HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 032-96 PublicFacilityFee
RESOLUTION NO. 32 - 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities
Fee ("Fee") to pay for municipally owned public facilities within "Eastern Dublin" and within the
jurisdictional limits of the City of Dublin (excluding areas within Eastern Dublin) ; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GP A") and Specific Plan
(" SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GPA outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres within the
City's eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million
square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development; and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs
for approximately 3313 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City; and
WHEREAS, the GP A and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land Use Map
contained in the GPA (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area shown on the Land Use
Map as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the GP A
and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No.
51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been
prepared and considered by the Council; and .
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan ("Master Plan") was adopted by the
Council on July 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 77-94;
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Library Planning Task Force Report, ("Library
Report") dated April 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming Document ("Civic Center
Report") dated November 1986;
,-~
WHEREAS, the Master Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda
describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of the SP, including
completion of City office space, construction of a library, acquisition and construction of parks
and community facilities;
1
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain municipal public facilities would
be constructed and that development within Eastern Dublin would pay its proportionate share of
such facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93 which includes mitigation
measures to assure that development within Eastern Dublin pays its proportionate share of
municipal public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern
Dublin; and
.",.I
WHEREAS, the Master Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda
describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the City of
Dublin and Eastern Dublin through the year 2025, and contain an analysis of the need for new
municipal public facilities required by future development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, a detailed comprehensive study of the impacts of contemplated future
development on existing public facilities in Dublin through the year 2025, along with an analysis
of the need of new public facilities and improvements required by future developments, prepared
by Recht Hausrath & Associates, dated March, 1996 entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee
Justification Study" (Exhibit B hereto, referred to herein as the "study"); and
WHEREAS, the study sets forth the relationship between contemplated future
development, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements; and
WHEREAS the study was available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days ---..
prior to this public hearing; and ....."""
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee" ) is to finance municipal
public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and in
Eastern Dublin. Such facilities, which are specifically described in the study, include the
following: completion of the Civic Center office space; construction of a new library and
expansion of the existing library; relocation and expansion of the existing senior center;
acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks and community buildings
(including a community theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center).
The public facilities described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities".
B.
Facilities.
The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the
C. After considering the study, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing,
the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Master Plan, the Library Report, the Civic Center
Report, the GP A, the SP, the EIR and Addenda, and all correspondence received (hereafter
"record") the Council approves and adopts said study, and incorporates such herein, and further
finds that the future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the
----
2
/--.
,.~,
~
need for the Facilities and the Facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Master
Plan, the Library Report, the Civic Center Report, the GP A and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within Eastern Dublin is
within the scope of the EIR and Addenda. The Facilities were all identified in the EIR as
necessary to accommodate development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development,
including the Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the EIR. Since the
certification of the EIR there have been no substantial changes in the projections of future
development as identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances,
and no other new information of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the
EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific
environmental review under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such Facilities are
approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the Facilities at
this stage, as they will be implemented over at least a 30-year period and specific details as to
their timing, construction and precise location are not presently known.
E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of Dublin
(excluding Eastern Dublin) is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service
within the existing service areas; that the City currently provides neighborhood and community
park services, community and recreation facilities services, and civic center services; that the City
and the Alameda County Library System currently provide library services; that the public
facilities fee will be used to maintain current service levels; and that existing deficiency costs are
not included in the fee. As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the City (excluding
Eastern Dublin) is not a "project" within the meaning ofCEQA (public Resources Code g
21 080(b )(8)(0)).
F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI S 7 of
the California Constitution.
G. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Facilities
and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that
new development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin -- both residential and non-
residential-- will generate persons who live, work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and
who generate or contribute to the need for the Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the
construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin -- both residential and non-residential--
generates or contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and
the cost of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and
in Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees
generated by specific types ofland uses, the total amount it will cost to construct the Facilities,
and the percentage by which development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin
contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
3
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study and Master Plan are
reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by
future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair
and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Facilities to be
funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees
each particular development will generate.
.....,
H. The study is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin, the existing deficiencies and the public
facilities required to accommodate that development and those deficiencies.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOL VB as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for facilities for the
purchase and sale of commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of
such commodities and services and other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial
land uses include but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto
accessories stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and
centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; ....,
general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and improvement centers;
hoteVmotels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers;
supermarkets; and theaters.
b. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition of any
building or structure within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin.
c. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the "General Plan
Amendment Study Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto) excepting the
property designated as "Future Study Areal Agriculture. ..
d. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities as are described in
the Study and as described in the Master Plan, the Library Report, the Civic Center Report, SP,
EIR and Addenda. "Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative facilities should later
changes in projections of development in the region necessitate construction of such alternative
facilities; provided that the City Council later determines (1) that there is a reasonable relationship
between development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin and the need for the
alternative facilities (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the Study,
and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new development's fair and
proportionate share of the alternative facilities.
,...,
,
4
e. "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed
on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for the manufacture, production,
assembly, and processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to these activities.
Industrial land uses include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants;
contractor's storage yards; fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and
service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy
commercial uses.
f "Multiple Family" shall mean any dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform
Building Code, as adopted by the City, which is constructed on property designated in the
General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more units per acre.
g. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on
land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general business offices, medical
and professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesaling or
manufacturing operations, and research and development and other space uses incidental to these
activities. Office land uses include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business
park; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices
and office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real estate
offices; research and development and travel agencies.
h. "Single Family" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be
constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units per acre.
2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed.
a. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each Single
Family and Multiple Family residential unit within the city of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin no
later than the date of final inspection for the unit.
b. A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or structures
within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin by the date that the building permit is issued
for construction of such building or structure.
c. Any use ofland which is not included in the definition of "Commercial,"
"Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Planning Director to one of the three categories,
maintaining as much consistency as possible with the definitions of such terms.
3. Amount of Fee.
The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and
incorporated herein. Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a separate fee.
4. Exemptions From Fee.
~
a.
The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
(1) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the
extent that a residential unit is added to a single family residential
5
unit or another unit is added to an existing multi-family residential
unit;
(2)
Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential
structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the
building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after
the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement
or reconstruction increases the square footage of the structure
fifty percent or more.
-...I
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential
structure that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the
building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within one year
after the building was destroyed or demolished.
5. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Capital
Project Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to
account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each account. The revenues (and
interest) shall be used for the following purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land acquisition
and construction of the Facilities and reasonable costs of outside
consultant studies related thereto;
'..".1
(2) To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City
with funds from other sources including funds from other public
entities, unless the City funds were obtained from grants or gifts
intended by the grantor to be used for the Facilities.
(3) To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed
Facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or
capacity; and
(4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and
ongoing administration of the Fee program.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Facilities and only for
the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
6. Standards
The standards upon which the needs for the Facilities are based are the standards
of the City ofDubIin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, the Master Plan, the
Library Report, the Civic Center Report, the GP A, SP, EIR, and Addenda.
....,
6
7. Existing Deficiencies.
_.
The Study identifies existing deficiencies and calculates the deficiency for
community parks, community buildings, and library space. The City Council shall by resolution,
identify funding sources for the existing deficiencies.
8. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the
City Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of Fees in
each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall also
review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate
location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to be financed with the
Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation.
The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances
are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for
which it is charged.
9. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee.
(~
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the Council in reliance
on the record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to
determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City
Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts
of development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise
the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the
GP A, SP, Master Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report and General Plan, as well as
increases due to inflation and increased construction costs. The City shall conduct a
comprehensive review of the Fee within one year following the effective date of the Fee, together
with a review of the size and/or configuration of the Neighborhood, City and Community Parks in
the GP A.
10. Administrative Guidelines.
The Council shall, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to provide
procedures for calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other administrative
aspects of the Fee. Such guidelines shall include procedures for construction of designated
Facilities by developers.
11. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided in Sections
2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of the resolution.
7
12. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable.
Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to
be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be
fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been
judged to be invalid.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26 day of March, 1996, by the following
vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN: None
~1 ~0:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
EHS:Jja
A:\F ACIUTI.96
K2/g'/3-26-96/resoffee.doc
..--
."""'"
~
,.----...........
-.....
8
* General Commercial may be permined oy b Planneo L)~~ViiJij,11tnl ~pr"t~ ~fBE3ss (seU lexl to( complete discussion)
** W~ Cl '0 Fut<.re Sludy Area/AMculiue where determined llconslslenl wilh APA (see texl rO( complele discussion ~(
. . !II . _ _ \,
....\-,.~.... '. '.i";~....~~ '.~:.::~" '._',
.~ ...,........1..-i.
.7'.::.
..
.,.....'.'..
--
I.
.--.,
..--....--' :
-' I
co. .,-----
""co.1'.7 .
,_y~}i'ti;:i.fii.fJJ' I
.- ,
-(jf - I
I ,
I ,
------------1 L------l
bl] i __' - i
/ ~ /f.':~.... .... I , y I
l')j 1/. ''.::''>'' I . I : UTURE STUD AREA I
%~u i '. "/ .;. ;~fY;~! (\ ; i . ....,"
\~.J:.:"';, .. .~'/ ::\ f ; ! AGRICU~TURE. .
(:;~1U/ \/;:.' /Jr f \ \i.j,,' ~ \ .--- t..J
. \.; I =;', ;:,..\:. ,: \, ,J . i \ RHAl 27439 Acres \
I \I!~ u I ::'~'\"~ V;~').1H. ~"'.:./ j , . ~' I" \
I 'r I..' '- v:. "I.... '~" t ';' ~ \
ill.. I ;j: '\ · '..Y~~:'.:'::\ ~.\ / ! 'ill/' I' ,
,;.7..:1, '~....T"..,., ,.1.1. l
iF.:";" ""..'. .;1 \.;~ :'," '.f . .-r., ~' -
~. . 'n. ...... "".. I, .,,, "",.. .,',,1. I '
,f;~~..:_~_~~~~.: .::Yj;#'-'~":'I" !./3~::.~~j __~~\( ~>, .1 ./<~,y;i' i": . I !
t\2:' "". ..-,.-.. I j'" "":"-- :"'. . \ ~'" 'v ~ ........m I
:.:~..:..t~._,. .~ jfr:~:77:7,j~F~:~~ " ( ~.' . .t..:::~. :;I~i:ri~I"~ .i...i) , I
I ., I .r.,' '~'r~..."'" .., .. .. '.. '.' ...........1......................... I ~---1 I
+~~.. ~.. f~~;~ :: ~~:....~...~:;:;::-~.:~.:.:~~~j~1~t1~~f~~(t~~~fu(~,~\-.\;?f:i.:.~~i.~~b:;;~F :;:"; ./;.~.t.' .~: "_~~;=::~
--I.... 1'--;' '.~ L '...,~J'''''".:.. ('I L" " I.... ,~~,.I~....-:. ". :.'.:1'1.,:.' l .,J14 Acres r ._,
' ""'-- ;Z:......:.:....___...ll L:>>.'::.:\~~":! ,.:, ~ ~': ,....:. I r.'t..~~I~~ -':"'~.~". ~.:.1 ~. I I .&-....--.
I II . 1:" .'~' "'''''y. ..-- --r.......~...,.-..-.._.__.__._.... -......'-1,">~.> ... I (Crosby3 I '--:;,,-;:t-
- I:.,~...~<~""~"\.~~.,~.. I:~~~"~~:~::' ... ,. ..._-.--:--...-n~~~..I.~.=-~."::'~~~--:.............. "'** -{~"""'.... ::...~
,~ I...,.".....' "","''''~~l ~~,.,"'''~~''.: . . .<"'.;~""'iI"~~'~1S.~~~~ .'="~.,.,.,.." ....
.. .:..... . . ,'" ',' ..:'". '. ". "N~" , . """. ',.,." ","" :",~ ~. . .'...................JL I.
Uili....' ....<'''~.','.....,." . I~~~~:~ ~ ~'-~~"\~~~~"~::~.: .........'........... , _;
--~=-~ .......;!a~~:. .~:'~:.~{:~~t-_..-=-.~.7-~r~~~~~;;~~,,;:-=::, .._:.-==~J~\(~~t~..,._.::::_trzm _~_____J
'- . , ",'
I ! .."',
1
"
~ASTERN
DUBLIN 1~":,
'". ;:'" .'.' .
Walace Roberts & Todd .
. ..: '~1 ~. . a" ~. 4;-
". ",' i,:il~:.;'.;-'f.;:.;. '1
A~' :::' ',:" ;:.. ,~:~tf;~~~~~W{( ~."~
~ "1'__- .
."'.'1........ A
.~Arc~V\ \
( -.._- -,......,
-
I~ I' .'::: :1
rm-t,.
~
Ui~W~ Open Space
~ S!ream Corridor
CIRCULATION
---
COMMERCIAL '
~ Nelghbahood Commercial
~ '~eneral Commercial
~~ Cam:us Offi:;e
l::::::;::1 ~dusl1ial Park
RESIOENTlAL
[J[J High Dens~y
[B[] Medim-Hlgh Density
[I] Medium Densily
CD Low Dens~y (}fj d.Vac
illEJ R';al ResldentlaVAgricoilure 1 d.V100 ac
PUBLICI SEMrPUBLlC/OPEN
It~WIhZ:?f
Legend
LAND USE MAP
Generat'Plan
-Eastern EXtended Planning Area
Transit Sli1e
SOl Boundary
General Plan Amendmenl SlUdy Nea
Speclfte Plan Study Nea
Arlertal Slreet
ColeCIO( Street
Pubfoc/Seml-Pubfic F.c~ly
o Elemenlary School
@ Junior High School
@ High School
@ Public/Seml.Pubic
Parks & Recrealion
o City Par~
@ Community Park
@ Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Square
5. d.Vac
4'25 d.Vac
6'14 d.Vac
!iay 10, 1993
F_. 26
,..
~-...
CITY OF DUBLIN
~
,.
{:
t-
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
mSTIFICATION STUDY
-
t.
t
J~
Prepared for:
The City of Dublin
Recht Hausraih & Associates
Urban Economists
1212 Broadway
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 839-8383
FAX 839-8415
March 7~ 1996
EXHIBIT B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.....,
EXECUTIVE SUJ\1MAR Y
SITUA TION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' ................................. IV
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " IV
FACILITIES COST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
FEE LEVELS ....................................................... VI
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " VI
CH.AJ>TER I
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1- J
Pl.JBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA ...................... 1-2
FEE DETERJ\.lINA TION ............................................. 1-3
CRAJ>TER II
1'.TEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-I
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT. . . . .. . . . " . . . .. .. .. . . . ... ., '" . . . . II-5
CRAJ>TER III
NEIGHBORHOOD !~ND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- J
FACILITY ST.A]\.1])ARDS .A]\.1]) NEEDS ................................ III-3
P.AJU<. COSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1II-6
COST l\LLOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9
.~
CHAPTER IV
COMMUNITY .-'\ND RECREATION FACILITIES
EXISTINGAND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . IV-I
FACILITIES STANDARDS.A.ND NEEDS. ... . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1V-2
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1V-5
CH.AJ>TER V
LIBR.-\RIES
EXISTING .AND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-I
FACILITY ST M1DARDS .A.ND 1'.TEW DEVELOP!vIENT 1'.TEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2
COST ALLOCATION. . . " . . . " . ...... . . . " .. ...... . . ... .. ... '" . . . " V-5
.....".
Recht Ha1fsrath & Associates
1/
DlfMill Focilifies Fee Sflf(~r
TaMe of COl1fellfS
r--
CHAPTER VI
CIVIC CENTER
EXISTING AJ\TJ) PROPOSED FACILITIES. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V1-]
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2
CHAPTER VII
CALCULATION OF FEES AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
SUMMARY OF COSTS .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " VII-]
COSTS BY LAJ'rD USE TYPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " VII-2
PROGR.AJ\1 IMPLEt\1ENTA TION .................................... VII-3
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES FEE PROGR.A.M AJ\TJ)
QUTh1BY ORDINANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4
A,.PPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-I
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES ................................... A-2
..-.
..'-"
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
ii i
EXECllTIVE StJl\1I\1AR Y
'WI!
SITliA TION
The City of Dublin is planning for extensive grovv.th in its Eastern Extended Planning area. Part of
this planning involves provision of public facilities to assure an adequate level of public services.
This report documents the capital expansions planned by the City of Dublin through its build-out
around year 2025. It sets forth the basis for measuring facilities standards and applies the costs of
the required expansions to determine the facilities impact associated with new development.
Although the emphasis is on Eastern Dublin, the growth projections include an allowance for
additional d~\lelopment in the existing portions of the City, so that the fees may be applied
city\\ride.
It is anticipated that Dublin \vill rely primarily on the authority to levy fees specified in AB 1600,
although park requirements could be established under the Quimby Act. Costs of new
development are assigned to residential and commercial and industrial land uses according to
occupant densities to arrive at fee levels by land use type. In situations where an existing ...,'
deficiency exists in a particular facility, costs to cure the deficiencies are estimated as well.
Existing deficiency costs are not included in the public facilities fee and will be funded separately
by the City.
Tables accompanying this summary are located at the end of the text.
DEVELOPl\fENT PROJECTIONS
Development in Eastern Dublin is expected to add J3,836 new dwelling units and 9.74 million
square feet of commercial and industrial space through build-out. This excludes any expansions
of County facilities. Existing areas of the City are expected to grow by a comparatively small
amount, 103 dwelling units and 692,000 commercial and industrial square feet. Applying
occupant densities, new development \",rill add 32,530 residents and 28,000 employees citywide.
This represents a J 37 percent increase in the resident population and a 280 percent increase in
employment over existing levels. Growth projections used in this study exclude any potential for
unincorporated areas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. ......""
Recht Hausrath & Associates
iv
DlIhlill Fadli/it's Fee SlIlLZI'
LxeclI/h'(! SlfI17I17Gl)'
.~
Residents and employees are llsed as the basis for facilities demand. Residents and employees are
combined into a service population measurement, calculated as residents plus a fraction of
employees. Sen'ice population is determined separately for each facility according to estimated
employee use, and is Llsed to assign facilities COSl 10 new development by type of space. Table I,
at the end of this summary, shows existing and proposed land uses. Population and employment
are shown in Table 2.
FACILITIES COST
Costs of facilities to serve grov,'th are shown in Table 3. For the facilities covered under the fee
program, cost of growth will total 5>848 million.
~
The neighborhood and community parks requirements are based on the standard of 5.0 acres per
1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act and adopted in the City's existing park dedication
ordinance. The land component may be dedicated or satisfied in the form of an in-lieu fee,
depending on the circumstances of individual projects. Neighborhood park costs are included in
the calculation of the fee for Eastern Dublin only because those parks would only benefit that
area, not the citywide sen:ice population.
Community and recreation facilities include several expansions located in Eastern Dublin.
Proposed projects include a relocation and expansion of the existing senior center, a community
theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center. For the senior center the
costs shown refer only to the net increase in size over the existing building.
Proposed library improvements include an expansion of the existing building plus a new branch in
Eastern Dublin, including volumes.
The Dublin Civic Center houses administrative offices and the police department. The building
was designed to accommodate activity commensurate \\7ith an estimated resident service
population of 40,000 in the year 2005. Eventually, growth will require finishing certain areas
currently used as storage and renovation of portions of the Police wing.
.---.
Recht Hallsralh & Assoc;ia/es
v
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
E"ecurive SUmnWl}'
FEE LEVELS
~
Table 4 summarizes resulting impact fee levels by land use. Facilities costs of growth have been
allocated to individual land uses according to residents per dwelling unit and employees per
1,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space. The majority of fees would be levied
city\\1.de because they would fund facilities with cityvvide benefit. Neighborhood parks and the
aquatic center have a local benefit, so fees for these facilities are applied to that area in Eastern
Dublin only.
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
For a public facilities fee program to be equitable, new development should not be charged fo1' a
higher standard offacilities than is provided to other parts of the community. To do so would
impose the burden of remedying existing deficiencies ontD new development. In the case of
community parks, community buildings and libraries the facilities standard at build-out will
exceed that presently available. The City of Dublin must therefore provide a portion of the
funding for these facilities from sources other than impact fees to recognize the benefit existing ....",,1
land uses will receive from an improve.d level of service. Table 5 shows the cost to remedy
existing deficiencies, estimated at $7.754 million.
.""'"
Recht Hausrath & Associates
vi
~.
.'-'
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
Table 1
Development Projections
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 52 3,846 3,898
Multiple Family Q 9.990 9.990
Total 52 13,836 13,888
Remainder of City
Single Family 5,275 23 5,298
Multiple Family 2.868 80 2.948
Total 8,143 103 8,246
Dublin Citywide
Single Family 5,327 3,869 9,196
Multiple Family 2.868 10.070 12.938
Total 8,195 13,939 22,134
COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL (1,000 Sq.Ft.)
Eastern Dublin
Commercial 0 4,415 4,415
Office 0 3,952 3,952
Industrial Q 1.370 1.370
Total 0 9,737 9,737
Remainder of City
Commercial 1,818 455 2,273
Office 962 208 1,170
Industrial 783 29 812
Total 3,563 692 4,255
Dublin Citywide
Commercial 1,818 4,870 6,688
Office 962 4,160 5,122
Industrial 783 1.399 2.182
Total 3,563 10,429 13,992
Source: Stale Depar1mca1 ofFinImcc:; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; Eastern Dublin SpecifIC Plan (1-7-94); Recht
Hausrath &. Assoeia1cs.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
vii
Dlih//lJ Foci/ilies Fee: Sli/LZ\"
l...~\ecllli\'e 5;III7JI7JCll:\'
T;lble 2
Summary of Resident and Employee Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESID ENTS
Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460
Rest of City 23,500 230 23,730
City Total 23,660 32,530 56,190
EM.PLOYEES
Eastern Dublin 0 26,200 26,200
Rest of City 10,000 ].800 11.800
City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000
Source: City of Dllhlin. E(/.~/('m Dllhlin .);,ecific 1'1011 (J-7-9-/J: Recht !-1nllsmlh & Associnles
Recht HOllsroth & AssociLues
'.,.I
"""'"
'''WI
\l11I
Duhlin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summar}'
~
,~'
J I Costs of Growth I
Citywide I $25,969,000
Community Parks, Land
Community pJks, Improvements 15,263,000
Community BJndings 12,060,000
Libraries 6,777,000
Civic Center 445.000
Total $60,514,000
Eastern Dublin bnJy
I
Neighborhood farks, Land $14,550,000
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 7,682,000
Aquatic Centerl 2.1 00.000
Total $24,332,000
Total Costs ofG owth
Citywide Costs $60,514,000
Eastern Dublin Costs 24.332,000
Total $84,846,000
Source: City ofDubl~; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Table 3
I Facilities Costs of Growth
rblin Facilities Fee Study
,/-----
Recht Hausrath & Associates
ix
S?
....
<:r'
-..
5"
~
(")
::::.:.
....
...
~.
to,
~
(\)
(C
:,..,
~
..~
tJ
n;;
(":
~
3'.
r.)
~
:::;;
;:1
-
"V
C
.~
Table 4
Fee by Land Use Type
Dublin Facilities Fcc Study
Residential, Commercial and Industrial, Fcc per ] ,000 Square
Fee per Dwelling Unit Feet
- -
Single Multiple
Family Family Commercial Oftice Industrial
- - -
$2,266 $1,416 $210 $408 $180
1,331 832 123 238 105
1,139 712 36 69 31
560 350 77 150 66
3.2 22 -6. --1.2 5-
$5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
$1,440 $900 $0 $0 $0
762 476 0 0 0
202 126 Q 12 ~
$2A04 $1,502 $6 $12 $5
$5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
2.404 l...2!!2 .---ii 12 5-
$7,735 $4,834 $458 $889 $392
- -
- -
( (
Cit)'wide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Cen
Total
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
Aquatic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Source:
(
ler
~
(;)
~
;::.-.
-..
~
t:;
~
~
~
Rw:>
~
~
l;)
n
5'
t?
to,
~
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
ExeCUlive Summary
~
Table 5
Summary of Existing Deficit
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
/'-
Community Parks
Community Buildings
Libraries
Total
$1,199,000
6,200,000
355.000
$7,754,000
Annually, 1995-2025
$258,500
SOUTOO: Recht Hausrath & Associates
,-
Recht Hausrath & Associates
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
""""
City facilities provide services for the benetit of city residents, businesses, and employees. As this
service population increases, so does the demand for city facilities. As developers build new
homes and commerciaJ/industrial buildings, the City must provide corresponding amounts of new
facilities to serve this development, that is, unless existing residents are to experience a decline in
the standard of facilities that they had previously enjoyed. Moreover, newer cities such as Dublin
often have deficient standards for existing facilities. In this case, the City is choosing to expand its
facilities above standards that currently exist. This policy will allow the City to accommodate both
existing and ne\v development at the levels of service it desires.
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the amount and cost of new public facilities for city services required (I)
to serve new development through the year 2025 and, (2) to correct existing deficiencies. In.....,
addition, this repoI1 determines the public facilities fees, or impact fees, that new development
should pay to fund its fair share of those facilities needs. The repoI1 documents the maximum
justified level of those fees.
This introductory chapter to the Public Facilities Fee Justification study summarizes the fee
program under the following topics:
. Public Facilities Financing in California
. Fee Determination
. Facilities Costs and Fee Schedules
. Program Implementation
The introduction is intended to provide a general understanding of the concepts and methodology
used to design public facilities fees. The second chapter sets forth projections of new
development. Each succeeding chapter contains a detailed analysis ofthe specific costs and
assumptions involved in the calculation of the costs for a facility type, namely parks, community
and recreational facilities, libraries, and civic center. The final chapter uses the facilities costs to
,."",
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
1-1
DIIh/1/7 Faci/ilil's Fee: Sll/((r
C 'hapler J
/"'""-.
determine fee levels Appendix A calculates the cost of existing deficiencies which the City must
fund through means other than impact fees.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
Several events during the past 20 years have steadily undercut the financial capacity ofIocal
governments to build infrastructure: passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond initiatives,
and severe reductions in federal and state assistance. Since Proposition 13, property taxes have
been inadequate to fund capital needs, and for many cities have been insufficient for on-going
operations and maintenance expenses to maintain levels of service.
/---
As a longer-term response, most cities and counties are shifting the burden of financing the capital
costs of additional infrastructure to accommodate nev-.' development from tax revenues and
general obligation bonds to that development. This shift has primarily been accomplished through
the imposition of public facilities fees, also know as development impact fees. Some fee programs
address only a few specific facilities, such as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal
fee programs are comprehensive, requiring developers to pay for all additions to municipal
facilities needed to accommodate new development. The facilities which are the subject of this
analysis are (1) parks, (2) community and recreational facilities, (3) libraries, and (4) the Civic
Center. Financing of other facilities is addressed by the City separately.
.A..s a result of wide-spread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature passed
AB 1600 adding Government Code sections 66000 et seq. which lay ground rules for imposition
and on-going administration of fees. The law, which became effective in January 1989, requires
local governments to document that a reasonable relationship exists between new development,
the fee, and the facilities built to accommodate that development. The legal requirements restrict
how local governments may impose and use public facilities fees. In general, the law requires that
the fee amount be sufficient only to fund the additional facilities required to serve new growth.
It is imponant to distinguish between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees must
conform to the conditions imposed by AB 1600 and case law, and are used exclusively to fund the
capital costs of new facilities. As long as fees comply with these restrictions, they only require
action by the elected governing board of a city or county to be imposed. Taxes, on the other
/~ hand, may be used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and most tax increases
must be approved by the voters. Consequently, it is critical in the documentation for any public
Recht HOllsroth & Associates
1-2
lJlihlill FW:.:ililies Fee! SII"zr
('lwjJler J
facilities fee program to demonstrate that the fee is not greater than the cost of facilities to
accommodate new development to avoid being challenged as a tax. This study serves that
purpose.
.,
FEE DETERl\IINA TION
The design of the City's public facilities fee program followed a four-step process: (I) selecting a
time period and projecting new development. (2) determining facility service areas, and identifying
facilities to accommodate nev./ development, (3) estimating facilities costs, and (4) determining
alternative funding sources, including an appropriate and equitable means to allocate costs among
new development.
^Tell' Development Projections
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required
to serve growth. The Eastern f)71hli/l Ge/leral Plan Ame/ld111el1f and the Eastern Duhlin 5ipectfic
Plan (Jan. 7, 1994) lists new development, residents and employees projected for the City's
Eastern EA.-tended Planning Area. The City has provided additional information on growth in tbe ~
existing area oftbe City which also will be subject to impact fees. No growth for tbe City's
'Western Extended Planning Area is included at this time. Projections are for build-out of the City
which is estimated to occur about 2025.
Facilities RequiremeHts
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires the
adoption of standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for city infrastructure.
Standards are often stated in terms of a city's amount of facilities per capita (e.g., acres of park
land per capita). The new facilities that development must fund are then calculated according to
these standards and projected service population gro\vth, with residents used as a measure for the
impacts of residential development and employees used as a measure for non-residential
development.
In the case of parks, the facilities requirement is determined by applying a park land standard
consistent with the Quimby Act legislation enabling park land dedication by new development.
The amoun~ of parks needed is therefore a function of the level of growth. For the remaining
"'-'
Rechr Hausrarh & Associales
1-3
J)lrhlill FocilitiL's FI!C! .\"l1rJr
Chapter /
,~
facilities the City has proposed specific improvements to accommodate its build-out population.
In these cases the facilities standards are calculated for the build-out year and are used as the basis
to assign costs to the new and existing service populations.
The City can adopt its ovm reasonable standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the present
levels of service provided to the existing population. However, new development cannot be held
accountable for higher standards than the current population is willing to provide for itself. Thus,
if existing facilities are below the standard chosen as a basis for fees, the City must use alternative
funds to expand these facilities to the same standard. This is called correcting an existing
deficiency. Ne\v development cannot be asked to cure an existing deficiency.
Facilities Costs
The City of Dublin has provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the
year 2025. '\\Ie gave careful reviev,l to the determination as to which facilities and costs were
appropriately funded by a public facilities fee. Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy
existing deficiencies (to benefit the existing population) and those \vhich provide additional
capacity (to benefit growth) were allocated according to the shares that benefit each group.
Facilities Cost Allocation
:~llocation of cost is done on the basis of service population. This method is often used to
determine impacts of residential and commerciallindustrialland uses, recognizing that both
residents and businesses place demands on public facilities. Service population is calculated by
adding to resident population a portion of employees. The weight assigned to employees is
designed to reflect the proportion of employee relative to resident demand for a particular facility.
Each facility considered in this study uses a different employee weight.
Though facilities needs are allocated based on service population, e.g., cost per resident or cost
per employee, fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g., fee per
dwelling unit or fee per square foot of building space. Thus, the final step distributes total
facilities costs among land use categories based on the population or employment density of each
category. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities required to
accommodate a particular type of development.
...---
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
1-4
CHAPTER II
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
.....-
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents estimates of growth anticipated in the City of Dublin during the next 30
years, 1995 through 2025. The amount and cost of new public facilities bears a relationship to the
number of new residents and employees resulting from new development because growth
contributes to the demand for public services. In this manner, projections of growth provide a
basis for estimates in subsequent chapters of the public facilities needed to accommodate that
development.
The projections presented here for Eastern Dublin are taken from the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated January 7, 1994. The plan
specified different land uses, expressed in terms of acres and numbers of dwelling units or square
feet of commerciaIrmdustrial building space based on allowable development densities.
Population and employment projections can then be derived from these estimates of dwelling units
and building space. The City also has provided estimates of existing and potential development
within the existing areas of Dublin. Although remaining opportunities for growth are limited,
inclusion of existing Dublin permits the fees calculated here to be applied citywide. Three
additional issues must be considered in regard to the development projections:
'..,.I
. The public facilities fee program is a financing plan for capital investments that has
a life expectancy of at least several decades. This suggests that the time horizon
for the program should correspond to the anticipated build-out of the City, which
in this case is 30 years based on existing land use designations. Given the long
time horizon, however, we recommend that the City periodically review the
facilities costs and standards, and revise the fee levels accordingly.
. The City's present intention is that certain areas contiguous to its current
boundaries eventually will be assumed within its municipal jurisdiction through
periodic annexations. This a normal process for a city in a growing region such as
the Tri-Valley area. Eventually, all of the Eastern Dublin planning area will be
'..",.,
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-1
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
annexed to the City. The projections assume only that the areas specified on the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Land Use Map (Fig. 213) excluding the
future study area, will be annexed. Although Doolan Canyon is reviewed in the
General Plan Amendmen.t, it is regarded as a future study area with no present
plans for annexation.
. Development potential of the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area is excluded
from the projections used in this report.
Although projection of new development is a prerequisite for establishing a public facilities fee
program, the exact timing and final amount of that development generally does not have a
significant effect on the calculated fee. New and expanded facilities and fee revenues accrue in
parallel with the pace of new development. For example, to the extent that these projections
overestimate the actual amount of development, fewer public facilities than estimated here will be
needed to accommodate that development. Fewer fee revenues will have accrued to the City to
fund those facilities as well. Thus, the general relationship between new development and need
for facilities remains relatively constant.
~~,
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The Tri-Valley region has been one of the fastest growing areas in northern California. One of the
last large areas of developable land within the San Francisco Bay Area, the Tri- Valley region is a
desirable location, particularly due to its position along two major interstate highways. Within the
Tri-Valley region, extensive development is projected to occur in Eastern Dublin, as this is the
next large tract of developable land in the progression of growth eastward along 1-580.
Table IT. 1 presents estimates of dwelling units and commerciaIrmdustrial building square feet for
1994, and projects growth to the year 2025. Existing and future development is shown for
Eastern Dublin, the remainder of the City, and the two areas combined. The projections are
disaggregated in this manner because certain elements of the facilities fee program may apply to
only a portion of the City.
~
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-2
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table IT.I
Development Projections
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 52 3,846 3,898
Multiple Family Q 9.990 9.990
Total 52 13 ,836 13 ,888
Remainder of City
Single Family 5,275 23 5,298
Multiple Family 2.868 80 2.948
Total 8,143 103 8,246
Dublin Citywide
Single Family 5,327 3,869 9,196
Multiple Family 2.868 10.070 12.938
Total 8,195 13,939 22,134
COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL (1,000 Sq.Ft.)
Eastern Dublin
Commercial 0 4,415 4,415
Office 0 3,952 3,952
Industrial Q 1.370 1.370
Total 0 9,737 9,737
Remainder of City
Commercial 1,818 455 2,273
Office 962 208 1,170
Industrial 783 29 812
Total 3,563 692 4,255
Dublin Citywide
Commercial 1,818 4,870 6,688
Office %2 4,160 5,122
Industrial 783 1.399 2.182
T ota! 3,563 10,429 13,992
Sout=: State Dep8rtmcnt ofFinancc; City ofDubHn; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment; Eastern Dublin
SpecifIC Plan (1-7-94); Recht Hausrath &. Associates.
Eastern Dublin is presently undeveloped. Most of the land area is at this time used for livestock
grazing and agriculture, with only about 52 existing rural residences. Dwellings in the existing
City currently total 7,700 units. For the purposes offee calculations, the number of existing
Recht Hausrath & Associates
II-3
....."
"'-'
""'-'
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
r-.
residences shown in the table has been increased by 443 units to include the Hansen Ranch and
Donlan Canyon projects. The Hansen Ranch project was approved under a development
agreement and is not subject to the fee program. The Donlan Canyon project is anticipated to pull
building pennits before the fee is effective but occupancy will be after the fee is effective.
Residents of the recently approved homes will be users of existing facilities, and are accordingly
included in the existing facilities service population. Existing units, including those in Eastern
Dublin plus approved homes, brings the total to 8,195 units. The 1994 dwelling unit estimate is
from the California Department of Finance. City records show that no significant development
occurred during 1994, such that the 1994 figures can be still regarded as current.
According to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, residential development in Eastern
Dublin is projected to add 13,836 units. Over half of these are in the single family and medium
density categories with average densities ranging from four to ten units per acre. Residences of
other densities are planned as well, including 10 acre ranchettes, and high density (35 units per
acre) multiple family complexes. Development in the remainder of the City will be limited to 103
units. This figure refers to units not approved as part of the Hansen Ranch and Donlan Canyon
projects mentioned above.
Commercial and industrial space in the existing City presently totals 3,563,000 square feet,
roughly half of which is retail. This figure is based on a commercial and industrial inventory
prepared in 1994. A small amount of employee space associated with County facilities exists in
Eastern Dublin, but is excluded for the purposes of the fee analysis The majority of commercial
and industrial development potential exists in Eastern Dublin, where 9,737,000 square feet are
proposed. In the remaining City 692,000 potential square feet remain unbuilt, but the
predominant use will be commercial.
Not shown in Table II. I are roughly 1.1 million square feet of public and semi-public land uses
proposed for Eastern Dublin. Most of this applies to proposed Alameda County facilities
including offices, jail expansion, corporation yard and animal shelter. Public agencies are exempt
from paying development impact fees, thus, the development and the corresponding employment
is excluded from the fee analysis. The City is party to an agreement with the County of Alameda
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-4
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter 11
(dated May 4, 1993) regarding the City's right to control land uses on property owned by the ~
County or its Surplus Property Authority. Under that agreement, if any of the property is used by
governmental agencies other than the County, such use will be subject to the City's land use
regulations, which would include the public facilities fee. In the event any such property is
proposed for use by governmental agencies other than the County, the City will include such uses
and corresponding employment in the fee analysis.
POPULATION AND EMPLOY1\iENT
Cost of public facilities are allocated to new development on the basis of service population.
Calculated separately for each fa~ility, service population is a measure combining residents and
employees to recognize that both residential and commercial land uses contribute to the demand
for public facilities. As a basis for the service population figures presented for each facility in later
chapters, the employment and population projected for Dublin, and Eastern Dublin in particular,
are calculated here.
The amount of population and employment growth can be estimated using occupant density ....."
factors. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling unit and employment
density is expressed as square feet of building space per employee. Both residential and
commercialfmdustrial density factors are listed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and are used
here for consistency. Occupant densities are summarized in Table ll.2. The numbers shown
represent averages across the potential tenants of the type of space indicated, and include
vacanCIes.
......,r
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-5
Dublin Facilities Fee StucJ.v
Chapter 11
,.....-
Table 11.2
Occupant Densities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Occupant Density I
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family 3.2 Persons/Unit
Multiple Family 2.0
COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL
Commercial 505 Sq.FtJEmployee
Office 260
Industrial 590
Source: State Department of Finance; City ofDubiin; Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment; Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (1-7-94); Recht Hausratb &
Associates.
Source: Eastern Dublin Spec{fic Plan, Table 2A; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
,----',.,
Table II.3 summarizes the population and employment estimates. Current population is 23,660
residents. This includes residents within the existing City limits plus about 160 residents of the
unincorporated planning area Proposed residential development citywide is expected to add
another 32,530 residents, for a build-out population of 56,190. Existing employment is
estimated by City staff to be around 10,000. Development cityv..'ide will add roughly 28,000. By
build-out, employment is thus estimated at 38,000. Again, this excludes any employment
associated with the proposed County facilities.
/-
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-6
Dublin Facilities Fee Sludy
Chapler 1J
Table II.3
Summary of Resident and Employee Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
-,
""""
I 1994 Gro~rth 2025 I
RESIDENTS
Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460
Rest of City 23 .500 2.N 23.730
City Total 23~660 32,530 56,190
EMPLOYEES
Eastern Dublin 0 26;200 26;200
Rest of City 1 0.009 1.800 11 ;800
City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000
Source: . City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
DEFINITIONS AND TERMS
~
As used herein. residential land uses are defined as follows: single family shall mean a dwelling
unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC); as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is
constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer
units per acre; multiple family shall mean a dwelling unit as defmed in the Uniform Building
Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed or to be constructed on
property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more units per acre.
Commercial land uses are defined as those uses of land for facilities for the buying and selling of
commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities
and services and other space uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include
but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores;
banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry
cleaners;. drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general
merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishing and improvement centers; hotels/motels;
....."
Recht Hausrarh & Associates
/1-7
Dublin Faciliries Fee Study
Chaprer if
-. laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and
theaters.
Office land uses are defined as those uses ofIand for general business offices, medical and
professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesaling or
manufacturing operations, and research and development and other space uses incidental to these
activities. Office land uses include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business
park; fmance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices
and office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real
estate offices; research and development; and travel agencies.
Industrial land uses are defined as those uses of land for the manufacture, production, assembly,
and processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial
land uses include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants;
contractor's storage yards; fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stoc1.-yards and
service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy
commercial uses.
For a use that is not listed above, the Planning Director will determine which of these categories
the use fits under taking into consideration the existing defmitions and the land use.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-8
CHAPTER III
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COl\1l\1UNITY PA_RKS
~
EXISTING FACILITIES
The City of Dublin owns I I parks totaling 165 acres. Of this amount, 79 acres are classified as
active parkland, while the remaining 86 acres are classified as open space. Active parkland is
further categorized as neighborhood parks or community parks. Neighborhood parks are
typically five to seven acres and are developed to provide space for improvement in relaxation,
play and informal recreation activities in a specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units.
The park improvements are oriented toward the individual recreational needs of the neighborhood
in \""hich it is located. Community parks are typically in excess offive acres and offer a variety of
recreational opportunities that attract a \vide range of local age groups and interests. The park
improvements are oriented toward facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience
of all citizens and attract a broad spectrum of user groups.
Existing facilities are shown in Table III. I. The City of Dublin has entered into an agreement with """'"
the Dublin Unified School District for joint use of school playgrounds to increase the availability
of park land. Although the City v,'ould prefer to develop more parks in existing areas, it is
constrained by the absence of suitable sites, and must settle for the joint school sites to achieve its
desired standards. The availability of school sites during non-school hours adds another 36 acres
to the park availability for a total of I 15 acres of active parkland.
The City of Dublin recently completed its Parks and Recreation A1aster Plan to establish policies
for parks and community facilites expansions to serve growth. Similarly, the Eastern Dublin
Spectfic Plan and the Eastem Dublill General Plall Amendment (GPA) call for development of
several parks. These range fi'om neighborhood squares of two or three acres to larger community
parks upwards of 100 acres. Sizes and locations of the parks have been proposed within the GP A
and currently total 258.5 acres. The exact amount of park acreage will be determined as Eastern
Dublin develops. If less acreage is needed than anticipated, the community park in the northerly
section of the planning area may be reduced in size. The land surrounding this park is designated
for rural residential, such that a reduction in the park size would not translate into a measurable
increase in urban development.
....,
Recht Hausrath & Associali.!s
lII-J
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter III
Table ID.I
Existing Parks
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
jpark Acreage I
Community Parks
Dougherty Hills* 4.00
Dublin Sports Grounds / Civic Center 35.00
Dublin Swim Center 3.00
Heritage Center 5.00
Senior Center 0.25
Shannon Park 10.00
Total 57.25
Neighborhood Parks
Alamo Creek 8.00
Dolan Park 5.00
Kolb Park 5.00
Mape Park 3.00
Stagecoach Park 0.75
Total 21.75
School/Park Facilities
Dublin Elementary 9
Dublin High School 4
Fredriksen Elementary 4
Murray Elementary 7
Nielsen Elementary 6
Wells Middle School .Q
Total 36
Total Existing Parks 115
.Includes only developable acreage for active park use.
Source: City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan; Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan
,~
Recht Hausrath & Associates
111-2
DlIb/jIJ Faci/hies Fee ,r..;'llUY
Chapfer III
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Park planning is guided by the Quimby Act, which sets forth a legislated park land standard to be
applied to new development. The City further regards the Quimby Act standard of 5.0 acres per
1,000 population as its target for providing parks to existing developed areas. Compared with the
existing population of 23,660 residents, including the 160 existing residents of Eastern Dublin, the
existing park ratio is 4.86 acres per 1,000 residents, including shared school sites. (A.lthough the
adopted standard is 5.0 acres per 1,000 population, the actual current ratio is slightly less due to
two factors: (a) the discrepancy between actual numbers of residents and the projected numbers
under the City's Quimby Act ordinance, Dlfblin1l1lfnh.:ipal Code ChapleT' Y.28, and (b) the
inclusion of two projects, Donlan Canyon and Hansen Ranch, in the current population which
have paid in-lieu fees rather than donating land.) Over time the City expects to acquire additional
park land beyond what is necessary for new development to bring the inventory of parks
associated with the existing population up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Costs to resolve the
existing deficiency are addressed in Appendix A.
Dublin's park standard draws the distinction between neighborhood and community parks. The
overall 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents park standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5
acres and community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population, as specified in the City (?f Dublin
Parks & Recreation Master Plan. Table IIL2 shows the new development demand for
neighborhood and community parks. Only Eastern Dublin's projected population is applied to
neighborhood parks, excluding the small amount of development anticipated elsewhere in the
City. Given the local service area of neighborhood parks, the need is best considered by subarea,
rather than on a citywide basis. For Eastern Dublin the neighborhood park demand is estimated at
48.5 acres. Community parks, on the other hand, serve the entire City due to their size and
amenities. Accordingly, citywide growth indicates a total need of 113.9 community park acres.
Fee calculations later in this report follow a similar division. The costs for neighborhood parks
calculated in this report apply to Eastern Dublin only, but the community park fee may be charged
citywide. For a further description of the facility standards for neighborhood and community
parks, refer to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Resident population is used to determine the required park acreage, consistent with the standards
legislated under the Quimby Act. The benefit of community parks, however, also extends to the
employee population. Lunch hour visits and company recreation activities are two examples of
Recht Hausrath & Associates
111-3
'-..I
/".-
...,
.~
""-'
Dllh/ill Foci/in!.!s Fee S/lIdl'
('hap/a III
business-related park demand The legislation authorizing the impact fees calculated in this study,
.till 1600, permits allocation of tacilities costs to residential as \velJ as commercial and industrial
land uses, provided a reasonable relationship between growth and facilities demand is provided.
Accordingly, a portion of the park costs are allocated to commercial and industrial land uses as
well as residential units. The service population method of cost allocation is used for community
parks in much the same way as it is applied throughout this study. The concept of service
population recognizes the relative levels of demand by both residents and employees, and is
calculated as population plus a percent of employees. By changing the employee weights, the
cost allocation to commercial and industrial land uses can be adjusted according to the demand
specific to a particular facility type.
Table III.2
New Development Park Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Acres per
1,000 Acres
Population Residents Needed
Neighborhood (Eastern 32,300 1.5 48.5
Dublin Only)
Community (Cityvvide) 32,530 3.5 113.9
Total 162.4
Source: CilY or Dublin. EllSle/'J/ Duh/in Cie/l(!]'a/ f'/all.-imelldmem: Easlem Duh/in
S;Jec:ijic Non tI-7-':i.n: Rech1 Huusrulh & Associules.
Park use by employees was addressed in a 1992 survey of persons employed in nearby
Pleasanton.) The survey presented estimates of resident and non-resident employee park visits per
week, thus offering an indication of how local residency affects employee park use. Visits
measured include weekly totals for workdays, evenings and weekends. The results indicate that
resident employees make 0.656 park visits per week. Non-resident employees make O. ]45
r--
Economic Planning Syslems. .-illa~~'sis (!(1he Cily o./NeaswIlOlI Recreatiol/ and ,)/mr!s S'urvey, June
19l)2
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
llI-4
Dl/hlill Facililies Fel.! Sl/l(~r
Chapler ll/
weekly park visits. These visits are assumed here to represent purely workplace related park
use. The difference between the two groups is 0.511 \'isits per week, and is further assumed ~
to represent residential demand. If applied to projected growth, 32,530 residents and 28,000
employees, the indicated wee!.:!y c1em,lnd is 16,600 resident and 4,060 employee park visits per
week, as indicated belo\\'.
Res;delll 0.511 Weekly T'isils ....? ~....O R '.1 l6 600 HI kl T"
= x -,_,)-, eSluellls = , nee y :IS;/S
Demand Resident
Employme1l/ _ O. 145 l1/eek~)' I'isils
Demand - Flllp/u)'el.! x 28.000 Emplo)'f.!es = 4,060 TFeek)' T'isi/s
If the survey data were directly applied, employee use would account for roughly 20 to 25
percent of total demand, However, the indicated range underestimates the park demand of
non-employed residents. Extension of the estimated resident employee demand to other adult
residents implies similar use by the retired, self-employed and full-time homemakers, as well
as youth. As a group, these residents are likely to have more leisure time, and are likely to'
visit parks more frequently than full-time employees. Therefore, an employee weight lower.....,
than 20 percent is appropriate for allocating community park costs between residents and
employees, In light of the survey results and its emphasis on employees, a more conservative
employee weight of 15 percent is used in this analysis to estimate community park service
population. These calculations are shown in Table III. 3, and result in a community service
park service population of 36,700 persons. This relationship is applied later to allocaTe
community park costs between residents and employees.
.....,
Recht H01fSrafh & Associates
lII-5
DuM/II Fa(;/litics FCI! Stlld\' ChojJter fJJ
,~ T:lblc 111.3
Community Park Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
/--
,.-
Service
Residents Employees Population (I)
New Development 32,530 28,000 36,700
( I ) C01ll1l111J1J1Y parks st:ryicL' population t:quals rt:sidt:n1S plus 15% or employees.
Source: Recht Hausrmh &: Associllles
P ARK COSTS
The goal of the fee program is to provide sufficient funds to acquire and improve the park
acreage needed. However, the exact amount of fee proceeds required is difficult to project
accurately at this time. Park land can be secured through either dedication or acquisition.
\\7here large developments are concerned, the land owners can deed portions of development
sites to the City according to the park standards. For smaller developments where it is not
practical to dedicate a park site, it is typical for land owners to pay an in-lieu fee which the
City uses to acquire land elsewhere. Both arrangements are currently implemented under the
City's Quimby Act ordinance. and will apply to Eastern Dublin as well. The amount of park
fees paid and the amount of land acquired will therefore depend on the actual use of
acquisitions versus dedications. This. in turn, will be largely a function of ownership panerns
at the time subdivision maps are filed. with dispersed ownership corresponding to increased
reliance on in-lieu fees.
Cost of park land purchased by the City will depend on the underlying or adjacent zoning of
each site acquired. If land values were uniform throughout the planning area, the proportions
of acquired and dedicated acreage would not affect the level of the park land fees. In Eastern
Dublin, however, the proposed parks are located in areas of differing development potential
and corresponding land values. The cost of park acquisitions is therefore dependent on the
Recht Hallsrath & A.\:mciales
lJI-6
J )Ifh/III FucjllllL's Fc!! Slll(~l'
('hapla J 1 J
specific location of the land actually acquired b:' the City. For the most pan, park acreage is
located in or adjacent TO medium density or medium hif!.h densit\, residential zones. Average
. .......... -
residential densities \Vould be roughly 10 to 20 units per acre. with a corresponding land value
in the range of $250.000 to $350.000 per acre for this level of development. An estimated
average land value of $300,000 per acre is used here to apply to neighborhood park
acquisitions.
>.."",1
Two of three community parks locations (including the city park shown in the Specific Plan)
are located adjacent to medium and medium-high residential zones. The community park in
the nonherly area is in a rural residential zone, and is likely to have a land value lower than
parks in the other pans of the planning area. Rural residential land currently has a value of
about $]2,000 per acre. For the purposes of fee determination, the community park land cost
is calculated as though all acreage is acquired rather than dedicated. This assumption is made
to insure adequate funding of park land, though the resulting average land cost may be slightly
lower if a significant ponion of the land is dedicated. Conversely. a reduction in the size of
the nonherl)' community park could increase the acquisition cost as relatively fewer acres of
rural residential land are used to meet the park demand. Table IlIA shows the community
park costs. The three proposed community parks total 183 acres. Of this. 46 acres represent
the nonherl)' community park in the rural residential zone. Averaging the land values results
in a per acre cost of $228.000. This value is applied to the community park acreage required
for new development as well as that purchased to remedy the existing deficiency.
"WIIJI
Table fIlA
Community Park Land Cost
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Community Cost per I
Park Acres .Acre
Medium to High Density 137 $300,000
Rural Residential 46 12.000
Total/Average 183 $228,000
Source: Ell.\'wm I )/lhlin Specific l'Imr: I~cchl Hausratb & Associates
"""*'
Recht HOllsralh & Assoc:iales
IIJ-7
J)/fhlin Focililies Ftit! Stlfd\"
('lwJna JJJ
/-.
Land \'alues presented here were obtained from conversations with local real estate
professionals, and are used for the purpose of fee estimation. Actual values would be obtained
by a fonnal appraisal at the time of acquisition. Significant changes in land use designations,
actual development densities, park locations, and the proportions of land acquired rather than
dedicated also may affect the per acre costs. The City should expect to adjust the fees
periodically to reflect land price appreciation and actual costs of acquisition.
Table III.5 presents the park cost calcu]ation. Park acreage amounts are those required for
neighborhood parks to serve Eastern Dublin and community parks to serve the citywide
projected growth based on application of the service standards. Land values follow from the
forgoing discussion. Park development costs represent landscaping, equipment. utility fees
and frontage improvements. Land costs total $40.5 million for both neighborhood and
community parks. Impro\'ements are based on cost estimates furnished by the City of Dublin, and
add another $22.9 million for a total of $63.5 million. Again, this excludes anv neighborhood
- - -
parks needed 10 serve development outside of Eastern Dublin, or any costs to raise the existing
park standard.
T;lble IIl.5
Park Costs
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Neighborhood Community
Parks( I) Parks Total
Land
Acres Required 48.5 113.9
Land Cost per Acre $300.000 $228.000
Total Land Cost $14,550,000 $25,969,000 $40,519,000
Improvements
Acres Required 48.5 1]3.9
Improvement Cost per Acre $158.400 $]34.000
Total Improvement Cost $7,682,000 $] 5,263,000 $22,945,000
Total Park Cost $22,232,000 $4] ,232,000 $63,464,000
(1) Neighhorho()(J parks to sel'\'e Eastem Duhlin only.
.
Source: City ofDuhlin: Recht Hausnllb &. Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
IlJ-8
DlIhlin Fucili!l<!s Fc:L' .\t/l(~r
('hoJJta III
COST ALLOCA TIO~
.....",
Table IIl.6 sho\\'s the calculaTion of park costs allocated to residents. The costs are detailed
for land and improvements for both neighborhood and community parks. Again, different
service populations are used for neighborhood and community parks. For neighborhood parks
only the resident population of Eastern Dublin is used. and the neighborhood park costs
calculated here would be applied to the residential uses in the Eastern Dublin planning area
only. The communiTY park COSTS applies to both residential and commercial/industrial growth
CiTvwide. Further. the Citv mav utilize both Quimbv Act land dedications and AB1600
.. . .... ""
development impact fees to provide park facilities. The division of park elements will allow
land and improvements to be provided under separate programs.
COStS for neighborhood parks tOTal $688 per person, including both land and improvements.
Community park costs are $1,124 per person. Considering the total park cost for residential
development in Eastern Dublin, the cost is $1,8]2 per resident if both neighborhood and
community parks are added together.
'..".I
...,
Recht Hallsrarh & Associates
JII-9
DlIhlill Facilities Fee .<"'tlldr
('hajJta fJJ
~-..
Table 111.6
Park Costs per Resident
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~-
Neighborhood Community
Parks Parks Total
Land
Land Cost $14.550,000 $25,969,000
Service Population ( ] ) 32300 36.700
Cost per Person $450 $708 $1,158
Imp,'o\'ements
Improvement Costs $7,682,000 $15.263,000
Ser/ice Population ( ] ) 32.300 36.700
Fee Cost Person $238 $416 $654
Total Cost per Resident $688 $],124 $1,812
(l) Nt:\y lkn:lopm<:nt s<:ryit:t: popu];ltion. Nt:ighhorhooJ jXlrk sen'jet: popu!:Jlion applies to
E:Jstt:n1 Duhlin !'t:sidt:111iaJ g.rowth only. Community park sCf\.ict: popul:ltion :tppljcs
cily\\"id<: and t:ljuals r<:siJ<:nts plus 15 pcrt:cnt oj' employccs,
Sou fce: Cil\" of Duhlin: Recht Hausralh & Associates
Community park costs are also allocated to commercial and industrial land uses according to
employment. Table III. 7 applies the 15 percent employee weight to the per resident
community park costs presented in Table lII.6. Combining land and improvements. the per
resident costs are $] ,] 24. Community parks per employee costs are thus $] 68.
-
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
lll-] 0
nil Mill Foci/IIIL'S Fee! S/l1i (,.
Chapter J 11
Table 1ll.7
Community Park Cost per Employee
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
'W1I
Cost per Employee Cost per
Person \Vei!.!.ht Employee
Land $708 15% $106
Improvements 416 15% 62
Total $1,]24 $168
Sourct.:: Rcdll Il:lUsralh & ^ssocialcs
...."
'....I
Recht HOllsrarh & Associah's
lII-ll
CHA.PTER 1\1
C01\1l\1UNIT\! AND RECREATION FA.CILITIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
The City of Dublin currently operates three community facilities: a community center, a senior
center and an aquatic center, all located in the developed portion of the City. As the City grO\>./s
in size, it plans to add five more facilities. These include another community center, a recreation
center, a community theater. another aquatic center and a senior center to replace the existing
Table IV.l
Existing and Proposed Community and Recreation Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
,..-
I Building I
Square Feet
Existing Facilities
Community Center 12,178
Senior Center 6,600
Aquatic Center -NA-
Total 1 8,778
Proposed Facilities
Community Center 28,000
Recreation Center 35,000
Community Theater 16,000
Senior Center (] ) 5,400
Aquatic Center -NA-
Total 84,400
Build-out Total 103,178
(1 ) Existing senior center is to be replaced with the
propllseJ new lilcility to!UJing 12.000 square leet.
Space shown is net aJJilioll.
Source: Cil\' of Duhlin I'ark and gecrelllio/1 Mas/a 1'/al1.
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
IV-]
Dllh/in Foci/illt'S Fee .\'llldr
('hapler IV
one. At present, the City of Dublin's senior center is located in a leased surplus school building.
Eventually the lease will be allov.'ed to e:-;pire, and the senior center will be moved to a nev,', larger '-...af
building owned by the City. For a further description of these facilities, refer to the Parks and
Recreation A1asler Flal1.
Building space is summarized in the top ponion of Table IV. I. Together, the existing community
and senior center buildings total 18,778 square feet of building space, excluding the aquatic
center. Proposed facilities are shov-m in the bottom portion of the table. To reflect the
replacement of the existing senior center, only the net increase is shown for the proposed senior
center. The proposed senior center is planned to be 12,000 square feet in size, or 5,400 square
feet more than the existing facility it is to replace. Excluding the aquatic centers, community
buildings cityv.'ide are proposed to total J 03. J 78 square feet by build-out.
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Cost calculations for community buildings and the aquatic center are handled separately. A
citY\l,'ide perspective is taken for allocation of community buildings costs to new development.
Activities taking place at a particular building can benefit residents and employees citY"v'ide, ~
regardless of the specific location of their place of residence or employment. On the other hand,
like the neighborhood parks discussed in the previous chapter, the new aquatic center's area of
benefit is assumed to be Eastern Dublin only.
The service population for community centers is calculated to equal residents plus 5 percent of
employees. Recht Hausrath & Associates has found in other cities that it is not uncommon for
local businesses to make use of community buildings for business gathering as well as company
recreation events. No local survey data was available to determine employee use by businesses,
however. Accordingly, a conservative employee allocation is used here. Table IV2 shows
service population for the existing city growth from new development and build-out. New
development is further separated into Eastern Dublin and the remainder of the City. As noted,
community buildings serve residents and employees citywide, whereas the new aquatic center will
be of benefit to Eastern Dublin only.
~
Recht HaTfsrath (\. Associales
IV-2
DIIh/ill Foci/iliC!.\' Fcl.! .\'11/((1"
('hopler /1'
Table IV.2
Community Centers Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Service
Residents Employees Population( I )
Existing 23,660 10,000 24,200
New Development
Eastern Dublin 32,300 26,200 33,600
Remainder of City 230 1,800 300
Total 32,530 28,000 33,900
Build-out Total 56,190 38,000 58,1 00
(1) Community Ce'nters seT\'i~e' populution e'quals resit.lo:nts plus 5%. of e'mplo~'e'e's.
Source: Cit\, of Duhlin: R('cht Hausnnh & Associates
Table IV.3 details the calculations of community buildings service standard and demand for
facilities allocated to new development. For the purposes of cost calculations the community
buildings are combined. Preliminary construction costs per square foot are projected to be the
same for the theater, community, recreation, and senior centers. Therefore, facilities costs can be
allocated to new development without considering the service standard for each facility type
separately.
Once the Parks and Recreal;oll lvfasler Nan is implemented, the City will have constructed
community buildings totaling to 84.400 square feet, net of the existing senior center. Including
existing buildings, community facilities will total 103,178 square feet as shown in the top half of
Table IV.3. Compared with the cityvvide projected service population of 58, J 00 persons, the
facility standard is estimated to be 1.78 square feet per person by build-out. Facility requirements
to serve growth are shown in the bottom half of Table IV.3. Applying the build-out service
standard to the 33,900- person service population growth indicates a demand for 60,300 square
feet of community building space arising from new development.
Recht Halfsrath & A.\:mc;;alCs
IV-3
D/fNill Foo/i lies Fcc Sf 11<'(\'
Chapler 11'
Table IV.3
Community Buildings Service Standards and New Development Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~
Service Standard
Community Building Sq.Fr
Build-ollt Service Population ( I)
Service Standard
103, I 78
58,100
1.78
Sq.Ft.
Persons
Sl!.Ft. per Person
New Development Facility Demand
Service Population Gro\vth (I)
Service Standard
Requirement to Serve Growth
33,900
1.78
60,300
Persons
Sq.Ft. per Pcrson
Sq.Ft.
( )') C"l11m\lnil~' l'el1lers sen'icc l'''plll,llion cqllab resiJcn!s pIllS 5% of cmployt:cs.
Source: Cit \. (II' Dublin: Recht Hau~r()lh & Associalcs
The total cost of community facilities to serve growth is calculated in Table ry.4. Construction of
community buildings is estimated to cost $200 per square foot. For the 60,300 square feet
required to serve grO\""th, the cost to nev,' development is $12.06 million for community buildings.
As mentioned above, the City of Dublin also proposes to construct an additional aquatic center to
serve the added population in Eastern Dublin. The new center is projected to cost $2.1 million,
and is allocated entirely to the nev,' development in Eastern Dublin. Combining community
buildings with the aquatic center results in a community facilities cost of 14.16 million.
~
~
Rechr Hallsrafh & Ass{)c:ialC:s
JV--I
1 )lIh/iIJ Fuci!ll/es Fee Slilt/\'
( 'hap/a II'
Table IV.4
Community and Recreation Facilities Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Buildings Cost
Requirement to Serve Gro\vth
Cost per Square Foot
Facilities Cost
60,3 00
$100
$12,060,000
Aquatic Center Cost
$2, 100,000
Tot:ll F:lcilities Cost
$14,160,000
(I) Clll1l1111ll1ity C~nl~rs s~ryicl' pllpuhJlillll l.:l]uals rl.:SiUl.:llls
plus 5'1.. or l.:l1lploYI::t:S.
SOllrl'(': (,il\ of Dublin; Recht H;Jusrath & Associates
-
COST ALLOCATION
Table IV5 allocates the cost impacts for community buildings and aquatic centers to residents and
employees. The community buildings cost of $12.06 million allocated to new residents equals
$356 per person, based on the citywide growth in service population. In calculating service
population for community centers, residents are weighted at 100 percent and employees are
weighted at 5 percent to reflect tbe use of community facilities by persons employed locally. The
cost per employee i? $18. The aquatic center costs are assigned to Eastern Dublin only and total
$2.1 million. Applied to the Eastern Dublin service population growth of33,600, this equals a
per resident cost of $63, and a per employee cost of $3.
Recht Hallsrath & Ass{)(;ia/r.!s
n'-5
})lfhlill Facililir.:s Fr.:r.: Swdr
Chopla JI'
Table IV.5
Community Facilities Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
"-'
Commul11ty
Buildings Aquatic Center
(City'wide) (Eastern Dublin Only)
Cost per Resident
Total Cost $12,060,000 $2,] 00,000
Service Population Growth (]) 33 , 900 33,600
Cost Per Residel1l $356 $63
Cost per Employee
Employee \Veight 5% 5%
Cost per Employee $18 $3
(1) Conul1unity Centers sen'iee population equals n:siuents plus 51y., of ~mp]oy\:es,
Source: Cit\, of Dublin: RCl'h! Hausrath & Associates
.....,'
"-'
Recht Hallsrafh & Associales
IV-6
/'.~
CHAPTER \'
LIBRARIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Library services are provided to Dublin residents by the Alameda County Library System with
partial funding from the City of Dublin. The current 15,000-square-foot library opened in 1979
and was fmanced by General Obligation Bonds. The site of the Library is owned by the County
and is leased to the nonprofit Alameda County/Dublin Library Corporation. The Corporation
O",^'ns the building and leases it to the County in exchange for annual rent payments which are
used to retire the bonds. 'When the bonds are completely paid offin 1999, the title will vest Vvith
the County.
Existing and proposed library facilities are summarized in Table V.I. The existing Dublin
library building is 15,000 square feet in size and contains 83,000 volumes. An expansion of
--,
/
Table V.I
Library Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Building I
Sq .Ft. Volumes
Existing 15~000 83,000
Proposed
Expansion of Existing 7,000 0
Eastern Dublin Librar)' 20.000 40.000
Total 27,000 40,000
Build-out Total 42,000 123,000
Source: City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
~
Recht Hausrath & Associates
V-l
DlIhlill Foc/liTh's FcC! S/l/(~\'
Chap/a r
anticipated at this time There will also be a new library constructed in Eastern Dublin The
existing facility will continue to operate as the main library and house the majority of the volumes """'"
maintained in the City. As \\'ith the existing library, the new building will be constructed and
stocked using local funds and will be operated by the Alameda County Library System. The new
library is proposed to be 20.000 square feet and contain 40,000 volumes. For a fUl1her
description of these facilities, refer to the Lihral)' Planning Task rem.:e Reporl (April 1993).
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NE\V DEVELOPl\lENT NEEDS
A cit)'v\'ide approach is used to calculate facility standards and allocate library costs, recognizing
that Dublin libraries nmction as part of a regional system. Allocation ofJibrary costs to new
development is done on the basis of city\vide service population. The build-out population is used
as the basis for determining library service standards so that the same standards will be applied to
both existing and new development.
Information is available to indicate the relative benefit of library use for residents and employees.
In a recent study, the Santa Clara County Library System conducted a benefit analysis to provide
a basis for county service area library assessments. Table V.2 extends the Santa Clara analysis to ......,1
this study. "Benefit units" in the table refer to the measurements used in the Santa Clara analysis,
and are expressed here per resident or employee. Except for retail, the land use categories in the
Santa Clara study differ from those used here. The ones shown in the table have been assigned to
relate business activities to types of space. The calculations in the table estimate total library
benefit, and determine the portion received by businesses to be 22 percent of residential demand.
The employee weight for library services based on the Santa Clara study is supported by the
observations reported for the Fremont main library. At the Alameda County Library's main
facility in Fremont, 33 percent of the reference staff is assigned to the business reference desk.
Also, business desk reference questions amount to 20 percent of the library's total.
....,
Rechl Ha1/Sralh & AsS()(;;alc:s
1/-2
DJ/h/ill Facilities Fe/! ,"'!I/(_(l'
Chapter I/
~
Tauit' \1.2
Resident and Employee Library Benetits
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Benefit Units Build-out Total
per Resident Residents Benefit Relative to
or Employee or Employees Units Residential
Residentinl (I) 0.300 56,190 16,900 100%
COllllllcl"Ci:d & IlIdustrial
Commercial 0,104 13,200 1,400
Otrice (2) 0.107 19,700 2,100
Industrial (3) 0.067 5,100 300
Total 38,000 3,800 22%
1) Benelits per resident represenls an ,1\W,lge or single and ll1ultipk fUll1ily unils.
2) "l11e non-relail business calt'go~' Ii-om Ihe S,ml,l Clara slud~' is applied 10 ollice uses,
~) The lransporlation ,lIld lIIililies caLL'gory liolll IlK' S,Il1la C!;ml sludy is applied 10 induslrial uses,
Source: Santa Claw COllllt\. I.ihrar.' N('/Il"/il ,.ls.w.HII1('//1 ,.lllclh'si.\': Reehl Hausmth & Associales.
~
The service population for libraries is shown in Table V.3. Employees are weighted at 22 percent
to reflect the approximate library demand attributable to local businesses. By year 2025, library
service population is projected to total 64,600 persons citywide.
/~
Recht Hausrath & A.\:mciales
V-3
/)/11711/1 F{{(;J!i//cs Fcc S/i/(Zl'
('hajJ/a r'
Table \'.3
Library Sen'ice Population, '::W25
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~
I Residents Employees Total (I) I
Existing 23,660 10,000 25,900
New development 37530 28.000 38,700
Total 56,190 38,000 64,600
( 1 ) l.ihrary s<:r\"i<:<: p"pulali"i) <:ljuab r<:siJenls plus 2~% ,,1' employees.
Source: Cil\' of Duhlin: Recht Hausralh &: Assol'ialcs
Table VA. shows the calculation oflibrary service standards and the demand for facilities
allocated to new development. The improvements planned would bring the libraries serving
Dublin to a total of 42,000 building square feet and 123,000 volumes. Compared with the build-
out population of 64,600 persons, including residents and weighted employees, the per person
standards are projected to be 0.65 square feet of library building space and 1.90 volumes. New
development is projected to add 38,700 persons. As shown in the bottom half of the table, the
resulting demand associated with growth equals 25,200 square feet of building space and 73,500
volumes.
-..."""
....",
Recht Halfsrath 0: Associates
V-4
DlIh/;n Facilifies Fee SfIfL~)'
('hapfa r'
,-
T:lble VA
Library Service Standards
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Buildings Volumes I
Service St;mdard
Sq.Ft. or Volumes 42,000 123,000
Build-out Service Population ( I ) 64.600 64.600
Service Standard 0.65 Sq.Fl. p.:r 1. 90 Volumes per
I ).:rson Person
New Development F41cility Demand
Service Population Growth 38,700 38,700
Service Standard 0.65 1.90
Requirements to Serve Growth 25,200 Sq.Fl. 73,500 V oJumes
(I) Ljhrm~, sef\'iee population equals resithmts plus 22%, of employees.
Source: Cit\. of Duhlin: Recht Hausrath & ASScll'j,lles
/-
Cost of the library requirements to serve growth are shown in Table V.S. Building construction
per square foot is estimated at $196. This amount is an average based on $212.50 per square foot
for the 20,000-square-foot new library and $150 per square foot for the 7,000-square-foot
existing library expansion. Applied to the overall 25,200 square feet required results in a cost of
$4,939,000 for new development. Volumes average $25 each. All costs were supplied by the
City of Dublin. The 73,500 volumes needed to serve growth will cost $1,838,000. Combined,
the cost oflibrary facilities to accommodate gro\vth is $6,777,000.
Recht Halfsrath & Associafes
V-5
})1/ Mill Foci hI in Fee .\1 IIi (\'
('hapl"" l'
Table V.5
Library Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
,.,
Library Bu ild ings
Square Feet Required
Cost per Square Foot (])
Building Cost
25,200
$196
$4,939,000
Volumes
Volumes Required
Cost per Volume
Volume Cost
73,500
$IS
$1,838,000
Libnll'Y Total Cost
$6,777,000
(] ) CoSI p.:r squar.: I()()\ is \\'.:ig.hlcJ a\'crag.t: or lhe:: proposed
expansion or lhe exisling library and the new Eastcm Dublin
lihrary. CoSls indude t'lImishings.
Sourct:: City of Duhlin: f~ed)\ !. lallswlh &. Associates
'...I
COST ALLOCATION
Table V.6 shows the cost allocation to new residents and employees. The total $6.78 million cost
for buildings and volumes allocated to new residents equals $175 per person, based on the library
service population as calculated. Employees are weighted at 22 percent to reflect business use of
libraries, with a resulting cost per employee of $3 9.
.....,
Recht HOlfsrath (\- Associales
V-6
DlIhll/l Foul/ilL'S Fa .\'11/((1'
ChajJ/a J'
Table V.6
Library Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Fee per' Resident
Total Cost
Service Population Growth ( I )
Fee Per Resident
$6,777,000
38_700
$175
Fee per' Employee
Employee \Veight
Fee per Employee
22%
$39
(J) Lihrary s~ITic~ populalion \\"~ights r~siJ~nlS at 100
p~rccnl and employt:cs al 22 pcrccnt.
Sourcc: Ci!\' of Dublin: Rt'cht Hausrath & Associatcs
/..-----
..-
Recht HOllsrath & A.\:\Ociales
V-7
CH..\PTER VI
CI\'IC CENTER
~
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Following incorporation in 1982, the City of Dublin leased commercial space for government
operations. Later, the City acquired a site for city offices and carried through with the completion
of what is now the City of Dublin Civic Center. Police, administrative offices and council
chamber are housed in the complex.
Existing and proposed administrative space is shown in Table VI. I. As described in the Civic
Center Programming Document approved by the City Council in November 1986, the Civic
Center building \].,'as sized to accommodate an estimated resident population of 40,000 in the year
2005 and totals 53,000 square feet. Not all of this space is presently utilized. Administrative
space of 4,580 square feet remains unimproved and is presently used for storage. The
unimproved administrative space will be finisbed to accommodate the incremental demand for
administrative services.
...,
Table VI. 1
Civic Center Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Cost per
Building Square
Square Feet Foot Total Cost
Existing Space (I) 53,000 -NA- -NA-
Proposed Improvements
Administrative Wing 4,580 $58.00 $265,600
Police \Vino 1,800 $58.00 ] 04,400
:::-
Parking Lot $75,000
Total $445,000
(1) Existing space tigure includes unimproved area in administrative llnd police wings.
Source: City of Existim!. splice lig.un: includes unimpfOwo arCll in aoministnnivc wing.
.,
Rer..:hr Hallsrarh & Associates
n-l
DIIh/iJi Facililies l:ee SfIlLI\'
ChajJfer 1'1
New development will be charged only for the costs of the additional improvements required to
serve growth. These are also shown in Table VI. I. Improvements to the administrative wing are
estimated to cost $58.00 per square foot for a total of$265,600. In addition to improving the
remainder of the administrative wing, renovations to the police wing are anticipated as well to
serve a growing level of police activities. Police wing renovations will apply to ] ,800 square feet
of the department's space and vI,ill cost $58.00 per square foot for a total of $1 04,400. .AJso,
renovations to the Police Department's secured parking lot are needed at a cost of$75,000.
Total cost of Civic Center improvements associated v.lith growth is 445,000. Unit cost estimates
were supplied by the City of Dublin.
COST ALLOCATION
Costs of the Civic Center improvements associated with growth are allocated to new development
on a service population basis. Service population of growth is shown in Table V1.2. For the
purposes of allocating Civic Center costs between residential and commercial and industrial land
uses, employees are assigned a weight of 25 percent to reflect business demand on police and
administrative activities. The 25 percent allocation is a professional standard used in fee
documentation and reflects relative hours of business activity.
Table V1.2
Civic Center Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Service
Residents Employees Population
New development 32,530 28,000 39,500
(J) Ci\'ic Ct:nler selTice popublion equals resiJents plus 25%, of
employees.
Sou ree: City of Duhlin; Recht Hausrmh & AssOl:iales
Civic Center costs are allocated to service population in Table V1.3. Civic Center costs of
$445,000 spread across the 39,500 person service population results in a cost of $1] per person.
.- With residents weighted at 100 percent the fee per resident is also $1 ] per person. Employees are
weighted at 25 percent resulting in a cost of $3 per employee.
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
J-7-2
DlIhlin Faciliries Fee: SlIIL{l'
Chapra l'J
Table VI.3
Civic Center Cost per Person
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
.....,
Facilities Cost (1)
New Development Service Population (2)
Cost per Resident
$445,000
39.500
$11
Employee Weight
Cost per Employee
25%
$3
\ I) Indudc:s rc:n"\'alions 'l1" ,luminislr;Jtin: and plllict: ",ings.
(2) Ci\'ic Cc:nH:r sen'ic\;' PllPulation eqlwls resiuents plus 25% or
emplll\\:CS.
Source: City of Dublin: Recht H;Jusrath & Associates
"WII
......,
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
f7-3
~
CHAPTER '111
CALCULi\. TION OF FEES AND
PROGRAl\1 Il\1PLEl\1ENT A TION
Chapter III through Chapter VI described public facilities owned by the City of Dublin, the
requirements to serve growth, and nev-.' facilities costs. Each chapter also established a service
population measurement reflecting the relative demand of residents and employees. Costs of
facilities were then allocated to new development on the basis of service population. These costs,
in turn, form the basis for the public facilities fees subject to adoption by the Dublin City Council.
This chapter revie\\'s facilities costs to accommodate growth, summarizes per resident and per
employee costs, and calculates the public facilities fees on new development necessary to fully
fund those costs.
SUl\fl\IARY OF COSTS
Table VII. 1 summarizes the cost of facilities to serve grov..rth. The costs are further divided into
two groups. First are those applied citywide. Certain facilities, namely community parks,
community buildings, libraries and the civic center, are regarded as expansions of citywide
systems which benefit both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin. These costs can therefore be
applied to new development, whether in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborhood
parks and the Eastern Dublin aquatic center are designed to serve growth in that area only. Since
these facilities have a local area of benefit, their costs are allocated to Eastern Dublin only.
Costs allocated cityvvide are estimated to total $60.5 million. These amount to $1,666 per
resident and $228 per employee. Specific to Eastern Dublin, neighborhood park and aquatic
center costs total $24.3 million. Corresponding allocations are $751 per resident and $3 per
employee, and would be added to the cityv..'ide costs. Employees are allocated only a small
portion of the aquatic center and none of the neighborhood parks, explaining the small per
employee cost for Eastern Dublin only.
,'-
Recht Hausrath & Associates
JI7 J - J
Dublin Facilities Fee StU{~V
Chapter V11
Table VII.I
Summary of Costs to Serve GroVv1h
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
.....,
Costs to Cost per Cost per
Serve Growth Resident Employee
Citywide
Community Parks, Land $25,969,000 $708 $106
Community Parks, Improvements 15,263,000 416 62
Community Buildings 12,060,000 356 18
Libraries 6,777,000 175 39
Civic Center 445.000 11 3-
Total $60,514,000 $1,666 $228
Eastern Dublin Onl;)'
Neighborhood Parks, Land $14,550,000 $450 0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 7,682,000 238 0
Aquatic Center 2.] 00.000 63 ..,
d
Total $24,332,000 $751 $3
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $60,514,000 $1,666 $228
Eastern Dublin Costs 24.332.000 751 '"
..l
Total $84,846,000 $2,417 $231
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
.....,
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE
Costs per resident and employee are e>..1:ended to land use types in Table VII.3. Occupant
densities, persons per residential unit or employees per 1,000 square feet, are shov.rn in the top
row. These are applied to the per resident and per employee costs for each facility category to
arrive at the fee per dwelling unit or 1,000 square feet of commercial/industrial space.
Citywide fees per unit are $5,331 for single family and $3,332 for multiple family units. Eastern
Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center which
.,
Recht Hausrath & Associates
VII-2
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter VII
bring the fees to $7,735 and $4,834 for the respective unit types. New reside.ntial development in
the existing City would also be responsible for neighborhood park mitigations, though these
would be done separately under the City's Quimby Act ordinance (see discussion at end of
chapter).
Commercial/industrial facilities fees would be proportional to occupant density, with industrial
the lowest and office the highest. Cityvvide, facilities fees per 1,000 sqilllre feet range from $387
for industrial to $877 for office space. Development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a
small portion of the proposed aquatic center, bringing the range of impacts for this part of the
City to $392 to $889 per ltOOO square feet for commercial/industrial uses.
The potential fee revenues from new development would total $84.901 million. Total facilities
costs allocated to new development are $84.846 million. The small difference ($55,000)
between the projected revenues and the costs Vlrill be used to offset the cost of the justification
studies and the administrative guidelines, and staff time devoted to fee collection. Further, the
exact amount of fees collected will depend on the exact amount of park land dedicated as
opposed to acquired through dedication.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend that the City undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of its
facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation.
The longer-term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as
growth forecasts, development 'trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land
costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing
needs.
TIle actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will involve
adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facmty costs and accounting for fee
revenues. In addition, City staff will be frequently confronted with particular situations in which
they must interpret the program's criteria and render special judgments. The City may adopt
administrative guidelines to provide staff and the development community with guidance
regarding ongoing operation of the program. The guidelines would assist in maintaining
consistent standards regardless of City personnel turnover or updates to the fee program.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
VII-3
. Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapler VI!
The City anticipates that the public facilities fees will be collected at time of building pemlit
issuance for commercial and industrial development, and at the time of occupancy for residential
development. Once the. City has adopted a capital improvement program for all the facilities ~
addressed, the fees \\i11 be collected at the time of building permit. Fees will only be collected
on developed land if the existing structures are being expanded or otherwise modified to allow
more intense use of the property than its land use designation at the time of payment of any
previous fees.
Fee revenues for each type of facility ,vill be collected in a separate trust account, and interest
earned on fund balances will be credited to that account. Funds will be transferred from that
account to specific accounts for construction as needed to finance the facilities required to serve
new development. The City anticipates using its five-year capital improvement program to
indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities to be funded by the public facilities fees.
For those funds unexpended or uncommitted after five years, the City should demonstrate a
reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged, otherwise
the City shall return the fees to the current OVirn.ers at the time of refund (Government Code
Section 60001 (4) (e)).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILmES
FEE PROGRAM AND QUIl\1BY ORDINANCE
""""
As discussed in Chapter III (page m.6), the City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal
Code Chapter 9.28) based on the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) regarding
dedication of park land by new development. The ordinance's provisions are applicable only
when land is subdivided for residential development. At that time, the City may require the land
owner to either dedicate land for park services or pay an in-lieu fee instead. The amount of land
dedicated or fee paid is based on the estimated residential population of the proposed
development and provision of park land equal to the City's standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000
population.
The City would implement the park facilities fee documented in this study in conjunction with
the existing Quimby Act ordinance. '\Vhile Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are
imposed when land is subdivided, public facilities fees are imposed later in the development
process, when ~uilding permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already been
Recht Hausrath & Associates
-."".,
VJJ-4
DubJ;n Facilities Fee STudy
ChapTer 1-71
charged with a Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the City would need to deduct the
park land component fr6m the total public facilities fee shov.'Il in Table Vll-2.
/'. "
This deduction to the public fac,ilities fee for land subject to the Quimby Act ordinance would be
equal to the land component of the parks fee only, not the park improvement component (see
Table VII-2). The Quimby Act ordinance is based only on the park land requirements of new
development, not the cost of park improvements, so the deduction only equals the foroler and not
the latter. For development of Eastern Dublin, the Quimby deduction would equal the sum of the
community and neighborhood park land fees. In the remainder of the City, the deduction would
equal only the community park land fee because the neighborhood park fee is not applied outside
of Eastem Dublin.
~.~~
Some examples illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications, and Quimby deductions
would be applied in different parts of the City under different options to pay in-lieu fees Or
dedicate land. Three scenarios are shovm Table VII.2 for a single family residence. The first
two scenarios pertain to Eastern Dublin. In the first, the developer elects to dedicate land for all
park acreage, and OnI)1 pays fees for the park development costs. In the second scenario, the
developer does not dedicate land, but pays the in-lieu fee. The third scenario would apply to the
existing portions of the City. Here, the City's Quimby Act ordinance would apply to the
neighborhood park requirements, and the developer would either dedicate land or pay the in-lieu
fee under that requirement. Impact fees would be charged only for community parks.
Table Vll.3 shows sample fee calculations for single and multiple family residences in Easte11l
Dublin and the infilI areas. 'When calculating fees, cost impacts for all facilities are added
together to arrive a.t the total charges. Ifland has been or will be dedicated, the value of the land
dedicated will be applied as a credit to arrive at a net fee amount due. Note that neighborhood
parks in-lieu fees levied under the Quimby Act apply only to the infill areas. Thus, in calculating
the facilities impact fees levied under Government Code Section 66000, the neighborhood park
component is excluded for infilI areas.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
T;71-S
Dublin Facilities Fee Srudy
Chap/er VlJ
Table VII.2
Park Impact Fee per Single Family Residence
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
.."
Eastern Dublin Development
Dedicate Park Pay Park Land Infill
Land In-Lieu Fees Develonment
Community Park Land 1 $0 $2,266 $2,266
Community Park Improvements 1)331 1,331 1,331
Neighborhood Park LandI 0 1,440 -NA-
Neighborhood Park Improvements .m 762 -NA.-
Total $2,093 $5,799 $3,597
'Assumes the amount of the Quimby Act fee per Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 is equal to the public
faciIiti~s fee.
Source: Recht Hausratb & Associates
.."
....,
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Tt11-6
Duhlin Facilities Fee StU{(1...
Chapter VII
/'~
/--
Eastern Dublin Eastern Dublin Intill Development Infill
Single Family Unit Multi Family Unit Single Family Unit Development
Multi Family Unit
Community Parks, Land $2,266 $1,416 $2,266 $],416
Community Parks, 1,331 832 1,33 ] 832
Improvements
Community Buildings 1,139 712 1,139 712
Libraries 560 350 560 350
Civic Center 35 22 35 22
Neighborhood Parks, Land 1,440 900 0 0
Neighborhood Parks,
Improvements 762 476 0 0
Aquatic Center 202 126 0 0
Tot.al Fees Due $7,735 $4,834 $5,331 $3,332
Pedicate Park Land
Community Parks, Land <2,266> <1,416> <2,266> <1,416>
Neighborhood Parks, Land <1,440> <900> <0> <0>
Total Fees Due 54,029 52,518 53,065 $1,916
Source: Recht Hausrath & A-.sociatcs.
Table VII.3
Example Fee Calculations Including Park Dedication
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
/~
Recht Hausrath & Associates
VII-7
;?
......
~
--..
5'
~
n
~
....
.....
~.
r..,
.....
l'>l'
l'>l
t..-)
i2
~
Q
~
...,
r;o-~
"'t
--
~
'-1
Table VUA
Impact Fee by Land Use
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Commercial aod Industrial Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
,000 Square Feet
per
Cost
Cost per Unit
Industrial
590
Office
260
Commercial
505
Cost per
Employee
Multiple
Family
2.0
Single
Family
3.2
Cost per
Resident
$180
105
31
66
5-
$387
$408
238
69
150
12
$877
$210
123
36
77
Q
$452
$106
62
18
39
;1
$228
$1,416
832
712
350
$2,266
1,331
1,139
560
$708
416
356
175
22
$3,332
~
$5,331
il
$1,666
o
o
5-
$5
o
o
12
$12
o
o
Q
$6
o
o
3-
$3
$900
476
~
$1,502
$1,440
762
2.Q2.
$2,404
$450
238
QJ.
$751
Occupant Densily 2
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Connnunity Parks, Improvements
Community Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
Total
Eastcnl Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
Aquatic Center
Total
Eastern Dublin Total
~
~
~
~
.....
f
'"'1:
~
So
~
~
~
o
t")
tS'
~
to,
$1,666
ill
52,417
(1) Single family sball mean a dwclJing unit which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units per
acre. Multiple family shall mean a dwelling urrlt which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or mote
units per acre.
~(2) Occupant density in terms of persons per residential units or square feet per
387
~
$392
877
12.
$889
452
Q
$458
228
3-
$231
$3,332
1.502
$4,834
$5~33 ]
2.404
$7,735
Cilyvvide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total
emplo}'cc.
t
(
Recht Hausratlt & Associates
Source:
(
;:s
~.
I
00
/-
/-
/-
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
'.
INTRODlJCTION
Calculation of public facilities costs to serve growth and corresponding fee levels has been
predicated on certain assumptions about facilities standards. State statutes governing public
facilities fees (Govemll7e/J1 CoJe Section 66000 et seq.) and related case law require that fees be
based on standards applied uniformly to both new and existing development when the facillities
built benefit both. For the City of Dublin, the present standard is lower than the standard
anticipated in the future for certain facilities. To charge nev-,/ development for a standard higher
than the present requires a commitment to bring facilities serving existing development up to the
same levels, i.e., to correct an existing deficiency. Otherwise, the City would effectively shift
funding of an existing deficiency to new development paying the fees.
This appendix identifies the existing deficiencies implied by the service standards used in this
report. Three areas offacilities will need existing deficiencies corrected. The City of Dublin is
currently below the desired standard for community parks, community buildings and library space.
Library volumes per person is currently above the anticipated standard, and the civic center is
adequate to support existing municipal activities with minor improvements.
To maintain equity in its public facilities fee program, the City must correct existing deficiencies
and fund these costs from sources other than exactions, including fees, imposed on new
development. Typically, the share of facilities costs associated with erasing deficiencies are
funded out of general revenues or other sources dedicated to capital improvements. Where large
projects are concerned, these are often financed through revenue bonds or certificates of
particiation.
Recht Halfsrath & Associates
A-I
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Appendix A
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES
Table A.I details calculation of the existing deficiencies for the facilities requiring expansion to
serve existing development at the standards projected by build-out. The facility measures refer
10 acres of parks and building square feet for community buildings and libraries. Service
standards are in terms of acres per 1,000 residents and building square feet for person (service
population) for community buildings and libraries. Standards are based on different measures of
service population for the respective facilities. Park requirements are in terms of 1,000 residents
to be consistent 'with the Quimby Act requirements. Community and library buildings service
standards are based on a service population that includes a weighted employment to reflect
business use of each type of facility.
Table A.I
Existing Deficiencies
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Library
Community Parks Buildings Buildings
Calculation of Deficit
Existing Acres or Sq.Ft. 115 12,178 15,000
Service Population (1) 23,660 24,200 25,900
Existing Standard 4.86 0.50 0.58
Desired Standard 2.QQ 1.78 0.65
Deficit from Standard 0.14 1.28 0.07
Required to Cure Deficit
Deficit from Standard 0.14 1.28 0.07
Service Population 23,660 24,200 25,900
Acres or Sq.Ft. Required 3.31 31,000 1,813
Cost per Acre or Sq.Ft. $362.000 .$2Q.Q li.2Q
Total Cost $1,199~OOO $6,200,000 $355,000
(1) Community buildings and libraries service populations include employees weighted at 5% and 22%,
respectively.
Source: Recht HausTath &. Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
A-2
...,
....,
...,
Dublin Facilities Fee Stud.}'
Appendix A
r--'
Existing park land falls short of the 5.0 acres per 1,000 resident standard allowed under the
Quimby Act. Additional park acreage can therefore be acquired to bring the park acreage
associated with the existing population in line with the standard applied to growth. The existing
park standard amounts to 4.86 acres per 1,000 residents, or 0.14 acres per 1,000 short of the
standard. Existing resident population is 23,660) including 160 residents ofthe Eastern Dublin.
indicating an additional need of 3.31 acres. Costs are sho",'11 to be $362,000 per acre, including
land at $228,000 plus improvement at $134,000. The park deficiency totals $1.199 million.
As development proceeds in Eastern Dublin, the City plans to considerably expand community
facilities. At present community buildings total 18, 778 square feet. The proposed build-out total
is 103,178 square feet. Compared with the existing service population of 24,200, the existing
standard for community buildings is 0.50 square feet per person. The proposed standard is 1.78
square feet per person, indicating an existing defic.iency is thus 1.28 square foot per person. An
additional 31,000 square feet are needed to bring the facilities associated with existing
development up to the standard anticipated by build-out. Community facilities are estimated to
average $200 per square foot. Cost of the deficiency is thus $6.2 million. This includes costs
associated with replacing the square footage of the current senior center when the school building
lease is terminated. Aquatic centers are excluded from any calculation of an existing deficiency.
The existing aquatic center has a service area of the existing City and the proposed facility 'Will
serve Eastern Dublin.
Library standards are expressed in terms of building square feet. As noted above, the existing
standard for volumes is above the projected build-out standard; no deficit in volumes exists. The
existing Dublin Library totals 15,000 square feet in size. Service population is 25,900, including
the allowance for employee use. The existing standard is thus 0.58 square feet per person. After
the proposed e>...'Pansion of the existing library and construction of another branch in Eastern
Dublin, the building standard will be 0.65 square feet per person. At present the standard is 0.07
square feet per person short. indicating a need for 1,813 square feet to be allocated to existing
development. At the library cost of $196 per square foot, the deficit amounts to $355,000.
Table A.2 summarized the existing deficit for the three public facilities. Combined, the City
must secure funding for $7.754 million in improvements during the period through year 2025.
On an annual basis over 30 years this amounts to $258~500 in constant dollars to be funded from
sources other than fees or exactions imposed on new development.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
A-3
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Appendix A
,r--'
Table A.2
Summary of Existing Deficit
Dublin Fac.mties Fee Study
Community Parks
Community Buildings
Libraries
Total
$1,199,000
6,200,000
355.000
$7,754,000
Annually, 1995-2025
$258,500
Source: Recht Hausrath &. Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
A-4
~
C;}-'
......
s.
~
n
~
.....
....
~.
v,
'"t-
~.
~
t/)
i2
~
Q
~
;;:>
.~
""t
~
"-'
Table VIlA
Impact Fee by Land Use
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Commercial aod Industrial Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
,000 Square Feet
Industrial
590
Office
260
Cost per
Commercial
505
Cost per
Employee
Cost per Unit
Multiple
Family
2.0
Single
Family
3.2
C<Jst per
Resident
$180
105
31
66
,2
$387
$408
238
69
150
12
$877
$210
123
36
77
Q
$452
$106
62
18
39
.1
$228
$1,416
832
712
350
22
$3,332
35
$5,331
II
$1,666
Occupant Density 2
Citywide
Community Parks, Land
Community Parks, Improvements
ComnllUlity Buildings
Libraries
Civic Center
:::tr
~
~
~
....
iF
~
~
s.
~
~
~
C)
~
is'
~
t.1
$2,266
1,331
1,139
560
$708
416
356
175
o
o
,2
$5
o
o
12
$12
o
o
.6.
$6
o
o
1
$3
$900
476
126
$1,502
$1,440
762
202
$2,404
$450
238
63
$751
Total
Eastern Dublin OnI}'
Neighborhood Parks, Land
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements
Aquatic Center
Total
387
.2
$392
877
12
5889
452
.6.
$458
228
3.
$231
$3,332
1.502
$4,834
$5,331
2.404
$7,735
$1,666
ill
52,417
Eastern Dublin Total
Cit}'\vide Costs
Eastern Dublin Costs
Total
Single family shan mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer units per
acre. Multiple family shall mean a dwelling unit which is constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more
units per acre.
Occupant density in
(I)
(.
feet per employee.
(
square
per residential units or
tenus of persons
Recht Hausratlt & Associates
l2)
Source:
(
~
'i"
00
m
X
:t:
-
OJ
=i
o