of fees are from Government Code
Sections 65995, 65995.5 and 65995.7. Developer fees levied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65995 are typically called "Statutory fees", "Stirling fees", or "Level 1
fees" and the current maximum Stirling fee amounts for K-12 facilities aTe $2.14 per
square foot of residential construction and $0.34 per square foot of
commercial/industrial construction. These amounts are to be increased again in the
year 2004 and every two years thereafter in an amount equal to the statewide cost index
for Class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board (SAB) at its
January meeting.
Chapter 407/98 established two new sections, Section 65995.5 and 65995.7 that allow
school districts to impose higher fees on residential construction if certain conditions
are met by the school districts. Government Code Section 65995.5 provides for an
alternative fee (hereinafter "Level 2 fee") that may provide approximately 50% of the
cost of school construction and site costs (using statewide average costs).
Government Code Section 65995.7 provides for developer fees that would be
approximately twice the amounts authorized for Level 2 fees. This "Level 3 fee". may
be levied by school districts if state funding becomes unavailable from the state
Allocation Board. In essence, Section 65995.7 allows a school district to effectively
double the Level 2 fee; however, if the school district later receives any state funding,
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts ponsultants. lnc
-2-
0{:5 t,S
any amounts collected in excess of Level 2 or 3 fees would have to be reimbursed to the
developers from whom it was collected.
With the passage of the education bond bill, AB 16, in April 2002, however, authority
of school districts to levy Level 3 fees has been suspended through at least March 2004,
pending the outcome of the education Bond Package election in November 2002. If the
bond election is successful, authority to levy Level 3 fees will continue to be suspended
indefinitely. Should the bond election fail, Level 3 fees will be authorized after March
2004 only if new construction funds are not available and bonds for districts that
qualify for Critically Overcrowded School funding are also not available.
It should be noted that Levell, Level 2, and Level 3 fees can be levied on residential
construction prior to issuance of a building permit rather than only on certain projects
as a condition of development approval.
Summary of Findings:
1. School capacity pursuant to SB 50 is calculated based on the District's educational
standards for classroom loading. Using this measure of school capacity, which is
equivalent to the actual working capacity of current school facilities, the Dublin
Unified School District has capacity for 2,214 K-5 students, 1,000 6-8 students,
and 1,456 9-12 students for a total student capacity of 4,670 regular education
students. I
2. The District's total regular education enrollments, as of October 2001, were
elementary 1,962 (K-5), 1,006 middle (6-8), and 1,195 high school (9-12)
students for a total CBED regular education enrollment of 4, 163.
3. The majority of future residential development projects are covered by
grandfathered mitigation agreements. It is estimated that over the next 30 years,
over 90% of the new single-family and multi-family units outlined in the City of
Dublin General Plan are under mitigation agreements with the District.
4. Mitigation fees from new development funded most of the currently available
school capacity and, as required by law and terms of the mitigation contracts, this
I Capacity for Dublin i-Ugh School was revised from 1,890 to 1,195 to account for sub-standard sized and non-conforming
classrooms. Final confirmation by the state is pending.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants. Inc
-3-
.;~.
Ph
new school capacity must be available .to students 'generated from new homes
encumbered under these mitigation agreements.
5. Based on a study of historical residential construction and market' absorption rates
for new homes, approximately 3,250 new single family homes (of which 3,000
are attached and 250 are detached) and 1,500 new multi-family units are forecast
to be constructed within the District over the next 5 years.
6. A yield factor analysis of newly constructed residential units finds that each new
attached single family home generates an average of 0.74 K-12 students while
each detached single family home generates an average of 0.25 K-12 students.
Each new multi-family unit generates an average of 0.13 students.
7. 2,478 additional students are expected from the forecasted new single-family
residential (attached and detached) and 1,500 multi-family units expected over the
next five years. This breaks do\Vl1 to 1,220 elementary, 583 middle, and 675 high
school grade students.
8. Given the current school capacity and enrollments projected from new housing as
described above, 2,385 new K-12 students generated over the next five years will
be "unhoused' within current school facilities.
9. The allowable costs for school construction pursuant to SB 50 are $5,720 per
elementary student, $6,050 per middle school student, and $7,920 per high school
student.
10. In addition to school construction costs, SB 50 states that 50% of site acquisition,
site development, and off-site development costs can be included. The allowable
site acquisition and site development costs per student for the District are $13,472
per elementary student, $20,370 per middle school student, and $19,714 per high
school student.
11. Therefore, the total allowable costs per student for Level 2 fees are $19,192 per
elementary student, $26,420 per middle school student, and $27,634 per high
school student.
12. Using these cost factors and the projected number of new homes, the maximum
amount chargeable to residential development as Level 2 fees is $55,555,740. Of
this total amount, $22,062,310 is attributable to new. elementary facilities,
$15,341,750 is attributable to new middle sC!lOol facilities, and $18,151,680 is
attributable to new high school facilities. These costs represent approximately
50% of the total allowable SB50 school construction costs.
13. Based on an average new single family residential home size of 2,200 square feet
(detached unit), 1,650 square feet for a new attached single family residential
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-4-
:z ~ ~ b3
home, and 800 square feet for a multi-family residential unit, the total projected
new residential area is 8,212,500 square feet.
14. There are no other available local funding sources for capital improvements to
finance school facility needs for new residential development that would be
subject to the Level 2 fees.
15. Therefore, the allowable composite Level 2 fee is $6.76 per square foot of new
single-family residential or new multi-family residential area.
16. The distinction betvveen "allowable" school costs for State funding and SB50
developer fee purposes and actual school costs should be noted. The currently
estimated actual cost of new school facilities is per new home. In comparison, the
maximum allowable Level 2 fee is $6.76 per square foot, which offsets only 34%
of the total costs.
Based on the findings from this report, the Dublin Unified School District should
continue levying Level 2 fees at the rates listed above for all new residential development
not grandfathered under pre-SB50 mitigation agreements. The District should also levy
the Levell commercial/industrial fee at the maximum amount of $0.34 per square foot as
justified in the appendix of this report...
,..
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants. Inc
-5-
.<'} o~ ~. / .~
f7- 0' C:?)/ b-
II. DISTRICT PROFILES
A. District Profiles
The Dublin Unified School District currently serves 4,241 K-12 students in an area
encompassing the city of Dublin in Alameda County. The District maintains 5
elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 1 high school as well as 1 continuation high
school facility.
The following page contains a map of the District and of the Dublin area. As this
Analysis will later document, the major growth area is located in the eastern portion of
Dublin. This area contains significant amounts of undeveloped land with the potential
for over 12,193 single family and multi-family dwelling units. The City of Dublin
Planning and Building Departments expect build out of this area to capacity within the
next 30 years, with the majority of growth to occur in the next ten years.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-6-
\
N
W*E ~
s ,'\)
-7:J\
- 6',
(},\
['
!11
,.
L:;\
1.[
I~
It-::
!
!
I..
/1,;.
,/i.\-:J-~I_1
.:r -~\ \ .\.V.
'$~:>,~~' (.~.~/ ~.
.Dist.rict
Do..gh~rty
je
!
!
i
1:8rod~
I
11
"
1
I
i
1
II
I.
jl
I
I
n Unifi;ed Sch.ool
L
I
I
I
. .1'.1..':
\ 'I'
n :'( .. i
) / c:.:
~le\~1
I . I
Or .~.
">~i~
i
\
\
\
r
..
..~
It
Ll
r
,
\\ \
.,.'
I
.\
\
\',
j.
If
,',
\
\
~
s\-.::\
\ /) .
\ ."
\-~...
\':
-::.
..../...
Dubli
~.",
..~.
I
\
\
.'.-
/
r
,.
CI Dublin USD
'. . Dublin schools
;. ... .' Streets
I '...
D Nielson Elementary Boundary
[. ::1~d Dublin Elementary Boundary
_ Mu~ray.Eleme'1tarY Bqundary
o Frederiksen Elementary Boundary
o Alameda County
C~ Dougherty Eleml E. Dublin Plan
;/
August 2002
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis,
by Shilts Consultants, Inc.
<----.------.
3D
B. Enrollments
Table 1 summarizes historical October enrollments for the current school year and the
previous six years. The high school and middle school grade levels have experienced
the most pronounced levels of growth with a combined average annual increase of24%
over the five-year period. In total, the Dublin Unified School District has experienced
an average annual growth rate of 15% over this five-year period.
Table 1 - Historical October Enrollments (CBEDs)
Year 1996-97 1997 -98 1998~99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Ki ndergarten 305 292 292 279 311 325
First 323 335 299 286 313 339
Second 296 333 334 285 301 321
Third 311 296 336 338 309 301
Fourth 325 315 293 325 356 321
Fifth 272 317 316 301 335 355
Sixth 284. 284 323 329 321 338
Seventh 287 300 278 331 344 319
Eighth 248 280 314 286 339 349
Ninth 292 249 288 297 315 358
Tenth 250 271 246 280 276 325
Eleventh 210 226 259 225 265 282
Twelfth 202 186 213 241 216 230
K through 5 1,832 1,888 1,870 1,814 1,925 1,962
6 through 8 819 864 915 946 .1,004 1,006
9 through 12 954 932 1,006 1,043 1,072 1,195
Total Regular Ed. 3,605 3,684 3,791 3,803 4,001 4,163
High SChool Continuation 101 1D8 97 94 81 78
TOTAL ENROLLMENT 3,706 3,792 3,888 3,897 4,082 4,241
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shil~s Consultants, Inc
;
-8-
"2/ .. ~ b:3
GI-. '15
III. SCHOOL CAPACITIES
Pursuant to SB 50, existing school capacity for State school construction funding
purposes is determined by a teaching station methodology whereby each permanent
teaching station is counted and loaded at the rate of 25 students per classroom for
grades K - 5 and 27 students per classroom for grades 6 - 12. Pursuant to Education
Code Section 17071.30(b), the maximum number of portable classrooms, reduced by .
the number of portable classrooms used as interim housing for modernization projects,
included within the capacity calculation shall not exceed 25% of the number of
permanent classrooms.
Table 2 on the following page presents an analysis of total teaching station counts and
housing capacities using State standards for new school construction funding. By this
measure, the Dublin Unified School District has a total student capacity for 5,861 K-12
students.
It is important to note that school capacity as determined for State school construction
funding eligibility, has no bearing on actual school capacity. The actual or real
capacity of a school district is dependent on the local educational program and services
of the district. Moreover, the State capacity for funding purposes does not take into
account that special education classrooms are loaded with less than one-half the number
of students as a regular education classroom, and that computer rooms and other labs at
elementary schools do not add capacity to the school because students do not rotate
between rooms.
To account for this important distinction between capacity for State funding purposes
and actual school capacity as determined by the local educational program, SB50
allows for the use of District standards for determining school capacities and future
school facility needs within a Needs Analysis. Given that the actual capacity of District
facilities is largely determined by the District's high-quality educational program, this
Analysis uses District capacity. (The use of State funding standards would incorrectly
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-9-
b:3
find that excess capacity is available for enrollments from new housing, when in
actuality this space is used to support the current educational programs and enrollments
of the District.2)
Table 2 - School Capacityfor State Funding Eligibility
Grade
Level
Teaching
Stations
S850
Loadin'g
Standards
Total
capac:ity1
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Dougherty Elementary
Dublin Elementary
Frederiksen Elementary ~
Murray Elementary
Nielsen Elementary
State Capacity Adjustments
Elementary Teaching Station Capacity
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
IWells Middie
State Capacity Adjustments
Middle School Teaching Capacity
HIGH SCHOOLS
Dublin High 2
State Capacity Adjustments
High Schoo! Teaching Capacity
TOTAL REGULAR CAPACITY (State Funding Standard)
Valley Continuation High
"'.
K.5
K.5
K.5
K.5
. K-5
6-8
9-12
Source: Jenkins Advisory Team Inc. for the Dublin Unfjed School District
9-12
21 25 525
26 25 650
37 25 925
24 25 600
22 25 550
(111 )
130 25 3,139
60 27 1,620
(93)
60 27 1,527
48 27 1,216
(21)
48 27 1,195
238 5,861
12 27 324
Notes:
1 Capacity is equal to the counted number of total teaching stations times 25 students per station for grades K-6 and 27
studerits per station for grades 7-12.
2 Capacity for Dublin High is estimated, because additional review by State is required to account for substandard sized
classrooms.
3 Capacity for Frederiksen includes 13 portable classrooms.
2 State loading standards do not take into account labs, spe.cial education, music, arts and other special
program classrooms which either do not add capacity to the school or are roaded at levels lower than State
standards. .
Dublin Unified School District
Schoo! Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-10-
Table 3 - SchoQI.Capacity, Using District Standards
Grade Kinderg. 1-3 4-8 9-12 CAC Spec. Total
District Capacity by Classrooms Levels Clssrms 1 Clss rl11S Clssrms Clssrms Labs 2 Rooms 3 Ed.father Capacity 4
Dougherty Elementary 5 K-5 3 13 5 1 3 1 450
Dublin Elementary K-5 2 14 5 1 3 1 450
Frederiksen Elementary K-5 . 2 22 8 1 3 1 540
Murray Elementary K-5 2 12 5 1 3 1 410
Nielsen Elementary K-5 2 11 4 1 3 1 364
Wells Middle 6 6~8 40 14 6 1,000
Dublin High 7 9-12 48 9 1,216
Valley Continuation High 9-12 12 240
Total Capacity (Regular Education) 4,430
Notes:
1 Kindergarten classrooms run single session. and are loaded at the class size reduction capacity of 20 students per classroom.
2 The classification of labs is used to designate computer labs at elementary schools that are not counted in District capacity because they do not add usable capacity.
~. Rooms designated by the District's Citizen's Advisory Commillee for arts, reading specialist, physical education and other courses to improve theeducatiQnal program.
These classrooms are not counted as part of the District's regular educational capacity because they are not used by one classroom on a fulHime basis, therefore, do not
27 I 22
21
add usable capacity.
4 Capacity of schools for regular education only. CapaCities determined at District loading standards and Classroom Reduction (K-3) as follows:
Kindergarten 20 Grades 4 - 5 26 Grades 9-12
Grades 1-3 20 Grades 6 - 8 26 Labs 6-12
pursuant to the Citizens' Advisory
the core building.
as educational program goals of the District
into
At Dougherty Elementary School. laboratory, CAe and special education classrooms are designed
5
6 Board approved maximum site capacity given site acreage constraints as wel
Committee guidelines.
~
\J\
16 sub-standiudclassroorns which are defined as less than 960 sq.ft. and calculated at 22 students per classroom. Standard classrooms
Additionally 23 non-conforming classrooms are excluded which are defined as less than 700 sq. ft.
Dubin High capacity includes
count incllldes 4 portable classroomS loaded at 27 students each.
r.s:~
,>,
\~
Q'\-.
~
-11-
2002
Unified School District
Facility Needs Analysis, August
Shilts Consultants, file
Dublin
School
By
//7
b ...:;'
Table 4 below compares the 2001-02 enrollment data with the student capacity for the K-
5,6-8 and 9-12 grade school levels. As of today, the District's enrollments do not eXceed
capacity.
Table 4 - School Capacities vs. Enrollment by District Standards
Distric:t October 2001 Excess
Capacity Enrollment Capacity
Elementary Schools 2,214 1,962 252
Middle School 1,000 1,006 (6)
High School 1,216 1,195 21
Total Regular Education 4,430 4,163 267
Continuation High 240 78 162
Total K -12 4,670 4,241 429
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis. August 2002
By Shills Consultants, Inc
-12-
35
IV. PROJECTIONS AND DEMOGRAPHICS
A. Projected Development
The City of Dublin has experienced slow to moderate growth swings over the last ten
years. As indicated in Graph 1 below, the heaviest development occurred in the last six
years wi,th residential building permits issued between 1996 thru July 2002.
GRAPH 1
,-
i
I
i
Annual Residential Building Permits
City of Dublin
1,100 -\
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
o
- ~ B
.-- -.~I-'"
..;...
- -
~f-- 1/';' r-
I::'" -
- !-- I :.; i\>~ i-- ----=--
- n -q- -'-h:=r-:~~i -
- n ~
roO:! 9)'=> 9;)" 9;)CV 9)1'\;) rff 9)~ 0,\0 ~ 9)0:; 9;)0::> r;::;'=> r;::;" r;::;1V
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 0/ 0/ 0/
!OSFR OMFR
Source: Cities of Dublin Planning Department
Growth patterns for the latter half of the 1990's indicate an upward trend in the
construction and absorption rates of residential units. The City of Dublin Planning
Department has already established a general plan for development of the eastern portion
of Dublin where most future growth will occur. The Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment (1994, Wallace Roberts & Todd) estimates a total of 13,661 new residential
units to be built over a 30-40 year period. With the inclusion of other development
projects, the total number of approved and proposed units exceeds 13,000. Table 5 on the
following page outlines current and projected building projects that the City of Dublin
has identified;
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-13-
/
30
t;
Table 5 - Current and Approved Residential Building Projects
Remaining I Total.
. Total Planned i Remaining SFR . Small Remaining 1 Remaining Apt Remelnlng
Project Units ! SFR' Lot' TDwnhorri.~ I eondo' Units CeveloJ)er
Dublin Ranch (Phase I) 847 61 61 Lin Family
Dublin Ranch A 562 ! 453 453 Un Family
Dublin Ranch B-!: 1,875 i I 958 916 1,875 Un Family
Dublin RanchF.H 2,176 I 91 689 1,396 2,176 Lin Family
ArCh alone Apartments 177 i 177 177 Archslone
West Sybase Campas (Site Area 15A) 621 .., 821 621
,
Waterlord / Emerald Glen Village 390 I 315 315 Shea Prop.
Yarra Yarra RanCh, Greenbriar Phase 1 126 25 25 Greenbriar
Yerra Yerra RenCh, Greenbriar Phasa 2 46 ! 46 46 Gl'aenbriar
Yarra Yarra Ranch, Greenbriar Phase 3 193 193 193 Greenbriar
Trans~ Cenler 1,500 1,500 1,500 Alameda Co.
Gygj 7 10 i 10 10
Dublin Land Cempany / Diamente 7 300 I 300 300 Dublin Land Ce.
East Dublin At.. (within. City limits) 9,023 652 [ 1,661 493 5,1Z5 7,951 I Braddeck and l.1:lgan
I,
Braddock and Logan (Mandevme) · 207 207 I 207
Croak · 446 446 I 446 i Croak
JerdenlFA TCe · 1,011 353 i 94 564 1,011
Chen · 132 I 132 132
Andersen 6 25 26 i 26
I
Righetti ' 35 35 I 35
Branuaugh 6 36 36 36
Fallen Enterprises 6 633 633 633 : Braddock and l.ogan
Eastern Annexation Area 1,516 1,736 94 0 696 2,526
Dublin Ranch West (Un.Wallis) 775 65 330 360 0 775 Un Family
Bragg 7 20 20 20
Mission Peak' 120 96 22 120 Slandard Pacific
Silveria/Haight/Nielson 7 259 50 113 96 259 Pinn Bres.
Tipper T 82 82 82
Vargas et al ' 154 14 140 154
Sperlslage 7 12 12 12
Moller' 269 269 269
Dublin Ranch Nerth ' 4 4 4 Un Family
Kobold 7 20 20 20
Northern Annexation Area 1,715 486 571 636 22 1,715
West Dublin BART 160 160 160
Camp Parks TBD TBO 0
Legacy Apartments 296 12 296 308
Standard PaCific Apartments 100 100 100 Slendard Pacific
Alcesta Blvd Townhomes 60 60 60
Cestle Cempanles 60 14 14
Schaefer RanCh 300 300 300
Total Downtown Dublin 976 0 12 60 870 942
Grand Total 14,240 2,874 2,359 1,189 6,713 13,135
Footnotes:
1 Oetachedan::l ze~lct line units: attached units on individual parce!s
, Oeta,:necl, zero lot line
3 Attad1ed,ul'1its only ~ townhouses
. Attached flats, gan::len apal'tinents,-stacked flats
, Based upon approved stage 11'0 submitlal, subject to change
, Basee uPon apprOved Sialle 1 ?D
7 Based upon East Dublin Specific Pian
~ sa-sed 'upon Dublin General Plan
Source: Edclie Peabody, Cty of Dublin Planning Department
Cennie Goldacle, MacKay and Somp,
Notes:
No number next to the project indicates that all the units were completed.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-14-
3 '1 15 b3
Future levels of residential development will primarily be determined by the supply and
demand for new homes in the area. Considering the recent groVv'th history in the Dublin
area, the demand for new homes should not be constrained by the supply. Therefore,
development projections were formulated under a market absorption methodology
whereby the demand for new housing stock was assumed to increase at a moderate
degree above historical levels. This level of development is based on the assumption that
economic conditions in the District will remain positive.
Table 6 below lists the 5-year projected residential development within the Dublin
Unified School District. Based on historical development, current building projects, and
the remaining number of units to be built, this Analysis projects 3,000 single family
detached, 250 single family attached and 1,500 new multi-famIly residential units by the
year 2006. As noted, the District should continue. to closely monitor development
activity.
Table 6 - Projected Residential Development by Year
SFR :
,
I j
Year Detached I Attached MFR Total
2002 , 600 50 300 950
2003 600 50 300 950
2004 600 50 ";;300 950
2005 600 50 300 950
2006 600 50 300 950
5 Yr Total 3,000 250 1,500 I 4,750
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-15-
33
B. Yield Factors
Student generation rates,. otherwise known as yield factors, are the average number of
students that are generated by each housing unit. Student generation rates for new
housing units were determined by Shilts Consultants using an address match
methodology whereby enrollment data was address-matched with housing units
constructed over a five-year period. Using a housing sample size of over 1,200 units, the
yield analysis found that new single family attached homes are generating an average of
0.74 K-12 students. The yield factor for single-family detached homes is 0.25 students
while multi-family residential units are generating an average of 0.13 K-12 students.
Table 7 - Student Yield Factors from New Housing
Housing Type K-5 6-8 9-12 K -12
New Single Family Residential (detached) .. 0.36 0.17 0.21 0.74
New Single Family Residential (attached) 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.25
Multi-Family Residential. 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.13
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-16-
j? q( 63
_ v
C. Enrollments from New Housing -
Table 8 below lists the number of students projected by year and grade level from the
forecasted new homes. If 4,750 new housing units are constructed as projected over the
next five years, and each new SFR attached, SFR detached and MFR is expected to yield
0.74, 0.25 and 0.13 students respectively, then the Dublin Unified School District
enrollments will increase by approximately 2,478 students.
Table 8 - Projected Enrollments from New Housing
SFR Students
Year Detached Attached MFR K- 5 6-8 9-12 K -12
2002 600 50 300 244 117 135 496
2003 1,200 100 600 488 233 270 991
2004 1,800 150 900 732 350 405 1,487
2005 2,400 200 1,200 976 466 540 1,982
2006 3,000 250 1,500 1,220 583 675 2,478
Total 3,000 250 1,500 1,220 583 675 2,478
Dublin UnifiedSchool District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-17-
D. Unhoused Enrollments
Table 9 presents the projection of unhoused students by year. This is the proJected
number of new students in excess of current school capacities.
Table 9 - Unhoused Enrollments by Year
Total
Unhoused
Year K - 51 6-8 9 _122 K -12
2002 (172) ( 117) (114) (403)
2003 (416) (233) (249) (898)
2004 (660) (350) (384 ) (1,394)
2005 (904 ) (466) (519) (1,889)
2006 (1,148) (583) (654 ) (2,385)
Total (1,148) (583) (654 ) (2,385)
Notes:
1 K. 5 unhoused capacity accounts for available capacity on in East Dublin because
all development will be in East Dublin and it is not feasible to bus students to West
Dublin.
2 9 - 12 unhoused adjusted for available capacity at Dublin High School.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By,shilts Consultants, Inc
;
-18-
'/I~
, /0'
b...:/
E. New Residential Building Area
An analysis conducted by Shilts Consultants of current building permits issued within the
District found the average size Of a new detached single family homes to be 2,200 square
feet, a new attached single family home to be 1,650 square feet, and the average dwelling
size for multi-family units to be 800 square feet. As a result, Table 10 projects over 8.2
million square feet of new residential area over the next 5 years.
Table 10 - New Residential Building Area
SFR
D.etached Attached
MFR
TOTAL
Average Dwelling Size (Sq. Ft.)
Total Units (5 years)
2,200
3,000
1,650
250
800
.1,500
4,750
Total Residential Square Footage
6,600,000
412,500
1,200,000
8,212,500
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis. August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-19-
y,;! 63
v. ALLOWABLE COST AND FEES
Education Code Section 17072.10 establishes allowable cost factors for school
construction that are used to determine the appropriate Level 2 fee for new residential
development. These cost factors were evidently established at approximately 50% of
statewide school construction costs. It should be noted however, that the actual cost of
school construction as shown in Table 12 is significantly higher than the State cost
factors indicate. Any shortfall in funding from the state school construction bond
program (recently funded by Proposition lA) and Level 2 fees will need to be addressed
by local school districts.
SB50 provides an unhoused pupil grant of $5,720 per elementary student, $6,050 per
middle school student, and $7,920 per high school student that can be included in
calculating total allowable SB50 school construction costs. In addition, the Dublin
Unified School District can include 50% of the cost of site acquisition, offsite
improvements, and site development. The site acquisition and development costs equate.
to $13,472 per elementary student, $20,370 per middle school student, and $19,714 per
high school student bringing total SB50 school construction costs per student to $19,192
per elementary student, $26,420 per middle school student, and $27,634 per high school
student.
The determination of allowable costs and Level 2 fees is presented in Table 11. This
table calculates a composite single family/multi-family fee based on aggregate SB50 new
school facility construction costs. This fee is the amount that is justified and should be
established for new residential construction. As shown, the District can justify a Level 2
single family/multi-family fee in the amount of $6.76 per square foot of new residential
area.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shifls Consultants, Inc
-20-
~?; c1f 6
Table 11 - Allowable Level 2 Fee Calculation
Grade Level
K-5 6-8 9 - 12 Total
Unhoused Enrollment From New Development 1,148 583 654 2,385
New School Size 540 1,000 1 .400
Schools Needed 2,13 0.58 0.47
Acreage Required per Campus 10 28.0 40.0
Total Acreage Required 21.30 16.24 18.80
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre $1,180,000 $1,1 BO,OOO $1,180,000
Site Development Cost per Acre 1 $275,000 $275,000 . $200,000
Total Site Acquisition/Development Cost/Acre $1,455,000 $1,455,000 $1,380,000
Allowable S850 Site Acq.lDevel. Costs per Acre2 $727,500 $727,500 $690,000
8850 Unhoused Pupil Grant3 $5,720 $6,050 $7,920
Allowable S850 Site Acq.lOevel. Cost per Student4 $13,472 $20,370 $19,714
Total Allowable Costs per Student $19,192 $26,420 $27,634
Total S850 School Facilities CostS $6,566,560 $3,527,150 $5,179,680 $15,273,390
Total S850 Site Acquisition & Development Costs6 $15,495,750 $11,814,600 $12,972,000 $40,282,350
Total Allowable S850 Costs $22,062,310 $15,341,750 $18,151,680 $55,555,740
Total New Residential Area (Sq. Ft.) 8,212,500
Composite Single Family/Multi-Family Fee per Square Foot $6.76
NOTES:
1 Land costs are estimated at S27 per square foot or S 1.18 million per acre.
2 Estimated cost per acre for rough site development, utilities and public infrastructure improvements.
5 Pursuant to 8850. 50% of total site acquisition and development costs are allowable in calculating Level 2 fees.
4 Allowable 8B50 funding per student. These amounts are adjusted annually by the state to represent approximately 50% of actual construction costs
per student. Updated at SA8 meeting on January 23. 2002.
5 The allowable S850 site acquisition and development costs calculated per student utilizing new school size and acreage required per campus.
5 This amount equals the totai school construction costs that may be.funded with 8850 fees.
7 SB50 fees (approximately 50% of projected costs) may fund total cost for site acquisition and development.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
,By Shilts Consultants. Inc
-21-
(r' ~f3,
F. Total Cost of New School Facilities Per New Home
Table 12 below lists the current cost of school construction, site acquisition, site
development, interim housing and transportation within the District. This is the estimated
actual or total cost of constructing new school facilities and is based on recent
construction costs for schools in the District and the area.
As shown the total cost per new single family home equals $43,532. In comparison, the
Level 2 developer fees pursuant to Chapter 407/98 and Government Code Section
65995.5 provide an average of $"14,883 per new home, which equates to approximately
34% of the total cost of new school facilities per home. State bond funds can provide up
to an equal amount of school construction costs. Therefore, the combination of Level 2
fees and State funding covers approximately 68% of the total costs, and the unfunded
amount per new home is $9,125.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis. August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-22-
Lj:5 e6 6~
Table 12 - Total Cost of New School Facilities
Grade Level
K.5 6.8 9.12 K -12 Totals
Capacity of New School 1 540 1,000 1,400
Yield Rates - Students per New SFR 0.36 0.17 0.21 0.74.
New School Cost 2
Land Cost/Site Development per Acre $1,455,000 $1,455,000 $1,380,000
Campus Acreage 10.0 28.0 40.0
Total School Area 40,500 88,000 140,000
Construction Cost per Sq. Ft. $210 $220 $225
Architect $619,000 $1,355,000 $2,205,000
Construction Management $663,000 $1,452,000 $2,363,000
Inspections/Eng ineering $442,000 $968,000 $1,575,000
Furniture/EquipmentfT echnology $885,000 $1,936,000 $3,150,000
New School Cost $25,664,000 $65,811,000 . $95,993,000 I
!
Interim and Transportation
Interim Housing (20/1000) 3 $1,232,000
Additional Buses (3/1000) 4 $508,200
Total Interim and Trans. $1,740,200
Cost per Student $47,526 $65,811 $68,566 $1,130
Total Cost per New Home $17,109 $11,188 $14,399 $836 $43,532
Aliowable Alternative 1 Cost/Student ~t,'. $19,192 $26,420 $27,634 $0
State Funding Amount per Student $19,192 $26,420 $27,634 SO
Potential Capital Revenues per Student $38,384 $52,840 $55,269 $0
Potential Capital Revenue per New Home $13,818 $8,983 $11,606 $0 $34,407
Unfunded Cost per Student ($9,141) ($12,971) ($13,298) ($1,130)
Unfunded Cost per New Home ($3,291) ($2,205) ($2,793) ($836) ($9,125)
Notes:
1 Capacities are based upon a traditional calendar school year.
2 Cost includes land ($1.BM/acre), other acquisition costs, design, tests, selVice site development, general site development, construction, fumiture,
equipment, and support facilities.
modular classrooms will be needed for interim housing for each 1,000 student enrollment growth at a cost of $40,000 per classroom for intrim Installationand
leasing.
4 Additional buses will also be required with enrollment growth. Approximately 3 additional buses may be required for each 1,000 students of enrollment
growth.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants. lnc
-23-
tit-
.r:/
---df
VI. SCHOOL FACILITY PLANS AND OTHER LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
A. Dublin School Facility Plans
The City of Dublin's Eastern Dublin General Plan has afforded space for future
development of school facilities. As such, the District has planned for the construction of
two new elementary schools and one new middle school facility to accommodate new
growth in this area. Additional construction will depend upon actual grovrth levels. in
Eastern Dublin and the District will continue to closely monitor these trends.
B. Other Local Funding Sources and Potential Cost Offsets
As previously mentioned in the summary, the Dublin Unified School District has a
number of current and future building projects grandfathered under pre-SB50 mitigation
agreements. These agreements stipulate that the development projects will pay specified
dollar amounts as mitigation fees that ,vill be used for the construction of school
facilities. Pursuant to these agreements and state laws, the school facilities financed with
mitigation fees must be made available for students from the development projects
paying the fees.
Therefore, students generated from construction of new housing units under these
mitigation agreements are not eligible for the SB50 Level 2 fees, because the mitigation
agreements provide for their school facility needs.
In 1986, the State Legislature, by means of AB2926, adopted what became known as the
School Financing Plan of 1986. Prior to the adoption of AB2926, financing for the
construction of new schools varied widely throughout the State; some school districts had
no means of financing needed facilities while others were charging in excess of $10,000
per new home. In essence, AB2926 established the parameters for levying fees and
created the opportunity for school districts to develop a partnership with local agencies to
provide the necessary financing for the new school facilities needed for students
generated by new development.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Need, Ana!.vsis, August 2002
By Shifts Consultants. lnc
-24-
f1 <b3
Initially, AB2926 authorized school districts to impose School Facility Fees (developer
fees), as a condition of the issuance of building permits, in order to finance certain school
facility costs at the maximum rates of $1.50 for residential development and $0.25 for
commercial/industrial development. Since then, fees have increased every other year in
January, and are currently being collected at the maximum rate of $2.14 per square foot
for residential development and $0.34 per square foot for commercial/industrial
development. With the passage of the School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB50), the rules for
levying additional fees in excess of AB2926 developer fees have changed. In effect,
SB50 suspends local government's MiraIHartlMurrieta powers related to school facility
needs until the year 2006.
A local agency is required to consider the impact of legislative actions on school facilities
once a District has satisfied the nexus requirement of the effect of a particular project on
the District's abiiity to provide a high quality of educational services within the
constraints of the existing facilities. The District should continue to work with the City
and County to ensure that the District's ability to furnish adequate school facilities will
not be adversely impacted by gro'Vvth. Accordingly, a copy of this Plan should be
provided to these local agencies and the District should continue to notify the City and
County on the impact of proposed development projects.
Commercial and Industrial Stirling fees levied pursuant to Government Code Section
65995 continue to be justified for the Dublin Unified School District. As determined in
the CommerciallIndustrial Fee Justification addendum to this Needs Analysis, these fees
offset only a portion of the cost of new school facilities and will continue to be needed to
provide additional school facilities for enrollments generated by employees from new
commercial and industrial businesses.
No other funding sources for new school facilities for enrollments generated by new
development are available.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis. August 1002
By ShillS Consultants, lnc
-25-
VII. LEVEL 3 FEE ELIGIBILITY
A. Level 3 Fees
If state school construction funding becomes unavailable due to a lack of state school
construction bonds, school districts would be eligible to levy fees pursuant to
Government Code Section 65995.7 at twice the currently justified amount for Level 2
fees. Currently, these Level 3 fees for residential construction in the District would be as
shown below.
It should be noted that if the District levies Level 3 fees and later receives any state
funding, any amounts collected in excess of Level 2 fees either would have to be
refunded to the property owners from whom it was collected or deducted from any future
funding allocations made by the State. If such reimbursement were to occur, the District
could deduct from the reimbursable amount its expenditures for interim housing for
students from new residential development.
. Table 13 - Level 3 Fees.
Cost and Fee Categories
Amount
Allowable Cost per Elementary Student
Allowable Cost per Middle School Student
Allowable Cost per High School
$38,384
$52,840
$55,269
Allowable Level 3 Fees per square foot
of new single family residential units
$13.53
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-26-
!j? qr( ~3
'..-'
VIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION OF 1'l~EDS ANALYSIS AND LEVEL
2 OR LEVEL 3 FEES
To levy Alternate fees, a school district must perform the following tasks:
1. Prepare a Needs Analysis as described by Chapter 407/98.
2. Final Needs Analysis must be made available for public review for a period of at
least 30 days.
3. Publish notice of hearing for the Needs Analysis and fee increase in a newspaper
, of general circulation at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
4. Mail a copy of the Needs Analysis at least 30 days prior to the hearing to any
party that has submitted a written request for such copies at least 45 days prior to
the hearing.
S. Provide a copy of the Needs Analysis to the local planning and land use agency(s)
for review and comment during the public review period.
6. The Governing Board must respond to any written comments received on the
Needs Analysis.
7. Conduct a public hearing after the 30-day review period.
8. Pass a resolution adopting the Needs Analysis and Level 2 or Level 3 fee, as
applicable.
9. The fees take effect immediately upon adoption and are effective for a period of
one year.
10. Annually prepare a new Needs Analysis that updates the required elements for the
Needs Analysis, including new yield factors from new homes, school costs,
capacities and other factors, and repeat the adoption process.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-27-
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings herein, the Dublin Unified School District meets the requirements
for levying Level 2 fees and can justify a fee in the amount of $6.76 per square foot for
new residential single family (attached and detached) and new multi-family residential
construction. This fee should be established and levied on new residential development,
with the exception of any residential development that has a mitigation agreement with
the District.
"",
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-28-
I '" t-:h
-<;. ".VF-J
C7 't> i./
X. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL FEE JUSTIFICATION
AN APPENDIX TO THE SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS
A. Summary
The Dublin Unified School District has been levying developer fees pursuant to
Government Code Section 65995 for residential and commercial/industrial development.
These fees are commonly known as Statutory fees, and the current maximum fees are
$2.14 per square foot for residential construction and $0.34 per square foot for
commercial/industrial construction.
B. CommerciallIndustrial Fees
. As commercial or industrial properties develop, new jobs are created. Many of the
people hired into these new jobs move into the community thereby increasing the need
for additional school facilities to serve their children. Consequently, commercial or
industrial development affects the District.
Shilts Consultants gathered data from the State of California Employment Development
Department, the California Department of Finance Census Bureau, the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the City of Dublin Planning Department. This data
indicated that, as of January 1, 1999, there were a total of28,707 people living in the City
of Dublin, which includes 12,370 residents with employment status. Furthermore, there
are a total of 8,367 housing units (both single family and multi-family units) within the
City of Dublin yielding a ratio of 1.48 employeeslhousing unit. Data from the 1990 US
census found that 19% of the Dublin residents with employment status worked in Dublin.
Additionally, AB530, adopted in 1990, allows for use of employee generation figures
from a report produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The
SANDAG study determined the average number of employees per square foot of
commercial and industrial business space. The employee generation factors are
summarized in Table 14 below. The SANDAG study shows that on the average there are
2.65 employees for each 1,000 square feet of commercial or industrial building area.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-29-
Table 14 - Employees per Square Foot of CommerciallIndustrial Floor Area
Type of Business
Square Feet
Per Employee
Banks
Commercial Offices
Community Shopping Centers
Corporate Offices
Industrial Business Parks
Industrial Parks
Lodging
Medical Offices
Neighborhood Shopping Centers
Retail self-storage
Research & Development
354
226
652
372
284
668
883
217
360
15541
329
Employees
per 1000
Square Feet
2.83
4.43
1.53
2.68
3.51
1.50
1.13
4.61
2.78
0.06
3.04
Overall Average
377
2.65
Source: SANDAG Traffic Generator Study
C. Commercial/1ndustrial Fee;Justification
Using the SANDAG study average of 2.65 employeesll,OOO square feet of new
commercial or industrial space, assuming that 19% of these employees reside in the City
of Dublin, and an average of 1.48 employees live in each home, this study finds an
average of 0.34 homes will be needed for each new employee per 1,000 square feet of
commercial/industrial space3. Likewise, 2,936 square feet of new commercial/industrial
space would, on average, create the need for one additional home in the Dublin area for
new employees of that business.
Therefore, the total cost of school facilities needed per 2,936 square feet of commercial
or industrial space is the same as the K-12 new school facilities cost per home of from
Table 12. However, SB50 Level 2 fees provide an average of $14,883 per new home
3 (2.65* 19%) -;. 1.48
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-30-
<~ /(3
~-' Co
($6.76/square feet * 2,200 square feet) and the state school construction program should
provide a nearly equal amount. Therefore, the total potential capital revenue for site
development and school construction is $13,669. The unfunded cost of school facilities
is the difference between the actual cost of school construction and amounts available
from the state and developers, or per new home.
Therefore, the unfunded impact of commercial or industrial development is $3.11 per
square foot ($9,124 -;- 2,936). In comparison, the maximum commercial/industrial fee for
K-12 facilities is $0.34 per square foot, which covers only 11 % of the unfunded impact.
As a result, commercial/industrial fees are justified and are needed to ensure that
adequate school facilities can be made available for enrollments generated by new
residential construction.
In addition to the following justification, a percentage of employees for a new business
will move into existing housing in the community. Given that employees typically have
more children than the families or people they replace in existing housing,
commercial/industrial development also creates enrollment growth in the existing
housing stock. Commercial/industrial fees are also justified to offset this impact.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
8y Shilts Consultants, Inc
-31-
y
Table 15 - Impact of CommerciallIndustrial Development
Square Feet
Employees Creating Unfunded Unfunded
per 1000 Need for One Impact Impact per
Type of Business Square Feet 1 New Home 2 per Home 3 Square Feet 4
Banks 2.83 2,750 $9,124 $3.32
Commercial Offices 4.43 1,756 $9,124 $5.20
Community Shopping Centers 1.53 5,086 $9,124 $1.79
Corporate Offices 2.68 2,903 $9,124 $3.14
Industrial Business Parks 3.52 2,211 $9,124 $4.13
Industrial Parks 1.50 5,187 $9,124 $1.76
Lodging 1.13 6,886 $9,124 $1.33
Medical Offices 4.61 1,688 $9,124 $5.41
Neighborhood Shopping Centers 2.78 2,799 $9,124 $3.26
Research & Development 3.04 2,560 $9,124 $3.56
,~~ -..-----
Overall Average 2.65 2,936 $ 9,124 $3.11
Notes:
Empioyee generation factors from SANDAG Study. .
4
This is the square feet of commercial or industrial building area that generates the. need for one new
home in the District. Calculated: (1/(2.65* 19%)) * 1000 SF * 1.48
Unfunded impact equals total impact per home, less Level 2 develo~er fees of $6.76 per square foot
* average home size of2,200 square feet plus assumed equal state funding.
Unfunded impact per square foot equals unfunded impact per home divided by square feet of
commercial/industrial building area that creates the need for one new home in the District.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-32-
55 b5
D. Conclusions
Commercial/industrial Statutory fees levied pursuant to Government Code Section
65995 continue to be justified for the District. As detemlined, these fees offset only a
portion of the cost of new school facilities and will continue to be needed to provide
additional school facilities for enrollments generated by employees from new
commercial and industrial businesses. Therefore, the District should make the findings
necessary'to continue levying commercial/industrial fees at the rate of $0.34 per square
foot.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
. By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-33-
.'DUBLIN SCHOOLS~
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
",-/' ~,!;
b
TO:
FROM:
Board of Trustees
Gene Turner
DATE:
October 9,2002
RE:
Resolution No. 2002/03-07, Intention to Adopt a School Facility Needs Analysis and
Approve the Levy of School Mitigation Fees
BACKGROUND:
In November 1998 California voters passed Proposition 1A and authorized the sale of $9.2 billion of bonds
designated for public schools. This program allocated $2.9 billion to all qualifying schoo! districts in a 50/50
state-local match program towards new school construction.
The remaining 50% of the cost is attributed to new residential development by way of a School Facility Needs
Analysis - a report that quantifies the impact of new residential development and justifies the appropriate
developer fee. This new fee, referred to as a Level 2 fee, may exceed the Level 1 developer fees (currently
set at $2.14). The School Facility Needs Analysis must include the following components:
1. Determines eligible school capacity.
2. Projects residential development over the next 5 years.
3. Determines Student Generation Rates from homes constructed over the
previous 5 years.
4. utilizing the results of point's 2 and 3 to project enrollment growth over the next
5 years. .~'.'"
5. Evaluates school expansion or unused space.
6. Considers alternative revenue sources.
7. Calculates and justifies Level 2 fees.
In the event that no state school bonds are available to apportion, school district may levy a Level 3 fee equal
to 100% of school construction, site acquisition, and development costs. However, authority of school districts
to levy Level 3 fees has been suspended through at least March 2004, pending the outcome of Proposition 47
in November 2002. If the school facilities bond election is successful, authority to levy Level 3 fees will
continue to be suspended indefinitely. Should the bond election fail, Level 3 fees will be authorized after
March 2004 only if new construction funds are not available and bonds for districts that qualify for Critically
Overcrowded School funding are also not available.
FINANCIAL:
I ncrease future revenues in the Developer Fee Fund - 25.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2002/03-07, Intention to Adopt a School Facility Needs Analysis and Approve the Levy
of School Mitigation Fees as presented.
D-2
'DUBLIN SCHOOL~1o~bj
DUBLIN lrNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 2002!03~07
INTENTION TO ADOPT A SCHOOL FAC4UTY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND
APPROVE THE LEVY OF SCHOOL MITIGATION FEES
FOR THE DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLVED by the Governing Board (the "Board") of the Dublin Unified School District (the "District"),
County of Alameda. State of California. that:
WHEREAS, this Board has had a School Facility Needs Analysis prepared as outlined in Section 65995 of
the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, said Needs Analysis outlines the shortfall in revenues without levying fees as authorized in
Sections 65995.5 and 65995.6 of the Government Code.
NOW. THEREFORE. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows:
1. The Board hereby receives and approves the School Facility Needs Analysis dated August. 2002 as prepared by SCI.
2. Based upon said Needs Analysis. the Board makes the following findings:
a. The purpose of the fees is to provide adequate school facilities for the students of the District who will be
generated by residential development and commerciallindustrial development in the District.
b. The fees are to be used to finance construction of school facilities as identified in the District's Facilities Master
Plan.
c. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the fees, the use of the fees. and the development
projects on which the fees are imposed. " .
d. There is a reasonable relationship betWeen the amount. of the fees and the oost of the facilities attributable to the
development projects on which the fees are imposed. -
3. The District meets the requirements, (b)(3)(C)(i) and (b)(3)(D) of Government Code Section 65995.5.
4. The Board hereby finds and determines it necessity to levy the fees authorized in Sections 65995.5 and 65995.6 of the
Government Code in the amount of $6.76 per square foot of new residential development and $0.34 per square foot of
new commercial and industrial development.
5. The imposition of the fees shall take effect immediately.
6. The Superintendent or designee shall notify the City of Dublin and the County having jurisdiction over territory within
the District and requesting that no building permits be issued on or after this date without certification from the District
that the fees specified herein have been paid.
7. October 9.2002 at 8:00 p.m.. in the regular meeting place of this Board. Board f3.oom. 7471 Larkdale Avenue. Dublin,
California. be, and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place when and where this Board will
conduct a public hearing on the subject of the imposition of said fees.
8. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to cause notice of said public hearing to be given by publication one time in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area of the District. The publication of said notice shaH be completed at least
thirty days before the date herein set for said hearing.
APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October. 2002.
4
o
1
o
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
~&
Cler of the Board'J'f Trustees
Dub~ln Unified ScHool District
County of Alameda
State of California
ANI\TUAL REVIEW
OF
DE~LOPMENTAGREEMENTS
615 c-15 6 3
Signed June 29,
1999
Dublin.Ranch Phase I Signed June 4, 1999 July 14, 1999 Aug. 15,2000
General Motors Signed June 29, . July 8, 1999 Aug. 15,2000
1999
i Koll Dublin Corporate \ Signed June 2, 1999 June 8, 1999 Aug. 15,2000
Center
HHR Supply & Invest I Last party signed June 8,1999 Aug. 15, 2000
_, Micro Dental I JUl:le 4, 1999
\ Tassajara.Meadows IT Signed June 2, 1999 June 8, 1999 Aug. 15,2000
lv.liSsion Peak
. Yes, An:as
A-l. through
A-7
.8 yrs
5 yrs
5 yrs
5 yrs
\ Toll Bros. Project Signed June 4, 1999 September 23, 1999 Aug. 15,2000 \ I
I
I GHe Investments LLC, f Signed March 26, April 9, 2001 Aug. 15,2000 5 yrs I
I Tract 7075 2001
Tass. Creek, Phase I i .,
SPCA \ August 7, 2000 April 22, 2002 p,..ug. 15, 2000 \ 5 yrs I \
i
I D~ blin Ranch I April 18, 2000 \ ..1 Aug. 15,2000 \ 5 yrs \
. Supp Areas F, G, H i
chaefer Heights \ December 31, 1998 I January 27, 1999 \ Aug. 15,2~OO \ 8 yrs
\ (THIS IS 30 DAYS AFTER I
ADOPTION OF ORD.j I
Sybase Project l Signed August 7, \ September 12, 2000 Aug. 15, 2001 5 yrs I
I
WDS DubiinLLC 2000
I Emerald Glen \ November 8, 2000 \ December 7, 2001 August 15 5 yrs
Vili.age Center - Shea LLC I
, Commerce One \ November 7,2001 , November 9, 2001 August 15 I Assigned to
:) yrs
! the County
!
GHe lnvestri:lents LLC August 21,2001 November 9, 2001 August 15 5 yrs
Tract 7279 Tassajara Creek ,
II
\ 5 yrs yes
i
. Effective Date: If it says Hsigned" then the effective date is the date the DA is signed by the City.
l\fticro Dental effective date is date all three parties have signed.
ToU Area A, neighborhoods A6 and A7 effective date approved by City
G:planning/correspo/GA YLENE/da schedule
OS/23/02
Technical Appendix 3
ANNUAL REVIEW
OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
57
",,""
b~
Santa Rita Commercial Ja..""luary 31, 199E> 10 years Assigned tD
Center (Tri/Valley Opus
Southwest
CrossingS I Homartl
California Creekside JuJ:y 15, 1 996 ' July 15, 1996 . June 1 5 years
Date Recorded
ir Hansen Ranch March 26, 1992 March 26, 1992 March 26 8 years
Date Recorded
I '..
I Opus (Creekside May 13, 1997 May 13, 1997 March 15 10 years Assigned IO
i Business Park) D?te Recorded Opus
Southwest
\ Villas at Santa Rita October 16, 1997 October 16, 1997 Augu,st 15 o years
Date Recorded
Summerglen Effective date is date July 17, 1998 AUg1ist 15 5 years Assign en to
DA signed by City, 5\q~ DBSH?
Jefferson at Dublin June 25, 1998 July 17, 1998 August 15. 5 years Asmgncd ro
J efierson
(County) .Effective date is date
DA si ed'bv City
Emerald Pointe October 1, 1998 ! October 15, 1998 August 15 5 years PartiEL
I. i assignment to
(County) Effective date is date Opus
DA si ed b City
i Casterson Property January 5, 1999 January 12,1999 5 years Assigned to
Mission Pe:a1:
Tassajara MeadoWs I Effective date is date Hornes
DA signed b Ci
,.
G:planning/correspo/GA YLENE/da schedule
OS/23/02
.J
ANNUAL REVIEW
OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
t,D ~6 ?"
Toll, Dublin Ranch I betvveen 7 / 15
Area A i and 8/ IS each
\
LNeighborhoods A6 & A7 ear
\ Toll, AreaA \ Date signed \ between 7115 and 5 years
I N ei . borhoous A-I 8/15 each ear
Toll - Dublin Rfu"1.ch I Date signed August 15 5Y=6
I wi optior.al
.A.rea G I each year ==sion up
Neighborhood B-1 I to to years
\ Toll - Dublin Ranch I Date signed August 15 .. 5 years
I wi optional
Area G each year extension U'D
Neighborhood B-2 to 10 yesr;
Toll - Dublin Ra...""lch Date signed August 15 5 years
wi 01ltional
Area G each year =su:>n u.p
N ei hborhood MH-l to 10 years
Toll - Dublin Ranch I Date signed August 15 I 5 years
I, Area G \ each year \ wi o"ptional
I =ension up
~ N eil!bborhood JvlH-2 \ I to 10 )'ears
!
I I
\
r \ I
r I I,
I I
I I ,
I ! \ I
I
\ \
i
I I
> I
I I I
I I
I I
I
I i I
I
\ I
I I
\ \
I I
\ I \ \
\ \ I
\ I
Effective Da~e: If it says "signed" then the ~ffective d.ate is the date the DA is signed by the City.
Wucro Dental effective date is date all three parties have signed,
Toll Area A, neighborhoods A6 and A7 effective date approved by City
G:planningicorrespoIGA':t"LENE/da schedule
03/27102 .
~~
c;/' .d.. <:-'
~?-
@
.. CITY OF DUBLIN
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
MAP DATE: NOVEMBER 15,2002
.
6DO 1200 2400
-
SCALE:1"=600'
o
lIICRO llEI!TAI!
OPUS CIlEBIJIIDEBlIIIIIEBB I'MK
swr"'RrI"A COIaIEfICW. csmR.
!tI\QENll/\ CROSIlIIIGS
llPUlllMtA IlJTkBUSINESS _
IlCHAB'ER IW/CH
lllMIBl[iSI
SI'IWlE
~ IIEADOI'IS ~ lllSSlON PENl.
iRI WIllEt Ilf'CI.
'IW/iIrt~f.~1
GREENIlRIIR - GHC IlNElmIEKlS TMCT 12111
l.B>BID:
~~)
CASiBlSON
COIIiERt:E 1
IltIBlJN IWiCIl PHW: 1
BIERAIllllLENH'IOU. ilRll1HEFIS
EMERAlD GU:NVIJ.AGE
au AI1ll) t.W.l.
J!AIiIWfI'AIW'lf:xpoed)
JEFl'SlSON ArllUllllN
Ka.l
UN FANlLY Ml
J
I
I
I
!
\
r
!
i
I
I
.,--
Land use regulations
not change
Land use regulations will
be made to the EDSP
will
No amendments
1. No Change Alternative. The City Council
could decide not to amend the EDSP and General
Plan.
increasing the
Amendment does not mandate
space available for these uses
Creates a category for Places of Assembly and
describes the City's needs and constraints.
Provisions and action program would direct future
applicants and Staff's review of future projects.
This alternative would provide direction to staff
and to applicants when reviewing future projects
as to appropriate locations for Places of Assembly
and it would create some incentives for the
development of Places of Assembly.
Definition could include criteria for parcel sizes, use
types, appropriate locations, and other features. Could
encourage development of Places of Assembly on
appropriate commercial, residential or mixed use land
in conjunction with other development. Standards
could be amended for height limits, shared parking,
etc. for the project and/or for adjoining commercial
land under the same ownership
2. Add Places of Assembly. The City Council
could amend the EDSP to define Places of
Assembly and describe their qualities. The City
Council could approve a policy encouraging
Places of Assembly in buffer areas between
residential and commercial districts, in
commercial districts and in mixed-use districts.
land could still be used for
the amendment
Although PSPF
public and private schools,
could impact the City's ability to provide
future school sites
Could make 81.6 acres ofland available for PSPF
use including Places of Assembly. Surplus School
land would continue to serve a public need. Such
a re-designation would not be affected by the
requirements of development agreements.
The EDSP currently provides 132.1 acres for School
development and the DUSD has issued a Facilities
Plan which indicated that there may be an excess of
81.6 acres of School land in the EDSP area.
3. Re-Designate School Sites. City Council
could amend the EDSP to provide policies so that
a School site has an underlying Public/Semi-
Public Facilities land use, if it is determined to be
unnecessary for use by DUSD. This alternative
could clarify the Schools designation in regards
to private schools
May take more time to implement and greater
environmental review. Some lands in the
EDSP area are subject to development
agreements that vest the right to develop
consistent with the existing EDSP land use
designations for the duration of the
agreements.
The advantage of this alternative is that the land
available to Places of Assembly would increase.
Land subject to development agreements would
be subject to amendment once development
agreement lapses.
City Counc.il could approve a resolution to undertake
a comprehensive review of all land uses in Dublin and
to identify locations where additional acreage should
be allotted to Places of Assembly uses, based on
project unit count.
4. City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment.
The City Council could increase the acreage of
land designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities
at appropriate locations in the EDSP and General
Plan with a City-initiated General Plan
Amendment.
May take more time to implement and greater
environmental review. Unless an amendment
application is received from the property
owner no Places of Assembly sites will be
created.
The land available to Places of Assembly would
increase. The restrictions in development
would not apply.
agreements
Staff would review applications for Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendments for provision of Places of
Assembly sites based on a criteria to be approved by
City Council, based on project unit count.
5. Developer-Initiated Land Use Map
Amendment. Establish policy to provide for
increased acreage designated for Public/Semi-
Public Facilities use whenever a developer-
initiated EDSP and General Plan Amendment
application is submitted to the City
lJ'..
~
c\
\0.
~
Technical Appendix 4
6:3 9fb5
v
Technical Appendix 5, Places of Assembly Facility Types
Places of Assembly are private or private/public institutions, which are subject to City
Land use regulations. They share the following characteristics: local base; community-
serving activities; not-for-profit purpose; and accessibility to the public. Places of
Assembly uses are generally included in the land use designation of Publici Semi-Public
Facility.
Places of Assembly include:
1. Religious Institutions
2. Meeting Halls
3. Performing Arts Theatres
4. Community Centers
5. Service Organization Clubhouses
6. Other Assembly Uses, as determined appropriate by the Community Development
Director
Technical Appendix 5